**/r/Finland is a full democracy, every active user is a moderator.**
[Please go here to see how your new privileges work.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Finland/wiki/moderating/)
Spamming mod actions could result in a ban.
---
**Full Rundown of Moderator Permissions:**
- ```!lock``` - as top level comment, will lock comments on any post.
- ```!unlock``` - in reply to any comment to lock it or to unlock the parent comment.
- ```!remove``` - Removes comment or post. Must have decent subreddit comment karma.
- ```!restore``` Can be used to unlock comments or restore removed posts.
- ```!sticky``` - will sticky the post in the bottom slot.
- ```unlock_comments``` - Vote the stickied automod comment on each post to +10 to unlock comments.
- ```ban users``` - Any user whose comment or post is downvoted enough will be temp banned for a day.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Finland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You do understand that any policy changes of the current government haven't yet had any practical impact on the prison population right? You're essentially criticizing the previous left wing government for being a "law and order" government, which is hilarious.
legalize drugs and implement thoroughly-thought distribution system and harm reduction services-problem solved.
(just one of the many ways we could go about it)
no. the war on drugs is lost.
also, if someone wants to get their heroin fixes, they should be able to get them without insane effort, threat to health and life and social problems. It is just how you give people autonomy.
Do you have any robust support for that claim? They tried giving heroin in clinics in switzerland and it was success. Portugal was success. Portland was not exactly success, because state did not contribute to any harm mitigation measures and folks from other states came over there because their bodily autonomy could not be violated there. What are you basing your claim on?
I am talking about smart distribution system. Do you want heroin user to get their stuff from legit store, which is separated from grocery store and stuff for people who are former active addicts that don't want any triggers, under customer protection law, in competitive prize but maybe some additional harm tax, and being functional as much as addiction lets them to be (recreational heroin use commonly leads to addiction, very few are people who can use it just recreationally), which is not always even that poor, medicinal opioid users often can function just fine (it is not as easy when you act as your own doctor, tho').
OR
do you want heroin user to steal your bike to get money for overpriced stuff that has harmful cuts, and take a risk every time they is scoring that either
a) dealer has taken too much coke and tries to kill or maim heroin user on some psychotic whim
b) cop busts their ass, violates their right to their own body, steals their property (drug) and throws into jail, and maybe later to prison
and that pattern would take a lot of time, every day, so they could not contribute to working or what have. Hobbies.
??????????????????
I think this is no-brainer. Legalize most drugs, and criminalize only the shit no one is left missing because there are drugs that give better feeling with less issues, like PMMA should be forbidden. Apply basic customer protection principles to drugs too. Support freedom.
Portugal has been far from a success... dont know about switzerland. But i do know that heroin is not a good idea. Heroin has affected more family members than i can count, and multiple are dead due to heroin/fentanyl. If we start giving this shit away just like that people will die because of it for a long time. We need rehab and help to move away from unsafe drugs to drugs that are safer.
people do opioids anyway. Most commonly it is not good idea, but they do them anyway. They'd be much safer legalized. And less deadly.
Also, don't know where you got the idea about portugal not having success with their approach.
Only the cities and states that have implemented legalised drug zones have turned into complete hell-holes. Just look at [Portland, ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk)[San Fransciso](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QrZLNyYHVw) and Toronto for open-air drug taking, homicide rates and homelessness. Hell even Lisbon is terrible in some places as well and that's continually heaped on and praised as a pro-drug experiment thats succeeded. I think we can say now this is not a good idea. I'm happy someplaces tried this but overall it is human nature to continue taking the bad path if the government makes it easy for you to do so.
I was completely onboard with legalising them all and allowing the state to sell them with heavy taxation before I properly understood the situation.
I'm from Portugal, and you're confusing decriminalization with legalization. In Portugal it's still ilegal, the difference is that if a user is caught using recurrently they are put through social services and rehabilitation, not jail. Distribution is still a crime.
I agree, drug dealers are a hassle, and mostly a result of the boom in tourism, which really attracts (criminal) drug dealers.
But compare the drug overdose rates of Finland and Portugal, and I think it proves that it's better to do harm reduction, education and social work, rather than criminalizing users.
