So the UK murder and crime rate is fudged- a lot....

[JoeB131]

[

I'm going to address your first sentence given you are wrong according to the parliamentary report linked in my op:

Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise. This reduces the apparent number of homicides by between 13 per cent and 15 per cent.

^ that information comes verbatim from the parliamentary report linked in my OP.


As far as comparing the (false) number of deaths by homicide in the UK to those in the US you make an elementary mistake in comparing figures of total deaths / murders. Doesn't work that way, the UK has 60million people while the US has over 300 million. The figures will differ quite a bit, this is why is it calculated as a percentage per 100,000.

Not sure why you are focused on guns, my post had nothing to do with guns

Okay, realizing you are a conservatard, and bad at Math or Science or shit like that.

Even if you take your claim at face value...

The UK had 653 murders. Even if you accept the claim that their murder rate is underreported by 15%... that would put their murder rate at 750. So maybe you are talking about 100 extra murders, at most.

if the British Murder rate is 15% greater than ours once you take out findings of self-defense, the murder rate they have is STILL less than 1000 people a year.

As opposed to the US, where we have 16,000 murders a year.

Man, are you like fucking stupid, or what?

 

[Tank]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2fEhy0H3fsM]Muslim Rape Epidemic in European Countries - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Lonestar_logic]

From the UK Parliament report:

Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise. This reduces the apparent number of homicides by between 13 per cent and 15 per cent.

Many countries, including the United States, do not adjust their statistics down in that way and their figures include cases of self defence, killings by police and justifiable homicides. In Portugal, cases in which the cause of death is unknown are included in the homicide figures, inflating the apparent homicide rate very considerably.

Causing death by dangerous driving is not classed as homicide in England and Wales, but is classified as homicide in some countries. Over 200 such cases occur in England and Wales each year.

So that guy who just killed 4 at the SXSW convention would not be included in UK homicide/murder rates. But will be in US rates skewing the numbers even further.

House of Commons - Home Affairs - Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence

It also does not count a murder until the person is convicted of murder/homicide and has exhausted all of their appeals. So you can have X amount of people in jail awaiting trial the death they caused will not go on their books until that person is convicted. If they are found not guilty, it still does not count as a homicide. Additionally, If I am reading this correctly if someone dies or commits suicide before their trial, those homicides/murders are not counted as well.

Why? The Parliament report above clearly states their actions as opposed to the way the US reports homicides and murders will inflate the homicide/murder rate of countries who do not count homicide and murders they way they do.

House of Commons - Home Affairs - Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence

More here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116417/hosb1011.pdf

So trying to compare the US to the UK/Wales crime rate is ridiculous IMO.

This reminds me of the WHO report which came out sometime back and dealt with infant mortality, showing the US in a horrible position. However, it was then shown many countries do not count the death of an infant unless it has died past the age of 1, verses the US who counts the death as soon as they are born.

This has been brought to the attention of liberals quite a few times but they still don't get it.

 

[NoNukes]

Most crime is where blacks and hispanics are

There are not many Blacks or Hispanics here in Ireland, and you know what? Whites do commit crimes.

Sure whites commit crime, it's just that blacks and hispanics commit way more.

Poor people tend to commit more crimes.

 

[Harry Dresden]

From the UK Parliament report:

Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise. This reduces the apparent number of homicides by between 13 per cent and 15 per cent.

Causing death by dangerous driving is not classed as homicide in England and Wales, but is classified as homicide in some countries. Over 200 such cases occur in England and Wales each year.

So that guy who just killed 4 at the SXSW convention would not be included in UK homicide/murder rates. But will be in US rates skewing the numbers even further.

House of Commons - Home Affairs - Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence

It also does not count a murder until the person is convicted of murder/homicide and has exhausted all of their appeals. So you can have X amount of people in jail awaiting trial the death they caused will not go on their books until that person is convicted. If they are found not guilty, it still does not count as a homicide. Additionally, If I am reading this correctly if someone dies or commits suicide before their trial, those homicides/murders are not counted as well.

Why? The Parliament report above clearly states their actions as opposed to the way the US reports homicides and murders will inflate the homicide/murder rate of countries who do not count homicide and murders they way they do.

