Gang Stalking

Each law plays the role of prohibiting certain acts owing to the fact that their harmful nature defines the one committing the act as a wrongdoer and, henceforth, a criminal subject warranted to punishment. During the same instance, there is the specification of the injured individual as a victim that specifies the injured individual as a victim who deserves redress. The laws forbidding the above are now what is considered street crimes, rape, assault, murder, theft and burglary, offences which can be traced back several thousand years. However, there recent specific illegal activities that have still not been rediscovered, such as the phenomena of ‘gang stalking’, which will be deconstructed below by describing and critically evaluating the type of harm that these groups experience and how individuals have profited from inflicting this form of suffering.

‘Gang Stalking’ as an Illegal Activity

Stalking infers to a pattern of unwanted and repeated intrusion by an individual into the life of another in a manner such that it causes fear, disruption, or distress. The concept of stalking was first introduced during the 1980s. The introduction of this concept was a form of interpersonal aggression despite the fact that throughout the ages, the concept had become socially unacceptable, especially in the Western world, after recognizing equal rights for all genders and prosecution of instances of domestic violence. To the above extent, stalking is more of a social construct that arose in a particular cultural and social context.

Currently, as there is a new turn in the millennium, another term quickly gaining currency in the media and on the internet is the concept of ‘gang’ or group’ stalking. Generally, it involves a single stalker who is occasionally recruited by others into either stalking through a proxy or their involvement in the act of stalking through unwitting involvement. It has been found out that reports of gang or group stalking describe the very act of stalking by multiple individuals who engage in a shared undertaking with a group purpose/ Victims have in the past described the number of individuals involved in this activity to be three or more, despite that in a number of instances the phenomenon or activity has involved far greater numbers.

This activity has mainly gained traction in the Western world more than elsewhere. The prevalence, as borrowed from studies, has varied based on the definition utilized. As connoted, research gathered from the Department of Justice in the US found out that more than 6.8% of individuals reported to have experienced group stalking found out that three or more people were involved. Also, in most instances, it was not possible to identify a single offender, or the victims could not simply identify a singularly responsible offender. Borne, out of the above, below is a highlight of the type of harm that has been experienced by victims of ‘gang stalking.’

The Type of Harm Experienced by Victims of ‘Gang Stalking’

Satisfaction and Trust in Crime Surveys

CSEW has, in the recent past, received higher satisfaction levels in contrast to police-recorded crimes. In this regard, the CSEW survey has been angulated as a mirror of police statistics, a factor seen it utilized as a useful device politically. For example, in the year 2007, it came in handy as a significant tool for overseeing the victory of Tony Blair, borne out of its puffing up of the performance of the government (Britton et al., 2019). Furthermore, the public has been more prompt in offering useful information to CSEW surveys in contrast to records that the police have initially recorded. Subjective perceptions have mainly articulated this the public has had of police, such as fear and lack of confidence in them, hence the reason for unreported crimes (Thompson, 2017). Therefore, in most instances, CSEW surveys have received much information on crime in contrast to police-recorded crimes owing to the public’s fear of offering information.

On the contrary, police-recorded crimes have been a measure of social constructs of crime. The count of these crimes has been dependent on the inference of ‘crime’ by law, as reliant on what has been reported, what has been discovered, and what has been recorded. As such, police-recorded crimes have been recorded based on the various decisions made at certain stages by the police, the public, and lawmakers (Farrall, 2017). Furthermore, there has been a lack of trust in police-recorded crimes and thereof satisfaction levels owing to the lack of coverage of offences regarded as being of high interest to the public, such as corporate crime and violations committed by organizations like the police themselves (Flatley, 2018). Outside influences have also been blamed for changes in reporting behaviour as time changed, which has affected crime numbers. Therefore, the public has generally failed to trust surveys or statistics on crime levels as led by the police.

Limitations of CSEW Surveys over Official Police Statistics

Range of Crimes Surveyed or Reported

CSEW has some exclusion to the scope of crime that it can include in its surveys for crimes such as crimes against businesses and organizations, drug possession, and homicide. In the same regard, there are exclusions of sexual offences from its estimates of crime surveys (Winlow, 2019). This is borne out of the sensitivity surrounding the collection of information in face-to-face interviews of the aforementioned crimes. Even initially, until recently, CSEW surveys excluded fraud. This changed in 2015 when computer misuse and fraud were added (Office for National Statistics, 2018). Equally, there are inherent limitations to the age of respondents, with upper and lower age limits for certain crimes. Therefore, this asserts there is a lack of completion in CSEW surveys.

Conversely, all crime figures recorded by the police are of importance. This is borne out of the fact that they are an indicator of their workload. All types of crime are essential for record in the light of developing a pattern analysis of crime, as well as providing an excellent measure of developments in well-recorded and well-reported crimes, especially homicides which are not part of CSEW surveys (Grove et al., 2019). Furthermore, crime categories such as offences of drug possession are equally essential to be recorded by the police owing to their influence on police priorities and activities.

