The Science of Crime

[alias_sqbr]

Via patternsofchaos, Australian crime not soaring: report.

But as An Onymous Lefty points out(*) the comments consist almost entirely of people saying "Well then the numbers are wrong!". Guh. (I didn't notice because I find it's better to pretend news articles don't have comments, they're so reliably rage inducing)

(*)found via Hoyden About Town

Comments

[bunny-m.livejournal.com]

it's better to pretend news articles don't have comments, they're so reliably rage inducing

This is definitely true. Even more so in the Murdoch press, I find, but that could just be my lefty upbringing/bias at work. =)

[alias_sqbr]

I must admit it's all so terrible I hadn't noticed a difference :)

[v01d3d.livejournal.com]

Your icon FTW!

[alias_sqbr]

Thanks :)

[greteldragon.livejournal.com]

I don't know about you but I'd rather see how they're collecting the stats on these things in all cases before believing either way. I don't like how that report is written and I don't like the comments.

Also I'm annoyed that this refers onwards to a Victorian study when discussing increases in sentencing. Victoria is not the only state in Australia. :(

[melberon.livejournal.com]

"Victoria is not the only state in Australia."

Try telling a Victorian that, though! ;-)

[alias_sqbr]

Surely they acknowledge the existence of NSW, if only to say how much better they are.

[patternsofchaos.livejournal.com]

AIC surveys are much better than your average newspoll, don't worry.

[greteldragon.livejournal.com]

Well, no its not the survey I'm questioning, its the dodgy repetition of certain statistics from it, with no idea of the scope or how they obtained their statistics. Or how selective the news report is being.

I mean surely different levels of crimes have different rates of reportage etc... How has the report included it etc... And I'm babbling here because I'm fairly sure you know all this.

These things are much more interesting then a news report and blog post going 'haha bogans are wrong again, aren't us lefties great'. Which are annoying me today because apparently I am in a ragey mood. Sorry about that.

[patternsofchaos.livejournal.com]

Here is the

[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<a [...] </a>') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

Here is the <a href="http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/rpp/101/"</a> full report </a> if you want to read it.

It was a mail-out survey which has some inherent flaws.

To get the actual rates generally they combine self-report, victimisation surveys, hospitalisations etc - they never rely only on police statistics. At least, I would be very disappointed if they did because my lecturer wrote it and he's been repeating that over and over again all semester.

[alias_sqbr]

Thinking about it some more, the reason I accept the data so uncritically is that I've encountered the "Crime is down, perception of crime is up" datum a bunch of different times in different contexts (Speaking of "aren't us lefties great" it's a central part of "Bowling for Columbine") So subconsciously I was thinking "But EVERYONE knows that's true!" which isn't entirely fair.

[alias_sqbr]

I think "That sounds iffy, where did they get their numbers?" is a reasonable response to a study which goes against your personal experience, I've done that myself. But not "That study is clearly wrong!": I think you need to have some openness to the possibility that your instincts may be off.

[awils1.livejournal.com]

<snerk>“Oh, people can come up with statistics to prove anything, Kent. 14% of people know that.”

The wisdom of Homer Simpson strikes again. </snerk>

[alias_sqbr]

Huh, I always herd that as "forfteen" (ie a made up number)