Crime

ICE – the facts

ICE.png

In yesterday’s piece, Child Abuse – the shocking stats, some decided to launch expletive laden criticism on the lack of discourse on the US Immigration & Customs Enforcement’s (ICE) treatment of children at the Mexican border, the inference that CM was turning a blind eye to the beastly Trump administration in reporting the extent of child abuse. First, the politicization of children is abhorrent. Where were the media when these same supposed crimes of removing children from (supposed) parent/guardians was occurring since 2013? Reading through the ICE end of year report of 2017 we let the stats speak for themselves. Forgive the preamble.

Recall the one-sided media coverage of the lifeless body of 3yo Syrian boy Aylan Kurdi on the shores of Turkey. Yet the facts were clear – he had not been in any danger. The family had been safe in Turkey for 3 years. His father was trying to make his way to Germany for dental surgery. Aylan’s parent chose to risk his son with no life jacket to make a hazardous trip on an overcrowded boat to seek selfish opportunism. Is it up to the West to take responsibility for the individual choices of people who are not at risk of war zones? Yet the media still used the image to show how callous we were to allow this.

It was only a few weeks ago that Time magazine posted a photo-shopped image of a crying little girl looking up at POTUS. Despite a tongue-bitten retraction tucked at the bottom of a long article to acknowledge the toddler had not been wrested from her mothers arm by ICE storm troopers, we find out the mother had abducted her with the help of people smugglers while abandoning her husband and 3 other kids.  The picture was used to great effect by the Refugee and Immigrant Center for Education and Legal Services (RAICES) to raise $20mn via crowdfunding! Even after the lie was outed the group still used it to lift the target to $25mn.  US veterans are committing suicide at the rate of 20/day and people are willing to crowdfund an unethical group by 1000s of multiples. Priorities. Or is it that TDS is that extreme?

Who wants to see screaming kids? No-one. Locked in cages? Even less. Separated? Well there is good reason for that. When even the likes of left-leaning HuffPo admitted in December 2014 that 80% of women and girls are sexually assaulted while trying to make it across the border there is a good reason to question the proof of identity of the supposed parents. Even if 90% of parent/children pairs are legit, what of the 10% that aren’t? Do ICE risk it? Australia had an experience of a mother from Nepal (a democracy not at war) who deliberately poured boiling water on her infant to expedite processing on the mainland. Are these the values of people we should provide refuge to? We should not forget that many people make the journey knowing ALL the risks that confront them yet still attempt it despite the warnings.

To emphasize the danger of lax screening,  multiple kids were found dead after being abandoned once across the border as their usefulness as a golden ticket on compassionate grounds was expended. If that isn’t some of the worst forms of child abuse then what is? Moreover these people are hardly the type that decent Americans would want to embrace with open arms!

In Jan 2016 WaPo noted, “The Office of Refugee Resettlement, an agency of the Department of Health and Human Services, failed to do proper background checks of adults who claimed the children…several Guatemalan teens were found in a dilapidated trailer park near Marion, Ohio, where they were being held captive in squalid conditions by traffickers and forced to work“. So slave labour to repay human traffickers? Let’s encourage more to attempt the crossing?

Then ICE has the trouble of finding the parents/guardians (sponsors) already living (often) illegally to collect their unaccompanied children at pre-arranged court hearings. The media went into a frenzy saying that ICE had lost the records. The truth came out in Feb 2016 that,

“The head of ICE’s removal operations, Thomas Homan, told members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that 7,643 immigrants who arrived as children were sent home between the 2012 and 2015 budget years…More than 171,000 children, mostly from Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, were arrested at the border during that same time…The number of children caught crossing the border illegally spiked in 2014 [see impacts in NY Times graphic below] and the Obama administration promised that those who were not eligible for protections in the United States would be swiftly sent home… And with an immigration court backlog of more than 474,000 pending cases some cases can take years to move through the court system…

ICE SURGE

…about 40% of immigrants are no shows at court…Finding immigrant children with outstanding deportation orders is also complicated by the fact that they often are no longer at the addresses provided to the government.”We are out looking,” Homan said. “But they are hard to find. A lot of these folks who don’t show up in court, we don’t know where they’re at.”

The pictures of kids in concentration camp style cages were from 2014. Yet don’t let that get put in the way of a narrative to show the nationalist tendencies of the current administration.

While we can express outrage at the treatment of illegal immigrants at the border, the tougher laws have started to resonate with Ana Garcia Carias, wife of Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernandez, who said, “Stay in the country and let’s look for solutions to support you.” She visited the border and said that she didn’t recommend her citizens go to the US undocumented. If a court system has nearly 500,000 backed up in the system, it seems reasonable to push for a zero tolerance policy to end

So let’s examine the ICE data. 

