Pornography and violent movies are root causes of crime

I was bemused at Fitzgerald Hind’s publicly expressed opinion that pornography and violent movies are root causes of crime. Granted, in the same vein that he expressed this opinion, he also stated that “I am no sociologist, I am not criminologist [sic] but I am almost certain that they are.” [Daily Express 2/4/23, https://tinyurl.com/5c2aha3u].

I thought such outdated thinking was debunked many moons ago, but here comes our National Security Minister, arguing from authority and emotional thinking, simultaneously making two well-known critical thinking errors in one statement.

To quote from the article, “Responding to Hosein’s comments, Hinds expressed doubt about crime being linked to poverty and unemployment.

“The jury for me is out on that.”

He seems to have been asleep before, during and after the jury delivered on the social determinants of crime.

Might I suggest to the goodly minister that he investigate and make ample use of ChatGPT, a well-known open-source Artificial Intelligence (AI) which provides answers more rooted in reality. ChatGPT, when asked the question, “what are the main social determinants of crime?”, gave the answer below:

“Social determinants of crime are complex and interconnected factors that influence the likelihood of individuals engaging in criminal behaviour. These factors are rooted in social, economic, and environmental conditions. Some of the main social determinants of crime include:

1.        Poverty: Poverty can lead to feelings of desperation, frustration, and hopelessness, which can contribute to criminal activity as people search for ways to meet their basic needs or escape their circumstances.

2.        Education: Lower levels of education are associated with a higher likelihood of criminal involvement. Lack of education can limit job opportunities and social mobility, leading to increased vulnerability to criminal activities.

3.        Family structure: Dysfunctional or unstable family environments can contribute to the development of antisocial behaviour and delinquency, especially when there is a lack of proper supervision, positive role models, or emotional support.

4.        Peer influence: The influence of peers, particularly those involved in criminal activities, can increase the likelihood of an individual participating in crime. Peer pressure and the desire to fit in or gain social status can contribute to criminal behaviour.

5.        Unemployment: High unemployment rates can lead to financial insecurity, social dislocation, and frustration, all of which can contribute to criminal behaviour.

6.        Social disorganization: Communities with high levels of social disorganization, such as those characterized by residential instability, weak social networks, and limited community resources, often experience higher crime rates.

7.        Substance abuse: Alcohol and drug abuse can impair judgment, exacerbate existing mental health issues, and contribute to criminal behaviour, both directly (e.g., drug-related offenses) and indirectly (e.g., property crimes to support a drug habit).

8.        Inequality and social exclusion: Significant income disparities and social exclusion can lead to feelings of resentment, marginalization, and anger, which may contribute to criminal behaviour.

9.        Cultural factors: Cultural values and norms that condone or even encourage criminal behaviour can contribute to crime. For example, some subcultures may view certain criminal acts as acceptable or even prestigious.

10.      Mental health: Mental health issues, such as depression, anxiety, or personality disorders, can increase the risk of criminal behaviour, particularly when left untreated or combined with other risk factors.

It is important to note that these factors are not mutually exclusive, and multiple determinants may interact to influence an individual's likelihood of engaging in criminal behaviour. Addressing these social determinants is critical to reducing crime rates and promoting public safety.”

ChatGPT even provided references for the link between crime and poverty:

“How strongly is poverty associated with crime levels and give me some good references, please.”

“The association between poverty and crime levels is well-established, though the strength of the relationship can vary depending on various factors, including location, type of crime, and the specific measures used to assess poverty. Research indicates that people living in poverty are more likely to be both victims and perpetrators of crime, particularly property and violent crimes.

Here are some references that can provide more insight into the relationship between poverty and crime:

1.        Kelly, M. (2000). Inequality and Crime. Review of Economics and Statistics, 82(4), 530-539. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2646711

2.        Sampson, R. J., & Wilson, W. J. (1995). Toward a Theory of Race, Crime, and Urban Inequality. In J. Hagan & R. D. Peterson (Eds.), Crime and Inequality (pp. 37-54). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

3.        Fajnzylber, P., Lederman, D., & Loayza, N. (2002). Inequality and Violent Crime. The Journal of Law and Economics, 45(1), 1-39. URL: https://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/10.1086/338347

4.        Sharkey, P. (2009). Neighborhoods and the Black-White Mobility Gap. Economic Mobility Project, The Pew Charitable Trusts. URL: https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/0001/01/01/neighborhoods-and-the-blackwhite-mobility-gap

5.        Chiricos, T. G. (1987). Rates of Crime and Unemployment: An Analysis of Aggregate Research Evidence. Social Problems, 34(2), 187-212. URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/800558”

Mr Hinds seems out of his depth in thinking at a higher level beyond the Nicki Minaj approach to serious issues. I can only hold my head in despair at what further depths the country’s crime situation will plummet over the next few years.

Another Damn Fool

As I read the letter to the editor of the Daily Express “A Senate vote against law-abiding citizens” [https://trinidadexpress.com/opinion/letters/a-senate-vote-against-law-abiding-citizens/article_b4b6830a-00a4-11ed-9562-cfd0b39eb582.html], I could not help asking myself the question, “What kind of damn fool is so ignorant to pen this?”.

The at the end of the letter, I saw the name Harry Partap ‘former UNC MP’, and my question was answered. Damn fool indeed! Clearly destined to be ‘former’ a lot of things, and not ‘current’ anything.

