August 2011 Public Disorder in London - Case Study Example

Abstract Mark Duggan became the reason of the historical August 2011 public disorder in London and later spread across England (HMIC, 2011). The public protest worsened and violence ensued where offenses committed ranged from looting, organized crime, destruction of property as well as general violent disorder (Davey, 2012; UK statistics authority, 2012). Discussion The administrative IT systems became the source of the data presented in the report and as such, are subject to errors and such inaccuracies as would emanate from the large-scale data recording systems as would have been in use in collection as well as in storage and processing. The data presented in the filing fails to command authenticity and as the bulletin reports, the use of it should be under the understanding of its potential flows and is only viewed as approximations. The most observable features of the data as presented is the rounded off figures which therefore confirms the approximate nature of the data. The data presented covers factual records on court hearing data, data on ethnicity as well as age and gender and data on case classifications on area among others. Moreover, the distribution of the court proceedings between the court systems across the country is in record within the data presented. Nevertheless, it would be pointed out that the data presented fails to authoritatively quantify the number of offenders involved in each act of offence as was committed during the time. It is however acknowledged that the data presented was collected/retrieved from the administrative records as official statistics. This implies that though with the possible shortcomings pointed out in the discussion, the data can be used for research purposes as secondary data by the virtue of being official statistics. The report shows that the public violence involved many people who had disparities in age, gender and motives (Dodd, 2011). The report notes that on the basis of age, the public disorder involved 27% juveniles (aged between 10 and 17 years), 26% were aged 18-18 years while only an approximate of 5% of the offenders were above 40 years by age. In comparison with the age distribution of offenders previously convicted in similar offences in 2010, great disparities were observed from the 2011 statistics, majorly being on the numbers of offenders. Amongst 3103 defendants who faced initial trials in London magistrate courts, 27% were juveniles while the remaining 73% were adults. It is however to be noted that this was only 72% of the total accused persons because others faced trials elsewhere. According to the official statistics presented by August 10, 2012, 35% of the defendants involved in the cases had a ‘white’ ethnic background, 34% had ‘black’ ethnic background, 10% had a ‘mixed’ ethnic background, ‘Asian’ ethnic lineage had 6% while others comprised 2%. However, it is noted that approximately 13% of defendants fail to be represented in the ethnic distribution of the statistics in use for the report. This classification was based on defendant’s own proclamation as from what ethnic background he/she hailed from as well as on the ‘Census 5 point ethnicity classification’ (“Ministry of Justice” 2012). According to the classification, the whites comprised of the British, Irish and others, Blacks included Africans, Caribbean’s as well as others; Asians included Bangladesh, Indians, Pakistanis as well as others while the mixed incorporated all the above classifications. Moreover, a small segment of the classification was ‘others’ which had a representation of Chinese among others. Depending on the type of offense one committed, judges and magistrates passed on their judgment on corrective procedures where jail terms were most prescribed ones. Approximations of 50% of burglary cases were tried, 22% were violent disorders while theft comprised of at least 15%. Thirty six percent of the trials that were done at the magistrate courts attracted immediate custodial sentences. Public disorder conviction attracted 7.7 months custodial judgment, burglary attracted 7.2 months custodial sentence while theft offenses attracted 4.6 months of custodial sentence. The immediate custodial judgment sentences in 2012 varied substantially from the immediate custodial sentences pronounced on the 2010 defendants. While 36% of offenders in 2012 received the custodial sentences, only 12% of offenders in 2010 received such sentences. While public disorder conviction in 2012 attracted 7.7 months custodial judgment, burglary attracted 7.2 months custodial sentence and theft offenses attracted 4.6 months of custodial sentence, the 2010 statistics differs greatly. Public disorder conviction in 2010 attracted 4.4 months custodial judgment, burglary attracted 7.2 months custodial sentence while theft offenses attracted 2.0 months of custodial sentence. On the criminal history of the defendants both in 2010 and 2012, about 78% of the defendants were seen to have had earlier convictions or cautions according to the Police National Computer statistics. Twenty-two percent therefore had no previous record and this compared to 23% of defendants in 2010/11 history. Moreover, 41% of the defendants had a record of over five times past offenses though this compared with 50% of such cases in 2010/11. Conclusion The overall findings from the report presented show a higher level of notoriety in the 2011 public disorder as compared to previous offenses convicted within the country. The data in use in the report was gotten from the administrative IT systems and despite the potential flaws pointed out; the usefulness of the data would not be greatly hampered as the data represents official statistics. This is therefore secondary type of data and presents a reliable source of the data on 2011 public disorder, as it cannot otherwise be collected primarily. The report has therefore been very factual on information on the court proceedings after the offenses with a clear comparison with such other offenses that were experienced in previous years. However, the analysis reveal a disparity in the sentences passed especially on the severity as would be based on type of offense committed. It is shown that the 2011 offenses attracted more severe sentences as compared with the previous years’ offenses, which would likely imply the level of crimes committed. The data used would be advantageous in that the event happened earlier and therefore collecting primary data is likely to be biased and erroneous. This forms the main advantage in that the data used is more reliable than would have been sought otherwise (Koziol and Arthur, nd). However, the systematic errors that would have occurred in collection of the data have higher chances of affecting the effectiveness of the data in use within this study (Tasuc and Feruh, 2012). Besides, any gap that would have occurred while collecting the data is likely to have influenced the use of the data in the current study. Nevertheless, it is to be acknowledged that the use of the secondary data was more effective in the analysis undertaken. References Davey E., (2012). “England riots one year on: Culprits jailed for 1,800 years” Retrieved from http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-19111720 Dodd V., (2011). “Police face years of public disorder, former Met chief warns” Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2011/dec/06/police-years-public-disorder-warns HMIC, (2011). “The rules of engagement review of the August 2011 disorders” Retrieved from http://www.hmic.gov.uk/media/a-review-of-the-august-2011-disorders-20111220.pdf Koziol N. and Arthur A., (nd). “An Introduction to Secondary Data Analysis” research methodology series. Retrieved from http://r2ed.unl.edu/presentations/2011/RMS/120911_Koziol/120911_Koziol.pdf “Ministry of Justice” (2012). “Statistical bulletin on the public disorder of 6th to 9th August 2011 – September 2012 update” Retrieved from https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/219665/august-public-disorder-stats-bulletin-130912.pdf Tasuc S. and Feruh M. B., (2012). “Errors and issues in secondary data used in marketing research” The Scientific Journal for Theory and Practice of Socioeconomic Development, 1(2); 326 – 335 UK statistics authority, (2012). “Monitoring Brief 4/12: Reporting of official statistics about the August 2011 public disorder” Retrieved from http://www.getstats.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Monitoring-Disorder.pdf Read More