Journal of Quantitative Criminology

, Volume 26, Issue 3, pp 333–349 | Cite as

Digital Analysis of Crime Statistics: Does Crime Conform to Benford’s Law?

Original Paper

Abstract

Benford’s law suggests that the distribution of leading (leftmost) digits in data of an anomalous nature (i.e., without relationship) will conform to a formula of logarithmic intervals known as the Benford distribution. Forensic auditors have successfully used digital analysis vis-à-vis the Benford distribution to detect financial fraud, while government investigators have used a corollary of the distribution (focused on trailing digits) to detect scientific fraud in medical research. This study explored whether crime statistics are Benford distributed. We examined crime statistics at the National, State, and local level in order to test for conformity to the Benford distribution, and found that National- and State-level summary UCR data conform to Benford’s law. When National data were disaggregated by offense type we found varying degrees of conformity, with murder, rape, and robbery indicating less conformity than other offense types. Some tentative implications of these findings are discussed, as are areas for further research.

Keywords

Benford’s law Uniform crime reports Digital analysis Crime statistics Fabricated data Data errors First digit Crime data Fraud detection Benford distribution 

References

  1. Addington L (2007) Using NIBRS to study methodological sources of divergence between the UCR and NCVS. In: Lynch J, Addington L (eds) Understanding crime statistics: revisiting the divergence of the NCVS and UCR. Cambridge University Press, UK, pp 140–152Google Scholar
  2. Addington L (2008) Assessing the extent of nonresponse bias on NIBRS estimates of violent crime. J Contemp Crim Justice 24(1):32–49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Agnew R (1995) Determinism, indeterminism, and crime: An empirical exploration. Criminology 33(1):83–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barnett-Ryan C (2007) Introduction to the uniform crime reporting system. In: Lynch J, Addington L (eds) Understanding crime statistics: revisiting the divergence of the NCVS and UCR. Cambridge University Press, UK, pp 55–92Google Scholar
  5. Batini C, Scannapieco M (2006) Data quality: concepts, methodologies and techniques. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  6. Benford F (1938) The law of anomalous numbers. Proc Am Phil Soc 78(4):551–572Google Scholar
  7. Biderman AD, Reiss AJ (1967) On exploring the ‘dark figure’ of crime. Ann Am Acad Pol Soc Sci 374:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blumstein A (1974) Seriousness weights in an index of crime. Am Sociol Rev 39(December):854–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blumstein A, Wallman J (eds) (2000) The crime drop in America. Cambridge University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  10. Busta B, Weinberg R (1998) Using Benford’s law and neural networks as a review procedure. Managerial Auditing J 13(6):356–366CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Carslaw C (1988) Anomalies in income numbers: evidence of goal oriented behavior. Account Rev April:321–327Google Scholar
  12. Cork D (1999) Examining space–time interaction in city-level homicide data: crack markets and the diffusion of guns among youth. J Quant Criminol 15:379–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Cressey D (1957) The state of criminal statistics. Crime Delinq 3:230–241CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Criminal Justice Information Services Division (n.d.) Uniform crime reporting quality assurance review. Clarksburg, WV: FBIGoogle Scholar
  15. Deane G, Messner S, Stucky T, McGeever K, Kubrin C (2008) Not ‘islands, entire of themselves’: exploring the spatial context of city-level robbery rates. J Quant Criminol 24:363–380CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Federal Bureau of Investigation (2007) Crime in the United States, 2006. FBI, ClarksburgGoogle Scholar
  17. Fewster R (2009) A simple explanation of Benford’s law. Am Stat 63(1):26–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fisher C, Kingma B (2001) Criticality of data quality as exemplified in two disasters. Inf Manag 39(2):109–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Giles DE (2005) Benford’s law and naturally occurring prices in certain eBay auctions. University of Victoria Econometrics Working Paper EWP0505 (May)Google Scholar
  20. Hill T (1995a) A statistical derivation of the significant-digit law. Stat Sci 10(4):354–363Google Scholar
  21. Hill T (1995b) Base-invariance implies Benford’s law. Proc Am Math Soc 123(2):887–895Google Scholar
  22. Kumar K, Bhattacharya S (2007) Detecting the dubious digits: Benford’s law in forensic accounting. Significance 4(2):81–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Land KC, McCall PL, Cohen LE (1991) Characteristics of U.S. cities with extreme (high or low) crime rates: results of discriminant analyses of 1960, 1970, and 1980 data. Soc Indic Res 24(3):209–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lynch J, Addington L (2007) Understanding crime statistics: revisiting the divergence of the NCVS and UCR. Cambridge University Press, UKGoogle Scholar
  25. Lynch J, Jarvis J (2008) Missing data and imputation in the uniform crime reports and the effects on national estimates. J Contemp Crim Justice 24(1):69–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Maltz M (1972) Evaluation of crime control programs. Government Printing Office, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  27. Maltz M (1975a) Measures of effectiveness for crime reduction programs. Oper Res 23(3):452–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maltz M (1975b) Crime statistics: a mathematical perspective. J Crim Justice 3(3):177–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Maltz M (1976) Secondary analysis of the UCR: an index of the risk of death due to robbery. J Crim Justice 4(2):153–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maltz M (1977) Crime statistics: a historical perspective. Crime Delinq 23(1):32–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Maltz M (1998) Visualizing homicide: a research note. J Quant Criminol 14(4):397–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Maltz M (1999) Bridging gaps in police crime data. Bureau of Justice Statistics, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  33. Maltz M (2007) Missing UCR data and divergence of the NCVS and UCR trends. In: Lynch J, Addington L (eds) Understanding crime statistics: revisiting the divergence of the NCVS and UCR. Cambridge University Press, UK, pp 269–296Google Scholar
  34. Maltz M, Targonski J (2002) A note on the use of county-level crime data. J Quant Criminol 18(3):297–318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Maltz M, Targonski J (2003) Measurement and other errors in county-level UCR data: a reply to Lott and Whitley. J Quant Criminol 19(2):199–206CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Maltz M, Weiss H (2006) Creating a UCR utility. Final report to the National Institute of Justice, Grant No. 2004-IJ-CX-0083Google Scholar
  37. Manning P (2001) Theorizing policing: the drama and myth of crime control. Theor Criminol 5(3):315–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Marchi S, Hamilton J (2006) Trust, but verify: assessing the accuracy of self-reported pollution data. J Risk Uncertain 32(1):57–76CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matza M, McCoy C, Fazlollah M (1999) Police try to aid victims of misreported crimes. Phila Inq (Jan 24) B01Google Scholar
  40. McDowall D, Loftin C (2007) What is convergence, and what do we know about it? In: Lynch J, Addington L (eds) Understanding crime statistics: revisiting the divergence of the NCVS and UCR. Cambridge University Press, UK, pp 93–124Google Scholar
  41. McDowall D, Loftin C (2009) Do US city crime rates follow a national trend? The influence of nationwide conditions on local crime patterns. J Quant Criminol 25(3):307–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Messner S (1984) The ‘dark figure’ and composite indexes of crime: some empirical explorations of alternative data sources. J Crim Justice 12:435–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mosimann J, Ratnaparkhi M (1996) Uniform occurrence of digits for folded and mixture distributions on finite intervals. Commun Stat Part B Simul Comput 25(2):481–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mosimann J, Dahlberg J, Davidian N, Krueger J (2000) Terminal digits and the examination of questioned data. In: Steneck N, Scheetz M (eds) Investigating research integrity: proceedings of the first ORI research conference on research integrity. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rockville, MDGoogle Scholar
  45. Newcomb S (1881) Note on the frequency of use of the different digits in natural numbers. Am J Math 4(1):39–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Nigrini M (1993) The detection of income evasion through an analysis of digital distributions. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Accounting, University of CincinnatiGoogle Scholar
  47. Nigrini M (1996) A taxpayer compliance application of Benford’s law. J Am Tax Assoc (Spring):72–91Google Scholar
  48. Nigrini M (2000) Digital analysis using Benford’s law: tests and statistics for auditors. Global Audit Publications, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  49. Nigrini M (2005) An assessment of the change in the incidence of earnings management around the Enron-Anderson episode. Rev Account Finance 4:92–110Google Scholar
  50. Piquero A, MacDonald J, Dobrin A, Daigle L, Cullen F (2005) Self-control, violent offending, and homicide victimization. J Quant Criminol 21(1):55–71CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Raimi R (1969) The peculiar distribution of first digits. Sci Am 221:109–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Raimi R (1976) The first digit problem. Am Math Mon 49:521–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Reaves B (2007) Census of State and Local Law Enforcement Agencies, 2004. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice, USAGoogle Scholar
  54. Rosenfeld R (2007) Transfer the uniform crime reporting program from the FBI to the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Criminol Public Policy 6:825–833Google Scholar
  55. Sampson RJ (1993) Linking time and place: dynamic contextualism and the future of criminological inquiry. J Res Crime Delinq 30:426–444CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Scott P, Fasli M (2001) Benford’s law: an empirical investigation and a novel explanation. CSM Technical Report 349, Department of Computer Science, University of EssexGoogle Scholar
  57. Seidman D, Couzens M (1974) Getting the crime rate down: political pressure and crime reporting. Law Society (Spring):457–493Google Scholar
  58. Sherman L, Glick B (1984) The quality of police arrest statistics. Police foundation reports 2. Police Foundation, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  59. Skogan W (1974) The validity of official crime statistics: an empirical investigation. Soc Sci Q June:25–38Google Scholar
  60. Skogan W (1977) Dimensions of the dark figure of unreported crime. Crime Delinq 23(1):41–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Skogan W (1999) Measuring what matters: crime, disorder, and fear. Measuring what matters: proceedings from the policing research institute meetings. National Institute of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  62. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation (2008) Uniform crime reporting program data: offenses known and clearances by arrest, 2006 (computer file). ICPSR 22400. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  63. Walter C, Richards E (2001) Using data digits to identify fabricated data. IEEE Eng Med Biol (July/August):96–100Google Scholar
  64. Walter C, Richards E (2002) Legal defenses to the use of data digits to identify fabricated data. IEEE Eng Med Biol (March/April):77–80Google Scholar
  65. Wellford C (1997) Controlling crime and achieving justice—the American Society of Criminology 1996 Presidential Address. Criminology 35:1–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Winsberg M (1993) Are crime waves in the United States regional or national? J Crim Justice 21(5):517–520CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Criminal JusticeSeattle UniversitySeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations