Exploding Knife Violence on the streets of London

His approach is commonly accepted in many similar studies, use of dummy variables is accepted practice in double blind studies of placebo v non placebos.

 

Check out the OED sunshine!

 

I have never seen you discuss any of the aforementioned topics in your own words, you have alluded to them, linked to them, but never actually present or debate them here.
I wonder why ?

 

Such innocence! A dummy variable is capable of testing something simple (such as whether men mow lawns more than women). Here they can only produce suspect analysis. Here is an example of the critique:

"The method is predicated on two assumptions: (1) all behavioral (response) parameters of this equation (slope coefficients) are fixed—unaffected by the law and (2) the effect of the law on crime is identical across counties. We demonstrate that these assumptions can be rejected both on theoretical and empirical grounds"

 

You're not making sense again. Try again? Given your false accusations over the use of English, is it a vocab deficiency?

 

You tell me as often as you misspell commonplace everyday words.

 

Is this like how you decided whinging isn't a word? How jolly!

 

If both men and women mow lawns, you would need to show that either men or women refuse to mow lawns with any frequency, otherwise it would not be a valid argumentation.

The effect of law on crime is dependent on each individuals attitudes to laws in general, such was discussed in 1764 by the essays of Cesar Beccaria, of crime and punishment.

I have known many individuals that believe what they call the White Man laws that do not apply to them and constantly ignore such laws.

The effect of laws on such people here in the U.S. at least, is universal.

 

Wrong. The hypothesis was simple 'do men mow more?'. For such a simple hypothesis statistical significance on a gender dummy is sufficient.

Of course we don't have that here.

This is prattle. What we have is the peer review process working. A paper is published and then, through understanding flaws in the methodology, that paper is then shown to be cobblers.

 

No, your refusal to discuss any topic is cobblers, you do not need a paper to discuss or understand anything.

Making a statement and proving it on it's own merit is sufficient, if I tell a wee lad that touching a hot stove is a poor idea, and he refuses to accept that idea and gets burned, he has proved the validity of my statement on it's intrinsic proof without a need for a peer reviewed white paper or study.

 

Again for the quote;

"Much of what Cesare Beccaria wrote in "On Crimes and Punishments" in 1764 still holds true today."

Beccaria’s work has become the foundation on which many criminology theories use to build and expand.

Often laws are promoted not by criminologists or "dispassionate students of human nature" but by passionate organisations with narrow minded goals and missions. With a desired end result of introducing legislation that suits their purpose only."

One thing that is essential to any laws regarding criminal justice is that the laws be created by a "dispassionate student of human nature".

Beccaria stated that many of the present laws were just "a mere tool of the passions of some, or have arisen from an accidental and temporary need."
There is little doubt that the same holds true today.

Laws should be enlightened, rational, logical and should be the greatest good for the greatness number.

He felt that criminal laws should be formed with rational thought and not passions.

On legislation; Let the laws be clear and simple, let the entire force of the nation be united in their defence, let them be intended rather to favour every individual than any particular classes of men; let the laws be feared, and the laws only. The fear of the laws is salutary, but the fear of men is a fruitful and fatal source of crimes.

"On the assumption of guilt; No man can be judged a criminal until he be found guilty; nor can society take from him the public protection until it have been proved that he has violated the conditions on which it was granted. What right, then, but that of power, can authorise the punishment of a citizen so long as there remains any doubt of his guilt?

On oaths; Oaths are useless, because it will not make a liar tell the truth, "every judge can be my witness that no oath ever make any criminal tell the truth"

On the prevention of crime;
Crimes are more effectually prevented by the certainty than the severity of punishment...

The more promptly and the more closely punishment follow upon the commission of a crime, the more just and useful will it be...It is better to prevent crimes than to punish them. This is the fundamental principle of good legislation.

Beccaria wrote a short chapter on preventing crime because he thought that preventing crime was better than punishing them.

He gave nine principles that need to be in place in order to effectively prevent crime. To prevent crime a society must;

1. make sure laws are clear and simple,
2. make sure that the entire nation is united in defense,
3. laws not against classes of men, but of men,
4. men must fear laws and nothing else,
5. certainty of outcome of crime,
6. member of society must have knowledge because enlightenment accompanies liberty,
7. reward virtue,
8. perfect education,
9. direct the interest of the magistracy as a whole to observance rather than corruption of the laws.

If these nine principles are followed there would be less of a need to follow the other principles of trial and punishments.

On gun control;
"False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.

Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty--so dear to men, so dear to the enlightened legislator--and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?

Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve to rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.

They ought to be designated as laws not preventative but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree. "

_____________

References
Cesare Beccaria, 1764 An Essay on Crimes and Punishments

 

You've gone off on one again. I merely referred to the well known error by Lott. You pretended it didn't exist. You do a lot of pretending.

 

You pretend not to see my posts, and you seem to enjoy doing so.

 

Another post that says nothing. You made inaccurate comment. I've summarised: my comment over Lott's error is accurate and your reaction has been invalid.

 

Moar inane fallacious statements.

 

You're not going to try and defend Lott's analysis? Good choice.

 

Sure, some guys with slide rules in some college lab have a poll that's more accurate when it comes to crime than the people who respond to all the crime.

Don't worry UK! The Police are wrong or either lying about all the dead bodies with bullet holes and stab wounds in them laying around London!

Our poll clearly shows they're not really being killed! We slide ruled it and accounted for all the variables!

Keep pretending, I really don't care.

 

Now you've admitted that you think there is a conspiracy and that intellectuals are a bad you have no further purpose. Cheers!

 

There are no problems in Londonistan! We asked 1 out of 1300 Brits and they agree!

 

Twinning anti-intellectualism with a well known racist term? Aren't you a charmer!

 

Poo on your constant harping on Anti Intellectualism, you are more an Anti Intellectual than any here.
I grew up nursed on Intellectualism, Opera, Education were the passions of My youth, I learned to read before attending Kindergarten, two languages, and basic maths, poetry, something I doubt you achieved, probably still wore diapers, at the age I was using bathroom.....

 

That's all you've got? Name calling? Oh, I'm sorry "intellectual" name calling, but not really.

Enjoy your slide into chaos.

 

He's real smart, he keeps telling us about it.

I don't know how you missed it.

 

I am a bit slow sometimes......
lol...

 

Name calling? I made a factual comment. You're sneering at how intellectuals use victimisation survey to ensure robust quantitative analysis. You're also using a term which is preferred by extreme right wingers. Perhaps you should consider what you're typing more?