In Europe, the Baltic countries of Latvia and Lithuania had the highest and third highest homicide rates respectively in 2022. Latvia had the highest rate at over four per 100,000 inhabitants. Meanwhile, the lowest homicide rate was found in Liechtenstein, with zero murders The most dangerous country worldwide Saint Kitts and Nevis is the world's most dangerous country to live in in terms of murder rate. The Caribbean country had a homicide rate of 65 per 100,000 inhabitants. Nine of the 10 countries with the highest murder rates worldwide are located in Latin America and the Caribbean. Whereas Celaya in Mexico was listed as the city with the highest murder rate worldwide, Colima in Mexico was the city with the highest homicide rate in Latin America, so the numbers vary from source to source. Nevertheless, several Mexican cities rank among the deadliest in the world when it comes to intentional homicides. Violent conflicts worldwide Notably, these figures do not include deaths that resulted from war or a violent conflict. While there is a persistent number of conflicts worldwide, resulting casualties are not considered murders. Partially due to this reason, homicide rates in Latin America are higher than those in countries such as Ukraine or the DR Congo. A different definition of murder in these circumstances could change the rate significantly.

The average for 2017 based on 24 countries was 1.4 homicides per 100,000 people. The highest value was in Lithuania: 4.5 homicides per 100,000 people and the lowest value was in Luxembourg: 0.3 homicides per 100,000 people. The indicator is available from 1990 to 2017. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

European Union crime rate per 100K population for 2015 was 1.00, a 0% increase from 2014.

<ul style='margin-top:20px;'>

<li>European Union crime rate per 100K population for 2014 was <strong>1.00</strong>, a <strong>9.09% decline</strong> from 2012.</li>
<li>European Union crime rate per 100K population for 2012 was <strong>1.10</strong>, a <strong>0% increase</strong> from .</li>
<li>European Union crime rate per 100K population for was <strong>0.00</strong>, a <strong>0% increase</strong> from .</li>
</ul>Intentional homicides are estimates of unlawful homicides purposely inflicted as a result of domestic disputes, interpersonal violence, violent conflicts over land resources, intergang violence over turf or control, and predatory violence and killing by armed groups. Intentional homicide does not include all intentional killing; the difference is usually in the organization of the killing. Individuals or small groups usually commit homicide, whereas killing in armed conflict is usually committed by fairly cohesive groups of up to several hundred members and is thus usually excluded.

In Europe in 2019, England and Wales had the highest reported rate of serious assaults per 100,000 inhabitants, with almost 930 reported incidents. Belgium had the second highest rate with close to 560. Romania had the lowest rate of reported serious assaults, with only 1.46 per 100,000 inhabitant, followed by Lithuania and Albania. Despite this low rate of assault, Lithuania, Albania and Romania had some of the highest homicide rates in Europe, suggesting that there is a discrepancy in how often assaults are reported in these countries, or the methodology behind data collection.

The four Nordic countries Sweden, Iceland, Norway, and Denmark are between the five countries with the highest rate of reported sexual violence in Europe in 2022. More than 200 cases per 100,000 inhabitants were reported in Sweden.Please note that reporting varies from country to country, and the willingness of victims to come forward can vary across regions and cultures, therefore a comparison between the countries should be taken with caution.

The Balkan countries Montenegro and Albania have the highest murder rates with cases involving firearms in Europe. Perhaps somewhat surprisingly, Sweden came third. The Scandinavian country has seen increasing levels of gang-related violence in recent years.

The average for 2016 based on 34 countries was 1070 thefts per 100,000 people. The highest value was in Denmark: 3949 thefts per 100,000 people and the lowest value was in Cyprus: 62 thefts per 100,000 people. The indicator is available from 2003 to 2016. Below is a chart for all countries where data are available.

The dataset contains data on 25 EU countries over the period 2000-2013. The aim is to examine the relationship between crime rates and fiscal policy accounting for the effect of shadow economy. All data in this study were derived from public domain resources.

In 2021, Liechtenstein had the highest female homicide rate in Europe, with an estimated 5.08 women per 100,000 falling victims to intentional homicide. However, this number is skewed due to Liechtenstein's very small population; in real terms, this equates to one female homicide in Liechtenstein in 2021. For more populous countries, the next countries on the list are six of Eastern Europe's seven former-Soviet states, with Latvia and Russia having the highest rates of intentional female homicide in Europe (Estonia is the outlier).

