Criminology

How is crime measured in the United States What are the strengths and weaknesses of each method

There are three ways or standards of measuring crime in the United States. They are (1) Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) (2) National Incident- Based Reporting System (NIBRS) (3) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). (James, 2009)

According to the CRS Report for Congress (James, 2009) entitled How Crime in the United States is Measured, the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) is established in 1929  to measure the effectiveness of local law enforcement to provide data that could be used to help fight crime. The data is gathered by the submission of different law enforcement agencies to the FBI in accordance to a particular template of reporting, terminology and other standardized procedure designated by the FBI. In 2005 it was reported that 98 of all the agencies or 17,456 submitted their UCR Reports to the FBI. This make UCR a top choice in different studies and reports from the media, academe or in the government agencies itself  (p. 2).

However, in the 1970s, consensus grew in the law enforcement community that the UCR needed to be updated to provide more in-depth data to meet the needs of law enforcement (p. 11) The main weakness of the UCR is its uniform template of crime reporting which is limited, too shallow and outdated crime categories. As a response, NIBRS data are intended to be a by-product of local incident-based reporting (IBR) systems. Therefore, local and state law enforcement agencies can develop their own IBR systems to suit their local needs, and they can use the data from their own IBR systems to participate in the NIBRS, as long as the data submitted to the FBI meets NIBRS specifications. State and local law enforcement agencies can add additional data elements or data values to their systems (p. 14).

Despite the improvements in the flexibility of reporting adopted in NIBRS, there is still a remaining weakness in both UCR and NIBRS system, it only reports reported crimes. Unreported crimes, commonly found in the domestics or within the residence or family is not regarded. In this respect, the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) was born. The aim of the NCVS are as follow (1) developing detailed information about the victims and consequences of crime, (2) estimating the number and types of crimes not reported to police, (3) providing uniform measures of selected types of crimes, and (4) permitting comparisons over time and population types (e.g., urban, suburban, and rural). (p. 21)

The NCVS sample is selected using a stratified, multistage cluster sample.202 The sampling process starts by identifying approximately 2,000 primary sampling units (PSUs) that are composed of standard metropolitan statistical areas, a county, or a small group of contiguous counties.203 PSUs are stratified with respect to important demographic characteristics, such as geographic region, population density, population growth rate.A sample of households is chosen from each stratum in a manner that is proportionate to their representation in the larger population. When a household is selected for the sample, all eligible people in the household are interviewed. (p. 28)

As much as the UCR and NIBRS have their own limitations, the NCVS also has its limitations. Primarily, its method is statistical and involves sampling. Sampling and non-sampling error is inevitable which entails the possibility that the chosen sample population will not really reflect the general statistics for the whole population. Other weakness of NCVS lies in the interview itself wherein the interviewees are subject to biases ( i.e. uncompleted survey) and incomplete details for answering the surveys ( i.e. in the case of multiple or series victimization). Other problems or limitation of NCVS are (1) changes in household residence (2) limitation on the scope of crime covered (3) survey design and implementation (p. 33-37).

Identify and discuss the basic tenants of the social contract doctrine. Explain its relationship to the development of our system of government and criminological theory.

The Social Contract theory at least for Jean-Jacques Rousseau is a doctrine that states that the government authority is derived through the consensus of the people. This is a direct contrast of an earlier dominant view wherein the government or the king derived his power from God. (Brians et al., 1999)

This entails that every human is free. When this view is expounded in the Hobbes framework, what follows in this scenario is the state of nature. The state of nature is a hypothetical situation wherein there are no laws and governing body that controls or at least guide human behavior. Every individual will pursue its own interest even to the expense of harming, depriving or even killing other people. The social contract is a result of the people acknowledging that the civilization will only develop if they agree to submit some of their freedoms and rights to an artificial governing body that will protect their lives and interest in the expense of the submission of some of their rights and freedom. (Dontigney, 2008)

The consensus of the people to protect their lives in exchange of some of their rights and freedom lead to the creation of the armed or policing forces of the state (the Hobbes Leviathan) to protect their interests. This bears the tradition that the police and the military can use force to protect the population. Criminals are viewed as a breaker of the social contract theory with their pursuing the own self interest that harm other citizens or the system itself. A persons own self-interests are put at the forefront as to why people commit crime and how they should be punished (Pelovangu, 2010). For the social contract to continue, any violators of the doctrine should be put in jail or punishments.

One legal defense that is used in serious criminal cases is the insanity defense. Discuss the various standards used for this defense and state which one makes the most sense to you.

In the last 150 years, there at least three major changes in the standards used in ruling the insanity defense. The 1843 acquited case of Daniel MNaghten who tried to assassinate the Britains prime minister and killing the prime ministers secretary in the process had pushed the what so called M Nagthen Rule which dominates the court for about 100 years. The M Naghten Rule says
To establish a defense on the ground of insanity, it must clearly be proved that, at the time of the committing of the act, the party accused was laboring under such a defect of reason, from disease of the mind, as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing or if he did know it, that he did not know he was doing was wrong (Melton, 1997, p. 191).

The basis for the decision will later be expanded in the 1950 he Durham v. United States case. In the Durham case, the court ruled that an person was legally insane if he would not have committed the criminal act but for the existence of a mental disease or defect. (Martin, J. 1998)

Different criticism had arisen from this standard due to its leniency. The result is the Model Penal Code which can be regarded as a compromise to the two earlier systems. The MPC states that, if at the time of such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. (Montaldo)
The Modern Penal Code makes much more sense since the penal code test is much broader than the MNaghten Rule and the Irresistible Impulse test. It asks whether defendants have a substantial incapacity to appreciate the criminality of their conduct or to conform their conduct to the law rather than the absolute knowledge required by MNaghten and the absolute inability to control conduct required by the Irresistible Impulse test. (Pelps  Cengage 2003)

The Model Penal Code is an attempt to incorporate the different elements of the earlier standards. Its strength lies to the incorporation of the strengths of earlier standards while keeping at bay the weaknesses it has.

What role do victims of crime play in the criminal justice process and how has this changed over the years (5 points)

Today, victims of a crime role in the judicial process are characterized by being a passive spectator or at most a witness subject for questions.  Organizations such as the Prison Fellowship International argue against the position of the victims in todays world. In a paper of Wemmers (2008) for example, argue for a more active participation of witnesses in the judicial process through a historical analysis of the role of witness in earlier times.

According to Wemmers (2008), in the 11th century in common law countries, the victim is responsible for apprehension, charging, prosecution and even the punishment of the criminals or offenders which was then referred as private prosecution. This is even referred as the golden age of the criminal justice system due to the extensive role played by the victims in exercising justice.

However, in the rise of monarchical system of governance, the role of the victims in delivering justice was reduced dramatically with the idea that crimes committed are not primarily directed to the victim itself but rather seen as a threat to the entire social and public order.  In this era, the compensation or what is commonly referred as fines are paid not to the victim but rather to the state. This practice still exists today. (Wemmers, 2008)

However, today we can witness the revival of the role played by witness in the judicial process, the introduction of Victims Impact Statement. Introduced in California in 1974, VIS has since been introduced in several common-law countries including Australia, Canada, England and Wales. VIS offers victims an opportunity to express to the court how they were impacted by their victimization. The VIS is typically a written statement, although in some countries (e.g. Canada) victims can read their statement aloud in court. The VIS is presented to the court after a determination of guilt and before sentencing (Wemmers, 2008).

The VIS is regarded as a small starting move to bring back the role of the victims in the judicial process. Organizations such as the Prison Fellowship International which promotes Restorative Justice as an alternative to the mainstream judicial process is making its way for pushing for the more active role of victims in the judicial process. (PFI, 2009)

Assume you have been commissioned by the Governors Office in the state of Missouri to develop a plan to reduce violent crime in the state. Kansas City has one of the highest homicide rates around. You first have to lay out a comprehensive explanation as to the causes of violent crime. Write an essay explaining the theoretical perspective that best explains this type of crime. Place your selected theory in context with regard to schools of criminology, the theorys basic concepts, proponents, and its implications for the public policies that you might be recommending based on this theory. (20 points)

The first thing to do in determining necessary actions in this kind of situation is to assess and determine the reality of the situation itself. Focusing on a particular crime like homicide, we should answer specific questions about the particulars of the crime. This will help us in assessing the necessary actions that we must take and for us to know how urgent the situation is.

In this respect, the statistics from the UCR or NIBRS (if available) will greatly help our assessments and recommendations. Additionally, reports and statistics from the NCVS will also add to the details and facts that will be used in the assessment. Some of the questions that are vital in the goal of reducing homicide in the state are the ff (1) What is the age group of the victims (2) Where do the crime takes place, at home, at the workplace or on the streets (3) Are there any criminal groups involved in the majority of the crimes or each scenario has its unique actors

Suppose your findings shows that homicide in the said city is due to the theft and robbery in the streets wherein students and young adults are the common victim by the particular crime syndicate in the city.

Seeing it in the theoretical framework, the classical school of criminology views people as hedonistic and will only be discouraged to commit crime if he or she is facing a much stronger deterrence compare to the urge that he feels. When this theory is used in assessing and solving the crime problem of the city, the government should dispose additional counter-measures in the hotspots of the crimes. Placing checkpoints, uniformed and civilian police officers and educating the citizen for a basic self defense can act as a strong deterrence for the offenders.

However, actions stated above also have their limitation. Though it can really provide protection for many citizens and can be relied to reduce the crime in the city, it still has its loopholes and limitation. First, the root of the crime (in this case, the crime syndicate) is not really neutralized. It can easily relocate its forces and operation to other cities or other parts of the city which have weaker security and protection. Also, the moment the security and guarding of the city weakens, the operation of the syndicate can easily go back to its former operation on the city.

As quick solutions such as the strengthening of the police force can be quite effective, we must not also deny that there is a need for a slowly effecting long term approaches to the problem. As stated, the main problem is the crime syndicate that operates within the city. If it can be proved that the syndicate arose from bigger problems such as unemployment and poverty, there will be now an urgency to address these problems. Livelihood projects and wealth distribution reforms can help to remedy the situation slowly. While it is undeniable that there is a need for quick solutions just like mentioned above, we must not also disregard the bigger problem that is really the root of growth in the crime rate in the city.