Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology

Volume 66 | Issue 3 Article 5

1976

Comparative CriminologyDenis Szabo

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclc

Part of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and CriminalJustice Commons

This Criminology is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted forinclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons.

Recommended CitationDenis Szabo, Comparative Criminology, 66 J. Crim. L. & Criminology 366 (1975)

THE JOURNAL OF CRIMINAL LAW & CRI MINOLOGY

Copyright © 1975 by Northwestern University School of Law

COMPARATIVE CRIMINOLOGY*

DENIS SZABO**

INTRODUCTION

In the considerable works of Sheldon andEleanor Glueck,1 comparative criminologyplays a minor role in terms of page space, buta major role in terms of plans and ambition.These two scholars had justifiably hoped thatresearchers obeying the laws of a global scien-tific approach would realize a universality intheir conclusions.

There was nothing to distinguish this scien-tific criminology, made productive by the clas-sic methodology of observation and experimen-tation from the normally accepted limitationsof hypotheses stated in advance. However, onecan note the presence of a different type ofcriminological thinking, a sociological ap-proach, whose postulates as well as methodsand conclusions are going further and furtherbeyond a criminology for which the Glueckswere the most brilliant and inventive pro-tagonists.

It is for this reason that we have undertakenin this study to examine the different points ofview that have come to light in contemporarycriminology and that have a definite influenceon both the definition and significance of com-parative criminology. By approaching thisstudy with an eye toward the conflict betweenepistemology and theory similar to that foundin other social sciences, we have attempted todiscover these often contradictory points ofview.

CRIMINOLOGY AND COMPARATIVE CRIMINOLOGY:CONTRIBUTION OF THE POSITIVIST AND

SCIENTIFIC TRADITIONS

The attraction of comparative criminologydates back to the emergence of criminology as

* This article was prepared as a part of aFestschrift honoring the works of Glueck; hencethe reference to Sheldon Glueck's contribution tocomparative criminology is appropriate.

** Director, International Center for Compara-tive Criminology, University of Montreal.

I S. GLUECK & E. GLUECK, TOWARD A TYPOL-OGY OF JUVENILE OFFENDERS-IMPLICATIONS FOR

Vol. 66, No. 3Printed in U.S.A.

a science. Basic to the works of Lombroso, 2

Garofalo, and Ferri,4 was a questioning of theinherent and the acquired, the "natural" andthe "superimposed" in delinquent behavior.There is nothing surprising in this when onerecalls the influence of Darwin and Marx onthe thinking of these Italian founders of crimi-nology. They believed in the theory of evolu-tion of the human species, as modified by thesocio-economic and cultural differences whichcharacterize the progress of mankind.

It may be said generally that most of thecriminological works that appeared before 1920were comparative treatises, that is, they triedto explain criminality as a natural, universalphenomenon. Thus Gabriel Tarde's book, inwhich he examined and criticized the contribu-tion of the Italian school, was entitled, Compar-ative Crimiality.5 The research of Lombrosoon political crime and revolution" is as univer-sal a work as that of Durkheim on suicide,7 orthat of Gina Lombroso on the femalecriminal.8

It is surprising, then, to note the considera-ble controversy caused by a speech given bySheldon Glueck at the Fourth InternationalCongress on Criminology at the Hague, in1960.9 It was he who answered the call of the

T RAPY AND PREVENTION (1970); S. GLUcC: &E. GLUEcx, VENTURES iN CRIMINOLOGY-SELEcTEDRECENT PAPERS (1964).

2C. LOMBROSo, L'ANTHROPOLOGIE CRIMINELE ETSES R tENTS PROGRtS (1890); C. LOMBROSo & G.FERRERA, LA FEMME CRIMINELLE ET LA PROSTITULE(1896); C. LOMOBROSO & R. LAscHI, LE CRIMEPOLITIQUE ET LES RPVOLUTIONS PAR RAPPORT AUDROIT, A L'ANTHROPOLOGIE CRIMINELLE ET k LASCIENCE DU GOUVERNEMENT (1892).

3 R. GAROFALO, CRIMINOLOGY (R. Miller transl.1914).

4E. FERRI, LA SOcIoLoGIE CRIMINEI.I.E (1893).5 G. TARDE, LA CRIMINAUIJT COMPARLE (8th ed.

1924).6 C. LoMBRoso & R. LAscHr, supra note 2.7 E. DuRKEIEm, LE SUICIDz (1960).8 C. LOMBRosO & G. FERRERA, supra note 2.9 This speech, entitled Wanted: A Comparative

Criminology, constitutes Chapter 18 of his book,VENTURES IN CRIMINOLOGY. S. GLUECK & E.GLUECK, supra note 1, at 304.

COMPARATIVE CRIMINOLOGY

United Nations First Congress on the Preven-tion of Crime and the Treatment of Delin-quents, held at Geneva in 1955, which recom-mended:

"Comparative, co-ordinated, and interdisci-plinary research should be carried out todetermine the relative effects of programs indifferent countries" and "through cooperationbetween researchers from different countries... to develop a highly promising new field ofcomparative criminology", in order to determineuniformities and differences in causal influ-ences, in predictive factors, and in results ofpreventive and treatment programs," and todevelop "a true science of criminology." 10

Hermann Mannheim, in his treatise Compar-ative Criminology, answered Sheldon Glueck'sinvitation for "replication of researches de-signed to uncover etiologic universals operativeas causal agents irrespective of cultural differ-ences among the different countries." 11 In asimilar vein, Jean Pinatel gave evidence of thesame spirit and "catholic" method: all bio-psy-chological and socio-cultural determinism wasexamined, without particular regard for thesocio-cultural origins of the facts put forward.1 2

In a criminology oriented toward correc-

those mechanisms which trigger the antisocialact forbidden by law, the comparative approachcomes naturally to the researcher. It is as-sumed that a potential for "antisocial" behavioris present in every society; that whether at theaffective level or level of socialization, everyindividual has tendencies which incline him to-wards the commission of antisocial acts whichare forbidden by the lawmaker. From the pointof view of the criminology oriented towardscorrectional practices, it is assumed, explicitlyor implicitly, that human nature is fundamen-tally the same, and that it is only socio-eco-nomic and cultural conditions which imprintvariations upon it. In addition, human behaviorbeing the point of departure for the analysis,

0 Id.11 H. MANNHEIM, COMPARATIVE CRIMINOLOGY

(1965).12 3 P. BOUZAT & J. PINATEL, TRAIT i DE DROIT

PANAL ET DE CRIMINOLOGIE (1963) ; Pinatel, Chro-nique de Criminologie et des Sciences de L'Homme-Recherche Scientifique et Criminologie en Action,27 REVUE DE SCIENCE CRMNELLE ET DR DROITPP-NA CoisRL 422 (1972).

special attention is directed towards individualdata, and it is not unusual to find a certainbio-psychological reductionism characterizingmany of the theories on "the criminal person-ality." As we get farther away from the dataon which bio-psychological analyses are based,the interest and value of the comparisons di-minish. What is the heuristic value of compar-ing statistical information concerning divorce,alcoholism, drug addiction, or public disturb-ances, originating in countries at different lev-els of socio-economic development and whichhave cultures that are quite different?

