Brandon Jack Article

[RW]

Damnit I should have known better than to engage in serious discussion late on a Sunday night when my brain is half asleep, my posts didn't quite come out the way I intended and I appear to have gotten off track, carry on.

 

[baja]

Hopefully. I got through OK, but for others it was a different story. Not sure if I had some innate sense warning me not to get too close to the scary guys, or if I just wasn't very brave. Probably symbiotic actually.

You were more brave not to follow them. I do understand what Luke Ablett is trying to say just a very poorly worded article, well actually its a tweet so its coming from his heart and not edited, there lays the problem Im sure if he had the chance to reflect on it he would have worded it differently. That's social media for you.

 

[Rhysswans13]

Very well written article BJ. Without going to in depth what I believe he is trying to say is education and cultural change is what is needed to make a change in today's society. Easier said then done though...

 

[Wolftone]

There has been a huge rise in the use of steroids among young men so your point is valid, I think it has gone past ice, cannabis, coke, heroin etc.. the problem is the young blokes aren't mentally prepared for the changes in their testosterone levels they get rage its not from trying to be tough its genuine rage they cant control it.

You are wrong about your penis shrinking, in fact with the risen 'arousal' levels due to the high testosterone level, the constant attention you or your girlfriend gives it I would say it would even get bigger not smaller.
Its your balls that shrink.

You can combat that with certain estragon blockers but it is ill advised for younger men all sorts of problems can happen. When they stop using steroids their bodies fail to produce the natural testosterone and they can become weaker and sick not to mention the cardio and liver damage.

For older men that their natural testosterone levels are in decline it can be like the fountain of youth if properly administered and monitored by a doctor and meh, when you get older balls are overrated anyway.

Sorry to backtrack with this post as the conversations have been very interesting.

Im in the camp that leans towards the stats being skewed, so much happened 20-50yrs ago that no one found out about, the reporting of crimes was rare, no one can say with any authority that violence has risen, the stats have though.
The style of some vicious assaults are alarming but even those aren't new.

Sorry but Crime Stats are not just an invention of you young people. They have been around for at least 100 years and they are accurate. Every station in NSW submitted their stats to the Central Command by snail mail in the OLD days before computers. Types of crime were notes and early on sexual assault was counted in assault (pre 1970's). Media reported all violent crime with the same veracity as they do now. Social media up until the late '90's was not an issue and of course we relied on official media to treport crime. This they did with the tenacity of a bulldog.

Violence has risen in the last 30 years and it should not as someone has noted rise at the same rate as population, that is ridiculous. That is like saying the rate of smoking, bestiality, theft, serial killing should rise at the same level as the population, they haven't. In fact there has been a fall in most other crime. Why should violence & rape be two of the few crimes to rise? To me it shows a flaw in the fabric of society. I am not religious in any way, shape or form, I am an atheist, so I am not looking at this from a religiously moral point of view. I am looking at it from a social commentary, as a person who has a degree in Writing and who has studied philosophy & culture and society.

 

[RobbieK]

Why should violence & rape be two of the few crimes to rise? To me it shows a flaw in the fabric of society.

The rise in the rate of rape is not due to increased incidence of rape but increased reporting of rape. People are much more likely to do that now that at any time previously. I don't think it is evidence for a flaw in the fabric of society, it is actually evidence of us doing better.

 

[Kummerspeck]

.

Violence has risen in the last 30 years and it should not as someone has noted rise at the same rate as population, that is ridiculous. .

I never said it should. It just indicates that there isn't actually an unprecedented wave of violence washing over us.

 

[BarneyBent]

The rise in the rate of rape is not due to increased incidence of rape but increased reporting of rape. People are much more likely to do that now that at any time previously. I don't think it is evidence for a flaw in the fabric of society, it is actually evidence of us doing better.

Whether this is actually true or not, it's a very good point to make. Crime statistics cannot be taken at face value because they depend so heavily on the rate of crimes being reported. That doesn't mean that they're useless, just that you need to look deeper. Personally, I can't say for sure whether what you've suggested is correct, but it's certainly a very strong possibility.

 

[baja]

Sorry but Crime Stats are not just an invention of you young people. They have been around for at least 100 years and they are accurate. Every station in NSW submitted their stats to the Central Command by snail mail in the OLD days before computers. Types of crime were notes and early on sexual assault was counted in assault (pre 1970's). Media reported all violent crime with the same veracity as they do now. Social media up until the late '90's was not an issue and of course we relied on official media to treport crime. This they did with the tenacity of a bulldog.

Violence has risen in the last 30 years and it should not as someone has noted rise at the same rate as population, that is ridiculous. That is like saying the rate of smoking, bestiality, theft, serial killing should rise at the same level as the population, they haven't. In fact there has been a fall in most other crime. Why should violence & rape be two of the few crimes to rise? To me it shows a flaw in the fabric of society. I am not religious in any way, shape or form, I am an atheist, so I am not looking at this from a religiously moral point of view. I am looking at it from a social commentary, as a person who has a degree in Writing and who has studied philosophy & culture and society.

