Report 2020:13

Reported and cleared
rapes in Europe
Difficulties of international comparisonsReported and cleared
rapes in Europe
Difficulties of international comparisons
Report 2020:13

This is an English version of report 2020:2

The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå) –a knowledge centre for the criminal justice system
The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention (Brå)
works to reduce crime and make society safer. We do thisby compiling facts and sharing knowledge about crime andcrime prevention, primarily for the Swedish government andagencies within the criminal justice system.

urn:nbn:se:bra-933© Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention 2020
Authors: Stina Holmberg and Lars Lewenhagen
Brottsförebyggande rådet, Box 1386, 111 93 Stockholm
Phone +46 8 527 58 400, e-mail info@bra.se, www.bra.se3

Foreword
According to the statistics presented by the EU, Sweden has long
had the highest number of reported rapes per capita in Europe.
According to the available statistics, the percentage of rapes
cleared in Sweden is also low compared with other European
countries. In many different contexts, the government, theMinistry for Foreign Affairs and Brå are questioned about theunderlying causes. In the light of this, Brå has conducted a study
which aims to compile a better basis for answering suchquestions.
In the report, Brå addresses the different problems involved incomparing different countries in terms of the incidence of rapeand clearance rates based on crime statistics. Brå also
recalculates certain figures to illustrate how various factors,
other than the actual incidence of rape and the effectiveness ofthe criminal justice system, affect the statistics on both reported
and cleared rapes.
Brå hopes that this report can contribute to a more balanced andfact-based discussion on the extent of rapes reported to thepolice in different countries. The report is intended for both
Swedish and foreign readerships. To this end, it is being madeavailable in both Swedish and English.
The study has been conducted by Lars Lewenhagen, researcher
at Brå, and Stina Holmberg, docent and senior research advisor
at Brå.
Sven-Åke Lindgren, professor emeritus of sociology at the
University of Gothenburg, has peer-reviewed the report andoffered valuable feedback.
Stockholm, September 2020
Kristina Svartz
Director-General4

Contents
Summary .......................................................................................................... 6
Reported rapes according to Eurostat................................................................................ 7
Cleared-up rapes in national statistics ............................................................................ 12

Brå’s assessment ....................................................................................................................... 13
Introduction ................................................................................................... 15
Questions ...................................................................................................................................... 15
Reported rapes ............................................................................................... 18

Previous research ..................................................................................................................... 19
Reported rapes according to Eurostat............................................................................. 20
Formal factors ................................................................................................ 25
Legal conditions......................................................................................................................... 25

Statistical factors ....................................................................................................................... 33
Formal factors in summary .................................................................................................. 42
Substantive factors ......................................................................................... 47
The actual incidence of rape ................................................................................................ 47
Propensity to report ................................................................................................................ 57
Propensity to register ............................................................................................................. 67

Substantive factors in summary......................................................................................... 68
Cleared rapes ................................................................................................. 70

Clearance rates vary greatly ................................................................................................ 70
The manner in which cleared offences are calculated differs............................... 71
Another way to measure the percentage of cleared offences ............................... 76

Difficult to compare the effectiveness of the police................................................... 77
Concluding remarks ....................................................................................... 79
References ...................................................................................................... 83

Internet sources......................................................................................................................... 88
Appendix 1 .................................................................................................... 90

5

Summary
Sweden has long had the highest number of reported rapes per
capita, according to the statistics from Eurostat. Moreover, thepercentage of rapes cleared up in Sweden is low compared withother European countries, according to the official statistics.
The government, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs and Brå areoften questioned about the underlying causes. The aim of thisreport is, therefore, to attempt to compile a better basis foranswering such questions.
The report discusses and analyses possible causes of thereported differences in the number of reported rapes. The focus
is on causal factors other than the actual crime, such as
differences in the propensity to report, the legal conditions andstatistical methods. The primary aim is to highlight the
problems of using Eurostat’s report statistics as a basis forcomparing the incidence of rape in different countries.
The report also addresses the differences in the reported
percentage of rapes cleared up in five European countries. The
extent to which differences is clear-up rates reflect actual
differences in the effectiveness of the criminal justice system isanalysed by, among other things, examining how a cleared-up
crime is defined in the different countries.

MethodThe study is mainly based on publicly available sources. Central
to these are Eurostat’s statistics on reported rapes in Europe.
Since Eurostat publishes data with an 18-month delay, the study
period was set to 2013–2017. Other sources of importance tothe number of reports have also been used, primarily a study ofthe prevalence of physical and sexual violence against women(FRA, 2014a) to examine issues regarding the propensity toreport and the willingness to talk.
More detailed analyses were also conducted of the situation in
five countries: Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany andEngland/Wales (which are of course two separate countries, but
in this respect are treated as a single entity since they comprise asingle jurisdiction).

6

Reported rapes according to Eurostat
When reviewing Eurostat’s statistics on the average number ofreported rapes per 100,000 inhabitants and year for the period
2013–2017, it is apparent that the countries with by far themost reports are Sweden and England/Wales. Generally
speaking, a pattern can be discerned with more reported rapes
per capita in north-western Europe than in countries insouthern and eastern Europe. This pattern is regularly raised by
the media and is often interpreted as differences in the numberof committed rapes. Using different countries’ crime statistics asa basis for comparing the extent of rape is, however,problematic for several reasons. Brå has identified four
circumstances indicating that Eurostat’s report statistics cannot
be said to reflect differences in actual crime rates in the
countries:-

There can be differences in the legal conditions.

-

There can be differences in the statistical methods.

-

There can be differences in the propensity to report.

-

There can be differences in the propensity to register.

The legal conditions as regards rape statistics differ
between the countries
Eurostat’s definition of rape is broad: there is no need for force
to be involved for the sexual act to be defined as rape, only alack of valid consent. However, many countries lack theprerequisites for specifying how many such rapes are reported,as they have a narrower definition of rape in their national
legislation. According to an analysis by the European Institutefor Gender Equality (EIGE) from 2016, only seven countries in
Europe had consent-based legislation. However, most countries
did have various forms of exception to the need for the use offorce, such as a victim who was sleeping or heavily intoxicatedat the time of the incident. In one third of the countries
analysed, some form of violence or threat was required for theact to be classified as rape. The European countries also differedin terms of the sexual acts included under rape in their national
legislation. In 17 of the 30 countries encompassed by the study,
only sexual intercourse was included in the definition of rape.

7

The statistical methods used also differ between
countries
There are considerable differences between countries as regards
how the statistics on reported rapes are recorded and the exact
information submitted to Eurostat. This mainly boils down to
the following factors:-

Whether attempted crimes are included in the rapestatistics submitted to Eurostat.

-

Whether the basis for the statistics is compiled from theinformation available when the crimes were reported oronce the investigations were completed.

-

How the reported crimes are counted.

Brå’s review shows that the countries differ in terms of all threefactors, which affects the number of reports submitted toEurostat.

When the statistics are made more comparable, most of
the differences in the number of reports disappear
To obtain a more detailed picture of the possible significance of
these differences, we have compared Germany and Sweden. In
doing so, Brå has recalculated Sweden’s statistics using the samelegal conditions and statistical methods as in Germany. The
calculation shows that much of the differences in reports per
capita disappear if the statistics are made more comparable.
Figure 1. Rapes reported to the police per 100,000 inhabitants 2016, unadjusted andstandardised numbers. Source: Eurostat and Brå.

8

Propensity to report
The propensity of victims to report rape is of considerable
importance to the number of reported crimes in the statistics. It
is impossible to say how much the propensity to report differs
between countries, as it is impossible to know exactly how
many rapes are actually committed. Victims of crime surveys
are, however, generally considered a better source than reportstatistics when studying the extent of actual crime.

Using victims of crime surveys to measure rape
Victims of crime surveys offer advantages over report statistics,
as they are not affected in the same way by factors such as thepropensity to report, legislation and statistical methods. They
are, on the other hand, affected by how the respondents
perceive the incidents they have experienced and their
willingness to talk about them. This is usually referred to as thewillingness to talk.
In order to be able to use victim surveys for international
comparisons, it is important that they are conducted inequivalent manners, as differences in, for example, collection
methods and question formulations have been shown to have asignificant impact on the results (Stefansen et al., 2019).
International victim surveys on rape are uncommon. The mostrecent one was conducted in 2012 by the EU Agency for
Fundamental Rights (FRA). This study has been the subject of
criticism, including for the fact that the data was not collectedin the same manner in all countries (Walby and Towers, 2017).
Accordingly, the results of the FRA study must be interpretedwith great caution.

9

Figure 2 Percentage of women stating that they have been raped since the age of 15
years. Source: EIGE and FRA 2014a, n=42,023.

The results show that the reported prevalence from 15 years ofage varies between 3 percent in Croatia and 14 percent in the
Netherlands. In Sweden, 11 percent responded that they had
been raped after the age of 15 years. In one third of thecountries included in the survey, the reported prevalence varied
between 10 and 12 percent. In other words, the differences
between the countries are less prominent in FRA’s survey thanin Eurostat’s police report statistics.

10

The propensity to report to the police most likely varies
between countries
Several different factors are considered to be able to affect thepropensity to report a rape to the police. Two of these factors,
which according to research are of importance to the propensity
to report, are the prevalence of rape myths and publicconfidence in the criminal justice system.
Accordingly, the extent to which rape is reported to the police
and registered is determined by, among other things, generally
held views on what constitutes rape. In this regard, thediscussion often turns to rape myths, which contribute to
upholding a situation in which rape is common but seldom
reported to the police. This is caused by, for example,
misinformed ideas as to what rape is. If the picture of rape is ofa woman being attacked by a stranger, this can lead to incidents
which do not match this idea not being reported to the police.
The fact that there are differences in attitude between countries
becomes apparent in Eurobarometer 449. Among other things,
the respondents were asked whether a woman is at greater riskof being raped by a stranger than someone she knows. Sweden
stood out in the responses to his question, in that considerably
fewer people considered this to be the case.

Low confidence in the criminal justice system canprevent people from filing a police report
Public confidence in the criminal justice system has also beenraised as a factor of importance to the propensity to report (vonHofer, 2000). The level of confidence in the criminal justicesystem in different countries was measured in Eurobarometer
385. If the responses are compared with Eurostat’s statistics onreported rapes, we can see a positive correlation between thelevel of confidence in the criminal justice system in each country
and the number of reported rapes per capita.
To summarise, there is much to indicate that the propensity toreport differs between the studied countries and that a highpropensity to report can be linked to attitudes which are to beconsidered desirable, such as confidence in the criminal justicesystem and greater rejection of rape myths.

11

Reports have highlighted shortcomings in thepropensity to register
Finally, there may be differences between countries in terms ofthe tendency for the police to register a reported rape inaccordance with the country’s regulations, which here isreferred to as the propensity to register. Ignored or incorrectlyclassified reports are, for obvious reasons, difficult for Brå toidentify and measure. That there can be shortcomings in thepropensity to register has, however, been raised inEngland/Wales as well as in Denmark.

Cleared-up rapes in national statistics
One important task for the police and prosecutors is to clear up
the crimes of which they are made aware. The officiallyreported percentage of crimes cleared up, the clear-up rate,
differs significantly between different countries. The extent towhich this depends on how the influx of crimes is calculated,
how cleared-up crimes are defined or differences in theeffectiveness of the police is analysed and discussed in thereport. The analysis is limited to the five countries studied ingreater detail in the comparison of report statistics.
What, then, could explain why the clear-up rates reported in the
different countries’ national statistics vary so greatly? In themain, it concerns variations in:-

The manner in which cleared-up crimes are defined.

-

The reports included in the influx of crimes.

-

The time at which the statistics on cleared-up crimes areprepared.

-

The opportunity for and the capability of the police toinvestigate and clear up reported rapes.

The manner in which cleared-up crimes are calculated differs
The countries differ greatly in terms of what is counted as acleared-up crime. They also differ in terms of which rapereports the cleared-up crimes are to be divided by to calculate
the clear-up rate, and what time the statistics are prepared.
To obtain a fairer picture, Brå has recalculated the countries’
statistics on cleared-up rapes so that they are based on as
equivalent principles as possible. In the recalculated figures, acleared-up crime is defined as a person being convicted of the12

reported crime in a court of law. The influx of crimes is basedon the number of complainants who during a particular year
have reported a rape which has been investigated by the police
and where suspicion remains after the investigation.
Figure 3 presents the average clear-up rate for rape during theperiod 2013–2017 using two different measurement methods.
Figure 3. Official clear-up rate for rape and number of convictions in relation tonumber of complainants in investigated rapes where suspicion remains, average
2013--2017. Source: national crime statistics and Brå.

With Brå’s recalculation of cleared-up rapes, the percentages aremuch lower. In particular, the levels are very much lower incountries which, according to the original statistics, exhibitedvery high clear-up rates, such as Germany and Denmark. The
differences between the countries are also considerably smallerwhen calculated in a more equivalent manner.

Brå’s assessment
Brå’s overall assessment of the review is that the differences
between Sweden and other European countries as regards theincidence of rape are smaller than indicated by Eurostat’s reportstatistics. If the legal conditions and statistical methods had
been the same as in Germany, Sweden would rank somewherein the middle of the report statistics from Eurostat. Nor does
Sweden stand out in FRA’s survey when it comes to thepercentage of women who have stated that they have been
raped at some point. Out of the total of 27 countries included in
the survey, Sweden is among the 10 where the stated prevalence
is between 10 and 12 percent. In other words, there is no
support for the claim that Sweden deviates significantly fromother countries in north-western Europe when it comes to theincidence of rape.
13However, according to both the adjusted report statistics andthe victim survey, more women are raped in Sweden than incountries in southern and eastern Europe, such as Spain,
Portugal, Poland and Greece. It is impossible to rule out thatthese differences are due to more rapes actually taking place inSweden. However, as previously mentioned, it could also be due
to women who are raped in Sweden having a greater propensity
to report the incident to the police and more willingness to talkabout it in a victim survey (as well as being more aware thatthey have been subjected to sexual assault and therefore acriminal act).
Consequently, there is no infallible source of knowledge withwhich to compare countries when it comes to the incidence ofrape. However, in a comparison between report statistics andvictims of crime surveys, Brå’s assessment is that a wellexecuted European victims of crime survey is a better source ofknowledge than Eurostat’s report statistics.

14

Introduction
According to the statistics presented by the EU (throughEurostat), Sweden has long had the highest number of reported
rapes per capita in Europe. According to the available statistics,
the percentage of rapes cleared up in Sweden is also low
compared with other European countries. In many different
contexts, the government, the Ministry for Foreign Affairs andBrå are questioned about the underlying causes. The aim of thereport is, therefore, to attempt to compile a better basis foranswering such questions.
The study is divided into two parts, with the emphasis on thefirst, which discusses and analyses possible causes of thereported differences in the number of reported rapes. The focus
is on causal factors other than the actual crime. The primary
aim is to highlight the problems of using report statistics from
Eurostat as a basis for comparing the incidence of rape in
different countries. The review reveals that there are clear
differences between the countries as regards the legal
conditions, the way in which statistics on reported rapes arerecorded, and the attitudes considered associated with thepropensity to report sexual crimes. To some extent, Bråattempts to estimate how large an effect the differences in legal
conditions and statistical methods have on the rape statistics inEurostat. On the other hand, we are unable to provide the“true” picture of how common rape is in Sweden comparedwith other countries.
The second part of the report addresses the differences in thereported percentage of rapes cleared up in five European
countries. Statistically, the number of rapes cleared up varies
greatly between the countries. The extent to which thesedifferences reflect the effectiveness of the criminal justice system
is examined by reviewing the differences in how cleared-up
crimes are defined and calculated. How the percentage of rapes
cleared up can be compared internationally is also explored.

Questions
The questions which the study aims to shed some light on are as
follows:-

In what way are Eurostat’s statistics on the number ofrapes reported to the police affected by differences inlegal conditions and differences in the way in which
statistics are recorded?
15

-What role do differences in the propensity to report
play, and which factors can affect the extent to whichrapes are reported to the police?

-

What role do differences in the propensity to register
play, that is, to what extent do the police register filed
reports in accordance with the applicable regulations?

-

What theories are there for what affects the actual
incidence of rape, and what picture of the differences in
the incidence of rape can we obtain from victims ofcrime surveys?

-

Which factors can affect the number and percentage ofreported rapes which, according to the statistics, arecleared up in different countries?

