In 1905 a young Dutch sociologist, Willem Bonger, defended his PhD thesis on the economic conditions of crime at the University of Amsterdam. He was shortly thereafter appointed as the first professor of criminology in The Netherlands. His thesis was translated into English and other languages and has become a classic in sociological criminology. In Bonger's view criminologists should study not the personal pathologies of offenders but the societal causes of crime. He studied the macro determinants of crime by analyzing inter-country differences and trends in official criminal statistics. His work stands in the 19 century epidemiological tradition of Quetelet, Guerry, Von Mayr and Lacassagne. Bonger's criminology was strongly policy-oriented. Criminology should, in his words “before anything else show mankind the way how crime can be effectively combated and, most of all, prevented” (Bonger, 1932). He used to underline his preference for policy-oriented criminology with a quote from the French, positivist philosopher Auguste Comte: “Savoir pour prevoir et prevoir pour prevenir. Loosely translated as ”Knowledge with the aim of prediction and prediction with the aim of preventing“. In other words, Bonger preached and practiced evidence-based crime prevention avant la lettre.

Dans les conditions actuelles de l'évolution de la société socialiste, une grande importance est attribuée à l'analyse complexe, à la base des systèmes, des sphères diverses de sa vie. La méthode systématique assure l'enregistrement et l'utilisation de l'ensemble des facteurs qui déterminent l'efficacité de tel ou tel institut ou processus social. Tout cela est juste quant au nombre de problèmes liés au fonctionnement efficace du système de la justice pénale.

La criminologie a été pendant longtemps une science confidentielle et contemplative. Elle est en train de devenir aujourd'hui une science ouverte et appliquée. Ce retournement de la situation s'explique par le défi contemporain de la criminalité.

Dans l'œuvre considérable de Sheldon et Eleonor Glueck, la criminologie comparée prend une mince partie en termes de pages, mais considérable en projet et ambition. Chercheurs obéissant aux canons d'une démarche scientifique universelle, l'universalité de la portée des conclusions de leurs travaux fut une aspiration tout à fait légitime de ces deux savants.

There are three possible responses to a title like “Criminology and the Sciences of Man” — first, total incomprehension — what on earth can be meant by these words? Only in an International Congress could anyone conceive of a title like this; second, to accept this vague and general invitation to be vague and general — and then go on to talk about whatever is on your mind at the moment; or, finally, to actually take the phrase seriously.

Recent years have witnessed great strides in applied victimology. During the 1980s legislation was passed, services were created, programs were set up, all aimed at helping crime victims and improving their unhappy lot. What is remarkable about these developments is the ease with which the legislative changes were introduced and approved. Not only was there no opposition but they were also not preceded by the usual impact studies to assess the effects they were likely to have on the CJS and the larger society. Even more surprising is that they were introduced in the absence of clear empirical avidence indicating that they do represent what crime victims really want.

The paper is an attempt to show that despite the fanfare with which the new measures were introduced, they have not tangibly improved the lot of crime victims. It claims that what is necessary to achieve this goal is a new criminal justice policy, a new pénal and sentencing philosophy that places the emphasis not on punishment and retaliation but on rearation, mediation and conciliation. In most instances these two sets of goals are functionally incompatible. Parallel to this change, there needs to be another fundamental change in the traditional views on crime. The offense should cease to be regarded as an affront to the State and be viewed as an offense against the individual victim, not as a violation of an abstract law but a violation of the rights of the victim.

L'une des questions centrales qu'une théorie républicaine de la justice pénale peut aider à affronter est le choix des conduites qu'il convient de criminaliser ou de décriminaliser. Une conduite ne devrait être criminalisée que si, ce faisant, le dominion, une conception républicaine de la liberté, est accru. Un tel raisonnement inspire au républicain une décriminalisation substantielle dans les sociétés occidentales. Prenant bien le crime au sérieux, les républicains estiment que pas mal de conduites que nous traitons comme des crimes recevraient une meilleure réponse s'ils étaient, dans la voie tracée par les abolitionnistes, envisagés comme des troubles, des problèmes existentiels, des conflits appelant un dialogue. Il n'y a pas de contradiction à participer à des combats progressistes visant à clarifier la protection juridique de la femme contre le viol et celle de l'environnement contre sa spoliation, tout en déclinant la compétence du pénal à régir certaines catégories de conduites.

The purpose of this paper is to discuss methods and hypotheses of empirical comparative research on criminal behavior from the perspective of a Japanese criminologist. Referring to the title of van Wolferen's book on The Enigma of Japanese Power, the author studies Japan as an ideal testing ground for any approach in comparative criminology : with an apparently contradictory combination of tremendous economic development and a consistently low crime rate, lower than those in most other developed countries, Japan still needs comparative research of three types: first, using data from a culture or country different from those where theories to be tested originated; second, confronting qualitative research focusing on only two or three cultures; third, comparing quantitative research involving a large number of cultures or countries.

This paper summarizes the main fmdings of what works, what does not work, and what is promising in preventing crime, and discusses the implications for public policy. The findings are based on the book Evidence-Based Crime Prevention, published in 2002. The book's aim was to update and substantially revise the 1997 report, Preventing Crime : What Works, What Doesn't, What's Promising, by Lawrence Sherman and his colleagues at the University of Maryland. An analysis of nearly 700 program evaluations found that 29 program types worked, 25 did not work, and 28 were promising in preventing crime. These results suggest that we know a fair amount about how to prevent crime. Results also suggest three broad-based courses of action : (1) we need to increase resources devoted to those program types with demonstrated effectiveness in preventing crime; (2) we need to stop funding those program types with proven evidence of ineffectiveness; and (3) we should begin further testing of those program types that are promising.

This essay discusses the current state of criminology and raises some questions about the subject's nature, its relationship to government, and its location in the academic field. The author argues that criminology is best conceived not as an independent subject but as a bridging subject that addresses a practical field using the intellectual resources of more basic disciplines such as sociology, psychology and law. He warns against recent institutional developments that threaten to distance criminological research and training from those disciplines that provide its intellectual energy and distinction. Against these tendencies, the author argues for a dialogic conception of criminology and for the institutional conditions that make that conception possible.