Measuring crime through victimization: Some methodological lessons from the ICVS
| Author | Carmen Ródenas,Antonio Doval |
| DOI | 10.1177/1477370818803048 |
| Published date | 01 September 2020 |
| Date | 01 September 2020 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370818803048
European Journal of Criminology
2020, Vol. 17(5) 518 –539
© The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1477370818803048
journals.sagepub.com/home/euc
Measuring crime through
victimization: Some
methodological lessons
from the ICVS
Carmen Ródenas and Antonio Doval
University of Alicante, Spain
Abstract
The objective of this study is to demonstrate that there are design errors in the International
Crime Victims Survey (ICVS) that lead to biases in the estimates of victimization rates. This will be
verified, firstly, by comparing the crime rate derived from the ICVS microdata with that based on
the reference population and, secondly, examining the consequences of two ICVS methodological
decisions: the use of individual weights and the re-weighting procedure in accordance with
household size. These sample design failures, which generate distorted crime rankings, call for
the need to make corrections both in the subsequent waves of the ICVS and in the final design
of a future European survey.
Keywords
Comparative criminology, crime statistics, ICVS, statistical bias, victimization surveys
Introduction
‘It is hard to think of another policy area where the concern is so high, the expenditures
are so high, and the knowledge base is so thin.’ These words, referring to the policies
aimed at addressing crime and criminal justice, concluded an excellent study conducted
by Blumstein and Petersilia a few years ago (2000: 199). Although the comments were
made in relation to the United States, this situation also affects the countries of the
European Union (EU).
Corresponding author:
Carmen Ródenas, Department of Applied Economic Analysis, University of Alicante, Ctra. San Vicente del
Raspeig, s/n, PO Box 99, San Vicente del Raspeig, Alicante 03690, Spain.
Email: crodenas@ua.es
803048EUC0010.1177/1477370818803048European Journal of CriminologyRódenas and Doval
research-article2018
Article
Ródenas and Doval 519
In the field of criminal policy, information in itself does not guarantee rational deci-
sion-making, as stated by Delmas-Marty (1990: 963), but quality information at least
makes it more difficult to adopt irrational decisions. It is very important to bear this in
mind when considering the risk of populist criminal policies (which seek to please the
people) and politicized policies (directed towards electoral objectives), such as those
implemented over the last few decades in some countries, irrespective of the informa-
tion on the crime situation (Aebi et al., 2002: 22), and the dominant trend towards the
expansion of criminal law as maintained by Silva-Sánchez (2011: 4). In short, it is
essential to proceed in a scientifically informed and rational way to fulfil the genuine
political-criminal objectives that should be sought by the states.
However, in order to obtain useful information about crime, collecting data on the
country in question is not enough. The data need to be compared with those of other
countries in order to appreciate the true meaning of the results. This requires drawing
more precise information from data sources that can be compared with one another. In
practice, this is extremely difficult because the different legal systems vary in aspects
that are fundamental for making this comparison (different names for offences, different
requirements for the prosecution to instigate criminal proceedings, etc.). Comparison of
the data is also essential, of course, when designing policies on a regional scale, as the
European Commission (2012: 2) has pointed out.
With these objectives, for over a century, both formal and informal comparative sta-
tistical studies have been carried out on the crime situation in different countries using
various approaches and methodologies (Aebi and Linde, 2011; Lewis, 2012). Prima
facie, the conviction records should be able to provide the most reliable data (Aebi and
Linde, 2011), because only judges are able to definitively qualify a conduct as a crime.
However, there are several drawbacks to using conviction statistics, such as incidents
that are not always reported in certain crime areas, or due to the dark figure of crime,
differences between countries with respect to the categories and names of offences, or
differences in the rules by which multiple offences are counted.1 A further difficulty lies
in the fact that there may be a delay of several years between the recording of the judg-
ment and the moment when the offence was committed. Therefore the information nec-
essary for making important decisions in criminal policy, such as legislative reforms,
may be available too late.
In view of these difficulties, the offences recorded by the police are often used.
However, police statistics are also problematic because there is a lack of uniformity in
the collection of data (differences in the time and way in which the police define, file and
count offences), which can vary from country to country depending on how the victims
behave when reporting (Bouten et al., 2003: 1–2; see also Aebi, 2010), or if there is a
temporary concentration of police efforts on certain crimes.2 In the case of the EU, the
police statistics on recorded crimes collected are also affected by many factors, and
Eurostat (2016a, 2016b and 2016c) indicates that direct comparisons of crime levels in
different countries should be avoided.
As a result of these problems and the need for alternative sources, the testimonies of
crime victims collected in victimization surveys are being used. These surveys constitute
another statistical source with which the judicial and police data can be compared and
complemented. Although they are not without problems, such as the economic cost of
To continue reading
Request your trial