Measuring Crime Past Paper - OCR

**Topic 2 -- Measuring Crime** ***Key questions: How is crime measured? What are the strengths and limitations of official statistics on crime? What are the strengths and limitations of victim surveys? What are the strengths and limitations of self-report studies?*** **Introduction** Criminologis...

**Topic 2 -- Measuring Crime** ***Key questions: How is crime measured? What are the strengths and limitations of official statistics on crime? What are the strengths and limitations of victim surveys? What are the strengths and limitations of self-report studies?*** **Introduction** Criminologists may wish to start by looking at how much crime exists, and understand whether it is rising or falling. However, critical theorists suggest we should be very skeptical about accepting crime statistics at face value because they are a **social construction**. This means that statistics reflect as much about the way they were gathered as the reality they seek to reflect. For example, if we looked at official statistics on our class at college, we may find very low levels of crime have been recorded, but that doesn't mean that members of the class have never committed a crime -- think about underage drinking. So the patterns displayed here show what the statistics have recorded, which need to be analysed in terms of validity and reliability. **The Social Distribution of Crime, Deviance and Victimisation** The social distribution of crime and victimisation refers to the social characteristics of offenders and victims, namely which social class, gender, ethnicity and age they are from. According to Official Statistics the typical 'criminal' and 'victim' appear to be very similar: - ***working class*** - ***male*** - ***young*** - ***disproportionately likely to be black***. (the word 'disproportionate' is important as the [majority of offenders and victims are white] because they are the ethnic majority. However, black men appear in the statistics much more than they should considering they only make up 3% of the population.) **Figure 1: Trends in Crime Survey for England and Wales and police recorded crime, year ending December 1981 to year ending March 2016** As you can see from the graph above, the **Crime Survey for England and Wales or CSEW** seems to show a significant decline in crime over the last decades, but police figures do not show quite such a dramatic dip. So which is closer to the truth? **Crime Measures** There are **three main ways to measure crime;** 1. **official crime statistics (OCS) including police records and the Crime Survey of England and Wales (CSEW)** 2. **victim surveys/studies (VS) including the CSEW** 3. **self-report studies (SRS).** **[Official Crime Statistics ]** Official crime statistics refer to any data produced/collated by the **government.** They are collated by the Home Office and published by the Office for National Statistics (ONS). They include: - **Police statistics**, and court and prison records - The **Crime Survey of England and Wales** (CSEW) **1 Police statistics - advantages** **Functionalists and Right Realists** uncritically accept the official crime statistics as a fair reflection of the problem of crime. They argue that **police statistics** are useful because they are widely geographically **representative** since they are supplied by 45 territorial police forces plus the British Transport Police. Most members of the public know the number 999 and have can therefore report crimes in person or over the phone. This means that the sample reporting crime to the police should theoretically include all ages, classes, genders, ethnicities and so on, so that the statistics produced reflect a huge data set and therefore can be used to **generalise** across the UK. **Reliability may also be high for police statistics because they are standardised thanks to high levels of training for police officers to make sure that crimes are recorded in the same way by all officers, ensuring consistency. By operationalising carefully, each police force should have the same understanding of key concepts, ensuring reliability e.g. what constitutes assault, aggravated assault or manslaughter. The statistics are gathered every year and in the same way. This makes the statistics reliable as they can be collected again and again to see emerging trends and patterns over time.** **Functionalists believe society is in consensus, so they see the police as representing all of us and do not question their motives. They therefore assume that what is reported and recorded is a 'social fact' and so the figures reflect reality, meaning they are high in validity. Functionalists trust the police figures; they reject the suggestion that they are socially constructed. We know that some crimes are highly likely to be reported, for example if victims see some benefit to themselves such as an insurance claim for a stolen car, so the statistics for some crimes (where insurance companies demand a police report) are likely to be higher in validity.** **Practically, police statistics are easy to access and have already been compiled. The data is published, and up-to-date, so can be accessed by any member of the public via the internet. There are few ethical worries as offenders/victims are not named so remain anonymous.** **Police statistics -- disadvantages** **Interactionists are highly critical of police statistics because they believe that they reflect only a narrow version of reality, not the whole truth. They are incomplete because not all crimes are reported or recorded, and only certain people are labelled as criminal. Therefore, interactionists suggest that police statistics lack validity because they do not reveal the dark figure of crime (the unreported crimes). Cicourel found that police officers in his study were more likely to arrest and charge working class youth than middle class youth, even though they carried out the same amount of crime. Thus, police statistics may have low validity because they reflect the labelling process rather than the actual crimes which are carried out.