Stabbing on Shawbury Rd

[UncleBen]

Build more prisons,less schools.

[LadyDeliah]

From DaveR's report:

Over 5 times as many adults (3,322)were cautioned or convicted for possession offences than juveniles (660) - a ratio that has generally been increasing over the last 4 years as the number of juveniles cautioned or convicted has fallen at a faster rate than for adults

So the opposite of what you said Fox.

[Rianoo]

@Che/Deliah

An 18yr old carrying a knife is just as bad as a juvenile carrying a knife, and so on.

Juveniles can generally run quicker - and hand over quicker.

Stats do not show the true picture.

As other people have mentioned, carrying a blade in public is not to be condoned and penalties for such possession should be far more aggresive. If someone, of any age, thought that they would receive a 20 year term for carrying a blade then I am sure the incidents would reduce drastically. Albeit we would have to pay for their time served. But make it hard labour - or clean up the dog sh@t.

[LadyDeliah]

That is a false argument. When theft and lots of other crimes were punishable by hanging or transportation to the 'New World' that didn't stop crimw, violent or otherwise.

[Chillaxed]

Not a great argument either. Are you saying that potential punishment is not a deterrent? I suspect that a lot of crimes back in the day were committed out of necessity (stealing food, for example) and any prospective punishment was less important than the need to stay alive.

[KidKruger]

Those crimes back in the day would have been more prevalent if there were not such harsh punishments.

There's no 'need' to carry a fixed blade these days.

A penknife I can understand if you've a packed-lunch or you're camping / hiking or on your way to a picnic.

But

[Rianoo]

@Deliah/Chillaxed - Probably not my best point of view but I still don't see the relevance of age stats for blade carrying. It is their choice to do it and they should be severly punished whatever age. I work with sharp "tools" all day but I won't take one out on the street with me.

[Chillaxed]

Not @ me Rianoo, the 'not a great argument' I was referring to was LadyD's.

[Rianoo]

@Chill - I hope no offence taken.

[Chillaxed]

I take no offence to someone disagreeing with me; I would be in a permanently offended state otherwise!

[DaveR]

It's a small point but if you are going to say:

"Stats do not show the true picture."

then you should at least have a stab (no pun intended) at explaining why. What was said was that teenagers know:

"if they are stopped my the Police and caught with a knife nothing is likely to come of it."

The stats show that they have a roughly 1 in 4 chance of ending up in prison, if convicted. There may well be a valid debate about whether that proportion should be higher, and how long sentences should be, but the starting point is that the stats do show a true picture of what currently happens.

My only other observations would be (i) that a lot of much better informed people than us have done a lot of very credible research about the deterrent effect of the nature and severity of sentencing - it's not quite as straightforward as 'give them 20 years and they'll never do the crime' and (ii) I've never met anyone who has actually set foot inside a prison who talks as casually about giving people 20 years.

NB - in deference to any statisticians out there, I acknowledge that the report linked to contains mainly data, as opposed to stats.

[Rianoo]

@DaveR - OK - so the credible research has resulted in what exactly ? A softly softly approach that means more people carrying blades. And of course someone who has set foot in a prison would not talk casually about giving someone 20 years - that is the whole point - its not meant to be casual.

In regards to stabbings stats - many go unreported.

[Penguin68]

In regards to stabbings stats - many go unreported

What is your evidence for that? - any stabbing (penitrative wound) which required hospital treatment (I would assmme most do) would be reported by the A&E staff. Or at least recorded by them. There are many crimes which do go un-reported, but I would have thought stabbing didn't figure high in that list. It is possible that knife cuts may be less well reported and recorded - but cutting tends to be done under different circumstances. And slashes would themselves normally need stitching - again an A&E issue.

[Rianoo]

Fine - some prefer scars to police involvement. Thought, assumption and normailty are all well and good but evidence is difficult. Knife carriers may enlighten you if you wish to chat with them although I don't see many round here.

[KidKruger]

Penguin68 I've had stab wounds in my legs, abdomen and hands (knuckles/back of hands), some of which (legs) I wasn't aware of until day after (having left overnight cells) by which time you're finally home / safe and can't be arsed to traipse to the hospital and go through an inquisition to stitch wounds that stopped bleeding the day before and pose no danger.

Not all cuts are gaping horror-movie type and not all stab wounds are deep. Also in a knife fight its surprisingly easy to stab or cut yourself which again is a disincentive for queueing at A&E.

What evidence are you looking for ? Maybe this info will help.

You often aren't aware of wounds until after the fact. If you're fully clothed you may get nicks that you spot later - typically when you get in the bath and they hurt from the hot water.

[womanofdulwich]

I look forward to your biography KK. :)

[northlondoner]

From here on in I agree with everything KK has to say.

