Female victims were reported more than males in both countries. Incident reports were typically presented in reports that focused on the criminal justice system.

1. What the statement actually asserts and why it matters

The statement makes two distinct factual claims: first, that female victims outnumbered male victims in both countries, and second, that incident reports appeared chiefly within criminal‑justice‑focused reports. These are important because they conflate incidence (who is harmed) with reporting patterns (where incidents are documented and how they are framed). The available analyses confirm a U.S. pattern of more reported female violent‑crime victims in recent years, which directly supports part of the claim about gender counts in at least one country ^{[1] [2]}. The materials do not, however, provide comparable data for another specific country or demonstrate a systematic cross‑national pattern; nor do they offer comprehensive meta‑analysis showing incident reports are typically presented in criminal justice publications rather than health, social services, or academic outlets ^{[3] [4]}.

2. Evidence that female victims exceed male victims in U.S. datasets — credible but partial

Multiple items in the supplied analysis indicate the United States reported slightly more female victims of violent crime in recent years, and trend charts show female counts consistently higher across 2015–2025 in one dataset ^{[1] [2]}. Those materials also note victim‑perpetrator relationship patterns—most victims know their attacker, and many rape/sexual‑assault victims are assaulted by acquaintances, intimate partners, or relatives—which aligns with established criminological findings and helps explain why female victim counts appear elevated in specific offense categories ^[1]. The evidence is clear for the U.S. context in the supplied sources, but it is limited by scope: the analyses do not provide raw numbers here, nor do they extend to an external comparison country or to all forms of violence and reporting mechanisms ^[2].

3. No direct support for the cross‑country claim — the other country is missing

None of the provided materials supply data from a second country or a cross‑national comparison that would substantiate the claim that female victims were reported more than males in both countries. Several supplied analyses explicitly note the absence of comparative evidence and the focus on single‑country datasets or different research questions ^{[3] [4] [5]}. One source examines trends in women’s perpetration using arrest and conviction records rather than victim gender ratios, making it irrelevant to the cross‑country victim‑count claim ^[5]. The available corpus therefore supports a U.S. pattern but cannot verify a parallel pattern elsewhere; asserting a bilateral or cross‑national conclusion exceeds what these sources establish.

4. On whether incident reports are “typically” framed within criminal‑justice reports — mixed signals

The claim that incident reports were typically presented in reports that focused on the criminal justice system is only partly reflected in the supplied materials. The FBI/UCR materials and commentary demonstrate that a large share of public crime data and incident‑level reporting is produced by criminal‑justice agencies and published in criminal‑justice venues ^{[6] [7] [8]}. That supports the notion that many incident reports appear in criminal‑justice publications. However, the supplied analyses also point out that other literatures—public health, victim services, and academic research—produce incident and victimization data, and some sources in the set explicitly do not treat criminal‑justice reports as the sole or primary frame ^[9]. Therefore, the statement is partly accurate for datasets centered on law‑enforcement collections, but it overgeneralizes when applied to all incident reporting.

5. Bottom line: what is supported, what remains unproven, and why context changes interpretation

The datasets provided substantiate that female victims outnumbered male victims in the U.S. violent‑crime reporting covered by these sources, and they confirm that many incident reports are published by criminal‑justice agencies ^{[1] [2] [6]}. The claim that this pattern holds “in both countries” is unverified because the second country’s data are absent from the supplied analyses ^{[3] [4]}. The framing claim is directionally right for law‑enforcement data but misleading if presented as a universal truth across all reporting systems ^{[7] [9]}. Any definitive cross‑national conclusion requires explicit country‑by‑country datasets or peer‑reviewed comparative research absent here; users should treat the original double claim as partly correct and partly unsupported until additional country‑level evidence is supplied ^{[1] [5]}.