Graffiti
Graffiti (singular: graffito; the plural is used as a mass noun) is the name for images or lettering scratched, scrawled, painted or marked in any manner on property. Graffiti is often regarded by others as unsightly damage or unwanted vandalism.
Gang relations with graffiti
Groups that live in industrial or poor areas may use graffiti for various purposes, especially if many groups populate one specific area or city. The main use is to mark either territory or "turf" by tagging a space such as a wall on building near or on the boundaries of a gang's turf to inform other gangs of their presence. Usually, this type of tag will have the name of the gang. They are also used to communicate with other gangs, usually to warn them of a coming assassination of a certain member, by either writing the member's street name and crossing it out, or by finding tags by the member and crossing them out.
If a gang overwrites another gang's tag, it is also the symbol of a takeover of a gang's turf or a sign of aggression toward the gang. While most cities now take measures to prevent this, such as washing or erasing tags, it was much more common in the mid 1980s when crime waves ran high.
Graffiti in Chicago
Chicago's mayor, Richard M. Daley created the "Graffiti Blasters" to eliminate graffiti and gang-related vandalism. The bureau advertises free cleanup within 24 hours of a phone call. The bureau uses paints (common to the city's 'color scheme') and baking-soda based solvents to remove some varieties of graffiti.[30]
In 1992, an ordinance was passed in Chicago that bans the sale and possession of spray paint, and certain types of etching equipment and markers.[30] The law falls under Chapter 8-4: Public Peace & Welfare, Section 100: Vagrancy. The specific law (8-4-130) makes graffiti an offense that surpasses public drunkenness, peddling, or disruption of a religious service punitively with a fine of no less than $500 per incident.
See also
Vandalism
Visual pollution
Ward 49 of the City of Chicago includes most of Rogers Park and parts of West Ridge.
Friday, December 7, 2007
Problem-oriented policing
Problem-oriented policing
Problem-oriented policing (POP), coined by University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Herman Goldstein, is a policing strategy that involves the identification and analysis of specific crime and disorder problems, in order to develop effective response strategies in conjunction with ongoing assessment[1]. This strategy places more emphasis on research and analysis as well as crime prevention and the engagement of public and private organizations in the reduction of community problems[1].
POP policy in a nutshell
Problem-oriented policing relies on the identification of problems by rank-and-file officers. Not all departments will define problems the same way, but a typical definition is:
Where, under a traditional system, a patrol officer might answer repeated calls to a certain problem area or "hot spot" and deal only with each individual incident, that officer is encouraged under POP to discover the root cause of the problem and come up with ways of solving it. The goal is to find a cure for the ailment instead of merely treating the symptoms.
The exploration of possible responses to a problem is handled by patrol officers. Once a problem is identified, officers are expected to work closely with community members to develop a solution, which can include a wide range of alternatives to arrest. These may focus on the offender, the community, the environment, outside agencies, or the need for some kind of mediation. Situations often demand that police and citizens fashion tailor-made responses to problems, so a high degree of importance is placed on creativity and discretion.
Political issues and conflicts between actors
In the last decade the problem-oriented approach has become a popular one among police administrators and high-ranking city officials. There are two main reasons for this: First, it is an innovation readily accepted and approved by the public, which by and large welcomes the opportunity to be heard and to become more involved. Public favor translates into job security for administrators and elected officials. The second reason is the opportunity to collect substantial sums of money through federal grants. In 1995, a federal grant of $327 million from the U.S. Department of Justice was divided up among police departments implementing POP programs in the state of Arizona. The availability of federal grant money creates a real incentive for police agencies to use POP. Because POP policy may require considerable organizational restructuring, administrators can justify applications for inordinately large funds. A possible third reason is that POP usually represents a revolutionary change in procedures, and this can provide those who implement it with provocative material for books and speaking engagements.
The rank-and-file officers, however, often do not share their administrators' enthusiasm. One of the reasons for this may be a lack of clarity with respect to organizational goals. Poorly defined or ambiguous goals can lead to stress and frustration. Another possible source of rank-and-file discontent is the conflict between the administration's community policing mandate and the continuing need to respond to calls for service.
Significant impacts of POP policy
Problem-oriented policing often has a number of effects and some unintended consequences that flow from them.
Increased communication with the public
Under POP, the public has a much more direct hand in defining the goals of the police and influencing what issues the police will focus on. This can cause a conflict between what is traditionally of high importance to the police, such as robberies, burglaries and violent crime, and what is a priority to community members – which may be things as mundane as loitering crowds or acts of graffiti. This mismatch of priorities can hinder the relationship between the police and the community. It can also make the officer’s job more difficult and stressful as he or she is presented with conflicting mandates, one set coming from within and the other from without (the community).
Proactive vs. reactive
Another possible conflict may exist between the proactive implementation of POP and the need for traditional “incident-driven” policing. In large metropolitan areas, dispatchers receive a high volume of 911 emergencies and calls for service around the clock. Some areas of the city may be quieter than others, and these are typically the areas that don’t have many problems. Ironically, in these quieter and more peaceful areas, where officers have abundant time to pursue genuine problem-solving, it isn’t particularly needed. In the areas that could benefit most from POP, patrol officers may not have time to exercise it.
Relationships between officers
Complications can arise if certain officers in each department are designated as community problem solvers or if a few enthusiastic officers earnestly commit themselves to the POP process, as this leaves the others on the same shift to pick up the slack in responding to calls for service. This can lead to tension and resentment, which in turn can diminish morale and adversely affect the ability of the officers to function as a team and be productive.
Abuse of authority or heightened conservatism
Increased discretion creates a risk for abuses of authority. POP encourages police to actively intervene in situations they had previously left alone, which presents more opportunities for abuse and a “net-widening” effect.
By the same token, increased discretion coupled with the possibility of larger social consequences could make officers more conservative in their approach; perhaps too conservative to fully achieve POP goals.
See also
Community oriented policing
Fixing Broken Windows
Intelligence-led policing
External links
Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
Herman Goldstein, Improving Policing: A Problem-Oriented Approach, Crime & Delinquency (April 1979):236-243.
Problem-oriented policing (POP), coined by University of Wisconsin-Madison professor Herman Goldstein, is a policing strategy that involves the identification and analysis of specific crime and disorder problems, in order to develop effective response strategies in conjunction with ongoing assessment[1]. This strategy places more emphasis on research and analysis as well as crime prevention and the engagement of public and private organizations in the reduction of community problems[1].
POP policy in a nutshell
Problem-oriented policing relies on the identification of problems by rank-and-file officers. Not all departments will define problems the same way, but a typical definition is:
- Repeated incidents
- Occurring in a community
- With related characteristics (e.g., behavior, location, people, time)
- That concern both the community and the police
Where, under a traditional system, a patrol officer might answer repeated calls to a certain problem area or "hot spot" and deal only with each individual incident, that officer is encouraged under POP to discover the root cause of the problem and come up with ways of solving it. The goal is to find a cure for the ailment instead of merely treating the symptoms.
The exploration of possible responses to a problem is handled by patrol officers. Once a problem is identified, officers are expected to work closely with community members to develop a solution, which can include a wide range of alternatives to arrest. These may focus on the offender, the community, the environment, outside agencies, or the need for some kind of mediation. Situations often demand that police and citizens fashion tailor-made responses to problems, so a high degree of importance is placed on creativity and discretion.
Political issues and conflicts between actors
In the last decade the problem-oriented approach has become a popular one among police administrators and high-ranking city officials. There are two main reasons for this: First, it is an innovation readily accepted and approved by the public, which by and large welcomes the opportunity to be heard and to become more involved. Public favor translates into job security for administrators and elected officials. The second reason is the opportunity to collect substantial sums of money through federal grants. In 1995, a federal grant of $327 million from the U.S. Department of Justice was divided up among police departments implementing POP programs in the state of Arizona. The availability of federal grant money creates a real incentive for police agencies to use POP. Because POP policy may require considerable organizational restructuring, administrators can justify applications for inordinately large funds. A possible third reason is that POP usually represents a revolutionary change in procedures, and this can provide those who implement it with provocative material for books and speaking engagements.
