Scottish Government

4 Victimisation - property crime and violent crime

4.1 Summary

All crime as measured in the SCJS in 2008/09 can be broken down into property crime and violent crime. Each crime group exhibits different characteristics.

Examining the victimisation rate in Scotland further showed that 18% of adults were the victim of property crime (83% of victims) and four per cent of adults were the victim of violent crime (19% of victims). The risk varied among different groups of adults:

• Males aged 16 to 24 had the highest risk of being a victim of property crime (28%) and of being a victim of violent crime (18%) compared with all other combined age/gender groups;
• The risk of being a victim of property crime increased for adults living in the 15% most deprived areas (23%) compared with those living in the rest of Scotland (17%) as did the risk for violent crime (six per cent for those living in the 15% most deprived areas and four per cent in the rest of Scotland).

The risk of violent crime estimated by the BCS for adults in England and Wales was similar to that measured in Scotland (3% compared with 4% respectively), whereas the incidence rate of violent crime per 10,000 individuals was higher in Scotland than in England and Wales. This suggests that violent crimes were more concentrated amongst fewer victims in Scotland than in England and Wales.

Based on estimates from the SCJS 2008/09:

• Six per cent of adults (or 36% of victims of property crime) were repeat victims of property crime;
• Nearly two per cent (1.6%) of adults (or 38% of victims of violent crime) were repeat victims of violent crime.

Examination of the characteristics of property crime showed that the main place, by far, where property crime took place was immediately outside the home; 65% happened there. In contrast, violent crime happened in a number of different locations including:

• In or near the victim's place of work (23%);
• In or around a pub, bar or club (18%);
• Inside the victim's home (13%);
• Immediately outside the home (12%);
• At the home of a friend or relative (eight per cent).

Victims were able to provide details of the offender(s) in fewer than three in ten (29%) property crimes compared with over nine in ten (92%) violent crimes. Where they could provide details:

• Males were said to be offenders in 67% of property crime where victims could provide details, compared with 79% of such violent crime. In 22% of property crime, the offenders were both males and females, compared with 10% of violent crime, where victims could provide details.
• In 42% of property crime where victims could provide details, offender(s) were most likely to be described as school age and in 46% of violent crime where victims could provide details the offender(s) were most likely to be described as 16-24 year olds.

Victims were more likely to know the offender(s) well in violent crime (57%) than in property crime (34%) as measured in the SCJS 2008/09:

• The offender(s) was a neighbour in 33% of property crime where the victim knew the offender(s) well, in 15%, young people from the local area and in 22%, a friend.
• In 20% of violent crime where the victim knew the offender(s) well, the offender(s) was the current husband, wife or partner of the victim; in 17% a friend and in 19% a member of the public or people contacted through work.

Victims reported that the offender(s) had something they used or threatened to use as a weapon in 28% of violent crime where victims saw or had any contact with the offender(s):

• In 32% of violent crime where the offender(s) had a weapon the victim reported that the offender(s) had a knife (this represents three per cent of all crime as measured in the SCJS 2008/09).

The offender(s) was said by the victim to have been under the influence of alcohol in 58% of violent crime and of drugs in 26% of violent crime.

Property crime (69%) was more likely to be described as 'a crime' by victims compared with violent crime (57%) whereas violent crime was more likely to be described by victims as 'just something that happens' (24%) compared with property crime (12%).

In over half of property crime (57%) and violent crime (52%), victims said the offender(s) should have been prosecuted in court. Of victims who thought this, the largest proportion said the offender(s) should have been given a sentence other than a prison sentence (79% property crime; 60% violent crime).

Separate to measuring crime, card and identity fraud and workplace abuse were also measured by the SCJS in 2008/09:

• In the case of card and identity fraud 3.6% of adults had experienced card fraud in the 12 months prior to interview and 0.8% had been a victim of identity theft.
• In the case of workplace abuse, of those adults who had jobs involving contact with the general public, 35% had experienced either verbal abuse or physical abuse; 34% had experienced verbal abuse and seven per cent had experienced physical abuse.

4.2 Introduction

The Scottish Crime and Justice Survey ( SCJS) 2008/09 produced an estimate of approximately 0.73 million property crimes and 0.32 million violent crimes in Scotland. Property crime accounted for 70% and violent crime for 30% of all crime identified in the SCJS in 2008/09 ( chapter 2).

