Galery

2

1

Anastasia Balezdrova

A huge jump in crime in 2011 has been reported by the Greek police. According to them, 11 thefts are carried out in the country every hour, the perpetrators of which operate in a more cruel way. There has also been a huge increase in the number of murders.

GRReporter turned to the longtime professor of criminology at the University of Athens Yiannis Panousis for comment. He analyzed the problem and stressed the need to strengthen the trust in democratic institutions. 

Mr. Panousis, what caused the surge in crime? How much is the crisis to blame for this?

Unfortunately, we have no data on the qualitative characteristics of crime. It is not enough to know whether there are ten murders more. The age of the offender and victim, the cause, the time, their relationship, etc. are also important.

But the overall increase in crime is related to social lawlessness, corruption, political instability and to a system in which criminal groups believe that they are faced with a largely ineffective state power and a weak democracy.

The economic crisis may be the reason for certain crimes related to survival but not for the actions of someone who kills a street kiosk owner or rapes a mother before the eyes of her children. I think it is wrong to associate all crimes with the crisis because it can lead to stereotypes like, for example, that one million poor people are one million potential criminals.

In addition to theft and robbery, the number of murders has also increased. What has caused this?

In my opinion, the crimes against property are not the most critical variable, although they cause uncertainty and financial loss to their victims. The main issue is the loss of value of human life. I am talking about cases when three men with guns in their hands break into the house of an elderly man to rob him and kill him. This means that a specific group of criminals, who may not be Greeks, are not interested in who the victim is and what the price of his or her life is. Maybe they behave that way because this is the attitude to life in the countries they come from. But this attitude cannot be the same in Greece.

A party leader has almost proposed that citizens be allowed to carry guns to protect themselves and their families from attackers. The statement was clearly addressed to a particular audience, but there were other voices in favour of this proposal. Is taking the law into one’s own hands a solution?

As I said, noone is observing the laws in Greece. The free possession of a gun is not effective in fighting crime. Even if you have a gun by your head, if three people come while you are sleeping, you cannot do anything. Second, having a gun does not mean you are mentally ready to shoot and kill. These are two very different things. Third, international studies show that when the potential victim has a gun, the collision with the attacker will surely result in bloodshed. And the result could be different. If someone breaks into your house with a knife and you have a gun, one of the people will be killed. The same will happen if the attacker has a shot gun and you hold a knife.

Therefore, it would only be a serious blow to democracy and its institutions and I do not think it will be efficient as a measure. Not to mention that taking the law into one’s own hands in general leads us to situations like in the movies about the Far East and other examples of coexistence.

What measures could help reduce crime?

I am glad you are asking me about the measures that could reduce crime, because some think it could disappear. But I would rather start with preconditions. Some would suggest increasing the number of police officers. From the moment that citizens stop cooperating with the police. because they follow ideology, that it is bad and not a democratic institution.

I mean if we fail to agree on certain things. One of them is the law. As in Greece, everyone thinks that crime is what he himself considers a crime, not what is described in the Penal Code. Let us make it clear that we are concerned about the damage to everyone, not just to the people we do not like. By this, I mean the attitude of as if nothing happened when a rich man or a journalist is killed. In Greece, we found democracy, when they started to express acts of violence against politicians. As if democracy had not been hurt until then.

Once we agree that all should be punished and stop saying, "This is a crime, but ..." "This is violence, but ..." and stop taking into account who did it and against whom, then we could discuss the technical issues about whether we should have better and more effective police, better training, better justice and everything else. But if you do not believe in democracy and think that the police officer is a "cop, killer, boar" and that the judge is corrupt, the Minister is such and such, then everyone will take a gun and solve their problems as they like. So, I think the issue of trust in democracy is much more important than the effectiveness of the police.

What do you think about the increasing attacks on politicians these days, which are also expected during the parades to celebrate the national holiday of March 25?

I am totally against these attacks. Absolutely. Especially during ceremonies, because you honour history then not the people of nowadays.  They themselves, however, must also understand that they are not the object of this honour and that they do not honour anything. This means that politicians, in turn, behave in an affected manner somehow. The National Day on 25 March is our history, not Mr. Minister on the stand. When people honour their history, politicians have to understand that we must honour the people and not believe that politicians are the representatives of history.

In this sense, I would say that it is more a matter of social agreement on certain things. Politicians, and I mean all politicians must shake off their arrogance and other vices. There is a very bad attitude on their part.

How would you comment on the attacks against the singer George Dallaras? What drives people to go to his free concerts, which are organized solely to attack him?

I repeat that I am firmly against these attacks. Today I read that he has interrupted his performances. I do not see what all those who went there to protest gained with their reactions. I do not understand this type of custom of generalizations. I.e. a party or a minister is responsible for something and because I cannot "attack" the party or the minister, I am attacking someone who I think is a part of the whirl. It makes no sense.

I am for symbolic, I stress, for symbolic acts. What they did in the Fthiotida area, where they said to some lawmakers that they will not greet them on the street and do not want to admit them to their homes is an interesting symbolism. People show their disapproval of certain political actions. The same can happen in case of disapproval of a professor, doctor, lawyer, artist, etc. This is one thing and it is quite different to go and throw yoghurt at someone because his opinion differs from yours. I do not understand the logic of this behaviour.

Do you think these actions can spread among the public and reach extremes? There is such a discussion in the media and especially in social media.

Look, I do not believe in extremes. When things go wrong, there will appear the crazy, the paranoid, the disillusioned, etc. Anyway, these phenomena are around us. Imagine such a person being entitled to have a gun. He will shoot someone just because he is crying very much, for example. They are "shooting" now in the social networks, but if extreme positions, practices do not gain political backing and do not coordinate subsequently, and "inspire," all of these actions will be sporadic acts of more or less discontented people, more or less well-balanced people.

What do those increasing extremes of the political spectrum portend?

Even in the presence of extreme political positions, democracy and confidence in institutions should be strengthened. It is impossible to go against them. It is impossible for a snake egg to scare us and make us hide in our homes, make us suspicious of everyone and have no trust in the state.

On the one hand, people are squeezed by a state government that is indifferent, inefficient and corrupt and on the other - by criminal gangs and organizations, representatives of political extremes. They cannot stay in the middle. They must decide where to focus. My opinion is that they are choosing to go to the side of democracy. They could not go elsewhere, despite the problems and shortcomings of this democracy.