Guest Post: David Garrett on crime levels

May 21st, 2013 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

A guest post by :

Still plenty of about

This weeks HoS featured a  story on falling crime. The gist of it was that crime was at its lowest since 1982;  we are all victims of manufactured anxiety about crime , and in fact we have never had it so good. The story featured a neat little graph which showed that  “recorded offences” were about the same – actually a little lower – than  they were in 1982. Sadly neither the story nor the graph tells the whole story.

For example, if the graph covered the period back to 1972, it would show a dramatic explosion in crime between then and 1982, when the reassuring line on the graph in the story  begins. If the graph went still further back, it would show violent crime – including  homicide – pretty much as a flat line from the beginning of last century until about 1972, when violent crime began to grow exponentially.

The story uses the “crimes per 10,000 of population” measure, which allows us to compare New York with New Plymouth – the rates are comparable and meaningful   whatever the populations compared. For most of the 20th century, our homicide rate was about 0.5 per 100,000 per year. It is now about three times that – substantially less than 20 years ago it is true, but still three times higher than it was fifty or sixty years ago.

The graph in Sunday’s story  showed total offences, and does indeed show an encouraging fall since 2010 – but more about that in a moment. If the graph had shown violent  crimes only, the picture would not have been anything like as rosy; violent crime has declined much less since its peak in the early 90’s than “recorded crime” generally,  a notoriously unreliable stat, since to be “recorded”, someone has to bother reporting it.

The most interesting thing about the story for me was the sharp drop in crime since 2009 – about the time the National led government moved, albeit rather timidly, away from the “criminals are victims too” policies we had been following for the past 40 years or more. 2009-10 saw  small changes in bail laws, more recalls for breaches of parole, and of course “three strikes”, the effects of which are only now really beginning to be felt.

The liberal academics – something of a tautology since with very few exceptions we have no other kind – will of course ascribe the sharp drop in crime from 2009 to something other  than the factors I have cited. Anything will do for them, so long as it’s not  more punative measures. The current theory is  that removing lead in petrol twenty years ago has caused crime to drop now.

To those who say that to aim for the kind of safe society we once had is a reactionary pipedream, I say this: read up on the precipitate drop in crime in New York since a much more dramatic policy change  in the early 90’s than we have seen began. Back then, there were about 4000 homicides in New York City every year, and the city was widely regarded as “ungovernable”.

Mayor Guiliani refused to accept that, and the New York Police Department were directed to “take back the city”, block by block.  Now, homicides in NYC number in the hundreds annually – about the same level as in the 1960’s – rather than the thousands.  The population hasn’t changed.

We can do the same. Smarter and more comprehensive policing – “broken windows” New Zealand style if you like – has caused crime to plummet in South Auckland,  long our most crime ridden district. I look forward to the day when some fresh faced reporter can show a graph extending back to 1972, or even 1952, and say we now have the same rate of violent crime as we did then. It can be done. We just need the will to continue down the path we tentatively embarked on three years ago.

The point David makes about violent crime being a better indicator than overall crime is one I have often made also.

Tags: , ,

127 Responses to “Guest Post: David Garrett on crime levels”

  1. Mighty_Kites (85 comments) says:

    I hear identity theft is still a big problem in NZ

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 35 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Oh the irony!!!! :roll:

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 10 Thumb down 30 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. David Garrett (7,699 comments) says:

    Gosh, TWO brave anonymous commenters in a row having a go…oh how familiar….

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 28 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. chuk (45 comments) says:

    I wonder if Mighty Kites and Judith have anything to say about what David has actually written. I found it interesting.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    David Garrett (3,778) Says:
    May 21st, 2013 at 12:14 pm
    Gosh, TWO brave anonymous commenters in a row having a go…oh how familiar….
    ——————————-

    Well can we help it if we find is hilarious that a person with three convictions, the most recent being 2011, is giving advice on crime reduction?

    I’ve got some good advice for reducing crime – how about you stop offending? :-)

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 35 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. David Garrett (7,699 comments) says:

    ..And let me get this right “Judith”…you believe in forgiveness for two time killers whose crimes were in the the dim and distant, but not passport fraudsters, is that right?

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. Kea (13,559 comments) says:

    …pretty much as a flat line from the beginning of last century until about 1972, when violent crime began to grow exponentially.

    Dam the socialist tree hugging hippies, so much for free love ! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    @Mighty_Kites: A bigger concern would have to be the number of morons such as yourself who have been given access to a keyboard.

    Clearly it is lunchtime at your school. 8O

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    David Garrett (3,779) Says:
    May 21st, 2013 at 12:18 pm
    —————————————

    I’m sorry, where did I offer any forgiveness? My statement was about attitude to their offending – yours stinks (as demonstrated again above).

    Your passport fraud caused some people a great deal of pain – something you constantly discount and then there is the assault charge (does it being in Tonga make it any less a crime?). Assault is a violent crime – even if it doesn’t fall under your definition of one.

    And drink driving – how many people are killed by drink drivers each year Mr Garrett – is that also a ‘nothing’ crime to you?

    Then we have the legal profession – the one you bought disrepute to when you lied to the Law Society.

    I’m sorry that you consider your offending history as ‘dim and distant’. I don’t know about you, but I can remember 2011 very well, and hardly find it distant at all.

    I think it is pathetic that you try to take the moral high ground, when you have such a prolonged offending history. It is ironic that you should give crime reduction advice using statistics in which your offending occurs.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 38 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. flipper (4,330 comments) says:

    Now, now. Settle down you two. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    The current theory is that removing lead in petrol twenty years ago three strikes has caused crime to drop now.

    Sorry, couldn’t resist ;-)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. hmmokrightitis (1,596 comments) says:

    And I would suggest Judith that you shut the fuck up, stop attacking the man and debate the message. The message is clearly a good one. Having lived through Guilliani’s days in NYC, the differnce was huge. And having a nephew who is a cop in Auckland, seeing the changes there is a really good thing.

    Get over yourself. As your god would say, judge not etc etc.

    Thanks DG, good post

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. hj (7,165 comments) says:

    Chris Laidlaw interviewed an inmate who described going back in as like the TV program Cheers. He said he goes back for a “catch up”. yet that statement ran counter to the thrust of the whole program.
    …….
    Fear of crime is important as (some one pointed out) people started driving kids to school after the abduction and murder of little Teressa Cormack [Jules Mikas].
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teresa_Cormack

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Graeme Edgeler (2,972 comments) says:

    Well, if the graph is so misleading, and focuses on the wrong things, could you provide a more accurate one (charting violent crime and homicide since 1900).

    I would note that a number of things are considered criminal now that will not have been included in past records. Do you have information on the level of male assaults female charges that occur in domestic situations? A fair comparison of levels of violence would probably remove this, as the levels of this in the past may have been high, but were ignored by police (“just a domestic” etc.). Similarly, marital rape didn’t used to be rape (until some time in the 80s, I think), and violence in schools more routinely involves the police than in the past (student on student, and teacher on student, and probably student on teacher as well).

    If past instances of things that would be treated as reasonably serious offences today (caning would be an assault with a weapon) were added to the past incidence of violent crime, past numbers would increase substantially.

    Do you know whether all the allegations of historical sexual abuse at places like the Epuni Boys Home and other state-run institutions gets added to historical data on sexual offending. If someone complains to police (or to the Confidential Listening Service) about abuse in the 1960s, does that count as a reported sexual assault today, or for the time when it is alleged to have occurred; does some of it not count at all?

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. hj (7,165 comments) says:

    There’s a big cultural difference to crime and punishment between Asia and the West. Liberals just don’t go there and yet are the first to call anyone racist in any other context?

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. toms (209 comments) says:

    “…And I would suggest Judith that you shut the fuck up, stop attacking the man and debate the message….”

    Debating the message would be to go against the fine ten year traditions of Kiwiblog. I thought you righties were all for sticking to the old fashioned values of the past?

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 8 Thumb down 25 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. hj (7,165 comments) says:

    There are a whole ranges of offenses that we no longer have available. You could use that either way.

    Also video cams have made a difference. I wouls say mostof the public support Dirty Harry but he can’t get away with it due to competion from “is my hair looking good” star lawyer.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Graeme Edgeler (2,910) Says:
    May 21st, 2013 at 12:48 pm

    ————————-

    Good points Graeme, and we do have to remember of course the stats only ever show us the reported crime. Various types of crimes often remain unreported, depending very much on the type of society and era in which they occur.

