Is Crime Really Down?

[Keepitsimple]

I'm old enough to remember what things were like back in the 60's. Crimes with guns and even knives were rare - sexual assaults were not as prevalent. There was the odd "dirty old man" here and then but for the most part, the sheer violence that we see today was almost non-existant. There are many reasons for the societal changes that have led to the upswing in violence....but to try and pretend that somehow, crime has gone down is foolish. It MAY not be as high as some recent years but it's still much, much higher than it used to be - and is at levels that should be unacceptable to Canadians.

.............

Much of the statistical decline is a false front.

As Lorrie Goldstein reminded in Sunday’s Toronto Sun, the General Social Survey released in 2005 (there will be another this fall) showed that just 34% of victims told police about the crimes committed against them, “compared to 37% in 1999.” An estimated “92% of sexual assaults were never reported to police, nor 46% of break-ins, 51% of motor vehicle and parts thefts, 61% of physical assaults and 54% of robberies.”

What’s more, while crime is down in the last 10 to 15 years, it is still well above where it was 50 years ago. In 1962, when police-reported crime stats began being gathered, there were 2,000 crimes reported each year per 100,000 population; today there are nearly 6,500. Back then, there were also 200 violent crimes every year per 100,000 Canadians; now there are nearly 1,000. And it is easy enough to believe the reported levels in 1962 were closer to the real levels of the day than our stats today are. Given the way so many Canadians have thrown in the towel on crime reporting, our actual rates could be many times more above 1962 levels than the official numbers show.

There are legitimate reasons for being dubious of the Tories’ plan to build a string of new prisons nationwide, but the main one being offered in opposition — that we have nothing to worry about because there is so little crime left — is absurd.

Link: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/26/lorne-gunter-crime-rates-higher-than-reported/#more-7776

[nicky10013]

I'm old enough to remember what things were like back in the 60's. Crimes with guns and even knives were rare - sexual assaults were not as prevalent. There was the odd "dirty old man" here and then but for the most part, the sheer violence that we see today was almost non-existant. There are many reasons for the societal changes that have led to the upswing in violence....but to try and pretend that somehow, crime has gone down is foolish. It MAY not be as high as some recent years but it's still much, much higher than it used to be - and is at levels that should be unacceptable to Canadians.

Link: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/07/26/lorne-gunter-crime-rates-higher-than-reported/#more-7776

Here's where the article comes tumbling down.

And it is easy enough to believe the reported levels in 1962 were closer to the real levels of the day than our stats today are.

Sure it's easy enough to believe, but the entire argument put forth in the article relies on this statement, which can't be disproven, but it also can't be proven either. There's nothing to prove one way or another.

[Wild Bill]

Here's where the article comes tumbling down.

Sure it's easy enough to believe, but the entire argument put forth in the article relies on this statement, which can't be disproven, but it also can't be proven either. There's nothing to prove one way or another.

Yes, it may be rather hard to prove, considering how time has passed and a lack of cites for so long ago.

That being said, there are many of us alive today with direct experience of those times in the 60's. We lived it! We are well aware of what crime levels appeared to be and how often we heard about violent crimes. It was indeed a time of less crime and certainly less violent crime. Even carjackings hadn't been invented yet! Youth disputes were solved with fists. Occasionally knives were used. Hearing about a gun shooting or a driveby was like hearing about a man landing on the Moon...

[Keepitsimple]

Here's where the article comes tumbling down.

Sure it's easy enough to believe, but the entire argument put forth in the article relies on this statement, which can't be disproven, but it also can't be proven either. There's nothing to prove one way or another.

Actually, it doesn't rely on that statement ar all - quite the opposite - because if it were true, today's crime figures would be even worse because of the high incidence of unreported crime. Just comparing the raw stats is damning enough.

[Remiel]

What were the demographics like in 1962? Not racial or religious, but income, density, homelessness, single parents, and like social factors? Without that sort of information, you may as well be comparing two different countries.

Also, it is a huge fallacy to believe that because reporting rates seem to be down from 1999, that that the reporting rates from 1962 in 1999 were also down, without statistical evidence to back up that assertion. Especially since 34% and 37% are statisticaly negligibly different.

