Written By: - Date published: 3:07 pm, November 1st, 2007 - 49 comments
Categories: crime -
Tags: crime
John Key made a speech to the Police Association today proposing a whole raft of new police powers, ranging from banning gangs to taking DNA samples from anyone who is arrested, regardless of whether they’re found guilty or innocent.
To justify these proposed new powers he relied heavily on the subtext that crime is out of control and we have a government letting criminals get away with blue murder.
Police need new laws and powers to fight “21st Century crime”, he said. “The National Party is convinced we can do better at putting in place the laws and policies needed to front-up to criminality in our society… when our leaders give in to crime, our society pays the price.”
But is crime really out of control? As usual, John was somewhat lacking in substance:
“The size of the criminal threat is measurable not only by crime statistics, but by the widespread fears of everyday Kiwis. Kiwis fear that ours is not a safe society.
Notice he didn’t talk about what the stats actually say, but relied instead on what “Kiwis fear”.
And there’s a good reason for this. Because you see, for all their talk of law and order, the record shows the Nats just aren’t that good at cutting crime. Not only is crime going down under Labour, it’s going down at a faster rate than it ever did under National.
What today’s speech shows is that rather than basing his policies on evidence and what’s best for New Zealanders, John Key is basing them on fear. Fear he’s more than happy to stoke himself:
“They fear that their personal security is at risk: Children being beaten to death by their parents. Paroled offenders murdering innocent citizens. Gang shootings. P-induced frenzied attacks on innocent citizens. Youth gangs intimidating communities. These things strike worry into the hearts of all New Zealanders.”
Yes John, they do. Because people they should be able to trust, like you, lie to them about the threat of crime to scare them into voting for you. It’s cynical politics at its worst, and you deserve to be pilloried for it.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
As usual, National can only go for window-dressing not the root causes of social problems.
Crime went up and stayed high under National beecuase they kept wages low, unemployment up, and benifits too low to live on. Laobur changed that and crime came down.
Crime is an outcome of bad eocnomic and social conditions. Fixing thsoe conditions is the key to bringing crime down.. but doing that would mean creating a fairer and more equal society, whereas National wants wealth concerntrated inthe hands of the lucky few.
The problem with crime reporting is two fold:
Firstly, the media takes total crime stats as the indicator of how much crime there is. The results then paint a false picture – it is far better to report crime as a number per 100,000 people so we can get a fair indication of how much there actually is.
Secondly, if it bleeds it leads. The representation of crime is such that it is sensationalised and personalised. So people get a sense that it is exploding and they are not safe.
The problem with this is that it leads to irrational ‘hang-em-high’ responses from the media and politicians – and no examination of where crime comes from or how best to treat it. John Key’s speech is completed devoid of any examination of the causes of crime and that is a shame.
Ah, fear mongering – the last refuge of the desperate righty.
PS – man that’s a big drop –
I checked the figures myself (thanks for posting the link Tane):
National saw crime rise 0.5% between 1991 and 1998 (and that doesn’t show that it peaked during that time),
Labour’s had a 8% drop so far.
Average crimes per capita under National: 0.127
Average crimes per capita under Labour: 0.107
Drop of 16%
And those losers expect us to put them back in charge?
Hey Sambo, ever get sore lips from blowing Tane’s trumpet?
So Santa, no rebuttal of the fact that National – the law and order party – suck at cutting crime?
Hey Claw ever get sore lips from blowing me? Fuck off.
John Key is exaggerating for his cause. It is well known that poverty and crime go hand in hand.
Has anyone seen “In a Land of Plenty”? This shows the righties manipulating unemployment higher to help keep NZ wages low.
Robespierre – you been doing it to Tane too? Thought so.
Did you get banned again already? Helen won’t be happy about that! You might get demoted.
Santa, can you try and refrain from the homophobic bullshit? I’d really rather not have to moderate this site. And ‘sod, I know you’re just responding to him, but please don’t feed the trolls.
Sorry Tane – it’s just Tony gets me so riled…
Oh and santa – how did you know I was a paid commentor? Next you’ll out me for being imported from New York just to take the piss out of you. (I’ve got your SIS file by the way). oh and by the way I know Tane won’t like me saying this but… well, y’know by now…
You can witter on about statistics all you want really – refer to Mark Twain.
