Transcript for:
Understanding Victimization Surveys in Criminology

the most intrigue important contributions of ecommology to criminology has been the victimization survey first developed in the united states in the 1960s the victimization saber survey was originally introduced as a way to measure crime harvard over the years it developed into much more and provides us with insight into victims characteristics as well as their attitudes and behavior beginning with the history and evolution victimization survey this module will examine what information victimization surveys are able to provide and discuss their strengths and limitations how to measure crime is a question that has preoccupied authorities for a long time early measures of crime include a number of people convicted by a court or the number of people in prison following the introduction of police forces in the 19th century police statistics and crime levels gradually gained importance soon afterwards national governments began collecting standardized police statistics in the 20th century national police statistics became a popular means to measure the crime rates however traditional measures for counting crimes were based on offenders such as for young prisoners or offenses for example police statistics they did they did not provide systematic information about victims and victimization the only exception was homicide statistics which are always based on the number of victims found this is why many of the first empirical studies in victimology focused on homicide these crimes offered the only systematic data on victims that was available at the time authorities have always known that not all crimes are reported to the police these crimes remain hidden from authorities the dark figure refers to unreported or undiscovered crimes the ever increasing crime rate of the 1960s worried politicians and policymakers making crime a political item in 1965 u.s president lyndon johnson created the president's commission on law enforcement and and administration of justice and he appointed his attorney general nicholas quetzelbach to child to chair the commission the commission was mandated to understand crime and to make recommendations to stop the growing crime problem one of the first questions that the commission tackled was how much crime is out critical of police statistics and the obvious gap between the number of crimes committed and those reported to the police the commission examined alternative ways to measure crime one alternative proposed was the self-reported study in which people are asked to disclose their criminal activity self-report delinquency studies are particularly very well suited for young offenders and relatively minor offenses but they are less helpful when it comes to serious crimes committed by adult offenders hence the idea was proposed to ask people about their experiences as a victim of crime based on the idea that people may be more forthcoming about their victimization than they would be about their delinquency the commission gave albert bitter man and his colleague philip innis and al reyes the task of carrying out the first victimization survey their objective was to better understand the frequency of victimization and people's attitudes towards crime and criminal justice authorities the first victimization survey used face-to-face interviews with adults aged 18 years and older one of the most startling findings from the original survey was that the number of unreported crimes dark figure was many times larger than what was thought on average only one in three victimizations were reported to police according to albert race's calculations the gross estimate of offenses was more than five times as great as police statistics showed hence the growing crime problem was quite possibly an even bigger problem the research also revealed however an inverse relationship between fear of crime and attitudes towards the police victims attitudes towards the police influenced their decision whether or not to report a crime these findings would later form the basis for the introduction of new policies and practices it's just community policing which aim to improve public attitudes towards the police if you want to know if those things worked or not uh take my police and society class five years later in 1972 the bureau of justice statistics bjs introduced a national crime victimization survey or ncbs today the bjs annually publishes findings from the ncbs other countries soon introduce their own victimization survey since 1989 there is even an international crime victim survey victimization surveys are not carried out regularly to track changes over time [Music] compared to united states and europe canada was relatively late to introduce its survey the first victimization survey in canada was carried out in 1982 by the research office of what was then called the solicitor general of canada now known as public safety canada in collaboration with statistics canada this first survey was conducted in seven large urban areas vancouver edmonton winnipeg toronto montreal halifax dharma and saint john's a few years later statistic canada fully took over the survey which is now part of the general social survey or gss since its introduction the survey has been carried out approximately every five years in 1988 1993 1999 2004 2009 and 2014. this is much less frequently than the united states and england and wales for victimization that are collected annually after the initial pilot study in 1982 the surveys were no longer limited to urban areas but they were limited to countries uh 10 provinces the ruler nature of the territories poses specific challenges for data collection it was not until 2004 that victimization data were available for the