Is Crime Really Down?

[Smallc]

Guess you don't watch the news or read newspapers either.

Those things very much contribute to the way people feel about crime. We didn't have the media that we do today. Crime is higher, sure, but it still doesn't effect the average person's life.

[Wilber]

Just because you didn't see it doesn't mean it didn't exist. Aside from littering and jaywalking, I've never seen a major crime take place. So, by your logic, crime must not exist even today.

Guess we should also get rid of all those surveillance cameras, alarm systems, immobilizers, motion lights and all that other security stuff that no one needed back then. Believe it or not, airside airport employees weren't issued ID cards until the mid seventies and a national airport ID system didn't come in until a few years after that.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Wilber

[Wilber]

Those things very much contribute to the way people feel about crime. We didn't have the media that we do today. Crime is higher, sure, but it still doesn't effect the average person's life.

All the precautions you now take and all the money you spend on security devices has no effect on your life?

[Smallc]

All the precautions you now take and all the money you spend on security devices has no effect on your life?

I don't spend a particularly large amount of money on security devices....and no, that really doesn't effect my life all that much.

[nicky10013]

Guess we should also get rid of all those surveillance cameras, alarm systems, immobilizers, motion lights and all that other security stuff that no one needed back then. Believe it or not, airside airport employees weren't issued ID cards until the mid seventies and a national airport ID system didn't come in until a few years after that.

These things don't increase because of crime, but the fear of crime.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Two reasons. 1. They put you in the slammer if you got caught. 2. We were not yet a drug culture.

People didn't drink alcohol or smoke tobacco? Just how old are you? Just what do you think a drug culture is?

Anyway the first little bit of this video is appropriate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIaV8swc-fo

[Wilber]

It seems you are the one who doesn't believe crime exists today.

Then why do you insist that all these things exist because of the fear of crime, not crime itself?

Edited August 6, 2010 by Wilber

[nicky10013]

Wait a minute, didn't you just say?

It seems you are the one who doesn't believe crime exists today.

No, the point I was making that by your standards of what constitutes crime, today there wouldn't be any whatsoever because you've used nothing more than nostalgia and faulty logic. Just because A came before B, doesn't mean that A caused B. Just like the presence of car alarms isn't indicative of the presence of higher crime rates. Fear of crime can be driven by a lot of things, the two most important things being politics and the media.

A good example is I was going through CTV news stories, one happened to be about crime and Toronto and how Toronto, aside from Quebec City is the safest major city in the country in which to live. Despite the statistics, a good majority of the comments were along the lines of, "Toronto is so dangerous, I wouldn't even visit nevermind live. People get shot in the streets every day." One said Toronto was, "The Wild West." Now, we all know that it doesn't happen, but that's what people believe. Sounds a little familiar, eh?

Edited August 6, 2010 by nicky10013

[Wilber]

People didn't drink alcohol or smoke tobacco? Just how old are you? Just what do you think a drug culture is?

Anyway the first little bit of this video is appropriate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIaV8swc-fo

Alcohol and tobacco were the only drugs in use except for hard core heroin addicts. Other than them the only drug related crime was domestic violence, impaired driving or the odd bar fight. Blame it on us boomers, we are the ones who started the use of all sorts of different recreational drugs at the end of the sixties. That's what I mean about a drug culture.

[Guest TrueMetis]

Alcohol and tobacco were the only drugs in use except for hard core heroin addicts. Other than them the only drug related crime was domestic violence, impaired driving or the odd bar fight. Blame it on us boomers, we are the ones who started the use of all sorts of different recreational drugs at the end of the sixties. That's what I mean about a drug culture.

Here's the problem with that idea, most people do recreational drugs besides tobacco and alcohol. Whether it prescription or otherwise the majority of adult Canadians (and probably teens to) do mood-altering drug and yet most people can hold down a job and experience little or no problems. So blaming the rise in crime on drugs when most people do drugs and have no problem, and when one of the harshest drugs (alcohol) has been legal since longer than those drugs has been popular. The idea that it's the current amount of drug use that has caused an increase of crime is wrong.

My link

Of course I would still like to see trend data from before 1962 to show what the trend was like before, but we don't seem to have those stats.

[capricorn]

These things don't increase because of crime, but the fear of crime.

If I don't fear home invasion or property theft, then I wouldn't feel the need to invest in home security devices. If I fear I, or family members, may become a victim and I can afford it, of course I will invest in a home security device. Who's to say that perps didn't skip my home because they suspected a security alarm system is present? If perps, especially professional burglars, detect my security system they would just move on to an unprotected location. In the case where I installed a security system, my fear of crime prevented me from being a victim of crime.

