The BCS originated in 1981 and based itself upon the National Crime Victimisation Survey. Although, the BCS modelled itself on the already existing NCVS, the two surveys originated in ‘different periods in different countries and with different political agenda’s’ (Goodey, 2005: p.46).
The BCS was initially conducted in private households around the United Kingdom whereby those over the age of 16 were interviewed regarding their recent experiences of crime (Home Office, 2008). The idea of a victimisation survey being conducted in Great Britain was first put forth after it was established that the true extent of crime was a lot higher then what the Home Office’s official statistics were predicting (Hale et al, 2005). Scotland later isolated itself away from the BCS, to create its own victimisation survey known as the Scottish Crime and Victimisation Survey (SCVS).
Different countries produce victimisation surveys for different reasons depending on what there individual countries strengths and weaknesses are, for example, the BCS arose out of the ever growing list of limitations to the official data produced by the Home Office. The BCS was created for people to talk to about their experiences as victims of crime so that the government can do something, not just about the reported crime, but also about the crime that is not reported (Hale et al, 2005).
Until recently the BCS was conducted by using the electoral registrar to randomly select people however this was hugely criticised. This is because many people failed to registrar their vote which results in a lot of people being missed of the electoral register. The victimisation levels of those that are missing will then remain un-investigated and generally those absent will fall into the same social groups. This indicates that although the electoral register was a good source when the BCS started it is no longer a reliable source especially with the introduction of modern technology which will surely make carrying out the survey easier. Since the introduction of a yearly survey in 2001 the Home Office have bee using addresses from the Post Office (Home Office, 2008).
Although, the BCS has always used a wide sample of around 50,000 people, only one person from each household is interviewed. The one person from each household may be unable to relay information on crime about the other people they live with as they may not know the full details of an incident or they may be unaware of any other crime (Hale, 2005). This also leads to the conclusion that if only one person is to take the survey from one household it id likely to be a lead family member. For example, a teenager is least likely to want to do a survey, not only because they don’t want to, but because generally a parent will be there who can do it instead. This creates an unintentional sample bias which needs to be addressed in order to achieve a variety of responders.
One major criticism which leads to a sampling bias of the BCS is that, although it aims to establish trends of crime, it ignores one particular crime trend that has been identified in recent years. It fails to cover crime against children and teenagers under the age of 16 which in today’s society is a crucial age range as more and more youngsters are becoming victimised by their peers, their families and by complete strangers.
Mosher et al (2002) declared that in order to ensure any victimisation survey is accurate and ethically valid the interviewer needs to bear in mind three methodological issues. Firstly, the researcher needs to establish any sampling issues which may arise by ensuring that a representative sample is being used. As the victimisation of one person is rarely experienced by more then a few people at one time the researcher will need to use a large sample. The researcher must also understand that crime is not equally distributed amongst communities (Maxfield and Hough, 2007). Secondly, the researcher will need to establish the best method for collecting data whether this is done by the phone or through a face to face meeting. Thirdly, the researcher should always assess what technical and procedural issues may arise before the study takes place so that they are prepared in the event of something going wrong (Mosher et al, 2002)
Mosher et al (2002) acknowledged a serious implication of all victimisation surveys surrounding the definitions of crime. The basic definition of each crime is extremely limited and may lead interviewees getting confused and wrongfully answering a question. Victimisation surveys should, in theory, use more decisive definitions then the police reports (Mosher et al, 2002) because those that are interpreting each question are those without any criminal knowledge.
A major disadvantage of all victimisation surveys is that they are based on the victim’s perceptions of crime without any official confirmation that what they had actually experienced was in fact a crime (Maxfield and Hough, 2007). Many victims remain unaware that what had occurred to them was in fact a crime which may be demonstrated through the victims of domestic abuse who are generally under the delusion that they are to blame for the abuse against them.
Mosher et al (2002) stated that victimisation surveys rely on the level of education of a victim as it is education that teaches individuals to understand and to retain information in memory so that they are able to recall later on. It is therefore crucial that the questions in victimisation surveys are worded and phrased appropriately and correctly so that victims who are educated to a very basic level are able to understand (Mosher et al, 2002).
