RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56

CITIZEN’S APPRAISAL OF SECURITY AND CRIMINALJUSTICE: AN INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE
Ugljesa Zvekic*
I. INTRODUCTION
People tend to appraise security andcriminal justice on the basis of their own
experience or by stories told, written or
seen on TV. This appraisal is a mixture ofrational and irrational elements, including
fear for security and moral values as towhat is just and what is not. This paper
discusses people’s reactions to crime, topolice, victim support and punishment. In
other words, reactions, expectations andvalues as related to different componentsof the crime process based on the results of
the International Crime Victim Survey(ICVS).
Several interrelated considerations andexperiences prompted the launching of theInternational Crime Victim Survey (ICVS).
First, an increased interest in and concern
with the victims of crime both at thenational as well as the international level(the United Nations (UN) in particular).
Second, increased scepticism about thereliability of official criminal justicestatistics, mainly in terms of their focus on
criminal justice system concerns, its
operation and offenders. Third, a perennialcriminological concern with dark figures.
Fourth, the official criminal justicestatistics provide quite a restrictedmeasure of the functioning of the criminal
justice agencies, excluding performanceappreciation by the citizens, and thus, theaccountability issue. Fifth, on the one
hand, difficulties with international
comparisons based on official criminal
justice statistics (as evidentiated by the* Deputy Director, United Nations Interregoinal
Crime and Justice Research Institute, UNICRI.

176

United Nations Survey of Trends in Crimeand the Operation of Criminal Justice
Systems and INTERPOL), and on theother, a wealth of experience gained
through national victimisation surveys
carried out in a few industrialised
countries, gave impetus for an attempt toprovide an alternative international
measurement of crime.
The ICVS started in 1989 by the
Ministry of Justice of the Netherlands, andsubsequently (1991) was further developedwith the involvement of UNICRI. It
reached its third “sweep’’ in 1996-97. It
received major financial support from the
Ministries of Justice and Foreign Affairsof The Netherlands, the UK Home Office
Research and Statistics Directorate, andthe UNDP for selected countries, as well
as from local funding as regards thedeveloping countries and countries intransition, and on a self-funding basis forthe majority of the participating
industrialised countries.
It can be stated without exaggerationthat this was one of the major empiricalinternational comparative projects in thearea of crime prevention and criminal
justice, with particular emphasis on
victimisation risks and experiences ofcitizens all over the world. This is evident
from the number of participating countries
with an average sample ranging from 1,000
to 2,000 respondents from eachparticipating site, resulting in more than
130,000 people from all over the world
being interviewed about their victimisation
experience, contacts with law enforcement
and evaluation thereof; patterns and112TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERSCountries Participating in the Three Sweeps of the ICVS: 1989; 1992-94; 1996-97
Industrialised

Countries in Transition

Developing

Australia
Austria
Belgium
CanadaEngland & Wales
FinlandFranceGermany
Italy
Japan
Malta
The Netherlands
New Zealand
Northern Ireland
NorwayScotland
Spain
SwedenSwitzerland
USA

Albania
Belarus
Bulgaria
Croatia
Czech Republic
Estonia
Federal Republicof Yugoslavia
FYR of Macedonia
Georgia
Hungary
Kyrgyzstan
LatviaLithuania
Mongolia
PolandRomania
RussiaSlovak Republic
Slovenia
UkraineArgentina
Bolivia
Botswana
BrazilChina
Colombia
Costa Rica
Egypt
India
Indonesia
Papua New Guinea
Paraguay
The Philippines
South Africa
Tanzania
Tunisia
UgandaZimbabwemethods of crime prevention; and attitudes
towards punishment.
The 1989 sweep involved 15
industrialised countries, one developing
country (Indonesia) and one EasternCentral European country (Poland). The
second round of the ICVS involved: 12
industrialised countries, 13 developing
countries and 7 countries in transition. Thet h i r d s w e e p o f I C V S i n c l u d e d : 11
industrialised countries, 14 developing
countries and 20 countries in transition.
All together, 58 countries participated in
the sweeps of the ICVS, with 7
participating three times, 22 participating

twice and 19 participating for the first timein 1996-97. It should be noted that theparticipation of developing countries andcountries in transition increased from 2 in1989 through to 20 in 1992-94 to 34 in 199697. It should be also noted that in allindustrialised countries, the ICVS was
carried out on a national level by using
CATI, while in almost all developing
countries and countries in transition it was
carried out on a sample of population fromthe largest city through face-to-faceinterviewing. International comparative
analysis was thus restricted to urban areas
only. The results of the ICVS are presented
in numerous publications and at various

