dust

By the Numbers

Recommended Posts

I'd like to discuss things by using facts and figures. I'd like to learn more and 'improve' my perspective by limiting discussion to hard info.

 

There are a lot of potential topics, but to start with there are some things I'd like to clear up, or try to, about the UK. I'll start that off in the next post.

 

First, there are 3 rules:

 

1. Topic of conversation can change, but change must be 'organic' -- sudden topic changes, non sequiturs, etc, are prohibited. Reply to a previous post, and if the topic changes naturally that's OK.

 

2. Try to forget what you think you know or believe. In fact, try to either (a) simply lay out the facts/figures and reserve judgement or ( B) argue against what you currently believe.

 

3. Most importantly, do not post an argument without relying on (and citing) actual data. By this I mean not 'facts' from some anonymous blog, or unsourced numbers plucked from Wikipedia, but data from organizations such as national government, UN, WHO; from major surveys; from peer-reviewed journal articles; etc. We should be looking at a lot of spreadsheets, graphs, studies, and other boring shit.

 

Basically, if you want to argue a point but you can't find hard numbers or similar verifiable information to back up a claim, stay away from that 'Reply' button. We are, of course, entitled to opinions on the data, and to discuss the veracity of claims etc, but there is a point at which individual opinion ('I like the colour blue') becomes biased nonsense ('black people are violent') -- this is what we want to avoid.

Edited by dustybeijing
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For this post, 3 graphs. Figures taken from ONS and gov.uk.

 

For now, I’m not really attempting to make a case for anything in particular, only laying out some numbers that I think are quite interesting and hoping to discover something.

 

 

uk_prisonpop_byoffence_2002_2014_by_dust

 

 

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/339036/prison-population-2014.xls -- table A1.4

 

 

 

uk_netmigration_2002_2014_by_dustybeijin

 

 

http://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/populationandmigration/internationalmigration/bulletins/migrationstatisticsquarterlyreport/november2015/7c5fa944.xls

 

 

 

englandwales_change_religion_2001_2011_b

 

 

http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/culturalidentity/religion/articles/religioninenglandandwales2011/2012-12-11#toc

 

 

 

 

We can see that prison populations for the crimes of 'violence against the person' and 'sexual offences' have risen fairly dramatically in the last decade or so, while most others have fallen or remained pretty even.

 

Most remarkably, the 'sexual offence' prison population has more than doubled since 2002. In this figure is included 'rape', 'gross indecency with children', and 'other sexual offences', though I have removed figures for 'buggery and indecency between males' (I’m not sure why there are still people in prison for this..?).

 

A few reasons for the rise in these prison populations must surely, among other things, be an increased willingness to report sexual offences, better investigation and detection techniques, and an increase in the overall UK population. However, as other criminal populations are either falling or remaining fairly even when rape and other violent crime is increasing, must we not acknowledge that the rate of rape, murder, and other such violent crimes is indeed increasing both actually and relatively?

 

 

The next graph shows immigration for the same years. There is an increase, but it's obviously nothing close to being double. (The dotted line is a logarithmic trendline.) Census figures show that the foreign-born population of the UK as a percentage of the population was 8.3 in 2001 and 11.9 in 2011 (http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20160105160709/http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_346219.pdf) -- a greater increase than in previous decades, but still not monumental. The foreign-born populations of the USA, Canada, Australia, etc, are much higher.

 

The prison population as a percentage of the population rose from 0.09% in 2002 to 0.1% in 2013 (57,272 prisoners to 70,781 prisoners). This increase in prison population is not small, but taken as a percentage of the population it becomes less noteworthy.

 

 

The last graph shows how the religious demographic changed from 2001 to 2011. We see an increase in Islam and other religions, but these are thoroughly outsized by the decrease in Christianity and the corresponding increase in non-religious folk. Other research (https://humanism.org.uk/campaigns/religion-and-belief-some-surveys-and-statistics/) from 2011 says that less than half of those calling themselves Christian believed in the Christ of the NT, the son of God etc. Only 9% of people reported having been to a place of worship in the last week. In 2015, Brits claiming they had no religion was 42%.

 

 

The most significant changes in the above figures are, then, a massive increase in rape and other violent crime and an equally massive increase in a lack of faith and worship.

 

I'm not saying that this simpleton’s attempt at graph-making and number-analysis is of any real consequence, but if we were to suggest that any of these numbers were related, or if we really wanted to find connections between religion and violence (whether or not the two are truly closely related), we'd have to admit that a decrease in Christianity, more than anything else, would correspond with our apparent increased tendency to hurt each other. We certainly could not make it all about Islam.