[Huguenot]

@Rianoo... "so the credible research has resulted in what exactly ? A softly softly approach that means more people carrying blades"

I think that would be a good example of making an incorrect observation (that punishment for knife crimes has weakened), identifying an inaccurate correlation (that it has directly tracked an increase in knife carrying), and jumping to a now hopelessly off-beam causation (that weakening knife punishments has prompted more people to carry blades).

It's poor analysis.

[Chillaxed]

Gotta love the internet. No matter what the subject, you can always be sure someone will have superior knowledge or experience of the subject to you.

*cuts finger on latest P&L report and stumbles teary-eyed to the office first aid kit*

Edited to note that H's post snuck in while I was drafting mine and I was 100% referring to KK's post, not H's.

[????]

Football hooliganism was reduced MASSIVELY almost to the point of extiction (not quite) by harsh sentencing,

Not looked at the stats re knife crime etc but the above point is pretty indisputable.

Harsh sentencing has reduced crime in the US significantly.

Now, this doesn't mean that it's the right/only/best/practical solution or indeed what a decent society should do but the 'prison doesn't work' mantra per se is really weak. It does on a simple level, it puts a number of those in that very small majority who are resposible for a hugely dsiprproprtionate number of crimes in a place where thay can't commit them for a while. That reduces crime.

[Rianoo]

@Huguenot - My response was to DaveR and his assumption that only 1 in 4 have a 'chance' to go to prison. It was not an observation it was a response with a question. Maybe your analysis is..............

Give me your thoughts on the subject then, along with the accurate correlation of sentencing versus knife 'crime' increase or decrease then we can put this to an end.

[Penguin68]

Football hooliganism was reduced MASSIVELY almost to the point of extiction (not quite) by harsh sentencing,

This also co-incided with the final moves away from stands - where violence is much easier to kick-off, and also much better policing - when you consider the levels of crime and casual violence in the 18th and early 19th centuries (and before) - very much higher on a per capita basis than now, when punishments were hugely more severe (and when you moved from trial, normally no longer than a day, to execution within a week) for many more crimes than simply murder, then the idea that harsh punishment leads to crime reduction is less clear. If harsh sentencing has reduced crime in the US (it is reducing everywhere, in many places without harsh sentencing) it should be remebered that the US locks up more people (again per capita) than any other western country.

The most useful source for the movement in the incidence of violence at the moment is the excellent and very well researched 'Better Angels of our Nature' by Steven Pinker -(subtitled 'the decline of violence in history and its causes') which I would recommend.

In 2010 homicide rates in the punitive US (with a death penalty in numerous states) was 4.5 per 100k, in adjacent Canada it was under 2. In lenient Italy, England, Sweden, France and Germany it hovered around 1.

For all these countries, the incidence has fallen dramatically over the last 100 years (with some fluctations) - but the current position does not support a 'harsh is best' conclusion, at least as regards proportional incidence.

[Rianoo]

@Penguin68 - What are the proportional incidences over the last 100 years ? - obviously taking into account population growth. Interested to find out.

[Huguenot]

Well the first place to start is the assumption that knife crime is increasing.

In 1979 there were 200 deaths by sharp instrument, and in 2012 there were 200 deaths by sharp instrument. There's the odd up and down in that figure, but it's pretty consistent.

In 1995 8% of violent crime involved a sharp instrument, and in 2012 only 6%. There's a few ups and downs in that figure, but it's pretty consistent.

Even if you don't like the Police or British Crime Survey figures, the numbers of admissions a to hospital for knife injuries last year was around 4,500, which is the lowest figure since 2002. There's a few ups and downs etc. but it's... consistent.

So, you know, the whole argument is built on the rubbish assumption that knife crime is getting worse.

Going back to whether sentencing is going to cure us of the 200 deaths or 4,500 serious injuries, then just THINK about it. That's 200/4,500 in a population of 60,000,000

60 MILLION people.

That means the proportions are too small to have any relevance at all. Sentencing is going to have NO affect because these situations are all unique, and it's a pretty reasonable guess that not one of these individuals considered the sentence before they committed the crime.

So all you're really going to do by increasing sentencing is persecute stupid little boys who, statistically, are just as likely to grow out of this phase as they were 30 years ago.

All figures here: http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/Sn04304

[????]

Anectdotal historical comparisons are tottaly unscientific

"when you consider the levels of crime and casual violence in the 18th and early 19th centuries (and before) - very much higher on a per capita basis than now, when punishments were hugely more severe (and when you moved from trial, normally no longer than a day, to execution within a week) for many more crimes than simply murder, then the idea that harsh punishment leads to crime reduction is less clear.@

A supporter of the death penalty for muder (which I'm not by the way) could as easily (and actually more scientifically) argue that the increase in the homicide rate post aboltion of Capital Punishment to more than double the rate shows that the Death Penaltly worked.

Trite, historical comparisomns are just rubbish comparisons that form a large part of the liberal narrative on crime/deterrence. There are better facts to support a liberal narrative than them, they're rubbish.