E ® PROGRESS PUBLISHERS

G . AVANESOV

TH E PRINCIPLES
 G. AVANESOV

THE PRINCIPLES
OF CRIM INO LO G Y

PROGRESS PUBLISHERS
MOSCOW
 Translated from the Russiarl
Designed by Yuri Luther

T, A. ABAHECOB
OCHOBbI KPMMMHOJIOrHH
H a OHBAUUCKOM S19UK6

© AKaaeMHH MBfl CCCP, 1981

English translation of the revised Russian edition ©
Progress Publishers 1982
Printed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics

11002-903
A 82 10-82 1203100000
 CONTENTS

P R E F A C E .................................. . 7
CHAPTER I. Criminology as a Science. Its Subject and Method 15
1. A General Description of Crim inology........................ 15
2. The Subject and Method of Criminology, Its Aims and
Tasks .................................................................................. 21
3. The Aims and Tasks of Criminology, Its Main Functions 32
4. The Place of Criminology in the System of Sciences 46
CHAPTER II. Crime and Its Socio-Legal Essence.................... 61
1. The Characteristics and Relationship of the Concepts
of Crime and C rim e s .......................................................... 61
2. The Concept of Crimeand Its Socio-Legal Essence . . . 68
CHAPTER III. The Causes of Crime and Social Contradictions 80
1. The Causes of Crimer, Its Level and General Description 80
2. The Causes of Crime and Contradictions of Social
Development ................................................................... 89
3. The Differentiated Approach to the Assessment of the
Causes of C rim e ............................................................... 97
4. The Causes of Crime in Connection with an Analysis
of Criminogenic F a c to rs................................................... 116
CHAPTER IV. The Relationship of the Social and Biological
in the Causes of C rim e ........................................................... 122
1- The Interconnection of the Social and Biological in
the Causes of C rim e ........................................................... 122
2. Biological Problems in the Causal Complex of Anti­
social Behaviour ............................................................... 130

3
CHAPTER V. The Criminal Personality and Its fAnti-Social
T en d en cy....................... 142
1. The Criminal Personality in the System of Social
Relations and Its P ecu liarities....................................... 142
2. The Dialectical Interconnection of the Criminal Per­
sonality and Anti-Social B ehaviour............................ 158
3. Anti-Social Behaviour in the System of Types of Social
B e h a v io u r.......................................................................... 163
CHAPTER VI. The Concept and Essence of Criminological Fore­
casting ...................................................................................... 173
1. The Science of Forecasting and the Branch of Crimino­
logical Forecasting........................................................... 173
2. Types, Terms and Methods of Criminological Forecasting 184
3. Organisational Problems and the Content of Criminologi­
cal Forecasting.................................................................. 194
CHAPTER VII. The Forecasting of Individual Anti-Social
Behaviour.................................................................................. 202
1. The Concept and Peculiarities of Forecasting Individual
Anti-Social B ehaviour....................................................... 202
2. Applied Problems of Forecasting Individual Anti-
Social B ehaviour............................................................... 211
CHAPTER VIII. The Conception of Social Prevention and
the Limits of Its Functioning............................................... 218
1. Determining the Conception in Relation to the Concept
of Social P rev en tio n ........................................................... 218
2. Social Prevention in the System of Measures for Crime
Control .............................................................................. 228
3. The Sphere of Social Prevention and the_Limits of Its
F u n c tio n in g .............................................." 234
CHAPTER IX. The System of Subjects and Objects of Social
Prevention .............................................................................. 246
1. Subjects of Social Prevention and Their General
Characterisation .............................................................. 246
2. The Main Trends in the Activity of the Subjects of
Social Prevention .................................................... 253
3. The Objects of Social Prevention and Their General Char­
acteristics .......................................................................... 267
4. The General Analysis of Crimes as Objects of Social
P revention.......................................................................... 274
CHAPTER X. The Main Forms andContent of Social Prevention 285
1. Levels, Forms and TyDesof Social Prevention . . . 285
2. A Characterisation of tne Content and Provision of the
Social Prevention ofOffences............................................ 299
4
CHAPTER XI. Basie Principles of the Legal Regulation of Social
Prevention .............................................................................. 306
1. The Place and Role of Law in the Social Prevention of
O ffen ces.............................................................................. 306
2. The Legal Status of Subjects and Objects of Social
Prevention of Offences....................................................... 314
CHAPTER XII. The Main Problems of the Organisation of
Social P re v e n tio n ................................................................... 321
1. Special Features of Management in the Sphere of Social
Prevention of Offences................................................... 321
2. Comprehensive Planning in the Sphere of the Social
Prevention of Offences....................................................... 338
 PREFACE

At the dawn of the revolutionary workers’ movement in

Russia V. I. Lenin, speaking about socialism as the aim of
this movement, said that it would be a society free from
the exploitation of man by man, which would make it
possible to ensure “full well-being and free, all-round dev­
elopment for all the members of society”.1
At all stages of the struggle for the victory of the new
social system the Communist Party has never lost sight
of this, its main aim, and has done everything necessary to
attain it.
The developed socialist society about which Lenin was
speaking has now been built in the USSR, the economic pot­
ential of the Soviet Union has increased fantastically, the
material well-being and culture of the working people has
risen and is continuing to rise, and their intellectual require­
ments are being met increasingly fully.
The prospect for the future development of the USSR is
the construction of a classless, communist society, the banner
of which will read: “From each according to his ability, to
each according to his needs.” In accordance with this pros-
the Constitution of the USSR defines the supreme goal
of the Soviet state. It is to ensure the building of a class-
*083, communist society. Hence the main task of the state—to
c*rk Y’ 1* Lenin, “Notes on Plekhanov’s Second Draft Programme”,
V lected Works, Vol. 6, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1964, p. 54,

7
ensure a further steady rise in the material and cultural
standards of the people. To this end an impressive compre­
hensive programme of measures is being carried out in the
political, economic, social, legal and other spheres of social
life under the leadership of the Communist Party of the
Soviet Union, measures designed to accomplish the tasks
formulated in the Constitution of the USSR.
Among these tasks an important place is undoubtedly oc­
cupied by the further development of Soviet democracy and
the consolidation of law and order and socialist legality.
Attention to the accomplishing of these tasks and the scale
of the forces and resources mobilised for their implementation
by the Soviet state are growing from year to year, from one
five-year economic and social development plan period to
another. The main aims, ways and concrete measures for dev­
eloping democracy, protecting law and order and civil
rights, and ensuring socialist legality are laid down in
the CPSU Programme, in the decisions of Party congresses,
and in the Constitution of the USSR. All these documents
not only affirm the urgency of the afore-mentioned problems,
but also stress their close connection with different aspects
of life and provide a profound characterisation of their
social significance.
The aim of the present book demands that we concentrate
our attention primarily on an analysis of the state of law
and order and socialist legality in Soviet society.
In accordance with this purpose, it should first be noted
that the consolidation of law and order and socialist legality
in Soviet society is a matter for the state as a whole. In this
connection some major ideological, political, moral, socio­
economic and state-law measures have been planned and are
being introduced. The maintenance of law and order and
the ensuring of socialist legality are regarded by the Com­
munist Party and the Soviet Government as tasks of para­
mount importance, as objects of constant concern, as a special
type of social activity.
This attention of the Communist Party and the Soviet Go­
vernment to the maintenance of law and order and the en­
suring of socialist legality is determined by the objective
requirements of social development and is increasing sig­
nificantly at the stage of mature socialism. When the powerful
material, technical and intellectual potential of socialism
has been created, the consciousness of the working masses,
8
 their degree of organisation and discipline, their high ideol­
ogical and moral qualities are becoming an ever more power­
ful factor of social progress, an important condition of the
use of the material and spiritual possibilities in the inter­
ests of the development of each individual and of society
as a whole.
In their concern for the all-round development of the
individual and the rights of citizens, the Soviet state and
society are at the same time taking effective measures to
strengthen social discipline and ensure that all citizens
fulfil their duties to society, for without discipline and a stable
social order socialist democracy cannot be realised. It
is the responsible approach of each citizen to his duties,
to the interests of the people, of society, that creates the
only reliable basis for the fullest possible embodiment of
the principles of socialist democracy, for the true freedom
of the individual. There is a reference to this in the Consti­
tution. It states that each citizen should work conscienti­
ously and observe labour discipline. “The Soviet state and
all its bodies function on the basis of socialist law, ensure
the maintenance of law and order, and safeguard the interests
of society and the rights and freedoms of citizens.” To prot­
ect society against all manner of infringements, the Constitu­
tion says, citizens of the USSR should not only enjoy their
rights, but also perform the duties imposed on them by socie­
ty. Above all, every citizen of the USSR is obliged to respect
the rights and lawful interests of other persons, to be un­
compromising toward anti-social behaviour, and to help main­
tain public order. He is obliged to observe Soviet laws and
to respect the rules of socialist living.
Strengthening of law and order, ensuring legality, and
consolidating civil discipline are the decisive factors of
successful communist construction; this is a major socio-pol­
itical task. It is being solved by the joint efforts of Party
organisations, state bodies and the Soviet public.
The developed socialist society is creating more and more
new opportunities for the all-round development of man,
of each member of society, raising his awareness and dis­
cipline, which leads to the strengthening of law and order
and the ensuring of socialist legality. This is expressed,
first and foremost, in the further rise in the well-being of
the working people, the improvement of their working and
living conditions, the significant progress of health care,
9
education and culture—in everything that promotes the
formation of the new man, the all-round development of
the individual, the improvement of the socialist way of life,
and social relations. However, the education of the new man
and the formation of his personality are difficult and com­
plex processes. And although the achievements of the Soviet
system arc indisputable in this respect, one nevertheless
still often finds people here with a low level of social con­
sciousness, who do not follow socialist principles and the
requirements of socialist morality in practice and who violate
the established law and order, the norms of socialist life.
It is therefore essential that the growth in material opportu­
nities should be accompanied by a constant rise in people’s
ideological, moral and cultural levels, a growth in their
consciousness. Otherwise society will be faced with recur­
rences of philistine, petty-bourgeois psychology. Drawing
the attention of the whole Party to this fact, the 25th CPSU
Congress stressed: the higher our society rises in its develop­
ment, the more intolerable deviations from socialist norms
of morality become. Money-grubbing, drunkenness, private-
ownership tendencies, hooliganism, bureaucracy and indif­
ference to other people run contrary to the essence of our
system. In the struggle against such phenomena it is essen­
tial to make full use of the opinion of the work collective,
criticism in the press, methods of persuasion, and the force
of law—all the means at our disposal. These directives of
the CPSU determine the main trends of the ideological and
educational work to overcome vestiges of the past in people’s
consciousness, and to assert the principles of communist
morality. It must always be borne in mind that anti-social
acts do great harm to economic construction and the ideol­
ogical and moral education of all Soviet citizens.
The organisation of the struggle against anti-social acts
is a complex problem. It includes ideological, political,
socio-economic, legal, moral, ethical and aesthetic, psychol­
ogical and other aspects of the activity of society. Therefore
success in this complex task can be achieved only when
each work collective, each Party, Komsomol and trade
union organisation, each head of an enterprise, and all the
working people regard the struggle against anti-social acts
as their prime civic duty, as one of the means of raising the
economic effectiveness of production and the well-being of
the people and improving conditions of work and rest, as
10
 a manifestation of concern for people, for future generations.
Every Soviet citizen should take an active position in the
struggle for the strict observance of Soviet laws and the
maintenance of law and order in society.
In the ensuring of law and order special attention is paid
to legal institutions of a preventive nature. This is connected
with the need to develop a system for the prevention of anti­
social, including criminal, behaviour. The abolition of
crime, the removal of all the causes and conditions which
give rise to it, is an indisputable requirement of the socialist
social system.
The course of crime prevention was determined by the
CPSU Programme which states: “Higher standards of living
and culture, and greater social consciousness of the people,
pave the way to the abolition of crime and the ultimate
replacement of judicial punishment by measures of public
influence and education.” The CPSU Programme links the
abolition of crime, first and foremost, with the removal of
the causes of crime. It states that attention should be direct­
ed mainly at crime prevention.1
This course has been further developed and substantiated
at CPSU congresses and in important Party documents,
which have laid down the fundamental directives on the
basic questions of crime control and prevention. Prevention
of offences is of prime importance in crime control. Therefore,
in the USSR alongside the punitive measures provided for
by law increasing attention is being paid to the prevention
of crime.
Bearing in mind that crime as a social phenomenon is of
a rather complex nature and is connected with certain social
processes, the Party is devoting attention to the further im­
provement of state bodies whose job it is to control crime,
the activity of public organisations, problems of improving
legislation, strengthening law and order, ideological, pol­
itical and moral education, and developing the political
system of society and social relations. It attaches profound
social importance to crime control and prevention.
In fact crime control is an organic part of the whole system
of social activity aimed at improving the socialist way
of life and socialist public discipline. It helps to overcome

1 The Road to Communism, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1962,

p. 553.

It
vestiges of the past hostile to socialism and protects society
against persons who violate public discipline, persons who
violate the legal, moral, and social norms of behaviour.
Crime is a negative and, of course, dangerous phenomenon
for society. It is dangerous because it demoralises members
of society and does great material and, possibly, even greater
moral harm to the interests of society.
The communist society that we are building and crime
are objectively incompatible. There can be no complete
triumph of communist morality without the elimination
of crime as a phenomenon. The process of the abolition of
crime is not a quick or smooth one, however. It is impos­
sible to solve the task of eliminating crime by “campaigns”,
without consideration of the real objective possibilities
available to society at each stage of its development. The
elimination of crime cannot, therefore, be an instantaneous
act. To eliminate such an evil as crime much time and
effort is required. It cannot be wiped out with a single blow.
Lenin said: “...If we are not to indulge in utopianism, we
must not think that having overthrown capitalism people
will at once learn to work for society without any rules of
law. Besides, the abolition of capitalism does not immediately
create the economic prerequisites for such a change.”1
Consequently, only a society whose citizens possess high
ideological, political, moral and other socially useful qual­
ities will be able to abolish crime. They will be distinguished
by a high cultural and educational level, rich spiritual needs,
and active attitude to life. Their consciousness and beha­
viour will be fully liberated once and for all from the nega­
tive consequences of the past, from the influence of ideology
alien to Soviet society. Such a position can only be achieved
as a result of the resolute and persistent work of the whole
of socialist society. This long-term orientation of our policy
in the sphere of crime control is, to use Lenin’s expression,
“the general plan of our work, of our policy, of our tactics, of
our strategy...”2 The aim of crime control, however, is
always to abolish fully this socially dangerous phenomenon.
But even the very setting of this aim takes into account the
fact that the process of crime control means changing the
1 V. I. Lenin, “The State and Revolution”, Collected Works,
Vol. 25, 1977, p. 472.
2 V. I. Lenin, “Better Fewer, But Better”, Collected Works, Vol. 33.
1966, j). 501.

12
conditions of crime as a whole, and also of its individual
forms. This process is a long one and takes place under the
influence of internal and external conditions characterised
by definite laws.
Formerly the opinion was sometimes expressed that crime
would be abolished very quickly in our society, as if the
very advent of socialism would put an end to anti-social
phenomena once and for all. In this connection people often
denied the need for criminological forecasting, planning,
and administration in this sphere, and even for active crime
prevention. This was a consequence of the underestimation
of crime itself as a complex social phenomenon, and also
of the widespread opinion that there are no social roots of
crime in socialist society.
The unscientific nature of the voluntarist statements that
crime would be abolished in a very short time and that
punishment was on the way out and would be replaced by
measures of public influence is now clear to everyone.
It is essential for the state to possess objective indices
for crime at the present and the possibilities for changing
it in the future, because the problem of combating anti-social
phenomena remains as before an acute one, insofar as the
level of crime cannot yet be regarded as low and the ten­
dency towards a drop in crime is not an entirely stable one.
There are still a whole series of factors, causes and condi­
tions that determine the existence of crime. However, these
factors, causes and conditions do not stem from the nature of
socialism. They are produced by the concrete historical situa­
tion in which the new society is being built, by the existence
of certain contradictions and difficulties of both a subjective
and an objective nature.
At the present stage of the development of Soviet society
one of the essential conditions for the gradual abolition of
crime is a scientific approach to the organisation of crime
control. Today the problem of crime control is no longer seen
on the level of the traditional “detecting and suppression
of crime”. The approach to this problem has changed to
a certain extent, first and foremost, due to the need for
a scientific solution of it. To deny the important role of
science here is essentially to deny the objectivity and com­
plexity of the content of crime, to oversimplify the task of
controlling this phenomenon.
For our society the main trend in crime control is the
13
 prevention of offences. The aim of prevention is not to punish
people, but to restrain, caution and protect them from com­
mitting crime by educating them in a proper way. Here one
can see clearly the humanism of the socialist system of crime
control. Prevention of offences also aims at strengthening
the guarantees of social order, at inculcating in people a deep
respect for the laws, legal and moral demands and rules of
the socialist way of life. It is undoubtedly the relevance of
and pressing social need for a theoretical analysis of the
problems of preventing anti-social behaviour that have
aroused an active interest in them among the Soviet public,
particularly in scientific circles. The results of research on
problems of crime prevention have been discussed both in
philosophical-sociological and socio-psychological scien­
tific literature and in juridical literature, particularly crim­
inological. Quite a lot has been done in this sphere. Soviet
scholars have contributed greatly to the theory of crime
prevention and control. However, life is presenting us with
new tasks, of both a theoretical and a practical nature.
Obviously such tasks include the writing of a new textbook
on the principles of criminology which would sum up all
the achievements of Soviet criminology.
We have attempted to write such a book. It has been pre­
pared with due account of new material acquired from studying
the theory and practice of criminology and social prevention,
and from consultations with scientists and practical workers,
specialists in the sphere of criminology and of crime preven­
tion. In addition, use has been made of a wide range of litera­
ry sources on other branches of knowledge.
 Chapter i

CRIMINOLOGY AS A SCIENCE,
ITS SUBJECT AND METHOD

1. A GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF CRIMINOLOGY

Can we say that criminology has solved all its problems

and, consequently, all that remains is to study the material
accumulated by this science to solve practical questions? No,
of course not. Criminology is a relatively young, rapidly dev­
eloping science, in whichnot everything has been established
yet, and a great deal remains to be investigated, proved
and amplified. Moreover, criminological research, like scien­
tific research in general, is a constant process of posing
and solving new problems. The absence of problems would
mean the end of research, a deadlock, a standstill. Therefore,
as it develops criminology constantly engenders new prob­
lems of both a theoretical and a practical nature. Always,
from the posing and precise formulation of a problem to its
solution, we are studying something new, learning about it,
developing the science and enriching practical experience
with new ideas.
By a scientific problem we understand a question to which
our existing knowledge cannot provide an answer. A prob­
lem is both a special type of knowledge and the search for
new knowledge. One must be able to pose scientific problems
and solve them correctly. But in order to solve them new
knowledge is required, the constant unravelling of the mys­
teries of nature and the laws of development of society.
For the criminologist and the practical worker engaged
in crime control, it is important not only to accumulate the
15
relevant knowledge, i.e., to amass that which is already known,
but also to have a clear idea of new problems—that which
is not yet known, has not yet become part of the “arsenal of
ideas”. The known and the unknown are interconnected, of
course.
The posing of a new problem is the birth of a new idea.
Sometimes these ideas are not accepted by people for a long
time, because they “do not quite understand” them. But one
must not forget the fact that, as Dostoyevsky put it, “only
well-worn ideas are very understandable”. It is essential to
realise fully that knowledge is always engendered by the
question “why” and that scientific training consists, first
and foremost, in developing the ability to ask the relevant
questions, i.e., those that lead to real problems.
Thus, a problem is knowledge about our lack of knowledge.
It serves to mobilise and organise previously accumulated
knowledge in order to obtain new knowledge. It is a form
of organising scientific research. It determines the direction
of scientific research and acts as its stimulus. Proceeding
from this, therefore, it is essential to pose and solve problems
in the sphere of consolidating law and order and socialist
legality, in controlling and preventing all types of offences.
Here there is a vast field of activity for scientific quest, the
obtaining and accumulating of new knowledge. We should
not be afraid of complex problems: that which seems incom­
prehensible in science can in fact be comprehended.
A problem is also a form of mental connection between the
past, present and future. In the sphere in question, the
sphere of criminology and crime prevention, the solution of
the relevant problems makes it possible to obtain valuable
scientific forecasts connected with the prospects for develop­
ing the theory and practice of controlling crime.

A general approach to criminology

In order to examine criminology as an independent science,
one must proceed, first and foremost, from the concept of
science in general, the ways of its possible development
as a whole. Only then will the study of criminology be
productive.
The study of any science (the definition of its concept
and establishment of its place in the system of other branch­
es of knowledge) is closely bound up with the analysis of
16
 general scientific problems, particularly such problems as
the relationship of science and society, the development of
science, and the relationship of special sciences. The basic
prerequisite for the success of a science is its close link with
practice in the broad sense of the word, its aim to solve
the current problems confronting society. Its functioning
is characterised by insoluble links with the development
of society. At the same time, however, we must also bear
in mind that the unusually rapid development of modern
science leads to the determining of possible ways of develop­
ment of society.
What is meant here is the initial prerequisites for examin­
ing the various aspects of the interconnection of science
and society, the study of science as a whole and of a special
science, in particular. This also applies, inter alia, to the
science of criminology.
Criminology is a science and, like all other sciences,
it is not self-contained, not isolated from the life or so­
ciety, from the general development of scientific thought.
The relations of criminology with life are extremely complex
and diverse. They include connections with many aspects of
social knowledge, connections with the problems of social
life and social consciousness. The life of society stimulates
criminology to produce new knowledge.
Problems of the analysis of special sciences always arise
in any study of general scientific questions. The main ones
are the questions of the content and basic concepts of each
science, and also the interconnections (and interaction)
of special sciences. These questions are mainly of a philosoph­
ical nature. The most urgent and acute philosophical ques­
tions arise, as a rule, not within each of the special sciences
or a part of these sciences, but in the spheres of their inter­
connection and interaction. Analysis of the conceptual ap­
paratus and, consequently, of the problems relating to the
subject of this or that science is impossible if it is confined
to the framework of the given concrete special science.
The importance of this proposition is particularly obvious
if one bears in mind the well-known dialectical proposition
on the mobile nature of the phenomena of reality. For
criminology as a special science it is essential, vital, to
take these circumstances into account.

2-01771 17
 Criminology as a special science

The main general scientific propositions and fundamental

requirements relating to special sciences also extend to crim­
inology. It may be seen as a system of specific knowledge
which unites a set of concepts, theories, hypotheses, etc.
Criminology is naturally part of the system of modern
science on social organisation and develops as an integral
part of the whole scientific process. In other words, crim­
inology must not be considered separately (in isolation)
from other sciences. The question of the laws of its develop­
ment must be considered in relation to the state of science in
general, and, in particular, such branches of science as
the social and juridical sciences which are connected with
crime control.
Criminology does not study everything concerning crime,
only a definite range of problems in this sphere. Here it does
not take the place of any other science. Criminology studies
a specific sphere and has its own range of problems. True, the
existence of similar features between problems within the
sphere of criminology and questions within the sphere of
other sciences gives rise to ill-founded arguments that crim­
inology is not an independent science. These arguments
usually lead to a simple “translation” of the concepts of this
or that branch of knowledge into the “language of crim­
inology”, or vice versa. This impoverishes the initial content
not only of criminology, but of any other branch of knowledge
in which people try to “dissolve” it. However, we must not
forget that criminology, like any other branch of knowledge,
is not only the result, but also the process of developing
specific (special, particular) knowledge. Other considerations
characteristic of criminology as a special science must also
be taken into account. Firstly, its link with the specific
practice of crime control. Secondly, its possibilities not only
of describing and explaining events, phenomena and facts,
but also of foreseeing them, providing criminological fore­
casts.
Thus, criminology as a special science is a relatively
independent system of objective knowledge, which is at the
same time an element of the system of science in general and
which puts its conclusions into practice in a special sphere
of activity. This definition, in our view, may be considered
an initial one.
18
 th e independence of criminology
We can get a general idea of the content of the science
in question by elucidating the meaning of the actual word
“criminology”. It consists of two parts: the Latin word crimen
(crime) and the Greek word logos (teaching). As we can
see, this word means literally “teaching about crime”. Here
the term “crime” has the same meaning as “criminality”.
Consequently, criminology can be called the science of crim­
inality. The term “criminology” first appeared in publica­
tions at the end of the nineteenth century. Originally people
understood it as meaning problems of research into the
causes of criminality. This can be seen, for example, from
Rafael Garofalo’s book which he entitled La Criminologie.1
Later the term “criminology” began to unite nearly all the
sciences dealing with questions of crimes, criminality.
The elaboration of specifically criminological problems
began with research carried out in various spheres of science,
particularly in medicine, moral statistics, sociology and psy­
chology. These sciences carried out research on crime from
their own theoretical positions and with their own methods.
Such trends even appeared as “criminal sociology” and “crim­
inal anthropology”. These trends are traced in the work of
Cesare Lombroso2 and Enrico Ferri3. Thus, gradually the
appropriate material was accumulated and systematised,
and a point of departure and basis for research were created
which led to the formation of criminology as an independent
discipline.
Criminology cannot be examined insolation from constant­
ly growing scientific knowledge, particularly knowledge
acquired in the sphere of sociology and law. Likewise this
sphere of knowledge cannot be considered if one ignores
or underestimates its independence. To deny the indepen­
dence of criminology may be harmful not only to the science
1 Rafael Garofalo (1852-1934)—a representative of the Italian
anthropological school, a criminologist and lawyer. —Editor's note.
2 Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909)—an Italian psychiatrist and cri­
minalist, founder of the anthropological trend in bourgeois criminology
and criminal law. Advanced the unscientific proposition of the existence
of a special type of person predisposed towards the committing of
crimes by virtue of certain biological features.—Editor's note.
3 Enrico Ferri (1856-1929)—a representative of the Italian anthro­
pological school and follower of Cesare Lombroso. Criminologist and
lawyer.—Editor's note.
2* 19
 itself, but also to the other sciences with which it interacts.
In the former case, criminology will be replaced by a sum
of knowledge from the sphere of other sciences, and in the
latter, the other sciences will be deprived of that which
criminology can give them as an independent science.
Of course, in comparing criminology with other sciences
(for example, criminal law, criminalistics, sociology, foren­
sic medicine, or psychiatry) we can see that crime and its
causes, the personality of the criminal, certain categories
and types of crimes and their prevention (precautionary mea­
sures, averting and stopping) are at the same time the sphere
of research of these sciences, too. Such a comparison may
present criminology as a completely new and very young
science. It is easy to come to this conclusion precisely be­
cause this branch of knowledge was formed as a result of the
accumulation and systematisation of material by other
sciences (particularly those mentioned above). This evidently
explains why one still encounters views that throw doubt
on the independence of criminology. This argument has been
going on for decades and all that time criminology has been
developing and improving as an independent science.
Among Soviet specialists, in spite of their differences of
opinion, there is, generally speaking, a common understand­
ing of criminology as an independent science. This is only
natural. For in the development of criminology one should
see a phenomenon which is well known in the history of
science, when the growth of research within individual
branches of knowledge produces material which under the
influence of social requirements draws attention to the study
of phenomena that require specialist knowledge. In the
process of the mutual influence of the new research material
and social requirements a differentiation of the branches
of science takes place, with new branches splitting off
from old ones. This historical process can also be traced
in the formation of criminology as an independent science.
The following were factors in this process: the social require­
ment engendered by the fact of the existence of crime and
the need to accumulate special research material on this
socially dangerous phenomenon (material that would make
it possible to describe and explain this phenomenon and
make appropriate forecasts), and also by the need to elabo­
rate measures to prevent crimes (breaches of the law).
Thus, criminology is a science born of life itself. One can
20
 confidently say that criminology’s “right of citizenship"
as an independent science has now been recognised.
Proof of the fact that criminology is an independent science
does not in itself reveal the content of this branch of know­
ledge, the full object of its study.

2. THE SUBJECT AND METHOD OF CRIMINOLOGY,

ITS AIMS AND TASKS

A description of the subject of criminology

The main question of this or that science is how clearly
its subject has been established and, consequently, to what
extent it is possible to define and describe this subject ac­
curately in the process of scientific research. The principles
for determining the subject of a science are at the same
time the initial, fundamental theoretical and methodological
aspects of all research in that science. Defining the subject
of a science makes it possible to formulate concretely the
aims and tasks of the research. To elucidate what is the
subject of a science and what is its method means to reply
to the question of what phenomena this science studies and
what devices it uses for this purpose.
Defining the subject of criminology is essential both
as an initial prerequisite for selecting the object and organi­
sation of research and as a most important factor for regula­
rising the system of the juridical criminal-law sciences—
the sciences of the criminal cycle. The specific nature of
the subject of criminology will be more evident if one not
only states what this science studies, but also reveals its
relationship with the system of related sciences both in
terms of subject and other features.
The subject of criminology embraces a multitude of dif­
ferent problems. We must also remember that the question of
the subject, as indeed the subject of the science itself, cannot
always remain unchanging. Only ten years ago it was stated
In the literature that criminology as a science studies
three spheres of phenomena: crime, its causes, and ways of
preventing it. Five years later specialists were writing differ­
ently about the subject of criminology: it studies crime
and its causes, the personality of the criminal, the preven­
tion of crime and other offences. The opinion has also been
21
 expressed that the subject of criminology should include
crime forecasting. Some specialists consider that it should
include economic, cultural and other factors influencing
crime. Others think it essential to include in the subject of
criminology those forms of deviant behaviour and various
“background” phenomena that are closely connected with
crime: drunkenness, drug addiction, amoral behaviour, parasi­
tism, neglect of children, etc.
We are of the opinion, however, that one should not dis­
solve the subject of criminology in the vast number of prob­
lems that are connected in one way or another with crime.
It must not be forgotten that the precise definition of the
concept and range of subject of a science is very important,
because it circumscribes the framework of research, its rea­
sonable limits, and ensures that research is not extended to
phenomena that might distract one from the true aim of the
science. Observance of this requirement makes crimino­
logical research concrete.
What are the initial standpoints for the study of the sub­
ject of criminology? Criminology is a juridical science—this
is the first thing that must be said quite definitely. Other
opinions do exist, however. Some maintain that criminology
is a social science. Others argue that it is a branch of law.
In refuting the former, one must be careful not to cut crim­
inology of sociology. The meeting-point of sociology and
law in this case is extremely fruitful. The affinity of crim­
inology with law and sociology is therefore beyond doubt.
Any concept of criminology without sociology, whatever
division of criminological science into “pure sociology” and
“pure law” this may envisage, is anti-scientific in our day, and
conflicts with modern scientific knowledge in the sphere in
question. Criminology, as an independent branch of know­
ledge, lies within the extensive zone of convergence and
intersection of sociology and law.
The subject of criminology is the specific sphere of social
relations which possess a content that makes it possible to
distinguish them from other social relations. These are the
relations connected with crime and its prevention, the causes
and conditions of crime, criminal behaviour and the pre­
vention of such behaviour. It is these relations that form the
nucleus of the subject of criminology and determine the
features of this science. But the subject of criminology may
also include other relations closely connected with crime.
22
 They usually include social relations connected with so-called
pre-criminal (anti-social) behaviour. As a rule, this denotes
non-criminal forms of anti-social behaviour, which even­
tually result in crime. Naturally, the two forms of social
relations in question do not coincide in their content. They
are hy nature close, but not identical. From the point of
view of criminology, one can speak only conventionally
of their unity. The feature that enables us to distinguish be­
tween these two types of relations is their juridical basis.
To give concrete expression to what has been said, we
can say that the subject of criminology is crime. Research
(including forecasting) aimed at understanding crime, which
is also included in the subject of the science, concerns the
following: crime as a phenomenon; the concrete crime,
i.e., the crime as an individual form of criminality; the
causes and conditions of criminality, the causes and condi­
tions of concrete crimes; the criminal personality; the pre­
vention of crime as a phenomenon and the prevention of
individual crimes. These are, figuratively speaking, the
main characters in criminology. They also characterise the
structure of the subject of this branch of knowledge.
One must bear in mind that the development of scientific
research in the sphere of criminology is at present aimed at
identifying the various aspects that go to make it up: pre­
ventive, prognostic (which is included in the structure of
administration), the study of crime and its causes, the crim­
inal personality, etc. One could also mention such aspects
as victimology1 and even suicidology2. Naturally, each
aspect is subjected to independent scientific research, form­
ing in a number of cases the subject of a special study and
the subject of a relatively independent academic discipline.
However, each of these aspects is first and foremost a crim­
inological one. For we speak not only of the general theory
of criminology, but also of the individual theories of the
science. Their interconnection is obvious. They share the
same sphere of study, the criminological sphere.
The preventive trend in criminology, for example, arose
and began to develop mainly in connection with the practical
needs of controlling crime, offences. This trend is usually
1 Victimology—the study of victims of crime, which comes within
the sphere of criminology.—Editor s note.
2 Suicidology—the study of suicides. In cases when a suicide has
criminal significance it is studied by criminology.—Editor’s notey

23
 called applied. However, the term “prevention” can be seen
in a wider context, not only from the viewpoint of crim­
inology, but also from the viewpoint of sociology and law,
the whole complex of criminal-law sciences, management
psychology, etc. Then we are dealing with social prevention.
Hence the development of such a complex applied scientific
discipline as social prevention. Although firmly based on
criminological theories, the discipline in question exists
independently, for its content is determined by the prac­
tical sphere which it serves. Obviously its subject cannot
be absorbed by the subject of criminology. The concept
of this prevention does not coincide with the concept of
criminological prevention. The latter is merely a part of
social prevention.
The structure of the subject of criminology
In this case the problem is connected with the study of
the individual structural elements of the subject of crim­
inology. We must proceed from the fact that without estab­
lishing clear-cut scientific criteria for defining the relations
that make up the subject of criminology, we cannot form­
ulate the very concept of the subject of this science. Moreover
we must determine the system of social relations connected
with the problems studied by criminology.
In speaking of the subject of their science, criminologists
usually talk mainly about crime, its causes and conditions.
However, to our mind, the criterion of the close connection
of the subject of criminology with crime only, its causes
and conditions is insufficient for a profound study of the
structure of this subject. Firstly, it declares all social rela­
tions in any way connected with crime to be the subject
of criminology, secondly, it encourages the not always justi­
fied expansion of the subject of this science at the expense
of the relations connected with crime and its causes. This
leads to an indefinite structuring of the subject of crimino­
logy. It is essential, therefore, to study the inner structure
of social relations connected with crime, its causes and con­
ditions, and their logical connections, i.e., the inner organ­
isation of the subject of criminology. For crime, like its
causes and conditions (in the broad sense), is the subject
of direct study of criminal-law sciences (the sciences of the
criminal cycle): criminal law, criminal procedure, criminal-
24
 istics and corrective-labour law (criminology is also included
in this cycle). These sciences study various aspects of crime
with their own methods and corresponding research aims.
Therefore we can speak, on the one hand, of the crimino­
logical study of crime, its causes and conditions, and on
the other, of criminal-law, criminal-procedural, criminalistic
and corrective labour studies. The overall study of crime
may be called “criminal”. This concept is a collective one.
It unites all the branches mentioned above.
The other sciences, juridical and non-juridical (connected
in some way with criminology) study crime, its causes and
conditions only indirectly. Crime enters the sphere of these
sciences only from the viewpoint of their own subject, and
mainly in connection with an analysis of the relations that
show a connection with crime.
Thus, it is permissible to speak of two types of social
relations connected with crime, its causes and conditions:
those of a criminal-law nature (direct connection) and those
not related to criminal law (indirect connection). In the
first group we must distinguish those relations which are
part of the subject of criminology. They have their own spe­
cial features. And we must proceed from the fact that the
subjects of the criminal-law sciences intersect but do not
coincide.
In drawing a demarcation line between the subjects of
the criminal-law sciences, we must focus attention on the
interpenetration of these sciences. It is essential to stress
the impossibility, futility and even harm of attempts to
erect a kind of “Great Wall” between these sciences. No
definition of the subject of any of the criminal-law sciences
cuts them off from one another, because the process of inter­
penetration is characteristic of them. Identification of the
subject of each of these sciences and their interconnection,
and a study of the structure of the subject is essential only for
the purposeful and effective organisation of scientific re­
search in the sphere of this or that branch of knowledge and
also for the solution of questions of the concrete use of scienti­
fic achievements in the practical work of crime control.
In defining the structure of the subject of criminology,
one must indicate the range of social relations that are con­
nected with the problems studied by this science. These
problems include: a) crime as a phenomenon, its causes and
conditions; b) the personality of the criminal and criminal
25
behaviour; c) the prevention of crime and crimes; d) crim­
inological research (including forecasting) on the phenomena
of crime: e) administration of the processes of crime control.
These problems are studied from the viewpoint of crim­
inology. Their complex analysis is connected with the inter­
disciplinary nature of criminology.
The subject of criminology is connected with its method.
The method of a science cannot be elaborated in isolation
from its subject, because it is the latter that determines
the specific features of the former.
The method of criminology
Philosophy does not give ready-made solutions to the
questions studied by special (concrete) sciences, but prov­
ides all branches of knowledge with a correct theory of
thought and method for finding these solutions. In the
sphere of criminology, for example, Marxist-Leninist phil­
osophy directs scientific thought to an increasingly precise
understanding of the phenomena of crime in all their object­
ivity, in all their concreteness and dialectical contradic­
tion. It is no accident that we have observed recently a con­
siderable growth of philosophical problems in criminology.
This testifies to criminologists’ growing interest in the gen­
eralising, fundamental questions of their science, their striv­
ing to develop creatively a methodology for understanding
the specific nature of the phenomena of crime. The nature
and scale of modern criminological problems urgently de­
mand a further improvement in criminological methodology.
All this is connected with the active application of the uni­
versal method of cognition in criminology.
In studying crime criminology actually studies social
phenomena, the most complex type of matter in motion.
Therefore general philosophical methodological principles
manifest themselves here (in the study of the phenomena of
crime) in concrete form. As they make the transition to
increasingly concrete levels of cognition they acquire addi­
tional characteristics and act as the method of the social
sciences (to which criminology also belongs). Sometimes
these general philosophical principles do not reveal them­
selves externally, but they are invariably present as the lo­
gical foundation of the method (and the whole categorial
apparatus) which is used by more concrete spheres of knowl-
26
 edge. It should be remembered that general philosophical
methodology runs through the methods of the special sci­
ences. Its relationship to them is that of the universal to the
particular. It is not a question of the mechanical extension
of general philosophical principles to the cognition of the
phenomena of crime, but of their further deepening and
development in criminological research.
There is an urgent need for criminology also, firstly,
to elaborate its own methods proceeding from its subject
and, secondly, elaborate its own forms of applying the
universal method of cognition. In other words, there are
two important prerequisites for the application of phil­
osophy in criminology: a) insofar as the content of the
subject in question is expressed in its method, the special
features of the subject inevitably predetermine the special
features of the method, which makes it necessary to apply
in criminology, alongside philosophy, its own special me­
thods; b) the general concepts and principles created by
philosophical theory are of major significance in research
into the concrete, special problems which criminology studies.
The method of dialectical materialism
in criminology
The dialectical law of the development and interconnec­
tion of phenomena forms the basis of the study of crime and
its categories. Acceptance of the dialectical method as the
basis of scientific criminological research raises the question
of how to use this method in solving concrete problems
related to the subject of the science in question. It should
be borne in mind that in general the problem of crime (like
all other problems in criminology) is a non-formal one.
Therefore the dialectical method is one of the basic methods
of the scientific study of the phenomena of criminality.
The application of the dialectical method in criminology
should be done, first and foremost, by research from the
concrete to the abstract, and then from the abstract to the
concrete. “The first procedure attenuates meaningful images
to abstract definitions, the second leads from abstract defini­
tions by way of reasoning to the reproduction of the con­
crete situation.”1 In relation to criminology this proposition
1 Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy»
Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1978, p. 206,
 means that in proceeding from the direct idea of crime, not
yet analysed by the theory of criminology, it is essential
to single out the most general concepts and definitions,
and then to reproduce these general concepts and definitions
in the concrete diversity of their manifestations. In so
doing one must proceed from Lenin’s proposition that
“thought must apprehend the whole ‘representation’ in its
movement, but for that thought must be dialectical”.1VVhat
is meant by movement here is any change of state. Dialectics
is the pure movement of thought in notions.- It rejects
outright the admission of absolutely unchanging, final,
eternal concepts on this or that phenomenon or process,
no matter how simple and elementary they may seem.
It should be remembered that criminological concepts also
move away from what has become usual and commonplace to
what seems unusual and not commonplace.
The processes of the appearance of new elements in crim­
inology, which are dialectical in their nature, are not stan­
dard, stereotyped ones. Here the new is cognised, as a rule,
in the process of and as a result of forecasting. Forecasting,
from the point of view of dialectics, is an assumption based
on knowledge of the laws of the objective world as to what
will happen, how and in what way a given phenomenon will
change in the future. In this case dialectics acts as a method
of forecasting and of purposive action.
The dialectical method is dialectics in action. It contains
all the ways and means of applying dialectics in the study
of the specific subject of criminology and setting out its
results. Mastering the method should not be restricted to
acquiring knowledge of the laws and categories of dialectics.
This is only the first stage. The essence lies in being able
to apply dialectics. The way for criminology to master the
dialectical method is for it to study the methodology of
Marx ism-Len inism.
How does dialectics show itself in criminology and how
does it help us to assess phenomena and processes on a truly
scientific basis? Dialectics shows itself first and foremost
in the objective contradictions of the process of crimin­
ological cognition, as movement from lack of knowledge to
knowledge by overcoming errors and mistakes, replacing
1 V. I. Lenin, “Conspectus of Hegel’s Book The Setence of Logic”,
Collected Works, Vol. 38, 1961, p. 228.
2 Ibid.t p. 252.

28
relative truths, surmounting one-sided aspects of theory,
etc. These contradictions of cognition, evaluated from the
viewpoint of dialectics, show us how incomplete knowledge
becomes more complete. Frederick Engels said that dialec­
tics make us aware of “the necessary limitation of all ac­
quired knowledge, of the fact that it is conditioned by the cir­
cumstances in which it was acquired”.1 Dialectics “works”
effectively in criminology precisely because the phenomena
and processes studied by this science possess such contra­
dictions in their development that are characteristic of them
as social phenomena. The dialectical mode of thought places
the problem of analysing these phenomena and processes
on the foundation of concrete research. This approach enables
one to understand the special features and trends of the
development of the phenomena and processes studied by
criminology, which stem from the specific historical condi­
tions of this or that age, this or that country. For crim­
inology dialectics is vital and productive only in constant
interconnection with concrete knowledge, with life, with
the pressing problems of modern criminological knowledge.
It serves as a means of solving these problems and is con­
stantly enriched with their concrete content. In such cases
dialectics and criminology are “directly” linked with each
other.
The multiplicity and diversity of definitions of dialectics
testifies to its many-sidedness. It is, as Lenin said, “living,
many-sided knowledge (with the number of sides eternally
increasing), with an infinite number of shades of every
approach and approximation to reality”.2 Therefore in cri­
minological research (as in all other scientific research) it
is impossible, and unnecessary, to assess phenomena and pro­
cesses from the viewpoint of all the aspects of dialectics.
In such research it is quite permissible to stress one par­
ticular aspect of dialectics, to consider it from this or that
angle. However, the criminologist is bound to take into
account the broad possibilities of the dialectical interpreta­
tion of the phenomena and processes under review.

1 Frederick Engels, “Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical

German Philosophy”. In K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works
in three volumes, Vol. Three, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1977,
p. 363.
2 V. I. Lenin, “On the Question of Dialectics”, Collected Workst
Vol. 38, p. 362.

29
 The union of dialectics and criminology is not a formal
one. Dialectics provides a broad methodological base for
a meaningful analysis of the problems studied by criminology.
Dialectics helps criminology to interpret its problems phi­
losophically.
The method of historical materialism
in criminology
The approach to the understanding of social phenomena
and processes from the viewpoint of historical materialism
is at the same time the dialectical approach. Historical
materialism must not be divorced from dialectical mater­
ialism. They must be examined together. The difference
between dialectical and historical materialism lies not in
the principles of their approach to the phenomena of reality
and not in their methods of considering these phenomena,
but in the objects of research, in the range of phenomena
considered. Dialectical materialism is a science about the
most general laws of development of nature, society and
human thought. Historical materialism studies the laws
which operate in society only. Therefore, in all scientific
research, criminological included, it is important to ensure
a close link between historical materialism and dialectics,
dialectical materialism.
For criminology the method of historical materialism
(or historical method) is important not only for solving
“purely historical” questions, but also for understanding
the present day. This method helps us to explain the essence
of present-day phenomena and can be used to forecast pro­
cesses of development both of society as a whole and of con­
crete social phenomena, such as crime. Lenin wrote of the
historical method: “The most reliable thing in a question
of social science, and one that is most necessary in order
really to acquire the habit of approaching this question
correctly and not allowing oneself to get lost in the mass
of detail or in the immense variety of conflicting opinion—
the most important thing if one is to approach this question
scientifically is not to forget the underlying historical con­
nection, to examine every question from the standpoint of
how the given phenomenon arose in history and what were
the principal stages in its development, and, from the
standpoint of its development, to examine what it has
30
 become today.”1 From this proposition of Lenin's one cart
draw the following conclusion: the historical approach to
the analysis of criminological problems, questions of the
origin and change (development) of the tendencies and laws
of crime in the past, present and future is one of the most
important manifestations of the method of historical mater­
ialism in criminology.
This approach is an essential condition for revealing
the essence of crime, for it links this phenomenon indis­
solubly with a definite socio-economic formation, with the
whole system of social relations at a given stage of the dev­
elopment of society. Moreover the method of historical
materialism enables us to understand the contradictory
nature of social development, to grasp the essence of the
phenomenon under review, and also of the processes con­
nected with this phenomenon, their laws, main tendency
and direction of development.
The basis of all scientific research is the study of history
as a single process which is law-governed in all its many-
sidedness and contradictoriness. This may be the study of
the history of society as a whole, when one is dealing with
a global problem. It may also be a study of the history
of this or that sphere of social life, when a task arises in
the sphere of some particular phenomena. But in both
cases scientific research must include a study of the law-
governed development of the relevant social object (or objects)
from the viewpoint of its history. Crime is such a social
object. As a social phenomenon it has its own history.
In studying it from the standpoint of Marxist-Leninist phi­
losophy, it is easy to see that its development is consistent,
law-governed and conditioned. However, a study of the
history of crime presupposes an examination of all its contra­
dictory tendencies that are characteristic of it in a certain
period of time. This is an essential requirement of Marxist-
Leninist philosophy. Lenin pointed out that in analysing
any social question it is essential to place it within a definite
historical framework.2
Crime, as a social phenomenon, can be successfully stud­
ied only if the whole course of its history, the laws of its

1 V. I. Lenin, “The State”, Collected Works, Vol. 29, 1965, p. 473.

2 V. I. Lenin, “The Right of Nations to Self-Determination”,
Collected Works, Vol. 20, 1972, p. 400.

31
 changes at different stages, its contradictions, tendencies,
etc., are studied from the standpoint of Marxist-Leninist
philosophy. The main task of the historical approach to
these problems is to reveal and determine the contradictions
in the development of crime and to establish the factors that
have promoted its changes over the whole history of this
phenomenon. This requires concrete, precise consideration
of the changing historical situation. To concentrate only on
the past and fail to see and understand the new elements
that arise in the process of the historical change of crime
as a phenomenon may lead to serious errors.
As a theory of society and the laws of its development,
historical materialism enables us to generalise the history of
criminology in general and the history of all the questions
included in the subject of this science, and to assess their
qualitative and quantitative changes in time.
Thus, dialectical and historical materialism helps us to
study those events, phenomena and processes which charac­
terise the subject of research from the broadest, most univer­
sal standpoint.

3. THE AIMS AND TASKS OF CRIMINOLOGY,

ITS MAIN FUNCTIONS

Aims and tasks

For science it is important to define its aims clearly, in
order to provide reliable pointers for its development and
to make it impossible to deviate from the chosen path.
The aim of criminology generally speaking is to construct
models of the future result of scientific activity in this
sphere. The posing and substantiation of this aim on the
theoretical level is based on scientific knowledge with due
account of the requirements and interests of theory and
practice. For theoretical knowledge (criminology itself as
a system of knowledge) is linked with practical activity
not directly, but through activity in the sphere of crime
control, which promotes the elaboration of practical aims
on the basis of this knowledge.
Science, all branches of knowledge, objectively promotes
the transformation of reality and develops in accordance
with the aims which it has been set. It is with their help that
it confronts existing reality, as it were, and by means of cer-
32
 tain actions (scientific research, the whole process of cogni­
tion, of obtaining new knowledge) changes reality in a way
that is desirable for society. The aim (aims) expresses the
creative, transforming relationship of science with reality,
its active relationship with the desired future. It (this aim)
is the spearhead of scientific thought aimed at the future.
But the achieved aim is the result not only of cognitive,
theoretical activity, but also of constructive practice. Only
a union of theory and practice can lead to the attainment
of the aims set.
The ultimate aim of criminology as a science determines
its orientation in general, on which depends the whole logic
of the process of cognition, the whole organisation of scienti­
fic research in this sphere. This aim must be in keeping with
the policy of crime control. As we know, the ultimate aim of
this policy is to abolish crime and the causes and conditions
that give rise to it. The ultimate aim of criminology, then,
is to equip practice with all the necessary scientific knowledge
lor the abolition of crime and the causes and conditions that
give rise to it, and to create an appropriate scientific base
for this. These aims of crime control policy and criminology
as a science are in the interest of Soviet society and are of
a profoundly moral, humane nature. In setting these ulti­
mate aims criminology and crime control policy are going
beyond the confines of the present, and thus of old, accu­
mulated practical experience and theoretical knowledge.
The long-term aims of a theoretical and practical nature
are basically the creation of a many-sided, many-levelled
system of preventing crime as a phenomenon, preventing
individual types and categories of offences committed by
members of different social and age groups. They also include
neutralisation of criminogenic factors and strengthening
of the influence of anti-criminogenic factors on crime. The
long-term aims also envisage the uniting of all measures of
social prevention: moral, legal, etc. However, such a system
must constantly take into account changes both in social
development and in crime. Therefore an essential prerequis­
ite for the construction of this system if it is to operate
effectively over a considerable period is criminological fore­
casting and long-term planning, based on this forecasting,
in the theory and practice of crime control. Here criminology
must see its own specific aims—the scientific solution of not
only theoretical, but also practical tasks: how the system
3 —U17 7 1 33
 of prevention and abolition of crime should be constructed
in order to satisfy practical demands and requirements.
Criminology should offer alternative solutions and provide
the necessary information. Practical workers make use of
this material in controlling crime.
Short-term aims are, as a rule, connected with carrying
on everyday scientific and practical work in the sphere of
crime control, and with the gradual creation for this pur­
pose, and also for the attainment of long-term and ultimate
aims, of an appropriate material and technical base. Karl
Marx wrote: “Mankind ... inevitably sets itself only such
tasks as it is able to solve, since closer examination will
always show that the problem itself arises only when the
material conditions for its solution are already present or
at least in the course of formation.”1 The abolition of crime
in our country is a real aim. It is conditioned by the very
system of socialist society and state organisation and is linked
with the further development of this system. Everything
is being done for its attainment: science is developing, a net­
work of research establishments is being set up, personnel
are being trained, practical work is being improved, and
so on.
The connection of aims and tasks. Success is not achieved
by waiting passively for the achievement of long-term and
ultimate aims. It is essential, first and foremost, to define
clearly and attain (in the first stage) short-term aims which
usually conform to everyday tasks. The short-term aims are
to increase the effectiveness of the theory and practice of crime
control. As in theory, so in pratice, everyday tasks can be
successfully performed only if we possess as much informa­
tion as possible about crime and means of preventing it.
Consequently, corresponding research is necessary. From the
point of view of short-term aims this research can be carried
out over a definite period, e.g. five years.
The main task of criminology is to obtain reliable infor­
mation about crime and to draw up measures for controlling
it. There can be no doubt that the ultimate aim of crim­
inology is to be a highly effective science, to promote, by
solving its problems, the formation of the new man. In
the final analysis, the value of criminology will be measured

1 Karl Marx, A Contribution to the Crittque of Political Economy,

p. 21.

34
 by its connection with life, with the practical work of build­
ing a communist society. This in no way excludes the need
for a deep theoretical foundation. Without the setting up
of a scientific system, without the identifying of simple
elements, initial concepts, without fundamental generalisa­
tions the effect will be superficial. Criminology will perform
its major tasks in crime control —the abolition of this phe­
nomenon from the life of Soviet society, only if it acts as
a true science.
The tasks of criminology may be summarised as the detec­
tion and scientific study of the causes and conditions of
crime, the analysis of the tendencies and laws of crime, its
state, level and structure. These tasks also include the detec­
tion of persons capable by virtue of their behaviour of com­
mitting a crime, and the study of them with the aim of exert­
ing an edifying, preventive influence on them All this
is necessary in order to provide the practical sphere with
concrete recommendations, the best possible information.
Special attention must be paid to solving the task of
a differentiated approach to crimes and criminals, the elab­
oration of preventive measures. All these tasks make it
necessary to examine the following main groups of scientific
and theoretical problems which concern not only current,
but also long-term aims.
The study of crime as a phenomenon
Here the main attention should be devoted to an analysis
of crime as a phenomenon, its causes, and factors—crim­
inogenic and anti-criminogenic. Special subjects of research
are the state, level, structure and dynamics of crime at
different stages of the development of society. It is essential
to ensure observance of the principle of the unity of quanti­
tative and qualitative analysis. On the basis of the data
obtained criminological forecasts are made which form the
basis for long-term plans for crime control.
The study of types of crime is connected with the analysis
of recidivist crime, juvenile delinquency, primary crime,
female crime, male crime, etc. This is done in accordance
with the demands made of scientific research.
In studying crimes and their causes data on the intercon­
nection of crimes, their different groups and categories with
the phenomenon of crime as a whole are accumulated, gener-
3* 35
 alised and analysed. On the basis of systems analysis a studd
is made of the interconnection of all crimes, firstly, wity
individual elements of the metasystem, and, secondly, with
the social system as a whole (with all the phenomena anh
processes that exist in society). In paying special attention
to the classification of crimes (the classification of crimes
that are homogeneous and similar into “generalised types’*),
the criminologist generalises and studies (interprets accord­
ingly) data on the causes of the commission of concrete
crimes, on the conditions in which they are committed, and
the circumstances (situations) which promote their com­
mission. As a result he obtains a picture of the causes of
crime as a whole. Research into thecauses of crime facilitates
to a certain extent a study of the consequences of the anti-so­
cial behaviour both of individual categories of offenders and-
of certain social micro-groups of persons leading an anti­
social way of life. Here we are dealing basically with the
practical questions of explaining the causes, conditions, and
circumstances of crimes and their consequences.
Study of the criminal personality
and the mechanism of committing a crime
First and foremost it is important to describe and assess
from the theoretical and practical point of view the struc­
ture of persons committing crimes, according to such features
as sex, age, education, etc. This enables us to analyse how
offenders realise their illegal (criminal) behaviour in a real
socio-psychological environment and what influence they
have on the formation of individual propositions of “every­
day philosophy” and “everyday psychology”. Such an analy­
sis helps us to understand the formation of the so-called
scale of social values of those around us, to determine the
social prestige of the bodies controlling crime and the indi­
vidual representatives of these institutions, and to assess
the offenders themselves. This, in its turn, promotes the
accumulation and generalisation of data on the commission
of offences, materials describing unlawful activity and the
most characteristic, frequently occurring factors in the pre­
paring and concealing (the latent aspect) of crimes within
different categories and groups. It would appear to be pos­
sible to analyse the conceptual structure of the various types
of crimes in terms of the processes of their commission. Spe-
30
d al attention must be paid to the processes of the formation of
“programmes” of anti-social behaviour of the individual in
society and the laws governing the processes of the forma­
tion of “programmes” of lawful behaviour in different condi­
tions—in open (family, school, etc.) and closed (predom­
inantly places of detention) communities. The data obtained
will help to ensure the drawing up of measures to prevent
anti-social behaviour.
The regional study of crime includes two main trends:
the accumulation and generalisation of data on the distribu­
tion of the various types of crimes in the various regions and
the generalisation of regional information over the country
as a whole. These data help to organise a more effective crime
control (to draw up forecasts, preventive measures, etc.)
with due account not only of nation-wide requirements, but
also of the local conditions of this or that region.
Determining the main trends in crime prevention
Here the first thing to be assessed is the general trend
of preventive activity, then the trends, types and forms of
this activity are established from the standpoint of the dif­
ferentiated approach. The main trends of prevention are:
early and direct prevention, general prevention and individual
prevention. In the drawing up and carrying out of prevent­
ive measures the comprehensive approach is essential. It
requires the elaboration, firstly, of a system of prevention
in general, and secondly, of a system of preventive measures
which take account of individual trends: moral, legal,
pedagogical, psychological, medical (including psychiatric)
prevention, etc.
The prevention of individual categories and groups of offences
is based on the above-mentioned classification of crimes and
the differentiated approach to them. It is essential that spe­
cial attention be paid to the prevention of crimes committed
through drunkenness and alcoholism, and also through drug
addition and toxicomania, amoral behaviour in the sphere of
sexual relations, the socially dangerous behaviour of persons
with psychic abnormalities that do not exclude liability,
etc. The traditional trends should not be overlooked: the
Prevention of murder, robbery and embezzlement, hooligan­
ism, juvenile delinquency, recidivist crime, etc. There has
long been an urgent need to determine special features of
37
 preventive measures for women offenders. A study of the
different character of crimes and their many and various
causes and the drawing up of differentiated measures for
their prevention will help to solve the task of creating
a proper prevention system.
The system of subjects of crime prevention is composed of
two main groups: state bodies and public organisations
(formations). Precise listing of the subjects of crime preven­
tion will make it possible to establish not only their concrete
functions, but also the functions of the subdivisions and
officials, public formations, clubs, societies and other public
organisations, and their representatives, etc., which form
part of the system of this or that body, organisation or de­
partment.
Defining the objects of preventive action is linked with
answering the question: In relation to whom should crime
prevention be carried on? Here we must list the categories of
persons in need of preventive action, both as a whole, and
also separately depending on their degree of social danger
(recidivists, drunkards, family brawlers, etc.). Precisely
who and under what circumstances should be subjected to
preventive measures? The answer to this question is a most
complex task which nevertheless must be solved.
Life also dictates the need to accumulate and generalise
data on material and other types of resources expended by
the state on crime control (crime prevention, detection
and investigation, the investigation of criminals, etc.). Here
account must be taken of the material loss incurred by so­
ciety as a result of the commission of crimes. It is essential
also to accumulate and generalise data on the material
valuables returned to society (and conserved for society)
as a result of the preventive activity of the bodies and organ­
isations controlling crime. This problem is linked, first
and foremost, with keeping records and creating information
banks. A clearing-house of information on the “crime budget”
is needed.
Forecasting is of special importance. Theory and practice
have shown convincingly that the function of forecasting is
an integral part of criminology. Scientific cognition in the
sphere of criminology not only reflects the present state of
the phenomena (processes, events) which it studies, but also,
by basing itself on the tendencies and laws of development of
these phenomena, outlines the estimated results of purpos-
38
ive action on them. Hence it follows that criminology, which
creates a theoretical basis for organising crime control,
should master prognostic methods to perfection.
The functions of criminology
In studying the questions which form part of its subject,
criminology carries out scientific research from different
standpoints: it reveals the main features of crime, analyses
cause and effect relationships, and studies the tendencies
and laws of any given phenomenon, not only from the stand­
point of its past and present, but also of its future. In the
former case the leading role is played by descriptive and
explanatory functions, in the latter by the forecasting, or
prognostic function. Criminology thus has three main func­
tions: descriptive (or diagnostic), explanatory (or ethnol­
ogical) and forecasting (prognostic). In other words, one can
detect three stages in the development of this science:
the empiric (or collective) when the researcher explains how
this or that process takes place; the theoretical (or explan­
atory) when the researcher seeks to find why a process has
taken place in a certain way; and prognostic, when the
researcher tries to look into the future and detect the pros­
pects for the development of the phenomenon or process in
question. It is at this higher stage that the possibilities of
criminology as a science arc revealed fully. These three stages
(functions) of criminology always overlap. Together they
may be represented as the cognitive function which also
lias the practical application.
Let us first consider the explanatory function. To explain
is to reveal the essence of an object on the basis of empirical
facts and general theory. This function makes it possible
to proceed from a description of the phenomena under consi­
deration to a strict scientific analysis of them. One of the
main tasks of criminology is, therefore, that of explanation.
Criminological theory is created mainly to solve this task.
In the performance of its functions, with the help of
which it obtains new knowledge, criminology has great pos­
sibilities for organising and carrying out theoretical and
applied research connected with practical needs.
Theoretical research is usually research aimed at discov­
ering new phenomena and laws. Applied research, as a rule,
is that which is put to direct practical use. The distinction
39
 between these types of research would seem to be purely
conventional.
It is obvious that the word theoretical can be used for
research that determines the frontiers of science, so to say,
i.e., research of great theoretical as well as practical signi­
ficance. Such research produces conclusions that are import­
ant both for the science itself and for the general direction
of practical activity. Applied research, based on the results
of theoretical research, makes it possible to draw up direct
practical recommendations. Thus, the link between theory
and practice is a two-way one: practice provides theory
with requests and theory provides practice with answers and
recommendations.
Let us now describe briefly the ideological function of
criminology. The social sciences, criminology included, are
ideological by their very essence, their nature. The role of
criminology in ideological activity is growing, but at the
same time the role of scientific ideology in criminological
research is also increasing. The construction of a theory of
criminology (as a social science) presupposes a clear definition
of its philosophical basis. The philosophical content of this
science is not a kind of abstract schema divorced from reality
and the practical fight against negative social phenomena,
crime. The principles of criminology are always based on
a definite class foundation. By creating a theoretical basis
for crime control, criminology is defending the interests of
the advanced class of our society—the working class—the
bearer of Marxist-Leninist ideology.
Criminological theory (theoretical function). By studying
the questions that come within its subject, criminology
elaborates its own ideas and theoretical concepts. Assessing
criminology as a science, we can say that it is a logically
well-constructed theoretical conception. The elaboration by
criminology of a number of theoretical conceptions and cor­
responding synthetic concepts is a condition of its successful
development. The theoretical conception of criminology is
aimed at the understanding and explanation of the phe­
nomena of crime and elaboration of practical recommenda­
tions. To reject theory in this sphere is to reject objective
knowledge about crime and the phenomena related to it.
Outside criminology as a theoretical discipline no general­
isation, systematisation or analysis is possible. Effective
crime control is, therefore, also impossible outside this
theory. That is why the need for the elaboration of crim­
inological theory, or as it is sometimes called, theoretical
criminology, is not decreasing, but growing constantly.
Scientific theory has a structure. There are two types of
initial prerequisites for its construction. These are empirical
data (the direct foundation of a science) and propositions which
form the initial theoretical basis (postulates, axioms). Both the
theoretical and the empirical levels of research are characteristic
of criminology. The empirical level has as its subject concrete
facts, accumulated empirical material which is necessary for
further study and generalisation. At this level criminology only
records facts, as it were. In this case it does not possess any
scientifically substantiated conclusions. The empirical level
is essential for criminology, yet at the same time limited, so it
is combined with theoretical research. At the theoretical level
of research the results of empirical analysis are usually intro­
duced into a higher system of relations and conceptual models
of the processes under review are constructed. The importance
of theoretical research lies in the fact that it provides knowledge
of the essence, the general structure and causes of the proces­
ses analysed, making it possible to put the categorial apparatus
into a relative system. However, for criminology the concepts of
the theoretical and empirical have no absolute meaning. They
frequently interchange as one moves from one level of research
to the other. Criminology therefore appears sometimes as an
empirical science and sometimes as a theoretical one. The question
of the dividing line between the theoretical and empirical must
be decided separately in each concrete case. One should not look
for contradictions here.
The analysis of the empirical and theoretical in criminology
by no means excludes the examination of these levels of research
independently, separately. Theoretical criminology (the theoretical
aspect) differs from empirical criminology (the empirical aspect),
first and foremost, in its stability, irrefutability. With regard
to empirical generalisation there is not and cannot be any cer­
tainty that sooner or later it will not be refuted, for the possibi­
lity always exists that an event will occur that contradicts this
generalisation. Theory, however, is not discarded in this way
and, as a rule, enjoys its former trust. This feature of theory
testifies to the “safety margin” of scientific knowledge. In relation
to criminology, as to other concrete sciences, the main question
is whether or not this or that conception belongs to the class
of theory. Here we must remember that theory aims not only
at acquiring knowledge, but also at establishing it as being of
universal significance in science.
One should, of course, always remember that theoretical
criminology cannot be unambiguous insofar as it depends
on empirical criminology, i.e., factual data, facts. The
differentiation of criminological knowledge into theoretical
and empirical by no means signifies their total autonomy
41
 from each other. Their development proceeds thanks to
their interaction and interconditioning. The dialectical re­
lationship of theoretical and empirical criminology is deter­
mined by the unity and variety characteristic of scientific
knowledge.
The need for the further creative elaboration of crimin­
ological theory is not decreasing, but, on the contrary,
growing. However, the tasks confronting the science can be
solved only if it is very closely connected with life. Scholastic
theorising, that barren flower of science, can only hamper
its advance. The development of theory is not an end in
itself, but a vital requirement. That is why it is essential
to extend and deepen fundamental research consistently,
because what at first may seem to be totally abstract theor­
etical formulas, if they reflect a real subject of research
to a greater or lesser extent, are eventually turned to direct
practical advantage and provide tangible results. The theor­
etical possibilities of criminology should, therefore, also
be considered from the viewpoint of practical significance.
A special feature of criminological theory is that it forms
the basis of practical action in crime control, determining
more fully and concretely the ways of this control. This me­
ans that theoretical activity is becoming one of the most im­
portant factors promoting effective crime control. Research
of this kind stimulates the posing of new theoretical and
practical problems and promotes the development of a cre­
ative attitude to practical activity. It is in this connection
that one speaks of a rise in the science of criminology, the
enhancement of its role and significance in crime control.
The present stage in the development of criminology is
advancing methodological (and therefore also philosophical)
problems to the forefront. Armed with Marxist methodo­
logy* we can determine the place and significance of pheno­
mena and processes studied by criminology in the social
system, theoretically interpret empirical material, provide a
philosophical generalisation of scientific analysis, and de­
tect new criminological problems connected with social
development. In all this the theoretical and methodological
levels are considered from the viewpoint of dialectical unity.
Thus, criminological theory equips scholars and practical
workers with scientific knowledge about crime and related
phenomena and reveals the sources and mechanisms of the
corresponding processes. It creates the prerequisities for
42
understanding the phenomena of crime. Criminology as a
science is called upon to provide a theoretical analysis of
the cognitive activity in the framework of its research, to
elaborate theory and methodology, and to substantiate theo­
retical knowledge. It is obliged to prove its theoretical pro­
positions, to show the truth of its theoretical system of know­
ledge, and to substantiate its initial and derived concepts.
Soviet criminology performs its theoretical functions in ac­
cordance with the requirements of the universal method of
cognition.
Applied criminology (practical function). The practical
function of criminology is directly connected with its theo­
retical function and proceeds from the very essence of scien­
tific cognition. An important stimulus for scientific inquiry
in the sphere of criminology is practical work, its needs and
requirements. Crime control makes demands upon crimino­
logical theory. This is why practical crime control plays a
decisive role among the other factors influencing criminolo­
gical theory. The practical tasks confronting criminology
are diverse. The main one is to equip practical workers for
effectively controlling crime. In other words, the practical
role of criminology is to create scientific foundations for the
organisation of crime prevention in order to ensure the most
positive results. This is why criminology does not confine
itself to theoretical research on problems of crime control,
but deals with a wide range of questions connected with
their practical solution.
Practice is a central category of Marxist-Leninist epistemology.
It is the base for the attaining of objective knowledge, the main
criterion of the accuracy of any theory. Yet it acts as such a cri­
terion only when it is understood as activity aimed at transform­
ing reality in a way desirable for society. Moreover it is essen­
tial to ensure the unity of theory and practice as an indispensable
condition of the effectiveness of the theoretical and practical
types of activity. At the same time it is also essential to strive
for the conscious application of theoretical propositions, the
practical application of science. This is also true of criminology
whose practical function strikingly represents one of its main
parts—applied criminology. Here we must remember that one
of the specific features of the modern stage in the development of
criminology is the extension of its practical (applied) front. It is
obvious that the solutions offered by criminology to this or that
practical task are effective only when they are substantiated by
theory. Consequently, the unity of the theoretical and applied
aspects is an essential condition of the further development of
criminological science and the practice of crime control.

43
 Crime control is increasingly becoming not only a field
for applying the achievements of criminological theory,
but also an essential component of scientific knowledge in
this sphere. It is thanks to the practice of crime control
that the store of scientific ideas grows, methods of scientific
research improve and the practical work of crime preven­
tion is enriched. We must stress the importance today of
Lenin’s ideas on the scientific aspect of practical activity.
He said that the scientific aspect in any sphere of activ­
ity was the main one, because without science and a correct
understanding of it there could be no properly organised
practical work either. Therefore Lenin demanded that we
learn to “put a value on science”, to be guided by it in
our practical affairs.1 This proposition should be accepted
by practical workers controlling crime as a guide to action.
The use of criminology in crime control, taken together
with the concrete research and special theories of this science,
can be united in a single concept—applied criminology.
The recognition of applied criminology is connected first
and foremost with the fact that in recent years it has become
a powerful practical instrument and begun to influence more
actively decision-making in the sphere of crime control.
Applied criminology performs the practical function of
this science to a large extent. When we speak of criminology,
we have in mind also criminological practice, which consists
of the study of crime, its causes, the criminal personality,
the carrying out by state bodies and public organisations of
various measures aimed at preventing crime. Whether or not
criminology performs its tasks successfully depends on the
state of concrete criminological research. The development
of applied criminology as a whole is characterised by the
clearly expressed orientation on this research.
Stressing the role of applied criminology shows that crimi­
nology strives to be of practical use. However, for crimino­
logy to yield practical results, its theoretical propositions
must be formulated in such a way that they can be related to
practical aims (translated into practical language).
The study of what is theoretically possible in principle,
the elaboration of fundamental propositions, remains the
major task of criminology. From a multitude of theoreti-

1 V. I. Lenin, “Integrated Economic Plan”, Collected Works,

Vol. 32, 1965, p. 141.

44
 cal possibilities, only those that meet the criteria of expedi­
ent, economical and humane crime control find practical
embodiment. Moreover, not all the results of scientific re­
search are passed on in good time to those engaged in practi­
cal activity. In view of these factors, it can be said that the
problem of the relationship of theoretical and applied crimi­
nology extends beyond the model of “science and practice”.
A number of administrative and other questions arises here.
In any case it must be remembered that the aim of crimino­
logy is a practical one.
The structure of the theory of criminology organically com­
bines various theories, concepts, etc. It is, first and foremost,
a general theory of criminology and its special theories.
In view of the “differentiation” of criminology into special
theories the base on which the general theory itself is con­
structed expands. But this differentiation is necessary if
special criminological problems are to be considered on the
base of special theories. Each of these theories has its own
long and complex history in the development of criminology
as an independent branch of knowledge. Equally complex
was the understanding of the mutual relationship of special
theories, without which none of them could be properly treat­
ed singly. But it must be said straightaway that what­
ever aspect is considered, we can speak in each concrete case
only of the exposition and concretisation of a single theory
of criminology, and not of the branching off of some of its
parts. The isolation of this or that individual criminological
theory, if taken independently of any other and turned into a
kind of autonomous part, could lead to the loss of the inner
connection of all the aspects and facets of criminology, to
the erosion of its subject. Systemic integrity is character­
istic of all theories of criminology.
Special theories include all those that form part (relative­
ly independently) of the subject of criminology. The main
special theories are: the theory of crime; the theory of the
causes of crime; the theory of the criminal personality;
the theory of the prevention of crime; the theory of crimino­
logical prevention; the theory of concrete criminological re­
search; the theory of criminological forecasting; and the
theory of administering the processes of crime control. These
special theories are at the same time also the basic concepts
of criminology. The latter are fully included in the science
of criminology, of which they are also the subject.
45
 4. THE PLACE OF CRIMINOLOGY
IN THE SYSTEM OF SCIENCES

An assessment of criminology in connection

with its place in the system of sciences
In order to determine the place of criminology in the sys­
tem of sciences one must explain, firstly, its degree of
“kinship” with other, particularly related, disciplines, and,
secondly, its degree of independence. The analysis of these
problems stems from the need to strengthen the alliance of
criminology with other sciences, both juridical and non-juri-
dical. The interaction of these sciences is dictated by the in­
ner logic of the development of scientific knowledge, inter
alia, in the sphere which we are studying, by the pressing
tasks of theoretical and applied research in the sphere of
crime control. As experience shows, new possibilities for
fruitful research of both a theoretical and applied nature
open up at the intersection of the different sciences. These
possibilities should be fully exploited. Only on the basis
of the closest interaction of criminological and other branches
of knowledge and the union of this science with practice,
can the tasks of crime control be solved successfully. Here
criminology is considered precisely in the system of sciences.
Science is a complex, ramified and multi-level system of knowl­
edge. Two large groups are usually distinguished in this unique
metasystem: the social and the natural sciences. The structure
of the social sciences consists, first and foremost, of the funda­
mental sciences that study individual spheres or aspects of social
life. These are political economy, sociology, theory of state and
law, and other branches of knowledge. Each of these fundamental
sciences in its turn is a complex system of special branches of
knowledge. Criminology forms part of the system of juridical
knowledge (the system of such a fundamental social science as
the theory of state and law), in which it is regarded as a special
science. Consequently, criminology, being an independent branch
of knowledge, is at the same time part of the system of sciences,
interacting with other branches of knowledge.
Historical materialism studies social life as a whole and in
the interaction of its various aspects. It examines laws which
are general in varying degrees. By revealing the most general
laws of the construction and development of society and analys­
ing the place and role of each aspect of social life in the system
of society as a whole, historical materialism performs the role of
a methodology in relation to each social science. Moreover it
serves as a methodology, first and foremost, for the fundamental
sciences and through these sciences influences the whole system
46
 of social knowledge. Therefore, criminology, for example, as
a special science, is connected with historical materialism pri­
marily through the theory of state and law. At the same time,
because it is connected to a certain extent with other fundamental
sciences, e.g. sociology, criminology is also "nourished” by historic­
al materialism through these sciences. Moreover, as an inde­
pendent science it cannot help basing its special research directly
on the principles of historical materialism. As we can see, this
methodological approach is fully in keeping with the system of
sciences described above.

