Know-Nothing Conservatism

[segnosaur]

Because I believe the stats can numbers. They are collected in a method that is understand and known, and they are the numbers that are used by...everyone...to talk about Canada's crime rate.

So, you believe Statscan... Do you also believe their GSS victimization survey, where Statscan themselves suggests that only approximately 1/3 of all crimes ever get reported?

From: http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20100804/nicholson-day-100804/20100804?hub=TorontoNewHome

General Social Survey conducted by Statistics Canada that asks people if they've been victims of crimes and if they reported them to police. The most recent survey, conducted in 2004, showed a slight decrease, from 37 per cent to 34 per cent, in reported crimes.

Or from: http://www.torontosun.com/comment/columnists/lorrie_goldstein/2010/08/20/15092856.html (Note: This is an opinion column, but the numbers presented seem to be verified by other numbers)

In 2004 only an estimated 34% of all crimes were reported to police, while 64% were not. For violent crime (sexual assault, robbery, physical assault), 33% of crimes were reported, 66% were not. For household crime (break and enter, motor vehicle/parts theft, theft of household property, vandalism) 37% of crimes were reported, 61% were not. For theft of personal property, 31% of crimes were reported, 67% were not.

Compare that to similar work done in the U.S. which show that the rate of unreported crime in the U.S. is actually smaller than in Canada (e.g. half of all violent crime in the U.S. goes unreported, compared to 2/3s in Canada.)

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/tables/reportingtypetab.cfm

The other numbers may or may not be true, but are questionable as they are self reported surveys that don't appear to make sense.

And how does the number of unreported crimes in police statistics factor into things?

This doesn't necessary mean that the statscan numbers are useless... they can be used to determine trends within the country over time. But they don't give a complete picture. (Neither do victimization surveys; both have drawbacks. But, given the huge number of unreported crimes, you should be a bit more skeptical of figures based on 'reported crimes'.

Oh, and once again, you seem to have missed the point... even if the statscan numbers were accurate within Canada itself, its is difficult if not possible to use these numbers to compare crimes in different countries. Even statscan admits this (as I pointed out with a reference earlier.) It seems like your whole basis of your belief "Violent Crime is worse in the U.S." is based on nothing more than stereotypes that don't jive with real data.

[Smallc]

I've already stated many times that I consider those surveys to be just as useless. Also, the survey report says that almost all crimes that aren't reported aren't considered serious. The real measure is not the drop in crime in Canada, but the drop in the severity of crime. That has been steadily declining as well, and has always been (by these numbers) far lower than the US. That is only part of the reason that the UN survey seems very illogical in its outcome. Reported crimes are also the only way to verify that something actually occurred. Surveys really can't do that.

As for the real data, as we can see here, it's all over the place, and some of it doesn't make any sense. What could the logical reason be for the US to have lower violent crime? They have more poverty and more desperate people (among other things), and so it doesn't make any sense at all.

Edited August 24, 2010 by Smallc

[segnosaur]

Well, maybe I'm not being logical. On the other hand, these aren't widely used statistics that statisticians rely on. The other ones are.

First of all, its not the job of the statisticians to "rely on" (or use) the data. Statisticians collect the data, and its up to the politicians to use that data to set policy.

Secondly, Statistics Canada does its own Victim surveys (and does so on a regular basis).

Lastly, even if the statistics on crime reports are widely used, at least part of that is due to the simplicity of collecting and analyzing the data. On the other hand, surveys are likely more expensive and complicated to deal with. So at least part of the reason why 'reported crime' is so valuable is ease of collection.

[Smallc]

Look, here's the problem:

The murder - violent crime connection doesn't logically support the surveys, the poverty - violent crime connection doesn't support them, the social safety net - crime connection doesn't follow, the police reports show something completely different, and even the stats can surveys show that unreported crime (and these surveys have an over reporting bias, as most all surveys do) don't support the UN survey, as they show that unreported crime is almost always less than serious.

The one survey, a single data point that has not been replicated, doesn't seem supported by all other data.

[segnosaur]

I've already stated many times that I consider those surveys to be just as useless. Also, the survey report says that almost all crimes that aren't reported aren't considered serious. The real measure is not the drop in crime in Canada, but the drop in the severity of crime. That has been steadily declining as well, and has always been (by these numbers) far lower than the US.

Why do you continue to insist on comparing the numbers between Canada and the U.S. When statscan themselves claims the numbers cannot be used for comparison purposes?

