Any Truth to this article?

#1
Note: I do not condone, or accept this article as factual. I place it here as I'm interested in your thoughts on this matter as well as your opinions, of the author opinions and/or related facts.: TW


This from the Wall Street Journal.

By JOYCE LEE MALCOLM

June 17, 2006; Page A11

With Great Britain now the world's most violent developed country,
the British government has hit upon a way to reduce the number of
cases before the courts: Police have been instructed to let off with
a caution burglars and those who admit responsibility for some 60
other crimes ranging from assault and arson to sex with an underage
girl. That is, no jail time, no fine, no community service, no court
appearance. It's cheap, quick, saves time and money, and best of all
the offenders won't tax an already overcrowded jail system.

Not everyone will be treated so leniently. A new surveillance system
promises to hunt down anyone exceeding the speed limit. Using
excessive force against a burglar or mugger will earn you a
conviction for assault or, if you seriously harm him, a long
sentence. Tony Martin, the Norfolk farmer jailed for killing one
burglar and wounding another during the seventh break-in at his
rural home, was denied parole because he posed a threat to burglars.
The career burglar whom Mr. Martin wounded got out early.

Using a cap pistol, as an elderly woman did to scare off a gang of
youths, will bring you to court for putting someone in fear.
Recently, police tried to stop David Collinson from entering his
burning home to rescue his asthmatic wife. He refused to obey and,
brandishing a toy pistol, dashed into the blaze. Minutes later he
returned with his wife and dog and apologized to the police. Not
good enough. In April Mr. Collinson was sentenced to a year in
prison for being aggressive towards the officers and brandishing the
toy pistol. Still, at least he won't be sharing his cell with an
arsonist or thief.

How did things come to a pass where law-abiding citizens are treated
as criminals and criminals as victims? A giant step was the 1953
Prevention of Crime Act, making it illegal to carry any article for
an offensive purpose; any item carried for self-defense was
automatically an offensive weapon and the carrier is guilty until
proven innocent. At the time a parliamentarian protested that "The
object of a weapon was to assist weakness to cope with strength and
it is this ability that the bill was framed to destroy." The
government countered that the public should be discouraged "from
going about with offensive weapons in their pockets; it is the duty
of society to protect them."

The trouble is that society cannot and does not protect them. Yet
successive governments have insisted protection be left to the
professionals, meanwhile banning all sorts of weapons, from firearms
to chemical sprays. They hope to add toy or replica guns to the list
along with kitchen knives with points. Other legislation has limited
self-defense to what seems reasonable to a court much later.

Although British governments insist upon sole responsibility for
protecting individuals, for ideological and economic reasons they
have adopted a lenient approach toward offenders. Because prisons
are expensive and don't reform their residents, fewer offenders are
incarcerated. Those who are get sharply reduced sentences, and serve
just half of these. Still, with crime rates rising, prisons are
overcrowded and additional jail space will not be available anytime
soon. The public learned in April that among convicts released early
to ease overcrowding were violent or sex offenders serving mandatory
life sentences who were freed after as little as 15 months.

The government's duty to protect the public has been compromised by
other economies. Police forces are smaller than those of America and
Europe and have been consolidated, leaving 70% of English villages
without a police presence. Police are so hard-pressed that the
Humberside force announced in March they no longer investigate less
serious crimes unless they are racist or homophobic. Among crimes
not being investigated: theft, criminal damage, common assault,
harassment and non-domestic burglary.

As for more serious crime, the unarmed police are wary of responding
to an emergency where the offender is armed. The Thames Valley
Police waited nearly seven hours to enter Julia Pemberton's home
after she telephoned from the closet where she was hiding from her
estranged and armed husband. They arrived once the danger to them
had passed, but after those who had pleaded for their help were past
all help.

To be fair, under the Blair government a host of actions have been
initiated to bring about more convictions. At the end of its 2003
session Parliament repealed the 800-year-old guarantee against
double jeopardy. Now anyone acquitted of a serious crime can be
retried if "new and compelling evidence" is brought forward.
Parliament tinkered with the definition of "new" to make that burden
easier to meet. The test for "new" in these criminal cases, Lord
Neill pointed out, will be lower than "is used habitually in civil
cases. In a civil case, one would have to show that the new evidence
was not reasonably available on the previous occasion. There is no
such requirement here."

Parliament was so excited by the benefits of chucking the ancient
prohibition that it extended the repeal of double jeopardy from
murder to cases of rape, manslaughter, kidnapping, drug-trafficking
and some 20 other serious crimes. For good measure it made the new
act retroactive. Henceforth, no one who has been, or will be, tried
and acquitted of a serious crime can feel confident he will not be
tried again, and again.

To make the prosecutor's task still easier, he is now permitted to
use hearsay evidence -- goodbye to confronting witnesses -- to
introduce a defendant's prior record, and the number of jury trials
is to be reduced. Still, the government has helped the homeowner by
sponsoring a law "to prevent homeowners being sued by intruders who
injure themselves while breaking in."

It may be crass to point out that the British people, stripped of
their ability to protect themselves and of other ancient rights and
left to the mercy of criminals, have gotten the worst of both
worlds. Still, as one citizen, referring to the new policy of
letting criminals off with a caution, suggested: "Perhaps it would
be easier and safer for the honest citizens of the U.K. to move into
the prisons and the criminals to be let out."

Ms. Malcolm is professor of history at Bentley College and author
of, inter alia, "Guns and Violence: The English Experience" (Harvard
University Press, 2002).
 
#2
I only read the first sentence, it's complete bo11ox, so I guess the rest of it will be too.

Trust a septic to post utter sh'ite and if it's septic utter sh'ite, you just know there'll be a trip wire in there somewhere....
 
#3
I'd be interested to see the statistics that confirm that Britain is the world's most violent developed country. (It's a turn of phrase, I'd actually be bored $hitless). I can only presume that either a lot of nations have been relegated from the "developed" division or that Britain keeps more accurate records of violent crime.

The rest of the article appears to stem from the headlines and leaders of the Sunday rags. It is a sad reflection on the Wall Street Journal that it allows the inclusion of articles by a reporter who evidently undertakes research only through the lowest quality media.

Would the WSJ employ me as their chief UK reporter? I could paraphrase the Sunday Sport and condense the content to, what, three column inches. Oh, no. I forgot. Having seen this article, I'd have to insist on a full extra section being added so that I could waffle on about absolute drivel.

Furthermore, the credibility of Bentley College is severely brought into doubt, if Ms Malcolm is an example of the calibre of their professors. (Wait a bit - a US degree = UK A level, so a professor must be equivalent to 21 year old who scraped a third in a very simple UK degree, hairdressing, flower arranging or similar).
 
#5
Having read the article in full now, it's bo11ox with no academic substance, no quoting imperical evidence, and by some bint at a by your own degree Spam college!

Trust a septic to post utter sh'ite and if it's septic utter sh'ite, you just know there'll be a trip wire in there somewhere....
 
#6
CheekieNorthernMonkie said:
I only read the first sentence, it's complete bo11ox, so I guess the rest of it will be too.

Trust a septic to post utter sh'ite and if it's septic utter sh'ite, you just know there'll be a trip wire in there somewhere....
Which bits of the article are wrong then Cheeky? I trust that after such a heartfelt denunciation you can back yourself up.
 
#7
Okay, sorry for the rather bizarre link I'm posting now: http://www.keralapolice.org/crimestat.html

It contains some charts comparing crime in India with various other countries (though strangely enough not the UK), as such it's not an ideal link, but does give an impression of the situation around the world.

I tried to access the Interpol site, but couldn't, as I'm not a copper :-(
 
#8
#9
Awol said:
CheekieNorthernMonkie said:
I only read the first sentence, it's complete bo11ox, so I guess the rest of it will be too.

Trust a septic to post utter sh'ite and if it's septic utter sh'ite, you just know there'll be a trip wire in there somewhere....
Which bits of the article are wrong then Cheeky? I trust that after such a heartfelt denunciation you can back yourself up.
You're stalking me, aren't you, and we were doing so well on Shot at Dawn!

Ok, I'll start with the first bit: With Great Britain now the world's most violent developed country

The author makes no reference to the authority which establishes that this is factual, something any first year under grad would be expected to do. Further to this, as the author fails to supply a verifiable source I would suggest that both the USA and Russia supass the Great Britain in the most violent developed country stakes. I would further suggest that South Africa and Israel are developed countries and well, they have it pretty damn violent there too. But as the bint hasn't given us a source we can't check and in academic cirles, if you can't show the proof of something, it doesn't exist! Further, as an academic, one would have expected the author to use UK instead of GB unless it was her SPECIFIC intention to exclude NI from her study, which, as a 'serious' academic she SHOULD have stated on the first use of the term Great Britain.

That do for you for now, old bean..... 8)
 
#11
Academic Review for this lady's book:

The smoking barrel. - Guns and Violence: The English Experience - book review

Psychology Today, Jan-Feb, 2003 by David Hemenway

The debate over our right to bear arms rages on: Do guns predict or prevent violence? While evidence seems to point to the former, author Joyce Lee Malcolm makes the case for firearms' historic role in helping to decrease violent crime.

