Is the crime rate in Canada going up or down?

[steven lloyd]

Is the crime rate in Canada going up or down?
22/02/2011 10:00:00 PM
by Greg Bolton

Is crime in our beloved nation on the rise or is it being reduced? And what should we do about it? It depends who you ask.
Understanding crime rates in Canada means digging through statistics. It was Mark Twain who popularized the adage that "(there) are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."

Twain credited that nifty phrase to former British P.M. Benjamin Disraeli; funnily enough, his attribution was almost immediately disputed, and remains so to this day.

In other words, the very history of the quote - a challenge to easy notions of truth - effectively proves its own truth.

Is your head spinning yet? No? Then allow me to introduce the latest controversy emerging from the greater Ottawa region: yet another battle between Statistics Canada, better known as Statscan, and the Federal Conservatives, better known as our minority Government.

Back in 2009, Statscan released figures indicating that violent crime rates had fallen since 2000. At the time, and since, this inconvenient truth was declared by some to be a major challenge to the Conservative government's tougher-on-crime stance.

Why crack down and spend more if things were getting better anyway? Or so went the logic.

Last week, though, Statscan's conclusions were challenged by a study from the Macdonald-Laurier Institute (MLI), an Ottawa think tank. The MLI effort was led by a former Alberta Crown Attorney turned security consultant named Scott Newark.

On Tuesday, though, that MLI challenge was in turn challenged in a Globe and Mail op-ed column by lawyers Edward Greenspan and Anthony Doob.

"Mr Newark's study is filled with problems," they wrote. "It compares figures that can't be compared. It presents figures that are inaccurate. And it ignores evidence supporting the conclusion that crime is, in fact, decreasing."

They went on to present a bunch of charts and numbers that make perfect sense, but that Newark and others could refute until all concerned are blue in the face.

Knowing how these things generally go, that's what we should expect.

However, having imposed upon themselves - if only for rhetorical purposes - a mandate to stick to the raw numbers in their column, it must have been painful for Greenspan and Doob to ignore the elephant in the room: that Scott Newark is anything but a neutral observer on this matter.

In fact, Newark has enjoyed the very coziest of relationships with the Conservative government for many years: way back in February of 2006, he signed on as a senior policy advisor to Stockwell Day. Three months later, he quit his gig and went back to the private sector - a dramatic career move presumably made much less stressful thanks to a contract, generously and immediately awarded by his former ministry, worth more than $300,000.

Stuff like that is supposed to be illegal. More to the point, it's exactly the kind of "revolving door" activity - moving in and out of the public and private sectors for personal gain - that the Conservatives had promised to stamp out when they stamped out the Liberals.

Directly or through spokesminions, both Newark and Day consistently denied any impropriety, claiming that because, in the three months that he worked for Day's office, Newark hadn't got around to signing the papers that would have made him a public office holder.

If he wasn't a public office holder, the logic went, he wasn't subject to that hinky little part of the criminal code that prohibits a public office holder from tucking into government pork within a year of holding office.

Easy peasy!

So why does Newark's past matter right now? Because it's 2011, and despite his claims to be working for an "independent" think tank, he still appears to be backing his old government buddies on what remains a pretty controversial issue.

Let's take a moment to remember that it was over the issue of the crime bill that Prime Minister Harper was forced to prorogue Parliament just over a year ago.

It seems pretty clear that whatever the facts show, the Conservatives have remained steadfast in their desire to crack down on crime as a simple matter of political ideology.

Frankly, if they thought any different, they'd have asked Newark to stifle his controversial report, for fear it might compromise their stance; instead, they've allowed him to shop it around to the press like a paparazzi hawks his latest celebrity crotch shot.

Newark, and with him, the Conservatives, would love to let people like Greenspan and Doob continue to argue over stats, preferably while they're push through new crime legislation.

But with all due respect to hard numbers, and the debates that surround them, here's the salient question: do we, as Canadians, think the kind of tough-on-crime stance we've seen in the U.S. at least as far as the days of Ronald Reagan has been an effective agent of economic growth and social transformation? Or rather, do we think it's been a hopelessly short-sighted, ruinously expensive and socially corrosive farce?

