No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Cambridge Crime Harm Index In Brazil: A Comparative Analysis between Hot Spots and Harm Spots
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 12 November 2025
Abstract
This study assesses the applicability of the Cambridge Crime Harm Index (CCHI) in Brazil by comparing traditional hot-spot analysis based on crime counts with harm-spot analysis based on the severity of crimes. Using police data from Belo Horizonte and Minas Gerais, the research applied the CCHI by weighting occurrences according to minimum legal penalties established in Brazilian law. The findings revealed substantial spatial reconfigurations when adopting harm spots instead of simple frequency-based mapping. The harm-based approach identified critical points that were overlooked by conventional methods and reclassified spatial priorities in the sample sectors. These results demonstrate that severity weighting provides a more accurate representation of the impact of crime, supporting more equitable and effective policing strategies. The study contributes to the advancement of evidence-based public security policies in Brazil and offers new perspectives on the application of harm-based crime analysis in countries with complex legal systems and high crime rates.
Abstracto
Este estudio evalúa la aplicabilidad del Índice de Daños por Delitos de Cambridge (CCHI) en Brasil comparando el análisis tradicional de puntos críticos, basado en el recuento de delitos, con el análisis de puntos críticos de daños basado en la gravedad de los delitos. Utilizando datos policiales de Belo Horizonte y Minas Gerais, la investigación aplicó el CCHI ponderando los incidentes según las sanciones mínimas establecidas en la legislación brasileña. Los hallazgos revelaron reconfiguraciones espaciales sustanciales al adoptar puntos críticos en lugar de un simple mapeo basado en la frecuencia. El enfoque basado en el daño identificó puntos críticos que los métodos convencionales pasaban por alto y reclasificó las prioridades espaciales en los sectores de la muestra. Estos resultados demuestran que la ponderación de la gravedad proporciona una representación más precisa del impacto de la delincuencia, lo que respalda estrategias policiales más equitativas y efectivas. El estudio contribuye al avance de las políticas de seguridad pública basadas en la evidencia en Brasil y ofrece nuevas perspectivas sobre la aplicación del análisis de la delincuencia basado en el daño en países con sistemas legales complejos y altas tasas de delincuencia.
Abstrait
Cette étude évalue l’applicabilité de l’Indice Cambridge des Dommages et Infractions (CCHI) au Brésil en comparant l’analyse traditionnelle des points chauds, basée sur le nombre de crimes, à celle basée sur la gravité des crimes. À partir des données policières de Belo Horizonte et du Minas Gerais, l’étude a appliqué l’CCHI en pondérant les occurrences en fonction des peines minimales prévues par la loi brésilienne. Les résultats ont révélé d’importantes reconfigurations spatiales lors de l’adoption des points chauds plutôt que d’une simple cartographie basée sur la fréquence. L’approche basée sur les dommages a permis d’identifier les points critiques négligés par les méthodes conventionnelles et de reclasser les priorités spatiales dans les secteurs de l’échantillon. Ces résultats démontrent que la pondération de la gravité offre une représentation plus précise de l’impact de la criminalité, favorisant ainsi des stratégies policières plus équitables et plus efficaces. L’étude contribue à l’avancement des politiques de sécurité publique fondées sur des données probantes au Brésil et offre de nouvelles perspectives pour l’application de l’analyse de la criminalité basée sur les dommages dans les pays dotés de systèmes juridiques complexes et de taux de criminalité élevés.
