Measuring Crime Rate in the UK - Personal Statement Example

Counting Crimes: Measuring Crime Rate in the UK Introduction We watch our backs when walking through dark alleys. We lock our doors and windows at night. We install CCTV cameras and state-of-the-art security systems to ensure our safety both at home and at work. Burglary insurance policies sell like hotcakes. But why don’t we feel safe in this civilised society with governments that enforce law and order? Crime makes us constantly fear for the safety of our lives and properties. The prevalence of crime makes us on the constant lookout for means and methods to satisfy our need for self-preservation. And the fact that the government publishes annual crime statistics does not help either. It just tells us that crimes do happen and we could be the next victim. We hear about crimes day in and day out in the news. But what really is a crime? What makes certain acts criminal? What makes a person criminal? A definitive answer to these questions is elusive. The generally accepted definition of crime defines it as “an act or omission that leads to penal sanction in accordance with the constitutionally valid procedures of that nation state” (Morrison, 16). It in essence, it accepts the fact that there can be no universal agreement as to which acts constitutes a crime. What makes a specific act a crime depends on the law-making body of a sovereign state. Now how is crime rate measured and determined? How much crime occurs within a given period in a particular area? How many criminal are involved in these crimes? How many victims have suffered as a result of these criminal acts? These are tricky issues. As John Tierney (2006) declared, it is difficult to give a straightforward and accurate answer to the questions. It all depends on how the concept of crime is defined and how the crime statistics are produced. In the first place, sociologists and criminologists are both skeptical of the reliability of official statistics. Crime statistics are socially constructed (Coleman and Moynihan, 1996). They are in consensus that criminal statistics is a process of reporting and recording crime rather than the actual amount of crime. This paper shall look into the different methods of measuring crime rates and attempt to determine which method paints the most accurate picture of crime in our country. In the United Kingdom, there are three systems of measuring crime rates. These are the police recorded crime data, the national victimization survey, and the self-report studies. These three most often than not present different statistics which result in confusion as to which figure provides the real crime situation in the UK. This confusion then leads to distrust to the official crime statistics released by the government (“Overcoming Barriers”, 2). Moreover, a significant portion of the population also believes that political agenda often interferes with the data gathering process as well as in the release of official interpretations of these figures. Distrust also lies on the aggregate national figures and how this data is interpreted and used (“Overcoming Barriers”, 2). Police recorded crime data Each month, all 43 police stations in the country submit a summary of reported crimes to the Home Office. The information contained in these reports is a rundown of figures of reported crimes or classification of crimes. No more, no less. It does not indicate the general profile of the offender or the victim. It does not provide any details about the circumstances surrounding the crime which was reported to the police station (“Overcoming Barriers”, 23). Perhaps one of the major weaknesses of police recorded crime rate is a result of the policy implemented by the Home Office for counting crimes. Crime is defined as “the commission of behaviors that violate criminal law and that place the individual at some risk of arrest if such a behavior were known to the police” (Thornberry and Krohn, 50). However, for the purpose of recording crimes by the police force in UK, the benchmark is the “balance of probabilities.” Stated otherwise, if the reported act or omission has a greater probability of resulting in a criminal act, then it is entered in the police registry of crimes (Counting Rules, i). Police crime data evaluates each reported crime on the basis of the counting principles laid down by the Home Office as well as whether or not the crime fall under any of the notifiable offence list. The process of gathering data and aggregating them into one national statistics is governed by the National Crime Recording Standard (Overcoming Barriers, 5). It is of primary importance for the general public to understand the process by which the police record crimes so that the resulting figures will be used within their proper context. Knowing how and what crimes end up in the official police crime statistics will make the user aware of its proper contextual usage as well as its strengths and weaknesses. As a general rule, the police follow the twin rules of “one crime per victim” and “no victim no crime” (“Overcoming Barriers”, 24). When a single act results in two or more crimes, only the gravest and most serious crime is recorded. Limiting the number of crimes to the number of victims undermines the accuracy of its data. It underestimates the true amount of crime when it classifies multiple burglaries as a single incident and records multiple credit card frauds as a single offence. It also excludes drug offences from its statistical data (cited in Bryman 2008). On 1 April 2011, the new rules for counting crimes took effect. This new set of rules has been lauded for being a victim-centered approach in recording crimes. It provides for a general rule which applies to all crimes although each category of crimes has its own counting rules. For purposes of this paper, we shall look only into the general rules, albeit, in case of