Chapter Two: Measurement of Crime and Delinquency

2.1 Differences in Crime rate/ Crime Statistics

Crime rate is calculated by dividing the total number of reported crime to the total population. It is
usually reported per 100,000 people. Crime statistics are the indices of intensity of crimes recorded
annually in a particular country, region or place. It reflects upon the ascending or descending trends
in crime and also gives information as to how new forms of crime are emerging and the old ones
are disappearing or assuming new dimensions. Thus crime statistics are indicative of the general
moral-tune of a given society and throw light on the general efficacy of police, prosecuting
agencies and law courts. Therefore, the role of crime statistics in analyzing causation of crime and
devising measures to combat criminality need not be over-emphasized. The statistics of crime help
the law enforcement agencies to spot out the preponderance of crime at a particular time, place and
region.

Criminologists, however differ as to their views about the scope of criminal statistics. Some of
them assert that the data should mainly concern with offences and offenders, administrative actions
and decisions of the Courts, while others maintain that it should only be limited to offenders and
convicted persons. But the generally accepted view is that crime statistics should not only be
confined to data on offences and offenders but also include numerical figures pertaining to the
criminal law administration agencies such as police, prosecution, courts, parole and probation
services, juvenile delinquency, prisons, drug law violations and trafficking records etc. The data so
presented should be scientifically classified, tabulated and analyzed so as to present a realistic
picture of crime situation of a particular region or country. The periodical publication of such
statistics is equally important so that the criminal law agencies may utilize it to the best of their
advantage for combating crimes.

Emphasizing the need for statistics in the field of criminology Donald Taft observed that,
“quantification which includes counting, measuring and collating the phenomena under study is the
basic process in modern scientific approach to criminal science. Without this process, investigative
efforts would hardly serve any useful purpose. Crime statistics also depict the picture of distribution
of crimes in different areas, regions, and locations. It must, however, be stated that mathematical
accuracy of crime figures at a given place and time is rather difficult to ascertain. The statistics only
1
present an over-all picture of incidence of crime and make it possible to compare the crime rate at
regional, national and international level”.

Speaking about the importance of periodical statistical records of prisons and prisoners Bentham
observed:

“The ordering of these returns is a measure of excellent use in furnishing data for the legislature to
work upon. They will form together a kind of political barometer by which the effect of every
legislative operation relative to the subject may be indicated and made palatable. It is not till lately
the legislators have thought of providing themselves with necessary documents.

Thus, it would be seen that crime statistics provide a useful guideline for the legislators and
criminal law administrators to fight against criminality and find effective anti-dote of crimes.

Pointing out the significance of statistical data on crime and criminals, Edwin Sutherland observed
that, “these statistics are sometimes usefully utilized in the formulation of social policies and
theories of criminality. Besides, it also provides valuable source-material for crime investigators.
The social information contained in them forms the basis of extensive research in the field of
criminology. In the absence of statistical record of crime it would become virtually impossible to
form any valid opinion about the crime picture in a given place”.

2.2 Value of Statistical Data

Statistical information is essential for scientific understanding of any field of study. The study of
the problem of crime and delinquency is no exception to this. The rate and extent of crime and
juvenile delinquency cannot be meaningfully understood without adequate and clearly worked
out statistical data. Theoretical generalizations and the forecasting of future trends would be
impossible without adequate data that lend themselves to manipulation.

Among their several purposes and uses, crime statistics should serve three crucial functions.
First, they should promote the construction and evolution of theories about crime’s origins and
causes. The function usually takes the form of establishing certain correlates of crime (location,
climate) or criminals (age, sex, social status) which are then assumed to reflect the process by
2
which differential rates of deviant behaviour are produced… this use of crime statistics has been
especially important for sociological theories of crime which have concentrated on explanations
of collective behaviour. To be sure, this use of criminal statistics is hazardous venture… all
statistics on the incidence of crime, regardless of their source, bear an unknown relation to the
“actual” amount of crime. Most scholars recognize this fundamental weakness of official
criminal statistics which involves numerous sources of error that intrude between the actual
occurrence and the recording of deviant behaviour. However, despite this problem, they continue
to use some types of official statistics to support or to reject the particular criminological theories
in which they are invested.