** **There are lots of instances where crimes go undetected and unreported this challenges the police statistics because many more crimes may exist but would not appear in the statistics. This may be because:** 1. **The victim is unaware that a crime has been committed such as a victim of financial fraud.** 2. **People may not report crimes because in some way they were involved e.g. a drug dealer who has had their stash of heroin stolen by another dealer is unlikely to report it** 3. **They may fear retaliation e.g. reporting on gangs or noisy neighbours.** 4. **It may be that the crime is perceived to be too trivial to solve, such as the theft of a garden gnome or unlocked bike.** 5. **Disadvantaged communities are less likely to have faith in the police and as such less likely to report crimes, which arguably compacts the problem.** 6. **Some people may not report certain crimes such as sexual offences because they are too embarrassed.** 7. **People may be unaware or lack power to report e.g. young children who are neglected/abused** **One might assume that if a crime is reported to the police that they would record every instance of this, but this isn't always the case. The police are trained to be professional and use their discretion when appropriate. This means that officers may decide that a crime is too trivial (theft of a gnome) and thus not record it as a crime. In 2014, the HM Inspectorate of Constabulary reported that 1 in 5 crimes reported to the police are not recorded by them.** **Recording and reporting of crimes may also change due to changes in public perception. For example, a certain crime may be noticed and reported more, if this been recently publicized or there is a moral panic in media reporting. Definitions, laws and police counting rules change so they are not strictly comparable over time. Changes in police practice and government policy may influence them, as policies about dealing with the certain offences may change. For all of these reasons, the validity of statistics is questioned.** **Marxists reject police statistics. Gordon suggests that the bourgeoisie selectively enforce the law against less powerful groups. He argues that police officers are the 'strong arm of the bourgeoisie' and so operate in ways which reflect the interest of the ruling class. As such the police may choose to pursue people and groups they perceive to be a threat and not others. He suggests that the police are selective in the way they apply the law, choosing challenging members of the working class to prosecute and imprison in order to uphold the illusion of a perfect capitalist system.** **Waddington's research on the canteen culture also suggests that the police statistics are not to be trusted because they reflect police stereotypes of typical criminals which influence them to stop and search certain groups. This includes ethnic minorities, youth, men and the working class. This may lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy where the only people found to be committing crime are the groups who are stopped and searched.** **Many criticise the statistics for lacking in validity because they fail to understand in any depth why something is the case. Statistics are quantitative and as a result they may indicate that something is the case but not why. Feminists prefer to use methods which focus more on the victim, offering a more empathetic, qualitative approach.** **2 Official statistics - Crime Survey of England and Wales (CSEW) - advantages** Although the OCS are formed mostly by figures from police and courts, the government does supplement this information with an annual survey called the CSEW. Victim surveys, are studies about the **victims** of crime rather than offenders; interviewers ask people if they have been a victim of a crime in the last year, and whether they reported it to the police. Respondents are asked questions in their own homes by trained interviewers using a **structured interview** with some questions administered on a laptop. Victim surveys reveal the **dark figure of crime** and the reasons why people may not have reported the crime committed against them. **Positivists** argue that the CSEW is high in **representativeness** because it uses a nationally representative sample (**stratified random sampling** technique) of 35,000 adults and 3,000 children per year. The response rate in 2013- was 75% which is relatively high, and it now includes child aged 10-15 as part of their parent's survey. The information is collected by professional, trained interviewers and the interview is **structured** so that there is **high reliability** because terms are operationalised clearly, each interview will use the same questions, phrased in the same way and answers are coded. It can also be argued that this survey seems to produce **higher validity** because respondents are asked questions in their own homes where they will feel more comfortable. The CSEW has been successful at developing special measures to estimate the extent of domestic violence, stalking and sexual victimisation, which are the least likely reported crimes. For these questions, the laptop is given to the respondents and they are asked to complete in privacy in order to avoid embarrassment, and to raise **validity**. **CSEW - disadvantages** **However, the CSEW has some limitations such as it doesn't reflect white collar (crimes committed against an employer) or those by large organisations (corporate crime). Marxists such as Snider argue that by continually asking about street crime rather than corporate crime, we reinforce the narrative that crime is a working class issue.** **People may not be aware they are victims of crimes and the CSEW relies on victims to have objective knowledge of the crimes committed against them. People's memories of traumatic events are often unreliable or they** may fail to remember all the crimes they have experienced in the previous 12 months. **Similar to the police statistics, people may be embarrassed or fear reprisals and so the data is not entirely valid.