While violent crime is on the rise in Britain, the police have decided to throw in the towel and give up on arresting and punishing most criminals. Under new guidelines issued to police by the Home Office, crimes which do not result in personal injury or death should now be dealt with not by arrest and punishment, but with the issuance of a 'caution,' a criminal citation only slightly worse than a traffic ticket.
While a 'caution' does give the recipient a criminal record, he is not required to go before a judge or a jury, and receives neither fine nor prison sentence for his crime. Essentially, by pleading guilty he is let off with a warning and no punishment at all. Under this new rule cautions will be issued for drug possession or sale, sex with a minor, arson, burglary, assault, mugging, auto theft, and a variety of other crimes which had previously been considered jailable offenses.
This new policy has apparently been developed as a result of excessive demand on the courts and prison overcrowding. Concern over these problems has already led to the controversial release of many violent criminals from prison after serving only a fraction of their sentence, including rapists and killers given life sentences released in as little as 15 months.
Under the new Home Office rules you would basically have to kill someone or cause them serious bodily injury to go to prison. Of course, just to own a gun for home defense is still a serious crime, but with gun violence up more than any other single form of crime, no measures are being considered to allow citizens to defend themselves and their property, despite desperate cries for firearm legalization from threatened citizens.
Article comments
— go to most recent comments1 - Dawn
Can you please define "sex with a minor"?
2 - Pedro Sanchez
Well...that just put me off going to england
3 - Pedro Sanchez
He means pedophiles or simpler form to have sex with anyone under britain's legal law.
4 - Dave Nalle
The Daily Mail article I used as a source doesn't define it terribly specifically. It says 'underage sex' which I take to be the same thing, as sex with a minor means sex with someone under the age of consent, and someone under the age of consent is well, obviously, underage. Every other article I've been able to find refers to it the same way. Other sources I've checked for information on British sex laws suggest that they are overall much more lenient than the laws in the US regarding sex with minors. There's actually some debate as to whether getting a caution for underage sex should bar you from teaching children, as discussed in an article in The Economist. That suggests that teacher-student sex would be responded to with a caution, as discussed in my article, so I assume their idea of underage sex and ours aren't that much different, except in terms of punishment. The legal age of consent in Britain is 16 and it's 17 in Northern Ireland, so I believe we're talking in terms of an adult having sex with a child of 15 or younger here.
Dave
5 - Dave Nalle
And just to clarify even more in case it's the title which you were wondering about, Dawn. A minor is by definition a child. And I imagine we'd all agree that 15 year olds shouldn't be having sex with adults or probably with each other either.
Dave
6 - Dawn
Um, I don't think anyone who's spent any time around here thinks of me as a supporter of adults having sex with children.
But I wanted to clarify that there is a difference between an 18-year old having sex with a 16-year old and some filthy despicable predator.
Because there is a difference and they should be treated differently.
7 - Maurice
I lived and worked in England for a couple of years in the early 80's. The night life was wild and drugs were everywhere. Even then the bobbies looked the other way. I guess now they are just making it official.
One other thing. Do you bring this up because you think we are headed in a similar direction?
8 - My Opinion, That's All
I was going to go to England one day. But if I can even have the safety of the police, then, what's the use? I'd be safer in south central LA.
9 - Jim Wynne
If the new law or policy was prompted by the fact that the jails are full, there must be an awful lot of people who weren't deterred by the threat of incarceration, no?
What percentage of the people who have been jailed won't offend again? I know that in the US, recidivism rates are high, but there is a more or less constant number of one-time offenders. If the idea behind jailing people is to convince them that crime doesn't pay, what sense does it make to jail people who, just by being caught the first time, understand that already?
10 - Dave Nalle
Jim, the article I linked to earlier from The Economist has information on recidivism in the UK in it. The overall rate is 60%, with auto theft highest at 80% and burglary just slightly below it. If recidivism was that high when they were jailing them I can only imagine that with this policy those criminals will have no motivation at all to reform.
I don't see a high recidivism rate as a justification for just giving up on punishing crime alltogether. What you're essentially saying is that when criminals are persistent we should just give up and let them rob us all they want. While that seems to be the attitude of the Home Office, it seems like the wrong way to go.
Dave
11 - Dave Nalle
But I wanted to clarify that there is a difference between an 18-year old having sex with a 16-year old and some filthy despicable predator.
