1.1 Background to the study

Crime is a social problem that every society seeks to address. Once a crime occurs, it instantly throws up different layers of victims. In the dynamics of victimisation and social reactions to it, crime reporting plays a critical role. Therefore, public concern over human exposure to violence and its disproportionate reporting by victims and witnesses in society is not new. Given the obvious forms of violence in present-day society, public interest has come to be focussed on what Alemika (2004) described as the several difficulties that influence the collection of reliable statistics on criminal activity and victimisation in Nigeria. Apparently, the unwillingness of victims and witnesses to report crimes to the authority is probably the most disturbing of the challenges facing the collection of crime data. The National Crime victimisation Survey (NCVS), British Crime Survey (BCS) and Scottish Crime and Justice Survey (SCJS) all indicate that as few as 38 - 42% of crime is reported and the „dark figure‟ of unreported crime may make up as much as half of some categories of crime (Page, McLeod, Kinver, Iliasov & Yoon, 2009). Since crime takes an infinite physical, financial and emotional toll on its victims, no national characteristics, no political regime, no system of law, police, justice, punishment, treatment or even terror has rendered a country exempt from crime (Radzinowicz & King, 1979). Nevertheless, criminal acts and their report must go together so as to establish the rate of recurrence and spatial coverage of crime, update crime data, properly reward victims and punish offenders.

The foregoing logic must have led Azfar and Gurgur (2008) to consider the protection of the person and property of citizens one of the central roles of government. Thus, the concerns of crime victims and non-victims about exposure towards crime will be significant not just in Europe and the former Soviet Union (Roberts, Stickley, Petticrew & McKee, 2010), but also in America (Skogan & Maxfield, 1981) and in Africa (Roberts, 2010). To become the gatekeeper of the criminal justice system (Hindelang & Gottfredson, 1976), then, one of the most important decisions which victims must take in the aftermath of their victimisation is whether or not to notify the police (Greenberg & Beach, 2004). It is a paradox however that in the regions of the world where more crime occurs; the police know less about it (Alvazzi del Frate, 2003).

In the West, about 25 per cent of the people are crime victims every year and around one in five of them is victimised more than once (Van Kesteren, Mayhew & Nieuwbeerta, 2000). Thus, building safer and less violent communities is a major challenge facing nearly all states and local communities throughout the world. The pool of unrecorded crime arising from the reluctance of victims and witnesses to report their victimisation experiences has several critical consequences. Some of these limit the deterrent capability of the criminal justice system, contribute to the misallocation of police resources, render victims ineligible for public and private benefits, affect insurance costs and help to shape the police role in society (Skogan, 1977a) as well as cause a self–denial of the opportunity to turn to the criminal justice system (Van der Vijver, 1993).

Nonetheless, victim reports are the most important source of information for the police on where crimes are committed and where police efforts are needed (Greenberg & Ruback, 1992; Hindelang & Gottfredson, 1976; Mayhew, 1993; Warner, 1992). With a prevailing climate of great public concern about security, and the recognized limitations of the police to respond to rising crime levels, most citizens treat the question of crime reporting with a measure of scepticism. These make victims‟ tendency to report crime a key determinant in shaping the

statistics recorded by the police and also in providing a broader understanding of how crime impacts different individuals, communities and neighbourhoods (Tarling & Morris, 2010). Little wonder then that a rising literature probes the reasons for victims‟ willingness to report  (Fohring, 2010).

Though research based on large scale victimisation surveys tends to suggest similar factors influencing victims‟ decisions to report such as the perceived seriousness of the offence, the victims‟ relationship to the offender, and the value of items lost or damaged (Skogan, 1984; Baumer & Lauritson, 2010; Tarling & Morris, 2010), a proliferation of theories suggesting the use of a cost‐benefit calculation; a cognitive tool which victims use to weigh the potential pros and cons of reporting to the police (Bowles, Reyes, Garoupa, 2009 & Cohen, 2005) also exists. On the other hand, social psychological research using interviews with community samples of victims and students in laboratory settings has led to the development of a theoretical model. In this context, the victim‟s decision process is construed of as consisting of three stages: labelling the event, determining its seriousness, and deciding what to do (Greenberg & Ruback, 1992). Furthermore, these theories do not rely solely on a „cold‟ and calculated method of backward induction, but consider the importance of victims‟ emotional reactions following an incident, and the social influence of close others (Greenberg & Beach, 2004).

However, in traditional societies where written laws did not exist, informal sanctions deterred deviations from the social norm (Akhilomen, 2006). There was no formal reporting procedure that was associated with that epoch. So, anyone whose interest was then criminally injured simply approached the chief priest. In such a society, some victims sought „personal justice‟ and retaliated against the offender (Topalli, Wright & Fornango, 2002), some avoided those who harmed them altogether, some reported to Ogboni and Oro cults (Chukwuma & Ibidapo-Obe, 1995) and age grades (Emiola, 1997). Reporting crime was then not as hazardous, detested and repressed as it is nowadays. At that time, anyone who reported a crime was rendering a culturally useful public service. But in more socially complex societies in which the police have emerged as the primary means for promoting and maintaining social order with their complicated limitations (Akhilomen, 2006), the story has lamentably altered. No matter how concerned a government is about social order in its jurisdiction, its crime control efforts may fail to achieve its mandate of crime control. Victims of crime should acknowledge the reality, intensity, frequency, spatial coverage and impact of crime by reporting their experiences of crime. In the Netherlands, for example, only slightly more than a third of the crimes were reported to the police by or on behalf of the victims in 2002 (Eggen, 2003).

Gyong (1996) studied crime reporting in Nigeria. But his study site was Kaduna. Cleen foundation has studied crime reporting in Lagos. Its major limitation has always been that it treats crime reporting in association with other important variables of crime and social control or at best including Lagos in nationwide surveys. Therefore, these have always made the rigor which crime reporting, as a major research area, deserves to elude this all important public safety issue. Realising that the events, which are not officially known, will evade attempts to redress their untoward effects (Skogan, 1977b), this study commits itself to examining the correlates of crime reporting among victims in Lagos. Therefore, the objective of the present study was to add new knowledge to the body of already existing literature. It is against this backdrop that this study bridged a gap in knowledge by studying the correlates of crime reporting in the Nigerian context, using Lagos metropolitan areas.