This chapter examines victimisation, broken down by property crime and violent crime. It follows the same format as the previous chapter which looked at the nature and characteristics of victimisation for all SCJS crime. The chapter covers:

• The risk of being a victim of property crime and of violent crime, including how this varies according to particular groups of crime and which adults are most at risk;
• Features of property crime and violent crime, including when and where they happened, the characteristics of offenders and, for violent crime, the use of weapons;
• The role of alcohol in violent crime, given alcohol is of particular interest in relation to violence. The role of drugs is also examined;
• The impact of property crime and violent crime, specifically the emotions felt by victims, the injuries sustained (violent crime) and the financial impact (property crime);
• Victims' perceptions including: whether they thought an incident was a crime or not; whether the offender(s) should have gone to court and if so what type of sentence they should have been given.

The last sections of this chapter focus on two particular types of incidents where details were collected outside the main victim form:

• Card and identity fraud, which is not measured specifically in the SCJS estimate of crime. Section 4.8 reports on card and identity fraud in Scotland as measured by the SCJS. It provides information on the percentage of adults estimated to have experienced these, comparing it with other available sources including the British Crime Survey ( BCS).
• Workplace abuse, which is also not measured specifically in the SCJS estimate of crime, is reported on in Section 4.9. In the context of the SCJS 2008/09 workplace abuse covers abuse received in the course of work only from members of the public contacted through work. Section 4.9 examines the prevalence and frequency of workplace abuse and considers reporting, impact on health and provision of support to deal with workplace abuse.

4.3 Risk of Property Crime and Violent Crime

As measured by the SCJS in 2008/09 there was a one in five (20%) risk of an adult being a victim of one or more crime of any type ( chapter 2). This section examines the risk in more detail, breaking it down between property crime and violent crime and different types of crime within those groups (Figure 4.1).

There was an 18% risk to an adult of being a victim of property crime. ³⁴ Within the broad group of property crime, there was:

• A nine per cent risk to a household of being a victim of vandalism including a five per cent risk of being a victim of motor vehicle vandalism and a four per cent risk of being a victim of property vandalism;
• A five per cent risk to a household of being a victim of other household theft (including bicycle theft);
• A less than one half of one per cent (0.4%) risk to a household of being a victim of motor vehicle theft;
• A less than one per cent (0.8%) risk to a household of being a victim of housebreaking;
• A two per cent risk to an adult of being a victim of personal theft (excluding robbery).

There was a four per cent risk to an adult of being a victim of violent crime. In comparison, the risk to an adult being a victim of violent crime estimated by the BCS for adults in England and Wales was three per cent. The risk of violent crime was similar, whereas the incidence rate of violent crime per 10,000 adults was higher in Scotland than in England and Wales ( chapter 2). This suggests that violent crime was more concentrated amongst fewer victims in Scotland than in England and Wales.

Within the broad group of violent crime as measured by the SCJS 2008/09 there was:

• A four per cent risk to an adult of being a victim of assault;
  • This included a less than one half of one per cent (0.4%) risk to an adult of being a victim of serious assault;
• A less than one half of one per cent (0.4%) risk to an adult of being a victim of robbery.

Figure 4.1: Risk of property crime and violent crime
SCJS 2008/09
Households / Adults (base: 16,003)

4.3.1 Varying risk of property crime and violent crime

As described in chapter 3, the risk of being a victim is not evenly spread throughout the population. This section explores how the risk of being a victim of property crime and violent crime varied among different groups of adults.

The analysis only presents simple one-to-one relationships of age, gender, age by gender and area deprivation rather than more complex statistical ones that might be identified through modelling.

Figure 4.2 shows:

• Males and females had an equal risk of being a victim of property crime (18%);
• The risk of being a victim of property crime decreased with age;
  • Males aged 16 to 24 had the highest risk of being a victim of property crime (28%);
  • Females aged 16 to 24 and females aged 25 to 44 faced similar levels of risk (25% 16-24; 23% 25-44);
  • Males and females aged 60 or older had the lowest risks of being a victim of property crime (10% males; eight per cent females);
• Males (six per cent) had a higher risk of being a victim of violent crime compared with females (three per cent);
• The risk of being a victim of violent crime decreased with age;
  • The risk was 12% of being a victim of violent crime for 16-24 year olds compared with one per cent of those aged 60 or over;
  • The effects of age and gender combined meant that 16-24 year old males (18%) had the highest risk of being a victim of violent crime compared with all other combined age / gender groups.