To contextualize what ICE’s enforcement focus includes with respect to removable aliens we find:

(1) have been convicted of any criminal offense;
(2) have been charged with any criminal offense that has not
been resolved;
(3) have committed acts which constitute a chargeable criminal offense;
(4) have engaged in fraud or willful misrepresentation in connection with any official matter before a governmental agency;
(5) have abused any program related to receipt of public benefits;
(6) are subject to a final order of removal but have not complied with their legal obligation to depart the United States; or
(7) in the judgment of an immigration officer, otherwise pose a risk to public safety or national security.

An administrative arrest of a criminal alien is the arrest of an alien with a known criminal conviction. The figures as follows:

  • 2015: 101,800
  • 2016:  94,750
  • 2017: 105,736

Here are some of the reasons of arrest (both criminal convictions and charges) for 2017:

  • Driving under the influence : 80,547
  • Dangerous drugs: 76,503
  • Immigration violation:  62,517
  • Assault: 48,454
  • Larceny: 20,356
  • Burglary: 12,836
  • Fraud: 12,398
  • Illegal weapon possession: 11,173
  • Sex offences: 6,664
  • Stolen Vehicles: 6,174
  • Forgery: 5,210
  • Homicide: 1,886
  • Kidnapping: 2,027
  • Prostitution racketeering: 1,572

An initial book-in is the first book-in to an ICE detention facility to begin a new detention stay. This population includes aliens initially arrested by Customs & Border Protection (CBP) and transferred to ICE for removal. Once again the combined bookings are as follows

  • 2015: 307,342
  • 2016: 352,882
  • 2017: 323,591

The decrease in ICE’s overall removal numbers from FY2016 to FY2017 was primarily due to the decline in border apprehensions in 2017. Many fewer aliens were apprehended at the border in FY2017 than in FY2016—possibly reflecting an increased deterrent effect from ICE’s stronger interior enforcement efforts (which is exactly what they wish to achieve).

  • 2015: 235,413
  • 2016: 240,255
  • 2017: 226,119

In FY2017, ICE Enforcement and Removal Operations (ERO) conducted 143,470 overall administrative arrests, which is the highest number of administrative arrests over the past three fiscal years. Of these arrests, 92% had a criminal conviction, a pending criminal charge, were an ICE fugitive or were processed with a reinstated final order.

If one views even the short term trend of ICE operations one can see that the extent of the problem is not just a Trump issue. From even before Obama’s time, border related issues have been a festering problem. The press can beat him and his supporters senseless but it would seem he is merely fulfilling election promises. With almost half a million still to be processed in the courts, is there any sense in clogging the legal system with even more to process. Even after the repeal of legislation that prevents parent-child separations, no credit is given by his detractors despite the fact this was enacted well before he took office. Where was the press outrage during the Obama era when all the same sort of ‘abuse’ was going on? Nowhere.

People trafficking is as deplorable an occupation as can be imagined yet the idea of  publicizing open borders fuels their industry as shown in the lead up to 2014. The ultimate irony is now Frau Merkel has instituted border camps of her own as the results of her misguided altruism led to countless human traffickers to benefit from her come one, come all policies.

In summary, Rasmussen Reports notes that most Americans do not want to abolish ICE. The polling firm noted,

“only 25% of Likely U.S. Voters favor getting rid of ICE whose duties include border control. Fifty-five percent (55%) are opposed…Sixty-nine percent (69%) of Republicans and 53% of voters not affiliated with either major political party oppose getting rid of ICE. Democrats agree by a narrower 44% to 36% margin.”

AS CM always says, if people don’t like the laws, then move to change them.

Zucker feasted on your consent to be a sucker

Whatever the outcome of this hearing, much of the data collected was willingly offered by Facebook users. It was they who told people where they took vacation, the restaurant they ate or birthday they celebrated. It was they who adorned their avatar with a transparent French or rainbow flag as a back drop after another terrorist attack or to show support for same sex marriage. It was they who clicked the check box to agree to the “terms and conditions” immediately without reading it. Is that Zuckerberg’s fault? Questions however must be asked with respect to the ability to access microphones and cameras unbeknownst to users. How flagrantly was privacy law violated beyond that agreed by users?

For as much as Zuckerberg might look an evil violator of privacy laws (he may yet be proved to be so), if one wants real anonymity, social media is the last place to find it. It is doubtful anyone posts happy snaps on social media as a pure storage back up device. Many people crave attention and more than ever their self-actualisation stage in the ‘hierarchy of needs’ is driven by likes and shares rather than the Abraham Maslow’s original theorem of 75 years ago. The higher the ratio of “selfies” would probably be highly correlated to attention deficit disorder. Protesting the use of the data provided is a grossly naive assumption if not borderline negligent. Tucked away in the fine print of the words and conditions would surely have FB gaining their complete consent.

