Coleman et tal (2002) explains that with these, a sample of the population is asked which crimes have been committed against them in a given time period. This technique addresses the fact that police don’t record a significant number of offences. It also offers something missing from official records, victimization patterns (King et tal: 151). One problem with basing statistics on victims’ recollection is that memories are often biased or faulty. For example King et tal (2009:151) clearly states that, “Individuals who lack personal experience of victimization may exaggerate the negative consequences of crime.” The authors further go on to explain that victim surveys are reliant upon people being aware that they indeed are a victim; it depends on the victim recognizing that a crime has been committed against them. The third method for collecting data on crime is self-report studies. Box (2002) explains that these are surveys where a selected group is asked which crimes they have committed in certain time-frame. Self-report studies reveal information about the people who are not caught and charged by the police. The leading problem with this method is that subjects may invent or embellish their account of events either intentionally, or non-intentionally. In both cases, the information provided is misrepresented. Box (2002) argues that the distorted image of are used to control the masses into believing one particular thing, when that very thing is not the truth. Slapper and Tombs (2002) discuss how the elite want society to believe that it is poor, inner-city, black males who are the criminals. When in reality our legal system leaves some crimes, such as corporate, out. If we do not account for the vast number of corporate crimes being committed, there is no way to prove that this group engages in more crime than that group. It is impossible to
Coleman et tal (2002) explains that with these, a sample of the population is asked which crimes have been committed against them in a given time period. This technique addresses the fact that police don’t record a significant number of offences. It also offers something missing from official records, victimization patterns (King et tal: 151). One problem with basing statistics on victims’ recollection is that memories are often biased or faulty. For example King et tal (2009:151) clearly states that, “Individuals who lack personal experience of victimization may exaggerate the negative consequences of crime.” The authors further go on to explain that victim surveys are reliant upon people being aware that they indeed are a victim; it depends on the victim recognizing that a crime has been committed against them. The third method for collecting data on crime is self-report studies. Box (2002) explains that these are surveys where a selected group is asked which crimes they have committed in certain time-frame. Self-report studies reveal information about the people who are not caught and charged by the police. The leading problem with this method is that subjects may invent or embellish their account of events either intentionally, or non-intentionally. In both cases, the information provided is misrepresented. Box (2002) argues that the distorted image of are used to control the masses into believing one particular thing, when that very thing is not the truth. Slapper and Tombs (2002) discuss how the elite want society to believe that it is poor, inner-city, black males who are the criminals. When in reality our legal system leaves some crimes, such as corporate, out. If we do not account for the vast number of corporate crimes being committed, there is no way to prove that this group engages in more crime than that group. It is impossible to