What is going on with 3 strikes?

As I understand it the 'added crimes' to the three strikes law will only qualify as a strike if the perpetrator is sentenced to prison for 5 or more years for that particular offence.

However, looking at the bill, the crimes added that qualify as a 'serious violent offence' might not constitute violence. Let's take one; sexual connection with dependent family member under 18 years. A consensual affair between a 17 year-old step daughter and mother's partner? Does anybody really believe that constitutes serious violence?

There are others like 'kidnapping'. With the prolificity of custody battles today, kidnapping is more common. Again it doesn't necessarily involve violence.

So why were they added?

Mr Power said the list was designed to fulfil National's own parole policy, which would deny parole to those convicted of a violent offence punishable by five years or more if they had committed a similar offence before.

That doesn't answer the question.

Of course a judge can take circumstances into account and sentence the offender to less than 5 years thereby nullifying their qualification as strikes. Perhaps that is why ACT accepted their inclusion. If indeed Simon Power is telling the truth about that.

In related news, I note that earlier this month Hungary voted against three strikes legislation.

Parliament on Monday refused to put on its agenda the Fidesz "three strikes and you're out" motion aimed at tightening the penal code. MPs voted with 199 dissensions, 166 affirmative votes and three abstentions.

The flaw in 'mutual obligation'

Professor David Fergusson, head of the Christchurch Health and Development study, is urging greater parenting education.

The Government is being urged to ... expand a scheme providing parenting courses for parents of bad kids.

This will dovetail nicely with Mr Key's comments yesterday about National's big idea for welfare reform, 'mutual obligation'. And it will mollify National voters quite nicely.

But there is a real danger with this philosophy. As government is constantly in the business of 'sending messages' the one this clearly sends is, 'it's OK to be on welfare so long as you do a, b and c.'

But it's not OK for parents to be on welfare. Not merely by virtue of being parents.

Left liberals don't like that statement. That's why they spent decades successfully attempting to de-stigmatise being on a benefit. Now the centrist conservatives want to jump on the same band wagon.

How many people are on the DPB? Answer - 100,000. Do you want to 'Lock it in', John?

PM believes a cap on the DPB would stop abuse

John Key, as did the PM before him, gives one hour of his time to engage directly with NewstalkZB Wellington listeners each month. Good on him for that.

In response to a question about the DPB, young mothers and child abuse, John Key replied that it is "factually correct" that some young girls, "who lack confidence in a lot of ways and see a pathway forward to have a baby to some random guy because the state will pay them to do that". His answer to that problem is 'mutual obligation'. That is, demanding that these mothers get better parenting skills and lift their capacity to raise their children better.

Which prompted me to call in and ask my own questions.

I said that clearly he understood the problem of young mothers and at-risk children but with respect I didn't think mutual obligation would work as some of these girls have had years of skipping school, being involved in petty crime, etc. In light of that I wanted to put two questions. A broad question for him and a more specific one for National. First, what was wrong with adoption, which would give many of today's at-risk children a better shot and second, why won't National cap the number of children a woman can have on the DPB?

Here are his answers to the first caller and then myself (29:04 and 47:50)

1/ He was familiar with the adoption statistics, seemed regretful that there are so many couples who would love to have the opportunity to adopt and can't; understood the change in attitude to adoption driven by "academics and others" but didn't think that attitude was going to change any time soon (didn't give his own personal view).

2/ He voiced the usual concern about more children in poverty if a cap was applied but then said Bill Clinton had done exactly that in the US and by all accounts it was a successful policy. Then he asked himself a question. In terms of reducing the number of people abusing the system, would it stop it? Yes. It would play a part in that.

So, as people who abuse or misuse welfare are counting on, mouths to feed will continue to win the day. If I had a further opportunity to respond I would have pointed out that if the incentive to have a baby or additional babies was removed the objection he put up may very well cease to exist. You see the discussion about DPB reform always grinds to a halt when someone asks, but what will happen to the vulnerable children?

