Reliability Of Crime Statistics In Depicting Actual Crime Rates And Distribution

1. Evaluation of reliability and validity of statistics concerned with the distribution of crime

Statistics on crime are not completely reliable in the ability to depict the actual rates of crime and the distribution of crime. Generally, crime statistics are compiled by the states with respect to the actions of agencies of the state on the acts proscribed by the law and the action of the agencies on such acts (Hope, 2013). As per the realist view, crime statistics that are maintained by the agencies of the state are true indicators of incidence of crime (Hope, 2013, p. 43). Thus, as per this approach, crime statistics are considered to be credible reflection on the state of crime in the society because the statistics are compiled by the state agencies. It is considered that statistics are records maintained by government agencies and are scientific and independent (Godfrey, Lawrence, & Williams, 2008). Based on this, it may be considered that crime statistics are accurate representation of crime. To some extent, it is justified to give credence to crime statistics for understanding the distribution of crime. However, there are justified grounds to argue that statistics do not always give a reliable representation of incidence of crime and distribution of crime in the society, which are discussed below.

Some writers have written about the ‘dark figure’ nature of crime, which argues that crime statistics are not an accurate representation of crimes as there are unreported crimes that are not a part of the official crime statistics (Coleman & Moynihan, 1996). Unreported crimes also form part of the crime incidence in the society, but due to the non-reporting of these crimes, these crimes are not a part of the official narrative of the crime incidence in the society (Coleman & Moynihan, 1996). Crimes against women, especially in within the family, such as domestic violence, do not get reported by the victims due a multiple of factors, which leads to the dark figures of such crimes (Berman & Berman, 2015).

Another ground for doubting the ability of crime statistics to present a true figure of actual crime incidence is underreporting of crimes, which takes place when the agencies of the state are themselves responsible for not reporting certain crimes. An example of underreporting of crimes can be seen in the context of white collar crimes (Muncie & McLaughlin, 2001, p. 42). Research indicates that a white collar crimes are mostly committed by older White males, as opposed to other crimes, which are committed by young uneducated males, there is a tendency to underreport white collar crime and such crimes also are a dark figure, which means that the true incidence of crime is not visible in the official statistics (Box, 2002). Another area of underreporting of crimes is seen in the area of racially motivated crimes, where it has been seen that the police is likely to underreport such crimes (Carrabine, Ignanski, Lee, Plummer, & South, 2004).

Due to the dark figure of crimes, which may be linked back to non-reporting of crimes, or underreporting of crimes, there are grounds to argue that crime statistics are not the best reflectors of actual crime incidence or its distribution in the society. It is also a difficulty because dark figure of crimes cannot be calculated and it is difficult to say how crime is actually distributed once the dark figure is factored in (Morrison, 2014). Due to this, there are critics of official surveys in the sense that it is difficult to base our understanding of crime distribution on the basis of this statistical information (Box, 2002).

2. Evaluation of reliability and validity of statistics concerned with the distribution of crime with reference to either social class, gender or ethnicity

Reliability and validity of statistics concerned with the distribution of crime is an area of some controversy. An important point to note is that literature indicates that there is an institutional bias in recording certain offences, which are therefore not reflected in the statistics (Hope, 2013). In terms of race or ethnicity, social class, and gender, there is a possibility of institutional bias.

This institutional bias is the reason why the National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS) was implemented in 2002, as well as the Counting Rules were amended in the same year (Hope, 2013, p. 50). Due to the possibility of the institutional bias, which may favour the perpetrator of crimes, as seen in racially motivated crimes, and crimes involving domestic violence, the Counting Rules ask that the police maintain a victim-oriented outlook in the recording of crime (Home Office, 2016).

