Crime Stats
The crime stats for 2006 are out and as usual, the news is not great. The total amount of crime has increased but that is not a useful figure anyway because it treats an under age drinking or cannabis offence as the same as a murder or rape. No one would claim that a country with 10% more rapes and 5% less under age drinking offences is getting better.
So I always look at the two most important categories – violence and sexual offences, and two or three of the more serious offences. Note population growth last year was only 1% and has been only 8% since 1999.
Violent Offences are up 5% in 2006, and have increased by 28% since 1999.
Sexual Offences are up 8% in 2006, and have increased by 17% since 1999.
Grievous Assaults are up 7% in 2006, and have increased by 65% since 1999.
Kidnappings and Abductions are up 30% in 2006, and have increased by 70% since 1999.
Sexual Attacks are up 14% in 2006, and have increased by 25% since 1999.
The Police say a new computer system has lead to some of the increase, but the trend since 1999 has been consistent – increases in the most serious categories.
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:16 pm
How many of those reported sexual offences were false?.
We have seen an upward trend in these types of crime since the 1990′s anyway because of media hype, hysteria, and ACC payouts etc.
Years ago though not pc, if you were a women on the odd occassion a male boss may give you a tap on the posterior without a care. Now a days that constitutes a sexual offence, so as you can see the broadness and redefinition of sexual abuse gives a somewhat exaggerated inflation to crimes of this nature and their representation in the latest police figures.
April 2nd, 2007 at 5:18 pm
You’re better off with Labour. Hah!
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:30 pm
tv3 news reported a new reporting system came in in 2005….
and that a direct comparison between the two periods under this new reporting system..
show no increase….
so..i guess you all can shelve your attampts to blame labour..eh..?
but you probably won’y..
i mean..don’t let the facts get in the way of a good rant..
eh..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
April 2nd, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Wait till the 2007 statistics for domestic violence come out.
April 2nd, 2007 at 7:14 pm
Phuul, I have a bridge that you might be interested in.
April 2nd, 2007 at 7:44 pm
Violent crime (excluding the politically motivated false accusations) is totally out of control in this country so it matters not a wit whether it is increasing. It has continues at a high level for almost two decades through successive namby pamby governments refusing to take a hard line despite over 90% of the country voting for tougher penalties for violent offenders.
The exponential rise in false accusations and the redefinition of sexual crimes has worked in the governments favour in criminalising normal people and taking some of the sting out of calls for tougher penalties because many more people feel at risk of false accusation.
But it is a sad indictment of our society.
In fact the population growth shouldn’t come into the crime statistics because we should have zero tolerance for it.
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:03 pm
Look at the type of offences- shoots huge holes thru the commie theory that poverty is the root cause of crime..
Crime is in fact the natural and logical outcome of Socialist/ Marxist systems of government..
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:29 pm
If there are any socialist/welfare apologists out there could you answer me this: at what level of government spending will the social indicators start to improve? 60% of GDP, 70% 80% 100%?
April 2nd, 2007 at 8:53 pm
Under the wretched rhetoric and utopianism, destruction of paternal family bonding – (fatherlessness) and fruitlessness of Marxism a monster is created, which gobbles up justice and freedom from exploitation. Sorry for the black humour, however honesty and integrity are lost in an invidious and negligent bureaucracy that is all to ready to blame a computer glitch! It’s all just more lies and New Zealanders must address against these appalling/putrid statistics. We must have a police force and government that people can trust. Our communities must become safe again !! End of story.
Would the word accountability please stand up, please stand up. Does liebore know the meaning of the word?
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:01 pm
very very nice informations…thank you very much. mr kayici
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:44 pm
Phil,
I’m interested to hear what you have to say, but your posts would be a lot more readable if you applied some basic grammar. A sentence does not invariably constitute a paragraph.
Cheers, Sean.
April 2nd, 2007 at 9:55 pm
What would be interesting would be comparisons with similar countries. I think serious crime is falling in the US (despite higher population growth), not sure about Australia or Europe.
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:00 pm
Sean14, like all of us, your eyes must glaze over with derision when you initially cast sight upon Phools mad gibberish. Par for the course actually mate, get used to it !
i mean…too much ganja smoke..eh?…phool..?
and open a window and let the smoke out..eh..?..phool?
wipe the rabid foam of the chin..eh..?..phool
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:07 pm
Crime is falling dramatically in the US because of Clintons welfare reforms making beneficiaries work and the low tolerance for crime with 3 strikes and you’re out. Apperntly its even safe to walk around in Harlem. I’ve alsways felt very safe there.
Whereas NZ is killing and raping its tourists regularly.
April 2nd, 2007 at 10:15 pm
phil u
You said:
“v3 news reported a new reporting system came in in 2005….
and that a direct comparison between the two periods under this new reporting system..
show no increase….
so..i guess you all can shelve your attampts to blame labour..eh..?
but you probably won’y..”
Stuff also states: Crime up 4pc in 2006 – police stats”
“The increase in crime was consistent with the effects of a change from the Law Enforcement System to the National Intelligence Application introduced by police in 2005.”
