Stock and I make census of crime reporting

Stockwell Day says we can't rely on statistics showing a declining crime rate because those figures only measure reported crime. And Stock apparently has unreported figures that show unreported crime is rising (or maybe not):

Treasury Board President Stockwell Day says statistics showing crime in Canada is declining may not be accurate.

Day says the crime rate per 1,000 people has dropped, but adds that more people are not reporting crimes.

He says surveys suggest many people don't bother calling the police on some crimes.
The numbers are alarming, he says, although he did not elaborate.

Day says this is why the government plans to hike spending for new prisons.

What Stock failed to mention is that the reason we can't necessarily take those crime statistics at face value is because crime reporting is voluntary, which leads to an array of challenges that can skew the numbers. With the reporting pool self-selecting, some groups may be more likely to report criminal events: the middle-class, for example, or the the family of a murder victim. And those who live in high-crime neighbourhoods, or who are the victim of a minor crime such as j-walking, might not bother to report.

That's why tomorrow I'm told Stock will announce the Conservative Party's new "Get Tough on Unreported Crime" initiative, which will make crime reporting mandatory and threaten stiff fines and/or jail terms for failure to report crime.*

That's why they're really building all those prisons.

*No, not really.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

The Conservatives and data privacy, 19 times out of 20

It’s no surprise I’m not a fan of our Conservative government, but I think I’d be a lot less annoyed with them day-to-day if I could sense there were at least some guiding principles behind their decisions. Even if I don’t agree with them, a little logical consistency would be nice sometimes.

Take the issue of data privacy. For a somewhat nerdy and technical issue, proposed Conservative changes to the census have been getting a lot of attention lately. In essence, the Conservatives want to drop the mandatory long-form census that goes to a certain percentage of the population, and replace it with a voluntary one that goes to a larger group. Statisticians say this would render the data useless and make the whole exercise pointless. The Conservatives say people have privacy concerns about the long-form, they feel it’s true intrusive and don’t trust the government with the information, even though it is only used in aggregate. So, the government claims, this is a data privacy issue and we must heed their concerns.

Contrast this with another story that has been getting less attention, but is also quite important. The Conservatives are pushing a bill that would give the personal passenger information data of Canadian citizens to the U.S. government if their flight overflies U.S. airspace, even if the flight is going to a third country and is never even landing in the U.S. What’s more, the U.S. government would be able to veto any passenger on security grounds, and prevent them from taking that flight. It’s also worth noting many domestic Canadian flight-paths overfly U.S. airspace, particularly those in and out of Southern Ontario.

So, if you’re following at home, the Conservatives are vetoing a mandatory long-form census, even though the data is only used in aggregate to help make better informed public policy decisions, because some people (apparently, so they’d have us believe) have concerns about their private data going to their government. But they have no concerns sending the private data of Canadian citizens to the a foreign government and allowing a foreign government to prevent Canadians from boarding flights to other countries for reasons they don’t even have to share with us.

Makes complete sense to me.

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Readers, start your spin-cycles

The big story in the Globe this morning is on new crime statistics, reporting the national crime rate is at an all time low.

National crime rate at 25-year low: Statscan
Canadian Press
July 18, 2007 at 9:45 AM EDT

OTTAWA — A new study says the national crime rate hit its lowest point in more than 25 years in 2006, driven by a decline in non-violent crime.

Statistics Canada says the crime rate dropped by three per cent last year, mainly due to declines in break-ins, thefts under $5,000 and counterfeiting.

The national crime rate has decreased by about 30 per cent since peaking in 1991.
(more)

Rather than providing my analysis, I thought for fun I’d turn the issue over to my readers and allow you to flex your spin skills and pull things out, in context or not, to use the data to pump-up your party and trash your opponents.

• Does the decline mean the Conservative tough on crime legislation, most of which isn’t yet law, is unnecessary blustering? Or are criminals so scared of the proposed legislation they’ve stopped committing crimes even before its law?