At the present time, victim surveys have not attained the methodological sophistication nor the
measurement accuracy that would justify their use as standards against which to measure the
adequacy of police statistics. The more profitable approach would be to use both police records
and survey data conjointly in the spirit of multi method assessment. The specific advantage of
employing multiple types of crime statistics is captured by Skogan’s (1975) recommendations:
“Comparisons of victim self-reports with police records allow us to pick optimal recall periods
for accurate survey measures, and to estimate the magnitude of patterned non recall and its social
origins. Comparisons of survey-generated and official crime rates will enable us to gauge the
impact of bureaucratic processes upon the recording and releasing of crime data…” (p.30).

A second use of criminal statistics, official or otherwise is to evaluate the effectiveness of a vast
number of criminal justice system programs or practices. Do certain kinds of police patrolling
practices reduce incidents of street crime? What effect does special antinarcotics legislation have
on drug related crime? Do alternative correctional programs differentially reduce recidivism? Is
there a general deference value associated with mandatory prison sentences?

The unknown amount of error interposed between the commission of crimes and their official
research than for theory construction. However, the use of cost of crime or incidence-of-crime
data for justice system of evaluation is plagued by an additional source of measurement error.
The persons who collect the data are usually not unaware of the purposes for which the data will
be used. As any budding researcher is well aware, the presence of a nonnative investigator

3
introduces the possibility of both fortuitous and intentional experimenter artifacts (Rosenthal and
Rosnow) which may ensure obtaining one’s most desired results.

Finally, crime statistics can be used to guide policymaking, the setting of priorities, and the
rational allocation of limited resources within the separate components of the criminal justice
system. Wilkins (1965) speaks of the utility value of crime statistics in terms of their
informational power for directing social action. He advocates that crime statistics which have no
utility (i.e., identical policy decisions are made with or without them) should no longer be
collected.

It is extremely difficult to gather reliable statistics pertaining to the types, distribution and
frequency of crime and delinquency mainly because criminality takes place in secret. Most
criminals are never discovered. What percentage of criminals in any particular society escape
undiscovered is a moot question. In some cases crimes may be reported but no criminals are
apprehended.

Besides, criminal statistics suffer from various controversies due to interpretations based on
different ideological assumptions. Criminal statistics are seen from different points of view
depending on the ideology or the school of thought to which the person interpreting the figures
belongs to. The following excerpt from Richard Quinney illustrates the situation quite well.

The social reality of crime is also perpetuated by systematically applied statistics on

crime. These are collected by agencies of the state ultimately for political use. That which can be
counted and recorded is more amenable to social control. Moreover, criminal statistics collected
by these agencies are often the primary data for criminological research and indicators of the
actual amount of crime in society. Ways of using criminal statistics accordingly arouse
controversy among criminologists. Much of the problem is in the way they are collected, but just
as important is the true meaning of criminal statistics.

4
 The meaning and use of statistics accordingly arouse controversy among criminologists. Much
of the problem is in the way they are collected, but just as important is the true meaning of
criminal statistics.

The meaning and use of statistics on crime depends greatly on the prior ideological assumptions
of those using them. We can distinguish at least three approaches to the meaning and use of such
statistics: the conservative, the liberal, and the critical. The conservative’s approach to criminal
statistics grows from classical assumptions about human behavior: statistics on crime reflect
willful and willing conscious human choices to violate the social contract, the theory that
government must depend on the consent of the governed. Crime is freely chosen behavior, a
victory of passion over reason. Criminal measures of offense against a reified social contract, the
ideal given concrete existence. Politically, such a use of statistics on crime boils down to an
expectation that criminal behaviour is all about randomly distributed through the social structure
and that all equally need to be controlled. But the lower classes have more need for external
control, for the crime concentrated in this segment of society reflected a weaker commitment to
the social contract.

The liberal in approaching criminal statistics considers the social and psychological bases of
behaviour. That is, the liberal conception has all behaviour determined extensively by a complex
of social and psychological forces beyond the individual’s control and sometimes even
recognition. This world view embraces positivist, not classical assumptions about human nature
and behavior and liberal criminology must therefore known what empirical research can reveal
to as by way of statistical measures about the causes of criminal behavior. What causal factors
should be investigated? This approach to the meaning and use of criminal statistics sees them as
indicators of the variables that determine people to commit crime.

