Crime and Deviance
It is hard to estimate the number of crimes in Society each year since the criminal justice system has unreported numerous criminal activities. Several causes will be debated, including victims not revealing, victims not realising they are vulnerable, and perpetrators not being caught. As per a recent study released by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS), more than half of the country’s violent criminal activities, or approximately 3.4 million violent victimizations annually, went unreported to law enforcement agencies on average between 2006 and 2010. Due to this underreporting of violent acts, criminologists frequently use the “dark figure of crime.” The researchers will generally cover three basic sources of crime statistics, including official statistics, reported statistics, self-report statistics, and victimisation statistics. These source materials of crime statistics have advantages and disadvantages, which several researchers will describe in detail. Furthermore, they will also discuss the significance of glancing at criminal activity trends and patterns over time, depending upon research and information when creating policy, and how information can improve the criminal justice system (Kappeler and Potter 2017).
This paper mainly focuses on discussing to what level family crimes are still ‘invisible’ crimes and their reason. While discussing the same, it also sheds light on official information gathering and prevention or enforcement methods.
Crime is defined as behaviour that is prevented by legislation since it is deemed particularly hazardous or offensive. Wrongdoing is defined as a behaviour that infringes social standards and incites powerful social condemnation. This definition highlights the widely held sociological belief that wrongdoing results from what other individuals consider about behaviour rather than its reliability. This viewpoint is mirrored in an often-quoted statement from sociologist Howard S. Becker, who wrote a few decades ago that “deviance is not a dynamic activity the individual commits, but instead a result of implementing principles or punishments to a ‘perpetrator’ by others” (Adams, Chen and Chapman 2017).
The deviant is someone who has effectively employed that label; deviant behaviour is the conduct that individuals label as such. This description reminds people that a few damaging behaviours, such as white-collar crime, may not be regarded as deviant and thus, fail to lead to a serious judicial penalty, possibly because wealthy individuals carry them out. It also reminds general people that a few less detrimental behaviours, such as prostitution, may be regarded as extremely delinquent since the general populace considers them morally reprehensible and because poor individuals are engaging in them. As these possible scenarios recommend, labeling a perpetrator as a criminal is troublesome: Individuals who have been apprehended or convicted of crimes may not have been involved in very destructive conduct or even the conduct for which they are accused, whereas individuals who have no criminal history have involved in harmful and even criminal conduct (Wakefield, Lee and Wildeman 2016).
The wider populace in the United Kingdom is genuinely worried about crime. In a 2011 National survey, two-thirds of the general populace said criminal activity had increased from the prior year. More than one-third, 38%, said they would be “extremely fearful of walking alone at night time” within one mile of their home; this equates to more than 86 million persons. In the same survey, 47 percent (or approximately 114 million elders) said they are concerned about their residences being robbed at gunpoint, and 44 percent are concerned about theft cases of or from their automobiles. The following figures represented other offences: being mugged, 34 percent; identity theft, 67 percent; being attacked while traveling, 19 percent; being sexually abused, 22 percent (including 37 percent of females); and being killed, 20 percent (among the lowermost statistics in this list, but one that still amounts to 42 million grown people worrying about being killed) (Brisman 2018).
Public Perception of Crime
Even though the general public is worried about a violent act, a few of these worries may go beyond what the reality of the violent act would rationalise. For instance, while most public believes that criminal activity is on the rise, this percentage has genuinely been decreasing since the early nineties. And, even though one-fifth of the population is concerned about being killed, homicide rates account for less than one-tenth of one percent of all fierce and property-related criminal activities (street crime); only about 7 of every 100,000 UK people, or 0.007 percent, are killed each year; homicide does not classify among the top ten reasons of death (which also involve cancer and heart disease), and the homicide rate is much lesser than the number of mortalities from detrimental corporate behaviour (like pollution or unhealthy goods and place of work). Offence is a genuine issue, but public concern about violent acts may be greater than the realities justify (Rothe and Kauzlarich 2016).