• Does the increase in assaults with a weapon mean the gun registry is a boondoggle, or did the fact the Conservatives have neutered the registry without canceling it rendering it useless contribute to the increase?

• Does the decrease in the national homicide rate mean Harper is hard on crime and the Liberals soft, or does the increase in many serious violent crimes like attempted murder and aggravated assault mean the Liberals were tougher on crime and Harper is soft?

• Does the rise in crime by youth mean diversion programs and addressing root causes rather than “getting tough” was the right way to go, or does it mean Vic Toews was right, throw the kiddies in prison?

• Does the large drop in crime in PEI mean everyone in the province moved West and there's no one left?

• Or does the fact the data is only until the end of 2006, after less than a year of CPC government and before most, if not all, of the new Conservative crime legislation could be passed and implemented, render any political comparisons and partisan shots based on the data silly and useless?
  

Let the spinning begin!

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers

Stripping away the facts: Harper admited more strippers than Martin

While reading a number of stories on the Conservative’ stripper legislation, thanks to a Google search gone horribly wrong, something didn’t quite jive. I mean, besides the fact that it’s needless and pointless legislation that shows the Conservatives have totally run out of ideas.

The issue is the stats contrasting dancers admitted under the Liberals vs. the Conservatives. Here’s how the story I read first, from CTV, framed the matter:

In 2004, when Liberal Paul Martin was prime minister, there were 423 visas issued for foreign exotic dancers.

Since Conservative Stephen Harper took over in early 2006, 17 permits have been issued -- seven so far this year.

Reading that you’re no doubt thinking wow, Martin was one foreign stripper lovin’ son of a guy that helped found medicare, wasn’t he? I mean, 423! And that Stephen Harper, he really must be doing something right, only 17 under his watch! Such a nice boy, young Stephen. Right?

Well, not quite. It occurred to me that it was odd CTV chose 2004 as their year of comparison, as Martin governed for all of 2005 as well. How many dancers, I wondered, were admitted under Martin in 2005? And why did CTV not include figures from 2005?

Maybe because this happened in 2005:

…documents obtained by The Globe and Mail show the previous Liberal government had already issued directives to embassies to make it harder for foreign strippers to obtain temporary work permits.

Hmm, that’s interesting. Without any big splashy legislation either, the Liberals took decisive action to curtail the number of foreign exotic dancers coming to Canada. And what impact did this have on, say, the 2005 figures?

As a result, the number of new permits issued to foreign exotic dancers fell to fewer than 10 in 2005 from 67 in 2004, according to government statistics.

How about that. It seems the Liberals accomplished a massive reduction in the number of foreign dancers admitted to Canada without splashy grandstanding legislation. Results for Canadians, you might say. Also makes CTV’s little comparison look rather foolish, doesn’t it?

There’s something else too. CTV says 423 permits were issued in 2004, the Globe and Mail says only 67 were issued in 2004. Either way the drop was still sharp in 2005, but that’s a big gap. Who is wrong here? Given what seems to be a deliberately misleading comparison by leaving out the 2005 numbers, I’m betting it’s CTV.

And another thing. Let’s take a closer look at those numbers.

Foreign exotic dancers admitted in 2005, under the Martin Liberals: Fewer than 10
Foreign exotic dancers admitted in 2006, under the Harper Conservatives: 17 since January 2006 minus 7 so far this year equals 10 in 2006

Now, my Grade 11 math tells me that “fewer than 10” is less than “10” which means Harper admitted at least one more foreign stripper in 2006 than Martin did in 2005. A minor difference I admit, but it puts lie to the pious Conservative rhetoric on the issue doesn’t it?

And Harper has already admitted 7 this year, and it’s only May. He’s well on pace for well over 14 in 2007. Unless this is just the stripper high season or something. It is spring, after all…

Recommend this Post on Progressive Bloggers