measuring crime

• 3 main ways in which crime is measured by forensic psychologists:

  • Official statistics
  • Victim surveys
  • Offender surveys
• official statistics -

  The office for National statistics is responsible for collecting a wide range of quantitative data e.g. number of criminal damage cases, property crime, drug crime etc.

  Published on an annual basis and provide a snapshot allowing the government to develop crime prevention strategies etc
• official statistics weakness -

  Can be suggested that so many crimes go unreported that only around 25% of crimes are included in the official statistics. E.g. Nottinghamshire were more likely than anywhere else to report thefts under £10 – spiking their figures.

  Suggests police priorities and difference in reporting may distort official figures and strategies may be wrongly implemented.
• victim surveys -

  • Largest victim survey in UK – Crime survey for England and Wales (CSEW)
  • Face to face survey which collected data from 50,000 households selected at random
  • Adults and children questioned on their experiences of crime and attitudes on crime and police.
• victim surveys weakness -

  Surveys include crimes not reported to police (2006 official stats showed a drop of 2% but victim surveys and increase of 3%). However they rely on respondents accurate recall which may be poor.

  Inaccurate victim recall may distort the crime figures
• offender surveys -

  • Collects info from offenders (often in prison) to help understand their behaviour and attitudes
  • Offending crime and justice survey (OCJS) – longitudinal study (2003-06) that took data from different areas by interviewing young offenders – looks for risk factors e.g. age, location, reoffending etc.
  • Identified trends in antisocial behaviour with a peak between 14-16 years old, and a relationship between offending behaviour and drug/alcohol use.
• offender surveys strength and weakness -

  Gathers greater detail on how many are responsible for certain crimes, however offenders response may be unreliable (may conceal serious crimes or exaggerate them)

  May provide us with greater insight into preventing reoffending/risk factors, however may lack validity.
• Each method has issues in terms of reliability and validity so all crime figures should be interpreted with caution. A multidisciplinary approach is advised – combining all methods to give the best insight.

  If all measures point to the same pattern, this increases the validity of the findings.