Crime Statistics or Criminal Statistics?

We have all seen shocking, and it must be said compelling headlines in the tabloid newspapers of crime figures soaring out of control, violence and robbery spiraling away as if there was no order left in society and anarchy ruled. The Police Federation constantly reports shortfalls in funding to combat the rise in crime and the shortage of officers in relation to crime figures (Police Federation, 2002). It would appear to be a bit of a contradiction that the Government of the day would have us believe that their new offensive on crime is working and crime figures are falling. Whatever political party is in power will say Operation “Whatever it is this time” is going well and crime levels are being reduced. The opposition will always quote statistics indicating crime is out of control (Cohen, 1995). As with almost everything these days the level of crime is measured with statistics. Who records these, what are they based on and how accurate can they be with such a wide range of interpretation? In this essay I will look briefly into these questions and show, in relation to drug offences in particular how statistics can be used to support what some times can be two completely opposite opinions.

Criminal statistics in England and Wales as produced annually by the Home Office are compiled from Police and Court records. These figures have been compiled since 1856 (Briggs, Harrison, McInnes & Vincent, 1998), when court proceedings were first documented. To formulate modern statistics the Police draw figures from notifiable offences, crimes reported and recorded, but there would appear to be a lot of latitude in determining what constitutes a recordable offence. Some reported crimes could be seen as trivial or unimportant enough to record and investigate such as vandalism or littering. The person reporting it may not be seen as credible, children, the elderly or even, more shamefully, in some cases of rape (Zedner, 2002). Therefore some crimes may not appear as part of the end figures. Also, these figures do not take into account unreported crime. This unreported or dark crime figure is estimated to be at least double the reported figure (Maguire, 2002). The Courts draw their figures from indictable offences, those tried at Crown Court, summary offences tried at Magistrates Courts, which are double indictable offences, are not included in the official crime figures (Maguire, 2002). It is also worth acknowledging the fact that figures from the Transport Police, Ministry of Defence Police and UK Atomic Energy Police do not appear in Official Crime Statistics (Maguire, 2002).

This is a preview of the whole essay

To try to combat this deficiency in recorded and actual crime The British Crime Survey was implemented in 1982. The survey initiated by the Home Office incorporates a sample of 40,000 households using a self-reporting form to see how many crimes have been committed against them to try to highlight this dark or hidden crime figure (Maguire, 2002). This has now become an annual survey and is an attempt to give a more accurate picture of crime levels. It is used in specific Policing areas to help improve performance. However, even this has its shortcomings as not all crime is included and some crime seen as victimless, such as drug offences and is therefore not measured by this survey. Also there is a reluctance to report certain types of crime such as sexual offences making comparisons with Police and Court figures impossible.

Crime statistics can be manipulated. This could be done for example, to reduce crime figures to give the appearance that a new offensive against crime is working or that a particular crime is being dealt with more efficiently, for example the decriminalization of cannabis. Once decriminalized, the figures for offences for the use of this drug would disappear from statistics and give the perception that drug related crime viewed overall is being dramatically reduced. For example, for the crime of unlawful possession of drugs in 1999 cannabis was responsible for 68% of all offences (Drug Seizure & Offenders Statistics, 2001). Could the decriminalization of cannabis be because it is not viewed to be as dangerous or addictive as other drugs or could it be a way of reducing crime statistics?

There are times when the media manipulates crime figures. It is not always tabloid newspapers who have a reputation for sensationalizing stories that do this. The BBC News Online on February 26th 2001 ran the headline “Drug Related Deaths Soar” in which the dramatic rise in the deaths of people from heroin/morphine is highlighted as an indicator of this trend, the figure in the report being set at 754. At first this would appear to be a fact substantiating this headline. However, the report is based on drugs “mentioned” on death certificates and the line “heroin or the morphine it becomes in the body” (BBC News Online, 2001) could indicate that some of these deaths may be connected with the legal use of morphine. Further, there are statistics released listing heroin and morphine separately (Department of Health, 2001; National Office for Statistics, 1997), giving two lower figures, that do not have the same impact or “shock value” as one high level. Could this be an attempt to sensationalize a topic and build on a moral panic that already exists by the manipulation of crime statistics? Could cannabis decriminalization be seen as a way of fighting this moral panic by manipulating the same set of figures in a different direction?

Crime statistics do have their legitimate uses. By testing perpetrators of other crime for drug abuse the relationship with crime in general and drugs can be seen (South, 2002). In the year 1999/2000, it was found that half of criminals arrested for non-dwelling burglary tested positive for cocaine and over two thirds tested positive for opiates (Drugscope, 2001). This use of statistics shows how one problem in society impacts on other areas giving a broader, more informed perception as to how to deal with all of these issues in a coordinated and efficient way.

