Some of the Reasons Generally Attributed To Unreliability of Crime Statistics Are As Follows !
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:—
ADVERTISEMENTS:
1. The concept of crime being dynamic, it is difficult to determine the quantum of crime with accuracy.
2. 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 crimes. 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 embarassed, 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 or may not consider it worthwhile to get the offender prosecuted for one or the other reason.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
3. At times, there is a deliberate non-registration of crimes because lesser number of crimes project a better image of police performance. Commenting on this aspect of crime-statistics, Shri S. Venugopal Rao, a member of the Indian Police Service observed that police personnel often adopt ingenious methods of manipulation.
Perhaps the “tendency of judging police efficiency against a statistical background has the most debilitating effect on free-registration of crime. Politically also, spectacular increases in crime are not relished since they have become a convenient handle for the opposition who interpret them as a breakdown of public order.”
Expressing concern for non-registration of crimes by Police, Mr. Sripat Mishra, former Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh observed that a “manipulated fall in the crime-graph due to non-registration of crimes is no indication of a better law and order situation”. Referring to crime statistics of Uttar Pradesh he said, “it is estimated that with free and faithful registration of offences the crime-graph would immediately record a jump of at least one hundred per cent”.
4. It has also been realised that a large number of crimes are lost between arrest and prosecution and many more arc 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”.
ADVERTISEMENTS:
5. The police is often inclined to give exaggerated figures of arrest and prosecution in their records because their promotional prospects largely depend on the number of convictions to their credit. This renders the police-statistics highly controversial and their reliability doubtful. The significance of these statistics therefore, depends on the honesty and efficiency of the police. Individual police officer’s decision to record an incident as crime or not also affects the crime statistics.
6. 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 behaviour 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.
7. 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 pointed out, determination of this base is often difficult. The accuracy of population figures is equally a matter of doubt and suspicion.
8. 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.
9. 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 institutionalised 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 behavioural 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. Welmer observed that unreported crimes vary between a minimum of twice and maximum of four-times the number actually shown in criminal 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.
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 die number of offenders prosecuted the number convicted and the method of procedure followed in determining guilt, the number not convicted 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 the inmates, time spent in custody, number of escapes and offence-wise number of recidivists.
It must be stated that availability of statistical data relating to post-correctional criminal behaviour of offenders is equally important but unfortunately it is practically not feasible to follow up the post-release conduct of the convicted prisoners. However, the Government should at least make efforts to collect the statistical data concerning repetition of crimes which may help the correctional administration in suitably dealing with the habitual offenders.