Argus Posted November 9, 2015 Report Posted November 9, 2015 Do you think many murders go unreported? Overall, their trend has been headed in the exact same direction as overall reported crime. The crime severity index is consistently falling. Crime Is certainly less serious than it was. Unreported crime is absolutely mythical, as it was never a crime if it was never proven as such. Ah, I see. So this is the new Liberal 'fact based' policy approach? LOL. Never mind what that glorious agency you all adore so much has to say about it. Unreported crime is a myth! I'm sure feminists will be delighted to discover that there are no unreported sexual assaults too. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted November 9, 2015 Report Posted November 9, 2015 Ah, I see. So this is the new Liberal 'fact based' policy approach? LOL. Never mind what that glorious agency you all adore so much has to say about it. Unreported crime is a myth! I'm sure feminists will be delighted to discover that there are no unreported sexual assaults too. There are less likely to be unreported sexual assaults today because of a whole host of factors. I'm sure there are still many that do go unreported though. That said, unless a crime can be verified, I have no idea if it was a crime. Quote
ToadBrother Posted November 9, 2015 Report Posted November 9, 2015 Do you think many murders go unreported? Overall, their trend has been headed in the exact same direction as overall reported crime. The crime severity index is consistently falling. Crime Is certainly less serious than it was. Unreported crime is absolutely mythical, as it was never a crime if it was never proven as such. All that the "tough on crime" contingent needs is the notion of unreported crime. That unreported crime, while a reality, is harder to pin down, and not even the work on that suggests that it has replaced reported crime. But hey, somewhere, someone was assaulted and didn't tell a cop, so if you multiply that by a factor of 100, then that's not dishonest, right? Quote
overthere Posted November 9, 2015 Report Posted November 9, 2015 Because they get an additional punishment that others can't get. No they don't. They get a punishment that is not possible for others. It is entirely common in our justice system already. Juveniles get different punishments. First Nations get different punishments. Genders, ages, recidivism, circumstances , mental competence, aggravating factors, etc etc etc are all factors in differing punishments for the same crime....... and on and on. Now explain your metrics for deciding that imprisonment is better or worse than deportation for conviction of a crime such as say -treason. Quote Science too hard for you? Try religion!
Army Guy Posted November 9, 2015 Report Posted November 9, 2015 @Army Guy, thank you for that info. Well, if governments don't think treason is serious enough to punish there's not much we can do about it. But I think it's a dangerous mistake to tolerate treasonous acts and even defend traitors. In most cases they don't even like to call them terrorists, they're 'disturbed individuals', 'lone wolves', 'misguided youths', anything but the real thing. I think young people who want to go abroad and fight with ISIS should be sent to do just that. If they think that kind of life is what they want they just might find its not all that after all! And it would be better to have them killing people somewhere else than here in their homeland. I think Trudeau is so naïve he thinks group hugs and singing a few verses of Kumbaya will make everybody 'nice'. He doesn't realize that you can't negotiate with evil people. Maybe it will a take a disaster that affects his own young family personally to wake him up. I think the government has bigger fish to fry than to improve upon a law that only 3 people have been charged with since it's inception. Don't get me wrong i think treason to ones country is about as bad as it gets,perhaps as a private members bill, maybe it will get done, but i don't think it will be changed any time soon. We have had several cases that could or should have been brought to charge, the entire Khadr family would be one, and the other dozen or so Canadian terror suspects, i don't think Canadians have the stomach to go that far, or get that serious with that kind of criminal charge... There has been mentioned here a lot of different course of action that try to explain what to do with persons caught in terrorist acts.....First off Canadian prisons here are a joke, when you compare them to third world countries prisons, trust me if they had a choice of serving time here in Canada or in say Afghanistan, it would be a no brainer.....cable TV, 3 meals a day, the list is long, and sweet here in Canada. Why not just follow the law, if they are caught overseas, then they should be tried in that country to which they carried out the crime, and they should serve that full sentence in that same country. During that time Canada could remove it's citizenship to those that have duel citizenship to ensure they no longer return to Canada or their loved ones. To those that are only Canadian citizens, they should be returned to Canada but have their travel restricted, in other words banned from traveling to other nations. Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