177

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
international fora, including the two majorinternational conferences held in Rome in1992 and 1998 respectively :Understanding Crime: Experiences of
Crime and Crime Control, and Surverying
Crime: A Global Perspective.
II. CRIME CONCERNS
Fear of crime is one concern. In thisstudy it was measured by two indicators:
feeling safe after dark and avoiding goingout alone. Only data related to feeling safe
after dark is presented here. The
respondents were asked how safe they feel
when walking alone in their area afterdark.
The data reveals that street safety isperceived to be highest by citizens in Asia,
followed by Western Europe and the New
World. In Africa a bit less than 60% of thecitizens feel safe. Just about half of thecitizens in Latin America feel very andfairly safe when walking alone after dark.
The citizens that feel least safe are thosein countries in transition, where 46% saythey feel safe, while 54% say they feel a bit
unsafe or very unsafe. Among the world
regions, the lowest percentage of citizens
from countries in transition (13%) say they
feel “very safe” in streets after dark.

III. REPORTING TO THE POLICE
The “police crime story’’ is the amountand type of crime known to them. It will
differ from the “real crime story” dependingon citizens’ propensity to inform the police
about crime. To this reported crime, thepolice can add crimes detected by them but
not reported, and they can deduct somecriminal activities which do not figure in
the “police crime story” because of specificinvestigative, technical, procedural, socialand political reasons. There are, however,important variations across countries as tothe volume and type of crime known to thepolice and admitted into police
administrative records.
Not surprisingly, the propensity to reportto the police depends heavily on theseriousness of the crime, whether tangible
or intangible. However, reporting is also
influenced by other factors: previous
personal experiences of reporting; otheracquired experience with, or attitudes tothe police; expectations; factors related tothe particular victimisation experience at
hand; the existence of alternative ways ofdealing with this; the relationship with theoffender; and the “privacy” of the issue.
Crime reporting, as mentioned above,differs according to the crime in question.

Table 2Street Safety in World Regions

Western Europe
New worldCountries in Transition
Asia
AfricaLatin America

178

Very
safe
28.0
26.9
13.2
25.2
24.4
18.9

Fairly
safe
42.2
40.7
33.3
53.5
33.9
32.5

A bit
unsafe
19.6
18.5
35.8
13.6
22.0
26.6

Very
unsafe
9.6
13.5
17.1
7.7
19.2
21.7

Do not
know
0.6
0.4
0.6
0.0
0.4
0.3

112TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
It is evident that car theft is more reported
than any other crime, while sexual
incidents, corruption and consumer fraudare, on average, the least reported.
However, reporting rates also differ fromcountry to country, as well as dependingon the developmental level. It is also
claimed that the reporting rates have to
do with the crime level in the society
irrespective of the above-mentioned factors
or as a baseline from which other factors
influence the levels of reporting. For
illustrative purposes, reporting rates forburglary, robbery and assault based on all
sweeps of the ICVS are presented in Table
3.
Among the three crimes, the highest
reporting level is for burglary, followed byrobbery. Less than one third of the victimsof assault reported it to the police. For all
three crimes, the highest reporting levels
are in the industrialised world, both Old
and New. From among the group of nonindustrialised countries, burglary isreported the most in countries in transition
and in Africa, and the least in Asia; whilefrom among the non-industrialised groupless than one third of the victims reported
assault and somewhat more than a third
reported robbery to the police. Therefore,in terms of the “reporting ranks”, countries

in transition rank third on burglary, fifthon robbery and fourth on assault. There isthen a clear difference in reporting levels
between, on the one hand, theindustrialised world and, on the other, therest of the world.
Comparing the two data sets
(victimisation rates and reporting rates) it
becomes clear that the highest level ofcorrespondence between the victimisation
and reporting rates for all three crime types
is found in Asia. From a comparative
perspective, Asia has both the lowest
victimisation as well as the lowest
reporting rates. On the other hand, thehighest reporting rates of the New Worlddo not correspond to the victimisationlevels reported for the New World.
Generally speaking, it appears that thereporting levels do not reflect thevictimisation levels. This seems to support
the hypothesis that the victimisation levelis not the most important factor in
conditioning the reporting practice, andthat it cannot be considered even a solid
baseline for predicting propensity to reportto the police. High crime does not
automatically and necessarily lead to highdisclosures of crime. Other factors appear
to have more weight on the propensity toreport to the police.

