An Eye for an Eye?

[garethr]

Whenever and wherever this subject is discussed someone always says "How would you feel if it was your [insert appropriate relative here] who was [insert crime here]?".

 

My questions would be ""How would you feel if it was your [insert appropriate relative here] who was wrongly convicted and [insert horrific punishment here]?" and "How would you feel if you had gloated over the [insert horrific punishment here], then found out that the person was wrongly convicted?".

[j1mb0b1]

http://www.funaha.com/images/anal-rape.jpg

 

lol

[Scott]

Contrasting reviews? Don't follow that.

 

The problem in 'going by what you read', in terms of news coverage, is outlined in my first quote. Take the Daily Mail article, for example. The eye grabbing headline is the police statistics, and the message that 'everything is always getting worse' is very much in line with their editorial policy. However, notice that the BCS survey is relegated to the last paragraph:

 

 

 

So they could have written a headline: 'Violent Crime on the Way Down', especially given that people who make their living studying this stuff say that there is good reason to give a lot of weight to the BCS figures.

 

That wasn't the articles I read, that was just a quick google to see what came up. Googling "Violent crime" brings up a fair few articles, all suggesting it is on the way up. Granted some of them will be headline catches but out of the 3 links I put up you only mention the one you can poke a hole in.... unsurprising from the daily mail if I'm honest.

 

I don't trust any statistics to be honest, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with them. Speed camera statistics is another bug bear of mine but that's another topic.

 

I don't know, hence why I am asking, but does the statistics monitor the crime rate, or the conviction rate?

 

Also, I live in Scotland. Most of the statistics I have been reading via google only include England & Wales.

[S44M KT]

You don't know me so how can you say that? As a matter of fact I have been stabbed, and the lad got sent down. It has never occured to me that someone should hold him down and stab him back! How utterly ridiculous!!!

 

Let's say someone was raped, for example.

 

Who's going to step forward and bugger the attacker? Anyone?

 

Great example... i for one would step forward and do it. with the most destructive object i could find! as this would be nothing compared that pain and suffering that the person raped would have to live with for the rest of their lives. If you have been in this position then you will know why i think like i do.

[Soop Dogg]

Didn't the British Crime Survey exclude evidence given by under 16's prior to this year? Isn't this considered to be one of the highest 'growth' sections of society becoming victims of crime in recent years?

 

Even today it excludes crime committed against children under 10 - they just aren't seen as victims by the survey.

 

It also excludes crimes where the victim is not a person in the resident household population. So crimes against for example public property, companies & private sector organisations, tourists, foreign students/workers, residents of institutions and homeless people are not counted. Drug offences and (get this!) HOMICIDE are also excluded. If you want to believe Jaqui Smith's BCS figures, then you're welcome to do so, but I'm afraid I don't subscribe to the Govt Blinkers fund myself.

 

Having been a serving Police Officer from the mid 80's ot the mid 90's, I'd say that crime - particularly violent crime committed by under 16's wasn't THAT high up until the time I left the job. Yes, it was common enough, but not the way it is today. Obviously having been in the job for that length of time and still living in the area in which I served, I still have a farily wide circle of friends who are still in the job locally. From what they tell me, it's a whole new ball game when you talk about violent crime committed by 'kids'. It's no longer about giving younger kids a smack round the head and nicking their money for cigarettes - they'll beat a kid half to death, stamp on his head and stab him these days for a bit of cash or a mobile phone/iPod etc.

 

Reading statistics off a sheet of paper is one thing - actually dealing with the results of what these statistics are supposedly representative is quite another. Perhaps if they included all sections of society, and all types of crime (and not just from a selection of postcodes as the BCS does) we'd get a better feel of how all of society is being affected by crime.

[Tannhauser]

That wasn't the articles I read, that was just a quick google to see what came up. Googling "Violent crime" brings up a fair few articles, all suggesting it is on the way up. Granted some of them will be headline catches but out of the 3 links I put up you only mention the one you can poke a hole in.... unsurprising from the daily mail if I'm honest.

 

Not at all. I did the Daily Mail one and then went and had some soup. I had a quick look at the BBC one, and as might be expected, it's more balanced and thorough, though the headline is the same.

 

I don't trust any statistics to be honest, regardless of whether I agree or disagree with them. Speed camera statistics is another bug bear of mine but that's another topic.

 

Hang on ,didn't you say:

 

Every single type of crime is on the increase, has been for years. You might see a small decline from one year to the next, but the overall trend is that it is increasing. If one year a profile is down 1% the next year its up 3%.