eyeball Posted November 9, 2015 Report Posted November 9, 2015 (edited) Due to the blowback it can cause a nation a charge of high treason should include overthrowing another nation's government and replacing it with a dictator. A crime against humanity should be viewed as being like treason against your species. Edited November 9, 2015 by eyeball Quote I said now watch what you say they'll be calling you a radical, a liberal, oh fanatical criminal
Argus Posted November 10, 2015 Report Posted November 10, 2015 All that the "tough on crime" contingent needs is the notion of unreported crime. That unreported crime, while a reality, is harder to pin down, and not even the work on that suggests that it has replaced reported crime. But hey, somewhere, someone was assaulted and didn't tell a cop, so if you multiply that by a factor of 100, then that's not dishonest, right? So you're saying stats canada is lying? Purposefully exaggerating the extent of unreported crime? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
ToadBrother Posted November 10, 2015 Report Posted November 10, 2015 So you're saying stats canada is lying? Purposefully exaggerating the extent of unreported crime? No, I'm saying you're playing fast and loose with statistics. As another posted pointed out, you have preconceptions and prejudices, and then go out to cherry pick evidence. Quote
Guest Posted November 10, 2015 Report Posted November 10, 2015 There are less likely to be unreported sexual assaults today because of a whole host of factors. I'm sure there are still many that do go unreported though. That said, unless a crime can be verified, I have no idea if it was a crime. Do you mean, you don't know if it happened or not? Rather than whether it was a crime or not? For instance, those sexual assaults you mention. If you know they happened, you know they are criminal acts, No-one has to be reported, caught, taken to trial, convicted, and sentenced for their action to be criminal Quote
Smallc Posted November 10, 2015 Report Posted November 10, 2015 Do you mean, you don't know if it happened or not? Rather than whether it was a crime or not? For instance, those sexual assaults you mention. If you know they happened, you know they are criminal acts, No-one has to be reported, caught, taken to trial, convicted, and sentenced for their action to be criminal Of course not, but without evidence it's hard to get proper numbers. Quote
Argus Posted November 10, 2015 Report Posted November 10, 2015 No, I'm saying you're playing fast and loose with statistics. As another posted pointed out, you have preconceptions and prejudices, and then go out to cherry pick evidence. That poster was seeking to deny the evidence, as if blaming me for producing evidence which agreed with me. You seem to be trying to do the same thing. Maybe both of you could try finding evidence which agreed with you, for a change, instead of complaining that I have unfairly produced cites to support my arguments. In the meantime, I'll simply take this as another example of Liberals disrespect for academics and science. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted November 10, 2015 Report Posted November 10, 2015 Of course not, but without evidence it's hard to get proper numbers. Too bad we didn't have like, a government agency to interview thousands and thousands of people and carry out a complex statistical analyses to supply us with numbers, eh? Oh wait... ! Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
ToadBrother Posted November 10, 2015 Report Posted November 10, 2015 That poster was seeking to deny the evidence, as if blaming me for producing evidence which agreed with me. You seem to be trying to do the same thing. Maybe both of you could try finding evidence which agreed with you, for a change, instead of complaining that I have unfairly produced cites to support my arguments. In the meantime, I'll simply take this as another example of Liberals disrespect for academics and science. You're the one showing disrespect by cherry picking data to support your preconceived notions. That's not science, that's just polemics. Quote
Argus Posted November 10, 2015 Report Posted November 10, 2015 (edited) You're the one showing disrespect by cherry picking data to support your preconceived notions. That's not science, that's just polemics. Your complaint is nonsensical whining. Everyone here, EVERYONE, posts opinions as to this or that, and if possible, posts cites to support that opinion. I've been here eleven years and have never seen anyone post an opinion then a cite which disagreed with it. Not on purpose, anyway. I often have reputable cites to support what I say. You don't. So sorry, life is just unfair, isn't it? Maybe you should complain to the moderators. Edited November 10, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
ToadBrother Posted November 10, 2015 Report Posted November 10, 2015 Your complaint is nonsensical whining. Everyone here, EVERYONE, posts opinions as to this or that, and if possible, posts cites to support that opinion. I often have reputable cites to support what I say. You don't. So sorry, life is just unfair, isn't it? Maybe you should complain to the moderators. You overstate what the citations say. You cherry pick and distort. Violent crime has been falling for years, even with unreported crimes. Your whole argument is a load of BS. Quote