** In addition, victim surveys don't reveal **victimless crimes** such as underage drinking, (where the 15 year old consuming the alcohol is unlikely to see themselves as a victim), using drugs and prostitution. **The response rate is 75% but not 100 so some data has been not captured. Who are the 25% who don't respond? Representativeness** may be lowered if not every person completes the survey. If those that don't respond are the people who have not suffered any crimes, this distorts our view, since we may **generalise** that there is more crime than reality. Or, if the 25% are people who have suffered so much crime they refused to answer, then we may be underrepresenting the true levels of crime. Either way, low response rates may lower the **representativeness** and **generalisability** of our results. 2. **[Victim Surveys]** A. **Crime Survey of England and Wales** (see previous section for information/evaluation of this measure) B. **Smaller-scale victim surveys** Some victim surveys can also help **uncover the wider impact** of crime on a community. **Left Realists** are particularly keen to focus on working class victims and to provide **solutions** to cope with the crime. **Jones et.al.** carried out the **Islington Crime Survey** in 1986 and then again in 1990. A similar study was conducted in Merseyside in 1984. These surveys are not only focused on specific geographical areas (inner city areas) but also on the impact of crime on individual's lives and particularly vulnerable groups. The first study showed that a **third of all households had been touched by serious crime** in the last 12 months, crime was rated a major problem behind unemployment. The **qualitative** element of the survey unveiled that crime really shaped people's lives; 25% of all people always avoided going out after dark because of a **fear of crime**, 28% felt unsafe in their own homes. More than half of women stated that the fear of crime is real and rational and that '*it is not an exaggeration to conclude that many women in inner urban areas live in a state of **virtual curfew**'.* These findings on victimisation were influential in the development of Left Realism. They led Left Realists to believe that crime, and **fear of crime,** especially in inner city areas is very important in shaping people's lives and the OCS alone doesn't truly reflect this fact so needs to be supplemented with victim surveys. The Islington crime survey also found **not everyone has the same likelihood** of becoming a victim since young households, lone parents and the unemployed were more than twice as likely to be a victim of crime as the average person. The poor were also more likely to be subject to **'multiple victimisation'.** Victim surveys can also be useful in **testing the success of social policy initiatives**. For example**, Farrington and Painter** used a victim survey to test whether improved street lighting reduced crime rates**.** They sent victimisation surveys to households (1,000 in total) before and after the new street lighting was installed. Respondents reported that they felt safer and this led to safer spaces because potential criminals feared being spotted. Victimhood fell by **43%**. Farrington and Painter point out that the importance of using a victimisation survey to reveal crimes such as receiving drugs which the police may not be aware of. This study shows the importance of using victim surveys rather than police statistics to reveal crime and fear of crime from a personal perspective. **Feminists favour victim surveys because they believe criminology should start with the victim, not the perpetrator (see topic 10). Feminists seek empathetic, in depth qualitative data which reveals what it feels like to be a victim. For example, Dobash and Dobash used two female researchers to carry out 109 unstructured interviews with women who had experienced domestic violence -- 42 of the women were living or had been living in a women's refuge. Dobash and Dobash found that 23% of their sample actually experienced violence before their marriage but believed it would cease once they were married. The other 77% had not experienced it before marriage but after. When they had experienced men's anger, they had seen it as an indicator of how serious the man was about them rather than as a sign of the violence to come. The first violent episode usually consisted of a single blow with little physical injury. It was often preceded by an argument, usually about the husband's possessiveness and his ideas about his wife's responsibility to him. This episode was normally followed by shock, shame and guilt, from both parties. The husband begged for forgiveness and promised it would not happen again, whilst wives often attempted to understand the action in terms of her own behaviour -- the idea that she had brought it upon herself. Few women responded to the attack with physical force. Dobash and Dobash found that such violence became 'routine' and 'normal'. They found that men felt they had the right to punish or 'discipline' their wives for being 'bad' wives or mothers. Women too expected domestic violence to be a 'normal' part of their marriage, and consequently, rarely complained about it or sought medical attention. They left the relationship when children were threatened with violence too. Feminists see such in depth data as more valuable than statistics because it allows us to see how crime impacts on individuals, and this gives us better validity.** **Smaller scale victim surveys/studies -- disadvantages** Many victim surveys use small samples which reduces the **generalisability.