Subject:
|
Re: how police forces compare internationally? (was Re: My Gun Control Rant)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 9 Jan 2001 03:53:08 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
509 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Scott Arthur writes:
> >
> > Note that when I say "particularly ineffective" I'm not claiming "more
> > ineffective than US police"
>
> Noted. I often wonder how police forces compare internationally. However, I
> expect it is a pretty hard thing to do due to cultural differences – this
> means that what constitutes a crime may change from state to state (e.g.
> trespassing is not illegal in Scotland, but it is in England). Based on
> this, if your assertions are based on hard facts, I’d be interested in
> learning more.
Surely any study of police productivity would be biased by varying levels of
corruption. For instance in Sydney and Brisbane criminal activity has
traditionally been kept under control by the police through mutually
profitable compromises. So there may be a large amount of well-regulated
crime, meaning that laws are both broken more frequently _and_ the public
are safer because there is much less amateur lawlessness.
--DaveL
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
188 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
