The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER FOUR PUBLIC ATTITUDES TOWARDS CRIME AND THE CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM

4.1 Crime surveys have often identified a difference between the public's perceptions of the extent of crime (both in their local area and in Scotland as a whole) and the actual risk of becoming a victim of crime. In the first half of this chapter, we examine the perceptions and concerns of the people of Scotland in relation to crime and anti-social behaviour. Overall, this shows that although crime is still seen as a problem in Scotland, trends indicate that household crime at least is perceived as becoming less common. To an increasing extent, public perceptions of crime (and the relative risk of different types of crime) appear to reflect actual victimisation rates.

4.2 In the second half of the chapter, we explore the public's perceptions and experience of dealing with the police and the other agencies which make up the Scottish Criminal Justice System.

Crime as a National Problem

4.3 Before examining the public's perceptions of crime in detail, it is worth viewing crime in the context of other social issues. At the beginning of the questionnaire, before the victim form, respondents were asked to say how much of a problem they thought various issues were in Scotland today, from a 'big problem' to 'not a problem at all'. The proportion of respondents who thought each of these issues was either a 'big problem' or a 'bit of a problem' is shown in Figure 4.1 below.

Figure 4.1 Proportion of respondents regarding issues as either 'a big problem' or 'a bit of a problem'

Source: 2006 SCVS (n = 4,988)

4.4 Crime was considered to be a problem by 93%, with just under six in ten (56%) considering it to be 'a big problem'. This is not significantly different from the comparable figure for the 2003 survey which was 94%.

4.5 Anti-social behaviour was also considered by most people (91%) to be a problem in Scotland. The only issues considered to be more problematic than crime and anti-social behaviour were alcohol and drug abuse.

4.6 There are many ways in which people's perceptions of crime can be shaped, and a key factor is likely to be first-hand experience. It is perhaps unsurprising to find that those who had been a victim of crime (since the 1st April 2005) were significantly more likely to consider crime to be 'a big problem' in Scotland compared with those who had not been victims (62% compared with 53%).

4.7 Annex Table A4.1 shows how the proportion of people considering crime to be a problem in the 2006 survey varied by key demographic groups. The key difference was that women were significantly more likely than men to consider crime to be a problem in Scotland (96% compared with 91%); the difference in the proportion of men and women considering crime to be 'a big problem' was larger still (61% of women compared with 50% of men).

Crime as a Local Problem

4.8 Further insight into people's perceptions of crime can be gained from exploring their views about the area where they live. Respondents who had lived in their local area for 2 years or more were asked whether they thought the level of crime in their area had changed over the previous 2 years (with the local area being defined as the area within 15 minutes walk from the respondent's home).

4.9 In the 2006 survey, although around 6 in 10 (57%) felt that the crime rate in their local area had stayed about the same over the last 2 years, around a third (32%) felt that the crime rate had increased, with 13 per cent feeling there was 'a lot more' crime (Table 4.1). This was significantly lower than the proportion who felt that crime had increased in their area in the 2 years prior to either the 2003 or 2000 surveys. Over time, however, there was not an increase in the proportion who felt that crime levels in their local area were decreasing; it was rather that respondents in the 2006 survey were more likely than those in previous sweeps to feel that crime in their local area had stayed at about the same level.

4.10 It must of course be remembered that a person's perceptions about crime levels are shaped by many different factors (such as their own experiences, the experiences of people they know, local newspapers and television programmes etc) and are often out of line with actual incidence rates.

Table 4.1 Respondents perceptions of the change in the crime rate in their local area over the two years prior to interview

Source: 2006 SCVS, All respondents who have lived in local area for at least two years (n=4,433); 2003 SCS (n=4,443); 2000 SCS (n=4,512)

4.11 The difference in the perception of levels of crime between those who had been victimised and those who had not was a lot more pronounced at the local level than at the national level. Over a third of victims (36%) felt that crime had increased in their local area over the last 2 years, compared with 24% of non-victims.

4.12 Annex Table A4.1 shows how perceptions of change in the local crime rate varied by demographic group. The key differences were similar to those reported above with regard to national perceptions. Women were again significantly more likely than men to feel that the crime rate in the local area had increased in the last 2 years (33% compared with 29%).

4.13 Those renting from the council or a housing association were considerably more likely than private renters and owner occupiers to feel that the crime rate in their local area had increased over the last 2 years (39% compared with 29% and 30% respectively).

