Hot-harm-spots. MBR

Candidate Number POL 1441
May-Britt Rinaldo
Fitzwilliam College, University of Cambridge
Supervisor Dr. Katrin Müller Johnson
Thesis Title
Comparing Crime Hotspots and Crime Harm-Spots
in a Swedish City:
A Descriptive Analysis.
Word Count: 17,888
Submitted in part fulfilment of the requirements for Master’s Degree in Applied
Criminology and Police Management
December 2015

2
Abstract
This thesis introduces the newly developed Swedish Crime Harm Index as a
model for “Harm-Focused Policing”. This is a descriptive study comparing crime hotspots
versus crime harm-spots in the Gothenburg City in Sweden.
Effectiveness to aim an improvement for the citizens’ perception of police
visibility in high crime areas where violent crime counts during one year are identified by
harm instead of volume in numbers is presented in this thesis. By creating the “Swedish Crime
Harm Index”; the Police and other authorities responsible for crime prevention would be able
to weight crime harm – number of prison days per crime and location, against hotspots –
number of crimes and location. Serious crimes known as “street violence” are of greater
public concern and with a measurement tool as the Swedish Crime Harm Index; more harmful
locations can be identified and remedied by crime fighting stakeholders. Focusing dually on
crime harm-spots and crime hotspots; Police activities can potentially be both more effective
and cost saving for all agencies involved.
This is the first research in Sweden where crime hotspots versus crime harm-
spots are compared based on scientific research in “Evidence Based Policing”. The newly
developed Swedish Crime Harm Index can easily be adapted to assess violent crimes reported
in other geographic areas of Gothenburg, in Police Region West or elsewhere in Sweden.

3
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank the former Police Authorities of Västra Götaland and
former County Police Commissioner Mr. Ingemar Johansson, and thank you to the present
Police Region West and Police Commissioner Mr. Klas Friberg, both for their support and
sponsoring during the Master programme in Cambridge. For the use of relevant data and
access to analytical support I particularly thank Detective Inspector Thomas Petersson,
Region West, Sweden.
I would like to mention my supervisor year one; Former Police Constable Mr.
Crispian Strachan for his trust in, and adding of self-confidence into a Swedish lady writing
English without adequate academic English writing education. My second year supervisor Dr.
Katrin Müller Johnson has been fantastic, supportive and always present. She has been firm
and clear in her supervising, with kind advices how to follow the road map. Her support has
been a value of gold.
With respect for their knowledge and support; this thesis would never take place
without the five judges at the Gothenburg District Court and Court of Appeal who
acknowledged the value of a Swedish Crime Harm Index, thank you for voluntary evaluating
118 crime classification codes.
Finally thank you and apologises to my neglected children, grandchildren and
close friends from whom shown patience, interest and support for mother, grandmother and
their friend´s demanding and challenging academic studies.

4
Contents
Abstract ...………………………………………………………………… 2
Acknowledgement ……………………………………………….…….. 3
Contents …………………………………………………………………. 4
List of Tables, Map and Figures ………………………………….………… 8
Introduction ……………………………………………………………. 10
Research Question ……………………………………………………. 13
Literature Review……………………………………………………… 14
Introduction...................................................... 14
Hotspot Policing …………………………….……………. 15
Crime Harm Index …………………………………….…… 19
The Cambridge Crime Harm Index………….. 19
The Canadian Crime Severity Index…………. 20
U.S. Index for Harm-Focused Policing………. 21
Criminology Theory ……………………………….……… 24
Routine Activity Theory ……………………. 24
Deterrence Theory………………...……….. 24
Situational Crime Prevention Theory………. 25
Swedish Court System …………………………………… 26
Greater Gothenburg ………………………………….….. 29
Research Methods ……………………………………………….….. 31
Introduction ………………………………… 31
Objective 1. Creation of a Swedish Crime Harm Index…... 33
Background to the Swedish Crime
Classification and Sentencing System……… 33
Creation of the Material …………………… 34
The Assessing Judges ……………………… 37

5
Procedure …………………………………. 38
Objective 2 and 3. Obtaining the violent crime data and
Crime Hotspot Mapping ………………………………… 40
Ethical Concerns…………………………… 41
Objective 4. Crime Harm Spot Mapping ……………… 42
Results and Analysis ……………………………………………….. 43
Findings …………………………..….……. 43
Objective 1. Developing the Swedish Crime Harm Index 45
Objective 2 and 3. Hotspots of Violent Crime in Gothenburg
City in 2014 ……………………………………………….. 46
Further Analysis of the Crime Data by Weekday,
Time and Victim …………………………….. 49
Sexual Offences ……………….…………… 51
Physical Assaults ……………….……….…… 52
Muggings ……………………………..………. 54
Unlawful Treats …………………………….… 55
Objective 3. Crime Hotspots Maps …………………..……. 58
Objective 4. Crime Harm Spots 2014 ……………………… 59
Temporal Distribution ……………………….. 61
Objective 5. Comparing Hotspots versus Crime Harm-Spots 63
Discussion ……………………………………………………………..….. 67
The Wider Implications ………………………………………. 69
Prevention Cost ………………………………… 69
Creation of the Swedish Crime Harm Index …… 70
Extended Hotspot Classification…………………. 72
Thesis Context with Existing Literature and Research 72
Addressing Theories …………………………… 73
Misclassifications …………...…………………. 74

6
Comparison of the Hotspot and Crime
Harm-Spot Maps ……………………………. 75
Limitation in Research ………………………………………………….…. 77
Crime Statistics ……………………………….. 77
Limitation of crime……………………………. 77
Limitation in location…………………………. 77
Geographic Index ……………………………. 78
Assessing Instruments ………………………. 78
Research Papers ……………………………. 78
Strengths in Research …………………………………………………… 79
IMPLICATION and CONCLUSION ……………………………. 80
Implications for Future Research ……………... 81
Implications for police practice: Harm-Focused
Management …………………….…………… 81
Harm-Focused Strategy ………………………. 82
Police and Stakeholders ………………………. 82
Geographical Information …………………….. 83
Further Training ……………………………... 83
Financial Applications ………………………… 84
Bibliography ……………………………………………………………. 85
Abbreviations …………………………………………………………… 91
Appendices ……………………………………………………………… 92
Appendix A. Crime codes – Violent crimes
against person in public place 2014………….. 92
Appendix B. Street Violence Codes 2014……… 93
Appendix C. Missive Judges – English………… 94
Appendix D. Judges Evaluation – English……… 95
Appendix E. Judges SCHI Thesis – English…….. 102

7
Appendix F. Event Calendar 2014…………….. 105
Appendix G. Spreadsheet from K-RAR………… 106
Appendix H. SCHI and Hotspots 2014................ 107

8
List of Tables and Figures
Tables
Table 1. Extract from "Expected verdicts" and judges consent agreement…….. 35
Table 2. Example 1. Calculation of prison days for crime code 0654………….. 36
Table 3. Example 2. Calculation of prison days for crime code 0358………….. 37
Table 4. Extract from the RAR recorded Excel file…………………………….. 41
Maps
Map 1. The official violent crime classification codes (16) for 2014………….. 47
Map 2. 2717 Reported crimes against person in public place reported 2014
in Gothenburg City according to RAR…………………………………………. 48
Map 3. CHI 2014 – shown in bars on the Gothenburg City Hotspot Map….…. 60
Figures
Figure 1. Distribution of reported crimes delivered over the days of the
week – 2014…………………………………………………………………… 50
Figure 2. Distribution of crime spread over the hours of the day – 2014……… 51
Figure 3. Sexual assault reported by day the week…………………………… 51
Figure 4. Sexual assaults reported by hour of the day………………………… 51
Figure 5. Sexual offences distributed by age for female victims – 2014……… 52
Figure 6. Reported physical assault by day of the week – 2014………………. 53
Figure 7. Reported physical assault by hour of the day – 2014……………….. 53
Figure 8. Physical assault, male victim by age – 2014………………………… 53
Figure 9. Delivery of muggings by day of the week…………………………… 54
Figure 10. Delivery of muggings by time of the day…………………………… 54
Figure 11. Muggings; Number of female victims by age – 2014……………… 55
Figure 12. Muggings; Number of male victims by age – 2014………………… 55
Figure 13. Delivery of unlawful threats by day of the week – 2014…………… 56
Figure 14. Delivery of unlawful threats by time of the day…………………….. 56
Figure 15. Unlawful threat; Number of male victims by age – 2014………….. 56
Figure 16. Unlawful threat; Number of female victims by age – 2014………… 56

9
Figure 17. Frequency total and CHI total delivered over the week days………. 62
Figure 18. Top 5 per cent Crime Harm locations versus top 5 per cent
Crime Hotspots………………….……………………………………………… 65

10
Introduction
This thesis sets out to present a descriptive study surrounding targeted crimes
committed against the person within Gothenburg’s inner city places. Will explore whether
policing by a Swedish Crime Harm Index, a crime harm focused policing would be a better
measurement than a single crime hotspot policing.
The thesis is based on the newly-introduced1
objectives of the National Police of
Sweden aimed at improving the citizens’ perception of Police visibility in high crime areas.
The aim of this thesis is to fill the gap within the Swedish body of knowledge
relating to criminological research into the area of crime hotspot and crime harm-spots. For
example, a comparison trail between the two aspects; hotspots versus harm-spots, has never
been conducted in Sweden. An additional benefit is that it would add more knowledge to the
level of ongoing research conducted in United Kingdom (UK) with regard to the Cambridge
Crime Harm Index and the United States of America (USA) Index for Harm-Focused Policing
in USA. In addition, it is anticipated that the findings will stimulate the Police and Swedish
researchers’ targets and subsequently test their outcome.
The literature review will present comparable hotspot policing research in UK,
USA and Sweden, followed by the Cambridge Crime Harm Index, the Index for Harm-
Focused Policing in USA and the Canadian Police Reported Crime Severity Index. Three
criminology theories, the Routine Activity Theory, the Deterrence Theory and the Situational
Crime Prevention Theory, are relevant to this study, specifically when describing expected
reactions regarding crime hotspot policing versus crime-harm policing.
1
1
st
January 2015