Finally, a critical criminology would employ statistics on crime in a radically different manner.
Critical theorists argue that, for all the criticism that have been leveled at statistics, they “can
fruitfully be used as evidence of the underlying trends occurring in the wider social structure.”
Among other things, criminal statistics can be read and used as evidence of efforts by the
capitalist ruling class to apprehend and prosecute member of the working class who threaten the

5
established order. Criminal statistics also indicate how tightly the society must control and
punish the behaviour the society must control and punish the behaviour that cannot be solved
without basic changes in the social and economic structure. Ultimately statistics on crime must
be understood in their political context.

Most statistics on crime available to the public and to criminologists come from official sources,
that is, from the statistics gathered by agencies of the government. In fact, criminologists often
equate criminal statistics with official statistics.

2.3 Sources of Crime Statistics

Available statistics of crime may broadly be classified into two major categories, viz., serious
crimes and minor crimes. Serious crimes generally cause greater alarm in the society and huge
revenue loss to the State such as tax evasion, bank frauds, scams etc. The minor offences, on the
other hand, are less alarming and are generally viewed mildly by the society.

Considered from the point of view of different agencies connected with the administration of
criminal justice, criminal statistics may be placed under three broad heads, namely:

(i) Police statistics;

(ii) Judicial statistics or Court statistics; and

(iii) Penal statistics.

The most common and probably the most reliable is what is known as “crimes known to the
police.” These consist of crimes reported to the police by victims or witnesses and recorded by the
police. Though inadequate, because not all crimes are reported to the police, they are “the best way
out of a bad situation.”

Police statistics are primarily concerned with the number of crimes reported, the number of
persons apprehended and the number of offences cleared or accounted for by the arrests made.

The judicial or Court statistics are concerned with the number of offences prosecuted the number
convicted and the method of procedure followed in determining guilt, the number not convicted

6
and the stage at which cases were dropped. These statistics also account for the number of
convictions and the type of sentences imposed upon guilty persons.

Penal statistics comprise the details of different types of custodial measures, the characteristics of
inmates, time spent in custody, number of escapes and offence-wise number of recidivists.

It may be stated that equally important is the data of post-correctional criminal behaviour but it is
practically not feasible to follow up the post-release conduct of the convicted offenders. But the
Government should at least make efforts to collect the statistical data concerning repletion of
crimes which may help the administration in suitably dealing with the habitual.

Reasons for Unreliability of Crime Statistics:

The magnitude of the problem of various forms of crime in a particular country can be ascertained
after an analysis of the criminal statistics. But the fact remains that these statistics deal mainly with
recorded crimes. It is, therefore, not possible to detect all criminal acts committed by people in a
country. It is for this reason that it is generally believed that statistics of crime and criminal are
most deceptive of all the statistics and hardly present a true picture of crime position. Some of the
reasons generally attributed to unreliability of crime statistics are as follows:

1.The concept of crime being dynamic, it is difficult to determine the quantum of crime with
accuracy.

2.Quite a large number of crimes committed remain undetected, there are others which are detected
but not reported and many more are reported but not recorded. There are several reasons for not
reporting c rimes. The offence may be considered trivial; the police-post might be too far away; one
sincerely wants that the culprit should be punished but he may apprehend harassment from him or
he may not be willing to go through the cumbersome process of criminal trial or he or she may feel
embarrassed, as in case of sex offences. The victim may also not be interested in reporting crime
because he may not have confidence in the criminal justice system.

3. At times, there is a deliberate non-registration of crimes because lesser number of crimes projects
a better image of police performance.

7
4. Quite a large number of crimes are lost between arrest and prosecution and many more are lost
between prosecution and conviction. Explaining this point further, Leon Radzinowicz observed that
crimes fully brought out into the open and punished, “represent not more than fifteen per cent of the
great mass actually committed”.

5. The crime statistics at different places do not present a true picture of volume of crimes because
of the socio-economic differences and variations in the criminal law. The behavior which may be a
crime at one place may not be necessarily so in another place or time. This reduces the significance
of crime-index for the purposes of comparison. It is primarily for this reason that comparisons of
the crime rates of various countries are seriously limited by wide variations in their national legal
systems.