Thus, it can be seen that the organicist andevolutionist theory, oddly enough on par withthe behaviorist theory, tends toward the use ofthe comparative method and the analysis ofdata from the most diverse of societies. Thereasons for this choice of the comparativemethod can be stated as follows:

a) The premise that human nature is basicallythe same everywhere-a combination ofaspirations and rejections;

b) The premise of limited variations betweensocio-cultural forms and types of personali-ties, expressed in the concept of the "modalpersonality";

c) The -pre-ise- of scientific- determinismwhich believes in the explanation of the act-a variable dependent-through independ-ent or intervening variables, arising fromeither the environmental world, or the per-sonality;

d) The premise that each society defines itsrules of conduct and punishes those whocontravene them. Comparative criminologyis but a different form of the comparativesocial sciences.

This universal type of criminology in its"structural-functional" as well as historicalforms, disappeared from Europe, for all practicalpurposes, between the two world wars. It beingof a humanistic nature, the Europe of totalitar-ian dictatorship and serious socio-politicalcrises was hardly an atmosphere in which itcould flourish. Its universalism and relativismwere viewed as an obstacle to the growth ofnationalist or socialist dogmas.

In contrast, the study of crime in NorthAmerica, has been marked by empiricism andpragmatism. There was a notable absence ofthe world-wide perspectives, so characteristic of

1975]

DENIS SZABO

the American scientific spirit in the first halfof the twentieth century. This concentration ofthe researcher's attention on social problemswith a view to immediate social reform im-posed an individualistic and utilitarian spirit,quite contrary to a universal perspective. Thereformist naturalism of the ecological schoolof Chicago best expresses the direction of suchthinking. However, the works of the Gluecksare quite different from this.

The following postulates broadly explain theprogram of comparative research suggested bythem. They can be placed into four categories:

a) First, it is believed that studies on reci-divism and the impact of treatment or resocial-ization programs on the "criminal" career ofindividuals should be undertaken. One cantrace the life cycles of an individual by notingantisocial episodes, as well as the impact oflegal or correctional measures taken. By com-paring the greatest number of similar ex-peri-ences, the prospect for resocialization of reci-divists during different phases of their livescan be evaluated. These analyses cover the usemade of leisure, the fulfillment of financial obli-gations toward dependents, perserverance ob-served at work, etc.

b) Second, studies on the causes of delin-quency offer numerous possibilities in the fieldof cross-cultural comparisons. Contrary to thesimplifications of the psychological theory un-derlying traditional criminal law, which pre-supposes a rational decision at the base of thecriminal act, the theory of "multi-causality,"put forward by the Gluecks, offers a multidis-ciplinary explanation, much more subtle andrich in the possibilities of heuristic discovery.The comparative method would favor predic-tion studies undertaken on a multi-nationallevel.

c) Third, relationship between chronologicalage and affective maturity is complex, and ex-tremely important in connection with the edu-cational value of punitive action taken in re-gard to delinquents. The verification of thisrelationship and its variations in a cross-cul-tural context seems highly promising toGlueck. This also applies to studies devoted tothe predominance of certain physical character-istics among the criminal population; the stud-ies of Glueck have already shown a greater

frequency of mesamorph constitutions amongconvicts.

d) Finally, comparative analyses are espe-cially important in regard to legal or medico-psychological procedures. A considerable gapcan be found between the provisions or stipula-tions of such procedures and the scientificknowledge of human reality to which theyapply. Appeal, the duration of preventive de-tention, the criteria used in the evaluation ofthe mental health of an accused, the definitionof "psychopaths" or "habitual criminals" aresome examples of analyses which would profitby the use of the comparative method.

THE RELATIVE FAILURE OF CLINICAL

COMPARATIVE CRIMINOLOGY

Progress in comparative criminology, as out-lined by Sheldon Glueck, has been rather slowin the past twelve years. There are essentiallytwo reasons for this. The first, paradoxically,is the extraordinary increase in criminologicalresearch on a national basis. With the crimerate rising appreciably, thus creating an atmos-phere of imminent crisis, the public authorities,as well as the academic world, started to in-crease their research, particularly in the area ofevaluating programs for the treatment and pre-vention of delinquency. Preoccupation with theeffects of penal sanctions was dominant duringthis period, and a true applied criminology wasestablished with the participation of both uni-versities and public administrators. The direc-tion of this mobilization of human and materialresources was such that little interest or en-ergy could be devoted to comparative studies.

There was relative stagnation in etiologicalresearch on the causes of delinquency. On theother hand, a spectacular increase was seen inwork to evaluate measures and programs forresocialization and prevention. The hypothesesunderlying correctional and preventive meas-ures were the subject of outstanding systematicstudies. Of note are those of Glaser on Ameri-can penitentiaries,13 and the work of Grantand Warren on measures for re-education andprevention.1 4 Many of these studies could be

13 D. GLASER, THE EFFECTIVENESS OF A PRISONAND PAROLE SYSTEM (1964).

14 D. Grant, Vital Components of a Model Pro-gram Using the Offender as a Manpower Re-source in the Administration of Justice, March

[Vol. 66

COMPARATIVE CRIMINOLOGY

used for comparative analysis, that is, the ap-plication of similar methods for the analysis ofanalagous problems. Penology is perhaps themost likely discipline to benefit from this de-velopment, as is shown by the analytical andcomparative studies undertaken within theframework of the Council of Europe and theUnited Nations.

The second reason for the modest rate ofthis development is the emergence of anotherschool of criminology which may be termed"interactionist" or the "criminology of socialreaction to deviance." In examining the condi-tions, if not the causes, of the social crisissymbolized by the increase in crime, it wasfound that the system of administering justiceand the penal code had an important bearingon the analysis and comprehension of thiscomplex phenomenon. If crime was increasing-a fact of life for both the man in the streetand the authorities charged with defense of thesocial order-was this due to an increase incrime-inducing bio-psychic or socio-economicfactors, or was it due primarily to the break-down of preventive or repressive action on thepart of the police services and the courts? Wasit due to the failure of measures taken in theprison, probation or after-care services, ormore basically, to the gap between the valuesto which the norms and regulations of thecriminal law are dedicated and the values andaspirations of a growing portion of the so-ciety? In other words, can deviant behavior beanalyzed apart from the mechanisms of selec-tion, adjudication, and punishment which func-tion through the services constituting theadministration of justice? This question, whichwas raised in the works of European sociolo-gists of law, has been a persistent source of in-quiry for American sociologists since the early1960's.