Here’s what most people see in the headlines every day. No amount of “0.10 crimes per person” charting is going to win this argument in the public space.
“Vicious attackers on the run and on P, say police ”
“Four in court over brutal home invasion ”
“Home invasion pair ‘armed and dangerous’ ”
“What’s the answer to violent crime? Violent crime has increased in the past year, police statistics released
reveal.”
“The rising level of violent crime reflected in the latest crime statistics is a “national disgrace” and a burden for those battling domestic violence, the head of Women’s Refuge says.”
“Life sentence for street-gang killer”
“Police arrest Hamilton teen for murder”
“Child murder accused named, given bail”
“Gunshots force family to flee home”
“Gang killer to serve at least 17 years”
I notice you didn’t answer my questions on your chart.
If you want to avoid moderation, then maybe a few more words in Robespierre’s ear regarding personal threats would help.
Leftie – I thought it was personal insults, stress, and defending the honour of a women that caused crime?
Eerily relevant captcha – assailant following.
If you want to avoid moderation, then maybe a few more words in Robespierre’s ear regarding personal threats would help.
Oh santa – what thin skin you have. And do you really think alluding to a Twain quote that’s so repeated it’s become a cliche makes you sound smart? You’re a joke santa. F_____
refer to Mark Twain.
I know I’m trying to keep some standards here, but Christ you’re a moron Santa. So Mark Twain made some quip about statistics – how the hell does that have any relevance?
The fact is anecdotes don’t tell you shite. So a lot of crimes get committed? Of course they do – there are a lot of people, and people commit crimes. It’s pretty bloody simple mate.
The only way to know whether or not crime is going up or down is to refer to the statistics. ‘But my brother got his house robbed last week’ just doesn’t cut it as evidence when the police are telling us there have been fewer robberies reported overall.
Honestly mate, you’re embarrassing yourself.
Santy’s shtick on statistics reminds me of those climate change deniers who’re all like “they talk a lot about this global warming, but it’s been raining all week”.
Too stupid for words.
Don’t want to threadjack, but I think you piece was excellent and I’ve just posted, what I hope is a complement:
http://kiwiblogblog.wordpress.com/2007/11/01/nationals-criminally-insane/
I think santa claws pretty much proves the point, its all scare tactics headlines and no substance. Prepare for the ‘sensible’ sentacing trusts impending brain fart on the topic, perpetuating the cycle of fear…
Brain fart! That’s friggin gold.
Mike, they’ve already done it. Spot the two errors and win a chocolate fish.
“The only people who have anything to fear from this are those committing the crimes.and we have no sympathy for them.”
“Criminals have been given the upper-hand for to long, Nationals policy is nothing but a very small step in the right direction.”
http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PO0711/S00015.htm
(Captcha is “Idiot Trust” – classic)
Tiny – no respect earned if you can’t face posting the violent crime statistics.
Get over the name calling and read the newspapers – do you really think you can win an election with statistics.
I’m sure labour will be wheeling out the scare tactics – “ooh look, national is going to sell all our skools to mcquarry bank ooh”. Seems to be I’ve seen Sambo post that exact line.
Santa, I’m happy to break the stats down as far as you’d like, but that’ll have to wait for another day. I’m sure Davey will find some way to distort them on sewerblog tomorrow.
Hang on, I thought you didn’t believe in statistics? Something about Mark Twain?
Hey Tony Claws – blogblog runs the violent crime stats and guess what? You’re wrong again. Is anyone here really surprised?
Oh, and Icky, cheers for the props. Nice work on your end too.
Its not that I don’t believe in statistics – I just believe that it is possible to selectively use them to justify almost any point of view. David will twist them his way (which y’all are happy to point out), and you will twist them your way. Doesn’t mean that you can claim the ‘correct’ use of any statistic set.
Also, how many Labour press releases on ‘good’ statistics make the headlines?
When it comes to Law and Order, you just have to accept that violent crime, baby killers, and sex offenders rule the media and public concern. An aggregate measure that includes shoplifting and tagging just doesn’t interest most people, except Minister who are looking for good news or partisan bloggers looking for a pretty picture.
