Kiwiblog

The Herald reports:

Figures released to the Herald show that between July 2008 and June 2010, there were 23 murders in Counties-Manukau.

So far this calendar year, there have been only three murders. …

There have been other cuts in crime on the streets of Counties-Manukau, where 255 police officers have been added to the frontline:

* 80 per cent drop in bag snatching.

* 14 per cent drop in home burglaries.

* 18 per cent drop in other burglaries.

* 29 per cent drop in motor vehicle crime.

These are provisional figures from January 1 until last week, and are being compared with the same time period from the previous year.

That’s great news for Manukau residents. Still a long way to go, but it does show that extra policing can make a difference in key areas.

The Herald reports:

As blood dripped from stab wounds inflicted by one of his students, maths teacher Steve Hose yelled at the rest of his class to get out.

The 53-year-old, the popular head of Te Puke High School’s mathematics department, was about to start class at 11am with his Year 9 students when one of them, a 13-year-old boy, attacked him with a 10cm kitchen knife.

He was stabbed twice in the back of his neck and twice in the shoulder. …

Mr Clement said the boy – who because of his age cannot be charged with a criminal offence – had been co-operative with police who questioned him.

Hopefully one of our many lawyers will help me out, but why can’t he be charged? The Crimes Act in S22 says:

No person shall be convicted of an offence by reason of any act done or omitted by him when of the age of 10 but under the age of 14 years, unless he knew either that the act or omission was wrong or that it was contrary to law.

I am pretty sure he knew that it was illegal and/or wrong to stab your teacher with a knife.

As TV One reported last night, the crime stats out today are pretty ugly for violent crimes – the category that most people care about, along with sexual crimes.

As one can see, the trend since 2004 has not abated at all. The Government will be hoping that the 2010 statistics are not as bad, as by then people will be more expectant that law changes would have had an impact.

The sexual crimes rate has dropped a tiny bit, but had been pretty constant anyway.

The Police have also published a new report – on culpable deaths. It will be annual. Some key stats for 2009:

• 88 culpable deaths, being 65 murders and 23 manslaughters
• 66% of victims were male
• 14% of victims (12 of them) were aged under five. A terrible figure.
• 56% of victims are aged under 30
• 50% of the victims were Maori
• 34% of victims had a relationship to their killer
• 75% of female victims were killed by a family member or partner
• 1 parent was killed by their child
• 13 children were killed by their parent/s (including step)
• 17 people were killed by their partner
• 50% of deaths involved a weapon -
• 68% were killed in a dwelling,
• 25% were killed on a road or in a public place

Len Brown writes in the Herald:

The new Auckland Council will have a lot of work to do to help create a safer environment – police statistics show that Auckland City has more reported crime per 100,000 residents than any other police district in the country, and Counties/Manukau the fourth highest rate.

Now I always get interested when anyone starts talking about the overall crime rate for it is almost a meaningless statistic, as it treats all crime as equal. A brutal homicide is the same as jaywalking (well that is not an offence, but imagine the most minor criminal offence there is).

I always pay most attention to the violent crime rate, and sexual crime rate, as they are the one people worry about most in terms of safety.

So Len Brown is right that in terms of overall crime, Auckland Police District has a higher rate that Counties/Manukau. There were 55,898 and 54,409 reported crimes respectively, which is a rate per 10,000 population of 1328 and 1094.

However if we look at violent crimes, the respective rates are 128 for Auckland and 195 for CM – CM is 52% higher.

Much the same for sexual offences – the rates are 7.8 and 9.8 – CM is 26% higher.

The category that makes up most of the overall crime stats is dishonesty, and the primary offence within that category is theft.

So remember whenever anyone talks about the overall crime rate, ask about the violent and sexual crime rate also. Otherwise a 2% fall in thefts may be masking a 50% increase in violent assaults and rapes.

Just been on TV3′s Sunrise this morning and we talked about the reported comments of Melissa Lee that the motorway would be good, because it would stop criminals from South Auckland coming into the suburb to commit crimes.

I actually first saw the comments on Not PC and sort of hoped he had it wrong.

The comments are of course a mistake. A politician should know not to repeat something they have been told (even if it was from the Police) if it is going to stereotype entire communities. The same thing applied for Lockwood’s comment pre-election. Like Melissa, he was repeating something that may (or may not) be true, but that doesn’t make it sensible to repeat.