 

Isn't that using statistics to justify your position?

 

I agree that statistics have to be taken with caution, and this discussion shows exactly why. However, distrusting all of them risks throwing the baby out with the bath water. The problem is that the alternative, which is relying on anecdotal evidence, is a million times worse. It's subject to confirmation bias, lack of control etc.

 

I don't know, hence why I am asking, but does the statistics monitor the crime rate, or the conviction rate?

 

I think it's the crime rate - as in the no. of crimes reported. I believe the 'detection rate' would be a separate statistic that would be the number of crimes that are cleared up. resumably the conveiction rate is different again, since not all detected crimes end in prosecution.

 

This is where the BCS scores, because not everyone who is a victim of crime will report it - but they are more likely to give honest information in a survey where info will be kept confidential.

 

The BCS probably still underestimates crime, but the point is that it does so consistently, so you can still spot the overall trends in it.

[Scott]

 

Hang on ,didn't you say:

 

 

 

Isn't that using statistics to justify your position?

 

 

No, I tend not mention statistics. I hadn't quoted any until you posted your findings. I tend not to trust them, I was merely pointing out the direction of the trend in what I had read. The figures I posted 1% and 3% were fictional and used as an example. People tend to see things one sided regarding what suits them best. The government for example want to be seen to tackle crime, so IMO the figures will tend to be a bit lower than the truth. Of course this can be seen from the other anti-gov argument too.

 

If what Soop says is true about not taking account of under 16's previously then that will be the reason for the public perception of it all. I think everyone would agree the main increase has been from the younger generation, if it hasn't been accounted for previously then that will be where the difference of opinion comes from. I used to get pulled up for drinking in the street with my friends, that was it. Never got into any trouble and tended to deliberately avoid any. Nowadays drinking on the street is the least of the worries.

[Abz]

Well said Soop, I think reading one think on paper (which can be altered) compared to someone's experience would state that we are correct and violent crime has gone up. I remember as a kid, me & my brother we use to get into loads of fights. Most of them because we grew up in the Isle Of Dogs but none of them involved knifes or guns! Some of the guys which I have fights with when I was younger I see every now & then but we put the past behind & more or less friends.

 

The teenager who died recently, got killed because he made a rap about another boy in another area. Yes you read that right, he killed him because he made a song about him! My brother nearly got killed about 3 years back when a group of youngsters stabbed him & attacked him with a chopper because they wanted his gold ring.

 

I could go on... nowadays kids don't value life. IMO they have grown up being cowards. What brave person carries round knifes or guns. It shows they have no skill, strength or courage. If the sentence was stronger than you would see less of this on the street.

 

Kid which was killed earlier this week in London:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/teenager-stabbed-to-death-after-posting-insult-on-facebook/story-e6frf7jx-1225813044394

[Tannhauser]

Didn't the British Crime Survey exclude evidence given by under 16's prior to this year? Isn't this considered to be one of the highest 'growth' sections of society becoming victims of crime in recent years?

 

Even today it excludes crime committed against children under 10 - they just aren't seen as victims by the survey.

 

Well, there are many good reasons for not surveying under 16s full stop in many contexts, including crime statistics. Not because they don't matter, but because there are issues to do with reliabilty.

 

There is a real weakness if the sectors that aren't covered by a particular survey - such as youth crime - start to increase. For all that, I think it's a better measure than police statistics, simply because those will be affected by a lot more variables.

 

It also excludes crimes where the victim is not a person in the resident household population. So crimes against for example public property, companies & private sector organisations, tourists, foreign students/workers, residents of institutions and homeless people are not counted. Drug offences and (get this!) HOMICIDE are also excluded.

 

If you tell me it excludes various categories of crime, I'm not going to argue. But the point still stands - it's been carried out in a consistent way, so unless the crimes you cite are increasing disproportionately, it's still a reliable indicator.

 

Again, the BCS goes some way to addressing the issues with police figures, which are generally seen as much more liable to underestimate crime

 

The BCS If you want to believe Jaqui Smith's BCS figures, then you're welcome to do so, but I'm afraid I don't subscribe to the Govt Blinkers fund myself.

 

But it's not 'Jaqui Smith's BCS' is it? It's conducted by BRMB. The argument that the statistics are compiled to hit targets, or whatever, leads nowhere. You're left with nothing to base decisions on.

