Lower Drinking Age?

[HoustonGM]

The demand for the product created the black market which led to organized crime. The demand for the product was so large BECAUSE IT WAS LEGAL PRIOR and society became not only accustomed to it, but it was a neccessity!!

And how does that explain the black markets and organized crime associated with other drugs such as marijuana, that exist today?.

Drugs and alcohol are the most significant factor in crime today, and not usage of the products alone but criminal activity caused while under the influence of these drugs.

And also criminal activity that stems from the black markets and organized crime associated with them...because they are illegal.

[ohms_law]

Our prisons are most certainly not packed with these people. Our prisons are packed with those who distribute drugs large scale, or those who have used it and committed other crimes such as DUI, theft to support their habit, domestic abuse, etc. Drugs and alcohol are the most significant factor in crime today, and not usage of the products alone but criminal activity caused while under the influence of these drugs.

lol!

• The Department of Justice reported that by Sept. 30, 2006, federal prisons held a total of 176,268 inmates, of whom 93,751 (53%) were drug offenders. By comparison in 2000 federal prisons held 131,739 total inmates of whom 74,276 (56%) were drug offenders, and in 1995 federal prisons held a total of 88,658 inmates of whom 52,782 (60%) were drug offenders.
  Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, Couture, Heather, and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2007), NCJ219416, p. 26, Appendix Table 13; and Harrison, Paige M. & Allen J. Beck, PhD, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2005 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, November 2006), p. 10, Table 14.
  
  
• In 2006, drug law violators comprised 19.6% of all adults serving time in State prisons - 249,400 out of 1,274,600 State prison inmates.
  Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, Couture, Heather, and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2007), NCJ219416, p. 24, Appendix Table 9, and p. 25, Appendix Table 10.
  
  
• According to the US Justice Department, 27.9% of drug offenders in state prisons are serving time for possession; 69.4% are serving time for trafficking offenses; and 2.7% are in for "other."
  Source: Mumola, Christopher J., and Karberg, Jennifer C., "Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004," (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, Oct. 2006) (NCJ213530), p. 4.
  
  
• According to the Justice Department, 5.3% of drug offenders in federal prisons are serving time for possession; 91.4% are serving time for trafficking offenses; and 3.3% are in for "other."
  Source: Mumola, Christopher J., and Karberg, Jennifer C., "Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004," (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, Oct. 2006) (NCJ213530), p. 4.
  
  
• Over 80% of the increase in the federal prison population from 1985 to 1995 was due to drug convictions.
  Source: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1996 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 1997).

...should I go on?

[HoustonGM]

No country has freedom. Not America, Not Canada, not anyone else.

I don't have the freedom to steal a car, or kick Bush in the nuts. So I am not truly free.

That's because you're harming others, and people shouldn't have the freedom to harm others in such ways, but that doesn't mean that freedom can't exist. Okay, fine, "absolute freedom" in the sense that you can do absolutely anything you want no matter what regardless of the consequences, won't exist, nor should it, though.

[justanewguy]

Legalizing drugs has been tried time and time again in our country and others. Its been a failure in most cases.

Please provide us with at least one specific case. I'm curious.

Our prisons are most certainly not packed with these people. Our prisons are packed with those who distribute drugs large scale, or those who have used it and committed other crimes such as DUI, theft to support their habit, domestic abuse, etc.

In most states, possessing several pounds of marijuana can get you slapped with "intent to distribute" and is a felony.

You can also go to prison for having relatively "reasonable" amounts of hard drugs for personal use.

On the extreme other hand, someone who is pushing gobs and gobs of say, cocaine, is not forcing the people buying the cocaine to buy it. They're making it available. This is different than, say, killing somebody. The cocaine seller is causing little harm to society on his own. It takes a demand to create the supply.

Drugs and alcohol are the most significant factor in crime today, and not usage of the products alone but criminal activity caused while under the influence of these drugs.

They're a factor because... they're illegal. Don't you get that? If you make something illegal, you can't point at it being a "significant factor in crime" and think that's an argument for WHY it should be illegal.

I'd also like to see proof that marijuana users engage in criminal activities because they're under the influence.

And I'd like to see proof that users of ecstasy, hell, even cocaine, PCP, crack, heroin, or meth users, are engaging in criminal activities because they're under the influence. Other than criminal activities which are related to the fact that drugs are illegal.

