The quality of any study cannot be any better than the quality of its data. Modern statistics computer programs can produce a dazzling array of colorful charts and graphs, but if the input data are faulty, it's all pretty nonsense. As we used to say when I was an IT guy, "garbage in, garbage out."
The main source of data for people studying crime has long been the Uniform Crime Reports compiled by the FBI. These numbers are initially reported by local police agencies. There are some known problems and some controversies. Collection and submission of data by the agencies is voluntary. There are even charges of intentional manipulation in some cities.
Then there are the Supplemental Homicide Reports. These provide much more detail on homicides, but compliance is even more spotty. Rob Barry and Coulter Jones report in the WSJ that there are yawning gaps in the data on justifiable homicides by police. For example, Fairfax County, Virginia, did not report justifiable homicides at all because, well, these are crime reports and justifiable homicides are not crimes. Of 105 large police agencies contacted by the reporters, justifiable homicides from 35 of them did not appear in the FBI records at all.
What's a researcher to do? You must know the limitations of your data. I once started a project using the SHR where a key data point was the circumstance of the homicide. I had to shelve it because so many cases had that data point missing that the input data were essentially worthless. Bad research producing very wrong results can be done by people unaware of the limitations of their data. Of course, if the researcher is actually an advocate seeking to bolster the Politically Correct position on a controversy, then truth doesn't matter. Damn the limitations, full speed ahead!
The main source of data for people studying crime has long been the Uniform Crime Reports compiled by the FBI. These numbers are initially reported by local police agencies. There are some known problems and some controversies. Collection and submission of data by the agencies is voluntary. There are even charges of intentional manipulation in some cities.
Then there are the Supplemental Homicide Reports. These provide much more detail on homicides, but compliance is even more spotty. Rob Barry and Coulter Jones report in the WSJ that there are yawning gaps in the data on justifiable homicides by police. For example, Fairfax County, Virginia, did not report justifiable homicides at all because, well, these are crime reports and justifiable homicides are not crimes. Of 105 large police agencies contacted by the reporters, justifiable homicides from 35 of them did not appear in the FBI records at all.
What's a researcher to do? You must know the limitations of your data. I once started a project using the SHR where a key data point was the circumstance of the homicide. I had to shelve it because so many cases had that data point missing that the input data were essentially worthless. Bad research producing very wrong results can be done by people unaware of the limitations of their data. Of course, if the researcher is actually an advocate seeking to bolster the Politically Correct position on a controversy, then truth doesn't matter. Damn the limitations, full speed ahead!
Leave a comment