House of Commons - Home Affairs - Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence

More here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/116417/hosb1011.pdf

So trying to compare the US to the UK/Wales crime rate is ridiculous IMO.

This reminds me of the WHO report which came out sometime back and dealt with infant mortality, showing the US in a horrible position. However, it was then shown many countries do not count the death of an infant unless it has died past the age of 1, verses the US who counts the death as soon as they are born.

That all may be so,but America's GUN DEATHS AND MURDERS are a disgrace,you are a VIOLENT SOCIETY.....so your point IS

that is the result of having as many rights as we allow here......many take advantage of that.....like the gangs in the inner cities....

 

[CaféAuLait]

[

I'm going to address your first sentence given you are wrong according to the parliamentary report linked in my op:

Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise. This reduces the apparent number of homicides by between 13 per cent and 15 per cent.

^ that information comes verbatim from the parliamentary report linked in my OP.


As far as comparing the (false) number of deaths by homicide in the UK to those in the US you make an elementary mistake in comparing figures of total deaths / murders. Doesn't work that way, the UK has 60million people while the US has over 300 million. The figures will differ quite a bit, this is why is it calculated as a percentage per 100,000.

Not sure why you are focused on guns, my post had nothing to do with guns

Okay, realizing you are a conservatard, and bad at Math or Science or shit like that.

Even if you take your claim at face value...

The UK had 653 murders. Even if you accept the claim that their murder rate is underreported by 15%... that would put their murder rate at 750. So maybe you are talking about 100 extra murders, at most.

if the British Murder rate is 15% greater than ours once you take out findings of self-defense, the murder rate they have is STILL less than 1000 people a year.

As opposed to the US, where we have 16,000 murders a year.

Man, are you like fucking stupid, or what?

I guess you just don't get the fact in a country such as the US where there are 250 million more people than the UK, the numbers are not just stand alone numbers, but I suppose that's too far over your head. BTW you forgot to add hundreds from vehicular homicide and the fact they don't add the murders/homicides until there is a conviction or appeals run out, or the number is never added, so any number you are looking at as reported by the UK is always flawed for these reasons and more. I'm unsure why you are even saying anything about the UK murder rate being 15 percent more than the US, that claim was never made by the UK report or me.

Not to mention if the US counted the way they did, the murder rate would drop by thousands upon thousands. Anyone with an appeal, (even if found guilty) till in the works would not be counted, anyone who committed vehicular homicide would not be counted as a homicide, anyone found innocent would not be counted as a homicide, anyone found acting in self defense would not be counted as a homicide...or anyone in the UKs 'other' category, ( whatever that is) would not be counted as a homicide.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Causing death by dangerous driving is not classed as homicide in England and Wales, but is classified as homicide in some countries. Over 200 such cases occur in England and Wales each year.

Okay, Corky, now you are up to all of 853 vs. 16,000. We STILL have 50 times the murder rate the UK has with only four times the people.

[
As far as comparing the (false) number of deaths by homicide in the UK to those in the US you make an elementary mistake in comparing figures of total deaths / murders. Doesn't work that way, the UK has 60million people while the US has over 300 million. The figures will differ quite a bit, this is why is it calculated as a percentage per 100,000.

Not sure why you are focused on guns, my post had nothing to do with guns

Shipman is a good example. When he was convicted his murders of 167 people were finally added to the homicide rate, all in one year, upping that years homicide rate by 5 percent if I recall correctly, it may have been slightly lower. Until someone is convicted and all appeals are exhausted that murder is not added to the murder rate.

All of the above skews numbers, period.

I think you don't know how this works, but okay. You gun whacks need your mythology.

 

[CaféAuLait]

[

Causing death by dangerous driving is not classed as homicide in England and Wales, but is classified as homicide in some countries. Over 200 such cases occur in England and Wales each year.

Okay, Corky, now you are up to all of 853 vs. 16,000. We STILL have 50 times the murder rate the UK has with only four times the people.

[
As far as comparing the (false) number of deaths by homicide in the UK to those in the US you make an elementary mistake in comparing figures of total deaths / murders. Doesn't work that way, the UK has 60million people while the US has over 300 million. The figures will differ quite a bit, this is why is it calculated as a percentage per 100,000.