[William Ashley]

crime has fallen into common law and no snitch. there isn't a single day that goes by where I don't notice some crime happening. "its ok to break the law if nothing bad happens, if no one is upset by the law being broken, or the victim isn't liked": is the mindset people these days. People really don't care until it effects them, very sad. "There are 'priorities' to law enforcement these days": some crimes just arn't worth the time of law enforceement to deal with, seems the mood of the justice system these days. A year to finish a trial - 8 years to finish appeals, etc.. The justice system is just utterly broken, and not fully serving the public interest. That's why I advocate for justice system reform, not cause the people are bad, but because the system has rotted itself away. It is absurd to think that someone has to make a profession of something and people have to wait months to determine that them punching someone in the face was indeed a wrong thing to do, and even more absurd that they now spend another 6 months because they did it, then spend 5 years unable to travel because of what happened a year ago due to a drunken exchange. It is utterly punative even if the character of individuals isn't criminal - the system itself is victimization, a place of last recourse, instead of resolve. The crime itself becomes secondary, and the police then used as a "medium of restitution" via things like police reports for insurance filing, or law suits. - THE EXPECTION is when anyone involved in government is involved, then the most minor infraction becomes equivolent to rape and murder in the fury of prosecution by the crown attorneys office. Should anyone turn their sword to the governments agenda - suddently the attorney general can remove access to court rememdy. It is a very corrupt broken system. - and that is the way people made it to be - because it serves the interests of the status quo and keeping crime existing so that those who would like to victimize may, and the government doesn't seem as evil when there are worse people out there - suddently the appearance of saviours from injustice - instead of repressors and oppresion at the hands of the government. If not one than the other - either we are free and at risk of criminal exchange - or we are repressed and the government victimizing us for their gain. And the other option is a life of militancy either of the self or supporters.

people are complaicent with many infractions - and ignorant to minor crimes. It is only when they themselves are victimized do they start really caring.

crime is prevalent.

find me a law abiding citizen whho is consciencious of the law and protecting peoples legal safety and I will show you a myth.

Edited July 26, 2010 by William Ashley

[Guest TrueMetis]

You sure your just not being nostalgic?

[Smallc]

You sure your just not being nostalgic?

That's exactly what they're being. Given the ease of reporting a crime now (dialling 911 on your cell phone), the idea that less or the same amount of crime is reported now is ridiculous.

[Bonam]

Meaningless speculation aside, this is the violent crime data that we have:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:CanadaViolentCrime.gif

It basically shows a rapid and continual rise from 1962 to 1991. Since then, it has been slowly declining. It remains at about 4-5 times the 1962 level.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Bonam

[dre]

I often wonder about this.

I often get the "feeling" that there is a lot more violent crime now than in the past. But I think part of that is the information age, and cellphone cameras etc, has just made stuff a lot more visible.

I think law enforment has some odd priorities. There was three cops up at the lake for the last couple of weekends checking to see if people had their "small boat operators" ticket which they finally made mandatory this year. There hasnt been a serious boating accident on our lakes for as long as I can remember. And about another 6 or 7 at a speed/dui trap just outside of town, looking for alcohol and weed and shit like that.

I think the police and the municipalities that fund them, mostly just like to look for crimes where they can hand out a nice cash fines for. There no money in prosecuting assault and its way more of a hassle, because it involves litigation, cops having to show up for court etc... And of course Mr Campbell fired a bunch of the judges, court reporters etc as well... that probably doesnt help.

[Wild Bill]

That's exactly what they're being. Given the ease of reporting a crime now (dialling 911 on your cell phone), the idea that less or the same amount of crime is reported now is ridiculous.

Once again you seem to lack "real world" experience! Many people don't report crimes because they don't expect the criminals will actually be caught but they DO expect negative consequences for themselves!

A woman who has been sexually assaulted may feel that she will have the aggravation and embarrassment of being "run through the system" for no positive result. She will endure shame and perhaps time off of work while the perp will never be identified or worse yet, if he is and there is a court trial the defense attorney will attack HER for her own sexual history and the perp will get off!