    Crimes against children, until recently were one area that often went unreported. Same is now happening with property crime, where many insurance companies now have a cap on the dollar value of thefts that must be reported to police before payment is made.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. hmmokrightitis (1,596 comments) says:

    toms, please dont, whatever the urge may be, seek to reproduce with judith. The potential spawn of such a union is just too horrid to contemplate.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 19 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    I think it is pathetic that you try to take the moral high ground,

    How many ex-convicts have you rehabilitated at your place then Jude?

    And why does the idea of locking up a few criminals for a bit longer than they might otherwise have been locked up, make you SO ANGRY?

    Seriously??

    Take a look at some of your posts on this thread.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. Sidey (255 comments) says:

    So, Judith, do you have anything constructive to offer in relation to the post, or do you just haunt this blog to carp on with personal attacks? I’ve read the post but clearly I missed the bit where DG sets himself above everyone else. To me, it just reads like an analysis of a report with some concluding insights based on an in-depth knowledge of the topic.

    Please do illuminate us with your own insights into the post. What don’t you agree with and why? Or are so you blinded by your small-minded hatred that you can’t see past seeing DG’s name? Given your 2,500+ comments you’re clearly not one to have no opinion. So what is it?

    Yes, I’m aware (mainly thanks to your ongoing efforts) of DG’s “colourful” history, no I don’t know him personally. Doesn’t mean his thoughts on a topic in which he clearly has some knowledge should be automatically excluded. If you believe it should, perhaps you could ask DPF for your very own guest post so you can show us your manifesto outlining which events in someone’s life will preclude/allow them to hold opinions? You clearly have some rules you apply to others, I’m curious as to what they are so I can refine my commenting to ensure I don’t get on your wrong side.

    For instance, I received a speeding ticket around 20 years ago. Speeding is implicated in some accidents leading to injury and death. So that rules out injury and death as topics I’m allowed to comment on, in “Judith Land.” A speeding car can cause anxiety to other motorists. Oops, another off-limits topic for ‘ole Sidey. And I was in a car driving through the Cromwell Gorge at night at the time. So that’s cars, driving, Central Otago and night time all gone right there.

    Man, this is tough without your written guidelines to ensure we don’t fall foul of your good self. Please help us!

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    RRM (7,225) Says:
    May 21st, 2013 at 12:56 pm
    ———————-

    It is the attitude of the writer that concerns me.

    However, I am also against releasing prisoners who have been incarcerated for long periods of time, into the community, without any form of supervision. It is a recipe for disaster. When they were released on parole, even though mistakes were made, at least there was a means to control them. Without parole, or something similar, you are taking a dangerous person out of the community for a long period of time, and then releasing them with no legal ability to supervise or keep an eye on them.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. hj (7,165 comments) says:

    Toms Says:

    Debating the message would be to go against the fine ten year traditions of Kiwiblog. I thought you righties were all for sticking to the old fashioned values of the past?
    ……

    to you “old” and “white” are pejorative terms. What sort of values are those?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. Graeme Edgeler (2,972 comments) says:

    There are a whole ranges of offenses that we no longer have available. You could use that either way.

    Offences generally, yes, although I am certain that there are many many more offences under the law at this time than there ever has been. I’m interested in particular examples of repealed offences that you think would make a difference.

    I would also note that we are discussing sexual and violent offences. I can think of the offence of male-male homosexual sex having been repealed, but I can’t think of any others. There are a great many more types of violent and sexual crime today than there were in the past (e.g. laws recognising that women can commit certain sexual crimes).

    There will be a few past offences that should be excluded (e.g. homosexual acts), when we are talking about sexual and violent crime, but this will still be very one-sided. A lot of things we treat seriously today which count as sexual or violent crime were ignored in the past.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. labrator (1,851 comments) says:

    I think it is pathetic that you try to take the moral high ground, when you have such a prolonged offending history.

    The only one taking the high moral high ground here is you Judith. An ounce of humility and a dictionary would do you wonders.

    Vote: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. Colville (2,318 comments) says:

    Graeme Edgler. If you want to adjust historical stats for crimes that are only now comming to light are you also going to preemptivley adjust todays stats for crimes that will come to light in 20 years? Because as we know priests havent stopped fucking boys and kids still get abused in the states care.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. hj (7,165 comments) says:

    The Great Innocence Robbery
    http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/2013/05/the-great-innocence-robbery-the-awful-abuse-of-girls-in-oxford-is-just-the-latest-consequence.html

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Graeme Edgeler (2,972 comments) says:

    Colville – if we want to compare the incidence of, for example, sexual crimes in 1960 vs sexual crimes in 2010, then of course we should include all the crimes we can find for 1960 and all the crimes we can find for 2010.

    It would be wrong to adjust for things that were not crimes in 1960 (e.g. caning in schools) when making a comparison between levels of crime, but it may be useful to take account of it when comparing the levels of violence in society.

    How you should adjust (and whether you should) will depend on what comparison is being sought to be made, but we should particularly be careful in comparing information that has not been adjusted.

    Domestic violence was just as illegal in 1975 as it was in 2005, but the attitude of society (and the police/courts etc.) to it differed so greatly that comparisons between male assualts female charges arising in domestic situations will be meaningless in showing the levels of domestic violence prevalent at those times.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. OneTrack (3,360 comments) says:

    Once again the lefties take the nasty approach. No question why they call Labour the nasty party.

    Lefty 101, attack the man instead of the ball, as usual. Boring.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. Paulus (2,707 comments) says:

    Judith, or Karol ex Carol – go back to the Standard please.

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Chuck Bird (4,896 comments) says:

    Domestic violence was just as illegal in 1975 as it was in 2005, but the attitude of society (and the police/courts etc.) to it differed so greatly that comparisons between male assualts female charges arising in domestic situations will be meaningless in showing the levels of domestic violence prevalent at those times.

    Just slightly off topic but in this age of equality as well as a huge rise in female initiated violence against men and other females why is male assaults female still on the books?

    Do any of you liberals who support such things as homosexual adoption believe such as sexist law remain on the books and if so why?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. laworder (298 comments) says:

    Judith wrote

    However, I am also against releasing prisoners who have been incarcerated for long periods of time, into the community, without any form of supervision. It is a recipe for disaster. When they were released on parole, even though mistakes were made, at least there was a means to control them. Without parole, or something similar, you are taking a dangerous person out of the community for a long period of time, and then releasing them with no legal ability to supervise or keep an eye on them.

    Perhaps if they are that dangerous then the best idea would be to not release them into the community at all rather than attempting to supervise them? I have serious misgivings about the concept of “supervising” such offenders and feel that it is an onerous responsibility that no mere mortal should have placed upon them.

    Regards
    Peter J
    see http://www.sensiblesentencing.org.nz

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. RRM (10,099 comments) says:

    Do any of you liberals who support such things as homosexual adoption believe such as sexist law remain on the books and if so why?

    Because you pooped your pants :neutral:

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. toms (209 comments) says:

    “…Once again the lefties take the nasty approach. No question why they call Labour the nasty party.

    Lefty 101, attack the man instead of the ball, as usual. Boring…”

    And everyone wondered where Aaron Gilmore sprang from. Clearly, OneTrack thinks irony is that bitter taste in his mouth.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. Graeme Edgeler (2,972 comments) says:

    Just slightly off topic but in this age of equality as well as a huge rise in female initiated violence against men and other females why is male assaults female still on the books?

    Because there is limited parliamentary time, and the government has not yet legislated to enact the recommendations of the Law Commission to abolish it.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. Chuck Bird (4,896 comments) says:

    Thanks Graeme. I did not realise the Law Commission recommended abolishing it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    laworder (205) Says:
    May 21st, 2013 at 1:27 pm
    ———————–

    I agree, releasing dangerous prisoners into the community is foolhardy. However, we must work within the legal system that puts a finite date on sentences. You cannot hold a person beyond that time, unless they are insane (an extremely hard measure to prove).

    Currently even with the three strikes law, the vast majority of prisoners will be released when their sentence ends. This means quite literately the doors of the prison is open, and they leave. Where they go from that point on is entirely up to them. They cannot be made to stay away from victims (unless the victim takes out a protection order). They cannot be made to supply an address of where they are living, or any of the the other conditions that can be enforced under parole or similar sentence.

    In my opinion, by all means keep a person in prison for a longer period, but we should NEVER release a long term or violent offender back into the community without some manner of enforcing supervision to ensure, at least for sometime, that the community is safer, and that the offender is assimilating back into the community in a responsible manner.

