Gang Behaviour in Canada - Essay Example

? A common methodological problem in social research, is mistaking 'correlation' versus 'cause'. For example, when a rock rolls downward rather than upward from the starting point of a hill, we would posit gravity as a 'cause' of this phenomenon. However, the fact that the rock was either a sedimentary, igneous or metamorphic type of rock would be correlative. However, sometimes a 'correlation' can be mistaken for a cause, and this will be in the foreground of the following. In Carrington (2002), it is argued that gang behaviour in Canada can be reduced to “functional” and “developmental” causes [Carrington, 2002]. Further, Carrington presents an analysis of data that suggests that gang participation and indeed, group participation in crime if relatively low in Canada. One of the critique's that will be raised in relation to Carrington's argument, is that he does not take into consideration the relatively low amount of gun crime in Canada. Therefore, the hypothesis that will be pursued, will ask, is there a correlation or causal relationship between (a) strict gun laws and little gun manufacturing, (b) a low incidence of violent gun crime, and finally, (c) the relatively low-incidence of gang crime in Canada? Carrington establishes a number of important conclusions in his study titled: “Group crime 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 used 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 collection for Carrington's analysis, comes from the UCR2 data-set which is compiled by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics [Carrington, 2002]. The years for the data, are 1992 to 1999, the geographical locations are 6 out of 12 provinces, and the total amount of data was 2.9 million incidents and 3.4 alleged offenders [Carrington, 2002]. While this might sound like an expansive or comprehensive data-set, and therefore, a good representation of a trend that can be identified throughout Canada, the author notes quite the opposite. Carrington points out that the total amount of possible crimes that his sample set covers, is actually only “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 Carrington's data, and this is one of the problems that he openly acknowledges. 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 collected in the 21 categories of crime, it is also a number that is low in relation to past statistics but 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 “degree 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 Carrington's analysis, is the variable for access to 'firearms'. Carrington mentions guns only once, and then, firearms and weapons only in relation to the statistics or the data collected about them. There is no mention of the relationship between low gang crime, and low amounts of handgun involvement. By contrast, the picture in the United States is significantly different and helps as a point of difference, present some important facts about what Carrington is missing. First, the prevalence of guns in the United States is overwhelmingly different. In the US, there is a proportionately higher murder rate related to guns, and a higher crime rate associated with guns overall. For instance, there is a six times greater chance of being a victim of a gun crime in the US against Canada, 28 percent of Americans have a hand-gun as opposed to 4 % of Canadians, and finally, 60 percent of homicides in the US are caused by firearms compared with Canada's 30 percent. [Waller, 2006: 43]. In terms of political policy, it can be said that one would recommend that stricter rules on gun access would result in fewer gang or group related crimes. Further, there is also a proportionately higher number of individuals associated with gangs in the US. During the same reporting period as Carrington: “The NYGC survey in 2000 estimated 772,500 gang members in 24,500 gangs” [Esbensen, Peterson and Terrence, 2010: 73] and this is presented just emphasize the size of the problem in the US. What is pointed out, is that during the same period, the crimes reported that were gang-related were “9.1 percent” in the United States [Esbensen, Peterson and Terrence, 2010: 74]. By contrast, Carrington points out the equivalent in Canada and it is significantly lower: “Incidents involving numerous co-offenders were very rare: only 412 out of 2.9 million incidents involved more than 10 co-offenders.” Transforming the ratio of 412 out of 2.9 million, we get a percentage of 0.01. This is very much lower. In conclusion, gang crime is relatively low in Canada and this raises a number of important topics for consideration. The focus of this analysis, was directed at one such topic that asked whether the proliferation of guns in the US accounts for the relatively higher amount of gang related violence. While Carrington provides an important overview of many of the causes of youth crime and group crime, he ignores the variable of hand guns or gun prevalence. What this paper demonstrated was that (a) there is lower gang crime in Canada, but also (b) lower amounts of guns and gun-crime because of stricter laws. Given that gang violence is deeply connected with gun violence, and given that there are fewer guns in Canada than elsewhere, it has been maintained that one of the causes of less gun participation, is fewer guns. Therefore, social policy should reflect this fact – limiting access to guns will reduce the amount of gang violence. On the Relationship Between Gun Prevalence and Gang/Group Related Crime in Canada. Works Cited: Carrington, Peter J.. 2002. “Group crime in Canada.” Canadian Journal of Criminology, Vol. 44, Issue 3. Esbensen, Finn-Age, Peterson, Dana, Terrence, Taylor, and Freng, Adrienne. 2010. Youth Violence: Sex and Race Differences in Offending , Victimization and Gang Membership. Philadelphia: Temple University Press. Waller, Irvin. 2006. Less Law, More Order: The Truth About Reducing Crime. Westport CT: Greenwood Publishing. Read More