The Acquittal Rate Of Professional Criminals: A Reply
DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2230.1974.tb02393.x |
Published date | 01 July 1974 |
Date | 01 July 1974 |
Author | Michael Zander |
THE ACQUITTAL RATE
OF
PROFESSIONAL
CRIMINALS
:
A
REPLY
THE
overall effect of the large number of points made by Messrs.
Baldwin and McConville may at first sight seem weighty and
impressive. Closer inspection, however, shows,
I
believe, that the
criticisms they make are either wrong
or
unimportant-or both.
I
have marshalled their points under two main heads-the definition
of
“
professional criminals
”
and problems of methodology.
’
THE
DEFINITION
AND
CLASSIFICATION
OF
“
PROFESSIONAL
CRIMINALS
”
I
am criticised for having adopted two definitions of professional
criminals which resulted in
‘‘
discrepant findings.” This is said to
show that the definitions were
‘‘
unsatisfactory
”
and
“
irrelevant
”
and that the premises of the study were faulty.
This criticism is based on a complete misapprehension. The
concept
“
professional criminal
’)
is one that is capable of various
interpretations.
I
used two distinct criteria-both of them familiar
ones. One counted as professional crime cases involving charges
that were
‘‘
major,”
‘‘
serious
yy
or
‘‘
heavy.” The other counted
as professional criminals those who from the evidence of their prior
criminal record,
if
any, (including number and nature of charges
and of sentences), appeared to be
“
regulars
”
who made their
living out of crime. The two categories overlapped-most of those
charged with major offences had substantial criminal records.
A
definition which limits professional crime to the heavy
or
major case will clearly include within its scope far fewer cases than
the other much broader definition, simply because major crime is
rare by comparison with that in which the regulars
)’
feature.
The fact of this difference and the
“
failure
”
to rationalise it, does
not therefore show that my definitions were
‘‘
irrelevant
”
or
‘‘
nnsatisfactory
)’
nor that
I
was
“
manipulating
)’
the problem,
but merely that
I
looked at the question of the professional criminal
from two different points of view.
I
am also taken to task
for
not indicating which of the two
definitions
I
preferred. The reason for this was simply that in my
view neither is better than the other. They are each relevant ways
of looking at the problem-depending on one’s point of view.
I
find
it extremely odd that
it
should be thought to be a defect of my
study that
I
decided to test the question of acquittals from two
alternative standpoints.
Baldwin and McConville then say that my definition
of
444
To continue reading
Request your trial