|
Post by Student on Dec 1, 2008 11:07:51 GMT -6
I am doing a paper that is Pro Death Penalty. In Sweeden the standard punishment for a murderer is 10 years, the only murderer that are considered for life/LWOP are the most heinous. Does anyone know where I can find some stats on the recidivism of murderers in in Sweeden? Any help is appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by Student on Dec 1, 2008 11:42:08 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Student on Dec 1, 2008 11:47:09 GMT -6
I am going to conclude that while they brag about their low crime rates, and because of their lack of respect of victims' of crime, that unreported crime is rampant, and as a result many homicides are ruled suicides.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Dec 1, 2008 12:01:06 GMT -6
I don't know who Fred Fry is, or what the methodology was used in putting together these numbers. Can you produce a better source? Could that be because of their lack of respect for victims' rights and going soft on criminals? That Europeans are soft on criminals is well-known. That's how they want it to be. I don't know, however, if that has anything to do with low clearance rates. We have very low clearance rates here, as well.
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Dec 1, 2008 13:06:05 GMT -6
I am going to conclude that while they brag about their low crime rates, and because of their lack of respect of victims' of crime, that unreported crime is rampant, and as a result many homicides are ruled suicides. Over here in Germany it is believed that the actual murder rate is much higher; some say we only know 50 % of the homicide cases. But that is because often no autopsies are ordered when sick or older people die. It is not only in Europe that way but in all countries on this planet as I read it (unless there is a state which has mandatory autopsies for everyone). I'm really looking forward to seeing how you proof your "conclusion", especially the "lack of respect for victims" part.
|
|
|
Post by Californian on Dec 1, 2008 14:51:48 GMT -6
Sweeden... "Sweeden?"
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Dec 1, 2008 15:04:26 GMT -6
Sweeden... "Sweeden?" Because the girls are pretty sweet there and Sweetish sounds stupid that's why they call it Sweedish people from Sweeden. Although I still have to discuss with the Swedish girfriend of a friend of mine that Germany's reputation in the world is totally out of proportion if you consider what Sweden did to the world with ABBA...
|
|
mst3k4evur
Inactive
Member of the Month - 4/09
Ameeerrrrrricaaa, F**k Yah!
Posts: 3,701
|
Post by mst3k4evur on Dec 6, 2008 0:25:34 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Dec 6, 2008 0:48:03 GMT -6
|
|
|
Post by honeyroastedpeanut on Dec 6, 2008 12:39:07 GMT -6
"Of the violent crimes of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, murder had the highest percentage—61.2 percent—of offenses cleared." I won't question this official source but isn't that very low? It means that 61.2% of all known cases of murder were cleared, right? If it meant that out of an estimated amount of murder cases 61.2 % were identified as such it would be high though.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Dec 6, 2008 13:52:27 GMT -6
"Of the violent crimes of murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault, murder had the highest percentage—61.2 percent—of offenses cleared." www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/offenses/clearances/index.htmlThat's a good source, but I wonder what the FBI considers "cleared." Is it based on crimes reported, crimes recorded or on arrests? And does a crime that is "cleared" mean the offender went to prison, or simply that the police were done with the case?
