Lies, damn lies, and statistics (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Yachtie -> Lies, damn lies, and statistics (8/8/2013 7:06:11 AM)

It is entirely possible that any comparison between the US and UK, as to violent death statistics, is highly problematic.

On to the oopsie. I have frequently in this series referred to the English murder rates as historically low and currently very low compared to US murder rates. I blandly accepted the murder statistics published by the UK Home Office as definitive. I overlooked the details of what and how the English counted "murders." It turns out that was a big mistake. (I was first turned onto my error by this post at Extrano's Alley.)

I fell into a definitions trap you may not be aware of. The shortest version is this. We count and report crimes based on initial data. The Brits count and report crimes based on the outcome of the investigation and trial. Yep, that says what I meant it to say.

We're not comparing apples to apples, we're comparing apples to meatloaf.





tazzygirl -> RE: Lies, damn lies, and statistics (8/8/2013 8:45:16 AM)

Many people have been pointing out the differences in reporting for quite some time.



eulero83 -> RE: Lies, damn lies, and statistics (8/8/2013 10:16:09 AM)

FR

this guy made some mistakes in interpretating statistics, or did it on purpose who knows, for example when he says:

quote:

In 2011 329 people died from "assault", 27 by poisoning (not suicide or work related), 361 by strangulation (not suicide), 127 by non-accidental or suicidal drowning, 7 with guns, 2 with explosives, 20 by stabbing, 62 pushed from a high place, 21 run over, and another 198 of "other specified events in various places" .

I make that 1154 violent deaths of interest to the police which would in the US be reported as murders, and that doesn't include every death that might be a murder since the "cause of death" of a murder or manslaughter victim might well be an infection or other medical complication resulting from an injury during a crime or assault


he counts twice some deths for example if a man had been assaulted with a knife and stabbed this is counted both in the assoult and the stabbing records, than infection means poisoning and complication from an injury depends on what was used to injure: if it was a knife it's stabbing, if it was a car is run over, and so on.
For the record if you add poisoning, strangulation, drowning, guns, explosives, stabbing, pushing and running over the total is 627 that if I'm not wrong is exactly the number of murders recorded. This is gambling but I'm quite positive that adding the 329 during assoults, the 198 "other specified events in various places" with the negligent manslaughter statistics we can have the same number.

By the way US murder rate is for non-negligent manslaughter, this means that there must be an investigation before deciding if a manslaughter was negligent or not this means that not even in the USA they report "any body found that doesn't look like sucide" as a murder like this guy says.

anyhow if he did not on purpouse, he is quite dumb.

As someone said it's important also to know how the FBI reports a killing for self defence, because in other countries many of those cases lead to a murder conviction, in italy for example zimmerman would face a sentence that could vary from 6 to 15 years depending on the judge.



VideoAdminChi -> RE: Lies, damn lies, and statistics (8/8/2013 11:32:19 AM)

FR,

Please do not use Zimmerman as an example here as that will cause the thread to derail.



Yachtie -> RE: Lies, damn lies, and statistics (8/8/2013 11:48:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
As someone said it's important also to know how the FBI reports a killing for self defence, because in other countries many of those cases lead to a murder conviction,



Both a killing via self-defense and murder result in the same outcome; death by other than natural or accidental means. Keeping a singular statistic skews the observation but not the statistic itself.

But I have to ask you, how does a killing in self-defense lead to a conviction except for the judge/jury deeming it murder (not self-defense)?



Yachtie -> RE: Lies, damn lies, and statistics (8/8/2013 12:16:35 PM)

Not finding any significant national statistic on deaths via self-defense, I did find this - Florida

Calendar Year Justifiable homicide by civilian Justifiable homicide by police Total

2000 12 20 32
2001 12 21 33
2002 12 23 35
2003 16 16 32
2004 8 23 31
2005 18 25 43
2006 12 21 33
2007 42 60 102
2008 41 52 93
2009 45 60 105
2010 40 56 96
First half of 2011 16 33 49


Florida's homicide rate per 100,000 -

[image]http://extranosalley.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/FLHOM60102-300x232.jpg[/image]

Now, of course one may say that the civilian justifiable raises the rate, but how many of the justifiable might be counted on the other side if not for self-defense? So, it really does not matter whether self-defense is tallied with actual murder as the rate could very easily be no change at all. Statistically, it's most probably a nullity.



mnottertail -> RE: Lies, damn lies, and statistics (8/8/2013 12:16:37 PM)

If I understood the poor quality, reasonably factless, innumerate and unreferenced article, the opposite would be true, right? here it is murder if you are dead however that goes on, there it is not murder if it is self defense.



