Chapter 4

Chapter 4: Crime and Data

Class Notes:

·        Data about crime is important as police use data to direct their strategies

o   Governments can use it to inform policy decisions and funding commitments. Community groups may look to it to help develop programming.

o   Individuals may want to know this information when choosing a place to live.

·        So how do we measure crime?

o   Correctional Data:

§  Pros: Provides concrete numbers on the incarcerated population.

§  Cons: Only accounts for those convicted and imprisoned, not the total number of crimes committed. A single prisoner could be responsible for multiple offenses, skewing the representation of actual crime rates.

o   Court Data:

§  Pros: Offers information on convictions, which can be more indicative of crime trends than arrests alone.

§  Cons: Only includes cases where the crime was proven beyond a reasonable doubt, missing any unproven allegations.

o   Police Reports:

§  Pros: Covers all reported crimes, providing a broader scope of criminal activity, including those not proven in court.

§  Cons: Reflects only incidents reported to police, potentially omitting a significant volume of unreported crimes.

o   Note: All of these would miss crimes not reported in the first place

·        Two criteria used to measure accuracy in the social Sciences

o   Reliability: The chances that different researchers will get the same results using the same measure

o   Validity: Refers to whether or not actually measuring the thing you want to be measuring

·       

·        A reliable measure will consistently measure what it says it will measure.

o   However, that does not always mean it will measure the correct thing

·       

·        A valid measure will measure the right thing.

o   For instance, see the target on the top right. Everything hits the target, including the bullseye.

o   But just because something is valid does not mean it is consistent.

§  In the target on the top right, the measurement only hits the bullseye once, which shows it is inconsistent.

·       

·        The best sorts of measurements are both reliable and valid.

·       

o   Cannot trust this data

·        Official reports and statistics (gathered by courts, police, and corrections) never score highly on reliability and validity

o   The further you go into the official counts, the more reliable the numbers are, but the more questionable their validity is

·       

·        In the crime funnel, the  data you get from prison data going further into the funnel is very reliable

o   But it is not valid for measuring crime

§  Just measuring the justice systems response to crime

·        Ex.  For example, consider the different factors that would go into counting a theft at each stage of the crime funnel. A theft may take place, but if the victim doesn’t notice, it won’t get reported to the police. For instance, maybe somebody stole some loose change from your car, but if you didn’t notice it was missing, you wouldn’t report it to the police. So, an incident of crime would have taken place, but it wouldn’t show up in the police reports.

The Dark Figure of Crime

·        Many flaws in crime statistics

o   Ex. Some one stealing loose change from your car

§  If didn’t notice change stolen and never reported crime wouldn’t be counted

§  What about if you noticed this theft and reported it to the police?

·        That crime would now be counted in the police data. But if the police never arrest anyone for it, the crime won’t be counted in any of the other levels—arrest, conviction, or prison data.

§   

§  What if the police arrested someone, but in court, there wasn’t sufficient evidence to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?

·        That crime would be counted in police and charge data but not convictions.

·        None of the official methods capture all of the crime that is committed which is a huge problem

o   Know as the dark figure of crime: Crime that takes place which is never reported to police and the crime that is unknown

·       

·        Crime like an iceberg, we only see a small portion of it, but a large amount of it is still unseen (this is the dark figure of crime)

Methods of Measuring Crime

·        Three primary ways of measuring crime

o   The Uniform Crime Report (UCR)

o   Victimization Surveys

o   Self-Report Surveys

Uniform Crime Report

·        Uniform Crime Reporting System (UCR): Large data set detailing every crime reported in Canada

o   Reported in rates of 100,000 which describes how many crimes happen for every 100,000 Canadians

§  Pros:

·        Large data set

·        Data every month

§  Cons:

·        Some parts of Canada don’t even have 100,000 people (so crime counted more than once)

·        Most common crime is non-violent property crimes such as theft, shoplifting and graffiti

·        More serious crimes buried under the less serious crimes

·        Only based on police-reported crimes

·        Crime Severity Index (CSI): rates give different kinds of crimes a weight:

o   More serious crimes get a higher score, even if they are less common. T

§  Pros:

·        Helps highlight the amount of serious, violent crime--the types of crime we are actually concerned about--in a community.

