International Journal on Criminology Volume 1, Number 1, Fall 2013 | Page 62

Competition Between Those Involved in Public Debate on Crime Statistics
In their board of advisers the general director of the national police, Michel Gaudin
had reacted several times to OND articles on the use of statistics of incidents recorded by
asking when the ONDRP would stop just using the état 4001 and taking interest in other
sources as well.
A range of circumstances was necessary so that the most intense phase of
competition within official statistics terminates with a compromise on conditions of
publication of figures on crime recorded and “leads to a change in previous traditional
communication methods” (Ocqueteau 2012).
In May 2005, we can read in a monthly announcement 19 from the ministry of the
interior “A significant improvement in security since May 2002: with -10, 83% of crimes
and offences recorded and crime in public decreasing sharply by -24, and 09%.
An increase of 6,42 % in crimes and offences recorded in May 2005 in comparison
to May 2004, despite a clear increase in the activity of security services (+14,16% of
offences revealed by the action of security services, +9,78% cases of custody +7,61%
perpetrators accused as well as a rate of resolution of crime cases of 31,66%). Even a
slight presence in prevention of crime by the police in urban areas due to the management
of several street demonstrations which led to significant mobilisation of police presence.
These police forces are usually hired for security purposes.”
The lack of statistical neutrality can be seen in the terminology selected “significant
improvement”, of methods (assimilation of the total incidents recorded to a measure of
security) and it can also be seen in the choice in the first paragraph, to have a period of a
different kind of comparison of previous report where it is a question of the same month
of the previous year. This was stated in the example of the first sentence of the
announcement relating to March 2005. 20 : “The decrease in cases of crime recorded in
2004 is followed in March 2005 by -4,12% decrease in crimes and offences recorded” or
cases in April 2005 “The decrease of the crime recorded in 2004 followed by April 2005
with a decrease of -3,13% of crimes and offences recorded”.
The originality of the first paragraph of the monthly announcement relating to May
2005 can be explained by the willingness to avoid having to say at the beginning
incidents recorded have increased by 6.4% compared with the same month of the
previous year. As soon as this variation is quoted, it is followed by a series of statistics
revealing “a significant increase in the activity of security services” which is presented as
being in contradiction with the increase in incidents recorded (“despite”).
Then in a sentence in which it appears there is something missing, the announcement
offers an explanation of the increase in incidents recorded between May 2004 and 2005
which apparently is due to “even a little police presence as a measure of prevention in
urban areas” caused by “street demonstrations or events which required the mobilization
of police forces which are usually looking after different kinds of security”.
This announcement from the ministry of the interior led to strong reactions from the
OND as it had elements of interpretation of figures recorded in a very different way.
In December 2004, and in March 2005, the ONDRP wrote in an article and its first
annual report (OND 2005a), that the collection of incidents recorded in may 2004 was
incomplete due to a calendar including a weekend followed by a holiday day at the end of
the month.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
19 http://www.interieur.gouv.fr/sections/a_la_une/toute_l_actualite/securite-interieure/archivesactualites/archives-securite/delinquance-mai-2005
20 http://www.interieur.gouv.fr/sections/a_la_une/toute_l_actualite/securite-interieure/archivesactualites/archives-securite/delinquance-mars-2005
61