Why might figures for recorded crime
'Crime' can be defined in two ways. There
is the legal definition of crime, which states that crimes are acts
which break the written law of the state. For example, stealing a jumper
from a shop. There is also the normative definition of crime, which
states that crimes are acts which break moral codes set by society,
which can be formal or informal. For example, spitting. Legal and
normative crime cannot be reconciled, as a lot of acts which are
considered legal by the legal definition, are considered wrong by the
normative definition.
What is, and what is not a crime is
socially constructed by the members of a society in both definitions.
Culture and time play a large part in deciding what is right and wrong.
Over time, what was once considered acceptable may be considered wrong,
and vice versa. This essay will look at how figures for crime over the
years and at the present may have been underestimated. Many statistics
will show an overall increase in crime over time. Crime has increased
since the 1880s quite dramatically, with rapid acceleration in crime
rates in certain eras.
Crimes recorded by the police 1878-2000
(Maguire, 1997, p158; Social Trends, 2002) show that between 1955 and
1964, crime rates doubled, and this occurred again in 1977 and 1991.
Recorded crime 1945-2000 also shows a dramatic increase in offences
leading up to 2000 (adapted from Social Trends, 2002). Specific types of
crime such as theft and handing stolen property almost doubled between
1981 and 2000, going from 1,603 to 2,145 (in thousands). Whilst there
was a drug offence increase from 0 to 113 (adapted from Social Trends,
2002, Table 9. 3).
There has also been an increase in
violent crimes since 1999 to 2001, going from 581 thousand to 601
thousand (adapted from Social Trends, 2002). However, is all this
information completely reliable? It does not take into account the
changes in belief of what is and what is not considered a crime over
time and how matters were dealt with. Certain crimes would have gone
unreported many years ago. Child abuse and domestic violence just
weren't talked about in a tight knit community. Where men dominated the
household, women did not speak up against them, and so these crimes went
unreported, and so are not included in official records.
This shows that we underestimate the
levels of crime in earlier eras. Similarly, today, records also do not
take into account unreported crime. Victim surveys suggest that official
records greatly underestimate crime rates. In 1998, it was officially
documented that 4,595,300 crimes took place. However, the British Crime
Survey estimated that a total of 16,437,000 crimes occurred. This is a
huge underestimation of crime. Whilst 97% of motor vehicle theft and 85%
of burglaries were reported, only 26% of car vandalism was
(Mirrles-Black et. Al 1998).
This also shows that records are not
reliable and greatly underestimate certain areas of crime. The same
survey discovered reasons for why many crimes weren't reported: 44% did
not report a crime as they thought it was not serious enough; 33% did
not report as they claimed that there was little the police could do
about it; 22% believed the police would not be interested in their
report; 11% thought they could deal with the matter better than the
police could; 4% found it inconvenient to tell the police; and another
4% were also fearful of reprisals.
This also shows that many offences go
unreported, thus resulting in an underestimation of crime. There is also
evidence to suggest that people themselves underestimate the likelihood
of crimes occurring against them. People most at risk of street crime
believed themselves not to be at risk. Only 1% of men between 16 and 30
felt unsafe on the streets. The actual percentage of street crime
against this group was 7. 7% (Muncie and McLaughlin, 1996, Table 1. 5).
This group were almost the most at risk from street crime out of any
group and they also estimated themselves at extremely unlikely to be at
risk.
This shows that many people underestimate
crime that could happen to them. In conclusion, there are two main
reasons why figures for recorded crime may underestimate the actual
amount of crime. Firstly, in the past many crimes went unreported due to
the traditional roles of people. And secondly, people may find reasons
for not reporting crime nowadays, such as inconvenience and lack of
faith in the police. So, overall we can say that figures do regularly
underestimate rates of crime.
Comments
Post a Comment