A lot of it is to do with the perception (which you touch upon) that crime once used to be much lower back in the 50s and before.

The Right is often accused of nostalgia and getting its facts wrong although there are those on the Left who argue that crime used to be significantly lower due to greater social cohesion before the rise of Thatcherism.

Certainly the police crime figures show a significant rise since the 1950s but are these accurate? Based on anecdotal evidence it does seem as if crime may well have been lower a few decades ago but this could just be rose-tinted thinking.

Have there been any studies on this?

There was less crime in the past. There were less people then to. And less nice shiny (and fun) technology. So hardly useful comparison.

The problem is that crime figures are statistics, with all the problems of manipulation (on rereading, I better point out that is a recognised process in some cases, not cynical spin) and comparison that this involves.

“Wreckless driving” would be nice. Alas, I think you mean “reckless” though.

Somebody should tell the government. New laws and new measures to prevent those laws being broken seem to increase in inverse proportion to the need for those laws..

If the Tories get elected on the back of ‘Broken Britain’ it’s because Labour have been claiming they were ‘fixing’ it.

It looks like LA might have only 230 murders this year. Less than one per day!

Grammar pedant alert. Where’s Paul Sagar?

As we are talking numerically, it really should be fewer rather than less. No?

And yet the only real number that is fewer than one is zero and of course that is not correct.

The average daily murder rate is below one per day but should that be referred to as if it were the coloured portion of a pie chart or as 0.63 of a murder.

And does that even matter?

For 230 murders are definitely fewer than 365 but surely 63% of a murder is less than a full one.

With sincere apologies to the OP who will have gathered, by now, that I’m not the slightest bit interested in US crime stats.

There was less crime in the past. There were less people then to.

See Watchman didn’t quite dodge the bear trap

Worth noting that both US and UK prison populations have been increasing while crime has been decreasing from previous years. Of course, a lot of people in prison are there for committing non-crimes (mostly trading in drugs), but I am sure there are plenty of actual violent offenders in there too. So one might consider these figures as potential evidence that prison works, perhaps?

@ Pagar,
You’ve made the terrible mistake of describing “zero” as a number. I imagine you were still shocked by the use of “less” elsewhere, but still …..

@7, is trading in drugs a non-crime?

You’ve made the terrible mistake of describing “zero” as a number.

Fair point.

Never did numbers.

might consider these figures as potential evidence that prison works, perhaps?

It works to the extent of preventing prisoners. from committing crimes outside prison while they remain inside. It’s not brilliant in terms of what happens when they’re released.

UkL – that’s true but isn’t that enough? considering no other treatment has yet been found that actually makes violent offenders consistently less likely to re-offend. Other than time of course. Even violent criminals tend to calm down as they approach middle age.

Do crimes committed in Prison get included in the crime stats?

By this, it is all very well keeping criminals away from “society” but does it reduce the total amount of crime or just contain it in such a way as it is not recorded.

Just because someone is a criminal I’m not sure it should mean they should have crime done on them.

Whatnext

(8) if zero is not a number… what is it then?

Interesting article; not heard that before.

Frank Field once said on his blog, that when he looked at the stats he was surprised to see that the whole of the UK just after the war [one year], had more crime than his constituency experiences today [one year].

Though perhaps crimes were logged very differently back then.

Just Visiting, I forget what they call it, but it was The Big Maths Debate for centuries. It’s not a number because:

Example 1:

2 x 5 = 10
Therefore, 10 / 2 = 5, 10 / 5 = 2

Example 2:

Zero x 5 = 0
Zero x 2 = 0
Therefore, 5 =2

Which obviously isn’t the case.

I knew that would come in useful one day.

In my post above I got my sentence the wrong way round – oops!

I meant “less” and wrote “more”!

CORRECT VERSION

Frank Field once said on his blog, that when he looked at the stats he was surprised to see that the whole of the UK just after the war [one year], had LESS than his constituency experiences today [one year].

That makes more sense A Human.

I think this is an opportunity to do a link to the Philadelphia murder map.
I saw this a few years ago and was amazed at the figures and the other stats.

2006, a city of one and a half million – 406 murders.

It’s an interactive map, so point to the red dots on it to see the details. And see the difference in the race of those murdered. 335 black, 63 white.

http://inquirer.philly.com/graphics/murders_map/

There is a similar map for Baltimore.

Verbal abuse is a public order offence (Under Section 4 or 5 of CJA) not a violent offence.