Table 3
Percentage of Burglary, Robbery and Assault Reported to the Police in Six
Global Regions, 1989, 1992 and 1996 ICVS (1 year)

Western Europe
New WorldCountries in Transition
Asia
AfricaLatin America
Total

Burglary
79.6
85.3
63.2
40.8
57.7
44.1
61.8

Robbery
45.5
75.9
25.1
33.3
33.5
20.7
39.0

Assault
28.5
45.3
20.4
31.0
20.4
23.6
28.2

179

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
Why do people report crimes to thepolice? The reasons are divided into: senseof civic duty (“should be reported”; “to stopit”); need for assistance (“to get help”);
recovery/compensation of damage(“recovery of property”; “insurance”).
“Want the offender caught/punished” lies
somewhere between means for recovering
property and damage, and expectation forthe law enforcement agency to effectively
deal with offenders.
Civic duty related reasons are prominentacross the board independently of crime
type and developmental groupings. While
this is true for “should be reported”,
reporting crime for preventive purposes “tostop it happening again” is of particularsignificance for threats/assaults or robbery,
while less so for burglary. This is quite arational attitude on the part of the victims
who also consider that reporting violent
crimes has more chance of inducing
preventive action by the police whileburglary prevention is becoming much
more the citizen’s own prevention activity.
“To get help” as a reason for reporting ismore frequently mentioned with relation
to threats/assaults and robbery.
Recovery of property and insurance areboth mentioned with respect to burglary
and robbery. It is interesting to note thatreporting for the reason of recovering
property for both crimes is much morepresent among victims from countries intransition and the developing world thanfrom the industrialised world. Inversely,
insurance reasons are much more
important in the industrialised world.
There is a very clearly established pattern,
according to which high insurance coverage
results in high reporting rates in order to
get the insurance premiums. Where
insurance coverage is low, expectations
related to reporting are to “recover” stolen
property. Since the level of insurance
coverage is much higher in the180

industrialised world than in countries intransition, the reasons for reporting inorder to compensate for damage will reflect
this discrepancy. “At the individual level,
those without insurance are less likely toreport burglaries to the police... At theaggregate level, there is always a strong
association between the insurance coverage
and reporting of burglaries to the police’’(van Dijk, 1994). Indeed, the countries andregions with low insurance coverage tend
to display low reporting rates of burglaries
to the police.
“Want the offender caught/punished” asa reason for reporting figures prominently
for all three crimes. However, differencesin the importance of this particular reason
between the regions are less pronounced
when it comes to assault and robbery, andmore pronounced when it comes toburglary. Most probably, the level of
insurance coverage again is at play in asense that for the victims of insured
households to get the offender caught/
punished is of less importance in terms ofreporting to the police. On the other hand,
if there is no household insurance, in orderto recover property it is also important tofind and punish the offender. In addition,
there is a more punitive orientation in thedeveloping countries and countries intransition (Zvekic, 1997), which also
indicates the importance of this reason forreporting crime to the police.
It was noted that, on average, there are
more non-reported crimes - in particularrobberies and threats/assaults - in all theregions of the world and especially incountries in transition.
That the “police could do nothing” wasfrequently given as a reason for notreporting property crimes - thefts ofpersonal property, thefts from cars, etc.
This may signify a belief that the police
would be unable to recover property, find

112TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
Table 4
Reasons for Reporting Crime to the Police, 1996
Recover Insurance Should be Wantproperty reasons reported offendercaughtBurglary
Western Europe
New WorldCountries inTransition
Asia
AfricaLatin America
Total

