The curious case of the fall in crime

[yoganmahew]

@Barney Gumble

@Mossy_Heneberry

@Coles2

I don’t buy the zero tolerance/‘three strikes’ argument.

Even for violent crimes?

I would imagine that having the father in prison is far more likely to result in the child also committing crime.

How come?
Mossy, in cases where the evidence points quite strongly towards a different conclusion, it’s safe and socially acceptable to leave behind the right-wing boilerplate that seems to inform your every opinion.

Wait, tell him it makes them single mothers on welfare… see if he can hit his chin with his knee this time…

3…2…1… Heneberry is go…

[yoganmahew]

@Coles2

@the dude

@Coles2

I don’t buy the zero tolerance/‘three strikes’ argument. I would imagine that having the father in prison is far more likely to result in the child also committing crime.

It has to make a difference, think of the case of Guido Nasi, the scumbag who attacked him had over 40 previous convictions before he ended poor Guidos life

and thats not a one off, the country if full of scum slowly accumulating a long list of “minor” convictions, they only get sent down when they do some life changing damage to some poor soul, and even then our tard judges give out joke sentences

if these people are off the streets it must have an effect on crime, if all the junkies in Dublin were locked up tomorrow it would be a very different cityNo doubt a lot of crime is caused by drug addicts attempting to feed their habit, but I doubt if it’s significant in the final figures. Mostly opportunist stuff like handbags or phones, or maybe some burglaries and car theft. I don’t have figures for the Republic, but in the North the total cost of property crime against the individual (muggings, house burglary, theft, car robberies etc) was only £60 million in 2006/7. The amount that this crime was worth to the criminals (junkies?) was probably less than 20% of this. About £10 million per annum? Seems like a pittance when you compare it to the cost of responding to the crime, or indeed to white collar fraud.

Jailing a drug addict removes the problem temporarily, but the social and financial cost in the long term doesn’t make sense. Better to intensively treat the addiction or, failing that, find ways to mitigate the costs.

What would happen if you jail the drug dealers? More dealers fill the void. Jail the burglars for life? Their kids grow up with no father.

You are only counting the immediate financial cost…

[Mossy_Heneberry]

@Barney Gumble

I think that was where you were supposed to support your argument with actual evidence? Can you explain how US policing strategies led to crime plummeting around the world?

Yes, it’s called: locking the criminals up. As a working class person, who has been on the receiving end of thugs, lock the c*nts up.

Of course you and your middle class ways.

You are pathetic.

[Mossy_Heneberry]

@Barney Gumble

@Mossy_Heneberry

You are pathetic.

That’s solid arguing Mossy. You win!

(I think you were wise to abandon the evidence-based discussion - well played sir!)

So you giving up???

Evidence-based? Live like one.

Now, get back and crawl underneath your rock.

Have I made myself clear?

[Coles2]

@yoganmahew

@Coles2

@the dude

@Coles2

I don’t buy the zero tolerance/‘three strikes’ argument. I would imagine that having the father in prison is far more likely to result in the child also committing crime.

It has to make a difference, think of the case of Guido Nasi, the scumbag who attacked him had over 40 previous convictions before he ended poor Guidos life

and thats not a one off, the country if full of scum slowly accumulating a long list of “minor” convictions, they only get sent down when they do some life changing damage to some poor soul, and even then our tard judges give out joke sentences

if these people are off the streets it must have an effect on crime, if all the junkies in Dublin were locked up tomorrow it would be a very different cityNo doubt a lot of crime is caused by drug addicts attempting to feed their habit, but I doubt if it’s significant in the final figures. Mostly opportunist stuff like handbags or phones, or maybe some burglaries and car theft. I don’t have figures for the Republic, but in the North the total cost of property crime against the individual (muggings, house burglary, theft, car robberies etc) was only £60 million in 2006/7. The amount that this crime was worth to the criminals (junkies?) was probably less than 20% of this. About £10 million per annum? Seems like a pittance when you compare it to the cost of responding to the crime, or indeed to white collar fraud.

Jailing a drug addict removes the problem temporarily, but the social and financial cost in the long term doesn’t make sense. Better to intensively treat the addiction or, failing that, find ways to mitigate the costs.

What would happen if you jail the drug dealers? More dealers fill the void. Jail the burglars for life? Their kids grow up with no father.
You are only counting the immediate financial cost…

You’re right. I was just counting the property value and damage. I was doing that to try to present a financial value of all this crime to the criminal. The actual cost of the crime to the wider society is massive so it would seem to me that it’s a fair argument for tackling the causes of crime rather than having to deal with the costly aftermath.

