Printer Friendly

Towards an Irish Recorded Crime Index.

1. INTRODUCTION

One of the most complex issues pertaining to recorded crime and its measurements is determining whether the level of crime on a society have increased or decreased over time. Counting crime is complicated: for example, there is no such thing as an average crime. Criminal offences, as defined in Irish Criminal Law (2) range from low-level road traffic infringements to homicides and sexual offences. The range of recorded crime in Ireland can also be seen in the Irish Crime Classification System (ICCS). (3)

Most serious criminal offences involve offences against the person (such as homicides and assaults) and crimes against property (such as burglaries and frauds) and feature victims, but most types of road traffic and social code offences may be considered as 'victimless'--apart from society itself, there is no injured party. Therefore, attempts to measure the overall impact of reported crime in a society can lead to unusual situations. For example, if there is a fall in the absolute recorded number of crimes against the person (such as homicides and assaults) and crimes against property (such as burglaries and frauds) but there is an increase of greater magnitude in road traffic offences such as speeding, has the problem of recorded crime in a society increased or decreased?

Considering the total amount of crimes recorded, the answer would be 'yes', but in terms of the actual perceived seriousness of crime in public opinion the answer would be 'no'. This divergence is exacerbated by reported levels of certain offence groups, such as road traffic offences, weapons and drug being driven by the level of enforcement applied against these offences. If more speeding drivers are caught (or knives confiscated) the number of recorded offences increases. A similar effect is not present for homicides, robberies or other crimes where an increase in enforcement is associated with a fall in reported rates. This leads to a situation where increased enforcement leads to a 'worsening' of recorded crime levels.

The Irish Recorded Crime Index (IRCI) is a proposed weight-based index of recorded crime in Ireland. The objective is to produce a single indicator figure that represents the extent and seriousness of recorded crime in Ireland, as well as permitting the study of changes in crime trends over time. The figure integrates quarterly recorded crime figures with weights obtained from population data, courts and prison datasets.

The IRCI index is produced by combining recorded crime statistics as based on the Irish Crime Classification System-Quarterly (ICCSq) (4) with weights based on yearly population, and the mean sentence length, and sentencing probabilities for each offence type in the years 2008-2010. The ICCSq groups recorded offences into related groups (such as Group 01 Homicide) and produces a total for each such group.

This approach is based on the Canadian Crime Severity Index. (5) Since Prison Service release administrative data from the period 2008-2010 was available to the researcher, the base year chosen is 2008. A detailed discussion of the index methodology is included as well as results obtained for the period 2003 to 2013 using this index.

In Ireland, the Irish Central Statistics Office has the statutory obligation (6) to produce recorded crime statistics using Garda Siochana (Police) administrative data. The author of this methodology document is in charge of the Crime Section and is responsible for this task--and therefore undertook to use official statistical sources to develop the IRCI.

Section 2 discusses the methodology of the Irish Recorded Crime Index in detail. It also considers alternative approaches to measuring the level of crime in society while illustrating the limits of these approaches. In Section 3, the index is produced at a national and Garda-Regional level, for the years 2003 to 2013. Next, in Section 4, the index is validated by comparison with recorded crime figures for the corresponding time periods. In Section 5, further developments of the index are considered--in particular the possible linkage of the index with other socio-economic indicators over the relevant time period. Finally, Section 6 contains the paper's conclusions.

2. METHODOLOGY OF THE IRISH RECORDED CRIME INDEX

2.1 General issues in measuring the seriousness of crime

In the official measurement of crime, there are a number of challenges. The first is to determine the most appropriate counting unit/time for crime--should crimes be reported by the police (the number of reported

offences) or at the stage where criminal proceedings commenced, or at the stage of conviction? Secondly, how strong is the link between the amount of crime that is reported to the authorities and the actual levels of crime? Thirdly, what is the most appropriate overall indicator/measure of crime in an official statistics framework?

Official crime statistics have a long history: Throughout much of the 19th Century, official crime statistics were centred around the counting of court proceedings. This however, has numerous limitations, as the American criminologist Thortsten Sellin cautioned (7) in 1931: 'The value of a crime for index purposes decreases as the distance from the crime itself in terms of procedure increases.' In other words, statistics based on the number of criminal proceedings ignore the great number of offences that are brought to the attention of the police but are not solved.

Therefore, a move towards counting the numbers of reported crime began in England and Wales in 1857 when the UK Parliamentary Papers began publishing "Crimes (indictable offences) known to the Police), followed by Ireland in 1864 and Scotland in 1868.' (8) This system continues to the present day. Since then most countries have adopted the idea that crimes reported to the police (sometimes termed recorded crimes or caseload data) are considered the counting units for official crime statistics. As the United Nations Statistics Division states: (9) 'Caseload data should be considered the basic building block in developing a national system of criminal justice statistics'. Statistics on recorded crimes will also be used for the construction of this index.

Of course, there is a difference between the reported level of crime and the actual level of crime in a particular society. For example, not all crimes reported to police services are recorded. (10) More significantly, not every crime is reported to the authorities. The resulting difference between reported and actual crime levels is termed the "dark figure". Biderman & Reiss, and Ennis, both in 1967, brought the term to wider notice, though the issue was discussed as early as 1897 by Morrison. (11) Alternative methods, based on crime and victimization surveys, are used to capture part of this 'dark figure'. The classic example of such a survey is the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics in the United States. (12) The limitations of this approach will be discussed in Section 2.

2.2 The Proposed Irish Recorded Crime Index (IRCI)

2.2.1 Theoretical basis of IRCI

The IRCI can be considered as an Irish variation on the Canadian Crime Severity Index (CSI) which offers a solution that produces a total crime figure, but one that incorporates weights for reported crimes based on the seriousness of a crime (using prison length and likelihood of a prison sentence being issued as proxies, as well as adjusting for population).

Does the use of prison length and likelihood of being sentenced as a proxy for the seriousness of recorded crime have a sound basis in fact? Firstly, consider the term "seriousness". Maxfield and Babbie (13) note that the seriousness of a crime can be considered partly as 'the level of punishment' that can be permitted for particular offences. However, crime seriousness can also be considered in terms of public opinion. In terms of the relative seriousness of offences, Indermaur (14) noted that, for a Perth, Australia-based study, there was 'general agreement between the community, judges and the courts' about the 'relative seriousness' of particular crimes. However, there was less agreement between judges and the public on the appropriate length of sentences. Furthermore, public opinion on crime seriousness transcends borders: In Ireland, O'Connell and Whelan (15) studied the public opinion on the seriousness of offences had 'much in common with those in other jurisdictions.' To consider a US example, Spohn (16), in a study of US sentencing concluded that the seriousness of a crime is a major factor in determining the sentence length.

For a particular offence, the CSI uses the average sentence length issued court as the weight, multiplied by the probability of being sentenced for the offence. In the opinion of the authors, using sentence length multiplied by 'incarceration rate' as a weight is 'objective' and 'stable.' (17)

Weighted indices are usually used to measure either changes in prices or volume of goods produced. According to the United Nations System of National Accounts, a price index is used to measure changes in the prices of goods over time, whereas a volume index is used generally to measure changes in quantity produced. (18)

However, a crime severity index such as the CSI is actually a volume index. (19) The SNA defines a volume index as one where prices are kept constant over time, and the resulting index figure is the weighted average of the changes in volume of the "good". In the most general terms, a volume index which shows the changes between a particular year and a base year could be described as (Eqn. 1):

[mathematical expression not reproducible]

Where year refers to the specified year, byear to the base year, volume to the volumes in either year, and i is a specific good.

In terms of the IRCI, the volume can be considered as the number (volume) of recorded offences of a specified type, while the weights represent the 'seriousness' of the offence. The design of an index is largely determined by the choice of weights.

To consider some common index design methodologies: A Paasche Volume Index would use current period seriousness weights (Eqn. 2):

[mathematical expression not reproducible]

Whereas a Laspeyres Index (Ly) [57] would use base period seriousness weights (Eqn 3):

[mathematical expression not reproducible]

However, in the case of the Canadian Crime Severity Index, there are some additional design considerations, which means that a Paasche or Laspeyres type index is not used. (20)

Firstly, the weights used are calculated based on five years of court and sentencing data, in particular, the likelihood of being sentenced to prison for a particular offence multiplied by the average sentence length for the offence. This is a different weight structure to either the Paasche or Laspeyres. Furthermore, they are also standardized by population figures, to adjust for any changes in population. It is necessary to adjust for population since the relationship between population size on crime levels has been demonstrated by researchers including Nolan (21) in 2004, and Chang, Choj et al in 2013. (22)

Therefore, the CSI index takes the form, Eqn 4:

[mathematical expression not reproducible]

Where ovYEAR refers to the offence volume in the specified year, [avpl.sub.period,i]refers to the average sentence length for the weight period and specified offence, [prpris.sub.period,i] refers to the probability of being prisoned for a particular offence in the weight period, and [population.sub.YEAR] refers to the population in the specified year and offence.

Therefore, recorded crimes in a particular year would be weighted by a combination of sentence length and likelihood of sentence (representing the seriousness weight) and adjusted for population (using CSO census population estimates).

In this study, the sentencing data was based on information obtained on Irish Prison Service administrative data for committals (imprisonments) in the period 2008-2010, while the probability of sentencing data was obtained from a combination of court outcome data (number of convictions) and prison committal data (number of imprisonments).

(Note: A decision was made, at the development stage that the index be based on the quarterly crime report. As a result, minor road traffic offences which are produced by the CSO in an annual basis will not be considered in this analysis. The disadvantages of this decision are discussed in Section 3.4. However, this methodology can be extended to include road traffic offences as part of the annual publication since the committal probabilities for minor road traffic offences, and corresponding sentence length data, is also available for the relevant years.)

The period considered for the index is 2003-2013 inclusive. The year 2008 is the base year (index = 100). The rationale for the choice of 2008 is that it is also the beginning of the period that weights were constructed on (2008-2010).

Another matter to note is that for certain offence groups, there is a very small number of cases from which weights and sentencing data can be inferred. In these cases, groups were combined (appendix A). In certain cases, outlier sentence data was encountered and certain assumptions were made--these are discussed in the following sections where relevant.

Data from four sources was required for the generation of the IRCI. Based on Eqn 4:

[mathematical expression not reproducible]

Firstly, population data for each year from 2003 to 2012 were obtained from the CSO Census population estimates. (23) Furthermore, based on these national figures, figures for the six Garda Siochana (Police) Regional commands were also calculated, using the same methodology as is used in the Annual Report (24) for per-capita crime statistics. This corresponds to the [pop.sub.y] and [pop.sub.by] terms, where [.sub.by] = 2008.

Secondly, recorded crime figures were generated using the ICCSq classification. This methodology is based on 12-month annualised figures up to the most recent quarter. In this case, statistics for each year ending December 31st 2003 to 2013 were generated. The main advantage of 12-month annualised figures is that there is built-in seasonal adjustment. Seasonality can affect certain crime types, as Block noted. (25) The annual recorded crime figure for each component offence, in a particular year is [rc.sub.y,i].

Thirdly, imprisonment probability statistics were generated based on Police and Courts administrative datasets. These statistics, for the years 2008-2010, calculated for each offence type in the index, the probability of being sentenced to imprisonment, after being convicted in court proceedings resulting from such an offence. The reference period imprisonment probability for each offence is represented by [prpris.sub.2008-2010,i].

