The idea of contrasting myths and realities in the area of criminal justice and the treatment of offenders occurred to me in connection with the theme of an Autumn Weekend Conference in which I took part, held by the Institute for the Study and Treatment of Delinquency in November 1968. In my lecture on Myths of Criminal Justice I began by remarking that the dictionary definition of a myth, among other descriptions, said it was “a legend embodying a primitive faith in the supernatural, a fable”. The more conventional use of the term was said to be “some invented story, or an imaginary person or thing”. I said we were not concerned to discuss mythology in the sense of stories about legendary figures in ancient times. I might add that I do not want to discuss primitive faith in the supernatural, although sometimes our approach to crime problems may resemble that too closely to be comfortable! Nor do I wish to discuss invented stories or imaginary persons or things. I said in 1968 I was concerned to examine certain fictions or necessary working assumptions which guide the practical administration of criminal justice. Now in 1976 I wish to extend the discussion to wider aspects of the matter and to include some basic assumptions on which the criminal justice system appears to rest, and some parts of the philosophy of punishment and treatment which have come under discussion and critical examination by western criminologists in recent years. My intention is not necessarily to destroy or undermine these beliefs or working assumptions but to show how criminological study can reveal the truth behind the myth and give shape and substance to the shadowy form which it previously represented. If at the same time we are forced to re-examine some of our basic working assumptions in the light of reality, I will be well satisfied that I have achieved my purpose. I hope I will also have clothed some of our conventional beliefs with the modern garments supplied by criminological research which enables them to be better appreciated and understood.

Barely seventy years ago a Berlin Chief State Prosecutor said in the course of a political trial what has become a household word: the State Prosecutor's Office is the most objective authority in the world (1). Within this self-concept of the German State Prosecutor's Office, which is typical and has lasted up to our own day, we can find the whole problem-area covered by this paper. But the gap that can yawn between idea and reality is clearly recognized in the critical view-point adopted by modern criminology. According to this, questions of power and judgment, of social class and equality, and of the use of the law and criminalization come into view. However, much these matters may appear to many people to be provocatively chosen, and formed according to counter-ideological ideas; nevertheless they are important and no longer to be thought out of existence in modern discussion. In traditional, positivist criminology the system of penal control and those who carried it out were not a topic of discussion. As is well known, the area considered was exclusively that of the investigation of crime and the criminal. But since the state has “lost its innocence”, and since we have realized that the idea and the practice of law can differ very greatly, criminology has also addressed itself to the agents and activities of crime control.

La cour d'assises occupe au sein de l'organisation judiciaire française une place originale par sa composition, 3 magistrats, 9 jurés, et par sa procédure spécifique qui se clot sur un arrêt non motivé. Les magistrats et les jurés participent ensemble à la solution de tous les points de droit et de fait soulevés par l'action publique.

II est assez périlleux de prétendre circonscrire en quelques pages les livres, les travaux de recherche, les articles particulièrement notables qui paraissent émerger de la littérature scientifique criminologique de ces dernières années en Europe de l'Ouest.

En esta breve resena no se pretende agotar el tema de la criminologia en America Latina, ni siquiera lo producido en los ultimos anos. Habra indudablemente muchas omisiones involuntarias por olvido o desconocimiento. Hecho muy explicable cuando se recuerda lo ya mencionado en multiples ocasiones y que a pesar de su reiteracion, no deja de ser sorprendente. En cada pais latinoamericano se conoce mucho mejor lo producido en Europa o en los Estados Unidos que lo producido en los paises vecinos.