It might well be asked whether crime is notmore a reflection of the functioning of this in-stitutionalized system of social control ratherthan the actual presence of antisocial behaviorwithin society? Furthermore, do the normsthemselves, as interpreted by the organizationscreated for the fight against criminality andthe prevention of crime, express immutable cri-

1968; R. WARREN, SOCIAL RESzACH CoNsmuTA-TIoN-AN EXPERIMENT IN HEALTH AND WELFAREPLANNING (1963).

teria for judgment, or are they simply reflec-tions of a conflicting social situation where themajority imposes its will on the minority?After Sellin,' 5 George Vold was among thefirst in contemporary American criminology toadvance a systematic approach to answeringthis question."

All things considered, is it not a question ofpower, where the dominating impose their"laws" on the dominated, with the action ofthe former being called "legitimate" and the"resistance" of the latter being called "illegal"?This view can be found in the social criticismmade in certain American black milieus follow-ing the trial of Angela Davis, which was quickto label the whole system of American criminaljustice an instrument of social and racial op-pression and all black prisoners "political pris-oners," regardless of the crime they hadcommitted.

CRITIQUE OF CRIMINOLOGY: EPISTEMOLOGICALCONFLICT IN THE SOCIAL SCIENCES

Thus interactionist criminology, based on so-cial reaction to deviance, was inspired by theworks of authors such as Becker, Cicourel, A.Cohen, Garfinkel, Goffman, Lemert and Matzain the United States,17 Shoham in Israel,' Au-bert and Christie in Norway,'9 and sociologistsof law in Europe, like Treves in Italy2o and

1ST. SELLIN & M. WOLFGANG, THE MEASURE-MENT OF DELINQUENCY (1964); T. SELLN & M.WOLFGANG, CONSTRUCTING AN INDEX OF DELIN-QUENcY-A MANUAL (1963).

16 G. VoLD, THEORETICAL CRIMINOLOGY (1958).17H. BECKER, THE OTHER SIDE-PERsPECTIVES

ON DEVIANcE (1963); H. BECKER, OUTSIDERS(1963); A. CICouRIL, SOCI-A ORGANIZATION OFJUVENILE JUSTICE (1968) ; A. CIcouREL, METHODS& MEASUREMENT IN SOCIOLOGY (1964); A.COHEN, DEVIANCE AND CONTROL (1966); H. GAR-FINKEL, STUDIES IN ETHNOMETHODOLOGY (1967);E. GOFFMAN, STIGMA: NOTES ON THE MANAGE-MENT OF SPOILED IDENTITY (1963); E. LEmERT,HUMAN DEVIANCE, SOCIAL PROBLEMS AN SOCIALCONTROL (1967); D. MATZA, BECOMING DEVIANT(1969).18S. SHOHAM, THE MARK OF CAIN-THE

STIGMA THEORY OF CRIME AND SOCIAL DEVIATION(1970).

19 V. AUBERT, THE HIDDEN SOCIETY (1965);SOCIOLOGY OF LAW (V. Aubert ed. 1969); Chris-tie, Changes it Penal Values, 2 SCANDINAVIANSTUDIES IN CRIMINOLOGY 161 (1968); Christie,Comparative Criminology, 12 CANADIAN JOURNALOF CORRECTIONS 40 (1970).

20 R. TREVES, GIUSTIZIA & GUIDiCI, NELLE So-CIATA ITALIANA (1973).

1975]

DENIS SZABO

Versele in Belgium. 21 Although they differ

considerably at times, all these authors belongto this school of thought. The point of thesestudies is not the analysis of crime-inducingfactors in the personality or in society, for thecriterion itself of what is "criminal" is subjectto question. Lemert therefore suggests goingback to the traditional criteria of "social differ-entiation" and putting these in place of the cri-teria of the "normal" as opposed to the "patho-logical." This idea coincides with the brilliantwork of Leslie Wilkins, who classifies humanbehavior on a continuum ranging from the"saintly" to the "criminal" act.22 The criterionused for "normality" is that suggested by Durk-kheim: the definition given by society of whatis tolerable, whether conforming or opposed toits definition of what is acceptable. Crime andpunishment are "functional" in relation to thesocial organization.

It is here, too, that the views of the interac-tionist school coincide with the "structuralist,""situational," or "existentialist" school ofhuman sciences. Many authors reject a defini-tion of the normal act, and therefore of "de-viant behavior" as defined according to the cri-teria of certain groups in society. What isaccepted as "normal," writes Laing, "is a prod-uct of repression, denial, dissociation, projec-tion, introjection and other forms of destruc-tive action on experience." 23 And heconcludes: "It is radically foreign to the struc-ture of being." 24 Here is an epistemology thatchallenges the behaviorist, Gestaltist, positivistand culturalist models which, with numeroussubtle differences and various schools ofthought, dominate modern scientific thinking.

Socialization and learning by experience,their mechanisms and effects, have been at thevery heart of the psycho-sociological sciencesfor more than half a century. Whether geneticin the opinion of a Piaget,25 dynamic and ana-lytic according to Erikson,26 or experimental

21 S. VERESE, JUSTICE PPNALE ET OPINIONPUBLIQUE (1973).

22 L. WILKINS, SOCIAL DEVIANCE-SOCIAL POL-ICY, ACTION AND RESExAcr (1965).

23 R. LAING, THE PoUTICIS OF EXPERIENCE ANDTHE Buim OF PARADISE 23-24 (1970).

24 Id.25 See, e.g., J. PIAGET, EPISTEMOLOGIE ET

PSYCHIATRIE DE LA FUNCTION (1968).:26E.g., E. ERIKSON, IDENTITY, YOUTH AND

CRISIS (1968).

and materialist for Eysenck and Skinner,27 thetheory which dominates the contemporary in-terpretation of deviant or non-deviant humanbehavior explains it in a normative context,not questioning the axiological values of therationalist and humanist tradition of westernculture. Here we remain, tied to the critical,but uninvolved, non-activist function of sci-ence, to the need for objectivity in our intel-lectual approach-even if relative-to the exer-cise of the free examination that can help toovercome ideological zeal. Sometimes utili-tarian, sometimes detached from the socio-cul-tural and political context, this tendency doesnot permit scientific investigation to be under-taken in any spirit other than the logic of sci-entific exploration. The work of Karl Popper 2

8

in the philosophy of science, and that ofHayek29 in social philosophy, characterize theideology of these researchers.

The concepts of "alienation," "spontaneity,""creativity," as related to the vital sources ofthe personality, to the potential of the Freud-ian "id," constitute the starting point for manyrecent analyses. A new definition of the "struc-ture of the human being" has replaced the pos-tulates which inspired studies of thebehaviorist or positivist tradition. Schizoids,schizophrenics or hysterical individuals un-dergo forms of alienation different from thosecalled statistically normal. The "normally al-ienated," writes Laing, is considered of soundmind because he behaves more or less like any-one else.30 Other forms of alienation, thosewhich do not correspond to the state of gen-eral alienation, are termed evil or insane bythe "normal" majority. Laing's conclusion,which is in fact his value judgment of contem-porary man and society, is probably shared bythe majority of analysts of "criminality" interms of society's reaction to deviance, He as-serts that alienation is the normal human con-dition. Society highly values its normal man."It educates children to lose themselves and tobecome absurd, and thus (according to so-

27 H. EYSENCK, CRIME AND PERSONALITY

(1964); B. SKINNER, BEYOND FREEDOM AND DIG-NiTy (1972).

