No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
The United Nations Crime Trends Surveys: Comparative Criminology in the Global Context
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 07 May 2025
Summary
This article describes the lengthy and complicated process of developing the three Unided Nations crime trends surveys, starting from the early comparative studies in the late 1940's to the later survey of crime trends, operations of criminal justice systems and crime prevention strategies undertaken in 1982, all of which have remained rather unnoted in the criminological literature. Both the substantive and methodological aspects of these surveys are discussed in order to trace the changing emphasis of these surveys from a principally one-dimensional, legalistic undertaking to multidimensional, “developmental” analyses. Let it be emphasized that these recurrent surveys meet an oft-expressed request by Member States for broad cross-national analyses of crime trends and have become over time more encompassing, illustrative and systemic. Some of the major results of these surveys are presented here. Finally, the author suggests that despite specific shortcomings which exist in cross-national analyses of crime trends and operations of criminal justice systems, such analyses are nonetheless very useful in selecting particular policies. To this end, the results of the Second United Nations Survey (1975-1980) will be submitted for consideration and action to the Seventh United Nations Congress on the Prevention of Crime and the Treatment of Offenders to be held in Milan, Italy, 26 August - 6 September 1985.
Résumé
Cet article décrit la procédure longue et compliquée destiné à développer les trois rapports des Nations Unies sur les tendances du crime, depuis les premières études comparées des années 40 jusqu'à la dernière recherche sur les tendances du crime, les systèmes de justice pénale et les stratégies de prévention entreprise en 1982, toutes celles-ci étant passées plutôt inapperçues dans la littérature criminologique.
L'aspect substanciel ainsi que méthodologique de ces études a été étudié afin de souligner l‘évolution des centres d'intérêt qui sont passés d'une entreprise légaliste et principalement unidimensionnelle à des analyses multidimensionnelles et de développement. Insistons sur le fait que ces études périodiques répondent à la demande, maintes fois exprimée par les États membres, de larges analyses transnationales sur les tendances du crime et sont devenues avec le temps plus fournies, illustratives et systémiques’ Quelques uns des principaux résultats de ces études sont présentés ici. En conclusion, l'auteur déclare qu'en dépit de leurs défauts, les analyses transnationales restent néanmoins très utiles pour établir des choix de politiques particulières. Dans cette optique les résultats du second bilan des Nations Unies (1975-1980) sera soumis pour étude et pour l'établissement d'un programme d'action au 7ème congrès des Nations Unies pour la prévention du crime et le traitement des délinquants qui se tiendra à Milan en Italie du 26 Août au 6 Septembre 1985.
Information
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © 1986 International Society for Criminology
Footnotes
*
The author would like to thank his colleagues from the Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice Branch, Minoru shikita, Irene Melup, Robin W. Burnham and Rodrigo Paris-Steffens for helpful comments on an earlier draft. However, responsibility for the views expressed herein rests with the author alone. These views do not necessarily reflect those of the United Nations Secretariat.
References
FOOTNOTES
(1) See, however, Shelly 1981, Vetere and Neuman 1977, Viccica 1977
(2) Report by the Secretariat, p.7. These recommendations were later considered by the Social Commission to which the body of experts reported and, finally, by the Economic and Social Council. The Council in its resolution requested inter alia the Secretary General to conduct a study on “the achievement of agreed definitions” of these offence types “in order to determine the practicability of an ultimate compilation of comparable international statistics” (UNECOSOC 1957).
(3) The major compilatory and analytical work was done by the consultant Professor Albert Hess from the U.S.A.
(4) In addition to the criminal legislation of the 32 countries participating in the 1937-1946 United Nations study of crime trends, legislation of the following 45 countries was examined: Afghanistan, Albania, Austria, Bolivia, Bulgaria, Burma, Combodia (Kampuchean Democratic Republic), Ceylon, Chile, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, Ecuador, Ethiopia, Federation of Malaya, Ghana, Federal Republic of Germany, Greece, Honduras, Hungary, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, Japan, Jordan, Republic of Korea, Lebanon, Liberia, Libya, Luxembourg, Morocco, Monaco, Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sudan, Switzerland, Thailand, USSR, United Arab Republic (Egypt), Uruguay, Yugoslavia.
(5) There is a special reason for this pathetic statement. The 1970-1975 Crime Trends and Criminal Justice Survey, although second of this kind in the United Nations history, became — mostly, I think, because of a long interval between it and 1937-1946 Study - to be called “The First United Nations Survey”. However, it could also well be true that its “developmental” character made it really first among the surveys concerned.
(6) The following countries responded to the questionnaire: Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahamas, Bolivia, Barbados, Canada, Chile, Costa Rica, Cyprus, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Finland, France, Germany, Federal Republic of, Greece, Guyana, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Kuwait, Malaysia, Maldives, Morocco, New Zealand, Norway, Oman, Quatar, Pakistan, Poland, Peru, San Marino, Singapore, Spain, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Trinidad and Tobago, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, United States of America, Yugoslavia. Seventeen other countries submitted a non-quantifable information.
(7) By 30 September 1984 the following countries responded: Argentina, Austria, Australia, Bahamas, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Barbados, Belgium, Belize, Canada, Cape Verde, Chad, Chüe, Colombia, Cuba, Cyprus, Czechoslovakia, Denmark, Ecuador, Germany, Federal Republic of, Fiji, Finland, France, Greece, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Japan, Jordan Republic of Korea, Kuwait, Madagascar, Mauritius, Nepal, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Pakistan, Panama, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Qatar, Rumania, Saint-Lucia, Senegal, Seychelles, Singapore, Spain, Sri Lanka, Syria, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago, Tuvaly, United Arab Emirites, United Kingdom, USA, Yugoslavia, Zimbabawe.