The rank-and-file officers, however, often do not share their administrators' enthusiasm. One of the reasons for this may be a lack of clarity with respect to organizational goals. Poorly defined or ambiguous goals can lead to stress and frustration. Another possible source of rank-and-file discontent is the conflict between the administration's community policing mandate and the continuing need to respond to calls for service.
Significant impacts of POP policy
Problem-oriented policing often has a number of effects and some unintended consequences that flow from them.
Increased communication with the public
Under POP, the public has a much more direct hand in defining the goals of the police and influencing what issues the police will focus on. This can cause a conflict between what is traditionally of high importance to the police, such as robberies, burglaries and violent crime, and what is a priority to community members – which may be things as mundane as loitering crowds or acts of graffiti. This mismatch of priorities can hinder the relationship between the police and the community. It can also make the officer’s job more difficult and stressful as he or she is presented with conflicting mandates, one set coming from within and the other from without (the community).
Proactive vs. reactive
Another possible conflict may exist between the proactive implementation of POP and the need for traditional “incident-driven” policing. In large metropolitan areas, dispatchers receive a high volume of 911 emergencies and calls for service around the clock. Some areas of the city may be quieter than others, and these are typically the areas that don’t have many problems. Ironically, in these quieter and more peaceful areas, where officers have abundant time to pursue genuine problem-solving, it isn’t particularly needed. In the areas that could benefit most from POP, patrol officers may not have time to exercise it.
Relationships between officers
Complications can arise if certain officers in each department are designated as community problem solvers or if a few enthusiastic officers earnestly commit themselves to the POP process, as this leaves the others on the same shift to pick up the slack in responding to calls for service. This can lead to tension and resentment, which in turn can diminish morale and adversely affect the ability of the officers to function as a team and be productive.
Abuse of authority or heightened conservatism
Increased discretion creates a risk for abuses of authority. POP encourages police to actively intervene in situations they had previously left alone, which presents more opportunities for abuse and a “net-widening” effect.
By the same token, increased discretion coupled with the possibility of larger social consequences could make officers more conservative in their approach; perhaps too conservative to fully achieve POP goals.
See also
Community oriented policing
Fixing Broken Windows
Intelligence-led policing
External links
Center for Problem-Oriented Policing
Herman Goldstein, Improving Policing: A Problem-Oriented Approach, Crime & Delinquency (April 1979):236-243.
Community policing
Community policing
Community policing or neighbourhood policing is a policing strategy and philosophy based on the notion that community interaction and support can help control crime, with community members helping to identify suspects, and bring problems to the attention of police.[1]
With community policing, the police and police department are involved as members of the community. Cities and counties that subscribe to this philosophy tend to do much more community work than traditional police departments. This often includes having more police officers who "walk the beat" as opposed to driving around in police cars. The basic idea is to create bonds of trust and reliance between police and the public.
This approach requires officers to be open minded, unbiased, and sensitive to the concerns and problems of others; also known as the new policing paradigm. Even if officers do not agree with a complainant's viewpoint, they should try to listen and understand the problem. Police should display empathy and compassion with sincerity, not in a rehearsed way. Police must also develop skill in planning, problem solving, organization, interpersonal communications, and perhaps most importantly critical thinking.
At the heart of the police transition to community policing is the question: "How do the police identify and deliver high-quality services to the community?" In the past, the delivery of police services was accomplished in a reactive and unscientific manner, with little attention given to proactive policing. Today, the efficient delivery of police services requires a systematic process to:
1) assess the needs of the public and
2) translate those needs into police services and programs that can be efficiently and effectively delivered to the community. In this way, police are becoming more sensitive to the needs of the community. They also have a better understanding of how their work affects the social environment.
Some believe Tom Potter, the former police chief of Portland, Oregon, developed the philosophy while he was walking the beat as a young police officer, though others credit Sir Robert Peel, who came up with 9 principles of policing that form the basis of modern policing.
See also
Community Oriented Policing Services
Police Community Support Officer
Community policing or neighbourhood policing is a policing strategy and philosophy based on the notion that community interaction and support can help control crime, with community members helping to identify suspects, and bring problems to the attention of police.[1]
With community policing, the police and police department are involved as members of the community. Cities and counties that subscribe to this philosophy tend to do much more community work than traditional police departments. This often includes having more police officers who "walk the beat" as opposed to driving around in police cars. The basic idea is to create bonds of trust and reliance between police and the public.