·        The CSI is based on UCR data but are often reported separately.

§  Cons:

·        Only based on police-reported crimes

·        Victimization Surveys: asks a sample of Canadians about whether they have ever been victims of sexual or physical assaults, break and enter, motor vehicle theft, household theft, vandalism, robbery, or other thefts of personal property.

o   Conducted by stats Canada every 5 years

o   Victimization surveys suggest that nearly 70% of all crimes are non-violent, and theft of personal property is the most common crime that occurs (37%).

o   However, they also suggest that people report less than 30% of all crime in Canada to the police.

·        Self-report Surveys: which are often conducted by researchers interested in understanding the dark figure of crime, are designed to study these sorts of questions

o   ask specific groups of people to detail what kinds of crimes they have committed, and how many crimes they have committed, usually in an anonymous survey

o   Studies are not usually as large as either the GSS or UCR data sets, and depend on people to honestly answer questions.

Textbook Notes

·        Two factors contribute to the complexity of measuring crime:

o   (1) the inherently theoretical nature of crime as a construct

o   (2) the practical challenge of knowing where crime occurs, what to count, and how to count it.

Crime as a Theoretical Construct

·        Once we embrace the goal of trying to measure the volume of crime, our first challenge is to agree on which acts are criminal and which are not

·        Defining Crime:

o   Legal Definition: Crime is defined by the state through laws, and acts deemed criminal are punishable under these laws.

o   Moral Values: Some actions are considered criminal based on religious or moral standards, punishable by a supreme being or cosmic justice.

o   Social Conventions: Other actions may be criminal if they violate cultural norms and customs, with consequences enforced by community sanctions.

o   Behavioral Consequences: Additionally, an act may be viewed as criminal if it causes harm to others, regardless of legal statutes.

·        Cultural Variations:

o   Different cultures and communities, including various Indigenous groups, have their own definitions of what constitutes wrongdoing, often predating and differing from established legal systems like Canada’s.

o   These alternative views challenge the imposed criminal justice system and highlight the need for a broader understanding of crime that incorporates colonial impacts on traditional legal interpretations.

·        Statistical Measurement:

o   In Canada, the Criminal Code, which was first enacted in 1893, serves as the baseline for identifying and prosecuting crimes.

o   Crime statistics typically derive from "crimes known to the police," which are collected and reported by Statistics Canada, providing a primary dataset for understanding crime distribution and frequency.

·        Theoretical Implications:

o   The interpretation of crime statistics varies among different schools of thought, each bringing unique perspectives on what these statistics represent and how they should be analyzed.

·        Research and Policy Implications:

o   How crime is conceptualized influences the type of criminological research conducted and subsequently, the policies recommended for addressing crime in society.

o   In summary, crime as a theoretical construct involves a complex interplay between legal definitions, cultural norms, moral values, and the societal impact of behaviors. This complexity necessitates diverse approaches to study, understand, and manage crime effectively, acknowledging its deep roots in social, cultural, and theoretical contexts.

·        The four main theoretical approaches to understanding crime are:

Structuralist

·        Conflict Theories: Theories, originating primarily with Marx, that focus on the unequal distribution of power in society—for example, based on class, race, or gender. Conflicts between classes or groups are driven to a large extent by this unequal power and unequal access to resources

·        Structuralist: Focuses on social structures and their influence on criminal behaviour

o   Ex. Marxist Theories, which focus on inequities in the distribution of capital in society, and feminist theories, which focus on gender inequity in societies organized on largely patriarchal lines

o   feminist theories, which focus on gender inequity in societies organized on largely patriarchal lines.

·        Researchers pay attentions to rge various power structures and ideological influences that play out in a wide array of social contexts

o   From a structuralist viewpoint, the Criminal Code is not simply a set of agreed-upon rules reflecting societal norms.

§  Instead, it's seen as an indicator of who holds the power to define legality and criminality.

§  This perspective suggests that laws are created and enforced by those in positions of power and reflect their interests and biases.