:28K. POPPER, THE LOGIC OF SCIENTIFIC Dis-covERY (1959).

29 F. HAYEK, STUDIES IN PHILOSOPHY, POLITIES& ECoNoMiEs (1969).30 R. LAING, supra note 23.

[Vol. 66

COMPARATIVE CRIMINOLOGY

ciety) to be normal." 8" And since we are emi-nently in the normative field, where the theo-retical conclusion has an immediate practicaland political bearing, Laing concludes: "Nor-mal men have killed perhaps one hundred mil-lion of their fellow normal men in the last fiftyyears."

32

Neo-Marxist and neo-Hegelian thinking,well represented by Gouldner in the UnitedStates,3 3 by Althusser and his students inFrance,34 and embodied most dramatically inthe work of Marcuse and the FrankfurtSchool, 5 radically challenges the scientific tra-dition based on the objectivity of the re-searcher and the utility of scientific knowledge.They denounce the hypocrisy of any preten-tions to objectivity by the researcher: allknowledge is judgment, discrimination, evalua-tion, and taking a stand. The process of aliena-tion and repression is already present in thelanguage whose very structure constitutes anideological bias. The critical function of the in-tellectual begins with a radical criticism of thelinguistic apparatus. In this regard, one of themost virulent criticisms comes from the field oflinguistics, influenced to a great extent by N.Chomsky.88

According to Gouldner, science is situatedwithin the relationship of forces and of con-flicts between powers; to deny this would be aMachiavellianism as dishonourable as "Realpol-itik." 37 The positivist correlation between the"useful" and the morally good, or "acceptable,"is violently denounced, and the traditional hu-manism which imbues the scientific mind, isconsidered a serious mistake-even a moralfailing. Evolutionist and positivist assumptionswhich, in principle, establish the value per seof scientific knowledge, are challenged-allknowledge having to be conceived as part ofthe established authorities' system of controland manipulation.

31 Id. at 24.32 Id.33 A. GOULDNER, THE COMING CRIsIs OF WEST-

ERN SOcIOLOGY (1970); A. GouLDNm & R. PETR-soN, TECHNOLOGY AND THE MORAL ORDER (1962).

34 L. ALTHUSSER, FOR MARX (1970).88 H. MARcusE, AN ESSAY ON LIBERATION

(1969); H. MA1CUSE, ONE DIMENSIONAL MAN(1964).

36 N. Cnomsxy, FOR REASON OF STATE (1973).37 GoULDNER, THE COMING CRISIS OF WEST-

ERN SOCIOLOGY (1970).

In the spirit of this sociology of involve-ment, the actual practice is the criterion of"science": if one fights for a "good" cause,human science is acceptable. If not, it is in theservice of an established power, whatever itmay be, and servilely dependent on it. Power,in this case, is obviously conceived as a pre-eminently bureaucratic force, in the service ofmaterial and moral interests which maintainthemselves through the alienation imposed onall who submit to this power structure.

Particularly important is the contribution ofthinkers like Garfinkel, Goffman, and Lemert,8

who, thanks to an astute psychological analy-sis, explained the mechanisms of systematic in-teraction between an individual having prob-lems of social adjustment and the reaction ofsociety to his behavior. Drawing on the psy-chology of G.H. Mead and the philosophy ofA. Schutz, these authors illustrate the subtlerelations of mutual conditioning which arisefollowing a "deviance" in behavior occurringat the very center of the social control mecha-nisms. Contrary to the simplistic hypothesespostulating reactions of cause and effect be-tween "deviance-sanction-deterrence-recidiv-ism or social reintegration," these authorsshow how these "antisocial" impulses are rein-forced as much by immediate satisfaction andpersonal need as by the mechanisms of socialcontrol -provided for them by the social organi-zation. These reinforcements of the mecha-nisms of deviance are fostered and encouragedby instinctual, sometimes morbid, needs of thepersonality, even the conduct, for example, ofthe excessive drinker, the thief, and the com-pulsive sexual aggressor.

With regard to the social organization, theinstitutionalized mechanisms of social control,such as psychiatric hospitals, prisons, and so-cial welfare agencies, strongly contribute to thereinforcement of psychological mechanisms and"deviant" behavior by contributing to the crea-tion of a double identity, normal and deviant.The result is a permanent identity crisis forthe victim of this situation. The person thusbranded is torn between these negative (anti-social) and positive (pro-social) poles. Thetension of this situation, is the touchstone foran explanation of deviance.

38 H. GARFINxE, supra note 17; E. GOFFMAN,supra note 17; E. LEMERT, sipra note 17.

1975]

DENIS SZABO

The process of stigmatization, analyzed indepth by Goffman and later Simmel,39 is thebest way to create roles which enter into con-flict with other roles within the same personal-ity, and thereby contribute to its confusion andalienation. These conflicting roles are a reflec-tion of the cultures, sub-cultures, and socialorganizations, to which the individual belongs.He is at the same time, the supporter and thevictim, the basic material and the product ofthese conflicting social organizations.

Clinical criminology proposed a therapeuticapproach, the social reintegration of the delin-quent. The criminology of social reaction pro-claims the right of every man to be different,even deviant. Kittrie analyzed the data of theconfrontation between these two schools.4 0

Whereas clinical criminologists are the spokes-men for society and the established order, inthat they implicitly accept the juridic and in-stitutional framework of society and its systemof justice adherents of the school of socialreaction challenge the procedures and founda-tion of the established order.

Under this view, specialists in the humani-ties, whether they be psychiatrists, sociologists,or criminologists, thus become the spokesmenfor the culturally or legally repressed minori-ties who are alienated from the majoritygroup. All groups relegated to the fringe of so-ciety by the "conformist" majority suffer fromalientation. They form the subjects of Laing'sanalysis and that of many other researcherswho have taken the same point of departure intheir analyses. All strata of society which con-tain a large portion of "non-conformist" indi-viduals, or people suffering from discrimina-tion, find themselves in the picture projectedby such analyses. Among the young, women,sexual deviants, artists, ethnic and religiousminorities, among those who stand out becauseof a "deviant" way of life, there may be founda greater need for this kind of philosophy thanamong the socio-cultural categories who havemade conformity to traditional values the key-stone of their personal aspirations and theircollective social conduct.

39 E. GOFFMAN, supra note 17; G. SIMMEL,CONFLICT AND THE WEB OF GROUP AFFILIATIONS(1955).

40 N. KITTRIE, THE RIGHT TO BE DIFFERENT-DEVIANCE AND ENFORCED THERAPY (1971).

In the industrial, commercial, artisan, andprofessional middle classes, in government andprivate bureaucracies, among technicians risingin social status, non-conformist attitudes and"deviants" arouse what Lombroso calls "mi-soneism"-a resistance to change and hostilitytowards innovation. The result is a continuingvacillation between movements for reform andcounter-reform, each in turn favoring changeor stability.

