Criminal relativism

Is a crime worse if its victim is a visitor instead of a resident? Shadow Tourism Minister David Dodwell seems to think so:

“A crime against a visitor is a crime against the economy and the perpetrator should get a stiffer penalty – when are we going to realise that Tourism is the foundation of this economy?” he said.

Funny, I thought international business contributed more to Bermuda’s economy. Perhaps those committing crimes against expats who work in that sector should get stiffer penalties too?

Or what about the wall-sitters who contribute nothing to the economy? Perhaps the punishment should be less for those who rob or injure them?

No, the seriousness of a crime does not depend on the victim. Neither should the penalty.

Comments

[Triforce on 23.06.06 at 19:38]

I tend to agree. I as a resident am just as likely as a tourist to go overseas and spread the word that in Bermuda I was a victim of crime and recommend to everyone I meet not to visit.

[Andrew on 23.06.06 at 20:10]

Following that line of reasoning, selling drugs in an "increased penalty zone," such as a school, should bring the same penalty for pushing dope at a pub?

Should a theft that yields $100 be punished the same as a theft that yields $10,000? The intent is the same.

Interesting discussion points...

[The Limey on 23.06.06 at 20:32]

Andrew

Yes, I disagree with increased penalty zones for the same reason.

As for theft, the intent may be the same, however I would argue that the victim suffers greater harm if $10,000 is stolen than if $100 is stolen. I would therefore expect the perpetrator to be punished more severely.

[Bill Cook on 23.06.06 at 20:52]

Frankly I would be happy if the penalty fitted the crime which in my experience seldom happens with a dodgy jury system and a broken judicial system, that would cut crime right there, but I am not holding my breath.

What about hate crimes should they carry a more severe penalty ?

[J Galt on 23.06.06 at 21:00]

"What about hate crimes should they carry a more severe penalty ?"

Nice question Bill, Limey your answer please.

[Teacher on 23.06.06 at 21:02]

Rhetoric - Reality Gap

Bermuda like most western democratic countries is blighted by rising violent crime. The tourism rhetoric portrays the island as a warm hospitable destination with an old world charm. The reality is crime in Bermuda is becoming alarming to say the least. Politicians and the judiciary need to realise that visitors and members of the public want action. It does not matter who the crime is perpetrated against, the victim is likely to suffer great distress. Potential visitors will stay away if this carries on. Who can blame them! With the 10th anniversary of the murder of Rebecca Middleton approaching the insipid stench of injustice still hangs over this island. People remember the spilling of innocent blood like German visitor Antje Herkommer, 27. She was raped and strangled in April 1992 by a prisoner on unsupervised work release. There have also been residents murdered since that time and violently assaulted.

The size of Bermuda means that you cannot engage in urban flight and escape to a safer area. The police sirens are heard by the rich and the poor on this island. Crime blights all our lives and makes us less free. The shadow minister is correct to flag this issue up because it will not go away.

It is no longer possible to bury sexual and violent assaults on the inside pages of the newspaper. Travellers have access to a string of information about crime in their potential destination via the internet and travel advisory warnings. Just take a look at the U. S. State Department website listing for Bermuda. It is incredibly perceptive. However it does not mention some of the managerial ineptitude of the Bermuda judiciary in one of the above mentioned cases.

[ack on 23.06.06 at 21:06]

Should a person who sexually assaults a child receive the same penalty as someone who sexually assaults an adult?

[Teacher on 23.06.06 at 21:09]

No the person who assaults a child should recieve a very harsh sentence in order to take them off the streets for a long time.

Perhaps they should even be exported off the island, Maybe somewhere like Tristan da Cuhna. It would probably be cheaper for the tax payers and better for the victim.

[RedOnion on 23.06.06 at 21:17]

With all due respect to Mr Dodwell, his statement about Tourism being the foundation of the economy is about 25 years out of date.

This is one of the real problems with the UBP, they simply are not in tune with the present times, they are silent when they should be outspoken on some issues, they are vocal about less important things and simply do not seem to be prepared to take over the reins of power again. For those who are looking for a viable alternative to the present Government, I'm sorry but there isn't a light at the end of that tunnel.

Let's hope the UBP get it together soon and start acting like a Government-in-waiting. Please don't wait until an election date is set to get up to speed. You will need more than a few weeks to get elected.

[Teacher on 23.06.06 at 21:22]

we sould still try and safe guard the Tourism sector. International business can relocate very quickly. Turks and Caicos to name a few places would gladly host some of our companies, cheaper land, more space etc.

[TDCRESIDENT on 23.06.06 at 21:47]

Teacher,

"Perhaps they should even be exported off the island, Maybe somewhere like Tristan da Cuhna. It would probably be cheaper for the tax payers and better for the victim."

I am terribly offended that you would propose sending your criminals to my beautiful island. What is your moral basis for offending my country in this way and how would you feel if I proposed sending the rejects of our society (which are far less than your corrupt country) to your shores!

