Know-Nothing Conservatism

[Shwa]

Of course there's bias, but that's what the peer review process is for.

Fraser Insitutes Research Topics - have at 'em. Try and detect a conservative bias and then try and convince conservatives that this bias even exists and, if it does, it is relevant or even bad.

I agree. That's what th process is there for. I rely on my criminologist friends who back it up with reports and data. If others can do that as well, then we have a true debate on our hand. Just don't come to me and say well, the data says this, but I feel this way for no other reason than it's my natural biases at work.

But you are presupposing that what you finally see is the representative of the whole process when there could have been years of background debate. But when it comes to policy between opposing parties, we know some of those debates have been going on for years. This is especially true for issues that touch the justice system no matter what party. And, in the end, ideology counts.

What is good is what decreases the amount of crime, disease and addiction. What is moral is up for debate. If "morals" dictate that people are against injection sites (due to ideology and not science) which actually help the community deal with the scourge of addiction, then I'd argue those aren't morals at all.

And you are free to do so, argue whether they are morals at all, or it is good or not. But you would only be representing YOUR values and ethics, the basis of YOUR ideology. And if you would supplant their values and ethics as not moral or not good, then you leave the door open for them to claim the right to do the same to you.

But you would have a very difficult time trying to prove anything about crime, social aspects of disease and addiction using a purely scientific basis, which is amoral. Eventually you are going to have to say, "probably."

Nothing in any science outside of mathematics and physics is really "proven." Some approaches work on some, not on others. It's our duty as citizens to choose which policies improve the lives of the most.

I would strongly disagree, but that is neither here nor there since you confirm that social science data are open to interpretation and one's ideology will come into play when making such determinations.

Nope. I view the current Liberal Party as pragmatic. People often claim that they don't believe in anything. To a degree, I think they're right, but in the end, I believe that's a good thing rather than a bad thing. They talk about the Liberals being all over the map to try and win votes but I don't see it that way. What's wrong with a government that isn't afraid to change it's mind based on what will work best. There are quite a few partisans, but there are even more people who value good policy based on fact over partisan bickering. You may find that surprising, but, in the end, that's true.

Whatever, but even your view of the Liberals being "pragmatic" is ideological in nature, moreso since their pramatism has got them firmly where they are.

This is data that has already been through the process.

If that were so, then there would be no need for question period.

Of course it isn't. However, the other sciences which people look down on, also go through the same process. So, what's the problem?

What "other sciences" do people look down on? I am not saying that because the liberal arts and social sciences cannot claim the same sort of repeatability as hard science, that people (or I) look down on them, of course not. However, people ought not claim that such liberal sciences are free from political bias in the same way that physics or geology is. That is a big mistake and only goes to further entrench people in partisan politics.

[Shwa]

I don't know about both - I still think more depends on how informed the individual is by their own values and principles than ideology which itself is fundamentally informed by the people that bring these things things to it.

In other words, it all comes down to people.

Yes, we are saying the same thing I think - ideology is nothing without people.

However, even some research is started and funded by an ideological impetus.

[Shwa]

sigh.

[nicky10013]

Fraser Insitutes Research Topics - have at 'em. Try and detect a conservative bias and then try and convince conservatives that this bias even exists and, if it does, it is relevant or even bad.

I don't have to. The peer review process isn't there, it's at other institutes like the C.D. Howe Institute etc.

But you are presupposing that what you finally see is the representative of the whole process when there could have been years of background debate. But when it comes to policy between opposing parties, we know some of those debates have been going on for years. This is especially true for issues that touch the justice system no matter what party. And, in the end, ideology counts.

Yeah but the debate topics are well known. We have a clear data set in terms of crime rates across a broad area of crime, sentences handed out, recidivism rates etc. etc. etc. I go with what criminologist says, not because of ideology but because thats where we have the best info to tackle the problem. There's absoluetly nothing ideological about that.