MethodThe study is mainly based on publicly available sources. Central
to these are Eurostat’s statistics on reported rapes. Since
Eurostat publishes data with an 18-month delay, the study
period was set to 2013–2017. The guidelines used to govern thecollection of statistics and the accompanying description ofdifferent countries’ statistical circumstances (metadata) havealso been thoroughly reviewed.
In order to analyse the conditions and differences in theunderlying material which each country submits to Eurostat ingreater detail, five countries have been studied in greater depth.
The countries chosen for this study are Sweden, Norway,
Denmark, Germany and England/Wales (which are of course
two separate countries, but in this respect are treated as a single
entity since they comprise a single jurisdiction). These countries
have also been chosen for a review of the differences in thepercentage of rapes cleared up.
The reason for choosing these particular countries is primarily
down to language, although also because many of the other
European countries’ crime statistics are not refined enough toprovide a basis for the analyses Brå wanted to conduct. Where
the principles behind the national crime statistics have not beenclearly stated, we have contacted the bodies responsible for theofficial statistics of the concerned countries and asked forclarifications. Specially ordered statistics on rape reports in
Sweden were also requested from Brå’s unit for judicial
statistics. Microdata from a previous report on rapes reported
to the police in 2016 (Brå, 2019b) have also been used to16examine the composition of the rape crimes reported to thepolice in Sweden.
Other sources of importance to the number of reports have also
been used, primarily a study of the prevalence of physical andsexual violence against women (FRA, 2014a) to examine issues
regarding the propensity to report and the willingness to talk. A
great deal of information has been retrieved from the European
Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE). For example, we haveused EIGE’s analysis of FRA’s victim survey and its compilationof European countries’ rape legislation and levels of equality.
We have also used surveys of views on sexual crime andconfidence in the criminal justice system as a basis for thiswork. Finally, the statistics on factors which, according toresearch, can be of significance to the incidence of rape havebeen retrieved from Eurostat and the World Bank.

17

Reported rapes
In international comparisons of crime statistics, Sweden isamong the countries with the most rapes reported to the police
per capita. This fact is regularly raised by the media. It is notuncommon for the relatively high number of reported crimes tobe linked to Sweden’s generous immigration policies. 1 On otheroccasions, the many reports are compared with Sweden’s
prominent position in matters of gender equality. 2 Rape
statistics can also be used as an argument in international
politics. 3
Using different countries’ crime statistics as a basis forcomparing rape in those countries is, however, problematic, andfor several reasons. First, there is no universal definitionof rape, and how rape is defined in law can differ significantly
between different countries. This means that when comparing
the number of rapes reported in different countries, we are notcomparing like with like.
The number of unreported crimes, that is, the number of rapesof which the police are not even aware, is considered to belarge. Exactly how large is determined by the general propensity
to report, which most likely also varies between countries,
depending in part on how taboo the subject of sexual violence
is. Another problem is the differences between countries inwhether all reported rapes are included in the statistics, andhow those statistics are counted.
This means that differences between countries in the number ofreported rapes cannot be said to reflect the actual numbers ofrapes in a fair manner. The size of this discrepancy cannot bemeasured, as the true number of rapes remains unknown. On
the other hand, we can study and measure the effect of otherconditions on report statistics, such as the differences in how
crimes are counted.
This section of the report discusses and analyses such factors
affecting the statistics on reported rapes. The focus is on rape,
but the approach can also be used on a more general level to
1Two examples can be found at https://www.dn.se/nyheter/varlden/svenska- ambassadenkritiserar- italiensk-tv-kanal-efter-logner-om-sverige/ and https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics39056786.
2 https://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=83&artikel=2795676.
3 Following a dispute between Sweden and Turkey, travellers at the airport in Istanbul were met by
the following message: “Travel warning! Did you know that Sweden has the highest rape rateworldwide?” See https://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/a/7lyGJ4/varnar-for-resor-till-sverige-paturkisk-flygplats.

18

highlight the difficulties involved in international comparisonsof crime based on crime statistics.

Previous research
The extent to which crime statistics can be used to establish theincidence of and trends in crime is a classic field of study incriminology (Aebi et al., 2014; Westfelt & Estrada, 2005). One
well- known problem is that crime statistics are influenced by anumber of factors other than actual crime levels. For example,
the police are not even made aware of all crimes. The generalpropensity to report and the working methods employed by thepolice can have a major impact on how many and which crimes
are registered and counted in the statistics. When it comes tointernational comparisons, there are even more problems, which
is why some people claim that no analyses should be conductedon the basis of crime statistics (Van Dijk, 2015). Others claimthat certain comparisons can be made, provided the analysis islimited to homicide or only focuses on trends rather than levels(von Hofer, 2000; Harrendorf, 2018).
von Hofer (2000) investigated the causes of differences in levels
in report statistics between countries, with a focus on rape. He
divided the factors that affect the statistics into three categories:
statistical, legal and substantive.
Statistical factors relate to the step in the judicial chain at which
a reported crime is registered in the statistics and how thenumber of crimes is counted, such as whether repeat offences ofthe same type involving the same victim and perpetrator arecounted one or more times in the statistics.
Legal factors encompass, for example, how rape legislation isworded. This may concern how the sexual assault of children isclassified or which sexual acts are considered rape. The statistics
are also affected by different legal process factors.
By substantive factors, von Hofer means the extent of the“actual” crime, as well as the general propensity to reportcrimes and the extent to which the criminal justice systemaddresses and registers these reports.
According to von Hofer, the statistical, legal and substantive
factors contribute to the level of reported rapes in Sweden
becoming inflated in relation to the European average. As such,he asserts that crime statistics are largely a social construct andnot a “true” picture of reality. However, according to theauthor, one cannot rule out the possibility that more rapes are19

actually committed in Sweden than in, for example, countries
where women are subject to stricter social control.
In a previous report (1999), Brå has attempted to estimate theeffect of differences in the point at which crimes are registeredand the manner in which they are counted.
The analysis included a number of different types of crime,
including rapes reported in 1997. If the statistics had been
prepared after the investigations were completed, rather than at
the time the reports were made, the number of rapes reported tothe police would have fallen by 16 percent. If only the mostserious crime in a report was counted in the statistics (theprincipal offence approach), the number of reported rapes in thestatistics would have fallen by eight percent. If serial crimes had
been counted once instead of several times, the reported rapestatistics would have fallen by 14 percent. If Sweden had
recorded its statistics in the same manner as those countries
which are restrictive in all the aspects listed above, the numberof reported rapes in the statistics would have fallen by 29
percent.
Aebi (2008) conducted a similar analysis of reported crimes in
Europe. This study focused on the rules governing how crime
statistics are compiled in individual countries. The author foundthat the difference in when the statistics are compiled is themain reason why report statistics levels vary between countries.

Reported rapes according to Eurostat
When comparisons are made between the number of rapes
reported to the police in European countries, the most citedsource is Eurostat. 4 Eurostat is the statistical office of theEuropean Union, and its mission is to provide comparable andhigh-quality statistics for Europe. The aim is to enable crime
statistics to provide a basis for deciding on, planning andimplementing EU policies. Eurostat collects data from themember states, but also works together with them to refine andharmonise European statistics. In Sweden, Brå is responsible forcrime statistics and, consequently, submits the concerned data
to Eurostat each year.
However, the duty to report only regulates the fact thatstatistics are to be submitted on reported crimes, prosecutionsand verdicts – it does not regulate how the statistics are to be
4 In other cases, the source can be the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC),

although since 2014 Eurostat and UNODC coordinate their crime statistics collection and assuch the figures should largely agree.

20

recorded.5 Instead, the level of detail to be found in thesubmitted data is governed by the content of Eurostat’s annual
questionnaire and the accompanying guidelines andinstructions. At this level, data collection is conducted inaccordance with voluntary agreements and, as such, is notstrictly mandatory, even if there is a natural desire for themember states to report the requested data. The voluntary
nature is expressed, for example, in the guidelines clearly statingthat in cases where the countries cannot comply with thedefinitions in the questionnaire, they are instead to submit
statistics based on national definitions and rules.
The guidelines for which statistics are to be submitted asregards rape have been amended somewhat over the years. Since
2017, rape data are to be submitted in compliance with the
ICCS (International Classification of Crime for Statistical
Purposes) system. At the same time, the instructions
accompanying the questionnaire were supplemented withcertain recommendations from the UN regarding how thenumber of crimes is to be counted. How well these guidelines
can be implemented varies greatly between the member states.
This is mainly due to the crime statistics of the different
countries being based on their national legislation, which differs
between the countries.
Hence both legal and statistical factors affect the level of therape statistics, which affects their comparability. Eurostat also
writes that the statistics currently available reflect the diversity ofpolicing and legal systems within the EU: as such, comparisonsof crime statistics between EU Member States should focus ontrends over time, rather than directly comparing levels between
countries for a specific year. 6
Figure 4 presents statistics from Eurostat on the average numberof reported rapes per 100,000 inhabitants and year for theperiod 2013–2017. 7 It is apparent that the countries with themost reports are Sweden and England/Wales. Generally
speaking, a pattern can be discerned with more reported rapes
per capita in north-western Europe than in southern and eastern
Europe.
5 Regulation (EC) No 223/2009 on the development, production and dissemination of European
statistics.
6 https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php?title=Archive:Crime_statistics/sv
7 Italy does not differentiate between rape and other sexual offences in its statistics, and as suchis not included in the summary. The United Kingdom is divided into three jurisdictions:
England/Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, which are therefore reported separately. The
Eurostat cooperation also includes European countries which are not members of the EU, such as
Norway.

21

Figure 4: Average number of reported rapes per 100,000 inhabitants and year for theperiod 2013–2017. Source: Eurostat.

The main question discussed in this section of the report iswhich factors can contribute to the figures in the chart notreflecting the actual occurrence of rapes in a comparable
manner. Here we differentiate between formal and substantive
factors. On the following page is a schematic overview of thesedifferent concepts.

22

Table 1. Overview of formal and substantive factors affecting the comparability ofcrime statistics.

The next chapter analyses the formal factors affecting thecomparability of crime statistics, concluding with an attempt tostandardise the report statistics based on these factors.
The following chapter discusses circumstances that are much
more difficult to measure, namely the extent to which
committed rapes are reported and registered. It also presents theavailable sources of knowledge on the actual occurrence ofrape.

A closer look at five countries
An in-depth analysis has been conducted of five countries:
Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Germany and England/Wales. By
examining the national legislation and crime statistics of thesecountries in greater detail, we can assess how well Eurostat’s
guidelines for and description of the statistics correlate as awhole.
Figure 5 presents the trends in reported rapes per 100,000
inhabitants for the period 2013–2017 in the five countries
studied in depth.

23

Figure 5. Reported rapes per 100,000 inhabitants 2013–2017.

Source: Eurostat.

In all five countries the number of reported rapes has increased
during the five-year study period. In Germany, the number ofreports in the statistics increased by 10 percent. In Sweden,
which had the largest number of reports at the beginning of theperiod, the number increased by 18 percent. In Norway, theincrease was 40 percent. The largest increase was seen in
England/Wales, which in 2017 had two-and-a-half times more
reports than in 2013. All in all, this trend means that
England/Wales is on a par with Sweden when measuring the
average number of reported rapes per 100,000 inhabitants andyear (presented in Figure 4). Denmark also saw a significant
percentage increase with the number of reports more thandoubling during the period.
The analysis in this study mostly concerns the differences
between different countries in terms of reported levels, nottrends. However, certain sections also report figures about
trends since sudden changes in levels in the crime statistics canillustrate how factors other than actual trends in crime rates cancome into play when the number of reported rapes changes.

24Formal factors
This chapter discusses what are known as formal factors:
written rules that affect Eurostat’s statistics on rapes reported tothe police. The chapter is divided into two parts, with the first
addressing the legal conditions for the number of reported
rapes. This encompasses, among other things, which acts arelegally considered rape in each country. The second part of thechapter covers the rules and guidelines governing how statistics
are recorded in different countries.
The chapter concludes with an attempt to standardise the reportstatistics for Sweden and Germany by taking into account to thegreatest extent possible the differences in formal factors
between these two countries.

Legal conditions
Several different legal factors affect the report statistics inEurostat. First, there are factors associated with the legal
definition of rape. This mainly concerns three aspects which candiffer, namely:•

Whether force must be involved for an act to beclassified as rape•

Which sexual acts are included in the definition of rape•

Who can rape and who can be raped

The rape statistics are also affected by the extent to which
sexual activity with a minor is classified as rape. In addition,
there are factors concerning how the criminal justice systemprocesses reported rapes.
The following pages describe these factors systematically. For
each factor, we begin with the wording of the Eurostat
guidelines. However, the data submitted by each country are
determined by the legal definition of rape in that particularcountry, which is also highlighted by Eurostat. This is why thelegislation of the individual countries is the main focus of thissection.
First, we present the situation in each European country basedon the available sources. We then present a more detailed studyof the legislation in five countries.

25

The legal definition of rape
In order to make the statistics comparable, Eurostat asks themember states to follow the ICCS 8 classification system whensubmitting their crime data. This comparability is, however,complicated by the fact that the ICCS system provides a broad
definition of rape: “Sexual penetration without valid consent orwith consent as a result of intimidation, force, fraud,
coercion, threat, deception, use of drugs or alcohol, abuse of
power or of a position of vulnerability, or the giving or
receiving of benefits.” (UNODC, 2015: p. 50). In other words,
there is no need for force to be involved for the sexual act to be
defined as rape, only a lack of valid consent. However, many
countries lack the prerequisites for specifying how many suchrapes are reported, as they have a narrower definition of rape in
their national legislation, and consequently narrower reportstatistics. Harrendorf (2018: p. 160) illustrates this problem inthe following manner:
National statistics necessarily mirror the criminal law andcriminal procedure in a given country. They cannot record
behaviour that is not considered criminal in a particular country.
Rape legislation changes over time

The definition can also change over time in the different
countries, and considerable amendments have been made to therape legislation in individual countries in recent years. Both
Sweden and Denmark broadened their rape legislation in 2013,
Norway made some amendments in 2015 (including in theclassification of child abuse), and Germany introduced consentbased legislation in 2016, as did Sweden in July 2018.
Appendix 1 presents the full legal texts on rape of the fivecountries studied in depth, as well as abbreviated legal
definitions of rape from the other EU member states.
The study period runs until 2017, which means that the datafrom Sweden stem from the time before the above-mentioned
amendments to the law. Even in the case of Germany, the study
primarily encompasses the situation before the law wasamended. 9 The information about the other European countries
8 ICCS stands for the International Classification of Crime for Statistical Purposes. It was
implemented in 2017, with the option to revise previous years based on the new guidelines(Eurostat 2017).
9 This is because rape statistics in Germany are not recorded until the rape investigation has been
completed and a large share of the reports made after the law was amended have not yet beenentered in the statistics being studied. Accordingly, when we present information about thelegislation in Germany, we are referring to the situation before the law was amended.

26

is based on a report produced by the European Institute for
Gender Equality (EIGE) in 2016.
The development of the definition of rape in the Swedish
criminal code can serve as an example of how narrow or broada rape definition can be. When the Swedish criminal code cameinto force in 1965, rape was described as follows:
If a man forces a woman to have sexual intercourse throughviolence or threats entailing imminent danger, he is guilty ofrape and is sentenced to imprisonment, for at least two andat most ten years. Rendering a woman powerless or putting
her in a similar state is to be equated with violence.

Since then, the Swedish legislation on rape has been amended
on six occasions. Among other things, sexual acts other thansexual intercourse have gradually been added and the definition
has been made gender neutral, which means that women canrape and men can be raped. The requirement for force has also
been lessened. The necessary condition of violence has been
reduced from the threat of violence entailing a danger to lifeand health 10 to unlawful coercion, and it has been completely
revoked in certain situations, such as if the victim was asleep orunder 15 years of age. Since 1 July 2018, the rape definition isbased on consent:
A person who performs sexual intercourse, or some othersexual act that in view of the seriousness of the violationis comparable to sexual intercourse, with a person who is notparticipating voluntarily is guilty of rape and is sentenced to
imprisonment for at least two and at most six years 11.

Rape legislation in different countries often criticised ininternational studies
Within the scope of this study, Brå has reviewed rape legislationin five countries but has not had the opportunity to take acloser look at the national legislation of all European countries
in this area.
There are, however, previous studies with a broader focus. In
2013, the European Women’s Lobby (EWL) studied the rape
legislation of European countries and concluded that six
countries in particular needed to modernise their rape
10 Violence or threats aimed at the victim and entailing or perceived as entailing imminent danger.
11 It should be noted here that the maximum penalty for rape has not been lowered in practice,rather rape has been divided into different levels of severity, with the definition provided here beingthat of the lower level of severity. The penalty for aggravated rape is currently imprisonment for atleast five and at most ten years.

27

legislation: Bulgaria, Hungary, Lithuania, Malta, Serbia andUkraine. Among other things, they were criticised for wording
in the legislation referring to honour and morality.
In another study, reflecting the situation in 2015, it was foundthat marital rape was not criminalised in Bulgaria, Hungary,
Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Slovakia (Greenfield, 2019).
According to an analysis by the European Institute for Gender
Equality (EIGE) from 2016, only seven countries in Europe had
consent-based legislation. However, most countries did havevarious forms of exception to the need for the use of force, suchas a victim who was sleeping or heavily intoxicated at the timeof the incident. An overview of the requirement for force in therape legislation of the different countries is presented in Table 2.
Table 2. Level of force required for rape, according to the legal definition of rape in 30
European countries in 2016. Source: European Institute for Gender Equality (EIGE).

