What’s tracked in your links is cases. That means crimes that come to police attention.
Crimes that come to police attention isn’t the same thing as crimes.
If you put more policemen on the streets the amount of crimes goes down but the amount of crimes that come to police attention goes up.
Programs for raising awareness of domestic violence makes victims come forward and report crimes to the police. That raises official crime rates but there no good reason to assume that it raises the actual rate of crimes.
I’m not sure what you are driving at. Reported and actual rates are clearly shown in my linked sourced and overall both go down over a wide range of incidents except for apparent jumps when case counting rules change.
You have written actual because you think “actual”. It’s not.
If you take your first link and actually read the paper you will find: “The unlawful (criminal) acts dealt with by the police, including attempts subject to punishment, are recorded in the Police Crime Statistics. This also includes the drug offences handled by the customs authorities. ”
Police Crime Statistics is the name of the report. It doesn’t include crimes not dealt with by the police because nobody reported the crime and the police has no other way of knowing about it.
We know enough to know that statistics like the one you cited shouldn’t be treated as being the actual values and that was the main point I was making above.
You ignored the second sentence.
What’s tracked in your links is cases. That means crimes that come to police attention. Crimes that come to police attention isn’t the same thing as crimes.
If you put more policemen on the streets the amount of crimes goes down but the amount of crimes that come to police attention goes up.
Programs for raising awareness of domestic violence makes victims come forward and report crimes to the police. That raises official crime rates but there no good reason to assume that it raises the actual rate of crimes.
I’m not sure what you are driving at. Reported and actual rates are clearly shown in my linked sourced and overall both go down over a wide range of incidents except for apparent jumps when case counting rules change.
“Actual rates” is not something that we now and can list in a statistic. We can only use different methods to get a proxy of that value.
Yes yes. Any measurement has an error. I shouldn’t have written “actual”. But what are you driving at? Do or don’t you agree?
You have written actual because you think “actual”. It’s not.
If you take your first link and actually read the paper you will find: “The unlawful (criminal) acts dealt with by the police, including attempts subject to punishment, are recorded in the Police Crime Statistics. This also includes the drug offences handled by the customs authorities. ”
Police Crime Statistics is the name of the report. It doesn’t include crimes not dealt with by the police because nobody reported the crime and the police has no other way of knowing about it.
It’s not like we don’t know anything about the dark figures. The first rigorous approach seems to be this one:
Dunkelfeldforschung in Bochum 1986⁄87 by Hans-Dieter Schwind
This is in German, but an executive summary in English can be found on page 290 ff.
We know enough to know that statistics like the one you cited shouldn’t be treated as being the actual values and that was the main point I was making above.