And you are free to do so, argue whether they are morals at all, or it is good or not. But you would only be representing YOUR values and ethics, the basis of YOUR ideology. And if you would supplant their values and ethics as not moral or not good, then you leave the door open for them to claim the right to do the same to you.

No, they don't, because I don't claim to have a "value" system or particular ideology. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong to like or dislike drug users as an example. I'm just saying it's not wise to legislate based on likes or dislikes but tried and true information.

But you would have a very difficult time trying to prove anything about crime, social aspects of disease and addiction using a purely scientific basis, which is amoral. Eventually you are going to have to say, "probably."

Yeah, but probably based on science is much better than a sure answer you get with an ideology.

I would strongly disagree, but that is neither here nor there since you confirm that social science data are open to interpretation and one's ideology will come into play when making such determinations.

I don't confirm that the data is open to interpretation. I just concede that over time, as human beings evolve, the data could change. If someone were to overwhelmingly argue against a well defined social trend, they can do that. They have freedom of speech. Would that make them right? Not in the least.

Whatever, but even your view of the Liberals being "pragmatic" is ideological in nature, moreso since their pramatism has got them firmly where they are.

No it isn't. Pragmatism by it's very nature can't be an ideology. It says we're going to do what we think is best no matter what the position is. Ideology by it's own nature is the exact opposite. It says that no matter what, we're sticking by our beliefs despite what proven data says. The idea of a pragmatic party is post-ideological. Can it be partisan? Absolutely, but partisanship isn't synonymous with ideology. It only seems like it.

If that were so, then there would be no need for question period.

As the title of the thread and the article says, we clearly have a government that doesn't believe in this. So, yes, we do very much need question period.

What "other sciences" do people look down on? I am not saying that because the liberal arts and social sciences cannot claim the same sort of repeatability as hard science, that people (or I) look down on them, of course not. However, people ought not claim that such liberal sciences are free from political bias in the same way that physics or geology is. That is a big mistake and only goes to further entrench people in partisan politics.

Of course there are biases. Like I've said a million times, that's why there's the peer review process.

Edited August 20, 2010 by nicky10013

[Bonam]

No it isn't. Pragmatism by it's very nature can't be an ideology. It says we're going to do what we think is best no matter what the position is. Ideology by it's own nature is the exact opposite. It says that no matter what, we're sticking by our beliefs despite what proven data says. The idea of a pragmatic party is post-ideological. Can it be partisan? Absolutely, but partisanship isn't synonymous with ideology. It only seems like it.

Pragmatism is not a useful way to describe a political party. Ok they are going to do what's "best". Best for who, when? Best for the country? Best for the party? Best in the short term? In the long term?

The reality is that a party that describes itself as "pragmatic" really means that they will do whatever they can to get votes, regardless of other considerations like whether it will actually have a positive impact on the country in the long term.

[nicky10013]

Pragmatism is not a useful way to describe a political party. Ok they are going to do what's "best". Best for who, when? Best for the country? Best for the party? Best in the short term? In the long term?

The reality is that a party that describes itself as "pragmatic" really means that they will do whatever they can to get votes, regardless of other considerations like whether it will actually have a positive impact on the country in the long term.

There's the cynical side of it.

[Shwa]

I don't have to. The peer review process isn't there, it's at other institutes like the C.D. Howe Institute etc.

Come on now, really?

"The Institute also maintains an Editorial Advisory Board, a panel of scholars from Canada, the United States and Europe. The panel is the final arbiter in the Institute’s peer review process."

Yeah but the debate topics are well known. We have a clear data set in terms of crime rates across a broad area of crime, sentences handed out, recidivism rates etc. etc. etc. I go with what criminologist says, not because of ideology but because thats where we have the best info to tackle the problem. There's absoluetly nothing ideological about that.

Come on now Nicky:

The field of criminology has experienced impressive institutional growth and its current popularity among students suggests that this growth will continue into the future. At the same time, criminologists are working within a fragmented discipline, with disparate theoretical, methodological, and empirical concerns. This lack of a single focus has led to conflicting views as to what should be considered appropriate work or an appropriate approach within the field.

