Forget lists... just put police back on streets

THERE’S no question that measuring crime using a weighted ‘harm index’ offers some useful advantages to both the police and the public. It can add a degree of clarity to crime statistics that are often crude and misleading.

It also makes it easier to tell if a much-trumpeted decrease in overall crime actually masks an increase in violent crime, or if an increase in overall crime reflects merely a rise in some minor form of lawbreaking.

It would certainly be a good thing if the adoption of a ‘harm index’ made the UK’s police forces less prone to basing their use of resources on public relations concerns – as in the belated pursuit of aged celebrity sex offenders. But there are some odd and disturbing aspects of the proposed index, not least the fact that it excludes computer and financial fraud.

It is also odd that it treats harassment as a more serious crime than smashing up someone’s car or house. Nor is it reassuring that the list gives such a high priority to ‘threats to kill’ which at No19 ranks above arson, assault with injury, car theft, and handling stolen goods. This could turn out to be an excuse for the UK’s constabularies to waste even more time and resources policing social media – and limiting free speech – than they do already.

There is also reason for dismay at the sight of ‘possession of cannabis’ at the bottom of the list. While there may be quite strong and popular arguments for legalising cannabis, the fact is that the UK’s parliaments and voters have not chosen to do this. If a police force doesn’t enforce an existing law, it foments disdain for the law in general.

But perhaps the most troubling aspect is that it takes so little note of the proven effectiveness of ‘broken windows’ policing. This commonsensical approach to law enforcement is based on the idea that if police don’t enforce laws against minor crimes like vandalism in a particular area, then that place is likely to experience more serious crimes.

It’s not a popular approach in many UK forces because it’s a proactive one that requires police to get away from their computer screens and back on the streets.

But it does work and it makes people feel safer than any configuration of crime statistics.