The Schengen Information System (SIS II) is a large-scale IT system that supports public security and the exchange of information on people and objects between national law enforcement, border control, customs, visa and judicial authorities. As people and goods can move in the Schengen Area without being checked at internal borders, SIS II is used by security officials to help keep people safe and counter cross-border crime.

The statistics present a collection of data received from all the countries connected to the Schengen Information System (SIS II), together with data available from the Central SIS II system. Figures shown include: statistics on the number of records per category of alert, number of hits per category of alert as well as the number of times SIS II was accessed. Information displayed reflect both total figures and by country connected. Countries currently connected to SIS II are 25 EU Member States (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden), 4 Associated Countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland) and the United Kingdom.

This statistic presents what people perceive to be the leading causes of murder in selected European Countries in 2018. According to data published by Ipsos, 71 percent of British respondents think that most people in their country were killed by sharp objects such as knives.

The statistic above provides information about the homicide rate for the most populous city in each European country in 2012. In 2012, the homicide rate in Berlin stood at 1 per 100,000 population.

In 2019, France had the highest number of overall homicides in Europe at 835, with 285 of the victims being women. Germany had the second highest number of intentional homicides in that year, at 623 with 347 of those victims being male.

Attitudes of retailers towards cross-border trade.

Turks and Caicos Islands saw a murder rate of ***** per 100,000 inhabitants, making it the most dangerous country for this kind of crime worldwide as of 2024. Interestingly, El Salvador, which long had the highest global homicide rates, has dropped out of the top 29 after a high number of gang members have been incarcerated. Meanwhile, Colima in Mexico was the most dangerous city for murders. Violent conflicts worldwide Notably, these figures do not include deaths that resulted from war or a violent conflict. While there is a persistent number of conflicts worldwide, resulting casualties are not considered murders. Partially due to this reason, homicide rates in Latin America are higher than those in Afghanistan or Syria. A different definition of murder in these circumstances could change the rate significantly in some countries. Causes of death Also, noteworthy is that murders are usually not random events. In the United States, the circumstances of murders are most commonly arguments, followed by narcotics incidents and robberies. Additionally, murders are not a leading cause of death. Heart diseases, strokes and cancer pose a greater threat to life than violent crime.

The indicator measures the standardised death rate of homicide and injuries inflicted by another person with the intent to injure or kill by any means, including ‘late effects’ from assault (International Classification of Diseases (ICD) codes X85 to Y09 and Y87.1). It does not include deaths due to legal interventions or war (ICD codes Y35 and Y36). Data on causes of death (COD) refer to the underlying cause which - according to the World Health Organisation (WHO) - is "the disease or injury which initiated the train of morbid events leading directly to death, or the circumstances of the accident or violence which produced the fatal injury". COD data are derived from death certificates. The medical certification of death is an obligation in all Member States. The data are presented as standardised death rates, meaning they are adjusted to a standard age distribution in order to measure death rates independently of different age structures of populations. This approach improves comparability over time and between countries. The standardised death rates used here are calculated on the basis of the standard European population referring to the residents of the countries.

The Schengen Information System (SIS) is a large-scale IT system that supports public security and the exchange of information on people and objects between national law enforcement, border control, customs, visa and judicial authorities. As people and goods can move in the Schengen Area without being checked at internal borders, SIS is used by security officials to help keep people safe and counter cross-border crime.

The statistics present a collection of data received from all the countries connected to the Schengen Information System (SIS), together with data available from the Central SIS system. Figures shown include: statistics on the number of records per category of alert, number of hits per category of alert as well as the number of times SIS was accessed. Information displayed reflect both total figures and by country connected. Countries currently connected to SIS are 27 EU Member States (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Cyprus, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden) and 4 Associated Countries (Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway and Switzerland).

The European System of Social Indicators provides a systematically selected collection of time-series data to measure and monitor individual and societal well-being and selected dimensions of general social change across European societies. Beyond the member states of the European Union, the indicator system also covers two additional European nations and – depending on data availability – the United States and Japan as two important non-European reference societies. Guided by a conceptual framework, the European System of Social Indicators has been developed around three basic concepts – quality of life, social cohesion, and sustainability. While the concept of quality of life is supposed to cover dimensions of individual well-being, the notions of social cohesion as well as sustainability are used to conceptualize major characteristics and dimensions of societal or collective well-being. The indicator system is structured into 13 life domains altogether. Time-series data are available for nine life domains, which have been fully implemented.