[dickay]

It still blows my mind the number of "Americans" who don't believe in freedom. And usually, these are the very ones that use the word the most times in their speeches.

I don't know who you were referring to, but I will say it blows my mind how many people don't know what 'freedom' is with regard to our consitution.

Our constitution, and its use of the word 'freedom' and 'liberty' does not give anyone the ability to do whatever you want, whenever you want. As someone mentioned in another thread, I can roll up to a stop sign at 11:00PM and make a rationale decision whether or not I need to stop, but the law says I must. Same goes with exceeding the speed limit, driving on the right side of the road, pi$$ing in the woods, etc.etc.etc.

Personal freedom is not gained by having the 'right' to smoke a joint, inject needles, or indulge in binge drinking. It is not about having the right to scream fire in a movie theatre, bomb in an airport, or to have anthrax in your basement. All these have proven in many cases to have a negative effect on society as a whole and TAKE AWAY the personal freedom of others. Sure, some people can smoke a joint, drink a beer, etc.etc. without causing harm...as some people can fly through the stop sign without issue. Its still illegal and in large part the activity as a whole jeopardizes the safety of the society taking away others personal freedoms. To enjoy those personal freedoms, law must be in place to provide safety and protection.

Nobody thinks twice about the 'infringement on personal freedom' with regards to screaming fire in a crowded theatre. How is that different than allowing everyone to shoot up crack cocaine whenever they want? Both have proven to not only endanger the one doing it, but also others.

No country has freedom. Not America, Not Canada, not anyone else.

I don't have the freedom to steal a car, or kick Bush in the nuts. So I am not truly free.

wow....very well said. I am actually in full agreement with you, for the first time in quite awhile

lol!

• The Department of Justice reported that by Sept. 30, 2006, federal prisons held a total of 176,268 inmates, of whom 93,751 (53%) were drug offenders. By comparison in 2000 federal prisons held 131,739 total inmates of whom 74,276 (56%) were drug offenders, and in 1995 federal prisons held a total of 88,658 inmates of whom 52,782 (60%) were drug offenders.
  Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, Couture, Heather, and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2007), NCJ219416, p. 26, Appendix Table 13; and Harrison, Paige M. & Allen J. Beck, PhD, US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2005 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, November 2006), p. 10, Table 14.
  
  
• In 2006, drug law violators comprised 19.6% of all adults serving time in State prisons - 249,400 out of 1,274,600 State prison inmates.
  Source: Sabol, William J., PhD, Couture, Heather, and Harrison, Paige M., Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 2006 (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice, December 2007), NCJ219416, p. 24, Appendix Table 9, and p. 25, Appendix Table 10.
  
  
• According to the US Justice Department, 27.9% of drug offenders in state prisons are serving time for possession; 69.4% are serving time for trafficking offenses; and 2.7% are in for "other."
  Source: Mumola, Christopher J., and Karberg, Jennifer C., "Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004," (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, Oct. 2006) (NCJ213530), p. 4.
  
  
• According to the Justice Department, 5.3% of drug offenders in federal prisons are serving time for possession; 91.4% are serving time for trafficking offenses; and 3.3% are in for "other."
  Source: Mumola, Christopher J., and Karberg, Jennifer C., "Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004," (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, Oct. 2006) (NCJ213530), p. 4.
  
  
• Over 80% of the increase in the federal prison population from 1985 to 1995 was due to drug convictions.
  Source: US Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Prisoners in 1996 (Washington DC: US Department of Justice, 1997).

...should I go on?

LMAO...cmon Ohms, you know full well I can cherry pick misleading information as well (and have). This little blurb proves my point that drug use leads to crime, which is why most of our inmates are incarcerated. In most of the cases when someone is incarcerated for a 'drug conviction' it usually involves other crimes at the same time. Its not the 'user' who are in jail, its the one trafficing the drug or the 'user' who commits other criminal activity. They are still classified as drug convictions. I think your stats pretty much confirm that.

And I'd like to see proof that users of ecstasy, hell, even cocaine, PCP, crack, heroin, or meth users, are engaging in criminal activities because they're under the influence. Other than criminal activities which are related to the fact that drugs are illegal.