territories harvard data on there on the territories are reported separately because they involve another sampling design thus reports on criminal victimization in canada still only include the provinces did gss focus on eight types of crimes that fall under two general categories crimes against persons and crimes against house the crimes against persons including the survey are sexual assault robbery physical assault and theft of personal property the difference between theft and robbery being named robert is as some form of force being used or attempted use of force the household victimization include break and entry or burglary motor vehicle theft or theft of parts theft of household property and vandalism respondents are asked whether they experience any of these crimes in the 12 months preceding the interview those who indicate that they did experience one or more victimization under asked several questions about each incident for example they're asked whether the incident where the incident took place whether they knew the offender what impact the incident had on them and whether they reported the incident to the police the victimization rate refers to a number of incidents reported divided by the population in a particular region to obtain a standardized rate in 2014 the victimization rate for crimes against person violent crimes and personal theft was 149 incidents per 1000 canadian age 15 years and older the same year the victimization rate for household crimes was 149 incidents per 1000 households another measure of the level of victimization is a prevalence rate the prevalence rate is based on a number of individuals in the population who experience at least one victimization during a specific time the key distinction between the victimization rate and the prevalence rate is whether the numerator consists of the number of victimizations or the number of victims any one person may experience one or more victimizations in a given period so the victimization rate is generally higher than the prevalence rate in 2014 approximately one in five canadians aged 15 years and older reported that they or their household had been the victim of at least one victimization in the last 12 months this is a prevalence rate of 200. for criminal justice policymakers both the victimization rate and the prevalence rate provide useful information victimization rate data which focus on incidents can be used to assess the needs of the criminal justice system criminal investigations arrests and prosecutions all begin with a criminal incident in contrast prevalence rate data can provide insight into a number of people requiring victim services because these are standardized measures both the victimization and prevalence rates allows to compare rates across time while bearing in mind changes in population size in 2014 victimization rates in canada decreased for the first time since the survey was introduced similarly the prevalence rates dropped in 2014 it was 200 per 1000 while in 1999 it was 260. in 2004 it was 280 and in 2009 it was 260 again however when comparing rates it is important to bear in mind that the 2014 survey differed from previous surveys and they included numerous reminders respondents as a reference period for all of the questions this was done to discourage respondents from sharing information about victimization experiences that occurred outside of the service frame of reference and therefore exaggerated the level of victimization this is referred to as telescope which effectively inflates victimization rates hence it is unclear whether and to what extent the lower rates found in 2014 survey reflect an actual reduction victimization or they are simply the result of this modified methodology victimization surveys offer numerous benefit which is why the united nations office on drugs and crime encourages member states adopt a victimization survey as a standard tool to better understand a crime problem and how to address it as mentioned earlier before the introduction of the victimization survey there was no systematic data on victims and victimizations other than homicide statistics victimization surveys provide a wealth of previously unavailable information which can be used in the development of crime prevention strategies and knowledge based criminal justice policies one of the major benefits of victimization survey is that they capture information on criminal incidents that are not reported to the police research has shown that for various reasons most victims do not report their victimization to the police for example according to the 2004 uh 14 gss 67 percent of victims did not bring the incident to the attention of the police reporting rates differ across types of offenses 67 percent of violent victimizations 63 of household victimizations and 79 of personal property thefts were not reported to police reporting rates vary across countries to some countries such as austria have reporting rates as high as 70 percent of victimizations while others such as mexico have reporting rates of only 16 of victimization beside measuring victimization and shedding light on the dark figure of crime victimization surveys also provide a voice for victims they'll offer insight into the tangible and intangible consequence of criminal victimization which is important to understanding the costs of crime for the individual victims as well as for society victims can experience their needs for support which is significant for a development of services for victims surveys also provide information about who becomes a victim of crime and identify risk factors as well as vulnerable populations besides individual victimization experiences the survey provides insight into repeat and multiple victimization these concepts are