Towards an Irish Recorded Crime Index.
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)  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.
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.
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.
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%
|Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback|
|Publication:||Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland|
|Date:||Jan 1, 2017|
|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.|