Ted Cruz took it to Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg on whether the social media giant ‘censors conservative’ news. He replied, “Silicon Valley is an extremely left-leaning place.While denying that he knows the political affiliations of the 15~20,000 staff who police content he said the group does its best to remove things that are considered hateful (e.g.hate speech, terrorism), hurtful or distasteful (e.g. nudity). It was brought to Zuckerberg’s attention that black conservatives (and Trump supporters) Diamond & Silk had their page blocked with 1.2 million followers on grounds of  “being unsafe to the community”. In any event, Zuckerberg deflected many of the questions in his testimony on grounds of the size of the organization but admitted not enough was done to police itself. Power corrupts…? Absolutely…?

Which brings the whole argument surrounding ‘free speech’ and social media sites exercising subjective political bias. It was only several years back that openly gay shock-jock Milo Yiannopoulos was banned from Twitter for causing ‘offence’ to a Ghostbusters actress. Yet what is offence? Where is the line drawn? What offends one might not offend another. However the censor would seemingly be able to use his or her subjective opinions, values and biases which makes it pretty clear what the outcome will be. President Trump learned that when a disgruntled Twitter employee temporarily suspended his account. Do not be surprised when we’re simply told to “get with the times” and accept the party line. Resistance is futile. It is the simplest way to shut down sensible debate.

Anyone active on social media is well aware of the risks of being targeted, trolled or attacked for expressing differing views. However do users require, much less want to submit to the machinations of the thought police? Shouldn’t they be free to choose what they view or pages they subscribe to? Indeed hate speech (not to be confused with difference of opinion) has no place but the majority of users are likely to be able to make that assessment without it having been arbitrarily made for them.

Then again, surely as a publicly listed corporation Facebook can decide what it wants to do with its site and let participants in the free market (who use it for no charge) decide for themselves that the obvious bias forces them to seek social media platforms elsewhere. Twitter share price was badly thumped for its blocking of certain groups and its share price is around 1/3rd the peak. It’s overall followers have fluctuated in the 316-330mn range since Q4 2016. The market works. It is taking Facebook’s shareprice to task on the grounds it will suffer for treating its users as mugs. Perhaps a look at activity post the hearings will show just how many mugs are still as active as before despite the threats to abandon the evil Zuck. The share price will respond accordingly.

It begs the question as to why a more conservative outfit hasn’t decided to make a Facebook equivalent which does not censor outside of clear violations of hate speech. Surely offering a replicated platform that didn’t censor free speech would be a massive winner. Users would also sign up to a simple (and SHORT) legal agreement that there is a risk of being offended and to commit to accepting it. Where clear violations of hate speech (e.g. threats of murder, terrorism etc.) are found such things can be reported to the authorities (with terms and conditions EXPLICITLY warning of such repucussions for violating easy to understand rules). Then again maybe Zuckerberg is right. Silicon Valley is indeed an extremely left-leaning [alt-left?] place! So this is why conservatives are behind the 8-ball on a free speech social media platform.

The sad reality is that social media is policed by the left and authorities seem keen to exploit the powers that provides. The examples are too many. Controversial conservatives have been blocked, banned and restricted for the most spurious of reasons. Diamond & Silk are hardly a danger to society. It is almost comical to think that.  Yet aren’t the subscription rates/followers of particular sites indicative of the ‘moods’ of people? Could it be that black, conservative and Trump supporter must be mutually exclusive terms in the eyes of the left’s identikit forcing the Facebook apparatchiks to enforce a subjective shutdown? If a public explanation was provided it would probably just say, “trust our objectivity’. Whaaaat?

At some stage if enough people feel they are being played around with they will choose of their own volition to leave and seek their social media thrills on other platforms. Or will they? It maybe too late. Blatant exploitation of social media by governments looks like an obvious trend. If we are only too willing to give up our data and cede any visibility of the inner circle’s terms of use of it we are on a slippery slope of our own making. Think about how your mobile device allows you to be tracked whenever and however. It can turn your camera or microphone on. It can triangulate your whereabouts anywhere across the world. What you’ve read, listened to and watched. Where are the privacy laws surrounding this? Is your local rep fighting in your corner? Probably not.

Could private conversations with a lawyer (client-attorney privilege) be bugged and used as evidence? Don’t laugh. As an aerospace analyst many moons ago, teams of specialists with anti-bugging devices trawled through the suites of the aircraft manufacturers’ chalets to ensure the opposition didn’t get wind of negotiations with airlines they were both competing to win large orders from. Illegal in the extreme but seemingly exercised by all parties. It was an unwritten rule.

However social media censorship hides deeper problems. It is also increasingly a tool to shut down debate and people like London Mayor Sadiq Khan has met with social media execs to collude on cracking down on ‘hate speech’. Surely policing spurious claims of hate speech is a lesser issue to the immediate threat faced by a capitol which saw its murder rate surpass that of New York. Not so. This is the dangerous turn in social media. Not whether our data is used for targeted advertising for cheap flights but used to pillory, interrogate and shut down innocents. After all social media has a half-life of infinity.