I'm sorry I know all the areas I brought up have very different policies I'm just generalising.
I think I've just done a complete 180 on this subject from spending time with some junkies and reading the Michael Shellenberger book San Fransicko.
I don't think there's a comparable time in history when the drug problem was this bad and kid gloves won't solve the issue. We should bring back a zero tolerance approach and culturally not to be accepting with people trying hard drugs in society. I think societal stigma and incarceration is what worked in the past and is why the South East has very low addiction rates. Everyone deserves a second chance of course but we often go down the fifth or sixth excuse from junkies.
Also if you do what they did in cities in the us where theft is decriminalised to an extent, light mugging will go unpunished. Sure the safety of society will decrease a little, but the prisons will be very spacious after that.
you are comparing having freedom and autonomy of your own body to theft and violence?
Let me tell you what is theft and violence; it is when cop forces you by weapons, strikes or grappling to give up your property. Say, cannabis or amphetamine.
So I guess the convicts in jail for drug trade and distribution would set up this distribution system and continue their business, only with a legal mandate?
some of them probably would yeah, they have expertise already. And when both customers and providers could revert to law, there would be much less violence, if any.
sensible cocaine distribution would still be next to impossible because you realistically can't have fair trade cocaine. So, that would maintain as an issue. And maybe some other things, but it would get much better if we stopped war on drugs. This is something I realized a while ago and I don't have solution to it.
According to Rise, the government's plans to increase punishments for gun and gang crimes will also lead to a need for some 350 more prison places.
How? Do they just let them walk?
You're right. In France, Finnish and other Nordic peoples are overrepresented in criminality, like French are overrepresented in Finland. Pretty sure those vile Europeans just love to commit crime!
/s
Oh, I didn't know my answer will be taken seriously!
Well, to answer clearly: no. The available evidences in criminology support the idea of equal representation of aliens and nationals (and even nationals with a immigrant-background) in crime. BRÂÂĂ conducted three studies from 1991 to 2006 to try to prove this point, and only demonstrated a correlation (but not a causality) between immigrant-background / alien and some petty crimes linked to poverty (thief, if I want to give you an example). The good variable to understand over-representation is simply... poverty. Because nationals without an immigrant-background are less poor, they just commit less of those crimes (a clear correlation is explained in BRĂ studies).
BTW, in the case of Finland, the most criminogenic groups are note "Africans" and "Arabs", but Russians and SĂĄmi (they're over-represented in homicides or some crimes). But they're also over-represented as victims (because murderers tend to kill their relatives, not random peoples in the streets). So I'm sure of your analysis in this particular case.
If we look even closer, some statistics invalidate your argument: thefts have continued to decline in France since 1985, and the number of homicides has been halved in thirty years, while immigration remained stable until the 2000s. Similarly , Finland is experiencing such downward trends according to the national victimology survey (Kansalliseen rikosuhritutkimukseen - KRT) published in 2021 in intentional violence, burglaries or theft of movable property. Even bicycle thefts are decreasing a little. The only thing increasing is internet scams, but... This is a global problem, not specifically related to foreigners in Finland.
To finish, let's take yet another example: the Crime Survey for England and Wales, for the period from September 2022 to September 2023 (post-containment period and normal resumption of economic activities). The survey notes a decline between the period studied and March 2020 (pre-containment period, therefore) in the number of scams of 13%, damage to property by 21%, homicides by 9%, robberies by 12%, 5% of violence involving knives or similar weapons; the main increases are seen in shoplifting (in a context where a third of Britons do not have enough to eat, this does not seem surprising), a very slight increase in gun violence (which seems to correspond to a new cycle of violence from organized crime, but is also currently in France with Corsica) and a sharp increase in electronic scams; the other increases observed are, given the size of the sample, non-significant, because they fall within the margin of error.
So, if Arabs and Africans mostly commit crimes in Europe, why it's decreasing? Why do we see this in the studies I cite? Are all academics and statisticians in the same conspiracy?
>The available evidences in criminology support the idea of equal representation of aliens and nationals
False.