They are very easy to find. I've listed quite a few sources numerous times in other threads. Feel free to do yourself this time, i'm pretty much tired of this run around.

[ohms_law]

Let's interject a few real facts into this, shall we?

• The chart below illustrates the homicide rate in the United States from 1900 to 1998. It is important to note that each of the most violent episodes in this century coincide with the prohibition on alcohol and the escalation of the modern-day war on drugs. In 1933 the homicide rate peaked at 9.7 per 100,000 people, which was the year that alcohol prohibition was finally repealed. In 1980, the homicide rate peaked again at 10 per 100,000.
  Source: US Census Data and FBI Uniform Crime Reports.
  
  
  
• "Generalizing from the findings on Prohibition, we can hypothesize that decriminalization would increase the use of the previously criminalized drug, but would decrease violence associated with attempts to control illicit markets and as resolutions to disputes between buyers and sellers. Moreover, because the perception of violence associated with the drug market can lead people who are not directly involved to be prepared for violent self-defense, there could be additional reductions in peripheral settings when disputes arise (see Blumstein & Cork, 1997; Sheley & Wright, 1996)."
  Source: Jensen, Gary F., "Prohibition, Alcohol, and Murder: Untangling Countervailing Mechanisms," Homicide Studies, Vol. 4, No. 1 (Sage Publications: Thousand Oaks, CA, February 2000), pp. 33-4.
  
  
• In 1988 in New York City, 85% of crack-related crimes were caused by the market culture associated with illicit crack sales, primarily territorial disputes between rival crack dealers.
  Source: Goldstein, P.J., Brownstein, H.H., Ryan, P.J. & Bellucci, P.A., "Crack and Homicide in New York City: A Case Study in the Epidemiology of Violence," in Reinarman, C. and Levine, H. (eds.), Crack in America: Demon Drugs and Social Justice (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1997), pp. 113-130.
  
  
• The average "dealer" holds a low-wage job and sells part-time to obtain drugs for his or her own use.
  Source: Reuter, P., MacCoun, R., & Murphy, P., Money from Crime: A Study of the Economics of Drug Dealing in Washington DC (Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation, 1990), pp. 49-50.
  
  
• Of the 1,889,810 arrests for drug law violations in 2006, 82.5% (1,559,093) were for possession of a controlled substance. Only 17.5% (330,717) were for the sale or manufacture of a drug.
  Source: Crime in America: FBI Uniform Crime Reports 2006 (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, 2007), Table 29, from the web at http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_29.html and Arrest Table: Arrests for Drug Abuse Violations, from the web http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/arrests/index.html last accessed Sept. 24, 2007.
  
  
• "The gateway hypothesis holds that abusable drugs occupy distinct ranks in a hierarchy as well as definite positions in a temporal sequence. Accordingly, substance use is theorized to progress through a sequence of stages, beginning with legal, socially acceptable compounds that are low in the hierarchy, followed by use of illegal 'soft' and later 'hard' drugs ranked higher in the hierarchy. One of the main findings of this study is that there is a high rate of nonconformance with this temporal order. In a neighborhood where there is high drug availability, youths who have low parental supervision are likely to regularly consume marijuana before alcohol and/or tobacco. Consumption of marijuana prior to use of licit drugs thus appears to be related to contextual factors rather than to any unique characteristics of the individual. Moreover, this reverse pattern is not rare; it was observed in over 20% of our sample."
  Source: Tarter, Ralph E., PhD, Vanyukov, Michael, PhD, Kirisci, Levent, PhD, Reynolds, Maureen, PhD, Clark, Duncan B., MD, PhD, "Predictors of Marijuana Use in Adolescents Before and After Licit Drug Use: Examination of the Gateway Hypothesis," American Journal of Psychiatry, Vol. 63, No. 12, December 2006, p. 2138.
  
  
  
• "There is no conclusive evidence that the drug effects of marijuana are causally linked to the subsequent abuse of other illicit drugs."
  Source: Janet E. Joy, Stanley J. Watson, Jr., and John A Benson, Jr., "Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base," Division of Neuroscience and Behavioral Research, Institute of Medicine (Washington, DC: National Academy Press, 1999).

Withdrawal: Presence and severity of characteristic withdrawal symptoms.

Reinforcement: A measure of the substance's ability, in human and animal tests, to get users to take it again and again, and in preference to other substances.