conflict with the rules for a specific crime, the “counting rules for individual crime types should take precedence over the general rules” (Counting rules i). The first rule mandates that incidents that are reported to the police must be entered in the registry of police incident reports. This rule applies regardless of who made the report. The crime may be reported by the victim himself, a witness to the crime, or a third party. The report shall also be recorded whether or not the incident was related to a particular crime (Counting rules i). The second rule requires the police to record crimes despite the victim’s refusal to cooperate with the police. This rule refers to crimes which have come to the attention of the police and confirmed by the victim. The victim only needs to confirm to the existence of the crime. He does not need to provide all the details of the incident; neither is he required to cooperate in the proceeding police action for the incident to be recorded in the police registry (Counting rules ii). The third rule provides that for violations of the laws on public order where the criminal act is directed against the random public and not to a specified victim, the crime shall not be recorded as a crime. Nevertheless, the incident shall still be recorded in the police registry under the category of crime-related incidents (Counting rules iii). Imperfect as it is, police recorded crime data is the primary source for crime statistics. It has the advantage of being able to link to and used in collaboration with the other government bodies involved in the Criminal Justice System. Insofar as local data is concerned, it is a good source to show common trends in crime within a given locality. Finally, local police crime statistics is used as an indicator of the level of performance of the local police force as well as the level of trust the people have on its police (Overcoming barriers 20). Unfortunately, one weakness of police recorded crime rate is its vulnerability to changes in the government policies on law and order in general and on the rules of counting crimes in particular. Legislations may come to pass declaring certain acts illegal while others may be enacted for the purpose of decriminalizing specific acts. Legislation changing the penalties for specific crimes also affects the over-all statistics. A change in penalties results in the re-classification of crimes. Crimes may be re-classified from serious to the less serious type of offences or vice versa. A classic example is criminal damage in vandalism. Official statistics showed 93,000 cases in 1976 and 297,400 offences in 1977. Then in 1976 the figures changed dramatically because it excluded from the record those cases where the damage was £20 and below. The fact that there exists a significant volume of unreported cases is the major disadvantage of police recorded crime rate. And there is no way of telling whether or not these unreported cases consist of less serious or heinous crimes. There certainly is no way of telling whether or not unreported cases comprise just a small percentage of the total statistics or whether it amounts to half of the picture. In its search for ways to illuminate the dark figure of crime, alternative means of counting crimes was developed. These include self-report studies and national victimisation surveys. They are used in a complementary capacity to the official data gathered from the crime records of the police force, the judicial statistics of the courts, and the probation and prison statistics from the penology agencies which are published by the Home Office, The Scottish Office and the North Ireland Office. Self-report studies Self-report studies are surveys which ask the respondents to confess about their violations of the law. This survey is confidential and relies on the respondent’s honesty to admit their felonies and how often they have done them (Thornberry and Krohn 1). Because of the very nature of the survey, which asks the respondents to reveal their criminal acts, with emphasis on those that have not been reported to the police, a large cloud of doubt is cast on its reliability and validity as a source of information for determining crime statistics. This issue has been the subject of a study in the US where it was concluded that, “with respect to reliability, this approach to measuring involvement in delinquency and crime appears to be acceptable” (Thornberry and Krohn 58). This system too has its own set of advantages and disadvantages. First, self-report studies, because it takes from the perspective of the offender, provides information on the “dark figure” of crime. In this survey, if the victim did not report it for whatever reason, the offender himself could admit to the crime and it shows up in statistics as the difference between the self-reported crimes over the police record or victimization surveys. A lot these surveys were carried out in the 1960’s and 1970’s and among its most notable findings is on the criminal profile in terms of gender and race. The results showed that white respondents admit to committing more crimes and black people are over-represented in the statistics. On the matter of gender, it is consistent with official statistics which found that males commit more crimes than females (Maguire 2007).  