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Dec 8, 2008 16:08:39 GMT -6
That's a good source, but I wonder what the FBI considers "cleared." Is it based on crimes reported, crimes recorded or on arrests? And does a crime that is "cleared" mean the offender went to prison, or simply that the police were done with the case? A related article: More are getting away with murder By KAREN HAWKINS Associated Press Writer 2008 The Associated Press Dec. 8, 2008, 3:38PM CHICAGO — Despite the rise of DNA fingerprinting and other "CSI"-style crime-fighting wizardry, more and more people in this country are getting away with murder. FBI figures obtained by The Associated Press show that the homicide clearance rate, as detectives call it, dropped from 91 percent in 1963 — the first year records were kept in the manner they are now — to 61 percent in 2007. Law enforcement officials say the chief reason is a rise in drug- and gang-related killings, which are often impersonal and anonymous, and thus harder to solve than slayings among family members or friends. As a result, police departments are carrying an ever-growing number of "cold-case" murders on their books. "We have killers walking among us. We have killers living in our neighborhoods," said Howard Morton, executive director of Families of Homicide Victims and Missing Persons. "It is a clear threat to public safety to allow these murders to go unsolved." The clearance rate is the number of homicides solved in a year, compared with the number of killings committed that year. The solved killings can include homicides committed in previous years.The number of criminal homicides committed in the U.S. climbed from 4,566 in 1963 to 14,811 in 2007, according to the FBI. The clearance rate has been dropping pretty steadily over the past four decades, slipping under 80 percent in the early 1970s and below 70 percent in the late 1980s. In cities with populations over 1 million, the 2007 clearance rate was 59 percent, down from 89 percent in 1963. Detectives say homicides generally become harder to solve as time goes by, as witnesses die and memories fade. Yet cold-case detectives say their units are often understaffed. And local police are getting less help for cold cases from Washington. Funding for the main federal program for such cases was cut 40 percent from 2005 to 2007. Richard Walton, author of "Cold Case Homicides: Practical Investigative Techniques," attributed the falling clearance rate to a "significant change in crime patterns." Many slayings nowadays are gang- and drug-related killings — often, drive-by shootings that involve a burst of gunfire so indiscriminate that killer and victim don't know each other. "And that makes it difficult for investigators," Walton said. "With the gangs and the drugs, we don't have that ability to establish motive, opportunity and means." Research suggests that in about 70 percent of homicides during the 1960s and '70s, victim and killer knew each other, Weston said. He said that figure has dropped since then, though he would not hazard a guess as to how much. Also, gang-related killings are increasingly going unsolved because witnesses are too scared to help police, said Dallas Drake of the Center for Homicide Research, a Minneapolis-based nonprofit organization. Gangs have played on people's fears by warning them — via underground DVDs, in some cases — against "snitching." In the Chicago suburb of Aurora, local and county authorities are working with the FBI on a cold-case program to battle the perception that gang members are untouchable. So far, there have been more than 30 arrests and at least five convictions. Among the unsolved killings in Chicago is the 2003 drive-by shooting of 19-year-old Filmon Tesfai, an aspiring doctor who was gunned down two days before he left for the University of Illinois. Police say that the slaying was probably a case of mistaken identity and that Tesfai did not know his killer. "This is not an easy thing to carry in your head," said his father, Zerai Tesfai. "It's the worst thing that's happened in my life." DNA has clearly revolutionized crime-fighting, enabling police to solve decades-old crimes. Walton pronounced it "arguably the greatest identification tool to come down the pike." Police are also using other sophisticated forensic techniques, including digital fingerprint matching and high-tech bullet-fragment analysis. Nevertheless, DNA and other physical evidence solve only about 30 percent of cold cases, said James Adcock, assistant professor at the University of New Haven in Connecticut. Finding witnesses and getting them to talk still plays a major role. In fact, detectives warn that technology can be both a blessing and a curse, saying jurors who have watched shows like "CSI" come into court with unrealistic expectations of what science can do. "They think we can pull a rabbit out of our hats," said Houston police Sgt. Mike Peters. "Technology is great, but it's the ability to get people to talk that's important. That solves cases." Technology can also be expensive. In 2005, the National Institute of Justice awarded $14.2 million to law enforcement agencies through the Solving Cold Cases With DNA program. In 2007, only $8.5 million was awarded. No grants were given in 2006. Lt. John Slenk of the Michigan State Police said it took a couple of million dollars to solve the 1979 murder of Hope College student Janet Chandler in 2006. Those costs included the salaries of four full-time officers over three years and the interviewing of 500 people in 18 states. Six people are serving time in Chandler's murder. Since there was no DNA that could be used, solving Chandler's murder came down to wearing down witnesses and suspects. Detectives interviewed their prime suspect 18 times before he was arrested, Slenk said. For their part, the Tesfais have not given up hope that police will find their son's killer. They are frustrated those responsible are walking free. "They are breathing fresh air. My son is underground," Zerai Tesfai said. "Someone, somehow, has to make a closure for this." A 2003 Gordon Tech High School yearbook photo provided by HR Imaging shows senior Filmon Tesfai. Tesfai was killed in a drive-by shooting two days before he left for the University of Illinois in 2003 in what police believe was a case of mistaken identity. The case is still unsolved. Law enforcement officials say murders like Tesfai's are fueling a dismaying trend: police are solving a lower percentage of homicides than ever before, allowing more offenders to get away with murder. (AP Photo/HR Imaging Partners) www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/6153722.html