Bridging Divides in Canadian Criminology: Some Thoughts on a Possible Future

Canadian Journal of Criminology and Criminal Justice - Volume 52, Number 3, June/juin 2010, pp. 237-241

No, they don't, because I don't claim to have a "value" system or particular ideology. I'm not saying that it's right or wrong to like or dislike drug users as an example. I'm just saying it's not wise to legislate based on likes or dislikes but tried and true information.

And I am just saying that you have yet to prove - in the very least - that the "likes and dislikes" that are being used as input into legislation are NOT based on tried and true information. Which goes to show, based on the foregoing, that whether you make the claim or not, it is apparent that you have a value system and lean toward a particular ideology.

Yeah, but probably based on science is much better than a sure answer you get with an ideology.

And what is stopping them from being one in the same? That is, the probability is informed by ideology. You appear to firmly believe that social science research is somehow like chemisty with the amoral atoms and emotionless covalent bonds presenting themselves as objective view of reality. I don't think so.

I don't confirm that the data is open to interpretation. I just concede that over time, as human beings evolve, the data could change. If someone were to overwhelmingly argue against a well defined social trend, they can do that. They have freedom of speech. Would that make them right? Not in the least.

But you do confirm the requirement for interpretation of social science data, by making this statement: "Nothing in any science outside of mathematics and physics is really "proven." And that interpretability is especially extended to any "well defined social trend" which was noticed through research that was driven by or otherwise influenced by one ideological form or another. See: Fraser Institute. (or CD Howe Institute if you swing that way)

No it isn't. Pragmatism by it's very nature can't be an ideology. It says we're going to do what we think is best no matter what the position is. Ideology by it's own nature is the exact opposite. It says that no matter what, we're sticking by our beliefs despite what proven data says. The idea of a pragmatic party is post-ideological. Can it be partisan? Absolutely, but partisanship isn't synonymous with ideology. It only seems like it.

"...we do what we think is best no matter what..." There, you have just slide pragmatism underneath ideology since most conservatives, especially the CPC types, believe they are doing what they think is best no matter what. And they will tell you they have the proven data and, up to this point, you have not shown they do not.

As the title of the thread and the article says, we clearly have a government that doesn't believe in this. So, yes, we do very much need question period.

So...um... are you saying that because the thread title - or your OP opinion - is clearly proof of what the government does or doesn't believe in? We can't really go with the article because that was successfully deconstructed into its constituent absurdities several pages ago.

Of course there are biases. Like I've said a million times, that's why there's the peer review process.

Well, as the little weblurb from the Fraser Institute says, they have scholars peer reviewing their material and if they conclude differently from you are they immediately in error?

Edited August 20, 2010 by Shwa

[August1991]

Take criminology for example. We know that just throwing people in prison doesn't deter crime because we have the crime rates compared to incarceration rates and we can weigh our numbers against others. Yet, people still want to do it. We know that safe injection sites work.

Such hubris! We know that...

As I say Nicky, your definition of an "expert" is anyone who supports your beliefs. The others, according to you, are uneducated boobs or people who never learned anything from their education. And you have the gall to hide behind a claim of science.

[August1991]

They talk about the Liberals being all over the map to try and win votes but I don't see it that way. What's wrong with a government that isn't afraid to change it's mind based on what will work best. There are quite a few partisans, but there are even more people who value good policy based on fact over partisan bickering. You may find that surprising, but, in the end, that's true.

The problem is that the Liberals become the "flavour of the month" and I fear that that is what you have become.

In the 1950s, you'd be in favour of thalidomide and expressways. In the 1960s, you'd favour LSD and want to abolish DDT. In the 1970s, you'd favour official bilingualism. In the 1980s, you'd favour shoulder pads and big hair. In the 1990s, you'd see high tech as a paradigm shift. In teh 2000s, you'd favour elimination of C02 emissions. Once upon a time, we discouraged people having children, now we encourage it. I could go through a litany of such social science expert opinion. It will typically tell you what "progressive", left wing, government interventionist people were thinking at the time. Go through any "peer-reviewed" sociology journal of the 1950s and laugh - given your 2010 mindframe.

