the historical roots and development of criminological statistics

THE HISTORICAL ROOTS AND DEVELOPMENT OF CRIMINOLOGICAL STATISTICS

LUIS SALAS

Criminal Justice Department Florida International University

North Miami. Florida 33181

RAYMOND SURETTE

Criminal Justice Department Florida International University

North Miami. Florida 33181

ABSTRACT

The history of the development of criminological statistics must examine the emergence of social statistics in general. The theoretical concerns and technical questions raised by early criminologists cannot be isolated from the wider concerns of sociologists and statisticians at work in other,fields. This article traces the history and problems of crime and justice statistics through two distinct periods: a “preparatory” phase (1650-1800), and a “conceptualization” phase (1800-1914). In addition. while

spec$ically noting a dependent relationship with the fields of demography and statistics, the separation sf criminological statistics as an automous area is considered. The use o.f criminal justice statistics .for comparative and other purposes has come under considerable review and criticism during recent

jjears. and an examination of historical sources and problems serves to increase the understanding and usefulness of these statistics today.

A fundamental problem in past historical discussion of social statistics in order to development studies has been the treatment provide a fuller understanding of the devel- of criminological statistics as an autonomous opment. problems, constraints, and poten- statistical science. Criminological statistics, tial associated with criminological statistics. however. developed as a subset of other This article reviews the history and prob- social statistical systems. Therefore. any lems of criminal justice statistics. Two dis- historical review must incorporate a general tinct periods are encompassed:

457

458 LUIS SALAS and RAYMOND SURETTE

1. a “preparatory” period. lasting from systems, and the belief of the mercantilists the middle of the seventeenth to the that population growth and its analysis were beginning of the nineteenth century essential in determining the power and

(Lazarsfeld, 1977); wealth of the state (Lazarsfeld. 1977). 2. a “conceptualization” period, begin-

ning with the works of Quetelet in the early nineteenth century and ending with World War I.

As developments since the First World War, especially in the United States. have been thoroughly reviewed elsewhere (Rob- inson, 1934; Campion, 1949; Wilkins. 1980), they shall not be discussed here.

THE PREPARATORY PERIOD

The potential political impact of quantiti- cation was quickly realized by the citizenry. who feared applications to tax assessments and military affairs. As a result. people were reluctant to cooperate in data collection efforts, and early demographers were com- pelled to resort to innovative techniques in order to complete their counts. However. initial barriers were overcome. and by 1680 the age of “political arithmetic” (demographic enumeration and census techniques) was well established.’

Prior to any analysis of crime data, general systems of social data collection and analysis had to be developed, accepted, and disseminated. This “preparatory” period in Europe established the foundation for the later development of the fields of demography and social statistics.

While British political arithmeticians concentrated on demographic statistics. their counterparts in Germany emphasized the cataloguing of political variables with the goal of improving public administra- tion. Numerical data played only a small part in this tradition, termed “University Statistics.”

The introduction of the “Bills of Mortal- ity” in England in 1.553 marked the beginning of this period. England had been ravaged for many years by plague, and in order to mobilize the population and con- tain the spread of plague, it was necessary to identify contaminated areas. The govern- ment established a system of house watchers to report the incidence of plague by recording the causes of all deaths. The Bills were summaries of these reports (Wilkins, 1980).

The usefulness of these surveys extended beyond the immediate emergency, and they were continued by the Crown. In 1728, the age of the deceased was added to the Bills. This led to the preparation of “life tables,” which were used to determine life insurance rates (Wilkins, 1980). Bentham stated in 1778 that he had begun “sketching out a plan for the collection of Bills of Delin- quency with analogy to the Bills of Mortal- ity” (Wilkins, 1980:20).