And in this case, it is bizarre to say that a motorway will somehow affect crime numbers. I think criminals know how to use a bypass. I was tempted to joke on air that if it was that easy to prevent crime, we’d just build a motorway around the Hutt Valley

So a pretty bad blunder by Melissa, who should apologise to put the controversy behind her. It’s a real lesson about the difference between being a general election candidate and a by-election candidate.

There is also the issue of the video produced by her before the election, placed on You Tube. I haven’t covered that in detail yet because so far I can’t see anywhere what Melissa has done wrong – my stance will change if such details emerge. However mud sticks, and the timing of the video story and her comments last night mean that what was always an uphill battle, has just got quite a bit steeper.

However there is still a month to go.

UPDATE: Melissa has put out a statement of apology:

Melissa Lee today reiterated her apology for comments made at a public meeting on Wednesday night.

“I apologise unreservedly for the comments I made regarding South Auckland and the linkage that I drew between the planned Waterview extension and crime.”

“I was wrong to have implied that crime is solely a South Auckland problem, or that the new motorway would reduce crime.”

I sincerely regret my remarks.

Kudos to her for doing this, which allows the by-election focus to move back onto the real issues.

The Sunday papers have two articles on the troubles of high profile Aucklanders.

The HOS reports Millie Holmes is back in court again:

Elder, 20, spent two nights in police cells last weekend after she was caught by a security guard at the Farmers store in Papakura with a scarf it is claimed she had shoplifted.

Police have also laid three new drugs charges against her – two of procuring and possessing methamphetamine and one of possession of cannabis.

Elder appeared in the Papakura District Court last Monday and is to reappear on May 19, two days before her 21st birthday.

That is sad enough. Her 21st should be one of the best times of her life, and instead she will be facing possible prison time for her latest alleged offending.

She was bailed to a Swanson, West Auckland, address, the home of Headhunter gang member Chris Morris, the father of Elder’s boyfriend Connor, a Headhunters prospect.

And most disturbingly, she is choosing to be bailed to a gang home, instead of her parents. You really have to feel for her parents – Paul and Hine. It must be your worst nightmare.

In the SST, they reveal:

ONE OF Auckland’s worst taggers is the son of millionaire former Fonterra boss Craig Norgate. The Sunday Star-Times has learned that Dylan Norgate, 19, is behind the notorious SPEKT tag which has been daubed across buildings in East Auckland, including Mission Bay, where his parents live in a house valued at $7 million.

Norgate, an old boy of exclusive King’s College, brags about his activities on his Bebo website, which is titled “F… the police” and features photographs of his tags at different locations, including shops in Mission Bay. The website also features pictures of a nun smoking a bong and is full of gangsta rap-style rants about women and the police.

Not just a criminal, but also terminally stupid it seems.

Hegarty said Norgate’s only bail condition was to reside at Lorne St, downtown Auckland, but the Star-Times understands he is living in Christchurch where he attends university. It is unclear if his bail conditions have been altered to take this into account.

He’s a tagger – and at university??

Again you just have to feel for the parents.

The Greens are proposing a race based justice system, as their solution to crime.

“Because Maori are more likely to be stopped and searched, arrested rather than cautioned, and receive higher sentences than Pakeha offenders, Maori crime and imprisonment rates are elevated,” Mrs Turei said today.

This is a cunning plan. They will cut the crime rate in half overnight by stopping Police from being able to search, arrest or imprison criminals who happen to be Maori.

“The establishment of a Maori justice system that runs alongside the existing legal system – using the education system as a model – will help to eliminate the impact of this systemic racial profiling, reduce the unjust imprisonment of many Maori and stem Maori reoffending.”

Why have a seperate justice system for Maori only? How about Asians? How about South Africans? Also can people choose which justice system they go on? If you are part Asian and part Maori, can you use just one system, or pick and mix the parts that most suit you as a criminal. I think giving choice of justice systems to criminals is very important.

As one can see the second half of the 1990s saw the violent crime rate consistently drop. The increase since 1999 speaks for itself, and the release of the 2008 crime stats show that it continued throught 2008.

From Dec 1999 to Dec 2008, the number of recorded violent crimes went up 51%, and the rate per 10,000 residents went up 35%.

