The failure of the Home Office

[unixronin]

Yup, banning possession of knives in public has just completely stopped knife crime.  Just never happens any more in the UK, that paragon of crime control.

Or, not.

Robberies at knife point have risen by almost a fifth, according to official figures for England and Wales.

But how can that be?  Knives are illegal in the UK!

Oh, wait.  We're talking about crimes here.  Crimes are committed by criminals ... you know, PEOPLE WHO DON'T OBEY THE LAWS.

Domestic burglaries jumped 4% - the first significant rise for some years.

Make burglary safer, and more criminals will commit burglaries.  Duh.

According to the British Crime Survey - a mass study of the experience of those surveyed rather than reports to the police - the risk of being a victim of crime remained at 23%.¹

The triumph of Home Office policies:  One in four people in the UK will become a victim of crime.

But keep in mind, the British Crime Survey has been found to under-report crime rates by up to three million per year:

The poll caps the number of times a victim can be targeted by an offender at five incidents a year.

If anyone interviewed for the survey says they have been targeted more than five times a year, the sixth incident and beyond are not included in the BCS.

Read between the lines there:  Crime is underreported by three million crimes per year, two million of those violent, because the reports are capped at five per person.  This implies that as many as three million people per year in the UK become crime victims six times or more in a single year — less if some of those are victimized more than six times.  (The BCS also excludes anyone under 16 from reporting criminal victimization, which probably adds slightly to that underreporting.)

WHISKEY TANGO FOXTROT, OVER?  This is the evidence of a policy that's working?

This 2002 article from Reason magazine's online portal discusses in depth the failure of Home Office policies, rooted in a misplaced 1920s fear of a possible Bolshevik workers' uprising, that have disarmed the English population and allowed crime to run rampant with the assurance of unarmed victims.

The illusion that the English government had protected its citizens by disarming them seemed credible because few realized the country had an astonishingly low level of armed crime even before guns were restricted.  A government study for the years 1890-92, for example, found only three handgun homicides, an average of one a year, in a population of 30 million.  In 1904 there were only four armed robberies in London, then the largest city in the world.  A hundred years and many gun laws later, the BBC reported that England's firearms restrictions "seem to have had little impact in the criminal underworld."  Guns are virtually outlawed, and, as the old slogan predicted, only outlaws have guns.  Worse, they are increasingly ready to use them.

Nearly five centuries of growing civility ended in 1954.  Violent crime has been climbing ever since.  Last December, London's Evening Standard reported that armed crime, with banned handguns the weapon of choice, was "rocketing."  In the two years following the 1997 handgun ban, the use of handguns in crime rose by 40 percent, and the upward trend has continued.  From April to November 2001, the number of people robbed at gunpoint in London rose 53 percent.

Gun crime is just part of an increasingly lawless environment.  From 1991 to 1995, crimes against the person in England's inner cities increased 91 percent.  And in the four years from 1997 to 2001, the rate of violent crime more than doubled.  Your chances of being mugged in London are now six times greater than in New York.  England's rates of assault, robbery, and burglary are far higher than America's, and 53 percent of English burglaries occur while occupants are at home, compared with 13 percent in the U.S., where burglars admit to fearing armed homeowners more than the police.  In a United Nations study of crime in 18 developed nations published in July, England and Wales led the Western world's crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people.

And that's six years ago now — six years in which the UK's crime rate has continued to rise.  In 2003, a year after Reason published that article, the overall violent crime rate in the US was 475.8 per 100,000, while the UK suffered under a rate almost ten times higher at 4,100 per 100,000.  (Granted, 37% of the reported UK violent crimes are "simple assault without injury".  Even if you subtract those, that still leaves the UK's rate six times higher than the US.)  The US still has a higher per-capita murder rate than the UK; as compiled by NationMaster, the US has an overall per-capita annual murder rate of roughly 4.3 per 100,000, 24th highest out of 62 nations tracked, while the UK's rate is 1.4 per 100,000, three times lower, putting it in 46th place.  But those numbers are skewed by the reporting methods:

The murder rates of the U.S. and U.K. are also affected by differences in the way each counts homicides.  The FBI asks police to list every homicide as murder, even if the case isn't subsequently prosecuted or proceeds on a lesser charge, making the U.S. numbers as high as possible.  By contrast, the English police "massage down" the homicide statistics, tracking each case through the courts and removing it if it is reduced to a lesser charge or determined to be an accident or self-defense, making the English numbers as low as possible.

