« Marburg Virus Outbreak in Angloa. | Main | So That’s How Rover Did It. »
April 17, 2005
More Trouble With Numbers.
More trouble with how the government compiles its statistics, this time on the incidence of crime. Why the disparity between people’s perception of crime rates and the actual figures? Go read to find out:
Norman Brennan, a serving police officer and the director of the Victims of Crime Trust, a charity that supports people affected by serious crime, said that most people would imagine that "detection" rates related to those convicted. "We in the police know that detection rates are nothing of the sort, but the public do not" he said. "If we recorded crime accurately the public would be astounded. Violence against the person is up by 90 per cent over the last five years but the true figure is four times that.''
April 17, 2005 in Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c2d3e53ef00d83440990053ef
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More Trouble With Numbers.:
Comments
Tim,
precisely because of the kind of changes in recording practices which this article points to, victimization surveys - where individuals are asked about whether they have been the victim of crime over a given period - are generally thought to be more accurate portrayals of the level of crime in a given society. The British Crime Survey, the victimization survey run by the British government, however, has more or less consistently been revealing falls in most types of crime for roughly a decade. It is undoubtedly an imperfect tool, but it is the best tool available, and it indicates generally falling levels of crime (you should be able to find it on the Home Office website). It also, interestingly, has recorded a perception of increased crime rates and an increased fear of crime every year since the question has been included in the survey. This suggests that the cause of increased perception of crime and increased fear of crime is not an increased level of crime, since the best evidence available is that, in most of those years, most types of crime fell. Ignoring it and inferring from the fact that someone running a charity which has a vested interest in increasing fear of crime that the government is covering up an increased level of crime is mendacious.
Posted by: Rob | Apr 17, 2005 11:24:07 AM
maybe if the Lancet ran a study asking questions similar about victims of crime under the Nu Labour occupation?
Posted by: Mark T | Apr 18, 2005 11:21:33 AM
maybe if the Lancet ran a study asking questions similar about victims of crime under the Nu Labour occupation?
Posted by: Mark T | Apr 19, 2005 9:37:48 AM
