The History of Crime Measurement - Research Paper Example

Crime measurement The intent of this discussion is to delineate the history of crime measurement, the present and what the future holds with regards to crime measurement. Crime has permeated the society since time immemorial. It is essential that the law enforcers obtain reliable way to determine crime. Over the years, crime assessment relied upon the dossier method. However, this method was unconstitutional as well as incoherent with the prevailing crime techniques. The law enforcers formulated the uniform criminal reports seeking to have an upper hand on organized crime. This method is still in operation since the mid 1980’s amidst various facelifts to matchup to the dynamics emerging in the criminal world. This paper seeks to illustrate the strengths as well as weaknesses allied to adopting the following methods to measure and combat organized crime. Introduction Crime is the act of contravening the existing rule of law set by some governing authority. Different societies define crime differently given the fact that each society has a different set of rules. A crime may at times may illegal or legal depending on the framework of rules governing a society. Rules are hence an essential part of the societal justice system as they ensure that justice prevails. However, the violation of law in itself may result to crime, but it is notable that not all law violations amount to a crime. It is noteworthy that each society establishes a mechanism to evaluate the nature of the crime as well as to prescribe the necessary measures to curb crime. The act of measuring how much crime permeates the society is by no means an easy task. However, for a society to enact the laws in place and ensure that justice prevails, it is beneficial to measure crime. History indicates that the mechanisms adopted to measure crime somehow give misleading indication. This implies that the mechanisms indicate there is more or less crime than the actual crime rate prevailing in a given society. This, however, does not disregard nor discredit the criminal statistics in place. It serves as an alert to the law enforcers not to rely on a single crime measurement mechanism (Samaha, 2006). History of crime measurement Crime is an ancient misgiving that dates far back in time. This is evident as there have been court proceedings since the 18th century. The obvious source of criminal records and related information is the police. The police collect crime related information and classify it into various categories. Police emanates from the early tribal justice system commonly knew as kin policing. This form of policing existed in pre civilized communities acting as the law enforcement agency. Over the years, it is eminent that the justice system has received a facelift seeking to promote policing in all endeavors. It is worth noting that controversies are prevalent amidst the milestones achieved. For instance, the American crime rating technique has been in the spot light for having criminal records against a person who is essential not a criminal. This indicates a shortfall in the justice system and also contravenes to some vital doctrines in the constitution. There is a short fall on the boundary defining the information serving as criminal records that the law enforcers can keep and maintain. The only clear thing is that the early justice system lacked focus, purpose and due process (Siegel, 2013). The relationship between law enforcement agencies and the overall security has tremendously improved over the years. Since the mid 1920’s there are eminent changes though they have been both politically and legally controversial, the changes result in a streamlined system that can tackle any issue. This implies that through the inculcation of a reliable crime measurement technique, the rate of crime has reduced. In addition, since the war has been a part and parcel of the human being evolution system, it is difficult to differentiate the police and army revolution. While seeking to attain justice, the ancient American law enforcers adopted a justice system similar to the military. This justice system was the common dossier system. The dossier system borrows from the old military methods and implies that the files consist of nothing but dossiers. The dossier is a compilation of raw data about suspected criminals and the criminal allegations made against these suspects. Their suspects were eminent threats to the well being of society. In America, the likes of Al Capone, Bonnie and Clyde and the Barker Gang represent the typical suspects that the police kept dossiers. The revolution of the crime measurement system relates closely to the economic conditions prevailing in the country. In 1930’s for instance, given the economic depression that faced the global business scene, little advancements were achievable in the law enforcement arena. However, towards the end of the decade, communism or the red scare was quite predominant hence crime measurement techniques received an extended blow. The police still relied single handily on the dossier since it was the only system they had in place (Vito & Maahs, 2012). The following decade, the 1940’s led to the onset of the Second World War. The world war resulted to various societal displacements, and the rate of prevailing crime increased. With the formation of the Soviet Union, the red scare had more vigor. The crime measurement arena focused on creating read files. This is because; at this time, crime rate prevailed as a result of communism acts and the only way to curb crime was to deal with the communist sympathizers. These were files that contained information on suspected communists or any communism sympathizers in the United States soil. The fight against the communism resonated well when Senator McCarthy called for communist’s expulsion from government. Seeking to respond to the senator’s remarks, the enforcement agencies began creating dossiers for any alleged communist or communism sympathizer. The police agencies were keeping track of any individual expressing political belief or any one sympathizing with these individuals. The fact of the matter was that these people had not violated any rule of law. Additionally, the American citizens had a constitutional right to support the communism front if that pleased them and the government of the day had no right of interference. However, the American government’s felt threatened by the presence of communist’s within the nation’s boundaries. The dossier system at this point was an accepted tool of crime measurement, therefore, when any new over arching threat or challenge emerged; it was natural for the government agency to rely on the ready mechanism. For instance, in the mid 1960’s two eminent challenges emerged; the Anti-Vietnam War movement and the civil rights movement. These cases were on the infringement of rights affecting mainstream society. This action appeared to many as an alien in the American society. At this time, crime skyrocketed in the United States with the Second World War baby boomers exploring their teenage life. This involves engaging in sex, smoking and alcohol becoming the target for the police force (Samaha, 2006). There was an overall change in values, in society viewed by many as being conspiratorial. This elicited social evolution as the entire generation and racial lines shifted creating instability that threatened the mainstream. Given the prevailing dissonance in 1960’s, the police force created dossiers for activists and protesters. This was on the assumption that the activists and protesters might engage in crimes, and the dossiers were in place just in case. In many instances, the dossier maintained by the police force did not relate to any crime but just raw data which can be used to aid the prosecution. This information stored was in good faith that the law enforcers were doing it for the well of the country at large. However, one short fall was that this dossier method contravened the constitution in a number of ways. For instance, it is not constitutional to store data relating to a citizen on the presumption that a felony will arise in the foreseeable future (Michigan State Police, 2004). The other concern affecting the dossier method emanated from the fact that the Supreme Court handcuffed the police force. The court run by Warren led to judicial activism expanding the interpretations of the constitution. This act motivated the attorney of the accused to adopt a new strategy which involved claiming that the dossier method was fundamentally unconstitutional. The United States constitution provides that any person who violates the rights and freedoms of another citizen is civilly liable. The law suits that followed targeted the entire police force trying to determine whether the deprivation of a person’s right is a crime in itself or not. The information was hence in the public domain that the police force was maintaining files incriminating innocent people while they had no evidence to prove criminality. This opened an entire floodgate for lawsuits against the police force of the land. In the mid 1970’s, method of keeping dossiers receives unanimous disapproval from the courts. This was because the method was unconstitutional and deprived citizens of their rights as American citizens. As a result, the courts ordered the police units to purge the dossiers from their records and in other instances the police force paid damages to the plaintiff. In addition, the activists publicized their dossier files symbolizing honor. The police force operations cut back significantly both in cost and embarrassment (Mosher, Miethe & Hart, 2011). This also implied that formulation of a new method of handling information was among the priorities of the American police force. The efficiency and ability of the crime measurement by the police fraternity was questionable and hence recommendations to restructure the force were in place. The first recommendation aimed at enforcing communication, information sharing and better coordination. This is because; the police forces were contradicting and dealing in a similar case instantaneously. Another recommendation sought to provide oversight responsibility to a director of police in the country. This would ensure that there is centralization of authority and responsibility in the organization. Crime measurement in the Unites States has tremendously evolved. This is because; after the recommendations appropriately in place, focus shifted to allegations that the police fraternity in the US was violating the constitution again. This was a result of frustrations endured by the police force members in search for information both during the Vietnam and Watergate incidents. The recommendations that followed opined that, the jurisdiction of the police force curtailed to America alone (Regoli, Hewitt & DeLisi, 2010). By the mid 1970s, there were a number of government’s agencies all seeking to handle crime and reduce crime in the American streets. There was a unanimous call that the agencies should work together for common good of the society. Limitations facing the early crime measurement agencies and measures in place to combat them Crime measurement took yet another twist when the centralized law enforcement function came into being. The state engaged in establishing networks within the region to enhance sharing of criminal information. However, by mid 1980’s organized crime had emerged to a whole new level. The criminal activities had engaged in a variety of criminal activities ranging from counterfeiting consumer commodities to drug trafficking. The problem emanated from the fact that, the agencies incapacitation could not handle organized crime. There was also a flop in information sharing among the agencies hence aggravating the issue at hand. This issue of organized crime resulted in continuous revolution forming a new subculture outdoing the enforcement agencies. The enforcement agencies were almost a failed initiative or an information clearing house. The solution to this problem was to have a data collection function incorporated in the police arm. In addition, the data analysis was possible through a well guided procedure. Improved training was also necessary among the police force to equip the officer with the ability to collect, evaluate, analyze and interpret information hence having meaningful information. The police force received vital information to harness its proactive skills, as opposed to being reactive. The latter implies that the police force has to wait upon the actions of the criminals before taking action. Being proactive would include writing of ad-hoc reports addressing the vital issues in society. The biggest setback allied to the agencies of the day was the fact that, the dissemination of the police products was neither timely nor comprehensive. This was a substantial limitation in the police force given that the criminals were ever dynamic both in tactic and skill. The need for timely operations, as well as information, was eminent to enhance the operations to negate crime. The breakthrough seemed achievable once the creation of a national criminal police sharing plan was in place. This was a significant milestone in the fighting of crime. (Mosher, Miethe & Hart, 2011). Current trends With time, the crime measurements methods have evolved, and the US for instance is among the leading countries in crime measurement (Michigan State Police, 2004). For instance, since the abolishment of the dossier method on the claim that it was unconstitutional, the police now use the uniform criminal reports to store data. The uniform criminal reports are national wide and contain data relating to all crimes brought to the attention of the agency. It is notable that a large chunk of the data gets to the police from the other law enforcement agencies in America. This depicts that there is a remarkable level of coordination between the police agencies all over the country. The uniform criminal reports classify offences into two paramount categories. The categories include part one and part two. In part one, there two incidents amounting to categories which include; violence and property crimes. Violence involves robbery, forcible rape, aggravated assault, and murder. On the other hand, arson, motor vehicle theft, burglary and larceny theft amount to property crimes. This part one crimes collectively refers to index crimes because; they are more serious and the reporter has more precision. The part one crimes receive more attention as they from the police as opposed to other crimes reported to separate agencies. Part two crimes entails, simple assault, loitering, forgery, counterfeiting, drug offenses, gambling, and fraud. In addition, prostitution, offenses against family, runaways, public drunkenness, vandalism, stolen property, weapons offenses, driving under the influence, curfew offenses, liquor offenses, and vagrancy also are part two crimes. These offenses appear differently in the police records as they depend on their intensity and magnitude while recording the offenses (Regoli, Hewitt & DeLisi, 2010). Limitations The uniform criminal reports only reflect the police reports and fail to indicate any police adjudication. In addition, not all states in America require municipalities to enhance data reports. This facilitates under reporting in some of the criminal statistics in the uniform criminal reports. The uniform criminal report has four main sub parts which include; the national incident based reporting system. The law enforcement officers killed and assaulted hate crime statistics program, and the cargo theft reporting program. The national incident based reporting systems is a reporting system used by the enforcement agencies in the US to report relevant data on crimes. The system records data collected at every incident and allocates the offense to the correct category. The national incident based reporting system as of 2004 received data from 5271 law enforcement agencies across the country. This is 20 percent of America’s population and represents 16 percent of data held by the police. The main advantage attributed to the NIBR is that it is customizable. For instance, Texas and South Carolina have customized versions of the NIBR that permit basic data forwarding to police headquarters while additional data required for the state remains (Pattavina, 2005). Conclusion Crime is a social vice that needs appropriate measures. The government of any seeks to ensure that crime reduces through advocating for appropriate punishment to retribution and deter others in society. It is apparent that criminal measurement has been through treacherous revolution over the years. The revolution ensured that criminal measurement abides to the requirements of the constitution respecting the rights of everyone in society. For instance, the dossier method is no longer in place given the updated reporting systems inculcated in the police force. With these improvements and milestones, it is possible to keep track of criminal information all around the US and the environs. However, it is essential that the police force keep track of technology to ensure that relevance prevails. References Michigan State Police. (2004). Uniform crime report. East Lansing, MI: Michigan State Police. Mosher, C. J., Miethe, T. D., & Hart, T. C. (2011). The mismeasure of crime. Thousand Oaks, Calif: SAGE Publications. Pattavina, A. (2005). Information technology and the criminal justice system. Thousand Oaks, Calif: Sage Publications. Regoli, R. M., Hewitt, J. D., & DeLisi, M. (2010). Delinquency in society. Sudbury, Mass: Jones and Bartlett Publishers. Samaha, J. (2006). Criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Siegel, L. J. (2010). Introduction to criminal justice. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, Cengage Learning. Siegel, L. J. (2013). Criminology: Theories, patterns, and typologies. Belmont, CA: Thomson/Wadsworth. Vito, G. F., & Maahs, J. R. (2012). Criminology: Theory, research, and policy. Sudbury, Mass: Jones & Bartlett Learning. Read More