We’re done.

Oz: I agree with you to a degree but the idea of prisons as more punitive, I mean I don’t know if you’re been in one but I have and they aren’t at all pleasent places and I hope never to have to set foot in one again. Prisons are an unsatisfactory answer to a very, very difficult question.

Jan: you don’t have to tell me that “No sensible person would say that a high prison population leads to low crime. You’re mixing cause and effect. We have a high prison population BECAUSE we have one of the highest crime rates in the advanced world.” I’m with you all the way, I’m just struggling with some that persist with the idea and who are arguing the point down to a nub.

It seems you’re with Oz in that you want prison to punish harder, trouble is most people are in there because what is outside is so bad, not all but most, so how do you punish those with nothing to lose, aside from resort to draconian and anti-human measures?

That’s why I don’t buy your tougher prisons logic I’m afraid.

No sensible person would say that a high prison population leads to low crime. You’re mixing cause and effect. We have a high prison population BECAUSE we have one of the highest crime rates in the advanced world.

Prison doesn’t “work” because it doesn’t punish, so doesn’t deter re-offending. All it does is to keep a small proportion of criminals off the streets at any one time, and hopes to fool the Sun-reading public into imagining that the answer is simply to build more prisons.This allows weak politicians to look ‘tough’ when in fact the same old liberal measures carry on behind the scenes.

Our prisons are useless because our ruling class winces at the idea that prisons should be seriously unpleasant and austere places run by the authorities. They moan that ‘deprivation of liberty is punishment enough’.

They are not able to grasp that prison’s main purpose is to frighten potential criminals from committing crimes. Some people are still afraid enough of prison to steer clear of crime. Though that number drops all the time, which is why the prisons are full.

But it is not just the prisons which are the problem. The reason there is so much crime around today is because since childhood criminals have come to learn that authority is generally absent and that even when it is present, it is afraid of them instead of the other way round. They are rarely confronted with the authority of fathers since increasingly they have no fathers to speak of, neither that of the police since they have largely withdrawn from the streets, they know that the authority of their teachers can only be a bluff; nothing stands behind it, they will almost never be backed up by superiors.

As Lenin, advised his apostles: ‘Probe with the bayonet: if you meet steel, stop. If you meet mush, then push.’ The problem today is that young criminals can only expect to be confronted with more and more mush.

Prison does not stop crime, if it did, crime would have gone down as prison population has gone up but it has not.

You’re quite resolute about being wrong, aren’t you?

You claimed “the crime figures having been going up since 1900 through to the late 90s”. Do you mean, through to “Jan 1st 1995 onward”? And how far “onward” is “through to”? Noting the downward slope in the pretty picture earlier.

Cool indeed.

Neil,

This is not complex mathematics

True: it’s semantics.

Early 90s = 1990 to Dec 31st 1994
Late 90s = Jan 1st 1995 onward

This is not complex mathematics.

Do move along before this becomes a drag.

Simple as that.

Prison does not stop crime, if it did, crime would have gone down as prison population has gone up but it has not.

Cool.

Surely this question wasn’t over your head:

“the crime rate began a downward trend in 1995, so why do you claim it continued to increase in the late 90s?”

I think you’ve neglected to get a grip of yourself and arguing over a long dead point. I think you’ve also neglected to consider that the crime rate isn’t down to one factor.

Prison does not reduce crime, it didn’t in 1920 and it doesn’t now, it merely locks up those that already have committed an offence.

Stop this tedious back and forth now, the point has been argued down to a minute detail and you’re not reading my responses.

our prison population and the crime figures having been going up since 1900 through to the late 90s…

Again, the crime rate began a downward trend in 1995, so why do you claim it continued to increase in the late 90s?

…so if high prison populations meant low crime then crime wouldn’t have gone up as the prison population did from 1900, it would have stayed low.

Thus, if locking people up was the reason for a dip in crime figures now, then it should have meant that crime dipped for the last 100 years, when it didn’t.

I think you’ve neglected to consider that crime rate isn’t a simple, linear function of national population or prison population; it is a function that, among other things, also has as variables the proportion of people who commit a disproportionate number of crimes (which is a fact regardless of your opinion), and how long people are locked up for.