So therefore any reasonable person would conclude that crime has been underreported by 4% and as crime stats factor into police resourcing, police have been under resourced for up to 25 years.
How long have statistics have been part of the funding equation? The old WCC (later known as LES) was alive for something like 25 years.
Have we been underfunding police for 25 years? This would explain our low Police/Population statistic when compared to… just about any country.
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:51 am
“The Police say a new computer system has lead to some of the increase”
Well then, the sooner that murdering rapist computer system is put behind bars the better.
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:41 am
Crime appears to be a very low risk activity in NZ.
Firstly, a crim is unlikely to get arrested.
Secondly, if arrested, the chances of being acquitted are attractive.
Thirdly, if found guilty, the sentence recieved will almost certainly be risible – of the laughable “home detention” or “community service” type.
Fourthly, if actually sent to gaol, the term inside is hardly daunting and, I have been told, is worn as “badge of staunch honour”.
I was reminded of this the other day when a newspaper report indicated that a scrote who was found guilty of aggrevated robbery with a knife was sent down for a nominal 9 months – which probably translates into 90 days plus [maybe another 90 on home detention]. In America, he would have got 5+ years mandatory.
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:46 am
The ‘computer system’ excuse/explanation is a scapegoat; a smokescreen to hide the embarrassing truth that crime is actually on the increase, and Labour are helpless to stop it, because it seems their usual method of dealing with problems – i.e. to throw money at them – is not working.
So it’s not working to solve crime/justice issues; but it’s also not working to solve the problems with our education system; and it’s certainly not helping in the public health system.
And now I read that public service executives are paid a higher average salary that those in the private sector?
As DPF and others have queried; where are the SLAs? Where are KPIs? Where is the post-implementation analysis for these expensive schemes?
Are we the people getting a good ROI for our tax money?
If there was some expectation of quality, rather than simply the ability to absorb cash, then some of these services might tighten up their ships and actually start serving us well.
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:58 am
You don’t need a computer system or anything else to see violent crime is up in Auckland, at least. You can feel it. You can see it in the way people look at oneanother. New Zealand is no longer the safe place it was six years ago, that’s a simple fact to anyone willing to step outside their front door.
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:04 am
Yeah. Come and live in my suburb of Manurewa for a while. Been here for over 20 years. I’ve seen it change.
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:42 am
This would be a really good time dump on the Police.
Oh wait… it’s already being done.
Lance
April 3rd, 2007 at 8:50 am
“but your posts would be a lot more readable if you applied some basic grammar. A sentence does not invariably constitute a paragraph.”
I don’t mind the paragraph/sentence, but less of the “eh” eh?
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:21 am
Some say the US crime drop is due to abortion being legalised. So maybe that is what we need here – more abortions
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:30 am
DPF, I think it was a little broader than that. The contention was that there were fewer unwanted children because of abortion legalisation. In NZ abortion is effectively legal, but too many children are unwanted. The DPB and some other arrangements encourage young mothers to keep children that they really don’t have the means to raise properly. Crime statistics are closely correlated with social engineering of this nature.
My view is that reducing adoption and encouraging these young women to keep their children was superficially attractive – it sounds like the right thing to do. But support further down the chain isn’t happening to make sure parenting skills are developed, and a stable home environment created. As usual only the easy parts were addressed, and we created a bigger problem than the one we were solving.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:39 am
Increase national Police numbers to 10,000. The current number of sworn police is 7,238, or 1 officer for every 561 people, one of the worst police-to-population ratios in the western world ratio. By comparison, Canada has 1:531, the United States 1:438, Australia 1:427, England and Wales 1:393, Scotland 1:323, and France 1:255. The proposed increase to 10000 would reduce our ratio to 1:406, just below that of Australia.
see:
Poodles that talk the talk – then support the lies of Labour
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:45 am
There were 994.2 offences per 10,000 of population recorded in 2005, down from 1279.7 in 1996. Reported crime peaked at 1321.8 per 10,000 population in 1992.
Violent crime as a whole was up from 106 recorded offences per 10,000 population in 1996 to 116.5 in 2005 – however, the entirity of that increase is in ‘intimation/threatening offences’ which are violent crimes for classifcation puropses but do not actually involve physical violence.
It is thought that there has been a dramatic increase in reporting rates in recent years, for a number of reasons including more cops on the streets and prevelence of cell phones, allowing immediate reporting of events that might not have been reported in the past (hence, the sharp increase in reported ‘threatening’ offences). It may be that the underlying rate of actual offending has dropped even more dramatically over the last decade than the recorded offences numbers would suggest… it is very hard to measure becuase reporting rates can only be estimated and even victimisation surveys are not guaranteed to produce an accurate picture of total crime.
There has been a spike in recorded crime associated with the change of computer system, that spike should be attributed to that change because it does not fit with the trend: In the previous decade, recorded crime dropped over 20%. In the year before the new Police computer system came online, recorded crime dropped 8%. Recorded crime dropped 0.4% bewteen the first half on the new system and the second half year.