Homeowners who have been burglarized may have little confidence that the police will get their belongings back, particularly if it was loose cash. They DO know that filing a report more than once will almost certainly dramatically increase their insurance premiums! What's more, the law usually says that as homeowners they MUST have that insurance! Or at least, theft must be included with any fire or calamity policy! The premiums can become more expensive than the victim can afford.

There have been many cases here in Ontario where shopkeepers who have been robbed a number of times have been DENIED any insurance, forcing them out of business! So when they are robbed they tend to weigh the losses of the actual robbery with the consequences of reporting the crime.

I should also mention that often trials can drag out for months if not years. Victims are expected to appear yet they are paid only a pittance for showing up. I had to show up for 3 appearances over a traffic accident and never even had my parking paid! This is time away from work. Many businesses will not pay their employees in this situation. Many small businesses with a single operator have to shut down in order to appear in court.

The "system" rarely talks about these aspects, smallc. Why would they? It's embarrassing! It also attacks the credibility of their stats.

How often do we hear the police in Toronto complaining that no witnesses will come forward after a shooting in the street or at a club? What they never mention is that the fear of the criminals doing harm to witnesses is absolutely justified! They have and DO harm witnesses or their families! The police CANNOT protect them and there is no budget for a "witness protection program". Even if there was, it is a hardship for a family to be removed forever from their roots!

These are the "real world" details, smallc. If you were ever in such a situation you would likely immediately understand. Suppose you were a witness to a murder? One where you knew that the defendant or some of his compatriots might very well try to kill you or at least intimidate you from appearing. Perhaps you would be noble and brave enough anyway. Good for you! Now, imagine how easy it would be to take that stand if you had a wife and some small children, who would also be targets!

Details. It's always the details.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Argus]

I often wonder about this.

I often get the "feeling" that there is a lot more violent crime now than in the past. But I think part of that is the information age, and cellphone cameras etc, has just made stuff a lot more visible.

Sex crimes are more visible, ie, more reported now than they used to be, and get into the media a LOT more than they used to be. But crime is actually more difficult to report now than it used to be. Cops rarely come to your door any more, even for a break-in, and there are a bazillion forms to fill out if you go into the station. Most people only bother if they're going to make an insurance claim, and even there, people think twice now because insurance is so costly and every claim raises it higher.

[Smallc]

Once again you seem to lack "real world" experience! Many people don't report crimes because they don't expect the criminals will actually be caught but they DO expect negative consequences for themselves!

Really? And so how does any of what you have said negate my point? Oh, that's right, it doesn't. Like I said, the idea that people report less crime than before is absolutely preposterous, given the ease of making a report and the societal support for the victim as opposed to any time in the past.

What you've told me about are personal anecdotes....and that's what you always use in arguments. You then go on to lecture others about their lack of facts and logic. It's rather rich.

I'll use my own anecdote. I have personally been involved with a hostage situation, an assault, several vandalisms, and several robberies. All of them were reported. Every single one.

Edited July 29, 2010 by Smallc

[Wild Bill]

Really? And so how does any of what you have said negate my point? Oh, that's right, it doesn't. Like I said, the idea that people report less crime than before is absolutely preposterous, given the ease of making a report and the societal support for the victim as opposed to any time in the past.

What you've told me about are personal anecdotes....and that's what you always use in arguments. You then go on to lecture others about their lack of facts and logic. It's rather rich.

I'll use my own anecdote. I have personally been involved with a hostage situation, an assault, several vandalisms, and several robberies. All of them were reported. Every single one.

How can I cite evidence for non-reporting? It's impossible!

Still, I feel my reasoning stands. You didn't rebut my reasoning in any way. You simply declared the entire debate to consist of anecdotes and cited personal anecdotes to cancel anecdotes.

My anecdotes were never personal. They were gleaned from the mainstream media and personal contacts with victims over the years. It is obvious that you have zero personal experience in running a retail business, unless it was located next door to a police station.