To stopit

To gethelp

Otherreasons

32.2
17.4
57.5

43.2
22.8
15.0

46.0
51.1
37.4

31.9
27.2
51.4

18.2
13.0
27.0

8.4
8.7
12.5

11.9
15.2
2.5

82.2
72.6
53.2
52.4

4.4
13.1
26.2
20.8

48.9
26.8
19.5
38.3

64.4
53.9
42.9
45.3

64.4
20.8
34.8
29.7

26.7
16.7
8.6
13.6

1.2
3.1
6.8

Western Europe

35.2

13.6

40.9

36.4

21.6

17.0

18.2

New World

23.3

13.3

56.7

46.7

26.7

20.0

16.7

Countries in

43.2

12.4

33.9

54.1

33.6

21.1

7.7

Asia

80.6

2.8

47.2

69.4

41.7

25.0

2.8

Africa

57.6

10.1

36.4

55.6

20.2

17.2

2.0

Latin America

39.0

32.0

23.0

54.0

40.5

17.0

3.0

Total

46.5

14.0

39.7

52.7

30.7

19.6

8.4

Western Europe

4.5

5.6

35.0

32.2

31.6

22.0

23.7

New World

6.9

6.9

36.2

39.7

39.7

24.1

22.4

Countries in

8.5

12.2

31.8

41.1

44.0

25.6

7.5

Asia

16.2

10.8

43.2

48.6

73.0

40.5

-

Africa

3.5

-

34.1

56.5

45.9

1.6

3.5

Latin America

18.0

42.4

18.7

38.8

44.6

22.3

7.2

Total

9.6

15.6

33.2

42.8

46.5

25.4

12.9

Robbery

Transition

Assault/Threat

Transtion181

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56

Burglary
Western Europe
New WorldCountries inTransition
Asia
AfricaLatin America
Total
Robbery
Western Europe
New WorldCountries inTransition
Asia
AfricaLatin America
Total
Threat/Assault
Western Europe
New WorldCountries inTransition
Asia
AfricaLatin America
Total

Not
seriousenoughSolveditmyselfInappropriate
Other
for the police authorities

My
familysolved itNoinsurance

26.2
30.8
27.0

21.4
15.4
13.3

4.8
7.7
13.2

6.6

7.1
9.0

4.8
7.7
6.5

52.4
17.4
24.0
29.6

13.3
12.3
10.8
14.4

14.3
10.7
2.9
8.9

2.9
7.1
5.5

3.8
5.5
5.9
6.3

2.9
2.4
5.3
4.9

35.7
5.9
23.4

10.7
41.2
12.7

17.9
11.8
10.3

1.8
11.8
1.7

5.4
6.4

8.0

30.4
14.7
18.1
21.4

10.1
9.6
6.3
15.1

18.8
10.9
5.5
12.5

4.3
0.5
4.0

10.1
1.9
0.5
4.9

1.4
0.6
2.0
3.0

38.6
25.6
26.2

13.6
17.9
19.5

8.0
7.7
14.5

4.7
6.4
6.3

2.7
2.6
6.8

6.7

36.4
22.5
17.4
27.8

33.9
18.1
30.7
22.3

8.3
25.2
21.8
14.3

8.3
2.5
0.7
4.8

17.4
6.0
4.2
6.6

0.8
1.6
3.0

Didn'tdare

Otherreasons

Don't
know

Police could Police won't
Fear/
do nothing do anything dislike ofpoliceBurglary
Western Europe
New WorldCountries inTransition
Asia
AfricaLatin America
Total
Robbery
Western Europe
New WorldCountries inTransition
Asia
AfricaLatin America
Total
Threat/Assault
Western Europe
New WorldCountries inTransition
Asia
AfricaLatin America
Total