Or do you think Statscan was lying when they said: Due to significant definitional differences, it is impossible to compare sexual assault in Canada to forcible rape in the United States......Despite the fact that the American definition of “other assaults” resembles the Canadian category of level one assault, it encompasses more offences, such as injury caused by culpable negligence and intimidation. Canada scores these offences separately. Thus, it is not recommended to compare this offence

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85f0035x/85f0035x2001000-eng.pdf

That is only part of the reason that the UN survey seems very illogical in its outcome. Reported crimes are also the only way to verify that something actually occurred. Surveys really can't do that.

Your right, surveys can't. However, Reported Crimes don't look at unreported crimes. Amazing concept, isn't it?

As for the real data, as we can see here, it's all over the place, and some of it doesn't make any sense. What could the logical reason be for the US to have lower violent crime? They have more poverty and more desperate people (among other things), and so it doesn't make any sense at all.

Ummmm... Perhaps on average their population has more respect for the police/law and order? Or perhaps stiffer penalties down there discourage move violent behavior? Maybe the higher level of handgun ownership down south provides a deterrent effect (i.e. don't break in or you'll get shot). I really don't know for sure why, but it makes a heck of a lot more sense to look at the data and try to find a cause, than it is to make a false assumption (as you seem to have done) and automatically discount any evidence that goes against that assumption.

And why are you assuming that high poverty automatically leads to higher violent crime rate? After all, if people are so poor/desperate in the U.S. (as compared to Canada), then you'd also expect to see higher incidences of robberies down there as well (since people might try to steal to survive). Instead, even you have stated that Canada has more property crime.

[Smallc]

Instead, even you have stated that Canada has more property crime.

Actually, looking at the numbers again, the property crime in Canada doesn't include robbery, which is higher in the US.

You are using one set of data that goes against all other and all other crime and related activity data. That data, is, quite frankly, unbelievable.

[segnosaur]

Look, here's the problem:

The murder - violent crime connection doesn't logically support the surveys

I've already given one possible reason (greater handgun availability, where guns are the most common method of homocide) why the homicide rate may not necessarily track with the rate of other violent crime. There may be others. Discounting evidence just because it doesn't fit into your stereotype doesn't sound like a very useful way to analyze data.

...the poverty - violent crime connection doesn't support them, the social safety net - crime connection doesn't follow, the police reports show something completely different

Again, you're assuming that poverty automatically leads to violent crime. Yet if that's the case, why is their property crime lower? In fact it makes more sense that poor people would steal than commit assault/rape.

...and even the stats can surveys show that unreported crime (and these surveys have an over reporting bias, as most all surveys do) don't support the UN survey...

Actually, the numbers do make sense...As I showed earlier, the U.S. has a smaller incidence of unreported crime, which fits in with Canada having a higher incidence of real crime, but 'official' statistics showing us to supposedly be 'safer'.

...as they show that unreported crime is almost always less than serious.

Yes that's quite possible.

But, don't you think the same will apply in all countries? Or are you assuming that its only in Canada that these "less serious so don't report them" situations occur?

The one survey, a single data point that has not been replicated, doesn't seem supported by all other data.

But you see, here's the problem.... there is no other data. Statscan themselves came out and said "You can't use our statistics to compare violent crime in Canada and the U.S.". Yet you seem to be doing so anyways.

[Smallc]

The thing is, there is nothing confirm the UN data. Maybe it's true, but it flies in the face of everything else that makes sense when it comes to data. The same surveys show some European countries and Australia as having even worse crime than Canada. That's even harder to believe.

[Smallc]

There is one other factor that makes this hard to believe. That's the urban decay factor, which is very strong in the US, and almost non existent in Canada. I'm having trouble accepting this not because of some nothing, but because it's hard to understand.

[Smallc]

This is far more what I would expect in terms of victim crime, although it is still higher than I would have though.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008010/article/10745-eng.htm

It's also interesting that these international surveys have what appears to be a confidence ratio of only 90%, and a 1.5% margin of error, which is not bad.

Edited August 24, 2010 by Smallc

[segnosaur]

The thing is, there is nothing confirm the UN data.

You're right, at this point there isn't.

But, what is more convincing, a survey applied to multiple countries with uniform rules to allow comparisons? Or some statistics that even statscan says shouldn't be used for comparison?

Maybe it's true, but it flies in the face of everything else that makes sense when it comes to data.

Correction.. it flies in the face of your preconceived stereotypes.