    The most difficult time and the most likely time for many dangerous offenders to reoffend is upon release – when going from a fully supervised and relatively stressfree environment they are faced with living in a community they have not been present in for perhaps 20 years. It is in this timeframe that innocent people are likely to be hurt. There has to be the ability to supervise and keep a watchful eye during that time.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. NK (1,259 comments) says:

    Judith, one of the country’s eminent criminologists, Greg Newbold, served about 12 years for importing Heroin (I believe that was it). He is constantly referred to by media looking for crime “comment”. I presume Dr Newbold has no credibility either?

    Vote: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. Psycho Milt (2,423 comments) says:

    Your passport fraud caused some people a great deal of pain…

    Exactly. It was a terrible, hurtful crime, whereas topping the odd person is merely the sort of youthful indiscretion that could happen to anyone…

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    NK (535) Says:
    May 21st, 2013 at 1:46 pm

    Greg has a lot of credibility – I have never heard Greg minimalise or excuse his offending in any manner. He is, and expects to be totally held responsible and accountable for it. He never expects any allowances to be made regarding his offending or because of his offending. He does not expect people to forgive his offending and forget it, just because he is a successful commentator and academic and has given much back to the field of criminology. I know Greg well. :-)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 13 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. Kea (13,559 comments) says:

    Passport fraud is a victimless regulatory matter and nothing more.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. Bob R (1,420 comments) says:

    Good post DG.

    They mentioned on Radio NZ National the other day that certain Hamilton suburbs had been targeted by police and had shown a significant drop in burglaries. Apparently, prior to that initiative there had been about 100 BURGLARIES PER WEEKEND in these particular Hamilton suburbs. Disgraceful, so it was good to hear police were targeting those suburbs.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. NK (1,259 comments) says:

    Greg has a lot of credibility – I have never heard Greg minimalise or excuse his offending in any manner. He is, and expects to be totally held responsible and accountable for it. He never expects any allowances to be made regarding his offending or because of his offending. He does not expect people to forgive his offending and forget it, just because he is a successful commentator and academic and has given much back to the field of criminology. I know Greg well.

    Judith, and neither does David Garrett.

    Are you sure your name isn’t Kim?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. david c (192 comments) says:

    Man this has been awesome. This article has been so brutally Edgelered and yet Mr Garrett has not made a single response to the questions raised.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. Tom Jackson (2,553 comments) says:

    The drop in crime is puzzling. My guess is that some of it has to do with technology.

    People no longer carry a lot of cash, and financial transactions are time stamped and recorded. More to the point, if you commit a crime, you will likely be recorded on a security camera or on someone’s cell phone camera. IT has gone a long way to creating a virtual panopticon. It would obviously suck to be a rapist these days, since forensic science is so good that a DNA profile will pretty much be an insta-conviction.

    e.g. play Grand Theft Auto IV. As soon as you start doing something bad (even if it’s only kicking a homeless person), nearby citizens will whip our their cell phones and call up John Q Law and his mates. Even if you’ve got the rocket launcher it’s hard to get all of them before they alert the authorities.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    NK (536) Says:
    May 21st, 2013 at 1:56 pm
    ————————–

    My name isn’t Kim – obviously you haven’t read the posts I have.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    This article has been so brutally Edgelered and yet Mr Garrett has not made a single response to the questions raised.

    David G is probably busy with handi-towels – wiping the great dollops of crap from his screen left by the resident harridan. :D

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. hj (7,165 comments) says:

    Graeme Edgeler
    I’m interested in particular examples of repealed offences that you think would make a difference.
    ……..
    I would have thought that once the sort of behaviour preceding the killing of the radio nz journalist, where people look a bit “aggro” or dodgy could have been dealt with (ie they wouldn’t have been given the benefit of the doubt)?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. gazzmaniac (2,306 comments) says:

    Passport fraud is a victimless regulatory matter and nothing more.

    So is drink driving and not crashing. So is speeding and not crashing. So is smuggling drugs. So is selling drugs.
    Mr Garrett still stole a dead baby’s identity. And the fact he campaigns about lowering violent crime and is a violent criminal himself makes him a hypocrite.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Dean Papa (784 comments) says:

    I can find no source for there being 4000 homicides/year in NYC in the 1990s.

    Peak years look to be early 1990s, with a little over 2000/year.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    Dont be silly Judith

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Interesting New Plymouth and 60 years ago was mentioned; I lived in NP all my school days and was 10 in 1953. There was one murder about that time, my father was foreman of the jury that convicted the accused. Dad was sequestered in a hotel for the trial, about a week or so I think. Imagine that procedure now, the hotels would have no rooms for visitors.

    That was the only murder I can remember, I don’t remember any violence. Am I forgetting life then? I don’t think so. At a high school with a thousand boys, everybody behaved, without exception. Too bloody frightened not to.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. labrator (1,851 comments) says:

    @dean papa Looks like it peaked at 2,605 in 1990 if this source is trustworthy.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. david c (192 comments) says:

    How dare you Dean Papa. How dare you find a fact that doesn’t fit with the narrative that Mr Garrett is trying to put forward. PAH ON YOUR FACTS. PAH.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. Graeme Edgeler (2,972 comments) says:

    I don’t remember any violence. Am I forgetting life then? I don’t think so. At a high school with a thousand boys, everybody behaved, without exception. Too bloody frightened not to.

    Frightened of what?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. Chuck Bird (4,896 comments) says:

    @gazzmaniac

    Why not give your real name and swear on an affidavit that you have never driven while over the limit?

    I wonder how many judges have at any time in their life done the same?

    I do not want to down play driving while over the limit but I do not think it reasonable to equate driving over the limit but not drunk with a really violent criminal.

    What do others think?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Graeme. Frightened of what?

    In an immediate and real sense, being disciplined, that is, the cane. But also the disgrace, disappointing parents, embarrassing parents among their friends. We wanted to be good, I think. Our fathers had (or hadn’t) and masters had returned form the war, we had a strong cadet corps and carried rifles regularly. We wanted to be men.

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (3,441) Says:
    May 21st, 2013 at 3:01 p
    ——————

    Interesting one. What do you clarify as ‘drunk’? The alcohol limits have been set at values believed to interfere with the ability to operate a vehicle in an efficient manner.

    Driving whilst over the limit can and has resulted in the death of not just the drinking driver but also innocent people, not to mention injured many – does it make them a violent criminal ? I guess not unless they lose control and hit something/someone – but the potential is there.

    Have any of our judges driven whilst over the limit – LOL!!!
    However, monkey see monkey do is no excuse.

    Assaulting someone does however demonstrate a propensity for deliberate violence – even if a fist never made contact, the intention is there.

    Both assault and drink driving have the potential to take a life – even a fist can kill.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 9 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. Graeme Edgeler (2,972 comments) says:

    In an immediate and real sense, being disciplined, that is, the cane.

    You may see my point.

    You don’t remember the time as a violent one, but do remember that the reason you and your friends were well-behaved was that school children might be assaulted with a weapon.

    A lot of people might consider a society in which children could be (and were) caned to be quite a violent one. The violence may have been lawful violence (just as other forms of violence, such as domestic violence, were largely ignored), but it is a type of violence we have now made criminal.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Graeme. Yes, make me laugh. Assaulted with a weapon? For goodness sake, we carried rifles frequently and regularly. We knew the difference between a weapon and a stick. I preferred my society. We didn’t have the violence we have now. The point is, we were frightened of the consequences of bad behaviour.

    We have made discipline a dirty word and made homosexuality wonderful.

    Vote: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. kowtow (8,938 comments) says:

    A type of violence (discipline)we have now made criminal and in so doing made how many criminals?

    It’s interesting how the old morality has been turned on its head ,all in the name of progress .But how much progress have we made?

    I think we are a far less moral society and govt has needed very little encouragement to fill the void with a mass of new legislation that has done nothing but create whole new classes of “victims” ,as well as new types of criminals ,people like Andrew Bolt and Mark Steyn who speak out against the new order.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. Graeme Edgeler (2,972 comments) says:

    Yes, make me laugh. Assaulted with a weapon? For goodness sake, we carried rifles frequently and regularly. We knew the difference between a weapon and a stick. I preferred my society. We didn’t have the violence we have now. The point is, we were frightened of the consequences of bad behaviour.

    It’s perfectly reasonable to form the view that your society was a better one. I’m not necessarily saying it wasn’t.

    But my simple point is that when you are comparing the levels of violence today with the levels of violence in the past, it is important to realise that things that we consider violence today (and if you don’t think a teacher – or parent – using a cane wouldn’t be charged with not just assault, but with assault with a weapon, then you are gravely mistaken) were not considered violent back then.