However, it cannot be ignored that depending on official figures to gain a proper understanding of criminal offences can be difficult as several offences never attract the attention of the criminal justice system. Offences recognised or reported to the authorities or others are frequently included in official figures. Individuals failing to report offences may appear surprising, but it is more prevalent than people realise. Under-reporting refers to a problem, event, statistic, or other occurrences that people, accountable agencies, or the media outlets have failed to disclose at a lower level or percentage than the real amount or level. Under-reporting of criminal activities, for instance, makes it problematic to figure out the genuine incidence of crimes (Roberts 2016).
Irrespective of whether violence perpetrated by a friend is more likely to be under-reported or not, it is fair to presume that several violent crimes are unknown to law enforcement agencies, which can be difficult in terms of prosecution and allocation of resources. As a result, it is essential to comprehend why people are hesitant to report violent behaviour. Several causes have been recognised behind why crimes are not reported properly to the law enforcement agencies. Victims may avoid contacting the police due to prior unpleasant experiences, such as poor police treatment and performance. Furthermore, victims do not always believe an event is severe enough to notify. According to the researchers, victims or their family members do not always classify occurrences as crimes or underplay the severity of the event to avoid being labeled as victims or victims’ family members. Grief and embarrassment are two other causes for not disclosing. Shame, self-blame, and dread of the perpetrator all play a role in the under-reporting of partner abuse (Ortiz 2018).
According to the British Medical Association, sexual violence, particularly rape, is the most under-reported violent crime. Dread of not being believed, lack of self-confidence, and worrying about getting into difficulties are prevalent causes for people not reporting violent acts. These are the most prevalent causes for not reporting sexual assault, mainly rape. Rape victims frequently worry about not being believed or being accused, and battered females may fear retribution and lack of earning support or possess mixed emotions about the perpetrator. Eventually, the sense of helplessness of adult crime victims and the police’s perceived inability to intervene effectively may influence the determination not to lodge a police complaint. Most of the same considerations may apply when parents choose not to contact law enforcement agencies when their kids have been harmed. For this reason, numerous authors believe that family crimes are still ‘invisible’ crimes because if family crimes are reported, they might harm the family’s reputation and the family members (Richie 2018).
Underreporting of Crime
Different theories of decision-making by the crime victims have also been proposed over the last few decades to clarify reporting behaviour. A significant body of studies in this field, attempting to draw strongly on the classic social disorganisation theory, highlights the significance of neighbourhood characteristics on general law enforcement officers’ notification. As a result, this study has contributed to and interlinks the literature on the central focus objections point of view and victim collaboration. Although previous research has debated that victims make rational choices, a few have implemented the rational choice theory for victims (Candela 2016). According to the researchers, the central focus concerns approach clarifies victim collaboration choices as more subtle and adequate. Numerous authors have observed that rational choice theory “may have little or no theoretical difficulty necessary to know” choices following victimisation. The quality of victims’ interactions with law enforcement officers is a significant indicator of victim collaboration within law enforcement officers’ control. Victims who had a good experience with the law enforcement officials in the past are more likely to collaborate than those who had a horrible experience. The scope to which victims perceive their interactions with law enforcement officials as positive or negative is heavily influenced by how law enforcement officers communicate with them during direct interactions (Bennett 2017).
Whereas these variables offer valuable data on the determinants of reported crime, they are most often beyond the control of individual law enforcement officers, as security personnel cannot influence the severity of the crime, the victims’ gender, or maturity level. In addition to these variables, research suggests that crime victims’ choices to collaborate or not with the law enforcement may be influenced by their prior interactions with the law enforcement officials (Alimahomed-Wilson 2017). Because members of law enforcement may be capable of influencing victims’ preconceptions of their interactions with the law enforcement officials, the present study aimed to investigate whether victims’ preconceptions of the law enforcement officers responding in their case are related to their willingness to negotiate with the law enforcement officials shortly. Similarly, eagerness to report the crime is connected to a victim’s previous favourable or unfavourable interactions with law enforcement officials. Other victims are encouraged by a dread that disclosure will result in even more victimisation by the criminal justice system (Cházaro 2016).
There is also proof that sexual assault and domestic violence go under-reported since victims genuinely think it would be pointless to notify it. Even though there are few other plausible causes among sexual assault and domestic violence victims, studies about a wide range of offences recommend that under-reporting may be because of victims failing to assess the circumstance as serious sufficiently, beliefs that disclosure will aggravate a terrible condition, emotion-based purposes, societal influences, or fear of more victimisation from those in places of power. Even though authors have recommended several plausible explanations for under-reporting sexual assault and domestic violence, perceptions toward reporting sexual abuse have yet to be experimentally evaluated (Walby and Towers 2018).