Take the controversial figure Tommy Robinson in England. The UK authorities and media wish us to believe he is an unhinged far right wing bigoted racist thug. Yet despite all of the times he has been jailed (for mostly trumped up charges), silenced and muzzled for publicising what he sees as a major problem in his community (i.e. radical Islam), the growth in followers continues to rise on his Facebook page (706,000). Maybe the authorities should keep tabs on them? Arrest them on suspicion of potentially causing hate crimes. Surely they are cut from the same cloth as Tommy? Afterall it is better to arrest a comedian for teaching a dog to do a Nazi salute to annoy his partner as it is less controversial to the state than tackling real issues. Perhaps authorities should pay attention to why Robinson’s following is so large? It is irrelevant whether one finds his viewpoints offensive or not, a majority of over half a million clearly don’t. He is no saint and would be the first to admit it. Still the authorities are trying everything to shut him down. Social media is being used as a watchdog.

Robinson has two best selling books –  ‘Enemy of the State’ and ‘Mohammad’s Koran: Why Muslims kill for Islam’. Is that not evidence that there are more people than the authorities would care to admit to that actually concur with his assessment? Maybe some want to read it out of curiosity? However when many of those same people see an undercover scoop done by the left leaning publicly funded Channel 4 on the inner workings of one of England’s most conservative mosques, praised by politicians as they true face of a peaceful religion. Even though the mosque had promised to clamp down on radical imams, the documentary revealed that despite assurances to government authorities, teachers still encourage students to believe that the only remedy for gays and apostates is to be killed. So maybe Robinson’s followers aren’t as fringe or minor in number as we would be made to believe? With the widespread outing of child grooming gangs across the UK, maybe Brits have had enough of the political hand wringing over politically correct discourse. The more the movement is pushed underground the harder it will be to stop vigilantism. We’ve already seen signs of it emerging. Think of the Guardian Angels in NY during the crime waves in the 1979.

What the Zuckerberg testimony brings to the surface is yet another example made clear to the public of the two tier dispensing of free speech. What worries the public more is that justice seems to be operating under the exact same framework. What the Channel 4 programme exposed with respect to blatant hate speech is incontrovertible. Yet will authorities arrest, charge and jail them as they would a Tommy Robinson? Not a chance. To encourage the murder of people that aren’t part of an ideology can’t be viewed as anything other than a willful threat.  Will the judiciary demand that scholars have their pages scrubbed from social media?

The shoes are on the wrong foot. Earlier this year, Austrian conservative Martin Sellner and his girlfriend Brittany Pettibone were arrested on arrival in the UK, detained and deported. Sellner for wanting to deliver a speech at Speaker’s Corner in Hyde Park (later delivered by Robinson) and Pettibone for wanting to interview Tommy Robinson (which he later conducted in Vienna). Neither look in the least bit dangerous. In this case, social media backfired on the state. In both cases, the public once again saw the double standards and the pervasive political posturing to beat the ‘controllable’ element into submission. Just as it is easier for the police to fine speeding motorists than actively pursue solid leads on catching grooming gangs the public rightly grows increasingly livid. Social media is being used more widely as a policing tool, with negative connotations. It isn’t just being used to foil terror plots but stomp on the rights of the average citizen.

Still there is some sympathy for Zuckerberg in that many people volunteered their information. If it was used in ways that violated ethical and more importantly legal rights it only goes to prove that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. To that end, can we really expect lawmakers to cramp their own style when Zuckerberg has only highlighted how powerful the information he possesses can be used to sucker us more than they already do. That is the real crime we are seemingly becoming powerless to stop. Talk about the real Big Brother!

True colours of the left exposed when it comes to white Sth African farmers

DDD875EC-E209-43D5-B2B1-55F6FB5643ED.jpeg

There is something to be said of the left when it comes to compassion. For all of the sanctimony of how we must do our bit for social justice and fight to stop every -ism in the world, whites need not apply. It shouldn’t have escaped many that certain “white” South African farmers are fleeing persecution while their land is being confiscated. Murders, beatings of men and women, children having their faces given the “joker’s cut” with razor blades. It’s truly horrific. Yet some are prepared to cynically fire off “the poor whites…”

Yet because of their skin colour some on the left deem their “white privilege” should be checked first. It would seem in order to restore justice, white South African farmers should get a taste of their own medicine after the oppression of apartheid some 30+ years ago. Surely people in need are indeed just that – in need. Are all white farmers guilty of apartheid? Back of the line. Sacrifice your lives for the sake of equality.

Australia is often beaten over the head for its asylum seeker policies. That somehow asylum seekers kept in detention centres (where they demand Hyatt 5-star  services and amenities) awaiting processing on Manus Island got a raw deal as ‘fellow whites’ get a fast pass. What the media, like The Guardian often fail to do is report the balance. Immigration Minister Dutton fast tracked the visas of 700 Yazidi women who had escaped ISIS rape gangs. They aren’t white. They were in grave danger. Instead of congratulations it wasn’t reported.