I've already given what I think are reasonable ideas why I think the values may be the way they are. (No guarantee that they're the right ideas, but I don't think they're too out of wack.

The same surveys show some European countries and Australia as having even worse crime than Canada. That's even harder to believe.

Stereotype much?

Earlier on you seemed to put all your faith in the idea that the main cause of crime is poverty. Perhaps you were wrong about that particular assumption. And did you ever think that every country (even European ones) also have people within their society who could be considered 'disadvantaged'? (Heck, the level of 'poverty' in one study was between 10% and 23% in Europe, whereas the poverty level in the U.S. is between 13-17%, so there's not that much difference.)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081031102640.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

[segnosaur]

There is one other factor that makes this hard to believe. That's the urban decay factor, which is very strong in the US, and almost non existent in Canada. I'm having trouble accepting this not because of some nothing, but because it's hard to understand.

Again it appears that you're making the assumption that poverty is the primary cause and influence on the crime rate. There are a couple of things I can say about that:

- Even if there is some 'urban decay' in U.S. cities, The majority of their population does not live in those areas. So, some of those places may really be hell on earth to live in, but it has minimal effect on the overall crime rate (Heck, even without an area of decay, its possible the same people would still commit the crimes, but do so in the more affluent areas.)

- Even though decay is more visible in the U.S. (probably due to the higher population/larger cities), Canada is not without its downtrodden areas. (They just aren't quite pronounced as in the U.S.)

[M.Dancer]

No, not mine...pretty much everyone's based on every data point but one.

test...

[Smallc]

- Even though decay is more visible in the U.S. (probably due to the higher population/larger cities), Canada is not without its downtrodden areas. (They just aren't quite pronounced as in the U.S.)

You cannot even begin to compare the areas. There are no areas in Canada with the kind of urban decay that exists in the US. I notice you didn't say anything about the newer stats that I gave from the same survey. A similar crime rate between the two countries makes far more sense given the demograpic similarities.

[Smallc]

Correction.. it flies in the face of your preconceived stereotypes.

No, not mine...pretty much everyone's based on every data point but one.

[Smallc]

test...

ditto.

[Pliny]

Just because they have gained that status doesn't mean the bias goes away. If you get rid of affirmative action, you honestly think that everyone is just going to be happy? The bias will still be there, minorities won't be able to get work or education nearly as easily and they're communities will begin to crumble. When that happens, racial prejiduce will only increase, not decrease. To ignore that is to be willfully blind.

If government is doing it's job of maintaining equality under the law then your scenario is not possible. Biases will always exist in society they must not be given the force of law.

Individuals, and maybe even groups, may hold racist concepts but broad acceptance of those concepts of hatred or prejudice will not thrive and are anathema to rational human beings, that can only be overridden when given force and legitimacy by government.

I do realize that the Lib-left do not believe human beings are in general rational. That is just so much political propaganda foisted on us by proponents of big government as a justification for it's existence. Crime, acts of racism, acts of hate, are not characteristic of the general individual and they will not normally act that way.

I agree minorities may be disadvantaged but balanced by equality under the law, prejudices and racism can be nothing more than ethnic jokes or perhaps harboured as some dark secret - it has little chance to rise to violence. Racism and prejudices arise out of non-understanding and misunderstandings. If violence did erupt instigators should be immediately disabused of the illegal use of force. It would help if they were also disabused of the idea that human beings are generally irrational.

[Pliny]

So nicky...being a "socialist" yourself I understand your desire to distance yourself from fascism and Nazism. The socialists and communists of the 1920's were no different.

Social democracy, socialism and communism are about the people and the "classless" society, the redistribution of wealth, one for all and all for one, from each according to ability and to each according to need. Unfortunately, these forms of government require a central "authority" to decide ability and need. Is there a difference between the central authority of a social democracy, socialist or communist government and the central authority of a fascist government? Are socialists less authoritarian when they decide who is in need and who shall provide?

Anyway, if you weren't such a socialist so bent upon distancing yourself from, what I believe is misplaced, the dictatorial extreme right; your competitive enemy in the quest for power in a central authority, you would see the common goal of socialism in it's many forms - including fascism.

[segnosaur]

Even though decay is more visible in the U.S. (probably due to the higher population/larger cities), Canada is not without its downtrodden areas. (They just aren't quite pronounced as in the U.S.)

You cannot even begin to compare the areas. There are no areas in Canada with the kind of urban decay that exists in the US.

