Right number of murders a year?

[Ben@Forest]

Pretty gruesome really but we'll all have read about Wayne Couzens and the murder of Sarah Everard; particularly horrible because he used his status as a police officer to carry out the crime.

It has re-ignited the interest in murders of women, almost always carried out by men, and which runs at about one woman every three days. Men of course are also murdered by men and at a rate about three times higher than women. The Sunday Times published a list of all 79 women murdered (or suspected murder) since Everard's killing. It is notable that a significant number were killed by partners or even (8%) by their own sons.

However overall the rate is incredibly low. To the year ending March 2020 it was 11.7 per million population, with a 20% increase in the number of male victims, from 422 to 506 partly because of the 39 victims found dead in a lorry container and a 16% decrease in the number of female victims, from 225 to 188.

So is there an 'acceptable' rate of murder? And what is it? Or do we really think we can have a society with no murder?

[Oldjohnw]

Always glad to find someone who doesn’t take the populist view that murders are rising (and prison sentences falling).

https://www.statista.com/statistics/283 ... and-wales/

Sentence inflation has meant that sentences in excess of 10 years have increased some 20% this century.

http://www.prisonreformtrust.org.uk/pre ... sentencing


The newspapers like to make us think that it is little old ladies who get killed. Occasion they do but the main culprits are young men and the main victims are young men.

None of this is acceptable and the domestic violence homicide is particularly tragic. But we must not be made to think that this is all an increasing problem and then call for tougher sentences when this is not the truth.

There does, however, appear to be a particular problem of certain kinds of crime and even murder amongst serving Metropolitan Police Officers matched by a particular level of incompetence and cover up by senior staff.

As to your question: I consider there is no such thing as an acceptable level: zero must be the target. Reality says that we aim to reduce the numbers. Complacency must never rule.

I remember having a conversation with a Prison Board member who was proud that the Prison service had reached its target suicide level that year. I know what he meant: they planned a year on year reduction in suicides and that year it had worked (a dim and distant memory now, sadly). I pointed out how crass his statement came across and that the only target should be zero.

[pwa]

Sadly, I'm not sure there are any practical steps that could have been taken to prevent Couzens taking a life. Okay, better vetting might have highlighted that he wasn't suitable to be a police officer, so his "arrest" ploy would have been prevented. But would that have stopped him finding another way to carry out his crimes? Surely the only way he could have been stopped was during his upbringing, when whatever made him how he is happened.

There are instances where individuals are known to be a risk but nothing can be done because we have to wait for them to offend in a big way so that we can lock them away. We had a case like that recently, a few miles from here, where a person was murdered by someone who had previously been pointed out to my wife as being extremely dangerous. People could see it coming but were powerless to do anything, other than to keep out of the individual's way. But how can we deal with that? To do so could mean locking someone away before they have been charged with a serious offence, which is also something we should feel uneasy about.

Violence is certainly a mainly male problem. It's not all males, of course. I have never harmed anyone, but I have been attacked by a male nutter while walking home. So I feel a bit hard done by when people suggest I am part of the problem because I am male. The problem is with some men.

[Jdsk]

So is there an 'acceptable' rate of murder? And what is it? Or do we really think we can have a society with no murder?

The rate is low by historical and geographical comparisons.

We should aim for it to be lower.

And thanks for starting with an accurate framing of the problem. The reporting of real murders and the portrayal of fictional murders can be very misleading.

"The Better Angels of our Nature":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Bette ... Our_Nature

Highly Recommended for everyone and Mandatory for anyone who's interested in this.

Jonathan

[mattheus]

4 sensible posts - thankyou!

[reohn2]

Whilst I agree mattheus,I'd just like to make the point that there are degrees of unlawful killing.There's world of difference between a long abused wo/man turning on his her abuser in an effort to defend themselves and a cold calculated murder such as the way Sarah Everard was murdered.
Degrees of unlawful killing should be taken into account far more than they are currently in the UK justice system.



BTW,I also believe we shouldn't use the murder's name anymore than needs be.

[[XAP]Bob]

So is there an 'acceptable' rate of murder? And what is it? Or do we really think we can have a society with no murder?

The acceptable rate is zero.

Can we afford the costs to get there, probably not. (Not necessarily financial costs)

The "degrees of unlawful killing" comment...
That should, I would have hoped, be accounted for by killings in self defence not being classified as murder.

I'd quite like to see the US term, vehicular homicide, brought over - which would I suspect increase the overall count, but may somewhat increase people's awareness that driving kills.

[mattheus]

So is there an 'acceptable' rate of murder? And what is it? Or do we really think we can have a society with no murder?

The acceptable rate is zero.

Can we afford the costs to get there, probably not. (Not necessarily financial costs)

I think you contradict yourself there: as you say, there would be significant costs to society to get the rate down to zero.

Most would agree - if they saw these costs in full - that given those realities, we have to accept a rate above zero. Sadly.

But this is hair-splitting - I'm sure we all agree that society should aim to REDUCE the rate.

(just as we should aim to reduce the rate of KSIs on our roads).

[Psamathe]

I wonder in the idea of an "acceptable rate" is more complex and needs to be split by degree of "avoidable" e.g. are there too many murders that could be avoided if the warning signs were acted on?

In the case of Mr Couzens it now seems to be "early days" as we launch into many as yet undefined reviews and enquiries and by the time they report no doubt Ms Dick will be back to calling it "my Met" (rather than her recent switch to "the Met") and declaring that she has already made changes and "lessons have been learnt" and press will long ago have found something else to focus on ...

Edit: And I see the cost of addressing some/many(?) avoidable murders has other benefits e.g. better mental healthcare provision does not only help avoid potential murders. It might cost but it has wider benefits for society.

Ian

[Jdsk]

I wonder in the idea of an "acceptable rate" is more complex and needs to be split by degree of "avoidable" e.g. are there too many murders that could be avoided if the warning signs were acted on?

I don't think that acceptable is a useful term.

And any constructive discussion of murders needs to categorise them, as in the original post. And then deal with each category separately.

Jonathan

[thirdcrank]

A couple of items currently on the BBC www

Lilly Hanrahan: Case review finds missed chances to check on killer

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-b ... m-58800569

(The only mention of "police" in this sad story is on the killer's mugshot.)

Wiltshire Police step up patrols to deter sex predators

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-58791914

Uniform patrol is one of my many hobby horses, of course. As is policing by media release. How many and for how long this will continue are the questions concerned Wiltshire residents should be asking of their police "boss"

https://www.wiltshire-pcc.gov.uk/

[[XAP]Bob]

So is there an 'acceptable' rate of murder? And what is it? Or do we really think we can have a society with no murder?

The acceptable rate is zero.

Can we afford the costs to get there, probably not. (Not necessarily financial costs)

I think you contradict yourself there: as you say, there would be significant costs to society to get the rate down to zero.

Most would agree - if they saw these costs in full - that given those realities, we have to accept a rate above zero. Sadly.

But this is hair-splitting - I'm sure we all agree that society should aim to REDUCE the rate.

(just as we should aim to reduce the rate of KSIs on our roads).

Yeah - OK - I see the point...

Call it a compromise rate - It's unacceptable, but the cost of lowering it even further is even less acceptable...

[pwa]

I suspect that even in a Utopian society where boys are brought up nicely and all streets are well lit, there would still be the occasional rogue male who attacks women. The best that we can hope for is that we get better at taking the positive actions that we can, so that events like this are kept to an minimum. So "the right number of murders" (odd way to put it) would be where only the unavoidable ones happen. And that would be a very small number perpetrated by highly exceptional individuals.

[thirdcrank]

Really, you are talking about what society will put up with and as an abstract figure, it's quite high and even higher if you include all violent deaths - eg in vehicle crashes - rather than just those judicially classified as murder.

Some newsworthy unlawful killings are, well, newsworthy, but an awful lot don even figure "in other news."

[Ben@Forest]

I suspect that even in a Utopian society where boys are brought up nicely and all streets are well lit, there would still be the occasional rogue male who attacks women. The best that we can hope for is that we get better at taking the positive actions that we can, so that events like this are kept to an minimum. So "the right number of murders" (odd way to put it) would be where only the unavoidable ones happen. And that would be a very small number perpetrated by highly exceptional individuals.

A large proportion of female murders are carried out by partners and other family members. You'd hope education and upbringing would or could reduce this number, but l can't see it ever completely being eradicated. There's also domestic violence between same sex couples which may have increased the reporting of domestic violence affecting men.