Criminology: Dark Figure of Crime, Social Theory, and Corporate Crime

The Dark Figure of Crime and Its Significance

One of the most prominent and unfortunate components of modern society is crime. Various factors influence an individual's criminal tendencies, including childhood background, socialization, the economy, and a myriad of other factors. In addition, there are about as many types of crimes as there are individuals to commit them. Hence, the study of crime and the collection of crime data are somewhat challenging, especially in terms of unreported offenses. The fact that many crimes go unreported creates an element known as the "dark figure of crime" — referring to unrecorded crime statistics. The two main methods of recording crime statistics in the United States that also address the dark figure of crime are the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) and the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS). These methods attempt to address the challenge of collecting accurate crime statistics across the country (Cole and Smith, 2008, p. 42).

The dark figure of crime is important in terms of criminal justice because it creates a challenge to the accurate detection and deterrence of crime. Without knowing the exact statistics related to crime in the country, there is no way to determine whether deterrence strategies are in fact effective. According to Attewell (2011), underreporting by both the public and the police, as well as a lack of crime detection, is responsible for much of the dark figure of crime as it exists today. It is therefore important to attempt to address this challenge, and investigating the effectiveness of data-collecting strategies is equally important in this regard.

NIBRS and NCVS: Addressing Unreported Crime

The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) was created by the FBI in response to the basic shortcomings of the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR). The UCR does not provide an accurate picture of crime statistics in the country because crime reporting is voluntary and the UCR offers only statistics on reported crimes. Another major factor leading to inaccurate reporting is the underreporting by officials for reasons such as department budgets, which are often dependent on positive crime deterrent outcomes.

Whereas the UCR offers uniform data for 29 types of crimes and eight major crimes, the NIBRS provides for police officers to report all crimes committed during an incident rather than only those that are most serious (Cole and Smith, 2008, p. 43). The system also requires complete data on offenders, victims, and the locations of their interactions. The NIBRS provides detailed incident data on 46 offenses within 22 crime categories and also distinguishes between attempted and actually committed crimes. A major advantage of this system is therefore that it addresses the dark figure of crime with greater accuracy than the UCR.

The National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) shares this advantage (Cole and Smith, 2008, p. 43), addressing the dark figure of crime by means of interviews with a probability sample of citizens. The Census Bureau has conducted such surveys since 1972. The survey includes a sample of 76,000 individuals in 43,000 households, who are interviewed twice per year for three years to determine whether, and to what extent, they have been affected by crime. This method of determining the crime rate creates an even closer focus on unreported crimes, since victims or potential victims themselves are interviewed. It therefore represents a closer approximation of the actual crime rate than even that provided by the NIBRS.

Social Structure and Criminological Theory

As rational, learning creatures, human beings tend to create theories to explain the world they observe around them. This has been the case since the earliest humans began to develop their mental faculties. Even the earliest religions and hunting tactics are the result of theorizing about the experienced world. Today is no different. There are many theories people use to explain the world to themselves, and perhaps the most interesting are those that focus on human societies and the interactions of individuals with one another. Among these are social structure theory, Merton's Anomie theory, the broken windows theory, and rational choice theory. Whatever their differences, these theories share the common feature of making observations about humanity and constructing explanations based upon those observations.

Social structure theory, for example, examines how the underlying social structures of society influence human action and thought (Baert and Da Silva, 2010, p. 4). What is notable here is that individuals who are influenced by these structures are generally not aware of them, yet are influenced by them nonetheless. Examples include religious structures, education, constructs of gender, employment, and so on. These structures are usually so deeply integrated into the human psyche that their influence is accepted as a given without conscious awareness.

Merton builds his Anomie theory on the premise of social structure theory, taking it a step further by suggesting that cultural structure and social structure interrelate in such a way that conditions are often created that lead to higher crime rates (Kittleson, 2012, p. 4). As an example, one might consider the United States, where the emphasis on material success is the result of the country's cultural values. At the same time, social limits on access to material success create conditions that lead to an "end justifies the means" viewpoint, resulting in higher crime rates in the pursuit of financial prosperity. The fact that the pursuit of money overrides institutionalized norms for acceptable means of gaining material success is referred to as "a strain toward anomie." Merton uses the term "innovation" to describe those who succumb to the pressure to achieve success through illegitimate means.

Conclusion

The Martha Stewart case includes elements of both conflict and consensus, with consensus ultimately emerging to override the conflict situation. Ms. Stewart was sentenced in accordance with the consensus achieved between the judge and the public, even though this consensus was unusual relative to SEC and legal precedents for similar cases. The case demonstrates the flexible nature of public consensus. While Ms. Stewart's crime was incontestable, the mitigating factors — including a generally positive public attitude toward her prior charitable work and her previously crime-free management record — combined to produce an atypical legal outcome. Although the conflict created by the crime caused severe damage to her reputation, the subsequent years demonstrated that she successfully recovered both her standing and her position in the eyes of her admirers.

Across all three questions examined in this paper, a common theme emerges: accurate measurement, theoretical understanding, and social accountability are all essential to addressing crime effectively. Whether through improving crime data systems, refining sociological theory, or applying public consensus mechanisms to corporate misconduct, criminology offers essential tools for building a safer and more just society.

Attewell, R. G. (2011). Dealing with uncertainties in policing serious crime: Can statistics help? Australian National University.

Baert, B., and Da Silva, F. C. (2010). Social theory in the twentieth century and beyond. Cambridge: Polity Press.

Cerda, M., Tracy, M., Messner, S. F., Vlahov, D., Tardiff, K., and Galea, S. (2009, July). Misdemeanor policing, physical disorder, and gun-related homicide: A spatial analytic test of "broken-windows" theory. Epidemiology, 20(4), 533.

Cole, G. F., and Smith, C. E. (2008). Criminal justice in America. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.

Kittleson, M. A. (2012). A cross-national, longitudinal test of institutional anomie theory. Western Michigan University.

Leone, M. (2004, June 4). Martha Stewart arrested. CFO.

Moore, M. T., and Reberioux, A. (2010). Corporate power in the public eye: Reassessing the implications of Berle's public consensus theory. Seattle University Law Review, 33(4).

PBS NewsHour. (2004, July 16). Martha Stewart sentenced.