And before you try and claim it is just an increase in non reported domestic violence, grievous assaults increased 105% or adjusting for population by 85%. And those assaults are very very hard to go unreported as they include stabbings etc.

Let us hope that the next nine years do not see another 35% increase in recorded violent crime rates.

The Dom Post editorial looks at the upcoming meeting on the causes of crime:

f the Government crime seminar next month is to be more than just a talkfest, rare honesty will be required of the participants. …

New Zealand likes to portray itself as a model of good race relations. For many, that is the reality. For some, it is not.

There is a burgeoning underclass in New Zealand, whose members prey upon their neighbours and accept no reciprocal obligation for the assistance they receive from their fellow citizens. A disproportionate number of the members of that underclass are Maori.

In recent times it has become fashionable to blame the over-representation of Maori in crime statistics on poverty, poor education and unemployment. The arguments have a degree of validity. Maori are over-represented in all three categories.

But poverty in this country is a relative concept. New Zealand’s poorest live like kings compared to the poor in Third World nations who do not have a welfare state to provide them with homes, meals and pay television.

Here poor education is not an inescapable reality, but a matter of choice. Every child is entitled to a subsidised education in a system that bends over backwards to acknowledge cultural differences. Those who fail to take advantage of it have only themselves, or their parents, to blame.

And, for those who have not noticed, the unemployment rate is low. That may be changing but, for the past few years, jobs have generally been available to all who want them.

It is indisputable that Maori were robbed of their lands and treasures by colonial settlers, but to continue blaming the ills of today on events that occurred 150 years ago is to perpetuate a way of thinking that is of no benefit to Maori or non-Maori.

In recent decades, governments have gone to great lengths to restore tribal mana and create an economic base for Maoridom by making recompense for Treaty breaches.

They have succeeded to an extent. Tribes that have settled claims are restoring tribal assets, investing in job-rich industries and the education of their young. A Maori elite is emerging.

But there is scant evidence that the process is having any impact on disaffected young Maori who are attracted to the loser culture of gangs.

If Mr Power’s conference is to succeed, it will require Maori leaders such as Dr Sharples and his co-leader Tariana Turia to take ownership of the problem. The solution is not to throw yet more money at those who believe they have an inalienable right to prey upon and sponge off their fellow citizens. It is to engage them in building a better future for themselves and their children.

I think the solution will take at least a generation, and will need greater intervention at an earlier age with dysfunctional families.

Australia is deporting back to NZ, Maria Brown and her son Prince Brown.

They are rather nasty thugs, and unless there is some sort of miracle, I suspect they will be offending as regularly here, as in Australia.

What struck me though, is how incredibly stupid they are. Some extracts:

Maria Brown was defended by her partner Nasser Rajab, and the two struggled to keep their stories straight. They had met in New Zealand in 1991, she said. He said they met in Australia in 2001. She said she was unaware of any allegations her partner had supplied drugs – he admitted serving an 18-month prison sentence for such a crime ending just a few months before the tribunal hearing.

She said he had no criminal record – he was shown to have a 25-year string of convictions. She said he was a Kiwi; he said he was not. It was, found the tribunal president, “impossible to treat [Maria Brown] as a reliable witness”.

How dumb do you have to be to not even get your story straight?

Prince Brown’s defence was equally ridiculous. He denied knowing a man police identified as a known drug dealer – and then produced a letter of support from the same man describing the young man as an upstanding member of the community.

And this sets a new level of dumbness.

Steve Pierson at The Standard is happy and celebrating because he was worried that either myself or Whale Oil would post how since the change of Government there were no murders in January, and contrast this with the last two Januarys.

I have to say I have better things to do than monitor the homicide rate on a daily basis, let alone claim it somehow magically changes with an election (I think overall offending rates can change with a change in policies, in society, in the economy etc, but not merely an election).

Incidentally the homicide rate only really got politicised after Annette King’s brain fart when she blamed it on the sun and the moon. That was worth mocking.

But what really amuses me is how worried Steve was by the thought that such a link would be made, because January homicides were so low. Was he listening to the TV news every night thinking “Oh no, zero murders so far in 2009. This is awful. DPF and Whale may do a post about the lack of murders since the election.”

