Like many companies, PocketBook uses cookie technology to enhance your user experience, for analytics and marketing purposes that are to show you relevant offers, tailored the best to your interests while running this website and third parties websites. PocketBook respects your privacy rights, thus we kindly ask you to take a moment to enjoy Managing Cookie Preferences. Please take a note that strictly necessary cookies are always enabled. If you are happy with the use of all cookie files, just click Accept all cookies. To learn more about cookie technology, its benefits and how Pocketbook use it, please go to our Cookie Notice.
You can change your cookie settings at any time, using your cookie settings. You can use this page through your account. For more information about cookies and how we use them, please see our cookie notice.
Quantitative criminology has certainly come a long way since I was ?rst introduced to a largely qualitative criminology some 40 years ago, when I was recruited to lead a task force on science and technology for the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice. At that time, criminology was a very limited activity, depending almost exclusively on the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) initiated by the FBI in 1929 for measurement of crime based on victim reports to the police and on police arrests. A ty- cal mode of analysis was simple bivariate correlation. Marvin Wolfgang and colleagues were makingan importantadvancebytrackinglongitudinaldata onarrestsin Philadelphia,an in- vation that was widely appreciated. And the ?eld was very small: I remember attending my ?rst meeting of the American Society of Criminology in about 1968 in an anteroom at New York University; there were about 25–30 people in attendance, mostly sociologists with a few lawyers thrown in. That Society today has over 3,000 members, mostly now drawn from criminology which has established its own clear identity, but augmented by a wide variety of disciplines that include statisticians, economists, demographers, and even a few engineers. This Handbook provides a remarkable testimony to the growth of that ?eld. Following the maxim that “if you can’t measure it, you can’t understand it,” we have seen the early dissatisfaction with the UCR replaced by a wide variety of new approaches to measuring crime victimization and offending.