Violent crimes by youth
There’s been a few claims and counterclaims about violent offending by young people so I thought I would check the data out. First of all we have the the publication by the Ministry of Justice called Youth Justice Statistics 1992 to 2006. Sounds authoritative.
It deals mainly with 14 to 16 year olds. Why? Because at 17 you are deemed an adult to be tried in an adult court, and below 14 you can’t be charged except for extremely serious crimes such as murder. On page 35 we get the population figures for 14 to 16 year olds.
Then on page 43, a table gives up the Police apprehension figures for 14 – 16 year olds for violent offences. We see in 1995 it was 2,690. In 1999 it had risen only 0.7% to 2,708. And by 2006 it had gone up 38% to 3,743.
If one takes the population growth into account on page 44, then the rate per 10,000 population was 167 in 1995. By 1999 it had declined slightly to 166. And in 2006 it had increased by 18% to 196.
Incidentially the number of homicides by young people was 22 for the seven years up to 1999, and 36 for the seven years from 2000 onwards.
But back to youth violent crime apprehensions. The graph below shows the trend nicely:
Now this doesn’t mean it is literally the fault of Government. Helen Clark isn’t going around leading teenage gangs on a rampage. But what it does show is the youth violent crime level was steady, and has increased in the last few years, and that this is why new policies and new approaches are a desirable thing.
January 31st, 2008 at 1:58 pm
Roger Nome: The only problem is that there’s no “youth crime wave”. In fact violent youth crime has decreased since National were last in power.
No, sorry DPF. But Roger has said it isn’t so. He even linked to Kiwiblogblog to prove it.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:04 pm
I would like to see graphs (per capita) going back to 1950, not neccessarily broken down by age group, although that would be useful. Too hard to get the data?
January 31st, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Proves that Labour and its lickspittle are a bunch of Desperate liars.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:07 pm
“Police apprehension figures for 14 – 16 year olds for violent offences.”
Interesting figure to use, that could just be less police tolerence of minor offences, tighter reporting of detentions or even more efficient police work.
Why did David not use either reported crime or conviction rate I wonder?
[DPF: The Ministry of Justice choose the stats, not me. Reported Crime can not be broken down by age, as one doesn't know who did it. Conviction rate varies based on whether it is dealt with by diversion, etc etc.]
January 31st, 2008 at 2:09 pm
Trying to get my head around the connection between crime and apprehensions – they’re not the same thing at all. Increased apprehensions could actually be a good thing, and crime could be steady. But crime statistics are tough, since the basis does change as laws and culture change. Reported crimes is no much less problematic, for the same reason.
Increased homicides is a pretty clear statistic though. Question for DPF: Rate per 10,000. Does the 10,000 refer to the population generally, or the population of 14-16 year olds?
[DPF: The population of 14 - 16 year olds of course]
January 31st, 2008 at 2:11 pm
Looks like violent crime by 14-16 year olds (a very narrowly selected group) has ticked up by about 20 crimes per 10,000 people since 1999. Hardly what you’d call a crime wave. In other words there’s been an increase of about 10% over 8 years (about 1% per year). Hardly what you’d call a “crime wave”.
If you look at violent youth crime as a whole (10-19 year olds) it has actually decreased since National was in power.
http://kiwiblogblog.wordpress.com/2008/01/29/violent-youth-offending-down-rose-last-time-national-was-in-power/
[DPF: Why not go all the way to five year olds? Under 14s can't be charged with crimes unless they are extremely serious. But more to the point, the graph you cite has no references at all. Nice to know RN has such blind faithAnd finally it is about convictions, not offences or apprehensions. As you can't even prosecute an under 14 year old for most violent crimes, then talking about their conviction rate is silly.]
January 31st, 2008 at 2:18 pm
Lets look again at the value of “detention stats”
As we know police forces have beentightning up procedures over the last few years. Lets say one large force decides that when an officer keeps a suspect in place while he checks his story, and then lets him go, counts as a “detention” and must then be logged.
Hey presto! rise explained.
It’s a rubbish stat David, care to try again?
[DPF: Oh Sonic is desperate. He is now discrediting the Govt's own official stats and official publication. In SOnic's fantasy world there is no youth crime 0 it is all invented by the VRWC]
January 31st, 2008 at 2:19 pm
Ummm… personally I (and I suspect most people who’ve been increasingly barricaded in their homes for the past few decades) don’t give a flying ___ whose got the bestest, shiniest, most accurate graph out of Kiwiblog and Kiwiblogblog. We’d just like the figures reduced as close to zero as it’s possible to get.
So we’re going to look at who’s advanced the best plan to deal with this for the future. And so far, on the evidence of the last couple of days, that’s clearly National.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Very good point Rex. Roger Nome – do you not get that the 1990s were EIGHT years ago. Labour is accountable for what has happened since 1999. John Key, Simon Power, and the New National Party are not accountable for what might have happened when Bolger, Richardson and Birch were in charge.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:21 pm
Worked it out, the 10,000 is correctly divided by the ‘relevant’ population. So apprehensions for violent crime definitely is up a bit. Good or bad thing?
January 31st, 2008 at 2:23 pm
http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2008/01/annette_king_blames_the_moon_and_the_sun.html#comment-401854
“So the murder rate has remained stable for the last 10 years, violent crime doubled under Natioanal, yet somehow crime is “out of control” and it’s all Labour’s fault.
Nice one kiwiblog right …”
The standard is the place for making things up. Wrong blog Nome.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Did you account for the changing age range of the population Ben, ie are there more or less people of that age group over the period?
[DPF: Are you incapable of reading. Go to the report I linked to. All the raw data is there, and yes it includes a change in population over that period]
January 31st, 2008 at 2:25 pm
Bok, as I pointed out above this stat proves nothing at all.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:29 pm
<i>So apprehensions for violent crime definitely is up a bit. Good or bad thing?</i>
That all depends, the Police are arresting more offenders and that is obviously a good thing. But are they just arresting more offenders because the offending rate has increased? Which is bad and requires intervention to resolve (and not critisism of the Police) I guess we could only compare that to reported crime, but then we could only compare crime as a whole and not a certain age group.
[DPF: Reported violent crimes have risen substantially since 2000, so a theory there is no more violent crime - just better apprehending is false. The youth violent crime apprehension rate has risen more quickly than the adult rate. The adult violent crime apprehension rate was 93 in 1995, dropped to 84 in 1999 and up to 99 in 2006.]
January 31st, 2008 at 2:30 pm
So Frank, let me get this straight. DPF uses stats but you feel that they prove nothing. (They are none the less from DOJ) However nome just says something that he made up or sourced from another blog and it is fact. Yep. As I say your reasoning is pretty much in keeping with that paragon of independent thought. The Standard. Anyway I am off on holiday to Aus.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:31 pm
“In SOnic’s fantasy world there is no youth crime 0 it is all invented by the VRWC]”
You inventing other people’s opinions now david – now that’s desperate.
[DPF: No Roger citing a graph with no references is desperate]
January 31st, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Did you account for the changing age range of the population Ben, ie are there more or less people of that age group over the period?
Sonic, do you think it is OK that four thugs have bashed four people to such an extent that all four had severe injuries and one required extensive surgery? I ask this because you seem to be adopting a position that is very much “crime hasnt increased so whats the big deal”.
Bok, as I pointed out above this stat proves nothing at all.