Finally, the average prison length for each offence in the group is [avprisl.sub.2008-2010,i] and is based on Irish Prison Service administrative datasets on committals in the period 2008-2010.

2.2.2 Assumptions and limitations of IRCI

Firstly, the assumption is made that the seriousness weights based on sentence and imprisonment probabilities in the period 2008-2010 are also applicable throughout the period 2003-2013. This is a reasonable assumption, since the legislative framework has not changed significantly over this period. This is not to preclude the possibility that if there are demonstrated changes in the sentencing policy for offences that the index could be rebased to adjust for any such changes. Secondly, as noted earlier, this index when using the quarterly Recorded Crime classification structure, most minor road traffic offences are not included. Thirdly, prior to 2007, most fireworks incidents were recorded under the Irish Crime Classification system as 11a Explosives and Chemical Weapons Offences, due to the lack of an appropriate indicator in the Garda PULSE system for fireworks offences. Therefore, when preparing this index, a decision was made to analyse and reclassify fireworks offences recorded prior to 2007 as Fireworks offences, rather than as Explosives offences. Given the major difference in terms of prison sentencing and committal probabilities for the two offence groups, this was a reasonable assumption.

The IRCI has numerous limitations. Firstly, since there can be a difference between reported and recorded crimes (due to the failure of Police to record crimes correctly), recorded crime is actually a subset of reported crime. Secondly, the Index is based on crimes reported to the Gardai and then recorded, it cannot measure the dark figure as a C&V survey could. While it provides a measure of the seriousness of recorded crime (subject to the above assumptions), there is no provision in the methodology for measuring or incorporating victimisation information from non-administrative sources. Timing constraints are also present: Since detailed Police administrative data in the ICCSq format are not available prior to 2003, it is not possible to extend this index to the earlier Irish Criminal Justice environment.

2.3 Alternative approaches to measuring the seriousness of crime

2.3.1 The Headline Crime Figure

Similar to the Total recorded crime in England and Wales (26) and the US FBI's Uniformed Crime Report (27), this was the "traditional" approach to recorded crime statistics in the Republic of Ireland and was used during the period that An Garda Siochana (Police) was responsible for the production of recorded crime statistics in Ireland. Originally based on the selection of indictable offences, it was later expanded.

In effect, a total figure for 'headline crimes' was produced. There were significant offence types, (28) both in terms of volume and concern to the public and policy-makers, such as public order, minor assaults and criminal damage were not included in the 'Total Headline' figure. Therefore, the use of such an indicator gave an incentive for the re/mis-classification of offences. For example, the exclusion of 'criminal damage' from the figure meant that assigning an arson offence as a criminal damage offence would mean that the offence would not be included in the total figure. Exclusions of such significant groups meant that the overall figure could hardly claim to provide a full and accurate measure of recorded crime in Irish society. Finally, the headline crime figure was not a stable estimator, since certain groups included in the analysis are largely enforcement driven in their reporting rates (29) such as drug offences. A police campaign against drug-dealing would lead to a rise in drug offences, and thus a potential rise in the Headline crime figure. The headline indicator, therefore, could be seen as discouraging such police operations, in a target driven environment. This indicator would not take account of the 'dark figure'. For these reasons, it was decided not to use a Headline-type indicator to measure recorded crime.

2.3.2 The total recorded crime figure.

This is an alternative to the headline crime figure, based on the (current) ICCS classification system, but including a total crime figure. This would be produced on an annual basis, based on the annual ICCS, and would therefore include all recorded crime groups, and all penalty point offences. A total annual recorded crime figure would be calculated as the sum of all the offence groups. As before, the 'dark figure' could not be included.

The main advantage of this indicator is that it represents a true total recorded crime figure. All offences, regardless of their significance would be included. In addition, by retaining the ICCS structure, the sub-group totals (such as Group 01 Homicides) would be retained, allowing analysis of specific crime groups and subgroups. However, this indicator has a significant disadvantage. The inclusion of minor road traffic offences in a total figure makes the overall value problematic.

To consider the 2012 Annual Crime report (30) of the 686,636 recorded offences in 2012, over 440,000 (65%) were road traffic offences captured on the FCPS system. However, since this is an enforcement-led group (driven mainly by Police road safety campaigns), the number of road traffic offences recorded in a particular year can vary significantly, thus altering the total crime figure significantly. In 2011, for example, there were 524,651 road traffic offences captured on the FCPS system, with a total number of 776,143 recorded offences. Although serious offence groups including 01 Homicides, 02 Sexual offences, 07 Burglaries and 09 Frauds showed increases, the overall narrative of the indicator is a fall of 11.5%. Furthermore over 90% of this decrease can be attributed to falls in road traffic offences. Therefore, the Total Recorded Crime figure mainly provides information on road traffic enforcement. Therefore, the total recorded crime figure approach is rejected.

2.3.3 An alternative weighted index approach.

Another approach to a crime index design, capturing the public's opinion of offence seriousness, was Kwan's, Ip's and Kwan's (31) which developed utilised a method called Thurstone's law to compare pairs of criminal offences and determine the more serious and thus construct a relative ranking for crimes, based on 15 different offences. A telephone survey was carried out of 864 respondents, (32) requiring each to complete 28 'paired comparisons'.

In the case of the Kwan, Ip and Kwan index methodology design, the index can be expressed as (Eqn 5):

[mathematical expression not reproducible]

Where [th_weight.sub.period] refers to the weights generated via the Thurston pair survey process.

Is an approach based on the Kwan, Ip and Kwan proposal feasible in an Irish official statistical environment?

The method produced a satisfactory weighted recorded crime index, and had the advantage of being based on the public perception of crime, and did not require courts and prison administrative data like the Canadian CSI.

This approach, as discussed in section 2.1 and 2.2 used Thurstone's Law of Comparative pairs, to construct weights for the seriousness of particular crimes. Thurstone's method, in its simplest form, states that a group of items can be ranked/weighted by "pairwise comparison" of individual pairs by a large number of respondents. However, the description of how this process was implemented by Kwan et al. demonstrates how it was not suitable.

Firstly, a considerable data collection exercise was required. Generating the ranking index in Kwan required a telephone survey of 864 respondents, which was conducted by ten interviewers. Unfortunately, the CSO does not conduct telephone surveys, and did not have the resources available for such staffing or to outsource such a data collection operation.

Next, for 15 crime types, each respondent was invited to rank one offence in comparison with each of 14 others. Weights were then assigned: For example, if nine out of ten respondents state that murder is more serious than assault, murder would be weighted 9 to assaults 1. This allowed a matrix to be constructed, with the ratios being the proportions of respondents stating that one item is more serious than another item.

In the case of the Kwan paper, the resulting matrix was a 15x15 (or 225 cell) one. However, in the case of the ICCS, (33) there are 49 subgroups and almost 160 different offences, which would involve a much greater and more complex weight generation process. A 49x49 or 160x160 matrix would be required, and each respondent would be required to rank one crime in comparison with 49 others (if ranked by subgroup) or 159 others (if ranked by offence). This was considered unfeasible, especially in the context of the telephone data collection operation that would be required.

2.3.4 Victimisation Surveys.

A victimisation-survey based approach has one main advantage in measuring the extent and implications of crime on society--it provides a measure for the 'dark figure' of unreported crime. The CSO's Crime and Victimisation Survey forms a major component of official crime statistics. (34)

These studies are not a panacea however and are particularly unsuited for measuring the seriousness of crime in society. Firstly, the Irish C+V is specifically excluded due to its design as a household survey module from conducting questions on domestic and sexual violence. Secondly, since crime is, as Schneider (35) terms it, 'a relatively rare event', a very large sample size is required to obtain statistically significant results. Thirdly, such surveys are prone to 'telescoping'. Fay and Li discuss the issue of telescoping in detail. (36) It is a phenomenon by which survey respondents misclassify the time period of a particular offence. In other words, a respondent may be asked a question about whether they were victimised in a particular time period. In this case, the respondent was not victimised in the current period, but mistakenly answers in the affirmative, because of an earlier victimisation, albeit one outside the period of reference.

Thirdly, another factor preventing victimisation surveys from superseding recorded crime figures is that they cannot measure offences where the victim is unable to report (most notably murders and crimes committed against children, since children are not included in victimisation surveys as respondents) or where there is no distinct victim per se. Groves et al. (37) discuss these differences in an American context in detail. The inability to measure 'victimless' crimes such as drug and weapons offences and the problems around attempts to measure sexual violence in a field survey were highlighted in the most recent EU SASU (Safety and Security Survey) Pilot (38) (as discussed by Dijk et al). Finally, the cost of running a survey with a sufficiently large sample size to achieve meaningful results means that these exercises are infrequent.

As a result, it was decided that a victimisation survey would not be a suitable vehicle, in Ireland, for measuring recorded crime in Ireland and that a recorded crime index would be superior on grounds of coverage scope, timeliness, cost and accessibility of data.

3. GENERATION OF THE IRCI AT NATIONAL AND REGIONAL LEVELS.

Firstly, the national population estimates for each year 2003-2013 were obtained from the CSO Census directorate. Production of regional population estimates is a slightly more complex business--Garda (Police) regional boundaries do not correspond to any other geographical boundaries. Fortunately, the Census directorate issued regional population estimates for the period 2003-2011, based on Census data, and a linear extrapolation produced regional estimates for 2012 and 2013. See Table 1.

While the regions do not correspond to the Irish Provinces or the EU NUTS region structures, they are comprised of the following Garda Divisions which share similar areas to the counties of the same name (Table 2). The regional data will be used to produce regional indices.

The next step was the generation of sentencing probabilities. Based on Police and Courts administrative data for the year 2008-2010, an analysis was run to determine the overall number of convictions associated with each type of offence. Of these convictions, the percentage that lead to imprisonment (termed detention for juvenile offenders) was calculated - this provided the imprisonment probability for each offence.

As can be noted, the probability of offences leading to imprisonment differs significantly by offence group. Note that certain groups are aggregated due to low numbers. Table 4 shows the offences with the highest imprisonment probabilities for convictions and with the lowest.

Certain of these probabilities are now discussed. Even crime categories such as 01a Murder/Manslaughter/Infanticide have suspended sentences, as highlighted by Lynch, (39) and do not have an imprisonment probability of 1. In the case of the low-imprisonment probability category 13c-f Other Public Order offences, this includes liquor licencing offences, begging, market trading and bookmaking offences which are usually dealt with via fines or other alternatives to imprisonment.

The next step is the calculation of the mean and median sentence length for these groups. As noted in Chapter 2, the sentence length is considered a strong proxy for the seriousness of an offence (when weighed by imprisonment probability). (40) Both the mean and median estimators were considered, though the mean was chosen in the final basis for constructing the seriousness weights.

Irish Prison Service committal data from 2008 to 2010 was analysed and both mean and median estimators for prison sentence length were obtained. The sentence length is the official sentence length assigned to each inmate's sentence. In the case of murders, there was an issue in assigning a sentence length. Under the Prison data, those imprisoned for murder were assigned a special life code and a numerical value of 14,610 days, or 40 years, which is used to represent a life sentence. Compared to the 17 years (41) that those imprisoned for murder serve in Ireland, on average, this would seem to be excessive. However, it was decided to adhere to this figure.

Firstly, the analysis is based on official sentence lengths, which refer the judgement of the court, rather than time served which also brings in factors not necessarily related to the seriousness of the offence, such as educational endeavours and behaviour in prison. Secondly, murderers in Ireland have served sentences of 45 years. (42)

As a result of this analysis, Table 5 was produced which shows the mean and median sentence weights obtained, with sentence length expressed in days.

