Göttingen Studies in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice

Marcelo F. Aebi et al.

European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics – 2021 Sixth Edition

Göttingen Studies in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Vol. 41 Aebi et al. European Sourcebook

Göttingen University Press

This is the sixth edition of a data collection initiative that started in 1993 under the umbrella of the Council of Europe and has been continued since 2000 by an international group of experts. These experts also act as regional coordinators of a network of national correspondents whose contribution has been decisive in collecting and validating data on a variety of subjects from 42 countries. The Sourcebook is composed of six chapters. The first five cover the current main types of national crime and criminal justice statistics – police, prosecution, conviction, prison, and probation statistics – for the years 2011 to 2016, providing detailed analysis for 2015. The sixth chapter covers national victimization surveys, providing rates for the main indicators every five years from 1990 to 2015. As with every new edition of the Sourcebook, the group has tried to improve data quality as well as comparability and, where appropriate, increase the scope of data collection. This new edition will continue to promote comparative research throughout Europe and make European experiences and

ISBN: 978-3-86395-519-9

data available worldwide.

ISSN: 1864-2136 eISSN: 2512-7047

**ESB** European Sourcebook of Criminal Justice e.V.

Göttingen University Press

Marcelo F. Aebi et al.

European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics – 2021

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Published als Volume 41 of the Series "Göttingen Studies in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice" by Göttingen University Press 2021

Marcelo F. Aebi, Stefano Caneppele, Stefan Harrendorf, Yuji Z. Hashimoto, Jörg-Martin Jehle, Tara S. Khan, Olivia Kühn, Chris Lewis, Lorena Molnar, Paul Smit, Rannveig Þórisdóttir and the ESB Network of National Correspondents

European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics – 2021 Sixth Edition

Göttingen Studies in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Volume 41

Göttingen University Press 2021

### Bibliographic information

The German National Library lists this publication in the Deutsche Nationalbibliografie; detailed bibliographic data are available in the Internet at http://dnb.dnb.de.

#### *Editors of the Series*

Institute of Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Faculty of Law, Georg-August-Universität Göttingen Profs. Drs. Kai Ambos, Gunnar Duttge, Katrin Höffler, Jörg-Martin Jehle, Uwe Murmann

Recommended citation (APA 7th Edition):

Aebi, M.F, Caneppele, S., Hashimoto, Y. Z., Jehle, J.-M., Khan, T.S., Kühn, O., Lewis, C., Molnar, L., Smit, P., Þórisdóttir, R. and the ESB network of national correspondents (2021). European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics 2021 (6th ed.). Göttingen University Press.

This work is protected by German Intellectual Property Right Law. It is also available as an Open Access version through the publisher's homepage and the Göttingen University Catalogue (GUK) at the Göttingen State and University Library (http://www.sub.uni-goettingen.de). The license terms of the online version apply.

Setting and layout: Yuji Z. Hashimoto, Lorena Molnar, Stefan Harrendorf

© 2021 Göttingen University Press https://univerlag.uni-goettingen.de ISBN: 978-3-86395-519-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17875/gup2021-1787 ISSN: 1864-2136 eISSN: 2512-7047

# **National Correspondents**

This report has been built upon the knowledge, commitment, and active contribution of many experts from all European countries. The questionnaire devised by the European Sourcebook group has been discussed with and answered by the following national correspondents:


# **Acknowledgments**

The following experts were involved in the discussions related to the project and gave helpful advice:


A major contribution to the data collection wave of the sixth edition was made within the framework of the LINCS project, implemented by the Council of Europe and co-founded by the Council of Europe and the European Commission. We are especially grateful to

**Ilina Taneva**, Council of Europe, Strasbourg

# **Dedication**

The 6th edition of the European Sourcebook is dedicated to the memory of our colleague and friend Professor Kauko Aromaa (1943-2019) of Helsinki University. Professor Aromaa was a part of the European Sourcebook group for many years and promoted its publication.

We have lost a good friend.

# **Preface**

This is the sixth edition of a data collection initiative that started in 1993 under the umbrella of the Council of Europe and has been continued since 2000 by an international group of experts that created the European Sourcebook of Criminal Justice e.V.1 and is also a Working Group of the European Society of Criminology. These experts act as regional coordinators of a network of national correspondents whose contribution has been decisive in collecting and validating data on a variety of subjects from 42 countries.2

This edition of the Sourcebook is composed of six chapters. The first five cover the current main types of national crime and criminal justice statistics – police, prosecution, conviction, prison, and probation statistics – for the years 2011 to 2016, providing detailed analysis for 2015. The sixth chapter covers national victimization surveys, providing rates for the main indicators every five years from 1990 to 2015.

As with every new edition of the Sourcebook, the group has tried to improve data quality as well as comparability and, where appropriate, increase the scope of data collection. For example, offence definitions were updated to reflect the lessons learned from previous editions.

<sup>1</sup> A legal entity and registered association according to German law (eingetragener Verein).

<sup>2</sup> Including the constituent countries of the United Kingdom that have separate criminal justice systems, namely England and Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland.

Basically, all data included were originally collected by the national correspondents. The present document also includes, in chapter 4 and 5, data provided by the SPACE project of the Council of Europe.3

The European Sourcebook is also freely available for download on the website www.unil.ch/europeansourcebook. The original data used to create the European Sourcebook can also be found in a separate publication on that website. This includes the absolute crime figures and comments provided by the national correspondents when answering the European Sourcebook questionnaire.

The Sourcebook group wishes to thank all those who, in whatever capacity, have worked on the present edition. First of all, our thanks go to the national correspondents. Without them, such an endeavour as this would never possible. We acknowledged their significant contributions by making the network of national correspondents co-author. We are also grateful to Claudia Campistol and Nina Palmowski, who, while working at the Universities of Lausanne and Göttingen, respectively, supported the project, especially by assisting the revision of the questionnaire and the data collection. Special thanks are due to the Council of Europe, particularly to Ilina Taneva, for their support in the framework of the project LINCS (Linking International Criminal Statistics). The project was co-funded by the Council of Europe and the European Commission and provided the framework for two conferences with the national correspondents and LINCS country experts on 16 to 17 April 2018 and then again on 3 and 4 June 2019. The Council of Europe also organised a virtual conference on "Three Decades of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics in Europe: Methods, Trends and the Impact on Policy Making" on 22 and 23 March 2021, at which the results of the LINCS project and of the Sourcebook data collection were presented and discussed. Special thanks are also due to the University of Lausanne and its School of Criminal Justice, who have been supporting this project since the beginning.

While all members of the Sourcebook group in principle contributed equally to the preparation and writing of this book, a special mention is due to Lorena Molnar and Yuji Zocatelli Hashimoto (both University of Lausanne) and Olivia Kühn (University of Greifswald) for their invaluable additional support. Lorena and Yuji were especially in charge of the creation, management and update of the ESB database and the copyediting of the final publication, while Olivia furthered and improved data validation significantly.

We hope that this new edition will continue to promote comparative research throughout Europe and make European experiences and data available worldwide.

Lausanne, October 2021

Marcelo Aebi, Chair

<sup>3</sup> See https://wp.unil.ch/space.







# **General Introduction: The European Sourcebook Project**

# **1 Background: Past and present of the European Sourcebook Group**

The assessment of trends in crime and criminal justice has been a permanent concern of international organisations and a major source of interest and debate for researchers and policy makers. Following the reunification of the European continent that started in 1989, the necessity of a reliable data source became evident. Against this background, the European Committee on Crime Problems (CDPC) created in 1993 a group on "*Trends in crime and criminal justice: statistics and other quantitative data on crime and criminal justice systems*" (PC-S-ST), composed of experts from France, Germany, Hungary, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.4

In 1995, the group presented the *European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics. Draft model* (Strasbourg: Council of Europe, 1995, 194 pp) to the CDPC.

<sup>4</sup> The members of the group were: Martin Killias (Switzerland; chair), Gordon Barclay (United Kingdom), Hanns von Hofer (Sweden), Imre Kertesz (Hungary), Max Kommer (Netherlands), Jörg-Martin Jehle (Germany), Chris Lewis (United Kingdom) and Pierre Tournier (France). HEUNI was represented by an observer (Kristiina Kangaspunta). The secretary to the Group was Wolfgang Rau, Directorate of Legal Affairs, Council of Europe.

The draft model collated crime and criminal justice data for the year 1990 on ten European countries.5 At its 45th plenary session in June 1996, the CDPC entrusted the expert group with the preparation of a compendium of crime and criminal justice data for the whole of Europe. This required the enlargement of the Group through the incorporation of specialists in comparative criminology and in the collection and analysis of statistical data.6

In its work, the group took account of the periodic surveys on crime and criminal justice statistics carried out by INTERPOL –that was eventually abandoned in 2006– and the UNODC. These surveys relied on the provision of data by official authorities of each country, which usually would transmit the figures as published in their national statistics. The group decided to follow a different approach by creating a co-ordinated network of national correspondents that would access the main statistical sources within each country, collect data and *metadata* (i.e., information on the legal definitions of offences and the statistical counting rules applied when compiling the data), and adapt as much as possible the available figures to a standard definition of each offence developed by the group.

The development of a sustainable network of national correspondents requires the identification in each country of an expert in crime and criminal justice statistics who becomes responsible for the collection and initial checking of the data. In a quarter of a century, many colleagues assumed that role, some during several sweeps of the Sourcebook and some for one or two editions. The list of the current national correspondents is provided at the beginning of this publication. The national correspondents are responsible for the accuracy of the data provided for their respective countries as well as for identifying legal and statistical changes, or factual incidents that can explain variations in the trends observed. The members of the European Sourcebook Group –whose composition has also changed throughout the years, as can be seen in the list of authors of each edition– act as *regional co-ordinators* for groups of several countries.

The methodology developed by the European Sourcebook Group proved successful, and the first edition of the Sourcebook was published in 1999. Later, that methodology inspired the collection of data started at the beginning of the 2000s by Eurostat. In the same perspective, the United Nations Survey on Crime Trends and the Operations of Criminal Justice Systems (CTS) conducted by the UNODC has also incorporated, since the mid-2000s, the questions on metadata developed by the Group.

<sup>5</sup> France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom.

<sup>6</sup> The new members of the enlarged group of Specialists were: Marcelo Aebi (Switzerland), Andri Ahven (Estonia), Uberto Gatti (Italy), Zdenek Karabec (Czech Republic), Vlado Kambovski (The Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia), Alberto Laguia Arrazola (Spain) and Calliope Spinellis (Greece). Paul Smit (Netherlands) and Bruno Aubusson de Cavarlay (France) joined the Group in December 1997 and April 1998 replacing Max Kommer and Pierre Tournier, respectively.

After the publication of the first edition in 1999,7 the Council of Europe was, unfortunately, no longer able to support the project financially. To maintain continuity in the data collection effort and especially to avoid dismantling the network of national correspondents from the whole of Europe, the second (2003)8 and the third edition (2006)9 were funded and supported by different institutions: the British Home Office, the Swiss Foreign Ministry (through the Federal Office of Statistics and the School of Criminal Sciences of the University of Lausanne), the Dutch Ministry of Justice, the *Centre d'Etudes Sociologiques sur le Droit et les Institutions Pénales* (CESDIP), the European Commission and the German Federal Ministry of Justice. A small group of experts was responsible for updating data and improving data quality of the European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics.10

The fourth edition of the European Sourcebook11 was made possible with support from the European Commission under the AGIS programme.12 The results of the project funded by the Commission were published independently13 and, although the Sourcebook itself was not a result of that project, the data collection instrument developed for it was used for collecting the data included in the fourth edition of the Sourcebook. In that context, efforts were made to extend the

<sup>7</sup> *Council of Europe* (Ed.) (1999). European sourcebook of crime and criminal justice statistics. Strasbourg: Council of Europe. Analysis of the results of the first edition is presented in a special issue of the European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research (8/1, 2000).

<sup>8</sup> *Aebi, M., Aromaa, K., Aubusson de Cavarlay, B., Barclay, G., Gruszczyńska, B., Hofer, H. v., Hysi, V., Jehle, J.-M., Killias, M., Smit, P. & Tavares, C.* (2003). European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics – 2003. 2nd edition. Den Haag: Boom. Analysis of the results of the second edition is presented in a special issue of the European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research (10/2-3, 2004).

<sup>9</sup> *Aebi, M., Aromaa, K., Aubusson de Cavarlay, B., Barclay, G., Gruszczyńska, B., Hofer, H. v., Hysi, V., Jehle, J.-M., Killias, M., Smit, P. & Tavares, C.* (2006). European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics – 2006. 3rd edition. Den Haag: Boom.

<sup>10</sup> The members of the new group of experts were: Martin Killias (Switzerland, chair), Marcelo F. Aebi (Switzerland/Spain, database administrator), Kauko Aromaa (Finland), Bruno Aubusson de Cavarlay (France), Gordon Barclay (United Kingdom), Hanns von Hofer (Sweden), Beata Gruszczynska (Poland), Vasilika Hysi (Albania), Jörg-Martin Jehle (Germany), Paul Smit (Netherlands, website administrator), and Cynthia Tavares (United Kingdom, Secretariat). Chris Lewis (United Kingdom) also assisted with the editing of the final publication.

<sup>11</sup> *Aebi, M., Aubusson de Cavarlay, B., Barclay, G., Gruszczyńska, B., Harrendorf, S., Heiskanen, M., Hysi, V., Jaquier, V., Jehle, J-M., Killias, M., Shostko, O., Smit, P. & Þorisdottir, R.* (2010). European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics – 2010. 4th edition. Den Haag: Boom. Analysis of the results of the first edition is presented in a special issue of the European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research (18/1, 2012).

<sup>12</sup> JLS/2006/AGIS/134. The members of the expert group for the fourth edition were Martin Killias (Switzerland, chair); Marcelo Aebi (Switzerland, database administrator), Bruno Aubusson de Cavarlay (France), Gordon Barclay (United Kingdom), Beata Gruszczyńska (Poland), Stefan Harrendorf (Germany), Markku Heiskanen (Finland), Vasilika Hysi (Albania), Véronique Jaquier (Switzerland), Jörg-Martin Jehle (Germany), Olena Shostko (Ukraine), Paul Smit (The Netherlands), Rannveig Þorisdottir (Iceland).

<sup>13</sup> Detailed results of the project can be found in: *Jehle/Harrendorf* (Eds.): Defining and Registering Criminal Offences and Measures. Standards for a European Comparison. Göttingen: Universitätsverlag Göttingen 2010.

Sourcebook's coverage beyond ordinary ("street level") crimes and to include offences such as fraud, offences against computer data and systems, money laundering and corruption. Other offence definitions were completed or differentiated, such as bodily injury, drug trafficking, sexual assault and sexual abuse of minors.

The fifth edition14 took advantage of a project funded by the European Commission under the ISEC 2010 programme15 and aiming at improving data collection on the tasks and work of probation agencies and on community sanctions and measures, as well as developing indicators for the attrition process within the criminal justice system.16 Experts from the CEP (Confederation of European Probation) were involved in order to improve the questionnaire and the data validation procedure in respect of probation statistics. Based on these efforts a broader range of data and information on community sanctions and measures connected with prosecutorial decisions and orders by the court and implemented by probation agencies – both for adults and for minors – could be presented in the fifth edition. Building on this experience, the current sixth edition also presents probation data in a separate chapter.

This sixth edition signs a return to the sources of the Sourcebook project, as it was developed in collaboration with the Council of Europe. An international network of experts was needed to collect the data required for the LINCS-project (Linking International Criminal Statistics), implemented by the Council of Europe and co-funded by the European Commission, and the network of national correspondents developed by the European Sourcebook Group assumed that role. In that context two conferences with the national correspondents, who also became the LINCS experts, took place (April 2018 and June 2019), where the data collection procedures were discussed, and preliminary data were evaluated. Finally, in an online conference in March 2021 the results of the sixth survey wave were presented

<sup>14</sup> *Aebi, M., F., Akdeniz, G., Barclay, G., Campistol, C., Caneppele, S., Gruszczyńska, B., Harrendorf, S., Heiskanen, M., Hysi, V., Jehle, J-M., Jokinen, A., Kensey, A., Killias, M., Lewis, C. G., Savona, E., Smit, P. & Þórisdottir, R.* (2014). European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics – 2014, 5th edition. HEUNI Publication Series No. 80.

<sup>15</sup> DECODEUR (HOME/2010/ISEC/FP/C1/4000001420). The project was managed by the European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control, affiliated with the United Nations (HEUNI). The members of the expert group for the fifth edition were Jörg-Martin Jehle (Germany, chair); Marcelo Aebi (Switzerland, database administrator), Galma Akdeniz (Turkey), Gordon Barclay (United Kingdom), Claudia Campistol (Switzerland), Stefano Caneppele (Italy), Beata Gruszczyńska (Poland), Stefan Harrendorf (Germany), Markku Heiskanen (Finland), Vasilika Hysi (Albania), Annina Jokinen (Finland), Annie Kensey (France), Martin Killias (Switzerland), Chris Lewis (UK), Ernesto Savona (Italy), Paul Smit (The Netherlands), Rannveig Þorisdottir (Iceland).

<sup>16</sup> Detailed results of this project are publicized parallel to this book in: *Heiskanen/Aebi/van der Brugge/Jehle* (Eds.): Recording Community Sanctions and Measures and Assessing Attrition. A Methodological Study on Comparative Data in Europe. Helsinki: HEUNI 2014.

and reflected in an expanded context, also taking into account other data collection initiatives, victimisation studies and the needs of and impact on criminal policy.17

From 2001 to 2012, the Dutch Ministry of Justice provided the necessary resources to set up and maintain a website containing all the data of the 1999, 2003, 2006 and 2010 editions of the European Sourcebook under the supervision of Paul Smit (WODC, Ministry of Justice of the Netherlands). Since 2012, the University of Lausanne has taken over this function for the European Sourcebook, under the supervision of Marcelo Aebi. Results for all ESB editions, including the respective original data, are available on this ESB website (www.unil.ch/europeansourcebook).

# **2 Definitions of offences and sanctions**

Comparative criminology has to face the problem of national offence definitions that are often incompatible. The group adopted the following procedure: For all offences included in the European Sourcebook, a standard definition was developed, and countries were invited to follow it whenever possible. Offence definitions and related commentaries are given in an appendix of this book, providing for each of the selected offences detailed information on which countries (among those providing numerical data) were able to fully conform to the definition and which countries deviated from it. For the latter, there is also an indication of the elements of the definition that they were unable to meet. Data on definitions are presented separately for police and convictions levels.

# **3 The structure of the European Sourcebook**

This edition of the European Sourcebook is divided into six chapters, each of which is, in general, subdivided into four sections:


The six chapters are:

A. *Police data.* Chapter 1 provides information on offences and suspected offenders known to the police in each country, as well as on police staff. Most of the data are available as time-series covering the years 2011 to 2016. Detailed information on the sex, age group, and nationality of suspects is provided for 2015. This sixth edition includes three additional offences: aggravated theft, cyberfraud, and forgery of documents. It also brings

<sup>17</sup> *Aebi, M. F. et al* (2021): Three Decades of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics in Europe: Methods, Trends and the Impact on Policy Making. Council of Europe, Strasbourg.

significant improvements to the definitions or major road traffic offences, rape, and sexual abuse of a child, which are based on an analysis of the data and metadata collected in previous editions. These modifications are aiming to improve comparability across countries in this edition of the European Sourcebook, although they imply that the figures collected are not fully comparable with those included in earlier editions of it. For most of the other offences, only minor improvements and clarifications were introduced.


1990 to 2015. The chapter provides information about the methodology used in these surveys and the labelling of the questions include and presents some selected results.

# **4 Methodological issues**

### 4.1 Data recording methods

Since the timing and method of recording can have a considerable impact on a statistical measure, the Group paid much attention to the way in which national data were collected and recorded, and what operational definitions were applied at the several stages of the criminal justice process. Detailed information provided on this has been summarised in the form of tables, short comments, as well as in the definitions appendix.

# 4.2 Validation

Validation is often the most important and, in many cases, the most forgotten stage of the data collection process. As a first step, the group identified and discussed obvious problems relating to this process. Data validation involved:


This procedure resulted in the need to go back to many national correspondents for clarifications and additional cross-checking. It allowed correcting some mistakes, but also revealed many differences in the national statistical systems, which are extensively documented in the metadata.

As an additional validity check, the year 2011 is covered by both the 5th and the 6th edition of the European Sourcebook. In some cases, both figures are not identical. In principle, data included in the present edition should be considered as more accurate. Usually, the reason for these differences was that the data for the year 2011 of the fifth edition were provisional as the questionnaire had been sent a few months after the end of that year.

# **5 Presentational details**

In order to increase the readability of the present report, the group took the following practical decisions:

	- a) '0' to indicate a number between 0 and 0.4;
	- b) '...' to indicate that data is not (yet) available or that the question / concept as used in the European Sourcebook questionnaire does not exist in the country;
	- c) '> 1 000' to indicate that the percentage change between 2011 and 2016 is above one thousand per cent.

<sup>18</sup> Only very few tables have been totally eliminated from the publication. In such cases, the original data are available in the publication mentioned above.

	- a. Mean: The (unweighted) arithmetic average; the sum of scores divided by the number of countries that provided data. The value of the mean is sensitive to the presence of very high or very low scores. For this reason, the median was also included as an indicator of the central tendency of the data.
	- b. Median: The (unweighted) median is the score that divides the distribution of scores into two exact halves.
	- c. Minimum: The lowest score in the table.
	- d. Maximum: The highest score in the table.
	- e. Percentage change 2011 to 2016 (exact calculation based on the original data with all the decimals not shown here).

# **6 Comparability**

The basic aim of the European Sourcebook data collection is to present comparable information on crime and criminal justice statistics in Europe.19 However, the issue of whether or not it is feasible or appropriate to use official criminal justice statistics for decision-making in crime policy or for conducting scientific studies is one of the classic debates of criminology. The problems involved are even more serious when it comes to international comparisons, because nations differ widely in the way they organise their police and court systems, the way they define their legal concepts, and the way they collect and present their statistics. In fact, the lack of uniform definitions of offences and sanctions, of common measuring instruments and of a common methodology makes comparisons between countries extremely hazardous.20 This is the reason why criminologists over the last decades have developed alternatives to complement the existing official statistics: international comparative *victimisation* studies, on the one hand, and international comparative *self-report* studies on the other. Due to a lack of recent *international* victimisation studies, Chapter 6 includes data from *national* victimisation surveys, which can be compared only with extreme caution.

Comparative analyses generally fall into one of three categories: (A) distributive comparisons, (B) level comparisons and, (C) trend comparisons.

<sup>19</sup> See further *Jehle, J.-M.* (2013). Crime and Criminal Justice in Europe. The Approach of the European Sourcebook. In Kuhn, A., Schwarzenegger, C., Margot, P., Donatsch, A., Aebi, M.F. & Jositsch, D. (eds.), Criminology, Criminal Policy and Criminal Law in an International Perspective, Essays in Honour of Martin Killias on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday (pp. 191-205). Zürich: Stämpfli 2013. <sup>20</sup> Detailed*: Harrendorf, S.* (2018). Prospects, Problems, and Pitfalls in Comparative Analyses of Crim-

inal Justice Data. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research 47, 159-207.


Before these and other questions can be answered, it should be noted that official crime and criminal justice statistics are fundamentally dependent upon four sets of circumstances: (a) *substantive* factors such as the propensity of individuals to commit crimes, the opportunity structure, the risk of detection, the willingness of the public to report crimes, or the efficiency of criminal justice authorities; (b) *legal* factors such as the design of the Criminal Code, the Code of Criminal Procedure and other relevant legislation; the formal organisation of criminal justice agencies and the informal application of the law in everyday life; (c) *statistical* factors such as the formal data collection and processing rules and their practical implementation and (d) criminal policy factors, which relate to the crime and crime prevention policies applied in each country that may focus the available resources on some offences (for example, drug offences or domestic violence offences).21

To ensure comparability when making *distribution* and *level* comparisons, one must carefully control the legal and statistical circumstances before concluding that similarities or dissimilarities can be taken as real. The demands are somewhat different when it comes to ascertaining crime trends. For such analyses, the 'real' crime level does not need to be known; it is sufficient to control for possible changes to the legal and statistical systems, or in the criminal policies applied. This is, of course, a difficult task and identifying *informal* changes in criminal justice procedures and in statistical routines is especially difficult. In order to assist the reader in making

<sup>21</sup> For details, see *von Hofer, H.* (2000). Crime statistics as constructs: The case of Swedish rape statistics. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 8(1), 77-89; *Aebi, M.F.* (2010). Methodological Issues in the Comparison of Police-Recorded Crime Rates. In Shoham S.G., Knepper P. & Kett M. (Eds.). International Handbook of Criminology (pp. 211-227). CRC Press; *Harrendorf, S.* (2012). Offence Definitions in the European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics and Their Influence on Data Quality and Comparability, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 18(1), 23-53.

informed decisions on the validity of trend data, possible changes in the data recording methods are indicated in the technical information contained in each chapter.22

To facilitate the use of the data contained in this European Sourcebook, comprehensive additional information concerning the definition of offences and sanctions, the data collection and processing rules were collected. This information is contained in section 3 of each chapter. However, it is not possible to easily quantify the extent to which over- or under-reporting occurs.

