1
CJE3444
Crime Prevention
Chapter 1
Crime and Fear of Crime
Dr. Elizabeth C. Buchholz
INTRODUCTION
 Crime remains an indisputable fact of life for many, if not most, members of modern
society
 Beyond those who are actually victimized, many individuals are fearful of crime and
victimization
 Fear has consequences of its own for both individuals and our communities
 The ability of the criminal justice system to single-handedly alleviate crime and fear in
society has been seriously questioned
Crime and Fear of Crime
 Crime versus Fear of Crime
 As crime rates drop – fear of crime remains
 The Criminal Justice System struggles to maintain a middle ground between “actual”
crime and “fear” of crime rates.
Crime and Fear of Crime
 Why is there a need for Crime Prevention?
THE PROBLEM OF CRIME
 Evaluated using both official and victimization measures of crime
 Official Measures of Crime
UCR
Part I crimes (violent crimes: murder, rape, robbery, and assault; property crimes: burglary,
larceny, auto theft, and arson)
Part II crimes (all other crimes) are not included in the computations and reported crime rates
Other official crime measures include criminal court filings, conviction records, and
jail/prison populations
Crime in Society
 Official Statistics
 Victimization Statistics
 While each presents a different absolute level of crime, both tend to reveal similar
patterns in criminal activity over time.
Official Measures
 Uniform Crime Report (UCR)
-The most widely used and cited official measures of crime in the United States.
-Compiled by the FBI.
-Measures only those crimes “known” to police.
-Reflects only a portion of criminal activity (Part I offenses).
According to the UCR
 More than 10 million index crimes were committed in 2010.
 Of that number, more than 1.2 million were personal crimes (murder, rape, robbery and
aggravated assault)
Rev. 8.24.13
2
 Almost 9 million were property offenses (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2011). This
translates into
 A crime rate of 3,346 index crimes for every 100,000 people in the United States
 (See Figure 1.1 & 1.2)
UCR
Crime and Official Statistics
 Although crime has fallen to levels of the 1970s, it is still much higher than the 1960s.
 The 1960s witnessed an outrage by citizens and politicians about a growing crime
problem.
 Still:
 The property crime rate in 2010 is roughly 40% higher than 1961
 The personal crime rate roughly 60% higher
Crime and Official Statistics
 If current crime rates are equal to the 1970s but higher than the 1960s, then:
 Are we (police, politicians, public) reducing crime and how?
 Who gets credit for the reduction?
Issues with Official Measures (UCR)
 Not all crime is reported by departments (only Part I crimes)
 Police are seen as gatekeepers
 Control the number and types of problems that enter the formal justice system
 UCR is a voluntary system (police departments can adjust data)
 Individual police officers can adjust data
 Police discretion
 Unreported crime or the dark figure of crime is not brought to police attention
What are some of the issues with police discretion—both positive and negative?
Victimization Surveys
 Surveys of the population carried out to measure the level of criminal victimization in
society.
 Brought about by the 1967 President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the
Administration of Justice.
 Attempted to assess the accuracy of the UCR.
Victimization Surveys
 National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)
 Panel survey of households
 The same household is contacted every 6 months for a period of 3 years, with
1/6th of the sample dropping out and being replaced every 6 months.
 Findings relative to official statistics have remained fairly stable
Victimization Surveys
Are they more accurate than official statistics?
NCVS
 According to the 2010 NCVS:
Rev. 8.24.13
3
o
o
o
o
o
about 19 million victimizations in the United States against persons age 12 or
older.
31.8 million were violent crimes, and more than 14.9 million were property
crimes
victimization rates of 1,490 violent crimes (per 100,000 population) and 12,020
property crimes (per 100,000 households)
These figures, both the raw numbers and the crime rates, are significantly higher
than the UCR data.
The NCVS violent crime rate is roughly four times as high as the UCR violent
crime rate.
UCR
Issues with NCVS
 NCVS is not without faults:
 lack of knowledge of what constitutes various crimes on the part of respondents
 respondent recall
 issues of question wording
 Level of crime, whether at its peak or more moderate numbers, exceeds the limits of what
the criminal justice system can hope to handle
 System deals primarily with crimes that have already been committed
 Little evidence that the criminal justice system actually stops crime before it occurs
THE COSTS OF CRIME (see Table 1.2)
 NCVS data depicts victims experienced over $18 billion in direct loss from crimes in
2006.
 This amounts to an average loss of $731 per victim.
 Motor vehicle theft results in the highest average loss.
 In addition, the UCR estimates that almost $15 billion worth of property was stolen in
2008.
THE COSTS OF CRIME
 Economic loss, injuries, the need for medical care, and lost time from work are additional
measures of crime’s impact
 Extensive data comes from the NCVS
victims experienced more than $17 billion in direct loss from crimes (an average loss of $816
per victim)
in 2006, almost 28 percent of victims sustained a physical injury, 14 percent required medical
care, and
5 percent received hospital care as a result of the offense
THE COSTS OF CRIME/ VICTIMIZATION
 The impact of crime extends beyond the direct financial loss or the time lost
 A wide range of additional costs on the individual and society
criminal justice system costs
medical costs related to injuries and lost income
intangible costs, which include pain and suffering, psychological impacts, and reduced
quality of life
costs associated with the offender's choice to pursue crime rather than socially acceptable
forms of production
Rev. 8.24.13
4
THE COSTS OF CRIME/ VICTIMIZATION
 Miller, Cohen, and Wiersma (1996) estimated the annual cost from 10 types of crimes to
be $450 billion each year
 Anderson (1999) estimates the annual cost of crime to U.S. at $1.7 trillion
 McCollister and colleagues (2010)
tangible and intangible costs for 13 crime types in 2008 dollars
multiplying the costs of each crime by the number of crimes in 2010 reveals a total cost of
more than $295 trillion in 2010
THE FEAR OF CRIME
“an emotional response of dread or anxiety to crime or symbols that a person associates with
crime. This definition of fear implies that some recognition of potential danger, what we may call
perceived risk, is necessary to evoke fear” (Ferraro, 1995, p. 8).
 Fear may manifest itself in various ways depending on the person involved and the basis for
his or her anxiety
THE FEAR OF CRIME
 Emerged as a social issue in the mid-1960s and soon became a permanent part of
criminological research
 Fear reduction is an important component of many crime prevention programs
What are some ways that fear may manifest itself?
What do you fear most?
Common “Fear” Questions
How safe do you feel or would you feel being out along in your neighborhood at night?
Is there any area right around here (within a mile) where you would be afraid to walk alone
at night?
Is having your home burglarized or broken into something that you worry about?
Measuring Fear
 Ferraro and LaGrange (1988) classification scheme
 considers the perceptions of the respondent being tapped and the degree to which the method
addresses the individual or others
 classification taps
 judgments of risk—how safe the respondent or others are
 values—how concerned the person is about crime or victimization
 emotions—how much the individual is afraid or worried about becoming a victim
 many researchers utilize measures that reflect risk or assessments of crime levels, rather than
the emotional response of the individual
 Ferraro and LaGrange (1988) classification scheme
Rev. 8.24.13
5
 considers the perceptions of the respondent being tapped and the degree to which the
method addresses the individual or others
 classification taps
 judgments of risk—how safe the respondent or others are
 values—how concerned the person is about crime or victimization
 emotions—how much the individual is afraid or worried about becoming a
victim
 many researchers utilize measures that reflect risk or assessments of crime levels,
rather than the emotional response of the individual
Measuring Fear
 Measuring fear in society is very complex.
 Are we really measuring fear?
 Who is more fearful?
 What are we fearful of?
Measuring Fear
 Common “Fear” Questions
 National Crime Victimization Survey:
How safe do you feel, or would you feel being out alone in your neighborhood at night?
 General Social Survey:
Is there any area right around here—that is, within a mile—where you would be afraid to
walk alone at night?
Is having your home burglarized or broken into something that you worry about?
 Gallup Poll:
Is there more crime in your area than there was a year ago, or less?
Is there more crime in the U.S. than there was a year ago, or less?
Overall, how would you describe the problem of crime in the U.S. —is it extremely serious,
very serious, moderately serious, not too serious, or not serious at all?
The Level of Fear
 Researchers report that 40 to 50 percent of the population express a fear of crime
 38% of the public report that there are areas near their home where they would be afraid to
walk alone at night
 66+% report that there is “more” crime than in the past
 20% worry frequently or occasionally about being murdered
 50% worry about having their home burglarized when they are not home
 30% worry about a burglary when they are home
 44% worry about having their car stolen or broken into
 33% worry about being mugged
The Level of Fear
 Urban areas experience greater fear than rural areas
 Elderly and females have highest rate of fear
 Many elderly live alone and have few family members or close friends living
nearby.
 Minorities tend to be more fearful than Caucasians
Fear Relationships
 Lack of a connection between crime and fear
Rev. 8.24.13
6
 Level of fear is not consistent across all demographic groups
an urban problem and affects the elderly and women to a greater extent
fearful people tend to be black, lower socioeconomic status, and live in large communities
 Related to measures of vicarious victimization (knowing someone or hearing about others
who have been the victim of a crime)
Fear Relationships
 Levels of fear center on the potential harm one encounters when victimized
elderly are largely on fixed incomes and any loss cannot always be accommodated within
their budgets
physical injuries to elderly victims can result in lengthy, painful recuperation beyond that
needed by younger individuals
elderly and females have a great physical disadvantage
elderly may be socially isolated from support networks
Explaining Fear
 Vicarious Victimization
 A harmful act against a third party may elicit a sympathetic reaction and
empathetic fear of crime.
 Perceived Risks
 Strong predictor of fear.
 Vulnerability in the form of social isolation.
 The elderly and women are often found to be the most fearful of crime but are
actually the least victimized.
Explaining Fear
Incivility
 Physical signs, such as deterioration of buildings, litter, graffiti, vandalism,
abandoned buildings and cars
 Social signs, such as public drunkenness, vagrancy, loitering youths, harassment,
visible drug sales and use
 Both residents and potential offenders may see signs of incivility as indicative of
 a lack of social cohesion,
 high transiency,
 a lack of resources,
 an uncaring attitude.
Explaining Fear
 Methodological Factors
 Differing methodologies in the studies of fear may also influence the results
 The same respondents could provide two different views of fear
when asked different questions
 Different locales may vary in fear; e.g, Chicago vs. Key Biscayne
 Media reports of increasing crime and spectacular offenses may sway perceptions of
safety.
Are there and benefits of fear?
Benefits of Fear
 Possible to view fear as a positive thing
Rev. 8.24.13
7
 Jackson and Gray (2009) — functional fear
fear can be a good thing, provided the individual uses it as motivation to take precautions
 Lee (2007) — fearing subject
this person is someone who becomes responsible for the safety of himself and his property
 Ill-advised to try to completely eliminate fear
key would be to determine what that “healthy level” is and how to limit a person’s fear to that
optimal level
End of Chapter 1
Rev. 8.24.13