americanized crime?

welsh

Junkmaster
Could this be a gun thread in disguise?

Hmmmm.....

Anyway, we discussed briefly before about the rise in crime in Britian. This is something of a follow up. Brits, Euros, care to respond?

Oh charts are interesting so check the web page. Text is included with this post-

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=2313262

Gun crime

You're history

Dec 30th 2003
From The Economist print edition

The Americanisation of armed robbery

NEWS that police in Leeds are looking for an American in their search for the man who murdered one of their colleagues on Boxing Day fits with the way that gun crime has changed over the past decade. The pattern of offences involving firearms looks more and more like that in America: random, careless shootings have replaced the carefully-planned bank robberies of old.

“Standards are down,” asserts Terry Smith, who carried out a string of security van robberies in 1980s London. “Most robbers now get caught up in drugs, and they don't plan properly. The professionalism has gone.”

Old crooks nearly always resent upstarts, but those who used to make a living out of armed robbery have particular reason to be bitter. Tracking devices, hidden cameras and improvements in forensic science have hardened banks, vans and other traditionally lucrative targets so much that pulling on a balaclava scarcely seems worthwhile. This year, England and Wales saw just 250 bank and building society heists—down from 1,400 in 1991. These days, most armed robberies take place on the street (where stick-ups have more than doubled in the past four years) and in shops (up 26% in 2003).

In this new environment, old tools and techniques are of little use. Sawn-off shotguns are handy for robbing banks, mostly for reasons of presentation: they make a terrific noise when fired at the ceiling or floor, and are menacing enough to project a threat through bullet-proof glass. They are less useful for robbing today's “soft” targets, though, so they have mostly been discarded. Sawn-off shotguns were used in just 201 robberies last year—a third the figure of a decade ago—while almost 3,841 jobs were done with handguns.

Roger Matthews, professor of criminology at Middlesex University, says that armed robbery is becoming Americanised, both in the sense that Britain is moving towards late-night convenience store robberies, and also in the sense that anyone can do it. The rise of unskilled robbery—junkies with guns and no previous experience—is bad news for shop workers, who are less well trained in dealing with guns than are bank tellers; it is also bad for the police, who tend to find ill-thought-out crimes harder to solve than planned ones.

For the most part, old dogs disdain the new tricks, which they regard as the preserve of drug-addled thugs. Officers in the Flying Squad—the arm of the London Metropolitan Police that deals with armed robbery—say that professional stick-up men tend to follow defined tracks. Betting shop specialists will rarely rob post offices, for example. Mr Smith claims, with a touch of pride, that he never robbed a shop, nor even a building society.

With their chosen targets now out of reach, most of the men who terrorised Britain's cities in the 1980s have simply left the business. But not all have gone clean. To paraphrase Willie Sutton, a legendary American robber, people used to hold up banks because that's where the money was. These days it is in the international drugs trade. That is where many of the old-timers have gone.
 
Wow. The influence of the USA is seen in everything.

This also reminds me of WHY I was against freely available legal guns in the first place.

EDIT: Freely available, not free you silly Dutchie.
 
I though guns were not available in Great Britain anymore. Could you explain further Sander, last I heard guns were outlawed there. Also this outlawing produced a rise in gun related crimes.
 
Aha, another one who wants to discuss guns. ;)

Meh, I said it reminded me of why I was against guns, Dove, I didn't say it was a reason. Besides that, I don't know what the gun regulations in Britain are. I'll go see if I can find them.
 
“Standards are down,” asserts Terry Smith, who carried out a string of security van robberies in 1980s London. “Most robbers now get caught up in drugs, and they don't plan properly. The professionalism has gone.”

I find this bit quite amusing. There may be no honor among thieves, but professional pride is not monopolized by the law-abiding.

However, the article itself does bring up something interesting. Namely, increasing tech levels making it far more lucrative to be a 133+ h4X0r than an old-school robber.

Does anyone else see it as ironic that w/the increase of technology it is becoming ever more important to have some sort of education -- formal or not -- no matter if one's pursuit is legal or not? Lacking technical literacy is increasingly a ticket to snatching up crumbs, whether it be at the cash register of a convenience store, or out in the alley knocking people around.

OTB
 
OnTheBounce said:
Does anyone else see it as ironic that w/the increase of technology it is becoming ever more important to have some sort of education -- formal or not -- no matter if one's pursuit is legal or not? Lacking technical literacy is increasingly a ticket to snatching up crumbs, whether it be at the cash register of a convenience store, or out in the alley knocking people around.

This is true, but as the article shows some robbers have just started to go after random people or small stores to overcome the difficulties. If you have the knowledge and skill to get passed all of the new technology, you could most likely find a good legitimate job.