One of the first statisticians to employ this data in social research was Herman Conring (1606-1682), an exponent of the German tradition. Reflecting the fragmented political situation of Germany in the 1640’s. his goal was to instill some order to the study of political systems. He argued that for the state to act rationally it must have adequate facts upon which to base decisions. Cross national comparisons were viewed by Con- ring as essential for testing his theories of the state. No longer was the state viewed as a passive entity dependent on the will of God and monarch, but rather, it was to be studied as an “acting unit” within the context of its domestic and international setting (Lazarsfeld. 1977).

Bentham’s notion that social trends such as delinquency could be adequately quantified began to be accepted in the early part of the seventeenth century. due to two Euro- pean movements: the rise of insurance

Gottfried Achenwald, currently hailed as the “father of statistical science,” recog- nized Conring’s work as significant, and set about refining the new science (Glaser, 1957). Achenwald and his colleagues were identified with the German Gottingen School of University Statistics. which was characterized by the study of cross national comparative data. Unlike “University Sta- tistics”, these comparisons had a numerical

Roots and the Historical Development of Criminological Statistics 459

basis. Some adherents. however, became concerned that a numerical emphasis would deteriorate into useless academic exercises and detract from the overall practical signifi- cance of their studies. This concern was a criticism of the English researchers, who were characterized by the German school as:

stupid fellows (who) disseminate the insane idea that one can understand the power of a state if one just knows its size. its population, its national income and the number of dumb beasts grazing around. The machina- tions of these criminal politician statisticians in trying to tell everything by figures . is despicable and ridiculous beyond words. (Lazarsfeld. 1977:293)

The rejection of quantification resulted in the decline of the German school, despite its early prominence, by the beginning of the nineteenth century. The field was subsequently dominated by the more quantitative oriented English approach.’

THE CONCEPTUALIZATION PERIOD

Although European scientists had access to aggregated social data during the preparatory period, it was not until the nineteenth century that social scientists began to seriously analyze this data. During this “conceptualization stage.” the basic methods and theoretical concepts later used by the social sciences were set forth.

Quetelet has been hailed as the first social scientist to derive criminological theories from crime statistics (Morrison, 1897); however. his work on crime statistics cannot be clearly understood apart from his use of social data to support political goals and scientific theories.

Quetelet’s involvement with social data collection began when he was asked to work with the Royal Statistics Commission in the preparation of the Belgian population census of 1826. The 1830 insurrection in Bel- gium focused his interests on social “moral” problems. and marks the beginning of an expanded vision of social studies that went beyond the narrower focus on state func-

tioning emphasized by the German and British schools (Lazarsfeld, 1977).

While Quetelet’s first work on criminal statistics, published in 1827, had been pri- marily descriptive. a second work on crime, published in 1831, presented many multi- variate associations. including age-specific crime rates for men and women across countries and social groups (Bemmelen, 1952). More importantly, in this work Quetelet stressed the need for theoretical interpretation of empirical data rather than simple descriptive reporting, a departure from earlier studies that had focused on the constancy of crime rates over time and between countries and the attribution of crime to underlying social laws.

Quetelet had previously spoken of “phy- sique sociale”, in an effort to distinguish data which dealt solely with population characteristics from other types of demographic data. He subsequently expanded his scheme to distinguish between physical characteristics and what he termed “statistique morale.” Quetelet published two studies based upon this scheme in 1839: the first dealt with population statistics, while the second expanded on his idea of moral statistics (Hankins, 1908).

In the 1839 studies, Quetelet used crime rates as probabilities based on the size of the offender and genera1 populations and on the number of crimes committed. For the most part, the only information available to him consisted of the number of crimes committed and offender characteristics; he lacked comparable data for the general public. In an effort to overcome such deficiencies, he used relative rates. In one case. he presented a table cross-classifying French crime reports by sex and level of education for two different years. He concluded that the criminal act is the result of a “criminal propen- sity” attributable to three factors: the general criminal tendency, the skill to perform specific acts, and the opportunity to engage in the act at a specific time” (Lazarsfeld, 1977).