Do we, as a nation, want to spend more of our resources punishing crime, or trying to foster a society that makes it less likely?

I could find you compelling numbers to support either position. And unlike lobbyists, lawyers and all the "think tank" types somewhere in between, I could do it gratis, and in an hour or two.

On both sides, playing statistical games of "gotcha" seems disingenuous and wasteful, when what we really need to be talking about is what's right.

A year after the Harper government shut down Parliament over this issue, it's time for Canadians to decide whether to reward or reject his government's stance on crime.

http://news.sympatico.ca/oped/coffee-ta ... n/835ac8b2

[Queen K]

Judging from all the petty crime reported here on these forums, stolen vehicles and theft of stuff be it cans, pets, kid's bikes or garden implements, vandalism, graffeti, drug paraphenalia found everywhere, break and entry, seeing people on cellphones while driving, littering, and whatnot, I'd say crime is up.

Is reported crime up? Do people actually haul themselves to the phone, call the police and report? Insist upon a RCMP file number? Heck, we have a guy on here who has found a downed helicopter, pointed in the general direction and told the police to "guess", wasting $1000's of heli time fees. I think that's a crime.

I'd like to say murders are down but geez, there's a body found almost daily somewhere in this province, is that down?

Gotta go to work now and comtemplate what can be done to make crime unattractive. Leaning towards public whippings in the town square, circa 1600's.

[NAB]

Interesting.... while the article seems to be suggesting that it doesn't matter whether "statistics" indicate crime is increasing or decreasing in Canada, that the approach to dealing with crime is really the crux of the issue.... it's a politically motivated article as opposed to a practical one IMO.

I doubt many people subscribe to the notion "crime in Canada is declining" (overloaded/overworked court system, constant calls for more money for more resources to deal with ever more demands on the system itself flys in the face of such claims among many other things, such as the constant call from bureaucracy for more and more police, justice system support staff, and so on ad nauseum).

Statistics Canada has become an overwhelming embarrassment and failure, largely IMO because, like so many government agencies or taxpayer subsidized organizations (like the CBC), they have become taxpayer funded arms of the political socialist left wing and its whacko too soft on crime ideology. No wonder Canada is being increasingly seen by criminal elements and ne'r do wells from other countries as such a peachy place to set up and do business. All the benefits of close proximity to the US "market" from a safe haven.

Besides, who the heck is Greg Bolton LOL? Just another disgruntled left wing Harper Hater who longs for the good old days at the Liberal pork barrel?

Nab

[Bagotricks]

People on cell phones and littering is not crime, lets get real here.

If you cant be bothered to phone the police to report a stolen garden spade, then how do you expect Steven Harper to save you? You cant get sent to jail for stealing 2 dollar garden tools, and unless you want to take cops off the street to patrol back lanes to look for teenagers looking to cause a little trouble, and pay them 60 thousand dollars a year to do so.

Seeing how people are ignoring Stats Can - who have every murder and violent crime reported on file - and guessing from their own "point of view" that crime is up because they hear about a body being found in BC everyday or that "alot of crime is on the news" makes me worry there is more than one person out there that is believing Harperites when they say "crime is up" when Stats Can says the opposite.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... gangs.html

Great article Steven, not only are their numbers and priorities wrong, they are greasing the hands of their friends and breaking the law while doing it, so they can come out with studies that back their dogma. How corrupt can you get? How cruel can you get? In the end this is about buying votes, and on the other end more people will go to jail for longer because of it (they may not deserve it) and crime that could have been prevented will happen. Would you rather have you family member alive or the murderer that killed them in jail for 10 extra years? Harper is more concerned about scaring Canadians and then saving them from crime that doesn't exist in exchange for votes, than actually preventing crime.

[Bagotricks]

Statistics Canada has become an overwhelming embarrassment and failure, largely IMO because, like so many government agencies or taxpayer subsidized organizations (like the CBC), they have become taxpayer funded arms of the political socialist left wing and its whacko too soft on crime ideology.