Thus, criminology is connected with many branches of

scientific knowledge and, first and foremost, with sociology,
law, economics, psychology and statistics. But criminology
is not just connected with many sciences, it contains within
itself elements of these sciences. Therefore we must find not
only the points of “contact” of criminology with other sciences,
but also the limits of its “encroachment” upon other sciences,
and vice versa. In this connection we are fully justified
in asking the question: should criminology, and if so to what
extent, encroach upon the study of various amoral phenome­
na connected with different types of deviant behaviour and
the prevention of such behaviour? The reply to this ques­
tion can be summed up as follows:
firstly, criminology should “hand over” to other sciences
for their more profound and proper study questions which
are outside its domain (e.g. drunkenness, alcoholism, drug
addiction, the behaviour of psychically abnormal persons,
and other types of behaviour which are not classified as com­
ing within the sphere of criminology and belong to the
subject of other sciences);
secondly, criminology should “take” from other sciences
its own specific questions (e.q. crimes committed through
drunkenness, alcoholism, drug addiction, etc.). Criminolo­
gy does not study drunkenness and alcoholism, but crimes
committed through them. It studies not the behaviour of psy­
chically abnormal persons, but the crimes committed as a
result of such behaviour;
thirdly, this or that science, for example, sociology, psy­
chology, psychiatry, which study various aspects of drun­
kenness, alcoholism, and the behaviour of the psychically
abnormal, should pass on their achievements to criminology,
particularly those concerning the causes of crimes and their
prevention. Criminology, in its turn, should supply these
sciences with the results of its research, mainly on questions
47
 relating to the subject of these branches of knowledge. Ob­
viously, this requires coordination and scientific cooperation.
A t the juncture of criminology and other sciences many differ­
ent problems arise. They include adolescent and juvenile
delinquency (where pedagogics, for example, is essential),
recidivist crime, female crime, etc. For both criminology
and other related branches of knowledge scientific collabora­
tion should take the form of further differentiation of their
specific subject of research, further development and en­
richment of their conceptual and categorial apparatus.
Determining the place of criminology in the system of
sciences is also linked with the characterisation of the differ­
entiation and integration of scientific knowledge. On the
one hand, there is a differentiation (identifying) of the sci­
ences linked with an increasingly profound delving into the
processes of social development. This stems from the need
to make knowledge more detailed, the growing need for
specialisation in science. On the other hand, the process of
the integration, expansion and deepening of the mutual in­
fluence of the sciences is developing. This explains the fact
that, on the one hand, a differentiation of knowledge has
taken place in criminology in recent years and new trends
of scientific research have arisen, each of which can somewhat
loosely be termed a teaching: crime prevention, criminologic­
al forecasting, criminal statistics, administration of the
processes of crime control, etc. And on the other hand, these
and some other scientific trends are based primarily on crim­
inological theory and consider the subject of their research
through the prism of criminology. Evidently this is a mani­
festation of the integration tendency. It finds expression in
the strengthening of the relations of criminology with other
branches of knowledge. Here we have the complex process of
the mutual influencing and mutual enrichment of the sciences.
Criminology as a system. While occupying a definite place
in the system of sciences, criminology itself is a kind of sys­
tem. Although it is hardly possible to establish precise
relations between the different components of this system
(theories, ideas, and conceptions), there can be no doubt that
these components are connected with one another and that
criminology is not a jumble of individual theories or groups
of theories. In order to be included in this science, this or
that new theory, idea or conception must bear some rela­
tionship to the existing components of criminology, must
48
 be integrated in the system. As a system of scientihcjmowl-
edge, criminology includes a body of interconnected ele­
ments which consists of factual material! theoretical construc­
tions, principles, laws and categories, hypotheses, corrob­
orated conclusions, methods, methodology and technique of
investigation accumulated during the relevant research. In
other words, criminology as a system can be represented, on
the one hand, by its theory, and on the other, by its applied
section, where we are dealing with the practical application
of the results of criminological research. This is how crimi­
nology presents itself as a system.
The interdisciplinary nature of criminology is expressed in
the fact that it has two groups of interdisciplinary connec­
tions. One group of connections lies in using the methods of
other sciences while avoiding contact with their subjects.
The other group is expressed in direct “contact” of those
branches of knowledge that study crime and its phenomena, and
questions of prevention. This finds expression in the presence
of and need for joint research on contiguous problems.
The method of criminology lies in the fact that it seeks to
synthesise criminological knowledge, to formulate proposi­
tions not covered by other sciences. In so doing criminology
makes most active use of the methods of various branches of
knowledge. This is an expression of its interdisciplinary ap­
proach. But in any event the study of criminological prob­
lems is impossible without a synthesis of the knowledge
acquired through the accumulation and uniiication of infor­
mation from other spheres of science. This synthesis is
called criminological synthesis.
The need for criminological synthesis is a logical conse­
quence of the interdisciplinary nature of criminology, in
this case the synthesis is necessary in order to elicit the gener­
al movement, general direction of knowledge with due account
of the specihc subject of criminology. Therefore, crimi­
nological synthesis appears, on the one hand, as a general
principle, and on the other, as a basic method.
Criminology in the system of the social
and legal sciences

Scientists frequently put the question point-blank: is

criminology sociology or law? Obviously we must proceed
from the fact that criminology is one of the prospective
4-0177 1 49
 border sciences of two vast branches of the modern system
of knowledge—sociology and law.
The basic position of experts today is as follows: the con­
nection of criminological science with society is such that
it plays a direct part in solving problems confronting all
the social sciences. Hence, the activisation of sociological
research in the solving of legal problems. For the most part,
however, criminology studies socio-legal phenomena of a
criminal nature. It is a specific branch of knowledge
(neither “purely” social, nor “purely” legal). However, this
view of criminology requires certain amplification: stressing
the social aspect of criminological problems ignores another
important aspect, the legal one, whereas stressing the jurid­
ical aspect obscures the social aspect. Therefore in the crim­
inological study of reality it would be wrong to ignore ei­
ther the juridical or the social aspect. Law and sociology
both contribute to the solving of criminological problems.
It is their unity that determines the socio-juridical essence
of criminology.
The criminal-law sciences are becoming increasingly “so­
ciological”. Here too a definite role belongs to criminology.
It is a kind of “guide” to sociology in the sphere of the crim­
inal law sciences, and to the latter in sociology. If one
approaches the sociology of the criminal-law sciences as an
objectively developing branch of knowledge and an aspect
of research, one can say that its most important problem is
the social conditionality of the relevant legal norms and
legal relations which they engender. This is what determi­
nes the specific nature of the object of study that distin­
guishes the sociology of the criminal-law sciences from crimi­
nology. They are connected primarily through the policy of
crime control.
As for the connection of criminology with sociology, here
the following should be borne in mind. As we know, the
subject of sociological research is the phenomena and pro­
cesses of the emergence of various forms of communal life,
the structure of various forms of human communities, the
forces that unite and destroy these communities, and the
changes and transformations in them. Here we can distin­
guish a series of specialised sections. Modern sociology dis­
tinguishes the following sections, sometimes called con­
crete sociology: the study of social institutions, which include
family sociology, educational sociology, the sociology of
50
politics, the sociology of ideology, the sociology of art, the
sociology of science. It also includes the sociology of law.
In addition, it contains specialised research on sociological
processes, such as the phenomena and processes of social
disorganisation: crime, alcoholism, drug addiction, and so
on. This is what gives some scientists grounds for calling
criminology a part of sociology, criminal sociology. Can
we recognise this position as correct? I think not.
Of course, the role of sociology in criminological research
is very important. This is perfectly understandable. For
crime is social in its very content. It is social because it
consists of acts committed by people in society and against
the interests of society. The criminal is, first and foremost,
a person living in society. The causes of crime are also so­
cial in origin. The prevention of crime is essentially social.
All this goes to show that criminology cannot be contained
within the framework of juridical constructions and catego­
ries. That is because it studies its problems primarily in the
sociological aspect, which is why it is closely connected with
sociology. But this “sociologisation” does not lessen the role
of criminology as an independent science. On the contrary,
it enhances this branch, bringing it closer to life. In crimi­
nology the social aspect usually dominates. It is represent­
ed more widely than the juridical. But this does not exclude
the juridical aspect.
Many trends in criminological research (criminal behav­
iour and its motivation, forecasting, prevention) are di­
rectly linked with trends of sociological research. But there
is also the reverse connection: many trends in sociological
research (the study of drunkenness, amoral behaviour in the
sphere of sexual relations, and the so-called everyday crimes)
are to a considerable extent based on the achievements of
criminology. One could name many “overlapping” problems:
vagrancy, parasitism, begging, crimes in everyday life,
etc. In trying to solve them, criminology must take into ac­
count the influence of the whole system of concrete social
relations on the objects forming part of its subject. With
regard to sociology it should when necessary take into ac­
count the influence of criminological circumstances and
features on the development of social relations. Otherwise
it cannot make a sufficiently profound study of its problems.
Criminology and sociology are essential to one another.
To say this is not to belittle the role of sociology. It has its
51
own research aims, just as criminology has its own. Each
of these sciences also has its own subject. The methods used
by them are generally the same. However, they are used with
due account of the special features of the sciences in question
and of the objects of their research. The need for the inter­
action of sociology and criminology as independent sciences
is now universally recognised. This interaction is most
fruitful, because both sociology and criminology (one could
also mention some other sciences) have become aspects of
the study of human behaviour that complement each other.
In the process of studying the causes and conditions of
crime criminology makes use of relevant research material
and methods not only of sociology and law, but also of other
sciences. Every science relies on the achievements of other
branches of knowledge and makes use of their methods. For
the study of crime can be approached from various angles.
Each science proceeds from its professional standpoint. Crim­
inology does so too. However, it is a discipline that is ca­
pable of synthesising the results of different studies of crime.
Herein lies its complex nature, which does not mean
that criminology becomes a “part” of the sciences whose
achievements it uses to study the objects in its subject.
One of the sciences the achievements of which are used
by criminology is psychology. In can give criminology quali­
fied assistance in studying the personality of the criminal
and anti-social behaviour. Underestimation of this science
produces “barriers” to the mastering of psychological mate­
rial and relevant methods of research. Therefore criminology
must always presuppose the consideration from its own
standpoint of psychological factors influencing the behaviour
of the individual, the study of the genesis of behaviour,
personal characteristics, forms of perception, will, aspira­
tions, intentions, desires, etc. An essential task of criminol­
ogy is also the psychological analysis of such individual
qualities as motivation, self-estimation, and authoritari­
anism. Here criminology focuses attention on the special
features of the subject of its study.
One must bear in mind that psychology also deals with
problems of the formation of human acts, the processes that
take place in the psyche and find expression in individual
actions. This research is of great preventive significance.
In making use of the recommendations of psychology and
basing itself on an analysis of the mechanism of functioning
52
of various anti-social manifestations, criminology offers
its own solutions, mainly of a preventive nature.
^Social psychology is the product of the interpenetration
of sociology and psychology. Unlike sociology it does not
study large-scale social processes and institutions which
act for man as the objective conditions of his social existence.
Social psychology studies group norms, interpersonal
forms of communication, the state of the group atmosphere,
group dynamics, group consciousness, values, needs, moti­
vations and interests. Unlike psychology it explains aver­
age-mass normal and average-mass deviant conduct. It
studies individual behaviour only in a concrete situation
and envisages the analysis ofTthe integration of the individ­
ual within the group. Studies of this kind are also extreme­
ly important for criminology, which, as we know,
studies not only crime as a whole and individual personalities,
but also group forms of anti-social behaviour.
Obviously an analysis of so-called group crime is impossible
without scientific information as to how the people in a
group and how groups treat one another, how the mechanisms
of the formation of groups work, how people’s actions in com­
munal activities are explained, etc. The prevention of crimes
committed by groups of persons (or in a group or team)
must be based on the tenets of social psychology with due
account, however, of relevant data that has been reinter­
preted by criminology:
Criminology makes active use of the achievements of
pedagogics. The subject of pedagogics is the all-round and
harmonious moulding of the individual. The problem of the
development of the individual, which lies at the juncture of
many social sciences, is crucial to a number of general theo­
retical questions directly related to upbringing and educa­
tion. Therefore criminology often turns to the tenets, con­
clusions and recommendations of pedagogics. This is con­
nected, in particular, with solving problems of preventing
various forms of deviant behaviour, including offences. A
stronger connection between criminology and pedagogics
would make it possible to apply"modern methods of educa­
tion more widely and effectively in crime control.
Criminology makes use of achievements of the most va­
ried branches of knowledge: politics and economics, ethics
and aesthetics, history and pedagogics, and a number of
natural sciences. The experience of criminology shows that
53
some trends of economic research overlap with the theory and
practice of crime control: the so-called crime budget, all
types of embezzlement of state or public property, profiteer­
ing, etc. It is precisely in this sphere that the interests of
criminology and economics meet. Criminology is bound to
make use of the conceptual apparatus of ethics, when it
studies the moral principles, norms and values that regulate
relations between people. The criminological aspects of
aesthetic education are analysed on the basis of the achieve­
ments of the science of aesthetics. A study of the laws of
crime characteristic of the past is assisted by history.
There is a special link between criminology and the natural
sciences. Criminologists have long since noted the growing
influence of mathematics and natural science on the theory
and practice of crime control. In recent years mathematical
methods adapted to criminological tasks have been applied
increasingly widely. In a word, criminology as a science
exists and functions within a system of sciences, in close
interaction with the whole complex of sciences. In each
concrete case this interaction is characterised by specific
aspects of scientific research. It has different forms and
scopes.

Criminology in the system

of criminal-law sciences
The conclusion on the unity of the criminal-law sciences
for all the diversity of their features proceeds of necessity
from the dialectical unity of all the forms and methods of
crime control. Before scientific knowledge about crime was
differentiated it included nearly all the views on the phenom­
enon in question. In the course of the historical development
of this knowledge criminological problems became increas­
ingly clear (criminology was formed as an independent
branch of knowledge), as also the problems of other criminal-
law sciences—criminal law, criminal procedure, criminali­
stics and corrective labour law. The process of this differen­
tiation, the formation of the criminal-law sciences as inde­
pendent branches of knowledge have produced a certain de­
marcation between them, in which (although they might
wrongly bethought to exist independently of one another)
the connections between these sciences not only fail to be
severed, but actually grow stronger. It is quite obvious that
54
a solution of the problem of crime control is impossible by
the disconnected efforts of individual sciences. That is why
these problems, like other problems of the criminal-law
sciences, should be regarded from the standpoint of their
unity.
Criminology plays a special role in crime control. But
this does not mean that it can take the place of other crimi­
nal-law sciences, that it lays claim to their place. However,
nor does criminology stand apart from these sciences. Today
no criminal-law science can develop without criminology.
But each criminal-law science naturally has its own specif­
ic method of research determined by the features of the
actual subject which it studies and intended to solve indi­
vidual tasks of crime control.
One of the approaches to identifying the subject of the
criminal-law sciences is research on their interconnection
and interaction, in the course of which the synthesising
function of criminological knowledge, the science of crimi­
nology, is revealed. The interaction of these sciences is a
most important factor of their actual development. Life
shows clearly that criminological knowledge has always acted
as a stimulus for other criminal-law sciences, equipping them
with fruitful methods and ideas. In their turn, these sciences
have repaid their debt to criminology. By enriching crimi­
nology with important basic concepts, they have exerted
a positive influence on the development of criminological
knowledge.
A major, if not decisive role in the interaction and inter­
penetration of the criminal-law sciences is played by crimi­
nology, which moulds into a single whole data from what
would appear to be opposite branches of knowledge. This is
dictated, first and foremost, by the growing influence of
criminology on crime control, which in no way belittles,
we repeat once more, the most important role of the other
criminal-law sciences.
Let us dwell separately on the connection of criminology
with criminal law. The point of departure of the classical
school of criminal law was the thesis that crime was the
province of the science of criminal law, all other branches of
knowledge being considered supplementary, auxiliary. This
attitude remained steadfast for a long time.
Today, however, as has already been noted, a different
view predominates: the problems of crimes are studied by a
55
 number of sciences, not only the juridical ones, but others
as well that proceed from the same philosophical basis,
form a system of sciences and are to a certain extent united
in that they have the common goal of eliminating the socially
dangerous phenomenon in question. But each of these sciences
studies different aspects of crime and consequently pro­
ceeds from its own theoretical platform. The different scien­
ces also use different research methods for this.
It is true that criminology and criminal law in a number of
cases study phenomena designated by one and the same con­
cepts, for example, the concept of a “crime" and certain others.
It is criminal law that lays down what is a crime and who
should be considered a criminal. For criminology, therefore,
these concepts are binding and do not permit of arbitrary inter­
pretation. Therefore the initial unit of criminological re­
search is the concept of a crime as defined by criminal law.
Bearing in mind also the task of controlling crime, which is
common to criminology and criminal law. it can be said that
here their resemblance ends. The methods of the two sci­
ences inevitably differ.
The science of criminal law uses mainly dogmatic-legal,
historical and certain other methods. Criminology, however,
proceeds in the main from sociological, psychological and
statistical standpoints and uses corresponding methods. This
does not mean that criminal law does not study its problems
from the standpoint of their social content. Research of a
sociological nature is essential for this science too. But this
applies more to the sociology of criminal law than to “dog­
matic" criminal law. Generally speaking, criminology ap­
proaches the assessment of criminality, crimes and the crimi­
nal personality from social standpoints, and criminal law
assesses them from legal standpoints.
The main difference in the methods of the sciences in ques­
tion stems, therefore, from the difference in the functions
of these sciences, the objective functions inherent in different
types of social activity. Although crime control is a com­
mon social task, it is solved in the realisation of independent
types of social activity: the first is legal (it envisages, in
particular, responsibility for offences committed, if we have
in mind the criminal-law aspect), and the second is pre­
ventive (it ensures the prevention of offences by the detec­
tion and elimination of their causes and by preventive action
on persons disposed to commit offences; this is the crimino-
56
 logical aspect). Criminal law operates only when a crime has
already been committed. Criminology, however, concentrates
mainly on the period preceding the offence, on preventing
the offence from being committed. The specialist in the sphere
of criminal law analyses the committed crime, proceeding
primarily from the content of general categories laid down by
law. These categories are indispensable and binding for
him, because they form part of criminal law. The method of
studying reality in this case is deduction from concrete facts,
assessment of these facts. When, on the other hand, the crim­
inologist encounters concrete facts of this kind, he is pri­
marily concerned with their scientific generalisation, i.e.,
with finding out what unites them. This enables him to per­
ceive the general features that have manifested themselves in
the given facts and phenomena. His method of research is ex­
periment, discovering the objective characteristics of facts
and phenomena and obtaining on this basis general conclu­
sions and propositions in the form of theories, hypotheses,
etc. Moreover, the general categories of criminology act as
scientific postulates, theories and hypotheses (criminology
is an instrument for the cognition and change of social real­
ity, of those of its elements that cause crimes); the general
categories of criminal law are the cornerstone of legality and
justice in the administration of socialist law (justice is the
prime requirement of criminal law). The general categories
of criminal law embrace the sphere of what ought to be, what
should be. The general propositions of criminology embrace
the sphere of the existing, of what actually is. Here attention
is focused mainly on the question of how to change the exist­
ing state of affairs so that offences are not committed.
These are the similarities and differences between crim­
inal law and criminology, their relationship. To divorce
criminology from criminal law is to turn criminology into
vague delictology,1 and divorcing criminal law from crim-
inology results in the dogmatisation of law.
Other sciences of the criminal-law cycle are also closely con­
nected with criminology. In their research they do not confine
themselves solely to the construction of purley legal con­
ceptions. Their tasks also include a study of social condition-

1 Delictology: teaching on offences, including crimes.—Editor's

note.

57
ality of legal norms used in crime control, an analysis of
the effectiveness of these norms, cognition of the laws of for­
mation and deformation of the individual, his behaviour,
etc. The criminal-law sciences carry out this task independent­
ly, but, as a rule, in accordance with criminological research,
on the basis of the scientific propositions of criminology as
a whole.
Corrective labour law, which is interconnected with crim­
inology, draws up recommendations for increasing the
efficiency of the correction and re-education of convicted
persons and the re-socialisation of offenders during the serv­
ing of their sentences, and also for drawing up measures
for preventing recidivist crimes. This interaction takes place
mainly at the level of generalisation of joint research ma­
terial on persons who have committed crimes. At the indi­
vidual level, however, criminological data serve as a basis
for corrective and preventive activity in relation to concrete
individuals. Of course, this mutual interaction takes into
account the specific nature of the activity of corrective
labour institutions, their types, the classification of offenders
(by sex, age, number of convictions) and a number of other
circumstances. Special attention is paid to the specific
nature of the preventive measures used for different catego­
ries of offenders after they have served their sentences. This
is taken into account in administrative supervision and in
the drawing up of criminological models of recidivist behav­
iour and forecasts of recidivist crime. In recent years a
great deal of criminological research has been devoted to
the problems of preventing crimes committed by offenders
who have been sentenced to punishment other than depriva­
tion of liberty, and the study of this category of persons.
Criminological research is enhancing the role of corrective
labour institutions in crime control. It is also influencing the
further improvement of corrective labour legislation.
In the sphere of criminological research one frequently
comes across phenomena related to the investigation of crime,
criminalistic tactics and techniques. Therefore the analysis
of the state of crime and generalised date on crimes and offen­
ders also perform their criminological role on the level of
criminal procedure law and criminalistics. Criminological
data frequently serve as a basis for formulating tactical
methods to be applied in the process of investigating crimes.
It is here that the “boundary” of criminology with criminal
58
procedure and criminalistics lies. On the one hand, criminal
procedure law determines the framework within which the
investigation of crimes and also law enforcement activity
take place; the norms of this branch of law also establish
to a certain extent the limits of criminological research in
this sphere. On the other hand, the results of criminological
research have a certain influence on criminal-procedural le­
gislation. However, this influence is felt only in cases where
the need for a more effective procedural settlement of inves­
tigating crime and enforcing the law is revealed with the
help of criminology. Here, too, one must bear in mind the
role of criminalistics. Its main propositions are a point of
departure, as it were, for identifying the forms of manifesta­
tion of crimes. It studies the devicesand methods that serve
crime detection (and this is already a preventive aspect).
Criminalistics also makes use fairly frequently of the results
of criminological research on the etiology of crime. Criminol­
ogy in its turn makes use of the achievements of criminalistics
for preventive purposes. The interconnection of these
branches of knowledge is obvious.
Thus, we are dealing with related scientific disciplines.
They all serve a common aim—-the abolition of crime.
However, criminology plays the leading role. It provides
factual material which substantiates the establishment of
principles of crime control that are in keeping with the require­
ments of society. Criminological material, particularly
that of a forecasting kind, serves simultaneously as a guide
in elaborating a system of crime prevention in general, and
also prevention with due account of the special features of
the different spheres of practical activity.
In the sphere of prevention criminology plays the main
role. It does not simply perform a kind of registering activity
(cognising the phenomena of crime, studying their laws,
the causes of crimes and the persons who commit them), but
also has a formative effect on the whole system of crime pre­
vention. Prevention reflects the general practical trend of
the science of criminology. Criminological research material
provides a basis for organising crime prevention. The idea
of prevention permeates the whole system of criminological
institutions.
Criminology, being a general theoretical criminal-law science,
is not the science of sciences and therefore does not absorb
all other disciplines. It is a general theoretical juridical
59
science (within the system of criminal-law sciences) because
it carries on research on a far broader basis than any other
legal science. Consequently, criminology is a metascience.
This is why it occupies a special place in the system of sciences
that study crimes and criminality, the causes of crimes,
the criminal personality, and crime prevention. Other sciences
study only this or that aspect of crime. But criminology
is called upon to create a single theory of crime, to general­
ise on a single methodological basis the material of the vari­
ous sciences related to the problem of crime. It synthesises,
as it were everything of value that has been accumulated on
the problem of crime by other sciences and provides integ­
rated knowledge of this phenomenon. It is this integrated
theory which makes criminology a general theoretical
science in the system of juridical sciences that study crime.
In the system of knowledge about crime general criminolog­
ical theory occupies a central place. It is the basis of all
scientific knowledge about crime. Other sciences, when elab­
orating this or that problem of crime, make use of the con­
ceptual apparatus of criminology, and in some way or other
“attach” their separate concepts on a given phenomenon to
the system of basic criminological concepts. Moreover, the
role of the mediator between general criminological proposi-
tions’and research on questions of crime within the frame­
work of other sciences is played by special theories: the theo­
ry of the causes of crime, the theory of the criminal personali­
ty, the theory of criminological forecasting, the theory of
prevention, etc. The task of criminology, therefore, is to
give theoretical assistance to other sciences, to create the
necessary foundation for practical activity in the sphere of
crime control.
Criminology is the basic science of the criminal-law cycle.
As such, it influences the development of other sciences.
The criminological platform can always be used as the point
of departure when dealing with the theory and practice of
crime control.
Thus, Soviet criminology has become established as a
general theoretical Marxist-Leninist discipline of the crimi­
nal-law cycle of sciences.
 CHAPTER II

CRIME AND ITS SOCIO-LEGAL ESSENCE

1. THE CHARACTERISTICS AND RELATIONSHIP

OF THE CONCEPTS OF CRIME AND CRIMES

A general assessment of crime and crimes

The Marxist-Leninist assessment of crime is based on the
fact that this phenomenon does not exist independently of the
real world in which people live and act. It is socially condi­
tioned. Crimes are committed by people. Therefore, crimi­
nology, in studying a concrete crime and analysing the psy­
chological aspect of a human action, links it with the socio­
logical aspect: it moves from individual actions to mass ac­
tions, to the content of social relations. All crimes are con­
sidered together and express a whole, a mass phenomenon.
Any study of this phenomenon must embrace all the neces­
sary aspects of human actions expressed in crimes. It is this
mass phenomenon that we call crime.
One can easily imagine this or that concrete crime, particularly
if one has witnessed it. But one cannot witness crime as a whole,
as a phenomenon, and therefore it is hard to imagine the charac­
teristics of the whole mass of crimes, of a thousand, a hundred or
even ten crimes. This is an interesting contradiction. In assessing
a single crime separately from crime as a whole, i.e., outside the
system of social relations, we can get only a narrow idea of it.
The object of attention will be an isolated person and his act.
Crime as a whole will appear only as the mechanical sum of crimes.
By assessing crime as a whole independently of individual crimes
we lose the opportunity of seeing the foundation on which certain
social relations arise and change. Taken individually, the afore­
mentioned approaches are in fact mutually exclusive. Crimes and
crime can be studied in their interconnection, in dialectical
unity. However, these concepts have characteristic differences.
61
 f he crime as a type of offence
Any act forbidden by law is an offence; it is an unlawful
act, a breach of the law. There are many types of them.
They are classified, as a rule, according to the types of re­
sponsibility laid down by the law: criminal offences, civil,
administrative, financial, collective-farm offences, etc. The
degree to which they are socially dangerous varies. The most
dangerous and serious type of offence is the criminal offence,
or crime. It is therefore usually singled out of the system of
offences, as a result of which the term “offence” is used in two
senses: that of a crime and that of other unlawful acts. In
assessing a crime, we speak of criminal behaviour. In assess­
ing other infringements of the law, we speak of non-criminal
forms of anti-social (unlawful) behaviour. The study of per­
sons who commit offences (crimes) results in attention being
switched from the offence to the offender (criminal). This
is connected with the need to exert preventive action on a
concrete person. A crime is followed by punishment of the
criminal for the act which he has committed in accordance
with his degree of guilt. But this is a special problem of crim­
inal law.
Criminological assessment of crime
Under the influence of criminology an active study has
been made in recent years of the various social aspects of
offences, mainly their essence and nature. The point of de­
parture is the fact that legal norms are an important form of
a broader concept—social norms, and law and order are
only part of a more general concept—normative social order.
Consequently, offences are determined by legislation, but
this does not exhaust their characteristics. For criminology
people’s actions are never seen only in terms of the law. This
science is interested in a meaningful assessment of their acti­
ons. In providing one, we must not ignore the fact that the
distinguishing line between crimes and other types of offences
is deceptive and conventional. For this reason criminology
studies not only crime in general, but also various social
contradictions connected with deviant human behaviour (in­
cluding unlawful behaviour). This is the sort of behaviour
that can lead to the committing of a crime. For criminology
the most important thing is an assessment of social relations
as objects not only of legal, but also of social protection
62
 Many human acts which are not defined by law cause social
harm, because their criminogenic influence is sufficiently
perceptible. Therefore criminology does not assess a crime
only as one of the forms of offence. It connects it with anti­
social behaviour in general, considers it as the final stage in
the genesis of such behaviour.
A crime is usually preceded by committing a number
of anti-social acts. It begins with the emergence of individ­
ual negative qualities, which manifest themselves in less
dangerous acts, and then develops, becoming the logical
consequence of such behaviour. But criminology itself
"selects” these acts from life. This question is not dealt
with by law. However the control of anti-social phenomena
presupposes an appropriate juridical qualification.
The absence of such a qualification greatly influences the
characterisation of offences. Moreover it is hard to give a
correct political, as well as juridical assessment of actions
that are on the border of violation of social, moral, adminis­
trative or criminal-law norms. One cannot institute crimi­
nal proceedings against someone for an act of little signifi­
cance, or consider him a criminal (although he has violated
the law), and there are many acts which should not be asses­
sed as crimes. This would extend the range of acts regarded
as crimes too far, distort the picture of crime, and influence
the state of crime prevention. What does such prevention
cover? Do misdemeanours belong to this sphere and if so
which? Thus the customary assessment of an offence is
most important, because it affects human destinies and
determines the moral fabric of society.
The concept of the crime
What is a crime? It is a social phenomenon. It arises first
when a state is organised, when people set up rules, the break­
ing of which is an act called a crime. The concept of a crime
is a value concept. It is a definite quality, the sum total
of a number of essential characteristics, such as social dan­
ger, illegality, guilt and punishability. It is an individual,
conscious human act committed by people of sound mind
who have reached a certain age. The decision in the mecha­
nism of committing a crime is the decision of the choice between
a crime and a legal action. Not only an action, but also
omission can be a crime, however. In both cases a crime is
63
 a variant of amoral behaviour which falls outside the nor­
mal rules. A crime always harms personal or public in­
terests. This harm may be moral and material at the same
time.
The concept of a crime as an act of human behaviour is
defined by the state, proceeding from the interests of the
ruling class, and changes as social relations change. The
ruling class understands by this concept any encroachment
on its interests and, first and foremost, on its rule in the so­
ciety. The concept of a crime also covers encroachment on
the law and order established by the ruling class, on the
individual and property, in so far as such violations destroy
the conditions of existence of the given society.
In accordance with the criminal legislation in force in the
USSR a crime is a socially dangerous, unlawful, criminally
punishable act which violates the Soviet social or state sys­
tem, the socialist system of economy, socialist property,
an individual, or the political, labour, property and other
rights of citizens or which violates socialist law and order.
It is easy to see that criminal actions are those which
threaten the interests of the working people, the state and
society.
A crime is usually considered from the following aspects:
an act of human behaviour; a criminal act; a socially danger­
ous act; criminal illegality (a breach of criminal-law norms).
The first two aspects (the act of human behaviour and the
criminal act) are studied together, as a rule. An analysis of
all these aspects as a whole gives an idea of the structure of
the crime (corpus delicti). These questions are studied by
the science of criminal law.
A crime, like any other individual act, has its own struc­
ture. It is considered as follows: the objective aspect of the
act, i.e., the concrete actions (or omission) which were com­
mitted by a person, including the mode of action, the means
used and the actual (or possible) results; the subjective as­
pect of the act, i.e., the motives, aims, degree of conscious­
ness and awareness of the consequences, the nature of the
volitional attitude to them (desire, assumption, etc.);
the object of this act, i.e., the social value at which it is
aimed, which it harms; the subject of the act, i.e., the person
who commits it. All these elements taken together (the
object and objective aspect, and the subject and subjective
aspect) constitute corpus delicti. The absence of any of them
04
“destroys” the concept of a crime. Responsibility for the act
begins only when corpus delicti is present.
One cannot regulate human behaviour without estab­
lishing and assessing responsibility for actions. The recogni­
tion of personal responsibility would lose all meaning if it
were not engendered by the need to regulate social relations
in a certain way, to certain ends. Every act must always be
assessed in some way. However, one and the same action
(or omission) may be assessed differently depending on the
socio-class criteria of assessment. The criminal-law asses­
sment of this or that action (or omission) depends on the
attitude of the state to the fact that is being assessed. The
objectivity of this assessment in the Soviet Union, where
the law expresses the will of the people, corresponds to pro­
gressive social norms and principles. Thanks to this objec­
tivity the criminal-law assessment of an action (or omis­
sion) helps people to correct their behaviour to meet social
requirements. Individual behaviour is regulated mainly by
law. Here the aim is not to allow a crime to be committed.
The afore-mentioned features of a crime relate mainly to
the legal nature of the act. However, this does not in any
way contradict the social nature of a crime. The juridical is
always a form of the social. Therefore the view of the legal
approach as formalism divorced from life is gravely mistak­
en. Given a correct understanding of the essence and role
of law one can always see in it the expression of a definite
aspect of social life, first and foremost, the political demands
of the class which holds power. Obviously, legal features do
not account for all the social characteristics of a crime. On
the one hand, its social assessment derives from the jurid­
ical assessment, when it is a question of illegality, guilt,
responsibility, etc. On the other hand, it takes pride of place
when one is describing the causes and conditions of a crime,
the person who committed the act, etc. In assessing a
crime as a whole, it is essential to bear in mind its socio-le-
gal nature, the interconnection of the juridical and the socio­
logical. These circumstances determine the criminological
approach to the study of a crime. It is important to draw at­
tention to two things.
Firstly, from the juridical point of view, the criminologi­
cal approach excludes the need to elaborate a special con­
cept of a crime. The concept provided by criminal law in­
cludes all the legal features essential for criminology.
5 -0 1 7 7 1 65
 Secondly, from the sociological point of view, the crimi­
nological approach presupposes the analysis of a crime as a
real social phenomenon. The concept of a crime is extended
beyond the framework set by criminal law. Therefore the
social content of a crime and its interconnections must be
studied as an essential condition.
IIow are these two questions connected with criminology?
In thefirstcase a crime is considered as a criminal-law prob­
lem and in the second as a specifically social one. The sec­
ond aspect prevails in criminology. It emerges in criminol­
ogy in connection with the elucidation of the following ques­
tions: why does a person who is part of a system of values,
norms, prohibitions and suchlike categories of the culture of
his day commit a crime in spite of these commands and pro­
hibitions; what conditions should be created to ensure that
a person who finds himself in a conflict situation will be able
to find a solution within the limits of social, moral and legal
norms? The first question is considered by criminology in
connection with the criminal personality and the causes of
a crime. The solution of the second is of great importance
for the prevention of anti-social behaviour.
The criminological study of a crime envisages a study of
the individual who committed the act. The concepts “offence”
and “offender” are assessed by criminology together, from
the point of view of their social essence. Therefore it cannot
be said that the crime is always more dangerous than the
offender, or vice versa. There is no crime without a person,
just as there is no criminal without a crime. From the stand­
point of criminological science, therefore, they are equally
dangerous. A crime manifests the relationship between an
individual and society. Engels wrote: “The contempt for
the existing social order is most conspicuous in its extreme
form—that of offences against the law.”1 Here we have a
clear definition of the social tendency of a crime and of the
person who commits it. “The contempt for the existing social
order” establishes a direct connection between the “offence”
and the “offender”. There are no contradictions here. They
arise, as criminology tells us, between the criminal, with
his crime, and society, as a result of the criminal’s “con­
tempt for the existing social order”.
1 Frederick Engels, “The Condition of the Working-Class in
England”. In Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 4,
Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975, p. 425.

66
 From crimes to crime
Composed of individual criminal acts! crime constitutes
a phenomenon that differs greatly from its component parts.
(The whole is always something bigger than the sum of its
parts.) This phenomenon exists objectively in society.
How does crime differ from individual crimes? How is one
to explain the proposition that phenomena taken singly have
certain qualities, but when they are considered as a whole
the qualities of this whole differ from the qualities that make
up the parts of the whole? The answer to these questions
is as follows: whereas each individual crime could have hap­
pened and could not have happened, could have existed and
could not have existed, in other words is considered as an
accidental phenomenon, as a fact, the sum total of these
facts not only could but at any given stage of development
of society was bound to happen. A concrete person may or
may not commit a crime. Crime exists because people do
commit crimes. The point here is that crime is a logical phe­
nomenon for the concrete conditions of a concrete society.
The necessary forces its way through a mass of accidents.
The social law that forces its way through these accidents
“is only visible when these accidents are grouped together in
large numbers.1,1 It is this interpretation of the relationship
of crime to crimes that forms the basis of criminological
theory.
Criminology treats a crime as a unique formation. Each
crime taken separately exists in one “copy” and has different
characteristics. Crime, however, is a set composed of all
the individual events that together form the phenomenon.
This phenomenon can also be considered as an individual
object, but at a higher level. Crime by comparison with a
crime can be seen as an individual object of a higher level.
The individual object of the lower level (a crime) is consid­
ered as an accidental category. The concrete crimes which
constitute crime are committed independently of one another
and are of an accidental nature. But the individual object
of the higher level (crime) is a conditioned, i.e., necessary
category. Crime is characterised by the integrity, complexity,
multiplicity and diversity of its connections with other so-

1 Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. Ill, Progress Publishers, Moscow,

1974, p. 828.
5* 67
rial phenomena. All this constitutes the qualitative difference
between a crime and crime. The former is the individual
and the latter is the universal. Lenin wrote: u... The indivi­
dual exists only in the connection that leads to the univer­
sal. The universal exists only in the individual and through
the individual. Every individual is (in one way or another)
a universal. Every universal is (a fragment, or an aspect,
or the essence of) an individual.”1 Consequently, crime (as
the universal) exists only in concrete crimes (in the indivi­
dual). Therefore the study of crimes is to a certain extent the
study of crime. But this does not mean that a crime can be
compared with crime. They are not two similar, and cer­
tainly not identical phenomena of different magnitude. A
crime is never a diminutive version of crime. Crime has an
independent form of motion. It also manifests connections
with other phenomena that are not characteristic of the indi­
vidual crime.
2. THE CONCEPT OF CRIME
AND ITS SOCIO-LEGAL ESSENCE

The concept of crime

Crime is a collective concept. It is not a homogeneous phe­
nomenon, however. In reality crime is characterised as a
very motley sum total of different acts of individual crimi­
nal behaviour. Bearing in mind the unity of a crime and the
person who commits it, crime should be seen as the sum to­
tal not only of crimes but also of criminals.
Crime “forms” a mass phenomenon, overcoming the indi­
vidual features of crimes and criminals and at the same time
developing universal, generalised features characteristic of
the whole. It is not simply a sum, but an organic totality
or aggregate characteristic of a certain territory and a con­
crete time. The concept of sum only determines the formal
quantitative aspect of crime, but the concept of totality
defines the qualitative aspect also. Crime as a phenomenon
corresponds to the dialectical unity of all its features and
qualities: crime as a mass phenomenon, as a phenomenon of
a class society, as a social and as a legal phenomenon, crime

1 V. I. Lenin, “On the Question of Dialectics”, Collected Works,

Vol. 38, p. 361.
68
as a historically changing phenomenon. These features and
qualities of crime determine its concept: crime is a relative­
ly mass, historically changing socio-legal phenomenon, which
is of a transient nature, a phenomenon of a class society
which is made up of the sum total of actions forbidden by
criminal law and committed in a given state at a given pe­
riod of time. All the above-mentioned features and qualities
of crime are considered as a whole and are essential. They
characterise corpus delicti.
Crime includes not only crimes as such but also homoge­
neous groups of crimes. Therefore in this phenomenon one
can find the general (crime as a whole), the particular (ho­
mogeneous groups of crimes) and the individual (a crime).
It is also customary to categorise types and elements of
crime. The definition of these concepts is of practical as
well as theoretical significance.
Types of crime
Criminality, or crime, as a whole, is divided into two
main types: primary (the sum total of first offences) and
recidivist (the sum total of recidivist offences). Each of the
types is further subdivided into male and female crime. Fur­
ther, male and female crime are in their turn subdivided
into adult and juvenile. Altogether (not counting crime as a
whole) there are fourteen types of crime. Each of them con­
tains different groups of crime. This classification helps to
make the study of many problems more concrete.
There is also the concept of elements of crime. In the liter­
ature frequent mention is made of three such elements:
condition, structure and dynamics. This ignores another ele­
ment—the level of crime. Each of these elements has its
own concept.
The condition of crime is the number of crimes committed,
and also the number of persons committing them on any
given territory over a concrete period of time. The indices of
condition are expressed in absolute figures only. However,
when speaking of crime as a whole and making a general as­
sessment of it, it is sometimes permissible to use the term
“general condition of crime”. The meaning of this term is
basically a simultaneous assessment of all four elements of
crime.
The level of crime is sometimes called the coefficient of
69
 crime. The level of crime is calculated from the number of
crimes committed on any given territory over a certain pe­
riod of time in terms of the number of inhabitants, for ex­
ample, per ten thousand or per hundred thousand of the popu­
lation. The level indices are expressed in relative figures only.
For a more precise definition of the level of crime one must
take into account not the whole population, but those age
groups the members of which can be prosecuted for a crime
under the criminal legislation. Frequently calculations take
into account only the “active” section of the population,
i.e., they exclude not only children, but also the “elderly”
section of the population, insofar as such persons are respon­
sible for a very small percentage of offences committed.
The structure of crime. Since crime is not merely the sum
total of individual crimes, there exist “relations” between
them. The sum total of crimes and the “relations” between
them are the crime structure. It determines the percentages
of the different types and categories (groups) of crimes in
relation to the total of all crimes committed on any given
territory over a specific period. Whereas the condition and
level express mainly the quantitative aspect of crime, the
structure expresses the qualitative, for the most part. With
the help of all these elements (condition, level and structure)
the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of crime are
determined. To understand the structure of crime is to dis­
cover the most important aspect of the essence of this phe­
nomenon. This task cannot be solved without a structural
explanation. It consists of two main problems: explaining
the inner aspects of crime, the interconnections (“relations”)
between crimes, the way of combining them into a single
whole; and determining the degree of social danger of crime
and establishing its place in the system of social phenomena
as a whole.
The dynamics of crime. This element characterises crime
in motion (change) over a concrete period (for example,
five or ten years). Usually the concept “dynamics” is used
to mean only the dynamics of the level of crime. But this
is a narrow definition of the concept. In the broad sense “the
dynamics of crime” covers the movement of all three ele­
ments of crime: condition, level and structure. Therefore
one must always define precisely what one has in mind:
the dynamics of the level, of the structure, or of the condi­
tion, or the dynamics of any two elements at once, or the
70
dynamics of crime as a whole. This precision is essential,
first and foremost, to solve the practical problems of crime
control.

Crime is considered in motion and change. Time is a constant

attribute of this phenomenon. For a scientific study of crime it is
essential to know how the phenomenon arose, what are the main
stages in its development, what it is now and what it might
become in the future. Therefore the condition, level and struc­
ture of crime, taken apart from its dynamics, are a mere photo­
graph of this phenomenon in its static state. Moreover attention
is focused on that aspect of the phenomenon which characterises
its relative stability. It is the dynamics which enable us to ex­
plain not only the condition, level and structure of crime, but also
its movement, connection, the continuity between the different
conditions of the phenomenon at different periods of time, the
change from one condition to another which “grows” out of it but
is qualitatively different from it. It becomes possible not only to
analyse the condition of crime in the past and present, but also
to compile forecasts for the future. The condition, level, structure
and dynamics of crime are indissolubly connected. Theyare
considered together.

Crime as a socio-legal phenomenon

Criminology considers crime as a phenomenon of social
life and studies it from this aspect, without ignoring its le­
gal characteristics. Crime is a negative social and legal phe­
nomenon, dangerous for society. The social and legal aspects
are the two aspects of crime that represent its indivisible
unity. Crime is an objective social reality. It is social because
it is made up of acts (crimes) committed by persons against
society. The sociological approach makes it possible to ex­
plain the historical conditioning of the existence of crime,
to reveal its social essence. And the social essence of crime
consists of its anti-social character, its opposition to the
class interests of the working masses.
Crime as a socially determined phenomenon depends on
conditions of the life of society. But the conditions of the
“legal regime” also play an important role here. Acts (crimes)
committed by persons against society have legal characteris­
tics, they are described in the law. These acts are a viola­
tion of legal norms. It is from this that the legal essence of
crime derives. This is what makes crime a legal phenomenon.
Consequently, the study of crime demands both sociological
and legal research.
71
 The essence of crime. Criminology considers crime as a
phenomenon, as a developing, integral organism. This or­
ganism is analysed mainly on two levels: the social and the
legal. But this does not mean that we can present a double
description of crime and its essence—as legal essence and as
a social essence. The essence is always an inner and single
characteristic of a phenomenon. We cannot say that the in­
ner essence of crime is social, and the outer essence legal.
This phenomenon has no first and second, no inner and outer
essence. Nor does it have a material and immaterial es­
sence. Crime has a single essence, which is socio-legal.
The essence of crime does not mean that all the “indices”
of the existence of this phenomenon are reduced to it. The
essence is deeper and the phenomenon richer and more diver­
se, but they are interconnected: the essence always manifests
itself and determines the phenomenon, and all phenomena
exist not in themselves, but in connection with the expres­
sion of their essence. Therefore we must not divorce the es­
sence of crime from its existence and regard the former as
social and the latter as legal, or vice versa. The social and
the legal in crime are merged into one, insofar as there is
no essence of a phenomenon without its existence, which is
the main manifestation of its essence. And there is no exis­
tence of a phenomenon without its essence, which ensures
and determines the existence of the phenomenon. Essence,
although stable in relation to a phenomenon, is constantly
changing (it changes itself and the idea of it changes).
Lenin wrote: “...Not only are appearances transitory, mo­
bile, fluid ... but the essence of things is so as well.”1
Thus, crime has single essence, and with its change or dis­
appearance the phenomenon in question changes or ceases
to exist. Essence is the inner determinateness of crime as a
phenomenon. The essence of crime is the element that lays
the foundation for research into all the other aspects of this
socio-legal phenomenon.
Crime as a system
The essence of any complex object is revealed by its study
as a system. However, objects (phenomena, processes) that
are systems may be studied as systems or not as systems.This
1 V. I. Lenin, “Conspectus of Hegel’s Book Lectures on the History
pf Philosophy”, Collected Works, Vol. 38, p. 254.

7?
is also true of crime as a socio-legal phenomenon. The fact
is that the concept “system” is used very widely today, and
the word “system” has many meanings. In order to answer
the question “what is a system?”, we must first know how
it differs from a non-system. Let us take the example of
crime. It can be represented as a simple sum of crimes, a sum-
mative set, and as such crime is not a system. But crime can
be represented as an integrated unity of the sum total of
crimes, or as an integral formation of the elements that com­
pose it, its components. From this example we can see that
the difference between summative and integral sets lies in
the phenomenon of integration. It is integral wholeness or
integral unity that is the basic feature of a system. From
this example we can conclude that crime may be studied as
a system and as a non-system.
Every phenomenon has many qualities and dimensions. It can
be studied from different aspects and in different relations, and
its “many-sidedness” increases if it is considered together with
the causes and conditions that engender and determine it. There­
fore there inevitably arise problems of the synthesis of the different
aspects of knowledge, problems of bringing it together, of organis­
ing different knowledge about phenomena into systems of know­
ledge about them. The system is the uniting of the parts into a
whole, and consequently the laws of uniting parts into a whole
must be discovered. At the same time a system is a whole itself,
and this means that we must discover its foundations, the laws
of its structure, functioning, movement and development. Thus,
the actual finding of a real system and the definition of it as a
concrete interconnected whole creates a definite logic and meth­
odology for its qualitative research and develops a systems-
centric view of the phenomena. The social system, for example, is
life itself, development itself, although not boundless develop­
ment. The social system (society as a whole, production as a whole
and its individual spheres, the social sum totals, etc.) is a system
that is self-reproducing and constantly renewing itself, and the
causes for this self-renewal lie within it, in the contradictions
inherent in the system. Crime is a social system. It possesses all
the features of a system. Hence the need to study it as a system.
Crime is characterised by a number of interconnected ele­
ments. It possesses a structure. Interacting with the environ­
ment, crime can be considered as an element of a system that
is higher and broader than the environment (the social sys­
tem of society). The types of crime (conventionally elements)
possess the qualities of a subsystem in relation to it. Individ­
ual crimes may also be regarded as elements of crime. On
this level crime itself as a system is the interconnection of

73
the elements which form it, their wholeness. Crime is dynam­
ic, i.e., it is constantly changing under the influence of
external conditions, of the “global” social system. As an
element of this global system crime reproduces itself in a
certain way, changing endlessly. With the change of crime
as a whole, its elements also change (modify). With the change
of the elements, the individual crimes and types of crime,
crime as a whole also changes. “External” and “internal”
changes take place in crime as a phenomenon.
Crime is a special phenomenon possessing qualities that
differ to some extent from those possessed by each of its ele­
ments (and sometimes also qualities that are absent in one
or even several of its elements). It is a negative social phenom­
enon which has a negative effect on society. Therefore the
qualities of other social systems (from the viewpoint of their
value to society) never coincide with the qualities of crime
as a system. In changing crime by its influence, society
takes all possible measures to gradually “destroy” crime as a
phenomenon. Thus, with the passage of time, crime “givs-
up” its place in the global social system to other, positive,
phenomena. These phenomena develop and “evict” crime
from the global social system. Thus, there is a kind of antag­
onism here between crime, on the one hand, and other (non-
criminal) social systems, on the other. It is crime control
that promotes the “eviction” of this phenomenon from so­
ciety.
Latent crime
It is customary to regard as latent those crimes that are
concealed from bodies empowered by law to investigate or
consider cases of crimes committed, not detected by these
bodies and not recorded as criminally punishable offences.
In this general concept three groups are distinguished: nat­
ural latency, border latency and concealed latency. The
first group are crimes which are not known to representatives
of institutions and organisations or individual persons. The
second group are cases when the fact of the crime is discov­
ered, but for various reasons it is not regarded as a crime by
the person who discovers it. The third group are crimes which
in violation of the law are not recognised as such and which
are not recorded, but concealed by officials. Concealed
crimes represent a considerable totality and taken together
form latent crime.
74
 The question of the dimensions (scope) of latent crime has
been little studied, although this problem attracts the at­
tention of specialists the world over. To establish and assess
the dimensions of latent crime is considered by specialists
as the only possible proper assessment of crime in general.
Some specialists maintain that in capitalist countries the
police detect only one in twenty crimes; others estimate that
of each fifty persons committing a serious crime only one is
punished; yet others compare crime with an iceberg, of which
only the tip represents known offences.
The problem in question is being studied by Soviet crimi­
nologists too. Special research is being carried on and ways
are being sought for reaching the most objective assessment
of this phenomenon. It is considered that factual crime is al­
ways higher than detected crime, which is considerably higher
than the number of prosecutions, and this figure in turn
is always bigger than the number of convictions. It is also
rioted that statistics do not give a full picture of crime, for
they deal only with crimes which are known to the authori­
ties, and the so-called “concealed figures” are only approxi­
mately estimated. One can reduce the sphere of latent crime
by encouraging the reporting of crimes, and also by increas­
ing the effectiveness of investigation, but all the same latent
crime remains a significant factor. And, of course, at the
criminological level the problem of latent crime consists in
elucidating the actual parameters of crime, determining the
differences between these parameters and the statistical in­
dices produced by the bodies of criminal justice. An active
search for a solution to this problem is essential.
The existence and dimensions of latent crime as a whole and
its various types are determined by various causes. We would
note, however, that absolutely full and accurate data on
crime can never be obtained. Even the law provides for cases
when criminal proceedings are instituted and, consequen­
tly, a crime is counted as such only on the testimony of the
victim. We must also remember that there are crimes which
are as a rule tried by courts without the holding of an inquest
or preliminary investigation and of which, therefore, some
are not counted as such. Crime statistics do not contain full
information about crimes tried by commissions for minors’
affairs. Finally, a certain section of crimes are not recorded
with the state bodies that control crime due to the irrespons­
ible attitude of officials to their duties. There arc also such
75
causes as unjustified decisions not to institute criminal pro­
ceedings, unjustified verdicts of “not guilty”, etc. Therefore
in studying crime as a whole one must take into account the
factors of latent crime, but not exaggerate them.
Some specialists take the view that crime as a social phe­
nomenon can be understood on the basis of information about
all the facts that form this whole. To our mind, this is not
quite so. All possibilities exist for a sufficiently accurate
description of crime. We must take into account that the
characteristics of latent crime are evidently relatively sta­
ble and change as slowly as those of recorded crime (and paral­
lel with them). There can be no doubt that individual cha­
racteristics of crime are to some extent distorted because of
latent crime. But if in the study of crime one makes use of
the data not of the general totality (which is by no means
compulsory), but of sample material, these distortions can
be avoided. For an analysis of any phenomenon it is not
necessary to possess all the data about it. It is important to
determine the most effective means of cognising its essence.
Mathematical statistics provides such means as a sample
method on the basis of which for a “restricted” number of
units (sample set) one can compose an accurate description
of the whole mass of units studied (general set) and in the
given case—the whole of crime (taking latent crime into
account).

The conditioned nature of crime

Crime is conditioned by social relations. Social relations
and their interconnection are factors that form definite
phenomena in society and determine their systematic and
recurrent manifestation. Consequently crime, as one of the
phenomena of social life, is also a law-governed phenomenon.
It is important, therefore, to take into account the intercon­
nection of the various conditions in which crime manifests
itself. And it is essential in the broad meaning of the word to
see and detect all the phenomena of social life that determine
the existence of crime. For crime is closely connected with
the various phenomena of social life. Almost all spheres of
social life are interconnected, and almost all of them also
reveal a connection with the negative phenomena of social
life, with crime. Crime, engendered by the conditions of so-
70
cial life, is a specific phenomenon in which a special type of
behaviour, which deviates from the requirements of society,
is expressed. It is regulated by the law and, consequently,
lias definite “limits”. It is a specific part of the universal in­
terconnections in society. Therefore it is necessary to select
from the complex chain of social phenomena those which are
directly connected with crime. Only then can we speak con­
cretely of the contradictions between the person committing
the crime and society.
It would, however, be wrong to connect crime “directly”
with the main laws of the development of socialism and
with those of its contradictions that arise in the process of
social development. One can speak only of contradictions
which arise in connection with the non-acceptance by indi­
vidual persons of the principles of the socialist system, the
socialist way of life, socialist legality and law and order.
With regard to the commission of a crime, one can speak of
the existence of a certain degree of antagonistic opposing
by the individual of his action and mode of behaviour to so­
cialist principles and norms of behaviour; this tendency may
be called anti-socialist. Consequently, in the process of crim­
inal behaviour unique antagonistic contradictions arise
between the individual and society.
These contradictions can be overcome in principle. They
can be solved by appropriate state and public measures.
A special role in this process is played by the prevention of
anti-social behaviour. It is in the process of prevention that
the contradictions which have a determining influence on
the formation of criminal behaviour must be established,
revealed and overcome. To establish these contradictions is
by no means an easy task. It is difficult to discover in the
complex chain of the interconnections of crime the
appropriate causal connection in its direct and unambiguous
form. It should not be forgotten that we are dealing with
human behaviour that has been formed on the basis of the
interaction of social relations and the individual. This
interconnection is a universal law. Therefore we must reveal
the special features, the specific laws that manifest them­
selves in the regularly recurrent interconnections of con­
crete conditions: of social relations as the external factor
and of the individual as the internal factor. There is special
scope here for criminological research from the viewpoint
of the categories of Marxist-Leninist philosophy. iMoreover
77
 an analysis should be made not only from the viewpoint of
what lias preceded the emergence of these contradictions,
but from that of their consequences for society.
The consequences of crime
The consequences of crime can be very varied indeed. They
penetrate and make themselves felt in many spheres of the
life and activity of society: ideological and political, eco­
nomic, moral, legal, labour, everyday, family, school, etc.
But to some extent they all have a social significance.
Obviously not all the harm that is done by crime can be
calculated or expressed in some kind of numerical form.
Many of the consequences, because of their “insignificance”,
are not taken into account, and it would be impossible to
take them all into account. However, they all harm society,
all have a certain amount of negative influence on social
relations. In all cases society suffers losses in connection
with crime. These losses (the consequences of crime) may
be direct or indirect. The former are directly linked with
crimes (depending on the object of the crime), and the latter
indirectly (expenditure on crime control, moral harm, etc.).
Both the direct and the indirect consequences of crime should
be regarded as undermining phenomena. Therefore an assess­
ment of the consequences is connected with a study of the
“safety level” of society.
The concept of this safety includes both the social and the
individual levels. Here, of course, use must be made of the
numerous social indices and different methods of assessment:
public opinion, the “disturbance level” of members of
society, the “safety level” of society and its members, etc.
In taking the dynamics of crime into account, one must
bear in mind not only its immediate, but also its long-term
consequences. Will social relations change in connection
with crime in the future? How will these relations change?
These are the main questions, the solution of which is a
matter for the sphere of administration, the regulation of
social interconnections. As Marxism teaches us, we must
take the long-term social consequences of human activity
into account. In this sphere, wrote Engels, discussing the
useful effects of labour, we are gradually learning to explain
the indirect, more remote social consequences of our activity
by means of long, often bitter experience and by comparing
78
and analysing historical material, and thereby “we ... arc
afforded an opportunity to control and regulate these effects
as well”.1 This Marxist proposition is also of methodological
importance for the study of the problems with which we
are concerned.
Crimes do not only do moral damage to society (this is a
special problem). Frequently the harm is directly expressed
in damage to people's health. Sometimes it affects their
psyche. Occasionally crimes are connected with loss of life.
The consequences of crime also effect social interests: politi­
cal, ideological, legal, ethical, aesthetic, etc. Crime is
objectively aimed against social values.
Socialist society regulates human relations, ensuring their
safety, protecting them against criminal acts, and striving
to satisfy ever more fully the interests of the people, to
create the most favourable conditions for the development
of the individual. This is why social relations and interests,
social and spiritual values are protected by law. Criminal
infringement of them is a criminally punishable act. The
consequences of these acts are material, moral and political
harm. A thorough and profound criminological study of
crime is bound to take these considerations into account.

1 Frederick Engels, Dialectics of Nature, Progress Publishers,

Moscow, 1974, pp. 181, 182.
 CHAPTER III

THE CAUSES OF CRIME

AND SOCIAL CONTRADICTIONS

1. THE CAUSES OF CRIME, ITS LEVEL

AND GENERAL DESCRIPTION

The causality and causes of crime

The problem of the causes of crime is a central one in
criminology. Today it not only retains its importance, but
has become incomparably more pressing than ever before.
This is explained by society’s growing intolerance of crimes,
the need to discover and remove their causes and conditions
and to prevent the committing of crimes. This “eternal”
criminological problem which, unfortunately, has not yet
been fully solved, is constantly being interpreted in different
ways. In practice no criminologist can get round this problem
without expressing his views on it Some criminologists
maintain that there are no social causes of crime in a socialist
society. Other argue that such causes are present under
socialism and regard the standpoint of the former as un­
willing recognition of the biological causes of crime.
The study of any social phenomenon is closely linked with
an analysis of the character of the socio-economic formation
which gave rise to the phenomenon in question. Therefore,
in studying the causes of crime, the following must be taken
into account: firstly, crime emerged with the appearance of
private property and the class state; secondly, crime reaches
the culminating stage in its development under imperialism;
thirdly, under socialism crime loses its basis and gradually
dies away; fourthly, under socialism there are no antagonistic
social relations which could engender crime. But all this
does not mean that under socialism the problems of crime
have disappeared and that there are no difficulties in con-
80
trolling this phenomenon. Socialism cannot get rid of all
the defects of the old society immediately. We must not
forget that socialism has the “birthmarks*’ of capitalism from
which it emerged. Crime is not engendered by socialist
social relations—it is a phenomenon rooted in the past.
Under socialism the causes of crime as a phenomenon change
at different stages, acquire a different complexion as com­
pared with the past, and have features characteristic of the
present period. Hence the importance of a constant, con­
tinuous study of crime and its causes. The need for such
a study with due account of social interconnections and the
internal and external contradictions of crime, is dictated
by life itself.
A general definition of the causes of crime, assessed as the
initial scientific standpoint, is basically that by a cause we mean
a phenomenon (or a set of interconnected phenomena) which en­
genders. produces another phenomenon (phenomena) that is
considered in these cases as a consequence (or action). The cause
creates the possibility of a definite consequence, for the onset of
which certain conditions are also necessary. In themselves these
conditions cannot engender, produce the consequence, but in an
appropriate situation (circumstances) they promote the realisa­
tion of the operation of the cause. However, in studying the
problem of the causes of crime we must take account of the differ­
ent types of connections: structural connections, functional con­
nections, genetic connections, causal connections, etc. Some of
them have common features, but all invariably possess special
features of their own. In studying the causes of crime, specialists
usually concentrate on causal connections. But to do so to the
exclusion of all else is mistaken. The scientific study of such a
complex subject (phenomenon) as crime does not allow one to
confine oneself to consideration of the causal connections alone.
This can lead to isolation of individual phenomena, divorcing them
from their interconnections with other phenomena within the
whole. In studying crime we must not see one connection only—
the connection between cause and effect. Engels wrote that if
we consider individual cases in tbeir general connection with the
universe as a whole, our ideas about cause and effect “are eternally
changing places”.1 In such cases cause and effect act as one, re­
place each other and are sometimes indistinguishable. They are
characterised by their common nature. The essence of a phenome­
non, therefore, can be discovered by an analysis not only of its
causes, but also of their effects. This is also true of crime as a
phenomenon.
Certain causes always produce certain effects. However,
in providing an initial assessment of the causes of crime,
1 Frederick Engels, Antl-Duhrtngt Progress Publishers, Moscow,
1977, p. 33.

6-0177 81
it must also be noted that the causes of social phenomena
develop in different aspects and lead to different effects. The
cause does not simply precede the effect in time, but to a
certain extent imprints its nature on it (on its essence).
Thus the problem is to discover the causes and estimate the
possible effects. Here the question of causal connections
arises. Criminology studies them as general connections.
Causality is the constant connection between cause and
effect. But this is not treated, of course, as a functional
connection of phenomena. In criminology the causal con­
nection is characterised by certain features, which taken
together are inherent only in this type of interconnection of
phenomena. Causality, considered in the broad sense of the
word, includes the following concepts: cause, condition,
effect (result), connection between cause and effect (condition
and cause, condition and effect), and the feedback between
effect and cause (conditions). As we can see, we are dealing
here with general connections. And it is these connections that
characterise crime.
Causes and conditions
First and foremost, we must consider the connection be­
tween the concepts “causes” and “conditions”. As has already
been mentioned, a cause is considered in the system of the
necessary connection of phenomena, of which the one (the
cause) determines, engenders the other (the effect or action).
We can therefore speak, firstly, of the causes of crime and,
secondly, of the causes of a concrete crime. In the first case,
the cause (causes) engenders an effect (crime as a phenome­
non). In the second case the cause (causes) engenders an action
(a crime, a concrete act). The causal connection is a special
form of law-governed interconnection, for the emergence of
the phenomenon manifests itself in it. However, the operative
factors in this process are both causes and conditions. This
is because in different social phenomena one and the same
condition can be considered as a cause and can remain in
the capacity of a condition. This must be taken into account
both in a study of the causes of crime as a whole, and in
an analysis of the causes of concrete crimes. But the following
must also be taken into account: causes and conditions are
not identical categories, although they are not opposed
concepts, since a cause manifests itself through conditions
82
 in the course of their mutual influence. While pointing out
that the differentiation of causes and conditions is of con­
siderable theoretical and practical value, Soviet science
recognises that this differentiation is relative. Any cause
is in a certain sense a condition, and any condition in
another sense can be a cause. This does not mean that there
is no difference between causes and conditions. The con­
ditions that play a role in any phenomenon are not always
qualified as causes. Thus, there are similarities and differ­
ences between causes and conditions.
We can speak of numerous conditions, the movement and
mutual influence of which result in the fact that a certain
condition or set of conditions exerts a stimulating effect,
giving rise to new phenomena and becoming their cause.
For example, parasitism and vagrancy give rise to drunken­
ness, through which many crimes are committed, and be­
come the cause of drunkenness and the cause of these crimes
(together with other causes, of course). But at the same
time the other conditions which play a role in the emergence
of the phenomenon do not join in the direct causal connec­
tion and remain simply conditions. For example, the un­
settled life of migrants leads to parasitism, vagrancy and
drunkenness. As a result of this (and due to other causes
also) crimes are committed, although the condition in
question (the unsettled life of migrants) is not a cause of
these crimes, but merely a condition. One must also bear
in mind that the conditions, together with the causes in the
narrow sense of the word, form the so-called complete cause
of this or that effect. This cause may sometimes be called
the total cause. There are also specific causes—these are a
set of special conditions taken as a whole. Conditions are
usually subdivided into the following groups: accompanying
(these form the general background of the events and phe­
nomena, circumstances of place and time, etc.), necessary
(without these the event could not have happened), and
sufficient (these are all the essential conditions taken as
a whole). When all these conditions are present, we can
speak of them as a complete set. These concepts are used
widely in criminological research.

6* 83
 Criminogenic and anti-criminogenic factors
A correct definition of the concept ufactors” is of consider­
able importance for an analysis of the causes and conditions
of crime.
In this connection it must be said that the question of
crime factors was raised long ago in Soviet criminology. The
problem is to explain which factors belong to the crimino­
genic group (which encourage crime) and the anti-crimino­
genic group (which oppose crime), how these factors affect
the phenomenon in question, what is the relationship, role
and degree of action of each factor and group of factors, etc.
By factors we mean this or that phenomenon or process, but
not causes and conditions.
The concept “factor” means simply that a phenomenon has
a certain importance, an influence on the course or results of
a process. Obviously this concept cannot explain the im­
portance of the factor, its influence. Therefore in the process
of research (at its first stage) this concept is generally used
only for initial, general guidance in the range of interconnect­
ed phenomena and processes. But at the next stage of the
scientific investigation the interaction of the factors dis­
covered is revealed and the transition made to the study of
functional, and then causal dependencies between them.
This makes it possible to establish the importance of the
factor and the degree of its influence. Bearing in mind this
interpretation of factors, philosophers, sociologists, econo­
mists, demographers and representatives of other social
sciences regard as factors the different aspects of social life
and social development: socio-economic, scientific and
technological, demographic, etc. Many jurists, including
criminologists, adopt the same standpoint. Therefore, in
relation to criminological research it is customary to distin­
guish such factors as urbanisation, migration, birth-rate,
change in the sex and age structure of the population, free
time, employment of women in social production, the
educational and cultural level of the population and many
others. We can speak of a whole set of factors. But the main
point is obviously to understand what we mean by a “factor”.
A set of criminogenic and anti-criminogenic factors is a
kind of “background” of social development, against which
the changes in crime take place under the influence of
criminogenic and anti-criminogenic factors. Without this
84
“background” a profound and thorough study of crime is
inconceivable. It is an initial “dimension”, as it were, which
forms the basis of criminological research, which ensures
that crime is studied against the “background” of the changes
taking place in social life and social development.
Of course, the mechanism of the impact produced by
factors on crime is extremely complex. Therefore we can
often speak only conventionally of the influence of this or
that factor, because the positive or negative influence of
any one aspect of social life (phenomenon or process) depends
on a concrete combination of factors. Criminogenic factors
in themselves do not engender crime. The action of these
factors, and sometimes also the influence of the effects of
their development, is expressed in the fact that they objec­
tively promote crime, facilitate its existence. This takes
place alongside the operation of anti-criminogenic factors
which objectively promote the reduction of crime. The
task of criminology is to give a precise definition of the
system of criminogenic and anti-criminogenic factors, to
establish their interconnection in each of these main groups,
and also the interconnection between the groups, and the
degree of influence on crime of each factor and each set of
factors. The complexity of assessing the factors that influence
crime and lack of knowledge about the mechanism of their
operation are not sufficient reason for refusing to analyse
(albeit in most general form) the different aspects of social
life from the viewpoint of their criminogenic or anti-crimino­
genic importance.

The circumstances (situation)

The concept “circumstance” is generally used when we
need to express that which has arisen concretely, developed
at a given moment “around” this or that person. Therefore
this concept to a certain extent resembles the concept
“situation” which means a position, a set of circumstances.
However, the concept “situation”, to our mind, is broader
and less concrete than that of circumstances. Circumstances
are related, as a rule, to a concrete person, to his actions.
This is the external “factor” that may be called the objective
content of a person’s concrete surroundings at a given
moment. “If man is shaped by his environment, his environ-
85
ment must be made human.”1 In precisely this sense the
solution of the question is connected with man, with a
concrete individual and his surroundings. Therefore crimi­
nology, in discussing the causes of crimes relating to the
individual, speaks of “external circumstances”, of the fact
that a crime may be committed because of an unfavourable
combination of circumstances, that the committing of a
concrete crime is sometimes promoted by chance circum­
stances, etc. A person may rise above the circumstances and
no crime will be committed. The reverse may (and often
does) happen. For all that it is concrete circumstances that
influence the choice of a version of behaviour, but they are
assessed by the person himself. Therefore we use the concept
“circumstances” in relation to a concrete crime only, speaking
also of causes and conditions. In so doing we do not ignore
the great similarity between “circumstances” and “situation”.
This approach to the problem will, to our mind, help to
make the relevant criminological research more concrete.

Levels of causes of crime

It is the task of criminology to study the causes of crime
as a whole (at the level of the general), the causes of the
separate types of crime (at the level of the particular) and
the causes of concrete crimes (at the level of the individual,
the singular). At the level of the particular we can study
not only separate types and categories, but also groups of
crimes (for example, crimes for personal gain, crimes of
violence). Some types of crime when taken independently
are also studied at the level of the general: for example,
juvenile delinquency, recidivist crime, female crime. In
these studies also, as in the study of the separate categories
and groups of crimes, all the afore-mentioned levels, general,
particular and singular (individual) are taken into account.
The problem of the relation of these philosophical categories
to the causes of crime is a major one for the theory and
practice of criminology. It is particularly relevant in con­
nection with the differentiation of measures to prevent
crime and anti-social behaviour.

1 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, “The Holy Family or Critique

of Critical Criticism”. In Karl Marx, Frederick Engeh, Collected
Works, Vol. 4, p. 131.

86
 The evaluation of these concepts in relation to the problem
of the causes of crime proceeds from the relationship of philos­
ophical categories of the general, particular and singular (indi­
vidual). Therefore the question of the greater or lesser importance
of any of these categories cannot arise. For criminology it is
equally important to know the causes of crime in general, the
causes of individual types of crime and the causes of a concrete
crime. Moreover, it must be borne in mind that the analysis of
the “singular” lies at the basis of a study of the causes of crime
as a whole. Research always begins with the individual, the
singular. In order to make a profound study of the general, it is
essential to “tear” separate phenomena “out of the general inter­
connection” and consider them in isolation,1 moreover, the
“individual” is studied in connection both with the general and
with a part of the general. Causal dependence exists not only
between the whole and the parts but also between the individual
parts or groups of parts. It is only natural that such a complex
interweaving of the causal relations of crime (if we are speaking
of the criminological aspect of this philosophical proposition)
includes both necessary and chance causes. The necessary causal
relations interweave with chance influences and manifest them­
selves through them. Hence the onset of this or that effect, which
is the result of the intersecting and collision of necessary and
chance interactions, acquires a probabilistic character. This also
applies to the causes of crime studied from the viewpoint of the
parts and the whole, the individual, the particular and the general.
Here too there is a whole set (and so-called subordination) of
causes, or, as is sometimes said, a “unique tangle” of causal rela­
tions. It is essential, both for theory and practice, to unravel this
“unique tangle”.

The necessary and the accidental

In studying the causes of crime, however, we must know
that the general is not the same as the necessary, just as the
singular is not the same as the accidental, but that each
phenomenon bears within it an element both of the accidental
and of the necessary. Therefore, by discovering the general
features of crime as a phenomenon, criminology is obviously
approaching an understanding of its laws. Lenin wrote:
"... Social science (like science generally) usually deals with
mass phenomena, not with individual cases.**2 For this
reason it is particularly important for an analysis of social
phenomena (crime, in particular), where the processes are
of a mass nature, to look for the necessary relations and
connections behind the chance phenomena.
1 Frederick Engels, Dialectics of Nature, p. 232.
2 V. I. Lenin, ‘The Collapse of the Second International”, Collected
Hor/cs, Yol. 21, 1974, p. 244.

87
 Crimes and crime—the relationship
of their causes
Crimes, if one takes each of them individually, are all
unique, thanks to which they differ from one another. This
is why the causes of concrete crimes appear to be singular,
individual. However, one can easily detect recurrent features
in crimes (in their causes and conditions). Consequently, the
“singular” also possesses general features and qualities.
These general features and qualities, if one is speaking of the
causes of crimes, are inherent either only in separate elements
of the general—types (or a type) of crime, in which case
they act as the particular, or in the wThole (crime as a whole),
in which case they are general. One should remember, how­
ever, that crimes are committed by people. Thus, crime
is made up not merely of crimes imagined without any
connection with people, but of corresponding human actions.
In the analysis of individual crimes one must study the
personality of the criminal, and also the objective con­
ditions connected with the crime. Then one must find out
whether the factors and interconnections revealed in this
way are of a general nature, that is, whether they manifest
themselves at the level of mass phenomenon. Moreover,
account must be taken of the following two points.
Firstly, crime is a phenomenon which includes crimes of
varying gravity, different types, categories and groups of
crimes, and consequently the causes of crime are also not
homogeneous.
Secondly, in studying the causes of crime we must remem­
ber that it has a dialectical relationship with many other
phenomena, so that the causal relation cannot be treated in
a mechanical way, for in this sphere each cause is a set of
phenomena.
Account of these twro points and also of what has been said
above concerning the generalisation of “human actions”—
crimes—enables us to conclude that the set of causes of crime
(us a phenomenon) is of both an objective and subjective
nature.
It must be borne in mind that every particular is only
partly included in the general. This manifests itself in the
causes of crime too. The causes of concrete crimes (the in­
dividual, singular) determine why this or that crime was
committed, and not all of them characterise the causes of
88
crime as a whole (the universal). Only that which is charac­
teristic of all or most crimes can be classed among the causes
of crime as a whole. The causes of the individual types of
crime (the particular) are also assessed in the same way.
The cause of this or that crime may be untypical, not only
for crime as a whole, but also for its separate types. There­
fore in the causes of concrete crimes we must discover that
which is common to all crimes. It is, of course, very difficult
to show the movement of a mass phenomenon in a single
crime, a single individual, and, vice versa, the manifestation
of individual facts in general phenomena. To do so the causes
and conditions discovered in the course of individual analysis
must be raised to the level of generalisation.
The causes of individual types of crime are elements of the
causes of crime as a whole, bear the same relation to them
as the particular to the general, and, as a result of this,
contain features of the whole in their definition. Types of
crime also relate to mass phenomena.
By studying individual phenomena and facts on a mass
scale we can approach the level of a mass phenomenon: by
discovering individual facts or connections encountered in
a large number of frequently recurring, the researcher reaches
conclusions of a general nature concerning the set which he
is studying. There can be no doubt that such conclusions
serve as a basis for studying the connections of crime with
other mass phenomena at the level of generalisation. These
conclusions serve as a real scientific basis for elaborating
measures for preventing crime as a socio-legal phenomenon
and preventing anti-social behaviour.
2. THE CAUSES OF CRIME AND THE CONTRADICTIONS
OF SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

Social relations and the causes of crime

The study of the causes of crime in connection with social
relations is of special importance for criminology. The actions
of real persons, of which social relations are made up, are of
interest not only to philosophy, sociology, general and
social psychology, but also to other sciences, including
criminology. Between these sciences there exist interdis­
ciplinary connections, the content of which changes depend­
ing on the aspects of the human personality that are the
89
object of special study in each particular case. All systems
of social relations are dialectically interrelated.
Meanwhile the various systems of social relations and the
various spheres of social life are becoming the object of
special individual theories. The separation by criminology
of a specific form of social relations, which arise in connection
with the existence of crime under socialism, is essential for
a special scientific study. However, the separateness of this
form of social relations is conventional. The causes of crime,
like crime itself, should be studied within the system of
social relations as a whole. This will ensure the transition
from general theoretical concepts to criminological ones.
In this case criminological propositions will be understood
and explained at the level of the general, but with due
account of the specific nature of the object of criminological
research.
Each society is not just the sum total of its members, but also
a system of regularised relations between them. The ordered,
regularised nature of social relations is the immanent quality of
society. The Constitution of the USSR points to the need to
improve socialist social relations and transform them into com­
munist ones. Social relations are specific means of joining people
(man) with the conditions of their (his) life activity, historical
forms of the social interaction of people joined together in com­
munities, classes and social groups in the process of creating the
conditions of their life and development. Social relations are,
first and foremost, a means of joining people in accordance with
the type of activity, social functions and conditions of their
performance. Any activity presupposes the entering of a person
(people) into definite social relations. Developed socialism is
characterised as a whole by highly mature social relations. How­
ever, it would be wrong to characterise these relations only as
a whole. Account must also be taken of the following points:
firstly, social relations are inconceivable outside their realisation
in the form of “real relations1’—activity; secondly, different types
of social relations (e.g. religious relations) can be realised in a
specific activity, and, conversely, relations of the same type can
be realised in different types of activity. Consequently, we can
say that there exist relations which are connected with criminal
activity, with crime and its causes, which promote the committing
of crimes. One of the tasks of criminology is therefore to solve
the problem of regulating social relations at the level of the
formation of law-abiding, socially useful behaviour, the preven­
tion of anti-social actions.
Socialism does not promote the manifestation of perverted
social relations. However the newness and complexity of
social life under socialism creates considerable difficulties
90
which cannot always be quickly overcome. Marxism is alien
to the naive idea that the transition to the path of socialist
development immediately brings an era of universal social
harmony. The uneven development at the early stages of
socialism is inevitable if only because of the need to do
away with the disproportions and contradictions in social
life inherited from the past. We must be able to see the
contradictions in present-day life between the new and the
old, that which is passing away. True, not all the contra­
dictions of socialism are its “accounts with the past”, not
all of them are connected with the circumstances of its birth,
with its origins. Insofar as socialism has not only been born,
but is alive, has not only developed, but continues to ad­
vance, it also contains the contradictions of its own develop­
ment, which arise each time on a new basis. This suggests that
the social determinants of crimes and other offences are not
only factors (causes, conditions, circumstances) that lie
outside socialist society, but also negative aspects of social
relations that manifest themselves within it. In connection
with the afore-mentioned points there still exist in the life
of present-day Soviet society such types of life activity as,
for example, the criminal way of life. This is the contra­
diction between private and public interests. This contra­
diction is not removed simply by the growing forces of the
new society. The bearers of old views and habits continue
to exert their negative influence on those around them, to
create conflicts, which leads to perverted manifestations of
social relations. Nevertheless, we must see that the life and
upbringing of members of society, their correction and
re-education do not contradict each other. We must, how­
ever, consider the development of society in all its contra­
dictions.

The causes of crime in the system

of social relations and contradictions
In socialist society crime is engendered by contradictions
which violate the laws of socialism, do not reflect its essence.
In particular, the non-antagonistic contradiction between
the growing requirements of the members of socialist society
and the means of satisfying them manifests itself directly or
indirectly in all the concrete causes and conditions of the
committing of crimes.
91
 This is why the problem of social contradictions, their
removal and solution, is one of the most important tasks in
the present development of Soviet society. The central point,
the nucleus of the dialectics of social development, are
social contradictions, just as the law of the unity and
struggle of opposites, the law of dialectical contradiction,
as Lenin defined it, is the nucleus of dialectics in general.
Lenin wrote: “Dialectics in the proper sense is the study of
contradiction in the very essence of objects..."1 Lenin’s method
of analysing social contradictions has been developed and
concretised in the documents of the CPSU. Guided by
Lenin’s instructions, the Party proceeds from the fact that
the building of the new society is basically the process of
overcoming the contradictions of the period of transition
from capitalism to socialism. I 11 organising and directing
this process, the CPSU continues to focus attention on those
facets of contradictions which the course of the objective
development of society has brought to the fore. The documents
of the CPSU are a further concretisation of Lenin’s approach
to social contradictions during the building of socialism.
The Party has disclosed new contradictions, which express
the specific nature of the transition period, the tendencies of
the development of these contradictions in concentrated
form, and has defined and applied in practice ways and
means of overcoming them. The decisions of CPSU congresses
and resolutions of the Central Committee of the CPSU have
advanced and solved such major problems as the changed
character of general social contradictions in the new con­
ditions, the abolition of the capitalist structure and the
establishment of socialist social relations in the various
spheres of the life of society.

Every type of social contradiction manifests itself at the

levels of the general, particular and individual. All contradictions
together are assessed from the standpoint of the universal. Each
specific type of contradiction has special features of reproduction.
The more individual the contradiction, the narrower the base for
its reproduction, and the more general the contradiction the
broader this base is.

1 V. I. Lenin, “Conspectus of Hegel’9 Book Lectures on the History

cf Philosophy”, Collected Works, Vol. 38, pp. 253-254.

92
 Classification of the causes of crime
The causes of crime are divided into various groups and
their classification is done according to a variety of prin­
ciples. There are general and concrete causes, causes of the
first and second order (here the conditions are also put into
an independent group), subjective and objective causes
(objective conditions), main and secondary, complete and
specific causes, direct causes, immediate and remote causes,
typal causes, etc. It is easy to see that this classification,
taken as a whole, contains heterogeneous concepts. If these
concepts are systematised we obtain a more or less orderly
classification to which concrete concepts correspond. To this
end we shall divide the causes into several independent but
interrelated groups.
There are seven main groups of causes of crime: the first
are social causes of an objective and subjective nature; the
second are social and biological causes; the third are general
causes of crime and causes of concrete crime; the fourth are
causes of individual types of crime, categories and groups of
crimes; the fifth are direct and indirect causes; the sixth
are causes of the first, second and third order (class), each
of these classes having its own level characteristic (although
this does not signify their primary, secondary and lesser
importance: all three classes belong to the main ones); and
the seventh are causes relating to the criminal personality.
A special place in this system is occupied by the sources of
crime. Let us now characterise these groups of causes.
We would note, first of all, that in general the causes of
crime are seen as a complex of general social and individual
(social and biological) manifestations of human nature and
consciousness, which is opposed to the socialist system of
social relations and capable of determining (which it does)
criminal behaviour. It is a complex of those phenomena and
processes without the elimination of which the task of
abolishing crime cannot be solved. This definition is a
general one, however, and requires explanation.
Let us consider the sources of crime. Crime and its causes
do not just appear on their own. They originate “somewhere”,
proceed from “something”. The most frequent companions of
crime and its sources are defects of moral consciousness,
moral laxness, which is where criminal behaviour begins.
Without going into a detailed critical analysis of the stand-
93
 points of criminologists with regard to the sources, we would
note that all of these can be reduced to making the concept
of the “sources of crime” into a relatively independent
sphere. We have already discussed the content of this
concept above. Here we would merely add that the causes
of crime in relation to the sources are a secondary phenome­
non, a product of the sources. The sources of crime are con­
sidered at the level of the universal. Sources of this kind
serve as a breeding ground for the spread of all kind of
negative manifestations connected with deviant behaviour.
The point of departure for considering causes of crime is
the problem of general causes, which consists of the follow­
ing: the historically determined nature of today’s social
phenomena and processes (it is in this connection that people
usually refer to the historical causes of crime), the operation
of the objective law of consciousness lagging behind being,
vestiges of the past in people’s consciousness, and the in­
fluence on socialist society of the antagonistic socio-economic
formation. Without dwelling on the fact that the point at
issue is mainly the origins of crime, and not its causes, let
us consider the question in detail.
The meaning of the first of the above-listed causes is that
crime has “come” to socialism from capitalism and is a very
tenacious negative phenomenon.
The second cause finds concrete expression in human con­
sciousness and behaviour.
The third cause is determined by the propaganda of the
bourgeois states and its influence on Soviet citizens’ con­
sciousness and behaviour.
For all the truth of these premises, they are nevertheless
presented in a very general, not a concrete, form, and not
coordinated with the causes and conditions of concrete crimes,
and the circumstances that promote their commission.
Therefore this general approach must be supplemented by
an assessment of the causes of crime on the basis of empirical
material. We must bear in mind that if the general exists
only in the individual and through the individual, the
general causes of crime must be sought in the causes of
concrete crimes. The causes of crime as a whole are the sum
total of typical causes of all or the overwhelming majority
of individual crimes. Therefore, in order to ensure that
research and the conclusions reached on its basis are truly
scientific, we must, as Lenin pointed out, establish “a reliable
94
 foundation of precise and indisputable facts that can be
confronted to any of the ‘general1 or ‘example-based’ argu­
ments now so grossly misused in certain countries. And if it
is to be a real foundation, we must take not individual facts,
but the sum total of facts, without a single exception, relating
to the question under discussion. Otherwise there will be
the inevitable, and fully justified, suspicion that the facts
were selected or compiled arbitrarily, that instead of histor­
ical phenomena being presented in objective interconnection
and interdependence and treated as a whole, we are pre­
senting a ‘subjective’ concoction...”1 This injunction applies
also, of course, to assessing the causes of crime. It is essential
to give a correct description of the causes of this phenomenon.
It enables us to determine concretely and purposefully ways
and means of preventing crime, and to draw up concrete
preventive measures. General references to consciousness
lagging behind being, vestiges of the past, the influence of
bourgeois ideology, etc., are insufficient. They not only fail
to create the necessary conditions for crime control, but
also divert practical work from the solving of concrete and
quite definite problems.
In relation to the study of the causes of crime the time
for vague slogans in criminology has passed. On the other
hand we still do not have enough empirical research here.
In order to obtain a firm basis for explaining the causes of
crime what we need is a systematic study of reality, an
analysis of concrete material.
For a study of the causes of crime at the level of the
general a concrete analysis of the individual is necessary.
This approach is fully in keeping with the requirements of
Marxism-Leninism. Revealing the general laws of social
development, it points to the truly scientific method of
explaining reality—the concrete analysis of a concrete
situation. In a study of the causes of crime, while paying
prime attention to the tendencies of social development, the
general laws of social reality, and thinking in categories of
the general, we must always take into account their true
connection with concrete circumstances (facts, situations).
Moreover, we must pay attention to the situation which
arises “around” each concrete crime, the special features of

1 V. I. Lenin, “Statistics and Sociology”, Collected Works, Vol. 23,

1964, pp. 272-273.

95
 individual crimes, i.e., the concrete relationship of the
individual, the particular and the general (universal) in the
development of crime and its causes. Only such an approach
to the analysis of concrete reality, to the sum total of facts
relating to the phenomena of crime can ensure the success
of preventive work and act, to quote Lenin, as a living
guide to action. Such an approach makes it possible to trace
profoundly and accurately why crimes are committed and
where their sources lie, thereby providing a real possibility
for preventing crime.
The causes of concrete crimes are determined by the pres­
ence of general causes. But the criminologist, as already
mentioned, is concerned primarily with scientific generalisa­
tion, i.e., deduction of what unites these facts, what enables
him to see the general that manifests itself logically in a
series of given facts. One can name a large number of causes
of concrete crimes. The study of this type of causes enables
us to understand better why certain people commit crimes
and w’hat encourages them to embark on the path of anti­
social behaviour. However, excessive concern with analysis
of the causes of concrete crimes can also lead to a methodolo­
gical error. It must not be forgotten that the borderline
between the general, particular and individual is very
mobile. There is no insurmountable wall between the general
causes of crime and the causes of concrete crimes. This is
also true of cases where individual types of crime, categories
and groups of crimes are being studied. A comprehensive
analysis is therefore of special importance here.
An analysis of the causes of crime at ail levels presupposes
consideration of objective and subjective phenomena. The
subjective causes of crime are usually divided into separate
groups and studied independently. The objective causes
consist of that which exists outside man, and the subjective
causes are everything that is related either to the actual
individual who commits the crime (the narrow interpretation
of the subjective) or to shortcomings in the work (poor or
bad work) of bodies, organisations, institutions, etc. (the
broad interpretation of the concept of the subjective). The
interweaving of objective and subjective elements in the
causes of crime requires a different approach to the analysis
of and action on them. Interpenetration of the objective and
the subjective can be seen at all levels of crime in all the
afore-mentioned classification groups. This makes it neces-
96
sary, firstly, to study the objective and subjective causes ol
crime together, in dialectical interconnection and, secondly,
to study these causes comprehensively. These requirements
also apply to consideration of the indirect causes of crime
(when the causes bear no direct relation to crime, and when
there is no organic link between them) and the direct causes
(when there is a close, direct link between the causes and
crime and when crime is a consequence of these causes).
Although the division of the causes of crime into indirect
and direct is somewhat conventional, it nevertheless helps
us to solve a number of practical problems.

3. THE DIFFERENTIATED APPROACH TO THE ASSESSMENT

OF THE CAUSES OF CRIME

One can determine many different groups of causes of crime.

However, no matter how we classify them, all causes ulti­
mately fall into two main groups: social causes and biological
causes. The causes in the first group are subdivided into three
classes (depending on the level of their manifestation): first,
second and third. But all these causes are considered to­
gether.
The first-class causes of crime
These causes originate in sources of crime connected
mainly with the contradictions of social development. They
are usually referred to as the negative aspects in the function­
ing of the social system, shortcomings, errors, difficulties
(temporary difficulties) and so on. The anti-social phenomena
in the Soviet Union are not engendered by the socialist
system, but this does not mean that they have no soil in
the objective conditions of life. This fits in with the objective
conditions influencing subjective forms of human behaviour.
Objective difficulties, as yet unsolved social problems, may
create the conditions for the survival of private-ownership
psychology in a certain section of people, for the emergence
of conflicts between them. In the Soviet Union the demand
for certain goods has not yet been fully met. The lack of
certain consumer goods sometimes creates favourable con­
ditions for the committing of crimes, including profiteering,
abuse of official status, bribery, and private entrepreneurial
activity. The material conditions have not yet been created
7 -0 1 7 7 1 97
 to free women from housework. This promotes the survival
of a number of prejudices and harmful domestic traditions.
Crimes are often committed because of family conflicts.
Shortcomings, difficulties and errors of this kind are bound
to influence (albeit indirectly) people’s behaviour, their
psychology, morals, principles, and the state of social
consciousness. Therefore this group of causes, although its
influence on crime is mainly indirect, has a rather wide
social effect. At the same time, causes of crime that are
connected with objective difficulties, shortcomings, errors,
etc., are also determined by subjective factors: an over­
simplified approach to ideological and educational work in
the respective institutions, families, schools, work collec­
tives and other structural units, a lack of vigilance and re­
sponsibility for the upbringing of members of society, a
violation of the unity of word and deed, socialist legality
and state discipline, a lack of analysis of real contradictions,
etc. Therefore, from this viewpoint, we must speak of both
objective and subjective first-class causes of crime.
All anti-social manifestations, crime included, “feed” on
all the shortcomings of social life and make use of all devia­
tions from the main line of society’s movement forward.
We have in mind factors, phenomena and processes that in
some way or other support the existence of moral anomalies,
crime. Every negative fact, every shortcoming (omission)
in the system of social administration, and all kinds of
offences in the activity of public institutions provide loop­
holes for phenomena harmful to society. They may also turn
out to be a “basis” for crime. In the final analysis this lowers
people’s vitality and undermines their healthy state of
mind. This process is very dangerous for society. It can
become a cause (or condition) of the demoralisation of in­
dividual categories of the population. Shortcomings, omis­
sions, errors, etc., weaken the system of crime control and
at the same time strengthen and cement the foundation of
crime. On the one hand, these causes affect the commission
of crimes, promote the survival of crime. On the other hand,
crime itself, and its consequences, give rise to these causes.
It is like a vicious circle: crime acts as its own cause, engen­
ders itself, reproduces itself, and creates and strengthens
the ground on which crimes grow. A consistent reduction of
crime destroys the “base” of its existence. But the main
thing is to eradicate this “base”.
08
 The problem of the “vicious circle" connected with the first-
class causes of crime is a most important one. Shortcomings and
omissions, all manner of infringements in the functioning of
social institutions may lead not only to official abuse, bribery,
profiteering, etc., but also to protectionism and other dangerous
actions connected with the performance of state and public
functions. This, in turn, may cause the spontaneous emergence
of normatively unregulated types of activity, their extreme
manifestation being criminal behaviour. Here we have an interest­
ing chain of cause and effect: shortcomings—infringements—anti­
social behaviour—a crime as the extreme expression of such
behaviour. Taking into account the negative consequences of
crime which lead to the emergence of new shortcomings, this
scheme can be represented more broadly: shortcomings—infringe­
ments—anti-social behaviour—a crime—shortcomings. Let us
quote an example: because of shortcomings, omissions and in­
fringements in the activity of social institutions a social require­
ment is not met (say, for scarce goods), and this leads to the dis-
functioning of broader social systems—the theft of raw materials,
the appearance of “under-the-counter" goods obtained in a criminal
way, the misappropriation of funds that can be used to bribe
officials. Misappropriators, bribe-takers and the like amass large
sums of money and valuables by committing crimes. These
crimes are the result of earlier shortcomings, omissions and in­
fringements—the result of offences. Thus we have a vicious circle.
A nation-wide approach to the solution of this problem is es­
sential.

It must be noted that socialism engenders its own prob­

lems, problems that stem not only from the fact of con­
sciousness lagging behind being and the influence of the
capitalist world, but from certain conditions of life. These
are explained both by weak ideological work, and by certain
objective conditions. It is known, for example, that the
survival under socialism of the individualistic psychology
which forms the basis of anti-social behaviour is determined
by phenomena and processes such as certain special features
of economic relations under socialism, the concrete historical
situation in which the new society is developing. We still
often encounter disharmony in the psychological attitude of
individuals and groups (age, professional, territorial, etc.),
when, for example, the level of material well-being is too
far ahead of the level of cultural development, or when there
is an obvious disparity between excessively high demands,
requirements and the real opportunities of the individual, etc.
There is also sometimes a disparity between the level of
development of social production and the constantly growing
demands of members of society, making it necessary to limit
7* 99
 or postpone the satisfying of some requirements, the differ­
ences between classes and social groups, between forms and
types of distribution of labour (mental and physical, skilled
and unskilled, mechanised and manual, etc.), between con­
ditions of life in different types of settlements, etc. In this
connection we must remember the principle of distribution
according to work done and the related inequality in the
shares of the social product received by certain persons. We
can also point to a noticeable difference between the wages
and salaries of the high- and low-paid. Special attention
has been paid recently to the fact that certain categories of
persons are not employed in socially useful labour in the
period between dismissal from one job and employment in
another, and also to loss of working hours due to idleness,
lateness, absenteeism, etc. All this (and a great deal more,
which is discussed further below) constitutes our short­
comings and omissions. As life shows, they take their revenge
in one way or another. Of course, the existence of crime
under socialism is connected to a certain extent with these
shortcomings and omissions, although in themselves they
are not an expression of the essence of socialism.
The main tasks of overcoming the lirst-class causes of
crime are being solved in the Soviet Union in the economic
and the cultural sphere. One occasionally hears comments
to the effect that since crimes and anti-social behaviour
belong to the sphere of consciousness, they can be overcome
by improving education. But this is not quite so. A solution
of these tasks cannot be confined only to the sphere of con­
sciousness. If being is ahead of consciousness, it is essential
to improve the material conditions of work, everyday life,
rest and social relations. These are important prerequisites
for changing human consciousness. When dealing with
difficulties and shortcomings in the sphere of education and
in the economic, material sphere, Party documents say:
“...It was not only a matter of objective reasons, and this
must be stated frankly. We have not always and every­
where worked in the manner required by our own decisions...
But it is important ... to see these shortcomings in order
to combat them with greater determination.”1 It is also

1 L. I. Brezhnev, Report of the CPSU Central Committee and the

Immediate Tasks of the Party in Home and Foreign Policy, Novosti
Press Agency Publishing House, Moscow, 1976, p. 67.

too
 pointed out that the main condition for overcoming negative
phenomena is the establishing of order where it is being
violated—in production, state and public life. “Indeed, we
are aware that not all the problems have yet been solved.
We have a better knowledge than all critics of our
shortcomings, and are aware of the difficulties. And we have
been successfully overcoming them. We know and see the
ways leading to the further development and improvement
of our society.1*1 These problems, which are directly related
to overcoming shortcomings, difficulties and omissions, are
not departmental, of course, but are connected with the
solution of nation-wide tasks. For the causes of crime which
are of a social, nation-wide nature, must be sought in social
phenomena, and not outside the society. They are considered
on the general sociological level. The removal of these causes
is a task for the whole state, not for individual departments.
Therefore the organisation of the prevention of crime engen­
dered by the causes in question, and the social prevention of
anti-social behaviour for this purpose, can be ensured only
by the forces and resources of the state, society and all
working people.
The second-class causes of crime
The causes of crime in this class also derive from the sources
of crime. The common source of first- and second-class causes
mutually determines and “enriches” them, representing these
two groups as basically a single one. The special features
of the second-class causes of crime, however, lie in the fact
that they are considered not only on the general sociological,
but also on the socio-psychological level. These causes are
connected mainly with the world outlook (in the broad sense
of the term) of various categories of people, with the sphere
of man’s relations with himself and his fellow creatures,
with society and social values. What we have in mind is
the system of people’s views, concepts and ideas of the
world around them. These are not simply views and ideas,
however, but a person’s beliefs (or understanding of the
world) concerning his own life, those around him, and the
jife of society. It is everything that brings people to con-

1 Ibid., p. 155.

101
Crete actions. And, Frederick Engels wrote, “everything
which sets men in motion must go through their minds”.1
The approach to an explanation of second-class causes of
crime is, however, directed not towards single individuals
(as in the case of third-class causes of crime where it is
studied mainly at the psychological level), but towards
general categories that characterise the world outlook of
different categories and groups of the population. Moreover,
one must also bear in mind two other points: on the one
hand, in general the forms of people’s contact and behaviour,
their actions, the thoughts and feelings established in their
consciousness (understanding of the world) are constantly
changing (for the best, if one might say so) in connection
with the development of socialism and the improvement of
social relations; on the other, all things being equal these
forms of contact (behaviour, actions, aspirations and feelings),
personified in types of individuals, sometimes remain un­
changed, surviving and even developing under changing
social relations. In the first case, we are dealing with cate­
gories of people (the majority) for whom a positive, active
attitude towards life is typical, and in the second with
categories of people for whom socially deviant behaviour is
characteristic. It is in cases like the second that we speak of
“breakdowns” in people’s consciousness and behaviour.
These “breakdowns” are the ground on which second-class
causes of crime thrive.
It is due to a “distorted world outlook” and the “break­
downs” in consciousness which are caused by such an outlook
that there appear in society the money-grubbers and loafers,
the litigious persons, the slanderers, the anonymous letter-
writers, the formalists and bureaucrats, the careerists, time­
servers and traitors, the dodgers and self-seekers. These
(and similar) types of people are characterised by such
qualities as individualism and egoism, self-interest, greed
and cupidity, the desire to make money and get rich quick,
money-grubbing, parochialism, indifference, insincerity and
mendacity, boot-licking and servility, ingratiation and
hypocrisy, vanity, idleness, the desire tolivewithoutworking
(at someone else’s expense), and contempt for the interests
of society and the basic norms of behaviour. Such people
1 Frederick Engels, “Ludwig Feuerbach and the End of Classical
German Philosophy”. In: K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works
in three volumes, Vol. Three, p. 367.

10?
 are usually characterised also by nepotism, making use of
connections, patronage, personal charm, prejudice, and
graft for business purposes. They are also marked by other
forms of nihilistic attitude to social and state values, other
types of moral instability and private-ownership, bourgeois
traditions. Among these people one frequently finds drunk­
ards and drug addicts, they are often sexually dissolute,
parasitic, cadging and vagrant. All this creates a very
“infectious atmosphere”, a special background with a clearly
expressed criminogenic tenor. It is small wonder that people
with the above-mentioned qualities include a large number
of “potential criminals”. With the help of these qualities
it is easy to draw a “portrait of the criminal personality”.
Taken as a whole this “atmosphere” engenders the second-
class causes of crime. These causes exert mainly a direct
influence on crime. Hence their special danger to society.
The elimination of these causes is connected with the active
formation of a correct world outlook in people.
Individualism and egoism are qualities that set the indi­
vidual against society and undermine his sense of social and
collective duty. They limit a person’s activity to the frame­
work of separate existence and turn him into a self-loving
and self-isolating creature. Extreme manifestations of
individualism and egoism are excessive ambition and self-im­
portance, selfishness (self-esteem) and arrogance. People
with these qualities usually consider themselves unrecognised
geniuses and claim a special place in society. Snobbery is
one of the manifestations of their behaviour. As a rule, they
give nothing to society or other people. But because they do
not receive any special privileges from society, they regard
themselves as unfairly humiliated and enter into conflict
with other people, the collective, the society. Artificially
produced contradictions arise. The militant individualists
and egoists become malicious, cruel and aggressive. They
easily turn into bitter, envious people who are upset and
irritated, instead of pleased, by the successes of others. The
person’s consciousness grows even more deformed. This
particularly strengthens his feeling of rapacious individual­
ism and egoism. Turned into a cult, the afore-mentioned
qualities, at their extreme, express themselves in the form
of a crime. It is easy to see the great danger that individual­
ism and egoism present for society. This phenomenon may
lead to the most varied distorted forms of world outlook,
m
 Cupidity is closely linked with the urge to make money
and get rich. It verges on greed, money-grubbing, etc. In
assessing this quality negative, society is not condemning a
person’s striving to improve his material well-being (the
principle of material interest is perfectly understandable
and justified). It is simply trying to ensure that this urge
is satisfied by the person’s own labour, and not at the expense
of other people, the state. Therefore in our context selfish
motives mean the urge to profit from someone else’s labour.
A selfish attitude expresses an individual’s parasitic
tendency and fairly often leads to crimes, usually crimes
for gain. Moreover, selfishness frequently goes hand in
hand with individualism and egoism. Soviet society rejects
the cult of consumption, the psychology of the philistine for
whom a copeck, as Gorky so aptly put it, is the be all and
end all. For us material blessings are not an aim in them­
selves, but a prerequisite for the all-round development of
the individual. Hence it follows that a rise in well-being
should be accompanied not by people’s material enrichment,
greed and cupidity, but by the enrichment of their inner
world. The itch to “possess things” can deform a person
totally.
By rejecting individualism and egoism as a system of
thought and behaviour, Soviet society supports and develops
a high sense of dignity of the free individual and forms the
communist world outlook. The problems in question are
to be solved primarily by means of social policy (ideological
education and social prevention) with the aim of preventing
recurrences of petty-bourgeois consciousness referred to in
sociological and ethical literature as “philistinism”. It is this
“philistinism” that leads people to solve their questions
from the standpoint of their “corns”. Karl Marx wrote:
“...A coarse person ... regards a passer-by as the most in­
famous, vilest creature under the sun because this unfortu­
nate creature has trodden on his corns. He makes his corns
the basis for his views and judgement.”1 The standpoint of
the “corn” is the standpoint of militant individualism and
egoism.
Revenge, envy and jealousy. These emotions are intercon­
nected firstly, between themselves, and secondly, with many
1 Karl Marx, “Debates on the Law on Thefts of Wood”. In Karl
Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 1, Progress Publishers,
Moscow, 1975, p. 235.

104
 of the other elements in question. Not all of them can be
assessed negatively in this respect. The evil lies in the
private-ownership manifestations of jealousy and envy.
It is rooted in their individualistic content, in the urge to
harm the person who has aroused the feeling of jealousy and
envy. This leads to unlawful behaviour. Jealousy is most
closely combined with revenge—the act of repaying evil
(real or imaginary), vengeance for something. This is a
manifestation of elements of the petty-bourgeois psychology,
the warped world outlook.
Many of the afore-mentioned human qualities which are
connected with a backward consciousness promote such
negative phenomena as drunkenness, sexual promiscuity
(and prostitution), drug addiction (and toxicomania), para­
sitism, vagrancy and cadging. These phenomena, which
belong to the second-class causes of crime, are closely con­
nected with one another. However, by virtue of the differ­
ences in their nature, they must be studied separately.
Drunkenness (the systematic and immoderate consumption
of alcohol, which frequently develops into alcoholism) is a
social problem with a clearly expressed criminogenic signifi­
cance. Criminologists vary in their assessment of drunkenness:
some call it a cause of crime, others a condition, yet others
a phenomenon which accompanies crime. Theoreticians and
practical workers are often captive to views which they
have long held to be irrefutable. We say, for example, that
the cause of hooliganism is drunkenness. But these causes,
which lie on the surface, are formulated by us in advance
on the basis of general observations. In concrete cases,
however, although they may be within the field of vision,
they should be called only accompanying phenomena, not a
cause of crime. Criminologists still give an incomplete as­
sessment of the connection of excessive consumption of
alcohol and such consequences as drunkenness and alcoholism
with crime, an assessment which is based only on consider­
ation of the influence of the state of drunkenness on the
committing of a concrete crime. Such an approach makes it
difficult to advance beyond the idea that drunkenness and
alcoholism are conditions that promote the survival and
manifestation of crime.
It is necessary to see and assess correctly the sources of
drunkenness and alcoholism. In this connection we are bound
to consider such questions as where drunkenness originates,
<05
why it sometimes flourishes, what promotes this, who should
control this phenomenon and what forces and means can be
used to prevent it.
Drunkenness and alcoholism should be considered among
the main causes of crime, not as secondary causes. To our
mind, drunkenness and alcoholism are among the primary
causes of crime. Alcoholism has a tremendous effect on
crime. The term “alcoholic crime” which has been introd­
uced into literature is fully justified.

Of course, drunkenness does not so much engender vices as

discloses them. But one thing is clear, namely, that drunkenness
and alcoholism promote the degradation of the individual, and
degraded people are the ones who most often commit crimes. It is
here (in the process of degradation) that we can trace the connec­
tion and nature of the interaction of alcoholism and drug addiction.
A person, sometimes even aware that it is harmful, grows accus­
tomed (adapts) to alcohol and drugs, the consumption of which
becomes an organic necessity for him. He seeks to satisfy these
harmful habits. And often satisfies them at any price, even the
price of crime. Many generalised facts and concrete studies testify
to the fact that there is a very close connection between crime and
drunkenness. Consequently drunkenness must be seen as a special
cause of crime as a whole, and not just that part of it which be­
longs to crimes committed by persons in a state of inebriation.

The danger of drunkenness and alcoholism is a dual one:

on the one hand, it lies in the support and stimulus of social
and even (in a number of cases) biological causes of crime,
on the other, in the fact that drunkenness and alcoholism
act as main causes. They are always accompanied by a
deterioration in human relations and frequently by various
conflicts. At the root of drunkenness and alcoholism lies
contempt for social interests and existing moral and legal
norms. Drunkenness and alcoholism weaken or totally
destroy a person’s socially useful connections and complicate
or break up family relations. They have a negative influence
not only on the behaviour of the drunks and alcoholics
themselves, but also on the members of their families,
particularly children, and on those around them. People
who systematically and excessively consume alcohol lose
a proper reaction to various external irritants and become
lax and coarse, importunate, aggressive, brazen, mendacious,
cynical, etc. These people frequently lose their sense of
duty, respect for the law and moral standards. All this
106
results easily in crimes. Drunkenness and alcoholism directly
lead a person to embark on the criminal path. These phe­
nomena are very similar to crime.
The third-class causes of crime
This group of causes is connected mainly with a concrete
individual. No matter how profoundly we analyse all the
contradictions of social development and the related sources
and causes of crime, it is impossible to understand the es­
sence of the problem without the concrete individual. What
we have in mind is the study of social (and, in part, biologi­
cal) problems that influence the formation and behaviour
of the criminal individual. This type of analysis extends not
only to the criminal individual, but also to the criminal
act which he performs. A crime is a manifestation of per­
sonality. In other words, the person is judged not in isolation
from his behaviour, but in relation to it. Of course, a person
who has committed a crime was not born a criminal, but
became one. Therefore, we must not look for the causes of
the crime in the personality of the criminal alone.
Each concrete crime has social causes, and therefore it is
impossible to explain it solely in terms of a person’s peculiar­
ities. In a crime a role is also played by factors that are
outside and independent of the individual, factors which
reveal themselves on the level of the macro-environment and
are manifested in economic, social, cultural and other
contradictions. Although these contradictions manifest them­
selves in an individual phenomenon through a complex
transmission mechanism, they nevertheless play an import­
ant role in the formation of the conflict between the indi­
vidual and society, a conflict that is realised in a crime.
But the crime, in whatever form it is committed, is not a
chance phenomenon in relation to the individual. Basically
it has been prepared by the development of the individual’s
qualities. The latter include a person’s experience of life,
which is filled with social content, and also the features of
his spiritual world, which in conflict situations predetermine
his choice of socially dangerous behaviour. External causes,
as a rule, do not operate on their own, automatically. They
are refracted through the personality of the criminal and
condition his behaviour. People are different, each of them
is an individual. Without understanding the peculiarities of
197
 the individual it is impossible to understand the motives and
causes of a person’s action. Here the individual is regarded
as a social category. However, certain biological elements,
which are the subject of social research, are not excluded.
An analysis of the causes of crime as a mass phenomenon
does not reveal how individual criminal behaviour develops,
what is the behaviour mechanism in the committing of a
concrete crime. To leave the individual aspect of crime out
of consideration is to ignore an organic part of the whole.
Consequently, the individual aspect of crime (needs, motives,
views, premises, etc.) must be studied in connection with
the causes of the phenomenon.
In studying the causes of crime in connection with a con­
crete individual it is essential to discover the mechanism of
the person’s behaviour. The first link in the behaviour
mechanism is the influence of the external environment, the
second the inner states aroused by these influences, and the
third the behavioural act (the crime). It is essential, there­
fore, to compare the first and third links in this mechanism,
i.e., the influence of the external environment and the
person’s reaction to this influence. Here the possibility of
giving a deterministic explanation of criminal behaviour
from the standpoint of the criminal’s personality arises.
The idea that the causes of crime are rooted in the individual
personality is based on the belief that psychic, mental
activity is the “driving force” of behaviour. What we have
in mind is the person’s spiritual world, at the rational,
emotional and volitional levels on which one finds qualities
which in appropriate circumstances manifest themselves
in the motivation of a crime. A study is made of the conscious
volitional behaviour of the individual, and in accordance
with this attention is focused on the criminal and the circum­
stances of the act committed. Therefore, in a study of the
causes of crime (third-class causes) the analysis of the per­
sonality of the criminal is necessarily in the forefront.
The concrete circumstances promoting the committing of
a crime play a major role in the mechanism of human behav­
iour. All human behaviour is determined by concrete cir­
cumstances. A person depends on these circumstances. How­
ever, he is their active, not passive, subject, insofar as he
can change them, stimulate their influence or prevent this
influence. Consequently, there is no direct link between the
circumstances and the crime, because the “movement” of the
108
 circumstances is regulated by people. Negative circumstan­
ces, operating through the complex mechanism of the in­
dividual consciousness, do not necessarily provoke crimes,
but may also produce positive action aimed at overcoming
the negative aspects, at preventing criminally punishable
acts. The individual has an active, selective attitude to­
wards the circumstances, and their operation cannot be
reduced to the simple projection “the circumstances—the
crime”. There have been many cases when people, “surround­
ed” by concrete circumstances, have chosen the optimum
means of action, desirable for them and society, thereby
restraining themselves from committing a crime. The
reverse has also happened, of course. Hence the applied
importance of a correct “diagnosis” of the circumstances, a
precise determining of their causes, of establishing the
influence of the circumstances on the individual, and, con­
versely, of the individual on the circumstances. This is
important not only for the study of the causes, conditions
and circumstances of individual crimes, but also for the
prevention of criminal behaviour.
In some cases crime is committed when a person shows a
heightened activity, nervous excitability and emotionality
not in keeping with the circumstances, “situational thinking”.
The person is no longer capable of rising above the circum­
stances and assessing them objectively. Here the circum­
stances are not changed by the person, but the person is
formed by the circumstances. They determine his behaviour,
actions. It is in such cases that we talk about circumstances
promoting the committing of a crime. However, a highly
developed individual finds it easier to “rise above” circum­
stances that may lead to a crime. The individual is fully
capable of finding a solution to the situation, while remain­
ing within the bounds of socially permissible behaviour.
The causes and sources of crime are interconnected. Their
unity springs from the “integrated” nature of crime. How­
ever, whereas sources are considered at the level of the
universal, causes are considered at the levels of the general,
particular and individual. An analysis of each of these
levels separately is essential for the concretisation of ap­
propriate assessments. Let us dwell on some of them.
Consciousness lagging behind being. Applied to the prob­
lems of criminological research this concept has an “all-
embracing” nature. For the lagging of social consciousness
109
 behind social being can be linked with the existence not
only of crime, but of all the negative phenomena and pro­
cesses in society that influence crime in some way or other.
What is more, by reference to this fact it is easy to explain
all human actions that are not in the interests of society and
the state. The lagging of consciousness behind social being
nourishes all that is bad, acting as a source of all negative
phenomena, including crime. Consequently in the study
of crime it is essential not only to proceed from this general
explanation, but to strive to define the specific nature of the
“lagging of consciousness behind being” in relation to crime.
In an analysis of this aspect of “lagging behind” one must
pay attention to the following.
Firstly, crime is a manifestation of extremely backward
consciousness.
Secondly, among criminals themselves one can also
establish different levels of “backward consciousness”, for
there are crimes and crimes, just as one criminal (for exam­
ple, a particularly dangerous recidivist) differs from another
(say, a person who has committed casual and reckless crime).
Obviously their levels of “backward consciousness” are
different.
Thirdly, in relation to crime it would be more accurate
to speak not of social consciousness lagging behind social
being, but of individual consciousness lagging behind social
consciousness.
When it is clear who has “backward consciousness”, in
connection with what and how it concretely influenced a
crime, in what concrete actions, intentions and feelings it
expressed itself, there is a real possibility of talking about
the interconnection of the causes and sources of crime. The
problem should be solved in a differentiated way. Then it
becomes possible to determine also the extent to which the
“backward consciousness” is socially dangerous, and its
levels characteristic of criminals in general and their differ­
ent categories. This scientific problem has a broad application
in practice: it is connected with different forms of education
and with preventing “breakdowns” in consciousness. The
criminological aspect of this problem, however, is directly
linked with the prevention of anti-social behaviour.
Socialism does not abolish the operation of the objective law
concerning the relative lagging of social consciousness behind
social being, but it can change it considerably. However, the

110
 Consciousness of the masses, their psychology, change much moW
slowly than the material conditions of existence. This is explained
by the complexity of the interaction of social being ana social
consciousness, the special features of the development of conscious­
ness itself. The gradual altering of the latter determines its relative
length and its different levels and many-sidedness. Although
social consciousness is secondary in relation to being, it exerts
the reverse influence on material conditions.
Social consciousness lags behind the requirements of the social­
ist way of life as well. At the same time the consciousness of the
individual and also of certain categories and groups of the popu­
lation lags behind social consciousness. Finding themselves in a
narrow, specific environment, people with an unformed world
outlook may adopt standpoints that are harmful to themselves
and society. They show peculiar subjective tendency, a corre­
sponding attitude of consciousness. This may be linked also with
difficulties in everyday life, insecurity, failure, etc. Hence, in
particular, the sources of different deviations from the norms
established by society. In other words, in such cases a person’s
behaviour is inferior to social consciousness, i.e., it deviates from
social norms. This is manifested most vividly and dangerously
for society in criminal behaviour. The latter is, however, also
determined by a number of other causes.
For an analysis of the interconnection of the causes and
sources of crime it is important to take into account, first
and foremost, the fact that individual consciousness devel­
ops under the influence of social consciousness. However,
we must also remember that the relationship of conscious­
nesses—social and individual—does not take the form of
direct projection of one on the other. Much depends on the
peculiarities of the individual, his life experience, etc.
Consequently, in solving questions of the interconnection of
the causes and sources of crime it is essential to study the
practical problems of the interrelation of elements of indi­
vidual and social consciousness. For a proper criminological
study it is particularly important to analyse how the dialec­
tics of social development are reflected in the behaviour of
individual persons, categories and groups of the population,
and how social consciousness is reflected in their conscious­
ness. In an analysis of the interconnection of the causes
and sources of crime this enables one to establish the relation­
ship of the general (and universal), the particular and the
individual (singular). Such a differentiated approach, which
is based on recognition of the unity of the phenomena in
question, also enables one to take into account the fact, of
considerable importance to criminology, that one and the
same person can have not one definite level of consciousness,1
111
but several: political, ideological, aesthetic, moral, legal,
etc. For example, the aesthetic level of consciousness in
a person may be high, but his legal level low. Here various
types of contradiction arise: on the one hand, between social
and individual consciousness, and on the other, between
different levels within the individual consciousness. The
causes and sources of a crime committed by a person with
a backward consciousness are closely interwoven. Their
interconnection is practically always obvious.
Vestiges of the past in human consciousness. As Lenin
pointed out, socialism cannot be “entirely free from traditions
or vestiges of capitalism”,1 which act “contrary to real
communist economy”. Vestiges of the past under socialism
still exist in the economy, everyday life and the conscious­
ness of a certain section of people and manifest themselves
in various ways. Under socialism general sociological contra­
dictions and laws operate, and also contradictions and laws
of some preceding formations. These contradictions and
laws constantly change their content in the process of the
development of socialism. Bequeathed by the old to the
new, vestiges of the past never disappear of their own accord.
With the change in social relations, they are regenerated,
transformed, and turn one into the other, thereby acquiring
a relative independence. Vestiges of the past continue to
exist even after the causes and conditions which generated
them have been removed. In this case the lagging of con­
sciousness behind being manifests itself particularly clearly.
For not only progressive, but also backward views spread
in society. Life follows its course, generation succeeds gener­
ation, and a certain section of people take in the old along­
side the new. This is why everyday human behaviour, which
has its inner logic, does not automatically follow social
changes, which is why we speak of socially deviant behaviour.
The most conservative are such forms of behaviour as im­
moral and criminal behaviour. They originate, first and
foremost, in vestiges of the past. Consequently in changing
social being and building a new society, people should step
by step rid themselves of the rubbish of all that is old and
obsolete, from the prescriptions and norms of private-
ownership morality. It is essential to overcome all habits,

1 V. I. Lenin, “The State and Revolution”, Collected Works,

Vol. 25, 1977, p. 476.

112
 rites, and rituals that are not in keeping with our moral
norms and that lead to infringements of the law.
An analysis of the reasons why vestiges of the past survive
in people's consciousness demands a concrete approach to
the different vestiges and different forms of their manifesta­
tion. The fact is that vestiges of the past cannot in them­
selves give rise to crime, just as a conflict of interests cannot
either. Obviously vestiges of the past are only the possibility
of crime, acting as a source of crime. A source may change
from a possibility into reality only in the presence of con­
crete causes and conditions with which it interacts closely.
This interconnection is what should constitute the basis
of research on the criminological aspect of vestiges of the
past.
We would note yet again in connection with the foregoing,
that one can speak of vestiges of the past in people's conscious­
ness only in relation to a section of the members of Soviet
society, individual groups of the population which by no
means consist only of persons who commit crimes. Many
persons for whom vestiges of the past are characteristic do
not commit crimes.
On the other hand individual groups of crimes are most
closely associated with vestiges of the past in human con­
sciousness. Embezzlement, bribery, profiteering, larceny,
and certain other offences connected with such private-
ownership vestiges as cupidity, money-grubbing, greed, etc.
belong, first and foremost, to this source. Moreover, an
analysis of criminal legislation shows that a certain section
of acts can even be directly connected with vestiges of the
past in people's consciousness. For example, crimes which
are vestiges of local customs: payment and receipt of redemp­
tion for a bride (bridemoney), bigamy and polygamy, etc.
The problem of social inheritance. In considering the ques­
tion of vestiges of the past in people's consciousness one
must not overlook the problem of social heredity. Today
heredity is not confined to genetics or even to biology as
a whole. It extends to a wide class of systems connected
with natural, technical, mathematical, psychological and
social processes. The concept of “heredity” is acquiring a
universal character. We are of the opinion that one can also
speak of social heredity in the study of criminological
problems. This approach enables one, inter alia, to speak
more concretely about the transition of vestiges of the past
8 -01771 113
from one generation to another. Social inheritance is found
not only in the lagging of social consciousness behind social
being. It affects the continuity of mankind’s “experience”
by the handing down of social information from generation
to generation. This continuity, which has its own special
features, is also characteristic of the sphere studied by
criminology. For alongside positive, useful information
people may be handed information that is negative and harm­
ful. The social “genetic” ties are diverse. They relate to the
most varied spheres of scientific knowledge. These connections
are also of interest from the standpoint of criminological
research.
The process of social inheritance is a complex and contradictory
one. The above-mentioned social connections retain much that is
characteristic of the preceding historical epoch. By improving
themselves and social relations, people are constantly acquiring
definite elements of new, emerging relations. Each generation
inevitably contributes something new to life. People build their
life, transforming it and not accommodating themselves to it.
The present is always the result of two kinds of activity: firstly,
the activity of the past generations on whose shoulders the present
generation rests, and, secondly, the activity of the present gener­
ation. This is how the social heredity is “refashioned”. However,
as they depart, preceding generations leave those that follow not
only their social riches, but also their “vestiges”. Under socialism
new generations change everything: both the “good” and “bad”,
the former is improved and the latter ousted, eliminated. There­
fore neither “virtues” nor “vices” can remain unchanged, albeit
for the fact that each new generation sees them in a different way.
The balance of forces between the positive and the negative also
changes: the former is given the possibility of becoming wide­
spread, while obstacles are created for the latter. Soviet society
is constantly creating obstacles for vestiges of the past that pro­
mote legal offences, and for all other forms of socially deviant
behaviour.
Crimes are rooted historically (genetically) in the legacy
of past epochs. There is clearly a real social danger in inherit­
ing such a legacy. It is obvious that these “genetics” deter­
mine the existence of the harmful habits that lead to crime.
It is harmful “genetic” social information, sometimes briefly
characterised by attachments to the old and obsolete, that
expresses (and determines) people’s inclination to retain
unchanged the forms of their daily behaviour which leads
to crimes. The classics of Marxism-Leninism frequently
characterised people’s attachments to obsolete forms of
activity as a tremendous force that embodies the operation
114
 of social inertia in mass consciousness and behaviour and
acts as a powerful brake on the path of the establishment of
new social relations. This social inertia has retained crime
as a vestigial phenomenon in Soviet society. Marx, Engels
and Lenin wrote about vestiges of the past as habits which
penetrate the very heart of the masses, and called the force
of these habits a most terrible one that forms the basis of
demoralising activity. Crimes should be regarded precisely
as demoralising “types of activity”. Hence, the task of re­
educating “habits”, a task of great criminological import­
ance. Obviously it cannot be examined in isolation from the
causes and sources of crime, for it is connected with their
existence.
The negative influence of capitalism. As in the preceding
cases, here too the multiplicity of the connections of crime
must be taken into account. These connections are complex.
Some of them influence criminal behaviour directly, others
indirectly. Consequently, if we acknowledge the negative
influence of capitalism on the general cause of crime (or its
source), we must establish the same connections that we
sought to define in assessing “the lagging of consciousness
behind being” and “vestiges”, namely, how the bourgeois
environment influences crime (directly or indirectly), and
whether this environment influences all crimes or only
certain types of them. It is also important to define the
degrees of the negative influence of capitalism on crime as
a whole, and also on individual crimes. But we must always
proceed from the fact that one of the sources of crime in
socialist society is the negative influence of the capitalist
system. This does not mean that crime is a result only of
influence from without, from the capitalist world. To assume
this would divert us from the search for real ways of reducing
the influence on crime of other causes and sources. What is
operating, we repeat, is a set of interconnected causes. We
are examining one of them, the negative influence of capital­
ism.
In carrying out their ideological sabotage our ideological op­
ponents, using a variety of devices, seek to make use of vestiges
of the past in the consciousness of some individuals, their private-
ownership attitudes, etc. And this must not be underestimated.
We know that the capitalist sphere of influence is steadily shrink­
ing, that the power of the world socialist system is increasing.
At the same time the ideological struggle between socialism and
capitalism is growing stronger, and therefore we must not underes­
timate the negative influence of capitalism on the consciousness
8* 415
 of the working people, on the consequent rooting in people's
consciousness of various vestiges of the past, and on the existence
of various negative phenomena, including crime. Hence, it must
not be assumed that the tasks of overcoming this negative in­
fluence of capitalism have become simpler and easier. On the
contrary, they are growing more complex, because with the deve­
lopment of socialism and the building of communist society,
crime is becoming increasingly intolerable. The tasks of criminolo­
gy in this connection are basically to find in the general system
of the ideological education of the masses its own specific means
and methods of “cutting off” such a source of crime as the negative
influence of capitalism. Such a line of work will have special
practical significance.
Capitalism has a negative influence on crime not only
through the hostile activity of the bourgeois intelligence
services and their agents, but also by exerting an ideologicai
influence on the consciousness of the working people, by
creating difficulties for the development of socialism, by
fanning war hysteria, etc. With the Help of ideological sabo­
tage capitalism is seeking to retain vestiges of the past in
people’s consciousness and, consequently, influencing the
causes of crimes.
By studying the causes of crime we learn about reality.
By discovering the true causes of this phenomenon, we
obtain a real opportunity to influence them, to prevent their
emergence. The detection and study of the causes of crime
enables us to act knowledgeably, to exert a practical in­
fluence on all the processes connected with social prevention,
the prevention of anti-social behaviour.

4. THE CAUSES OF CRIME IN CONNECTION WITH AN ANALYSIS

OF CRIMINOGENIC FACTORS

The concept of factors and their connection

with the causes of crime
As already mentioned, the existence of crime in socialist
society is determined by a whole number of causes. However,
the causes of crime cannot be considered in themselves, isolat­
ed, divorced from the phenomena and processes of social
development. Criminology usually calls negative phenomena
and processes “crime factors”. Determining the place and
role of each factor in elaborating measures for crime control
is one of the most important tasks of criminological research.
But this does not mean that any individual factor can be
116
 considered apart from other factors. In a study of the factors
the point of departure should be Lenin’s statement that “there
are no ‘pure’ phenomena, nor can there be, either in nature
or in society... The very concept of purity indicates a cer­
tain narrowness, a one-sidedness of human cognition, which
cannot embrace an object in all its totality and complexity’’.1
Consequently these factors must be studied together. Only
then will it be possible to discover the mechanism of their
influence on crime.
What is the general assessment of the factors influencing
crime? We have already said that these factors can be divid­
ed into two main groups: criminogenic and anti-criminogen­
ic. The former include phenomena and processes that engen­
der, revive, strengthen or support the negative views, habits
and tendencies underlying anti-social behaviour, or directly
provoke or facilitate the committing of a crime. The latter,
conversely, are phenomena and processes that oppose anti­
social behaviour and its manifestation. It must be borne
in mind, however, that an assessment of this or that phenom­
enon as a criminogenic or anti-criminogenic factor is not
always “firm”, invariable, and in a number of cases depends on
combination with other phenomena and processes. In this
connection, it must be said that the concept of the crimi­
nogenic and anti-criminogenic is equally applicable to
factors which act as causes and those which act as conditions
of crime. But here the problem is linked with the effects
of the factors. Obviously, in connection with the causes
of crime we can speak not so much of factors as of their
effects.
The effects of factors and causes of crime. There is a need for
a criminological investigation of both the positive and the
negative effects of social phenomena and processes, the inter­
connection and interaction of these effects in all their full­
ness and contradictoriness. Naturally, we must take into
account the fact that in Soviet society negative phenomena
and processes form an insignificant part of all phenomena
and processes. Therefore on the whole the effects are positive.
But there are also negative eff ects, of course, and if they
promote anti-social (criminal) behaviour, they are called
criminogenic. As a rule, these effects manifest themselves

1 V. I. Lenin, “The Collapse of the Second International”, Col-

teted Worki, Vol. 21, p. 236.
417
at the lower levels of social relations. It must he pointed out
that we should not equate the concepts of the “negative effects”
of a phenomenon or process with “criminogenic effects”.
Whereas the latter are linked with the causes and conditions
of crime, the former bear no direct relation to them. Crime
itself is the result of criminogenic effects as a whole. It. can
also be represented as the most striking criminogenic factor
in the system of social development. For a proper understand­
ing of the causes of crime we must have a clear picture of
the sum total of factors, the environment that “feeds” them,
the nature of their interaction with one another, the mecha­
nism of their influence on crime and resistance to this in­
fluence. The organisation of crime control is impossible
without a profound study of the whole set of factors, both
criminogenic and anti-criminogenic. In order to raise the
effectiveness of this control it is essential to remember that
under the scientific and technological revolution the sum
total of factors influencing human behaviour is growing
steadily and their interaction is becoming increasingly
complex. However, in spite of the fact that these factors
influence human behaviour jointly, it is essential to classify
them. The question of the role and place of any group of
factors in the mechanism that determines criminal behaviour
cannot be considered without preliminary classification of
the factors. There are different ways of classifying them,
depending on the criteria used. Let us consider some of
the most important which have a practical significance.
The initial one here is that different groups of factors play
different roles in the mechanism of determining criminal
behaviour. Social phenomena and processes which are on the
whole positive and necessary (important from the point of
view of social development) may also produce negative
effects. For example, industrial development, the active
involvement of women in social production, etc., are un­
doubtedly positive phenomena serving the goals of progress,
yet at the same time they also have negative effects, albeit
of a temporary nature. Such phenomena and processes also
include urbanisation, migration, increase in private motor­
ing, growth of leisure time, and certain others. Here a spe­
cial classification of factors is necessary. But in discussing
this type of effects, we must remember that in a socialist
society the “power” of anti-criminogenic social phenomena
and processes in general is immeasurably greater than the
118
operation of negative phenomena. Positive phenomena am i
processes weaken and neutralise the action of negative ones
and help to remove them from the life of society. This does
not, of course, do away with the problem of discovering
the nature of the interaction of criminogenic and anti-cri-
ininogenic factors and their joint influence on crime.
Changes in any sphere of social relations are the result of the
interaction of complex, partially opposing factors (phenomena and
processes). Only public ownership and socialist organisation of
society create the necessary prerequisites for the scientific detec­
tion and study of the mosi miportant factors, the assessment and
consideration of their inflt ®c on the general system of social
relations. This determines t ehe ssibility of a relatively accurate
definition of the role and place of this or that factor in socialist
society. The relative accuracy of this “measurement” also depends
on how fully and correctly account is taken of the causal depen­
dencies that determine social development, how fully the true
picture of this or that phenomenon or process is presented. Here
one must take into account the large number of indices connected
with political economy, sociology, psychology, criminology,
law and other branches of knowledge.
Let us quote an example concerning demography, in particular,
the problem of age groups of the population. This problem is
connected with two main questions: the birthrate and “ageing” of
the population. Modern demography explains the drop in the
birthrate by a number of causes: the growing participation of
women in production and social life, the rise in tneir educational
level, the influence of urbanisation and migration, the increased
cost of bringing up a child, etc. Here we have a whole set of
economic, ethical, psychological, medical, sexological, pedago­
gical, juridical, religious, national and class factors. Demography
closely links the problem of the “ageing” of the population with
the factors of the attitude to the older generation, to the elderly.
And the attitude of society to “old people” reflects the level of its
civilisation. It is not just a question of old people adapting to
society, but also of society striving to help them to adapt to it.
This includes such questions as the social security of the elderly
and pensioners, the solution of their housing and financial prob­
lems, the proper organising of their life, care and medical as­
sistance, etc. This provides the basis for a classification both of
the factors themselves, and of their consequences which influence
crime.

A summary assessment of factors

and their classification
We consider it expedient to divide all “crime factors” into
four groups: permanent; variable and periodic; variable
and not periodic; and accidental. Moreover, apart from the
119
 concept “factor” one can also use the concept “factor realisa­
tion” which is linked with the fact that a factor itself can
remain unchanged, but be realised differently at different
periods of time. For a factor determines a concrete event not
directly, but through its realisation. Therefore, the main
tasks in the sphere of determining factors and their realisa­
tion are the following: detection of the main criminogenic
and anti-criminogenic factors aff ecting crime; qualitative
and quantitative assessment of the measure of influence of
each factor (or combination of factors) on crime; establish­
ment of the dynamics of criminogenic and anti-criminogenic
factors; determining of alternative ways of “development”
of crime on the basis of the possible dynamics of criminogenic
and anti-criminogenic factors, changes in their combinations
and intensity of operation; detecting the possibilities and
trends of the active influence of crime through select­
ing measures that promote the optimal removal of crimi­
nogenic factors and, consequently, the reduction of crime.
It is, of course, difficult to establish precisely the number of
criminogenic and anti-criminogenic factors. But it is even
harder to determine the degree of influence of individual
factors (or combinations of factors) on crime.
We established that there are many factors operating
on crime and that the influence of some of them is great, of
others less, and of still others insignificant. It has also been
established that with time, firstly, operating factors change
qualitatively, secondly, some factors disappear and others
emerge, and, thirdly, there is a constant process in which
the set of anti-criminogenic factors expands qualitatively
and quantitatively and the set of criminogenic factors shrinks.
Studies have also helped us to determine groups of factors
connected with the nature of crime as a socio-legal phe­
nomenon.
Proceeding from the nature of crime, all factors that in­
fluence it can be divided into five concrete groups: socio­
demographic (factors connected with urbanisation, migration,
change in the sex and age structure of the population, etc.);
economic (factors connected with problems of well-being,
volume of commodity sales, scale and rate of house build­
ing, etc.); social and socio-psychological (factors connected
with the weakening of traditional forms of social control
of the individual linked with urbanisation, and also with
the role of the family in the upbringing of the rising gene-
120
ration and the employment of women in social production;
with the increase in the social activity of the population and
the amount of leisure time available to the working people
and the rise in the educational and cultural level of the
population; with the disparity between man’s possibilities
and the psycho-physical stress engendered by the conditions
of modern life, acceleration, and the development in the
Soviet Union of tourism, private motoring, etc.); organisa­
tional and legal (factors connected with the passing of new
laws providing for criminal responsibility for committing
crimes, with problems in criminal and other legislation,
with the insufficiently high effectiveness of individual legal
norms regulating the procedure for meting out and execution
of punishment; factors connected with the activity of the
bodies that control crime, with the passing of acts of amnesty,
and the pardoning of criminals, etc.); other factors not relat­
ed to the aforegoing four groups. We would note here that
the range of factors influencing crime is very broad. Special
research is needed for a full and profound study of them.
Classification of crime factors makes it possible to direct
criminological analysis to a study of the question in sub­
stance, to determine concretely the object of research. It
also creates the conditions for subdividing the factors of
each group (system) into their separate components, whose
proportion and degree of influence on crime must be defined
in connection with an analysis of other, related factors. We
must not ignore the fact that in most cases we arc dealing
initially with a vast number of factors that can be under­
stood only when they are classified.
General conclusion. Generalising work based on an analysis
of factors must not be simply a summary, but an assessment
that requires many-sided research taking the different con­
nections of crime into account. The aim of this work is to
show the important connections of this phenomenon, to
reflect social reality at the level of generalisation.
 CHAPTER IV

THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE SOCIAL

AND BIOLOGICAL IN THE CAUSES OF CRIME

1. THE INTERCONNECTION OF THE SOCIAL

AND BIOLOGICAL IN THE CAUSES OF CRIME

The concept of the relationship of the social

and biological
The problem of the relationship of the social and biolo­
gical in the causes of crime is of great theoretical and prac­
tical significance. The methodological direction and means
of research of many other questions that are clearly connected
with the need to promote the prevention of anti-social beha­
viour depend on its correct solution. Marxism-Leninism
regards the “social” and the “biological” in social processes
linked with the assessment of man, on the one hand, as qual­
itatively different and in this sense opposing phenomena,
and, on the other, as being in dialectical unity, interpene­
tration and interaction. Consequently, there are no grounds
for either contrasting the social and biological, or identifying
the two. It is their unity, let us stress once again, that charac­
terises them.
The problem cannot be solved simply in relation to the
causes of crime either—in favour of either the social or the
biological. The dialectical law of the unity and struggle
of opposites enables us to discover the contradictory con­
nection of these two trends of scientific research. In other
words, the so-called biological interpretation of the causes
of crime by no means proves that these causes are biological.
Here we cannot proceed from the primacy of the biological.
However, in recognising the primacy of the social here, we
must not forget that the biological has a certain importance
for the assessment of the causes of crime. Such a formulation
of the problem does not contradict present-day criminolog­
ical standpoints. It is methodologically correct.
122
 The problem of the relationship between the social and
biological has long concerned specialists of the most varying
trends. It has always stood at the centre of the philosophical
and ideological struggle and therefore been the subject of
study of both the natural and the social sciences. The point
of departure here is the fact that nature and society mutually
complement each other. However at different levels of
interaction this relationship takes different and extremely
varied forms. For example, the natural (the biological in
general) exists in people as the biophysical, biochemical,
and physiological, and the social as the social and personal,
the class, the group and the collective. For all the variety
of these individual manifestations the universal relationship
between the biological and social may be expressed briefly
as follows: man's very nature is a product of history. This
means that in the historical development of human activity
the social in some way mediates, changes and develops the
biological in man. This is the Marxist-Leninist approach
to the problem. It is also the initial methodological stand­
point for a study of the problem of the relationship of the
social and biological in the causes of crime. There are cer
tain specific features here. But the general point of departure
is based on the following factors.
Firstly, the biological is by origin the general. It is akin,
but not identical, to the natural, that which exists and
develops in people independently of the influence of society
on them. Everything inherited in people is biological, but
not all the biological is hereditary (for example, the personal
features of an adult which are the result of brain damage re­
ceived during birth are biological, but not hereditary). The
biological leaves its mark on the human personality and,
consequently, on behaviour. Human biology, in analysing
the problems of heredity, considers the special features of
human behaviour- not random differences in the behaviour
of certain individuals, but general aspects of behaviour.
Secondly, the social is everything in people that has arisen
in them in the process of anthropogenesis1 and human history
and arises in ontogenesis2 as a result of contact, social rela-
1 Anthropogenesis: the process of the development (formation)
of a physical type of person, the development of his activity and
behaviour. —Editors note.
1 Ontogenesis: the basis of the origin and development of a process
or phenomenon.—Editor's note.

123
 tions. The social does noi coincide completely with that
which a person acquires in his personal experience, because
not everything acquired by people in their life is social. At the
same time man is social from the moment of his birth. Howe­
ver, the social does not arise “out of thin air”, “all on its
own”. Man’s essence lies in the sum total of social relations
that grow up between people in the production of specifically
human life. But the problem is to introduce each newborn
person to this “essence”. Without consideration of biological
(genetic, inborn) qualities this is impossible.
Thirdly, the relationship of the social and biological in
man is determined by a gradual reduction in the biological
and an increase in the socially conditioned elements that
form the individual. As Karl Marx put it in his famous state­
ment, by changing the external world, man at the same
time changes his own nature.1 The influence of the biological
features of man on his development (and behaviour) is effect­
ed by means of a most complex system of connections and
relations. In real life this influence is so overshadowed by
the action of the social programme assimilated by man and
his own activity that the role of the biological is sometimes
barely perceptible. Therefore all the biological in an indi­
vidual is to a greater or lesser extent socialised. This makes
the task of studying the influence of biological factors on
human behaviour an extremely difficult, although soluble
one. But the social should not be completely divorced from
the biological cither. Their interconnection is indisputable.
Here, of course, many unclear questions arise. To limit their
number as far as possible, we shall provide an explanation. Let
us note, first and foremost, that human behaviour, anti-social
behaviour included, is subject not to biological, but to social
laws. This is explained by the fact that the biological and the
social do not stand in the same row, are not arranged along the
horizontal line of human qualities, are not mechanically included
in each other, and are not connected by any direct correlating
link, by rigorous determination. The biological manifests itself
in the socisd in a different form: the former is dialectically “sub-
lated” in the latter. But does this mean that biological features are
just a “layer” that has stuck to man as a result of his natural
origin, and can therefore be removed? No, of course not. The idea
of man’s ability to cleanse himself totally from the “filth” of his
nature is the basis of the anti-scientific approach to the problem
of the individual. The social cannot completely “remove” the
1 Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. I, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1974,
p. 173.
124
 biological from man. The former, by acting on the latter, occupies
a dominant position, predetermines the trend of development of
biological possibilities planted in man by nature, determines the
means of satisfying his requirements and, consequently, the forms
and nature of his behaviour. However, the biological offers a
certain “resistance” to the social and does not always “surrender”.
Hence their contradictions and the varied forms of solving the
latter.
Obviously people are born without consciousness and inborn
ideas: both are formed in the course of their life. After birth comes
the complex process of the formation of consciousness, thought
and language. At this time in people of each generation the
formation of their social essence takes place under the influence of
the social programme. It covers various age periods with varying
degrees of influence of the biological. Every psychically healthy
ana educated person is a harmonised socio-natural system in
which the natural is controlled by the socio-rational, and the social
corresponds to the biological. If the one really does correspond
to the other, the person is capable of regulating his behaviour.
Of course, the biological is by no means the determining cause
of social development. For that which remains almost unchanged
throughout millenia cannot serve as a basis for improvement of
that which undergoes radical changes within centuries, even
decades. Biological processes develop more slowly, and social
phenomena more quickly. But this does not prove that the “biolo­
gical environment” is isolated from “social life”. This fact is a
manifestation of the autonomous nature of the process of trans­
forming man, which, however, does not mean that his biological
nature is infinite and unchanging. Therefore, it is essential to
speak of the biosocial systems that concern man, his life and
behaviour.

The criminological study of the interconnections

of the social and biological
Rejecting the mechanistic interpretation of the relation­
ship of the social and biological, Soviet criminology bases
itself on the Marxist-Leninist teaching, from which it fol­
lows that man exists with his biological, psychical and social
qualities, and that their interconnection must be taken into
account in the study of crime and its causes, the criminal
personality and the prevention of anti-social behaviour.
Ilowever, let us stress once again, the social nature of man
is dominant, decisive. The social, unlike the biological, is
acquired by man not from birth but during life. But it
does have certain biological prerequisites. No matter how
the social develops, man always remains a biological crea­
ture. Man is a biosocial system. This by no means denies
the fact that his essence is social.
125
 Underestimation of this fact by criminology leads to an
incorrect interpretation of the relationship of the social and
biological: if the formula “biological stimulus —biological
reaction” forms the basis of the biologisation of the individu­
al, the foundation of vulgar sociologisation is another incor­
rect formula “social stimulus—social reaction”.
Criminology, which directs all its research, in the final
analysis, to the prevention of criminal behaviour, cannot
manage without biology. An analysis of the problems of
heredity is particularly important here. Genetics, the science
of heredity and variability, may come to the aid of crimi­
nology. The importance of the criminological study of gene­
tics is determined by the fact that it has a direct bearing
on man, on his biological essence. The successes of criminology
are to a certain extent linked with biological research, with
analysis of genetical data. This is why criminologists must
be constantly informed of the latest advances in genetics.
Today genetics has won the key position in biology and is
organically growing into a number of other branches of
knowledge concerned with the study of life and man. As for
human genetics, in this sphere attention is increasingly being
focused on the mechanism of inheriting various biochemical
disorders, the genetic prerequisites of psychic activity,
tissue incompatibility, and certain other pressing problems.
Genetics has shown that in place of the earlier formula
“heredity or environment” we must use the formula “here­
dity and environment”.
Genetic problems. Science has already discovered genetically
predetermined norms of human reaction to various factors
of the social environment. Obviously criminologists not
only cannot reject these genetical achievements, but are
bound to proceed from the fact that in studying this or that
human feature the assessment not only of the social en­
vironment, but also of the norm of reaction on this environ­
ment is of importance. The norm of reaction, however, can
be determined by heredity too. Hence the importance of a
study of people who commit crimes that takes into account
their psyche, the effects of hereditary diseases, etc. This
also enables us to study the causes of crime in the complex
of phenomena and processes, both social and biological,
that take place in human life.
In analysing the relationship of the social and biological
in a study of the causes of crime, it is necessary to stress
126
 that consideration of biological (genetic) problems can large­
ly predetermine the organisation of preventive and educa­
tional work. It also enables us to take into account people’s
different predispositions to behaviour in this or that situa­
tion (which is linked with their biological qualities) and
to conclude how to organise differentiated, individual pre­
ventive action.
Not every person is free of such innate qualities that pro­
mote the formation of anti-social behaviour and, consequent­
ly, the committing of a crime. But in speaking of innate
qualities characteristic of people we must bear in mind,
firstly, that not all criminals have perverted, criminogenic
psycho-physiological qualities. It is always only certain
individuals and, consequently, certain categories of crime.
Secondly, the proportion of criminals possessing qualities
of criminogenic significance may be the same as the propor­
tion of people with such qualities who have not committed
crimes. Thirdly, a certain person’s predisposition to crime
does not mean that he will commit a criminally punishable
act.
The criminologist must remember that new possibilities
have long existed for studying the structure and laws of
man’s biological, psychical and emotional life, his social
and moral behaviour. The biological and genetic study of man
has acquired a special importance. Let us repeat once again:
the individual is not a purely social phenomenon. Every
individual contains manifestations of a biological, not only
social, nature. It is perfectly correct to speak of man’s bio­
social nature. The biogenetic dispositions of the individual,
the special features of his type of higher nervous activity,
temperament, physical strength and a great deal more —
everything is connected, in the final analysis, with the con­
ditions of his social existence.
An approach to the study of the causes of crime from
the social and biological standpoints
It is clear that a crime (as the logical consequence of anti­
social behaviour) cannot be explained by some eternal urges,
instincts, implanted in a person by nature, biology, genes.
All attempts at such an explanation have failed, because
the basic biological requirements by no means exhaust man’s
motives and aspirations. Under the influence of the social
127
 environment inborn instincts are overlaid with secondary,
social appetites. However, biological activity is also part of
the structure of motives of human behaviour, including
crime, although its role is limited. There are no inborn social
or anti-social programmes of behaviour. A socio-positive
individual can be formed on any biological foundation (ex­
cluding pathology), just as a socio-negative one. This de­
pends on the social conditions, on the specific nature of the
social environment and education. But all the same we must
not forget that concentrating attention on purely social char­
acteristics without considering human needs and qualities
connected with man’s biological and psychological features
is fraught with unpleasant consequences in the assessment of
behaviour. It is a question of human behaviour. A crime
can be no exception.
In studying the problem of the social and biological in
the causes of crime, it is necessary to know, first and fore­
most, man’s actual nature, his essence. Karl Marx called
those who did not distinguish man’s essence from the forms
of his existence, did not recognise man’s nature and did
not understand the methodological importance of defining
it “geniuses of bourgeois stupidity”. He stressed that if
we want to find out what is useful for man, and what is
harmful, we must deal with human nature in general, and
then with human nature as modified in each historical epoch.1
Here we must see not only the distinction between essence
and existence, but also the fact that the forms of manifes­
tation of man and his essence change. Proceeding from
this proposition, we can say that the social nature of man
is his specific feature. The biological is not the main element
in man’s essence, because it is not only inherent in man. It
is only the material for man’s development, for the formation
of his social qualities, features, and abilities. The turning
of this material into a person, as has already been noted, is
the result of social action.
It is of methodological importance to study the mechanisms
of the concrete interaction of man with his environment and
the formation of his social nature. The social environment is
the direct source from which man draws his knowledge, ex­
periences, and motives. But does this mean that the repre-
1 Karl Marx, “Theses on Feuerbach”. In: Karl Marx, Frederick
Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 5, Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1976,
pp. 4-5,

128
sentatives of a social environment become completely iden­
tical under its influence. Of course not. People are endowed
by nature with individual features, different types of higher
nervous activity, diflerent capacities to feel and think, dif­
ferent volitional qualities, instincts, etc. On the one hand,
all these qualities necessarily, although in differing degrees,
affect the concrete results of a person’s mastery of social ex­
perience. On the other, these qualities themselves change
under the influence of social action. Hence the question
arises as to what socio-biological potential of development a
person has and how this potential can be realised without
harming the development of his personality, the formation
of his behaviour, his physical, psychic and moral health.
Here the problem arises as to how to “suppress” the potential
possibilities of anti-social behaviour and the various other
manifestations that contradict social development. Obvious­
ly not only social, but also medico-biological means should
be used for this.
In analysing the problem of the causes of crime, the crim­
inologist always studies the biological aspect in some
way or other, even when he does not wish to take it into
account. For the interconnection of the social and biological
cannot be regarded in any sphere of scientific knowledge as
the relationship of totally diflerent, clearly demarcated as­
pects. “...Everywhere in Nature and society, the lines of
division are conventional and variable, relative, not abso­
lute.”1 Consequently, it is impossible to determine precisely
the proportion of the social and of the biological in causes
of crime. We must proceed from the fact that all phenomena
of nature and society, including man, are in a constant state
of development, owing to which the ratio of the social and
biological also changes. But not everything changes in the
same way and at the same time. Therefore it is hard to call
certain individual features in the causes of crime either purely
biological or purely social, without their, albeit relative,
connection with each other. It is hard to distinguish in the
phenomena of nature and society, in man (if we take his
life as a whole) the major and the minor, the determining
and the determined, the external and the internal. The com­
ponents that go to make up any “biosocial system” exist and

1 V. 1. Lenin, “Under a False Flag”, Collected Workt, Vol. 211

p. 146.

9-01771 129
operate in indissoluble unity and interpenetration. The life
of any person proceeds simultaneously in two forms of matter:
the biological and the social. In studying the causes of crim­
inal behaviour, this fact must be constantly borne in mind.
2. BIOLOGICAL PROBLEMS IN THE CAUSAL COMPLEX
OF ANTI SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

An analysis of biological problems

in connection with human behaviour
Without going into a detailed analysis of the viewpoints
of scientists concerning the biological problems of anti­
social behaviour, we would note that all of them, even those
who are opponents of “genetic conceptions”, do not deny the
need for a study of general “natural features” in criminologi­
cal phenomena. These standpoints are based on the fact that
man is a biological being, but changes into a member of
society, acquiring his own essence as a social type. In study­
ing anti-social behaviour special attention must be paid
to sex, age and psychic qualities. It is these features and
qualities that ensure a person, within the limits of his age,
sex and constitutional-neurodynamic potential, the possi­
bility of adapting to the natural and social environment,
and also the transmission of genetic information and the
individual existence programme (biological heredity) in
natural and social conditions. However, a person’s biological
features (qualities) manifest themselves and develop on
different social bases and lead to different consequences.
Of course, there are no special genes for inheriting such
social features as criminality. It is a matter not of “special
genes”, but of biological indications that play a negative
role in human behaviour, particularly those that are not
transformed in social conditions. For social heredity, like
genetic heredity, contains many vestigial elements. Can
such a “defective” social heredity help us to “correct” nega­
tive genetic indications? And if it is possible to transform
“vestigial elements” of social heredity, why is it impossible
to do the same (within permissible limits) with genetic here­
dity? For in the development of the individual, in the process
of the formation of his behaviour the social factor plays the
active, leading, formative role, and the biological factor a
relatively passive role. Social heredity must not be seen as
130
ci constantly changing category, and genetic heredity ad
a completely unchanging one. Anti-social behaviour is in­
fluenced by both social and genetic (biological) indications,
but both the former and the latter can change in the process
of the development, education, and if necessary treatment
of the individual. Correcting human behaviour with the
help of medical means is not only possible, but also neces­
sary, humane, and in keeping with both moral and legal re­
quirements.
It is true that people differ from one another in inborn
temperament or character and types of higher nervous activi­
ty. This was not given to them by society, but rather in­
fluences their role in society. But it does not determine the
main thing in the individual. The individual personality
is developed largely by what it wants to be in the course of
development. A person’s behaviour (activity and life) does
not depend on his innate peculiarities and features (formerly
people used to say they were from God, but now from genes),
which are genetically inherited, inborn, and therefore ines­
capable. The presence of a physiologically normal brain is
a material prerequisite of the personality, but is not the
personality itself. The process of the emergence of the per­
sonality is the process of the transformation of biologically
given material by factors of social reality. However, for norm­
al human behaviour (life and activity) a certain minimum of
“genic equipment” is needed.
It must be agreed that certain variants of inborn pecu­
liarities of the personality in a number of cases make a per­
son’s social adaptation difficult, but if an education pro­
gramme takes these peculiarities into account, they can be
socially neutralised. It must also be accepted that a negative
behavioural act is not connected with these inborn peculiari­
ties, but with shortcomings in the education programme that
has not taken them into account. Naturally, it is essential to
look for the indirect, not the direct relations. But it is ex­
tremely important to take them into account for a study of
crime and its causes, the criminal personality, and for or­
ganising the prevention of anti-social behaviour.
Biological needs and behaviour
Many biological factors have a considerable influence on
the content of human needs. And consequently on human
behaviour also. “No one can do anything without at the
9* 131
 dame time doing it for the sake of one or other of his needs
and for the sake of the organ of this need...”1 In this case
physiological (biological) needs are distinguished in parti­
cular. Marxism categorically opposes underestimation of
the biological element in human needs. The needs of each
person develop on the basis of certain genetic dispositions.
However, this does not mean that human (biological) needs
can be considered apart from the social environment. Karl
Marx drew attention to this point also, stating that “the
number and extent of his (the owner of labour-power) so-called
necessary wants, as also the modes of satisfying them, are
themselves the product of historical development, and depend
therefore to a great extent on the degree of civilisation of a
country...”2 It is this that also determines the ratio of the
social and biological in satisfying a person’s needs. Hence
also the corresponding assessment of his behaviour.
Any biological human need can be and is, as a rule, satis­
fied by socially elaborated means. The satisfaction of physio­
logical (biological) needs is not connected with social factors
only when extremal conditions (a state of extreme “inhuman”
hunger, etc.) arise for a person. However a person satisfies
(can satisfy) his biological needs in accordance with the
requirements of social norms. In this sense he constantly feels
all kinds of social, economic, legal, physico-biological and
other restrictions. Going beyond the framework of these
restrictions is frequently connected with the infringement of
social, moral and legal norms.
We must also mention many factors that influence the rate
of a person’s development, his physiological maturing, which
are of an hereditary nature and extremely important. There
can be no doubt that early or late maturing affects a person’s
behaviour. Heightened sexual appetite is characteristic of
people who mature early. And this is not divorced from the
satisfaction of certain biological needs. Moreover, geneticists
associate many other hereditary problems with legal offences.'
This is particularly true of young men, whose social expe-i
rience is inadequate. I
We do not attach absolute importance to the satisfaction,
of biological needs, which incidentally are not simply that!

