The reasons for crime

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

Recently I have been doing quite abit of reading on crime, crime statistics and theories on why people commit crimes and the best way to deal with criminals once caught and convicted.

In my readings I came across many articles. One of the common denominators seemed to be the collapse of the family as a unit in society and the fostering of that collapse by the state. I have listed a few sites of interest that you may want to refer too and would appreciate your thoughts/comments on what you feel about these links.

http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_4_oh_to_be.html

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=15304

http://www.cyberessays.com/Politics/84.htm

[Starboy]

The issue of crime has a simple solution and a complicated cause. The solution is for everyone to do the right thing by society. Because people are not doing this is why we have crime. So the question becomes why are people not doing the right thing by society. That is where it gets very complicated. There are two main cases:

1) They don't know any better.

2) They know better but for one reason or another they do not act on their knowledge.

Case 1) ‘They don't know any better’ can be blamed on the collapse of families, schools, religion, government, you name. But my guess is that there are not that many people that actually fall into category 1)

Case 2) I think that most people fall into this category. The reason why I think this is that crime rates seem to follow the economy. When there are plenty of jobs and people can make a good living crime seems to go down. When things are not going so well for many people then crime goes up. Now it is certainly more complicated than this but this is an important data point.

So if you want to make a big dent in crime then make everyone prosperous. It works for me.

Starboy

[Suburbanite]

I think crime is viewed as a variable, not a constant. The only variable is what constitutes a crime and what prevents it. What you think of as crime is just human activity that is punishable.

[Gorgo]

While you're reading about crime see:

http://www.zmag.org/sustainers/conte...-04/01wise.cfm

[castille]

Why do people say crime is complex? I've run with criminals and I only saw 3 reasons:

1) They were poor and crime is a good way of making money

2) They were not poor, but crime is still a good way of making money

3) They wanted the excitement of being in the Triads or something. Too many Hong Kong movies.

[Gorgo]

Crime also seems to be a reason for re-election. That's how Bush made it.

[castille]

Pfft, you Americans are soft :p You want a real criminal president, check out Italy's Silvio Bersciulli (spelling?). He not only owns most of the country's media, he also tries to change laws to prevent the courts from jailing him for collaboration with the mafia.

[Gorgo]

Well, the U.S. has a lot to do with why Italy is the way it is today.

[G. Adams]

Quote by: Seeker_Of_Sins Recently I have been doing quite abit of reading on crime, crime statistics and theories on why people commit crimes and the best way to deal with criminals once caught and convicted. In my readings I came across many articles. One of the common denominators seemed to be the collapse of the family as a unit in society and the fostering of that collapse by the state. I have listed a few sites of interest that you may want to refer too and would appreciate your thoughts/comments on what you feel about these links. http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_4_oh_to_be.html http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=15304 http://www.cyberessays.com/Politics/84.htm

Ahh, of course thats it! the breakdown of the family unit. Because in the days of Queen Victoria when there really could have been no stronger bond in the family, there was hardly any crime! Oh wait....

Just because theres a pattern does mean thats it. When people sent their kids to work in factories from 6yrs onwards i'm sure there was less child crime too, doesn't mean we should pack the kids off to mills.

I would also point out that crime has been rapidly on the rise since the breakdown of the community. Because we all live in our little boxes not giving a shit about one another, we couldn't care less if we stole off each other. In the mining villages of midlands and northern England there were very tight communities, and very low crime rates. Part of the reason is that everyone knows everyone, so you get to like your neighbours, and word gets around fast if your thought a thief, and you do not want a village full of miners after you. The mines closed down, the community fell apart and crime rose drastically.

[The Dunedan]

Crime is a function of several factors, in my opinion. These all tend to work together; the more of these factors you have acting all at once, the worse your crime situation is going to be.

1: Lack of deterrance. In the Western world, this is a biggie. Areas with liberalized gun-ownership laws have less crime, while areas with stricter laws in this regard have more. This is especially true when dealing with -violent- crimes. Sadly, the US, Switzerland, and Norway ( to a lesser extent ) are the only Western countries that really respect people's gun rights anymore, so this is becoming a major issue.

