Justice

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

and how is that different to the situation atm? They do that already anyway.

Yes but atm they can still vote and still talk, they just get ignored.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

yes there are mistakes and bad handling things like not appologising after raiding a house to find it's not involved in any crime.

And now imagine it was *YOUR* house. Being burgled is bad enough, but when it's not a criminal but the *Police* who rampage through your home, how would you feel?

Could you just say "oh well, it's Zero Tolerance and it's making the place better to live in, so it's ok"???

It's lines like a heroine user who'd never been arrested before was arrested 5 times. Wow! A heroine user actually arrested! Shock horror! You know I thought that's what is supposed to happen...

As has been mentioned in another thread, in Holland hard drug *usage* is treated as a *medical* not a *criminal* problem and that makes a lot more sense as far as I can see.

The statistics mentioned in the article show that arrests for all crimes had increased, so they aren't concentrating on the petty crimes at the expense of more serious ones

I've spoken elsewhere about my opinions on "target based" policies. Just because you're arresting more people doesn't mean that you're improving the situation, any more than school league tables or hospital waiting lists solve problems on their own.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

I find it strange that you cannot see the need for punishment in a justice system. It is, after all, a criminal 'justice' system, not a criminal 'rehabilitation' system (not that I have anything against rehab).

I find it strange that you cannot see that punishment does not necessarily, in and of itself, *stop* crime.

If it makes you feel any better, let's redefine obliging someone to take part in a rehabilitation scheme as a "punishment". Does that help?

How are we to have justice done if the criminal is not punished?

What good is "Justice" if the punishment just makes future crime more likely? It is well known that putting someone into a prison gives an inexperienced offender the opportunity to learn from the "experts" about how to not get caught the next time!

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Hmmm....one of the papers cited in that link as possible reason why zero tolerance dosn't work seems to actualy show that it does. As doesthis paper (and many others that I found)

I think you missed reading these parts from the report:

"The Independent Budget Office (IBO) for the City of New York provided comparative analysis to the City Councilââ‚à ‚¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s Committee on Public Safety, on differing rates of policing and crime rates in the 25 largest United States cities. The IBO found that many other cities achieved significant reductions in the crime rate with either much smaller per capita police staff levels or with actual reductions in police staff levels."

And:

"Based on the 1996 FBI Crime Index figures, New York had the third lowest crime rate of the 25 largest United States cities. However, it had the second highest (after Washington) per capita police staff levels. The two big cities with lower crime rates than New York are Indianapolis and San Jose. By way of comparison with New York, these two cities also have the lowest per capita police staff levels of the 25 largest cities. In Indianapolis there are 13 police officers for every 10,000 residents, and in San Jose there are 16 police officers for every 10,000 residents. In New York there are 53 police officers for every 10,000 residents. In San Diego where there was dramatic reduction in crime rates and a small increase in the policing levels, the per capita policing level is 17 per 10,000 - less than a third of New Yorkâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢s (IBO 1998).

"The relationship between the level of policing and the level of crime in a community is by no means clear. Some cities have both low crime rates and low per capita policing levels. Others have high crime rates and high police staffing levels. In addition some cities have achieved significant reductions in crime without embarking on a zero tolerance policing strategy with the associated increase in police staff levels."

Note that last sentence well. It's easy to claim that the reduction in crime was due to Zero Tolerance, but if you're going to put a large number of extra Police on the streets, that, in itself, will have an effect!!

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

And now imagine it was *YOUR* house. Being burgled is bad enough, but when it's not a criminal but the *Police* who rampage through your home, how would you feel?

Could you just say "oh well, it's Zero Tolerance and it's making the place better to live in, so it's ok"???

At the moment, the police can have evidence that points to someone's property, get a warrent to search it, perform a raid and find nothing.
In such cases, the police arrange for the door to be replaced and appologise (this is in the UK).
As I said, for the authorities in the US to not appologise or make right any damage caused, it a mistake on the part of the policy makers.

Originally Posted by Graham

As has been mentioned in another thread, in Holland hard drug *usage* is treated as a *medical* not a *criminal* problem and that makes a lot more sense as far as I can see.

And as I mentioned, look at how awful their "turning a blind eye to heroine" turned out.

Originally Posted by Graham

I've spoken elsewhere about my opinions on "target based" policies. Just because you're arresting more people doesn't mean that you're improving the situation, any more than school league tables or hospital waiting lists solve problems on their own.

I think you misunderstood what I said. The records show that people are being arrested for all types of crimes, rather than ignoring more serious crimes to concentrate on crimes that people "see" to make people feel safer.
Nothing in that part of the article said anything about targets, and I agree with you, targets are stupid when it comes to things like this.
A logical insighted review of the arrest records would show if the police are doing their job or not.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Jerrek

I don't know why liberals always like to assume it is more acceptable to sentence someone falsely to life than to sentence someone falsely to death. Both are equally unacceptable.

