Home | About Us | Contact Us | Get notifications | Help | A-Z Topic List |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
Notes on figures 25-30: Conviction data compiled by courts nationwide (courts are identified in Notes on figures 19-24) were used in estimates of the number of convictions per 1,000 alleged offenders. For all crimes except murder and rape, the number of convictions per 1,000 alleged offenders was obtained by dividing the number of juveniles and adults convicted of the specified crime during the year (based on court conviction data) by the number of persons committing the crime (and therefore at risk of being convicted) that year (based on estimates from crime victim surveys, adjusted to include crimes -- such as those against persons under 12 in the United States and under 16 in England -- outside the scope of the surveys). The number of persons at risk of conviction is not the same as the number of survey crimes, because each crime can be committed by more than one person. The number of persons at risk of being convicted was estimated by multiplying the number of survey crimes by the average number of offenders per offense. For murder and rape, the number of convictions per 1,000 alleged offenders was obtained by dividing the number of juveniles and adults convicted of murder or rape in the year (based on court conviction data) by the police-recorded number that year of juveniles and adults "allegedly" committing murder (alleged number of murderers = number of police-recorded murders multiplied by the average number of murderers per murder according to police data) or rape (alleged number of rapists = number of police-recorded rapes multiplied by the average number of rapists per rape). More details on the conviction data for the graphics is given in Notes on figures 19-24. Crime definitions for the graphics are given in Notes on figures 5-10.
Is a person committing a crime in the United States more likely or less likely to be caught and convicted than one committing a crime in England?
According to latest conviction figures (1994 in the United States, 1995 in England) --
The number of persons convicted in 1994 of --
Is an offender's risk of being caught and convicted rising or falling in each country?
From 1981 to the latest year of conviction data (1994 in the United States, 1995 in England), the number of persons convicted of --
Are persons committing a crime unlikely to be caught and convicted in both countries?
In both countries, persons committing a crime are unlikely to be caught and convicted. The major exception is murder.
According to latest statistics (derived from figures 25-30 covering 1994 in the United States, 1995 in England), the likelihood of conviction was about --
However, these estimates must be interpreted cautiously. For example, the rape conviction likelihood is inflated because it is based on the number of convictions divided not by the total number of rapes but by just the number recorded by police.
In other respects, all of these estimates (including rape) are conservative because, to be precise, the data used to calculate them estimate the likelihood of an offense leading to conviction, not the likelihood of an offender being convicted sooner or later. To estimate the likelihood of an offender being convicted, the number of different persons convicted is divided by the number of different persons committing the crime. But in available data, per- sons who are convicted more than once or who commit crime more than once during the year are counted over and over again.
Such overcounting is particularly prevalent in the data on the number of persons committing crime because the typical offender commits more than one crime over the course of a year (the typical violent offender commits from 2 to 4 violent crimes per year and the typical property offender commits from 5 to 10 per year according to Blumstein and others, 1986, page 4).
Some adjustment can be made for their overcounting. For example, if the typical robber in the United States commits 4 robberies per year, the likelihood that a person committing robbery will be convicted of robbery during the year is nearly 8%, not 2%.
At first glance that might seem like a small difference but a 1 in 12 chance of conviction (the equivalent of 8%) is considerably greater than a 1 in 50 chance (the equivalent of 2%). Furthermore it should be stressed that, despite the adjustment, the 8% is still conservative because it is the probability that a robber will be convicted just of robbery during the year. Obviously the likelihood that a robber will be convicted of robbery or some other offense during the year is greater than just the probability that he will be convicted of robbery. How much greater is not known but for two reasons it is probably substantial.
One reason has to do with the practice, common both in England and the United States, of downgrading offenses. Because of downgrading, when persons are convicted of a crime, the crime they are convicted of is often less serious than the one for which they were originally arrested and charged (in the United States, downgrading occurs in 40% of violent crime convictions and 25% of nonviolent convictions according to Reaves, 1998, tables 26 and 27).
The other reason is related to the fact that persons who commit a crime typically commit more than one a year. Importantly the crimes they commit typically differ from one another. For example, a man committing a robbery one day may commit a burglary the next. While he might not be caught for the robbery, he might be caught and convicted for the burglary. Consequently his chance of conviction is greater than just the chance he takes of being convicted of the robbery.
Over periods longer than a year, the probability of an offender being convicted can be quite high. For example, Farrington (1989, pages 339-423) found that 58% of English males who admitted to committing burglary were eventually caught and convicted of burglary at least once before reaching age 33.
Chart data - in spreadsheets | ||||||||
Figure 25 | Figure 26 | Figure 27 | ||||||
Murder | Rape | Robbery | ||||||
Year | United States | England | United States | England | United States | England | ||
1981 | 340 | 631 | 97 | 272 | 17 | 10 | ||
1982 | ||||||||
1983 | 367 | 643 | 104 | 213 | 18 | 10 | ||
1984 | ||||||||
1985 | ||||||||
1986 | 451 | 162 | 24 | |||||
1987 | 571 | 156 | 10 | |||||
1988 | 427 | 158 | 20 | |||||
1989 | ||||||||
1990 | 455 | 165 | 23 | |||||
1991 | 562 | 121 | 10 | |||||
1992 | 495 | 189 | 24 | |||||
1993 | 632 | 92 | 8 | |||||
1994 | 487 | 188 | 22 | |||||
1995 | 555 | 100 | 6 | |||||
Figure 28 | Figure 29 | Figure 30 | ||||||
Assault | Burglary | Motor vehicle theft | ||||||
Year | United States | England | United States | England | United States | England | ||
1981 | 9 | 41 | 10 | 27 | 7 | 53 | ||
1982 | ||||||||
1983 | 13 | 50 | 13 | 23 | 12 | 44 | ||
1984 | ||||||||
1985 | ||||||||
1986 | 18 | 12 | 18 | |||||
1987 | 35 | 14 | 27 | |||||
1988 | 16 | 11 | 17 | |||||
1989 | ||||||||
1990 | 25 | 14 | 19 | |||||
1991 | 31 | 10 | 18 | |||||
1992 | 25 | 15 | 20 | |||||
1993 | 23 | 7 | 12 | |||||
1994 | 25 | 14 | 18 | |||||
1995 | 14 | 6 | 12 | |||||
Contents | ||