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
- NYPD recently changed their policy on a specific type of evidence used to prosecute sex workers, what was this policy change? How might it benefit the health
- BUSI 294 Assignment - Job Order Costing Northwest Company uses a job-order costing system and applies manufacturing overhead cost to jobs on the basis of the
- please help me with this algebra problem that i don't understand thank you