Written By: - Date published: 10:15 am, May 1st, 2008 - 63 comments
Categories: crime -
Tags: 'new zealand sucks' campaign, garth mcvicar, myths, sensible sentencing
It’s hard to know why people keep interviewing Garth McVicar from Sensible Sentencing. The organisation has no credibility, no research every statement on policy is really just ‘Garth guesses X’. And of course, they made those disgusting comments around the death of Pihema Cameron.
Nevertheless, he was on National Radio this morning regarding new stats showing the prison population has doubled since the 1980s. What did he attribute the growth in prison numbers to? ‘Our growing crime rate’. That would be this growing crime rate, Garth?
The prison muster is up due to a combination of larger population, longer sentences, and better crime fighting. Sensible Sentencing denies that and says it’s due to higher crime even though crime is down.
McVicar’s answer to his fictional problem is, of course, more Police State and more dead taggers.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
Let’s not forget that the vast majority of crime are property related offences. I think the amount of violent crime is below 5% (don’t quote me on this).
The only reason why we think there is more violent crime is because the media give it an inordinate amount of coverage. Can’t blame them though as given the sensationalist and purile nature of our tastes there is a ready market. The only time property offences make it to the front page is when someone like cloe of wainuiamata gets caught.
PB … And your screen name suggests you are interested in . betting for a lady called Pascal
HS – you’ve never heard of Pascal’s wager? In which context I think Pascal’s bookie is a most excellent name.
the graph above is clearly spin released straight from the extensively resourced labour party spin centre
you can’t talk generally about crime being up or down – and reported crime is quite different as well all know than actual crime
total numbers of reported crime events may be down but the key figures are things like ‘violent crime’ and that was seriously up according to the offical statistics released by the police recently
not only was it up, but it was up by 6,000.
in the last twelve months SIX THOUSAND MORE VIOLENT CRIMES were perpetrated on kiwis.
and VIOLENT CRIME category only includes things like aggravated robbery where a gun or weapon is used, assaults where weapons are used, rape, kidnapping, attempted murder and murder itself
it doesn’t include things like vandalism of letter boxes, burglary, stealing cars, shop lifting and other things that many kiwis don’t even bother reporting anymore viz a viz why total crime may appear to be down
only someone using carefully selected statistics with a large agenda and little knowledge would suggest crime was down!
When you’re speaking of the high rate of mental illness in Christchurch roger nome, are you talking about the three men that have committed suicide in Hillmorton hospital’s forensic unit this year?
molly the graph above is clearly spin released straight from the extensively resourced labour party spin centre
Gosh darn molly, you caught us. Uh huh. Obviously we should believe your agenda laden anecdotes instead. Thanks for clearing that up.
[lprent: Hey - don't take the blame for the poster (though I must say it makes a refreshing change).
Just for clarification, rOb isn't a poster or moderator. He just logs in to become a grey eminence]
Molly
in the last twelve months SIX THOUSAND MORE VIOLENT CRIMES were perpetrated on kiwis.
As I understood it, this was largely attributed to an increase in reporting of domestic violence.
Have you got a study or reference to show that reporting of crime has decreased? Or is it because your mum’s best friend’s son’s cousin’s car got broken into, and they didn’t even bother calling the cops, because they were uninsured?
FYI Molly, here’s an example of providing something to back up an assertion – the one I made regarding the cause of the increase in violent crime:
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/category/story.cfm?c_id=30&objectid=10501512
r0b
While I get PBs point I can’t see the point of taking bets on the existence of god.
“in the last twelve months SIX THOUSAND MORE VIOLENT CRIMES were perpetrated on kiwis.”
Yes, I think I know where you got that stat from Molly.
http://kiwiblogblog.wordpress.com/2008/04/28/more-creative-spin-read-fibs-from-key/
Molly, the stats are available at http://www.police.govt.nz – the graph was mine.
If you want to do a graph on vandalism to letterboxes feel free to send it through for consideration.
I dont think people should make light of petty crime, and I think vandalism of people’s property isn’t a petty crime anyway.
rave on, rave on, rave on…when is one of you bright sparks going to offer a per capita comparison with a similar country?
D4J: Sorry to hear about the assault. Hope you’re okay.
Hasn’t Christchurch had a long-standing skinhead problem? Could that be something to do with it? Anyway, it is quite possible for Christchurch to be getting worse, but the overall trend to be getting better. No contradiction there.
But let me ask a difficult question: Has crime done down because the prison population has gone up. That is, if you are inside, it becomes much harder to offend … I’d be interested in what people think.
While I get PBs point I can’t see the point of taking bets on the existence of god.
Neither can I HS. Though I see why you might think that I do.
My screen name is a little more subtle than just saying that I’d bet against Pascal.
It comes from the first essay I wrote for a 100 level philosophy paper many many moons ago. It stuck in my memory because the lecturer was of the type that didn’t set word limits, which caused poor undergraduates no end of worry and concern about what was expected of them. He made things worse by telling the first year students that he had only ever given one ‘A plus’ for a 100 level essay, and that the essay in question was only 200 words in length.
My essay was on Pascal’s wager, and rather than just regurgitating the most obvious problems with it, I asked the question of who exactly Pascal was wagering against. ‘Who is his bookie’ in other words. The answer I came up with as a callow youth was that he was betting against his own better judgement. He obviously had serious doubts about the existence of God, and couldn’t refute those doubts to his own satisfaction. So he makes his little bet against those doubts.
