MO fields: Issues that reflect the nature of crime

Foremost of the social factors shaping crime data, is the process of crime reporting. Before dissecting the nature of MO fields, it should be remembered that, according to crime surveys, the police forces in England and Wales come to know about an estimated 38 per cent of all crimes. Of the crimes of interest to this thesis, an estimated 47 per cent of robberies and 29 per cent of thefts from the person are reported to the police (Chaplin et al., 2011). For the purposes of this research, underreporting presents a problem if the crimes, about which the police are aware, have a distinctly different pattern of MO from those that go unreported. It may be the case that attempted crimes are less likely to be reported than successful crimes, and these could execute distinctly different methods. Failed attempts at offending are important as they can highlight stages in offender learning and/or factors that are currently successful in blocking crimes. Also, less likely to be reported are MO that leave victims feeling foolish or humiliated, where the victims themselves fear arrest or where the theft takes advantage of victims in vulnerable circumstances (Felson et al.,

130

2000). For example, robberies both of and by sex workers are likely to be under-reported while also displaying distinct MO.

In addition to providing an incomplete list of crimes, police recorded crime data only provide a limited subset of information about these crimes. As argued in Chapter 2, crimes are complex processes, which encompass a sequence of actions, at least some of which will take place either before and/or after the commission of the legally defined criminal action. These wider behaviours are of potential interest for the present purpose and for preventative practice. However, MO data, as recorded within police recorded crime information systems, tend to capture only the point in the sequence that is proximate to the commission of the legally defined criminal act. Occasionally, there is information about the period prior to an event, for example, describing the victim’s activities immediately prior to the crime, but the focus is largely on the crime event itself. This can leave much of the full crime script ‘unknown’, although, the information may be recorded elsewhere, or stored in the minds of officers investigating the case. For example, Rogerson, Smithson and Hirschfield (2008) interviewed police officers about patterns of robbery MO and compared these to crime data.

The officers had identified an MO that involved groups of offenders, with one offender travelling on a bus and his accomplices following behind in another vehicle. The robbery would be committed as the bus approached a stop, with the offender jumping out of the bus and into the car to make a quick escape. Within the police data, no cases could be identified that described the full extent of this crime, as the data within crime records tended to be restricted to what happened on the bus, the ‘scene of the crime’. The victims would be unaware of the full MO at the time of reporting. This information was only discovered later by officers conducting full investigations. With possession of this more in-depth knowledge, it is possible to identify cases that hypothetically could be an instance of this MO as the partial information available matches part of the fuller crime script.

The nature of crimes means that much of the activity around an offence remains unknown; not least because offenders have a conscious aim to keep it that way. MO fields are often, therefore, an imperfect trace of real world events. MO fields can, at best, only reflect what is known about an offence and are, therefore, influenced by information of which victims, witness and police personnel are aware and are willing to report. Moreover, with crime there is always the possibility that there will be multiple versions of events. Witness statements can be combined and validated with the interpretation of the traces that are left behind after the offence. For some crimes, this available information will be extremely limited: for example, there tends to be better detail for crimes such as theft from the person and personal robbery where the victim is present, and for burglary, where evidence is generally left at the scene. In contrast, when a phone is pickpocketed at some unnoticed

131

time, there may be little information to record. Crimes such as theft of a vehicle can pose a

particular problem for recoding MO as the ‘crime scene’ is effectively removed following a successful event.

Sometimes there is insufficient detail to provide a clear picture of what happened, this may be the result of a lack of evidence, the inability of victims to recall details and or the reluctance of victims or witnesses to provide information to the police. This is demonstrated in the examples below. In the first description below, the report that the victim has given is unclear and the police state there is insufficient evidence to classify the crime as a robbery. In the second example, the details of what occurred are unclear due to the victim suffering from concussion.

**ORIGINALLY CRIMED ON [date]***IP [INJURED PARTY] STATES THAT TWO UK OFFENDERS STOLE #400 FROM HIM WHILST AT HIS HOME ADDRESS AND HAD BEATEN HIM UP RESULTING IN TWO BLACK EYES***PLSE VIEW LATEST [REFERENCE NUMBER]

UNABLE AT THIS STAGE TO ESTABLISH IF THIS IS A ROBBERY IP ALLEGES OFFENDERS BEAT HIM UP IN HIS OWN HOME IN ORDER TO STEAL. IF FURTHER EVIDENCE PRESENTS TO NEGATE THIS WE WILL REQUEST RECLASSIFICATION AT THAT STAGE.