You never answered why witnesses to a Toronto club shooting fear coming out and reporting what they saw. You expect us to believe that they ALL do just because YOU had an anecdotal experience?

Neither of us can prove an anecdote but simple logic says that if they did it your way they would be beaten up or even dead!

The premise to the thread was whether or not crime is down. This led to the question of crime being truly down or simply under-reported. I give logical reasons why victims would choose NOT to report crimes, given that they would experience negative consequences for no positive good.

Again, you don't answer my reasoning at all! To hear you tell it, everyone reports all crimes because it is so easy today. No one fears any retaliation, no one gets hit with insurance premiums higher than they can afford, no businessman becomes unable to even get insurance and is forced out of business.

Man, it must be the perfect Garden of Eden where you live! You are extremely fortunate!

Edited July 29, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Smallc]

How can I cite evidence for non-reporting? It's impossible!

Exactly...and yet you think it's the case.

Still, I feel my reasoning stands. You didn't rebut my reasoning in any way. You simply declared the entire debate to consist of anecdotes and cited personal anecdotes to cancel anecdotes.

Because that's what it was.

My anecdotes were never personal. They were gleaned from the mainstream media and personal contacts with victims over the years. It is obvious that you have zero personal experience in running a retail business, unless it was located next door to a police station.

That's funny about the retail business thing...since that's what my family does (and what I have been heavily involved in) and has done for 30 years. I know many people who report all crimes...that happen to them. In fact I know few people that don't report.

You never answered why witnesses to a Toronto club shooting fear coming out and reporting what they saw. You expect us to believe that they ALL do just because YOU had an anecdotal experience?

Do you believe that something has changed, or that witnesses were always afraid? In fact, it has always been that way.

Neither of us can prove an anecdote but simple logic says that if they did it your way they would be beaten up or even dead!

Right...and it's always been that way.

The premise to the thread was whether or not crime is down. This led to the question of crime being truly down or simply under-reported. I give logical reasons why victims would choose NOT to report crimes, given that they would experience negative consequences for no positive good.

And why would they have reported crime before, but not done so now? You haven't addressed that at all.

Again, you don't answer my reasoning at all! To hear you tell it, everyone reports all crimes because it is so easy today. No one fears any retaliation, no one gets hit with insurance premiums higher than they can afford, no businessman becomes unable to even get insurance and is forced out of business.

People do seem to report most crime...even the most trivial things.

Man, it must be the perfect Garden of Eden where you live! You are extremely fortunate!

I wish.

[eyeball]

It's funny how people's anecdotal memories and impressions regarding their conviction the climate is going screwy is so quickly pooh poohed by people who are convinced their own anecdotal memories of life 50 years ago is clear evidence that the world is going to hell in a hand-basket.

[Molly]

Yes, it may be rather hard to prove, considering how time has passed and a lack of cites for so long ago.

That being said, there are many of us alive today with direct experience of those times in the 60's. We lived it! We are well aware of what crime levels appeared to be and how often we heard about violent crimes. It was indeed a time of less crime and certainly less violent crime. Even carjackings hadn't been invented yet! Youth disputes were solved with fists. Occasionally knives were used. Hearing about a gun shooting or a driveby was like hearing about a man landing on the Moon...

Oh, Bill! You didn't hear about it, because speaking about it was just not done.

Here's an anecdote for you: a 13 year old girl pregnant by her Dad's 50-something live-in drinking buddy..... called down as a dirty slut by the community in general, but in particular, her own brother (along with the rest of her family)... . In the 60's, Bill, raping a child was apparently not a crime.

[nicky10013]

Before we all say GRRRRRRRRRRRR we need harsher sentences and more jails and whatnot, read this.

http://www.economist.com/node/16640389

http://www.economist.com/node/16636027

[Wild Bill]

Oh, Bill! You didn't hear about it, because speaking about it was just not done.

Here's an anecdote for you: a 13 year old girl pregnant by her Dad's 50-something live-in drinking buddy..... called down as a dirty slut by the community in general, but in particular, her own brother (along with the rest of her family)... . In the 60's, Bill, raping a child was apparently not a crime.

