Crime is, once again, a leading political issue in this country. The sense of societal collapse, generalised disorder and collective distrust is palpable. Foreign governments are warning their citizens of potential dangers, Oxford Street shoppers are being told to hide their phones, all whilst tens of thousands of foreign men illegally break into the country.
With this in mind, I recently attended a Safer Neighbourhood panel in Clapham. In theory, these panels allow local police to communicate with residents, understand their priorities and to collaboratively work together to solve crime.
The meeting had a Chairwoman flanked by a community police officer on each side. After the meeting, I discovered that the Chairwoman is a local Labour activist.
We were given the crime statistics for the local area over the prior month. I asked if we could have some information on how many of these crimes had been solved. The answer was no.
Most of the meeting was given to the questions and concerns of those in attendance. It became clear that the statistics presented were a vast underestimate.
The shops on a nearby street had been repeatedly robbed in prior weeks. Many of these thefts were not reflected in the statistics as the shops believe that thefts under £200 will not be investigated.
Nonetheless, a Labour councillor in attendance addressed this spate of crimes. She reassured the room that she was in regular contact with at least one of the shops. She told us that the shop is in the process of erecting protective barriers and screens, that the shop’s staff had been instructed not to interfere with shoplifters and that a dedicated security guard for the shop was a possibility. The possibility of punishing those perpetrating criminality was an afterthought.
We have, of course, all become accustomed to this alcatrazation of our shops, with tags on cheese and steel bars at checkouts. We should never think it is normal. Criminals should pay the price for crime, not the law-abiding public. Since 2015, criminals are the one group who appear to have become more safe, as prosecution rates have tumbled.
A lady at the meeting complained of the regular clickity-clackety sound of stolen Lime bikes. She asked the police if they intervene when they come across people peddling these unpaid Limes.
The police said yes. Upon encountering a stolen Lime bike, they stop it. However, that’s where the law enforcement ends, as according to the police — it is “usually just kids messing around.” As such they do nothing and send them on their way.
I asked the panel what else they applied this approach to. Do they arrest youths smoking cannabis, or committing small shoplifting offences. These crimes warrant 3 years and 6 months imprisonment respectively.
The answer was no. In almost all cases, they do not arrest those committing such crimes. I was told that in a world of competing priorities the police simply did not have time to go after these “small” crimes.
Yet small crimes lead to big crimes. A generalised sense of disorder in which crimes go unpunished reduces deterrence and breaks down collective responsibility, leading to a downward spiral.
One example the panel gave was of a boy who stole a drink from a local shop. They laughingly dismissed the notion that the police should waste time on this crime. The inaction of the police dramatically increases the chances of the boy stealing again, and his friends doing the same.
I tried explaining this to the officers, referencing James Q. Wilson and George L. Kelling’s “Broken windows theory”. I also pointed out that a local drug dealing haunt, much discussed earlier in the meeting, is inherently linked to the consumption of drugs. If they don’t arrest those in possession of drugs on the demand side of the criminal equation, the problem will persist.
After my intervention, one of the attendees, who is the leader of a significant community group interjected. She asked if I really think everyone who commits a crime should be arrested. Naturally, I said yes, which invited furore from the room, including from a sitting Labour councillor.
Britain’s crime doom loop will continue until the police decide to go after every crime and enforce every law
Unprovoked, she then proceeded to claim that she occasionally smokes a “spliff”. She asked me if I think this is a crime. It wasn’t a matter of opinion; it is a matter of law. The two officers of the law present didn’t flinch as she made this admission. One wonders how great a crime one would have to confess in their presence to inspire a reaction.
Britain’s crime doom loop will continue until the police decide to go after every crime and enforce every law and the government obliges them to do so. They can pretend it’s about a lack of resources, but they can’t do so at the same time as they arrest individuals for wrongthink and set up policing units to monitor our online speech.
My evening at the Safer Neighbourhoods Panel was radicalising. Low trust brings poverty and high trust prosperity. The current approach depends entirely on encouraging low trust, making it harder for criminals to commit crime, rather than aggressively going after criminals, ridding society of them and delivering high trust. We need to change direction before it’s too late.