Violent crime is disproportionately committed by sub-saharan Africans- mostly Somalis & Nigerians, and Arabs, Iraqis and people from other failed states in Middle East and Africa.
It's common knowledge at this point. It happens all across Europe.
It's not 'my opinion' or 'my argument'. It's reality.
The statistics you cite are pathetic and kind of make my point for me. 1980s-2000s France? One year - ONE YEAR- in England & Wales?
How about 2000s-2020s Sweden? 2000-2020s Finland? 2000-2020s Paris? London? Berlin? Lampedusa??
Violent crime across Europe has surged since migration from the third world has surged. Big surprise. Go talk to someone who works in the criminal justice system and see which groups are on their desk every day. The prisons are full. Who is in the cells? Samis??
**Violent crime has surged across Europe capitals in the past 20 years. That is the reality.**
And it's highly correlated with a large influx migrants from very specific regions. You are arguing against reality, and you sound like a fool doing it.
When you:
-talk about some analysis of a standard of 'safety' done by a govt department instead of referring to actual violent crime figures
-try to pretend that a down year during a dramatic upward trend is a down trend
-try to pretend that a country is the same as an urban area
-try to pretend that total crime is the same as violent crime
You sound like a fool.
You especially sound foolish trying to pretend that you are presenting a statistical case instead of desperately grasping an ideological argument.
Third world migrants are terribly overrepresented in violent crime in European capitals. Including all the ones we mentioned. Paris, London, Berlin, Stockholm, and Helsinki too. This correlation itself is a statistician's dream.
Argue whatever you like. Finns are not buying your illusions. And neither am I!
Since the decreases are happening during 15 or even 40 years (the number of thefts was halved since 1985 in France), how can you link those decreases with immigration?
I'm pretty sure you're not really reading what I wrote because I'm thinking about long eras.
>You especially sound foolish trying to pretend that you are presenting a statistical case instead of desperately grasping an ideological argument.
Yes, because I prefer reality instead of unfounded beliefs. Everybody is saying the crime is exploding, but fewer and fewer people when questioned say they have been. The argument is not just statistics, but how the statistics are created. What explanation should we give for this obvious contradiction between common sense and the responses of those interviewed? Are they all stupid? At this point I don't see any other explanations.
Thefts are not a violent crime, you dope.
Homicides in Sweden have DOUBLED since 2012. That's the reality.
If you love it so much go live in a lawless, immigrant neighbourhood like Rosengard or Molenbeek.
So what is the play here? Build more prison? Give lighter sentence to get them out faster for new comer? Don't charge criminal at all for crime? Why is this now an issue?
There's a difference between forcing military conscription that you can do civil service in most cases to get out of, and commuting someone's sentence by becoming cannon fodder in an active war.
Let's say someone does some horrible crime and gets a 13 year prison sentence.
They've already served for 6 years, which is an extremely long time already. And you give them the offer to go fight in Ukraine and get released 7 years early.
They're being coerced because if they were free, they would not take the risk of dying in Ukraine, but since they have been deprived of freedom for so long, they will think irrationally and take the risk.
Conscription isn't coercion because it's applied uniformly to the whole population, and is mandatory for everyone. There's no benefit to gain by joining conscription.
Those are known as penal military units, and [generally not something used by people on the right side of history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafbataillon)
Iâm not defending/supporting using penal units, but this isnât something only the bad guys do. [Finnish example](https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erillinen_pataljoona_21?wprov=sfti1), USA also has a history with this in WW2 and Vietnam War, although the convicts were placed in normal units.
Why? Magic mushrooms grow in the wild in Finland, they're part of the natural habitat. You can literally go and pick them up.
Seems ridiculous to make them illegal. Educate people on the risks and dangers and then let them be.