I won't disagree that society was not as strict about some crimes back then as they should have been. Perhaps today we are better about it but still atrocities keep arising in the news. We had a case here in Stoney Creek where a family had kids of their own and also took in "wards of the province", i.e. children from criminal homes. Despite years of visits by CAS workers nobody noticed until one child learned how to dial 911 that the court-sponsored children were being kept in a basement in filth, feces and rats!

Still, a better record than the 60's, I'll admit.

However, I've been burgled twice. The first time a cop came out to write the report. The second was some years later and they had switched to a new system where they just gave you a report number for your insurance claim over the phone. It was then I discovered that one more claim would put my premiums up!

My sister-in-law had two accidents when she was away from her car as it was parked. In both cases the other driver was charged. One morning she had a problem trying to merge from a highway ramp and caused some damage to another car's bumper. Her insurance company promptly told her that she now had a total of 3 accidents. One more and she would be put into the "facility" category along with all the drunks and high-risk cases. The fact that the previous two occurred while she was parked didn't matter. Only the total number was relevant!

Since then she has been dented a couple of times but did not report the accident, even though she was not at fault. I suppose smallc would tell her not to worry, as what happened to her was just an anecdote!

I'm getting confused here. Is an anecdote a synonym for direct life experience?

My premise is not that the 60's were some kind of "Pleasantville" movie set, the home of the Cleaver family. However, my generation routinely hitchhiked from coast to coast with cases of harm being extremely rare. That doesn't seem to be the case today.

What I do know, from direct experience, is that police used to come out for home burglaries. Often they caught the burglar! Today they make almost no effort at all.

Police used to patrol the streets and highways! It was quite common to be pulled over and given a warning for not driving properly. As a young man I and my friends experienced this quite often, appreciating being given a warning and not often a ticket!

Today this is unheard of! Police NEVER are on patrol! They man radar traps and they respond to an accident when you call them. Actually, here in my area on the highway between Hamilton and Toronto they don't even do that much. If your car is still mobile you are expected to drive yourself to the nearest accident reporting station where you can fill out the paperwork.

We used to have a couple of cops walking a beat at night in our neighbourhoods. Perhaps this was also why burglaries seemed less common.

It was smallc who first made the claim that the "vast majority" of crimes are reported. Maybe in his town, I dunno. Possibly that is the reason for our difference of opinion! The scene in Toronto and southern Ontario is hardly the same as in Manitoba. All I know is that anybody who stands as a witness to a club shooting or a driveby in Toronto is a damn fool, especially if they have a family! The danger is very real and the protection non-existent.

And anybody who reports a burglary is just wasting their time and asking to have their insurance premiums jacked up!

Edited July 29, 2010 by Wild Bill

[WIP]

My premise is not that the 60's were some kind of "Pleasantville" movie set, the home of the Cleaver family. However, my generation routinely hitchhiked from coast to coast with cases of harm being extremely rare. That doesn't seem to be the case today.

I grew up in the 60's too...well, late 60's - early 70's to be exact, and I would have thought the same thing....that things were safer back then than they are now; but, the numbers don't lie! Our anecdotes about our youth are coloured by the fact that you don't worry about danger as much when you're 18 as you do when you are in your 50's. And I don't think it's just a matter of us getting older either.

I've had suspicions for many years that police departments and the media have too much of a vested interest in ramping up our concerns about crime. Every year when it's budget negotiation time, you can count on the police chiefs and subordinates dumping quotes that are generously repeated by their favourite media insiders.....look at this way, if it wasn't for crime, what the hell else would Roy Green have done to earn a living all these years!

And now, we can add to this pile a Conservative Prime Minister, who is well aware that his target supporters are older, and easy to motivate with promises of fighting crime and making the streets safer....a pox on all of their houses!

[Wild Bill]

I grew up in the 60's too...well, late 60's - early 70's to be exact, and I would have thought the same thing....that things were safer back then than they are now; but, the numbers don't lie! Our anecdotes about our youth are coloured by the fact that you don't worry about danger as much when you're 18 as you do when you are in your 50's. And I don't think it's just a matter of us getting older either.