** For example, Dobash and Dobash's work used a sample of women living in a domestic violence hostel and therefore were probably not representative of women who may experience lower level domestic violence and their findings cannot be generalised to them, nor to men who experience domestic violence. **NB**. Use previous points put forward by **Marxists** on how victim surveys/studies ignore the crimes of the powerful and how peoples' **memories** may be faulty. **Functionalists** believe that our society works on a value consensus and the police work in all our interests. They therefore accept the police statistics as the most valuable because they have larger samples and are more reliable than victim studies. The **New Right** agree that the OCS are more valuable than victim surveys and they use the information from the OCS to target the underclass with policies for crime reduction. **Left Realists** suggest that victim studies are useful in addition to police statistics since they seek to help create solutions. They accept that no measure is perfect but try to use a combination of data to have the fullest picture. **[Self-Report Studies (SRS)]** The final method of measuring crime involves asking people which **crimes they themselves have committed**. This is known as a self-report study and is conducted using **anonymous self-completion questionnaires**. As well as being asked how often they commit illegal acts, respondents are generally asked details of their background such as age, gender or ethnicity. **SRS -- Advantages** One of the advantages of SRS is that they provide evidence against the typical delinquent as shown in the crime rate. **John Graham and Ben Bowling** (1995) conducted a SRS of 2,400 people aged 14-25. They were interviewed in their own home face to face then completed a self-completion questionnaire which used 23 offences and asks them to admit which, if any, they had committed. **Crime rates for blacks and whites were almost equal,** 44% for whites and 43% for blacks, and only 30 for British Asians (admitting to at least one offence in the last 12 months). Delinquent youth were more likely to begin to desist from crime if they forge strong adult relationships, return to full time education, have children or take up stable employment. So this SRS was helpful in providing a more **valid** account of patterns of offending regarding ethnicity and perhaps reinforces the need for sociologists to be suspicious of the possibility of **police racism** (see topic 12). **SRS are** useful as they can reveal hidden aspects of crime not picked up by the statistics, and this raise **validity in terms of gender.** For example, **Ann Campbell (1981)** found that levels of crime and deviance admitted to by females and males were much closer than the police recorded figures tended to suggest. The OCS show that for every 1 crime women commit, men commit 5, so the ratio of crime is **1:5**. This shows that men are much more criminal than women. However, Campbell carried out small scale self-report studies with her A level classes and found that for every 1 crime women committed, men committed 1.5, so the difference between crime rates of men and women is much closer than the OCS suggest (**1:1.5**). So this SRS was helpful in perhaps revealing evidence of **a chivalry factor**. SRS may be useful to see **trends over time and track changes**. The **Edinburgh Study of Youth Transitions and Crime** is one of the largest prospective longitudinal studies of youth offending ever carried out in the UK. Established in 1998, it began with a cohort of around 4,300 children aged 12, on average, who were all in their first year of secondary education in the city of Edinburgh. The main aim of the study was to further our understanding of criminal behaviour amongst young people by studying them over a key period of development, from early adolescence through to adulthood. This is an example of **a SRS *[and]* victimisation survey** so could be used to answer both exam questions. The study found children from single parent families, and those in care to have the highest criminality, showing that crime rates rise as you descend the social class scale. Boys were twice as criminal as girls and crime rates were higher when parents were unemployed. They found correlations between impulsivity and children who had high levels of criminality were also more likely to be victims. They found lower offending rates for those youth closely supervised by parents. The strongest correlation was between offending rates and the use of alcohol and drugs and friends who were offenders. **SRS -- Disadvantages** **Feminists would criticise SRS for failing to highlight the way that women are treated differently by the criminal justice system. SRS fail to highlight the victimisation that women suffer and therefore they would suggest using victimisation studies instead. These will reveal the level of victimisation that women suffer in relation to sexual and domestic violence.** SRS are often carried out on young adults and often include quite minor crimes, meaning they do not represent the older population and cannot be **generalised** across other groups. **SRS tend to be unrepresentative because they focus on relatively small groups of people (for example Campbell's research was a tiny sample of just three A level groups) and on particular types of crime. They do not include sexual crimes, domestic violence, white collar crime or murder.** **Participants may conceal offending or make false claims about what they have done. Farrington suggests that although young people seem to largely tell the truth about crime, older people may not because they want to present a facade of respectability. This may lower the validity of SRS. There has been some suggestion that communities who mistrust the police may also mistrust sociologists carrying out SRS's so perhaps the black and Asian Britons in Graham and Bowling's study under- reported their criminality because of distrust, and so the SRS lacks validity.** **In conclusion, it may be best to use methodological pluralism when measuring crime since SRS, OCS and victim surveys offer a broader picture than one method alone.**