Daniel Finkelstein
The man, the films, those blondes. Free DVD collection starting this Sunday
A small personal incident allows me to date with a reasonable degree of precision the moment when the Right won the argument on crime in Britain.
Back in the spring of 1995 I was running a little think-tank that had arranged for William Bratton, the New York Police Commissioner, to visit London. At that time, the extraordinary success of New York's crimefighters was a new story, and not one that people in this country knew anything about. Phrases such as “zero-tolerance policing” and “broken windows theory” - describing New York's crackdown on even minor crime - were unknown in this country outside, well, little think-tanks.
So my colleagues and I thought it would be a service to democracy and law and order if we introduced Mr Bratton to Jack Straw, Labour's new Shadow Home Secretary. We called his office, got through to an assistant, and explained who Mr Bratton was, and what was going on in New York. We prattled on about arresting “squeegee pests” before they graduated from aggressively cleaning your windscreen to mugging you, and proposed a meeting. While his assistant politely parried the request, Mr Straw could be heard standing behind him, talking in a stage whisper: “Tell them I'm busy.”
It can't have been much more than six months before Mr Straw was heading to New York, telling journalists that he had discovered the future of crimefighting. Sometime in those six months, in the second half of 1995 was when the Right won the argument on crime in this country.
It is also possible to identify with reasonable precision who won it. Michael Howard did.
Placing Mr Howard in a very short list of the truly significant politicians of the postwar era raises eyebrows (and hackles) every time I try it. It shouldn't. The moment that critics stop confusing their personal feelings about Mr Howard with a cool assessment of his impact, they would surely see that the case for his inclusion is overwhelming.
When Mr Howard took over as Home Secretary in 1993 he set about changing policy on crime. He began to lengthen jail sentences and intensify policing. His soundbite - “prison works” - framed the debate. And he tapped into the new wave of thinking about crime that was taking place on the Right, led by American thinkers such as George Kelling and James Q. Wilson.
Most importantly, his policy began to show results. Within a couple of years, recorded crime of all sorts began to fall. Heavily. And the thrust of his policy has proved as irreversible as the early economic reforms of Margaret Thatcher's Government. Jack Straw's visit to New York was just the beginning. Future Labour home secretaries have had to work within the Howard consensus - they filled the jails, for instance. In the political mainstream, it is accepted that intensive policing and tough sentencing works. The debate concerns how to deliver these things.
It is hard to point to many politicians of the past 60 years who have enjoyed a similar success either practically or intellectually. Isn't it?
All of which sets up one of the great ironies of modern politics. For the Right have become the people who can't take “yes” for an answer. The more that crime falls, the more the Right insists that it isn't really falling. In other words, the more that the Howard consensus works, the more the Right insists that it is not working.
This is odd for two reasons. The first is that the central prediction of the Right on crime is that if you employ more police officers, give them more power and have longer jail sentences, you will cut crime. If crime is not falling, it means that employing more police officers, giving them more power and having longer jail sentences doesn't work. Why on earth would the Right want to argue that?
The second, and even more important, reason why it is odd is that suggesting that crime is rising flies in the face of the facts.
There are two sets of figures on crime - the British Crime Survey (BCS) and the police's recorded crime statistics - and both, in their different ways, tell the same story. The total number of crimes, and crime in almost every one of the important categories, was rising sharply until about 1995. Since then it has fallen consistently and fairly sharply.
Now both sets of figures are flawed. Just to start with, the very idea of an overall crime figure is meaningless. If I pick a man's pocket three times in one year, severely assault him twice in the next year and murder him in the third year, overall crime is falling. That is why it is important to look at different sorts of crime - violent crimes, burglaries and so forth.
The problems with recorded crime figures are well known. They don't include crimes - fraud may be an example - that aren't readily reported to the police. And an increase or decrease in the figures may reflect changes in police activity (their priorities or their detection rates) rather than in criminal activity.
This was why the BCS was created, asking a sample of the population what their experience of crime had been in the previous year. This is a much better method of compiling crime figures. Even so, the BCS isn't perfect. It excludes crimes in which those under 16 are victims and cannot account for criminal activity against commercial premises.
These are serious deficiencies, but not so serious that the survey's overall message should be ignored - especially since the BCS and recorded crime figures are broadly in accord. It is suggested that we are better off trusting our own instincts; that our own experience tells us that things are getting worse - whatever the figures say we “know” that crime is going up. What nonsense.
Why? Because the BCS is already, very precisely, a survey of what we “know” about crime. It is a statistically valid review of our experiences. That is the whole point of it. The rest is just anecdote. Are we seriously supposed to measure what is happening to crime by counting the column inches devoted to terrible stories about victims?