All you pointed out s that you are so blinded by your own idealogical mindset, that you are not willing to offer any substance towards the discussion. And you say Key has no substance, he aint got nothin on you brother.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:34 pm
i blame the shipley national govt for gutting the social welfare system/tearing away ‘the social net’..
and i blame labour for doing nothing to reverse that abuse on/of the weakest..
we are reaping what was sewn..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
January 31st, 2008 at 2:34 pm
“Reported Crime can not be broken down by age, as one doesn’t know who did it.”
pwned
January 31st, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Just pointing out that this particular stat proves sod all. It’s quite a common thing to see in my line, some profound sounding statistic that, when you look into it means nothing.
David, I see by your response that you have no real answer to my point, of course there is such a thing as crime, however the way you deal with the statistics is not as easy as it looks.
Let me give you an example. In the UK last year there was a huge leap in posession of Cannabis offences. The obvious conclusion, more dope.
However the real reason was that the drug had been downgraded from Cat B to cat C. Police who never bothered with prosecuting Hash posession (it would just be dropped by the CPS so what was the point) now could confiscate and warn on the spot.
Hence the huge rise in the figures.
If you think the rise in the number fo detentions proves crime is on the increase David, you are out of your depth with these type of stats I’m afraid.
[DPF: Sonic - I have often argued that overall crime stats are indeed less than meaningful because the Police can greatly affect the stats with stuff such as a crackdown on drug use. But violent crime is different. You have a victim. People tend to report violent crimes. But hey if you want to keep arguing that there has been no increase in violent crime and no increase in youth violent crime - carry on. The Ministry of Justice disagrees though, as does the Police and I trust their stats over your insistence there is no problem]
January 31st, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Sonic, that was basically my question to DPF, but I checked the base data he was working from and yes, the ‘rate per 10,000′ was indeed correctly worked out from the ‘relevant’ population. In this case the 14-16 year old population was the denominator. And yes, there is an increase in that population, which is why dividing by that makes sense.
The harder problem is whether more apprehensions means more crime, or better law enforcement. You need to assume the law enforcement remained roughly stable to conclude much, and even then you have the problem of how much crime is reported. Violent crime often goes unreported, particularly in domestic cases. If it’s becoming more reported then the stats go up, but the reality may actually be going down.
I don’t think the assumption of stable law enforcement holds either. The police are constantly trying new ways of catching people, developing better techniques. There are more cameras around, more witnesses. So apprehension rates would probably go up.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:38 pm
“Sonic, do you think it is OK that four thugs have bashed four people to such an extent that all four had severe injuries and one required extensive surgery?”
Only you Bevan could draw that conclusion from anything I’ve said here.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:39 pm
OK philu so how do explain the large drop in all kinds of crime in the US over the 10 years since the Clinton welfare reforms “tore away the social net” in America?
January 31st, 2008 at 2:43 pm
Thx for response DPF. Did figure it in the end – it’s a 93 page report so it wasn’t just leaping off the page at me.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:45 pm
“[DPF: Why not go all the way to five year olds? Under 14s can’t be charged with crimes unless they are extremely serious. "
DPF: Any way you try to spin it it's a very narrowly selected stat, which means it will be subject to volatility. Also, doesn't National's proposed youth policy include 17 and 18 year olds? So any statistic that's meaningful to this debate would include this age range no?
oh and BTW - stop trying to be cute regarding Sonic's criticisms. Unless you know that the police haven't changed any procedure that could affect these statistics you can't be sure of their validity.
[DPF: You really are desperate. You are now arguing that all stats which you disagree with have to be disbelieved unless I can prove the Police have not changed any procedures in the last decade. In case you keep missing it - these are the official Govt Stats by the Ministry of Justice. They are the ones who choose the age groups. But let me see if I have your argument correct. You are arguing that there has been no increase in violent crime since 1999 - just more people are reporting less crime. And you are further arguing that there has been no increase in violent crime by youth - just that the Police are arresting more youth for less crime. The fact that both reported violent crime and youth apprehensions for violent crime have increased masively since 1999 is all a coincidence and in fact there is less violent crime and less violence crimes by youth]
January 31st, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Only you Bevan could draw that conclusion from anything I’ve said here.
Hey buddy, your the one defending the countries crime statistics as no big deal. Not hard to drwa that conclusion.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:50 pm
Poor Bevan, challenging the use a statistic is put to and pointing out other explanations for its rise=supporting violent crime.
Thanks for the laugh old chum.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:50 pm
“OK philu so how do explain the large drop in all kinds of crime in the US over the 10 years since the Clinton welfare reforms “tore away the social net” in America?”
Easy – a prisoner to population ratio that’s 6 times higher than the OECD average. God help us if NZ becomes the gigantic prison the the US is.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:52 pm
David, go find us a decent statistic, one that does not have three or four different explanations,
Otherwise one might think you are blustering.
[DPF: Sonic - seeing you have not even read the report, it is obvious you are trolling. You have been askign questions covered in the report. That is the Govt's report. Go read it]
January 31st, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Poor Bevan, challenging the use a statistic is put to and pointing out other explanations for its rise=supporting violent crime.
Thanks for the laugh old chum.
No sonic, my observation is based on your behaviour across a number of threads, not just this one.
January 31st, 2008 at 2:55 pm
Crime stats from reports to police are regarded as generally inferior to victimisation surveys for determining significant changes in crime levels. NZ opted out of the ICVS (International Crime Victimisation Survey) conducted by the Dutch government for most of the countries we’d compare ourselves with (including Aus, UK, US, Canada, France, Japan) when Phil Goff was Minister of Justice. Would it surprise you to learn that we had not been trending well in the previous surveys?
NZ then did its own survey, on a basis not comparable to the international results. I used to hound him for the results. They were mysteriously delayed by a year, until 2003, too late to figure in the 2002 election.
I believe Mt Goff had taken fright from Tony Blair’s experience in their preceding election when the UK figures from the ICVS shocked Britain. Brits realised for the first time that on many measures the UK had become materially more crime ridden than the much despised US. New Labour got very active in crime policy.
Notwithstanding, on serious indicators other than murder the ordinary Brit is now at more risk of violence than the ordinary Yank (the significance of “ordinary” is that high murder rates in the US are materially affected by concentrations in 7 central city districts where drug dealers and other criminals kill each other).
In April 2006 our second do-it-yourself survey was reported. See http://www.justice.govt.nz/pubs/reports/2007/crime-safety-survey-2006/community-safety/acknowledge.html. (Sorry about no hyper-nk. I must learn how to put them in comments).
It attracted astonishingly little attention. It is devastating, despite the introductory spin, to any claims of any material improvement. This time the methodology is supposed to allow it to be compared with or incorporated into the ICVS. As best I can tell we should be at least as humble to the US as the Brits. We come out worse than Aus and the UK on many serious measures, and especially the exposure of young people. This would correlate with a growth, not decline in serious youth violence.
By way of comparison, recalling figures last studied some months ago, youth murder in the US over 10 years declined from around 1800 per year to under 700, 80% of that decline being in the category ’stranger murder”.
I’ll post more on this on my blog when I get back from walking the Routeburn.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:00 pm
RN
Fancy that – criminals in prison can’t commit crimes – such a strange notion to the left. You have longer sentences and build more prisons and….the crime rate goes down. It’s not rocket science.
Oh and the rates of youth violent offending in the US over the similar dates of David’s sample – Quote from the “2004 Juvenile Arrest Bulletin” put out by the National Center for Juvenile Justice (http://www.ojjdp.ncjrs.org/ojstatbb/publications/StatBB.asp)
“In 2004, for the tenth consecutive year, the rate of juvenile arrests for Violent Crime Index offenses—murder, forcible rape, robbery,and aggravated assault—declined. Specifically,between 1994 and 2004, the juvenile arrest rate for Violent Crime Index offenses fell 49%. As a result, the juvenile Violent Crime Index arrest rate in 2004 was at its lowest level since at least 1980. From its peak in 1993 to 2004, the juvenile arrest rate for murder fell 77%.”
I’m trying to get the last 3 years figures which I believe show a continued downward trend.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Stephen,
Thank you for a most thoughtful and unemotional explanation of the situation. It is great when one can be truly educated through this medium.
I hope you enjoy the Routeburn.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Thank you Stephen – I posted without seeing your excellent post
January 31st, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Stephen
Great explanation for the confusion about the results. However we still need to understand why.
I think it’s related to the increase in “P” – the govt response – ban party pills
January 31st, 2008 at 3:11 pm
Stephen,
Do tell!
January 31st, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Interesting graph; shame it’s not a little longer.
From memory, there was a very substantial increase in youth crime rates from 1991-1994.
[DPF: Probably as general crime was up them. But that is all the data the report had.]
January 31st, 2008 at 3:15 pm
DPF:
“You are arguing that there has been no increase in violent crime since 1999″
If the official govt stats are to be believed, then yes. But we’re talking about the 14-16 age group here anyway, not “violent crime” in general.
“And you are further arguing that there has been no increase in violent crime by youth – just that the Police are arresting more youth for less crime.”
Does “apprehend” mean the same as “arrest” – I don’t think so David, but nice attempted spin there.
This from the report page 39:
Then we have this, the definitive quote that you seem to have left out. I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you overlooked it somehow.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:19 pm
“Fancy that – criminals in prison can’t commit crimes”
Sure,imagine if we locked ever person up who ever made a minor offense. Our crime rate would be minimal. Never mind that a huge chunk of the population would be rotting behind bars. Not that you would be concerned by this at all.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:22 pm
Stephen: great comment.
Sonic, you need to follow the whole thread here. This started with Nome posting a link to one of the stalker blogs (can’t remember which) and claiming that youth crime was in fact down under Labour, and all National’s fault. He had some statistics that he claimed to show this, which everyone then pointed out didn’t show it.
DPF did us all a favour by finding the authoritative statistics and posting them. He has explained exactly why it is 14-16 (under 14 under different regime, 17 and over under different regime), and why it is apprehensions and not convictions or reported crime. No substantive argument has been given that those were wrong decisions.
Nome now admits that, in fact, youth crime has increased under Labour. But it is apparantly not material, and the whole measurement basis means it doesn’t prove anything anyway.
The point is that he trumpeted it when he thought the numbers occurred on National’s watch, it was meaningful and it was a problem. When he was proved wrong, suddenly the statistics are meaningless.
That is what this thread is about, and that is what you are defending. Associate yourself with Nome if you like, but you’re just associating with a fool.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:23 pm
Roger
As usual you trade in hyperbole. The US incarceration rate is higher but it is not a “huge chunk of the population” – funny how democracy works. The District Attorney’s responsible for this “huge chunk of the population” keep getting re-elected and the ones who cant reduce their communy’s crime rate get replaced by someone who can. But of course those voters are nothing but red neck Bible thumping front tooth missing inbreds huh
January 31st, 2008 at 3:27 pm
philu is one of those people who, like Redbaiter, can be their own worst enemy from time to time. But both – from about as ideologically far apart as it’s possible to get – have a talent for often getting right to the point.
As phil says above it was a National government which wrecked the social welfare system by removing the feather bed but replacing it with a regime intent on punishing the poor for their poverty, imposing disincentives on any transition to employment other than stepping stright into a well-paid full-time job, and yet left loopholes galore for bludgers.
Then Labour got in and – friends of the poor and downtrodden that they are – did nothing at all to rectify the situation. In fact from time-to-time they had a go at making it even worse.
The National opposition of today is not, however, the National government of the 1990s. Such MPs as were there then are, in the main, out to pasture on the back benches and thankfully therefore not likely to drive policy. So those on the front benches today deserve a chance to fix the mess their colleagues created and Labour perpetuated.
They’ve put forward an effective plan to address youth offending and education. I await with interest a similar degree of innovation to address unemployment and the regulations which trap people in poverty.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Why did David not use either reported crime or conviction rate I wonder?
Obviously it’s going be hard to break down reported crime by age but the report does have information on so called ‘proved cases’ including but not limited to convictions. Playing around with the google charts API (which is wicked cool for all those people posting excel graphs on their sites…) gives us this
(the data starts in 1992 but we can’t work out the proportions before 1995). Now I’m going off to learn how to label the axes…
January 31st, 2008 at 3:30 pm
no allowed to post images then?
January 31st, 2008 at 3:31 pm
Russell
It would be odd if there had not been a steep increase in the early 90s, as Sir Geoffrey’s amendments (‘vengeance has no place in the law of a civilised nation’) filtered into the consciousness of offenders on the cusp. It is insulting even to poorly educated young people to think they cant be influenced by the spreading knowledge that “the system” would turn back flips to avoid shaming you, or damaging your self esteem, or incarcerating you, that your youth record would be suppressed for ever, that the Police could scarcely touch you, that you could make empty promises at an unlimited number of “Family Group conferences” and that no one was tasked to ensure you performed on any of your promises.
When I last looked even adult offenders on average have 8 prior convictions before they get a prison sentence. I’m pretty sure that ignores their youth offending.
Our youth crime rates are not mysterious. They are the flowers of the theory of a generation, (growing out of ‘class war’ views that the convicted were victims of bourgeois power) that criminals would eventually be nice back if only we could be nice enough for long enough to them. Sadly it has proved not to be so (or would you like us to try harder for a bit longer in case it has not really had a fair trial?).
January 31st, 2008 at 3:31 pm
“The US incarceration rate is higher”
Six times higher than the OECD average KIA! Now going by this the US should have a crime rate that’s six times lower than the OECD average. Then you might have a rational basis for sayiing that this prison state is worth it. But it isn’t. Crime in most categories is at around the OECD average. So where’s the pay off?
“but it is not a “huge chunk of the population”
But I didn’t say it was, i was talking about a hypothetical scenario.
BTW presently almost 3 million people are jailed in the states – Quite a number of people
January 31st, 2008 at 3:33 pm
KIA: I have a suspicion that prisoners can’t vote. I agree with you that it is a relatively small percentage incarcerated, so some people are blowing it out of proportion, but it is arguable that you could incarcerate (bit by bit) about 90% of the population and keep winning elections to do so. Of course, economically it would be a bit expensive – I guess once you had them locked up you could probably win elections on a platform of hard labour and low cost prisons – again the prisoners can’t vote.
Anyway, leaving aside irrelevant thought experiments, I think the real problem with US incarceration rates is the “war on drugs.” It isn’t working in reducing addiction, and it makes criminals out of a goodly segment of the population – disproportionately poor and black. The US has proven in the past that prohibition doesn’t work (think alcohol), and are currently proving it again with drugs. My view is that the US should decriminalise many drugs and watch the crime rate drop.
This also has the pleasant side effects of improving relations with many countries, providing a new source of tax revenue (new sin taxes on cannabis for example), and removing a major source of funding for some governments and groups that the US doesn’t like.