Of the five countries, only England/Wales had consent-based
legislation

Of the countries studied in depth, only England/Wales had
consent- based rape legislation during the period studied by Brå.
That is, legislation with no necessary condition of violence orthreats, rather the requirement for rape was fulfilled if the otherperson had not consented to sexual activity and the suspected
perpetrator did not have reasonable reason to believe that theother party had provided their consent.
28

The rape legislation of the Nordic countries was largely similar
up until 2018 (Egelström, 2019; SOU, 2016:60). For an offence
to be classified as rape, this required either some form of
coercion through violence or threats, or for the perpetrator tohave taken advantage when the victim could not defend
themselves. The necessary condition of force was, however, on alow level and did not require that the victim had fought back. In
Sweden, the necessary condition of force was met if theperpetrator used their body weight to constrain the victim’s
movement or to spread the victim’s legs.
The Nordic countries also had similar descriptions of situations
in which a person shall be considered to have been in a helplessstate or a particularly vulnerable situation. In the Swedish
legislation, this was described as
improperly exploiting the fact that the person, due tounconsciousness, sleep, grave fear, intoxication, the influence ofdrugs, illness, bodily injury, mental disorder or otherwise in viewof the circumstances, is in a particularly vulnerable situation.

Germany had the strictest requirement for force for an act to beclassified as rape. For the necessary condition of force to be
met, the victim was required to have attempted to defend
themselves from their attacker, with verbal resistanceconsidered insufficient (Amnesty, 2018: p. 10).
In a review of rapes reported in Sweden in 2016, in cases
regarding completed rapes of women aged 15 years or over(Brå, 2019b), it was assessed that half of the complainants,
based on their personal accounts, did not attempt to physically
prevent the assault. This was often due to the fact that they
were asleep, heavily intoxicated or paralysed with fear.
Accordingly, these cases would not have been included in thestatistics with the German definition of rape.
The acts considered rape differ

Eurostat also has a definition of which acts are considered rape:
sexual penetration, at minimum, is the penetration of the vulva,
anus or mouth with any body part or object (UNODC, 2015: p.
50). However, the European countries differed in terms of thesexual acts included under rape in their national legislation. In
17 of the 30 Eurostat countries encompassed by the study, thedefinition of rape only included sexual intercourse. In some ofthese countries, this only encompassed vaginal penetration,
while in other countries it also included anal and oral
penetration. Other countries also included other sexual acts in29their definition of rape, such as vaginal penetration by finger. 12
Of the five countries studied in depth, England/Wales had thenarrowest definition in this respect. For the offence to beclassified as rape, it required that a man penetrated anotherperson’s mouth, vagina or anus with his penis. Penetration
using fingers or objects was instead classified as “assault bypenetration”. Accordingly, these offences are not included in therape statistics for the study period.
In the Nordic countries, rape included more sexual acts than in
England/Wales. In Sweden, rape included sexual intercourse, orsome other sexual act that in view of the seriousness of theviolation is comparable to sexual intercourse, such as to insert
fingers, objects or other body parts in the victim’s vagina oranus. If the perpetrator’s and the victim’s genitalia have touched(even without penetration taking place), this is consideredsexual intercourse and as such is classified as rape.
Denmark and Norway had similar definitions of rape. One
minor difference between the countries was that in Sweden and
Norway, but not Denmark, rape included the victim being
forced to perform sexual intercourse or a comparable act withthemselves or a third person.
In Germany, the description of the acts included in rape areworded more loosely than in the other four countries: sexualacts by the offender or a third person on their own person or to
engage actively in sexual activity with the offender or a third
person. We have not been able to investigate exactly what ismeant by “sexual activity” within the scope of this study.

Sexual activity with minors was illegal in all countries –but the offence is not always included in the rapestatistics
All countries in Europe prohibited the performance of sexualacts with children under a certain age, regardless of whether
they are performed by force or with consent. On the other
hand, there were differences between the countries in terms of
the age of the child and whether the offence was classified asrape or another sexual offence.
According to Eurostat’s guidelines, statutory rape (equivalent tochild rape in Swedish legislation) is included in the definition of
12 That such differences in the definition impact the rape statistics is illustrated by the fact thatabout one in five rapes reported in Sweden in 2016 involved a sexual act other than sexualintercourse, defined as penetration with the penis of the vagina, anus or mouth (Brå, 2019b).

30

rape since a minor cannot provide valid consent to sexual
activity. Despite this, sexual activity with minors was notincluded in the rape statistics submitted to Eurostat by thefollowing ten countries: Scotland, Finland, Ireland, Germany,
Czechia, Hungary, Portugal, Slovenia, Poland and Greece.
That this has a bearing on the report level in the statistics is
indisputable, but exactly how much it affects the statistics isdifficult to say. The percentage of rape reports involving victims
who are minors varies, for example, between countries. In
Sweden, about one third of all rapes reported during the period
2013–2017 concerned child rape. In Germany, the number ofoffences which under Swedish legislation would be classified as
child rape is comparable to that for adult rapes. If sexual
activity with a minor was included in Germany’s rape statistics,
the number of reports in Germany would have doubled.
The age of consent varies between the five countries

When it comes to the sexual assault of children, the legislationof the different countries differs in two ways that are ofimportance to the rape statistics. The first is the age of consent,
the second is the extent to which assaults are classified as rape.
In Sweden, the age of consent is 15 years. Having sexualintercourse or performing an act comparable to sexualintercourse with a child under the age of 15 years is classified asrape regardless of whether force is used. If the child is aged
between 15 and 18 years and is the offspring of the perpetrator,
is under their care or otherwise has a similar relationship to theperpetrator, this is also classified as child rape. Both rape andchild rape are included in the statistics that Sweden submits to
Eurostat.
Norway’s legislation is largely similar to Sweden’s, with thedifference that the age of consent is 14 years. In October 2015,
Norway adopted a new criminal code, which among otherthings means that sexual intercourse and other comparable actswith a child under 14 years of age are always classified as rape
(Kripos, 2018). Previously, under certain circumstances thiswould have been classified as sexual activity with a child.
In Denmark, all sexual acts comparable to sexual intercoursewith a child under 12 years of age are classified as rape. Having
sexual intercourse or performing comparable acts with a childbetween 12 and 15 years of age is also punishable by law. If theact meets the general criteria for rape (violence, threats orvulnerable situation), it is classified as rape and included in the31general statistics for rape.
Otherwise, it is instead recorded as a sexual offence against achild under 15 years of age. Despite the crime “sexual offence
against a child” not being classified as rape in the national
statistics, it is included together with other sexual violence inthe statistics that Denmark submits to Eurostat (in accordancewith the ICCS guidelines).
In England/Wales, the age of consent is 16 years of age.
However, having sexual intercourse with a child aged between
13 and 16 years is not classified as rape but rather sexual
activity with a child, unless the other necessary conditions aremet (that is, whether consent was provided). To be classified asrape regardless of whether consent was provided, theperpetrator must have vaginal, anal or oral sexual intercoursewith a child under the age of 13 years. Only the offencesclassified as rape under national legislation are included in thereport statistics that England/Wales submits to Eurostat.
In Germany, the age of consent is 14 years. Having sex with aperson younger than this is not classified as rape but rather
sexual assault of a child, and as such is not included in thenational rape statistics. This means that nor is it included in thestatistics that Germany submits to Eurostat. However,particularly serious cases of sexual assault of a child are stillclassified as rape, as about 2 percent of rape victims are under
14 years of age, according to the statistics.

Other legal factors
There are other legal factors which affect the report statistics.
These do not concern the wording of legal paragraphs on rape,
but rather how the criminal justice system processes the reportsthat are made. These include, for example:•

How crimes committed abroad are processed by thecriminal justice system•

Whether the police must register all crimes brought totheir attention

There are other legal conditions which could affect the rapestatistics, such as whether rape falls under public prosecution
and the limitation period. However, our assessment is that theseare of lesser importance to the report statistics, and hence they
will not be described in any greater detail in the report.

32

Crimes committed abroad

The Nordic countries also record in their statistics reports oncrimes committed abroad, even if they cannot always be
investigated. In England/Wales and Germany, however, theprinciple is that the offence is to be reported and investigated in
the country in which it is committed. How the other EU
countries act in these respects has not been possible toinvestigate within the scope of this study. However, ourassessment is that this factor is of relatively marginalimportance to the level of the report statistics. For example,
about two percent of the rapes reported in Sweden have takenplace outside Sweden, according to the crime statistics.
The principle of legality versus the principle of opportunity

One factor of greater importance is the set of rules governing
how the police are to act when they receive information that arape has been committed.
Sweden’s model is based on the principle of legality, whichmeans that under the Swedish Police Act the police are
obligated to file a report in the event of the suspicion of an
offence subject to public prosecution, which includes rape. In
other countries, such as the Netherlands, the authorities havegreater freedom to make decisions based on considerations
including cost efficiency and relevance (known as the principleof opportunity).
This can be assumed to result in fewer reported rapes in thesecountries than in Sweden (von Hofer, 2000).

Statistical factors
There can be considerable differences between countries asregards how statistics on reported rapes are recorded and whichdata are submitted to Eurostat. Accordingly, in international
comparisons of rapes reported to the police using Eurostat as asource, one ought to keep the following in mind:•

Are attempted crimes included in the rape statistics
submitted to Eurostat?

•

Is the basis for the statistics compiled from theinformation available when the crimes were reported oronce the investigations were completed?

•

Which unit of analysis are the statistics based on:33

individual offences, reports or victims?
•

If a report includes different types of offence committed
on the same occasion, are all the offences counted?

•

If a report includes repeated offences of the same type,are all the offences counted?

•

If a report includes an offence committed by several
perpetrators, are all the perpetrators counted?

Sweden does not include attempted crimes in datasubmitted to Eurostat
How attempted crimes are handled in crime statistics isgoverned by both legal and statistical factors. It is influenced inpart by whether attempted rape is criminalised, and in part by
how such attempted crimes are categorised in the statistics.
We have not succeeded in finding out whether attempted rape iscriminalised in all Eurostat countries. Eurostat’s view onwhether attempted rapes are to be included in the statistics
submitted by the countries is also unclear. This is not mentioned
in the ICCS guidelines or the accompanying description of thestatistics (the metadata).
In all five countries studied in greater depth, attempted rape is apunishable offence. 13 There are, however, differences in how
these crimes are categorised, which determines the conditions
for how they are handled in the statistics. For this reason, we
have chosen to present this aspect under statistical factors.
In Sweden, Norway and Germany, attempted rape has its own
criminal offence code and is reported separately in the national
statistics. This is not the case in Denmark or England/Wales,
however, where completed and attempted rape are notdifferentiated in terms of criminal offence codes or the national
statistics.
How, then, are attempted crimes recorded in Eurostat? The
statistics that Sweden and Norway submit to Eurostat do notinclude attempted crimes. They are, however, included in thestatistics from Denmark and England/Wales, as these countries
cannot differentiate between attempted and completed crimes.
The data which Germany submits to Eurostat also include
attempted rapes, even though they would be able to remove
13 In Sweden, attempted rape was criminalised with the introduction of the Swedish criminal code

in 1965 (Lindahl, 2016).

34

them.
The number of attempted rapes as a percentage of all reported
rapes varies between the countries where such data are
available. In Germany, attempted rapes comprise about 15
percent of all reported rapes.
In the Swedish statistics and the Norwegian statistics, theequivalent figure was about 6 percent during the period 2013–2017. In this respect, the differences in how crimes are recorded
results in the number of reported rapes in Sweden and Norway
being underreported in relation to Denmark, Germany andEngland/Wales.

The time at which offences are recorded affects the level
Eurostat has no guidelines as to at which stage of the criminal
justice system’s work reported crimes are to be recorded in the
country’s statistics (and thereby provide Eurostat withcomparable data).
Eurostat does, however, ask the member states to fill in a form
in which they are to describe at which stage of an investigation
information about a reported crime is recorded in the country’s
statistics. 14 Three different recording practices are used. If thebasis for the statistics is recorded in conjunction with the police
report, they are referred to as input statistics, while process
statistics means that the statistics are recorded after the reporthas been made but before the investigation is completed.
The statistics can also be based on offences that remain
following the completion of the investigation, and these aredesignated output statistics.
If the basis is compiled in conjunction with the police report,
the statistics reflect how the police register and categorise theinformation provided by the person making the report.
The police investigation may later show that the reported
incident did not take place, or that no crime was committed in
the legal sense. None of this, however, affects input statistics;
they are based solely on the initial assessment of the police inconjunction with a reported rape.
The later in the investigation process that the information about
reported crimes is recorded in the statistics, the greater the
14 Each country’s response in the questionnaire is presented in the metadata that Eurostat
provides together with the crime statistics.

35

probability that reports have been purged. This results in fewer
reported rapes being included in the statistics than in countries
with input statistics (Aebi, 2008; von Hofer, 2000). Table 3
shows which countries use each recording practice.
Table 3. Recording practice according to Eurostat’s metadata. Source: Eurostat.

The above table does, however, provide a simplified picture of
the whole.
In reality, some form of processing of the data occurs between
the time of the police report and the time the statistics arecompiled in all countries studied in greater depth that areconsidered to use input statistics. There are also considerable
differences between countries that on paper would appear touse the same recording practice. This can be seen in thefollowing description of the systems used in the five countries
studied in greater depth.
Sweden includes all reports in the statistics

When a crime is brought to the attention of the police inSweden, a police report is filed and this is registered in the casemanagement system, which then delivers the relevant data toBrå. Sweden’s report statistics are based on administrative36

information delivered electronically to Brå. The selectedcriminal offence code determines the report’s designation in thestatistics. 15 Information from the public prosecution service’s
case management system is also delivered to Brå.
At Brå, the data are reviewed and processed before being
compiled into statistics. This review is, however, purely
statistical; unreasonable values are checked and duplicates are
removed. No reports are removed based on legal or police
assessments. Sweden’s combination of following the principle oflegality and using input statistics means that the report statistics
levels are generally higher. The police in Sweden are obliged tofile a report, even if the incident is obviously made up at thetime of the complaint. In other words, the statistics also
encompass such reports, as well as cases where once thereported incident has been investigated, the case is closed sinceno offence has been committed.
Denmark, Norway and England/Wales purge certain reports

According to Eurostat, Denmark also uses input statistics,
although at the time the report is made the police assess
whether the reported incident actually comprises a criminal
offence. If it is not considered to comprise a criminal offence,
the report can instead be registered as an “incident” in thepolice authority’s own statistics 16, although it is not included in
the official crime statistics.
If we compare the Danish police authority’s statistics on rapeincidents with the official Danish crime statistics, we find thatabout one in five reported rapes is registered as an “incident”
and as such is not included in the Danish statistics.
According to Eurostat, England/Wales uses input statistics too.
The system is reminiscent of that in Denmark, as reported
incidents and registered crimes are differentiated. Reported
rapes where the supposed victim remains unknown or does notconfirm that the reported incident has taken place are notregistered as criminal offences and remain incidents. In otherwords, they are not included in the official statistics on reported
crimes. The same applies to reports where there is clear
contradictory evidence. If it is later found that a registered rape
did not take place or has been duplicated in the records, it can
15 The criminal offence code can be adjusted by the investigating authorities up to three months

after the end of the year. If new information is received, a report on sexual molestation can bechanged to rape and vice versa.

16 https://statistik.politi.dk/

37

be deregistered and is then removed from the statistics (HMIC,
2014). Based on a calculation performed by Brå within thescope of this study, about 20 percent of reported rapes were
purged, either because they were never registered as crimes or
because they were deregistered once the investigation wascompleted (known as “no criming”). 17 That Eurostat
categorises this practice as input statistics is, in Brå’s opinion,
misleading. Norway uses process statistics. Here, the police
authority’s working statistics and the final statistics aredifferentiated. The police authority’s working statistics
encompass all reports, but the final statistics do not include
clearly flawed reports. In a comparison between the official
statistics and the police authority’s working statistics 18, about
seven percent of the reported rapes seem to have been removed.
German statistics based on confirmed and fully investigatedcrimesGermany is one of the nine countries which, according toEurostat, uses output statistics. If a report does not result in an
investigation, or if the investigation finds that the reported
incident does not constitute a criminal offence, there is no crime
to register. According to the German guidelines, the statistics
only encompass cases that have been “sufficiently specified”.
This requires “confirmatory indicators” that the reported act isa crime in the legal sense, and that the place and time of thecrime are specified, even if they need not be exact (PCS, 2018:p. 6).
Practice used to register reports in the statistics of great
importance to rape statistics levels

The above indicates that countries which according toEurostat’s metadata are said to use input statistics differ to asignificant extent in terms of the rules and procedures they
employ when registering reports. According to Brå’s estimate,
about one in five reported rapes would be purged from theSwedish statistics if the police applied the same purging
procedures as Denmark and England/Wales. Even Norway,
which is considered to use a registration practice where thestatistics are prepared at a later stage than in Denmark and
17 Based on data for 2016 and 2017. A report can also remain an incident or be deregistered if

the rape took place in another police district. In this case, the report is transferred to andregistered in the appropriate police district. Reports which are not counted for this reason are notincluded in the above calculation.
18 https://statistik.politi.dk/https://www.politiet.no/globalassets/04-aktuelt-tall-ogfakta/strasak/2017/strasak-2017.pdf

38

England/Wales, the police seem to purge a smaller percentage of
all reports than in the latter two countries.
The statistics on reported rapes that Germany submits to
Eurostat comprise reports where suspicion remains once theinvestigation is completed. We do not know how this figurecompares to the total number of reported rapes in Germany.
Statistics that are prepared once the investigation has been
completed are based to a greater extent on confirmed crimes.
On the other hand, there is also a risk that not all rapes brought
to the attention of the police are registered, such as due todifferent types of (improper) selection criteria. This is discussed
in the next chapter under the heading Propensity to register.