I respectfully suggest that you post an immediate retraction of your comment and post an unconditional apology to the the people of my country.

[YankeeKayaker on 23.06.06 at 22:04]

Just my perspective; a crime is a crime. If I rob my neighbor of $100 or I rob a visitor from Italy of $100...the penalty should be the same as the offense was the same.
As to "hate crimes;" I find it repreensible that there are still people in the 21st century who would assault someone because they had a bias against some aspect of that person (sexuality, race, nationality, etc). However...I never understood the concept of having a "special law" against beating up someone because of his race (for example) when it is ALREADY illegal to beat up someone! One could take the hate crimes thing even further. Would it be a hate crime if you beat up someone after a soccer game because he was a fan of the other team? Could a fan of a rap star who killed the fan of another rap star be guilty of a "hate crime?" Seems to me it would make much more sense and be more practical to simply enforce the current laws.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 23.06.06 at 22:13]

Limey,

"As for theft, the intent may be the same, however I would argue that the victim suffers greater harm if $10,000 is stolen than if $100 is stolen."

How do you know the victim suffers greater? What if the $100 was stolen from someone where this was the last bit of money they had to their name versus the $10,000 being stolen from a multi-millionaire? Which crime is greater?

If one bank clerk steals $50,000 and another steals $500,000, both by taking advantage of their postions and knowledge, why should one be treated any harsher than the next?

Theft is theft, it is the illegal act that should be penalised not the value of the theft. Otherwise we are saying that those with more money have a greater value as people than those with less money.

[RedOnion on 23.06.06 at 22:18]

Mr Gilbert, by that reasoning a shoplifter who steals a $1 candy bar should get the same punishment as someone who steals $1 million from their employer.

Can you imagine how clogged the appeals court would be if there was an across the board punishment regardless of the monetary value involved?

[Daedalus on 23.06.06 at 23:14]

"The seriousness of the crime does not depend on the victim. Nor should the penalty". Exactly.

[Adjustah on 23.06.06 at 23:55]

Sorry man, but complete crap. Crap. Maybe I was raised differently, but I was lead to understand that Bermudian's were reliant upon non-Bermudian's for their economy. Whether it was tobacco, shipwrecks, onions, tourism, baselands, insurance, whatever, you were raised to treat visitors as GUESTS. Screw with a guest, you screw with me. Worse, I get bollocked, my bad because I know better and, secondly because said guest will not come back again. Period. Old school Bermuda. Not this touchy-feely, Commie-wierdo Pinko shi'ite. Sorry man, I'm with David on this one.

[silencedogood on 24.06.06 at 10:38]

More than anything Dodwell's comments demonstrate that the criminal justice system is fundamentally broken. Crime is assumed to not be punished when committed against locals so at least punish it against guests. I can't blame him for wanting to start there, but that should be the first step to address the entire problem.

[loki on 24.06.06 at 11:09]

Yep, I'm with David on this one: the vulnerability of a victim, public policy considerations and the effects of a crime, actual and potential, are all aggravating factors considered by the courts in sentencing criminals. Tourists are inherently vulnerable, as we all tend to let our guards down somewhat when on vacation elsewhere, and criminals tend to target tourists for this very reason. The effect of tourist-related crime is a legitimate consideration for the courts to take into consideration on public policy grounds.

[curious on 24.06.06 at 11:59]

"I never understood the concept of having a "special law" against beating up someone because of his race (for example) when it is ALREADY illegal to beat up someone!"

Hate crimes are not treated differently to grant victims special favour, but to recognize the increased danger of the perpetrators.

Most violent crime is the result of an escalation of an existing unresolved conflict.

Hate crimes are committed when a group of people have been dehumanized to the point where genocide is possible.

[SmokingGun on 24.06.06 at 14:44]

Mr. Dodwell is correct in stating that Bermuda's economy is founded in tourism. And Adjustah is correct in stating that our visitors are in reality guests wether short term or long term.

As much as people might try to see a difference between a person visiting Bermuda as a tourist or vacationer they really are no different than people visiting on a business trip or one staying here for a longer period of time. The infrastructure of the island really has to cater to them both often in very similar ways. Hotels, restaurants, transportation etc etc all heavily rely on both and treat them similarly.

Crime affects everyone. Even those that are not the direct victim. A crime against a visitor is, as loki points out, very disturbing and should be considered more of a "predator" type crime. What Bermuda really needs to do is enforce a simple two strikes rule or something similar to the machete/bladed weapon law.

The only fear I have is that when laws become draconian and you are dealing with a drugged out criminal knowing he's going away he/she might become more violent. Whatever we end up doing something most definitely has to get started now.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 24.06.06 at 15:21]

RedOnion,

Good point, however, I think there needs to be some reasoning involved as leglislation cannot account for each and every incident that could possibly occur. However, I do believe and hope you are smart enough to understand the point I was making.

