Criminal Victimisation in International Perspective. Key findings from the 2004-2005 ICVS and EU ICS

DSpace Repository


Dokumentart: Book
Date: 2007
Language: English
Faculty: Kriminologisches Repository
Kriminologisches Repository
Department: Kriminologie
DDC Classifikation: 360 - Social problems and services; associations
Keywords: Kriminalität , Internationaler Vergleich , Opfer
Show full item record


This report presents the key results of the crime victim surveys that were carried out as part of the fifth sweep of the International Crime Victim Surveys conducted in 2004/2005. A large portion of the these data are derived from the European Survey on Crime and Safety (EU ICS), organised by a consortium lead by Gallup Europe and co-financed by the European Commission, DGRTD. Wherever possible, results on 2004 have been compared with results from surveys carried out in earlier rounds since 1989. The ICVS project was started back in 1989 because there was a need for reliable crime statistics that could be used for international comparisons. Statistics on police-recorded crimes cannot be used for this purpose because the legal definitions of the crimes differ across countries. Besides, there are large differences in willingness of the public to report crimes to the police. Recording practices and counting rules of the police vary greatly as well. Results of nation-specific crime victim surveys have become the preferred source of information on levels of crime in many developed countries. However, surveys such as the National Crime Victim Survey in the USA and the British Crime Survey differ in questionnaires and other key design features to the extent that results are incomparable across countries. The International Crime Victim Survey (ICVS) is a programme of sample surveys to look at householders’ experiences with crime with the use of standardised questionnaires and other design elements. Reviews by independent scholars have confirmed that ICVS results are more comparable across nations than those of nation-specific surveys (Lynch, 2006). Nevertheless, the limits of the ICVS must also be recognised. Full standardisation of all design aspects has proven to be unattainable, especially if surveys in developing countries are included. Although there are no reasons to assume that comparability has in any way been systematically compromised, divergent design features such as the mode of interviewing and the period in which the fieldwork was done, may have affected results of individual countries in unknown ways. Also, since the samples interviewed were relatively small (2000 in most countries and 800 in most cities), all estimates are subject to sampling error. The ICVS and EU ICS cover ten conventional crimes, broken down into vehicle related crimes (theft of a car, theft from a car, theft of a motorcycle or moped, theft of a bicycle), burglary, attempted burglary, theft of personal property and contact crimes (robbery, sexual offences and assault & threat). In most countries in this report, questions have been added to the questionnaire on experiences with street level corruption, consumer fraud, including internet-based fraud and credit card theft, drug-related problems and hate crime. For most categories of crime trends over time can be studied in a broad selection of countries. Other subjects covered by the questionnaire are reporting to the police, satisfaction with the police, distribution and need of victim support, fear of crime, use of preventive measures and attitudes towards sentencing. This report presents data from 30 countries, including the majority of developed nations. Also the data from 33 main cities of a selection of developed and developing countries are presented in this report. Altogether data are presented from 38 different countries. For the first time data are available on Hong Kong (Special Administrative Region of China – SAR China) and Istanbul (Turkey). Surveys were also done in Mexico, Johannesburg (Republic of South Africa – RSA), Lima (Peru), Buenos Aires (Argentina), Sao Paulo & Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), Phnom Penh (Cambodia) and Maputo (Mozambique). In the tables and graphs results of developed countries are presented as a special subcategory.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)