# **7 Basic rules on how to use the statistical information contained in the Sourcebook23**


<sup>22</sup> Examples of how European Sourcebook data can be analysed can especially be found in the following special issues of the European Journal of Criminal Policy and Research: 8/1 (2000), 10/2-3 (2004), 18/1 (2012). For a more detailed list of publications referring to European Sourcebook data, see http://www3.unil.ch/wpmu/europeansourcebook/publications/.

<sup>23</sup> Also see the detailed list of 16 "dos and don'ts" of comparison of international crime and criminal justice data in *Harrendorf, S.* (2018). Prospects, Problems, and Pitfalls in Comparative Analyses of Criminal Justice Data. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research 47, 159-207, at 200-202.

# **1 Police Statistics**

# **1.1 General comments**

#### 1.1.1 Police statistics as a measure of crime

This chapter provides information on offences recorded by the police, the number of offences per 100 000 population, the characteristics of suspected offenders, and the number of police staff.

Police statistics are collected in every country but for several reasons they do not offer a comprehensive measure of crime. Victims may choose not to report the crime to the police (e.g., depending on how serious they view the offence, their previous experiences or trust in the police) or they may not be aware that they have been a victim of crime. In addition, reporting may be self-incriminating (e.g., when a victim is also an offender) or humiliating or the victim may think that nothing will be gained by reporting (e.g., the victim thinks that the police will not be able to solve the crime).

If the victim does not report a crime, and the police do not learn about the offence from another source, the offence will not be recorded and therefore not counted in police statistics. Research suggests that victims of bodily injury or rape, for example, tend to be less likely to report the offence than victims of property crimes.24

Not all crimes are reported by a victim or a witness. The police themselves may report violent crimes, for example homicide and 'victimless' offences (such as illegal possession of arms, drink-driving and drug offences). Even when a crime is reported to the police, it may not be recorded in the official statistics. This may occur if the police believe that the event reported did not actually constitute a crime. Petty offences are not always recorded in police statistics. Also, countries differ in the way they consider certain offences as petty (e.g., theft of low-value items). In assessing national differences, comparisons with other data sources, such as victimization surveys (e.g., the International Crime Victims Survey, ICVS), are helpful. The last sweep of the ICVS was carried out in 2005. More information about victimization surveys is given in Chapter 6.

#### 1.1.2 Police in the criminal justice system

In most countries the police are the first stage of the criminal justice process. However, this does not mean that the figures on recorded crime, such as those in this chapter, give an accurate account of the total input to the criminal justice system. In several countries, the prosecuting authorities may initiate criminal proceedings without receiving a police report. Also, other agencies (military police, customs, border police, and fiscal fraud squads) and individuals (foresters, judges, or even citizens) may have the power to initiate criminal proceedings by filing a complaint with the prosecution authorities or the court. Nevertheless, most of the offences covered by the Sourcebook will be reported to or detected by the police.

The position of the police in the criminal justice system may also directly influence the number of offences recorded and how they are classified. In some countries the police are quite independent in their activities, whilst in others they may work under the close supervision of the prosecutor or the court.

Substantial differences exist between countries in the tasks that the police carry out. For example, in most countries the police deal with traffic offences such as drink-driving, causing bodily harm or petty traffic offences (such as speeding and illegal parking). Also, in most countries, the police have the additional task of maintaining public order and of assisting the public in various situations (from providing information to rendering first aid). This may not apply, however, to all types of police or related agencies that have been included in the tables on police staff. Therefore, care should be taken when relating police resources to the volume of recorded crime or the number of suspected offenders.

<sup>24</sup> *Van Dijk, J., van Kesteren, J. & Smit, P.* (2007). Criminal Victimisation in International Perspective. Key Findings from the 2004-2005 ICVS and EU ICS. 257 Onderzoek en beleid. Den Haag: WODC.

1.1.3 Counting offences and offenders

Certain classification issues need to be considered when examining police statistics:25


Similar issues arise in connection with the counting of offenders. Differences between countries exist and practices range from recording a person as a 'suspected offender' as soon as the police are reasonably convinced that this is the case, to recording a person as a 'suspect' only after the prosecutor has started criminal proceedings.

## 1.1.4 Counting police officers

European countries organise their police systems in different ways. Most of them have more than one police force, e.g., state police, communal police, municipal police, gendarmerie, or judicial police. They perform tasks in connection with the offences under consideration in this Sourcebook although some also undertake military duties (e.g., gendarmerie).

A standard definition for police officer was used. This included criminal police, traffic police, border police, gendarmerie and uniformed police but excluded customs police, tax police, military police, secret service police, part-time officers, police reservists, cadet police officers and court police (see Tables 1.3.1 - 1.3.2).

Many European countries have seen considerable increases in the private security industry over recent years and such increases can influence the counting of crime. For example, the increase of private security guards and doormen can lead to a fall in the counts of crime in retail shops and clubs as some guards may deal with crime themselves by banning offenders from their premises.

<sup>25</sup> *Aebi, M. F. (*2008). Measuring the Influence of Statistical Counting Rules on Cross-National Differences in Recorded Crime. In K. Aromaa & M. Heiskanen (Eds.), Crime and Criminal Justice Systems in Europe and North America 1995-2004, 196-214. HEUNI Publication Series No. 55. Helsinki: European Institute for Crime Prevention and Control.

#### 1.1.5 Results

All participating countries, except from Croatia, were able to provide information on some offences reported to the police. Croatia was not able to provide any data since they only collect information regarding the offenders but not offences. Turkey was not able to provide any data for the year 2016 and Luxembourg only for homicide. Information from Russia was limited to bodily injury, robbery, and theft (total, theft of motor vehicle and burglary).

The moment at which the data is recorded varies between countries; Seventeen countries reported that offences were recorded as soon as an offence is first reported to the police and in some cases also later in the procedure. Thirteen countries reported that recording is done subsequently, and nine reported that recording occurs only after investigation. It is difficult to interpret the impact of these findings on the statistics, but it seems that 'as soon as' and 'subsequently' imply that the legal labelling of the offence is the task of the police, whilst 'after investigation' seems to indicate that the labelling is done by the prosecuting authorities (output statistics) once the police inquiry has been completed. This might explain some of the differences in levels between countries, especially for offences such as homicide and bodily injury.

The rules for recording both multiple and serial offences vary between countries. For example, 16 countries stated that they apply a principal offence rule and 20 stated they do not. In addition, multiple offences are counted as two or more offences in 20 countries but as one offence in 15 countries. Most countries, 31, count an offence committed by more than one person as one offence.

In total 38 countries answered one or more questions regarding offenders, whilst eight countries were not able to provide any data. Not all countries providing data were able to answer questions regarding definitions of persons suspected. In general, most countries include all persons under suspicion, persons who are interrogated as suspects, persons arrested, cautioned and persons who are accused, charged, or later indicted. Sixteen of the countries also reported that they include minors in statistics regarding suspected persons. Twelve countries provided data that is collected at the same time as the data on offences is collected, indicating that the labelling of the offender is done by the police. Five countries reported that the data was collected at a later stage and one country reported mixed methods.

Whilst many countries answered the question on the number of police officers and civilians working within the police, few were able to meet the standard definition.

Trends in both recorded crime and suspected offenders over the years 2011– 2016 vary from one type of offence to another. But in general, the majority of countries are reporting a decrease in number of offences per 100 000 population. This applies mostly to homicide and bodily injury and financial offences excluding fraud. Fraud and cyber fraud are the only offences that the majority of countries are reporting an increase in numbers per 100 000 population.

### 1.1.6 Comments by offences

Police statistics contain tables on offences and perpetrators, both on the total number of offences and offenders and information regarding 24 crime categories, including information regarding the number of homicides and robberies committed with firearms. Additionally, information on police staff is included.

### *Total offences*

Of participating countries 80% were able to provide data on total offences. Most of the countries were able to follow the guidelines of which offences they should include or exclude. Still there are large differences between countries in the number of total criminal offences, even when traffic offences are excluded. This indicates large variations in how police data is defined e.g., in how large-scale traffic offences are included in police statistics. It also indicates variations in definitions that many of the countries with the highest number of total offences per 100 000 population do not report the highest number of suspected offenders. This for example applies to Sweden. Still there is some correlation between the number of offences per 100 000 and number of suspected offenders.

Around 54% of the countries providing data, show a decrease in the number of total offences between 2011 and 2016 and 22% show an increase in the same period. About 24% of countries show stability when the number of total offences in 2016 is compared with the number of total offences in 2011 per 100 000 population. The largest reductions are reported in countries in the Eastern part of Europe e.g., Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Estonia, and Slovenia.

The same pattern emerges when looking at changes in the number of suspected offenders since 59% of countries that could provide data are reporting a decrease between 2011 and 2016 per 100 000 population.

#### *Major road traffic offences*

More than half of the countries report a decrease in the number of major road traffic offences per 100 000 population between the years 2011 and 2016. In 2010 changes were made to a series of traffic offences in Greece downgrading them from misdemeanour to minor offences. This can possibly explain the steep decline in number of reported major road traffic offences there.

Wide variations were found in a number of reported major road traffic offences with a number of Nordic countries reporting highest values (over 700 offences per 100 000 population) as well as Belgium.

#### *Intentional homicide (attempts and completed)*

Roughly 83% of the countries asked provided data for this category in 2016. The majority of the countries reported a decrease in the number of cases per 100 000 population, both in the regard of completed cases and including attempts. About 18% of the countries show an increase in number of intentional homicides both completed and including attempts compared to 2011. The largest increase is in Ukraine but in the same period there is a decrease in the number of suspected offenders there. This increase in number of intentional homicide is due to a new Criminal Procedural Code of Ukraine that came into force in 2012.

The large decrease shown for Norway is due to the terrorist attacks of Anders Breivik in 2011 which are included in the figures for intentional homicide that year.

#### *Bodily injury*

The majority of countries report a decrease in the number of bodily injury cases and aggravated bodily injury cases registered by the police in 2016 compared to 2011. There are large differences in the number of cases per 100 000 population reported but many of the countries reporting the highest number of cases report that they cannot exclude assaults only causing pain from the number of bodily injury cases. This applies for example to Belgium, Finland, Romania, and Sweden (who report the highest number of cases per 100 000 population for bodily injury).

#### *Sexual Assault*

Most countries can provide information regarding sexual assault, the majority showing an increase in the number of reported cases to the police between 2011 and 2016. The variation in the number of cases per 100 000 population is large, ranging from less than five cases in many countries in the Eastern part of Europe such as Ukraine, Montenegro, Armenia, Albania, and Serbia to over 100 cases per 100 000 population in UK: England & Wales, UK: Scotland, Sweden, UK: Northern Ireland and in Iceland. Results for reported rape are similar, showing 44% of the countries reporting an increase in the number of registered cases but large differences in numbers per 100 000 population from less than one case in countries in Eastern Europe to more than 20 and to the maximum of 68 cases per 100 000 population in Northern parts of Europe.

#### *Sexual abuse of a child*

Thirty countries provided data on sexual abuse of a child. Most of them were not able to follow the standard definitions, for example many were not able to exclude verbal abuse i.e., via the internet and/ or include attempts. Of the countries providing data 12 reported an increase in the number of cases per 100 000 population between 2011 and 2016 and the same number of countries reported a decrease. A large increase is reported in UK: England & Wales due to changes in the legislation and new offences being added.

#### *Robbery*

Close to 96% of the countries provided data regarding reported robbery, more than 79% reporting a decrease between 2011 and 2016. As with most other types of offences the variation of the number of offences per 100 000 population is large, from under 10 cases per 100 000 in Albania, Azerbaijan, Malta, and Russia (reporting a large decrease between 2012 and 2013) to more than 100 per 100 000 population in Portugal, Spain, France, and Belgium. The mean rate is 41 robberies per 100 000 population.

Half of the countries provided data regarding robbery with firearm, most of them (89%) reporting more than 10 percent decrease between 2011 and 2016 per 100 000 population.

#### *Theft*

Here the standard definition of theft is "depriving a person or organization of property with the intent to keep it". Included are minor thefts, thefts committed by means of burglary, theft of motor vehicles and thefts by employees. Attempts are also included here. Excluded are robberies, fraud, and handling with stolen goods.

A large majority of the countries were able to follow the definitions, with the exception of those countries that exclude either minor thefts and/or attempts. This can partly explain large variations in the number of thefts per 100 000 population, ranging from five cases per 100 000 population in Albania to 5.025 cases in Sweden. But definitions cannot fully explain these large differences since for example those both countries report that they were able to follow the definitions.

In total close to 70% of countries showed a decrease in number of cases between 2011 and 2016. Five countries report an increase in the number of thefts during the period, Armenia showing the greatest increase (45%), followed by Azerbaijan (35%) and Belgium (27%), Ukraine (20% and Greece (17%).

Only 37% of countries were able to provide data on aggravated theft, most of them reporting a decrease (59%) in the number of cases between 2011 and 2016 per 100 000 population. Only three countries reported an increase in the period, Albania, Armenia, and Greece but in all instances the figures are very low, or the growth is not linear during the period.

When asking specifically on theft of a motor vehicle, it is obvious that number of cases is going down in most countries in Europe since 84% of those countries that could provide data reported so (87% of countries provided data). Only two countries reported an increase in the number of cases between 2011 and 2016 and four showed a stable situation. Despite clear development it is obvious that there are large deviations in how motor vehicle theft is defined, for example "joy ride" is not included in many instances as is theft of motor vehicle parts included in many countries.

### *Burglary and domestic burglary*

Approximately 70% of the countries provided data for cases of theft by means of burglary with 77% of them reporting a decrease and only three countries reporting an increase between the years 2011 and 2016. There are large variations in the number of cases ranging from less than 100 cases per 100 000 population in Albania, Armenia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Georgia, and Moldova to more than 600 cases per 100 000 in Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, and UK: England & Wales. Variations in definitions can explain these differences but only partly.

The majority of countries also report a decline in the number of thefts by means of domestic burglary between 2011 and 2016, or more than 59% of countries that were able to provide data. Nine countries reported an increase and five a stable situation during this period.

# *Fraud*

At the same time as many countries report a decline in reported theft and burglary, reported incidents of fraud are increasing. Little more than 55% of countries reported an increase in the number of frauds reported to the police between 2011 and 2016 per 100 000 population but only 24% reported a decrease. The increase might indicate a growth in cyber fraud but 79% of those countries that were able to provide data report an increase (more than 10% increase between 2011 and 2016 per 100 000 population. There are huge variations in the number of reported cases, with the lowest numbers in the Eastern part of Europe and the highest numbers in the Northern part (Sweden, Denmark, Germany, and Belgium reporting the highest numbers).

## *Forgery of documents*

Of the countries asked, 61% provided data, the majority of them (59%) reporting a decrease in the number of cases per 100 000 population between 2011 and 2016 and seven countries reporting an increase. Fourteen countries gave information regarding suspected offenders of forgery of documents. Six of these countries reported that foreign nationals were more than 50% of those suspected of forgery of documents in 2016.

### *Money Laundering*

Money laundering is defined as "specific financial transactions to conceal the identity, source, and/or destination of money or non-monetary property deriving from criminal activities". Even though there has been an emphasis on harmonising criminal penalties for money laundering within the EU only little more than half of the countries were able to provide data on money laundering, 58% of them reported an increase between 2011 and 2016.

#### 1 Police Statistics 21

### *Corruption in the public sector*

Of the 28 countries that provided data roughly 44% reported an increase in the number of cases per 100 000 population between 2011 and 2016. Eight countries reported a decrease of cases in the period and seven a stable situation.

### *Drug offences*

Most countries were able to provide data on drug offences. It is very interesting to see the large differences between countries regarding trends in the number of drug offences between 2011 and 2016 per 100 000 population with 15 countries reporting an increase, 12 a decrease and 12 reporting a stable situation. There are also large differences in the number of cases per capita. Ranging from 22 cases per 100 000 population in Romania to 1000 cases in Switzerland with the mean of 230 cases in 2016.

The same picture emerges when looking at the number of drug trafficking offences. From 2011 to 2016, 42% of countries report an increase, 32% a decrease and a quarter report a stable situation.

## *Trends*

Table 1.a summarises trends (i.e., percentage changes between 2011 and 2016 per 100 000 population) in police data by types of offences. The table shows a general trend towards a decline in the number of offences that are reported by the countries here since more than half of countries reported a decline in 15 of the offences reported here.


Table 1.a: Trends in police data (percentage change of the rates between 2011 and 2016 per 100 000 population)

… No data available

More than 10% increase

More than 10% decrease

Betw een -10% and 10% change

# 1.1.7 Police staff

The ratio of police officers (excluding civilians) per 100 000 population is here referred to as police density. Table 1.b shows the distribution of police density in 2016. As shown most countries report between 300 and 399 police officers per 100 000 population but the rate was from 58 police officers in Romania per 100 000 population to 573 officers in Cyprus.

In total the mean police density was 337 police officers per 100 000 population. Eleven countries reported police density below 300 and eight above 399.


Table 1.b. Number of police officers excluding civilians per 100 000 population (police density) in 2016

In 2016 20 countries were able to provide information on the number of civilian employees in the police force. The share of civilians was the highest in Sweden and England & Wales but lowest in Malta and Portugal. From the countries providing data, it is most common that the percentage of civilians is between 20 and 39%.


Table 1.c. Percentage of civilian police staff (officers and civilians) in 2016

# **1.2 Tables**

#### 1.2.1 Offences




Table 1.2.1.2 Offences per 100 000 population – Major road traffic offences


Table 1.2.1.3 Offences per 100 000 population – Intentional homicide




Table 1.2.1.5 Offences per 100 000 population – Intentional homicide completed


Serbia 0.3 0.2 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2

Slovenia 0.4 0.4 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1

Spain 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

UK: England & Wales 0.1 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1

*Mean* 0.2 0.3 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.1 *Median* 0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 *Minimum* 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 *Maximum* 0.7 1.4 0.9 0.7 0.7 0.7

Slovak Republic ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

Sweden ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Switzerland ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Turkey ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Ukraine ... ... ... ... ... ... ...

UK: Northern Ireland 0.2 0.3 0.1 ... ... ... ... UK: Scotland ... ... ... ... ... ... ...







Table 1.2.1.7 Offences per 100 000 population – Bodily injury


Table 1.2.1.8 Offences per 100 000 population – Aggravated bodily injury


Table 1.2.1.9 Offences per 100 000 population – Sexual assault


#### Table 1.2.1.10 Offences per 100 000 population – Rape


Table 1.2.1.11 Offences per 100 000 population – Sexual abuse of a child


#### Table 1.2.1.12 Offences per 100 000 population – Robbery


Table 1.2.1.13 Offences per 100 000 population – Robbery: Firearm involved


#### Table 1.2.1.14 Offences per 100 000 population – Theft


Table 1.2.1.15 Offences per 100 000 population – Aggravated theft


Table 1.2.1.16 Offences per 100 000 population – Theft of a motor vehicle


Table 1.2.1.17 Offences per 100 000 population – Theft by means of burglary




Table 1.2.1.19 Offences per 100 000 population – Fraud


#### Table 1.2.1.20 Offences per 100 000 population – Cyber fraud


Table 1.2.1.21 Offences per 100 000 population – Forgery of documents


#### Table 1.2.1.22 Offences per 100 000 population – Money laundering


Table 1.2.1.23 Offences per 100 000 population – Corruption in the public sector


Table 1.2.1.24 Offences per 100 000 population – Drug offences: Total


Table 1.2.1.25 Offences per 100 000 population – Drug trafficking

Notes on tables 1.2.1.1-1.2.25


#### 1.2.2 Offenders



Table 1.2.2.0 Definitions of persons suspected (2/2)


Table 1.2.2.1 Offenders per 100 000 population – Total


Table 1.2.2.2 Offenders per 100 000 population – Major road traffic offences


Table 1.2.2.3 Offenders per 100 000 population – Intentional homicide




Table 1.2.2.5 Offenders per 100 000 population – Intentional homicide completed




Table 1.2.2.7 Offenders per 100 000 population – Bodily injury


Table 1.2.2.8 Offenders per 100 000 population – Aggravated bodily injury


Table 1.2.2.9 Offenders per 100 000 population – Sexual assault


#### Table 1.2.2.10 Offenders per 100 000 population – Rape


Table 1.2.2.11 Offenders per 100 000 population – Sexual abuse of a child


#### Table 1.2.2.12 Offenders per 100 000 population – Robbery


Table 1.2.2.13 Offenders per 100 000 population – Robbery: Firearm involved


#### Table 1.2.2.14 Offenders per 100 000 population – Theft


Table 1.2.2.15 Offenders per 100 000 population – Aggravated theft


Table 1.2.2.16 Offenders per 100 000 population – Theft of a motor vehicle


Table 1.2.2.17 Offenders per 100 000 population – Theft by means of burglary




Table 1.2.2.19 Offenders per 100 000 population – Fraud


#### Table 1.2.2.20 Offenders per 100 000 population – Cyber fraud


Table 1.2.2.21 Offenders per 100 000 population – Forgery of documents


#### Table 1.2.2.22 Offenders per 100 000 population – Money laundering


Table 1.2.2.23 Offenders per 100 000 population – Corruption in the public sector




Table 1.2.2.25 Offenders per 100 000 population – Drug trafficking


#### 1.2.3 Percentage of women, minors, and foreigners among offenders in 2015




Table 1.2.3.2 Percentage of women, minors, and foreigners among offenders in 2015 – Major road traffic offences


Table 1.2.3.3 Percentage of women, minors, and foreigners among offenders in 2015 – Intentional homicide


Table 1.2.3.4 Percentage of women, minors, and foreigners among offenders in 2015 – Intentional homicide: Completed


Table 1.2.3.5 Percentage of women , minors , and foreigners among offender s in 2015 – Bodily injury


Table 1.2.3.6 Percentage of women, minors, and foreigners among offenders in 2015 – Aggravated bodily injury


Table 1.2.3.7 Percentage of women, minors, and foreigners among offenders in 2015 – Sexual assault




Table 1.2.3.9 Percentage of women, minors, and foreigners among offenders in 2015 – Sexual abuse of a child




Table 1.2.3.11 Percentage of women, minors, and foreigners among offenders in 2015 – Theft: Total


Table 1.2.3.12 Percentage of women, minors, and foreigners among offenders in 2015 – Aggravated theft


Table 1.2.3.13 Percentage of women, minors, and foreigners among offenders in 2015 – Theft of a motor vehicle


Table 1.2.3.14 Percentage of women, minors, and foreigners among offenders in 2015 – Theft by means of burglary


Table 1.2.3.15 Percentage of women, minors, and foreigners among offenders in 2015 – Theft by means of domestic burglary




Table 1.2.3.17 Percentage of women, minors, and foreigners among offenders in 2015 – Cyber fraud


Table 1.2.3.18 Percentage of women, minors, and foreigners among offenders in 2015 – Forgery of documents


Table 1.2.3.19 Percentage of women, minors, and foreigners among offenders in 2015 – Money laundering


Table 1.2.3.20 Percentage of women, minors, and foreigners among offenders in 2015 – Corruption in the public sector


Table 1.2.3.21 Percentage of women, minors, and foreigners among offenders in 2015 – Drug offences: Total


Table 1.2.3.22 Percentage of women, minors, and foreigners among offenders in 2015 – Drug trafficking

#### 1.2.4 Police staff


Table 1.2.4.1 Police staff: Number of police officers per 100 000 population


Table 1.2.4.2 Police staff: Number of civilians per 100 000 population


Table 1.2.4.3 Police staff: Percentage of women and officers among the staff

# **1.3 Technical Information**

Table 1.3.1 Data recording methods relating to Tables 1.2.1 – 1.2.1.6 and 1.2.1.8 – 1.2.1.23 (offences) (1/2)


Table 1.3.1 Data recording methods relating to Tables 1.2.1 – 1.2.1.6 and 1.2.1.8 – 1.2.1.23 (offences) (2/2)


#### *Are there written rules regulating the way in which data is recorded?*

Of the countries that gave information 23 said they had written rules regulating the way in which the data is recorded. Seven countries said they did not have written rules. As pointed out in previous editions of the Sourcebook, it is most likely that those countries have instructions to guide how to count offences although they may not be considered as written rules.

#### *When are the data collected for the statistics?*

In 15 countries data is collected when the offence was reported to the police. Additional two countries report mixed counting rules. In the Czech Republic the data is based on the tactical-statistical classification but not on the criminal code. The classification is independent of the qualification according to the Criminal Code since if the paragraphs change, the TSC remains the same. In Spain most offences are initially recorded when the offence is reported to the police but in serious cases definitions of offence type can change in the course of the investigation. Seven countries report that offences are counted after an investigation is completed.

# *What is the counting unit used in this table?*

Altogether 34 countries report the offence to be the counting unit in the data. Only one country used the case, and two countries used the decision as a counting unit.

# *Is a principal offence rule applied?*

Fifteen countries reported that they applied a principal offence rule and 20 that they did not. In Greece the principal offence rule applied until 2012. after that all concurrent offences are recorded.

# *How are multiple offences counted?*

13 counties counted multiple offences as one offence, whereas 20 countries reported that they count such an offence as two or more. Two countries reported mixed methods. In Montenegro multiple offences are counted as one unless they meet the conditions of being defined as an Extended Criminal Offence and in Slovenia, the general rule is to count multiple offences as one but, in some cases, they are counted as many.