[Teacher on 24.06.06 at 15:40]

Tristan da Cunha official apology from the Teacher
Firstly let me apologise for offending you.
You seem to be asking for an apology for your country. Have you been canvassed all 300 residents and gauged their opinion?
I merely thought that the revenue generated from a private prison initiative would make your island self sufficient. I note that the St Helena administrator says that you still need outside assistance for capital projects. Perhaps this could be your solution.

Kind regards.

[RedOnion on 24.06.06 at 15:54]

Mr Gilbert, I saw your point perfectly, the law should apply equally to all victims regardless of personal worth. That part I agree with, however as far as the perpetrators of the crimes are concerned, I think the gravity of the offence dictates the punishment meted out, which is the system as it stands now. Therefore the shoplifter (crime value $1) gets a fine, the embezzler (crime value $1 Mil) gets jail time. To me that seems perfectly fair and logical, as well as easy for the authorities to administer.

It can get complicated though, recently a 13 year old grocery store packer was robbed of $20 on his way home by two thugs, in my opinion the magistrate would be able to use his discretion and hand out a more serious punishment than he might if a 30 year old office worker was robbed.

[Smooks on 24.06.06 at 16:22]

In reallity it makes no differance. The laws are the laws and the sentencing is there, it's a matter of discretion on the part of the magistrate. Whether your 10 years old or 90 years old, the act of robbery/assault/ etc is still the same. Thats why they are defined in numerous ways, if not there would be one law like don't mess with lives of others.

The courts have a record of not being fair to some offenders because they are not CONSISTANT.

[Teacher on 24.06.06 at 17:33]

Smoking Gun You mention that "as laws become draconian and you are dealing with a drugged out criminal knowing he's going away he/she might become more violent."

This is true, however we as a society must do what we need to do. If we cannot live in safety and go about our business without great fear of assualt, robbery and murder then we may end up seeing gated complexes as the norm.

People witgh the finacial option to flee will depart to other places.

Draco, the Greek lawgiver from Athens. was known for his harsh laws.

[Teacher on 24.06.06 at 17:40]

Sorry about the typo errors!!

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 24.06.06 at 19:12]

RedOinion,

"Therefore the shoplifter (crime value $1) gets a fine, the embezzler (crime value $1 Mil) gets jail time."

You have just shown that these are completely different crimes. One is a random act (not so random for some people) the other is theft via a position of trust.

I guess I am trying to understand what point, if any, you were trying to make with your initial comments to my post because it seems as though we are in agreement.

[Limae en Bermooda on 24.06.06 at 20:07]

"however I would argue that the victim suffers greater harm if $10,000 is stolen than if $100 is stolen. I would therefore expect the perpetrator to be punished more severely."

I fail to see how this argument is any different from Dodwell's. And your point was?

[It Does Matter on 24.06.06 at 21:27]

No matter how much I think about it, I can't understand how a crime can rightly be aggravated on the basis that the victim is a tourist.

I also find much cogency in the statements of Guilden. In regards theft, I am unconvinced (at present) that the amount of money stolen should always be a relevant factor for the purposes of sentencing.

I seem to be leaning toward the view that the crime of theft should be judged by way of how it is committed; rather than by the rewards of its commission.

For instance, if a person abuses a position of trust, or steals from the public purse, s/he should get a higher sentence than if those factors were not present.

The amount of money stolen should only be a relevant factor for sentencing purposes, when the accused stole the property over a prolongued period or knows the potential gravity of stealing the amount of money/property from the 'particular' victim.

The above would only be essential when judging simple theft, as robbery should have its own set of aggravating factors (which may overlap where appropriate).

[The Limey on 24.06.06 at 23:45]

Limae en Bermooda

My argument is completely different from Mr. Dodwell's. He seems to be arguing that $100 stolen from a tourist should be punished more severely than $100 stolen from a resident. I am arguing that (all things being equal) the tourist and the resident suffer the same harm from such a theft, hence the punishment should be the same.

[Bill Cook on 25.06.06 at 08:12]

Based on fuzzy arithmetic possibly according to the logic of some its not the amount of money or the injury committed but the effect on the victim.

Sounds like bullshit to me.

If Dennis Kowslowski of Tyco stole 100 million dollars from stockholders should he get same punishment as a shoplifter who was hungry ?

Because some people have no fear of prison and even welcome it to sleeping in the trees has it the same deterrent value as someone living in a nice home with a pool and home theatre and a full refridgerator ?

Gets a bit dodgy when you try to do such evaluations, and our main thrust is improving the present system so that it actually works which will take a complete overhaul and greater accountability from a failed judicial system that does not protect law abiding people and appears to facilitate criminals instead.

[Fifi on 25.06.06 at 11:20]

If certain punishments for particular crimes were standardized and the discretion was taken away from the softy judges, we could solve a lot of problems: ie. All assaults to commit robbery, 20 years no probation. Unlawful entry to commit robbery, 15 years no probation, sexual assault on an adult, 25 years no probation, sexual assault on a child, life no probation, premeditated murder, execution, manslaughter, 30 years no probation. We do it with drunk drivers, why not other crimes? Just a suggestion.