2: Lack of social controls: Even in ( publicly ) low-gun societies like Ireland, very tightly knit social controls can keep crime under control. Back in the 90s, for instance, there was a rash of instances in Ireland wherein car theives kept getting their legs broken. It went on for about 14 months before the Gardai were able to put a stop to it ( mostly by arresting thieves before they could be beaten ), and while it's been ten-ish years since then, everyone knows that stealing cars in Ireland could still be a VERY bad idea. In a society where everyone knows everyone else, it's difficult to get away with so much as stealing a candy-bar.

3: Poverty: This is a biggie just about everywhere. When people are poor, they steal more: either from boredom or because it's a quick way to make some cash. How to address this issue is somewhat contentious: while a well-thought-out "Welfare state" can partly alleviate the problem ( witness Norway or Sweden ) it is the economic equivalent of a bandaid for a cut artery, because the taxation required to support such a system merely transfers the monetary problems "up the chain." It also tends to cause a "brain drain" as the younger, tax-paying population leaves for countries where they get to keep more of their money. This is turning into a major problem in all of the Scandinavian countries as we speak. The Libertarian view is that heavily decreased or eliminated income-taxation, coupled with a return to gold-backed currency, would alleviate poverty by stabilizing the currency, preventing inflation, and increasing net income.

Now, as I said, the more each of these factors comes into play, the worse one's situation becomes. Take Switzerland, for instance: Widespread popular ownership of firearms, an extremely high standard of living, and a tightly-knit social and familial structure have combined to produce the lowest crime rate in the world by a hefty margin. On the other end of the spectrum is South Africa: a country with almost zero legal gun-ownership, an absolutely abyssmal rate of poverty, and few if any working social controls. South Africa leads the world in almost every catagory of violent crime, including murder: their murder-rate is almost 3x that of the US.

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

I notice that many people feel that poverty has a bearing on crime and yet statistics from the 20th century where the majority of people were poor show a steady increase of crime from that period to this. In fact, in the UK alone, crime rates have risen over 412% in the last 70 years at a time when the average wealth of individuals has risen exponentially. This is taking into account the population increase so it cannot be explained by a growth in population.

The comments about community and the break down of families seems to be the most noticable difference in communities over that period. I do not think that poverty is an overwhelming factor. Take the pacific islands, the bulk of the population is extremely poor by our standards and yet their crime rates are low excepting those crimes that are considered cultural in those communities. There community spirit and level of involvment is high and their family structure is strong and supportive.

By creating a welfare state, do we not remove family from the equation and therefore place reliance on the state. This break down of community leads to alienation which leads to uncaring individuals who commit crime because they do not feel they are hurting anyone important.

A further question for you all...........Do you think crime is a lifestyle choice? Do people choose to commit crimes?

[Comrade]

Why do people commit crimes, was the question?
Well, if you figure that out, please share because if we figure that one out we can probably cut it down some.
I think its mostly mental. People who have no qualms about committing crimes will.
I can't really buy that its because of "socioeconomic factors" but I've never really put much belief into Marx or Hegel and their silly theories. I'm more of a culture and free will person.

We could probably cut down on crime a lot if liberals gave up on gun confiscation. Chicago and Washington DC, I think, are two towns which have banned guns. I think its pretty funny that they have higher crime rates than Sante Fe, a town with lots of illegal Mexicans, drug traffic, and, get this, you can buy and own submachine guns (and probably other automatic weapons) legally in New Mexico.

[SVMc]

I think this is way too broad of an oversimplification.

First of all you haven't discussed what types of crime you are referring to. I'm assuming street crime by the tone of the debate so far.

