Comparing crime reporting factors in EU countries

Abstract

Through crime-reporting citizens make their security needs explicit to the police. This information helps the police in the allocation of resources. In the European Union, there are significant differences among countries, both in terms of overall and specific crime-reporting rates. Factors highlighted by the literature that might explain these differences are not entirely satisfactory. There is little comparative research, and most published studies are nation-centred, based on the experience of central and northern European countries, and largely focused on the situational variables related to the criminal incident itself. It is widely assumed that situational variables have a universal explanatory capacity in crime reporting. This article questions this assumption and shows that a number of factors weight differently in explaining national rates. Following a literature review, we identified four groups of causal factors and analysed their explanatory capacity. These are related largely to the incident (rational models) and victims' perception (psychological models). In addition, we also analysed the influence of institutional and community factors. The European Survey on Crime and Safety database was used for our analysis. Results show the existence of two areas in Europe, the northcentral area and the south-eastern area, in terms of crime reporting rates and the factors that explain these differences. Rational and psychological models explain crime-reporting practices better in the north-central area. In contrast, socio-demographic variables and social inequalities are more relevant for explaining crime reporting in the south-eastern area of Europe. Institutional variables are also important in eastern countries. Community factors are not significant explanatory variables due to the limitations of indicators available in the database. Our research reveals that crime-reporting is a rather more complex phenomenon than is often assumed, and highlights the limitations of existing knowledge and methodologies on comparative crime-reporting.

Determinants of reporting cybercrime: A comparison between identity theft, consumer fraud, and hacking

“…Moreover, victims who are married (Baumer and Lauritsen, 2010;Gutierrez and Kirk, 2015;Schnebly, 2008) or who have a partner (Goudriaan et al, 2004) have been shown to be more likely to report crime than victims without a partner. Results with respect to the victim's educational level are mixed, with studies showing a negative association with reporting violent crime (Goudriaan, 2006;Zaykowski, 2010), a positive association with reporting property crime (Gutierrez and Kirk, 2015), and no significant association with reporting various types of crime (e.g., Baumer and Lauritsen, 2010;Guzy and Hirtenlehner, 2015;Khondaker et al, 2015;Schnebly, 2008;Torrente et al, 2016). The same is true for the association between the income of victims and their crime reporting behavior, as studies have shown positive (e.g., Goudriaan et al, 2004;Robert et al, 2010;Torrente et al, 2016), negative (Schnebly, 2008), and insignificant relationships (e.g., Guzy and Hirtenlehner, 2015;Zaykowski, 2012).…”

La nueva gobernanza de la seguridad en España

“…La policía, como servicio público, debe ofrecer igual acceso a la seguridad a todos los ciudadanos y entidades; sin embargo, la creciente polarización socioeconómica lo dificulta. En ocasiones, los recursos públicos favorecen más a unos sectores que a otros (Torrente et al, 2016). Estas alianzas privilegiadas, con frecuencia, se justifican en aras de una mayor eficacia policial o corresponsabilidad en la seguridad.…”

Determinanten en motivaties voor intentie tot aangifte na slachtofferschap van cybercrime

“…In lijn met dit perspectief blijkt uit diverse studies dat er vaker aangifte gedaan wordt bij vermogensdelicten dan bij gewelds-en vandalismedelicten (o.a. Bowles, Reyes & Garoupa, 2009;Goudriaan, 2006;Torrente, Gallo & Oltra, 2016). Omdat er bij diefstal een grotere kans is op een schadevergoeding dan bij geweldsdelicten en vandalisme, zijn de baten van aangifte doen vergroot.…”

“…Voor andere buurtkenmerken zoals de urbanisatiegraad, sociale cohesie, etnische samenstelling, prevalentie van criminaliteit en residentiële mobiliteit geldt dat uit de literatuur gemengde resultaten naar voren komen (o.a. Goudriaan, Wittebrood & Nieuwbeerta, 2006;Hart & Colavito, 2011;Schnebly, 2008;Slocum et al, 2010;Torrente, Gallo & Oltra, 2016).…”

“…In het algemeen wordt vaak gevonden dat vrouwelijke slachtoffers vaker aangifte doen dan mannelijke slachtoffers (o.a. Goudriaan, Nieuwbeerta & Wittebrood, 2005;Schnebly, 2008;Tarling & Morris, 2010), maar er zijn ook studies die het tegenovergestelde laten zien (Goudriaan, Lynch & Nieuwbeerta, 2004;Torrente, Gallo & Oltra, 2016). Daarnaast blijkt in het algemeen dat oudere mensen vaker aangifte doen (Baumer & Lauritsen, 2010;Goudriaan, 2006;Guzy & Hirtenlehner, 2015) en de intentie hebben om aangifte te doen (Tolsma, Blaauw & Te Grotenhuis, 2012) dan jongere mensen.…”