discussed later in this module surveys tap into people's attitudes and experiences they measure attitudes towards authorities such as satisfaction with police performance as well as trust and confidence in the criminal justice system which are vital for the legitimacy of the system and those working in it surveys also provide insight into public fear or concern about crime as well as what people have done about victimization to prevent further victimization these are all key issues for policy interested in developing knowledge-based criminal justice policies we can conduct a regularly victimization surveys provide insight into national as well as regional and even international trends this information is particularly interesting when considered together with other sorts of information about crime levels such as police data after considering a disadvantage or limitation victimization survey we'll examine victimization findings together with police data despite the benefit of self-reported victimization surveys they do have limitations to begin with victimization surveys only include a few different types of victimization all infractions without direct victims like white-collar crime or where the victim is unable to speak such as homicide are necessarily excluded crimes against any organization such as business and institutions are also excluded in addition crimes that involve a degree of complainancy on the part of the victims such as drug offenses or occlusion are excluded the gss only covers eight crimes beside being limited to certain victimizations surveys systematically exclude certain groups of people surveys will typically exclude children because the question is not adopted to their level of development however countries vary in terms of the age for example in canada only people age 15 years and older are interviewed in england unveils the age limit is 16 years while in united states children 12 years and older are included surveys are often conducted by phone which means that only people with a telephone can participate uh this becomes more important when we think about a number of people who have actual house phones since a lot of these phone calls are not made to cell phones as a result those living in institutions such as prisons halfway house and hospitals are also systematically excluded also individuals without a fixed address are included language barriers can also limit the participation of groups such as new immigrants who are unable to communicate in the local language when considering victimization rates it is important to bear these groups in mind which are not included in the data victimization surveys are also limited in terms of how they define crimes respondents are not experts in law and are generally not familiar with the criminal quote surveys measure victimizations incidents rather than crime in fact they often avoid the word crime altogether and say they use accessible language to describe relevant incidents and situations that correspond to victimizations respondents are then asked if such things have happened to them over a given period such as the last 12 months subjectivity is also an issue what does it do when does the disagreement become an assault for example if a hockey player hits an opponent on the head with his stick is it an assault or is it just part of the game the context in which an event takes place and the relationship between the victim and offender are relevant for how the event is interpreted by the victim also each of us judges an event differently depending on our age gender socioeconomic uh status education and so on for example when asked about violent victimization victims tend not to label violence as a crime when it is caused by someone they know well the fact that victimization surveys are subjected to victimization is not independently validated by a third party is a problem if one's aim is to have an objective measure of crime aroma argues that crime is an abstract a technical concept that is not well suited to be addressed in a population survey he insists that victimization surveys do not measure crime but people's experiences the criticism that surveys are subjective however is less problematic when we consider this survey as a means to provide insight into victims experiences attitudes and behaviors rather than just a tool to measure crime it is also important to bear in mind that people's memories are not perfect victimization surveys rely on respondents to recall and report events accurately two common errors people make are exaggeration and underestimation exaggeration uh uh the gss asked about events that took place in the last 12 months if someone experienced a victimization 13 months ago then it should not be included in the survey however the victim may really want to talk about it and feels that it is important to report and therefore says that the event took place 11 months ago instead this would inflate the observed rate of victimization artificially exaggeration is sometimes referred to as telescoping over the years survey techniques have improved to cope with this type of error for example if victims are first asked about lifetime victimization and then asked about victimization during the last 12 months they will have an opportunity to talk about their experience and will be less inclined to modify the time frame this will generate qualitatively better data and the researchers will be able to exclude the event when calculating the victimization rate during the last 12 months contrary to exaggeration victims may forget when exactly an event occurred it may feel as though it was very long time ago so they don't mention it even though in fact it was 11 months ago one way to help reduce the risk that victims will make this type of memory