    If we are to compare apples with apples, we need to realise that some of the charges of violence that exist today are charges were a teacher has a assaulted a student. If this is included in a count of the total number of violent crimes today (and it is), then to have a fair comparison, similar events in the past should also be included.

    It seems to me that you are drawing a distinction between violent incidents you think are beneficial (caning in schools), and violent offences you think are not (punching someone in the street). You don’t remember any of the latter in the past, so think of it as a less violent time. At best, it may have been a time when the proportion of violent acts that was beneficial was higher than it is today.

    This can easily be a bad thing, but that doesn’t mean it is not a violent thing. Just different types of violence – assaults by teachers – legal; assaults by husbands – ignored etc.)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. Graeme Edgeler (2,972 comments) says:

    A type of violence (discipline)we have now made criminal and in so doing made how many criminals?

    It’s interesting how the old morality has been turned on its head ,all in the name of progress .But how much progress have we made?

    Entirely fair arguments. I’m not making an argument about whether the past was better or worse, I’m making an observation about the levels of violence in the past vs today, and the simple point is that there are things the laws treats as serious violent crimes, that society not only tolerated, but encouraged in the past.

    You may think it was good violence. I may think it was good violence. Society may be worse today for its absence, but it’s still violence.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. Kea (13,559 comments) says:

    “Passport fraud is a victimless regulatory matter and nothing more.”

    So is drink driving and not crashing. So is speeding and not crashing.

    gazzmaniac ,correct.

    But still more risky than a minor breach of a regulatory matter.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. liarbors a joke (1,069 comments) says:

    Bring back the 50’s -70’s anyday…now its all out of control..feral scum , no discipline , up yours , yeah we on the right track alright.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. David Garrett (7,699 comments) says:

    Sorry to abandon a thread I created…I actually have to work for a living sadly… and since the probation officer from christchurch tells us she isnt retired, I wonder how she finds so much time to comment here?

    But on to the people worth responding to…Graeme E: I didnt say the graph in the HoS story was worthless; I said it creates the impression that violent crime has reduced to the same extent as crime generally, and that is simply not the case….I dont have the skills to create a similar graph showing only violent offences, but apparently it is not hard to do if you know how. My argument is of course that the writer of the article didnt do that because the whole theme of her story was we have never had it so good.

    Re the 4000 homicides in NYC per Guiliani, to be honest I didnt go and check sources; that post was written from memory, and memory can be faulty – mine no less that anyone elses. If someone says the hight point was 2000 odd I am quite prepared to accept that – I also recall that last year was the lowest since 1965…about 400 I think. Anyway you slice it, 400 is a massive reduction from 2000.

    Can anyone tell me how else my post has been “massively Edglered”? I am away from my office using someone else’s computer, and away fromy my very old fashioned paper reference material, but I will try my best to respond…

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. Bob R (1,420 comments) says:

    ***It seems to me that you are drawing a distinction between violent incidents you think are beneficial (caning in schools), and violent offences you think are not (punching someone in the street).***

    Graeme Edgeler,

    Well, there is a distinction here between punishment by authority figures to enforce the rules/laws and random violence (eg aggravated robbery/mugging). Following your argument you could say that locking criminal offenders away for longer periods means there is a higher level of abduction :)

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. Kea (13,559 comments) says:

    Can anyone tell me how else my post has been “massively Edglered”?

    Not me. I do not even know what “Edglered” means !

    Sounds like some obscure term a wanker would use.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Graeme Edgeler (2,972 comments) says:

    Can anyone tell me how else my post has been “massively Edglered”? I am away from my office using someone else’s computer, and away fromy my very old fashioned paper reference material, but I will try my best to respond…

    Well, I don’t think that’s happened, but I’m interested in your views on the other matters I raised. If we include all the past sexual offending that we heard so little about when it actually happened (in schools, state facilities, churches etc.), how would this change sexual offending rates?

    If we included domestic violence that used to occur, and used to be tolerated by police, how would that change the track of violent offending over time?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Kea (13,559 comments) says:

    Oh now I get it :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. Chuck Bird (4,896 comments) says:

    “If we included domestic violence that used to occur, and used to be tolerated by police”

    It still is often tolerated by police depending on who does the hitting.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. David Garrett (7,699 comments) says:

    Those are two good questions Graeme, and the honest answer is I don’t know.

    Newbold tells me that very little data was kept back in the 50’s and 60’s about reoffending rates by parolees for example, so I suspect the answer might be “that information wasnt kept”…

    My feeling is that sexual offending – as defined in 2013 – was probably as high or higher in the 60’s – remember that it’s only about 20 years or so since a man could be convicted of raping this wife…prior to that change, he was simply exercising his “conjugal rights”.

    Another point I didn’t make in my post re homicide is the difference advances in emergency medicine have made. Put simply, many stabbing victims who now survive would have died even 10 years ago, and a great many more 20 or 30 years ago. The English columnist Theodore Dalrymple (who is a medical doctor) has opined that the actual homicide rate might be up to 20% higher than it is now were it not for the advances in emergency medicine in the last 20 years.

    From a criminological point of view, homicide is a “good” crime to analyse because of course it can never be argued that it was ever underreported. That argument is often made re domestic violence for example.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. Chuck Bird (4,896 comments) says:

    Driving whilst over the limit can and has resulted in the death of not just the drinking driver but also innocent people, not to mention injured many – does it make them a violent criminal ?

    The short answer is no. I do not think that Parliament or judges view driving whilst over the limit view such people as violent criminals either. The penalty for a first offense for driving whilst over the limit is a fine of less than $1000 and 6 months loss of license.

    Most offenses that qualify for a strike carry a sentence of at least 7 years. Have you lost a child or close relation to a drunk driver or are just tailoring your argument because you dislike David Garrett?

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Graeme. Thank you. Just been for a much-needed walk and got caught in a thunderstorm. Leaving aside the definition of violence, the “assault” with a leather strap or cane is entirely voluntary. Behave yourself and you didn’t get it. Normally. One occasion when the whole third form was amassed in the gym for singing, the music master decided enough was enough and he would cane those who had forgotten their song books, again. So, every single boy suddenly “realised” he had forgotten his book and stood up. Old Hoppy Lynch went and got JJ Stewart and they “caned” all of us, >300.

    A few years ago, about the time I was thinking of “borrowing” some orange cones to put along the road and prune a tree, I awoke to find the road closed completely, police guarding it. Very convenient, I couldn’t believe my luck. No so lucky was a young chap on his way home who had been stabbed to death just along the road. The finality of death versus the memory of a hoot.

    When my daughter was 15-16, years ago, she was wilfully disobedient. A matter had arisen that needed urgent attention and she refused to cooperate. After some discussion, I calmly took my belt off and chased her up the stairs. She locked herself in the bathroom, which I proceeded to “knock down”. After a considerable amount of yelling, all overheard by a patient sitting in the chair, who was a policeman, she came out with her arms protecting her legs. I said, “You’ve got 10 minutes to change your mind and see your mother.” She duly reported with a “Dad’s a bastard, mumble mumble ….” and grudgingly did what was required of her.

    What I would have done had she not backed down is another matter. The point is she didn’t. She knew there were times she had to do what she had to do. Or there would be consequences.

    When I had a car stolen from outside my front door, I had people ringing me for years about organised meetings with the kids who took it, and their useless parents. A bloody good hiding is what they needed. And the kids too.

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. hj (7,165 comments) says:

    Graeme Edgeler
    A lot of people might consider a society in which children could be (and were) caned to be quite a violent one. The violence may have been lawful violence (just as other forms of violence, such as domestic violence, were largely ignored), but it is a type of violence we have now made criminal.
    …….

    Are we confusing violent with authoritarian?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_P._Fay

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. Graeme Edgeler (2,972 comments) says:

    Are we confusing violent with authoritarian?

    I don’t believe so.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. Graeme Edgeler (2,972 comments) says:

    Most offenses that qualify for a strike carry a sentence of at least 7 years.

    All offences that qualify as a strike carry a maximum sentence of at least 7 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. Graeme Edgeler (2,972 comments) says:

    Leaving aside the definition of violence, the “assault” with a leather strap or cane is entirely voluntary. Behave yourself and you didn’t get it.

    I recall an instance where I got a detention despite not doing anything wrong, and others where other students got detentions or other punishments despite being innocent. Did teachers back in the day have special powers?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Graeme. I got the cane in error. Taught me life wasn’t fair. Didn’t kill me. Yes, the teachers had special powers, they corrected our work and us.

