Since rates of reporting and recording crime varied so much between crimes, official statistics do not reflect the extent of different crimes uncovered by the survey. Therefore, victim surveys offer a useful insight into the comparative trends of crime which is not afforded by official statistics. However, the data provided is not entirely reliable, Jock Young points out several problems with victim surveys, for example, victims may conceal crimes due to a misplaced sense of guilt, particularly with regards to crimes such as rape. This links to the feminist perspective of crime, even in the context of victim surveys women are marginalised. Victim surveys are arguably no more representative than official statistics as they are still hindered by the patriarchal values which bias official statistics. A crime such as rape may result in the victim (either male or female) being stigmatised., therefore it is difficult to generalise the findings of victim surveys.
Similarly, victim surveys suffer in terms of validity as they are based of the recollection of events which may vary from the reality. As with any survey they are subject to problems such as unreliability and the fact that the victims perspective of crime may vary from the sociological understanding.
Both feminists and Marxists agree that official statistics represent a biased view. The ‘dark figure’ of crime, particularly with regards to crime such as domestic violence means that official statistics represent little more than a social construction. However Marxist theory favours self- report studies in the sociological understanding of crime as oppose to victim surveys. In order to gain a rounded understanding of crime it is necessary to take into account the perspective of the criminal, particularly as many are disadvantaged by class prejudices and labeling. A victim survey does not investigate the social and economic inequality which is responsible for the majority of crimes. William Chabliss argues that greed and self interest generated by the capitalist system motivate crimes at ALL levels within society. Victim surveys negate the causes of crime which are imperative to the sociological understanding of it.
Self report studies suggest that some sections of society are more likely to be convicted than others. The data collected from these surveys can be compared to the official statistics to discover which offenders are most likely to be convicted. Steven Box argues that such surveys refute the fact that working class youths are more likely to commit crimes than their middle class counterparts. This complies with the Marxist view that official statistics are biased against the working classes and that this view is internalised by the masses. However, this is not an area of understanding aided by victim surveys suggesting that they cannot portray an accurate view of crime.
There are limitations concerning the validity of self report surveys, particularly the likelihood that respondents may lie or exaggerate. However, they do offer a deeper sociological understanding of the causes of crime.
However, sociologists such as Matza claim that the sociological understanding of crime is limited due to the inaccessibility of criminal sub cultures. This reality means that victim surveys are little more useful than official statistics. Interactionists stress the need to lessen the use of labels when exploring crime as this can in fact amplify deviance by alienating the individual from conformist society. Stan Cohen’s study investigating moral panics suggests that the media may encourage or enforce deviance. As a result, it could be argued that victim surveys aid the sociological understanding of crime without stigmatising the perpetrator as criminal statistics and self report studies may do.
Despite the fact that the positivist perspective emphasises the need to employ statistics in the sociological understanding of crime, evidence suggests that they present a biased picture. They fail to uncover social trends and are subject to recording anomalies, changes in reporting behaviour or even increased deployment of police in a certain area. These factors have no bearing on the sociological understanding of crime. Interpretevists stress the need for qualitative data to aid understanding, in which case victim surveys are more appropriate. Marxists and feminists alike stress the biases which invalidate official statistics, similarly they do not into account the meaning of the offense to the offender. Increases in crime may merely represent more of the ice berg being revealed. Arguably however, victim surveys offer little insight as well, similar distortions may arise due to sensitisation (or desensitisation) in the media for example. Seemingly, a rounded sociological understanding of crime is not possible.