摘要
本研究通过比较基于犯罪计数的传统热点分析和基于犯罪严重程度的危害热点分析，评估了剑桥犯罪危害指数 (CCHI) 在巴西的适用性。研究使用了贝洛奥里藏特和米纳斯吉拉斯州的警方数据，并根据巴西法律规定的最低法定刑罚对犯罪事件进行加权，从而应用了 CCHI。研究结果表明，采用危害点而非简单的基于频率的映射方法会导致显著的空间重构。基于危害的方法识别了传统方法所忽略的关键点，并重新划分了样本区域的空间优先级。结果表明，严重程度加权能够更准确地反映犯罪的影响，从而支持制定更公平、更有效的警务策略。本研究有助于推进巴西循证公共安全政策，并为在法律体系复杂、犯罪率高的国家应用基于危害的犯罪分析提供新的视角。
ملخص
تُقيّم هذه الدراسة مدى تطبيق مؤشر كامبريدج لأضرار الجريمة (CCHI) في البرازيل من خلال مقارنة تحليل البؤر الساخنة التقليدي القائم على عدد الجرائم مع تحليل بؤر الضرر بناءً على شدة الجرائم. باستخدام بيانات الشرطة من ولايتي بيلو هوريزونتي وميناس جيرايس، طبّق البحث مؤشر كامبريدج لأضرار الجريمة (CCHI) بترجيح الحوادث وفقًا للحد الأدنى للعقوبات القانونية المنصوص عليها في القانون البرازيلي. كشفت النتائج عن إعادة تشكيل مكانية جوهرية عند اعتماد بؤر الضرر بدلاً من رسم الخرائط البسيطة القائمة على التردد. حدد النهج القائم على الضرر نقاطًا حرجة أغفلتها الطرق التقليدية، وأعاد تصنيف الأولويات المكانية في قطاعات العينة. تُظهر هذه النتائج أن ترجيح شدة الجريمة يوفر تمثيلًا أكثر دقة لتأثير الجريمة، مما يدعم استراتيجيات شرطة أكثر إنصافًا وفعالية. تُسهم الدراسة في تطوير سياسات الأمن العام القائمة على الأدلة في البرازيل، وتقدم وجهات نظر جديدة حول تطبيق تحليل الجريمة القائم على الضرر في البلدان ذات الأنظمة القانونية المعقدة ومعدلات الجريمة المرتفعة.
Keywords
Cambridge Crime Harm Indexhot spotsharm spotscrime severityspatial analysisÍndice de Daños por Delitos de Cambridgepuntos críticospuntos críticosgravedad del delitoanálisis espacialIndice Cambridge des Dommages et Infractionspoints chaudspoints nocifsgravite de la criminalitéanalyse spatiale剑桥犯罪危害指数 (CCHI)热点危害点犯罪严重程度空间分析مؤشر كامبريدج لأضرار الجريمة (CCHI)البؤر الساخنةبؤر الضررشدة الجريمةالتحليل المكاني
Information
- Type
- Article
- Information
- Copyright
- © International Society of Criminology, 2025
References
Andersen, H. A. and Mueller-Johnson, K.. 2018. “The Danish Crime Harm Index: How It Works and Why It Matters.” Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing 2:52–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ashby, M. P. 2018. “Comparing Methods for Measuring Crime Harm/Severity.” Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 12(4):439–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Babyak, C., Alavi, A., Collins, K., Halladay, A., and Tapper, D.. 2009. “ The Methodology of the Police-Reported Crime Severity Index.” SSC Annual Meeting, June 2009, retrieved 24 July 2025 (https://ssc.ca/sites/default/files/survey/documents/SSC2009_CBabyak.pdf).Google Scholar
Bangs, M. 2016. Research Outputs: Developing a Crime Severity Score for England and Wales using Data on Crimes Recorded by the Police. Newport: Office for National Statistics.Google Scholar
Barnham, L., Barnes, G., and Sherman, L.. 2017. “Targeting Escalation in Intimate Partner Violence: Evidence from 52,000 Offenders.” Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing 1:116–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bell, S. 2017. “In Response to Dr. Laura Huey’s Commentary on ‘Harm-Focused Policing’.” Journal of Community Safety & Well-being 2(1):33–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Braga, A., Papachristos, A., and Hureau, D.. 2012. “Hot Spots Policing Effects on Crime.” Campbell Systematic Reviews 8:1–96.Google Scholar
Brantingham, P. J. and Brantingham, P. L.. 1981. Environmental Criminology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Brantingham, P. L. and Brantingham, P. J.. 1975. “Residential Burglary and Urban Form.” Urban Studies 12(3):273–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capuano, C. and Massimiliano, G.. 2018. Measuring Organized Crime: Statistical Indicators and Economic Aspects. Brussels: Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI).Google Scholar
Carrington, P. J., Brennan, S., Matarazzo, A., and Radulesco, M.. 2013. Co-offending in Canada, 2011. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.Google Scholar
Chong, O. 2019. “Developing a Crime Harm Index for Hong Kong: Measuring Crime Severity as Well as Crime Volume.”