# *How is an offence that is committed by more than one person counted?*

Offences committed by more than one person are generally counted as one offence as 30 countries report. Montenegro reported mixed counting rules.

# *Have the data recording methods described above been substantially modified between 2011 and 2016?*

Six countries reported changes in data recording methods.

# Belgium

In the end of 2015 changes were made to the national database and persons could be registered for minor offences, but before they could only be registered for serious offences.

# Greece

The informational system generating the statistics for the Hellenic Police was redesigned in 2013.

# Iceland

Changes in working procedures regarding domestic violence has led to more cases being registered as violence.

# Poland

Data changes and system changes were made in 2012 and 2013 causing breaks in the data series.

# Sweden

The statistics of persons suspected of offences were revised in 2017 leading to all persons suspected of offences to be included instead of only including persons still suspected of an offence after a crime investigation. Comparative data is available from 2007.

# Ukraine

A new Criminal Procedural Code came into force in the end of 2012.

# *Definition of foreigner*

Generally speaking. foreigners are persons who do not have the nationality of the country in which they commit an offence.

# *Age Brackets used in Tables 1.2.3.1 to 1.2.3.22*

Most countries count minors as persons who are not yet 18 years old. In Austria, Azerbaijan, Poland, Slovenia, and Ukraine the maximum age for a minor was reported to be 17 years.

The lower age limit for treating a person as a minor varies among different countries. Many countries report the minimum age to be 14 but, however, it is possible that persons below the age of criminal responsibility are included in police statistics.

Table 1.3.3 Minimum age for inclusion in Tables 1.2.3.1 to 1.2.3.22



#### Notes on table 1.3.3


#### Table 1.3.4 Technical information on Table 1.2.4.1 – Police staff: Police officers


#### Table 1.3.5 Technical information on Table 1.2.4.1 – Police staff: Civilians

# **1.4 Sources**




# **2 Prosecution Statistics**

# **2.1 General comments**

#### 2.1.1 Background

#### *Object of data collection*

This chapter describes the outcome of procedures at the prosecutorial stage (prosecutors and examining judges) for the years 2011 – 2016. Taking into account the discretion at the prosecutor's level, various forms of disposals are differentiated for the year 2015 with a special focus on bringing a case to the court. Also restricted to 2015, data on the breakdown by minors, women, foreigners and by offences are represented.

Concerning the variety of disposals at the prosecution stage data have been collected but only for the year 2015. Within the present category of a conditional disposal differentiations were made in terms of specific conditions imposed on the offender: this includes community-based measures as well as fines. Only a minority of countries have both this concept of and data on conditional disposals by the prosecution authority. More often, community sanctions and measures may result from a court sentence (see chapter 3) or be connected with the execution of a prison sentence (see chapter 5).

The chapter also provides data on the staff of prosecuting authorities in the same years. In addition, data on the most important compulsory measures at this stage, police custody and pre-trial detention are presented. Pre-trial detention is also covered in chapter 4.

36 countries were able to provide any data for this chapter (and will be presented in the tables) and only 23 on the number of prosecutors / employees of the prosecuting authority.

#### *Definitions of the prosecution stage*

Once an offence has been reported to the police or another law enforcement authority and a suspect identified, the decision has to be taken whether or not to prosecute, i.e. to bring the case before a court.

In a narrow sense, the term *prosecution* refers only to carrying out a case in a criminal court. Here, the term is used in the broader sense of processing/disposing of cases (decision making) by the prosecuting authorities, thus including the decision to drop proceedings or to impose a sanction or measure, where this possibility is available to the prosecuting authorities.

The term *prosecuting authority* refers to the legal body which has as its main task to institute criminal proceedings, i.e. to decide, depending on national legislation and practice, whether or not to prosecute. The actual functions and denominators vary widely between countries. In most European countries, the prosecution of suspected offenders is dealt with by a special prosecuting authority: either a public prosecutor and/or an investigating judge.

There are many differences and many variations in the form this prosecutorial level takes within the different European countries. For the purpose of this Sourcebook, the prosecution stage is considered as an intermediate stage between the police and court levels. Accordingly, this chapter deals with the decisions taken at this intermediate stage.

#### *The role of the police in relation to the prosecution stage (case input)*

In some countries, the input into the prosecutorial level is identical to the output of the police level (including specialised authorities of public order, such as customs or tax authorities). This should be the case in countries (such as Germany) in which the police are regarded purely as a supporting institution to the public prosecutor, with no own powers to dispose of a criminal case. Consequently, they are obliged to transfer all cases to the prosecuting authority. This applies also to cases in which no suspect has been found. Thus, the prosecution input will appear disproportionally high in such systems, especially when cases without suspects are counted (e.g. in France).

However, in some European countries actual practice deviates from this model, i.e. the input at prosecutorial level is not identical to police level output because the police can exercise some discretion and decide on whether to prosecute or not. Thus, certain cases are not transferred to the prosecuting authority and are ended by a police decision. The following countries said that they included cases disposed of or sanctioned by the police or other law enforcement authorities: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Estonia, Hungary, Sweden, UK: Scotland. However, the powers of the police are always limited to minor cases, in some countries concerning only petty traffic offences.

These different structures influence the scale of the input and thus the prosecution system statistics. Furthermore, according to changes in definitions and counting rules from one level to another, these statistics at the prosecution level may show some difference with the police output.

#### *What is recorded?*

According to the standard definition, in principle, *all offences defined as criminal* by the law should be included. But there are some countries which follow a minor offence concept either excluding them from the criminal code (e.g. the *wykroczenia* in Poland in cases of minor thefts etc.) or making them subject to special proceedings (e.g. most *contraventions* in France which are handled by the police only) outside the criminal justice system. Included are major road traffic offences (e.g. drunk driving) and all other criminal offences subject to criminal proceedings. Excluded are minor traffic offences (e.g. parking offences), breaches of public order regulations and all other minor offences subject to proceedings outside the criminal justice system, even if defined as criminal by the law (i.e. misdemeanours, contraventions, *wykroczenia*, *faltas*). Less than half of the countries were able to follow this definition in all respects, but deviations usually only refer to one or two items of the abovementioned include/exclude-categories. For details see Appendix I: Definitions.

A special problem refers to recording unknown offender cases. In some countries these are handled by police only, which means that they are not recorded at the prosecution level. If they are part of the input into prosecution statistics there are different modes of recording: In some countries they are not counted at all, in some countries they are included in the output, i.e. the total of cases disposed of. Dependent on these different modes of recording the amount of prosecutorial disposals varies strongly (see technical table 2.3.2).

The counting unit used here should be the *case* in the sense of proceedings against one defendant*,* not the offence. Thus, one case may combine several offences. In general, these cases are counted as single cases, but there are some exceptions (see as well technical table 2.3.7).

#### *Discretion at prosecutor's level (output)*

The data provided for the cases disposed of by the prosecuting authority (table 2.2.1.1) refer to the output at public prosecutor's level (tables 2.2.1.1 to 2.2.3.5), i.e. the type of decision taken. This means that pending cases are not included in the total of disposals.

The structure of prosecuting authorities varies from country to country depending on the discretionary powers available to them. We developed some simple *categories for disposals* in order to make figures comparable: *number of cases brought before a court, number of cases ended by a sanction imposed by the prosecutor that lead to a formal verdict and count as a conviction, number of conditional disposals, number of proceedings dropped in combination with a cautioning of the suspect, number of proceedings dropped unconditionally due to lack of public interest or for efficiency reasons, number of proceedings dropped for legal or factual reasons, number of proceedings dropped because offender remained unknown, number of other disposals.* Some of these categories may not apply to every country considered.

Three *basic structures* are possible:


The differentiation between "cases brought before a court", "sanctions imposed by the prosecutor that lead to a formal verdict and count as a conviction" and "conditional disposals" is not always as simple as it may appear. It is a matter of how far the court is involved in the public prosecutor's decision-making. In some countries, the court has to approve all decisions made by the prosecutor to end a prosecution without formally taking it to court, whereas in others the public prosecutor has more powers in this regard.

Sanctions imposed by the prosecutor (or by the court but on application of the prosecutor and without a formal court hearing) that lead to a formal verdict include the penal order (*Strafbefehl*) known in some countries, where the defendant is considered as convicted (and should be counted as such in chapter 3). Conditional disposals are usually administered in a rather informal way. The defendant agrees to pay a fine or to accept any restrictions or conditions in exchange to ending prosecution, implying that s/he will not be considered as formally convicted. Here, a breakdown by various forms of conditions is made.

According to the questionnaire, "other disposals" (e.g. cases that were transferred to another competent domestic jurisdiction) should be included in the total of cases handled by the prosecuting authorities. This may lead to some double counting and/or to a significant difference between the total and the sum of the output disposals. Some countries provided specific information in order to solve this difficulty or to explain the difference. For more explanations on other disposals see technical table 2.3.3.

#### *Exclusion of tables; statistical rules*

No separate input statistics are published in this chapter. Only for countries where output data were not available, data on the input total of proceedings or persons were used instead. See notes on table 2.2.1.1 to find out which countries are concerned. Data on the input total and on pending cases can, however, be found on the internet (*https://wp.unil.ch/europeansourcebook/)*

Most of the countries reporting data on prosecution level apply written rules on recording. The majority of countries count proceedings if more than one person is involved as one case. Most countries do the same if multiple offences occurred. However, most countries record two (or more) cases if a person is subject to more than one proceedings in one year. Usually, data collected by other authorities than public prosecution are not included as well as cases disposed of by the police; see technical table 2.3.7 for more detailed information.

#### 2.1.2 Results

#### *Trends*

Wide variations can be seen in the total rates of cases disposed of by the prosecution authorities from 477 disposals per 100 000 population in Georgia to 6 466 in France for 2015 (see table 2.2.1.1). Similar differences can be found on the police level. According to the different workload of the national prosecution authorities, different modes of handling the cases can be seen (see table 2.1.1).

Concerning the development of figures between 2011 and 2016 the picture is diverse. Only in a few countries the rates of all cases disposed of by prosecution authorities appear to be stable between 2011 and 2016, i.e. to show an increase or decrease in case numbers of less than ten percent. Other countries present a strong increase (between ten and 50 %), on the one hand: Balkan and South-Eastern countries like Kosovo, Montenegro, Serbia and Georgia, but Denmark as well; Albania and Armenia show an even higher increase (more than 50 %). On the other hand, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovak Republic and the UK demonstrate a strong decrease of between minus ten and -50 % (see table 2.2.1.1). These trends on prosecution level are only partly compatible to those on police level.

#### *Total of disposals by public prosecution and cases brought before a court*

Table 2.1.1 demonstrates the rate of all cases disposed of and the percentage of cases brought before a court in 2015. Due to the unavailability of data, several countries had to be excluded. The idea behind table 2.1.1 is that there is a relationship between the two factors, namely that where a prosecution authority has to deal with a relatively low number of cases the percentage of cases brought before a court should be high, e.g. in Hungary, and that where the total of cases is high the percentage tends to be low, e.g. in Germany. There are only two countries which clearly deviate from this trend; in Turkey the percentage of cases brought before a court remains relatively high although the number of cases disposed of is also high, and in Armenia both the caseload and the percentage of cases brought before a court are low.


Table 2.1.1 Percentage of cases brought before a court by rate of all cases disposed of

\* Cases disposed of include proceedings against unknown offenders.

One indicator for attrition between the police and court level can be seen in the percentage of cases brought before a court by the public prosecutor. One might assume that this percentage not only depends on the workload of the public prosecution but differs in terms of the offences concerned. The public prosecutor has broader possibilities to drop cases of minor offences because of a lack of public interest or to discontinue criminal proceedings after the defendant has voluntarily fulfilled a condition, such as community service. On the other hand, these possibilities shrink for serious offences. Table 2.1.2 demonstrates the percentage of cases brought before a court broken down by some offences: Most serious ones, i.e. intentional homicide, seriousness of middle range, robbery, and lower level range, theft. As only a minority of countries could provide data on that the results cannot be generalized but show some evidence for the assumption made: The percentage of homicide cases brought before a court is much higher than that of theft cases. On the other hand, the minimum and maximum value show a huge range.


Table 2.1.2 Percentage of cases brought before a court by offence groups in 2015\*

\* Mean of 17 countries (robbery), 18 countries (homicide, drug offences), 19 countries (bodily injury, theft); see tables 2.2.3.2, 2.2.3.4 and 2.2.3.5

### *Conditional disposals and community measures*

A conditional disposal at the prosecution stage means that the defendant agrees to pay a fine or accepts conditions in exchange to ending prosecution. 16 countries could provide some data on conditional disposals, but only eleven could provide a breakdown by various forms of conditions. There is less data on minors, not because such concepts do not exist but because the statistics often do not count minors separately.

#### *Minors, women and foreigners*

Statistical data on the breakdown by minors, women and foreigners is poor (see table 2.2.2.1). Only eleven countries could provide separate data on minors. In contrast to the suspects recorded at police level the percentage of minors handled by the public prosecution is very low. This is due to the fact that in some countries criminal cases of minors are mostly handled outside the criminal justice system. Only nine or eight resp. countries could provide separate data for women and foreigners.

### *Staff of the prosecuting authorities; workload*

20 countries could provide data on the number of prosecutors/employees of the prosecuting authorities. The rates of public prosecutors per 100 000 population in these countries for the year 2015 show a wide variation from 25 in Bulgaria to three in France (see tables 2.2.3.1 and 2.2.3.2). Remarkably, more than 50 % of the prosecutors are women. Between 2011 and 2016 the numbers of prosecutors mostly remain stable. Only in Bulgaria and Slovenia is there an increase of more than ten percent.

In table 2.1.3 three categories of low, middle and high rates of prosecutors are established and correlated to the rate of all cases disposed of. Under the category of a relatively low rate of prosecutors per 100 000 population mostly Western and Northern European countries, and under the opposing category of a relatively high rate of prosecutors only Central and Eastern European countries can be found. These rates do not correlate with the crime situation or with the number of police officers under the supervision of the prosecuting authorities and are especially not in line with the number of disposals made by public prosecution. On the contrary, in the group with a relatively low rate of total disposals and with a relatively high rate of prosecutors one can find only Central and East European countries whereas in the group with a high rate of disposals and a relatively low rate of prosecutors only West European countries are represented (except or Turkey). Evidently, the number of prosecutors depends on different factors, particularly on their competence and tasks in the different national systems of criminal justice and state administration.


Table 2.1.3 Rate of prosecutors by rate of all cases disposed of

\* Cases disposed of include proceedings against unknown offenders.

#### *Persons whose freedom of movement was restricted*

Data on "persons whose freedom of movement was restricted" refer to decisions made before the final conviction of defendants and while they were under criminal investigation. In the former edition we differentiated four categories: *Besides persons in police custody and persons in pre-trial detention* also *persons under bail and persons under electronic monitoring.* But regarding the latter categories the statistical data were poor. So, this time only data on persons in police custody and in pre-trial detention were collected.

Twelve countries could provide data on persons in police custody, here the order was mostly made by the police but also by the prosecuting authority. In 19 countries data were available on pre-trial detention (see tables 2.2.4). Further data on pre-trial detention can be found in the chapter 4 on prisons.

# **2.2. Tables**

2.2.1 Criminal cases handled by the prosecuting authorities 2011 -2016

Table 2.2.1.1 Criminal cases handled by the prosecuting authorities per 100 000 population – Output cases: Total



Table 2.2.1.2 Percentage brought before a court of the total output of criminal cases handled by the prosecuting authorities

#### Notes on tables 2.2.1.1 and table 2.2.1.2


### 2.2.2 Criminal cases handled by the prosecuting authorities in 2015

Table 2.2.2.1 Percentage of cases relating to minors, women and foreigners among criminal cases handled by the prosecuting authorities – Output cases: Total



Table 2.2.2.2 Percentage of cases relating to minors, women and foreigners among all criminal cases handled by the prosecuting authorities – Output cases: Cases brought before a court

#### Notes on table 2.2.2.1 and 2.2.2.2



Table 2.2.2.3 Percentage of different types of disposals by the prosecuting authorities in 2015: Total (1/2)


Table 2.2.2.3 Percentage of different types of disposals by the prosecuting authorities in 2015: Total (2/2)


per 100,000 population

Cases brought before a court

Sanctions and measures imposed by the prosecu-

of which: Conditional disposals by the prosecu- tor without formal ver-

als

Total Data

Netherlands North Macedonia

Norway

Poland Portugal Romania Russian Federation

Serbia Slovak Republic

Slovenia

Spain

Sweden Switzerland

Turkey Ukraine UK: England &

Wales UK: Northern

2801.4

Ireland UK: Scotland Mean 2385.7

Median Minimum Maximum

1566.3 96.6 6466.4

86.2

5.5

42.5 39.1

29.4 15.6 3.8 93.4

12.9 5.8 0.2 94.5

64.1

100.0

4.8

0.7

32.1

61.8

33.2

50.1

13.1 9.2 0.9 31.1

4324.0 42.5

6413.0 1244.7

1579.5 69.8

62.2

0.2

12.1

87.9

5615.2 35.6

1599.6

36.1

12.6

6.4

48.8

2.4

20.2

1413.7 675.1

42.2

25.6

2.3

12.4

74.0

1822.8 4714.7 3242.9 685.7

25.9 11.6 6.3

93.4

2.2 3.9

1163.0

51.2

tor that lead to a formal verdict and count as a conviction

dict

of which: Fine

of which: Other

measures

ciency reasons or because pri- vate prosecution is recommended

15.6

6.2

43.9

61.8

9.2

10.9 21.0

20.9

11.7

5.7

5.7

Of which (%)

Conditional dispos-

of which: Pro- ceedings dropped uncon- ditionally due to lack of public in- terest or for effi-

of which: Proceedings dropped for legal or factual reasons (ex-

of which: Pro- ceedings dropped be- cause offender remained un-

of which: Other dis- posals

cluding cases in which the offender is un-

known)

known

#### Notes on table 2.2.2.3


2.2.3 Criminal cases handled by the prosecuting authorities in 2015 by offence groups


Table 2.2.3.1 Criminal cases total and major road traffic offences


Table 2.2.3.2 Homicide and bodily injury


#### Table 2.2.3.3 Sexual offences


#### Table 2.2.3.4 Robbery and theft


Table 2.2.3.5 Fraud, forgery, money laundering, corruption

#### Table 2.2.3.6 Drug offences


Notes on tables 2.2.3.1 - 2.2.3.6


#### 2.2.4 Police custody and pre -trial detention




#### 2.2.5 Prosecution staff

Table 2.2.5.1 Staff of the prosecuting authority per 100,000 population: Number of employees: Total



Table 2.2.5.2 Staff of the prosecuting authority: Number of prosecutors per 100,000 population

Notes on tables 2.2.5.1 and 2.2.5.2


# **2.3 Technical information**



\* Prosecution statistics includes all the actions taken by the courts and prosecutors for clarification and prosecution. Therefore, the data is overestimated

\*\* The statistics of processed offences linked to a suspect is based on offences and suspects registered and processed by Swedish Police, Swedish Customs and Swedish Prosecution Authority. A processed offence refers to an offence where a decision has been taken which entails that the processing of the offence was completed. Offences with person-based clearances are processed offences where a conviction decision (a decision to indict, issue a summary sanction order, or waive prosecution) has been made.

#### 2 Prosecution Statistics 143


Table 2.3.2 At what stage cases are recorded

\* All cases of criminal offences also the cases handled only by the police and not passed to the prosecuting authority.

\*\* Different tables used different stages.




Table 2.3.4 Disposal categories (output data) (1/2)


Table 2.3.4 Disposal categories (output data) ( 2 / 2 )

Pro- ceed-


Table 2.3.4 (cont.) Disposal categories (output data) (1/3)


Table 2.3.4 (cont.) Disposal categories (output data) (2/3)

Pro-

Pro-


Table 2.3.4 (cont.) Disposal categories (output data) (3/3)

### Explanation of options available to prosecutors




Proceedings dropped because offender remained unknown: The category of "offender unknown" is only counted on an input basis in German prosecution statistics; cases where the offender remained unknown are not at all counted in output data for Germany. Therefore, this category is excluded from the tables in the prosecution chapter.

Latvia It is difficult to choose from given categories. According to Criminal Procedure Law: Section 377. Circumstances that Exclude Criminal Proceedings

The initiation of criminal proceedings shall not be permitted, and initiated criminal proceedings shall be terminated, if:

9) a settlement between a victim and a suspect or accused has taken place in criminal proceedings that may be initiated only on the basis of an application of a victim and the harm inflicted by the criminal offence has been completely eliminated or reimbursed;

Section 379. Termination of Criminal Proceedings, Releasing a Person from Criminal Liability

(1) An investigator with a consent of a supervising public prosecutor, public prosecutor or a court may terminate criminal proceedings, if:

1) a criminal offence has been committed that has the features of a criminal offence, but which has not caused harm that would warrant the application of a criminal punishment;

2) the person who has committed a criminal violation or a less serious crime has made a settlement with the victim or his or her representative in the cases determined in the Criminal Law;

3) a criminal offence has been committed by a minor and special circumstances of the committing of the criminal offence have been determined, and information has been acquired regarding the minor that mitigates his or her liability;

4) it is not possible to complete the criminal proceedings within reasonable term;

5) the person committed the criminal offence during the time period when he or she was subject to human trafficking and was forced to commit the offence.

(2) An investigator, with the consent of a supervising public prosecutor, or a public prosecutor may terminate criminal proceedings, and send materials regarding a minor for the application of a compulsory measure of a correctional nature.

(3) A public prosecutor may terminate criminal proceedings, conditionally releasing from criminal liability. Section 415. Termination of Criminal Proceedings, Conditionally Releasing from Criminal Liability

(1) If a public prosecutor, taking into account the nature of and harm caused by a committed criminal offence, personal characterising data, and other conditions of a case, achieves conviction that an accused will hereinafter not commit criminal offences, the prosecutor may terminate criminal proceedings, conditionally releasing from criminal liability.

Lithuania Sanctions imposed by the prosecutor: The prosecutor can demand a penal order (CCP 418). It is a summary process when a court trial does not exist. A penal order is written by a judge with a demand of a prosecutor (prosecutor states a demand with all pretrial material). Therefore in summary process the role of a prosecutor is very important. Lithuanian Criminal Procedure Code also establishes a special accelerated procedure, in which the prosecutor has a large role to act. The law provides for the following main conditions to apply such procedure: 1. apparent circumstances of the offense; 2. criminal proceedings for the offense shall be dealt with in the District Court; 3. prosecutor should apply to court the day offense was committed or not later than ten days after the offense was committed. This procedure differs from the normal process, because: 1) the prosecutor does not write the indictment, but provides a statement to the court along with the pre-trial investigation material. However, although such procedure is simplified, the case is investigated also in a court hearing. Therefore, the number of pre-trial investigations that were finished by such simplified and accelerated procedure, is provided in a column "cases brought before a court. " Conditional disposals The following conditional disposals are entrenched in CCP: 1) Release from criminal liability after reconciliation is reached between the culprit and the victim. (CCP 212.5). Person who commits a misdemeanor or a minor crime, or commits a negligent crime, may be released from criminal liability if the victim and the culprit reach reconciliation and voluntarily agree on the making of restitution for damage caused by the commission of the crime. A habitual offender, a dangerous habitual offender or a person who has already been released from criminal liability on the basis of reconciliation between the culprit and the victim may not be released from criminal liability. 2) Release from criminal liability when a person is given to another person who deserves court trust (on bail). A person must be convicted for the first time, (s)he must regret and confess, also agree to restitute for damage and there should be a ground upon the court could suppose that a culprit will not commit further crimes. In 1st and 2nd cases – if a culprit makes new crime (misdemeanor), the process is resumed.

North Macedonia Regarding data for proceedings dropped unconditionally due to lack of public interest or for efficiency reasons or because private prosecution is recommended - it should be noted that part of the criminal offences of this category are prosecuted with private criminal lawsuit therefore those cases are not included in the prosecutor's statistics

Poland The following are disposal categories available to public prosecutors. Within these categories there may be "subcategories" such as mentioned in the tables above.

> According to Polish Criminal Code of Procedure (CCP), the case (i.e. formally instituted criminal proceedings) may be either brought to the court or dropped. The case may be dropped in the following circumstances: no offence has been committed/no sufficient grounds to suspect, that the offence has been committed; an offence has formally been committed but it is negligible (e.g. theft of a quarter dollar coin); the perpetrator is not liable to be held guilty or punished (e.g. due to his or her insanity); the suspect deceased; the applicable statute of limitation prevents the proceedings be conducted/continued; res iudicata; no Polish court has jurisdiction; lack of charges by competent prosecutor (the provision addressed to courts); lack of complaint by the victim (where it is required); other grounds preventing criminal prosecution. Moreover, there are two specific modes of disposal:


2) Persons in pre-trial detention represent the number of persons for whom detention was ordered by court but on prosecutors motion.

(a) In the Portuguese legal system it's not possible for the police to drop, apply a sanction or conditionally dispose of a criminal case.


