Reply to: BBC Have your Say - paedophiles

[andy]

From a purely pramatic point of view, the question would be whether such a campaign would be effective.

Only if explained in chav hip-hop way

[Old Greg]

How about convincing poor people to not get bloody pregnant in the first place if they can't afford to bring up kids.

Would be a bloody good start, would reduce the drain on our resources and would probably reduce crime figures too.

Lets start an ad campaign.

CHAV LADI...., erm WOMEN.

The government now encourages you to let your lads do you up the ass so that you don't get pregnant and don't have a bunch of kids that the rest of us pay to bring up and then pay to keep in jail for the vast majority of thier lives.

etc

From a purely pramatic point of view, the question would be whether such a campaign would be effective.

[Ardesco]

How about convincing poor people to not get bloody pregnant in the first place if they can't afford to bring up kids.

Would be a bloody good start, would reduce the drain on our resources and would probably reduce crime figures too.

Lets start an ad campaign.

CHAV LADI...., erm WOMEN.

The government now encourages you to let your lads do you up the ass so that you don't get pregnant and don't have a bunch of kids that the rest of us pay to bring up and then pay to keep in jail for the vast majority of thier lives.

etc

[Old Greg]

I was under the impression that the zero-tolerance policing in New York had made a massive difference to the crime rates - or was this just political spin?

Were any numbers given on the reduced birth rates to back this up? We have legal abortion here but it doesn't seem to stop the high birth rate in "disproportionately poor, badly structured families". I can see that it might have a short term effect when newly legalised but in the long term it doesn't seem to be a factor - at least in the UK.

It would seem that the conclusion is also VERY un-PC and probably wouldn't have any political capital in the UK (or anywhere?). Can you imagine a government publicly trying to persuade mothers falling into the category of "disproportionately poor, badly structured families" to have abortions? It just wouldn't happen.

In fact, the opposite appears to be true as the government (successive governments too?) is so concerned about the falling birth rate that they positively encourage, via the benefits system and general economic policies, these types of "families" to produce more children. One could infer, using the converse of the conclusion re: abortions from Freakonomics, that government policy in this country is contributing significantly to rising crime rates.

The author's argument was that zero tolerance policing was coincidentally contemporaneous with the effects of abortion - it's very well supported by stats and analysed and argued and I don't have the expertise to argue with it. Certainly convinced me , but it is a pop-economics/statistics book. I've not seen any similar analysis for the UK. How do you know abortion doesn't affect birth rates in poor people in the UK? They might be higher otherwise - again, I don't know one way or the other.

I don't think the conclusion has anything to do with political correctness (sorry to be a bore, but I think the term is considerably misused) but it may be politically unpalatable for some.

Your point about persuading poor mothers to have abortions would obviously be political suicide, as you suggest, but it is only one possible conlclusion (in terms of what do we do about it) of the lesson, which is, I believe, that the circumstancs in which people are born and grow up will have a correlation to the likelihood of their becoming criminals. Reducing birthrate is one way - another is doing something about the circumstances in which people are born and grow up, but that's an argument for another day (at least for me).

[WotNxt]

I think the 'void' is critical. It's like any market. If you take operatives out of the market, you create opportunities that others will fill. Now, I'm not saying it's as simple as that as there are a lot of factors in play. The shocking conclusion of Freakonomics (if I remember correctly) was that Zero Tolerance policing, more police on the streets and 'three strikes and you're out' (all in the US) had no/minimal effect on crime rates, but that some of them appeared to havean effect because they were implemented a generation after the leagalisation of abortion - the conclusion was that the abortion of foetuses (in disproportionately poor, badly structured families) reduced the number of babies born who would have ended up growing into criminals. Made me think. If you buy this, and I recommend the book highly, you can draw your own conclusions as to what to do about it.

I was under the impression that the zero-tolerance policing in New York had made a massive difference to the crime rates - or was this just political spin?

Were any numbers given on the reduced birth rates to back this up? We have legal abortion here but it doesn't seem to stop the high birth rate in "disproportionately poor, badly structured families". I can see that it might have a short term effect when newly legalised but in the long term it doesn't seem to be a factor - at least in the UK.

It would seem that the conclusion is also VERY un-PC and probably wouldn't have any political capital in the UK (or anywhere?). Can you imagine a government publicly trying to persuade mothers falling into the category of "disproportionately poor, badly structured families" to have abortions? It just wouldn't happen.

In fact, the opposite appears to be true as the government (successive governments too?) is so concerned about the falling birth rate that they positively encourage, via the benefits system and general economic policies, these types of "families" to produce more children. One could infer, using the converse of the conclusion re: abortions from Freakonomics, that government policy in this country is contributing significantly to rising crime rates.

[threaded]

How's about if there are less laws: then there are less crimes to commit!

threaded in "it ain't rocket science y'know!" mode.

[Old Greg]

I believe it is true that most crimes are committed by only a few people and that most are repeat offenders. Maths then suggests that locking up only a few extra people for a bit longer would have a dramatic effect in reducing the crime rates. Of course this could be offset by others moving into the criminal void that it created e.g. other drug dealers or organised gangs taking over when a rival is nicked or put into disarray. A sustained hard line against criminal activity MAY keep this minimised however.