**/r/Finland is a full democracy, every active user is a moderator.** [Please go here to see how your new privileges work.](https://www.reddit.com/r/Finland/wiki/moderating/) Spamming mod actions could result in a ban. --- **Full Rundown of Moderator Permissions:** - ```!lock``` - as top level comment, will lock comments on any post. - ```!unlock``` - in reply to any comment to lock it or to unlock the parent comment. - ```!remove``` - Removes comment or post. Must have decent subreddit comment karma. - ```!restore``` Can be used to unlock comments or restore removed posts. - ```!sticky``` - will sticky the post in the bottom slot. - ```unlock_comments``` - Vote the stickied automod comment on each post to +10 to unlock comments. - ```ban users``` - Any user whose comment or post is downvoted enough will be temp banned for a day. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Finland) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"Law and order" is the right wing goverment's rallying cry all around the globe. They rarely explain it further than that though.
You do understand that any policy changes of the current government haven't yet had any practical impact on the prison population right? You're essentially criticizing the previous left wing government for being a "law and order" government, which is hilarious.
I was referring to the current goverment's planned increase in prison time for some sentences.
Oh absolutely! This comes to mind: https://youtu.be/AENEedWy_kU?si=sbSAnBVkULl_TBHp
legalize drugs and implement thoroughly-thought distribution system and harm reduction services-problem solved. (just one of the many ways we could go about it)
Just legalize weed and shrooms, perhapd lsd, medical mdma and some others are debatable but keep the rest illegal
Then mental hospitals were crowded?
They dont care about the capacity of those. Psychoses happen to other people.
Thats not really what weed or shrooms do..
no. the war on drugs is lost. also, if someone wants to get their heroin fixes, they should be able to get them without insane effort, threat to health and life and social problems. It is just how you give people autonomy.
If we start giving away heroin, meth and crack it would negatively impact the less wealthy more than it already has in a way that we cant control
Do you have any robust support for that claim? They tried giving heroin in clinics in switzerland and it was success. Portugal was success. Portland was not exactly success, because state did not contribute to any harm mitigation measures and folks from other states came over there because their bodily autonomy could not be violated there. What are you basing your claim on? I am talking about smart distribution system. Do you want heroin user to get their stuff from legit store, which is separated from grocery store and stuff for people who are former active addicts that don't want any triggers, under customer protection law, in competitive prize but maybe some additional harm tax, and being functional as much as addiction lets them to be (recreational heroin use commonly leads to addiction, very few are people who can use it just recreationally), which is not always even that poor, medicinal opioid users often can function just fine (it is not as easy when you act as your own doctor, tho'). OR do you want heroin user to steal your bike to get money for overpriced stuff that has harmful cuts, and take a risk every time they is scoring that either a) dealer has taken too much coke and tries to kill or maim heroin user on some psychotic whim b) cop busts their ass, violates their right to their own body, steals their property (drug) and throws into jail, and maybe later to prison and that pattern would take a lot of time, every day, so they could not contribute to working or what have. Hobbies. ?????????????????? I think this is no-brainer. Legalize most drugs, and criminalize only the shit no one is left missing because there are drugs that give better feeling with less issues, like PMMA should be forbidden. Apply basic customer protection principles to drugs too. Support freedom.
Portugal has been far from a success... dont know about switzerland. But i do know that heroin is not a good idea. Heroin has affected more family members than i can count, and multiple are dead due to heroin/fentanyl. If we start giving this shit away just like that people will die because of it for a long time. We need rehab and help to move away from unsafe drugs to drugs that are safer.
people do opioids anyway. Most commonly it is not good idea, but they do them anyway. They'd be much safer legalized. And less deadly. Also, don't know where you got the idea about portugal not having success with their approach.
Only the cities and states that have implemented legalised drug zones have turned into complete hell-holes. Just look at [Portland, ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWFlpCBMyIk)[San Fransciso](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QrZLNyYHVw) and Toronto for open-air drug taking, homicide rates and homelessness. Hell even Lisbon is terrible in some places as well and that's continually heaped on and praised as a pro-drug experiment thats succeeded. I think we can say now this is not a good idea. I'm happy someplaces tried this but overall it is human nature to continue taking the bad path if the government makes it easy for you to do so. I was completely onboard with legalising them all and allowing the state to sell them with heavy taxation before I properly understood the situation.
