Is Crime Really Down?

[Molly]

Umm there are plenty of examples of judges that have no personal integrity whatsoever. Consider this example:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/toronto/story/2010/07/29/steve-ellis-sentencing974.html

A judge tried to get sexual favors in exchange for letting a South Korean refugee applicant stay in Canada.

What? What are you offering?!

That's a flipping refugee board judge! A political appointment! Nothing to do with the legal system.

Here! Here are the qualifications for that position:

Graduation with a degree from a recognized university or

An acceptable combination of education, training and/or experience.

Relevant training or experience (5 to 10 years) in having:

Worked with diverse communities and has had exposure to different cultural perspectives or;

Worked in a field of human rights or with refugees or in an investigative and/or adjudicative or mediation/conflict resolution capacity and;

Worked in a decision-making environment.

Reliability and Security

Enhanced Reliability

Experience (Minimum 5 years)Experience in working in a decision-making environment;

Experience in presiding at committees, hearings or meetings;

Experience in working with diverse communities and exposure to different cultural perspectives and;

Experience in community involvement.

Knowledge

Knowledge of the role and mandate of the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada.

Behavioural competencies

Communication, conceptual thinking, cultural sensitivity, decision making, information seeking, judgment/analytical thinking, organizational skills, result orientation, self-control

Personal Suitability

Commitment to public service; sense of ethics; reliability; open-mindedness; tact

Technical CompetenciesComputer literacy (e.g. ability to use Microsoft Office Suite)

Crap! Next you'll give us evidence of corruption among the judges of the local Ag Fair pie eating contest, and act like it's a critique oif the legal system!

Edited August 4, 2010 by Molly

[Guest TrueMetis]

I'd still like to see some crime stats that are from before 1962.

[Keepitsimple]

I think it does considering the number of times now that Day and his fellow Conservatives have disdained evidence in lieu of their beliefs when it comes to imposing their ideology on society.

Have you at least looked at this link from StatsCan that clearly shows how crime has dramatically escalated from the 60's - total crime and violent crime....up by 300 and 400%? If you take a look at this easy to read chart, you can see why the hug-a-thug crowd has chosen 1991 as their reference point for a "reduction in crime". Although unreported crime is an issue - it's irrelevant if one looks at the magnitude of how crime has increased since 1962. All we're doing now is treading water. There's no ideology here - it's simply facing up to the facts. Here's the link:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-561-m/2005005/t/4053807-eng.htm

Edited August 4, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Remiel]

I'd still like to see some crime stats that are from before 1962.

I would like demographics state, but I am not sure you can get the 1961 census online. It appeared to be " print only " when I searched.

[Remiel]

In any case, if crime is down from 91, but up from 62, what was going on between 62 and 91?

[bloodyminded]

Have you at least looked at this link from StatsCan that clearly shows how crime has dramatically escalated from the 60's - total crime and violent crime....up by 300 and 400%? If you take a look at this easy to read chart, you can see why the hug-a-thug crowd has chosen 1991 as their reference point for a "reduction in crime". Although unreported crime is an issue - it's irrelevant if one looks at the magnitude of how crime has increased since 1962. All we're doing now is treading water. There's no ideology here - it's simply facing up to the facts. Here's the link:

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-561-m/2005005/t/4053807-eng.htm

The truth is, when you remark on the "hug-a-thug crowd," it's pretty hard to take your "no ideology here" plea seriously.

[Keepitsimple]

The truth is, when you remark on the "hug-a-thug crowd," it's pretty hard to take your "no ideology here" plea seriously.

If you look at the facts displayed in those charts, can you honestly say that crime has gone down - simply because the year 1991 was the highest point in history? If there is any ideology in play here, it is by those who would ignore history going back to 1962 and have us think that things are just fine.

A convoluted parallel to this is "Global Warming". The so-called deniers have been accused of choosing 1998 as the starting point - the peak of Global Warming. Similar to the crime statistics, temperatures since then have pretty well stopped warming. Yet the Alarmists refer over and over than it's gotten hotter since 1950 and that we should not pay any attention to the trend of the last 12 years.

1991 works for crime.....just like 1950 works for Global Warming.

Ideology indeed.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[bloodyminded]

If you look at the facts displayed in those charts, can you honestly say that crime has gone down - simply because the year 1991 was the highest point in history? If there is any ideology in play here, it is by those who would ignore history going back to 1962 and have us think that things are just fine.

A convoluted parallel to this is "Global Warming". The so-called deniers have been accused of choosing 1998 as the starting point - the peak of Global Warming. Similar to the crime statistics, temperatures since then have pretty well stopped warming. Yet the Alarmists refer over and over than it's gotten hotter since 1950 and that we should not pay any attention to the trend of the last 12 years.

1991 works for crime.....just like 1950 works for Global Warming.

Ideology indeed.

Right. "So-called deniers" versus (objectively) "alarmists."

You're so ensconced in ideology (as your error-ridden remarks on Global warming underline) that you think you're utterly free of it.

Conservatives don't fall under ideology--they just state the facts, ma'am. While anyone on the left (the left of you...so including moderates) are prey to "ideology."

It's an awesome tautology, my man.

[Guest TrueMetis]

If you look at the facts displayed in those charts, can you honestly say that crime has gone down - simply because the year 1991 was the highest point in history? If there is any ideology in play here, it is by those who would ignore history going back to 1962 and have us think that things are just fine.

Uh we don't know that we've got stats back to 1962, which for all we know is a low point.

A convoluted parallel to this is "Global Warming". The so-called deniers have been accused of choosing 1998 as the starting point - the peak of Global Warming. Similar to the crime statistics, temperatures since then have pretty well stopped warming. Yet the Alarmists refer over and over than it's gotten hotter since 1950 and that we should not pay any attention to the trend of the last 12 years.

1991 works for crime.....just like 1950 works for Global Warming.

Ideology indeed.

Actually they take the trend from the past 150 years, (last million or so if you take into account various proxies) and if you knew anything about climate you would know that we're at the end of a la nina cycle, which means temperature should have went down but for some reason didn't. The El nino cycle should start soon, expect it to get hotter.

[Keepitsimple]

Right. "So-called deniers" versus (objectively) "alarmists."

You're so ensconced in ideology (as your error-ridden remarks on Global warming underline) that you think you're utterly free of it.

Conservatives don't fall under ideology--they just state the facts, ma'am. While anyone on the left (the left of you...so including moderates) are prey to "ideology."

It's an awesome tautology, my man.

I wish it were so.....but the Left are NEVER accused of ideology by the media - only Conservatives. Ideology aside, the facts on crime speak for themselves.

[capricorn]

Uh we don't know that we've got stats back to 1962, which for all we know is a low point.

We do have those stats.

In 1962 -- when police-reported crime started to be mapped -- there were slightly more than 2,000 crimes per 100,000 population; in 2007, it was 6,984.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Crime+down+That+damned/3357507/story.html

Lucia Corbella's article makes the case that violent crime is up, in spite of an aging population which experts had predicted would, in the long run, result in lower violent crime rates.

In 1962, there were slightly more than 200 violent crimes committed per 100,000 population. In 2007, that number spiked to 930 violent crimes per 100,000 population. In other words, we are a much more violent society today than we were in recent history.

What is even more alarming about these figures is it doesn't take into account the aging of Canada's population. Aging populations should show a decline in violent crime -- not an increase.

[Guest TrueMetis]

We do have those stats.

??? What I said was we have crime stats back to 1962, which may have been a low point as we don't have stats from before then. This was in response to simple's claim that "1991 was the highest point in history" which we can't know because we've only got stats to 1962. Then you link an article confirming what I said. What was the point of that?