Figure 4.2: Varying risk of property crime and violent crime - proportion of adults who were victims of crime by age and gender
SCJS 2008/09
Adults (base: 16,003) adults in each age / gender group (bases range from females: 8,993 to females aged 16-24: 658)

The risk of being a victim of property crime and violent crime, as measured by the SCJS in 2008/09, also varied by area deprivation. ³⁵

Figure 4.3 shows:

• The risk of property crime increased for adults living in the 15% most deprived areas (23%) compared with those living in the rest of Scotland (17%);
• There was a six per cent risk of violent crime for adults living in the 15% most deprived areas compared with a four per cent risk for adults living in the rest of Scotland.

Figure 4.3: Varying risk of property crime and violent crime - proportion of adults who were victims of crime by area deprivation
SCJS 2008/09
Adults (base: 16,003); adults in most deprived 15% of areas (base: 2,437); adults in rest of Scotland (base: 13,566)

4.3.2 Repeat victimisation

Crime surveys have shown that the majority of victims will have only been the victim of one crime in a 12 month period. Among victims, crime is further concentrated in particular people and households (Farrell & Pease 2007; Planty & Strom 2007).

In common with the BCS, victims of the same type of crime more than once in the last year are defined as repeat victims. As described in the BCS 2008/09 report, the repeat victimisation rate accounts for differences between estimates of crimes (incidence) and victims (prevalence) (Hoare, 2009). If every victim was only the victim of one crime in the previous 12 months, the estimates of crimes and victims would be the same.

Based on estimates from the SCJS 2008/09, six per cent of adults were repeat victims of property crime and nearly two per cent (1.6%) of adults were repeat victims of violent crime. Analysis showed that:

• 36% of victims of property crime were repeat victims;
• 38% of victims of violent crime were repeat victims;
• The lowest repeat victimisation rate was for personal theft (excluding robbery), (13% of victims).

Figure 4.4: Repeat victims as a percentage of all victims by crime group
SCJS 2008/09
Households / Adults (base: 16,003)

65% of all incidents of violent crime were experienced by repeat victims of violent crime, as measured by the SCJS in 2008/09. On average repeat victims experienced three violent crimes in the 12 months prior to interview. ³⁶

4.4 Characteristics of property crime and violent crime

4.4.1 Where crime happened

Victims were asked where the crime happened. Figure 4.5 shows where property crime and violent crime measured by the SCJS in 2008/09 occurred.

The main place, by far, where property crime took place was immediately outside the home:

• Over three in five property crimes (65%) took place immediately outside the home compared with 12% of violent crime measured in 2008/09;
  • Within property crime, vandalism (82%), other property theft (including bicycle theft) (71%) and motor vehicle theft (68%) most often happened immediately outside the home;
  • Only five per cent of personal theft took place immediately outside the home;
• Fewer than one in ten property crimes took place in a single location other than immediately outside the home.

Violent crime was more likely to happen in a number of locations:

• More than one in five (23%) violent crimes happened at or near the respondent's place of work;
• Just under one in five (18%) happened in or around a pub, bar or club;
• A similar proportion of violent crimes took place inside the victims' home (13%) and immediately outside the home (12%). Around one in twelve violent crimes occurred at the home of a friend or relative (eight per cent).

Figure 4.5: Where property crime and violent crime happened
SCJS 2008/09
Property crime (base: 3,172); violent crime (base: 622)

4.4.2 When crime happened

Victims were asked whether the crime happened during the week or at the weekend, and at what time of day it happened. ³⁷ Figure 4.6 provides more detail of when property crime and violent crime took place.

Around half of all property crime (52%) took place on a weekday and a little less, 41%, took place at the weekend. In contrast, over half of all violent crime (55%) took place at the weekend and 42% took place during the week. Looking in detail at the times the two types of crime happened during the weekday:

• The majority of both property crime and violent crime which happened on a weekday took place between midday and midnight;
• 12% of weekday property crime took place between midnight and 6a.m. compared with five per cent of violent crime;

At the weekend:

• 27% of violent crime happened between 6 p.m. and midnight compared with 14% of property crime;
• 17% of violent crime happened between midnight and 6 a.m. at the weekend compared with 15% of property crime.

Figure 4.6: When property crime and violent crime happened
SCJS 2008/09
Property crime (base: 3,172); violent crime (base: 622)

Note: Percentages for each crime for weekdays and weekends, as well as for times within weekday and weekend, do not add up to 100% as some respondents were unable to say when the crime had occurred.

The time periods used in this question were the same as had been used in previous crime surveys in Scotland. Given the interest in violence related to 'drinking culture', victims of violent crime were also asked whether the incident happened closer to the beginning or the end of the time period. ³⁸ This additional information indicated that around one in three violent crimes (34%) happened between around 9 p.m. and 3 a.m. on a weekend.