And don't get me going on the 1930s. Churchill, a Conservative, saw through Hitler and Nazism when many others saw the movement as "progressive" and the application of "modern" social science theories.

----

If the point of Coyne's column is to state (as you seem to be doing Nicky) that Harper and his Conservatives are neanderthal, Pol Pot, anti-expert, anti-modern, anti-intellectuals, then my response would be to say that smart politicians use a large dose of common sense before they apply any new fangled, expert social science theory.

But frankly, I don't know what Coyne was jabbering on about in his column. Flaherty invited him and other experts to a retreat about one week before the column was published. Coyne apparently told Flaherty to cut government spending. Maybe Coyne was miffed with Flaherty's response to his "expert" opinion.

Edited August 20, 2010 by August1991

[segnosaur]

Two diametrically opposed yet equally valid sets of data would be incredibly rare. In that case, that's where the debate should take place

Probably not quite as rare as you might think.

As I've pointed out before, real life situations are complex, and it is typically impossible to draw a direct cause/effect relationship between any one factor and the result.

Historically, the violent crime rate in Canada is lower than that of the U.S. and this continues to be the case. ...

the citation is in the link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Canada#cite_note-6

Yet the figures I pointed out in another post (based on a United Nations study) indicated the opposite... that the U.S. had a lower crime rate of "victim oriented" crime, for both non-violent and violent crime. So, 2 sets of data, giving opposite results. So, which is right? (As I pointed out before, the U.N. study has the advantage in that they dealt directly with individuals, bypassing any issues regarding classifications of various crimes.)

Oh, and just wondering... even assuming you were correct, your sources still admitted that the rate of certain non-violent crimes is higher in Canada. Shouldn't that suggest that higher sentences for more minor crimes might be effective?

Really? Work for what? Did you know that there's at least one study which shows a higher incidence of HIV among users of things like needle exchange programs?

As opposed to the other journals which say what?

Some studies say things like needle exchange programs are beneficial, some say they have no effect, and others say they are harmful.

So, you can't necessarily claim that you are correct in your analysis because the data is not clear.

On the reduction of crime in areas of Vancouver due to safe injection sites...

I would imagine the lower east side where the injection sites are located, where the highest amount of addiction related crime is. Over a period of time? I'm not sure, saw the report a while ago. This is all very much old news.

You would "imagine"? Sorry, that's not exactly very convincing.

And I'm not in vancouver. Sorry, but its a big country. You can't expect someone in a totally different province to know the details of crime statistics on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. (And you can't even remember the details yourself.)

And before you go assuming that the safe injection sites are somehow preventing crime merely by their existence, shouldn't you at least consider the fact that the police may have actually stepped up their presence in the area immediately surrounding the safe injection site as a way to prevent problems?

From: http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/1/2/2.php (This is from the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice. I had never heard of it before, but it appears to be funded at least in part through the U.S. government. I am acknowledging the site might be biased in its conclusions, but I am more interested in a particular quote which is most likely accurate)

The following is a quote from the Vancouver Police when asked about police presence at and around INSITE:

"Yes, four officers per day, 22 hours per day, 7 days per week, for one year from Sept 03- Sep 04 in the block at all times with cell phone access directly to them by SIS staff....At the same time 60 other officers were deployed in a 5-block area and still are to this day."

It is misleading for any inference to be made that INSITE had any impact on crime or on public disorder. Police presence more than accounts for any changes in either.

So, you suggested that shutting down "safe injection sites" is wrong and ideologically driven, yet:

- There is no conclusive proof that it prevents the spread of disease

- There is no proof that it reduces crime rates (since there are other factors which offer a reasonable explanation)

Edited August 20, 2010 by segnosaur

[fellowtraveller]

It's how the science is applied that really counts. In other words the values and principles of who is applying it ultimately count the most.

You are assuming that sociology has a scientific base.