Accompanying the challenge to and slow ero-sion of conformist norms and values is thetremendous capability for salvaging the orga-nized social structures which are being criti-cized by a counter elite along with everychange compatible with the preservation of in-terests already established. This is the alterna-tive of the "long march through the wildernessof institutions." Conservative and progressivevalues are reformulated after each confronta-tion and are transmitted to future generationsin the form of a new synthesis. The socialgroups which hold these values are remarkablystable and the factors of socio-cultural stabilityand instability are in a constant state ofbalance.

4'

SCIENCE AND POLITICS: POLARIZATION OF

ISSUES AND CONFRONTATION BETWEENCRIMINOLOGISTS

This social science, occupied in the serviceof the minority cause, obviously makes thosewho hold other philosophies (functionalists,positivists, neo-Kantians, etc.) the defenders ofthe "conformist" majority-supporters guiltyof maintaining the alienation which is sappingthe mental health of humanity. More and more,the question is asked: which side are we on?Are we with the minority or the majority,those responsible for alienation or oppression,or their victims?

Science also being a personal involvement inthe service of a cause, the non-militant isranked together with the defender of the worstevils of the social system. Thus ecologists be-come the most culpable agents of pollution, de-mographers the agents of genocide, specialistsin industrial relations the exploiters of wage-earners, political scientists and economists

41 See H. KAHN & B. BRIGGS, THINGS TOCOME-THINKING ABOUT THE 70'S AND 80's, at88-161 (1972).

[Vol. 66

COMPARATIVE CRIMINOLOGY

agents of the military and industrial complexcontrolling the government. Finally, the crimi-nologist, whether a psychiatrist or probationofficer, whether in charge of planning or a uni-versity researcher, is held more responsible forthe medieval character of the judicial and

correctional services than the elderly colonel orlawyer who most of the time runs these serv-ices and holds the actual power.

The large social institutions which perpetu-ate the values and aspirations of the commu-nity are seen as the main sources of alienation,and consequently, as institutions to be de-

stroyed. Being no longer in agreement withthe very criteria of normality and the accept-ance that should accompany it, how can suchinstitutions as the family, school, work, justice,etc., be accepted when they were built accord-ing to criteria and values declared "false" andchallenged by active minorities?

The fervor of a religious war can be foundin certain studies prompted by a revolutionaryconcern to rebuild the structures of institutions

so that they will truly conform to the new cri-

teria and new aspirations of the "alienated"minorities. It is again Laing who best ex-presses the authenticity of this call for a newstart: "[E]ach time a new baby is born there is

a possibility of reprieve. Each child is a new

being, a potential, prophet, a new spiritualprince, a new spark of light, precipitated intothe outer darkness. Who are we to decide thatit is hopeless ?" 42

Changing society by changing man-this isthe program for a new awakening that has so

often found its way to the testing groundsthroughout the history of civilization. By refor-

mulating the norms governing institutions,there will be a new impetus towards the

change necessary to achieve a dynamic soci-ety. One then becomes the advocate of theanti-school (Illich), 43 and the anti-psychiatry(Laing)," and the anti-justice (Versele) 45 to

break down the alienating determinism of thepresent structures. Radical changes, presenteddogmatically and urged with militancy, pro-

voke resistance that is often legitimate, but

42 R. LAING, supra note 23, at 26.43 I. ILLICH, CELEBRATION OF AWARENESS

(1971); I. ILucf, DEscHOOLING SOCIETY (1971).44 R. LAING, supra note 23.45 S. VERsELE, supra note 21.

usually irrational. Proposals presented in termsof alternatives, as much on moral grounds associal utility, would seem to have a betterchance of being accepted as guidance in theapplication of the results of scientific studies.

It would obviously be an exaggeration tojudge all interactionist criminology by the rad-ical and revolutionary characteristics we have

outlined above. European sociology of law de-scribes the mechanisms of decision-making bythe judicial apparatus, public reactions, and itsknowledge in the field of juridic norms with-

out necessarily questioning traditional scientificphilosophy.

The challenging of institutions, however, canhardly be avoided when one sees the wide gapsbetween facts and norms in democratic andegalitarian societies. The authority of the Statethat traditionally prevails on the Europeancontinent, however, is more powerful and moreintrusive. Under pressure of common law, par-ticularly in. North America, this controlling

power has been greatly reduced and the princi-ple of the non-interventionist free state ac-

cepted and practised. The principles of liberal-ism set down by John Stuart Mill, and thespirit of freedom of Voltaire largely prevail onthis continent. It comes as no surprise then,that it was in North America that the birthof systematic questioning had the most practi-cal effect. The tradition of self-determinedcommunalism was encouraged by the constitu-tional system and by history. The right to bedifferent was concommitant with the very crea-tion of the United States.

THE CRisis or LEGITIMACY: THE POLITICIZING

OF CRIMINOLOGY

From the discussion above, one can see thatan analysis of the norms of the majorityfrom the point of view of any minority soonraises the problem of the legitimacy of thesanctions by which these norms of the major-ity are imposed on the minority challengingthem. In addition, such analysis brings to lightthe considerable discretionary powers usuallygiven the organizations administering law andjustice in a liberal North American state. Itshows that the police have tremendous leewayin their interpretation of what constitutes a"criminal" act, thus giving the policeman the

1975]

DENIS SZABO

role of dispenser of justice, which neither thelaw, his training, nor above all, his vocation,expects or requires of him. According to Skol-nick, it constitutes a case of justice (accusa-tion and punishment) without the benefit of atrial and its legal guarantees. 46 For all practi-cal purposes, discretionary power is built intothe system: the agent of justice is comparedto the diplomat.47 The procedure of sentenc-ing, in which the judge is given a great dealof discretionary power, has long been a topicof study with its inconsistencies brought tolight. The increase in case loads and the lackof sufficient technological equipment in thecourts has evoked an outcry from the highestlegal authorities and politicians in the UnitedStates, those least suspected of political radi-calism. This same criticism has been made ofthe failure of the correctional system whose re-socialization results are not at all convincing.48

In the face of the incoherence, arbitrarinessand ineffectiveness present in the system of ad-ministering justice (a "non-system" accordingto its critics), researchers have questioned thevalue of making comparisons between the com-pletely chance effects of such system. This ex-plains why the most significant work of re-searchers, conceived from the point of view ofsocial reaction to deviance (a term that istending to replace "criminality"), are meticu-lous monographs describing and analyzing thefunctioning of an institution (the police, thecourts, the prisons, for example), or a subcul-ture developed around "minority" values,(marijuana smokers, motorcycle gangs, hip-pies, drop-out communes, etc.).