On the flip side 12 Iranians had their visas revoked by Dutton’s office for lying in their applications. They had pleaded they were fleeing persecution in Iran yet the first thing they did on receipt of visas was to fly back to the very danger zone they had escaped for a holiday. Was that racist policy or one that is simply preventing visa fraud to ensure integrity in the immigration system?

Asylum seeker policy is a touchy subject. How Angela Merkel was praised for her social caring programme by granting a come one come all refugee policy, one which ended up being the mother of all misguided altruism. Instead of helping the truly needy, the EU tallied that 80% were economic migrants seeking better fortunes in the West. That’s right 80% weren’t fleeing war zones.

Since she started her benevolence, Merkel gagged the media, muzzled the police and silenced those that spoke out about the cover up of the deterioration in public safety, rapes and crime which even now Merkel admits has led to the creation of no go zones which never existed before. She’s now paying for refugees to leave with generous incentives. Yet where is the left’s media outrage? Why not just admit it was a dreadfully executed policy which cost her the worst election result for her party in 70 years and gave the anti-immigrant AfD the second largest following in Germany from nowhere?

Then the folly is extended to the EU which then tried to cover up for Merkel by enforcing migrant quotas like they were cattle. Asylum seekers were mostly making a B-line to Germany yet the EU in its infinite wisdom thought all members had a duty to take a share. If they truly spared a thought for asylum seekers, why would any wish to be allocated to countries like Hungary that held a referendum on the topic and got a 98.4% response against having them? Not a promising starting point.  Then we sit back and wonder why the Italians voted for anti-immigrant, eurosceptic parties? Or why the UK voted Brexit? Or why the Austrians also voted in a government that put a right wing anti-immigration party in charge of immigration? Or The Netherlands? Poland? Hungary? The list goes on.

Yet the media focuses on a drowning 3 year-old boy on a shoreline and tried to shame our collective lack of compassion. Still the media refused to focus on the billion dollar illegal people smuggling industry that lured so many who weren’t fleeing persecution to their deaths. That poor little Aylan Kurdi died, not  because he and his family were fleeing  to safety (they already had been for 3 years in Turkey) but that his life was put at risk without a life jacket in a flimsy vessel for the sake of his father’s own dental treatment.

Why not beat Gulf states over the head for not doing their bit? The Saudis can accommodate 3 million, chair the UN Human Rights Council yet refuse to step up and the media stays silent. Why not smash up Japan for letting in low double digit numbers of asylum seekers? Is it a coincidence that the 98% homogeneous society has such low crime rates, social harmony and safety record the envy of the world? It is not to say that foreigners commit most of the crime in Japan because they don’t (per head of population they do) but Japan is not prepared to throw its culture out the window to get with the times on doing its bit for humanity. Japan would prefer to throw billions in foreign aid to fix the problem at source.

The better narrative is to pick on the West. Shame our white privilege. Mock our colonialist past and tell South African farmers to go to hell.

Compassion for the truly needy should only depend on the danger faced. Skin colour, religion, sexual orientation or any other identity based criteria should be irrelevant. People who are desperately fleeing for their lives should fall over themselves to willingly respect the rules of their new house. They should be only too happy to repay the generosity of those that provide safety and strive to become model citizens. Many Vietnamese fleeing the ravages or the Vietnam War have paid back our support in spades.

Yet too often those who have not escaped persecution end up being the ones that expect society to bend to their culture not the other way around. Our authorities and judiciaries are becoming self annointed justice warriors often turning a blind eye to crime by meting out lenient sentences for armed robbery, rape, child grooming, assault and manslaughter with paltry community service orders. Take this example. Ibrahim Kamara, from Sierra Leone, received a suspended sentence of just over one year, with an 18-month good ­behaviour order, after admitting to five counts, including grooming and having sex with a minor. The ACT Supreme Court judge said “(Kamara) has tried to make a good start on his life in Australia”. Or last week a Sudanese woman, Ayou Deng, was given 80 hours community service for running over and killing a 13yo boy in a car she was driving unlicensed. What message is being sent to the people that we would hope want to integrate in the great Aussie way of life? Do what you please as the worst you’ll get is a slap on the wrist.

Then should we criticize Australia’s asylum seeker policy when we ask for the recipients of asylum visas to sign a code of conduct order which explicitly tells them that rape and sexual harassment of women and children is not accepted? Surely civilized society shouldn’t need to have to force new arrivals to sign a document for common decency but apparently they do. Clearly the immigration department saw it as a requirement supposedly to stem the tide of countless incidents before it was introduced. Then again Canada is trying to remove female genital mutilation from its new citizen’s code of conduct for fear it might offend. You can’t make this stuff up.

