We need more police and to use them better

Across Australia the number of police per 10,000 people has risen by about 37 per cent between 1964 and 2000. The ratio of police to persons varies by state, but, with the exclusion of the Northern Territory, all states and the ACT have similar policing levels and have followed similar patterns in increasing their police forces.

However, the statistics tell us that this increase does not appear to be significant enough to combat the rise of crime over the same period. The growth rate of serious crime outstripped the increase in police more than tenfold.

A comparison of police and serious crime per head of population demonstrates to some extent the disparity between the increases. As crime has continued to rise, police numbers have plateaued since the 1980s. It is when police numbers are compared with serious crime (instead of population) that the problem becomes clear. As crime per head of population has been on the rise since the 1960s we have failed to provide equivalent police numbers. In 1964 there were some 225 police officers per 1000 serious crimes. In 2000 this number had fallen to just under 60.

The numbers of crimes that are solved by police (referred to as "cleared crimes") are often used as a means of examining police effectiveness. This is, in fact, a crude measure of police work, but when looking at the direct effect that police can have on deterring criminals they are appropriate.

As the strength of the police force was declining and crime rates were escalating in the 1960s and '70s, clear-up rates suffered. While the raw number of crimes cleared has steadily increased since 1964, the proportion of crimes cleared fell to around 15 per cent in the mid-1980s and has only recently begun to improve.

The pattern of clear-up rates closely followed the drop in the strength of the police force until the late 1980s. This seems to indicate that as police strength declined there was a direct effect on the effectiveness or ability of police to catch criminals. More recently, though, despite no alteration in police strength, clear-up rates have improved.

Of concern is the fact that, despite clear-up rates improving in the 1990s, the crime rate has continued to go up. The effect that an increase in cleared crimes should theoretically have on crime has not yet eventuated. The improvement in clear-up rates may not be significant enough to have a noticeable effect on crime (in 2001 only roughly 22 per cent of serious crimes were cleared); also, we cannot expect the effect to be immediate and we may see in the next few years (provided crimes cleared continued to increase) some response in a lower crime rate.

The drop from 32 per cent to 22 per cent does not look significant at first glance. Clear-up rates have always been low, so is the drop really much cause for concern? A review of the statistics says we should be concerned. The proportion of crimes cleared has fallen by nearly one-third during a period in which crime rose by 450 per cent. = When the statistics are broken down a little further, the story is even more alarming. The clear-up rates for violent crimes against the person (homicide, rape, assault, and robbery) were 74 per cent in 1964 and have fallen to around 62 per cent in 2001. Clear-up rates for robbery have the lowest clear-up rates for crimes against the person at 31 per cent in 1964, reducing to 27 per cent in 2001.

Thieves are the ones benefiting from the decline in the strength of the police force.

Property crimes account for the most significant fall in clear-up rates. There has been a 60 per cent drop in property crime clear-up rates since 1964.

What this means is that thieves are the ones benefiting from the decline in the strength of the police force.

In his recent article "Law and Order Blues", Don Weatherburn, Director of the NSW Bureau of Crime Statistics and Research, said that, "The high rates of property crime in Australia are sometimes dismissed on the grounds that most people are insured and suffer no actual material loss."[11] This argument may be a pragmatic one, but it overlooks the effect that property offences can have on the community.

At the heart of liberal democracies is the notion of property rights. To disregard the escalating number of property crimes and failure to apprehend the offenders as inconsequential is an affront to the core values that underpin the rule of law. A primary role of government is to protect its citizens from breaches of the law. Police, as agents of the state, must uphold laws or risk the rule of law falling into disrepute given that the public ranks break and enter as the crime of most concern.

All crime has an effect on social cohesion. As Francis Fukuyama argues, trust is an essential element for the smooth functioning of society. Crime by its very nature breaks the mutual trust on which social cohesion and social capital are founded.

Fukuyama points to the abandonment of inner cities for the suburbs in the United States and subsequent economic and racial divides in American cities. Simple acts, such as parents teaching their children to be distrustful of strangers, show the negative effect of rising crime on society.

A major study on fear of crime in Australia found that perceptions of crime and consequent fear of becoming a victim of crime has led to several groups, such as women and the elderly, changing behaviour because of perceived crime levels. This included avoiding certain places or not going out alone after dark.

Such changes in behaviour tie in closely with the "broken-windows" theory of crime. According to the theory, leaving the petty crimes and incivilities unchecked in society conveys a sense of disorder that no-one is in control. Law-abiding citizens are driven off the streets as they retreat to their homes and this creates a breeding ground for crime as criminals take advantage of weak social controls.

The authors of the theory, James Q. Wilson and George Kelling, argue that police should focus on the little things in order to combat the big problems. There is no room in the theory for concentrating on crimes that may be pragmatically viewed as doing more harm than others, for all crime in the end is harmful to society.

In a time of rising crime, when our clear-up rates are relatively low and the ratio of police per crime means that they are at a fifth of their capacity compared with what they were in the 1960s, is the answer to fighting crime an increase in the number of police? We certainly appear to need more police to apprehend the perpetrators of a growing number of crimes, but we cannot limit ourselves to asking for more police alone. We must also demand a review of how our police are being used.

The rise in clearance rates despite the lack of change in police strength may indicate that Australian police have been utilising their resources more effectively. Advances in technology, such as CCTV (closed circuit TV) and DNA matching may have also contributed to improved clear-up rates. There is clearly more that can be done, however, as crime is continuing to rise.

Increasing our police numbers to the levels of the 1960s would be a costly exercise, but this does not mean that we should disregard increasing police numbers. To gauge the number of new police requires a focus on what our police need to be doing and whether there are enough police to do that effectively. The best use of police resources is where public debate needs to be centred.

Nicole Billante is a research assistant at the Centre for Independent Studies. This is an edited extract of a paper published by the CIS, The Thinning Blue Line. Click here to read