David Farrar really is a disgusting person at times. He writes that we shouldn’t look at overall crime rates (although he made a big fuss when the overall recorded crime rate went up because of changes in recording practice in 2006). Instead we should just look at violent crime, after all “having 1,000 less [sic] cannabis crimes and 500 more rapes is a net decrease in crime, but would be a worrying trend”. He then goes on to act all shocked over the recorded violent crime stats. First, he’s trying to make you think there are more rapes (in fact, the number is down and he’s hardly one to fret about rape when he’s good mates with a pornographer). Secondly, this professional statistician is deliberately trying to mislead you regarding the change in the crime stats. He knows that the explanation from the professionals is reporting of domestic crime is up but he hopes you don’t.
Crime is down because poverty and the conditions that breed crime have been reduced. At the same time, reporting of crimes is up. Thefts, car thefts, and burglaries (together, the largest group of crimes) have halved in the last ten years. Homicides are down. In fact, all classes of crime are down except two. Recorded violent crime is up because reporting is up. Recorded property damage offences have climbed in the last three years thanks to the moral panic over tagging. But those rises are attributed (not by me, by the Police) to higher reporting.
Farrar needs to misrepresent the statistics to create the impression of a wave of crime where there is none. It’s all part of National’s ‘New Zealand sucks’ campaign. It disrespects his readers and the victims of crime. Disgusting.
Matty: As the police have acknowledged, the majority of violent crime probably doesn’t get reported. The usual estimates are that only about a third gets reported because it happens inside the domestic disputes. Over the last few years they have run a active policy and advertising campaign to increase the rate of reporting.
It appears to be working. Consequently the reported violence stats have been increasing. If you look at the violent crimes that always gets reported like murder, they have remained static or reduced when you look at them over a few years. Read the 08wire analysis http://08wire.org/2008/10/02/farrar-vs-the-standard-on-massaging-crime-statistics/
DPF just ignored all of that because it didn’t fit the picture he wished to portray.
I said it a thousand times, walk thru Christchurch at night during any day of the week, and you will see what effect a soft approach to crime has.
I don’t see what your problem is Brett as I said earlier I feel perfectly safe in Christchurch. Maybe you’re just paranoid Brett. This government has been much harder on crime than the last government. Its increased sentences to ridiculous levels and given a stupid amount power to the police. What more do you want, a police state?
Eve, just pointing out that a majority of what you say seems to be abuse. Here’s what I’ve seen so far over the last few months:
You will post and link to your blog and articles – all very well and I’m sure many people have popped over to read it and check out the links you suggest (as have I, on several occassions).
Then someone will make a cheap jibe, along the lines of ‘conspiracy theorist’, or some unimaginitave variant.
You generally take the bait and run a mile, but instead of attacking them for being small-minded etc, it’s more of an attack against entire sections of society, which irks people who might fit into the section of society you’re attacking, but haven’t said a single bad thing against you.
For example, there are a fair few white males, aged 20-40 here, if my presumption is correct. Whether I got the wrong end of the stick or not, it seems to me that several times you’ve attacked that group wholesale, because of one person. As evidenced above, that annoys people.
If I can make a request, it would be that you refrain from attacking groups or making assumptions about people – the effects of it are plain to see. The latest is a classic – we’re all attacking you because you’re female, apparently.
I was criticising you because I’m sick of your long-running personal battles – what has that got to do with you being female? Are you implying only females are that annoying? If so, you’re being a bit sexist, towards your own lot.
I’d also be happy if people stopped baiting you, though those who do aren’t likely to listen to me. You have the option of ignoring them though – a lengthy personal attack isn’t exactly likely to change their views!
The actual rate of recorded crime depends on policing methods which vary between districts.
In Auckland police are less likely to prosecute people for minor crimes when they are not currently considered a risk. They perfer warnings but they are now finding that by doing this people are starting to try their luck with more serious crime. What the lack of reporting is doing is lowering the rate of crime when its actually not lowering at all, its increasing.
In Christchurch police take a tougher approach with minor offences. They target the so called gateway crime to get the young offenders into the system in an attempt to ensure they recieve the help they need.
The result is the Christchurch crime rate is accurate. The Auckland crime rate is about 2% lower than it should be in the reported statistic.
For the people that think that Farrar has genuine concern about rape as a politcal issue, please show me where he’s written about this. Of course most men care at some level about rape, but we’re talking about a political context here.
