We recently watched an excellent movie, An Amish Murder. (I highly recommend it.) In the movie, the Sheriff was trying to solve a serial murder case. She contacted the State of Alaska and asked for any information on murders by exsanguination. They said they had none. She was convinced her suspect was someone who had been in Alaska for a number of years. So she called the Alaskan LEOs and asked them to check again. The guy she contacted asked her what exsanguination was. She explained it, and he responded, Oh, we call that blood letting. And yes, I remember some cases. I'll get them for you.clarionite wrote:AndyC wrote:Well, stats are part of the problem now in a country where they won't define a rape as rape until someone has actually been convicted for it.
This is recent: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/lo ... al-5172325" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
We're not much better here...
Once upon a time I wrote a system that reported UCR and NIBRS data. I spent quite a bit of time with the FBI building a matrix of what to report and what not to report. I also dealt with a lot of sheriffs. You'd be surprised how the numbers for the exact same crimes will look depending on if it's an election year or not. If it's an election year, the stats make it look like crime is dropping under the sheriff's excellent leadership. If it's a non election year, it looks like the sheriff needs additional funding to help with the recent crime uptick. And as far as rape reporting goes... I bet you'd be surprised that by FBI statistics there are no rapes that occur in male prisons. That's because male on male non consensual sexual activity is reported as an assault to the FBI.
This is a very common problem in law enforcement. Unless crimes are described exactly the same way in every jurisdiction (which is just about an insurmountable problem), the statistics will not accurately reflect the occurances of the various crimes.