And, the US rate is falling, while the UK rate climbs:

Cultural differences and more-permissive legal standards notwithstanding, the English rate of violent crime has been soaring since 1991.  Over the same period, America's has been falling dramatically.  In 1999 The Boston Globe reported that the American murder rate, which had fluctuated by about 20 percent between 1974 and 1991, was "in startling free-fall."  We have had nine consecutive years of sharply declining violent crime.  As a result the English and American murder rates are converging.  In 1981 the American rate was 8.7 times the English rate, in 1995 it was 5.7 times the English rate, and the latest study puts it at 3.5 times.

(Emphasis mine.  And remember, this was written in 2002.)

What's been happening in US and UK law during those years?

Well, the UK has been imposing ever stricter firearms laws, eventually banning them altogether, with the result that now to all practical purposes only criminals, the police and the military have firearms, and more recently has repeated the process with possession of any kind of knife in any public place.  (Reportedly there's now a movement afoot in the UK to prohibit any knife with a shart point, period, even in kitchens and restaurants.  The idea apparently began among doctors.  Perhaps they should set an example by voluntarily giving up scalpels and other pointed medical instruments.)

In the US, meanwhile, state after state has been passing "shall-issue" concealed-carry laws which require that authorities grant a concealed-carry permit to, basically, any citizen not explicitly prohibited by law from owning firearms due to criminal record or mental health.  (Granted, the latter prohibition sometimes fails.)  It's difficult to draw an unequivocal conclusion from the results, as there are many factors involved and the murder statistics are all over the map.  We can look at historical data for the entire US from 1960 through 2007, and see that the nationwide murder rate basically doubled from 1960 to about 1973, and remained more or less flat from there until 1989 or so except for a two-or-three year peak centered on 1980.  Round about 1990 it spiked upward by about 20%, and stayed there until about 1995, peaking around 24,000 from 1990 to 1993.  In 1994-1996, 13 states passed shall-issue laws, leaving the entire South and West except for California and New Mexico shall-issue states, along with most of the sub-Great Lakes states except for Ohio and Michigan.  In 1994, the murder rate began to slide sharply, dropping below 16,000 by 1999, and has remained around 16,000 ever since, while an additional eight states went shall-issue (and Alaska actually joined Vermont in not requiring a permit at all).  Overall, from 1986 to 2007, US shall-issue and completely unrestricted states increased from 9 to 39, while "may issue" states dropped from 26 to 9 and concealed-carry-prohibited states dropped from 15 to 2.

One can argue all day about whether the loosening of restrictions caused the drop in murder rates.  Academics including criminologist Gary Kleck and economists John Lott and David Mustard have asserted that they have found a causal relationship showing that making it easier for citizens to arm themselves does reduce crime, but the debate on the subject is so clouded by accusations from both sides of faulty statistical methods that when all is said and done, one can hardly separate the signal from the noise.  However, when one looks at how far crime rates have dropped, it becomes astoundingly difficult to argue that it's done any harm:

Since 1991, the nation’s total violent crime rate is down 38 percent.  (Murder is down 43 percent; rape, 29 percent; robbery, 46 percent; and aggravated assault, 35 percent.)  Violent crime dropped every year from 1991-2004, to a 30-year low; increased slightly in 2005 and 2006; and decreased to nearly the 2004 level in 2007.  Every year since 2002, the violent crime rate has been lower than anytime since 1974.  Every year since 1999, the murder rate has been lower than anytime since 1966.  States with RTC laws, compared to the rest of the country, have lower violent crime rates on average: total violent crime by 24 percent, murder, 28 percent; robbery, 50 percent; and aggravated assault, 11 percent.²

Also from that factsheet, "Studies by or for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have found no evidence that 'gun control' reduces crime."  This is consistent with findings by James Wright on armed criminals in America which indicate that gun control measures have done little if anything to keep guns out of criminal hands, and in fact bans on small, cheap handguns have had no effect on criminals except to make them upgrade to more powerful weapons.

