Stop And Search Arrest Ratios

[sp1814]

Just been on the news. Last year there were 1.2 million stop and searches.

This resulted in 109,000 arrests (9%).

In what ways can the police improve this figure? Do these searches need to be 'intelligence-led'? Are they simply stopping too many people, wasting their own time - or does the 109,000 arrests justify the 1.2 million stops?

The only link I have is this, as its only just been on the news:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23140505

[Peter Pedant]

I was surprised at a 10% score rate (if you get my meaning)

I have been stopped and searched three times and strongly objected to all three. One, 1970 I think I was standing at the A30 A303 junction - it is in the middle of nowhere and it was tipping down.

[Orderlimit]

Approx 10% arrest to search ratio seems balanced bearing in mind most searches are conducted in response to a crime having just been committed and information (descriptions) provided by members of the public. 1.2 million searches are an average of every copper carrying out 10 stop-searches per year each. Stop searches are also a good source of intelligence.

[joeluke]

So 109,000 criminals were arrested last year after being stopped and searched? Sounds like a result to me

Why do people who are stopped and searched without being arrested bleat on about it so much? If they've got nothing to hide then what's the problem apart from it being a minor, brief inconvenience?

If it takes criminals off the streets then whatever the percentage of arrests it has to be a good thing

[sp1814]

joeluke - I think it would be money better spent if there was a higher percentage of arrests...don't you?

[bazwillrun]

If their hands werent tied by PC it probably would be higher if they were able to stop those who they believed to be more likely involved in crime rather than stopping people based on quotas to make the numbers look good

[joeluke]

Sp.....Doesn't matter how low the % arrest rate is, if it results in arrests and convictions then it's justified

[ludwig]

I think a 10% arrest rate is pretty good. Higher than I would have thought.

[sp1814]

joeluke

But surely 10% is rubbish.

Would you applaud the police if they only managed to send 10% of rapists to court? 10% of burglars? 10% of child sex offenders?

[sp1814]

When did our expectations become so low?

[jim360]

It's possible that some of the people stopped and searched were the same person repeatedly, which may improve the figures a bit, but probably not by much. Also perhaps some stops may lead to cautions, etc. -- why is an arrest considered the only positive result?

I think it depends a lot on what motivated the stops in the the first place. If police have reasonable suspicions I'm sure we'd all rather they act on them and be wrong than not act and find that the suspicions were right -- and this could easily lead to a surprisingly low "success" rate. I think it's known that not all stops have much motivation beyond e.g. skin colour, but again if you are looking for a young black man in a hooded top you might find rather a lot more than the guilty person.

In short: I'm not sure we should regard 9% as necessarily being far too low, until we also know why the stops and searched were carried out and whether any also led to cautions.

[LazyGun]

Even Theresa May, the Home Secretary, thinks it is pretty rubbish. According to the report I saw, the Met. are supposedly leading the way here, using a more efficient, intelligence - led and targeted approach, which they claim has doubled the stop:arrest ratio.

I

[Booldawg]

what percentage of the UKs citizens are criminals? If the figure is below 9% then the stop and search policy is providing results and proves the police are going some way into targeting the right people.

[ludwig]

// In what ways can the police improve this figure? Do these searches need to be 'intelligence-led'? //

Intelligence led searches are know as police investigations, which are different thing entirely. Is what you're actually asking 'should we abolish stop and search?'. At a 9% arrest rate I'd say the answer is no.

[anotheoldgit]

If a thousand stop and searches prevented one loss of life then no matter how much it cost it would be worth it.

A black woman phoned a radio station and announced that her 14 year son had been stopped and searched by the police and they found a weapon on him, instead of showing annoyance towards the police, she said that it was a job well done, since it had stopped her son or perhaps some other's life from being ruined.

[sp1814]

No ludwig, I'm not suggesting that stop and searches should be banned. I'm asking how they can be improved.

[sp1814]

AOG

Not sure what your point is, but let's just say it's jolly well put...

[joeluke]

sp......forget the percentage, 109,000 arrests were made due to stop and search

That's precisely 109,000 more arrests than would have been made if there was no stop and search

[sp1814]

joeluke

I should clarify - I'm not in any way saying that stoop and search should be banned...just that the hit rate could (should?) be improved.

[sp1814]

Bloody iPad

That should read 'stop' not 'stoop'.

'Stoop and search' elicits a very inappropriate image,..