Yet another reason why I should be POTUS.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Ah. Found it: the apprehension rate for 14–16 year olds increased from 148.2 per 1,000 in 1992, to 182.8 in 1994, before stabilising at the higher rate. That was a serious jump, and probably unprecedented in our history.
A mischievous person could use that statistic to argue that it bears out Labour’s “blame the Mother of All Budgets” rhetoric.
[DPF: What I find amusing is that Labour blames everything from youth crime to no doubt breast cancer on the benefit cuts in 1991, yet despite eight years in office have never reversed them. Nope the core benefits have not gone up one cent in real terms.]
January 31st, 2008 at 3:36 pm
roger nome logic.
Almost 3 million people are incarcerated in the US – if we had their crime rate 3/4 of our country would be locked up !
January 31st, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Russell Brown
If the numbers went down by 0.000000001% the govt would be claiming they have effective social policy. If it goes up – It’s the failed policies of the past. It’s just so predictable, even a 4 year old could see through it.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:41 pm
“Now this doesn’t mean it is literally the fault of Government.”
Right – but it may indicate that under this Government they think more and more they can get away with it, or the consequences aren’t that great, which really is about the same thing.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:42 pm
Statistics schmistics…
Anyone in touch with reality knows that socialism has increased crime as a natural outcome. Even the most well off socialists states have unacceptably high crime rates. As for youth offending, the left have so many policies that impact directly on this section of crime its hard to know where to begin. Through the education system, (where, thanks to a dysfunctional education system, “socialized” youth nowadays gets most of their ideas about life) socialist policies have
- Attacked the family structure
- Attacked the authority of parents
- Demeaned the role of fathers
- Attacked the concept of private property ownership
- Promoted the idea that poverty provides one with the moral authority to steal
- Promoted the idea that if you are part of a ‘disadvantaged’ sector of society you also have a reduce moral responsibility to the remainder of society
- Promoted of the concept of collective guilt. Nobody is ever responsible for their actions, its always society’s fault
and generally connived at the idea that the rich and successful are legitimate targets for crime, in that they can afford to be dispossessed of their property by those who are not so ‘fortunate’.
The left will deny all of this of course. That’s because they’re largely partisan liars who are unworried by NZ’s social disintegration as long as it provides them with the political power that is their obsession.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:45 pm
“roger nome logic.
Almost 3 million people are incarcerated in the US – if we had their crime rate 3/4 of our country would be locked up !”
Are you Burt’s retarded twin brother or what?
January 31st, 2008 at 3:46 pm
Russell Brown – “A mischievous person could use that statistic to argue that it bears out Labour’s “blame the Mother of All Budgets” rhetoric.”
This means the budget’s pressures on parents leads to their kids being criminals.
So how will placing similar pressure on families, their having to support a teenager while he/she has another two years of schooling, instead of working, solve anything?
January 31st, 2008 at 3:48 pm
“Anyone in touch with reality knows that socialism has increased crime as a natural outcome.”
You mean people who think that “milk bars” still exist?
“Redbaiter wrote : “What a joke. The Bros will be robbing each other and sharing the … “scum are raping and murdering hitchhikers or holding up milk bars”
http://www.google.co.nz/search?hl=en&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=milk+bars+redbaiter+kiwiblog&spell=1
January 31st, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Riiight, a budget caused little Johnny to go out smashing windows and stealing cars. Pathetic.
Well to the apologists from the left I say EIGHT YEARS and we’ve gone backwards. Just admit it, your system doesnt work.
sonic: still waiting for you to define “working class” and “the rich”. You demand answers from others but never give them yourself.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Russell
It would be odd if there had not been a steep increase in the early 90s, as Sir Geoffrey’s amendments (’vengeance has no place in the law of a civilised nation’) filtered into the consciousness of offenders on the cusp. It is insulting even to poorly educated young people to think they cant be influenced by the spreading knowledge that “the system” would turn back flips to avoid shaming you, or damaging your self esteem, or incarcerating you, that your youth record would be suppressed for ever, that the Police could scarcely touch you, that you could make empty promises at an unlimited number of “Family Group conferences” and that no one was tasked to ensure you performed on any of your promises.
Stephen, that’s less an analysis than a flight of ideological fancy.
The American Bar Association released a striking report in 2004. It examined the results of the progressive implementation in the US of the kind of retribution-oriented policies you unfailingly promoted as a member of Parliament. These are the concluding paragraphs of its preseident’s editorial on the report’s findings:
“Let me be clear about one thing. These are not your typical criminal-coddling recommendations from out of touch advocacy groups. They are the product of hardheaded, realistic assessment of the problems in our criminal justice system. Put simply, our current approach to crime and punishment is not working: it locks up too many of the wrong people, has a disproportionate impact on minorities, and fails to make our communities safer because it poorly prepares prisoners to reenter society upon release.
The need for reform is clear. We’ve spent more than 20 years getting tougher on crime. Now we need to get smarter.”
The editorial is here:
http://www.abanet.org/media/releases/opedcrime.html
The report is here:
http://www.manningmedia.net/Clients/ABA/ABA288/index.htm
I wrote about it at the time here:
http://publicaddress.net/default,1331.sm
January 31st, 2008 at 3:56 pm
PaulL – I don’t buy your drug war thesis one bit I’m afraid. The Dutch decriminalised cannabis in 1975 and youth cannabis usage climbed from historically low rates in the 60’s and 70’s to very high rates by the early 90’s. The opposite happened in Sweden – their liberal 60/70’s drug laws led to high rates of drug use across Swedih society. In the 80’s and 90’s these laws were replaced by a suite of measures including tougher laws, enforcement, education and treatment. Swedish youth drug rates have plummetted to the lowest in the Western world by the mid 90’s and have stayed pretty low since.
The ‘ineffectual’ US efforts saw teen drug use plunge from huge peaks in 1979 (38% of High School Senior using cannabis monthly) to 12% in 1992 thanks to better law enforcement AND treatment. Clinton cut back on both and presto the rates crept back up again (to about 25%) and Bush 2 puts the clamps back on and the rates came down again.
Its not rocket science guys.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:58 pm
roger, ‘milk bar’ is just another one of those words that tells you Redbaiter is not a New Zealander.
January 31st, 2008 at 3:59 pm
Any sources for those stats KIA? Didn’t think so.
[DPF: Roger is asking for a source for stats after he link whored repeatedly a graph with no source at all]
January 31st, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Clarification: In Australia, when I referred to a Dairy, they looked blankly confused and thought I was talking about a milking shed. When explained they would invariably say “Oh, you mean a milk bar”.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:01 pm
But you would agree that tough drug laws haven’t stopped drug usage. And that the societal problems of drugs are largely associated with their criminalisation, not their use.
What I mean by that is that cannabis users are destroying their lives and being idiots. But they aren’t actually harming anyone. When you make cannabis expensive (by restricting supply), and force those users to consort with criminals to get it (by making it illegal), you suddenly change the nature of the drug. People who want it now need more money, and their suppliers provide a ready link to a life of crime in order to fund it.
I’m interested in your figures, and haven’t seen them before, but I still argue that criminalisation isn’t stopping use, and that it is destroying a segment of the population.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:02 pm
Roger: done being a fuckwit?
January 31st, 2008 at 4:03 pm
nah .. just beginning Paul
January 31st, 2008 at 4:07 pm
“When explained they would invariably say “Oh, you mean a milk bar”.”
Interesting. Strange though. There’s any number of countries ruled by far-right regimes that Baiter could have moved to. Why in the hell do he move to this Stalinist cesspit?