That's pretty depressing though, as an American. Even our criminals are idiots compared to other places (except recently, apparently)
 
more on this-
Crime
http://www.economist.com/printedition/PrinterFriendly.cfm?Story_ID=2447123

London's cops look to New York

Feb 19th 2004
From The Economist print edition

London's mayor Ken Livingstone wants to introduce New York-style policing. It is more difficult than it sounds

WHEN “Red” Ken Livingstone ran London in the early 1980s, he enjoyed cocking a snook at authority over everything from outsize public transport subsidies to Irish terrorism. But reincarnated as the capital's ardently business-friendly, market-minded mayor, keen on road pricing and selling the city abroad, Mr Livingstone has changed his tune on the law. He's now a strong supporter of intensive, highly visible policing.

This week, the London Assembly approved the first stage of a plan that will greatly increase the uniformed presence on the capital's streets. In April, around a hundred neighbourhoods will get three extra coppers and three community support officers each. Mr Livingstone's eventual goal is to raise police numbers to 35,000—meaning one in every 115 employed Londoners will be a police officer.

It will be a different kind of police, spending more time walking the beat and paying attention to the sort of minor offences that are thought to encourage more serious stuff. Sir Ian Blair, deputy commissioner of the Metropolitan Police, talks about disrupting the “criminal habitat”, deterring villains before they start.

The ambitions, and many of the methods, come from New York, which has a similar population to London. As Mr Livingstone likes to observe, a city that once exemplified lawlessness has cut robbery and murder rates by almost three-quarters since the early 1990s. That compares well to London, where recorded street robberies have almost doubled in ten years.

Initially, the idea was to copy the “zero tolerance” approach of New York's former mayor Rudolph Giuliani and William Bratton, the police commissioner from 1994 to 1996. This interventionist method, also known as “broken windows policing” assumes that minor, unpunished crimes encourage more law-breaking. It's a sensible notion, but results in Britain have so far disappointed. The thinking now is that the new techniques worked in New York because police numbers rose a lot too.

Mr Livingstone hopes to pull off the same trick. He goes into this year's mayoral elections saying that he will be disappointed if crime in London does not halve.

That's a brave and probably a foolish pledge. New York's recovery certainly started with a clampdown on anti-social behaviour—graffiti writing, street drinking, turnstile jumping, and so on. But these low-level miscreants were then shackled, fingerprinted, and (if they didn't have identification) often held overnight in police cells. Over time, the police built up a store of information that they used to solve all sorts of crimes. British police, with their milder approach and heavier form-filling burden, will find these methods hard to copy.

Secondly, away from the neighbourhoods that British politicians tended to visit, New York's cops were trying out more aggressive methods such as undercover buy-and-bust operations, neighbourhood sweeps and “vertical patrols”, in which entire tower blocks were raided. These did more to take bad guys off the streets than harassing squeegee men.

This style of policing only works if citizens are willing to suffer it. In mid-1990s New York, they clearly were. In 1996, the New York Times ran an entirely serious article about what to do when you get arrested (cross your wrists when the handcuffs go on; call the cops “sir” or “ma'am”; carry coins for the precinct payphone).

With the murder rate down, but still close to 1,000 per year, trading liberty for security seemed an excellent idea. But in London, where the murder rate hovers around 200 a year, the chattering classes are unlikely to tolerate the occasional handcuffing. And as Sir Ian points out, London has no large areas of unremitting poverty and criminality to match those of New York. Twirl a truncheon on just about any street in the capital, and you are likely to hit a vocal middle-class head.

Other differences also count against London. New York's area is about half London's, so its police are more concentrated. Scotland Yard is also stretched by responsibilities outside London. And the New York police were in a truly parlous state before Messrs Giuliani and Bratton arrived, so the improvement was striking.

Another difference is pointed out by George Kelling, the Rutgers University academic who is the most influential exponent of the broken windows theory. Don't just look at new policing ideas, he says; look at how they are turned into practice. In America, most large police forces work with academic criminologists. In Britain, research is commissioned by the government, which then launches initiatives and task forces that are deeply resented by the chief constables who run the local forces.

Encouraging local police forces to develop their own methods has often worked where it has been tried. London's police have “ownership” of armed robbery and black-on-black crime, both of which are declining. One way to encourage more fine-tuning of policing to local conditions would be to make crime statistics more readily available. New York's Compstat gives every locality a precise picture of local criminality. That is one transatlantic import well worth copying.
 
In Canada we have a gun regestry that's cost $10 billion (was supposed to cost something like $3 million) and is useless. It doesn't make me feel any safer.
 
In Bulgaria , it' VERY easy to get a gun. I mean really easy. You can obtain a gas pistol just by going to the shop and buying it. A real gun? No test for psychic stability, they give guns to junkies, to alcoholics...
 
Back
Top