This system anchors the accuracy of its results on the truthfulness of the respondents, which is doubtful. Critics argue that respondents may not admit to their crimes while others may tend to invent acts of felonies for vanity’s sake. Further, the respondents do not have a uniform understanding about what acts constitutes crime. Some respondents may report parking violations as crimes while others limit their responses only to the really serious felonies which would have put them on the most wanted list. Another disadvantage is the fact that the study merely reaches a representative portion of the population. Hence, its accuracy is affected by the selection of respondents and whether or not they are a true representation of the actual demographic profile of a given community or country. It should conduct survey across all social classes, age groups, labor groups or ethnic groups to provide a true representation of the country. National victimisation surveys Comprising the other half of the picture of crime prevalence surveys is the national victimization survey. Contrary to the self-report studies, national victimization survey gathers information from those who have become victims of various crimes. It aims to ask the public whether they have become victims of crime and if they reported it to the police. In the United Kingdom, it is called the British Crime Survey. The first national survey was conducted in 1972 and ten years later, in 1982, the first large scale survey designed to reveal invisible and hidden crimes was launched. Respondents are selected and interviewed on their experiences with crime during the previous year. The respondents describe their experience and the persons conducting the survey determine whether or not it constitutes a crime. If they find that it is a crime, it is then recorded and becomes part of statistics. This system of measuring crime rate provides a reliable crime trend insofar as common crimes against persons are concerned. By the nature of the survey, most of the data gathered pertains to crime against the person of the respondents or members of their household. This personal interaction with the respondents within their comfort zones provides a good avenue for the repressed information to come into open. An example would be in cases where the victim was reluctant to go to the police and report the crime when it happened. But when interviewed a year later in the security of their own household, the respondents may find the courage to divulge their experience with crime and criminals. Aside from the occurrence of crime, the survey also gathers relevant information like the respondent’s fear of crime, trust in the capacity of the law enforcement authorities to prevent crimes and their trust on the criminal justice system to punish the criminals and vindicate the victims. This makes it a very reliable source for long-term crime trends (Lancashire Constabulary 2009). One of its strong points is the fact that it illuminates the dark figure of crime when the victims who did not report their ordeal to the police reveal their experience in the survey. Also, it creates a general profile of people who are targets of certain crimes. The British Crime Survey “provides an alternative, rather than directly comparable, overall picture of crime to that offered by police statistics” (Maguire 2002). However, there still exists no perfect system for determining the real extent of the grip of crimes in a society. The British Crime Survey also has its share of disadvantages. Firstly, it is limited to crimes experienced by the respondents. It does not cover crimes where there are no victims and those where the victims are unaware that they have already become victims of crime. It does not include in its survey murder, commercial crimes, and crimes without victims like drug possession cases (Matrix 2011). Another disadvantage is the doubt as to its accuracy. The credibility of the survey result is anchored on the honesty of the respondents. Some respondents could make up crimes or feel that they have been victims of an otherwise non-existent crime. The survey results also provide little information as to how crime is distributed and how victimization occurs. Moreover, not all criminal offences are picked up by the survey. Many crimes remain hidden like cases of theft from businesses, criminal damage, crimes without victims, and taxation and social security fraud. Dark figure of crime It is a common reality around the world that not all crimes are reported to the police. The victims may be afraid as in the case when the criminal threatens to hurt their families if they report the crime. The victims may be also embarrassed and mortified to report to the police as in the case of sexual abuse and domestic violence. Still, others may have lost their trust on the police and the criminal justice system and decide that reporting a crime to the police is nothing but an exercise in futility. This gap between actual crime occurrences and the number of cases that are reported to the authorities is referred to as the dark figure of crime. Although there is no way of telling how much crime goes unreported, it has been found that this dark figure of crime consists mainly of cases of abuse within a family like domestic violence and child abuse. Most often than not, these cases are not reported because of moral ascendancy between the offender and the victim. Also included in the category of hidden or invisible crimes are white collar or corporate crimes, crimes within institutions, crimes against businesses, international and cross-border crimes, crimes by government, and crimes in war (Maguire, 2007). But why do we have a ‘dark figure’ of crime? The primary factor would be the willingness of victims and witnesses of crimes to report their experience to the police. Data from the House of Commons (1999) shows that starting in 1954 there was a rising trend in reported crime which found its peak in 1992 with a record of 109.4 indictable offences for every one thousand people. Then it started to decline starting from 1992 to 1997. The public’s willingness to report crimes is very important (Tierney). In the 1996 British Crime Survey, it was found that the public’s reluctance to report crimes is due to various reasons. A whooping 40% of the respondents say they think the crime was of a not serious nature and does not warrant a trip to the police station. It was followed by 29% of the respondents who are discouraged from reporting crimes