Those figures are wrong for London. 170,000 is the total number of all violent crimes excluding rape, not assault.
The NYC figure only counts felony assault. Assuming last week is representative, NYC has about 60,000 total assaults per year.
The rape figures do seem to be accurate. Ew.
Ok, thanks for clearing that up. However, as I read it, in 2010, NYC has less total felonious crime (105,625), including Murder, rape, felonious assault, burglary, robbery, grand larceny and car theft than London had solely within the category of “Crimes Against the Person” (170,000). In London, in addition to Crimes Against the Person, there were also 60,000 residential burglaries, almost 100,000 car thefts and car breakins (!) and about 35,000 robberies.
Even if you add the misdemeanor assaults back in to NYC’s numbers (~45,000 in 2010 extrapolating from the 28-day figure) and don’t include the commercial burglaries in London (because its not clear if the NYC figure is purely residential or not) London still has far, far more crime than New York City: ~150,000 compared to ~360,000.
I’m note sure how much I would trust British crime statistics except for murder. The British police have become notorious about not recording crimes. Victimization surveys often paint a much different picture than the police statistics.
I found this article by Theodore Dalrymple discussing the book, “A Land Fit for Criminals”.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/16_3_oh_to_be.html
If the picture being painted here is even remotely correct, then I fail to see how any improvements in police technique will address the problem. The trouble is that if you don’t put criminals in jail, then the law abiding end up being prisoners in their own homes.
Its difficult to take seriously an article that begins with such an obvious falsehood:
Having lived in Britain (and in crime-ridden places in Britain) this is simply untrue.
Most modern British crime statistics a given via the British Crime Survey, which is generally considered statistically more valid than traditional crime stats. Of course this doesn’t help with comparisons to the US (as there is no equivalent there, and the survey always records much higher levels of crime than traditional crime statistics).
It does however show that crime in the UK is at its lowest rate since 1981.
So I can infer that you didn’t read the rest of The Tale of Two Cities because the sentence, “It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.” is obviously untrue.
Unless you spent your time in England without ever locking the door to your house or car you spent some time wondering how to avoid being the victim of a crime.
Ummm so Mr Dalrymple’s article is meant to be a work of fiction ?
Well yes, I did occasionally spend some time thinking about avoiding crime. But read his statement again, he didn’t say that Britons spend alot of time thinking about crime, or more time than Americans, he said that there ISN’T single Briton, no matter how affluent and low-crime their area is, who doesn’t go a few hours without thinking about how to avoid being a victim of crime.
This is patently false, to start a supposedly factual article with a such blatant falsehood does not encourage me to read the rest of the article.
But we have no secrets from each other, surely?
Kidding aside, I have much the same reaction. Why on earth do they need to bring in an American?
Other than that, did you find fault with the argument that Britain’s crime control methods are detrimental to the safety of the public?
Edit: Never mind, you didn’t actually read the article. I don’t know if the article is a valid criticism of the British penal system or not. I don’t know a lot about crime control over there.
I’d actually say yes, the punishment side of the criminal justice system is pretty lax in the UK, and this part of the reason for the high rate of property crime in the UK compared to the US (though for the record I’ve been a victim of crime several times in the US, but never was in the UK).
I’d also say the US goes to the other extreme and their criminal justice system is ridiculously strict (Having 1% of the population in jail is patently ridiculous, and if I walk in on someone burglarizing my house I’d rather not have to face the possibility that he already has “two strikes” so might as well kill me for all the difference it would make).
Isn’t it fairly standard for police departments to hire cops from other cities as consultants?
It seems like you have the other extreme though. In that the burglar could knife you and only spend 5 years in prison if caught. Hopefully there’s a happy medium between the two extremes.
Sure, but criminal statutes and procedure don’t differ all that much between, say, Sacramento and Hartford. They differ so much between New York and London as to defy comparison in some regards.
Now, that doesn’t mean Bratton can’t have anything to offer the Met; if one of his techniques is, say, increasing foot patrols, presumably the effect will be much the same in London as in New York. On the other hand, if one of his techniques is to lean on prosecutors to seek increased penalties for certain crimes, or whatever, that isn’t going to help much.
The viewpoint of outsiders can sometimes be quite helpful I understand. You can compare and contrast different ways of doing things. For example, England seems to get a LOT more bang for the buck from its health care system than we do. We could use a consultant on that! (Though for some reason I don’t think they will be listened to.)
Forget Bill Bratton. They should get Bill Brasky in there! He was the best damned cop on the force! He once broke up a riot all by himself!
Who？
Wikiis your friend (I’d never heard of him either!).
It is disingenuous to argue that Giuliani or his administration were responsible for the precipitous drop in crime. The crime rate peaked in the first year of Mayor David Dinkins’ term and then started declining over the next three years. It suggests to me that other factors were involved.
And yet even New Yorkers hostile to Guiliani admit he and his staff changed the city environment considerably. People not only were safer - they felt safer. Bratton’s new techniques not only lowered crime directly, they hit the real environmental causes of crime.
It was and is still fashionable to claim that poverty causes crime, but the evidence for this is actually pretty lacking, except inasmuch as violent and visisble crime tends to arise from poorly-educated, and poorer, strata of society. However, many more studies have shown a rough but real link between apathy and crime. If people care about neighborhoods, keep them clean, and see a real investment by the powers that be (in time more than money), they tend to not commit crimes. On the other hand, when people don’t care (which is metaphorically invoked as the window that doesn’t get fixed, eading to all the windows being broken) and see others not caring, they are more likely to commit crimes.