Although Quetelet has been severely criticized for his conclusions (Bonger, 1967: Mannheim, 1965). especially for his failure

460 LL!IS SALAS and RAYMOND SURETTE

to recognize the ecological fallacy of apply- ing aggregate data to individual behavior, he was the first to introduce statistical methods to support theoretical sociological concepts, rather than as mere descriptive tools. Numerical data could be interpreted, interchanged, and compared on a theoretical basis, since they were measures of more abstract social concepts.

Another major contributor to the concep- tual development of social measurement was the Frenchman LePlay, a contemporary of Quetelet. Unlike Quetelet, however, LePlay did not focus on aggregated official statistics. He developed a highly innovative case-study data collection technique. using the family as his unit of analysis.

LePlay’s methodology consisted of a nat- uralist approach of observation and recording, leading to the development of more abstract concepts and generalizations from the collected information. In his scheme, every aspect of the family was seen as part of the functioning or malfunctioning of a larger coherent social system (Lazarsfeld. 1977:314). Hence the direct observation of the family unit was essential, and. more importantly, the quantification of family behaviors was considered an acceptable means of understanding larger social systems and activities.”

A third major contributor to the development of social statistics was Guerry De Champneuf, who collected and analyzed Parisian judicial statistics in 1820, and incorporated cartography in the presentation of the statistical material (Morris, 1958). Con- ceptually, Guerry’s efforts went beyond the sociological determinism of Quetelet’s work, which employed simple statistics to test hypotheses.

As a result of the growing interest in statistics. a number of statistical societies were formed. The Statistical Society of Saxony was founded in 1831, and in En- gland, the Manchester Statistical Society was established in 1833 (Campion. 1949). At first. the primary concern of members was to produce social data which could be used to buttress their arguments for social change. These concerns induced Quetelet to

call. in 1851. for the first international statistical congress. The congress met in 1853. and among the items discussed were the ten types of statistics to be collected: one of these was crime statistics (Campion. 1949).>

While a primary goal of this and subsequent congresses was the development of comparable data bases. progress was slow due to several factors: (1) the inherent difficulties in the comparability of crime statistics: (2) an emphasis on studying the individual criminal through the case-study method. most likely due to the influences of Darwin. Lombrosso and LePlay; and (3) the increasing specialization of statisticians. which led to the development of autonomous data bases on education. health. etc.. instead of to a unified system which encompassed a11 these variables in one comprehen- sive scheme.

Quetelet. LePlay. and Guerry signalled a clear departure from liberal free will phi- losophy to deterministic positivism by the end of the conceptualization stage: “The starting point [to explain social behavior] was not some imaginary state of nature but the actual known crimes in a real community. Moral statistical analysis does not deduce truths from each other, it does not seek to discover what ought to be; it states what is” (Radzinowicz, 1966:36).(’

Dissemination of these early studies led to the perception of statistics as a panacea. prompting Rawson to conclude that, “if we had the means of ascertaining correctly the amount and nature of crime in the several countries of the world, and all the circum- stances of their social condition, we should be able. by comparison, to ascribe to each circumstance its relative power of induce- ment to crime and arrive at the laws which regulate criminality” (Rawson. cited by Radzinowicz, 1966:53-54).

AUTONOMY AND GROWTH OF CRIMINOLOGICAL STATISTICS

The end of the conceptualization period was characterized by increasing sophistica-

tion and specialization among statistical practitioners. with discussions focusing on technical issues. Criminologists debated the value of different data sources. and divided themselves into two camps: realists and institutionalists (Biderman and Reiss. lY67). Institutionalists argued for the use of judicial statistics to measure criminality. Their view of crime was based on legal definitions; a crime was not identified as such until formally adjudicated. Realists. on the other hand. argued for the use of police statistics as being more accurate indicators.

While judicial data. as measures of crime. are currently disparaged. they initially dominated European criminology. This was due to several factors: the superior professionalism of the judiciary: the active participation of the judiciary branch in the investi- gatory stages of the criminal process; and the domination of European criminology by lawyers (Zehr. 1974).