6. The crime figures for the purpose of comparisons are to be stated in proportion to population or
some other base and as E.H. Sutherland rightly points out, determination of this base is often
difficult. The accuracy of population figures is equally a matter of doubt and suspicion.

7. The judicial statistics or the statistical data given by law courts regarding number of convictions
do not generally tally with the statistics of prisoners compiled by prison authorities because all
convictions do not necessarily result into imprisonment. Many of the convicted persons are let off
after admonition or fine or released on probation or parole or booked to a correctional institution.

8. The prison statistics often give a distorted picture of criminality. They are least reliable to be
used for appreciating the magnitude of the real crime problem or the types of crimes committed, or
the types of offenders booked for crimes. In fact, they are simply indicative of the persons who are
institutionalized rather than having any bearing upon actual number of crimes or criminals.
Moreover, these statistics are reflective of why people are caught and prosecuted rather than of why
they commit crimes, which is the central concern of criminologist.

It would thus appear that accuracy of crime-statistics depends, by and large, upon the societal
reaction towards different crimes and the honesty, efficiency and working of Police Department and
other investigating agencies. Crime being concerned with behavioral patterns, accuracy of crime
figures is a myth. Statistics, therefore, depict only a general picture of criminality at a given place
and time. Commenting on the unreliability of crime statistics, B. Wehner observed that, “unreported

8
crimes vary between a minimum of twice and maximum of four-times the number actually shown
in criminal statistics”.

2.3. The State of Criminal Statistics in Ethiopia

2.3.1 Crimes Known to the Police
The accuracy of criminal statistics in developing countries is even more doubtful than that of
the developed countries. In developing countries crimes are reported to the police far less
frequently due to several reasons.

In more traditional communities crimes are handled informally within the group without
referring to the police, except may be in cases of serious crimes such as homicide.

In developing countries the situation is aggravated by the fact that police stations are located
two far away from where the majority of the people live. Lack of adequate communication, is
also another problem. The following quotation about the situation in Uganda speaks well of
most developing countries in Africa.

The convenience of the police station to the injured party is important and there is a hypothetical
ratio between the importance of the crime and the distance to the police station, which would
show in the police figures. Central Government stations are concentrated in the principal
townships and are situated on the main roads. Large areas are without policing in the sense of
permanently resident police and there appears to be little regular patrolling outside towns and
industrial areas because of staff shortages and problems of cost. A minor theft ten miles from a
police station would not be reported but a similar offence at a distance of two hundred yards
would. The Uganda police have stated that the immediate consequence of the erection of a new
police station is a substantial increase in reported crime. The physical convenience of reporting is
of paramount importance as there are no other means of getting information to the police – in the
absence of a rural telephone system they cannot be rung up and information by letter except for
very serious offences will not receive quick attention. If the police are to control crime in the
absence of a national home communication net work they have to be physically present in
detachments which these countries cannot afford and which does not have to be the case with
European and North American police forces.

9
 As a result of such circumstances the crimes known to the police show much less of the crimes
that should have been reported. Therefore, the so called “dark figures” of unreported crime and
delinquency in developing countries must be much larger than the comparative figures in
developed countries. Ethiopia cannot be an exception to this general situation as well shall
shortly indicate.

The maintenance of accurate statistics has not been a tradition of long standing in Ethiopia. In
fact, statistics for long were considered highly confidential, if they ever existed in usable
conditions. The accuracy of the available police statistics in Ethiopia may be doubtful∗ since
there has not be uniform methods of reporting. The methods of reporting have been changing
whenever there were changes in the personnel of the responsible department. Despite such
deficiencies, the available police statistics are useful in determining some broad trends of the
nature and extent of crime in the country. However, existing statistics, specially those for the
years 1974 to 1982 should be taken with some precaution for the following reasons.

In the first place during this period of time there were far less number of policemen on
patrol duties throughout the country. Due to the wars being fought in the North, East and South-
East of the country, the police were deployed to the war fronts. Besides, even if it was not openly
stated, there appeared to be a tendency to assume that there will be no need for a strong police
force because, in the long run, peasants’ associations and urban dwellers’ associations,
established after the 1974 Revolution were expected to take over the role of maintenance of law
and order. As a result, the role of the police appeared to have been played down and the size of
the police force was left to gradually decline.