I would say that people are rejecting the crime figures simply because they don't want them to be true. But why wouldn't they want them to be true? If they are not true, it means that everything we are doing isn't working - and that those who want a softer line on crime might have been right all along.
There is too much crime. And crime could be falling faster. Repeat offenders still aren't being sent to jail for long enough. The police aren't being given enough time to do their job out on the street where it matters. We need to go farther, we need to go faster. But crime is falling. Sorry, but it just is.

Daniel Finkelstein is a weekly columnist and Comment Editor of The Times. His blog, Comment Central, is a personal round up of the best political opinion on the web. Before joining the paper in 2001, he was adviser to both Prime Minister John Major and Conservative leader William Hague
Read the training tips and advice that helped our London Triathletes
Times Online's new TV show helps you make the right decisions for your pet
Read our exclusive 100 Years of Fleming and Bond interactive timeline, packed with original Times articles and reviews
The latest travel news plus the best hotels and gadgets for business travellers
Shortcuts to help you find sections and articles


Why good girls pay good money for bad-girl baubles

Search The Times Births, Marriages & Deaths
2007
£47,700
2007
£41,899
2008
£41,445
Great car insurance deals online
£25,510 – 32,000
Transport for London
London
£50k
NHS
Nationwide
£
£90,000 + PRP
Essex County Council
Essex
100K
Confidential
London
5% below developer pre-launch price!
Luxury Appts, beautiful gardens w/ Thames views
Great Investment, River Views
By Funway – Thailand
from £589pp
Christmas Cruises
From only £995pp
APTs East Coast now from only
£2425pp.
Great travel insurance deals online
Contact our advertising team for advertising and sponsorship in Times Online, The Times and The Sunday Times. Globrix Property Search - find property for sale and rent in the UK. Visit our classified services and find jobs, used cars, property or holidays. Use our dating service, read our births, marriages and deaths announcements, or place your advertisement.
Copyright 2008 Times Newspapers Ltd.
This service is provided on Times Newspapers' standard Terms and Conditions. Please read our Privacy Policy.To inquire about a licence to reproduce material from Times Online, The Times or The Sunday Times, click here.This website is published by a member of the News International Group. News International Limited, 1 Virginia St, London E98 1XY, is the holding company for the News International group and is registered in England No 81701. VAT number GB 243 8054 69.
Tell that to the Marines!
ian cheese, london, uk
Hooray for Ted's comment that a visible Police presence acts as a deterrent to crime. There is a line between deterring crime and putting fear into the civilian population but as, at present , our police forces can't even put fear into a small group of girls I think we can safely increase numbers.
Bob, Reading,
Can someone please explain why, if crime is falling as the government and others would have us believe, the prison population is at record levels and our jails are overflowing?
Phil, Crewe,
At least one police officer is attacked on duty every hour, according to figures from the Home Office.
And separate figures revealed that the number of officers killed or injured by a firearm has soared by 250 per cent since 1997.
bert, somerset,
Absolute tripe. I was at the Headingley while police stood and watched hundreds of people get drunk and disorderly. It got out of hand by the end of the day and the stewards could do nothing about it. No crime committed because no crime was recorded. There are lies, damned lies and statistics.
R.F.Chamberlain, Leeds,
So the overall crime rate is falling? Great news - this means that the police can at last start to focus on all the minor crimes like graffiti and vandalism they've been telling us they're too busy to deal with for the past 10 years. And pigs will fly.....
Dean, London, UK
Good article daniel although i'm not entirely sure that zero tolerance is the best method to deal with all forms of crime it is nice to see at least one writer at the Times not capitulating to hysterical media gossip and giving the facts a fair hearing.
Hamish, London,
My daughter was robbed by a violent criminal with a violent past.
She's had her belongings seized for forensic examination. She's identified his clothing and he was arrested.
The CPS have decided that no further action will be taken due to the cost of forensics!
Justice???
Criminals will thrive!
Shaun, Newcastle, Tyneside
We used to have a recidivists law. But it was scrapped. Why? If you're a career criminal, then I'm sorry but the only place for you is in jail, and not a nice cushy jail, a not so nice jail, where people dont want to be. Make jail a scary place, and people wont want to go back there.
Arthur, Newcastle,
When assessing the level of crime, I don't look at statistics, I look at what's happening in my local high street,and it is quite clear from looking at my local high street that crime is rising,not falling.
Have you tried reporting a crime to the police? It is impossible. They don't want to know.
Jonathan Bryce, Reading, Berkshire
Sam, Oxford. Prison only works short term because they keep letting them back out and if they keep reoffending keep them in.The liberal policies addressing social change and underlying causes aren't and will never work so protect the majority of decent citizens and build more prisons.
simon, chelmsford, england
Crime may fall in the short-term if you lock lots of bad men up. If you wait until after they have spawned to lock them up, though, you are just creating another generation of kids without a father...
