The editors point out in their introduction that when criminality becomes
global, also the response to it must become global. We need a global
criminology.
The earliest pioneers in criminology and victimology emerged in
Western Europe and North America: Cesare Lombroso, Enrico Ferri, Raffaele
Garofalo, Hermann Mannheim, Leon Radzinowicz, Hans von Hentig, and
many others. Ever since that time, the two sides of the North Atlantic have
been the bedrock and point of reference for these disciplines. This has been
both a strength and a weakness. Strength, in that the two regions have provided
a welcoming academic and governmental background for the study of
crime and victimization, allowing for the development, testing, and application
of new theories and research methods. Weakness, in that the research
interests in capitalistic, urbanized, and postindustrialist societies are likely
to follow specific paths. Because of the dominance of Western research, its
conclusions may all too readily be assumed to apply to societies around the
world, East and West, North and South, industrialized and industrializing.
It is true that Western criminology and victimology have spawned comparative
studies, which have tried to offset this imbalance. Even so, Western
researchers cannot totally shake their research interests and cultural blinkers.
Comparative studies in these fields have tended to assume that Western
research should remain the touchstone. If a topic or a research approach is
suitable for Western Europe and North America, it is assumed to be more or
less equally so for Latin America, Africa, and Asia. The fundamental interest
seems to be to find out how different or similar the situation is elsewhere—
but using Western yardsticks in the process.