Steve, thanks for making visible the connection between rape and pornography, even in a small way. It’s problematic that it was said in passing, because it’s brought out a large amount of comment negating the connection, by people who don’t understand what the connection even is. But it’s good that it was said, there will women who appreciate that.
all men are rapists
Whoever brought that up as a way of writing off feminist thought, I suggest you go and look up the provenance of that quote and see what it really means.
Weka,
“It’s problematic that it was said in passing”
Isn’t that the main problem with SP’s comment? It was dropped in as a personal attack & was not addressing the point Farrar was making. His point was that overall crime rates may not be as useful as the particular type of crimes being committed.
I think all those ads promoting violence on TV are the reason violent crime has gone up so much.
Every night I see so many ads showing you how to swing your child around and bash them into things.
Or showing you how to drink and drive and kill your mates.
I think it’s appalling that good people should be subjected to a constant barrage of this crap. This is punishing the whole country for the crimes of the few.
[I'm not sure whether this is a parody or not. So confused. SP]
[Tane: Heine, you're still banned. Furthermore, as someone who photoshopped Helen Clark's head onto a transsexual's body for kicks I don't think you're in any position to moralise.]
Mike, you had to watch an ad to figure out how to put a child into a wall while drunk? Comes instinctively to the rest of us.
Just out of interest, I reckon those ads work pretty well: so you’d prefer kids to actually be bashed into walls, because you’re too precious to see a few ads on telly?
Wow, rOb. How about you respect my ability to choose what I want to read, and critique people whose writings I otherwise respect and enjoy reading? Or how about offering an actual response to my point instead of the classic, “but you can’t complain about THIS bad thing unless you also complain about every other bad thing happening” diversion?
Also, @weka – again, missing the point. Nobody here is arguing “Waaa, Steve’s persecuting The Mighty Farrar, champion of womanhood!” and pretending we are in order to yet again turn the thread away from what Steve said is disingenuous.
Wow, rOb. How about you respect my ability to choose what I want to read, and critique people whose writings I otherwise respect and enjoy reading?
Wow, QoT. Sounding a little defensive there. Read what you like, knock yourself out, you don’t need my blessing.
Or how about offering an actual response to my point instead of the classic, “but you can’t complain about THIS bad thing unless you also complain about every other bad thing happening” diversion?
Selective morality is interesting because of the agenda that it reveals. You appear to me to be on a highly selective crusade against SP, despite the fact that there are other much more worthy targets for your righteous zeal. So you could say I guess that I’m interested in your agenda.
Matthew
Those ads if anything just make me want to bash the a-holes in them to a pulp – like the guy that shoves the guy with the drinks, then elbows the woman in the face.
How does instilling that feeling in me help me or the country?
What about the rest of the 99% of this country who are decent people and don’t need constant reminders not to get boozed and bash people, or speed, or take drugs. How do these ads make them feel? Do these ads help them? I don’t think so. At best it’s insulting. I think many of them just get what I get out of them – a heightened state of aggression.
You don’t see ads like these in other countries. Come back here from a while overseas and they are a real shock. Personally I think it’s abuse of viewers on an enormous scale.
“What about the rest of the 99% of this country who are decent people and don’t need constant reminders not to get boozed and bash people, or speed, or take drugs.
If only it were 99%… If that’s what you genuinely believe then no wonder their utility is lost on you.
If those ads provoke such a violent response in you, then I hope you are a very moderate drinker. For me, and (I suspect) most other people, they are simply a reminder of the causes and consequences of bad actions. I don’t think they’re terribly relevant to me, but if they reduce the chance of a random assault, for example, then I’m not fussed.
I also suspect most viewers have a bit more ‘toughness’, for want of a better word, than you, and see the usefulness of the ads more than they feel ‘abused’ by them.
Matthew
what do you believe the proportion is then? You saying more than 1% of the country are crims?
Qot:
“Also, @weka – again, missing the point. Nobody here is arguing “Waaa, Steve’s persecuting The Mighty Farrar, champion of womanhood!” and pretending we are in order to yet again turn the thread away from what Steve said is disingenuous.”
You’re wasting your time. A lot of people around here will twist and spin anything and fool themselves into believing it’s justified as long as it involves National, Key, foreign (often American) bagmen, the word “slippery” (because the focus groups told them to use that word) and so on.
If you really want to see them go on the defensive, mention an airport and Peter Davis. r0b just loves that one and I’m sure he will oblige you and call you a disgusting human being for daring to bring a politicians family into focus, while conveniently forgetting Mallard and co over Brash’s extramarital affair.
