Kontekstuaalsete faktorite mõju ei vaidlusta vist paljud. Probleem tekib aga siis, kui on vaja “mõõdikuid” ning siis ilmuvad tabelid-graafikud, mis kajastavad lihtsalt mõõdetavaid aspekte, kuid kontekst jääb sageli tahaplaanile. Siinviidatu leidiski oma koha peamiselt konteksti rõhutava vaatenurga tõttu.

Kontekstiks (oluline!):

When compared to countries in the Global North, such as Sweden, the United States, and Australia, where only 21%, 31%, and 16% of the population respectively states the same (Inglehart et al., 2018), it is obvious that most Latin American countries not only have a crime problem, they have a police legitimacy problem. Perhaps among the most obvious manifestations of both problems is that most Latin Americans do not report crimes to the police. […] As most crimes are not acknowledged in police administrative records, measures to combat insecurity (such as officer, patrol, and police station resource allocation) are often based on incomplete information.

Uuringu eesmärk:

the present study examines which factors promote the reporting of the most common crime in the region (robbery), in Peru—the country with the highest robbery rate and second lowest reporting rate (UNODC, 2014).

Kuritegudest teatamise teoreetilistest perspektiividest:

Explanations of crime reporting behavior have traditionally been derived from one of three theories: rational choice […], institutional legitimacy theory […], and variations on Black’s theory of the stratification of law […].

Vihje lugemishuvi suurendamiseks:

this study finds that trust in the police is not related to the decision to report the robbery of a cellphone, purse or wallet. Rather, Peruvians report robbery in the face of overwhelming and generalized skepticism of the police. In fact, the proportion of people who have little to no trust in the police is the same (80%) among those who did and did not report crimes.

Hernández, W., & Heimark, K. R. (2021). Does context matter? Examining robbery reporting in a high crime country. Criminology & Criminal Justice. https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958211031344