error is to help them to place imported events on a timeline and then situate the victimization experience relative to these key events clearly victimization surveys like any other method are not perfect and have their limitation despite their limitation they provide a wealth of information that simply is not available elsewhere [Music] victimization surveys were meant to complement police data by shedding light on the dark figure despite the limitation victimization surveys can be helpful when concerned alongside other sorts of information about crime such as police statistics although both victimization surveys and police report data capture information on crime they have many differences including survey type scope coverage and source of information in canada the gss is a simple survey which in 2014 collected information on eight different types of victimization from approximately 33 000 non-institutionalized individuals aged 50 years and older living in 10 provinces the survey is designed to ensure that these data represent only the non-institutionalized canadian population age 15 years are over in contrast police reported data for example the european crime reporter survey or ucr is an annual census of all criminal code incidents and certain other federal laws that come to the attention of the police and are reported by them to statistics canada both the gss and ucr shed some light on the crime rate since the early 1990s the ucr has registered a decreasing crime rate in 2014 the crime rate in canada was just over 5 000 per 100 000 population or people which is the lowest rate on record since 1969. in contrast victimization rates in canada have not followed the same pattern it was only in 2014 that the victimization rates dropped sharply and as mentioned earlier it is unclear to what extent this is an artifact of the change in methodology or whether it is an actual decrease in victimization while caution must be used by interpreting a result it is nevertheless intriguing that findings from gss and ucr do not show similar trends over time it raises the question whether the ucr's declining crime rates reflect can uh an actual decrease in crime or whether something else may be happening an important difference between police statistic and victimization survey is the latter's ability to measure unreported victimization as we saw most victimizations are not reported to the police since 1993 the rate of reporting has dropped steadily from 42 to 37 in 1999 and 34 in 2004 and 31 2009 the year 2014 marked the first time in 20 years that reporting rates did not fall and remain unstable at 31 there are many factors that can influence police reported crime statistics including the willingness of the public to report crimes of police as well as changes in legislation policies and informant enforcement practices in general the more serious an incident the greater likelihood it will come to the attention of the police also victims who want to make an insurance claim are obliged to report the crime to police to obtain compensation for any stolen or damaged property thus in 2014 incidents causing injury 45 percent those involving a weapon 53 and those resulting financial loss of 1 000 or more 70 were more likely to be reported to the police in canada in terms of type of victimizations robberies break-ins and theft of a motor vehicle or parts were reported to police at least 44 of the time however only five percent of sexual assaults are brought to the attention of the police in 2014. once again the seriousness of the victimization plays a role in victims decision to report as well as contextual factors victims are more likely to report sexual assaults when the offender was a stranger the victim suffered physical injuries and the victim was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol reasons for not reporting incidents vary depending on the crime and are linked to victims expectations about the results for example 63 percent of victims of violent crime said they did not report because it was a personal matter while 27 percent did not want to get the offender into trouble and 18 feared revenge victims of sexual assault who choose who chose not to report it so because they feared reprisal six or eight percent of the time or if they did not want others and in particular their families to know 57 and 59 percent of the time respectively in canada some 12 percent of sexual assault victims say they did not report the crime because they did not want to bring shame or dishonor to their family other reasons for not reporting sexual assault include fear of justice system 42 and that there was not enough proof 51 as we saw before non-reporting is a concern for governments which effectively lose some control over crime and victimization is not reported to the police lastly differences between the two surveys can be the result of the way that the police measures crime for example police if they want to reduce the number of violent incidents might quote particular violent incidents as non-violent depending on the time early victimization surveys found that men experienced more victimization than women however this finding was in part an artifact of how victimization was measured and the inability of early surveys to adequately measure certain types of victimization that women are more at risk than men such as sexual assault and violence in intimate relationships in the 1990s much work was done to improve their measurement of violence against women and victimization surveys as a result later surveys tend to find that men and women share similar overall victimization rates but they fall victims of different types of crime women have a greater risk of sexual violence whereas men have a greater risk of physical assault in 