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Dec 8, 2008 18:02:10 GMT -6
The clearance rate is the number of homicides solved in a year, compared with the number of killings committed that year. The solved killings can include homicides committed in previous years. Essentially a meaningless and arbitrary statistic. Given this definition, you could have in one year BOTH a high "clearance" rate and a high rate of murder. That cops are "clearing" more cases doesn't mean they're catching more murderers and putting them in prison because they're using one time period for purposes of defining clearances and another time period for purposes of defining illegal killings. A better statistic would be the ratio of convictions to arrests to commisions of homicide, all within the same time period.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Dec 8, 2008 18:17:39 GMT -6
The clearance rate is the number of homicides solved in a year, compared with the number of killings committed that year. The solved killings can include homicides committed in previous years. Essentially a meaningless and arbitrary statistic. Given this definition, you could have in one year BOTH a high "clearance" rate and a high rate of murder. That cops are "clearing" more cases doesn't mean they're catching more murderers and putting them in prison because they're using one time period for purposes of defining clearances and another time period for purposes of defining illegal killings. A better statistic would be the ratio of convictions to arrests to commisions of homicide, all within the same time period. You could also have a high clearance rate and a high rate of murder using your methodology, couldn't you? It usually takes longer than a year to investigate, solve, try & convict a murderer. If you use a longer time frame, say 5 years, murders that occurred during the last year would cause the same problem that exists using a 1 year time frame. I'm not sure I follow what you're complaining about, Joseph.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Dec 8, 2008 18:32:33 GMT -6
You could also have a high clearance rate and a high rate of murder using your methodology, couldn't you? Yes, you could, but the solution would simply be to go after murderers with more police and prosecutors. It usually takes longer than a year to investigate, solve, try & convict a murderer. If you use a longer time frame, say 5 years, murders that occurred during the last year would cause the same problem that exists using a 1 year time frame. That's why the methodology needs to change. You need to start with a baseline figure -- one particular year's worth of murders -- and track how many of THOSE, regardless of time (a) result in an arrest and (b) result in a conviction. I read once that fewer than 40 percent of murders in Los Angeles are ever solved. If that's true, that's obscene. We have to do better, and I think the place to start is with condign punishment for murder -- an automatic LWOP sentence for anyone convicted of any murder for any reason, regardless of age.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Dec 8, 2008 19:07:01 GMT -6
You could also have a high clearance rate and a high rate of murder using your methodology, couldn't you? Yes, you could, but the solution would simply be to go after murderers with more police and prosecutors. It usually takes longer than a year to investigate, solve, try & convict a murderer. If you use a longer time frame, say 5 years, murders that occurred during the last year would cause the same problem that exists using a 1 year time frame. That's why the methodology needs to change. You need to start with a baseline figure -- one particular year's worth of murders -- and track how many of THOSE, regardless of time (a) result in an arrest and (b) result in a conviction. I read once that fewer than 40 percent of murders in Los Angeles are ever solved. If that's true, that's obscene. We have to do better, and I think the place to start is with condign punishment for murder -- an automatic LWOP sentence for anyone convicted of any murder for any reason, regardless of age. Okay, so "clearance rate" statistics for murders committed during any given year would be moving higher from year to year, right? Isn't that what's happening with the way the statistics are being kept now, by including murders from previous years? As the article stated, murders committed by gangs are more difficult to solve. Do something about the gang problem in L.A. and your 40% clearance rate will move higher.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Dec 8, 2008 19:14:00 GMT -6
You could also have a high clearance rate and a high rate of murder using your methodology, couldn't you? Yes, you could, but the solution would simply be to go after murderers with more police and prosecutors. Why would there need to be a solution? When you have a high murder rate, don't you want a high clearance rate? Don't you always want a high clearance rate?