Finally, recorded crime figures for the period 2003 to 2013 were generated based on the ICCSq. These were generated using the standard recorded crime counting rules. As noted earlier, road traffic offences were not produced. Table 6 shows the recorded crime figures for 2003-2013 for category 01a Murder/Manslaughter/Infanticide. See Appendix A.1. for overall recorded crime figures in this period.

The next step is to calculate the index. Firstly, for each offence i, in each year y, the recorded crime figure for the year is divided by the population estimates for the year: [rc.sub.y,i]./[pop.sub.y]. This gives the recorded crime rate for the offence, per person. Table 7 shows this process for category 01a Murder/Manslaughter/Infanticide. Note: Since this figure is only used in intermediate calculations, it is not expressed in the more common per 1,000 or per 100,000.

Next, the mean sentence length for each offence over the period 2008-2010 is multiplied by the corresponding imprisonment probability over the same period. This produces a weighted average sentence length for each offence, corresponding to the term ([avprisl.sub.2008-2010,i]). ([prpris.sub.2008-2010,i]) in Equation 7.

Table 8 illustrates this process:

In the end, the mean figure was used in adherence with the Canadian methodology. The median indicator could also be used, if necessary as an alternative weight method.

The next stage was to combine the weighted average sentence length (as shown in Table 8) with the crime rate for each offence type. These were then summed to produce a total for each year. Since 2008 was chosen as the base year, the 2008 annual total would then form the base point of the index. In terms of Equation 7, this involved calculating the term [[summation].sub.(i=all off)] [rc.sub.y,i]. ([avprisl.sub.2008-2010],i). ([prpris.sub.2008-2010],i)/[pop.sub.y]

Calculation of this term for national figures are shown in Table 9 for the year 2003.

The same process is carried out for each year between 2004 and 2013.

Finally, the resulting figure for each year is divided by the base year figure obtained in Table 14, and multiplied by 100 to produce the Irish Recorded Crime Index for the period 2003 -2013. This represents the calculation of:

[mathematical expression not reproducible]

For each year. This process is demonstrated in Table 10.

4. ANALYSIS OF THE IRCI AS A MEASURE OF THE SERIOUSNESS OF CRIME

4.1 Trends in the IRCI

Table 11 in Section 3.3 shows the IRCI index for the republic of Ireland in the period 2003 to 2013, and the changes in the magnitude.

Figure 1 shows a graph of the index over the same period:

As can be seen, the IRCI was higher than the base year of 2008 in the period 2009 to 2011. In 2012 and 2013 the index fell below the 2008 level, returning to the trend of the years 2003-2007. Therefore, the index shows an apparent rise in the seriousness of recorded crime in the period 2005-2010 but this is followed by a fall in the IRCI in 2011, 2012 and 2013. In fact 2013, the recorded crime level, as measured by the index, returned to almost the level of 2006. Sections 4.3 and 4.4 discusses the factors influencing these trends in detail.

4.2 The index generated for the Dublin Metropolitan Region

The index was also produced for the Dublin Metropolitan Region, which is the most populous of the Gardai regions and also the one with the highest reported crime rates for most offence categories. In this case, the crime rate was calculated using the Dublin Region population figures and the corresponding regional crime figures were used.

Table 12 shows the IRCI indices for Dublin in the period 2003-2013.

It can be seen that the seriousness of crime in the Dublin Metropolitan region is higher than the national average over most of the time period 2003-2013. In 2003, when the national index value was 89.675, the corresponding value for Dublin was 97.54. Interestingly, in more recent years, the trends for Dublin and the nation are similar (upwards from 2007-2010, falling from 2011 onwards). However, Dublin shows a plateau between 2005 and 2007, at a time when the national IRCI figure is increasing significantly. These divergences will be explored further in Sections 4.3 and 4.4.

The IRCI for Dublin demonstrated how the index can applied to other geographical regions, not only at the national level. There is nothing to prevent the extension of the index to Divisional level. However, at smaller geographical levels such as Police station, it is not likely that the IRCI would be applied, due to the possibly small number of incidents and the policy of the CSO not to produce statistics reporting homicides and sexual offences at low geographical areas. Of course, this could be considered as a future development of the index.

4.3 Comparison of index with recorded crime for reference period

Initially, the relationship between the IRCI and some of the more serious offence groups were considered. This was an exploratory analysis, which was aimed at determining any obvious relationships between recorded (un-weighted) offence group figures and the overall index. The following, and more detailed, stage (Section 4.4) would be to study the weighted values of these groups and their influence on the IRCI.

Figure 3 compares the trends for the national IRCI and reported murders/manslaughters/infanticides in the period 2003-2013. This group has a weight of 7,741.05 (the highest weighted group, see Table 14). Note that there are two y-axes.

The results are somewhat surprising, given the weight given to this offence category in the IRCI. 2007 was the year with the most recorded offences in this category (in fact since 1922), but was not a particularly high year in the IRCI series (IRCI for 2007 was 95.639). And 2010, the highest year in the IRCI was not a particularly high year for such offences, with 58 reported.

The next step is to consider the relationship between recorded sexual offences and the IRCI. Table 13 show this:

The highest year for recorded offences in this category (2010) corresponds to the highest IRCI index value (of 105.971). However, 2003 and 2013, which have relatively high levels of recorded sexual offences (1,872 and 1,917 respectively), are also years where the IRCI is well below the 2008 reference level--the IRCI had a value of 89.675 in 2003 and 93.636 in 2013. The absence of a clear relationship can also be seen for other groups.

Next the offence group 07b Burglaries were considered, (Table 14). This is a high-volume group with a weighted seriousness of 181.78. Over the period 2003-2013, the number of recorded offences ranged from a maximum of 27,097 in 2012 to a minimum of 23,052 in 2007. Yet, when considering the IRCI indices over the period 2003-2013, the year with the highest number of recorded burglaries (2012) is not a year with a higher-than-base IRCI index value (98.549 where year 2008 = 100), likewise the year with the lowest IRCI, 2007, was also the year with the lowest number of recorded burglary offences (23,052). Adding to the lack of a clear relationship: Other than 2012 the highest number of recorded 07b offences were recorded in 2009 (26,113) and 2011 (26,724), which were years with the third and second highest IRCI values over the period.

Finally, a high-volume, low-weighted (4.53) group - 13a Disorderly Conduct is considered in terms of both its recorded levels and the IRCI for each year.

Again, for this group, there is no linear relationship between the number of recorded offences and the IRCI value for particular years. Both 2010, with the highest IRCI value (6.313) and 2006, with the lowest, have similar levels of recorded Disorderly Conduct offences, (47,346 and 47,236 respectively) while the base year of 2008 (IRCI = 100) has the highest number of recorded burglary offences (53,419).

The absence of a linear relationship simply demonstrates that the IRCI value for a particular year is a complex interaction of numerous weighted offences. The next step is to consider collectively the weighted offence groups that are most likely to be influencing the IRCI..

4.4 Factors influencing trends in the IRCI index.

A more precise way of studying the relationship between offence types and the IRCI is to examine the weighted offences in each year and the extent of their contribution to the IRCI. As an initial step, consider the year 2010 which had the highest IRCI value. The weighted offences (crime rate by seriousness) sorted by their weighted value (and contribution to), are shown in Table 14. The year's overall weighted crime seriousness figure is also included.

For 2010, that Burglary (non-aggravated) (17.78%), Other Theft (11.85%), Rape and sexual assault (10.92%) and Robberies (8.21%) are the offence that have the most influence on the IRCI, contributing almost 50% of the IRCI value for 2010. However, these groups differ in their characteristics.

Other Theft and Burglary (non-aggravated) are high-volume, low-seriousness offences, while rape and robbery (which cover all thefts involving violence) are much lower in volume but much higher in seriousness according to the IRCI.

Another item of interest is the relatively low influence of Murder/Manslaughter/Infanticide upon the index (1.79% contribution to the 2010 value), despite the high weighting of these offences. Also of note is the low influence of very low volume, high seriousness offences (Dangerous Driving Leading to Death/causing serious bodily harm and Organisation of Crime). A possible explanation for this is that Organisation of Crime offences are frequently associated with investigations into other criminal offences such as Robbery or Possession of Goods for Sale and Supply (another high influence group), and likely the primary offence counted (as per Irish Crime Counting Rules) would be the robbery or drug offence.

What is clear, however, is that certain offence groups dominate the index in that particular year. The next step was to consider the trends in these influences over time. Fig. 4 and Appendix A.1 show the percentage contributions of the offence types over the period 2003-2013, sorted by "influence". Note that these are rounded to one decimal point, so an offence with a value of 0 represents an influence of less than 0.05% on the annual IRCI value.

The most influential eight groups accounted for a high percentage of the IRCI values in each year (for example 78% in 2003 and 77% in 2013, with a low point of 72% in 2007).

Throughout the period, Burglary (non-aggravated) is the offence type that exerts the most influence on the IRCI for each year. 22% of the 2003 IRCI figure was due to such offences in 2003, while the influence was less pronounced in the years 2007-2008 and 2010 (18%). This is due to both the high volume of recorded burglaries (Table 11 shows that there were always over 20,000 recorded burglaries in a period), and the weighted average sentence length of around 181 days for offences of this type (Table 14).

In the case of 08b Other theft/handling stolen property offences, the influence has risen to 14% in most recent years, a rise driven by the increase in the number of recorded offences, from 57,000 in 2003 to 65,586 in 2013 (Table 14). This is a very high-volume group, covering most non-motor thefts, and has a weighted average sentence length of 49.02 days (Table 11).

The influence of 02a-e Rape and Sexual Assault offences have showed an unusual dynamic, falling from 11% of annual IRCI value in 2003 to 7% in the period 2007-2009 while rising again. It should be noted that there was a steep rise in reported sexual offences in the period 2010-2011, driven largely by historical cases being reported (43) in this period. These offences are medium volume (see Table 14) but have a high weighted average sentence length, which leads to their influence on the index. Historical incidents, regardless of the occurred date, are counted as of the reporting date in Irish recorded crime statistics (though an alternative approach, based on the occurred date could be suggested, if the purpose of the IRCI is to measure 'current' crimes).

What is evident is how certain groups dominate the IRCI by combining seriousness and volume. It is also worth noting the relatively low influence of 01a-c Murder/Manslaughter/ Infanticide offences on the overall index value, due to the relatively low numbers of such offences recorded in Ireland over the period 2003-2013. A similar trend can be observed for other high-seriousness but low volume offences such as 07a Aggravated Burglary offences and 02f Other Sexual Offences (which refer to other sexual offences such as incest and possession/distribution of child abuse imagery).

Furthermore, an example of a high volume but low-seriousness offence group with a low influence on the overall IRCI value for a particular year is Disorderly conduct, which, for example, accounted for 0.6% of the overall IRCI value for 2013.

Also of note is the highly muted influence of enforcement-driven offences such as 10d Possession of Drugs for Personal Use (consistently around 1% throughout 2003-2013), 11d Offensive Weapons Offences (nec) (which refers to possession of knives etc. and has a similarly low influence over the period) and 04b-c Driving under influence of drugs/alcohol.