[Bill Cook on 25.06.06 at 12:47]

Yes there should be a rationale for every sentence passed or fine imposed in my opinion.

Leaving it to magistrates and judges to use discretion is all well and good if there was a rationale but often it appears there is none.

Mandatory sentences in some instances does away with that which is a very good thing I feel.

To the best of my knowledge neither magistrates or judges have to pass a sanity test forget drug testing for the moment and that should be cause for concern for all right thinking people.

I like most I would imagine have seen decisions made that appear straight from the Mad Hatters Tea Party.

[Teacher on 25.06.06 at 14:39]

Yes Bill,

I am with you on this one. Liberal society has created a place where a criminal’s rights are being put above that of the majority. Leaving it to magistrates and judges to use discretion is dangerous because we know that their decisions are often out of touch with society.

If Laws and a Judiciary designed for a bygone era cannot assist society in maintaining a climate of safety for law abiding people then we need politicians with the fortitude and vision to drag this country kicking and screaming into the new millennium.

It’s not about looking back at 1950’s Bermuda or even to the 1960’s. The solution definitely won’t be found there! It’s not too late for this island. It will take one or two people who see politics as a vocation rather than a platform to elevate their own importance and create their own empires. We see the symptoms of this empire building every day, inflated rewards given for lack luster second rate statesmanship. These people would do better to put the island first rather than their own personal legacy.

[It Does Matter on 25.06.06 at 15:16]

How some of us give the impression that Bermuda's social climate is nasty with a stench of criminal activity.

[Bill Cook on 25.06.06 at 15:43]

Yes I believe Bermuda is no. 6 in world for burglaries and in top ten for highest prison rates per 100,000 very close to worlds highest for importation of drugs per capita and my guess is though I dont have stats very near top for white collar embezzlement and grand larceny.
I think we have about 25 unsolved murders and a very high rate of rape and sexual abuse.

We can and should be doing better in my opinion.

[It Does Matter on 25.06.06 at 16:50]

Interesting figures. Where did you get them?

Social conditions create crime. So if Bermuda is a criminal place, it means her social conditions are tainted for many.

Harsher penalties do not decrease crime. A punishment doesn't not prevent the commission of an offence.

Scaring people into obeying laws doesn't change the inherent problem.

So maybe we should be looking at the social conditions which cause people to burgle Bermuda's beautiful homes. We should look into why drugs are being imported into our island so frequently. And we should explore why rape has become a favourite pasttime of some.

All this talk about a 'weak judge's discretion' is ludicrous. Everybody seems to be about surface-fixes nowadays. Some of you are for capital punishment -- that's a helluva solution to murder.

Change the social conditions which create crimals. Repeal criminal laws which are specifically designed to imprison and destroy specific groups of people. Modify and update the criminal laws in light of modern-day Bermudian conditions.

And always allow the poor and hungry to mitigate their theft. When you stop allowing that mitigation, you're committing a crime; because it was your social conditions which made it necessary for him to steal in order to eat. Society aided and abetted his crime.

[Bill Cook on 25.06.06 at 19:13]

India with over 1 billion people second only to China and a great deal of poverty has a low crime rate.

IE there are 1.5 rapes in India compared to the US of 32 rapes per 100,000 that is.

Bermuda tends to mirror the US although my guess is that rape is higher here and one of our most undereported crimes.

We should be capable of doing better.

[Guilden M. Gilbert, Jr. on 25.06.06 at 19:39]

Teacher,

"It will take one or two people who see politics as a vocation rather than a platform to elevate their own importance and create their own empires."

Here! Here! That is a big part of the problem, we have too many politicians with the attitude of, "Its all about me, baby!"

We need sincerity for the betterment of Bermuda as a country, instead of of betterment for me and then we can worry about Bermuda.

[Limae en Bermooda on 25.06.06 at 21:45]

"My argument is completely different from Mr. Dodwell's. He seems to be arguing that $100 stolen from a tourist should be punished more severely than $100 stolen from a resident. I am arguing that (all things being equal) the tourist and the resident suffer the same harm from such a theft, hence the punishment should be the same."

You're argument isn't completely different. Dodwell is saying that $100 stolen from a tourist has greater economic impact on the country than $100 stolen from a local. It's no different than your $100 or $10k argument. The crime is the same, but the impact to the country is far different.

[The Limey on 25.06.06 at 22:10]

Limae en Bermooda

I disagree that $100 stolen from a tourist has a greater economic impact on the country than $100 stolen from a local, for the reasons outlined by Triforce in the very first comment.

Moreover, I don't believe the economic impact on the country is the correct metric for determining the severity of a crime. For the reasons I described in my original post.

