The data consisted of daily counts on stop and searches amongst certain categories of crime that may be susceptible for every borough in London from April 2004 to November 2014

The data consisted of daily counts on stop and searches amongst certain categories of crime that may be susceptible for every borough in London from April 2004 to November 2014. The research was then condensed to per 100,000 residents to obtain a more reasonable and clear result of the likelihood of an individual being stopped and searched by the police. The data was recorded in tables within this article. This method used may be limited due to lack of records or permission to gain access to such records. The methods were evidently quantitative as the data was recorded numerically, for example; Total Number of Stop and Searches: 229, and there were also clear observations made throughout the whole article regarding stop and search to record results. Although the tables were laid out in diagrams within the article, they can prove to be quite confusing as the results, although recorded numerically, were placed in a way with the use of mathematical nouns, such as the ‘mean’ and ‘standard deviation’ which is a disadvantage.
Upon the conduction of this research, it is clear from my analysis of the data that there were some limitations to data findings and recordings, which is a disadvantage of the research paper, as limitations in general always occur within research which is always a disadvantage. One limitation that came about was the analyzation of a broad window of crime. Although within the research it states it would have been more beneficial to have specific crime recordings such as if stop and search associated with knife crime, some boroughs did not have any recordings of crime within the stop and search margin, so broad crime recordings must be used. Another limitation that posed upon this research was the heavy reliance on police data. This means that only instances which were recorded by police officers could be used for their data, which in some cases, although police are obliged to record incidents, may fail to do so. The National Crime Recording Standard (NCRS), promotes consistency between police forces in how to record crime and in providing a victim-orientated approach to crime recording (Collection and recording 2018). As some incidents in some cases are not recorded by police, this reflects how inaccurate results can form as the lack of recordings leads to the lack of quality research findings. This inaccuracy can pose a problem within any research conductions upon many crime related studies, not just that of stop and search. For example, an article written in 2014 within the newspaper of ‘The Guardian’ states how “The police are failing to record more than 800,000 offences, including a quarter of all sexual crimes, reported to them by the public each year, according to a damning official inquiry” (Travis 2014). This research paper also used a wide year span in the conduction of their research, which leads to more accurate results and findings.

Findings / Results of Research
From the conduction of the research upon whether stop and search deters crime, the following results were gathered. Firstly, the review of the effects of stop and search under all powers on total susceptible crime. The results showed that by a ten percent increase in stop and search, correlated with a drop in susceptible crime of 0.32% per month or 0.14% per week (Tiratelli, Quinton and Bradford 2018) which conveys only a small effect upon the deterrence of crime. Another result was that by the rise again of stop and search by 10%, it resulted in a decrease of 1.85% in regards to drug offences, still only a little effect on deterrence. The findings were that the formal police power of stop and search does not pose a great impact on the deterrence of crime. A note of interest was that a month to month relationship between stop and search with crime was consistently stronger than the week-on-week relationship. The explanation given for this within the research was that people need to be exposed to the raising of stop and search conductions for longer periods of time in order for it to result in deterrence (Tiratelli, Quinton and Bradford 2018).

Conclusion
This data focuses on the effect stop and search has upon the deterrence of crime. As previously discussed, the article wished to shift the focus away from the usual researches around stop and search such as those upon ethics and race and chose to focus mainly upon the deterrence of crime, which was executed throughout the article. It was made apparent, through the conduction of research throughout the article, although the use of stop and search deters crime, it is only somewhat deterrent with little change in crime rates. This formal police power is the most commonly used form yet fails to deter crime in a way where drastic results are seen, and the research finds that stop and search may be seen as more effective due to it being carried out by police and because it is one of the police’s actions. The research concludes that stop and search is a way of doing something about crime, rather than deterring crime and controlling it, so it should be used accordingly.