11
To establish a Crime Harm Index relevant to the effects of crime – perceived or
actual – in Sweden, the Cambridge Crime Harm Index and the Canadian Crime Severity
Index were used as guiding instrument. Expected sentences for first time offenders
committing crimes against the person in public places were evaluated by judges from the
Gothenburg District Court and Court of Appeal.
National Crime statistics were obtained from the Rationell Anmälningsrutin
(RAR), which is the Crime Routine Report regarding crimes committed against the person in
public places in the Gothenburg City area, for year 2014. These reported and recorded crimes
were identified by a crime classification code, location, and time, day and date of commission
of the crime. All crimes against persons in public places are, thereafter plotted on a
Gothenburg City map. The aim of this process was to identify the frequency of crime
hotspots and associated problem areas. Once identified, and classified, thereafter, the figures
for the same crimes were recorded by the newly developed Swedish Crime Harm Index and
subsequently plotted on a Gothenburg City map.
In the final analysis, the crime figures relating to crime hotspots were compared
with the crime figures recorded for crime harm-spots which were obtained over same time
yearly time-frame, i.e. location, time, day and date. Year-on-year time frames may
subsequently be produced to capture seasonal or historic commemorative events. For
example, crowd violence at certain football matches; or emotive anniversaries of tragedies,
including deaths of famous people. Once identified, the figures obtained from either crime
hotspots or crime harm-spots may be compared by the Police. Any subsequent analysis
would be able to identify both crime hotspots and crime harm-spots, or those single events
that may be either potential or problematic crime harm-spots. To increase the public’s
perception of the level of tranquillity within their place, the Police should aim to target fewer
places to reduce the extent of potential crime harm at the most problematic locations. This

12
process should also reduce the cost of policing at those which were previously targeted as
problematic.
The benefit of this research was two-fold, it will add new knowledge to
“Evidence-Based Policing”; and provide the impetus to initiate further criminological
research within the same field of study at different geographic locations.

13
Research Question
This research question has five aims:
a) To create a Swedish Crime Harm Index (CHI) based on the number of reported crimes
that occur within a specific Swedish city.
b) To collate the incidence of reported crime committed against the person in a public
place.
c) To compile a crime hotspot map based on collated incidence of reported crime
committed against the person in public place.
d) To assess the incidence of reported crime committed against the person in a public
place and by using the Swedish Crime Harm Index, map the findings according to
location, day and time.
e) To provide a thorough analysis of the two maps by comparing the crime hotspots with
the crime harm-spots.
The research objective:
“Comparing Crime Hotspot versus Crime Harm Spots in a Swedish City: A descriptive
research study.”

14
Literature Review
Introduction
The literature review presents research data on crime hotspots and crime harm
evaluations undertaken in USA, Canada, UK and Sweden, with a focus on micro-locations of
crimes against the person in public places.
In relation to “Evidence Based Policing”; three criminological theories were
relevant to this study, specifically when describing expected reactions regarding crime hotspot
policing versus crime harm policing. The Routine Activity Theory, the Deterrence Theory and
the Situational Crime Prevention Theory are all opportunity theories where different
preventions schemes can be conveyed and change route of offender to safeguard the public.
To establish a Crime Harm Index relevant to the effects of crime – perceived or
actual – in Sweden, the literature review will look closer onto the Cambridge Crime Harm
Index, the Canadian Crime Severity Index and the U.S. Index for Harm-Focused Policing.
These three Indexes evaluate crime harm in prison time. The Swedish Crime Harm Index is
based on estimated sentence for each crime that the offender can spend in prison. The
severity of crimes was weighted by judges from Gothenburg District Court and Court of
Appeal. A description of the legal system will therefore follow in the literature review for
those who are not familiar with the Swedish Court System.
The literature review will be completed with a presentation of Greater
Gothenburg; the second largest city of Sweden.

15
Hotspot Policing
This section examines and reviews research concerning the geographic location
of crime known as “hotspots”; which can be seen as a place of danger with a high degree
criminal activity; which requires a variety of tactics and external influence to reduce crime.
Crime-patterns and geographical areas have been of researchers’ interest since
the late 1980s when Bottoms (2014) highlighted in his article2
, the studies of Brantingham
and Brantingham, (1999); Sherman et al., (1989); Weisburd, Morris, & Groff, (2009).
Together, they submitted that clusters of crimes at concentrated places existed regardless of
what area of crime or anti-social behaviour was examined. One early approach introducing
“hotspots” was presented by Sherman et al (1989) where it was shown that in Minneapolis 50
per cent of crime-related calls to the Police were related to 3.3 per cent of “hotspots”. Since
then targeting crime prevention programmes have been successfully conducted. Scholars and
practitioners working side by side like in Braga & Weisburd (2010) and Weisburd et al (2010)
in traditional “hotspot” prevention programmes have proved that police work can be more
efficient if they alter their focus from the person to identified crime places.
The development of software for new analytical computerised systems largely
increased “hotspot” research during the 1990’s. Weisburd et al (2010) presented the main
results of many “hotspot” policing studies over the past 30 years. The greater part of their
research was either conducted or still in progress in numerous USA cities. Through years of
research Weisburd et al (2010) proved that established crime-areas, the so-called “threat-
spots”, using “Evidence Based Policing”, could be tackled and effectively prevented much
cheaper than traditional “neighbourhood” policing.
2
Geography of Crime and Disorder

16
Sherman et al (1989); Sherman & Weisburd (1995) and Weisburd & Green
(1995a) found that if crime were spread randomly across a city there would barely be any idea
to implement place-based policing as this treatment only would work where crimes are
greatly concentrated.
Implementation of “hotspot” policing based on European research can generally
be found in the UK however this thesis focuses on Swedish conditions, which is why the few
studies that been presented in the country need to be reviewed. Professor David Weisburd
received the Stockholm Criminology Prize in 2010 and was recognised for his research in
crime hotspots. Thirty years of research gathered by Weisburd et al (2010) invigorated
Swedish researchers to look at Swedish conditions regarding crime hotspots.
In Sweden there are two examples of such research. The first report is an
overview and analysis conducted by Marklund (2011) of crimes in six Swedish cities;
“Eskilstuna, Helsingborg, Göteborg, Luleå, Stockholm and Umeå” during the time frame of
1st
November 2007 until 31st
October 2010. Information was gathered from the Swedish
National Council for Crime Prevention register over police reported crimes in RAR with the
intention to arouse interest in crime hotspot policing. The Geographic Information System
(GIS) was used to identify locations where chosen crimes were clustered. In all six cities five
types of crime offences were identified and clustered with help of GIS. The types of offences
in the study were; outdoor physical assault, mugging, domestic burglary, basement and attic
burglary and theft of or from the car. For this thesis the first two crime types, committed in
Gothenburg, are of interest. During the time frame of three years Marklund (2010) identified
3521 physical assaults and 1,334 muggings in Gothenburg City. Definitions of what counted
as a hotspot was graded: level 1 where over 100 muggings had been reported, level 2 with
over 70 muggings and level 3 around 30 muggings reported during the time of the research
(i.e. over 3 years).. Each hotspot had a radius of 90 metres. Two further requirements had to

17
be fulfilled before the location would be seen as a hotspot in the Marklund (2010) study: first,
the hotspots areas should cumulatively account for at least 20 per cent of all crimes of its kind
in the city and secondly, not less than half of the hotspot areas in the city should be
approximately equal in each year of the three years. Seven mugging hotspots were identified,
located and one graded into level 1, 3 as level 2 and 3 as level 3. These seven identified
mugging hotspot locations accounted for 30 per cent of all reported muggings in Gothenburg.
Six hotspots were identified as locations for outdoor physical assaults. In one hotspot 417
assaults had been reported during the three year time frame while in the remaining five
between 115 and 177. These six outdoor physical assault hotspots accounted for 28 per cent
of all assaults reported in Gothenburg during this period.
In the second research project the Police and Swedish National Council for
Crime Prevention (Brå) collaborated with Marklund and Merenius (2014) in their two hotspot
projects. Brå provided the methodology for identifying how they would police “hotspots” at
specific locations. The first project took place in Stockholm and focused on muggings3
. The
main intervention in this project consisted of targeted patrolling by the Police in hotspots
during the days and times when muggings were most commonly committed. Additional
initiatives involved identifying serial crime and searching for key persons. The second project
took place in the city of Eskilstuna, where assaults in the open-air were the main modus
operandi. The police in Eskilstuna primarily acted in the crime prevention perspective. They
targeted the locations where the physical assaults took place. They focused on pubs and the
staff employed, as well as the environment outside of the pubs to reduce the intake of alcohol.
Additional there was collaboration with the municipality in order to resolve comprehended
difficulties.
3
Mugging – attacking/assaulting someone and stealing their money.

18
The outcome of their research was accessible and supported with an analytical
evaluation of their findings. A reduction in the crime rates was the aim of both projects. Both
Police areas (Stockholm and Eskilstuna) independently designed how they would tackle crime
that occurred in public places. Their plan included the process and monitoring of police
intervention over a period of one year. In both projects the outcome resulted in a decrease in
the incidence of targeted crimes for the duration of the research period. Marklund and
Merenius (2014) two projects are the only two that used the twin-approach of “Evidence
Based Policing” together with hotspot policing with success. Their work has now been
recognised as the stronger logical foundation for targeted crime reduction operations.
It is noteworthy that when undertaking hotspot research that the number of
identified crimes are taken in equal quantity and of equal value. Through a process of
mapping their incidence they should identify the most clustered places for selected crime
and/or anti-social behaviour. In the final analysis the total number of crimes will be recorded
before and after intervention.
The Marklund et al studies thus show that hotspot policing can be successfully
applied to the Swedish setting. Nevertheless, in this country it is still in its infancy. Therefore
the current thesis research will contribute by creating hotspot maps for crime in the city of
Gothenburg.