4.14 There was also considerable variation by ACORN group. The ACORN classification can be useful in analysis as the groupings cut across other demographic variables, and therefore can help to summarise any variations. A detailed explanation of the ACORN classification and the individual groupings are contained in Annex 5. In general, those classified as living in more deprived areas were more likely than those living in affluent areas to feel that the crime rate had increased. For example, one in 6 people (17%) living in areas classified as 'City Lifestyle' felt that the crime rate had increased in their local area in the last 2 years, compared with 44% of those living in areas characterised as 'Struggling singles'. This is despite the fact that the risk of being a victim of crime did not vary significantly between these 2 types of areas.

Perceptions of the frequency of crime

4.15 The above analysis focuses on people's perception of 'crime' in general in their local area. In order to understand more about the types of crimes that might affect these general perceptions, respondents were asked how common they perceived specific types of crime to be in their local area (Table 4.2).

4.16 Exactly half (50%) of respondents thought that drug dealing and drug abuse was a very or fairly common problem in their local area. Anti-social behaviour (which does not necessarily involve any criminal act per se) was considered to be a common problem by just under half of respondents (48%). A third (34%) considered deliberate damage to property or vehicles to be a common problem, while assaults and having things stolen from a vehicle were considered a common problem by just under a quarter of respondents (23% and 22% respectively). Only 4% of respondents felt that sexual assault was very or fairly common in their local area.

4.17 This analysis highlights that while nearly all respondents felt that crime was a problem in Scotland, the specific types of crime seen as common in the local area were quite varied.

Table 4.2 Percentage of respondents considering specific crime types 'very' or 'fairly' common

Source: 2006 SCVS, Follow up A respondents (n=2,512)

4.18 Figure 4.2 shows (for crimes which are directly comparable with previous waves of the survey) how people's perceptions about how common crimes are in their local area have changed since 1993.

4.19 Since the 1993 survey there has been a gradual decrease in the proportion of respondents reporting that incidents of acquisitive crime are common in their local area. The 2006 survey shows a continuation of this trend, which is in line with the actual decline in the incidence of these crime types. Trends in perceptions about the frequency of violent crimes follow a less clear trend: the proportion of people who felt that assaults or attacks were common in their local area fell significantly between 1993 and 2000 from 26 to 14%, before rising to 23% in the 2004 survey, and remaining at this level in the 2006 survey. The proportion of respondents who felt that muggings or robberies were very or fairly common in their local area has been reasonably constant since 1993.

4.20 Overall, these findings suggest that public perceptions appear increasingly to be broadly in line with actual victimisation rates (e.g. with the public perceiving housebreaking to be declining but assault to be on the increase).

Figure 4.2 Percentage of respondents considering specific crime types 'very' or 'fairly' common since 1993-2006

Source: 2006 Scottish Crime and Victimisation Survey, Follow Up A respondents (n = 2,512); 2003 Scottish Crime Survey (n=2,530); 2000 Scottish Crime Survey (n=2,542); 1996 Scottish Crime Survey (n=2,511); 1993 Scottish Crime Survey (n=2,517)

4.21 Further details on how these responses differ by key demographics can be found in Annex Table A4.2 but, as with perceptions about crime in general, one of the factors having a significant impact on perceptions about the frequency of crimes was whether or not respondents had themselves been the victim of crime. Figure 4.3 clearly shows that those who had been a victim of crime since 1st April 2005 were significantly more likely to consider every crime type to be very or fairly common in their local area compared with non-victims.

Figure 4.3 Proportion of respondents regarding crimes as common in their local area by victim status

Source: 2006 Scottish Crime and Victimisation Survey, Follow Up A respondents (n=2,512); Victims (n=772); Non-victims (n=1740)

Public anxiety about crime

4.22 A further way of uncovering the public's perceptions of crime is to ask directly about their feelings of safety and concern about crime. Respondents were asked how safe they felt when walking alone after dark and when alone at home at night, and how worried they were about becoming a victim of specific types of crime.

Feelings of safety: Walking alone at night

4.23 Feelings of safety while walking alone after dark is often used as a proxy measure for fear of crime ¹⁸. Overall, just over 3 in 10 respondents (32%) reported that they felt unsafe while walking alone after dark (which was the same as the proportion that reported feeling unsafe in the 2003 survey). Just over one in 10 (12%) reported that they felt 'very unsafe'.