Argus Posted November 10, 2015 Report Posted November 10, 2015 You overstate what the citations say. You cherry pick and distort. Violent crime has been falling for years, even with unreported crimes. Your whole argument is a load of BS. You will find no statistical agency to support your position. None. Go and look. What you will find is statistics very carefully labelled as 'police reported crime'. And indeed, that has been falling. But all we know from that is that less crime is being reported to police. Now is that because there is less crime, or because people aren't reporting it? According to Stats Canada, the percentage of crime being reported gets lower every five years. It is not illogical, then to suggest that maybe violent crime is not really falling, or at least, is not falling as much as you seem to want to believe it is. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted November 10, 2015 Report Posted November 10, 2015 Too bad we didn't have like, a government agency to interview thousands and thousands of people and carry out a complex statistical analyses to supply us with numbers, eh? Oh wait... ! That doesn't give us any information about what things were actually crimes. Quote
Argus Posted November 10, 2015 Report Posted November 10, 2015 (edited) That doesn't give us any information about what things were actually crimes. Well, we know that 88% of sexual assaults were not reported to police. Only about 34% of all physical assaults are reported (which excludes spousal assaults). http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010002/article/11340-eng.htm#a18 Edited November 10, 2015 by Argus Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Smallc Posted November 10, 2015 Report Posted November 10, 2015 Well, we know that 88% of sexual assaults were not reported to police. Only about 34% of all physical assaults are reported (which excludes spousal assaults). http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-002-x/2010002/article/11340-eng.htm#a18 We know that some alleged crimes were allegedly not reported. That's my entire point. Quote
ToadBrother Posted November 10, 2015 Report Posted November 10, 2015 You will find no statistical agency to support your position. None. Go and look. What you will find is statistics very carefully labelled as 'police reported crime'. And indeed, that has been falling. But all we know from that is that less crime is being reported to police. Now is that because there is less crime, or because people aren't reporting it? According to Stats Canada, the percentage of crime being reported gets lower every five years. It is not illogical, then to suggest that maybe violent crime is not really falling, or at least, is not falling as much as you seem to want to believe it is. In other words, you've taken a lack of data as a confirmation of your pre-conceived notion. Quote
Argus Posted November 10, 2015 Report Posted November 10, 2015 In other words, you've taken a lack of data as a confirmation of your pre-conceived notion. No, in other words I've taken Stats Canada's report as confirmation of my beliefs, while you have... what, exactly? What are you even arguing? Do you even know? I gather you figure that there a significant amount of unreported crime impacting crime data is somehow a repudiation of the Liberal soft on crime beliefs, but that's about all I can get from your position. Other than the fact that when data gets in the way of your beliefs you do your best to ignore it. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
ToadBrother Posted November 10, 2015 Report Posted November 10, 2015 No, in other words I've taken Stats Canada's report as confirmation of my beliefs, while you have... what, exactly? What are you even arguing? Do you even know? I gather you figure that there a significant amount of unreported crime impacting crime data is somehow a repudiation of the Liberal soft on crime beliefs, but that's about all I can get from your position. Other than the fact that when data gets in the way of your beliefs you do your best to ignore it. You've taken a lack of firm data as a confirmation. That much is clear, and you've admitted as much. Unreported crime stats are difficult to confirm, and using such uncertain data as a means to promote your own view is nothing more than pseudoscience. Quote
Argus Posted November 11, 2015 Report Posted November 11, 2015 You've taken a lack of firm data as a confirmation. That much is clear, and you've admitted as much. Unreported crime stats are difficult to confirm, and using such uncertain data as a means to promote your own view is nothing more than pseudoscience. LOL! You're even using the same words the Tories used to use about climate change! LOL! You're totally dismissing the statistics from Stats Canada as if they're nothing but rumours! This from an agency you and the other Lefties screamed had to be protected at all costs! Why, the loss of mandatory self-reporting on the census threatened civilization itself! But now they release a whopping big study and it's 'pseudoscience' because it makes your positions uncomfortable! LOL! :lol: Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
ToadBrother Posted November 11, 2015 Report Posted November 11, 2015 LOL! You're even using the same words the Tories used to use about climate change! LOL! You're totally dismissing the statistics from Stats Canada as if they're nothing but rumours! This from an agency you and the other Lefties screamed had to be protected at all costs! Why, the loss of mandatory self-reporting on the census threatened civilization itself! But now they release a whopping big study and it's 'pseudoscience' because it makes your positions uncomfortable! LOL! :lol: I'm dismissing your interpretation and narrow search. You know you just your biases confirmed, so why do you pretend otherwise,. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.