These are offences with a low seriousness weighting, yet which reporting (unweighted) rates can be largely influenced by policing strategy. For example, a clampdown on personal drug use can greatly increase the number of recorded drug offences, but since there is a relatively low seriousness weighting, this ensures that the IRCI value for the year will not be greatly influenced merely by a change in policing

policy on one offence type.

Therefore, the analysis shows that the IRCI is mainly influenced by high volume offences with medium-high seriousness weights. It also shows that the IRCI in its current form will not be affected to a significant extent by changes in policing strategy towards "enforcement-driven" offences.

5. LIMITATIONS OF THE IRCI AND FURTHER RESEARCH

While a useful tool for considering changing trends in the seriousness of recorded crime, there are numerous limitations to the IRCI that prevent it from being considered as a measure of the overall impact of crime upon society. These are now discussed, in conjunction with possible solutions.

Firstly, the IRCI does not take account of unreported crime - the 'dark figure' discussed earlier. This problem is exacerbated by the fact that non-reporting rates differ for different offence types. According to the Irish C&V Survey in 2010, (44) 75% of households experiencing burglary and 67% of households experiencing theft from vehicle reported these incidents to the Garda Siochana. This fell to 55% reporting rate for assaults and becomes particularly severe for Sexual offences: According to the 2013/2014 UK Office for National Statistics Crime Survey for England and Wales, only 17% of victims of serious sexual assault make reports to the police. (45) Therefore, some of the offences with the highest seriousness weights are most likely to be unreported, which is a serious limitation to the IRCI. It might be possible to use non-administrative data sources, and the Crime and Victimisation Survey, in order to determine the reporting rates for particular offence types. These rates could then be used to adjust the reported number of offences of each type (if 50% of thefts are reported and there are 75,000 reported thefts in a year, for example, the figure of 150,000 could be said to incorporate the "dark figure" for thefts). These "adjusted" reported figures could then be used in conjunction with the seriousness weight to produce an Irish Crime Index that incorporates the 'dark figure'.

Secondly, the effects of crime upon society and individuals are wide-ranging and complex, as discussed by McCollister and French. (46) The costs of crimes against people involve may involve both mental and physical injuries to victims, while crimes against property involve may involve large monetary losses and increased operational costs in the form of insurance and security. While the use of sentencing data in the IRCI allows the seriousness of crimes be measured in a legal framework, it does not factor into account the views of citizens or their individual experiences of crime and its impact upon them. While addressing this limitation is beyond the scope of the report, the authors would note that the Kwan paper demonstrated a method for devising seriousness weights that took account of public perception. It would be interesting to see if a rough methodology could be developed (perhaps using the ICCS Group headings, since there are only 16), taking advantage of the Thurstone method. Such a study would require extensive funding though, in order to carry out a suitable telephone survey.

Thirdly, the IRCI in its current form cannot incorporate, or be applied to, Garda Siochana official statistics prior to 2003. The CSO does not have administrative data from the Garda Siochana prior to this period, and such data is not in a form that can be easily fitted to the Irish Crime Classification System. An exercise to achieve this could be attempted, but would also require historical sentencing and court outcome data in order to re-base the seriousness weights.

6. CONCLUSIONS

It became apparent that the Irish Recorded Crime Index, by applying the Canadian CSI concept, has been able to produce an index that demonstrates the changing nature of the problem of recorded crime on Irish society. Using data available to the researcher on courts and prison sentencing, it was possible to produce seriousness weights, and thus an index, that accurate demonstrated the changing (currently decreasing) extent of recorded crime in Ireland. The index is not affected by small changes in the recorded levels of offences, not matter how serious the offence (for example, Murder/Manslaughter/Infanticide). It is also not affected by changes in reported levels of 'enforcement-driven' offences such as possession of drugs for personal use, since the low weights assigned to such offences minimises the rise in recorded offences due to any change in policy. Therefore, it would be very difficult to "game" the IRCI.

Bibliography

Australian Bureau of Statistics, "Australian and New Zealand Standard Offence Classification", 3RD Ed. 2011

Babyak, C., Alavi, A. et al. "The Methodology of the Police-Reported Crime Severity Index", SSC Annual Meeting, June 2009.

Biderman, A. & Reiss, A. "On exploring the "dark figure" of crime". Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 1967

Block, C.R. "Is Crime Seasonal?", US Bureau of Justice Statistics, Department of Justice, 1984.

Blumstein, A., Seriousness weights in an index of crime", Carnegie Mellon University, 1974

Central Statistics Office, "Crime and Victimisation, 2010 -- Quarterly National Household Survey", Ireland 2010

Central Statistics Office, "Interpreting Crime Statistics--A background Briefing Note", 2008

Central Statistics Office, "Quarterly Crime, Quarter 1, 2011", 2011

Central Statistics Office, The Irish Crime Classification System Quarterly (ICCSq) is used in "Quarterly Crime, Quarter 4, 2013"

Chang, Y.S, Choi, S.B, Lee, J. and Jin, Won, "Population Size vs. Number of Crime - Is the Relationship Super-Linear?" Gachon University, Workign Paper Series No. 13-2, 2013.

Crowley, P & Linehan, T, Central Statistics Office "Report on the Quality Statistics", June 2015.

Ennis, P. H, ""Criminal victimization in the United States: a report of a national survey". US Govt. Printing Office, 1967

Fay, R.E., Li, J. "Effects of Unbounded Interviews, Time in Sample, and Recency on Reported Crimes in the National Crime Victimization Survey", Proceedings of the Survey Research Methods Section 2010, Americal Statistical Society

Groves, Robert M. et al. "Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey", National Research Council, National Academies Press, 2008.

Healy, G. "Irish Crime Classification System", Central Statistics Office, Ireland 2008

Indermaur, D., "Crime Seriousness and Sentencing: A comparison of Court Practice and the perceptions of a sample of public and justices", Criminology Research Council, Australia, 1990.

Kwan, Y.K, Wai, C.I, Kwan, P " A crime index with Thurstone's scaling of crime severity" Journal Of Criminal Justice No. 28, 2000.

Lauritsen, J, Rezey, M. "Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey", Technical Report, US Department of Justice, 2013.

Lynch, M, "Analysis of Manslaughter Sentencing", Judicial Researchers' Office, Ireland 2013.

Mallon, C. "Longest Serving Prisoner to get out", Evening Herald, 1st May 2009.

Maxfield, M. and Babbie, E. "Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology", Cengage Learning, 2011

McCollister, K. French, M. The Cost of Crime to Society: New Crime-Specific Estimates for Policy and Program Evaluation", Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010 Apr 1; 108(1-2): 98-109.

Morrison, W.D. "The Interpretation of Criminal Statistics," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Vol.50, Part I (March 1897), pp. 1-24,

Nolan, J. J "Establishing the statistical relationship between population size and UCR crime rate: Its impact and implications", Journal of Criminal Justice No. 32, pp 547-555, 2004.

O'Connell, M. and Whelan, A. "Taking Wrongs Seriously - Public Perception of Crime Seriousness", British Journal of Criminology, Vol. 36, No. 2, Spring 1996.

Office of National Statistics, "Crime in England and Wales, Year ending December 2013", UK Government Publication, 2014.

Office for National Statistics, "Findings from the 2013/2014 Crime Survey for England and Wales--Focus on Violent Crime and Sexual Offences--Chapter 4 Intimate Personal Violence and Serious Sexual Assault"

Office of the Attorney General "Irish Statute Book", Electronic Publication, Irish Government.

Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions (Ireland), "The Role of the DPP", Government Publications

Schneider, A.L. "Methodological Problems in Victim Surveys and Their Implications for Research in Victimology", Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Volume 72, Issue 2, Summer 1981

Sellin, J--"The Basis of a Crime Index", American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology No 22, 1931.

Spohn, C. "A Multi-Site Study of the effects of Race on Sentencing" cited in Spohn, C. "How Do Judges Decide: The Search for Fairness and Justice in Punishment", 2nd Ed., Ch. 3, pp 86-94, Sage Publications, 2009

Statistics Canada, "Measuring Crime in Canada: Introducing the Crime Severity Index and Improvements to the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey", 2009.

Toland, M. & Garda Inspectorate "Investigating Crime" November 2014

UK Home Office, "Recorded Crime Statistics for England and Wales, 1898-2001/2002", available at https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/historical-crime-data

UK Home Office, "User Guide to Home Office Crime Statistics", UK Government Publication, 2011

UK Parliament "Judicial Statistics" (UK Parliament Departmental Committee on Criminal Statistics), series commencing 1857, sourced from Brian Mitchell "British Historical Statistics", University of Cambridge 1988.

UK Statistics Authority, "Assessment of compliance with the Code of Practice for Official Statistics--Statistics on Crime in England and Wales", UK Government Publicaiton, January 2014

UN Statistics Division, "Manual for the Development of a System of Criminal Justice Statistics" pp 25, Studies in Methods, 2004.

United Nations, "System of National Accounts", Ch. 15, 2008.

US Department of Justice, "Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook", pp 8-13, 2004.

Van Dijk, J., Mayhew, P. et al. , "Final report on the study on crime victimisation", Intervict, Eurostat, 2010.

Young P., O'Donnell, I and Clare, E. "Crime in Ireland Trends and Patterns 1950 to 1998", National Crime Council, Ireland
Appendix A.1. Recorded Crime Statistics for 2003-2012 classified under
ICCSq

                                  2003    2004    2005    2006    2007

       Index Subgroups
            01a-c
 Murder/Infanticide/Manslaug
             hter
    01d Dangerous Driving           29      53      61      68      47
       Leading to Death
    02a-e Rape and Sexual        1,872   1,672   1,746   1,360   1,267
           Assault
  02f Other Sexual Offences        114      80      55      55      99
  03a-b Murder - Attempt and        47      48     102     102     166
           threats
     03c Assault causing         3,942   3,892   3,708   4,014   3,911
        Harm/Poisoning
      03d Other assault          8,486   8,363   8,764   9,723  11,236
  03e Harassment and related     1,056     974   1,113   1,615   2,353
           offences
    04a Dangerous Driving           20      29      22      24      25
 Causing Serious Bodily Harm
 04b-C Driving/In charge of a   11,568  12,245  14,181  18,715  20,092
    vehicle under influen
  04f-j Other dangerous and        383     412     517     541     892
        negligent acts
          05a False                 97      74      74      81     106
  Imprisonment/Abduction/Hu
       man Trafficking
      06a-d Robbery from         2,824   2,632   2,352   2,396   2,110
  Person/Instituion/Cash/ in
             tran
             06e                    91      85      72      90      61
 Carjacking/Hijacking/Unlawf
          ul Seizure
   07a Aggravated Burglary         327     282     274     284     255
         07b Burglary           25,208  24,430  25,911  24,270  23,052
  07c Possession of Articles       221     201     196     234     296
    08A Theft of/from MPV       16,091  17,218  17,142  16,808  16,877
   08B Other theft/handling     57,344  54,983  55,935  57,688  58,311
       stolen property
 09a Fraud/Deception/Related     4,143   3,663   4,012   4,176   5,858
           Offences
 10ab Importation/Cultivation      108      74      86     135     215
           of drugs
 10c Possession of drugs for     2,317   2,196   2,659   3,016   3,602
        sale or supply
 10d Possession of drugs for     6,455   7,138  10,037  10,468  14,007
         personal use
   10e Other Drug Offences         376     460     540     609     729
 11a Explosives and Chemical        13      20      36      39      26
       Weapons Offences
11b-c Discharge/Possession of      584     665     746     722     750
          a firearm
        Index Subgroup            2003    2004    2005    2006    2007
    11d Offensive Weapons        1,284   1,424   1,708   2,201   2,577
         Offences NEC
        11e Fireworks               39      45      69     157     242
          12a Arson              1,418   1,505   1,413   1,641   1,998
  12b-c Criminal Damage (not    32,612  35,542  38,315  41,942  41,286
        arson)/ Litter
    13a Disorderly Conduct      37,667  38,231  42,433  47,236  51,197
   13b Trespassing Offences      1,438   1,565   1,842   2,355   3,002
   13c-f Other Social Code       6,055   7,993  11,207   7,025   6,384
           Offences
  15a Offences against govt.       199     165     150     238     402
          And agents
  15b Organisation of Crime         11      16       5      19      10
   and conspiracy to commit
 15c Perverting the course of      248     259     224     249     193
           justice
15d Offences while in custody,   6,377   6,013   7,413   8,976  10,395
     breach of court ord

