Describe and evaluate ways of measuring crime. Refer to evidence and/or published examples in your answer. (16 marks)
Describe and evaluate ways of measuring crime. Refer to evidence and/or published examples in your answer. (16 marks)
One way in which crime can be measured is by using the Official Statistics (OS). The OS is the figure of crimes that is reported to the police and recorded into the official figures. This may be expected to be relatively accurate but, in fact, it may not be - it relies on people reporting crimes (which may not be done if they feel scared or embarrassed, for example) and also depends on whether or not the crime is recorded by the police (police may not record crimes if, for example, they deem it 'too trivial' or if there is a lack of evidence). These unreported/recorded crimes are often referred to as a 'dark figure.'
Another way in which crime can be measured is by victim surveys. Victim surveys involve asking people whether they have been a victim of a crime in a specific period of time, and whether or not they reported it to the police. One example is the British Crime Survey (BCS) - this is carried out approximately every 2 years and involves structured interviews with a large sample of people (aged 16 and above, from randomly selected households).
Farrington and Dowds (1985) carried out a study to investigate the differences in the OS between Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Staffordshire and found that Nottinghamshire police were much more likely to report thefts of £10 and under - which is why Nottinghamshire official crime rates appear much higher, compared to the crime rates in the other cities. This demonstrates how police recording procedures can distort the OS, and therefore suggests that this isn't the most appropriate method to use - and should be used in conjunction with alternative methods.
Hollin (1992) also suggested that the OS only account for about 25% of crime - this means that 75% of actual crime goes unaccounted for. This is a major weakness as it illustrates that the OS only provides a very limited view of the actual extent of crime and therefore is a potentially very unreliable method.
Victim surveys are argued to be a much better alternative - for example, they provide a more clear picture of the true crime rate as it also accounts for crimes that are unreported and unrecorded, which the OS fails to do. This is supported by the fact that the crime figures in the OS are consistently lower than the figures of crime produced by the BCS - highlighting a major flaw in the OS method, suggesting that it's not truly representative of the real extent of crime. This, in turn, is a strength of victim surveys as this method is able to eliminate such issues.
That said, victim surveys rely on victims having an accurate recall of the crime they've been a victim of. 'Telescoping' may occur - where a victim may misremember the event as happening more recently than what it actually did - this could be because the trauma is still fresh in their mind and so, this is a weakness as it could actually distort the figures.
[505 words]
One way in which crime can be measured is by using the Official Statistics (OS). The OS is the figure of crimes that is reported to the police and recorded into the official figures. This may be expected to be relatively accurate but, in fact, it may not be - it relies on people reporting crimes (which may not be done if they feel scared or embarrassed, for example) and also depends on whether or not the crime is recorded by the police (police may not record crimes if, for example, they deem it 'too trivial' or if there is a lack of evidence). These unreported/recorded crimes are often referred to as a 'dark figure.'
Another way in which crime can be measured is by victim surveys. Victim surveys involve asking people whether they have been a victim of a crime in a specific period of time, and whether or not they reported it to the police. One example is the British Crime Survey (BCS) - this is carried out approximately every 2 years and involves structured interviews with a large sample of people (aged 16 and above, from randomly selected households).
Farrington and Dowds (1985) carried out a study to investigate the differences in the OS between Nottinghamshire, Leicestershire and Staffordshire and found that Nottinghamshire police were much more likely to report thefts of £10 and under - which is why Nottinghamshire official crime rates appear much higher, compared to the crime rates in the other cities. This demonstrates how police recording procedures can distort the OS, and therefore suggests that this isn't the most appropriate method to use - and should be used in conjunction with alternative methods.
Hollin (1992) also suggested that the OS only account for about 25% of crime - this means that 75% of actual crime goes unaccounted for. This is a major weakness as it illustrates that the OS only provides a very limited view of the actual extent of crime and therefore is a potentially very unreliable method.
Victim surveys are argued to be a much better alternative - for example, they provide a more clear picture of the true crime rate as it also accounts for crimes that are unreported and unrecorded, which the OS fails to do. This is supported by the fact that the crime figures in the OS are consistently lower than the figures of crime produced by the BCS - highlighting a major flaw in the OS method, suggesting that it's not truly representative of the real extent of crime. This, in turn, is a strength of victim surveys as this method is able to eliminate such issues.
That said, victim surveys rely on victims having an accurate recall of the crime they've been a victim of. 'Telescoping' may occur - where a victim may misremember the event as happening more recently than what it actually did - this could be because the trauma is still fresh in their mind and so, this is a weakness as it could actually distort the figures.
[505 words]
Comments
Post a Comment