So, what can we conclude?

Well, given the drop in US violent crime and murder rate over the last ten to fifteen years or so, I don't think it can be denied that the US is doing something right.

Similarly, the progressive rise in crime of all kinds in the UK over the last fifty years or so, but particularly in the last fifteen to twenty years, seems a pretty clear indication that the UK, under the direction of the Home Office, is doing something badly wrong.

Further study is left as an exercise for the reader.

---

[1]  Yes, it's a little unclear, but this does appear to be an average rate PER YEAR.  Yeah, I had trouble believing that at first myself, too, until I looked up the numbers.

[2]  Figures drawn from FBI Uniform Crime Reports, 2006-2007.

Comments

[skellington.livejournal.com]

There is a correlation between the implementation of three-strikes laws and the decrease in crime.

In the end, locking up violent criminals is probably more important than trying to prevent them from using something as a weapon.

I believe this is also an area where the UK has been terribly lax.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

There is a correlation between the implementation of three-strikes laws and the decrease in crime.

So it has been argued. It has also been argued that three-strikes laws encourage violent criminals not to leave living witnesses who can identify them, on the basis that you may as well be hanged for a sheep as for a lamb. A quick check on my part has so far failed to find a list of what states passed three-strikes laws when, other than that 26 states in all (starting with Washington State) passed them between 1993 and 2004.

Overall, evidence does seem to show that three-strikes laws work, and the worst predictions of resulting prison overcrowding don't appear to have come to pass.

[jmkelly.livejournal.com]

...except here in California, where prison overcrowding is so severe it has impaired the delivery of timely medical care (as well as caused the predictable housing problems) and been challenged in federal court as a violation of the Eighth Amendment. I'm not talking about someone having to wait three weeks to see a doctor; I'm talking about approximately one inmate per week dying unnecessarily "due to constitutional deficiencies in the CDCR’s medical delivery system," according to court documents. We have more prisoners than we can afford to keep, and they're getting more expensive to keep as they age.

"Lock them up and throw away the key" sounds good. Living with the result turns out to be not so good.

Taking sentencing out of judges' hands has resulted in some terrible miscarriages of justice -- google "Clarence Aaron" and read any link you like, left or right. It's not a three-strikes case, but it falls under the same mandatory-sentencing rubric.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I'm aware there's been some really bad cases. As for prison overcrowding, though, weren't they already overcrowded before? My understanding was the rate of increase in California's prison population slowed drastically after Three Strikes was passed.

(Of course, the single biggest thing we could do to alleviate prison overcrowding is stop throwing people in jail for lighting up a doobie.)

[ilcylic.livejournal.com]

I'd be much more comfortable with a three-strikes law that had serious limitations on what counted. Given a legal environment in which perfectly consensual activities are criminalised, I can't in good conscience support such a thing.

Three muggings? Sure. Three "simple possession of a controlled substance"? Hell no. And hell, in California, they've criminalised basic fundamental rights. (RKBA, for instance.)

But yes, in general, we should lock up dangerous people faster.

[skellington.livejournal.com]

Georgia did two strikes, but limited it to violent felonies:

http://www.state.ga.us/archive/governor/Accomplishments/strikes.htm

The rest of it might, or might not, be out of line:

http://www.georgiadefenders.com/repeatoffender.htm

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Yeah, the California three-strikes law is horribly badly written (like many California laws). The way it works, because it counts individual charges, it can effectively become a one-strike law if they file three different charges against you for the same incident and convict on all three, or if you're charged under both state and federal laws.

[jmkelly.livejournal.com]

Not only that, it leaves that decision up to the prosecutor, not the judge.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Gack. I wasn't aware of that detail. That seems like an extraordinarily bad idea.

[pernishus.livejournal.com]

Do you know where one can find up-to-date statistics on gun deaths per capita on a country-by-country basis? So far I've only been able to find a listing for 1994.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Not to my knowledge. It's difficult even to find complete and consistent listings of total murder rates by country. Few of them bother separating out firearm deaths, possibly on the principle that victims murdered with a gun don't end up any deader. I'm sure it's small consolation to someone that their daughter was bludgeoned, strangled, or stabbed and slashed to death, rather than shot.