Master’s dissertation
, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
Cohen, M. A. and Piquero, A. R.. 2009. “New Evidence on the Monetary Value of Saving a High-Risk Youth.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 25(1):25–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curman, A. S. N., Andresen, M. A., and Brantingham, P. J.. 2015. “Crime and Place: A Longitudinal Examination of Street Segment Patterns in Vancouver, BC.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 31:127–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtis-Ham, S. and Walton, D.. 2017a. “Mapping Crime Harm and Priority Locations in New Zealand: A Comparison of Spatial Analysis Methods.” Applied Geography 86:245–54.Google Scholar
Curtis-Ham, S. and Walton, D.. 2017b. “The New Zealand Crime Harm Index: Quantifying Harm Using Sentencing Data.” Policing: A Journal of Policy & Practice 12(4):455–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dudfield, G., Angel, C., Sherman, L. W., and Torrence, S.. 2017. “The ‘Power Curve’ of Victim Harm: Targeting the Distribution of Crime Harm Index Values Across All Victims and Repeat Victims over 1 Year.” Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing 1:38–58.Google Scholar
Duffala, D. C. 1976. “Convenience Stores, Armed Robbery, and Physical Environmental Features.” American Behavioral Scientist 20(2):227–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Faria, A. H. P. de. 2024. “A lei de concentração do crime: estudo de caso para Belo Horizonte, Minas Gerais.” Confins 63, retrieved 24 July 2025 (https://journals.openedition.org/confins/57773).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenimore, D. M. 2019. “Mapping Harmspots: An Exploration of the Spatial Distribution of Crime Harm.” Applied Geography 109:102034.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Frydensberg, C., Ariel, B., and Bland, M.. 2019. “Targeting the Most Harmful Co-Offenders in Denmark: a Social Network Analysis Approach.” Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing 3:21–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Global Initiative Against Transnational Organized Crime. 2022. Global Organized Crime Index 2021: Assessing Vulnerability and Resilience. Accessed 24 July 2025 (https://ocindex.net/).Google Scholar
Hiltz, N., Bland, M., and Barnes, G. C.. 2020. “Victim–Offender Overlap in Violent Crime: Targeting Crime Harm in a Canadian Suburb.” Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing 4:114–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
House, P. D. and Neyroud, P. W.. 2018. “Developing a Crime Harm Index for Western Australia: the WACHI.” Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing 2:70–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística (IBGE). 2022. “Minas Gerais | Belo Horizonte | Panorama.” Cidades IBGE, retrieved 19 August 2025 (https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/mg/belo-horizonte/panorama).Google Scholar
Kärrholm, F., Neyroud, P., and Smaaland, J.. 2020. “Designing the Swedish Crime Harm Index: An Evidence-Based Strategy.” Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing 4(1–2):15–33.Google Scholar
Laufs, J., Bowers, K., Birks, D., and Johnson, S. D.. 2021. “Understanding the Concept of ‘Demand’ in Policing: A Scoping Review and Resulting Implications for Demand Management.” Policing and Society 31(8):895–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
LeBeau, J. L. 1987. “The Methods and Measures of Cartography and the Spatial Dynamics of Rape.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 3:125–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linehan, T. 2016. “Towards an Irish Recorded Crime Index.” Journal of the Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland 46:18–46.Google Scholar
MacKinnell, I., Poletti, P., and Holmes, M.. 2010. “Measuring Offence Seriousness.” Crime and Justice Bulletin (142):1–12, retrieved 24 July 2025 (https://bocsar.nsw.gov.au/documents/publications/cjb/cjb101-150/cjb142.pdf).Google Scholar
Mayhew, P., Clarke, R. V. G., Sturman, A., and Hough, J. M.. 1976. “Crime as Opportunity.” Home Office Research Study No. 34. London: HM Stationery Office.Google Scholar