I've had suspicions for many years that police departments and the media have too much of a vested interest in ramping up our concerns about crime. Every year when it's budget negotiation time, you can count on the police chiefs and subordinates dumping quotes that are generously repeated by their favourite media insiders.....look at this way, if it wasn't for crime, what the hell else would Roy Green have done to earn a living all these years!

And now, we can add to this pile a Conservative Prime Minister, who is well aware that his target supporters are older, and easy to motivate with promises of fighting crime and making the streets safer....a pox on all of their houses!

Then you would disagree with my recollections of officers responding to burglaries, patrolling streets and highways to give warnings as well as tickets, cops walking beats, the seeming lack of danger to hitchhiking and so on? Is it still the same in your neighbourhood or am I imagining all of that?

[Bonam]

Before we all say GRRRRRRRRRRRR we need harsher sentences and more jails and whatnot, read this.

http://www.economist.com/node/16640389

http://www.economist.com/node/16636027

The US trend of longer jail sentences for non-violent crimes is not what anyone is asking for, I don't think. It is for serious crimes that we need harsher sentences. In Canada we have murderers going free after serving sentences that are far too short, and are almost never served to their full term in any case.

[nicky10013]

The US trend of longer jail sentences for non-violent crimes is not what anyone is asking for, I don't think. It is for serious crimes that we need harsher sentences. In Canada we have murderers going free after serving sentences that are far too short, and are almost never served to their full term in any case.

The circumstances in which cases are decided, except for the super high profile cases, are almost never released. So, to say based on the merits of a couple publicised cases that there is a widespread problem in the criminal justice system is hearsay at best. The entire point of the article is that mandatory minimums, for all crimes, even violent, leave the judge without the flexibility to determine which cases or not get leniency. So, in the end, you end up further criminalising someone who, despite the horrific nature of a certain crime (of which, we only get the basics on TV and automatically end up labelling them monsters) may only deserve a few years rather than a life sentence.

[Wild Bill]

The circumstances in which cases are decided, except for the super high profile cases, are almost never released. So, to say based on the merits of a couple publicised cases that there is a widespread problem in the criminal justice system is hearsay at best. The entire point of the article is that mandatory minimums, for all crimes, even violent, leave the judge without the flexibility to determine which cases or not get leniency. So, in the end, you end up further criminalising someone who, despite the horrific nature of a certain crime (of which, we only get the basics on TV and automatically end up labelling them monsters) may only deserve a few years rather than a life sentence.

This is a poser, Nicky. There is much truth in your scenario. However, it's also true that judges overwhelmingly tend to issue the MINIMUM sentences, carte blanche!

So what do you do when the judges use their flexibility to give EVERY perp the minimum?

Take it a step further. Suppose you are a model inmate of a prison. You want to earn time for good behaviour. Yet you can't help but notice that EVERYBODY gets a third off their sentence, or more, regardless. (Unless they knife a guard or something, of course!)

What does that do to your motivation? What life lesson does that teach you?

These arguments always go back and forth, with merit on both sides. The real problem seems to always come back to the judges! We all want a system with some built-in intelligence, where someone makes the hard decisions for hopefully sensible reasons.

I submit that many of our judges fail in this capacity. Our system seems to lack any control over a judge after he is appointed, unless he gets caught in a sex scandal or something. What's more, a good portion of our citizenry LIKES it that way! They have absolute faith in the way judges are handing out sentences right now and don't want it changed, regardless of the wishes of the majority of their fellow citizens. They believe that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Even more, even if they are in the minority they should still get their own way!

I don't see an easy solution for this one. Certainly not a quick one!

[Bonam]

So, in the end, you end up further criminalising someone who, despite the horrific nature of a certain crime (of which, we only get the basics on TV and automatically end up labelling them monsters) may only deserve a few years rather than a life sentence.

How do you justify in your head that someone who committed a crime of a "horrific nature" "may only deserve a few years". If the crime was "horrific", they deserve more than that. And I don't care if daddy hit them as a child and the bleeding heart judge feels sorry for them for that.