Gangs in Canada Essay Example | Topics and Well Written Essays - 1000 words

Gangs in Canada - Essay ExampleFurther, Carrington presents an analysis of data that suggests that gang community and indeed, group participation in offense if relatively low in Canada. One of the critiques that will be raised in relation to Carringtons argument, is that he does non take into consideration the relatively low amount of gun offence in Canada. Therefore, the hypothesis that will be pursued, will ask, is there a correlation or causative relationship between (a) strict gun laws and little gun manufacturing, (b) a low incidence of unwarranted gun annoyance, and finally, (c) the relatively low-incidence of gang execration in Canada? Carrington establishes a number of important conclusions in his resume titled Group umbrage in Canada (2002), is that relative to the past and relative to other geographical locations, gang-related crime is low in Canada. Before addressing how he approaches the causes of gang and group crime, some remarks on the methodology and data us ed by Carrington. One of the more important methodological concerns, regards where the data comes from that leads Carrington to the conclusions that he makes. The data collecting for Carringtons analysis, comes from the UCR2 data- posit which is compiled by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics Carrington, 2002. ... Carrington points out that the total amount of possible crimes that his sample set covers, is actually totally 14 percent Carrington, 2002 of the total crimes. Further, and as he notes in the end-notes, the sample is of course, only the crimes for which an allegation or a conviction was made Carrington, 2002. In other words, he is acknowledging there is a limitation with regard to focusing only on convictions, and therefore, also includes allegations, the author is acknowledging that this is not capturing the entire picture. Unquestionably, the crime that goes undetected is not captured in Carringtons data, and this is one of the problems that he openly acknowledg es. Further, Carrington also points out that there is a limitation because the data only amounts to 14 percent of the total crimes that have occurred between 1992 and 1999. Among the 21 categories of crime that Carrington presents, he points out that 24 percent of offenders in the present sample offended with identified accomplices Carrington, 2002. Further, this is not only a low number in contrast to the total amount of data self-collected in the 21 categories of crime, it is also a number that is low in relation to past statistics plainly also very different across geographical divides. The general areas examined, include Gender, Age, type of Crime, which includes how serious Carrington, 2002 , and finally, the arcdegree of harm Carrington, 2002 caused by the crime. As Carrington points out, the degree of harm is actually the determining factor for how serious the crime is. Which is why it is being mentioned here as a sub-group or sub-category of information that is presented by Carrington. As mentioned in the introduction, one of the short-comings of Carringtons