What vulnerable children? The few that are still produced, despite their mother knowing she couldn't get onto a lifetime of income support with a home of her own? Rather than thousands every year there would be a few hundred whose mothers, by virtue of opting to go ahead without the DPB, would make the most motivated and emotionally well-equipped parents.

Stating the obvious - John Key on ACT

Asked what he thinks about ACT's decision to allow split voting just moments ago, the Prime Minister said ( thereabouts - I will post a link when it becomes available)

It risks sending a very confused message. If three of them are voting one way and two the other, what does ACT actually think or stand for?

Update; Here is the link (22:54). His exact words were "...what is ACT's position actually on something."

Putting the horse before the cart

A number of US state governors are turning down federal money, the 'stimulus' package for enhanced unemployment benefits. They do not want to expand entitlements and risk pushing up local taxes when the federal money dries up. Sound thinking.

Texas is one. Their unemployment rate is only 6.4 percent, well below the US average.

"The governor's main message is Texans who hire Texans drive our state's economic engine, and the last thing we need to do is burden them with higher taxes."

They can see exactly how further government intervention will damage their economy. Louisiana, Alabama and Mississippi have already rejected the bail out money.

One silver lining on this dark cloud of recession is that at some future point we will be able to see which states have taken the right road. I will put my money on those who refuse to expand welfare.

'Free' votes and changed minds

Here is a radio interview which features Rodney Hide explaining to Justin du Fresne why ACT MPs should be able to have a 'free' vote and the real reason he changed his mind about the Gang Insignia Bill. (Starts at around 33.40)

'Decriminalisation' of drugs in Portugal

Portugal is predominantly Roman Catholic, has a population of 10 million and ranks 39th in international GDP per capita stakes.

In 2001 Portugal changed the law to allow people to have in their possession up to ten days supply of any drug, including cocaine and heroin, and escape a prison sentence. Under the decriminalisation model employed, regional authorities, made up of health professionals and social workers, focus on 'dissuasion' of drug use. If police discover people in possession of the prescribed amount or less they are referred to one of these boards to appear within 72 hours. According to their individual circumstances a number of things can happen. They can still be fined, although people found to be dependent are not. Professional licences can be revoked. But the main aim is to refer problem users to services and dissuade new users.

Trafficking, supply and cultivation are still crimes and police/court resources are freed up to concentrate more heavily on these.

The results by 2007 were an increase in cannabis use but drop in use of other drugs. Deaths from drugs dropped dramatically.

The perceived increase in cannabis use might not be an effect of decriminalisation because it is in line with European trends. Italy and Spain, without decriminalisation have also experienced an increase. Or it might be an effect of decriminalisation simply because people are being more honest when self-reporting about their use - not because of increased use.

The drop in deaths has a lot to do with heroin use and people now being able to get on substitution programmes (which NZ already has but are over-subscribed). Portugal had a big problem with HIV infection from shared needles.

Apparently the law change is still controversial but in place at this time.

(Hat tip to Ruth who alerted me to a forthcoming report by Glenn Greenwald - in association with Cato - about the decriminalisation of drugs in Portugal. The above information is from an earlier report from 2007.)

The same-old, same-old futility

You may be aware an international UN conference on drug control has been taking place in Vienna. We sent Peter Dunne who has been talking about New Zealand's means and end approach, the end being 'ultimate abstinence' and 'the elimination of illegal drugs'.

Who is he kidding?

Consider efforts to date;

What has the Drug War done for you lately?

WASHINGTON--A decade ago, the U.N. General Assembly set an objective of "eliminating or significantly reducing" narcotics cultivation and trafficking "by the year 2008." According to the data of the U.N. Office on Drugs and Crime, the effort has been an unmitigated disaster. Opium and cannabis production has doubled, while cocaine has slightly increased. The same proportion of adults--5 percent--consumes drugs today, mostly marijuana, as in 1998.

As officials from around the world gather in Vienna this week to chart the next decade of the anti-drug effort, it may be time to rethink the entire approach.