According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, for the period of March 2020, an estimated 2.3 million elders aged 16 to 74 years (1.6 million females and 757,000 males) encountered domestic abuse, a subtle but non-significant reduction from the prior year. In England and Wales (except for Greater Manchester Law Enforcement Officials), the law enforcement officers recorded 758,941 domestic abuse-related crimes, a rise of 9% from the prior year; this persists a growing tendency that may represent enhanced recording by the law enforcement as well as decreased reporting by victims. Information from published information demonstrates that during the coronavirus pandemic, there was a 7% decrease in police-recorded domestic abuse-related crimes between March and June 2020, compared to the corresponding time the prior year; nevertheless, there has been a steady increase in these crimes in latest years, so it is unclear whether this can be traced solely to the coronavirus pandemic (Hourigan et al. 2018).
Conclusion
Thus, from the above discussion, it can be concluded that criminal activities cannot be removed from Society completely, but they can be reduced by taking several steps. It cannot be ignored that being social animals, it is the responsibility of the individuals to keep their family pride intact. However, family pride cannot be kept by not reporting domestic violence and sexual abuse-related crimes. Unfortunately, there was a 7% decrease in police-recorded domestic abuse-related crimes between March and June 2020 in England and Wales. However, the good thing is that the number of domestic abuse and sexual assault-related crimes reported by law enforcement officers increased in the fiscal year ending March 2021, which could be attributed to significant improvement in police documentation and a rise in victims’ eagerness to come forward. The most recent proof indicates that this rise lowered during the lockdown period, but it is unclear whether this can be attributed solely to the coronavirus pandemic
References
Adams, E.B., Chen, E.Y. and Chapman, R., 2017. Erasing the mark of a criminal past: Ex-offenders’ expectations and experiences with record clearance. Punishment & Society, 19(1), pp.23-52.
Alimahomed-Wilson, S., 2017. Invisible violence: Gender, Islamophobia, and the hidden assault on US Muslim women. Women, Gender, and Families of Color, 5(1), pp.73-97.
Bennett, C., 2017. Invisible punishment is wrong–but why? The normative basis of criticism of collateral consequences of criminal conviction. The Howard Journal of Crime and Justice, 56(4), pp.480-499.
Brisman, A., 2018. Representing the “invisible crime” of climate change in an age of post-truth. Theoretical Criminology, 22(3), pp.468-491.
Candela, K., 2016. Protecting the invisible victim: Incorporating coercive control in domestic violence statutes. Family court review, 54(1), pp.112-125.
Cházaro, A., 2016. Challenging the criminal alien paradigm. UCLA L. Rev., 63, p.594.
Hourigan, N., Morrison, J.F., Windle, J. and Silke, A., 2018. Crime in Ireland north and south: Feuding gangs and profiteering paramilitaries. Trends in Organized Crime, 21(2), pp.126-146.
Kappeler, V.E. and Potter, G.W., 2017. The mythology of crime and criminal justice. Waveland Press.
Ortiz, A.M., 2018. Invisible bars: Adapting the crime of false imprisonment to better address coercive control and domestic violence in Tennessee. Vand. L. Rev., 71, p.681.
Richie, B.E., 2018. Compelled to crime: The gender entrapment of battered black women. Routledge.
Roberts, D.E., 2016. Democratizing Criminal Law as an Abolitionist Project. Nw. UL Rev., 111, p.1597.
Rothe, D. and Kauzlarich, D., 2016. Crimes of the powerful: An introduction. Routledge.
Wakefield, S., Lee, H. and Wildeman, C., 2016. Tough on crime, tough on families? Criminal justice and family life in America. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 665(1), pp.8-21.
Walby, S. and Towers, J., 2018. Untangling the concept of coercive control: Theorizing domestic violent crime. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18(1), pp.7-28.
Order an Essay Now & Get These Features For Free:
Turnitin Report
Formatting
Title Page
Citation
Outline
