it was also 2015. they dont have the 2016 numbers yet.

there has been talk about denmark being bad a getting convictions in rape cases but i guess it's mostly in he said/she said situations. and theyve changed the way they register potential crimes in the last few years which explains why we're seeing more reports but convictions have remained roughly the same

There definitely seems to be some lag in these numbers, it takes time for perpetrators to get caught and convicted. Compare to reported rapes which are increasing while those numbers you quoted are decreasing. I assume if someone gets convicted in 2017 for a crime they committed in 2016, it will later listed as a 2016 stat.


2011: 392
2012: 364
2013: 339
2014: 365
2015: 419
2016: 744

Criminals are among the people refugees seek shelter from.

Fredrik Morenius has posted a lot of stats on immigration, he just links to Denmark statistiks database as a reference.

Google translated articles of his below. Feel free to rip it apart if anything is clearly false.

https://translate.google.com/transla...s/&prev=search

i think the main difference is the same person can get a multiple charges and convictions

here are reported rapes, charges and convictions respectively (last one only until 2015)

and here are the number of people (total, non-western immigrants, and descendents of non-western immigrants) convicted of all sex crimes and specifically of rape over the years

Alright, so now all we need is the percentage of non western immigrants compared to the total population from 2000-2015 and we can finally check the validity of the chart we were arguing about.

Page 12-13 fig 1.1 http://www.dst.dk/Site/Dst/Udgivelse...4&sid=indv2016

increases from 250k to about 300k in that timeframe.

Total population roughly 5.5 million.



2010: expected ratio 250k/5.5M =4.5% , actual ratio (19+5)/55 = 43% overrepresentation 43/4.5 = 9.5x

2012: 275k/5.5M= 5%, (14+1)/59 = 25% = 5x

2014 300k/5.5M= 5.5%, (12+5)/36= 47% = 8.5x

Chart seems to be roughly correct.

My bold numbering added above.

(1) I think Marn's cited graph is age adjusted only, but not economic or other status adjusted, but I'm not sure. I'm still digging.

(2) That is just your guess.

(3) This is the same argument that badwookie is making. I hear you, but at what number do you change your view, if any?

I'm trying to understand the stats still, including the other graph that Marn cited in the locked thread.

Let's just take one country as an example. The above chart says there were 9 people convicted of rape in Denmark with a country of origin of Turkey during the period from 2010 to 2014. Wikipedia says there are 20.2k Turkish immigrants in Denmark and 8600 others of Turkish descent. (So, 20.2k immigrants or 28,892 total.)

Assuming the 9 rape convictions number would include anyone also of Turkish descent, and not just immigrants (not sure), and assuming a constant Turkish population, with 5 years represented, we divide by 5 to get a per year number, that would give 9/(5*20.2k) = 0.0000623 rape convictions per Turkish person per year. Multiply this by 100k to get the stat normally discussed, we get 6.23 rape convictions per 100k people per year. Now compare that to the non-immigrant Danish number, around 0.7 (did I get that from daca's stats). We need to age adjust and econ-status adjust?

Then, the argument goes, I gather, if there are 28,892 Turks in Denmark, and only 9 of them were convicted for a ratio of 6.23 per 100k per year, that implies (assuming present population will be similar to future immigrants) that for actual immigration seekers, for every 6 rapists (rounding to nearest whole person) there will be 99,994 innocent people. If you have 16,000 immigration seekers, you expect 1 of them to be convicted of rape per year, and 15,999 of them not to be convicted. Why punish the whole Turkish immigration seeking population because of that one?

But we also have to adjust for what time period is relevant (I know this applies equally to the comparison to the Danish population). We don't only care about this year, any rape in the future is a bad thing. We should then consider a longer period, say 10 or 20 (or more) years. So, of those 16000 immigration seekers, now it is 10 or 20 (I'll stop there and take the number, 20, since there is some limit on rape age of the perpetrator) out of the 16000 that statistically are expected to be convicted of rape during their lifetimes.

So the argument still goes, don't punish 15,980 innocent people because an unknown 20 of them statistically are expected to be rapists? I understand this argument, and I'm not even sure which side I come down on. If you condemn my view/uncertainty, then I ask again, at what number would you change your mind?

Note, these are convictions, not counting unreported or charges dropped.

Plus, should we look at other crimes?

Mostly, I want to have the discussion. I hear Marn saying the Swedish government is suppressing this data. What about Germany and the U.K.? Elsewhere? Hiding the data is absurd.

1. most of what is in the danmarks statistik publication (the pdf linked earlier) is aged adjusted. nothing you got from raw data or any other source is (that includes all the rape stuff). and nobody does those adjustments on their own.