182

16.7
28.4

2.4
15.4
16.7

5.6

2.4
6.8

21.4
38.5
8.6

8.1
9.4

14.3
35.2
21.1
23.1

5.7
12.3
42.1
15.8

11.5
2.8
7.7
6.9

6.3
2.6
4.5

3.8
14.2
13.7
16.7

3.8
4.3
2.4
5.6

25.0
5.9
30.9

7.1
27.7

5.4
11.8
13.5

7.1
17.6
9.9

16.1
23.5
9.7

2.7
6.5

30.4
46.8
34.0
28.8

17.4
14.7
53.9
24.2

9.1
5.1
24.4
11.6

10.1
12.2
3.9
10.1

4.3
16.7
3.9
12.4

1.9
0.9
3.0

15.0
6.4
21.1

10.9
15.4
18.2

2.9
5.1
23.1

7.4
5.1
9.6

16.5
28.2
7.8

2.4
5.1
3.8

31.4
19.9
14.9
18.1

20.7
12.7
26.1
17.3

33.3
2.7
6.9
12.3

20.7
15.2
9.6
11.3

3.3
9.4
6.2
11.9

3.9
1.6
1.8
3.1

112TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
the offender, or do anything else of benefit.
It could also signify a fairly realistic
judgement about the liability of the police
to do much about something on which they
have little information to act. In essence,
though, it is an expression of resignation.
In contrast, “the police wouldn’t doanything” may carry a more explicit
criticism that the police would be reluctant
to take action, even though they might be
expected to do so. “Fear/dislike of police”
certainly signifies a negative attitude
towards the police, either of a generalnature, or related in some way to theparticular offence in hand. As might be
expected, fear and/or dislike of the police
was often mentioned in relation to violent
crimes and sexual incidents. These might
involve a close relationship with theoffender(s), or sometimes even a lifestylethat may lead the police to treat the victims
as accomplices, or people “who deserve
what they got”. That women victims ofsexual incidents are often treatedunsympathetically by the police is also now
well recognised.
Table 4 presents reasons for notreporting. Crimes are mainly not reported
because they are not considered “serious
enough”. Since this section deals with thepolice, it is worth looking more clearly atpolice related reasons: “police could do
nothing”; “police won’t do anything” and“fear/dislike of police”.
It should be noted that around 30% of
the victims of burglary from the New Worldand even 52% from Asia thought that theburglary which took place in theirhousehold was “not serious enough’’. This
reason, together with “inappropriate forpolice’’, indicates the characteristics of theevent itself. As regards robbery, “notserious enough’’ is mentioned as a reason
for not reporting by 36%, 30% and 23% of
the victims from Western Europe, Asia andcountries in transition respectively. On theother hand, 22%, 26% and 15% of victimsof assault/threats from Latin America,
Africa and countries in transition
mentioned the “inappropriateness’’ of thecase for the police as reasons for nonreporting.
The resigned attitude towards the police(“police could do nothing’’) is particularly
prominent among the victims of all threecrimes dealt herewith from all but theindustrialised world. As will be seen later,
this has much to do with the expectations
citizens have about the police, as well aswith the satisfaction with the police incontrolling and preventing crime.
The two more implicit criticisms of thepolice are also more pronounced reasonsfor not reporting the three crimes provided
by victims from countries in transition.
This is, however, more related to “police
won’t do anything’’. It should be noted thatthe implicit criticism that the police would
be reluctant to take action is, on average,
more highly related to robbery and assault/
threats than to burglary. “Fear/dislike’’ ofpolice is mentioned significantly as areason for not reporting robbery in Latin
America and the New World, as well as for
assault/threats in Asia.
A. Satisfaction with the Police
The ICVS also indicates the strength ofpolice-community relations in showing:(i) the degree of satisfaction victims feel
when they report to the police; and(ii) the reasons why victims weredissatisfied with the way the police
handle cases once reported.
Among the reasons for dissatisfaction
with the police once burglary was reported,the most frequently mentioned were “thepolice did not do enough” and “were notinterested”. The first reason was identified
by more than 40% of the burglary victims

183

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
Table 5
Reasons for Dissatisfaction with the Police (1996)
Did not Were not Did not Did not Gave no Incorrect Slow todointerested findrecover inform- /Impolite arrive
enoughoffender goods
ation