2014 the victimization rate for sexual assault in canada was 37 per 1000 for women and 5 for 1 000 for men while the victimization rate for physical assault was 54 per 1000 for men versus 43 per 1000 for women in general the risk of victimization decreases with age regardless of the type of victimization people have the highest risk of victimization between 15 and 24 years of age in particular age is a key risk factor in biomaximization and young adults between 20 and 24 years of age have the highest risk however it is important to bear in mind that the very young and the very old are not represented in the victimization survey youth under 15 years of age are systematically excluded from the survey and any seniors living in institutions like nursing homes are also excluded moreover children early are typically victimized in the context of their family and their dependent relationship with the aggressor make it difficult and unlikely that they will report their victimization to police david finkelhor has extensively studied the victimization of children and youth in united states and has developed a self-reported survey the juvenile victimization survey to measure the victimization of children and youth he reports high rates of victimization amongst children nearly 60 percent were exposed either directly or indirectly to violence in the past year and almost half 46 were physically assaulted in the past year similar findings have been reported in canada and the united kingdom using the juvenile victimization survey sarah clement and chamberlain found that 76 of children and youth ages 2 to 17 in quebec had experienced at least one victimization during the lifetime while we need to be careful when comparing these findings with those from the general population because each server follows a different method it does appear that children a youth report greater rates of victimization and adult as fungal horror points out even if we were to assume that the rate of victimization for children under 15 years of age was zero which it clearly is not the high rate of victimization found in general victimization survey amongst adults indicate that minors are more prone to victimization than adults these findings and others like it have prompted finkelhorn and his colleagues to argue for the study of developmental victimology which we discussed in module five as a result of the work done on the development of the of a victimization survey for children and youth some countries such as england and wales now uh routinely conduct a separate survey for children and youth ages 10 to 15 to better understand the victimization experience of young people targeting a person because of their sexual orientation is considered a hate crime in canada section 718.2 of the criminal code people who identify who self-identify as homosexual and bisexual reports significantly higher levels of violence victimization that those who self-identify as heterosexual in 2014 people self-identify as bisexual record the highest violent victimization rate as 267 incidents per 1000 canadians compared to 142 per 1000 for those of identified as homosexual and 69 per 1000 for heterosexuals hate crimes can also target visible minorities however in canada immigrants are members of israel minority groups religious minorities or individuals whose language most often spoken at home differ from that of the majority in their province consistently have victimization rates similar or lower than average for canadians for example in 2014 rates of violent victimizations were lower for those who are self-identified as visible minorities than for people who self-identified as a non-visible minority 55 per 1000 versus 80 per 1000 also rates for lower for immigrants 44 per 1 000 then for non-immigrants 86 per 1000. among visible minorities those who were born in canada experienced higher rates of violent victimization than visible minority group immigrants however certain factors are associated with a high risk of victimization also more common among canadian-born minorities they're often young unmarried and unemployed let's also remember that we have to take these numbers of greatness so since many immigrants especially new immigrants or recent immigrants are not able to participate mostly because they do not speak the language indigenous people consistently report higher rates of violent victimization than non-indigenous people among respondents who self-identified as an indigenous person the rate of violent optimization was 160 per 1000 while the rate for non-indigenous people was 74 per 1000. amongst indigenous people first nations have a higher rate of victimization than respondents self-identified as metis per 1000 versus 119 however when other risk factors are taken into account the indigenous identity is not associated with an increased risk of violent optimization suggesting that other factors such as poverty lack of social cohesion and gender may be more important explaining risk indigenous women are particularly at risk of victimization in canada the rate of violent victimization reported by indigenous women is almost three times higher than that of non-indigenous women more specifically indigenous women are more likely to be victims of conjugal violence than non-indigenous women there are also more likely to suffer injuries as a result of their victimization to fear for their lives and to experience psychological violence and financial exploitation than non-indigenous women yet despite the high level of violence experienced by indigenous women they report experiencing less stress in their daily lives than non-indigenous women it was not until 2004 that a pilot survey was conducted in the territories the survey was repeated in 2009 and 14. given this sparse