2. yeah but it's probably true

daca, so would you change your view at any number?

I picked Turkey and calculated a 6.2 conviction/100k/year, compared to Danish background of 0.7 convictions/100k/year. (I gather from your last post those are not age adjusted).

We could do the math for each country of origin. At what number would you say, ok, no more immigrants from that country until things change?

It depends what you mean. Sure the total numbers are low, but if you are saying that we cannot draw statistically meaningful conclusions, I would disagree.

9 convictions out of ~20k people in five years for Turkey (for example) is enough to draw conclusions.

9 data points out of 20k to give a 6.2/100k/year number compared to 35 out of ~5M persons of Danish background to give a 0.7/100k/year number is enough to make a statistically meaningful comparison.

I still think we need age adjusting, and don't yet understand what that would produce.

The chart we were arguing about does not adjust for anything, not even age, it is just based on raw numbers.

Pokerodox, I do agree that the numbers are statistically significant especially when viewing them over multiple years, the ratios will fluctuate a lot, but the clear over representation is not in any way in question. I just meant that in the grand scheme of things such low numbers for rape may not be so impactful and perhaps concentrating on overall violent crime statistics would be more fruitful.

Anyhow, we need to view these statistics in context of the Swedish government making press releases like the below quoted text, all the while denying us raw data by nationality and ethnicity. How is this anything other than intentionally misleading in light of actual statistics of our own studies from 1999 and 2005 together with those of our neighboring countries?

In the bolded text below they are referring to a fringe study which goes against other national studies including our own from 1999 and 2005. The authors of that study are well knows asylum activists.
They lecture us about immigration and crime while withholding the data from us, the Swedish people are beginning to see though their BS.

They are cherry picking the stats they mention and neglecting facts that paint a negative view of the effects of our immigration policies. This is not government transparency, it is propaganda.

http://www.government.se/articles/20...ime-in-sweden/

Can someone google <sniped> for me ?

Get back to us on that....especially you chez

Getting back to you. If you think we will delete the results if you post them, then dont tell people to get the results for themselves. FYI I just saw links to sites like the Daily Mail, Sputnik international, The Daily Caller and Breitbart.

Dude what is wrong with Daily Caller and Daily mail?

Other than they are conservative sites



Sputnik thing I have no clue

War crimes and persecution (being treated falsely as criminals) are two motives which drive people to seek refuge.

The Daily Mail is a right wing campaigning 'newspaper' that cannot be trusted to be accurate.

Hope this helps.

https://twitter.com/BrennanCenter/st...74969527877632

The Daily Mail is a good source for the sort of dubious and/or nonPC anecdote that isn't acceptable here. The others look as bad or worse.

https://twitter.com/saladinahmed/sta...94299603582980

https://twitter.com/saladinahmed/sta...95040317730818

The daily mail has a reputation for printing absolute ****e for lack of a better phrase, its not just that its right wing. I often see non Brittish people using it as a source but over here it is not a very credible paper.

Mind you In the 90's and early 2000s Fox news and the Daily Mail were renounded mouth pieces for the right and where very loose with the truth but I think the credibility gap between them and the rest of the mainstream media is significantly less than it was back then.

France says hallo.

Anders Breivik says hello.

How about the Madrid train bombings, the London bus bombings, Bataclan, the Belgium airport bombing, the Nice truck attack, the German christmas market truck attack and the Charlie Hebdo massacre, I am no doubt forgetting tons of stuff.
Pretending that there is anything remotely close in scope to islamic terrorism at this point in time is just dishonesty.

Tim Pool makes a good summary of the situation in Sweden.

I would say this is one issue where articles from the National review and other respectable right wing American media are in general are a lot closer to the truth than other US mainstream media. I can't blame them for getting it so wrong though, they simply make the mistake of trusting the Swedish establishment.

Our mainstream media and the official narrative from our government can not be trusted on issues of immigration, this is true for both the criminal and economic aspects of it.

Maybe when we get to a statistically significant difference we can make this determination.


I'm trying to understand the stats still, including the other graph that Marn cited in the locked thread.

Denmark is notorious for not prosecuting rapes (Amnesty International had a report on this) so the disparity in rates could be because Danish authorities are more interested in prosecuting immigrant rape than native Danish rape. It would be interesting to see immigrant rape accusations vs. native Danish accusations.

Also, you need to look at victimization as well. Who are these immigrants raping? Other immigrants? Then it doesn't really matter from a Danish perspective. In fact, if that is the case you should import as many immigrants as possible as you are preventing many rapes that would occur in the countries of origin.