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Dec 8, 2008 19:49:00 GMT -6
Yes, you could, but the solution would simply be to go after murderers with more police and prosecutors. Why would there need to be a solution? When you have a high murder rate, don't you want a high clearance rate? Don't you always want a high clearance rate? A high clearance rate isn't enough if it doesn't drive murder rates down. It simply means you're good at one thing and not the other.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Dec 8, 2008 20:21:01 GMT -6
Why would there need to be a solution? When you have a high murder rate, don't you want a high clearance rate? Don't you always want a high clearance rate? If you clear 99 percent of ten murder cases, you have a high clearance rate. If you have 1,000 murders a year in your city, however, your 99 percent clearance rate isn't doing the city any good. You're still doing something wrong. The only rate that matters is the murder rate. As low as it is in this country, it's still way too high.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Dec 9, 2008 0:34:11 GMT -6
Why would there need to be a solution? When you have a high murder rate, don't you want a high clearance rate? Don't you always want a high clearance rate? A high clearance rate isn't enough if it doesn't drive murder rates down. It simply means you're good at one thing and not the other. Try driving down the murder rate without a high clearance rate. I don't see how that would be possible. Nobody thinks a high clearance rate is all it takes to lower the murder rate, but how do you accomplish that goal without first solving murders?
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Dec 9, 2008 7:13:53 GMT -6
Statistics are mumbo jumbo anyways guys. unless it is independent from any government agency and has the support of the agency where they get the statistics from in the first place. Jo, to say all European countries are soft on crime isa a pretty bold statement and tars everyone with the same brush. That is a nonsense for a start. Every country has different ways to approach crime and everyones conviction rate is different. I would still trust the British Police over anyone elses dispite the bad press they ahve had from the various IRA terrorist set up and other *deleted* up. Germany has a good clear up rate, so does France and definately Spain. Others too. All you have to do is look at: www.crimereduction.homeoffice.gov.ukwww.europeansourcebook.orgwww.eu-lexeuropa.eu/LexUriServ/sil/en/com/2006/com2006_0457e01.pdfThere are other sites of course that you could look at, but like ive said, all countries have different ways of dealing with crime and solving crime. To say one is better then the other is unfounded & bias.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Dec 9, 2008 8:11:11 GMT -6
Why would there need to be a solution? When you have a high murder rate, don't you want a high clearance rate? Don't you always want a high clearance rate? If you clear 99 percent of ten murder cases, you have a high clearance rate. If you have 1,000 murders a year in your city, however, your 99 percent clearance rate isn't doing the city any good. You're still doing something wrong. The only rate that matters is the murder rate. As low as it is in this country, it's still way too high. If you clear 99% of ten murder cases yuo're full of bullshyte, think about it and do the math!
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Dec 10, 2008 3:32:25 GMT -6
Low murder Rate, bloody hell Joe, if an average of 17000 is low then god help you.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Dec 23, 2008 15:39:00 GMT -6
Try driving down the murder rate without a high clearance rate. I don't see how that would be possible. Nobody thinks a high clearance rate is all it takes to lower the murder rate, but how do you accomplish that goal without first solving murders? Did you ever watch The Wire, which just ended a multi-year run on HBO as hands-down the best police drama ever (IMO!)? A subplot to nearly every episode was the effort (always at once concerted and adversarial) by Baltimore City Hall and Baltimore Police to manipulate homicide rates. Occasionally the stats looked good one month, then worse the next, but the overall trend was always up - more murders. I heard an interview with David Simon, the EP and head writer of the program, during which he said one of his main missions in creating the show was to expose just how meaningless the use of statistics is in policing. Community policing, outreach, and special task forces are all attempts by the cops to look like they are doing something different to tackle an age-old problem: people in society don't really care, as long as murder doesn't affect them personally. The best evidence we have for this is the state of our criminal justice system, and the punishments we are prepared to mete out to those convicted of murder.