4.24 Feelings of safety varied greatly between men and women, as shown by Figure 4.4. Women were more than twice as likely as men to report that they felt unsafe walking alone after dark (43% compared with 20%). Those aged over 60 were more likely than other age groups to say that they felt unsafe. This applied to both men and women. In fact over half of women aged 60 or over (53%) reported that they felt unsafe when walking alone at night.

4.25 Figure 4.4 Proportion of respondents feeling unsafe when walking alone in local area after dark

Source: 2006 Scottish Crime and Victimisation Survey (n=4,988); Males (n=2,191); Females (n=2,797)

Feelings of Safety: Being alone at home at night

4.26 It was very uncommon for respondents to report that they felt unsafe when alone at home at night. Overall, 6% of respondents said that they felt either 'very' or 'a bit' unsafe when alone at home at night (no significant change from the 2003 survey). Women were 3 times as likely as men to say that they felt unsafe (9% compared with 3%). Unlike walking outside it was not women aged over 60 who were the most likely to feel unsafe in this situation, but rather women aged 16-24 (16%) (see Figure 4.5). It is possible that safety awareness campaigns aimed at younger women may have increased awareness of possible fears or dangers. There were no differences according the number of people living in the household (either overall or within gender).

Figure 4.5 Proportion of respondents feeling unsafe when alone at home after dark

Source: 2006 Scottish Crime and Victimisation Survey (n=4,988); Males (n=2,191); Females (n=2,797)

4.27 Further information on feelings of safety after dark analysed by key demographic variables can be found in Annex Table A4.3.

Worry about specific crimes

4.28 Respondents were also asked how worried they were about becoming a victim of specific crimes (Table 4.3).

4.29 The crime which the greatest proportion of respondents were worried about was vehicle vandalism, with half of vehicle owners (49%) either 'very' or 'fairly' worried ¹⁹. Around 4 in 10 respondents (41%) were worried about having their homes broken into, while a slightly lower proportion (37%) were worried about being mugged or being physically assaulted in the street or a public place. This ranking broadly reflects the actual rates of victimisation reported by the survey, with motor vehicle vandalism the most common type of crime as well as showing the highest level of worry among the public. The exception is housebreaking, which ranks second in the public's list of worries, despite being less common than other types of crime in 2005/6.

4.30 The crime which people were least likely to be worried about was being physically attacked because of skin colour, ethnic origin or religion (13%). However, amongst black or Asian respondents (76 respondents) exactly half (50%) were worried about being the victim of this type of crime. In fact, more black or Asian respondents were worried about this type of crime compared with any other type.

Table 4.3 Percentage of respondents either 'very' or 'fairly' worried about crime

Source: 2006 SCVS, All respondents (n=4,988)
* These figures exclude "not applicable" answers (ie non-vehicle owners)

4.31 Figure 4.6 shows how worries about different types of crimes have changed since 1993 (concern about several other crime types are shown in Annex Table A4.5).

4.32 The proportion of respondents reporting that they were worried about having their homes broken into; being mugged or robbed; having their home damaged by vandals or being sexually assaulted has been gradually falling since the 1993 survey.

4.33 There was a significant increase between the 2003 and 2006 surveys in the proportion of respondents reporting being worried about vehicle vandalism. In the 2006 survey, this proportion was 49 per cent compared with 39 per cent in the 2003 survey. As noted above, this is also the type of crime with the highest rate of victimisation in 2005/6, although the level of victimisation has remained constant in recent years.

Figure 4.6 Percentage of respondents either 'very' or 'fairly worried' about particular crimes (1993-2006)

Source: 2006 Scottish Crime and Victimisation Survey (n = 4988) ; 2004 SCVS (n = 3034); 2003 SCS (n= 5,041); 2000 SCS (n = 5,059); 1996 SCS (n = 5,045); 1993 SCS (n=5,030)

4.34 Those who had been a victim of any crime recorded by the survey during the reference period (2005/6) were significantly more likely to be worried about every type of crime than those who had not (Figure 4.7). The difference was most pronounced for worry about motor vehicle vandalism, where 67% of victims reported that they were either 'very' or 'fairly' worried about having their car or other vehicle damaged by vandals, compared with 40% of non-victims.