Because there is a difference and they should be treated differently.
I agree, but one of the problems we have here in the US is that far too often the law doesn't differentiate between the two. I guess this new policy in the UK solves that problem, but it looks like it also goes too far the other way.
One other thing. Do you bring this up because you think we are headed in a similar direction?
Not yet, but I think there's an important object lesson to be learned here.
Dave
12 - RedTard
"But I wanted to clarify that there is a difference between an 18-year old having sex with a 16-year old and some filthy despicable predator."
What's the difference? It grosses you out. The same logic used against gays. If you follow the trial of those female teachers having sex with male students you'll find even in the US the crime only results in community service. If you're a reasonably attractive female it's already not that serious of a crime.
I suppose if you had that 'filthy, despicable' look you would end up with jailtime. What you look like, the new basis for our justice system.
13 - Dave Nalle
Red, in the two most highly publicized cases of female teachers having sex with male students the result was not community service, but years in jail, and in both cases the teachers were quite attractive, and only about 10 years older than the students. Frankly I think that's ridiculous. When I was 14 I had a really good looking, young teacher. If she'd offered to have sex with me I hardly would have considered myself abused, I'd have thought I was damned lucky.
Dave
14 - Nancy
This is what happens when the damned courts start ceding 'rights' to everyone EXCEPT law-abiding citizens. Maybe it's time for law-abiding British citizens to start taking justice into their own hands, since the courts & government refuse to.
15 - Dave Nalle
Sounds about right Nancy. Pity they aren't allowed to own guns to defend themselves against criminals and their criminal government. The path towards this day of complete social breakdown was laid in 1898 when they first started restricting gun ownership in Britain.
Dave
16 - Jim Wynne
Sorry Dave, but that makes no sense. We already know that the majority "...have no motivation to reform." The only thing we can do with those people is kill them or keep them in jail. But I ask again, what about the minority who don't reoffend? If there's no room in the jails, it means that in order to put new ones in, you have to let old ones out. So it seems that what you're advocating (although you don't offer a possible solution)is letting out the ones who are most likely to commit crimes in favor of jailing the ones who aren't.
I'm saying nothing of the kind. The policy (which makes those "cautions" optional, it appears, not mandatory) is to be applied only to people who have admitted guilt and have no criminal record. It does not apply to criminals who are "persistent." And I'll reiterate--persistent criminals already "...rob us all they want" even with the threat of incarceration.
17 - Purple Tigress
Dave:
Would you also have felt damned lucky if you got an STD from your hot teacher or had a child to support as a result?
Hopefully, if you have kids, your kids won't be so damned lucky and you won't be making some 14-year-old feel damned lucky.
One of the reasons to prevent children from having sexual relations is because there is a belief that they will not be legally aware of the responsibilities connected with the act. Similarly, contracts between children and adults are not valid and we have attractive nuisance laws that place more responsibility on adults because we do not expect children to exercise due care.
18 - Lumpy
Great reminder of how far we here in the US have separated from the mother country and what a perfect example of how being adjacent to europe breeds decadence and foolishness.
And tigress. You've clearly never been a 14 year old boy. He might have regrets down the road, but at the time bedding a hot teacher actually would literally be a dream come true. Can any guy on here tell me i'm wrong?
19 - Victor Plenty
You're wrong if you think every 14 year old boy is exactly the same. I was not the most socially advanced 14 year old, but I knew enough about what's appropriate and what isn't that it would have completely shocked me to hear of any sexual relationship between a teacher and a student, much less having one make advances toward me personally.
I find it peculiarly ironic that you would express support for sexual relationships between adult women and 14 year old boys, in the very same comment where you condemn Europe for being decadent and foolish.
20 - Lumpy
I only endorsed it from the perspective of the horny 14yr old boy. For society and his community and everyone else it seems like a bad idea and certainly condoning it would be pretty decadent. But in the real world 14yr olds will inevitably be trying to hump anything that moves and the rest of us will be trying to stop them.
21 - Dave Nalle
Sorry Dave, but that makes no sense. We already know that the majority "...have no motivation to reform." The only thing we can do with those people is kill them or keep them in jail. But I ask again, what about the minority who don't reoffend? If there's no room in the jails, it means that in order to put new ones in, you have to let old ones out. So it seems that what you're advocating (although you don't offer a possible solution)is letting out the ones who are most likely to commit crimes in favor of jailing the ones who aren't.