Paradoxically, a manpower increase in theagencies charged with the administration ofjustice (policemen, judges, social workers, crim-inologists, etc.), intensifies the alienating ef-fects of the system in the eyes of those whochallenge it. In effect, better trained specialistsin the techniques of the humanities, adminis-trative and judicial, will only widen the gapthat exists between the values termed "authen-tic" by the repressed minorities and those of

46 J. SKOLNICK, JUSTICE WITHOUT TRIAL-LAwENFORCEMENT IN DmsOCRATIC SOCIETY (1966).

47 Cressey, Delinquency, Crime and Social Proc-ess, in POLYARCHY: PARTICIPATION AND OPPOSI-TiON (R. Dahl ed. 1971).

48 D. GLASER, ADULT CRIME AND SOCIAL POLICY(1972).

the oppressive and conformist majority. Amel-ioration, the traditional reformism of research-ers interested in social problems and social pol-icy, is viewed as an undertaking moreinsidious but just as harmful as brutal repres-sion, although justified by means other thanthe physical force advocated by the establishedauthorities. In reality, it is merely a matter ofrationalizing and justifying the "reformist" ide-ology of the elite in-group.

At this point, it is worthwhile to considerthe subjective and political implications ofthese problems, for we have been witnessingan increased "political" aspect in criminologi-cal discussions. There is no need here to recallthe crises of conscience that have shocked thehistorical, political, sociological, anthropologi-cal, and psychological sciences. It suffices to saythat these confrontations, charged with consid-erable emotion, spared nothing and no one.The denunciation by Szasz 49 and his fellowpsychiatrists, were just as violent as werethose by spokesmen for minority groups whorefused to accept the legitimacy of the actiontaken against them. Ironically, the person theyhoped to see "hanged" was not the reactionaryminister of justice who said, on the day of hisinstallation in power, that his department wascharged with the enforcement of the law andnot with social matters, but rather Dr. KarlMenninger, author of The Crime of Punish-ment,50 who devoted his life to the reform ofpsychiatric and medico-legal institutions.

Such anti-psychiatric, and anti-criminologi-cal movements-part of a general "anti-scien-tific" trend, some of whose supporters areamong the most brilliant specialists in thesefields, reflect a moral crisis in the intellectualmilieu. This universal crisis is especially strik-ing in these sciences on the North Americanscene.5 ' Following the work of W. Miller, 52 it

is possible to summarize the consequences ofthe increased role of ideologies in criminologi-cal discussions. First, there is the polarization

49 T. SZAsz, THE MANUFACTURE OF MADNESS-A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF THE INQUISITION ANDMENTAL HEALTH MOVEMENT (1970).

50 K. MENNINGER, THE CRIME OF PUNISHMENT(1968).

51 D. NELKIN, THE UNIVERSITY AND MILITARYREsEARCH-MORAL POLITICS AT M.I.T. (1972).

=Miller, Ideology and Criminal Justice Policy:Some Current Issuies, 64 J. CR mi. L. & C. 141(1973).

[Vol 66

COMPARATIVE CRIMINOLOGY

of positions which transform hypotheses intosacred dogmas and which characterize the ad-herents of differing opinions as immoral anddangerous. The opposite picture results in anextrapolation and exaggeration of positionswhich are on the whole closely related. Ac-cording to this attitude, opinions tending to the"left," with subtle differences, appear far moredangerous and harmful than opinions whichcan be attributed to the "right." This trait, asa result, has the traditional division of extremeleft or extreme right opinions in small closedgroups, each fiercely guarding its own "truth."The hostile distrust with regard to informationthat can be drawn from current research isquite clear. The answers are already there, ar-bitrarily laid down by the ideology. New datacan only obscure the discussion, weaken the is-sues, and subvert the ideological truth by sug-gesting its possible relevance.

The theory of catastrophe marks the extremedogmas of both left and right; if one does notaccept, in toto, the remedies advocated, there isno hope of salvation. If the regime should sur-vive, it is because it has been warned of immi-nent disaster by the premonitions of prophets.Exaggeration of the facts in connection withthe threat of "the enemy" is very clear: thenumber and quality of the militants on theother "side" are considered greater than whatthey really are. Miniscule groups of extremistsare obviously a minority and their feelings offear and insecurity find their subjective justifi-cation in exaggeration of the threats againstthem. Finally, systematic distortion of the op-posing position is a weapon that has been usedfrom time immemorial in ideological disagree-ments. The reading of polemics, with theirconstant recourse to savagery and scatalogicallanguage printed in the history of the Trotsky-ist or Stalinist school of the Communist Party,is most edifying in this regard. The denigra-tion of the opponent's position consists of amass of incoherent propositions with "subjec-tive" and "objective" implications and abjectmoral motivations, used with a clear con-science as legitimate means justified by -the sa-cred character of the end sought.58

53 See Korn, Reflections on Flogging: An Es-say-Review of the Work of Leslie Wilkins andTom Murton, 6 IssuEs IN CRIMIINOLOGY 95 (No. 21971) ; L. WU=xzNs, supra note 22.

POWER AND SCIENCE: WHO FURNISHES THE

"BASIS" FoR DECISION?

The increasing concentration of power inthe hands of a limited number of groups whoexercise the power of decision is, in itself, afrightening phenomenon for the intellectual,who is particularly aware of the possibilities oferror and injustice. The failure of the elite inutilizing this power casts much more doubt onthe legitimacy of this exercise of power thancould any philosophical speculation. These fail-ures, in spite of undeniable successes in otherrespects, are numerous. In criminology, inparticular, it must be admitted that very fewsolutions to the failure arising from the pres-ent system can be offered in terms of reasona-ble alternatives. It cannot be said in good faiththat there is a "scientific" basis for mostreforms, which, nonetheless, the criminologistdoes not hesitate to recommend. The sameholds true for the "causes" of criminal or de-viant behavior. Ideological confrontations arenot on very solid ground when it comes to sci-entific evidence. In the final analysis, a reform-ist philosophy is opposed to a revolutionaryphilosophy without science substantiating any-thing !

One of the important criteria of legitimacyis success. A system is less often challengedand its values are less violently objected to ifits elite provide general satisfaction to the var-ious sectors of the population. Exercise ofpower is achieved through democratic delega-tion to the administrative organizations: theless ambiguity there is in the values and normsto be sanctioned, the greater the tacit accept-ance of the restraints exercised to uphold thesevalues. Thus, constituted power becomes thekey concept for the revolutionary criminolo-gist. The act of violence expresses protestagainst the value norms of the established sys-tem. Its perception is the expression of thepower of those who rush to protect the estab-lished order. As Skolnick says, "[M]en whoengage in dangerous and desperate behavior-indeed any behavior-have a certain claim tohave taken seriously the meanings which theysee in their own acts, and wish others to see inthem." 54

54 Currie & Skolnick, A Critical Note on Con-ceptions of Collective Behavior, 391 ANNALS 34,

1975]

DENIS SZABO

There is no hesitation to categorize ascounter-revolutionary all pretentions to a cer-tain neutrality in the scientific approach. Inthis popularized, Manichean view of the socialreality and the role of power, any revolution-ary act is the expression of a basic reaction topathological alienation of the oppressed man.There is no neutrality possible in the conflictbetween the forces of good (oppressed minor-ity) and the forces of evil (control, social, andjudicial repression). 55 "[W]e would want tolook at various forms of collective action-whether within or beyond the 'normal' or con-ventional social and political arrangements-in the light of their capacity to promote (orretard) the creation and maintenance of thesevalues." 56

