Homicide Data in Europe: Definitions, Sources, and Statistics

Abstract

In this chapter we address differing definitions on homicide, available data sources and the quality of the data. Apart from complications with translation‖the translation of the term “homicide” in another language does not necessarily cover the exact notion of homicide in the English context‖definitions of homicide between countries are different for various reasons. First, the notions of premeditated and intentional homicide are not everywhere used in the same way, and in particular intentional homicide is not in every country seen as an essential element of homicide as it is in the definition used for international data sources. Second, there are several “special” forms of homicide, such as euthanasia and abortion, that may or may not be part of the definition of homicide. For national data sources it is shown which elements are part of the homicide statistics and which elements could be included or excluded dependent on the definitions used by international data sources. The quality of homicide data is dependent on reliability and completeness. Whether to include attempted homicides is an important issue here; but the questions whether missing persons could be the victim of a homicide or whether the cause of death is correctly established are relevant. Also, the way statistical (counting) rules are applied have an impact on the results.

Appendix: Information Sources on Homicide Definitions and Statistics

Much valuable information on definitions of homicide was already available in the UN-CTS and, in particular, in the European Sourcebook. Further information used in this chapter was derived from two questionnaires sent out to European countries, where the first questionnaire dealt mainly with definitional issues and the second one mainly with availability of homicide data in the national statistics. Sources of cross-national crime statistics were also consulted. We examined to what extent they are comparable on the subject of homicide. Both publications and internet databases of those agencies were consulted. Furthermore, other sources were used to describe the background of some of the cross-national agencies. To better gauge the evaluation of respective offences that do or do not fall under the national definition of homicide, we discuss also maximum, minimum, or mandatory punishments for these offences.

Questionnaires: Design

Contact persons in 46 countries were sent questionnaires. These included all European countries with the exception of the five very small countries: Andorra, the Holy See, Liechtenstein, Monaco, and San Marino. We made use of the contact persons who were known for the European Sourcebook, Eurostat, and UNODC. Three questionnaires were sent to the UK, where England & Wales, Northern Ireland, and Scotland have different Justice Systems.

A first questionnaire consisted of five questions about the respondents’ country. The first question dealt with “normal” homicides. The respondent was asked to write down the different categories of “normal homicide”, with their corresponding maximum and minimum penalties. The second question was on the subject of “special” homicides, such as euthanasia, infanticide, abortion, and help with suicide. It was asked if those crimes are legally dealt with separately from normal homicide (i.e. in a different article of law), if it is always a crime, and what the penalty would be. The third question aimed to clarify the difference in the intent of the offence and the result of it. The respondents were presented with a table with 16 possible scenarios. Both result and intent were divided in four categories: no injury, minor injury, major injury, and death. Thus, the scenarios varied from no injury intended and no injury occurred, to death intended and occurred. Respondents filled in the cells with a translation of the violated national law and the corresponding minimum and maximum penalty. Of particular interest are situations where the intention of an offender differs from the outcome of the offence. Further questions covered the subject of statistics. It was asked whether figures about completed and attempted homicides are available in the police, prosecution, court, or prison statistics. Furthermore, we wanted to know if statistics are publicly available and whether the country has a dedicated dataset for homicide only.

The second questionnaire was designed after the findings of the first questionnaire had been analysed. It served to provide more in-depth information. It consisted of three questions that could usually be answered with a simple yes or no. The first question aimed to clarify the relevance of premeditation in the legal system. The length of a common life-sentence was the subject of the second question. The third question covered the statistics. We wanted to know which cases are included in the national homicide statistics, and which cases can be made separately available. The latter is useful because international sources can include other types of cases than those included by national agencies. However, both figures can only differ if the information about those cases is separately available. This is asked for different forms of homicide. Also, the counting unit and the moment of counting were asked. For the latter, we are interested in the moment a case was labelled as “homicide”, as it can have a considerable effect on the statistics if the “homicide” labelling occurred before or after the police investigation.

Response

Contact persons in 46 countries were sent the first questionnaire. A total of 35 surveys were returned. Of those returned, all countries responded to all questions, with the exception of question 3 (about the difference in the intent of the offence and the result of it), which three countries were unable to fill in. No questionnaires were received from Belarus, Bosnia Herzegovina, Croatia, Kosovo under UNSCR1244, Latvia, Luxembourg, the FYR of Macedonia, Malta, Montenegro, Romania, and Serbia. The second questionnaire was sent to the 35 respondents who had returned the first one, of which 28 filled in the second questionnaire as well. With one exception, all respondents completed all questions. The seven countries that responded only to the first but not to the second questionnaire were Belgium, Bulgaria, France, Ireland, Northern Ireland, Scotland, and Spain.