    Didn’t have the special power of lawyers though, to get the guilty off with bullshit. :)

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Chuck Bird (3,443) Says:
    May 21st, 2013 at 5:29 pm

    ——————————-
    I was referring to your question at 5.01pm where you mentioned drink driving and violence and asked what others thought.

    Regarding your other statement. I’ve met David Garrett once in a professional capacity and at the time thought he was an ok guy. However he has on several occasions made statements on here that attempt to excuse and belittle the severity of his offences. I don’t like that attitude in offenders – it sets off warning signs. As far as the man is concerned, I couldn’t care less what he does or thinks, his 3 strikes law is a move in the right direction but as it is, is fraught with problems. I note he doesn’t feel the same about me, and thinks he has worked out who I am and where I live. Nothing like a stalker to make one feel important. So far he is wrong on all his summations. I’m just glad he’s not my lawyer.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. The parents of the dead infant whose name was used were upset. They took it personally. Nothing was stolen. The passport was not used to commit a crime. A silly prank. We can’t have people with “false” passports because they might be used to commit a crime, so don’t issue them.

    Many people who are “over the limit” are not drunk or anything like it. I can tell you I have driven after drinking a whole bottle of Scotch. Not very well and not on a public road. In fact a road with bloody great drains both sides.

    Knifing or shooting someone, except in self defence or war, is the worst crime a person can commit. It is unforgivable. Do you hear me, Judith, it is unforgivable. UNFORGIVABLE. Understandable sometimes but never forgivable. Never.

    Killing some accidentally might be forgivable, depending on circumstances. Eventually. Rarely.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  82. Harriet (5,200 comments) says:

    The major problem I can see with the 3s law is that if it works -eg. few go on to committing a 2nd strike offence- judges may then impose lessor sentances for the first conviction seeing that they have ‘no need’ to ‘deter’ the convicted or the public from committing further serious crimes.

    This in itself is a real worry as you can kill someone with just one or two punches to the head. So the need to harshly sentance first time assault convictions to deter the public from committing their FIRST act of violence is still paramount to lowering the murder rate.

    The law -justice- has to place a far greater value on life, as the differance between assault and death is not too much at all, infact, very very little if any in some cases.

    Advances in medicine that saves the lives of victims of assault should not continue to cloud the wisdom of judges, the parliment, the media, and the public! :cool:

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  83. Dexter (317 comments) says:

    Many people who are “over the limit” are not drunk or anything like it.

    Completely incorrect. The inverse is actually true and most people are amazed at how drunk you have to be to actually be over the limit. A few local TV shows have even tested it on driving simulators and most men had to drink around 8 full strength beers before they were even close.

    Is there really much of a moral or character difference between someone who deliberately drives drunk with no regard for the welfare of others and someone who gets grossly intoxicated and takes a swing at someone he thought threatened him or abused his wife and becomes a ‘violent’ criminal.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  84. Viking2 (11,672 comments) says:

    So crime increased from the 70’s eh.
    Who became our migrants in the late 60’s and onwards?
    Refer to the postings on Sunday over the returning crminals from Australia.

    Might be a few clues there.
    Oh and when did Govt intoduced the open slather DPB?
    There’s another clue.

    Along with decling job markets, increasing use of dope, more Laws about everything than the USA.

    Waking up is nearly a reportable crime these days. Let alone looking a dirty pics on your computer. 8) :roll:

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  85. toms (209 comments) says:

    “… Old Hoppy Lynch went and got JJ Stewart and they “caned” all of us, >300…”

    Your gleeful desire in the infliction of a violent of assault on 300 boys for no real reason is truly perverted. Violence like this is wrong, it is simple common assault on boys by thuggish men.

    All I can say is hurry up and die, because when you are gone the world will be just that little bit a better place. You turn my stomach.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 15 You need to be logged in to vote
  86. duggledog (1,621 comments) says:

    I’ve heard all sorts of reasons for the escalation in crime over the years we have all seen from ordinary thuggery to white collar crime.

    – Maori youth being told from birth they’ve had their land stolen and colonisation being at fault (why only this morning on Morning Report I heard some Maori guy say this twice as if it was gospel, without it being challenged)

    – Polynesians coming to NZ, having many kids and not being aware the State couldn’t afford to pay for everything

    – The abolition of corporal punishment

    – Grand Theft Auto, violent movies

    And so on. Who knows really – maybe all of the above and more.

    Here’s something to chuck in the mix though: up until the 1970s we had a lot of men in the Police and teaching in schools who were ex-military. They took no shit whatsoever. I was caned by some of them! Prisons were where you went to be punished. New Zealand is not like that any more. We have completely lost any backbone in dealing with criminals, and they take advantage of it.

    Up until recently, people like Michael Bott just didn’t exist! Or if they did, nobody listened to them

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  87. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Dexter. Thank you. I do not condone driving after drinking. I don’t now take any alcohol at all, so I am not personally familiar with the regulations. My understanding is that there is a poor correlation between the number of drinks (amount of alcohol) and the blood level. I’m fairly sure the old test of walking along a straight line was a better guide to inebriation. But also, people who are used to drinking are not so noticeably “drunk” or incapacitated.

    It seems to me, the real problem is how one drives. An old fellow used to drinking drives fairly slowly home a few blocks in his small town is probably not the danger some young chap in a fast car showing off to his mates might be.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  88. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    toms (263) Says: May 21st, 2013 at 8:02 pm
    “… Old Hoppy Lynch went and got JJ Stewart and they “caned” all of us, >300…”

    Your gleeful desire in the infliction of a violent of assault on 300 boys for no real reason is truly perverted. Violence like this is wrong, it is simple common assault on boys by thuggish men. All I can say is hurry up and die, because when you are gone the world will be just that little bit a better place. You turn my stomach.

    You make me laugh. Is there anything else I can do to upset your stomach? I’m willing to try…

    Vote: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  89. Nostalgia-NZ (5,318 comments) says:

    The article in the HOS was correct. If, as GE has said, that ‘domestics’ and historical abuse was factored out of the current figures as opposed to the historical figures the crime rate would be seen to have fallen even more dramatically. Additionally Garret makes no answer to one of the points of the article, that people, while concerned about violent crime, also feel that violent crime is unlikely to happen to them, and are more concerned about the potential damage caused by drunk drivers. That’s probably a very contemporary concern by reason that there are more people driving and more people on the roads. By attacking the ‘figures’ of the falling crime rate Garrett has diverted from the article’s main thrust that many of the public are concerned about drunk drivers, less so however, that other crime may happen to them. Dear David would like it believed that the downward crime statistics didn’t start before what appears to be his ‘life’s work,’ he hasn’t supplied the figures though, nor answered the point raised in the article – drunk driving, is something which we are all responsible for to avoid personally and to discourage others from.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  90. Colville (2,318 comments) says:

    @Graeme. I got the cane in error. Taught me life wasn’t fair. Didn’t kill me. Yes, the teachers had special powers, they corrected our work and us.

    I got the cane and richly deserved it ;-) I was the last person at my college to get the stripes.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  91. Colville (2,318 comments) says:

    Dexter @ 7.22

    Yes in this country you need to be utterly shitfaced to be illegal for driving.
    i can (at my current petite 94 kg) drink a bottle of wine in a hour and drive home. Legal but blury.

    My ex bus partner who was a lightweight drinker but did weights was lights out at 3 bourbons but wayyyyy under the limit.
    (but he was an awesome bodygaurd when I was pissed!)

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  92. labrator (1,851 comments) says:

    All I can say is hurry up and die, because when you are gone the world will be just that little bit a better place. You turn my stomach.

    Interesting how toms takes the acceptance of capital punishment by an individual as reason enough to wish death upon them. There is something seriously wrong with toms mental reasoning and capacity not to mention weak stomached too.

    Nothing like a stalker to make one feel important.