 

Having been a serving Police Officer from the mid 80's ot the mid 90's, I'd say that crime - particularly violent crime committed by under 16's wasn't THAT high up until the time I left the job. Yes, it was common enough, but not the way it is today. Obviously having been in the job for that length of time and still living in the area in which I served, I still have a farily wide circle of friends who are still in the job locally. From what they tell me, it's a whole new ball game when you talk about violent crime committed by 'kids'. It's no longer about giving younger kids a smack round the head and nicking their money for cigarettes - they'll beat a kid half to death, stamp on his head and stab him these days for a bit of cash or a mobile phone/iPod etc.

 

Reading statistics off a sheet of paper is one thing - actually dealing with the results of what these statistics are supposedly representative is quite another. Perhaps if they included all sections of society, and all types of crime (and not just from a selection of postcodes as the BCS does) we'd get a better feel of how all of society is being affected by crime.

 

That's the nature of a survey, though. It isn't feasible to record the experiences of the whole population, so you have to sample. Behavioural scientists go to extravagant lengths to try to ensure a sample reflects the general populace.

 

You draw a distinction between personal experience and 'statistics', but statistics are only a way of assessing more personal experience, and to attempt to do so in an unbiased way.

 

Maybe these fall short in some respects, but I think they are a better basis for policy decisions than anything else. I'm not saying that in your particular experience - or that of your mates - is wrong. Who am I to question that? But I would point out that at any given time, most people think most things are going downhill one way or another. This is a trend throughout all ages of history. I'm sure if the internet had been around in the 1940s, many would say how crime had increased since the thirties, and that the offences you hear about these days are ten times worse then they were ten years ago, and so on.

[Tannhauser]

No, I tend not mention statistics. I hadn't quoted any until you posted your findings. I tend not to trust them, I was merely pointing out the direction of the trend in what I had read. The figures I posted 1% and 3% were fictional and used as an example. People tend to see things one sided regarding what suits them best. The government for example want to be seen to tackle crime, so IMO the figures will tend to be a bit lower than the truth. Of course this can be seen from the other anti-gov argument too.

 

OK, I get you, fair enough. It's just that commenting on a 'trend' to me implies that you're making a statement based on what you've read of the 'statstics'.

[Soop Dogg]

Well, there are many good reasons for not surveying under 16s full stop in many contexts, including crime statistics. Not because they don't matter, but because there are issues to do with reliabilty.

 

The trouble is that they excluded (up until Jan 2009) ANY evidence from under 16's. e.g. a 15yr old says 'I was robbed - that's why my iPod's gone and I have a knife wound in my face' - disregarded, not recorded as valid data for the survey. There was no facility for someone or some authority to 'vouch' for any such evidence.

However, as I've also said, from Jan 2009 they have decided that it is now worthy of record. (This was campaigned for by organisations such as the Childrens Society for some time)

 

There is a real weakness if the sectors that aren't covered by a particular survey - such as youth crime - start to increase. For all that, I think it's a better measure than police statistics, simply because those will be affected by a lot more variables.

 

The main trouble I see with Police statistics over recent years is how the Home Office have repeatedly changed the rules on what is reportable. What was ABH back in the early 90's has now been pushed down to Common Assault and is no longer reportable. Down go the figures!

 

 

If you tell me it excludes various categories of crime, I'm not going to argue. But the point still stands - it's been carried out in a consistent way, so unless the crimes you cite are increasing disproportionately, it's still a reliable indicator.

 

Basically it excludes anything at all that is

"based on interviews with individual victims".

From Hansard - 23/02/2009

 

Now, call me old fashioned, but if I was carrying out a Crime Survey, I'd think about speaking to the occasional victim of crime.

[Tannhauser]

It also excludes crimes where the victim is not a person in the resident household population. So crimes against for example public property, companies & private sector organisations, tourists, foreign students/workers, residents of institutions and homeless people are not counted. Drug offences and (get this!) HOMICIDE are also excluded.

 

OK, I've just done a bit of reading on the BCS. Because it takes a victim based point of view, and interviews victims, you're quite right that it (get this! ) excludes homicide.

 

As you say, it's a survey of the householder population -the vast majority of the UK population - so it does indeed exclude the groups you mention, and commercial property. However:

 

Another Home

Office survey, the Commercial Victimisation Survey, was undertaken to capture the extent and costs of crime to the retail and manufacturing sectors (Shury et al., 2005).

 

With regard to the issue of under 16s not being included:

 

The BCS does not currently cover crimes against children; however, the Home Office is planning to extend the BCS to include children aged under 16 (see Box 1.1). The Home Office has previously conducted a survey of offending and victimisation which includes young people aged 10 to 16 (Roe and Ashe, 2008).

