Official crime and criminal justice data are influenced by different substantive (e.g., victims’ reporting rates), legal (e.g., offense definitions), and statistical (e.g., counting rules) factors. This complicates international comparison. The UN Crime Trends Survey, Eurostat’s crime statistics, and the European Sourcebook of Crime and Criminal Justice Statistics try to enhance comparability and document remaining differences. The UN survey and Eurostat rely on the International Classification of Crimes for Statistical Purposes, which has potential but is not yet satisfactorily applied. The European Sourcebook provides the most detailed and best-verified data among the three. Even standardized data need to be compared with extreme caution. Crime levels are not a valid measure of crime in different countries, with the possible exception of completed intentional homicide. Total crime rates depend mainly on the internationally differing quality of police work. Comparisons of crime trends are less problematic but depend on the offenses under comparison being not defined too differently. Indicators expressed as ratios of different system-based values have increased comparability. Owing to immense differences in crime rates and criminal justice variables, mean crime rates for the world or Europe cannot be calculated. Country clusters need to be built very carefully.

中文翻译：

---

刑事司法数据比较分析中的前景，问题和陷阱

官方犯罪和刑事司法数据受不同的实质性因素（例如，受害者的报告率），法律因素（例如，犯罪定义）和统计因素（例如，计数规则）的影响。这使国际比较变得复杂。联合国犯罪趋势调查，欧盟统计局的犯罪统计数据以及《欧洲犯罪和刑事司法统计资料手册》试图增强可比性并记录剩余差异。联合国的调查和欧盟统计局均依据《国际统计目的犯罪分类》，该分类具有潜力，但尚未令人满意地应用。《欧洲资料手册》提供了这三个数据中最详尽，验证最好的数据。即使是标准化数据，也需要格外小心地进行比较。犯罪水平在不同国家/地区不是有效的犯罪量度，除可能的故意杀人罪外。总犯罪率主要取决于国际上不同的警察工作质量。比较犯罪趋势的问题较少，但取决于所比较的犯罪的定义没有太大差异。以不同的基于系统的值的比率表示的指标具有更高的可比性。由于犯罪率和刑事司法变量存在巨大差异，因此无法计算世界或欧洲的平均犯罪率。国家集群必须非常仔细地建立。以不同的基于系统的值的比率表示的指标具有更高的可比性。由于犯罪率和刑事司法变量存在巨大差异，因此无法计算世界或欧洲的平均犯罪率。国家集群必须非常仔细地建立。以不同的基于系统的值的比率表示的指标具有更高的可比性。由于犯罪率和刑事司法变量存在巨大差异，因此无法计算世界或欧洲的平均犯罪率。国家集群必须非常仔细地建立。