Most countries base their report statistics on
individual crimes
One factor of importance to the comparability of different
countries’ report statistics is the differences in how the reports
are counted.
Eurostat had issued no guidelines for this during the study
period. 19
One important difference concerns which unit of analysis thestatistics are based on – offence or case. Most of the studied
countries, 25 of 30, count the number of transgressions of thelaw (offences) and not police cases.
Four of the five countries Brå has studied in depth base theirstatistics on the number of offences. Germany, on the other
hand, stands out in that it instead counts the number of police
cases, which means that a report can never result in more thanone (1) registered offence in the statistics, regardless of how
many victims, perpetrators or crimes the report concerns.

Principal offence approach of marginalimportance in rape
There are differences between the countries in how they countwhen a report encompasses several different offences committed
on the same occasion. In some countries, the principal offence
19 The instructions do, however, recommend certain counting rules, although it is also stated thatthese should not be considered general guidelines. According to the recommendations, thestatistics should be based on individual transgressions of the law, the principal offence approachshould not be used, repeated offences of the same type should be counted several times andoffences committed by several people should be counted once.

39

approach is used when preparing the report statistics, whichmeans that only the most serious crime is included in thestatistics.
Germany and England/Wales are among the twelve countries
that employ the principal offence approach, while Sweden,
Norway and Denmark do not. However, this difference in theway of counting ought not have any major impact on thenumber of rapes registered in the statistics as rape is a very
serious crime. Most other crimes that can be committed inconjunction with a rape have more lenient sentencing
guidelines, aside from murder and attempted murder.
Of all completed rapes reported in 1997, in only one percent of
the cases was rape not the principal offence in the report,
according to a calculation performed by Brå in 1999.

How the number of offences is counted differs between
the countries
Even if most of the countries based their statistics on thenumber of transgressions of the law, they can differ in how thenumber of offences is counted. One difference concerns, forexample, those cases where a report contains repeated offencesof the same type with the same victim and the same perpetrator.
These can then be counted once or for each specific time atransgression took place.
Whether repeated rapes with the same victim and the same
perpetrator are counted several times can have a major impact
on the report levels seen in the statistics on rapes reported to thepolice. Say, for example, that a woman reports that her partner
has raped her 14 times during the past year, this can result inone (1) or 14 offences in the statistics, depending on which
statistical procedure applies.
Germany and England/Wales are examples of countries wheresuch reports would have been counted once (1 time) in thestatistics.
According to Eurostat, Sweden, together with Denmark,Norway, Belgium, Austria, the Netherlands, Croatia, Latvia,
Lithuania, Hungary, Malta, Slovenia, Poland and Greece, isamong the countries that count serial offences several times.
However, a closer look at the Nordic countries’ national
statistics indicates that Sweden is considerably more inclusive inits counting than both Denmark and Norway. In these twocountries, the difference between the number of reported crimes
40and the number of complainants in the same year is notparticularly large.
In Sweden, the crime statistics cannot be used to retrieve therelationship between the number of reported offences and thenumber of complainants as there are no official statistics oncomplainants. To provide an estimate, we have used microdata
to calculate how many complainants the rape reports concerned
during the period 2013–2017. This analysis indicates that
Sweden is considerably more inclusive in its counting as thenumber of reported rapes averages 31 percent more than thenumber of complainants. This is due in part to individual cases
encompassing a large number of rapes. As an example, we canmention that of the 6,294 rapes reported in 2014, about 300
stemmed from a single case (Brå, 2019c).
How gang rape is counted varies between the five countries

There can also be differences in how reports are counted incases with several perpetrators, such as gang rapes. Dependingon the counting principle, these can be counted as one or several
offences.
Since 2012, the Swedish guidelines for rapes involving several
perpetrators is that one (1) offence is counted for eachcomplainant (RIF, 2012). The same practice is employed in
Denmark. Since Germany counts the number of police cases, areported gang rape can never result in more than one (1)registered rape in the statistics.
England/Wales, on the other hand, now employs a more
inclusive counting method in this respect. Prior to July 2016,
the principle was to count one offence per victim, while now it
is to count every connection between a victim and a perpetrator
as a single offence in the statistics (Home Office, 2019).
Norway too is said to count each perpetrator, but since thenumber of reported rapes is so close to the number of rape
victims, Brå questions just how strictly this is done in practice.
How much the method used to count the connections between a
victim and a perpetrator affects the statistics is determined by
how common it is for rapes to be committed by groups of
perpetrators and how many perpetrators are involved in theassault. Research shows that gang rapes comprise between 11
and 19 percent of the rapes reported in England/Wales (da Silva
et al., 2014).
Based on data on completed rapes against women aged 15 years
or over in Sweden in 2016 (Brå, 2019b), there were two or41

more alleged perpetrators in 10 percent of the reports. The
coded cases encompassed 743 complainants and 891 alleged
perpetrators.
Accordingly, the effect of counting the number of perpetrators
can be expected to result in the level of rape statistics increasing
by 20 percent 20 compared to if the counting is limited to one
offence per victim and report.

Formal factors in summary
This chapter presented the legal and statistical factors that can
impact the report statistics. The review demonstrated majordifferences between the countries as regards these factors. It also
revealed that both types of factor can have a major impact on
the number of reports in the statistics.
Above we presented how the statistical methods differ between
the five countries studied in depth. Now we would like to try toprovide an overall picture of how all European countries differ,in terms of both legal factors and statistical methods. The
presentation includes the factors for which we have been able toretrieve data for all countries. 21 This means that we can present
data regarding five legal and four statistical factors. The
following aspects are illustrated in Figure 6:

20 This is because 891 perpetrators are 20 percent more than 743 complainants.

21 We have not been able to check how attempted crimes and crimes committed abroad arehandled in all countries included in the study. Nor have we been able to study the extent to which
reports are purged from the statistics. According to Eurostat’s metadata, all countries count the
number of perpetrators once. Since we know that this is not true, we have excluded this factor
from the review.

42Figure 6. Factors in the European countries’ legislation and statistical methods that
influence the number of rapes reported to the police. Source: Eurostat and EIGE.
1. Is marital rape criminalised?
2. Is sexual activity with a minor classified as rape?
3. Can men be raped?
4. Does the definition of rape include acts other than sexual intercourse?
5. Does the definition of rape include acts that do not involve violence/threats?
6. Are the statistics based on the influx of reports?
7. Do the statistics use offence (rather than victim/case) as the unit of analysis?
8. Are serial crimes counted several times?
9. Are multiple offences counted several times (as opposed to the principal offence approach)?
An affirmative answer (denoted by a green checkmark) indicates that formal factors
in this regard contribute to an increase in the number of reported rapes. A negative
answer is denoted by a red X. The countries in Table 6 below are listed indescending order based on the average number of reported rapes per 100,000
inhabitants 2013–2017.

43

From the figure we can discern a correlation between on the one
hand a country’s legislation and statistical method and on theother hand the level of reported rapes according to Eurostat’s
statistics. Countries with legislation and statistical methods
which in several respects create the conditions for more rapes tobe registered and counted in the statistics also register more
reports to a greater extent than other countries, and vice versa.
Sweden, Belgium and Denmark are the three countries where allobserved factors regarding legislation and statistical methods
contribute to an increase in the number of registered reports.
Naturally, this overview presents a simplified picture of reality.
For example, countries with consent-based rape legislation areequated with countries where force is not required in situations
where the victim is in a helpless state. In Brå’s more detailed
review of the legislation and statistical procedures of fivecountries, it also became clear that the issue of how thecountries differ in terms of legislation and statistical method is
considerably more complicated than a number of yes–noquestions can cover.
Formal factors explain much of the difference between Sweden
and Germany in the level of reported rapes

To conduct a deeper analysis of the significance of the formal
factors, we have focused on a comparison between just two
countries: Sweden and Germany. Brå has recalculated Sweden’s
statistics on reported rapes using the same legal conditions andstatistical methods as in Germany. The Swedish report statistics
have been recalculated with the aid of specially ordered
statistics from Brå’s unit for judicial statistics and microdata
from a previous report on rapes reported to the police in 2016
(Brå, 2019b).
The German statistics have also been processed to some extent
to achieve the highest possible comparability.
The recalculation was performed in several stages. First,
attempted rapes were also included in the Swedish statistics,
since they are included in the data that Germany submits to
Eurostat. Following this, child rape was excluded from theSwedish statistics, since sexual activity with a minor is notclassified as rape in Germany and is therefore not included in
the statistics. Two percent of rape victims are under the age of
14 in Germany, so these have been removed from the German
figures.
The Swedish statistics are input statistics, which means that all
44

reports are included in the statistics. In Germany, the statistics
are based on reported rapes that still stand following
investigation.
Accordingly, we removed from the Swedish statistics reported
crimes where the cases were closed immediately, closed due tono crime having been committed or closed due to having takenplace abroad.
We then recalculated the Swedish statistics to reflect the numberof complainants rather than the number of criminal incidents.
This was done by only including unique combinations of police
case number and criminal offence code. The German figures are
based on the number of complainants aged over 14 years andnot police cases.
Finally, the Swedish statistics were purged of reports that did
not fulfil the necessary conditions for rape in Germany. Thiswas done based on data from Brå’s report on rapes against
women aged over 15 years reported to the police in 2016 (Brå,2019b). 22
Figure 7 below presents the statistics on reported rapes inGermany and Sweden as reported by Eurostat and the“standardised” statistics that Brå has produced as describedabove. According to Brå’s calculation, three-quarters of therapes in the statistics for Sweden would be excluded if applying
the same formal conditions as in Germany.

22 The cases are sorted by whether (and to what extent) the victim, according to their personalaccount, had physically resisted. The alternatives were “no”, “unclear”, “to some extent” and“strongly”. In about half of the cases (which were not closed immediately, closed due to no crime
having been committed or closed due to having taken place abroad), the victim had not physicallyresisted. This usually involved situations in which the victim, due to sleep or intoxication, could not
defend themselves. Such acts are certainly punishable in Germany, but they are not classified as
rape.Accordingly, the Swedish statistics were purged of such reports.

45

Figure 7. Rapes reported to the police per 100,000 inhabitants 2016, unadjusted andstandardised numbers. Sources: Eurostat and Brå.

Here we should point out that the new measurement is only aconstruct to illustrate the significance of differences inlegislation, registration rules and statistical methods. The result
shall not be interpreted as the “true” level of reports in the twocountries. There may be other differences that affect the numberof reports registered in Germany, such as if in addition to thelegitimate purging, further purging outside what the law permits
takes place. Nor shall this be interpreted as Brå recommendingthat Sweden change its statistical method.
Based on the calculation described above, the average numberof reported rapes per 100,000 inhabitants in Sweden 2013–2017 would fall from 63 to 15. Sweden would then be ranked
somewhere in the middle of the list of countries with the mostreported rapes. However, the number would still have been
several times greater than those of the countries at the bottomof the list. Possible reasons for this are discussed in the next
chapter.

46

Substantive factors
The previous chapter discussed a number of what are referred
to as formal factors, which affect the level of European rapestatistics without necessarily having anything to do with actual
crime rates. In other words, Eurostat’s statistics on reported
rapes do not comprise a reliable source of knowledge fordetermining that the risk of being raped in Sweden is higher
than the European average.
However, even if all countries in the EU had the same legal
conditions and the same statistical methods, there are still what
are known as substantive factors that also affect comparability.
In addition to the number of rapes actually committed, thestatistics are also affected by the general propensity to reportthese crimes to the police, as well as the extent to which thepolice register the reports in line with the applicable rules.
Before discussing the propensity to report, we address theories
and empirical studies of the actual incidence of rape in a
separate section. This provides a foundation for the discussion
on the propensity to report and illustrates the opportunity togain knowledge about the level of rape in different countries
from sources other than report statistics.
Finally, we look at the propensity of the responsible authorities
to correctly register reported rapes, which most probably varies
both over time and between countries.

The actual incidence of rape
There are several theories concerning individual risk factors forrape (see, for example, Harrell et al., 2009). Factors that arecommonly mentioned include substance abuse, sexual deviation
or mental disorder on the part of the perpetrator. Since thisstudy is centred on comparisons of rapelevels in different countries, the focus will not be on suchindividual factors, but instead on explanations at a higher
sociological level. 23
Examples of structural factors that, according to research, areof significance to the incidence of rape in a country include,
among other things, the ratio between men and women
23 Each individual factor can, of course, be interpreted in terms of sociological consequences,such as the level of substance abuse in a society, for example.

47

(O’Brien, 1991), the prevalence of pornography (Bauserman,
1996), age demographics (Brå, 2019a), and internet access anduse (Bhuller et al., 2013).
However, the above factors are not normally considered themost central. The three foremost sociological explanatorymodels for rape point to a lack of equality between men andwomen, social disorganisation and the cultural acceptance ofviolence (Makin, 2015). These three theories can all be said tobe linked to the presence of informal social control. Social
control refers to the processes and mechanisms that encourage
individuals to act in accordance with the prevailing rules, norms
and values. Control theories of crime focus on conformity andhow the majority refrain from crime due to the control
exercised by the surrounding society or that they exercise on
their own behaviour (Sarnecki, 2003: p. 216).
The level of gender equality can affect the number of rapes

Feminist theory generally asserts that rape, and not least thethreat of rape, is a central part of male dominance in society
and a way to control women (Brownmiller, 1975). Whether
increased gender equality leads to more or fewer rapes is,however, an area on which opinion is divided in the research
literature. According to one hypothesis, increased genderequality leads to reduced levels of rape because power is more
evenly shared and gender roles are less concrete. Others say thatwhen women gain more power and freedom, it can result in abacklash that causes more rapes because men feel that their
dominant position is threatened and therefore realise the threatof rape to a greater extent (Bailey, 1999; Brå, 2008; Martin etal., 2006).
In an attempt to combine these hypotheses, Whaley (2001)
found that increased gender equality in the USA, in the initialstages, was associated with an increased level of rape, although
the correlation was negative in the longer term.
Yet other researchers highlight the fact that increased genderequality could lead to more rapes due to reduced social control
over women. They would have more freedom to move about
freely outside the home, or alone with other men, and thereby
increase the number of meetings with men, which could entail
an increased risk of rape. According to von Hofer, who did not
make the connection with gender equality, one cannot rule out
the possibility that more rapes are actually committed in
Sweden compared to other countries where women cannot
move about as freely and are instead controlled to a greater
48

extent (2000; p. 87). Differences in behavioural patterns andsocialising habits could also cause substantive differences inrape levels.
Social control mechanisms counter deviant behaviour

Social control need not only encompass women. It can alsoentail informally monitoring and punishing deviant behaviour
among both sexes. On the whole, the type of informal social
control discussed above tends to curtail crime (Hirschi, 1969).
The reach of the control is largely determined by the level ofsocial cohesion.
According to the theory on social disorganisation, factors thatcan reduce social cohesion and thereby social control result inincreased crime. Examples of such factors include urbanisation,
divorce, migration and cultural heterogeneity (Baron & Straus,
1987; Tewksbury et al., 2010). Swedish studies have, forexample, shown that foreign-born individuals are suspected ofrape to a greater extent than natives (Brå, 2005; Adamson,2020). One reason could be that moving to another country can
result in a kind of “norm disintegration”, whereby the social
control exerted in the native and adopted countries leaves noreal impression.
The acceptance of sexual violence affects social control
mechanisms

The impact of social control on rape levels is also determined by
the cultural acceptance of violence in general and sexual
violence in particular (Baron & Straus, 1987). If the use ofviolence is generally considered a legitimate means, it can “spillover” into how society views forced sexual intercourse. And if
there are norms and values that contribute to rape being
considered acceptable, this weakens the informal social control
over such behaviours. The term rape culture is used to describea social context in which rape myths are deeply rooted. In theworst case such a culture encourages sexual violence, and in thebest case it excuses it (Makin, 2015).
The significance of this factor on the rape level risks being
underestimated as the norms and values associated with such anincreased prevalence of rape are the same as those that
contribute to these assaults being swept under the carpet. In thisway, the correlation is concealed at an aggregated level. At theindividual level there is strong evidence for the belief in rapemyths being associated with both a higher probability of49

committing rape (McMahon & Farmer, 2011) and a greaterrisk of the victim not identifying the incident as a rape orchoosing not to talk about or report it (Arhens, 2006).