    Judith showing the signs of mental disorder too. Like those people that taunt dogs and then get them put down when they’re bitten. No one is stalking you. You’re delusional.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  93. willtruth (243 comments) says:

    I think it is great that the HoS is pointing out that – despite the impression you get from the media – violence has been dropping for a while now, and we do have it pretty good at the moment. But Garrett is right to point out that violence was lower in the 1950s. All across the Western world, that decade was the lowest for violence in the history of the world.
    Violence was much higher before the 1950s, and goes up and up the further and further you go back. Yes there was an increase in violence from the 60s to the 90s, but as bad as it seemed it was actually quite a small blip compared to the massive levels of violence in the 19th century and further back. Nobody really knows why violence has been falling over the past 2000 years, and why there was a relatively small increase in the 1960s to the 90s, which has now been largely reversed.
    There was a great 2011 book about all this by Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature: Why Violence Has Declined. He basically proves that violence is dropping. He doesn’t prove WHY it is dropping, but he has some interesting theories.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  94. HB (331 comments) says:

    “The most interesting thing about the story for me was the sharp drop in crime since 2009 – about the time the National led government moved”

    I know for a fact that police have been instructed to make 13% less arrests.
    That would have a huge impact on the stats. Not less crime.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  95. David Garrett (7,699 comments) says:

    willtruth: You are completely wrong about violence being much worse prior to the decade of the 50’s…and you either know that, and are simply lying, or you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    The graph showing violent crime per 100,000 of population in New Zealand in the 20th century shows a virtually flat line from about 1920 through to the early 70’s when, as I said in the post, violent crime began to increase exponentially. Interestingly the line on the graph actually goes DOWN in 1932, the depths of the depression, when people were literally starving here. 1932 was the year of the first Queen Street riots (not the later one blamed on Dave Dobbyn)…the people were breaking into shops for food and clothing, not the 1932 equivalent of plasma TV’s and computers. So much for the demonstrably false theory that crime generally – let alone violent crime – is “caused by poverty”

    The riposte to what I have just said is often some variation on “oh, but society was very different then.” Too true, but the problem is there is no increased unemployment = increased crime correlation in modern times either. California – a state with which I am quite familiar because of 3S – experienced unemployment rates of about 17% following the GFC. There were dire predictions of an explosion in crime as a result. Crime actually stayed static, or trended down slightly. Nice theory; no cigar.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  96. Honeybadger (262 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (1,139) Says:

    May 21st, 2013 at 6:47 pm
    ‘Knifing or shooting someone, except in self defence or war, is the worst crime a person can commit. It is unforgivable. Do you hear me, Judith, it is unforgivable. UNFORGIVABLE. Understandable sometimes but never forgivable. Never.’
    HEAR HEAR Dennis, HEAR HEAR
    Although, ‘understandable’? NO NEVER
    Carry a knife or gun, and you have intent and premeditation, do it once? maybe? do it twice? bloody unforgivable, lock the sods up and throw away the key, and I personally think, for these ‘types’, there can never be reform, I sometimes think, bring back the death penalty

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  97. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Although not one of the chosen, “worth responding to” … I will continue to have my say. Graeme Edgeler thinks caning is a violent assault with a weapon. “toms” hopes, after my reminiscing about one occasion the third form tried to out-manoeuvre the music teacher, who called our bluff, with some 300 getting a whack, that I will die soon and thus make the world a better place. Incidentally not one boy pleaded, “Please , Sir, but I’ve got my song book”. Not one, although probably 95% did. By the time we reached sixth form there was no need to cane anyone.

    Anyway, that was “violence” then. A bit of canning, usually deserved, sometimes in error. Once a hoax.

    Now we have hundreds if not thousands of school pupils and university students at a time congregating in drunken mobs throwing bottles at the police.

    Anyway, that’s violence now. And nothing can be done about it, apparently.

    Tell you what, you wusses and fairies, give me a platoon and some canes and I’ll sort it once and for for good, in 24 hours.

    Society doesn’t need more social workers and lawyers, it needs more discipline and accountability.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  98. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Honeybadger. I half-watched a bit of TV last night, a chap had knifed his former (estranged?) partner and got 99 years(?) no parole for 30.

    I actually felt sorry for him. He didn’t seem a bad bloke. She was the mother of his child (I think he had others) and she had driven him to hate and despair. I can understand that. Women torment men. And there’s no law against it. Some behave very badly. Sluts. And there’s no law against that either.

    No, no. Crimes of passion are not the same as assaults on and killing of strangers.

    Also, this argument that driving after drinking is the same as punching someone is nonsense. A hard blow can always lead to injury and death, the driving almost never does.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  99. David Garrett (7,699 comments) says:

    Dennis: My apologies for offending you – that was not my intent at all. I didnt realise you were looking for a response re something you had said about my post. The person my barb was aimed at is the old bat from the south who thinks a two time killer whose attitude is apparently better than mine is a thoroughly rehabilitated individual. She is also apparently something of a clairvoyant, who just knows that my frequent expressions of regret for my actions 29 years ago are not genuine.

    FWIW, I agree completely that corporal punishment – while clearly violent – is in a completely different category from violence in the criminal sense. But then I am also one of those silly people who thinks hitting my son on the leg when he was naughty and the other sanctions hadn’t worked (at 7 he no longer needs it) is “violence”.

    Your contributions to this debate are thoughtful and interesting.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  100. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    David Garrett (3,783) Says:
    May 22nd, 2013 at 7:49 am
    ____________________

    More continued attacks, and as usual wrong. You don’t know where I live, but your attempts both on here and elsewhere to find out are somewhat amusing, and revealing. As you have continued to attack me, I shall take the opportunity to reply.

    Your regret was expressed only once you were found out. You had more than 20 years, and as a lawyer, would have known of the wrong you had done. Never once in that time did you attempt to put right your crime.

    Then, when you were found out – did you come clean – no, you lied more (that was not 20 odd years ago, but just a couple).

    Whenever anyone mentions your offending – you attack them. You don’t take it on the chin, or accept responsibility, you blame them for having the audacity to mention it. And when they don’t back down, you go on the defensive – posting little warnings that you ‘know who they are’.

    Your crimes:
    You belittle your passport fraud – this was not some simple prank as you would like people to believe. It involved a great deal of planning, manipulation, and time. You had to find a suitable dead baby, get photos, fill out forms, and all the other requirements of getting a passport, including a legal declaration and paying for it.

    If you had merely wanted to see if the system was corrupt – then you had 20 odd years to bring that to the attention of the authorities – you never did – despite having presumably matured within that time.

    Once caught – you lied about the conviction you received for assault. A violent crime. You received punishment from the Law Society because of those lies.

    That was another indication that you are not just a thug, but that you are a compulsive liar, who does not mind lying on official documents. For a normal person that behaviour is not on – for you it is worse, you are a lawyer and at that stage a member of parliament – representing the tax payer. You lied to us all.

    Your drink driving conviction was no doubt a symptom of living with so many lies. Many people have driven whilst intoxicated and not harmed anyone – many have. But rather than again accept responsibility – you down play it.

    You have three convictions – (3 strikes) one makes you a dishonest lying fraudster, one a violent thug, and the other demonstrates you had a problem with alcohol and obeying the law. Your lied to evade punishment and advance your career, by not being truthful about your conviction, further demonstration of the type of person you are.

    You need to stop attacking those that point out what you are, and accept what they say.
    You can draft all the legislation you like, donate as much to charity as you care to etc – but until you accept that your past will always follow you, and admit the harm you have caused and your propensity to be dishonest (once a fraudster always a fraudster) – you are going to continue getting a hard time from people.

    As a demonstration of your attitude – more than half the people on this blog post anonymously and yet you only point it out to those that oppose you. You cannot stand not being able to control people and shut them up – your attempts to ‘out’ me are an example of that – you want me to feel threatened and be quiet. I’ve dealt with many scumbags Mr Garret – experience which allows me to see right through you – dealing with you is amusing – you picked the wrong person to intimidate Mr Garret. Be honest, be honest to yourself and others, and who knows what you might achieve – keep lying and there will always be someone like me prepared to call you on it – so I suggest you get used to it.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  101. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @David. “Just testing … ” I suppose I should apologise to you. I do so love to tease people!

    Actually, I was rather sad at your predicament. Youth is silly. The law is an ass and Man is a mad animal.

    NZ welcomed Phoney Blair, a war criminal. Not allowed to say that on the Herald blogs.

    We are spending millions dealing with Kim Schmitz and the wrath of Hollywood crooks and bottlewashers. How much do you think the Americans would spend defending Baby Bush if we wanted him to stand trial for mass murderer? (What’s it cost to write: “Fuck off”?)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  102. David Garrett (7,699 comments) says:

    Judith…I am so wounded by your “attack”..I think I need a lie down.

    I actually dont give a flying you know what who you are, where you live, what you actually do for a living, or who you know (name dropping Newbold FFS) You enjoy dropping hints and giving little clues … I cant resist putting them together and joining the dots. Mea culpa; I guess it’s the legal training. Silly me.