January 31st, 2008 at 4:11 pm
With over 300 million people and 2.2 million incarcerated, the US has less than one percent of its population in state or federal prison (.007 or .7%)
New Zealand, with just over 4 million people, has about 5,500 sentenced prisoners in its 19 prisons (and another 1,500 in them on remand) – that’s much better than the US (.001 or .1%).
According to the DOJ, less than a quarter of those incarcerated (down even to the local jail level) were there for drug crimes or drug-related crimes (ie, crime commited to secure money for drugs).
See http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/dcf/duc.htm
So whatever it is, it ain’t the war on drugs that produces the high incarceration rate.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:13 pm
Roger Philip john Mason Nome, why doesn’t your kiwiblogblog graph have any references?
It’s just been fisked nicely by DPF, and you’ve been unable to rebut his conclusions.
For a guy who brags about being a scholar, you’re very intellectually dishonest, and you look stupid. Again.
Why don’t you try another racial slur to try and take the heat off?
January 31st, 2008 at 4:13 pm
You begun being a fuckwit ages ago Roger.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:15 pm
What I mean by that is that cannabis users are destroying their lives and being idiots. But they aren’t actually harming anyone.
That’s a joke, right?
Drug abuse is DESTROYING our youth. I do voluntary work with ‘at risk’ teens at the weekend – you have no idea what you are talking about.
These kids start smoking weed at 13-14 yrs – right when their brains are going through critical change – the other critical change age is 2yrs. Cannabis robs our kids of their potential and robs them of hope for the future.
I have a 16 yr old I see whose whole family is on P. They live in Howick BTW – not Maaris on the dole or solo mums. Have you any idea what that does to a young person?
Doesn’t harm anyone else my arse.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:23 pm
Hey helmet:
Must say, of my several kiwiblog stalkers you’re got to be the favorite (sorry POC).
“Roger Philip john Mason Nome, why doesn’t your kiwiblogblog graph have any references?”
Yeah, not sure why they didn’t just link to the ministry of justice report they obviously got the figures from.
“Why don’t you try another racial slur to try and take the heat off?”
You mean another Malcolm X quote? Sleazy little smear merchant.
“You begun being a fuckwit ages ago Roger.”
I do my best
January 31st, 2008 at 4:32 pm
How do you know they got the figures from the ministry of justice report?
There’s no reference.
Damn you’re stupid. Keep going
January 31st, 2008 at 4:34 pm
“How do you know they got the figures from the ministry of justice report?”
I presumed they were because I don’t know of any other source that would contain those kind of stats. Do you?
January 31st, 2008 at 4:35 pm
And by the way Roger, you called our Maori colleage Craig a ‘house Ni#@er’.
I don’t think I need to link to the quote, the whole thing is actually rather offensive, no matter who you think you’re quoting.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:36 pm
I presumed they were because I don’t know of any other source that would contain those kind of stats.
Priceless
I like your academic method Roger!
January 31st, 2008 at 4:37 pm
PaulL
I’m going to walk a line between what you said and what Ruth said. Ruth is correct – drug use in young developing minds is a shocking thing. Especially fat soluable THC. However what you say is correct – having pot illegal is providing a gateway to crime as well.
Education – decriminilisation – this is the way forward.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:39 pm
“[DPF: Roger is asking for a source for stats after he link whored repeatedly a graph with no source at all]”
DPF’s in a tizz after I fisked his graph with a quote that’s only several pages from the figures that he used to make his graph. I still give him the benefit of the doubt and assume this was an “oversight” though.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Be nice to DPF Roger, you may want your ass back someday.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:43 pm
“Priceless
I like your academic method Roger!”
Well who else puts out stats with those precise measurements? That’s right no one. I guess if you don’t believe them you can always look up the figures yourself. They’re only a google away.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:47 pm
Who else just makes shit up? Kiwiblogblog.
Who else just blindly quotes it? Roger Nome.
What a fucken tool. You did the same thing with the climate change quote too, thought you would have learnt by now.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:48 pm
“Cut off their goolies”
Doesn’t anyone remember NTNON?
January 31st, 2008 at 4:49 pm
“And by the way Roger, you called our Maori colleage Craig a ‘house Ni#@er’ I don’t think I need to link to the quote, the whole thing is actually rather offensive.”
It maybe offensive to craig. I don’t know, you’d have to ask him. I do dispute that it’s a racist term though – particularly as it was coined by one of the most prominent anti-racism activists in world history.
For your education, once again….
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQe9nUKzvQ
January 31st, 2008 at 4:49 pm
Anyway, I’m sick of kicking shit (well, what’s left of him after DPF humiliated him) so I’m off to the wharf with the nephews to catch some fish.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:50 pm
The malcom X quote? Go call a Maori bloke a house nigger.
When you regain consciousness, ask him if he found it offensive. Moron.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:54 pm
“What a fucken tool.”
Yes, used by blogblog once again. So are you still lying about that time you bragged about being an “environmental lawyer” – or do you own your lies now? You know, just to clear things up.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:56 pm
“Go call a Maori bloke a house nigger. When you regain consciousness, ask him if he found it offensive.”
Not everyone’s as quick to anger as you – oh and I duly note you racial slur – implying that all Maori people are violent. BTW, I’m Maori – idiot.
January 31st, 2008 at 4:58 pm
I LOVE CRIME STATS! WOOOOOH!
(just bringing it back on topic)
January 31st, 2008 at 5:00 pm
Here we go. the environmental lawyer hallucination. Fuck you’re boring. Link to the quote where I said it… Oh that’s right there’s no quote you’re a liar making shit up……. there, that’s that smear out the window.
Now you behave, or I’ll hack your stupid blog too.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:02 pm
“I’m Maori – idiot.”
So am I….. Idiot.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:03 pm
“Here we go. the environmental lawyer hallucination.”
Both of the people who commented on that thread (where you bragged about being an environmental lawyer). The blog owner and myself remember you saying that. Yet you continue to lie. Where’s you conscience? Or have you lost it since becoming, well, an “environmental lawyer”?
January 31st, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Good point David C. Flame war- over.
Now as I said… I’m out.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:03 pm
“So am I….. Idiot.”
and?
January 31st, 2008 at 5:04 pm
BTW, phil doesn’t remember. Only you seem to. Funny that.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:05 pm
ohh, and seeing as you’re willing to lie about your professional life, I’m very wary of truth in any anonymous claims that you make about your ethnicity. Liar.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Hey man, we’re all Maori.
Who needs the general roll?
January 31st, 2008 at 5:06 pm
“BTW, phil doesn’t remember.”
It’s his opinion that you did. I remember it, and so do you. Liar.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:09 pm
ohh, and seeing as you’re willing to lie about your professional life, I’m very wary of truth in any anonymous claims that you make about your ethnicity. Liar.
Oh for fucks sake Roger, give it up would ya?
You have been given a damm good beating on this thread (and many others).
Maybe you should spend a little more time being a ‘house nigga’ (over at kbb) and a little less being a dickhead.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:09 pm
And the AntiChristian Left sinks another few degrees deeper into denial……
January 31st, 2008 at 5:10 pm
“You have been given a damm good beating on this thread (and many others).”
Really? I feel like I’ve dominated this thread. Good times.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Back on topic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RP2xarcSEW8
January 31st, 2008 at 5:12 pm
No ‘house nigga’, you’ve just commented a lot.