Measuring the extent of rape
The primary purpose of the report statistics is not to illustrate
the extent of crime. Their primary purpose is to describe how
many reports the police process. But how can we measure thereal level of crime in a society? Most criminologists agree that
we will never be able to say exactly how many crimes arecommitted (see, for example, Skogan, 1975). No single sourceof knowledge contains enough information. So, to draw themost reliable conclusions as possible about the level of crime,
we ought to combine different sources (Brå, 2012). Aside from
criminal statistics, this can mean healthcare data (Brå, 2017),
statistics from insurance companies and surveys into
individuals’ participation in and exposure to crime.
Victims of crime surveys are generally considered a bettersource than report statistics if studying the extent of actual
crime. In Sweden, every year since 2006, Brå has conducted a
victims of crime survey into exposure to crime within the scopeof the Swedish Crime Survey (SCS), or Nationella
trygghetsundersökningen (NTU) in Swedish.

Victims of crime surveys affected by willingness to talkVictims of crime surveys are not affected in the same way as
crime statistics by factors such as the propensity to report,
legislation and statistical methods. They are, on the other hand,affected by how the respondents perceive the incidents they
have experienced and their willingness to talk about them. Thisis usually referred to as the willingness to talk, and it can vary
both in time and between countries. If the willingness to talkincreases, such as through an increased focus on sexual offencesin the social discourse, this can lead to changes in the reported
experience that are independent of actual crime levels (see, forexample, Brå, 2019a).
It is particularly difficult to measure women’s exposure tosexual offences, which has been called the greatest
methodological challenge in survey research (Smith, 1987). Thisis due in part to the fact that it concerns sensitive issues that thevictim may feel uncomfortable talking about. Minor changes inthe sample, the collection method or the wording of the50

questions can have major consequences for the reported level of
exposure (Stefansen et al., 2019; Walby & Towers, 2017).
To draw more well-founded conclusions on the extent of andtrends in rape, it is advantageous to study crime statistics andvictims of crime surveys together. If, for example, the reportstatistics show a dramatic increase without this tendency beingreflected in the victims of crime survey, this indicates that the
primary cause of the development is not an increased incidenceof rape. This can be exemplified by the trends seen in reported
rapes and the reported exposure to rape in England/Wales inrecent years (see Figure 8). The diagram shows the percentage
who in the annual victims of crime survey stated that they had
been raped during the past year remained constant, or even fella little after 2012, despite the number of reported rapes
increasing significantly. This would suggest that it was primarily
factors other than an increase in the number of rapes thatcaused the rise in the number of reports. Some of these factors
have been mentioned in previous chapters, such as fewer filed
reports being purged and a change in how offences are counted.
Other possible factors are raised later in this report. 24
Figure 8. Percentage stating that they have been raped during the past year,
according to a victims of crime survey, and the number of rapes reported to the police
and registered, persons aged 16 years or over, per 100,000 inhabitants 2004–2016.
Source: Office for National Statistics and Home Office.

24 In this case, the two sources complement each other in a manner that clearly contributes to anunderstanding of the trend. There are, however, other situations where the trends seen in both
sources are difficult to interpret.

51

International victims of crime surveys are uncommon
In several countries in Europe, regular national victims of crime
surveys are conducted to study trends in, among other things,
rape.
It is, however, difficult to use these national surveys to compare
rape levels in different countries. This is because suchcomparisons require surveys using the same questions and thesame collection method in all included countries, otherwise thedata are not comparable. And even if the same method wasused in several countries, the results would be uncertain since
the tendency to identify incidents as sexual violence, as well as
the willingness to talk about them, are influenced by the social
context, and accordingly most likely varies between countries(see, for example, Gunnarsson, 2018).
Large-scale international victim surveys on rape are, however,
uncommon. Since 1989, the International Crime Victims
Survey, or ICVS, has been conducted on six occasions, mostrecently in 2010. Unfortunately, the number of respondents has
been limited in each country, which affects the reliability of theresults. 25The most recent international crime victim survey
specifically focused on sexual violence was conducted in 2012by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). A total of
42,000 women 26, spread across all EU member states, wereasked about their experiences of gender-based violence (FRA,
2014a). This is a considerably larger sample than in the ICVS
studies.

Weaknesses and strengths of the FRA study
One of the advantages of the FRA study was that the questions
described specific chains of events rather than used the wordrape, which can have different associations in different
countries. 27 However, the study has also received criticism, suchas for the fact that the data collection method varied between
countries (Walby & Towers, 2017). The non-response rate also
25 One indication that the reliability can be questioned is the fact that the percentage of Swedish

women stating that they were sexually assaulted during the previous year varies between 0.3 and1.5 percent. Sometimes this corresponds to half of the average for the year, and other times todouble that amount (Van Dijk, 2007: p. 78).
26 The fact that the survey was solely focused on women’s experiences means that certain
offences in the report statistics, such as rapes of boys and men, were excluded. However, theseoffences comprise such a small percentage of all reported rapes that it does not affect the ability
to generalize to any noteworthy extent.
27 The respondents were asked whether, since the age of 15, they had one or more times had
someone force, or attempt to force, them into sexual intercourse by holding them down orotherwise hurting them. It is worth mentioning here that the phrasing excludes certain actions thatare legally considered rape in several European countries, including Sweden.

52differed significantly between countries. The overall response
rate averaged 48 percent, while in Sweden it was just under 20
percent (FRA, 2014b). 28
In some countries, the sample could be based on existingregistries. In other countries, a geographical cluster sample wasused. In these areas the selected addresses were visited and the
inhabitants were asked whether they wanted to participate in
the study. Even in most countries where the sample wasdetermined in advance, the respondents were asked in person
whether they wanted to participate. In six countries, the initial
contact was made by other means. In Slovenia, Malta and theUnited Kingdom 29 letters were sent, and in Sweden, Finland andDenmark the respondents were asked over the phone. In thesecountries, the stated exposure averaged higher than in countries
where initial contact was made in person.
Despite these methodological shortcomings, our assessment isthat the FRA study better captures the differences in exposure
to rape in different European countries than Eurostat’s reportstatistics. It is not affected in the same way as crime statistics bydifferences between the countries in legislation and statisticalmethods. The results of the FRA study must, however, beinterpreted cautiously, due to both the afore-mentioned
shortcomings and the possible sources of error that victims ofcrime surveys are generally associated with.
Highest reported exposure in the Netherlands and France

Figure 9 presents the percentage of women who in the FRA
study stated that they have been raped at some point after theage of 15 years. Countries where the respondents were asked
whether they wanted to participate over the phone or by letterare marked with an asterisk.

28 In an analysis conducted by Brå within the scope of this report, we noted a relatively strong

correlation between the collection method, the response rate and how many respondents statedthat they had been raped. The correlation coefficient for the correlation between the response rate
and an affirmative response to having been raped was -0.52.
29 In the FRA study, the United Kingdom was counted as a single state, which means that
England/Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland are not reported separately as they are inEurostat’s statistics. Norway was not included in the study since it is not an EU member state. For
a Norwegian victim survey with similar questions, see Thoresen & Hjemdal (2014).

53

Figure 9. Percentage of women stating that they have been raped since the age of 15
years. Source: EIGE and FRA (2014a), n=42,023.

The results show that the percentage of women stating that they
have been raped (see Figure 9) varies much less between the
countries than the number of rapes reported to the police during
one year (see Figure 4). However, it must be kept in mind thatthe two sources are not the same. The time frames of thesources also differ.
Exposure to rape varies between 3 percent in Croatia and 14
percent in the Netherlands. In Sweden, 11 percent stated thatthey have been raped, which is the fourth highest figure among
the countries included in the study. In 10 of the 27 countries
presented above, the reported exposure to rape was in the range
10–12 percent.
Figure 9 lists the countries in the same descending order as in
Figure 4 based on the rape statistics reported by Eurostat. The
northern European countries show, on average, higher levels
than the southern European countries in both FRA’s victims ofcrime survey and Eurostat’s report statistics. The image below
presents the results of the FRA study on a map to illustrate thedivision between north-western and south-eastern Europe.
54Another point worth noting in connection with the results ofthe victim survey is how few seem to report their exposure torape to the police. If we take Germany as an example, the 9
percent stating that they have been raped at least once since age
15 represents more than 3 million women. To put this inperspective, only about 7,500 rapes are reported (andregistered) each year.
Figure 10. Percentage of women stating that they have been raped since the age of
15 years. Source: EIGE and FRA (2014a), n=42,023.

Structural differences can explain the differences in reported
exposure between north-western and south-eastern Europe

The review of theories of sociological explanations for rape
showed that several different factors can affect the rape level ina country. The exact significance of the described factors, andhow they are distributed in the studied countries, is difficult tomeasure. However, general analyses indicate a correlation 30
between the reported exposure to rape, according to the FRA
study, and several of the structural factors that are believed toincrease the level of rape according to the research literature.
30 The correlation has been calculated using the Pearson correlation coefficient. The correlation

coefficient has a value between 1 and -1, where 0 indicates no correlation, 1 represents a perfect
positive correlation and -1 represents a perfect negative correlation.

55

Brå has compared the self-reported exposure to rape in FRA’s
study against Eurostat’s statistics concerning such factors aseach country’s proportion of the population under the age of 25(0.44), level of urbanisation (0.63), daily internet use (0.65),
proportion of single-person households (0.65) and thepercentage of the population who are foreign-born (0.32). Here
we should, however, point out that a strong correlation simply
indicates a statistical relationship between two variables, andnot necessarily causality. The noted correlation may be caused
by a third factor, or may simply be coincidental. Knowing thatvictims of crime surveys are an uncertain measure of actual
crime rates, and especially so in the case of the FRA study, theseanalyses should not be interpreted as compelling evidence that,in actual fact, more rapes are committed in north-western
Europe. Another explanation could be that differences between
the countries, in terms of views of sexuality in general andsexual violence in particular, affect the extent to which thoseparticipating in the study perceive the incidents they haveexperienced as sexual violence and their willingness to talkabout them. Later in the report, we will address how theEuropean countries also seem to differ in terms of another two
factors: gender equality and the prevalence of rape myths (as anindicator of the level of rape culture).

A Nordic paradox
The FRA report notes that women in countries with higher
levels of gender equality tend to state more often that they havebeen exposed to physical and sexual violence (2014: p.
25). 31That women in the Nordic countries, who are considered
to enjoy the highest level of gender equality, have a greater
propensity to state that they have been subjected to intimate
partner violence has been referred to as the Nordic paradox 32
The term has also been used to describe the high levels of rapein the Nordic region (Amnesty, 2019). Amnesty does, however,question just how far the Nordic region has progressed in termsof gender equality as harmful norms and gender stereotypes arestill considered to “remain deeply entrenched in the Nordic
countries” (ibid., p. 11).
Opinions on the cause of the higher reported exposure to rapevary. Some claim that there is an actual difference (Gracia &31 One analysis of the correlation between the self-reported exposure to rape and the countries’
gender equality index (EIGE, 2015) also indicates a relatively strong positive correlation with acorrelation coefficient of 0.66.
32 See, for example, https://harvardpolitics.com/world/the-nordic-paradox-gender-equity- andsexual- assault/

56

Merlo, 2016). Theoretical bases for this claim can be found in
the section on sociological explanatory models for rape, which
mentions that increased gender equality could lead to more
rapes due to reduced social control over women, which would
mean that they spend more time outside the home and alone
with other men (von Hofer, 2000). Other researchers explain
the correlation as increased gender equality being able to resultin a “backlash” with increased sexual violence as a result(Bailey, 1999).
However, we cannot rule out that the higher self-reported
exposure to physical and sexual violence in the Nordic countries
is not due to greater exposure, but rather to it being moresocially acceptable to talk about such things than in many othercountries (FRA, 2014a: p. 31). Increased gender equality canalso contribute to a broader view of what constitutes violence insexual contexts, meaning that women in the Nordic region
would consider more diverse incidents when responding towhether they have been exposed in victims of crime surveys.
How the level of gender equality and norms regarding sexuality
and sexual violence can influence both the willingness to talkand the propensity to report is discussed in greater detail in thenext section.

Propensity to report
The propensity of victims to report rape is of considerable
importance to the number of reported crimes in the statistics.
We cannot with any certainty say how much the propensity toreport differs, as it is impossible to know exactly how many
rapes are actually committed. Since some norms and values are,according to the research, of significance to the propensity toreport, we can nonetheless study how well rooted they are indifferent countries. Below we present how norms regarding
sexual violence vary between the countries, as well as how
much confidence there is in the criminal justice system in
different European countries.

Rape myths affect how we view sexual violence
The extent to which rape is reported to the police and registeredis determined by, among other things, generally held views on
what constitutes rape. In these contexts, the concept of “rapemyths” is often used: harmful, stereotyped or false ideas aboutrape, rape victims and perpetrators, which “create a hostileenvironment for rape victims” (Burt, 1980: p. 217). This can57entail, for example, ideas such as that a rape must involve
violence, that it is the victim’s own fault for being intoxicated at
the time of the assault or that women often lie and reportsomeone for rape in acts of vengeance. According to Burt, rapemyths are linked to patriarchal gender roles and power hierarchiesthat encourage rape: rape is the logical and psychological extensionof a dominant-submissive, competitive, sex-role stereotyped culture(ibid., p. 229).

Rape myths also contribute to upholding a status quo in whichrape is common but seldom reported to the police. This iscaused by, for example, misinformed ideas as to what rape is. If
the picture of rape is of a woman being attacked by a stranger,
this can lead to incidents which do not match this idea being
downplayed or normalised. This most likely reduces thepropensity to talk about such incidents in interview situations
or to report them to the police.
One common reason for not reporting a rape is the fear of being
blamed (Ahrens, 2006; Adolfsson, 2018). Rape myths increase
the risk of victim blaming, by both others and the victims
themselves (Avrin & Löfving, 2018), and are of significance torape victims’ ideas of what a police report would cost them.
Clear differences in views of sexual violence in the EU

The prevalence of rape myths and how they affect thepropensity to report are, for obvious reasons, difficult tomeasure, but that there are differences in attitude between
countries becomes apparent in Eurobarometer 449 33. Thissurvey asked questions that included how the respondentviewed different types of sexual assault.
Several questions can be used as a basis for assessing how wellrooted rape myths are in the different countries. Below is asummary of four questions that Brå has chosen to highlight.
Following this, Table 4 shows the responses in the different
countries.
Question 1. In this question, the respondents were asked theextent to which they agreed or disagreed with the statement that
violence against women is often provoked by the victim. The
five alternatives were totally agree, tend to agree, neither agree
nor disagree, tend to disagree and totally disagree as regards thestatement. Table 4 presents the percentage that totally disagreed
with the statement.
33 The survey was conducted in the 28 EU member states in June 2016. A total of 27,818 EU
citizens were interviewed, in person and in their native language, about gender-based violence.

58

Question 2. Here, the respondents were to consider thestatement that domestic violence is a private matter and should
be handled within the family. Table 4 presents the percentagethat totally disagreed with the statement.
Question 3. In this question, the participants were asked theextent to which they agreed with the statement that women are
more likely to be raped by a stranger than someone they know.
Table 4 presents the percentage that totally disagreed with thestatement.
Question 4. In the final question, the respondents were toconsider whether having sexual intercourse without consent
may be justified in certain situations. The listed situations
included the other person being drunk or using drugs, having
several sexual partners, not clearly saying no or physicallyfighting back, and voluntarily going home with someone, forexample after a party or date.
Table 4 presents the percentage answering that none of thesesituations justified having sexual intercourse with someone
without their consent.
The responses to the survey provide some indication of theextent to which the general public in each country reject ideasthat contribute to excusing perpetrators, blaming victims andlimiting which acts are defined as rape. Such attitudes most
likely affect the extent to which victims equate incidents withrape and disclose their experiences in victims of crime surveys
or report them to the police.
Table 4 shows that the respondents in Sweden stand out by
clearly rejecting rape myths to the greatest extent compared tothe other countries.

59

Table 4. Percentage rejecting rape myths. Source: Eurobarometer 449, n=27,818).

Brå has used the responses to construct an index of the extent towhich inhabitants in different countries reject rape myths,
which is presented in Table 5 on page 65. A closer analysis
points to a very strong correlation between the level of genderequality and the extent to which rape myths are rejected.
60

The correlation coefficient for the correlation between the index
described above and EIGES’s gender equality index is 0.8.
Half responded that it is both wrong and against the law to force
a partner to have sex

The survey questions that perhaps best capture ideas related tothe propensity to report sexual offences are those where therespondents are asked whether a number of situations are rightor wrong and whether they are against the law. In this way, thequestions encompass both moral values and knowledge about
legal conditions.
One such situation that the respondents had to consider was
forcing a partner to have sex. On average, 49 percent answeredthat it was both wrong and against the law, while thecorresponding figure for Sweden was 83 percent.
Figure 11 shows that there is a strong positive correlation
between how many in each country consider it both wrong andagainst the law to force a partner to have sex and the number ofrape reports per capita. In the bottom left of the figure are thecountries with both low numbers of reported rapes and low
percentages considering it both wrong and against the law toforce a partner to have sex. Sweden is in the top right,
indicating the highest number of reported rapes per capita andthe highest percentage answering that it is both wrong andagainst the law to force a partner to have sex.

61

Figure 11. Correlation between the percentage responding that it is both wrong andagainst the law to force a partner to have sex (source: Eurobarometer 449,
n=27,818) and the average number of reported rapes per 100,000 inhabitants
2013–2017 (Source: Eurostat). Correlation coefficient: 0.66, R2 = 0.44.