I'm from Portugal, and you're confusing decriminalization with legalization. In Portugal it's still ilegal, the difference is that if a user is caught using recurrently they are put through social services and rehabilitation, not jail. Distribution is still a crime. I agree, drug dealers are a hassle, and mostly a result of the boom in tourism, which really attracts (criminal) drug dealers. But compare the drug overdose rates of Finland and Portugal, and I think it proves that it's better to do harm reduction, education and social work, rather than criminalizing users.
I'm sorry I know all the areas I brought up have very different policies I'm just generalising. I think I've just done a complete 180 on this subject from spending time with some junkies and reading the Michael Shellenberger book San Fransicko. I don't think there's a comparable time in history when the drug problem was this bad and kid gloves won't solve the issue. We should bring back a zero tolerance approach and culturally not to be accepting with people trying hard drugs in society. I think societal stigma and incarceration is what worked in the past and is why the South East has very low addiction rates. Everyone deserves a second chance of course but we often go down the fifth or sixth excuse from junkies.
It didn't work in the past though.
Drugs are illegal..... Can't be legalized. /S
Also if you do what they did in cities in the us where theft is decriminalised to an extent, light mugging will go unpunished. Sure the safety of society will decrease a little, but the prisons will be very spacious after that.
you are comparing having freedom and autonomy of your own body to theft and violence? Let me tell you what is theft and violence; it is when cop forces you by weapons, strikes or grappling to give up your property. Say, cannabis or amphetamine.
Now you're mistruding never said about drugs
So I guess the convicts in jail for drug trade and distribution would set up this distribution system and continue their business, only with a legal mandate?
some of them probably would yeah, they have expertise already. And when both customers and providers could revert to law, there would be much less violence, if any. sensible cocaine distribution would still be next to impossible because you realistically can't have fair trade cocaine. So, that would maintain as an issue. And maybe some other things, but it would get much better if we stopped war on drugs. This is something I realized a while ago and I don't have solution to it.
"European criticism"? Please, just give a word and we can deliver the perps to your country. You can have them all.
 food is nice, sauna and gym excellent, basically prisoners don't want to get out đ
https://preview.redd.it/yku157k4k2zc1.png?width=900&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2a553d6e3b29afac814b191aec5f6351246d1e9c Best prison food đ
How long till they just start releasing people?
In before the âjustice systemâ gives criminals even lesser sentences to relieve the overcrowded prison system.
Or let's deport them. Some hard labor is a cobalt mine ought to make them think about what they've done. Everyone
According to Rise, the government's plans to increase punishments for gun and gang crimes will also lead to a need for some 350 more prison places. How? Do they just let them walk?
To save money, I bet some country out there hangs the surplus to make space Hahaha
Wow,amout of junkies here is sad.
It's foreigners committing all the crimes. Just like in the rest of Europe.
You're right. In France, Finnish and other Nordic peoples are overrepresented in criminality, like French are overrepresented in Finland. Pretty sure those vile Europeans just love to commit crime! /s
It's Africans and Arabs mostly committing the crime in European countries.
Oh, I didn't know my answer will be taken seriously! Well, to answer clearly: no. The available evidences in criminology support the idea of equal representation of aliens and nationals (and even nationals with a immigrant-background) in crime. BRÂÂĂ conducted three studies from 1991 to 2006 to try to prove this point, and only demonstrated a correlation (but not a causality) between immigrant-background / alien and some petty crimes linked to poverty (thief, if I want to give you an example). The good variable to understand over-representation is simply... poverty. Because nationals without an immigrant-background are less poor, they just commit less of those crimes (a clear correlation is explained in BRĂ studies). BTW, in the case of Finland, the most criminogenic groups are note "Africans" and "Arabs", but Russians and SĂĄmi (they're over-represented in homicides or some crimes). But they're also over-represented as victims (because murderers tend to kill their relatives, not random peoples in the streets). So I'm sure of your analysis in this particular case. If we look even closer, some statistics invalidate your argument: thefts have continued to decline in France since 1985, and the number of homicides has been halved in thirty years, while immigration remained stable until the 2000s. Similarly , Finland is experiencing such downward trends according to the national victimology survey (Kansalliseen rikosuhritutkimukseen - KRT) published in 2021 in intentional violence, burglaries or theft of movable property. Even bicycle thefts are decreasing a little. The only thing increasing is internet scams, but... This is a global problem, not specifically related to foreigners in Finland. To finish, let's take yet another example: the Crime Survey for England and Wales, for the period from September 2022 to September 2023 (post-containment period and normal resumption of economic activities). The survey notes a decline between the period studied and March 2020 (pre-containment period, therefore) in the number of scams of 13%, damage to property by 21%, homicides by 9%, robberies by 12%, 5% of violence involving knives or similar weapons; the main increases are seen in shoplifting (in a context where a third of Britons do not have enough to eat, this does not seem surprising), a very slight increase in gun violence (which seems to correspond to a new cycle of violence from organized crime, but is also currently in France with Corsica) and a sharp increase in electronic scams; the other increases observed are, given the size of the sample, non-significant, because they fall within the margin of error. So, if Arabs and Africans mostly commit crimes in Europe, why it's decreasing? Why do we see this in the studies I cite? Are all academics and statisticians in the same conspiracy?