In 1971/72, for instance, a policeman covered, on the average, 43 square kilometers and
about 930 people. But , by 1981/82 the situation had dramatically changed and a policeman was
covering 152 square kilometers and about 3763 people. Therefore, effective patrolling was not
possible since the police were overstretched. This happened because the police force took no
action to replace members of the police force that were killed in action, retired because of old
age, transferred to other duties or deserted the force. Therefore, the number of policemen of

∗
However, credit must be given to the Ethiopian Police Force because it is one of the very few agencies in the
country that had realized the importance of statistics and has been compiling its statistics since the 1960s in fairly
usable manner.

10
actual police dutywas dramatically reduced. Under the circumstance then prevailing it would be
difficult to accept the accuracy and completeness of police statistics.

One of the consequences of the reduction in the size of the police force was the closure of some
police stations in certain parts of the country. From 1977/78 to 1982/83, for instance eight
Awarajas or 7.8 percent of all Awarajas, and 193 Woredas or 33.7 percent of all Woredas, on the
average did not have police stations. In addition to the shortage of personnel, the quality of the
training of policemen affects the accuracy of statistics maintained. Though the educational
qualification of police recruits has been progressively improving, compared to the situation in the
1940s and 1950s when the rate of illiteracy was very high among constables and non-
commissioned officers, the lack of adequate training in statistical methods cannot be denied.

Each police station is supposed to maintain daily registers where they are supposed to enter all
crimes reported day by day. The seriousness and the accuracy with which this is carried out,
especially in remote police posts is questionable. Lots of errors are also committed in
transmitting annual statistics from the lowest police posts to the police headquarters passing
through the various hierarchies of offices from woreda police posts to regional headquarters and
then to the central headquarters. However, the most serious drawback is the lack of uniform
methods of reporting. Even at the central levels the way annual reports are compiled vary from
year to year. However, in spite of the deficiencies that might exist, police statistics are useful in
indicating, broadly, the rates of crime and to a very limited extent that of juvenile delinquency.

Crime, as recorded by the police has been on the increase, with minor fluctuation, up to 1974/75
and gradually started declining. But it started picking up again after 1979/80. The decline
between 1974/75 and 1978/79, however, should be taken with some precaution. As indicated
earlier this was the period when there were the least number of policemen on patrol duties.
Besides, it was the period of the Revolution when there were political struggles among various
functions which finally culminated in the period of the white and red terror when the attention of
the police were diverted away from ordinary crime. Ordinary criminals may also have been
laying law not to be caught up in the revolutionary counter offensive.

Another reason why police statistics, after the Revolution appear to be incomplete is due to the
creation of public agencies like the 23,497 peasants’ associations and the 1,260 urban dwellers’

11
associations that are legally empowered to establish not only judicial tribunals to handle criminal
cases under the code of petty offences within their area of jurisdiction but also to have their own
defense squads and public safety committees with the power of arrest and the responsibility of
maintaining law and order.14 unfortunately no mechanism has been created through which these
bodies can report, on the offences they have handled, to a central government agency that would
compile the statistical data that would have given the total crime rate.

After the creation of these public agencies the police stations are no more the first point of
referral for patty offenses. Depending on the Seriousness of offences people will have to report
to either the peasants’ association or urban dwellers associations. Thus, showing, clearly, the
incompleteness of the crimes “known to the police”, because these public agencies refer to the
police only cases that are beyond their jurisdiction.

The figures in Table 2-1 below show the number of crimes that were committed in 22 years for
the period 1957/ to 1967/68 and 1972/73 to 1982/83.∗ (No statistics are available for the years
1968/69 to 1971/72). From these figures it is clear that on the average crimes had been on the
increase, though at times the increase was very minimal. But the situation changed after 1972/73
and the crime rate had been fluctuating since. In fact the fluctuation was even unrealistic when
one notes the situation in 1976/77 and 1977/78 where the sudden decreases are difficult to
believe unless one accepts the earlier argument that the political condition in the country was the
deciding factor. This assumption is supported by the fact that in 1979/80 when the political
tension had calmed down there was a sudden increase compared to the previous years. This
increase continued up to 1981/82, though it was not as sudden an increase as in 1979/80. From
these figures and the arguments given earlier it would be difficult to accept the assumption that
crimes have been decreasing since the Revolution. The available figures are too incomplete to
allow us reach such a conclusion. We need the complete figures for more years to come to
confirm this conclusion.