I think the 'void' is critical. It's like any market. If you take operatives out of the market, you create opportunities that others will fill. Now, I'm not saying it's as simple as that as there are a lot of factors in play. The shocking conclusion of Freakonomics (if I remember correctly) was that Zero Tolerance policing, more police on the streets and 'three strikes and you're out' (all in the US) had no/minimal effect on crime rates, but that some of them appeared to havean effect because they were implemented a generation after the leagalisation of abortion - the conclusion was that the abortion of foetuses (in disproportionately poor, badly structured families) reduced the number of babies born who would have ended up growing into criminals. Made me think. If you buy this, and I recommend the book highly, you can draw your own conclusions as to what to do about it.

[WotNxt]

I'm not sure whether evidence supports the view that banging up more people and/or for longer reduces crime rates. Common sense might tell us it does, but that don't make it so.

Don't know about the military question - but you're right - it's an interesting question.

I believe it is true that most crimes are committed by only a few people and that most are repeat offenders. Maths then suggests that locking up only a few extra people for a bit longer would have a dramatic effect in reducing the crime rates. Of course this could be offset by others moving into the criminal void that it created e.g. other drug dealers or organised gangs taking over when a rival is nicked or put into disarray. A sustained hard line against criminal activity MAY keep this minimised however.

[angusglover]

Yes - somewher between never locking anyone up and locking everyone up forever is the correct number (and I mean correct in terms of effectiveness in harm reduction, as I'm a pragmatic kind of guy.) Don't know where this is. I read a nice book called 'Freakonomics' a little while ago which touches on this.

I have this book...not read it yet tho...

[Old Greg]

I feel sure that letting them all out would increase crime. Wonder what the correct number is?

Yes - somewher between never locking anyone up and locking everyone up forever is the correct number (and I mean correct in terms of effectiveness in harm reduction, as I'm a pragmatic kind of guy.) Don't know where this is. I read a nice book called 'Freakonomics' a little while ago which touches on this.

[BrilloPad]

I'm not sure whether evidence supports the view that banging up more people and/or for longer reduces crime rates. Common sense might tell us it does, but that don't make it so.

I feel sure that letting them all out would increase crime. Wonder what the correct number is?

[Old Greg]

So with the prison population at an all time high and with a higher percentage of people in prison than most European countries ... when does the cost of prison become too draining on society?

In my view there are simply not enough people in prison right now as many are let out too early, many are not given custodial sentences simply because the prisons are full and far too many never even get put in a courtroom let alone convicted. Oh ... unless they are pensioners who don't pay their council tax!

If all serious crimes (wooly term, I know!) resulted in convictions and sentences were served in full then I believe the prison population would be about 4 or 5 times what it is now, maybe more. Crime rates would plummet and we would all be much safer - but would the financial cost be too high? Of course this is only theoretical and even if it were not we would never achieve this as it would be too "embarassing" to have that high a prison population.

On the matter of finance though, how much do we pay for our armed forces and nuclear deterrent to keep ourselves "safe" from external dangers? Anyone know how this compares to the bill for prisons?

I'm not sure whether evidence supports the view that banging up more people and/or for longer reduces crime rates. Common sense might tell us it does, but that don't make it so.

Don't know about the military question - but you're right - it's an interesting question.

[Chugnut]

I don't think we're going to convince each other on this one. I think the death penalty is murder, that's why I think we shouldn't have it. From that starting point, the cost of keeping people in prison is the price I elieve we pay not to be murderers.

I wouldn't want to resort to the death penalty either but I think the reason so many people are keen on advocating it these days is that there does not seem to be a perception that any alternatives are working.

If anyone harmed my wife or child, I would like to think that provided they spend the rest of their life in prison, it would be enough for me, but in all honesty I suspect I'd want them snuffed. It's clearly a very emotive issue and that clouds the judgement.

I genuinely think people feel the balance is the problem and they're desparate to suggest anything since the country's being run into the ground. Law abiding, work-for-a-living people don't feel they have their needs catered for. If a burglar breaks into your house and gets a kicking off you for their trouble, the law should always be on your side. They should never be able to sue. Teachers & parents should be able to discipline kids (a clip round the ear when it's needed) without ramifications.

I don't think it'll ever happen though since we don't have any politicians with any backbone. Remember a few weeks back when John Howard ordered Australia's cricket team to pull out of Zimbabwe, calling Magabe a "grubby dictator"? Brilliant! Someone with a bit of spine. Getting someone like that in office would be a good start.

[WotNxt]

I don't think we're going to convince each other on this one. I think the death penalty is murder, that's why I think we shouldn't have it. From that starting point, the cost of keeping people in prison is the price I elieve we pay not to be murderers.

So with the prison population at an all time high and with a higher percentage of people in prison than most European countries ... when does the cost of prison become too draining on society?

In my view there are simply not enough people in prison right now as many are let out too early, many are not given custodial sentences simply because the prisons are full and far too many never even get put in a courtroom let alone convicted. Oh ... unless they are pensioners who don't pay their council tax!

If all serious crimes (wooly term, I know!) resulted in convictions and sentences were served in full then I believe the prison population would be about 4 or 5 times what it is now, maybe more. Crime rates would plummet and we would all be much safer - but would the financial cost be too high? Of course this is only theoretical and even if it were not we would never achieve this as it would be too "embarassing" to have that high a prison population.

On the matter of finance though, how much do we pay for our armed forces and nuclear deterrent to keep ourselves "safe" from external dangers? Anyone know how this compares to the bill for prisons?

[angusglover]

I see the nuking of Iraq as mass murder......but we have to start somewhere...