The Real Deal on Crime

[Keepitsimple]

Why do you think the "mainstream media" have put crime statistics in such a mis-leading light - demonstrating only that Canada's crime rate seems to have fallen slightly from its all-time record highs in the 90's? Why did the CBC literally laugh at Stockwell Day's assertion that unreported crime was up? The data is there. Where is "the rest of the story"?

Statistics Canada’s latest report on the crime rate is in, and, according to much of our media, here’s where things stand.

(1) We should be thrilled our violent crime rate last year (crimes per 100,000 population) was 306% higher than when comparable records started being kept in 1962.

(2) We should consider the battle against crime won, because the overall crime rate is 114% higher.

(3) We should be delighted the property crime rate is 39% higher.

(4) We should be giddy the crime rate for other Criminal Code incidents such as child pornography, weapons violations and counterfeiting, is 267% higher.

(5) We should be happy that between 1999 and 2009, the estimated rate of unreported crime increased 16%, and that as of 2009, fewer than one in three crimes (31%) were reported to police, compared to 37% in 1999.

In the real world, media who claim comparing crime rates over 50 years is “irrelevant and time-wasting” — as did Tom Korski in a recent painfully stupid column in The Hill Times — are simply wrong.

They should ask Statistics Canada for its “Data table for chart 1” of “Police-reported crime statistics in Canada, 2010.” It displays 48 years of directly comparable crime rate data, from 1962-2010.

As Statistics Canada explains: “Information presented in this graph represents data from the Uniform Crime Reporting Aggregate (UCR1) Survey and allow(s) for historical comparisons to be made back to 1962.”

Data available

Media who mock former treasury board president Stockwell Day by insisting no data exist to support his contention in 2010 that unreported crime is increasing at an “alarming” rate, as did Korski, are also incorrect.

Statistics Canada’s crime victimization data from the General Social Surveys (GSS) of 1999, 2004 and 2009, estimate crime reported to police dropped from 37% of all incidents in 1999, to 34% in 2004, to 31% in 2009, a 16% decrease in a decade — statistically significant and alarming.

As Statistics Canada explains: “One way to estimate the extent of crime that is not reported to police is through the GSS victimization survey. Because the GSS asks a sample of the population about their personal victimization experiences, it captures information on all crimes, whether or not they have been reported to police. The amount of unreported victimization can be substantial. For example, the 2004 GSS estimated that 88% of sexual assaults, 69% of household thefts and 67% of personal property thefts were not reported to the police.”

As for media who claim unreported crimes aren’t serious — Korski described them as typically “mere nuisances” — Statistics Canada estimates about one in five unreported sexual assaults alone involve physical violence or threats.

Hardly “mere nuisances” to the victims.

........................................more....

Link: http://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/29/the-real-deal-on-crime

To put this into even better perspective, here is an excerpt from an old Fraser Institute report back in 1998 - it gives the trends from that time period and verifies that the 90's were the pinnacle of crime - especially violent crime.

Figure 6 charts Canadian crime trends since 1962, when the current Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) system started, using the historical Canadian categories of offences found in the long-term convictions data: violence against the person, violence against property, and property offences. All three categories grew rapidly during the 1960s and 1970s. By 1981, rates for these categories of crime were three times higher than they were in 1962. The rates of property crime showed a mild downward trend through most of the 1980s but surged in 1990 and 1991, reaching the levels never before recorded in Canada. They declined substantially after 1991 and by 1996 crimes against property with violence had declined by 11 percent and crimes against property without violence had declined 18 percent, reaching the lowest levels since the late 1970s. The rate of violent crime increased at essentially the same pace as rates of property crime between 1962 and 1983. Thereafter, following a comprehensive expansion of the laws against assault and sexual assault, the rate of violent crimes known to the police continued a sharp growth that peaked in 1992 but have since declined. By 1996, the rate of violent crimes known to the police were down 13 percent from their 1992 peak, although they remained four times higher than they were in 1962.

Link: http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/critical_issues/1998/crime/crime_in_canada.html

Edited July 31, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Shwa]

p://www.torontosun.com/2011/07/29/the-real-deal-on-crime

To put this into even better perspective, here is an excerpt from an old Fraser Institute report back in 1998 - it gives the trends from that time period and verifies that the 90's were the pinnacle of crime - especially violent crime.

Link: http://oldfraser.lexi.net/publications/critical_issues/1998/crime/crime_in_canada.html

This is all because in the 60's way more crime went unreported, especially sexual assaults and domestic abuse, minor assaults and such. Probably 87.6% of all crime in the 1960's went unreported.

[Scotty]

This is all because in the 60's way more crime went unreported, especially sexual assaults and domestic abuse, minor assaults and such. Probably 87.6% of all crime in the 1960's went unreported.

Do you actually think pulling numbers out of your ass is an argument with substance?

Edited July 31, 2011 by Scotty

[Remiel]

I find it interesting that Alberta has one of the highest crime rates in the country. Being, you know, the most conservative province and all.

[Scotty]

I find it interesting that Alberta has one of the highest crime rates in the country. Being, you know, the most conservative province and all.

It also has a very high aboriginal population. Saskatchewan's rate is higher (more natives), and you should look at the rates for Nunavut, the Yukon and Northwest territories. They're far higher.

Crime rates by province and territory

Edited July 31, 2011 by Scotty

[Tilter]

This is all because in the 60's way more crime went unreported, especially sexual assaults and domestic abuse, minor assaults and such. Probably 87.6% of all crime in the 1960's went unreported.

"Fuschians" --- word not found

man-- when you post you should post in PURPLE (Fuschia). Maybe PURPLEians?

Not having checked this but I can't recall any murders/driveby shootings ever before associated with the Caribbean festivities. A rare night io TO when NO murders/rapes/holdups are not reported.

Seems to me that gang violence is up in the Scarboro area down around Jane/Finch ( maybe the guys responsible have all moved to Scarboro?)

[Remiel]

It also has a very high aboriginal population. Saskatchewan's rate is higher (more natives), and you should look at the rates for Nunavut, the Yukon and Northwest territories. They're far higher.

Crime rates by province and territory

Yes, I saw the rates for the territories. A grim reminder of the problems our native population faces.

[Shwa]

Do you actually think pulling numbers out of your ass is an argument with substance?

Well, do you have other numbers of unreported crime rates from the 1960's to which we may refer?

[Remiel]

"Fuschians" --- word not found

man-- when you post you should post in PURPLE (Fuschia). Maybe PURPLEians?

Not having checked this but I can't recall any murders/driveby shootings ever before associated with the Caribbean festivities. A rare night io TO when NO murders/rapes/holdups are not reported.

Seems to me that gang violence is up in the Scarboro area down around Jane/Finch ( maybe the guys responsible have all moved to Scarboro?)

Dude, Jane and Finch is in North York.

[Shwa]

"Fuschians" --- word not found

man-- when you post you should post in PURPLE (Fuschia). Maybe PURPLEians?

No. Fuschians is the stand-in for when all of humanity is a nice blended hue, a golden mean as it were.

Not having checked this but I can't recall any murders/driveby shootings ever before associated with the Caribbean festivities. A rare night io TO when NO murders/rapes/holdups are not reported.

Seems to me that gang violence is up in the Scarboro area down around Jane/Finch ( maybe the guys responsible have all moved to Scarboro?)

What?

[Keepitsimple]

This is all because in the 60's way more crime went unreported, especially sexual assaults and domestic abuse, minor assaults and such. Probably 87.6% of all crime in the 1960's went unreported.

Surely you had your tongue firmly planted in your cheek (I hope so) - or are you actually one of those who chuckled at Stockwell Day saying that unreported crime has gone up?.....and now that it's convenient, you're making up ludicrous arguments. Either way, your statement is good for a laugh.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Bob]

I find it interesting that Alberta has one of the highest crime rates in the country. Being, you know, the most conservative province and all.

If you really want to talk about "interesting" correlations between crime and various groups, you'd start with blacks (particularly those from the Caribbean or the descendents of those from the islands), and Arabs/Muslims (particularly Somalians, Lebanese, and Egyptians), and yes, of course, Aboriginals. They're all overrepresented in crime statistics given their demographics, as opposed to, for example, Asians, Indians, and South Americans (and of course Jews). But of course, you try to score infantile political points by trying to associate conservatism with crime rather than acknowledge REAL correlations that offend your religious adherence to political correctness.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Bob

[Bob]

Great post, Keepitsimple, it's a great refutations of the lies we've seen advanced from the mainstream media trying to tell us that everything is fine and dandy, as well as their loyal apparatchiks in this forum (dre, cybercoma and jacee both come to mind). Are we going to get a revision of their comments in this thread attacking Harper's intention to spend more on new prison construction?

I've been seeing these lies about "all-time lows" in crime in this forum for quite awhile, now.

[Remiel]

But of course, you try to score infantile political points by trying to associate conservatism with crime rather than acknowledge REAL correlations that offend your religious adherence to political correctness.

Stop being such a whiny little bitch. I was not associating crime with conservatism at all. I was merely pointing out that conservatism was not associated with lack of crime.

[Bob]

Stop being such a whiny little bitch. I was not associating crime with conservatism at all. I was merely pointing out that conservatism was not associated with lack of crime.

Just because they vote for the CPC doesn't mean they're really implemented conservative principles towards criminal justice. Moreover, remember the distinction between provincial and federal law. You have no point.

Edited July 31, 2011 by Bob

[Remiel]

Just because they vote for the CPC doesn't mean they're really implemented conservative principles towards criminal justice. Moreover, remember the distinction between provincial and federal law. You have no point.

Enforcement is provincial jurisdiction, and enforcement has plenty to do with how the law works out.

[Bob]

Enforcement is provincial jurisdiction, and enforcement has plenty to do with how the law works out.

Oh please, stop trying to draw a connection between conservatism and/or the CPC and higher crime rates. You wanna talk about risk-factors for and REAL correlations with crime? Let's focus on more criminally-inclined ethnic/cultural groups.