Not sure why you are focused on guns, my post had nothing to do with guns

Shipman is a good example. When he was convicted his murders of 167 people were finally added to the homicide rate, all in one year, upping that years homicide rate by 5 percent if I recall correctly, it may have been slightly lower. Until someone is convicted and all appeals are exhausted that murder is not added to the murder rate.

All of the above skews numbers, period.

I think you don't know how this works, but okay. You gun whacks need your mythology.

Still focused on guns, eh? My post has nothing to do with guns, but to each their own I suppose.

Again, problem is unless you count the US the same way the UK does, you wont have reliable number, guess that is too hard for you to comprehend.

Remove all car deaths as homicides in the US from your above number, then remove any death where the person was found not guilty, then remove any death where the person was acting in self defense, then remove anyone still with any appeal left even though found guilty...

An example, Scott Peterson is still appealing his conviction from 2002, 2 murders which the UK would not count, until all of his appeals run out. Thousands and thousands of people appeal their murder convictions every day and for years and years following their conviction. How would those appeals affect the above numbers you quote for the US, if not included in the US murder rate? It would affect that number a ton.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Still focused on guns, eh? My post has nothing to do with guns, but to each their own I suppose.

Again, problem is unless you count the US the same way the UK does, you wont have reliable number, guess that is too hard for you to comprehend.

Remove all car deaths as homicides in the US from your above number, then remove any death where the person was found not guilty, then remove any death where the person was acting in self defense, then remove anyone still with any appeal left even though found guilty...

An example, Scott Peterson is still appealing his conviction from 2002, 2 murders which the UK would not count, until all of his appeals run out. Thousands and thousands of people appeal their murder convictions every day and for years and years following their conviction. How would those appeals affect the above numbers you quote for the US, if not included in the US murder rate? It would affect that number a ton.

Scott Peterson only killed one person- his wife. Only in the nutjob land of wingnuts are fetuses people.

Besides the fact you really don't understand how the Brits count murders, (hint- not the way you say) it seems like you are awfuly invested that the Brits must have a murder rate as bad as we do.

They don't. Neither do the Germans, Canadians, Japanese, Italians, French or Australians.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

[

I'm going to address your first sentence given you are wrong according to the parliamentary report linked in my op:

Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise. This reduces the apparent number of homicides by between 13 per cent and 15 per cent.

^ that information comes verbatim from the parliamentary report linked in my OP.



As far as comparing the (false) number of deaths by homicide in the UK to those in the US you make an elementary mistake in comparing figures of total deaths / murders. Doesn't work that way, the UK has 60million people while the US has over 300 million. The figures will differ quite a bit, this is why is it calculated as a percentage per 100,000.

Not sure why you are focused on guns, my post had nothing to do with guns

Okay, realizing you are a conservatard, and bad at Math or Science or shit like that.

Even if you take your claim at face value...

The UK had 653 murders. Even if you accept the claim that their murder rate is underreported by 15%... that would put their murder rate at 750. So maybe you are talking about 100 extra murders, at most.

if the British Murder rate is 15% greater than ours once you take out findings of self-defense, the murder rate they have is STILL less than 1000 people a year.

As opposed to the US, where we have 16,000 murders a year.

Man, are you like fucking stupid, or what?

The stupid one is you there are only 60 million people in England there are 320 million in the US. Over 5 times as many. As I have shown before violent crime in England went UP when firearms were banned and they have a far larger percentage of violent crimes then the US. As does Canada and France.

 

[CaféAuLait]

[

Still focused on guns, eh? My post has nothing to do with guns, but to each their own I suppose.

Again, problem is unless you count the US the same way the UK does, you wont have reliable number, guess that is too hard for you to comprehend.

Remove all car deaths as homicides in the US from your above number, then remove any death where the person was found not guilty, then remove any death where the person was acting in self defense, then remove anyone still with any appeal left even though found guilty...

An example, Scott Peterson is still appealing his conviction from 2002, 2 murders which the UK would not count, until all of his appeals run out. Thousands and thousands of people appeal their murder convictions every day and for years and years following their conviction. How would those appeals affect the above numbers you quote for the US, if not included in the US murder rate? It would affect that number a ton.

