Corruption’s Dark Number

KOMPAS/ALIF ICHWAN

Ilustration

The statistics on corruption crimes, as disclosed by law enforcement agencies, university researches, mass media or non-governmental organizations, show or describe various aspects of corruption that have been recorded in a certain place and time, compiled as graphics or in tables.

In general, the corruption statistics helps the people gain a sense of the crime through the number of public reports filed, perpetrators incarcerated, sting operations conducted, corruption types and crimes committed, institutions involved, court cases, and types of gratification, as well as the state losses incurred, the perpetrators’ backgrounds and other information.

Law enforcement agencies and the government can use the statistical figures to determine their future strategies and the direction of their policies for eradicating corruption. For academics, the figures can be used as data for research and to enrich data and analyses. Meanwhile, for the public, the statistics is knowledge that can be used to raise awareness and take a critical stance against the causes and effects of corruption.

Nevertheless, these figures do not describe the real condition of corruption with its various dimensions, which will never be described completely through statistics due to a weakness in recording crimes that comprises the dark or hidden figure of crime.

The dark figure is a specific term in criminology that describes the amount of crimes that are not recorded for a variety of reasons. Steven Box points to several general causes of the dark figure in the recording of crimes. First, reluctance among victims or the public to report a crime, because they believe that law enforcement will not be efficient in solving it or will ignore their reports. Second, they think the events that have befallen them are private, and they want to settle the matter themselves. Third, fear of shame in reporting the incident, particularly in the case of adultery and rape.

Fourth, people may be unaware that they have been victims of a crime. Fifth, the existence of communal or abstract victims due to a difficulty in specifically and clearly defining the actual victim or victims (for example, consumers). Sixth, the victims experience the criminal event because they are also involved in crimes, such as narcotics. Seventh, fear and worry that if the crimes are reported, the victims will need to cover related costs, especially transportation, or that doing so would lead to additional problems, especially during the investigation, or fear that the perpetrators might retaliate.

The weaknesses in recording crimes as Box has listed can be added to with the inclusion of the police’s discretion in recording the criminal event. Certain considerations like the police’s reputation may lead to one or more types of crime not being recorded so that the crime data is statistically low. Another possibility is that a legal violation is misclassified, so that one type of violation is incorporated in the data of a different violation. A possible cause of misclassifying a crime is the complexity surrounding the event, a difference in interpretation over a certain violation, or an individual is involved in two or three different crimes in one incident, such robbery, rape and murder.

Statistics Indonesia (BPS) conducted a survey several years ago on this issue, and the results were shocking: it turned out that 50.28 percent of crimes in Indonesia were unreported by the victims. The reasons varied: 20.08 percent said they wanted to settle the matter themselves; 11.5 percent thought that reporting the crime would be a waste of time; 8.06 percent feared that reporting the crime would be troublesome; 3.46 percent were not aware that the incidents should be reported.

Corruption

In several ways, more serious issues lie behind the dark figure of corruption as opposed to the dark figure of conventional crimes. Why? First, corruption is classified as a victimless crime, so that it is almost impossible to obtain “victim” reports, because all those involved are perpetrators, unless their cooperation breaks down.

Second, corruption is a silent crime that is hidden from general view and knowledge, and therefore it is difficult to expect reports from the public. Third, corruption is an organized crime that follows a specific modus operandi that is difficult to uncover. Fourth, corruption is a white-collar crime, involving money and power that is protected from above. Fifth, it is difficulty to find forensic evidence of corruption. Sixth, crooked law enforcement officials manipulate data and facts to conceal the crime and/or to protect certain perpetrators. Seventh, there is a difference between the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK), the prosecutors’ office and the police on their performance, views and data for a particular case, which leads to a delay in investigating the case. Eighth, the KPK and the prosecutors’ office have duplicate data on a number of perpetrators. Ninth, many cases involve duplicate data on the perpetrators.

These matters create the dark figure of corruption that not only hide the reality of corruption crimes, but also hides the serious efforts being taken to manage corruption. The resulting impact is, of course, on the level of public response toward corruption and in building knowledge and raising awareness on public response as a control measure. Another impact is that drafting criminal policies for preventing and controlling corruption become non-optimal.

In addition, the dark figure of corruption will certainly obscure the true amount of state losses, lead to a non-comprehensive description of the modes of corruption crimes, the typology of corruption, the perpetrators’ backgrounds, the areas prone to corruption and the institutions that are commonly involved – all badly needed data to formulate criminal policies on eradicating corruption, which are different from criminal policies for eradicating conventional crimes, and data that is sorely needed for academic studies.

Therefore, several improvements are urgently and critically needed. First, fix the performance and morality of law enforcement agents (KPK investigators) to eliminate unnecessary discretion, deliberately throwing out a case or even charging an innocent individual or other innocent actors. Second, implementing an effective reward program for whistleblowers. Third, strengthening the system of justice collaborators.

Fourth, the KPK must use statistical data on crimes to complete and develop its reporting system, incorporating broad information on typology, modus operandi, perpetrators’ backgrounds, trigger factors, situational factors and others, not just data on the number of reports, amount of gratuities and

completed legal processes. Fifth, utilize information technology in maintaining the records to minimize the dark figure of corruption. (Suparman Marzuki, Lecturer, Law School, Indonesian Islamic University; Senior Adviser, Assegaf Hamzah and Partners)