4.4.3 Characteristics of offenders

Victims of violent crime are more likely than victims of property crime to be able to provide details of the offender(s). Victims were able to provide details of the offender(s) in fewer than three in ten (29%) property crimes compared with over nine in ten (92%) violent crimes,

Where victims could provide details, characteristics of offenders included:

• Males were said to be offenders in 67% of property crime compared with 79% of violent crime;
• In 22% of property crime, the offenders were both males and females, compared with 10% of violent crime;
• For property crime, where victims could provide details of the offender(s), the percentage of offenders in each age bracket declined with age from school age. In 42% of property crime where the victims saw or knew the offender(s), offenders were of school age compared with 14% of violent crime where offenders were of that age;
  • The higher percentage of property crime where victims could provide details and offender(s) were of school age appears to reflect the influence of vandalism (51%) and particularly of property vandalism (60%) within property crime overall;
• In the case of violent crime where victims could provide details of the offender(s), the most common age for offenders was 16-24 years old. Offenders were said to be this age in 46% of violent crime where victims could provide details.

Figure 4.7: Characteristics of offenders in property crime and violent crime

SCJS 2008/09
Crimes where respondent was able to say anything about the offender(s) (base: property crime 823; violent crime 573)

Victims who knew or had seen the offender(s) were more likely to know the offender(s) well in violent crime (57%) than in property crime (34%) as measured in the SCJS 2008/09. Where the victim knew the offender(s) well for property crime:

• The offender(s) was a neighbour in 33% of such property crime and in 15%, young people from the local area;
• The offender(s) was a friend in 22% of such property crime where the victim knew the offender(s) well;

Where the victim knew the offender(s) well for violent crime:

• In 20% of violent crime where the victim knew the offender(s) well, the offender(s) was the current husband, wife or partner of the victim and in 17%, the offender(s) was a friend;
• In 19% of violent crime where the victim knew the offender(s) well, the offender(s) were members of the public or people contacted through work;

Figure 4.8: Relationship with offenders in property crime and violent crime
SCJS 2008/09
Crimes where respondent knew the offender(s) well (base: property crime 165; violent crime 206)

4.4.4 Weapons used in property crime and violent crime

In 21% of all crime measured by the SCJS in 2008/09, where the victim saw or had any contact with the offender(s), victims reported that the offender(s) had something they used or threatened to use as a weapon. The offender(s) was reported to have had a weapon in 28% of violent crime and eight per cent of property crime where victims saw or had any contact with the offender(s).

Figure 4.9: Percentage of crime in which offenders had a weapon
SCJS 2008/09
Crimes where respondents saw the offender(s) (base: all SCJS crime 1,212; property crime 623; violent crime 589)

Within property crime and violent crime:

• The majority of cases (83%) of property crime identified where victims saw the offender(s) and the offender(s) had a weapon were cases of vandalism;
• Half of serious assaults identified in the 2008/09 SCJS involved a weapon. ³⁹

Where victims reported that the offender(s) had something they used or threatened to use as a weapon:

• A knife was the most common weapon, used in three per cent of crime measured in the SCJS 2008/09. Victims reported the offender(s) had a knife in 32% of violent crime where the offender(s) had a weapon;
• In 26% of violent crime where the offender(s) had a weapon, the victim reported they had a bottle;
• In similar proportions of violent crime where the offender(s) had a weapon the victim reported the weapon was a stick / club, hitting implement or stones / bricks (14% each);
• In three per cent of violent crime where the offender(s) had a weapon, the victims reported the offender(s) had a gun.

4.5 Alcohol or drug related violent crime

According to the World Health Organisation, alcohol and violence are linked in a number of ways. Both alcohol use and interpersonal violence affect communities, public service provision (including health and justice services), and the safety and health of individuals. There is a strong association between alcohol consumption and an individual's risk of becoming a perpetrator or victim of violence. ⁴⁰ It is in this context that links between alcohol and drugs and violent crime are reported in this section.

Victims were asked whether they thought the offender(s) was under the influence of alcohol or drugs at the time of the offence. For crime involving force or violence or threats of force or violence, they were also asked if they themselves had any alcohol or drugs immediately before the incident took place. The estimates shown below may not reflect fully the proportion of violent crimes involving alcohol accurately for two reasons:

• Victims may not be aware that the offender(s) was under the influence of alcohol or drugs. Alternatively, victims may presume that the offender(s) was under the influence of either when they were not;
• Victims may be reluctant to admit that they were under the influence of either alcohol or drugs to an interviewer and, in the case of drugs, they may be reluctant to admit they had taken an illegal substance.