1 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, “The German Ideology”. In

Karl Marx, Frederick Engels, Collected Works, Vol. 5, p. 255.
* Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. I, p. 168. |

132
 a person must eat, drink, etc., but it should not be complete­
ly ignored. This concerns in particular such “outbursts”
or even “explosions” of human behaviour which are connected
with the satisfaction of biological needs in special situations.
The human psyche and anti social behaviour
The above analysis enables us to conclude that man is
characterised by a certain biological organisation and that
he also has a certain hereditary behaviour programme. His
instincts and needs exist on this foundation. But it must be
noted that biological peculiarities also determine the nature
of nervous processes, temperament and other psychic qual­
ities of man. These qualities, being independent, are effec­
tive (although in “sublated” form) for social forms of beha­
viour. Hence it follows that a study of anti-social behaviour
should be made on the psychological level as well. This aspect
of research can reveal the connection of psychic states and
processes (intellectual, emotional, volitional), psychic qual­
ities of the personality of the offender (inclinations, tem­
perament, abilities, character) with his anti-social beha­
viour. It is this that determines the interconnection of a
person’s psyche and his behaviour. This is particularly
true of criminal behaviour.
Analysing criminal (anti-social) behaviour, we must bear
in mind that the psyche in one of its meanings can be re­
garded as the connecting link between the social and the
biological. This “link” brings us to the psycho-physiological
aspect of research. In this connection a word must be said
about the border discipline of psycho-genetics, which studies
a fairly wide range of features. But this discipline concent­
rates mainly on higher psychic functions. The connection of
criminology with this discipline is essential for solving the
theoretical and practical problems of crime control.
In studying the problems of a person’s psyche in connec­
tion with his anti-social behaviour, Soviet criminology is
guided by the following conclusion: there are no grounds for
assuming that the content of the psyche, that is, everything
that characterises a person as an individual—his world
outlook, moral and ethical values, goals, aspirations, inter­
ests, intellect and will, are determined by a genotype. On
the contrary, there is every reason for stating that these
‘‘indications” are of social origin and are passed on from
133
generation to generation only in social continuity according
to a “social heredity” programme. They are not coded in a
genome. It is a different matter with dynamic characteris­
tics, that is, the formal parameters of the psychic process
(and the nervous process on which it is based), or with the
characteristics of a person as an individual. Reflecting the
physiological qualities of the material substratum of the
psyche, they may be formed according to a genetic prog­
ramme. But here too it is unlikely that everything can be ex­
plained solely by a genotype.
This is the initial position that should provide the basis
of criminological investigation of a person’s psyche in con­
nection with his anti-social behaviour. The important thing
here is a concrete analysis of the person’s features, qualities
and behaviour.
In relation to the causes of crime we cannot, it would
seem, ask the question: are certain psychic mechanisms pro­
grammed in advance? It is clear that the reply to such a
question can only be negative. We must bear in mind that
the psyche as a social phenomenon is connected with the
infinitely complex set of factors that influence a person’s
development. Here the biological can also be represented as
a prerequisite of the psychic. However, the psychic in its
turn is also capable of influencing the physiological. In this
complex system of interconnections and interdependencies
each element plays its own role. The biological however,
firstly, plays a secondary, not the main, role, and, secondly,
manifests itself “dully”, not clearly. But this does not mean
that it should not be studied.
Data from psychology and medicine, particularly psychiatry
and psychopathology, are frequently of considerable interest for
an understanding of the psycho-physiological mechanisms at the
basis of many important forms of behaviour. It is well known, for
example, that in the majority of people positive nervous-psychic
and social qualities prevail over negative ones. However, there
are people in whom negative nervous-psychic and social qualities
prevail over positive ones. This sort of ratio turns people into
one-sided, unbalanced individuals. Some offenders by virtue of
their psychic unbalancedness and quarrelsome disposition feel
discomfort in normal, peaceful conditions of life. They are im­
pressed by acute situations, human suffering, etc. They make
use of any pretext to create conflict situations. Such behaviour
is not free of psychic anomalies. It is linked, as a rule, with mal­
functioning of consciousness, thinking, memory, with degeneration
of the personality as a whole, and of the human psyche. And this*.

134
 as practice has shown, often leads to crimes. Consequently, a study
of these problems from the criminological point of view is most
necessary.
A person’s strictly individual psychic peculiarities, which
are connected with his biology, play an active, not passive,
role in the development of behaviour. Anti-social behaviour,
for example, can be noticeably influenced by various psychic
and physical deviations and defects, by abnormal mental
activity. The psyche of persons who commit serious crimes,
sometimes accompanied by clearly “inhuman” actions, may
have been disturbed from the outset by genetic deviations.
It is possible that such people may lack the ability for nor­
mal psychic perception, some of their abilities may be per­
verted. Studies even of persons who have committed murder
with intent show that it is precisely among criminals of this
category that one most often finds people with psychic ab­
normalities.
We must bear in mind that the existence of psychopathy,
mental backwardness and other manifestations of psychic
inferiority in some cases can lead to the commission of a
criminal act, facilitate its realisation, narrow the possi­
bility of an alternative choice of action, occasionally intro­
duce strange “motivation” and reduce the possibility of self-
control, etc. But can such psychic inferiority be the result
of social factors alone? We obviously cannot do without a
study of the anthropological laws connected not only with
sociology, but also with the functioning of the human brain,
the human psyche. Without taking biological elements into
account we cannot give a sufficiently full explanation of the
“psychological extremity” that we call a crime, nor can we
adopt a proper individual approach in the prevention of
anti-social behaviour. Therefore these genetic (biological)
problems have, first and foremost, a profound social signi­
ficance.
The influence of hereditary diseases
on anti social behaviour
At first glance it may seem that criminology should not
be interested in whether the psychic anomalies of offenders
are inborn or not. However, practical workers are concerned
mainly with the problem of the prevention of crime com­
mitted by persons with psychic deviations. But this is ex­
tremely difficult for them because people with such devia-
135
tions act in a most unexpected way. On the other hand, in
order to prevent crimes committed by this category of per­
sons it is essential to know the true causes of their anti­
social behaviour, assessed as a whole, of course. Juridical
means and methods alone cannot be sufficiently useful.
Practical workers must be assisted, first and foremost, by
medicine, for we are dealing with the influence of hereditary
diseases on anti-social behaviour. Obviously we cannot do
without medical prevention (and treatment) in the future.
Already today the conscious protection of heredity is becom­
ing urgent. Society is carrying on considerable work con­
cerning the prevention and treatment of many hereditary
diseases. Medicine and juridical practice, acting jointly to
organise the prevention of anti-social behaviour, will have
to base themselves on new social conditions which can pro­
vide the opportunity for a conscious transformation of a
person’s genetic programme, should it need “correction”.
This will be a new trend in the state’s prevention work. For
a person suffering from hereditary diseases and leading an
anti-social way of life in connection with this, one cannot
create two independent programmes of preventive action—a
“genetic” one and a “social” one. There must be a single,
comprehensive programme.

A most important aspect of a healthy way of life is a person’s

harmonic performance of his socio-biological functions, which 1*9
connected with the unity of his physical and spiritual develop­
ment, the correspondence of his thoughts and actions. The social
indices of this way of life are characterised by the satisfaction
of human needs in work, contact, rest, medical care, and social
security (in the broad sense of the word). But a healthy way of
life is also characterised by a biological measure that embraces
the most varied aspects, levels and means of activity of man as
a special natural being. Anthropological data, neurophysiological
ana immunological peculiarities, typal and individual features, sex
and national differences, inborn and acquired biological features—
all this is reflected in the way of life of individuals and groups
distinguished by natural quantitative and qualitative indices.
The healthy way of life and its realisation depend to a large
extent on subjective factors, on personal value attitudes aimed
at self-expression and assertion of a person’s psycho-physical
potential.
Human problems relate to various branches of knowledge.
We must not overlook in this case the problems of controlling
hereditary diseases which often lead to anti-social behaviour.
This behaviour should be contrasted with the healthy way of life.
In order to “cure” the criminal, we must know what sort of “health”

J36
 he should have, what sort of person he should become and how
he should behave. Comprehensive social prevention is directed
precisely towards this.
Science now knows of more than two thousand different
hereditary diseases in the emergence of which an important
role is played both by direct genetic causes and hv environ­
mental conditions and their different quantitative and qual­
itative relationships. The role of the hereditary factor in the
emergence of schizophrenia is universally acknowledged, of
course. At the same time in recent years the view that every
hereditarily determined disorder is a primary biochemical
disorder has gained ground considerably. Certain criminolog­
ists regard the problem as follows: “Insane persons are not
criminals, and their behaviour is the result of disease.”
However, criminology should take an interest in all crimes,
first and foremost, from the point of view of their causes and
means of prevention. In the structure of crime, however,
one can single out acts which are committed by insane per­
sons. The influence of hereditary diseases on crime is obvi­
ous here. Psychic diseases are one of the pressing problems
of present-day social development. It is roughly estimated
that at the beginning of the 1970s there were seventy million
people with psychic disturbances in need of hospitalisation
in the world. In some economically developed states there
were as many as 110-140 per thousand of the population.
This is explained largely by the considerable nervous pres­
sure related to the growing complexity of social life under
the scientific and technological revolution, and also by the
growth in the number of biological factors that have a nega­
tive influence on the human psyche. In recent times the
number of genetic anomalies has increased particularly notice­
ably, giving rise to great concern and suggesting that care
for physically healthy progeny should begin not with a
child’s birth, but with the way of life of its parents.
The criminological aspect of these problems is closely
linked with sociology, psychology, medicine and other
sciences. In solving problems of social prevention, these
branches of knowledge should proceed from the fact that the
present level of the development of society is capable of
preventing, compensating and changing certain genetic
(and, of course, non-genetic) anomalies, of adapting vari­
ous genetically (and non-geneticallv) degenerative pheno­
types to full social activity. It must be remembered that
137
 a person begins to regulate his activity at the very first
stages of his existence. With regard to genetically inferior
people who possess all the human dispositions, they cannot,
of course, ensure the normal human ontogenesis of their or­
ganism outside and without society. Obviously the problem
concerns not only certain individual trends of social pre­
vention, but the activity of the state, the society as a
whole.
No matter what is a person’s genetic programme, it does
not predetermine his whole future ontogenesis. Developed
socialism opens up great opportunities for the creation of
the best conditions for ensuring for all people a full develop­
ment of their positive qualities and prevention of negative
ones. In the Soviet Union, as hereditary diseases and the
role of social factors in them are being studied, our knowledge
of a relatively new sphere of science and practice is growing
increasingly—clinical genetics and the related system of
medico-genetic consultations and other measures designed to
improve and strengthen the genetic basis of a person’s devel­
opment. What is needed is a special sphere of “education”
and “treatment”, closely connected with the prevention of
various forms of deviant behaviour. Here criminologists can
find their own special place. For all intervention in the treat­
ment of hereditary diseases must be carefully justified.
In this sphere ignorant meddling with a person’s fate is
totally impermissible. Criminologists must be highly res­
ponsible in the work of preventing crimes that are committed,
in particular, as a result of genetically conditioned diseases,
and all diseases in general. Criminologists must know medi­
cine, genetics and hereditary diseases. Hence the need for
training the necessary specialists. The participation of crim­
inologists in this work is determined by the objective need
for and real possibility of carrying it out.
The emergence of various psycho-physiological diseases,
anomalies and pathologies and, consequently, the appear­
ance of special biological causes of crime are promoted by
alcoholism. It frequently leads to the most serious hereditary
diseases which have a definite connection with anti-social
behaviour. Alcoholism acts on the biogenic amines, the
extremely important psychic co-links that determine the
activity both of the central nervous and vascular systems.
In connection with this, and also with the consideration of
many other negative effects of drunkenness, the problem^
 arise of complex, socio-legal and medical prevention of
alcoholism.
In evaluating alcoholism and its effects from the biolog­
ical (genetic, psycho-physiological) standpoint, it is es­
sential to take account of the fact that alcohol affects both
the drinkers themselves, other people and society. The prob­
lem of the effect of this disease on children is particularly
acute. And how many sick people there are among alco­
holics who suffer from psycho-physiological disturbances!
Obviously these problems cannot be considered apart from
anti-social behaviour, apart from crime and its causes.
Moreover, information concerning the “progeny of alcohol­
ics” is of special importance for criminological forecasting,
for the comprehensive control of violations of legal and moral
norms, for eliminating the causes of these violations. So­
cial forecasting can provide essential concrete material for-
organisating this control.
Psycho-physiological stress
and its influence on crime
Under the scientific and technological revolution, the
problem of psycho-physiological stress is acquiring a special
urgency. Everything, even solar activity, affects man, his
condition and behaviour. He is constantly experiencing the
influence of the cosmos. Each person has his own biorhythms.
He is by no means unaffected by the ecological environment
either. In brief, man is in constant and diverse contact with
the socio-technological conditions in which he lives and
works. These conditions, the conditions of modern life, not
only change very rapidly, but also grow more complex.
Man’s biological qualities, however, have remained more
or less what they were a hundred years ago. Thus, the prob­
lem arises of the contradictions between the “conservatism”
of the biological and the accelerated development of the
social, the problem of the individual’s adaptation to the
most complex conditions of social being. As a result people’s
physical, emotional and other biorhythms are often dis-
tured. All this demands constant tension from them, both
biological and social. The result of tension which a person
experiences is not only general physical tiredness, but also
nervous-psychical and emotional stress. This is what wef
call psycho-physiological stress. It cannot fail to influence
 people’s behaviour, to create various stress and conflict
situations. Occasionally the effects of these burdens also
lead to illegal behaviour, crimes. Therefore the study of
the criminogenic effects of psycho-physiological stress on
man is of particular importance.
As life shows, today the industrial changing of the natu­
ral environment, its transformation, is not always desirable
for the activity of the human organism and psyche. The
problem of adaptation to various chemical and toxic sub­
stances is becoming increasingly acute. In the course of
these transformations of man’s life and socio-technological
environment, transformations which have many nuances,
incidentally, concerning psycho-physiological stress, the
lagging behind of people’s adaptational possibilities may
not only arise but also increase. New genetic, allergic, and
endocrinological diseases have been discovered recently.
Their spread is closely linked with the extensive use of new
substances and types of energy, with changes in man’s chem­
ical surroundings. A considerable place in the structure
of the general rate of disease is occupied by malignant neo­
plasms, cardio-vascular, and nervous and psychic diseases.
Of course, the causes of anti-social behaviour cannot be
connected directly with this problem alone. We must also
proceed from the fact that various psycho-emotional and
biological disorders are the result of the growing complexity
of relations between people and of changes in ways of life,
particularly in large cities. Therefore in studying the causes
of crime in connection with the foregoing it is necessary to
assess the complex of problems, without, however, overlook­
ing the biological aspect. In studying the causes of anti­
social (criminal) behaviour, contradictions and conflicts that
frequently lead to crimes, criminology must take account of
the fact that in an age of rapid scientific and technological
progress and social mobility people’s former psychological
separateness is eroded and all the channels of the intellec­
tual and emotional relations between them are becoming full
up, and occasionally overloaded. The nervous system is
subject to the constant and ever-increasing influence of
various psychic factors, negative ones included, and some­
times cannot cope with them, as a result of which morbific
situations arise in the life of people and collectives.
As an example let us quote concrete statistics of the
Institute of Therapy of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR;
140
in 80 per cent of cases myocardial infarction was preceded by
an acute psychological trauma or prolonged tension as a re­
sult of a conflict situation at work. But this is not all, un­
fortunately. The results of investigations also show that con­
flicts may lead to stresses and even nervous diseases. All
this has a most negative effect not only on people’s health,
but also on their behaviour. Such conflicts are anomalies in
human behaviour. The causes of crime in such cases are fre­
quently rooted in the disturbed regulation of the life processes
of the organism by the nervous system. The increased de­
mands made on people by a “busy” life create the need to
reorganise their physiological functions on a higher and
more complex level, and not everyone succeeds in doing
this, particularly in complex psychological situations. Mod­
ern criminology cannot overlook these factors in a study
of the causes of crime and the nature of anti-social behav­
iour.
 CHAPTER V

THE CRIMINAL PERSONALITY

AND ITS ANTI-SOCIAL TENDENCY

1. THE CRIMINAL PERSONALITY IN THE SYSTEM

OF SOCIAL RELATIONS AND ITS PECULIARITIES

The problem of the individual is of a universal nature.

It touches directly upon the class interests of all strata and
groups of society, the fate of each person. Many sciences study
the individual, each from the viewpoint of its own subject.
Karl Marx regarded the individual as a concrete person who
lived in society and was the bearer of the various norms of
society, class and social group. The individual (as a concrete
person) acts in accordance with these norms, struggles for
their strict observance or, on the contrary, violates them.
Therefore the individual is not only the subject, but also
the object of knowledge. For criminology the object of study
is a special type of individual—the criminal individual.

The personality of the criminal

as an active being

No person with a rational mind can be regarded as a pas­

sive product of his environment, the society in which he
lives. This also applies to the criminal. Like any other indi­
vidual, he influences the environment and society and expe­
riences the reverse effect, and his life is action. This ex­
plains why the criminal is assessed as an active being,
whose way of life leaves a decisive mark on his make-up.
From the viewpoint of his individual, subjective peculiari-
142
ties, the criminal is a person, an individual, who conscious­
ly defines his active relationship to the world around him.
A person (and this applies fully to criminal), who is not capab­
le of committing conscious actions, answering for his acts and
his behaviour as a whole, for his attitude to himself and
society lacks the necessary qualities that characterise him
as an individual. For a newly born person to become an
active individual, he must go through the corresponding
stages of natural (biological) and social development. He
must not only reach a certain level of physical and mental
perfection, but also acquire the experience of contact with
other people necessary for the life of an active being. The
criminal individual, as an active being, comes under these
general definitions. For the simple “formula” of life is char­
acteristic of him too—-after birth a person first learns to
regulate his body, to coordinate his movements, then mas­
ters the ability not only to regulate his relations with
his fellow creatures, his behaviour, but also to assess his
actions, to answer for them. All types of individuals, the
criminal included, develop mutual relations with those
around them, with a complex and ever-widening system
of active functions in various spheres of society.
The posing of the problem of man already in Ancient
Greek philosophy and medicine was linked with the unrav­
elling of a mystery, a secret. Man is the most complex
phenomenon of the objective world. In fact what we know
about man is very little compared with what we do not
know and will perhaps not find out for a long time. The para­
dox lies in the fact that it is much harder to understand man,
than the actual theory of the personality.
On the subject of the personality structure, the variety
of personal qualities and their combinations is so great that
it is expressed in the phrase “the personality is unique”.
Hut all this variety is subject to scientific study, because
the personality has both a general structure as well as special
structures that concretise the general one. They, firstly,
enable one to distinguish various types of personality, and,
secondly, determine fairly accurately the limits of its study.
Hut criminology studies not the personality in general, but
only a special type of personality, the personality of the
criminal.

143
 The interconnection of the personality
of the criminal and society
The study of the personality of the criminal is character­
ised, first and foremost, by the so-called personal approach
which is a most important methodological principle for
studying a concrete person, his behaviour, life and activity.
But this does not mean that in studying the personality of
the criminal we can proceed only from a particular type of
individual and a description of the acts of his individual
criminal behaviour, and not from the forms of social activity
and social relations inherent in the social system as a whole.
The personality as an integral system is mobile, dynamic.
It changes and develops depending on the improvement of
social relations, the development of the social environment
of society. Consequently, the personality of the criminal is
a product of the social environment, of society. It is always
a concrete unity of the individual (singular), the particular
and the general. Each personality has special features which
are inherent in a certain community of people. The problem
of the personality may be solved if we see the personality in
each person. Therefore we must not judge personalities as
a select category of people. This would deprive the concept of
personality of objective criteria and possibilities of elabo­
rating the problem scientifically. This requirement applies
to all branches of knowledge, criminology included. An ana­
lysis of the problems of the personality by any science is
based on the fact that man is the real bearer of all the so­
cially significant features and relations of society in which
he carries on his activity.
The individual is a set of social relations. These are, first
and foremost, the harmony between the individual and
society, which presupposes the mutual nature of their require­
ments. There is no harmony if the individual does not heed the
interests of society, disregards his obligations to society and
adopts a consumer attitude towards it. No one has the right to
flout the interests of others to benefit his own interests. The har­
monious relations between the individual and society mean harmony
between that which the individual demands from others and
that which he must give them, harmony between his rights and
obligations. Here the main thing is achieved: each person Becomes
aware of himself as a part of mankind.
The personality is the concrete expression of man’s essence,
the integration of socially significant features and social
144
relations realised in a definite way in man, and connected
with the essence of the society. However, in order to study
it from this standpoint we must distinguish two main ap­
proaches. The first of these is characterised by special at­
tention to factors that are external to the personality. They
are regarded as a system of stimuli that act upon a person
and form his views on this or that aspect of society and social
development. In this case the personality is seen as the effect
of certain socially significant actions. The second approach
is directed to the personality itself, to the inner motives for
its behaviour. The task of any science that studies the per­
sonality is to combine these approaches, by taking man both
as the cause and as the effect of socially significant actions.
The study of the personality is, therefore, as inexhaustible
as the study of society itself.
Marxism-Leninism teaches us that man and society are a
dialectical unity. Society is the condition and the result of the
life and activity of people, the product of their interaction. The
objective essential forces of the personality are embodied in the
social structure of society, in the system of social relations, in the
forms and results of the activity of each person. It is to this that
the Constitution of the USSR refers when it speaks of a society
of mature socialist social relations, a society in which the law of
life is the concern of all for the good of each and the concern of
each for the good of all. Man cannot live, work, and act outside
society, outside social relations. In the USSR the private and the
public are organically interwoven. Man is an ensemble of social
relations, as it were, within which and by means of which his
social qualities are formed. Therefore how the personality devel­
ops and will develop depends on society. It is the essence of the
social system that ultimately determines the nature of the prob­
lems which arise in connection with a person's life and activity.
Man's spiritual life is made up of three elements: his private life,
his connections with society (mainly the people witn whom he
lives and works) and his activity as a citizen of the state. For
each person the satisfaction of the needs of his private life is
of an individual nature. A person in a state should observe its
laws, and in a society live in accordance with its traditions. In
socialist society the interconnection of social and private interests,
their unity, is strengthened. Public interest increasingly becomes
personal interest, determining the individual's orientation, forms
of activity and behaviour. It is this, inter alia, that ensures that
the overwhelming majority of people voluntarily observe socialist
law and order. The right of citizens to demand "something" from
society is organically combined with society’s demands on the
individual. One cannot take without giving something in return.
Every person is called upon to make a conscious contribution to
the common cause, to be responsible for his actions. There is a
direct link between what society gives a person and what a person

10-01771 145
 gives society, other people. This is social justice. It presupposes
both the improvement of the individual, and the progress of
social development.
The fate of the individual is not overshadowed by the fate
of society, of the state. Each individual has his own “make­
up”. Individuals differ in their social, moral, legal, cultural
and other qualities. There are individuals with a strong sense
of civic duty, and those with a weak sense. Criminology
studies the individual that does not observe social require­
ments, that violates the criminal-law norms existing in
the state, the criminal individual. The latter plays a role
that is dangerous for society and thereby challenges society.
But, of course, in relation to such people it cannot be said
that they are not personalities. With a certain amount of
conventionality we call them criminal personalities. Of
course, the fact of violating criminal-law norms does not turn
a person once and for all into a criminal personality. This
type of personality under socialism is a temporary type that
is dying out. The very concept that “the criminal is a type
of personality” is justified as a scientific category only when
it embraces features that are indissolubly interlinked with
the features and qualities of crime. We can speak of a criminal
as a type only in relation to the phenomenon of crime.
In relation to socialist society, however, this is not a typical
personality.
The criminal personality in the system
of social relations
The recognition of the social essence of the personality
leads logically to the conclusion that in order to change a
person one must transform the social relations in which he
lives. Therefore criminology cannot study the criminal per­
sonality outside its connection with society and outside the
main principle of the conditioning of the social essence of the
personality in question by social relations. The social in the
criminal personality is the general and essential that is di­
rectly determined by social relations. It is this social ele­
ment that expresses the indissoluble dialectical connectiou
of this type of personality with social relations. But this is
only one aspect of the matter. The other is that the social
in the criminal personality is a process based on the chang­
ing of “external” social relations into the “inner” structure
146
 of a person: his needs, interests, attitudes, orientation, di­
rection, etc.
As Marx and Engels pointed out, “the real intellectual
wealth of the individual depends entirely on the wealth of
Ills real connections.”1 Later Lenin wrote that “the material­
ist sociologist, taking the definite social relations of people
as the object of his inquiry, by that very fact also studies the
real individuals from whose actions these relations are
formed”.2These propositions are pointsof departure for solving
the problem of all types of personality.
This applies to the criminal personality also. It is to a
certain extent one of the forms of the individualisation of
social relations, which does not mean that the transformation
of social relations into individual features is arbitrary from
the point of view of a concrete person. The individual creates
“his own social relations” thanks only to contact with other
people. The criminal personality is characterised by “non-
influential” social relations. This does not mean that the
criminal personality can be regarded in isolation from social
relations as a whole. We must bear in mind that there is
a system of different forms of relations, including those
that are connected with the criminal individual and his
behaviour, attitude to society. Ignoring this approach makes
it difficult to understand the dialectical interconnection of
man and society, society and the criminal.
The nature of the individual’s social relations ultimately
determines his attitude to the social order, to his own behav­
iour and the behaviour of other persons, to legal norms,
and to his own acts and actions. Here we are dealing with
individualised social relations. And we proceed from the fact
that the social order is an integral part of the system of
social relations. These relations are connected with the sphere
of ensuring law and order, and, consequently, with the sphere
of legal relations. The existence of a connection between the
personality and legal relations is confirmed by the fact that
no juridically significant behaviour is an isolated act of a
single individual committed in isolation from other persons
and from society as a whole. All behaviour, anti-social in-
1 Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, “The German Ideology”,
Op. cit.y p. 51.
2 V. I. Lenin, “The Economic Content of Narodism and the Crit­
icism of It in Mr. Struve’s Book”, Collected Works, Vol. 1, 1960,
p. 406.
10 * 147
 eluded, is considered in the system of social relations, in
interconnection with otherjpeople. For the main content of
individualised social relations^is the^behaviour of concrete
people. These relations are a form of how people behave in
society. One of these forms is antisocial (criminal) behav­
iour.
I The concept of social relationsjis interpreted fairly broadly,
particularly if it is regarded as a philosophical category.
However there are different classifications of social relations.
We can speak, for example, of relations in the sphere of
everyday life, work, the economy, international cooperation,
etc. In the sphere of law legal relations arise. We assume
that one can speak of social relations both in regard to the
committing of crimes and in regard to their prevention.
These are criminological social relations. They are connected,
firstly, with anti-social (criminal) behaviour, and, secondly,
with its prevention. The concept “criminological relations*1
is broader than the concepts “criminal-law relations”, “crim­
inal-procedure relations”, “corrective labour relations”,
and so on. It synthesises, as it were, all the social relations
that arise in connection with crime.
Criminological relations can be characterised in the narrow
and the broad meaning of the word. Here we must proceed
from the fact that they arise between the individual and so­
ciety in the sphere regulated by law (the concept in the nar­
row meaning), and in the sphere regulated by norms of both
law and morals, even more broadly—by social norms (the
concept in the broad meaning). However, it is necessary to
mark the criminological “frontiers” of social relations, the
limits of their action and influence. Establishing these “fron­
tiers” does not mean that social relations of a criminological
nature can be regarded outside the system of social relations
as a whole. A most important criterion for assessing these
relations is their place and role in that system. Social rela­
tions are heterogeneous, just as society is socially hetero­
geneous.
Criminological relations arise and exist at the juncture
of social relations and legal relations. These three concepts
of relations are indissolubly linked, although they are also
characterised by certain specific features which are of excep­
tional importance for understanding the nature of human be­
haviour. However, by assessing them as a whole we discover
the social features of the criminal personality, find out what
148
a concrete person is like as a personality, what his connec­
tions with other people are, reveal the social status of this
type of personality, study it as a subject of social relations,
as a person performing various social roles. The whole inner
world of the criminal personality is formed and exists in
the process of the formation and realisation of its diverse
relations and interactions in society and groups. Hence anoth­
er problem, that of interpersonal relations. These are the
direct connections and relations of the individual, the crim­
inal individual included, which develop in his real life
with other people. In the formation and regulation of inter­
personal relations sociology, psychology and law all play
a part. All this shows that the study of the criminal apart
from the social relations that have formed him as a person­
ality is inconceivable. This is what conditions the prin­
ciple, of great methodological importance for criminology,
of the examination of the criminal personality through a
study of social relations. It is through social relations that
the social essence of the individual is expressed.
Social contradictions
and the criminal personality
The relations of society and the individual as a whole
are always characterised by a unity of interests which deter­
mine one another. But there also exist contradictions between
the interests of society and those of the individual. Under so­
cialism they gradually diminish, which also creates the nec­
essary conditions for eliminating them. The objective inter­
connections between the individual and society serve, first
and foremost, to overcome them, i.e., to establish the social
in the individual. They create the basis for morality, law,
and psychology (particularly social psychology) to promote
the bringing of individual behaviour into conformity with
the requirements of society, of a certain social community
(with the interests and aims of the community, its goals and
stereotypes, traditions and habits). But by taking the objec­
tive existence of social contradictions into account each
individual in some way or other reflects these contradictions.
Hence the need to form communist social relations, to educate
the man of the new society, which in turn presupposes the
creation of conditions in which the universally human and
social that characterises man as an individual reaches a
149
level that is inaccessible to the various forms of deviant
behaviour. For all behaviour, anti-social (criminal) includ­
ed, is actually the working out of social norms by the indi­
vidual on the basis of awareness of his position in relation
to society. This position essentially reflects the individual's
attitude to society. The process of working out an attitude
to society is exactly the same (as a process) in the commission
by the individual of legal and illegal actions. The only
difference is that in the one case the person takes a decision
on the basis of his consciousness that is in keeping with
the requirements of society and, in the other, one that is
opposed to these requirements. The aim of education, pre­
vention included, is to take this process into account, to
guide a person to choose a correct position in life.
A person who leads an anti-social, criminal way of life,
unlike a person for whom legal behaviour is characteristic,
is always in conflict with the socio-class tendency of society.
This suggests that the criminal personality is in conflict
with society and represents a certain threat to it. This state
of the personality in question should be regarded in the
system of social contradictions, in close connection with
their different forms of manifestation. One of these forms is
contradictions of a criminological nature. Their overcoming
(solution) is promoted by the social prevention of anti-social
(criminal) behaviour. Criminological contradictions mani­
fest themselves in the fact that the individual unjustifiably
rejects (or is indifferent to) important social, moral and legal
values, or actively acts against the social value attitudes
expressed and embodied in criminal legislation. The essence
of these contradictions is expressed, on the one hand, in
the defective nature of the relations between the individual
and society, and, on the other, in the performance by the
individual of a specifically anti-social role, the committing
of a crime. Consequently, the prevention of crimes is con
nected with the resolving of the contradictions between the
individual and society.
The criminal personality—a special
criminological problem
The problem of the peculiarities of the criminal person­
ality has long been one of the most fundamental in crimi­
nology and still gives rise to differing opinions. The essence
of the disagreement is basically that some specialists regard
the concept “criminal personality” as a formal one, and others
as a non-formal one. We assume that there would be no point
in discussing the criminal personality here if it did not pos­
sess qualities different from those of persons who do not
commit crimes. Criminology studies the criminal person­
ality in close connection with anti-social behaviour and
therefore bases its theoretical conceptions and practical con­
clusions on the peculiarities of persons who commit crimes.
Therefore within the framework of criminological science dif­
ferent aspects of the study of the criminal personality are
increasingly emerging as an inner integrated teaching on
the person who represents a social danger. Such a personality
is the bearer of specific motives, essential and relatively stable
qualities that have been formed logically under the in­
fluence of negative elements in the social environment.
Although the concept “criminal personality” is to a certain
extent conventional, it is a valid one. This conventionality
does not exclude the need for an independent, special study
of the criminal personality.
The concept “criminal personality” can be used in two
senses: firstly, as a generic one, as a concept characterising
a certain type of person; and, secondly, as a concept which
indicates that we are dealing with a person who has commit­
ted a crime. But in order to establish the causes of this crime,
to elaborate and put into effect appropriate preventive mea­
sures concerning both the correction of the person in question
and the prevention of criminal behaviour on the part of
other persons, it is necessary to understand the personality
itself, its criminal peculiarities. It is here that criminology
uses the concept “criminal personality”. There is, however,
no previously given “criminal personality”. This concept,
which expresses the social danger of a personality to society,
is limited in time. We can speak of a criminal personality
from the moment a person commits a crime up to the mo­
ment when his correction is recorded. The criminal personal­
ity is directly linked with a specific form of behaviour,
namely, anti-social behaviour, or, to be more precise, crim­
inal behaviour. Criminological study of the personality
is an aspect of the investigation of human behaviour in
society. The actual problem of the personality is not a sec­
ondary one, however, but one that is central in criminology.
It is present in all the most important criminological prob-
151
lems and is a key to understanding the essence of crime.
Criminal behaviour differs qualitatively in its danger to
society not only from lawful behaviour, but from all other
forms of socially deviant behaviour. It is characteristic of
an individual, as a rule, at a separate stage of his life. There
is no “criminal personality”, and certainly cannot be one
that is permanently characteristic of one and the same per­
son. The following assessments are possible in this connec­
tion: a person has not yet become a criminal, although his
behaviour is of a socially dangerous nature; another was a
criminal, but has ceased to be one; and a third has never been
one and will never be one. These assessments are of a practi­
cal significance. The classification of persons by these cri­
teria is a special problem.
The peculiarities of the criminal personality
A definition of the concept “criminal personality” on the
basis of non-specific features is pointless, because for the
criminologist the personality is interesting not in itself,
but only insofar as its qualities determine the committing
of a* crime. This concept combines social and juridical fea­
tures. Therefore at the centre of attention of any attempt to
give a more or less complete description of the criminal
personality there are always three questions: the person,
the deed committed by him and the responsibility laid down
by law for this deed. The personality of the criminal can
be defined as the personality of an individual who is guilty
of committing a socially dangerous deed forbidden by law
on pain of criminal responsibility. The main point in this
definition is the fact of the committing of a criminal deed,
a crime. It is this fact, a formal one to some extent, that
characterises the anti-social, or rather criminal tendency of
the personality. According to the law the criminal is a person
of sound mind who has reached a certain age and has com­
mitted a criminally punishable act. This set of features forms
the content of the concept “crime subject”. However this
criminal-law concept is by no means identical to the crim­
inological concept “criminal personality”. Criminology
proceeds from the fact that a crime is committed by an indi­
vidual as a result of a complex interaction of many circum­
stances, among which a most important role is played by
the personality of the individual. We must not forget that
152
 there are definite personality qualities which “warn” us
of the possible committing of a crime by that person. In
certain conditions, under the influence of certain circum­
stances or a certain concrete situation, these qualities may
lead to a crime. It is necessary to detect the harmful qual­
ities that make a person particularly predisposed to the
committing of a crime. In itself “predisposition” does not
lead automatically and inevitably to the committing of
a crime. A person so predisposed may not. commit a single
crime, if the environment around him has a positive in­
fluence on him. The social prevention of anti-social behav­
iour plays a decisive role here.
A crime always expresses the person’s volition, his aspi­
rations, views, needs, habits, etc. It bears the stamp of the
individuality of the person who committed it. In studying
the personality, criminology examines the various connec­
tions and relations of the criminal with other people, as­
sesses their combined influence and thereby characterises
the general qualities of the “human personality of the crim­
inal”. However, this provides only an oversimplified model
of the personality in question. The environment does not
automatically form the “individual” qualities of the person.
He acquires individual characteristics not only in the pro­
cess of active “outer” activity. The acquiring of such char­
acteristics presupposes the recognition also of “inner”
subjective activity, in the course of which the personality
constructs itself. An analysis of the ratio of “outer” and “in­
ner” is an important condition of studying the characteristics
of the criminal personality. Here a word must be said, first
and foremost, about the content of a person’s actual con­
nections with other people, about his individual, personal
social experience on the level and in the form in which it
appears for the person (criminal) in question. In other words,
the social factors that form the personality manifest them­
selves to the extent that they become an organic part of
a person endowed with natural (biological) dispositions.
We must not reject the interpretation of the personality
as a kind of whole embracing all its peculiarities. A study
of the criminal personality must select only those which
manifest themselves in anti-social behaviour, particularly,
in crimes.*Themain question is what led the person to commit
the crime. This helps us to answer the question of why the
person became a criminal, a “criminal personality”.
153
 The structure of the criminal personality
We cannot understand the mechanism of anti-social behav­
iour or the person who has committed a crime without first
understanding the structure of the personality. Here it must
be noted, first and foremost, that all the qualities of a per­
son (taken as a whole) fall into two main categories: the per­
son as an organism and the person as a personality. At the
same time the personality also has two interpenetrating as­
pects, two substructures: the psychological, which deter­
mines its individuality, and the social, which is determined
by its social roles and experience of activity in this or that
social sphere. The elements of the psychological structure
(substructure) of the personality are its psychological
qualities and peculiarities, which are usually called “person­
ality features”. The psychological substructures of the per­
sonality are also its levels: the first level is the biologically
determined substructure (natural qualities of the type of
nervous system, age, sex, certain prepathological and even
pathological qualities of the psyche, temperament); the sec­
ond level is all the individual qualities of different psychic
processes that have become qualities of the personality
making it unique (individuality in manifestation of memory,
emotions, sensations, thinking, perceptions, feelings and
volition); the third level is social experience, which includes
the knowledge, skills, abilities and habits acquired by a per­
son (all this is based on elements of the preceding substruc­
tures); the fourth level is the trend of the personality evalu­
ated from the standpoint of socio-psychological analysis
(the trend taken as a whole falls into the following substruc­
tures: appetites, wants, interests, inclinations, ideals, indi­
vidual world outlook, and the highest form —convinctions).
The criminological level can also be singled out convention­
ally (in studying the personality of the criminal) in its
structure. Special attention must be paid to the anti social
tendency of the personality, the personal attitude of the
criminal. This is, perhaps, the main thing in the structure
of such a personality. The anti-social tendency and the
“negative” attitude of the personality are the main problems
of criminological research.
Criminologists offer different versions of the structure of
the criminal personality, with due account of its peculiari­
ties, of course. In solving this problem three main groups are
154
usually distinguished: general features, special features, and
individualised features of the criminal personality. This
approach can provide an answer to the question as to how
a criminal's personality is made up on the whole and also
help determine which set of qualities characterising the
criminal form this personality and what is the structure of
this set. Alongside this approach use must he made of anoth­
er one. linked with the science of management. The posing
of this task presupposes the singling out in the structure of
the personality of such components as the behavioural
motives, attitudes and orientations which control a per­
son's behaviour. These elements of the personality structure
do not exist alongside its other components, such as needs,
aims, interests, values, etc., but penetrate the whole complex
system of elements of a person’s consciousness and self-
consciousness. In certain conditions needs or interests, like
the other elements of the human psyche, may become motives
or even attitudes of the individual’s actions or orientations.
These circumstances must not be overlooked in a study of
the structure of the criminal personality. They are funda­
mental iii determining the peculiarities of persons who have
committed crimes.

Typology of the criminal personality

In order to make a deeper study of the criminal personali­

ty and its structure it is necessary to iind out what is typical
in such a personality. This does not mean simply studying
the sum of the negative personality qualities which are most
widespread among criminals. The problem is solved by reduc­
ing the individual element in the criminal personality to
the social, and vice versa. In so doing we discover the general
and particular in the singular, and detect the similar,
necessary and essential qualities in a concrete person.
Whatever concrete person is studied, whatever type of crim­
inal activity is considered, in all cases, as always in the
individual, singular, they show features and qualities of
a general nature which are included in the characterisation
of the criminal as a social type. Changes in the system of
criminal manifestations are connected with changes in the
socio-psychological make-up of the personality of the crimi­
nal as a type determined by social relations. Outside social
155
 relations we cannot speak of any typology of the criminal
personality.
No social type can be anything but a social form of reflec­
tion of the social relations expressed in the needs, interests,
orientations and trends of the individual. In this sense a type
of criminal is an individual (represented as a social phenom­
enon), whose structure, as already mentioned, contains
different socio-psychological formations. On the basis of
typology (typisation) we can speak of different trends in the
study of the criminal personality, in relation not only to the
general type, but also to concrete categories of persons,
when particular features are taken into account.
Analysing the criminal personality in accordance with
typisation, criminology distinguishes the following trends
of research: typology within the framework of the social
aspect, at the level of socio-psychological generalisation, and
the typology of separate categories of criminals. However
the main type-forming feature is the one that determines
the interrelations between the individual and society. More­
over the degree of “alienation” of the criminal personality from
society and the surrounding environment, the stability of the
person’s modes of behaviour, etc. are established. First, pro­
fessional and accidental offenders can also he distinguished.
Special features however, usually linked with the different
levels of the personality structure, do not usually character­
ise the criminal as a whole, but only his individual qualities.
However, consideration of these features enables us to obtain
a more detailed characterisation of the personality of the
criminal and to study the elements of its social and socio-
psychological content more concretely and profoundly.
Such a characterisation isof great practical significance. It is
closely connected with the elaboration of concrete measures
for the prevention of anti-social behaviour.
In studying the criminal personality from the standpoint
of its typisation we must also (bearing in mind the practical
aim of typology) study the interdependence between a type of
person and the type of crime which he commits. It should
be borne in mind that a crime does not have only external
features. The personality of the criminal manifests itself in
the crime, in its inner symptoms that are concealed from
general view'. These inner indices often show that the crime
in question could have been committed by a certain type of
personality. Consequently, a crime committed in a certain
156
 Way not onlylenables us to speak of the criminal’s “handwrit­
ing”, his individual manner, but also points to the type of
criminal personality. In other words, the “traces” of the
crime may show that the personality belongs to this or
that type of criminal. These circumstances should attract the
attention not only of criminologists, but also of those who
are involved in the detection and investigation of crimes.
Here, however, typology is very closely linked with the
classification of crimes and criminals. These methods (typi-
sation and classification) taken together produce the best
results in crime control. But they must not be confused.
They are interconnected, but not identical.
The specific feature of typisation is that its object is not
a^ single personality or strictly differentiated groups of
criminals, but the unity of the qualities and features which
are determined by objective conditions and form the personal­
ity. A classification, on the other hand, is a more stable
grouping of persons who have committed crimes, in terms of
their attributes (integral qualities). It contains very strict
criteria for dividing criminals into groups and subgroups.
Classification is based on the similarity of persons who have
committed crimes, within the framework of each of their
groups, a similarity characterised by the presence of certain
common features in these people. Moreover similarity is
contrasted with dissimilarity. The typology of criminals
does not contain such a strict differentiation. This method
not only records features, but also, most importantly, helps
to reveal those features of the personality that are most prob­
able for this or that category of criminals. Obviously we
are dealing with two levels of study of the personality of the
criminal. Typisation is a higher level than classification.
The scientific study of the criminal personality is linked
with the use both of typology and of classification. These
methods complement each other. The interconnection of
their various types is most diverse. It is characterised by
the mutual influence, intercomplementing and interdeter­
mining of methods that enable us to study the most character­
istic features of the criminal personality at different levels
of generalisation. Many criteria of classification promote the
study of this personality with respect to age, sex, type of
crime committed, number of convictions, number of people
taking part in the criminal act, etc. Classification divides
criminals into groups. In this sense it is extremely multi-
157
 level. But this is precisely what prevents it from becoming
universal. Typology, however, mainly delves into the
essence of the very personality of the criminal. It is linked
with a study of such human qualities as consciousness and
psyche, temperament, emotions, will, skills, abilities, hab­
its, tendency, attitude, etc. On this basis different types of
personality are established. But without types grouping is
impossible, and without grouping typisation.
The importance of the study of the criminal personality. As
long as crime exists, the problem of the criminal personality
will retain its urgency, and any solution of it will be as
incomplete as the problem of man in general. The constant,
continuous study of the criminal personality is essential in
order to discover systematically and assess its characteristic
features (qualities), interests, aspirations, etc. This is im­
portant for the proper organisation of the prevention of
criminal behaviour, for ensuring the timely detection,
abolition and neutralisation of “mechanisms” capable of
leading to such behaviour. Information about the criminal
personality provides a kind of informational base for the
activity of crime control. The information obtained about
the criminal individual and his behaviour enables us to se­
lect the methods and means of prevention most suited to the
peculiarities of this type of individual. Knowledge of the
personality of the criminal is an important and essential
prerequisite for the scientifically based successful social
prevention of anti-social behaviour.
2. THE DIALECTICAL INTERCONNECTION OF THE CRIMINAL
PERSONALITY AND ANTI SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

The dialectical unity

of the personality and behaviour
Nothing characterises the individual like his own behav
iour. The fundamental methodological proposition on which
the study of the moulding of the personality is based is the
fact that a person’s behaviour is the only objective index of
the qualities of the personality. Behaviour is not just the
manifestation of the features and qualities of the individual.
Behaviour is the individual. Defining the concept “personal­
ity” is obviously not very meaningful, insofar as the per­
sonality is interesting not in itself, but only to the extent that
158
 its qualities determine behaviour. It is also true that the
personality, its individual “style of communication” is a be­
havioural category, and this “style” is expressed in a person’s
concrete actions (acts) which are determined both objective­
ly and subjectively. Scientific analysis of the problem of
personality has always centred on its objective re a lity -
behaviour. Without behaviour personality does not exist.
In other words, there is no person without behaviour.
Behaviour, which has, of course, a definite connection
with human biology, is mainly the interaction of the individ­
ual with the social environment, the reaction of the individ­
ual to external influences. Individual and behaviour,
behaviour and individual are, essentially, one and the same
characteristic. Behaviour is the mirror in which each of us
shows what he is like. Consequently, behaviour and individu­
al may be considered only from the standpoint of dialectical
unity.
Human behaviour is a complex, many-sided phenomenon.
Behaviour is a process that takes place both in time and
space. A study of this process reveals not only the dynamics,
but also the genesis of behaviour, its origin and develop­
ment. The genesis of a person’s behaviour consists of the
following three main phases or stages: the motivation,
planning and taking of a decision and the implementing of
this decision. A most important feature of human behavi­
our is its ordered nature: it is a system (set) of purposive
actions (events, acts). Therefore most broadly behaviour is
defined as human activity connected with influencing the
“surroundings”, the social and natural environment. How­
ever, behaviour includes only those actions of the individual
(acts) which have a conscious purpose and bring about certain
changes in the behaviour, orientation or aspirations of
another person or other persons. Behaviour is regulated by
consciousness. The individual behaves in accordance with
his needs, aims, intentions, in accordance with his value
orientation, and, mainly, his level of knowledge.
Behaviour can, however, be connected not only with an
individual personality, but also with a small group (formal
and informal), a collective (say, the behaviour of a school
class, a family, or a sports team). The behaviour of each
member of a collective or group is not only a personal matter,
but also part of the behaviour of the group or collective as
a whole. The behaviour of a school class, for example, charac-
159
terises not only the individual pupils, but also the class as
a whole. This is the principle that criminology uses to assess
group anti-social behaviour also.
Science h as ela b o ra te d m a n y fe a tu re s c h a ra c te risin g b e h a v io u r.
Social psychology, fo r ex a m p le , defines b eh av io u r a9 th e tra n s ­
form ing of a p erso n 's in n e r s ta te in to a c tio n s in re la tio n to so c ially
sig n ifican t o bjects, as an e x te rn a lly observed system of h u m a n
ac tio n s (acts), in w hich a p erso n 's in n e r m o tiv e s are rea lise d . If
th is defin itio n is ap p lied to th e stru c tu ra l-fu n c tio n a l asp ect of
b e h a v io u r, we can say th a t b e h a v io u r is a sy stem in w hich th e
follow ing elem en ts ca n be “d e te c te d ” : an a c tiv e perso n ; th e o b je ct
of the ac tio n o r a n o th e r p erso n who is acted u pon; the m eans or
in s tru m e n ts of ac tio n ; th e m eth o d of a c tio n o r device of u sin g th e
m eans of ac tio n ; th e re su lt of th e a c tio n o r th e re a c tio n of th e
person (com m unity ) acted up o n . E x te rn a lly , how ever, b e h a v io u r
expresses its e lf in p ra c tic a l (p h y sical, real) h u m a n ac tio n s o r is
v erb a l. V erb al b eh a v io u r is a sy stem of s ta te m e n ts , ju d g e m en ts,
o p in io n s, etc. th a t can be recorded as signs of in n e r psychic
co n d itio n s. R eal b e h a v io u r i9 a sy stem of p ra c tic a l ac tio n s (acts).
T he w hole d iv e rs ity of e x te rn a l h u m a n a c tiv ity can , in th e final
an a ly sis, be reduced to th ese form s. T h a t is, b e h a v io u r is word
an d deed.
J u r is ts w ould, of course, lik e to in c lu d e th e ca te g o ry “om ission”
in th is system of b e h a v io u ra l co ncepts alo n g w ith “w ords an d
deeds” . B u t om ission is n o t a b e h a v io u ra l c a te g o ry . E x te rn a lly
i t does n o t express itse lf in an y ,w ay . Y et th is co n cep t e x ists in law .
C rim in a l codes, fo r ex a m p le , sp eak of c rim in a l om ission. O m ission
is “b eh a v io u r” w hen a person does n o t p erfo rm th e so c ially neces­
sa ry , o b lig a to ry ac tio n s th a t d eriv e from h is p rofessional o b lig a­
tions: a d o cto r does n o t tr e a t a sick p erson, a te a c h e r does n o t
te ac h th e p u p ils, a w a tc h m a n sleep s on th e jo b , a p lo u g h m a n does
n o t -plough, a shop a s s is ta n t does n o t se ll goods, a p o in tsm a n on
th e ra ilw a y does n o t change th e p o in ts, etc . T he m ost so c ially
dan g ero u s form s of om issio n are lis te d in c rim in a l le g isla tio n and
a p e n a lty is prescrib ed fo r th e m (ju st as for “w ord an d deed ”).
T h u s, om ission is a n a c t (a sp ecial ty p e of c rim e), an d n o t beh av ­
iour. B e h av io u r is n o t a se t of iso la te d (d iscrete) a c ts, b u t a
single connected process. T he se lec tio n of in d iv id u a l a c ts is a
co n v e n ie n t (and so m etim es e ssen tial) d evice for th e use a n d as­
sessm ent of b eh a v io u r, for e x a m p le , in o rd e r to d e sig n ate a c e rta in
b e h a v io u ra l ac t as a c rim e in law .

Behaviour and activity. Action and the act

These concepts are not separate, absolutely independent
components, but essentially a single formation. Nevertheless
it is customary to differentiate between them. The closest
are, on the one hand, behaviour and activity, and, on the
other, the act and action. The concept “activity” is broader
than that of behaviour. An act is more connected with behav-
160
 lour, and an action with activity. True, both an act and
action may be included in the system of activity and behav­
iour. However, it is necessary to analyse these nuances.
Activity and behaviour. By activity we should understand
not only individual, but also mass human behaviour. It is
the purposive action of the subject on the object. Activity
does not exist outside the relations of the subject and object.
Behaviour, as has already been mentioned, is an externally
observed system of human actions (acts), but activity may be
inaccessible to external observation. We can also speak of
the qualitative change from one condition to the other: the
transition from the concept “behaviour” to the concept
“activity” means the transition from individual acts (actions)
to mass, collective, group ones. Here the psychological
aspect “grows over” into the sociological, socio-psychological
one. Activity in itself is regarded in this case as a system
possessing a structure, its own inner transitions and changes,
its own development. Whereas activity is a most general
category characterising the active essence of man, the cate­
gory of behaviour relates only to the sphere of human activ­
ity which finds expression in directly observable and record­
able socio-communicative actions. There are exceptions,
of course. Activity may also take place at the individual
level (the activity of the scholar, writer, poet, jointer or
turner), and behaviour may be externally unobservable,
concealed (anti-social behaviour, for example, often as­
sumes a concealed form).
T he w ord “a c tiv ity 11, used in th e b ro a d e st sense, m eans th e
m an y -sid ed process of th e c re a tio n b y th e so c ial su b je c t of th e
co n d itio n s fo r its e x iste n ce and d ev e lo p m e n t, th e process of th e
tra n sfo rm a tio n of so c ial re a lity in accordance w ith so cial needs,
aim s an d ta sk s. A c tiv ity h as v a rio u s form s. I t is e x tre m e ly d iv e rse
and is d eterm in e d , in th e final a n a ly sis, b y th e w hole sy stem of
so cial re la tio n s: p ro d u c tio n a c tiv ity , so c io -p o litic a l, c u ltu ra l,
e d u c a tio n a l, e tc. A t th e sam e tim e ev e ry so c ially n ecessary ty p e
of a c tiv ity h as its ow n specific n a tu re a n d its ow n law s. W e sp eak ,
for ex a m p le , a b o u t a c tiv ity in c rim e c o n tro l (th e re le v a n t sp h ere of
social re la tio n s). T he w hole d iv e rs ity of ty p e s of a c tiv ity m a y b e
reduced (d ep en d in g on th e co n c rete aim s) to th e follow ing: tr a n s ­
fo rm in g a c tiv ity (b a sic a lly th is co n sists of th e so -called m o to r
a c tio n s perform ed w ith th e aim of “k ee p in g 11 o r “m o v in g 11 som e
e x te rn a l o b ject in tim e and space); co g n isin g a c tiv ity (th ese are
m a in ly g n o stic ac tio n s perform ed w ith tn e a im of o b ta in in g kn o w l­
edge ab o u t th e fac ts of re a lity an d re ta in in g i t in th e conscious­
ness); and co m m u n ic a tiv e a c tiv ity (co m m u n ica tio n b etw een
people). W e can also sp eak of v a lu e -o rie n ta tio n a l a c tiv ity . B y

11-01771 161
 ta k in g p a r t in a c tiv ity , a p erso n co o p e rate s w ith o th e r people.
A c tiv ity is th e sum to ta l of a c tio n s of peo p le (a person) u n ite d
b y a com m on aim a n d p erfo rm in g a d efin ite fu n c tio n . T h is is n o t
c h a ra c te ris tic of b e h a v io u r. I t is in a c tiv ity , n o t in b e h a v io u r, th a t
we can trac e th e m ech an ism of p eo p le’s in te rc o n n e c tio n betw een
them selves an d of each se p a ra te in d iv id u a l w ith th e so c ial en­
v iro n m e n t. T h e lev el of a c tiv ity is h ig h e r th a n t h a t of b eh a v io u r.
O n th e w hole p ra c tic a l a c tiv ity is, first and fo rem o st, la b o u r
a c tiv ity .

There are similarities as well as differences between

behaviour and activity. Therefore these concepts are
sometimes identified conventionally (usually for conveni­
ence). It is noted, for example, that by behaviour we mean
socially significant activity, the activity of the individual.
However, in this case, as in many others, by activity we
mean anti-social, criminal behaviour. But one frequently
encounters direct statements that “criminal activity” exists.
This is explicable, to a certain extent. Criminal codes con­
tain the concept of private entrepreneurial activity, for
example. But here it is a question not of a form of behaviour,
but of the juridical formula of corpus delicti: it is a deed.
The action and the act are connected, but not identical
concepts. It is usually said that activity consists of actions,
and behaviour of acts. However, these concepts are often
confused. This is obviously connected with the fact that the
terms “action” and “act” have many meanings. For a precise
understanding of them we must bear in mind the following:
all activity consists of individual actions; some of them are
acts, the sum total of which forms behaviour. Actions acqui­
re the meaning of acts, firstly, thanks to the motive which
they realise, and, secondly, when they express an attitude
to other people. An act is a motivated action. It (or, to be
more precise, the system of acts) determines mainly the
moral content of behaviour (or activity). All these concepts,
therefore, are interdependent, but each of them has its own
features.
An action is what we call a completed (or relatively com­
pleted) act (element) of activity aimed at performing a limit­
ed current task. It is one of the “phases” of activity. A per­
son’s connection with the world around him in the process
of his activity arises thanks to an action (actions), the sum
total of actions being the person’s activity. Here again the
problem of the interconnection of action and act arises.
Apart from action (internal and external) there can be no
162
human acts. One and the same action may embody different
types of acts. Action as a conscious act of activity^becomes
an act to the extent that a person is not only expressing
a certain attitude to the objects of the external world
around him, but is also conscious of and manifests himself as
a social person. The chain of acts that form a line of behav­
iour enables us to judge the nature of the person by his
behaviour. In itself an action says nothing about an act,
nor about behaviour. Let us assume that a person has broken
into a flat (an action): he may put out a fire in it (an act) or
commit a robbery (an act in the form of a criminally punish­
able deed or act of commission). Here we have two entirely
different acts, one of which deserves condemnation.
An act of commission is a special concept. It has a clear
juridical definition and is not identical either to an action
or to an act. Criminal law treats an act of commission as both
action and omission. It can be defined as an act of behaviour
that is called a crime (a criminally punishable deed). Bearing
in mind this evaluation of an act of commission, we speak of
criminal behaviour. The concept Criminal misdemeanour” is
not the same as the concept “act of commission”. A crime and
a criminal misdemeanour are concepts of a different order.

3. ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR IN THE SYSTEM

OF TYPES OF SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Social behaviour and social relations

Social behaviour and social relations are directly connect­
ed Society is not only people living together. The main thing
in society is the interaction of its members, their joint activ­
ity, communication, cooperation and mutual assistance.
The most essential feature of social life is the duty to behave
in a certain way. Without the duty of behaving in a certain
way there are no social relations. In other words, socially
significant behaviour is behaviour regulated by social norms
and guided in the interests of society. There cannot and
should not be social norms that contradict the interests of
society. Social norms support and strengthen social relations,
which is an objective need of the development of society.
The basis of social relations is people's social activity,
their behaviour. The actual behaviour of people is the con­
crete social relations that develop in life. These relations
u* 163
 constitute the whole activity of members of society. There­
fore the content of social relations may be defined as soci­
ally significant behaviour (including all types of social be­
haviour). It is behaviour that gives shape to social relations.
What the people living in a society are like and what
their behaviour is like depends on the social relations.
Consequently both society and the people living in it are
interested in the desired behaviour. Society expects from
its members the sort of behaviour that strengthens social
relations. By not observing the necessary behaviour, an
individual comes into conflict with social relations. Thus,
people’s behaviour is social relations. The regulation of the
latter is the regulation of behaviour.
In studying the essence of social relations, we should
consider them together with human behaviour (and activity).
People themselves lay down rules of behaviour. And it is
from this that social relations develop. But they also break
these rules themselves. This happens mainly because the
interests of separate individuals and those of society do not
coincide. In fact, this contradiction produces the need for
the social regulation of behaviour (with the help of social
norms). It is clear that if the interests of individuals and
society always coincided, there would be no need for the
social regulation of behaviour. It is caused by the presence
of contradictions between the interests of society and those
of certain of its members. In pointing out this fact, we must
add that social relations cannot exist without the social
norms that regulate them. And vice versa, there are no
social relations without social norms. Social relations are
not actually the social norms themselves, but real, actual
behaviour; social norms are desirable behaviour, or rather,
demands, orders for future behaviour. In the realisation of
social relations in keeping with the norms regulating them
the interests of society and the interests of the individual
coincide. Otherwise the social norms are violated. And
consequently the rules of social behaviour are violated too.
This is what is called deviant behaviour.
Social norms and behaviour
In real life there is a vast number of variations of human
behaviour. It is determined by the number of external and
internal factors. The most important means of regulating
164
 human behaviour is norms—social, moral, legal, ethical, etc.
Assessed in most general terms, norms are what we call the
rules, both those that have developed spontaneously and
those that have been established by society, that define the
stable forms of people’s social activity (social behaviour)
aimed at the attainment of goals approved by them. The
system of basic social values is at the same time the sum
total of basic norms. Having an objective basis, social
values are by their nature connected with human conscious­
ness, in which the objective social relations and interests of
the whole society are reflected. Therefore social values act as
internal regulators of human behaviour. It is thanks to
a person’s apprehension of social values and also his relation­
ship with other people that norms (model standards) of social
behaviour have arisen (arise). They become necessary and
compulsory for all members of society.
The compulsory nature of necessary behaviour is consoli­
dated in a social norm, which is a command worked out by
a frequently repeated relation and set down in the form of
a rule. Social norms are most important means of moulding
human behaviour and, consequently, the human personal­
ity.
Deviant behaviour
Experience shows that the behaviour of some members of
socialist society deviates from social norms. This behaviour
means that a person may commit misdemeanours, offences
and crimes. In other words, by deviant behaviour we should
understand actions that are not in keeping with the norms
and types laid down by society, behaviour that violates
universally accepted rules and conflicts with these rules, and
the norms and standards accepted and approved in the sys­
tem of the given culture. We can speak of this in generalised
form as follows: deviant behaviour is behaviour that contra­
dicts social interests. The only truly deviant behaviour is
regressive behaviour that contradicts the progressive devel­
opment of socialist society. But this society forbids any
behaviour that is not in its interests. The opposite of deviant
behaviour is normal behaviour. This can be called model
behaviour that creates progressive standards for developing
forms of behaviour. Normal behaviour is considered as
a definite form of behaviour taken on the level of the relation­
ship with social norms. It is studied separately and togetfi-
165
er with other forms of behaviour. It is positive active
behaviour. It is from such behaviour that the new (prospec­
tive) content of social norms is deduced. However negative
(deviant) behaviour, the most socially dangerous behaviour,
can also be active. This must not be forgotten in defining
types of behaviour, particularly in differentiating mea­
sures of preventive action.
T h e o p p o site of an ac tiv e p e rso n a lity is a p assiv e p erso n a lity .
F o r th e p rev e n tio n of an ti-so c ia l b e h a v io u r i t is of p ra c tic a l
im p o rta n ce to d e te c t those m a n ife sta tio n s of p a s s iv ity th a t a c t
as crim in o g en ic fa c to rs an d becom e th e c o n d itio n s of offences
T he stu d y of d e v ia n t b e h a v io u r and its c o n tro l m u st be connected
w ith th e s tu d y and d ev e lo p m e n t of n o rm a l b e h a v io u r, since th e
aim of c o n tro llin g a ll an ti-so c ia l m a n ife sta tio n s is n o t o n ly to
p re v e n t these m a n ife sta tio n s, b u t also to develop a c tiv e p o sitiv e
b eh a v io u r in those w ho v io la te social norm s. W ith o u t th e d ev e l­
o p m e n t of social a c tiv ity i t is im p o ssib le to e ra d ic a te v io la tio n s
of so cial norm s, and th e q u ic k e r th is a c tiv ity is d ev eloped, th e
sooner v io la tio n s w ill b e e lim in a te d . C o n seq u en tly , it is n ecessary,
first and forem ost, to s tre n g th e n even m ore th e social o rg an ism
of society and n o t to p e rm it th e so c ial “sickness” of its m em bers.
T h is w ill c re a te a so lid base fo r th e p re v e n tio n of th e v ario u s ty p e s
of d e v ia n t b eh a v io u r.

Legal norms and behaviour

Legal norms are an important variety of social norms.
Essentially they are social norms. But legal norms are sancti­
oned by the state and, unlike other social norms, made a law.
Law is constantly absorbing and incorporating (in the statu­
tory manner) the most important social norms. This is why
the operation of legal norms is supported by the operation
of other social norms and is combined with them. In its
turn the operation of social norms is supported by the law.
This interconnection enhances the practical significance of
all social norms. A weakening of one of the aspects (the
“social" or “legal") undermines the system of norms as a
whole. For the assessment of this system, the effectiveness of
both the legal and the other social norms, the state of social
order in general, and law and order in particular serve as
a kind of “litmus paper". The connection of legal norms with
other social norms is manifested in the fact that negative
tendencies in the state of crime, the increase in offences, is
often predetermined by the weakening and decline of the
controlling role of other social norms, the disarrangement
of the normative order as a whole. Practice confirms this con­
clusion. The latter emphasises the idea of the social useful­
ness of and need for both legal and other social norms. The
norms that regulate the various aspects of the behaviour of
members of society should be considered from the stand­
point of their unity.
Thus, law is a real reflection of social life. Legal norms are
always “sociological”. Law is “sociological” because it forms
part of the system of social relations. By supervising human
activity, regulating human behaviour, law becomes part
of the real process of life activity, becoming an element of
the existing objective social connections. This is the main
point in the characterisation of law as an objective social
phenomenon. It must be seen as one of the main connections
of legal norms with other social norms. It must be remem­
bered that human behaviour is regulated not only by legal
norms, but also by moral rules, the principles of socialist
life, traditions and other social regulators.
As we know law does not regulate all behaviour, but only
certain types of behaviour. The behaviour that is regulated
by law and incorporated in a legal norm is called juridically
significant behaviour. It produces this or that legal con­
sequence. Juridically significant behaviour includes two
large groups: behaviour that is socially useful and desirable
from the point of view of the interests of society (socio-legal
activity, the performance of duties, the exercise of rights)
and behaviour that is undesirable and socially harmful (the
failure to exercise rights, non-performance of duties, crime).
But not all socially undesirable and juridically significant
behaviour is an offence. Illegal (unlawful) behaviour begins
with the non-performance of one’s duties. The main aim of
socialist law is not only to prevent illegal behaviour, infringe­
ment of the law, but also to promote in every possible way
the development of socially useful, legal, socially active
behaviour of members of society.
The concept and assessment
of anti-social behaviour
Marx said that people are not only the actors, but also
the authors of their own drama. This statement is fully in
keeping with the assessment of behaviour, for behaviour, as
already mentioned, is not only a chain of events brought to
167
 life by objective conditions, but also the sum total of a per­
son’s acts. Behaviour always manifests itself as a tendency.
Of all the existing real possibilities of behaviour a person can
choose only one. Therefore, by “choosing” a type of behaviour,
an individual leaves on it and, consequently, on himself the
imprint of his own actions and acts. In interacting with oth­
er people and society, the individual not only contributes
something “from himself” to the social, but also refashions
the “external” around him into the “personal”. For a person
social relations are always his relations too. Consequently,
in evaluating this or that behaviour and determining its
place in the system of the various types of social behaviour,
we can, firstly, say which relations occupy the main place
for a given personality, and which are subordinate, and
secondly, answer the question as to what the personality
is like. In this way we can distinguish the anti-social from
other types of behaviour. Having made this distinction,
however, it is necessary to show the specific nature of anti­
social behaviour, to reveal its essence.
But how are we to assess this type of behaviour? It must
be said that the problem of “behaviour assessment” occupies an
important place in scientific research. The main question in
assessing behaviour is that of the socio-class, moral and
ideological-political standpoint of the personality. In asses­
sing anti-social behaviour in Soviet life it must be borne in
mind, first and foremost, that it is not conditioned by the
socialist system and way of life, but is an anomaly, a devia­
tion from socialist principles. Anti-social behaviour covers
all sorts of social phenomena (crime, offences, drunkenness,
parasitism, etc.), which consist in the violation by mem­
bers of society of established social norms (deviant behav­
iour) and which tend to hamper social development (negative
deviant behaviour). As a variety of behaviour in general,
anti-social behaviour, including crime, is socially determi­
ned, like all types of human activity in general. This assess­
ment contains the main feature of the essence of anti-social
behaviour under socialism. Only by basing oneself on this
conclusion can one analyse correctly the class nature of
offences (crimes) and anti-social (criminal) behaviour, and
also the class and historical roots of these phenomena, their
true and root causes.
 The way of life and antisocial behaviour
In assessing anti-social behaviour as a whole, we can say
also that it is the opposite of the socialist way of life. This
does not mean, however, that such behaviour has a directly
anti-socialist tendency. It is not characterised by intentions
to fight against socialism or reject its principles. The point
is that anti-social behaviour contradicts the principles, re­
quirements, ideals and attitudes of the socialist system of
social relations. It is behaviour that is unacceptable to
socialist society. It is the most serious deviation from the
socialist way of life. In this case the socialist way of life is
regarded as a behavioural category. Consequently, its deve­
lopment is the overcoming of both the anti-social way of life
and the corresponding behaviour.
F or a p ro p er u n d e rsta n d in g of th e p ro b lem in q u estio n we
m u st first an aly se th e c o n c ep t “w ay of life ” an d d e te rm in e , in
p a rtic u la r, w h a t is th e S o v iet, so c ia list w ay of life . P o in ts of
view on th is q u estio n do n o t alw a y s co in cid e. Som e th in k i t
possible to id e n tify th e w ay of life w ith th e su m to ta l of th e
c o n d itio n s of h u m a n life , and th e re fo re in c lu d e in i t th e m ode of
p ro d u ctio n , th e econom ic and so c io -p o litic a l sy ste m , etc. O th ers
tr e a t i t as a q u a lita tiv e asp ect of p e o p le 's w ell-b ein g . T h ere is
also th e view th a t th e w ay of life is p e o p le ’s w ay of th in k in g ,
ac tin g and b eh av in g .
In n o tin g these d iffe ren t ap p ro a ch es to th e q u e stio n , we sh o u ld
lik e to s ta te , first an d fo rem o st, th a t i t is w rong to id e n tify a
w ay of life an d its c o n d itio n s. U n d o u b te d ly , th e se conditions*
d eterm in e th e w ay of life , its fram ew o rk . B u t th is is o n ly th e
o b je ctiv e c o n d itio n s of th e w ay of life, n o t th e w ay of life itse lf.
As we know , in th e S o v iet U nion w ith th e sam e b asic o b je c tiv e
c o n d itio n s and th e sam e econom ic re la tio n s a n d p re v a ilin g
ideology in d iv id u a l peo p le lead a fa r from id e n tic a l w ay of life.
I t differs from th e a c tu a l co n d itio n s of life in t h a t i t is th e con­
c re te life a c tiv ity of a person in a ll th e rich n ess of its form s o f
m a n ife sta tio n . C o n seq u en tly , we m u st n o t id e n tify such co n cep ts
as th e so c ia list (or S o v iet) w ay of life an d th e w ay of life of an
in d iv id u a l person w ho liv e s u n d e r developed so cialism . N a tu ra lly
each person h a s h is ow n w ay of liv in g , h is ow n h a b its a n d in c lin a ­
tio n s. F or th e o v erw h elm in g m a jo rity of S o v iet people th e
so c ia list w ay of life is c h a ra c te ristic . H ow ever, th e w ay of life
of in d iv id u a l people, w hich we c a ll a n ti-so c ia l, is th e o p p o site of
th e so c ia list w ay of life. A lth o u g h i t is th e o p p o site , i t is n ev e r­
th eless a w ay of life. F o r so cialism i t is th e o la , d y in g w ay of life.
T herefore th e co n tro l of a n ti-so c ia l m a n ife sta tio n s an d th e ir
p rev e n tio n is one of th e form s of stru g g le fo r th e so c ia list w ay o f
life. In th is co n n ectio n th e q u e stio n of th e so c ial p re v e n tio n of
a n ti-so c ia l b e h a v io u r is a p ressin g one. In rec en t y ea rs a b ro ad
sp e ctru m of p ro b le m s tre a te d by th e ju rid ic a l scien ces in connec-

169
 tio n w ith th e fo rm a tio n of th e s o c ia list w ay of life h a s em erged.
T hese in c lu d e n o t o n ly q u estio n s of a n ti-so c ia l b e h a v io u r, crim e
c o n tro l, stre n g th e n in g law an d o rd e r an d e n su rin g le g a lity , b u t
even p roblem s of th e a c tiv ity of th e agencies of tn e M in istry of
th e In te rio r, and th e co rrec tio n an d re-ed u c atio n of co n v icte d
persons. T h is en a b le s th e sciences in q u e s tio n to c o n sid er th e
so c ia list w ay of life in close co n n ectio n w ith th e a c tiv ity of m an
as th e su b je ct of social re la tio n s, as th e b e a re r of c e rta in norm s
and rules.

Orientation, tendency and attitude

in connection with anti social behaviour
Such behaviour is characterised by the anti-social tenden­
cy of the individual. The degree of social danger of the indi­
vidual may increase or decrease depending on the nature of
his behaviour, its tendency. However, here we must see
the connection with the attitude which is the main, central
link in the structure of the personality. We are dealing with
an anti-social attitude. This attitude is usually distinguished
in relation to the degree of “criminal infectedness” of the
individual. Consequently, the anti-social attitude may be
expressed in a different form, have a different, so to say, anti­
social content. It may be of a clearly expressed anti-social
nature or manifest itself insufficiently clearly. The personal
attitude towards anti-social behaviour is a readiness and
predisposition to such behaviour which is based on a firmly
held anti-social position. The content of such a position are
anti-social views, notions, beliefs, ideas, aims opposed to
society, and also value orientations that conflict with social
norms. The anti-social way of life is the most preferable for
such an individual, deviant forms of behaviour are the most
acceptable. In general all this characterises the general line
of anti-social behaviour.
In stu d y in g th is pro b lem we m u st d istin g u ish th e a n ti-so c ia l
te n d en c y of tn e c rim in a l in d iv id u a l from tn e a ttitu d e to w ard s
a n ti-so c ia l b eh av io u r. An a ttitu d e is a n arro w e r co n cep t th a n a
ten d en cy . T h e a t titu d e to w ard s an ti-so cia l b e h a v io u r is o n ly one
of th e form s of m a n ife sta tio n of th e a n ti-so c ia l te n d en c y of th e
in d iv id u a l, th is ten d en c y b ein g a b le n d , a sy n th e sis of th e co rre­
sp o n d in g a ttitu d e s . H ere we h av e in m in d th e so-called sy stem of
a t titu d e s in g en eral. H ow ever, we m u st single o u t s itu a tio n a l
a t titu d e too. In re la tio n to th e p ro b lem u n d e r review , i t is an
a n ti-so c ia l form of th e in d iv id u a l's re a c tio n to a s itu a tio n (a re a d i­
ness to co m m it a c rim e in a given co n c rete s itu a tio n ). An a ttitu d e
is defined as a specific s ta te expressed in th e in c lin a tio n , o rien ted -

170
 ness, read in ess of th e in d iv id u a l to c o m m it an a c t in a con crete
s itu a tio n fo r th e sa tisfa c tio n of an e x istin g n eed. T h is a ttitu d e
precedes, as a ru le, th e o rie n ta tio n o fjth e in d iv id u a l. O rie n ta tio n ,
a t titu d e , te n d e n c y —a ll of th ese to g e th e r c h a ra c te rise th e sta b le
socio-psychological s ta te of th e in d iv id u a l. In th e case in q u estio n
th is s ta te m ay b e assessed as th e “c rim in a l s ta te ” . I t becom es p a r t
of th e c o n te n t of th e p e rso n a lity of th e c rim in a l offender.