                                  2008    2009    2010    2011

       Index Subgroups
            01a-c
 Murder/Infanticide/Manslaug
             hter
    01d Dangerous Driving           34      28      31      21
       Leading to Death
    02a-e Rape and Sexual        1,334   1,390   2,189   1,839
           Assault
  02f Other Sexual Offences         72      90     177     175
  03a-b Murder - Attempt and       211     232     367     401
           threats
     03c Assault causing         3,850   3,733   3,713   3,584
        Harm/Poisoning
      03d Other assault         12,336  11,847  11,325  11,125
  03e Harassment and related     2,753   2,541   2,298   1,952
           offences
    04a Dangerous Driving           17      18      18      13
 Causing Serious Bodily Harm
 04b-C Driving/In charge of a   18,668  14,662  11,284   9,429
    vehicle under influen
  04f-j Other dangerous and        902     852     791     504
        negligent acts
          05a False                 77     146     134     109
  Imprisonment/Abduction/Hu
       man Trafficking
      06a-d Robbery from         2,183   2,387   3,074   2,831
  Person/Instituion/Cash/ in
             tran
             06e                   116     104     122     100
 Carjacking/Hijacking/Unlawf
          ul Seizure
   07a Aggravated Burglary         325     368     333     336
         07b Burglary           23,933  26,113  24,578  26,724
  07c Possession of Articles       424     429     509     635
    08A Theft of/from MPV       17,331  17,342  16,065  15,563
   08B Other theft/handling     59,530  59,689  60,762  61,412
       stolen property
 09a Fraud/Deception/Related     5,410   4,947   4,988   5,370
           Offences
 10ab Importation/Cultivation      285     319     567     621
           of drugs
 10c Possession of drugs for     4,301   4,029   4,159   3,874
        sale or supply
 10d Possession of drugs for    18,093  16,817  14,523  12,674
         personal use
   10e Other Drug Offences         725     817     756     526
 11a Explosives and Chemical        50      46      41      78
       Weapons Offences
11b-c Discharge/Possession of      681     647     592     457
          a firearm
        Index Subgroup            2008    2009    2010    2011
    11d Offensive Weapons        2,979   2,983   3,040   2,628
         Offences NEC
        11e Fireworks              306     388     426     320
          12a Arson              2,155   3,024   2,588   2,325
  12b-c Criminal Damage (not    42,471  39,306  36,781  33,249
        arson)/ Litter
    13a Disorderly Conduct      53,419  49,469  47,346  42,137
   13b Trespassing Offences      3,675   3,793   3,786   3,580
   13c-f Other Social Code       4,726   4,089   3,809   3,343
           Offences
  15a Offences against govt.       395     571     365     446
          And agents
  15b Organisation of Crime         12       5      18      22
   and conspiracy to commit
 15c Perverting the course of      170     151      95      86
           justice
15d Offences while in custody,  12,701  11,171  10,920   9,619
     breach of court ord

                                  2012    2013

       Index Subgroups
            01a-c
 Murder/Infanticide/Manslaug
             hter
    01d Dangerous Driving           19      25
       Leading to Death
    02a-e Rape and Sexual        1,978   1,917
           Assault
  02f Other Sexual Offences        139     130
  03a-b Murder - Attempt and       279     360
           threats
     03c Assault causing         3,231   3,036
        Harm/Poisoning
      03d Other assault         10,335   9,473
  03e Harassment and related     1,865   1,467
           offences
    04a Dangerous Driving            5      12
 Causing Serious Bodily Harm
 04b-C Driving/In charge of a    8,544   7,183
    vehicle under influen
  04f-j Other dangerous and        502     457
        negligent acts
          05a False                101      98
  Imprisonment/Abduction/Hu
       man Trafficking
      06a-d Robbery from         2,719   2,746
  Person/Instituion/Cash/ in
             tran
             06e                    98      66
 Carjacking/Hijacking/Unlawf
          ul Seizure
   07a Aggravated Burglary         283     295
         07b Burglary           27,097  25,136
  07c Possession of Articles       752     684
    08A Theft of/from MPV       13,925  13,368
   08B Other theft/handling     62,477  65,586
       stolen property
 09a Fraud/Deception/Related     5,791   4,985
           Offences
 10ab Importation/Cultivation      547     434
           of drugs
 10c Possession of drugs for     3,503   3,272
        sale or supply
 10d Possession of drugs for    11,823  11,212
         personal use
   10e Other Drug Offences         579     487
 11a Explosives and Chemical        90      59
       Weapons Offences
11b-c Discharge/Possession of      393     357
          a firearm
        Index Subgroup            2012    2013
    11d Offensive Weapons        2,302   2,175
         Offences NEC
        11e Fireworks              253     147
          12a Arson              2,155   1,952
  12b-c Criminal Damage (not    30,273  26,994
        arson)/ Litter
    13a Disorderly Conduct      37,359  30,789
   13b Trespassing Offences      3,335   2,947
   13c-f Other Social Code       3,168   2,643
           Offences
  15a Offences against govt.       284     273
          And agents
  15b Organisation of Crime          6       4
   and conspiracy to commit
 15c Perverting the course of      101      63
           justice
15d Offences while in custody,   9,054   8,400
     breach of court ord

Appendix A.1 Recorded Crime 2003-2013 - highlight 01a Murder

/Manslaughter/Infanticide.

Appendix A.2--Influence of offence groups upon the IRCI

                             2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008

    07b Burglary (non-       21.6   21.5%  21.8%  20.1%  18.5%  18.4%
        aggravated)
  08B Other theft/ handl.    13.2%  13.0%  12.7%  12.9%  12.6%  12.3%
       stolen prop.
10c Poss. of drugs for sale   5.2%   5.1%   5.9%   6.6%   7.6%   8.7%
         or supply
       12bc Criminal          6.5%   7.3%   7.5%   8.1%   7.8%   7.6%
       Damage/Litter
   02a-e Rape and Sexual     11.0%  10.1%  10.1%   7.8%   7.0%   7.1%
          Assault
   08A Theft of/from MPV      6.9%   7.5%   7.2%   6.9%   6.7%   6.6%
    06a-d Robbery Per.        8.9%   8.5%   7.3%   7.3%   6.2%   6.2%
   /Instit./Cash/ trans
     03d Other assault        4.6%   4.6%   4.6%   5.1%   5.7%   6.0%
    03c Assault causing       6.0%   6.1%   5.6%   5.9%   5.6%   5.3%
      Harm/Poisoning
         12a Arson            2.7%   2.9%   2.6%   3.0%   3.5%   3.6%
   15d Offences while in      1.3%   1.2%   1.5%   1.8%   2.0%   2.3%
 custody, breach of court
            ord
11b-c Discharge/Possession    1.8%   2.1%   2.3%   2.2%   2.2%   1.9%
       of a firearm
    03e Harassment and        0.8%   0.7%   0.8%   1.1%   1.6%   1.8%
     related offences
 01a-c Murder/Infanticide     1.9%   1.7%   2.3%   2.5%   2.9%   1.8%
       /Manslaughter
10d Possession of drugs for   0.6%   0.7%   0.9%   0.9%   1.2%   1.5%
       personal use
    09a Fraud/Deception       1.1%   1.0%   1.0%   1.1%   1.5%   1.3%
     /Related Offences
  07a Aggravated Burglary     1.4%   1.2%   1.1%   1.1%   1.0%   1.2%
  13a Disorderly Conduct      0.8%   0.8%   0.9%   1.0%   1.0%   1.0%
   11d Offensive Weapons      0.3%   0.4%   0.4%   0.6%   0.6%   0.7%
       Offences NEC
15a Offences against govt.    0.4%   0.3%   0.3%   0.4%   0.7%   0.7%
        and agents
 13b Trespassing Offences     0.2%   0.3%   0.3%   0.4%   0.4%   0.5%
         05a False            0.7%   0.6%   0.5%   0.6%   0.7%   0.5%
  Imprisonment/Abduction/
     Human Trafficking
           10ab               0.2%   0.1%   0.1%   0.2%   0.3%   0.4%
Importation/Cultivation of
           drugs
  03a-b Murder - Attempt      0.1%   0.1%   0.2%   0.2%   0.3%   0.4%
        and threats
    04b-c Driving under       0.3%   0.3%   0.3%   0.4%   0.4%   0.4%
influence of drugs/alcohol
            06e               0.3%   0.3%   0.2%   0.3%   0.2%   0.4%
 Carjacking/Hijacking/Unla
       wful Seizure
        04F-j Other           0.2%   0.2%   0.2%   0.2%   0.3%   0.3%
 Dangerous/Negligent acts
    11a Explosives and        0.1%   0.1%   0.2%   0.2%   0.2%   0.3%
     Chemical Weapons
         Offences
 02f Other Sexual Offences    0.4%   0.3%   0.2%   0.2%   0.3%   0.2%
  10e Other Drug Offences     0.1%   0.1%   0.1%   0.1%   0.2%   0.2%
07c Possession of Articles    0.1%   0.1%   0.1%   0.1%   0.1%   0.2%
 15c Perverting the course    0.2%   0.2%   0.2%   0.2%   0.1%   0.1%
        of justice
  13cf Other Public Order     0.1%   0.2%   0.3%   0.2%   0.1%   0.1%
         Offences
   01d Dangerous Driving      0.1%   0.2%   0.2%   0.2%   0.1%   0.1%
     Leading to Death
   04a Dangerous Driving      0.0%   0.0%   0.0%   0.0%   0.0%   0.0%
  Causing Serious Bodily
           Harm
 15b Organisation of Crime    0.0%   0.0%   0.0%   0.0%   0.0%   0.0%
 and conspiracy to commit
       11e Fireworks          0.0%   0.0%   0.0%   0.0%   0.0%   0.0%

                                2009    2010     2011    2012    2013

    07b Burglary (non-          19.5%   17.8%   20.2%  21.1%   20.6%
        aggravated)
  08B Other theft/ handl.       12.0%   11.9%   12.5%  13.1%   14.5%
       stolen prop.
10c Poss. of drugs for sale      7.9%    8.0%    7.7%   7.2%    7.1%
         or supply
       12bc Criminal             6.9%    6.2%    5.9%   5.5%    5.2%
       Damage/Litter
   02a-e Rape and Sexual         7.2%   10.9%    9.6%  10.6%   10.8%
          Assault
   08A Theft of/from MPV         6.5%    5.8%    5.9%   5.4%    5.5%
    06a-d Robbery Per.           6.6%    8.2%    7.9%   7.8%    8.3%
   /Instit./Cash/ trans
     03d Other assault           5.6%    5.2%    5.3%   5.1%    4.9%
    03c Assault causing          5.0%    4.8%    4.8%   4.5%    4.4%
      Harm/Poisoning
         12a Arson               5.0%    4.1%    3.9%   3.7%    3.5%
   15d Offences while in         2.0%    1.9%    1.7%   1.7%    1.6%
 custody, breach of court
            ord
11b-c Discharge/Possession       1.7%    1.5%    1.2%   1.1%    1.1%
       of a firearm
    03e Harassment and           1.6%    1.4%    1.3%   1.2%    1.0%
     related offences
 01a-c Murder/Infanticide        1.9%    1.8%    1.4%   2.0%    1.9%
       /Manslaughter
10d Possession of drugs for      1.3%    1.1%    1.0%   1.0%    1.0%
       personal use
    09a Fraud/Deception          1.1%    1.1%    1.3%   1.4%    1.3%
     /Related Offences
  07a Aggravated Burglary        1.3%    1.2%    1.2%   1.1%    1.2%
  13a Disorderly Conduct         0.9%    0.8%    0.8%   0.7%    0.6%
   11d Offensive Weapons         0.7%    0.7%    0.6%   0.6%    0.5%
       Offences NEC
15a Offences against govt.       0.9%    0.6%    0.7%   0.5%    0.5%
        and agents
 13b Trespassing Offences        0.5%    0.5%    0.5%   0.5%    0.4%
         05a False               0.9%    0.8%    0.7%   0.7%    0.7%
  Imprisonment/Abduction/
     Human Trafficking
           10ab                  0.5%    0.8%    0.9%   0.8%    0.7%
Importation/Cultivation of
           drugs
  03a-b Murder - Attempt         0.4%    0.7%    0.8%   0.6%    0.7%
        and threats
    04b-c Driving under          0.3%    0.2%    0.2%   0.2%    0.2%
influence of drugs/alcohol
            06e                  0.3%    0.4%    0.3%   0.3%    0.2%
 Carjacking/Hijacking/Unla
       wful Seizure
        04F-j Other              0.3%    0.3%    0.2%   0.2%    0.2%
 Dangerous/Negligent acts
    11a Explosives and           0.3%    0.2%    0.4%   0.5%    0.4%
     Chemical Weapons
         Offences
 02f Other Sexual Offences       0.3%    0.5%    0.6%   0.5%    0.5%
  10e Other Drug Offences        0.2%    0.2%    0.1%   0.1%    0.1%
07c Possession of Articles       0.2%    0.2%    0.2%   0.3%    0.3%
 15c Perverting the course       0.1%    0.1%    0.1%   0.1%    0.0%
        of justice
  13cf Other Public Order        0.1%    0.1%    0.1%   0.1%    0.1%
         Offences
   01d Dangerous Driving         0.1%    0.1%    0.1%   0.1%    0.1%
     Leading to Death
   04a Dangerous Driving         0.0%    0.0%    0.0%   0.0%    0.0%
  Causing Serious Bodily
           Harm
 15b Organisation of Crime       0.0%    0.0%    0.0%   0.0%    0.0%
 and conspiracy to commit
       11e Fireworks             0.0%    0.0%    0.0%   0.0%    0.0%

Appendix A.2 (ctd). Trends in most influential offence groups 2003-2013
and their % contribution to annual IRCI figure. Percentages are rounded.


Timothy Linehan (1)

Central Statistics Office

(read before the Society, 10 October 2016)

(1) The author received extensive assistance in this work. The Crime section wishes to acknowledge the assistance of Mr. Paul M. Crowley, Senior Statistician, Central Statistics Office, as well as that of Karina Kelleher, Statistician, and Kevin McCormack, Senior Statistician. Finally, the section wishes to thank Mr. Gurchand Singh, Head of the Garda Analysis Service, and Sean Sullivan and Ciaron McAuley of the Irish Prison Service for their assistance in this project.

(2) Office of the Attorney General "Irish Statute Book", Electronic Publication, Irish Government.

(3) Healy, G. "Irish Crime Classification System", Central Statistics Office, Ireland 2008

(4) The Irish Crime Classification System Quarterly (ICCSq) is used in "Quarterly Crime, Quarter 3, 2015", Central Statistics Office, 2015.

(5) Statistics Canada, "Measuring Crime in Canada: Introducing the Crime Severity Index and Improvements to the Uniform Crime Reporting Survey", 2009.

(6) The Garda Siochana Act, 2005 provides the legislative framework for the CSO to produce recorded Crime Statistics.

(7) J. Thorston Sellin--"The Basis of a Crime Index", American Institute of Criminal Law and Criminology No 22, 1931.

(8) "Judicial Statistics" (UK Parliament Departmental Committee on Criminal Statistics), series commencing 1857, sourced from Brian Mitchell "British Historical Statistics", University of Cambridge 1988.

(9) UN Statistics Division, "Manual for the Development of a System of Criminal Justice Statistics" pp 25, Studies in Methods, 2004.

(10) The CSO Report on the Quality of Recorded Crime Statistics and the Garda Inspectorate Report "Investigating Crime" provide more information on this.

(11) Biderman, A. & Reiss, A. "On exploring the "dark figure" of crime", Ennis, P. H, ""Criminal victimization in the United States: a report of a national survey". Morrison, W.D. "The Interpretation of Criminal Statistics,"

(12) Lauritsen, J, Rezey, M. "Measuring the Prevalence of Crime with the National Crime Victimization Survey", Technical Report, US Department of Justice, 2013.

(13) M. and Babbie, E. "Research Methods for Criminal Justice and Criminology"

(14) Indermaur, D., "Crime Seriousness and Sentencing: A comparison of Court Practice and the perceptions of a sample of public and justices"

(15) O'Connell, M. and Whelan, A. "Taking Wrongs Seriously - Public Perception of Crime Seriousness"

(16) Spohn, C. "A Multi-Site Study of the effects of Race on Sentencing" cited in Spohn, C. "How Do Judges Decide: The Search for Fairness and Justice in Punishment",

(17) Babyak, C, Alavi, A. et al. "The Methodology of the Police-Reported Crime Severity Index

(18) For further information on Paasche and Laspeyres index, the United Nations "System of National Accounts", Ch. 15, 2008

(19) Babyak, C, Alavi, A. et al

(20) Babyak, C., Alavi, A. et al.

(21) Nolan, J. J "Establishing the statistical relationship between population size and UCR crime rate: Its impact and implications

(22) Chang, Y.S, Choi, S.B, Lee, J. and Jin, Won, "Population Size vs. Number of Crime - Is the Relationship Super-Linear?"

(23) CSO National Population Estimates sourced from CSO.IE

(24) Central Statistics Office, "Recorded Crime Statistics 2012"

(25) Block, C.R. "Is Crime Seasonal?"

(26) Office of National Statistics, "Crime in England and Wales, Year ending December 2013"

(27) "Uniform Crime Reporting Handbook", pp 8-13, US Department of Justice

(28) Young P., O'Donnell, I and Clare, E. "Crime In Ireland Trends and Patterns 1950 to 1998"

(29) e.g. the variation in recorded drink driving offences in Irish Recorded Crime Statistics.

(30) Central Statistics Office, "Recorded Crime Statistics 2012" ibid.

(31) Kwan, Y.K, Wai, C.I, Kwan, P " A crime index with Thurstone's scaling of crime severity"

(32) Kwan, Y.K, Wai, C.I, Kwan, P " A crime index with Thurstone's scaling of crime severity" ibid.

(33) Healy, G. "Irish Crime Classification System", ibid.

(34) Central Statistics Office, "Crime and Victimisation, 2010 -- Quarterly National Household Survey"

(35) Schneider, A.L. "Methodological Problems in Victim Surveys and Their Implications for Research in Victimology",

(36) Fay, R.E., Li, J. "Effects of Unbounded Interviews, Time in Sample, and Recency on Reported Crimes in the National Crime Victimization Survey",

(37) Groves, Robert M. et al. "Surveying Victims: Options for Conducting the National Crime Victimization Survey",

(38) Van Dijk, J., Mayhew, P. et al. , "Final report on the study on crime victimisation"

(39) Lynch, M, "Analysis of Manslaughter Sentencing"

(40) Babyak, C., Alavi, A. et al.

(41) Parole Board of Ireland, 2012

(42) Mallon, C. "Longest Serving Prisoner to get out", Evening Herald, 1st May 2009.

(43) "Quarterly Crime, Quarter 1, 2011", Central Statistics Office, 2011 contains a detailed explanation of this issue in its introduction.

(44) Central Statistics Office, "Crime and Victimisation, 2010 -- Quarterly National Household Survey", Ireland 2010

(45) Office for National Statistics, "Findings from the 2013/2014 Crime Survey for England and Wales--Focus on Violent Crime and Sexual Offences--Chapter 4 Intimate Personal Violence and Serious Sexual Assault"

(46) McCollister, K. French, M. The Cost of Crime to Society: New Crime-Specific Estimates for Policy and Program Evaluation", Drug Alcohol Depend. 2010 Apr 1; 108 (1-2): 98-109.

DISCUSSION

Martin O'Brien: I wonder about the correlation between sentence length and the perceived seriousness of the crime in motivating the use of sentence length as weights in compiling the index. In arriving at a sentence length a judge considers not just the seriousness of the crime but also any mitigating factors that may pertain. Does this have any impact on the usefulness of sentence length as weights in this instance?

Noel O'Gorman: I commend Mr Linehan and his collaborators on the work that went into this paper, and Dr Singh for the important insights that he offered. He would encourage the interested authorities to publish the results of this research, while drawing attention to the qualifications attaching to (some of) the data. It was vital that public policy should be based on solid facts, preferably on quantified data. Without such hard information, public debate about crime and enforcement would be based on whatever types of crime the media, or individual journalists, considered most newsworthy. I am reassured about the methodology by the analysis identifying the crime categories having most influence on the Index: Burglary, Theft, Rape & Sexual Assault and Robberies. My prior concern about whether 'enforcement-driven offences' could result in a bias in the Index was allayed by the fact that motoring offences were excluded and the finding that simple 'drug-possession' had only a minor influence on the value of the Index. I encourage the author to explore the question of Kwan-type weightings, using direct measures of public perception, from a limited survey of opinion.

Charles Larkin: Crime statistics typically begin as tools of police management and not for assessing the levels of recorded crime. Given the experience of NYPD Compstat, which I was personally worked with in the late 1990s, how do you deal with recording issues brought about by police management responses? For example, the differences between grand and petite larceny, with petite larceny generating more police activity yet is of less importance than grand larceny. Police management requirements brought about a change in enforcement that eventually resulted in a declaration of a line of police activities as unconstitutional for the NYPD. Also the matter of arrests and final prosecutions, the level of mismatch between crimes declared by the arresting officer and what is returned by the DPP and the impact on the reliability of the index.
Table 1. National and Garda (Police) Regional Population Figures.