because of a non-responsive police. Further, 19% decided to deal with the crime themselves instead of reporting it to the police and waiting for their action. Finally, only 4% of the respondents admitted that they failed or refused to report a criminal incident for fear of reprisal from the perpetrator (Davies, et al 1998). Additionally, another factor that prevents the victims and their witnesses from reporting crimes is their awareness that they have already become victims of crime. This is very common in white collar and business crimes. The victims are not aware that they have already become subjects of criminal activity hence they fail to report it (Sanderson 1994). However, lack of awareness comprises just a small portion of the pie. Most of the cases of unreported crimes are known to the victims yet they intentionally fail or refuse to report the same. Among the common factors for this indifference include the seriousness or triviality of the offence, the public’s lack of confidence in the police, embarrassment, fear of incrimination, sympathy for the victim and the notion that there is nothing to gain from reporting a crime to the police (Williams 1991). The police force also has its share of blame for the existence of dark figure of crime. It is not uncommon for the police to also fail or refuse to record a crime because it needs to abide by the counting rules implemented by the Home Office as discussed above. There is also growing evidence that police officers massage crime statistics or they deliberately “lose” crimes in their docket. Finally, sometimes the police are constrained to report a no crime because of the victim’s unwillingness and refusal to prosecute (Leake 1998). Conclusion: At this point, we now ask the pivotal question of this paper: which method gives us the most accurate measure of crime? After examining each of the three systems of measuring crime, I have come to the conclusion that in order to get a holistic picture of crime in our society, we need to make use of the strengths of all three methods (Directgov). There is no need to choose. There is no need to spend time and energy debating as to which one is the best. Instead, these three measurements could be used to work together to create a complete picture of crime. Will we ever get a ‘complete’ picture of crime?  I submit in the positive. Self-report studies and victimisation surveys, flawed as they are, are valuable tools in painting a real picture of the country’s real crime situation when used in complementary and supplementary capacity to official police recorded crime data. They complement police records by providing information on the dark figure of crime. Likewise, they supplement official statistics by their in-depth survey methodologies which also gather information about the public’s perception of crime and their level of trust and confidence to the police force and the criminal justice system. Therefore, these three measures must be used together; make all their advantages work for the advantage of society. We should stop on comparing which one is the best and true measure of crime. Instead, all three must be used for the benefit of society. As one sociologist has so succinctly declared, “The task of criminology is to improve the tools of research in order to determine as accurately as possible the posited ‘real’ amount of crime” (Tierney 2006:52). Reference List: Bryman, A. (2008). Social Research Methods (3rd ed.). Oxford: OUP.  Coleman, C. and Moynihan, J. (1996). Understanding Crime Data: haunted by the dark  figure. Buckingham: OUP. (NOTE: chapter 2)  Coleman, C. and Moynihan, J. (1996). Understanding Crime Data: haunted by the dark figure. Buckingham: Oxford University Press. Directgov. (2011) Explanation of crime statistics. Available [online]: http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/CrimeJusticeAndTheLaw/Crimestatistics/DG_181520 (accessed May 20, 2011) Home Office (2000). Review of Crime Statistics: a discussion document. Available [online]:  http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs04/review.pdf. (accessed 22nd September).  Home Office. (2011) Home Office Counting Rules For Recorded Crime. Available [online]: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/science-research-statistics/research-statistics/crime-research/counting-rules/count-general?view=Binary (accessed May 20, 2011) House of Commons. (December 1999) A Century of Change: Trends in UK statistics since 1900. Available [online]: http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf (accessed May 20, 2011) King, R. and Wincup, E. (eds.). (2008). Doing Research on Crime and Justice. (2nd  ed.).Oxford: OUP.  Lancashire Constabulary. (2009) Crime Statistics. Available [online]: http://www.lancashire.police.uk/about-us/crime-statistics (accessed May 20, 2011) Maguire, M. (2007). Crime data and statistics. In M. Maguire, R. Morgan and R. Reiner (eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (4th ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Matrix Evidence Ltd. (March 2011) Key Facts and Figures from the Criminal Justice System 2009/2010. Available [online]: http://www.matrixknowledge.com/evidence/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Matrix-Evidence-crime-facts-booklet2.pdf (accessed May 20, 2011) Morrison, W. What is crime? Contrasting definitions and perspectives. Oxford University Press. Available [online]: http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199227297/hale2e_ch01.pdf (accessed May 20, 2011) Tierney, J. (2006) Criminology: Theory and context (Second edition). Harlow: Pearson Education. Thornberry, T. and Krohn, M. The Self-Report Method for Measuring Delinquency and Crime. Available [online]: http://www.ncjrs.gov/criminal_justice2000/vol_4/04b.pdf (accessed May 20, 2011) UK Statistics Authority. (May 2010) Overcoming barriers to trust in crime statistics: England and Wales. Read More