Criminal Affluence

The Growth of Crime By Sir Leon Radzinowicz and Joan King Basic Books, 342 pp., $11.95 Sir Leon not infrequently has been called the Dean of Criminologists—an ambivalent compliment. But he appears to like the role of elder statesman of criminology, and he certainly has earned the respect he is accorded. His knowledge, particularly his historical and factual knowledge, is vast. Here he brings it to bear illuminatingly in considering the many factors which may account for the worldwide growth of crime. That growth, he and Miss King point out, has been remarkable: “As the curve of affluence was gathering momentum the curve of crime began to follow it. Its ascent during the past 15 years accounts for two-thirds of the increase during the century.”

So much for the idea that crime hasn’t really increased, or that the increase of crime is caused by an increase of poverty. Or for that matter of oppression. Between 1955 and 1964 the rate of crime went up 70 per cent in la belle France, while the Swedish welfare state saw an increase of 44 per cent and Italy 40 per cent. (Don’t worry, we did better than all of these with about 100 per cent; after all, we are the most prosperous major nation in the world.) Crime, obviously, increased with affluence, and it increases no matter how that affluence is distributed. Even totalitarian systems which minimize liberty in favor of an oppressive order do not succeed in minimizing crime. Official Soviet data are not available—or for that matter credible—but in addition to what we know about the Gulag Archipelago, much indirect evidence indicates that the rate of crime is high and going higher.

EH

About the Author

Ernest van den Haag

Featured Tags

The Growth of Crime By Sir Leon Radzinowicz and Joan King Basic Books, 342 pp., $11.95 Sir Leon not infrequently has been called the Dean of Criminologists—an ambivalent compliment. But he appears to like the role of elder statesman of criminology, and he certainly has earned the respect he is accorded. His knowledge, particularly his historical and factual knowledge, is vast. Here he brings it to bear illuminatingly in considering the many factors which may account for the worldwide growth of crime. That growth, he and Miss King point out, has been remarkable: “As the curve of affluence was gathering momentum the curve of crime began to follow it. Its ascent during the past 15 years accounts for two-thirds of the increase during the century.”

So much for the idea that crime hasn’t really increased, or that the increase of crime is caused by an increase of poverty. Or for that matter of oppression. Between 1955 and 1964 the rate of crime went up 70 per cent in la belle France, while the Swedish welfare state saw an increase of 44 per cent and Italy 40 per cent. (Don’t worry, we did better than all of these with about 100 per cent; after all, we are the most prosperous major nation in the world.) Crime, obviously, increased with affluence, and it increases no matter how that affluence is distributed. Even totalitarian systems which minimize liberty in favor of an oppressive order do not succeed in minimizing crime. Official Soviet data are not available—or for that matter credible—but in addition to what we know about the Gulag Archipelago, much indirect evidence indicates that the rate of crime is high and going higher.