GUNS AND VIOLENCE: THE ENGLISH EXPERIENCE (Harvard University Press, 2002) Joyce Lee Malcolm Reviewed by David Hemenway, Ph.D.

AMERICANS ARE AMONG THE world's most heavily armed people. And according to author Joyce Lee Malcolm, Ph.D., our guns make us safer. "In England, fewer guns have meant more crime," she writes. "In America, more guns have meant less crime."

Malcolm, a history professor at Bentley College in Massachusetts, provides a broad-brush survey of English history from 1500 to the present, then compares the rates of gun ownership and crime in England and America in the last 20 years. Her thesis rests on two ideas: Violent crimes in England decreased dramatically between 1500 and 1953 (while the number of personal firearms rose) and in the past two decades, gun availability fell in England and crime increased, while the reverse occurred in the U.S.

One problem with Malcolm's argument is her conclusion from correlational data (as gun ownership increases, crime decreases) that guns reduce crime. England experienced many changes between 1500 and 1953--industrialization and urbanization, to name two--any of which may have helped reduce crime. Malcolm also notes that homicide rates began falling in 1500 as guns became more available. And while there were even fewer crimes and more guns 300 years later, most of those guns were muskets. Inaccurate and dangerous, muskets are not very useful for crime or self-defense.

A second problem is Malcolm's argument for a connection between gun ownership and violent crime. Good data do not exist for the period under scrutiny, and even Malcolm admits that "we have no way of knowing how many Englishmen actually owned firearms" in 1900.

Shifting to more recent experiences, Malcolm claims that England's crime rate increased in the 1980s and 1990s, while the U.S. rate declined. Again she attributes this to changes in gun availability, but the data do not fit her thesis. During the past 20 years, gun prevalence in U.S. households has actually decreased; the General Social Surveys find that rates fell steadily from 48 percent in 1980 to 40 percent in 1999. Gun ownership and homicide rates also fell throughout most of the '90s. Moreover, while victimization surveys find that robbery, assault and vehicle theft are as high in England as in the U.S., our homicide rate is six times higher and most of those murders were gun-related.

Malcolm's thesis is inconsistent with the bulk of research on guns and crime, evidence she does not discuss. For instance, studies in the U.S. and other developed countries show that increased gun ownership coincides with higher rates of firearm homicide. Everyone is at higher risk of murder if more neighbors own guns.

When an author's stand defies common sense, readers have the right to expect strong, supporting evidence. Malcolm's case is far from compelling, and she ignores a wealth of contradictory evidence. She may win admirers among gun enthusiasts, but the evidence still shows that where violent crime is concerned, guns are not the solution--they are part of the problem.
 
#12
putteesinmyhands said:
And not averse to changing the facts to suit her argument:

http://timlambert.org/2004/11/malcolm2/

Perhaps she should write scripts for Hollywood.
Guess that makes me a fcuking genius for establishing the bint was full of sh'ite from just the first sentence of the crap old septic wire posted here (you know, I think he posted it to wind us up, he's that sort of person you know......)

What do you say, Awol, old been?
 
#13
crabtastic said:
Academic Review for this lady's book:

The smoking barrel. - Guns and Violence: The English Experience - book review

Psychology Today, Jan-Feb, 2003 by David Hemenway

The debate over our right to bear arms rages on: Do guns predict or prevent violence? While evidence seems to point to the former, author Joyce Lee Malcolm makes the case for firearms' historic role in helping to decrease violent crime.

GUNS AND VIOLENCE: THE ENGLISH EXPERIENCE (Harvard University Press, 2002) Joyce Lee Malcolm Reviewed by David Hemenway, Ph.D.

AMERICANS ARE AMONG THE world's most heavily armed people. And according to author Joyce Lee Malcolm, Ph.D., our guns make us safer. "In England, fewer guns have meant more crime," she writes. "In America, more guns have meant less crime."

Malcolm, a history professor at Bentley College in Massachusetts, provides a broad-brush survey of English history from 1500 to the present, then compares the rates of gun ownership and crime in England and America in the last 20 years. Her thesis rests on two ideas: Violent crimes in England decreased dramatically between 1500 and 1953 (while the number of personal firearms rose) and in the past two decades, gun availability fell in England and crime increased, while the reverse occurred in the U.S.

One problem with Malcolm's argument is her conclusion from correlational data (as gun ownership increases, crime decreases) that guns reduce crime. England experienced many changes between 1500 and 1953--industrialization and urbanization, to name two--any of which may have helped reduce crime. Malcolm also notes that homicide rates began falling in 1500 as guns became more available. And while there were even fewer crimes and more guns 300 years later, most of those guns were muskets. Inaccurate and dangerous, muskets are not very useful for crime or self-defense.

