''The social production of moral indifference' is something I always remember from my studies.

An interesting article, his book will be a good read I'm sure.

criminal for the right price
cant agree more, i feels its inbuilt human nature, and an extension of survival of the fittest

Says who?

It's an interesting article but the only logical conclusion to be drawn from it is that reducing crime requires either a society where everything is locked, bolted and secured to the Nth degree or a society where no one has anything worth stealing. Neither appeals to me very much.

What I like about it is the recognition that crime is a "rational" choice given certain conditions and therefore changing the information available can impact crime. If people gave up on stealing cars because car security leapt ahead of them then tbey made a rational, experience based decision. Why wouldn't they equally give it up when the consequences changed and instead of getting a caution for ruining someone's pride and joy, and means of transport as well, they got 5 years in prison?

Research tends to support him to an extent although the suggestion that most people would commit crime if the opportunity arose is not necessarily true.

I've seen women I really fancy, sometimes in situations where they have little on, and have not even considered raping them. I've seen unlocked cars and not got in them to ease my journey home. The number of people who have taken found property, sometimes of considerable value, into police stations is very high.

I was building a Triton, a sort of kit motorcycle, and found some bits of stripped motorcycle at Dartford Heath and reported them as found. The only 'dishonest' bit was in saying that my wife found them as police officers have no claim to found property.

My father found a hallmarked gold ring with a large diamond on a beach when on holiday and he handed it into the police station.

I think that most people do commit crimes. However, only someone a bit odd would think that all offences are equal. 40mph in a 30 where it is very safe to do so is not dishonest.

I never lied in court or in giving evidence. However, I think there is a higher moral imperative that complying with the law.

There is a considerable, and far from subtle, difference between doing the right thing and sticking to the law.

Just watched "Prisoners" on catch-up TV. It gives an insight on the desperation felt by offenders on release from prison: Benefits and housing take weeks to organise, homeless and penniless, they feel the only option is to commit further crimes, either to put money in their pocket, or to get any roof over their heads.

I assume that your utopia ensures equal contribution from everyone too?

I shall look forward to that..........

BTW very few NEED to steal. Most do it for reasons of greed not need.

Complying with the law because it is the law is not moral. Telling a lie is not necessarily an immoral act. It is, in fact, completely amoral.

To give you an instance: I have a good friend who was my sergeant when I was an inspector. I would trust him completely. He is a man of honour, with all that that implies. One of our local corrupt briefs lied about an incident and tried to fit up a PC who had given evidence against one of his little money earners. He said at the time he'd get back at him. My sergeant gave evidence in defence of the PC which, according to my superintendent, was plainly a lie. The super had me in his office and said I needed to sort him out. I replied that I wasn't sure how to sort out a man of honour. We had a little staring match and in the end the super smiled and said: OK.

Sometimes you need to do the moral thing to do the right thing. I'd trust the sergeant with all my money, with anything in fact. He's as honest as you could possibly get and to prove it, he lied about an incident. He put himself, and his career at risk for someone who was innocent. If you knew his code of conduct you would realise that he would lie in such a situation so there was no dishonesty about it.

There was a senior detective who recently put his career, pension and income at risk by ignoring procedures (not quite the law but it meant that the courts would have to ignore evidence) to do the right thing. The problem, from my point of view, is that I do not know if I would have had the morals to do the same. At the time of my sergeant's actions I know I would not have done the same. I grew up a bit after that and before I retired I know I would, in the same situation, have lied through my teeth.

There is no simple answer, unfortunately. However, I believe that whatever you do you must be able to justify it to yourself. A law might only be immoral in specific circumstances.

I was brought up in a very moral family, extended family in fact, and I found it easy to know what was right and what was wrong. Once I joined the job and gained authority, it became a bit more difficult.

The most difficult thing I've found as I'm getting old is when remembering those things where my actions were wrong. I can accept making mistakes - I've had lots of experience at that - but when I didn't give enough, or in some cases any, thought in my actions, that's different.

The big change that came about 12/15 years ago was the way police forces were judged. Whilst stats were always returned, police performance became political. If a police force's returns made the government look ineffective then the next lot of stats had to be an improvement.

One particular force had a major drugs problem. Whilst it wasn't the drugs capital outside the capital, it still looked as if everyone was blown out of their minds, at least of a weekend. HMIC took an interest and said it had to be remedied and so the force increased the size of its drugs squad by nearly 50%. This was a disaster as those who joined the unit were keen, energetic and committed to resolving the drugs problem once and for all by displacing the dealers. So the figures went up, quite dramatically. Of course they did. Dealers were being nicked.

Then an ambitious ACC Crime decided to 'amalgamate' the drugs team with division, 'spread the expertise' being another description, and guess what happened to the figures for drugs? It was hailed as a big success, and indeed it was. Everyone was happy: the ACC C, the Home Office, the HMIC, the government and, of course, the dealers.

Only the naive will believe the figures. The only thing they show is how good the police forces are at massaging the returns.

Car crime has reduced, at least theft of, but that is due, almost entirely, to better security. The culture of car theft then changes and there is no longer the expertise in the groups that used to be such a problem. Cars are still stolen but not by casual offenders.

There is a suggestion that crime does increase when the gap between the rich and poor increases and the reverse is also true.

As for who wants to be equal: I think there are quite a few non-acquisitive people and many do not measure their happiness or their success in comparison with others. I have a cousin who was a member of MENSA. Made a considerable amount of money in software design. After a couple of years in front of a computer he decided to cycle from Alaska to Mexico with some friends. When he finished he did the journey in return on his own. The last I heard he was in Australia working with disadvantaged children and their carers. He's cracked it despite living on a pittance. He's got enough for his needs and is doing something that he believes in. His reward is not money, big house or the latest BMW.

Crime does indeed disappear when it is hidden.

Once the crime figures became political then all hope of honesty went out the window. It is the same as with teaching. Once exams stopped being a measure of the students' ability and were merely a way of judging teachers, the exam results became meaningless. It is the same with crime. A good DCI is one who keeps the figures in check.

If it pleases you to believe that crime is decreasing and is being tackled in the right way, then I'm happy for you. I can't believe the figures, nor that anyone believes them.

It was the brief who was telling lies not the officer whom he lied about.

The point is that, in the mind of the sergeant, there was more potential for corruption in allowing the solicitor to have a police officer possibly sacked for gross misconduct.

Slippery slopes? It is all about making that decision based on a moral perspective rather than just accepting rules. The slippery slope is in passing the buck and not doing something which gives a proper result just because it was a lie. That was lies disaster.

It might be nice to think that all rules are good and everyone who breaks them is bad but this is simply not the case. Sometimes, thankfully not too often, you have to make a stand. To suggest, or accept, that someone 'better than me' made the law so I must follow it is the logic of a child or someone immoral or just plain couldn't care less.

When searching a prisoner's room I saw seen a police officer throw away drugs, or rather get the father to do so, rather than take them into possession and then prosecute the lad for possession. I tackled the officer on this afterwards and the story he told was reasonable so we decided that it never happened. He was of the opinion that the lad deserved a chance. As it turned out, the lad did not learn from the experience but that did not make the action 'wrong', just fruitless.

There is potential for problems of course, but then does it outweigh the potential if the 'rules' were followed? It is something that the officer thought about and came to a conclusion.