Official statistics are an unreliable and

incomplete way to measure crime

Contents
Introduction:..........................................................................................................................................3
Study of Official Statistics in relation to Crime.......................................................................................3
Conclusion:............................................................................................................................................6
References.............................................................................................................................................8

2
Introduction:
The use of official data in any kind of research whether its crime research or any other study
is considered to be a vital factor, as the set of official statistics are used by the researchers as
the source of reliable and fair information or the official data. This is the value of the official
data that enables the researcher to identify some of the major issues and solve in case of any
discrepancies and this is the main reason that a considerable number of sociologists prefer to
use of the official statistics. There are varied reasons for which the sociologists prefer to
make use of the official statistics pertaining to the fact that the official statistics are less
expensive in nature, the source is readily available and the often prove to the set of
quantitative representative statistical data (Mason, 2014). Moreover, in case of the sovereign
and country issues the official statics proves to be very effective and useful, therefore owing
to the momentum of increased expenses required for mustering information or the statistics
for a research and also due to the scarcity of the resources the use of official statistics
preferred to be the first choice of a number of sociologists.

However, the use of the official statistics have been often criticized by a number of critics
and sociologists and the usefulness and the value of using only the official statistics have
been argued specially in case of crime detection or in the process of measuring the crime.
Therefore, this paper would deal with the study that why at times the official statistics are
considered to be an unreliable and incomplete way to measure crime and would shed light on
the prospect that what are the main reasons that acts as the deficient factors of the official
statistics (McClintock, 1997).

Study of Official Statistics in relation to Crime

This is being one of the important and also interesting subjects for the researchers and the
sociologists to study the deficient factors of official statistics, a number of research works are
conducted from time to time and the in the process of the researches, it has been evident to
the researchers that there are more than one reasons that affect the value and restricts the
usefulness official statistics. This has been also been pointed out by a number of researchers
that pertaining to a number of issues and problems often public hesitate to report about the
crimes to the police or to the governmental representatives, thus, many crimes are left
unreported (Rider, 2001). The victims often are not able to assess the fact they are being

3
victimized and often people are embarrassed or they does not want their names to get
involved into any kind of crime and thus, they unknowingly get involved with a crime, but no
one to report or register the same leads to the lacking of the official statistics. At times this
also have the case that the wrong doers are influential enough to remove the information and
leave to official data to trace the crime (Eckberg, 2014). Therefore, this is one of the main
restrictions of crime measurement and this has also been apparent from the reports that with
the enhancement of the number of crimes the wrong doers have also mastered themselves in
the process of leaving no trace or grounds that one would be able to report on the same to the
police or authorities. Therefore, despite of crime there is not ample information or statistics
on the basis of which the governmental officials or the police would be able to take action.

This has also been one of the common factors that affect the value of using of official
statistics in detection of measurement of crime, as police or the authoritative personnel might
not register the crime or might not take any action even after they are well informed about the
happening of the crime, and in such cases there are not official statics tics maintained and this
all affects the use of official data in the measurement of crime (Quinney, 2001). There are
number of social studies which are being conducted on the role of the police in the society
and sociologists like Simon Holdaway, stated that police most of the times prioritize their
action or the action and does not register some of the crimes even after having clear
information of the same and have to proves to be ineffective in taking the right action against
the crime (MacDonald, 2002). This has been one of the mandatory factors that when any
crime is being registered by the governmental representatives or the police and after taking
the required actions keeping a proper records of the crime is also essential and in case of this
duty is not met by the police, then how this would be possible that the use of official statistics
can be used as the reliable and complete source of measure crime.

The notion of police discretion has been often criticized by sociologist like Simon Holdaway,
as according to him the notion has been interpreted by the police according to their culture of
work and how they have also absorbed the ongoing norms and beliefs of the society they
operate. The role of the police has been often criticized by the Simon Holdaway and also
redirected on the aspect that the discretion of the police implies a crime is often analyzed
from the view point of the police and if they feel that the crime is not that important to take
any action then on such grounds there lacks the official records of such crimes. Therefore, to
a certain extent the seriousness of the offence or the crime is on the judgement of the police
and then they take actions (Ljungwald and Svensson, 2007). Therefore, as questioned by

4
Simon Holdaway, that police and their role have become more perception centric or on the
basis of their occupational culture rather than following the law and this has been further
pointed that in case of crimes which are violent in nature and proves to be ample cost of the
society are not considered to be that grave offence (Quinney, 2001). Therefore, on the basis
of the judgemental view point of the police regarding the offence which at times influences
the factor of maintaining reliable official statistics on the crime and under such situation the
use of official data or the statistics for measurement of crime also lacks importance.

The role and the association of the police and the criminals have been strictly addressed by
sociologists like Dick Hobbs as mentioned in his research paper known as, Doing the
Business, redirecting at the relationship of the police and the criminals and the aspect of
crime is also termed as the ‘game’ between the police and person involved in any crime that
at times leads to a deal (Dumas, et al. 2013). The person who is involved with the crime
world is often used by the police to muster information regarding other crimes and due to the
service provided by the criminal would be favoured to a certain extent. Therefore, this is like
a deal that in exchange of information regarding crimes the police would tune the ‘blind eye’
towards the crime conducted by the informer, and thus owing to the factor of mutual
understanding the use of official statistics proves to be incomplete and unreliable for the
purpose to measure crimes. Therefore, this has been highlighted by Dick Hobbs that the
involvement of the police and the crimes is a complex involvement due to the factor of dual
dependency resulting in “involved trading and bartering of information and favours” among
them (Farrell, 2002).