Tolerance: How much of the substance is needed to satisfy increasing cravings for it, and the level of stable need that is eventually reached.

Dependence: How difficult it is for the user to quit, the relapse rate, the percentage of people who eventually become dependent, the rating users give their own need for the substance and the degree to which the substance will be used in the face of evidence that it causes harm.

Intoxication: Though not usually counted as a measure of addiction in itself, the level of intoxication is associated with addiction and increases the personal and social damage a substance may do.

Source: Jack E. Henningfield, PhD for NIDA, Reported by Philip J. Hilts, New York Times, Aug. 2, 1994 "Is Nicotine Addictive? It Depends on Whose Criteria You Use."

[ohms_law]

Nobody thinks twice about the 'infringement on personal freedom' with regards to screaming fire in a crowded theatre. How is that different than allowing everyone to shoot up crack cocaine whenever they want? Both have proven to not only endanger the one doing it, but also others.

Yelling "fire!" in a crowded building directly endangers the safety of others. Even so, doing that is a misdemeanor, not a Federal felony!

Drug or alcohol abuse directly harms... one person. The user.

LMAO...cmon Ohms, you know full well I can cherry pick misleading information as well (and have). This little blurb proves my point that drug use leads to crime, which is why most of our inmates are incarcerated. In most of the cases when someone is incarcerated for a 'drug conviction' it usually involves other crimes at the same time. Its not the 'user' who are in jail, its the one trafficing the drug or the 'user' who commits other criminal activity. They are still classified as drug convictions. I think your stats pretty much confirm that.

The FBI and the Justice Department don't seem to agree with you.

[justanewguy]

LMAO...cmon Ohms, you know full well I can cherry pick misleading information as well (and have). This little blurb proves my point that drug use leads to crime, which is why most of our inmates are incarcerated. In most of the cases when someone is incarcerated for a 'drug conviction' it usually involves other crimes at the same time. Its not the 'user' who are in jail, its the one trafficing the drug or the 'user' who commits other criminal activity. They are still classified as drug convictions. I think your stats pretty much confirm that.

Actually, the user does go to prison, often. Those stats show it, if you take another look. They go to state prison, because possession laws are state issues. In some states, there are way more users imprisoned than in other states.

And as I mentioned before, having a few pounds of weed can get you charged with intent to distribute.

They are very easy to find. I've listed quite a few sources numerous times in other threads. Feel free to do yourself this time, i'm pretty much tired of this run around.

That's very, very weak.

You can't even provide an instance of when drugs were legalized or decriminalized and it was a "failure" as you stated. THIS should be easy, since you said it's happened "time and time again." Or are you going to expect me to hunt through these forums for the time you mentioned one of those instances? Can you at least name a country or state and a time, and the effects? I'd settle for an anecdote, even. There's gotta be at least one off the top of your head, right?

[OldFatGuy]

No country has freedom. Not America, Not Canada, not anyone else.

I don't have the freedom to steal a car, or kick Bush in the nuts. So I am not truly free.

Nobody suggests total freedom. Both of your examples are harming others, though Bush may deserve a kick in the nuts. Nobody ever suggested freedom means doing ANYTHING, it means freedom to do anything that doesn't harm or endanger others. It's not that difficult. Freedom of speech doesn't mean you can say anything, it means you can say anything that doesn't harm others (like libel or screaming fire in a crowded theater).

I love these bogus arguments. Dickay is especially good at them. They don't hold water, as the bottom line is still the same. If you don't believe people should be able to say whatever they want as long as though don't endanger others, then you don't believe in freedom of speech. Period.

If you don't believe in freedom of adults to choose their own lives as long as they don't harm others, then you don't believe in basic freedom. Period. Again, it doesn't mean free to kill, steal, harm, or otherwise endanger others person or things. You can muddy the waters with these bogus arguments, but it doesn't change the underlying facts.

I could come up with studies showing how millions of people have died as a direct result of religion. Religous wars and acts of violence in the name of religion have resulted in millions of deaths. And I believe that's terrible, and I believe religion is nothing but a load of crap anyway.

So, I take those beliefs and take those statistics and begin to lobby for making religion illegal. My "crusade" takes hold, and soon it becomes obvious I've got enough folks convinced of the evils of religion that the law or consititutional amendment required to make religion illegal will soon pass.