19
Crime Harm Index
In addition to examining hotspots, this thesis also would like to apply the
concept of crime harm to the Swedish context. This has never been done before, and in fact in
order to investigate crime harm in Sweden, the work for this thesis started with creating a
Swedish Crime Harm Index (SCHI). This part of the literature review will therefore present
historic, recent and ongoing research within a developing arena to identify and measure the
extent of crime harm in a specific location/police area.
Research to identify and estimate harm owing to the prevalence of crime was
subject of research by Sellin & Wolfgang (1964). They focused on juvenile offenders and had
a group of professionals who estimated the rate of seriousness of crime. The scale of 1 – 11
presented by Sellin & Wolfgang (1994) with 1 as least serious, up to 11, as most serious, was
later criticised. Nevertheless they were able to defend their argument by contending that the 1
- 11 scale could easily be used by both researchers and police to either evaluate the percentage
of crime prevented; or as a measurement for the police to allocate resources according to the
known incidence of criminality in a specific location.
Other researchers as Hillyard (2008) and Hillyard & Tombs (2008) focused on
social harm and how crime affects the individual’s welfare. Their definition of social harm
included financial, emotional, sexual and physical harm when used to estimate the seriousness
of crimes.
The Cambridge Crime Harm Index
A sentence guided Crime Harm Index, based on number of days in prison
suggested in the sentencing guideline from England and Wales was introduced by Sherman
(2011, 2013), similar to succeeding U.S. Index for Harm-Focused Policing by Ratcliff (2014).

20
According to Sherman (2013) crimes are not created equal, and he used the term
“fungibility fallacy” to argue that “Evidence Based Policing would accept any crime valued
as one to one when examining harm”. A basic, democratic, measurement of crime harm
would, therefore, be used by following the National Sentencing Guidelines for crimes
committed by first offenders and evaluate the seriousness of the crime by counting the
number of days the offender spent in prison.
The Cambridge Crime Harm Index (CHI) is based on the English-Welsh
Sentencing Guideline (2008) which according to Robert (2013) is the only guideline outside
USA to have been “developed and implemented” with a thorough recommendation for
sentencing offenders. The guidelines contained a tariff for the number of days sentenced to
imprisonment, based on the seriousness of the offence/s. Sherman et al (2013) focused on
crime harm instead of the cost of crime which is the value of the item stolen or damaged;
together with the cost of medical expenses incurred during the treatment of and physical
injury sustained by the injured party during the commission of the offence. Rather than
focusing on volume of crime the Cambridge CHI concentrate at the value of harm in numbers
of prison days to identify concentrations of harm and ultimately reduce crime.
In a prevention strategy of reducing crimes it can be argued that the CHI in the
view of “Evidence Based Policing” will be beneficial for law enforcement agencies when
presenting “strategies of targeting, testing and tracking” crime. The public will understand
the CHI and its fairness, and the Police legitimacy will increase.
The Canadian Crime Severity Index
Similar to the Cambridge CHI, the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (2014)
introduced the government-developed “Crime Severity Index” (CSI). This index is based on

21
actual sentences dispensed across Canada. The Police Reported CSI includes all Criminal
Code violations including traffic, as well as drug violations and all Federal Statutes.
In the index, presented by Babyak et al (2009) all crimes are weighted according
to their seriousness; less serious crimes attract lower tariffs; and the more serious crimes
attracted higher weightings, therefore more serious crimes have greater impact on any
changes that occur without the index. Assessment measures based on the level of severity of
crime fluctuate from year to year; and their weighting is varied accordingly. The sentence
tariff according to the weight is based on actual sentences handed down by the courts in all
Canadian provinces and territories.
The CSI is an additional tool useful for analysing crime trends in Canada.
Babyak et al (2009) used a crime trend analysis tool to show (a) the severity of crime, and (b)
how the severity of crime and crime trends fluctuated between jurisdictions.
The uniformed CSI has been developed for police-reported crimes in Canada
and it collaborates with the police, provincial and territorial justice partners and academics
across the country. Crimes can now be measured from year to year in change of severity
instead of volume. This additional tool for the police is a compliment to existing measuring in
volume.
U.S. Index for Harm-Focused Policing
The U.S. Index for Harm-Focused Policing; introduced by Ratcliff (2014) as a
sentencing guideline is based on the Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing which was
introduced in 1982.

22
The primary purpose of establishing the commission was to create a consistent
and rational state-wide sentencing policy. It would increase sentencing severity for serious
crimes and promote fairer and more uniform sentencing practices.
By using this scale Ratcliff (2014) was able to introduce “Harm-Focused
Policing” as a measuring tool reducing crime harm to the community. The challenge to
convince the public how to evaluate and relate crime harm needs a third-party of trust which
is co-operative in demonstration the positive effects when used. The guidelines from the
Pennsylvania Commission therefore promote sentencing equity and fairness by providing
every judge with a common reference point for sentencing similar offenders convicted of
similar crimes. The Pennsylvania Commission on Sentencing’s guidelines apply to all crimes.
The Basic Sentencing Matrix is divided into score 1 – 14 in offence gravity in general. The
highest score; 15, is limited to offenders under 18 years of age who committed murder. The
guideline is expected to be followed however, the guideline is not mandatory. If a judge
decides to sentence different in relation to the guideline this needs to be informed to the
Pennsylvania Commission and reason for the deviation stated. Scoring example; score 14, the
highest of the general, is given for murder or rape of a child under 13 years of age while score
12 is rape and voluntary manslaughter score 11. Lower score as 4 are given for trespass and
score 1 for instance for possession of small amount of marijuana.
The city of Philadelphia Police Department record all reported crimes and
incidents in a system known as INCT4
since 2004. Ratcliff (2014) compared crime
frequencies versus crime harm 2004 – 2013 according to the offences gravity score. He found
that the harm index correlated with the count numbers in city areas when looking at the total
of violent crimes whilst it was more variations at “sub-jurisdictional level”. Differences
between police areas was identified concerning harm severity why it was obvious that
4
The On-Line Incident Transmittal

23
presenting crime rates as the single measurement would not any longer give appropriate
answers to the question of public harm due crime. A harm-focused management could put the
identified location into a context and move into “Evidence Based Policing” as Sherman
(1998, 2002 & 2015) suggests as a step towards “a tipping point for “totally-evidenced
policing””.
As sentencing depending on each jurisdiction, the harm index will differ across
different jurisdictions. In order to apply this in Sweden the creation of a specifically Swedish
Crime Harm Index will be necessary.

24
Criminology Theory
In this descriptive thesis; three criminological opportunity theories will be
clarified for future testing and tracking of crime hotspots and crime harm-spots based on the
Swedish Crime Harm Index. This was to identify interventions to perform “Evidence Based
Policing”.
Routine Activity Theory
In this study, the identified target will be micro-areas where crimes were
committed against the person in public places. Conferring the Routine Activity Theory
(RAT), in early findings of Cohen & Felson (1979), three elements are needed: a motivated
offender; an available target, and a visible lack of guardians. By removing any one of the
three essential elements or adding a proficient guardian, no crime is capable of being
committed. According to Akers & Sellers (2009) it is a theory of deterrence and applies to
both victims and offenders.
Deterrence Theory
The deterrence theory is divided into two basic varieties by Bentham (1948) and
Beccaria (1963); the general and the specific. The general deterrence is designed to prevent
the general population from committing crime; and to obey the law while the specific is
designed to encourage a single individual to deter from offending or reoffending owing to the
severances of the punishment.
Performing hotspot policing is about relocating police resources to identified
micro-areas which contain a high volume of targeted crimes. Increasing the certainty of
detection and to establish a deterrent effect among alleged offenders was used in experiments
by Sherman et al (1995) in the Kansas City Experiment. To disrupt ongoing criminality

25
through increased visibility and greater police presence according to Nagin (1998) only
provides a temporary deterrence. Any perceived reduction was not sustainable.
Situational Crime Prevention Theory
Based on three crime opportunity theories; routine activity, crime pattern and
rational choice the situational crime prevention theory was developed by the UK Home Office
research unit; Clarke (1983, 1995 & 1997) and Clarke & Felson (1993), Clarke & Homel
(1997) and Clarke & Eck (2003) explored safety measures taken to reduce crime in everyday
life. In earlier research Sutherland (1947) argued that crime was inspired by personal history
or environmental elements however, the “situation” was ignored why the important
contributions later was added by Clarke (1983), debating that more opportunities lead to more
crime as offenders testing the limit of prevention. Clarke (1997) worked to understand
surrounding details embolden to crime instead of focusing on the crime or offender. Twenty-
five techniques of situational prevention by Wortley (2001) and Cornish & Clarke (2003) can
be categorized under five areas: a) increase the effort of crime, b) increase the risk of crime,
c) reduce the rewards, d) reduce provocations and e) remove excuse. Clarke (2008) found
reduction in crime in the geographical area where preventive measures were taken and this
diffused into the near locality.
These three criminological opportunity theories communicate possibilities to
remove essential elements, add interventions or understand surrounding details in the
prevention of crime as for hotspots or crime harm locations.

26
Swedish Court System
The judicial system is normally taken to comprise the agencies responsible for
ensuring the rule of law and legal security. The Swedish Court System would for a third party
be recognised as presenting an adversarial system. It is a parliamentary system in which the
judiciary is composed of judges and political appointed lay judges. The legal procedure is
thoroughly described by Mellqvist (2015) presenting the three kinds of criminal courts in
Sweden. The general courts are which comprise District Courts, Courts of Appeal and the
Supreme Court. The general administrative courts are the Administrative Courts,
Administrative Courts of Appeal and the Supreme Administrative Court and also the special
courts, which determine disputes within special areas, for example, the Labour Court and the
Market Court.
The courts have an independent status within the Swedish constitution. Neither
the “Riksdag5
” nor any other authority may decide how a court should adjudicate in a
particular case.
In the case of less serious crimes, the prosecutor may decide on a so-called
summary penalty order instead of prosecuting. This means that the prosecutor, without a trial,
decides that the suspect should pay a fine. A precondition for this is that the person suspected
of the offence has confessed to it.
A trial in a criminal case can lead to different consequences for the person
prosecuted. If he/she is sentenced for the offence, this may result in, for example, fines,
suspended prison verdict, unpaid community service or imprisonment. The District Court
adjudicates in criminal cases.
5
The Swedish Parliament

