Crime prevention is both more effective and more cost-effective

True Bred Pomponian

There is no need to spend more money. This country already employs 135,000 police officers, precious few of whom are ever seen out on our streets feeling collars. Simply ensuring that a decent percentage of officers do indeed patrol our streets is all that needs to be done.

Verity

True Bred Pomponian - That and have a room in each courthouse where a judge handing down a derisory sentence to a dangerous, malicious thug is taken and has his kidneys punched.

JR

True blue - I live in Stockwell in London. I see lots of police out on the beat - far more than I would expect in fact.

I'm not sure a marginal increase in those numbers 'out on the beat' will make any difference to the crime level in my area (which is apparently above average). I'd prefer the Government (of any colour) to make efficiency savings and 'spend' them on evidence based schemes such as those highlighed in the original post.

Ross

"If the Conservatives want to see what works they should look to Sweden, Demark, Canada and America. "

Why? Three of those four countries have a higher murder rate than England & Wales. Sweden has the most crimes per capita in all of Western Europe and Denmark is third highest:

http://www.civitas.org.uk/data/prisonEU2000.htm

The US crime rate has plummetted in recent years but whether that is due to crime prevention or simply keeping the criminals locked up for longer is debatable.

Kevyn Bodman

True Bred Pomponian is right.
More visible, more frequently visible policemen prevent crime.

In absurd application of manegement by measurement the importance of prevention by visibility is downgraded because nobody can measure what has been prevented.

Looking at the article, even if the public purse was full to oveflowing shouldn't ministers still be seeking to spend efficiently.
It's not OK to be inefficient, is it. (No question mark needed for this.)

C Powell

Getting rid of the idea that parents should not talk to their children about morality, about "right" and "wrong" (as suggested - ludicrously - in their latest sex education pamphlet) would also help. We cannot even begin to attack crime if we fail to say that there is "right" and "wrong" and it is the job of parents/teachers/responsible adults to teach the young the difference, reward those who do "right" and punish those who do "wrong".

(Though I admit that having politicians talk to us about such matters would make my blood boil, given that with a very few limited exceptions, they seem to have little grasp of personal morality themselves.)

Forlornehope

One way to release resources is to legalise and control all drugs. Anyone who wants can get anything they want so the present laws are not protecting anyone. There is an unholy symbiosis between the drug cartels and law enforcement. The latter is a $30 bn. industry in the USA. That is a lot of jobs and a lot of vested interests. But the damage done by drugs is largely caused by the criminality around them not the drugs themselves. Another way to get resources is to tax alcohol so that the cost in real terms is back to what it was 30 years ago - when I was a student we couldn't afford binge drinking more than once a term!

KB

One has to be careful in following a utilitarian policy on crime prevention. For example, Steven Levitt (of Freakonomics fame) has very strong evidence showing that most of the big drop in US crime seen in the 1990s was due to legalised abortion. Thus one could argue that the most cost-effective means of crime prevention is an extremely liberal policy on abortion and its availability - something I would find repugnant.

Personally, believing in rational choice theory, I would like to see sharp lines drawn in the law so that if a criminal commits X he knows he'll be doing Y months of time, no plea in mitigation accepted, no bleeding-heart judge muddling things.

Verity

Ross - "Sweden has the most crimes per capita ...". Yes, and I think if you check the figures, those crimes are committed overwhelmingly by Muslims. Something like 82% of rapes (can't be bothered to look it up, but I seem to remember the figure 82%) are committed by Muslims. Muslims, a smaller population, so far, than native Swedes, commit a huge number of crimes per capital.

Re the United States, you people have simply got to stop referring to the US as all one big amorphus administation. Some states have very low crime figures. Also, what you fail to understand is, in the states that allow the possession of firearms - I think it's 42 states that have the right to bear arms - statistics on killings often include lawful killings in self-defense. You have to be careful to determine how the figures are compiled and reported - and by what organisation.

I don't know of any states that have increased jail time for crimes, but some may have. If they have, so what? Good.

quadratus

Yesterday's papers carried the message that "...thousands of policemen are to lose their jobs" because there is no money!

Rob Tripp

Fascinating to see that people believe we have developed (and presumably implemented) crime-prevention programs in Canada based on evidence. Yet, our federal government is about to roll out more mandatory minimum sentences for gun crimes and automatic first-degree murder charges for gang-related killings. These are knee jerk reactions to a spate of gang violence on our west coast, and contrary to science, which shows that tough sentences have no deterrent effect. (I'm a crime writer at a mid-sized daily in Ontario who has blogged about the issue: http://cancrime.com)

George Laird

Dear All

One of the themes that I have highlighted for years is that Britain is an unfair and corrupt society. The Tories have for years argued that the stick and locking up works with criminals, it gets them off the streets.

The approach is similar to a drug addict, the next fix being the important thing, so blinded have the Tories been with jail it has warped their views.

In a society were you have no stake and are denied opportunities, why should people conform to concepts of right and wrong?

“Chris Grayling’s first major speech this week as Shadow Home Secretary has largely been written up as the latest blueprint of powers for ‘cracking down’ on hoodies”.

People when sick need help to get better, we recognise this and provide a health service, we universally accept that concept because it is like glue that helps bind our social values.

In the same way we need to help those at the bottom who are trapped, this means providing opportunities and also re writing parts of the law. As long as we operate a two tier system we will continually see the same faces going in and out of prison.

“But there’s another issue at stake here: a future Conservative Government will likely inherit a public purse that’s pretty much empty which means Grayling will have responsibility to spend taxpayers’ money in areas that will achieve the most effective reductions in crime”.

So, now the Tories have woken up and smelled the coffee, the current situation is not cost effective.

“In his speech, Grayling referred to stopping people getting on to the ‘conveyor belt’ of crime”.

In order to stop this, the law has to be re written so that offenders can have equal status when applying for jobs. Unless jobs, training and opportunities are equal, there can for some be no stake in society.

“This goes to the heart of failure of Labour’s crime and justice policy. He also said “tackling the causes of crime was a key part of my last job. If I am Home Secretary after the next election, my job is very simple - to be tough on crime”.

If his answer is to be tough on crime then he is doomed to failure, every Tory and Labour Government has parroted that slogan since the dawn of time.

“Which is of course welcome news – so long as someone at the heart of any future Conservative government is focussed on coordinating the fight to cut crime”.

The fight to cut crime and “tough on crime” are two different pigeons in my book.

“The Government have had their own problems: Ed Balls and Jack Straw have, almost quite literally fought over this area – rowing over which department should be responsible for ‘youth justice’.”

I would find that laughable as both these jokers have no interest in doing something meaningful.

“If the Conservatives want to see what works they should look to Sweden, Demark, Canada and America. Based on 40 year studies, they have developed programmes which target the factors that can lead young people to a life of crime. And these programmes are cost-effective”.

Why is it; Britain never leads the way in addressing these problems? Could it be that the moral fabric of our society has collapsed?

“Audit Commission figures suggest that each young person in the criminal justice system costs the taxpayer over £200,000 by the age of 16”.

£200,000 pounds wasted and lives ruined.

“But one given support to stay out costs less than £50,000. At the moment though, only a tiny 5 per cent of the Youth Justice Board’s budget is for prevention work”.

The Youth Justice Board is the wrong area for prevention work. This should be split between Work and Pensions and Culture and Sport. There needs to be a reinstalling of Youth Clubs and other activities that promote a sense of community.

“Where crime is concerned, the old adage of an ounce of prevention being better than a pound of cure holds true. Translating the rhetoric into reality will be difficult, but doing so is essential if a Conservative government is to radically reduce the number of victims”.

And jail doesn’t address the problem of what to do when these people get out.

Yours sincerely

George Laird
The Campaign for Human Rights at Glasgow University

Athesius the Facilitator

I stole fags and sweets from an Ice Cream van in 1965. I was caught and punished. 2 years probation, 24 hours attendance (cleaning the lord mayor of Middlesbrough's cars for 2 hours every fortnight)and a huge fine that my Dad payed equivalent to £350 today. Muggers and Burglars don't get that much today. I was hammered and it worked. I joined the Navy and carved out a 40 year career in the Fleet Air Arm for whom I still work. Verity is correct, draconian crime should be met with draconian punishment. And not for the first time has George Laird talked tripe. Youth Justice boards and feely touchy solutions do nothing and it's no good blaming background and poverty. My Dad was a highly skilled toolmaker who was payed well and we lived in a lovely house. My Mam and Dad where great to me but it didn't stop me from being an idiot when I was younger. So lets stop all this nonsense talk. The way to calm kids / youths down is to give e'm a good hiding and and while we are at it them Liberal twits could do with a clip round the ear as well for being so pathetic.