The anger of Skolnick against the sociolo-gist Smelser stems from the same source asthat of Szasz and Laing. The -political aspectof science is overwhelming under this point ofview, and calls to mind that of theMarxist/Leninists in countries where theirdoctrine has not yet prevailed. They, too, werethe spokesmen for the alienated minorities, andthe powerful dialectic appeal of "master andslave" can still be remembered. It is worth-while considering the conditions under whichscientific activity would be carried on once thealienation of these minorities had been changedto the liberating exercise of power.5 7

It must be admitted that there are strict lim-its within which those who exercise political oradministrative power actually resort to the find-ings of science. The ultimate aims of the twoorders are radically different. Power is exer-cised by a "leadership" to defend the interestsof its electors as interpreted by them, eitherin the name of the democratic majority, or inthe name of an ideology declared "true." The

43 (1970), quoting Silver, Official Interpretationsof Racial Riots, in URBAN RIOTS-VIOLENCE ANDSOCIAL CHANGE 154 (R. Connery ed. 1968).

55 Short & Wolfgang, On Collective Violence:Introduction and Overview, 391 ANNALS 1, 3-4(1970).

56 Currie & Skolnick, A Critical Note on Con-ceptions of Collective Behavior, 391 ANNALS 34, 45(1970).

57 See J. COHEN, THE CRIMINAL PROCESS IN THEPEOPLE'S REPUBLIC OF CHINA 1949-1963--AN IN-TRODUCTION (1968); W. CONNOR, DEVIANCE INSOVIET SOCIETY: CRIME, DELINQUENCY, AND ALCO-HOLISM (1972); R. MEmvEDEV, LET HISTORY JUDGE(1971).

defense of "higher" interests is said to cor-respond with the common good.

The man of science, on the other hand, ex-amines and measures the consequences of nor-mative options, whatever they are. It is not upto him to redefine normative options in thename of science. On the other hand, as a pro-fessional man, he expresses himself in the nor-mative way and can refuse to place his talentsat the service of causes which he condemns. Atrue conflict of roles can develop. To illustrate,we refer to the abundant literature that fol-lowed the famous Oppenheimer case concern-ing the use of science in an atomic war. 8

COMPARATIVE CRIMINOLOGY AND THECONTRIBUTION OF THE SCHOOL OF SOCIAL

REACTION To DEVIANCE

This context must be kept in mind in orderto understand the perspectives which theschool of social reaction to deviance proposesto comparative criminology. Nils Christie callsthe criminology oriented toward correctionalpractice a dead end.59 In his opinion, contem-porary criminological data are "more useful forthe purpose of understanding the system ofcontrol than for understanding what makespeople criminalU"'8 0 Under his view, two prin-ciples must be adhered to in comparative crim-inology. First, it must not be based on courtconvictions; this is merely recording the func-tioning of the judicial system. Second, thepoint of departure should be the system ofcrime control. This is clearly part of the largersystem of social control and constitutes onlyone aspect of it.

Christie then asks for a return to crimino-logical study from a complete sociological pointof view involving the entire social system:"[W]e have to study social systems and not iso-lated attributes." 61 And he concludes: "Crimecannot be understood except in relation to thetotal social system. Until that system is suffi-ciently well known and understood, we will,for most purposes, have little to gain fromcomparing the crime picture between two dif-ferent societies." 62

58 The literature references are too numerous tobe worth noting.

59 Christie, Comparative Criminology, 12 CANA-DIAN JOURNAL OF CORRECTIONS 40 (1970).

60 Id. at 40.r Id. at 44.62 Id.

[Vol. 66

COMPARATIVE CRIMINOLOGY

From this point of view, the themes sug-gested for the attention of researchers byChristie are very different from those selectedby Sheldon Glueck ten years ago. Christie pro-poses a methodological discussion on the mostadequate means of circumventing the inconsis-tencies and lack of criminological data eminat-ing from the administration of justice. Accord-ing to him, the actual functioning of the socialcontrol system must be analyzed. A practicalway to do this, would be to study one form ofdeviant behavior in two or more different so-cieties, and to see in particular the variationsover time and the substitution of one deviantact for another, etc.

Another type of promising study would be acomparative analysis of relatively limited socialsystems, such as prisons or the police, for ex-ample, in the form of national monographs rep-licated in a number of countries. This wouldshow their respective roles in the social controlsystem as a whole and specific informationcould be acquired through the comparativemethod. This is even more advisable when itcomes to comparing total crime between coun-tries: the analysis therefore must be placed inthe sociological perspective of the whole socialsystem.

COMPLEMENTARITY OR CONFLICT B'wVEEN

CRIMINOLOGIES ORIENTED TowARDCORRECTIONAL PRACTICE

As can be seen, the view of criminology ori-ented toward correctional practice and that ofinteractionist criminology are inextricably tiedto one another. The one takes for granted, im-plicitly and explicitly, the definition of thecriminal act given by society and representedby the agents of the administration of justicewho apply the criminal code. The other postu-lates the lag between the social norm and thelegal norm, the continuity between "normal"and "abnormal" behavior. Whereas the keyconcepts of the criminology oriented towardcorrectional practice are focused on those ofthe "criminal" personality-learning experi-ence, socialization, etc.-the concepts of crimi-nology oriented toward the analysis of socialreaction to deviance involve alienation andconflict between norms and values which havetheir roots in the class interests which dividesociety.

We have also noted the emotional content ofthe confrontation between the two criminolo-gies. If traditional criminology had a purelyscientific purpose which has evolved towards areformism seeking changes in the penal code,the administration of justice and, above all, theapplication of punishment; interactionist crimi-nology has in view the radical, if not revolu-tionary, challenging of the social organization.In fact; partial reform and adaptation of thepresent system seems even more dangerousthan the provocation of conflicts between thosewho want radical change in the social systemand those who would maintain the establishedorder. Thus the seeds of conflict, noted byHermann Kahn and Brice Briggs, can be seenin criminology between the positions of the"humanist leftist" groups and the "responsiblecentrists." 63

Is this an unsolvable problem, or can therebe an accommodation between these two posi-tions? There is certainly no point of agree-ment in respect to the relationship of scientificresearch with the political views of the re-searcher. For the one group, it can only beimmediate and direct, while for the other, itmust be intermediary and remote. The sociol-ogy which led Gouldner to formulate his doc-trine of reflexive sociology is unquestionablyopposed to the humanist philosophies of thepositivist scientific tradition. The same can besaid for all conflicts involving intellectuals inthe human sciences, as Arthur Bestor states:

[A]s an institution for the advancement ofknowledge, it (the university) serves theworld best by insisting that its members con-duct themselves as scholars, not propagandists,and by protecting from interference and intim-idation those who carry out honestly theirprofessional duty of inquiring critically andobjectively into the whole range of humanconcerns and announcing the documented,often controversial, conclusions. 64

As -o the nature of the problem in question, itis the outcome of a philosophical stand, accom-panied by a moral attitude. It is not to bejudged by ordinary procedures of science.