population of northern canada irregular phone service and language barriers a different method for data collection was required the result from the survey revealed higher rates of victimization territories than in the provinces in 2004 37 percent of residents age 15 and all the older living in territories reported being victimized at least once in the previous 12 months whereas 28 percent of provincial residents were victimized in this same uh time period five years later in 2009 again over one in three 34 residents of the territories reported being victimized and close to half of 46 of all incidents were violent in 2014 28 of territorial residents reported being a victim of at least one crime while this is down from the proportions in 2001 9 it remains higher than the figure reported in the provinces 18 the rate of violent victimization for residents in north is consistently higher than that of residents in the rest of canada it is also worth noting that canada's north is predominantly populated by indigenous people people with an annual income of less than twenty thousand dollars have a greater risk of violent victimization than people with higher incomes but there are less likely than people with a higher income to be a victim of theft of personal property poverty is also associated with homelessness and research suggests that the homeless are particularly vulnerable and at risk of victimization the gss does not include homeless but people but respondents are asked if they have experienced homelessness in the past people with a history of homelessness for example those who had to live with someone else or in their vehicle because they had nowhere else to go reported higher rates of violent victimization than people without such history employment is associated with a low risk of victimization in 2014 the violent victimization rate for canadians with employment was 78 per 1000 while it was 165 per 1000 for respondents who are looking for paid work students uh also have a high rate of victimization their rate of victimization was 146 per 1 000 for violent crimes 106 per 1000 for theft of personal property however this may also be related to aids since students tend to be in the 15 to 24 age group which as we have seen is associated with a higher rate of victimization people reported frequent use of drugs or drinking large quantities of alcohol in the preceding months are more likely to also report personal victimization uh especially violent victimization for example in 2014 people claimed to use cannabis every day reported more violent victimization and personal theft than those who did not use drugs in the preceding month distinguishing between cannabis use that other drugs responded who claimed to have used other drugs at least once during the preceding months had the highest rate of violent victimization as well as theft the rate of violent victimizations for people who reported drinking five or more alcoholic beverages in one sitting by binge drinking in the preceding month per 100 000 compared to 5800 000 for those who did not binge drink beside viral victimization binge drinking was also associated with a higher rate of theft of personal property victimization rates are also related to marital status single canadians report more violent crimes than those who are separated or divorced in common-law relationships or married will have the lowest however this may also be associated with age and lifestyle since single people tend to be younger and go out more than married people the more often a person goes out in the evenings the higher the risk of personal victimization the violent victimization rates of people go out almost every single evening at 21 or more times a month is 141 per hundred thousand and the rate of theft a person on property is 110 per hundred per 1000 as for people who do not go out in the evening the rate of violent optimization is 34 per 1000 and the rate of theft the personal property is 27 percent age marital status employment drug use and binge drinking all factors of social lifestyle which increases a person's risk of victimization the emergence of victimization survey also shed light on the phenomena of multiple victimization early victimologists such as as a fatah use the term victim recidivist describes some with a general predisposition to become a victim of crime but the absence of a systematic database of victims and victimizations utter that homicide data made it impossible to say this phenomenon this change with the introduction of the victimization survey for the first time researchers were provided with systematic information about who became a victim as well as about the victimize victimizations they experienced not only did the survey allow researchers to examine victims and non-victims in the population it also provided information about the differential frequency of victimization among victims to illustrate according to the canadian urban victimization survey in 1981 there were 141 incidents of personal victimization per thousand persons over only 115 victims of personal crime per uh per thousand persons that year the lower value for preference rates as compared to victimization rates reflect multiple counting of survey respondents who were victims of a criminal of a criminal incident on more than one occasion victimization surveys have confirmed that multiple multiple victimization exists multiple victimization is a general term that encompasses both repeated victimization in which the individual reports being a victim of the same type of crime on multiple occasions as well as cross-crime victimization or multiple prime type victimization in which the individual becomes a victim of different types of crime more recently david finkelhor and his colleagues have introduced