Slashdot Mirror

Looks like in the UK Burglary is 8/1000 and in the us its 5/1000

Seeing that fact was wrong I cant be doing with looking up the others :)

This has a significant impact on criminals ... It took several months for people's behavior to change ( which was odd...I expected it to change almost overnight ) But now all we have is an occasional vagrant.

Wrong. You're such a fucking fool you can't even provide statistics to back up your claim. Unlike you, I do have some evidence to support my findings that you are incorrect. They are available from this web site of the UK government: http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/statistics/statis tics35.htm

Burglary in the UK actually skyrocketed from 1989 to 1998. Since then it has remained stable, and has not dropped, as you incorrectly suggest. The surge in burglaries the late 1980s and early 1990s is likely due to the "Reaganomics" economic policies that the Thatcher government adopted from the Americans during that time period. As was clear to anyone with even an ounce of knowledge, supply-side economics is tomfoolery! It put many factories under, which no doubt lead to greater crime.

The 1950s were a time of prosperity for America and the UK. As is often the case in such times, crime was drastically lower. People don't have the incentive, regardless of age, to commit crime when the economy is strong. The 1950s and 60s were after years of leftish rule in both countries. In the UK and US, however, we've had many years of right-wing government. Thus our economies are not doing as well, and it's not surprising that crime is up.

http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/toolkits/rh0202.h tm National origins as defined by the British Government. So yes.

The description of the article at the top of this story is COMPLETELY BOGUS. There is NOTHING in the register article that says mandatory fingerprinting is being rolled out.

    A few local councils are experimenting with a scheme for city-center pubs and clubs. A home office department has offered to put a bit of funding their way.

    Yeovil city council have been using their licensing committee to pressurise local landlords into joining up with their scheme, an almost certain misuse of their powers that will be stopped sharply by the first landlord to have his license refused and take the council to court. In the bill referred to, "Section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 requires local authorities to consider crime and disorder reduction in the exercise of all their duties, activities and decision-making."[*] This in no way mandates the use of any particular measures or obliges landlords to operate any particular systems in pursuit of this goal, and any landlord who could demonstrate before a judge that he had taken measures that were equivalent, reasonable and proportional, could make a strong case that the council would be misdirecting itself if it refused him a license. Even the government's own guidelines [**] don't suggest anything more than vague considerations such as "A consideration of impact on existing provisions, local population etc.", "Regulation of public order", "Links to drugs and alcohol Reduction Strategy group". It's a long reach from that to coercing publicans to participate in an experimental scheme.

    Of course you're a kook with a chip on his shoulder, so you didn't actually RTFA before flinging uninformed accusations of substandard journalism. Facts, who needs em? If Slashdot says the Reg says something, then that's what the Reg damn well says, right?

[*] - http://www.copelandbc.gov.uk/main.asp?page=3227
[**] - http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/legislation30.htm

Hi JakartaDean.

Add Gun Control to Litany of Misbegotten Government Plans
National crime rates compared
England has worst crime rate in world
Statistics Confirm Huge London Crime Wave
Gun Control's Twisted Outcome

There are plenty more links out there--this was about 5 minutes of googling.

1. The article summary is misleading in that it gives the impression that ASBOs (anti-social behaviour orders) will be used. It is in fact a new proposed power called a Serious Crime Prevention Order. 2. The article itself is wrong on a point of law about the standard of proof required for ASBOs (note, I'm not a lawyer here, but I'm capable of reading the actual government proposal). It is correct in that they are civil offenses, but the standard of proof is higher than that usually required by civil offenses (due to the McMann judgement) which ruled that as the word "proof" was used in the legislation a standard of proof for section 1(1)(a) of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (partly referring to ASBOs) is that of the criminal standard. For section 1(1)(b) civil standards apply. As I understand it, both sections must be met for an ASBO to be granted. Section 1(1)(a) essentially requires proof of past acts of anti-social behaviour, and section 1(1)(b) refers to intent of future acts. The government is currently proposing a standard of proof somewhere between the criminal and the civil. 3. The government appears to acknowledge that the powers are wide ranging, and as such proposes only allowing the orders to be applied for (yes, they still need to go via the courts) via the High Court, and be appealable to the Court of Appeal. 4. It is up to the UK courts themselves to determine if any such powers legislated are compatible with the Human Rights Act 1998. In theory I believe this could probably be heard all the way up to the European Court of Human Rights (High Court -> Court of Appeal -> House of Lords -> EU) but its judgements are non-binding. Disclaimers: I'm a Brit. I'm not a lawyer but consider myself fairly well informed. I'm due to start work in a UK non-departmental public body. I haven't made my mind up on these proposals yet. Useful links: Government's proposals (also linked in article): http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/documents/new-powers- paper.pdf?view=Binary Home Office information about ASBOs: http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/asbos9.pdf