27
It is a fundamental right of all residents of Sweden to have their case considered
by an impartial and independent court. Similarly for a person who has been accused of an
offence is to be regarded as innocent "until her/his guilt has been legally determined".
The person who has been convicted, the prosecutor and the victim of the crime
can appeal against the District Court judgment in the Court of Appeal. The appeal must be
received by the District Court in writing within three weeks of the date on which the judgment
is pronounced. The final date for appeal is given in the judgment. The District Court sends the
appeal and all the documents in the case to the Court of Appeal, which re-hears the case.
In certain cases leave to appeal is required if the Court of Appeal is to hear the
case. A legally trained person at the Court of Appeal examines the case and presents a verbal
report to three judges. The judges then decide whether or not the District Court has
adjudicated the case correctly. If, among other things, there is reason to believe that the Court
of Appeal would arrive at a conclusion different to that of the District Court, the Court of
Appeal will grant leave to appeal. The judgment states when leave to appeal is required and, if
so, the procedure.
What in everyday language is called a “trial” is known in court as a main
hearing. Presiding at a main hearing in a criminal case in the Court of Appeal are three legally
qualified judges and two lay judges if the sentence is expected to be greater than a fine.
The Supreme Court is the highest judicial body for civil and criminal cases and
matters which have been settled by the Courts of Appeal. The judgments of the Supreme
Court are important because they provide guidance on how similar cases in the future should
be assessed by the general courts and the rest of the judicial system.
The main function of the Supreme Court is to settle cases referred from the
Courts of Appeal. The cases establish a precedent for similar cases in the future – and they are

28
referred to as “landmark cases”. To have a case tried by an impartial court is a fundamental
right. The Court of Appeal is in practice the highest instance in the majority of cases. The
Supreme Court can examine cases which are appealed from one of the six Courts of Appeal in
Sweden. Generally, leave to appeal is required if the Supreme Court is to examine a case.
Leave to appeal is granted if the Supreme Court judgment or decision could provide guidance
in how other similar cases are to be adjudicated6
. An assertion that the Court of Appeal has
adjudicated the matter incorrectly is therefore not normally sufficient reason for leave to
appeal to be granted. The Supreme Court also tries rehearing and appeals of miscarriage of
justice. There are 16 judges at the Supreme Court. They are referred to as “Justices of the
Supreme Court”. The justices are appointed by government and their main function is to
deliver judgments and decisions.
6
Precedent.

29
Greater Gothenburg
To obtain an understanding of the nature of the Greater Gothenburg and its
people, statistics relating to population, the extent of criminality and nature of its crimes and
public events are therefore presented.
Greater Gothenburg is the second largest city of Sweden located in Västra
Götaland County and Police Region West. Greater Gothenburg had, according to the
population information system “Västfolket” (2015), on the 31st December 2014; 542,986
registered residents. The land area is 451 square kilometres. Following the “Perspektive
Göteborg” (2011) decision, the municipality of Greater Gothenburg was divided into ten
boroughs.
The working population is divided into night population and day population.
The night's population is the working population between 16 and 74 years who were
registered in the city in 2013. 259,700 people were registered as night population; of these
more than 126,300 were women and the remaining 133,500 men. Day population are those
persons who are in the city during the day. They have their workplace in Gothenburg
regardless of where they live. It was about 320,300 people in 2013, and of these were 170,800
men and 150,500 were women.
Greater Gothenburg attracts a large number of visitors and host various events in
the area of culture, sports, concerts, exhibitions, international conferences, fairs, markets and
street events7
.
This research is on the borough “Centrum” which at the end of 2014 had 60,054
residents and the borough “Majorna och Linné” with 63,540 residents. Together they
7
Appendix F. Events Calendar 2014

30
constitute Gothenburg City with 123,594 registered residents. Gothenburg City is dominated
by apartment buildings and offices, public houses and business premises.
In Gothenburg City and particular in “Centrum” there are few families with
children of school age while it is overrepresented by the age group of young adults between
20 and 35. These two boroughs have an employment rate between 76 and 82 per cent which
follow with a larger rate of higher educational level. The proportion of people with at least 3
years of post-secondary education in the age group; 25 – 65 years is 32.9 per cent for
Gothenburg Municipality which is 7.8 per cent above national average.
The incidence of crime in Gothenburg has hitherto been relatively low.
According to a recent report, Lindgren (2014) reported crimes committed during 2013 were at
the same level as for year 2002. The report was drafted in co-operation with the Municipality
of Gothenburg, the Police of Greater Gothenburg and the University of Gothenburg. The
crime reports concerning sexual violence increased until 2011 but since then there has been a
notable decrease. A similar trend can be seen concerning the number of muggings reported
since 2010. In a statistic study over three years (1 Nov. 2007 – 31 Oct. 2010) in six Swedish
cities; Marklund (2011) identified six hotspots in Gothenburg City for physical assault and
seven hotspots concerning muggings.
In previous research the volume of crime of individual crime types have been
identified and addressed through hotspot identification and prevention interventions after
targeted the problem and then testing with hotspot policing. This thesis will follow the same
methodology however address the gap in research of crime harm-spots versus hotspots.

31
Research Methodology
This thesis explores the extent and context of crimes obtained from Police
statistics, mainly via reported and of recorded crimes in Gothenburg City. The aim is to
compare crime hotspots versus crime harm-spots through impact of a newly established
Swedish Crime Harm Index (SCHI). In this part of the thesis the research design is presented;
identification of hotspots in Gothenburg City using crime statistics from Rationell
Anmälningsrutin (RAR), creating the SCHI in co-operation with judges from the Gothenburg
District Court and the Court of Appeal in Western Sweden located in Gothenburg and assess
the SCHI onto reported violent crimes against the person in public places.
Introduction
This thesis answers in a descriptive analysis discrepancies and correspondence
when comparing crime hotspot versus crime harm-spots in Gothenburg City. Five major
objectives have been developed before any analysis; discussion or conclusions have been
drawn.
The first objective was to develop a SCHI based on expected sentences in
Sweden following the Penal Code, guiding sentences from the Court of Appeal and
precedents from the Supreme Court. The Cambridge CHI and the Canadian CSI were used as
guiding instruments. Judges from the Gothenburg District Court and the Court of Appeal
weighted the severity of crimes of 118 chosen crimes, mainly violent crimes, known as “street
violence”, committed outdoor and in public places against the person, from the crime
classification code list presented by Brå (2014).
The second objective was to collect crimes against the person in public places
from the Rationell Anmälningsrutin (RAR). For the chosen area, Gothenburg City, a total of

32
38,351 crimes were recorded in RAR 2014. Initially public violent crimes were identified
based on the Police Board’s decision for violent crimes and 953 crimes were mapped on the
Gothenburg City map and represented the 16 chosen crime classification presented in
Appendix A. The wider violent crime classification against the person in public places was
then used and counted by the computer software Hobit 1.5 and for the hotspot map 2,717
crimes were presented on a map of Gothenburg City. When calculating crimes after assessing
them with the SCHI, 2,630 crimes were identified as violent crimes against the person in
public places.
The third aim was to create a crime hotspot map of these crimes of Gothenburg
City.
The fourth objective was to assess the same 2,630 reported crimes against the
person in public places using the newly developed SCHI and presented the resulting crime
harm-spots on a map.
Finally the aim was to compare the crime hotspots versus crime harm-spots.

33
Objective 1. Creation of a Swedish Crime Harm Index
The Swedish CHI will be based on average sentences for each crime that the
originator can expect to spend in prison. As there is no comparable sentencing guideline
framework in Sweden as exists in the UK or in Pennsylvania, USA the approach was taken to
ask a group of judges to indicate the typical sentence length in days for each crime
Background to the Swedish Crime Classification and Sentencing System
There is no sentencing guideline in Sweden for the District Court or the Court of
Appeal however, all crimes and offences are presented in the Penal Code or other legislation
with a describing paragraph including or with in following paragraph presenting the penalty.
The proposition that was put in front of the Parliament to describe a more comprehensive
background of the legislation and can therefore be used as guideline for new legislation or for
crimes and offences that had not yet been appealed to and processed at the Court of Appeal or
the Supreme Court. Sentences presented by the Court of Appeal are guiding judgments while
sentences from the Supreme Court are precedents. The background proposition, guiding
judgments and precedent as the Penal Code or relevant legislation are taken in consideration
by the Police and the prosecutor during the pre-investigation and by judges during the court
hearing and final judgment.
Each crime and offence is classified by the national crime classification code,
drawn up jointly on annual basis between the Brå (2014), the Swedish Police, the Swedish
Prosecution Authority, the Swedish Economic Crime Authority and the Swedish Customs.
The crime classification code is employed in addition by the Swedish Coast Guard and other
crime fighting agencies, NGO-s and for analysis of crime statistics and research.

34
The national crime classification code list for 2014 consists of 493
classifications. This is crimes according to the Penal Code or other legislations related to
crime, offences or other administrative offences. Within the number of 493 there are eight (8)
classifications of events which requiring police investigation without being crimes; for
example suicide, drowning, deaths without suspicion of a crime and missing person.
Every offense is encoded with a numeric designation according to the guidelines
at the time of report and recording of the crime. For this code number there is no distinction
between completed crimes, attempted, preparation or conspiracy however for murder/
manslaughter, rape/gross rape, domestic burglary and car theft there are independent codes for
completed, attempted or conspiracy crimes. The registrars are to examine and identify; gender
and age of the parties involved, as for location of the crime – indoor; places or locations
where the police have no access or cannot prevent crime during ordinary patrolling, or
outdoor; where the police are likely to prevent crime. Another definition in the code list to
examine is victims with disability or reduced defence capability.
Creation of the Material
In creating the material for this study crime against the person in public place
were selected. The chosen assaults and offences were to be recognised as violence against the
person either physical or mental and basically include bodily contact or fear of harm, and the
crime scene to be outdoors and in public place where the police conducting the prevention.
The following types of crime were selected to be part of the study: muggings, physical
assaults, unlawful threats and sexual offences in public place. These crime types lead to a
total of 118 different crime codes. The remaining 375 are not of interest in this study and
therefore not assessed by the judges for the SCHI.