How would you feel? Bet you would take it as a personal offence if you're the religious type, and wouldn't like me very much.

You know what, I don't blame you. That's why I would never do it. I think religion causes harm to society and to individuals alike, but unlike others, I do believe in basic freedom. But they deem themselves all knowing and wise to tell others what they can and can't do. Would go absolutely nuts if I tried what I suggested and got away with it, but have no problem whatsover doing the exact same thing to others.

Arrogant, and hypocrits.

[ohms_law]

Well said OFG.

[ohms_law]

hehe
It does often seem that way, doesn't it?


ps: I took out most of the content from my quote, since it's so long.

[dickay]

You can't even provide an instance of when drugs were legalized or decriminalized and it was a "failure" as you stated. THIS should be easy, since you said it's happened "time and time again." Or are you going to expect me to hunt through these forums for the time you mentioned one of those instances? Can you at least name a country or state and a time, and the effects? I'd settle for an anecdote, even. There's gotta be at least one off the top of your head, right?

Ugh...but ok I'll play your game. Rather than me posting, again, sources where this has happened, i'll give you the info so you can do so yourself. Maybe this effort will work better, as despite how many times I post it naysayers refuse to admit the facts.

- 1919 to I believe 1923 the US gave out free drugs to addicts, legalizing it for them hoping to reduce criminal activity they were causing.

- California decriminalized marijauna in the mid-70's. Abuse, DUI's and other crimes increased dramatically. Same thing happened in 10 other states that legalized it in the 70's.

- Alaska and Oregon in the mid 70's...both legalized, and after it failed re-criminalized drug use.

- In the late 1800's, opium addiction was through the roof while legalized.

- Switzerland and it's 'Needle Park' (forget the time period, 90's I think)

- England laxed laws allowing clinics to distribute heroin in the 60's & 70's. By the mid 80's it was learned that addiction greatly increased, leading to increased medical burden on society and increased domestic violence and criminal behavior to support the addicition. It was learned that more people left these 'clinical treatment programs' because of criminal activity than because they were being cured/helped.

- Amsterdam, a city where drugs are practically legalized entirely for all intensive purposes has seen addiction rise dramatically in the decade and its been stated that 80% of all property crimes are caused by these addicts. This is the reason Amsterdam must have a police force much larger than comparable sized American cities.

- Even with its lax drug laws, 50% of those imprisoned in the Netherlands are there because of drug related crime. It is the most crime prone country in Europe, and most addicts live on state welfare programs and criminal behavior. The Dutch are getting stricter with Drug Laws and there is a big push to do so.

- Spain and Italy both legalized use but not sale of cocaine and heroin in the 80's or early 90's. Addiction, and crime increased and both countries now have the highest rate of addiction and abuse in all of Europe.

- In the late 1800's and early 1900's China allowed legal use and sale of opium. An obscene amount of addiction and abuse took place to where the govt. was forced to criminalize, and get very strict on its usage. China does not have the type of problem Europe, or even us here in America now have related to drug crimes.

- Egypt in the 20's or 30's legalized drugs, then subsequently years later criminalized them, citing increased usage especially among youth and excessive criminal behavior.

- Singapore also faced a heroin epidemic after legalizing the drug and has since criminilized it.

There ya go...have fun doing some research. As with any study, one can find fault both ways. As with whats happening with the Netherlands, time and time again countries tried the legalization route, only to go and criminalize it thereafter.

In a 2001 study, the British Home Office found while the Netherlands have become the worlds leading producer of ecstasy, violent crime and property crime increased in the late 1990s in every wealthy country except the United States. It is estimated that overall drug use in America has been reduced by more than a third since the early 1980s. That's 9 million fewer people using illegal drugs. Cocaine use has been reduced by an astounding 70 percent in the past 15 years. The War on Drugs has been far from a success. Rather than going 180, I'm more of a proponent of examining what and why it has not been more successful and trying to correct it.

Illicit drug use is not a victimless crime because the user, his family, and society suffer social and economic costs.

[ohms_law]

where the heck are you getting this information from? It's just... wrong. Actually, it's worse than that because it's partially right.

Rather than going 180, I'm more of a proponent of examining what and why it has not been more successful and trying to correct it.