Table 2-1: Number of Crimes Reported to the Police

Year Number of Crimes Reported to the Increase in Decrease in

∗
The years are given as 1957/58 because statistics are available for the Ethiopian calendar year which follows the
Julian calendar and has 7 to 8 years difference from the Gerigorian calendar depending on the month.

12
 Police Percent Percent

1957/58 96.064 - -

1958/59 100,989 5.1 -

1959/60 102,404 1.4 -

1960/61 103,651 1.2 -

1961/62 103,984 0.3 -

1962/63 106,821 2.7 -

1963/64 107,507 0.6 -

1964/65 104,025 - 3.2

1965/66 111,114 6.8 -

1966/67 113,955 2.6 -

1967/68 108,366 - 4.9

1972/73 122,977 - -

1973/74 106,864 - 13.1

1974/75 119,508 11.8 -

1975/76 101,202 - 15.3

1976/77 70,341 - 30.5

1977/78 35,613 - 49.4

1978/79 32,899 - 7.6

13
 1979/80 44,363 34.8 -

1980/81 46,719 5.3 -

1981/82 51,801 10.9 -

1982/83 50,054 - 3.4

SOURCE: Compiled from unpublished police Annual Reports for each year.

If we broadly categories the crude polices statistics, as shown in Table 2.2 below, we observe
two broad types of crimes as dominant. Crimes against the person and crimes against property
constitute more than 50 percent of the total crime reported to the police. This proportion is
maintained, more or less, throughout the period for which there are statistics. In 1964/65 crimes
against the person and crimes against property consisted of 34.19 percent and 25.84 and 25.84
percent of all crimes respectively. Twelve years later, as shown in Table 2-5, the same proportion
is, more or less, maintained with slight fluctuation. In 1977/78 the proportion between crimes
against the person and crimes against property was 33.59 percent and 24 percent respectively.