    I could respond to your prolix post point by turgid point, but for what purpose? You think I am an asshole. I guess I will just have to try and live with it. It’s a trial, by God every day it’s a trial; I can but box on.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  103. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. You couldn’t see through gin, Judith.

    You see, I don’t care if Garrett got a false passport. I don’t know what the purpose was, but it was not used to commit a crime. It upset the parents, so they said. Tough. I am sorry they lost their child, but Garrett had nothing to do with that. No connection.

    I don’t know about the assault. I’ve forgotten. Can’t have been much.

    Drink driving. When I was a kid, people had “one for the road”. Nobody killed anybody. It’s the fucking bad driving, not the drinking, that’s the problem.

    Your judgement on the Bain murders is completely awry too, Judith. I have never seen a case with so much evidence, and it’s perfectly clear who did it.

    Like all women, you’re like a dog with a bone. I’ll bet you can remember some minor insult or misunderstanding from 40-50 years ago, and keep bashing your poor husband on the head with it. I know you, Judith, make no mistake about that.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  104. Longknives (4,953 comments) says:

    “I could respond to your prolix post point by turgid point, but for what purpose? ”

    Do it! I love seeing hypocritical lefty nutjobs getting humiliated and destroyed….

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  105. Kea (13,559 comments) says:

    Judith, using the identity of a dead person is a victimless regulatory irregularity. People use assumed indentities all the time. You are using one now, unlike David Garrett.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  106. Longknives (4,953 comments) says:

    “Your judgement on the Bain murders is completely awry too, Judith. I have never seen a case with so much evidence, and it’s perfectly clear who did it.”

    Ha! I almost forgot that this looney tune was a paid-up member of the ‘Cult of Karam’….

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  107. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    The turgid comments (love the expression) from the self appointed know all, have had one good outcome….

    If ever I’m having a ‘bad’ day, I know I can take a momentary pause from my work, have a sip from my coffee and just thank my lucky stars I’m not the poor bastard heading home to…… that! :D

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  108. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    Dennis Horne (1,144) Says:
    May 22nd, 2013 at 8:45 am
    ——————-

    Firstly, I couldn’t care what you believe, and secondly, regarding your comment about ‘dog with bone’. Mr Garrett was the one that made the criticism – I merely replied.

    I posted one post ‘oh the irony’ – and in he came with his attacks, I stopped responding last night, but decided after his mornings attempt to give him my opinion again – but that’s ok, you see what you want to see. We all do. But please stop thinking I am responding to you – unless I address it to you – none of the answer to Mr Garrett was ‘about you’.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  109. Kea (13,559 comments) says:

    stop thinking I am responding to you – unless I address it to you – none of the answer to Mr Garrett was ‘about you’.

    Now go to your room Dennis !!! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  110. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @Judith. I can see I have hurt you. No, I didn’t think you were addressing me. I was simply making the point you have repeatedly asserted Garrett is “evil” because he hasn’t prostrated himself before you, “seduced” you – in a purely intellectual way, of course. ;)

    Now, I do take you seriously, Judith, although I can see that many don’t. And you do care what I believe. And yes, maybe David does needle you. But your responses make you sound like a sanctimonious old fool. You are no expert on the human condition.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  111. willtruth (243 comments) says:

    David G, I said that violence in the western world was higher prior to the 1950s, and much higher the further you go back in time. You dispute this with reference to a graph. What graph? Can I ask you where you get your stats from? Mine come from the Steven Pinker book I referenced earlier. The book is not available for free on-line but one of the articles (Eisner 2003) he cites is.

    http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/arts/history/postgraduate/ma_studies/mamodules/hi971/topics/interpersonal/long-term-historical-trends-of-violent-crime.pdf

    If you look at the graph on page 85 it shows that homicide rates in England were a huge 20 per 100,000 in the year 1200. This dropped massively over the centuries, by 1800 it was well below 5 per 100,000 and by the mid 20th century it was below one. There was an increase in the 1960s but it is miniscule compared to the rates of the past. This graph doesn’t go far enough forward to show the decline since the 1990s/2000s, but there are other studies citing in the book showing this.

    So anyway, now that I’ve shown you my stats (or at least some of them) will you show me yours and we can see who is right?

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  112. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Crikey. If we are heading back to the past, will we have to eat each other? Mmm. “Here’s a bit of Garretted Judith, chips with that?”

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  113. toms (209 comments) says:

    “…I agree completely that corporal punishment – while clearly violent – is in a completely different category from violence in the criminal sense…”

    it seems to me to that there is more than a casual relationship between Mr. Horne’s (now there is a “Carry on Caning” joke if I ever saw one – “Nothing like a Horney caning of a schoolboy, eh Mr. Woody?”) constant and purient diatribes against gay marriage, and his crystal-clear recollection of the pleasure of being part of collective mass bum beating at school. Such homo-erotic associations are not untypical of those repressed types who seem to both fear gay people and own an array of leather belts that would pique George Michael’s interest. Sure there isn’t something you want to share with the group, Dennis?

    Similarly, it seems ironic to me that two men of a certain middle age who both profess to or approve of violent behaviour – Garrent and Horne – should be so strident in their need to endorse punitive solutions. It is scarcely cutting edge psychology to observe that societies where such casual violence as common assault and beating is either made light of or endorsed is hardly going to make many inroads into the general problem of violence that besets our little country.

    The sooner Dennis Horne has the revelation, leaves his wife, and is next spotted as “that middle aged guy” happily squeezed into nothing more than pink lycra bike shorts and a dog collar on a float in the Sydney Mardis Gras and David Garrett sobbingly commits his life to working tirelessly to expunge his existential anger issues, the better we’ll all be.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  114. David Garrett (7,699 comments) says:

    willtruth: I will try my best to be polite….good manners cost nothing as my late mother used to say.

    My post is about a story in the HoS which is about crime IN NEW ZEALAND over the past 30 years. The overall theme of the story is “We have never had it so good.” Neither I nor the writer of the story is going back into the mists of time examining violence rates in other societies.

    For sources on historic offending in New Zealand, you cant go past Newbold (Judith knows him you know, and approves of him), both ‘Crime in New Zealand’ and ‘The problem of prisons’. In the latter, have a look at the graph on page 242 showing murders reported from 1895 through to 2005. It is not corrected for population increase, which makes the trend line much “spikier” than similar “per 100,000″ graphs . As I said in the original post, we averaged less than 10 murders per year until about 1972, when murders increased exponentially. There are other graphs in ‘Crime in New Zealand’ which deal with violent crime generally. The shape of the graphs, and the point of escalation, is exactly the same.

    Also have a look at Miller, “Homicide in New Zealand 1988-94; Patterns and relationships” It includes a stark graph showing offence rates per 100,000 – so removing population increases – from 1878 through to 2000. As I said at the top of this thread, the line is virtually flat from the beginning of the 20th century through to the 1960’s when total offending – as opposed to homicide took off.

    Once you’ve read those, you’ll be a much better informed fellow. Perhaps even better than the moonbat!

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  115. kowtow (8,938 comments) says:

    What is it about the ’60’s?

    It seems to be a watershed decade for so much of what has gone wrong with the west since then.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  116. Graeme Edgeler (2,972 comments) says:

    willtruth: You are completely wrong about violence being much worse prior to the decade of the 50′s…and you either know that, and are simply lying, or you don’t know what you’re talking about.

    I think willtruth was talking about violence generally, not violence in a particular country.

    World War II was prior to the 50s, and I suspect we agree it was pretty violent.

    Stephen Pinker, whom willtruth raises, points to things like public executions, and cat-burning, as examples of how society used to be much more violent than it is now.

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  117. Kea (13,559 comments) says:

    It seems to be a watershed decade for so much of what has gone wrong with the west since then.

    I am not convinced it has gone so wrong. Around this time television and mass communication really took off. Maybe we just became more aware of problems ?

    There were some terrible wars before the sixties that make a few burglaries, assaults and drug use look like nothing. I suggest you get some perspective. Things are not that bad.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  118. David Garrett (7,699 comments) says:

    Now here’s an interesting theory I have floated before…If you look at the graph from Miller’s paper, you see that total offending per 100,000 – the same measure used in the graph in the HoS story – was much higher in 1878 than it was 20 years later, when the line on the graph flattens out, and stays flat until the 1960’s.

    In 1878 New Zealand was a frontier society, with poor communications over much of the country. For communication over any distance, we relied on the telegraph, over wires shakily secured in many cases to convenient trees. Policemen would literally have to ride a horse to get to the scene of many crimes. The offence rate that year was 4000 per 100,000. Fast forward 20 years, with a main trunk railway, more roads, telephones, and wiring not reliant on handy trees. Offences per 100,000 had halved, to 2000/100,000, where it pretty much stayed until the beginning of the 60’s.

