"a bit of a joke"

The execrable Jeffrey Simpson demonstrates again why his paper is the worst in Canada:

Similarly, the ending of “faint hope” clause appeals for murderers and the like is eyewash, since only a handful of such appeals are made every year, and they are invariably turned down.

It's astounding to see a single sentence be so wrong from start to finish.  The "faint hope" clause is Section 745.6 of the Criminal Code of Canada.  It does not apply to "murderers and the like" - it only applies to murderers (well, and those convicted of high treason - of which there have been, so far as I know, two in Canadian history).  The notion that "faint hope" clause appeals are "invariably turned down" is further evidence that Simpson is either a liar, incapable of performing simple mathematical operations or singularly uninformed on the topic about which he is writing.  National Parole Board statistics (see the answer to item 15 here) show that, as of April 30, 2009, of the 174 applications made for "faint hope" early release, early parole was granted in 131 cases.  That's a seventy-five percent (75%) success rate.  How Simpson (and his editors) manage to translate that into such applications being "invariably turned down" is testament to the raw stupidity which informs so much op-ed writing.  Simpson also manages to avoid engaging the question of why the families of murder victims should be put through the agony of the "faint hope" process despite the fact that the criminal has already been convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.  But such ripples on the pond of serenity don't much trouble the Olympian heights (or is it Stygian depths?) of the scribes at the Globe and Mail.

Most brilliant of all, though, is Simpson's dismissal of proposals like the Conservative's recently announced crime policies because "[a]s almost every criminologist in Canada would attest, the Conservatives' crime policies are mostly illusory".  In other words, bereft of any actual arguments that he himself could wield, Simpson relies on the authority of the technocrats who are in large part responsible for the trend of our violent crime rate looking like this:

Comments

[dcardno]

Just to beat Self-Loather to it, don't you realize that since ~1992 our crime policies are actually working [/sarc]

[Self-Loather]

Dcardno, my heart has been full of emptiness without you. The days without your joyous words, your insight, your wisdom, drag on like an endless torture.

So, violent crime is trending down. But not as low as they were since 1962. Guess it's too early for me to stop wearing to flap-jacket to work?

Incidentally, has anyone done an analysis of the number of factual mistakes in the National Post?

I'm also going to guess there's a reason why criminal justice policy isn't solely allowed to be created by angry victims relatives.

[Bob Tarantino]

Incidentally, has anyone done an analysis of the number of factual mistakes in the National Post?

No, but since they deign to occasionally publish my stuff, they are the greatest newspaper in the country. Actually, now that I think about it, that might make them the greatest newspaper in the world... ;p

[Self-Loather]

"No, but since they deign to occasionally publish my stuff, they are the greatest newspaper in the country. Actually, now that I think about it, that might make them the greatest newspaper in the world... ;p"

I stand before you, humbled by your logic...

I note that violent crime statistics in the US trend approximately the same as they do in Canada. I was a bit surprised to see that violent crime in the US is lower than Canada, but apparently they count their statistics a little bit differently (we include more categories of assault than they do). That said, the trendline is about the same in the two countries - though the US has a considerably higher homicide rate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

I always knew Philadelphia was badass but that is ridiculous.

[Suse]

Yes you might be able to say that the Post has too many typos found throughout the paper self loather, but at least the Post offers up writers who are thinkers and doers of many persuasions. The Globe all too regularly regurgitates predictable pablum to a readership that has come to expect little more.

[Self-Loather]

The Post, once upon a time, at least had talented writers, even if the editorial bent was slightly left of Pinochet. As for mistakes, I can recall off the top of my head, stuff at least as ridiculous as Simpson's laziness. My favourite the one about Iran forcing Jews to wear Stars of David all the time.

[Joel Kropf]

Bob, might this be a good occasion for a letter to the editor, as well as a blog posting?

[Mike H]

"So, violent crime is trending down. But not as low as they were since 1962. Guess it's too early for me to stop wearing to flap-jacket to work?"

"Flap-jacket?" One of your best yet, Dyslexia-Boy. I'll bet you get lots of funny looks when you walk to work in your "flap-jacket," you buffoon...

http://www.countryinthecity.net/flap_jacket.htm

And no, our current rate of violent crime is "not as low" as it was in 1962. That would be because it's nearly five times as high as it was in 1962. Your dishonesty is as transparent as it is pathetic.

"Incidentally, has anyone done an analysis of the number of factual mistakes in the National Post?"

Why don't you undertake that project for us, Loather? It shouldn't take you very long. Once you're done, we'll sic you on The Star, a project that, unfortunately for you, but fortunately for us, will tie up every waking moment you have, for the rest of your life.

[Self-Loather]

"And no, our current rate of violent crime is "not as low" as it was in 1962. That would be because it's nearly five times as high as it was in 1962. Your dishonesty is as transparent as it is pathetic."

Here is what I said...

"So, violent crime is trending down. But not as low as they were since 1962"

I just said that violent crime is not as low is it is in the 1960s. How is that dishonest?

[Self-Loather]

"Bob, might this be a good occasion for a letter to the editor, as well as a blog posting?"

Forget it, anything for an article more than a day old at the G&M gets put in the circulatory file.

[Mike H]

"I just said that violent crime is not as low is it is in the 1960s. How is that dishonest?"

You know exactly why it's dishonest. "Not as low," implies the difference isn't dramatic. You are engaging in dishonest equivocation. When comparing violent crime rates, there is a huge difference between the 60s and today.

[Self-Loather]

"You know exactly why it's dishonest. "Not as low," implies the difference isn't dramatic. You are engaging in dishonest equivocation. When comparing violent crime rates, there is a huge difference between the 60s and today. "

Not as low, implies that the statistic isn't as low, which it isn't.

[Mike H]

You don't have an honest bone in your body, do you?

To paraphrase your own words, violent crime has to "trend down" by nearly 500% to be "as low" as it was in the 1960s, but you don't think you're being dishonest.

As I've said before, Loather, you put Baghdad Bob to shame...

[Self-Loather]

"To paraphrase your own words, violent crime has to "trend down" by nearly 500% to be "as low" as it was in the 1960s, but you don't think you're being dishonest.

As I've said before, Loather, you put Baghdad Bob to shame..."

You're a liar, and a lunatic.

[Mike H]

A little testy, are we? Is your flap-jacket on a little too tight there, big guy?

For the record, I'm neither. However, since the accusations are coming from you, I'll take them as a form of flattery. From time to time, I harbour doubts over my continuing ability to piss off goofs such as yourself. It's extremely gratifying to know that I've still got it. Thanks for the reassurance, Much-Loathed.

[dcardno]

You're a liar, and a lunatic.
No, I think Mike's point was that "Not as low as..." is a (pretty damned transparent) attempt to spin a current crime rate that is ~5x the value of the comparator: technically true - perhaps: honest - not on your life. At the very worst, Mike is neither a liar nor a lunatic, but aggressive in routing out spin and misdirection; at the least he is honest and you are an incompetent spinner (which is sort of what we call a liar in polite society). Your professed failure to understand this is evidence either that you are smart like a rock or a deliberate dissembler - take your pick.

Dcardno, my heart has been full of emptiness without you...
Yeah - I feel the love.

[Self-Loather]

"Your professed failure to understand this is evidence either that you are smart like a rock or a deliberate dissembler - take your pick."

What a load of shit.

[Mike H]

"Load of shit?"

I can't remember the last time when one of dcardno's assessments didn't accurately fit your commentary. Often, you manage both in the same thread.