|
|
|
Post by Lisa on Dec 23, 2008 16:52:30 GMT -6
Try driving down the murder rate without a high clearance rate. I don't see how that would be possible. Nobody thinks a high clearance rate is all it takes to lower the murder rate, but how do you accomplish that goal without first solving murders? Did you ever watch The Wire, which just ended a multi-year run on HBO as hands-down the best police drama ever (IMO!)? A subplot to nearly every episode was the effort (always at once concerted and adversarial) by Baltimore City Hall and Baltimore Police to manipulate homicide rates. Occasionally the stats looked good one month, then worse the next, but the overall trend was always up - more murders. I heard an interview with David Simon, the EP and head writer of the program, during which he said one of his main missions in creating the show was to expose just how meaningless the use of statistics is in policing. Community policing, outreach, and special task forces are all attempts by the cops to look like they are doing something different to tackle an age-old problem: people in society don't really care, as long as murder doesn't affect them personally. The best evidence we have for this is the state of our criminal justice system, and the punishments we are prepared to mete out to those convicted of murder. I don't watch too much "drama" on TV, and certainly wouldn't rely on that kind of programming to judge the law enforcement community or the statistics they keep. I've always lived in rural areas, and my experience has been the opposite of what you stated above. Local law enforcement officials here care a great deal about solving crimes, and most definitely murder. We have on average, 3-4 murders per year in our county, and people here are both shocked and outraged every single time someone is murdered. I honestly can't remember the last time a capital murderer was not charged with "capital murder" in my county, at least since when we moved back to East Texas in 2002. I might have missed one, but I don't think so.
|
|
|
Post by Matt on Dec 24, 2008 1:07:40 GMT -6
I don't watch too much "drama" on TV, and certainly wouldn't rely on that kind of programming to judge the law enforcement community or the statistics they keep. I've always lived in rural areas, and my experience has been the opposite of what you stated above. Local law enforcement officials here care a great deal about solving crimes, and most definitely murder. We have on average, 3-4 murders per year in our county, and people here are both shocked and outraged every single time someone is murdered. I honestly can't remember the last time a capital murderer was not charged with "capital murder" in my county, at least since when we moved back to East Texas in 2002. I might have missed one, but I don't think so. I should have qualified my post to specify urban police forces. Obviously I'm stereotyping just a bit, but I'm fairly confident that city cops face worse pressures than do their rural counterparts. Not least of which are the sheer number of murder cases. But whether rural or urban, somebody somewhere is tracking the activity in the aggregate, and using the stats to make a case for more money, or more cops, or more tightly regulated cops, or what a good job Mayor X is doing, etc. Anytime I hear some politician talk about how s/he reduced (singlehandedly?) violent crime in their city by X%, I ask myself if I think those citizens, on the whole, have any real reason to feel safer. The answer I always come up with is a resounding "no".
|
|
|
Post by mel77 on Dec 24, 2008 16:48:22 GMT -6
Why would there need to be a solution? When you have a high murder rate, don't you want a high clearance rate? Don't you always want a high clearance rate? If you clear 99 percent of ten murder cases, you have a high clearance rate. If you have 1,000 murders a year in your city, however, your 99 percent clearance rate isn't doing the city any good. You're still doing something wrong. The only rate that matters is the murder rate. As low as it is in this country, it's still way too high. If you clear 99 percent of ten murder cases, then you need to check your math, Phillips.
|
|