Seeing the wood for the trees
Being tough on the causes of crime
Acquisitive crime[1] in the UK peaked in around 1995 and then fell for the next twenty years (It had been rising for four decades from around 1955. We know this because both our primary measures, police recorded crime and the British Crime Survey (established 1982), tell us so. Given their different methodological origins they are surprisingly in alignment. For more information see Maguire’s ‘Crime data and statistics.’[2]
I created the acquisitive crime tree image to illustrate my MSC dissertation for University College London in 2008. It is not an exhaustive diagram, it merely shows that specific crimes, some recorded some not, grow from others. Seemingly random acquisitive offences committed by chaotic, opportunistic offenders actually fit into a business model. Acquisitive criminals dispose of property to handlers, handlers trade in other illegal commodities, money is laundered in a continuous cycle. Once the drama of the acquisitive offence is over the proceeds are handled as routine activities[3] and rational choices[4]: the mundane business of selling second-hand goods begins. In my view both of these theories apply far better to the crimes of selling stolen goods and money laundering than to the originating crime.
The randomness of individual offences makes them difficult to prevent, but because there are victims asking for help, our law enforcers are kept busy tackling the ‘leaves’ of the tree. Too busy in fact to address the ‘branches’ never mind the ‘roots’ of the problem. This Tree illustrates an age-old idea, that the root cause of acquisitive crime is the love of money (Book of Timothy 6:10). Police would like to be “tough on crime and the causes of crime”[5] but we are too busy. We can’t see the roots for the leaves, as it were.
The reasons for crime falling in the UK, during this period (as any other), are controversial, with many vested interests wishing to claim credit. Economic and social trends must surely be hugely important, but this site looks at something else, could changes in policing have caused crime to fall?
It would be easy to say that police have tried to influence crime downwards by the way they record (or don’t record) crime. The practise of ‘cuffing’ crime (hiding it up your sleeve) is probably as old as policing, but my contention is that police propensity to cuff crime has not substantially changed in the four or five decades since 1980. There are no figures on this, of course, how could there be? And, if there were, they would have been cuffed, obviously!
Policing occurs within a legal framework which is constantly shifting. But some legislation really altered the framework in fundamental ways. The most impactive legal changes were, in my view, the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (1986), Section 17 of the Crime & Disorder Act (1997) and the Proceeds of Crime Act (2002).
Additionally, two other factors are worthy of note; the pay rise of 1979 and the introduction of Intelligence Led Policing from the mid-1990s onwards.
Were other things important? Of course, they were! Persuade me and I will even include them on this blog. You could even write a guest blog, just contact me.
[1] In the post-war period this was burglary, car crime, robbery and theft, i.e. before the decade of fraud kicked-off around 2013 and became 40% of current acquisitive crime.
[2] 2007 Maguire, M, Morgan, R. and Reiner, R. (ed) The Oxford Handbook of Criminology Fourth edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
[3] Felson & Cohen routine activity theory (1979)
[4] Cornish & Clarke rational choice theory (1986)
[5] Attributed to (former UK Prime Minister) Tony Blair, Party conference speech, Brighton 1995