Figure 4.10 shows:

• In 58% of violent crime measured by the SCJS 2008/09, victims said the offender(s) were under the influence of alcohol. This was a higher proportion than found in the BCS in England and Wales in 2008/09 where victims reported that the offender(s) were under the influence of alcohol in 47% of violent crime;
• In three in ten (29%) violent crimes, victims said that they had consumed alcohol immediately before the incident;
• The offender(s) was reported to be under the influence of drugs by victims in just over one in four (26%) violent crimes. Once again this is higher than the equivalent figure from the BCS for England and Wales for the same period (17% of violent crime);
• Victims said they had taken drugs immediately before the incident in two per cent of violent crime.

Figure 4.10: Alcohol or drug related violent crime
SCJS 2008/09
Violent crime (base: 622)

4.6 The impact of property and violent crime

4.6.1 Emotions felt

Victims were asked what, if any, emotions they felt after the crime happened. Figure 4.11 shows emotions felt by victims in property crime, compared with those felt by victims in violent crime:

• Anger and annoyance were felt by almost the same proportion of victims in property crime. Victims experienced anger (59%) and annoyance (60%) in around six in ten property crimes;
• In almost six in ten (57%) violent crimes, victims experienced anger, almost the same proportion for property crime measured by the SCJS 2008/09. In around four in ten (39%) violent crimes, victims were annoyed following the incident compared with 60% of property crime;
• Victims in violent crime in SCJS 2008/09 were more likely to report feeling shock (32%) and fear (21%) after incidents of violent crime compared with property crime (13% felt shock and five per cent felt fear);

Conversely, victims of violent crime were more likely to say that they experienced no emotional reaction (10%) after an incident compared with property crime (three per cent).

Figure 4.11: Emotional responses to crime
SCJS 2008/09
Property crime (base: 3,172); violent crime (base: 622)

4.6.2 Monetary impacts - property crime

As well as emotional impacts, victims of crime can suffer financial loss through property being stolen or damaged. ⁴¹ Victims of property crime were asked the approximate value of damaged or stolen items. The range of values given was wide, reflecting the diverse property crime included under this heading, for example from stolen vehicles to minor incidents of vandalism or theft.

Figure 4.12 shows:

• When property was damaged, in over half of property crimes (53%), victims valued damaged items at £300 or less. Around one-third (34%) said they did not know the value of the damaged items;
• When property was stolen, in over four in five (83%) property crimes, adults valued stolen items at £300 or less; more than two in five (43%) valued them at £50 or less.

Figure 4.12: Value of damaged / stolen items
SCJS 2008/09
Property crimes where something was stolen / damaged (base: damaged 1,723; stolen 1,389)

The extent to which the financial loss was recouped depends on whether the property was covered by insurance and if it was covered, whether an insurance claim was made.

The results are shown for property crime as a whole and for vandalism:

• In two in five (41%) property crimes where items were damaged or stolen, those items were covered by insurance;
• For cases of vandalism, over half (53%) of damaged or stolen items were insured;
• Claims were made in around one in five incidents where damaged or stolen goods were insured (22% property crime; 18% vandalism).

Figure 4.13: Whether damaged / stolen property insured or claim made in cases of property crime / vandalism
SCJS 2008/09
Property crime / vandalism where items damaged or stolen (base: property crime 2,934; vandalism 1,419); where damaged or stolen items insured (base: property crime 1,288; vandalism 803)

4.6.3 Injuries sustained - violent crime

As described in section 4.3, violent crime included attempted and actual serious assault, minor assault and robbery. The degree of violence varied considerably between the different types of incidents as did the level of injury sustained. Serious assault, by definition, involved serious injury. ⁴² At the other end of the scale some incidents of minor assault resulted in no injury and included incidents of attempted assault and threats where the offender(s) had a weapon. Robbery could result in serious, minor or no injury but involved the use or threat of force.

58% of victims of violent crime sustained injuries:

• There were no significant differences between males (59%) and females (60% ⁴³) in the proportion of victims of violent crime that were injured;
• Younger victims of violent crime (16-24 year olds) were more likely to sustain an injury than any other age group (70% ⁴⁴ compared with, for example, 52% of 25-44 year olds respectively);
• Those victims of violent crime in the 15% most deprived areas were more likely to sustain an injury than those in the rest of Scotland (64% ⁴⁵ compared with 58% respectively). ⁴⁶

Injures sustained included:

• In around six in ten (59%) violent crimes where the victim suffered an injury, they sustained minor bruising or a black eye;
• In around one in four violent crimes where the victim was injured, they sustained serious bruising (26%) or scratches (23%);
• In 13% of violent crime where the victim was injured, they sustained serious cuts;
• Other injuries such as head injuries, broken bones or internal injuries were sustained by victims in seven per cent or fewer violent crimes where they were injured.

Figure 4.14: Injuries sustained in violent crime where the victim was injured
SCJS 2008/09
Violent crime where victim was injured (base: 294)

4.7 Perceptions of property crime and violent crime

4.7.1 Whether what happened was a crime

It is possible that victims did not consider the incident they mentioned to be crime. Whether they did or not may have depended on the nature of the incident itself and the victim's perceptions of the incident. The SCJS 2008/09 explored the views of victims of property crime and of violent crime on whether they thought what happened to them was a crime, wrong but not a crime, or just something that happens:

• Property crime (69%) was more likely to be described as a crime by victims compared with violent crime (57%);
• In under one in five property crimes (18%), and a similar proportion of violent crimes (19%), victims said the incident was wrong but not a crime;
• Violent crime (24%) was more likely to be described by victims as 'just something that happens' compared with property crime (12%).

Figure 4.15: Whether what happened was a crime or not
SCJS 2008/09
Property crime (base: 3,172); violent crime (base: 622)

4.7.2 What should have happened to offenders

Regardless of whether the police came to know about the incident or identified the offender(s) and regardless of whether the victim believed what happened to be a crime, victims were asked whether they thought the offender(s) should have been prosecuted in court.

Those who did not think the offender(s) should have been prosecuted in court were subsequently asked the reason for this and what alternative to prosecution should have happened. Those victims who thought the offender(s) should have been prosecuted in court were asked whether the offender(s) should have been given a prison sentence or some other sentence.

Considering first whether the offender(s) should have gone to court or not:

• In over half of property crime (57%) and of violent crime (52%), victims said the offender(s) should have gone to court.
• In 40% of property crime and 46% of violent crime victims said the offender(s) should not have been prosecuted in court.

For property crime, where victims did not think offender(s) should have been prosecuted in court, the main reasons they gave included:

• The incident was too trivial (40% compared with 26% for violent crime);
• It would have been a waste of time or money (25% compared with 15% for violent crime);
• The offenders were too young or were children (16% compared with seven per cent for violent crime);
• Courts were inappropriate for this offence (13% compared with eight per cent for violent crime);
• There was no evidence or proof (11% compared with six per cent for violent crime).

Other differences between reasons given for violent and property crime where the victim did not think the offender(s) should have been prosecuted in court included:

• It was personal / private matter they dealt with themselves (22% of violent crime compared with four per cent of property crime);
• The offender(s) was not responsible for their actions (eight per cent of violent crime compared with one per cent of property crime).

Figure 4.16: Main reasons offender(s) should not have been prosecuted in court⁴⁷
SCJS 2008/09
All crime where respondent did not think the offender(s) should have been prosecuted (base: property crime 1,361; violent crime 287)

Instead of prosecution in court, victims of crime who did not think offender(s) should have been prosecuted in court most often said that:

• Nothing should have happened to the offender(s) (4% of property crime compared with 24% of violent crime);
• The offender(s) should have been given some kind of warning (23% of property crime compared with 22% of violent crime);
• The offender(s) should have been made to pay compensation (21% of property crime compared with three per cent of violent crime);
• The offender(s) should have apologised for what they had done (19% of property crime compared with 22% of violent crime);
• The offender(s) should have been made help the victim or the community (13% of property crime compared with six per cent of violent crime).

Figure 4.17: Alternative to prosecution victim said should have happened to offender(s)
SCJS 2008/09
All crime where respondent did not think the offender(s) should have been prosecuted (base: property crime 1,361; violent crime 287)

Victims who thought the offender(s) should have gone to court were asked whether they should have been given a prison sentence or some other sentence: ⁴⁸

• In both property crime and violent crime where the victim thought that the offender(s) should be prosecuted, the majority of victims said that the offender(s) should have been given a sentence other than a prison sentence (79% property crime; 60% violent crime);
• The proportion of violent crime where victims said the offender(s) should have been sentenced to prison was higher than for property crime (37% and 17% respectively).

Figure 4.18: Whether offender(s) should have been given a prison sentence or another sentence
SCJS 2008/09
All crime where respondent thinks the offender(s) should have been prosecuted in court (base: property crime 1,810; violent crime 334)

4.8 Card and Identity fraud

This section looks at fraud, specifically card and identity fraud, in which there is growing interest (Hoare and Wood 2007). While card and identity fraud could be an additional dimension of property crime it is not measured specifically in property crime as measured by the SCJS in 2008/09.