You insist that the increased prison population is an explanation for the dip in current crime figures.

Trouble is, our prison population and the crime figures having been going up since 1900 through to the late 90s, so if high prison populations meant low crime then crime wouldn’t have gone up as the prison population did from 1900, it would have stayed low.

Thus, if locking people up was the reason for a dip in crime figures now, then it should have meant that crime dipped for the last 100 years, when it didn’t.

As I keep saying, this discussion is very much over and has been for a long, long time.

Why then do you think crime is going up?

Hello? McFly?

For example, you repeat above, again, that your figures disprove mine but fail to have taken on board that (and this is the last fucking time I will type this), for the last 100 years, prison population and crime have gone up hand in hand, thus, the current fall in crime cannot be placed on prison numbers going up as prison numbers have gone up consistantly for 100 years to no effect on crime.

Other factors are in play, or to be really clear, prison numbers never reduced crime before why should they now?

As I said, best to move on.

What’s actually happened is that you have repeated this over and over (I know this because I have read your responses) despite being proved wrong.

And while you’re entitled to your own opinion, you’re not entitled to your own facts.

cj and uklib, see my previous answers, all has been covered there, you’re not reading my answers and perpetuating the same circular argument, we are all done here.

It is also revealing that he has provided no links whatsoever to any evidence to back up any of his assertions concerning (eg) crime levels, crime rates, or under-reporting.
I’m not sure he even understands the difference between levels and rates.

And his assertion that crime was massively under-reported 100 years ago doesn’t seem to be consistent with his assertion that at the same time crime has massively risen over the past 100 years, although we would need to see the numbers to which he was referring (assuming not just in his head) to judge.

Ask him any questions and he simply responds – answer them yourself.

He tends to throw around the phrase “tory troll” quite a bit himself so perhaps he is the DrJekyll to Sally’s Mr Hyde?!

Prison popluation and crime has gone up hand in hand together for nearly 100 years. … By hand in hand I mean, prison population in the UK has risen decade on decade since 1900 and before, so has the number of reported offences risen decade on decade.

That’s why I didn’t understand what you meant, because the latter isn’t true. See for example page 20 of this document, which says “BCS crime is now at the lowest ever level since the first results in 1981″ and there is a graph showing a clear downward trend since 1995.

If we were in 1995 the results would be very different – it would indeed look like crime increased year on year, decade on decade, here in the UK and over in the US. That is why the Corrections Today article written in 1997 caught my attention. It’s quite interesting from that perspective because we have the benefit of later figures.

sally,

Uk liberty, someone who runs a site on covering what he believes is an over bearing state is on here defending the tory troll who wants a massive increase in…………you won’t believe it……….more prisons.. You can not make it up.

Clearly you are not only habitually dishonest and abusive, you also appear to do poorly with reading comprehension and logic. Just what are you good at, apart from being able to type “fuck off”, “brownshirt” and “troll”? Or does the nurse do that for you as well?

cjcjc,

Mind you we should have known that @72 couldn’t really have been you – it actually sounds rational.

Quite, it was the complete change in style that gave it away, indeed it’s something sally has been caught out on before if I recall correctly. Sally, if you’re going to plagiarise, at least make an effort to change some of the words – then it might be a bit more of a challenge for Google to find you out.

Mind you we should have known that @72 couldn’t really have been you – it actually sounds rational.

Watch the trolls get their knickers in a twist about procedure. They have got nothing!

Of course what is priceless about this debate is watching all the fake libertarians suddenly wanting to spend billions of tax payers money on building loads of prisons. Yea, as I said, FAKE Libertarians. They always show their true colours in the end.

Uk liberty, someone who runs a site on covering what he believes is an over bearing state is on here defending the tory troll who wants a massive increase in…………you won’t believe it……….more prisons.. You can not make it up.

Duncan does indeed make a good point and one that is far more on topic then flannel about prisons.

“But no-one has claimed that there would be no crime – the claim is that there would be a reduction in crime.”

We’ve already done this! Prison popluation and crime has gone up hand in hand together for nearly 100 years.