So to the left that wants to selectively administer asylum seeker policy based on prejudices. In the quest for diversity they should check their own hypocrisy before asking white South African farmers to check their privilege as they cry for genuine grounds for asylum. The true colours of the left are exposed for what they are. Institutionalized diversity folks is anything but. No one wins acceptance by denying their own identity,

A link between crime & IQ?

IQ

While updating all of the data for crime in Japan, CM was intrigued by the IQ test data compiled by the Ministry of Justice (MoJ) for all 20,000 new inmates in 2016. The average IQ recorded was 81.4. All said and told, 57.4% of new inmates scored an IQ of more than 80. The MoJ also recorded that the level of education attained by criminals showed 62.5% had attained a maximum of middle school (years 7-9) or dropped out of high school (years 10-12).

HS.png

Japan has a high school matriculation rate of around 95% which places it in the top 4 countries around the world. The US has around a 76% completion rate (rank 13) for high school according to the OECD.

To study IQ for inmates on a more global basis, a 2003 study by Ellis & Walsh revealed that of all the Texas inmates who entered the prison system in 2002 approx. 23% of the inmates scored below 80, almost 69% scored between 80 and 109, and only 9.6% scored above 110. The average was 85. The Prison Reform Trust in the UK said 1/3 of prisoners had an IQ less than 80 and one-third of that was less than 70. A Levine study in 2011 showed that those who had been to jail had a mean IQ of 89.61 while those who had not who had a mean IQ of 100.6.

Although a deeper look at serial killers showed extremely high IQs. The Dating Game serial killer Rodney Alcala had a reported IQ of 170. Uni-bomber Ted Kaczynski 167 and Jeffrey Dahmer 144. Hideo Murai, chief scientist of the Aum Shinrikyo (responsible for the Tokyo subway sarin attacks), was also reported t have an IQ of 160. On the other and, Australia’s worst mass murderer, Martin Bryant, reportedly has an IQ of only 68.

We shouldn’t forget that months after winning a national title, Harvard’s debate team lost to a group of New York prison inmates. A three-judge panel concluded that the jailbirds had raised arguments the Harvard team had failed to consider or was it a slight bias that the judges feared repercussions were they ever released?

Many prevailing theories of intelligence suggest people with lower IQs are most likely to break the law, since impulsivity, struggles at school and a lack of social bonding are all linked to criminality.  Although James Oleson, a criminologist based at the University of Auckland in NZ, suggests real-life geniuses have a penchant for breaking the law. He noted there may be an IQ threshold after which a high it becomes more of a risk factor for committing crimes. Intelligent offenders were more likely to get away with their crimes.

The flip-side to claiming mental disability is also that of avoiding execution. In the US, there are some states debating whether an inmate with an IQ below 70 cam be executed on the grounds he or she may not have sufficient mental faculty. Abandoning the 70-point IQ cutoff could double the number of death row inmates who claim they are mentally disabled.

According to the 2005 Annual Report on Government Measures for Persons with Disabilities published by the Japan Cabinet Office, of the total estimated 3,600,000 people with a mental disability, 459,000 people possessed the Certificate of Mental Retardation – 12% of all mentally disabled people in Japan possess it vs. 6.3% of mentally disabled inmates. The Yokohama National University suggested this clearly indicates a tendency that people who are bound to be in prisons are less likely to have possessed the certificate, therefore likely to have missed some form of assistance from social welfare programs.

Morie and Matsushi wrote, “5.9% of all population on average is categorized as intellectually disabled. However, the percentage of children who are classified as mentally disabled and receiving special education as well as social welfare is stagnant at 1%. Because the Certificate of Mental Retardation is only issued upon request, many of the parents/guardians are reluctant to apply due to the fear of being stigmatized. This is especially true for a mild case of mental retardation. Lack of appropriate education and opportunity to receive social welfare can lead the children with mental disability to anti-social behavior, ultimately connecting them to crimes. Therefore, guardians should be strongly recommended to apply for the certificate without hesitation…”

Although it is worth noting that despite prison capacity in Japan expanding 50% over the last decade, the number of inmates is 31% lower at around 56,000 or 62% capacity, down from 105% at the peak. Compared to the 2.2mn prisoners in the US, Japan is still at the very low end of the crime spectrum. That is to say the US has 13.1x the number of prisoners relative to the population than Japan. The US ranks 1st while Japan ranks 35th.

Hard to work out who is more mentally deranged?

3C184290-7041-4EAD-9D9F-40C97FF011E5

It is honestly hard to work out who is more deranged – policy makers or the perpetrators? Before the bleeding hearts come out saying that we have a moral duty to provide safety to those in need I will tell them I couldn’t agree more. Having said that anyone fleeing for their life must be so completely and utterly relishing the prospect of a new chance, Not looking to plough a vehicle into innocent civilians. Not look to invade people’s homes, car jack and commit assault and battery much less try to set a petrol station on fire.While the Victorian Police and State Government are using the excuse that the (not so called)  terrorist  was  “mentally deranged”  take a look at the Australian Code of Behaviour that new arrivals are asked to commit to. Don’t molest, sexually assault or rape women or children. On what grounds are we looking to accept people that are so bereft of common decency?