Table 2.2: Frequency of Crime by Category, as Percent of Total Indictment

Year Crimes Against the Crimes Against Other Crimes Total

Person Property

Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent of

of of Total of of Total of Total
Crimes Crimes Crimes

1964/65 35,568 34.19 26,882 25.84 41.575 39.97 104,025

1965/66 37,071 33.36 29,184 26.26 44,863 40.38 111,114

1966/67 34,018 29.85 28,517 25.02 51,420 45.12 113,955

14
1967/68 34,702 32.02 26,257 24.23 47,407 43.75 108,366

1968/69 33,128 33.99 23,737 24.35 40.610 41.66 97,475

1969/70 30,155 31.80 23,185 24.45 41,479 43.75 94,819

1970/71 30,883 30.74 26,620 26.49 42,970 42.77 100,473

1971/72 29,163 29.81 27.67 27.67 41,473 42.47 97,652

1972/73 28,608 23.33 25.89 25.89 68,682 55.85 122,977

1973/74 26,004 24.33 26.56 26.56 52,503 49.12 106,894

1974/75 26,599 22.26 23.24 23.24 65,137 54.50 119,508

1975/76 23,759 23.48 21.94 21.94 52,239 54.58 101,202

1976/77 19,181 27.27 22.95 22.95 35,089 49.88 70,341

1977/78 11,961 33.59 24.00 24.00 15,105 42.41 35,613

1978/79 10,222 31.07 37.40 37.40 10,372 31.53 32,899

1979/80 14,872 33.52 35.29 35.29 13,837 31.19 44,363

1980/81 17,474 35.87 29.16 29.16 17,038 34.97 48,719

1981/82 18,673 36.05 35.94 35.94 14,457 27.91 51,901

1982/83 17,771 35.48 36.47 36.47 14,055 28.06 50,094

1983/84 17,745 35.91 37.84 37.84 12,977 26.26 49,422

1984/85 16,999 31.51 38.54 38.54 16,157 29.95 53,950

1985/86 17,140 33.04 41.67 41.67 12,893 24.86 51,869

15
SOURCE: Compiled from unpublished Annual Police Reports for the various years.

Such proportions are not usually observed in many countries. Usually in other countries crimes
against property are much more higher than crimes against the person. A brief comparison of the
Ethiopian condition with some African countries will illustrate this variation. In Ethiopia for
1970 the crimes reported to the police were 29,666 offences against the person and 23,899
offences against property. For the same year in Kenya 10,468 offences against the person and
14,049 offences against the person and property, respectively, were reported. In 1968 in Uganda
25,575 offences against the person and 44,892 offences against property were recorded. The
following quotation clearly shows that studies in many developing countries reveal that crimes
against property are much more common than crimes against the person.

Among the many general aspects of developmental process, which encompasses the combined
effects of urbanization and industrialization, migration and the resultant growth of slums,
increased availability of consumer goods, and the extensive changes in normative standards of
behaviour, a sharp increase in property crime in nearly all the less developed countries is most
prominent. The almost unanimous findings, despite some uncertainties surrounding statistical
reports gathered from the developing countries, support the generalization that crime,
particularly property crime, is rapidly increasing and becoming one of the major problems of the
developmental process.

Why are crimes against the person higher than crimes against property in Ethiopia? Is it because
the Ethiopian society is still tradition bound and life is less diversified as implied in the above
quotation? Or could it be due to the communal nature of some crimes against the person or could
there be much deeper implications? For instance in 1974/75 for 119,508 crimes reported to the
police 188,513 persons were apprehended. This is a proportion of 1.58 persons per crime.

Usually a simple quarrel over property, particularly a piece of land, may spark off serious cases
of assault or even homicide in which families and relatives may be involved. Ethiopian society,

16
particularly before the 1974 Revolution, used to place a great deal of value and prestige on land
ownership. Indeed, the measures of one’s standing in society or even one’s manhood, especially
in rural areas, had been expressed in terms of one’s fortune to own and protect a piece of land. It
is no wonder, then, that so many people resort to desperate and often violent attempts to
safeguard their interests. Besides, the concentration of wealth in the hands of a few and the
desperate conditions in which the majority of people found themselves instigated many to resort
to equally desperate and violent actions to defend the little they owned.

Table 2-3: The Ten Most Prevalent Crimes for the Pre-and Post-revolution Periods

Pre-Revolution Period Post-Revolution Period

1) Assault 17.96% 1) Violations of Regulations 25.50%

2) Theft 17.73% 2) Theft 24.64%

3) Violations of Regulations 10.26% 3) Assault 21.42%

4) Threats (against) persons 6.25% 4) Breach of Trust 6.60%

5) Damage to Property 3.95% 5) Homicide 6.17%

6) Homicide 3.95% 6) Attempted Homicide 3.08%

7) Attempted Homicide 3.43% 7) Crimes against the Economy 3.03%

8) Burglary 2.19% 8) Fraud 2.81%

9) Abuse (insult) 1.59% 9) Manslaughter 2.14%

10) Arson 1.59% 10) Abduction and Rape 1.62%

17
Total 69.37% Total 97.01%

Table 2-3 indicate the ten most prevalent crimes for the pre-and post-revolution periods. The ten
prevalent types of crimes in the pre-revolution period make up 70 percent of the total crime
committed while in the post-revolution period they make up about 97 percent. There appears a
tendency in the post revolution periods for crimes to concentrate around a much fewer acts of
breaches of the law. However, since these figures are based on police statistics there may be a
possibility of some crimes being lumped together by the police in the process of compiling the
statistics. But the fact that this problem applies equally to both periods is one redeeming feature.
One need not worry too much about the exactness of the figures as long as the conclusions are
close to the real situation.

The Problem of Juvenile Delinquency

In Ethiopia statistics regarding juvenile delinquents are almost non-existent. The problem has
never been given full attention, especially outside of Addis Ababa. It is only recently that the
police have started making a mention of juvenile delinquency in their annual reports. The police
reports admit that the scanty statistical figure they provide are incomplete. In fact, the police, in
their annual reports, admit that outside Addis Ababa they have to ignore the existence of juvenile
delinquency, unless it involves serious offences, because of the non existence of special courts
dealing with juvenile delinquents and the lack juvenile delinquents can be committed.

18