Well just as Steve congratulated me for not doing a post on the lack of murders and trying to claim it was linked to the election, I’d like to congratulate Steve for resisting the urge to personally intervene to increase the homicide rate, just to prevent us from being able to post on how low it has been 

The Dom Post criticises National’s levy on criminals:

New Justice Minister Simon Power is either a born optimist or ingenuous. Despite the deep flaws in his policy to fund reparations for victims of crime, he seems determined to proceed with a pre-election promise to levy a so-called crime tax of $50 on everyone convicted in a New Zealand court, The Dominion Post writes.

The scheme aims to offer one-off payments to cover the unexpected costs crime victims encounter that are not met by other government agencies, such as ACC.

This is one promise the Government could have quietly dropped. And that is not because it has no superficial appeal.

I always enjoy the media encouraging political parties to renege on their promises.

The major drawback of Mr Power’s proposal one he himself should see is the reality that those who refuse to pay what they owe now are those who will not pay under his new scheme, which hapless Courts Minister Georgina te Heuheu must help administer.

Conceding that the levy might lift the outstanding debt, she said last week that she hoped some proposals being worked on would help “minimise this increasing figure”. How loyal.

But greater enforcement, should it be achievable, will not tackle the inequity of the Government’s proposal. Why should a woman who unsuccessfully contests a $120 speeding fine pay the same levy as, say, a man convicted of mass murder?

There is no doubt that some criminals will not pay the levy. But some, maybe many will. And if enough pay that it provides a useful amount of money for assistance for victims, then it will have achieved some good.

As for the equity issue, I think the Dom Post overlooks this is not a scheme to further punish criminals. It is about raising money to help assist victims of crime. Hence it does not matter that it is a flat levy, as it is set so low. The sentence is the main punishment. This is a trivial extra fine which might help cover costs for some of the victims.

It is possible it may not work well. But it is too early to know. A key question will be what proportion of the fines/levies are actually paid. Is it over 50%? over 70%? over 80%?

And the other key question will be how much does it cost to administer the scheme. Will the costs of staff administering it, be grather than the amount collected? This is the bigger worry to me. But again, too early to know.

The Emery verdict will be somewhat polarising. The sentencing of Liam James Reid will not be with a non parole period of 26 years and preventative detention for his crimes of murder, rape and attempted murder.

In theory he could be released when he is 62, and that is too soon. That is why I support National’s law change to allow the very worst killers to be given life with no parole. But the non-parole period is a minimum and I suspect no Parole Board will ever release him.

The tragedy is he was ever free to kill Emma Agnew after 61 previous convictions.

This shows the rate of violent and sexual crime per capita since the current method of recording crime began.

Let us start with the pink line of violent crime. It did increase massively from 1992 to 1994 especially. No doubt the high unemployment was a factor. Sadly you get high unemployment when you inherit a near bankrupt economy with huge debts and deficits, and have to take tough measures to get through it.

But then for four years the violent crime rate stayed stable, and even declined a bit. Yes from 1995 to 1999 it was a slight downwards trend.

Then after 1999, despite the continuation of a fall in unemployment, it increased slowly but steadily for three years, started to very slightly trend down for two years and for the last three years has increased dramatically.

The blue line of sexual crimes has varied a lot, possibly reflecting the smaller number of crimes. From 1990 to 1993 these crimes increased in frequency. But then from 1993 to 1999 there was a massive fall off in sexual crimes – except in one year.

Since 1999 it has been a varied picture. Generally it trended up for the first three years. Then for the next three years after that it fell off to go even lower than in 1999. But again since 2005 it has risen again through to 2007 before what may be the start of a decline in 2008.

Clinton Smith at The Standard responds to my post on the 11% increase in violent crime with what is really a nasty smearing post. I avoid responding to most of his stuff, as it reflects more on him than me. But as he basically calls me pro-rape, there is a limit. I’ll go through his post in turn:

David Farrar really is a disgusting person at times.

Yes how disgusting it is to point out violent crime increased 11% last year.

He writes that we shouldn’t look at overall crime rates (although he made a big fuss when the overall recorded crime rate went up because of changes in recording practice in 2006)

Smith is wrong. I have been making the point about violent crime, not overall crime rates, for years and years. To be precise:

1. 3 March 2008
2. 2 October 2007
3. 2 April 2007
4. 2 October 2006
5. 4 April 2006
6. 6 July 2004

Pretty much all of these said the same thing – the overall crime rate is not a very useful measure. I welcome people wanting to debate it is – but funnily enough few people ever engage that argument on the merits.