UK: England & Wales Pre charge the prosecutor has the options of deciding that a case is suitable for: • Charge and prosecution; • Caution; • Reprimand, final warning or offence taken into consideration; • Request for further evidence from the police; or • No charge either on the grounds of the evidence or the public interest. Post-charge proceedings are subject to a process of continual review, and the prosecutor may decide at any time before the commencement of a trial to discontinue proceedings on consideration of the evidence or the public interest.

*Other technical information on the tables*

Table 2.3.5 Rules of statistical recording applied for Table 2.2.1: Are decisions made outside a criminal procedure (such as, e.g., measures of constraint against illegal immigrants) excluded?


\* Constraints against illegal immigrants are considered as administrative measures ("retention administrative"). Illegal immigrants can be detained in administrative centres (different from ordinary prisons, depending on the ministry of the interior) before the expulsion from the national territory.

\*\* Information on persons held as suspects is not available.

Table 2.3.6 Are minors included in Tables in the total of cases?


\* Cases of minors are related only to the most serious offences (e.g. Homicide, rape).

\*\* Only minors between 16-17 years old.

\*\*\* The records on criminal offences of minors are not recorded separately for each criminal offence in the prosecution statistics, but rather the records contain only the number of persons against whom complaints were filed, who have been charged or convicted.

\*\*\*\* No separate statistics for minors are available, but totals include minors (even though this is not clearly specified).


#### Table 2.3.7 Age bracket used for minors


#### Table 2.3.8 Rules of statistical recording

\* The offender involved in more than one criminal procedure is counted as multiple offenders. If the offences committed are evaluated in the same criminal procedure, the person suspected of more than one offence is counted as one person.

Table 2.3.8 (cont.) Rules of statistical recording: Do the police have separate powers to drop proceedings, conditionally dispose of them or issue a penal order that counts as a conviction? If yes, which powers do they have? *Yes, they have the following powers*


Table 2.3.8 (cont.) Rules of statistical recording: Do the police have separate powers to drop proceedings, conditionally dispose of them or issue a penal order that counts as a conviction?


Table 2.3.8 (cont.) Rules of statistical recording: Have the data recording methods described above been substantially modified between 2011 and 2016? This applies to three countries:


# **2.4 Sources**

2.4.1 Sources of tables in sections 2.2.1–2.2.4



#### Source of the data in Tables 2.2.5.1, 2.2.5.2

# **3 Conviction Statistics**

# **3.1 General comments**

#### 3.1.1 Introduction

The tables in this chapter refer to persons who have been convicted and the sanctions and measures imposed on them. Information is presented on the type of offence for which they were convicted (2011-2016) and the sex, age, and nationality of the offender (2015). Information on persons receiving sanctions and measures (2015) looks at minors and all offenders separately for each offence type. The unit for the table on sanctions and measures is the *person* on whom the sanction is imposed, not the sanction itself. Sentence lengths (2015) for custodial sentences for each offence type are also presented but only for all offenders and not separately for minors. For 8 countries data is available on the number of offenders that were held in pre-trial detention before their conviction. New in this edition is information on the number of judges. However, only a few countries could give separate data on judges in criminal courts.

Three countries (Greece, Ireland, and Malta) did not provide any information on convictions and are therefore not included in the tables.

Interpretation of such information is more difficult than for police statistics because conviction statistics closely reflect the different criminal justice systems in each country. These differences affect the likelihood that a suspect will appear before a court, the type of court and how this relates to the age of the suspect. Similarly, there are differences in recording due to the inclusion or not of all possible convictions (e.g., including guilty pleas at the police/prosecutor stage) and the availability of data. The range of sentencing options for the court may also differ as once again they reflect the criminal code in question. For some countries short custodial sentences will have automatically been converted to non-custodial alternatives through administrative procedures. These are not shown here as the statistics only reflect the initial court decision.

It is also important to note that the offence for which an offender is convicted may often differ substantially from the initial offence recorded by the police or for which the offender was initially charged. Often at the court stage, an offender may agree to plead guilty to a less serious offence or the prosecutor may decide there is insufficient evidence to convict for the original offence.

#### 3.1.2 Offence definitions

The definitions used in the various police statistics presented here show some uniformity between countries. In contrast, those for sanctions/measures often vary substantially in definition as they are based on the judicial system of each country and are entirely dependent on the definitions provided in national penal statutes. For this reason, the breakdown of data in this chapter does not follow that in Chapter 1. Thus 'burglary' and 'car theft' are often not identified as separate offences, for example in the Netherlands, but are included in the general category 'theft'. For other offences the scope of the offence may vary; for example, classifying the offence as theft as opposed to theft of a motor vehicle depends on whether the owner was permanently deprived of an article or not.

#### 3.1.3 Definition of a conviction

When preparing the questionnaire, an attempt was made to provide a definition for a 'conviction' of an offender that was acceptable to most criminal justice systems. The need for such a definition was created by the fact that (a) offenders in certain jurisdictions are not always convicted by a court and (b) sanctions/measures may be imposed by another authority (police or prosecutor). Therefore, the definition of 'persons convicted' included sanctions/measures imposed by a prosecutor based on an admission of guilt by the defendant. However, this definition did not include cases where (a) a prosecutor imposed sanctions/measures not based on the admission of guilt by the defendant, (b) the sanctions were imposed by the police and (c) other state authorities imposed the sanction/measure. In addition, there is a system of police cautioning or issuing a fixed penalty in many countries (e.g., the United Kingdom) while other countries such as the Dutch and the French have systems for diverting offenders from the courts. These cases are excluded from the convictions statistics. This position is more complex for offences committed by minors which are counted in many different ways for all offence types.

The information presented here cannot therefore be said to give an accurate measure of either how many crimes recorded by the police result in a conviction or how many suspected offenders are convicted, except for the most serious offences, e.g., homicide. However, even in such cases it should be noted that offenders may eventually be convicted for a less serious offence than the one for which they were initially prosecuted by the courts.

In some countries legal persons could be convicted as well. However, except for crimes like fraud, forgery of documents and corruption, the numbers of legal persons convicted were negligible.

The definition of a minor varies. For example, in Germany, 'minor' covers all those under 18 years of age when they committed the crime. However, for Germany this will also include a proportion of those aged between 18 to 20 years who are also covered by juvenile laws. This applies to other countries as well.

### 3.1.4 Minimum age of conviction

The sentencing options for convicted offenders depend upon their age as well as the scope of juvenile law. Usually, the same minimum and maximum age are used as by the police, and is reported in chapter 1. Only 5 countries apply other age brackets, mostly for the minimum age. Below these minimum ages many countries have alternative ways of dealing with minors. In some cases, they are offence dependent, with the aim of diverting young offenders from the formal criminal justice system.

# 3.1.5 Validation checks

Once the term 'convictions' had been defined, it was expected that the number of persons convicted would be equal to or less than the number of suspected offenders. Similarly, the number of offenders convicted should be equal to the number of persons receiving a sanction or measure. Due to time delays and use of other sources this is not always the case. Also, for some countries there can be a conviction without a sanction or measure.

Finally, the number of custodial sentences given in the sentencing tables should be equal to the totals for which sentence lengths are shown. Some small differences in some countries arose as a result of the different times at which such statistics were recorded.

Although validation checks identified many errors in the figures, and in some cases called for further explanation, it is possible that some errors have gone undetected.

### 3.1.6 Methodology

Most countries apply some form of written rules to regulate the collection of conviction data. This normally includes some form of 'principal offence rule' so that an offender convicted at one court appearance for more than one offence will be shown only once in the statistics. However, for a few countries no principal offence rule applies, and a person convicted for several offences during the same trial will be counted several times in each table. While most countries count the most serious offence, it was often not clear whether they determined the seriousness of the offence based upon a) the nature of the offence, b) the punishment imposed or c) the maximum sentence applicable. While most countries count each court conviction separately, 6 countries (Armenia, Bulgaria, Georgia, Italy, Latvia, and Spain) count different court convictions in the same year as only one conviction.

There were two different procedures identified with respect to the point at which statistics on court decisions were recorded. Thirteen countries replied that the information they provided was related to the position before any appeal on either the verdict or the sentence. For sixteen countries, information was collected only after any such appeals were completed. Variations in the point at which data was collected will affect any comparisons between court statistics. The remaining fourteen countries gave no information on this issue.

#### 3.1.7 Results

The tables cover convictions for the period 2011-2016 and sanctions/measures for the year 2015. The commentary draws on the definitional material collected in this survey although a full analysis would require additional research in each country. In some countries, limitations on the data available (e.g., type of thefts) reflects the absence of such a breakdown in their criminal code. Also, for some countries minors are completely or partially excluded from the tables with total persons convicted or receiving sanctions/measures.

Different migration patterns are reflected in the proportion of foreigners among those convicted, with Luxembourg, Switzerland and Austria having the highest proportions. Thirteen countries could identify those foreigners with EU citizenship. In some countries, it is the ethnic origin of the suspect rather than nationality that is recorded for court decisions. In view of such variations, there is no discussion in this chapter of conviction rates for foreigners.

#### 3.1.8 Total crimes

#### *Convictions*

Cyprus, Finland, and Norway show the highest number of convictions (6 387, 3 321 and 5 026 per 100 000 inhabitants in 2015). England & Wales also had a high number of convictions (2 158), while Armenia (94 in 2015) and Azerbaijan (138 in 2015) had the lowest levels. Many of the differences reflect both the way that major road traffic offences and minors are dealt with within the formal criminal justice system and whether they are recorded in the court statistics. Because of the high number of traffic convictions in Norway and Finland, when these are excluded the rates would be comparable with many other countries such as England & Wales, Turkey, Belgium, Denmark, and others. In general, the number of convictions show a decrease over the period 2011 – 2016, with an increase for a few countries only (Albania with 60%, Bosnia-Herzegovina and Spain with 23% and 8 other countries with lower percentages) The largest decreases were found in Cyprus (-48%), Ukraine (-47%) and Croatia (-42%).

Wide variations in the percentage of minors measured under total crimes will also be indicative of the number of traffic offences that are included. Typically, the percentage of minors is about 5% or a little lower in most countries. The percentage of women measured under total crimes ranges between 5.4% (Turkey) and 29.5% (England & Wales).

### *Sanctions and measures*

For all countries, fines were the most frequently used sanction (38% of all sanctions), followed by suspended custodial sanctions and measures (25%). The highest proportions of unsuspended custodial sanctions can be found in Armenia (36%) and Latvia (34%).

For minors, non-custodial sanctions were most frequently used (48%).

#### 3.1.9 Major road traffic offences

#### *Convictions*

The number of convictions for major road traffic offences varied widely between countries, from very low rates in Armenia, Italy, and England & Wales (less than 8 per 100 000 population in 2015) to almost 4 000 in Norway. The percentage of those convicted for traffic offences who were minors was below 7% in all countries except Albania (30%) and Ukraine (10%). The differences may reflect the age at which driving is permitted in each country and the seriousness of offences dealt with by fixed penalties but outside the court system.

#### *Sanctions and measures*

Offenders were usually fined (44%) with only 12% sentenced to custody. Armenia (37%) and England & Wales (43%) had the highest rates of custody, although this may reflect the more serious nature of offences included.

For minors, the sanctions used in the main were fines (37%) and non-custodial sentences (44%). Bulgaria and England & Wales had a relatively high rate of custody at 42% and 18%.

#### 3.1.10 Homicide

#### *Convictions*

Since the numbers of homicides in most countries are relatively small, conviction rates may fluctuate substantially. Turkey showed the highest levels of total homicide convictions (this included attempted homicide) at 20 per 100 000 population (in 2015), but provided no data for homicides when attempted homicides were excluded. With 4.5 convictions per 100 000 population Georgia had the highest level for completed homicide. Many countries had conviction rates of about 1 per 100 000 population for completed homicide.

The mean percentage of minors among homicide convictions for all countries was a little under 5%. High proportions were found in the Netherlands (9.4%) and Austria (10.0%). On average about 10% of the convicted offenders for homicide were women.

#### *Sanctions and measures*

For all countries, custody was the main sanction for completed and attempted homicides. Only in four countries, Belgium, Portugal, Switzerland, and Turkey the rates for unsuspended custody in homicides were somewhat lower, where this reflects the use of alternative sanctions. Minors were mainly sentenced to custody as well.

#### 3.1.11 Bodily inujries

#### *Convictions*

Variations in conviction rates for bodily injuries have been explained in previous reports by whether less serious assaults are included. In this report, as in the fourth and fifth edition, aggravated bodily injuries are shown separately and, other than in previous editions, all countries (with the exception of Northern Ireland and Spain) were able to make the distinction between bodily injury (total) and aggravated bodily injury. In 2015 the highest conviction rates for aggravated bodily injury were in Hungary (45 per 100 000), Montenegro (25) and Germany (23), while very low rates were recorded in Turkey, Albania, Armenia, and Poland (under 3). As with total crime, the majority of countries show a decrease in the number of convictions over the period 2011-2016.

In the majority of countries, less than 10% of aggravated bodily injuries were committed by women with Finland (15.2%) and Portugal (14.7%) among the exceptions. The average proportion of minor offenders was 5.2% with Germany (15.7%) well above this average.

# *Sanctions and measures*

Custody and suspended custodial sanctions and measures were the main sanctions for aggravated bodily injury, each with about 40% of the total convictions. Portugal (with 36% fines) and Switzerland (66% fines) were the exceptions. For minors, noncustodial sanctions were the main measure used (about 40% of the total).

# 3.1.12 Rape

# *Convictions*

There were wide variations between countries in the rape conviction rate per 100 000 population, possibly reflecting both social as well as criminal justice variations. High levels were recorded in 2015 in Lithuania (7.1), Moldova (4.2), and Estonia (3.6). Very low levels were recorded in Armenia (0.1) and Ukraine (0.2). No clear trend was found for the period 2011-2016.

About 8% of those convicted were minors, with the highest proportions in France (30%) and Hungary (16.7%). As expected, the percentage, with an average of 1% the number of convicted women for rape is very low, with Serbia (5.6%) and the Netherlands (4.8%) being the highest.

# *Sanctions and measures*

The majority (typically more than 90%) of those offenders convicted of rape offences were sentenced to custody, of which about 70% unsuspended. For minors, custody and suspended sentences were the main sanctions used, each with a little over 40%.

# 3.1.13 Sexual assaults

### *Convictions*

Sexual assaults also include rapes. Conviction rates for sexual assault vary from about 1 (or even less) per 100 000 in Ukraine (0.4), Albania (1.1) and Bulgaria (1.8) to more than 15 in Norway (15.5), Scotland (21.4) and Turkey (25.9). The trend over the period 2011-2016 is slightly increasing. Typically, about one third of the sexual assaults refer to sexual abuse of a child (minor). With an average of about 10%, the highest proportion of minors convicted were in Czech Republic (24.5%) and Switzerland (19.2%).

# *Sanctions and measures*

About half of the sanctions and measures for sexual assault were unsuspended custodial sanctions and measures with little variations between countries. For minors suspended custodial sanctions and measures were used most often.

### 3.1.14 Robbery

### *Convictions*

The highest numbers of robbery convictions per 100 000 population were in Lithuania (29), Turkey and Moldova (28) with the lowest rates in France (0.8), Armenia (3.3) and Azerbaijan (3.4). Almost all countries showed a considerable decrease in the number of convictions in the period 2011-2016.

With 16% the number of minors convicted for robbery was high compared to most other crimes. Austria (34%), Switzerland, England & Wales, and Hungary (all 28%) were the highest. The average number of women convicted for robbery was somewhat under 6%.

#### *Sanctions and measures*

About 60% of all offenders received unsuspended custodial sanctions. However, this fell to about one third or lower in Germany, Portugal, and Switzerland. For minors, unsuspended custodial sentences were the main sanctions used (37%).

#### 3.1.15 Theft

It is important to note that this group includes burglaries, which in countries such as the UK are normally considered separately. Also, it excludes theft with violence (robbery), which in some countries will be (partly) included. The figures here therefore could relate to another range of offences than is often seen in international comparisons of police statistics. In this edition a new table on aggravated theft was included since many countries in Europe have this concept of aggravated theft in their legislation (which could include theft by means of burglary as well). Only a few countries provided figures for theft of a motor vehicle and (domestic) burglary separately.

#### *Convictions*

The highest rates for theft convictions were found in Finland (545 per 100 000 population), a much higher rate than in the next group with Denmark (297), Turkey (226) and Scotland (233). Very low levels of theft convictions were found in Armenia (17) and Azerbaijan (20). In general, the number of theft convictions has decreased a little over this period.

Wide variations in convictions for minors reflect how the criminal justice system in each country deals with minors. England & Wales (42%), France (22%) and Turkey (21%) have the highest proportions of minors. A much higher proportion (15%) of theft offenders were women than for most other offences, in particular in Finland (30%), Scotland (29%), Spain (38%) and Sweden (33%).

#### *Sanctions and measures*

For thefts, unsuspended custody was the most frequently applied sanction for offenders (31%) followed by suspended sentences (28%) and fines (27%). Only Armenia, Finland, Germany, Norway, and Switzerland showed a high use of fines, while non-custodial sanctions were applied most frequently in Croatia, Poland, and Serbia.

For minors, non-custodial sanctions were mainly used, although Bulgaria (40%) and Turkey (41%) had a high use of custody.

#### 3.1.16 Fraud

Next to fraud, in this edition tables for cyber fraud and forgery of documents were introduced.

#### *Convictions*

The highest rates for fraud convictions were found in Germany (110), Finland (84) and Turkey (83), with very low levels in Ukraine (6), the Netherlands (5) and Armenia (3). Only a few countries could provide figures for cyber fraud. For forgery of documents the conviction rates vary from 2.1 (England & Wales) to 63.4 (Hungary). There was no clear trend over the period 2011-2016.

A very low percentage of fraud offenders were minors, with the exception of Sweden and England & Wales (6%). A relatively high proportion (23%) of offenders were women, in particular in Scotland (49%), Germany, Finland, and Czech Republic (34%).

#### *Sanctions and measures*

Suspended sentences were the most frequently used sanctions for fraud offences, with unsuspended custodial sanctions the next most frequent. Armenia and Georgia have a high use of custody.

The largest part (47%) of minors were given non-custodial sanctions.

#### 3.1.17 Money laundering

#### *Convictions*

While most countries provided data, only a few showed any significant level of convictions. Spain (5.9), Belgium (4.2), Switzerland (3.8) and Italy (3.1) were the highest. There were very few minors convicted of money laundering. About 25% of the offenders were women. In the Netherlands 5% of the convicted offenders for money laundering were legal persons.

# *Sanctions and measures*

Due to the small number of sanctions for this crime it is hard to draw any conclusions. Custodial sanctions, either suspended or unsuspended seem to be used the most. Too few minors were convicted to include any analysis.

# 3.1.18 Corruption

# *Convictions*

By far the highest number of convictions for corruption were found in Lithuania (26.8). Other countries had a conviction rate of less than 5, with many countries even below 1.

Only France (10%) had any significant number of minors convicted. Corruption convictions were over 80% males, except in Croatia and Sweden. Some convictions for legal persons were found in Finland and Romania.

# *Sanctions and measures*

Suspended sentences were the most frequent sanctions used (about 50%). Again, there were too few minors convicted to allow for analysis.

# 3.1.19 Drug trafficking

## *Convictions*

The highest conviction rates were found in Finland (65 per 100 000 population), Turkey (69) and Switzerland (99). While some countries showed a considerable increase (Sweden and France) there was no clear overall trend for the period 2011- 2016.

Under 4% of those convicted for drug trafficking were minors. The average for women was between 8% and 9% with the highest proportion in Czech Republic (17%).

# *Sanctions and measures*

For the majority of countries custody was the most frequently used sanction for drug trafficking, with the exception of Finland and Switzerland. Non-custodial sanctions and measures were frequently used for minors.

# 3.1.20 Attrition and punitivity

### Attrition is defined as:

*The "loss" of cases or, more technically, the filtering out of cases during the criminal justice process.*  Because the Sourcebook collects data on different aspects of the criminal justice process, this enabled - while producing the previous (fifth) edition of the Sourcebook - a study of attrition rates in the different countries of Europe. However, to describe attrition exactly it would be necessary to rely on case-flow statistics which follows the path of individual cases throughout the system*.* Few such statistics are available and *true attrition rates* are not collected at present. However, the study was able to thoroughly scrutinize the available attrition indicators and assess their quality and usability, taking into account the status quo of attrition research. Full results were reported in Heiskanen et al (2014).26

In summary, twelve possible indicators for attrition on the level of police, prosecution, courts, and prisons were identified, differentiating between intra level and inter level indicators. In the end, four indicators were proposed: the rate of offences, suspects, convicted persons and those sentenced to an unsuspended prison sentence. Their relation to each other reflects the different processes of attrition: Suspects per recorded offences (offender ratio), convicted per suspected persons (conviction ratio) and persons sentenced to unsuspended prison sentences per all persons convicted (punitivity ratio 1). Alternatively, while this last ratio gives a clear view of attrition on the conviction level, the punitivity ratio 3 (the number of prisoners divided by convicted persons) is better suited to look at punitivity itself because it combines both the ratio of unsuspended prison sentences and the length of the sentence actually served. See also Smit et al (2012).27

Using data from the first four editions of the Sourcebook, both the offender ratio and the conviction ratio have been calculated for several countries from 1900 to 2006. See Aebi & Linde (2012).28 For a discussion on punitivity and other attrition indicators see also Blumstein et al. (2005),29 where punitivity is seen in two ways: in a broad sense it relates prison sentences to recorded crimes and in a narrow sense it is defined as the ratio between persons committed to prison and persons convicted multiplied by the average time served. This 'narrow punitiveness' is actually theoretically similar to the punitivity ratio 3 as defined here. However, in practice it is generally easier to get data for the number of prisoners than for the average time served. In the Sourcebook tables 3.2.5.1 – 3.2.5.21 only the average sentence imposed is available, not the average time served. And there are many missing values here.

We show below how the data collected in this edition enabled good estimates to be made of both the conviction ratio and the punitivity ratio (ratio 3 as mentioned

from 1990 to 2007. In van Dijk J., Tseloni A. and Farrell G. (Eds.). The International Crime Drop: New Directions in Research (pp. 37-75). New York, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan.

<sup>26</sup> *Heiskanen, M., Aebi, M., van der Brugge, W. & Jehle J.-M.* (Eds.) Recording Community Sanctions and Measures and Assessing Attrition A Methodological Study on Comparative Data in Europe, published by HEUNI, 2014.

<sup>27</sup> *Smit, P., van Eijk, A. & Decae, R.* (2012). Trends in the Reaction on Crime in Criminal justice Systems in Europe in 1990-2007. European Journal on Criminal policy and Research, 18, 55-82. <sup>28</sup> *Aebi, M.F. & Linde, A.* (2012). Crime Trends in Western Europe according to Official Statistics

<sup>29</sup> *Blumstein, A., Tonry, M. & van Ness, A.* (2005) Cross-National Measures of Punitiveness. Crime and Justice, 33 (Crime and Punishment in Western Countries, 1980-1999), pp.347-376.

above) for various countries for the year 2016. Not all countries were able to provide data needed for the calculation of such ratios. A small number of countries with conviction ratios over 1.0 were also excluded as this almost certainly meant a statistical misalignment between the definitions for suspects and convictions. For the punitivity ratio it is perfectly all right for the ratio to be greater than 1. However, in practice it was not possible to compute the punitivity ratio for different crime types, so only the ratio for total crime is given. Tables 3A and 3B summarize the information collected for 2016.



Table 3B Punitivity: Examples of punitivity ratios for Total Crime: Europe, 2016


#### 3.1.21 Crime types, relative number of convicted persons

Table 3C presents the relative position of eight of the above-mentioned crime types for persons convicted. Because of the variation in the way traffic offences are dealt with in different countries, the relative positions were computed using total offences *excluding* traffic offences.

Typically, theft is the most common crime with up to 46% (Ukraine) of the total. Next comes drugs crimes with an average of about twelve percent, followed by bodily injury with an average of eleven percent. As expected, the percentage of homicide convictions is low, with some exceptions only about a half percent.