·        Critique of Crime Statistics: Structuralists argue that crime statistics do not necessarily provide a clear picture of the actual level of crime in society.

o   figures are seen as reflecting the priorities and definitions imposed by those in power.

o   Crime stats, therefore, may reveal more about the legal system's focus and the enforcement of laws against certain behaviors or groups rather than a genuine measure of societal safety or criminal activity.

·        Summary

o   Implications for Understanding Crime:

o   Structuralist Perspective: From a structuralist viewpoint, these changes highlight how the Criminal Code and legal reforms are not just about controlling crime but also about reflecting and reshaping societal values and power dynamics.

o   Crime Statistics: For structuralists, official crime statistics serve more to indicate who holds power and how it is exercised within the legal system rather than providing a straightforward measure of societal misconduct.

o   Focus of Research: Researchers with a structuralist approach are more likely to study the processes of law creation and implementation, or the societal impacts of the absence of certain laws, rather than solely focusing on crime statistics. They view these activities as a battleground where different ideologies vie to institutionalize their conceptions of right and wrong

Positivist Perspective

·        Positivist: Looks at intrinsic factors (e.g., biological, psychological) that predispose individuals to criminal behavior.

·        Positivists see the Criminal Code as a reflection of societal consensus, representing collective social values about what constitutes criminal behavior.

o   Unlike conflict theorists who focus on power disparities and injustices in law creation, positivists assume that laws generally mirror the agreed-upon norms and values of the majority of society.

·        Crime Statistics as Unbiased Measures

o   Historical Context: Crime statistics have been collected for a long time, with records dating back to the early 19th century in parts of Europe and North America. In Canada, such data has been systematically collected since 1921.

o   Standardization: The introduction of the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey (UCR) in 1962 in Canada aimed to standardize crime data collection across different police agencies to allow for consistent temporal and spatial comparisons.

·        Assumption of General Agreement on Major Crimes

o   Positivists argue that there is a broad societal agreement on major categories of crime (e.g., assault, robbery, theft, murder), which are universally recognized as criminal across various cultures and societies.

§  This consensus is seen as evidence that the Criminal Code effectively captures society’s core values (From Positivist Perspective).

·        Usefulness of Crime Statistics:

o   Despite their imperfections and the existence of the "dark figure of crime" (crimes that go unreported and hence unrecorded)

o   positivists believe crime statistics remain a valuable tool.

§  They argue that, like a miscalibrated scale that consistently reads wrong, these statistics can still provide useful insights if the errors are constant and known.

·        Application: Crime statistics are utilized to track trends over time, compare crime rates across regions, and assess the effectiveness of law enforcement and criminal justice policies.

·        Ongoing Challenges:

o   Variability in data collection methods among police departments can lead to inconsistencies.

o   Efforts are continually made by Statistics Canada and other agencies to improve the accuracy, standardization, and clarity of crime data.

·        Summary

o   Positivist researchers maintain that, despite their flaws, crime statistics provide essential insights into societal trends and serve as a practical tool for law enforcement and policymakers. This approach underlines a belief in the fundamental reliability of societal institutions to reflect and enforce the collective will and values through the legal system.

Constructionist Perspective

·        Constructionist Perspective: Emphasizes the idea that life does not come with categories and labels, and that we understand and define the world on the basis of our socialization and interactions with others.

·        Social Construction of Crime:

o   Constructionists argue that crime is not simply a set of behaviors but is defined by how society and its institutions label and react to certain actions.

§  The process involves identifying, coding, and counting incidents that are not purely objective but are influenced by human and social factors.

o   The implementation of laws is of particular interest to constructionists, as it varies significantly and reflects broader societal biases and enforcement priorities.

·        Inequality in Law Implementation:

o   Laws may be universally written, but their enforcement can be uneven, targeting certain demographics more than others.

§  Discrepancy raises questions about whether justice is truly impartial and equitable.

o   Robyn Doolittle’s investigation into police handling of "unfounded" sexual assault claims in Canada highlighted that a significant portion of these claims were dismissed without thorough investigation, suggesting biases in how laws are applied, particularly in cases involving sexual violence.

