Modernizing Crime Statistics Report 1: Defining and Classifying Crime (2016) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 Historical and Extant Classifications of Crime
4 Historical and Extant Classifications of Crime
Pages 103-116
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 103... ...
More specifically, why is it important to classify crime as a prelude to discussing improvements in crime statistics collection? The answer is that a proper classification provides a strong basis for structuring and organizing information, and so provides a useful blueprint for operationalizing actual information collection.
|
From page 104... ...
This was underscored by the format of the original Uniform Crime Reporting manual (International Association of Chiefs of Police, 1929) -- a thick volume, with most of its heft coming from a small-print compilation of extracts from state criminal codes.
|
From page 105... ...
arrives at a similar list of covered crimes but does so via entirely different means; where the UCR Program requires local police departments or state coordinators to parse available information and decide which definition best suits a particular incident/offense, the NCVS never puts the burden on the respondent or the interviewer to "label" the crime at hand. Rather, the NCVS's event- or roughly attribute-based classification asks a number of general questions and combines that information -- formulaically, yet flexibly -- to construct the proper classification label.
|
From page 106... ...
The report summarizing the performance of the CCS in testing by the Peoria Police Department suggested some unanticipated difficulties, notably that 27 percent of crime incident reports in the coding sample could not be assigned a geographic location as precise as a census tract. Tellingly, the report also included a cross-tabulation of the CCS categories versus the UCR category (including both Part I and II offenses)
|
From page 107... ...
4.1.2 SEARCH and the Pure Attribute-Based Classification In 1975, the SEARCH Group1 set out to construct a prototype records system -- capable of exploiting increased computerization of law enforcement departments -- to bring fully attribute-based classification to police report statistics. Put most succinctly, attribute-based reporting of crime was intended as "a means of systematically capturing crime event data in the basic detail required to classify the particular offense according to any classification system" (SEARCH Group, Inc., 1976:v)
|
From page 108... ...
Second, the multiple sources for the attribute-based scheme overlap substantively with each other for some crime types and don't clearly achieve mutual exclusivity of concept; for instance, "the unauthorized signing of someone else's name to a credit card slip prepared with a stolen card" could fall into any of two UCR codes or three UOC codes (SEARCH Group, Inc., 1976:14)
|
From page 109... ...
. Further, the ANZSOC designers note that "certain design considerations were deemed to be of particular importance in determining the structure of the Classification" (Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2011:7)
|
From page 110... ...
subdivides the ANZSOC group "serious assault resulting in injury" into five subgroups -- assault occasioning grievous bodily harm; torture; wounding; assault occasioning actual bodily harm; and serious assault resulting in injury (remainder) -- and the "unlawful entry with intent/burglary, break and enter" group into eight subgroups depending on type of premises (dwelling, shop, other building)
|
From page 111... ...
. The CSO's stated rationale in constructing their specific classification scheme include: • Accessibility and Clarity to Users: Recalling that their previous system relied heavily on "legalistic" jargon that either clashed with or was entirely unknown to users outside the criminal justice system, the CSO notes that the classification uses common terminology "to the greatest extent possible," the primary exception being reference to the specific titles of some legislative acts (Central Statistics Office, 2008:6)
|
From page 112... ...
Still, it is a useful model to consider, in several respects -- not least of which because the Irish experience of trying to break from the longstanding Headline versus NonHeadline Crime divide parallels the U.S. problem of expanding focus wider
|
From page 113... ...
An audit sample of PULSE records examined by the Inspectorate suggested misclassification rates of 30 percent or greater, including an unusually large number of entries coded in PULSE as "Attention and Complaints" or "Property Lost" -- both of those being technically noncrime categories. It is PULSE crime records that are transferred to the CSO for classification and tabulation -- and so flawed data inputs necessarily led to flawed national crime data.
|
From page 114... ...
Initial task force work included an informal survey of other nations' existing data systems and further discussions (in which the United States participated, via BJS)
|
From page 115... ...
and continued working and meeting periodically, with meetings in 2013 and 2014 set with the goal of submitting a first official version of an International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes for approval by the appropriate United Nations' commissions in early 2015. The group's final preparatory/development meeting in Vienna in May 2014 included a first round of "testing" -- feedback from participating countries on the degree of concordance between the draft ICCS and the primary criminal statistics repository in a country.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.