With reference to the distribution of crime, the official statistics may not reflect the actual distribution because of the problem of underreporting or non-reporting of crimes. Non-reporting is particularly relevant in gender specific crimes, where women may be the victims of the crime and are afraid to report the crime due to fear of retaliation (Berman & Berman, 2015). Women who are victims of crimes are also afraid to report crimes due to social repercussions, especially in the cases of rape, as there are social and institutional bias of blaming the victim in such cases (Stanko, 2000). Social repercussions also play a role in non-reporting of crimes in cases of domestic violence, as seen in South Asian communities (Izzidien, 2008). As women generally are the victims of domestic violence, non-reporting of crimes would mean that accurate distribution of crime will not be known (Woodhouse & Dempsey, 2016). In terms of race and ethnicity, it is difficult to trust the distribution of crime as reflected in the crime statistics due to the possibility of prejudice that marks the criminal justice process from the arrest to the sentencing of the individuals who belong to the Black and Ethnic Minority communities in the UK. Recent research studies indicate that young Black men are disproportionately represented in the prisons of England and Wales, one of the reasons for which is the use of drug policies and law enforcement actions to disproportionately target young men from economically disadvantaged urban Black communities (Warde, 2013; Earle, 2016). It has also been recently reported that Black people are four times more likely to be charged, prosecuted and incarcerated for crimes as compared to White people (Uhrig, 2016). This points at the possibility of institutional bias with respect to Black and Ethnic Minority people, which may lead to skewed statistics on distribution of crime due to ethnicity.

3. Evaluation of the Marxist explanation of crime and deviance

The Marxist explanation of crime and deviance is based on the capitalist forces that separate those at the very bottom of the capitalist order, that is, the working and lower classes, from a natural distribution of resources (Cowling, 2008). Marxist explanation of crime as given by Richard Quinney argues that crimes are resultant of the conflicts in the society between the proletariat and the bourgeoise (Akers, 2013, p. 162). Marxist explanation says that when the lower and working classes contend to the resources that are otherwise out of their reach, there is an occurrence of crime in the society (Cowling, 2008). In other words, crimes occur in the process of struggle for resources in a capitalist society. Marxism thus blames economic and capitalist reasons for the incidence of crime in the society. Marxism argues that the capitalist system is based on the exploitation by the ruling classes, and there is a perpetuation of wealth of one class and the poverty of other classes at the bottom. This leads to a situation wherein the bottom classes start to commit crimes to access the wealth that is denied to them by a capitalist system. The Marxist approach also explains that the political system as well as the criminal justice system is also structured to favour those who are in the ruling positions in the capitalist economy, which also puts those at the bottom in a position where they are devoid of all power, which also vests in the ruling classes so that laws are also made to ensure that the crimes of the poor are attracted or punished rather than the crimes of the elite and the rich, such as white collar crimes (Akers, 2013).

Marxism considers capitalist forces as responsible for crimes, be these violent crimes, political crimes and economic crimes. Marxism explains that crimes like robbery, dacoity and theft may be the result of capitalist forces that allows concentration of resources in some people, while the others at the bottom of the socio-economic ladder may resort to these violent crimes in order to lead to redistribution of wealth. While the Marxist explanation of crime may explain some kinds of crimes, it does not explain crimes that are committed as related to the capitalist system. Crimes like rape, domestic violence, murder for purely personal reasons, are not explained adequately with the help of Marxist philosophy. As Marxist criminologists focus on the criminal law and criminal justice system as methods of oppression of the lower classes, they do not focus on the causes of crimes and for that reason their analysis of crime often lacks understanding of crimes, such as, rape and domestic violence, which are not related to the conflicts between proletariat and the bourgeois. Another important point is that Marxist criminologists are not able to explain all kinds of deviance in the society because they do not focus on causes (Akers, 2013). An example of this can be seen in early Marxist criminologist Steven Spitzer, who was not able to explain etiology of crime among delinquent gangs (Akers, 2013).