Realists argued for the use of police statistics to supplement or even supplant judicial statistics as a measure of criminality. Not only were police statistics tempo- rally closer to the event (and therefore believed to be more accurate); they had not been tainted by official processing-the very feature which made them attractive to institutionalists.

The most important barrier to the analysis of police statistics prior to the First World War was their unavailability. Except in England. where they were systematically gathered beginning in 1857, few countries published this data. since there was very little official effort to compile police statistics in an organized manner (Mannheim. 1965). The lack of police statistics com- pelled criminologists to create their own sets. In 1867, von Mayr. for example. published a study of Bavarian criminality based on crimes reported to the police that he collected. He argued that in order to understand criminality. data collection must begin at this point (Sellin and Wolfgang. 197X). Although others were reaching the same conclusion. official compilations of police data did not become regularly available until much later.

Countries with federal systems of govern- ment, such as the United States. faced particularly difficult problems with relying on police statistics. Law enforcement re- sponsibilitics in the United States. for cx- ample, wcrc a matter of local rather than federal or state concern. This resulted in inumerablc police jurisdictions with differ- ing standards of professionalism and enforcement patterns. In addition. legislation varied from state to state. making comparability a formidable task. Finally. the prohibi- tion against federal interference in local police matters barred the federal govern- ment from compelling police departments to report crime data. It is therefore not surpris- ing that in the United States there was no major attempt at compiling national police statistics until 1929 (Robinson, lY34).

This debate between institutionalists and realists persisted for many years, with neither side recognizing that all data are valuable-value depending on use. The debate was summarized by Morrison in a paper before the Royal Statistical Society in 1x97:

If.. we are anxious to know how the criminal law is being administered. we shall analyze and classify the contents of the statistics from that point of view. If on the other hand, we desire to know the move- ment of crime. the criminal conditions of the community, and the relative methods by which these methods are to be ascertained. we shall adopt a somewhat different method of classifying the contents of criminal statistics. I have ventured to classify criminal statistics into police statistics. judicial statistics. and prison statistics because I desire, at least in the first place, to point out the amount of weight to be attached to these methods of recording the nature and pro- portion of crime. (Morrison. 1X97: 1-2. cited in Biderman and Reiss. 19672)

Criminological concerns over data sources were not limited to judicial and police statistics. Morrison. for example. argued in 1891 that criminal statistics should not only include the age. sex. and occupation of the offender. but should also be supplemented by personal and social history. Encouraged

462 LUIS SALAS and RAYMOND SURE-I-I-E

by the work of LePlay, statistical analysis of such “life-history” data furthered the development of criminological theory (Robinson, 1967).

Another area of contention concerned methodological and technical issues in criminological data gathering and analysis. A major caveat against the use of any criminal statistics was their unreliability, due to the unknown amount of unreported crimes. While analyzing Guerry’s crime statistics in 1836, Henry Litton Bulwer first raised the problem of what is now commonly referred to as the “dark figure of crime” (Biderman and Reiss, 1967). Rawson, a few years later, cautioned his readers that the validity of crime reports depended upon the disposi- tion of the victim to prosecute and the efficiency of police in detecting and reporting the crime (Rawson, 1839). Further concern was expressed by von Mayr, who argued that “the number of punishable acts brought to official notice is only a quota of committed offenses . . . and that the more insignificant the injury to person or property is and the lighter the offense, the more does the divergence increase” (Sellin and Wolf- gang, 1978:29). Due to these concerns, as early as 1840 arguments were made for the use of victim surveys as a check on the validity of crime statistics (Robinson, 1967).

A second methodological issue was the manner in which offenses were to be classified. Official reports classified offenses in accordance with legal definitions, making international and cross-cultural comparisons dependent upon the level of similarity between legislation. Von Mayr focused on this problem when he argued for the development of classification schemes which rec- ognized the seriousness of the offenses not from the legal point of view, but by the public’s perception of seriousness (Sellin and Wolfgang, 1978). As a solution, indexes of criminality weighted by sentence were designed nearly simultaneously by both Messadaglia and von Mayr (Sellin and Wolfgang, 1978).