35
Non-crimes such as drunkenness and anti-social behaviour are not recorded by
the RAR – The Rational Crime Report Routine and are not taken into consideration.
The assessment document was established and each document holds a list of 118
crimes, see extract in Table 1, corresponding to the crime classification code, followed by
empty boxes where to enter the number of years, months and/or days to be served in prison
and indicate if the first-time offender instead would had been given a fine, unpaid community
service or a suspended prison verdict.
The regulations are different for first time offenders. If it is a first-time offender,
instead of a serving a period of imprisonment, they would be eligible to receive a fine or
offered a period of community service or a suspended sentence. The judges were asked to
equate this comparison with prison time.
Table 1. Extract from "Expected verdicts" and judges consent agreement.
When calculation years and months; one year being counted as 365 days and
one month equal to 30 days though when the judges written “1 ½ year” the ½ year was
counted as 183 days.
Expected verdict (F=Fine /S=Suspended prison verdict/C=Unpaid community service)(Y=Year/M=Month/D=Days)(L/H=Lowest
and Highest grading )
Code Crime description F/S/C Y M D
0001 Example, crimes that typically gives a fine with imprisonment
equivalent
F 14
0002 Example, crimes that typically gives a unpaid community service with
imprisonment equivalent
S 6
0003 Example, crimes that typically gives a suspended sentence with
imprisonment equivalent
C 8
0004 Example, crimes that normally provides prison 2 6
0309 Infanticide
0310 Murder, manslaughter or assault with a fatal outcome without the use
of firearms against woman
0311 Murder, manslaughter or assault with a fatal outcome without the use
of firearms against man
0312 Murder, manslaughter or assault with a fatal outcome with the use of
firearms against woman
I, judge at Gothenburg District Court consent that the above evaluation are free to be used to calculate a "harm index" for Master
Thesis in criminology at Cambridge University.

36
Example1, is presented in Table 2, classification code 0654 is employed on
“consummated rape incl. gross, against boy under 15 years, outdoor”. The five judges rated
independently the prison time into 6 years, 5 years, 6 years, 5 years and 5 years which give a
total of 27 years. This multiplied by 365 days per year gives a sum of 9,855 days. To present
the mean of the evaluated time from the judges, the sum of 9,855 days is divided by five; and
the SCHI for crime code 0654 will be 1,971 days of imprisonment which equal to 5 years, 4
months and 26 days. The lowest rating is five (5) years and the highest rating is six (6) years
imprisonment.
Code Crime description F/S/C Judge
1
Judge
2
Judge
3
Judge
4
Judge
5
Days
SCHI
Y.M.D L/H
0654 Consummated rape incl.
gross, against boy under 15
years, outdoor
___ 6 years 5 years 6 years 5 years 5years 27
years/
1971
5.4.26 5Y/6Y
Total
days
2190 1825 2190 1825 1825 9855
Table 2. Example 1. Calculation of prison days for crime code 0654.
Example 2 is presented in Table 3, classification code 0358 is employed on
“physical abuse, other than gross, against man 18 years or older, familiar with the victim,
outdoor”. The five judges rated the sentence to most likely be “unpaid community service”
equal to 3 months, 2 months, 3 months, 2 months or 3 months which gives a total of 13 month
multiplied by 30 days. The total 390 days been divided by five (5) and present a mean of 78
days of imprisonment if the unpaid community service would not be fulfilled. 78 days
correspond with 2 months and 18 days imprisonment. The lowest rating is 2 months and the
highest 3 months imprisonment.

37
Code Crime description F/S/C Judge
1
Judge
2
Judge
3
Judge
4
Judge
5
Days
SCHI
M.D L/H
0358 Physical abuse, other than gross,
against man 18 years or older,
familiar with the victim, outdoor
S 3 M 2 M 3 M 2 M 3 M 78 d 2.18 2M/3M
Total: 90 D 60 D 90 D 60 D 90 D =
390 M
/5
Table 3. Example 2. Calculation of prison days for crime code 0358.
In order to assess inter-rater reliability across the judges, pearson correlation
were calculated between each of the judges – this is presented in the result section.
As the final harm index score, for each crime code that mean sentence length
across all judges were calculated – this is also presented in the result section.
In the following hypothesis the ultimate list of SCHI is presented by crime and
sentence time in Appendix D.
The Assessing Judges
The judges engaged in this study were from the Gothenburg District Court and
the Court of Appeal in Western Sweden located in Gothenburg. They were initially
approached by telephone and an e-mail with an invitation to take part in the development of
the SCHI for this thesis. The invited ten judges are assigned as presiding judges with five to
42 years of experience. The judges were asked to provide a typical number of days in prison
for each of the 118 selected crime codes. When they are in court and assessing the seriousness
of a crime, they have been asked to assess the crimes’ severity against acts of violence
committed against a person in a public place. To arrive at an appropriate assessment, they
will, in general, balance the level of violence according to the number of days, months and/or
years spent in prison.

38
Before completing the material the judges were provided with a memorandum
of understanding explaining the outcome and the future use of the SCHI, together with a letter
of consent. Both are presented in documentary form, together with a list of relevant crimes
that can be committed against person in a public place. These documents, the Missive in
Appendix C, and Evaluation Document in Table 1, have been personally handed over,
emailed to them or forward by their chief judge to complete.
The Judges were asked, before assessing the length of sentence, to sign their
letter of consent, agreeing to their evaluation document to be used for the development of the
SCHI.
Procedure
Each judge was asked to individually fill in the evaluation document in their
own time without deliberation or counselling their fellow judges. The evaluation document
was after it was completed sent in return via e-mail.
The overall process was designed to calculate, or assess, the value of each crime
on the appropriate index. The time that would have been spent in prison for each specific
crime is included in a specific document, which when taken together been divided amongst
the documents to get the average sentencing time. This, when averaged out is recognized as
the SCHI.
Seven independent documents were completed however; five judges signed the
letter of consent therefore in developing the SCHI only five assessment documents were
employed. These five assessment documents were from presiding judges assigned at the
Gothenburg District Court or recently assigned.

39
The final crime harm value corresponding to the 74 out of the 118 crime
classification codes identified as reported crimes against the person in a public place during
2014 are presented in Appendix E as the SCHI for this thesis in identifying crime harm-spots
in Gothenburg City.

40
Objective 2 and 3. Obtaining the Violent Crime Data and Crime Hotspot Mapping
To identify and establish a crime hotspot map, all reported and recorded crimes
committed within Gothenburg City were retrieved from the computerised system, the RAR.
All crimes, including those committed against the person in a public place during 2014, were
identified by the crime classification code according to its location, which then were plotted
on the Gothenburg City map.
During 2014 at total of 38,351 crimes were recorded in Gothenburg City into the
RAR. All crimes that were reported to the Police are recorded in the RAR. As soon as a
Swedish Police officer has been notified about an alleged crime they have to report the crime
to the command and record the crime into the RAR. To establish a crime hotspot map, all
reported crimes against the person in public place for year 2014 in Gothenburg City were
retrieved. According to the official decision Gothenburg City had 953 reported violent crimes
equal to “street violence”. With the extended number of classification used for the Swedish
CHI the total number increased to 2,717 however some of these were misclassified. Data
cleaning showed that a total of 87 crimes were found misclassified when recorded in RAR.
There were misclassifications of the crimes in crime or locations coding. For example,
coding for physical assaults and unlawful threats were coded as outdoor at schoolyards while
in extended information it were obvious that these crimes had taken place indoor at the school
premises. The final number for this thesis ended at 2,630 crimes committed against the person
in a public place during 2014
As earlier mentioned, all crimes are initially coded using four digits according to
the applicable crime classification code. Primarily all reported crimes in the RAR were
collected into an Excel file, see below in Table 4, or in Appendix G for more detailed
information, where for example registration number, crime classification code, crime

41
description, source of information (K-RAR), address, coded area, date and time are given.
Table 4. Extract from the RAR recorded Excel file.
Relevant and chosen codes were identified before conducting any search of the
computer software. Non crimes such as drunkenness and anti-social behaviour are not
recorded by the RAR.
To establish a hotspot map the computer software Hobit 1.5, which is used by
the Swedish Police to analyse reported incidents or crimes, was employed. Hobit 1.5 is an
incident and crime information computer service and used as a presentation tool where crimes
and incident information from the RAR or the incident reporting data system “Storm” are
plotted on a map for preferred area. Hobit 1.5 was also used in this descriptive analysis for
plotting crime against the person in public places to identify clusters of crimes. This system
identifies addresses according to the crime location numbering which are fourteen (14) digits
for each location. As example; the number series 0101020080011309 is equal to “Doktor
Westrings Gata” in Gothenburg. A crime location number can as example, present a street,
street number, building or location in a park. These locations all differ in size when below
identified hot spots are closer descried.
Ethical Concerns
All information collected from the RAR has been according to “the principle of
public” and the Swedish Security Act. This act permits the public to be informed of the
incidence of criminality, and the intelligence associated with the time, date and place of the
occurrence of a relevant offence. There were no details with reference to private person’s
identity presented or detected in any segment of the data collection.
Diarienummer Brottskod Brottskodklartext Antal Källa ÄrendegruppklartextLän/AvdelningKommun KommunkodOmrådeskod Gata Gatunummer Plats/Objekt Postort StartdatumStarttid Startdag Slutdatum Sluttid Slutdag
1400-K125102-14 0407 Ofredandemotman18årelleräldre 1K-RAR Övrigbrottslighet VÄSTRAGÖTALANDGÖTEBORG80 0101020080011403 SÖDRAVÄGEN 59 GÖTEBORG 1994-01-01 lördag 2014-07-11 23:59 fredag
1400-K85490-14 0408 Ofredandemotkvinna18årelleräldre 1K-RAR Övrigbrottslighet VÄSTRAGÖTALANDGÖTEBORG80 0101030080010707 HAGAÖSTERGATA 4 GÖTEBORG 1997-01-01 onsdag 2014-05-21 23:59 onsdag
1400-K113154-14 0875 Övrigabrottmotkap8,egenmäktigtförfarande,självtäkt,olovligkraftavledning 1K-RAR Tillgrepps-ochskadegörelseb.VÄSTRAGÖTALANDGÖTEBORG80 0101010080011753 GULLBERGSVASSGATAN GÖTEBORG GÖTEBORG 1999-01-01 fredag 2014-06-26 23:59 torsdag

42
Objective 4. Crime Harm Spot Mapping
To identify and establish a crime harm-spot map, the 2,630 recoded violent
crimes against the person in public place in the RAR in Gothenburg City were reviewed and
assessed according to the newly developed SCHI. The value of each location in crime harm
was plotted on the crime hotspot map.
In order to prepare for objective 4 these 2,630 crimes used for the hotspots
mapping were recoded using the SCHI scores. To do so, each independent crime
classification code was provided with the appropriate SCHI value from Appendix E and was
identified by location code. Subsequently, the total value of SCHI calculated by all individual
values for reported crime were added together to identify each location code's total SCHI
score.
The locations with notable high crime harm were subsequently assigned to the
Gothenburg City map of hotspots to enable the identification of individual, high profile and
clustered crime harm-spots and for the comparison of hotspots versus crime harm-spots.

