Book Review: Key Issues in Criminology
| Date | 01 March 1971 |
| Author | Greg Woods |
| DOI | 10.1177/000486587100400107 |
| Published date | 01 March 1971 |
62 AUST. &N.Z. JOURNAL OF CRIMINOLOGY (March, 1971): 4, 1
Book Reviews
KEY ISSUES IN CRIMINOLOGY,
Roger
Hood
and
Richard
Sparks,
World
Univer-
sity
Library, 1970, 254 pp, $2.30 (paper).
THIS excellent
book
is
written
by
two
people
who
are
well
known
as
Assistant
Directors of
Research
at
the
Cambridge
Institute
of Criminology and is a
product
of the clear,
detached
approach
which
the
Cambridge School
has
traditionally foster-
ed. In fact,
the
introduction
contains
as
succinct an
expression
of
the
neutral,
"scientific"
approach
to
the
study
of crimi-
nology as one could wish to find.
"(We
do
not)
say
that
criminology
cannot
make
any
contribution to
penal
policy.
What
it can-
not
do is decide
what
the aims of
penal
policy should be. But by discovering
how
much crime is committed,
and
by show-
ing how
and
why
it is committed, crimi-
nologists can help to
show
what
policy
goals
are
reasonable;
and
if given
certain
aims,
they
can
try
to discover by
research
the
best
means
of accomplishing
them".
In
accordance
with
this
approach,
the
authors
have selected eight
areas
which
they
consider to be of
key
importance
in
criminology at
present,
and
have
discuss-
ed
and
evaluated
the
current
condition of
research in
relation
to each.
The first
two
areas
discussed
are
at-
tempts
to
measure
the
dark
figure of crime
by victim
surveys
and
self-report studies.
Hood
and
Sparks
seem fairly optimistic
that
the
measurement
of hidden crime
can
(provided
that
methodological
weaknesses
are ironed
out)
be considerably
sharpened
by
these
methods. They
contrast
their
optimism
with
the
less sanguine
attitude
of
Robert Dentler,
who
has
recently announc-
ed his
intention
to cease working on self-
report
studies
because
the
method
seems
too
shaky
and
equivocal. Hood
and
Sparks
are
(cautiously)
somewhat
more
confident
about
the
future
of such studies.
However,
perhaps
the
most
important
point
they
make
here
is
that
the
early
self-
report
studies
were
interpreted
as mean-
ing
that
because
reports
of
the
commission
of delinquent
acts
were
widespread
among
all classes of adolescents,
the
unlucky
ones
who
were
caught
and
convicted of
such
offences
were
merely
the
unfortunate
vic-
tims of chance. The
authors
point
out
that
in view of
the
almost
universal
practice
of
police to warn juveniles,
often
three
or
four times, before
making
an
actual
arrest,
the
idea
that
conviction is simply amat-
ter
of bad luck
cannot
wholly be accepted.
The
third
area
dealt
with
is "subcul-
tural
and
gang
delinquency",
and
the
analysis
presented
gives an excellent pic-
ture
of the confusion resulting
over
the
years
from
the
many
different interpreta-
tions of
the
anomie
theory.
The
authors
give
penetrating
considerations to
the
work
of Cohen,
Cloward
and
Ohlin
and
Matza,
and
some long overdue critical at-
tention to
Yablonsky's
theories.
The
next
area
considered is
the
vexed
issue of classifications
and
typologies of
crimes and criminals.
The
vital
point
they
make here is
that
much
of
the
attention
which has in
the
past
been
directed to
the
classification of criminals into distinct
typologies (such as Gibbons' I5-place
typology of
"Professional
Thief", "Profes-
sional 'Heavy' Criminal", etc.)
assumes
that
criminal
careers
are
homogeneous. In
fact,
they
say,
this
is
not
generally
the
case. Quoting
some
material
presented
to
the
President's
Crime Commission,
they
say
that
"the
probability
that
a
man
arrest-
ed for
burglary
will
have
his
next
arrest
for this
type
of
crime
is less
than
one in
two;
and
the
chances
of
'repeating'
in
this
way
are
even
lower
for
(other
crimes)".
The fifth
chapter
deals
with
sentencing,
and here, as well as reviewing
the
current
state
of knowledge, Hood
and
Sparks
ten-
tati
vely propose
their
own
model
for
study
of
the
sentencing process.
Their
purpose
in doing so is to
counter
those
who
criticize
the
(acknowledged)
inconsistency
in sen-
tencing on
the
ground
that
judges
are
irrational. The
authors
argue
that
simply
because sentencing is inconsistent, it does
not
necessarily follow
that
it is irrational.
Different judges may,
and
in fact do, some-
times base
their
decisions on different
criteria,
but
their
different decisions can
nonetheless still be described as rational.
The
proper
object
of
research
into sentenc-
ing should be to
elucidate
these
criteria
as
clearly as possible.
Chapters
6
and
7
are
probably
the
best
of
the
book, dealing
with
the
problems of
assessing
the
effectiveness of
treatments
of
offenders
and
the
extent
and
implications
of
the
interaction
of
treatments.
This is
a
very
exciting
area
at
the
moment, par-
ticularly in
view
of
the
continuing develop-
ments
in America,
and
these
chapters
are
necessary
reading
for anyone involved
with
the
correctional
process.
There
is
refreshing
and
penetrating
criticism of
the
seminal
Grant
and
Grant
Camp Elliot
study
and
of
the
work
which
has flowed
from
this.
The
authors'
evaluation
of
the
signifi-
cance of
this
work
(such as
the
Provo
study
and
the
Community
treatment
pro-
To continue reading
Request your trial