Posted by
Greg England on Friday, September 07, 2007 2:01:24 AM
A co-worker has laid down an interesting challenge to my recent blog, and I feel that it's an important challenge that needs to be answered.
How I can claim that violent crime is rising, if official statistics say that it is falling?
(In other words is my blog just an exercise in demagogy? These are my words, not his).
To answer this challenge:
For starters there is no hidden political agenda. The Conservative Party does not currently appear to have any advantage over the Labour Party when it comes to law and order issues, because David Cameron does not campaign effectively on traditional issues. At worst I can be accused of engaging in rhetoric. But a charge of demagogy can be denied, because there is no partisan advantage to be gained.
Secondly, it is my personal belief that there has been a general coarsening of societal values within the UK:
The evidence for this is all around you, if you just trust your experiences. The aggression of pre-pubescent youth; the increasing police presence in towns during the night; bouncers (i.e. security) on the doors of pubs; increasing coarsening of language in everyday parlance; increasing exposure to non-violent crime. Everything is becoming more aggressive. From my perspective these observations lend credibility to newspaper reports of rising levels of violent crime.
Thirdly, most people I know share my deep concerns:
Anecdotal evidence, whilst unscientific, can be validated as a method through reference to what is known as the "information market". People are not just information repositories; we are highly sophisticated observers of the human condition ... in fact you could call us experts. Information markets cannot be dismissed easily, because they are the essence of democracy. History has validated the ability of democracies to make better decisions than those systems that are lead purely through scientific means (e.g. Communist socialism).
Information markets are able to process vast quantities of information, and draw on multiple human perspectives and experiences. They are the most sophisticated genetic algorithms that we have. If enough individuals are involved, I tend to trust them more than a government sponsored study.
But quite frankly, at a basic gut level I simply do not believe what I am being told.
There are other qualitative reasons why I am deeply concerned (e.g. due to the nature of some of the recent crimes being reported, such as the stoning to death of a man by a gang of children).
At a future date I may return to this subject and offer statistical evidence when I come across it. I invite others to comment on this topic, and share their experiences and insights - remember to keep it anonymous as this is the WORLD WIDE WEB.
Post Blog Note – An apology
The more observant amongst you will have noticed that I have republished this blog. The reason for this is that I included attack on a scientist who in my opinion was mocking those of us who still believe in the sanctity of human life.
I called him a ‘jerk’. On reflection, whilst I still strongly disagree with his opinions, I realize that this lowered the level of debate, and so I have republished this blog to remove any review comments.