·        Variation and Bias in Crime Statistics:

o   Doolittle's findings revealed that sexual assault complaints were more likely to be dismissed as unfounded compared to other serious crimes, indicating systemic issues within the police force regarding beliefs about sexual assault and victim credibility.

o   The follow-up study showed some improvements in the "unfounded" rates, but significant regional disparities remained, underscoring ongoing challenges in achieving consistent and fair law enforcement across the country.

·        Theoretical Implications:

o   Constructionist theorists, like Jason Ditton, argue that crime statistics reflect more about police activity and societal attitudes than the actual volume of crime.

§  They believe that police "produce" crime statistics through their interactions, decisions on which incidents to pursue, and how they classify and report these incidents.

o   Perspective suggests that understanding crime statistics requires an examination of how police perceive and react to different communities, which can lead to biased enforcement practices and self-fulfilling prophecies.

·        Systemic Biases in Data Use:

o   The biases observed in crime data collection and police practices are also being perpetuated in modern decision-making algorithms, which use historical data that may reflect these prejudices.

·        Summary:

o   Constructionist perspectives emphasize that to truly understand crime and its statistics, one must consider the broader social context, including how societal norms, biases, and power dynamics influence the identification and reporting of criminal activities. This approach challenges the notion that crime statistics are straightforward reflections of reality, highlighting the complex interplay between societal values, law enforcement practices, and data interpretation.

Integrationist Perspective

·        Integrationist: A combination of structuralist, positivist, and constructionist approaches in criminology facilitating the inclusion of philosophy and sociology of law, the empirical study of crime, and its interpretation by those who control and implement the law

·        An integrationist approach suggests that any criminological theory that seeks to offer a complete explanation of crime and its causes and consequences should include both

o   (1) a philosophy and sociology of law that focuses on the development and change in laws, incorporating an analysis of whose interests are served

o   (2) an empirical study of crime and deviance focused not only on how the criminality revealed by crime statistics is distributed in society but also how these categories are interpreted and managed by those who control the development and implementation of law.

·        Combining Approaches

o   Structuralist Influence: Focuses on how societal structures, such as gender and race, influence involvement in sex work. Structuralists would analyze the demographics of sex workers and clients, examining how different groups are represented and affected by the sex trade.

o   Positivist Influence: Employs empirical methods to analyze data, such as arrest and court statistics, to understand patterns of criminalization and penalties within sex work, looking at outcomes like displacement and recidivism.

o   Constructionist Influence: Questions the representation of the sex trade in official statistics. Constructionists would investigate the uneven distribution of legal enforcement across different segments of the sex trade and explore the impacts of police discretion.

·        Integration of Perspectives:

o   Holistic View: The integrationist does not view these perspectives as competing but as complementary, each shedding light on different aspects of the sex trade. By integrating these viewpoints, an integrationist aims to gain a nuanced understanding of how sex work is regulated and experienced in society.

o   Application to Law and Policy: This approach would involve examining the development and changes in laws governing sex work, analyzing whose interests these laws serve, and studying how these laws are implemented and interpreted by authorities.

·        Implications for Criminology:

o   Comprehensive Analysis: An integrationist approach allows for a broader exploration of crime, acknowledging that legal, sociological, and empirical studies must all be considered to understand the complexities of criminal behaviors and the justice system’s response.

o   Enhanced Understanding of Crime Statistics: By recognizing the roles of various social factors and the biases inherent in statistical data, integrationists can better interpret what crime statistics reveal and what they obscure about societal conditions.

·        Practical Outcomes:

o   Guidance for Research and Policy: The integrationist perspective helps identify gaps in current research and policy-making, suggesting areas where different theoretical insights can contribute to more effective interventions and legal frameworks.

o   Balanced View of Criminal Justice Issues: By acknowledging the strengths and limitations of various criminological theories, integrationists promote a more balanced and informed approach to addressing issues like sex work in law and society.

Deconstructing the Crime Statistic

·        Crime Funnel: A model indicating that the total quantity of crime is much higher than the decreasing proportion that is detected, reported, prosecuted, and punished

·       

Crimes Witnessed by the Public

·        The left side of Figure 4.1 shows the process that must occur for a criminal event to be brought to the attention of the police by a member of the general public.

o   First, a person must recognize an event as a crime.

§  If an event is criminal, but the person does not notice it (e.g., money is stolen from someone, but they don’t realize it or think they might have lost it) or does not consider the event to be criminal (e.g., a physical interaction is viewed as roughhousing rather than assault), then clearly that will be the end of it.

·        Understanding this first step in the process also allows us to consider other human factors that might influence whether the event is dismissed or moves to the next step in the process.

o   Knowledge of the criminal justice system could play a role here; however, with more than 40,000 laws on the books, it is doubtful that any of us knows all of the crimes that might be committed.

·        Cultural and regional differences could also play a role in the interpretation of events

o   Ex. Different communities had different definitions of assault. In a mining town assaults would be a lot higher due to them having a looser version of assault

·        Factors that affect the decision to report a crime

o   Legal Obligations: Certain professionals, like teachers and social workers, are required by law to report specific types of crimes.

§  Their role mandates them to act as a bridge between the incident and law enforcement agencies.

o    

o   Confidence in Law Enforcement: The individual’s trust in the effectiveness and appropriateness of the police significantly impacts whether they report a crime.

§  If people do not trust the police to handle the situation properly, they may hesitate to make a report.

o   Perceptions of Appropriateness: How suitable people perceive the police to be for handling particular situations can influence their decision to contact them.

§  If the police are not seen as the best or most appropriate response, individuals might seek alternative solutions.

o   Alternative Reporting Channels: In communities with specific cultural or social needs, traditional police responses may not be seen as the best option.

§  Ex. the Indigenous community in a major Canadian city prefers contacting the Vancouver Aboriginal Transformative Justice Services Society (VATJSS) over the police.

§  This preference is based on the perception that VATJSS handles offenders and situations more in line with their cultural values and needs than the conventional justice system.

o   Cultural Suitability: Programs like VATJSS offer a culturally relevant alternative to the standard justice system, which can be more appealing to certain communities.

§  The approach taken by such programs might focus more on rehabilitation and community-based resolutions, which can be more aligned with the values of the community they serve.

·        General Social Survey (GSS): Conducted by stats Canada every 5 years, and provide insights into crime reporting among Canadians

o   Low Reporting Rates:

§  On average, only about 30% of Canadians reported the crimes they experienced to the police in 2019.

·        Reflects a broad reluctance to engage with the criminal justice system, which is even more pronounced in certain demographics

o   Distrust Among Racialized Communities:

§  Particularly within Indigenous communities, there is a notable distrust towards the police. Historical and ongoing issues, such as abuses of power and other harms highlighted by organizations like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, contribute to this distrust.

§  Skepticism results in lower reporting rates, as these communities may feel that engaging with the police could lead to negative outcomes rather than justice.

o   Variation by Type of Crime:

§  The likelihood of reporting varies significantly depending on the type of crime.

§  According to the GSS data:

·        Robberies, break-ins, and motor vehicle thefts are reported about 50% of the time, making them the crimes most likely to be reported.

·        Sexual assaults have a drastically lower reporting rate, with only about 6% being reported.

o   Significant issues in how sexual assaults are perceived and handled within the justice system and society.

o   Reasons for Not Reporting:

§  Common reasons for not reporting crimes include:

·        beliefs that the police would not consider the crime serious enough to pursue

·        doubts about the police's ability to do anything about the crime

·        feelings that the crime is a personal issue or too minor to involve the police

·        fear of retaliation

§  There are also gender differences in the reasons for not reporting, indicating that men and women may perceive and interact with the law enforcement system differently.

·        These differences could stem from varied experiences with crime or differing levels of trust and confidence in the police.

o   Implications for Policy and Practice:

§  These insights from the GSS underline the need for improvements in police-community relations, especially in building trust with marginalized groups.

§  There is also a critical need for awareness and reform in how sexual assaults are handled, given the extremely low reporting rates, which suggest that victims do not feel supported by the current system.

§  Understanding these dynamics can help law enforcement, policymakers, and community organizations to develop strategies that encourage more victims to come forward and report crimes, ensuring better support and outcomes for victims.