This approach requires officers to be open minded, unbiased, and sensitive to the concerns and problems of others; also known as the new policing paradigm. Even if officers do not agree with a complainant's viewpoint, they should try to listen and understand the problem. Police should display empathy and compassion with sincerity, not in a rehearsed way. Police must also develop skill in planning, problem solving, organization, interpersonal communications, and perhaps most importantly critical thinking.
At the heart of the police transition to community policing is the question: "How do the police identify and deliver high-quality services to the community?" In the past, the delivery of police services was accomplished in a reactive and unscientific manner, with little attention given to proactive policing. Today, the efficient delivery of police services requires a systematic process to:
1) assess the needs of the public and
2) translate those needs into police services and programs that can be efficiently and effectively delivered to the community. In this way, police are becoming more sensitive to the needs of the community. They also have a better understanding of how their work affects the social environment.
Some believe Tom Potter, the former police chief of Portland, Oregon, developed the philosophy while he was walking the beat as a young police officer, though others credit Sir Robert Peel, who came up with 9 principles of policing that form the basis of modern policing.
See also
Community Oriented Policing Services
Police Community Support Officer
Crime mapping
Crime mapping
Crime mapping is used by analysts in law enforcement agencies to map, visualize, and analyze crime incident patterns. It is a key component of crime analysis and the CompStat policing strategy. Mapping crime, using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), allows crime analysts to identify crime hot spots, along with other trends and patterns.
Overview
Using GIS, crime analysts can overlay other datasets such as census demographics, locations of pawn shops, schools, etc., to better understand the underlying causes of crime and help law enforcement administrators to devise strategies to deal with the problem. GIS is also useful for law enforcement operations, such as allocating police officers and dispatching to emergencies.
Underlying theories that help explain spatial behavior of criminals include environmental criminology, which was devised in the 1980s by Patricia and Paul Brantingham, routine activity theory, developed by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson and originally published in 1979, and rational choice theory, developed by Ronald V. Clarke and Derek Cornish, originally published in 1986. In recent years, crime mapping and analysis has incorporated spatial data analysis techniques that add statistical rigor and address inherent limitations of spatial data, including spatial autocorrelation and spatial heterogeneity. Spatial data analysis helps one analyze crime data and better understand why and not just where crime is occurring.
Applications of crime mapping
Crime analysts use crime mapping and analysis to help law enforcement management (e.g. the police chief) to make better decisions, target resources, and formulate strategies, as well as for tactical analysis (e.g. crime forecasting, geographic profiling). New York City does this through the CompStat approach, though that way of thinking deals more with the short term. There are other, related approaches with terms including Information-led policing, Intelligence-led policing, Problem-oriented policing, and Community policing. In some law enforcement agencies, crime analysts work in civilian positions, while in other agencies, crime analysts are sworn officers.
From a research and policy perspective, crime mapping is used to understand patterns of incarceration and recidivism, help target resources and programs, evaluate crime prevention or crime reduction programs (e.g. Project Safe Neighborhoods, Weed & Seed and as proposed in Fixing Broken Windows), and further understanding of causes of crime.
See also
Public Participation GIS
External links
Mapping & Analysis for Public Safety (MAPS) - National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
Crime Mapping & Analysis Program - National Law Enforcement Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC)
Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science
International Association of Crime Analysts
Crime mapping is used by analysts in law enforcement agencies to map, visualize, and analyze crime incident patterns. It is a key component of crime analysis and the CompStat policing strategy. Mapping crime, using Geographic Information Systems (GIS), allows crime analysts to identify crime hot spots, along with other trends and patterns.
Overview
Using GIS, crime analysts can overlay other datasets such as census demographics, locations of pawn shops, schools, etc., to better understand the underlying causes of crime and help law enforcement administrators to devise strategies to deal with the problem. GIS is also useful for law enforcement operations, such as allocating police officers and dispatching to emergencies.
