IF fear were a climate, it would be cold and hostile. The eight law and order bills contained in this week's Queen's Speech certainly won't bring about a feeling of warmth and community. The new bills, which include plans for ID cards and on-the-spot fines for minor offences, bring the total of anti-crime bills introduced by the government since the 2001 general election to 34. Given that only two of the bills are likely to be passed before the next election, the government has been accused of using fear of crime for political efficacy, particularly as the announcements come at a time when crime levels, in general, are falling.
Fear of crime and actual crime have always been awkward bedfellows, however, and their relationship is often misunderstood. Jason Ditton, director of the Scottish Centre for Criminology in Glasgow, believes that the government hasn't grasped the issues, in spite of its bold pronouncements. ''It's a big but somewhat mistaken issue in the Home Office at the moment,'' he says. ''There's something called the National Police Reassurance Project, the basis of which is that recorded crime has been going down for a while - not across the board but generally - yet fear of crime as measured in the British crime survey has not declined nearly as much.
''The fatal flaw is that I can see no reason why, if recorded crime falls, fear of crime should fall - yet this is the premise upon which the current understanding is based. It's a fatal misconception: fear of crime is a complicated issue.''
It is commonly believed that statistics on fear of crime should reflect actual crime figures, which would mean that members of the public would base their fear on their so-called objective risk of a crime being committed against them. However, it is not that simple. ''I did a survey, asking people how likely they thought it was they would be a victim of crime next year, and nearly half thought it was either likely or very likely they would be murdered next year,'' says Ditton. ''It's bizarre. What some politicians and senior police officers think is that people rate their risk much more highly than what they call objective risk, but that's a false piece of logic because until people are actually, say, burgled, we don't know who is worrying needlessly, so why is it needless to worry? It's only when you know the outcome that worrying becomes silly.''
Such worry does not necessarily stem from our own experience of crime, newspaper stories, or crime statistics. Indeed, Ditton thinks over the past few decades there has been a more fundamental shift in how crime is perceived. ''We never had fear of crime in this country until February 1982 and the publication of the first British crime survey,'' he says. ''I don't think it's a thing that exists, I think it comes from asking questions about it. If you ask people if they fear crime they say they do, and that has been translated over the decades from a general concern about crime across the country - which is code for 'why aren't politicians doing something about this?' - into personal worry about becoming a victim. A general concern about the failure of public policy has become a private concern about being a victim.''
Whether this concern can
be translated into political gain is another question. Barry Glassner, author of The Culture of Fear: Why Americans Are Afraid of the Wrong Things, and professor of sociology at the University of Southern California, is in no doubt that it can and is. ''Politicians profit greatly by selling themselves to voters and selling their policies to voters who are much more likely to support them if they are fearful for their own safety should they not support them,'' he says. ''When crime rates are especially high or rising or if there's a new kind of crime, it's a more direct matter: they just talk about what's going on. But when crime rates are decreasing it's a more complex matter for them.
''The crime rate has been going down pretty consistently for a decade now so supporting the reduction in civil liberties or increasing funding for policing requires a new focus and that focus since 9/11 has been on terrorism. Yet the only real protection from major terrorist attacks comes from good intelligence, not from frightening the population into changing their behaviour or removing civil liberties. But it plays into other agendas and projects that some politicians have, to focus attention away from the responsibility of intelligence agencies and government to individual citizens.''
Glasner believes people are beginning to realise that
fear-mongering and high levels of fear and anxiety are problems in their own right. ''Just as crime on the street is a danger, so are high levels of fear and anxiety,'' he says. ''The consequences of this are great in themselves.''
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article