Although the importance of crime statistics is well established today, early critical issues are far from resolved. The following

statement by Alexander von Oettingen in 1874 is illustrative:

But what shall we in fact consider to be [indicative] of criminality? The mass of unobserved [crime] is not only great but the differences of viewpoints and measures of appraisal are confusing too. Some simply want to seize upon the actual convictions. as these alone permit an ascertainment of the real mass of offenses since among those accused one would discover that many of those subjected to investigation are inno- cent. Others see in the number of “officially known” offenses the most important docu- mentation of social morality. since the rela- tively small number of detected offenders or of those actually sentenced might be. in a sense, only a proof of inferior policing or of the obtuse sensitivity of a population to illegal acts. Some prefer to look at the relative number of offenses, i.e.. their inten- sity in relation to the population capable of committing a crime; still others regard the relationship between acquittals and convictions as a specially characteristic expression of public morals. For some the identification of serious crime is all important for the qualitative measurement of the pathological conditions of the body politic; for others, the participation of the different population seg- ments according to age, sex and occupation are of decisive importance, so that even when there is a general decline in the number of serious offenses, for instance, an increased participation of juveniles or females or of the “educated” is seen as a particularly bad symptom. Finally, some venture to concoct criminality maps and tables for various countries and peoples based on the intensive frequency of the main types of offenses. in order to rank nations according to their morality and erect. on the crude material of raw empirical international criminal statistics, an indisuptable monument to their own or their people’s higher level of culture. Others consciously [search] for an average equivalent of the value of different crimes, delicts and violations by computing this value in terms of the amount of punishment and, by using certain offense units, arrive at the most precise possible quantitative representation of the multiform crimes (von Oettingen. 1X74:442-443. cited by Sellin and Wolfgang, 1978:10-11).

Roots and the Historical Development of Criminological Statistics 463

CONCLUSION

The theoretical concerns and technical questions raised by early criminologists cannot be isolated from the wider concerns of sociologists and statisticians at work in other fields. Indeed, the early criminologists would have identified themselves not as criminologists, but as representatives of other varied professions. Their early efforts were breakthroughs in sociological quantification and its theoretical applications. Correlation analysis, sampling, and the use of survey questionnaires had been developed by the end of the conceptualization.period (Lazarsfeld. 1977). Subsequent advances in criminology followed both the theoretical and methodological advances in these disciplines.

The acceptance of quantification allowed social science theory a “golden age” of development in the nineteenth century by providing it the means to study basic theoretical concepts-concepts which criminology thereafter incorporated into its own discipline. It was not until the end of the conceptualization period that criminal statistics and criminology separated, as distinct disciplines. from the general social sciences. The mutual history of these disciplines and their current interdependence should not be ignored. however. as future developments in one will surely affect the others.

A dangerous trend in current American criminology is its isolation from other social sciences. a trend which ignores the fact that many of the most current topics of debate in criminology were raised long ago by social scientists who never considered themselves criminologists. It is one goal of this article to accentuate the historical relationship between criminology and other political, social, and scientific developments.

NOTES

’ In England. statisticians had. from the inception of social quantification. turned their attention to the study of crime. The debate among these statisticians centered on the relationship between economic conditions and crime. Thus John Clay. using com- mitments to the Preston House of Correction.

concluded that during periods of economic difliculty summary convicttons rose drastically. This increase was felt to he due to the “intemperance which high wages encouraged among the ignorant and sensual” (Selfin. lY37:21). Clay’s conclusions were challenged by Walsh. who attributed them to an incorrect reliance on summary convictions (Sellin, lY37). These dehatcs marked a turning point: statisticians were no longer content to argue gcncral principles. and henceforth. they were engaged in dchates over techniques of measurement and the selection of sources.