Underlying theories that help explain spatial behavior of criminals include environmental criminology, which was devised in the 1980s by Patricia and Paul Brantingham, routine activity theory, developed by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson and originally published in 1979, and rational choice theory, developed by Ronald V. Clarke and Derek Cornish, originally published in 1986. In recent years, crime mapping and analysis has incorporated spatial data analysis techniques that add statistical rigor and address inherent limitations of spatial data, including spatial autocorrelation and spatial heterogeneity. Spatial data analysis helps one analyze crime data and better understand why and not just where crime is occurring.
Applications of crime mapping
Crime analysts use crime mapping and analysis to help law enforcement management (e.g. the police chief) to make better decisions, target resources, and formulate strategies, as well as for tactical analysis (e.g. crime forecasting, geographic profiling). New York City does this through the CompStat approach, though that way of thinking deals more with the short term. There are other, related approaches with terms including Information-led policing, Intelligence-led policing, Problem-oriented policing, and Community policing. In some law enforcement agencies, crime analysts work in civilian positions, while in other agencies, crime analysts are sworn officers.
From a research and policy perspective, crime mapping is used to understand patterns of incarceration and recidivism, help target resources and programs, evaluate crime prevention or crime reduction programs (e.g. Project Safe Neighborhoods, Weed & Seed and as proposed in Fixing Broken Windows), and further understanding of causes of crime.
See also
Public Participation GIS
External links
Mapping & Analysis for Public Safety (MAPS) - National Institute of Justice (NIJ)
Crime Mapping & Analysis Program - National Law Enforcement Corrections Technology Center (NLECTC)
Jill Dando Institute of Crime Science
International Association of Crime Analysts
Violent crime
Violent crime
A violent crime or crime of violence is a crime in which the offender uses or threatens to use violent force upon the victim. This entails both crimes in which the violent act is the objective, such as murder, as well as crimes in which violence is the means to an end, such as robbery. Violent crimes include crimes committed with and without weapons. With the exception of rape (which accounts for 6% of all violent crimes), males are the primary victims of all forms of violent crime. [1]
The United States Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) counts five categories of crime as violent crimes: murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. According to BJS figures, the rate of violent crime victimization in the United States declined by more than half between the years 1994 and 2001. [10]
A violent crime or crime of violence is a crime in which the offender uses or threatens to use violent force upon the victim. This entails both crimes in which the violent act is the objective, such as murder, as well as crimes in which violence is the means to an end, such as robbery. Violent crimes include crimes committed with and without weapons. With the exception of rape (which accounts for 6% of all violent crimes), males are the primary victims of all forms of violent crime. [1]
The United States Department of Justice Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) counts five categories of crime as violent crimes: murder, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, and simple assault. According to BJS figures, the rate of violent crime victimization in the United States declined by more than half between the years 1994 and 2001. [10]
Crime statistics
Crime statistics
Crime statistics attempt to provide a statistical measure of the level, or amount, of crime that is prevalent in societies. Given that crime, by definition, is an illegal activity, every way of measuring it is likely to be inaccurate.
There are many forms of measuring crime, including household surveys or checking hospital or insurance records, but the term "crime statistic" usually refers to figures compiled by the Police and similar law enforcement agencies. However, it is well known that many if not most offences are not reported to the police, and changes in police procedures can have a big impact on how such reported crimes are categorised. This is why public surveys are sometimes conducted to estimate the amount of crime not reported to police and to ascertain levels of victimisation. Such surveys are usually more reliable in providing reliable trends over time, but they rarely ecompass all crime (eg separate surveys are required to measure retail crime such as shoplifting, as distinct from crime against the public), rarely give local statistics useful for local crime prevention or enforcement, often ignore offences against children, and do not count offenders brought before the criminal justice system.
Crime statistics are gathered and reported by many countries and are of interest to several international organisations, including Interpol and the United Nations. Law enforcement agencies in some countries, such as the FBI in the United States and the Home Office in England & Wales, publish crime indices, which are compilations of statistics for various types of crime.