[Fifi on 26.06.06 at 11:32]

"It Does Matter". You sound like a Liberal. Some say that execution isn't a deterrent, however I don't believe there are statistics to prove that. We have no way of knowing how many have not killed for fear of being executed. It's not the sought of thing one admits to. To continually blame society for crime is a cop out. Many of us come from humble beginnings, from abusive families, and have suffered abuse in the past, but we don't allow that to give us license to go out and commit crimes on others. I've been the victim of burglary, every cent I'd earned for a week driving cab night and day was taken from me. It wasn't just money taken, but also the feeling of safety and privacy in my own home was robbed. You say we should explore why rape has become a favourite pastime; maybe because perps know that if they are caught, the worst that will happen is a couple of years at a west side hotel. Is execution a solution to murder? One thing is for certain.....they won't have the chance to do it again.

[myshreecents on 26.06.06 at 11:37]

I agree with The Limey on this one the act of robbing a tourist would be no different from robbing me. The crimes are the same so the punishment should be the same. Has anyone given thought to the possibility that the law Mr. Dodwell seeks might encourage criminals to target locals just in case they get caught they can get a lower sentence. My life, my money, is and should be just as valuable as a visitors and therefor I repeat should be treated equally under the law.......anything else is in my opinion crazy and discriminatory against me as a "mere less important local"

[SmokingGun on 26.06.06 at 12:27]

Actually myshreecents your point is very relevant as to why tourists are the victims of certain crimes as opposed to locals. This is what we really need to understand in the first place.

If there are particular reasons tourists are targeted over locals then that would indicate a "difference" that might require different punishment levels. A tourist is a prime target for a variety of reasons. They likely have cah, jewelry etc. They are not familiar with where to go or the norms of the island. They will leave the island and less likely be around to testify. (That's if they are fortunate enough to be alive after they have been attacked.)

It can therefore be said that if tourists are an easier target and a criminal acts upon that fact then surely he or she shows they can "differentiate" and should therefore expect those who seek punish to them will differentiate.

Teacher - I'm all for harsh punishment in regard to crimes involving a targeted victim especially if they are young, elederly or weakened for some reason.I'm also good on finding a desolate island somewhere and shipping them out. Even if it means paying the residents of TDC enough money to all live like Kings and Queens just to keep an eye on them. ;-)

[myshreecents on 26.06.06 at 14:21]

I really tend to think that many, mabey most crimes are the result of opportunity. Most robberies in the country are drug related and I do not think your average "crack" head plots and plans the perfect crime. They want to get high and take advantage of the closest potential victim. Many believe that attacks on locals often go unreported but generally for the amount of visitors we get Bermuda is still a reletively safe destination. I still say the punishment must fit the CRIME not the VICTIM. To do otherwise will be a throw back to the days when punishment was based on the race of the offender and victim. A victim of crime is a victim of crime...despite race, age, sex and yes resident of visitor status......Pleeease! Should there maybe be a different sentences for an attack on a first time visitor than a repeat visitor, who by the way we have many who return time and time again without incident. I agree with Red Onion, Mr. Dodwell's suggestion is a typical reactionary, not well thought out U.B.P. answer to a real problem. Tourist unfortunately get robbed everyday, worldwide. I am not aware of other countries who have special sentences for crimes against visitors. Let us leave the sentences as they are and allow the courts to do their job with the judges able to meet out sentences based on mitigating circumstances of each case.

[I.B. JMC on 26.06.06 at 14:38]

Please, Mr. Editor, allow me some space on your blog,
I do not agree that crimes against tourists should be punished more severely than crimes against locals. All serious crimes should be punished more severely. Consider an attack/theft/violation committed against your resident Granny and another against a 24 year old visiting College Football linebacker. Seems a no brainier? Subjectivity vs. objectivity. Let's not get too complicated, consider the ramifications (of getting too complicated), besides - the Judge already has a degree of control over the magnitude of the penalty (there, in my, opinion is perhaps where the "system" is in most need of review).

As an aside,
I’m all for sending our criminals overseas. Once Casemates and Westgate are full we should engage in agreements with an acceptable/appropriate overseas penitentiary for the serious and repeat criminals. (What human rights? they gave most of those up, for the duration of their sentence, when they were convicted of the crime. I do not want the entire Parish of Sandy's to become a penal colony. No more prisons.

[SmokingGun on 26.06.06 at 14:49]

myshreecents - I am not in disagreement that as a whole a crime is a crime is a crime. However I do think that, unfortunately, Bermuda being such a small place with everything so often being compounded, we will always need to look at things a little differently. There is a much bigger picture, which is what David Dodwell is alluring to, and I just happen to agree. This is just my opinion.

Think of it this way. If Bermuda gets more and more violent and tourists and IB start staying away, this will mean less and less revenue to support the ever increasing security and safety systems ie: Police, Fire & Hospital and Court Systems. So should more emphasis be placed on the security of our visitors at the expense of our locals? Do we start putting barbed wire up around our resorts, much like the carribean islands? Or is it better to protect our investments as a whole and use a method such as is being proposed. In the end all it will do is raise the bar accross the island and the locals will benefit from higher standards in the legal system. Which is a good thing.

