In an enlightenment age of reason and logic the natural response to crime has been a concerted attempt to categorise, analyse and explain it. However, the question has always remained as to the usefulness of this endeavour. Thus, the nature of official Australian crime statistics will first be established, and it will be argued that they are useful in a limited positivist-style public policy making and research and analysis sense, however, this usefulness is severely limited and outweighed by the flawed theory, constructs and methodology underlying the statistics, as well as clearly variant and unreliable results and data obtained from said statistics.

Official Australian crime statistics are, at the simplest level, statistics on criminal activity released by state police departments, which are useful in a positivist-style research, analysis and policy sense. These statistics refer to police data on recorded offences. Generally, the number of recorded offences are stated and categorised, and offences can be ordered by time and locality to increase accessibility and research value[1]. Gardner suggests that the “benefits of police data are sometimes forgotten”, and in such a sense, it is important to note that official crime statistics are used by a variety of organisations to research, analyse, as well as form policy[2]. Governments make damning assertions of being “soft on crime” based on official crime statistics which are used to form the base for governmental response to criminal activity[3]. Furthermore, Holdaway suggests that these statistics can also be useful in assessing police effectiveness in enforcing the law and informing public debate in giving a physical indication of the level and extent of crime in society[4]. Collated data can reveal trends in crime, and can be analysed and used to predict, compare and establish causal relationships in crime, as well as, at a more local level, detect patterns of offending in geographic locales and offer information on offenders. The key to the usefulness of these statistics is their accuracy in revealing patterns and trends and allowing for policy planning, but it is very important to question this accuracy and thus the usefulness of the statistics themselves. These arguments for the usefulness of crime statistics are mostly offered by the positivist school of study, which advocates scientific quantification of criminal behaviour, however, this interpretation of statistical usefulness clashes strongly with the interpretivist school, which holds that the theory behind crime and crime statistics is severely flawed.

The previously demonstrated usefulness of official Australian crime statistics in research and policy areas is severely outweighed by the flawed theory and constructs underlying said statistics, in terms of positivism and interpretivism. In a social sense, positivism holds that information derived from logical, quantitative analysis is the only exclusive and authoritative source of knowledge, whereas interpretivism holds that the social realm is not subject to the same scientific methods of the natural world, and adopts a more qualitative method of analysis[5]. In terms of criminology, Braithwaite suggests that “[p]ositivism produces an avalanche of nonsignificant findings”. He further suggests that “specificity of context is overwhelmingly important in deciding whether a crime will occur”[6]. This notion of Interpretivism suggests that the social realm is not subject to this quantitative method of study, and that a focus on positivist criminal data collection has led to findings which ignore the contextual factors of criminal behaviour, suggesting crime statistics serve only as a bland register of events rather than effectively evaluating contextual factors or offering any truly useful information with which to research and form policy. The aforementioned usefulness of crime statistics is further theoretically undermined by social construct theory.

The usefulness of official Australian crime statistics is further severely limited and outweighed by their flawed basis in social construct theory. Social constructivism suggests that humans interpret the world and make judgements which they believe reflect reality[7]. In terms of criminology, social constructivism would argue that crime itself and the notions of crime are nothing more than a social construct. In this way, the definitions of crime become subjective and value bound. Barak argues that “there are no purely objective definitions; all definitions are value laden and biased to some degree,” and that what is defined as criminal is “somewhat arbitrary, and represents a highly selective process”[8]. From this perspective, crime is the result of the classification of certain types of behaviour as criminal by those with lawmaking power to identify and punish perpetrators of that activity. Henry suggests that “concepts such as what the real crime rate is, trends in crime, and who commits crime and why are claims about the truth rather than facts about reality”[9]. Thus, official Australian criminal statistics are merely the product of selective social processes, and the analysis and formulation of policy using said statistics is nothing but a superficial analysis of the reflection of the suppressive values of the existent power structure. Anthropologists Kroeber and Kluckhohn suggested that across cultures, there are few universal values considered criminal, including lying, stealing and violence, but other elements of ‘crime’ vary wildly in cross-cultural jurisdictions, making common analysis and reflection very difficult, and to some degree, superficial and useless[10]. Thus, it further becomes evident that the usefulness of official Australian crime statistics is severely limited by flawed underlying theoretical social construction of crime. On a more practical level, flawed methodology within collation also proves detrimental to the usefulness of official crime statistics in Australia.