Huh? The new policy in Britain is to not put any of these people in jail whether they'd reoffend or not. My preference would be to lock up those likely to reoffend and give the ones who can be reformed a break. But given that the large majority reoffend on certain significant crimes, it might be better to err on the side of caution. Going the otherway and punishing no one certainly isn't the solution.
Dave
22 - Hoggle
The standard of reporting at the Daily Mail is only slightly higher than it is here.
The home office policy, which can be found here, states that
"A Simple Caution (known as a formal caution in previous Home Office Circulars, now renamed to distinguish it from a Conditional Caution) is a non-statutory disposal for adult offenders. It may be used for cases involving first time, low level offences where the public interest can be met by a Simple Caution."
It is an optional action that can be taken, and is limited to situations where the public interest is served. It is still possible (even likely) that anyone suspected of a crime that justifies a jail term will be sent for trial.
The Daily Mail has a campaign to discredit the police and alarm its readers and should not be considered a serious source of information on the subject.
The true picture is:
• Overall crime has fallen by seven per cent according to the BCS. There has also been a fall of six per cent in the number of crimes recorded by the police in 2004/05 compared with 2003/04.
• Based on BCS interviews taking place in 2004/05, it is estimated that there were approximately 10.8 million crimes against adults living in private households.
• Since peaking in 1995, BCS crime has fallen by 44 per cent, representing 8.5 million fewer crimes, with vehicle crime and burglary falling by over a half (both by 57%) and violent crime falling by 43 per cent during this period.
• The risk of becoming a victim of crime has fallen from 40 per cent in 1995 to 24 per cent according to BCS interviews in 2004/05, representing almost six million fewer victims. This is the lowest level recorded since the BCS began in 1981.
• Violent crime has decreased by 11 per cent according to BCS interviews in 2004/05 compared with 2003/04. Recorded crime statistics show a seven per cent increase in violent crime in 2004/05 compared with 2003/04, although this increase is partly due to the continuing effect of recording changes.
source
As for the remarks concerning guns, I for one am very glad that guns are hard to get hold of in Britain. Comparing the murder rates for UK and US will make it clear why. The 'right to bear arms' is a moronic law/ammendment that should have been repealed at the turn of the last century.
This shows that the US is the 24th most dangerous country, for murder, and the UK is 46th. The firearm murder list puts the US at 8th and the UK at the bottom of the list at 32nd. Similarly, the US has more than twice as many rapes per capita as the UK and (slightly) more assaults. All of this despite having an average sentence length nearly double that of the UK.
But please, don't let facts get in the way of bigotry.
23 - Lumpy
to the individual who's life is saved because he has a gun to defend himself your argument about relative crime rates will mean very little. Same for the individual bludgeoned to death when a legal gun might have saved him.
The US is overall a somewhat more violent society than the UK and its cultural and has nothing to do with guns. If you put together statistics of shootings per gun owned' the UK has hundreds of times the shootings per gun of the US. What matters is not the gun crime but the number of crimes prevented by gunsM which is almost none in the UK and a hell of a lot in the US.
And what kind of a silly way to compile crime statistics is it to do it based on polls. The sad commentary here is that the justice system can't record and compile accurate statistics based on arrests and convictions.
24 - Dave Nalle
The true picture is:
• Overall crime has fallen by seven per cent according to the BCS. There has also been a fall of six per cent in the number of crimes recorded by the police in 2004/05 compared with 2003/04.
Of course overall crime was UP 11% in 2004 according to the BCS, so over the 2 year span it's basically ahead 5%. Plus, the last BCS report actually said crime was down 5%, so you're off by 1%. In addition, a compilation of actual crime figures from the home office shows crime overall down only 2% last year, which means crime is up over the past 2 years by over 9%. What's more, both the BCS and Home Office statistics show that violent crime was up in 2005 as well as 2004, with a 7% increase in 2005. BTW, this info is from the BBC, not the Daily Mail.
So the truth is that crime is indeed on the rise in Britain, especially violent crime.
• Based on BCS interviews taking place in 2004/05, it is estimated that there were approximately 10.8 million crimes against adults living in private households.
That's an enormous number of crimes. In 2004 therte were only 11.7 million crimes in the US. By my calculation of the number of crimes relative to the population that puts the crime rate in the UK enormously higher than in the US. That's a 18% crime rate in the UK and a 4% crime rate in the US. Is it possible that your 10.8 million figure is incorrect?
I have stats for comparison on violent crimes. In the UK last year there were about 318,000 violent crimes. In the US in the same period there were about 1.3 million violent crimes. That makes the violent crime rate in the UK .53% and the violent crime rate in the US .45%, again that's a higher rate of violent crime for the UK than for the US. Just so you know, the US figures are from disastercenter.com and the UK figures are from the BBC.
So contrary to what you're saying here, the truth is that the rate of violent crime is higher in the UK than in the US, and the rate of crime overall is ENORMOUSLY higher in the UK than in the US, suggesting that property crime there is literally totally out of control - the type of crime that gun ownership deters highly effecrtively.
• Since peaking in 1995, BCS crime has fallen by 44 per cent, representing 8.5 million fewer crimes, with vehicle crime and burglary falling by over a half (both by 57%) and violent crime falling by 43 per cent during this period.
In that same period overall crime in the US has fallen 29% and violent crime has fallen by 43%. Since US overall crime was already so much lower it's not surprising that it fell by less. These fairly comparable figures suggest that it is not the UK's gun control or our counter trend of expanding gun rights - like concealed carry - which is primarily responsible for the change. Except, of course, that all of the states which enacted concealed carry showed more dramatic decline in crime rates than states in the US which did not.
As for the remarks concerning guns, I for one am very glad that guns are hard to get hold of in Britain. Comparing the murder rates for UK and US will make it clear why.
This would be the only area where you're on target. There are about twice as many murders per capita in the US as in the UK. This, BTW is the ONLY area in which your assessment of relative crime rates is correct.
The 'right to bear arms' is a moronic law/ammendment that should have been repealed at the turn of the last century.
The right to bear arms is the main reason why every form of crime is lower in the US except for murder, and that is only higher by 4 deaths per 100,000 people.
This shows that the US is the 24th most dangerous country, for murder, and the UK is 46th. The firearm murder list puts the US at 8th and the UK at the bottom of the list at 32nd. Similarly, the US has more than twice as many rapes per capita as the UK and (slightly) more assaults
Actually, the US has only about 45% more rapes per capita. As for other assaults, assuming we're talking about non-sexual assault, the US assault rate is .29% and the assault rate in the UK is .43%, that's about 50% more assaults in the UK. And I guarantee you don't want to compare property crime rates. But wait, I do. 3.5% in the US vs. 7.7% in the UK. More than double.
Yes, the US has a bit more rape and murder than the UK per capita. But those are both relatively rare crimes compared to assault and property crimes, both of which the UK is significantly higher in. What this demonstrates is that the US and the UK have made different lifestyle choices. Amercans have chosen to pay the price of 4 more murders per 100,000 population for the reward of 4000 fewer property crimes per 100,000 people. Whether 1 murder is worth 1000 property crimes is debatable, but when you consider how many of those property crimes might have led to violence the choice makes some sense.
But please, don't let facts get in the way of bigotry.
I certainly won't. But I encourage you to let the correct crime statistics modify your rather skewed view of reality.
And Lumpy does have a good point about how we ought perhaps to be tracking crimes prevented by private gun ownership. That being 0 in Britain and quite a few in the US.
Dave
25 - zingzing
gun nuts fuck off. look at the damn stats. if you allow guns in your society, someone with a gun will more likely kill you. kill. you. duh. our gun crime rates are astronomical compared to britain's. what, were you cleaning your gun when all this happened? grow up, you collectors. buy baseball cards or something. i likes my gunz...
so, if you are two times more likely to get raped in america, why do you think that is? maybe it's because we're pervs. (i kinda want to move to britain, because i am a perv.) maybe it's because the motherfucking perverts have fucking guns! you can't run from a gun. rape is much easier when you incorporate bullets.
"What matters is not the gun crime but the number of crimes prevented by guns." WHAT? that is the most hilarious circular logic i have ever seen. you fucked.
okay, the polls thing we can agree about. "yeah, i got mugged just las ev'ning, off'cer. they stole 15 quid from me pockets... 15 quid for me daughter's school lunches..."