Time series start at the beginning of the 1980s at the earliest and mostly end by 2013. As far as data availability allows, empirical observations are presented yearly. Most of the indicator time-series are broken down by selected sociodemographic variables, such as gender, age groups, employment status, or territorial characteristics. Regional disaggregations are being provided at the NUTS-1 or similar levels as far as meaningful and data availability allows. The European System of Social Indicators is preferably based on harmonized data sources, ensuring the best possible level of comparability across countries and time. The data sources used include international aggregate official statistics, for example, provided by EUROSTAT and the OECD, as well as microdata from various official as well as science-based cross-national surveys, such as the European Union Statistics on Income and Living Conditions (EU-SILC), Eurobarometer Surveys, the World Value Surveys, or the European Social Survey.

The European System of Social Indicators results from research activities within the former Social Indicators Research Centre at GESIS. In its initial stage, this research was part of the EuReporting-Project (Towards a European System of Social Reporting and Welfare Measurement), funded by the European Commission within its 4th European Research Framework Programme from 1998 to 2001. For more detailed information on the European System of Social Indicators, see the methodological report under „other documents“.
The data on the area of life ´Crime and public safety´ is made up as follows: Demographic and socio-economic structures, inequalities, inequality and social exclusion, human capital, objective living conditions, values and attitudes.

Attitudes of retailers towards cross-border trade.

The survey provides comparable data on the perceived extent and nature of antisemitism across a number of selected EU Member States, whether it is manifested as hate crime, hate speech, discrimination or in any other form that undermines Jewish people’s feelings of safety and security. The survey was commissioned by the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA). It follows up on the agency’s first survey, conducted in seven countries in 2012.

The overall objectives of FRA’s second survey on discrimination and hate crime against Jews in the European Union (EU) are 1) to collect comparable data in the selected EU Member States and thereby contributing to the assessment and further development of policies that aim to protect the fundamental rights of Jewish people living in the EU; 2) to identify changes over time with respect to the results of the first survey on discrimination and hate crime against Jews in 2012; 3) to further develop research methodologies for surveying hard-to-reach groups using online survey tools; 4) to deliver FRA’s key stakeholders research evidence that can be used to raise awareness of fundamental rights and address gaps in the protection of rights.

The 2018 survey collected data from 16,395 self-identified Jewish respondents (aged 16 or over) in 12 EU Member States – Austria, Belgium, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, the Netherlands, Poland, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. These Member States are home to over 96 % of the EU’s estimated Jewish population. The survey collected data through an open online survey and was available for respondents to complete for seven weeks in May–June 2018.

The survey asked respondents about their opinions on trends in antisemitism, antisemitism as a problem in everyday life, personal experiences of antisemitic incidents, witnessing antisemitic incidents and worries about becoming a victim of an antisemitic attack. The survey also provides data on the extent to which respondents consider antisemitic acts against the Jewish community – such as vandalism of Jewish sites or antisemitic messages in the broadcast media or on the internet – to be a problem in the countries. The survey collected data on the effects of antisemitism on respondents’ daily behaviour and their feelings of safety, and about any actions they take due to security fears. The questions about personal experiences of specific forms of harassment or physical violence were followed up with questions concerning the details of such incidents, including their frequency, the number and characteristics of perpetrators, and the reporting of the incident to any organisation or institution. The survey collected data about personal experiences of feeling discriminated against on different grounds and in various areas of everyday life – for example, at work, school, or when using specific services. The survey followed up on respondents’ discrimination experiences with questions concerning the reporting of incidents and the reasons for non-reporting. The survey also explored the level of rights awareness regarding antidiscrimination legislation, victim support organisations and knowledge of any legislation concerning the trivialisation or denial of the Holocaust. In addition, the survey collected socio-demographic data, such as respondents´ gender and age, educational background, employment status, and income.

Topics: 1. Rights awareness, perceptions and attitudes: perception of crime level, unemployment racism, antisemitism, immigration, government corruption, and intolerance towards Muslims as a problem in the country; increase vs. decrease of racism, antisemitism and intolerance towards Muslims in the country; perception of antisemitic acts against the Jewish community as a problem in the country (antisemitic graffiti, desecration of Jewish cemeteries, vandalism of Jewish buildings or institutions, expressions of hostility towards Jews in the street or other public places, antisemitism in the media, in political life, and on the internet including social media; increase vs. decrease of the aforementioned problems; frequency of personally experienced antisemitic comments of non-Jewish people (Jews have too much power in the country, Jews exploit Holocaust victimhood for their own purposes, the Holocaust is a myth or has been exaggerated, Israelis behave ‘like Nazis’ towards the Palestinians, world a better place without Israel, Jews are not capable of integrating into national ...