 

We also have figures (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/324097/number-males-rape-muslim.doc) showing that ~5% of the UK population is Muslim whereas ~12% of the prison sexual offender population is Muslim. We must note that this only accounts for those for whom the sexual offence was the primary charge – so it’s not counting murderers who are also rapists, for example. Either way, the proportion of Muslims in the prison sex offender population appears to be more than double that of Muslims in the UK population. I’d like to find figures for the other religious affiliations and compare, but this fact seems somewhat concerning. Put simply: it does appear to say that Muslims are more likely to commit sex offences than the average person. Regardless of proportion, though, these few hundred Muslims in prison for sexual offences do not account for the (more than) doubling of sex offenders in prison overall since 2002.

 

 

I'd also like to look at info for porn, as it seems likely to me that the huge increase (that we're all well aware of..!) in internet porn in the last two decades could be far more relevant than changes in religion…

Edited by dustybeijing
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My unsourced opinion is that in the West we have high degree of sexual equality. In the countries where Islam originates, it is not to the same degree as in this country. When there is a lower degree of sexual equality, it is not always necessarily due to the religion of that country, more the background and history of the whole culture that has developed over hundreds of years.

 

When I say that a Muslim has arrived on the shore, I've already started to label him by his religion and have started to define him by it. If, instead, I quote another aspect of his 'identity' such as his financial worth, how much money he has in his bank balance, then I could go in a different direction.

 

Imagine the graphs showing the crimes a prisoner committed compared to their average annual salary? What would that tell me? Could it help break through other labels?

Edited by Miffymog

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Miffymog.

 

First paragraph: you could fairly easily find data about sexual equality and religion among nations. Why post unsourced opinion where there is data available?

 

Second paragraph: you could surely find info regarding average earnings for immigrants, or even Muslims specifically. You instead imply that such factors have an effect on behaviour without backing it up. I'd imagine that it's easy to back up, so why not do it?

 

Third paragraph: the thing to do would be to find data about crime vs salary, if available.

 

It's not that hard. I didn't expect any participation, to be honest, because it takes actual time and energy to look at real data and think about it critically, and most people -- not just on this forum, but everywhere -- are basically incapable of doing that. But for all the time and energy needed, it's not actually difficult.

Edited by dustybeijing
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I liked your idea, anyway, so here's something.

 

Data taken from http://www.pewforum.org/2012/12/18/table-religious-composition-by-country-in-numbers/

and http://reports.weforum.org/global-gender-gap-report-2015/rankings/

(with countries not included on the gender gap report removed also from the religion table)

 

rvsepp_by_dustybeijing-da7dmeq.png

 

These show gender gap ranking along the x-axis and religion as % of population along the y. Figures are taken from different places and different years, so on the whole the percentages are not very accurate -- you'll see that some go over 100%! -- but they should be accurate enough to see a pattern if there is one.

 

There seems to me to be at least some correlation between gender equality and majority religion. Not really cut-and-dry, but it's there. Christianity is much more evenly spread, but Islam takes most of the bottom spots.

 

Cultural development over the centuries would be nearly impossible to put onto a graph, but we could look at economic status (and implied technological advancement). Some of the countries in the top 30 ranking for gender equality are Rwanda, Philippines, Namibia, Burundi, and Mozambique -- none of which are famous for being wealthy or technologically advanced, but in all of which there is apparently better gender equality than in the USA, Canada, Luxembourg, Australia, Israel, Singapore....

 

So I'm not convinced that there is an obvious link between wealth / development and gender equality either...

Edited by dust
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Cultural development over the centuries would be nearly impossible to put onto a graph, but we could look at economic status (and implied technological advancement). Some of the countries in the top 30 ranking for gender equality are Rwanda, Philippines, Namibia, Burundi, and Mozambique -- none of which are famous for being wealthy or technologically advanced, but in all of which there is apparently better gender equality than in the USA, Canada, Luxembourg, Australia, Israel, Singapore....

 

So I'm not convinced that there is an obvious link between wealth / development and gender equality either...

 

 

Fair point - I'm learning lots today!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

. Regardless of proportion, though, these few hundred Muslims in prison for sexual offences do not account for the (more than) doubling of sex offenders in prison overall since 2002.

They would have accounted for it but the  sex crimes by muslims are covered up

 

In September 2012, investigations by The Times based on confidential police and social services documents, found that abuse had been much more widespread than acknowledged.[22][23] It uncovered systematic abuse of white girls by some Asian men (mostly of Pakistani origin)[24] in Rotherham for which people were not being prosecuted.[25][26]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

 

while the whites are framed and prosecuted illegally 

 

Julian Assange 'rape victim' criticises UN decision over detention ...

www.independent.co.uk › News › People
6 февр. 2016 г. - Julian Assange's alleged rape victim has called for him to “take responsibility”, as she criticized the UN for ruling he has been illegally detained.
Edited by Taoist Texts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been late in responding to a comment in the '2016 us election' thread before it was locked, and the Bum in question wasn't interested in continuing the discussion anyway, which is fair enough. But I'd be interested in responses to the information I posted, and this thread seems like a good place for it.

