Countries receive a score of 1 if people are not imprisoned for their views, and torture and political murder are extremely rare.
Countries receive a score of 2 if there is some political imprisonment for nonviolent political activity, and torture and political murder are rare.
Countries receive a score of 3 if there is extensive political imprisonment, and torture and political murder are common.
Countries receive a score of 4 if Level 3 practices are extended to larger numbers of the population.
Countries receive a score of 5 if Level 3 practices are extended to the whole population.
To obtain these data, scholars used both Amnesty International Country Reports as well as Annual Reports from the US State Department. An astute observer might suggest that the use of State Department data may not be very reliable, because the US underreports abuses in countries it likes and overreports them in countries it does not. Is this the case? Using the human rights data for Assignment 4 (global_pts_comparison.sav), generate a correlation coefficient between the two measures (pts05am and pts05us). Using these findings, what can we preliminarily say about whether the State Department data is biased?
Recently Asked Questions
- Help give me a different view for a project I'm working on!! International Expansion to India: a) What are the company’s main motivations?
- Refeeding syndrome is a potentially fatal complication that can occur in critically ill clients . The nurse recognizes the seriousness of this complication as
- A study is being conducted to determine the percentage of people (18 years and older) who smoke, and a preliminary estimate of 0.33 is being used. a) How large