Whoa there! Stats Canada is *the* most respected statistics agency in the world. They are not a arm of "socialist lefties", lol, its just the stats never support Conservative reasoning - like in this case.

This is why Steven Harper is taking apart Stats Can, so the government can ignore facts.

In terms of "tough on crime", it doesn't work. It just creates a whole underclass of people with criminal records, warrants and decreased income potential, which in turn leads to more poverty, crime and violence. You can accept this, or ignore the countless studies that prove it, like the Conservatives.

[Corneliousrooster]

Back in 2009, Statscan released figures indicating that violent crime rates had fallen since 2000.

Judging from all the petty crime reported here on these forums, stolen vehicles and theft of stuff be it cans, pets, kid's bikes or garden implements, vandalism, graffeti, drug paraphenalia found everywhere, break and entry, seeing people on cellphones while driving, littering, and whatnot, I'd say crime is up.

Violent crime rates and petty crime rates are 2 different things. You could have all the police prisons and courts in the world and it would hardly put a dent in petty crime.......its "petty" - until petty crime laws are being reviewed or changed you will be stuck with what we have IMO

We also have a much larger population - thus increased chances of crimes being committed, and most likely increased crimes making the stats......... but the stats are saying otherwise...... interesting...... we also have a media based on sensationalism, so crime sells papers (they like to give the customer what they want and scary crime stories that happen every day all the time, creating the illusion that we are riddled with crime) i highly doubt that stories of street people stealing popcans from carports would make the news 20 years ago - but now Kelowna is riddled with street thieves, and Rutland is comparable to detroit, and big events can't be hosted for fear of the anarchy........ thanks Media for feeding the conservatives the BS to stuff the BS pie they are baking up for the constituents - dig in!

[steven lloyd]

I can’t say for sure whether crime is up or down. As the author in OP suggests it is a matter of how statistics are gathered and how they are evaluated. I certainly know that we are not getting less busy in the criminal justice system. Quite the contrary, in fact (although part of that can be explained by cuts to staffing). That being said there is at least one major factor that would support the idea crime should be going down and that is an overall aging population. We know the risk of criminal offending typically decreases with age. However, we also know that the demographic makeup of our population can change quite quickly, and I’m not sure but I think I’ve heard the age 15 to 25 year old demographic is again increasing. It should also be noted this demographic is going to be facing significant challenges in accessing meaningful employment opportunities, as well as access to training and post-secondary education. One of the major explanations for crime is the income gap, and the greater the income gap the greater the incidence of crime.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/77847tt652035287/

http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?q=crim ... i=scholart

Even if crime is going down it is very likely not the result of any social policy implemented by current governments, and as suggested, more likely explained by the current and temporary nature of our demographics. If it is indeed down then this is an excellent opportunity to start intervening at the causes of crime instead of just reacting to crime - although we are already behind in our capability to deal with existing demands and we do have to address that (ie. expanded prison space, policing levels, criminal justice/court staffing, etc.).

There is a plethora of available research on the internet that not only indentifies likely underlying causes of crime, but discusses the efficacy of various approaches to dealing with it (ie. punishment vs. prevention) and the cost-effectiveness of each approach. The snippets I’ve provided just for interest below refer more to the underlying causes of youth crime, but they are interesting and if we really want to make a lasting difference in the crime rate we need to start there.

Some cause of crime identified in an Irish study:

NEIGHBOURHOOD AND COMMUNITY FACTORS

• Community disorganisation and physical deterioration;
• High levels of mobility and lack of attachments to the community;
• Majority of local authority or rented housing;
• High proportion of single parent families;
• Higher than average percentages of young people in the population; and
• Poor levels of service provision in the local area.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC DEPRIVATION AS MEASURED BY:
• Low family income/consistent poverty;
• Parents are long-term unemployed;
• Poor housing;
• Large family; and
• Single parent family.

http://www.crimecouncil.gov.ie/download ... report.pdf (p30)

This from a British study:

the following are risk factors or indicators of susceptibility to youth criminal activity:

• Inadequate parenting
• Child abuses/maltreatment
• Family disruption
• Poor parental supervision
• Parental or sibling criminality
• Having teenage parents
• Unstable living conditions
• The effects of economic disadvantage