I was cured of that assumption by attending sociology lectures and reading the textbooks.

Both could be described as laughable, though I won't because it does an extreme disservice to professional comedians.

[nicky10013]

Probably not quite as rare as you might think.

As I've pointed out before, real life situations are complex, and it is typically impossible to draw a direct cause/effect relationship between any one factor and the result.

Yet the figures I pointed out in another post (based on a United Nations study) indicated the opposite... that the U.S. had a lower crime rate of "victim oriented" crime, for both non-violent and violent crime. So, 2 sets of data, giving opposite results. So, which is right? (As I pointed out before, the U.N. study has the advantage in that they dealt directly with individuals, bypassing any issues regarding classifications of various crimes.)

Oh, and just wondering... even assuming you were correct, your sources still admitted that the rate of certain non-violent crimes is higher in Canada. Shouldn't that suggest that higher sentences for more minor crimes might be effective?

Some studies say things like needle exchange programs are beneficial, some say they have no effect, and others say they are harmful.

So, you can't necessarily claim that you are correct in your analysis because the data is not clear.

You would "imagine"? Sorry, that's not exactly very convincing.

And I'm not in vancouver. Sorry, but its a big country. You can't expect someone in a totally different province to know the details of crime statistics on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. (And you can't even remember the details yourself.)

And before you go assuming that the safe injection sites are somehow preventing crime merely by their existence, shouldn't you at least consider the fact that the police may have actually stepped up their presence in the area immediately surrounding the safe injection site as a way to prevent problems?

From: http://www.globaldrugpolicy.org/1/2/2.php (This is from the Journal of Global Drug Policy and Practice. I had never heard of it before, but it appears to be funded at least in part through the U.S. government. I am acknowledging the site might be biased in its conclusions, but I am more interested in a particular quote which is most likely accurate)

The following is a quote from the Vancouver Police when asked about police presence at and around INSITE:

"Yes, four officers per day, 22 hours per day, 7 days per week, for one year from Sept 03- Sep 04 in the block at all times with cell phone access directly to them by SIS staff....At the same time 60 other officers were deployed in a 5-block area and still are to this day."

It is misleading for any inference to be made that INSITE had any impact on crime or on public disorder. Police presence more than accounts for any changes in either.

So, you suggested that shutting down "safe injection sites" is wrong and ideologically driven, yet:

- There is no conclusive proof that it prevents the spread of disease

- There is no proof that it reduces crime rates (since there are other factors which offer a reasonable explanation)

See the Macleans article I've posted in a new thread. Also, the crime statistics came straight from the US. Don't know how UN numbers would be better than US numbers.

Edited August 21, 2010 by nicky10013

[nicky10013]

The problem is that the Liberals become the "flavour of the month" and I fear that that is what you have become.

In the 1950s, you'd be in favour of thalidomide and expressways. In the 1960s, you'd favour LSD and want to abolish DDT. In the 1970s, you'd favour official bilingualism. In the 1980s, you'd favour shoulder pads and big hair. In the 1990s, you'd see high tech as a paradigm shift. In teh 2000s, you'd favour elimination of C02 emissions. Once upon a time, we discouraged people having children, now we encourage it. I could go through a litany of such social science expert opinion. It will typically tell you what "progressive", left wing, government interventionist people were thinking at the time. Go through any "peer-reviewed" sociology journal of the 1950s and laugh - given your 2010 mindframe.

And don't get me going on the 1930s. Churchill, a Conservative, saw through Hitler and Nazism when many others saw the movement as "progressive" and the application of "modern" social science theories.

----

None of what you posted is social science expert opinion. It's what you can recall happened back in certain decades and are therefore attributing it to expert opinion. The two aren't the same. This is the type of logic we need to eliminate.

If the point of Coyne's column is to state (as you seem to be doing Nicky) that Harper and his Conservatives are neanderthal, Pol Pot, anti-expert, anti-modern, anti-intellectuals, then my response would be to say that smart politicians use a large dose of common sense before they apply any new fangled, expert social science theory.

