CRIME IN BRITAIN

Hokitika Guardian, 11 June 1932, Page 6

CRIME IN BRITAIN

HOME SECRETARY’S REVIEW

CONTRIBUTORY CAUSES LONDON, June 2. Striking figures, showing the increase in recent years in the more serious crimes affecting life and property, were given by the Home Secretary, Sir Herbert Samuel, in tile House of Commons. The debate was in connexion with a- vote of £364,123 for the Home Office.

Of the more serious crimes—indictable offences—known to the police per 1,000,000 of the population there were on the average, in the years minediately preceding the war, 2700. Alter the war, in 1021, the number was exactly tbe same; but in 1029, tbe figure increased to 3400, and in 1930 to 3700—a very marked increase. The worst classes of crime showing an increase were burglaries and breakings in. In. the Metropolitan Police District, taking, not the figures per 1,000,000, hut the actual figures, in 1913 there were 3000 cases; in 1921 the figures had risen to 3900; and in 1923 they had fallen slightly to 3500. | n 1929 the figure was 4600, in 1930. it was 5700, and in 1931 it was 8000. so that there had been a doubling of this particular class of offence in the Metropolitan Police District, a very grave feature of the present situation. Statistics in regard to murders might best he on the basis of murders known to tbe police, excluding murders of infants under one year of age. which were in a special case. The numbers in 1913 in England and Wales were HI; 1921. 90; 1930. 86. There was a considerable increase in 1931, bringing the number up to 109, which, however, was slightly less than 'the pre-wiu-figure, and as there bad been a considerable increase in “the population since then, the present figure was not of itself really of an alarming character, although, of course, any statis-, tics of this kind must be most regrettable. With regard to juvenile crime the most important factor related to the more serious offences, and the best statistics that could be given related to the indictable offences tried in the juvenile courts. The figures were: In 1913. 12,900; 1901, 10,400; 1929, 10,400: and in 1930, 11,100. Figures for 1931 had not yet been collected. Causes of Crime. As to tbe causes of such movements, opposite tendencies had been at work, some in a favourable and some in an unfavourable direction. There had been on the part of this nation in the past two generations, a very intensive effort towards social improvement, the results of which were satisfactory in themselves, though far less than the needs of the! community required. Those'•‘'■were the favourable factors, but of recent years there bad been counteracting and unfavourable factors. The war and the consequences of the war were the first of these. Over the country the normal family life was broken up over a period of years. No less importa. nt, teachers in the schools were depleted in mini hers' and their influence on the children lessened. Now one saw the results of that relaxation of control of the children in that generation in a. crop of those who were now young men of 25 and 30 years, who constituted the most difficult part of'ompresent class of offenders.

A secind cause hi recent years was the enconomic depression. A chart showed exactly how, as employment lose and fell, crime rose and fell. A further and a minor cause contributing to the increase of certain classes of crime was the use of the motor-ear. Some thought the cinema was aiiothecontributing factor, but there was much division of opinion on that. His very expert advisers at the Home Office were of the opinion that- on the whole Ihe cinema contributed more to tlio prevention of crime than to its com mission. (Hear, beair, and laughter.) Tt kept hoys out of mischief and gave them something to think about. In general, Home Office opinion was,that ' f the cinema had never existed there would probably be more crime titan there was rather than less. (Hear, hour.) .He was far from saying that it was not necessary to raise the standard of the films produced. (Hoar, hear.)