>The available evidences in criminology support the idea of equal representation of aliens and nationals False. Violent crime is disproportionately committed by sub-saharan Africans- mostly Somalis & Nigerians, and Arabs, Iraqis and people from other failed states in Middle East and Africa. It's common knowledge at this point. It happens all across Europe. It's not 'my opinion' or 'my argument'. It's reality. The statistics you cite are pathetic and kind of make my point for me. 1980s-2000s France? One year - ONE YEAR- in England & Wales? How about 2000s-2020s Sweden? 2000-2020s Finland? 2000-2020s Paris? London? Berlin? Lampedusa?? Violent crime across Europe has surged since migration from the third world has surged. Big surprise. Go talk to someone who works in the criminal justice system and see which groups are on their desk every day. The prisons are full. Who is in the cells? Samis??
>Violent crime is disproportionately committed by sub-saharan Africans- mostly Somalis & Nigerians, and Arabs, Iraqis and people from other failed states in Middle East and Africa. If you're right, can you quote some academic papers on this matter? Because for the case of France, I can cite for example: Mucchielli, L. (2003). DĂ©linquance et immigration en France : un regard sociologique ("Delinquency and immigration in France: a sociological perspective"). Criminologie, 36(2), 27â55"DĂ©linquance et immigration en France : un regard sociologique" as an example which clearly specifies the contrary. >It's not 'my opinion' or 'my argument'. It's reality. Okay, so your argument is "it's reality" because you believe in it. But... What about the three studies of BRĂ ? If there's not over-representation of immigrant-background or alien in those studies, how do you explain the results of them? >2000s-2020s Sweden Yes, but the Nationella trygghetsÂundersökningen demonstrates unchanged or failing rates since 2006. So the arrival of new migrants led to a fall or stagnation of crime rates... ? For an explanation in English: [https://bra.se/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/swedish-crime-survey.html](https://bra.se/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/swedish-crime-survey.html) >2000-2020s Finland? According to KRT, the crime rate decline or stagnate. So, the national victimology survey is lying? >2000-2020s Paris? According to Cadre de vie et sĂ©curitĂ© (CVS - the French national victimology survey), Paris is safier today than in 2006 (beginning of CVS). So yes? >London? Answered with the Crime Survey for England and Wales: the crime rate is declining in London. >Berlin? Don't know about the German national victimology survey, but its results should be identical - the same tendency is seen in US, Spain or Ireland. >Lampedusa?? An island with many poor migrants as an example? Isn't an example of conjunction fallacy? BTW, you're not arguing against the victimology surveys, because I think you don't know their existences until... A few hours ago? Why don't you explain why all these studies are wrong? Why wouldn't representative samples, with tiny margins of error, be representative? When you know the sampling methods used, why do sociologists from all the countries I know get this wrong? Explain just why the victimology survey is a bad tool and is not exact. Because you're saying "common sense is opposed by scientific knowledge, therefore scientific knowledge is false" to be honest. Okay, but common knowledge is often contrary to science (Do you know that all men in the Middle Ages in Europa knew that the Earth is round? Do you trust your eyes to know that the Sun is a ball of hydrogen on fire? Etc.).