Low confidence in the criminal justice system canprevent people from filing a police report
Public confidence in the police and the criminal justice system
has also been raised as a factor of importance to the propensity
to report (Harrendorf, 2018; von Hofer, 2000). The level ofconfidence in the criminal justice system in different countries
has also been measured in a Eurobarometer 34. If we compare
the responses in this survey with Eurostat’s statistics onreported rapes, we can see a positive correlation between thelevel of confidence in the criminal justice system in each country
34 In Eurobarometer 385, 26,581 EU citizens answered questions on their opinion of theircountry’s criminal justice system. The question Brå is referring to read: “Overall, would you saythat you tend to trust or tend not to trust the justice system in [appropriate country]?”62

and the number of reported rapes per capita. It would seem thata certain amount of confidence in the criminal justice system isa prerequisite for more people to report crimes to the police,
although after a certain threshold level further increases in
confidence do not lead to more reports.
Figure 12. Correlation between the percentage stating that they have confidence inthe criminal justice system (source: Eurobarometer 385, n=26,581) and the average
number of reported rapes per 100,000 inhabitants 2013–2017. (Source: Eurostat).
Correlation coefficient: 0.52, R2 = 0.27.

The discrepancy between average or high exposure to rape in
the FRA study and comparatively few reported rapes according
to Eurostat can be understood when confidence in the criminal
justice system is taken into account. One clear example is
Bulgaria, where 10 percent of the women stated that they had
been raped after 15 years of age, but where the numbers ofreported rapes is very low, about 2 per 100,000 inhabitants
each year. One possible explanation is that two out of three
responded no when asked whether they trusted the country’s
criminal justice system.
63

Increased exposure or increased propensity toreport in Sweden?
To illustrate issues concerning the propensity to report, thetrend seen in Sweden can be used as a case study. Since the FRA
study was conducted, both the number of reported rapes andthe self-reported exposure to sexual offences in the Swedish
Crime Survey have increased. The number of reported rapes per
capita rose by 18 percent between 2012 and 2018.
When Brå in a previous report analysed the development insexual offences, one central issue was whether the development
was due to an increased propensity to report or an actual
increase in the number of rapes (Brå, 2019b). An increased
focus on sexual offences in the media and various appeals insocial media were presented as support for the increase being
due at least in part to an increased propensity to report.
Factors that could possibly support an actual increase in rape
were also raised, such as altered forms of socialising through theuse of dating apps. High levels of immigration during the period
were also raised as a possible explanation, as according toresearch foreign-born populations have a heightened risk ofbeing suspected of and prosecuted for rape (Brå, 2005).
The issue came to a head after 2015, when both the foreignborn population and the number of rapes reported to the police
increased dramatically.
However, a recently published report (Adamson, 2020)
provides no support for immigration being a possible
explanation for the increase in the number of reported rapes
during the period. The results show that the foreign-born
population’s heightened risk of being suspected of rape fell as
the number of reported rapes increased. The percentage of allcases of reasonable suspicion of rape that concerned foreignborn persons (including undocumented migrants) also fell from48 to 44 percent.35

Strong indication of variations in the propensity toreportTo summarise, there is much to indicate that the propensity toreport differs between the studied countries. It is not possible toestablish with certainty because we do not know how many
35 See Figure 6 in Adamson (2020). The data can also be downloaded fromhttps://detgodasamhallet.com/rapport-om-invandring-om-brottslighet/ (Table 12 and Table 18).

64

rapes are actually committed, but many factors linked to thepropensity to report covary with Eurostat’s statistics onreported rapes.
The propensity to report is linked with ideas that can beconsidered desirable, such as gender equality, confidence in thecriminal justice system, lower tolerance of sexual offences andgreater empathy for victims of sexual offences. Table 5 presents
an overall picture of the number of reported rapes per 100,000
inhabitants in all EU countries together with data on genderequality, confidence in the criminal justice system and attitudes
to rape myths in these countries. In order to underline thecorrelations, the results are presented in different colours. A
high level of reported rapes is presented in red, and a high levelof gender equality, confidence in the criminal justice system,and negative attitudes to rape myths is presented in green.

65

Table 5. Summary of factors which can affect the propensity to report.

66

Propensity to register
Finally, there may be differences between countries in terms ofthe tendency for the police to register a reported rape inaccordance with the country’s regulations, which here isreferred to as the propensity to register. This is not to be
confused with the legally correct differences in crime
registration methods presented in the section on formal factors.
Whether reported rapes are registered correctly can, however,depend on both intentional decisions and unintentional
mistakes.
The quality declaration for reported crimes (Brå, 2019d) statesthat the single foremost source of uncertainty is shortcomings in
how the police register crimes. Problems that are addressed
include specifying the correct criminal offence code and thecorrect number of offences. Ignored or incorrectly classified
reports are, for obvious reasons, difficult for Brå to identify andmeasure. Nonetheless, the fact that the propensity to register isof importance is seen in various public inquiries, not seldom
after investigative journalists have uncovered abuses. We havefound examples of this in both England/Wales and Denmark.
That is not to say, however, that such things do not happen in
Sweden, Norway or Germany. The reason why we are
addressing shortcomings in the propensity to register in thesecountries here is that we have found sources with clear
examples of the existence of such shortcomings that canillustrate the consequences for the report statistics.
In 2013, reports appeared in the media 36 that the police inEngland/Wales had manipulated their crime statistics to achieve
established targets.
As a result, the authority tasked with supervising the work of
the police, HMIC 37, conducted a major inquiry into how crimes
are processed and registered in each and every police district in
the country. This inspection took place between December 2013
and August 2014, and it found that a large percentage of thereports made in 2012–2013 had not been registered as crimes.
In the case of sexual offences, as many as a quarter of reports
was ignored (HMIC, 2014). Furthermore, it was found that
registered crimes were to a considerable extent also deregisteredon flawed grounds (known as “no-criming”). This resulted inextensive changes in how the police record the reports.
36 See, for example, https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-25002927
37 Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary67

In Denmark, similar abuses were uncovered in 2015.38 In thiscase, the police routinely “concealed” reported rapes by using
other criminal offence codes, so that they were not included in
the rape statistics. This, too, was followed by a public inquiry
entitled “Respekt for voldtægtsofre” (Respect for Rape Victims)(Justitsministeriet, 2016).
Figure 13 indicates that the attention surrounding theshortcomings resulted in more reported rapes being registered as
crimes, and thereby being included in the rape statistics, in both
England/Wales and Denmark. It is reasonable to assume that anincreased propensity to register reported rapes is one of thereasons why England/Wales had 80 percent more registeredrape reports in 2014 than 2012 and that the number of reports
in Denmark doubled between the years 2014 and 2016. In acomment to the rape statistics in Eurostat, one of therepresentatives for the Danish statistics writes:
The increase from year 2015 to year 2016 must be seen inconnection with changes in the police registration practice.
Figure 13. Reported rapes in England/Wales and Denmark 2004–2017. Indexed
values. Source: National crime statistics.

Substantive factors in summary
In the previous chapter, it was seen that the differences in thenumber of reported crimes per capita would fall considerably if
all countries had the same legal conditions and applied the same
statistical principles.
This chapter, on the other hand, has focused on differences
38 See, for example, https://www.thelocal.dk/20160128/hundreds-of-rapes-hidden-by-danish-police

68between the countries in terms of, on the one hand, conditions
that can affect the extent to which victims of crime report theincidents to the police and, on the other hand, any shortcomings
in the work of the police in correctly registering reported rapes.
Exactly how much these factors affect the comparability ofEurostat’s report statistics as a basis for differences in actual
rape levels is difficult to say. The major differences in attitudes
regarding sexual violence and confidence in the criminal justicesystem, the apparently increasing propensity to report in
Sweden and the increasing propensity to register in Denmark
and England/Wales show, however, that the number of reported
rapes is a result of many interacting factors.

69

Cleared rapes
An important task for the police and prosecutors is to clear thecrimes of which they are made aware, that is, to identify andprosecute the perpetrators. How well the criminal justice system
handles the task of clearing offences is usually measured by
dividing the number of cleared offences by the number ofreported and registered offences. Exactly what is defined as acleared offence can, however, vary, and the officially reported
percentage of offences cleared, hereinafter referred to as theclearance rate, differs considerably between countries. The
extent to which this depends on how the influx of crimes iscalculated, how cleared crimes are defined or differences in theeffectiveness of the police is analysed and discussed in thischapter. The analysis is limited to the countries also studied ingreater detail in the comparison of report statistics: Sweden,
Norway, Denmark, Germany and England/Wales.

Clearance rates vary greatly
When compiling the clearance rates for rape, as they arepresented in each country’s national statistics, the countries end
up in the opposite order compared to the presented number ofreports.
Germany ends up at the top, with an average of 8 out of 10
rapes cleared according to the statistics. Next is Denmark,which after a drop in 2015 clears about 57 percent of rapes. In
Norway, the statistics show that about one in three rapes iscleared. In Sweden, the clearance rate varies greatly; in 2014 itwas 21 percent, while in 2017 it had fallen to 11 percent.
England/Wales introduced a new method for measuring
clearance, which is why the figures for 2013 are not included.
There, the percentage of rapes considered cleared has fallen
every year, and in 2017 was down to three percent.

70

Figure 14 presents the level and development of the percentage of cleared rapes, aspresented in each country’s official national statistics.

What, then, could possibly explain the dramatic differences in
the percentage of cleared rapes presented in the various
countries’ national statistics? In the main, it concerns variationsin:•

The manner in which cleared offences are defined•

The reports included in the influx of offences•

The time at which the statistics on cleared crimes areprepared•

The opportunity for and the capability of the police toinvestigate and clear reported rapes

The following section discusses the differences between the
countries in terms of how they define and calculate cleared
offences. Following this, we discuss a more comparable method
for measuring the results of the criminal justice system’s workwith rape in the five countries. Finally, the last explanatorymodel is discussed in brief.

The manner in which cleared offences arecalculated differs
The five countries studied here differ considerably in terms ofwhat is counted as a cleared offence. They also differ in terms ofwhich rape reports the cleared offences are to be divided by tocalculate the clearance rate, and when the statistics areprepared. Even the offences classified as rape can vary. The
opportunities to clear an offence can vary greatly between
different types of assault. For example, in the Swedish statistics,
71child rape has a higher clearance rate than rapes committed
against adults. How the clearance rate is affected by which
offences are included under rape is, however, outside the scopeof the following analysis.

Sweden calculates the clearance rate from all reports
In Sweden, an offence is considered cleared once the police or
the prosecutor in their final deliberations have tied a perpetrator
to the offence by either deciding to prosecute, issuing asummary fine (fines that are not issued by a court) or issuing a
waiver of prosecution 39.
In cases of rape, essentially no summary fines or waivers ofprosecution are issued, and so clearance is generally equatedwith prosecution. If the person suspected of the rape is 14 yearsof age or younger, the offence cannot be cleared since persons
under the age of 15 years are not criminally responsible.
Unfortunately, there are no data on the prevalence of suspects
under the age of 15 years since the registration of these
individuals as crime suspects is considered to be too uncertain interms of quality as a basis for official statistics (Brå, 2019e).
When calculating the clearance rate, the denominator in theequation is comprised of all processed offences, that is, allreported offences where the police, the prosecutor or anotherinvestigating authority has made a decision during the reference
year which means that the offence is fully processed. In otherwords, an offence is not registered as cleared or not cleared
until the case has been closed. The processed offences may havebeen reported during the reference year, but they may also havebeen reported earlier.
As with the report statistics all reports are included, even thosewhere the reported incident was not found to be criminal.
The calculation of cleared offences follows essentially the same
principles as for the report statistics. If a case encompasses 10
rapes that result in prosecution, this also results in 10 cleared
offences. 40 The fact that Sweden counts the percentage of
39 A waiver of prosecution means that the prosecutor decides not to prosecute a person, despite

the fact that they have committed an offence. There must not be any doubt surrounding thesuspect’s guilt, which is why a waiver of prosecution generally requires an admission of guilt.
40 Since a rape committed by several persons is counted as a single offence but can generate
several decisions, only one decision per offence is reported. Which decision is reported isdetermined by using the principal offence approach, wherein a decision to prosecute takes
precedence, followed by a summary fine, a waiver of prosecution, a decision to refrain from apreliminary investigation and then any other decisions. In this way, a reported (gang) rape will not
result in more than one cleared offence.

72

offences leading to prosecution, rather than the percentage ofcases, can result in higher clearance rates. This was seen in aprevious Brå report on the process from reported rape toconviction (Brå, 2019b). Individual cases encompassing a large
number of cleared rapes, often in the context of an intimate
relationship, can have a considerable impact on the clearance
rate. The quality declaration for processed offences (Brå,2019d) also indicated that in 2018 there were three rape cases
encompassing a large number of rapes, which had a positiveeffect on the clearance rate. In 2017, on the other hand, there
was a single case encompassing a large number of rapes that
had a negative effect on the clearance rate that year as it was
not cleared. These far-reaching effects of individual but extensive
cases may cause the clearance rate to deviate dramatically fromone year to the next.

England/Wales follows up results three months after
year-end
Until 2013, England/Wales had a system wherein the following
up of the work of the police was based primarily on whether areport led to any form of sanction (prosecution, warning, fine,etc.). Under the new framework, they instead measure a numberof different outcomes (Home Office, 2013). Even though the
purpose is in part to move away from the target chasing thatthese types of performance statistics can lead to, the newframework also uses outcomes that are used – not least by the
media – to assess the effectiveness of the police. That which ismeasured is how large a percentage of the reported offences
results in someone facing legal proceedings(charged/summonsed). In the case of serious crimes, such as
rape, this essentially always entails being charged andprosecuted. Unlike in Sweden, where the age of criminal
responsibility is set at 15 years, children can be prosecuted from
10 years of age.
Another aspect of importance to the extent of the clearance rateis the figure used to divide the number of cleared offences. Even
if two countries have the same number of cleared offences, theclearance rate will differ depending on how many reported
offences have been registered.
In England/Wales, the percentage of reported offences cleared
during the reference year is measured three months after the endof the reference year. The report statistics are based on the fiscal
year, which runs from April to March. The follow-up of thereports filed between April 2017 and March 2018 were73

published in July 2018. Offences that have not yet been fully
processed cannot be included in the offences classified ascleared, but they are included in the denominator. This is ofmajor significance to the statistics on cleared rapes, where 35–
45 percent of the reports have not been fully processed whenthe measurement is made. In other words, this method ofcounting results in the clearance rate presented inEngland/Wales being much lower than in the other countries.
As described in the section on statistical factors, not all reports
are included in the influx of offences to be cleared. Unconfirmed
and disproved reports are purged from the statistics, which has
a positive effect on the clearance rate.

Norway’s definition of cleared offences broader than
Sweden’s
The Norwegian definition of cleared offences is broader thanthe Swedish one as it encompasses other outcomes that are notconsidered legal proceedings in Sweden. For example, if
someone who is not criminally responsible is tied to a crime, it
is also counted as cleared, unlike in Sweden. This broader
definition of cleared offences contributes to a clearance rate thatis higher than Sweden’s. In 2017, the official clearance rate forrape in Norway was 37 percent. It would have been 21 percent
if Norway, like Sweden, only defined offences that lead toprosecution as cleared.
As in Sweden, the calculation is based on closed cases.
However, unlike Sweden the clearance rate in Norway is notbased on all reports but only those where an investigation was
initiated.
Investigations concluding that the reported offence was not acrime are also excluded from the influx of crimes on which theclearance rate is based.

Denmark measures reports resulting in reasonablesuspicion
Denmark does not use the concepts of clearing and clearance
rate. Instead, they report sigtelseprocenten, which means thepercentage of all reports that result in someone being suspected
on reasonable grounds of a crime. This is a much broader
concept than those used in Sweden and England/Wales. As far
as Brå has been able to understand, even persons who are notconsidered criminally responsible can be suspected on74reasonable grounds.
As in England/Wales and Norway, the size of the denominatoris affected by the fact that some of the actual reports are notregistered as offences. As described above, the number ofregistered reports is also affected by whether the police follow
the rules governing the registration of offences.
In 2015, it was revealed that the police were misclassifying
reported rapes that they did not believe they could clear, so thatthey were not included in the statistics. 41 This can be correlatedwith the percentage of reports resulting in someone being
suspected on reasonable grounds of rape being 74 percent in2014 but falling to 56 percent in 2016.
The statistics are based on the report statistics for the reference
year and are prepared one month after the end of the year to beable to include data on whether anyone has been suspected of
the offence. A study by Statistics Denmark showed that thepercentage of rape reports in 2016 that resulted in a suspect
being tied to the offence on reasonable grounds would haveincreased from 56 to 58 percent if they had waited two years
before retrieving the data.

Germany’s statistical method produces the highest
clearance rate
The guidelines for Germany’s crime statistics define a cleared
offence in the following manner (their English translation):
A solved (cleared up) case refers to an offence which, basedon investigative results, was committed by at least one
suspect whose rightful personal details have become
known. 42

Exactly how strong the suspicion needs to be is difficult to say.
One way to estimate it is to calculate how large a percentage ofthe suspected individuals are also convicted of an offence. If wecompare the statistics on those suspected and those convicted ofrape in a given year, the number of suspects averages ten times
the number of convictions. That only 10 percent of the “solved”
cases result in someone actually being punished for the offence
illustrates how dramatically the official definition differs fromwhat is generally considered a cleared offence in Sweden.
41 See, for example, https://nyheder.tv2.dk/krimi/2015-11-11-kritik-af-politiet-et-hav-afvoldtaegter- holdes-skjult-i-statistikken
42 PCS Guidelines 2018.

75

Another factor that leads to a higher clearance rate in Germany
than in Sweden is that when calculating the clearance rate, thescope of the denominator is more selective than in Sweden. As
seen in the previous section, the police purge reports on
incidents that cannot be confirmed or that following an
investigation are not considered to be rapes in the legal sense.

Another way to measure the percentage ofcleared offences
Since the countries differ in terms of both what is considered acleared offence and what is included in the registered offences,
there is no meaningful way to compare countries’ official
statistics on the percentage of cleared offences. The fact that for2017 Germany reports a clearance rate of 83 percent while thecorresponding figure for England/Wales is 3 percent cannot beinterpreted as the German police working 28 times more
effectively.
To obtain a fairer picture, Brå has recalculated the countries’
statistics on cleared rapes so that they are based on as
equivalent principles as possible. The point of departure has
been the offences in the national statistics in the category ofrape. The unit of analysis used for the calculation is individuals
and not offences (incidents).
To make the influx of crimes more comparable between the
countries, in the Swedish statistics we have excluded the reports
which were written off directly or where the investigation wasclosed due to no crime having been committed. The Norwegiancomplainant statistics have also been purged to the equivalentextent.
In the recalculation, a cleared offence is defined as a person
being convicted for the reported crime in a court of law, which
in Brå’s opinion is the internationally most comparable measureof a cleared offence.
The requirement of a guilty verdict varies less between countries
than the evidential requirements for someone to be suspected ofor prosecuted for a crime. In other words, the standardised
clearance rate measures the number of individuals who during aparticular year are convicted of rape in relation to the numberof individuals who filed a rape report that was investigated by
the police. 43
43 Excluding investigations that are closed due to the reported incident not constituting a criminal

offence76Here we should point out that by definition the numerator does
not encompass the same population of offences as thedenominator. A reported rape can of course result in no one
being convicted for the crime until the following year.
Figure 15 presents the average clearance rate for rape during theperiod 2013–2017 using two different measurement methods.
The unadjusted figures stem from each country’s national
statistics on cleared rapes. The standardised figures present
Brå’s recalculated clearance rate based on the principles
presented above.
Figure 15. Official clearance rate for rape and number of convictions in relation tonumber of complainants in investigated and confirmed rapes, average 2013–2017.
Source: National crime statistics and Brå.

With Brå’s recalculation of cleared rapes, the percentages are,unsurprisingly, much lower. This way of counting uses anarrower definition of what is considered a cleared offence. It
becomes apparent that the differences between the countries arealso considerably smaller when calculated in a more equivalentmanner. In Sweden and Germany the standardised clearance
rate is seven percent. In England/Wales it is eight percent and in
Denmark ten percent. The best results are in Norway, with aclearance rate that averages 13 percent.

Difficult to compare the effectiveness of thepoliceIt is important to keep in mind that Brå’s comparison of cleared
rapes is not an exact calculation. The recalculation entails
several assumptions, and it is also dependent on the countries’
national statistics on the numbers of complainants andconvicted individuals. In other words, the remaining differences
shall not be overinterpreted. The aim has not been tothoroughly examine the effectiveness of the police in clearing77

reported rapes in the different countries, but primarily toillustrate how the large differences in the reported clearance
rates are determined by the different ways of defining andcalculating the percentage of cleared rapes.
Naturally, the number of crimes that are cleared is affected not
only by differences in the way they are calculated, but also by
how effectively the police work when investigating rapes. We
know from previous studies that the quality of police work canaffect whether a rape is cleared (see, for example, Brå, 2019b).
This concerns, for example, conducting the investigations
quickly, conducting thorough crime scene investigations andsecuring evidence, documenting any injuries to the victims,
interviewing complainants, suspects and relevant witnesses, andasking the “right” questions when doing the latter.
In this respect, it is also important that the police have sufficient
resources to employ such work methods in rape investigations.
The amount of resources required depends on the scope of thereported rapes. It ought to require considerably more police
resources per capita in England/Wales than in Germany toachieve the same clearance rate as the number of reports per
capita is considerably smaller in Germany.
Unfortunately, there are no recent studies which in acomparable manner have examined the quality of police workin rapes in the five countries. As for overall police resources ineach of the countries, there are international comparisons.
However, since we do not know how much of these resources
are allocated to investigating rapes, the figures do not reveal somuch in this respect.
In other words, the fact that the clearance rate for rapes differs
even with Brå’s recalculated statistics shall not be
overinterpreted. On the other hand, we can assert that theclearance rate ought to be able to be improved in both Sweden
and other European countries.

78

Concluding remarks
In this report, we have analysed Eurostat’s crime statistics as aknowledge base for international comparisons of rape. We havealso reviewed the differences in how the efforts of criminal
justice systems to clear reported rapes are reflected in national
statistics.
We have highlighted possible sources of error and examinedalternative methods for compiling better material forinternational comparisons. The most reliable finding of thereview is perhaps how difficult it is to measure the extent ofrape, especially in an international perspective. However, thisdoes not mean that one should not try.

Measuring and comparing the incidence of rape isworthwhile
Measuring and comparing the extent of and trends in rape canbe worthwhile for many reasons. Rape is a serious crime which
is often picked up by the media and addressed in public debate.
The issue is also strongly tied to a sense of security. Studies into
the incidence of rape can provide an important data source
when researchers want to test hypotheses for the sociologicalcauses of rape. It is also an important source for decisions
affecting criminal justice policies. Measuring and comparing theincidence of rape in different countries can provide knowledge
which can be used to combat such crime. Berliner (1992)
expressed this sentiment as follows:
Numbers are central to developing a societal response to asocial problem. Establishing the frequency of a problem has
everything to do with how seriously it is taken.

In other words, there are several reasons for measuring andcomparing the incidence of rape in Europe. Highlighting andcombating sexual violence is also important in terms of genderequality. Rape is a crime which primarily affects women, andwhich is almost exclusively perpetrated by men. Being subjected
to sexual offences can have serious and long-lasting
psychosocial consequences. The fear of falling victim is
widespread, primarily among women, and can have a negative
impact on their daily lives.

79Problems with comparisons based on Eurostat’s reportstatistics
The most common source for such comparisons is Eurostat’s
statistics on reported crimes. According to these statistics,
Sweden, together with England/Wales, has the most reported
rapes per 100,000 inhabitants in Europe. One complication
when using these statistics is that the data from the different
countries are not comparable. This is due to formal factors,
such as legislation and methods for registering and counting
reported crimes, varying between the countries.
In addition, there is the problem that not all crimes are reported
and the propensity to report can vary between countries. Suchcomplications are particularly challenging when it comes torape, as there are likely to be large differences between the
countries in terms of both whether victims even identify theirexperience as rape and the “cost” victims envision resulting
from reporting the matter.
Accordingly, one ought to avoid indiscriminate use of Eurostat’s
statistics on reported crimes as a measure of actual crime levels.
Such indiscriminate use can result in misunderstandings andmisleading research results, and, in the worst case, lead topolitical decisions being made on flawed grounds.

Well-executed victims of crime surveys provide a better
pictureVan Dijk (2015) advocates basing comparisons of crime levels
on international victim surveys instead:
The use of Eurostat’s police figures of recorded crime will
inevitably result in erroneous conclusions, for example thatlevels of crime are consistently highest in Northern Europe
and lowest in Bulgaria and Romania. Without a standardized
victimization survey, EU policies on crime and public safety
will continue to be designed, implemented and evaluated
without a proper knowledge base.

This does not mean to say that international victim surveys,
regardless of how well they are conducted, are without possible
sources of error. Here, too, there are unreported crimes, which
can also vary between the countries. First, those who choose notto participate in the survey are excluded. We cannot know how
their participation would have affected the results. Second, thewillingness of respondents to talk about their experiences may
also vary. For example, it may be more difficult to identify an
experience as sexual violence if you live in a country with80

strongly ingrained rape myths. General attitudes to rape canalso reduce the willingness of victims to talk openly about theirexperiences in an interview situation. Accordingly, international
comparisons of victims of crime surveys should also beinterpreted with caution.
European surveys on the prevalence of sexual violence areuncommon. The most recent was conducted by FRA in 2012.
Despite criticism directed at methodological shortcomings, we
still consider FRA’s study to be a better source than Eurostat’sreport statistics for comparing the prevalence of rape in Europe.
This is because the results are affected to a lesser extent bydifferences in legislation, statistical methods and factors which
can affect the propensity to report, such as confidence in thecriminal justice system. However, it must be used with great
caution. The fact that the FRA study was conducted some time
ago also means there is a risk that the results are now out-ofdate.

No support for the claim that Sweden has an unusuallyhigh incidence of rape
What, then, can we say about the number of rapes committed in
Sweden compared with the rest of Europe? In the chapter onformal factors, we estimated that Sweden, if the legal conditions
and statistical methods had been the same as in Germany,
would rank somewhere in the middle of the report statistics
from Eurostat. Nor does Sweden stand out in FRA’s survey
when it comes to the percentage of women who have stated thatthey have been raped at some point. Out of the total of 27
countries included in the survey, Sweden is among the 10 where
the stated prevalence is between 10 and 12 percent. In otherwords, there is no support for the claim that Sweden deviates
significantly from other countries in north-western Europe
when it comes to the incidence of rape.
However, according to both the adjusted report statistics andthe victim survey, more women are raped in Sweden than incountries in southern and eastern Europe, such as Spain,
Portugal, Poland and Greece. It is impossible to rule out thatthese differences are due to more rapes actually taking place inSweden. However, as previously mentioned, it could also be due
to women who are raped in Sweden having a greater propensity
to report the incident to the police and more willingness to talkabout it in a victim survey (as well as being more aware thatthey have been subjected to sexual assault and therefore acriminal act).
81

In this context it is, however, important to emphasise that theincidence of rape in Sweden must be taken seriously and notdiscredited. From the studies which the authors of the report
have been involved in, it is clear that these crimes can leave deep
wounds. They are also associated with considerable costs tosociety in terms of time off work, healthcare and the penal
system. The fear of rape can even have a negative impact on thedaily lives of those who have not fallen victim. Accordingly, it isof the utmost importance that society continues the work toprevent sexual violence. In this regard, we can mention the
Swedish Crime Victim Compensation and Support Authority’s
information campaign Free Will Only, the Swedish Police
Authority’s initiatives addressing men’s violence against women(such as Initiative Daybreak) and the Swedish Prison and
Probation Service’s new treatment programme against sexual
crime, Seif.

Brå’s overall assessment
Brå’s overall assessment is that there is no infallible source ofknowledge with which to compare countries when it comes tothe incidence of rape. Both report statistics and victims of crime
surveys have shortcomings when used as a source of knowledge
about the extent of the crime. However, in a comparison
between report statistics and victims of crime surveys, Brå’s
assessment is that a well-executed European victims of crime
survey is a better source of knowledge than Eurostat’s reportstatistics. This is because the differences in legislation andstatistical methods remain so extensive between the countries
that we have a long way to go before crime statistics can bemade comparable in the manner to which Eurostat and thework with the ICCS aspire.
In the light of the shortage of well-executed victims of crime
surveys, Brå has a positive view of the continuing developmentof Eurostat’s collection and processing of crime statistics. The
new guidelines for how the countries are to submit their data,
released in 2017, were particularly welcome. They clearlystipulate, for example, how crimes ought to be registered andhow the numbers ought to be counted.
The challenge now facing the member states is finding the timeand resources to adapt their data submissions to the new
guidelines.

82References
Adamson, G. (2020). Migrants and Crime in Sweden in the
Twenty- First Century. Society, 1–13.
Adolfsson, K. (2018). Blaming victims of rape: Studies on rapemyths and beliefs about rape. Gothenburg: Department of
Psychology, University of Gothenburg.
Aebi, M. F. (2008). Measuring the influence of statisticalcounting rules on cross-national differences in recorded crime.
Crime and Criminal Justice Systems in Europe and North
America 1995–2004, 196–214.
Aebi, M. F., Akdeniz, G., Barclay, G. et al. (2014). European
Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics 2014.
Helsinki: The European Institute for Crime Prevention andControl, affiliated with the United Nations (HEUNI).
Ahrens, C. E. (2006). Being silenced: The impact of negativesocial reactions on the disclosure of rape. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 38(3–4), 31–34.
Amnesty International (2018). Right to be free from rape.
Overview of legislation and state of play in Europe andinternational human rights standards. London: Amnesty
International Ltd.
Amnesty International (2019). Time for change. Justice for rape
survivors in the Nordic countries. London: Amnesty
International Ltd.
Avrin, F. & Löfving, K. (2018). Hur tystnadskulturen kring
sexuella övergrepp bibehålls. En kvalitativ studie om kvinnors
erfarenheter av sexuella övergrepp. Uppsala: Uppsalauniversitet.
Bailey, W. C. (1999). The socioeconomic status of women andpatterns of forcible rape for major US cities. Sociological Focus,
32(1), 43–63.
Baron, L. & Straus, M. A. (1987). Four theories of rape: A
macrosociological analysis. Social problems, 34(5), 467–489.
Bauserman, R. (1996). Sexual aggression and pornography: A
review of correlational research. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 18(4), 405–427.
Berliner, L. (1992). Facts or advocacy statistics: The case of
acquaintance rape. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 7(1),121–122.
83

Bhuller, M., Havnes, T., Leuven, E. & Mogstad, M. (2013).
Broadband internet: an information superhighway to sex crime?
Review of Economic Studies, 80(4), 1237–1266.
Brottsförebyggande rådet, Brå (1999). Internationella
jämförelser av kriminalstatistik. Rapport 1999:3. Stockholm:
Brottsförebyggande rådet.
Brottsförebyggande rådet, Brå (2005). Brottslighet blandpersoner födda i Sverige och i utlandet. Rapport 2005:17.
Stockholm: Brottsförebyggande rådet.
Brottsförebyggande rådet, Brå (2008). Våldtäkt mot personer
15 år och äldre: Utvecklingen under åren 1995–2006. Rapport
2008:13. Stockholm: Brottsförebyggande rådet.
Brottsförebyggande rådet, Brå (2011). Polisanmälda våldtäkter
mot barn: En uppdaterad kunskapsbild. Rapport 2011:6.
Stockholm: Brottsförebyggande rådet.
Brottsförebyggande rådet, Brå (2012). Brottsutvecklingen i
Sverige 2008–2011. Rapport 2012:13. Stockholm:
Brottsförebyggande rådet.
Brottsförebyggande rådet, Brå (2017). Brottsutvecklingen i
Sverige fram till år 2015. Rapport 2017:5. Stockholm:
Brottsförebyggande rådet.
Brottsförebyggande rådet, Brå (2019a). Indikatorer påsexualbrottsutvecklingen 2005–2017. Rapport 2019:5.
Stockholm: Brottsförebyggande rådet.
Brottsförebyggande rådet, Brå (2019b). Våldtäkt från anmälan
till dom. En studie av rättsväsendets arbete medvåldtäktsärenden. Rapport 2019:9. Stockholm:
Brottsförebyggande rådet.
Brottsförebyggande rådet, Brå (2019c). Kvalitetsdeklaration.
Anmälda brott. Stockholm: Brottsförebyggande rådet.
Brottsförebyggande rådet, Brå (2019d). Kvalitetsdeklaration.
Handlagda brott. Stockholm: Brottsförebyggande rådet.
Brottsförebyggande rådet, Brå (2019e). Kvalitetsdeklaration.
Misstänkta personer. Stockholm: Brottsförebyggande rådet.

84

Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against Our Will: Men, Women andRape. New York: Simon and Schuster.
Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 217.
da Silva, T., Woodhams, J. & Harkins, L. (2014).
Heterogeneity within multiple perpetrator rapes: A national
comparison of lone, duo, and 3+ perpetrator rapes. Sexual
Abuse, 26(6), 503–522.
Egelström, S. (2019). Utvecklingen av anmälda sexualbrott iljuset av MeToo. En komparation av nordisk kriminalstatistik.
Stockholm: Kriminologiska institutionen vid Stockholms
universitet.
EIGE (2015). Gender Equality Index 2015 – Measuring genderequality in the European Union 2005–2012: Report.
Brussels: Publications Office of the European Union.
European Women’s Lobby (2013). EWL Barometer on rape in
the EU 2013. Brussels: European Women’s Lobby.
FRA (2014a). Violence against women: An EU-wide survey.
Main results. Vienna: European Union Agency for Fundamental
Rights.
FRA (2014b). Violence against women: An EU-wide survey.
Survey methodology, sample and fieldwork. Vienna: European
Union Agency for Fundamental Rights.
Gracia, E. & Merlo, J. (2016). Intimate partner violence against
women and the Nordic paradox. Social Science & Medicine,
157, 27–30.
Greenfield, N. (2019). Legislative approaches to rape in the EU:
an overview. GenPol: Gender & Policy Insights.
Gunnarsson, L. (2018). “Excuse me, but are you raping me
now?” Discourse and experience in (the grey areas of) sexual
violence. NORA – Nordic Journal of Feminist and GenderResearch, 26(1), 4–18.
Harrell, M. C. et al. (2009). A compendium of sexual assault
research. Santa Monica: Rand Corporation.
Harrendorf, S. (2018). Prospects, Problems, and Pitfalls in
Comparative Analyses of Criminal Justice Data. Crime andJustice, 47(1), 159–207.