Therefore, on the basis of such relationships the researchers and the sociologist have
criticised and termed the entire process as the ‘dark figure’ of crime and at that same time
there are other historians also who have used the term ‘ice berg’ for the purpose to address
the complex statics of crime as the metaphor. “Measured level of crime, are only level of
reported crime, there is always a dark figure of reported crime and in case of ice berg a
small portion of crime is clear to the eye while the bulk remain hidden from the view ” (Byers
and Zeller, 2001). Despite of considerable criticisms on the use of the official statistics for the
measurement of crime Hindess has further pointed at the positive side of making use of the
official statistics, as one the basis different and elaborative criticisms might also result into
the broad reconsideration in the aspect of validity of the official statistics for the measuring
the crime. While the process of criticizing the official statistics the extensive study on the
different factors have resulted, the sociologist to think on the prospect positive factors of

5
using the official statistics the data can be interpreted from the view of redirecting at the
social laws for the purpose to govern the crime (Marlowe, 2006). Therefore, on the basis of
the extensive studies this has also been considered by the some of the sociologists that a
thorough and in- depth analysis and interpretations of the official statistics for crime
measurement in more watchful manner would help in process of measurement of crimes
(Brownstein, 1995).

This can also said, from the other angle, if this is examined then it can be said that the official
statistics on crime are reliable and complete when viewed from the angle that crime is
socially farmed or constructed. As in case of implications of the some of the theories of crime
and the same require revision from time to time due to the changing trend of social structure
of crime therefore, in the same manner the official statistics of crime need to be reconsidered
in order to get rough sketch even if it is not that efficient to provide the clear picture due to
the lacking of the official statistics on crime detection or measurement (Brownstein, 1995).
Moreover, basing on the shortcomings of the use of official statistics for crime measurement
the researchers or the sociologists have also making use of other modes and the processes for
the purpose to improve the entire methods of detecting the crime by the way of relying on the
self report studies and also the use of victim survey methods. Therefore, in the context of the
British Crime Surveys and other methods are also used by the crime detectors for the purpose
to get the insight of the criminal psychology and also how crime is socially constructed from
the use of sample and the their feedbacks and also by the use of other means redirecting at the
crime (Sproat, 2012).

Conclusion:
Therefore, from the overall study this has been evident that there are number of limitations
when it comes on the use of official statistics for crime measurement due to the a number of
social factors, yet the set of official statistics for crime can be used as an efficient tool for the
measurement of crime. This has been proved the use of official statistics for crime
measurement lacks validity and dependability yet, the use of other methods mainly the self
report studies and the victim survey methods are there to boost the notion of validity in crime
measurement but, by no means are that efficient that can be used as a full proof method of
mustering valid data. Moreover, this has also been pointed out by a number of sociologists
that the use of the official statistics for crime measurement can only be effective of the laws
and the administrative morns are being adhered in the most efficient manner by the public as

6
well as by the governmental representatives or the police (Boivin and Cordeau, 2011). This
has also been considered as the social act and until and unless the society awakens against the
crimes and wrong doers, this would not be possible to completely rely on the use of official
statistics for crime measurement.

7
References
1. Boivin, R. and Cordeau, G. (2011). Measuring the Impact of Police Discretion on
Official Crime Statistics: A Research Note. Police Quarterly, 14(2), pp.186-203.
2. Brownstein, H. (1995). The Social Construction Of Crime Problems: Insiders And
The Use Of Official Statistics. Journal of Crime and Justice, 18(2), pp.17-30.
3. Byers, B. and Zeller, R. (2001). OFFICIAL HATE CRIME STATISTICS: AN
EXAMINATION OF THE “EPIDEMIC HYPOTHESIS”. Journal of Crime and
Justice, 24(2), pp.73-85.
4. Dumas, R., Lepastourel, N. and Testé, B. (2013). Press articles and influence
processes: the different effects of incriminating information and crime story
information on judgments of guilt.Psychology, Crime & Law, 20(7), pp.659-672.
5. Eckberg, D. (2014). Trends in Conflict: Uniform Crime Reports, the National Crime
Victimization Surveys, and the Lethality of Violent Crime. Homicide Studies, 19(1),
pp.58-87.
6. Farrell, S. (2002). Book Review: Crime, Disorder and Community Safety. Social &
Legal Studies, 11(4), pp.594-595.
7. Ljungwald, C. and Svensson, K. (2007). Crime Victims and the Social Services:
Social Workers' Viewpoint. Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and
Crime Prevention, 8(2), pp.138-156.
8. MacDonald, Z. (2002). Official Crime Statistics: Their Use and Interpretation. The
Economic Journal, 112(477), pp.F85-F106.

9. Marlowe, L. (2006). Social studies. Piscataway, NJ: Research & Education

Association.
10. Mason, G. (2014). The Hate Threshold: Emotion, Causation and Difference in the
Construction of Prejudice-motivated Crime. Social & Legal Studies, 23(3), pp.293-
314.
11. McClintock, T. (1997). Official crime statistics -- no reassurance for the victims of
crime. Psychiatric Bulletin, 21(5), pp.258-259.

12. Quinney, R. (2001). Bearing witness to crime and social justice. Albany: State
University of New York Press.

8
13. Rider, B. (2001). Cyber‐Organised Crime — The Impact of Information Technology
on Organised Crime. Journal of Financial Crime, 8(4), pp.332-346.

14. Simpson, S. (2002). Corporate crime, law, and social control. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
15. Sproat, P. (2012). A critique of the official discourse on drug and sex trafficking by
organised crime using data on asset recovery. Journal of Financial Crime, 19(2),
pp.149-162.