Shortcomings in the compilation of year-on-year crime statistics make analysis and, consequently, reform difficult, writes Ian O'Donnell
The publication of crime figures usually gives rise to a flurry of heated exchanges about apparent fluctuations in offending and how these reflect the state we're in. This is set-piece politics and while occasionally diverting, it is seldom illuminating.
The statistics for 2002 and 2003 appeared in swift succession in recent weeks. This is a mark of the determination of the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Mr McDowell, to increase the amount of information in the public domain and its timeliness.
It would be overly optimistic to expect any single source of data on as complex a phenomenon as crime to be comprehensive. Needless to say, the Garda annual report suffers from a number of shortcomings.
First, it can say nothing about crimes that are not reported to 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 termed the "dark figure". It is difficult to estimate its size without conducting regular surveys among the general population. The Government is committed to the idea of a biennial national victim survey. This will eventually provide an alternative perspective on crime trends.
Second, the overall tally is reduced by the application of several administrative criteria. The "primary offence" rule stipulates that where two or more crimes are disclosed in a single episode it is only the most serious one that is counted for statistical purposes. Also, a continuous series of offences against the same injured party involving the same offender counts as a single offence.
Third, there are many criminal activities that are handled by bodies other than An Garda Síochána and for this reason are not contained within the annual crime figures. These include revenue and health and safety offences.
Fourth, the presentation of the statistics affects their interpretation. The emphasis is generally on what the gardaí describe as "headline" offences. Not surprisingly, these become the focus of media interest.
However, most crimes are "non-headline" and not all of these are trivial. Possession of knives, public order offences and dangerous driving are all defined as non-headline; while theft of a pedal cycle and shoplifting of confectionery are seen as headline.
In some respects it is the non-headline offences - particularly those involving assault, drunkenness and disorderly conduct - that are the cause of public concern. The rationale for determining which offences should be considered headline has never been spelled out, but it has significant ramifications. A different taxonomy would show the crime problem in a different light.
Consider the following. When a car is stolen it is seldom possible to prove the existence of the mens rea [the intention or knowledge of wrongdoing\] necessary to define the offence as theft, which is a headline offence. For this reason most such cases are categorised as non-headline crimes of "unauthorised taking". This creates a division among offences that are behaviourally identical and have the same impact on victims. In 2002, the most recent year for which complete information is available, there were 100 times as many unauthorised takings as thefts of motor vehicles (13,660 compared with 137). If the former incidents were grouped with the latter, headline crime would increase, at a stroke, by 13 per cent.
Commentary on crime trends is usually limited to an examination of year-on-year variation. Attempting to make general conclusions on this basis is a risky business. Short-term fluctuations may be of no enduring consequence. More importantly, such a narrow focus diverts attention away from questions about the purpose of crime statistics and what it is reasonable to expect of them.
Ideally, they should be sufficiently detailed and robust to:
q Inform government policy and enable evidence-based decisions.
r Provide a measure of accountability through target setting.
r Monitor Garda performance (including value for money).
r Identify crime trends.
r Reduce the impact of crime on society.
r Enable members of the public to understand and manage risks of crime.
r Facilitate comparative analyses.
r Stimulate informed public debate and thereby promote democracy.
r Allow evaluation of crime prevention programmes.
r Enhance operational decisions and direct Garda activity.
r Ensure the security of the State.
From the above list it could be argued that the final two activities are the exclusive preserve of An Garda Síochána and may require the production of data and analyses that are never made public. All of the others presuppose the regular, and wide, dissemination of reliable statistical information.
There is a further consideration. Even if the Garda statistics met the highest standards, it is not possible to integrate them with information produced by the other criminal justice agencies. As a result many simple but essential questions cannot be answered.
For example, we do not know what proportion of offenders receive prison sentences; whether the risk of custody has changed over time; whether average sentence lengths have been rising; or whether rates of recidivism vary according to the sanction imposed.
This state of affairs renders analysis complex, conclusions tentative and reform difficult.