Echoing the Prohibition era in the United States, illegality has engendered organized crime empires that, in order to supply narcotics, undermine the peace and institutions of many countries. The latest example is Mexico, where President Felipe Calderon has unleashed the wrath of the state against the drug lords. The war between the state and the cartels, and among the mafias themselves, has mostly taken place in northern cities such as Ciudad Juarez, Tijuana and Culiacan. Ten thousand people have been killed and drug-related corruption has been exposed at the highest levels, including the attorney general's office.

The anti-drug budget worldwide is staggering: The United States alone devotes more than $40 billion yearly to the effort. Yet whenever attempts to limit supply manage to raise street prices in one country, prices go down in other countries: In Europe, the price of cocaine has dropped by half since 1990. But the crackdown has reduced the purity of the drug, increasing the harm to people's health. According to the police, in Britain the purity has decreased from 60 percent to 30 percent in a decade.

Not to mention the consequences to individual liberty. Those who banned alcohol in 1920 felt compelled to amend the Constitution before they could pass Prohibition. No such amendment was ever presented to legitimize what Richard Nixon first called the "war on drugs" in 1971. The excesses committed in its name have created all sorts of social stigmas--including the fact that about 30 percent of black males in America spend some time in jail in large part due to drug-related offenses.

Three Latin American former presidents--Brazil's Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Mexico's Ernesto Zedillo and Colombia's Cesar Gaviria--recently put out a report condemning the war on drugs as a counterproductive failure, advocating a public health-based approach instead of repression. In anticipation of the meeting in Vienna, the latest issue of The Economist magazine, the bible of many current and aspiring enforcers of the law, devoted its cover, a survey and an editorial to making the case for legalization. For years, conservative publications such as The Wall Street Journal have run articles expressing the same view, including those by its expert on Latin America, Mary O'Grady. Leaders on the right (Henry Kissinger) and organizations of the center-left (George Soros' Open Society Institute) have also spoken out on the issue.

No one knows exactly how drug use would be impacted by its legalization or its decriminalization. In countries where it is severely punished, consumption is high, which might mean that it would stabilize or even drop. Many European countries--Spain, Portugal, Italy, several Swiss cantons--have extremely lenient drug policies; consumption in those countries (except for Spain) is not very high. But even assuming a moderate increase in consumption, decriminalization or legalization would eliminate or substantially diminish the horrific side effects of the current war.

A movement in favor of legalization has existed in the United States for years. Because it is associated with the cultural war that has raged since the 1960s, its impact has been small. But the debate goes on. In many states the police do not go after personal possession of marijuana, and California is considering a bill that would make it legal. The vestiges of Puritan dogmatism--which H.L. Mencken memorably called the "inferior man's hatred of the man who is having a better time"--have made it difficult to open a serious debate nationwide.

Today we regard the Opium Wars of the 19th century--by which the British retaliated against China for clamping down on opium imports--as crazy. One and a half centuries from now, people will read in total amazement that so much blood and treasure was wasted in the failed pursuit of a private vice that a relatively small percentage of the world population was not ready to give up.

Alvaro Vargas Llosa is a senior fellow at the Independent Institute and the editor of Lessons from the Poor.

Victimless crimes and imprisonment

First I reiterate a part of a post from earlier in the week;

"The fact is: if you don't want to be assaulted - or worse - by a cellmate, avoid prison by not committing a crime," Mr Garrett said.

My response;

I wonder if Mr Garrett has forgotten that there are people in our prisons who are not violent; people who are guilty only of victimless crimes; people who should properly be in the care of psychiatrists and nursing staff; people who are on remand awaiting trial who may not even be convicted.

Mike E then referred to people imprisoned for "smoking pot" and was challenged by Mr Garrett to produce an example.

They may be unusual but certainly not unheard of.

This is from the 2002 Health Select Committee cannabis inquiry report:

p32: "Of the 9,399 prosecutions for the use of cannabis, 6,761 resulted in convictions, and 52 custodial sentences were imposed."

And from parliamentary questions;

Question 8479 (2004)

Question by Hon Tony Ryall to the Minister of Corrections:
June 14th 2004

How many inmates were imprisoned for possession of drugs but not manufacture or supply of drugs in each of the past five years, detailing how many had previous drug convictions and previous custodial sentences?

