contents: aim & objectives findings recommendations 1 study to assess the scope of and collect...

1

Contents:

• Aim & objectives

• Findings

• Recommendations

STUDY TO ASSESS THE SCOPE OF AND COLLECT AVAILABLE

STATISTICS AND META-DATA ON FIVE CRIME TYPES AND

PROPOSE HARMONISED DEFINITIONS AND COLLECTION

PROCEDURES FOR THESE TYPES OF CRIME FOR THE EU MEMBER

STATES AND THE ACCEDING COUNTRIES

A Study financed by the European Commission – DG JLS

A presentation by

ERNESTO U. SAVONA and BARBARA VETTORI

for the meeting of the Task Force “Statistics on crime, victimisation and criminal justice”

Luxembourg, 17-18 October 2006

[email protected]

http://www.transcrime.it

2

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

The study aimed at contributing to the development of statistics on crime and criminal justice, which are comparable over time and across countries in the EU.

In order to reach this aim, the Study set itself two objectives:

1. to collect data on five specified crime types, and relevant meta-data and highlight similarities and differences in the way the Member States have defined and collected the statistics;

2. to propose, on the basis of an analysis of the collected meta-data, harmonised definitions and collection procedures for these types of crime.

AIM & OBJECTIVES

Aim & objectives

3

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

The focus of the Study was on five crime types that have not received much attention in previous initiatives, i.e.:

1. corruption;

2. fraud, excluding that affecting the financial interests of the European Communities;

3. illicit trafficking in cultural goods, including antiques and works of art;

4. counterfeiting and piracy of products;

5. the sexual exploitation of children and child pornography.

THE FIVE CRIME TYPES

Aim & objectives

4

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

Corruption:

1) with reference to passive and active corruption in the public sector, all EU countries criminalise it. However, full comparability of national statistics on this criminal conduct has not yet been reached, due to asymmetries in the different national definitions

2) with reference to passive and active corruption in the private sector, only about half of the EU countries have made this an offence

3) there are five further illicit behaviours related to the crime type ‘corruption’, all scattered and scarcely harmonised across EU countries

COMPARING THE DEFINITIONS OF THE 5 CRIME

TYPES ACROSS THE EU COUNTRIES: SIMILARITIES

AND DIFFERENCES

Findings

5

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

Fraud:

1) with reference to fraud related to computers, less than half the MSs possess such an offence in their criminal code

2) with reference to a) fraud related to specifically adapted devices, and b) fraud with payment instruments (i.e. cheques, credit cards, etc.), even fewer MSs possess such a specific offence in their criminal code

3) with reference to further illicit behaviours related to the crime type ‘fraud’, these are a myriad of miscellaneous offences, scattered and scarcely harmonised across EU countries

Findings

6

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

Illicit trafficking in cultural goods:

1) some countries totally lack specific criminal legislation on the protection of cultural goods

2) with reference to illicit export of cultural goods, full comparability of national statistics on this criminal conduct has not yet been reached, due to asymmetries in the different national definitions

3) with reference to further illicit behaviours related to the crime type ‘illicit trafficking in cultural goods’, these are miscellaneous offences, scattered and scarcely harmonised across EU countries

Findings

7

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

Counterfeiting and piracy of products:

1) with reference to the three criminal conducts defined at the EU level, i.e. 1) trademark infringement, 2) copyright infringement and 3) infringement of a patent, supplementary protection certificate, national plant variety right, designations of origin or geographical indications and geographical designations, though some asymmetries in national definitions still exist, many steps have been undertaken to date by the EU countries towards a comparability of national statistics on these conducts

2) with reference to further illicit behaviours related to the crime type ‘counterfeiting and piracy of products’, these are four offences, scattered and, in most cases, scarcely harmonised across EU countries

Findings

8

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

Sexual exploitation of children and child pornography:

1) all 22 EU countries, following the EU definition of child, define him as any person under 18 years

2) with reference to sexual exploitation of children, there is an almost total convergence among the 22 countries herein analysed

3) with reference to child pornography, there is a total convergence of all 22 countries herein analysed

4) with reference to further illicit behaviours related to the crime type ‘sexual exploitation of children and child pornography’, the main one is ‘trafficking in children for sexual exploitation’, in relation to which statistical comparability is problematic

Findings

9

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

- the variables on which official statistics are collected on the crime types;

- collecting organisations;

- time of the data collection;

- data collection criteria.