Scott Peterson only killed one person- his wife. Only in the nutjob land of wingnuts are fetuses people.
Besides the fact you really don't understand how the Brits count murders, (hint- not the way you say) it seems like you are awfuly invested that the Brits must have a murder rate as bad as we do.

They don't. Neither do the Germans, Canadians, Japanese, Italians, French or Australians.

Anddddd once again you are wrong.

Peterson Convicted of Murdering Wife, Unborn Son

Peterson Convicted of Murdering Wife, Unborn Son - ABC News


Psssssttttt, he was convicted of such in Liberal California BTW.

I do understand how they count murders, I am quoting the UK parliament verbatim.

 

[JoeB131]

[

The stupid one is you there are only 60 million people in England there are 320 million in the US. Over 5 times as many. As I have shown before violent crime in England went UP when firearms were banned and they have a far larger percentage of violent crimes then the US. As does Canada and France.

Even multiplying the number by 5, you still don't get anywhere near the Carnage we Americans engage in because of, um, "Freedom".

 

[JoeB131]

[

Anddddd once again you are wrong.

Peterson Convicted of Murdering Wife, Unborn Son

Psssssttttt, he was convicted of such in Liberal California BTW.

I do understand how they count murders, I am quoting the UK parliament verbatim.

It's a retarded law. Especially if Mrs. Peterson could have walked into an abortion Clinic the day before her murder and aborted that fetus when she realized her husband was a creep,and walked off scott free (no pun intended.)

 

[CaféAuLait]

[

Anddddd once again you are wrong.

Peterson Convicted of Murdering Wife, Unborn Son

Psssssttttt, he was convicted of such in Liberal California BTW.

I do understand how they count murders, I am quoting the UK parliament verbatim.

It's a retarded law. Especially if Mrs. Peterson could have walked into an abortion Clinic the day before her murder and aborted that fetus when she realized her husband was a creep,and walked off scott free (no pun intended.)

You can abort a 8 month fetus in California? I though the non pun was funny actually.


I have an unrelated question to the OP.

If one of those crazy women attacked a woman 8-9 months pregnant and cut the baby from her womb, resulting in death of the baby, what would you charge her with?

 

[JoeB131]

[

Anddddd once again you are wrong.

Peterson Convicted of Murdering Wife, Unborn Son

Psssssttttt, he was convicted of such in Liberal California BTW.

I do understand how they count murders, I am quoting the UK parliament verbatim.

It's a retarded law. Especially if Mrs. Peterson could have walked into an abortion Clinic the day before her murder and aborted that fetus when she realized her husband was a creep,and walked off scott free (no pun intended.)

You can abort a 8 month fetus in California? I though the non pun was funny actually.


I have an unrelated question to the OP.

If one of those crazy women attacked a woman 8-9 months pregnant and cut the baby from her womb, resulting in death of the baby, what would you charge her with?

Depends when the baby died. If it took a breath outside the womb, it was technically alive. This is what they got Gosnell on. Supposedly.

You could also charge her with the murder or assault on the mother, not an issue.

there was no evidence that the fetus ever left Mrs. Peterson... so. No murder. Sorry.

 

[CaféAuLait]

It's a retarded law. Especially if Mrs. Peterson could have walked into an abortion Clinic the day before her murder and aborted that fetus when she realized her husband was a creep,and walked off scott free (no pun intended.)

You can abort a 8 month fetus in California? I though the non pun was funny actually.


I have an unrelated question to the OP.

If one of those crazy women attacked a woman 8-9 months pregnant and cut the baby from her womb, resulting in death of the baby, what would you charge her with?

Depends when the baby died. If it took a breath outside the womb, it was technically alive. This is what they got Gosnell on. Supposedly.

You could also charge her with the murder or assault on the mother, not an issue.

there was no evidence that the fetus ever left Mrs. Peterson... so. No murder. Sorry.

I did not follow Gosnell, so I don't know what happened there. Petersons defense argued that the baby had been cut from the womb and was born. I think their argument may have done Peterson in to be honest. I think there was something wrapped around its neck as well, but I don't recall. Could have been debris.

Defense attorneys have argued that Laci Peterson was abducted by someone who cut the baby out of her stomach, then dumped both bodies into the San Francisco Bay to frame Scott Peterson.

