International Journal on Criminology Volume 1, Number 1, Fall 2013 | Page 15

International Journal on Criminology
seen in secondary victimization. 11 The third consists of ways of dealing with crime and
its perpetrators, which result, as far as possible, in re-cognition. Strengthening of skills
among those who deal with condemned criminals would encourage criminals to
“desist” 12 (stop reoffending). These skills go beyond the social, economic, or
psychological factors of reinsertion that are traditionally seen as factors in ending
delinquency. Developments of this kind have led to remarkable creations of “therapeutic
jurisprudence” 13 in the United States, or of jurisdictions that resolve the problem at hand.
However, this kind of intervention will remain a pious wish unless independent,
scientific, regular, and sustained solutions are applied.
There have been numerous criticisms of this new division of criminology. Although
“contestation is a necessary condition for renewal of a science”, 14 objections are all too
often based on unfounded common opinion and illegitimate reductionism. Security-based
ideology, 15 personal criticisms 16 and worries about the instrumentalization of
universities 17 discredit the objections, unless it is to be considered that scientific
disciplines, autonomous or otherwise, necessarily belong to current political thought,
even if their applications are universal.
We should expect criminology to address the suffering of victims in a practical,
humane, restorative, and therapeutic manner, as well as a scientifically enlightened and
well-founded one. Those adhering to certain currents of thought are generally
uncomfortable with victims, 18 since they focus—as we all must also do—on the
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11
Secondary victimization is when a person re-lives their trauma upon the occurrence of a new
event that may or may not be linked to the initial trauma.
12 See for example F. McNeill, P. Raynor, and C. Trotter Offender Supervision: New Directions in
Theory, Research and Practice (Willan Publishing, 2010).
13 M. Herzog-Evans, “Révolutionner la pratique judiciaire. S’inspirer de l’inventivité américaine,”
Recueil Dalloz (2011): 3016-3022.
14 G. Kellens, “Interactionnisme versus personnalité criminelle,” Les grandes tendances de la
criminologie contemporaine (Proceedings of the 7 th International Criminology Congress of
Belgrade, 1973). Institut des recherches criminologiques et sociales, Vol. 1, 1980, 118-128.
15 V.N. Brafman and I. Rey-Lefebvre. “La criminologie érigée en discipline autonome,, Le Monde,
March 14, 2012; H. Damien, “La criminologie: nouvelle discipline universitaire en France,”
France Soir, March 17, 2012; Motion carried on March 21, 2012 by the permanent Commission
of the National Council of Universities (CPCNU); H. Tassel, “La criminologie à l’université?
Fuite en avant, imposture scientifique et désinvolture…,” March 23, 2012. http://humanite.fr;
Collective (L. Mucchielli, O. Nay, X. Pin, and D. Zagury), “La ‘criminologie’ entre succès
médiatique et rejet universitaire,” Le Monde, March 29, 2012; “Création d’une Section du CNU
‘criminologie’: non à la Section ‘Guéant’,” April 4, 2012. http://ferc-sup.cgt.fr.
16 See L. Mucchielli “Une ‘nouvelle criminologie française’. Pour qui et pour quoi?” Revue de
Science criminelle et de droit pénal comparé, 2008–2004, 795-803; L. Mucchielli “Vers une
criminologie d’État en France? Institutions, acteurs et doctrines d’une nouvelle science
policière,” Politix 2010-23-89, 195-214; “La ‘criminology’ en France et ses arrière-plans
idéologiques,” March 20, 2011. http://laurent.mucchielli.org; Ruling creating a criminology
section published in the Journal Officiel, March 15, 2012. http://vousnousils.fr).
17 See “Non à la 75 è section”. http://petition24.net; “Déclaration des présidents du Conseil
scientifique et du Conseil des formations du CNAM,” April 24, 2012; V. Gautron, L. Leturmy,
C. Mouhanna, and L. Mucchielli. “Criminologie en France (suite): pour un moratoire total sur les
projets actuels,” http://laurent.mucchielli.org.
18 Relevant here is the experience described in D. Lemarchal, “La victime et son autre,” Ajpénal
(2008): 349-351.
14 !