COMPARING THE DATA COLLECTION PROCEDURES

FOR THE FIVE CRIME TYPES ACROSS THE EU

COUNTRIES: SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

The data collection procedures for the five crime types were compared in terms of:

Findings

10

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations1) in one or more countries, there is a lack of statistical information on

trafficking in cultural goods and sexual exploitation of children and child pornography

2) in almost all the EU countries, when information on a given crime type is available, statistics are often collected on variables which are not tailored to the peculiarities of this crime type

3) in some EU countries, when information on a given crime type is available, this does not always cover all three key phases of criminal proceedings (reporting, prosecution and sentencing)

4) in many EU countries, when information on a given crime type is available, this does not always cover all three key elements of the criminal event: i.e. offence, offender, victim. Specifically, in most countries insufficient attention is paid to gathering information on victim

COMPARING THE VARIABLES ON WHICH OFFICIAL

STATISTICS ARE COLLECTED ON THE FIVE CRIME TYPES

ACROSS THE EU COUNTRIES: SIMILARITIES AND

DIFFERENCES

Findings

11

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

5) in many EU countries, when information on a given crime type is available, some important variables are lacking with reference to the offence, such as those related to the place where the offence has been committed (locus commissi delicti), to the modus operandi and to the harm caused by the crime

6) in the vast majority of the EU countries, when information on a given crime type is collected, some important variables are lacking with reference to the offender, such as those related to the perpetrator’s motives, the causal factors of perpetrating, the perpetrator’s socio economic status and level of education

7) in those few countries which collect information on victims with reference to a given crime type, the amount of this information is generally quite narrow and limited to some basic characteristics of the victims, such as age and sex

8) when information is gathered on a given crime type, the level of detail of the data collection system varies greatly across the EU countries, ranging from countries collecting info on a limited and narrow set of variables to countries collecting info on many and very detailed variables

Findings

12

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

COMPARING THE ORGANISATIONS COLLECTING

OFFICIAL STATISTICS ON THE FIVE CRIME TYPES

ACROSS THE EU COUNTRIES: SIMILARITIES AND

DIFFERENCES

1) there is a diversity among countries in the organisations in charge of the collection of data on the five crime types

2) only few countries seem to have a central body coordinating data collection

Findings

13

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

COMPARING THE TIME OF THE DATA COLLECTION ON

THE FIVE CRIME TYPES ACROSS THE EU COUNTRIES:

SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES

1) the time of data collection on the five crime types varies remarkably between countries in relation to the same phase of criminal proceedings

Findings

14

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

COMPARING THE DATA COLLECTION CRITERIA FOR THE FIVE

CRIME TYPES ACROSS THE EU COUNTRIES: SIMILARITIES

AND DIFFERENCES

1) with reference to data collection criteria for police statistics, there is no uniformity as far as the counting unit is concerned

2) with reference to data collection criteria for police statistics, there is no uniformity as far as the so called ‘principal offence rule’ is concerned

3) with reference to data collection criteria for police statistics, there is no uniformity as far as the counting of multiple offences is concerned

4) with reference to data collection criteria for police statistics, there is uniformity as far as the counting of an offence committed by more than one person is concerned

Findings

15

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

5) with reference to data collection criteria for prosecution statistics, there is uniformity as far as the counting of cases brought before a court is concerned

6) with reference to data collection criteria for prosecution statistics, there is no uniformity as far as the counting of sanctions imposed by the prosecutor (or by the court, but without a formal court hearing), based on the defendant’s admission of guilt, is concerned

7) with reference to data collection criteria for prosecution statistics, there is a degree of uniformity as far as the counting of sanctions negotiated between the prosecutor and the defendant without an admission of guilt is concerned

Findings

16

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

8) with reference to data collection criteria for prosecution statistics, there is a degree of uniformity as far as the counting of dropped proceedings is concerned

9) with reference to data collection criteria for prosecution statistics, there is no uniformity as far as the counting of unknown offenders is concerned

10) with reference to data collection criteria for prosecution statistics, there is no uniformity in relation to the counting of a given individual proceeding, if more than one person is involved

11) with reference to data collection criteria for prosecution statistics, there is uniformity as far as the counting of multiple offences is concerned

Findings

17

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

12) with reference to data collection criteria for prosecution

statistics, there is uniformity as far as the counting of a

person subject to two or more proceedings in one year is

concerned

13) with reference to data collection criteria for prosecution

statistics, there is no uniformity as far as the inclusion in

prosecution statistics of data collected by other authorities

(apart from the prosecutors or examining judge) is

concerned

14) with reference to data collection criteria for conviction

statistics, there is uniformity as far as the counting of a

person who is convicted of more than one offence of the

same type is concerned

15) with reference to data collection criteria for conviction

statistics, there is no uniformity as far as the counting of a

person who is dealt with for more than one offence in the

same year is concerned

Findings

18

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations Recommendation 1: action should be taken at the EU level to invite the few countries that have not yet done so, to bring their definition of corruption in the public sector into line with the existing EU standards by incorporating corruption of a foreign public official into it

Recommendation 2: action should be taken at the EU level to invite the countries that have not yet done so, to bring their definition of corruption in the public sector into line with the existing EU standards by expressly differentiating between corruption of an official for a) having him act in accordance with his duties or b) in breach of his duties

RECOMMENDATIONS AIMED AT IMPROVING THE CURRENT

COMPARABILITY OF STATISTICS ON THE CRIME TYPE

‘CORRUPTION’ IN THE EU COUNTRIES BY HARMONISING

DEFINITIONS

Recommendation

s

19

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

Recommendation 3: action should be taken at the EU level to invite the numerous countries that have not yet done so, to bring their definition of corruption into line with the existing EU standards by incorporating active and passive corruption in the private sector into it

Recommendation 4: action should be taken at EU level to develop common EU definitions for corruption-related criminal conducts not yet addressed by harmonisation initiatives - i.e. trading in influence in the public sector (both active and passive), bribery of electorate (both active and passive) and intermediation in corruption - and invite the EU countries to collect separate statistics on them

Recommendation

s

20

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

Recommendation 5: action should be taken at the EU level to invite the countries that have not yet done so, to insert into their national legislation the criminal conduct ‘fraud related to computers’, on the basis of the EU definition

Recommendation 6: action should be taken at the EU level to invite the countries that have not yet done so, to insert into their national legislation the criminal conducts ‘fraud related to specifically adapted devices’ and ‘fraud with payment instruments (i.e. cheques, credit cards, etc.)’



‘FRAUD’ IN THE EU COUNTRIES BY HARMONISING

DEFINITIONS

Recommendation

s

21

Contents:


• Findings

• RecommendationsRecommendation 7: action could be taken at the EU level to develop common EU definitions for fraud-related criminal conducts not yet addressed by harmonisation initiatives - i.e. credit fraud, insurance fraud; fraud on goods; benefit/subsidy fraud - and invite the EU countries to adopt and collect separate statistics on them

Recommendation

s

22

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

Recommendation 8: action should be taken at the EU level to invite the countries to insert into their national legislation the criminal conduct ‘illicit export of cultural goods’, on the basis of the EU definition, and to collect separate statistics on it

Recommendation 9: action could be taken at EU level to develop common EU definitions for illicit trafficking in cultural goods-related conducts not yet addressed by harmonisation initiatives - i.e. unlawful excavation of cultural goods, theft of cultural goods, receiving stolen cultural goods, illicit sale/exchange/offer of cultural goods - and to invite the EU countries to adopt and collect separate statistics on them



‘ILLICIT TRAFFICKING IN CULTURAL GOODS’ IN THE EU

COUNTRIES BY HARMONISING DEFINITIONS

Recommendation

s

23

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

Recommendation 10: action should be taken at EU level to invite the countries to insert into their national legislation the criminal conduct ‘infringement of a patent, supplementary protection certificate, national plant variety right, designations of origin or geographical indications and geographical designations and illicit export of cultural goods’, on the basis of the EU definition, and to collect separate statistics on it

Recommendation 11: action could be taken at the EU level to develop a common EU definition for counterfeiting of food, and to invite the EU countries to adopt and collect separate statistics on it



‘COUNTERFEITING AND PIRACY OF PRODUCTS’ IN THE EU

COUNTRIES BY HARMONISING DEFINITIONS

Recommendation

s

24

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

Recommendation 12: action should be taken at the EU level to invite the countries that have not yet done so, to insert into their national legislation the offence ‘recruiting a child into prostitution or into participating in pornographic performances’, on the basis of the EU definition

Recommendation 13: action could be taken at the EU level to invite the EU countries to fully comply with the EU definition of trafficking in human beings for the purposes of labour exploitation or sexual exploitation and, in the framework of this offence, to have a separate data collection system for ‘trafficking in children for sexual exploitation’



‘SEXUAL EXPLOITATION OF CHILDREN AND CHILD

PORNOGRAPHY’ IN THE EU COUNTRIES BY HARMONISING

DEFINITIONS

Recommendation

s

25

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

Recommendation 14: action should be taken at the EU level to invite all countries to pay attention to the collection of statistical information on all five of the crime types

Recommendation 15: action should be taken at the EU level to invite all countries to also collect some “specific variables” tailored on the peculiarities of a given crime type

Recommendation 16: action should be taken at the EU level to invite all countries to collect statistical information on all three key phases of criminal proceedings (reporting, prosecution and sentencing)


COMPARABILITY OF STATISTICS ON THE FIVE CRIME TYPES

IN EU COUNTRIES BY HARMONISING THE VARIABLES ON

WHICH OFFICIAL STATISTICS ARE COLLECTED

Recommendation

s

26

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

Recommendation 17: action should be taken at the EU level to invite all countries to collect – for each of the three key phases of criminal proceedings – variables on all three key elements of the criminal event (i.e. offence, offender, victim)

Recommendation 18: action should be taken at the EU level to invite all countries to collect – for each of the three key phases of criminal proceedings – key variables related to the offence, such as the locus commissi delicti, the modus operandi and the harm caused by the crime

Recommendation 19: action should be taken at the EU level to invite all countries to collect – for each of the three key phases of criminal proceedings – key variables related to the offender, such as those related to the perpetrator’s motives, the causal factors of perpetrating, the perpetrator’s socio economic status and level of education

Recommendation

s

27

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

Recommendation 20: action should be taken at the EU level to invite all countries to collect – for each of the three key phases of criminal proceedings – key variables related to the victims

Recommendation 21: action should be taken at the EU level to invite all countries to collect – for each of the three key phases of criminal proceedings – a minimum common set of relevant variables for each of the crime phases considered

Recommendation

s

28

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

Recommendation 22: action should be taken at the EU level to invite all countries to establish a centralised body charged with coordinating data collection for each of the three key phases of criminal proceedings (reporting, prosecution and sentencing)



IN EU COUNTRIES BY HARMONISING THE COLLECTING

ORGANISATIONS

Recommendation

s

29

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations Recommendation 23: action should be taken at the EU level to invite all countries to homogenise the time for collection of statistics on the five crime types in relation to the same phase of criminal proceedings, and to decide, in agreement among all countries, if:

- with reference to the time for collection of statistics on reported crimes, to collect data when the offence is reported to the police or at a later stage, i.e. after the investigation;

- with reference to the time for statistics on convictions, to collect data before the appeal or after it



IN EU COUNTRIES BY HARMONISING THE TIME OF THE

DATA COLLECTION

Recommendation

s

30

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations Recommendation 24: with reference to data collection criteria for police statistics, action should be taken at the EU level to invite all countries to adopt:

- the offence as the counting unit for recorded crimes;

- the so called ‘principal offence rule’, which dictates that if the sequence of offences in an incident, or complex crime, contains more than one type of offence, then the most serious offence is counted;

- the criteria of counting multiple offences as two or more;

- the criteria of counting as one an offence committed by more than one person



IN EU COUNTRIES BY HARMONISING THE DATA

COLLECTION CRITERIA

Recommendation

s

31

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

Recommendation 25: with reference to data collection criteria for prosecution statistics, action should be taken at the EU level to invite all countries to adopt:

- the criteria that sanctions imposed by the prosecutor (or by the court, but without a formal court hearing), based on the defendant’s admission of guilt, are excluded from prosecution statistics;

- the criteria that sanctions negotiated between the prosecutor and the defendant without an admission of guilt are excluded from prosecution statistics;

- the criteria that dropped proceedings are included in prosecution statistics;

- the criteria that unknown offenders are excluded from total figures;

- the criteria of counting individual proceedings where more than one person is involved, as one;

- the criteria of counting multiple offences as one

Recommendation

s

32

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

Recommendation 26: with reference to data collection criteria for conviction statistics, action should be taken at the EU level to invite the few countries that behave differently to adopt:

- the criteria of counting a person who is convicted of more than one offence of the same type as one;

- the criteria of counting a person who is dealt with for more than one offence in the same year as two or more

Recommendation

s

33

Contents:


• Findings

• Recommendations

STUDY TO ASSESS THE SCOPE OF AND COLLECT AVAILABLE

STATISTICS AND META-DATA ON FIVE CRIME TYPES AND

PROPOSE HARMONISED DEFINITIONS AND COLLECTION

PROCEDURES FOR THESE TYPES OF CRIME FOR THE EU MEMBER

STATES AND THE ACCEDING COUNTRIES

A Study financed by the European Commission – DG JLS

A presentation by

ERNESTO U. SAVONA and BARBARA VETTORI

for the meeting of the Task Force “Statistics on crime, victimisation and criminal justice”

Luxembourg, 17-18 October 2006

[email protected]

http://www.transcrime.it

contents: aim & objectives findings recommendations 1 study to assess the scope of and collect...

Documents