But frankly, I don't know what Coyne was jabbering on about in his column. Flaherty invited him and other experts to a retreat about one week before the column was published. Coyne apparently told Flaherty to cut government spending. Maybe Coyne was miffed with Flaherty's response to his "expert" opinion.

Pol Pot? Yikes, that's a stupid comparison. No one ever accused them of being genocidal, just purposefully stupid. You also seem to be missing the point that it doesn't matter whether you're a smart politician but a smart person in general. New and innovative ideas can change the world. If those ideas can be found and are welcomed in the private sector, then why are we so hesitant to use the same approach to modernise our system of governance?

Edited August 21, 2010 by nicky10013

[Argus]

No it doesn't. Ideology counts for squat. Why? Because, even though social science may have limits, it's based on relevant observations and statistics at the time. Ideology doesn't. Take criminology for example. We know that just throwing people in prison doesn't deter crime because we have the crime rates compared to incarceration rates and we can weigh our numbers against others. Yet, people still want to do it.

I've heard this from innumerable liberal types over the years. Yet I've never seen any data which is anything like conclusive on that score. Canadian liberals tend to use the US as their trump card on this score but they're hardly a good comparison because of their vast inner city slums of misery and hopelessness. Further, a disproprionate amount of those incarcerated for long sentences in the US are drug dealers/smugglers. Prisons are likewise poorly maintained and overcrowded to the extent states are forever releasing people early. Ten year sentences often have people back on the street in two years. It's very difficult comparing nations and cultures on this score because so much influences crime besides incarceration rates. What one can say without question is that if you put a violent person into prison he or she will not hurt anyone (outside of the prison) for the duration of their stay. And really, a little common sense and logic must enter into things. If you take a career criminal, whether it's a habitual B&E artist, mugger, shoplifter, or whatever, take those people who are doing life under the installment plan and just lock them away forever, how can that NOT lessen crime? Some of these individuals have thirty or forty convictions and will no-doubt continue causing harm and then costing enormous legal expenses each time they are arrested, processed, paroled, then re-arrested.

We know that safe injection sites work.

We know no such thing. There have been no independant studies I'm aware of which confirm they do a damn thing. They certianly don't deter people from being drug addicts. And drug addicts are going to have a comparatively short lifespan, whether they have a nurse looking over their shoulder as they inject themselves or not. We also know that drug addicts commit crime to feed that habit. If they don't do it around the injection site it's merely due to the increased police presence.

Those are the two biggest issues where "social sciences" determine that it's probably in the interest of society based on proven results to go the Liberal route,

I can think of another. Affirmative Action programs. There's no real evidence they achieve anything of substance other than on an individual level, where they clearly benefit those individuals who get jobs they would otherwise not have gotten. But then again, they harm those individuals (in equal number) who would otherwise have gotten a job they should have gotten. And they instill resentment of the minority by the majority, and suspicion of anyone who is in an equity group that they got their job undeservedly and are thus incompetent.

[Argus]

I'd be interested to see a cite for that given that crime severity in Canada has been decreasing every year for the last two decades.

Even Statistics Canada uses the term "police reported crime". They NEVER say the crime rate because they are well aware that only a third of crimes are actually reported to police.

And there is at least some statistical evidence which says the crime rate is not falling at all, which you have been previously informed of.

[Smallc]

Even Statistics Canada uses the term "police reported crime".

Because that is the only useful and definitive measure of known crime, as you have been informed. It's not my fault if you want to believe the useless surveys. Crime severity, as measured for police reported crime, is falling. Unless you think that people have stopped reporting sever crime now, you don't really have much to go on. Crimes the go unreported tend to be at the bottom of the severity scale.

Edited August 21, 2010 by Smallc

[segnosaur]

Because that is the only useful and definitive measure of known crime, as you have been informed. It's not my fault if you want to believe the useless surveys. Crime severity, as measured for police reported crime, is falling. Unless you think that people have stopped reporting sever crime now, you don't really have much to go on. Crimes the go unreported tend to be at the bottom of the severity scale.