3. Prevention before Punishment?

It is right that a Government should seek to protect its citizens as its first priority. However, the current emphasis on reforming legislation and increasing penalties for offenders will do little to stop the next generation of prisoners and unlock the cycle of deprivation which so many young people are trapped in, unless it is accompanied by attempt to tackle the underlying drivers of crime. Yet this Government has got the balance wrong; all its energies are directed at punishing those whose lives are products of a fractured society without tackling the causes of crime in a holistic way.

http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.u ... _crime.pdf (p4)

As I said there is a ton of stuff available on the internet and I only referenced a couple of studies. I would like to provide some of the most current evidence out of Canada but the links I have at work won’t open up on my home computer – therefore neither will they open up for any readers here if I post them. Interesting that. Of course, we can always pretend people and socioeconomic dynamics are so different in other western societies that research from those countries is irrelevant. However, (IMO) it would certainly be nice to see our politicians start paying attention to the evidence from research, instead of stubbornly forging ahead with their ideological agendas that will accomplish little but cost the taxpayers (us) a huge amount.

Don’t get me wrong. I believe there is a place for punishment and I am frustrated by the ineffective manner in which we already mete that out. Not only is punishment not dispensed in a timely fashion (and therefore ineffective) with our overwhelmed system, but the reasoning behind selecting the form or severity of punishment can be baffling not only to those of us working within the system, but even members of the general public when made aware of sentencing inconsistencies (eg. sentencing a kid growing pot plants to jail, while sentencing an offender found guilty of aggravated assault to probation). The bottom line is that we continue to ignore real evidence from research to pursue extremist ideological platforms at our own continued and increased risk as well as our own (us taxpayers) continued and increased cost.

[steven lloyd]

In the debate of punishment vs prevention few people are arguing that we abandon the notion of punishment. Rather, the argument (born from reviewing evidence from research that shows how ineffective punishment is in reducing recidivism) is that we stop wasting inordinate amounts of tax dollars promoting fear to pursue ideological platforms and actually put that money towards addressing the root causes of crime so we can have safer communities. Victor Ashe, is a Republican and president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors. Ashe is a rare right-winger in that he actually pays attention to the evidence from research and champions prevention as the most cost- effective weapon against crime: As he puts it: "If you commit a crime, you ought to be punished. But if a crime is prevented, that's better." In Canada, our political leaders are just as misguided as many of their American counterparts, and for the sole purpose of satisfying their own personal ideological agendas without concern over how much that is going to cost us, or being honest and forthcoming in letting us know the ultimate cost will be in the many hundreds of millions. Despite what some might want to think, the American experience described below is relevant to us and available to be learned from.

From TIME Magazine:

Going Soft on Crime

Soft on crime? Next to being called a politician, that was every candidate's worst fear this season. The desperate need to talk tough gave rise to a clamor for three-strikes-you're-out laws and other stringent penalties. But do those measures have anything to do with what works in the real world? A street-level look suggests that the popular wisdom has it backward:
Sneakers, a Milwaukee, Wisconsin, gang member, comes by his nickname honestly. "It's 'cause I'm so fast," he explains. "Real fast." Especially after he snatches a purse. Or burglarizes a home. Or pulls a trigger. Sometimes, though, Sneakers isn't quite fast enough. He has already served three years for two robberies. Now 21, Sneakers is a two-time loser on the prowl in a three-strike state. But he's not worried that a third felony could put him away for life. "The law don't make no difference to me because I ain't gonna get caught," he says. "I mean, if I really thought I was gonna get caught, I wouldn't commit a crime in the first place, now would I?"

The same fate could have befallen Iman Reed. At age 11, Iman liked to pick fights on the streets of Wichita, Kansas, making him a prime target for a revenge shooting. Then his mom enrolled him in a Big Brother program, which paired him with a police detective. Five years later, Iman is pulling down A's and B's in school, and has his sights set on a law degree. Reflecting back, he concludes, "If I wasn't in the program, I'd be in one of those gangs." Or dead.

