3 ms·
That assumes a constant relationship between reported crime and actual crime. I don't think that's a safe assumption to make. For instance it may be that as pro
by magila 5y ago
That assumes a constant relationship between reported crime and actual crime. I don't think that's a safe assumption to make. For instance it may be that as property crime becomes more prevalent so does public awareness of the futility of filing a report for it. This would lead to a decrease in the ratio of reported crime to actual crime.
- humaniania 5y agoSo instead of using the actual data that's available we should make up whatever bias we want that fits our existing world view? Even with no evidence to support it other than conjecture?
- barry-cotter 5y agoYes. You should have an opinion on an organisation's probity based on what you know about it. If you don't have data on a specfic organsiation's track record you default to the reference class. If you see something like SF, where records suggest crime in all areas bar murder is falling, but retailers are shutting stores, boarding up windows and putting razor blades behind the counter you just don't trust the figures. When you know the data is bullshit and lies you say so.
- dv_dt 5y agoYou need other data to prove those biases, otherwise you're making unfounded hypothesis.