Notice the part that read, Both are equally unacceptable.

Also notice that I said that there is no difference between falsely sentencing a man to death or life imprisonment. Both are WRONG.


GET IT?

If somebody gets falsely sentenced to life, that can be corrected. If they are sentenced to death (and the sentence is carried out), unless there has been some medical breakthrough of which I am unaware, that is pretty difficult to correct.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

I find it strange that you cannot see that punishment does not necessarily, in and of itself, *stop* crime.

So you are seriously saying that if we removed all punishments for crimes there would be no change to the ammount of crime commited? (since punishment does not stop crime)

If it makes you feel any better, let's redefine obliging someone to take part in a rehabilitation scheme as a "punishment". Does that help?

I don't have a problem with a rehab scheme being 'punishment'-for certain crimes, but you seem to have a problem with accepting that criminals need punishment for their crimes.

What good is "Justice" if the punishment just makes future crime more likely? It is well known that putting someone into a prison gives an inexperienced offender the opportunity to learn from the "experts" about how to not get caught the next time!

"As the debate stands, citizens are in effect held hostage to threats by the outlaws (â₠¬ÃƒÆ’…“If you put me in prison, Iâ₠¬ÃƒÆ’¢â€žÂ¢ll just become a worse criminalââ‚à ƒâ€šÃ‚¬Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ÂÂ�). "-from the article.
Maby the way to stop them becoming worse criminals in prison is to have them all in solitary....I don't know the answer, neither do you.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

"The relationship between the level of policing and the level of crime in a community is by no means clear. Some cities have both low crime rates and low per capita policing levels. Others have high crime rates and high police staffing levels. In addition some cities have achieved significant reductions in crime without embarking on a zero tolerance policing strategy with the associated increase in police staff levels."

Note that last sentence well. It's easy to claim that the reduction in crime was due to Zero Tolerance, but if you're going to put a large number of extra Police on the streets, that, in itself, will have an effect!!

It does not say that zero tolerance dosn't work does it? All it implies is that there may be other factors that can play a part in some cases.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

So you are seriously saying that if we removed all punishments for crimes there would be no change to the ammount of crime commited? (since punishment does not stop crime)

Did you actually bother to *READ* what I wrote??? It seems not given the above and what you wrote after it.

Originally Posted by Ramrod

It does not say that zero tolerance dosn't work does it? All it implies is that there may be other factors that can play a part in some cases.

Like, say, putting large numbers of extra police on the streets?

If they did that and crime *didn't* fall, what would you conclude??

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

Like, say, putting large numbers of extra police on the streets?

If they did that and crime *didn't* fall, what would you conclude??

Didn't one of the articles you link to say that in some areas more police on the street hasn't made a difference?

If the criminals work out that although there are police around, but all they do is give cautions, then the criminals will continue breaking the law.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Didn't one of the articles you link to say that in some areas more police on the street hasn't made a difference?

Which one? Where? Cite, please.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Graham

Which one? Where? Cite, please.

Will do, just give me half hour or so :P

It was talking about the costing and police numbers by capita, saying that some cities have had reductions in crime by just getting more police, others had more police but it didn't make much difference

Here you go

"The relationship between the level of policing and the level of crime in a community is by no means clear. Some cities have both low crime rates and low per capita policing levels. Others have high crime rates and high police staffing levels."

Post 79

[ntluser]

Originally Posted by Graham

"The relationship between the level of policing and the level of crime in a community is by no means clear. Some cities have both low crime rates and low per capita policing levels. Others have high crime rates and high police staffing levels. In addition some cities have achieved significant reductions in crime without embarking on a zero tolerance policing strategy with the associated increase in police staff levels."

Note that last sentence well. It's easy to claim that the reduction in crime was due to Zero Tolerance, but if you're going to put a large number of extra Police on the streets, that, in itself, will have an effect!!

I think from what you say the relationship between the level of policing and the level of crime IS clear.

In some cities they are able to keep crime rates down at a low cost because the police are being effective.

In other cities, crime is high despite high staffing levels because the police are ineffective.

Therefore having Zero tolerance doesn't necessarily require more police or greater spending, it just requires that the police employed are effective.

Perhaps some of the higher spending authorities could learn lessons from their more cost effective neighbours with regard to the management of crime and the methods and tactics used to control it.

[Ramrod]

Originally Posted by Graham

Like, say, putting large numbers of extra police on the streets?

If they did that and crime *didn't* fall, what would you conclude??

I would conclude that those extra police weren't effective in their job.