Sneakers and Iman personify what's really at stake in the debate over America's No. 1 concern. Sneakers is the kind of person politicians have in mind when they claim that they can deter punks from committing a third felony by threatening to lock 'em up for good. And Iman is the sort of kid that some candidates seem to think is the recipient of "pork" when they dismiss prevention programs as a waste of money. But two new reports suggest that those politicians have it wrong. An investigative report published Oct. 24 in the Los Angeles Times documented the failure of California's three-strike law -- one of the nation's first and stiffest. The same day, the National Recreation and Park Association released a nationwide study of prevention programs, which offered compelling evidence that recreation and training can < contribute directly to declines in crime and juvenile-arrest rates. The message may be getting through. A small but growing number of mayors and judges, most of them Republicans, are breaking party ranks to say that it's prevention, not inflexible punishment, that puts a dent in crime.

The Times' review of all 98 third-strike cases resolved between the enactment of the law last March and Aug. 31 found that the law is taking a harsher toll on California's justice system than on its criminals. Third-time defendants who face the prospect of 25 years to life, as the law demands, are no longer willing to enter into the plea-bargaining arrangements that used to settle 90% of all felony cases. Instead, they prefer to sit in county jail, awaiting trial. The result is a swelling jail population, a mushrooming court docket and endless trial delays. To stem the tide, prosecutors are ignoring new "strikes," and judges are reducing felonies to misdemeanors. The result: just 1 in 6 eligible defendants has been packed off to prison for the 25-year minimum. "I've been a Republican all my life, and I'm afraid I'm starting to sound like a Democrat," Judge Carol Fieldhouse of the Los Angeles Superior Court told TIME. "I've never seen something before where D.A.s, defense lawyers and judges agree. This thing is not working."

They also agree that the biggest problem is the law's indiscriminate sweep. Unlike the three-strike provision of the federal crime bill passed by Congress last August, the law in California does not distinguish between violent and nonviolent felons. "In principal, the law is a good idea," says Judge Arthur Jean, another Republican on the Los Angeles Superior Court. "In practice, it nets in a huge number of lightweight offenders." Judges feel it excessive to dole out life sentences for such felonies as drug possession and tire theft.

California is not alone in finding three strikes more of a headache than a deterrent or remedy. At present, 13 other states have three-strike laws, while seven more are considering such legislation. "Some of the early reports we're getting from various states about three strikes are not very encouraging," says Bobbie Huskey, president of the American Correctional Association. "States are having to project a doubling or tripling of their state prison populations."

Meanwhile, in California even judges in the juvenile courts, where the three-strike law does not apply, are feeling its heat. "The punitive messages * seem to be the only ones that get out to the public, and that is a problem," says Judge Steven Perren of the Ventura County Superior Court. "As long as the community's attitude toward juveniles is 'punish,' we all lose. There is a large segment here that is salvageable."

That is precisely what prevention advocates have been arguing for years. Now they have the Park Association's report to bolster their hunch. Police in Dallas recorded a 26% drop in juvenile arrests after a gang-intervention program, sponsored by 17 civic organizations, began reaching out to 3,000 youths in 1989 with education, recreation and job-training programs. "At one time, we felt we could handle the crime problem by ourselves," says Dallas police chief Ben Click, a 30-year veteran of law enforcement. "We were forced to realize that we needed the help of people in the schools, churches and neighborhoods."

In Fort Myers, Florida, the juvenile-crime rate has dropped 27% since the start-up three years ago of STARS, an academic and recreation program targeted at youths. Moreover, where only 25% of the city's youths had higher than a C average four years ago, today 75% are getting C's or better. While it would cost $15,000 to send a miscreant youth to boot camp for a year, STARS spends just $158 a child to provide music and dance lessons, sports and tutoring. When youths participate in such programs, says Wilbur Smith III, the city's mayor, they "start experiencing activities that reward them intellectually and emotionally, and that instills hope. You don't get that from punishment."