@ 1 “The Right is often accused of nostalgia and getting its facts wrong although there are those on the Left who argue that crime used to be significantly lower due to greater social cohesion before the rise of Thatcherism.”

Was it greater social cohesion or simply the fact most criem is acquisitive and until the 1980s few people owned anything worth stealing ? Crime in socialist countries is lower than in “unequal” societies because there are fewer opportunities (and in most, fairly opressive policing), not because of an engineeed perception of social cohesion.

Whatnext.

Zero IS a number.

At least that’s the result of my 10 minute Google research.
A number line from -10 to +10 has zero there in the middle.
One number subtracted by another is still a number.
5 – 5 = 0 which is still a number.

(Dividing by zero is of course a rule breaker, but that’s because it brings in infinity which has special rules)

Zero is a VALUE, it’s not a number. It’s the absence of a number, hence any sum which includes a zero will equal a zero.

> any sum which includes a zero will equal a zero.

You’ll have to explain that.
5 + 0 = 5: but your sentence reads at first glance that it be 0…

In fact, cut to the chase – please quote some sources for your idea that ‘zero is a value’ and not a number.

”Anxiety Britain” is ok to joke about on one level, but compared to places like Malaysia where I just was, the UK has a horrible culture of petty crime and surly behavior.
It just isn’t like that in south east Asia, and much of Europe too.
In Spain (for example) the young people are much cooler than ours.

No wonder my Sun reading mum gets caught up with the crime anxiety … she was young in the 1950s and 60s.

Zero has a place on the number line but it has special properties, as does infinity. It is useful in numbers as it can fill a space when necessary, preventing confusion. We write 101, not 1 1 as one hundred and one. Matrices would be much tougher without something to fill those gaps.

Can we get back to politics?

1. Richard -”A lot of it is to do with the perception (which you touch upon) that crime once used to be much lower back in the 50s and before.
….
“Certainly the police crime figures show a significant rise since the 1950s but are these accurate? Based on anecdotal evidence it does seem as if crime may well have been lower a few decades ago but this could just be rose-tinted thinking.

“Have there been any studies on this?”

Sorry for quoting so much of your post, but can I just clarify – you accept that the Government’s figures show an increase in crime, you accept that people who can remember the past report an increase in crime, but you continue to deny that there has been a massive increase in crime? Why? If all the available evidence points to an increase in crime, why assert it is merely a perception? And what do you think those studies could be based on if all the possible evidence, statistics and recollections both, support a view you seem not to find politically palatable?

Nick,

UkL – that’s true but isn’t that enough? considering no other treatment has yet been found that actually makes violent offenders consistently less likely to re-offend. Other than time of course. Even violent criminals tend to calm down as they approach middle age.

Then perhaps we should keep them locked up until middle age.

(Incidentally I question how many people are actually being ‘treated’).

For those interested in zero, have a look at Mathworld.

The name of a number or value is arbitary and is there to act as a universal signifier in order that we all understand what’s being spoken of, and I think we all know what zero means.
I’m surprised that no-one has mentioned the British Crime Survey, and although official statistics do take that into account, there is always a discrepency between reported crime crime and actual crime.
Over the past two decades there has been a change in the way domestic violence is addressed by the police – most callouts were once logged only as incidents rather than reports of crime. And as it is estimated that 1 in 4 women suffer from domestic violence, this. in itself, would lead to a significant statistical rise.
There are certainly more laws on the statute book since the 1950s, eg new technology and data theft. Street drugs are now more widely available, therefore, teenagers have a greater choice of illegal substances rather than just alcohol.
There’s probably no definitive way to assess whether or not crime is rising.

Pushing can also be recorded as a violent crime. So the word ‘violent’ in the context of the OP seems a bit loaded (perhaps why Cameron is using it) and rather broad.

Here are the stats on violent crime (there is a nice graph on the Overview tab). Crimes are plotted against prison population here.

I can’t answer the question about the numbers of crimes committed in prison.

Zero has a place on the number line but it has special properties, as does infinity. It is useful in numbers as it can fill a space when necessary, preventing confusion. We write 101, not 1 1 as one hundred and one. Matrices would be much tougher without something to fill those gaps.

Can we get back to politics?

Can we get back to grammar?

“And what do you think those studies could be based on if all the possible evidence, statistics and recollections both, support a view you seem not to find politically palatable?”

Actually I do find it politically palatable, I am of the opinion that crime probably has increased significantly. I was merely looking for confirmation.