On the scale of how to make any government look bad, the manipulation of crime statistics must come close to the top. It follows logically that with a rising population, the crime rate will also increase. Capitalising on this is a tried and trusted tactic for the Opposition: bleat on about the rising crime figures, don't mention the population increase bit, and hey presto, the country is going to the dogs and it is all the fault of the minister for justice.
It is a cheap trick. It may get a few headlines for Opposition politicians, and it certainly serves to increase the climate of fear in the wider community, but hyping the crime figures is highly irresponsible.
The latest spat occurred last week with the publication of the most recent quarterly crime statistics. Fine Gael proclaimed in the Dáil that the crime problem was "huge" and "alarming", with "people living in fear of their lives". It was added that Michael McDowell would go down in history as "the Minister for murder and mayhem".
The Opposition was not interested in analysing rates of crime per head of the population - the only meaningful calculation if you want to get a true picture of the problem. Instead, they pounced on the increase in murders (from seven in the first three months of 2005 to 12 for the same period this year, an increase of 71 per cent), and on certain kinds of theft (up over 20 per cent).
This kind of cherry-picking of statistics is highly deceptive. Had it suited their purposes, Fine Gael could equally have trumpeted that we have just wiped out manslaughter - it dropped from two to 0 in the same period, a decrease of 100 per cent. This would have been just as meaningless.
Aside from the fact that it is nonsensical to blame a minister for fluctuations in the crime figures, the Fine Gael claim of huge increases in criminal activity is not supported by any sensible interpretation of the data.
Mr McDowell has convincingly refuted the Opposition's claims. And the truth is that on this issue, he bears a close resemblance to the curate's egg - he is good in parts. For instance, he is firmly committed to publishing regular statistics, and the rate at which the Department of Justice now produces crime figures is unprecedented.
He also employs the considerably more useful calculation of crimes committed per head of the population, telling us that Ireland now has 24.6 crimes committed per 1,000 people, which is low by international standards. However, he then loses the run of himself by asserting that crime has in fact decreased by 15 per cent during the past decade.
To compare crime figures now to those of 1995 (a year chosen to embarrass Fine Gael and Labour, who were then in government) is seriously misleading. It is akin to comparing apples and oranges.
In 1999, with the arrival of the Garda Pulse computer system, the entire process of recording and classifying crime was radically altered. As a result, the figures lurched, dropping in 2000 only to increase sharply for the following two years.
This was almost certainly due to the changes in recording procedures rather than any alteration in crime on the ground. Consequently, the results of any comparison between the crime rate now and the levels prior to 1999 will inevitably be inaccurate.
That the Minister should make such a comparison, for the simple expediency of scoring points off the Opposition, is every bit as reprehensible as the unjustified hyping of the figures by Fine Gael and Labour in the first place.
However, perhaps a day is coming when both sides may find it less easy to abuse the statistics. Due largely, it must be said, to Mr McDowell, the business of compiling and announcing crime figures is to be removed from both the Department of Justice and the Garda.
On foot of the work of the Expert Group on Crime Statistics, appointed by Michael McDowell, this function is shortly to become the responsibility of the Central Statistics Office.
The CSO is also likely to remove the artificial distinction between headline and non-headline offences. This categorisation has created what many experts argue is a distinctly misleading view of the extent of crime in our society. By arbitrarily including certain offences and excluding others, the figures can be massaged to show almost anything you like.
A substantially more useful measure would be, for instance, to group together crimes of violence, giving people for the first time a clear sense of the scale of threat to themselves from these kinds of offences.
We have known for some time that the fear of crime vastly outweighs the actual scale of the problem in this country. Having our fears whipped up, or indeed dismissed, for the sake of a few votes is a game which we should simply refuse to play any more.