Prison may work, but is it the only, or the cheapest, solution that does?
Josh, London,
Anyway, I thought it is now well-established that the drop in the NYC crime-rate was as a result of Roe-v-Wade, and nothing to do with Zero-Tolerance?
Josh, London,
Crime sells papers. If there is a fall in crime, don't worry, just increase the coverage given to each case. If the crime is committed in London, double the column inches.
diana, derby, uk
To solve a problem, one looks at the cause of the problem first. Based on this, if what Finkelstein is true, the reason people commit crime is because they are not in prison. Yet I am not in prison and I don't commit crime. If you really want to cut crime, you look at the reasons people commit it.
Glen Kristensen, London,
As the economic worries multiply and jobs start to evaporate .
The great British public will find an end to a means , in some cases that will involve crime , so in these hard times would it not be prudent to start building the occasional new prison now.
Nick Dixon, Sutton Coldfield, England
Mr Fink
You've just done a "Mathew Parris": ie; see what the other columnists say, then take the contrary view
I'm prepared to accept that car crime and burglaries are down, but people are more concerned with low level violence and intimidation on the street -after school and weekends.
john, Guildford,
I welcome some sense from the right at last - prison 'works' but crime is forever 'rising' makes no sense at all, but it is all we have heard.
Latest research shows that crime has fallen everywhere regardless of the system used, harsh or liberal. In which case why do we spend so much on prison?
Mike Murray, Bath,
Europe went one, as a social unit, the UK went another socially and ended up getting lost.
Mark, Yorkshire,
Crime is generally falling across the West for reasons that are not yet clear and with different countries using different approaches to crime. It is characteristic of right leaning commentary to sieze on the simplest, harshest explanation that might fit the facts.
Hugh Riddle, Littlestone, UK
Also, didn't the Freakonomics guys correlate falling crime in New York with the changes in the abortion laws? I think they argued the broken windows theory was icing on an economic cake...
Oh, and "Palestine is a good example for tougher sentences working." Josie Goldstein. Hmm. Not so much.
Richard, London,
Overall crime may have fallen but the crimes people worry most about are rising. The stats are seriously flawed if they will only record a handful of the recent spate of teenage murders simply because of the victims age.
By all means have alternatives to prison.....where they work!
Luke, London, UK
I think I read (in Freakonomics or similar) that the the USA decrease was due to the relaxing of abortion laws in 1972. Crudely put, the criminals weren't born. Perhaps I'm wrong or maybe the drop in NYC was greater than in the rest of the USA. Does anybody know?
Jonathan Bagley, manchester, uk
To the reader who feels there is no offending in prison - this is a truly naive position. Further, research upon either re-offending or reconviction rates constantly shows that prison does not deter in sufficient numbers to use it as a blunt instrument
Dave, Mansfield, UK
Part of the problem is exemplified by violent crime stats. Violence is down by some 14%, but serious violence is up by 30%. So petty violence is falling while more people are being seriously injured. That does a lot to explain the public's perceptions.
Dirk Bruere, Bedford, England
Prison only works in the short term. Our prison population has doubled since 1993. We cannot allow it to grow indefinitely. Especially as 2/3 of prisoners reoffend within 2 years of release. Prison masks the underlying problem; it does not solve it.
Sam, Oxford,
Have you any idea what crime is!!!? You have got a virus rampaging round government computers. People giving money to Nigerian tricksters.Mafias,triads traffickers drug cheaper than ever because criminals so successful. One man in prison had 100s of mobile calls organised murder whole gang acquitted
ged, manchester,
I work within the criminal justice system and I see on a daily basis the 'falling' level of crime. I personally think that crime is not falling, if it were, then surely the amount of work that comes through our office would be falling as well. It isn't.
Mike Allen, Birmingham, Englands
You may be telling the truth but I don't believe you.
"There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."
m collins, Leeds,
Daniel - If you walked in London you'll know that law and order HAS broken down. The public will no longer ask someone to take his shoes off the seat, ask a cyclist to get off the pavement, remonstrate at vandalism on buses, or go to help someone attacked. We cross the road near a cluster of youths
christina Speight, london, UK
You are naive David. The really big time crimes never get to see daylight: it involves politicians, oligarchs, big timers. This is not a conspiracy theory. We are at the bottom of the pile & have to put up with petty crime.
ian cheese, london , uk
The BCS is a " statistically valid review"? Horseshit. It is exactly what Finkelstein claims it is not: a collection of anecdotes.
Check the Met's own numbers for crime against the person here: http://www.met.police.uk/crimestatistics/index.htm. 10% pa increase in the last 3 years.