§  The GSS serves as a valuable tool for gauging public sentiment and behavior regarding crime reporting, offering essential data that can inform efforts to enhance the effectiveness and accessibility of the criminal justice system in Canada.

o    

·       

·       

·        Citizens' likelihood of contacting the police is significantly influenced by their expectations of the outcome of such interactions, especially when there is a perceived or experienced bias within the police force

o   1. Influence of Perceived Bias and Discrimination:

§  Racialized communities, including Black and Indigenous peoples, may hesitate to report crimes to the police due to fears of discrimination or disparate treatment based on past negative experiences or widespread reports of law enforcement biases.

§  Instances of abuse, especially the documented sexual and physical abuse of Indigenous women by law enforcement in Canada, further diminish trust and willingness to engage with the police, as victims may feel unprotected or further endangered.

o   2. Programs Influencing Reporting Behavior:

§  Initiatives like Operation Identification, which encouraged marking personal belongings to aid in their recovery if stolen, surprisingly led to increased crime reporting rates.

·        This was not because thefts increased, but because people believed the police could effectively recover marked stolen goods.

o   3. Police Response and Discretion:

§  The decision to respond to a call involves police judgment on whether the issue is pertinent to their intervention and if it merits their resources.

·        Historical examples show varied response rates, such as less frequent responses to domestic violence calls, which influenced the visibility of such crimes in statistics.

§  Changes in policy, like mandatory attendance for domestic disputes, can alter reporting rates and the appearance of crime statistics by ensuring more consistent police presence.

o   Discretion at the Scene:

§  Police have considerable discretion at the scene to decide how to handle incidents.

·        Ex. Factors like the relationship between perpetrator and victim, the demeanor and social status of the complainant, and the race or ethnicity of involved parties can influence whether incidents are formally reported or handled informally.

§  This discretion can lead to underreporting in official statistics and varies based on the subjective judgment of the responding officers.

o   Impact of Systemic Biases:

§  The potential for racial profiling and other biases under the guise of discretion has been a significant critique of police practices. Studies and reports have shown that Indigenous and Black individuals, in particular, face discriminatory treatment from law enforcement, affecting their representation in crime statistics and their trust in the justice system.

o   Broader Societal Implications:

§  The integration of societal biases into law enforcement practices reflects deeper systemic issues within the policing institutions that require continuous scrutiny and reform to ensure fair and unbiased treatment of all citizens.

§  Understanding these complex dynamics is crucial for addressing the gaps between actual crime occurrences and what is reported or recorded in crime statistics. It also underscores the need for reforms to build trust between law enforcement and the communities they serve, ensuring equitable treatment and accurate reflection of crime rates.

o   Every time the police encounter an incident, they weigh the pros and cons of making a case or letting it go, depending on aspects of the crime

§  (Is it serious enough? Is it clearcut enough to generate a conviction?), the offender (Is the individual known to police? Is the individual deferential and apparently a “good” person?), and the complainant or witness (Is the person a “good witness”? Is culpability clearcut, vague, or perhaps shared?). How they weigh these decisions may be influenced by their preconceived notions, biases, and discrimination within the criminal justice systems.

Crimes Witnessed by the Police

·        For an act to become a crime statistic, police must first witness the event, determine it is criminal, and decide to intervene formally. This might involve arresting individuals, processing them, and writing a report.

o   Police may encounter crimes either proactively (e.g., during operations like drinking-and-driving roadblocks) or reactively (e.g., observing a crime incidentally while on patrol).

·        The rate at which crimes are reported can be significantly influenced by the level of police attention.

o   Ex. increased policing in specific areas or of certain activities can lead to more arrests, which might reflect higher crime statistics without an actual increase in criminal behavior.

o   Ex. the police focus in Vancouver on street-based sex work, where increased efforts to arrest clients led to a spike in crime statistics that did not necessarily indicate a rise in the underlying criminal activity but rather an increase in law enforcement focus.

Categorizing and Processing the Event

·        The journey from witnessing a crime to its entry into crime statistics involves several "filters," including decisions about which crimes get formally recorded.

