Highest Harm Crime “Recruiters” in a London Borough: a Case of Moving Targets

Abstract

Research Question Can criminal recruiters be identified and ranked by crime harm levels in a London borough, and if so, how long is the predictive window of opportunity for targeting them with crime prevention efforts? Data This study deploys 5 years of Metropolitan Police Service crime data, relating to one of the 32 London boroughs in that time period. The data structure allowed identification of all suspects linked to the same crime report and all crime reports linked to the same suspects. Identification of linked suspects and their associated crime harm was undertaken using Structured Query Language (SQL) and ColdFusion Markup Language (CFML) via a web-based application. Methods All offenders were ranked by the number of co-offenders they acquired, as well as the total Cambridge crime harm index weight of the detected offences associated with them. Findings The highest harm recruiters are shown to be up to 137 times as harmful as the average offender, with one recruiter committing the same number of crimes as another but having 97 times more crime harm. Recruiter populations are highly dynamic, with few potential targets persisting from year to year over multiple years. Conclusions This study suggests that criminal recruiters are readily identifiable from police data, but police would only have a short window of opportunity to use deterrent or other preventive strategies with them once they are identified.

A simple metric for predicting repeated intimate partner violence harm based on the level of harm of the index offence (… as long as a non-linear statistic is applied)

“…The Danish CHI follows the same methodology as other CHI models worldwide (see variations and applications in Ariel et al ., 2016; Basford et al ., 2021; Bland et al ., 2021; Curtis-Ham, 2022; Curtis-Ham and Walton, 2017, 2018; Dudfield et al ., 2017; House and Neyroud, 2018; Kärrholm et al. , 2020; Linton and Ariel, 2020; Macbeth and Ariel, 2019; Mitchell, 2019; Ohyama et al ., 2022; Ransley et al ., 2018; Sidhu et al ., 2017; Šimon and Jíchová, 2020; Weinborn et al ., 2017) and is considered an objective and valid measure of crime harm (however, cf. Sarnecki, 2021).…”

“…The CHI assigns each crime category a harm score based on the Danish sentencing guidelines (the guidance to prosecutors and judges as to the recommended number of prison days first-time offenders should receive if the case were to progress to PIJPSM 46,2 court). The Danish CHI follows the same methodology as other CHI models worldwide (see variations and applications in Ariel et al, 2016;Basford et al, 2021;Bland et al, 2021;Curtis-Ham, 2022;Curtis-Ham andWalton, 2017, 2018;Dudfield et al, 2017;House and Neyroud, 2018;K€ arrholm et al, 2020;Linton and Ariel, 2020;Macbeth and Ariel, 2019;Mitchell, 2019;Ohyama et al, 2022;Ransley et al, 2018;Sidhu et al, 2017;Simon and J ıchov a, 2020;Weinborn et al, 2017) and is considered an objective and valid measure of crime harm (however, cf. Sarnecki, 2021).…”

Criminal records versus rehabilitation and expungement: a randomised controlled trial

“…Crime data were then coded against the Cambridge Crime Harm Index (CCHI; Sherman et al, 2016). CCHI and versions of CCHI are a recent though established metric that has been used in multiple studies for tracking harm (Ariel et al, 2016;Bland & Ariel, 2015, 2020Barnham et al, 2017;Dudfield et al, 2017;House & Neyroud, 2018;Linton & Ariel, 2020a, 2020bMitchell, 2019;Weinborn et al, 2017;Weir et al, 2019; however, see critique in Sarnecki, 2021). The index assigns a value to each classification of crime based on official guidelines for starting point sentences for first convictions with no aggravating factors.…”

“…If they consented, the case was then randomly allocated to either the caution or Pathfinder arm of the trial. Randomisation was conducted using an online calculator (Ariel et al, 2012;Linton & Ariel, 2020a, 2020b, as shown in Fig. 1.…”