Is Crime Really Down?

[Smallc]

The article says what happened to him. Did you purposefully ignore the point of the post?

It doesn't in any way negate what I said. Of course there are bad judges. There are simply fewer of them as a proportion than in the population at large. The article also shows that when judges do wrong, they don't get away with it.

[Wilber]

Those surveys aren't reliable...because they're voluntary. They are more likely to get responses from people who have been victims of crime and not the population at large.

Even if the actual numbers are subject to debate, the trend is not.

[Smallc]

Even if the actual numbers are subject to debate, the trend is not.

And neither is the general trend in actual crime statistics. And actually, I would say the trend is subject to debate.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Smallc

[Wilber]

And neither is the general trend in actual crime statistics. And actually, I would say the trend is subject to debate.

Which trend?

[Smallc]

Which trend?

Any trend, but especially one seen as a result of a voluntary survey that has a margin of error that will be somewhere near the change in the numbers.

[Wilber]

Any trend, but especially one seen as a result of a voluntary survey that has a margin of error that will be somewhere near the change in the numbers.

All surveys are voluntary.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Wilber

[Smallc]

All surveys are voluntary.

Yes, they are, and they all have a margin of error...and 1 time out of 20, their margin of error is completely unknown.

[eyeball]

...when it comes to asking judges to use the full range of sentences as prescribed by the laws made by our elected representatives, it is the "will of the mob".

What range of sentences are you talking about? Mandatory sentencing is not a range.

[eyeball]

Day says crime statistics not accurate:

Day also says the world is 6000 years old. He's an idiot.

[eyeball]

During a news conference on Tuesday in Ottawa, Day said the government has received indications that more and more people are not reporting crimes committed against them.

So let me get this straight, more and more people are not reporting crimes being committed against them but somehow they're reporting that they're not reporting this?

WTF?

Edited August 4, 2010 by eyeball

[Wild Bill]

Those surveys aren't reliable...because they're voluntary. They are more likely to get responses from people who have been victims of crime and not the population at large.

Now you've really gone off to Mars!

"They are more likely to get responses from people who have been victims of crime and not the population at large."

At whom is the question aimed? "More and more people are not reporting crimes being committed against them".

Wouldn't it be the victims of crime who give the responses? If the question asks if you did not report a crime against yourself why the hell would the population at large answer?

[Wild Bill]

Day also says the world is 6000 years old. He's an idiot.

Ad Hominem, ad hominem. I share your view over Day being an idiot, but that has nothing to do with whether or not he is right on this point.

Only an idiot uses ad hominem tactics in a debate.

[Keepitsimple]

Take a look at the StatsCan table in the link and you'll see why the year 1991 was chosen to show the tiny decrease that has occurred in the overall crime rates in Canada. Now take a look at how total crime incidents have gone from less than 3000 per 100,000 population in 1962 up to over 8000 in 2003. For violent crime, it's gone from 221 per 100,000 to almost 1000. Why does the media completely ignore the over 250% rise in total crime and over 400% rise in violent crime from 1962 to 1991, yet they trumpet the mere 20% total crime drop since that peak year - and an even smaller drop of 10% in violent crime?

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

[Wilber]

What range of sentences are you talking about? Mandatory sentencing is not a range.

Neither is consistently using one end or one part of a range because of precedent. I would say that doing so is effectively the same as mandatory sentencing. The only difference is who is making what mandatory.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Wilber

[capricorn]

Stockwell Day took some heat from theshark-infested Ottawa media yesterday for saying that a lot of crime went unreported. The sarcastic reporters claimed to be baffled. Looks like old Stock was right all along:

Link: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/08/03/john-ivison-nothing-baffling-about-days-crime-comments/#more-8325

While a predatory press feasted on Day's crime and prison comments, I found only one media entry, a foreign one at that, reporting what he actually said at the press conference which was held to address the economy. Google "Stockwell Day press conference" and all but one result focus exclusively on the prison comments. Here is that one entry.

Canada's Treasury Board Minister Stockwell Day Tuesday reasserted the country's aim to hit the balanced budget by the year 2014.

Day said at a press conference held at the National Press Theatre that Canada is very pleased with the external evaluation of its economy from sources as varied as International Monetary Fund, the OECD, and the World Economic Forum.

"All of these agencies, in reporting about economies in developed nations coming through this downturn, place Canada in a very enviable position and we see that reflected in our job numbers," he said.

Day said that the new job numbers continue to go beyond the predictions of economic forecasters, giving a reassurance of Canada having strength in its economy.

However, Day also stated that there is still a concern about the global recovery where the fragility still somewhat exists.

In regards to Canada's economic action plan, Day said that Canada maintains its plan to hit a balanced budget by that year 2014.

"We will not be easing off on our plans for fiscal restraint," he said. "The plan to freeze all government operational spending at levels of the 2010 budget for the next three years will continue to be in place."

He clearly expressed that this is the final year of the economic stimulus package.

Day's remarks also included the reason for having an increased investment in Canada, both domestically and internationally.

http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/business/2010-08/04/c_13430054.htm

Day called the press conference to provide information on the economy and overall, the information Day provided is good news and informative. Why didn't our domestic media report what Day had to say on the economy? Why did they decide to concentrate their coverage of the press conference on matters that are not in Day's portfolio?

As for his prison and crime comments, I'm willing to give him a pass. Day is President of the Treasury Board of Canada and Minister for the Asia-Pacific Gateway. He is not the Justice Minister. Obviously, he was unprepared to answer the questions on crime lobbed at him from the media. That made him a perfect target for the media's questions.

Perhaps Day should have declined to answer media questions surrounding crime and prisons. The worst that could have happened is that the Canadian media would have accused the Harper government of being secretive and harboring a hidden agenda.