Hon Paul Swain (Minister of Corrections) replied:

The total number of inmates imprisoned for possession of drugs but not manufacture or supply of drugs in each of the last five years is as follow:

1999 431 inmates
2000 430 inmates
2001 443 inmates
2002 386 inmates
2003 411 inmates
2004 157 inmates (up to 31 May 2004)

While most sentences would have been for drugs other than cannabis, these substantial numbers represent the victimless crimes alluded to.

(Many thanks to Chris Fowlie of NORML for the speedy provision of information)

Absenteeism

Absenteeism. It's long been the bane of employers.

Lost productivity. The direct and indirect impact on profit.

Paying people to do nothing.

The impaired mental health and motivation of absentees.



Now suddenly it is the saviour. Now it is to be encouraged.

And on the tenth day God ... sorry, government, created a hand-out.

Behind the double-bunking debate

The debate about double-bunking and Greg Newbold's opinion that rapes would increase, being discussed at a number of sites, is certainly revealing some deeply ingrained attitudes. I have just commented on the feminist site, Hand Mirror. Cactus is over there asking this question;

Maia

So would you shed a tear if a man who has violently raped an innocent woman, is then raped in prison?

Honest answer please.

I'll answer it for you Cactus. I wouldn't shed a tear but I wouldn't be cheering either.

I have always accepted the idea of safe and secure preventive detention for the most dangerous criminals. But the tough on law and order brigade are starting to show their true colours. They are retributionists.

Think about where the strong culture of retribution has gotten many a Maori.

Retribution sits at the start of the problem - not the end. As Lucy says, this is eye-for-an-eye stuff. Where is the logical conclusion?

Antagonism for the sake of it

I have a bit of time for criminologist, Greg Newbold. When he shares an opinion I listen. But his latest comments, that double-bunking in prisons will lead to more violence and more rape, have wound up ACT's David Garrett.

Mr Garrett obviously believes that the state has no responsibility to keep people who are sent to prison safe. His latest statement, by way of response to Greg Newbold, is quite bloody-minded.

"I am further interested to note Dr Greg Newbold's remarks about homosexual rape – an issue he is on record as saying has never been a major problem in New Zealand prisons. Rape is a crime wherever it occurs, and can be dealt with in the same way as any other offence committed in prison.

"The fact is: if you don't want to be assaulted - or worse - by a cellmate, avoid prison by not committing a crime," Mr Garrett said.

I wonder if Mr Garrett has forgotten that there are people in our prisons who are not violent; people who are guilty only of victimless crimes; people who should properly be in the care of psychiatrists and nursing staff; people who are on remand awaiting trial who may not even be convicted.

Note too that he has now gone beyond the idea of prison as a means to keeping the public safe, his overriding rationale for the three strikes policy. It is now a place where you can get a taste of your own medicine, perhaps? Where you get what is coming to you.

Double-bunking may be a necessary and/or temporary last resort but it is a far cry from grudging or regretful acceptance to positively relishing the prospect.

Long-term ACC claimants

Prompted by Monkeys With Typewriters I had a look at the ACC 2008 Annual Report to ascertain how many long-term claimants there are. Here is what I found (and duly related at MWT's blogsite.)

Number of long-term claims

The number of long-term weekly compensation claims (i.e. claims in receipt of weekly compensation for more than 12 months) increased by 827 during the year to 30 June 2008 (compared with 580 during 2006-2007).



The figure of 14,755 has been sort of niggling at me. I had a vague idea that it was more than this from some earlier research. Sure enough in 2007 I found quite a different figure and cited ACC Injury Statistics 2006 (First Edition). So I went to the ACC site only to find the page is no longer available. Fortunately I had filed a hard copy for my records. Here it is;




That shows a total of 47,584 claims have been paying out for a year or more.

That's a big discrepancy. I cannot reconcile the 2 figures and believe the 2008 Annual Report is very misleading.

Very young mothers - a risk factor for criminality

VERY YOUNG MOTHERS - A RISK FACTOR FOR CRIMINALITY
Monday, March 9, 2009

A report recently released by Corrections New Zealand, which explores the "alarming" over-representation of Maori in the criminal justice system, has identified very young parents as a risk factor for potential criminality. Welfare commentator , Lindsay Mitchell, has welcomed the recognition of this fact but asks what government is going to do about the policy that encourages early parenthood.

"According to the report, traditional models of Maori family may well have been better able to support young mothers. This is , in part, a reference to whanau structure before it was undermined by welfare, in particular, the domestic purposes benefit. Along with welfare reliance comes poor educational attainment, exclusion from paid employment and disrupted home environments."

"Also explored are the compounding factors of impaired foetal neurological development which are associated with maternal smoking, alcohol and/or substance abuse, and low birth weight. It points out that Maori experience a higher rate of low-weight births than non-Maori."

"The report goes on to show that the rate of birth to Maori mothers under the age of 18 is five times that of non-Maori. "

"There is no doubt in my mind that the combination of the rising teenage birthrate and subsequent welfare dependence is contributing to the over -representation of Maori in prison or serving community sentences. We can continue to ignore this pattern and forget about reducing crime and the prison population, or, we can look seriously at reforming welfare. The matter becomes more urgent with each passing day."

Property rights abandoned for populism?

A quote from today's DomPost;

"We would be most disappointed if politicians were to encroach upon private property rights."

Sounds exactly like the sort of thing an ACT member would say. Or an ACT MP.

It is in fact the Chairman of Te Runanga O Ngai Tahu responding to ACT Leader, Rodney Hide, who has described their plans to levy fishermen on Lake Ellesmere as "appalling" and setting a bad precedent.

This I just cannot get my head around. Ngai Tahu own the lakebed just as Tuwharetoa own the lakebed of Taupo and have long received recompense from permits to fish.

It's user-pays in operation. The proposed fee, 8 percent, will go towards protection and restoration of the lake which Ngai Tahu currently pays $170,000 towards.

I am not even going to link to the many instances of ACT MPs, past and present, staunchly defending private property rights. It appears that the way Ngai Tahu has gone about imposing the fee has left a lot to be desired and I can understand the anger of long-time commercial fishers. Also there seems to be an ethical problem in that Ngai Tahu apparently assured users at the time of settlement they would not be 'impacted'. If these are the aspects Rodney is objecting to he has a point.

But again we come back to the heart of the matter. The principle. Are property rights only for some? High country farmers for instance?

Marae justice

The latest Ministry of Social Development magazine has a feature about marae justice. While I am all for trying new ways to get youth offenders back on track the process that goes on at a Gisborne marae, serving as a youth court, seems to employ an awful lot of resources.

....That coming together of many agencies and individuals is why with only two offenders before the court today, there is still a gathering of twenty or so people as the powhiri begins and the group makes their way on to the marae. Once inside, kaumatua and the Judge stand and korero, both in Maori and in English.

.... Everyone involved cares about the young people. Lay advocates take the time to get to know the young person and their whakapapa and relay that information back to the kaumatua. After the powhiri, korero and a waiata, the court breaks for a cup of tea and there is again opportunity for connection, for talking, for sharing.

20-odd people - whänau, lay advocates, youth advocates, service providers, kaumatua, social workers and members of the court - for 2 offenders. And the outcome? For the first it's not clear. The other...

... offender stands to leave. She’s been dismissed because since her family group conference she has reoffended, and that means she’s being sent back to the Youth Court held in Gisborne’s District Court.

The irony is the family group conference process was was also created in an attempt to embrace Maori Tikanga. Yet FGCs give youth the message there are few if any consequences of their offending. They have been used for nearly 20 years yet youth offending remains intractable.

In another 20 years I fear I will be writing the same about marae justice.

Cover up those tats

This is an entry from Rodney Hide's blog;

Special laws for Wanganui
Posted on 20 Jul 2006

Ex-Nat, ex-NZ1ster, now Mayor of Wanganui Michael Laws' plan to ban gang patches has hit a hitch but new MP Chester Borrows and the National Party are supporting a Bill to make the wearing of gang patches illegal but only in Wanganui.

I am not making this up.

... National's Whanganui MP Chester Borrows, a former detective sergeant, says his party planned to table a bill in Parliament after police headquarters refused to endorse the bylaw [banning gang regalia in parts of the city]. "The police in Wanganui were happy with the bylaw but the office of the commissioner wanted to have parliamentary sanction. . . . Mr Borrows said the bill, supported by National, would apply only to Wanganui, but it was "a commonsense approach to a problem shared by provincial centres across the country"...

Commonsense is a wonderful guide to sound law making!


And Heather Roy on the same subject;

Real Solutions Needed To Address Gang Issue
Posted on 30 Sep 2008

The move to outlaw gangs, their patches and tattoos is nothing more than a ploy to give the appearance of action - a ploy that will yield no results or benefit to New Zealand society in the long-term struggle to deal with the country's gang problem, ACT Deputy Leader and National Security Spokesman Heather Roy said today.

"Such moves are wrongly-focussed, token-ist and entirely predictable - hard-line policies to deal with gangs are reeled out by different Parties in the run up to every election," Mrs Roy said.

"Clearly none of these 'flash in a pan' policies have worked - because they focus more on addressing the mayhem that individual gang members cause, rather than on initiatives that will hit gangs hardest and make it harder for them to operate.

"Legislation outlawing gangs and their insignia is just more law - we don't need more laws, we need to enforce the ones we already have and give police the power to tackle lawlessness where and when it happens.

"Gangs' impact on society is more about their actions than their visibility. Rather than worrying about what gangs wear, we should establish a special IRD unit to audit their incomes and hit them where it hurts the most - in their wallets, rather than their wardrobes.



And in October last year, during the campaign;

Forget about banning gang patches. We need to focus on the anti-social behaviour that they represent. We already have plenty of laws to deal with that but, as a society, we appear to lack the will to enforce them. That's why the criminals are getting bolder.



This is a report from NewstalkZB today;

Anti-gang patch law moving through Parliament

05/03/2009 5:16:01

The proposal to have gang patches banned in Wanganui now looks certain to pass into law.

MPs have voted 64 to 58 in favour of the Gang Insignia Bill. Labour, which originally supported the idea, backed down and opposed it, however National received the support of ACT to allow the Gang Insignia Bill to pass through. The law would prohibit gang members wearing any patches on the streets of Wanganui.

The bill has two final readings before it comes into effect.

Green MP Metiria Turei is among those to oppose the plan, saying it will not stop gang violence. She says not only will it be ineffective, but it will also be a significant breach of citizens' rights. Ms Turei says ordinary citizens will suffer if the ban goes ahead.

But ACT MP David Garrett says the law will make sure intimidating tattoos are covered up.

I understand that being in government comes at a price. But it's just getting too expensive for this supporter.

Does Three Strikes deter crime?

This post is for my peace of mind. I have previously expressed reservations about the Three Strikes Policy shortly going before select committee. The law of unintended consequences is perhaps the one we ignore, at our peril, the most. So I decided, while I have some free time, I would take a closer look.

Now I know that if I go looking for studies that discredit the US welfare reforms I can find them. I can also find the converse.

So, I expect to find knockers of three strikes and I expect to find fans.

Here is a site dedicated to opposing. Below, a couple of the many reasons it cites;

# Kovandzic, Tomislav V; John J Sloan III, Lynne M Vieraitis. ""STRIKING OUT" AS CRIME REDUCTION POLICY: THE IMPACT OF "THREE STRIKES" LAWS ON CRIME RATES IN U.S. CITIES. " Justice Quarterly : JQ 21.2 (2004): 207-239.

Summarizes several studies showing that homicide rates have declined at a 10-12% slower rate in jurisdictions with 3-Strikes laws.

# Marvell, T., Moody, C. (2001). The lethal effects of three strikes law. Journal of Legal Studies, 30 (1): 89-106.

Finds that Three Strikes laws have had a minimal impact on reducing the levels of crime and through deterrence or incapacitation but that they are associated with 10%-12% more homicides in the short run and 23%-29% more in the long run in almost all 24 states examined with Three Strikes laws.

It was harder to find proponents but here is one from Washington;

Our state's three-strikes law, the nation's first, was designed to nail two kinds of criminals: first, the violent predators and, second, those who commit lesser but far more numerous crimes over and over again. But the law's chief benefit is the amount of crime it deters from felons with one or two strikes already on their record. When a third conviction means life behind bars, many legally-challenged citizens resist the temptation to commit that third offense. Of those who don't shape up, many simply move away. This helps explain that while violent crime rates have plummeted nearly 30 percent since "three strikes" became law in 1993, only about 26 felons "strike out" each year.

Opponents had predicted nearly four times that number would do so. They assumed that changing the law would not change criminal behavior. They were mistaken. Ask any street cop. Their street-level insights are far more valuable and relevant than those of academics and politicians.

So what about some statistics from Washington (State). I looked at murder and rape because these are two of the crimes the introduction of three strikes is targeted at in this country;

Murder
1998 234
1999 171
2000 196
2001 179
2002 184
2003 182
2004 190
2005 205
2006 190
2007 173

Rape
1998 2740
1999 2711
2000 2737
2001 2600
2002 2734
2003 2863
2004 2857
2005 2811
2006 2746
2007 2629

So, taking into account population growth, there has been a slight improvement. Slight.

Let's look next at violent crime in California, which has the toughest three strikes regime;

Murder
1998 2171
1999 2005
2000 2079
2001 2206
2002 2395
2003 2407
2004 2392
2005 2503
2006 2485
2007 2260

Rape
1998 9782
1999 9363
2000 9785
2001 9960
2002 10198
2003 9994
2004 9615
2005 9392
2006 9212
2007 9013

Again the rates have dropped slightly but I am not overwhelmed.

Illinois has no three strikes policy. Their statistics:

Murder
1998 1008
1999 939
2000 891
2001 982
2002 961
2003 895
2004 780
2005 770
2006 780
2007 752

Rape
1998 4095
1999 4297
2000 4090
2001 4010
2002 4370
2003 4189
2004 4220
2005 4313
2006 4078
2007 4103

Same sort of picture. Another three-strike free state, New York, shows a similar pattern.

As fas as I can ascertain just over half have a three strikes policy yet the violent crime rate has declined across the United States (but has stuck over the last couple of years.)

I can't convince myself that the Three Strikes policy will do what I most want it to - deter serious crime. Additionally there appears to be a very real danger that it makes criminals more violent.

The de facto dole

This morning I came across this graph which clearly shows numbers unemployed dropping from around 135,000 in 1999 to around 80,000 by 2008.




Yet the following tables show that in 1999 148,755 people were receiving the unemployment benefit and the number dropped to 23,273 by 2008.



So how are sixty-odd thousand unemployed getting by?

Maybe

1/ Unemployed people in 2008 are largely short-term unemployed and have no need of or do not qualify for the dole.
2/ Unemployed people in 2008 are relying on other forms of income, perhaps an employed partner.
3/ Unemployed people in 2008 are relying on benefits other than the dole i.e. sickness and invalid benefits

I doubt that 1/ is the sole answer because then you would expect those left on the dole to be long-term employed only and that just isn't the case.

2/ may be right but that would require a cultural change.

So let's consider 3/

In September 1999 there were 83,635 people on either a sickness or invalid benefit. By September 2008 the number had climbed to 131,826. 48,000 more. Not far off the number we are looking for.

The Labour government constantly denied that unemployed people were moved onto other benefits. Strictly speaking that may be true. But the beneficiary pool is ever-changing; people come and go and have repeated spells on welfare. When coming onto or back onto a benefit, I would suggest fewer and fewer were put onto the dole.

MSD data shows that 72 percent of the working aged clients granted a sickness benefit in 2006/2007 had received some sort of benefit in the previous four years. And 69% of people granted an invalid benefit had transferred from another benefit or district.

I will repeat how the OECD describes incapacity benefits. They represent the medicalisation of labour market problems.

Thanks, National

What is worse than one Families Commissioner?

Two

(Transcript here of Judith Collins mercilessly attacking the waste of taxpayers money on and by the Families Commission here.)