Statistics are usually collected on:
Offences - Breaches of the law
Offenders - Those who commit offences
Victims - Those who are offended against
Recording practices
Crime statistics recording practices vary, not only between countries and jurisdictions but sometimes within jurisdictions and even between two individual law enforcement officers encountering the same situation. Because many law enforcement officers have powers of discretion, they have the ability to affect how much crime is recorded based on how they record their activities. Even though a member of the public may report a crime to a law enforcement officer, it will not be counted unless that crime is then recorded in a way that allows it to be incorporated into the crime statistics. As a consequence, offending, particularly minor offending, may be significantly undercounted in situations where law enforcement officers are overloaded with work or do not perceive the offending as worth recording. Similarly certain high profile categories of crime may be well reported when there is an incentive (such as a financial or performance incentive) for the law enforcement officer to do so.
For example: Almost all recorded traffic offending is reported either by law enforcement officers (or by automatic road safety cameras) because there is normally a fine and (profitable) revenue collection process to go through. Yet it is likely that very little traffic offending reported by the public will make its way into official statistics because of the difficulty in following up these reports.
Counting rules
Counting rules vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Relatively few standards exist and none that permit international comparability beyond a very limited range of offences. However, many jurisdictions accept the following:
Offending that is a breach of the law but for which no punishment exists is often not counted. For example: Suicide, which is technically illegal in most countries, may not be counted as a crime, although attempted suicide and assisting suicide are.
Also traffic offending and other minor offending that might be dealt with by using fines, rather than imprisonment, is often not counted as crime. However separate statistics may be kept for this sort of offending.
Surveys
Because of the difficulties in quantifying how much crime actually occurs, researchers generally take two approaches to gathering statistics about crime.
Statistics from law enforcement organisations are often used. These statistics are normally readily available and are generally reliable in terms of identifying what crime is being dealt with by law enforcement organisations, as they are gathered by law enforcement officers in the course of their duties and are often extracted directly from law enforcement computer systems.
However, these statistics often tend to reflect the productivity and law enforcement activities of the officers concerned and may bear little relationship to the actual amount of crime, as officers can only record crime that comes to their attention and might not record a matter as a crime if the matter is considered minor and is not perceived as a crime by the officer concerned. The statistics may also be biased because of routine actions and pragmatic decisions that law enforcement officers make in the field. For example, when faced with a domestic violence dispute between a couple, a law enforcement officer may decide it is far less trouble to arrest the male party to the dispute, because the female may have children to care for, despite both parties being equally culpable for the dispute. This sort of pragmatic decisionmaking would mean the statistics had a gender bias because of what officers did to resolve such disputes.
Researchers also conduct population surveys in order to identify victims of crime and their experiences. These surveys are often known as victimisation surveys as they seek to identify the victims of crime, especially for crime that is not reported to a law enforcement officer.
Victimisation surveys also suffer from problems as they are perception surveys. In these surveys people are being asked if they are victims of crime, without needing to provide any supporting evidence. In these surveys it is the participant's perception, or opinion, that a crime occurred, or even their understanding about what constitutes a crime that is being measured.
As a consequence victimisation surveys can also exhibit a subjective bias. Also, differing methodologies may make comparisons with other surveys difficult.
One way in which victimisation surveys are useful is that they show some types of crime are well reported to law enforcement officials, while other types of crime are under reported. These surveys also give insights as to why crime is reported, or not. The surveys show that the need to make an insurance claim, seek medical assistance, and the seriousness of an offence tend to increase the level of reporting, while the inconvenience of reporting, the involvement of intimate parters and the nature of the offending tend to decrease reporting. This allows degrees of confidence to be assigned to various crime statistics. For example: Motor vehicle thefts are generally well reported because the victim may need to make the report for an insurance claim, while domestic violence, domestic child abuse and sexual offences are frequently significantly under-reported because of the intimate relationships involved, embarrassment and other factors that make it difficult for the victim to make a report.
Classification
In order to measure crime in a consistent manner, different sorts of crime need to be classified and separated into groups of similar or comparable offences. While most jurisdictions could probably agree about what constitutes a murder, what constitutes a homicide may be more problematic, while a crime against the person could vary widely. Legislation differences often means the ingredients of offences vary between jurisdictions. The penalty for an offence may also vary, with fines being imposed in one jurisdiction, while imprisonment occurs in another.