Military Police of Minas Gerais State. 2023. Operational Management System (SIGOP) of the Military Police of Minas Gerais (PMMG). Accessed via IntranetPM, extraction performed on 12 April 2023.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. J. 2019. “The Usefulness of a Crime Harm Index: Analyzing the Sacramento Hot Spot Experiment using the California Crime Harm Index (CA-CHI).” Journal of Experimental Criminology 15:103–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ojo, A. and Ojewale, O.. 2019. “Urban Crime Harm.” Pp. 187–98 in Urbanisation and Crime in Nigeria, edited by Ojo, A. and Ojewale, O.. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paoli, L. and Greenfield, V. A.. 2013. “Harm: A Neglected Concept in Criminology, a Necessary Benchmark for Crime-Control Policy.” European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice 21(3–4):359–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratcliffe, J. H. 2014. “Towards an Index for Harm-Focused Policing.” Policing (Oxford) 9(2):164–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ratcliffe, J. H. 2021. Reducing Crime: A Companion for Police Leaders. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Rengert, G. 1980. “Spatial Aspects of Criminal Behavior.” Pp. 47–57 in Crime: A Spatial Perspective. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Richards, O. and Harinam, V.. 2020. “Tracking Police Arrests of Intimate Partner Domestic Abuse Suspects in London: A Situational Factors Analysis.” Cambridge Journal of Evidence-Based Policing 4(3–4):103–13.Google Scholar
Sherman, L. W. 2007. “The Power Few: Experimental Criminology and the Reduction of Harm.” Journal of Experimental Criminology 3(4):299–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, L. W. 2011. “Al Capone, the Sword of Damocles, and the Police-Corrections Budget Ratio.” Criminology & Public Policy 10(1):195–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, L. W., Gartin, P. R., and Buerger, M. E.. 1989. “Hotspots of Predatory Crime: Routine Activities and the Criminology of Place.” Criminology 27(1):27–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, L. W., Neyroud, P. W., and Neyroud, E.. 2016. “The Cambridge Crime Harm Index: Measuring Total Harm from Crime Based on Sentencing Guidelines.” Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice 10(3):171–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sherman, L. W. and Weisburd, D.. 1995. “General Deterrent Effects of Police Patrol in Crime ‘Hot Spots’: A Randomized, Controlled Trial.” Justice Quarterly 12(4):625–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sullivan, C., Su-Wuen, O., and McRae, R.. 2017. Justice Sector Seriousness Scores (2016 Update): FAQs. Wellington: New Zealand Police.Google Scholar
Taira, Y. 2018. “Japan Crime Harm Index: The Application of the Cambridge Crime Harm Index to Official Crime Statistics in Japan.”
Master’s dissertation
, University of Cambridge.Google Scholar
United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. 2010. Manual on Victimization Surveys. Geneva: United Nations, retrieved 24 July 2025 (https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Crime-statistics/Manual_on_Victimization_surveys_2009_web.pdf).Google Scholar
Van Dijk, J., Kesteren, J. V., and Smit, P.. 2007. Criminal Victimisation in International Perspective. WODC Report No. 257, retrieved 24 July 2025 (https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/Crime-statistics/ob257_full_text_tcm45-103353.pdf).Google Scholar
Van Ruitenburg, T. and Ruiter, S.. 2022. “The Adoption of a Crime Harm Index: A Scoping Literature Review.” Police Practice and Research 24(4):423–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisburd, D. 2015. “The Law of Crime Concentration and the Criminology of Place.” Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Journal 53(2):133–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisburd, D. and Braga, A. A. (editors). 2019. Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D., Bushway, S., Lum, C., and Yang, S. M.. 2004. “Trajectories of Crime at Places: A Longitudinal Study of Street Segments in the City of Seattle.” Criminology 42(2):283–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisburd, D. and Green, L.. 1994. “Defining the Drug Market: The Case of the Jersey City DMA System.” Pp. 61–76 in Drugs and Crime: Evaluating Public Policy Initiatives, edited by MacKenzie, D. L. and Uchida, C. D.. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
Weisburd, D., Greenspan, R., Mastrofski, S., and Willis, J. J.. 2001. “Compstat and Organizational Change: A National Assessment.” National Institute of Justice, retrieved 24 July 2025 (https://nij.ojp.gov/library/publications/compstat-and-organizational-change-national-assessment).Google Scholar