The point about the displacement of crime into prisons has made been made before, but I've rarely seen the case made as powerfully as in this article.
The really depressing thing is that the most analyses I've seen suggest only a relatively small proportion of the 'crime drop' in the US can be attributed to the increase in imprisonment - other factors, such as change in drug consumption patterns, demographics, and cultural shifts seem to have been as or more important. As the author notes, it's entirely possible that crime hasn't fallen in the US at all, but has merely been shifted inside the prison walls.
This is probably overstating the case a bit. I think there has been, if nothing else, a shift in cultural attitudes toward crime that have made it less acceptable. And its hard to ignore the demographics (i.e. less young men as a proportion of the overall population). But its certainly an argument worth having.
Thursday 9 February 2012
Tuesday 31 January 2012
Fire-brigade policing
I really like Rob Reiner's ideas on how we should conceptualise policing. Seems to me this is both an accurate reflection of what the police actually do (i.e. almost anything, when called on) and a useful way of calibrating our expectations about what is possible in terms of real achievements.
That is, while police can and do solve local problems, and may, in certain situations and in certain ways, influence crime rates and even 'put a lid' on crime, there must almost by definition be little they can do about the underlying causes of crime. These are likely to be so deeply embedded in diverse social, economic and cultural structures that it seems almost naive to expect that one single state agency could, on its own, have much effect on them in the long run.
Most people would, presumably, agree that police should work toward this larger goal in conjunction with other state agencies, non-state actors, and the public at large. So why, then, should the success of the police be measured only by it's success in 'fighting crime' (which is what the current government seems to be suggesting). Indeed, if what Reiner says is true, and given the well-known difficulties involved in tracking and explaining changes in the rate of crime, what what be a suitable metric for assessing police performance purely against a crime-change criteria?
That is, while police can and do solve local problems, and may, in certain situations and in certain ways, influence crime rates and even 'put a lid' on crime, there must almost by definition be little they can do about the underlying causes of crime. These are likely to be so deeply embedded in diverse social, economic and cultural structures that it seems almost naive to expect that one single state agency could, on its own, have much effect on them in the long run.
Most people would, presumably, agree that police should work toward this larger goal in conjunction with other state agencies, non-state actors, and the public at large. So why, then, should the success of the police be measured only by it's success in 'fighting crime' (which is what the current government seems to be suggesting). Indeed, if what Reiner says is true, and given the well-known difficulties involved in tracking and explaining changes in the rate of crime, what what be a suitable metric for assessing police performance purely against a crime-change criteria?
Saturday 14 January 2012
Response to Home Office 'curfew' consultation
Some colleagues and I have written a response to the Home Office's consultation on police powers. This covered Section 5 of the existing Public Order Act (on 'insulting language'); and two new proposals to introduce (a) a new police power to enforce removal of face-coverings - e.g. masks, scarfs - and (b) a new police power to instigate curfews.
The last issue took up most of our attention, and suffice to say that we thought it was a very bad idea. You can find the response document here.
The last issue took up most of our attention, and suffice to say that we thought it was a very bad idea. You can find the response document here.
Tuesday 3 January 2012
Brilliant climate change graphic
I stumbled on this superb graphic (via the comments here) and, although its way off topic for this blog, couldn't resist linking to it.
The first thing you see is the overall trend in global temperature change over the last 40(ish) years. The second is how climate change 'sceptics' might prefer to present the picture: by breaking the period into smaller chunks you can show that over any given 5-10 year period temperatures were either flat or actually fell.
The real action comes at the end of the chart, since it is a standard climate-change denier line that temperatures haven't risen since 1998, the warmest year on record. The overall trend is clearly upwards - selecting 1998 as a start year in order to demonstrate a decline is a classic an example of 'cherry-picking' data to suit one's argument (see here for a discussion).
The first thing you see is the overall trend in global temperature change over the last 40(ish) years. The second is how climate change 'sceptics' might prefer to present the picture: by breaking the period into smaller chunks you can show that over any given 5-10 year period temperatures were either flat or actually fell.
The real action comes at the end of the chart, since it is a standard climate-change denier line that temperatures haven't risen since 1998, the warmest year on record. The overall trend is clearly upwards - selecting 1998 as a start year in order to demonstrate a decline is a classic an example of 'cherry-picking' data to suit one's argument (see here for a discussion).
Wednesday 21 December 2011
Were the rioters 'career criminals'?
Excellent post over at fullfact.org. I particularly like the comparison of mean and median.....
Thursday 15 December 2011
Compare and contrast
Interesting to compare the police and government responses the the Grauniad's 'reading the riots' study/conference. Not for the first time, I'm struck by the reasonable tone struck by the MET who, apparently, recognise they must do things differently in the future, and acknowledge that there is a significant problem around stop and search. Whether this translate into real change remains to be seen, of course.
Theresa May, however, seemingly can't climb out of her ideological hole, insisting that any attempt to uncover reasons for the riots amounts to 'excuses'. This know-nothing attitude totally bemuses me. Should we never seek to try and understand things that we can condemn (or, alternatively, only seek to understand things of which we approve)? Gangs get another airing, too, despite all the evidence to suggest that this really wasn't about gangs at all. At least she, too, seems to reluctantly agree we might have a problem with stop and search, and has launched a review.
Ed Milliband, by contrast, said much to agree with (including criticising the government's "simplistic" response to the riots). Let's hope his approach signifies a genuine shift in Labour thinking and a move away from crime policies that have all too often amounted to attempts at outflanking the Tories from the right.
Theresa May, however, seemingly can't climb out of her ideological hole, insisting that any attempt to uncover reasons for the riots amounts to 'excuses'. This know-nothing attitude totally bemuses me. Should we never seek to try and understand things that we can condemn (or, alternatively, only seek to understand things of which we approve)? Gangs get another airing, too, despite all the evidence to suggest that this really wasn't about gangs at all. At least she, too, seems to reluctantly agree we might have a problem with stop and search, and has launched a review.
Ed Milliband, by contrast, said much to agree with (including criticising the government's "simplistic" response to the riots). Let's hope his approach signifies a genuine shift in Labour thinking and a move away from crime policies that have all too often amounted to attempts at outflanking the Tories from the right.
Tuesday 13 December 2011
Public trust and police legitimacy across Europe
Article on Comment is Free here. This is (loosely) based on the first findings from the 5th European Social Survey (ESS), which contained questions on trust in the police, legitimacy, compliance and consent.
There was also a linked news story here - which plays rather fast and loose with the issue of country rankings. I would say the UK police come at the top of mid-table across the 20 countries included in the first release of the ESS, rather than being in any way seen as 'untrustworthy'. Although I suppose most of the countries we would want to be compared with - Germany, the Scandinavians - do rank higher. Public trust in the police is certainly higher in the UK than in Bulgaria, Hungry and Russia, but I guess that's not a particularly strong recommendation.
There was also a linked news story here - which plays rather fast and loose with the issue of country rankings. I would say the UK police come at the top of mid-table across the 20 countries included in the first release of the ESS, rather than being in any way seen as 'untrustworthy'. Although I suppose most of the countries we would want to be compared with - Germany, the Scandinavians - do rank higher. Public trust in the police is certainly higher in the UK than in Bulgaria, Hungry and Russia, but I guess that's not a particularly strong recommendation.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)