a term polyvictimization identified those individuals who experienced multiple three or more types of victimization multiple victimization means that a relatively small proportion of the population experiences a lot of crime for example in 2004 canadians who reported having been the victim of more than one violent crime in the previous 12 months represented two percent of the population but has experienced 60 percent of all violent crimes among those individuals who reported victimization during the 12 months preceding the 2004 victimization survey 38 percent said that they had been victimized more than once of those half were victimized twice while the other half are victimized three or more times prior victimization experiences seem to affect present victimization risk not only within crime types but also across but also across crime times in particular people who suffer maltreatment as children seem to be more likely to be victims of violent crimes as adults child maltreatment is also associated with several other risk factors for violent victimization adulthood such as alcohol and drug use a high prevalence of physical sexual violence in childhood is related to a higher level of physical violence against women in adulthood while it is clear that past victimization increases the risk of future victimization the mechanism or mechanisms behind this link are subject to debate these findings underscored the necessity of developing theories of victimization that are capable of explaining risk for at risk we will address these topics more in module five since 1989 canada has participated in the international crime victim survey by icvs the icvs is a standardized survey developed to monitor the volume of victimization perception of crime and attitudes toward the criminal justice system in a comparative international perspective this survey was developed under the leadership of han van nae a dutch professor of criminology and expert in victimology the survey was repeated in 1992 96 2000 and 2005. it includes 10 different types of victimization vehicle related theft sorry vehicle-related crimes theft of vehicles theft from a vehicle theft of a motorcycle a scooter theft of a bicycle burglary attempted burglary theft of personal property and personal crimes robbery and attempted robbery sexual offenses physical assaults or threats since its inception the icvs has been carried out in over 50 countries compared to national surveys however the icbs is based on a smaller sample for example canada's gss in 2004 was based on a sample of thirty thousand canadians where only two thousand canadians participated in the icvs hence nation-specific surveys produce higher quality data on individual nations but the icvs provides better comparable data across countries one of the aims of icv of the icvs is to obtain figures of victimization to compare and describe differences in victimization rates and reporting between countries canada is often thought to have less crime and be a surfer safer place to live than its neighbor to the south the united states contrary to common perception however overall rates of victimization burglary robbery and assault are comparable between canada and united states according to the 2004 survey 17.2 percent of canadians aged 16 and older but victims of at least one crime being measured compared to 18 of americans this is not a recent phenomenon either both canada and united states have participated in the icbs since its inception in 1989 and two countries have consistently shown similar levels of victimization in terms of reporting rates compared to other countries participating in the icbs canadians have consistently reported less victimization to police across all areas of icvs from 1989 to 2005. for example in 2004-2005 53 of victimization on average were reported to the police in the 30 countries that participated in the survey however only 47 of victimizations were reported in canada besides victimization and reporting rate the icvs also includes several attitude measures for example finding from the first icbs in 1989 showed that most canadians favored a non-prison sanction but over time canadians appear to have grown more punitive in their attitudes towards sentencing this trend is not unique to canada attitudes in many industrial countries including england and wales scotland and the netherlands have become harsher but attitudes in the united states and france have remained stable victimization survey is one of the most important contribution of victimology to criminology developed at a time of social unrest when policymakers and politicians are concerned uh concerned about the effects of crime on public authority the survey was intended to shed light on the dark figure of crime as well as to inform policy makers about public attitudes towards crime and criminal justice authorities as a measure of the volume of victimization the survey is incomplete it is generally limited to direct victims of survey of certain crimes many group of victims are excluded systematically from the survey which means that a saving necessarily provides an underestimate of the actual level of victimization despite its limitation the victimization survey does provide valuable information on victims and victimizations it sheds light on who is at risk of becoming a victim a multiple victim and in particular offers some insight into crimes that are not reported to the police these surveys revealed that much victimization remain outside of the control of the state and law enforcement today victimization surveys have become a standard tool for policy makers providing important information on the experiences and attitudes of crime victims hope you've enjoyed this lecture i'm looking forward to seeing you soon bye