Crime over the generations.

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 grannies purse if guaranteed non-detection was available for both.

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...

Yeah I know you were but thats covered in the first part of the study about how the amount of money involved affects whether people would do it. It's not about the likelihood of getting caught as they got greedy in that test, it was more about how the amount of money then played on their moral code. After all, in all cases, they were stealing from the same institution doing the tests.

I suspect 99% of people have stolen from work be that lobbing your mum's birthday card into the post tray, an envelope etc.

And yes, morals and how the person is affected or perceived to be affected has a major bearing along with the likelihood of getting caught.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Would do the former, wouldn't do the latter for reasons I've already explained.

The reality is I'm not going to do either and wary the gist of this is being lost and I'm now sounding like a wannabe shoplifter which isn't my intention.

So I'll use another example, if I saw a Securicor bloke walk out of a multi-billion pound business and drop £100 without noticing, I'd be far more likely to pick it up and pocket it than if I saw a pensioner drop £100 after coming out of the bank (in which I would pick it up and give it back to them without thinking).
 
estebanrey said:
Would do the former, wouldn't do the latter for reasons I've already explained.

The reality is I'm not going to do either and wary the gist of this is being lost and I'm now sounding like a wannabe shoplifter which isn't my intention.

So I'll use another example, if I saw a Securicor bloke walk out of a multi-billion pound business and drop £100 without noticing, I'd be far more likely to pick it up and pocket it than if I saw a pensioner drop £100 after coming out of the bank (in which I would pick it up and give it back to them without thinking).
Click to expand...

That's perception again though. Who is to say the securicor bloke won't get sacked for it and he has a family to support who then suffers? SO that would be okay then?

And in any case that wouldnt be stealing, its not like you had a choice between picking the pensioner's pockets or the securicor's pocket although im sure from memory there is something about money dropped on the street not been handed in is classed as stealing????
 
Burnsy2023 said:
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?
Click to expand...

In someone's home you'd get clobbered for it! What then? If I punch someone, which of course I never would :D for stealing my wine in my own home then I'd get off with it coz its on my own turf :) true? Or not true :( I have no clue.
 
Well i've learnt a few things today.

1. pickles likes bananas and peaches
2. don;t come between her and a bottle of wine

:)
 
Back then if a Copper caught you doing some petty crime you'd get a cuff 'round the ear and a good talking to. Now, if you upset someone on 'Social Media' you risk becoming Interpol's most wanted Cyber Terrorist. LOLSociety.
 
70s80s90s were probably the worst, now there's cctv almost everywhere which is a good deterrent and social media makes it easier than ever to identify people
 
doofer said:
Back then if a Copper caught you doing some petty crime you'd get a cuff 'round the ear and a good talking to. Now, if you upset someone on 'Social Media' you risk becoming Interpol's most wanted Cyber Terrorist. LOLSociety.
Click to expand...

That's true. A lot of minor stuff was probably never recorded as a crime back in the 70's when I grew up. You got a clip round the ear and a dressing down from the copper and then taken home and another one from your parents.
 
arknor said:
70s80s90s were probably the worst, now there's cctv almost everywhere which is a good deterrent and social media makes it easier than ever to identify people
Click to expand...
Arknor needs a new avi :) that handsome one! With the slicked back hair.
I've read his posts and this one he has doesn't suit him :(
I want a bond girl avi :cool:
 
Giving the benefit of the doubt that crime has gone down in Britain, the reason people feel it is more dangerous now is because the police do not prevent crime or disorder any more (abolishing foot patrols). They wait for it to happen, and then come rushing along to the scene of their failure, accompanied by loud electronic sirens and flashing blue lights. What use is a police officer after a crime has been committed, unless he can do first aid? He cannot unstab, unshoot or unrape the s̶e̶r̶v̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶r̶ victim.

The odds are that he cannot find or catch the culprit – and if he does, the criminal scum will get off anyway.
 
Last edited:
Tosno said:
Giving the benefit of the doubt that crime has gone down in Britain, the reason people feel it is more dangerous now is because the police do not prevent crime or disorder any more (abolishing foot patrols). They wait for it to happen, and then come rushing along to the scene of their failure, accompanied by loud electronic sirens and flashing blue lights. What use is a police officer after a crime has been committed, unless he can do first aid? He cannot unstab, unshoot or unrape the s̶e̶r̶v̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶r̶ victim.

The odds are that he cannot find or catch the culprit – and if he does, the criminal scum will get off anyway.
Click to expand...

In some cases :( many cases the police are given zero respect. They do not "wait for it to happen" or go along to a scene of "their failure".
There is victim support for after the crime.
Bit harsh your comment on policing I feel. They do a good job.
 
doofer said:
Back then if a Copper caught you doing some petty crime you'd get a cuff 'round the ear and a good talking to. Now, if you upset someone on 'Social Media' you risk becoming Interpol's most wanted Cyber Terrorist. LOLSociety.
Click to expand...

People used to get locked up for spitting and profanity. Let alone the disturbance of men dressing as women in public.
 
Tosno said:
Giving the benefit of the doubt that crime has gone down in Britain, the reason people feel it is more dangerous now is because the police do not prevent crime or disorder any more (abolishing foot patrols). They wait for it to happen, and then come rushing along to the scene of their failure, accompanied by loud electronic sirens and flashing blue lights. What use is a police officer after a crime has been committed, unless he can do first aid? He cannot unstab, unshoot or unrape the s̶e̶r̶v̶i̶c̶e̶ ̶u̶s̶e̶r̶ victim.

The odds are that he cannot find or catch the culprit – and if he does, the criminal scum will get off anyway.
Click to expand...
My reply to you bothered me :rolleyes: maybe because a little bit of me understands where you are coming from. I just felt you were admonishing the wrong people :(
Forgive me :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom