Challenges Facing Comparative Criminal Justice Research
-
Upload
martin-duffy -
Category
Documents
-
view
110 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Challenges Facing Comparative Criminal Justice Research
0
Challenges Facing Comparative Criminal Justice Research
A Comprehensive Analysis of the Difficulties and Rewards of International
Research
Martin Duffy
Criminal Justice MA Program
State University of NY at Albany
Challenges Facing Comparative CJ Research 1
March 23, 2010
Challenges Facing Comparative CJ Research 2
Challenges Facing Comparative Criminal Justice Research
A Comprehensive Analysis of the Difficulties and Rewards of International
Research
Criminal Justice systems are an inseparable feature of human
civilization. And as the 21st century has moved into its second decade, and as
globalization has inexorably brought the community of nations closer
together, comparing and contrasting the world’s various criminal justice
systems has emerged as a critical task for modern criminal justice
researchers. It is all the more critical because, as Bayley and Shearing said
regarding the future of policing specifically,
Modern democratic countries like the United States, Britain, and
Canada have reached a watershed in the evolution of their systems of
crime control and law enforcement. [...] Two developments define the
change -- the pluralizing of policing [by the private sector and
community volunteers] and the search by the public police for an
appropriate role. (1996, p. 585).
Across the world, change is on the horizon for criminal justice
agencies, and perhaps for the entire institution of public criminal justice
agencies altogether. Whereas the emergence of “the nation-state” as a
legal entity is acknowledged as the catalyst for the creation of modern
criminal justice systems across all nations (Maguire & Howard, 1998, p. 31),
new technology and global convergence may serve as an impetus for the
further sharing of ideas and mutual cooperation among the world’s law-
Challenges Facing Comparative CJ Research 3
enforcement, correctional, and adjudication professionals. Additionally, this
area of research offers a much needed platform for accountability in
international relations. On this, Maguire, Howard, and Newman said that,
“an unbiased assessment for criminal justice performance could be a useful
tool for holding nations accountable for the decisions they make concerning
the criminal justice systems” (31). For criminal justice researchers
themselves the trend is beneficial, as well. Frey described this when he said
(regarding social science survey researchers) that, “the great utility of cross-
cultural research is that it dramatically expands the range of variation in the
natural setting from which the researchers draw [their] case” (181). In light
of all this, it is imperative for comparative criminal justice researchers to
take on the daunting challenge that their area of expertise presents them.
Comparing criminal justice systems, particularly police, across
international borders is a very difficult proposition. Even just studying crime
comparatively presents enormous methodological and epistemological
difficulties (Beirne, 1983). Putting aside those epistemological issues for a
moment (for the sake of clarity), let us first consider the fundamental
problem of gathering crime data. Bayley addressed this when he wrote that,
“assuming that crime-fighting is the key feature of police performance,
information about it cannot be trusted” (1990, p. 18). The reason that
information cannot be trusted is due to both cultural and systemic factors.
Explaining the poor data from developing countries due to particularly major
systemic problems, Clinard said that, “These countries frequently have
Challenges Facing Comparative CJ Research 4
inefficient record systems and inadequate crime reporting methods.
Improvements are difficult because of the scarcity of trained personnel or
[due to] the difficulty of providing nationwide coverage with limited
resources” (1978, p. 223). Indeed, many countries cannot maintain or
manage elaborate, comprehensive systems for accounting for most social
data; much less for data related to crime or criminal justice performance
measures. And even beyond capability, the tracking of criminal justice data
is nevertheless inaccurate or inaccessible in countries that are capable of
acquiring such data. Hinton, for example, wrote that, “In Brazil, where
decentralization is higher, [he] came across significant discrepancies when
comparing social and financial data provided by the federal government,
states, and municipalities on identical issues” (2006, p. 204). He went on to
say that, “this is still a nascent issue in both Argentina and Brazil, owing not
so much to technological barriers as to reluctance to relinquish control of
potentially damaging data” (204). The scrupulous gathering and
dissemination of criminal justice data can be “damaging” even in societies
where crime is not (impressionistically speaking) a major problem. Police
agencies in the United States confront this frustrating fact because, as one
explanation puts it, “active and attentive police work can have the
paradoxical effect of raising rather than lowering reported crime” (Bayley,
1990, p. 18). Crime data, then, is difficult to gather for many simultaneous
reasons: a country’s technological and social capacity to do so may be
inadequate, to do so is expensive and time-consuming, and the statistics
Challenges Facing Comparative CJ Research 5
resulting from the data can be a political liability, thus deterring the effort all
together.
These problems with crime data, however, are only the ones that are
immediately apparent. Even in countries where criminal justice data are
diligently collected to provide transparency, the means of measurement are
various. “Some countries count crimes according to police reports of
‘offenses known’; other countries keep a crime count according to judicial
statistics of the number of persons brought to trial and convicted”
(Wolfgang, 1967, p. 65). Even if only police or law enforcement data are
considered, there are still major differences, because “police forces, in
particular, have different rules for when an event should be recorded as a
crime and when it should not” (Van Dijk, 2000, p. 35). The administrative
efficiency of police systems also varies, and so even if data is collected -- the
quality and accuracy of the collection process can be troublesome. A
remedy to this problematic situation can be found in Hinton’s study of Brazil
and Argentina, on which he says that, “[regarding] statistical data, one of the
most important needs was the capacity to compare and triangulate official
statistics with information obtained from other sources” (2006, p. 203-204).
One example of a commonly used information source to this end is
victimization surveys. Victimization surveys are far more reliable than
officially recorded data. As Cook and Khmilevska explained, crime
victimization survey numbers and official statistics “often differ dramatically
Challenges Facing Comparative CJ Research 6
not only in level but also in trend” (2005, p. 331) which will be discussed
later in further detail.
So far, this paper has examined how systemic complications make
crime data unreliable as a criminal justice system performance measure, but
there is another realm of complication for crime data in comparative criminal
justice: culture. Cultural differences between countries have a huge impact
on how crime is defined, enforced, and catalogued. Different legal codes can
have – at the very least – subtle impacts on how crimes are defined, and so
what even constitutes a “crime” in one country maybe be a perfectly legal,
non-deviant act in another country. This is even the case in extremely
similar countries with shared history. The Spanish Empire, for example,
treated money lenders who issued high interest rates as deviants (usurers)
and stagnated because of their policy, while other European colonial powers
and neighboring countries like England and the United Provinces allowed the
practice (much to the benefit of their exploration and trade). Observing and
accounting for cultural variation is an enormous – perhaps insurmountable –
enterprise. Frey clearly addressed the problem when he said that,
The fundamental difficulty in the concept of culture is vagueness,
especially in its broadest anthropological usages […] Cross-cultural
research essentially refers to research in social units that differ to
some usually unspecified degree in shared patterns of behavior and
orientation. A nasty problem in this connection is that of designation
Challenges Facing Comparative CJ Research 7
the amount of sharing and the specific kinds of behaviors and
orientations that need to be examined… (1970, p. 178-179).
Frey addressed the fundamental problem comparative researchers face: an
extraordinary amount of nuance and context is necessary in order for one to
be able to compare anything – even something as intuitively “simple” as
crime rate; “simple” because crime rates are a convenient, but far from
complete or comprehensive means for one to use in order to evaluate police
performance in comparative studies.
There are other measures, such as aforementioned victimization
surveys, which are acknowledged by many as a way of getting around the
majority of the problems inherit with measures like crime rate or case
clearance rate. The victimization approach was first attempted in Denmark
in 1720 as a part of a household review to discover “actual” crime volume in
the city of Aarhus (Clinard, 1978, p. 222). Modern crime victimization
surveys began to be developed and conducted, however, in the 1960’s;
Bayley conducted a limited victimization survey in India as a part of a study
of police in that country, and Clinard says that “the first comprehensive
victimization survey in a developing country” was carried out in 1974 in
Abidjan, Côte d'Ivoire (1978, p. 223). Modern surveys such as these have
made it much easier to compare crime rates in different countries, since
previous attempts had been virtually impossible using official crime statistics
(or lack thereof) alone.
Challenges Facing Comparative CJ Research 8
Victimization surveys, while certainly preferable over official crime
statistics, are nonetheless flawed as comparative research tools. Bayley
says that, “victimization surveys get around some of the problems with
reported crime statistics, but they have difficulties of their own, notably the
faulty recall of respondents” (1990, p. 18). To elaborate further, there are
several different dimensions within which to categorize the faults of these
surveys: respondent choice, sampling problems, respondent perspective on
crime, the age of victimization, questionnaire construction, and interviewing
difficulties.
Regarding the matter of respondent choice, according to Clinard,
“some more recent studies in the United States have shown that household
respondents tend to under-report victimization of other household members”
(1978, p. 225). This is relevant because different victimization surveys in
different countries have approached respondent choice differently. For
example, the U.S. LEAA-Census surveys used individual respondents as a
measure while Zurich, Switzerland used heads of households, and while
Stuttgart, Germany used both individuals and heads of households for their
surveys (and the latter two achieved greater accuracy as a result). The cost
for surveying both individuals and heads of house hold or for interviewing
only heads of households is significantly higher than surveying individuals
alone, though, and “not only because of the interview time, but also the
larger number of return visits necessitated by the more specific type of
respondent” (Clinard, 1978, p. 226).
Challenges Facing Comparative CJ Research 9
Sampling presents another challenge in using victimization surveys in
comparative studies, primarily because data on an entire nation-state has
less meaning than of a particular city or homogeneous region. Consider the
fact that an entire country is going to be differentiated and variable in crime
levels depending on regional factors (affluence, rural/urban, etc.), and it
becomes clear why this is so. Funding compound the issue yet further then,
as few nations have the wealth, means, or motivation at the ready to pay for
numerous, city or region-scale surveys throughout their entire territory. The
United States and other developed nations have this luxury, but cannot
easily compare themselves to less developed nations even using
victimization surveys, since the comprehensiveness of every nations’
victimization surveys are simply too diverse.
The respondents’ perspectives on what does or does not constitute a
“crime” complicate crime victimization surveys dramatically. Is what the
“victim” supposes to be a crime actually a crime? If someone takes a short-
cut through a property owner’s back yard, for example, how many house
owners will skew numbers by claiming that the intruder was committing an
“attempted robbery” or the like? This is all the more complicated by the fact
that comparative criminal justice examines so many macro-level social
entities like diverse nation-states. Findlay echoes this sentiment when he
says that,
With no shared (if not common) morality and a resultant relativity in
justice as a justification for violent response, the violent struggle
Challenges Facing Comparative CJ Research 10
regresses to issues of guilt and innocence […] it is the guilt of [the
offender] more than any deep empathy for the victim’s situation which
will motivate a violent penal response (2008, p. 101).
In light of this, does the victim’s perception of what did or did not transpire
actually even matter? If one feels guilty for a crime which did not offend the
sensibilities of another or vice-versa (flirting versus sexual harassment/lewd
behavior, as an example), how can a victimization survey reveal the true
nature of crime across a society where opinions naturally ebb and flow? And
what about the plethora of minor crimes that go unnoticed, or even serious
crimes like kidnapping or murder which – when they occur in the developing
world, especially – may also go largely unnoticed?
Survey victim age compounds the problem of perspectives on crime.
Great variation is found in the age of individuals surveyed by crime
victimization surveys. Minimum ages range from as young as 12 to as old as
18. Some countries see victimization information from young teenagers as
important because of possible unfolding major trends this information might
reveal; for example, if we see a rash of stolen bicycles, this might indicate
that youth may be subject to an increase theft or robbery in countries where
younger people can work (as newspaper carriers, grocery store baggers,
etc.) (Clinard, 1978, p. 226). Younger ages aren’t usually considered worth
interviewing by some countries, while setting the minimum age at 18 is seen
as too high in other countries because “most criminal offenses are
committed by someone under that age, and many of their victims,
Challenges Facing Comparative CJ Research 11
presumably, are also under this age” (Clinard, 1978, p. 226-227). Age also
compounds the aforementioned issue (regarding crime-perception), because
inter-generational perspectives on deviance dramatically differ with regard
to certain laws such as drug or alcohol use.
The construction of a crime victimization questionnaire is
advantageous in that it simplifies the often complicated and unclearly
defined legal terms that human societies use to classify crime. However, in
comparative victimization surveys, this is both advantageous and
disadvantageous. The challenge a survey designer must meet is that his or
her questions “must be constructed so that terminologies for specific crimes
can be equally well understood by respondents in all countries” (Clinard,
1978, p. 227). Questions must – for participants reading in multiple
languages – hone in on simply phrased yet simultaneously descriptive crime-
types. Frey put it well when he said, “The basic tools of social science are
not alternative instruments but supplementary and complimentary
instruments. Thus, the competent survey researcher welcomes and depends
upon insightful impressionistic analyses or penetrating case studied,
particularly in a cross-cultural project” (1970, p. 176). Frey is absolutely
right in this instance, because cross-cultural survey research depends on
other sorts of research in order to give linguistic and cultural parity between
victimization surveys. As was said earlier, even countries with shared
cultural and historical bonds nonetheless lack clear comparability.
Challenges Facing Comparative CJ Research 12
Regarding comparative studies using crime victimization surveys between
1981 and 199, Farrington and Jolliffe said that,
serious assault was not very comparable. Burglary and vehicle theft
were not explicitly distinguished from other types of theft in the
criminal codes of the Netherlands and Switzerland, rapes included
male victims in the Netherlands, and there were no convictions of
persons under age eighteen in Switzerland (2005, p. 377).
Keep in mind all of the countries surveyed by Farrington and Jolliffe (the
United States, England, Wales, the Netherlands, and Switzerland) have a
great deal in common with one another: England and Wales have been in
union for centuries; the United States was colonized and settled by
explorers from England and the Netherlands; the English crown was usurped
by Dutch protestants in the Glorious Revolution. Even Switzerland shares a
great deal with its continental and trans-Atlantic counter-parts that are
examined in Farrington and Jolliffe’s survey: all of these countries are
predominantly western, Christian, capitalist societies with Judeo-Christian
and classical influences informing their laws and societal mores. The point
here is that despite enormous similarity among these developed, modern,
western nations, comparison between their collected data is still remarkably
challenging.
Lastly on the issue of crime victimization surveys, interviews with
respondents can be a source of complication. Interviews are important in
victimization survey research in order to probe reluctant respondents in
Challenges Facing Comparative CJ Research 13
order to overcome victim reluctance. Skilled interviewing is also necessary
in order to prevent a survey’s results from over-reporting victimization.
Good interviewers, like police, do not just accept alleged victims’ accusations
at face value, and probe to discover whether or not a crime actually
occurred.
Problems resulting from internal inconsistencies (both systemic and
cultural) are not the primary problem with utilizing crime or victimization
data to conduct comparative research, though. There is an even greater
epistemological problem with the entire concept. The use of crime data as a
base for comparison in comparative studies is an old idea dating back to the
first national (1825 in France) and international (1829) system of criminal
statistics (Thorsten, 1967, p. 2), but it is deeply flawed nonetheless because
it measures criminal justice system outputs rather than actual achievements.
Bayley recognized this when he said, regarding police, that,
Efficacy measures such as clearance rates, usually meaning the ratio
of arrests to the number of reported crimes, are wholly spurious. Not
only are they based on unreliable reported crime figures, but they
measure what police do – making arrests – rather than what police
achieve – preventing crime (1990, p. 18)
Crime rates cannot even tell a researcher what crime has been or is being
prevented due to police action. This is because there is no one-to-one
relationship between the functions of law enforcement and the quantity of
crime. Crime is a phenomenon, and it is one “which comes in a variety of
Challenges Facing Comparative CJ Research 14
forms, has been attributed to many factors having nothing to do with police
activity – age, sex, race, income, employment, industrialization, urbanization,
community cohesiveness, values, psychological disorganization, and
opportunity” (Bayley, 1990, p. 18). This point applies to other criminal
justice actors besides the police, as well. Courts and the adjudication system
as a whole are considered responsible for out-of-control crime rates in the
media. Additionally, servants/policy makers and even civil servants involved
with the criminal justice system are all critiqued by what is seen and not by
what is prevented.
Perhaps most concerning of all the problems with regard to
comparative study is: how exactly do we determine what
actors/agencies/systems should even be compared? Bayley’s Patterns of
Policing discusses this matter in depth where he is concerned with forms of
police. He wrote that, “In order to study the police, one must be able to
recognize them in their historical diversity throughout the world” (1990, p.
7). Recognizing other countries’ historical diversity is in and of itself a useful
research goal in comparative studies, and is research that is being
conducted actively. In their article “The Legal Cultures of Europe”, Gibson
and Caldeira said that, “Ultimately, our purpose is to document cross-
national difference in legal cultures and to take some tentative steps toward
explaining the origins of these differences” (1996, p. 55). Though their
research was not focused on policing, which Bayley addressed, it is
nonetheless an example of the sort of beneficial analysis that can help make
Challenges Facing Comparative CJ Research 15
countries’ criminal justice systems and police agencies more comparable.
They further said that,
We are interested in the structure of the values held by ordinary
citizens on important issues concerning the nature and operation of
law. These broad values are important because they structure more
specific opinions and expectations toward legal institutions, including
the willingness to turn to legal institutions for the management of
essentially private conflicts (p. 59).
But without understanding these broad values, without understanding these
opinions and expectations, a comparative researchers’ ability to understand
the composition and purpose of criminal justice agencies and actors in a
foreign country is severely limited.
In understanding how differentiated societies can be, Bayley’s analysis
of police/law enforcement is extremely useful. Bayley wrote that,
Police come in a bewildering variety of forms, from the New York City
Police Department to the “People’s Police” (Druzinikii) of the Soviet
Union, from the French Gendarmerie to the Provincial Armed
Constabulary in India, from the American county sheriff to the
Norwegian rural Lensman. Moreover, many agencies that are not
thought of as police nonetheless possess “police” powers. The Coast
Guard in the United States, for example, along with the Customs
Service and the Immigration and Naturalization Service, are authorized
to arrest and detain (1990, p. 7).
Challenges Facing Comparative CJ Research 16
In order to conduct effective comparison, Bayley broadens his definition of
“police” to be those authorized by groups to hold others accountable for
their actions and interpersonal activities by using physical force (p. 7).
“Groups” as opposed to “governments” functions as a keyword. This
keyword highlights the fact that the private individual, companies, tribes,
even religious orders and many other organizations all have a capacity to
“police” themselves or those within their property. Moreover, in most
developing countries around the world, police are considered only “dubiously
professional” (p. 6), and non-industrialized countries, “generally have lower
crime rates than industrialized nations. These lower crime rates may result
from the non-industrialized countries’ frequent use of informal criminal
justice” (Ebbe, 2000, p. 5). In the case of both developing and non-
industrialized countries, then, comparative researchers clearly face a
daunting challenge: how does one easily compare the achievements of
unprofessional police with professional police? How does one compare
informal social control and highly localized (and perhaps even non-codified)
criminal justice with the highly complex and professionalized systems of the
richer, more developed nation-states? And what can account for the
dynamic nature of criminal justice agencies themselves in this context? As
Cohen notes,
Just when Western crime control rhetoric is talking about “community”
and extolling the virtues of mediation, conciliation and informal dispute
resolution, so the Third World appears to be abandoning such methods
Challenges Facing Comparative CJ Research 17
and moving toward centralized, bureaucratized and professional
criminal justice systems (1982, p. 124-125).
These issues all draw attention to the fact that macro-scale and longitudinal
examinations of criminal justice system components are greatly jeopardized
by intuitive assumptions about the form the criminal justice system
components themselves even take (much less operate or perform).
Much of this paper has addressed the many seemingly insurmountable
difficulties in comparing criminal justice systems internationally. This is not
meant to discount the merit of the field of study or to contend that it is
impossible to effectively compare anything between countries’ criminal
justice systems. It simply demonstrates that the rewards of comparative
study depend on a less generalized approach with careful consideration and
accounting for cultural and systemic differences, and respect to the actual
form and function of other countries’ criminal justice systems. The
aforementioned definition of “police” used by Bayley, for instance, is an
example of how careful consideration can allow comparisons of criminal
justice actors/agencies to operate with internal logic among the various
countries that are being compared. Bayley wrote that his definition of police,
“deliberately errs on the side of inclusiveness. The advantage is that it
allows comparative study of a wide variety of institutions of forceful
constraint in society” (p. 8). And although “institutions of forceful
constraint” may not intuitively fit the schema of what “police departments”
are (even in the United States, where agents such as motor carrier
Challenges Facing Comparative CJ Research 18
investigators, peace officers, Coast Guard sailors, etc. all have capacities for
law enforcement), these institutions are nevertheless the desired
“specimens” for comparative study: they are the system.
Comparative criminal justice researchers have attempted to overcome
the challenges their field presents them in a variety of ways. In their article
Measuring the Performance of National Criminal Justice Systems, Maguire,
Howard, and Newman said that, “If the various parts of criminal justice are to
work as a system, then there must be some way to assess their performance
as an operational unit” (1998, p. 35). They proposed an attempt which – for
the first time – would index criminal justice performance in a comprehensive
manner, cross-culturally. They said that, “The index measures the
performance of national criminal justice systems in three areas: equality,
effectiveness, and efficiency” (p. 31). The ideas that inform the index the
three researchers wish to create are exactly the kind of approach
comparative criminal justice studies calls for. Take for example, the matter
of ‘efficiency’. On this subject, they write that, “Prior performance measures
tended to ignore the central notion that performance is a multidimensional
concept. It isn’t just about crime; it’s also about fairness and resource
efficiency” (p. 37). What is interesting about this index approach is that it
takes into account crime, but it does not crutch on it. In a sense it is taking
information obtainable from official statistics (which are not designed or
collected for research purposes) or victimization surveys, and it is applying
the information rather than relying on it.
Challenges Facing Comparative CJ Research 19
The component parts of what could be used in a comprehensive
measure of criminal justice agencies (such as crime rate) can also be
improved. New methods to account for variations in crime rate, for example,
have been proposed and put into effect. Victimization surveys are an
example of this (despite their own drawbacks), but there are others as well.
Marvin E. Wolfgang, for example, proposed a method for collecting
international statistics where “seriousness scores” for deviant behavior
throughout various countries would be taken into account. He wrote that,
Among several main features of this system is the elimination of legal
labels for measurement purposes. Thus, as noted, rape, robbery,
burglary, larceny, homicide, etc., are replaced by requests for
information about the type of physical injury, the pecuniary value of
property theft or damage. To these items are added information
regarding the existence of forcible sex relations, the existence of
intimidation and by what method, and the presence of a forcible entry
(p. 66).
Whether or not the method is valid or practical is not so much the point as is
the idea that the researcher acknowledges that something other than
subjective legal definitions is necessary in order to approach comparable
meaning to rates of offense internationally.