The decline of the German school can hc attrihutcd to a number of factors: Napoleonic military suc- cesses, which challenged the credibility of German political scientists in predicting political events; the results of statistical surveys ordered hy Frederick the Great. which contradicted many of these scientists’ prior findings: and the increased availability of national census data. which resulted in an emphasis on quanttfication (Lazarsfeld. 1077).

Mannheim summarizes Quetelet’s ideas as fotlows:

The life of man. as that of all other crcaturcs. IS

govcrncd hy certain laws of nature. This means that when we look at rankmgs as a whole. the individual

faculttcs of men. physical, mental. social. arc distrih-

utcd in accordance with the law of individual varia-

tions as shown tn the so-called Gaussian law. B.C.. in

the form of a Ml shaped curve. The largest number.

about 70 pcrccnt. are grouped in the middle. with the

cxtremcs. hcing the cxccptions from the avcragc. at

hoth ends about I.5 percent each

What hc meant wab simply the statistal prohahihty

that of a given number of individuals tn a certain

country and at a gwcn time a certain number would commit a crime of a certam kmd; it was likely to he a

small minority. whereas the majortty would rcmam

law abiding. Quetclet was conscious of the fact that

this was a mere statistical prohahilq. hut by calhng

the ‘penchant du crime‘ a moral clement. he intro-

duced an element of value mto It which was out of

place. (Mannheim. lYKi:Y7)

LePlay’s life shows the growing connection between stattsttcs and public policy. as well as the importance of social events in the development of science. The French revolution of IX30 led him to the study of society and social reforms. and the 1848 revolt caused him to give up metallurgy and devote his energy to social reform. From 184X to 1864. LePlay worked in various public offices for Napoleon III. serving as representative to a numher of international exhibitions. and becoming a senator in 1864. The 1871 Paris Commune finally resulted in his giving up all outside pursuits except establishing reform organizations, publishing his periodical. La Reforme Sociu/c. and analysing his statistics.

LePlay’s prime analytical tool in comparative methodology was the “family budget.” which he used as a source of indicators of various theoretical concepts. By this analysis, he introduced the use of a quantified social index (i.e.. money spent on wine compared with money spent on education). indicative of more general social concepts (moral stability. probabihty of social advancement. etc.). His work ultimately resulted in the development of three budget analysis approaches:

LUIS SALAS and RAYMOND SURETTE 464

(1)

(2)

(3)

Analytical-the study of specific expenses. in relationship either to each other. or to the total income of the family. with the goal of discover- ing generalizations. (LePlay himself did not use this approach but it was developed as a result of his efforts. by such students as the German economist Engels. who used LePlay’s mono- graphs as a data source.)

Synthetic-the combination of information to form types or classifications (for example. the establishment of a “poverty line.” as developed by Booth in England).

Diagnostic-the use of specific items as evl- dence of inferred broader sentiments. or social conditions, or arrangements. These budget items are mentioned as part of general observa- tions in discussions by LePlay which go far beyond the scope of the quantitative evidence. They represent his own primary application of budget information (Lazarsfeld. 1977:328).

LsPlay evenrualty, came to be criticized by his own tollowers tor tns tocus on numerIcal verlhca- tions and his materialistic approach, which missed phenomena eluding direct monetary measurement (Lazarsfeld. 1977:328). The family budget was seen as too limited an indicator to validly reflect attitudes and the general psychological concepts that were being developed at that time. A paradox of LePlay IS that he continually expressed a desire to develop an objective social science based upon quantification. but he applied and interpreted his measures to support a paternalistic, elitist reform program based on strong moral arguments which disparaged statistical analysis. He regarded his measurements as direct comparative measures of the conditions under which people are happy or unhappy (Lazarsfeld. 1977:315).