[myshreecents on 26.06.06 at 20:42]

The problem is alcohol, Valium and Lorazepam are all legal except maybe if you are behind the wheel.......there is a song somewhere that says
"there's nothing wrong
with selling firewater
while outlawing the bong"
ask the new Minister of Drug Treatment and the former leader of the Opposition. Plus alcohol and coke leave the system pretty quickly unlike that "happy grass". I am told it can be still found in the hair follicle months later. So even if one gives up the habit they can still test positive and find themselves before the firing squad.....get it fired...no longer employed. Again society has to decide how we plan to deal with drugs both legal and illegal. They all have different effects on different people. Some can have a few glasses of legal wine and be fine while others take one sip and will go on a drunken binge, go home and beat his wife and children to a pulp but don't forget it's legal.
Let us also not forget that more people die from alcohol related problems than those who die from happy grass,coke and heroin put together. More also die from bad reactions to legally prescribed drugs also than the illegal trio.
Now what.

[Limae en Bermooda on 26.06.06 at 21:04]

"I disagree that $100 stolen from a tourist has a greater economic impact on the country than $100 stolen from a local, for the reasons outlined by Triforce in the very first comment."

Bollocks. A local, especially a Bermudian, knows fewer potential tourists than the vacationer, and is only abroad for a limited time. The local also has some sense about creating a negative image of their country, whereas the tourist only sees it as a vacation destination. The vacationer will tell other potential tourists about their robbery every time Bermuda is mentioned. The other reality is that having your vacation ruined is on a completely different scale than having some crackhead rob you of $100 when you are in your home country. People go on vacation to escape. Then the biggest difference of all is that a local getting robbed of $100 would be considering leaving their entire country, while the vacationer is merely deciding where they spend a 5 day vacation. One decision is a heck of a lot more difficult to make than the other. Would you change vacation destinations after being robbed of $100? Yes! Would you change countries after being robbed of $100? Not likely.

"Moreover, I don't believe the economic impact on the country is the correct metric for determining the severity of a crime."

If that's the case, why would you, "...argue that the victim suffers greater harm if $10,000 is stolen than if $100 is stolen. I would therefore expect the perpetrator to be punished more severely."?

[YankeeKayaker on 27.06.06 at 00:51]

(Some say that execution isn't a deterrent, however I don't believe there are statistics to prove that.)

Actually, in the US it's well documented that staes with the highest murder rates are states WITH the death penalty - and states with the lowest murder rates are states that do NOT have the death penalty. Of course this isn't implying that the death penalty "causes" people to commit murder, but it's pretty clear that it doesn't prevent it either.

( To continually blame society for crime is a cop out. Many of us come from humble beginnings, from abusive families, and have suffered abuse in the past, but we don't allow that to give us license to go out and commit crimes on others.)

Now here I DO agree with you completely! Many people have had harsh lives. Most of them don't start a life of crime and thuggery. How often do we hear about kids in the old days who were orphaned and grew up in the streets...and grew up to be captains of industry, bishops and well respected national leaders? Likewise, how often do we hear about kids who shoot up their high school or gang rape some girl...and find out that they came from perfectly well-adjusted middle income homes? No, the "society made me do it" argument is just a whining excuse.

[Adjustah on 27.06.06 at 07:44]

Keep in mind guys, what is at stake here is a reputational risk. If a tourist get's robbed - no matter what the amount - odds are they will not come back to Bermuda, or at the very least they will then tell their friends, who will then tell their friends (you get the point; this is Bermuda, we know how gossip works).

If this continues over time we will simply run out of people who do not associate Bermuda with crime or, more to the point, a pathetic justice system. Think I'm wrong, head over to the LIB Rebecca Middelton forum for a quick refresher.

[myshreecents on 27.06.06 at 08:58]

Unfortunately crime takes place in every country, probably on a daily basis. Some tourist may decide to "be safe" and stay closer to home.....ya right.....New York experienced what many would consider the worst incident of terrorism the world has ever seen....remember Sept.11. Canadian police have just allegedely discovered a group who were planning their own attacks.....and remember the attacks on public transport in London last year. The United States is still at war in Iraq and faces the potential of terorist attacks anywhere at any time. Let's face it the world we live in is very different from 10 years ago. Violence is a reality of modern living. But as I said before, Bermuda still remains a generally safe destination. Most of our visitors probably have a greater chance of being a victims of crime at home than they have here on vacation. Unfortunately visitors are sometimes the victims of crime but there is no evidence that stiffer sentences for such crime will prevent such events. Maybe it's a Bermuda thing but we tend to over react.....it's terrible whenever anyone including a tourist is a victim of crime but to even consider different sentences for similar crimes depending on the victim is outright stupid and backward. As for the terrible miscarriage of justice surrounding the tragic killing of Rebecca Middelton......a combination of unforgivable human errors. Not much we can do about it now except work very hard to ensure that it dosen't happen again. However there is no evidence that the incident has drastically decreased our Canadian visitors. It certainly has not decreased the number of Canadians seeking employment in our "extremely dangerous" Isle of Devils.