 

There is a major inquiry into youth crime underway at the moment, but from the consultation document, this is relevant:

 

Genuine concerns remain about trends in some categories of serious offending involving young people – notably an association between the use of weapons, gang membership and drug dealing in major cities. There is, however, no evidence from self-report surveys of any increase overall in youth crime in the past ten years – or in the proportion of serious or frequent young offenders

 

And this is also interesting:

 

Young people are being sentenced to longer average periods in custody than a decade ago, but this does not appear to be related to any increase in the seriousness of the offences they have committed

 

I expect that's more spin, though.

[Tannhauser]

Now, call me old fashioned, but if I was carrying out a Crime Survey, I'd think about speaking to the occasional victim of crime.

 

On the last interview cycle, they face-to-face interviewed 28.928 householders in 904 different postcodes about their experiences of crime (see "]here) and asked them about crimes directly relevant to themselves and their property.

[nevins]

In the end of the day, its their believes. They do not have the same way of life as we ourselves do. Different cultures have different laws. For example some countries cut off a thieves hands for stealing. This punish's the culprit as well as shaming them. This country would never get like that due to how the country is set up. Who are we to dictate what is right or wrong.

[ozz]

In the end of the day, its their believes. They do not have the same way of life as we ourselves do. Different cultures have different laws. For example some countries cut off a thieves hands for stealing. This punish's the culprit as well as shaming them. This country would never get like that due to how the country is set up. Who are we to dictate what is right or wrong.

 

Its an interesting arguement, but I believe society as a whole is accountable for morality and should speak out against acts of violence, leading from my earlier point for the betterment of humanity. Its not so long ago in this country we hung people for stealing bread.

[nevins]

Its an interesting arguement, but I believe society as a whole is accountable for morality and should speak out against acts of violence, leading from my earlier point for the betterment of humanity. Its not so long ago in this country we hung people for stealing bread.

 

I say bring back the death penalty. In the usa you go to prison for life and it is life over here you do 7 and a half for good behaviour. The one thing I am strongly for is that if someone is to mess with a child or be found guilty for any sexual offence. That person is to be thrown to the lions as they are scum and dont deserve any human rights.

[Charlotte]

Say a loved one of yours is Abused/Raped/Murdered etc... Would u rather that the person was "punished"? or just "reformed"

 

And what if your loved one is the one that committed the murder etc?

 

What if in a moment of madness Nevins got annoyed and killed someone. Would you think he should be murdered back?

[nevins]

i'd claim insanity on terms of sevier depression and not of sound mind

[nevins]

When thinking of it if the persons is guilty its something you deal with.

[wkdtime]

And what if your loved one is the one that committed the murder etc?

 

What if in a moment of madness Nevins got annoyed and killed someone. Would you think he should be murdered back?

 

I think in the case of the 2 fellas mutilating that poor woman, the same should be done to them.

 

It clearly was premeditated and not just a 'moment of madness'.

[Charlotte]

I think in the case of the 2 fellas mutilating that poor woman, the same should be done to them.

 

It clearly was premeditated and not just a 'moment of madness'.

 

Ah but the original point of the story has been deviated from because many are now saying ANY crimes committed should carry death penalties and similar punishments to the crime.

[nevins]

I think in the case of the 2 fellas mutilating that poor woman, the same should be done to them.

 

It clearly was premeditated and not just a 'moment of madness'.

 

As said here it was no accident, they had the choice to do it. It was their choice to mutilate her. There are repercussions for everything a person does. If it was in this country they would be locked up, but it wasn't so they were dealt with how that culture sees fit.

[nevins]

Ah but the original point of the story has been deviated from because many are now saying ANY crimes committed should carry death penalties and similar punishments to the crime.

 

This will happen as people will see it in different ways. This is why in our country we have a justice system which at times is useless. My view of crimes like this will differ from others. I personally think the death penalty should be brought back, and police should be replaced by military, some one is less likly to commit a crime if they know a sa80 will be in there face when caught. Nothing says your screwed like a live round taking your knee cap out.

[dr_jekyll]

was i referd to as a sadist, lolololol.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

technicly accurate.

[ozz]

This will happen as people will see it in different ways. This is why in our country we have a justice system which at times is useless. My view of crimes like this will differ from others. I personally think the death penalty should be brought back, and police should be replaced by military, some one is less likly to commit a crime if they know a sa80 will be in there face when caught. Nothing says your screwed like a live round taking your knee cap out.

 

I disagree strongly here, we dont' want or need more of a police state (military/police in name only). If you let the 'front line' people dish out punishment as they see fit then you are relying on the judgment and morality of an individual and not a system.