Limitations of Official Crime Statistics

Interactionists question the reliability and validity of official crime statistics. They argue that official statistics vastly underestimate crime and therefore only represent ‘the tip of the ice berg’. Interactionists argue that the statistics are socially constructed - that is artefacts (artificial facts) that are the product of a complex process of decision making by victims, the police and the courts.

There are various reasons why crime statistics underestimate crime and hence why they are socially constructed:


1. Underreporting of known crimes
The British Crime Survey (BCS) shows that the public do not always report crimes they have been victims of. In 2005 only 42% of crimes were reported by victims. The BCS estimates that the most common reasons for not reporting crimes are: too trivial and a belief that the police would or could do nothing. Such underreporting lowers the total volume of measured crime.

2. Invisibility of white collar crime & cybercrime
Official statistics underestimate white collar crime & cybercrime. Such crimes often go unreported or prove difficult for agencies of social control to detect. White collar crimes are generally committed by middle class people whilst at work.

There are two main types of white collar crime. Firstly, corporate crime which is committed on behalf of an organisation. For example, Nick Leeson’s fraudulent trading which lead to the collapse of Barings bank. Secondly occupational crime which is committed at the expense of an organisation. For example, George Graham who received illegal payments to sign players for Arsenal. The relative invisibility of white collar crime is a significant problem as it means that official statistics significantly underestimate middle class crime (crimes of the powerful).
Cybercrime refers to criminal acts committed with the help of information technology (committed by working class and middle class people). For example, Internet-based fraud, illegal downloads and cyberbullying.

Langan (1996) suggests the following reasons why white collar crimes and cybercrimes are difficult to detect:

Victims may be unaware a crime has been committed.

Their global nature makes them very difficult to detect and police.

dealt with internally to avoid possible embarrassment for the company.

The crimes are often very complex. This makes them difficult and expensive to detect.

3. The police do not record all known crime
The 2005 BCS estimated that the police only record 75% of reported crime. Such levels of underrecording clearly create a large a dark figure of hidden crime. A number of reasons exist for such underrecording, for example the police may not accept that a crime has been committed.

4. Selective law enforcement
A number of sociologists have argued that the police are more likely to concentrate on offenders from the least powerful sections of society (e.g. working class). Sampson (1986) found that the police tend to concentrate their patrols in poorer areas because of the belief that more crime takes place in such areas. Such police bias leads to the over-representation of powerless groups in official crime statistics.

5. Artificial fluctuations in crime rates
One further reason why official crime statistics can be said to be socially constructed is because crime rates can rise or fall for reasons other than more or less law breaking taking place in society. Fattah (1997) identifies a number of ‘artificial’ factors that can affect crime rates, including:

Willingness of the public to report crime.

Changes in the law.

New crimes and opportunities.