Thats quantity not quality.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:13 pm
So whatever it is, it ain’t the war on drugs that produces the high incarceration rate.
Huh!? You don’t consider a quarter of the prison population significant? This might help:
“Indeed, in 2000 a Human Rights Watch report concluded that drug control policies bore “primary responsibility for the quadrupling of the [US] national prison population since 1980 and a soaring incarceration rate, the highest among western democracies…” (Human Rights Watch, 2000). In that same year, nearly one in four persons imprisoned in the US was imprisoned for a drug offence and the number of persons behind bars for drug offences was roughly the same as the entire US prison and jail population in 1980. There were 100,000 more persons imprisoned in America for drug offences than the total number of prisoners in the EU, even though the EU had 100 million more citizens than the US (Schiraldi, Holman & Beatty, 2000). Today, almost half a million dealers and users are under incarceration in the US.”
http://www.tdpf.org.uk/MediaNews_FactResearchGuide_prisons.htm
What makes it worse is that three-strikes type gimmick sentencing laws frequently put small-time users (those unlucky to have a prior possession conviction) in jail for longer than quite significant dealers. The incentives for plea-bargaining also tend to drive the harsher penalties down to people lower on the scale. It’s a very. very messed-up regime, and it’s not working.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:20 pm
“No ‘house nigga’, you’ve just commented a lot.”
Um that term’s usually directed at pro-white-establishment non-whites CL . You might want to watch that (short) video I posted above…
January 31st, 2008 at 5:34 pm
In that video malcolm X does not use the term ‘house nigger’ once. Racist prick.
Would you like your arse back now?
January 31st, 2008 at 5:48 pm
roger- you’ve been flamed so many times on so many threads I just cringe at you thinking you “dominate” a thread. Your lack of embarrassment is pretty embarrassing in its own right.
Youve gone from being “fisked” to the new low, which is being “minto-ed”
PJ is a Prat indeed.
January 31st, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Gee Russell,
perhaps the answer these inmates should come to earlier is dont have anything to do with drugs?
I mean if you had two strikes you might take the hint-no?
But hey maybe they can blame it on a budget done in 1990.
Absolutely fucking pathetic, what a bunch of responsibilty avoiding excuse providers the left are.
Litany of abuse aside Redbaiter is so correct many times.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Roger Nome
Sources for stats that you so cynically assumed did not exist:
1. The UN World Drug Report compares lifetime drug use by 15-26 yr olds: Australia (usage rates about the same as NZ) 52% vs Sweden (same age cohort) 8%. Drug use in last year: 33% vs 2% – http://www.unodc.org/unodc/en/publications.html
2. McCoun & Reuter – 1997 Science
Cannabis use by Dutch 18 to 20 year olds increased from 15% in 1984 to 44% in 1996 since the depenalisation of cannabis.
3. ESPAD Report into Alcohol and Drug Use of high school aged children in 30 European Countries in 2003 sees last month cannabis use in Sweden at only 2% compared to 14% in Holland (lifetime use 8% versus 28%)
4. 1998 European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Study to Obtain Comparable Estimates of Problem Drug Use. Found that the numbers of Dutch heroin addicts increased from 10,000 in 1979 to 28,000 in 1997.
5. Interpol’s report International Crime Statistics 1995. Dutch per capita breaking and entering rates (a crime closely associated with drug abuse) are three times the rate of those in Switzerland and the US, four times the rate of France and 50% higher than in Germany.
6. “Monitoring the Future” – University of Michigan study of 50,000+
Regular use of cannabis (within last 30 days) by American 12th Graders (7th form or Year 13) dropped from 37% in 1979 to 12% in 1992.www.monitoringthefuture.org
That’s the max of two links allowed I’m afraid. Eat your heart our Roger
January 31st, 2008 at 6:47 pm
Gee Russell,
perhaps the answer these inmates should come to earlier is dont have anything to do with drugs?
I mean if you had two strikes you might take the hint-no?
Captain, if you think that a system that gives an addict caught for the second time in possession a sentence 50% greater than that for a high-level dealer caught for the first time is sane, that’s your business.
January 31st, 2008 at 6:55 pm
Russell: Of course drugs are responsible for a lot of America’s incarceration rate. I said so. Up to 25%, but only if you count “jails” as well as prisons. That means that drugs ARE NOT the reason the other 75% are in. If you take away the 25% that have to do with drugs you’ve STILL got a much higher proportion of the US population in federal or state prison than New Zealand (or the EU) does. So there’s MORE AT WORK than drugs. Even the HR brief you quoted indicates that. Mandatory sentencing has an awful lot to do with the high incarceration rate, as do a number of other things unique to the American system. Blaming it all on drugs is a common mistake, but still, a mistake.
January 31st, 2008 at 7:10 pm
Jeez. You really don’t get the American system, do you, Russell? Have a look at this: http://tinyurl.com/yrebyl (an extract on Google Books from “Global Drug Enforcement: Practical Investigative Techniques”) More, drug offences are DIMINISHING as a percentage of new incarcerations http://tinyurl.com/39gtku (another Google Book extract, this time from “Correctional Organization and Management: Public Policy Challenges”. One of the major drivers of prison population growth in the US is long sentences (mandatory sentencing guidelines set the length of incarceration by the gravity of the offense) and reform of the parole system. But in almost every jurisdiction, hardening of the parole system (which leads to an increase in the numbers of inmates) shows a corresponding diminishment in crime, particularly violent crime. It is axiomatic in the mindset of US law enforcement that the principal perpetrators of crime are recidivists – repeat offenders – and that one of the best ways to reduce crime is to keep repeat offenders either in jail or under such close supervision that they get picked up promptly for violations on release.
January 31st, 2008 at 11:58 pm
If NZ is following the same trends as Aus (given most states are also run by socialist labor), then I suggest look at the increasing senseless unprovoked viciousness of youth crime. Anecdotally THAT is what seems to be increasing. Here in Melbourne (ex Auckland) we hear of young turds stabbing some passer by to death, setting alight some poor animal, invading some elderly persons home and beating them to death, nearly every day.
Drugs contribute greatly to the fried brains required to carry out this kind of depraved savagery.
Russell’s angle still comes from the idea that we should “help” these extreme criminals.
FIRST we want to BANISH these kinds of cancerous individuals from society. We simply don’t want them back. If you feel you want to have them back, please create a secure compound and YOU live with them. Enough of inficting dangerous leftist lunacy on the community!
The vast majority have seriously had enough. Please don’t pretend you and your soft headed lot, with your basket of wishful thinking, represent us Russell.
Drugs ARE a major factor in violent crime and anti social nuiscance.
Giving those who terrorize the community a second chance
is another reason why the non- violent non-terrorizing side of the community continues to needlessly suffer.
It’s not about “retribution”. It’s about providing safer communities where terrorizing nutjobs are segragated out at the earliest possible time, for good.
Let their incarceration be humane, but get that we do not want those who terrorize back in the community. How hard is it for govt representatives to work this out and act on this? They have been told so many times, overwhelmingly.
February 1st, 2008 at 1:41 am
So not a single defender of David’s weird little stat?
Quelle suprise.