That's exactly my point!
wow

Criminalizing drug use solves nothing. It never has, and it never will. There are reasons the people use, and those reasons are what needs to be attacked, not the use itself! That's the whole point behind these arguments, for me.

[ohms_law]

Let's just pick out one thing from your list as an example, though:

- Amsterdam, a city where drugs are practically legalized entirely for all intensive purposes has seen addiction rise dramatically in the decade and its been stated that 80% of all property crimes are caused by these addicts. This is the reason Amsterdam must have a police force much larger than comparable sized American cities.

• Violent crime rates in The Netherlands are much lower than in the US, as is the rate of transmission of HIV/AIDS through injection drug use.
  Source: van Dijk, Frans, and de Waard, Jaap, "Legal Infrastructure of the Netherlands in an International Perspective: Crime Control" (The Hague, Netherlands: Ministry of Justice Directorate of Strategy Development, June 2000).
  
  
• The level of official corruption in The Netherlands, as reported by the watchdog group Transparency International and noted by the Dutch Ministry of Justice, is remarkably low, rating a better score in the Corruption Perception Index than the UK, Germany, and Austria, all of whom were rated as less corrupt than the US.
  Sources: "Transparency International Annual Report 2000" (Berlin, Germany: Transparency International) from the web at http://www.transparency.org/document...00/ti2000.html last accessed Oct. 13, 2000, and van Dijk, Frans, and de Waard, Jaap, "Legal Infrastructure of the Netherlands in an International Perspective: Crime Control" (The Hague, Netherlands: Ministry of Justice Directorate of Strategy Development, June 2000).
  
  
• According to a report in the British Medical Journal in September of 2000, "Cannabis use among Dutch schoolchildren aged 10-18 years has fallen for the first time in 16 years, a national survey of risk behaviour among 10,000 young people has shown." The story notes that according to Trimbos, the Netherlands Institute for Mental Health and Addiction ( www.trimbos.nl ), "about one in five young people had used cannabis at some point in their lives but less than a tenth had used it in the previous four weeks ("current users")."
  Source: Sheldon, Tony, "Cannabis use falls among Dutch youth," British Medical Journal (London, England: September 16, 2000), vol. 321, p. 655.

Regardless, this pretty much talks about every point you brought up:
Distortion 13: The drug war has reduced crime in the US compared with other nations.
"It's interesting that, in a 2001 study, the British Home Office found that violent crime and property crime increased in the late 1990s in every wealthy country except the United States. No doubt effective drug enforcement had a part in declining crime in the United States."
Source: Asa Hutchinson, "European Experience Shows Legalizing Drugs Doesn't Work," St. Paul Pioneer Press, Oct. 11, 2002.

False. This assertion is based on a comparison of reported rates of crime in various countries, including that of the US as reported by the FBI in its Uniform Crime Reports. The research was performed for the UK's Home Office Research Development & Statistics Directorate. While it is true that the RDS performs an annual review of crime statistics data, the comparison that Hutchinson and others try to make using these annual reports is invalid. According to "International Comparisons of Criminal Justice Statistics 2000" by Gordon Barclay and Cynthia Tavares for the RDS, dated 12 July 2002:
"Although most countries collect information on the number of crimes recorded or reported by the police, absolute comparisons of crime levels are often misleading. Recorded crime levels will be affected by many factors including:
a) Different legal and criminal justice systems;
b) Rates at which crimes are reported to the police and recorded by them;
c) Differences in the point at which crime is measured. For some countries, this is the time at which the offence is reported to the police while for others recording does not take place until a suspect is identified and the papers are forwarded to the prosecutor;
d) Differences in the rules by which multiple offences are counted;
e) Differences in the list of offences that are included in the overall crime figures;
f) Changes in data quality." (p. 2)

Source: Gordon Barclay and Cynthia Tavares, "International Comparisons of Criminal Justice Statistics 2000," UK Home Office, Research Development & Statistics Directorate, dated July 12, 2002, available online at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs2/hosb502.pdf, last accessed Dec. 17, 2002.

The report on the other hand also notes that "Since the definition of homicide is similar in most countries, absolute comparisons of rates are possible. For the period 1998 to 2000, the average rate (the number of homicides per 100,000 population) was 1.7 in EU Member States with the highest rates in Northern Ireland (3.1), Spain (2.8) Finland (2.6), Scotland (2.2) and Sweden (2.1). The rate in England & Wales (1.5) was below the average. For the other countries, the highest rates were found in South Africa (54.3), Estonia (11.4), Lithuania (8.9), Latvia (6.5) and the USA (5.9). (p. 3)

Another source of data comparing crime rates internationally is the International Crime Victimisation Survey, or ICVS. According to the fourth such survey, conducted in 2000:
"Generally speaking, the ICVS suggests that crime rose between 1988 and 1991, stabilised or fell in 1995, then fell back more in 1999. This is the dominant pattern in many individual countries.
"The picture in North America differs from that in Europe. The USA has shown consistent drops in crime since 1988. Canada had a modest increase in 1991, but lower figures in 1995 as well as in 1999, leaving overall crime levels lower than in 1988. In the three European countries with four ICVS measures (England and Wales, Finland and the Netherlands), crime levels are still higher than in 1988, despite a fall in risks in 1999. Compared with 1991, risks fell more in North America than in five of the seven European countries showing falls."
Source: Van Kesteren, J.N., Mayhew, P. & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2000) Criminal Victimisation in Seventeen Industrialised Countries: Key-findings from the 2000 international Crime Victims Survey. The Hague, Ministry of Justice, WODC. Available online at http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publicatio...000i/index.htm. p. 49

Unfortunately the survey uses too small a sample to produce useful results. As noted in the ICVS report, a sample of only 1,000 people was used in the US survey, with a response rate of 60%. The sample for the Netherlands -- a smaller country -- was 2,001, and had a 58% response rate. (p. 17) The report itself notes that "Samples were usually of 2,000 people, which mean there is a fairly wide sampling error on the ICVS estimates. The surveys cannot, then, give precise estimates of crime in different countries." (p. 1)

At p. 24 the report notes: "The relatively small sample sizes in the ICVS mean that it is often a matter of statistical chance which country, among those with high levels, emerges with the highest rate on any particular type of crime."

The types of crimes being measured are another concern. For example, one of the 11 crimes which the ICVS asked about is bicycle theft, the prevalence of which is reported to be much higher in the Netherlands than in the US. On the other hand, according to Figure 7 on p. 48, the US ranks third in the incidence rate for "very serious" crime among the 16 developed nations surveyed, behind only first-place England & Wales and second-place Australia. Following the US in fourth place is drug-warrior nation Sweden, then the Netherlands, then Canada. The bottom four: Portugal, Denmark, Japan, then the nation with the lowest incidence of very serious crime, Finland.

Source: Van Kesteren, J.N., Mayhew, P. & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2000) Criminal Victimisation in Seventeen Industrialised Countries: Key-findings from the 2000 international Crime Victims Survey. The Hague, Ministry of Justice, WODC. Available online at http://www.unicri.it/icvs/publicatio...000i/index.htm.

The real crime victimization rates in the US may be much different. Certainly, the rate at which crimes are reported to law enforcement is much lower than that shown in the ICVS. The US Justice Department conducts its own annual Crime Victimization Survey (for which "In 2001, 43,680 households and 79,950 people age 12 or older were interviewed. For the 2000 NCVS data presented here, the response rate was 93.0% of eligible households and 89.3% of eligible individuals." Criminal Victimization 2001, p. 13) According to it:
"Forty-nine percent of all violent victimizations and 37% of all property crimes were reported to the police during 2001. Of the violent crimes in 2001, 39% of rape/sexual assault, 61% of robbery, 59% of aggravated assault and 45% of simple assault were brought to the attention of the police. Motor vehicle theft continued to be the property crime reported to the police at the highest percentage (82%). Fifty-four percent of burglaries and 30% of theft were reported to the police, 2001."
Source: Rennison, Callie, PhD, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Criminal Victimization 2001: Changes 2000-01 with Trends 1993-2001" (Washington, DC: US Dept. of Justice, Sept. 2002), p. 10.

[RedsoxRockies]

Ohms, Ohms, Ohms, when will you learn that it is painful to read long things on a computer screen? Make it shorter, maybe the letters a bit biger. I can't read this because it is too crowded and long, and the computer moniter's glare hurts.