A second problem is Malcolm's argument for a connection between gun ownership and violent crime. Good data do not exist for the period under scrutiny, and even Malcolm admits that "we have no way of knowing how many Englishmen actually owned firearms" in 1900.

Shifting to more recent experiences, Malcolm claims that England's crime rate increased in the 1980s and 1990s, while the U.S. rate declined. Again she attributes this to changes in gun availability, but the data do not fit her thesis. During the past 20 years, gun prevalence in U.S. households has actually decreased; the General Social Surveys find that rates fell steadily from 48 percent in 1980 to 40 percent in 1999. Gun ownership and homicide rates also fell throughout most of the '90s. Moreover, while victimization surveys find that robbery, assault and vehicle theft are as high in England as in the U.S., our homicide rate is six times higher and most of those murders were gun-related.

Malcolm's thesis is inconsistent with the bulk of research on guns and crime, evidence she does not discuss. For instance, studies in the U.S. and other developed countries show that increased gun ownership coincides with higher rates of firearm homicide. Everyone is at higher risk of murder if more neighbors own guns.

When an author's stand defies common sense, readers have the right to expect strong, supporting evidence. Malcolm's case is far from compelling, and she ignores a wealth of contradictory evidence. She may win admirers among gun enthusiasts, but the evidence still shows that where violent crime is concerned, guns are not the solution--they are part of the problem.
Guess that makes me a fcuking genius for establishing the bint was full of sh'ite from just the first sentence of the crap old septic wire posted here (you know, I think he posted it to wind us up, he's that sort of person you know......)

What do you say, Awol, old been?
 
#14
Just had a look at other peer reviews on JSTOR. She seems to get panned for similar sloppy work and careful selectivity of evidence, not to mention the absence of any pretense of academic objectivity, in every one I've looked at so far.
 
#15
crabtastic said:
Just had a look at other peer reviews on JSTOR. She seems to get panned for similar sloppy work and careful selectivity of evidence, not to mention the absence of any pretense of academic objectivity, in every one I've looked at so far.
It just gets better ref this bint!

Guess that makes me a fcuking genius for establishing the bint was full of sh'ite from just the first sentence of the crap old septic wire posted here (you know, I think he posted it to wind us up, he's that sort of person you know......)

What do you say, Awol, old been?

(I must stop doing this just to prove I was right to Awol, it makes me more of an Evil Clown than I am!)
 
#16
Just a reminder:

Note: I do not condone, or accept this article as factual. I place it here as I'm interested in your thoughts on this matter as well as your opinions, of the author opinions and/or related facts.: Trip_Wire!
 
#17
Trip_Wire said:
Just a reminder:

Note: I do not condone, or accept this article as factual. I place it here as I'm interested in your thoughts on this matter as well as your opinions, of the author opinions and/or related facts.: Trip_Wire!
Well, it's a pile of poo and that makes you
The bag of sh'ite that brought it
For a Septic Tank
That's full of w@nk
You can't get higher
Than fcuking Trip Wire
Discussion done and sorted

8)
 
#18
CheekieNorthernMonkie said:
Trip_Wire said:
Just a reminder:

Note: I do not condone, or accept this article as factual. I place it here as I'm interested in your thoughts on this matter as well as your opinions, of the author opinions and/or related facts.: Trip_Wire!
Well, it's a pile of poo and that makes you
The bag of sh'ite that brought it
For a Septic Tank
That's full of w@nk
You can't get higher
Than fcuking Trip Wire
Discussion done and sorted

8)
Identified: One Computer geek!
 
#19
Trip_Wire said:
Just a reminder:

Note: I do not condone, or accept this article as factual. I place it here as I'm interested in your thoughts on this matter as well as your opinions, of the author opinions and/or related facts.: Trip_Wire!
Stop trolling and wasting our time and feck off!
 
#20
Trip_Wire said:
CheekieNorthernMonkie said:
Trip_Wire said:
Just a reminder:

Note: I do not condone, or accept this article as factual. I place it here as I'm interested in your thoughts on this matter as well as your opinions, of the author opinions and/or related facts.: Trip_Wire!
Well, it's a pile of poo and that makes you
The bag of sh'ite that brought it
For a Septic Tank
That's full of w@nk
You can't get higher
Than fcuking Trip Wire
Discussion done and sorted

8)
Identified: One Computer geek!
Now there you go making a t!t of yourself again! No-one who spells like wot I does can be a geek at anything but then, you lot can't spell English proper either so you wouldn't know! Tell me, what's it like being a super power without out a language of its own! I mean English and Spanish ain't yours (but then, you stole the country from the natives or bought it of the Ruskies French and others!
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top