      Population  Northern  Western  Southern  Eastern
YEAR   of State    Region   Region    Region   Region


2003  3,979,900   449,870   509,674  752,338   669,464
2004  4,045,200   457,251   518,036  764,682   680,448
2005  4,133,800   467,266   529,382  781,431   695,352
2006  4,232,900   478,468   542,073  800,164   712,021
2007  4,339,000   490,461   555,661  820,221   729,868
2008  4,422,100   499,854   566,303  835,930   743,847
2009  4,459,300   504,059   571,066  842,962   750,104
2010  4,470,700   505,348   572,526  845,117   752,022
2011  4,586,977   518,491   587,417  867,097   771,581
2012  4,590,039   518,837   587,809  867,676   772,096
2013  4,593,102   519,183   588,201  868,255   772,611

       South    Dublin
YEAR  Eastern    Metro
      Region    Region

2003  494,429  1,104,125
2004  502,541  1,122,241
2005  513,548  1,146,821
2006  525,859  1,174,314
2007  539,040  1,203,749
2008  549,364  1,226,803
2009  553,985  1,237,123
2010  555,402  1,240,286
2011  569,847  1,272,544
2012  570,227  1,273,393
2013  570,608  1,274,243

Table 2 Example Police Regions and their component divisions

Region           Divisions

Northern Region  Cavan/Monaghan
                 Donegal
                 Sligo/Leitrim
                 Louth
Eastern Region   Laois/Offaly
                 Meath
                 Wicklow
                 Westmeath
                 Kildare

Table 3. Probabilities of convictions leading to imprisonment.

Offence type                               Imprison.
                                           Probability

01a Murder/Manslaughter/Infanticide        0.93
01d Dangerous driving leading to death     0.74
02a-e Rape and Sexual Assault              0.87
02f Other sexual offences                  0.77
03a-b Murder Attempts/threats              0.63
03c Assault causing harm, poisoning        0.55
03d Other assault                          0.35
03e Harassment and related offences        0.31
04a Dangerous driving causing serious      0.45
bodily harm
04b-c Driving under influence of           0.04
drugs/alcohol
04f-j Other dangerous negligent acts       0.22
06a-d Robberies and Blackmail              0.79
06e Carjacking, hijacking/unlawful         0.88
seizure of of aircraft/vessel
07a Aggravated burglary                    0.77
07b Burglary (not aggravated)              0.50
07c Possession of an article (with intent  0.37
to burgle, steal, demand)
08a Theft/Taking of vehicle and related    0.29
offences
08b-d Theft from                           0.20
shop,other,person,stolen property
09a Fraud, deception and                   0.19
Related Offences
10a-b Importation/Cultivation or           0.40
manufacture of drugs
10c Possession of drugs for sale           0.43
or supply
10d Possession of drugs for                0.04
personal use
10e Other Drug Offences                    0.18
11a Explosives, Chemical                   0.75
Weapons offences
11b-c Discharge/Possession of a            0.51
firearm
11d Offensive weapons offences             0.24
(nec)
11e Fireworks Offences                     0.10
12a Arson                                  0.52
12b-c Criminal Damage/Litter               0.18
13b Trespass offences                      0.15
13c-f Other Public Order                   0.03
15a Offences against                       0.43
Government and its agents
15b Organisation of crime and              0.40
conspiracy to commit crime
15c Perverting the course of               0.26
justice
15d Offences in custody, breach            0.29
of court orders

Table 4 Highest and lowest imprisonment probabilities.

Offence type                              Imprison.
                                          Probability

01a Murder/Infanticide/Infanticide        0.93
06e Carjacking,                           0.88
highjacking/unlawful seizure of
aircraft/vessel
02a-e Rape and Sexual Assault             0.87
06a-d Robberies and Blackmail             0.79
07a Aggravated burglary                   0.77
02f Other sexual offences                 0.77
13b Trespass offences                     0.15
11e Fireworks Offences                    0.10
13a Disorderly conduct                    0.06
04b-c Driving under influence of          0.04
drugs/alcohol
10d Possession of drugs for personal use  0.04
13c-f Other Public Order                  0.03

Table 5 Mean and Median Sentence weights for 2008-2010 Committals.

Offence Type
                                  Mean      Median
                                  Sentence  Sentence
                                  Length    Length
                                  (days)    (Days)
01a Murder/Manslaughter/
Infanticide                       8289.09    5337
01d Dangerous Driving Leading
to Death                           882.43     731
02a-e Rape and Sexual Assault
                                  1445.93    1095
02f Other Sexual Offences
                                  1013        911
03a Murder - Attempt/Threat
                                   735.98     365
03c Assault causing
Harm/Poisoning                     586.23     365
03d Other assault
                                   325.57     153
03e Harassment and related
offences                           499.52     365
04a Dangerous Driving Causing
Serious Bodily Harm                761.64     641
04b-c Driving under influence of
drugs/alcohol                       125.6     120
04f-jOther dangerous and
negligent acts                     386.02     180
05a-C False Imprisonment/
Abduction/ Human Trafficking
                                  2130.63    1100
06a-d Robberies and Blackmail      852.29     731
06e Carjacking/Hijacking
/Unlawful Seizure                  825.44     730.5
07a Aggravated Burglary
                                  1139.32    1096
07b Burglary
                                   364.58     240
07c Possession of Articles
                                   229.78     181
08A Theft of/from MPV
                                   311.74     210
08b-d Theft from shop,other,
person,stolen property             240.62     180
09a Fraud/Deception/
Related Offences                   292.12     180
10a-b Importation
/Cultivation of drugs              886.45     731
10c Possession of drugs
for sale or supply                1130.71     787
10d Possession of drugs
for personal use                   511.27     195
10e-f Other Drug
Offences                           297.92     120
11a Explosives Chemical
Weapons Offences                  1841.5     2009
11b Discharge/
Possession of a firearm           1284.14    1096
11d Offensive Weapons
Offences NEC                       231.7      180
11e Fireworks Offences
                                     7          7
12a Arson
                                   764.75     730
12bc Criminal
Damage/Litter                      236.49     180
13a Disorderly Conduct
                                    79.16      60
13b Trespassing Offences           227.5      122.5
13cf Other Public Order
Offences                           193.43     123
15a Offences against
govt. And agents                   923.25    1141
15b Organisation of
Crime and conspiracy to
commit                             461.55     180
15c Perverting the course
of justice                         639.69     540
15d Offences in custody,
breach of court order              149.55     120

Table 6 Recorded offences under Groups 01a-c Murder/Infanticide
/Manslaughter

                     2003  2004  2005  2006  2007  2008

  Index Subgroups
       01a-c          51    45    65    70    85    55
Murder/Infanticide/
   Manslaughter

                     2009  2010  2011  2012  2013

  Index Subgroups
       01a-c          60    58    45    60    55
Murder/Infanticide/
   Manslaughter

Table 7 Calculation of Crime rate for category 01a Murder /Manslaughter
/ Infanticide

Year  Population  01a-c Murder/ Infanticide /  Crime Rate per 1 capita
       Estimate   Manslaughter (see Appendix
                             A.1)

2003  3,979,900               51                     0.000012814
2004  4,045,200               45                     0.000011124
2005  4,133,800               65                     0.000015724
2006  4,232,900               70                     0.000016537
2007  4,339,000               85                     0.000019590
2008  4,422,100               55                     0.000012438
2009  4,459,300               60                     0.000013455
2010  4,470,700               58                     0.000012973
2011  4,586,977               45                     0.000009810
2012  4,590,039               60                     0.000013072
2013  4,593,102               55                     0.000011974

Table 8 Calculation of average sentence weighted by imprisonment prob.

          Offence Categories              Mean    Imprisonment
                                        Sentence  Probability
                                         (Days)


 01a Murder/Manslaughter/Infanticide    8,289.09     0.934
01d Dangerous Driving Leading to Death    882.43     0.741
    02a-e Rape and Sexual Assault       1,445.93     0.867
      02f Other Sexual Offences         1,013.00     0.769
     03a Murder - Attempt/Threat          735.98     0.628
                  .                            .       .
                  .                            .       .
                  .                            .       .
        13a Disorderly Conduct             79.16     0.057
       13b Trespassing Offences           227.50     0.149
   13cf Other Public Order Offences       193.43     0.025
15a Offences against govt. And agents     923.25     0.433
      15b Organisation of Crime
       and conspiracy to commit           461.55     0.400
 15c Perverting the course of justice     639.69     0.263
        15d Offences while in
    custody, breach of court order        149.55     0.286

          Offence Categories            Average Sentence
                                          weighted by
                                          Imprisonment
                                          Probability

 01a Murder/Manslaughter/Infanticide        7,741.05
01d Dangerous Driving Leading to Death        653.65
    02a-e Rape and Sexual Assault           1,253.61
      02f Other Sexual Offences               779.23
     03a Murder - Attempt/Threat              461.94
                  .                                .
                  .                                .
                  .                                .
        13a Disorderly Conduct                  4.50
       13b Trespassing Offences                33.83
   13cf Other Public Order Offences             4.93
15a Offences against govt. And agents         399.62
      15b Organisation of Crime
       and conspiracy to commit               184.62
 15c Perverting the course of justice         168.34
        15d Offences while in
    custody, breach of court order             42.85

Table 9 Calculation of total weighted seriousness of crime figure for
2003 (base year).

Offence categories                                    2008 Crime
                                                      Rate (CR)

Total Figure (Base of index)
01a-c Murder/Infanticide/Manslaughter                 1.281E-05
01d Dangerous Driving Leading to Death                7.287E-06
02a-e Rape and Sexual Assault                         4.704E-04
02f Other Sexual Offences                             2.864E-05
03a-b Murder - Attempt and threats                    1.181E-05
03c Assault causing Harm/Poisoning                    9.905E-04
03e Harassment and related offences                   2.653E-04
04a Dangerous Driving Causing Serious Harm            5.025E-06
04b-c Driving under influence of drugs/alcohol        2.907E-03
04F-j Other Dangerous/Negligent acts                  9.623E-05
05a False Impris./Abduction/Human Trafficking         2.437E-05
06a-d Robbery of Person/Institution/Cash/ in trans    7.096E-04
06e Carjacking/Hijacking/Unlawful Seizure             2.286E-05
07a Aggravated Burglary                               8.216E-05
07b Burglary                                          6.334E-03
07c Possession of Articles                            5.553E-05
08A Theft of/from MPV                                 4.043E-03
08B Other theft/handling stolen property              1.441E-02
09a Fraud/Deception/Related Offences                  1.041E-03
10ab Importation/Cultivation of drugs                 2.714E-05
10c Possession of drugs for sale or supply            5.822E-04
10d Possession of drugs for personal use              1.622E-03
10e Other Drug Offences                               9.447E-05
11a Explosives and Chemical Weapons Offences          3.266E-06
11b-c Discharge/Possession of a firearm               1.467E-04
11d Offensive Weapons Offences NEC                    3.226E-04
11e Fireworks                                         9.799E-06
12a Arson                                             3.563E-04
12bc Criminal Damage/Litter                           8.194E-03
13a Disorderly Conduct                                9.464E-03
13b Trespassing Offences                              3.613E-04
13cf Other Public Order Offences                      1.521E-03
15a Offences against govt. And agents                 5.000E-05
15b Organisation of Crime,conspiracy to commit        2.764E-06
15c Perverting the course of justice                  6.231E-05
15d Offences while in custody, breach of court order  1.602E-03

Offence categories                                      Weighted Avg.
                                                      Sent -Seriousness

