CJUS 601 Discussion Thread Using Official Crime Data
Official crime data is comprised of Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and the
enhancement to UCR, the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)
(Mosher et al., 2011). Both of these systems of measuring crime are
collected by the states and reported to the Federal Bureau of Investigations
(FBI) (Mosher et al., 2011). This official crime data is important because
policy makers and elected officials use it to allocate resources and draft
policies (Haberman et al., 2022). In addition to using official crime data to
create policy, criminologist use the data to understand crime and evaluate
the policies created (Haberman et al., 2022).
While it is important to collect this data to try and determine crime trends,
this data is riddled with inaccuracies. To start, UCR and NIBRS data is based
only on the crime that is actually reported to police (Mosher et al., 2011).
Common sense tells us that not all crime is reported to the police, so
therefore, much of the data will be underreported, except for homicides
(Mosher et al., 2011). Additionally, UCR and NIBRS uses hierarchy in
reporting, meaning that only the most serious crime in an incident will be
reported (Mosher et al., 2011). For example, if a murder and a sexual assault
occur during the same incident, only the murder would be reported. Lastly,
official crime data is not a good measure of crime because it is based on
levels of crime per 100,000 of the population, which is data collected during
the U.S. Census every ten years (Mosher et al., 2011). Given that
populations shift greatly in ten-year periods, the data will be skewed in some
parts of the country. As stated before, while official crime data is important,
local police record management system (RMS) records have advantages over
it. RMS data is more recent, and records every crime committed, rather than
the hierarchy used in UCR and NIBRS.
The second part of this week’s discussion board asks us if we would base
policy changes by relying on two articles: one on domestic violence and the
other jail overcrowding. The article that described domestic violence studied
the effect of arresting the offender and their likely hood to reoffended (Miller,
2003). The study used victim surveys shortly after the initial incident and
then again six months later and discussed the victim’s relation to legal and
personal perceived power (Miller, 2003). This article also reinforced data
that concluded when domestic violence offenders are arrested, they are less
likely to reoffend (Miller, 2003). Even though this article found that to be the
case, there have been other studies that contradict these findings based on
demographic differences (Bachman & Schutt, 2021). Public policy was
already made based on these studies which was to make mandatory arrests
during police domestic violence investigations (Bachman & Schutt, 2021).
Since the time this article was written however, many states have relaxed
the requirement to make arrests in domestic violence investigations.
The second article this week studied the effect on issuing offenders
summons to appear in court for minor crimes rather than arresting them,
likelihoods on if they would appear for court, and the effect on jail
populations (Baumer & Adams, 2006). While predictable, the study found
there was a higher likelihood of offenders not appearing for the first court
appearance, however, they were nearly just as likely to appear for the
second court appearance (Baumer & Adams, 2006). As noted by the author
of the article, this study has many shortcomings, is dated, and overall, I
would not make any policy changes based on either of these articles as the
data is unreliable.
To conclude, on this Memorial Day, I’d like to quote Psalm 10:7, “The memory
of the righteous is a blessing” (English Standard Version Bible, 2001). It is a
blessing to remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for this
country while we enjoy the freedom that results from it.
References
Bachman, R. D., & Schutt, R. K. (2021). Fundamentals of Research in
Criminology and Criminal Justice (5th ed.). SAGE.
Baumer, T. L., & Adams, K. (2006). Controlling a Jail Population by Partially
Closing the Front Door: An Evaluation of a “Summons in Lieu of Arrest”
Policy. The Prison Journal (Philadelphia, Pa.), 86(3), 386-
402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0032885506291036 Links to an external site.
English Standard Version Bible (2001). Crossway
Bibles. https://esv.literalword.com Links to an external site.
Haberman, C. P., Clutter, J. E., & Lee, H. (2022). A robbery is a robbery is a
robbery? Exploring crime specificity in official police incident data. Police
Practice & Research, 23(4), 429-
443. https://doi.org/10.1080/15614263.2021.2009345 Links to an external
site.
Miller, J. (2003). An Arresting Experiment: Domestic Violence Victim
Experiences and Perceptions. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(7), 695-
716. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260503251130 Links to an external site.
Mosher, C. J., Miethe, T. D., & Hart, T. C. (2011). The Mismeasure of
Crime (2nd ed.). SAGE.
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