[capricorn]

??? What I said was we have crime stats back to 1962, which may have been a low point as we don't have stats from before then.

Sorry truemetis, my mistake. I retract.

[Smallc]

the facts on crime speak for themselves.

Yes, they do, they just don't say what you seem to want them to.

[Smallc]

The office of Justice Minister Rob Nicholson later released more detail on the allegedly “alarming statistic:” in 2004, a Statistics Canada survey found that 34 per cent of crime incidents were reported to police, down from 37 per cent in 1999.

This is alarming? A six-year-old uptick in unreported crimes – mostly minor thefts not considered sufficiently serious by Canadians to report, says StatsCan. And where are the other data points of concern? None have been cited.

StatsCan also found that 94 per cent of Canadians felt safe. Is Mr. Day alarmed on behalf of the frightened six per cent? And what do unreported crimes have to do with building more prisons anyway?

Sound the Alarm on Stockwell Day's Statistics

I certainly couldn't have said it any better. I think that about half of the frightened 6% must post on this board.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Smallc

[capricorn]

I certainly couldn't have said it any better. I think that about half of the frightened 6% must post on this board.

Hold on a minute. First of all, the statistic quoted in the Globe article is from 2004. Regarding the 94% of Canadians who feel safe. It is Human Resources and Skills Development that decided that the 94% of Canadians who don't think they will be victims of crime translates into feeling secure in their community, not Statistics Canada.

The way Canadians feel about how likely they are to encounter crime reveals their level of confidence in the security of their communities.

http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=59

I'd bet a lot of Canadians don't think they will be victims of crime because they will consciously avoid situations to place themselves in vulnerable circumstances. When you avoid situations to safeguard your personal security then you are among those who are afraid.

[Guest TrueMetis]

http://www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/[email protected]?iid=59

I'd bet a lot of Canadians don't think they will be victims of crime because they will consciously avoid situations to place themselves in vulnerable circumstances. When you avoid situations to safeguard your personal security then you are among those who are afraid.

No then you are amongst those with common sense.

[capricorn]

Very true, TrueMetis.

[nicky10013]

Good editorial from the G&M.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/sound-the-alarm-on-stockwell-days-statistics/article1662083/

[capricorn]

Smallc had already posted that Globe piece a mere 3 hours and 3 posts ago.

[nicky10013]

Smallc had already posted that Globe piece a mere 3 hours and 3 posts ago.

Point?

[capricorn]

Point?

The point being that had you read two or three of the most recent posts on this thread you would have noticed that the Globe item had already been posted. That's my point. Another point is that had you clicked on the link Smallc provided you would have noticed that he already posted the Globe item you found so interesting.

[Wilber]

I'd bet a lot of Canadians don't think they will be victims of crime because they will consciously avoid situations to place themselves in vulnerable circumstances. When you avoid situations to safeguard your personal security then you are among those who are afraid.

The question to ask then would be, have the steps people are taking to avoid those situations changed over the years.

No then you are amongst those with common sense.

Has what constitutes "common sense" had to change. Has what I feel I need to do in order to feel safe changed, rather than just do I feel safe?

[capricorn]

The question to ask then would be, have the steps people are taking to avoid those situations changed over the years.

That would be very insightful Wilber. The first thing that comes to my mind relates to how many people have installed alarm systems in their homes to thwart break ins and home invasions. In my experience, twenty years ago anyone who had an alarm system in their home had to be a rich dude. Nowadays, home alarm system seem very common. Another thing, are more citizens arming themselves with pepper spray, whistles or other gadgets when they venture out of their homes? Attention to personal security covers a lot of ground, doesn't it?

[nicky10013]

The point being that had you read two or three of the most recent posts on this thread you would have noticed that the Globe item had already been posted. That's my point. Another point is that had you clicked on the link Smallc provided you would have noticed that he already posted the Globe item you found so interesting.

Most of the stuff posted on this website is ignorant drivel. Excuse me for not wanting to waste my own time.