Do we require cultural sensitivity training? What on earth is society thinking if such common humanistic basics require a contract? Clearly because the risks of them being committed is too high, Perhaps that is why Trudeau’s Liberal government is pushing to remove ‘female genital mutilation (FGM) from the Canadian Citizen’s Guide. Listening to a committee on the subject, Conservative Party members got absolutely no reassurance that this would be retained in the guide. Indeed the Liberals were looking to ‘consult’ so they could deflect responsibility, Then again returning ISIS terrorists won’t be arrested but given rehabilitation with a combination of haiku, poetry and podcasts. Yes that’s the level of rolling over. Close your eyes wide shut. Nothing to see here.

So instead of calling Melbourne’s attack for what it is even after the mentally deranged has left his intentions be known we hide behind political correctness so as not to offend. Then again the Victorian Police’s recruitment drive offered segregated information sessions. Just the ticket to have a police force that serves under certain conditions. It is a farce,

Many complain that Australia’s refugee policy has been unjust. Is the rescue and fast-tracking of visa applications for 700 Yazidi women who escaped the rape of ISIS fighters not stepping up to the plate? How much praise should be government to the women from federal immigration who are on the ground processing? The highest.  Is the rescinding of a dozen Iranian asylum seekers’ visas unjust when on receipt of them flew directly back to the country that supposedly they were fleeing for their lives from? They lied. No sympathy.

Nothing is simple but the citizens (even of regressive in Victoria) can see through this constant politically correct garbage. Yes we can point to the Vegas shooter and to a host of other Christian criminals but the fact of the matter is to call out the problem for what it is, whenever it occurs. Casting religion aside, to run down innocent civilians in a car is most definitely deranged. Doing it in the name of a sky-daddy doesn’t justify it but deliberately avoiding the I or M words when they are used during the act just p*sses people off. Call it for what it is,.

Perhaps the Code of Behaviour should carry an “immediate deportation” clause for anyone that commits crimes. Any legitimate asylum seekers will have no worry that they’d ever trigger the clause because they truly value the next stage of their lives and we should welcome everyone that seeks to want to make a contribution in exactly the way the Australian wat off life provides.  Welcome.

Lock’em up – Prisons in America – The facts

C6653A02-60BE-4317-8A77-607B35574A20.jpeg

The Nation reported that the number of privately run prisons is on the move under Trump. At the moment private prisons make up around 5% of the 2.3mn prison population at present. The US now spends $90bn every year to incarcerate these jailbirds or around $39,000 a head (similar to Japan). According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis we had a lull in expenditure on jails after the Lehman collapse. Indeed several states were releasing ‘lower’ risk criminals from prison in order to cut their deficits. This has driven the growth in private prisons.

5571D28E-0244-4470-88E2-1613CB739ECC.jpeg

According to The Nation, “18 states spend more on incarceration than on higher education, and one study found that the total cost of incarceration, including social costs, adds up to $1 trillion. One point seven million children in the United States have a parent in prison, more than 70 million Americans (about one in three) have a criminal record, and those enormous impacts are suffered unequally: While African Americans are about 13 percent of the US population, they make up 37 percent of the male prison population.

The Nation highlights also that “these private prisons are important to understand and discuss because, while only about 8 percent of the current state prison population is housed in for-profit facilities, about 18 percent of those behind bars in the federal system are in these prisons, and over 60 percent of immigration-detention beds are operated by these corporations” the newspaper is overstating the performance of the stocks. While indeed the largest company, CoreCivic (CXV0 rallied off the election it has none-the-less returned to earth.

D96D12E2-16B4-4321-977A-AFB7ED07F642.jpeg

Also earnings whether in revenue or profit terms actually peaked under Obama’s administration.

4A45D78C-8273-48EE-8B77-C68B729CC3A1.jpeg

While the numbers are horrific in themselves, incarceration in the US costs the equivalent of the Slovak Republic’s GDP.

On public safety alone the US is now spending $375bn p.a or the equivalent of Austria or just over half what the country outlays on defence. So combined the US spends $1 trillion per annum on ‘protection.

The Nation also notes, “The Trump administration appears to be focused on expanding the number of undocumented individuals who are detained behind bars in this country. For one, his administration requested more than $1.2 billion [in reality a 1.3% increase] in the 2018 federal budget to expand detention capacity to more than 48,000 beds a day. To put this into perspective: According to ICE, the current daily capacity ranges from about 31,000 to 41,000. And in April, the administration handed GEO group a $110 million contract to build and run a 1,000-bed detention center in Conroe, Texas. And, most recently, ICE issued “requests to identify,” which are basically pre-requests for proposals, from contractors who can house immigrant detainees in South Texas as well as in the interior of the country in places like Chicago, Detroit, and Salt Lake City.

As a reference the border wall is priced at around $10bn.

As an investment, perhaps the US private jails look a bit oversold with the hype immediately  post the election behind us. At 13x P/E for CVX perhaps a turnaround in its earnings potential is ahead of us and a discount to the market with minimal downside risks make it a proper bricks and mortar investment. The above forecasts look reasonably conservative.

Who will do the bidding to accommodate Mrs Clinton? Perhaps a premium will be warranted.

40CA11BA-26BE-4278-B0E2-167757090E6B.jpeg

Scotland bans smacking children. Would you arrest Toya Graham?

Scotland is banning smacking children. It is a contentious issue. Sensible parenting would suggest spanking is done as an absolute last resort. Germany has banned it since 2000. Of course, preventing child abuse is a no-brainer. Recall single mum Toya Graham who shot to fame after slapping her son when she found he disobeying her direct order to stay away from the Baltimore protests. She gave her son a schooling which was widely praised in the media. Call it tough love or whatever but her son literally didn’t know what hit him. How anyone could see it as anything other than unconditional love for her ‘only’ son is beyond words? Even the media were calling her “Mom of the year”.

Yet in this powder-puff world, more laws are being put in place to wrap kids in cotton wool and cage parents behind barbed wire. Is it any wonder we have so many unadjusted millennials who need safe spaces, trigger warnings to prevent micro-aggressions? Why not ban rugby and football for kids because by the same token, contact sports are inherently violent and would only reinforce the many studies which have tried to link those kids who are on the receiving end of corporal punishment to being “more” likely to be aggressive.

As a statistician though, collecting enough credible data on this is incredibly hard to do. For one, kids stepping out of line is not only random in terms of time and severity but age and a whole host of factors. Can one honestly say that a kid who was smacked twice a year is likely to be twice as prone to anxiety in later life than one smacked once a year? Can we honestly link the event of a father smacking his 7yo who stole money from his mother’s purse to buy candy was directly related to his PTSD in later life? Indeed if there is serious and continuous child abuse then that is a whole different story. What is next? Will the government use a stern telling off by a parent as ‘verbal abuse’ of children? Who  determines the line of what constitutes parenting and abuse?

Perhaps we should look at the incidence of single parent households around the world. Maybe parent responsibility (or rather lack thereof) is a far bigger factor in causing ‘problems’ in later life than a smack for insolence. Starting with America – the top 10 counties where kids are in households raised by one parent is over 70% with the ironically named Loving County in Texas the top at almost 100%. In Japan single parent households are now 25% of all families up from 15% in 1990. In Scotland, 25% of families (170,000) are single parent. As a statistician it is far easier to draw a link between growing single parent households and maladjusted kids. The bottom line is that there is a large body of literature showing that children of single parents are more likely to commit crimes than children who grow up with their married parents.

From the report ‘The Real Root Causes of Violent Crime: The Breakdown of Marriage, Family, and Community

“Most delinquents are children who have been abandoned by their fathers. They are often deprived also of the love and affection they need from their mother. Inconsistent parenting, family turmoil, and multiple other stresses (such as economic hardship and psychiatric illnesses) that flow from these disagreements compound the rejection of these children by these parents, many of whom became criminals during childhood. With all these factors working against the child’s normal development, by age five the future criminal already will tend to be aggressive, hostile, and hyperactive. Four-fifths of children destined to be criminals will be “antisocial” by 11 years of age, and fully two-thirds of antisocial five-year-olds will be delinquent by age 15.”

Maybe the Scots should make getting divorce much harder more than preventing corporal punishment? After all single parent benefits are so easy to get making the decision to split so much easier. In Japan divorces sky-rocketed when the government entitled women to 50% of their spouse’s pension. Policy matters.

Before those that want to point at poverty as a factor in crime they might want to know that the Chinese in San Francisco in the mid-1960s had the lowest family income of any ethnic group (less than $4,000 per year) but next to no crime: only 5 Chinese in all of California were then in prison.

How many parents today use iPhones or iPads as modern day pacifiers to naughty kids as a substitute for good parenting? Easier to stuff an iPhone in their face after they’ve stepped out of line than spend 5 minutes looking eye to eye to explain right and wrong. Instead threats like “wait til I tell your father when he gets home” have been replaced by WiFi password changes, temporary confiscations of devices and the cruelest of all – denial of the charger. Different families have different views about discipline. Yet, kids are continuous learners – they quickly learn what they can and can’t get away with. They are sponges. Who could forget this video of a 3yo kid obviously copying his father saying to his mother, “Linda, Linda, Honey! Listen!” Little Kevin worked out that Grandma was a far softer target.

I’m sure most kids from my generation have had a smack from a parent which was thoroughly deserved. I am sure most of you have made it without safe spaces or trigger warnings. So before the Scots declare a huge victory over banning smacking kids, perhaps society needs a deeper hard look at these other issues.