63 H. KAHfN & B. BRICKs, supra note 41, at 82.64 Bestor, In Defense of Intellectual Integrity.

A Manifesto for the Contemporary University, 39ENCOUNTER 18, 24 (1972).

1975]

DENIS SZABO

These debates between those who uphold acriminology oriented toward correctional prac-tice and those who support an interactionistcriminology can be analogized to similar discus-sions in psychology, concerning the role ofinnate or acquired traits in the social and edu-cational success of the child; in economics, interms of the effects of monetary policy on in-dustrial expansion; in history, on the role ofthe charismatic leader in relation to socio-eco-nomic determinism. The reading of the resultsof strictly scientific observations may differ-depending on the theoretical beliefs of the re-searcher. Very different interpretations of re-sults based on similar observations may bevalid within certain limits. But the "accuracy"of the observations, and soundness of themethodology, should be the only meetingground for all criminologists.

As Jean Pinatel points out, a criminologyoriented toward the analysis of social reactionto deviance develops fertile hypotheses in clini-cal criminology. 65 Taking a different point ofdeparture, sociological criminology and special-ized criminologies legitimately utilize social re-action as a point of departure and reference intheir work.

It is the value of explanations and predic-tions in terms of the accuracy of scientificobservations, that in the final analysis will dojustice to the fruitfulness of one or the otherpoint of view. And we are very far from hav-ing presented proof that the last word has beensaid.

There is a need to stress the danger of im-patience and intolerance which takes possessionof the criminologist when he meets with patentfailure in his efforts to translate the lessons ofhis scientific observations into therapeutic orpolitical action. It was not only Lenin whoproclaimed that the dawn of scientific socialismexperienced in the U.S.S.R. was also the dawnof scientific experimentation vis-a-vis a society.The fact that researchers belong to diverseschools of thought, influences the choice ofsubject and the angle from which it is ap-proached. No one can deny the existence ofthis "personal coefficient" in all the social sci-ences. However, it is the authenticity and ve-racity of these observations alone which will

65 Pinatel, supra note 12.

allow -the results of these studies to be re-garded as "scientific." Authenticity means rele-vance in relation to certain perceived humanvalues, veracity means the description or ex-tent of the phenomenon in its most significantcharacteristics.

To the extent that these two criminologiesobey these two rules, authenticity and veracity,their contribution can assist in the difficult taskof explaining deviant behavior in contempo-rary civilization. This is not the time for anaccounting, a civil war or even academic quar-relling. It is the time to work, to demonstrateby research the validity of such divergentsources of inspiration.

Finally, it must be noted that the applicabil-ity of the results of research is not a sufficientcriterion of its scientific veracity. Multiple fac-tors, quite outside the scientific field, may in-tervene to alter the conditions of application ofa theory in a concrete social situation. Thisseems to be self-evident; nevertheless many de-cisive judgments on "science" are based on thefailure of a theory to predict or explain spe-cific human or social phenomena.

Concerning the contribution of the divergentideological biases of the researcher, it can beextremely positive if the laws of scientific re-search are respected in other ways. Criminol-ogy of the interactionist school contributes apoint of view and an awareness which makesit possible to explore areas of the social realitytheretofore unknown. Clinical criminology didnot question the legitimacy of the values onwhich the social order was based. It challengedthe methods of society in treating delinquents,but it rarely went further. Interactionist crimi-nology examined the experience and existentialvalues of deviants and delinquents. New lightwas brought to bear on many phenomenawhich had previously been studied unilaterally.A whole series of legal and administrativemeasures, attitudes and opinions were chal-lenged because of this contribution. At last acriminology based on the experience of thevictim is now being outlined. Victimology isexploring the first data-above all, clinicaldata. There will be an immediate analysis ofthe social reaction of victims toward their ag-gressor and toward the social organizations setup for their protection. Criminologists explor-ing these even more unknown areas of the so-

[Vol. 66

COMPARATIVE CRIMINOLOGY

cial reality with themselves contribute anawareness and interest very different from thatwhich was previously the case.

It is not only the relationship between sci-ence and its application, ideological bias andscientific analysis that we must note among theelements which converge to prepare the basisof a comparative criminology of the future. Onthe basis of true scientific theory, along withWolfgang8 O we can see an increasing integra-tion between what he calls micro- and macro-criminology:

Criminology is joined by other areas ofbehavioural science in looking at larger sci-ences of analysis. Criminal deviance is seen asa part of the fabric of deviance and conform-ity, of riots and revolutions, of conflict andcontrol, of peace research and interdictionsand counter-interdictions. Compromise, arbitra-tion, game theory, intellectual groupings, andmass movements are in the general theorizingmold, and criminology should become increas-ingly a part of this large social organizationtheory. Theories of political mobilization anddeveloping nations are intellectually akin tocriminological concern with culture systems.the data on industrialization and culture con-flict. Conflict resolution models of analysis canfind utility in crime control programmes andtheory.

67

CONCLUSION

This macro-criminological "general theory"will be enriched by the contribution of more

66 Wolfgang, Developments in Criminology in theUnited States with Some Comments on the Future,1973 (unpublished manuscript).

67 Id. at 30-31.

and more searching techniques of multivariedanalysis, multiple regressions, of analysisthrough a dichotomy of attributes, and analysisof the discriminant function, in short, tech-niques of analysis through which the science ofeconometrics brought a level of refinement pre-viously unthinkable in theoretical analysis.

This marriage of measurement and generaltheory, of macro- and micro-criminology, asWolfgang calls it, will contribute, withoutquestion, to the tremendous progress of crimi-nology. In order for its contribution to be asgreat in comparative criminology, the comple-mentary importance of the ethno-methodologi-cal approach must be added. There is neededvery deep monographic analyses to discoverthe meaning of the variables to which we re-sort, both in micro as well as macro-criminol-ogy. This is already important within the na-tional criminologies. The approach is allimportant in comparative criminology, consid-ering the profoundly different significancegiven human conduct and the social reaction itevokes within different cultures at very differ-ent levels of socio-economic development. Theexploration of simpler societies than the in-dustrial society is indicated in this regard, andthe works of V. Goldschmidt 8 and his collabo-rators demonstrate the benefits of this ap-proach for the future.

o8 Goldschmidt, Decriminalization as a ResourceProblem, April 3-10, 1973 (seminar given on De-viance and Social Control in Greenland, at the In-ternational Center for Comparative Criminology,Montreal, Canada); Goldschmidt, The GreenlandCriminal Code and its Sociological Background, 1AcrA SocIoLoGciA 217 (1956); Goldschmidt, NewTrends in Studies on Greenland Social Life:Criminal Law in Changing Greenland, 5 FoLx 113-121 (1963).

19751