Mark, London,
There would be many more crime statistics if people like me tackled the anti-social behaviour we see in the street but because we know we'd be assaulted if we did, we ignore the crime. That doesn't mean we don't know that criminal behaviour is rife.
Tam Earl-Aine, Cheltenham,
Any set of crime stats is flawed if it is not corrected for demographic changes. Most crimes are committed by young males; if the proportion of these in society changes so will crime levels.
RR, Harrow,
We are beating crime? Your having a laugh. Most people don't bother reporting crimes anymore because the police will do nothing about them. The deterioration on the streets of London has been marked and apalling. Anybody who believes the lies told by the home office needs their head checked.
Magnus Mathewson, London,
The crime statistics are flawed.
It is suggested that the figures for burglary have dropped. In reality the police have given up on this crime. Victims do not report it. If they do an officer will come round three days later to tell them that nothing can be done and that it is all there own fault
Stephen Green, Correns, France
It would be hard to put up a realistic argument against more policing and tougher sentences not being the answer to reducing crime. But unfortunately the liberals in society will always Say it does not work because criminals reoffend.
They cannot reoffend when locked up! Doh!
D Case, Newquay,
Of course one reason people's "perception" that crime is rising might be due to the relentless daily bulletins we witness in the tabloid press. When we had sharp rises in crime in the 80s the Daily Mail and others didn't bother telling us about this because we had a Conservative government.
Matthew Blott, Harlow Town, Essex
the people that call for prison to be tougher are Reading the papers and believing the hype.prisons are not holiday camps but places of fear and hate.they are factories of hate and the tougher they are the more hate they create.when released all that hate is released on society.wake up to the truth.
Kevin, London, England
Zero tolerance seems to be a mindset thing. A NY friend, arrested for binning a newspaper, remembering an article he wanted and fishing it out again, just laughed at his own stupidity. Brits (well, Times columnists) given speeding or parking tickets rant on and on about how unfair it all is.
Ian Kemmish, Biggleswade, UK
The most stupid article you have written Daniel. For a start why do we need a think tank to tell us what we already know eg: we should not tolerate any crime. Secondly bringing this down to a left or right issue is plain supid. If you are an example of a modern thinker then bring on the labotomies.
JT, Stortford, UK
Prison - yes, good - doesn't cure people but keeps them off the street. BUT big failure is in mental health - people with mental health problems need secure detention but probably not in prison as some may be helped.
Richard, Newton Abbot,
I have just come back from 2 weeks in New York -noone messes with police officers there, they are the law. No talking back, no attacking them as occurred in London when asked to pick up litter-explain that!). Finally, there are lots of them -they're everywhere, so they're preventitive, unlike here
ted, london, uk
Crime deterrence will only have an full effect when the punishment fits the crime committed - The judges or the sentencing recommendations that they must adhere to is unexceptabily lame - More jails should be constructed and prison life should be more basic and laborious for those incarcerated -
WTaylor, London, UK
On this basis if I borrowed money I'd be rich, until I had to pay it back that is.
Prison, especially for minor offenses simply locks vulnerable and impressionable people together with serious criminals. When they are released we will have to pay up our borrowed peace. Rehabilitation works.
Roger, London, UK
Giving short sentences and then letting people out early is not right wing policy. I am sure Mr Howard does not support the blinkered high tolerance to criminality rife in our courts. Don't confuse socialist bilge with any desire to actually drive down crime.
David Thijm, Stourbridge, UK
This analysis assumes that it is government intervention, rather than (for example) economic change, which had an effect. The argument is based on a correlation not necessarily causation.
Incidentally, I suspect that criminologists had heard about 'broken windows' before 'little think tanks'!
John Scott, London,
Palestine is a good example for tougher sentences working. When terrorists there threaten Israel, reprisals are quick and effective. Incarcerations without trial, rubber bullets to the legs and shoulders, freezing of funds...etc. Mr Finkelstein article therefore must be applauded.
Josie Goldstein, Watford,
No it isn't.
Jon, Kettering, UK
You must take the luxuries away from prisoners. No smoking, no newspapers, no telephones, no TVs, no books, just total boredom.10 years of that and they won't want to go back.
m wilson, bidache, france
the period from 1995 has been one of sustained and continued growth in the economy.
Are these studies at all adjusted for the impact of the economic cycle which surely must impact....positively or negatively depending on crime type.
If there is no adjustment is your conclusion valid?
tt, london,
Rubbish. The reason overall crime has fallen over the past 10 years is because of a boom economy. And yet violent crime has increased dramatically. Why should violent crime rise in a prosperous society? Because there is no deterrence - the system has failed. Michael Howard is a total irrelevance.
Steve, London,