NCJ Number
86250
Date Published
1982
Length
15 pages
Annotation
Crime measurements to be used for the formulation of public policy should focus upon the various types of harm done to citizens by various types of individual and institutional behavior.
Abstract
Despite the prolific generation of data relating to crime and the development of sophisticated techniques of measurement, we still have not found ways of deciding when an area is safe, orderly, or peaceful. What is needed are sound data relating to useful definitions that will facilitate policy decisions that relate to the quality of life of citizens. That these kinds of measures would have much of a relationship to criminal justice decisions about offenders is very much in doubt. It no longer seems possible to simplify the problems of crime to problems of what to do about offenders. Thus, we need two classes of information: one set of data that will provide information about crime (including fear of crime) and another set of data relating to official responses to the behaviors of criminals. The criterion of 'effect upon person' has served well with the develoment of morbidity studies. A similarly based criterion might be used in the field of justice. A crime might be defined as such according to its impact upon the victim rather than in accord with a legal concept. Crime measurement should become interested in the public's view of what events, persons, or organizations have prevented them from doing what they want to do. Areas of concern might be restrictions upon personal liberty, individual suffering, assaults upon human dignity, and fear of victimization. When various sets of measures based on direct public input are available, the measures of agency activity might then be reexamined. If measures of social harms show little variation between cities, but the response data (such as costs) vary widely, there is a clear need for policy change. Nine notes are listed.