’ In line with these events were the debates among penal reformers over the best courses to follow in the field of penal policy. Statisticians had called for reforms leading to international comparisons of crime statistics. but had never taken specific actions to fulfill this task (Alper and Boren. 1972). Although a number of international penal meetings had taken place prior to 1872 (Alper and Boren, 1972). the IX72 meeting of the .‘First International Congress on the Prevention and Repression of Crime” is gener- ally regarded as the first serious international congress concerned with penology and related data. The purpose of the congress was to collect reliable criminal statistics. to gather information. and to compare experiences, especially in relation to the working of prison systems, the effects of various forms of punishment and treatment. and the methods adopted both for the prevention and repression of crime (Vetere and Newman, 1977).

” Quetelet’s and Guerry’s assumption that the number and nature of crimes could be predicted raised the critical fibsue of human free will. Quetelet stated his conclusion that “the free will of man thus linds itself neutralized in the social state. in such a way as to leave general phenomena under the influence of C;IUSCS roreign to htm. very noticeable in the

individual. it [free will] has no appreciable effect on the social body where all individual differences in some sense neutralize each other” (Radzinowicz, 1966:37).

REFERENCES

Alper. B. and Boren. S. (1972). Crime: Ir~rernutlonal agenda. Lexington. MA: Lexington Books.

Bemmelen. J. (1952). Cnminoloyie. 3rd Ed. Zwolle, the Netherlands: W. E. J Tjeenk Willink.

Bonger. W. ( 1967). Criminaliry arrd rcorromic conditions. New York: Agathon. OrIginally published in 1916 by Little. Brown and Company. Boston.

Biderman. J. and Reiss. A. (1967). On exploring the Dark Figure of crime. T!te A,mals. 374: l-45.

Christie. N. ( 1970). Comparative criminology. Crr,i J Corr, 12:JO-46.

Campion. H. (1949). International statistics. J Roy Staris I I?: 105-134.

Glaser. N. (1957). The rise of social research in Europe. In The human meanmg of rhr socral sciences, ed. D. Learner. New York: Meridian.

Hankins, A. (1908). Adolf Quetelet as sratisriclan. New York: Columbia University Press.

Lazarsfeld. P. (1977). Notes on the history of quantification in sociology-trends. sources and problems. In Srudies in rhe history ofsfatistics and probabiliry. New York: Macmillan.

Mannheim. H. (1965). Comparative criminology. New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Morris. T. (19%). The cnminal area. New York: Rutledge & Kegan Paul.

Morrison, W. (1897). The interpretation of criminal statistics. J Ro.v SMs 60: l-14.

Radzinowicz. L. (IY66). Ideology and crrme. New York: Columbia University Press.

Rawson, R. (1834). An inquiry into the statistics of crime in England and Wales. J Staris Sot London 2: 316-344.

Robinson. D. (lY34). History of crlmlnal statistics (190%1933). J Crim Larv Crimmol Police SC;. 74: 125-139.

Robinson. R. (1967). A model system for world crime statistics. Ph.D. dissertation. Sam Houston State University. Huntsville. TX.

Sellin. T. (lY37). Research memo on crime In the depression. SSR Council Bulletin #27, NY.

Sellin. T. (lY67). International crime statistics. C‘riminologiu 5:2-12.

Sellin, T. and Wolfgang. M. (197X). The measurement of delrnquencp. Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith.

Root% and the Historical Development 01 Criminological Statistics 465

Vetere. E. and Newman. G. (lY77). International crlme statistics. ,4/u/r C‘rior & Pen 17:3-X7.

Victorhousc. G. ( 1078) Methodological problems confrontjnp cross cultural criminological rcaearch using offlad data. /irtr?~ Relrrr 3 1 :11Y-247.

Wilkins. L. (IYXO). Crime-police and criminal statistics. Rril. J. 01 C‘nm. 31(l): IY-27.

Wolff. P. (lY71). Crime and development: An International comparison of crime rata. Sccrnd S7ud

(‘rrmr,Iol 3: lO7- 120.

Zchr. H. (lY74). Patterns of crime in nlnctecnth century Germany and France: A comparative dud!. Ph.D. dissertation. Rutgers University.

the historical roots and development of criminological statistics

Documents