Crime Mapping

Mapping reported crime data can be an effective way to analyze where crime occurs, and the resulting visualization can be combined with other geographic data - such as the locations of schools, parks, and industrial complexes - and used to analyze and investigate patterns of crime to help inform responses (Hunt 2019). Advances in analytical capabilities within both the criminal justice and GIS communities have made it possible to add more geographic and social dimensions to crime maps, increasing their usefulness across multiple disciplines (La Vigne 1999). Although these advances in crime mapping have been helpful in being able to recognize various criminal activity patterns and to inform response activity, this practice comes with many implications that have the potential to lead to harm for individuals and communities if the crime data were to be used, altered, or portrayed in an unethical manner.

Some of the most popular current uses of GIS technology in solving crimes include calculations of crime density values, the correlation of vacant home percentages with the occurrence of illegal activity, the distance between registered child sex offender homes and school locations, and the analysis of serial offender residences to the areas where they conduct their routine activities (NIJ 2003).

The following navigable map includes publicly available United States crime index data, along with popular demographic data including age, race, and household income. Both sets of data have been made available to view at the state, county, zip code, and block levels.

The distribution of crimes across the landscape is not geographically random, as learned from the map above. The availability of potential perpetrators and accessibility of potential targets are influenced by population density (Chainey & Ratcliffe 2008). This, combined with general geographic convenience, impacts where people choose to break the law (Chainey & Ratcliffe 2008).

According to studies conducted within the last two decades, it has been observed that the general public seems to have an continuous and consistent interest in news on criminal activity, as emphasized by the rise in popularity of crime-oriented television programs and online articles (Ratcliffe 2002). A number of studies of the fear of crime have even shown that the public, in general, are poor at evaluating their realistic likelihood of victimization (Ratcliffe 2002). This has been attributed to the overwhelming amount of crime content consumed by the average individual. The public release and promotion of crime maps have contributed to the amount of crime media the average person interacts with on a daily basis (Ratcliffe 2002).

Simple maps that display the locations of where crimes or concentrations of crimes have occurred have both positive and negative consequences. The positive impacts of crime maps have been briefly discussed already, but the negative impacts are just as important and relevant in this field.

Crime mapping itself does not directly assist in determining an appropriate intervention, but it supports that effort through the researcher's ability to accurately analyze the underlying cause of a crime problem (La Vigne 1999). The success of this analysis relies on the researcher, which comes with a set of ethical concerns. Who the researcher works for, potential funding, and inherent bias must be considered when relying on a researcher to appropriately and accurately interpret crime data for intervention.

Policy makers are among those who often rely on the interpretation of reported crime data and statistics in order to inform legislation. Below are two graphics of offender and victim summary statistics from the FBI's online crime data explorer application for the year 2020.

Racial attributes of crimes are the subject of constant discussion and debate, especially when it comes to policymaking. For example, some efforts to drive down crime numbers in New York City based on crime maps and statistics created significant civil rights violations for people of color (Chainey & Tompson 2008). Under some New York political administrations, there was significant pressure to reduce crime, as the perception of a "crime-ridden" city had a negative effect on businesses - particularly real estate and tourism (Chainey & Tompson 2008).

To counter the negative image of dangerousness surrounding the city, police were pressured to clean up areas known to have high crime rates. New York hired a new police commissioner, and an initiative called “broken windows” policing was instituted (Chainey & Tompson 2008). The premise of this “zero tolerance” mode of policing was that nothing should be overlooked, and no crime was too small to investigate or pursue (Chainey & Tompson 2008). By prosecuting every conceivable crime, the overall crime rate in New York plummeted (NYCLU 2019).

While this benefitted the city immensely, there was another side of this story that was not being made as public as the decreasing crime rates. Along with the effort to bring down crime rates, New York police instituted stop-and-frisk practices, which were aimed at stopping crime before it could even occur (NYCLU 2017). They used crime maps to focus on areas where crimes were concentrated, and identified potential criminals according to ethnic or racial characteristics (NYCLU 2020). Police even photographed these individuals to identify them in the event of future crimes in their neighborhoods (NYCLU 2019). More than 80% of those stopped were people of color (NYCLU 2020).

The New York City case study is a prime example of how crime mapping can be used unethically and have serious consequences for individuals, especially minorities. There are clear implications of privacy breaching, racial profiling, and ultimate harm caused primarily due to crime rate maps. It is critical that GIS professionals consider these implications before creating such a substantiative map in order to maintain ethicality and trust. Individuals within the GIS field tasked with creating, analyzing, or extrapolating data from crime maps should be mindful of the  GIS Code of Ethics , and fulfill their obligations to the profession, individuals, society, and employers to the best of their ability while bearing in mind all possible outcomes of their work - both the positive and negative.