Figure 4.7 Proportion of respondents either 'very' or 'fairly' worried about being victim of particular crimes (by victim status)

Source: 2006 Scottish Crime and Victimisation Survey, Victims (n=1,509); Non-victims (n=3,479)

4.35 Figure 4.8 shows the proportions 'very' or 'fairly' worried about being a victim of particular crimes, split according to whether respondents had actually been a victim of that type of crime. The analysis is limited to crime types where the 'worry about crime' question is comparable with an offence category. The chart shows that victims of various types of crime were considerably more likely to be worried about being a victim of that type of crime (again) compared with those who had not experienced that crime. For each crime type, at least two thirds (65%) of victims were either 'very' or 'fairly' worried about that type of crime (although there were very small numbers of victims of vehicle theft and theft from a vehicle, so these two comparisons must be treated with caution).

Figure 4.8 Proportion of respondents 'very' or 'fairly' worried about being the victim of particular crimes by whether or not they had been a victim of that particular type of crime

Source: 2006 Scottish Crime and Victimisation Survey, Victims of vehicle theft (n=21); Victims of theft from vehicle (n=27); Victims of vehicle vandalism (n=270); Victims of property vandalism (n=126); Victims of housebreaking (n=106)

4.36 A full demographic analysis of those who said they were worried about specific crime types is provided in Annex Tables A4.4.

Experience of the Criminal Justice System

4.37 The second follow-up module within the questionnaire (Follow Up B) asked respondents a series of questions about their experience of dealing with the various agencies (the Police, the Procurator Fiscal, the Judiciary etc) which make up the Scottish Criminal Justice System ( CJS).

4.38 Seven in 10 respondents (70%) had been in contact with at least one of the bodies comprising the CJS at some time in the past. Table 4.4 shows the proportion of respondents who had ever had contact with each of the agencies.

4.39 Respondents were most likely to have had contact with the police, with over 6 in 10 (64%) having had dealings with them at some point in their lives. Around one in 5 (21%) had been in contact with the Scottish Court Service; one in 6 (17%) with the Procurator Fiscal and one in 9 (11%) with the Judiciary. Less than 10% of respondents had reported any contact with the Crown Office, the Scottish Prison Service or Criminal Justice Social work.

4.40 Those who had been a victim of crime in the time since the 1st April 2005 were significantly more likely to have had contact with the police or the Procurator Fiscal than those who had not been victims of crime. Amongst those who had been a victim of crime since the 1st April 2005, only 15% reported that they had never had any contact with any of the agencies within the Scottish Criminal Justice System.

Table 4.4 Percentage of respondents who have ever had contact with each agency in the CJS

Source: 2006 SCVS, All Follow-up B respondents (n=2,476)

Experience of dealing with the police

Public-initiated contact

4.41 Respondents were asked whether they had made contact with the police during the reference period ²⁰. Just over 4 in 10 respondents (42%) had contacted the police during this time, and Table 4.5 shows the different methods which were used to do so.

4.42 Around 3 in 10 respondents (29%) had contacted the police via telephone (but not through a 999 call); this was the most common method of contacting the police. One in 6 respondents (16%) had called in at a station; 8% had made a 999 call and 7% had approached and spoken to a police officer.

Table 4.5 Proportion of respondents who had contacted the police by various methods since 1 st April 2005

Source: 2006 SCVS, All Follow-up B respondents (n=2,390)
Responses add to more than 100% since respondents could give more than one answer

4.43 Table 4.6 summarises the main reasons given by respondents for contacting the police since the 1st April 2005. In cases where respondents had contacted the police on more than one occasion during this time, they were asked for the reason they contacted the police on the most recent occasion.

4.44 The most common reason for contacting the police was to report a crime of which either the respondent or someone in their household was the victim. Over a quarter of respondents (27%) who had contacted the police in the last year had done so for this reason. Other common reasons for contacting the police were to report some form of disturbance, noise or nuisance (20%); to ask for information or advice (15%); to report that something had been either lost or found (14%); or to report crimes which had happened to someone who was not part of the respondent's household (10%).

Table 4.6 Reasons for contacting the police (on most recent occasion) since 1 st April 2005

Source: 2006 SCVS, All respondents who had contact with police (n=822)

4.45 Respondents who had had contact with the police during this period were then asked how satisfied they were with the way in which the police had dealt with the matter. Overall 75% were either 'very' or 'fairly' satisfied, as is shown by Figure 4.9, but the level of satisfaction varied depending on the reason for contact (Table 4.7).

Figure 4.9 Satisfaction with the way police dealt with matters when contacted by respondents

Source: 2006 SCVS, All who had contacted the police (n=803)

Table 4.7 Percentage of respondents who were either 'very' or 'fairly' satisfied with the way police dealt with the matter

Source: 2006 SCVS, All respondents who had contacted the police for specific reasons

4.46 In general, it seems that satisfaction with the police was inversely related to the importance of the incident to respondents themselves. For example, respondents reporting crimes where they personally (or another household member) were the victims were significantly less likely to be satisfied with the way the police handled the matter, compared with respondents who were simply reporting that an item had been lost or stolen or who were just asking for information or advice. Satisfying someone who has reported a crime may be more dependent on the outcome of any police investigation - for example, whether the offender is caught - whereas a courteous and helpful telephone response may be sufficient to satisfy someone who is simply calling for advice.

Police-initiated contact

4.47 The questions discussed above refer to contact between the public and the police which was initiated by the public. The public's perceptions of the police can also be formed by the way the police handle contacts that they themselves have initiated, such as stopping people to ask them questions or to search them, or asking for information in connection with a crime which has been committed. Respondents who had been contacted by the police for any reason were asked how satisfied they were with the way that the police dealt with the matter. Over 8 in 10 respondents (82%) who had been contacted by the police said they were either 'very' or 'fairly' satisfied with the way the police handled the matter.

Experience of Dealing with the Procurator Fiscal

4.48 All respondents who reported that they had ever had contact with the Procurator Fiscal were asked how this had come about (Table 4.8). Respondents could give more than one answer (eg. say they were both a witness and a victim).

4.49 The most common ways in which respondents had had contact with the Procurator Fiscal were either as a witness (38%) or as an offender (32%). For around one in 5, the reason for contact was either having been a victim, or in a professional capacity.

Table 4.8 Reasons for contact with the Procurator Fiscal

Source: 2006 SCVS. All who had contact with Office of Procurator Fiscal (n =411)
Responses add to more than 100% since respondents could give more than one answer

4.50 All those who had had contact with the Procurator Fiscal were asked how satisfied they were with the way in which the Office had dealt with the most recent contact. Overall 70% were either 'very' or 'fairly satisfied' but, as Table 4.9 shows, the level of satisfaction again varied depending on the reason for this contact.

4.51 As with satisfaction with the police, it was victims of crime who were least likely to feel satisfied with the way the Procurator Fiscal dealt with the matter, with just under half being either 'very' or 'fairly' satisfied. Interestingly those who had had contact with the Procurator Fiscal as 'offenders' were significantly more likely to be satisfied than were victims (67% compared with 49%). Those who had had contact with the Procurator Fiscal in some professional capacity were the group most likely to be satisfied.

4.52 As noted above, respondents could place themselves in more than one category (e.g. both a victim and a witness). If analysis is limited to those who were a victim but not a witness and vice versa, the variation in satisfaction is even more pronounced:

• 79% of those who were a witness but not a victim were satisfied
• 44% of those who were a victim but not a witness were satisfied.

Table 4.9 Percentage of respondents who were either 'very' or 'fairly' satisfied with contact with the Procurator Fiscal by reason for contact

Source: 2006 SCVS, All those who had contact with the Procurator Fiscal by reason for contact

Confidence in the Scottish Criminal Justice System

4.53 A series of 5 questions were asked which sought to elicit the level of confidence that respondents had in the Scottish Criminal Justice System ( SCJS). The findings were as follows:

• 40% were either very or fairly confident that the SCJS deals with cases promptly and efficiently
• 53% were either very or fairly confident that the SCJS provides equal access to the legal system for all
• 51% were either very or fairly confident that the SCJS serves all communities of Scotland equally and fairly
• 38% were either very or fairly confident that the SCJS provides an appropriately high standard of service for victims of crime
• 44% were either very or fairly confident that the SCJS provides an appropriately high standard of service for witnesses

4.54 A full breakdown of how this varied by key groups is provided in Annex Table A4.6. The key difference was between those who had been victim of crime since 1st April 2005 and those who had not. Those who had been victim of crime were less likely to report that they were confident in any of the above aspects of the SCJS. However, neither contact with nor perceived knowledge of the SCJS seemed to impact on confidence: there was little difference between those who reported that they had ever had contact with the SCJS and those who had not; and between those that claimed to know 'a lot' or 'a fair amount' about the SCJS and those who claimed to know 'not very much' or 'nothing at all'.

« Previous | Contents | Next »