Home security sales have experienced a sharp boost during the global economic downturn. Industry leaders characterize the elevated turn over to a corresponding increase in home intrusion criminal offenses throughout economically difficult circumstances.

There is small doubt that America is withstanding the severest economic storm since The Great Depression during the 1930's. Nearly each and every business has suffered limiting growth and individuals are cautiously evaluating what they invest.

Consumers are more reluctant to spend, except for the most essential areas. So it is intriguing to note that burglar alarm systems and surveillance systems sales are encountering a rapid increase in sales, regardless of the worldwide credit crisis.

Nicholas J Halmond, Managing Director of INSTANTSPY.NET feels certain that there is really a strong connection between recession and protection.

"I believe that in times of hardship, people are much more likely to commit crimes, poverty increases and so do the chances of suffering a home invasion."

"People are willing to invest on an alarm system or surveillance system simply because they feel the need for protection at the moment."

http://www.einnews.com/pr-news/101653-home-security-systems-see-a-growth-in-sales-due-to-the-economic-downturn

[capricorn]

Crime is higher, sure, but it still doesn't effect the average person's life.

Victims of crime are usually average persons.

[nicky10013]

If I don't fear home invasion or property theft, then I wouldn't feel the need to invest in home security devices. If I fear I, or family members, may become a victim and I can afford it, of course I will invest in a home security device. Who's to say that perps didn't skip my home because they suspected a security alarm system is present? If perps, especially professional burglars, detect my security system they would just move on to an unprotected location. In the case where I installed a security system, my fear of crime prevented me from being a victim of crime.

http://www.einnews.com/pr-news/101653-home-security-systems-see-a-growth-in-sales-due-to-the-economic-downturn

I don't disagree with most of what you said. THat being said, what you've stated here proves my point entirely. Buying this stuff is completely dependant on the fear of crime and not crime itself and how likely it is to occur.

[Keepitsimple]

No, the point I was making that by your standards of what constitutes crime, today there wouldn't be any whatsoever because you've used nothing more than nostalgia and faulty logic.

You seem to completely ignore that this "nostalgia" is backed up by Statistics Canada which clearly shows how total crime was an order of magnitude less than now (as in 300% less). Since we've touched on car thefts, here's what Statistics Canada has to say (my bold)......but as I said before - if you weren't there to experience it, you likely just cannot relate to it.

Motor vehicle theft decreasing since mid-1990s

Unlike most other police-reported crimes which peaked in the early 1990s, motor vehicle theft reached its highest point in 1996. Since then, the rate has gradually decreased, including a 9% decline from 2006 to 2007; however, it continues to remain well above the levels seen decades earlier (Chart 1).

Link: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008010/article/10744-eng.htm#a2

Edited August 6, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[nicky10013]

You seem to completely ignore that this "nostalgia" is backed up by Statistics Canada which clearly shows how total crime was an order of magnitude less than now (as in 300% less). Since we've touched on car thefts, here's what Statistics Canada has to say (my bold)......but as I said before - if you weren't there to experience it, you likely just cannot relate to it.

Link: http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008010/article/10744-eng.htm#a2

Yeah, but you're completely ignoring the fact that. despite the rates in the 60s, crime has been falling for 20 years. We must be doing something right, no?

[Keepitsimple]

Yeah, but you're completely ignoring the fact that. despite the rates in the 60s, crime has been falling for 20 years. We must be doing something right, no?

There ARE things that we've been doing that are right.......but the small bit that crime has fallen since it's peak is no reason to think that crime is at an acceptable level - because it's not......and taking a contrarian view, I could make an argument that since 1991 (the crime peak), rates have fallen because for the most part, the economy has been booming - that's why Canada was able to get the deficit under control. Better paycheques usually means a little less crime. The point is, too much violent crime is taking place and too many repetitive, career criminals thumb their noses at our Justice System. All the public wants is to keep the real bad guys off the street - don't let them create new victims over and over again. That should be the goal in any civilized society.

Edited August 6, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[capricorn]

THat being said, what you've stated here proves my point entirely.

It does not. It is strictly my take on things which I cannot substantiate with evidence. What I provided by way of fact is that there is a boost in the sale of home security devices and that even citizens who cannot afford the expense feel vulnerable enough to crime purchase them for peace of mind.

Buying this stuff is completely dependant on the fear of crime and not crime itself and how likely it is to occur.

Of course there is fear of crime. If citizens were not alarmed at the crime rate, would they run out and purchase home and personal security products at unprecedented levels? Sales are rocketing in the industry.

[Remiel]

You seem to completely ignore that this "nostalgia" is backed up by Statistics Canada which clearly shows how total crime was an order of magnitude less than now (as in 300% less).

Technically speaking, an " order of magnitude " would be a 1000% difference.