“Centrist dogooding scumbagism?”

Here’s a link to the ‘Cost of Crime in Northern Ireland’ document. A very interesting read.

[ex-Patrick]

Some interesting statistics here: iprt.ie/prison-facts-2

The prison population has increased by 400% since 1970.
The average cost of imprisonment per prisoner was €65,404 in 2012, not including education spend; it was €65,359 in 2011; €70,513 in 2010; €77,222 in 2009.
The majority of Irish prisoners have never sat a State exam and over half left school before the age of 15.
Over the past 14 years, the numbers in custody have increased by almost 100%.
There were 3,495 sentenced committals for road traffic offences (not resulting in injury) in 2011, representing 20% of the total.
20.8% of sentenced committals in 2009 were for offences against property without violence.
85% of fine defaulters are back in custody within four years.
There were 8,304 committals for non-payment of court-ordered fines in 2012; 7,514 in 2011; 6,683 in 2010, 152 of whom were imprisoned for failing to pay fines imposed for not having a television licence.
Since 1997, more than 1,930 new spaces have been added to an increasingly overcrowded prison system.

So the system seems majorly overcrowded, despite large increases in capacity. About 40% of people being locked up are in for non-payment of court-ordered fines, and about 85% of these reoffend in some way within four years.

[Mossy_Heneberry]

@yoganmahew

Wait, tell him it makes them single mothers on welfare… see if he can hit his chin with his knee this time…

3…2…1… Heneberry is go…

I never said anything about single mothers on welfare. You are the one that brought that up so we know exactly what you think of them.

[Mossy_Heneberry]

@Barney Gumble

@yoganmahew

Wait, tell him it makes them single mothers on welfare… see if he can hit his chin with his knee this time…

3…2…1… Heneberry is go…

He did! And faster than usual. Arguably he’s getting more efficient…

No I didn’t or maybe you are referring to Coles2? (Our resident big shot republican )

There’s something sad about an angry man raging at his computer screen.

Likewise. And there’s something that’s even worse about someone making excuses for ciriminals whilst ignoring the victims.

[ex-Patrick]

Those centrist analytical scumbagists at the Royal Society of Chemistry weigh in with a cautious finding:rsc.org/chemistryworld/2013/03/tetraethyl-lead-violence-link

It is well known that lead can affect the central, peripheral and autonomic nervous systems and induce sub-clinical and clinical encephalopathy. Increased lead levels in children are reported to have the effect of decreasing IQ. Thus there are possible neurotoxicological mechanisms that may explain these findings, even if the evidence for them is unspecific. Is this enough to establish the association as cause and effect? Many will say yes but others will be more sceptical; I think the answer is ‘just about’.

[BoyRacer]

@Mossy_Heneberry

As oppose to your leftwing do gooder scumbagism?

This left right paradigm is called polarisation and it’s a tool for keeping people from working together to deal with mutual problems.
I have not read the research, if it holds and it seems to in the situations the articles highlighted then it puts a dent in both sides arguments.

[HNWI]

The main reason for fall-off in burglaries is because there is no profitable market for second hand goods.

The chinese factories are churning out new goods so cheaply that second hand ones are unprofitable to sell. When you can buy a new DVD player in tesco for €30, it makes a second hand one worthless.

The only thing thats profitable for burglars is gold jewellery. And that market only exists because there is no regulation on Cash-For-Gold shops. These shops are very profitable and are politically protected.

[HNWI]

@BoyRacer

This left right paradigm is called polarisation and it’s a tool for keeping people from working together to deal with mutual problems.

+1

Mossy is libertarian anyway. Libertarian shouldnt be classified as “right wing”.

[mr_anderson]

@Coles2

I don’t buy the zero tolerance/‘three strikes’ argument. I would imagine that having the father in prison is far more likely to result in the child also committing crime.

I agree, but that been said zero tolerance definitely has an impact.
Statistically, you often (always) find that the vast bulk of crime is carried out by a very limited amount of people.

Zero tolerance may target the symptoms (i.e. crime etc) rather than the cause (father in prison etc), but for reducing crime, it is effective.

[Coles2]

@mr_anderson

@Coles2

I don’t buy the zero tolerance/‘three strikes’ argument. I would imagine that having the father in prison is far more likely to result in the child also committing crime.

I agree, but that been said zero tolerance definitely has an impact.
Statistically, you often (always) find that the vast bulk of crime is carried out by a very limited amount of people.

Zero tolerance may target the symptoms (i.e. crime etc) rather than the cause (father in prison etc), but for reducing crime, it is effective.

Indeed, but not as effective as maintaining a clean and healthy environment.

[Coles2]

@HNWI

**(1)**The main reason for fall-off in burglaries is because there is no profitable market for second hand goods.

The chinese factories are churning out new goods so cheaply that second hand ones are unprofitable to sell. When you can buy a new DVD player in tesco for €30, it makes a second hand one worthless.

The only thing thats profitable for burglars is gold jewellery. And that market only exists because there is no regulation on Cash-For-Gold shops. **(2)**These shops are very profitable and are politically protected.

Have you got any evidence to support those claims. Just interested.

[BoyRacer]

@HNWI

@BoyRacer

This left right paradigm is called polarisation and it’s a tool for keeping people from working together to deal with mutual problems.

+1

Mossy is libertarian anyway. Libertarian shouldnt be classified as “right wing”.

@"Leonard E. Read

Neither Left Nor Right Libertarians Are Above Authoritarian Degredation

"]
“Left” and “right” are each descriptive of authoritarian positions. Liberty has no horizontal relationship to authoritarianism. Libertarianism’s relationship to authoritarianism is vertical; it is up from the muck of men enslaving man.

Why Left and Right are not helpful terms - → wien1938.wordpress.com/2011/01/0 … ful-terms/

There are deep problems with using left and right to describe politics and political alignment. I have attempted to lay out some of them below as they have occurred to me.

1. Left wing does not mean good or nice in politics. But the manner of use of this term is such that it is used as such.

2. Right wing does not mean bad or wicked. This is what happens when a term degenerates into a pejorative.

3. Left and Right are completely meaningless terms. How would anyone care to distinguish between left and right wing groups and ideas? There have been plenty of left wing tyrannies, which have enforced gender roles, oppressed minorities etc.

4. We cannot usefully draw upon these terms from the French Revolution without twisting ourselves in knots. How is one to classify the sides in the Revolution? From which stage are we marking our delineation of these terms?

there is more

[ex-Patrick]

There are lots of alternate ways of looking at political spectra, so one should define the axes before applying labels to someone.

[*Ingelhart World Values map * (World Values Survey - Wikipedia):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6a/Inglehart_Values_Map.svg/200px-Inglehart_Values_Map.svg.png

[*Political compass * (Political spectrum - Wikipedia):
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Political_chart.svg/200px-Political_chart.svg.png

[*Pournelle chart: * (Pournelle chart - Wikipedia)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Pournelle_chart_color.gif

[*Nolan chart: * (Nolan Chart - Wikipedia)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/Nolan-chart.svg/200px-Nolan-chart.svg.png

edit: typo

[HNWI]

@Coles2

@HNWI

The only thing thats profitable for burglars is gold jewellery. And that market only exists because there is no regulation on Cash-For-Gold shops. These shops are very profitable and are politically protected.

Have you got any evidence to support those claims. Just interested.

There are a lot of press reports that Cash-for-Gold shops will only offer you less than 50% of the market spot price for gold. The costs in processing scrap gold are fairly low, leaving a large profit margin. Google it if you want proof.

Regarding political protection, I dont have evidence but the facts are that a set of recommendations that would regulate Cash-for-Gold shops, have been sitting on the Minister for Justices desk for over two years. But no legislation has been introduced to the Oireachteas. Why not? Somebody must be blocking it. The fact is that if these shops were in some way, prevented from buying stolen jewellery, their business would shrink dramatically. They must be lobbying strongly against it, which is perfectly legal for them to do.

[slasher]

@HNWI

The fact is that if these shops were in some way, prevented from buying stolen jewellery,

how exactly would that work? track the serial numbers on each loose earring?

[HNWI]

@slasher

@HNWI

The fact is that if these shops were in some way, prevented from buying stolen jewellery,

how exactly would that work? track the serial numbers on each loose earring?

The jewellers that want regulation, are suggesting that in order to sell a piece of jewellry, you should have to present some evidence that you own it. Ie a receipt or debit card statement.

If a person doesnt have any evidence of ownership, they should have to show ID and the jeweller should retain a photo of the item being traded, which can be compared with photos of stolen items.

The proposed regulations arent very onerous. But Shatter is apparantly blocking them. Cash-For-Gold shops are obviously against any restrictions in trade.