43
Result and Analysis
In the following analysis; results will be presented corresponding to the research
question and discussed; set out to compare crime hotspots versus crime harm-spots.
Findings
In the first part of the analysis; the SCHI assessed by the judges at the
Gothenburg District Court were evaluated and comparison was taken place between Sweden,
England and Wales, and USA as between the judges’ estimation of gravity in their sentencing
for each crime classification code.
In the second part of the analysis; individual crime hotspots were identified by
the crime classification code, according to individual crime, location, time, day and date
within specific areas of Gothenburg City. Basically this part of the research were categorised
according to the circumstances of the criminal activity and time, date, place, etc. where the
identified crimes took place. For plotting purposes, and following international research for
“hotspots”, these crimes are all of equal value of 1 to 1. The locations of the individual
crimes were identified according to the Swedish government map and to that extent, the
Swedish grid, RT 90 has been used. This coordinate system has been in use since 2005 by
“Lantmäteriet” (2015) and is equal to the Police “WEB-polis karta”, the map used by the
Police Communication Centre.
The total number of identified crime categories was initially presented on a map
to identify the locations of the most prolific crime hotspots. The time frame relating to the
incidence of each crime category has been broken down according to day of week and time of
day, and gender of most likely victim. Each crime category has been analysed over the
agreed period of time to identify the hotspots based on the prevalence of crime within each

44
time-frame. In addition to the agreed hotspots for this research, comparisons has also been
made with the findings of Marklund (2011) research, which identified six hotspots for
physical assault and seven concerning muggings in Gothenburg City. The aim of this final
comparison was to detect if hotspots in Gothenburg present long-term stability.
In the third part of the analysis; the listed crimes were assessed with the SCHI.
Each locations total value has been plotted onto the Swedish government maps and clustered
crimes in bars are visible as crime harm-spots.
The crime harm-spots were initially compared with hotspots for 2014; this to
find out if concentrations of hotspots are equal to crime harm-spots, to answer if they were
over lapping or are independent.

45
Objective 1. Developing the Swedish Crime Harm Index
The SCHI evaluated by judges from the Gothenburg District Court and Court of
Appeal is the first crime harm evaluation based on prison days in Sweden. The five judges
had 118 crime classification codes to assess out of the total of 493 for 2014, this with prison
days for first time offenders for each and every crime code. The chosen 118 crime
classification codes represented violent crimes against the person in public place where the
Police would be able to prevent the crime or intervene if ongoing.
In developing the SCHI there was a significant correlation between the
assessments of the crimes by five judges when they assessed the chosen crime classifications
codes. The inter-rater reliability scores8
ranging from r = .966 to .994, showing very high
agreement among the scores of the five judges. In order to create a single SCHI scores the
number of days given for each crime classification by the five judges were averaged. The
individual scores, the average score and the standard deviation for each crime classification
can be found in Appendix D.
Given the high reliability across judges the SCHI can therefore be recognized as
a guiding tool for the following assessment of crime harm.
8
Calculated as pearson correlations.

46
Objective 2 and 3. Hotspots of Violent Crime in Gothenburg City in 2014
The Police Board for the Police Authorities of Västra Götaland had identified
and decided 16 crime classifications codes for 2014 as to be violent crimes against the person
in public place. The 16 crime classification codes in Appendix B, represent physical assaults
against the person in public place, acknowledged as “street violence”. A total number of
38,351 crimes from all crime categories were reported to the Police and recorded in the RAR
in 2014 and 953 were identified as official “street violence” in relation to the 16 crime
classification codes.
The 16 crime classification codes for “street violence” according to the Police
Board decision were identified and presented on Map 1, and delivered 953 crime locations in
Gothenburg City during 2014. Plotting the 953 locations for these crimes did not deliver any
hotspot location where more the 26 crimes were reported during the twelve month year 2014.
Eight locations in Gothenburg had between 11 to 25 physical assaults reported during 2014;
Masthuggstorget, Järntorget, Vasaplatsen, intersection Götaplatsen, Vasagatan –
Kungsportsavenyn, Brunnsparken and Drottningtorget. All are presented on Map 1, by
squares in the colour orange.

47
Map 1. The official violent crime classification codes (16) for 2014.
The extended recording for 2014 in this study, covering the total of 74 crime
classification codes out of the 118 assessed by the judges, and including the 16 official that
were obtained from RAR and are presented by Hobit 1.5 on Map 2, With the extended
classification Hobit 1.5 identifies four (4) hotspot locations/addresses on the map shown as
red squares, and 25 high crime locations/addresses on the map in orange squares, in
Gothenburg City. The four hotspot locations/addresses are “Järntorget”, “Brunnsparken”,
“Drottningtorget” and “Drottingtorget 5”9
.
In Marklund (2011) research, covering three years; between November 2007
until October 2010, and identifying 3,521 physical assaults outdoor in Gothenburg from the
Brå statistics based on RAR, in total six violent hotspot locations were identified. These
locations are similar to three of the hotspots found in the extended recording in this thesis for
2014; “Drottningtorget”, “Brunnsparken” and “Järntorget”. The three remaining from
9
“Drottningtorget 5” is the address for the square/ pavement area directly in front of the Railway Station of
Gothenburg main entrance
Explanation of symbols

48
Marklund (2011) are in present research identified as frequent crime locations but not as
hotspots; “Entrance Liseberg”, “Kungsportsplatsen” and “Kungsportsavenyn10
”.
In a closer analysis it would be questioned if the Gothenburg hotspots due to its
low crime density and the distribution of crimes spread unevenly over the week, month and
the year would be recognised as hotspots in comparison with international studies as by
Sherman et al (1989) and Weisburd (2004). This study has demonstrated that crimes in
Gothenburg city are concentrated to weekends and a few hours of the day and are not as in
Minneapolis and Seattle more or less delivered 24/7. The Gothenburg hotspots would not
follow Weisburd (2015) definition; the “law of crime concentrations” as they would be
identified as “no hot spots”. Similar findings are reported from a city in Australia, in a not yet
published analysis, corresponding to information given by Sherman (2015).
Map 2. 2717 Reported crimes against person in public place reported 2014 in Gothenburg City according to RAR.
For the area of Gothenburg City, the recorder of reported crimes into the RAR
system got access to 216 different location codes with the 14 digital codes. For 2014; this
thesis identified 2,630 crimes reported as violent crimes against the person in public place out
10
In the street area outside Kungsportsavenyn 9 and 10.
Explanations of symbols

49
of a total of 38,351 recorded in the RAR. For these 2,630; 199 location codes been chosen for
registration as crime locations. Each location code covers the area of the specific street
number to a park area or a square. Seventeen (17) locations in Gothenburg City were 2014
free from reported violent crimes against the person in public place. In total there are 80.5%
of locations where there are no more than 3 violent crimes in a year. Less than 20 per cent of
locations are coded with four (4) crimes or above for the time of twelve (12) months, however
only four locations got 26 or more crimes during this period and are mostly concentrated to
weekends and evening and night hours.
Further Analysis of the Crime Data by Weekday, Time and Victim
During 2014 in Gothenburg City, 2,491 of the 2,630 crimes that were reported
could be identified by day of the week and a total 2,000 by a specific time of the day. Physical
assault, mugging and sexual offences took place in higher numbers during Fridays, Saturdays
and Sundays while unlawful threats were more evenly spread over the days of the week.
Notable is that unlawful threats were distributed between none and 2100 while sexual
offences more frequently take place either between 1500 and 1800 or from midnight until 06
in the morning. Physical assaults and muggings were reported in higher numbers between
midnight and 0600. Victims of crimes as mugging, physical assault and unlawful threats were
more likely to be younger men while for sexual offences a larger number of female victim
were recorded.
The majority; 52.8 per cent of violent crimes against the person in public place
in Gothenburg City were committed during Friday, Saturdays and Sundays. Many of the
“street violence” crimes were clustered and identified as hot street locations and were near
commuting exchange locations for public transports, shopping centres or both and restaurants,
pubs and nightclubs where the public end up gathering or lining up to entre. The Figure 1,

50
show the distribution on reported violent crimes against the person in public place. Seasonal
differences were unwonted however in January – March less violent crimes were reported and
a minor increase can be identified for the late spring and the summer months.
Figure 1. Distribution of reported crimes delivered over the days of the week – 2014.
During 2014 in Gothenburg City, 2,000 of the 2,630 reported violent crimes
against the person in public area could be identified by hour of the day. The distribution of the
2,000 reported crimes with a specific time of the day were; 38 sexual offences, 327 muggings,
746 physical assaults and 889 unlawful threats.
Adding the four crime categories together in Figure 2, 49.6 per cent were
reported to have taken place between 2100 and 0559 hours while 27.1 per cent between 1200
and 1759 hours.
In the following breakdown by crime, physical assault, sexual offence, mugging
and unlawful threat will be presented individually by day of week, time of the day and most
likely victim; male or female and by age for each risk group.
Number of crime by day of the week
M 11.5 % Tue 9.6 %
M 11,5 %
Wen 13 % Thu 13.1% Sun 18.2 %Sat 21.4 %Fri 13.2 %

51
Figure 2. Distribution of crime spread over the hours of the day – 2014.
Sexual Offences
In this study, crime classification codes for sexual offences were added as a
violent crime against the person in public area and 45 sexual offences could be identified by
week day in RAR. In Figure 3, the 45 reported sexual offences during 2014, that could be
identified had taken place on a specific weekday, were distributed over the days of the week.
Notable is that 22 of the crimes took place a Saturday or a Sunday.
Figure 3. Sexual assault reported by day the week. Figure 4. Sexual assaults reported by hour of the day.
The distributions of sexual offences were likely to be divided into two time
stamps while physical assaults and muggings were concentrated into one ongoing timestamp.
Figure 4, present the 38 sexual offences that were reported 2014 by identified timestamp. 81.6
per cent took place between 1500 and 0559 hours. It needs to be mentioned that between 1500
Number of crime by hour of the day
Sexual offences by day of the week Sexual offences by hour of the day

