Quote:
Originally Posted by lio45
This is a gross mischaracterisation of my position, which as I clearly explained more than once is that it's possible for data to be skewed or flawed, so it's usually worth it to use one's head rather than always accept all data as some kind of sacred truth.
|
I agree that critical thinking is essential. But in order to be critical, you should have well-founded reasons to be skeptical and not just a convenient "gut feeling". You can't be critical of data, but not critical of your own assumptions or anecdotes. It isn't a one-way street.
So if you think that crime statistics may be tainted by underreporting, show me some hard facts about underreporting and how often it happens. It's that simple.
Anyways,
here's something interesting:
Two robust patterns emerge. first, new immigrants do not have a significant impact on the property crime rate, but with time spent in Canada, a 10% increase in the recent-immigrant share or established-immigrant share decreases the property crime rate by 2% to 3%. Neither underreporting to police nor the dilution of the criminal pool by the addition of law-abiding immigrants can fully explain the size of the estimates. This suggests that immigration has a spillover effect, such as changing neighbourhood characteristics, which reduces crime rates in the long run.
From page 23, which addresses underreporting:
Studies have found that cultural background affects an individual’s preferences, behaviour, and economic outcomes. In the context of this paper, cultural background might play a role in an individual’s willingness to contact authorities when a crime occurs.
[...]
Therefore, although there exists a significant difference between immigrants and natives in terms of the frequency of contacting police, the crime reduction effect of immigrants cannot be attributed to the underreporting behaviour.