In 1980 there were 23 cases of murder or manslaughter, in 1990 , 27. Last year the figure was 59. However a hardline response to the rising crime rate is not inevitable, argues Ian O'Donnell
It is widely believed that modern Ireland is a place of relentlessly rising crime. The available evidence does not support this view. Over the past 20 years there has been considerable fluctuation in the crime rate. Between 1983 and 1987 and again between 1995 and 1999, it fell by around 20 per cent.
The method of classifying offences changed in 2000 making direct comparison with previous years difficult. However the downward trend appeared to continue until last year, when the preliminary figures indicate a significant rise.
However, there are doubts about the quality of the available information. The primary source is the annual report of the Garda Síochána, which suffers from a number of limitations.
The report is silent about crimes which are not reported to the gardaí (or observed by them), or which are reported but not recorded. The gap between the official picture and the true extent of crime is narrowest for very serious crimes such as murder, or for offences such as car theft where the police must be notified if an insurance claim is to be made.
Offences where the Garda Síochána is not the prosecuting authority are excluded from the official crime statistics. Examples include television licence evasion, welfare and revenue fraud, health and safety violations. The total tally of crime is further depressed by what are known as "counting rules". These internal recording guidelines were published for the first time in January.
They dictate that where two or more offences take place in a single episode, only the most serious one is counted. Also, a continuous series of offences against the same injured party involving the same offender counts as a single offence.
The political debate about the crime figures centres on the so-called "headline" categories, but these are not necessarily the most serious matters. Theft of a bicycle and shoplifting are designated headline offences: possession of knives, drink-driving and threatening or abusive behaviour are not. The majority of assaults and drug offences are included in non-headline categories.
Interpretation of the statistics is further complicated by the fact that we are not told how many non-headline offences are recorded, only how many resulted in proceedings. In other words, it is impossible to arrive at a total figure for crimes known to the Garda in any year.
There is great concern at present about rising violence, and there can be no doubt that the homicide rate has increased sharply. In 1980 there were 23 cases of murder or manslaughter, in 1990 there were 27. Last year the figure was 59. Even so, the national homicide rate remains below the EU average. Furthermore, not all types of violent crime are on the increase. Comparing the 1990s with the 1980s, the number of attempted murders and serious assaults almost halved. It may be that rather than reflecting complex shifts in the nature of violence in society, these trends are explained by changes in reporting practice by the public or recording practice by the Garda.
THE limited value of the official statistics and the lack of alternative sources of data mean that crime control policies are rarely based on firm evidence. In the absence of information, decisions can be based on intuition, ideology, the demands of the moment or individual preferences. This is manifestly unsatisfactory.
The trend in recent times has been to respond to rising (or falling) crime with increased punitiveness. Since 1995, the prison population has risen by about 50 per cent and the number of gardaí and prison officers has climbed steadily. However it is not clear what consequences these policies are expected to have.
How many crimes will each additional garda or prison cell prevent? At what cost? Is the continuation of the prison building programme and the renewed commitment to increase Garda numbers a proportionate response to the State's crime problem? Would a greater emphasis on alternatives to custody and crime-prevention achieve similar results at less expense?
How can we design effective responses when we know so little about the dimensions of crime and how they may be changing? How can a balance be struck between retribution and restoration? What emphasis is to be placed on the needs of victims and communities? When evaluating the impact of new policies, what are appropriate indices of "success" and how might they be measured?
These questions are often overlooked in the rush to react to the public clamour for action. Politicians of all hues are concerned not to appear soft on crime.
In England and Wales the "war on crime" has escalated over the past decade and public opinion is hardening. This is shown in the latest International Crime Victimisation Survey, published recently in the Netherlands.
Participants in the survey were asked what they considered the most appropriate penalty for a 21-year-old man found guilty of burglary for the second time, having stolen a colour television. In 1992, 37 per cent of those surveyed in England and Wales wanted to see the burglar jailed. By 2000 this had risen to 51 per cent.
The recommended prison sentence rose from 22 to 24 months. It would appear that the British public has heeded the politicians' call to understand less and condemn more.
By contrast, in Finland in 1992, the proportion opting for imprisonment was 14 per cent. In 2000, it was 19 per cent. The recommended prison sentence fell from 11 to eight months. Finland is an interesting case study. In the early 1970s its imprisonment rate was among the highest in Europe. Today it is among the lowest. The prison population there went down because a national consensus developed that it was unconscionably high.
Legislators, judges, public servants and academics decided that the country should pursue a policy of parsimony with regard to imprisonment. Even when the crime rate doubled between 1980 and 1990, this policy was continued. Ireland has never participated in the survey so we do not know where the country is located on the scale of punitiveness. However, the contrast between England and Finland demonstrates that a hardline response to crime is not inevitable. This lesson is important as the crime rate begins to increase again and the search resumes for solutions.
There are two key issues to consider. The first is technical: how to improve the quality of the crime statistics. The second is political: how to design a criminal justice system which supports the vulnerable, protects the innocent and repairs the harms caused by crime.
Dr Ian O'Donnell is research fellow at the Institute of Criminology, Law Faculty, University College Dublin.