The level of penalty may determine what does and does not constitute a crime. Some jurisdictions may even have offences that do not exist in others.
Classification systems attempt to overcome these problems, although different jurisdictions perform this classification in different ways. Some classification systems concentrate on specific indicator crimes, such as murder, robbery, burglary and vehicle thefts.
Measures
Measures of crime include simple counts of offences, victimsisations or apprehensions, as well as population based crime rates. Counts are normally made over a year long reporting period.
More complex measures involve measuring the numbers of discrete victims and offenders as well as repeat victimisation rates and recidivism. Repeat victimisation involves measuring how often the same victim is subjected to a repeat occurrence of an offence, often by the same offender. Repetition rate measures are often used to assess the effectiveness of interventions.
Because crime is a social issue, comparisons of crime between places or years are normally performed on some sort of population basis.
See also
Crime index
Crime rate
Crime science
Criminology
Dark figure of crime
Demography
Questionnaire
Self report study
Victim study
Crime statistics attempt to provide a statistical measure of the level, or amount, of crime that is prevalent in societies. Given that crime, by definition, is an illegal activity, every way of measuring it is likely to be inaccurate.
There are many forms of measuring crime, including household surveys or checking hospital or insurance records, but the term "crime statistic" usually refers to figures compiled by the Police and similar law enforcement agencies. However, it is well known that many if not most offences are not reported to the police, and changes in police procedures can have a big impact on how such reported crimes are categorised. This is why public surveys are sometimes conducted to estimate the amount of crime not reported to police and to ascertain levels of victimisation. Such surveys are usually more reliable in providing reliable trends over time, but they rarely ecompass all crime (eg separate surveys are required to measure retail crime such as shoplifting, as distinct from crime against the public), rarely give local statistics useful for local crime prevention or enforcement, often ignore offences against children, and do not count offenders brought before the criminal justice system.
Crime statistics are gathered and reported by many countries and are of interest to several international organisations, including Interpol and the United Nations. Law enforcement agencies in some countries, such as the FBI in the United States and the Home Office in England & Wales, publish crime indices, which are compilations of statistics for various types of crime.
Statistics are usually collected on:
Offences - Breaches of the law
Offenders - Those who commit offences
Victims - Those who are offended against
Recording practices
Crime statistics recording practices vary, not only between countries and jurisdictions but sometimes within jurisdictions and even between two individual law enforcement officers encountering the same situation. Because many law enforcement officers have powers of discretion, they have the ability to affect how much crime is recorded based on how they record their activities. Even though a member of the public may report a crime to a law enforcement officer, it will not be counted unless that crime is then recorded in a way that allows it to be incorporated into the crime statistics. As a consequence, offending, particularly minor offending, may be significantly undercounted in situations where law enforcement officers are overloaded with work or do not perceive the offending as worth recording. Similarly certain high profile categories of crime may be well reported when there is an incentive (such as a financial or performance incentive) for the law enforcement officer to do so.
For example: Almost all recorded traffic offending is reported either by law enforcement officers (or by automatic road safety cameras) because there is normally a fine and (profitable) revenue collection process to go through. Yet it is likely that very little traffic offending reported by the public will make its way into official statistics because of the difficulty in following up these reports.
Counting rules
Counting rules vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Relatively few standards exist and none that permit international comparability beyond a very limited range of offences. However, many jurisdictions accept the following:
- There must be a prima facie case that an offence has been committed before it is recorded.
- That is either police find evidence of an offence or receive a believable allegation of an offense being committed. Some jurisdictions count offending only when certain processes happen, such as an arrest is made, ticket issued, charges laid in Court or only upon securing a conviction.
- Multiple reports of the same offence count as one offence. Some jurisdictions count each report separately, others count each victim of offending separately.
- Where several offences are committed at the same time, in one act of offending, only the most serious offense is counted. Some jurisdictions record and count each and every offense separately, others count cases, or offenders, that can be prosecuted.
- Where multiple offenders are involved in the same act of offending only one act is counted when counting offenses but each offender is counted when apprehended.
- Offending is counted at the time it comes to the attention of a law enforcement officer.