[waldo]

http://www.einnews.com/pr-news/101653-home-security-systems-see-a-growth-in-sales-due-to-the-economic-downturn

What I provided by way of fact is that there is a boost in the sale of home security devices and that even citizens who cannot afford the expense feel vulnerable enough to crime purchase them for peace of mind.

Of course there is fear of crime. If citizens were not alarmed at the crime rate, would they run out and purchase home and personal security products at unprecedented levels? Sales are rocketing in the industry.

no... the self-described "fact" that you provided was a free press release from an industry/rep with a principal sales motivation... something aimed and targeted towards, apparently, your elevated fear of crime that runs counter to decades old statistics confirming an actual drop in crime.

[nicky10013]

It does not. It is strictly my take on things which I cannot substantiate with evidence. What I provided by way of fact is that there is a boost in the sale of home security devices and that even citizens who cannot afford the expense feel vulnerable enough to crime purchase them for peace of mind.

Of course there is fear of crime. If citizens were not alarmed at the crime rate, would they run out and purchase home and personal security products at unprecedented levels? Sales are rocketing in the industry.

Whether you have the wit to understand that you're proving my point or not, you're still proving my point. You're taking A - the crime rate and B - the amount of people buying alarm systems and thinking they must automatically be connected when I doubt their connection would be statistically significant. Because really, if it was tied to crime rates, sales would be falling because that's what the crime rates have been doing for 20 years, completely contradicting your statement.

Indeed, I'd wager that the sale of home alarm systems and the REPORTING of crime in the media would be statistically significant.

[capricorn]

Whether you have the wit

Thanks for not calling me a half wit outright as another poster did. At least you left it for me to decide.

Because really, if it was tied to crime rates, sales would be falling because that's what the crime rates have been doing for 20 years, completely contradicting your statement.

Indeed, I'd wager that the sale of home alarm systems and the REPORTING of crime in the media would be statistically significant.

As I said, what I put out is strictly my opinion. I get your point that you don't believe crime rates are up and that's fair enough. Since we don't agree on that basic premise, what is there to add?

[nicky10013]

Thanks for not calling me a half wit outright as another poster did. At least you left it for me to decide.

As I said, what I put out is strictly my opinion. I get your point that you don't believe crime rates are up and that's fair enough. Since we don't agree on that basic premise, what is there to add?

I don't believe? I'm pretty sure the statistics prove my point. As someone posted earlier, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. Nobody is entitled to their own fact. If opinions are based on fact, they can always be wrong.

[Wilber]

Here's the problem with that idea, most people do recreational drugs besides tobacco and alcohol. Whether it prescription or otherwise the majority of adult Canadians (and probably teens to) do mood-altering drug and yet most people can hold down a job and experience little or no problems. So blaming the rise in crime on drugs when most people do drugs and have no problem, and when one of the harshest drugs (alcohol) has been legal since longer than those drugs has been popular. The idea that it's the current amount of drug use that has caused an increase of crime is wrong.

My link

Of course I would still like to see trend data from before 1962 to show what the trend was like before, but we don't seem to have those stats.

Back then, most people didn't do recreational drugs other than alcohol. No one did chemical drugs and few smoked pot. I am a leading edge boomer, my sister is four years younger. Her age group was into stuff that few even considered in my age group. That's how fast things changed. We weren't any better than them, the stuff just wasn't around. I can see how people born in the seventies and eighties would find that hard to believe. I would to but that is the way it was.

You keep going on about people who do recreational drugs allegedly with no problems. Aside from the fact I think that is bullshit, people get into problems using prescription drugs legally obtained, you ignore the organized criminals they get their drugs from. I'm not a criminal, nothing to do with me if my supplier just blew a competitors head off to get my business.

Drugs are a factor in most of todays crime whether it is organized crime, crimes committed by addicts to feed their habits and everything in between. Ask any criminologist.

[Molly]

At what age does one become an "old fart"?

It varies with the individual, but I passed that line at least a decade ago.

[Wilber]

Whether you have the wit to understand that you're proving my point or not, you're still proving my point. You're taking A - the crime rate and B - the amount of people buying alarm systems and thinking they must automatically be connected when I doubt their connection would be statistically significant. Because really, if it was tied to crime rates, sales would be falling because that's what the crime rates have been doing for 20 years, completely contradicting your statement.

Indeed, I'd wager that the sale of home alarm systems and the REPORTING of crime in the media would be statistically significant.

So the government legislating locking steering colums, alarm systems and immobilizers on all new cars was completely unnecessary and insurance companies are also out to lunch because they give you discounts for car immobilzers and monitored home alarm systems. The obviously don't have a clue what they are doing.