Thursday, February 18, 2016

Justice sector: "The murder rate is low"

You will be pleased to know that the murder rate is low:

The natural reaction of older folk like me is, Compared To What?

Not 50 years ago.

Data source

(The population grew by 126% over the same period. How to put in a secondary axis has temporarily evaded me.)


Redbaiter said...

"Compared to what?"

Yes, but another factor worth thinking about in this matter is that if your graph went further back, it would show pretty much a straight line. IOW, things were more or less constant.

However almost all of these kind of graphs of unwelcome social behaviour show a pretty steep ascension starting around the sixties and accelerating through the 70s and 80s.

Crime, violence, family breakdown, drug use, etc all show much the same level and constant period, followed by a comparatively steep climb, all around the same dates.

As you Lindsay are someone who takes an interest in statistics, what do you think is behind this occurrence?

What caused this radical change in the behaviour pattern of NZ. (and most of western society).

I reckon I know.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

That second graph is a pretty good match for this one:

Don Mckenzie said...


Anonymous said...

"I reckon I know."

Me too RB although I suspect I would see the root cause slightly differently to you while agreeing about the mechanisms.


Anonymous said...

NZ's "murder" rate is too low for a society that supposedly values freedom - especially when the use of firearms in defence of property, liberty, or freedom was taken into account.

Redbaiter said...



Joking aside, that could have something to do with it.

The real idea of the DP is to reinforce community attitudes to morality.

Therefore, its abolition could well be a part of the climbing graphs relating to crime and violence.

Anonymous said...

Reduced influence of Marae with urbanisation trend.


Anonymous said...

Year NZ murder rate NZ Maori population
1948 10 100,000
2009 60 600,000

Lindsay Mitchell said...

Sophie, Some influence but doesn't explain the same trend across developed world.

Last anon, You seem to be suggesting that all murders can be attributed to Maori. Simply not true.

Redbaiter? Are you going to tell us?

Kim Workman said...

There has never been a time in our history when there were 2 or 3 murders a year. The periods 1890 – 1900, and 1980 – 1990 were the two worst periods for murder in our history. The number of homicides was regularly well above 100 cases in the 1990s, but over the past four years it has varied between 68 and 97 cases – still too many, of course, but the trend is positive. At 0.9 murders per 100,000 of the population, we have a lower murder rate than the United Kingdom , Australia and Canada; and much lower than the USA at 4.8, nearly five times that of New Zealand. Around half of all US States have the death penalty, although the numbers are declining, as the research shows a correlation between the death penalty and a high murder rate. If you want to look at the murder rates from 1879 to 2010 (sorry, haven't got around to updating to the present)go to,d.dGo

Lindsay Mitchell said...

I guess it's a question of how far you go back. Many readers of this blog were born in an unusually prosperous, peaceful phase of NZ's history (some say aberrant period). During our childhoods murders did seem quite rare.
Can you send me an e-mail Kim because my updated system has lost your address.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

Redundant. Just saw your second message. Will post.

Kim Workman said...

Lindsay, your comment about our recollections of crime during our early years is spot on. We know from research that the older the age group, the more likely they are to under-report the level of crime that existed during their own adolescence, and over-report the level of crime and violence existing today. Almost without exception, whatever the age group, most of the public remain firm in their belief that crime has steadily increased over the last decade. The difficulty arises when opinion leaders send out public messages based on beliefs they formed as adolescents. The impact can generate public fear and discourage fresh thinking about how to reduce crime and social harm.

Redbaiter said...

"Redbaiter? Are you going to tell us?"

In respect of Mr Workman's comments, please see my response to your follow up post, made before I had seen comments on this post.

As for the answer to your question, I'm sure there are a variety of reasons, but they are still all linked to the one main issue.

As I say in the later post, it has to be something that existed in the period say 1870 to 1960, and not afterwards.

Or something that didn't exist in 1870 but did exist after 1960.

I suggest the most visible item in respect of those two criteria is the stable traditional patriarchal family.

Divorce was rare. Husbands and wives stuck it out. Dad works, mum stays home & raises kids, in a family that was bigger than what they customarily are today.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

I don't disagree. But I can't see us going back to the patriarchal model where the mothers universally stay at home. My modern ideal is still, however, two committed parents preferably married simply because marriage outperforms any other type of relationship in terms of outcomes for children.

Commitment is crucial.

Redbaiter said...

Fair enough, agree with most of that, but in respect of "going back" I think you are overlooking the oncoming cultural wars.

The potential genocidal collapse of the white European race will see in some radical social changes, and one of them is that women will have to compete in number of births. That news (or even the subject matter alone) might not be welcomed by the multi-culti PC political faction, but I think its an objective reality.

White European women will have to focus on reproduction or become completely subjugated by other cultures who do. That will mean a major change in lifestyle.