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:53 am
Sam as you have data back to 1996, perhaps you can confirm what the trend was for violent crime from 1996 to 1999, and what was it after 1999?
April 3rd, 2007 at 12:56 pm
http://www.stats.govt.nz/NR/rdonlyres/7D5A6256-3D51-4F8E-ADF3-C0FC0B55D66B/0/CrimeinNewZealand19962005.pdf – has nice graphs for trends, and detailed tables.
The figures for reported violence offences per 10,000 for each year 1996-2006 are:
106.8 106.1 106.0 103.5(1999) 107.8 113.4 114.1 113.8 111.4 117.9 122.6
- interesting that 1999 itself is significantly lower than before and after, its anomalous but I don’t know why. Violence covers a broad spectrum of seriousness. If ‘initimidation/threats’ were removed there would be a nearly flat line from 1996-2005:
87.6 85.1 84.6 81.8(1999) 84.5 86.9 87.4 85.8 85.1 88.8 (don’t have detailed figures for 2006).
Not that threats and intimidation aren’t crimes or bad, just they’re not what people think when they think ‘violent crime’.
Similiarly, for sexual offences per 10,000, 1996-2006:
10.1 8.5 8.6 7.9(1999) 8.6 8.0 8.9 8.1 7.6 8.0 8.5
- most of the drop is from a drop in recorded ‘sexual attack’ offences.
and overall offences:
1,279.7 1,252.3 1,210.3 1,142.3(1999) 1,107.6 1,099.0 1,117.4 1,103.7 1,000.5 994.2 1024.8
- nearly all the drop is from the ‘dishonesty’ catagory, which is itself dominated by drops in recorded thefts and burglarys.
Remembering that these figures are only recorded crimes, so they are impacted by reporting rates (which are thoght to be increasing) and the recording method (and the way the new system records crimes insures more reported crimes are recorded in the official stats). There’s also complications around Police practice, eg some years they have crackdowns on particular types of offences producing spikes.
April 3rd, 2007 at 1:06 pm
It’s interesting to compare NZ crime stats with the US because they are heading in precisely the opposite direction. If you refer to the US Department of Justice website you will see that violent crimes across the entire US (and remember some cities and states have done significantly better than the average) has plummeted from 51.2 p/1000 population in 1995 to 21 p/1000 in 2005. The statistics for NZ taken from Statistics NZ website: Violent crime in 1996: 39.7 p/1000 rising to 45.5 p/1000 in 2006. NZ, on average, has more than twice the level of violent crime than the US.
There are a variety of reasons for this including ‘broken windows’ type policing (best implemented in New York), longer sentences with less ability to gain parole, more police in the ground. Of course people like philu cling to the left’s wishy washing soft on crime approaches that have led to NZ’s appalling results and huff and puff about the levels of incarceration in the US. US voters are happy to spend more on jails because they like the improved quality of life that comes from such quantifiable reductions in the crime rate. When I was growing up in NZ, these figures were the opposite – the US was a high crime country and NZ a low crime country. Sadly the reverse is true.
April 3rd, 2007 at 3:01 pm
I would agree that crime is a huge issue in this country. How about coming up with some suggestions on how to solve it instead of blaming. More police? we can’t even recruit the extra 1000 NZ First negotiated. Pay police more? Tougher sentences? Will you then accuse the govt of over spending?
Scraping the DPB for any additional child born while receiving it is the best idea I reckon. Unwanted/unloved children grow up messed up and end up on drugs bashing raping robbing and in jail. Early intervention to catch these people is going to work in the long term. Maybe repealling S 59 will help remove some of these kids from their destructive families.
April 3rd, 2007 at 4:44 pm
The excuse that the increase in the crime rate is due to a new computer system is Bullsh*t.
The “step jump” in stats occured in July 2005 when the system was introduced – but the latest figures are for the calendar year 2006.
In any case, the increase in many police recorded crimes has been a long term trend since 2000.
FWIW, the figures are:
NZ 2000-2007 – reported violent crime rate up 15%.
UK 1995-2006 – surveyed violent crime rate down 46%.
US 1995-2006 – surveyed violent crime rate down 50%.
New Zealand’s record in fighting crime since 2000 is pathetic.
April 3rd, 2007 at 5:52 pm
The stats are scewed and dont tell the full story. How many of us now dont even bother reporting crime at all?(The sad thing being once upon time, we would have)
April 3rd, 2007 at 11:21 pm
- Pay the police more to get the quality recruits
- Three strikes and your fucking out
- Dont pay kids to have kids
- Murderers proved by forensics should get life=life or death (ie they can choose to be euthanased)
-Bring back the very real expectation that if you want the benefits of this society you should have to contribute to it.
- Make politicians stop telling people they are part of an underpriveleged minority when it is not true
July 16th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
Worrying about what crimes have increased and what haven’t is a petty idea of an argument. With the amount of violence and sexual innuendo in our society it should not be surprising. This issue cannot be combated affectively by any laws as such. Communities need to be protecting themselves if they feel unsafe. Being able to react and protect yourself if a violent situation occurs is by far a better option with the affect of people feeling safer and more confident in themselves.