As I understand it hit and runs tend to be more panic-induced than anyting else, and a car tracking system wouldn't stop them, it would just make them easier to catch. This is of course assmuning that the system is accurate enough to determine if you collided. If a hit and run occurs on a busy street, with say 40 cars per minute each way, and whoever gets isn't able to pin it down to within 1 min, you dealing with more than 80 cars that might have been in the accident. So unless this tracking system is accurate to within a meter, the hassle of tracking down 40+ vehicles per hit and run will counteract whatever gains are made from the tracking system in terms of effiecint use of police time.

Americans conveniently overlook the fact that Europeans have chosen to be a bit more socialist in their economic policies in order to build kinder and gentler societies. Just compare the crime rates between the USA and Europe. The Europeans have largely succeeded.
 
I'm sorry, but that is complete BS. London's violent crime rates are worse than ANY part of the United States. All of our crime put together is less, on average, than London's violent crimes. Thats ALL of our crime vs just London's violent.
 
Scotland's violent crime rate is more than double the US's.
 
Seems many people jumped all over your "lower crime rate" BS, and posted several sites stating statistics, like this one
 
  Obviously you're European, which is why you have the "we're better than the US" snobbish attitude that most European's have towards their "brutish" cousins in the US. Too bad your opinion isn't backed by fact.

A cursory review of the literature leads your statements to be fatally incorrect. Crime rates are in fact lower in the US than in many European countries.

Burglary rates for Scotland, Austria, and England and Wales are reported as higher for the entire period of 1980 through 2000. For England and Wales, this difference is as much as 50% higher crime rate per capita than the US after 1993.

Don't believe me. Check the figures yourself. I should also point out that these figures come from a UK authority, not another "American urban legend".

"Racial hatred means that hatred against a group of persons in Great Britain defined by reference to colour, race, nationality (including citizenship) or ethnic or national origins". http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/toolkits/rh020506 .htm

Also the act only covers incitement to racial hatred. It doesn't penalise you gor being a racist (thats your view) but it does peanalise you if you try to indice others to hatred.

Before 1998 there had been a number of cases of Britain being taken to the European Court of Human Rights. The Human Rights Act* was meant to bring British law into line with European law and avoid this embarrasment. If Blair strays too far he will risk more cases in Europe. But I agree that we have to keep an eye on him - he is due to step down before the next election to make way for Gordon Brown. Without the need to seek reelection he is free to push unpleasant legislation without consequence, and once in power Brown can blame everything on him.

I hope that in the US you do avoid the proliferation of CCTV, but as I said - if it's going to happen you will need legislation to protect privacy.

http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/cctv13.htm
http://www.yourrights.org.uk/

Feminism isn't a nuanced socio-political critique and attacking databyss on this point shows that you're merely trying to frame the argument in such a way as to get your agenda across.
Feminism is and can be many things but in practice it is: an ideology, a socio-political agenda to advance the rights of (genetic) women, and a belief system much like a religion that appears to hold women as victims above all else/others.In some hands it is even a human and civil rights struggle.However, given the level of oppression in thought and of others (treatment of bisexual women, transgenders and men)I don't see feminism as the paragon of virtue you apparently do.

You're jumping all over the place here. Just how you get from one person's personal experiences to extrapolating an entirely specious statistic (Did you not read what the project was about? It isn't about Domestic Violence in general) is a leap of logic (by way of a particularly horrible comic strip) that defies description.
You have not credibly shown by your comments that women as a class are disempowered. You have also not credibly proven that women haven't in some form or fashion chosen these roles even if true (I clearly remember times when women were chastized for raising children ,whether they stayed home or not, rather than join the workforce full time).
Additionally there is no possible way that any reasonable accounting of domestic violence not account for: male on male, female on female and female on male (and this isn't even taking into account transgender and intersexed people) violence making any commentary on a mythic 95% entirely suspect.Certainly when those other potentials are eliminated (and they haven't been explored in general amongst U.S. studies).While you're formulating your response I offer these links to other positions on domestic violence:
http://www.mensrights.com.au/page13q.htm http://www.mensrights.com.au/page13c.htm http://www.dvmen.org/dv-28.htm http://www.crimereduction.gov.uk/domesticviolence4 2.htm http://www.batteredmen.com/batfact.htm http://www.dvmen.org/dv-32.htm#pgfId-1353321 http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm http://www.teamcares.org/alternative_abuse.html http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/whodv.html http://www.wyrdsmiths.com/index.php?fid=lawrdv

Where are most women generally humiliated? Unless this is the case in Podunk, Arkansas I don't see it. I also don't see how it is that women don't objectify or attempt to enforce their own versions of "appropriate" gender roles. I've certainly seen it often enough.

First of all databyss never said he knew what feminists want. Heck, I'd argue that feminists don't know what feminists want. By stating that you know what "feminists" want is to state that there is a single unifying delineation of what feminism means and stands for. Despite the attempts of many to have the "one true feminism" there's a great deal of debate on what those goals should be. I'd argue that your "feminists" are merely a different selection of random women than databyss's. Still, nice of you to excuse women wanting to have it both ways

"There's a lot of FUD surrounding gender issues, mainly because everyone thinks they understand "men" and "women" as social classes based solely on their own interpersonal experience."

There is indeed a lot of FUD surrounding gender (or rather in this case - sex)issues and you're contributing

Ok, first I considered the facts...

- the guy has a big public display of lights at his house, twice a year
- he encourages zillions of people see his house & publishes it on the web
- he publishes detailed pictures, the address, and lan/lon coordinates of his house.

You would think he'd want people to come see his house, right?
I saw he lived pretty close to where I was so I decided to visit - I thought it would be neat to post a video of what the house looked like as people voted.

so I drive there only to find, IT'S A GATED COMMUNITY!!

I got to the head of Blue Heron, and there's a gate that closes at 7 pm. I could call and ask to be let in, but it was 9:15pm on a Sunday night and I know this guy has two little kids, so I don't bother calling - it would be rude. As a faithful slashdotter, I would have tried the "911" entry code, but I saw there was a special key for emergency personnel, so I didn't try (plus, they put they keypad in a hard-to-reach place)

<RANT>What is it with gated communities?! I don't see how crime is much of a problem in this place because it's pretty much alone in the countryside. It's not like there is a crackhouse next door. And, since most burglaries occur before 7pm, the gate won't help much. And, if you want to commit some crime at night, just get there before 7pm, wait, and then make your getaway whenever you want -- the gates will always let you out.</RANT>

I'm sure he's a nice guy, but I think he should reconsider where he lives, or push the homeowner's association to remove the gate.

So, anyway, don't try to go there. You're not welcome... unless you come before 7pm, and then sit on their lawn until dark.

To what extent will the citizens feel safer, and how much safer will they actually be?

Here in the UK where there is a great deal of surveillance, the jury is still out. (Links will follow). The general impression I have as someone who is interested in this subject, is that, yes, they are reducing crime at present. Some research shows that the effect wears off though, so a large part of this may just be shock of the new.

Note that one of the main uses of CCTV is not crime prevention, but aiding in conviction rates.

Particular concerns about CCTV are that it doesn't so much prevent crime as it does displace it elsewhere. As the CCTV cameras are being placed firstly in more affluent areas, this has an even more negative effect on nearby deprived areas.

Sadly, rather fewer people are objecting on the grounds of how much power this gives authorities over people. This might be a grave error in the longer term (my opinion).

My own feeling is that although it seems (to me) to reduce crime a little and increase convictions, it's doing nothing to solve the problems that lead to crime. In my experience, most criminals, whatever their bravado, are driven to be criminals. Tightening the lid on the boiler may hide the problem for a while but it is not the solution.

A few links are:
An 'official' report.
A government response and
a more cautious opinion.

I just did.

It seems you are quite wrong.

Crime in the UK has never been linked to personal gun ownership which has always been miniscule in any case.

Want another quote?

"the 2002 British Crime Survey - which asks people for their first-hand experiences of crime - tells a different story. This claims that crime rates have fallen by 2 per cent over the past year, with the chances of being a victim of crime now standing at its lowest since the survey began in 1981.

"Violent crime is only a very small proportion of overall crime in the UK but it is the type of crime that people fear most."

Ah, here we go with the ritual random slinging of carefully selected statistics to prove some point or the other. I offer this, and invite you to make your own conclusions:

From Barclay, Tavares & Siddique, "International Comparisons of Criminal Justics Statistics, 1999" (link)

Probability of Victimization, Overall

Australia 30%
England & Wales 26%
Canada 24%
United States 21%
Japan 15%