By Dr. Christoph Birkel, Daniel Church, Dina Hummelsheim-Doss, Nathalie Leitgöb-Guzy, and Dietrich Oberwittler.

As megatrends, globalisation and digitisation are bringing about rapid changes, including in Germany. They are opening up a range of new opportunities, not only in the fields of economics, science and culture, but also in the way we access information, communicate with each other and participate in political and societal decision-making processes. But these new opportunities are being undermined by a highly uneven distribution of the benefits of globalisation and digitisation. This is a worrying development, since the resulting inequalities not only increase the risk of transnational conflicts, struggles over resource allocation and mass migration, but also threaten civil peace and social cohesion in the societies affected by these developments. The direct and indirect repercussions caused by such tensions are being felt across Germany as well, for instance in the form of an ongoing terrorist threat on our continent, an increasingly harsh political discourse, political radicalisation and forms of politically motivated crime, as well as through the ways in which organised crime and criminal clan structures are challenging the rule of law. These developments are fuelling a feeling of insecurity, which in the wake of digitisation is being amplified by the fact that, on the one hand, access to information is becoming easier, faster and more comprehensive, while, on the other hand, the authenticity of that very information is becoming increasingly difficult to validate. Free and unrestricted access to knowledge and information is a precious good, as it promotes informational participation for broad segments of society and increases transparency and democratic control. At the same time, however, it is also becoming easier to disseminate inaccurate information on a large scale, or even launch targeted disinformation campaigns or manipulate public opinion in a time in which the need for reliable sources is greater than ever. This is especially true for safety, where “fake news” can have a momentous impact in a very short space of time. Although representative studies and surveys have shown the current level of safety in Germany to be relatively high, various surveys have indicated that the German public often perceives the risks to be higher. This is why representative victimisation surveys and other tools are indispensable. They make visible the gap between perception and fear, on the one hand, and statistics and scientific findings, on the other. This knowledge can help us to design targeted information campaigns to dispel such perceived threats and feelings of insecurity. Representative victimisation surveys can also help us to identify actual increases in crime rates, introduce appropriate countermeasures and update official crime figures by shedding light on the dark figure of unreported or hidden crime. In addition, knowing the reasons why victims report, or choose not to report, an offence they have experienced will also allow us to improve criminal prosecution approaches in the future. Enriched by comprehensive insights into crime-relevant factors, victimisation surveys have the potential to deliver the crucial insights needed to successfully address the safety-related challenges of the present. Following up on the first German Victimisation Survey (Deutscher Viktimisierungssurvey, DVS) undertaken in 2012, the 2017 survey provides us with fresh sets of data to assess the development of crime and crime-related attitudes in Germany. Based on a nationwide, representative sample of the German population aged 16 and over, the 2017 survey not only yields insights regarding the current security situation and perceived safety across the population, it also allows us to draw conclusions by looking at the developments and changes since 2012.

Wiesbaden: Bundeskriminalamt - BKA, 2019. 127p.

By J.J.M. van Dijk, P. Mayhew, and M. Killias.

The international victimization survey reported here measured experience of crïme and a number of other crime-related issues in a large number of European and non-European countries. It used tightly standardized methods as regards the sampling procedure, method of interview, questions asked, and analysis of the data. By asking respondents directly about a range of offences that they had experienced over a given time period, the survey provides a measure of the level of crime in different countrïes that is independent of the conventional one of offences recorded by the police. The police measure has well-known limitations for comparative purposes as it is based only on those crimes which are reported to the police by victims, and which are recorded by the police. The value of the survey is that it: - enables individual countries to see how they are faring in comparison with others in relation to crime levels; - provîdes some rough picture of the extent to which survey-measured crime in different countries matches the picture from figures of offences recorded by the police; - provides some basis for explaining major differences in crime experience in terms, for instance, of socio-demographic variables; - allows some examination of the types of people most at risk of victimization for different types of crime, and whether these vaiy across the jurisdictions in the survey; and, finally, - provides information on responses to crime in different countries, such as opinions about the police, appropriate sentences, fear of crime, and the use of various crime prevention measures. These survey results should not be seen as giving a definitive picture of crime, and responses to it in different countries. The samples of respondents interviewed in each country were relatively small, only those with a telephone at home were interviewed, and response rates were not always high. The significance of these factors is taken up in more detail in the final chapter, but the fact remains that the comparable information provided by the international suivey is unique.

Deventer; Boston: Kluwer Law and Taxation Publishers 1990. 191p.

By P. Mayhew, and J.J.M. van Dijk.

The International Crime Victimisation Survey (ICVS) is the most far-reaching programme of fully standardised sample surveys looking at householders' experience of crime in different countries. The first ICVS took place in 1989, the second in 1992, and the third in 1996. Surveys have been carried out in over 50 countries since 1989, including a large number of city surveys in developing countries and countries in transition. This report deals with eleven industrialised countries which took part in the third sweep. The reason for setting up the ICVS was the inadequacy of other measures of crime across country. Figures of offences recorded by the police are problematic due to differences in the way the police define, record and count crime. And since most crimes the police know about are reported by victims, police figures can differ simply because of differences in reporting behaviour. It is also difficult to make comparisons of independently organised crime surveys, as these differ in design and coverage. For the countries covered in this report, interviews were mainly conducted by telephone (with samples selected through variants of random digit dialling). There is no reason to think results are biased because of the telephone mode. Response rates varied hut we show that there is no overriding evidence that this affects the count of victimisation. Samples were usually of 1,000 or 2,000 people which means there is a fairly wide sampling error on the ICVS estimates. The surveys cannot, then, give precise estimates of crime in different countries. But they are a unique source of information and give good comparative information. The results in this report relate mainly to respondents' experience of crime in 1995, the year prior to the 1996 survey. Those interviewed were asked about crimes they had experienced, whether or not reported to the police.

The Hague: WODC, 1997. 116p.

By Jan van Dijk John van Kesteren Paul Smit.

The International Crime Victims Survey became operational in 1989. The main object was to seek advancement in international comparative criminological research, beyond the constraints of officially recorded crime data. The next sweeps of the ICVS surveys took place in 1992, 1996 and 2000. With its fifth sweep in 2005 the initiative has developed into a truly unique global project. Over a time span of fifteen years more than 300,000 people were interviewed about their experiences with victimisation and related subjects in 78 different countries. This report describes the 2004 – 2005 sweep of surveys in 30 countries and 33 capital or main cities and compares results with those of earlier sweeps. A large portion of the latest data in this report comes from the European Survey on Crime and Safety (EU ICS), organised by a consortium lead by Gallup Europe, co-financed by the European Commission’s Directorate General for Research and Technology Development. The ICVS is the most comprehensive instrument developed yet to monitor and study volume crimes, perception of crime and attitudes towards the criminal justice system in a comparative, international perspective. The data are from surveys amongst the general public and therefore not influenced by political or ideological agendas of governments of individual countries. Standardisation of questionnaires used and other aspects of data collection assure that data can, within confidence margins, be reliably compared across countries. Independent reviews have attested to the comparability of ICVS results (e.g. Lynch, 2006). The ICVS started in 1989 in 14 industrialised countries. City surveys were also piloted in Warsaw, Poland and Surabaya, Indonesia. Already in the second sweep coverage was enlarged by including several countries in Eastern Central Europe. Fieldwork in some of these countries was funded by the Ministry for Development Aid of the Netherlands. For these countries the project played a part in the process of modernising criminal justice systems after Western European models. Many of those countries have now become part of the European Union. Where most industrialised countries have a long tradition of publishing statistics on police-recorded crime, in many developing countries crime data are either fragmented, of poor quality or not available to the public. Crime victim surveys in these countries, although restricted to the capital or main cities, is often the only available source of statistical information on crime and victimisation. Internationally comparable crime victim surveys not only serve policy purposes but make data available that can be used by researchers interested in crime in a comparative context, including in developing countries from different regions of the world.

The Hague: WODC; Boom Juridische uitgevers: 2007. 292p.

National Research Council

The Bureau of Justice Statistics' (BJS) National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) measures the rates at which Americans are victims of crimes, including rape and sexual assault, but there is concern that rape and sexual assault are undercounted on this survey. BJS asked the National Research Council to investigate this issue and recommend best practices for measuring rape and sexual assault on their household surveys. Estimating the Incidence of Rape and Sexual Assault concludes that it is likely that the NCVS is undercounting rape and sexual assault. The most accurate counts of rape and sexual assault cannot be achieved without measuring them separately from other victimizations, the report says. It recommends that BJS develop a separate survey for measuring rape and sexual assault. The new survey should more precisely define ambiguous words such as "rape," give more privacy to respondents, and take other steps that would improve the accuracy of responses. Estimating the Incidence of Rape and Sexual Assault takes a fresh look at the problem of measuring incidents of rape and sexual assault from the criminal justice perspective. This report examines issues such as the legal definitions in use by the states for these crimes, best methods for representing the definitions in survey instruments so that their meaning is clear to respondents, and best methods for obtaining as complete reporting as possible of these crimes in surveys, including methods whereby respondents may report anonymously.

Rape and sexual assault are among the most injurious crimes a person can inflict on another. The effects are devastating, extending beyond the initial victimization to consequences such as unwanted pregnancy, sexually transmitted infections, sleep and eating disorders, and other emotional and physical problems. Understanding the frequency and context under which rape and sexual assault are committed is vital in directing resources for law enforcement and support for victims. These data can influence public health and mental health policies and help identify interventions that will reduce the risk of future attacks. Sadly, accurate information about the extent of sexual assault and rape is difficult to obtain because most of these crimes go unreported to police. Estimating the Incidence of Rape and Sexual Assault focuses on methodology and vehicles used to measure rape and sexual assaults, reviews potential sources of error within the NCVS survey, and assesses the training and monitoring of interviewers in an effort to improve reporting of these crimes.

Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. 2014. 278p.

By Laura Dolci.

On 19 August 2003, Laura Dolci lost her husband, Jean-Sélim Kanaan, in the terrorist attack against the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad, Iraq. They were a 'UN couple' of young humanitarians, who had met in war-torn Bosnia. On the day of the blast, he was 33, she was 33. Their son was 28 days old. "A Victimless Crime?" juxtaposes the author's personal story with thorough research on victims of terrorism, whom she calls "the silent protagonists of our times". Today, victims of terrorism are in all continents and belong to all communities, races, gender, ages, professional backgrounds and creeds. Yet, in most countries they are not recognized or assisted. At the international level, little has been achieved within the UN-led counter-terrorism for their acknowledgment and assistance. In a 'problem without passports' as is global terrorism today, the author argues that victims fall increasingly between the cracks as if they were everybody's and, paradoxically, nobody's responsibility. This book brings them to the forefront, taking the reader through the specificities of the experience of victims of terrorism. It convincingly makes the case for greater empathy, understanding and action by states, civil society and the UN.

Geneva: United Nations Sabbatical Programme, 2017. 121p.

Edited by Sara Polak and Daniel Trottier

.History, Affect, and Effects of Online Vitriol. “Trolls for Trump', virtual rape, fake news - social media discourse, including forms of virtual and real violence, has become a formidable, yet elusive, political force. What characterizes online vitriol? How do we understand the narratives generated, and also address their real-world - even life-and-death - impact? How can hatred, bullying, and dehumanization on social media platforms be addressed and countered in a post-truth world? This book unpicks discourses, metaphors, media dynamics, and framing on social media, to begin to answer these questions. Written for and by cultural and media studies scholars, journalists, political philosophers, digital communication professionals, activists and advocates, this book makes the connections between theoretical approaches from cultural and media studies and practical challenges and experiences 'from the field', providing insight into a rough media landscape.”

Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2020. 267p.

Edited by Nicole Westmarland and Geetanjali Gangoli.

“The book gives an overview of the socio-legal and political approaches taken in relation to rape across nine countries worldwide. It is written at a time in which many governments have begun to take rape more seriously than in the past and have started to implement wide-ranging reforms.This is therefore an ideal time to describe what that range of reforms has been, and to assess the degree to which they have been successful.”

Policy Press (2011) 249 pages.