    So my thesis is this: if you have comprehensive policing, with the virtual certainty of apprehension and swift punishment, you will have low crime. Remove those certainties, and man’s natural “Lord of the Flies” nature asserts itself again. That theory perfectly fits the scenario in New York post Guilani – taking back the “ungovernable city” block by block – and the sharp drop in crime half a world away, and 25 years later, in south Auckland.

    Judith, with her vast criminological knowledge, (she knows Greg Newbold well you know) can no doubt point out the flaws in my argument.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  119. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @toms. Poor “mots”. First you stick pricks in my comment and wish me dead, then it’s leave my wife (just waiting to win Lotto :) ) now it’s fancy dress. Does nothing please you?

    Would I get you too excited if I told you we were encouraged to swim naked in the school pool? It’s all cuming back to me now… Think of all those new white willies and hairless bums. Yum yum.

    Homosexual “marriage” isn’t marriage. Any more than a woman is a man.

    One day there will be a cure for homosexuality. Something wrong in the brain.

    (Kea, will you marry me if I win Lotto? :) :) :) )

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  120. willtruth (243 comments) says:

    David, glad you have decided to be more polite. Hopefully you can also now retract your comment that I was lying or misinformed when I commented about violence being higher in the western world prior to 1950. There is a wealth of evidence backing that statement up, and I have linked to an article which demonstrates it for England.
    As for NZ in particular, the evidence is harder to find. You have urged me to look at the graphs in Newbold’s Crime in NZ. I have looked through the book just now and it contains no graphs which go back beyond 1950. Am I missing something? Why would you cite that book as evidence that violence in NZ prior to 1950 was higher? Can you point me to a page reference with a pre 1950 graph?
    You have also urged me to look at Newbold’s “The Problem of Prisons” and this time you have helpfully pointed me to a graph on page 242 which you say shows “murders reported from 1895 through to 2005”. Is this the 2007 edition? Because the graph (labeled fig 11.1) on page 242 of that book runs from 1890 till 1950. Are you confused about the page number or something? Anyway, I have looked at the graph on the assumption that it is the graph to which you intended to refer me, but you just got the time period wrong. My next comment is that there seems to be something amiss with this graph. It is titled “murders reported to the police”, and it says that in 1950 there were ONE THOUSAND ONE HUNDRED murders reported to the police. What? That seems like a lot. I thought there were only a handful of murder convictions in 1950. Why so many murders reported? Is there a problem with the scale of that graph? I know Newbold is a legend but there seems to be something wrong with his graph.
    I haven’t looked up the other books yet. But before I spend any more time on this I need to know whether it is worth it. The stats you have referred me to so far don’t seem to back up your assertions. Am I missing something? Did you read them before you urged me to read them?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  121. David Garrett (7,699 comments) says:

    Yep, you have missed something. Look harder. Both of Newbold’s books I cite are first editions, “The problem with prisons” being the latest, published in 2007. I wonder if you actually understand what you are looking at? The graph on page 242 shows that in 1950 there were 12 murders. That graph shows raw numbers, not a per 100,000 figure.
    If you dont like Newbold’s work, there are other sources; I note for example you fail to mention Miller’s paper which contains two graphs, “Offence rate per 100,000 (1878-1994)” and “Total reported homicides (1878-1994)” You may have trouble finding Miller’s paper now…but fear not…I reproduced both of those graphs on pages 20-21 in my own book “A life for a life: a case for capital punishment” Hazard Press, Christchurch, 1999. Available from your public library.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  122. willtruth (243 comments) says:

    David, I’ll try and find a copy of your book when I get a chance. In the meantime, on the newbold book the problem with prisons, dont have the book in front of me any more, but the graph on p 242 is titled “murders reported to police” . The y axis of the graph goes from zero to 1200 and the figure for1950 when you read it across is 1100. How do you get 12 murders from that?

    Also , I’m still waiting for a page reference from you for Newbolds “crime in nz” . You said there were graphs in there that back up your assertion that crime per 1950 was lower. Is your silence on that an admission you we’re wrong about that? If not, give me a page reference, otherwise I must assume you are wrong.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  123. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    @ Willtruth

    Perhaps the graph on page three of this report may assist you. It does of course refer only to murder, however it demonstrates that murder rates were intermittently higher prior to 1950. It stands to reason that as violent crime rates are usually higher than murder rates, that they were also high during the pre-1950 period.

    http://www.rethinking.org.nz/assets/Newsletter_PDF/Issue_101/Reducing_Imprisonment.pdf

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  124. willtruth (243 comments) says:

    Thanks Judith. So when Garrett said to me…

    “You are completely wrong about violence being much worse prior to the decade of the 50′s”

    …I already knew he was the one who was wrong, because I was talking about the western world generally.

    He then subsequently retreated, and seems to have accepted that I was right about that. But he seems to be maintaining that it is true that violence in NZ prior to the 1950 was lower. I hadn’t seen any stats on this so I asked him for some and he told me to look at a graph on p 242 of Newbolds “the problem with prisons”. When I looked at it the graph made no sense and certainly didn’t provide evidence for his statement. He told me to look at his own book, but I haven’t managed to find a copy of it in the library. He also urged me to look at graphs in Newbold’s “Crime in NZ”, but this appears to have no graphs that deal with pre 1950 NZ. I’m still waiting for a page reference from him to point to to a pre 1950s graph in that book.

    Now, thanks to the graph you have linked to we finaly do have some evidence on pre 1950 violence in NZ and – guess what – it is higher prior to 1950. I presume Garrett will say that the graph is incorrect. It rings hollow when he has failed to come up with anything himself.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  125. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    @willtruth. I think you are placing too much faith in data and statistics, for a number of reasons. A lawyer calling caning in schools assault with a weapon is only the start of the problem; definitions.

    Once you could leave your house unsecured and wander around anywhere any time of the day or night without concern. Now you need a burglar alarm and to deliver children to school.

    There have always been “crimes of passion” and the odd lunatic but there were no armed robberies no drive-by-shootings.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10885434
    Once you’d have gone to jail for a very long time. Now there is so much bad behaviour we can’t manage it. Mobs “stoning” the police. Knifings are a weekly occurrence.

    One of the reasons there may appear to be no increase in violence is that people avoid it. Lock their cars while driving, for example. Even homicide is difficult to compare, treatment of injuries is better.

    It’s not enough just to take numbers and draw graphs. Data are notoriously difficult to collect historically. The real value of statistics is to decide if a difference is due to chance or not. Otherwise simple “inspection” can tell us more; get a “feel” or sense “averages” and trends.

    When I see people trying to introduce wars as violence in society, I realise we’re in denial. It’s bad enough silly women saying rape is rape, making no distinction between some monster grabbing a woman walking home from work in the afternoon and some silly girl going to a hotel room at 3am with a bloke she met in the bar at 2am.

    Human nature may not have changed much, but behaviour certainly has. I don’t believe for one moment there is less incipient violent crime now. If the data show otherwise, it’s because people are protecting themselves.

    I wasn’t quite honest about behaviour at my school. When I was in the lower sixth a Samoan came to the school. He threw one bloke down the stairs. Then, on a school train trip, he tried to rape a girl. I was deliberately avoiding the Polynesian problem. F&P have got a lot to answer for. That’s the lesson from immigration: nobody learns.

    I don’t know what happened to our “exchange” student, things were easy to keep quiet in those days. When the headmaster found a couple of visiting Canadian teachers were queer, they were gone by lunchtime. Literally. There in the morning and never seen again. No explanation, no shit and no human rights.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  126. Graeme Edgeler (2,972 comments) says:

    Graeme Edgeler thinks caning is a violent assault with a weapon.

    I was making the point that 1) society thinks it, today; and 2) the law thinks it.

    Instances of caning, today, are included in the total number of violent crimes. They aren’t included in the violent offending calculations of the past. Given that we are including them today, we should include them in the past in order to get a fair comparison of the levels of violent offending.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  127. Dennis Horne (2,403 comments) says:

    Graeme Edgeler (2,931) Says: May 23rd, 2013 at 10:36 am. … caning today is included in the total number of violent crimes … not in the past … we should … to get a fair comparison of the levels of violent offending.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10885434
    The masters at my school were violent every day, up to 300 times a day. Knocked the boys unconscious and kicked them on the floor. They didn’t even get community service. That’s very much less common today. We are really, really lucky!

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote