Johannes Knutsson

The risk of detection

The clearance rate is often used as an indicator of the risk of detection, in spite of the fact that these are different matters. This article suggests a method to make estimates of the risk of detection based on information from the Swedish crime statistics. The risk of detection is expressed as a function of the dark figure. Empirical estimates of the risk are given for drunken driving, residential burglary, and assault between strangers. These estimates are followed up with some calculations concerning the impact of crime activity level on the risk of getting caught. One major conclusion of the findings is that the risk of detection varies very moderately with the dark figure. This means that if there is some knowledge of the dark figure, it is often possible to make fairly good estimates of the risk of detection.

Nature and Cycle of Cycle Thefts

In Routine Activity Theory, “we take criminal inclination as given and examine the manner in which the spatio-temporal organization of social activities helps people to translate their criminal inclinations into action” (Cohen&Felson, 1979 p.589). In essence, to get an understanding of crime, focus must be placed on patterns of human activities and how they are affected by various conditions. Many of these patterns emanate from fundamental biological needs — the need for food, shelter, rest, and the sexual drive. It may thus be stated that, ultimately, it is the pre-conditions for human life and how these requirements are satisfied that give rise to different patterns of crime.

National Police Commissioner Ingelin Killengreen, Norway1

JK: What was your career in the police and outside? IK: The career of National Police Commissioner Ingelin Killengreen started directly after she received her degree as a lawyer from the university in 1972, when she took up a position at the Department of Justice. Except for a few interruptions when she, among other positions, served in the prison administration system, Ingelin Killengreen stayed at the Department of Justice until 1994. She became head of the police unit in 1989 which at that point of time was the highest position in the Norwegian police organization, a position she held until 1993 when she was appointed secretary general at the Ministry of Justice. Unexpectedly, after just one year, she applied and got the post as commissioner of the Oslo police force. She reveals that it took a couple of weeks for her to make up her mind. The motive was a wish to work with more concrete police issues and to get practical results. Since the post as secretary general is one of the highest a lawyer can get in Norway, the shift was by many considered a step down in her career. Some could not understand or accept it. Her predecessor as commissioner in the Oslo police held strong opinions regarding her suitability—since she had no experience leading a police force it would end up in a catastrophe. Her own opinion was that there were a lot of experienced and skilled persons in the force and that maybe she could bring something new into the organization. A strong chief of police can form the police according to her or his ideas—something that characterized the commissioner she replaced—and she believed that the Oslo police was ripe for something else. She functioned as the