As societies continue to interweave, converge, and communicate in the
21st Century, comparative criminal justice studies take on a unique role as a
means to learning, improving, and reconciling variations in criminal justice
Challenges Facing Comparative CJ Research 20
practice, form, and performance among the nation-states and private
entities of the world. Performance measures to evaluate different criminal
justice systems and system components comparatively are elusive. Though
official sources such as the crime rate have been tracked and catalogued by
police and other agencies for a very long time in different countries, the
numbers simply have massive problems because they are not designed for
disinterested scientific research; they are designed for system purposes
within a cultural framework. Other methods to track crime like victimization
surveys are far more useful, but there are always flaw and shortcomings to
be considered in any measuring tool. And though the challenges are
enormous and the prospects of accurate, contextually appropriate research
and analysis are limited, the pursuit of comparative study is worthy of effort.
The knowledge, context, inter-cultural fluency, and understanding
desperately required in order to conduct effective comparative research are
all in and of themselves fostered and enhanced through exploratory research
that grant new opportunities to inspire creative research design by
subsequent researchers.
Challenges Facing Comparative CJ Research 21
Works Cited
Abel, R. L. (1973). A Comparative Theory of Dispute Institutions in Society. Law and Society
Review, 8 (2), 217-347.
Abi-Saab, G. (1989). The Concept of International Crimes and its place in Contemporary
International Law. In J. H. Weiler, A. Cassese, & M. Spindedi, International Crimes of
State: ACritical Analysis of the ILC's Draft Aritcle on State Responsibility (pp. 141-150).
Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.
Alper, B. S., & Boren, J. F. (1972). Crime: International Agenda. Lexington, Massachustts:
Lexington Books and D.C. Heath.
Armer, M., & Grimshaw, A. D. (1973). Comparative Social Research: Methodological Problems
and Strategies. New York: John Wiley.
Bayley, D. (1985). Patterns of Policing. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Beirne, P. (1983). Cultural Relativism and Comparative Criminology. Contemporary Crises, 7
(4), 371-391.
Beirne, P. (2983). Generalization and its Discontents: The Comparative Study of Crime. In I. L.
Barak-Glantz, & E. H. Johnson, Comparative Criminology (pp. 19-38). Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Clinard, M. (1978). Comparative Crime Victimization Surveys: Some Problems and Results.
International Journal of Criminology and Penology, 221-231.
Cook, P. J., & Khmilevska, N. (2005). Cross-National Patterns in Crime Rates. In M. Tonry, &
D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Crime and Justice: A Review of Research (Vol. 33, pp. 331-345).
Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.
Challenges Facing Comparative CJ Research 22
Farrington, D. P., & Jolliffe, D. (2005). Cross-National Comparisons of Crime Rates in Four
Countries, 1981-1999. In M. Tonry, & D. P. Farrington (Eds.), Crime and Justice: A
Review of Research (Vol. 33, pp. 377-397). Chicago & London: The University of
Chicago Press.
Findlay, M. (2008). Governing Through Globalised Crime: Futures for International Criminal
Justice. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.
Gibson, J. L., & Caldeira, G. A. (1996 30,1). The Legal Cultures of Europe. Law and Society
Review, 55-85.
Hinton, M. S. (2006). The State of the Street: Police and Politics in Argentina and Brazil.
Boulder, Co./London, UK: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Horton, C., & Smith, D. J. (1988). Evaluating Police Work: An Action Research Project.
London: Policy Studies Institute.
Maguire, E. R., Howard, G. J., & Newman, G. (Spring 1998 22, 1). Measuring the Performance
of National Criminal Justice Systems. International Journal of Comparative and Applied
Criminal Justice, 31-51.
Sellin, T. (1967). International Criminal Statistics. Criminology, 5 (2), 2-11.
Van Dijk, J., & Krangaspunta, K. (January 2000). Piecing Together the Cross-National Crime
Puzzle. National Institute of Justice Journal, 35-41.
Wolfgang, M. E. (1967). International Crime Statistics: A Proposal. The Journal of Criminal
Law, Criminology, and Police Studies: 58 (1), 65-69.