[Shwa]

Surely you had your tongue firmly planted in your cheek (I hope so) - or are you actually one of those who chuckled at Stockwell Day saying that unreported crime has gone up?.....and now that it's convenient, you're making up ludicrous arguments. Either way, your statement is good for a laugh.

Yep, TIC for sure. And no, I didn't chuckle when Stockwell Day made his pronouncements, I just shook my head in sadness.

But if you have any data that shows why crime statistics from 1962 should be relevant, then please, do share. And if you have any more data showing the unreported crime rate from the 1960's, please bring that too. I'd love to see it.

[Keepitsimple]

Yep, TIC for sure. And no, I didn't chuckle when Stockwell Day made his pronouncements, I just shook my head in sadness.

But if you have any data that shows why crime statistics from 1962 should be relevant, then please, do share. And if you have any more data showing the unreported crime rate from the 1960's, please bring that too. I'd love to see it.

Sorry Shwa - but it works the other way. It is obviously relevant......so if you have any data that shows why it shouldn't be, then please do share. As for unreported crime, you were the one that made the crazy claim that unreported crime was sky-high in 1962. The effort to gather unreported crime statistics only began in the lates 90's - but if you're aware of some other data, please do share.

Edited August 1, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Shwa]

Sorry Shwa - but it works the other way. It is obviously relevant......so if you have any data that shows why it shouldn't be, then please do share. As for unreported crime, you were the one that made the crazy claim that unreported crime was sky-high in 1962. The effort to gather unreported crime statistics only began in the lates 90's - but if you're aware of some other data, please do share.

I did give you some "data" in the form of a suggestion that domestic abuse, sexual assaults, minor assaults, etc., went unreported in 1962. Also, DUI went largely unreported as well.

But now you are saying that crime stats from the 1960's are "obviously" relevant. How so? Do you have an opinion on that or something.

Seems to me you are hiding behind another era...

[Tilter]

Dude, Jane and Finch is in North York.

Gee---- REEEEEEEALLY???????????????????????

I should have said AND down around Jane/Finch

What I said (with my tongue in my cheek) was that maybe all the criminals moved to Scarboro

Dah

Edited August 3, 2011 by Tilter

[jacee]

If you really want to talk about "interesting" correlations between crime and various groups, you'd start with blacks (particularly those from the Caribbean or the descendents of those from the islands), and Arabs/Muslims (particularly Somalians, Lebanese, and Egyptians), and yes, of course, Aboriginals. They're all overrepresented in crime statistics given their demographics, as opposed to, for example, Asians, Indians, and South Americans (and of course Jews). But of course, you try to score infantile political points by trying to associate conservatism with crime rather than acknowledge REAL correlations that offend your religious adherence to political correctness.

What data are you citing? I repeat that the crime rate is falling predictably because the population bulge of baby boomers is past their prime crime ages.

I'm suspicious of the supposed high rates of "unreported crimes" because the sample is only victims and you cannot extrapolate from them to the whole population as some are likely to be more vulnerable to crime - prostitutes and clerks in all night convenience stores for example. That and we have no comparable data from the sixties.

I think the real problem is the Alberta crime rate and fear of the wealthy oilmen, Harper,s funders. Nothing that's proposed federally will solve that unique provincial problem though, but clearly whatever conservative Alberta is doing isn't working, Bob.

Edited August 3, 2011 by jacee

[Oleg Bach]

People just don't bother reporting crime unless it is a direct 911 dialing. If for instance someone were to break into my house and steal...I would not bother calling the cops - First you get an invasion of crooks - you call the cops - then you have a secondary invasion of cops - I don't want any uninvited guests in my home - So if I suffered a break in - I would re-secure the place and put the word out on the street that I am not pleased.

[eyeball]

People just don't bother reporting crime unless it is a direct 911 dialing.

This is why we need cops and or soldiers on every corner.

[Wild Bill]

This is why we need cops and or soldiers on every corner.

No, sadly something else is more likely to happen. People are going to get more aggressive about defending themselves and their property. This will certainly lead to some unfortunate extreme occurrences, like a robber being killed by a home owner.

When this happens those who think we are too harsh on crime will moan and whine about how this is such a tragedy and an indication of the rise of heartless conservatism.

In actual fact, they will have only themselves to blame! Vigilantism is not some sport or recreation. It is a reaction to a loss of faith in the system to protect the lives and property of its citizens. We can argue and nitpick about whether stats or perceptions are true or not but it's a total waste of time. If a citizen BELIEVES the cops or the courts won't protect him then his only logical alternative is to take steps himself. Unfortunately, some of us aren't as smart as others. Do we want to see teenage burglars killed by deadfall traps? Or how about the report of a father in an American state who's boy hid in a closet to scare his dad for Halloween, only to have his dad shoot him by mistake?

THAT'S the direction in which we are headed! The way to stop it is to restore the mainstream's faith in the system! You don't do this by trying to out-argue or scold people. They will just ignore you. You do it by improving the system and agressively publicizing the success stories. You do NOT try to censor or downplay the mistakes! People ALWAYS find out about your mistakes and you just do grievous harm to your credibility.

You have to make it logical to trust the system. Respect is always earned. It is the mark of a loser to simply demand it.