DEVELOPMENT AND FRACTURE OF A DISCIPLINE: LEGACIES OF THE SCHOOL OF CRIMINOLOGY AT BERKELEY

In the early twentieth century, the University of California—Berkeley opened its doors to police professionals for instruction in “police science.” This program ultimately developed into the full‐fledged School of Criminology, whose graduates helped shape American criminology and criminal justice until well into the 1970s. Scholarship at the School of Criminology eventually fractured into three distinct traditions: “Administrative criminology” applied scientific methods in pursuit of refining law enforcement practices, “law and society” coupled legal scholarship with social scientific methods, and “radical criminology” combined Marxist critiques of the state with community activism. Those scientific traditions relied on competing epistemic premises and normative aspirations, and they drew legitimacy from different sources. Drawing on oral histories and archival data permits a neo‐institutional analysis of how each of these criminological traditions emerged, acquired stability, and subsided. The Berkeley School of Criminology provides fertile ground to examine trends in the development of criminal justice as a profession, criminology as a discipline and its place in elite universities, the uncoupling of criminology from law and society scholarship, and criminal justice policy's disenchantment with the academy. These legacies highlight how the development of modern criminology and the professionalization of American law enforcement find precedent in events that originate at Berkeley.     

The power of oppression: Understanding the history of criminology as a science of oppression

Conclusion Following, or perhaps even being swept away by the propositions and suppositions of science, criminologists have written a rather sanitized, carefree history of the origins of their discipline. This discipline has much to hide, however, and criminologists' strict adherence to principles and claims of ‘objectivity’ and ‘neutrality’ have helped hide the unspoken task that is criminology from view. There is a need to excavate the hidden history of criminology from the basement of scientific criminology. This excavation requires the use of tools sensitive to oppression and conflict. Using such tools to recover, rewrite and explain the history of criminology, I have argued that criminology should be (a) interpreted as one of the many ‘sciences of oppression’ that (b) emerged following the Enlightenment (c) whose purpose was to help legitimize and place into practice principles that justified the oppression of the dangerous classes, (d) which had emerged as the primary threat to the ‘rational’ societies based upon capitalist social, economic and political relations. I suspect that this will not be a popular conclusion. The traditions of all the dead generations weighs like a nightmare on the brain of the living. Karl Marx,The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte     

Environmental crime and green criminology in South Eastern Europe—practice and research

All contemporary societies are facing environmental crime as one among many modern threats to the environment and human / animal life and this is due to the unlimited exploitation of natural resources and pollution. The aim of the present paper is to describe different responses to environmental crime and the development of green criminology in South Eastern Europe. In this region environmental crime occurs under the influence of social conditions and circumstances in which the environment is used as a source of resources for survival, as well as economic factors which mean the environment is used as a resource for profit. For countries in South Eastern Europe it is typical that environmental criminals change their modus operandi and adapt to new socio-economic circumstances, use different loopholes in legislation and exploit gaps in infrastructure and enforcement leading to committing environmental offences without being processed and punished. In many countries of South Eastern Europe green criminology is still in its nascent stages but is focusing on similar obstacles and challenges to those identified elsewhere, such as multi-disciplinarity, cooperation with the natural sciences, and responding to particularities in the region, such as pollution of marine and coastal ecosystems, hunting tourism, and organized crimes such as timber logging.     

Expert testimony in historical perspective

The ethical problems surrounding expert testimony depend directly on the historically specific relationship between science and scientists, on the one hand, and society on the other. In the seventeenth century, when modern experimental science was beginning to emerge, it drew upon legal experience to bolster its methodological arguments. In the eighteenth century, after the successes of Sir Isaac Newton, science gained in authority, and even in law courts the epistemological authority of science went unchallenged. In the nineteenth century, the more empirical sciences, such as chemistry and physics, entered the courts, and juries found the testimony of experimental chemists and physicists useful for their decisions. In the twentieth century, experimental psychology entered the courts. Pushed by Hugo Munsterburg, who saw in legal recognition a way of advancing psychology as a scientific profession, experimental psychology in the courtroom raised ethical problems at the beginning of the century that are still matters of controversy.     

我国犯罪学研究方法与方法研究

每个学科都有自己的研究方法,科学的研究方法是任何学科赖以建立和发展的工具,犯罪学作为一门社会科学,它也有自己的研究方法,而且犯罪学的研究方法呈现出多样化的特点。目前我国犯罪学研究中存在的问题是实证研究缺乏,定性与定量分析分离,研究范式单一陈旧,应整合研究方法,做到思辨与实证相结合,定性与定量相结合,寻求多学科理论支持,重塑犯罪学研究范式。     

Contributions of the African Novel to the Development of African Criminology

This paper is about the relative interfacing between the African novel and African criminology in matters relating to the promotion of the latter—an intriguing phenomenon in modern African intellectual development. It is not primarily concerned with African criminology in terms of its techniques or methodology. Rather, it consists of an interpretation of one facet of the changing character and direction of African intellectual development in modern times—since the 1960's to be exact.     