Gee, I don’t know, Mike. Are you saying that everyone who gets drunk and does something stupid is a criminal?
Is everyone who had a near miss at an intersection a criminal?
The problem is more widespread than those who are officially charged and found guilty.
“You’re wasting your time.”
What’s that about fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me… What are you still doing here then? More ‘m’ than ’s’ I guess.
Matthew
Sure, the problem is more wide-spread. I believe people who get drunk and bash people are performing criminal acts, and therefore are criminals, whether or not they get reported.
I think we should be aiming to reduce our tolerance to violence, not increase it by desensitising ourselves with a constant barrage of it on tv, least of all through tax-payer funded ads.
“I think we should be aiming to reduce our tolerance to violence, not increase it by desensitising ourselves with a constant barrage of it on tv, least of all through tax-payer funded ads.”
That’s the whole point of the ads Mike.
Most people are already quite intolerant of violence, however they may be more tolerant of significant factors in violence (e.g. excessive drinking). So, the ads create a direct association between the two.
Clearly they’re not desensitizing YOU to violence, because you think they depict terrible circumstances. Do you know anyone who watches it and goes “hmm, seems like a standup guy to me”?
Having ads like that on TV is just like tax – another part of living in society and trying to develop systems that make it good. I mean I assume you don’t have cancer, yet you’re not complaining about contributing to the healthcare costs of people who do, right?
You watch those ads and think “That is TOTALLY unacceptable”. All the ads are trying to do is create similar feelings in people who may see such behaviour more often than you do. You shouldn’t feel guilty watching them… that is, unless you have a friend who drinks too much and kinda gets out of hand and you never say anything despite feeling you should… in which case I’d say the ads are doing exactly what they should be.
You’re attitude basically takes “It’s not ok” and turns it into “It’s not ok to be reminded about it because I like my fantasy world of denial”.
MP:
“What’s that about fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me… What are you still doing here then? More ‘m’ than ’s’ I guess.”
I just get a kick of of seeing you quote people selectively and then pretend to have the moral high ground.
There’s the point of something, and then there’s the real effect of something.
Just because the goal of those ads is to do something good, doesn’t mean they achieve it.
We can have the best intentions in the world but we will be judged by the results of our actions. It’s pretty common for an action to have the reverse effect of what was desired.
People can’t relate to probabilities or they would never buy lotto tickets, but when an accountant is bashed with a baseball bat as he walks home after a late night bash, this puts others off walking home at night. What people see is heated floors in prison and a society that doesn’t believe in punishment (disincentive)and so they don’t feel safe. The crime we face is largely a product of our liberal establishment.
What people see is heated floors in prison and a society that doesn’t believe in punishment (disincentive)and so they don’t feel safe.
Tougher sentences and nastier prisons do not deter crime. In general crime (apart from “white collar” crime) is committed by people who don’t plan ahead much, who don’t ponder consequences.
The crime we face is largely a product of our liberal establishment.
The crime we face is largely a product of relative poverty. That explains why over the last years, while poverty has been decreasing (and aspects of our establishment getting more liberal?), crime has been decreasing too.
jh…lucky we not living in roman times. Julius Ceasar and his mates used to lie in wait and kill anybody coming home latea t night for a bit of practice. Now its just yer typical kiwi bloke full of booze and latent anger and aggression because he didnt get to go to the grand final or doesnt own a xr8. As for heated floors only the crims see them and maybe the visitors and it pays off in the life of the building and the decrease in medical expenditure on prisoners. If you want to make them live in stone age conditions and then release them into fulltime medical care beacuse of complications from the prison environment. and if you are jealous beacause you cant afford underfloor heating yourself and feel somewhat lesser of a man then you can compensate by lying in wait and bashing up someone up who you dont know late at night.
Randal,
LOL
r0b
Poverty is a CONTRIBUTING FACTOR in some criminal behaviour but it is unfair to those millions (may billions) living in relative poverty throughout the world who are not criminals to say that poverty causes crime.
Agree with you though on those that many who commit crime are either unable to fathom the consequences of their actions or simply don’t care.
In my opinion if one would crack the problem of how to make them fathom the consequences (and make sure those consequences occurred) that would be a step in the right direction.
hs…we are not talking about the billions somewhere else. we are talking about what happens here in a small country filled with arrogant consumers who love to rub it in the face of the have nots. There is no community spirit not underlying altruism in New Zealand. Only gimme gimme gimme and there is a corollary to conspicuous consumption and a media that works twenty four hours a day ttelling people thaey are no good if the dont have the goods. Now hs. how about addressing income inequality here in new zealand and stop waffling about the uncounted hordes somewhere else or is that too hard?