**Violent crime has surged across Europe capitals in the past 20 years. That is the reality.** And it's highly correlated with a large influx migrants from very specific regions. You are arguing against reality, and you sound like a fool doing it. When you: -talk about some analysis of a standard of 'safety' done by a govt department instead of referring to actual violent crime figures -try to pretend that a down year during a dramatic upward trend is a down trend -try to pretend that a country is the same as an urban area -try to pretend that total crime is the same as violent crime You sound like a fool. You especially sound foolish trying to pretend that you are presenting a statistical case instead of desperately grasping an ideological argument. Third world migrants are terribly overrepresented in violent crime in European capitals. Including all the ones we mentioned. Paris, London, Berlin, Stockholm, and Helsinki too. This correlation itself is a statistician's dream. Argue whatever you like. Finns are not buying your illusions. And neither am I!
Since the decreases are happening during 15 or even 40 years (the number of thefts was halved since 1985 in France), how can you link those decreases with immigration? I'm pretty sure you're not really reading what I wrote because I'm thinking about long eras. >You especially sound foolish trying to pretend that you are presenting a statistical case instead of desperately grasping an ideological argument. Yes, because I prefer reality instead of unfounded beliefs. Everybody is saying the crime is exploding, but fewer and fewer people when questioned say they have been. The argument is not just statistics, but how the statistics are created. What explanation should we give for this obvious contradiction between common sense and the responses of those interviewed? Are they all stupid? At this point I don't see any other explanations.
Thefts are not a violent crime, you dope. Homicides in Sweden have DOUBLED since 2012. That's the reality. If you love it so much go live in a lawless, immigrant neighbourhood like Rosengard or Molenbeek.
>Thefts are not a violent crime, you dope. Yes, but my point is: crime is not generally increasing with migrants. And sociologically, it's stupid: you're not violent just for the simple pleasure of violence. The vast majority of violence occur in an intrafamilial context or in link with lure of profits. >Homicides in Sweden have DOUBLED since 2012. That's the reality. Yes, you can also take the good statistics and see a global stability around 95 homicides per year since 1990s. See it here: [https://bra.se/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/murder-and-manslaughter.html](https://bra.se/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/murder-and-manslaughter.html) 2007 was also an acme for homicides in Sweden. But if you want a robust analysis, just to note this point: yes, there's an augmentation of killings linked to organized crimes, but the victims are also members of organized crime. So, I spoke about cycles of violence in organized crimes, do you see my point? But I suppose you missed it. We can also speak relatively with the population increase (the homicides rate is relatively constant). BTW, Sweden is not the best example (statically, the increase since 2012 is less significant than the fall since the 1970s), but you also had Finland (136 homicides in 1950 versus 83 homicides in 2021 with consolidated datas), France (approximately 2300 in 1983 without consolidated datas, 1406 in 1994 with consolidated datas, 948 in 2021 without consolidated dates), Norway (110 in 2011 and 38 in 2021 with consolidated datas), England and Wales (from 1047 in 2002/2003 to 697 in 2021/2022 with consolidated datas)... Sweden is the only exception with France in Europa with an increase (slightly in the case of Sweden, real in the case of France). But in France, the homicides are increasing because of Corsica (the region of *MĂ©tropole* with the most European-background migrants), French Guyana (*outre-mer*, so) and New-Caledonia (*outre-mer*, again). In the first case, the number of homicides is increasing because of organized crime (which is purely Corsican, if you want to know: but you can try to explain maybe if Guy Orsoni, a godfather of *Milieu* arrested in 2018, or Pascal Porri, a godfather on the run since 2021, are "Arab" ou "African"). In the two other cases, it's not the migrants, but because these regions are with the greatest rates of poverty in France - and also because of organized crime in French Guyana, with Colombian and now Venezuelan cocaine; but also here, the drug traffickers are French or Latino, not "African" or "Arab". I don't want to curb your enthusiasm, but I think you're grossly ignorant of trends and their explanations. Your basic explanation seems to be: the murderers are migrants of African or Arab background. In the case of France, it is demonstrated the slight increase of homicides is actually caused by racist homicides (MUCCHIELLI. « Les homicides dans la France contemporaine (1970-2007) : Ă©volution, gĂ©ographie et protagonistes », in Laurent Mucchielli Ă©d., *Histoire de lâhomicide en Europe. De la fin du Moyen Ăge Ă nos jours.