While all this seems obvious to people who work closely with youths, preventive solutions remain a hard sell -- especially after Republican cries of "pork" led to a $2 billion cut in the federal crime bill's proposed $8.9 billion in prevention measures. Victor Ashe, however, is one Republican who remains undeterred. Since becoming mayor of Knoxville, Tennessee, in 1988, he has raised his parks and recreation budget more than 60%. And as president of the U.S. Conference of Mayors, he champions prevention as the most cost- effective weapon against crime: "If you commit a crime, you ought to be punished. But if a crime is prevented, that's better."

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... z1EuZJe0IS

[CorkSoaker]

I’ve heard the age 15 to 25 year old demographic is again increasing.

Well if that is the case there could be a slight blip or increase in crime rates in the years to come as that demographic is both the most likely to be victimized and commit crimes. I heard awhile back that Stockwell Day and the Conservatives were vowing to invest more money to tackle the "dark figure" of crime or crime that goes unreported to police. I had to scratch my head at that as you cannot charge someone for a crime that no one has reported and nothing has been witnessed by the police.

Back on topic. If we keep our faith in Stats Canada the general trend (according to them) is crime is on the decline. Their website can be somewhat like traversing a gauntlet.

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/080717/dq080717b-eng.htm

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/85-205-x/85-205-x2003000-eng.pdf

For the second one skip to page eleven to get a better breakdown. It ends in 2003, which there was a slight increase, but since then rates have been steady or on the decline.

[NAB]

Just out of curiousity Steven (and I'm not trying to be a smart a$$), are there seriously no credible Canadian "studies" that apply to our situation?

Nab

[steven lloyd]

Just out of curiousity Steven (and I'm not trying to be a smart a$$), are there seriously no credible Canadian "studies" that apply to our situation? Nab

As I said in one of my posts here I am able to access recent studies through government links at work. I've forwarded a few home with the intent of including them with a post but they won't open up here (which means they won't open up for you). There are a number of very current Canadian studies but perhaps the government doesn't want the general public to know that what they are proposing flies in the face of all available evidence from research.

However, I have also posted links to Canadian research before that did open and could have been reviewed (Bonta, et al). I can tell you that the evidence continues to show the same thing (and is consistent with research from the States and Europe) - that is, "get tough on crime" initiatives in their current form are misguided and ignore the evidence that suggests we are about to waste many hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars in an agenda that will have little effect on reducing crime or recidivism.

Just a FYI, I do believe we need to make changes to the way we do things. I do believe we need to make more effective use of punishment as both a specific and general deterrence. One thing this will require is that punishment is mete out in a more timely fashion (research conditions for punishment to be effective) which will require more resources for a sadly overwhelmed court system (sadly, because that is the outcome of government policy and neglect, and now government wants to spend ten times the amount in counterproductive efforts). I also believe we should abolish conditional sentences (house arrest) as they are being overused and inappropriately used (not as intended). There are many things we could be doing that would actually be more effective and cost us far less than what our government is proposing. Some ideas are alluded to in my posts here. There are other proactive intervention strategies but I will have to present them at another time as I need to get ready for work.

Perhaps this weekend.

[NAB]

I look forward to any Canadian research you can provide, and hope it in turn is not simply based on non-Canadian data regurgitated under different letterhead.

Cheers
Nab

[Lady tehMa]

I'm with QK on this one . . . I gather it has worked rather well in Singapore (as I understand it).

[FreeRights]

Statistics Canada has become an overwhelming embarrassment and failure, largely IMO because, like so many government agencies or taxpayer subsidized organizations (like the CBC), they have become taxpayer funded arms of the political socialist left wing and its whacko too soft on crime ideology. No wonder Canada is being increasingly seen by criminal elements and ne'r do wells from other countries as such a peachy place to set up and do business. All the benefits of close proximity to the US "market" from a safe haven.

Besides, who the heck is Greg Bolton LOL? Just another disgruntled left wing Harper Hater who longs for the good old days at the Liberal pork barrel?

Nab

Do you have to drag this left vs right wing BS into every thread? Because no, it has nothing to do with anything here.

[Bagotricks]

Does the fact the "The Harper Government" is now officially in contempt of parliament bring the national crime rate up?