Based on BCS definitions (Hoare and Wood 2007), card and identity fraud measured in the SCJS includes:

• Credit or bank cards being stolen and subsequently used to obtain money, good or services;
• Credit or bank card details being used to obtain money, goods or services;
• Personal details being obtained and used to open bank accounts or get credit cards, loans, state benefits or official documents such as national insurance numbers, drivers licenses, birth certificates and passports.

Concern has been growing about card and identity fraud in recent years. Despite this, there is no comprehensive measure of this type of fraud. The Home Office (Moley, 2009) considers data from the Card Industry Association ( CIA) a good source of information on the rate of plastic card fraud within the UK. However CIA data is not available separately for Scotland and does not include details about other types of identity fraud not involving plastic cards.

There are difficulties with using survey data or police figures to assess how much of these types of fraud there is (Hoare and Wood, 2007):

• Where a card is not physically stolen, adults may be unaware that a fraud involving their personal or financial details has taken place;
• Adults whose details are used fraudulently may not suffer loss or harm and may not consider themselves to be the victim of a crime;
• Where a card or personal documents are physically stolen, details may be given by adults in the victim form, though this may not be the case in other kinds of identity fraud.

Recognising these difficulties, the SCJS 2008/09 did not attempt to estimate the extent of fraud in its main estimate of crime. Instead, questions were included in a separate, quarter-module, module C, ⁴⁹ to provide, for the first time, some information on the risk to adults in Scotland of being a victim of fraud.

The results were that:

• 3.6% of adults had experienced card fraud in the 12 months prior to interview;
• 0.8% of adults had been a victim of identity theft, where someone had pretended to be them or used their personal details fraudulently.

The SCJS 2008/09 identified more instances of cards themselves being used without permission (2.3%) than of card details being used (1.3%). In contrast, CIA figures show that card-not-present fraud (involving non-face-to-face transactions over the internet, by telephone or mail order) accounts for the largest number of fraudulent transactions in the UK.

The BCS has included questions on card and identity fraud since 2005/06. The rate of card fraud found in the SCJS is similar to that seen in the BCS in 2005/06 and 2006/07 (3.7% in both years). Rates rose in the two subsequent years and in 2008/09 over six per cent (6.4%) said they had been a victim of card fraud in the 12 months prior to interview in England & Wales, 70% higher than in Scotland in the same period (3.6%).

There is widespread belief, supported by evidence from the BCS and industry information, that the types of fraud discussed in this chapter are increasing. Estimates produced by the SCJS 2008/09 provide a useful baseline for examining changes in risk in the future.

Follow-up questions were asked about the nature of the card and identity fraud experienced, but the fact this section was asked in a quarter-module, together with the low prevalence identified, means insufficient detail was collected to report these on a single year's data.

Questions on card and identity fraud were also included in the 2009/10 sweep of the SCJS to monitor the extent of changes in this type of crime, particularly during current economic climate. Including questions for a second year will enable data to be combined and may allow more detailed analysis to be carried out.

As well as measuring the extent of fraud, questions were also asked in the SCJS 2008/09 about the extent adults worried about card and identity fraud happening to them and the likelihood they believed it would happen, in the context of other types of crime. Chapter 6 provides further discussion about this in comparison to the actual risk reported here.

4.9 Workplace abuse

4.9.1 Introduction

This section provides information about workplace abuse which, in the context of the SCJS 2008/09 includes incidents of both physical abuse and verbal abuse. The term refers to abuse experienced by someone in the course of their work perpetrated by the general public. The information about workplace abuse was collected in a quarter-module, module A, ⁵⁰ of the SCJS 2008/09. The incidents described may or may not have been included in estimates of violent crime collected in the SCJS 2008/09 victim form.

Previous crime survey research in Scotland showed that a sizeable minority (37%) of workers in contact with the public were subject to abuse in the workplace (Brown and Bolling, 2006).

4.9.2 Experience of physical or verbal abuse at work

Around three-quarters (74%) of adults in employment ⁵¹ spent some time dealing with the general public during the course of their work, either face-to-face or over the telephone.

Among those adults who had jobs involving contact with the general public, verbal abuse in the workplace was more prevalent than physical abuse (Figure 4.19):

• 35% had experienced either verbal abuse or physical abuse;
• 34% had experienced verbal abuse;
• seven per cent had experienced physical abuse, with 94% of these also experiencing verbal abuse;
• six per cent had experienced both verbal and physical abuse;
• 65% had not experienced any form of abuse.

Figure 4.19: Verbal and physical abuse experienced at work
SCSJ 2008/09
Adults answering module A in public-facing employment (base: 1,530)

There were some differences among those who had experienced verbal abuse in the workplace:

• Females experienced verbal abuse more than males (37% compared with 32%);
• 16-44 year olds experienced verbal abuse more than those aged 45 or older (37% compared with 31%).

Given the small number of adults experiencing physical abuse identified by the survey it is not possible to identify differences among different demographic groups within those adults.

4.9.3 Frequency of experiencing physical or verbal abuse at work

Adults who had experienced either physical or verbal abuse in the workplace were asked how often the abuse had taken place during the previous 12 months. Results are shown in Figure 4.20.

• For about one in three adults who experienced workplace abuse, it was an infrequent occurrence; 36% of those abused verbally and 34% of those abused physically said that this had happened only once or twice in the last year;
• However, for almost as many adults who had experienced workplace abuse, it was a much more common occurrence; 30% experienced verbal abuse on a weekly basis. Similarly 29% suffering physical abuse did so at least once a week;
• A small minority of those experiencing workplace abuse reported that it occurred every day with four per cent experiencing verbal abuse daily and two per cent experiencing physical abuse daily.

Figure 4.20: Frequency of experiencing verbal or physical abuse at work
SCJS 2008/09
Adults in public facing employment experiencing verbal or physical abuse in the workplace (Base: verbal abuse 502; physical abuse 105)

4.9.4 Reporting of incidents of workplace abuse

Adults who had been the victims of workplace abuse by the general public were asked whether or not they had reported the most recent incident to their employer.

The majority of victims reported incidents of workplace abuse by the general public to an employer, though reporting was more common when the abuse was physical than when it was verbal:

• 77% of adults who had experienced physical abuse said they reported the latest incident to their employer compared with 54% who had experienced verbal abuse;
  • A higher percentage of females than males reported the latest incident of verbal abuse (62% compared with 44%).

The low base size ⁵² of those experiencing physical abuse prevents further breakdown by gender.

Adults who had not reported the latest incident of verbal abuse to their employer were asked why they had not done so:

• 53% of those not reporting verbal abuse described the incident as just part of the job;
• 30% indicated that reporting the abuse was not worth the bother;
• 11% said they only reported serious incidents and the last incident was not serious enough to report;
• Three per cent of those not reporting verbal abuse, said there was no system in place at their workplace for reporting such complaints.

Reasons given for not reporting physical abuse incidents were similar, though the low base size prevents systematic analysis.

4.9.5 Worry about workplace abuse

To explore the possible effects on the health and well-being of adults experiencing verbal or physical abuse at work, those experiencing workplace abuse by the general public were asked whether they worried about being abused at work and if so, to what extent this worry affected their health. Most adults who experienced workplace abuse did not worry much or at all about being abused at work:

• Five per cent of employees who had been either verbally or physically abused at work by members of the general public worried a lot about being abused;
• 18% worried a little;
• 32% did not worry much;
• 45% did not worry at all.

Of those who did worry a lot (five per cent) or a little (18%), the majority reported that this did not affect their health:

• Three per cent reported that the worry affected their health a lot;
• 38% reported that it affected their health a little;
• 59% reported that it did not affect their health at all.

4.9.6 Support for employees in public-facing roles

All those who spent some time dealing with the general public during the course of their work were asked whether or not they had received any formal training or other assistance to help them deal with situations where members of the general public were behaving aggressively towards them (Figure 4.21).

• 43% of all employees having contact with the general public at work had received training or support to deal with aggressive behaviour. 38% had received training and eight per cent had received other assistance;
• Among those who had experienced verbal abuse in the workplace 62% had received training or other support. This means that almost four in ten (38%) employees who had experienced verbal abuse had not received training or other support to deal with this;
• 33% of employees who deal with the public but had not experienced verbal abuse also received training or support to help them deal with situations of abuse should they arise.

These figures suggest that employers were more likely to target training and support at those employees most likely to experience workplace abuse. However there were still a relatively large minority of employees who have experienced abuse but who were not offered training or other support.

Figure 4.21: Proportion of adults in public-facing employment who have received training or other support to help deal with potential abuse
SCJS 2008/09
Adults in employment who deal with the general public (base: 1,530); and experience verbal abuse (base: 502); and do not experience verbal abuse (base: 105)