52
and 1759 hours , and midnight and 0559 hours constitutes 55 per cent of all sexual assault
distributed over the hours of the day took place.
Figure 5. Sexual offences distributed by age for female victims – 2014.
The 45 reported sexual offences were exhibitionism, attempted, consummated
and gross rape. These 45 sexual offences represent 41 female victims and four male victims.
Exposures of sexual offences were more likely for females between the age of 18 and 31.
Figure 5, represents the distribution of female victim by age. Female victims of sexual
offences in public places for the year 2014 were in the age range from 11 to 65 years of age.
The 45 victim reported an address for the sexual offence. When plotting them
onto the Gothenburg City map no clustering could be identified however two of the sexual
offences taken place with addresses “Drottningtorget” and “Drottningtorget 7”, addresses
identified as hotspots. Assessing the SCHI on these two crimes will increase the crime harm
after identified hotspots overlapped by crime harm-spots at the two locations.
Physical Assault
Physical assaults against the person in public place were more likely to happen
on the Friday, Saturday and Sunday. In Figure 6, Saturday was confirmed to be the peak day
of the week.
Sexual offences: number of female victim by age

53
During 2014 a total of 746 physical assaults were identified with a timestamp.
65.8 per cent of the physical assaults were concentrated between 2100 and 0559 hours. In
Figure 7, the peak for the crime category was shown to be between midnight and 0259 hours.
Over 30 per cent of physical assaults in public place were reported at this time interval.
Physical assaults in public place in total happen in larger numbers between 2100 and 0559
hours.
Figure 6. Reported physical assault by day of the Figure 7. Reported physical assault by hour of the
week – 2014. day – 2014.
Exposure to physical assault in public place was more common among men than
among women, and was most common in the 18 – 25 age brackets. This age group of victims,
see Figure 8, was frequently targeted after midnight into the early morning hours.
Figure 8. Physical assault, male victim by age – 2014.
Physical assault: number of male victims by age
Physical assault by day of the week Physical assault by hour of the day

54
Muggings
A total of 327 muggings were reported into RAR with an identified timestamp.
According to Brå (2008) less than half of the muggings are reported to the police and
muggings are seen as an urban problem.
Muggings in public place were distributed over the week days however Figure
9, demonstrate that nearly half of the reported muggings were committed during Saturdays
and Sundays. When reporting timestamp or time interval; 64.8 per cent of reported muggings
were concentrated between 2100 and 0559 hours. The peak of this crime category is indicated
in Figure 10, to be between midnight and 0259 hours. Over 30 per cent of muggings were
reported to have taken place at this time interval.
Figure 9. Delivery of muggings by day of the week. Figure10. Delivery of muggings by time of the day.
Exposures to muggings were more common among men than among women
during 2014. The highest numbers of muggings were found in the age bracket 16 to 25 for
female victims and 16 to 26 for male victims nevertheless men were mugged in greater
existence then women. In Figure 11, the exposure and peak for female victims were at 23 – 24
years while in Figure 12, the exposure and peak for male victims were at age of 22. The
female victims were in the age distribution between 14 to 86 years while the male victims
range between 12 and 82 years.
Muggings by the day of the week Muggings by hour of the day

55
Figure 11. Muggings; Number of female victims by age – 2014.
Figure 12. Muggings; Number of male victims by age – 2014.
Unlawful Threats
In 2014 1,276 unlawful threats were recognized by location. The address
“Drottingtorget” and “Järntorget” had between 11 and 25 unlawful threats recorded in RAR.
These two addresses are identical to two overlapping hotspots and crime harm-spots locations
in the street violence count for this study.
Unlawful threats in public place were evenly distributed over the weekly days
during 2014 and constitute 47 per cent of the total of recorded violent crimes against the
person in public place. The timestamp for unlawful threats notably differ comparing to
physical assaults, sexual offence and muggings. In Figure 13, the deliveries of unlawful
Muggings; Number of female victims by age
Muggings; Number of male victims by age

56
threats were distributed over the weekly days and Friday was the weekday with smallest
number of reported unlawful threats.
Figure 13. Delivery of unlawful threats by day Figure 14. Delivery of unlawful threats by time of
of the week – 2014. the day.
Table 14, present unlawful threats as more evenly distributed over the daytime
hours, 64.3 per cent were reported to have taken place between 0900 and 2059 hours.
Figure 15. Unlawful threat; Number of male victims by age – 2014.
Figure 16. Unlawful threat; Number of female victims by age – 2014.
Unlawful threat by the day of the week Unlawful threats by hour of the day
Unlawful threat: number of male victims by age
Unlawful threat: number of female victim by age

57
Exposures to unlawful threats were more common among male victims than
among female victims during 2014. The largest numbers of unlawful threats were found in the
age bracket 17 to 31 for male victims and 20 to 31 for female victims nevertheless men were
victim of unlawful threats in greater existence then women. In Figure 15, the exposure and
peak for male victims were at 23 years while in Figure 16, the exposure and peak for female
victims were at age of 25. The male victims were in the age brackets between 3 and 87 years
while the female victims range between 0 and 87 years.

58
Objective 3. Crime Hotspots Maps.
In this part of the study hotspots were identified for 2014 after using for this
thesis the extended data recordings of violent crime against the person in public place. The
extended recording covered 118 crime classifications which included the 16 official for 2014,
and of these a total of 74 had been reported and recording into the RAR during 2014. For the
plotting of these crimes by location on the Gothenburg map the computer software Hobit 1.5.,
was employed. With the extended classification Hobit 1.5 delivered on Map 2, four hotspot
locations with more than 26 violent crimes and 25 high crime locations/addresses with 11 to
25 violent crimes in Gothenburg City. There were 47 addresses/locations with 6 to 10
recorded violent crimes and a number of locations with less the five crimes.
In this study for the following crime harm-spot map 2,630 reported crimes were assessed on
the ground of miss-classified crime classification code or location code in the above 2,717.
The miss-classified 87 crimes cannot be addressed for change in Hobit 1.5.
Out of 2,630 crimes reported divided on 74 crime classifications codes, only four (4) hotspots
with 26 or more crimes on an annual basis could be identified when counting crimes against
the person in public place for year 2014. Notable is that 60 locations make up for nearly half
of the crime harm and are equal to the top 5 per cent of SCHI locations.

59
Objective 4. Crime Harm-Spots 2014
In this part of the study crime harm-spots were identified after accessing 2,630
reported violent crimes out of 38,351 reported crimes with the SCHI. This is the first crime
harm evaluation based on prison days in Sweden. 199 locations with 2,630 violent crimes
against the person in public place delivered 333,871 prion days. 60 locations make up for
nearly half the crime harm and are correspondingly the top 5 per cent of SCHI per location.
The five judges from the Gothenburg District Court and Court of Appeal
evaluated 118 crime classification codes out of the total of 497 for 2014. Each of the 118
crime classification codes represented violent crimes against the person in public place where
the Police would be able to prevent or interrupt the crime. The judges estimated how many
prison days the first time offender would receive for each specific crime code. The number of
prison days were implied onto each crime classification code and taken together at each
location code; each total prison days are the value of the location code and would present the
crime harm of the specific address.
Among the 216 location codes in RAR in Gothenburg City, 199 were victim of
street violence and every crime on these locations were assessed with the SCHI. Out of these
199 locations, a total of 59 locations represent 43,5 per cent of all locations where more than
ten (10) crimes by location were reported during 2014. The SCHI wary for each crime on
these locations from 14 to 5,840 prison days.
The 2,630 different violent crimes against the person in public place during
2014 in Gothenburg City assessed with the SCHI made a total of 333,871 days in prison,
equal to 914 years eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days11
. In Gothenburg City; 60
locations made up for nearly half the crime harm or 154,649 days equal to 46.3 per cent of all
11
Corrected 2016-01-10

60
SCHI. These 60 locations were the top 5 per cent of SCHI per location. The number of crimes
in these top 5 per cent locations ranges from 1 – 45. The top four (4) SCHI addresses in
Gothenburg City were equally the top four (4) hotspot addresses and representing 21.5 per
cent of all reported violent crimes against the person in public place.
In the crime harm map, Map 3, SCHI with 1,000 prison days or more are
displayed in; red bars for the highest SCHI and with more than 26 violent crimes at the
location, in orange bars for high SCHI with 11 – 25 violent crimes and in yellow bars with 1 –
10 violent crimes and a SCHI above 1,000 prison days.
Beyond the four combined high SCHI and hotspot locations, high SCHI were
recorded in direct neighbour locations with the same address but different street number. High
level of SCHI was clustered around the four overlapping hotspot locations and SCHI
locations. Addresses as; “Drottningtorget” with different street numbers, the neighbourhood
C
R
I
M
E
H
A
R
M
S
P
O
T
S
2
0
1
4
Map 3. CHI 2014 – shown in bars on the Gothenburg City Hotspot Map.

