From: Jonathan Davis (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed 10 Sep 2003 - 12:22:24 GMT
Excellent comments Vincent. Thank you.
I am generally in full agreement with you so I do not think I point by
point restatement is needed, nor do I think this list's tolerance will
stretch much further.
I will just say one thing regarding " locking up over 2 million people
isn't defeating crime it's displacing it". I have to disagree (prima
facia) with this statement. If our objective is to reducing the number
of crimes committed, then locking people up is not a displacement but an
effective solution. This reduction may be achieved by keeping career
criminals off the street for long periods or keeping them jailed until
prisoner menopause, but it still lowers the crime rate, and that is
Perhaps what you are saying is that there are unintended consequences
arising from all this incarceration which will make matters worse in the
long run, but I have not seen any evidence that this is the case.
From: Vincent Campbell [mailto:VCampbell@dmu.ac.uk]
Sent: 10 September 2003 12:58
Subject: RE: politically insane
Very interesting discussion guys.
Can't add much in the way of stats (although I do recall Barry Glasser's
The Culture of Fear offering a lot of data showing the realities of
crime in the US compared to US media representations, although I don't
recall whether that data would support or refute either of you! I do
think there's something in there about the ethnicity of civilians shot
and killed by cops in Ney York over the last 20 years or so- I believe
they were almost all african-american, including notoriously the guy who
was shot multiple times by a group of cops for reaching for his wallet).
Still some observations and opinions for what they're worth.
<The recent peaceful blackout in New York is an excellent
> example of how much things have improved. Simply contrast the riots in
> 1977 with last months peaceful and relatively crime free blackout.>
In the UK, the lack of violence in the blackout was related to the post-9/11 situation with people perceived as being initially not sure as to whether this was another attack or not and a combination of fear and stoic resiliance was the net result. Any "noo yorkers" out there to offer a comment?
<That great society is defeating crime, we ought to imitating their
> [John 1] Interesting that during this time the number of people
> incarcerated rose from 200,000 in the 1970's to 2.3 million people
> today, with a further 1.8 million out on early release schemes and
> parole. You surely cannot be arguing for fifteen fold increase in the
> crime rates since 1970?
> [Jonathan 2] No, I am not arguing about crime rates here - I don't
> know the facts. I do know that US crime has dropped significantly and
> part of the reason is attributed to higher incarceration rates.>
I do think that these comments go together- locking up over 2 million people isn't defeating crime it's displacing it (CCTV does the same thing). Can we ever defeat crime, I dunno. Ever since reading Pinker's The Blank Slate this summer, I've become a much more stoical darwinian leftist (yes, can't get rid of the lefty in me that easily), and as such suspect that criminality will persist whatever efforts at social engineering we may try. Unlike my government (see below) I see no value in blindly, and blithly following whatever the Yanks do assuming they're doing it right.
<[Jonathan 2] Whilst I accept that the security lobby (and that
> the police) have an interest in exaggerating crime, I do not see how
> the increase in crime rates can be attributed to privatisation of the
> industry and a powerful lobby in politics getting tough on crime. Am I
> right in thinking you are saying that "tough on crime" measures
> aggravate crime rates?>
There are two ways that tougher crime measures may aggravate crime rates. The first is by extending the range of things deemed criminal behaviour. For example, in the UK the government (inspired to an extent by the US in its approach to crime fighting- even hiring US cops to head schemes) is introducing anti-social behaviour crimes, and has also criminalised things like grooming over the internet. I'm not saying that these things are necessarily wrong policies, but part of becoming tough on crime means criminalising behaviours previously a matter of civic concern. This widens the remit of law enforcement and means more cases, more trials, moer prisoners.
Second, comes the reciprocal spiralling of crime that occurs
when crime fighting becoms tougher. Again to use the UK as an example,
gun crime is rising in the UK, and whilst regular police are not armed,
the armed response units that offer back up to unarmed cops are being
used more and more frequently. So the debate is heating up about
whether or not to arm our cops (most people and cops themselves aren't
that eager to do this, and even those in favour aren't champing at the
bit, and come across as rather disappointed that this may be the
future). One argument against is that if determined criminals know that
cops are going to be armed, they will tool up more frequently as well,
and you'll get a cycle of escalation of the severity of crimes
committed. Indeed, one of the arguments against armed police in the UK
is the fear that we will descend into the kind gun culture of the USA
with everyone shooting at everyone else (cops, criminals and civilians).
Recently in the UK they've started using tasers and pepper sprays and
still use rubber bullets (although no one calls them that anymore, after
dozens of people have been killed over the years when they've been used
in Northern Ireland). Incidentally has anyone else noticed the way that
the producers of these devices and police users have changed their name
from 'non-lethal weapons' to 'less lethal weapons' in a very overt
acknowledgement that these things can and do kill people.
There is another aspect to tirades about rising crime as well,
and that is the new opportunities for new kinds of crime, obviously a
whole range of new crimes made possible through the internet that didn't
exist 15 to 20 years ago, or mobile phone thefts etc. etc. One thing in
the press currently is the RIAA's ridiculous attempts to prosecute MP3
file-sharing for breach of copyright, a principle that has applied to
music only for an astonishingly small part of its history (recall the
days before pre-recorded music when musicians made a living by actually
going around playing their music, and allowing others to play their
music). I'm fed up of fucking pop millionaires complaing about losing
money from file sharing (Kylie has been recruited with the slogan 'feel
the music don't steal the music' for example) when they will still make
millions from live shows, already have made millions from massively
overpriced CDs, and routinely exploit the songwriters and backing
musicians who actually do the work in the first place 9and who don't
earn millions). As an academic whose creative output receives bugger
all financial return and is supposed to be doing it for the benefit of
all to see these talentless scum whinge from their tropical mansions
about people who actually like their music and want to listen to it...
well it makes me cross. I'm all for a UN sanctioned invasion of Celine
Dion's record company where she (as a weapon of mass
annoyance) will be captured, and then disposed of in a controlled
explosion for the betterment of all humankind....
Sorry rambling way off topic with that last bit.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the Journal
of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission For
information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 10 Sep 2003 - 12:24:37 GMT