# **3.2 Tables**

#### 3.2.1 Total number of convictions per 100 000 population


Table 3.2.1.1 Persons convicted per 100 000 population – Criminal offences: Total




Table 3.2.1.3 Persons convicted per 100 000 population – Intentional homicide: Total


Table 3.2.1.4 Persons convicted per 100 000 population – Intentional homicide: Completed


Table 3.2.1.5 Persons convicted per 100 000 population – Bodily injury


Table 3.2.1.6 Persons convicted per 100 000 population – Aggravated bodily injury


Table 3.2.1.7 Persons convicted per 100 000 population – Sexual assault


Table 3.2.1.8 Persons convicted per 100 000 population – Rape


Table 3.2.1.9 Persons convicted per 100 000 population – Sexual abuse of a child


Table 3.2.1.10 Persons convicted per 100 000 population – Robbery: Total


Table 3.2.1.11 Persons convicted per 100 000 population – Theft




Table 3.2.1.13 Persons convicted per 100 000 population – Theft of a motor vehicle

Table 3.2.1.14 Persons convicted per 100 000 population – Theft: Burglary


Table 3.2.1.15 Persons convicted per 100 000 population – Theft: Domestic burglary



Table 3.2.1.16 Persons convicted per 100 000 population – Fraud


Table 3.2.1.17 Persons convicted per 100 000 population – Cyber fraud


Table 3.2.1.18 Persons convicted per 100 000 population – Forgery of documents


Table 3.2.1.19 Persons convicted per 100 000 population – Money laundering


Table 3.2.1.20 Persons convicted per 100 000 population – Corruption in the public sector


Table 3.2.1.21 Persons convicted per 100 000 population – Drug offences: Total


Table 3.2.1.22 Persons convicted per 100 000 population – Drug trafficking

Notes on tables 3.2.1.1 to 3.2.1.22


#### 3 Conviction Statistics 195


3.2.2 Percentage of women, minors, and foreigners among convicted persons in 2015


Table 3.2.2.1 Percentage of women, minors, foreigners, and legal persons among convicted persons in 2015 – Criminal offences: Total


Table 3.2.2.2 Percentage of women, minors, foreigners, and legal persons among convicted persons in 2015 – Criminal offences: Major traffic offences


Table 3.2.2.3 Percentage of women, minors, foreigners, and legal persons among convicted persons in 2015 – Intentional homicide: Total


Table 3.2.2.4 Percentage of women, minors, foreigners, and legal persons among convicted persons in 2015 – Intentional homicide: Completed


Table 3.2.2.5 Percentage of women, minors, foreigners, and legal persons among convicted persons in 2015 – Bodily injury


Table 3.2.2.6 Percentage of women, minors, foreigners, and legal persons among convicted persons in 2015 – Aggravated bodily injury


Table 3.2.2.7 Percentage of women, minors, foreigners, and legal persons among convicted persons in 2015 – Sexual assault

UK: Northern


Ireland ... ... ... ... ... ... UK: Scotland 1.9 0.0 ... ... ... ... *Mean* 1.8 1.0 8.0 19.3 38.1 0.0 *Median* 1.7 0.7 7.4 15.8 40.0 0.0 *Minimum* 0.1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 *Maximum* 7.1 5.6 30.0 59.5 75.0 0.0

Table 3.2.2.8 Percentage of women, minors, foreigners, and legal persons among convicted persons in 2015 – Rape


Table 3.2.2.9 Percentage of women, minors, foreigners, and legal persons among convicted persons in 2015 – Sexual abuse of a child




Table 3.2.2.11 Percentage of women, minors, foreigners, and legal persons among convicted persons in 2015 – Theft


Table 3.2.2.12 Percentage of women, minors, foreigners, and legal persons among convicted persons in 2015 –Aggravated theft


Table 3.2.2.13 Percentage of women, minors, foreigners, and legal persons among convicted persons in 2015 –Theft of a motor vehicle

Table 3.2.2.14 Percentage of women, minors, foreigners, and legal persons among convicted persons in 2015 – Theft by means of burglary


Table 3.2.2.15 Percentage of women, minors, foreigners, and legal persons among convicted persons in 2015 – Theft by means of domestic burglary


Table 3.2.2.16 Percentage of women, minors, foreigners, and legal persons among convicted persons in 2015 – Fraud





Table 3.2.2.18 Percentage of women, minors, foreigners, and legal persons among convicted persons in 2015 – Forgery of documents


Table 3.2.2.19 Percentage of women, minors, foreigners, and legal persons among convicted persons in 2015 – Money laundering

North

Russian

Slovak

UK: England &

UK: Northern


Latvia ... ... ... ... ... ... Lithuania 26.8 7.8 0.3 ... ... 0.0 Luxembourg ... ... ... ... ... ... Moldova 1.9 20.6 0.0 ... ... ... Montenegro ... ... ... ... ... ... Netherlands 0.0 0.0 0.0 ... ... 0.0

Macedonia ... ... ... ... ... ... Norway ... ... ... ... ... ... Poland 4.6 14.4 0.2 5.5 ... ... Portugal 0.3 ... ... 11.1 ... ... Romania 3.0 ... 0.0 ... ... 1.7

Federation ... ... ... ... ... ... Serbia 1.2 7.2 0.0 1.2 0.0 ...

Republic ... ... ... ... ... ... Slovenia ... ... ... ... ... ... Spain ... ... ... ... ... ... Sweden 0.1 27.3 0.0 ... ... ... Switzerland 0.7 20.4 0.0 68.5 2.7 ... Turkey 1.1 4.1 0.6 1.0 ... 0.0 Ukraine 0.9 17.4 0.0 0.5 ... ...

Wales ... ... ... ... ... ...

Ireland ... ... ... ... ... ... UK: Scotland 0.0 ... ... ... ... ... *Mean* 2.4 12.0 0.6 13.2 26.4 5.1 *Median* 1.0 9.8 0.0 9.4 11.2 0.0 *Minimum* 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 *Maximum* 26.8 28.4 9.7 68.5 73.3 33.3

Table 3.2.2.20 Percentage of women, minors, foreigners, and legal persons among


Table 3.2.2.21 Percentage of women, minors, foreigners, and legal persons among convicted persons in 2015 – Drug offences: Total


Table 3.2.2.22 Percentage of women, minors, foreigners, and legal persons among convicted persons in 2015 – Drug trafficking


#### Notes on tables 3.2.2.1 to 3.2.2.22

#### 3.2.3 Total persons receiving sanctions/measures in 2015

Table 3.2.3.1. Total persons receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Criminal offences: Total







#### Table 3.2.3.4 Total persons receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Intentional homicide: Completed




Table 3.2.3.6 Total persons receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Aggravated bodily injury


Table 3.2.3.7 Total persons receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Sexual assault


Table 3.2.3.8 Total persons receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Rape


Table 3.2.3.9 Total persons receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Sexual abuse of a child


Table 3.2.3.10 Total persons receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Robbery


Table 3.2.3.11 Total persons receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Theft


Table 3.2.3.12 Total persons receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 –Aggravated theft


Table 3.2.3.13 Total persons receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Theft of a motor vehicle

Table 3.2.3.14 Total persons receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Theft by means of burglary


Table 3.2.3.15 Total persons receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Theft by means of domestic burglary





Table 3.2.3.16 Total persons receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Fraud


Table 3.2.3.18 Total persons receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Forgery of documents


Table 3.2.3.19 Total persons receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Money laundering




Table 3.2.3.21 Total persons receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Drug offences: Total


Table 3.2.3.22 Total persons receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 –Drug trafficking

#### 3.2.4 Minors receiving sanctions/measures in 2015

Table 3.2.4.1 Minors receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Criminal offences: Total



Table 3.2.4.2 Minors receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Major road traffic offences


#### Table 3.2.4.3 Minors receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Intentional homicide: Total


## Table 3.2.4.4 Minors receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Intentional homicide: Completed


Table 3.2.4.5 Minors receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Bodily injury


Table 3.2.4.6 Minors receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Aggravated bodily injury


Table 3.2.4.7 Minors receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Sexual assault




Table 3.2.4.9 Minors receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Sexual abuse of a child




Table 3.2.4.11 Minors receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Theft


Table 3.2.4.12 Minors receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Aggravated theft

Table 3.2.4.13 Minors receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Theft of a motor vehicle


Table 3.2.4.14 Minors receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Theft by means of burglary


Table 3.2.4.15 Minors receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Theft by means of domestic burglary



Table 3.2.4.16 Minors receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Fraud


Table 3.2.4.17 Minors receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Cyber fraud

Table 3.2.4.19 Minors receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Money laundering


Table 3.2.4.20 Minors receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Corruption in the public sector



Table 3.2.4.18 Minors receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Forgery of documents


Table 3.2.4.21 Minors receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Drug offences: Total


Table 3.2.4.22 Minors receiving sanctions/measures in 2015 – Drug trafficking


Notes on tables 3.2.3.1 to 3.2.4.22

3.2.5 Persons convicted by length of unsuspended custodial sanctions and measures imposed i n 201 5




Table 3.2.5.2 Persons convicted by length of unsuspended custodial sanctions and measures imposed in 2015 – Criminal offences: Major road traffic offences


Table 3.2.5.3 Persons convicted by length of unsuspended custodial sanctions and measures imposed in 2015 – Intentional homicide: Total


Table 3.2.5.4 Persons convicted by length of unsuspended custodial sanctions and measures imposed in 2015 – Intentional homicide: Completed


Table 3.2.5.5 Persons convicted by length of unsuspended custodial sanctions and measures imposed in 2015 – Bodily injury


Table 3.2.5.6 Persons convicted by length of unsuspended custodial sanctions and measures imposed in 2015 – Aggravated bodily injury


Table 3.2.5.7 Persons convicted by length of unsuspended custodial sanctions and measures imposed in 2015 – Sexual assault




#### Table 3.2.5.9 Persons convicted by length of unsuspended custodial sanctions and measures imposed in 2015 – Sexual abuse of a child




#### Table 3.2.5.11 Persons convicted by length of unsuspended custodial sanctions and measures imposed in 2015 – Theft


Table 3.2.5.12 Persons convicted by length of unsuspended custodial sanctions and measures imposed in 2015 – Aggravated theft

Table 3.2.5.13 Persons convicted by length of unsuspended custodial sanctions and measures imposed in 2015 – Theft of a motor vehicle


Table 3.2.5.14 Persons convicted by length of unsuspended custodial sanctions and measures imposed in 2015 – Theft by means of burglary


Table 3.2.5.15 Persons convicted by length of unsuspended custodial sanctions and measures imposed in 2015 – Theft by means of domestic burglary



#### Table 3.2.5.16 Persons convicted by length of unsuspended custodial sanctions and measures imposed in 2015 – Fraud


Table 3.2.5.18 Persons convicted by length of unsuspended custodial sanctions and measures imposed in 2015 – Forgery of documents



Table 3.2.5.19 Persons convicted by length of unsuspended custodial sanctions



Table 3.2.5.20 Persons convicted by length of unsuspended custodial sanctions and measures imposed in 2015 – Corruption





#### Table 3.2.5.22 Persons convicted by length of unsuspended custodial sanctions and measures imposed in 2015 – Drug trafficking

Notes on tables 3.2.5.1 to 3.2.5.22


3.2.6 Persons held in pre-trial detention (at least temporarily) among persons convicted in 2015

Table 3.2.6 Persons held in pre-trial detention (at least temporarily) among persons convicted in 2015 – Criminal offences: Total


#### 3.2.7 Judges in criminal courts per 100 000 population - 2015


Table 3.2.7.1 Judges in criminal courts per 100 000 population - 2015

Notes on tables 3.2.6 and 3.2.7


# **3.3 Technical information**

#### 3.3.1 Technical comments

#### *What is recorded?*

Next to court convictions, the conviction statistics in this chapter include sanctions imposed by the prosecutor (or by the court, but on application of the prosecutor and without a formal court hearing) that lead to a formal verdict and count as a conviction *(e.g., penal order, Strafbefehl)* in 11 countries: Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland, and UK: Scotland. All countries except France and UK: England & Wales exclude sanctions imposed by the prosecutor that do not lead to a formal verdict and do not count as a conviction (e.g., conditional disposals).

Only Denmark includes sanctions/measures imposed by the police as convictions. Both the principal offence and the principal sanction rule are applied in most countries. Recording is based on the main conviction.

Most countries have written rules regarding the way they record sanctions and measures, except Belgium, Cyprus, Denmark, Italy, Latvia, Montenegro, and Slovenia.

#### *Differences between Chapters 1 and 3 with regard to offence definitions*

The offence definitions used in Chapter 1 reflect the definitions that are used in the national police statistics. They are usually based on concepts that are close to everyday life experience, e.g., theft by means of burglary, armed robbery, and car theft.

On the other hand, the definitions used for convictions reflect different legal traditions and criminal codes. For this reason, in some countries there are no separate conviction statistics for some offences, such as car theft, drug trafficking, theft by means of burglary, robbery, and sexual abuse of minors.

#### *Differences in convictions and sanctions/measures*

Countries have different rules for counting sanctions and measures and non-custodial sanctions.

The sentence length of unsuspended custodial sanctions and measures imposed upon adults or minors in many countries differs from the standard used in this publication. In addition, the time of publication of the statistics varies among countries. Romania provided figures for 2016 instead of 2015.

#### 3.3.2 Minors in conviction statistics

#### *Age brackets used in the Tables*

All countries count minors as persons who are under 18 years. The exception is Poland where only those under 17 years are included.

The lower limit varies widely among countries as far as criminal responsibility is concerned. Persons below the age of criminal responsibility will not be convicted and therefore not counted in convictions statistics (regardless of the 'civil' or administrative treatment or sanction they will actually receive). This was not necessarily the case for police statistics where persons below the age of criminal responsibility were sometimes included (for details see Table 1.3.3).

For the offences considered here, the following age limits were indicated. For the countries not in this table, the same minimum age is used as in chapter 1.


Table 3.3.1 Minimum age for consideration in conviction statistics 2015

The transition from the status of minor to adult raises difficult legal and statistical questions as to how a person is treated who, having committed an offence as a minor, is dealt with in court once they have reached the age of adulthood. Some countries apply rules for minors, and count them as such, whereas others treat and count them as adults. For example, in Germany young adults aged 18-20 years are often sanctioned according to juvenile law so that this age group is partially included in the sentencing tables for minors and partially in adults.

# **3.4 Sources**


# **4 Prison Statistics**

# **4.1 General Comments**

#### 4.1.1 Introduction

This chapter provides indicators of the use of imprisonment across Europe. These include the annual number of entries into *penal institutions* (prisons or any other detention facility) and the annual number of releases from them during the years 2011 to 2016 (known respectively as the *flow of entries* and the *flow of releases*), as well as the number of persons actually held in these institutions on 1st September of each of these years (*stock of inmates*) and the staff working in them on 1st September 2016. Inmates include *pre-trial detainees* and *sentenced prisoners*, and the latter are also presented according to the offence for which they were convicted. Further information on the use of imprisonment can be found in the *Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics* (SPACE) available online at www.unil.ch/space.

Prisons are placed near the end of the criminal justice process, but pre-trial detention can take place near the beginning of it, which implies that the relationship between prison population rates (number of inmates per 100,000 population) and crime rates is indirect and complex. This relationship exists because, in a democratic society, only suspects or persons prosecuted or convicted for a crime can be deprived of freedom; however, the actual number of inmates is primarily influenced by the efficiency of a criminal justice system (the percentage of cases solved or clearance rate, the length of the procedures, etc.) and its punitiveness, which can be measured by the length of the sentences imposed and actually served. Research suggests that high prison population rates (number of inmates per 100,000 population) tend to be correlated with long lengths of imprisonment and high homicide rates, but not necessarily with large numbers of entries30.

In addition, cross-national comparisons of prison populations are not as straightforward as they may seem because there are differences across countries regarding the categories of persons included under the total number of persons held in penal institutions. For example, some countries include minors and others do not include them, and the same is true for mentally ill offenders held in psychiatric institutions or persons held as fine defaulters. Basic information on such differences is presented under the heading *Technical information* (4.3).

Some countries have more than one Prison Administration. That is the case the United Kingdom, whose data is presented separately for (a) England and Wales, (b) Northern Ireland, and (c) Scotland. Spain has two prison administrations (The State Administration and Catalonia), but both are presented together in the Tables of this chapter. Bosnia and Herzegovina has three prison administrations, but the few data available are presented together; the metadata, on the contrary, corresponds to the rules applied in the Republika Srpska.

#### *The 'stock' and 'flow' perspectives*

Generally speaking, data on prison populations can be described from two perspectives, which generate different but equally important results. The first perspective refers to 'how many persons are held in penal institutions on a given day' (*stock*). The second perspective refers to 'how many persons have been admitted into penal institutions during the course of the year' (*flow of entries*) and to 'how many people have left penal institutions during the course of the year' (*flow of exits*). Both perspectives are also interrelated, in such a way that the stock of inmates on 1st September of a given year is influenced by the flows of entries and releases during that year, but also by the number of persons that entered into penal institutions during the previous years and are still deprived of freedom. For example, an inmate that serves ten years of imprisonment will be counted as an entry during the first year, but will appear in the stock of inmates every year during the next decade. This is a major difference with most of the data presented in the first three chapters of the Sourcebook, which usually correspond to a flow perspective (for example, the annual number of offences recorded by the police, of cases treated by the prosecution services, or of persons convicted).

<sup>30</sup> *Aebi, M.F., Linde, A. & Delgrande, N.* (2015). Is There a Relationship Between Imprisonment and Crime in Western Europe? European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 21(3): 425-446.

Regarding prison populations, the following data were requested:


guards, cleaning personnel, persons responsible for workshops or vocational training) are currently performed by private companies in some countries, and also by the rise of private prisons, mainly in the United Kingdom, and prisons working in public private partnership.

#### 4.1.2 Quality of the data

Most of the prison data included in this edition of the *European Sourcebook* come from the *Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics* (SPACE)31. The data validation procedure did not reveal inconsistencies, which can partly be due to the fact that the SPACE data for the period 2005 to 2015 had been consolidated in the framework of a project funded by the European Union and the Council of Europe32. In that context, it was also decided to change the date of reference for stock indicators from 1 September to 31 January in order to allow faster publication of the SPACE annual reports. A collateral effect of that change is that flow data for the year 2016 were not collected. As a consequence, whenever such data are included in the following Tables, they have been estimated using linear interpolation from the data for the years 2015 and 2017, and they are presented in grey coloured cells.

#### 4.1.3 Results

#### *Cross-sectional analysis*

On 1st September 2016, the average European prison population rate was 139 inmates per 100,000 population, but there are considerable differences across countries. In particular, the rates range from 37 inmates per 100 000 population in Iceland to 444 in the Russian Federation. In general, the lowest prison population rates (less than 75 inmates per 100,000 inhabitants) are distributed across the Scandinavian countries, the Netherlands, Slovenia, and Croatia, while the highest (more than 225 inmates per 100,000 inhabitants) are found in Azerbaijan, Lithuania, Turkey, Georgia, and the Russian Federation.

Roughly 20% of the inmates are not serving a final sentence and can thus be considered as pre-trial detainees, who are also known as detainees on remand. Although intuitively one may hypothesize that a large percentage of pre-trial detainees may contribute to increase artificially the prison population rate, data show that this is not necessarily the case. The Nordic countries have very low prison population rates, but roughly one fourth of their inmates are pre-trial detainees, and the

<sup>32</sup> *Aebi, M.F., Berger-Kolopp, L., Burkhardt, C. & Tiago, M.M.* (2019). Prisons in Europe: 2005-2015. Volume 1: Country Profiles. Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing (Vol. 1: Country profiles; Vol. 2: Sourcebook of Prison Statistics); *Aebi, M.F., Berger-Kolopp, L., Burkhardt, C., Chopin, J., Hashimoto, Y.Z. & Tiago, M.M.* (2019). Foreign offenders in prison and on probation in Europe: Trends from 2005 to 2015 (inmates) and situation in 2015 (inmates and probationers). Strasbourg: Council of Europe Publishing. Available in open access at www.unil.ch/space.

<sup>31</sup> See www.unil.ch/space.

Netherlands have the second lowest prison population of the continent, but one third of its inmates are pre-trial detainees.

The percentage of women in penal institutions remains very low (5% on average), as it has been the case from the beginning of the Sourcebook series in 1990. In 2016, the highest percentages are found in Latvia (8.4%), Malta (8.3%) and Cyprus (8,1%), while the lowest were in Albania (1.9%), Georgia, (2.8%) and North Macedonia (3%).

The percentage of foreigners in penal institutions differs considerably across regions of the continent. In some Western and Mediterranean countries, it represents more than 25% of the prison population, while in Central and Eastern Europe it remains under 5% of it. These differences reflect diverse factors such as geographical location, economic development, and immigration policies. The highest percentages were found in Switzerland (72%), Greece (55%) and Austria (54%), while the lowest (around 1% or less) were in Georgia, Poland, Romania, and Moldova. Roughly one third of the foreigners held in European prisons come from member states of the European Union (EU). The highest percentages are found in other EU countries. For example, approximately three quarters of the foreign inmates held in Iceland, Ireland and Northern Ireland are EU citizens.

Minors (i.e., persons under the age of 18) do not usually enter the prison system and sometimes are not included in the total prison population (see the Technical information in chapter 4.3). When they are included, on average they account for about 1% of the prison populations.

#### *Trend analysis*

The period 2011 to 2016 is characterized by a decrease of prison population rates in the vast majority of European countries. This decrease takes place during the financial crisis that started in 2008, refuting thus the already classical hypothesis proposed by Rusche & Kirchheimer— of a negative correlation between imprisonment and the state of the labour market. The state of the latter got worst across the continent but, instead of leading to an increase of prison population rates, that led to a decrease of imprisonment throughout the continent. As can be seen in Table 4.A, in 28 out of the 46 prison administrations that provided the necessary data, the 2016 prison population rate (stock) was more than 5% lower than in 2011. In nine prison administrations the rates were comparable (the 2016 was up to 5% lower or higher than that of 2011), and only in nine prison administrations, the 2016 rate was more than 5% higher than that of 2011.

Similarly, in 28 out of the 35 prison administrations that provided the necessary data, the 2016 rate of entries (flow of entries) was more than 5% lower than in 2011. In three prison administrations the rates were comparable (the 2016 flow of entries was up to 5% lower or higher than that of 2011), and only in four prison administrations, the 2016 flow of entries was more than 5% higher than that of 2011.

The decrease also concerned the rate of releases (flow of releases). In 20 out of the 30 prison administrations that provided the necessary data, the 2016 flow of releases was more than 5% lower than in 2011. In three prison administrations the rates were comparable (the 2016 flow of releases was up to 5% lower or higher than that of 2011), and in seven prison administrations, the 2016 flow of entries was more than 5% higher than that of 2011.

In times of decreasing prison population rates, the interpretation of changes in the percentages of specific categories of inmates is particularly hazardous. For example, if the number of foreign inmates decreases at a slower pace than that of national inmates, the percentage of the former will increase even if their absolute number is decreasing. Several examples of that pattern were found in an analysis of prison and probation rates in Europe from 2005 to 2015 (Aebi et al., 2019; quoted in the previous footnote). For that reason, the slight variations in the percentages of women (4.9% in 2011 and 5.2% in 2016) and foreign inmates (16.4% in 2011 and 16.7% in 2016) should be considered as reflecting a relative stability in the composition of prison populations.


Table 4.A Percentage change (2016 compared to 2011) for three key indicators of imprisonment

## 4.1.4 Recidivism

As in previous editions, data on recidivism were not collected. The reason is that the *European Sourcebook* aims to provide data as comparable as possible for the largest possible number of countries, but that goal cannot be reached for recidivism studies yet, because the methodology applied to measure recidivism differs considerably from one country to another. Some countries simply count the number of inmates that had been previously incarcerated, which provides a weak measure of the concept. Some countries conduct a follow up of the inmates released from prisons, which provide a robust measure of recidivism. However, some Western European countries have a relatively large number of foreign inmates who, upon release, are expelled from the country, something that affects the validity of the recidivism measure. For that reason, there are countries that do not include foreigners when measuring recidivism, but that also affects the validity of the measure of recidivism. Furthermore, there are countries that conduct cohort studies in which they collect data on the imprisonment of all persons born in the country in a given year throughout their life. Similarly, a few countries have built up large databases of offender histories, which enable reconviction rates and criminal careers to be studied on a regular basis. At the same time, it must be mentioned that some countries measure recidivism through reincarceration while others measure it through reconviction, and that several countries do not make a distinction between specific recidivism (the new offence is the same or similar to the previous one) and general recidivism (reconviction or reincarceration for any kind of offence).

For all these reasons, only a brief account of some of the main methodological issues and some common features in the results from available reconviction studies are presented here.

In general, results depend heavily on the size of the sample under study, the characteristics of the offenders (are all offenders chosen or only special subgroups according to gender, age, prior conviction, type of offence, type of sanction, etc.?), the length of the follow-up period, and the definition of recidivism (reconviction or reincarceration? all offences or only specific offences?).

In fact, by choosing different offender characteristics, follow-up periods, or recidivism definitions, it is possible to increase or decrease artificially the recidivism rates. This means that readers must be particularly cautious when interpreting such rates, even within a single country, and even more so when comparing recidivism rates across countries. It is also important to keep in mind that recidivism rates are in fact "rates of recapture", which means that they depend on the efficiency of each criminal justice systems.

Although the magnitude of reconviction rates varies considerably between countries, there are some common features in the results, namely:

• Past criminal history is the most important predictor of recidivism. The highest recidivism rates are found among the offenders with the longest criminal history.


The SPACE website includes a page dedicated to recidivism studies: http://www3.unil.ch/wpmu/space/publications/recidivism-studies/

# **4.2 Tables**

### 4.2.1 Prison population: Stock of inmates on 1 September



**Note**: **Ukraine**: Since 2014, figures do not include inmates held in Crimea and Sebastopol and in areas of Donetsk and Luhansk (areas that held more than one third of the prisons of the country) that are not under the control of the Ukrainian authorities.


