The case for survey-based comparative measures of crime

Abstract

The author argues that statistics of police-recorded crimes have limited utility for cross-country analyses of crime, owing to varying legal definitions, reporting patterns and recording practices. In his view, stand-alone national victimization surveys, with their varying methodologies and questionnaires, cannot reliably be used for cross-national comparisons either. This is especially true for older versions of such surveys, modelled after the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) of the USA, which try to mimic their country’s official statistics of police-recorded crimes. Victimization surveys in the European tradition use less legalistic definitions of the public’s experiences of crime and are therefore more conducive to international standardization. When such surveys are standardized to cover the common ground of crime in multiple jurisdictions, as is the case in the International Crime Victims Survey, they can provide comparable data on the level and trends of crime of individual nations at relatively modest costs. In addition, such surveys can provide comparative data on crime reporting by victims, on satisfaction with responses from police and other agencies, as well as on public attitudes towards safety and criminal justice. In the discussion, the author argues for an expedient execution of the planned Safety Survey in the European Union and further work on the standardization of victimization surveys across the world by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 34 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.