Randal
Not sure what part of the country you are living in but I find there is plenty of community spirit and altruism in NZ.
“As for heated floors only the crims see them and maybe the visitors and it pays off in the life of the building and the decrease in medical expenditure on prisoners. If you want to make them live in stone age conditions and then release them into fulltime medical care beacuse of complications from the prison environment.”
A large proportion of our homes are cold and damp so that creates a moral hazard as they will be better off in prison.
“Tougher sentences and nastier prisons do not deter crime. In general crime (apart from “white collar” crime) is committed by people who don’t plan ahead much, who don’t ponder consequences.”
On the other hand people gain an appreciation of the sort of consequences that their actions will provoke and they will have learned that they live in an environment where the state will do them no harm.
Tougher sentences… do not deter crime
Let me type this slowly, so you can keep up:
When… someone… is… in… prison,… they… are… not… out… on… the… street… committing… other… crimes.
In order for your claim to be true, you have to believe that other criminals commit more crime, in order to keep up the averages.
these natoinal business people will do anything except find jobs for these people. get of ya bums ya bums.
When… someone… is… in… prison,… it… doesn’t… stop… other.. people.. out… in… the… street… committing… crimes.
Filling… prisons… with… people… who… have… nothing… to… lose… will… escalate… the… problem…
Perhaps we should just hang ‘em, cures problem, provides entertainment.
I’ve been thinking about the porn/anti porn undercurrent in this thread for a bit and thought to share something with you.
Let me start by stating that Farrar’s friendship with a known pornographer is very revealing and makes me dislike the little turd even more than I already did but that has nothing to do with actual porn but everything with the way porn seems to be perceived in this country.
This is what I have gleaned so far from the previous discussion.
To some of you, it seems, porn=rape.
And some of you pointed out there are women who enjoy porn.
And this gets a funny “male” response. Steve delegates those women to the freaky site of the sex spectrum and this is taken up by other males.
What is telling is the total absence of women in the discussion.
As you know I am from Holland, in fact I’m from big bad Amsterdam.
The big bad super tolerant dope smoking, red light toting, gay, hetero porn capital of the world.
I have been surrounded with “porn” in abundance my entire live and by the reasoning of some of you, rape should be a fixture in the live of Amsterdam women far in excess of anywhere else in the porn free world.
But it isn’t. Does rape never happen in Amsterdam? Sure, but I have seen more rapes and more violent ones being committed here than in a comparable time frame in Amsterdam which like Auckland has more than a million inhabitants but unlike Auckland is build far denser and on perhaps 1/4 of its territory.
There are only 4 million people in this country and in Holland on an area the size of Northland 17 million people have made their homes but contrary to what some of you assert Hollanders would be well and truly shocked with the behaviour of those policemen and their raping orgies.
It would be totally incomprehensible to us that men in places of such delicate power would use that power to subdue and debase women like that, so clearly our exposure to abundant porn has not caused us to think that it is OK for women to be raped or debased, in fact there is less tolerance and exposure to the possibility of being raped.
My whole live, from the tender young age of 14 until the time I left I have as a good Tulip is wont to do bicycled and or walked all over Amsterdam and when the time came that I could decide my own bedtime which was at the tender young age of 16 I did the same at any time of the night. In fact some of the hottest porn free haunts were right in the middle of the red light district and although I have certainly had my moments of fear it was never there and I have always been free and unharmed in my nightly exploits in that big bad city.
(Yeez, I just remembered were I spend my first years. My bohemian artist parents had an apartment next to one of the most beautiful old houses on the oldest canal of Amsterdam, right in the middle of the red light district. In fact my pram came from one of the prostitutes next door. LOL. God see what you guys do to me? That way back down memory lane)
In Amsterdam a group of students researching the function of porn, and whether porn was actually exploitative to women and they decided to do a test. The hypothesis? If porn was exploitative to women than women by and large should be massively turned off by watching it.
They organised two groups. One male and one female. All volunteers but carefully screened to be of the most average middle class/ working class (Not a big distinction in Holland) background.
One by one the members of these groups were exposed to hardcore porn.
They measured the physical sexual response by attaching sensors to their genitals.
After they had watched the movies they gave the participants a questionnaire.
The questions were about what they thought of the movies, how they felt they reacted physically etc.
