Crime over the generations.

Mat said:
I imagine when you were growing up, you were also blissfully unaware of the vast majority of what was going on outside your own home. Your interest in the news and current affairs will have been all but absent at best and your exposure to anything remotely criminal will have been severely limited.

Your view of the world will have been markedly different and completely skewed your opinion and memories.
Click to expand...

I'm with this. This is so true. I was blissfully unaware.

The minute I gave birth my world changed forever. Fear surrounded me from that day on.
Still does. Always will.
 
pickle1972 said:
I'm with this. This is so true. I was blissfully unaware.

The minute I gave birth my world changed forever. Fear surrounded me from that day on.
Still does. Always will.
Click to expand...

That your son was going to turn out like his father? :p

Sorry couldn't resist :P
 
There is probably less serious crime (for the population size) than in the "good old days", but it gets reported far far more often.

For example a missing child these days is usually a fairly big thing, often national news until the child is found.
But back in the old days it would likely only have been local news.

So the perception is that children are going missing more (especially that they're being kidnapped/abused and killed by strangers).

The same with say murders, in the old days it was only really horrific or unusual murders that might have made the national papers for a day or two, now virtually any murder has a good chance of becoming national news via the TV, Radio, Internet (within minutes/hours) and papers.

So the perception is it happens more.

And the same with again with child abuse, it used to be very very poorly recorded, often not even reported or people told the child to stop being stupid and lying.
Now it is quite likely to be reported, almost certain to be recorded and investigated.

So the perception is that back in the good old days children were not abused, when in reality they were far more likely to have been abused but it was never investigated or (as seems to have been the case far too often with various religious groups), when it was reported the children were told to shut up, and the criminal quietly moved to another area (IIRC the Catholic church in America has paid out hundreds of millions, if not billions of pounds in compensantion over such cover ups).

Of course there are some crimes that are more common now, or simply recognised as a crime now so the stats for them are up (in some cases simply because as I say it is now known as a crime).

Motoring offences are almost certainly up on what they were in the 40's and 50's, even if you discount Speeding (which went up massively simply because technology meant it was possible to catch more people and deal with them), but also simply because more people are now driving, and they're driving more.
 
Greebo said:
Here's a good quote from a locksmith



And there does appear to be a lot of truth in that.

And look at self service tills in supermarket. In a survey, 1 in 5 admitted to stealing and not paying for some goods as they can get away with it. I suspect these people would never have considered shoplifting before but because they now can with a low perceived risk of been caught and even then a low risk of punishment as can always just blame it on a "mistake". I doubt 1 on 5 stole from supermarkets before these tills were installed.
Click to expand...

Hmmm not sure it's that simple, surely moral codes come into it as well.

Would I steal a packet of crisps from a supermarket if there was a 100% guarantee I wouldn't be caught? Probably yeah but I would never burgle a person's house even with the same guarantee because the affects of each crime are massively different.
 
pickle1972 said:
Ha! Greebo you banana, I have a daughter :p and we are law abiding citizens :rolleyes:

Your apology is accepted :D hope I don't get banned for calling you a banana :eek: I like bananas :)
Click to expand...

If only there was a section on this forum where I could report this obscene abuse.................................... ;)
 
Werewolf said:
There is probably less serious crime (for the population size) than in the "good old days", but it gets reported far far more often.

For example a missing child these days is usually a fairly big thing, often national news until the child is found.
But back in the old days it would likely only have been local news.

So the perception is that children are going missing more (especially that they're being kidnapped/abused and killed by strangers).

The same with say murders, in the old days it was only really horrific or unusual murders that might have made the national papers for a day or two, now virtually any murder has a good chance of becoming national news via the TV, Radio, Internet (within minutes/hours) and papers.

So the perception is it happens more.

And the same with again with child abuse, it used to be very very poorly recorded, often not even reported or people told the child to stop being stupid and lying.
Now it is quite likely to be reported, almost certain to be recorded and investigated.

So the perception is that back in the good old days children were not abused, when in reality they were far more likely to have been abused but it was never investigated or (as seems to have been the case far too often with various religious groups), when it was reported the children were told to shut up, and the criminal quietly moved to another area (IIRC the Catholic church in America has paid out hundreds of millions, if not billions of pounds in compensantion over such cover ups).

Of course there are some crimes that are more common now, or simply recognised as a crime now so the stats for them are up (in some cases simply because as I say it is now known as a crime).

Motoring offences are almost certainly up on what they were in the 40's and 50's, even if you discount Speeding (which went up massively simply because technology meant it was possible to catch more people and deal with them), but also simply because more people are now driving, and they're driving more.
Click to expand...
Great post ;) this is true. There were only the most horrific of crimes focused on.

Child abuse was very much brushed under the carpet. Agreed.

As for motoring offences, ye gods I don't know how I'm even still alive with my dads drink driving :eek:
 
estebanrey said:
Hmmm not sure it's that simple, surely moral codes come into it as well.