Yachtie -> RE: Lies, damn lies, and statistics (8/8/2013 12:25:21 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

If I understood the poor quality, reasonably factless, innumerate and unreferenced article, the opposite would be true, right? here it is murder if you are dead however that goes on, there it is not murder if it is self defense.



Legally, yes, you are correct in that "it is not murder if it is self defense".

I can see a good reason for differentiating between them, but right now I cannot find such differentiated statistics.



mnottertail -> RE: Lies, damn lies, and statistics (8/8/2013 12:32:31 PM)

And where would justifiable homicide land in England, in or out of stats?



Moonhead -> RE: Lies, damn lies, and statistics (8/8/2013 12:32:42 PM)

Maybe you should look a bit harder then: five minutes on Google found me various breakdowns of violent crime statistics in the UK, most collated bty the police rather than the judiciary, and including people killed in self defence and untried murders.



Yachtie -> RE: Lies, damn lies, and statistics (8/8/2013 12:40:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

And where would justifiable homicide land in England, in or out of stats?



The article points to -

I've reported these numbers blindly many times, and quoted sources with many (sometimes silly) explanations for the lower murder rate in the UK. There's a problem with that as it turns out. What about all those murders which were not solved? The ones where a conviction wasn't gotten? The ones where the appeals are still on-going? Not only that, but when exactly were these homicides performed? The nice folks at the Home Office tell us:

Homicides are often complex and it can take time for cases to pass through the criminal justice system (CJS). Due to this, the percentage of homicides recorded in 2010/11 (and, to a lesser extent, thoserecorded in earlier years) to have concluded at Crown Court is likely to show an increase when thenext figures from the Homicide Index are published in 12 months‟ time.

But in any event, according to a report to a select committee of Parliment:

Since 1967, homicide figures for England and Wales have been adjusted to exclude any cases which do not result in conviction
(emphasis added)

So, probably out of stats, being, as you said, not murder (no conviction).


edit: The article does qualify a bit -

Note that the numbers provided were for murders "recorded" in 2010/2011, not murders "performed" in 2010/2011. The killing might have happened a decade ago. As a matter of fact, when a serial murderer was found out and convicted of some 172 odd killings over the course of two decades, all his murders got counted onto one year!



mnottertail -> RE: Lies, damn lies, and statistics (8/8/2013 12:49:35 PM)

So, in a case like that where they are lumped into the year of solving, they still are lower per capita than ours.



Yachtie -> RE: Lies, damn lies, and statistics (8/8/2013 12:59:14 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

So, in a case like that where they are lumped into the year of solving, they still are lower per capita than ours.


Possibly, but that's not the thrust of the article. The problem is that people who want to use the statistical differences between the US and UK for reasoning purposes are arguing apples to meatloaf. As the author says,

The murder rate in the UK according to US standards is double or higher than their reported rate. It may be impossible to produce an actual apples to apples comparison number from official sources. It is not 15% of the US rate.



mnottertail -> RE: Lies, damn lies, and statistics (8/8/2013 1:00:46 PM)

So, significantly less, regardless, according to your source, even at the double.

It may be apples to meatloaf, but they have it much much cheaper.



eulero83 -> RE: Lies, damn lies, and statistics (8/8/2013 1:19:50 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: eulero83
As someone said it's important also to know how the FBI reports a killing for self defence, because in other countries many of those cases lead to a murder conviction,



Both a killing via self-defense and murder result in the same outcome; death by other than natural or accidental means. Keeping a singular statistic skews the observation but not the statistic itself.

But I have to ask you, how does a killing in self-defense lead to a conviction except for the judge/jury deeming it murder (not self-defense)?



I knew it would have brought off topic, but maybe it's more interesting than a guy tricking numbers.

I make an exampe with Italy as it's where I know how it works, killing someone with intention is always murder for italian law a trial can decide if that murder is a criminal act or not, outside of your home walls or the walls of your shop if you have one, defence must be compared to offence, and offence must be actual and not just percived, this means that killing someone is never compared to the offence if you don't have proof that without any doubt he's giong to kill you and you have no other way out, in a real situation means never, and it's always a criminal act, but any crime has mitigating circumstance that are defined by the law and give a 1/3 reduction of conviction (for example you have life sentence with three mitigating circumstance the first one brings it to 35 years for definition the 2nd one will reduce it to 23years the 3rd one will reduce it again to 16 years).

I make a practical example: I'm walking through a park in the evening on my way back home, I hear a female voice yelling help and than I see a girl that is being raped, I just can't stand the sight of a rape becaue it's against the moral values I've been thaugt, I push the rapist and tell him to go away he attacks me we fight I have a knife and stab him in the chest he dies, it's morder as I did it with intention and aimed a vital area. I was outside my home so the defence: killing must be compared to offence: physical and sexual injuries, it's not comparable so it is a criminal act and I can't be exonerated, but I acted for high moral values (defending a weaker person from sexual assault), I was pervaded by rage as the sight of a rape was unbearable to me, the act was due to a criminal conduct of the offended as he was raping the girl and assaulted me, I have generic mitigation circumstance as I feared for my safety when attacked, this means I have 4 mitigations and no aggravation if I accept to not challeng witnesses and have a summary judgment (it's the closest thing to pleading guilty) I'll have another 1/3 reduction, the judge now has to decide a gross conviction time that has t be no less than 21 years, if I have a decent lawyer and maybe the girl wrote a statement that i saved her life, cops reported I had been collaborative during arrest and the judge see I'm not a real danger for society it will be 21 years that will get 14y than 10y 4m than 6y than 4y and for the summary judgement 2 y 8m now it sucks a lot because for a first conviction shorter than 2 years it can be suspended.
By the way in this example it's been considered that I was acting for self defence but this lead just to a reduction and not a exoneration.



eulero83 -> RE: Lies, damn lies, and statistics (8/8/2013 1:52:31 PM)

FR

I'll speek more frankly, the article in the OP is pure sofism, he just tells that in UK if what thought to be a murder turns out after investigations or trial to be an accidental death before october than it's taken away by that year statistic. As reported here in 2011 out of 648 initially reported murders 12 were no longer considered as such after further investigation so the number used in the UK was 636 and the one that he says (without giving any official source) in the USA would have been 648, than he manipulates the number to make it look as the difference is bigger but as I wrote before you can't just add the number of homicides during assault with the number of homicides by stabbing because if the murderer assaulted the victim with a knife the same homicide would be counted twice!!!!!!
So the rate with the same standards could be 1.17 instead of 1.15 and not double or more!!!!



DomKen -> RE: Lies, damn lies, and statistics (8/8/2013 2:09:31 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Yachtie


quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

So, in a case like that where they are lumped into the year of solving, they still are lower per capita than ours.


Possibly, but that's not the thrust of the article. The problem is that people who want to use the statistical differences between the US and UK for reasoning purposes are arguing apples to meatloaf. As the author says,

The murder rate in the UK according to US standards is double or higher than their reported rate. It may be impossible to produce an actual apples to apples comparison number from official sources. It is not 15% of the US rate.

Even if this guys numbers are right, and that is an arguable point, then the homicide rate in the UK is 45% of the US rate at most. Still a pretty significant difference.



Real0ne -> RE: Lies, damn lies, and statistics (8/8/2013 2:32:36 PM)

if it were the case and IF homocide were the only issue.

now lets look at second offenders! LOL



mnottertail -> RE: Lies, damn lies, and statistics (8/8/2013 2:41:08 PM)

OK, you got numbers from some credible site, that mean shit? I doubt it.



Yachtie -> RE: Lies, damn lies, and statistics (8/8/2013 3:01:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Even if this guys numbers are right, and that is an arguable point, then the homicide rate in the UK is 45% of the US rate at most. Still a pretty significant difference.


Fine, but the issue is the ability to accurately use statistics in support of one's position. 45% is not 15% no matter how one slices it. And if that is not important unto itself, why bother with statistics at all?



Page: [1] 2 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875