Maybe we should focus our attentions on how we might create a more balanced caring society that produces less people likely to lead a life of crime and violence. Simply suggesting greater punishment has not worked. We need to step out of the box and find other solutions. The U.S. with the highest rate of state executions also has one of the highest murder rates. Punishment alone is not the answer.

[silencedogood on 27.06.06 at 09:18]

Yankee Kayaker

The problem with your point over the death penalty is the classic chicken or egg debate. Do they have more murders because of the death penalty or do they have the death penalty because the state has more murders?

Schree cents,

I don't think anyone is saying that NY is more safe than bermuda overall, but if you are a native New Yorker who is familiar with the city it's probably safer for you than for a Bermudian tourist who might get off at the wrong subway stop. Same principle here.

[Bill Cook on 27.06.06 at 09:34]

It would be prudent for Bermuda to face reality when it comes to describing our Island as very friendly and safe when the stats say otherwise.

It may not be Darfur but telling tourists particularly young females that we are nice friendly safe people makes them lower their guard and become trusting when they should be very cautious but its not in our dept of tourism's interest to say we have danger here like everywhere else even if it endangers their welfare

Honesty is the best policy I have had tourists say to me you dont have crime here do you i mean you dont have a prison or anything ?

We have its bulging at seams and if all those who should be in were it would burst we have every crime in the book you can name so if its so benign why is that ?

Time for a reality check and visitors need to be warned and informed.

[myshreecents on 27.06.06 at 10:29]

Silencedogood....My point is simply that dispite how unsafe a destination is preceived to be, people will still visit. You're right, a Bermudian tourist can get off the train on the wrong side of the track but it does not stop us visiting New York or anywhere else.
I see in an earlier post that you suggested that there is a perception the crime is not punished in Bermuda.....tell that to the 250 odd people presently at Westgate and the others at the Farm and Co Ed facility. Correct me if I am wrong but I get the impression that you are pro death penalty and might like to see "tourist robbers" jailed and the key thrown away. I repeat punishment alone will not solve our problems.
Remember we the taxpayer have to pay for all this punishment and we like the U.S. have a very high rate of repeat offenders. We jail, we pay, we release, we jail again...we pay again.. you get the picture. A vicious circle!
Maybe you are also in favour of the three strike concept as well.....then we just pay.

[Bill Cook on 27.06.06 at 10:53]

The more unsafe a destination is the fewer people will want to visit it.

Jamaica is in my opinion the most beautiful of all the carribean areas and people will go there but stay in virtual armed camps wheras in Cuba they seem to see what the government want them to see but there is little crime now when you go to Singapore you can feel pretty safe there.

Is that because there is no punishment or because there is severe punishment ?

[silencedogood on 27.06.06 at 11:56]

shcree cents,

You assume far too much. Nothing in my statement can lead you to your conclusions. Bill makes the best point by highlighting that we encourage people to let their guard down which results in them getting hurt.

[Teacher on 27.06.06 at 16:45]

Bermuda markets itself on its exclusivity; this has created a perceived product value that is high. Tourists do not want to vacation where they are likely to be robbed or murdered – obvious really isn’t it.

It makes sense therefore to protect the industry. It is people and political parties with astute business acumen that appreciate this. We may not like it, we may not be able to rationalise it, but, this is business and this is the reality of the market place. Realise this or go bust!!

The same may also be true limey of International business. If we do not protect the social environment for the expatriate workers then eventually their employers will relocate. It always amazes me that this has not happened yet.

It will only take the next Wallace Groves to turn the Turks and Caicos into our greatest International Business rival.

[John Steele on 27.06.06 at 18:11]

Limae en Bermooda,

You're right, all other things being equal, $100 stolen from a tourist has the potential to cause more harm to the community than $100 stolen from a resident. And as loki says, the "vulnerability of a victim, public policy considerations and the effects of a crime, actual and potential" all have to be considered when passing judgement.

Phil, you're spot on with so many of your posts, but on this one you're just plain wrong.

[YankeeKayaker on 27.06.06 at 19:00]

(Jamaica is in my opinion the most beautiful of all the carribean areas and people will go there but stay in virtual armed camps wheras in Cuba they seem to see what the government want them to see but there is little crime now when you go to Singapore you can feel pretty safe there.
Is that because there is no punishment or because there is severe punishment ?)