[Smallc]

At whom is the question aimed? "More and more people are not reporting crimes being committed against them".

And how would Stats Can know who those people are, in order to direct questions at them? Oh, thats right, they wouldn't. So, you get a larger number of people saying, yeah, it happened, but I didn't report it (because it wasn't serious enough, almost universally) and the people who didn't have any crime committed against them will throw it away. So now, instead of 63% of people saying that it happened, you have 66%....because everyone else is tired of answering the survey and doesn't care.

[bloodyminded]

And in the end, it keeps coming down to the idea-the belief, actually--that people reported more crimes, or even as many, in 1962 as they do now.

While it's hypothetically possible, I see no reason to suppose that it is the case. Why would I?

[capricorn]

And in the end, it keeps coming down to the idea-the belief, actually--that people reported more crimes, or even as many, in 1962 as they do now.

While it's hypothetically possible, I see no reason to suppose that it is the case. Why would I?

I'm thinking that some 35-40 years ago, more crimes were reported because people were more confident that the authorities would take action in solving crime and prosecuting criminal activity. Today, simply by virtue of our growing population, especially in urban centres, law enforcement requires more resources. Concern for budgets often takes precedence over increased spending on law enforcement.

A second observation. The population at large have become cynical with regard to whether perps will be prosecuted and don't want to be victimized a second time by testifying in court. Eye witnesses to crime are reluctant to get involved.

Take for example, attempted break ins or crimes against property. What happens often is that a citizen reports a crime, the cops merely assign the incident a file number for insurance purposes. No investigation, no follow up. So thieves continue unhindered on their merry way to the next break in. Even when there is personal injury to the victim, policing resources are so lean even violent perps remain on the loose to continue on.

Looking back in my 60 odd years on this earth and what I have witnessed along the way, I think there is more crime today than in the 60s and 70s. That is why I have given up on public transit, I don't venture out at night and I avoid certain neighborhoods in my city, Ottawa.

[eyeball]

Ad Hominem, ad hominem. I share your view over Day being an idiot, but that has nothing to do with whether or not he is right on this point.

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.

[bloodyminded]

I'm thinking that some 35-40 years ago, more crimes were reported because people were more confident that the authorities would take action in solving crime and prosecuting criminal activity. Today, simply by virtue of our growing population, especially in urban centres, law enforcement requires more resources. Concern for budgets often takes precedence over increased spending on law enforcement.

Like I said, this is all speculaiton based on some impressions that some people have.

I remain agnostic.

[Mr.Canada]

People don't report crimes now because 40 years ago the baddest weapon was a knife and now it's a gun and it's very easy to pull the trigger. Then we had white gangs with knives and now we largely have black, latino, asian gangs with guns and they aren't afraid to use them. Law abiding people of all races know that minority gangs are more prone to resort to fatal violence then gangs of yesteryear. Then, you might catch a beat down nowadays they'll just shoot you.

The people are afraid yet the left is still insisting that they are just misunderstood and if they only had another basketball court they'd stop dealing drugs and shooting each other...nonsense.

Edited August 4, 2010 by Mr.Canada

[Wild Bill]

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.

Doesn't matter! It's like if a coin toss has come up heads 3 times in a row, the odds on the next toss are still 50/50.

Perhaps it would be better if you were to make a statement like "Due to my opinions of the Tory actions I have seen before I have confidence that they are in the wrong again this time."

Perhaps I'm being too picky. It's just I can't help but take exception to someone presenting their own opinions as if they were gospel fact. It bothers me as much as those posts where someone claims that "everyone believes..."

[eyeball]

Perhaps it would be better if you were to make a statement like "Due to my opinions of the Tory actions I have seen before I have confidence that they are in the wrong again this time."

Okay, that works for me.

So what's your problem? You're a reasonably smart guy, how come you're falling for the Tory's nonsense?

Edited August 4, 2010 by eyeball

[Wild Bill]

Okay, that works for me.

So what's your problem? You're a reasonably smart guy, how come you're falling for the Tory's nonsense?

The fact that you can even ask such a question pegs you as more of an intuitive soul than a 'scientific' one. Essentially, you are starting from the premise that you are 100% correct, incapable of being wrong and anyone who disagrees with you must be either dishonest or not too bright!

The word for this is 'righteousness'. I've found that people who believe in this manner tend to be 'faith' people rather than 'head' people. Nothing wrong with that. We need all kinds of people to make a world. It's just that while I can develop confidence in something I really have never had FAITH in much of anything! It always seemed to me that faith was something people hung on to when they couldn't deal with the facts.

I make no claims to godhood or perfection myself. I just try to be as logical as I can. I am never surprised that there are people who disagree with me. They may have info that I don't or have worked out a different line of reasoning. They may even be right and I am wrong! Their arguments are what I use to test my own. If they don't appear to make a lot of sense or they don't fit all the facts then I tend to not accept them.

I've said many times that I am not a blindly partisan Tory supporter. I can see fault in any party or politician. It's just that the Tories at present reek less to my nose than the Liberals and especially the NDP!

So I don't 'swallow all their nonsense' but I would never go so far as to make the claim that 'everything they say is wrong', just as I would never say that of a Liberal or even a 'Dipper, for that matter.

I might say it about Elizabeth May, 'though. I swear sometimes she makes it look like she finds a stop sign to be a week's good reading!

Edited August 4, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Remiel]

Only an idiot uses ad hominem tactics in a debate.

As a favour to you, I think I should point out that you should avoid making statements like this in the future. Whenever someone says something like this, they are almost always implicitly directing it at someone, which in turn makes in an ad hominem attack, which just includes them in their own definition of idiocy.