Have you heard about Simpson’s paradox?
It is a phenomenon in probability and statistics, in which a trend appears in several different groups of data but disappears or reverses when these groups are combined.
You can’t always rely on crime statistics to tell you what is happening in society. However, it is obvious that if you have little need for high police to the resident ratio that the level of harmony in a community must be reasonable as no one is complaining they need more police on the streets.
Prior to about the year 2000, the operational police to resident ratio in many areas around Australia was about 1 as to about 800 in the city and 1 as to about 1,100 in the country.
As you may have noted, in the Exploration Notes of the proposed Bill the statement [ … ] “the barometer of harmony [ in society] is a low ratio.” i.e. the few police required more harmony in a community.
Therefore the question is, “What has actually happened to our society over the past 20 years?” I am asking you to consider the situation today relative to before in terms of the number of police being deployed in some areas.
For example, some towns there is 1 officer for 800 and in other places 1 as to 400residents. I have also noted some areas there are even more police. i.e 1 as to 200.. A possible explanation may be civil unrest?
But why is there ongoing civil unrest in these places that should be the question for which an answer will lead to a solution?
The answer isn’t having a police officer on every street corner forever and a day.
Since about the year 2000 the police to resident ratio has been steadily increasing as some politicians seeking to be elected promised to get tough on crime by putting more police on the streets.
Did it work? The short answer is “no”. In fact, in relative terms within the context of civil unrest and certain crimes as a form of rebellion against authority, things are far worse compared to the past.
Why haven’t you heard about this before?
Because “civil unrest” is covered up by some in authority or those in authority simply don’t have the resources or a clear understanding of the underlying social problems?
The same thing was happening around Australia, the police to resident ratio were steadily going up and crime wasn’t reducing.
Of particular note, was the increase in violent crime. Hence the up-gunning of the police and them putting on near black uniforms and body armor. Black uniforms historically are the colour of intimidation and it is reasonable to say the general public don’t feel comforted by the sight but intimidated by it.
Did the police ask for this colour, I doubt it. They were put into this uniform by those that favour an authoritarian system of things.
So we mustn’t blame the police for their appearance.
Have safer communities resulted from more police that appear to be para-military in appearance?
There is a good reason we don’t have the military do police work. Because when we do the enemies of the State that were once outside the State begin to emerge from within the State.
The same thing happens where the police are no longer a service but have become a force that has taken on the appearance of the military.
Today we are far from Westminister and beyond Napoleonic with some laws that don’t even exist in some communist countries.
Section 114 of the Australia Constitution comes to mind, words to the effect that the State may not raise a “military force”. Do you think the State has a police service or is it something that now resembles a military force?
My personal opinion is that we no longer are sure what our police service has become?
Please tell me what you think about the current laws and appearance of our police.
In conclusion, please elect someone that has policies that represent sensible well researched and thought out strategies to improve the harmony of their respective communities.
Authoritarianism is not the solution to crime as it only encourages a form of crime that represents a pushback against authority.