How reliable are the 1900 figures? The suggestion that there were only 75 attempted murders in 1900 strikes me as suspect. How were crime figures collated at that time?

Posted by: Bishop Hill at November 29, 2005 05:01 PM

I agree that the category of attempted murder is not a good one for making reliable historical comparisons - at least not by itself. It is quite possible that there could have been substantial changes in the theory and practice of defining it. I include it, though, because it is one of the most serious categories of violence, its dramatic rise has taken place over many decades (it is unlikely that the definition was continuously changing in one direction, decade by decade) and the rise in attempted murders is very substantial like the rise in crimes of all categories over the long term.

I realise many people find it difficult to believe that crime has risen very dramatically - and more or less continuously - for the past century. But all the evidence I have seen - both statistical and anecdotal - points this way.

As Tony Blair remarked to John Humphrys on the Today programme recently, in the Britain of their youths, you could leave a door open and be sure nothing would be stolen.

Posted by: James Bartholomew at November 29, 2005 06:46 PM

James, the stats are one thing ... but I am interested to know more details about your reasoning as to why.

Could you oblige?

Posted by: Tory Convert at November 29, 2005 11:59 PM

Why?

A large part of The Welfare State We're In is taken up with building up an explanation for the decline of behaviour and the rise in crime since the years before the First World War.

To summarise brutally, I contend that the way in which the state has taken over responsibility for the lives of the less well-off has been the root cause. A man arrives home after spending the day at a low-paid manual job. He and his family have supper. He knows, his wife knows and his children know that he paid for the food on the table. He may not have been a great success in a career. He may not be famous or clever. But he has some dignity.

Taking away that dignity is a part of what the welfare state has taken away.

Posted by: James Bartholomew at November 30, 2005 08:50 AM

The complete infiltration of the left into the judiciary sending a clear 'go ahead' message to criminals.These besuited Marxists start from the premise that property is theft ergo let the criminals plunder the evil capitalist system with impunity.

Posted by: niconoclast at November 30, 2005 03:48 PM

James
Where do you get your 1900 homicide figures? There are goverment statistics demonstrating the homicide rate doubling since then, but the doubling in homicide rates has essentially taken place since 1965 (a notable year, of course):

For example:
House of Commons RESEARCH PAPER 99/111
21 DECEMBER 1999

A Century of Change:
Trends in UK statistics
since 1900

Homicides per million population in England and Wales
Year Homicides
1900 9.6
1910 8.1
1920 8.3
1930 7.5
1940 ..
1950 7.9
1955 6.3
1960 6.2
1965 6.8
1970 8.1
1975 10.3
1980 12.5
1985 12.5
1990 13.1
1995 14.5
1997 14.1

There are other similar documents and stats, eg on the ONS site which demonstrate the same - though the method of attributing a death as homicide is not as straightforward as it may first appear.

I suspect the rate has increased further in recent years.
Paul

Posted by: Converted Liberal at November 30, 2005 10:09 PM

I think you are dead right: the welfare state kills pride. Walking around the working class districts of cities where there is no welfare state (Prague, Bangkok, in my recent experience) you see shabby streets and the same appalling architecture and disastrous effects of mad roadbuilding programmes. But you don't get that sense of menace or nihilistic despair that you do in the UK (and increasingly in New Zealand now). The sense of pride is palpable.

Posted by: Ronnie Horesh at December 1, 2005 04:09 AM