Flawed methodology, namely police under-recording and victim under-reporting, severely hamper the accuracy and thus the usefulness of official statistics within Australia. In 2009, the Victorian Ombudsman reported that official police crime statistics in the Australian state of Victoria did not accurately “reflect the community’s experience of crime as it is reported to police”[11]. The Ombudsman suggested that the police do not collate data representatively or effectively. Moore et al suggested in 2000 that these recording shortcomings relate to the role that police play as “filters”, recording crime selectively and with discretion[12]. This notion of ‘under-recording’ was also echoed in the Ombudsman report, which suggested that “poor administrative systems” and practices such as discretion “have led to some crime being underreported, such as assaults and less serious offences”[13]. At a more personal level, it has been noted that police officers must tread balance their aims between trying to impress senior officers and at the same time not generating too much administrative work for their colleagues[14]. Thus, the leeway which police are given as filters and the pressures of the job itself has led to under-reporting of certain crimes, rendering official statistics nothing more than a selective sample of offences. Another shortcoming within the collation of official Australian crime statistics which directly complements under-recording is that of ‘under-reporting’. Under-reporting of crime refers to a failure to report criminal activity or victimisation to the relevant authorities, which ultimately results in further omissions from official statistics and further undermining of their usefulness. Adam Graycar, the Director of the Australian Institute of Criminology argues that “[u]nder-reporting of crime to police means…that police crime records may underestimate the extent of particular crimes”[15]. Crimes such as shoplifting and employee theft, assault, male rape and child abuse are notoriously under-reported. White collar and corporate crime is also often under-reported due to the fact that often the only person who knows of the crime is the person committing it. In fact, people are often most motivated to report a crime when it is necessary to do so to file an insurance claim, and Graycar argues that this lack of motivation to report crime reflects a “pessimistic belief that reporting crime [is] pointless and achieve[s] nothing”[16]. The total discrepancy generated by under-recorded and under-reported crime is often known as the ‘Dark Figure’ of crime, and the British Crime Survey suggests that the true crime rate is at least twice the level that it is fixed at by official statistics[17]. This notable absence of under-reported and recorded crime renders official statistics severely incomplete, and their accuracy is derided as being “unreliable, unrepresentative and invalid.” Police affect data in further ways, such as manipulation and profiling.

Severe manipulation of records as well as profiling of victims undermines the usefulness of official police data by over-representing ethnicities in statistics. Crime statistics are primarily intended to provide a reflection of crime in society, however, this impartial view is not always embodied by police officers, who are not impartial and may be swayed by whatever reason or circumstance. In 2011 when the Victorian police were accused by the director of the Office of Police Integrity of recording up to 15,000 crimes a year as solved when in fact the cases remained open, in order to create a more politically acceptably crime clearance rate[18]. The Office of Police Integrity report suggested that this severe manipulation meant that the Victorian police were “unable to produce accurate crime clearance rates to the State Government and the community,” and even went so far as to demand an independent body to assume control over official crime statistics[19]. Additionally, Australian police forces have been repeatedly accused of embodying systemic racism and racial profiling within what is still a predominantly white male institution[20]. In 2013, 6 African-Australian men alleged the police had engaged in racial profiling, subjecting them to verbal assaults and racial taunts, and stopping and questioning them in circumstances a non-African would not have been questioned. The case was settled after a five year ordeal in an out of court agreement with the Victorian police. This was not an isolated incidence, and Indian students, the Australian Muslim community, and Aboriginal Australians have all echoed the allegations of racial profiling at the hands of police[21]. Racial profiling leads to an official over-representation minorities and ethnicities within the criminal justice system. Aboriginal Australians, who in 2006 formed 2.5 percent of the Australian population, at the same time represented 59 percent of the total number of juvenile detainees, 28 times as high as non-Aboriginal juvenile detainees[22]. This has been attributed to both over-policing, the notion that the police presence in Aboriginal communities is far higher than that of non-Aboriginal communities, as well as racial profiling on the part of the police. Thus, it further becomes evident that the records of racial and ethnic minorities in official crime statistics may be in part exacerbated by racism and profiling, further undermining the accuracy, and thus the research and policy making usefulness of official crime statistics. Official crime statistics, however, are not the only indicators of crime in Australia, and their usefulness can be further measured in relative terms.

Previously, it has been discussed that the usefulness of official crime statistics in Australia is severely hampered by flawed theory and flawed methodology rendering data inaccurate, but when briefly comparing official crime statistics to Australian crime victimisation survey data, the main alternate source of crime statistics, we find further evidence that official crime statistics are not providing us with a realistic picture of crime, although they may exhibit some accuracy in certain areas. Crime victimisation surveys are conducted semi-regularly by the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and target a random sample of individuals through letterbox surveys. The survey asks for details on whether or not the individual has been a victim of crime, what type of crime and whether or not it was reported to police. This data is not collated by police and provides an interesting alternative to official statistics. When examining South Australia in the 1993 National Crime Survey, severe shortcomings characteristic of the ‘dark figure’ of crime were exposed in several categories. The survey estimated a total of 45,500 individual victims of break-ins or attempted break-ins, however, police statistics for the 1992/1993 financial year only recorded 21,673 offences in this category. Shortcomings were also apparent in the categories of assault, robbery, and significantly also in sexual assault against women, which was estimated at 4,200 victims but recorded officially at 1,866. However, it is interesting to note that of the estimated 9,500 instances of motor vehicle theft, 9,300 of these offences were estimated to have been reported to police, when in total police recorded offences of motor vehicle theft was recorded at 11,299 instances[23]. This reinforces the previous notion that police statistics can be useful in areas that people are encouraged to report for insurance and financial purposes, such as car theft. Although the South Australian survey was limited in its analysis, failing to account for crime which would be confusing over multiple state jurisdictions, the survey exposed wide inconsistencies between estimated and actual victimisation within society for a number of serious crimes, leading to further questions regarding the accuracy of official police statistics and as to whether official crime statistics are reflective of the actual rates of crime within society. Analysis by criminologists has echoed these sentiments, and Morgan suggests that it is “of considerable interest to compare the levels of crime…generated by crime surveys and police statistics” in estimating the prevalence of crime and thus accuracy of police statistics[24]. Initially, it was suggested that official crime statistics are useful for positivist-style research, analysis and policy formulation, but the exposed inconsistencies with victimisation surveys further undermine the usefulness of the statistics in these applications. Thus, it is further apparent that, when comparing official crime statistics with other sources of crime data, we immediately find further evidence of the ‘dark figure’ of crime that official statistics do not illustrate accurately, thus undermining their usefulness.

Initially, it was argued that official crime statistics in Australia do have limited use in a positivist-style public policy making and research and analysis sense, however it was explained that this usefulness is severely inhibited and outweighed by the flawed theory underlying the statistics, which are strongly and convincingly opposed by the notions of interpretivism and social construct theory. The usefulness of official statistics is further inhibited by severely flawed methodology and gathering methods of said statistics, including under-reporting and recording as well as manipulation, profiling and over-policing, which inhibit the impartiality of the statistics and render them wildly incorrect and further useless, clearly outlined in the obvious discrepancies between police crime data for specific crimes, such as sexual assault, and data obtained from other sources. Although official crime statistics bear some accuracy in certain areas of crime, usually related directly to financial matters, it appears that crime is indeed a puzzling malady which persists to confuse, despite all efforts to categorise and explain the phenomenon.

References

AAP. (2013). Labor 'soft on crime' and economic risk - Barnett. Available: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/labor-soft-on-crime-and-economic-risk-barnett/story-e6frg6n6-1226591636469. Last accessed 1st May 2013.

Australian Institute of Criminology. (2010). Juvenile detention statistics. Available: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/criminaljustice/juveniles_detention.html. Last accessed 1st May 2013.

Barak, Gregg (1998). Integrative Criminology. Aldershot: Ashgate/Dartmouth.

Braithwaite, John. (1993). Beyond Positivism: Learning from Contextual Integrated Strategies. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 30 (2).

Brouwer, George. (2009). Crime statistics and police numbers. Available: http://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/a_overview_p1-p18.pdf. Last accessed 1st May 2013.

Gardner, Julie. (1994). Use of Official Statistics and Crime Survey Data in determining Violence against Women. 8th International Symposium on Victimology.

Henry, Stuart. (2009). Social Construction of Crime. In: 21st Century Criminology: A Reference Handbook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Holdaway, Simon (1988). Crime and Deviance. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education.
Kroeber, A.L and Kluckhohn, C (1952). Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. New York: Vintage Books.

Macionis, John and Gerber, Linda (1999). Sociology. Canada: Pearson Education.

Moor, Keith. (2011). Office of Police Integrity slams Victoria Police over crime statistics. Available: http://www.news.com.au/national-news/victoria-police-fudged-official-data-to-paint-a-rosier-picture-of-crime/story-e6frfkvr-1226063127836. Last accessed 1st May 2013.

Morgan, Frank. (1995). Comparing Crime Levels and Crime Trends Using Crime Surveys and Police Data. In: Griffith University Crime Victims Surveys in Australia. Brisbane: The Print People. p51-67.

Phillips, Melissa. (2013). Mistreating minorities: Victoria Police and racial profiling. Available: https://theconversation.com/mistreating-minorities-victoria-police-and-racial-profiling-12307. Last accessed 1st May 2013.

Ross, Stuart. (1999). The Use of Crime Statistics to Understand Differences Across Australia. Available: http://www.aic.gov.au/media_library/conferences/outlook99/ross.pdf. Last accessed 1st May 2013.

Moore, Stephen. (2002). Crime and Deviance. In: Aiken, Dave and Chapman, Steve Sociology for A2. London: Penguin.

Taylor, Natalie. (2002). Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice. Available: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/241-260/tandi242/view%20paper.html. Last accessed 1st May 2013.

Unknown. (2012). Official Statistics - Police Recorded Crime Statistics. Available: https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fclc2.uniservity.com%2FGroupDownloadFile.asp%3FGroupID%3D20082340%26ResourceId%3D3208267&ei=uN6AUdTLKa. Last accessed 1st May 2013.

Victoria Police (2012). Victoria Police 2011/2012 Crime Statistics.

---

[1] Victoria Police (2012). Victoria Police 2011/2012 Crime Statistics. p1-4

[2] Gardner, Julie. (1994). Use of Official Statistics and Crime Survey Data in determining Violence against Women. 8th International Symposium on Victimology. p149-156.

[3] AAP. (2013). Labor 'soft on crime' and economic risk - Barnett. Available: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/labor-soft-on-crime-and-economic-risk-barnett/story-e6frg6n6-1226591636469. Last accessed 1st May 2013.

[4] Holdaway, Simon (1988). Crime and Deviance. Basingstoke: Macmillan Education. p1-24.

[5] Braithwaite, John. (1993). Beyond Positivism: Learning from Contextual Integrated Strategies. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency. 30 (2), p383-389.

[6] Ibid., p385.

[7] Henry, Stuart. (2009). Social Construction of Crime. In: 21st Century Criminology: A Reference Handbook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. p296-305.

[8] Barak, Gregg (1998). Integrative Criminology. Aldershot: Ashgate/Dartmouth.

[9] Stuart, op. cit., p300.

[10] Kroeber, A.L and Kluckhohn, C (1952). Culture: A Critical Review of Concepts and Definitions. New York: Vintage Books. p95-110.

[11] Brouwer, George. (2009). Crime statistics and police numbers. Available: http://www.ombudsman.vic.gov.au/resources/documents/a_overview_p1-p18.pdf. Last accessed 1st May 2013.

[12] Moore, Stephen. (2002). Crime and Deviance. In: Aiken, Dave and Chapman, Steve Sociology for A2. London: Penguin. p135-145.

[13] Brouwer, op. cit.

[14] Moore, op. cit., p136.

[15] Taylor, Natalie. (2002). Trends & Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice. Available: http://www.aic.gov.au/publications/current%20series/tandi/241-260/tandi242/view%20paper.html. Last accessed 1st May 2013.

[16] Ibid.

[17] Unknown. (2012). Official Statistics - Police Recorded Crime Statistics. Available: https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CC0QFjAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fclc2.uniservity.com%2FGroupDownloadFile.asp%3FGroupID%3D20082340%26ResourceId%3D3208267&ei=uN6AUdTLKa. Last accessed 1st May 2013.

[18]Moor, Keith. (2011). Office of Police Integrity slams Victoria Police over crime statistics. Available: http://www.news.com.au/national-news/victoria-police-fudged-official-data-to-paint-a-rosier-picture-of-crime/story-e6frfkvr-1226063127836. Last accessed 1st May 2013.

[19] Ibid.

[20] Phillips, Melissa. (2013). Mistreating minorities: Victoria Police and racial profiling. Available: https://theconversation.com/mistreating-minorities-victoria-police-and-racial-profiling-12307. Last accessed 1st May 2013.

[21] Ibid.

[22] Australian Institute of Criminology. (2010). Juvenile detention statistics. Available: http://www.aic.gov.au/statistics/criminaljustice/juveniles_detention.html. Last accessed 1st May 2013.

[23] Morgan, Frank. (1995). Comparing Crime Levels and Crime Trends Using Crime Surveys and Police Data. In: Griffith University Crime Victims Surveys in Australia. Brisbane: The Print People. p51-67.

[24] Ibid., p54.