Instead we should just look at violent crime, after all “having 1,000 less [sic] cannabis crimes and 500 more rapes is a net decrease in crime, but would be a worrying trend”. He then goes on to act all shocked over the recorded violent crime stats. First, he’s trying to make you think there are more rapes

Yes that should be fewer. But I doubt anyone would read what I said as stating there were 500 more rapes. It was obviously an example given the round numbers used.

in fact, the number is down and he’s hardly one to fret about rape when he’s good mates with a pornographer).

Now I can not even describe how offensive Smith is with that statement. He basically says I don’t care about rape or rape victims. I can think of few things more defamatory let alone downright nasty to say about somebody. Next time Smith complains about the standards of a right wing blog, people should remember he considers accusing people of being unconcerned about rape as a legitimate tactic.

Smith deosn’t even try to debate the merits of violent crime stats vs total crime stats. He just decides to smear me. As I say that reflects far more on him than me.

Secondly, this professional statistician is deliberately trying to mislead you regarding the change in the crime stats. He knows that the explanation from the professionals is reporting of domestic crime is up but he hopes you don’t.

I am aware the Police provide excuses for why violent crime has gone up 11%, saying it is all due to increased reporting of domestic violence. However like all government agencies they of course try to put a favourable spin on the statistics. Does Clinton attack Dr Cullen when he disagrees with Treasury advice? More to the point when you look at specific categories such as:

• Homicides from 96 to 112 – 16.7% increase
• Wounding with Intent from 635 to 697 – 9.8% increase
• Injuring with Intent from 996 to 1,180 – 18.5% increase
• Assault with a weapon from 2,738 to 3,007 – 9.8% increase
• Assaults on Police from 367 to 439 – 19.6% increase

You realise the explanation is not that credible.

I submit that these groups of crimes are not ones that would be greatly affected by increased reporting of domestic violence. Wounding with intent is the most serious assault possible, short of attempted murder. Assaults with a weapon don’t tend to be the exclusive domain of domestic violence, let alone assaults on police. And homicides speak for themselves.

Crime is down because poverty and the conditions that breed crime have been reduced. At the same time, reporting of crimes is up. Thefts, car thefts, and burglaries (together, the largest group of crimes) have halved in the last ten years. Homicides are down.

1. 98/99 – 94
2. 99/00 – 104
3. 00/01 – 97
4. 01/02 – 112
5. 02/03 – 108
6. 03/04 – 100
7. 04/05 – 80
8. 05/06 – 105
9. 06/07 – 96
10. 07/08 – 112

That is the homicides for the last ten financial years. The latest year is the highest equal of the last ten. Note when I point out an error Clinton makes I don’t feel the need to call him disgusting and other names.

In fact, all classes of crime are down except two. Recorded violent crime is up because reporting is up. Recorded property damage offences have climbed in the last three years thanks to the moral panic over tagging. But those rises are attributed (not by me, by the Police) to higher reporting.

Recorded violent crime has increased almost 50% since 1999. Clinton attacks and smears anyone who points this out and dares to disagree with the assertion it is all because of increased reporting of domestioc violence.

Farrar needs to misrepresent the statistics to create the impression of a wave of crime where there is none. It’s all part of National’s ‘New Zealand sucks’ campaign. It disrespects his readers and the victims of crime. Disgusting.

I regard a 11% increase in violent crime in just one year as very significant. The fact almost every category of violent crime has had a significant increase makes it highly unlikely it is just a matter of increased reporting of domestic violence. I think one can debate these issues without calling peoeel disgusting and suggesting they don’t care about rape. Sadly Smith is unable to do so, he is so caught up in his hate towards others.

But in the end, I think his posts reflect far worse on himself than his intended targets. It may appeal to the highly partisan, but it tends to be counter productive with most people.

The Police released the latest crime statistics today. These are for the financial year 1 July 2007 to 30 June 2008 and are the last official figures to be released before the election.

The media and some ill informed commentators focus on the overall crime figures. While of some importance, this is ill advised for two reasons.