Damn fool point1:

“I listened to the debate and could not reconcile in my mind how our lawmakers can put the rights of criminals above those of law-abiding citizens.”

They are the SAME RIGHTS, damn fool. Same rights. Go do some reading on basic rights.

Damn fool point 2:

“The six UNC and five Independent senators argued to protect the constitutional and human rights of criminals.”

No one is a criminal unless they are tried and convicted in a duly appointed recognise court of law. Simply charging someone does not make them a criminal, damn fool! In fact, if you look at the statistics you would realise that 999 times out of 1000, the police do not have a case robust enough to pass through the court and gain a conviction.

Damn fool point 3:

“They were concerned about conditions at Remand Yard and were sorry for criminals who will be locked away for four months pending bail.”

And rightly so!

Damn fool point 4:

“It is a serious breach of the constitutional and human rights of decent citizens to live in peace.”

It is also a serious breach of the constitutional and human rights of any person to be found guilty before trial and testing the evidence, and locked up without due process. I bet the damn fool’s opinion will change if it was him who was being locked up… You will soon see how quickly he will be bleating for bail.

I think the name should be changed from damn fool to Damned Fool.

 

Israel Khan's Doubliethink

Israel Khan SC has been out in front recently calling for the death penalty to be implemented. Unfortunately, the learned gent has missed some fundamental issues. He has erred in his logic and his knowledge base needs updating. He digs in like an Alabama tick on his position of 28 years ago – indicating to me, that in nearly 3 decades his thinking has remained stagnant, in spite of gaining Senior Counsel (SC) status through years of legal experience.

What Mr Khan is suggesting– opposing Blackstone’s ratio – is that 999 people should be hanged, together with the 1 guilty person! (see statistics below). He is pandering to those emotionally charged and intellectually void for popularity votes/approval.

Catching the criminals.

Mr Khan must know of the hundreds of people missing and presumed dead in T&T. Those are counted by the population as homicides. No perpetrators have been found. The hangman’s noose swings empty and idle. And that is at the heart of Mr Khan’s mistake and he actually recognises part of the problem. He said “…Vicious, wicked, evil and deliberate murderers should be executed while others outside this category, if found guilty, should receive a term of imprisonment up to life.”

The magic words are ‘if found guilty’. Mr Khan must know that in the finding of guilt, the criminal justice system must first find a person to prosecute and then be robust enough to navigate all technicalities in law, to deliver justice. The death penalty has to be finalised within 5 years. So says the Privy Council - the highest court for T&T.

Statistics

Success rates of detection currently lie below 6% according to the US’ CIA. Prosecution success, based upon well-known court statistics, is 1% of that 6%… In other words, 0.06%. To put it bluntly, TTPS’ ability to find evidence that actually stands up to vigorous scrutiny in a court of law is less than 0.1% of the crimes that are actually perpetrated on the public– all of this is floating in the public domain for years. Less than 1 in 1000!

Let that sink in!

Now, think about it some more.

No… You still have not thought about it enough.

Really concentrate on what those figures mean for the public and the citizens of Trinidad and Tobago – not the politicians; they have armed police escorts complete with blue lights and siren.

Mr Khan’s factual knowledge

Mr Khan very well knows of the hackneyed and insipid ability of the police in bringing cases to prosecution and getting the job done properly. He and his son Daniel Khan (former Inspector of Prisons), are aware of the woeful performance of the justice system which has hundreds of people on remand in prison awaiting trials, for donkey’s years (10 to 15 years seem normal by public account).

By contrast, another member of his Chambers, Mrs Ula Nathai-Lutchman had been out in front talking Human Rights for prisoners. She won a whole string of cases at the Appeal Court, which showed up flaws in the justice system. This is also in the public domain. Mr Khan knows about all that.

Failure of logic

Mr Khan submits that for an innocent man, “…It is better that he be executed than to incarcerate him for life; for that man knowing he is innocent would live a life of misery and may even wish that he were dead.” - and in the next breath, Khan states, “under our criminal justice system, it is one hundred times greater than a guilty person could be acquitted than an innocent person be convicted for murder.” The latter is a false comparison, devoid of the applications of the logic and must be confined to what is known as doublethink.

I am bewildered how Mr Khan recognises that the system might fail and a few innocents get their necks popped, but that is a price society must be willing to pay. This has been refuted by better legal minds (William Blackstone being the most famous) than him over the few centuries that the legal system has been developed (see below).

Relics of the past

Mr Khan relies on the thinking of Dr Wolf Middendorff, a criminologist of influence back in the 1970s, as some authoritative reference. Mr Khan’s quote of Middendorf is from a contribution in the book “Punishment for and Against” by H. B. Acton, last published in 1971. The book is a historical relic which would set you back around USD$ 500 for a hardcover copy - not because of true value but because it is simply a collector’s item.

Mr Khan creates the appearance of himself being tied into reputable sources from a bygone era. Khan would do well to pull himself into the 21st Century, where there are other reputable research results and opinions. The philosophy of law and legal concepts about punishment, have been baked into more balanced thinking, from 1971 to now, through endless test cases in international law and balanced applications of mature modern legal principles.

Is he afflicted by toxins in the blood affecting his thinking? Mr Khan needs to demonstrate the “enlightened leadership” he calls for.