85

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: Universityof California Press.
HMIC (2014). Crime-recording: Making the Victim Count. The
final report of an inspection of crime data integrity in police
forces in England and Wales.
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.
Home Office (2013). A Revised Framework For Recorded
Crime Outcomes. Summary of consultation responses andconclusions. London: Home Office.
Home Office (2019). Counting Rules for Recorded Crime.
London: Home Office.
Justitsministeriet (2016). Respekt for voldtægtsofre.
Copenhagen: Justitsministeriet, Politi- og Strafferetsafdelingen.
Kripos (2018). Voldtektssituasjonen i Norge 2017. Oslo: Kripos– Den nasjonale enhet for bekjempelse av organisert og annen
alvorlig kriminalitet.
Lindahl, K. (2016). Våldtäktsbrottets utveckling. En
rättshistorisk granskning av 1962 års brottsbalk. Lund:
Juridiska fakulteten vid Lunds universitet.
Makin, D. A. & Morczek, A. L. (2015). The dark side ofinternet searches: A macro level assessment of rape culture.
International Journal of Cyber Criminology, 9(1), 1.

Martin, K., Vieraitis, L. M. & Britto, S. (2006). Gender equality
and women’s absolute status: A test of the feminist models ofrape. Violence against women, 12(4), 321–339.
McMahon, S. & Farmer, G. L. (2011). An updated measure forassessing subtle rape myths. Social Work Research, 35(2), 71–81.
O’Brien, R. M. (1991). Sex ratios and rape rates: a powercontrol theory. Criminology, 29(1), 99–114.
PCS (2018). PCS 2018 Guidelines, Version 1.0.

Wiesbaden: Bundeskriminalamt.
RIF (2012). Riktlinjer för antalsräkning av brott. Version 1.1.

Stockholm: Rättsväsendets informationsförsörjning.
Sarnecki, J. (2003). Introduktion till kriminologin. Lund:
Studentlitteratur.

86

Skogan, W. G. (1975). Measurement problems in official andsurvey crime rates. Journal of criminal justice, 3(1), 17–31.

Smith, M. D. (1987). The incidence and prevalence of woman
abuse in Toronto. Violence and Victims, 2(3), 173–188.
SOU 2015:55. Nationell strategi mot mäns våld mot kvinnor
och hedersrelaterat våld och förtryck. Stockholm: Fritzes.
Stefansen, K., Løvgren, M. & Frøyland, L. R. (2019). Making
the case for ‘good enough’ rape-prevalence estimates. Insightsfrom a school-based survey experiment among Norwegian
youths. I: Heinskou, M. B., Skilbrei, M. L. & Stefansen, K.
(ed.). Rape in the Nordic Countries. Continuity and Change.
New York: Routledge.
Tewksbury, R., Mustaine, E. E. & Covington, M. (2010).
Offender presence, available victims, social disorganization andsex offense rates. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 35(1–2), 1–14.
Thoresen, S. & Hjemdal, O. K. (2014). Vold og voldtekt i Norge.
En nasjonal forekomststudie av vold i et livsløpsperspektiv.

Oslo: Nasjonalt kunnskapssenter om vold og traumatisk stress
A/S.
UNODC (2015). International Classification of Crime for
Statistical Purposes (ICCS), Version 1.0. Vienna: United
Nations Office on Drugs and Crime.
Van Dijk, J., van Kesteren, J. & Smit, P. (2007). Criminal
victimisation in international perspective: Key findings from the
2004–2005 ICVS and EU ICS. The Hague: Boom Juridische
Uitgevers.
Van Dijk, J. (2015). The case for survey-based comparative
measures of crime. European Journal of Criminology, 12(4),437–456.
Walby, S. & Towers, J. S. (2017). Measuring violence to end
violence: Mainstreaming gender. Journal of Gender-Based
Violence, 1(1), 11–31.
Westfelt, L. & Estrada, F. (2005): International Crime Trends:
Sources of Comparative Crime Data and Postwar Trends inWestern Europe. I: Sheptycki, J. & Wardak, A. (red.),Transnational and Comparative Criminology in a Global
Context. London: Cavendish Publishing.
Whaley, R. B. (2001). The paradoxical relationship between
gender inequality and rape: Toward a refined theory. Gender &Society, 15(4), 531–555.
87

Internet sources
SwedenCrime statistics:
https://www.bra.se/statistik/kriminalstatistik.html
Swedish Crime Survey:
https://www.bra.se/statistik/statistiskaundersokningar/nationella-trygghetsundersokningen.html
Statistics on nationality and suspected crimes:
https://detgodasamhallet.com/rapport-om-invandring-ombrottslighet
Denmark

Official crime statistics:
https://www.dst.dk/en/Statistik/emner/ levevilkaar/kriminalitet
Police authority’s working statistics:
https://statistik.politi.dk/
NorwayOfficial crime statistics:
https://www.ssb.no/en/ sosiale-forhold-ogkriminalitet?de=Crime+and+justiceStrasak 2017: https://www.politiet.no/globalassets/04-aktuelttall-og-fakta/strasak/2017/strasak-2017.pdf
Germany

Police authority’s statistics:
https://www.bka.de/EN/CurrentInformation/PoliceCrimeStatisti
cs/policecrimestatistics_node.html
Court statistics:
https://www.destatis.de/DE/Themen/Staat/JustizRechtspflege/_in
halt.html
England/Wales

Home Office: https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/ policerecorded-crime-open-data-tables
Office for National Statistics (ONS): https://www.ons.gov.uk/
peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice88

Overview of sexual offences in England/Wales:
https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crim
eandjustice/articles/sexualoffendingvictimisationandthepaththr
oughthecriminaljusticesystem/2018-12-13
EuropeEurostat’s crime statistics:
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/crime/ overview
Eurostat’s metadata for the crime statistics: https://ec.europa.eu/
eurostat/cache/metadata/en/crim_off_cat_esms.htm
https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/cache/metadata/en/crim_esms.htm
Eurobarometer 385, Justice in the EU:
https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S1104_385/resourc
e/4dbe0dfe-d978-4ebf-906a-c52c1ed88015
Eurobarometer 449, Gender-based violence:https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/S2115_85_3_449_
ENG
Eurostat’s data on internet use:
https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/Ge5r8AKYkHXK70l
T8PrJA
Eurostat’s data on percentage foreign-born:https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=migr_
pop3ctb&lang=en
Eurostat’s data on percentage living alone:https://data.europa.eu/euodp/en/data/dataset/yjS4n80eBew2S
bNSTzvUaQEurostat’s data on age demographics:
https://appsso.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/nui/show.do?dataset=demo_pj
an&lang=en
The World Bank’s data on urbanisation:
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.URB.TOTL.IN.ZS
EIGE’s overview of legislation in the EU on gender-based
violence: https://eige.europa.eu/gender-based-violence/
regulatory-and-legal-framework/legal-definitions-in-the-eu
EIGE’s summary of the results of the FRA study:
https://eige.europa.eu/genderstatistics/dgs/indicator/
genvio_sex_rape_sur prev_phys_sex rape

89

Appendix 1
Rape legislation in the five countries studied indetail and the legal definition of rape in the othercountries included in the study.
Sweden (Swedish Criminal Code 1962:700, Chap. 6, On sexual offences.)

Section 1 A person who by assault, or otherwise by violence or the threatof a criminal act, forces a person to have sexual intercourse or
to engage in or be subjected to some other sexual act, which inview of the seriousness of the violation is comparable to sexualintercourse, is guilty of rape and is sentenced to imprisonment
for at least two and at most six years. The same applies to aperson who performs sexual intercourse, or a sexual act whichin accordance with the first paragraph is comparable to sexualintercourse, by improperly exploiting the fact that a person, due
to unconsciousness, sleep, grave fear, intoxication or the
influence of drugs, illness, bodily injury, mental disorder orotherwise in view the circumstances, is in a particularly
vulnerable situation. If an offence in accordance with the first or
second paragraph is, in view of the circumstances associatedwith the offence, considered less serious, the perpetrator is
guilty of rape and is sentenced to imprisonment for at most four
years.
If an offence in accordance with the first or second paragraph is
considered aggravated, the perpetrator is guilty of aggravatedrape and is sentenced to imprisonment for at least four and at
most ten years. When assessing whether the offence isaggravated, particular consideration is given to whether theviolence or threat was of a particularly serious nature, orwhether more than one person assaulted the victim or otherwise
participated in the assault, or whether the perpetrator, in viewof the method used or otherwise, exhibited particularruthlessness or brutality. Act (2013:365).
Section 2 A perpetrator who, under circumstances other than thosedefined in the first paragraph of Section 1, by unlawful coercion
forces someone to engage in or be subjected to a sexual act is
guilty of sexual coercion and is sentenced to imprisonment forat most two years.
The same applies to a perpetrator who performs a sexual act
other than those referred to the first paragraph of Section 1
with a person in the circumstances otherwise presented there. If90

an offence in accordance with the first or second paragraph is
considered aggravated, the perpetrator is guilty of aggravatedsexual coercion and is sentenced to imprisonment for at least six
months and at most six years. When assessing whether theoffence is aggravated, particular consideration is given towhether more than one person assaulted the victim or otherwise
participated in the assault or whether the perpetrator otherwise
exhibited particular ruthlessness or brutality. Act (2005:90).
Section 4 A person who has sexual intercourse with a child under fifteen
years of age, or performs some other sexual act with such achild that in view of the seriousness of the violation iscomparable to sexual intercourse, is guilty of rape of a child andis sentenced to imprisonment for at least two and at most six
years. This also applies to a person who commits an act referred
to in the first paragraph against a child who is at least fifteen
but not eighteen years of age and who is the perpetrator’s
descendant, or is being reared by or has a comparable
relationship with the perpetrator, or for whose care orsupervision the perpetrator is responsible by order of a publicauthority. If an offence in accordance with the first or second
paragraph is considered aggravated, the person is guilty ofaggravated rape of a child and is sentenced to imprisonment for
at least four and at most ten years. When assessing whether theoffence is aggravated, particular consideration is given towhether the perpetrator has used violence or the threat of acriminal act, or whether more than one person assaulted thechild or otherwise participated in the assault, or whether theperpetrator, in view of the method used or otherwise, exhibited
particular ruthlessness or brutality. Act (2013:365).

91

Part two of Appendix 1
Sources: EIGE and European Women’s Lobby (2013).

Country

Legal definition of rape

Belgium

Any act of sexual penetration, regardless of its nature and by
what- ever means, committed against a non-consenting person,
represents a crime of rape. Consent is not considered to havebeen given, if the crime is committed by violence, coercion or
deceit, or is made possible by the infirmity or physical ormental impairment of the victim.

Bulgaria

Someone who copulates with a female person: 1. who isunable to defend herself and without her consent; 2. bycompelling her by force or threat; 3. by rendering her
helpless;

CyprusAny person who has unlawful sexual intercourse of a female,without her consent, or with her consent, if the consent isobtained by force or fear of bodily harm, or, in the case of amarried woman, by impersonating her husband, is guilty of
the felony termed rape

Estonia

Sexual intercourse with a person against his or her will byusing force or taking advantage of a situation in which theperson is not capable of initiating resistance orcomprehending the situation

FinlandAnyone who, through violence against another person or withthe threat of such violence, compels someone to intercourse.
A person engages in intercourse with a person by exploitingthat as a result of unconsciousness, illness, disability, fear or
any other helpless condition cannot defend him or herself or
be able to express his or her will.

FranceAny act of sexual penetration, whatever its nature, committed
against another person or on the perpetrator, by violence,
constraint, threat or surprise, is rape.

GreeceWhoever with physical violence or with threat of grave anddirect danger forces another to intercourse or
to tolerance or action of an indecent act.

Ireland

A man commits rape if (a) he has sexual intercourse with awoman who at the time of the intercourse does not consent toit, and (b) at that time he knows that she does not consent to
the intercourse or he is reckless as to whether she does ordoes not consent to it.

Croatia

Whoever coerces another by force or by threat of immediate
attack upon his life or limb, or the life or limb
of a person close to him, to sexual intercourse or anequivalent sexual act.

LatviaA person who commits an act of sexual intercourse bymeans of violence, threats or taking advantageof the state of helplessness of a victim

Lithuania

A person who has sexual intercourse with a person against his
will by using physical violence or threatening the immediate
use thereof, or by otherwise depriving of a possibility ofresistance or by taking advantageof the helpless state of the victim

92

Luxembourg Any act of sexual penetration, of whatever nature, by anymeans whatsoever, committed on a person who does notconsent, including using violence or serious threats by ruse or
artifice, or abusing a person incapable of giving consent or
free to oppose resistance, constitutes rape.

93

Part two of Appendix 1. Continued
Country

Legal definition of rape

Malta

Sexual intercourse achieved through violence.

Netherlands

He who, by force or another factuality, or by threat of violenceor another factuality, compels someone to be subjected toactions consisting of or also consisting of the sexual penetrationof the body, will be charged with rape.

Northern
Ireland

Person A commits an offence if (a) he intentionally penetrates
the vagina, anus or mouth of another person B with his penis,(b) B does not consent to the penetration, and (c) A does notreasonably believe that B consents.

PolandA person who by force, illegal threat or deceit subjects
another person to sexual intercourse.

Portugal

A person who uses violence, force, or serious threat, or to makea person unconscious or unable to resist, in order to havevaginal, oral or anal sexual intercourse with the victim or
enabling someone else to do so, or to insert body parts or any
other objects into the vagina or anus.

Romania

The sexual act, of any kind, with a person of the opposite sex
or of the same sex by forcing that person or by taking
advantage of his or her impossibility to defend herself/himself
or to express his/her will.

ScotlandWithout any reasonable belief that B consents, penetrates toany extent, either intending to do so or reckless as towhether there is penetration, the vagina, anus or mouth of B
then A commits an offence, to be known as the offence ofrape.

Slovakia

Rape is committed by a person who forced a woman to engage
in sexual intercourse (coitus) by using violence or threat of
immediate violence, or who for such an act abuses a woman’svulnerable situation.

Slovenia

Whoever compels a person of the same or opposite sex tosubmit to sexual intercourse with him by force
or threat of imminent attack on life or limb.

Spain

Sexual assault against the freedom of another person, using
violence or intimidation. Under sexual assaults, rape includes
vaginal inter- course, anal or oral sex, or the insertion of bodyparts or objects.

Czechia

A person who by violence, by threat of violence or by threat ofother severe injury, forces sexual contact on anyone, orcommits such an act on a defenseless person

Hungary

A person who by violent action or direct menace against life or
limb forces a woman to have sexual intercourse, or uses theincapacity of the woman for defence or for the manifestation ofher will for sexual intercourse.

Austria

A person forces another to perform or undergo coitus or asexual act equivalent to coitus through violence, deprivation of
the person’s freedom or threat of body harm or death.

94Measuring and comparing the incidence of rape in different countries
can provide knowledge which can be used to combat such crime.
However, this requires that the available statistics provide comparable
data from the different countries. According to the EU’s statistics, Sweden has long had the highest number of rapes per capita. According to
the statistics, the percentage of rapes cleared in Sweden is also low. In
this study, Brå shows that there are differences in both how rape legislation is worded and how statistics are recorded, which means that thefigures from different countries are not comparable.
The way in which statistics on the percentage of reports cleared arerecorded also varies between the countries in Europe. There are, forexample, variations in what is considered a cleared offence. In somecountries, a reported rape is counted as cleared if someone has beenprosecuted for the offence, while in other countries it is sufficient tohave a suspect.
Brå also recalculates certain figures to illustrate how various factors,
other than the actual incidence of rape and the effectiveness of the criminal justice system, affect the statistics on reported and cleared rapes,
respectively. The differences between Sweden and other countries arethen greatly reduced.
Brå hopes that this report can contribute to a more balanced andfact-based discussion on the extent of rapes reported to the police
in different countries, as well as how criminal justice systems handle
them. The report is intended for both Swedish and foreign readerships.
We hope that it will prove useful to both criminal justice systems andothers with an interest in the matter.

Brottsförebyggande rådet/National Council for Crime Prevention
box 1386/tegnérgatan 23, se-111 93 stockholm, sweden
telefon +46 (0)8 527 58 400 • e-post info@bra.se • www.bra.se
urn:nbn:se:bra-933