The result was predictable. The man had mostly enjoyed them and the women rejected them as exploitation and suppression of women.
The test revealed something very significant. Their physical reaction did not support their words. While the bodies of the men supported their statements (Hard to lie about a hard on really)
it revealed that the bodies of the women betrayed their statements for without exception their bodies had exactly the same response to the hardcore video’s as the men. Their bodies were as much exited when they watched porn as the men.
One can draw several conclusions from the test:
Either the researchers had accidentally picked closet case masochists for all of their female subjects and the subjects were all lying or in denial,
or all women secretly want to be raped (which I can assure we don’t) or,
women feel compelled to deny and or lie about how they experience sex in general.
What did become clear is that porn is perceived by both the female and the male body as sexually exiting but while men acknowledge that enjoyment women deny it.
I have met several young kiwi men in the last couple of years and in conversations with them gleaned some of the current youth culture in this country. These were not exceptional kids, they were your average kiwi youngsters, trying to learn a trade and make sense of a confusing world. In fact I really like these kids.
But talking to them about their male female relations proved very shocking to me.
Without exception, while actively pursuing sex as much as they could these kids referred to sexually active young women as slags and hoes and in fact one kid thought all sexually active girls were skanky hoes.
So while these kids acknowledged their own sexuality as totally normal they completely condemned the necessary reciprocal emotion in the other sex.
In fact I bet you that lots of males have a secret stash of hardcore porn somewhere in the shed while they would be appalled if their wives had a similar stash hidden away in her crafts room.
In light of the previous, I have to condemn Steve’s rejection of Farrar’s relationship with a pornographer because he reinforces the myth (as proven wrong by physical evidence) that porn is exploitative and I equally have to condemn his delegation of women who enjoy porn to the sexual fringe.
Both are as sexist as Farrar’s relationship with said Pornographer because both Farrar and Steve use porn as a way of marginalising and denouncing female sexuality.
Farrar by assorting with someone who films the human sex act ( in whatever setting of fantasy) in a country that by enlarge reject the normalcy of female sexuality and Steve for reinforcing the myth that women have to hide behind in order not to be thought of as slags or hoes and which inhibits them from enjoying their sexuality with or without the aid of porn.
(not to mention that it disables both sexes to deal with each others sexuality as a bonding, intimate act with ample space to explore and enjoy.)
One last note: This comment is not in defence of the porn industry which like many industries has it’s share of abuse and exploitation but also has its share of women making lots of money and enjoying a huge fan base while enjoying sex.
And no, I have never been in active in the sex industry and I am probably an exception to the rule as I have never strayed from any monogamous relation I was in and the one I’m in now has lasted 21 years and going.
I apologise for the length but I hope some of you will enjoy it anyway.
Captcha: the Femina. Awesome. I felt the force as I was writing this. Guess the captcha thingy felt it too. LOL.
Bill,
Continuing the theme:
Crime… tends… to… be… recidivist…
This is simple maths and physics – you can’t be committing a crime if you’re already in jail. I’ll accept that this sometimes doesn’t hold true, and should perhaps be modified to “You’re much less likely”.
Suporting… longer… sentences… does… not… mean… you… always… want… to… throw… away… the… key.
This isn’t a zero sum game, and like all law enforcement needs to include a variety of tools. To paint the argument as such (ie; you’re either for longer sentences, or for rehab, but never both) is deliberately misleading from you.
I think a major conducive factor to becoming a criminal is lack of hope about any reasonable possible alternative.
I think people don’t really have much hope that they can get ahead any other way, and their expectations about how they should rightfully be living is still shaped by the rest of our society.
Unlike in bangladesh where you consider yourself lucky if you don’t drown in the annual monsoons, and even luckier if you get some food some time, over here, you feel cheated and bitter if you don’t have a 42″ LCD TV.
So there are 2 problems… 1, setting reasonable expectations (and I can’t see that changing, since the rest of us still want our TVs), and 2, having some hope of being able to get ahead.
That’s where people need opportunities. Opportunities to make a decent crust, meet their expectations, and do something worth while. I don’t think even hardened crims want to think of themselves as bad people.
In the end, I think many don’t realise is the people they hurt a huge amount is themselves. Damaging your self image can be a life-long hurt. It’s not like you’re ever going to see someone else looking back out of the mirror at you. If you grow to consider yourself a bad person, you’re in real trouble.
They need to teach that lesson in schools – why it is important to not compromise yourself. Why you shouldn’t do things you consider bad. What happens to you if you do think you’re a bad person etc etc etc…