Motive, needs and interests

Anti-social behaviour exists, first and foremost, in the
form of a special motive. A motive signifies the conscious and
deeply personal conditioned nature of the behaviour in
question. It reveals the relationship between the inner and
the outer, between needs and their objects. It is the subjective
determination of an action, act, and behaviour as a whole.
Behavioural motives, including those of anti-social behav­
iour, are closely linked with needs and interests. If mo­
tives enable us to understand why in a certain situation a per­
son acts in a certain way, needs and interests reveal the
sources of his impulses, the basis of the selection and tenden­
cy of his behaviour. Rivers do not flow backwards, and peo­
ple do not act contrary to their own interests. Interests and
needs do not simply exist alongside motives, they permeate
a person’s whole life. The essence of anti-social behaviour lies
in the interests, needs, motives, aims, ideas, and world out­
look of the individual, his views and beliefs. The motive
force of anti-social behaviour is, in the final analysis, needs
and motives. Hence the practical significance of criminologi­
cal research.
Motivation and anti-social behaviour. Anti-social behaviour
is never determined by one motive alone. An interconnected
set of motives operates. Moreover anti-social behaviour, as
already mentioned, characterises the personality itself. Con­
sequently, the motivation of anti-social behaviour and the
personality of the offender are interconnected, interdepen­
dent and dialectically interdetermined. The personal features
of the offender leave their mark on motivation, and the
behavioural motives, reinforced in anti-social actions and
acts, deform his personality. However, this does not mean
that the personality is reflected in behavioural motivation
as in a mirror, and that the motivation is a reverse projection
on the personality. We must remember that not all the
characteristics of the personality affect motivation. More-
171
 over, the connection between motivation and personality is
not direct, as a rule, but indirect. The personality of the
offender and the motivation of his anti-social behaviour
are, thus, mutually conditioned, but are not an indivisible
unity. One can speak only conventionally of this unity.
We should like to draw attention to two more points. First­
ly, an individual by no means always acts under the
influence of conscious motives, although corresponding stim­
ulatory elements do exist in his acts. Secondly, there are
also unmotivated actions and acts. This is particularly
clear from the example of certain crimes.
Motivation and the problem of the prevention of antisocial
behaviour. The main link in the preventive education of the
personality is the turning of its “human content” into positive
beliefs, corresponding interests and needs, behavioural mo­
tives. But for this it is necessary to “delve down” into the per­
sonality, which is possible only through its motivational
sphere. Here a number of problems arise. First and foremost,
we need to define the role of social prevention in the forma­
tion of motives. This process is carried on under the influence
of the social environment and organised preventive work.
In this case individual prevention and early prevention are
important. The prevention of the choice of anti-social (unlaw­
ful) means of motive realisation acquires a special significa­
nce. This is necessary to ensure that actions and acts commi­
tted on the basis of formed motives not only do not cause
harm, but are socially useful. Yet another important problem
arises—that of not permitting a negative act at the stage of
completion of the process of motivation and decision-making.
As we know, the motivation process ends with the taking of
a decision to commit a negative act or to abstain from it.
Therefore it is at this stage that prevention should point to
a definite variant of behaviour that is useful both for the
individual and for society.
The main task of social prevention in these cases is to turn
the external action on the individual into the inner, sub­
jective determinant of his behaviour. Although this process is
extremely complex and difficult, it is the way in which social
prevention can help a person to form positive motives and
regulate his own behaviour, proceeding from social norms
and socialist principles that have been accepted and turned
into an inner need,
 CHAPTER VI

THE CONCEPT AND ESSENCE

OF CRIMINOLOGICAL FORECASTING

1. THE SCIENCE OF FORECASTING

AND THE BRANCH OF CRIMINOLOGICAL FORECASTING

A fundamental feature of social life is the dynamic nature

of social processes. There are no static conditions of social
life, only different rates at which the processes of social de­
velopment and change take place. This is also true of such
a phenomenon as crime. It cannot remain invariable, immu­
table. It is constantly changing in connection with (and
alongside) the development of other phenomena. And this
change inevitably results in the need not only to elaborate
further existing principles of studying crime, but to discov­
er new cognitive approaches in accordance with its changes*
Crime is characterised not only by “functioning” but also
by “development”. Failure to understand or underestimation
of this fact may lead to passivity and a slowing down of the
processes of crime control. In approaching crime as a con­
stantly changing phenomenon, taking into account all its
inherent contradictions, and seeing it just as it is, with all
its complexities, it is important to concentrate research
efforts on working out how to improve the crime prevention
system consistently, how to detect and remove the causes of
crime, guide and regulate preventive activity, gradually
eliminating criminal manifestations. Precisely in this connec­
tion criminological forecasting is essential. It must provide
the basis for all activity, both scientific and practical, aimed
at controlling crime.
Forecasting. In view of the practical requirements of So­
viet society and the need to satisfy them, recent years have
173
Seen the emergence of economic and demographic forecasting,
military forecasting, etc., and more and more new types of
forecasting arc continuing to appear. Even space forecasting
has come into being. These relatively independent spheres of
forecasting represent the application of the achievements of
the fundamental sciences to the solution of vitally important
practical problems. At the same time the modern develop­
ment of scientific research has reached a stage at which the
need has arisen for a comprehensive study of the problems
of forecasting, i.e., a need for the formation of a science to
make a special study of these problems. Forecasting is such
a science.
F o recastin g as a science h as a co m p lex s tru c tu re . O n th e one
h a n d , it in c lu d es th e a p p lie d sp h ere w hich is d ire c tly co nnected
w ith co n crete sciences. On th e o th e r, i t rises to b ro a d m eth o d o lo g ­
ic al g e n e ra lisa tio n s, m a k in g use of p h ilo so p h ica l categ o ries. One
of th e m ost im p o rta n t ta sk s of th is science is to serv e as a m e d ia tin g
lin k betw een ph ilo so p h y a n d th e co n crete p ro g n o stic a tio n s in
sp e cia l sciences. In o th e r w ords, fo re ca stin g is a scientific d is­
c ip lin e th a t stu d ie s th e g en e ral p rin c ip le s of c o n stru c tin g m e th o d s
of fo re ca stin g th e d ev e lo p m e n t of a ll k in d s of o b je cts a n d th e
la w s of th e process of p ro g n o stic a tio n . I t is a science a b o u t th e
law s an d m e th o d s of fo re ca stin g , a b ra n c h of know ledge c a p ab le
of in te g ra tin g , as i t w ere, th e a c h ie v em e n ts of o th e r sciences in
th is sphere. E v e ry th in g e la b o ra te d b y fo re ca stin g is based on th e
p ro p o sitio n th a t co n clu sio n s on th e p o ssib ility o r p ro b a b ility of
a fu tu re ev en t o r series of ev e n ts and processes ca n be d raw n on
th e basis of th e s tu d y , a n a ly sis an d g e n e ra lisa tio n of p rev io u s
ex p erien ce. In so d o in g fo re ca stin g m akes use of th e know ledge
of m a n y scien tific d isc ip lin e s an d a t th e sam e tim e p ro m o te s th e ir
f u rth e r d ev elo p m en t. F o re ca stin g c re a te s a se t of in stru m e n ts w ith
th e h elp of w hich we can d e te rm in e fa irly a c c u ra te ly th e sh o rt­
te rm and lo n g -term p ro sp ects fo r th e d e v e lo p m e n t of th e phenom ­
ena an d processes in q u estio n , to reach th e re le v a n t ta c tic a l
an d stra te g ic decisions. T he ta sk s of th is science also in c lu d e th e
s tu d y of m eth o d s of p re d ic tin g ten d en c ies an d law s of d ev e lo p ­
m e n t of phenom ena a n d processes, th e c re a tio n of lo g ic al m odels
of th e fu tu re , an d e lu c id a tio n of th e m o st im p o rta n t p ro b lem s of
p u rp o siv e g u id a n ce of processes. T he m e th o d o lo g ic al base of
forecastin g is form ed b y th e p ro p o sitio n s of d ia le c tic a l and
h isto ric a l m a te ria lism .

We can observe two trends in forecasting: the general the­

ory of forecasting (general forecasting) and the theory of
forecasting social phenomena and processes (social forecast­
ing). Social forecasting studies the laws, means and methods
of social forecasting, which is an organic part of Marxist
sociology.
174
 Social forecasting
Social forecasting covers all the phenomena and processes
connected with the activity of human society. Determining
the prospects for the development of the social aspects of
science and technology, the economy, social relations, demo­
graphic processes, state and law, home and foreign policy,
etc.—all this comes within the sphere of social forec­
asting.
Types of branch forecasting. If we take forecasting as
the science that studies the problem of prognostication in all
branches of the life of society, we can distinguish, for exam­
ple, such types of branch forecasting as scientific and techno­
logical, social, economic, demographic, military-political,
etc. Each of these types of forecasting is aimed at attaining
social aims, performing certain tasks, and is carried on and
applied depending on the special characteristics of the sci­
ence and practice in each separate sphere of the life of society.
Branch forecasts correspond to branch types of forecasting.
We take the view that all independent, specific spheres of
the life and activity of society are branches of social foresee-
ing (types of forecasting). As a rule, their specific features
are determined by the branch of knowledge and activity to
which the problem belongs. For example, we may be dealing
with state-law (juridical) forecasting (this is the sphere of the
state and law in general), and at the same time within the
framework of this forecasting we find such types as criminolog­
ical forecasting, forecasting in labour law, and forecasting
in the sphere of corrective labour law. In other spheres we
find many different types of forecasting too. But all of them
(that deal with the social sciences) belong to social foreseeing,
integral social forecasting being varieties of it. Criminolog­
ical forecasting, as a variety of social foreseeing, is also
a branch of juridical forecasting.
Criminological forecasting
Criminological forecasting is a variety of social foreseeing.
However, the juridical part must not be left out of the
definition “criminological forecasting”, for criminology is,
first and foremost, an element in the system of juridical
sciences. Consequently, in defining the concept of crimino­
logical forecasting it is essential to bear two aspects in mind:
175
 Ihe juridical and the social. Without doubt juridical forecast­
ing (forecasting in jurisprudence) is a type of social fore­
seeing, one of its components. The place of juridical forecast­
ing in the system of social forecasting is determined by the
place of the juridical sciences in the system of the social
sciences, or rather, by the role and purpose of such concepts
as the state, law, administration, democracy and legality, of
which the juridical science makes use. Of course, the prob­
lem of the forecast in the science of law, which is general
for all the branches of law, extends beyond the theory of
law. But this does not turn juridical forecasting into some­
thing else. In concretising the trend of legal forecasting, we
must distinguish the forecasting of crime. In this case crimi­
nological forecasting is represented in the system of “juridi­
cal forecasting”. But in order to foresee changes in the dynam­
ics of crime dependent on social changes, and, consequent­
ly to control offences effectively, we must have a clear idea
of the concrete interconnections of cause and effect in the
sphere of social behaviour. In other words, criminological
forecasting should be directed into a social “channel”. It
cannot remain outside the social sphere. Criminological
forecasting is, thus, a variety of social foreseeing and a branch
of juridical forecasting. At the same time it is an independent
branch of forecasting.
Branch forecasting requires a profound, all-round knowl­
edge of the corresponding spheres of science, and therefore
a key role in this forecasting is played by the specialists
concerned. In criminological forecasting the specialists are
criminologists. But specialist knowledge alone is not enough.
It is also essential to master the scientific apparatus of
forecasting.
Forecasting and scientific cognition. All scientific knowl­
edge, generally speaking, is the theoretical reproduction of
the object of cognition in logical forms, the unity of the em­
pirical and the theoretical, of the individual and the gener­
al. In discussing scientific cognition, we must point out also
that it not only reflects the state of reality at present, but
also, by basing itself on the tendencies of the law-governed
development of this reality, outlines the possible results of
purposive action on it. Every science that lays claim to
scientific cognition should possess the prognostic instru­
ment of cognition. It is from this standpoint that we must
regard the concept of “scientific criminological forecasting”.
176
 Lenin wrote: “Miraculous prophecy is a fairy-tale. But
scientific prophecy is a fact.”1 This proposition forms the
basis of all scientific forecasting, which is conducted within
the framework of the Marxist-Leninist theory of social
foreseeing. Scientific forecasting! always rests, first and
foremost, on the foundation of a systematic scientific theoret­
ical analysis of laws and of the conditions of their
realisation.
Scientific criminological forecasting proceeds from the
present state of the phenomena under review, whose potenti­
alities develop in the future and form these phenomena. Such
forecasting (unlike voluntarist forecasting) is based not on
what the subject (or subjects) of the forecasting want, but on
what objectively derives from the development of the phenom­
enon (phenomena) in question, its past and present. Crimi­
nological forecasting can be recognised as scientific if it is
based on knowledge (a study) of the tendencies and laws of
crime, the character and nature of this phenomenon, and also
the diverse and interconnected processes that influence
crime. The laws, the study of which is the basis of foreseeing,
scientific laws are the “link” between descriptions of a present
and past situation and a description of a future object (a fore­
cast). Therefore a forecast can be true (and scientific) only
when the tendencies and laws of the phenomenon are studied
“from the past to the present and the future”, when the sci­
entific laws used in the foreseeing are true, that is, the theo­
retical progression of thought from objects of the present
and past to objects of the future corresponds to the progres­
sion and development of the objects (phenomena, processes,
events) in reality. If one knows the tendencies and laws of
development of crime “from the past to the present” one can
implement scientific criminological forecasting. But it
must be remembered that the theoretical basis of foresee­
ing in any sphere is knowledge of the objective laws of devel­
opment and the mechanism of their operation in concrete
historical conditions. In order not to be pure prophecy,
scientific forecasting must satisfy a number of requirements:
the presence of authentic foundations (knowledge); lack of
prejudice and bias; correct use of the concrete methods

1 V. I. L enin, “P ro p h e tic W ords” , C o lle c te d W o rks, V ol. 27,

P rogress P u b lish e rs, Moscow, 1965, p . 494.

12-01771 177
 (and methodics) of forecasting; and precise formulation of
the aims and tasks of forecasting. These requirements must
be observed at all the various levels of forecasting.
The continuous nature
of the process of forecasting
Truly scientific forecasting is a constant, creative process
of cognising the future. No matter in what sphere it is done,
forecasting is first and foremost a scientific theoretical and
practical creative activity. Consequently, in whatever sector
of social life, whatever sphere this activity is carried on, it
must be understood and carried out as a continuous process,
as a constant creative process of work and thinking. The
experience of the bodies that control crime shows that con­
tinuous forecasting enables us to make timely comparisons
of the present state of the forecasted system with final (new)
demands, thereby ensuring the choice of the best solution in
elaborating future measures. The continuous nature of
forecasting is also conditioned by the need to improve and
specify forecasts, taking into account new requirements and
new data. Systematic forecasting makes it possible to check
the results of forecasting obtained on the basis of some laws
against results obtained on the basis of others. Continuity
and consistency in forecasting ensures more accurate and
complete results by absorbing more and more new infor­
mation.
Criminological forecasting is a constant and, by its
very nature, continuous process, that requires systematic
amplification in the light of new data on crime, its causes
and its prevention. In organising forecasting criminologists
must, therefore, constantly compile new forecasts and
amplify existing ones. The continuous nature of criminolog­
ical forecasting excludes any attempt to regard the process
of scientific foreseeing as complete. The desire for complete
forecasts that do not require amplification may lead to unre­
liable results or even false conclusions.
The bodies controlling crime are always interested in what
the phenomenon in question, the tendencies and laws of
crime, will be like in the future, because the quality of
decisions taken in the present depends on our knowledge of
the future. Irrespective of how circumstances in the sphere
of the crime control may develop in the future (favourably
178
 or unfavourably), measures to eliminate crime from society
should always be taken in advance and should be as effective
as possible. However, it must be remembered that any
attempt to study future crime faces the problem of uncertain­
ty. If there were no uncertainty, we would always be able
to know in advance what should be done, what decisions
to take and how to put them into practice. But uncertainty
always exists to a greater or lesser extent. Therefore it should
not be thought that criminological forecasting is capable of
eliminating uncertainty entirely. The main task of this type
of forecasting is to find good or even the best decisions given
uncertainty, i.e., to minimise uncertainty. In the process of
minimising uncertainty the forecasting of crime is one of
the instruments with the help of which concrete measures
are elaborated for the future and purposive administrative
decisions are taken. The questions of whether they will be
useful and which decisions will be the best can again be
answered by forecasts which also reduce uncertainty as to
the outcome of measures planned for the future. True, the
obtaining of accurate forecasts of such a type is difficult, and
usually they are approximate. But even a bad forecast is
better than good uncertainty.
Advance information and forecasts
The planned control of any social system requires the
existence of advance (prognostic) information on forth­
coming needs, possibilities and effects of controlling actions.
This is also true of crime control. Its future is controllable
through the present, but this control will be effective only
if prognostic information is available, not only about the
“future of crime11 but also about the future of the phenomena
and processes that influence crime. All types of control are
possible only if we possess an advance reflection of the needs
of a model of the future. And an advance reflection is
ensured by prognostic information that enables the control­
ling system to “anticipate11events. It acquires its highest form
in forecasting.
The main reason why criminologists engage in forecasting
is that little if anything is known about the future of certain
phenomena of interest to them, but knowledge of this future
is of importance for controlling (guiding) decisions taken in
the present. In other words, what we need is information that
12* 179
will provide data about the future—advance (prognostic)
information. This information enables us not only to “look”
into the future and “anticipate” events, but also to analyse
types of controlling activity from the point of view of the
past, present and future, to reveal more fully the connection
between these temporal categories. Prognostic criminological
information is not auxiliary, secondary information. Within
the framework of general information about crime it stands
out significantly and helps to solve the administrative prob­
lems in this sphere at all levels. Well-based conclusions
are necessary for controlling crime.
The aims and tasks of forecasting
The general aim of criminological forecasting is to estab­
lish the most general indices characterising the development
(change) of crime in the future, to detect on this basis unde­
sirable tendencies and laws and to find means of changing
these tendencies and laws in the necessary direction. The
general aim determines the more concrete aims: to take into
account all circumstances that are of real significance for the
drawing up of long-term plans, to take long-term administra­
tive decisions, to elaborate a general conception of crime
control, and to select optimal ways of developing (improv­
ing) the activity of the bodies controlling crime; to establish
possible changes in the state, level, structure and dynamics
of crime in the future, and also the circumstances promoting
these changes; to determine the likelihood of the appearance
of new types of crime and the “dying out” of present types,
and of factors and circumstances capable of influencing this;
and to establish the possible emergence of new categories of
criminals. All the other aims of criminological forecasts are
in keeping with these, derive from them and relate to them
as the particular (or individual) to the general. The aims of
criminological forecasting must constantly be made more
precise and concrete. They must be revised in connection
with the continuous nature of the actual process of fore­
casting.
Criminological forecasting is not an aim in itself. It
enables us to foresee the future of the phenomena and pro­
cesses in question. A criminological forecast can play its part
only when it is turned into a guide to action, into a pro­
gramme for crime control. The strength of forecasts lies in
180
the fact that they enable us to organise in the best possible
way work directed towards the achievement of scientifically
based aims. The forecasting of crime is necessary in order to
elaborate measures for the planned, purposive elimination
of crime and to ensure maximum efficiency of the bodies
which control this socially dangerous phenomenon.
The tasks of forecasting depend on the aims and also on
the object of research and the period of forecasting. The
most general (main) tasks of criminological forecasting are: to
obtain information about the future being studied; to process
this information; to generalise all the indices of “future
crime” (the actual forecast being the end result of the forecast­
ing process). For the orientation of the process of crime
control forecasts should: firstly, provide information as to
what concrete aims in this sphere are attainable; secondly,
help us to understand which of these aims correspond most
to the interests of the present and future; thirdly, provide
a basis for decision-making if there are alternative aims;
fourthly, help to find a correct relationship between short-
term and long-term aims of crime control and “co-ordinate”
them with each other; fifthly, provide information as to
which means and measures are most suitable for attaining
programme aims; and sixthly, reveal, as far as possible,
all the important effects of these measures. As we can see,
forecasting is directed not only towards elucidating the future
development of the phenomenon (system) in question, but
also towards drawing up recommendations for the better
achievement of the desired version of the future.
One of the most important tasks of criminological forecast­
ing is to accumulate pre-plan material. Forecasting, being
the research base of the plan, is called upon to provide it
with a scientific foundation. The main task of criminological
forecasting, however, is to determine on the basis of discov­
ered tendencies and laws of future changes in crime
the most important and effective ways of controlling this
socially dangerous phenomenon within the forecast
period.
The practical significance of forecasting
The practical value of forecasting lies in the fact that it
enables us to prepare a scientific basis for future decision­
making and the elaboration of corresponding concrete mea-
181
sures to ensure the rational activity of the state bodies and
public organisations concerted. Criminological forecasting,
however, is acquiring increasing practical significance,
first and foremost, for the preparation of information about
the future which is used in long-term planning, and also in
the elaboration and taking of administrative decisions in
crime control. It enables us to evaluate the “present-day
situation" and urgent problems from the viewpoint of the
future, to consider a decision taken “today" from the stand­
point of its consequences in the more or less remote future.
With the help of criminological forecasting the subjects of
crime control advance beyond the limits of present-day, and
therefore old, knowledge. Inthisw ay criminological forecast­
ing orients us to choose realistic tendencies in the activity
of the crime-controlling bodies, i.e.,it enables them to con­
centrate their efforts on questions for the solution of which
there are real possibilities. Finally, criminological forecasting
determines the direction of the possible development of these
bodies themselves, making it possible to constantly improve
their activity and to reorganise their work on the basis of the
latest achievements in science. This is a general assessment
of the significance of criminological forecasting.
A criminological forecast is, first and foremost, infor­
mation about practical requirements on the basis of which
the possibilities of controlling future crime are determined
and assessed, taking account of all the available forces and
means. On this level the criminological forecast is a method
that enables us to coordinate the present and future tasks of
crime control, to “link” them with each other in the most
expedient way. Essentially, the practical significance of
criminological forecasting is determined by the need to
solve future problems of crime effectively. Forecasts enable
us to prepare in good time our response to new problems and
to avoid the situation in which the subjects of control arc
confronted with a fait accompli and arc forced to deal only
with the consequences of a particular situation, while being
unable to influence its development. Thus, forecasting is
a most important attribute of optimal and effective control.
Thanks to forecasts we can obtain knowledge about the
future condition of the object of control, and this means
that the controlling bodies will have the opportunity
of consciously directing their efforts, making use in each
concrete case of methods dictated by prognostic infor-
182
 mation. Criminological forecasting is able to decide the
order of taking actions to attain the aims of crime
control.
Criminological forecasting helps to gain time in directing
the process of crime control, and the problem of gaining
time by an advance understanding of a future situation
arises, first and foremost, in the posing and solving of fun­
damental and long-term problems. Consequently, the prac­
tical significance of this type of forecasting is that it pro­
vides an opportunity of making correct use of “the fu­
ture”.
Criminological forecasting has a dual significance: on the
one hand, it serves the practical requirements of bodies
controlling crime and helps to improve their activity and on
the other, it helps to raise the scientific level and improve the
quality of theoretical research in the sphere of crime
control, which has a positive effect on the development
(improvement) of the whole system of controlling criminal
manifestations. However, how long the present system of
crime control will be retained in the future and whether
the emergence of a fundamentally new system is likely and
necessary, must also be taken into account.
It is necessary, firstly, to give a prognostic assessment of
the existing system of aims, means and methods of controll­
ing crime, i.e., to determine which existing aims, means and
methods will be preferred in the future because of their
effectiveness and expediency. Secondly, it is necessary to
determine whether the changes in the aims, means and meth­
ods of crime control will be so significant that the existing
system of controlling crime will become ineffective. Third­
ly, we must find out whether new aims, means and methods
of crime control that are relevant in the forecast period will
appear, and assess the possibility of their inclusion in the
crime-control system. Fourthly, we must assess whether the
new aims, means and methods (taken individually and as
a whole) will be effective, and whether the effectiveness of
the whole system of crime control will increase after the
inclusion of the new aims, means and methods in it. Fifth­
ly, we must establish whether the changed or new system
and individual aims, means and methods will correspond to
the general trend of crime control and what is the likelihood
of their practical realisation in directing the processes of
crime control.
183
 Thus, criminological forecasting provides information
about the choice of expedient means and methods of crime
control and thereby helps to improve the activity of the
relevant bodies.

2. TYPES, TERMS AND METHODS

OF CRIMINOLOGICAL FORECASTING
Types of forecasting and groups of forecasts
Speaking of criminological forecasting in the broad sense,
we must name two types: forecasting the development of
criminology, and forecasting crime. The first type includes
forecasting criminological research and determining the
development prospects and the concrete trends of criminolo­
gy, the second only the forecasting of crime. The groups of
forecasts also correspond to this: forecasts of the development
of criminology and crime forecasts. The forecasting of crime,
in turn, falls into two sub-types: forecasting of primary crime,
and forecasting of recidivist crime. Each of them includes
several forecasting trends: the forecasting of adult crime
and juvenile delinquency, male and female crime, and the
forecasting of the different types and groups of crimes.
Groups of forecasts correspond to these and similar types
of forecasting.
A completely independent type is the forecasting of indi­
vidual anti-social behaviour (individual forecasting), which
includes such types as forecasting the individual behaviour
of persons who have already committed crimes and the
forecasting of individual behaviour of persons who have not
been convicted but are predisposed to criminal behaviour.
The afore-mentioned classification of types of criminolog­
ical forecasting (and groups of forecasts) is not exhaustive.
The development of the theory of forecasting is constantly
adding to it.
The overall forecast. All forecasts of crime, irrespective of
what group they belong to, must “form” an overall crimino­
logical forecast. An overall criminological forecast is some­
thing more than just the interweaving (addition) and connec­
tion of individual crime forecasts. It expresses the quality
of the sum total of forecasts. Bearing in mind this aspect we
must admit that the overall forecast can assume a most
general nature. At the same time the uniting of the informa-
184
tion contained in individual forecasts forms a higher level
of forecast. Such forecasts are necessary, first and foremost,
to produce a prognostic model of the phenomenon in ques­
tion, to elaborate the general strategic aim of crime control.
Terms of forecasting
All forecasting is done with the aim of producing a fore­
cast for this or that concrete period or, to use a different
term, time horizon. However in all cases the terms denote
the time between the producing of the forecast and the
appearance of the forecast phenomenon (event). In all cases
forecasting means determining the qualities or state of
a process, a phenomenon, at a future moment in time. There­
fore we can forecast only that which changes in time or in
space. Forecasts in the social sphere may be made for any
period of the future; they are usually measured in years
(short-term), decades (middle-term and long-term) and even
centuries (extra-long-term). Usually forecasts for different
terms are coordinated with one another.
W hen it is a q u estio n of th e p o ssib ilitie s of fo re ea stin g to
influence c e rta in processes in th e n ecessary d ire c tio n , ac co u n t is
ta k en of th e fac t th a t th e fu tu re is in e v ita b ly d iv id e d in to th e
n ea r, rem ote and in d e fin ite ly rem o te fu tu re . As th e n e a r fu tu re
changes in to th e p re se n t, th e p re se n t d a y , th e rem o te fu tu re ta k es
th e place of th e n e a r fu tu re , and th e in d e fin ite ly rem o te fu tu re of
th e rem ote. T he n e a r fu tu re , in w hich th e e sse n tia l co m p o n en ts
of th e rem o te id e a l are a lre a d y a c q u irin g th e fea tu re s of a ta n g ib le
p ra c tic a l goal, y ie ld s fu lly to a c tiv e influence an d th erefo re th e
ap p ro ach to it is c o n stru c tiv e . T he rem o te fu tu re , how ever, and
p a rtic u la rly th e in d e fin ite ly rem o te fu tu re are u s u a lly th e su b ­
je c t of th e o re tic a l fo re ca stin g o n ly . H ow ever, th e o re tic a l fore­
ca stin g of th e course of ev e n ts m u st be acco m p an ied b y th e e la b o ra ­
tio n of a concrete p ro g ram m e of a c tio n . I t m u st alw ay s be borne
in m ind th a t th e p ro d u cin g of fo recasts th a t are useful fo r a
p ra c tic a l p o licy in th is o r th a t sp h ere re q u ire s th e assessm ent of
so-called e x istin g re a litie s n o t o n ly in te rm s of th e final p ro sp ects
for th e dev elo p m en t of th e “o b je ct” , b u t also fro m th e an g le of
th e stag es of th is d ev e lo p m e n t, in c lu d in g th e in te rm e d ia te stages,
th e a lig n m e n t of so cial forces c h a ra c te ris tic of th e se sta g es, and
th e concrete problem s and th e possible a lte rn a tiv e so lu tio n to
them . H ence th e need for fo recastin g for d ifferen t te rm s, o r stages.
T h is a p p lies to a ll ty p e s of so c ial fo recastin g .

Short-term criminological forecasting (up to five years) is of

great importance for determining the tactics of crime con­
trol. Short-term forecasting determines ways in which crime
185
is likely to change in the near future. On its basis short­
term plans are drawn up and corresponding administrative
decisions taken. The aim of short-term forecasting is to pre­
dict scientifically not only (and not so much) the tendencies
and laws of the changes of crime, but also concrete variants
of its immediate future according to detailed indices. Where­
as long-term forecasting, as a rule, embraces only the main,
most essential elements and general tendencies of crime over
many years ahead, and medium-term forecasting is intended
to elucidate real immediate changes (prospects) in fuller
form, short-term forecasting actually “verges” on prognos­
tic research concerning “tomorrow”. Forecasting for a period
of up to five years is subdivided into shorter periods—one
year, two years, etc.
Practical needs are demanding more and more urgently the
production of extra-short-term criminological forecasts—
over twenty-four hours (the so-called operative forecast, used,
for example, in urban and district units of the agencies of
the Ministry of the Interior), over a week (e.g. in connection
with forthcoming public holidays or sporting events in a
town or district), over a month, quarter, etc., up to one year.
Medium-term forecasting (six to ten years) enables us, on
the one hand, to correct the indices of long-term forecasts
and, on the other, to adjust short-term forecasting. Crimino­
logical forecasts for medium terms are close in importance
to long-term forecasts in the sense that they too determine
the strategy of crime control.
Long-term forecasting (ten to fifteen years) has recently
begun to acquire increasing importance. Unlike short-term
and to some extent medium-term forecasting, long-term crim­
inological forecasting is based on an analysis of the most
general social laws of the development of society as a whole,
the laws of the connection of the level and structure of crime
with the level of the socio-economic and cultural develop­
ment of society. Therefore long-term forecasts are less accu­
rate than medium-term, and especially short-term, but provide
a basis for choosing the most promising trends of activity
for the bodies engaged in crime control. It must be borne
in mind that in such forecasts attention centres mainly on
the comprehensive approach to the solution of this or that
problem of crime control.
Long-term forecasting is a most complex problem in the
methodological respect. This complexity is determined objec-
186
tively by the difficulties of taking into account qualitative
changes in the object of forecasting owing to the inner logic
of its development, and to some extent the spasmodic pro­
cesses both of the object itself and of the factors that influence
it, etc. But these difficulties can be overcome if one is
equipped with reliable methods of forecasting.
A t th e p rese n t sta g e of d ev e lo p m e n t of S o v iet so c iety forecasts
w ith a tim e h orizon of o n ly five to te n y ears are a lre a d y in a d e q u a te .
T he ta sk s facin g th e S o v iet U nion are in d isso lu b ly lin k e d w ith
d e te rm in in g how crim e w ill change in fifteen o r tw e n ty y ears
w ith th e dev elo p m e n t of th e so cial s tru c tu re , econom y, d em o g ra p h ­
ic processes, etc. H ere it is m o st im p o rta n t to ta k e in to a c co u n t
th a t th e dev elo p m e n t of crim e can o n ly be ex p la in e d on th e b asis
of a s tu d y of th e d ev e lo p m e n t m ech an ism of th e w hole system of
social re la tio n s. C rim in o lo g ical fo recasts o v er a lo n g period
ah ead should p ro v id e th e s tra te g ic b asis fo r d ra w in g u p five-
y ea r p la n s for crim e c o n tro l. T herefore th ese crim e forecasts are
n o t o n ly necessary, b u t sh o u ld be of an a c tiv e n a tu re . F o r th e y
are in d isso lu b ly lin k e d w ith th e c o n te n t a n d ro le of fu tu re p la n n in g
and d ire c tio n of th e processes of crim e co n tro l. H ow ever, long­
term and ex tra -lo n g -te rm fo recastin g is n o t confined to th e sphere
of crim e, fo r th e “d ev e lo p m en t" of th e la tte r as a su b sy stem of
so c iety as a w hole can be ra tio n a lly e x p lain e d o n ly on th e b asis
of an an a ly sis of th e d ev e lo p m e n t m ech an ism of th e e n tire system
of social re la tio n s.

Long-term crime forecasts are necessary to enable the

crime-control bodies not only to solve this or that question
of today or tomorrow, but to look ahead, devise not only
tactical but also strategic methods of eradicating and elimi­
nating crime. The further elaboration of a line of strategy is
an integral part of the work of criminologists and crime-
control bodies.
The concept of the strategy and tactics of crime control
is indissolubly linked with the theory and practice of criminol­
ogy. By strategy we usually mean a plan of action aimed at
the most effective attainment of a general goal by correct
selection of the main trends and concentration of decisive
forces and means on them. Tactics are the devices and meth­
ods of action used to achieve the set aims. For tactics it is
important to determine the main characteristic of each giv­
en period, to see the link that must be “grasped” in order
to pull out the whole strategic chain, to formulate accurate­
ly the central task of a concrete period and concentrate all
forces on carrying it out. For practical purposes the strategy
of crime control should be set down in documents. The main
187
documents used in elaborating the strategy of crime control
are: long-term and extra-long-term forecasts; long-term
prognostic assessments of other social phenomena; and pro­
grammes and decisions relating to the future.

Methods of forecasting
In criminological forecasting use is made of all general
and individual scientific methods of research. The universal
method of cognition is the main one. Special forecasting
methods, which are also used widely in making criminological
forecasts, may be divided into three main groups: extrapola­
tion, modelling and expert estimates.
Extrapolation. Essentially extrapolation methods form
the basis of all forecasting. In the broadest sense the essence
of extrapolation lies in a study of the history of the object
being forecast and the transfer of its laws of development in
the past and present into the future. In other words, extra­
polation methods are intended for the search for indices of the
future, proceeding from the assumption that the tendencies
of the past and present will continue to operate. Since it was
“so” before and is “so” today, it will be “so” in the future as
well—that is the main (formal, it is true) postulate of extra­
polation. In cases where the researcher does not proceed from
the strict causal connection of the past and present with the
future, when he orientates himself (with “prognostic grounds”
for so doing) on marked changes in the tendencies of
past and present in the future, extrapolation cannot serve
him as a forecasting method.
E x tra p o la tio n m e th o d s are, m a in ly , q u a n tita tiv e m eth o d s.
E x tra p o la tio n is so m etim es defined as th e m e n ta l ex ten sio n (con­
tin u a tio n in to th e fu tu re ) of c e r ta in te n d en c ies and la w s of th is
o r th a t phenom enon o r process. In s ta tis tic a l te rm s e x tra p o la tio n
is d e te rm in in g th e unknow n le v e ls (indices) of a d y n a m ic series
th a t lie beyond its lim its , i.e ., e ith e r fu tu re lev els, or lev els
preced in g th e in itia l one. In m a th e m a tic a l te rm s e x tra p o la tio n
m eans ex te n d in g th e g iv en form of a fu n ctio n from th e d o m ain of
its defin itio n to p o in ts ly in g o u tsid e th is d o m a in . In c rim in o lo g ic al
fo recastin g , how ever, e x tra p o la tio n is u s u a lly done by e q u a lisin g
s ta tis tic a l (dynam ic) series. R esearchers proceed from th e a s ­
su m p tio n th a t th e se t of fa c to rs d e te rm in in g th e te n d en c y of a
d y n am ic series in th e p a st and p rese n t w ill on averag e re ta in its
force an d d irec tio n of ac tio n th ro u g h o u t th e fo recast period. T h is
ap p ro ach is successful if th e te n d en cies and law s of d ev elo p m en t
of crim e are sta b le .

188
 The fact is that crime is not influenced spasmodically.
Not only the development of crime, but also the processes of
influencing this phenomenon are very inert. Of course, extra­
polation methods do not take the modifying influence on
crime of various factors into account. But here the following
must be borne in mind. Firstly, the action of each factor
does not manifest itself immediately (the “delayed” action
of a factor does not influence extrapolation, because the
latter is used, as a rule, to compile short-term criminological
forecasts). Secondly, the continuous nature of the forecasting
process makes it possible to adjust earlier forecasts.
Extrapolation methods are an effective means of organising
the “mass production” of short-term criminological forecasts.
Although a forecast based on extrapolation is an individual
case, a “passive” form of forecasting, it is useful for practical
work. The simple extrapolation, which is often used by the
crime-control bodies, does not imply taking the causes
(and factors) of crime into account. However for short-term
forecasting the assumption that these causes and factors will
remain unchanged (or nearly unchanged) throughout the
forecast period is usually sufficient. All extrapolation pre­
supposes the existence of a certain order in the changes that
are gradually increasing in a certain direction. These changes
take place relatively slowly in the tendencies and laws of
crime. Therefore in compiling criminological forecasts for
a short period one can assume that errors of extrapolation
will be insignificant. With an increase in the forecast period,
however, the number of extrapolation errors increases and
the accuracy of forecasts drops. But even in short-term
forecasting it must be remembered that the use in crimino­
logical forecasting of extrapolation divorced from other meth­
ods cannot produce a positive result.
Modelling. The method of mathematical modelling has
been developed and applied to some extent in Soviet criminol­
ogy, making it possible to introduce the methods of quanti­
tative analysis and calculation into criminological research.
Criminological models that have been correctly constructed
and tested on objective empirical material make it possible
to characterise unambiguously the influence of various social
and demographic factors on the dynamics and state of crime.
Modelling is becoming an everyday instrument in criminol­
ogy, enabling one to work out scientific principles (includ­
ing forecasts) for direction of the processes of crime control.
189
 In modelling, the subjects of forecasting proceed from the
general laws of development of the phenomenon in question
and aim at detecting the most important problems of future
development and the main ways and sequence of solving
them. In modelling we find causal dependencies, the inter­
connections of the individual and the general, and make
use of the general methods and instruments of logic—analy­
sis, synthesis, induction, deduction, inference, etc. More­
over, modelling is used for imitating real processes; it also
enables one to reflect quantitatively the interconnection of
a series of factors revealed by qualitative analysis and to use
the results of relatively autonomous forecasts. The advan­
tage of modelling is that it enables one to abstract those qual­
ities of the forecast object which are inessential in a par­
ticular respect. In other words, modelling makes it possible
to single out certain qualities for study in their “pure form”,
which greatly facilitates the tasks of scientific forecasting,
insofar as a complex phenomenon is often inaccessible to
direct analysis. However, the advantage of m odelling-
singling out of certain qualities in “pure form’7—becomes
a disadvantage if modelling is regarded as a universal means
of forecasting and research in general. This method, like
other forecasting methods, must be combined with other
research devices.
A model is an organic component of every forecast. Any
forecast begins with the mental projection of a phenomenon
into the future and ends with the reproduction of the phenom­
enon in a more or less simplified form as a model, insofar
as the phenomenon does not yet exist in reality. In other
words, as already noted, essentially any forecast always
begins with extrapolation (in the broad sense) and always
ends with a prognostic model. In the broad sense the model
is a simplified form (scheme, description) of a phenomenon
or process. Models are usually constructed proceeding from
the needs of this or that branch of knowledge, the modelled
phenomena being divided into social, psychological, bio­
logical, etc. In this connection, in our view, we can also
speak of criminological models, in particular, those of
a prognostic nature.
A criminologic-prognostic model should reflect the real
process of the “development” of crime. This can be achieved
if the following conditions are observed. Firstly, differen­
tiation of the model in accordance with the objects of the
190
 forecasting; for each of the trends (primary and recidivist
crime, juvenile delinquency, etc.) there should be a special
method of analysis and forecasting and a specific model. The
qualities of each model must be singled out and studied
carefully and the limits within which the model can suc­
cessfully be used must be strictly defined. Secondly, alongside
the construction of individual models a system of models
must be created in a certain hierarchy. However, the con­
struction of the whole must not destroy the specifics of its
parts; a certain autonomy of subsystems is assumed in the
system of forecasting models. Thirdly, forecasting methods
must be differentiated in accordance with the duration of
the forecast period.
The construction of criminological models is useful only
when it is based on a careful study of facts and reliable
theoretical hypotheses.
Expert estimates. The essence of the methods of expert esti­
mates in relation to forecasting is that the forecast is based
on the specialists’ opinion, founded on their professional
theoretical and practical experience. These methods are
usually used when a problem has not been sufficiently studied
for all its constituent elements to be clearly seen or when
it is impossible to apply more rigorous methods. Essential­
ly expert estimates applied in forecasting are informal
forecasts, but experience has shown that these forecasts are
also of high cognitive and practical value. The value of
expert estimates for forecasting is that in assessing an event
a highly qualified expert makes use not only of “official
information”, but also of the information contained in his
experience and intuition. In making an assessment concern­
ing an important scientific (or practical) problem of the
future, a scientist must combine profound theoretical knowl­
edge with intuition and a flexible imagination, for in fore­
casting a great role is also played alongside logical categories
by purely psychological factors, such as intuition and cre­
ative fantasy. In forecasting on the basis of expert estimates
it is essential to possess a rich imagination.

W hen i t becom es necessary to p ro d u ce a fo recast w ith th e

h elp of e x p e rt estim a te s, a p p ro p ria te q u estio n s are alw a y s p u t to
a g ro u p of h ig h ly q u alified ex p e rts, who g ive a decision on th e
b a sis of a d ire c t s y n th e tic ju d g m e n t, w ith o u t a n y c a lc u la tio n s,
an d so m etim es even w ith o u t arg u m e n ts in su p p o rt of th e ir deci­
sio n . T h e a d v a n ta g e of th is ap p ro a ch co m p ared w ith e x tra p o la tio n

191
 and modelling lies in the fact that the latter inevitably do not
take into account certain important factors that cannot be ex­
pressed quantitatively. As a rule, calculations do not take into
account psychological factors, yet the analysis of the latter in
forecasting is extremely important. We cannot do without in­
tuition, fantasy and imagination here.

Frequently in selecting experts the subjects of criminolog­

ical forecasting seek to include as many scientists and
executives as possible. However, it is not always borne
in mind that even a distinguished scientist or executive
is unable to reach a competent decision on many very topi­
cal problems. It is a matter not of the number of experts,
but of their qualifications in a certain sphere. An expert
is a scientist or a practical worker, a highly qualified special­
ist in a concrete sphere, who is invited to solve problems
that require professional knowledge or practical experience.
From the angle of forecasting an expert is a specialist in
a given sphere who produces^assessments and hypotheses
of alternative and possible ways of solving existing or
emerging contradictions and is guided by them in his
activity. He must be competent, above all else. Only then
can we receive the necessary “expert” information.
It is essential not only to select experts correctly, but
also to organise the work with them properly. Here it
should be remembered that there are two, main forms of
consulting experts: individual and group. Both these forms
can be subdivided into written and verbal, consultation
on general and individual questions, etc. The form of consul­
tation is selected in accordance with the tasks of forecasting.
Individual consultation of experts implies the^ use of
questionnaires, interviews, talks, verbal consultation, etc.,
with the aim of obtaining the independent opinion of each
specialist. It totally excludes the collective work of experts,
making it possible to reduce the influence on individual
experts of such psychological factors as persuasive argu­
mentation by others present, reluctance to renounce previous
publicly expressed views, acceptance of the majority opin­
ion, etc. This type of consultation is free of public dis­
cussions, which are characterised by the influence of recog­
nised authorities who have previously published or expressed
their opinion verbally and of the usual attempts by some
members of the discussion to join the majority. Such con­
sultation makes it possible to obtain a series of individual
192
opinions on a concrete question and to prepare “mean
information” on the basis of independent judgements.
Group consultation of experts, or the method of collective
generation of ideas, presupposes thc| direct exchange of
opinions between specialists taking account of the possibil­
ity of each individual expert using the opinions of the
others. Each expert must defend his own estimates, but
he must also be ready to change them if another member
of the group possesses more accurate and convincing data.
However, consultation must be strictly delimited by the
following rules: criticism of statements is not permitted,
assessment of proposals is done later, original ideas are
encouraged, and a large number of ideas are put forward.
Here the dominating influence of the so-called individual
leader on the other experts must be overcome. Each of other
experts must possess and express his own opinion and adopt
an independent position in each concrete case.
In criminological forecasting the expert estimate method
can be recommended for accomplishing the following task
determining a series of alternative versions of the process
being forecast; amending and adjusting forecasts; selection
of the most probable forecast variant, selection of a set
of methods for making concrete forecasts. As the practice
of criminological forecasting has shown, in work with
experts it is important to decide on the size of the group
(committee) of experts, to accept a means of assessing the
competence of experts, and to lay down a definite procedure
of work with them.
The main direction for improving methods of expert,
estimates is the objectivisation of the opinion of experts,
the reduction of all estimates to a single (mean) index.
The sum of expert estimates of a group of specialists is
not a mechanical sum of opinions, but a well-balanced
integral system of views. Of course, experts* estimates are
based on a subjective opinion. For all the community of
views on this or that problem, each expert focuses attention
on the point which he regards as the most essential and
necessary. As a result there arises a divergence of opinions
which is characteristic of the individual experience of
each expert. The point is, therefore, not to regard one
point of view as absolutely true, and the other as absolutely
false, but to establish an objective measure for assessing
all the points of view expressed.
13-01771 193
 It must also be taken into account that in solving
such new and complex problems as crime forecasting the
expert may be a “slave” of his old views. This inevitably
leads to false estimates. The working out of a new problem,
the creation of a new conception presupposes a critical
revision of old view's and possibly their renunciation and
replacement by other views. This alone can lead to discard­
ing the usual means of action. Each expert acts not only
as a continuer of traditions, but also as an abolisher of
them. Otherwise he cannot be an expert.
3. ORGANISATIONAL PROBLEMS AND THE CONTENT
OF CRIMINOLOGICAL FORECASTING

Procedure, subjects and objects

of forecasting
Present-day criminological research requires a knowledge
of the technology of producing forecasts. This technology
includes methodological principles, without the use of
which it is impossible to make forecasts. Today criminol­
ogical forecasts are based on methods approved in practice.
Grime forecasting is done by research institutes, crime-
control establishments, and special teams of scientists and
practical workers. We can say that a system of criminolo­
gical forecasting has been created and a certain amount of
experience acquired in this sphere.
Basing ourselves on this experience, we can detect certain
organisational stages in criminological forecasting.
Stage one. The following are determined: the aims of
forecasting and its time horizon (term); the theoretical
conception of the whole prognostic research and its main
hypotheses; the object and subjects of forecasting; the
content and forms of the forecast; and the methodological
apparatus of prognostic research.
Stage two. Deals entirely with the collecting of infor­
mation necessary for attaining the aims and solving the
tasks of the prognostic research in question.
Stage three. The information is processed and individual
forecasts produced. This is the stage of direct compiling
of the forecast in all its variations.
Stage four. This is the stage of specifying forecasts, ad­
justing forecast conclusions. Should the need arise, forecasts
are revised and even compiled afresh.

I9i
 Stage five. A synthesis is made of all the prognostic con­
clusions and a summary forecast is made.
This procedure, given here in most general form, is
followed by the subjects of criminological forecasting.
The subjects of criminological forecasting are as follows:
crime-control bodies, research establishments engaged in the
study of crime, special laboratories at higher educational
establishments, research centres, etc. The subjects of fore­
casting are responsible for the forecasts that they draw up
and present. Crime forecasts are always presented on behalf
of a concrete body (establishment), the forecasting subject.
Irrespective of the level on which the criminological forecast­
ing is done, its object is always crime, types of crime, or
the behaviour of individual persons (in individual forecast­
ing).
The content and form of a forecast

A criminological forecast is data (prognostic information)

about future crime, its tendencies and laws, condition,
level, structure, etc., a description of the phenomenon in
question (crime) expressed, formulated, with the help of
terms that exclude the possibility of different interpreta­
tions.
The content of a forecast may be complete, insufficiently
complete or incomplete, depending on the volume of infor­
mation used, the methods applied, and the conditions in
which the forecasting process began and proceeded or which
influenced this process.
The form of a forecast is not unchanging. A forecast is
systematically corrected and adjusted, and its form changes
accordingly. In addition at different levels of administra­
tion even one and the same forecast may appear in different
forms. Therefore by forms of criminological forecasts we
should understand not only finished documents drawn up
for a single definite case, but also forms of the concrete
reflection of continuous prognostic activity that is constantly
using new data. In working out concrete forms of criminolog­
ical forecasts it is particularly important to take account
of practical requirements. Some forms may be useful for
the accumulation of prognostic information (for storing it
in a “forecast bank”), but unsuitable for use in planning
and control, whereas others may be successfully used in
everyday practice, but not suitable for storage. The main
13* 195
requirement to the forecast form is brevity of the documents
presented. The forecast report should be supplemented
only by the minutes of the forecast discussion, proposals
for the use of the prognostic information and recommenda­
tions (set out briefly) for measures to ensure attainment
of the aims of crime control at a given stage. Other material
(with data amplifying the forecast) may be presented
periodically should the need arise.
The question of the content and forms of criminological
forecasting is an important one. The realisation of forecasts,
their proper use in direction of the processes of crime con­
trol, depends largely on its correct solution. Therefore the
forecast indices and their interpretation should not be
prejudiced, in particular by earlier decisions, attempts to
vindicate current activity or unwillingness to look ahead.
The terminology used in describing a forecast should be
clear not only to the person who has produced it but also
to those for whom it is intended.

The probabilistic and variational nature

of forecasts
Forecasts of crime, as forecasts of all other social phenom­
ena, are by their nature probabilistic. On the basis of
a criminological forecast we can only assume, with a greater
or lesser degree of probability, that in the future crime
will undergo this or that change, insofar as the laws
of development of crime are mainly statistical laws that
describe ambiguously the determined connections of the
processes and phenomena in question. Criminological fore­
casts can be made precisely on the basis of statistical laws.
The degree of probability of the crime forecast will depend
largely on the number of elements (factors) used in the
forecasting. However the probabilistic nature of crimino­
logical forecasts should not be regarded as a defect. Such
forecasts enable us on the basis of an analysis of the past
and present to consider probabilistic variants of the future
development of crime, and this, in turn, makes it possible
to increase the effectiveness of planning and control, to
narrow the risk, as people sometimes say.
Crime forecasts are also multi-variational, which is
explained by the fact that the initial premises of the forecast­
ing are also multi-variational. A forecast based on considera­
te
tion and “weighing” of past and present tendencies and
laws of crime should yield a set of variants of the future,
from which the appropriate bodies, guided by the criterion
of optimality, choose one that is attainable in practice.
The set of variants increases the reliability of the crimino­
logical forecast. A multi-variational forecast takes into
account the whole spectre of possible changes in future
conditions, new circumstances, etc. As such changes are
detected we can (with the help of a multi-variational fore­
cast) move from one variant to another, retaining the possi­
bility of optimal direction. In other words, given a multi-
variational criminological forecast the subjects of direction
of crime control can choose the most suitable (or most
rational) variant. There is no administration without vari­
ants. Decision-making is the choosing of a variant.
Consequently, unambiguous prediction in the sphere of
social life is not always possible, and not always desirable.
It is essential that forecasts should determine the develop­
ment of a phenomenon not in the form of a single succession
of events, but in the form of a number of variants which
are differentiated and assessed. A kind of “sifting” of variants
takes place, and only the best substantiated and most
probable ones remain. The value of criminological fore­
casts lies not in unambiguous prediction, but in a thorough
and profound analysis of crime as a phenomenon. One
of the features of this phenomenon as a dynamic system
is the fact that it reproduces itself in a certain way, con­
stantly renewing itself and developing with the passage
of time under the influence of various factors. Therefore
criminological forecasts are able to answer only the following
(or similar) questions:
what crime will be like in the future if the existing tenden­
cies and laws of its development remain unchanged through­
out the period forecast;
what crime will be like in the future if the existing ten­
dencies and laws of its development change in the forecast
period in accordance with previously accepted premises;
how great possible fluctuations in the tendencies and
laws of crime corresponding to the different variants of the
criminological forecast may be in the future; what crime
(its tendencies and laws) will be like in the future in rela­
tion to the forecast variant accepted as the most probable.
The essence of the “multi-variational” nature of prognostic
197
information is that it shows the future development of
crime given different logically substantiated premises.
The argument in favour of choosing not one but several
different premises concerning the future development of
crime is again the impossibility of producing absolutely
accurate criminological forecasts. Moreover it should be
borne in mind that the accuracy of a forecast, as already
noted, depends on the degree of accuracy of the formulation
of the aims and tasks of crime control. Insofar as these aims
and tasks (as the aims and tasks of criminological forecast­
ing) are formulated on the basis of profound and comprehen­
sive research we can assume that any permissible error
in forecasting will be insignificant.
A forecast should indicate scientifically the features and
outlines of phenomena, events, connections, and facts,
which are not yet visible today on the surface “to the naked
eye”, but which must be discovered by delving into layers
of experience and knowledge, by synthesising neatly caught,
barely perceptible “threads” of heterogeneous, contradictory
tendencies. A forecast must assume that the future will
be unexpected. It should not be dominated by the canon
of accepted ideas. A forecast must always bear within it
an adjustment “coefficient” that takes this danger into
account. It is essential to see clearly what in a forecast
sphere could cause inert stereotyped thinking and artifi­
cially retain this stereotype in spite of latent, mature and
sometimes obvious tendencies. Consequently it is essential
to bear in mind in criminological forecasting that in the
development (change) of crime as a phenomenon two contra­
dictory processes are usually to be observed: a tendency
to rise and a tendency to fall. Crime is not, of course, created
(and does not develop) according to any plan. But in the
development of this phenomenon positive tendencies must
be reinforced with the help of special administrative deci­
sions, including plans for crime control.
Nor should we forget that criminological forecasts (both
combined and individual) cannot remain unchanged through­
out the period for which they were made. We must remem­
ber, firstly, the need for periodic adjustment of forecasts,
and, secondly, the “destruction” of their indices as a result
of the activity of the bodies controlling crime, the so-called
refutation of forecasts by the active intervention of planning
measures. A distinguishing feature of the crime forecast

m
is that it reveals the future as objectively determined by
preceding development. Therefore the criminological fore­
cast shows future crime not as the subject of the forecasting
wishes to see it, but as it is actually expected to be. If it
is known that the course of events is taking an unfavourable
direction, the need to take measures that could change
it in the desired favourable direction is obvious. But even
if the forecast says that crime will drop appropriate inter­
ference is necessary, for it is assumed that the forecasted
future will not come about without the action of the bodies
engaged in controlling this dangerous phenomenon.
Adjustment of forecasts. As a consequence of inevitable
errors in forecasting (so-called “prognostic noise”) the
accuracy of a forecast decreases, and sometimes with the
passage of time loses its practical value. The errors in
question are caused by many factors, but the main ones
are due to the fact that in real life new things are constantly
emerging (unexpected, chance occurrences). These factors
make it necessary to adjust the forecast. In this connection
we would note two points.
Firstly, the success of all activity based on a forecast
depends not only on the substantiation, authenticity and
accuracy of the prediction, but also on the ability of the
relevant bodies (establishments) to interpret it. At the
same time human initiative and creativity introduce new
elements into life which greatly influence the forecast.
Secondly, because forecasts assume the possibility of the
emergence of the new in the future, not only “chance occur­
rences”, but also something more important may turn out
to be beyond the limits of the forecast. Even with the most
careful forecasting an important factor which was not of
particular significance during the process of forecasting, but
which became important subsequently, can remain outside
the sphere of the forecast. Therefore it is necessary to adjust
forecasts constantly.
The process of criminological forecasting, from the initial
prognostic actions to the insertion of the “final” essential
adjustment, is a kind of cycle of scientific cognition, and
absolute accuracy in any branch of cognition is a practical
impossibility. Crime forecasts can never 'be absolutely
accurate, but this does not exclude Ihe possibility of real
forecasting and the compilation of well-based forecasts.
In the forecasting of social phenomena and processes we
199
must not try to describe the future in detail as if we have
already seen it. We must try to discern the tendencies, laws,
directions and contours of that which is to come. Before
the emergence of an event in social life we cannot foresee
all its details. We must establish the so-called framework
of reality, the “limits of foresight". It is not only right, but
also essential to pose the question of these limits, for the
forecasting of social phenomena is always restricted by
a certain framework. In speaking of the role of criminologi­
cal forecasting we must bear in mind that our knowledge
of crime is relative, incomplete. And the problem of the
accuracy of crime forecasts remains a very real one, of
course. But how can we characterise the concept of “accura­
cy"? In criminological forecasting it is a relative one.
We can speak of the accuracy of crime forecasts in cases
when they coincide with a real event in time (in an interval
of time), when they give the most probable description of
situations, cover most of the parameters of the object in
question and characterise sufficiently fully the future of
the phenomenon, process or event.
The connection of the forecast with the plan
Planning is directly connected with the forecasting that
serves it. Forecasts do not take the place of the plan, but
precede its compilation, being a subsidiary means of plann­
ing. Naturally forecasting cannot be reduced entirely to
“serving" the plan. It also covers the probable consequences
of the planfs implementation or non-implementation.
In other words, on the one hand, forecasting is a preliminary
stage in the compilation of a future plan. It should show
what must be planned and, in particular, substantiate the
new elements that will arise in the future. On the other
hand, the sphere of forecasting is a large one, and its object
is the detection and forecasting of objective processes that
embrace the phenomenon as a whole or its separate parts,
all the aspects taken together. A forecast may actively
affect not only planning, but also all the other functions
of control and control as a whole. Therefore we must not
see the relationship of forecasting and planning as counter-
posed, as alternative approaches to future problems of the
development of this or that social phenomenon. Forecasting
is not an alternative to planning, but its scientific substan-
200
tiation: a future plan based on a scientific forecast is far
more accurate and effective than a plan drawn up without
regard for a forecast. This is also true of the criminological
sphere of planning, of course.
Criminological forecasting is essential, first and foremost,
for scientific planning of crime control. But a forecast
is not a final recommendation or a choice for compiling
a plan; it is only a multi-variational picture of the future.
The inclusion of the data of a criminological forecast in
a plan, however, is a matter for the planning bodies. Obvious­
ly, here the tasks of criminological forecasting and the
planning of crime control “merge”, but planning acquires
paramount importance. However, this too is thanks to
forecasting. A criminological forecast establishes what may
happen to crime in the future, what factors may promote
a drop (or a rise) in the number of crimes, whereas a plan
establishes what should be done in this connection and over
what period, w'hat funds, resources, methods and techniques
should be used, etc. In order to say what is the difference
between a plan and a forecast, in order to provide a correct
description of the connections between them, it is important,
first and foremost, to understand clearly what is the aim
of a plan and what is the aim of a forecast. Generally speak­
ing a forecast determines what may happen and in what
conditions, wdiereas a plan outlines what should happen,
to what, and what must be done to ensure that it does hap­
pen.
A plan is a set of aims and tasks for a certain period
which indicates the means of solving them, whereas a fore­
cast shows how to find these means and define the tasks
themselves. The main thing in a forecast is that it reflects
the objective laws, the inner and outer connections of the
object forecast. The main thing in planning, however, is
that the subject of control influences both the environment
in which the object of forecasting finds itself, and the process
that takes place (from the criminological point of view the
processes of crime control). It is in criminological plans
that the main goals and tasks of crime control are recorded
and acquire the form of directives. A crime forecast enables
us to take a look into the future, to see the outlines of
“future” crime, whereas a plan of crime control enables
11s to give a certain part of the forecast directional form.
A forecast is not a directive, but a plan is.
 CHAPTER VII

THE FORECASTING
OF INDIVIDUAL ANTI-SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

1. THE CONCEPT AND PECULIARITIES

OF FORECASTING INDIVIDUAL ANTI SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

The concept of individual forecasting

Among the complex problems of the individual and his
behaviour a central place is occupied by individual fore­
casting. It is increasingly attracting the attention of repre­
sentatives of many social sciences. Scientists of various
countries are discussing the possibility of individual fore­
casting, the connection of this type of scientific forecasting
with behaviour planning, personality planning, etc. Attempts
are being made to work out “personality development
plans”, to determine the essence of “personality planning”,
to explain the peculiarities of the individual’s behaviour
in different situations, his psychological tendencies, etc.
In connection with the study of individual forecasting
special attention is being paid to working out a set of educa­
tive and other measures to permit the correct moulding
of the individual. This is obviously the main goal of indi­
vidual forecasting.
Sociologists call the organisation of the moulding of the
individual “personality planning”. The basis of this planning
is the forecast which is of essential importance for social
planning and personality planning. This suggests that the
view of the impossibility of individual forecasting is incor­
rect. Nor can we agree with the contention that human
behaviour guided by consciousness is outside the sphere
of competence of science. The point at issue is precisely
the scientific foundations of forecasting individual behav­
iour.
202
 The concept "individual behaviour” is defined in various ways.
Some use it to mean the individual's forecasting of his own behav­
iour, his own actions and their effects. Others have in mind
forecasts worked out in relation to this or that individual. In
both the former and the latter case the term “personality forecast”
is sometimes used. To our mind it would be correct to use the
term “personality forecast” when we are dealing with a person's
forecasting of his own behaviour (actions, acts, etc.); the term
“individual forecasting” is more suitable for the sphere connected
with forecasting the behaviour of a concrete individual by special
forecasting subjects (and not the individual himself). Criminology,
for example, uses it to mean the forecasting of individual anti­
social (criminal) behaviour. This should form the basis of indi­
vidual prevention of such behaviour.

Representatives of different sciences write on the need

for individual forecasting. Forecasts of the behaviour of
the single individual have long since been studied from
the viewpoint of social forecasting too. The problem of
individual forecasting is a fundamental one in criminology.
The need to foresee the antisocial behaviour of individual
persons, to engage in “personality planning” is obvious.
The problem consists of controlling not only crime as
a phenomenon, but also each individual crime as an indi­
vidual human act. Of course, on the basis of various factors
capable of quantitative measurement one can formulate
conclusions on the future development of crime as a phenom­
enon, whereas in relation to individual acts the possibil­
ities for successful forecasting are far more limited due
to the different role of subjective factors which it is hard
to foresee. But this limitation does not invalidate the
problem of individual forecasting. Such forecasting is espe­
cially necessary for the organisation of the individual pre­
vention of anti-social behaviour.

Individual forecasting in criminology

The preventive trend in the work of crime-control bodies

obliges these bodies not only to seek to prevent crime as
a whole, but also to prevent individual crimes, i.e., to act
before a person has embarked on a criminal path. This
makes it necessary to foresee the behaviour of individual
persons, first and foremost, those who have previously been
prosecuted (or are being prosecuted or who are under investi­
gation or serving a sentence), and also those who have not
203
been convicted, but whose way of life is anti-social. Everyone
will agree that the forecasting of possible individual behav­
iour, particularly anti-social behaviour, is a complex
task. However, the difficulties that arise during this may
be overcome by a profound study of the personality, the
mechanism of human behaviour, by a careful examination
of the internal and external factors influencing the indi­
vidual and his behaviour. It is the individual that is assessed,
his past and present behaviour, and his possible behav­
iour in the future is forecast. An individual forecast, like
criminological forecasts in general, is of a probabilistic
nature.
Individual forecasting is the process of foreseeing the
future behaviour of an individual person, and an individ­
ual forecast is scientifically substantiated information
containing a quantitative and qualitative characterisation
of the future behaviour of the individual. The sources
of this information are models of a forecast of the social
behaviour of separate individuals. From the criminological
point of view individual forecasting is foreseeing (scientific
forecasting) the possible (positive or negative—anti-social)
behaviour of an individual person over a certain period of
time. In individual forecasting we are dealing not writh
a single prognostic conclusion, but with variants of possible
future human behaviour. Each person has not a single
future predetermined by someone or something, but a mul­
titude of probable “futures”, of which in the final analysis
only one is realised. The person arrives at this “single future”
as a result of the interaction of different factors. Therefore
the task of the subjects of individual criminological forecast­
ing is not only to predict the expected behaviour of the
individual in the future, but also to establish the factors
(conditions, situations, circumstances) that determine the
most possible variant of his future behaviour. Thus, in
individual forecasting we must speak of the most likely
and possible behaviour of the individual in the future.
The probabilistic approach rejects the theory of the dangerous
state of the individual for whom (if we are dealing with
individual forecasting) there is no difference between “pos­
sibility” and “reality”: that which is possible is bound to
become reality with time. Such a framing of the question
is alien to Soviet criminology, for it inevitably leads to
arbitrariness and lawlessness.
204
 What is the difference between a forecast that determines the
possibility of anti-social behaviour and the “dangerous state1*
theory? First and foremost, it should be noted that these concepts
have nothing at all in common. The establishment of certain
negative social qualities in a personality is regarded by exponents
of the “dangerous state” theory as proof of the existence of a
potential criminal to whom preventive-repressive security mea­
sures should be applied. In other words, the following proposition
is argued: some people, irrespective of social factors, have criminal
tendencies; these people possess an exclusively criminal dis­
position, they have an absolutely anti-social nature, they are
constantly seeking an environment and situations conducive to
realising their criminal intentions and therefore it is inevitable
that they will commit crimes and it is essential that repressive
measures be taken. It is easy to see that the “dangerous state”
theory is both unscientific and reactionary. It is fundamentally
alien to individual criminological forecasting.
Individual forecasting determines the nature of future
behaviour. Future anti-social behaviour (if it has been
established by a forecast) is connected to a certain extent
with the problem of the social danger presented by the
individual. Social danger can be regarded as the possibility
of a new crime being committed in the future by a concrete
person, but only, let us emphasise once again, as one of the
variants of a “possible future”. Soviet criminology recognis­
es the objective possibility of the committing of a crime
in the future by this or that concrete person. This is not
an inevitability, however, but a possibility which may
become reality only in certain conditions, and may not
become reality at all. It follows from what has been said
that the existence of the actual possibility of the committing
of a crime by a person does not require repressive measures.
What is needed is merely a special attitude to preventive
work with the individual.

Control on the basis oj individual forecasting

The tendency of this or that individual to commit a crime
can be neutralised by gradually changing his socio-psycho-
logical qualities in the required direction. The problem
is therefore to study these qualities and explain why the
individual has a tendency to commit a crime. This tendency
should not be explained only by his past life and regarded
as “Fixed”, permanent. It should be represented dynamically.
The ability to commit a crime is “socially controllable”,
insofar as the moral attributes and qualities of the individ-
205
ual on which it is based can be changed, regulated and
orientated in a socially useful direction. The task of con­
trolling individual behaviour consists in establishing the
optimal combination between the condition and develop­
ment of the individual and the interests of the collective
and society, in order to regulate their mutual requirements.
Developing this idea, we might say that controlling or
guiding a person means, first and foremost, determining
his place in the social system, his functions, rights and
duties, his social role. Guiding a person means creating
for him the most favourable conditions for revealing his
talents, for manifesting his initiative and creativity. These
requirements form the basis of control of the behaviour
of persons who are leading an anti-social way of life. Control
in this sphere is based on individual forecasting and is
directed mainly at the formation of socially useful behav­
iour. This is the main aim of such control.
The problem of controlling a person’s behaviour is con­
nected with the construction of “individual behaviour
models”. Science is not yet able to construct a full and
accurate model of a person that reflects his behaviour.
Therefore we can speak only of approximate models. From
this point of view it is useful to distinguish two main ap­
proaches to the construction of prognostic models of social
behaviour: models based on generalisation of “external”
indices of individual behaviour; and models based on a study
of the internal motives and attitudes that form an individ­
ual’s external behaviour. In the former case use is made
of such methods as human behaviour analysis and registra­
tion of factors characteristic of external behaviour, and
in the latter of questionnaires, interviews, talks, etc. When
necessary use is made in both the former and the latter
case of quantitative methods of behaviour analysis. The
study of the individual on the basis of these two approaches
is the basis of individual forecasting. Having established
the connection between the individuals internal character­
istics and the peculiarities of his external behaviour we
can detect the so-called latent qualities (personal interest,
needs, aims, motives, aspirations, etc.). By making use
of other data that distinguish people (sex, age, trade or
profession, education, work and social activity, etc.) we
can construct a model of social behaviour. Such a model
enables us to study the motivation of an individual’s behav-

206
iour from the point of view not only of the past and pres­
ent, but also of the future. There are real possibilities for
constructing such a model.
A profound and thorough study must be made of the system of
factors of an individual's behaviour with special attention being
paid to his needs, his awareness of these needs in the form of
interests, aims, desires, aspirations, to motivation of his actions
(behaviour) and decision-making, to attitude as inner mobilisation,
readiness for action, and action itself. Guided influencing of these
behavioural factors is, in fact, the essence of personality control.
This control is based on the fact that a person's behaviour is the
result of a complex interaction of many circumstances, among
which an important role is played by personality itself. However,
as has already been noted, the moulding of personality, being an
individual process, is at the same time determined largely by
the contact of the individual in question with other people and
his assimilation of the products of their creativity. Consequently,
it is impossible to understand, by studying the individual alone,
what forms the basis of his way of thinking and actions, and,
thus, impossible to influence his behaviour in a purposeful way.
In individual forecasting this connection of types of behaviour
is taken into account. But attention is focused on the peculiarities
of the behaviour of a concrete person. This makes it easier to
solve the problem of individual forecasting and enables us to
forecast a person’s behaviour. Thus the object of control is also
made concrete.

A study of the personality in individual

forecasting
In individual forecasting we must proceed from the fact
that there are two aspects of studying personality: the
theoretical and the practical. The first of these is aimed
at an overall profound study of the personality and does
not set itself any limits, whereas the second presupposes
the collection of the necessary information about the person
in accordance with ready-made, scientifically substantiated
methods which set a necessary limit to the study of the
personality depending on the aims of this study. In the
course of forecasting individual anti-social behaviour it is
necessary to study the individual according to the prin­
ciple: what does the individual want? what is the individ­
ual? what can the individual do? The answers to these
questions embrace the social relation of the individual to
society, to those around him, and to himself. Such a study
of the individual makes it possible to provide a comprehen­
sive evaluation of the behaviour of a concrete person and
207
to ounetli a programme for influencing him in a definite
way. In order to understand and study the future behaviour
of a person it is not enough to know the external, objective
system of his roles. We must also understand their inner
structure, their meaning and value in his own eyes, and
explain the individual’s psychological make-up. This means
a social and psychological study of the man, his personal
characteristics. Great importance should be attached to the
study of motives here. Nowhere does a person so clearly
and fully reveal himself as in his behavioural motives.
Motivation occupies a significant place in the mechanism
of human behaviour, detection of the laws of which enables
us to reveal fully the essence and importance of all other
factors of individual activity. And this is extremely impor­
tant for individual forecasting.
Pasty present and future individualbehaviour. In individ­
ual forecasting the stress is laid precisely on the individual­
ity. General characteristics of the social surroundings are
only a reference point (background) for such forecasting.
Individual forecasting is based on the unique individuality
of a concrete person and the relative independence of his
behaviour, behaviour not in a “fixed” form, but in “motion”
from the past to the present and from the present to the
future. And this already takes us a little away from strict
individuality. In order to focus on past behaviour, to detect
the genetic roots of the present, it is essential to study the
conditions in which the individual developed. These condi­
tions, however, should be assessed from the angle not only
of the past and present, but also of the future.
Individual criminological forecasting proceeds from the
fact that in the absolute majority of cases criminal behaviour
has a “prehistory”. It takes shape on the basis of the con­
stant development of contradictions and conflicts that
have arisen earlier in various links of the psychological
process. Consequently, in order to foresee the future it is
necessary to study the individual’s social status in the
past and present, which includes the circumstances affect­
ing his upbringing, his life in the family, at school and
in the work collective, i.e., the circumstances that charac­
terise his whole career. We must see clearly the line of
human behaviour that runs through all the links of its
different stages. It is this line that determines the main
trend of individual criminological forecasting.
208
 It is necessary not only to look into the future, but also to
understand the past. When a crime is committed, we can try to
reproduce (recreate) the behaviour process that preceded it (the
stage preceding the crime). To do this we have to “pass1*along the
whole chain of cause and effect and find the real data that served
as the initial base, the real cause of the criminal behaviour. And
it will immediately become clear that the crime was committed
not out of the blue, but in connection with preceding behaviour.
It will be clear that there were previously “prepared” prerequisites
for criminal behaviour. But before the crime is committed no one
is likely to “bother” with such an analysis, although the pre­
viously “prepared” prerequisites are there for all to see. The main
task of prevention, which is connected with the analysis of behav­
iour, preceding a crime and with forecasting on this basis, is to
change behaviour well in advance. We must not assume that an
individual's behaviour is unchangeable. A law of the behavioural
process is its plasticity, reshaping of forms, direction and content.
This must be taken into account in individual forecasting and
preventive action on the individual.

In analysing individual behaviour, we can see that the

dialectical interconnection of its past, present and future
is expressed in the following: present behaviour as reality
is not only determined by the past, but also influenced
in peculiar ways by the future. This is so-called material
continuity, i.e., the present “inherits” certain characteristics
from the past, and the future from the present. As a result
of this continuity an interconnection is formed between
past, present and future behaviour. Individual behaviour
is a fusion of the three tenses: the past (tendency of develop­
ment), the present (present characteristics) and the future
(possibilities). However, future behaviour is not a repeti­
tion of present behaviour, and certainly not of past. Future
behaviour often contains a matured rejection of the past
and even of the present. Therefore, in assessing individual
behaviour we must not try to determine its future by auto­
matically transferring to it the features of the past and
present. Future behaviour is a dialectical change of past
behaviour. It must be remembered that individual behav­
iour reproduces itself in a definite way, changing constant­
ly with the passage of time. But it should also not be forgot­
ten that the logic of development of behaviour never mani­
fests itself in “pure” form insofar as there are influences
from without. Consequently, in individual forecasting we
must proceed from a study of behaviour in its “pure” form
to a study of the influences on it from without. A correct
14-01771 209
assessment of all these circumstances taken together will
enable us to compile a scientifically based forecast of indi­
vidual behaviour.

The aim of individual forecasting

The aim of individual forecasting is to predict scientifi­
cally whether or not it is possible that a concrete person
will commit a crime; what circumstances could lead this
person to anti-social (criminal) behaviour; and what could
prevent such behaviour. Obviously another question can
also be asked: whether or not it is possible that a person
will become a victim of crime. To reply to all these questions
is to solve not only the problem of forecasting, but also
to a certain extent the problem of individual prevention of
the different forms of deviant behaviour.
The aim of such forecasting is not to establish whether
this or that person will definitelycommitacrime or definite­
ly not commit it. Forecasting, we repeat, determines the
possible behaviour of an individual in the future with all
the concomitant consequences (positive and negative).
A negative forecast assumes that the person may commit
a crime if certain preventive measures are not taken and
his behaviour is not changed for the better. So it is not
essential that a negative forecast be justified. Nor do posi­
tive forecasts always come true, insofar as it is sometimes
impossible to take the relevant circumstance into account
sufficiently fully. For example, one cannot “foresee” the
committing of reckless crimes.
The tasks of individual forecasting are to detect persons
inclined towards anti-social (criminal) behaviour, to ex­
plain the laws and peculiarities of their behaviour in the
future, and thereby to create the conditions for effective
preventive action on the concrete person. With the help
of this forecasting the prerequisities are created for indi­
vidual preventive work, a concrete system of preventive
measures (in relation to a single individual) is determined
for a period in advance, and well-founded plans of individ­
ual prevention are drawn up.

210
 2. APPLIED PROBLEMS OF FORECASTING INDIVIDUAL
ANTI SOCIAL BEHAVIOUR

Individual forecasting is particularly necessary in the

everyday practical work of the crime-control bodies in the
I’SSR. It should be done by members of the police force
(Soviet militia), people’s courts, corrective labour institu­
tions and, to a certain extent, the Procurator’s Office work­
ers. The prediction of the possible behaviour of each
concrete person done by these bodies has its own special
features. At the same time their prognostic activity has
much in common. The militia, the courts and the corrective
labour institutions exert an educative influence (depending
on the specific nature of their activity) on a concrete person
(offender, criminal) at different periods of his life. In exert­
ing this influence it is important to know not only the
person’s individual characteristics, but also the possible
variants of his future behaviour. This is necessary for
purposive, planned, educative action on the individual.
The educative activity of the bodies controlling crime is
expressed, first and foremost, in the elaboration and imple­
mentation of a system of preventive action on an individ­
ual, and this is impossible without individual forecasting.