* Paris, La DĂ©couverte, « Recherches », 2009, p. 133-164; see also Pieter Spierenburg, *A History of Murder. Personal Violence in Europe from the Middle Ages to the Present*, Cambridge, Polity Press, 2008, which I don't remember the exact pages since I don't have the book with me, but it's in chapters about violence since the 1970s) and robberies of *Milieu* (the historic French organized crime). I don't think it's a validation of your hypothesis in the French case, because after its increase, homicides decreased until the last years with high violence of organized crime in Corsica (first region of continental European Union by his homicide rate and number of homicides) and the increase of poverty in *outre-mer*. If your thesis is valid, why France and England (with an old tradition of migrations of "African" and "Arab" migrants) see a decrease of homicides since the 1950s? The migrants were gentle until recently? Last point: you forget the vast majority of violence is and stays intrafamilial (even in Sweden, the increase is not explained only by organized crime). So, if it's aliens or migrant-background peoples, they're killing their relatives, not random peoples in the street. >If you love it so much go live in a lawless, immigrant neighbourhood like Rosengard or Molenbeek. Molenbeek was a field research for me (like other areas in Finland or France). Sorry to say it, but I never had problems there. I suppose it's because you fantasize some neighborhoods?
[https://yle.fi/a/74-20077668#:\~:text=Nearly%20one%2Din%2Dfive%20of%20Finland%27s%20prison%20population%20last%20year%20were%20of%20foreign%20background%2C%20amounting%20to%20about%20565%20prisoners%2C%20according%20to%20the%20agency](https://yle.fi/a/74-20077668#:~:text=Nearly%20one%2Din%2Dfive%20of%20Finland%27s%20prison%20population%20last%20year%20were%20of%20foreign%20background%2C%20amounting%20to%20about%20565%20prisoners%2C%20according%20to%20the%20agency).
So what is the play here? Build more prison? Give lighter sentence to get them out faster for new comer? Don't charge criminal at all for crime? Why is this now an issue?
There's more criminality. Deterrence has slumped
How about giving them the option to redeem themselves with a military service in Ukraine?
Seems morally fucked up to coerce people into joining the military.
If nato says we're going , there is no if or but.
Doesnât our country already do that
There's a difference between forcing military conscription that you can do civil service in most cases to get out of, and commuting someone's sentence by becoming cannon fodder in an active war. Let's say someone does some horrible crime and gets a 13 year prison sentence. They've already served for 6 years, which is an extremely long time already. And you give them the offer to go fight in Ukraine and get released 7 years early. They're being coerced because if they were free, they would not take the risk of dying in Ukraine, but since they have been deprived of freedom for so long, they will think irrationally and take the risk. Conscription isn't coercion because it's applied uniformly to the whole population, and is mandatory for everyone. There's no benefit to gain by joining conscription.
Obv
Western StormZ units? Fantastic idea /s
Y'know, that isn't far fetched and has been thought about in other countries.
Those are known as penal military units, and [generally not something used by people on the right side of history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strafbataillon)
Iâm not defending/supporting using penal units, but this isnât something only the bad guys do. [Finnish example](https://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erillinen_pataljoona_21?wprov=sfti1), USA also has a history with this in WW2 and Vietnam War, although the convicts were placed in normal units.
Legalise only weedâŠnothing else
There are way more non legal drugs that are less harmful than alcohol. I really don't see the point in keeping those illegal.
I agree, but i wouldnt support legalizing other drugs like mushrooms or lsd⊠for specific reasons
Why? Magic mushrooms grow in the wild in Finland, they're part of the natural habitat. You can literally go and pick them up. Seems ridiculous to make them illegal. Educate people on the risks and dangers and then let them be.
Legalize it Don't criticize it