By looking at the statistics in relation to age, gender and cultural background it is possible to see which drug is more prevalent within a certain area of society (Mathews, 2001). With this knowledge it is possible to educate and inform that area of society on specific drug risks. There is a popular misconception for instance that minority groups commit most drug offences (Garland, 2002; Bowling & Phillips, 2002). We have all seen drug dealers portrayed in the cinema and on television as large Black Afro-Caribbean men dripping in gold jewellery surrounded by black minders. In reality according to the British Crime Survey (2000), white people score significantly higher in drug use than any other ethnic group. This could go some way to dispel popular misconceptions in culture and help inform the right people in society of the dangers of these drugs. Another popular misconception is that youth and drug offences seem to go hand in hand, when in actual fact in 1999 only 33% of offences were committed by people under 21 years of age with the average age being 25 year old (Drug Seizures and Offender Statistics, 2001). This would suggest more should be done to promote the dangers of drugs to young adults in conjunction with education on these problems in schools. This shows the practical way crime statistics can be used, to promote understanding of the problems faced various groups in society, to dispel urban myths about gender, race and age and target valuable resources more efficiently (Drugscope, 2001; Durham Constabulary, 2002).

In conclusion, I would say that crime statistics are open to mis-use or abuse from the way they are collected, what crimes are included in them and who decides what to record, to the way they are portrayed by the organization or individual who draws upon them to support a point of view, strategy or theory. The way these statistics are presented can dramatically change society’s perceptions of ethnic, social and age groups and the actual levels and areas of crime. Used and recorded in the right way, crime statistics could be an invaluable tool to help target Policing and resources and educate the right areas of society to reduce crime in a real way rather than conceal the level of the problem society faces (Durham Constabulary, 2002). Crime prevention measures and strategies could be more accurately set up, youth crime reduced by targeting funding and resources into the right areas and at the right age group to educate and inform them before they become immersed in the culture of crime (Drugscope, 2001; Durham Constabulary, 2002). Unfortunately, the more these figures are twisted and abused to suit an end the less credibility society will give them.

References

[needs to be in alphabetical order]

BBC News Online (2001) “Drug Related Deaths Soar.” England. /news/ health/ Drug related deaths soar. BBC Online.

Bowling, B. & Phillips, C. (2002) [needs chapter title] in [needs editors of book] The Oxford Handbook of Criminology 3rd ed. Padstow: Oxford University Press.

Briggs, J. Harrison, C. McInnes, A. & Vincent, D. (1998) Crime and Punishment in England - An Introductory History. London: UCL Press.

Cohen, S. (1995) Visions of Social Control. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.

Department of Health (2001) Statistics on Young People and Drug Misuse: England, 2000 and 2001. England: H.M.S.O.

Drugscope (2001) Annual Report on the UK Drug Situation 2001. London: Drugscope.

Durham Constabulary Policing Plan (2001/2002)

Home Office Research, Development & Statistics Directorate (2001) Drug Seizure & Offenders Statistics United Kingdom 1999. England: H.M.S.O.

Home Office Research, Development & Statistics Directorate (2001) Drug Misused Declared in 2000: Results From the British Crime Survey. England: H.M.S.O.

Home Office (2000) Review of Crime Statistics: A Discussion Document. England: H.M.S.O.

Garland, D. (2002) The Culture of Control. Guilford: Oxford University Press.

Maguire, M. (2002) Crime Statistics: The Data Explosion and its Implications in [needs editors of book] The Oxford Handbook of Criminology 3rd ed. Padstow: Oxford University Press.

Mathews, R., Pitts, J. (2001) Crime, Disorder and Community Safety. Bodmin: Routledge.

National Office for Statistics (1997) Drug Related Deaths by Selected Drug Type, 1994 to 1996. England: H.M.S.O.

Police Federation (2002) “Where We Stand.”

South, N. (2002) “Drugs, Alcohol & Crime” in [needs editors of book] The Oxford Handbook of Criminology 3rd Ed. Padstow: Oxford University Press.

Zedner, L. (2002) “Victims” in [needs editors of book] The Oxford Handbook of Criminology 3rd ed. Padstow: Oxford University Press.

of the police or protection from the police may not be given (Muncie 2001, p. 26). But the main reasons for not reporting a crime were identified as the crime not being deemed as serious by the victim or observer, or they thought that the police would not be able to take any action. This under reporting does not occur at this extent for every classification of crime. The 1992 BCS also identified that burglary with loss and auto theft had an almost 100 per cent reportage rate which is linked to the increase in telephone ownership and more importantly the wider ownership of house contents and car insurance (Muncie 2001, p. 26) but this might also have been effected by fraudulent reports and claims.

Crimes such as 'white collar' crimes are also highly under reported. This is highly related to the fact that a number of important non Home Office agencies are not included in the official Statistics, such as, British transport police, the Ministry of Defence and the UK Atomic Energy Authority. More importantly are the range of tax and fraud benefit cases known to the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise, which are excluded unless they are brought to court (Muncie 2001, p 23). They are rendered as 'invisible crime'. Such crime is also highly underestimated and more often than not seen as less serious than 'street crime', even though they are probably far more numerous and far more costly than recorded crime.

Once a crime is reported there is no guarantee that it will find its way into the official statistics. The BCS found that this happens to approximately a 40 per cent of all reported crime. This 'grey figure' of crime is mainly attributed to police discretion. They may chose not to record it, for example, a family dispute may be classified as 'domestic- advice given' (Muncie 2001, p. 27) or if recorded may be 'no crimed' or 'NFA' (no further action), in each case they do not make their way into the statistics. This selective

Crimes such as corporate & commercial offences (shop lifting, burglary & vandalism), fraud, motoring offences and victimless crime such as drug offences are not included in the survey (Maguire, 2002).

This is not to say the decriminalization of cannabis is strictly a bad thing, but for the purpose of this essay demonstrates abuse of statistics.