Quote:
Originally Posted by daca
(1) by far the biggest factor is the age adjustment btw. both immigrants and especially descendents of immigrants skew far younger than people of danish origin and 70 year olds just dont commit crimes.
(2) my best guess is chart is roughly accurate before those adjustments, but would look like the ordinary violent crime figures after them.
it's also worth keeping in mind that 12 immigrants and 4 descendents of non-western immigrants were convicted of rape in denmark last year. (3) if those 16 people are why youre considering making life worse for entire population groups then youre the villain imo.
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.