- Some jurisdictions record and count offending at the time it occurs.
Offending that is a breach of the law but for which no punishment exists is often not counted. For example: Suicide, which is technically illegal in most countries, may not be counted as a crime, although attempted suicide and assisting suicide are.
Also traffic offending and other minor offending that might be dealt with by using fines, rather than imprisonment, is often not counted as crime. However separate statistics may be kept for this sort of offending.
Surveys
Because of the difficulties in quantifying how much crime actually occurs, researchers generally take two approaches to gathering statistics about crime.
Statistics from law enforcement organisations are often used. These statistics are normally readily available and are generally reliable in terms of identifying what crime is being dealt with by law enforcement organisations, as they are gathered by law enforcement officers in the course of their duties and are often extracted directly from law enforcement computer systems.
However, these statistics often tend to reflect the productivity and law enforcement activities of the officers concerned and may bear little relationship to the actual amount of crime, as officers can only record crime that comes to their attention and might not record a matter as a crime if the matter is considered minor and is not perceived as a crime by the officer concerned. The statistics may also be biased because of routine actions and pragmatic decisions that law enforcement officers make in the field. For example, when faced with a domestic violence dispute between a couple, a law enforcement officer may decide it is far less trouble to arrest the male party to the dispute, because the female may have children to care for, despite both parties being equally culpable for the dispute. This sort of pragmatic decisionmaking would mean the statistics had a gender bias because of what officers did to resolve such disputes.
Researchers also conduct population surveys in order to identify victims of crime and their experiences. These surveys are often known as victimisation surveys as they seek to identify the victims of crime, especially for crime that is not reported to a law enforcement officer.
Victimisation surveys also suffer from problems as they are perception surveys. In these surveys people are being asked if they are victims of crime, without needing to provide any supporting evidence. In these surveys it is the participant's perception, or opinion, that a crime occurred, or even their understanding about what constitutes a crime that is being measured.
As a consequence victimisation surveys can also exhibit a subjective bias. Also, differing methodologies may make comparisons with other surveys difficult.
One way in which victimisation surveys are useful is that they show some types of crime are well reported to law enforcement officials, while other types of crime are under reported. These surveys also give insights as to why crime is reported, or not. The surveys show that the need to make an insurance claim, seek medical assistance, and the seriousness of an offence tend to increase the level of reporting, while the inconvenience of reporting, the involvement of intimate parters and the nature of the offending tend to decrease reporting. This allows degrees of confidence to be assigned to various crime statistics. For example: Motor vehicle thefts are generally well reported because the victim may need to make the report for an insurance claim, while domestic violence, domestic child abuse and sexual offences are frequently significantly under-reported because of the intimate relationships involved, embarrassment and other factors that make it difficult for the victim to make a report.
Classification
In order to measure crime in a consistent manner, different sorts of crime need to be classified and separated into groups of similar or comparable offences. While most jurisdictions could probably agree about what constitutes a murder, what constitutes a homicide may be more problematic, while a crime against the person could vary widely. Legislation differences often means the ingredients of offences vary between jurisdictions. The penalty for an offence may also vary, with fines being imposed in one jurisdiction, while imprisonment occurs in another.
The level of penalty may determine what does and does not constitute a crime. Some jurisdictions may even have offences that do not exist in others.
Classification systems attempt to overcome these problems, although different jurisdictions perform this classification in different ways. Some classification systems concentrate on specific indicator crimes, such as murder, robbery, burglary and vehicle thefts.
Measures
Measures of crime include simple counts of offences, victimsisations or apprehensions, as well as population based crime rates. Counts are normally made over a year long reporting period.
More complex measures involve measuring the numbers of discrete victims and offenders as well as repeat victimisation rates and recidivism. Repeat victimisation involves measuring how often the same victim is subjected to a repeat occurrence of an offence, often by the same offender. Repetition rate measures are often used to assess the effectiveness of interventions.
Because crime is a social issue, comparisons of crime between places or years are normally performed on some sort of population basis.
See also
Crime index
Crime rate
Crime science
Criminology
Dark figure of crime
Demography
Questionnaire
Self report study
Victim study
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)