|
The following text is taken from the Home Office statistical Bulletin - Crime in England an Wales 06/07 (HOSB1107)
Perceptions:
“Relatively high proportions of people continue to believe crime has risen in the country as a whole and in their local area; 65 per cent of people thought there was more crime in the country as a whole; 41 per cent thought that crime in their local area had increased.”
During this time period the facts were:
Total Recorded Crime down 2%
Overall, the BCS shows no significant change in crime (for the second year running) and police recorded crime shows a two per cent decrease.
The risk of being a victim of crime as measured by the BCS (British Crime Survey) at 24 per cent, has increased by one percentage point compared to 2005/06. However, the risk of being a victim of crime is still significantly lower than the peak of 40 per cent recorded by the BCS in 1995.
Violent crime has remained stable according to BCS interviews in 2006/07 compared with 2005/06. Recorded crime figures show a one per cent fall in violence against the person, a seven per cent fall in sexual offences and a three per cent increase in robbery for 2006/07 compared with 2005/06.
The following extracts are taken from a publication from the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies:, Kings College, London - 2007 ‘Knife Crime - A review of Evidence and Policy’
“Much of the media reporting and political comment has been misleading, in part due to the paucity of reliable information on the problem and in part due to the failure to present known facts accurately. For example, some newspaper articles have cited figures from the Youth Justice Board’s annual Youth Survey, conducted by the market research group MORI, on the percentage of young people who have carried a knife in the year before questioning without also stating that such knife carrying may only have occurred once and that most of those school pupils carried nothing more than a penknife, which is usually legal. Such inaccuracies are not confined to the press. The Metropolitan Police Service, in publicising the national knife amnesty in 2006, released a statement that ‘52 teenagers are victims of knife crime EVERY week in London’.
What does ‘knife crime’ mean in that sentence? It is easy to infer from such a statement that each of those 52 incidents of ‘knife crime’ involves a stabbing. It must, however, be remembered that ‘knife crime’ will not necessarily result in a physically harmed victim, although it may cause significant distress to the victim. Sensational statements increase public fear of crime beyond the actual risk and might, in the end, hinder rather than help the police.”
This area still suffers from a lack of useful, specific, reliable, longitudinal research on the nature, extent, cause, motivation, frequency and possible growth of knife carrying.
There is little information available on the motivations for knife carrying and, as can be seen from the media reporting, much is anecdotal and provided by youth workers, teachers and other professionals. Without definitive information it is very difficult indeed to make any serious attempt to reduce the practice.
Harriet Harman, [then] Solicitor-General [now Leader of the House of Commons, Minister for Women and Lord Privy Seal] and MP for Peckham [and Camberwell], makes a link with race:
“There is clearly a sense that this is an unequal society where you are blocked by the colour of your skin, and there is a feeling that you achieve status not by getting a degree or by qualifications but by having a knife.” The status associated with the possession of a knife.
The government has adopted a range of different approaches to tackling ‘knife crime’ The most publicised have included a national knife amnesty and harsher sentences.
Yet it is far from clear what actually works to reduce knife carrying and knife offences.”
According to the Home Office, a total of 89,864 knives were handed in during the national amnesty. Home Office minister Vernon Coaker stated that this means ‘fewer knives on our streets’ and greater security for everyone.
Assuming that there are approximately 22 million households in England and Wales, each possessing a single kitchen knife, the amnesty has been successful in removing 0.0041 per cent of knives that might be used in crimes. Of course, most households contain many more than a single knife and it is barely worth considering the tens of thousands sitting in shops waiting to be purchased. As such, it is at best questionable whether this will result in a reduction in knife carrying and knife-related offences.
Evidence from other knife amnesties also shows that they have a very limited impact on crime levels. One retrospective records-based study in Strathclyde found that a knife amnesty (‘Operation Blade’, which ran for four weeks in 1993) did not have a long-term beneficial effect. The campaign in Strathclyde was followed by a reduction in the number of serious stabbing’s for ten months during and after the intervention but the rate for subsequent months exceeded the rates prior to the intervention. Essentially, knife amnesties address but one tool of expression of interpersonal violence and do nothing to address the underlying causes of such violence. Thus they do not affect either those who retain their knives believing it might be necessary to use them or those who pick up a knife on the spur of the moment in anger or fear.
Relying on the implausible view that increased sentence length will have a deterrent effect, it seems unlikely that the government’s chosen policy will have an impact on knife carrying in public.
After many years of neglect, investment in youth services is to be welcomed. But the government’s overall prevention approach to tackling youth crime lacks a coherent framework and is made up of a range of piecemeal initiatives. Most recently, in response to a number of high profile stabbing’s, government ministers have resorted primarily to criminal justice responses – in particular the various measures in the Violent Crime Reduction Act 2006 – rather than developing prevention strategies. This is despite the fact that evidence suggests that a more concerted focus is needed to address the underlying
social and economic factors.
There is clearly a need to recognise that trends in any form of violence, particularly ‘knife crime’, are not determined by criminal justice responses but are related to underlying social and economic developments, which cannot be ignored in any strategy that seeks to prevent increasing numbers of people being both the victims and perpetrators of knife related violence.
A lack of a considered, clear strategy based on high quality, specific research characterises
the government and police approach to the problem of knife-related offences.
............ultimately, stabbing's are not caused merely by the presence of a knife.
|