Firstly thank you for describing me as "you young people" I will take that as a compliment, you must be very old.

I have to respectfully disagree with you that reporting of crime was just as accurate 100 years ago as it is today.
So much more went unreported, so many assaults weren't even deemed "assaults"
Police were much tougher they would break up fights (assaults) by running through with boots and batons (more assaulting) most times no charges or reports.
As kids we would get kicked up the arse or a clip over the ear from the cops we just thought it normal.
We were sometimes chucked in the back of a divvy van and taken for hell rides down bumpy roads, well when we were together that was kinda fun even wore the cut and bruises with pride.

I was once thrown in a locker at South Melbourne police station and rolled down stairs much to the amusement of all the police on duty, imagine them trying that these days with CCTV.

Bouncers would smash groups of people then the police would turn up and take the 'victims' away, Bouncers were never charged and most times the Police thanked them, it was normal.

Gangsters would run the streets with violence that was never reported for the fear of further assaults, 50 years ago there was a stronger sense of "minding your own business" that goes with all the examples of crime I am giving.

Sexual assaults are reported much more these days, so much more networking and support for victims are in place as is spousal abuse. Years ago most turned a blind eye these days victims are much more comfortable to come forward.

The priests! Lets not even go there how terrible it must have been 50 years ago. The stats are for now when charges have been laid not then when it happened.

Towns outside of the cities often had no police at all and policed themselves often with violence (yep more assaulting).
Outback towns even these days are rife with sexual assaults often involving minors and might only get a visit from police once a month if that imagine 50years ago.

Teachers right through my primary school days all had their weapons of choice, canes across the arse, rulers across the knuckles etc I copped them all and often.. They would all be up on charges these days but it was deemed as normal.
Ive only scratched the surface with examples of there being less reporting of crimes 50 years ago, if anything your argument supports that its worse now if you take into account just a few examples I have provided.
There was just as much fist fighting/kinghitting/coward punching years ago if not more but this discussion is more about the reporting of assaults.
Also I think the rise in technology and communications is responsible for a lot of the 'reporting' stats.

On the rise of population shouldn't be a factor, maybe Im not on the same page but surely logic suggests if the population doubles the reporting and crime rates should raise significantly?

Im not sure how your degree in writing adds any weight to your argument but your posts are enjoyable to read and I too have studied philosophy, culture and society mostly propped up at a bar talking with other drunks and I read the paper everyday, ok studied a few books in my time but my thoughts mostly come from experience.

 

[baja]

I am looking at it from a social commentary, as a person who has a degree in Writing and who has studied philosophy & culture and society.

Your use of a capital W and the use of '&' and then 'and' in the same sentence seem odd for someone who has a degree in writing. lol just jokes mate.

 

[cherub]

Firstly thank you for describing me as "you young people" I will take that as a compliment, you must be very old.

I have to respectfully disagree with you that reporting of crime was just as accurate 100 years ago as it is today.
So much more went unreported, so many assaults weren't even deemed "assaults"
Police were much tougher they would break up fights (assaults) by running through with boots and batons (more assaulting) most times no charges or reports.
As kids we would get kicked up the arse or a clip over the ear from the cops we just thought it normal.
We were sometimes chucked in the back of a divvy van and taken for hell rides down bumpy roads, well when we were together that was kinda fun even wore the cut and bruises with pride.

I was once thrown in a locker at South Melbourne police station and rolled down stairs much to the amusement of all the police on duty, imagine them trying that these days with CCTV.

Bouncers would smash groups of people then the police would turn up and take the 'victims' away, Bouncers were never charged and most times the Police thanked them, it was normal.

Gangsters would run the streets with violence that was never reported for the fear of further assaults, 50 years ago there was a stronger sense of "minding your own business" that goes with all the examples of crime I am giving.

Sexual assaults are reported much more these days, so much more networking and support for victims are in place as is spousal abuse. Years ago most turned a blind eye these days victims are much more comfortable to come forward.

The priests! Lets not even go there how terrible it must have been 50 years ago. The stats are for now when charges have been laid not then when it happened.

Towns outside of the cities often had no police at all and policed themselves often with violence (yep more assaulting).
Outback towns even these days are rife with sexual assaults often involving minors and might only get a visit from police once a month if that imagine 50years ago.

Teachers right through my primary school days all had their weapons of choice, canes across the arse, rulers across the knuckles etc I copped them all and often.. They would all be up on charges these days but it was deemed as normal.
Ive only scratched the surface with examples of there being less reporting of crimes 50 years ago, if anything your argument supports that its worse now if you take into account just a few examples I have provided.
There was just as much fist fighting/kinghitting/coward punching years ago if not more but this discussion is more about the reporting of assaults.
Also I think the rise in technology and communications is responsible for a lot of the 'reporting' stats.

On the rise of population shouldn't be a factor, maybe Im not on the same page but surely logic suggests if the population doubles the reporting and crime rates should raise significantly?

