One key benefit of official statistics is the representative sample. As a large sample, taking into account all convicted crimes in the country it is able to be generalised and display trends of criminal activities across the country, or even in specific areas.
On the other hand Reiner’s study showed that only 2% of all reported crimes actually appeared as a crime statistic. Due to heavy police work loads or perhaps even the media prejudging a case if it reaches the court, 98% of all crimes reported are said to not end up in conviction. This could possibly mean that the official statistics are misrepresenting the amount of crime that occurs and the trends within these crimes. For example, feminists would argue not a single case of marital rape has ever appeared as a crime statistic, is that to say it does not happen or that no one is ever convicted? Criminal activity could also be misrepresented in official statistics due to the need to report crimes to get a reference number for insurance purposes. In the 1970’s there was a dramatic increase in the amount of burglary’s being reported, this could possibly be due to an increase in the amount of people having home insurance. This would clearly alter the validity of crime trends.
Another positive aspect of is that official statistics are compiled every 6 months this is more frequent than any other way of gathering crime statistics, this suggests that they are more up to date and relevant. Official statistics are also easily accessible, well organised and properly classified meaning that the statistics are easily comparable. This allows for sociologists and criminologists to observe crime trends.
Nevertheless in 1995 crime seemed to reduce, this was not necessarily due to better policing but most likely due to changes in the way official statistics are counted. The Home Office have a clear bias and would wish for crime statistics to reduce yearly and therefore the way the statistics are compiled is changed to reduce the results. This would clearly render official statistics as being possible invalid when looking at trends making it difficult to factually measure crime.
However the biggest problem with official statistics is the ‘dark figure’. By using the other methods of measuring crime it appears that only 40% of all crime appears in the official statistics, leaving the 60% dark figure that is not included. This could be due reasons such as lack of evidence, although it could be due to the victims fear and embarrassment concerning the crime.
Victim surveys are intended to find out all crime that is committed against a sample of the population. The first victim survey was done in the 1980’s by the New Left Realist Jock Young in Islington, London. In the Islington victim survey Young noted the reasons for the behaviour of the inhabitants, such as fears to leave the house due to crime and reasons for not reporting criminal activities. In victim surveys unlike reporting the crime to the police the victims are able to stay confidential; therefore factors such as fear and embarrassment are practically eliminated. The victims are able to report multiple crimes that are committed against them of varying seriousness and have statistics created from them without any form of repercussions.
However, it is believed that crime related to sexual offences is still down played. Other forms of crime appear to increase, due to citizens not always reporting certain crimes, however sexual offences not have the same increase. As most sexual offences are towards women, feminists would argue that the lack of sexual offences reported in victim surveys are due male dominance over women, perhaps the male dominance means the women are not allowed total confidentiality. Whatever the reason this would of course show an issue within using victim surveys as a way of measuring crime.
The victim surveys also allow patterns of victimisation to emerge; certain demographics are more likely to be targeted than others. This helps to measure crime and ascertain who is most likely to be at risk and from what form of crime, in any particular area. Although the under 16 does not take part in victim surveys which creates an issue as the people most likely to be a victim of crime is actually young males.
Another issue with victim surveys lies with the classification of crimes. In official statistics the results are compiled by experts with crimes that have been classified by the courts, however with victim surveys people who do not necessarily know very much about the laws are left to categorize the crimes. This means that similar crimes can not be compared with the statistics as there may have been confusion over the classification; thus making it difficult to measure the crime.
Since victim surveys allow for crimes that may have had insufficient evidence to reach the courts or crimes that the victims were unwilling to report become measurable statistics, they also allow for crimes that may not have happened join the truthful statistics. The crimes reported on victim surveys are totally unverifiable and therefore can the statistics be truly trusted?
Additionally victim surveys do not represent seemingly victimless crimes such as drug related crime. With just victim crimes and no other forms of measuring crime it would probably appear as though drug crime nearly never happens, however the following way of quantifying crime is far better at dealing with the victimless crime.
Self report surveys are similar to victim surveys; however they are reversed. The sample are asked to fill in an anonymous survey, the sample is of course dramatically smaller than that of the official statistics the only difference is that the sample are admitting to crimes that they have committed. Victimless crime such as drug taking can be reported, meaning it allows for this crime to be measured unlike victim surveys.
Nonetheless, even with a confidential survey, the Hawthorne effect could sill apply. The sample may still be ashamed of the crimes they have committed or fear comeuppances and omit certain details, or perhaps the sample may talk big of their misdemeanours. Either way, as with victim surveys the results can not be verified and therefore the truthfulness of the statistics is brought into question and the measurements of crime could possibly be totally invalid.
On the other hand, self report surveys are able to track crime from those that have not been caught by the law, or in fact anyone else. Self report surveys have been used in the past to gain information on crimes such as prostitution as it is often difficult to arrest for that crime as there are very few witnesses, as the clients are not exactly likely to admit their own illegalities. This means that crimes that would otherwise go mainly uncalculated and unrecorded can be measured.
Problematically it is not feasible to do self report surveys or victim report surveys on a large sample meaning that they are not necessarily generalisable or representative. This of course poses a large issue when it is concerned with the measurement of crime trends.
In conclusion, the use of a triangulation method, involving the accumulation of all three types of measuring crime would be best when trying to achieve an accurate picture of criminal activities. One method alone poses too many flaws and issues when trying to gain a truer idea of crime, methodological pluralism allows for less possible faults in the measuring crime system.
