Is sexual abuse Police officers crime of choice?
Discussion
SystemParanoia said:
An analogy is difficult with this as you dont really have a choice with the police really. they kind of have a monopoly on the market 
And thats why it makes sense to put everyone under the microscope. if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear
Sounds like the same argument as for a national identity card and DNA register for the whole population.And thats why it makes sense to put everyone under the microscope. if they have nothing to hide, they have nothing to fear
Edited by SystemParanoia on Thursday 26th January 22:05
La Liga said:
et's have a go. I've done this quickly but I think it's right.
The largest force in the UK, the Met, have had 685 officers convicted between 2005 and the start of 2016. 426 were for traffic-related matters in which the largest group within that category were for speeding convictions.
685 / 11 years = 62 per year.
62 / 32,000 (officers in the Met) = 0.0019375.
Population minus under 10s approximately 60 million.
1,250,000 convictions in 2015.
1,250,000 / 60 million 0.2083333.
0.2083333 / 0.0019375 = 107 times as many non-police officers convicted as police officers.
If you were to take 135,000 non-police officers and place them within an organisation, say an energy company, then the probability of convictions would be much greater.
The data for under 18s and over 65s would need removing as police officers will not feature from this demographic. There are also over 300,000 out of court disposals per year that are not going to be offered to a police offender.
To get anywhere near a true comparison, you'd have to analyse the crime statistics for those who aren't police officers, but who could be. So you wouldn't be including crimes committed by those ineligible to serve. (People with no educational qualifications for example, or people who've just arrived from Eritrea via Calais)The largest force in the UK, the Met, have had 685 officers convicted between 2005 and the start of 2016. 426 were for traffic-related matters in which the largest group within that category were for speeding convictions.
685 / 11 years = 62 per year.
62 / 32,000 (officers in the Met) = 0.0019375.
Population minus under 10s approximately 60 million.
1,250,000 convictions in 2015.
1,250,000 / 60 million 0.2083333.
0.2083333 / 0.0019375 = 107 times as many non-police officers convicted as police officers.
If you were to take 135,000 non-police officers and place them within an organisation, say an energy company, then the probability of convictions would be much greater.
The data for under 18s and over 65s would need removing as police officers will not feature from this demographic. There are also over 300,000 out of court disposals per year that are not going to be offered to a police offender.
Edited by La Liga on Thursday 26th January 23:47
To be fair it's almost impossible to compare the situations. I think the point is that it is more shocking when a police officer commits these sorts of crimes and should rightly be put under public scrutiny.
Bottom line is, trust nobody.
bmw535i said:
To get anywhere near a true comparison, you'd have to analyse the crime statistics for those who aren't police officers, but who could be. So you wouldn't be including crimes committed by those ineligible to serve. (People with no educational qualifications for example, or people who've just arrived from Eritrea via Calais)
There are few people (with the exception I'll come on to) who can't apply for the police. It's kind of the point not to filter people through things like education up front. Immigrants can't apply, however a lot of evidence points towards their offending rates being similar to the 'natives', so isn't relevant. By far the largest cause of ineligibility is because people have convictions. If your desire is to compare data with those ineligible, then you'd remove the entire point of the comparison.
bmw535i said:
I think the point is that it is more shocking when a police officer commits these sorts of crimes and should rightly be put under public scrutiny.
Agreed, it's high in the public interest to prosecute corrupt police officers. bmw535i said:
Bottom line is, trust nobody.
What a wonderful way to live. Rovinghawk said:
It's noteworthy that Simon Harwood was never convicted of anything despite clear evidence of assault & a good case for murder/manslaughter. Based on this I'd say your figures are suspect.
Data - your kryptonite. Evidently not clear enough for a jury.
There are seemingly strong cases that fail to obtain convictions for police and non-police officers. That's how the legal system works. Based on that I'd say your one example to try and pull down a large data set is suspect.
La Liga said:
Evidently not clear enough for a jury.
The jury never got to decide on a case of assault as he was never charged.As for any other charges, the amount of smokescreen prevented any realistic chance of conviction.
There wasn't enough evidence to convict because his employer (the Home Office) broke a lot of rules to contaminate the evidence.
One example is sufficient to show that the statistical analysis has flaws.
Rovinghawk said:
The jury never got to decide on a case of assault as he was never charged.
As for any other charges, the amount of smokescreen prevented any realistic chance of conviction.
There wasn't enough evidence to convict because his employer (the Home Office) broke a lot of rules to contaminate the evidence.
One example is sufficient to show that the statistical analysis has flaws.
The analysis is talking about convictions. It's not talking about investigations / prosecutions that would turn into convictions if X, Y and Z existed or didn't exist. As for any other charges, the amount of smokescreen prevented any realistic chance of conviction.
There wasn't enough evidence to convict because his employer (the Home Office) broke a lot of rules to contaminate the evidence.
One example is sufficient to show that the statistical analysis has flaws.
Insufficient evidence for a convictions, whether through procedural errors or whatever, apply to both police and non-police investigations / prosecutions. Unless you have evidence to the contrary (which you won't).
I know you desperately want to undermine what you don't like to read (probably for the sake of it), but you'll need to do better than that.
La Liga said:
SystemParanoia said:
And thats why it makes sense to put everyone under the microscope.
Let's have a go. I've done this quickly but I think it's right. The largest force in the UK, the Met, have had 685 officers convicted between 2005 and the start of 2016. 426 were for traffic-related matters in which the largest group within that category were for speeding convictions.
685 / 11 years = 62 per year.
62 / 32,000 (officers in the Met) = 0.0019375.
Population minus under 10s approximately 60 million.
1,250,000 convictions in 2015.
1,250,000 / 60 million 0.2083333.
0.2083333 / 0.0019375 = 107 times as many non-police officers convicted as police officers.
If you were to take 135,000 non-police officers and place them within an organisation, say an energy company, then the probability of convictions would be much greater.
The data for under 18s and over 65s would need removing as police officers will not feature from this demographic. There are also over 300,000 out of court disposals per year that are not going to be offered to a police offender.
Edited by La Liga on Thursday 26th January 23:47
There are so many factors where others could make the comparing apples and oranges arguement but what's not in doubt is a proportion of any institution when let the institution down.
I remember when Catholic priest's were the pedophiles, then it was the Muslims, then the celebrities. I'm not surprised the Police have their fair share of offenders not because I have a low opinion of Police Officers but because many statistical studies have shown that just about all institutions where it's members have access to children (Police, Social Work Departments, Charities, Priest's, Vicars, I man's, Care Organisations, The Military) have very similar proportions of their members offending.
Society as a whole has a proportion who offend. Basically as groups of people who can be collectively judged by other groups of people we are pretty much as bad as each other. The only difference is where society has held certain groups in higher regard, as more trustworthy than the rest such as the Police or Clergy then our outrage will be stronger.
The title of the thread asks a question.
Sexual abuse seems to be less common than other crimes that Police Officers are convicted of, so the answer is clearly no.
Not surprising really, assuming Police are just representative of the wider public, and that sexual abuse in the wider public sphere is horrific but not the crime of choice for most criminals.
Sexual abuse seems to be less common than other crimes that Police Officers are convicted of, so the answer is clearly no.
Not surprising really, assuming Police are just representative of the wider public, and that sexual abuse in the wider public sphere is horrific but not the crime of choice for most criminals.
La Liga said:
bmw535i said:
To get anywhere near a true comparison, you'd have to analyse the crime statistics for those who aren't police officers, but who could be. So you wouldn't be including crimes committed by those ineligible to serve. (People with no educational qualifications for example, or people who've just arrived from Eritrea via Calais)
There are few people (with the exception I'll come on to) who can't apply for the police. It's kind of the point not to filter people through things like education up front. Immigrants can't apply, however a lot of evidence points towards their offending rates being similar to the 'natives', so isn't relevant. By far the largest cause of ineligibility is because people have convictions. If your desire is to compare data with those ineligible, then you'd remove the entire point of the comparison.
bmw535i said:
I think the point is that it is more shocking when a police officer commits these sorts of crimes and should rightly be put under public scrutiny.
Agreed, it's high in the public interest to prosecute corrupt police officers. bmw535i said:
Bottom line is, trust nobody.
What a wonderful way to live. Rovinghawk said:
It's noteworthy that Simon Harwood was never convicted of anything despite clear evidence of assault & a good case for murder/manslaughter. Based on this I'd say your figures are suspect.
Data - your kryptonite. Evidently not clear enough for a jury.
There are seemingly strong cases that fail to obtain convictions for police and non-police officers. That's how the legal system works. Based on that I'd say your one example to try and pull down a large data set is suspect.
How many people don't have the qualifications to join?
How many of those not qualified have been convicted of sex abuse crimes?
As you can see, it's almost impossible to draw comparisons due to the information you'd require to make a good one. Your initial statistics are too binary to be considered realistic.
I think that when it comes to safeguarding children, it is a wise philosophy not to trust anybody.
bmw535i said:
What are the educational requirements to join the police?
How many people don't have the qualifications to join?
None. As I wrote, it's not relevant. How many people don't have the qualifications to join?
bmw535i said:
As you can see, it's almost impossible to draw comparisons due to the information you'd require to make a good one. Your initial statistics are too binary to be considered realistic.
Realistic for what? Using irrelevant filters doesn't prove realism or not. If a non-police officer commits an offence against someone, they don't care if they were eligible for the police or not. The OP was speculating about alternative occupations. The pool for alternative occupations comes from non-police officers. The filters would actually be the specific organisation in question.
How the police filter isn't relevant other than to show how it contributes to dramatically reducing the risk of having an offence committed by one of its members vs the general population.
bmw535i said:
I think that when it comes to safeguarding children, it is a wise philosophy not to trust anybody.
No it isn't. The vast majority of people who work in safeguarding are working to protect children. La Liga said:
bmw535i said:
What are the educational requirements to join the police?
How many people don't have the qualifications to join?
None. As I wrote, it's not relevant. How many people don't have the qualifications to join?
bmw535i said:
As you can see, it's almost impossible to draw comparisons due to the information you'd require to make a good one. Your initial statistics are too binary to be considered realistic.
Realistic for what? Using irrelevant filters doesn't prove realism or not. If a non-police officer commits an offence against someone, they don't care if they were eligible for the police or not. The OP was speculating about alternative occupations. The pool for alternative occupations comes from non-police officers. The filters would actually be the specific organisation in question.
How the police filter isn't relevant other than to show how it contributes to dramatically reducing the risk of having an offence committed by one of its members vs the general population.
bmw535i said:
I think that when it comes to safeguarding children, it is a wise philosophy not to trust anybody.
No it isn't. The vast majority of people who work in safeguarding are working to protect children. I think you miss the points people make (perhaps intentionally).
Of course most people are working as you describe, but those that don't can't be trusted. As we don't know who is who, it's sensible not to trust any of them.
People who molest children seek employment and opportunities to be able to do so. To trust everyone is foolish.
bmw535i said:
It is relevant.
I'm afraid relying on an irrelevant filter (education) to prove it isn't realistic (however the police vs non-police comparison isn't realistic) isn't convincing. bmw535i said:
Of course most people are working as you describe, but those that don't can't be trusted. As we don't know who is who, it's sensible not to trust any of them.
I don't see how it's rational to start from a default position of 'no trust' when you acknowledge most people do what they should be doing. The probabilities are more extreme but the principle is the same; you wouldn't start from a position of thinking a plane will crash when you fly on one.
La Liga said:
don't see how it's rational to start from a default position of 'no trust' when you acknowledge most people do what they should be doing.
The probabilities are more extreme but the principle is the same; you wouldn't start from a position of thinking a plane will crash when you fly on one.
Because I see it all too often where people trust in this situation and it turns out bad. Most, but not all. I advocate taking the least amount of risk possible - I work with a lot of people who are going through/have gone through it. They ALL say they trusted and now regret it.The probabilities are more extreme but the principle is the same; you wouldn't start from a position of thinking a plane will crash when you fly on one.
bmw535i said:
Because I see it all too often where people trust in this situation and it turns out bad. Most, but not all. I advocate taking the least amount of risk possible - I work with a lot of people who are going through/have gone through it. They ALL say they trusted and now regret it.
Fair enough I don't know your experiences. I'd never advocate blind trust and always having your eyes open. La Liga said:
bmw535i said:
Because I see it all too often where people trust in this situation and it turns out bad. Most, but not all. I advocate taking the least amount of risk possible - I work with a lot of people who are going through/have gone through it. They ALL say they trusted and now regret it.
Fair enough I don't know your experiences. I'd never advocate blind trust and always having your eyes open. 
bmw535i said:
La Liga said:
I don't see how it's unrealistic. It's pretty clear police officers are significantly less likely to be convicted than non-police officers.
I meant the police vs non-police example you first used being unrealistic. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff