A NEW RESEARCH PRIORITY FOR GMP: ASSESSING CRIME STATUS AND PERCEPTION
Date of submission
Crime investigators usually undergo training that enable them perfect their examinations. However, the manner in which they are trained in many cases is neither consistent nor uniform ranging from sophisticated training protocols in a section of units to the experience got from on-the-job alongside senior investigators in other. The result is crime is investigated in a number of various ways in different niche and time. As time goes by, different criminalities arise together with the way offenders do them; this prompts the need for different approaches in investigating the offenses to come out with solutions from time to time. According to Manheim, Bullock, and Scott (2018), crime status is “a crime of being rather than a crime of doing. Examples of status crimes include addiction, homelessness, prostitution, or even belonging to a certain minority group.” Different people involve in different crime status like anti-social behavior, theft, public order, criminal damage and arson, violence, sexual offenses, burglary, vehicle crime and many more. Whereas perception is basically what one’s consciousness receive from the senses. A society has their own way of perceiving crimes in their area. In a more conventional way, this research aims to find a new research priority in assessment of crime status and perception of the individuals.
Esqueda, Espinoza, and Culhane (2008) conducted two studies on the effects of ethnicity and crime status on the decision making by juror which feature cross-cultural investigation of Mexican and European American Mock Jurors. In the first study, it was established that European Americans had a low socioeconomic status and Mexican Americans having lengthier sentences, more guilty verdicts, and higher ratings of culpability compared to a European American defendant or a high socioeconomic status Mexican American, irrespective of status of the crime. On the other hand, in the second study, there were no differences for culpability assignment, recommended sentence, or guilty verdicts. The findings showed bias of European Americans toward Mexican Americans and how they may operate across all phases of the legal processes. In other words, the economic status determines what crime status one can do and later how they can cope with the legal processes during investigations and prosecution when they are arrested; this is evidenced in the way low socio-economic Mexican Americans showed higher rates of negative traits although low status crime.
A further study on why some factors cause criminals to offend; Agrew (2005) wrote a book with an aim to answer “why some individuals are more likely than others to engage in crime.” The book lists the major motivations and constraints affecting crime, stating that criminal activity is most likely to occur in cases where the constraints against crimes are lower and there are high motivating factors to commit crime. The constraints listed include high self-control, strong economic status, high rate of security and jailing and more while motivators of crime are poverty, low self-control. The next chapter critiques and explains the dominant strategies for classifying variables that have moderately large direct effect on crime, further providing arguments that the factors causing crime should be grouped into personality traits, peers, school, work and family; this is further supported by Roberson and Wallace, (2016). Further on, the book explains that the causes of crimes are related and the history of a person is important to determine his criminal ability. When one has in some occasions committed offenses in the past, he is more likely to commit again compared to one who has never. Again, people coming from families or biological environments where committing of crimes has been recoded, they are likelier to commit than ones from fair environs. This book hence builds on the status and perception of an individual to be another reason they can indulge in criminal activities. Agrew (2005) concludes that combating them means dealing with their environments first.
While the economic status determine the crime status, Pratt and Cullen (2000) analyzed the way the feeling of self, self-control and the general theory of crime affect one’s ability to do particular crime to what status. The researches achieved this analysis by determining an empirical status of “Gottfredson and Hirschi's (1990)” which was titled the “the general theory of crime.” The findings however did not disappoint and can be used to back up the findings of Esqueda, Espinoza, and Culhane (2008). Pratt and Cullen found that regardless of differences in measurement, lower self-control can significantly predict analogous behavior and crime. Moreover, different types of samples are affected by low self-control. This research established that despite the position of Gottfredson and Hirschi, low self-control is however having weaker effect in longitudinal studies. In the end the study recommends the use of meta-analysis or variables from social learning theories. The variables can be great predictors of crime statuses and perception therefore can be utilized by investigators. The more particular persons either suspects or criminals exhibit low self-control from their records; the likelier persons are to committing particular crimes (Basto-Pereira et al., 2015).
Perception on the other hand affects the rate, level or reportage of crimes committed in a community and a society perceiving more crime results to less collective efficacy (Hipp, 2016). Hipp described collective efficacy as “a collective perception that comes from a process,” his study therefore emphasized that there is updating, the same way there are effects of feedbacks from failure or success by a group to how they perceive collective efficacy. The study also emphasized that updating increases the significance of accounting for degree of uncertainty from members regarding neighborhood collective efficacy. The researcher conducted his study in North Caroline using 113 block groups where he found evidence that updating is the way neighborhoods perceive more crime and thus reported less collective efficacy. Additionally, he found collective efficacy as only related to lower crimes perceived at study time when it happened in highly organized quarters. Lastly, neighborhoods with more perceived uncertainty and crimes concerning collective efficacy at one point of time exhibited lower collective efficacy levels at the next point of time, exemplifying the significance of uncertainty as well as updating. This is also supported by Kumar and Vaya (2018) that requires crime prevention to use the community perception to address the causes of the crime.
Introduction of topic and literature review
Based on previously collected data the policing priorities for the upcoming year will be an assessment study of the state of crime and how the members of the public perceive it since the previous priorities focused on reducing crime, with a particular focus on violent crime, stealing and burglary, providing more information and opportunities for people to tell us about their concerns and to reduce anti-social behavior, with a particular focus on repeat and vulnerable victims.
Description of data
Qualitative data collected was descriptive to finer details of specific crime identity, month and year of occurrence, the key party that received the information, location where it occurred by coordinates, crime type and its last outcome including borough and ward. The other data set also had Manchester citizens sharing their opinions through tweeter identified by a specific identification code, the time the tweet was tweeted, a link to the tweets and what they were about ranging from complaints to further explanation of what the crime committed was as well as conclusion that would bring assurance and stability in the society like, ‘it was a cat’. Favorite tweet count, number of retweets of tweets, number of replies for each tweet and the number of hashtags based on issues presented to the police were also included in the data to give a good public opinion on matters of crime.
The Greater Manchester Police (GMP) was the source of the data sets which were collected in the years 2013 to 2018 on crimes reported to them. After an occurrence of incidence, whether noticed by members of the public or by greater Manchester Police (GMP) a new entry in the Greater Manchester Police (GMP) data base would be created assigning it a specific identity as well as its description. The data on tweeter would be collected later based on time of action majorly through hashtags relating to the crime where they would be tallied and recorded for the time they are trending until occurrence of the next one.
The administrative units in Manchester recorded were ten; Bolton, Bury, Manchester, Oldham, Rochdale, Salford, Stockpot, Tameside, Trafford and wigan.The Manchester administrative unit recorded the highest administrative unit to handle crimes in all the months during the study period with over 9000 cases. Bolton although had lower cases as compared to Manchester administrative unit was ranked second with almost 4000 cases in all study months. Consequently Bury recorded the least cases in all months of the study period with ≤ 2000 cases. Apart from Manchester the other administrative units have < 4000 crime cases (Fig 1)
Updated: 3 months ago
Academic Writing Category