Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Jack McCoy

Crime Recording standards in your Force

Recommended Posts

IrateShrike

It's also not in the interests of frontline police officers being run into the ground to under record crime either.  Why would they want to possibly appear less busy and overworked than they actually are?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jack McCoy
Author of the topic Posted
13 hours ago, IrateShrike said:

It's also not in the interests of frontline police officers being run into the ground to under record crime either.  Why would they want to possibly appear less busy and overworked than they actually are?

And that's also done for the wrong reasons. I remember an example when I first started, we got told we have reported too many robberies and one lad on the shift, the most senior in service in the whole station, with 22 years on response, was 'told' he needed to re-record a robbery as an assault and then a theft.

He flat out refused, despite it being less of a hassle for him to deal with the two lesser crimes than the robbery and he firmly stated he would not alter what was reported to him and substantiated by the witnesses.

This was a random mugging by a teenager with their hood up and no one knew who he was; not the victim who was pushed to the ground from behind and had his phone taken out of his hand as he was down, nor the witness who ran to his aid and help him up after the suspect bolted.

Clear as day robbery, but apparently we had too many and the Chief Inspector thought it looked bad on him, that he wasn't doing enough to decrease violent crimes, so the order came down. Alec (the cop), flat out refused and in the end, some civi in an office somewhere just it in the 'editing room'. 

Alec got a telling off and had a really bad relationship with the Chief Inspector from them on but he did right by the victim and by himself. That's the kind of policing and mentality ALL forces should be promoting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SD
On 04/12/2019 at 00:31, IrateShrike said:

I agree that it's just a numbers game, however my own personal sense of ethics and integrity kicks in when I am adding a person to a crime record as a suspect despite strongly believing that they have not committed any crime in law.  If I reasonably believe that they aren't guilty and can evidence this, how can I or anyone else possibly reasonably suspect that they are guilty??? 🤨

There also seems to be an insinuation from certain contributors to this discussion that innaccurate, over recording of crime now makes up for historical under recording.  Again, my own standards of ethics and integrity scream out that two wrongs don't make a right.

You’re still missing the point which is crime recording has nothing to do with guilt. Besides, if crime recording goes against you internal ethic so much, change jobs. Since when did you get to refuse a lawful order because you disagreed with it? 

 

On 04/12/2019 at 22:28, Jack McCoy said:

And that's also done for the wrong reasons. I remember an example when I first started, we got told we have reported too many robberies and one lad on the shift, the most senior in service in the whole station, with 22 years on response, was 'told' he needed to re-record a robbery as an assault and then a theft.

He flat out refused, despite it being less of a hassle for him to deal with the two lesser crimes than the robbery and he firmly stated he would not alter what was reported to him and substantiated by the witnesses.

This was a random mugging by a teenager with their hood up and no one knew who he was; not the victim who was pushed to the ground from behind and had his phone taken out of his hand as he was down, nor the witness who ran to his aid and help him up after the suspect bolted.

Clear as day robbery, but apparently we had too many and the Chief Inspector thought it looked bad on him, that he wasn't doing enough to decrease violent crimes, so the order came down. Alec (the cop), flat out refused and in the end, some civi in an office somewhere just it in the 'editing room'. 

Alec got a telling off and had a really bad relationship with the Chief Inspector from them on but he did right by the victim and by himself. That's the kind of policing and mentality ALL forces should be promoting.

The issues in your example are not with crime recording standards though are they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sir Penguin
On 04/12/2019 at 00:31, IrateShrike said:

I agree that it's just a numbers game, however my own personal sense of ethics and integrity kicks in when I am adding a person to a crime record as a suspect despite strongly believing that they have not committed any crime in law.  If I reasonably believe that they aren't guilty and can evidence this, how can I or anyone else possibly reasonably suspect that they are guilty??? 🤨

There also seems to be an insinuation from certain contributors to this discussion that innaccurate, over recording of crime now makes up for historical under recording.  Again, my own standards of ethics and integrity scream out that two wrongs don't make a right

It matters not whether you believe they are guilty or otherwise.

But if you have additional verifiable information i.e a credible third party witness or CCTV that proves that a crime has not occurred then a crime does not need to be recorded.

There has to be evidence to prove this rather than instinct. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...