KIA
“1998 European Monitoring Centre for Drugs and Drug Addiction. Study to Obtain Comparable Estimates of Problem Drug Use. Found that the numbers of Dutch heroin addicts increased from 10,000 in 1979 to 28,000 in 1997″
I would suggest that given that 1979 was the year that Afghan herion began it’s march through Europe that any other country in the EU would open the champagne for such a small rise.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:15 am
Sonic
What a feeble defense of the rise of heroin addicts in Holland. Try harder mate
February 1st, 2008 at 7:47 am
Bollocks to the stats – It is perception that counts, and the public perception is that crime per se is increasing, violent crime in particular. Youth crime or not, the perception is that very little is being done.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:14 pm
Here’s a “must-read” on the problem of escalating cross-generational crime:
Theodore Dalrymple: “The Frivolity of Evil”.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/14_4_oh_to_be.html
It is bloody secular socialist intellectuals who are mostly responsible.
February 1st, 2008 at 12:15 pm
Forget the politics here and focus on the issue which is that increasingly younger kids are committing increasingly violent and pointless crimes.
We should all be concerned about prevention of escalation to the point where people are violently attacked for no reason minding their own business.
The youth are desensitised to violence and have not been brought up to face the consequences of their actions. For this the welfare state is responsible for bringing in more unwanted kids who are not even dragged up. Most of these waste of space violent shits will never be rehabilitated
Sick acts of violence to animals is where these kids start and move on – stop whinging about whose fault it is and own the problem – all political parties need to work together on this with communities
As for Clark’s move to keep kids at school longer that’s bloody nonsense
February 1st, 2008 at 12:18 pm
And you can bet that if any offspring of “Christian fundamentalists” like the Exclusive Brethren were represented at all in the statistics, the bloody “Liberals” would be trumpeting it from the rooftops, just like they do when a Catholic Priest or someone like Graeme Capill commits child abuse – all the while deliberately deflecting the truth that these are EXCEPTIONS to a rule, and whitewashing both where the problems ARE most likely to occur, and the “rule” itself.
February 1st, 2008 at 2:50 pm
CL
“roger- you’ve been flamed so many times on so many threads I just cringe at you thinking you “dominate” a thread. “
Really, it’s beyond me why you think I should care about the hysterical personal attacks from nutters like helmet.
This thread was about a graph made by DPF to “prove” a trend. I subsequently fisked his graph, and no one has even thought it worth while defending DPF, so complete was that fisking. I dominated this thread, pure and simple.
oh and finally, helmet – House negro, quickly became house nigger in the modern vernacular. That you don’t know this just once again shows how utterly useless and ignorant you truly are.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=house+nigger
[DPF: Good God PJ - do you have any idea of what a complete and utter wanker you sound like when you declare yourself to "dominate this thread". I mean seriously you sound like a 12 year old masturbating. Is your self esteem really so low you need to post about how great you are, according to - well yourself. Seriously - it is embarrassing]
February 1st, 2008 at 2:55 pm
“Russell: Of course drugs are responsible for a lot of America’s incarceration rate. I said so. Up to 25%, but only if you count “jails” as well as prisons. ”
Yes and why is America awash with drugs?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7009998324250484369&q=michael+ruppert+drugs&total=21&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0
February 1st, 2008 at 3:15 pm
“Is your self esteem really so low you need to post about how great you are,”
I didn’t have to be “great” to dominate this thread. All I needed to do was copy and paste some words from the report that you reference. That’s embarrassing for you I’m afraid DPF.
February 1st, 2008 at 4:45 pm
Oh and lol, but this has happened at a time when unemployment is at a record low. Anyone who still thinks unemployment causes crime needs to look at the youth crime trendline. Honestly how do people get a way wither perpetuating this mythology? Um criminals cause crime.
February 1st, 2008 at 5:46 pm
Oh, and this is also very interesting don’t you agree Mr Farrar? This is paper is entitled….
“Understanding Recent Movements in Crime Statistics, September 2006: A report prepared for the New Zealand Police”
http://www.police.govt.nz/resources/2006/axist/understanding-crime-statistics-movement.pdf
Bugger hey?
February 1st, 2008 at 6:47 pm
No bugger, as the increase in violent crime has been every single year pretty much since 1999. Nice try though.
February 1st, 2008 at 6:58 pm
If you look at the violent offence per 10,000 (the real stat that we should be looking at) the only substantial increase came in the 2005-2006 year David (i.e. in 2004 the rate was pretty much exactly the same as it was in 1999). Nice try though.
[Are you talking youth violent apprehensions or all violent recorrded crimes? The former has increased significantly for two years in a row, while the latter has increased almost every year]
February 1st, 2008 at 8:06 pm
“Are you talking youth violent apprehensions or all violent recorrded crimes?”
Well, the one you’ve graphed of course. The increases were in just 2005 and 2006. The two years pin pointed as being highly distorted by the report that I quote.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:10 pm
The one you graphed DPF. The police statistics that showed increases in 2005 and 2006, were invalidated by the report I quote.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:11 pm
don’t seem to be able to post at the moment?
February 1st, 2008 at 8:35 pm
Nome, you’re wrong, again. The report you selectively quoted concludes that even when you account for variations in data collection methods, that crime rates are rising.
You seemed to think they were decreasing, now I understand it’s a tough distinction for a retard like you to recognise, but increasing means there is MORE crime, not less.
The report explains some anomalies in the statistics, but does not change the conclusion, that crime is rising under Labour. How you think this is a victory, when you claimed crime was decreasing, is simply beyond me.
I thought maybe if you went away and slept on your performance yesterday that you would realise how moronic your argument is, but you’ve got your arse handed to you AGAIN.
February 1st, 2008 at 8:39 pm
“Nome, you’re wrong, again. The report you selectively quoted concludes that even when you account for variations in data collection methods, that crime rates are rising.”
No quotes? Why’s that?
February 1st, 2008 at 8:42 pm
“The police statistics that showed increases in 2005 and 2006, were invalidated by the report I quote.”
Umm, have you read it?
“The overall increase in crime is…supported by the ACC claim statistics…”
February 1st, 2008 at 9:04 pm
And… even if you conceded the 05 and 06- youth crime is still increasing under Labour up until that point.
You’re still fucked, either way.
The police stats report also doesn’t make any conclusions about violent crimes by youth. It suggests that the increase may be distorted, but does not suggest a decrease, as you are dishonestly claiming.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:06 pm
don’t seem to be able to post at the moment?
February 1st, 2008 at 9:06 pm
Fuck I’m just dominating you mate, I bet you love it.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:08 pm
My fisking of you has been so thorough…… (muffled moans and shuffles)….. that… (panting)….. I’ve dominated this thread….. (where’s the tissues)…. ohhhh yeah I feel better now.
February 1st, 2008 at 9:19 pm
And while I’m dominating you, (grrrrrrr!) lets talk about your racist squirming.
You thought it was okay to call Craig R a house nigger because Malcolm x used the term.
Turns out he actually didn’t, so you tried to say it’s okay to call people house niggers because you can find it in the urban dictionary.
Okay then, so some racist people use the term nowadays, including yourself. It’s included in the urban dictionary, along side other offensive words, like fuck, cunt, cumstain,….. I don’t need to go on do I?
Then you squirmed “Um that term’s usually directed at pro-white-establishment non-whites CL”, which is pretty funny coming from the Maori guy who spends all his time on this blog defending the government who legislated away the foreshore and seabed.
Looks like you’re stupid as well as racist.
Dominated.
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Um can I be bothered refuting all your distortions, and crazed ravings?
Oh well, just a couple of points will do.
A) I’ve never voted for Labour.
B) You’re the racist who has implied that all Maori are violent. You’ve tried (unsuccesfully) to label me a racist for using a term commonly used by anti-racists.
C) The report carried out for the police shows that distortions regarding recent crime statistics exist, and that “The independent data series that were examined show no evidence of the increase in crime that is suggested by the police crime statistics for the 2005/2006 year.” Furthermore, this shows that raw police crime statistics are open to statistical distortions and so are possibly misleading (in general).
More specifically, another report that I quote shows that the “apprehension” figures, which DPF uses to make his case are problematic
I notice that you still haven’t produced any quotations to refute these points. Only a mangled quote, with words deliberately taken out of it. Presumably to produce a desired impression.
To easy.
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Just a few quotes from the conclusions to yet again, expose you as an abject liar (yopu claim to have read the conclusions).
You just make it too easy “mate”. Dominated once again Mr “I’m an Environmental Lawyer” boy.
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:53 pm
In case you haven’t had enough (you always seem to be begging for more)
February 2nd, 2008 at 1:56 pm
ooooohhhhhhhh ok one more, then I’m spent
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:26 pm
Fuck you’re stupid. This is too easy.
What don’t you understand about this quote;
“The overall increase in recorded violent crime is however supported by ACC claim statistics. Much of the increase in violence, appears to be family violence related, and may be a consequence of increased proactive police activity to combat domestic violence.”
That’s what we humans call an increase in violent crime roger
Show me the quote in that report which corroborates your story that crime has decreased.
Until then, you’re just a bullshit artist with no evidence to back you up.
February 2nd, 2008 at 3:47 pm
God, I always knew that you’re a bit of a bit of a mouth breather, but now you really confirm your sub-normal status.
“that’s what we humans call an increase in violent crime roger”
An increase in “recorded violent crime” doesn’t equate to an “increase in incidence of violent crime”. In fact the report quite plainly points this out.
“Much of the increase in violence, appears to be family violence related, and may be a consequence of increased proactive police activity to combat domestic violence.”
Too easy. You sure you’re lawyer? I mean you seem to lie pathologically so that’s in line with the profession, but lawyers generally aren’t as stupid as you. I therefore have to conclude that you were lying when you claimed to be boasted “I’m an environmental lawyer”. Silly boy.
February 2nd, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Phillip John/Roger Nome:
I could just as easily say that you lie pathologically in line with “highly-paid academics” – by whistling the daily mantra that “reality has a left-wing bias”
February 2nd, 2008 at 9:30 pm
Do I have to spell this out for you Roger? Your quote-
“Much of the increase in violence, appears to be family violence related, and may be a consequence of increased proactive police activity to combat domestic violence.”
‘much of the increase’ to us people IQ >50 means that some of the increase, not all of the INCREASE IN CRIME may be a consequence of the factors mentioned. Note the key word there, increase.
Somehow this backs up your point that crime is decreasing under Labour?
How dumb are you boy? Back to school.
I think your f%$ked up ego is getting in the way of logic again. You’ve lost your argument on this thread, been humiliated by DPF and others, and shown yourself up for a fool, again.
No amount of ad hominem attacks will drown out your stupidity on this issue so STFU and take it like a man.
You have no evidence for your assertion that youth crime is decreasing under Labour, except for a report which states that crime is on the increase. Classy.
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:15 pm
oo-err..!
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:17 pm
this is a very ‘violent’ thread..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 2nd, 2008 at 10:18 pm
are they (both) callow youths..?
does anyone know..?
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 3rd, 2008 at 12:29 pm
Phil- that’s actually quite funny
February 3rd, 2008 at 1:32 pm
chrs..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
February 3rd, 2008 at 7:41 pm
“‘much of the increase’ to us people IQ >50 means that some of the increase, not all of the INCREASE IN CRIME ”
The increase in recoded violent crime moron. As I’ve spelt out to you before, this isn’t the same as an increase in the incidence of crime. The report stated that much of the increase in recorded crime is due to changing practices by the police. No where in the report does it say there has been an increase in the incidence of violent crime. The closest it comes to saying this ….. the very flawed police statistics are supported by ACC claims statistics. Doesn’t sound very comclusive to me.
“You’ve lost your argument on this thread, been humiliated by DPF”
Actually I humilated him by debunking his graph….
“Somehow this backs up your point that crime is decreasing under Labour? ”
Actually I’ve come to the conclusion that KBB graph is unreliable, as is farrar’s, and that there’s no way of proving any increase or decrease in the incidences of violent crime since labour has come to power. It’s seems like no ones been completely right, but we’ve probably all learned things from this thread. As far as I can see, all you’ve contiributed is sneering ad homenums, smears and lies. Nice guy. No wonder you’re so popular with the ladies.
February 5th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Good grief.
I agree with you, the report is of course concerned with ‘recoded’ violent crime, clever boy. You see Philip John, to measure whether crime is on the increase or decrease, we actually have to measure it, and then someone has to record those measurements.
If we always use the same method, it gives us an idea of how our police are performing, and indicates societal trends. If we change the method, it may exaggerate/minimise certain trends, and mislead people.
With me so far? It’s really not that difficult.
All the report notes is that the upward trend has been exaggerated by the change in police procedure. However it affirms the upward trend in crime apparent under the Labour government. This much is obvious to anyone who takes off their pinko tinted spectacles and reads it.
So again Roger- where is the decrease you touted? Oh that’s right, it doesn’t exist.
And take it easy on the liar accusations boy, you’ve been proven wrong several times on this thread and again everyone’s left wondering, are you dishonest or just plain stupid?
I think you get too carried away with the smart ass martyr thing, perhaps it’s some kink in your personality, perhaps you like being a dickhead and like getting your arse kicked? Unfortunately whatever it is, it brings out the ugly side of many people, a kind of bully mentality. Seems like everyone likes to pick on the weakest and most defenceless kid, who in this playground, happens to be Roger Nome. So I feel like I owe you an apology, sorry if I made you feel sad while I debunked your argument.
February 8th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
“All the report notes is that the upward trend has been exaggerated by the change in police procedure.”
No it doesn’t. In fact you can’t even pull a quote out that shows this proves that you’re in error.
Let’s recap shall we? The report concludes…
A) General crime:
So there’s this “upward trend” in crime is meaningless because it’s unsupportable using other measurements, and is explained away as being due to changes in policing practices. Following so far? It’s not that hard is it?
B) Violent crime:
Notice that the report only says that flawed increase in “recorded violent crime” is only supportable using ACC data, not “CARD” data, Or “Calls for Service” data. So it’s far from a definite conclusion.
Then we have DPF’s graph concerning youth offending, which is the topic of the thread. So let’s see what DPF claimed shall we?
I went on to debunk this by proving the following quote from the report which he pulled the figures from.
So DPF’s graph is meaningless, particularly given that the only increase in per capita youth violent crime during Labour’s tenure happened in 2005-2006, and as the other report has shown …. “the abrupt discontinuity reported during July 2005, are not corroborated by other observations (such as CARD data, calls for service, ACC claim data).” So the increase in recorded “apprehensions” of youth for violent crime, that happened in 2005 could well be due to these statistical distortions. As such it’s problematic to claim that there has been a an increase in “violent youth crime”.
So yeah, guess I really have lost the argument in this thread, what with completely debunking the assertions made by DPF in its heading.
All the other weird personal diatribe, I can’t really be bothered with. It’s starting to look a little insane to be honest. You should probably get some help for that mate.
February 8th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
Thought it’d be nice to end this thread on a slightly lighter note, with this parody of the right wing’s approach to law and order. Classic.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Kxzuot8xnw0