Other
Do notreasons know

Burglary
Western Europe

44.0

34.7

30.7

18.7

28.0

10.7

16.0

14.7

-

New World

75.0

25.0

25.0

20.0

25.0

10.0

20.0

20.0

-

Countries in

41.5

34.0

46.8

46.4

16.0

12.8

11.2

7.1

1.0

Asia

50.0

20.6

52.9

55.9

14.7

17.6

17.6

2.9

-

Africa

51.5

21.8

38.4

44.1

20.5

5.7

18.8

6.1

-

Latin America

55.8

41.4

34.5

32.1

26.1

20.9

4.8

3.6

0.8

Total

53.0

29.6

38.1

36.2

21.7

13.0

14.7

9.1

0.9

Western Europe

50.0

41.2

14.7

20.6

8.8

20.6

11.8

11.8

-

New World

40.0

40.0

40.0

6.7

13.3

20.0

13.3

6.7

-

Countries in

38.7

41.1

44.3

32.5

18.0

20.1

12.0

11.9

2.2

46.7

33.3

73.3

73.3

33.3

13.3

33.3

6.7

-

Transition

Robbery

Transition
Asia
Africa

40.0

21.7

40.0

38.3

18.3

11.7

16.7

6.7

1.7

Latin America

56.0

53.6

44.0

26.4

29.6

18.4

9.6

0.8

-

Total

45.2

38.5

42.7

33.0

20.2

17.4

16.1

7.4

2.0

21.1

15.3

9.3

1.0

9.4

5.8

7.8

13.6

-

Assault/ThreatWestern Europe
New World

23.4

14.3

10.0

-

14.3

-

10.0

12.2

-

Countries in

45.3

42.1

24.2

9.5

13.5

21.7

12.7

9.8

0.6

Transition
Asia

31.3

25.0

37.5

12.5

31.3

25.0

18.8

-

-

Africa

44.7

17.0

34.0

10.6

14.9

17.0

12.8

19.1

-

Latin America

50.0

44.9

34.6

6.4

25.6

29.5

11.5

2.6

-

Total

36.0

26.4

24.9

8.0

18.2

19.8

12.3

11.5

0.6

184

112TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
in countries in transition and up to 75% of
those from the New World. Disinterest on
the part of the police was mentioned by 41%of the victims in Latin America and one
third of the victims in countries intransition and Western Europe.
A substantial portion (ranging from one
third to more than a half) of the victims ofburglary from the countries in transition
also highlighted that the police “did not findthe offender” or “did not recover goods”.
Indeed, in countries in transition, “wantoffender caught/punished’’ and “recovery ofproperty’’ were among the principal reasons
for reporting burglary to the police.
Therefore, if these expectations are not met
by the police, victims who reported
burglaries express dissatisfaction,highlighting unmet expectations. As
mentioned earlier, in this part of the world,
where insurance coverage is low, victims
will have a substantial economic stake inreporting in order to retrieve stolen
property or receive some compensationfrom the offender who needs to be identified
and brought to justice.1
Victims of burglary from the developed
world are more sensitive to other indicatorsof police performance, such as providing
appropriate information and speed or
slowness of the police in arriving at theplace of the crime.
Victims of robbery across the globe tend
to emphasise that the police “did not doenough’’ (ranging from 40% in the New
World and in countries in transition up to
56% in Latin America) and “were notinterested’’ (from a peak of 54% in Latin
America to 22% in Africa). More than 70%of the victims of robbery in Asia aredissatisfied with the police because theoffender was not found and the goods were1

For the preliminary analysis related to a restricted
sample of countries in transition, see Zvekic (1996).

not recovered. Around 40% of the victimsof robbery from Africa, Latin America andcountries in transition express the sameview. These two reasons for dissatisfaction
are less prominent among the victims ofrobbery from Western Europe and the New
World, although the latter give more
importance to the offender being caught
rather than to the goods being recovered.
The victims of assault/threats,
particularly in countries in transition,
single out that the reasons fordissatisfaction with the police reaction toreporting crime have to do with the police
not doing enough and not finding theoffender. In addition, victims complain thatthe police were incorrect/impolite, which ismore characteristic of the victims’evaluation of police attitudes in countries
in transition. This factor indicates certain
features of police culture that lack respect
for the particular needs and expectationsof the victims of violence.
On the global level, less than half of the
respondents are satisfied with the police
in controlling crime locally, even thoughthose who are satisfied are more than those
who are not (Table 6). In the New World, alarge majority of the respondents (76%) aresatisfied with the police in controlling
crime; this is also the case with citizens
from Western Europe (54%) and Asia (58%).
On the other hand, more than half of the
respondents from Africa (52%), 40% fromcountries in transition and as many as 70%
from Latin America are not satisfied withthe police job in controlling crime locally.
It should be noted that the lowest levelsof citizens’ satisfaction with the police are
exhibited in Latin America and in countries
in transition. However, it should also be
noted that the largest percentage of “don’t
knows’’ is found in countries in transition.
This can be explained by the fact that,during the period in which the 1992 ICVS

185

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
Table 6
Satisfaction with Police in Controlling Crime Locally, by Regions (1996)

Western Europe
New WorldCountries in Transition
Asia
AfricaLatin America
Total

Yes, good job
54.0
76.0
23.2
58.3
41.1
21.9
45.8

was carried out, and - in some countries also during the period when the 1996 ICVS
was administered, the police were
undergoing changes as to their mandates
and organisation.
Other factors related to police
performance also have a lot to do withcitizens’ satisfaction. There is a moderate
positive correlation between satisfaction
with the police in controlling crime locallyand the frequency in local patrolling(0.349), although it is higher in both thedeveloping world (0.382) and countries intransition (0.376) than in the industrialised
world (0.165). In all likelihood,
respondents in those parts of the world
attach more importance to the presence ofpolice locally in eveluating theirperformance in controlling crime locally. It
might be the case that the citizens of thedeveloping world and countries intransition consider that frequent police
patrolling would deter crime and meet anumber of their expectations, such as
finding and arresting offenders, recoveringstolen goods and arriving speedily at theplace of the crime.
In addition, the citizens in countries intransition (to a larger extent than citizens
from the industrialised world) areconcerned that a burglary will occur within
the next year. Therefore, fear of burglary186

