Is Australia becoming a more violent country?
The Advertiser3 days ago
Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs.
The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis.
But are we?
The short answer is: no.
Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years.
It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault).
For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support).
However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades.
Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often.
Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time.
Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern.
Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends.
Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months.
Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane.
Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be.
Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations.
Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank.
There is no clear, compelling explanation.
Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback.
Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be.
One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims).
Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger.
Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture.
Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence.
However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part.
If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense?
Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes.
Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it.
This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen.
READ MORE:
Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed".
This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored.
We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself.
This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place.
Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management.
Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs.
The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis.
But are we?
The short answer is: no.
Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years.
It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault).
For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support).
However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades.
Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often.
Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time.
Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern.
Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends.
Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months.
Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane.
Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be.
Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations.
Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank.
There is no clear, compelling explanation.
Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback.
Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be.
One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims).
Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger.
Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture.
Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence.
However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part.
If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense?
Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes.
Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it.
This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen.
READ MORE:
Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed".
This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored.
We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself.
This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place.
Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management.
Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs.
The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis.
But are we?
The short answer is: no.
Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years.
It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault).
For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support).
However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades.
Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often.
Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time.
Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern.
Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends.
Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months.
Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane.
Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be.
Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations.
Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank.
There is no clear, compelling explanation.
Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback.
Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be.
One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims).
Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger.
Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture.
Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence.
However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part.
If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense?
Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes.
Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it.
This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen.
READ MORE:
Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed".
This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored.
We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself.
This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place.
Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management.
Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs.
The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis.
But are we?
The short answer is: no.
Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years.
It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault).
For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support).
However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades.
Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often.
Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time.
Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern.
Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends.
Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months.
Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane.
Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be.
Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations.
Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank.
There is no clear, compelling explanation.
Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback.
Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be.
One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims).
Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger.
Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture.
Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence.
However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part.
If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense?
Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes.
Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it.
This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen.
READ MORE:
Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed".
This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored.
We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself.
This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place.
Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management.
The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis.
But are we?
The short answer is: no.
Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years.
It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault).
For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support).
However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades.
Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often.
Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time.
Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern.
Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends.
Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months.
Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane.
Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be.
Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations.
Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank.
There is no clear, compelling explanation.
Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback.
Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be.
One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims).
Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger.
Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture.
Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence.
However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part.
If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense?
Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes.
Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it.
This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen.
READ MORE:
Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed".
This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored.
We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself.
This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place.
Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management.
Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs.
The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis.
But are we?
The short answer is: no.
Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years.
It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault).
For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support).
However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades.
Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often.
Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time.
Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern.
Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends.
Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months.
Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane.
Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be.
Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations.
Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank.
There is no clear, compelling explanation.
Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback.
Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be.
One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims).
Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger.
Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture.
Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence.
However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part.
If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense?
Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes.
Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it.
This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen.
READ MORE:
Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed".
This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored.
We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself.
This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place.
Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management.
Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs.
The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis.
But are we?
The short answer is: no.
Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years.
It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault).
For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support).
However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades.
Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often.
Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time.
Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern.
Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends.
Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months.
Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane.
Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be.
Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations.
Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank.
There is no clear, compelling explanation.
Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback.
Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be.
One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims).
Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger.
Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture.
Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence.
However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part.
If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense?
Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes.
Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it.
This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen.
READ MORE:
Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed".
This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored.
We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself.
This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place.
Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management.
Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs.
The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis.
But are we?
The short answer is: no.
Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years.
It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault).
For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support).
However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades.
Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often.
Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time.
Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern.
Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends.
Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months.
Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane.
Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be.
Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations.
Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank.
There is no clear, compelling explanation.
Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback.
Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be.
One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims).
Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger.
Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture.
Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence.
However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part.
If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense?
Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes.
Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it.
This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen.
READ MORE:
Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed".
This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored.
We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself.
This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place.
Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Perth Now
26 minutes ago
- Perth Now
Fast approvals only add to housing construction logjam
Adding new housing projects to Australia's already swollen pipeline has been likened to turning the "tap on a bath that is already full", as analysis shows faster approvals are no silver bullet in fixing the nation's crisis. Data from property research firm Cotality shows approvals could move higher in the coming months due to rezoning reforms and incentives for new builds coinciding with falling interest rates. But rather than fix the shortage of homes, it could cause a problem for the construction industry by adding new projects to an already long list. "It's like turning up the tap on a bath that is already full," said the analysis from head of research Eliza Owen. It found delivery to be the problem, not approvals, with 219,000 homes under construction and completion times ballooning. "The real bottleneck lies in the build phase, not planning reform," the analysis said. The federal government's goal to build 1.2 million new homes in five years, adopted in August 2023, is thought of as unachievable by the industry. "With completion times already above average, and construction costs elevated, it seems an odd time to be incentivising more dwelling approvals and commencements to the backlog of work to be done," the report stated. Ahead of the Albanese government's national productivity summit later this month, the report calls for a move away from demand stimulation to sustainable delivery. "Making homes faster and cheaper to build, while still maintaining quality, resilient homes is the key challenge for policymakers to focus on right now," the report reads. Labor's massive election win has prompted union bosses to call for the government to revisit potential changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions. But proposals to scale back the tax deduction is tricky for the government, after Labor took reforms for negative gearing to the 2019 federal election and lost. Negative gearing allows investors to claim deductions on losses and the capital gains tax discount halves the tax paid by Australians who sell assets owned for 12 months or more. The analysis says if governments are serious about delivering on the housing target, they "must focus on building capacity, lifting productivity, and ensuring every approved home actually gets built".
9 News
26 minutes ago
- 9 News
Missing a train saved Tetsuko's life. 140,000 others weren't so lucky
Your web browser is no longer supported. To improve your experience update it here It was a sunny morning on August 6, 1945, when Tetsuko and her friend decided to take a train to go see a movie. The 16-year-old and her friend from the Japanese city of Kure had just missed a train and had to wait more than an hour for the next one. Tetsuko McKenzie was 16 when Hiroshima was bombed. (Tetsuko McKenzie) "We were mucking around on the platform, and there was a strong ray of light," she told "I said to my friend 'Oh my gosh, what is it?'" Tetsuko had no idea that their destination had been destroyed in an instant. And if they had managed to catch the train they wanted, they would have been in the middle of Hiroshima when the atomic bomb hit. She and her friend watched a giant white cloud emerging from behind the hills, "gradually getting bigger". Still mystified, they got on the next train heading to Hiroshima. But three stops away, the train was stopped and turned around. At that point, nobody in Japan knew what had happened. An estimated 140,000 people were killed when an atomic bomb was dropped on the Japanese city of Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. (Supplied) While many Japanese cities had been devastated by US bombings during World War II, there was nothing like this. An estimated 140,000 people were killed in the bombing, and the city was effectively wiped off the map. Tetsuko and her friend had to walk back to Kure on foot, until they were able to hitch a ride on a Navy ute. Tetsuko McKenzie came to Melbourne after marrying an Australian. (Tetsuko McKenzie) "My parents were really, really overjoyed to see me," she said. "They thought I was gone." After the war, Tetsuko got a job as a maid for Australian general Horace Robertson, who was head of the British Occupation Force in Japan. It was there she met her future husband Ray McKenzie, an Australian corporal working for the general. She and her husband moved to Australia in 1953. With Australians struggling to pronounce Tetsuko, she quickly became known as Tess. Eighty years on, the now 96-year-old lives in Melbourne. Hiroshima Japan World War II World Melbourne CONTACT US
AU Financial Review
26 minutes ago
- AU Financial Review
Beyond the billionaires' club: Private asset funds go mainstream
For the last 20 years, private equity giants such as Blackstone and KKR have raised hundreds of billions of dollars from big institutions such as sovereign wealth and pension funds eager to gain exposure to private assets. Now its individual investors include Australians, who are identified as the next big target market and the engine of another decade of growth. But to cater for the needs of these new investors, private asset managers have had to tailor their funds to make them more user-friendly.