Would I steal a packet of crisps from a supermarket if there was a 100% guarantee I wouldn't be caught? Probably yeah but I would never burgle a person's house even with the same guarantee because the affects of each crime are massively different.
Click to expand...

That's the reward risk element but morals do come into it, you are right.

There was a big study done on cheating where you got paid so much money for each correct answer but it was up to you to say how many you got right.

As the amount of money paid per correct answer increased the number of people who cheated or the amount of people who cheated decreased. The theory being that as the rewards got larger to £10 per answer from the original 50p that peoples moral codes kicked in and were less likely to cheat That goes along with your thing about you might steal a packet of crisps but wouldn't burgle a house.

Interesting enough the repeated the tests with other groups where they were all made to read the ten commandments before completing the test and asked to bear them in mind as they did it. The results from those tests was that there was zero or minimal cheating occurred. Even non religious people swearing on the bible had the same affect.

Thus meaning that if people were reminded about moral or religious codes before they were about to commit an act then there are far less likely to do it.

They also found that on 50,000 car insurance questionnaires people are less likely to lie if you have to sign the top of the first page stating everything you are about to submit is truthful rather than the normal at the end. It makes people think about it as they answer the questions.
 
Dave M said:
No it is not. Violence in general is down, burglaries are down, car theft is down.

The violence I don't know why, maybe lead in petrol, maybe everyone's just numbed by facebook and netflix. Burglaries are down because it's not worth it for a £100 tv and for cars they're just too damned hard to steal for the common criminal.

Fraud of all kinds is on the rise though.

My prediction for the future is a similar number of criminals as there ever was but moving to more modern information based crimes - hitting someone over the head for their wallet is so 20th century.
Click to expand...

Reported crimes of any sort are down. So statistics look good.

Vanquish-Storm said:
Is that based on reported crime Burnsy?
Click to expand...

Heh... That was a sarcastic post by Burnsy, right? Please let it be and that he is a cynical Policeman like my uncle and many of his colleagues.

 
Greebo said:
That's the reward risk element but morals do come into it, you are right.

There was a big study done on cheating where you got paid so much money for each correct answer but it was up to you to say how many you got right.

As the amount of money paid per correct answer increased the number of people who cheated or the amount of people who cheated decreased. The theory being that as the rewards got larger to £10 per answer from the original 50p that peoples moral codes kicked in and were less likely to cheat That goes along with your thing about you might steal a packet of crisps but wouldn't burgle a house.

Interesting enough the repeated the tests with other groups where they were all made to read the ten commandments before completing the test and asked to bear them in mind as they did it. The results from those tests was that there was zero or minimal cheating occurred. Even non religious people swearing on the bible had the same affect.

Thus meaning that if people were reminded about moral or religious codes before they were about to commit an act then there are far less likely to do it.

They also found that on 50,000 car insurance questionnaires people are less likely to lie if you have to sign the top of the first page stating everything you are about to submit is truthful rather than the normal at the end. It makes people think about it as they answer the questions.
Click to expand...
I take it all back :rolleyes: you are no longer a banana.
Impressive post :)
 
Greebo said:
....
Click to expand...

I wasn't really taking about risk/reward as in my hypothetical I said there was 0 risk for me in both.

The reason I'd steal a packet of crisps from a Supermarket and not burgle a persons house if there was a guarantee I'd get away with it is based on the fact a large supermarket would be unaffected by the loss of a packet of crisps whereas a burglary would devastate a family.

To use another example, I would probably steal £1,000 from Tesco but wouldn't steal £100 from a granny's purse if guaranteed non-detection was available for both, so it's not about the amount but the potential damage to other caused by my crime.

What you are alluding to is how people start to worry about getting caught as they get more greedy, which isn't really what I'm saying.
 
estebanrey said:
I wasn't really taking about risk/reward as in my hypothetical I said there was 0 risk for me in both.

The reason I'd steal a packet of crisps from a Supermarket and not burgle a persons house if there was a guarantee I'd get away with it is based on the fact a large supermarket would be unaffected by the loss of a packet of crisps whereas a burglary would devastate a family.

To use another example, I would probably steal £1,000 from Tesco but wouldn't steal £100 from a granny's purse if guaranteed non-detection was available for both, so it's not about the amount but the potential damage to other caused by my crime.

What you are alluding to is how people start to worry about getting caught as they get more greedy, which isn't really what I'm saying.
Click to expand...

What if it were stealing a packet of crisps or even a bottle of wine from a supermarket and then compared to stealing a packet of crisps or bottle of wine from someone's home?
 
Werewolf was however a good contender! Yeah I'm liking him :) I'd have to do my homework on the humour front though :rolleyes:
Good thread! Thanks peeps :) boredom eased.
Hoovering awaits :( god that sucks!
See what I did there? Hoover? Sucks? I'll get my coat :rolleyes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom