Serious Crime Defined

The United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) remains the nation’s most consistent and highly regarded source of criminal statistics, as well as the authority on defining the gradations of crime itself. Most people are aware of what is a basic reality within the criminal justice system: namely, that crimes are typically either misdemeanors, or lesser offenses, or felonies. It is with the latter, naturally enough, that the FBI most concerns itself, as a felony is synonymous with “serious crime”.

Since 1930, the FBI has compiled annual Uniform Crime Reports (UCR), which are the products of all crimes reported to the Bureau by all local law enforcement agencies. The UCR is the most frequently cited source of crime statistic data in use. It is worth noting, however, that reporting criminal information to the FBI for the purposes of the UCR is not mandatory. It is a voluntary process, one reflective of an estimated ninety-four percent of the population (May, et al., 2007, p. 33).

In regard to seriousness of offenses, the FBI has established two sets of parameters, and serious crimes fall into the Part I category. There are eight recognized, serious personal or property offenses, and these include murder, criminal assault, forcible rape, and manslaughter. Beyond this, “…the serious property crimes include burglary, larceny-theft, motor vehicle theft, and arson” (33). To the average person, a “serious” crime is that which involves personal injury or death; property crimes, even on a grand scale, do not usually carry the same weight as an offense in the popular mind. However, there is often a direct link between crimes. Arson will often cause homicides, as murders occur when the original intent is only burglary or auto theft.

Modern communities face serious crimes risks very largely determined by the nature of the community itself. As is widely acknowledged, larger cities report a far greater incidence of violent crime, and cyclical elements are often identified. Urban congestion and poor living standards are associated with drug traffic and the crimes typically prompted by it, and theft leading to violent, personal crime is also prevalent in disadvantaged communities within the larger cities. Above all factors, it seems to be the economic state of the city or community that dictates the levels and kinds of serious crimes:   “…Research indicates that the relationship between disorder and crime is complex and affect by a number of considerations, especially the economic status of the community” (Lilly, et al., 2010, p. 321).

Data and Statistic Issues

Despite a concentrated and annual effort on the parts of both the FBI and local law enforcement agencies, there are acknowledged problems in the reliability of crime statistics. As many factors must be in place for an accurate reporting to occur, the system is subject to an equally large number of potentials for error.

A major issue in statistical information is that much of it relies on voluntary testimony. If a crime is committed but is not reported, it cannot be entered into the data, and this failure occurs most commonly with more minor offenses. People often simply feel that either the crime will go unpunished, or that they will be involving themselves in a complicated criminal justice procedure which will prove more exhausting than rewarding.

Then, a variety of other factors serves to keep many crimes from being documented: “For elderly persons in particular, there is a tendency to not report family abuse because they are ashamed and embarrassed that their spouse or child violated their trust” (Payne, 2005, p. 44). This is as well a common occurrence in spousal, or domestic, abuses situations, and even those leading to excessive violence. Here, again, crimes are not known as such because victims, for any number of reasons, choose not to report them.

Of all serious crimes, murder is the most reliably documented as a statistic. It is perhaps ironic in a gruesome way, but the simple reality of the victim’s being unable to choose whether or not to be regarded as such makes this possible: “Of all violent crime statistics, homicide statistics are the least biased…Homicide statistics do not rely on self-reported data but from one source – the discovery of a body” (Hawkins, 2003, p. 4). Obviously, this goes to the statistics of the crime, however, and not to the rates of success in apprehending and convicting murderers.

A number of other issues carry great impact in how accurate crime statistics may be, and these are as numerous as the motivations and mistakes in judgment people employ and make in other arenas of life. There are, inevitably, errors in clerical activity either unintentional or due to laziness or staffing problems, and local police departments are usually, and famously, not overstaffed.  As far as can be assessed, these factors contribute to a great deal of misinformation: “Some local police departments make systematic errors in UJCR reporting…One survey of arrests found an error rate of about ten percent in every Part I offense category” (Siegel, 2008, p. 33).

Other issues arise from simple chains of command, or senses of civic and/or legal responsibility. For instance, as fire departments are not agents within the criminal justice system, they are not specifically accountable as providers of criminal data: “Arson is seriously under-reported because many fire departments do not report to the FBI, and those that do may define many fires that may well have been set by arsonists as ‘accidental’ or ‘spontaneous’” (Siegel, 2009, p. 54). Because of this and the other gaps inherent in statistical gathering, it is widely believed that crime statistics as compiled by the FBI are not truly reflective of crime occurrence in the United States.