“Pascal’s bookie” is thus more of a joke against Pascal’s intellectual honesty or courage than against the existence of God. JFTR at the time I was a very devout Roman Catholic.
(I realise that the wager itself is but a conclusion to a much more well thought out argument that rests on a broader attack against reason itself, (and so I’m being a little unfair against the poor dead mathematician), but this was only a 100 level paper so we hadn’t got that far yet.)
What grade did you get ?!?!
But let me ask a difficult question: Has crime done down because the prison population has gone up. That is, if you are inside, it becomes much harder to offend I’d be interested in what people think.
Interesting question Milo. I think you could find cases and examples to support wither side of the argument. But in the end I’m going to say no.
If there is an effect, it is often small, eg 314% increase in prison population correlating with a 13% drop in serious violent crime:
http://www.uplink.com.au/lawlibrary/Documents/Docs/Doc109.html
Other summaries see no correlation:
http://www.njournalg.com/prisonpopulation.htm
Looking at the big picture, within America “In recent decades the U.S. has experienced a surge in its prison population, quadrupling since 1980″:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisons_in_the_United_States
Did crime fall in proportion? Doesn’t look like it. Overall crime rates have shown some variation, there was a big fall in violent crime after 1993 – see the graph and speculation as to why here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States
But nothing links these trends to the quadrupling of prison population.
Internationally, America has by far the highest per capita rate of incarceration, but not the lowest crime rate. So after a quick look, my answer to your question is no.
(Bookie – nice to get that back story! I’m interested in the way people chose their screen names.)
Milo ; potential prison numbers far exceed prison capabilities to detain. Remand prisoner numbers are overflowing in some regions. In an effort to ease the burden (fully stretched system) – the system is gearing up for sentence of electronic monitoring by offenders supervised by Probation Service. Prisoners, whether inside or out conduct criminal activities on cellphones etc it’s caused taking care of business, and the soft message is no deterrent to recidivist offenders. We are giving the smart crimes the upper hand and it’s no wonder repeat offender rates are the fishy order of the day.
The grade is not important Phil, what matters is that we all try. (wink)
r0b, Screen names are strange things aren’t they? I only noticed that you use a zero when you pointed it out the other day.
night all.
r0b, Screen names are strange things aren’t they?
I’m sure there’s a thesis in it somewhere for some bright young spark!
rOb, d4j, Interesting. Although coming from opposite ends, I think you replies suggest the same thing: there is an effect, but it is small, raising questions about whether it is a cost-effective (or morally effective) strategy.
Thanks. Food for thought.
milo in any sane society the public should expect zero tolerance on criminality, however the dysfunctional judicial system has its head in the clouds and both National and Labour put justice well
doneDOWN the list of priorities. Can’t upset the judges. Food for thought.[lprent: fixed]
well DOWN the list of priorities, sorry thought I was at kiwiblog and had the edit option. Silly me smack, smack.
[lprent:
I'm thinking about it. But I'm only allowed a certain number of updates per week. Besides I have it. I'm not sure if anyone else needs it ?? ]
“milo in any sane society the public should expect zero tolerance on criminality,”
D4J – $100,000 per prisoner per year. Only the worst of brutes should be being locked up. It’s just too expensive. As it is, Mr Hippy with a ounce of weed and a bong can end up costing us tens of thousands of dollars to unjustly punish.
On a slight tangent, I was just at a public debate tonight about Marajuana (I know, been there, done that) – with Jim Anderton and Nandor Tanczos. Anderton said that he wants to ban booze and tobacco! (only he knows of course that it’s not politically feasible). I mean, I thought the prohibition debate was done in the 1940s, but apparently not for Jim.
In Jim’s defence, as I’m sure you know, he’s probably making the point that the degree of harm and cost to society done by alcohol and tobacco is in the billions of dollars per year.
A start might be raising the drinking age back up and lowering the driving limit to zero.
if the whole country is as nutty as you all think then no wonder every body is going to orstralia
Re: http://www.thestandard.org.nz/?p=1823#comment-32334
There is no victim in manufacturing, selling or consuming P providing it is done consensually. The only reason crimes are commited to fund drug habits is that drug prices are artificially inflated due to criminality.
In that case the true crime (in the ethical sense) isn’t the consumption of drugs, but the theft itself. Blaming the drug only removes the responsibility from the individual.
Don’t take this as me saying P is a good thing, I think its terrible and have personally seen peoples lives ruined by it. But mark my words, more peoples lives are ruined from drugs being illegal, (and the associated criminal penalties) I’d suggest than by the drugs themselves.
Speeding is also a victimless crime. Crashing your car into someone on the other hand isn’t.
Same with baseball bat ownership, no victims there, but if you decide to hit someone around the head, you aren’t committing the crime of baseball bat possession, its assault.
Its far easier to blame an inanimate object that the person, but its the person, not the drug that committs the offense.
I know plenty of otherwise law abiding citizens that have consumed their fair share of class A, B and C drugs, none of which have stolen, none of which have assaulted, and most of which have had a good time. Yes that even includes a very small minority who have consumed P. Some of which are in high ranking positions (one being an economist).
This is not an endorsement on the horrible substance, merely stating a fact that there is no victim in P, providing it is consensually consumed (for instance, asshole dealers cutting P into E pills there is a victim, not of the drug, but of fraud) but adults.
The war on drugs is lost, but then again we never stood the chance of winning it.
I don’t agree with you about speeding Mike but I certainly do about drugs. I also doubt P would have attained the reach it has if a clean tested and legal alternative (such as legal and regulated E) had been easily available at a low cost.