I myself never claimed that "police-reported" crime is totally useless. But, there are problems when those figures are used to compare crime rates in different countries. Different countries may have different ways of classifying and reporting crimes. (For example, one jurisdiction may have a different definition of "sexual assault" than another. Heck, the definition may even differ from state to state in the U.S.)

Surveys themselves may not be perfect, but they do have advantages to police-reported statistics, the chief advantage is that it eliminates the trouble of having different definitions for what constitutes a crime in the different countries.

Is there any reason why you'd consider such surveys "useless"?

As for crime severity falling, I agree... it has. But its fallen both in Canada and the U.S. Whatever the reason, it probably isn't something that's something unique to what Canada is doing.

[nicky10013]

As for crime severity falling, I agree... it has. But its fallen both in Canada and the U.S. Whatever the reason, it probably isn't something that's something unique to what Canada is doing.

There's an interesting argument that it's due to legalized abortion. Canada and the US legalized abortion at the same time and the first generation of criminals would've just been coming into their own during the late 80s and early 90s just when crime began to drop. Less situations of bad family upbringing which is a big cause of crime.

[Smallc]

Is there any reason why you'd consider such surveys "useless"?

Because people who have crimes committed against them are far more likely to fill it out, making the proportion of the population appearing to be victimized much higher than it actually is.

[bjre]

Because people who have crimes committed against them are far more likely to fill it out, making the proportion of the population appearing to be victimized much higher than it actually is.

Is that because some people worried about police more than criminals?

[segnosaur]

On the usefulness of crime surveys...

Because people who have crimes committed against them are far more likely to fill it out, making the proportion of the population appearing to be victimized much higher than it actually is.

There may indeed be some truth to that. (I'm not sure of the exact form of the survey, whether crime was asked as an isolated fashion or part of a larger survey.)

But, we're talking about comparing crime statistics between countries. Even if the survey resulted in an over reporting of crime, you'd expect that both the U.S. and Canada would have similar issues with the over-reporting. Unless of course you have a reasonable explanation about why one country would have a higher degree of over-reporting than another.

In other words, if both Canada's and the U.S. figures are over-reported by 10%, and Canada's numbers are higher than the U.S. numbers, once the numbers are corrected Canada's should still be higher than the U.S. numbers.

[segnosaur]

Because people who have crimes committed against them are far more likely to fill it out, making the proportion of the population appearing to be victimized much higher than it actually is.]

Is that because some people worried about police more than criminals?

I think its because reporting crimes is often seen as a hassle (or even an embarrassment.) A person may not want to take time out of their schedule to say "I was robbed of $20"; however, filling out a survey might be seen as a way of getting at least a tiny bit of justice (i.e. "At least I told someone!") without the hassle of filling out a police report. And a person who has been robbed will be more eager to fill out a survey about crime than someone who hasn't.

However, as I stated in another post, the main value (at least to me) in this survey is the ability to compare crime in the 2 countries.

[Smallc]

In other words, if both Canada's and the U.S. figures are over-reported by 10%, and Canada's numbers are higher than the U.S. numbers, once the numbers are corrected Canada's should still be higher than the U.S. numbers.

Well, that may be, and that may not be. We can't really say. Violent crime is lower here, even if victim crime is higher here. Similarly, crime is shown to be going down by almost all stats....expect for these surveys.

[ironstone]

Where you not taught the difference between conservatism and fascism, if not you paid way too much for your education.

I would guess nicky has no education at all.

[Argus]

Well, that may be, and that may not be. We can't really say. Violent crime is lower here, even if victim crime is higher here. Similarly, crime is shown to be going down by almost all stats....expect for these surveys.

By almost all stats? There is only ONE stat, and that is police reported crime, which Stats Canada compiles. Similarly, the victim survey is conducted by Statistics Canada - an agency you worship as unfailingly perfect in every way, shape and form. Although the fact they don't threaten to shoot anyone for not answering the survey would in your eyes make it useless, I suppose.