Institutionalization of Criminology: A Prerequisite to Comparative Criminology

The increased prevalence and enrichment of comparative analysis would invigorate criminology generally as a scientific field because comparative criminology is a movement toward a “true science of criminology.” But, at least at its present stage, comparative criminology awaits the institutionalization of criminology at a level sufficient for the essential availability of criminologists capable of and competent for meeting the peculiar demands of transnational research.

“Comparative, coordinated and interdisciplinary research should be carried out to determine the relative effects of programs in different countries” and through cooperation between researchers from different countries…to develop a highly promising new field of comparative criminology”, in order to determine “uniformities and differences in causal influences, in predictive factors, and in results of preventive and treatment programs” and to develop “a true science of criminology.”     

The Study of Jyotiḥśāstra and the Uses of Philosophy of Science

This is one of a group of essays (collected in this issue of the journal) about methodological considerations that have arisen for the project on the “Sanskrit knowledge systems on the eve of colonialism.” For the history of the exact sciences in Sanskrit, or Jyoti??āstra, in the early modern period, there are special problems. These have to do with the historically anomalous status of the exact sciences among the ?āstras or Sanskrit knowledge systems, and with the predominantly “internalist” method by which most recent research on Jyoti??āstra has been carried out. The essay considers the usefulness for tackling these problems of recent writing elsewhere in the history and philosophy of science, especially the work of Hacking.     

The 1970s : Reply to a Discussion

We are all aware of the vast practical and scientific significance of the problem of studying and preventing crime and of researching its causes and the conditions giving rising to it. That is why one of the principal provisions of Soviet criminal procedure is the demand that the reasons and conditions making possible the commission of the crime be determined in each criminal case, and that measures be taken to eliminate them. But if the most characteristic, the most typical features in the development of criminality are to be discovered, and if its essential causes and conditions are to be determined (and this is a most important task of criminology), we cannot rely upon the study of individual cases and persons. Because these typical, essential characteristics in the realm of criminality manifest themselves in the form of statistical regularities, criminology must therefore make use of the statistical method on the very largest scale, i.e., it must base its conclusions upon mass-scale observations. "We must remember the rule," wrote Lenin, "that in social science... we deal with mass-scale phenomena and not individual cases." (1) Therefore, criminology, like the other social sciences, is required "to make broader and fuller use of the richest statistical material. For statistics, like concrete investigations, are the air without which science suffocates and is distorted into dead scholasticism." (2)     

Interdisciplinarity and the Authority Paradigm: Should Law Be Taken Seriously by Scientists and Social Scientists?

This article questions whether those outside law should take law seriously as an intellectual discipline capable of contributing to the development of epistemological thinking in the natural and social sciences. The discipline is approached from a diachronic and synchronic position with emphasis on the civil law tradition. It will be shown that the governing paradigm in legal studies has always been the 'authority paradigm', which results in law being closer to theology than to the social sciences. Its principal actors (judges) make assertions free from the normal constraints of scientific method; accordingly, the idea of a 'legal science' (imported into the common law tradition after 1846) must be treated with great caution. It is not a science dedicated to enquiring about the nature of the physical world, society or social relations. Its epistemological development remains trapped in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries: thus, as a discipline, law has little to offer other social sciences.     

Global warming and state-corporate crime: the politicalization of global warming under the Bush administration

Global warming is one of the most significant and difficult issues facing the world today. As result, researchers in a number of disciplines have directed their attention to addressing issues relevant to the study of and responses to global warming. This has been less true in the social sciences, and especially within specific social sciences such as criminology, in comparison to the physical sciences. Global warming does, however, have criminological and sociological relevance on several levels. This article examines one of those levels by exploring the politicalization of global warming under the Bush Administration, and addresses this issue as an example of state-corporate crime.     

Restrictions on statistics imposed by method of measurement: Some reality,much mythology

Practically everyone who has been exposed to a course or a textbook covering research methods in the social sciences realizes that there are four scales of measurement widely referred to in the field: nominal, ordinal, interval, and ratio. As a result of that exposure, he or she may be concerned about using appropriate statistics when a given scale is at hand. Some anxiety, for example, may result from the mere thought of using a t-test with ordinal data. This article discusses the origins and philosophical bases of arguments regarding scale-statistics relationships; points out misconceptions and fallacies in certain of these arguments; and emphasizes that in the overwhelming majority of cases in the social sciences, most particularly in criminology and criminal justice, researchers may use statistics without concern or anxiety regarding scale properties.     

Legalist Fictions and the Problem of Scientific Legitimation

The author analyzes fictions of legal positivist philosophy and their role in the scientific legitimation of modern law and political domination. The original function of legalist fictions was the establishment of legal science, which would be autonomous and independent of other social sciences and public morality. In the second half of the 20th century, legal positivist philosophy has nevertheless adopted the fiction of the just law as its scientific legitimation fiction and incorporated moral and political discourse into legal science, again.
Legal positivism and its critiques within the discourse of the sociology of law and critical legal science keep the image of a hierarchical and centralized legitimation of law. Paradoxically, current legal philosophy and theory searching for a universally valid legitimation scheme is full of many different legitimations and reveals their growing plurality and the impossibility of establishing one sovereign legitimation scheme in the current social, theoretical and political condition.     

