Share article

Print article

Almost every day, it seems we read or hear reports another family is grieving the murder of a loved one in a street brawl, another business owner is hospitalised after trying to fend off armed robbers, or shoppers simply going about their business are confronted by knife-wielding thugs.

The way media and politicians talk, it seems as if we are in the middle of an unprecedented violent crime crisis.

But are we?

The short answer is: no.

Although the numbers fluctuate from year to year, Australia is less violent today than in previous years.

It is difficult to make direct comparisons over decades, because the way crimes are defined and recorded changes (especially for assault).

Weapons and violence are rarely out of the media cycle in Australia, leading many to fear this country is becoming less safe for everyday people. Is that really the case, though? This is the first story in a four-part series.

For crimes like domestic violence, the statistics are extremely hard to compare over time but even so, prevalence appears to have declined (although only about half of all women who experience physical and/or sexual violence from their partners seek advice or support).

However, if we consider homicide and robbery (which have been categorised much the same way over time), the numbers have been falling for decades.

Yes, knives and bladed weapons have been in the news recently, but this does not mean they are being used more often.

Reliable, long-term statistics are not always available but the ones we have show the use of weapons has declined over time.

Interestingly, this seems to have nothing to do with the weapons themselves. For instance, armed robbery and unarmed robbery both rise and fall in about the same way, at about the same time. Homicide follows a similar pattern.

Not all crimes are reported to police but self-reported statistics show the same trends.

Relative to ten years ago, Australians now are less likely to say they have experienced physical or threatened face-to-face assault in the previous 12 months.

Places with greater socioeconomic disadvantage typically experience more violence. In Queensland, for instance, Mt Isa has higher violent crime rates than affluent areas of Brisbane.

Despite differences between places, there is generally less violence than there used to be.

Nobody knows quite why violence is decreasing. This is not just happening in Australia but across many developed nations.

Suggestions include better social welfare, strong economies, improved education, low unemployment, women's rights and stable governance. Also, new avenues have opened up that carry less risk than violent crime - such as cyberfraud instead of robbing a bank.

There is no clear, compelling explanation.

Yet when we consider Australia's responses when violence does occur, measures such as bans (for example, on machetes), more police powers and more (or longer) prison sentences have become the fallback.

Evidence shows these types of reactions achieve little, but in an environment of endless "crisis" it is almost impossible to make good decisions. This is made even harder in circumstances where victims and activists push politicians to implement "feel-good" policies, regardless of how ultimately fruitless those will be.

One thing remains the same: violent crime is primarily committed by younger men (who are also likely to be victims).

Ethnicity and migration are also recurrent themes. Just as young Italians with switchblades were the focus of moral panic in the 1950s and 60s, migrants from places such as Africa and the Middle East are now held up as a danger.

Ethnicity/migration history data is not always recorded in crime statistics, but the information we do have suggests a more complex picture.

Factors such as exposure to warfare and civil strife can certainly play a role in people's use of violence.

However, unemployment, poverty, poor education and involvement with drugs and/or gangs tend to play a much larger part.

If society is less violent, why are public reactions to violence seemingly becoming more intense?

Incidents that would have received little attention a decade ago now dominate public debate and single incidents - no matter how rare or isolated - are enough to provoke sweeping legislative and policy changes.

Violence is political currency. The more the spectre of violence is emphasised and exaggerated, the more power people are willing to give to authorities to do something to fix it.

This is also about psychology: the better things get, the more sensitive people tend to be to whatever ills remain and resilience can crumble when something bad does happen.

Pandering to this by rushing to make people feel safer - while politically irresistible - has unintended consequences. When another incident occurs, as it always does, people feel even more vulnerable because they were led to believe the problem had been "fixed".

This creates a never-ending cycle of superficial responses while underlying issues are ignored.

We cannot legislate or politicise our way out of violence. The best responses are ones that identify and address actual root causes and look at the circumstances that surround violence - rather than fixating on the violence itself.

This means moving away from emotional reactions and taking a clear look at why violence occurs in the first place.

Until this happens, any further reductions in violence are more likely to be good luck than good management.