61
of the Railway station; “Nils Ericsongatan”, and 1st
, 2nd
, 3rd
and 4th
“Långgatan” near
“Järntorget” and finally addresses in direct connection to “Brunnsparken” as indoor streets in
“Nordstan” shopping centre. Another clustered area with medium high SCHI was
“Kungsportsavenyn” from “Kungsportsplatsen” to “Götaplatsen” and “Vasagatan” from
tram stops “Valand” to tram stops “Vasaparken”. For “Kungsportsavenyn” and “Vasagatan”
connecting streets around the corner were as well of interest with medium high SCHI.
Common for these addresses were that they were in daytime shopping and commuting areas
and late afternoons and evenings, and at weekend, locations for frequent nightlife and hubs
for the public transports in Gothenburg. It needs to be said that the high orange bar in
“Slottskogen” covers several locations within the park area with a concentration during the
summer months but were recorded on one location code. Other locations in Gothenburg City
with high yellow bars were locations with few crimes but with a high SCHI due to the
seriousness of the single crime.
Temporal Distribution
The concentration of violent crimes with high SCHI in Gothenburg City, who
were clustered near the railway station, tram and bus stops and locations with night life as
pubs, restaurants and night clubs; places where the public meet, which corresponded to
hotspots concentrated during weekends. Comparing hotspots to SCHI 53.7 per cent of the
crime harm is concentrated to Friday, Saturday and Sunday.
The delivery of crime over the months was in the range from 171 in February to
287 in September. In 2014; 56.5 per cent of the crimes were reported between 1st
May and
31st
October. The months May and September alone had together 20.8 per cent of the
recorded violent crimes against the person in public place. Crime count compared to
Appendix E presenting public events in Gothenburg City that during 2014 attracted more than

62
10,000 visitors. For the Midsummer weekend, 32 violent crimes against the person in public
place were recorded equal to the weekend of 27 and 28 September. In connection to the last
weekend of the months most of employees in Sweden receive their salary and these weekends
there was a minor increase of reported violent crimes against the person in public place. Other
events as sport, traditional days or bank holidays did not deliver violent crimes during 2014 in
any notable larger numbers comparing to a “busy salary weekends”.
Figure 17. Frequency total and CHI total delivered over the week days.
A total of 1414 street crimes were reported during the weekend and corresponds
to 66.5 per cent of all crime harm. In Figure 17, the temporal frequency was shown by week
day. There were a greater number of crimes reported Sundays but with a lower SCHI
comparing to the less reported on Wednesdays with a higher SCHI.
Frequency TotalCHI Total
Mon 295 2300
Tues 266 3103
Wed 332 5879
Thurs 353 2287
Fri 350 10829
Sat 567 12602
Sun 497 3520
2660 40520

63
Objective 5. Comparing Hotpots versus Crime Harm-Spots
The final in this study is to compare hotspots versus crime harm-spots in
Gothenburg City during 2014 with support of the newly developed SCHI. Locations of high
volume of violent crimes were identified; collecting all reported and recorded violent crimes
(2,717) against the person in public places in Gothenburg City from the RAR and plotting
them on the area map with help of the computer software Hobit 1.5. Crime harm-spots were
identified from the same RAR recordings and miss-classified crimes were excluded to deliver
the remaining 2,630 violent crimes. This number forming the violent crimes against the
person in public place were assess with the newly developed SCHI and placed in shape of
bars on the hotspot map, Map 3, to identify overlapping locations and independent locations
of hotpots and crime harm-spots.
The SCHI similarities with the Cambridge CHI and The Canadian CSI are the
evaluation of prison days. The similarities between Sherman’s (2010) (2013), the Cambridge
CHI and the Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics (2014) introduced the government-
developed CSI in relation to the SCHI are that the latter two are based on actual sentences
dispensed across Canada and Sweden while The Cambridge CHI is based on recommended
sentences in a guideline. In the Canadian however the level of severity of crime fluctuates
from year to year. The SCHI can therefore be recognised as fairer and more uniform
sentencing practices as it are based on court decisions over the years and precedents. By
using the measurement tool as a scale as Ratcliff (2014) introduced in “Harm-Focused
Policing” the SCHI will reduce crime harm to the community.
The total 2,630 violent crime against the person in public place deliver a total of
333,871 prion days when assessed with the SCHI. Four locations with addresses

64
“Drottningtorget”, ”Drottningtorget 5”, ”Brunnsparken” and “Järntorget” were overlapping
hotspots and crime harm-spots in 2014.
Sherman et al (1989); Sherman & Weisburd (1995) and Weisburd & Green
(1995a) found that if crime were spread randomly across a city there would barely be any idea
to implement place-based policing as this treatment would only work where crimes are
greatly concentrated. During 2014 Gothenburg City had violent crimes against the person in
public place reported in 199 of 216 locations however when assessing these locations with the
SCHI few gathered over 365 days of prison time. Among the 60 locations that presented a
large number of harm all had over 1,000 prison days (Map 3) and the remaining 139 locations
were randomly spread over the city but could for some form neighbouring streets or locations
to either crime harm locations or hotspot locations or overlapping locations of both volume of
crime and harm from crime. When comparing hotspot and crime harm-spot locations the
Sellin & Wolfgang (1994) classification scale 1 – 11; with 1 as least serious, up to 11, as most
serious, could be compared with the SCHI “over 1,000 prison days” and argued that the SCHI
for both researchers and police could easily be used either to evaluate the count of prison days
or percentage of crime prevented; or as a measurement for the police to allocate resources
according to the known incidence of criminality in a specific location.
In Appendix H, all street addresses 2014, instead of location codes from RAR,
with more than 365 prison days, evaluated by the SCHI, were plotted on the crime hotspot
map12
. The total of 254 different street addresses represent 1,142 individual violent crimes out
of 2,630 against the person in public place and the total SCHI value is 264,980 prison days
(725 years 11 months and 25 days). The four overlapping street addresses “Drottningtorget”,
”Drottningtorget 5”, ”Brunnsparken” and “Järntorget” are presented in red bars. They are
12
Map 2. 2717 Reported crimes against person in public place reported 2014 in Gothenburg City according to
RAR. (P. 48)

65
surrounded by orange bars (over 4,000 prion days) and yellow bars ( 1,000 to 3,999 prion
days) which represent high level of crime harm from 1 to 25 crimes while the green bars
represent 365 to 999 prison days from 1 to 14 crimes at the same location. It need to be
noticed that that three locations with 11 – 25 crimes recorded 2014, on the “hotspot” map in
“orange square”, did not reach the 365 days in prison for the SCHI.
Comparison of SCHI versus hotspots, in Figure 18, shows that a focus on only
hotspots; 50 per cent of SCHI spots would be missed and a sole focus on SCHI; 53,3 per cent
of hotspots would be missed. A combination of focus on both volume of crime and crime
harm, and identification of overlapping locations would increase the Police possibility to
prevent street violence and harm based on “Evidence Based Policing”.
Figure 18. Top 5 per cent Crime Harm locations versus top 5 per cent Crime Hot Spots.
The overlapping locations “Drottningtorget”, “Drottningtorget 5”,
“Brunnsparken” and “Järntorget” can be divided in three categories; the highest hotspot;
“Drottningtorget”, is also the highest harm-spot. Two hotspots within the top 1 percent of
harm spots are “Drottningtorget 5” and “Brunnsparken”. One hotspot; “Järntorget” is in the
top 2 percent of harm spots. These locations present high volume of reported violent crimes
against the person in public place and deliver large numbers of crime harm why the crime
no yes
Count 0 28 28
% within CHI _top 5%
0,0% 100,0% 100,0%
% within HOT
SPOT_top_5%
0,0% 50,0% 31,8%
Count 32 28 60
% within CHI _top 5%
53,3% 46,7% 100,0%
% within HOT
SPOT_top_5%
100,0% 50,0% 68,2%
Total Count 32 56 88
chi_5percent * count_top_5_percent Crosstabulation
HOT SPOTS top 5% locations
Total
CHI_ top
5%
location
no
yes

66
groups; physical assault, sexual offence and mugging could be targeted with “Evidence Based
Policing” in form of hotspot policing for identified Friday, Saturday and Sunday hours.
Neighbouring locations would positively be affected by the presence of Police officers or
crime fighting stakeholders in these locations.
Locations with few reported crimes but with high crime harm were randomly
spread over Gothenburg City and mostly only strike once with less possibility for the Police
to prevent. They catch attention at the time but will not need further policing however the
publics perceived safety will be damaged for a transitory time and therefore need presence to
re-establish the security in the local community.
In presentations of locations of high crime harm and large volume of reported violent crimes
against the person in public place it is crucial to involve the public and increase awareness of
when, where and why these places will be of higher interest for the Police and stakeholders.
The overlapping locations were “Drottningtorget”, “Drottningtorget 5”,
“Brunnsparken” and “Järntorget”. The highest hotspot; “Drottningtorget”, was also the
highest harm-spot. Two hotspots within the top 1 per cent of SCHI spots were
“Drottningtorget 5” and “Brunnsparken” and one hotspot; “Järntorget” was in the top 2 per
cent of SCHI spots.

Discussion
This thesis set out to explore the extent and context of crimes obtained from
Police statistics of recorded crimes in Gothenburg City and to compare crime hotspots versus
crime harm-spots by the impact of the newly established SCHI.
In order to do so, five questions with five aims were established. First objective
was to create the SCHI with help of judges from the Gothenburg District Court and Court of
Appeal of Western Sweden in Gothenburg. The judges evaluated 118 crime classification
codes representing violent crimes against the person in public place with expected prison
days. There was a significant correlation between the assessments of the crimes by the five
judges when they assessed the chosen crime classifications codes for the SCHI. The newly
SCHI as measurement tool is relevant for Sweden as the judges got the same supervisory
system for sentencing nationwide
Second objective was to obtain crime data from the RAR and identify individual
violent crime against the person in public place by crime classification code and location for
2014. A total of 2,717 physical assaults, sexual offences, muggings and unlawful threats in
public place were of interest in this study and correspond to for this study chosen crime
classification code and location code.
Third objective was to create a crime hotspots map based on the obtained crime
classification code and location. The 2,717 recorded violent crimes were plotted on the
Gothenburg City map. Identifying crime concentrations by density on the hotspot map
delivered four locations however they could be questioned as “no hot spots” due to the low
volume of crime and uneven distribution over the year 2014.

68
Fourth objective was to assess the 2,717 reported crimes against the person in
public place with the newly developed SCHI and presented the resulting crime harm-spots on
a map. The reported crimes were before assessed with the SCHI manually assessed to avoid
and identify error in the statistic recording. For the harm-spot map 2,630 recorded crimes
were assesses by the SCHI due to inaccuracy of registration of code or location. The earlier
identified four locations that are crime hotspots are equally the locations with highest crime
harm and are among the top 60 SCHI spots.
Fifth objective was to compare the crime hotspots versus crime harm-spots. In
the comparison four overlapping locations were identified as hotspots and equally crime
harm-spots. These four locations represent both high numbers violent crime against the
person in public place – in volume – and high figures of crime harm – in prison days. The
identification of the four mayor combined hotspots and crime harm-spots potentially open the
possibility to target these locations with police resources and increase the prevention
measurements and risk of detection.

Hot-harm-spots. MBR

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Hot-harm-spots. MBR

Similar to Hot-harm-spots. MBR (20)

Hot-harm-spots. MBR