Transformative Feminist Criminology: A Critical Re-thinking of a Discipline

This essay makes the case for a transformative critical feminist criminology, one that explicitly theorizes gender, one that requires a commitment to social justice, and one that must increasingly be global in scope. Key to this re-thinking of a mature field is the need to expand beyond traditional positivist notions of “science,” to embrace core elements of a feminist approach to methodology, notably the epistemological insights gleaned from a new way of thinking about research, methods, and the relationship between the knower and the known. Other key features of contemporary feminist criminology include an explicit commitment to intersectionality, an understanding of the unique positionality of women in the male dominated fields of policing and corrections, a focus on masculinity and the gender gap in serious crime, a critical assessment of corporate media and the demonization of girls and women of color, and a recognition of the importance of girls’ studies as well as women’s studies to the development of a global, critical feminist criminology.     

试论经济法中的定性分析与定量分析

“定性与定量结合”一直是自然科学研究强调的重点方法 ,近代社会科学研究也强调了这一重要原则。但当前经济法学这个社会科学领域 ,对定性研究还存在许多认识上的误区 ,同时在定量研究方面也存在着很大的不足。本文从《反不正当竞争法》入手 ,引出现行经济立法的缺陷 ,并分析经济法中定性分析与定量分析的可行性 ,最后从经济立法方面具体阐述定性分析与定量分析的有机结合。     

Public policy and criminology: An historical and philosophical reassessment

This article briefly reviews the history of the relationship between criminological research and public policy in order to explore more fully the nature of the links between social science and policy. A postpostivist critique leads to the conclusion that the distinction between science and policy, fact and value has been overdrawn. This article presents a methodology for accommodating postpostivist thought, thereby linking policy with criminology more effectively. Viewing criminology as part of a policy hermeneutic provides a way of managing the tension involved in a science/policy link that moves beyond the debate among policy pragmatists (Wilson), scientific purists (Cressey), and methodological incrementalists (Gottfredson).     

Theory, Operationalization, Identification, and the Interpretation of Different Differences in Time Series Models

The principals in this exchange, David Cantor, David Greenberg, and Kenneth Land, have each contributed outstanding methodological and substantive scholarship to criminology and to the social sciences more generally. In exchanges such as this we are engaged in a collective process of refining and advancing our knowledge in the areas of both criminology and statistical methods. The issues raised by Greenberg provide an opportunity to reflect on time series modeling and to revisit some issues concerning operationalization and model specification. I do not expect any of us to agree fully on these issues, but we may be able to shed some light on these issues, and collectively this may help the larger community of criminologists and social scientists.     

From ‘crime’ to social harm?

Debates around the relationships between criminology and social harm are long-standing. This article sets out some of the key features of current debates between, on the one hand, those who would retain a commitment to ‘crime’ and criminology and those, on the other hand who would abandon criminology for a social harm perspective. To this end, the article begins by highlighting several criticisms of criminology, criticisms raised in particular by a diverse group of critical criminologists over the past 30 to 40 years. While these are hardly new, the rehearsal of these is an important starting point for a discussion of the potential of the development of an alternative discipline. The paper then proposes a number of reasons why a disciplinary approach organised around a notion of social harm may prove to be more productive than has criminology hitherto: that is, may have the potential for greater theoretical coherence and imagination, and for more political progress.     

中国检察制度的几个问题

作为现代检察制度之缘起和基本职能的公诉,是控诉功能和监督功能的有机统一,检察机关通过对犯罪的控诉,实现对警察侦查权和法官审判权的双重监督,故监督是检察机关与生俱来的固有属性;中国设立法律监督机关是由国体、政体、国情及制度传统决定的,它较好地反映了中国宪政制度下对国家权力监督制约,以保证权力在法治轨道上运行的客观要求;法律赋予检察机关的诸项职能是科学、合理的,应朝着强化的方向予以改革完善;在质疑中国检察制度者中,多数是为了完善中国司法制度,少数存在着思想方法片面、研究方法脱离中国实际、目的动机不够端正的问题;要坚持马克思主义在法学研究特别是司法体制改革研究中的指导地位,对极少数别有用心者,保持应有的警惕。     

Critical Criminology Meets Radical Constructivism

Critical criminology and radical constructivism are frequently regarded as an impossible pair—or, at least, as a rather schizophrenic one. This is so, notably, because radical constructivism rests on the (paradoxical) abandonment of what Jean-François Lyotard named méta-récits. It rests on the refusal to distinguish between the phenomenal and the symbolic, and thus implies the complete vanishing of the classical difference between ontology and epistemology. This would consequently deprive criminology (or, more generally, the social sciences) of any anchoring point enabling a critical utterance. The present contribution’s thesis is that, on the contrary, radical constructivism can catalyze critical criminology. Among the possible contributions of a radically constructivist sociology of criminalization, this paper focuses on: its call for a reworking of the concept of social control, which avoids problems related to its contemporary usage; its focus on power and force, in a way which avoids Foucaultian perspectives’ aporetic elements, and problematizes every instance of legitimized authoritarian practices.