4. Evaluation of the Functionalist explanation of crime and deviance

The functionalist explanation of crime focuses on the functions of crime in the society. Emile Durkheim, who was the proponent of the functionalist school pointed out that crime leads to social regulation, social integration, and social change (Akers, 2013). Social regulation is achieved when police apprehend criminals, and the criminal justice system prosecutes and punishes the criminal, which leads to the regulation of society through indicating to the society as to the rules of the society. Social integration is achieved through the crime bringing the members of the society together (Akers, 2013). This happens when particularly violent crimes occur in the society which brings people closer. Social change is effected when the acts of the criminals testing the boundaries of acceptable social behaviour, prompts legal reform in response to social consciousness (Akers, 2013). In this sense, according to functionalists, laws reflect the collective consciousness of the society (Akers, 2013). The difficulty with functionalist school is that it considers all crime to be useful or functional for the society. However, there is no distinction drawn between different kinds of crime. The role of the criminal justice system and criminal law is also over justified in the functionalist school, which considers that criminal justice system always penalises the criminals. However, from a Marxist and feminist perspective, it is seen that certain kinds of criminals, such as, white collar criminals, and dominant males, often are not punished by the law as others are (Cowling, 2008). There is also an angle of race as well as gender. Studies show that ethnic minorities may be targeted more by the criminal justice system (Uhrig, 2016). Studies also indicate that women who are victims of crimes such as rape, may not report crimes due to a prejudiced approach by the criminal justice system (Stanko, 2000). Therefore, it is difficult to say that the criminal justice system is always penalising the criminals. Another gap in the functionalist approach to crime is that it explains all kinds of deviance as beneficial to the society. However, certain kinds of deviance can be significant sources of harm to the society, such as, racially motivated crimes and hate crimes, which have become more common with time. The functionalist school does not provide any satisfactory or adequate explanation of the functionalist of these crimes. In that sense, the functionalist school may be obsolete and may not be able to explain all kinds of crimes and deviance in the society today. The functionalist explanation of laws reflecting the collective consciousness of the society is also criticised by Marxists who say that functionalists fail to consider that laws are made by the powerful and do not always reflect the collective consciousness (Akers, 2013).

References:

• Akers, R. L. (2013). Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation. Oxon: Routledge. Berman, M., & Berman, D. (2015). State and Local Politics. Oxon: Routledge.
• Box, S. (2002). Power, Crime and Mystification. London: Tavistock.
• Carrabine, E., Ignanski, P., Lee, M., Plummer, K., & South, N. (2004). Criminology: A Sociological Introduction. London: Routledge.
• Coleman, C., & Moynihan, J. (1996). Understanding Crime Data. Open University Press.
• Cowling, M. (2008). Marxism and criminological theory: A critique and a toolkit. New York: Springer.
• Croall, H. (1998). Crime and Society in Britain. Harlow: Longman.
• Earle, R. (2016). Race, Ethnicity, Multiculture and Prison Life. In Y. Jewkes, B. Crewe, & J. Bennett, Handbook on prisons. (pp. 568-585). Oxon: Routledge.
• Godfrey, B., Lawrence, P., & Williams, C. (2008). History and Crime. London: Sage.
• Home Office. (2016, April). Home Office Counting Rules For Recorded Crime. Retrieved from gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/566188/count-general-nov-2016.pdf
• Hope, T. (2013). What do crime statistics tell us? In C. Hale, K. Hayward, A. Wahidin, & E. Wincup (Eds.), Criminology (p. 43). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Izzidien, S. (2008, June). Domestic abuse within South Asian communities: the specific needs of women, children and young people. Retrieved from nspcc.org.uk: https://www.nspcc.org.uk/globalassets/documents/research-reports/i-cant-tell-people-what-happening-home-summary.pdf
• Morrison, W. (2014). Theoretical Criminology from Modernity to Post-Modernism. London: Routledge.
• Muncie, J., & McLaughlin, E. (2001). The Problem of Crime (2 ed.). London: Sage.
• Stanko, E. (2000). Naturalising Danger: Women, Fear and Personal Safety. In M. Brown, & J. Pratt (Eds.), Dangerous Offenders: Punishment and Social Order. Sydney: Psychology Press.
• Uhrig, N. (2016). Black, Asian and minority ethnic disproportionality in the criminal justice system in England and Wales. London: Ministry of Justice.
• Warde, B. (2013). Black male disproportionality in the criminal justice systems of the USA, Canada, and England: A comparative analysis of incarceration. Journal of African American Studies, 17(4), 461-479.
• Woodhouse, J., & Dempsey, N. (2016, May 6). Domestic violence in England and Wales, Briefing Paper Number 6337. London: House of Commons Library.