 

Anyway.. the discussion regards immigration and crime. It was asserted that illegal immigration is a source of crime

-- fair enough, it surely is, unless no immigrants ever commit crimes! and illegal immigration is itself a crime so by default they're all criminals --

but the implication seemed to be that illegal immigration is a major source of antisocial crime, and that people who don't live around immigrants are sheltered from all the criminal behaviour. It was suggested that those who live in areas of high illegal immigration have a different perspective on the issue -- which is surely true -- but it is unclear what this perspective is.

 

So..

 

http://www.wsj.com/a...rime-1436916798

 

"numerous studies going back more than a century have shown that immigrants—regardless of nationality or legal status—are less likely than the native population to commit violent crimes or to be incarcerated. A new report from the Immigration Policy Center notes that while the illegal immigrant population in the U.S. more than tripled between 1990 and 2013 to more than 11.2 million, “FBI data indicate that the violent crime rate declined 48%—which included falling rates of aggravated assault, robbery, rape, and murder.""

 

(emphasis is mine)

 

and to quote directly from the report quoted in the WSJ:

 

https://www.american...n-united-states

 

"For more than a century, innumerable studies have confirmed two simple yet powerful truths about the relationship between immigration and crime: immigrants are less likely to commit serious crimes or be behind bars than the native-born, and high rates of immigration are associated with lower rates of violent crime and property crime. This holds true for both legal immigrants and the unauthorized, regardless of their country of origin or level of education. In other words, the overwhelming majority of immigrants are not “criminals” by any commonly accepted definition of the term. For this reason, harsh immigration policies are not effective in fighting crime."

 

 

And some info to suggest opinions from those who are more likely to live with illegal immigration:

 

http://www.migrationpolicy.org/programs/data-hub/charts/us-immigrant-population-state-and-county

 

This map shows California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois as the states with the highest immigration levels (including illegals)

 

http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president

 

This map shows states as they voted for Trump (vocally anti-immigration) or Clinton (much more sympathetic). Note that of the 5 states with the highest proportion of immigrants, 3 voted for Clinton.

 

 

This is by no means thorough, but as a starting point.. well, has anyone got contradictory information? Evidence that areas with high levels of (illegal) immigrants are actually blighted with crime? Evidence that rises in immigration contribute to more crime rather than less? Direct evidence, rather than hearsay, that those who live around immigrants are less happy or successful?

 

Cheers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evidence from UK:

 

http://www.migrationobservatory.ox.ac.uk/resources/briefings/immigration-and-crime-evidence-for-the-uk-and-other-countries/

 

"The research showed that it is possible to derive causal estimates for both migrant groups and found that the share of asylum seekers in the local population was related to a rise in property crime, while a rise in A8 migrants was associated with a fall in property crime. Neither group was associated with statistically significant changes in violent crime. Estimates suggest that a one percentage point increase in the asylum seeker share of the local population is associated with a 1.1% rise in property crime. Since asylum seekers accounted for only around 0.1% of the population, the macro effects were small. A one percentage point increase in the share of the population that was born in the A8 countries leads to 0.4% fall in property crime.

 

Bell et al. (2013) suggest that the estimated effects for asylum seekers and A8 migrants may be the result of differences in the labour market opportunities of the two groups. The A8 migrants who arrived in the UK came almost entirely for work reasons and have higher employment rates than the UK-born. The motivation of asylum seekers was different, and they are not allowed to work in the UK upon arrival and also have reduced access to welfare benefits. Given the lengthy process involved in deciding asylum applications, this restriction is likely to have increased the relative returns to crime."

 

 

Evidence from Switzerland:

 

In Switzerland, 3/4 of the prison population is foreign-born.

 

http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/three-out-of-four-swiss-prisoners-are-foreign/5293728

 

"Researchers at Bern University concluded that foreigners are seen as "flight risks" by authorities and are therefore more likely to be sent to prison than local criminals.

...

Swiss prisoners on the other hand are increasingly serving their sentences in open prisons or are given alternative forms of punishment."

 

So, that explains that.

 

 

Evidence from France:

 

http://wrap.warwick.ac.uk/17274/

 

"the share of immigrants in the population has no significant impact on crime rates once immigrants' economic circumstances are controlled for"

 

 

 

The more I look at it, the more it seems that whilst there is a small but statistically significant correlation between asylum seekers or illegal immigrants -- those who are less likely to be working straight away -- and property crime, there is no evidence anywhere of a correlation between immigration of any kind and violent crime.

Edited by dust

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites