"The crime rate of England and Wales in 2019/20 was 103 crimes per thousand population"
"In 2013, the number of crime cases reported by the Ministry of Justice was 22,113, a 102% increase over 2012."
Wow, double. That must be a big number, right? Using the rest of the wiki page, we get: 70.3 per 100,000.
70 vs. 103. Not great, but not bad. Right?
Wait...there's an order of magnitude problem...
England is 10,300 crimes per 100,000. About 150 times. That's 15,000%. One crime for every ten people.
Shit, the FBI reports 2477 crimes per 100,000. A mere 3500% of the Saud's crime rate.
Average IQ in Saudi Arabia is 84, around the same level as American Blacks. Speaking of, American Blacks are not a big problem in England. Although it is confirmed that England is now somehow more lawless than America, is it really 400% as lawless? Regardless of the exact details, shit's bad. Shit's real bad.
Race isn't the problem. Law enforcement is the problem. In England it would be more accurately termed crime enforcement or law abjurement.
Fun fact: in 1900, the English murder rate was around 1/6th America's. Again: race is not the problem. It doesn't help, sure, but it's totally overwhelmed by other factors. Singapore has a ton of south Asians and they're still giving up locks as redundant.
That said, if you learned anything from ncov, you learned that the first world is the third world. America is merely the least shitty banana republic. All stats are fake. However, we can still identify broad trends. Namely, England is many times more criminal than the Sauds. Locking folk up is a consequence, not a solution.
P.S. Game theory of law enforcement. It is very much worth launching a massive manhunt for a litterer.
It's just litter, right? Let it go.
It's not one burger wrapper or spare bottle. It's all the other litterers who will be discouraged when you nuke the first one. It's all the higher criminals who will be spooked by your willingness to assign a 100-man team to hunt down a guy who spat gum on the sidewalk. In the long run, it's hard to spend too much on reliably persecuting criminals. Escalate without limit. If you have to literally nuke a fugitive litterer, then do. You shouldn't have to, but the option needs to be on the table.
Yeah okay the litter is like a 50c cleanup jobs and you just spent billions on a cruise missile. Just means you need to stop two billion littering events. Will nuking some bastard permanently teach everyone not to litter? Basically? Yes. It's worth. Not to mention all the bigger fish.
P.P.S. Crime has to go up in the West, because police (as opposed to sheriffs) are bureaucratic, and a bureaucracy's budget must go up. If crime is going down, especially going down by a factor of 10, then they certainly can't claim to need all their money, can they?
This is especially verboten because bureaucracies are paid 100% in graft. They're given sinecures and hobby-work in exchange for political support. Western governments are way too weak to be able to afford to piss off even the lowest ranked bureaucrat blocs.
P.P.P.S. Speaking of costs, "According to Clapham, youth recidivism was reduced from 60% to 8%.
Overall crime was reduced by 40%.
Youth crime was cut in half.
And it cost one-tenth of the traditional judicial system."
Costs less? Reduces crime? Definitely can't have that. It's right out.
What are police for? Being hostile, hazardous, and nasty.
Post a Comment