Real World Event Discussions

It's not the deeds, it's the hate.

POSTED BY: Fremdfirma
UPDATED: Tuesday, April 8, 2008 18:47
VIEWED: 10808
PAGE 13 of 13

Sunday, April 6, 2008 2:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cavalier:
It has the highest imprisonment rate per head of population.

I am told it has the lowest imprisonment rate per crime.

For these two statements to be true it must also have the highest crime rate per head of population.

Which indicates prison isn't a good deterrent, unless you accept that British people are more likely to commit crimes than a person from elsewhere in the EU, which I don't. A high crime rate and a high prison population indicates imprisoning people isn't working, having fewer inmates per crime could as easily indicate the system is swamped by the high crime rate.

The only way your conclusion would work if is we assume the British are more prone to criminality, I see nothing to support that.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, April 7, 2008 5:28 PM

If Britain has the lowest imprisonment rate per crime, people in Britain must do less jail time per crime than people in the rest of the EU.

A person in Britain who commits a crime can therefore expect to do less jail time than a person who commits an identical crime elsewhere in the EU.

If prison time acts as a deterrent, this deterrent will be weaker in Britain than in the rest of the EU.

If people in Britain are assumed to be no more or less “prone to criminality” then this weaker deterrent means that fewer of them will be deterred from committing a crime.

Therefore, you would expect to see a higher crime rate in Britain.

Which was the effect I mentioned.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, April 7, 2008 5:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cavalier:
If Britain has the lowest imprisonment rate per crime, people in Britain must do less jail time per crime than people in the rest of the EU.

A person in Britain who commits a crime can therefore expect to do less jail time than a person who commits an identical crime elsewhere in the EU.

If prison time acts as a deterrent, this deterrent will be weaker in Britain than in the rest of the EU.

If people in Britain are assumed to be no more or less “prone to criminality” then this weaker deterrent means that fewer of them will be deterred from committing a crime.

Therefore, you would expect to see a higher crime rate in Britain.

Which was the effect I mentioned.

But only includes half the data, and assumes, rather than proves, a particular stream of cause and effect.

EDIT:
What I mean is, the explanation that prison is a poor deterrent, which means you get a high crime rate, which leads to the law enforcement and judiciary systems becoming swamped explains the data equally well.



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, April 7, 2008 9:29 PM

So why did the crime rate go up in the UK and not in the EU?

That is the difference we are trying to explain.

Do you think that prison was a better deterrent in the EU, or that its people are naturally less criminal? Or do you wish to introduce an additional factor?

I did not say that the data given proved anything. I said that I said that it was consistent with the claim that prison was a deterrent.

It was you who claimed that “The only way your conclusion would work if is we assume the British are more prone to criminality.”

I have merely provided an argument to show that that claim is untrue.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Monday, April 7, 2008 9:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Cavalier:
So why did the crime rate go up in the UK and not in the EU?

Well that's a claim I've yet to see substantiated.
Quote:

Originally posted by Cavalier:
Do you think that prison was a better deterrent in the EU, or that its people are naturally less criminal? Or do you wish to introduce an additional factor?

I think a lower crime rate in Europe has very little to do with prison. I think by focusing only on prisons, and nothing else as an explanation for crime rates, we're attempting to oversimplify a complex social dynamic. I rather doubt anyone has committed a crime because of little threat of punishment, or at the least been dissuaded from crime because of the threat of punishment. I think people who commit crime tend to do it because they have no choice, or at least feel they have no choice, I suspect that possible punishments have little bearing in the decision.

I would suspect that social conditions, such as the gap between rich and poor and social mobility. In Social Mobility the UK is the worst in Europe, and the US has a rather worse showing than that.

I further suspect that prison sentences grow laxer as the crime rate rises, an effect of crime rate, rather than a cause.
Quote:

I did not say that the data given proved anything. I said that I said that it was consistent with the claim that prison was a deterrent.
I thought the claim was inherent in the argument.
Quote:

It was you who claimed that “The only way your conclusion would work if is we assume the British are more prone to criminality.”
Uh, yeah, but uh, I never said it was a claim .
Quote:

I have merely provided an argument to show that that claim is untrue.
Which is inherently making a claim of your own. At the very basic level being that prison is a deterrent, no?



More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Tuesday, April 8, 2008 2:28 AM

Also if you look at crimes in general crimes against property are far more common than crimes against the person. In the UK investigation of crimes against people have far higher priority. If a police service commits 300 officers to search for a missing child, that's probably 300 petty theft cases on the back burner for a while.


NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME