Friday, February 1, 2013

The Definitive Comparison between the UK and the US

via Dispelling the Myth

DEFINING VIOLENT CRIME =====

United Kingdom:
“Violent crime contains a wide range of offences, from minor assaults such as pushing and shoving that result in no physical harm through to serious incidents of wounding and murder. Around a half of violent incidents identified by both BCS and police statistics involve no injury to the victim.” (THOSB – CEW, page 17, paragraph 1.)
United States:
“In the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, violent crime is composed of four offenses: murder and nonnegligent manslaughter, forcible rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Violent crimes are defined in the UCR Program as those offenses which involve force or threat of force.”   (FBI – CUS – Violent Crime)
We can clearly see here there is quite a large difference in how both countries report and assess what qualifies as “violent crime”. The UK’s approach seems to be a lot more encompassing in scope and adds to its definition of “violent crime” offences which are not matched by its US counterpart. This raises the obvious question of whether UK violent crime rates can be said to be higher simply because things considered “violent crime” in the UK are not so in the US. One example is “assault”, all forms of which are considered “violent” in the UK, whereas in the US only “aggravated” is considered violent. A further example revolves around sexual offences, only “forcible” rape featuring in the US definition, while the UK definition includes rape and any and all forms of sexual assault.
Therefore, it becomes practically impossible to draw any objective comparison between the two, unless one trawls through the various definitions of crimes that can be said to be the same in definition and execution in the UK and the US. I’ve actually done this, and by going through the PRC and FBI – CUS it is possible, I believe, to find a number of crimes which I think are fairly indicative of the prevalence of “violence” in either country. To this end, I have isolated robbery, burglary, homicide / murder,  knife crime, fatal shootings, rape of a female, grievous bodily harm / aggravated assault and theft of a vehicle in order to give us a fair idea of which country is more “violent.” The relevant definitions and rates for each crime will be presented below in their own sections.
However, before we proceed onto that stage, I thought it would be useful to present the actual figures of “violent crime rates” for both countries that has spurned this research in the first place, and the mathematics involved in calculating the figures and statistics for each relevant isolated crime.

12 comments:

  1. Mike even if we threw out assault. What about home invasions going up,and rape going up? The UK has bin deemed the MOST violent place in the EU. Odds are people don't call the police over being pushed every single time it happen.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're back peddling. You used to say England was more violent than the US.

      Delete
  2. Do you mean that the United States and the United Kingdom are different societies? Could it be that gun control would then have different results here from Britain's?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're back peddling too. Now that you've been proven wrong you want to talk about how they're different societies.

      Delete
    2. Mikeb, if you look at my comments regarding Britain since I've been here, you'll see that I don't take the usual line on that subject, so no, I'm not backpeddling.

      Delete
  3. The funny thing is, if you quote the report in full, you'll see you're more likely to get raped, burgled, carjacked, grievously assaulted, murdered and shot in the US than in the UK:

    http://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

    So owning a gun doesn't reduce the chances of any of those crimes - what's the point in owning them then?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You're drawing an unwarranted conclusion here. Guns, used properly, do reduce the chances of violent criminals succeeding in their efforts. Your side insists on perfection--either guns are a magic shield that wards off all attacks, or they're not worth having. My side lives in the real world.

      Besides, self-defense is one of many reasons for owning a gun.

      Delete
    2. "Guns, used properly, do reduce the chances of violent criminals succeeding in their efforts."

      Greg, every single day I post stories which show lawful gun owners NOT using their guns properly.

      Delete
    3. Mikeb, I've explained this before. You focus on outliers. The evidence shows that guns are either neutral or a benefit--when you take all of it into account. Your anecdotes do not add up to the claim that guns are an unmitigated harm.

      Delete
  4. Good post.

    I'm a fan of football (soccer) and every now and again, a famous soccer player will get arrested for "affray"--which is considered a violent crime in the UK. When you read about it, you'll find famous soccer player was drinking in some club or pub and he'll get involved in some argument with another patron. Most of the time, its just angry words or maybe a shove involved.

    Heck, in the US, that wouldn't be enough to get you asked to leave in many bars.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Apparently there was a mistake in the original calculation:

    http://dispellingthemythukvsusguns.wordpress.com/

    Regardless, you're still more likely to be burgled, have your car stolen, suffer aggravated assault, be raped, shot and murdered in the US than in the UK.

    ReplyDelete