Criminology Discussion Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

jason_recliner

Premiership Player
Dec 9, 2020
3,540
3,940
AFL Club
West Coast
Our discussions in crime threads sometimes go off on tangents about aspects of general criminology, taking the discussion away from the subject crime/s of the thread. Recent examples off the top of my head include:
  • no body = no parole
  • Age and other demographics of sexual assault victims
Maybe there is value in a general criminology thread, not specific to any crime/s/criminal, to keep crime-specific discussions on track while allowing criminology to be discussed?

Kicking it off with No Body = No Parole...

One perhaps unintended benefit is that murderers so calculating and evil that they treat the body in a way that will never be found (which requries a fair degree of thought and effort) receive extra punishment by default.
 
This research paper is worth a read, it covers the No Body No Parole aspects of it.

Public opinion on sentencing and parole in Australia

"Australia has nine different legislative regimes for sentencing and parole, as well as eight prison regimes; it has therefore been described as an ideal penal laboratory. This paper presents an overview of the extensive body of recent Australian research on public opinion on sentencing and, more recently, parole. The discussion on parole is situated in the context of an analysis of the legislative and policy landscape, which has undergone significant changes in recent years. The paper concludes with some comments on future research directions in relation to Australian public opinion on parole."

 
I found this a useful summary of forensic use of DNA - it's half a dozen pages of how, why etc.
The site seems a pretty good one and very much on thread.
This one talks about ethical issues.
On a side note, palaeontologists have been recovering and sequencing DNA from from specimens up to about 1.5 million years old. The field has been called molecular paleontology. As far as I know the claims for extinct Dino DNA are untrue. No Jurassic Park, yet.
Added - you can actually get non extinct Dino DNA everyday. Chooks and other birds are technically dinosaurs.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

If you are observant, you notice a lot of drug transactions in the Malls. The other day a young woman did a handover in a well-known mall. She was smartly dressed carrying a few shopping backs. the handover was done opposite a cafe. She gave a small cube to a group of three girls. One of them packed it away in an ear pod container. On handover the dealer kept walking as she was shopping. The buyers were less polished and slower to move on. I guess the transaction could even been done electronically.
 


This is a good video. His work on Saville is depressing but good, and I think he also did a good video about Maddie (IIRC).

Why are girls and young women overwhemingly the most common victims of sexual assault, rape and murder by men? Bondi Junction is the most recent, most obvious example but the stats are depressingly consistent.
 
Last edited:
This will BLOW YOUR MIND:




Episode 1 Mind Blown GIF by The Office


Explains A LOT about why what happened, happened.
 

In the 'Nordic paradox', high rates of gender equality does not equal safety for women​

For 14 years, the small Nordic nation of Iceland has topped the World Economic Forum gender-gap rankings, considered to have closed 91.2 per cent of the male-female divide. The survey considers the gender gap on four metrics: health, education and political empowerment and economic participation. But statistics on violence in the country, paint a vastly different portrait of the nation's treatment of women. About 40 per cent of Icelandic women experience gender-based and sexual violence in their lifetime, according to a landmark 2018 study by the University of Iceland.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-05...womens-equality-doesnt-equal-safety/103842754
 
One of the most common errors I see on here is people judging others behaviours based on their own behaviours. e.g. I would be crying and wailing but he wasn't, so he might be guilty, or, I always look at my phone but he didn't, so that's suspicious. It's tricky because we have to make some assumptions to draw conclusions, and we can generally assume that people will act in their interests (but not always). But there's logical/rational (i.e. in best interests) and there's personality traits, mannerisms, and habits behaviours that are often unrelated to self interest.
 
One of the most common errors I see on here is people judging others behaviours based on their own behaviours. e.g. I would be crying and wailing but he wasn't, so he might be guilty, or, I always look at my phone but he didn't, so that's suspicious. It's tricky because we have to make some assumptions to draw conclusions, and we can generally assume that people will act in their interests (but not always). But there's logical/rational (i.e. in best interests) and there's personality traits, mannerisms, and habits behaviours that are often unrelated to self interest.
Lindy Chamberlain the classic example of "not behaving like I think she should".
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Criminology Discussion Thread

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top