·        The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Survey categorizes crimes and dictates how they are counted:

o   Violent Crimes: Counted per victim.

o   Property Crimes: Counted per event.

o   Multiple Offences: Only the most serious offence is recorded in the case of incidents involving multiple crimes.

·        Methodological Concerns and Counting Rules:

o   These rules aim to enhance the reliability of crime statistics by ensuring consistency across different police jurisdictions in how crimes are reported.

o   However, such counting methods can compromise the validity of crime statistics.

§  Ex. if multiple crimes occur within a single event, only the most serious is recorded, potentially underrepresenting the prevalence of less severe or property crimes.

·        Can give a skewed view of the actual crime landscape, overemphasizing violent crimes and underreporting property crimes.

·        Implications for Crime Data Interpretation:

o   Understanding these processes is crucial for interpreting crime statistics accurately.

o   Highlights the need to consider how data collection and reporting practices may not fully capture the complexity or the true scale of crime, and how they can affect public perception and policy decisions related to law enforcement and crime prevention.

Other Ways to Count Crime

·        Crime has many different areas and is complex

o   One measure of crime will pretty much never capture all of its complexities

·        CompStat: COMPuter STATistics; the name given to the New York City Police Department’s accountability process that was introduced in the 1990s to facilitate a reduction in crime.

·        Clearance Rates: The proportion of criminal incidents solved by the police.

o    crime is cleared when the police believe they have found its perpetrator.

Victimization Surveys

·        Purpose and Scope:

o   General Social Survey (GSS): Conducted by Statistics Canada, the GSS collects data on social trends to monitor changes in the living conditions and well-being of Canadians. A specific segment of this survey focuses on victimization, asking Canadians about their experiences with crime and interactions with the criminal justice system.

·        Targeted Crime Types: The GSS addresses eight specific types of crime, providing detailed insights into these areas and how they impact Canadians.

·        Methodology:

o   Sampling and Data Collection: survey samples individuals aged 15 and over across Canada.

§  From 2014, the sampling frame was expanded to include cellphone numbers, enhancing the representativeness of the sample.

§  By 2019, respondents also had the option to complete the survey online, increasing accessibility and potentially the response rate.

·        Cross-sectional design: A snapshot of a sampled population at one time. It is distinguished from a longitudinal design, which follows a sample of people over time.

·        Limitations:

o   Response Rate: Challenges with the GSS and similar surveys is the relatively low response rate, which was only 36.4 percent for the victimization survey.

§  This low rate can impact the reliability of the data and may introduce bias if the non-respondents differ significantly from respondents.

o   Scope of Questions: The survey's structure may limit the ability to capture continuous or ongoing crimes such as child abuse or intimate partner violence effectively if these are not framed properly within the survey questions.

·        Impact on Understanding Crime:

o   Unreported Crimes: Victimization surveys are particularly valuable for revealing the extent of crimes that are not reported to the police. This data is crucial for understanding the true scale of certain crimes and for planning appropriate policy responses.

o   Victim Perspectives: These surveys provide insight into why victims might choose not to report crimes, such as fear of retaliation, distrust of police, or the belief that the police would not be able to help.

·        Challenges in Data Interpretation

o   Representativeness and Accuracy: The accuracy of the data can be affected by how questions are framed, the willingness of respondents to disclose sensitive information, and the overall response rate.

·        Victimless crimes: Actions (often perpetrated consensually) that are ruled illegal but do not directly violate or threaten the rights of other individuals.

o   like drug use or solicitation of sex work, is limited, as individuals may be reluctant to admit to engaging in illegal activities.

·        Victimization surveys like the GSS provide essential context and depth to the understanding of crime statistics, highlighting the discrepancies between reported and actual crime rates and offering a deeper insight into the personal experiences of crime victims. They are an invaluable resource for researchers, policymakers, and law enforcement agencies aiming to develop more effective crime prevention and response strategies.

·       

·        Victimization surveys provide essential insights into the prevalence and nature of crime that may not be captured through traditional police reporting.

o   These surveys face various methodological challenges that impact their accuracy and reliability.