B.M.T APPROX 4 MALES HAVE APPROACHED IP FROM BEHIND- IP HAS BEEN KICKED TO FACE ONCE CAUSING HIM TO FALL AND SUSTAIN CUTS TO CHIN AND MILD CONCUSSION. OFFENDERS MADE OFF- NOTHING STOLEN. (RE-CLASSIFIED TO ASSAULT W/I TO ROB - WITNESS HEARD OFFENDER SHOUTING `GIVE US YOUR CIGARETTES` AT THE TIME OF THE ASSAULT- IP DOES NOT RECALL THIS AS CONCUSSED. ON BALANCE OF PROBABILITIES ASSAULT W/I TO ROB -)

In the examples below, the details are sketchy, partly as a result of the victims’ reluctance to report them.

"ON [DATE] IP WAS APPROACHED BY 3 IC1 MALES AND ONE SAID PAKIS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THIS AREA"". ONE MALE GRABBED IP AND ANOTHER STOLE HIS MOBILE PHONE. OFFENDERS MADE OFF. RACIAL INCIDENT. IP REFUSED TO TELL OFFICER ANY FUTHER DETAILS. "

ON DATE AND BETWEEN STATED TIMES UNKNOWN OFFENDERS APPROACHED THE IP AND HER FRIEND WHILST ON A NUMBER [NO] BUS. ONE OF THE GROUP GRABBED THE IP'S MP3~PLAYER OUT OF HER HAND AND WHEN SHE TRIED TO GET IT BACK PUSHED HER AWAY. OFFENDERS MAKING GOOD THEIR ESCAPE ON [TOWN] HIGH STREET. (IP DECLINED STATEMENT AS SHE WAS ON HER WAY OUT ON A NIGHT OUT WITH FRIENDS**BEEN UNABLE TO CONTACT SINCE**

The uncertain nature of the information contained within an MO record is frequently represented in the language used to record them. Hence we find frequent use of phrases such as, “The victim

132

stated” or “the victim believes” or, as in the example below “From his account”, reflecting that the data is a version of events, rather than a definitive statement of fact. In some cases the police may have reason to doubt the validity of information provided to them by a victim or witness. As shown in the examples below this can include suspicions of exaggerated and false crime reports.

BMT OFFENDER HAS REPORTED TOMV AND PROVIDED STATEMENT TO POLICE.

OFFICERS BELIEVE FALSE REPORT DUE TO VEHICLE HAVING BEEN INVOLVED IN NON STOP RTC 40 MINUTES BEFORE TOMV REPORT. IP STATES THAT VEHICLE WAS TAKEN FROM HIMAS A RESULT OF ROBBERY

BMT IP AND TWO FRIENDS WERE APPROACHED BY TWO UNKNOWN MALES AT OFFENCE LOCATION. ONE MALE HAS SEARCHED THE POCKETS OF A 2ND IP ASKING WHAT THE IP HAD FOR HIM - HE HAS THEN ASKED THE SAME OF THE IP - SEARCHED HIS POCKETS TAKING A MOBILE WHICH THE IP SNATCHED BACK. BOTH IPS FEARED VIOLENCE - OFFENDER DETAINED BY SECURITY AND ARRESTED. CROSS REF [CRIME NUMBER] CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO RE-CLASSIFYING AS ROBBERY - HOWEVER – [PC NAME] SPOKEN WITH AND WITNESS OVERHEARD IP'S EMBELISHING THEIR ACCOUNT AND THE OFFENDER NEVER THREATENED

In other cases, it is unclear which reported facts are relevant to the crime and which may be incidental. As an illustration, in the example below it is not known whether the victim’s visits to the cash machine and branch counter are in any way connected to the offender’s crime script. The inclusion of these facts in the crime data suggests that either the victim or the police felt that there may be a connection but there is no solid link²⁹.

BMT- IP ATTEMPTED TO USED CASH POINT THE [BANK NAME] ON THE [ROAD NAME]- THE PIN WAS INPUT TWICE- BUT ATM WAS OUT OF ORDER. THE IP WITHDREW

#100.00 FROM OVER THE COUNTER INSTEAD. THE IP THEN HAS WALKED DOWN TO [SUPERMARKET] TO SHOP- WHILST SHOPPING. THE IP WAS APPROACHED BY AN EASTERN EUROPEAN FEMALE WHO ASKED HER QUESTIONS ABOUT CHOCOLATE AND NUTS. THE IP FELT A BUMP TO THE BACK BUT CONTINUED WITH HER SHOPPING- ON RETURNING HOME SHE FOUND HER DEBIT CARD WAS MISSING FROM HER HANDBAG ALONG WITH CASH.