THE PETERSON TRIAL / Pathologist: Baby was protected by uterus / Tiny body was more intact than mother's - SFGate


Either way if someone were to cut a baby out of the womb, at 8-9 months one would assume he infant would probably take a breath, even if only for a moment. ( if not damaged while being ripped from the womb)

 

[RetiredGySgt]

[

The stupid one is you there are only 60 million people in England there are 320 million in the US. Over 5 times as many. As I have shown before violent crime in England went UP when firearms were banned and they have a far larger percentage of violent crimes then the US. As does Canada and France.

Even multiplying the number by 5, you still don't get anywhere near the Carnage we Americans engage in because of, um, "Freedom".

No way to compare murder rates. But we can compare violent crimes and Briton beats us hands down in per 100000 incidents as does Canada and France, I believe Germany did also Italy had about the same percentage.

 

[Darkwind]

Having just read that entire article I'm struggling to see where anything is "fudged"

The UK measure their murder rate by murders, and it gets called a murder rate. In America the word homocide is used which has a vastly different meaning to murder. A murder is an unlawful killing of another human beaing with malice of forethought where as a homocide is the killing of a human being under any circumstance legal or otherwise.

There is no "fudge", just a different way of recordong data. The only debate around this would be who has the better way of measuring these things and the explanation that they cannot be compared in a like for like fashion as they are two different pieces of data.

I think you need to read that again. In the US everything is referred to as a homicide until it is decided if it is murder though trial. it is still considered a death or homicide dependent on that trial or outcome in the US. Just like Zimmerman, even though found not guilty, Trayvon's death is still listed on our books as a murder. The UK however will not count a Trayvons' death as a homicide/murder, it just wont be counted at all in their homicide/murder rate, in fact the UK report says this form of counting lowers their homicide/murders by up to 15 percent. The same with any other homicide in the UK, it wont be counted at all unless convicted and or until convicted or until all appeals run out.

Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction, or where the person is not prosecuted on grounds of self defence or otherwise. This reduces the apparent number of homicides by between 13 per cent and 15 per cent.

House of Commons - Home Affairs - Appendices to the Minutes of Evidence

In the UK homicide and murder are interchangeable, Homicide is murder, murder is homicide. If you read the report in full it counts gun deaths as homicides. If you are found to be in self defense the death is not counted towards their homicide rate. The US counts everything when it adds up deaths by homicide or murder. If every single death was counted in the UK and not excluded from their homicide rate as they do their count would be much higher.

I got all of that but how is that a "fudged" figure. It's a perfectly legitmate way to report a murder rate, the amoutn of people who are actually murdered. If anything it doesn't show that the UK murder rate is artifically low, it show the US one is artifically high as justifiable homocides are chalked down as murders.

When used to present the United States as a 'violent' society, the manner and comparison of the numbers must be apples to apples in order to be legitimate. If the UK does not count deaths in the same manner as the US, then it cannot be said that the US is more violent than the UK. If, the UK counts these deaths in the same manner, then it can be said that the UK is as violent a society as the US.

People use these numbers to influence policy and affect individual liberty. It is always necessary to expose the differences in accounting. A fudge or correction in how the numbers are reported becomes a significant issue.

 

[JoeB131]

[

The stupid one is you there are only 60 million people in England there are 320 million in the US. Over 5 times as many. As I have shown before violent crime in England went UP when firearms were banned and they have a far larger percentage of violent crimes then the US. As does Canada and France.

Even multiplying the number by 5, you still don't get anywhere near the Carnage we Americans engage in because of, um, "Freedom".

No way to compare murder rates. But we can compare violent crimes and Briton beats us hands down in per 100000 incidents as does Canada and France, I believe Germany did also Italy had about the same percentage.

Actually, murder rates are the easy thing to count.

Rape and assault, however, those are pretty subjective. and the way the gun nuts get around the fact that other countries really have less of those, too, is by pointing out that they count an assault or a rape for things we'd never count them as.

Fact is, we are a violent country because we tolerate too much wealth inequality and we let too many people have guns who shouldn't have them.

 

[skookerasbil]

Stuff Black People Don't Like - SBPDL: Guns Don't Kill People; Dangerous Minorities Do -- The Chicago Edition