·        Sampling and Representativeness:

o   Surveys strive for a representative sample of the population or specific urban centers.

§  National samples are common in countries like Canada, the US, and the UK, to gather data that reflects broader societal trends.

o   Large sample sizes are necessary due to the low base rate of particularly serious crimes, ensuring that the survey captures a sufficient number of responses from people who have experienced these crimes.

o   Special attention is needed to include and accurately represent vulnerable or marginalized groups, such as members of racialized communities, who might be underrepresented or harder to reach.

·        Time Frame for Reporting:

o   Surveys typically specify a timeframe within which the victimization must have occurred to be reported, which can range from six months to two years.

§  This is to ensure that the data reflects recent experiences and is relevant to current conditions.

o   The chosen timeframe affects the reliability of the data, with shorter periods used for known victims and longer periods for general population surveys.

·        Sources of Invalidity or Distortion:

o   Unawareness of Victimization: Some individuals may not realize they have been victimized, especially in cases of financial fraud or when the crime is not immediately apparent.

o   Memory Fade: The phenomenon whereby a survey participant forgets about a victimization that has taken place.

o   Telescoping: The phenomenon whereby a survey participant recalls events as having occurred more recently than is actually the case

§  Accurate reporting depends on the respondent's ability to correctly identify and categorize the event as a crime.

§  Studies suggest that most people are relatively adept at this, aligning closely with legal definitions.

·        Willingness to Report:

o   The final barrier to accurate data is the respondent's willingness to disclose the victimization.

§  Factors influencing this include the nature of the crime, the perceived complicity or embarrassment of the victim, and cultural or personal thresholds for what constitutes a reportable crime.

·        Impact on Crime Statistics:

o   Despite these challenges, victimization surveys are invaluable for providing a different perspective on crime, particularly in understanding why crimes go unreported and how people interact with the criminal justice system.

o   These surveys help fill the gap between actual crime occurrences and those reported to the police, offering a more comprehensive picture of crime in society.

·        The Uniform Crime Reporting Survey 2 (UCR2), managed by the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics, represents a significant evolution in how crime data is collected and reported in Canada

·        Enhanced Detail and Accuracy:

o   Detailed Data Collection: UCR2 expands on the data previously collected under the original UCR by including detailed information about each criminal incident.

§  This includes characteristics of victims, accused persons, and specific details of the incidents themselves.

o   Multiple Offenses Recording: The system allows for up to four different offenses to be recorded for each incident, providing a more nuanced view of complex incidents that involve multiple criminal acts.

·        Revised Crime Categories:

o   Violent Crime Enhancements: The category for violent crimes has been broadened to include additional specific offenses like criminal harassment, sexual offenses against children, forcible confinement/kidnapping, extortion, uttering threats, and threatening or harassing phone calls.

o   Property Crime Enhancements: Similarly, the property crime category now encompasses additional types of offenses such as mischief and arson.

·        Changes in Counting Methodology:

o   Robbery Reporting: Previously counted by incident, robbery is now recorded based on the number of victims, which means that incidents affecting multiple victims are reflected more accurately in crime statistics.

o   New Crime Categories: Since 2011, new categories of crimes have been added, including assault with a weapon, causing bodily harm to a peace officer, and more specialized offenses such as robbery to steal a firearm and sexual exploitation of a person with a disability.

·        Impact on Crime Statistics:

o   Historic and Future Statistics: These methodological changes will affect how historic crime data is viewed and will influence future crime statistics.

§   As new categories are added and counting methods are refined, trends in crime reporting may show shifts that reflect these methodological changes rather than actual changes in crime rates.

o   Data Interpretation Caution: With the introduction of new codes and the gradual updates to police records management systems, there is a need for caution in interpreting crime data.

§  Inconsistencies may arise during the transition period as different police services update their systems to align with UCR2 standards.

·        Broader Implications:

o   Policy and Research: The enhancements in crime data reporting through UCR2 provide policymakers and researchers with better tools to analyze crime trends and the effectiveness of law enforcement strategies.

o   Public Perception: More detailed and accurately counted crime data can influence public perception of crime, potentially leading to more informed discussions about public safety and justice policies.