We also tend not to have as many large cities as they have in the U.S. So a (for example) 5 block area of 'decay' in a large U.S. city may only be 1 or 2 blocks in a smaller Canadian city. But then, it still affects the same proportion of population.

Of course, all of this seems quite irrelevant to me... you were trying to come up with reasons that re-enforce your preconceived stereotypes, rather than look at what the data actually is and use that as your starting point for analysis.

I notice you didn't say anything about the newer stats that I gave from the same survey.

Your right, I didn't. You had made several postings within a short period of time at the same time I was writing one, and I accidentally overlooked that. (I'll comment more on that in a bit.)

A similar crime rate between the two countries makes far more sense given the demograpic similarities.

Wait a second... first of all, remember that at one point you were claiming not that the crime rates were similar, but that the U.S. had a higher rate. Now are you at least convinced that that might not be the case?

Secondly, How exactly does this affect your "urban decay+poverty=higher crime" arguments? If your idea is true (and that the U.S. should have more crime because of those factors), yet its crime rate is virtually identical to Canada's, then wouldn't something have to make up the difference (i.e. drive the U.S. crime rate down after those factors have driven it up)? Not that I necessarily think that decay+poverty is a significant factor; just saying that if you were correct, then we need to find some reason the U.S. crime rate isn't higher than it is.

This is far more what I would expect in terms of victim crime, although it is still higher than I would have though.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2008010/article/10745-eng.htm

It's also interesting that these international surveys have what appears to be a confidence ratio of only 90%, and a 1.5% margin of error, which is not bad.

Interesting. A couple of things I'd like to point out...

- Even though the margin of error may not be 'too bad', it appears the closeness of the American and Canadian numbers makes the difference in the crime rates between the countries statistically insignificant

- The data does seem to be broken down a bit differently than the data from the U.N. survey (and sadly, the U.N. survey didn't seem to have any margin of errors given)

- Some possible reasons for the discrepancies between the UN and this survey (not saying any of these are valid, but I believe the reasons make sense):

* The U.N. survey was done several years before, so its measuring a different time frame

* Its possible that the surveys classify crimes differently/ask questions in a different manner

So, while this survey doesn't exactly reinforce the U.N. survey, neither does it necessarily support the idea that U.S. crime is worse than Canadian (since it appears the crime rates are withing a margin of error with each other.)

[bloodyminded]

What's homophobia today in light of years of gay-friendly propaganda from media? It used to be someone who hated gay people, who actively discriminated against them, said vile things about them, and maybe even attacked them physically.

Now it seems to be anyone who has any doubt whatever about full support of every single item on the agenda of gay activists.

What are the many items on this "agenda"?

I could not possibly care less what gay people do to or with each other. I would not care if one moved in next door, or if one worked next to me. But I despise the whininess of the gay activists, who are without a doubt the most pampered, coddled and protected minority group in history. Gays are very prominent in media, and it seems every time some gay guy steps on a rock and breaks his ankle we get breathless reports.

Yeah, that's not a promiscuously baseless statement at all. Just objective reporting.

Every time there's an attack on a gay guy it's time to put together a movie to dramatize his plight.

I know! You and I could name dozens of movies about this subject. Like...umm....

Gay activists have the biggest victim mentality of anyone on the planet, forever basking in the nobility of the poor, downtrodden martyr.

Actually, no; that honour goes to:

1.) The conservatives who screech about all their non-existent victimization on campus. (The one and only popular book on the subject, David Horowitz's The Professors, has been demonstrated to be so full of distortions and lies that it's been entirely discredited. No others of note even exist, nor any serious studies by the wealth of conservative academics who do indeed exist....why not? Because it's a concocted issue.)

2.) Those who fall to the ground in delicate tantrums about the coming of the Caliphate that will destroy Western civilization. These guys are professional (that is, paid) self-indulgent victimologists.

[Pliny]

What are the many items on this "agenda"?

1. 1.Redefine the word "marriage".
   2. Alimony rights.
   3. Spousal pension rights.
   4. Adoption rights.
   5. Legalize sodomy.
   

That's a few things on the agenda. I could say sneer at heterosexaulity without fear of repercussion but that wouldn't be an official stance.

(The one and only popular book on the subject, David Horowitz's The Professors, has been demonstrated to be so full of distortions and lies that it's been entirely discredited.

Demonstrated full of distortions by whom and entirely discredited by whom?