Is the number of crimes in Jakarta increasing?

By Johannes Sutoyo

JAKARTA (JP): It may be not be true that crime is on the rise lately.

While it is true that there are more and more crime reports in the media, it does not necessarily mean that there is an increase in the crime rate.

The regular reporting of crimes has--on the one hand--a positive impact on crime prevention. The community becomes more cautious, and potential criminals have to think twice before committing a crime.

On the other hand, its negative impacts manifest themselves in the spread of fear and apathy toward crimes within the community. On top of these, there is also the tendency for there to be "trial by the press" as the consequence of news reporting that completely ignores the principle of presumption of innocence. Therefore, it is high time the dramatization of crimes by the mass media were dropped.

The word 'crime' is an ordinary word that carries multiple meanings as well as a very broad connotation. In general, crimes can be categorized into (1) Conventional crimes; (2) White-collar crimes; (3) Victimless crimes, and (4) Organized crimes.

The first category, the conventional crimes, can further be classified into (a) Crimes of violence, which include cases of murder, rape, robbery, and mass attack; (b) Property crimes, such as burglaries, vehicle thefts, vandalism, arson and frauds.

White-collar crimes can be divided into (a) Organizational occupational crimes; (b) government occupational crimes; (c) Professional occupational crimes and (d) Individual occupational crimes.

The remaining two categories of crimes also have their respective sub-categories. What is important here is the fact that the word 'crime' has a very broad and varied meaning.

Because of this, we have to be particularly careful in using the word 'crime' to avoid making a generalization. We have to be even more careful when we make the statement that criminality is increasing or decreasing.

Does the exposure of the Bapindo bank fraud case by the mass media really give us sufficient grounds for saying that the rate of white-collar crimes in this country has increased? By the same token, is it because of the recent slaying of Brig. Gen. Tampubolon we can now say that the rate of violent crimes has gone up?

The word 'increase' quantitatively indicates a shift from a smaller figure to a larger one. However, in the context of dis cussion of crimes, is the use of this word appropriate? If we say that there has been an increase of crimes, and our statement is based solely on the shift to a larger figure than the previous one, then we have made a hasty conclusion.

An increase of crimes should be measured in term of what is called the 'crime rate', i.e. the number of cases per capita over a certain period of time.

Only when we have a increase in the figure of the per-capita crime can we justifiably say that there has been an increase. Similarly, when we measure the increase of a certain regional populations, we do not merely count the number of babies who have been born during a certain period of time -- we also count the number of people who have passed away during the same period and in the same area.

Because of the quantitative nature of the term 'crime rate', we must face the question of how we determine the number of crimes during a particular period in a particular area? The police keep the statistics of crimes that we can use for this purpose.

Records of incidents maintained by the police--including those resulting from police raids as well as those filed by the community--make up the statistics.

Taking into account that these statistics are based on the records collected by the police, we begin to question ourselves whether the figures correctly reflect the number of crimes that have actually occurred in the community.

The answer is no.

A large number of criminal cases do not get reported to the police or are beyond the reach of the law. This means that, to a certain extent, the statistics can only be used as the basis for a rough estimate of the extent of criminal behavior.

Furthermore, according to experts in criminology, the number of unreported cases or the so-called 'hidden crimes' will be much larger depending on the type of crime. In fact, it typically varies from 30 to 70 percent.

What is more important as we read the statistics is the fact that the figures are not isolated from other trends, such as the increase of the population in the area where they have been collected.

An increase in the crime rate will be meaningful only if the size of the population remains constant. If the population has also increased, it will mean that there has actually been no increase in the crime rate.

The awareness of the limitations of the statistics to reveal trends in crime, combined with a correct approach in reading the figures, will reduce our potential of making errors in stating whether or not there has been an increase in the number of crimes.

Another way by which we can determine whether there has been a rise in crimes is by focusing on the modus operandi of recent crimes.

This approach concentrates on the increasing sophistication in the way the crimes are committed, particularly in the way they are made undetectable and untraceable by law enforcement officers. There are, in general, two new modes of operation that criminals use. The first type involves utilization of technological advancements, such as the computer. The second relies on well-structured organization.

If the technology used in the mode of operation has been increasingly sophisticated, we can say that there has been an increase in the quality of the crimes. Similarly, if the crimes have been better organized, we can also say the quality has increased. The most dangerous level of crimes, which requires a lot of resources to deal with, is the so-called 'organized crimes'. The Mafia in the U.S. is a good example.

On a continuum, organized crime is located on the right extreme, while on the left extreme we find syndicates of vehicle thieves, syndicates of illegal drug sellers, or syndicates of extortionists.

Borrowing from the field of biology, on the left extreme we find the embryos and on the right we have the strong, healthy and growing babies. If in the beginning there was nothing and there is now the embryo, we can say that, qualitatively, there has been an increase in crimes.

Regardless of the action taken, it is far easier to tackle the quantitative increase of crimes than the qualitative increase.

With tight security control everywhere, and an increase of cleansing operations that are applied as long as the resources are available, we can expect that the actual criminality will go down.

However, efforts to work on the qualitative increase of crime requires a political will and, particularly, a consistency in the implementation of the political will.

Using the metaphor for the organized crimes, it is much easier to kill the embryos than to kill the already born babies. To take the Bapindo case to court is relatively easier than to uncover similar cases and to consistently prosecute them in court.

The writer is head of the department of criminology at the University of Indonesia.