Im not sure how your degree in writing adds any weight to your argument but your posts are enjoyable to read and I too have studied philosophy, culture and society mostly propped up at a bar talking with other drunks and I read the paper everyday, ok studied a few books in my time but my thoughts mostly come from experience.

"Rate' by definition has already taken into account the increase in population. it is the number ( incidence or prevalence, depending on what you are quoting) per 100,000 (or whatever unit you want). The "increased reporting " argument is impossible to refute or prove. There are still a huge number of unreported rapes. Amphetamines promote more violence in an individual than alcohol, although more people abuse alcohol.

 

[swans2014]

Violence has risen in the last 30 years and it should not as someone has noted rise at the same rate as population, that is ridiculous.

I think the confusion with some of the comments concerning violence rising alongside population growth might be to do with mixing up total numbers of recorded incidents with the number of incidents recorded per capita or per 100,000 population. It would be reasonable to assume that if a community grows in population then the total number of violent incidents will also rise (assuming there are no other changes within the community concerning attitudes to violence that might lead to an increase or decrease in incidents), but this might not mean that the rate of violence has also increased, as this is linked to incidents per 100,000 population, not to total incidents.

I can't stress strongly enough that, as several posters have mentioned, many crimes go unreported, and official crime statistics need to be examined with this in mind. Just because there has been an increase in recorded incidents of violent crime or increased crime rates over a given time period does not mean that violence has increased, it may simply mean that reporting rates have risen for certain types of crime - this is a good thing, as it means that people are becoming less willing to accept violence in their lives.

Factors such as policing (more widespread policing, police methods, community trust in police and in the justice system), community attitudes to violence, and the willingness of people to report must all be considered when assessing crime statistics. To simply say that crime rates for certain types of crime have increased so we have a national crisis fails to look at the entire picture.

As Baja has shown, the idea that a few decades ago the world was a safer place is a nostalgic fantasy. In previous decades violence was a key feature in families, schools and law enforcement, and I'm grateful to live in a community where violence in two of those three contexts is no longer tolerated in most situations (of the three, violence in families remains a long way from being eradicated). Community attitudes to violence are changing for the better, and more debate on the issue is a positive sign of this change.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Firstly thank you for describing me as "you young people" I will take that as a compliment, you must be very old.

I have to respectfully disagree with you that reporting of crime was just as accurate 100 years ago as it is today.
So much more went unreported, so many assaults weren't even deemed "assaults"
Police were much tougher they would break up fights (assaults) by running through with boots and batons (more assaulting) most times no charges or reports.
As kids we would get kicked up the arse or a clip over the ear from the cops we just thought it normal.
We were sometimes chucked in the back of a divvy van and taken for hell rides down bumpy roads, well when we were together that was kinda fun even wore the cut and bruises with pride.

I was once thrown in a locker at South Melbourne police station and rolled down stairs much to the amusement of all the police on duty, imagine them trying that these days with CCTV.

Bouncers would smash groups of people then the police would turn up and take the 'victims' away, Bouncers were never charged and most times the Police thanked them, it was normal.

Gangsters would run the streets with violence that was never reported for the fear of further assaults, 50 years ago there was a stronger sense of "minding your own business" that goes with all the examples of crime I am giving.

Sexual assaults are reported much more these days, so much more networking and support for victims are in place as is spousal abuse. Years ago most turned a blind eye these days victims are much more comfortable to come forward.

The priests! Lets not even go there how terrible it must have been 50 years ago. The stats are for now when charges have been laid not then when it happened.

Towns outside of the cities often had no police at all and policed themselves often with violence (yep more assaulting).
Outback towns even these days are rife with sexual assaults often involving minors and might only get a visit from police once a month if that imagine 50years ago.

Teachers right through my primary school days all had their weapons of choice, canes across the arse, rulers across the knuckles etc I copped them all and often.. They would all be up on charges these days but it was deemed as normal.
Ive only scratched the surface with examples of there being less reporting of crimes 50 years ago, if anything your argument supports that its worse now if you take into account just a few examples I have provided.
There was just as much fist fighting/kinghitting/coward punching years ago if not more but this discussion is more about the reporting of assaults.
Also I think the rise in technology and communications is responsible for a lot of the 'reporting' stats.

On the rise of population shouldn't be a factor, maybe Im not on the same page but surely logic suggests if the population doubles the reporting and crime rates should raise significantly?

Im not sure how your degree in writing adds any weight to your argument but your posts are enjoyable to read and I too have studied philosophy, culture and society mostly propped up at a bar talking with other drunks and I read the paper everyday, ok studied a few books in my time but my thoughts mostly come from experience.

Very vivid reminiscences. I enjoyed that.

On another note, I think it's great that we're up to 6 pages of robust sociological and criminological discussion, purely because the article in question (which made no reference to the Swans or even to footy in general) was written by a not-very famous Sydney Swans player.

Say what they want about Swans fans, we're a diverse and eloquent bunch.