UCR Vs NIBRS Research Paper

Excerpt from Research Paper :


Data gathering in criminal justice research

Qualitative research strategies for gathering information are the most commonly used in a criminal justice setting. They include focus groups, groups of people, individual case studies, and interviews. Qualitative research concentrates on real human life experience in a social setting. This research strategy stresses on comprehending the significance connected to events in criminal justice. The perception of study subjects in a natural social environment is basic to qualitative examination. In criminal justice, qualitative examination strategies can give the criminal justice analyst with an improved comprehension of how and why crimes happen in a social setting (Nolan, Haas & Napier, 2011).


NIBRS is a crime-reporting framework based on an incident. It aims to collect information on individual crimes while making arrests within a single crime occurrence. A notable difference between UCR and BIBRS systems is the magnitude in reporting details. Unlike UCR, which focuses on summary reporting by gathering data on a single part of a crime; NIBRS focuses on a cocktail of crime categories comprising of individual crimes.

Components of the crime index and the calculation of crime rate

The components of a crime index are a host of components, which must be available in place for it to be proven that somebody is liable of a crime. Four key parts must be available like conduct, intent, causation, and concurrence. Without one of these components, a case is likely to fall apart. This explains why the defense will concede to something, which may be implicating just to win the case. It acknowledges that one component was available, yet prevents different components from securing a crime, and utilizes these to deconstruct the case of the prosecutor (Reaves, & United States, 2013).

Diverse legal frameworks have distinctive standards and some sincerely peculiar cases have come up to test the legitimate meaning of the components of a crime. Four key components must be available as concurrence, conduct, intent, and causation. Without one of these components, a case can begin to break apart. This clarifies why the defense will uninhibitedly concede to something, which appears implicating in order to win the case. It acknowledges that one component was available, but precludes different components of an offense and utilizes these to deconstruct the case of the prosecution (Gaines & Miller, 2013).

Intent, which is also known as guilty mind requires somebody to plan to carry out a wrongdoing, and to have the mental capacity of intent. For instance, somebody who plans to execute a robbery obviously qualifies the condition of intent. Assuming that the robber hits and murders a person on foot with the vehicle on the path to execute robbery, the individual will not be arraigned for murder, as the intent was not to kill the pedestrian. The person on foot is still dead, obviously, and the looter will be liable for murder.

Conduct is determined by the actions taken by the offender. Based on the robbery illustration, someone can aim to execute a robbery but fail to accomplish the mission. In this case, the robber is not liable because no robbery/conduct occurred. Concurrence demands an association between the conduct and intent. While concurrence is regularly described as simultaneous, it is distinguished that conduct and intent could happen at distinct points, and a person will still be guilty (Siegel, 2012).

Therefore, the components of a crime include causation that the conduct and intent that led to the crime by the accused. Someone may desire to carry out a wrongdoing and take part in criminal behavior. However, this may not be considered as a wrongdoing issue in the court. For example, if a murderer fires and misses the target, conduct and intent are available, but causation is most certainly not. Assuming that the intended victim later drops dead, the bullets of the killer will not be the cause.

Shortcomings of the UCR

The most significant shortcoming of the UCR is the way that it just considers the criminal exercises that have been reported. It has been investigated for minimizing offenses, taking into account the reports it acquires. This technique does not consider the various criminal episodes that happen, yet are not reported for an assortment of explanations. Unreported unlawful acts are alluded to as the dull figure of wrongdoing. People do not report law violations for random explanations. These unreported wrongdoings are regularly an aftereffect of a victim not having any desire to get included in the legal methodology, the victimized person is humiliated, and ashamed, or the individual may not trust law enforcers (Gaines & Miller, 2013). Whatever the explanation, a substantial percentage of crimes are not known by law authorities. An alternate shortcoming of this approach arises from the fact that many states have commanded necessities for participation while some do not. Therefore, information collected will not depict the U.S. In its entirety.

Another disadvantage is its tendency to exclusively measure offenses that are acknowledged individually or family-unit identified. It does not measure commercial or business law violations, and it does not report wrongdoings on people less than 12 years of age (Maxfield, & Babbie, 2012). The UCR has additionally been examined for under-reporting or over-expressing wrongdoings. Some authorities feel that victimized people are less averse when overstating their wrongdoings. There is not a measure to accept if an individual record is accurate or false. Then again, there are likewise instances of under-reporting law violations, in which victimized people will be unable to recollect criminal acts as they happened. There are mixtures of explanations why individuals decide not to report law violations. A person may not think the wrongdoing that befell them is paramount, they might dismiss that incident like a person who was mugged but unharmed. The person in this case might feel it is not something that is deserving of reporting. Eventually, no dependable measure exists on the amount of unlawful acts that could be erroneously reported or of the amount of unlawful acts that could be underreported in the UCR information.

How features of the redesigned UCR may eliminate some of these shortcomings

Uniform Crime Reporting is an aggregate effort from city, region, state, tribal, and law enforcement organizations presenting a nationwide perspective of a crime. With this feature, the UCR incorporates a series of organizations in data collection, which leads to the provision of comprehensive data. This paves way for the law enforcers to enforce and report on individuals arrested. They likewise furnish data about law implementation officers assaulted or killed, as well as reports on hate crimes.

The UCR system has also advanced to include the reports produced out of the NIBRS. One important advantage of the redesigned UCR is that it considers a more exhaustive, and thorough portrayal of the information. This permits specialists an improved risk of studying criminal conduct and crime. The advanced UCR gathers information based upon both the victim and the wrongdoer, it additionally incorporates data regardless of whether arrests have been made. The UCR furnishes knowledge about a person's quality like ethnicity, age, and sex (Nolan, Haas & Napier, 2011). This gives the experts some supplementary material about the wrongdoer. The UCR unifies their information accumulation on sub-classifications of offenses, which are then grouped into 46 unique infrastructures. This framework permits more data in regards to both offender and victim than the traditional UCR.

Principle NIBRS features and advantages over the traditional UCR

While national-level information is not right now accessible, researchers and analysts will discover an abundance of data about crime in the NIBRS information that is accessible. This is the principle feature of NIBRS. The information, besides descriptive data on its structure and utilization, might be openly acquired online from the National Archive of Criminal Justice Data, a BJS supported system. One advantage of NIBRS is that…

Cite This Research Paper:

"UCR Vs NIBRS" (2013, September 15) Retrieved January 22, 2018, from

"UCR Vs NIBRS" 15 September 2013. Web.22 January. 2018. <

"UCR Vs NIBRS", 15 September 2013, Accessed.22 January. 2018,