That should be “it’s” Tony Claws (how many times do I need to point out how to use an apostrophe before you get it) and once again (‘cos you’re a little slow) blogblog’s post shows no rise in violent crime. Have you considered taking an adult literacy class? You might want to throw some numeracy in there too and maybe a little course on public speaking so you don’t fuck up the next health policy press conference.
Also, how many Labour press releases on ‘good’ statistics make the headlines?
Not very many, and I’d agree a press release made up of statistics wouldn’t be the most riveting read. But a blog’s a different medium, and people are reading it for different reasons – so different rules apply. You wouldn’t put a graph in a press release, would you?
Of course, I’m not saying Labour do good press releases. They’re actually pretty poor at spin compared to the Nats. But that’s a different story altogether…
Santy said: “read the newspapers – do you really think you can win an election with statistics”
and there’s the source of his problem, he believes the newspapers but not empirical data. how funny is that?
and santy, i think you’ll find that winning elections has everything to do with those awkward numbers that embarrass you so.
Actually statistics don’t lie, but people do, usually by failing to fully report assumptions used in calculations and by not giving due consideration to the methods (eg most polls don’t report that they are reflecting the views of decided voters and the n of ~1000 – a commonly used number to get a standard error of about 3% – is therefore not accurate; the actual n is a subgroup of the ~1000).
It is very appropriate to use an incidence rate for crime stats eg x/1000 or whatever the desired denominator is, so long as the denominator is revealed. Denominators could be reported crimes, actual crimes (some reports are false), etc. It would be even more accurate to adjust the rates for demographic changes ie an ageing population tends to commit less crime (arguably) than a younger population, so that needs to be factor in if really accurate estimates are to be made.
What does concern me about the graph is that Labour’s starting point is lower than National’s finishing point despite time being continuous. There are reasonable explanations ie the last National quarter and first Labour quarter are removed because of the overlap. Not all voters are anumerate, and such details should be included in a blog (Perhaps oddly I would also expect such details in a newspaper report, but I am mostly disappointed in that regard).
Santa…go look at our Kiwiblog stats…we specifically break out violent crime – the level of crime and its average seriousness…sorry but your argument just don’t hunt.
Andrew Jull – the starting point for Labour doesn’t connect to National’s end point on the graph – check the caption -1991-1998 vs 2000-2007 – these are fiscal years, so both start at the end of the first fiscal year in which the party took power and Labour hasn’t had 3 full terms for comaprative figures yet, so only naitonl’s first 8 years are there.
Its not being tricky, its all clearly laid out for you.
Icky – selective use on your blog unfortunately, choosing to use conviction rates – oh dear.
Now, I think all here would agree that the general perception is that South Auckland is a Labour stronghold, and an area of lower incomes and relatively higher unemployment.
Therefore, by Sam’s argument the crime rate in that area should have substantially decreased, since those below average folks are much better off under Labour.
Lets look at violent offences since these are the ‘headline’ issue with crime – you don’t get many calls for shoplifters to be given more jail time.
Here’s the table, per capita. Maybe Tane will do the honors of posting a pretty graph.
1997 0.0137
1998 0.0142
1999 0.0136
2000 0.0148
2001 0.0149
2002 0.0150
2003 0.0133
2004 0.0130
2005 0.0150
2006 0.0162
This is calender years, which are fine for this purpose. No funny missing years either.
Oh my goodness, from 1999 (mainly a National year) to 2006 there was a 19% increase – in the very area where Labour support should be the strongest. How can this be?
Simon – thanks for pointing that out the caption – my mistake. However, I like transparency and the rationale for absenting the 1999 fiscal year was not presented with the graph. No accusation of cunning is implied; my simple desire is for accuracy of communication. By the way, another interesting graphic is to plot GDP growth by political terms over the three and half decades. Labour looks decidedly better (on the whole) than National.
Santa may well be right about the hysterical mainstream media. Leading headline on the Herald site at the moment…
“Convicted axe murderer on the loose”
(A much more melodramatic ring to it than Stuff’s mundane “Police hunting escaped murderer”.)
Also, the Herald shows it with their blood-red “Breaking News” graphic
All the careful statistical analysis you like to perform will be driven out of the voting public’s heads when they see such material on a near daily basis.