Second, can you please give a source for the following:

In fact, in the UK alone, crime rates have risen over 412% in the last 70 years

I'm more inclined to belive that crime rates are falling:

Since 1995, the BCS has reported a fall in crime at each successive survey. There has been a 25 per cent fall in the crime measured by the BCS over the last five years, between 1997 and the 2002/03 BCS (see chart). The risk of becoming a victim of crime is still historically low at 27%, around the same level as the first BCS in 1982, and one - third lower than the risk in 1995 (40%). http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics28.htm

Collectively law enforcement agencies throughout the United States reported a decrease of 2.0% in the number of violent crimes when brought to their attention in the first 6 months of 2004 when compared to firgures reported in the first half of 2003 http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/2004/6mosprelim04.pdf

OTTAWA - The national crime rate reached its lowest level in 20 years in 1999, Statistics Canada said on Tuesday. The overall crime rate dropped five per cent, making it the eighth year in a row a decrease has been recorded. http://cbc.ca/cgi-bin/templates/view...ime_rate000718

The figures confirm New Zealand crime rates have been trending down since peaking in 1996, Mr Hawkins said. Taking into account that New Zealand's population grew by approximately 277,000 people between 1996 and 2003, total recorded crime figures in 2003 were 7.3 percent lower than 1996, and the resolution rate 6.7 percent better. http://www.ndp.govt.nz/media/2004/ha...march2004.html

According to the Australian Institute of Criminology, in its report, Australian Crime - Facts and Figures, released in October 1999, these laws have significantly affected Australia's crime and injury rates. All gun deaths, be they homicides, suicides or unintentional shootings, have decreased from a total of 521 in 1996 to 437 in 1997. This figure of 437 gun deaths is the lowest number in 18 years (1). Only one out of every five armed robbery in Australia involves a gun, and the "number of armed robberies involving a firearm (have) decreased to a six-year low"(2). In contrast, robberies involving weapons such as a knife or stick have increased by nearly 20%, which indicates that other weapons are replacing firearms. That such substitution is being accompanied by a decline in gun deaths reveals the lethality of firearms - when they are not used, fewer people are killed. http://www.gca.org.za/facts/briefs/21.htm

However I'm not surprised that people find the falling crime rate counterintutive. After all, politicians all still run on the promise to reduce crime.... (the scarcastic side of me thinks they may as well seeing as it's a prominse that seems easily kept)... and we as socieites seem to live in greater fear of crime.

That would be the question for me. If crime rates are falling, then why do think we are more likely instead of less likely to be a victim of crime? Is it the over broacasting of crime? The politicking of crime? The otherness of crime?

I also find it interesting that while Mr. Dalrymple is able to draw quite a clear simatry between government oppression and crime in developing world slums to such global repression he still says:

Still, all these were political evils, which my own country had entirely escaped. I optimistically supposed that, in the absence of the worst political deformations, widespread evil was impossible.

Many of the abhorent developing world condidtions that Mr Dalrymple sees Britain as having escaped were caused in those very countries to a great degree by the rapid de-colonization of the British empire. Leaving vaccums of power and providing band-aid relief provided perfect opportunities for dictatorships and repressive regimes to arise.... are we considering these crimes?

What about the Enron's and possibly Nortel's of this day and age? Why are they never as feared as the street crime?

And Mr. Dalrymple fails to acknowlege that while we now have overwhelming data on single mothers and absentee fathers, this data was simply not collected in any significant let alone national scope even as recently as 60 years ago. I can't find the origins of the collection of data on spousal abuse for the United States but Canada did not begin tracking it until 1980. http://canada.justice.gc.ca/en/ps/fm...pousal.html#11 Having reliable data on spousal abuse is necessairy when we consider the quality of family life as a factor in crime.

While I do agree that the collapse of the family unit plays a part in some criminal action, I also think poverty, global trends, economics, unemployment, media, education, social status, community linkages and a host of other factor are incredibly important to consider with the same weight as the family unit.

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

SVMc,

I am refering to all crime, I don't see a difference between youth related small time crime such as graffiti and much more heinous crime such as violent assault or rape.

I notice that you posted a link to NZ crime statistics and yet, being a kiwi, I can assure you that crime in areas such as murder, burglary and violent crimes have been growing over the last decade. The figure you listed are overall and because of huge targetting of vehicle theft combined with a larger % of the population no longer reporting crime such as burglary because of 2-4 day response times from the police, the figures are somewhat screwed.

However, my general interest is in crime, the reasons why people commit them and ideas behind stopping crime. It is a general debate to a point with somewhat of a focus on the fall of the family being a critical part of the statistics

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

As for your Australian quoted figures above, have a peek at this:

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/ar...TICLE_ID=15304

[SVMc]

I did read that article when you posted it on the first post. All media has bias, and despite Canada having one of the lowest gun crime rates of industralized nations, we also have our papers that publish similar articles. If you have other sources, especially statistics that back up that article I would be interested.

Also, I still have to maintain that what you seem to be looking at is street crime (street crime can include some organized crime i.e. car theft rings) but there is no indication towards any sort of white collar, corporate or green crime in your analysis. These crimes are the ones that are currently rising most sharply, and are under reported. While media rarely goes without a street crime / violent street crime on the mainstream news.

The New Zealand government reports a downward trend in crime, while acknowleding a slight increase in grevious assults, and a more significant increase in intimidations and threats. http://www.stats.govt.nz/analytical-...lent-crime.htm. If however, you find these figures unreliable please post some sources to back up the lack of reporting and the general upward trend that you are referring to.

Again, while I do not think that the decline of the family unit has nothing to do with a criminal pursuation, I also think (again) that your articles and most other articles I have read do not assign it a higher factor than issues such as poverty, community, socio-economic status, access to education, deterrance etc... So why would it be beneficial to focus on only one aspect of why crimes happen? If the objective is to gain an understanding with the goal of preventing further crime through understanding I don't think simplification will be of help.

[Seeker_Of_Sins]

Some reference sites for you SVMc

http://www.police.govt.nz/service/st...s/2004/fiscal/

http://www.crime.co.nz/c-files.asp?ID=11926

http://www.safe-nz.org.nz/statistics.htm

[SVMc]

Ok, logical argument coupled with sources probably provides the best debate method as argument without sources is speculation and sources without arguments are unsubstantiated.

Your first source http://www.police.govt.nz/service/st...s/2004/fiscal/ seems to go directly to what I was saying. There is a general downward trend in overall crime... What it does show is that the crimes that are being committed are not being resolved as efficently, which suggests there is less of a problem with the crime rate as there is with the resolution methods. Violent crimes show a slight increase, but the resolution rate is better, (there is also a note on this in your second source). Sexual Offenses and Dishonesty is dropping, with Drug and Anti Social behaviour and property damage at a plateau. Administrative crime did peak, but it seems to be being addressed either corporately or judicially or both.

In the report of the second source http://www.crime.co.nz/c-files.asp?ID=11933 we again see that the offense rate is dropping.... It does say that the crime rate has doubled in the last 30 years, this is usually explained by a population increase. This is why we have a crime rate doubling but the offense rate dropping. Dishonesty accounts for 60% of offenses while violent crime only accounts for 10% of cases (which is reasonably consistent across other developed nations). In regards to violence the report says:

There was little change in the offence rates for violent crime between 1994 and 2000. More than half of all serious assaults were assaults by males on females, the second most common type of serious assault was miscellaneous common assaults.

Indicating that the most serious issue in violent crime is domestic abuse.

Your third source does claim staggering increases in crime in NZ, however it is also a lobbyist site for victims rights that has a vested interest in presenting such claims to aid in their own efforts.

Now I'm not saying that we should ignore the crime that does exist, however what I am saying is that we need to be fully aware of what the situations are to effecively address it. For example knowing what policing and judicial efforts are working and in what areas is just as valuable and sometimes more valuable than knowing where they are not working. Knowing what does work in some circumstances gives a starting point. Likewise in refernce to your first argument about the decline of the family, again while I do think that this has bearing on criminal activity I think it oversimplfies the issue to focus on it without at the same time addressing other very real contributing factors.