Recall and Unwillingness to Crime Report Limitation

CSEW depends on respondents’ ability to recall past experiences for the past 12 months. Therein, the measure of crime utilized by this survey largely depends on the respondent’s accuracy in remembering (Britton et al., 2019). The estimates can, therefore, be skewed by the respondents’ ability to remember past events, leading to inaccurate records. Also, some of the respondents may distort some information in the hopes of attaining some personal gain or preference for a particular account of the crime, hence biasing the information (Wutthijamnong, 2017). In the same light, some respondents may not be willing to disclose some experiences in which they were victimized because the survey setting is face-to-face. Therefore, CSEW estimates of personal crime perpetuated on individuals may not be accounted for.

Even though police records equally suffer from an unwillingness to report some crimes similar to CSEW surveys, there are no issues relative to a recall of information. In most instances, police crime records are based on first-hand and on-time experiences. Therefore, most of the crimes reported using this method are from recent times, and most respondents do not have to take long to recall their experiences, and hence, in most cases, offer an accurate account of details (Office for National Statistics, 2020). Furthermore, most of the information provided by the respondents in police-recorded crimes warrants an investigation. Thereof, the information conveyed is subject to truth-finding, despite the impediment that the information is warranted to investigations, and henceforth a downside to the quality of crime records (Elkin, 2020). In this regard, to some extent, bias is eliminated, even though revisions are not considered in regard to the ONS regulatory framework.

Crime Definition Limitation

In CSEW, despite some incidents falling under the category of legal offences, the respondent may only record as an offence where a respondent sees them or does not see them in that light. In most instances, the survey does not refer to these incidents as crimes; instead, they use legal terminologies or infer them based on specific offences (Michale and Alaster, 2017). This problem of definition is mostly relevant to minor offences and other variants of violence. In the same regard, certain social groups have different assertions or perceptions of what constitutes crimes (Jennings, Gray, Hay, and Farrall, 2015). Evidence has in the past suggested that groups that are not well-off may have a high threshold of tolerance instead and are less likely to contribute to some incidents viewed as crimes to the survey.

On the contrary, police-reported crime is subject to the use of explicit definitions. In most instances, they rely on the illustrations consecrated within the constitution or legal documents. Therefore, reports of crime to the police are well documented with regard to all crime types.

Conclusion

There is an observation that both CSEW and official police statistics are subject to inherent strengths and weaknesses borne out of the above comparison. Therefore, the debacle on which is a better measure of crime, borne out of efficiency, is not entirely significant. In this regard, relevant authorities need to note the importance of the combination of these two forms of surveys in providing adequate coverage of the crime committed or perpetrated against the public. This should be more relevant to crimes involving damage or loss of property and physical harm. Henceforth, there is a need to consolidate all the reports with a matter of importance without judgement of how efficient of which survey report is more important to the other.

References

Thompson, A. K. (2017, March 1). Official Crime Statistics for England and Wales. ReviseSociology. https://revisesociology.com/2016/05/25/official-crime-statistics-england-and-wales/.

ONS: Crime Survey for England and Wales. (2018). Computer Fraud & Security, 2018(11), 4. doi:10.1016/s1361-3723(18)30105-2

Michael, L., & Alaster, S. (2017). A comparative analysis of organized crime conspiracy legislation and practice and their relevance to England and Wales. Transnational Organized Crime, 161-184. doi:10.4324/9781315084565-12

Grove, L., Tseloni, A., & Tilley, N. (2019). Crime, inequality, and change in England and Wales. The International Crime Drop. doi:10.1057/9781137291462.0016

Flatley, J. (2018). British Crime Survey. Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-5690-2_449

Elkin, M. (2020, January 23). Crime in England and Wales: year ending September 2019. Crime in England and Wales – Office for National Statistics. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/yearendingseptember2019.

Britton, A., Kershaw, C., Osborne, S., & Smith, K. (2019). Underlying patterns within the England and Wales crime drop. The International Crime Drop. doi:10.1057/9781137291462.0015

ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE

We’ll write everything from scratch

Criminal Victimization

This week, we learned about Victimology from a social scientific perspective and how it essentially serves as a specialization of criminology with an emphasis on researcher / practitioner objectivity in studying crime victims.

Gang Stalking

For your Unit 1 Complete assignment, draft a narrative essay in minimum of 1,200 words in which you address and discuss the questions and statements listed below. Use at minimum of THREE scholarly sources (race textbook can be used as one of those sources) and remember to demonstrate a thorough understanding of the READ and ATTEND sections in your essay. A strong emphasis will be placed on your critical thinking/problem solving skills when responding to the weekly try questions. Please cite your response and sources in accordance with APA rules of writing. The aforementioned are the minimum requirements. You are encouraged to exceed those minimum requirements.

Instructions:

Identify a group of victims of some specific illegal activity who has still not been “rediscovered,” and was NOT mentioned in your required reading. Describe and critically evaluate the types of harm this group could be experiencing. Have others profited from their sufferings? Explain

Textbook:

• Karmen, A. (2016). Crime victims: An introduction to victimology. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.