Table 4.2.1.2 Percentage of pre -trial detainees in the prison population


Table 4.2.1.3 Percentage of women in the prison population


#### Table 4.2.1.4 Percentage of minors in the prison population


Table 4.2.1.5 Percentage of foreigners in the prison population


Table 4.2.1.6 Percentage of EU citizens among foreigners in the prison population


#### 4.2.2 Convicted prison population by type of offence on 1 September 2015

4.2.2.1 Convicted prison population in 2015 by type of offence, in percentages

**Note**: Grey coloured cells correspond to countries that do not apply the principal offence rule.

### 4.2.2.2 Convicted prison population in 2015 by type of offence, in rates per 100,000 population


**Note**: Grey coloured cells correspond to countries that do not apply the principal offence rule.


#### Table 4.2.2.3 Convicted prison population in 2015 – Total Criminal offences


Table 4.2.2.4 Convicted prison population in 2015 – Major road traffic offences

Table 4.2.2.5 Convicted prison population in 2015 – Intentional homicide





# Table 4.2.2.7 Convicted prison population in 2015 – Aggravated bodily injury

# Table 4.2.2.8 Convicted prison population in 2015 – Sexual assault


Table 4.2.2.9 Convicted prison population in 2015 – Rape



Table 4.2.2.10 Convicted prison population in 2015 – Sexual abuse of a child

Table 4.2.2.11 Convicted prison population in 2015 – Robbery


#### Table 4.2.2.12 Convicted prison population in 2015 – Theft




Table 4.2.2.14 Convicted prison population in 2015 – Drug offences


Notes on Tables 4.2.1 (4.2.1.1 to 4.2.1.6) and 4.2.2 (4.2.2.1 to 4.2.4.14)



#### 4.2.3. Prison population: Flow of entries into penal institutions

**Note**: Grey coloured cells are interpolations.


Table 4.2.3.2 Percentage of pre -trial detainees in the flow of entries

**Note**: Grey coloured cells are interpolations.


Table 4.2.3.3 Percentage of women in the flow of entries

Table 4.2.3.4 Percentage of minors in the flow of entries


Table 4.2.3.5 Percentage of foreigners in the flow of entries



Table 4.2.3.6 Percentage of foreigners with EU citizenship in the flow of entries


#### 4.2.4. Prison population: Flow of exits from penal institutions

**Note**: The flow of exits is estimated by adding the flows of releases and deaths.


Table 4.2.4.2 Flow of releases from penal institutions per 100 000 population\*


Table 4.2.4.3 Percentage of pre -trial detainees in the flow of releases


Table 4.2.4.4 Percentage of sentenced prisoners in the flow of releases


Table 4.2.4.5 Percentage of inmates transferred to another country in the flow of releases (2015 -2016)


#### Table 4.2.4.6 Percentage of "other" releases in the flow of releases


Table 4.2.4.7 Rate of deaths in prison per 10 000 inmates


Table 4.2.4.8 Percentage of suicides among inmates who died in prison

**Note:** NAP = Not applicable because there were no deaths among inmates in prison (see Table 4.2.4.7)


Table 4.2.4.9 Percentage of suicides in pre-trial detention among inmates who committed suicide in prison

**Note:** NAP = Not applicable because there were no deaths among inmates in prison (see Table 4.2.4.7)


#### 4.2.5 Prison staff

Table 4.2.5.1 Prison staff employed and not employed by the prison administration in 2016


**Note**: UK: England and Wales: The number of members of the prison staff not employed by the prison administration (i.e., the staff working in private prisons) is unavailable.






Table 4.2.5.4 Distribution of the staff not employed by the prison administration on 1st September 2016, according to different categories of staff, in percentage

Notes on Tables 4.2.5 (4.2.5.1 to 4.2.5.6)

See the notes under 4.4.1 regarding the standard definition for staff (Tables 4.2.5).

# **4.3 Technical information**

The information concerning what is and is not counted refer primarily to data collected by SPACE I in 2015. To provide a complete picture, information from other editions of SPACE I have also been used. Categories are considered as *included* when the prison administrations which have provided the relevant data reported *including*  these categories, and as *excluded* either when the prison administrations reported *excluding* these categories, or that the category is *not applicable* (does not exist) in their penal system.

# 4.3.1 Stock

The standard definition of **stock** used in SPACE refers to the total number of inmates (including pre-trial detainees), which corresponds to the total number of persons effectively deprived of freedom in any kind of penal institution. Compliance with that definition was distributed as follows:


The standard definition of **pre-trial detainees** used in SPACE refers to the total number of inmates who have not received a final sentence yet. These include untried detainees, detainees found guilty but who have not yet received a sentence yet (in the countries where such concept exists), sentenced prisoners who have appealed or who are within the statutory limit for doing so, and detainees who have not received a final sentence yet, but who started serving a prison sentence in advance (in the countries where such concept exists). Compliance with that definition was distributed as follows:


# 4.3.2 Flow of entries

The standard definition of **entries** used in SPACE refers to all entries of inmates into penal institutions that are not related to an ongoing detention. The counting unit is the number of admissions.

It should include: (1) admissions of detainees not serving a final sentence (pretrial detainees), (2) admissions of inmates who have been found guilty but who are not yet sentenced, and (3) admissions of inmates who have been sentenced, even if they have lodged an appeal or are within the statutory limit to do so.

It should exclude: (1) admissions following a transfer from one penal institution to another, (2) admissions of inmates following their removal from the institution in order to appear before a judicial authority (investigating judge, court, etc.), (3) admissions of inmates following their removal from the institution in order to be treated in a hospital, (4) admissions of inmates following a prison leave or a period of absence by permission, and (5) admissions of inmates re-arrested after an escape/abscond.

Most prison administrations (28 out of 36) *comply* with the standard definition of entries. Exceptions: Hungary, Latvia, Netherlands, Russian Federation, Slovenia, Sweden, Switzerland, and UK: Scotland.

# 4.3.3 Flow of exists

The standard definition of **exits** used in SPACE refers to releases from penal institutions, inmates who died inside penal institutions and escapes from penal institutions.

It should include: (1) Exits of inmates who have been released from the penal institutions; (2) exits of inmates who died inside penal institutions, and (3) exits due to an escape/abscond from a penal institution.

It should exclude: (1) Transfer from one penal institution to another, (2) exits in order to appear before a judicial authority (investigative magistrate, court, etc.), (3) exits in order to be treated in a hospital, (4) placement in another penal institution that do not lead to the change of the status of the detainee/prisoner, and (5) exits corresponding to a prison leave or a period of absence with permission.

Most prison administrations (30 out of 39) *comply* with the standard definition of exits. Exceptions: Bulgaria, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, Russian Federation, Slovenia, Sweden, UK: England & Wales and UK: Scotland.

## 4.3.4 Staff

The standard definition of **staff** used in SPACE refers to the total number of fulltime and part-time staff. Part-time staff should be counted on the basis of "fulltime equivalents" (FTE).

# **4.4 Technical information**

# 4.4.1 Notes

# *Reference date (different from 1 September)*


# *Standard definition of inmates*

**Inmates:** persons effectively deprived of freedom in any kind of penal institution.


# *Standard definition of entries (Tables 4.2.3)*


*Standard definition of exits (Tables 4.2.4)* 


*Standard definition of staff (Tables 4.2.5)* 


# *Minors*


# *Foreigners*


# *Offences*


#### 4.4.2 Tables

Table 4.4.1 Compliance with the standard definitions for inmates, entries, exits, and staff



Table 4.4.2 Categories of inmates included in the total prison population

(1) Persons held in police stations or other similar types of investigative institutions before trial

(2) Persons held in custodial institutions/units for juvenile offenders

(3) Persons placed in educational institutions/units for juvenile offenders

(4) Persons held in institutions for drug-addicted offenders outside penal institutions

(5) Persons with psychiatric disorders in psychiatric institutions or hospitals outside penal institutions (e.g., persons considered as non-criminally liable by the court, persons under security measures, etc.)

(6) Asylum seekers or illegal aliens held for administrative reasons

(7) Persons held in private facilities (e.g., private prisons, detention centres, centres for the application of certain penal measures [e.g., centres for the treatment of psychiatric disorders, centres for the treatment of addictions etc.])

(8) Persons under electronic surveillance/electronic monitoring


#### Table 4. 4.3 Age and criminal responsibility


Table 4.4.4 Legal status of prison population

*Pre-trial detainees*: Categories included/excluded:

(1) Untried detainees (no court decision has been reached yet);

(2) Detainees found guilty but who have not yet received a sentence yet;

(3) Sentenced prisoners who have appealed or who are within the statutory limit for doing so;

(4) Detainees who have not received a final sentence yet, but who started serving a prison sentence in advance;

(5) *Sentenced prisoners* (5): Categories included/excluded (apart from those with final sentence)

(5.1): Persons detained for fine conversion reasons (fine defaulters);

(5.2): Persons detained because of the revocation, suspension or annulment of the conditional release or probation.

# **4.5 Sources**

Table 4.5 Sources (1/2)



Table 4.5 Sources (2/2)

# **5 Probation Statistics**

# **5.1 General comments**

#### 5.1.1 Introduction

This chapter provides information on the number and the characteristics of *probationers*, that is to say persons placed under the supervision of probation agencies, as well as on the staff and work of these agencies. The Council of Europe's Recommendation CM/Rec(2014)4 defines a **probation agency** as "a body responsible for the execution in the community of sanctions and measures defined by law and imposed on an offender. Its tasks include a range of activities and interventions, which involve supervision, guidance and assistance aiming at the social inclusion of offenders, as well as at contributing to community safety. It may also, depending on the national legal system, implement one or more of the following functions: providing information and advice to judicial and other deciding authorities to help them reach informed and just decisions; providing guidance and support to offenders while in custody in order to prepare their release and resettlement; monitoring and assistance to persons subject to early release; restorative justice interventions; and offering assistance to victims of crime. A probation agency may also be, depending on the national legal system, the 'agency responsible for supervising persons under electronic monitoring'". In that context, the Council of Europe's Recommendation CM/Rec(2017)3 states that "the expression 'community sanctions and measures' means sanctions and measures which maintain suspects or offenders in the community and involve some restrictions on their liberty through the imposition of conditions and/or obligations. The term designates any sanction imposed by a judicial or administrative authority, and any measure taken before or instead of a decision on a sanction, as well as ways of enforcing a sentence of imprisonment outside a prison establishment".

The definitions of the Council of Europe reflect the wide variety of the sanctions and measures placed under the generic term of *community* sanctions and measures in Europe, which in turn explains the broad range of functions fulfilled by the European probation agencies. In particular, *probation* is used as a generic term that includes both the cases in which a person found guilty by a court is released by that court without imprisonment, but subject to conditions that will be supervised by a probation agency (a procedure known as probation in its strict sense) as well as the cases in which an inmate is conditionally released from imprisonment (a procedure known in many countries as *parole*), as long as he or she is placed under supervision of a probation agency. The extent of that supervision, however, differs considerably from one country to another.

Some countries have a specific Probation Agency and others a Prison and Probation Administration. Independently of that within the same country there may be more than one agency or administration. The latter are the same that were listed in Chapter 4 of the European Sourcebook (Prison Statistics): Bosnia and Herzegovina, Spain, and the United Kingdom.

The indicators presented in this chapter include the annual number of entries on probation and the annual number of releases from it during the years 2011 to 2016 (known respectively as the *flow of entries* and the *flow of exits*), as well as the number of persons effectively placed under the supervision of probation agencies on 31st December of each of these years (*stock of probationers*), the staff working in these agencies on 31 December 2015 by type of staff, and the number of written reports produced by them during the year 2015. The stock on 31 December 2015 and the flow of entries during 2015 are also broken down by type of supervision, while the flow of exits during that same year is a breakdown by type of exits.

Probation is placed at the end of the criminal justice process and has only a remote and indirect relationship with crime rates; instead, it is dependent on the penal policy of each country, which may or may not promote the use of community sanctions and measures. Furthermore, the interpretation of probation rates is not straightforward. In fact, "there is no 'magic formula' to estimate a rate of probationers that would be appropriate for a country. The reason is that probationers are serving community sanctions and measures, which are frequently referred to as alternatives to imprisonment because they aim at the social inclusion of the offender by keeping him/her in the community. Consequently, the probation rate cannot be interpreted without comparing it to the prison population rate" (Aebi, Hashimoto & Tiago, 2020: 15)33. Research based on comparisons of trends in probation rates, prison population rates and crime rates suggest that, at least in some countries, community sanctions and measures are not really being used as alternatives to imprisonment, but rather as supplementary sanctions, hence 'widening the net' of European criminal justice systems34.

Finally, and similarly to what happens with all the figures based on criminal justice statistics presented in the European Sourcebook, there are also differences across countries that do not reflect substantial dissimilarities but are merely due to the statistical counting rules applied to collect them (particularly relevant in that perspective is the counting unit used in probation statistics), or to other legal, statistical, or criminal policy factors. Basic information on such differences is presented under the heading *Technical information* (5.3), while further information on the use of probation can be found in the *Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics* (SPACE II) available online at www.unil.ch/space.

#### *The 'stock' and 'flow' perspectives*

As it was the case with prison statistics (see Chapter 4 of the European Sourcebook), data on probation populations can be described from two perspectives, which generate different but equally important results. The first perspective refers to 'how many probationers are under the supervision of probation agencies on a given day' (*stock*). The second perspective refers to 'how many persons were placed under the supervision of probation agencies during the course of the year' (*flow of entries*) and to 'how many probation services ceased to be under the supervision of probation agencies during the course of the year' (*flow of exits*). Both perspectives are also interrelated, in such a way that the stock of probationers on 31st December of a given year is influenced by the flows of entries and exits during that year, but also by the number of persons placed under the supervision of probation agencies during the previous years who are still under that supervision. The situation is hence identical to the one described when introducing prison statistics, which means that the stock data cannot easily be compared to the data presented in the first three chapters of the European Sourcebook, which usually uses a flow perspective (for example, the annual number of offences recorded by the police, of cases treated by the prosecution services, or of persons convicted).

Regarding probation populations, the following data were requested:


<sup>33</sup> *Aebi, M. F., Hashimoto, Y. Z. & Tiago, M. M.* (2020). Probation and Prisons in Europe 2019: Key Findings of the SPACE reports. Strasbourg: Council of Europe.

<sup>34</sup> *Aebi, M.F., Delgrande, N. & Marguet, Y.* (2015). Have community sanctions and measures widened the net of the European criminal justice systems? Punishment & Society, 17(5): 575–597.

	- o sociodemographic characteristics: women, minors, and foreigners (Table 5.2.2.2);
	- o type of supervision: Supervision before a final sentence, fully suspended custodial sanctions with probation, Partially suspended custodial sentences with probation, Conditional pardon or conditional discharge (with probation), Community service, Electronic monitoring, Home arrest (curfew orders), Semi-liberty, Treatment, Mixed orders, Supervision after conditional release from prison, and the residual category "other" (Table 5.2.2.3).

reports, Advisory reports with respect to conditional release, and the residual category "other reports" (Table 5.2.5).

### 5.1.2 Quality of the data

Most of the probation data included in this edition of the *European Sourcebook* come from the *Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics* (SPACE. II)35. The data validation procedure did not reveal major inconsistencies.

Up to 37 countries provided data on the stock of probationers for at least one year of the series, although a comparison between 2011 and 2016 is possible for only 29 of them

Twenty-nine countries provided data on the percentage of females among their probationers in 2015. Most of the countries (23) in which minors are included in the probation population provided data on them. However, only 18 countries provided data on the flow on the percentage of foreigners

Few countries provided data on the distribution of probationers by type of supervision on 31 December 2015.

Up to 37 countries provided data on the flow of probationers for at least one year of the series, although a comparison between 2011 and 2016 is possible for only 33 of them. The percentages of countries that provided data on the number of females, minors, and foreigners in the flow of entries during 2015 are similar to the ones observed for stock data. Likewise, only few countries provided data on the distribution of the flow of probationers during 2015 by type of supervision.

Thirty-three countries provided data on their probation staff, but only 14 were able to do so for the number of written reports produced by that staff.

#### 5.1.3 Results

There were considerable differences between the countries as regards the total number of persons under the supervision of probation agencies in 2015. The rates per 100 000 population ranged from 3 (Serbia) to 866 (Georgia). Such differences reflect the recent development of supervision by probation agencies in many countries as well as —to a larger extent— the different definitions of the concept. In particular, the extent of what precisely means being under the supervision of an agency varies widely across countries. For example, when one compares the low number of probation staff to the high number of probationers observed in some countries, it seems clear that the level of the supervision cannot be the same as the one provided in countries where the ratio staff/probationers is lower. In particular, it would seem that, in some countries, inmates conditionally released are formally placed under the supervision of probation agencies, but that placement does not imply a personal follow up by probation staff. This corroborates that, as we mentioned in the

<sup>35</sup> See www.unil.ch/space.

introduction, cross-national comparisons of the rates of persons under the supervision of probation agencies are misleading.

The ratio of probation staff per 100 probationers varies from less than one member of staff per 100 probationers (in Greece) to 10 or 12 per 100 in some Nordic countries. The average number of reports produced by that staff during 2015 differs considerably from one country to the other, ranging from one to 86, which corroborates that figures are not comparable because the tasks of probation agencies are not equivalent as far as the production of reports is concerned.

The average percentage of women under the supervision of probation agencies is 10%. This is a low percentage, but it represents the double of the percentage observed in the prison population (see Chapter 4). In general, the percentage of women on probation corroborates the differential implication of men and women in delinquency. In particular, the difference between the percentage of women on probation and in prison corroborates that the difference comes mainly from the lesser involvement of women in violent offences, which are overrepresented among the prison population.

The average percentage of foreigners on probation is 11%, which corroborates that it is much more difficult for them than for nationals to be placed on probation. The main reason is that quite often foreigners do not have a stable residence in the country where they were sentenced. This interpretation is corroborated through a comparison with the higher percentage of foreigners among inmates (roughly 16% on average, according to the information provided in Chapter 4). It must be mentioned, however, that the majority of probation agencies (28 out of 46) were unable to provide information on the nationality of their probationers.

The percentage of minors on probation is slightly higher than that of minors in prison, but that can be explained by the fact that, in most countries, minors are not included in the prison population. At the level of probation, there are also several agencies that do not include minors and, among those that include them, the differences are sometimes striking.

From 2011 to 2016, the rate of probationers per 100,000 population increased in a majority of countries. As can be seen in Table 5.2.1.1, in 17 out of the 29 probation agencies that provided the necessary data, the 2016 probation population rate (stock) was more than 5% higher than in 2011; in 11 the 2016 rate was more than 5% higher than that of 2011; while in Austria both rates were comparable.

Similarly, in 19 out of the 33 probation agencies that provided the necessary data, the 2016 rate of entries (flow of entries) was more than 5% higher than in 2011. In three prison administrations, the rates were comparable (the 2016 flow of entries was up to 5% lower or higher than that of 2011), and in 11 prison administrations, the 2016 flow of entries was more than 5% higher than that of 2011.

Notes on Tables 5.2.4 and 5.2.5


# **5.2 Tables**

#### 5.2.1 Probation population: Stock of probationers

Table 5.2.1.1 Probation population rate per 100 000 population (stock of probationers) on 31 December



Table 5.2.1.2 Percentage of women, minors, and foreigners in the probation population on 31 December 2015


Table 5.2.1.3 Distribution of the probationers under the supervision of probation agencies on 31st December 2015 by type of supervision (1/2) *of which %:*



#### 5.2.2 Probation population: Flow of entries in probation


Table 5.2.2.1 Flow of entries on probation per 100 000 population


Table 5.2.2.2 Percentage of women, minors, and foreigners in the flow of entries in probation during 2015


Table 5.2.2.3 Distribution of the probationers placed under the supervision of probation agencies during 2015 (flow of entries) by type of supervision (1/2)



### 5.2.3 Probation population: Flow of exits from probation

Table 5.2.3 Number of persons that ceased to be under the supervision of probation agencies (flow of exits from probation) during the year 2015, by type of exit


### 5.2.4 Staff of probation agencies


Table 5.2.4 Staff of probation agencies on 31st December 2015, by type of staff

#### 5.2.5 Reports produced by probation agencies

Table 5.2.5 Number of written reports produced probation agencies during 2015, by type of report


Notes on Tables 5.2.4 and 5.2.5


# **5.3 Technical information**

This section provides information on the organisation of probation agencies in each country. It is based on a section created in collaboration with the Confederation of European Probation (CEP) for the fifth edition of the European Sourcebook36. The section has been updated with the information collected for this sixth edition of the Sourcebook and with data from the SPACE II Council of Europe Penal Statistics.

5.3.1 The structure and organisation of Probation Agencies

All countries have a probation agency or an institution that fulfils the typical tasks of a probation agency, but under a different name (see the comments to Table 5.3.1.1). In 25 countries, that agency is independent from the prison agency, in 14 countries there is only one prison and probation administration, and in Switzerland their status differs across cantons. The types and competencies of probation agencies are described in Table 5.3.1.1 and the notes to it.

<sup>36</sup> The following experts of the CEP contributed to Section 5.3.1 of the previous edition (2014) of the European Sourcebook: Bernd Glaeser (NEUSTART, Wien, Austria), Jana Spero (Ministry of Justice, Zagreb, Croatia), Michal Karban (Probation and Mediation Service, Prague, Czech Republic), Andri Ahven ( Ministry of Justice, Tallinn, Estonia), Roberta Palmisano (Office for Studies Research Legislation and International Relations, Rome, Italy), Mariella Camilleri (Department of Probation and Parole, Valetta, Malta), Valeriu Melinte and Alisa Simicevscaia (Oficul Central de Probaţiune, Chişinău, Moldova), Martine Wiekeraad, Reclassering Nederland, Utrecht, Netherlands), Evelina Obersterescu (Ministry of Justice, Bucharest, Romania), Ján Evin (Ministry of Justice, Bratislava, Slovak Republic), Mats Johansson (Swedish Prison and Probation Service, Norrköping (Sweden), and Francesca Emmett (National Offenders Management Service, Warrington, UK: England & Wales).


Table 5.3.1.1 Type and competency of the probation agencies (or equivalent bodies)

#### Comments to Table 5.3.1.1 (1/3)


#### Comments to Table 5.3.1.1 (2/3)


# 5.3.2 Description of data recording methods for Tables on probation

# *Stock data*

The reference date for stock data is 31st December, but in Scotland is 31st March, in Sweden 1st October, while in France, Latvia, and the Russian Federation is the following day (1st January of the following year)

# *Minors*

Minors are included in the figures provided by the majority of countries. The details are presented in the following Table.


## *Counting unit*

In most countries, the counting unit used in probation statistics is the person. The details are presented in the following Table. The counting unit is:


Notes on the counting unit


### 5.3.3 Electronic monitoring

Implementation of electronic monitoring (EM) across Europe by technique and type of EM




# **5.4 Sources**

The vast majority of data on stock and flow from 2011 to 2016 are taken from the SPACE II Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics37, available at www.unil.ch/ space. Additional sources include


<sup>37</sup> See, e.g., *Aebi, M. F., & Chopin, J.* (2017). SPACE II – 2016 – Council of Europe Annual Penal Statistics: Persons under the supervision of probation agencies. Strasbourg: Council of Europe

# **6 National Victimisation Surveys**

# **6.1 General comments**

#### 6.1.1 Introduction

Victimisation surveys started in the 1970s to give another estimate of crime experienced in a country to enhance the figures of crime recorded by the police. However, since then they have developed extensively to give estimates of many other aspects of how the population of a country interacts with social conditions and with the criminal justice system. Originally directed at households only, they have also developed to research prevalence of crime and use of crime prevention measures in business and government agencies. They have proved particularly useful in looking at the experience of new types of crime such as cybercrime and computer fraud. A discussion of the wide range of other issues covered by recent victimisation surveys in European countries can be found in section 6.4.

This chapter provides information on the national victimisation surveys carried out in countries participating in the European Sourcebook. To improve comparability with other types of crime data included in the different editions of the European Sourcebook, data from national victimisation surveys were collected for six different years: 1990, 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 201538.

Readers should keep in mind that the results of national victimisation surveys conducted in different countries cannot be directly compared because of the differences in methodology. Indeed, even in the same country, methodologies and sample sizes do not remain the same since many countries are developing their victimisation surveys in an attempt to measure new types of crime, cover new types of victim and measure new aspects of their criminal justice systems. Such developments are often hampered by shortages in resources. To appreciate the extent to which comparisons are able to be made, the original documents for each country should be consulted. In this chapter web references are given throughout but especially in Tables 6.1.4 and 6.4.

This chapter has been expanded from previous editions which concentrated on households, to include some other types of surveys: e.g., section 6.1.6.1. mentions the national business surveys that are conducted and section 6.2.11 considers cybercrime against businesses. The police crime data in chapter 1 includes all crimes reported to the police, whether from individuals, businesses, or government organisations.

This chapter also does not include data from local or regional surveys in individual countries. Neither does it cover cross-national victimisation surveys that have been carried by groups of countries or international bodies from time to time: examples are:

The International Crime Victim Survey that was carried out from 1989 to 2005 in many European countries39.

The EU-ICS (European Union Crime and Safety Survey) a one-time survey carried out in 2005.40

In the past, some countries used the ICVS as an alternative to a national survey. Thus, we include Table 6.1.1.to show 23 European countries that participated in different sweeps of the ICVS. Others have used ICVS methodology or questions as a basis for their own surveys.

