Written By: - Date published: 9:27 am, October 20th, 2008 - 39 comments
Categories: crime, The Standard line -
Tags: The Standard line
So, you’re talking with someone about politics and they say something really dumb and wrong and you know it’s wrong but you don’t have the arguments and facts at your fingertips to make a decisive point. That’s where our election series, The Standard line, comes in. The info you need in bite-size form. Today, crime:
Points:
- Crime is down. When Labour came to power, there were 1200 offences reported per 10,000 people, each year. Now there are 1000.
- There were 8,000 fewer crimes in total reported last year than 1999 and 25,000 more were solved.
- The crime figures we hear about are only reported crimes. The evidence is that reporting of crime is up because of public awareness campaigns and because cell-phones making reporting crimes immediately easier. We know two types of crimes that always have nearly 100% reporting – homicides and burglaries (you can’t claim insurance if you don’t report a burgulary to the Police). Homicides are down 10% per capita, burglaries are down 18%.
- reported violent crime is up but the experts say this is due to higher reporting of family violence. The number of violent street crimes actually fell 1% last year. Reported violent offences were up 30%. Think about it: is it credible that violence within families actually went up that much in one year for no reason even while homicides and street violence went down? No.
-Family violence has long been under-reported and in the last year there has been a strong campaign to get people to report family violence – that is the explanation for the increase in reporting.
-The entire increase in violent crimes and sexual crimes since Labour came to power comes from higher reporting of family violence.
-while every violent crime is bad, it is worth noting that there is less than 1 violent crime per 100 people a year.
Facebook
Twitter
Scoopit!
This is total nonsense.
First, at the very mention of “the Standard line”, people will associate it with this blog and instantly anything else said will lose credibility. Why do people always laugh when I say “But I saw it on the Standard?” anyway?
Secondly, this is crap.
Pierson feels some continuous urge to protect perpetrators of violent crime by making outlandish comments on how it’s dropping.
Case in point:
“while every violent crime is bad, it is worth noting that there is less than 1 violent crime per 100 people a year.”
Phew, after nine years of Labour “getting tough on crime”, only 1 little old lady is being violently assaulted/murdered per 100, per year. Well, thank goodness for that. I’m grateful that other parties aren’t so laissez-faire about violent actions against innocent members of society.
“The evidence is that reporting of crime is up because of public awareness campaigns and because cell-phones making reporting crimes immediately easier.”
Where is this evidence? It’s an assumption (a HUGE assumption) that doesn’t add up. Whenever any “non-Labour” party/organisation release statistics about the rise in crime, Pierson argues that its actually just a rise in reporting, and then rejects any question that his own manufactured ‘statistics’ could be anything other than an honest reflection of New Zealand.
Following “the Standard line” there is no decrease in crime, just a decline in reporting. People are no longer reporting crime and “the evidence is that reporting of crime is DOWN”. Sounds unlikely? Diddums. I’m just following the “the Standard line”.
[lprent: If you are able to read, then I'd suggest looking at the links to the statistics and the reports from the police that are in the reports. Most of the material quoted comes straight from the police report. Most of the other organisations you're talking about cherry pick the crime stats for things that they can point up as being a problem. That makes headlines.
Good news doesn't, so they don't read all of the figures or the commentary by the police. Now you are doing the same thing - I guess that says everything about your reading abilities doesn't it..]
Hoolian: With all your bluster all you do is abuse the messenger. Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that violent crime is up? All you are doing is lamenting that violence exists. Yes agreed. But is it getting worse? Statistics are really the only thing you can argue about. Conjecture, political spin, anecdotes, media over- reporting is not evidence.
How many murders are committed in NZ each year? Guess?
How much better/worse than 5 or 10 or 20 years ago?
If you are able to read, then I’d suggest looking at the links to the statistics and the reports from the police that are in the reports. Most of the material quoted comes straight from the police report.
Unless my eyes are failing me, I can’t see any reference to any police report nor do I see any links. Am I going blind or are you just wrong? Hmm, I’m leaning towards the latter.
Most of the other organisations you’re talking about cherry pick the crime stats for things that they can point up as being a problem.
Absolutely right. The Standard is a godsend and all other organisations (as numerous and politically diverse as they may be) are all wrong, wrong, wrong. It couldn’t be that the Standard has been caught cherry picking crime stats for things they can point up in pursuit of their own ideology.
With all your bluster all you do is abuse the messenger. Can you prove beyond reasonable doubt that violent crime is up?
Statistics are hard fact, but they can be bent and swung to support political ideology (as I suspect is happening right here). Besides, since when was reasonable doubt a perquisite on this site? More often than not, we revert to gossip and hearsay as hard fact. Reason is to be left at the door.
Conjecture, political spin, anecdotes, media over- reporting is not evidence.
Agreed. That was my point.
“Crime is bad but nothing anyone says about it in election season is ever worth listening to.
I say get on with your life and enjoy it and stop being so scared of everything.”
Perhaps not, but you could say this about a lot of issues during the election that don’t directly affect you. Not so easy if you’re an Indian shopkeeper in South Auckland.