[hugh-mannity.livejournal.com]

From the BBC article about doctors' recommendations and knives:
The researchers said there was no reason for long pointed knives to be publicly available at all.

They consulted 10 top chefs from around the UK, and found such knives have little practical value in the kitchen.

None of the chefs felt such knives were essential, since the point of a short blade was just as useful when a sharp end was needed.

The researchers said a short pointed knife may cause a substantial superficial wound if used in an assault - but is unlikely to penetrate to inner organs.

Ten top chefs is hardly a statistically significant sample. I wonder if they were perhaps pastry chefs, or vegetarians. I can't imagine any chef who deals with real food wanting to give up boning, carving or filleting knives with sharp points and blades about 10" long. I know I certainly wouldn't want to attempt to carve a roast chicken with a butter knife or a vegetable paring knife, let alone do anything fancy with raw meat. Perhaps that's why I'm not a top chef!

(And people wonder why I live here and not there -- even Massachsetts is a bastion of liberty compared to dear old Blighty these days!)

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Additionally, someone really needs to get these people talking to some combat medics and CQB instructors. What's a "short" pointed knife - three inches? Four? Five? Six? I have two utility knives in my knife block that are very sharp and have very sharp points. One is four inches, the other five. But the neck is only the most obvious of numerous places on the body where a three-inch blade is plenty long enough to deliver a lethal stab wound. A stab in the chest with a three-inch blade, just to the left of the sternum and at the top of the heart, will very likely puncture or sever the aorta, and if that happens you'll most likely be dead within minutes. Get stabbed upwards through the solar plexus with a three-inch blade, and you'll probably be unable to even call for medical help in the time it takes you to die.

Even with an eight-inch or longer blade, though, there are comparatively few spots where a stab wound will cause immediate death. In fact, as a rule, if you have the choice of being stabbed or slashed, your chances may be better if you take the stab. Sure, it's going to put you in hospital, but if you get the chance to call for medical assistance the odds are pretty good you'll get to the hospital alive and recover. But if someone gets a good deep slash at any of several pretty large and accessible areas of your body and limbs, you have a pretty good chance of bleeding to death before the ambulance gets to you. Slash wounds are dangerous.

If someone's trying to kill you with a knife, the idea that they can't do it with a "short" or non-pointed one is so naïve it beggars the imagination.

[house-pundit.livejournal.com]

Whah if 'e attacks you with a pointy stick?

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

"Pointed stick? Oh, oh, oh. We want to learn how to defend ourselves against pointed sticks, do we? Getting all high and mighty, eh? Fresh fruit not good enough for you eh? Well I'll tell you something my lad. When you're walking home tonight and some great homicidal maniac comes after you with a bunch of loganberries, don't come crying to me! Now, the passion fruit. When your assailant lunges at you with a passion fruit..." (http://www.jumpstation.ca/recroom/comedy/python/banana.html)

[ithildae.livejournal.com]

If you make yourselves into sheep, the wolves will eat you." B. Franklin

I despise conspiracy theories, but there does seem to be a concentrated effort to eliminate the ability of citizens in the free world from fighting back against government excess. It is unfortunate that we have a President that supports that agenda.

As for congress, their minds are made up. Any distraction of fact is actively discouraged, if not attacked. I wish we could say things have gotten better under the watch of my generation. Still, "We Aint'nt dead yet."

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

I don't think any conspiracy theory is required to recognize that governments will have a natural tendency to become filled with people who like holding power, and that those people are going to do whatever they can get away with to ensure that they get more of it and get to hold onto it for as long as possible.

"Power corrupts. Absolute power is kind of neat." — John Lehman, Secretary of the Navy 1981-1987

[7leaguebootdisk.livejournal.com]

Yes, and I'm disturbed that there did not seem to be much resistance in the gun rights community to everything Bush has done. Now all the far could come to pass by executive order.

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

Too many people, unfortunately, labored under the delusion that because Bush was Not A Democrat, he must therefore be their friend.

[wyrdling.livejournal.com]

gack. i knew the uk had turned pretty bad... but not that bad.
well, the british are the reason we have the second amendment in the first place...