No, not a good job
25.6
15.1
40.0
30.7
51.7
69.6
38.8

Don’t know
20.4
8.9
36.7
11.0
7.2
8.5
16.8

in the near future also contributes todissatisfaction with the police in controlling
crime locally, and supports the view that
more frequent patrolling might be both adeterrent, as well as effective in “stopping
crime’’, finding the offender and recovering
the stolen property.
B. Victim AssistanceVictims of crime who had reported thesecrimes to the police were asked whether
they received support from a specialised
victim support scheme. Furthermore, they
were asked whether a specialised victim
support agency would have been useful.
As expected, on average, only a few
victims obtained any assistance, which wasgiven mainly to victims of sexual offences
and robbery in the New World and Western
Europe. In the developed world, victims
also expressed greater appreciation for theestablishment of specialised victim support
agencies. Such support is more evident in
Latin America than in countries intransition and the rest of the developingworld.
C. Punishment Orientation
Punishment is at the end of the criminal
justice system. It can be seen as indicating
societal reactions to crime; whether these
are those of the state or people’s notions ofwhen, how and who should be punished.

112TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
Yet, the range of sanctioning options in agiven society is usually limited to a few thatare selected by the legislator and a few
which may fall outside the official
sanctioning range (e.g. various forms of
moral condemnation, or other forms ofpunishment which are neither recognised
nor approved by the official penal code).
Some of these alternatives may be harsher
and some milder than those applied by thestate-centred criminal justice system.
The ICVS asked respondents about
sanctioning options, which are usuallypresent in most criminal justice systems.2
However, some options were not available
in all the countries, and some that wereavailable were not offered for comment.
Another major limitation in measuring
people’s attitudes towards punishment
stemmed from the hypothetical burglary
scenario use. It contained sufficientelements to help form a lay opinion, butlacked the most important details toprovide for informed professional opinion.3
Yet, it was felt that for the public at large,
the particular details that may mitigate or
aggravate the offender ’s position were
unnecessary. There were, however,problems of interpretation linked with thetarget of theft: namely, a colour TV set, thevalue of which varies across countries.
2

The question was as follows: "People have different
ideas about the sentences which should be given to
offenders. Take for instance the case of a man 21
years old who is found guilty of a burglary for thesecond time. This time he stole a colour TV. Whichof the following sentences do you consider the mostappropriate for such a case: fine, prison, community
service, suspended sentence or any other sentence".
If the interviewee opted for imprisonment, he/she
was asked to specify the length.
3 There are serious doubts as to whether aprofessional judge would be able to state what
would be the most appropriate punishment basedon the elements provided by the ICVS
questionnaire.

Indeed, as noted, the recovery of stolen
goods is one driving factor in the evaluationof the police performance in less affluent
economies. Nonetheless, certain patterns
in punishment orientation emerged, inparticular regarding differences between
the more and less affluent societies.
On a regional level, more than half ofthe respondents in the New World andLatin America, and almost three-quarters
in Asia and Africa, opted for imprisonment.
On the other hand, some 40% of the
respondents from countries in transitionand somewhat less than a third from
Western Europe favoured imprisonment.
Following imprisonment, the next most
preferred sentencing option wascommunity service, which was favoured byalmost one third of the respondents. In
Western Europe, community service was
the preferred sentence by almost half of the
respondents, followed by approximately
one third each in Latin America and incountries in transition. Only 10% of the
respondents from Asia and Africa opted forsome sort of community service.
Regional variations regarding a fine asa favoured sentencing option for a young
recidivist burglar are not pronounced andaverage 9% of the respondents. A
suspended sentence is thought to be themost approprate sentence by 5% of the
respondents; ranging however from 2% in
Asia and Africa respectively, to 7% in the
countries in transition and Western
Europe.
Both the 1992 ICVS (Kuhn, 1993) and1996 ICVS (Zvekic, 1997) support Kuhn’sfinding that those who had been victimised
were no more in favour of a prison sentence
than others, both at the global and regional
level. There is no significant difference inpreferences for sentencing options between
victims and non-victims of any crime. A