<sup>38</sup> For a review of the victimisation surveys carried out in the EU countries since their first developments in the 1960s until 2008 see *Aebi M.F. & Linde A.* (2010). A review of victimisation surveys in Europe from 1970 to 2010 in *Van Dijk, J., Mayhew, P, Van Kesteren, J., Aebi, M.F. & Linde, A.* (Eds) Final Report on the study of crime victimisation (pp.D1-D76) Tilburg: Intervict/PrismaPrint Tilburg.: available online at http://www3.unil.ch/wpmu/icvs/key-publications.

<sup>39</sup> A full list of ICVS publications and all details of the survey can be found at http://www.unil.ch/icvs.

<sup>40</sup> For full details see http://www.worldsocialscience.org/documents/european-crime-safety-surveyeu-ics.pdf.


Table 6.1.1. European countries participating in the different sweeps of the ICVS with national samples

6.1.2 Data collected on Victimisation Surveys for the European Sourcebook

The following data on national victimisation surveys was requested from all countries contributing to the Sourcebook:

	- i. Bodily injury/assault
	- ii. Sexual assault
	- iii. Robbery
	- iv. Theft of personal property
	- v. Theft of a motor vehicle
	- vi. Theft by means of domestic burglary
	- vii. Corruption

A summary of definitions is at Table 6.1.5 and separate more detailed tables by offence can be found in Tables 6.2.1.3 to 6.2.9.2

	- i. Prevalence and incidence of victimisation for the last 12 months and
	- ii. Percentages of victims reporting to the police

For the following offences: (see Tables 6.2.1.1. to 6.2.7.1)


Not all countries answered the questionnaire about national victimisation surveys and those that answered did not always reply for each sweep of the ESB. Of the 38 countries who replied five (Greece, Kosovo, Malta, Russian Federation and Slovak Republic) had never conducted a national victimisation survey. Fourteen others conduct a periodical national victimisation survey: see table 6.1.2.1 for a list of countries and survey frequency. Another 19 countries do not conduct a periodical survey but have conducted one or more national or regional victimisation surveys: see Table 6.1.2.2 for a list of countries. More details and comments are given in Table 6.1.2.3.


Table 6.1.2.1 Countries with periodical national victimisation surveys and frequency of such surveys




Table 6.1.2.3 National victimisation surveys: general comments and references

6.1.3 Standard wording of the questions included in national victimisation surveys

Table 6.1.3.1 shows the wording of the questions for the different offences included in the surveys, as well as for trust in the police and feelings of safety. The table provides the standard wording inspired by the ICVS questionnaire, specifying the countries that applied a similar wording, those that did not include the question in their survey, and those that used a different wording. For the latter, the tables included in section 6.2 provide the wording used in their questionnaire

Offence/ Topic Standard wording Similar wording Different wording Question not included Bodily injury *Have you been personally attacked (e.g. someone hit you with his/her fists, kicked you, or used force or violence in any way?)* 12 countries; Belgium, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, UK: Northern Ireland, UK: Scotland 10 countries: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark Finland, France, Iceland, Lithuania, Norway, Turkey, UK: England & Wales. 1 country: Portugal Sexual assault *Has anyone grabbed you, touched you or assaulted you for sexual reasons in a really offensive way?* 6 countries: Belgium, Estonia, Georgia, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden 12 countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Lithuania, Portugal, Turkey, UK: England & Wales, UK: Scotland 5 countries: Germany, Ireland, Norway, Poland, UK: Northern Ireland Robbery *Has anyone stolen from you by using force or threatening you?* 11 countries: Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Georgia, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Poland, Sweden 10 countries: Czech Republic, Finland, France, Lithuania, Netherlands, Portugal, Turkey, UK: England & Wales, UK: Northern Ireland, UK: Scotland 2 countries: Iceland, Norway Theft of personal property *Have you personally been the victim of a theft of personal property such as pickpocketing or theft of a purse, wallet, clothing, jewellery, sports equipment, etc.?* 7 countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Germany, Italy, Poland 15 countries: Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, UK: England & Wales, UK: Northern Ireland, UK: Scotland 0 countries Theft of a motor vehicle *Have you or other members of your household had any of their cars, vans or trucks, stolen?* 11 countries: Bulgaria, Estonia, Georgia, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, UK: Scotland, UK: Northern Ireland 8 countries: Belgium, Croatia, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Poland, Turkey, UK: England & Wales, 4 countries: Denmark, Iceland, Lithuania Norway

Table 6.1.3.1 Wording of the questions included in national victimisation surveys (1/2)


Table 6.1.3.1 Wording of the questions included in national victimisation surveys (2/2)



6.1.4 Completeness and quality of the data

Up to 23 countries answered the questions on the wording of the different questions and the methodology of the surveys.

Regarding the completeness of the surveys:


The indicator most commonly used by countries was the prevalence of victimisation: e.g., the percentage of households/individuals victimised) followed by the percentage of victims that reported the offence to the police, while the incidence of victimisation was reported less frequently. Seventeen countries provided data on the answers to the questions on trust in the police and the quality of the job of the police and 21 provided data on feelings of safety.

No results from national victimisation surveys can be exact because of the sampling errors associated with carrying out surveys on a finite sample of the population. This contrasts with figures in other chapters of the sourcebook that are a complete record of events or persons recorded by the criminal justice system. Sample sizes are shown in Table 6.3.1. and many countries give ranges associated with their survey results. Such ranges should be taken into account when interpreting national results.

# 6.1.5 Main Results

Among the offences included in this section, theft of personal property showed the highest prevalence in Europe in 2015 and sexual assault the lowest one. The percentage of respondents feeling unsafe or very unsafe on the street after dark varies widely across countries; but, with only a couple of exceptions, it was lower than 50%. Also, with a couple of exceptions, the percentage of respondents thinking that the police were doing a good or very good job in controlling crime in the local area was higher than 50%. However, data showed no direct correlation between confidence in the police and unsafety in the streets after dark.

6.1.6. Other victimisation surveys carried out by European countries.

Data and metadata contained in Chapter 6 are those associated with national household victimisation surveys. However, crime data included in Chapter 1 is the total of crimes recorded by the police and this will include crimes other than against those living in households. Readers may be interested in the following comments and sources:

#### *Business and commercial surveys*

Many crimes recorded by the police are committed against businesses and other commercial organisations. Measuring such crimes is problematic and a good discussion of difficulties and attempts to overcome them can be found in Killias et al. (2011)41. Business surveys have been carried out from time to time by only a small number of countries in Europe. Most other countries are content to join crossnational attempts to measure crime against business (see section 6.1.6.2). The first cross-national business crime survey - using a methodology similar to the ICVS was conducted in 1994 in the Czech Republic, Germany, Hungary, Netherlands, Switzerland, and the UK. National surveys have included:


#### *Cross-national surveys of different types of victim*

Another related group of surveys not covered by this chapter are those on specific types of victims, either on a national or cross-national basis: examples are:

<sup>41</sup> *Killias et al.* (2011) A survey of Business crime in Switzerland: on the difficulties of field research, see: https://www.zora.uzh.ch/id/eprint/58433/.

<sup>42</sup> *Directie Criminaliteitspreventie* (1990). Bedrijfsleven en Criminaliteit, Kerngetallen uit de eerste Nederlandse slachtofferenquet onder bedrijven, Ministerie van Justitie, Den Haag.


<sup>43</sup> See http://fra.europa.eu/en/project/2011/eu-midis-european-union-minorities-and-discrimination-survey.

<sup>44</sup> See http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2014/vaw-survey-main-results.

<sup>45</sup> See *Can, M., Reep-van be Burgh, M. & Junger, M.* (2018). Victims of Cybercrime in Europe. A review of victim surveys https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s40163-018-0079-3.

<sup>46</sup> The 4th biennial Global Economic Crime Survey is available for download at pwc.com/crimesurvey.

<sup>47</sup> For a brief description see *Del Frate, A.A.* (2012) The International Crime Business Survey: Findings from Nine Central-Eastern European Cities. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, September 2004, Volume 10, Issue 2–3, pp 137–161

# **6.2 Tables from household victimisation surveys**

#### 6.2.1 Bodily injury



Figures in brackets see table 6.2.1.3. and notes on tables 6.2.1.1. to 6.2.9.2.


Table 6.2.1.2 Bodily injury (assault) victimisation: Percentage of victims reporting to the police

Figures in brackets see table 6.2.1.3. and notes on tables 6.2.1.1. to 6.2.9.2.



Similar definition: Belgium, Croatia, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, UK: Northern Ireland, UK: Scotland.

#### 6.2.2 Sexual assault


Table 6.2.2.1 Prevalence of sexual assault victimisation during the last 12 months according to national victimisation surveys

Figures in brackets see table 6.2.2.3. and notes on tables 6.2.1.1. to 6.2.9.2.



Figures in brackets see table 6.2.2.3. and notes on tables 6.2.1.1. to 6.2.9.2.

Table 6.2.2.3 Sexual assault: Deviations from the ICVS standard wording of the question


Similar definition: Belgium, Estonia, Georgia, Italy, Netherlands, Sweden. Question not included: Germany, Ireland, Poland, UK: Northern Ireland.

#### 6.2.3 Robbery



Figures in brackets see table 6.2.3.3. and notes on tables 6.2.1.1. to 6.2.9.2.


Table 6.2.3.2 Robbery: Percentage of victims reporting to the police

Figures in brackets see table 6.2.3.3. and notes on tables 6.2.1.1. to 6.2.9.2.


Table 6.2.3.3 Robbery: Deviations from the standard ICVS wording of the question

Similar definition: Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Estonia, Georgia, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden Question not included: Finland

### 6.2.4 Theft of personal property



Figures in brackets see table 6.2.1.3. and notes on tables 6.2.1.1. to 6.2.9.2.


Table 6.2.4.2. Theft of personal property: Percentage of victims reporting to the police

Figures in brackets see table 6.2.4.3. and notes on tables 6.2.1.1. to 6.2.9.2.



Table 6.2.4.3 Theft of personal property: Deviations from the standard ICVS wording of the question (1/2)


Similar definition: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Italy, Poland.

### 6.2.5 Theft of a motor vehicle



Figures in brackets see table 6.2.5.3. and notes on tables 6.2.1.1. to 6.2.9.2.


Table 6.2.5.2 Theft of a motor vehicle: Percentage of victims reporting to the police

Figures in brackets see table 6.2.5.3. and notes on tables 6.2.1.1. to 6.2.9.2.



Similar wording: Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden, UK: Northern Ireland, UK: Scotland. Question not included: Denmark, Lithuania.

6.2.6 Theft by means of domestic burglary


Table 6.2.6.1 Prevalence of theft by means of domestic burglary victimisation during the last 12 months according to national victimisation surveys

Figures in brackets see table 6.2.6.3. and notes on tables 6.2.1.1. to 6.2.9.2.


Table 6.2.6.2 Theft by means of domestic burglary: Percentage of victims reporting to the police

Figures in brackets see table 6.2.6.3. and notes on tables 6.2.1.1. to 6.2.9.2.



Similar wording: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, UK: England & Wales, UK: Northern Ireland. Question not included: Denmark, Lithuania.

#### 6.2.7 Corruption

Table 6.2.7.1 Prevalence of corruption victimisation during the last 12 months according to national victimisation surveys


Table 6.2.7.2 Corruption: Percentage of victims reporting to the police


Table 6.2.7.3 Corruption: Deviations from the standard wording of the question


Similar wording: Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia.

Question not included: Bulgaria, Croatia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Turkey, UK: England & Wales, UK: Northern Ireland, UK: Scotland.

#### 6.2.8 Trust in the police



Figures in brackets see table 6.2.8.2 and notes on tables 6.2.1.1. to 6.2.9.2.



Similar wording: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Georgia, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland. Question not included: Denmark

#### 6.2.9 Feelings of safety



Figures in brackets see table 6.2.9.2. and notes on tables 6.2.1.1. to 6.2.9.2.

Table 6.2.9.2 Feelings of security: Deviations from the ICVS standard wording of the question


Similar wording: Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, UK: England & Wales, UK: Northern Ireland, UK: Scotland. Question not included: Denmark.


Notes on Tables 6.2.1.1 to 6.2.9.2


Table 6.9.2.3 Years of reference

#### 6.2.10 Computer/cybercrime against individuals

This section includes information on estimates of computer or cybercrime against victims, as measured by household surveys. Many commentators believe that computer crime in various forms, measured as reported in household surveys, is of the same order of magnitude as 'traditional' crime discussed throughout the Sourcebook. Some surveys confirm this.

This section is not comprehensive as collection of this data was not an integral part of the Sourcebook process. Only a few countries supplied details. Neither were standards or definitions set by Sourcebook editors for the collection of cybercrime numbers. Details vary considerably from one country to another, as can be seen from Table 6.2.10.1. A selection of cybercrime data available is given Table 6.2.10.2, for the most recent year. Differences are likely to be accounted for by differences in definitions and scope of the questions, although there is good comparability between the British and the Dutch sources for different types of cybercrime.




#### 6.2.11 Computer/cybercrime against companies and charities

A separate issue is the incidence of computer/cybercrime against companies, charities, and other organisations, which is acknowledged by law enforcement authorities and governments as a growing problem. Some countries have set up cyber security breach surveys. The purpose of such surveys is not only to gain an understanding of the amount of such cybercrime against companies, charities, NGOs, etc. but to discover the crime prevention methods, training of staff and investment that companies have found necessary to cope with this new phenomenon, as well as the success of such measures. They tend to be both qualitative and quantitative, based on a large questionnaire and interviews. Up to 5,000 companies, charities, and NGOs, etc. can take part and often the surveys are carried out annually.

It is not within the remit of this chapter to collect such information, which would be a considerable task, but it is mentioned here for completeness. Table 6.2.11.1 gives an indication of the extent of such surveys for Germany and for the UK. Overall results are similar and show significant differences by size of company and by type of organisation.



# **6.3 Technical information on household surveys**

The following tables include information on the methodology applied in the different countries for their victimisation surveys.

Table 6.3.1 shows the size of the samples used in each survey. It can be seen that they have been gradually increasing during the 20 years under observation. By 2010, 10 countries out of 20 used samples of more than 10,000 households.

Table 6.3.2 specifies the kind of sample design used in the national surveys. In general, the most common design is multistage probability sample.

Table 6.3.3 shows the level of representativeness of the national samples used in the surveys.

Table 6.3.4 shows the response rate of the surveys. It can be seen that such rate has been generally decreasing since 2000. The reliability of response rates reported reaching 100% seems doubtful.

Table 6.3.5 shows the age range of people interviewed. The minimum age is usually 15-16 years old. Most countries do not fix a maximum age.

Table 6.3.6 shows the survey modes that have been used for each year of reference. CATI and CAPI are the most frequent modes of survey.


Table 6.3.1 Sample size of the national victimisation surveys

Figures in brackets see notes on tables 6.3.1. to 6.3.6




Table 6.3.3. Sample representativeness of national victimisation surveys



Note: The methodology applied for computing the response rate varies from country to country. Rates reaching 100% must be interpreted cautiously and are therefore presented in brackets


Table 6.3.5 Age range of respondents in national victimisation surveys


Table 6.3.6 Survey mode of national victimisation surveys


Notes on Tables 6.3.1-6.3.6

# **6.4 Sources of national metadata and results**



# **6.5 Other topics covered by national victimisation surveys in Europe**

Chapter 6 has concentrated on prevalence and incidence of crime and respondents' views about the work of the police and safety issues. However, as countries have become more experienced with their use of victimisation surveys, they have realised that many other topics can be covered successfully. This section considers the most recent questionnaires used in Denmark, Germany, Sweden, and UK: England & Wales as examples of how wide the possibilities have become.

# *Denmark*

As well as the questions already covered in this chapter, Table 6.5.1 presents additional topics covered in the Danish victimisation surveys over time.

Table 6.5.1 Additional topics covered in the Danish Victimisation Survey


# *Germany*

As well as the questions already covered in this chapter, the 2017 German Victimisation Survey questionnaire covers the topics in Table 6.5.2. The questionnaire is available in three languages, German, Turkish and Russian to cope with the minority populations living in Germany. More detail can be found in the publication Victimisation Surveys in Germany – English Summaries by Leitgöb-Guzy, Birkel and Mischkowitz (Eds.)48.



### *Sweden*

As well as the questions already covered in this chapter, the 2017 German Victimisation Survey questionnaire covers the topics in Table 6.5.3. More details are available at: https://www.bra.se/bra-in-english/home/crime-and-statistics/swedishcrime-survey.html

Table 6.5.3 Additional topics covered in the Swedish Victimisation Survey


<sup>48</sup> See the publication by the Bundeskriminalamt at: https://www.bka.de/SharedDocs/Downloads/DE/Publikationen/Publikationsreihen/PolizeiUndForschung/1\_47\_3\_VictimisationSurveysInGermany\_Volume3.pdf?\_\_blob=publicationFile&v=3.

### *UK: England and Wales*

As well as the questions already covered in this chapter, the 2017 CSEW questionnaire covers the topics in Table 6.5.4. More detail can be found at: https://www.ons.gov.uk/file?uri=/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/methodologies/crimeandjusticemethodology/201718csewquestionnaire.pdf

Moreover, the demographic information collected on the respondents has also increased so that victims can be identified by characteristics such as their age, education, employment, and health.



# **Appendix I: Definitions**

# **1 Offences**

The offence definitions given hereafter are operational, not legal definitions ("standard" definitions). They were devised to allow national correspondents to provide the necessary data for their countries and to specify the scope of the statistical (and legal) definitions underlying their (police and conviction) statistics. Standard definitions were chosen in a way to maximize the number of countries that could meet them without reservation. Standard definitions are listed for police-recorded offences *and* for convictions, with the possibility to state for *both* levels, using an *include* / *exclude* checklist, whether national definitions deviate from the standard definition.

The following Tables 1 and 2 show which countries were able to meet the standard definitions in *all* respects (marked "*YES"*), which countries provided data, but did not fully meet the standard definition (marked "*NO"*) and which countries did not provide any figures in chapters 1 and / or 3 for certain offences (marked *"…"*). In a small number of cases, country responses were ambiguous or incomplete, thus making it unclear whether a certain definition had been fully met or not; the respective definitions are marked *"Y/N"* for these countries in the tables.

Table 1 refers to the police level, Table 2 to convictions. At the bottom of each table is indicated how many countries were able to meet the standard definitions. A high rate of deviation from the standard definition stands for substantial variation in definitions across Europe, while a low rate of deviation suggests rather uniform offence definitions across the continent.49 Consistency in definitions is rather high with respect to, for example, the definitions of robbery, domestic burglary, and sexual assault.

For those countries that were unable to meet the standard definition, the following text (after Table 2) shows the way in which their offence definitions deviated from the standard. If a deviation refers to only one level (police or convictions), this level is indicated in brackets.50 Otherwise, deviations refer to both levels.

Deviations are relatively frequent with respect to offences that are rather vague and hard to distinguish from related offences, such as bodily injury. As the detailed indications in the following sections will illustrate, the deviations are often related to problems in statistical recording of cases on the fringes to other offences, like assault leading to death. Such problems increase for offence groups between mere administrative and truly criminal offences, like major road traffic offences: Offences that are not defined as criminal in one country can and should typically not be *included*, while it is also difficult to *exclude* from a given offence group in another country offences that are considered criminal.

In order to ensure that the data correspond to changing legal and statistical situations and in general to improve comparability, some definitions have been changed in this edition. For three offences, the change was so significant that figures can only be compared very cautiously with earlier editions. This applies for major road traffic offences, which no longer require the committing of a severe road crime but instead it is sufficient if the offence is prosecuted in criminal proceedings (i.e.: not merely administrative ones). In addition, the definitions for the sexual offences of rape and sexual abuse of minors have been substantially modified. The definition of rape has been extended and, in line with legal developments, the focus on consent and the ability to validly give it was strengthened. This, accordingly, leads to a corresponding restriction of the offence definition of sexual abuse of minors. The offences of aggravated theft, cyber fraud and forgery of documents have been introduced to the Sourcebook for the first time in this edition.

How important are deviations in quantitative respect, and how much do they affect comparability? As a general rule, one may say that the inclusion or exclusion of "minor" offences (e.g., minor theft) has a greater impact on overall rates than deviations on serious but relatively rare offences, such as "assault leading to death".

<sup>49</sup> Compliance with standard definitions was analysed in more detail for the 5th edition of the Sourcebook in *Harrendorf, S.* (2018): Prospects, Problems, and Pitfalls in Comparative Analyses of Criminal Justice Data, Crime and Justice: A Review of Research 47, 159-207, and for the 4th edition in *Harrendorf, S.* (2012): Offence Definitions in the European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics and Their Influence on Data Quality and Comparability, European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research 18(1), 23-53.

<sup>50</sup> This does not necessarily mean that the rule was followed on the other level: It is also possible that data were not available, or the reply of the country was rather ambiguous or incomplete (also cf. Tables 1 and 2).


Table 1 .Standard definitions followed in all respects on police level (part 1)


Table 1 .Standard definitions followed in all respects on police level (part 2)


Table 1 .Standard definitions followed in all respects on police level (part 3)





Table 2 .Standard definitions followed in all respects on convictions level (part 3)

# 1.1 Total criminal offences

In principle, all offences subject to criminal proceedings should be *included*. This rule is, however, not trivial: There are some countries which follow a minor offence concept either excluding such offences from the criminal code (for example the 'wykroczenia' in Poland in cases of minor thefts etc.) or making them subject to special proceedings (for example most 'contraventions' in France which are handled by the police only) outside the criminal justice system. Sometimes they are recorded in police statistics, sometimes not.

Where possible, the figures *include:*


They *exclude*:


• Minor offences subject to proceedings outside the criminal justice system This means that the providers of the data (= national correspondents) were requested to ensure that "their" figures *included*, where available from their national statistics, "minor theft", "minor assault", etc.

# *1.1.1 Countries deviating from* include *rules:*

The following countries *exclude minor theft and other minor property offences* from their data:


Regarding *minor assault and other minor violent offences*, the following countries *exclude* this offence category from the total:


# *Criminal offences committed by minors* are *excluded* in:


# *Crimes according to a military penal code* are *excluded* in:


*Major road traffic offences* are only *excluded* in:


Regarding *all other criminal offences subject to criminal proceedings*, these are – in general (except for Germany and Slovenia on police level) – *included* in the police and conviction statistics of all countries. There are – however – some specific offence categories which are *excluded* sometimes.

For example, in Bulgaria police statistics *exclude* all crimes against the Republic of Bulgaria (treason, espionage, etc.), crimes against the country's defence capacity, military crimes, crimes against peace and humanity, and crimes committed abroad. In Germany, tax, and customs offences as well as offences against the security of the state (like treason, terrorism, etc.) and international crimes are *excluded*. Such exceptions will exist in many countries.

### *1.1.2 Countries deviating from* exclude *rules:*

*All traffic offences subject to proceedings outside the criminal justice system* are *included* in:


In the following countries, *traffic offences sanctioned by fines issued automatically by a technical system* are *included*:


*Administrative offences subject to proceedings outside the criminal justice system* are *included* in:


*Other minor offences subject to proceedings outside the criminal justice system* are *included* in:


1.2 Major road traffic offences

The definition of major road traffic offences has been revised for the 6th edition. Whereas previously only severe road traffic offences were *included*, it is now sufficient that the respective offences are prosecuted as *criminal* offences. The data for major road traffic offences in the 6th edition *will therefore not* be comparable with data provided in the 5th edition.

According to the standard definition, major road traffic offences mean road traffic offences subject to criminal proceedings. Where possible, the figures *include*:


They *exclude*:


# *1.2.1 Countries deviating from include rules:*

The following countries *exclude negligent homicide and negligent injury in road traffic*:


# *Dangerous or reckless driving* is *excluded* in:


In these countries *seriously endangering road traffic in other ways* is *excluded*:


*Driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol* is *excluded* in:


The following countries *exclude all other traffic offences subject to criminal proceedings*:


# *1.2.2 Countries deviating from* exclude *rules:*

*Offences committed outside road traffic* are *included* in:


The following countries *include all traffic offences subject to proceedings outside the criminal justice system* in their data:


# 1.3 Intentional homicide

According to the standard definition, *intentional homicide* means *intentional killing of a person.* Where possible, the figures *include:* 


They *exclude*:


# *1.3.1 Countries deviating from* include *rules:*

The following countries *exclude assault leading to death*: <sup>51</sup>


<sup>51</sup> As could be expected, many of these countries on the other hand *include* assault leading to death in bodily injury data.

These countries *exclude* cases of *euthanasia*:


# *Infanticide* is *excluded* in:


# Finally, *attempts* are *excluded* in:


# *1.3.2 Countries deviating from* exclude *rules:*

*Assistance with suicide* is *included* only in:


# Only four countries *include abortion*:


Some countries even *include negligent killings*:


A number of countries *include war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity*:


# 1.4 Bodily injury

According to the standard definition, *bodily injury* means *inflicting bodily injury on another person with intent*. Where possible, the figures *include*:


# They *exclude*:


# *1.4.1 Countries deviating from* include *rules:*

The following countries *exclude minor bodily injury*:


• Ukraine

Only Turkey on conviction level could not *include aggravated bodily injury*.

# *Bodily injury of a public servant* is *excluded* in:


# *Bodily injury in a domestic dispute* is *excluded* in:


# *Attempts* are *excluded* in:


# *1.4.2 Countries deviating from* exclude *rules:*

*Assault leading to death* is *included* in the following countries:52


<sup>52</sup> As could be expected, many of these countries on the other hand *exclude* assault leading to death from homicide data.


Threats are only *included* in:


*Assault only causing pain* is *included* in these countries:


*Sexual assault* is only *included* in Greece and Norway (both on police level).

The following countries even *include negligent bodily injury*:


# 1.5 Aggravated bodily injury

According to the standard definition, *aggravated bodily injury* means *inflicting serious (e.g., life-threatening or disabling) bodily injury to another person with intent, or under aggravated circumstances (use of weapons, or on a vulnerable victim)*. Cases of aggravated bodily are counted under the total of bodily injury as well. Where possible, the figures *include*:


# They *exclude*:


# *1.5.1 Countries deviating from* include *rules:*

All countries are able to *include serious and lasting bodily injury and life-threatening bodily injury*.

*Use of weapons (dangerous objects)* is *excluded* only in:


# *Particularly vulnerable victims* are *excluded* in the statistics of:


# *Attempts* are only *excluded* in:


# *1.5.2 Countries deviating from* exclude *rules:*

*Assault leading to death* is *included* in the data for the following countries:


All countries are able to *exclude mere threats and sexual assault* except from Norway on police level.

The following countries even *include negligent bodily injury:*


# 1.6 Sexual assault

The new standard definition for *sexual assault* is *physical sexual contact with a person against her/his will or with a person who cannot validly consent to sexual acts*. Where possible, the figures *include*:


# They *exclude*:


# *1.6.1 Countries deviating from* include *rules:*

*Acts considered as rape* are *excluded* in UK: England & Wales on conviction level.

*Acts considered as physical sexual abuse of a child* are *excluded* in Moldova on police level.

Moldova also *excludes attempts.*

Otherwise, all reporting countries could fully meet the *include* rules.

# *1.6.2 Countries deviating from* exclude *rules:*

Some countries actually report data based on a wider concept and thus *include verbal or any other form of non-physical molestation:*


# *Pornography* is only *included* in:


The following countries *include pimping*:


The list of countries which *include buying / offering paid sex* is shorter, but somewhat identical:


*Exhibitionism* is also only *included* in countries which seem to follow a very wide concept of sexual assault:


# 1.7 Rape

The definition of rape has been significantly extended compared to the 5th edition, in line with ongoing trends towards a legal model of rape centring around consent and the ability to give it. From this edition on, seemingly 'consensual' sexual acts are considered as rape if they are committed on/with persons unable to give their consent (like minors, severely intoxicated persons, etc.). Only for sexual acts *between minors,* some exceptions have been made from this general rule. Hence, rape data in the 6th edition *will not be comparable* to the data of the 5th edition.

According to the standard definition, *rape* means *sexual intercourse with a person against her/his will (per vaginam or other).* Where possible, the figures *include:*


# They *exclude*:


# *1.7.1 Countries deviating from* include *rules:*

Penetration other than vaginal is *excluded* from statistics on rape in:


# *Violent intra-marital intercourse* is *included* by all countries.

*Sexual intercourse without force with a helpless person* is *excluded* in the following countries:


*Sexual intercourse of an adult with a child or any other person who cannot validly consent* is *excluded* in:


Just two countries *exclude* attempts:


# *1.7.2 Countries deviating from* exclude *rules:*

*Sexual intercourse between children, if factually consented by both partners* is *included* in:


*Sexual intercourse between a child and a juvenile (age difference max. 3 years)* is *included* in the rape statistics of:


1.8 Sexual abuse of a child

As a consequence of the extension of the definition of rape, sexual intercourse with a child is now always considered rape (see above) and was accordingly *excluded* here. The exceptions for certain sexual activities *between minors* are similar to the ones for rape. The data will not be comparable with the previous editions.

According to the standard definition, *any form of physical sexual contact of a person above the age of sexual consent with a person below the age of sexual consent, except of sexual intercourse*  (because the latter falls under the category of rape). Where possible, the figures *include*:


They *exclude*:


### *1.8.1 Age of consent*


Table 3.Age of consent for sexual abuse of a child by country**53**.

*Table 3* above shows the age of consent, i.e., the age under which a minor cannot validly consent to have sexual contacts, for the responding countries.

*Romania* reported a differentiated approach, in which for some offences the age of consent is 13, but for other 15 or even 18 years.

### *1.8.2 Countries deviating from include rules:*

All countries are able to *include any form of sexual contact not amounting to (statutory) rape*  in their data.

*Attempts* are only *excluded* in Montenegro, Moldova, and Norway (police level).

#### *1.8.3 Countries deviating from* exclude *rules:*

*Verbal or any other form of non-physical molestation* of persons under the age of consent is *included* in the following countries:


<sup>53</sup> Ireland, Poland, Russian Federation, Slovak Republic, and Sweden didn't update the age of consent. Age is taken from the previous edition.

<sup>54</sup> For women minors the age of consent varies depending on when they reach sexual maturity.

<sup>55</sup> The age of consent is 14 if the partner is not more than three years older.

<sup>56</sup> The age of consent in Italy is 13 if the partner is not more than three years older.

*Child pornography* is *included* only in:


# *Acts considered as rape* are *included* in:


*Sexual intercourse between children, if factually consented by both partners* is *included* in:


*Sexual intercourse between a child and a juvenile (age difference max. 3 years)* is *included* in the rape statistics of:


# 1.9 Robbery

According to the standard definition, *robbery* means *stealing from a person with force or threat of force.* Where possible, the figures *include:*


They *exclude*:


# *1.9.1 Countries deviating from* include *rules:*

Countries *excluding muggings* are:


Only two countries *exclude theft immediately followed by force or threat of force used to keep hold of the stolen goods:*


*Attempts* are only *excluded* in Moldova and Montenegro (police level).

# *1.9.2 Countries deviating from* exclude *rules:*

*Pickpocketing* is only *included* in:


# *Extortion* is only *included* in:


# *Blackmailing* is *included* in:


# *Theft with force against property only* is *included* in:


# 1.10 Theft

According to the standard definition, *theft* means d*epriving a person or organization of property with the intent to keep it*. Where possible, the figures *include*:


# They *exclude*:


# *1.10.1 Countries deviating from include rules:*

*Minor (e.g., small value) theft* is *excluded* in:


Only Armenia, Montenegro, and Norway (each on police level) *exclude theft committed by means of burglary.*

Theft of motor vehicles is *excluded* in:


Apart from that, Estonia *excludes joyriding* with respect to the total of *theft*, while it is *included* in the subcategory *theft of a motor vehicle*.

*Theft by employees* is *excluded* in:


*Attempts* are *excluded* in:


# *1.10.2 Countries deviating from* exclude *rules:*

*Robbery* is *excluded* in every country.

*Fraud* is *included* in UK: Northern Ireland (conviction level) and UK: Scotland.

Only France (conviction level) and UK: England & Wales *includes receiving/handling stolen goods.*

# 1.11 Aggravated theft

According to the standard definition, *aggravated theft* means *theft under aggravating circumstances concerning the modus operandi or the kind of victim/property stolen*. Where possible, the figures *include*:


# They *exclude*:


# *1.11.1 Countries deviating from* include *rules:*

The following countries *exclude theft committed by means of burglary*:


# *All other cases of theft with force against property* is *excluded* in:


# *Theft using false or skeleton keys* is *excluded* in:


# *Theft of motor vehicles* is *excluded* in the statistics of:


# The following countries *exclude theft against vulnerable persons*:


# *Theft of weapons* is *excluded* in:


# *Theft of items of increased cultural or religious value* is *excluded* in:


# *Attempts* are only *excluded* in:


# *1.11.2 Countries deviating from* exclude *rules:*

*Robbery, fraud, and receiving/handling stolen goods* are only *included* in:


# 1.12 Theft of a motor vehicle

According to the standard definition, *theft of a motor vehicle* means *depriving a person or organization of a motor vehicle with the intent to keep it or to use it*. Where possible, the figures *include*:


# They *exclude*:


# *1.12.1 Countries deviating from* include *rules:*

The following countries *exclude joyriding*:


*Theft of trucks / lorries* is only *excluded* in Poland on police level and in Serbia on conviction level and *theft of motorcycles* additionally in Moldova (police level).

*Theft of motorboats* is *excluded* in these countries:


Only two countries *exclude theft of a motor vehicle using force against the vehicle or other property:*


# *Attempts* are *excluded* in:


# *1.12.2 Countries deviating from exclude rules:*

*Theft of motor vehicle parts* is *included* in:


# *Robbery* is only *included* in the following countries:


*Receiving and handling a stolen vehicle* is *included* in France (police level).

# 1.13 Theft by means of burglary

According to the standard definition, *burglary* means *theft from a closed part of a building or other premises after gaining access to it against the owners' will (e.g., by use of force against an object)*. Where possible, the figures *include*:


# They *exclude*:


# *1.13.1 Countries deviating from* include *rules:*

*Theft by means of domestic burglary* was only *excluded* in Serbia (police level).

All countries are able to *include theft from a factory, shop, office, etc.*

Only three countries *exclude theft from a military establishment:*


*Theft by using false keys* is *excluded* in:


*Attempts* are *excluded* in Armenia and Moldova on police level.

*1.13.2 Countries deviating from* exclude *rules:*

*Theft from a motor vehicle* is *included* in:


The following countries *include theft from a container*:


The group of countries including *theft from a vending machine* is almost identical:


Again, almost the same group of countries includes *theft from a parking meter*:


Finally, *theft from a fenced meadow / compound* is *included* in the statistics of:


# 1.14 Theft by means of domestic burglary

According to the standard definition, domestic burglary means theft from closed private premises after gaining access to them against the owner´s will (e.g., by use of force against an object). Where possible, the figures *include*:


# They *exclude*:


# *1.14.1 Countries deviating from include rules:*

*Theft from an attic or basement in a multi-dwelling building* is *excluded* in:


# *Theft from a secondary residence (even if unoccupied) and attempts* are *included* everywhere.

# *1.14.2 Countries deviating from* exclude *rules:*

These countries *include theft from a factory, shop, office, etc.*:


# *Theft from a detached shed, barn or stable* is *included* for the following countries:


# *Theft from a fenced meadow / compound* is *included* in the statistics of:


# 1.15 Fraud

According to the standard definition, *fraud* means *deceiving someone or taking advantage of someone's error with the intent to unlawfully gain financial benefits, thereby causing the deceived person to enter any operation that will be damaging to his or a third person's financial interests*. Where possible, the figures *include*:


They *exclude*:


### *1.15.1 Countries deviating from* include *rules:*

*Cyber fraud* is *excluded* in:


### *Attempts* are *excluded* in:


# *1.15.2 Countries deviating from* exclude *rules:*

Azerbaijan, Montenegro (police level) and Turkey (conviction level) are the only countries to *include receiving / handling stolen goods*.

*Forgery of documents, passports etc.* is *included* in:


The following countries *include tax and customs offences*:


A considerably large number of countries *include subsidy fraud:*


Even more countries *include fraud involving welfare payments:*


# *Money laundering* is only *included* in:

• Turkey (conviction level)

*Forgery of money / payment instruments* is *included* in the statistics of:


The following countries follow a rather broad concept of deception, thus *including consumption of goods and services* in their fraud data:


# *Breaching of trust / embezzlement* is *included* in:


# 1.16 Cyber fraud

According to the standard definition, *cyber fraud* means *fraud committed by means of computer-mediated communication, e.g., via the internet*. Where possible, the figures *include*:


They *exclude*:


*1.16.1 Countries deviating from include rules: Online banking fraud* is *included* everywhere.

*Online shopping fraud* is only *excluded* in:


Only three countries *exclude fraud by unauthorized online use of payment*:


*Other forms of fraud committed via the internet* are only *excluded* in Portugal.

Germany (police statistics) is the only country to *exclude fraud committed in other data networks*.

*Attempts* are *excluded* in Sweden (police level) only.

### *1.16.2 Countries deviating from exclude rules:*

*Other cybercrimes* are *included* in:


Albania and Slovenia (police level) are the only countries to *include fraud by unauthorizes use of credit or debit cards at automated teller machines and fraud by unauthorized use of credit or debit cards at point-of-sale terminals*.

Only two countries *include* f*raud by unauthorized offline use of payment instruments*:


# 1.17 Forgery of documents

According to the standard definition, *forger of documents* means *creation or use of a false57 document or tampering of a genuine document with the intent to deceive*. Where possible, the figures *include*:


They *exclude*:


# *1.17.1 Countries deviating from* include *rules:*

Cyprus (police level) is the only country to *exclude forgery or use of passports and identity cards and forgery or use of certificates*.

Two countries *exclude* forgery or use of contracts:


Again, Cyprus (police level) is the only country to *exclude forgery or use of physical documents with the aid of a computer system*.

*Attempts* are *excluded* in the statistics of:


<sup>57</sup> For the purpose of this definition, a document is only to be considered "false" if it seems to stem from a person or institution that actually has not created it and has also not authorized the contents. As an example, take a certificate that looks as if it was issued by a school, yet it was created by the student him- or herself to create the impression of better grades than actually achieved.

# *1.17.2 Countries deviating from exclude rules:*

*Forgery or use of money or payment instruments* is *included* in:


The following countries *include forgery or use of electronic documents*:


# *Preparatory offences to forgery* are *included* in:


# *Mere written lies* are *included* in:


# Only one country *includes fraud:*

• Turkey

# 1.18 Money laundering

According to the standard definition, *money laundering* means *specific financial transactions to conceal the identity, source, and/or destination of money or non-monetary property deriving from criminal activities*. Where possible, the figures *include*:


They *exclude*:


# *1.18.1 Countries deviating from* include *rules:*

*Receiving and handling illegally obtained (but not stolen) non-monetary property* is only *excluded* in:

• Switzerland

Only two countries *exclude* attempts:


# *1.18.2 Countries deviating from* exclude *rules:*

*Receiving / handling stolen property* is *included* in:


# Four countries *include violations of the 'know-your-customer' rule*:


# 1.19 Corruption in the public sector

According to the standard definition, *corruption* means *offering or accepting financial or any other advantage in exchange of favourable treatment by public officials*. Where possible, the figures *include*:


# They *exclude*:


# *1.19.1 Countries deviating from* include *rules:*

All countries *include* both *active and passive* corruption in their data.

# *Instigation to corruption* is *excluded* in:


These countries *exclude complicity*:


Corruption of *domestic officials* is *included* everywhere.

Almost all countries are also able to *include* corruption of *foreign* officials. This kind of behaviour is only *excluded* in:


*Extortion by public officials* is *excluded* in the following countries:


# *Offering officials advantages without immediate interest* is *excluded* in:


# *Attempts* are *excluded* in:


# *1.19.2 Countries deviating from exclude rules:*

Corruption data for the following countries *include corruption in the private sector:*


*Extortion (except by public officials)* is *excluded* everywhere.

*Bribery of the electorate* is *included* only for Montenegro (police statistics)

# 1.20 Drug offences

According to the standard definition, *drug offences* mean *all illicit intentional acts in connection with narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances as defined in the international drug control conventions*.58 Where possible, the figures *include*:


# They *exclude*:

• Offences with respect to precursor substances

# *1.20.1 Countries deviating from* include *rules:*

Almost all countries are able to *include cultivation, production and manufacture, extraction and preparation, distribution, purchase, and delivery on any terms whatsoever in their data*. Only Slovenia excludes purchase and delivery on conviction level.

*Offering and offering for sale and sale* is *excluded* in Moldova (conviction level only).

# *Brokerage* is *excluded* for:


<sup>58</sup> Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, 1961, as amended by the 1972 protocol, Convention on Psychotropic Substances, 1971, and Convention against Illicit Traffic in Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances, 1988.


*Dispatch, dispatch in transit*, *transport, importation,* and *exportation* are again *included* for all countries.

Few countries *exclude* the *financing of drug operations*:


*Possession not in connection with personal use* is only *excluded* in Germany (conviction level) and Georgia.

*Possession for personal use / possession of small quantities* is *excluded* in:



Table 4. Upper limits for possession for personal use

*Table 4* shows the upper limits of the "small quantity" for the countries that stated that *possession for personal use* is *excluded*. Typically, possession for personal use is pragmatically defined via a maximum quantity that may be possessed. However, as the example of *Portugal* shows*,* this is not necessarily always the case. In *Germany* no clear limits for the small quantities exist for heroin, cocaine, ecstasy, and amphetamines. For cannabis, on the other hand, a more definite limit has been fixed, which is, however, only set down in prosecutorial guidelines that differ between Federal States. *The Netherlands* also has a fixed upper limit for the small quantity of cannabis. Others have such a limit for all common drugs (e.g., *Armenia, Czech Republic*). The amounts that make up a "small" quantity differ significantly between countries, e.g., for heroin between 0.03 g (*Armenia*) and 1.5g (*Czech Republic*), which is factor 50, for cannabis even between 0.5 g (*Armenia, Azerbaijan,* and *Italy*) and 250 g (*Georgia*) – factor 500.

The following countries *exclude consumption* from their data:


In many of these countries, consumption will not constitute an offence at all.

*Attempts* are only *excluded* in Georgia, Moldova, and UK: Scotland.

# *1.20.2 Countries deviating from exclude rules:*

The following countries *include offences with respect to precursor substances*:


# 1.21 Drug trafficking

According to the standard definition, *drug trafficking* means *drug offences which are not in connection with personal use*. Where possible, the figures *include*:


# They *exclude*:


# *1.21.1 Countries deviating from* include *rules:*

Only Albania, France (conviction level) and Hungary (police level) *exclude cultivation, production, manufacture, extraction, and preparation*.

All countries *include offering, offering for sale*.

*Distribution* is *excluded* in Albania.

*Purchase* is again *excluded* in Albania, France, Hungary (police level) and Turkey (conviction level).

*Sale* is *excluded* in Turkey (conviction level).

*Delivery on any terms whatsoever* is *excluded* by:


*Brokerage* is *excluded* by Albania, Moldova (police level) and Ukraine.

*Dispatch and dispatch in transit* is *excluded* in Albania.

*Transport, importation,* and *exportation* are *included* everywhere.

*Financing of drug operations* is *excluded* in:


The following countries *exclude* possession:


*Attempts* are only *excluded* in Moldova (police level).

# *1.21.2 Countries deviating from exclude rules:*

*Offences with respect to precursor substances* are *included* in:


The following countries *include possession for personal use / possession of small quantities* in drug trafficking data, which makes it dubious for these countries whether the data reported actually refer to trafficking:


Finally, there are even countries which state to *include consumption*:


# 1.22 Firearm involved

According to the standard definition *firearm involved* means that *a firearm has been involved in committing the crime, regardless of whether it has been shot, used as a blunt weapon or threat, or just been carried or in any other way been ready to hand*. This definition is used as a subcategory for homicide (completed and total) and robbery. Data were collected on police level only. Where possible, the figures *include*:


# They *exclude*:


There is a separate standard definition used for the *firearm* itself, which is defined as a *weapon that launches a bullet or other projectile (or several at a time), making use of an explosive charge as a propellant, and that can be carried and used by a single person.* Where possible, figures on the involvement of firearm *include*:


# They *exclude*:


# *1.22.1 Deviations from the firearm definition*

# 1.22.1.1 Countries deviating from *include* rules:

*Pistols, revolvers, rifles, and shotguns* are *included* everywhere.

*Unloaded firearms carried with ammunition* and *legally owned firearms* are *excluded* in France.

*Sub-machine guns, light and medium machine* are *excluded* in:

• Spain

The following countries *exclude manportable grenade launchers:*


# *Improvised and special firearms* are *excluded* in:


1.22.1.2 Countries deviating from *exclude* rules:

*Heavy machine guns* are – at least theoretically – *included* in:


The following countries *include hand grenades*:


# *Air guns, gas pistols and/or paintball rifles* are *included* in:


*Crossbows, bows, and arrows* are – probably only theoretically – *included* in Armenia, France, Spain, and Sweden.

<sup>59</sup> This means: *Excluded* for homicide offences and homicide and robbery suspects.

The following countries *include replica firearms and other fakes*:


# *Unloaded firearms carried without ammunition at hand* are *included* in:


# *1.22.2 Deviations from the definition of involvement*

1.22.2.1 Countries deviating from *include* rules:

*Firearm shot* is *excluded* in Montenegro.

*Firearm used as a blunt weapon* is *excluded* in:


*Firearm used as a threat* is *excluded* in Montenegro only.

<sup>60</sup> This means: *Excluded* for homicide offences and homicide and robbery suspects.

<sup>61</sup> This means: *Excluded* for homicide offences and homicide and robbery suspects.

<sup>62</sup> This means: *Included* for robbery offences and homicide and robbery suspects.

The following countries *exclude* firearm carried:


*Firearm ready to hand, even if not carried*, is *excluded* from the statistics of:


1.22.1.2 Countries deviating from *exclude* rules:

*Offences involving weapons not considered as firearms* are *included* in:


*Offences involving other dangerous objects* are *included* in Armenia and UK: Northern Ireland.

# **2 Young offenders and state reactions to their offending**

The following definitions refer to young offenders and the reactions of the state on offences committed by them. Young offenders are minors (persons who have not yet reached the age of adulthood) on the one hand and young adults on the other. The definitions assembled here have an impact on the recording of data on minors and young adults in all sections of this book. In addition, chapters 1 to 4 also feature specific information on minors. This information refers to the inclusion of minors in the reported data and on the relevant age brackets applied. The special metadata provided there should always be read against the backdrop of the overarching results presented here.

<sup>63</sup> This means: *Included* for homicide and robbery suspects.

<sup>64</sup> This means: *Included* for homicide and robbery suspects.

### 2.1 Age of criminal responsibility


Table 5. Age of criminal responsibility

*Table 5* shows the age of criminal responsibility for minors in the different countries. While there are some countries which apply an early age of criminal responsibility of ten years (Switzerland, UK: England & Wales, UK: Northern Ireland) and there are also a few countries which use a late age of criminal responsibility (16 in Armenia, Luxembourg, Portugal, and Ukraine), in the vast majority of countries minors reach criminal responsibility at the age of 14.

<sup>65</sup> 14 for specific offences, including homicide, theft, robbery, joyriding, bodily injury, and rape. 66 14 for specific offences, including murder, bodily injury of at least medium severity, rape, robbery,

and theft.

<sup>67</sup> 12 for specific offences, including homicide, voluntary manslaughter, terrorism, robbery, lifethreatening bodily injury and plundering, if the perpetrator had the capacity to understand nature/consequences of the act.

# 2.2 Age of adulthood in penal law

In almost all countries, persons are no longer considered as minors, but as adults when they reach the age of 18. The penal law in some countries, however, uses a lower or a higher age:


# 2.3 Treatment of young adults

In some countries, it is possible to apply juvenile criminal law on persons which have already reached adulthood before they committed their offences. Where this possibility is available, it is always restricted to *young* adults. Typically, the conditions for young adults are not *identical* to those for minors. One common possibility for this group of offenders is that juvenile criminal law competes against adult criminal law and the court has to decide which law to apply depending on the special characteristics of the offence and the offender. Another possibility is that the criminal law applied for young adults is a kind of intermediate criminal law that is milder than the criminal law for older adults, but also differs from the criminal law applicable for minors.

In the following countries, such specific rules for the treatment of young adults exist. The maximum age below which these rules can be applied is indicated:


<sup>68</sup> Although it was not indicated whether or not juvenile criminal law is applied, an age was given.

<sup>69</sup> Note that the age of adulthood in criminal law for Poland is 17.

<sup>70</sup> Although it wasn't indicated whether or not juvenile criminal law is applied, an age was given.

The following countries stated in the questionnaire that juvenile criminal law is applied but didn't provide an age:


2.4 State reactions to criminal acts of minors

In this edition of the ESB the *state reactions to criminal acts of minors* were not examined. An overview is, however, provided on pp. 404-407 of the 5th edition.

**Appendix II: Population**


Table 1. Population by country from 2011 to 2016 (in thousands)

Source: Eurostat Database, retrieved on 24 February 2020

\*UN Population Statistics

\*\*World Bank Data

\*\*\*Data provided by national correspondent.

This is the sixth edition of a data collection initiative that started in 1993 under the umbrella of the Council of Europe and has been continued since 2000 by an international group of experts. These experts also act as regional coordinators of a network of national correspondents whose contribution has been decisive in collecting and validating data on a variety of subjects from 42 countries. The Sourcebook is composed of six chapters. The first five cover the current main types of national crime and criminal justice statistics – police, prosecution, conviction, prison, and probation statistics – for the years 2011 to 2016, providing detailed analysis for 2015. The sixth chapter covers national victimization surveys, providing rates for the main indicators every five years from 1990 to 2015. As with every new edition of the Sourcebook, the group has tried to improve data quality as well as comparability and, where appropriate, increase the scope of data collection. This new edition will continue to promote comparative research throughout Europe and make European experiences and data available worldwide.

of Criminal Justice e.V.

Göttingen Studies in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice Vol. 41 Aebi et al. European Sourcebook

Göttingen University Press

Marcelo F. Aebi et al.

Criminal Law and Criminal Justice

Göttingen Studies in

Sixth Edition

European Sourcebook of Crime

and Criminal Justice Statistics – 2021

ISBN: 978-3-86395-519-9 ISSN: 1864-2136 eISSN: 2512-7047

# Göttingen University Press