As for the 50% of crime committed by 100,000 people, we have around 90,000 people in jail in the UK, so either the remaining 10,000 are very busy, or we don’t have all of the 100,000 or, GOD FORBID, the magical 100,000 is in reality a fluid, flexible, unfixed variable of hard core criminals that still only commit 50% of all reported crime, baring in mind that 50% of all crime goes unreported.

In other words, this magic 100,000 idea isn’t worth hanging a hat on because the variables are too great, also, if you locked up this (this is fucking ridiculous I’m having to argue this) 100,000 crime would not fall by 50% because, as I’ve said far too many times, the reasons behind crime and the idea of finite criminals are in the former too complex to be solved by just prison and in the latter, a non-existent formula.

By hand in hand I mean, prison population in the UK has risen decade on decade since 1900 and before, so has the number of reported offences risen decade on decade.

Thus, as I’ve said, if prison stops crime then since 1900 crime would have fallen or stayed at a low levle instead of going up.

“Dunc’s angle at 92 is much better IMO and I did say early on that we should look to improving literacy and economic prospects.”

if you wade through this thread you’ll see I’ve been expounding the complex causes of crime and the need of prevention rather than chucking an endless, endless stream of people in jail.

Daniel,

It’s nonsense because that would mean if you locked up a finite amount of people there would be no crime,

But no-one has claimed that there would be no crime – the claim is that there would be a reduction in crime.

The idea that crime is dramatically reduced by locking people up would need the idea of a (Jesus wept I’ve typed this far too much) a finite number of people with offending behaviour. This does not exist.

Well, it’s good of you to be so patient.

The official figures say 50% of crime is committed by 100,000 people. Do you disagree with that? If you do, that seems a bit odd and not worth pressing the point. If you agree then surely it follows that locking up those 100,000 people might prevent 50% of crime?

if prison reduces crime, why is that the prison population has risen since 1900 with crime hand in hand?

I don’t know what you mean by hand in hand.

Page 2 of this document shows a graph of the prison population since 1900 – “the average prison population has increased by 85% since 1993.” (that’s when Michael Howard was Home Secretary). Or there is this graph for 1981 to 2003. You can see a relatively sharp upward trend since 1993.

Now look at this bar chart . You can see there is a downward trend since 1995. Or look at <a href=”http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs08/hosb0708.pdf#page=82″page 23 of this document in relation to violent crimes – again another downward trend since 1995. Or serious crimes in general on page 48 – since 1993, a clear downward trend.

Of course correlation is not causation.

Again I am not claiming that prison is the best solution – the point is that telling people prison does not prevent crime is contrary to what the facts appear to be, it’s a non starter.

Dunc’s angle at 92 is much better IMO and I did say early on that we should look to improving literacy and economic prospects.

This is getting tediously circular and has been for some time, I am now repeating myself…

It’s nonsense because that would mean if you locked up a finite amount of people there would be no crime, that is not the case because criminality is infinite, in the sense that anyone can be one, some more likely than others but anyone.

The Home Office statistic proves it, 50% of all reported crime is not all of it, it is half of it. Good grief this is painful…

“And the corollary of your argument is that crime would fall, or at least not rise, if we locked fewer people up.”

I have never, ever said that, you are straw manning the argument again and it is growing wearisome, this is circular, how many times do I have to say that you came into the discussion preaching the joys of prison, when in reality prison is only a reaction rather than a preventative, which is where the focus should be, rather than the build more prisons obsession.

And you speak of pwned with no sense of irony…

Duncan: I agree with you whole heartedly about mental health issues and those with them falling into crime and in turn in prison when they should rightly be in hospital, rather than being punished.

ukliberty:

Yes, you and cj are so busy laying into the person (something cj has repeated like an errant child above) that the idea passed you by.

Again this is circular, we both keep repeating our arguments in each comment, so to repeat mine, again, if prison reduces crime, why is that the prison population has risen since 1900 with crime hand in hand?

The idea that crime is dramatically reduced by locking people up would need the idea of a (Jesus wept I’ve typed this far too much) a finite number of people with offending behaviour. This does not exist.

I have no issue at all with people being put into prison but this ‘deabte’ illustrates that too much focus on it merely distracts from the more pressing issue of preventing offending behaviour.

Which is far harder and more complex to deal with than merely vomiting forth, BUILD MORE PRISONS!!!