Victimization surveys were introduced because trends in crimes reported to the police are unreliable measures of trends in crime. Many factors, including the perceived competence of the police, can influence the proportion of victims who choose to make official reports. Victimization data are regarded as the gold standard, counting many crimes the official data miss.
I'm not familiar with crime survey procedures in the UK, but victimization surveys in the US never include homicide, for two reasons. First, homicide, unlike other crimes, is well reflected in official data, since a homicide usually leaves a body and produces an inquest or medical-examiner report. Second, it turns out that very few survey respondents have been victims of homicide. (Think about it.) So what's stunning is that the shadow HS was willing to parade his ignorance in this fashion, and that reporters and others were taken in by it. But of course if he considers "drug-taking" to be among the "categories of violent crime," he's pretty hopeless to start with.
Rape is a different matter; since rape is badly under-reported, and since its under-reporting rate varies significantly with the police practices and with changes in social attitudes, it is one of the crime categories where victimization data are most valuable. I don't know whether the UK victimization survey actually excludes rape or not, but if it does that would be a surprising omission. One possible explanation: perhaps it turns out that, in the UK, respondents find even being asked about rape so offensive that asking drives down the response rate.
I must say I find the whole tone of this thread rather shocking on a scholarly list. Some people are married to the idea that gun controls cause crime. The UK instituted gun controls, and crime fell, according to the best evidence we have. Instead of questioning their theories, the proponents of "more guns less crime" are questioning the data, even if it means relying on newspaper accounts of what interested and ignorant politicians have to say. I doubt this argument would be happening here if the victimization survey showed crime up, rather than down.
At 12:17 AM 7/30/2004, C. D. Tavares wrote:
At 1:19 PM -0700 7/28/04, Guy Smith wrote:
> Aside from the misalignment with police reporting systems, has anyone
>seen any evidence that the BCS survey responses are not accurate, and if
>so, what the suspected source causing the bias?
I would say the following statement from the original newspaper article, if
true, is pretty indicative:
> The shadow home secretary, David Davis, said the BCS did not record
>"various categories of violent crime", including murder and rape, retail
>crime, drug-taking, or offences in which the victims were aged below 16.
I myself am stunned that it would even be possible for an MP make a
plausible claim that a government's general crime survey did not include
murder and rape.
--
Escape the Rat Race for Peace, Quiet, and Miles of Desert Beauty
Take a Sanity Break at The Bunkhouse at Liberty Haven Ranch
http://libertyhavenranch.com
_______________________________________________
To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
_______________________________________________ To post, send message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, unsubscribe, change options, or get password, see http://lists.ucla.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/firearmsregprof
Please note that messages sent to this large list cannot be viewed as private. Anyone can subscribe to the list and read messages that are posted; people can read the Web archives; and list members can (rightly or wrongly) forward the messages to others.