1. Not all crime is equal. Having 1,000 less cannabis crimes and 500 more rapes is a net decrease in crime, but would be a worrying trend.
2. There are two sorts of crimes – those recorded when complained about and those recorded when the Police catch someone doing it. The second sort of crime can record an increase because the Police are better resourced and more pro-active and can vice versa decrease merely because the Police have not been so pro-active or successful in policing that area. Examples of the first sort of crime are assaults, murders, rapes, and most burglaries and thefts. Examples of the second sort are disorder, drugs, gaming, liquor, receiving.

So the overall crime stats and crime rate are not particularly useful as a fall in crime may simply be the result of a decline in police activity.

Hence it is best to focus on the crimes where they are recorded due to a victim or complaintant coming forward. And violent crimes are those most likely to be reported.

And what has happened with violent crime in just the last 12 months? I repeat this is not going back muliple years – this is just the last 12 months:

• The overall number of violent crimes increased by 11.1% or by almost 6,000.
• The number of grievous assaults (the most serious) increased by 11.7%
• The number of homicides increased by 16.7%
• The violent crime rate per 10,000 pop increased by 10.0%

I’ll later blog data all the way back to 1999, but this is again for the last 12 months only. The period where homicides were blamed by the Justice Minister of the moon and the sun.

And what districts have had the biggest violent crime increases. They are:

1. Tasman up 23.1%
2. Southern up 20.5%
3. Bay of Plenty up 17.2%
4. Counties-Manukau up 18.9%
5. Waikato up 16.8%

Again this is in the last 12 months only.

I blogged earlier in the week that I thought the discharge without conviction for undesirable as it sent out a message cyber crimes are not real crimes.

The Dom Post Editorial agrees today:

Wander into a university, take to its computers with an axe and you’re likely to have some tough questions to answer, a conviction on your record and somewhat dimmed employment prospects, The Dominion Post writes.

Do the same thing using zombie armies of computers unleashed in the vast hunting grounds of the Internet to turn vulnerable PCs into spam-spewing monsters, give yourself a cool name and you can expect to stroll out of court. You’ll have an unblemished record because a conviction would dim your bright career prospects, a pat on the head from the judge for your high level of skills, and job offers galore – including from the police who caught you.

Yep a double standard.

We can but wonder what would happen if the approach taken by Justice Judith Potter, who discharged Owen Thor Walker without conviction after he pleaded guilty to six serious cyber crimes, was taken up across the board.

Young scamps who convert cars could be sent out on the roads to help motorists who have misplaced their keys. Producers of high-grade cannabis could be redeployed into the horticulture industry. Those skilled in the arcane art of cooking up particularly potent batches of P could be dispatched to the universities to help teach chemistry courses. Those most successful in peddling it could share their marketing skills in the same way.

Walker is young and autistic, which were no doubt factors. However these should have been factors in sentencing not a total discharge without conviction.

Some may disagree with me, but I am appalled that Owen Thor Walker has been discharged without conviction for his involvement in bot nets.

There is an argument that giving the young offender a dressing down and “harnessing his powers for good” is the sensible thing to do. I agree, this is often the case.

But in this case I think his offending was very different to say the person who hacks a few institutions just for the challenge of it. He spent two years helping run bot nets, and made $40,000 doing it. And he wasn’t conned into doing this by someone else. He in fact recruited others to help him. This was not just a kid having some fun. It was serious criminal activity. Bot Nets are arguably the biggest problem on the Internet – they are used for phishing, spamming, DOS attacks etc.

I also am skeptical of the line that he has such superior skills to everyone else, he must be hired by the “good guys” or they will be at a disadvantage. The NZ technical community alone probably has hundreds (or more) of people who would be capable of setting up and running a sophisticated bot net operation. They just choose not to take part in criminal activities. I don’t think you reward someone for having no ethics.

Now I am not arguing Walker should have been sent to jail. That would be silly. And I am mindful he is autistic. But a discharge without conviction should (in my books) be used for extremely minor criminal cases like shoplifting or say $200 of taxi chit fraud. This was not a minor case of offending. It was two years of dedicated offending where he made lots of money, he recruited others to help, and he caused damage to over one million people.

We now have clean slate legislation. If he stayed clean for seven years his conviction would be wiped effectively.

My concern is not Walker per se, but the signal it sends out to the cyber-criminals that running Bot Nets and phishing etc are not real crimes, and if you do them you’ll just get told off. That is what appals me.

Unlikely groups have been protesting this week. First it was the Truckies, and now the Asians who got a staggering 15,000 on an anti-crime march yesterday.

Don’t they understand it is all the fault of the sun and the full moon?

The Press reports on a meeting held in Christchurch last night to discuss the crime problem in Christchurch. Since 2003 violent crimes have gone up 29%, fuelling the concern. Overall crime has dropped but it is violent crime which causes the most concern. The local police commander may have a solution:

Canterbury police district commander Superintendent Dave Cliff pointed to the dramatic decrease in crime in New York City in the 1990s when police began aggressively targeting petty crimes such as subway fare evasion and graffiti.

The approach, known as “Broken Windows” policing, saw low-end crime fall away and was matched by a decrease in high-end crime.

Cliff told over 400 people at the Cut Crime in Christchurch meeting at the Town Hall that a similar approach in Christchurch was on the cards.

He cautioned the crowd they would have to be prepared for the consequences of the move.

“If one of your children is breaching the liquor ban we are going to have to take consistent action,” he said.

Excellent. It would be a great trial for NZ, and if successful there could be a template for other regions. I can’t say for sure that it will work, but the results from New York are positive enough that it should at least be trialled.

Preventing Violence in the Home director Jane Drumm has advocated for a register of the most violent domestic violence offenders, to allow new partners to be warned.

Auckland’s domestic violence victim support agency wants a national register of the most violent offenders to be set up so new partners can be warned about dangerous men.

I’m all for such a register, but surely it should include all violent offenders, not just men?

Personally I don’t see why all convictions are not listed online in a searchable database. A criminal record is not a private matter. The clean slate law would wipe minor ones anyway eventually, but convictions should be a matter of public record.

The state doesn’t even have to set up such a database (but would be best to do so for accuracy purposes).  It could be done by any person or organisation.

The Police released the latest crime statistics this week. I tend to focus on violent and sexual crime for two reasons.  Firstly because it tends to be the most serious and damaging offending. The overall crime rate holds little meaning as very minor offences such as cannabis possession are given the same weight as a serious assault or worse.

The second reason is that violent crimes especially are the most likely to be reported, and less susceptible to changes in policing practice.  Changes in the level of “victimless” crimes are almost totally related to the amount of targeting the Police put into those areas.

There are four distinct trend periods in the graph above.  Firstly violent crime did rise from 1990 to 1994. They were tough times for a number of reasons. But from 1994 to 1999 the level of violent crime basically stayed cnstant, and even declined in terms of the population rate.

Then from 2000 to 2004 there was a modest level of growth in the violent crime level and rate. And from 2004 to 2007 there has been basically massive increases in violent crime levels.  The number of record violent crimes is 44% higher than in 1999, and the rate of violent crime is 32% higher.

Now the Police have said the latest increase is mainly domestic violence, and may be as a result of publicity encouraging greater reporting. I’m somewhat sceptical that an increase in recorded violent crime of 6,250 is solely due to increased reporting than an increased actual level of violent crime.

So let us look at the sub-categories of violent crime and how each has grown in the last year:

1. Homicides dropped 10 (10%) from 98 to 88. Less full moons last year I guess
2. Kidnappings dropped 6 (2%) from 263 to 257
3. Robberies dropped 191 (7%) from 2801 to 2610
4. Grievous Assaults increased 715 (17%) from 4,116 to 4,831
5. Serious Assaults increased 2,894 (16%) from 17,729 to 20,623
6. Minor Assaults increased 1,321 (10%) from 12,700 to 14,021
7. Intimidations increased 1,410 (11%) from 12,567 to 13,977
8. Group Assemblies increased 119 (26%) from 457 to 576
9. Wounding with Intent increased 168 (30%) from 554 to 722
10. Injuring with Intent increased 182 (20%) from 895 to 1,077
11. Assaults on Police increased 79 (23%) from 342 to 421

Now remember this is just the increase in the last calendar year – it is not the increase since 1999.

It is worrying that the greatest percentage increases are in the more serious assault categories. And they are the ones most likely to not have been under-reported in the past. Minor assaults may have been not reported as often as they should, but if someone has actually stabbed you with a knife, that tends to get reported I suspect.