187

RESOURCE MATERIAL SERIES No. 56
Figure 1
Attitudes to Punishment, Imprisonmentas Preferred Sanction, by Regions
80.0
70.0
60.0
50.0
40.0
30.0
20.0
10.0
0.0
WesternEuropeNew Countries inWorld Transition

Asia

group of special interest as regards thepunishment of the burglar is that of those
who had been burgled themselves.
However, there is no substantial difference
between the victims and non-victims ofburglary, with the exception of burglary
victims from the New World who appear
to be stronger supporters of imprisonment
than non-burglary victims, still within theprevaling prison-centric orientation in thatpart of the world. Further analyses carriedout on victims and non-victims of contact
crimes and vehicle-related crimes also
confirmed the above-mentioned finding.
The demand for severe punishment,
then, is stronger in the more crime-ridden
nations or in those in which there is a lackof alternative solutions, including adequate
insurance coverage. There, ideas about
preventive approaches to sentencing may
appear less appropriate. Deterrent
sentencing, regardless of whether or not it
is effective, may have more appeal.

Africa188

Total

and the predominant actual use of noncustodial sanctions and imprisonment, on
the other. This seems to indicate at least
two things: first, a degree of independence
in types of sentencing from the geo-politicaland development position; second, thatpublic attitudes do reflect, to a certain
degree, the actual availability of sentencing
options and their use in practice.4 In otherwords, public attitudes are influenced bypenal systems and penal practice, althoughneither exclusively nor in a clearly predeterministic manner (Zvekic, 1997b).
In many countries much work is stillneeded to promote credible non-custodial
sanctions and in particular, to overcome
difficulties in implementation following
conviction. In fact, public attitudes often
lag behind sentencing reform and time isneeded to convey the message thatpunishment is implemented seriously, inorder to ensure public acceptance. Support
4

There is a certain level of correspondence
in the regional patterns based on public
attitudes to punishment, on the one hand,

Latin
America

H. Shinkai and U. Zvekic. “Punishment’’ in G.
Newman (Ed.) Global Report on Crime and Justice.
New York-Oxford, UN & Oxford University Press.
1999.

112TH INTERNATIONAL TRAINING COURSE
VISITING EXPERTS’ PAPERS
for imprisonment is often formed byvicarious information, traditional belief
systems and socio-legal heritage. Fear ofcrime also appears to support harsher
sentencing. All of this is not an irrational
response to urgent crime problems. Where
the replacement of stolen property isrelatively easy, either through insurance
coverage or through the ability to buy newcommodities, severe punishment is not theobvious cure. However, where - as is thecase in the majority of countries intransition and in the developing world hardship precludes replacing stolen
property, calls for more severe punishment,
bringing offenders to justice and therecovery of stolen goods are rational
responses to crime problems.

Zvekic, U. (1997b). ‘International trends
in non-custodial sanctions’. In, Villé, R,
Zvekic, U. and Klaus, J., Promoting
Probation Internationally. Rome: UNICRI.
Shinkai, H. and Zvekic. U. (1999)“Punishment’’ in G. Newman (Ed.) Global
Report on Crime and Justice. New YorkOxford, UN & Oxford University Press.

REFERENCES
Kuhn, A. (1993). ‘Attitudes towards
punishment’. In, Alvazzi del Frate, A.,
Zvekic, U. and van Dijk, J.J.M. (Eds.),
Understanding Crime: Experiences of
Crime and Crime Control. Rome: UNICRI.
Van Dijk, J.J.M. (1994). ‘Who is afraidof the crime victim: criminal victimisation,
fear of crime and opinions on crime in aninternational perspective’. Paper
presented at the World Society ofVictimology Symposium. Adelaide,
Australia, 21-26 August 1994.
Zekic, U. (1996). ‘Policing and attitudes
towards police in countries in transition’.
In, Pagon, M. (Ed.), Policing in Central andEastern Europe, Proceedings of theInternational Conference. Ljubljana,
Slovenia, 14-16 November 1996.
Zvekic, U. (1997). ‘Les attitudes desvictimes envers la police et la punitivité:
résultats des sondages internationaux devictimisation’. Revue internationale decriminologie et de police technique, Vol. I,
Janvier-Mars.

189