All of these problems indicate a figure of crime that is left undiscovered by statistics, thus alternatives have been created to try and uncover this elusive figure.
Victimisation surveys involve asking a cross section of the population what crimes they’ve been a victim of. The survey is anonymous which increases the likelihood that the individual will be honest therefore increasing its validity. It is a random sample survey, which also covers a range of different crimes. This survey reveals some of 11.6 million previously undiscovered statistics compared to a puny 3.1 million exposed crimes from official statistics. But this method also has a few disadvantages. It is firstly vulnerable to influence from social desirability because it takes place at home where there is possibly other people present and the participant may not want to discuss certain crimes, like domestic or sexual abuse, with someone they live with.
The survey also doesn’t include all types of crime, as it simply ignores any sort of white-collar crime. This may be due to the common stereotypical view that crime is a violent, traumatic event that is committed by the poorer people in society.
The issue of gender may also be a problem, for if the interviewer is male and the interviewee is a female rape victim, then she may not be comfortable in discussing the her experience.
A additional alternative is the Local Crime Survey. These are micro studies that look at certain areas crime rates. Left realists favour them as they produce a much clearer picture of the undiscovered figures of statistics as they concentrate on a smaller area but in much more depth. From this local issues can be uncovered allowing local police to improve the areas situation. It also eliminates cases of social desirability as participants will feel like they are giving information to help their local area. However, these surveys, like victimisation surveys are not private and it relies on the memory of the participant, which in itself may be flawed and subjective. The findings from this kind of micro survey cannot really be generalised unless several are carried out.
A final surrogate to the official statistics is the Self-Report studies whereby participants complete a questionnaire consisting of a range of legal, illegal and deviant acts which they tick if they have taken part in this kind of act. However the study remains anonymous and there is no interviewer present, therefore the participants should answer honestly without any fear of police action taking place upon them.
$
Official statistics can also be useful in that it takes a scientific approach, which makes it objective and the nearest form of experiment a sociologist can carry out. The government regularly updates the statistical data making it easily accessible and cheap. It can also provide useful patterns about who and where certain crimes are committed most.
There are though many flaws in the use of official statistics as the statistics only show ‘the tip of the iceberg’. The reasons for crimes not being reported by the public include, fear of revenge, mistrust of police and loyalty to the perpetrator. The Marxists suggest that white-collar crimes are reported less as people are unaware that they are victim, the upper class keep them oppressed as the crimes are hidden and large corporate companies have their own relationship with the state, which may make them almost impossible to fight against. Feminists suggest that if women are victims of sex crimes such as rape, the embarrassment re-living the act and fear of doctor’s examination may let the crime go unreported.
Marxists also state that the recording of crimes is heavily influenced by the bias views of several police. They suggest that the reason specific ethnic minority groups are targeted is because of ‘institutional racist’ views, reared by ‘canteen culture’. A bias police force towards the working class also affects statistics as with more police being put on patrol in working class areas means that more crime will be uncovered in that area whereas less will be found in the richer areas.
To conclude, the alternatives to official data provide some intriguing substitute ways of tackling the flaws arisen from official stats. Local Crime Surveys provide a more in depth analysis only of a smaller area, making it harder to generalise. Victimization studies begin to uncover some of the unreported figures of crime by personal interviews but they are not taken place in the best location. Self-report studies show that crime is spread across the social gamut yet a lack of guidance and assurance of anonyminity are a main cause of its unreliability.
However, all of these studies do not look at deviance in half as much depth as they do crime. Durkheim’s study of suicide however focuses much more on this.
Using a positivist approach and scientific methods Durkheim looked at suicide rates over Europe. Having created a hypothesis using statistics and deriving fundamental explanations from it he compared the incidence of various social factors with the known incidence of a certain event. Alongside this he also aimed to increase the reputation of sociology as a science by purely using scientific methods. In conclusion based on his findings, suicide rates were dependant on integration and regulation in certain areas and time periods. But, as criticized by Douglas, Durkheim does avoid the meanings behind the reasons for suicide. So as with the other studies, this too lacks an in depth analysis of deviance, whilst remaining more detailed than the others.
To conclude, the usefulness of statistical data in the study of crime and deviance has many flaws. There have been many different alternatives to official stats that have provided a better insight to the real rates of crime and deviance. However they themselves have their own flaws, but in uprooting more rates of crime and deviance than official statistics, it can be said that the alternatives allow more analysis to occur. Sociology has attempted to prove itself as a science and has had many attempts at providing scientific results, but the statistical approach fails to give any meaning or reason behind why crimes are committed. Therefore I conclude that statistical data is only acutely useful in the study of crime and deviance, alternative data provides a better look at the reasons behind crime and deviance.