Good point, however I would have to point out that in your scenario you chose three places that have widely different cultures (Jamaica-black Carribean, Cuba - hispanic Carribean, Singapore - southeast Asian). There are just too many other variables at play in this scenario for it to be of much use.
As for the chicken and the egg question, another good point. And I'm not going to pretend that I know for sure what the answer is. I WILL say that all US states had the death penalty at one time in the past. Many got rid of them over the last few decades. Did they have lower murder rates to start, and that's why they did away with execution? I don't know. But I do know that if that IS the case, the murder rates clearly didn't go up after capital punichment was abolished. This is actually a good path for this topic...I'm sure all these stats exist somewhere, I wonder if anyone has ever thought to go back through them?
But back to your original scenario and question; all I can say for sure is that studies have found threat of severe punishment that may or may not happen is less effective then the threat of a milder punishment that is quaranteed to be used every time. I suspect people on both sides of the argument will be able to twist that to their liking. :)

[SmokingGun on 27.06.06 at 19:15]

When someone knows they will be most likely be punished because the legal system does not drop the ball and enforces the penalties meted out, then yes it will eventually be a good means of deterring crime. And to a degree this can even be on the mild side.

However having witnessed the recent executions of Australian's getting caught bringing drugs into Singapore (even only for a stop-over) I would imagine there are a lot of would be smugglers having serious second thoughts about committing such crimes.

[myshreecents on 27.06.06 at 19:45]

Smoking Gun....You still seem to be missing my point. If most of our prisoners are repeat offenders not only do they know that they could be punished they have already been punished and for whatever reason have done something to land them before the courts again. I have no desire to ever go to jail and for that reason do my best to stay on the right side of the law. However every society has those who have no fear of punishment or jail hence the small number of repeat offenders that most of our crime can be attributed to. Again the threat of punishment alone or even the punishment itself alone is not the complete answer. Studies show that a high percentage of prisioners are semi literate and have for what ever reason been failed by the education system. WE must do whatever is need to ensure that the most people have equal opportunities to survive in a highly competitive world.

[SmokingGun on 27.06.06 at 19:49]

myshreecents - I was actually commenting on Yankeekayaker's last paragragh.
I certainly agree 100% with your point when you say: "Again the threat of punishment alone or even the punishment itself alone is not the complete answer."

[Teacher on 28.06.06 at 16:42]

Tourist Crime -

Crime and Punishment
Lets get back to the original issue – If we do not protect Bermuda’s tourism industry our industry may well go the same way as St. Thomas.
During the 1990s in St. Thomas, crimes against tourists were escalating. Although most of these crimes were property related, there was a noticeable increase in the incidence of gratuitous violence that appeared to be racially motivated. In 1992, the USVI had the dubious distinction of having higher violent crime rates (2,776 reported violent crimes per 100,000 population) than New York City (2,162) I wonder what Bermuda is?

Following 12 violent attacks (robberies, assaults, one murder) against U.S. Navy sailors in 1993, the U.S. Navy Atlantic Fleet canceled all shore leave on St. Thomas. There was also a series of highly publicized rapes and murders of tourists, including the slaying of an internationally prominent California swimming coach, Murray Callan. The crime spree against tourists peaked in 1996 with the shooting of three tourists in St. Thomas , followed by the execution style slaying of two visitors from South Carolina on March 9

Governor Roy Schneider was finally driven to act. He ordered roadblocks and imposed a night time curfew on youths. However, much of the local reaction to escalating tourist victimization was defensive: victim blaming (erroneously blaming swimming coach Callan for walking through a housing project and refusing to give up his wallet), secretive (refusing to release crime figures) and protectionist of the tourist industry with the Police Chief, Raymond Hyndman, stating emphatically to Forbes magazine that "crime is not a major problem on our island" However, the slump in hotel bookings, particularly during the 1995-96 season, prompted tourism officials to meet with a major U.S. public relations firm to counter the negative impact from the publicity fallout . Murder on the twin-island state was most visible in terms of cancellation of hotel bookings by Canadians.

Some of these events take years to recover from. When you live on a small rock, with no chance of sustaining your existence except through tourism and International Business, you have to take note.

[Bill Cook on 28.06.06 at 18:14]

Teacher,

See my post of 25/6/06 15..43

Many crimes against tourists go unreported esp rape and sexual abuse plus robbery and assault.

There are a variety of reasons for this not least is tourists getting into compromising situations that I do not want to elaborate on at this point but misplaced trust plays a part.

Bermuda has always painted itself as a safe crime free destination but as one who has 47 years experience inc two contracts in the Prison service and very close connections with the Police Service the truth is quite different.

We specialise in denial and hate to face reality and strangely have a propensity of telling ourselves that we are living in paradise and should give thanks daily etc.

Physically Bermuda is beautiful but getting over built.

Sorry to stray from the crimes against tourists but it is all related and if tourists were warned to not be lulled into a false sense of security it would not be neccessary to have special penalties for crimes committed against them in my opinion.

[Teacher on 28.06.06 at 18:38]

"We specialise in denial and hate to face reality and strangely have a propensity of telling ourselves that we are living in paradise"
I agree
It can't be right to deny that a problem exists. You can't fix a problem until you admit that you have one.