Total Figure (Base of index)
01a-c Murder/Infanticide/Manslaughter                     7,741.05
01d Dangerous Driving Leading to Death                      653.65
02a-e Rape and Sexual Assault                             1,253.61
02f Other Sexual Offences                                   779.23
03a-b Murder - Attempt and threats                          461.94
03c Assault causing Harm/Poisoning                          324.63
03e Harassment and related offences                         155.19
04a Dangerous Driving Causing Serious Harm                  341.42
04b-c Driving under influence of drugs/alcohol                4.91
04F-j Other Dangerous/Negligent acts                         86.24
05a False Impris./Abduction/Human Trafficking             1,572.61
06a-d Robbery of Person/Institution/Cash/ in trans          671.14
06e Carjacking/Hijacking/Unlawful Seizure                   725.39
07a Aggravated Burglary                                     878.63
07b Burglary                                                181.79
07c Possession of Articles                                   85.83
08A Theft of/from MPV                                        90.66
08B Other theft/handling stolen property                     49.02
09a Fraud/Deception/Related Offences                         56.61
10ab Importation/Cultivation of drugs                       355.33
10c Possession of drugs for sale or supply                  480.81
10d Possession of drugs for personal use                     19.30
10e Other Drug Offences                                      53.92
11a Explosives and Chemical Weapons Offences              1,381.13
11b-c Discharge/Possession of a firearm                     657.14
11d Offensive Weapons Offences NEC                           55.93
11e Fireworks                                                 0.67
12a Arson                                                   399.00
12bc Criminal Damage/Litter                                  42.60
13a Disorderly Conduct                                        4.50
13b Trespassing Offences                                     33.83
13cf Other Public Order Offences                              4.93
15a Offences against govt. And agents                       399.62
15b Organisation of Crime,conspiracy to commit              184.62
15c Perverting the course of justice                        168.34
15d Offences while in custody, breach of court order         42.85

Offence categories                                     CR Weighted
                                                      by seriousness

Total Figure (Base of index)                             5.3419
01a-c Murder/Infanticide/Manslaughter                    0.09920
01d Dangerous Driving Leading to Death                   0.00476
02a-e Rape and Sexual Assault                            0.58965
02f Other Sexual Offences                                0.02232
03a-b Murder - Attempt and threats                       0.00546
03c Assault causing Harm/Poisoning                       0.32154
03e Harassment and related offences                      0.04118
04a Dangerous Driving Causing Serious Harm               0.00172
04b-c Driving under influence of drugs/alcohol           0.01426
04F-j Other Dangerous/Negligent acts                     0.00830
05a False Impris./Abduction/Human Trafficking            0.03833
06a-d Robbery of Person/Institution/Cash/ in trans       0.47622
06e Carjacking/Hijacking/Unlawful Seizure                0.01659
07a Aggravated Burglary                                  0.07219
07b Burglary                                             1.15144
07c Possession of Articles                               0.00477
08A Theft of/from MPV                                    0.36656
08B Other theft/handling stolen property                 0.70623
09a Fraud/Deception/Related Offences                     0.05893
10ab Importation/Cultivation of drugs                    0.00964
10c Possession of drugs for sale or supply               0.27992
10d Possession of drugs for personal use                 0.03131
10e Other Drug Offences                                  0.00509
11a Explosives and Chemical Weapons Offences             0.00451
11b-c Discharge/Possession of a firearm                  0.09643
11d Offensive Weapons Offences NEC                       0.01804
11e Fireworks                                            0.00001
12a Arson                                                0.14216
12bc Criminal Damage/Litter                              0.34911
13a Disorderly Conduct                                   0.04255
13b Trespassing Offences                                 0.01222
13cf Other Public Order Offences                         0.00750
15a Offences against govt. And agents                    0.01998
15b Organisation of Crime,conspiracy to commit           0.00051
15c Perverting the course of justice                     0.01049
15d Offences while in custody, breach of court order     0.06865

Table 10 The final production of the Irish Recorded Crime Index

Year  Total figure crime rate   IRCI value (obtained by dividing by
      weighted by seriousness         2008 base year value)

2003           5.342                          89.675
2004           5.199                          87.285
2005           5.440                          91.318
2006           5.513                          92.556
2007           5.697                          95.639
2008           5.957                         100.000
2009           6.123                         102.790
2010           6.313                         105.971
2011           6.053                         101.620
2012           5.870                          98.549
2013           5.578                          93.636

Table 11 Variations in the IRCI from the base year =2008.

Year  Total figure crime rate   IRCI value (obtained by
      weighted by seriousness  dividing by 2008 base year
                                         value)


2003           5.342                     89.675
2004           5.199                     87.285
2005           5.440                     91.318
2006           5.513                     92.556
2007           5.697                     95.639
2008           5.957                    100.000
2009           6.123                    102.790
2010           6.313                    105.971
2011           6.053                    101.620
2012           5.870                     98.549
2013           5.578                     93.636

Year     Difference
      between IRCI for
       year and base
         value=100

2003      -10.325
2004      -12.715
2005       -8.682
2006       -7.444
2007       -4.361
2008        0.000
2009        2.790
2010        5.971
2011        1.620
2012       -1.451
2013       -6.364

Table 12 Variations in the IRCI for Dublin region from the base year
=2008.

Year  Total figure crime rate   IRCI value (obtained by
      weighted by seriousness  dividing by 2008 base year
                                         value)


2003        8.528745865                97.5435843
2004        8.546924413                97.75149303
2005        8.29664277                 94.88901256
2006        8.289126133                94.8030445
2007        8.29690961                 94.89206441
2008        8.74352314                100
2009        9.008243754               103.0276195
2010        9.533160667               109.0311138
2011        9.150613766               104.6559107
2012        8.944308166               102.2963858
2013        8.618886806                98.57452961

Year     Difference
      between IRCI for
       year and base
         value=100

2003       -2.456
2004       -2.249
2005       -5.111
2006       -5.197
2007       -5.108
2008        0.000
2009        3.028
2010        9.031
2011        4.656
2012        2.296
2013       -1.425

Table 13 Comparison of the IRCI and Recorded 02a-e Rape and Sexual
Assault offences

Year  Total figure crime rate   IRCI value (obtained by
      weighted by seriousness  dividing by 2008 base year
                                         value)


2003           5.342                     89.675
2004           5.199                     87.285
2005           5.440                     91.318
2006           5.513                     92.556
2007           5.697                     95.639
2008           5.957                    100.000
2009           6.123                    102.790
2010           6.313                    105.971
2011           6.053                    101.620
2012           5.870                     98.549
2013           5.578                     93.636

Year  Difference between IRCI   Total
         for year and base     Rape and
             value=100          Sexual
                               Assault

2003          -10.325           1,872
2004          -12.715           1,672
2005           -8.682           1,746
2006           -7.444           1,360
2007           -4.361           1,267
2008            0.000           1,334
2009            2.790           1,390
2010            5.971           2,189
2011            1.620           1,839
2012           -1.451           1,978
2013           -6.364           1,917

Table 14 Comparison of the IRCI and Recorded 07b Burglary
(non-aggravated) offences

Year  Total figure     IRCI value        Difference       Total
       crime rate     (obtained by    between IRCI for  Burglaries
      weighted by   dividing by 2008   year and base
      seriousness   base year value)     value=100

2003     5.342            89.675          -10.325         25,208
2004     5.199            87.285          -12.715         24,430
2005     5.44             91.318           -8.682         25,911
2006     5.513            92.556           -7.444         24,270
2007     5.697            95.639           -4.361         23,052
2008     5.957           100                0             23,933
2009     6.123           102.79             2.79          26,113
2010     6.313           105.971            5.971         24,578
2011     6.053           101.62             1.62          26,724
2012     5.87             98.549           -1.451         27,097
2013     5.578            93.636           -6.364         25,136

Table 15 Comparison of the IRCI and Recorded 13a Disorderly Conduct
offences

Year  Total figure crime rate  IRCI value (obtained
            weighted by        by dividing by 2008
            seriousness          base year value)

2003           5.342                  89.675
2004           5.199                  87.285
2005           5.44                   91.318
2006           5.513                  92.556
2007           5.697                  95.639
2008           5.957                 100
2009           6.123                 102.79
2010           6.313                 105.971
2011           6.053                 101.62
2012           5.87                   98.549
2013           5.578                  93.636

Year    Difference between      Total
      IRCI for year and base  Disorderly
            value=100          Conduct

2003         -10.325            37,667
2004         -12.715            38,231
2005          -8.682            42,433
2006          -7.444            47,236
2007          -4.361            51,197
2008           0                53,419
2009           2.79             49,469
2010           5.971            47,346
2011           1.62             42,137
2012          -1.451            37,359
2013          -6.364            30,789

Table 16. Most and least influential terms, year of 2010.

Higher Influence (continued          Weighted     %
overleaf)                             value    contrib.
                                               to value

Overall Index Crime
Rate*Seriousness Weight              6.313     100%
07b Burglary (non-aggravated)        1.123      17.78%
08B Other theft/handling stolen      0.748      11.85%
property
02a-e Rape and Sexual Assault        0.690      10.92%
06a-d Robbery from                   0.518       8.21%
Person/Institution/Cash/ in transit
10c Possession of drugs for sale or  0.502       7.96%
supply
12bc Criminal Damage/Litter          0.394       6.24%
08A Theft of/from MPV                0.366       5.80%
03d Other assault                    0.326       5.16%
03c Assault causing                  0.303       4.80%
Harm/Poisoning
12a Arson                            0.259       4.11%

                                                  %
                                     Weighted  contrib.
                                      value    to IRCI

15d Offences while in custody,       0.118     1.86%
breach of court ord
01a-c                                0.113     1.79%
Murder/Infanticide/Manslaughter
11b-c Discharge/Possession of a      0.098     1.55%
firearm
03e Harassment and related           0.090     1.42%
offences
07a Agrgravated Burglary             0.074     1.16%

09a Fraud/Deception/Related          0.071     1.12%
Offences
10d Possession of drugs for          0.070     1.12%
personal use
13a Disorderly Conduct               0.053     0.85%

Lower influence (continued        Weighted     %
overleaf)                          value    contrib.
                                   value    to value

05a False
Imprisonment/Abduction/Human
Trafficking                       0.053     0.84%
10ab Importation/Cultivation of   0.051     0.80%
drugs
11d Offensive Weapons Offences    0.043     0.68%
NEC
03a-b Murder - Attempt and        0.043     0.67%
threats
15a Offences against govt. And    0.037     0.58%
agents
02f Other Sexual Offences         0.035     0.55%
13b Trespassing Offences          0.032     0.51%
06e Carjacking/Hijacking/         0.022     0.35%
Unlawful Seizure
04F-j Other Dangerous/Negligent   0.017     0.27%
acts
11a Explosives and Chemical       0.014     0.23%
Weapons Offences
04b-c Driving under influence of  0.014     0.22%
drugs/alcohol

                                  Weighted     %
                                   value    contrib.
                                   value    to value

07c Possession of Articles        0.011     0.17%
10e Other Drug Offences           0.010     0.16%
01d Dangerous Driving Leading to  0.005     0.08%
Death
13cf Other Public Order Offences  0.005     0.07%
15c Perverting the course of      0.004     0.06%
justice
04a Dangerous Driving Causing     0.002     0.02%
Serious Bodily Harm
15b Organisation of Crime and     0.001     0.01%
conspiracy to commit
11e Fireworks                     0.000     0.00%
COPYRIGHT 2017 The Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2017 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Linehan, Timothy
Publication:Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland
Date:Jan 1, 2017
Words:15614
Previous Article:Dublin House Prices: A History of Booms and Busts from 1708-1949.
Next Article:Seventy Years of Personal Disposable Income and Consumption in Ireland.
Topics:

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2019 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters