Scottish Government

4 The Impact and Perceptions of Crime

4.1 Chapter summary

This chapter investigates the impact of crime on victims, their perceptions of the crime itself and the outcome for the offender.

Monetary impacts - property crime

• In over half of property crime (51%) when property was damaged, victims valued damaged items at £300 or less. Just 14% of damaged property was valued at more than £300 and 36% said they did not know the value of the damaged items;
• In 78% property crimes when property was stolen, victims valued stolen items at £300 or less. Just 11% of stolen property was valued at more than £300.

Injuries sustained

Injures were sustained in nearly two-thirds (65%) of violent crime.

Whether what happened was a crime or not

In 70% of crime victims said they thought what happened was a crime; in 14% of crime, victims described it as wrong but not a crime and in 16% of crime victims said it was just something that happened.

• Property crime was more likely to be described as a crime by victims compared with violent crime (71% compared with 66%);
• Violent crime was more likely to be described by victims as 'just something that happens' compared with property crime (20% compared with 14%).

What should have happened to offender(s)

In 57% of crime, victims said the offender should have been prosecuted in court.

In 40% of crime, victims said that the offender should not have been prosecuted in court.

In 22% of crime where the victim thought that the offender should have been prosecuted, the victim thought the offender should have been given a prison sentence.

4.2 Introduction

This chapter presents results which describe the impact of crime on victims, their perception of the crime itself and the outcome for the offender. The chapter describes:

• The emotions victims felt, the injuries sustained by victims in violent crime and the financial impact of property crime;
• Victims' perceptions including: whether they thought an incident was a crime or not; and their views on the offender going to court and what type of sentence or other treatment they should have received.

4.3 Impact of crime

4.3.1 Monetary impacts - property crime

Respondents who were victims of property crime were asked the approximate value of damaged or stolen items ^[40]. The range of values given was wide, reflecting the diverse property crime included under this heading, for example from stolen vehicles to property damaged in minor incidents of vandalism.

Figure 4.1 shows:

• In over half of property crime (51%) when property was damaged, victims valued damaged items at £300 or less. Just 14% of damaged property was valued at more than £300 and 36% said they did not know the value of the damaged items;
• In 78% property crimes when property was stolen, victims valued stolen items at £300 or less. Just 11% of stolen property was valued at more than £300.

Figure 4.1: Value of damaged / stolen items
SCJS 2010/11.
Base: Property crime where something was damaged / stolen (damaged 1,245; stolen 1,132).
Variable name: QSVA and QDVA.

The extent to which the financial loss was recouped depends on whether the property was covered by insurance and if it was covered, whether an insurance claim was made.

• Items were covered by insurance in 42% of property crimes where items were damaged or stolen;
• Claims were made in 19% of property crimes where damaged or stolen goods were insured.

4.3.2 Injuries sustained - violent crime

Violent crime includes attempted assault, serious assault, minor assault and robbery. The degree of violence varied considerably between the different types of crime as did the level of injury sustained. Serious assault, by definition, involved serious injury. ^[41] At the other end of the scale some incidents of minor assault resulted in no injury and included incidents of attempted assault and threats where the offender had a weapon. Robbery could result in serious, minor or no injury but also involved the threat of force.

Injures were sustained in nearly two-thirds of (65%) of violent crime (Figure 4.2).

• In 69% of violent crimes where the victim suffered an injury, they sustained minor bruising or a black eye;
• In 31% the victim received scratches or minor cuts;
• In 27% the victim received severe bruising;
• In 9% the victim sustained severe cuts, gashes, tears or punctures to the skin;
• In 6% the victim recieved head injuries.

Figure 4.2: Injuries sustained in violent crime where the victim was physically injured
SCJS 2010/11.
Base: Violent crime where victim was physically injured (191).
Variable name: QINW.

4.3.3 Emotions felt

Victims were asked what, if any, emotions they felt after the crime happened. Table 4.1 shows emotions felt by victims in all crime and specifically of property crime and violent crime.

• Across all crimes, victims were most likely to experience annoyance and anger (both experienced by 54% of all victims of crime).
• Victims of violent crime were more likely than victims of property crime to experience more strongly negative emotional responses such as shock, fear, loss of confidence, anxiety and depression..
• Victims of violent crime were also more likely to report that they experienced no emotional reaction after an incident (7% reported this) compared with victims of property crime (4%).

Table 4.1: Emotional responses to crime
SCJS 2010/11.
Base: All SCJS crime (2,606); property crime (2,249); violent crime (357).
Variable name: QEMO.

4.4 Perceptions of crime

This section examines whether the victim considered what happened to them to be a crime or not. It then explores victims' opinions of what action, if any, should have been taken against the offender.

4.4.1 Whether what happened was a crime

It is possible that victims did not consider the incident they experienced to be a crime. Whether they did or not may have depended on the nature of the incident itself and their own perceptions of the incident. The SCJS asked victims explicitly whether they thought what happened to them was a crime, wrong but not a crime, or just something that happens (Figure 4.3).

• In 70% of crime victims said they thought what happened was a crime.
• In 14% of crime victims described the incident as wrong but not a crime;
• In 16% of crime victims said the incident was just something that happened; and
• Victims of violent crime were less likely than victims of property crime to say that what had happened to them was a crime and more likely to say that it was 'just something that happens'.

Figure 4.3: Whether what happened was a crime or not
SCJS 2010/11.
Base: All SCJS crime (2606), property crime (2249); violent crime (357).
Variable name: QCRNO.

4.4.2 What should have happened to offender

Victims were asked whether they thought the offender should have been prosecuted in court or not. All victims were asked this regardless of whether the police had come to know about the crime or identified the offender and regardless of whether the victim believed what happened to be a crime.

• In 57% of crimes victims said that the offender should have been prosecuted in court;
• In 40% of crimes victims said that the offender should not have been prosecuted in court; and
• In 3% of crimes victims said they did not know whether the offender should have been prosecuted or not.

Those who did not think the offender should have been prosecuted in court, were asked the reason for this. As Table 4.2 shows, the most common reasons given for all crime were that:

• The incident was too trivial (40%);
• It would be a waste of time or money (17%);
• The courts are inappropriate for the specific offence (14%); and
• The offenders were too young or were children (13%).

There were some notable variations by type of crime:

• Victims did not think that the offender should have been prosecuted in court because the incident was too trivial in 44% of property crime compared with 29% of violent crime;
• Victims did not think that the offender should have been prosecuted in court because the incident was personal, private or dealt with by the victim in 21% of violent crime compared with 5% of property crime; and
• Victims did not think that the offender should have been prosecuted in court because the incident was a common event / just something that happens in 14% of violent crime compared with 4% per cent of property crime.

Table 4.2: Reasons why offender should not have been prosecuted in court
SCJS 2010/11.
Base: Crime where victim did not think the offender should have been prosecuted (all SCJS crime 976; property crime 825; violent crime 151).
Variable name: QNCO.

4.4.3 Alternatives to prosecution for offender - victims' opinions

In crime where victims said that the offender should not have been prosecuted in court respondents were asked what should have happened as an alternative to prosecution (Table 4.3). Victims most often said that the offender should have:

• Apologised for what they had done (24%);
• Been given some kind of warning (23%);
• Been made to pay the victim compensation (12%);
• Done something to help the victim or the community (10%).

In 9% of such crime victims said that nothing should have happened to the offender.

The alternatives suggested also varied by type of crime (Table 4.3).

Victims of property crime were more likely than victims of violent crime to propose compensation paid to the victim or help for the victim and community as alternatives to prison. While victims of violent crime were more likely to say that nothing should have happened to the offender.

Table 4.3: Alternatives to prosecution for offender - victims' opinions
SCJS 2010/11
Base: Crime where victim did not think the offender should have been prosecuted / did not know whether they should have been or not (all SCJS crime 1,053; property crime 896; violent crime 157).
Variable name: QNCA.

4.4.4 Prosecution of offender - victims' opinions

In 57% of crime victims said the offender should have been prosecuted in court. Victims said the offender should have gone to court in 58% of property crime compared with 52% of violent crime.

Those victims who thought the offender should have been prosecuted in court were asked whether the offender should have been given a prison sentence or another kind of sentence (Figure 4.4).

• In 22% of crime where the victim thought that the offender should have been prosecuted, the victim thought the offender should have been given a prison sentence. Victims said the offender should have been sentenced to prison in 35% of such violent crime and in 18% of such property crime;
• In 74% of crime where the victim thought that the offender should have been prosecuted, the victim said that the offender should have been given another kind of sentence. Victims said the offender should have been given a sentence other than a prison sentence in 79% of such property crime and in 59% of such violent crime.

Figure 4.4: Whether offender should have been given a prison sentence or another sentence
SCJS 2010/11.
Base: All crime where victim thinks the offender should have been prosecuted in court (all SCJS crime 1,551; property crime 1,353; violent crime 198).
Variable name: QSEN.

Note: Combined percentages for prison and other sentences do not add up to 100% as some respondents expressed no opinion on which type of sentence should have been given to the offender(s).

4.4.5 Alternatives to prison for offender - victims' opinions

Those victims who thought the offender should have been prosecuted in court and given an alternative sentence to prison were asked what sentence the court should have given the offender (Table 4.4).

Table 4.4: Alternative to prison for offender - victims' opinions
SCJS 2010/11.
Base: Crime where victim thought offender should have been prosecuted in court and given an alternative to a prison sentence (all SCJS crime 1,182; property crime 1,065; violent crime 117).
Variable name: QNPS.