The problems associated with trying to conceptualize and measure crime with crime statistics are widely recognized and well documented. Most often studies have focused on the technical issues of reliability and validity. Recent analyses have also considered how crime statistics are socially constructed or produced. These studies, however, focused on how such statistics are influenced by the decisions and actions of people who participate in the system of criminal justice and have vested interests in how crime is defined or measured. This paper, in contrast, will demonstrate that actions and decisions of individuals engaged in the production of crime statistics but working without any vested interest in the meaning or measure of crime also have an impact on how crime is conceptualized and measured.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BaumerT. L.MaxfieldM. G., & MendelsohnR. I. (1993). A comparative analysis of three electronically monitored home detention programs. Justice Quarterly, 10, 121–142.
2.
BestJ. (1999). Random violence: How we talk about new crimes and new victims. Berkeley: University of California.
3.
BestJ. (1990). Threatened children: Rhetoric and concern about child-victims. Chicago: University of Chicago.
4.
BestJ. (1989). Images of issues: Typifying contemporary social problems. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
5.
BlackD. J. (1970). Production of crime rates. American Sociological Review, 35, 733–748.
6.
BlumsteinA.CohenJ., & RosenfeldR. (1992). The UCR-NCS relationship revisited: A reply to Menard. Criminology, 30, 115–124.
7.
BlumsteinA.CohenJ., & RosenfeldR. (1991). Trend and deviation in crime rates: A comparison of UCR and NCS data for burglary and robbery. Criminology, 29, 237–263.
8.
BrownsteinH. H. (2000). The social reality of violence and violent crime. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
9.
BrownsteinH. H. (1998). The drugs-violence connection: Constructing policy from research findings. In JensenE. & GerberJ., (Eds.), The new war on drugs: Its construction and impacts on criminal justice policy in North America (pp. 59–69). Cincinnati: Anderson.
10.
BrownsteinH. H. (1996). The rise and fall of a violent crime wave: Crack cocaine and the social construction of a crime problem. Guilderland, NY: Harrow and Heston.
11.
BrownsteinH. H. (1995). The social construction of crime problems: Insiders and the use of official statistics. Journal of Crime and Justice18, 17–30.
12.
Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1988). Report to the nation on crime and justice. (2nd ed.). NCJ-105506. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
13.
ColemanC., & MoynihanJ. (1996). Understanding crime data: Haunted by the dark figure. Philadelphia: Open University.
14.
EckJ. E., & RiccioL. J. (1979). Relationship between reported crime rates and victimization survey results: An empirical and analytic study. Journal of Criminal Justice7, 293–308.
15.
Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1998). Crime in the United States, 1997: Uniform crime reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
16.
FerrellJ., & SandersC. R. (1995). Cultural criminology. Boston: Northeastern University.
17.
GlassnerB. (1999). The culture of fear: Why Americans are afraid of the wrong things. New York: Basic Books.
18.
GoveW. R.HughesM., & GeerkenM. (1985). Are Uniform Crime Reports a valid indicator of the index crimes? An affirmative answer with minor qualifications. Criminology, 23, 234–237.
19.
HindelangM. J.HirschiT., & WeisJ. G. (1979). Correlates of delinquency: The illusion of discrepancy between self-report and official measures. American Sociological Review, 44, 995–1,014.
20.
JenkinsP. (1999). Synthetic panics: The symbolic politics of designer drugs. New York: New York University.
21.
JensenG. F., & KarposM. (1993). Managing rape: Exploratory research on the behavior of rape statistics. Criminology, 31, 363–385.
22.
KaplanA. (1964). The conduct of inquiry: Methodology for behavioral science. San Francisco: Chandler.
23.
KitsuseJ. I., & CicourelA. V. (1963). A note on the uses of official statistics. Social Problems, 11, 131–139.
24.
LazarsfeldP. F., & RosenbergM. (1955). The language of social research: A reader in the methodology of social research. New York: Free Press.
25.
MaltzM. D. (1999). Bridging gaps in police crime data. NCJ 176365. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.
26.
MaltzM. D. (1977). Crime statistics: A historical perspective. Crime and Delinquency, 23, 32–40.
27.
MaltzM. D. (1975). Crime statistics: A mathematical perspective. Journal of Criminal Justice, 3, 177–194.
28.
MaxfieldM. G., & BabbieE. (1998). Research methods for criminal justice and criminology. (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
29.
MaxfieldM. G.LewisD. A., & SzocR. (1980). Producing official crimes: Verified crime reports as measures of police output. Social Science Quarterly, 61, 221–236.
30.
McDowallD., & LoftinC. (1992). Comparing the UCR and NCS over time. Criminology, 30, 125–132.
31.
MenardS. (1992). Residual gains, reliability, and the UCR-NCS relationship: A comment on Blumstein, Cohen, and Rosenfeld. Criminology, 30, 105–113.
32.
MenardS. (1991). Encouraging news for criminologists (in the year 2050)? A comment on O'Brien. Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 563–567.
33.
MenardS., & CoveyH. C. (1988). UCR and NCS: Comparison over space and time. Journal of Criminal Justice, 16, 371–384.
34.
O'BrienR. M. (1996). Police productivity and crime rates: 1973–1992. Criminology, 34, 183–207.
35.
O'BrienR. M. (1991). Detrended UCR and NCS crime rates: Their utility and meaning. Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 569–574.
36.
O'BrienR. M. (1990). Comparing detrended UCR and NCS crime rates over time: 1973–1986. Journal of Criminal Justice, 16, 229–238.
37.
PepinskyH. E. (1980). Crime control strategies. New York: Oxford.
38.
RobinsonL. N. (1911/1969). History and organization of criminal statistics in the United States. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith (originally published in 1911 by Hart, Schaffner and Marx).
39.
SavitzL. (1967). Dilemmas in criminology. New York: McGraw-Hill.
40.
SeidmanD., & CouzensM. (1974). Getting the crime rate down: Political pressure and crime reporting. Law and Society, 8, 457–493.
41.
SkoganW. (1974). The validity of official crime statistics: An empirical investigation. Social Science Quarterly, 55, 25–38.
42.
StarrP. (1987). The sociology of official statistics. In AlonsoW. & StarrP. (Eds.), The politics of numbers, pp. 7–57. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
43.
ThornberryT. P., & FarnworthM. (1982). Social correlates of criminal involvement: Further evidence of the relations between social status and criminal behavior. American Sociological Review47, 505–518.