A major disadvantage of victimisation surveys is that any response may still be slightly inaccurate as respondents may forget about a crime, they may be mistaken about what actually occurred or they may not understand the question. It has also been reported that the respondent may invent an offence or omit to one just to escape the researcher (Hale et al, 2005).
According to Mosher et al (2002) there are four potential problems that have been associated with victimisation surveys which may question the surveys reliability and therefore its validity.
Victimisation surveys only cover a small range of crimes and do nothing to attempt to establish rates of more violent crime in society. Although, the BCS includes a variety of crime including property and personal crime, it does not cover commercial crime such as theft from a shop or business. The BCS does, however, establish victimisation rates on small crimes such as assault and theft it but it does not deal with serious crimes such as murder (Mosher et al, 2002). This leads researchers to believe that the BCS is very problematic because it only represents a small proportion of all crime.
Mosher et al (2002) also declared that victimisation surveys are based on sample data and are not based on a population count like they should be. The BCS, for example, is only accessible to a small proportion of the public and immediately excludes people who are homeless, those in care homes and many others who live in various institutions (Hale, 2005).
Mosher et al (2002) also acknowledged that the BCS fails to look at crimes that are victimless such as drug use or prostitution. This leads to a major criticism as it is quite common knowledge that the prostitution population in the United Kingdom is rising as are drug users. It would be beneficial to look at victimless crimes to increase awareness of the dangers of these lifestyle choices.
Other disadvantages that have been highlighted demonstrate that many respondents forgot incidents of victimisation or they may fail to inform interviewers about some of the crime victimisation that they have experienced for some reason (Maxfield and Hough). Victims may not believe that a crime which occurred a long time ago is not relevant to the current statistics. In order for the BCS to be effective in showing hidden numbers of crime against official statistics, surveys must aim to measure each crime as an unrelated incident however some crimes, such as domestic abuse, occurs so frequently that it is hard to establish on how many occasions it occurred (Mosher et al, 2002). Circumstances, such as abuse in the home, where the attacker is with the victim at the time of the interview is never looked into even though their responses are likely be incorrect as they will not disclose their experience of violence in front of an abuser
An advantage of the BCS, however, is that it includes crimes that are not reported to the police and are therefore not recorded. It also includes some of the crimes that are reported to the police but are not recorded According to the BCS there are around 40,000 crimes that occur each day with only thirty-nine percent of these being reported. This thirty-nine percent are then sifted through as ‘not every allegation can be substantiated’ (Wilson, 2004: p.23). Therefore the amount of crimes recorded by the police will be less then the crimes reported to the police. This has acknoledged that although a lot of crime is reported to the police not all of it is recorded. This highlights some initial changes that could be made to make official statistics more accurate with very little effort or money needed. The police, for example, could reorganise the way they deal with crimes by ensuring that all reported crime is recorded.
Although it has been established that official statistics and victimisation surveys are a step in the right direction to battling the rising figures of crime, both, distort the ’true’ figure of crime in one way or another. Victimisation surveys are the better source of measuring crime levels which concludes that they are of paramount importance. It is possible to deduce that the reason the BCS is not as efficient as it once was is that the same method of collection and analysis is till being used 25 years later. Perhaps officials can come up with a new victimisation survey to suit a modern society that addresses the issues relating to why the current survey is failing. This would then create a new and more decisive measure of crime.
References
Glenn, H. (1988) ‘Multiple victimisation’, in M Maguire and J Pointing (eds) Victims of crime: a new deal? Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
Goodey, J. (2005) Victims and Victimology: Research, Policy and Practise. Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
Hale, C., Haywood, K., Wahidin, A., and Wincup, E. (eds) (2005) Criminology. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Home Office (2007) Crime in England and Wales 2006-2007 (Internet). Available from: http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/. Accessed 06/02/08.
Maxfield, M.G., and Hough, M. (eds) (2007) Surveying crime in the 21st Century. New York: Cullompton.
Mosher, C.J., Miethe, T.D., and Phillips, D.M. (2002) The mismeasure of crime. CA, USA: Sage Publications Inc.
Wilson, D. (2004) ‘The politics and processes of criminal justice’, in J Muncie and Wilson D (eds) Student handbook of criminal justice and criminology. London: Cavendish Publishing Ltd.