Tne preventive role of individual forecasting

Individual forecasting pursues the aim of predicting not
“a ir or “any” behaviour, but only that which is connected
with the need for taking concrete measures in relation to an
individual, the organisation of individual prevention. The
individual forecast is decisive for organising planned work
to prevent possible crimes by certain persons. In this sense
such a forecast can be regarded as preventive. The preven­
tive role of individual forecasting is seen when on the
basis of a prediction anti social behaviour (and in the final
analysis a crime) on the part of a concrete person is pre­
vented, when individual preventive work is analysed in
relation to a single individual. As a result of the activisa-
tion of preventive work an ever growing number of people,
from whom because of their anti-social behaviour one
might have expected the committing of a crime, have not
embarked on the criminal path. Experience shows that
this happens when there is a close connection between
14* 211
individual forecasting and individual preventive work:
whereas the aim of the former is to predict a persons pos­
sible future behaviour, that of the latter is to overcome the
anti-social tendencies in his behaviour, Both these aims
promote the successful crime control.
Individual forecasting should be regarded as a special
stage in the study of the individual, which directly precedes
preventive action. Of course, strictly speaking, this type
of forecasting should not be called the final stage in the
study of the individual, and it is impossible to demarcate
clearly all the stages of theg‘prevention of anti-social behav­
iour—from the detection of a person in need of preventive
action to his being removed from the prevention register.
Prevention forms part of all these stages: the detection
of the person, the study of the individual, and the behav­
iour forecast. But nevertheless individual forecasting
provides information which enables us to place prevention
on a higher level, to direct it towards the future. Moreover,
this forecasting is also continued throughout individual
prevention, adjusting its action, direction, etc. This is
how individual forecasting acquires an offensive nature.
Practice shows that in the process of organising individual
preventive work, in selecting the objects of individual forecasting
one must proceed from the assumption that as a rule it is persons
who lead an anti-social, amoral way of life that are likely to
commit crimes. True, the activity of the crime-control bodies
should include the forecasting not only of unlawful, but also of
lawful behaviour of persons who come to the attention of these
bodies. The latter is essential, for example, for deciding whether
to remove a person from the prevention register. But for the
organisation and day-to-day carrying out of the prevention of
anti-social behaviour the main thing is the compilation of indi­
vidual forecasts in relation to persons who are likely to embark
on the criminal path. It must be stressed that this forecasting
does not mean suspecting all citizens who make a mistake in life
by committing some sort of misdemeanour. This would be a crude
violation of Soviet laws and contrary to the requirements of crime
control. This forecasting is carried out only in relation to persons
whose behaviour is really anti-social and who are in need of
systematic preventive action. Usually such people are on a pre­
vention register. The assumption that this or that person may
embark on the criminal path must he fully substantiated.
Individual forecasting in a court of law. The courts have
long since tended to make use of individual forecasting
in their work. It is essentially on the basis of the prediction
of the future behaviour of persons that such questions as
212
the release and expunging of the record of conviction, con­
ditional release from punishment before the expiry of its
term, etc. are decided.
The court should regard forecasting the behaviour of an
accused person as one of its main tasks, in the belief that
each sentence of the court or decision of a public body for
the administration of justice is a kind of forecast: whether
the measure adopted can correct the offender and what can
be expected from its implementation. Such a forecast is
the subject of criminal-law science, an indication of the
effectiveness of state educational measures. One of the
trends for improving the activity of the courts is the working
out of prognostic directives, which will give the court
or the institution cooperating with it an opportunity to
individualise the sentence. At the moment of decision-
making the judge should possess abundant material provid­
ing a basis for studying the accused, the reasons why he
has deviated from the right path, and for forecasting his
behaviour. In short, individual forecasting should promote
the individualisation of punishment. In the trying of a crim­
inal case the judge and the court as a whole perform two
functions: 1) passing juridical judgement as to the presence
or absence of corpus delicti in the defendent’s act of com­
mission; 2) a forecast which should be made in determining
the punishment, the colony regime, etc.
In assigning punishment the court, as we know, does not
take revenge on the criminal for the act he has committed,
but applies a punitive measure which is capable of cor­
recting the guilty person and deterring both him and other
persons from future crime. In so doing the court takes into
account that the aims of crime prevention can be achieved
only if the persons concerned are aware of the inevitability
of punishment by lawr. Consequently, the main tasks of
the courts in controlling crime are, firstly, to ensure the
inevitability of punishment and, secondly, to prevent new
crimes in the future. The solution of these tasks depends
largely on the correct organisation of forecasting in court
practice. It must be remembered that present-day theoreti­
cal and practical requirements have confronted the judge
with new and complex tasks. Now he cannot confine himself
lo “simply” assigning punishment, taking into account
“purely” juridical requirements. Today, when the modern
Soviet judge knows (and must know) not only law, but
213
also psychology, pedagogics, sociology, criminology and
other sciences, he is obliged to study the personality of
the guilty person in each concrete case sufficiently fully
to forecast his behaviour, albeit in the near future. A study
of the personality of the criminal is becoming an integral
part of court proceedings and the problem of assigning
punishment (determining its type, length, etc.) is not
only to determine correctly, according to a strictly “juridical
scheme”, the punitive-educative measure (which is, of
course, extremely important), but also to study and explain
the concrete causes and conditions that “led” the person to
crime, the motives for his action, his past and present
life, the situations in which he found himself, his environ­
ment, his aims, strivings, intentions, moral and psyc­
hic forces, state of health, etc. The problem is to
establish the connection between all these characteristics
from the standpoint of the past, present and future and
to determine possible behaviour variants of the defendant
(guilty person) in the immediate future —in fact to make
an individual forecast. After having completed all this
work, the judge will be able not only to take the necessary
preventive measures to eliminate unfavourable situations
in the guilty person’s life in future, but also to apply a truly
effective measure of punishment (within the law). These
measures will be well-grounded from the angle of scientific
forecasting too.
The prognostic conclusion on the possible future behav­
iour of the guilty person may be reflected in the motivating
part of the sentence. This would reinforce the responsibility
of the court for the decision taken and improve court prac­
tice in the sphere of individualisation of punishment. As we
know, the principle of individualisation of punishment is
enshrined in criminal legislation. It corresponds to the
aims of punishment, the success of which depends on the
extent to which the peculiarities of the crime committed
and the personality of the accused are taken into account
in the assigning and executing of the sentence. Essentially
the court selects the kind and amount of punishment and
the type of corrective labour institution not only in accor­
dance with the principle of individualisation, but also
on the basis of foreseeing the guilty person’s possible behav­
iour in the future. The sentence sums up the whole preced­
ing work of exerting an educative influence on the offender
214
throughout the investigation and hearing of the case, and
also outlines the process for his correction and re-educa­
tion in the future.
Individual forecasting in the activity of corrective labour
institutions. Whereas a judge who is working on a forecast
of the behaviour of a person has only a short time to study
the material of the case and have talks with him, a worker
in a corrective labour institution has far greater possibili­
ties in this respect: observation of the convicted person
is carried on over a long period and his behaviour, actions,
attitude to the crime committed and to his penal regime
work, etc. are analysed. The convicted person in a corrective
labour institution is (should be) known to everyone, from
the section head to the teachers in the general education
school and the workshop foremen. Each worker can express
his opinion (a kind of expert assessment)* independently
on the possible behaviour of the convicted person in the
future both during the serving of his sentence and after
release from the corrective labour institution. The generali­
sation and assessment of these opinions may be represented
as an “expert” individual forecast.
In fact corrective labour institutions have been making
use of individual forecasting for a long time in their practi­
cal activity. “Reformed, will not commit a new crime,”
is what their workers usually write in proposals for a condi­
tional release from the punishment before the expiry of
its term. This is actually a forecast of the convicted person’s
behaviour after he has been released from the corrective
labour institution (ahead of time, consequently, a “confi­
dent” forecast). In individual forecasting it is always impor­
tant to determine the period (the range of the forecast).
Surveys in a number of corrective labour institutions have
shown that individual forecasting requires a prolonged
study of the behaviour of the convicted person, taking
into account his acts not only in recent times, but over
a long period in the past. It has also emerged that many
factors influence the accuracy of the forecast. Firstly,
a profound and comprehensive study of the individual
from the viewpoint of various branches of knowledge is
necessary. Secondly, prognostic research should be started
long before the question of releasing the convicted person
from the colony is decided. Thirdly, the period for which
the behaviour is being forecast must be known. Fourthly,
215
character references of the convicted person must be obtained
for the period not only of his stay in the corrective labour
institution, but also before his conviction. Fifthly, one
must know (albeit in general outline) the circumstances,
conditions, in which the convicted person will find him­
self after release.
Interesting data have also been obtained concerning the
factors taken into account in forecasting individual behav­
iour: the more factors are taken into consideration, the
more effective the forecast will be. However this does not
mean that we should strive to take account of as many
factors as possible. There is a definite limit at which the
number of factors taken into consideration does not change
or hardly changes the qualities of the forecast for the bettor.
It is important to determine, first and foremost, the “weight”
of each factor-.
Individual forecasting is of great importance for rein­
forcing the results of the correction and re-education of
convicted persons. Workers in corrective labour institu­
tions who have studied the individual peculiarities of
a convicted person can do a great deal to determine the
subsequent life’s path of this person. It is particularly
important to establish “continuity” between the corrective
labour institution, on the one hand, and the state institu­
tion and the public in the locality where the released per­
son is going to reside, on the other. This means reinforcing
the results of the punitive-educative action and carrying
out preventive measures with persons released from correc­
tive labour institutions. Such work must be planned. Conse­
quently, it is essential to compile forecasts of different
kinds, including individual behaviour forecasts. Here,
obviously, social control must be considered.

Forecasting and social control

The effectiveness of social control can be increased with
the help of individual forecasting. Firstly, a forecast will
help social control to be more effective. On the basis of
a forecast individuals in special need of control can be
pinpointed. Secondly, a forecast can reveal the “uncontrol­
lable” actions of the individual, thus widening the sphere
of social control. Thirdly, the aim of control is to encourage
the individual to respect universally accepted values (of
216
society, individual collectives), and a forecast, by taking
account of the changing behaviour of the individual in the
future, determines the possible ways of inclining the indi-
vidua! to normal behaviour. Fourthly, with the help of
a forecast we can determine (in general outline) the effects
of social control on the behaviour of a concrete person.
In all cases when we are dealing with the prevention of
anti-social behaviour, a forecast plays the role of an “indi-
cator” for the proper direction of social control. Obviously
preventive social control cannot be divorced from preven­
tive individual forecasting.
 CHAPTER VIII

THE CONCEPTION OF SOCIAL PREVENTION

AND THE LIMITS OF ITS FUNCTIONING

1. DETERMINING THE CONCEPTION IN RELATION

TO THE CONCEPT OF SOCIAL PREVENTION

What is social prevention? Does this term merely conceal

an attempt to give a new name to old and very familiar
things or does it really express a new conception in the
understanding of the history of social development, the
history of sociology and law, criminology? To my mind,
the word “conception” is most appropriate here. It means
a system of views of particular phenomena, a way of looking
at them, the understanding of certain processes; it is a basic
point of view, a guiding idea for the elucidation of the
questions studied, a constructive principle for this or that
type of activity. Social prevention, strictly speaking, is
not so much a scientific discipline as a definite point of
view on what is most important in the system of combating
the various anti-social acts. The conception of social pre­
vention, elaborated by the collective efforts of the repre­
sentatives of different social sciences, is a great creative
contribution to the theory and practice of crime control.
What is the essence of the conception of social prevention
and what is its significance? Firstly, this conception is
of fundamental importance for understanding the nature
of the fight against anti-social acts in the present 'day.
Secondly, by deepening our view of the fight against anti­
social acts it serves the further concretisation of theory,
of Marxist-Leninist teaching on the negative phenomena
that exist under socialism. Thirdly, the conception of social
prevention not only deepens our view of anti-social acta
218
and the fight against them, but also reveals the dimensions,
complexity and multiplicity of the tasks that arise in this
light. Fourthly, it provides a theoretical substantiation for
ways of overcoming negative phenomena under socialism.
Fifthly, the conception of social prevention reveals the
essential features and peculiarities of the main stages in the
future trend of the preventive activity of society, of the
state.
Being a generalisation of the experience of the relevant scien­
tific and practical activity, the conception of social prevention is
an achievement of collective thinking. There can be no creative
development aimed at the “construction” of conceptions without
the study and generalisation of experience—both theoretical and
practical. It is this experience, “changed” into a conception, that
nelps us find reliable ways of fighting anti-social acts. However,
theoretical research is developing and practical work improving,
and this will inevitably bring new experience, thereby enriching
the conception of social prevention. But looking for new forms,
ways and means does not mean ignoring accumulated experience.
The conception of prevention exists and will develop.
It should be noted that the actual conception of social
prevention is closely linked with the essence of the fight
against anti-social acts. The study of the theoretical and
practical aspects of this fight should be done in such a way
as to cover this complex branch of activity fully and compre­
hensively. And this means an analysis of the “preventive
aspects” of all the social and some of the natural sciences
and the various types of social practice in close unity.
The foundations of the conception of social prevention
lie in the brief, but extremely important and accurate
definitions contained in the writings of the classics of Marx­
ism-Leninism. Hero we find an extremely precise expres­
sion of the many aspects of social prevention. In the broad
sense, however, the content of the conception of social
prevention extends beyond these definitions. In practically
all Party documents and the writings of social and some
natural scientists, when they deal with questions of social
development, social relations, the moulding of the individ­
ual, education, etc. we find the “elements” which constitute
the conception of social prevention. All this is concretised
(and concentrated) mainly in the works of sociologists and
jurists, psychologists and educationalists, sometimes in
medical writing, and particularly in criminological writing.
The conception of social prevention is expressed most
219
vividly in criminology. For this reason it is sometimes
called the “criminological conception of social prevention”.
But this name is to some extent conventional.
We have not tried here to reveal the content of the con­
ception of social prevention, for it finds expression in the
following chapters of the book.

The general concept of prevention

Social prevention is the prevention of offences, of anti­
social behaviour. It has a social basis. It belongs to the
universal, “pivotal” categories of the criminal-law sciences
and holds an important place in the relevant conceptual
apparatus.
Prevention is characterised by a complex inner structure
and varied expression in the state-legal and social sphere
of society. But the main, essential feature of prevention
is that it is aimed at not allowing offences (or crimes), at
preventing anti-social (or criminal) behaviour. This consti­
tutes the “quintessence” of the concept “social prevention”.
Nevertheless, it is seen in many aspects, through the prism
of the system of theoretical and practical demands made
on the various spheres of the life and activity of society
and the state. This explains why prevention is analysed
from the angle of the mechanism of social and legal regula­
tion, the social mechanism of its “own” action, its social
value and social justice, the forms and methods of acting
upon members of society, its administrative nature, etc.
Consequently this concept is a collective, complex one.
In characterising the concept of social prevention on
a general plane, we can say that by prevention we mean
systematic, purposive, preventive action on individual
citizens leading an anti-social way of life, which is applied
both in their own interests and in the interests of society.
Prevention is a specific form of social activity, which may
be divided into two aspects: practical-reformative and
scien tific-theoretical.
Prevention as a type of theory. As we know the theory of
social prevention has been created over many decades,
comprising the elaboration of individual problems, the
formulation of concepts, definitions, etc. Today it has the
features of a well-developed theory in keeping with the
methodological demands of modern science. This theory
220
has already attained full maturity. It has worked out its
own “instruments” and its own categorial apparatus.
The emergence and development, the active “functioning”
of the theory of social prevention reflects increasing specia­
lisation in this area, constantly developing preventive
activity, both reformative and theoretical. This is yet
further proof that prevention can and should be seen not
only as a type of practice, but also as a theory, as a con­
ceptual system of scientilic knowledge obtained in the gene­
sis of practical reformative activity aimed at combatting
anti-social acts, in this case social prevention is a definite
set of ideas, conceptions and scientific hypotheses that
accumulate knowledge on the relevant activity of the state
and society.
Prevention as an academic discipline and as a teaching
subject. Social prevention is now a separate (special) academ­
ic discipline. This course has been introduced in a number
of higher and secondary educational establishments in re­
sponse to the requirements of crime control. Prevention is
defined as the main trend of this control. The teaching of
this course in higher and secondary educational establish­
ments (the course has different names in different establish­
ments: social prevention, prevention of offences, crime
prevention) is the result of the high demands which the
Soviet state is making on the prevention of crime and
ofiences. In recent years this academic law course has found
a place in the system of academic disciplines training spe­
cialists capable of qualified preventive activity. Prevention
has become a separate teaching subject. This subject over­
laps with many other academic disciplines and is reflected
in the selection of appropriate teaching material. It would
be more precise to call this subject (academic discipline)
“the social prevention of anti-social behaviour”. This name
is in keeping with the special purpose of the course in
question. It also reflects a broad social approach to the
problems of crime control.
The special purpose of the academic course of social
prevention to train the necessary personnel enables one
to characterise it both as a theoretical and as an applied
academic discipline.
The applied aspect. The content of social prevention as
an academic discipline includes the body of knowledge
employed in practical activity. At the same time, social
221
prevention can be represented as a complex interdisciplin­
ary course.lt has two main groups of interdisciplinary con­
nections. It employs the methods of other sciences, for
example, philosophy, political economy, and scientific
communism, although the subjects of these sciences do not
bear directly upon social prevention. The other group is
directly connected with the subjects studied by other dis­
ciplines, say, criminal law, criminal procedure, criminalis­
tics, corrective labour law, which is reflected in the pres­
ence of overlapping problems, common tasks and main aims.
By stressing that social prevention is an applied discipline,
the aim of which is to help solve practical problems,
we do not mean that a social prevention course can be
characterised solely as an applied academic discipline.
On the contrary, we wish to emphasise the theoretical aspect
of social prevention too. There can be no successful activity
in the sphere of crime control without the theoretical general­
isation and theoretical interpretation of this activity.
Here it is essential to proceed from the dialectical unity
of the theoretical and applied aspects of social prevention.
The point of departure in the whole course of social pre­
vention as an academic discipline is the theoretical con­
ception.
Prevention as a type of practice
Preventive activity is carried on, as has already been
noted, in two most general (main) forms—the theoretical
and the practical. Thanks to the practical activity the
theory of social prevention acquires an external existence,
as it were, or, in other words, the right to exist as “living”
theory. Therefore an analysis of the category of “practice”
enables us to make it real, perceptible. Here it should be
borne in mind that social prevention is not only a certain
connection of ideas, theoretical propositions, but the prac­
tical activity of the corresponding subjects in certain con­
ditions. It is a kind of synthesis of two conceptions, the
theoretical and the practical. The former is transformed
during the process of social prevention into the latter,
determining the various trends and types of preventive
activity in practice. That which we conventionally call
the practical conception covers the whole process of the
organisation and carrying out of social prevention—con­
trol, planning, forms, methods, etc.

222
 Prevention is a special type of social practice that ensures
the transformation of social relations as a result of which
the conditions (causes, factors) which promote deviant
behaviour are eliminated or neutralised. It is aimed in
particular at the different objects of preventive action.
The actual process of transformation, action, is the practice
of social prevention. While possessing its own specific
features this process relates only to the sphere of social
relations that manifest themselves owing to the emergence
of various forms of deviant behaviour and the realisation
of measures to overcome (prevent) such behaviour. It is
this what distinguishes prevention from other types of
social practice.
The dialectical unity of preventive theory and practice.
Thus, we can speak of two aspects (types of activity) of
social prevention—the theoretical and the practical. How­
ever, in singling out these aspects to facilitate theirconsid-
eration, we must know that taken together, they form
that which it is customary to call social prevention as
a whole. Here we must proceed from the following: theory
differs from practice because it is the spiritual, mental
reflection and reproduction of reality; at the same time
it is indissolubly linked with practice, which presents
knowledge with pressing tasks and demands their solution.
Therefore the practice of social prevention and its results
in generalised form are an organic element of the theory
in question. This is what characterises prevention from the
point of view of its unity.

The various types of social prevention

All prevention, evaluated from the viewpoint of its ulti­
mate aim, is social, for the behaviour of a person (people)
is determined to a great extent by the social surroundings.
Without studying the latter, it would be difficult to go
further than superficial description. Going deeper into the
broad social sphere, however, and studying the various
anti-social acts, is like descending into a volcano, the bed
of which is seething with the forces of soc al life.
This is why social prevention plays such a large part
in crime control, in the prevention of anti-social behaviour.
For all the importance of administrative and legal measures,
the decisive role in overcoming anti-social phenomena is
223
 played by social prevention, the elimination of those con­
crete economic and social factors that in some way or other
support the existence of moral anomalies.
Social prevention is often called general social preven­
tion, a reference to the general (in the broad sense of the
word) system of social regulation of social life, the direction
of social processes. In this connection it should be noted
that general social prevention is the all-round development,
of those factors in socialist society that are not directed
specially to the elimination of the causes of offences (includ­
ing crimes), but promote the solution of this task by creat­
ing positive conditions that exclude or at least reduce the
action of the relevant factors (criminogenic included).
In other words, general social prevention covers a broad
sphere of economic, political, ideological, cultural, everyday
and other social measures which are aimed at performing
the tasks of communist construction and also promote the
elimination of the causes and conditions of crime. Here it
is a question not of the direct, but of the indirect influence
of social prevention on the so-called criminogenic environ­
ment. Actually, in such cases it is a matter not of the pre­
vention of offences (crimes) but of the system of social
prevention as a whole. The elements of this system are the
different (individual) types of prevention. One such type
is the prevention of anti-social (criminal) behaviour.
The objective foundations of successful social prevention
lie in the very nature of socialist society and the socialist
state. The steady advance of this society, the improvement
of the socialist state system, inevitably lead to a develop­
ment of social relations that signifies the victory of all
that is new and progressive, that has been established as
a result of overcoming contradictions with the old and
obsolete. It is this, first and foremost, that promotes the
steady elimination from the various spheres of society of
phenomena (factors) that in certain conditions act as diverse
causes (and sources) of anti-social acts. Moreover this
or that trend in social prevention (e.g. the prevention of
anti-social behaviour) can be seen as one of the types of
the internally uniform activity of society that is aimed
at preventing the violation of social norms, including moral
and legal ones. In such activity economic, political, ideolog­
ical, moral, legal and many other factors are intertwined.
Therefore in reality social prevention acts as an extremely

224
 complex system, the content of which is made up of many
different elements. These elements, which form blocs,
constitute corresponding trends of preventive activity.
They are usually divided into two main trends: moral
prevention and legal prevention. Their close interconnec­
tion is evident.
Moral prevention is directed, on the one hand, against
those social phenomena that determine the violation of
the norms of communist morality. On the other hand,
this prevention acts as a means for the correct social orien­
tation of members of society, a reliable moral compass and
stimulus of behaviour. The preventive function in the
activity of the various institutions working for the establish­
ment of communist morality is realised by means of the
propaganda of moral principles and values that produce
a certain type of assessment of people and place the aspira­
tions, motives and attitudes of each member of society
under the control of public morality. The main aims and
tasks of moral prevention are: to develop in members of
society the moral ability of self-regulation, the proper
assimilation of moral norms, and unswerving guidance by
these norms in their behavioural acts and actions. Moral
prevention is a condition of the successful prevention of
anti-social behaviour.
Legal prevention is directed toward the prevention of all
breaches of the law. This is what determines its social value.
Born of the need to control crime and enforce the law as
a whole, legal prevention plays an important role in the
life of society. Here we can speak not only of preventive,
but also of law-enforcement activity. Their content is the
detection and elimination of causes of offences, i.e., the
prevention of breaches of legal norms, the detection and
elimination of offences, and their control. Depending on
the type of offence against which the preventive measures
are directed, one can pinpoint the line of preventing civil,
administrative, financial-economic offences, etc. Criminal-
law (or criminal) prevention is a special type. This, in
fact, is the prevention of criminal behaviour.
The system of criminal-law prevention consists of the fol­
lowing: prevention carried out within the framework of
criminal law, criminal-procedural prevention, criminalistic
prevention, corrective-labour prevention, etc. The main
element in this system is criminological prevention. All
U -01771 225
 other preventive trends belonging to the so-called criminal
sphere, for example, “operative investigational prevention”,
are individual (special) types of preventive activity and,
as a rule, form part of the content of criminalistic, crimi­
nal-procedural or corrective labour prevention.
A special feature of criminal-law prevention is that it
is aimed directly at preventing criminal behaviour, at
detecting and eliminating the causes and conditions of
such behaviour, the circumstances that arc conducive to it.
Such prevention is carried out in relation to persons who
have committed crimes or attempted to do so, persons
inclined to such acts by virtue of their anti-social behav­
iour, and persons in need of correction and re-education
(convicted persons).Therefore elements of coercion predom­
inate in measures of criminal-law prevention compared
with general social prevention. Hence also the scope of
this prevention: it is relatively limited, first and foremost,
by the applicability of the corresponding legal norms.
Criminological prevention is carried out in a specific and
relatively narrow sphere of social life—in the sphere of
crime control. But without entering the broad social sphere,
without manifesting its social essence, this prevention, like
all other types of criminal-law prevention, remains merely
form devoid of content. Criminological prevention, as
a component part of general social prevention, is organically
linked with moral and legal prevention. In other words,
it is linked with the various forms of deviant behaviour,
anti-social included. Therefore criminological prevention,
which belongs to the juridical sphere (for it is connected,
first and foremost, with offences, particularly crimes) and
is at the same time social in its content, belongs to the
sphere of economics, demography, psychology, pedagogics,
the sociology of work, the family, everyday life, the sphere
of such juridical sciences as civil and family law, civil
procedure, labour law, etc. Thus a ramified system of pre­
vention with many aspects and levels is formed. But it is
a system of criminological prevention, and its specific
nature is determined by the specific object of its action—
crime. This prevention is aimed at combatting the sources
of the processes (phenomena, factors) that determine crime.
Hence its specific nature.
Thus, criminological prevention is a most active form
of social activity. This type of activity is characterised as
226
 an integral process that goes on in social life. Criminological
prevention is rightly called the social prevention of anti­
social (including criminal) behaviour.
Special prevention. As we have already seen, in its most
generalised form the prevention of offences (including
crimes) is ensured by the whole development of Soviet
society, its economy, ideology, culture, etc. However, an
essential component of this social process is specialised
activity for the prevention of anti-social (including crimi­
nal) behaviour, namely, special prevention. This purposive
activity rests on the state bodies and public organisations
whose special function is the prevention of crimes and
other related offences. By special bodies we mean in this
case the agencies of the Ministry of the Interior, the Procu­
rator’s Office, the justice, the courts and certain public
organisations (formations)—the voluntary people’s squads
for the protection of public order, prevention committees,
etc. Prevention at the special level covers measures directed-
ly aimed at preventing a crime. Such measures differ from
measures at the general social level by their special func­
tion and purpose: the solving of preventive tasks constitutes
their whole content. It can be said that special prevention
is the concretisation of general social (including moral and
legal, of course) preventive measures. For its special imple­
mentation special methods, devices and means are neces­
sary. This is particularly true of the preventive activity
of the agencies of the Ministry of the Interior. It is activity
with a special purpose, if we might put it like that.
However special prevention is so called not only because
it is specially directed at achieving certain aims with the
help of methods characteristic of special bodies, but also
because it demands special and even professional knowledge.
This is connected with the training of personnel capable
of carrying out special prevention, the prevention of crim­
inal (anti-social) behaviour.
There is a connection between the special and other types
(variants) of prevention. This is particularly true of crim­
inal-law prevention. It can be successful only when spe­
cial prevention “operates”, and, conversely, special pre­
vention cannot be effective if there is no criminal-law
preventive action. This line of connection runs through
all the trends of preventive activity—from general social
to special prevention.
15 * 227
 2. SO C IA L PREVENTION IN THE SYSTEM
OF MEASURES FOR CRIM E CONTROL

When theorists, as well as practical workers, discuss

crime control, alongside the term “prevention” they use
such words as “deterrence” and “suppression”, in some
cases to mean the same thing, in others different things.
Let us state from the outset that all these terms do not
exclude one another. They are more similar than different.
As we know, ten or fifteen years ago social practice in the
USSR did not demand the strict definition of these concepts. Today
the situation is quite different. The sphere of crime control, and
consequently the closely related prevention of crime and offences,
is becoming the subject of direction, comprehensive planning,
not only short-term planning covering the next five years, but
also long-term over a considerable period. And this, of course,
requires the detailed consideration of a number of questions and
the precise employment of terms. Therefore we must clarify the
meaning of the prevention of crime and offences (crimes) and of
the deterrence or suppression of crimes. In which direction should
we guide crime control? We must concretise these definitions and
concepts. And we must bear in mind that they (the concepts in
question) were formed as a generalisation of the experience of the
historical development of criminological thought, the relevant
social practice and scientific knowledge. But we must remember
also that this experience has not provided us with ready-made
definitions suitable for all occasions. Nor could it have. Marxism
teaches us that “where things and their interrelations are con­
cerned, not as fixed, but as changing, their mental images, the
ideas, are likewise subject to change and transformation; and they
are not encapsulated in rigid definitions, but are developed in
their historical or logical process of formation”.1 This applies
also to the terms or definitions in question. Each of them has a
certain semantic function. We shall attempt below to explain the
content of each of them.
Crime control is a very broad concept. It covers the whole
work of the CPSU, the state and the public which is aimed
at protecting the interests of socialist society, its organisa­
tions and citizens against criminal encroachments, the work
directed towards the gradual eradication of criminal acts
and the elimination of crime. Everything belongs here,
from the drafting of criminal legislation and its enforcement
to reinforcing the results of the correction and re-education
of persons who have committed crimes. Consequently, the
system of crime control includes: the detection of crimes
1 Karl Marx, Capital, Vol. Ill, pp. 13, 14.

228
 and of criminals, the investigation of crimes, the assign­
ment of punishment and execution of sentences, procurator-
ial supervision of this activity, and law enforcement
in the sphere in question. Thus, here the prevention, deter­
rence and suppression of crimes merge. But the main thing
is the detection and elimination (eradication) of the causes
and conditions of crime, the circumstances conducive
to the committing of crimes. Crime control is carried on
by the various measures for preventing thissocially danger­
ous phenomenon. Here we find an intertwining of two
concepts—“crime prevention” and “crime control”. To our
mind, the latter is broader than the former. The content
of crime control includes all the relevant types of activity
without exception, including crime prevention. Crime
control may be interpreted as the corresponding policy.
The analysis and demarcation of certain important con­
cepts is not only of theoretical, but also of practical signifi­
cance. It is necessary, first and foremost, for the proper
organisation of crime control.
The concept of the control of offences is broader than that of
crime control. They are defined proceeding from the relationship
of the concepts “offences” and “crimes”. This also applies to the
concents “prevention of offences”, “deterrence” and “suppression”.
Usually the concepts “prevention of offences” and “prevention of
crimes” correspond to the concepts “prevention of anti-social
behaviour” ana “prevention of criminal behaviour”.
The terms “prevention” and “deterrence” of crime are
used as synonyms. However, it should be borne in mind
that crime control is an activity that has many levels.
Therefore the equation of these terms obscures the full
complexity and specific nature of the different trends of
crime control, the essence of each trend.
Crime prevention. This concept may be interpreted in the
narrow (criminal-law) and in the broad (socio-political)
sense. Basically, by criminal-law prevention in the tradi­
tional and narrow sense we mean the institution described
in the terms of the corresponding sciences, the demands of
which are put into effect mainly in the process of the assign­
ment and execution of punishment. In general it can be
*aid that the idea of the prevention of crime runs through
the whole system of criminal-law institutions. However,
the practice of crime control in modern conditions shows
that in defining this concept it is essential to proceed from
?29
 a broader standpoint—socio-political, economic, ideologi­
cal, etc. Such an approach makes it possible to formulate
the concept of crime prevention in the broad sense, which
includes different (by no means relating only to the law)
measures by state bodies and public organisations, by
society. Here we are dealing with the prevention of crime
as a phenomenon.
In speaking of the content of the concept “crime preven-
tion” (in the broad sense), we would note that it denotes
the essentially objective process of the eradication of crime
as a socially dangerous phenomenon. The foundations of
this process lie in the profound socio-economic transforma­
tions that have destroyed the exploitation of man by man,
class antagonisms, national inequality and enmity, and
established the principle of public ownership of the means
of production. This means the elimination of the basic
social cause of crime. As socialism develops, opportunities
are increasingly arising for abolishing the negative pheno­
mena (sources, causes, conditions) that engender crime.
Today the content of crime prevention is a science-based
set of state and public measures of influencing negative
factors that promotes the eradication of this socially dan­
gerous phenomenon. Here we are dealing with the preven­
tion of crime as a phenomenon. Moreover account is taken
of the historical nature of the process of crime prevention,
its objective foundations and the role of the subjective
factor in accelerating this process. It is here that the special
feature of the concept under review manifests itself.
Briefly the concept “crime prevention” may be defined
as follows: it is a category denoting an historically developed
system of objective and subjective prerequisities for the
elimination of crime, and also a set of state and public
measures aimed at eradicating this phenomenon and the
causes and conditions that engender it. In this case crime
is regarded as a social phenomenon. Therefore crime pre­
vention is a social process that reduces, limits and elimi­
nates the phenomena that give rise to crime. In its most
general form crime prevention is ensured by the sum total
of measures aimed at developing and perfecting socialism.
Prevention of offences. The process of crime prevention
includes the most varying types of preventive activity.
One such type is the prevention of offences (crimes). The
prevention (and in the final analysis elimination) of crime
230
 as a phenomenon always presupposes the effective preven­
tion of offences. Here, however, we must define the concept
(prevention) both in the narrow and in the broad sense
of the word.
In the broad sense it is the prevention of concrete crimes,
the deterring of individual members of society from commit-
tingoffences, indictable unlawful acts of commission which
are crimes; it is activity aimed at preventing breaches of
norms of law, in particular, of criminal law (criminal
legislation). In this sense the content of prevention also
includes law-enforcement activity, i.e., the detection and
elimination of crimes. In the narrow sense prevention can
be understood as, firstly, the detection and elimination
of the causes of crimes (offences) and the conditions and
circumstances that promote their committing, and, second­
ly, the detection of persons who are likely to commit a crime
(by virtue of their anti-social inclinations) and the applica­
tion of the necessary measures to them. Together these
two concepts form the single content of the concept “preven­
tion of crimes” or “prevention of offences”. We shall proceed
from this concept.
But what is the relationship of the concepts of crime pre­
vention and prevention of offences? In what do they resem­
ble and differ from each other? Whereas the concept of crime
prevention is used to denote both the objective prerequisites
for the eradication of this phenomenon and the subjective
factors of its control, the concept of the prevention of offen­
ces expresses only a special activity. In all its fullness, how­
ever, this activity is characterised as the conscious, pur­
posive process of preventing all breaches of social norms
(including moral, legal, and criminal-law norms). This expla­
ins why we speak of the social prevention of deviant (includ­
ing amoral, illegal and criminal) behaviour. Thus, the
prevention of crime should be regarded, on the one hand,
in connection with the general process of eradicating the
phenomenon in question and, on the other, in connection
with the need to carry on preventive activity. An analysis
of its content enables us to regard the category of “social
prevention” as the most important component of the process
of crime prevention. The relationship of the concepts of
prevention of crimes (offences) and crime prevention may
be represented on the philosophical plane as the interconnec­
tion of the part and the whole, the particular and the gene-
231
 ral. The whole (general) is crime prevention, and the part
(particular) is prevention of crimes.
However, consideration* of these concepts at the level of
individual prevention ofrcrimes has its own special fea­
tures. They are connected with the study of such definitions
(terms) as “deterrence” and “suppression”.
The deterrence and suppression of crimes. Prevention of
crimes at the individual level includes social prevention,
deterrence and suppression. In this sense the concept of pre­
vention is a collective or complex one. The earliest stage of
preventive activity aimed at preventing a crime on the
part of a concrete person, individual, is social prevention.
When it is not sufficiently effective the need arises to deter
or suppress the crime.H owever the concepts of deterrence
and suppression, from the point of view of individual crime
prevention, often appear to be identical, although they
have different nuances. We must now examine
them.
As we know, however quickly a crime may be committed,
it is never a single act in time, but is a complex system of
acts and actions by the guilty person both before, during
and after the crime. To these acts and actions (and to the
actual crime itself) must be “added” the aims, motives,
intentions, etc. The crime “matures”, as it were, in the indi­
vidual’s consciousness and behaviour. At the earliest stage
of “maturing” social prevention (educative, and perhaps
also coercive measures) is essential, and then (if these mea­
sures do not yield results) when the idea of committing a cri­
me appears (the decision and process of its taking), the centre
of gravity of preventive work shifts to deterrence. Individ­
ual prevention should begin before a decision is taken and
be coordinated rather with the aims and motives of criminal
behaviour, with the beginning of the process of decision­
making, than with the decision itself. At the same time, in
many cases the decision taken is not carried out immediate­
ly, and so there are objective possibilities of influencing and
altering the decision, of changing the direction of the indi­
vidual’s behaviour. And it is deterrence that promotes this.
Suppression is used, as a rule, when it is a question of stop­
ping something that has already begun, for example, a
crime. Consequently, to suppress a crime is to exclude to­
tally (by stopping an action that has started) the completion
of the event. The whole of this process (from social preven-

232
 tion to suppression) is what constitutes individual crime
prevention.
Crime is sometimes of an impulsive (emotional) nature.
Its features arc the situational commission of the act, its
suddenness, and sometimes even an absence of obvious mo­
tives. But even in such cases a crime is not always an in­
stantaneous act. It is a very lengthy process if we are speak
ing of the possibilities of social prevention, deterrence and
suppression, i.e., prevention. Insofar as a crime is always a
process that develops in time, the main way of controlling
it is to intervene in the process in good time, not to allow
its development, to stop it. When we are successful in
doing this at the “necessary” stage, we save a person from
committing a crime. Life shows us that the “transition”
from non-criminal to criminal behaviour is a process in
which “crime factors” and “crime resistance factors” interact.
A kind of struggle takes place between criminal and non­
criminal behaviour. This struggle (contradiction), at first
relatively moderate, becomes increasingly acute if it does
not experience the “influence” of deterrence and suppression.
Without deterrence and suppression this struggle between
the processes of “crime formation” and “crime resistance”
results in a criminal act, i.e., a criminally punishable deed.
One sometimes hears the view that the suppression of a
crime that has already begun does not in itself ensure pro­
found preventive consequences, but that here the law-
enforcement bodies, when they begin to act, find the crimi­
nal intent, the preparation, ready and, most importantly,
the matured readiness (intention) to commit the act. Howev­
er this is not quite so. Firstly, the suppression of breaches-
of the law (including crimes, of course) at the outset or the
“matured readiness” to commit them is necessary, first and
foremost, to protect law and order, the interests of society,
citizens and organisations. Here, evidently, we must see the
preventive effect. Secondly, suppressing a crime certainly
does not mean belated work with a person in the sense that
we can now expect nothing good from him. To suppress a
crime in good time is to restrain a person (and perhaps also
other persons connected with him) from further criminal
behaviour.
To our mind, the deterrence and suppression of crimes is
the subject of operative investigational activity. It may
even be the main aim of such activity. Social preventive
233
activity is carried on together with deterrence and suppres­
sion, promoting a solution of the tasks of preventing crimes.
This is special social prevention.
3. THE SPHERE OF SOCIAL PREVENTION
AND THE LIMITS OF ITS FUNCTIONING

An approach to the definition of the sphere of social pre­

vention. Society is a complex social organism, in which all
its spheres, by interacting, significantly influence the course
of social development. To overlook here the sphere that we
call preventive, and, particularly, to deny its existence,
would be a grave error. Naturally, all the spheres of social
life “overlap” in practice. Therefore it is very hard to explain
the concept “sphere of social prevention”, as also the narrow­
er concept “sphere of prevention of criminal behaviour”,
and to demarcate the borders (limits) of these spheres and
establish the ways in which they differ from other spheres
of social life. But it is essential. The sphere of prevention
differs from the other spheres of social life. It is a kind of
system that has its own “set” of components (sub-systems).
It is, first and foremost, preventive activity itself, that is
carried out within the limits of operation of the system of
prevention as a whole.
Analysing the problem from the philosophical viewpoint,
we can say that social prevention is social relations. How­
ever, it is not simply social relations, but relations between
the subjects (the state and society as represented by their
bodies, organisations and some individuals) and objects
(individual members of society, certain social phenomena) of
preventive action. The sphere of this prevention, therefore,
is composed of clearly expressed relations. Their regulation
has certain special features. The specific sphere of this pre­
ventive regulation is human behaviour, and the essential
condition of its being carried out is a realisation of social
values, the acceptance of what is proper, obligatory, as the
self-imposed obligation, an inner behaviour motive. The
difference between social prevention and the other ways of
regulating social relations is that it successfully performs its
functions only when social norms become the person’s own
possession. Obviously, proceeding from these considerations,
we can determine the sphere of prevention of the different
forms of deviant behaviour.
234
 The sphere of social prevention
of offences
This sphere is extremely wide, especially if one bears in
mind the real opportunities and dimensions of general
social prevention. Social prevention is extending its “ter­
ritory” more and more. This is explained by the large num­
ber of subjects and enormous set of objects of prevention,
the everyday nature and variety of preventive work. But,
having extended the limits of its application and intervened
in the solution of many highly important social problems,
the prevention of anti-social behaviour is becoming the
subject of careful study by philosophers, sociologists, econ­
omists, medical and many other specialists. It is extending
beyond the framework of the juridical field to the broader
horizons of state and public life, expanding its sphere and
scope of functioning. This is taking place as society grows
increasingly intolerant of offences.
It is essential to have a clear picture of the whole sphere
which the social prevention of anti-social behaviour touches
upon, to see the whole spectre of problems that arise from
this. The carrying out of this prevention, control in this
sphere, is of a concrete historical nature. The limits of this
control, i.e. of conscious comprehensive preventive action
on the appropriate objects, its content, aims and principles
depend on the social relations that predominate in the socie­
ty, on the nature of the socio-political system. And it is
this that delineates the limits to which prevention can ex­
pand. We are not dealing with a fixed circle of regulators.
Evidently we should speak not only of the tremendous
possibilities of social prevention in solving problems of
eliminating offences (crimes), but also see more clearly its
limits, that are determined by the range of social relations.
These relations are formed from the diverse state and public
activity aimed against elements in the social environment
that promote the survival and revival of criminal (anti­
social) manifestations, the development of an individual
who violates the demands of social norms, including crimi­
nal-law norms.
The social prevention of anti-social behaviour is, thus, a
special sphere of social relations in which the social (moral
and legal) values predominant in society are expressed most
clearly.

235
 The place of social prevention in the system
of social development
The science, theory and practice of social development
shows convincingly that the problem of social prevention
cannot be solved in isolation from the system of social rela­
tions, from the society in which a person lives and according
to the laws of which his principles of activity are formed.
It is particularly important to bear this in mind today,
when social life is becoming more dynamic and social connec­
tions and relations are differentiated, which naturally
leads to changes both in the objects of prevention and its
methods. Today social prevention is increasingly acquiring
the quality of a general social regulator of social relations.
This tendency is connected with the steady democratisation
of social life and the growing proportion of decisions taken
consciously by people on the basis of correctly understood
public and private interests. However, one frequently finds
contradictions between people, between the individual and
society, which are opposed to social development. It is im­
possible to overcome them without social prevention. Thus,
they are a special object of its action, an object which
undoubtedly forms part of the system of social development.
As already noted, the process of social development inevi-
iably contains certain contradictions. The consequences of
tome of them may turn out to be undesirable for society and
sn turn lead to results which are a breach of social, moral
and legal norms, and the norms of criminal law. It is pre­
cisely this type of problem that should be thoroughly ana­
lysed from the standpoint of social prevention. We are
dealing with the prevention of undesirable consequences
engendered by the contradictory and complex nature of
social development. This also shows that social prevention
should be considered in the system of social development.
It appears as a special form of regulating social relations.
In the carrying out of prevention the people who exert the
preventive action and those who receive it inevitably enter into
all sorts of social relations: economic, political, ethical, moral,
legal, socio-psychological, etc. Their mutual relations are influ­
enced by the social system, the status of the subject and object of
prevention in society and their social (national, family, profes­
sional, etc.) relations. These factors leave their mark on the
actual process of preventive activity. The subjects of prevention
pre interested not only in the object himself, but also in his socia

23(5
 relations, his social conditions. In this case the aim and tasks of
prevention acquire a special quality—to study a person’s social
relations, not only the person himself and the act he has committed.
The object of prevention is studied, so to say, in the sum total of
the social conditions in their present state and historical develop­
ment. The aim of prevention becomes the influencing of these
relations in the interests of making them more “healthy”. Therefore
we must take as the object of preventive action both the person
and his social relations. Deviant behaviour in this case will be
seen not only as an individual process, but also as a social phenom­
enon which takes place within the system of social development.
It is impossible to exert a preventive influence on people without
changing their social conditions and if the influence of everyday
working and living conditions on their behaviour is ignored.
Consequently, without changing an individual’s social conditions
we cannot hope for success in preventive work. Even if there are
results at some stage of the preventive action, the person, after
returning to his usual, former conditions, will come “knocking
at our door” again. It is particularly important to bear this in
mind in individual preventive action.

Thus, social prevention presupposes the regulating of

various social relations that arise in this sphere. A most im­
portant regulator here is preventive activity. With its
help the demands of social norms (ethical, moral, legal,
etc.) are realised. In practice this means the possibility,
and at the same time the need, for the functioning of the rel­
evant social institutions helping to overcome vestiges of
the past in society, reinforcing the elements inherent in
mature social relations, and supporting the new and pro­
gressive. Here it is important to stress once again that pre­
vention promotes the genesis and development of relations
that meet the requirements of the state and society. At the
same time it serves as an effective means of overcoming re­
lations that are undesirable for the state and society. Pre­
vention eliminates relations that are incompatible with the
essence of our society. Consequently it should be seen in
the system of social development.
The problem of overcoming the “negative” effects of the con­
tradictions of social development. An absence of antagonisms,
i.e. unity in the main things, does not exclude the existence
under socialism of contradictory phenomena and tendencies
that lead to negative consequences, and even to a clash of
interests between individuals and society. It must be noted,
however, that in Soviet society every legally capable per­
son is granted considerable freedom in the choice of deci­
sions. This so-called sphere of individual autonomy is char-
237
 acterised by the fact that a person himself determines the
most rational variant of his behaviour, commits acts at
his own free will and discretion, conforming to the require­
ments of society and various social norms. The coincidence
of the main public and private interests is an objective con­
dition of the cultivation in Soviet people of a considerate
attitude, first and foremost, to public interests. And if
individual people clash with society, it means they have
placed their own interests above public interests. But under
socialism on the whole the tendency toward the unity and
overlapping of the interests of society, social groups, collec­
tives and individuals is in evidence. This is the result of
a lengthy process of development of social relations. It has
resulted in the public interest becoming the supreme crite­
rion for the social assessment of human behaviour under
socialism. Private and group (collective) interests may be
met under socialism only through serving public interests.
But here too contradictions arise. The forms of their mani­
festation are most varied. Therefore the problem of over­
coming such contradictions has a multitude of aspects. In
any case, however, the solution of this problem is of great
importance for successful social development.
Historically Soviet society is progressing towards the opti­
mal coordination by overcoming the contradictions between
the individual and society, and between the different aspects
of human activity. Contradictions are overcome not spon­
taneously or automatically, but as a result of many-sided
educative work. The problem is to overcome contradictions
between people, the individual and society by coordinating
the comprehensive development of all with the comprehen­
sive development of each. Consequently we have to see
that the number of such contradictions is increasingly decrea­
sed and the sphere of their operation reduced to a minimum.
However contradictions between the individual and so­
ciety can only be overcome through educative action on the
individual. This action presupposes the application of mea­
sures of coercion, as well as of persuasion. It is here that one
can see the place and role of prevention. It manifests
itself most clearly when the tasks of combatting violations
of social norms are being tackled, particularly those of
crime control.

238
 Prevention as a form of resolving
the contradictions between the individual and society

By regulating in specific forms the relations between the

individual and society, social prevention influences a per­
son’s behaviour both for his own sake and for the sake of
public interests. This role of social prevention stems from
its inherent preventive-regulatory function: to prevent the
negative and encourage the positive social relations, and to
promote the improvement of society as a whole, of all its
members, and of each person in particular. Prevention aims
at excluding deviant behaviour and thereby creating condi­
tions of normal existence for the individual and the devel­
opment of society. The behaviour of members of society is
assessed from the viewpoint of public and state interests and
requirements. Depending on this assessment society and the
state react accordingly to people’s behaviour, and in the
final analysis with the help of social prevention behaviour
acceptable to all is formed. Thus prevention promotes the
development of new relations, takes part in their formation,
and actively stands in the way of relations opposed to the
progressive development of society. Here it acts as a form
of resolving the contradictions between the individual and
society.
By acting in this way preventive activity demonstrates
its protective function. In protecting (defending) the inter­
ests of society, it makes use of measures of persuasion and
coercion.
However, in connection with the carrying out of preven­
tive action required to resolve the contradictions between
the individual and society, other functions of prevention
important in this respect come into play. By analogy with
law we can, for example, speak of the regulative static func­
tion and of the regulative dynamic function: the former
strengthens the relations between the individual and so­
ciety which have been reached at this or that stage of pre­
ventive activity, and the latter ensures their further improve­
ment and development up to the complete resolution of
the contradictions between the particular individual and
society. From this viewpoint it is permissible to talk of the
special social value of prevention. For it exists mainly to
protect private and public interests.
239
 The functions of prevention
In defining the place and role of social prevention in the
system of social development, we must not overlook the
problem of its functions. A variety of functions is character­
istic of prevention. The main ones are ideological, educa­
tive, protective, regulative, and prognostic. All these func­
tions are closely interconnected.
The regulative function. In all periods of social develop­
ment the main function of prevention has been to regulate
people's behaviour in accordance with the social (moral and
legal included) norms and principles in which the interests
of society are expressed. We have mentioned above the
regulative static and regulative dynamic functions. In re­
gulating the behaviour of members of society, social pre­
vention actively realises its own direct function—the pre­
ventive function. This runs through all the functions of
social prevention without exception. It is connected with
the fact that the aim of prevention is to deter forms of de­
viant behaviour. In this way it serves the interests of people
and society.
The protective function (the function of defence). The main
purpose of this function is to guard (protect, defend) public
interests and social values, the society and the state, against
breaches of social, moral and legal norms, and particularly
against crimes. The defence function characterises all pre­
ventive activity. It is very closely linked with observing
socialist legality in the prevention of anti-social behav­
iour.
The educative function. The purpose of prevention is main­
ly not to coerce, but to persuade, i.e., not to punish and
then to correct and re-educate, but to educate with the aim
of preventing deviant behaviour, an offence or a crime. Pre­
ventive work, by deterring deviant behaviour, is called upon
to cultivate in people a sense of civic duty, responsibility to
society for their behaviour. The educative function takes
prevention into the sphere of ethical, aesthetic, moral and
legal education.
The ideological function. It must not be forgotten that in
the struggle against vestiges of capitalism in the consci­
ousness and behaviour of members of Soviet society all
activity of social importance acquires an ideological slant
in the final analysis. To assess it from the viewpoint of
240
 communist ideological commitment, of its value to the
cause of building communism, is to show the class, Party
approach. All the bodies and organisations engaged in pre­
vention are invested with ideological functions. They en­
sure the general ideological trend of preventive measures,
substantiate their content ideologically, and correctly de­
termine ways, means and methods of all preventive work.
The prognostic function of prevention amounts to the
accumulation of material on the state of crime, including
prognostic material. This material helps to analyse the
present state of crime and determine how it will develop in
the future. The prognostic material accumulated by preven­
tion is used to determine the main trends of crime control
in the future and to draw up concrete plans for this work,
including long-term plans, to coordinate current and long­
term tasks of crime control and the development of preven­
tive activity itself.
The experience of preventive activity accumulated in the
Soviet Union shows convincingly that under socialism the
role of the organisation of social prevention is growing.
iVforeover a distinguishing feature of this type of activity
is the comprehensive solution of the relevant problems.
In this connection the organising function of prevention has
acquired new content. Today in the process of social pre­
vention such tasks are carried out as control, for which
analysis and forecasting are essential. Considerable mea­
sures are carried out to improve planning, particularly com­
prehensive planning, and to apply advanced experience and
scientific achievements in practice, and such questions as
specialisation are being solved. Today the analytical func­
tion plays a special role.
We can speak of other functions of social prevention too.
However, the main functions of prevention, which we have
already mentioned, characterise its social purpose and prac­
tical value. Prevention itself is a social f unction of the state
and society.
It is obvious that prevention must carry out social orders
from the state and society. For the objective social need for
controlling offences also means the objective social need for
preventing anti-social behaviour. It is a question of the so­
cial need for the system of prevention, for basing the con­
trol of offences on a broad social approach, so that this con­
trol itself is seen as a comprehensive social task posed by

1C —0 1 7 7 1 241
 the Soviet state and society. Consequently it is they who
issue the social order for the carrying out of prevention.
Engendered by the needs of the state and society to eradi­
cate offences, prevention plays an important role in ensuring
the people’s “social health**. Under socialism it is an objec­
tive reality. And its social value is growing from year to
year.

The social trend of prevention

In performing its functions, regulating people’s behaviour
and preventing it from deviating from the requirements of
society, prevention acquires special social significance,
thereby becoming (and quite rightly) a highly important
social problem. Prevention is indeed penetrating the social
sphere more and more insistently. It is increasingly acquiring
a social tenor and, obviously, in this connection its effective
ness is growing and its social significance increasing, along­
side, of course, its responsibility to society for the state of
public order. Why is this “sociologisation” of prevention
taking place? Is the legal aspect being forgotten? Why are
we speaking of the social, and not of the legal significance
of prevention?
The fact is that the posing of the problem of prevention
is, first and foremost, the posing of a social problem. And
as we know the posing of any problem is an essential condi­
tion for its solution. Nevertheless prevention is not “purely”
social. It aims at preventing breaches not only of social and
moral norms understood in the narrow (literal) sense, but
also of legal norms, including the norms of criminal law.
In the broad sense all these are, first and foremost, social
problems (for legal norms are part of the system of social
norms), and their solution presupposes certain social, not
“purely** juridical conditions. There is an enhancement, as
it were, of the social significance of the legal problems of
prevention, which in no way lose their juridical nature, but
on the contrary, make it more pronounced, and do so (para­
doxical though it may seem) due to their social importance.
The legal problems of prevention are becoming socially
justified, socially just and socially valuable. It is the social
problems of prevention that are “changing** its legal prob­
lems into a social blessing. Herein lies the social strength
of prevention. This is why we speak of the social significance
242
 of prevention. And this is why we refer to its social conse­
quences. All problems of prevention should be seen as a
component part of social problems.

The aims, tasks and significance

of social prevention
Here we must say a word, first and foremost, about the
aims of the social (general social) prevention of anti-social
acts and deviant behaviour in general. Therefore we must
proceed from the fact that the aim of socialist society, or
to be more precise, its supreme aim, is the all-round and
harmonious development of men, the maximum satisfaction
of people’s needs. This aim in socialist society acts as an
integral relation, as the main trend in the regulation of all
spheres of life (economic, social, political, cultural, and
legal) and of all socio-economic, political and other forma­
tions (the state, industrial collectives, public organisations).
This joining of the aims of different spheresof life and struc
tural units into a single common aim is the most impor­
tant advantage of socialism. Under socialism the main aims
of the development of the whole society and the aims charac­
teristic of the individual spheres of social development
coincide, corresponding directly with one another. For the
task of the moulding of the new7 man is being solved in all
the “cells” of society. Consequently social prevention is also
one of the spheres of the moulding of the new man. It pro­
motes the education of man free from vestiges of the past,
ideologically convinced and politically conscious, the ac­
tive builderof the new society. This is its ultimate aim. From
it proceed all the other aims of preventive action on mem­
bers of society.
The overcoming of deviant (anti-social, criminal) behav­
iour is not an aim in itself. While seeking to deter such
behaviour, social prevention does not confine itself to this.
It aims at ensuring that each person understands the correct­
ness of social (moral, legal, including criminal-law) norms
and implanting in his consciousness the need to observe
them. At the same time social prevention also pursues an­
other aim—that of constantly increasing a person’s activity
and responsibility. However, to do so it is essential for
preventive work to influence the individual’s consciousness
even more effectively. The aim of prevention is to act upon
16 * 243
 persons leading an anti-social way of life. Consequently,
prevention is work with people, with each concrete per­
son.
The aims of preventive action are concretised depending
on the objects and the subjects of prevention.
What are the aims of this action? They are to remove the
objective prerequisites of anti-social (criminal) behaviour
and to change the consciousness of persons inclined to com­
mit offences (crimes), to remove their contradictions and
conflicts, and to exert a positive influence on their views and
beliefs. However, more concretely it can be said that the
aims of the prevention of oSences are: firstly, to limit the
influence of negative social factors, which, although lying
outside the sphere of crime, are interconnected with its
causes, conditions and circumstances; secondly, to act on
the causes of criminal phenomena, and also on the conditions
and circumstances that promote these phenomena; thirdly,
to exert a preventive influence on the negative factors of
the immediate social environment (micro-environment) of
the individual, which form the anti-social attitudes and
motivation of criminal behaviour, and fourthly, to act on
an individual capable, by virtue of his anti-social way of
life, of committing a crime or continuing criminal activity.
The latter refers mainly to persons convicted of crimes. But
this problem has certain special features connected with the
aims of assignment and execution of the punishment.
It is easy to see the specific nature of the aims of the pre­
vention of offences (crimes). It helps us to distinguish this
type of activity from other trends in social prevention from
other means of crime control.
The tasks and significance of the prevention of offences
stem from the afore-mentioned aims. The tasks of such pre­
vention are as follows; the systematic detection and analysis
of the phenomena (processes, factors, causes, conditions and
circumstances) that are conducive to crimes; the identifica­
tion and study of contradictions and conflicts that lead to
the emergence and realisation of criminal intentions, and
also to the formation of the offender’s personality; the con­
stant detection of persons who can be expected to commit
crimes; the active influencing of these persons; and the remo-
al or neutralisation of phenomena promoting anti-social
behaviour. However, these general tasks, like the general
aims of prevention, are concretised depending on the levels,
244
 types, forms and trends of preventive activity. In each case
specific tasks are tackled.
Tackling the tasks of prevention involves the exertion of
comprehensive preventive action. Therefore the effectiveness
of preventive work depends on how these tasks are carried
out.
We can speak of different types of tasks in the prevention
of offences: organisational, which include various elements
(administrative, informational, planning, coordinative, con­
trol), legal, the so-called temporal (short-term and long­
term tasks), territorial, which concern separate regions or
countries as a whole, etc. Usually the type of task corre­
sponds to certain aims. For example, short-term tasks corre­
spond to the short-term aims of prevention, and long-term to
long-term. This is how the system of aims and tasks of the
prevention of anti-social behaviour is made up.
The significance of prevention is determined, in the first
instance, by the fact that it is the most humane means of
crime control, a means which envisages education, the deter­
rence of members of society from crime, rather than punish­
ment. Prevention assumes that it is easier to prevent an
offence than to allow it and then eliminate it. Thi6, of
course, also characterises prevention from the point of view
of its significance. The prevention of offences is fully in
keeping with the requirements of social justice. It promotes
the improvement of “the quality of life”, “the health of the
social organism of society”, it “cleanses” society of all harm­
ful elements, and all this vividly characterises its social
significance.
 CHAPTER IX

THE SYSTEM OF SUBJECTS

AND OBJECTS OF SOCIAL PREVENTION

1. SUBJECTS OF SOCIAL PREVENTION AND THEIR GENERAL

CHARACTERISATION

The prevention system. Under socialism prevention is not

an abstract schema, but a definite system with principles of
construction and functioning that have a very concrete aim.
In taking all steps to eliminate negative phenomena, society
and the state effect prevention through the “operation’* of
this system. Generally speaking the system consists of the
objects and subjects of prevention that appear in the form
of sub-systems, i.e., sets of elements connected by interac­
tion and by virtue of this forming a single whole. Here the
prevention system is assessed from the standpoint of sys­
tems analysis, which assumes that each element of any
system is described with due account of its placed and role,
its construction hierarchy, the presence of sub-systems (first
and foremost, the sub-systems of subjects and sub-systems
of objects). This in turn makes it possible to speak meaning­
fully of the organisational structure of the prevention sys­
tem. It is the organisational structure that reflects the sys­
tem as a whole and its individual parts. It also embodies a
certain stability of the connections between the subjects of
prevention (within the framework of the system of these
subjects) and “confines” them to corresponding objects (sys­
tem of objects). The question inevitably arises of the con­
tent of prevention (methods, steps, measures, types and
forms) and of ensuring preventive activity by appropriate
means (organisational, material, the so-called human, legal
and many others). All this makes it possible to ensure “the
246
operation mechanism” of the prevention system as a whole.
Prevention itself (in the form of a system) becomes a control­
lable process. In this sense we speak of the administration
of preventive activity.
Thus, the prevention system is formed by the subjects of
prevention, the objects of prevention, the content of preven­
tion, and theensuringof prevention.Thissystem is, of course,
a social one. And every social system manifests itself,
its activity in the process of functioning and development.
This manifestation should be an adequate reflection of the
nature of the system. The prevention system is subject to
the general laws of political, socio-economic, scientific and
technological development, the laws governing the develop­
ment of the state’s political system, but it also has its own
laws of development. They manifest themselves not in iso­
lation, however, but in interconnection with the laws of de­
velopment of other social systems. Consequently, we can
speak, firstly, of the dialectical unity of all social systems,
and, secondly, of the peculiarities of each of them which
make it possible to examine this or that system independent­
ly. But this “autonomy” is relative.

The system of the subjects of prevention

All activity presupposes an agent—a subject. In the case
of the transforming activity (from the global point of view) of
society (the state), the subject of this activity is society
(the state). By taking a certain direction and manifesting
itself in a specific sphere, this activity acquires its “special”
subject (or subjects). Here the general social is transformed
into the specific. And this is how the special subject (sub­
jects) appears, leading its own “life” and having its own “lan­
guage”, its own laws of behaviour, etc., but acting on be­
half of society (the state). In the same way the subjects of
social prevention are formed. They represent a special “ac­
tive wholeness” and therefore have their own definite status.
Usually in such cases it is a system of subjects (the sum
total of bodies, establishments and organisations that car­
ry out preventive activity), each of which possesses its own
specific features and performs definite functions. However,
preventive work seen from the angle of its national impor­
tance is carried out not only by individual bodies or organi­
sations, but by Soviet society as a whole. Each of its links
247
 must contribute to the common cause. The most important
subject of preventive activity is the Soviet state (all its
bodies in some degree or other). General supervision of this
work is carried out by the Communist Party of the Soviet
Union. It unites and directs the efforts of state bodies and
public organisations, coordinating their activity to this end.
Thus the supreme principle of Party guidance is realised.
The general assessment of subjects. According to estab­
lished rules, thesubjectsof social prevention are: state bodies
and establishments, public organisations and formations,
officials and other workers—the representatives of these
bodies, establishments, organisations and formations, and
also individual citizens. The subjects of prevention are ass­
essed together as the corresponding system. This is their
general assessment. However, alongside this they are subdi­
vided into groups. They are classified according to different
features: the bodies and organisations which supervise,
guide, and coordinate preventive activity; the bodies, orga­
nisations and establishments which directly perform preven­
tive functions and organise preventive measures; and sub­
jects that differ in the scale of the prevention carried out by
them—the country as a whole, republics, territories, regions,
etc. But in a general assessment of the subjects of social
prevention, particularly in their classification, we must take
into account other circumstances as well that enable us to
classify bodies and organisations in homogeneous groups.
Here the following must be taken into consideration.
Firstly, all the subjects of social prevention differ from
one another. However, they function, of course, not in iso­
lation, but in interconnection with one another and have a
kind of hierarchy. Although they differ in their concrete
tasks, scale (dimensions), level and forms of activity, they
are connected as a system; they are united by a common aim
and a set of “sub-aims”, the interconnection of normatively
reinforced functions, a legal and informational-analytical
base, a purposeful management, coordination and planning.
This interconnection (and unification) of the subjects of
prevention does not deprive us of the possibility of distin­
guishing various groups according to levels, types, forms and
methods, and also tasks and many other organisational fea­
tures. This is why we speak of the subjects of early and direct
prevention, general and individual prevention, the preven­
tion of recidivist crimes and juvenile delinquency, etc.
248
 Secondly, each subject is granted certain powers; it is the
bearer of concrete rights and obligations. Otherwise there
could be no subject of prevention. Each subject must have a
legal status. This is what determines the need for a special
classification of the subjects of social prevention. It is not
simply a question of who is guiding prevention and who is
directly carrying it out, but of what rights and obligations
are granted to the subject of prevention. In accordance with
the rights and obligations we can determine the relationship
of the functions in regard to any part of the system of subjects
of prevention and whether the rights are being properly
exercised and the duties fulfilled. Functions that are impre­
cise or confused in content, and lack of correspondence be­
tween rights and duties are obstacles to the carrying out of
preventive activity.
Specialised and non specialised subjects
In speaking of the functional obligations of the subjects
of prevention, we must say, first and foremost, that on the
administrative plane preventive functions are divided into
organisational, executive, supervisory, etc. But it is also
perfectly admissible to distinguish between the general (or
non-specialised) and special (or specialised) functions of pre­
vention. The latter reflect the specific preventive features of
the individual spheres, branches and areas of public and
state activity. However, the range between general and spe­
cial types of functions is fairly wide. These are also preven­
tive functions that lie between general and special functions,
the so-called general special functions. They are character­
istic of the “intermediary” types of preventive activity.
Let us stress once again in connection with the foregoing
that the social prevention of deviant behaviour is a matter
for the whole people, for the state. In the final analysis this
determines the multiplicity of subjects of social prevention
and the interconnection, interdependence and general di­
rection of their actions. From this standpoint they can be
characterised as a single system of subjects of activity of
society and the state. We should proceed from this both in
the general assessment and in the classification of the sub­
jects of prevention of deviant behaviour.
Non-specialised subjects. The CPSU requires that each man­
ager, Communist, and member of the Young Communist
249
 League (Komsomol) should not only take an active part in
the accomplishment of the general task of combating anti­
social acts, but himself provide an example of moral purity
and the unswerving observance of Soviet laws. Moreover,
the task is to raise the broad masses of the working people
and all bodies and organisations to a model social order. It is
important to eliminate conditions that hamper the education
of the people, particularly children, adolescents, and young
people. This means that all state bodies and public organisa­
tions are bound to take part in the social prevention of de­
viant behaviour. Each establishment, each organisation
must be responsible for the behaviour of those whom it is
educating. For the shortcomings in their work result in
“supplying” society with people who clash with its interests.
This must not be ignored or overlooked. The bodies and or­
ganisations that are specially called upon to combat anti­
social acts can only eliminate the “wastage” that results
from incorrect education. Consequently all state bodies and
public organisations that work with people can (and should)
be non-specialised subjects of the social prevention of de­
viant behaviour. In solving the various social and state
tasks they educate people and, consequently, are obliged
to prevent anti-social behaviour on their part. These bodies
and organisations may be referred to conventionally as the
“subjects with general jurisdiction”.
The concept of non-specialised subjects of prevention is
represented on the broadest plane. More concretely it can
be said as follows: they are the bodies, organisations, and
also individual citizens, who have not been vested with
special preventive functions, but carry on this work as
their public, state and Party duty. They include, for exam­
ple, the family and the school, the various educational estab­
lishments, vocational schools, higher and secondary educa­
tional establishments, Party, trade union, Komsomol and
Young Pioneer organisations, sports organisations, etc.
This is the broadest network of subjects of the prevention of
deviant behaviour. They cannot be left out, because anti­
social acts and their determinants still survive in various
spheres of social life, at the different levels of social rela­
tions and connections administered by the many subjects.
Therefore all these subjects together with the performance of
their main functions should carry out preventive measures
or take part in their implementation. The need for this is
250
laid down in articles 4, 39, 57, 59, 61, 65, and 66 of the
Constitution of the USSR.
Specialised subjects. These arc the state and public legisla­
tive and law-enforcing bodies and organisations, the activ­
ity of which is aimed either professionally or through the
performance of their public duties directly at combating
anti-social acts, crime. They include the agencies of the Mi­
nistry of the Interior, the Procurator’s Office, the courts, the
justice, the voluntary people’s squads for the protection of
public order, public order-keeping points, prevention coun­
cils, comrades’ courts, etc. This is the nucleus of the sy
stem of subjects of social prevention, its most active units,
which are closely linked with one another. It is they, first
and foremost, that carry out prevention, because they are
at the very forefront of crime control. These bodies and orga­
nisations are called upon to ensure the implementation of
the various preventive measures, by directly organising
them and carrying them out. The prevention of offences is
their main function. Such bodies and organisations may be
called conventionally “subjects with special jurisdiction*’.
The Party devotes special attention to the need for the
further improvement of law-enforcing bodies (the Procura­
tor’s Office, the Ministry of the Interior, the justice and the
courts). These bodies are called upon to protect Soviet legal­
ity, the interests of society, and the rights of Soviet citi­
zens. They must resolutely and uncompromisingly control
crime, develop and strengthen links with work collectives
and the public. The CPSU expects from these bodies even
more initiative, high principles and determination to combat
all breaches of Soviet law and order. This is their basic
task.
Subjects that perform general special preventive functions.
These include bodies and organisations that, together with
the performance of other state tasks, specially carry out so­
cial prevention work. Their main functions are closely
linked with the functions of preventing deviant behaviour.
They are public health, people’s control, guardianship and
trusteeship, and arbitration bodies, commissions on combat­
ing alcoholism, etc. It is the special task of public health
bodies, for example, to prevent drunkenness and alcoholism,
drug addiction, and venereal disease. The interconnection
of these functions with the prevention of offences is obvious.
This particularly concerns forensic medicine and forensic
251
 psychiatry. This group of bodies and organisations may be
called conventionally “subjects with branch jurisdiction”.
The preventive function of the legislator. Special mention
must be made of the legislative bodies. For the legislature
wields a whole system of preventive (law-enforcement) mea­
sures that ensure the proper behaviour of members of so­
ciety. It guarantees observance of the rights and duties of
each person, establishment, organisation, etc. and excludes
the objective possibility of the emergence of offences and
harmful consequences as a result of the violation of legal
norms. It is here that the preventive function of legislative
bodies and legislation manifests itself.
The dynamism of the system of subjects. The system of the
subjects of prevention is not something permanent and un­
changing. It alters through the increase or decrease in the
scope and limits of preventive activity, and through changes
in its concrete aims and tasks, both current and long-term.
Everything depends on the state of public order, on the var­
ious changes taking place in society. Engels said of the
ethical system proposed by Feuerbach that precisely because
it was “designed to suit all periods, all peoples and all condi­
tions” it was “never and nowhere applicable”.1 The system
of the subjects of prevention should be flexible, as should the
system of preventive measures. The best way to improve it
is by the following: improving the inner interconnections
between the elements of the system; using advantages pre­
sent in other similar social systems, and extending preven­
tive action on the part of society and the state to all the
areas of the genesis of deviant behaviour. The dynamism of
the system of subjects of prevention is expressed in the creati­
on of new specialised bodies and organisations. It also mani­
fests itself in the changing or particularisation of the com­
petence and powers of the bodies and organisations that form
part of the system, inter alia, in the normative and organisa­
tional identification of preventive tasks as a component part
of general (or branch) jurisdiction. An integral element in
the systemic characterisation of the subjects of preventive
activity is the combination of their specialisation with their
inclusion in the general system of public administration.

1 Frederick Engels, “Ludwig Feuerbach and tkr End of Classical

German Philosophy”. In: K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works in
three volumes, Vol. Three, pp. 359-360.

252
 Here we are talking mainly of the organisational structure
of the prevention system. But it is not just a matter of cor­
rect structure. The system should constantly seek to adjust
its activity to new tasks that arise in the sphere of the pre­
vention of deviant behaviour, in particular, in the sphere of
crime control.
2. THE MAIN TRENDS IN THE ACTIVITY
OF THE SUBJECTS OF SOCIAL PREVENTION

The system of the subjects of social prevention

and Party leadership
The role of the CPSU as the leading and guiding force of
Soviet society, as the nucleus of its political system, state
and public organisations, is laid down in Article 6 of the
Constitution of the USSK. Consequently whatever sphere
of life of Soviet society is being discussed, we are bound to
discover in it the guiding influence of the policy of the Com­
munist Party of the Soviet Union, The sphere of social pre­
vention, the control of offences, is also a matter of constant
concern to the CPSli and experiences its beneficial guiding
influence. The activity of the CPSU in this sphere is aimed
primarily at drawing up a scientifically based policy for
the control of offences and mobilising the people to carry it
out. The Party organises and directs the work of the bodies
that control crime, enforce law and order, and carry out
social prevention. In so doing Party committees act as bo­
dies of political guidance. The policy of the CPSU in the
sphere of social prevention stems from the objective tenden­
cies of the development of society. It is on this that the
Party bases the main aims and tasks of preventive activity.
These tasks and the methods of tackling them are scientifi­
cally based and ensure utilisation of the achievements and
advantages of socialism as the basis for all trends in the
prevention of deviant behaviour.The essence of Party lead­
ership of the subjects of social prevention lies in determin­
ing the political line of the work of the state and society
in this sphere and coordinating it with other spheres of so­
cial life. The Party’s increased attention to these questions
can be seen from the decisions of CPSU congresses and its
measures to ensure legality and strengthen discipline and
public order.
253
 The trade unions and the Komsomol

As laid down in Article 7 of the Constitution of the USSR,

trade unions, the All-Union Leninist Young Communist
League (Komsomol), co-operatives and other public organi­
sations participate, in accordance with the aims laid down
in their rules, in managing state and public affairs and in
deciding political, economic and social and cultural matters.
The work of the trade unions, which number more than
107 million members, and the activity of the 35 million
Komsomol members must help improve socialist social rela­
tions. The trade unions are to defend the rights and interests
of the working people, and it is the duty of the Komsomol to
involve young men and women in communist construction.
The Komsomol and the trade unions attach special impor­
tance to educating workers, young people, adolescents and
children, paying special attention to the prevention of de­
viant behaviour. Recently the Party has paid great atten­
tion to this work by the trade unions and the Komsomol.
It directs them towards combatting anti-social acts, offences
and crime, those antipodes to the socialist way of life.
The importance of the trade unions and the Komsomol in
controlling offences is growing steadily. The Party demands
that the trade unions and the Komsomol should be far more
active in the work of preventing offences, analyse the causes
of anti-social acts committed by young people and adoles­
cents, take concrete measures to eliminate them, and ensure
the participation of each Komsomol member in consolidat­
ing law and order. This requirement of the Party shows cle­
arly the role of the Komsomol and the trade unions as sub­
jects of the social prevention of anti-social behaviour.

Soviets of People's Deputies

The Soviets themselves form a single system. Each Soviet
is, figuratively speaking, the supreme authority on the ter­
ritory under its jurisdiction, and all Soviets are united on
the principles of democratic centralism into a single mecha­
nism of state power. Thanks to this each Soviet taken sepa­
rately and their system as a whole have a close connection
with the broad masses and ensure their constant and decisive
participation in the democratic administration of the state.
The Soviets deal directly with the main questions of state
254
 and public life and control all other bodies of the state. One
of the constitutional duties of Soviets of People’s Deputies
as bodies of state power is to guarantee the interests of
society and the rights of citizens and to protect public order.
They and their bodies take an active part in the prevention
of deviant behaviour which is a main line of their work.
It must be stressed that the prevention of anti-social behav­
iour is an important and integral part of the activity of
the local Soviets of People’s Deputies in ensuring and protect­
ing socialist law and order. Firstly, the Soviets themselves
directly carry on the work of preventing offences. Secondly,
they organise and coordinate all the preventive measures by
state bodies and public organisations. Thirdly, the Soviets
supervise the work of the bodies for the protection of public
order in this sphere. All the activity of the local Soviets and
their bodies to prevent anti-social behaviour is carried on in
strict accordance with the principles of legality and the
requirements of the law. In this work the Soviets rely on
work collectives, the public, and the broad mass of working
people at their places of work and residence. The preventive
activity of the Soviets is based on a comprehensive approach.
Great reserves for the further improvement of the preven­
tive work of the Soviets and for enhancing their role in this
sphere lie in the activity of their standing commissions.
These are the bodies of the Soviet that promote the perfor­
mance of its various functions. Consequently, they are one
of the most important organisational forms of the preventive
activity of the Soviet of People’s Deputies. They are con­
fronted with responsible tasks in the prevention of deviant
behaviour. They are called upon to carry out a broad pro­
gramme of concrete measures to ensure legality and law and
order and to support the initiative of clubs, societies and
other public organisations. Representatives of the bodies
of tho Procurator’s Office, the courts, justice, people’s con­
trol posts, trade union and Komsomol committees at enter­
prises are drawn actively into their work. Over the many
years of their functioning these commissions (administrati­
ve, supervisory, juvenile affairs, combatting drunkenness
and alcoholism, etc.) have worked out effective forms of the
prevention of anti-social behaviour.
The many public organisations have become reliable help­
ers of the Soviets in social prevention. Today more than
30 million people are active in the street, apartment, block,
tillage, and settlement committees, the voluntary people’s
255
 squads for the protection of public order, the comrades1
courts and other public bodies. With their help preventive
activity is carried out on a broad scale.

People's control bodies

They are set up by the Soviets of People’s Deputies and

combine state control with control by working people at
factories, collective farms, institutions and organisations
(Article 92 of the Constitution of the USSR). They have spe­
cial preventive functions: to combat breaches of state dis­
cipline, parochialism, mismanagement, extravagance, red
tape, bureaucracy, etc. They are required to strengthen the
fight against breaches of the law on the protection of so­
cialist property, and to strive to eliminate the causes of em­
bezzlement, bribery, mismanagement, and various other
abuses.
Agencies oj the Ministry of the Interior

They play a particularly large part in the prevention of

offences (crimes). Their preventive activity is a subsystem of
the prevention of deviant behaviour in general. Consequent­
ly, it is considered within the system of social prevention as
a whole. It is in the sphere of the prevention of anti-social
(criminal) behaviour that the social functions of the agen­
cies of the Ministry of the Interior are revealed most fully,
their active part in solving general social tasks- the cleans­
ing of socialist society from various negative phenomena.
The agencies have responsible functions which are impossi­
ble to perform without a broad state approach to the questi­
ons of social life. The preventive activity of these agencies
should not, therefore, be considered in isolation from the
purposive activity of the state in the prevention of crime as
a phenomenon. The nearer Soviet society approaches com­
munism the more the causes and conditions conducive to the
offences will disappear. Measures of public action, public opi­
nion, will play an increasing role. These processes are indisso­
lubly linked with the preventive activity of the state and so­
ciety. The agencies of the Ministry of the Interior are obliged
to contribute to this. Hence the main trends in their work.
The leading trend is social prevention.
In characterising the preventive activity of the agencies,
it must be said that in many respects it determines the state
of preventive work in the USSR as a whole. The agencies
concentrate their efforts on detecting and eliminating the
causes, conditions and circumstances of crimes, on detecting
persons inclined to crime by virtue of their anti-social beha­
viour, on exercising a preventive influence on these persons,
etc. At the same time, in detecting and investigating
crimes and in correcting and re-educating convicted per­
sons, they carry on other very extensive preventive work,
implementing extremely complex and labour-consuming
measures to this end on the basis of their vast professional
experience. These agencies solve the tasks entrusted to them
in close interaction with other state bodies, with the admini­
stration of enterprises, organisations and establishments,
workers’ collectives, and also voluntary people’s squads for
the protection of public order and other public organisations.
They react quickly to any offence, possessing a ramified
system of various subdivisions and services. The agencies
unite the preventive efforts not only of their subdivisions
and services and various state bodies and public organisa­
tions, but also of the vast mass of working people. This
links them with the people, making them true advocates of
their interests and concerns and giving prevention a truly
nation-wide importance. This is particularly characteristic
of the m ilitia—the urban and district units of the agencies
of the Ministry of the Interior.
The Communist Party of the Soviet Union attaches special
importance to the preventive activity of the agencies of the
Ministry of the Interior and all its services and subdivi­
sions. Urging enhancement of the control of offences, it
draws attention to the need for these agencies to constantly
strengthen the patrol post service of the militia, improve
the work of criminal investigation and enquiry, enhance
the role of militia station inspectors in protecting law and
order, and expand their connection with the population. In
reinforcing all the services and subdivisions of the agencies
it is important to give their work, first and foremost, a pre­
ventive direction.
The work in the sphere of social prevention is by no means
confined to the preventive activity of the afore-mentioned
agencies alone. The duty of these bodies is to carry out pre­
vention and regard it as the main trend of their activity.
This is undoubtedly so. But, taking into account the specific
17-01771 257
nature of the agencies, this is precisely what “prescribes” the
limits of their preventive activity and gives it a definite
(special, of course) direction. This does not mean, of course,
that the preventive activity of these bodies can replace the
real economic, socio-political, cultural and other conditions
in which man develops and acts. A broad social approach is
required. It should be a matter of the preventive activity of
the state and society. And here there is a special place for
the agencies of the Ministry of the Interior.

The prevention service of the agencies

of the Ministry of the Interior
Within the agencies of the Ministry of the Interior in the
criminal investigation system a prevention service has been
set up, the activity of which follows three main lines: general
prevention; individual prevention and the corresponding
leadership by militia station inspectors; and prevention of
juvenile delinquency. The service is called upon to study
the causes, conditions and circumstances of offences, to take
measures to eliminate them, to inform the administration
of enterprises, establishments and organisations of causes,
conditions and circumstances brought to light, and to sub­
mit proposals accordingly. The tasks of this prevention ser­
vice include the detection of persons leading an anti-social
way of life and the exercising of preventive action on them.
The employees of this service are obliged to draw into pre­
ventive work public organisations and collectives of wor­
kers, to exercise administrative supervision, and to control
the behaviour of persons on the prevention register. The
functions of this service are constantly increasing. Preven­
tion services have been created at all levels of work—from
the district and urban boards and departments of the Inte­
rior to the Ministry of the Interior of the USSR.
The prevention service is a specific form of activity car­
ried out by the subdivisions that form the agencies of the
Interior. There is a similarity between this service and the
work of other subdivisions (services) of the agencies. It is
expressed in the fact that all the types of activity of these
bodies have common ultimate aims, common principles of
organisation, functioning and development. Basically they
have the same nature. However the character and purpose
of the prevention service predetermine the forms and methods
258
of solving the tasks that confront it. All the qualities
of this service must bo taken into account, including the
features which are special to it and, therefore, distinguish
it from the other services of the agencies—at all levels.
The prevention service (both as a type of activity and as
the sub-division that ensures this activity) performs a spe­
cial social role, and therefore its functions cannot be con­
fused with the functions of any other service of the agencies.
Each sub-section of these bodies (the criminal investigation
department, OBKhSS1, the enquiry sub-sections, the GAP,
the keeping of public order, and so on) have their own pre­
ventive functions which are directly linked with the spe­
cific nature of their activity. On the one hand, they cannot
transfer these functions to anyone, because the preventive
importance of their work would b9 lost. On the other hand,
they cannot assume general preventive functions (organisa­
tional, methodological, supervisory and others). The centrali­
sed organisation of the preventive activity of the agencies is
essential.
Bodies of the Procurator s Office,
the courts and justice
The prevention of offences (crimes) carried out by these
bodies is a most important task to be accomplished through
the performance of their basic functions. We can speak of
common features in the preventive activity of the Procura­
tor’s Office, the courts and justice. However, they have cer­
tain specific features too.
The Procurator’s Office has a special place among the law-
enforcing bodies that carry on activity to prevent breaches
of the law and the rules of the socialist way of life, control
offences and seek to eliminate their causes. Its special pur­
pose, however, is to protect uniform legality from all manner
of breaches. And one of the most effective guarantees of le­
gality is procuratorial supervision. Here we must proceed
from the fact that the bodies of the Procurator’s Office can­
not limit themselves only to controlling breaches of the law

1 Departments of agencies of the Ministry of the Interior of the

USSR to combat the embezzlement of socialist property and prof­
iteering.—Editor's note.
2 The State Automobile Inspectorate, a unit of agencies of the
Ministry of the Interior of the USSR responsible for ensuring road
safety.—Editor's note.

17* 250
 already committed and bringing the guilty persons to res­
ponsibility. A most important task of the Procurator’s
Office is to take measures well in advance to prevent
breaches of the law. All branches of procuratorial supervisi­
on are supposed to carry out this task, to solve it in practice.
The Constitution of the USSR charges the Procurators
Office with supreme supervision of the strict observance of
laws by all ministries, departments and establishments
within their jurisdiction, by officials and all citizens. This
fact alone is of preventive importance. Moreover, the bodies
of the Procurators’ Office carry out preventive work (mainly
individual) in the process of investigating criminal cases.
The legal propaganda work that they do also serves the pur­
poses of general prevention. But whatever preventive measu­
res by the Procurator’s Office, their specific functions always
concern the exercise of procuratorial supervision.
The courts carry on the prevention of offences in close con­
nection with their law-enforcement activity. The prevention
done by these bodies is determined by the special tasks and
functions of the courts as bodies that administer justice. As
laid down in the Fundamentals of Legislation on the Judi'
cial System of the USSR and the Union and Autonomous
Republics the court is obliged in all its activity to educate
the citizens in the spirit of strict and undeviating observan­
ce of Soviet laws, and concern for socialist property, obser­
vance of labour discipline, an honest attitude towards their
state and public duty, respect for the rights, honour and
dignity of citizens and for the rules of the socialist way of
life. The courts carry out this work in the form of both gene­
ral and individual preventive measures. However, the forms
of preventive activity of the judicial bodies are various:
assizes; inviting members of the public to the hearing of
cases; individual work with participants in a court case;
riders; control of the implementing of judgements, sentences
and rulings; contributions of court workers to the press, ra­
dio and television; assignment of punishment; conditional
release before the expiry of the term of punishment and re­
lease before the expiry of the term; expunging of convictions,
etc. All this activity of the courts (like many other of their
measures) may be characterised to a certain extent as pre­
ventive.
The bodies of justice effect the organisational supervision
of the courts and also perform supervisory and inspectorial
260
functions in relation to the courts and thus have the oppor­
tunity to influence the quality of their work on the preven­
tion of offences. The main trend in the preventive activity
of these bodies is legal propaganda closely linked with the
legal education of citizens. Among the bodies that form the
system of justice the Bar also carries on preventive work.
This concerns mainly aspects of prevention connected with
individual work with defendants. The bodies of justice also
give legal advice to citizens thus helping them to gain a bet­
ter knowledge of the law and, therefore, better observe it.

Public organisations
The activity of the state in controlling offences coincides
completely with the interests of the broad mass of the work­
ing people. Therefore the real participation of citizens in
the prevention of deviant behaviour and offences has expan­
ded and grown more active in recent years. The correspon­
ding public organisations are acquiring increasing weight.
Using their constitutional right to unite in public organisa­
tions, citizens of the USSR are forming institutions that help
control and prevent offences. This enables them to perform
more fully such constitutional duties as, for example, being
uncompromising to anti-social acts and doing their utmost
to help maintain public order (Article 65 of the Constitution
of the USSR). However the participation of citizens in the
prevention of offences and other forms of deviant behaviour
should be seen not only as the performance by them of their
duties, but also as the exercise by them of their rights to ta­
ke part in the management and administration of state and
public affairs. This combination of the rights and duties of
citizens of the USSR helps to enhance the role of public
organisations in the life of society and the growth of their
activity. It is one of the trends in the development of the
political system of socialism.
The public organisations contributing to the accomplish­
ment of prevention tasks possess a considerable degree of
independence. The public takes part in carrying out pre­
ventive measures both through state bodies and through their
own organisations. The preventive activity of these organi­
sations is carried on on a nation-wide scale, regionally, at
individual enterprises and establishments, and in relation
261
to a concrete person or group of persons. Their representati­
ves take part in the most varied preventive measures—
from individual to general prevention. The ratio and combi­
nation of measures of public and state prevention is based
on the general principles of controlling offences; the legality
and scientific basis of state and public measures, and the
individualisation of these measures. It should be noted, ho­
wever, that uniting the efforts of state bodies and public
organisations does not mean confusing their functions. This
unity is intended to solve the common tasks of crime control.
There are many different public organisations (formations)
that take part in the prevention of offences: voluntary peop­
le’s squads to protect public order, comrades* courts, youth
teachers and instructors, public inspectors, individual and
collective patrons, etc. These institutions (organisations,
formations) operate in towns and districts, micro-districts,
and other population centres. In recent years such organisa­
tions as prevention councils in work collectives and public
order-keeping points have been particularly developed.
Their main task is the prevention of anti-social behaviour
at workers* places of work and residence.

Prevention councils in work collectives

Let us note first of all that the work collective is an orga­

nised social community, within the framework of which the
most important human activity—work—is carried out. We
can also say that it is a group of people united by their joint
participation in the management of state and public affairs
within the framework of a certain work organisation on the
basis of socialised means of production. The practice of the
work collective is most varied. It acts not only as a subject
of work and an object of management, but also as a subject
of management. In this sense the activity of the work colle­
ctive is of educative, preventive significance. The work colle­
ctive is invested with corresponding rights and duties and
thus becomes a subject of the prevention of deviant beha­
viour. This, however, takes place when a prevention of
offences council is set up (and functions) in a work collective.
Prevention councils are set up at enterprises (factories).
They consist of members of Party, trade union and YCL
organisations, comrades’ courts, voluntary people’s squads,
Councils (or groups) to protect socialist property, councils to
assist the family and the school, commissions to combat drun­
kenness and alcoholism, deputies of local Soviets, leading
workers, labour veterans, etc.
The main trend of the activity of prevention councils in
work collectives is individual prevention. The councils
unite their efforts with other public organisations and also
state bodies engaged in the prevention of offences. Close
links are established with the agencies of the Ministry of
the Interior. Each prevention council is in constant touch
with militia station inspectors. There is particularly close
interaction with public order-keeping points. The latter
supplement (continue, as it were) the preventive activity
of the councils before and after working hours, mainly in
the evening. Therefore production (at the place of work)
and micro-territorial (at the place of residence) “prevention
services” are closely linked with each other as elements of
a single system of subjects of preventive activity. Precise
coordination of their activity is most important for ensuring
continuous preventive action on persons inclined to offen­
ces. Work collectives whose participation in combating nega­
tive phenomena is growing (there are about 100,000 preven­
tion councils in the USSR today), are becoming the true
centres of the prevention of anti-social behaviour.
Public order-keeping points are also centres of the preve-
tion of anti-social behaviour, althoung not in citizens’
place of work (unlike the work collective prevention coun­
cils), but at their place of residence. These points are
set up according to the so-called micro-territorial principle
(in residential micro-districts), and also on collective and
state farms (in rural localities). In recent years a broad net­
work of public order-keeping points has been set up in the
USSR, of which there are now7about 25,000. They are an
effective organisational form of uniting the public to prevent
various anti-social acts, reinforcing educative-preventive
action and enhancing social control of persons inclined to
anti-social behaviour. Such points are to ensure closer inte­
raction of militia station inspectors, headquarters of volun­
tary people’s squads, comrades’ courts and other bodies and
organisations taking part in the prevention of offences.
A comprehensive approach to the prevention of the various
forms of deviant behaviour means that we should constantly
bear in mind the organic connection and interdependence of
educative-preventive work in work collectives and in the workers*

283
 place of residence. The significance of this activity in the place
of residence is growing because the organisation of the working
people’s leisure (everyday life) is still a pressing problem. The
increase in the proportion of free time under socialism and the
emergence of a large number of family and other everyday prob­
lems is confronting the bodies and organisations engaged in
prevention with a whole number of complex tasks. Therefore
life itself is demanding insistently that educative-prevention
work in the place of residence should be a natural continuation of
the work done by prevention councils in work collectives. This is
one aspect of the problem. The other is as follows: educative-
preventive work in the place of residence should be carried on
primarily among young people and juveniles. Careful attention
must also be paid to those who are not working or studying and
special measures must be applied to them. It is essential that
educative-preventive work in relation to such persons should be
the concern not only of jurists and teachers, but also of psycholo­
gists, doctors and other specialists. It must not be forgotten that
persons who do not work or study are more often than not those
who commit offences.
Public order-keeping points carry on mainly individual
preventive work, although they also carry out general pre­
ventive measures (lectures and talks, reports, meetings of
local residents in the micro-district to discuss the present
situation, the behaviour of individual offenders, etc.). For
the purposes of individual prevention concrete persons
leading an anti-social way of life are detected, individual
talks held with them and contact made with their place of
work or study for joint action on them, etc. The main thing
is work with each person and activity to eliminate the con­
ditions that are conducive to his anti-social behaviour.
The work of the public order-keeping point is supervised
by a public council acting under the leadership of the Party
organisations of the micro-district’s enterprises or collec­
tive farms (state farms).
Tutorship and patronage. These forms are an effective
means of individual preventive action, particularly on young
people and adolescents. They are becoming increasingly
widespread. What is their purpose? The general answer is as
follows: people whose behaviour runs counter to the require­
ments of society are given tutors or patrons who influence
them and are responsible for this work. Tutorship and patro­
nage are forms which combine methods of moral and labour
education, and methods of teaching professional mastery.
Tutorship is used particularly widely in the individual pre­
vention of anti-social behaviour.
264
 The activity of young people’s tutors has a beneficial effect
on preventive work. By passing on their experience to young
people, they teach them to respect the rules of the socialist
way of life, the laws of the Soviet state. Tutors are people
with great experience of life, leading workers, Communists.
The forms of tutorship, which are connected in particular
with individual prevention, are not fixed once and for all.
Life itself is constantly making it necessary to introduce
something new and more effective into this useful movement.
For example, in relation to persons whose behaviour at­
tracts attention tutors make use of talks to explain the harm-
fulness of anti-social behaviour, control these persons at
work and in everyday life, and involve them in interesting,
entertaining, and educationally useful activities. Experi­
ence shows that tutorship is of great use in the individual
prevention of anti-social behaviour.
Tutorship is one of the forms by which individual citizens
take part in the prevention of deviant behaviour. This
form of work with people is used particularly widely by
prevention councils in work collectives. In studying the
effectiveness of the work of tutors, councils strive to ensure
that young people requiring special attention should be
attached to the most experienced workers who enjoy prestige
in their collectives.
The activity of the subjects of prevention
as influencing objects of prevention
In the performance of their functions the subjects of
prevention influence the behaviour of the objects of preven­
tive action and thus correct deviations from established
requirements, i.e., control and rectify this behaviour.
A close connection arises between them and the objects of
prevention, i.e., certain relations develop between the sub­
jects and the objects. In other words, the stage of direct
“subject-object” contact marks the beginning of a series of
problems relating to the functioning of the prevention
system as a whole. Here we must start from the fact that
the system of prevention subjects is not an abstract schema.
It exists and operates in real life, but is felt, first and fore­
most, by the object (systems of objects) of its action. Thi6
is the interaction, interrelation, of the subject of prevention
(system of subjects) and the object of prevention (system
265
 of objects) the mechanism of which can be represented in
the most general form as the process of preventive action.
This concept must, however, be elucidated.
The concept and peculiarities of preventive action. Between
the subjects and objects of prevention there always exist
contradictions which are determined by the nature of their
relations, i.e., by their different types of “behaviour”—
some act, and others experience this action. Consequently,
prevention itself is defined as the action of the subject
on the object. This is a way of regulating the “social organ­
ism”, the preventive influence on the sources, causes, con­
ditions and circumstances of crime, the factors which form
the personality of the offender and, finally, on the individual
himself and his behaviour. In this “social organism” we
must single out the individual and behaviour. However,
let us say at once that the different lines of preventive work,
on the one hand, on causes, factors, conditions, etc., and
on the other, on the individual, complement each other
and to a considerable extent overlap. Therefore in such
cases we usually speak of preventive action on the individu­
al. It is the personality of the offender (criminal) that is
the main object of preventive action.
This object is mainly marked by anti-social behaviour;
preventive action on such behaviour is therefore carried
out by using principles and norms, imperative (uncondition­
al) demands, assessments, ideals, etc. The action is guiding,
mobilising, and socially integrating. Whether a person
accepts this action or not depends on his personal qualities
and many other factors. However, in any case preventive
action must be comprehensive. It is essential to take into
consideration here not only the personality of the offender
(as a specified object), but also its surroundings (micro­
environment). This makes it possible to treat the concept
of the object of action more broadly.
Preventive action is a special form of social regulation.
In general this action is the prime and invariable feature of
the corresponding administration or control. Thus, we can
talk of controlling (administrative) preventive action. Of
course, not all conscious action (organisation and regulation)
is scientific administration. Only action (conscious, expe­
dient, intensive and purposive) which is carried out on
the basis of authentic information about the object and
the conditions of its functioning corresponds to the real
266
possibilities of the activity of the subject. Thus*, bearing
all this in mind, one can see preventive action as a partic­
ular case of administrative (or controlling) action. Although
it has specific features, it is subject to the general prin­
ciples of scientific administration.
3. THE OBJECTS OF SOCIAL PREVENTION
AND THEIR GENERAL CHARACTERISTICS

The object of preventive protection

The comprehensive approach to the solution of the prob­
lems of social prevention implies not only preventive
action on the objects, but also preventive protection of the
interests of society from anti-social encroachments. The
requirements of this approach are not met, in particular,
when preventive action is restricted to explaining and elim­
inating the causes, conditions and circumstances of
breaches of social norms (including offences), detecting
persons leading an anti-social way of life, and carrying out
preventive work on them. It must be remembered that
the whole system of prevention is aimed in the final analysis
at protecting the object of preventive protection. This
object is public order. It is the focus, as it were, in which the
public interests that are being protected against anti-social
encroachments are reflected. Of course, it is not always
possible to divide this aggregate (general) object of pro­
tection into its elements. But such a possibility does exist.
The objects of preventive action are closely connected
with the objects of preventive protection. Essentially the
choice of the former is a way of ensuring the latter. As a rule,
objects of preventive action are those towards which the
direct intermediate aims of prevention are directed, while
the objects of protection determine the more remote and,
in a way, ultimate aims. Of course, the objects of preventive
action (unlike the objects of protection) are usually defined
more clearly and directly in the process of activity. They
are palpable and therefore of great practical significance.
Consequently, the task is to strive, by everyday action on
the objects of prevention, to ensure public order as an object
of preventive protection. The main point here is that pre­
vention has its own aim of protecting institutions which
serve to guarantee public order and a quiet life for members
267
of society. This is fully in keeping with the social views of
the public. The latter believes that prevention exists to
protect society and all its members.
Under socialism, a person’s life, his rights, health, socialist
or personal property, relations connected with the enjoy­
ment of material benefits, etc., may be an object of pre­
ventive protection. In a certain sense prevention protects
all socialist gains from anti-social encroachments. It is in
this connection that we speak of the protective function
(defence function) of prevention. By ensuring public order,
we protect it from all manner of encroachments. Therefore
the question of the protection of public order should be
seen in a broad context, together with all the preventive
measures that ensure the necessary conditions for social
development. The protection of social interests against
anti-social encroachments presupposes the carrying out
of a broad range of economic, socio-political, ideological,
moral and legal measures. Only a broad programme of
preventive measures to ensure public order promotes the
successful performance of the function of protection. This
function is closely intertwined with all the other functions
of the state and society, the carrying out of which ensures
public order, in particular, law and order. Here the function of
controlling offences, crime must be discussed in further detail.
The protection of public order must not be seen as the sum
(or even a set) of preventive measures aimed at the deterrence of
offences alone. The protection of public order means far more
than this. An invariable feature of each society is its normative
order (where law and order is an essential, central part of this
broader definition), and the violations of the normative order
appear in different forms of behaviour that deviates from the
demands of legal and social norms in general. Consequently, public
order should be seen as a broad social category the content of
which is determined by the system of social relations that develop
in the different spheres of life under the regulating action of social
norms. These norms may be divided into two main types; non-legal
and legal. Depending on the type of regulating norms, these
relations are either legal or non-legal. Thus, law and order (the
system of social relations that develops as a result of observing
legal norms) is an integral part of public order. In this sense
prevention of offences ensures law and order, and prevention of
violations of all social norms (general social prevention) ensures
public order.
Public order, seen as the object of preventive protection,
cannot, however, by virtue of this possess any special cha­
racteristics. It is assessed primarily as an historically con-
268
Crete social category. In the USSR, public order reflects
the state of a definite sum total of social relations, their
socialist content that is in keeping with the aims and tasks
of the present stage of communist construction. It also
integrates certain social relations based on simple rules of
behaviour that have grown up over the decades, and some­
times over the centuries. At the basis of these rules lie the
social norms of morality in which society is interested and
without which social life is unthinkable. These rules rein­
force the elementary conditions of human life. However,
seen from the angle of preventive protection, public order
can also be assessed in a different way. This happens when
the unfavourable influence of violations of public order
becomes perceptible, when concern arises as to the state
of affairs in this sphere and alarm concerning the ensuring
of normal conditions of human community living both in the
present and in the future, so we usually speak of the “comp­
lex” state of public order. The preventive function of prote­
ction acquires a special meaning. It must be carried out
from the standpoint not so much of the present, as of the
future. Here the tasks of the present and the future overlap.
The protection of public order by its defence and security
is not a short-term campaign, but a constant organic element
of social development, a condition of its present and future
well-being. In the political respect this reflects society’s
responsibility to all its members, and the state’s respon­
sibility to the people for ensuring the well-being of the
people’s social life not only today but also tomorrow. Hence
the need to direct the practical improvement of the system
of prevention of the various anti-social acts. Here the prob­
lem arises of improving the regulation1of all types of human
behaviour connected with the state of public order. General
social prevention should be given a special place in this.
Objects of preventive action
Marx wrote: “To act with any success, the materials to be
acted upon must be known.”1 What “material” is the object
of preventive action? Prevention is aimed at the most varied
1 Karl Mar*, “Instructions for the Delegates of the Provisional
General Council. The Different Questions”. In: The General Council
of the First International. 1864-1866, Progress Publishers, Moscow,
1974, p. 341.
269
objects, each of which has its own features. It is on the special
features of the object that the correct choice of means and
forms of action on it depends. Therefore we must deal not
only with a general object, but also with concrete objects
of action.
The general object. First and foremost, we must proceed
from the existence of such an object of preventive action —
a general object. It is an extremely complex phenomenon,
the elements of which are individual personalities, groups
of people, their social surroundings (including the micro­
environment), and also such factors as causes, conditions,
circumstances, etc.). An enterprise, district, town, or a
region in general, may be regarded as objects of preventive
action. In other words, a large set of heterogeneous objects
can be singled out in this general object of prevention.
Hence the diverse preventive activity which includes the
performance of different functions. The point of departure
of preventive action is nevertheless its general object. It
enables us to speak “collectively” about the principles of
this action.
The concretisation of objects. Prevention is aimed primarily
against criminogenic factors, causes, conditions and cir­
cumstances of offences (and thus against crimes, their differ­
ent types, groups and categories), against persons who lead
an anti-social way of life, their surroundings, external
environment, and also the circumstances a change in which
could affect people’s behaviour. As a result of preventive
action everything should aim basically at, on the one hand,
preventing the emergence of anti-social behaviour and,
on the other, stopping it, nipping it in the bud, if it has
already begun to manifest itself. It goes without saying
that people are always the main object of preventive action.
For people are the bearers of social relations. And factors,
causes, conditions, circumstances, and the external environ­
ment all exist in one way or another thanks to people.
Therefore we can say that the main “character” in the system
of objects of prevention is man. It is for his sake that pre­
vention is carried out. Of course, there is a fundamental
difference in preventive action on people, on the one hand,
and on factors, causes, conditions, circumstances, etc., on
the other. But this is precisely what enables us to speak of
the “coordination” of these two groups of objects in the
carrying out of comprehensive preventive action.
270
 Offences and offenders
as the objects of action
People become the objects of preventive action in different
“roles” or capacities: adults and juveniles, men and women,
recidivists and persons convicted for the first time, drunk­
ards, parasites, vagrants, persons with psychic abnormal­
ities, not excluding responsibility, etc. Consequently,
they do not present themselves as a single and simple object.
Moreover in some cases the object of preventive action is
man as such, and in others, his behaviour, the acts and
actions committed by him. Here it is a question of offences
(crimes) as objects of action: premeditated and unpremedit­
ated (or accidental) crimes, grave and less grave, violent,
against property, etc., although in this case also preventive
action is aimed, in the final analysis, at people. Finally,
groups of people can be objects of action. In short, prevent­
ion deals not with any one homogeneous object (even when
it is a question only of people), but with a multitude of
objects. But in either case, we stress once again, it is man
(people) in different “personifications” that is the object
of preventive action. Prevention takes the difference in
these objects into account. For this purpose there is a definite
typology and classification.
The object of general prevention. As already mentioned,
the individual is the product of society, the social environ­
ment in which he lives and develops. However, to accept
this law only and to take its requirements into consideration
is a necessary, but an insufficient premise for the success of
general prevention. If we could limit ourselves to a concrete
individual, all the problems of general educational work
could be solved in the same way: by working with an indi­
vidual person and orientating ourselves only towards him.
Such an approach would, of course, be incorrect. Prevention
is naturally directed towards the concrete person. But an
essential feature of prevention is also that it is aimed at the
broad masses of the working people, the population of the
whole country. The purpose of general prevention is that
it is aimed equally at all members of society. But this does
not mean that general prevention is directed towards a kind
of “average version” of the population. It envisages, as it
were, the existence among members of society of people
who need it. Being of a general nature, this prevention
271
nevertheless acts selectively on the population. It takes
into account the different categories of working people and
therefore cannot, so to say, inform the informed and preach
to the converted. Thus it is aimed at persons who cannot
remain outside the sphere of general prevention. These per-
sons are the concrete object of its action.
Meaning by the object of general prevention as a whole an
“average version1’ of the population, some criminologists some­
times place the emphasis on tne unity of the people’s consciousness
under socialism. It must not be forgotten, however, that this
unity does not mean a complete similarity of views on life of
all the members of society and a lack of any inner gradations in
the level of consciousness of the population. Nor does it exclude
the existence of non-conscious (or insufficiently conscious) people,
the existence of vestiges of the past in the consciousness and
behaviour of the people. The unity of the consciousness of the
people means that the socio-class conditions for the existence of
social ideas opposed to the socialist consciousness gradually dis­
appear in socialist society. There are no classes or other large
social groups (strata) that can serve as vehicles for such ideas.
It is recognition of this unity (and not of the “average version”)
that predetermines differences in the levels and degree of assimi­
lation of the socialist (unified for all) consciousness by the people.
Hence also the organisational conclusions on ways of further
moulding the consciousness of the different categories of the
population under mature socialism. General prevention also
plays a certain role here. In forming mainly moral and legal
consciousness, it aims at reinforcing the ideas of socialist con­
sciousness as a whole, which have for the most part already taken
hold of the masses, but have not yet become a motive of the
behaviour of each person. Here it is easy to see the whole popula­
tion, and not its “average version”, as the object of general pre­
vention. Prevention cannot be carried out for everyone and at
the same time no one. It is carried out for everyone, but with
due account of concrete categories of the population.
In its content, aim and manifestation prevention at the
general social level is the same in relation to all members of
society. We are referring to preventive action in the broad
sense, when it is exerted by society as a whole and its general
social institutions on the whole population. This includes
prevention on the scale not only of the whole country, but
also the republics, territories, regions and large towns and
districts. In the narrow sense, however, this action is exerted
on the so-called local level—in micro-districts and at enter­
prises and establishments, i.e., in the individual’s immedi­
ate social surroundings, the environment with which he
directly interacts. General prevention on this level has
a more concrete object and concerns more closely the interest
272
of this or that category of the population. It is more pur-
posive, intensive, and, consequently, more effective. How­
ever, these two concepts (in the broad and narrow sense)
are closely interconnected. Therefore any trend of general
prevention should be considered from the standpoint of
unity. This stems from the aims and tasks of general pre­
ventive action.
General prevention, addressed to all members of society,
loses its meaning if its measures do not reach the whole (or
the majority) of the population. It not only orientates those
who are in need of it towards correct behaviour, but also
encourages people to have a beneficial influence on the
violators of norms established by society. General prevention
thus introduces “elements of order” into reality. On the
whole this prevention always acts on behalf of the state and
society. It makes use only of methods of persuasion. It
exerts its influence by persuading.
The social environment as an object of action. General
prevention measures are carried out, in the final analysis,
in relation to individual persons. But this takes place, as a
rule, not directly “from society to the individual”, but via
the social environment in which the individual lives. For
individuals and groups act in a concrete social environment.
The sphere of action of small groups and the individuals
in them is the micro-environment, the immediate social
surroundings. It is this environment that we must consider
the object of preventive action. The special nature of this
object lies precisely in the fact that it includes a person’s
concrete social surroundings rather than separate individuals
or the population as a whole. This does not mean, of course,
that we ignore the individual and small groups. In the
end everything boils down to people. But as a point of de­
parture for carrying out prevention we take the environ­
ment as the object of concrete preventive action rather than
the individual or the group.

The object of individual prevention

Preventive action is individualised at the level of the
concrete individual. This is why it is called individual
prevention. However, as already mentioned, the individual
is not an absolutely, but a relatively autonomous social
unit. Consequently, the independence of individual pre-
1# 01771 273
ventive action is also relative. In this connection it can be
said that the object of individual prevention is behaviour
which either directly violates the norms of criminal law,
or violates the norms of morality, the rules of the socialist
way of life and shows a real tendency to develop into crim­
inal behaviour proper. The object of individual prevention
is deviant behaviour in the broad sense of the word. The
direct object of individual prevention is concrete persons
and their immediate social environment (rnicro-environ-
ment). When it is a question of concrete persons as objects
of prevention we have in mind individuals whose behaviour
and way of life bear witness to the real possibility of their
committing socially dangerous acts. But when it is a ques­
tion of preventive action on a concrete social environment,
we mean the negative elements of a material and spiritual
order which distort the individual. Of course, strictly speak­
ing we should not divorce the individual from his environ­
ment. But the point of departure for individual prevention
is nevertheless the individual. It is man, who, as it were,
“contains” all his surroundings, that is the main (and per­
haps in this sense the only) “point” of individual preventive
action.
Thus, the objects of individual prevention are concrete
persons. They are most often characterised by an anti-social
tendency which is manifest in their behaviour. Direct
individual preventive action is preceded by the work of
detecting such persons. These are characteristic features of
the individual approach.

4. THE GENERAL ANALYSIS OF CRIMES AS OBJECTS

OF SOCIAL PREVENTION

The classification of objects of prevention

An analysis of the objects of prevention on the “mass”
level reveals their general characteristics (the object is
assessed in its average variant), but the peculiarities of each
object are not sufficiently elucidated. Therefore to make
preventive work more effective it is necessary to group
(classify) objects, i.e., to arrange them in more or less homo­
geneous groups. Here it must be borne in mind that homo­
geneity of groups leads to a similarity in the objects of
preventive action, whereas heterogeneity leads to differences
274
in them. This should be taken into account when one is
dealing with different forms and types of prevention, the
specific measures and methods applied, etc. Nor should
it be overlooked in the classification of offences (crimes),
which makes it possible to differentiate approaches to the
carrying out of prevention. In this case it is first and fore­
most the objects of action that are classified.
Homogeneous crimes (offences) may be concretised objects
of preventive action. Experience shows that it is useful to
classify such objects as crimes by adults and juveniles, men
and women, primary and recidivist crimes, and so-called
group crimes. This is the general approach, however. In
detailising it crimes are usually grouped as follows: crimes
against property (all types of theft and profiteering), violent
crimes against persons (all types of murder, rape and grievous
bodily injury); violent crimes against property (robberies
and banditry); hooliganism; crimes by negligence; and
other types and groups of crimes. One can also classify them
according to the territorial principle: rural crime, urban, etc.
There may, of course, be other classification groups which
depend on concrete aims and tasks of prevention. For
example, one frequently finds that crimes committed in
the sphere of family and other everyday relations are grouped
separately. But in any event the classification must ensure
a differentiated approach to the carrying out of preventive
work.

Recidivist crimes
By virtue of the very nature of this category of crimes
the subjective conditions (mainly the personality of the
recidivist) come to the fore. Here we are dealing with crim­
inals who have strikingly negative personality features.
The problem of recidivist crime is primarily the problem
of the personality of a special category of criminals. All
things being equal, recidivist crimes represent a heightened
social danger. Therefore in preventing these crimes features
must be sought that distinguish recidivists from first offend­
ers. Such features include: the persistent anti-social (crim­
inal) disposition of recidivists; systematic committing
of crimes (primarily violent crimes against property and
persons); a striving to form particularly stable forms of
complicity; a tendency to involve new persons, particularly
18 * 275
minors* in criminal activity, etc. These features should
determine, first and foremost, the trend of prevention for
the repeated commission of crimes. An important role here
should be played by individual prevention.
A recidivist crime is the commission by a person of a new
crime, a crime which follows conviction for an earlier one. A
recidivist is a person who has committed a repeated crime. Re­
cidivist crimes are divided as follows: general recidivist (the com­
mission of a second crime unlike the first, for example, a murder
is committed after a conviction for hooliganism); special recidivist
(the commission of new homogeneous crim e-a new theft is
committed after a conviction for theft); single recidivist (the
crime committed again is the second one); multiple recidivist
(the committing of three and more crimes). Especially dangerous
recidivists (persons who have been recognised as such by a court,
and not recidivists in general) form a special group. There are
also other groups: recidivist minor crimes, recidivist grave crimes,
etc. But all this is mainly a ciminal law assessment of recidivist
crime. Criminologists sometimes (for convenience of studying the
personality of the criminal) regard as recidivist crimes those
which have been preceded by other crimes although the person
was not punished for committing them (because the crimes were
not detected, the criminal was not arrested, etc.). Criminologists
take this recidivist crime into account for the carrying out of
prevention work in relation to this category of persons.
The existence of recidivist crime is conditioned by definite
causes and conditions. These are, firstly, the causes and
conditions characteristic of crime in general; secondly,
causes, conditions and circumstances that influence the
repeated commission of a crime. There are no special, spe­
cific causes of recidivist crime. But this is not the case
with a number of conditions that are conducive to the
repeated commission of crimes. A system of anti-social
views is formed in recidivists under the influence of two
groups of conditions: subjective and objective. The con­
ditions of the first group relate to the characteristics of the
personality of the recidivist, and those of the second embrace
a broad range of different circumstances of an organisational,
educative, legal nature, etc. The conditions of the first
group are the main ones. In the event of repeated commission
we are perfectly justified in saying that there is a stronger,
essential link between the crime and the personality of the
criminal. From this it follows that the recidivist criminal
not only commits a crime under the influence of objective
conditions, but that the anti-social disposition of his per­
sonality creates the objective prerequisites for the corn-
276
nutting of crimes. Consequently, in relation to a recidivist
a profound analysis of his personality and his whole life
is of prime importance, insofar as subjective conditions
predominate in this category of criminals. These factors
must be taken into consideration in preventive action on
a recidivist.
Criminalists are often interested in the results of applying
preventive measures to recidivists, and in the influence of pre­
vention in general on the further state of recidivist crime. Of
course, the results of these measures (as of the prevention itself)
which are used in controlling recidivist crime can be basically
determined by the level of recidivist crime. The fact of repeated
commission shows that evidently the measures taken are not
having the desired effect. However, in itself repeated commission
does not give us grounds for concluding this. We can ask another,
at first glance paradoxical, question: is it good or bad when recid­
ivist crimes occupy a very significant place in the structure of
crime? There can be no simple answer to this, of course. But given
that the state of crime is stable, and particularly when its level
is dropping, an increase in recidivist crimes would mean that
fewer and fewer new people are being drawn into criminal activ­
ity. And the problem of controlling crime would gradually be
reduced to the prevention of recidivist crime.
The prevention of recidivist crimes forms part of the
general preventive measures. Naturally it has its own char­
acteristic features. These are connected mainly (apart
from consideration of the recidivist’s personal qualities)
with the questions of reinforcing the results of the correction
and re-education of convicted persons, social adaptation,
continuity and inner action between the bodies carrying
out punishment and prevention, job placing, and creation
of a healthy micro-environment. Administrative supervision
is of special importance for the prevention of recidivist crime.
Juvenile delinquency
The prevention of juvenile delinquency is based on the
same principles as the prevention of offences in general.
However, as in all cases when it is a question of separate
types of crime, and categories and groups of crimes, account
is taken of the specific nature of the juvenile offences and
consequently of the features of the personality of the crim­
inal. An important role is played here by an analysis of
the moral and psychological characteristics of such persons,
their general educational, cultural and ethical level, etc.
In this type of prevention it is essential to discover and
277
study the causes of juvenile delinquency: negative influence
in the family; unfavourable everyday surroundings (micro­
environment), connections and contacts; evasion of socially
useful work or study; lack of parental supervision; instiga­
tion on the part of adults leading an anti-social way of life
and abusing alcohol; defects in schooling; defects in the
organisation of cultural leisure; a weakening in social con­
trol both at home and at work or study, etc. In order to
eliminate these and many other causes an integral system
of prevention of juvenile deviant behaviour is needed.
Early prevention should play a special role.
In analysing the problem of prevention of juvenile offences
a separate study is usually made of juveniles in the 10 to
14 (16) age group and young people from 18 to 25. Juveniles
(from 14 or 16 to 17 inclusively) and groups of young people
have a great deal in common from the socio-psychological
point of view. Nevertheless for the purpose of differentiating
preventive measures we cannot confine ourselves to age
characteristics alone. Each of these groups usually includes:
pupils of secondary schools and vocational schools, students,
and workers and other employees. Special attention is paid
to those who are neither working nor studying and are lead­
ing an anti-social way of life. In the majority of cases these
persons, particularly adolescents and juveniles, commit
offences in small groups, and this circumstance should be
taken into account in preventive work. The main measures
of preventive action on juveniles should be methods of
persuasion.
Group crimes
In defining this object of preventive action the question
usually arises as to wrhat constitutes a group: two persons,
three, four, etc. Criminal law has solved this problem sim­
ply: a crime which is committed by two or more persons is
a group crime. Naturally criminology cannot ignore this
solution of the question, but at the same time it cannot
help orientating itself towards sociology and social psy­
chology. The latter two make broad use of the terms “group”
and ’'social group”. They are closely connected with such
sociological concepts as “class” and “stratum”, but not
identical to them, and have their own special features. For
criminology the socio-psychological concepts of the group
are the closest. However, here too certain questions arise
278
of a qualitative rather than a quantitative nature. They must
not be overlooked, or the specific nature of the criminological
concept of the group will be lost and, consequently, its
assessment from the viewpoint of the prevention of group
offences. In this case prevention should be aimed at the
object of its action, the group in the criminological sense
of the word. Therefore we must first analyse this concept.
People's objective need for cooperation, and also the need for
communication, leads logically to the formation of special human
associations, social groups. The whole life of mankind can be
seen as the life of groups with their internal connections, relations,
subordination, expectations and the social roles prescribed for
each of their members. From the viewpoint of social psychology
there are the following groups: real (based on the objective process
of activity exchange), small (usually made up of a few dozen
people), large (so large that its members may not have any direct
contact with one another and may not even know one another),
temporary, permanent, organisationally formed (or “formal”)
and organisationally unformed (or “informal”). Tnere are also
such types of groups as primary and secondary.
Criminology is interested, first and foremost, in primary social
groups (a special variety of small groups). From the point of
view of quantity they consifct of two to ten persons. From tne point
of view of quality tne connection here rests not only on personal
contacts, hut also on the emotional involvement of the group’s
members in its affairs. Usually these are groups of children or
adolescents of the same age. Sometimes such groups are charac­
teristic of adults also, when all the group members have the same
aim (for the attainment of which the group has been formed).
These groups, assessed from the criminological viewpoint, are
informal and, as a rule, short-lived. They are of interest from the
viewpoint of the preventive action on them.
We can speak of the criminological concept of the small
group. It has a number of features: the group may act as
the subject of certain behaviour (we are referring to the
anti-social, criminal behaviour of the group); here individual
actions assume a group nature (in such cases we usually
say that what is impossible for a single person becomes
possible for two or more persons); this group is not a simple
sum of individuals, but their actions are the actions of
group (the solidarity and emotional involvement of each
individual in the affairs of the group). Concerted action is
characteristic of such a group. No group action may be called
a group one if the acts of the members of the group are not
concerted, based on a unity of aims and community of
interests. It is the behaviour of individuals, i.e., the behav­
iour of the group as a whole. In the prevention of group
279
crimes we should proceed, first and foremost, from this
behaviour of the group. The point at issue should be the
prevention of criminal group behaviour.
Let us give another explanation. Take, say, the number of
crimes (for example, flat burglaries) committed by young people
over a certain period in a certain area. Is this an object for the
analysis of crimes committed by a certain group of persons? No,
because these juveniles are a group only in the statistical sense.
They do (did) not associate with one another, are not an entity,
but arrived at the same act as a result of more or less the same
reasons, conditions and circumstances. Here the question does not
even arise directly as to whether these juveniles necessarily as­
sociated with one another and what effect their association had
on their behaviour. We are faced simply with parallel unitary
series, although there is a “general] result'*. In the same way, a
general result, the concerted joint action of many individuals,
does not necessarily create a group and group behaviour. For
example, a crowd of people disturbs public order. Here we have
the sum of the actions of individual persons in a single happening
which is designated as the realisation of a single concept. This
“unified result” should not be identified with “unified group
behaviour”. Finally a third example. People who are not connected
with one another directly, but acknowledge their membership of
a “caste” or a definite, “special” category of persons. They all
have the same “mood”. This is conveyed from one to the other
of them by word of mouth, by correspondence, personal acquain­
tance, etc. Frequently such people find one another quickly and
sometimes support one another. This is usually characteristic of
persons who engage in profiteering, drug addiction, drunkenness,
prostitution, etc. Can they be called a group? No, of course not.
Even such a phenomenon as personal acquaintanceship (a kind
of “small abstract group”) of directly interacting people cannot be
called a group in the sense in which we are considering it.
To our mind all these questions must be studied and borne
in mind in defining the criminological concept of the group
and in carrying out prevention. It is particularly important
to remember that in acting on a group as a whole it is best
to exert a personal influence on each of its members. Nor
should it be forgotten that the group has organisers, execu­
tors, passive and active members and, finally, a leader.
There is even the “active core” of the group. Whereas for
one person being in a group with an anti-social tendency
may be a random occurrence, for another this group is
decisive in the formation of his criminal behaviour. In the
prevention of group crimes we must also take into account
that the group ensures the coordination of the actions of
its members, and this leads to an appearance of group sol-
280
idarity. The group has its own models of behaviour, the
following of which by group members leads to approval,
and the violation to censure. The destruction of these
models is one of the main tasks of prevention. But it is the
detection of groups with an anti-social disposition that
is of greatest importance for the prevention of group crimes.
This should be carried out both at the place of work (or
study) and at the place of residence. Group crimes are more
often than not typical of juveniles.
Crimes committed by women
Consideration of the special features of these crimes
(female crime) and the persons who commit them is of great
importance for prevention. Here, naturally, there can be
no “equality” between men and women, although their
ratio in the general structure of the population is about
equal. We must take into account not only the actual crimes
and the persons who commit them (female criminals) but
also the psychology of women in general. This is taken
into account in all spheres of social life, including the pre­
vention of criminal (and anti-social in general) behaviour.
Crimes are always divided into male and female (partic­
ularly in age groups) in unchanging proportions. The crim­
inal activity of men as a whole is six times that of women.
Sometimes this is explained by the fact that the behaviour
of women is conditioned by a structure of behaviour that
has developed historically and exists in our society, by
the nature of their social roles and the functions that society
places upon women.
For prevention it is necessary to know also that the pro­
portion of female crime in the structure of crime as a whole
varies sharply in the USSR, depending on the nature of
the crime: of those convicted for violent crimes and for
crimes against public order women account for 7 per cent
on average, and for malfeasance in office 40 per cent. Women
commit a lower percentage of crimes than men: 2 per cent
of banditry with intent to seize personal property; 2.7 per
cent of robbery of personal property; 3.3 per cent of pre­
meditated grievous bodily injury, 9 per cent of premeditated
murder, and 20 per cent of theft of personal property. At
the same time women account for 25 per cent of those con­
victed for theft of socialist property, about 60 per cent of
281
those convicted for profiteering, and about 70 per cent of
those convicted for fraud of purchasers. The committing
of certain crimes (for example, fraud of purchasers) by
women is largely due to the fact that it is usually women,
not men, who work in the sphere (as shop assistants, for
example) where such crimes can be committed. To a certain
extent this is true of profiteering as well. Here special con­
sideration should be given to the involvement of women by
men in the committing of such a type of crime. Murder,
theft and robbery, hooliganism, grievous bodily injury, etc.
are a different matter. Although the proportion of these
crimes committed by women is insignificant, they attract
special attention. Consequently, such crimes committed
by women should be a special object of preventive action.
In carrying out prevention in relation to women it must
be borne in mind that they commit crimes more often than
not as a result of immoral behaviour, drunkenness and
prostitution, jealousy, revenge, etc. They frequently com­
mit various offences, including crimes, in connection with
family and other everyday problems, unsettled private
life, and family squabbles. Here prevention at the place
of residence is particularly important. It should be remem­
bered that women, more than men, harbour criminals, stolen
goods, etc., in their homes. The anti-social behaviour of
women has a most pernicious effect on juveniles.

Crimes committed in the sphere

of everyday relations

In discussing such crimes the terms “everyday crimes”,

“crimes on everyday grounds”, “for everyday motives”, etc.,
are usually used. But the problem is connected not only
with the conflicts in family and everyday life which lead
to offences. It is linked rather with people’s typical forms
of everyday activity, i.e., with the sphere of human life
in which most relations are formed. Like the sphere of
personal consumption, everyday life is one of the forms of
man’s activity for satisfying his material and spiritual
needs, and also developing his physical and spiritual powers.
Everyday life, in the broad sense of the term, means ques­
tions of education and culture, leisure time, the family,
material security, etc. In the narrow sense, however, every­
day life can be defined only as a person’s private life in
282
his immediate (private, everyday) surroundings. However,
this interpretation of everyday life (which seems to be self-
evident) is not quite correct. It does not reveal the numerous
human connections which determine not only the personal,
but also the social. Here, apart from one person’s adjustment
to another person, to his private life, to a special type of
micro-environment, we must also see people’s adjustment
to the larger circle of people around them, to social life,
to society as a whole. What we have in mind is a conception
of the social relations in everyday life in their entirety.
From this point of view we cannot agree that crimes com­
mitted in the sphere of everyday relations consist only of
those that are connected with a person’s private life. Strictly
speaking, the most varied acts constitute these crimes. For
convenience of the practical solution of the problem, we can
speak of “everyday crimes” as acts connected with a person’s
private life. Production crimes, for example, can be cat­
egorised according to the same principle.
Statistics show that in the sphere of everyday relations,
even if one interprets this in the narrow sense, a very large
number of offences, particularly breaches of public order,
are committed. Evidently mention should be made here,
first and foremost, of public order. In this sphere numerous
human interconnections arise that determine such important
aspects of public order as individual peace of mind, respect
for social morality, honour and dignity. Hence the need to
pay more attention to the prevention of offences in the
sphere of everyday life in order to strengthen public order.
Bearing in mind that human behaviour in everyday life,
compared with other spheres of social life, is less regulated
by legal norms, the emphasis should be placed on moral pre­
vention, so we must rely not only on public order-keeping
points, but also on work collective prevention councils.
Crimes by negligence
In carrying out prevention work it is necessary to elucidate
whether a crime committed by a person was an accident
or, on the contrary, the result of deeply rooted anti-social
views and attitudes. The question therefore arises: on whom
should preventive action be exerted and what sort of action
should it be? On the one hand, wre are faced with a person
whose criminal act was only an episode in his biography
283
 and stands out sharply against his other acts. On the other
hand, we are dealing with people whose behaviour expresses
their anti-social essence. Here it must be borne in mind that
the concept “casual” criminal is defined not by selecting
specific characteristics of this type of offender, but by dis­
tinguishing it from types of inveterate criminals and de­
scribing the specific nature of the mechanism of interaction
of the individual and the situation in the committing of
a “casual” crime. However, it is important to distinguish
between the different types of accidents that lead to different
types of crimes. In other words, the assessment of crimes
by negligence which are the object of prevention must
have its own “internal” classification.
Who has not said or done something silly? It is a different
matter when these things are said or done deliberately.
Accidents vary in nature. An accident may be defined as
the unconsidered or unforeseen onset of an event (a pure,
totally unexplained accident). At the same time we can see
objectively, logically conditioned accidents. In the first
case, people commit a crime casually (by negligence), con­
trary to the general positive line of their behaviour. In
the second case, a crime is committed as a result of frivolous,
confused behaviour. You can expect something silly from
such people at any time. The “casual” crime committed by
them is explicable. The task is to avert crimes by negli­
gence (casual crimes) by means of prevention.
* * *

Any object of preventive action has its own features. At

the same time all objects are interwoven with one another.
For example, in discussing objects of general and individual
prevention we can speak not only of their unity, but also of
a connection with early prevention, victimological preven­
tion and even self-prevention. We cannot talk of the preven­
tion of, say, recidivist crime without touching upon ques­
tions of juvenile delinquency and this, in turn, obliges us
to study problems of female crime and group crimes. Nor
can we overlook an analysis of the different types, categories
and groups of crimes here. It is a single chain of problems.
The interconnections of the objects can be traced at all
levels of preventive action. Thus, we are dealing with
a system of such objects. And this system is correlated to
the system of subjects of preventive action.
284
 CHAPTER X

THE MAIN FORMS AND CONTENT

OF SOCIAL PREVENTION

1. LEVELS, FORMS AND TYPES OF SOCIAL PREVENTION

The concept and characterisation

of the levels of prevention
In examining the system of prevention, which has a spec­
ific structure, we inevitably come up against its different
levels. The concept of the level of prevention is used to
express qualitatively different types of activity. A clear
definition of such concepts as level, system and whole, and
also a strict differentiation between the concepts of the
level of considering a prevention system and the level of its
organisation (structural level) are very important in crim­
inology. This is why we divide the system into “elements”—
levels. It enables us to obtain “tiers” of prevention of anti­
social behaviour that differ in complexity and organisation.
In relation to the problem under review the afore-men­
tioned means that the social prevention of offences lies on di­
fferent levels, different “stages” of administrative importance.
This vertical differentiation is accompanied by integration,
which consists in the emergence and consolidation of inter­
connections between the different levels of prevention. In
other words, all the levels are represented in integral pre­
ventive activity. The multi-levelled organisation of social
prevention of offences is hierarchised in relation to its
implementation as a whole. A means of differentiating the
levels is classification of measures of prevention, its types
and forms in relation to the corresponding type of activity:
the level of society (the high level), the level of social groups
and collectives (the middle level) and the individual level
(the low level). A break in the unity, the integral “role
285
ensemble” of these levels leads to the collapse of the preven­
tion system as a whole. The effectiveness of preventive activ­
ity at all these levels is closely connected with the extent
to which each of them is included in the general system
of social prevention of anti-social behaviour.
Prevention theory has a rule according to which three
levels are studied. They are characterised as follows. The
first level is the solution of major social, economic and other
problems of the life of society, the enhancement of educative
and ideological work in the country, and the improvement
of social relations. This ensures planned mediated action
on all the links of anti-social behaviour, from the formation
of the personality to action on already formed behaviour
motives, on the choice of aims and means of carrying out
this or that act. The second level is connected with preventive
action on concrete social groups (the micro-environment)
in which conflict situations develop and negative phenomena
emerge. Here the prompt elimination of defects found in
the life of this or that collective, social group, is essential.
The third level is individual educational preventive work,
which aims essentially at bringing about a positive change
in the person’s system of value orientations, overcoming
his anti-social views and attitudes, and developing respect
for the rules of the socialist way of life, for the personality
and dignity of those around him, and for law and order. All
these levels of preventive work are connected, firstly, with
one another, and, secondly, with the types and forms of
prevention and determine them. There is no rigid, simple
connection between them, however. The connection between
them is a probabilistic and complex one. It is expressed
in the fact that the prevention carried out at each level is
of an independent nature.
Forms of prevention
It is generally accepted that as a rule offences are not
committed suddenly and unexpectedly; they are more often
than not preceded by a long period of anti-social behaviour.
Thus, the need arises to carry out not only direct prevention
(when the object of preventive action is a person in a state,
conventionally speaking, close to the committing of a crime),
but also early prevention (here the object of the action is
a person with negative characteristics, who is, nevertheless,
286
 at a stage which is, conventionally speaking, still remote
from the committing of a crime). Consequently, we can
speak of two forms of prevention: early and direct. The main
criteria for dividing prevention into early and direct are,
firstly, the time that “separates” the person from the moment
of his possible commission of a crime; and, secondly, the
degree of “social depravity” of the person. Timely prevention
is most important in preventive activity with a per­
son.
Direct prevention is the main form of preventive work.
It is essentially the organisation and carrying out of preven­
tive activity aimed concretely (and directly) at detecting
and eliminating the causes and conditions of crimes, at the
detection of persons who may be expected to commit crimes,
and carrying out work with them aimed at preventing the
committing of crimes. Direct prevention is closely connected
with the deterrence and suppression of crimes. It is done
by various bodies, establishments and organisations and at
different levels.
Early prevention. Consideration of this problem gives rise
to a number of questions: when should the preventive work
with people begin?, who should carry out this work?, what
is the place of early prevention in the system of educating
the younger generation, the people?. For the practical social
prevention of anti-social behaviour it is important to imple­
ment a system of measures to prevent negative influences on
the individual from the beginning of his development and
at all subsequent stages.
The basis of early prevention is education, moulding in
everyone the willingness to observe prescribed socialist
norms voluntarily. Education is carried out at all levels
of prevention and at all stages of the development of the
individual. Education is part of the preventive function,
and prevention is a function of education. Education and
prevention cannot be divorced from each other. This is
particularly true of the early prevention of offences. Educa­
tion enters the system of crime-control measures through
the prevention (both early and direct) of anti-social behavi­
our. The early prevention of this behaviour is largely pur­
posive educational work. By virtue of its immanent char­
acteristics it is inconceivable without broad use of the
means, methods and devices of educational influence. But
it is preventive and therefore cannot be regarded outside
287
 the system of crime control. The latter begins with preven­
tion, particularly at the early stage.
Some criminologists in discussing the early prevention
of anti-social behaviour refer to the absence of an obvious
criterion that would enable us to assess albeit approximately
the state—close to or far from committing a crime—in which
a certain person is. Insofar as the finding of such a criterion
is connected to a certain extent with the choice of measures
of preventive action this question is by no means of academic
interest only. Prevention should be started when the need
for it arises. This applies not only to adolescents and all
juveniles, but also to adults. For one special variety of early
prevention is prevention in relation to adults, even those
with a conviction. Account is taken here not of age, but of
the degree of “social depravity” of the person. The main
trend of this form of prevention is prevention in relation
to juveniles.
Obviously in connection with the early prevention of
anti-social behaviour we can talk of phases, periods, stages
and cycles of the socialisation and formation of the per­
sonality of the offender. Therefore, in discussing this pre­
vention I should like to draw a certain analogy with the
prevention of diseases. As we know, medicine pays atten­
tion mainly to the prevention of diseases. In this respect
the period of childhood is the most vulnerable. This is
also true of anti-social behaviour. Consequently, the preven­
tion of such behaviour must be started at the earliest stage
in the development of the personality of the offender. The
earlier the better.
If time has been lost, if certain changes have already
taken place in the personality, if it has been seriously deformed,
obviously recourse must be made to direct prevention.
Thus, the main task of early prevention is to prevent the
actual possibility of deformation of the personality, the
possibility of the emergence of negative social qualities
in the personality structure. Early diagnosis is important
to discover the beginning of the “disease”. Early prevention
consists of nipping anti-social behaviour in the bud, not
allowing the person to get as far as violating the norms of
socialist society.
To explain the real laws of the formation of the personality we
must focus our attention on the early period of its formation,
on the social “training” that everyone has in the process of growth

288
 and maturity, in the process of the development of the personality.
We know, for example, that at an early age a child objectively
“joins” the system of social relations in the forms of social activity
accessible to it. In contact with people (adults and children of
its own age) it acquires (and exchanges) all sorts of information
and experiences different types of action and influence. It is
during this process that the personality is formed, the person
acquires his own experience of activity and communication, and
takes over social values and norms. However, this process is
frequently a contradictory one, for positive and negative influences
clash in it. Therefore the personality does not always receive the
necessary orientation in life and activity, in behaviour. Mean­
while this process of the formation of tne personality requires
a strict system of consistent measures that influence the person
from the very beginning—literally from nursery school throughout
his whole active life. It is essential to educate people from child­
hood, to teach each one the norms and rules of behaviour. A well
brought-up person not only knows his rights and obligations well,
but also observes them. He is conscious and disciplined, full of
initiative and responsible. The most significant cause of anti­
social behaviour is lack of education. Consequently, early pre­
vention of this behaviour means bringing to bear various influences
on people from the angle of pedagogics. For it is as a result of
defects in education that the state of pedagogical neglect develops.
And it forms the ground on which negative (including crimino­
genic) factors sprout and anti-social attitudes and negative ten­
dencies in a person’s behaviour develop. Hence the important
conclusion that the prevention of anti-social behaviour should
begin at the early stages of the emergence of difficulties in educat­
ing children and the pedagogical neglect of both juveniles and
adults.
The early prevention of anti-social behaviour is becom­
ing particuarly important in modern conditions. This
explains why such prevention has become one of the main
trends of preventive activity as a whole. Early prevention
“holds” people’s way of life within the framework of uni­
versally accepted norms and does not allow it to “grow”
over into an anti-social way of life.
Types of prevention
There are two accepted forms of the prevention of offences:
general and individual. However, apart from these there
are other forms: prevention in relation to individual social
groups, so-called victimological prevention, self-prevention,
as has already been mentioned, and special prevention (both
general and individual) which is carried out by specialised
bodies and organisations with the help of special means
and methods. Let us examine some of these types.
1 9 -0 1 7 7 1 289
 iBy general prevention we mean activity that ensures the
normal (law-abiding) behaviour of citizens. It is a restrain-
ing influence on members of society, based on social norml
(including legal ones) and carried out by the corresponding
state bodies and public organisations. Members of society
are informed of the rules (norms) of behaviour and it is
stressed, in particular, that anti-social behaviour is punish­
able. In other words, the whole population is sent “signals”
about how they can and should behave and how they should
not behave. The effect of general prevention is ensured
insofar as general prevention measures restrain citizens
from undesirable actions (acts) which they might otherwise
have committed. The attitude of people to different types
of behaviour depends largely on the influence exerted on
them by society.
The general prevention of offences is carried out within
the framework of society as a whole. An advantage of social­
ist society is that general prevention of offences is carried
put here in the economic and cultural construction, in the
rational organisation of labour, leisure, everyday life,
education, etc., i.e., in all spheres of life. General prevention
is promoted by the moral and political atmosphere that
prevails in the country. The prerequsites for the success
of general preventive work, the real possibility of its being
carried out, lie in the very nature of Soviet society. The
general prevention of offences includes forms of activity
aimed at management of social processes that excludes pos­
sibility of the emergence of the prerequisities for anti-social
behaviour. Its essence lies in the fact that the carrying out
of general preventive measures is aimed at mobilising
members of society to combat those phenomena of social
reality which in certain conditions create the possibility
of individuals adopting anti-social standpoints. Moreover
general prevention has a varied influence on the choice of
behaviour variants acceptable to society. Thus it also serves
the interests of all the working people, each person.
The main tasks at this level are activisation of all means of
educational-preventive work, turning of the social and moral
norms of society into the decisive and daily norms of people's
activity. A great role in tackling these tasks is played by the
moral education of members of society, and the propagating of
legal knowledge among the population. It is important that this
knowledge should receive a social assessment and be disseminated
at the level at which it can have a positive practical influence on
290
 public order. The mass media can be of special assistance in this
matter. Their role in general prevention is an important one.
From general to individual prevention. This transition is
a move in the direction of the concrete, insofar as it is not
general, but individual prevention that is connected with
a concrete person. For the so-called personal level is charac­
terised by special qualities conditioned by the specific work
with each concrete person. All the practical conclusions and
deductions concerning personality behaviour are concentrat­
ed at this level. However, no matter how much general
and individual prevention differ in quality, there is always
an inner connection between them and the presence of this
connection is stressed most strongly within the framework
of the personal approach. Nevertheless, the measures neces­
sary for general prevention are frequently of no use in
individual preventive action. They are broader and less
concrete, whereas individual prevention is always com­
pletely concrete.
Individual prevention is intended, first and foremost, for
concrete work with each individual person. It is used when
the behaviour of an individual testifies to the real possibility
of his adopting anti-social positions. Individual preventive
measures ensure the necessary action, on the one hand, on
the individual himself, and on the other, on the conditions
of his immediate environment. The main elements of the
system of individual prevention are: firstly, a careful study
of persons leading an anti-social way of life in order to
detect those in relation to whom individual action would
be particularly useful and expedient; secondly, determining
the main measures and steps, with the help of which it
might be possible to exert the necessary action in practice;
thirdly, working out rational methods of organisation,
control and determination of the effect of individual pre­
ventive action. The object of such action is usually con­
sidered to be the personality of the offender—the concretised
object itself of the prevention of anti-social behaviour.
It is necessary to extend the sphere of individual pre­
vention. It must be the nucleus of the whole system of
prevention of offences. For essentially individual prevention
is the sum of measures of persuasion (education) and coercion
(punishment) applied to the bearers of anti-social tendencies
and orientations. And this is a special category of people
who stand in need of special action.
19 * 291
 The aim of individual prevention is to change, alter
deviant behaviour with the aim of either suppressing the
anti-social behaviour of the individual or changing the
criminogenic tendency in the behaviour. Hence the main
tasks of this prevention are to discover the real laws of
deviant behaviour, to establish the mechanism of its forma­
tion and change, to study the sources of negative influence
on the personality, and to examine the possibilities of creat
ing favourable circumstances for it so that no offences are
committed. It is equally important to establish control
of such persons’ behaviour and way of life, to check peri­
odically the results of preventive measures carried out. The
tasks of individual prevention may be considered fulfilled
if the leading (generalising) elements of the system of self-
control of the personality have become the moral and legal
injunctions and imperatives of society.
Social control in the process
of carrying out prevention
We can talk of control in the various spheres of state and
social life: for example, control in the sphere of financial
activity, in procuratorial supervision, etc. In Party work
we speak of control over the implementation of decisions.
All these are varieties of social control. For criminological
science the concept “social control” has a methodological
meaning. This concept enables us to discover the historical
conditionality of those control functions of the state and
society that have a direct influence on the process of crime
control. It is of special significance for the prevention of
anti-social behaviour. Hence the need for intensive use
of the means and methods of social control over the observ­
ance of norms of behaviour in socialist society. However,
the prevention of anti-social behaviour does not simply
make use of social control which, in the interests of society,
is present in all spheres of state and public life. In the pro­
cess of preventive activity a special control takes shape which
has a very clearly defined direction. It is the preventive
function of social control that “operates” here.
By social control we usually have in mind the self-regulation
of the social system that ensures the orderly interaction of its
constituent elements by means of normative (including legal)
regulation. Social control is an element of a broader system of
society's regulatory actions on the behaviour of individuals.
292
 A distinguishing feature of this action is the orderly, formalised,
categorical demands made on the individual, their normative
nature, their provision with sanctions (both formal and informal).
The system of social control invariably makes use of social norms
which are reflected in ideology, philosophico-ethical views, etc.
The relationship which exists within the framework of the mecha­
nism of social control between society and the individual is not the
“direct1*relationship of the subject and the object. In other words,
social control is not merely the “action” of society on the individ­
ual. A certain interconnection exists here: society creates the
individual, but the individual also creates society, consequently,
society “controls” the individual, and the individual society.
However, the “action” of society on the individual is reinforced
by the realisation of the preventive function of social control.
In this case social control helps to enhance the social significance
of established rules of behaviour, the formation in the conscious­
ness of citizens of the conviction that society and the state will
not tolerate violations of these rules. And this is what determines
the role of control in the prevention of anti-social behaviour.
In determining the main trends of social control in organ­
ising the prevention of anti-social behaviour the following
should be borne in mind. Firstly, social control promotes
the regulation of social processes and the influencing of the
individual thanks to which the effectiveness of prevention
is raised and the behaviour of citizens brought into line
with the moral and legal principles, ideas, views, assess­
ments and judgements prevalent in society. Secondly,
social control places people’s actions within definite regu­
latory frameworks which correspond to the demands of
social discipline and rule out violations of moral and legal
imperatives or make such violations difficult. Thirdly,
social control is a form of drawing the broad mass of the
working people into the control of offences, into the preven­
tive activity of state bodies and public organisations.
Fourthly, the development of social control is an essential
prerequisite and the most important factor for the further
improvement of state and public activity aimed at the pre­
vention of offences. Moreover, social control as a means
of preventive action has strictly defined legal bases and its
own legal status. This type of control is used in both general
and individual prevention of anti-social behaviour.
The victimological aspect of prevention
It would be wrong lo regard prevention only in relation
to offenders, i.c., those who have committed a crime or are
capable of doing so. Prevention should also concern those
293
 who have been the victims of crime. A victim, by virtue
of his special position and procedural rights, stands, as it
were, apart from the person who has committed the crime.
Is that so? From the criminological point of view the answer
is negative. In the sphere of crime prevention the level and
volume of results depend to a certain extent on the compre­
hensive analysis of the role of the victim of crime in the
causal mechanism of individual criminal behaviour and
on consideration of this role in drafting and recommending
measures of preventive action. Here we can find considerable
reserves for strengthening preventive action in the sphere
of crime control.
Victimology, the science of crime victims, is closely
connected with the criminological theory of the prevention
of offences and with its practice. Victimological prevention
does not compete with traditional preventive activity, but,
possessing a certain independence, adds to and enriches it.
The emergence and existence of victimology is justified
precisely by the fact that it not only provides the factual
material necessary for crime control, but also enriches the
arsenal of preventive measures with new possibilities con­
ditioned by a better knowledge of the defense resources
of victims, the circumstances under which they were harmed.
Consequently, it is necessary to change the view of preven­
tion as work related only to offenders. We cannot ignore the
fact that the victimological aspect finds a place in all trends
of the prevention of criminal behaviour.
The victimological aspect of the prevention of offences
is connected primarily with the implementation of measures
to eliminate situations (circumstances) conducive to criminal
behaviour. Therefore in order to increase the effectiveness
of prevention maximum use must be made of all possibilities
(including victimological) and not only those connected
with a person who may be expected to commit a crime.
In this connection turning to the victim of a crime is a
preventive possibility as yet unused. This possibility may
be used in both general and individual prevention.
The main prospects of victimological prevention exist
in relation to the different types, categories and groups of
crimes. For example, in more than half the criminal cases
of rape the women themselves, the victims, had created
a situation conducive to the crime (visiting the fiat of a man
with whom they were only slightly acquainted, going off
with casual acquiantances to secluded spots, drinking in
company, etc.). Many road accidents are caused by the
victims themselves. This is also true of many other types
of crimes, even such ones as murder, grievous bodily injury,
theft and profiteering. Therefore victimological prevention
should be based on a corresponding classification. A differen­
tiated approach is essential here.
Self-prevention
Self-prevention is a special type of social prevention of
anti-social behaviour. It is connected with such socio-
psychological phenomena as self-education, self-instruc­
tion (and learning in general), self-consciousness and self-
assessment of the individual, and a person’s perception and
assessment of the social situation.
Self-assessment and assessment of situation are important
socio-psychological factors, the analysis of which makes
it possible to explain and largely predict the content and
direction of both individual and social actions. In turn the
formation of self-assessment and specific perception of a
social situation depends on the nature of the social assess­
ments which, on the individual level, form the “individual
scale of values”, and on the level of the social group, the
“social scale of values”. Refracted through the prism of these
scales, social assessments produce corresponding individual
and social actions. In relation to the problem of self-pre­
vention the individual scale of values acquires special sig­
nificance. As we know in preventive activity the individual
is, as a rule, assigned the role of object of the action, and
the bodies and organisations (the subjects of prevention)
the role of the controlling and coercive force. This idea of
the mechanism of preventive action, to our mind, is one­
sided. The role of the individual is ignored. Yet it is not
a passive, but an active force influencing the process of
preventive action.
In fact in the process of prevention there is a clash between
the individual (the object of the action) and the bodies and
organisations (the subjects of the action). Their interaction
is of a more complex nature than simply the influence of
subjects on objects. The fundamental specific feature of the
“functioning” of the object of prevention must not be over­
looked. The relation which exists in the framework of the
mechanism of preventive action is not, therefore, only the
action of the subject on the object. The process of this action
is essentially the process of the interaction of subjects and
objects, and therefore it is right to include two types of
actions in its scheme: the action of the individual (controlled
behaviour) and the action of the bodies and organisations
(controlling activity). What is more the mechanism of self­
regulation of individual behaviour does not lie outside pre­
vention. The individual is included in the process of preven­
tive action. He ttekes a direct part in this process, actually
promoting (by his actions) its successful carrying out. We
must simply ensure that the individual is interested in the
positive outcome of the prevention. This is a special trend
of individual prevention.
Self-prevention is the action of the individual on himself.
It is characteristic of all people that they try not only to under­
stand themselves, but also to influence themselves. Tne greatest
victory is the victory over yourself, as the saying goes. This is
why the individual under preventive care must be taught methods
of self-education, shown the enormous possibilities of self-for­
mation, self-prevention. We must not see prevention as a stream
flowing in a single direction. Prevention is also self-prevention,
self-education. The personality in the broad sense of the word
begins where a person starts taking an interest in self-knowledge,
self-education and control of his own acts, where the need to
observe the simple, basic rules of human communication becomes
a habit. This means, first and foremost, developing in each person
the ability for independent interpretation of his own actions, for
the self-regulation, control of nis behaviour. All controlling
action (preventive action included) presupposes that the controlled
subsystem has its own interests and aims, in accordance with
which it constructs its own behaviour. Consequently, the more
successfully the control tasks in the sphere of prevention will be
solved, the closer the aims of the controlling and controlled
subsystems are. However it is necessary to ensure (particularly
in the sphere of prevention) that the controlled subsystem itself
strives for the interests and aims set by the controlling sub­
system. In such cases preventive action is complemented by
self-prevention, the individual’s self-regulation of his behaviour.
Of course, such contact is by no means always possible. Therefore
the need arises for regulation of behaviour from without. But
such a complex system as the individual cannot objectively be
controlled only by rules prescribed from without or other external
actions. The action of external regulators on individual behaviour
must be complemented by the action of internal regulators, i.e.,
self-regulation. The task of making practical use of this law is
basically to create special mechanisms of behaviour self-regulation.
It is important to develop in people under preventive care the
inner conviction that the aims and tasks confronting them are

296
 their own, and that the attainment and solution of these aims
and tasks are not only in the interests of those who are carrying
out the prevention, but also in their own interests. This is an
important condition of transferring people under preventive care
to a so-called self-regulation regime. It is on this that self-pre­
vention is based.

Self-prevention is an effective means of personality de­

velopment that leads to an improvement in the way of life.
With the help of this prevention a person changes for the
better. Self-prevention is an objective social phenomenon.
It merges with prevention as a whole and is filled with
new content: prevention prepares the individual for self-
prevention, and self-prevention complements and enriches
prevention. Self-prevention is the conscious purposive
activity of certain categories of people to overcome their
negative qualities and form the positive ones necessary for
society and the person’s individual development. The
system of self-prevention includes self-observation, self-
control, self-analysis and self-criticism. Correct self-assess­
ment is of special importance. Without some sort of self-
assessment there is no personality. And it is important
that this assessment should be correct. It is essential if the
person is to understand his behaviour.
The instruction process in connection with self-prevention.
An examination of instruction processes is extremely impor­
tant and has a direct bearing on the problem of behaviour
regulation in general and the prevention of deviant behav­
iour in particular. An analysis of instruction factors leads
directly to the practical control of behaviour. Practically
the need for instruction stems from the fact that the ability
of the individual who is under preventive,care to control,
to criticise his own behaviour is impaired. Impairment of
the ability to criticise may take different forms and appear
in the structure of different processes; such as thinking
and perception. It may be expressed in an incorrect assess­
ment of one’s personality, one’s actions, it may manifest
itself also in an uncritical attitude to the actions of those
around, for example, those who are carrying out the pre­
ventive action. All this is often an inability to act deliber­
ately, to check one’s actions, and to correct them in accordance
with the objective conditions. Consequently, a person should
be taught what is of positive significance for practical appli­
cation in his behaviour. It is not enough to know what is
207
right and what is wrong, what society values and what
it censures, and what behaviour should therefore be like.
A person must also be able to restrain himself from wrong
actions, to regulate his behaviour in accordance with social
norms. Self-prevention helps to achieve this result in the
process of instruction.
The unity of levels, forms and types of prevention
Any type (level, form) of the prevention of offences may be
considered independent, because it takes the specific condi­
tions of its manifestation into account. But this dependence
is conventional. Of course here we can see a certain con­
tradiction (it exists everywhere), but we must stress the
principle of unity. In the social prevention of anti-social
behaviour “priority” is not given to any of its levels, forms
or types. We assume that there is a unity, “equality”, a bal­
anced connection, between these levels, forms and types.
This is why we refer to a “balanced system” of prevention.
Imbalance leads to impairment of the normal relations
in the prevention system as a whole. If we are to increase
the effective functioning of the whole system of prevention
this requirement for a “balanced system” acquires a special
importance.
In practice the solution of all preventive tasks merges
into a united process. This unity enables us to conclude that
we do not simply propagate the integrity of the system of
prevention, but embody it in practice. It is on the basis of
the scientific conception of the unity of the prevention
system that the system itself is constructed, functions and
develops. This system is a single force of preventive action.
Mention must be made of the unity of general and indi­
vidual prevention. In practice, of course, a rift is possible
between the general preventive demands made by the state
and society on the population and the meeting of these
demands in relation to each person. It would be an over­
statement to say that each citizen fully embodies all the
features and principles that the society demands of him.
For the individual does not always absorb all the instructions
addressed to everyone, including him. And this is par­
ticularly true of instructions which the individual rejects
and violates. This situation presupposes the “transition”
from general to individual prevention. However, the actual
298
ensurance of the unity of these types of prevention depends
on a number of conditions. The most important of these
is the rational combination of general and individual pre­
ventive measures. The principle of the unity of these measures
is a most important one and lies at the basis of the system
of social prevention of anti-social behaviour.
General and individual prevention act best only in unity
with each other. On the one hand, general prevention influ­
ences the behaviour of this or that person. On the other,
individual prevention makes the general approach more
concrete, by dealing with a concrete person. Both aspects
of the process of preventive action are inseparable. Practice
shows convincingly that success in the sphere of prevention
is most significant when the work is based on the principle
of the unity of general and individual prevention. This
principle is most strikingly expressed in the new organi­
sational forms of the preventive activity of the public
order-keeping points and the prevention councils of work
collectives.
2. A CHARACTERISATION OF THE CONTENT AND PROVISION
OF THE SOCIAL PREVENTION OF OFFENCES

The concept of the content of prevention

We have already said that the system of the social pre­
vention of offences includes the subjects, objects, content
and provision of prevention. To a certain extent the content
includes the levels, forms and types of prevention examined
above, which also bear on the provision of preventive activ­
ity. Measures of preventive action are of special importance
for the assessment of content. It is they (a comprehensive
system of measures) that help us to answer the question of
how to carry out prevention and what its programme should
be.
A programme of social prevention of offences is an organic
part of a broad system of measures aimed at the further improve­
ment of social relations. In accordance with such a programme, the
preventive trend presupposes the carrying out of a set of measures
aimed primarily at eliminating the causes and conditions of
emergence of offences and creating the most favourable conditions
for the formation of spiritually strong and educated people and
for the prevention of deviant behaviour. This trend, the re­
sponsibility of each and every one for public order and the broad
participation of the population, sta'e bodies and public organis-

299
 ations in controlling offences express the democratic and humane
nature of the system of the prevention of antisocial behaviour
and embody the Party’s policy in this vital social sphere. Practice
shows that this policy, the concern of the socialist state for keeping
law and order and preventing offences, has made it possible to
carry out a broad programme of measures for crime control and
to achieve considerable success in this sphere.
The realisation of preventive possibilities in the Soviet
Union is not spontaneous, but is the result of organised,
conscious activity. The content of prevention is a scien­
tifically based set of state and public measures for influencing
the negative factors that promote the survival of offences,
the spiritual world and behaviour of members of society
who violate social norms. This set of measures develops
historically as the result of the objective conditions which,
at each stage of socialist and communist construction, create
new real possibilities for successful crime control. The con­
tent of prevention is also determined by the diverse forms
and types of preventive activity, as a result of which crimi­
nogenic factors are either eliminated or neutralised. Correct
definition of the content of prevention of offences (measures,
forms, types) means that it will correspond to the main
trends of this prevention being carried out by society.
The content of preventive activity is realised through a
system of purposive measures that ensure the effective
“functioning” of all social norms regulating social relations
in all spheres of social life: socio-economic, socio-political,
everyday, etc. The preventive measures in each of these
spheres are aimed in the final analysis at eliminating the
causes and conditions that give rise to elements which upset
the mechanism of social regulation, at removing the cir­
cumstances conducive to the violation of the social norms,
at re-orientating the individual who is capable of violating
or violates these norms. The whole system of preventive
measures used by Soviet society is based on unified prin­
ciples that express the demands made by the Party and
the Government on this type of activity. Therefore pre­
ventive measures should be politically correct, ideologically
aimed, economically expedient, scientifically based, legal,
in keeping with the principles of democratism and human­
ism, effective and well organised. They should also be real,
concrete and not contradictory. These measures should be
applied in a differentiated fashion, taking account of the
different categories and groups of the population.
300
 Problems of ensuring prevention
The social prevention of anti-social behaviour is ensured
in various ways: political, ideological, economic, material-
technical, organisational-administrative, financial, person­
nel and many others, used by state bodies and public organ­
isations. One of the most important is the legal means of
ensuring prevention. This, unlike the others, means that
the state in the person of its bodies lays down universally
binding rules of behaviour (legal norms) which establish:
the range of subjects of prevention; the range of objects of
preventive action; preventive, prohibitive, restorative and
other measures to protect society from infringements of the
law, responsibility for the infringement of these legal
norms, a system of control for their proper enforcement and
observance. Thus, the legal means is a system of measures
reinforced in legislation that ensures public order. The sum
total of this type of “action” is the provision of preventive
activity in the broad sense of the word. The provision of
this activity means the creation of the necessary conditions
for the successful functioning of the prevention system as
a whole.
Classification of preventive measures
The classification of preventive measures is one of the
most complex and little studied questions of criminology.
It can help practical workers to carry out prevention in
a differentiated way, taking account of different groups of
offenders. In the search for means of solving this problem
we often speak of general and special measures, measures *
of general and individual prevention, measures to eliminate
(or neutralise) the causes and conditions of offences, measures
of direct action on persons leading an anti-social way of
life, organisational measures and many others that help
to increase the effectiveness of prevention. The most wide­
spread is classification according to the nature of the factors
that give rise to crime and also the possibilities of influencing
them. It provides for the following:
neutralising measures used when dealing with objective
circumstances, phenomena or processes which are inevitable
by virtue of certain historical conditions and cannot be
eliminated in a short time (the criminogenic influence of
these circumstances, phenomena or processes is neutralised);
301
 compensatory measures—these arc used in cases where nor­
mal conditions have not been created for the education of
individual persons (for example, the activity of the system
of state institutions for children compensates for the absence
of conditions of family upbringing);
measures to prevent the arising of circumstances conducive to
the committing of offences (for example, elimination of the
causes and conditions capable of producing road accidents)
measures to eliminate circumstances conducive to the com.
mitting of offences if they have already arisen (for example^
the sale through the trading network of the required amount
of goods that were previously the object of profiteering).
This classification is perfectly justified. However, to
our mind, it would be better to make it, on the one hand,
broader, and on the other, more concrete. To this end the
classification of preventive measures should correspond to
the levels, forms and types of preventive activity. Hence
the following additional classification arises:
measures of prevention used on the high (first), middle
(second) and low (third) levels of preventive action;
measures of direct and early prevention, general and in­
dividual prevention, measures of self-prevention and mea­
sures of victimological prevention;
measures of prevention corresponding to the individual cat­
egories, groups and types of crimes, individual categories
of criminals (for example, preventive measures for recidivist
crime, juvenile delinquency, group offences, female crimes,
measures for preventing hooliganism, road offences, em­
bezzlement, etc.) which make it possible to take account
of the specific nature of these crimes and to differentiate
measures against them.
We can also classify measures according to subjects of
prevention. In so doing special measures should be singled
out (such as those used by the agencies of the Ministry of
the Interior). They are closely connected with measures
of deterring and suppressing crimes.
In relation to preventive action on concrete categories of
persons all preventive measures are divided into two main
groups: measures of persuasion and measures of coercion.
The measures of coercion are not the main ones, but subsi­
diary ones. We must first seek to persuade, then coerce. “We
must make every effort to persuade people before applying
302
coercion.*1 tn prevention coercive measures are used, when
measures of persuasion do not yield the desired results. But
nevertheless coercion is necessary in this sphere. Therefore
the general law of the gradual reduction of the sphere of
coercion in society should not be automatically extended
to the sphere in question. The offender must know that the
risk he is taking is so great and the punishment so severe,
that he would lose more than he would gain from commit­
ting a crime. Essentially people strive for order, but the
actions of many of them give rise to disorder. This is why
state authority is compelled in a number of cases to resort
to coercive measures. Their application results from the
need to uphold socialist legality, to protect public order and
the rights and interests of all members of Soviet society.
This means that in modern conditions coercion has not
exhausted itself. In speaking of the social prevention of
offences, it must be specially stressed that this is alien to
liberal attitudes to those who violate Soviet laws and the
rules of the socialist way of life. In relation to these persons
it is necessary to use the whole set of measures of social
action, the full force of Soviet laws. Coercion in this sphere,
as in any other, is an expression of public disapproval of an
act, behaviour. And the degree of this disapproval should
be reflected in the “extent” of the coercion.
The problem of coercion is closely linked with questions
of the inevitability of punishment. Everyone who has com­
mitted an infringement of the law should be called to ac­
count, punished. From the point of view of prevention, the
inevitability of punishment is more important than its sever­
ity. Even the most severe punishment does not achieve
the maximum effect in restraining a person from committing
an offence. The inevitability of punishment is connected
with coercion. It does not “function” somewhere in thin air,
but is woven into the complex fabric of measures of preven­
tive action.
Measures of persuasion in prevention are educative, ex­
planatory measures. Persuasion is the basic measure of
prevention. It is a manifestation of the educative function
of prevention. It has a fairly broad field of application, but
is used not apart from coercion, but in close interaction

1 V. I. Lenin, “Tenth Congress of the H.C.P.(B.). March 8-16,

1921”, Collected Works, Vol. 32, 1965, p. 212.

303
 with it. Persuasion as a method of eliminating offences
presupposes the active and purposive influencing of the
consciousness and behaviour of citizens aimed at inculcat­
ing an inner need to observe public order, and also pre­
venting the emergence of stimuli for deviant behaviour. The
subjects of prevention, we would emphasise once again, resort
to measures of coercion only after measures of persuasion
have been exhausted. However, the actual function of coer­
cion often engenders the function of persuasion. This hap­
pens when after the application of coercive measures (if
they have yielded the desired result) the need arises to use
measures of persuasion again. Frequently both sorts of
measures are used parallel to each other. All this enables us
to speak of the unity of the measures of persuasion and
coercion in the prevention of anti-social behaviour.

The unity of the measures of persuasion

and coercion
Obviously explanatory work alone, although important,
is not enough to eradicate offences. Lenin pointed out: “It
is quite impossible to fulfil this task without coercion.”1
In the control of offences he attached great importance to
“exposing thoroughly and bringing to public light the sig­
nificance and all the social and political threads of the crime,
in order to draw lessons in public morals and practical pol­
itics from the trial.”2 This task of drawing “lessons in public
morals” is performed by the bodies and organisations that
carry out the prevention of offences. They proceed from the
following: “when measures of persuasion fail to produce the
desired results, decisive measures must be taken against
these persistent loafers, bad workmen, drunkards and vio­
lators of labour discipline.”3 These instructions serve as a
guide to action in the work of preventing the various frypes
of deviant behaviour.

1 V. I. Lenin, “Original Version of the Article “The Immediate

Tasks of the Soviet Government”, Collected Works, Vol. 27, 1965,
p. 217.
2 V. I. Lenin, “Casual Notes”, Collected Works, Vol. 4, 1972,
pp. 393-394.
,
3 L. I. Brezhnev, Following Lenin s Course Speeches and Articles
(1972-1975), Progress Publishers, Moscow, 1975, p. 280.

304
 Naturally as the USSR advances towards communism Soviet
people have a greater sense of responsibility and awareness of
their public duty, aud the role of persuasion, the need to observe
social (including moral and legal) norms that becomes a habit
also increases. But this does not mean a decrease in requirements,
of course, a rejection of the need to apply coercion to those who
violate public order and commit offences. On the contrary, the
higher the level of people's consciousness, the higher their moral
level, the more intolerant society is of even minor violations of
public order, discipline, moral and legal principles and the more
strictly we must protect the “social health?* of society, the will of
the people elevated into law. It should be noted that measures of
coercion not only stop anti-social behaviour, but also create
conditions under which it will not arise at all.
The unity of persuasion and coercion does not deprive
them of their specific features. Coercion in the sphere of
prevention has a number of features: in combination with
persuasion it is legal in form, distinguished by a definite
formal nature, etc. The guarantees of the correct realisation
of coercion, its effectiveness lie in the combination of coer­
cion with persuasion. Excessive use of one method or over-
estimation of the other may lead to a certain neutralisation
of their action. Lenin wrote: “Our application of coercion
was correct and successful whenever we had been able to back
it up from the start with persuasion.”1 Persuasion also has
a number of special features: explanatory talks, the forma­
tion of correct attitudes and views on life—this is a purely
educative, not a legal means. But persuasion cannot and
should not mean endless pleas to and condoning of those
who ignore them. Prevention requires the flexible use of
measures of persuasion and coercion.

1 V. I. Lenin, “The Trade Unions, the Present Situation and

Trotsky’s Mistakes**, Collected Works, Vol. 32, p. 33.

20-01771
 CHAPTER XI

BASIC PRINCIPLES OF THE LEGAL REGULATION

OF SOCIAL PREVENTION

1. THE PLACE AND ROLE OF LAW IN THE SOCIAL PREVENTION

OF OFFENCES

The Constitution of the USSR

and general problems of law
The social prevention system needs a legal basis. For social­
ist society is a truely legal one, a society of strict legality.
The major documents of the CPSU formulate clearly the
propositions that one of the main trends in the development
of the political system of mature socialism is a strengthening
of the legal basis of state and public life, and that socialist
democracy is impossible without legality, without discip­
line. Law in Soviet society expresses the will and interests
of the entire working people. Legality is also becoming the
“common possession” of the entire people not only because
it serves the interests of all working people, but also because
it acts as an object of attention and concern of increasingly
broad masses of the working people and of their public
organisations. The basis of all the legal norms of state and
public life in the Soviet Union is the Constitution of the
USSR. It stands on a firm theoretical and practical foun­
dation and it gives clear expression to the development of
the democratic elements of legislative activity in the USSR.
The Constitution is the base of the further development of
legislative work in the various spheres of state and public
life in the USSR. It also provides such a base for solving
legal problems of the social prevention of anti-social be­
haviour. This is a special sphere of legal regulation.
Law in this sphere, taken in the broad sense, covers the
extremely extensive and diverse range of relations that de­
velop in the sphere of prevention. “Preventive law” is not a
306
special branch in the system of socialist law in general,
but is the sum total of established legal norms (criminal-
law, criminal-procedural, corrective labour, financial, eco­
nomic, civil, etc.) that regulate certain sets of relations in
the sphere of prevention. This law may be called multi-
componential. The different branches of law (criminal,
criminal-procedural, corrective labour, etc.), although re­
gulating preventive activity in the broad sense, undoubted­
ly retain the significance of independent branches of law.
Taken in the narrow sense, however, law in the sphere of
prevention is aimed specially at regulating "preventive
relations". Here we can speak conventionally of a special
branch of law—a "preventive44 branch. Thus, we can use
the term “preventive law" both in the broad and in the narrow
sense.
Legal regulation under socialism is necessary not only in the
sphere of economics, collective-farm and land relations, labour
relations, criminal-law relations, etc., but also in the sphere of
the prevention of offences, insofar as here too we cannot do without
universally binding norms, without demands for their observance,
without an assessment of behaviour compared with the require­
ments of law, with the opportunities provided by the law to choose
such behaviour, i.e., with one’s rights and duties. Here the prob­
lem of responsibility is of special significance too. All this is
important because legal regulation is an essential component of
the organisation of prevention, of control in this sphere. For
preventive action on persons leading an anti-social wav of life
is administrative, controlling, and is regulated by legal norms.
Principles of law. To determine an effective system of legal
norms regulating preventive activity it is necessary, first
and foremost , to establish the principles of law in the sphere
in question. These are, as wc know, guiding ideas (provi­
sions) embodied in laws and other important normative
state acts. Legal principles (together with juridical norms),
being a type of social principles, make up the main con­
tent, the “matter" of a concrete type of law. It is, therefore,
obvious that without establishing the legal principles in the
sphere under review (prevention) we cannot expect success.
Here, as in any other branch, principles as an essential
attribute of law that characterise its qualitative features,
appear in the form of a regulator of human behaviour. Con­
sequently, they may appear in the role of regulators of the
normative-juridical relations that arise in the organisation
and carrying out of the prevention of anti-social behaviour.
20* 307
However, legal principles, unlike concrete norms (although
principles and concrete norms are indissolubly linked and
united) contain not a strictly delined, but a general* most
typical rule of behaviour that corresponds to the guiding
idea which they express. Therefore the establishment of
legal principles does not exclude, but, quite the reverse, ac­
tually presupposes the elaboration of concrete norms in each
concrete sphere, including the sphere of the prevention of
anti-social behaviour.

Legal principles largely determine the prospects of the develop­

ment of law and thereby help to fill in omissions and remove
defects in legislation. Being the ideas, the main propositions of
the policy of the Party and the state enshrined in legislative
norms, legal principles not only possess a certain normative
nature, but also point to the aims, the general direction of legal
regulation of social relations. It is easy to see that the definition
of legal principles in the sphere of the prevention of offences
is of great importance.

The law and prevention

At the present stage of social development in the Soviet
Union great opportunities are presenting themselves for
using the advantages of socialism in the sphere of the legal
regulation of social relations, improvement of the system
of law and law enforcement, and protection of society against
offences. The basis of this development is the Constitution
of the USSR. All branches of law (legislation) develop under
the influence of and in accordance with the Constitution.
At the same time many legal norms, laws, derive from the
meaning of this or that constitutional provision. In some
cases the Constitution of the USSR refers us, as it were, to
the fundamentals of legislation, legislative acts already in
force. In others it contains a reference to laws which should
be passed insofar as they follow from the meaning of the
constitutional norm in question. What is envisaged in such
cases is the passing of a special act regulating relations in
this or that sphere. This is true, in particular, of the sphere
of prevention of offences. For the law is one of the most im­
portant regulators of the social relations that arise in the
sphere of prevention of anti-social behaviour.
Law aims primarily at positive regulating which will
ensure the progressive, consistent development of socialist
308
 social relations. This also applies fully to the role of law in
crime control, the prevention of anti-social behaviour.
Law not only establishes responsibility for circumventing
a prohibition but also ensures with all the means at its
disposal the conditions of positive behaviour and the effec­
tive functioning of the social prevention system. It is law
that can organise, direct and stimulate prevention action
on persons, on the causes and conditions of offences, crimi­
nogenic factors, etc. It is a reliable and highly efficient
means making it possible to ensure that preventive activ­
ity is purposive, well-coordinated and orderly. However
a study of the role of legal regulation of preventive activ­
ity requires examination of a set of problems connected
with the social conditioning of the legal norms in question
and of their regulating function, and also of their mechanism
of operation in society, the influence of these legal norms on
the improvement of social relations (in the sphere of pre­
vention) and the reverse action of changes in social rela­
tions on legal norms. Regulation of social relations (one of
the main functions of law) is an integral part of administra­
tive preventive action on persons leading an anti-social
way of life. In this case the legal norms act as a means of
regulating the most important stage of the administrative
cycle of decision-making. At the same time they have a
stimulating effect on the emergence and realisation of other
administrative functions. With the help of law an organis­
ing effect is achieved on certain processes. Law creates the
juridical conditions for the carrying out of prevention and
for the procedural organisation of preventive activity. Thus,
law forms the basis of the prevention of anti-social behav­
iour.

The ensuring of legality in preventive activity

The Soviet state and all its bodies operate on the basis
of socialist legality—precise and unswerving execution and
observance of laws and other normative acts. The enshrine­
ment of socialist legality in the Constitution as a fundamental
principle shows the growing importance of law and legality
in all spheres of social relations. On the legislative plane
this derives from the strict legal regulation of the different
types of state and public activity, and also the strengthen­
ing of discipline. On the political plane the growth in the
309
role of law under mature socialism is conditioned by the
process of improving democracy which is impossible without
strict observance of legality and public order. On the ideo­
logical plane this is conditioned by the further rise in the
level of citizens’ consciousness and culture. All this deter­
mines the need for constantly improving legislation and en­
hancing the fight against the various forms of anti-social
behaviour.
The growth in the role of law in all the spheres of social
life involves the responsibility of bodies, organisations and
individual citizens for ensuring legality.
Legality is to an equal extent also a general principle of
the structuring, organisation and functioning of the pre­
vention system as a whole. Mere legality is seen as a method
of guidance (administration) of preventive activity. Law is
the instrument for carrying out this method of guidance
which manifests itself by creation and application of
juridical norms. Thus, in the sphere of prevention legality
also acts as a principle of state administration. Here it
is the main (universal) principle possessing, first and fore­
most, a practical importance. The fullness of legislative
regulation of relations in this sphere serves as the base for
consistent implementation of this principle.
Legality must always be uniform. Lenin wrote that “law
cannot be Kaluga law or Kazan law, b u t... it must be uni­
form, all-Russia law, and even uniform for the entire fede­
ration of Soviet Republics.’’1 He demanded total obser­
vance of uniform laws established for all. Therefore, guided
by Lenin’s instructions, we have in mind, primarily, two
aspects of the matter: “First, the strictest protection of the
rights of the citizens, prevention of any arbitrary acts
whatever, including those committed by officials. Second,
we mean the strictest observance of Soviet laws, of the code
of public order by all citizens.’’2 These two aspects of le­
gality are closely interconnected. Their interconnection is
also clearly seen in the sphere of the prevention of offences
and the activity of the bodies that control crime.

1 V. I. Lenin, “‘Dual’ Subordination and Legality”, Collected

Works, Vol. 33, I960, p. 364.
2 L. I. Brezhnev, Following Lenin s Course. Speeches and Articles
11972-1975), p. 447.

310
 Legal regulation in the sphere oj prevention
In embodying and enshrining the achievements of mature
socialism, the Constitution of the USSR lias greatly ex­
tended the limits of the legal regulation of social relations
in the sphere of social prevention. It guarantees the broadest
system of measures of preventing deviant (including anti­
social) behaviour. Without consideration (and realisation)
of the principles and norms of the Constitution of the
USSR it is impossible to speak of the legal regulation of
preventive activity.
The Fundamental Law proceeds from the fact that Soviet
society is characterised by a high degree of legal regulation
of the social processes that take place in it. It provides an
interpretation of the social function of law that reveals new
aspects of the mechanism of legal action on the various so­
cial processes. Its principles and norms form the basis for
the whole practical activity of the state and public organi­
sations, officials and citizens. Preventive activity is certainly
no exception here. It is part of the system of state and public
activity. Therefore the realisation of the constitutional
principles and norms in this sphere (prevention) is also a
fundamental social and political problem. These principles
and norms form the core of the legal regulation of preventive
activity.
The normative regulation of social relations is of a systemic
nature and includes the interconnected totality of social norms
(legal and moral norms, customs, etc.). The functioning of this
or that system therefore means the use of various social norms.
This makes it possible to establish clearly, firstly, the relationship
of legal and non-legal means of action, the specific nature of legal
action (outlining tne external connections of legal means). The
functioning of the prevention system also requires the use of
different social norms (not only legal ones). But in distinguishing
legal norms from them, we distinguish the framework of juridical
regulation. Social relations in the sphere of prevention are regu­
lated with the help of law alone. Of course, by no means every­
thing in the prevention of offences can and should be directly
provided for by law. Legal regulation itself can have varying
degrees of particularisation. But all preventive measures must
accord with the fundamental propositions of law.
The mechanism of legal regulation in the sphere of pre­
vention is not a kind of special, independent mechanism,
but a manifestation of the mechanism of legal regulation in
general, in relation to the specific sphere of social relations,
311
 to a special object. Therefore (thanks to this specifics) the
mechanism of preventive legal regulation acquires a local
structure, as it were. It is in this connection that we speak
of the special features of legal regulation in the sphere of
prevention and of the specific aspect of legal regulation.
The special social relations must have a corresponding legal
regulation. The legal norms that regulate preventive activity
regulate special relations. And the regulation of social relat­
ions in thissphere also means the protection of public (legal)
order. Thus, law serves as an effective means of protecting
order, on the one hand, and eliminating anti-social acts,
on the other. Here we have an intertwining of the two func­
tions of law: protective and regulatory. They both promote
the successful prevention of anti-social behaviour.
The place and role of law in prevention may be character­
ised as a whole, taking a number of considerations into ac­
count. Firstly, the legal norms that ensure prevention
record the results of studying the laws and tendencies of
development of preventive activity and take into account
means of making effective use of these laws and tendencies.
Secondly, legal norms define the aims and main tasks of
prevention, i.e., express the realistic policy of the Party
and state in the sphere of controlling offences. Thirdly, legal
norms lay down the most effective methods, forms, forces
and means of prevention sanctioned by law and define the
basic rights and duties both of the subjects and of the objects
of preventive action. The system of prevention is character­
ised by the multiplicity of its constituent elements and
covers various social connections and relations. This deter­
mines the complexity of its legal provision.
Law promotes the normal functioning of the prevention
system. It regulates the “activity” of this system, keeping
it within a certain juridical framework and directing it
towards “business contacts” with other social systems. The
main method of legal regulation in this sphere is the stabi­
lisation and ordering of preventive activity. It is law that
regulates this activity. Here its role consists mainly in
organising prevention and carrying out the appropriate
measures. Experience shows that where the activity of state
bodies and public organisations is not sufficiently regulated
juridically, the realisation of the tasks of this activity suf­
fers accordingly. This is particularly obvious in relation
to the prevention of offences.
312
 Trends in the legal regulation of prevention. We can speak
of two main trends. One of them consists of legal action
on the causes and conditions of offences, criminogenic fac­
tors, i.e., on various social processes, with the aim of eli­
minating unfavourable situations and also of stimulating
anti-criminogenic factors. This includes all manner of legal
action on persons leading an anti-social way of life. How­
ever, this action itself is subject to legal regulation and cor­
responding consolidation in legal norms. The other trend is
“procedural” and consists of laying down the rights and
duties (and establishing the responsibility) of persons in­
cluded in the prevention system, in establishing the pro­
cedure for carrying out preventive activity and the content
of concrete preventive measures. In a number of cases these
two trends overlap and combine in a single legal statute.
Their division is, therefore, conventional. But each of them
has its own specific features.
Legal sources and legislative regulation
The main legal sources relating to the sphere of preven­
tion are: group one—Fundamentals of Criminal Legislation
of the USSR and the Union Republics, Fundamentals of
Criminal Procedure of the USSR and the Union Republics,
Fundamentals of Corrective Labour Legislation of the USSR
and the Union Republics, criminal procedure and
corrective labour codes of the Union Republics; group tw o -
decisions of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR and of the
Supreme Soviets of the Union and Autonomous Republics,
decrees and resolutions of the Presidium of the Supreme
Soviet of the USSR and the Presidiums of the Supreme So­
viets of the Union and Autonomous Republics, decisions of
local Soviets of People’s Deputies, and resolutions and
orders of the Council of Ministers of the USSR and the
Councils of Ministers of the Union and Autonomous Repub­
lics; and group three—departmental and interdepartmental
normative acts (instructions, regulations, rules, etc.) issued
by the bodies and organisations taking part in controlling
offences. Speaking in general about the sources of law relat­
ing to the sphere in question, we must point to the decisions
of congresses of the CPSU and the resolutions of the Central
Committee of the CPSU. Strictly speaking they do not
contain legal norms, but when it is a question of legal
313
 principles (and norms and principles are interconnected) we
turn, first and foremost, to the decisions of CPSU congresses
and resolutions of the Central Committee of the CPSU; this
is a special group of legal sources relating to the sphere of
the social prevention of anti-social behaviour.
The afore-mentioned legal sources contain the basic polit­
ical and legal principles of carrying out the prevention of
offences, the norms that regulate the preventive activity
of the corresponding subjects and are addressed to them, and
the norms that define the legal status of the objects of pre­
ventive action. A broad set of preventive problems is em­
braced here. They should all be seen from the standpoint
of unity.
Law, legislation and laws. In discussing the legislative
regulation of preventive activity, we must concretise the
concepts we are using, namely “law” “legislation” and “a law
(act)”. This is important both for theoretical research, and
for the practical solution of legal problems of prevention.
Operative law should not be identified with the system of
legislation. Law is rules of conduct established by the state.
Legislation is the juridical acts of the supreme bodies of
state authority and administration by means of the pro­
mulgation of which legal norms are established and in which
these legal norms are contained. The system of legislation
is a product of rational activity, a system of the forms of
expression of normative material (sources of law). Basically
it proceeds from a country’s legal system, but docs not coin­
cide with it entirely. Legislation and laws are also phenom­
ena that do not coincide (the former is multiplicity and the
latter singularity; the former covers all the social relations
regulated by law, and the latter individual questions only).
They also differ qualitatively to a certain extent. The
legislation system includes all types of enactments, not only
laws.
2. THE LEGAL STATUS OF SUBJECTS AND OBJECTS
OF SOCIAL PREVENTION OF OFFENCES

Among the many legal problems of prevention the study

of the legal status of both subjects and objects of preventive
action is of considerable importance. They (these subjects
and objects) are always the bearers of concrete rights and
duties, and are responsible for their own actions. The sub­
jects of preventive action are the bearers of functional rights
314
and duties who possess certain powers in relation to partic­
ipation in such activity. The legal norms that regulate
preventive activity, the regime of legality and its concrete
interpretation extend to them. The objects of preventive
action (if we are discussing persons in relation to whom such
action is being taken) also have definite rights and duties,
and are responsible for their actions, their behaviour. Im­
precision or confusion in the rights and duties of the afore­
mentioned subjects and objects is a hindrance to effective
preventive activity.
This problem concerns a set of interconnections of those who
carry out prevention (the subjects) and those in relation to whom
it is carried out (the objects). Their precise realisation of their
rights and unswerving performance of their duties is the basis of
preventive activity. All legislation on prevention is called upon
to consolidate this basis. The rights and duties of the subjects and
objects of prevention are not abstract concepts. This problem does
not exist outside preventive activity, outside real life. It runs
through the whole of this activity.

The rights and duties of subjects

and objects of prevention

There is no and cannot be any preventive activity if its

participants do not have rights and duties. On the juridical
plane we can 9peak of this as the strengthening of the legal
status of subjects and objects of prevention. Both possess
extensive rights and bear considerable responsibility to
society. The responsible approach of both subjects and
objects of prevention (for their work, actions, acts and
behaviour) is the unity, inseparability, of rights and duties.
The creation of a “balanced system” of rights and duties of
subjects and objects of preventive action is not a single
measure relating to this or that stage of activity. It involves
the continuous solving of the question of powers and re­
sponsibility. Here we must proceed from the fact that the
unity of the rights and duties of those who carry out pre­
vention and those in relation to whom it is carried out are
essential conditions for the development of their (the sub­
jects’ and the objects’) legal status.
The problem of responsibility. We cannot regulate people’s
behaviour or administer this or that activity without estab­
lishing and assessing responsibility for acts, actions, de­
cisions, etc. The sanctioning of responsibility would have
315
 no point if it were not engendered by the need to regulate
definite social relations. The provisions of the Constitution
of the USSR refer directly to the responsibility of state
bodies, public organisations, officials and citizens for carrying
out the duties incumbent upon them. The Constitution
also uses the term “responsibility”. Documents of the CPSU,
particularly those discussing the strengthening of the con­
trol of offences, draw the attention of heads of enterprises,
construction projects, institutions, secretaries of Party and
Komsomol organisations, chairmen of trade-union com­
mittees, workshop foremen, etc., to their personal respon­
sibility for discipline and law and order, the timely and
strict response to reports and other information concerning
anti-social behaviour. Of course, in preventive activity the
sphere of expression and carrying out of responsibility is not
confined to this. Essentially it runs through all the trends,
principles and forms of this activity. Wherever the perfor­
mance of duties is discussed reference is made to responsibil­
ity for carrying them out. Therefore we must speak of the
responsibility of both subjects and objects of the prevention
of anti-social behaviour. The responsibility is the sura total
of the demands made by society and the state on those who
carry out prevention and on those in relation to whom it is
carried out. This is a general assessment of responsibility
from the standpoint of preventive action.
Responsibility seen in relation to the sphere of preven­
tion of offences is a criterion which permits assessment of
the extent and quality of the performance by participants
in the preventive action of their duties, in accordance
with which either approval or censure is expressed. Es­
sentially responsibility in this sense is the need (duty) to
take decisions (and actions) which consider not only the
interests of the participants in the process in question (the
interests of subjects and objects), but also the interests of
society as a whole, the whole state. In this case responsibil­
ity is the attitude of the participants in the process of pre­
ventive action to society and the state, to all working peo­
ple. Without an assessment of this attitude responsibility
loses its meaning and becomes pointless. In other words,
it loses its social and state significance.

Responsibility is a complex, many-sided concept which has

a philosophical, methodological character and is made more
316
 concrete and specific in its individual forms. Usually this concept
(as a manifestation of the connection and interdependence of the
individual and society) means the onset of consequences, unfavour­
able for the subject (citizen, official, representative of authority),
of his illegal acts. The concept is often interpreted as a person's
social, moral and legal duty. As a rule, it is understood (in the
broad sense) as social responsibility. It undoubtedly has a social
significance.
Social responsibility and prevention
The concept of responsibility in connection with the re­
lations that arise in the sphere of prevention is of socio-legal
significance. Bearing in mind, however, that juridical (le­
gal) responsibility is a component and variety of social
responsibility, we can speak of “preventive responsibility”
in the broad sense of the word as social responsibility.
The problem of responsibility in prevention can be seen
in two aspects: firstly, as the responsibility of the subjects
of prevention for the failure to implement preventive action,
and, secondly, as the responsibility of the objects of preven­
tion for evasion of this action. Observance of the law, re­
spect for the law is binding on everyone: both the individual
and the bodies involved in state administration, all of­
ficials without exception. However, the types of responsi­
bility in these cases differ. They are similar only in that
the responsibility of both subjects and objects of preven­
tion is (in the broad sense) social. Therefore we can speak
of the responsibility of all participants in preventive ac­
tion.
Preventive action develops a responsible attitude in
members of society to the performance of their social role.
With its help control is exercised over the performance of
duties that stem from this role, and also correction of the
behaviour of those who do not perform it. This correction
is carried out by the subjects of prevention by means of
preventive action (in relation to the objects of prevention).
Use is made here of the means and methods, inherent in
preventive action, i.e., measures of persuasion and coer­
cion. The thing is to encourage law-abiding and censure de­
viant behaviour. Here the precise differentiation regulated
in detail by law of the responsibility of the subjects and
objects of preventive action is perfectly logical. This action
should be combined with the responsibility of each person
who carries out prevention and of each person in relation
317
to whom it is carried out. The principle of the inevitabilty
of responsibility is fully realised in this case. It runs through
the whole process of preventive action.
Social responsibility includes many different types of respon­
sibility: political, Party, moral (ethical), juridical (legal), material
and several others. These and other types of responsibility are
further broken down into administrative, disciplinary, criminal-
law responsibility, etc. We also find such concepts as responsibility
to the collective, the family, children and comrades. All these
and other types of social responsibility are connected with one
another. They are always the consequence of this or that action
(or omission), misdemeanour, and sometimes statement (insult,
slander, etc.). Legal responsibility is reinforced in legislation.
Special attention has been paid recently to responsibility as a
definite inner state of the individual, his attitude to a task entrust­
ed to him, to society, the state, the collective, to his own behav­
iour, 9ense of self-discipline, consciousness. This responsibility
follows from the actual socio-legal position (status) of a citizen
and is called statutory responsibility. Hence the constitutional
demand to increase the sense of responsibility of each citizen.
However we are dealing not only with the responsibility of citi­
zens, but also of officials and organisations. This is stated quite
clearly in the preamble to the Constitution of the USSR. Conse­
quently, responsibility relates to all those who are granted rights,
nave duties and possess ustatU9”.

The responsibility of subjects of prevention

Responsibility is usually examined in two aspects—the
negative (retrospective) and the positive (perspective).
The negative aspect of responsibility, i.e., responsibility
for illegal actions already committed, has been elaborated
relatively fully by science. The positive aspect of respon­
sibility, i.e., responsibility for the proper performance by
citizens, officials, bodies and organisations of their duties,
functions and tasks, is not so well studied. This applies,
in particular, to those who carry out preventive work, the
subjects of preventive action.
This form of responsibility of the subjects of prevention,
responsibility for violation by them of their duty, is by no
means characteristic of legal responsibility alone. It is pre­
sent in nearly all types of social responsibility. Responsibil­
ity of the subjects of prevention means the social (including
moral and legal) negative consequences which these subjects
experience as a result of their failure to perform properly
the duties (functions, tasks) incumbent upon them by virtue
of social norms, the moral code, or the law. This responsi
318
 bility takes the form of censure, punishment or coercion in
cases when the subjects of prevention have not performed
their duties or have not performed them properly and have
not justified the trust put in them. Thus, we should speak
not only of legal responsibility, but also of responsibility
in the socio-political, moral-legal senses. This is a most
important question.
Every body and organisation, every official, every person
who carries out prevention or directs a certain area of work
bears personal responsibility for the work being carried out
successfully, effectively. A proper understanding of this
responsibility is extremely important in the political, so­
cial and juridical senses.
Responsibility of the objects
of preventive action
Making use of the system of norms, rules, traditions and
social habits that have developed historically, Soviet so­
ciety places the individual in conditions where the various
types of his individual activity are subject tb definite so­
cial regulation, i.e., first and foremost, the normative regu­
lation of individual behaviour. Each individual is respon­
sible for his own behaviour. No misdemeanour, no viola­
tion of public order (socialist law and order) should go un­
punished for the guilty person. This is connected in the
first instance with the steadfast performance by the individ­
ual of his duties. A person’s rights and duties express the
objectively conditioned ratio between citizens’ freedom
and their responsibility to society and the state. The idea
of the unity of rights and duties, freedom and responsibility
of the individual is of fundamental importance for ensuring
legality and law and order, for prevention of anti-social
behaviour. It expresses the unity of interests of the citizen
and the state, the individual and society. It is from this
that social prevention proceeds. The object of its action
is the person who clashes with society by violating order.
As the object of preventive action, the individual has
the rights and duties of a Soviet citizen. However, in this
capacity he possesses a somewhat different socio-legal status
from other citizens. He acquires certain new duties and
loses certain rights. This is the result of responsibility for
anti-social behaviour. One of the new duties is to comply
319
with the demands made of persons in relation to whom pre­
ventive action is being carried out. A refusal to act accord­
ingly results in the person being brought to account.
In discussing persons who are the object of preventive action
it is important to know that duties are a concrete form of expres­
sion of responsibility. As instructions concerning what is ht
and proper, they constitute a list of demands made upon the
individual and laid down in norms (social, moral and legal).
This list expresses the minimum, not the maximum, for norms
cannot cover all the content and forms of the manifestation of
responsibility.
* * *

The problems of the legal status of subjects and objects

and their interrelations are very important for the proper
functioning of the system of the prevention of offences.
Their correct solution will assist the prevention of offences
on the basis of strict observance of legality and implemen­
tation of the constitutional provisions and the principles
laid down in the documents of the Communist Party and
the Soviet Government.
 CHAPTER XII

THE MAIN PROBLEMS OF THE ORGANISATION

OF SOCIAL PREVENTION

1. SPECIAL FEATURES OF MANAGEMENT IN THE SPHERE

OF SOCIAL PREVENTION OF OFFENCES

Organisation and management

All organisational activity is aimed at creating the op­
timum conditions for carrying out this or that work. The
decisive link in all activity is organisation. In other words,
organisation, the performance of organisational functions,
are characteristic of all types (branches) of activity. What
we have in mind here is always the organised way
of activity. The essence of organisational questions is that
each person should get on with his job, possessing the ne­
cessary rights and bearing full responsibility within these
rights. This elementary rule is at the same time the funda­
mental principle of the theory and practice of management.
Every science that deals in some way or other with man­
agement problems always examines organisational problems
too. And the converse is true: in studying organisational
problems we always examine management problems, also.
To our mind management should not be regarded as part
of organisation nor organisation as part of management.
These concepts are closely interconnected although relative­
ly independent.
The concept of organisation can be characterised most
simply by the words “think before you act”. Obviously this
applies to any form of activity, including management.
Therefore the concepts of organisation and management
cannot be divorced from each other.
The foregoing also applies fully to crime prevention. Here,
as in other spheres, management and organisation are or-
Va 21-01771 321
ganically connected and directly dependent upon each other.
The closer the connection between them, the more effective
their results. Organisation is one of the functions of man­
agement in the sphere of prevention. Management is the
thread that runs through the whole process of the organi­
sation of preventive activity. The organisational means
(principles, methods) necessary for the carrying out of this
process are concentrated in the system of corresponding
management. Therefore questions of the organisation of
preventive activity sometimes relate entirely to the sphere
of management of preventive activity.
The conception of the organisation of prevention assumes
that management runs through all the organisational activ­
ity, alongside the centralised planned guidance of this
sphere of work. Organisation in this sense is characterised
by the active influence of the management body in ques­
tion on all aspects of preventive activity or on all the links
in the system of prevention and the mechanism of its func­
tioning. Nor should we overlook the measures carried out,
firstly, on the level of the whole preventive complex (the
top level of organisation), and, secondly, within the frame­
work of individual prevention programmes. In general we
can speak here of purposive organisational activity. And such
(purposive) activity is divided into strategy—the defining
of ultimate aims and the best w'ays of achieving them, and
tactics—the posing of intermediate, individual tasks and
the choice of concrete ways and means of accomplishing
them. Strategy and tactics are inherent not only in organisa­
tion but also in management in the sphere of the social pre­
vention of anti-social behaviour.
The concepts of the strategy and tactics of organisation
(management) are inseparable. By strategy we usually mean a
plan of action aimed at the most effective achievement of the
general aim by a correct choice of main trends and by concentrating
the decisive forces and means on them. From this definition we
obtain the so-called vector nature of strategy. The main vector
characteristics are the single-mindedness and purposefulness of
strategy. These qualities do not conflict, of course, but rather
complement each other. Purposefulness expresses the active
nature of strategy, and single-mindedness determines the steady
planned advance towards a general goal, the consistent carrying
out of the strategic design, the retention of a correct orientation
under any circumstances. Tactics are means and methods of
action used to achieve the goals set. For tactics it is important to
be able to determine the main thing that is characteristic of each

322
 given period, to see the link one has to “grasp” to pull out the
whole chain of strategy, to formulate clearly the central task
of a period and to concentrate all forces on carrying it out. Thus,
strategy is the elaboration and implementation of a general line
at a given historical stage, the choice of the main future (long-term)
trend of organisational activity for the achievement of set aims,
while tactics determine the plan of organisational activity over
a short (short-term) period. They concretise strategy, as tt were,
at each concrete stage. The elaboration of the strategy and tactics
of the prevention of offences is inseparably linked with the corre­
sponding management.

What management is and why it is necessary

Under socialism to manage does not mean to suppress,
to oversee, to command. Under socialism management of
people is the rational organisation of their work, their eco­
nomic, socio-political and cultural life, and their education
in the spirit of communist ideals, observance of the norms
of socialist law and communists morality. Management is
necessary to ensure coordination between individual jobs,
to organise joint labour, to maintain the conditions of the
existence and development of society. It is conscious action
on the objects of management, although not all such action
(organisation and regulation) is scientific management. Only
conscious, purposive action taken on the basis of authentic
information about the object of action and the conditions
of its functioning corresponds to the real possibilities and
is scientific management. The development of the science
of management has led inevitably to this interpretation
of the essence of management. Scientific management has
today become a powerful means for improving organisation.
The objective principles of the need for such management
have been engendered by the whole course of social develop­
ment. Management itself is characterised as the most im­
portant factor of this development.
Management and problems of crime control
Society and the state are interested in the universal in­
troduction of scientific principles of social management. And
management in the sphere of crime control is an integral
element of social management. It is also therefore caused
by public and state needs. Management is an inherent fea­
ture of society at all stages of its development. This feature
2J* 323
is universal and stems from the systemic nature of society.
Crime, as already mentioned, cannot be considered outside
the system of social development; it is part of the social
system. Therefore we must assume that managerial relations
develop in all spheres of social life without exception (but
differently), which is expressed first and foremost in the
different order of the formation of controlling and controlled
systems, the different forms and methods of management
action, the different nature of the subjects and objects of
management, etc. Controlling crime as a relatively inde­
pendent subsystem involves the need for social develop­
ment. In this respect crime is no different from other sub­
systems or spheres of social life and activity. Its specific
nature is determined by the special need of the state and
society to eliminate crime, to eliminate its causes and con­
ditions. Crime control is aimed at meeting these needs.
Management of crime control differs from management of
positive processes in that it is aimed at reducing the inten­
sity cf and, in the final analysis, eliminating phenomena
connected with anti-social, criminal behaviour. However,
in order to make this position more precise and concrete,
we should add that the specific nature (peculiarities) of
management in the sphere of crime control manifest itself
most clearly in interconnection with the subjects and objects
of this type of management, in the actual activity (manage­
ment) of these subjects. We must also assume that each
subsystem of management has in its general structure its
own specific aims and tasks. Thus, crime, as an element of
social life, can be represented as an object of controlling
action. It is in this sense that we speak of management of
the processes of crime control.
The concept “management’*(control, direction) is used wherever
it is necessary to express a certain action on an object (system)
for the purpose of its stability (organisation) or the transfer of the
system from one state into another. In this connection the concept
is used to characterise controlling (organising) action under differ­
ent forms of social life. In socialist society all phenomena and
processes are controllable in principle. This is certainly true of
the sphere of crime also. If processes are capable of being under­
stood, they are also capable of being controlled. In denying the
possibility of directing the processes of crime control, we inevit­
ably also deny the possibility of understanding crime as a phe­
nomenon. It is necessary that this direction or management itself
should assume an objective, scientific nature, that it should be
based on a set of scientific methods and reflect the interests not

324
 only of the present, but also of the future. Elaboration of the
problems of directing the processes of crime control cannot be
the concern of scientists alone. It is also an important duty of all
leading practical workers. This idea was stressed by Lenin when
he was discussing management: “In order to manage, one must
know the job...” One cannot manage “without being competent ...
without knowledge of the science of management”.1 Of course, w'e
must not sav that no one did any management in the sphere of
crime control in the past. Although the term “management” was not
used in the same degree or extent that it is today, this does not
mean that management did not exist. It did exist. However there
was no base to ensure that this management was put on the rails
of scientific management. Today such a base exists, and we can
nowr speak of scientific management or direction in the sphere of
crime control.

Management in the sphere of prevention

The concept “management of the processes of crime con­
trol” is a broad one. It includes management of preventive
activity (management in the sphere of the prevention of
offences). The management is not only possible, but essen­
tial. If we see society as a single complex and self-organising
system, the social prevention of anti-social behaviour must
be regarded as one of its “control blocs”. It is included in
the general regulatory complex of social behaviour, and in
this complex prevention carries out its control function by
specific means. Prevention can be seen as management activ­
ity, as an important element of social management, as the
process of taking managerial decisions aimed at solving
the contradictions between the individual and society, at
eliminating conflict situations, and, in the final analysis,
at not permitting (preventing) the various forms of deviant
behaviour, including anti-social and criminal behaviour. In
other words, this activity is a scientifically controllable
process of overcoming phenomena which are causally con­
nected with violations of social norms, the norms of morality
and law (criminal law included). Preventive action is or­
ganised, essentially, within the framework of the whole
system of social management. But this does not prevent
such action from being carried out (mainly) within its “own”
framework of management—in the preventive sphere of so-

1 V. I. Lenin, “Speech at a Meeting of the Communist Group in

the All-Russia Central Council of the Trade Unions. March 15, 1920”,
Collected Works, Vol. 36, 1966, p. 521.

325
ciety. Naturally, this sphere cannot and should not be
excluded from the sphere of scientific social management.
It stands out as having its own specific features.
Thus the preventive sphere in socialist society inevitably
presupposes scientific management, as does any other sphere of
social life. And this means that preventive action really does
appear as a management process, including such basic stages
(principles, functions and methods) of management as information
retrieval, processing and analysis, forecasting and planning,
interaction and coordination, decision-making, the organisation
and implementation of management decisions, supervision, etc.
This action (as a management process) presupposes a scientific
understanding of the contradictions of social development connect­
ed in one way or other with deviant behaviour. It is on the basis
of such an understanding that preventive action becomes con­
trolling and scientific.
Management (control) in the sphere of prevention, as in
any other sphere, should be truly scientific. One should not
rest on one’s laurels here. Life marches on, producing more
and more new questions that require new forms, methods
and means of management. Here a special scientific search
is essential. For the fate of all management depends on our
choice, which may be unscientific, or may be scientific. Re­
commendations that are in keeping with scientific require­
ments are necessary. The main task is to embody the achieve­
ments of the science of management in preventive activity.
This task can be solved successfully by the representatives
of the relevant branches of knowledge.
Scientific management cannot tolerate subjectivism in con­
structing management mechanisms. Objective reality is always
richer than the most “perfect” subjectivist construction of manage­
ment mechanisms. Scientific management is conscious management
carried on in accordance with the requirements of the objective
laws, progressive tendencies that ensure the society's ascent from
one stage to another, higher one. To manage society scientifically
is to cognise, to reveal the laws of social development, to discover
the progressive tendencies and to direct (organise, plan, regulate
and control) the advance of society in accordance with these
tendencies. To manage society scientifically means to discover
the contradictions of social development and resolve them in
good time, to reveal and overcome obstacles on the path of this
development. To manage society scientifically means to ensure
the preservation and development of the structural and functional
unity of the system, the ability of the latter to assimilate or
neutralise negative action both inside and outside the system.
To manage society scientifically means to pursue a correct, realistic
policy based on strict consideration of the objective possibilities

326
 and the balance of social forces and inseparably linked with the
economic and cultural development of society. Scientific manage­
ment of social processes under socialism presupposes the formation
of managers with a broad political outlook, a keen interest in
general problems, the ability to relate the development of their
own professional sphere to the development of the whole social
organism and take into account the social and educational con­
sequences of their decisions. This requires an increase in the
scientific training of managers, their philosophical and methodolog­
ical training. These propositions are also fully applicable to
management in the sphere of prevention. However, we should
proceed from the fact that such management is a part of the
management of society, of state administration. For the main
thing in management of the sphere of prevention is the strength­
ening and development of socialist social relations, and law and
order.
Preventive action on the relevant processes is conscious
action. However not all conscious action is scientific man­
agement. Therefore we must distinguish clearly between
management in the sphere of prevention and preventive action
in general. Otherwise all preventive measures will be con­
nected with management alone. But management is always
done within a certain framework. Hence its special prin­
ciples, functions and methods, and specific features in gen­
eral. Managing preventive action is quite another matter.
It differs fundamentally from so-called non-controlling
action. Basically management in the sphere of prevention
is analogous to management in any other social sphere. At
the same time it differs very obviously from other types of
social management. It is a sphere of preventive management
that forms part of the management system of the processes
of crime control.

The subjects and objects of management

There are three “dimensions” of the specific nature of
management in the sphere of prevention: they are the sub­
ject of this management, the object of the management and
the relations between them. The subject is the active aspect
of the interaction “object-subject”. The object is that which
stands opposite the subject. The mechanism of the connec­
tions of the subject and object of management in the sphere
of prevention is characterised, first and foremost, by the
management relations that develop between them. The
special features of these relations, like their nature, are
327
 determined by the fact that they are preventive. This is
why we speak of a special trend in the management of the
social prevention of anti-social behaviour, and more widely
in the sphere of crime control.
The main objects of management in the sphere of preven­
tion are crime and its causes and conditions (as social phe­
nomena). Controlling action on all other (concretised) objects
is carried out with one aim only: to eradicate crime, to neu­
tralise or eliminate its causes and conditions. However,
bearing in mind the management of preventive activity
itself, the hierarchy of objects of this management can be
represented as follows: the management of the central
(USSR level) bodies and organisations that carry on (orga­
nise for the most part) the prevention of offences is the
high-level object; these bodies and organisations in their
turn manage the republican, territorial and regional bodies
and organisations that carry out prevention—the middle-
level object; and completing, as it were, this cycle of man­
agement, the republican, territorial and regional bodies
and organisations, manage the subdivisions that directly
carry on preventive work—the low-level object. Strict ob­
servance of this order in management organisation is not
always compulsory (in a number of cases it is obviously not
possible either). The direct action of “high-level” bodies on
a “low-level” object is also permissible, of course. But in
the final analysis the whole above-mentioned system (scheme)
of management boils down to management of the pro­
cesses of crime control. Crime is, as it were, the ultimate
object of the management under discussion.
Management in the sphere of prevention is multi-level.
The conception of such management rightly points to the
need to delimit management itself and direct preventive
activity. Management is carried out, in other words, di­
rectly (by influencing the object) or through representative
bodies (by managing them to make them act on the object).
In general, management in the sphere of prevention is
carried out by a corresponding system of bodies, organisa­
tions and institutions. To our mind, it would be correct to
divide this system into three main sections: bodies and
organisations that carry out the prevention of offences di­
rectly (they are seen only as the object of management);
bodies and organisations that carry out prevention and at
the same time perform management functions in relation
328
 to other bodies (they act simultaneously as object and
subject of management); and bodies and organisations that
largely manage the processes of the crime control in general
(they are seen mainly as subjects of management, and to
a certain extent as objects of management on the part of
higher state bodies). All these subjects of management work
under the leadership of the CPSU and the Soviet Govern­
ment to fulfil the tasks set in the sphere of crime con­
trol.
The main, most important task of subjects of management
in the sphere of prevention is to ensure the efficient func­
tioning of the developing (improving) system of bodies and
organisations that carry on the work of crime prevention
and control. The performance of this task ensures an active
controlling influence on crime, its causes and conditions.
Management of the processes of crime control presupposes:
defining the aims of management, elaborating and taking
appropriate management decisions; elaborating a system
of measures to ensure the achievement of the set aims (in­
cluding measures to coordinate the actions of bodies and
organisations that carry on the prevention of offences);
supervision of the implementation of management decisions
and measures; checking the implementation of decisions,
correcting assignments under changed ^conditions; regulat­
ing the processes of crime control, preventing and eliminat­
ing deviations from the correct path; analysis of manage­
ment problems, detection of new needs of the controlling
system and of unutilised reserves, the study and introduc­
tion of progressive experience; forecasting, and the drafting
of new short- and long-term decisions, and planning, mainly
comprehensive planning. The task of management in the
sphere of crime control is to ensure a state of crime as a
system (object) that promotes the realisation of objectively
determined aims. As a complex, dynamic system, crime
changes under the influence of management. In other words,
at any moment of its existence crime as a system is changing
not only in accordance with its own specific laws, but also
as a result of the controlling action exerted on it. The fact
is that management in the sphere of crime control is largely
determined as the action of one (controlling) system on
another (controlled) with the aim of changing its state in
accordance with a previously agreed programme or the
concrete tasks of the management in question.
22-01771 329
 The main principles and functions of management
These are essentially common to all types of social man­
agement. Therefore, in speaking of principles of management
in the sphere of prevention, we most, first and foremost,
mention the following principles: democratic centralism;
Party commitment; a scientific, objective and concrete
character; the main link; a systemic and comprehensive
nature; unity; the territorial-branch principle; effective­
ness; and material incentives. The functions of the manage­
ment in question include: formulating aims; analysis and
forecasting; planning; decision-making and administration
supervising; control over implementation of aims and de­
cisions; and the educative function* There are, of course,
many other principles and functions, but these are the
main ones.
We must draw attention to a short description of the
principles of management. The principle of democratic
centralism enables us to combine the planned centralised
element in management with broad democracy, the use
of the initiative of the people and of front-ranking work
collectives. It is of great importance for the solution of
structural-functional problems of management which in­
clude: determining the structure of the managerial appara­
tus, and allocating functions between the different sub­
divisions and services, between management officials, be­
tween leaders and subordinates, between central and local
bodies, between the various departments, and between the
government and the Party apparatus. The principle of
democratic centralism determines other, afore-mentioned
principles which, naturally, play an important role in
management. All these principles are closely connected
with the functions of management.
The main requirements made on the work of the manage­
rial apparatus are: communist commitment, competence,
efficiency, combination of the scientific and administra­
tive aspects, good organisation, and a few others. In point­
ing out these requirements it should be added that they
apply to all spheres of management. Consequently these
requirements also apply to management in the sphere of
prevention, of crime control as a whole. However, the de­
mands made on the management of preventive activity are
growing. The main thing is that certain questions concern-
330
ing this management extend beyond the powers of only the
specific bodies that control crime. Not only a departmental,
but also a broader social approach to the solution of the
problems of managing the processes of crime control is es­
sential.
The question of the role of law in management is connect­
ed with the problem of the relationship between the spheres
of management and the spheres of legal regulation. Law' is
always used with the aim of efficient management. Moreover,
law regulates the whole process of management (i.e., defin­
ing the status of objects and subjects of management). This
applies fully to management in the sphere of prevention
too. An underestimation of the juridical aspects of this
management has a negative effect on its level and leads to
the appearance of elements of disorganisation and irrespon­
sibility. It is important to take account of the objective
need to establish (or, on the contrary, abolish) this or that
legal norm of importance to management.
The process of management in the sphere of prevention
is, fundamentally, a normatively regulated one. This qual­
ity appears in the legislative definition of the status, func­
tions, competence, etc. of the bodies concerned with this
management. To a certain extent legal norms determine
the status of not only the subjects but also the objects of
management in the sphere of prevention. Specifically, law
acts as a means of regulating the most important stage of
the management cycle-decision-making, thus acquiring
the capacity of an instrument of management. Normative
regulation is characteristic of all stages of management in
the sphere of prevention. The process of legal action may
be seen here as an individual case of controlling action.
Interaction, coordination and supervision
Management in the sphere of prevention is effected by a
system of state and public organisations. Their purposive
activity depends largely, as already mentioned, on a clear
definition of their functions, rights, and mutual relations,
on the coordinated solution of general problems. Conse­
quently, the coordination and interaction of the work of
these organisations is essential. Supervision plays its spe­
cial role in this.
Coordination is extending further and further, covering
22 * 331
 all the aspects of the prevention of deviant behaviour and
crime control. Therefore management in the sphere of
prevention should, in the final analysis, be carried out as
a process of interaction in the work of the various state
bodies and public organisations that have their own inde­
pendent tasks. Coordination promotes the better use of the
resources and funds of state bodies and public organisa­
tions, eliminates duplication in their work and prevents
departmental interests being put before state interests.
It is important to note that only the functions common to
these bodies and organisations are coordinated, for example,
the function of prevention. All these bodies and organisa­
tions have precisely defined powers, but their aim is the
same—to strengthen socialist legality and law and order,
to control crime and eliminate its causes and conditions
and, finally, to prevent anti-social behaviour. It is this
common aim which determines the need to coordinate the
efforts of the above-mentioned bodies and organisations.
Without this coordination purposive and decisive action
on anti-social acts is inconceivable. This creates the pre­
requisites for comprehensive management of the processes
of crime control.
The need to coordinate preventive activity is explained,
first and foremost, by the inseparable link of this activity
with other trends of moral and legal educative action on
members of society. The prevention of anti-social behaviour
interacts particularly actively with legal education. Hence
the objective need to coordinate different, but organically
interconnected trends in the social prevention of crime.
This by no means excludes the unique, specific nature and
relative independence of each of these trends.
We can speak of two main types of coordination: compre­
hensive-territorial (horizontal) and departmental-branch
(vertical). The former is the joint elaboration and coordi­
nation of all preventive measures on the level of the country,
republic, territory, region, town and district. The latter
is the concern of one agency only. We are referring to coor­
dination of preventive activity within this or that depart­
ment (for example, the agencies of the Ministry of the Inte­
rior). Fairly often this sort of coordination is carried out
within the limits of a group (set) of departments with “close­
ly-related” powers. In other words, the vertical coordina­
tion relates, firstly, to the preventive activity of subdivisions
332
- within a department (this is “internal” coordination), and,
secondly, to such activity by two or more departments
which deal jointly with the tasks o! prevention (the activ­
ity of, say, bodies of the Procurator’s Office, the Ministry
of the Interior, justice and the people’s courts).
The main aim of coordination is to ensure the balanced
development of preventive activity, to strengthen crime
control by concerted action. Precise definition of the aim of
coordination makes it possible to act more purposively.
The aims of both the horizontal and the vertical coordina
tion of preventive activity may be achieved only when coor­
dination is not only concerted action dependent on the
coincidence of particular interests, but is real preventive
action which stems from the highest state interest. The
intermediate aim of coordination, however, may be the
solution of particular questions in the interests of a region
or department.
Preventive activity may be coordinated most successfully
when certain organisational principles are observed. These
include: Party guidance of coordinative activity as a part of
the management of the processes of crime control; coordi­
nation of action in the attainment of the aims and tasks of
controlling offences that are common to everyone involved
in this work; initiative of each body in raising questions
for joint discussion and solution; equality of all partici­
pants in the discussion of proposals and drafting of recom­
mendations; independence of each body in the implemen­
tation of decisions taken; non-interference of bodies in the
exclusive powers of other bodies; and strict observance of
legality in the carrying out of coordinated measures. The
organisation of coordinative activity on the basis of these
principles makes it possible to raise the effectiveness of
the prevention of offences.
Interaction. Generally speaking, this is closely connected
with the concept “communication”. A number of typical
varieties of social interaction may be distinguished by the
nature of the objective and subjective relation of the subjects:
overall, cooperative activity, occasional collaboration,
mutual informing, indirect interconnection, etc. An essen­
tial condition of interaction is the objective interdependence
of the participants: if the behaviour of one of them promotes
the achievement of the aims set by another, the latter
cooperates with the former; if, however, as a result of the
333
actions of the partner these aims become more difficult to
achieve, the partners clash, consciously or unconsciously.
If two or more participants in the interaction strive for one
and the same aim, this may give rise to collaboration and
mutual assistance. These general rules apply to different types
of interaction. They also extend to the sphere of the social
prevention of offences. The specific element is connected
here with the special features of preventive activity. In
the organisation (management) of this activity interaction
is essential. For it does not arise spontaneously, but as a
result of organisation. This explains why it is a managerial
(organisational) principle.
The organisation of the interaction of preventive activ­
ity carried out by the various bodies and organisations is
a fact in the Soviet Union. This organisation is dictated by
the need for the bodies and organisations in question to carry
out the functions of the social prevention of anti-social
behaviour. The contacts that arise between bodies and
organisations in the process of interaction of preventive
activity are many and varied. They depend on the nature of
the state body and the profile of the public organisation.
The bodies and organisations with general jurisdiction
deal in the main with a broad range of subjects. The branch
bodies and organisations have contacts with a smaller
number of subjects, mostly with special organisations.
Hence the multiplicity and variety of the forms of interac­
tion.
The organisation of interaction plays a large part in
promoting the cohesion of the bodies and organisations
that carry out prevention. This helps reduce tension, achieve
mutual understanding, strengthen trust and ensure unity
of action. Interaction promotes an exchange of activity,
experience, ability and skills, and also the results of pre­
ventive activity. Interaction plays the role of “intermediary’*
for all forms of interconnection between bodies and or­
ganisations carrying on preventive work. It helps to achieve
cohesion and solidarity, common attitudes, views, positions,
etc. Various forms of self-control arise in the process. In
such cases interaction becomes a means of increasing the
effectiveness of preventive activity.
Supervision. Management in the sphere of prevention is
impossible without supervision. It is one of the formsof lead­
ership and management. The proper setting up of supervi-
334
sion is a most important part of organisational work. Super­
vision is carried out by all bodies and organisations in
relation to the institutions under their jurisdiction. Prop­
erly organised supervision helps to eliminate the narrow
departmental approach to prevention and remove the short­
comings of such management.
Provision of information in the management
of preventive activity
The organisation of this management is based on an anal­
ysis of the relevant information. Karl Marx wrote: “...Anal­
ysis is the necessary prerequisite of genetical presentation,
and of the understanding of the real, formative process in
its different phases.”1 Lenin drew attention to the great
scientific service rendered by Marx who posed and solved
questions of social development with the help of profound
analysis, like a natural scientist.
All organisational activity can be successful only with
the help of analysis based on qualitative information.
Consequently, analysis and information are the basis of
scientific management. People make use of information for
expedient action on society, in other words, in the manage­
ment of society which is the highest type of management.
No type of information is processed so profoundly and com­
prehensively and used in such varied forms as social informa­
tion. This information is used by people in various activity,
including management activity. The management of pre­
ventive activity is no exception here. It too needs reliable
information.
The main principles of organising the provision of information
are determined by tne requirements of the science of management
and the specific nature of this or that type of activity. By infor­
mation in the system of management we mean that section of
information which is used in the process of management itself.
We have in mind information as a measure of the organisation of
ordering the system of management (control). Thus, information
is a necessary attribute of the management process. Without in­
formation there is no management. All management proceeds from
information for the choice of management action, ana management
action itself is formed on the basis of information contained in
management commands. Informational processes run through the

1 Karl Marx, Theories of Surplus-Value , Part III, Progress Pub­

lishers, Moscow, 1975, p. 500.

335
 whole of managerial activity, including the drawing up of decision
(programmes, directives, laws, plans), organisation of the im­
plementation of these decisions, supervision, etc. This applies to
all management. However, it must be borne in mind that at
different levels of management there should be not only different
types of information, but also information of the same type in
different forms. A great deal also depends on the types (trends)
of management. For example, special information is necessary for
the management of preventive activity.
The usual definition of information is communication,
i.e., the sum total of data on the state of an object. Infor­
mation is always received, studied, thenassessedand, finally,
put to use. There are different types of information; so­
cial, political, economic, legal, technical, natural, etc.
The highest, most complex and diverse type of informa­
tion is social information, insofar as social phenomena and
processes are she highest form of the motion of matter.
Social information, which reflects the diverse aspects of
human activity, can be divided into a number of types. If
we accept that social information is an aspect and a result of
the reflection by society both of the social form of the mot­
ion of matter and of all its other forms insofar as they are
used by society, drawn into the orbit of social life, we can
distinguish information concerning the individual spheres
of social life, including preventive information.
The function of information in the sphere of management
of preventive activity consists, first and foremost, in the
selection and selective use of information on new and val­
uable data of preventive significance. The fullness of such
information is particularly important. In this sphere it has
a specific form which is determined by both the distinctive
features of preventive activity and the mutual connection
of the prevention of offences with other trends in the pre­
vention of deviant behaviour. The management of pre­
ventive activity makes use of information on the various
levels of social relations that develop in this sphere and
social information of varying degrees of generalisation.
This information, used in management, is the sum total of
information on the deviant behaviour of members of so­
ciety. It serves as the initial and basic information for
drawing up corresponding managerial decisions. The task
is to ensure that management bodies possess all the necessary
information on the essence and laws of the phenomena and
processes that are the object of management.
336
 Initial preventive information is contained in various
forms of statistics, in documents, memoranda, reports, etc.
An important source of this information is sociological
studies. Preventive information is usually divided into
the following sections: offences; persons leading an anti­
social way of life; the causes and conditions of offences
(deviant behaviour in general); persons in relation to
whom prevention is already being carried out (who are on
the preventive register); and preventive work and its results.
Advance (prognostic) information, which corresponds to
planning information (essential for planning and already
contained in plans), is particularly important for manage­
ment. The retrieval, systematisation and processing, anal­
ysis and use of information necessary for the management
of preventive activity must be ensured organisationally.
One of the most urgent questions here is to establish the limits
of preventive information, to decide what information is necessary
in order to manage preventive activity effectively. Obviously
information should be considered primarily from the point of
view of its value. Moreover, information should have a political
character, i.e., it should reveal and help to determine the policy
of crime control. Only then can we speak of preventive infor­
mation as an instrument for acting upon negative social phenomena
and processes, as an effective means of determining the line (trend)
of preventive activity. Linked with this are problems of the
Party commitment of preventive information, which means above
all its objectivity and active nature. This information is a serious
mobilising factor which raises the level of preventive work. And,
of course, such information should have a preventive significance.

The problem of providing information for preventive ac­

tivity is connected with legal regulation. It accompanies the
whole management process.. The content of the legal norms
relating to this sphere provides the initial material which
is necessary in all the elements and stages of management.
It is in this connection that law becomes the vehicle of
decisions and information. These qualities of law are of
fundamental importance. They determine the role of law
as the main method of optimising management and the
provision of information for it.
The information necessary for the management of preven­
tion activity is intended (as it must be) for concrete bodies
and organisations. This helps to ensure its swift movement.
In this connection express information is of special signifi­
cance. For it enables us to take operative managerial de-
337
cisions. The practical sphere requires such information
daily. Express information is, as a rule, specialised informa­
tion. Its receivers are the bodies and organisations that carry
out prevention directly. It makes the management of pre­
ventive activity flexible and effective.
It should be noted that the practical sphere still has in­
sufficient information for proper regulation of preventive
activity. Paradoxically this shortage of information arose
during an “information boom” which was externally dis­
persed and not fully absorbed by the subjects of the organi­
sation of preventive activity. It is not just a matter of quan­
titative indices. There is also a qualitative shortage. For
in a sense a lack of information always accompanies the
management of preventive activity because no informa­
tion can be richer than reality. Thus, it is a matter also of
the skilled organisation of management.
The provision of information for crime prevention should
be constructed in relation to its organisational elements.
Then not all information will be used, but only manage­
ment information. This is essential for purposive activity
concerning management of the numerous processes of pre­
vention. It is expedient that the information should not be
confidential. Supervision of preventive activity requires
a clear picture of the whole sphere dealt with by prevention.
Open information will help us to see the whole spectrum of
preventive problems.

2. COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING IN THE SPHERE

OF SOCIAL PREVENTION OF OFFENCES

The place of planning in the system

of management

Planning is the core, the essence, of scientific management*

It cannot be seen in isolation from managerial activity.
Planning is part of the actual mechanism of management.
It is a form of managerial decision. In management planning
performs several roles. It acts as an element, as a principle,
as a function, and as a method of management. As a rule,
managerial decision in the narrow sense, is expressed in
a plan and realised through a plan. Taken in the broad sense,
however, managerial decision covers planning as well. Then
338
planning acts as a type of managerial decision. Of course,
planning and managerial decision do not exclude or replace
each other. They are dialectically interconnected. But plan­
ning is frequently seen also as a category that is independent
of management. Management planning, i.e., the planning
of organisational activity, acquires a special importance
here. However, as we know, management is not limited to
the carrying out of plans. Correct definition of the concept
of planning (and of the plan), its place and role in the sys­
tem of scientific management, depends largely not only on
analysis of the relationship between planning and man­
agement, but also on a study of the essence of planning it­
self. The latter, in its turn, is connected with a study of the
concept “plan”. Each of these concepts has its own features.
Planning is a continuous process, and a plan the result
of this process. A plan outlines the final result of this or
that activity, the period of implementation, the scope of
work, sources of financing, implementers, etc. It is a di­
rective, the basic document for the management and orga­
nisation of the work in question. The plan becomes a direct­
ive after it has been approved by a competent body or offi­
cial. The directive nature of plans is seen in the fact that
they are binding. After it is approved a plan acquires the
force of a law. When a plan has been approved and acquired
the force of a law, all that remains is the duty to put it into
effect, and to do so with the minimum of delay and the
best indices.
The Constitution of the USSR enshrines socialist plann­
ing as the most important function of state administration.
The plan is now the main instrument of realising Party
policy. This applies to all spheres of social relations. The
sphere of prevention of offences is no exception.
Planning in the sphere of prevention
This is one of the types of regulating social relations in
the sphere of crime control. This planning is sometimes called
criminological, but in recent times it has also been called
preventive. The direction of planning in the sphere of the
prevention of offences is characterised, first and foremost,
by regulation of social relations with the aim of preventing
anti-social behaviour. Its general task is to reduce offences
and eventually eliminate them entirely. This concerns va-
339
 rious types of planning in the sphere in question, particularly
comprehensive planning.
Comprehensive planning in the sphere of prevention is
currently the most widespread type of planning. It is car­
ried out on different scales (over the whole country, the re­
public, the territory, the region, the town and the district),
and also within the limits of a number of branches (ministries,
departments), for example, within the framework of
law-enforcement bodies. At different levels of comprehen­
sive planning its content changes depending on the range and
nature of the tasks being solved. On the level (the scale)
of the country as a whole, the Union ministries and depart­
ments. planning ensures the solution of general, strategic
tasks, on the level of republics, territories, regions, towns
and districts, within the framework of regional institutions,
it ensures the solution of more concrete tasks up to and
including the working out of forms of operative (comprehens­
ive) action on corresponding objects. The established system
of comprehensive planning of preventive work thus includes
not only the territorial (regional) approach, but also the
branch approach. At earlier stages in the development of
preventive activity both branch plans (of ministries and
departments) and regional plans (of republics, regions, towns)
ensured the solution of local tasks in this sphere of social
relations. At the same time because of the overall develop­
ment of this activity the need arose for comprehensive plan­
ning. This was also conditioned by the increase in the pro­
portion of preventive problems of an interbranch nature,
the solution of which extends beyond the powers of a single
ministry and the borders of existing territorial units. We
would note here that the comprehensive planning of pre­
ventive work is still only in the early stages. There are still
unsolved problems, shortcomings and difficulties. Thanks
to the efforts of theoretical and practical workers the meth­
odology and techniques of this planning are being improved.
Theory and practice now possess certain methods of the com­
prehensive planning of the prevention of offences. In practice
several main types of comprehensive plans are developing and
being used. Some plans are approved at sessions of Soviets of
People’s Deputies. The most important of these are the compre­
hensive social plans for the prevention of offences. However the
possibilities of such planning are not yet being fully realised
everywhere. There are a number of serious shortcomings in com­
prehensive planning. At present theoretical and practical workers

340
 are searching for ways of improving plans aimed at the imple­
mentation of preventive tasks. To our mind no science that is
engaged in studying the problems of deviant behaviour can fail to
concern itself with the improvement of comprehensive planning.
With regard to the need for the comprehensive approach
to the solution of the problems of prevention, we must bear
in mind the important point that it is a means not only of
their theoretical, but also of their practical solution. There­
fore both theoreticians and practical workers must make
consistent use of the method of comprehensive organisation
of prevention. The realisation of this method presupposes
the development of forms of organisational provision of
preventive activity.
A comprehensive target programme for the organisation,
of preventive activity is a set (system) of economic, ideolog­
ical, psychological, legal and other measures. It is assumed
that the aim will be achieved at a certain quantitative and
qualitative level and over a certain period given the com­
prehensive approach. We are talking of comprehensive
management. This is a type of management in which all
the factors in any way connected with preventive activity
are taken into account, and day-to-day preventive work is
coordinated with the long-term tasks of crime control.
So it is necessary to ensure comprehensive political, eco­
nomic, social and legal management of preventive activity.
Today, to our mind, we can distinguish the following ele­
ments of such an approach: firstly, ensuring of the develop­
ment of preventive activity on the basis of strict observance of
the socialist principles of its organisation; secondly, strength­
ening of the unity of preventive actions of all the interested
bodies and organisations; thirdly, precise definition of the
main trends of preventive activity on the basis of Party
policy, taking account of the special features of this activ­
ity carried out by the various bodies and organisations
and the public; fourthly, development of forms and methods
of prevention that ensure the comprehensive accomplish­
ment of tasks and the achievement of the best final results;
fifthly, coordination and interaction of bodies and organisa­
tions taking part in preventive activity; sixthly, ensuring
of the ideological-political aspect of prevention, the constant
development of its democratic principles. Comprehensive
plans of prevention should become an integral part of the
state plan with all the ensuing consequences.
341
 Comprehensiveness is a broad, multi-levelled concept. It
implies the dialectical interaction of the system of social relations,
political and ideological factors, conditions of everyday life,
i.e.t everything that surrounds a person and acts on his conscious­
ness. It is a basic principle of theoretical thinking and
practical activity. T|ic present posing of the question of the compre­
hensive systems approach to the management of society as a
whole, its individual social links and spheres of activity, is
conditioned, first and foremost, by the arrival of socialism at the
stage of maturity, by the tasks confronting the Soviet Union at
the present stage of communist construction. The idea of com­
prehensiveness is being intensively and fruitfully elaborated by
all the social sciences and actively introduced into the practice
of social management. However, the comprehensive approach is
frequently identified with the systems approach. This is wrong.
The systems approach and the comprehensive approach, although
interconnected, are not the same. Therefore they should not be
confused. They do not coincide on a number of points. Of their
differences we can say simply: thanks to the comprehensive ap­
proach we find out what to look for, where and why to look for it,
and thanks to the systems approach, how to look for it. But the
connection between these approaches is rather close nevertheless.
This should not be overlooked in the process of comprehensive
planning. It is no accident that this planning contains a great
deal of systems analysis. It is sometimes referred to conventionally
as comprehensive systems planning. ^
The comprehensive approach presupposes the creation of an
integral system in the organisation of preventive work, a joining
of the efforts of different bodies, the coordination of their pre­
ventive activity. With its help the most effective forms and
methods of prevention are carefully selected, the order of their
application determined, and the unity of the process of preventive
activity and the management of this activity ensured. This ap­
proach makes it possible to take into account a set of varied ques­
tions—organisational, legal, educational-ideological, etc. The
comprehensive approach makes it possible to see in preventive
activity the intertwining of various types of work, i.e., to see
prevention comprehensively. This is the so-called systems view
of the object. It is here that the close connection of the systems
and comprehensive approaches is in evidence. Hence also the
concept ‘^comprehensive nature of the system of prevention”.
The comprehensive approach is used in prevention when a positive
result cannot be obtained by relying on anyone of the existing
trends in this sphere. The work aimed at improving prevention
planning should be based on a systems, comprehensive approach
that makes it possible to combine all the problems of prevention,
to coordinate the interaction of all units of the management of
preventive activity.
A comprehensive prevention plan is a system of rules for
the carrying out of economic, cultural, ideological and organ­
isational-legal measures aimed at preventing and elim­
inating offences, rules that are binding for all Party,
342
government, economic and law-enforcement bodies and pub­
lic organizations. The purpose of comprehensive prevention
plan is to ensure an all-out offensive on crime. Such a plan
is a system of measures aimed at creating the conditions
for the optimal functioning and development of society.
Therefore its sphere of influence is social relations.
The object of comprehensive planning is social relations,
which are multi-tiered. The first, broadest aspect of rela­
tions covers the whole system of social relations connected
with preventive activity: economic, socio-political, cultural
and legal. At the same time theoretical and practical needs
and, above all, the needs of scientific management in this
sphere dictate the need to single out social relations in
the narrow sense as a specific type of relations—preventive
relations. We must also distinguish different types and lev­
els of relations. It is a question of finding the specific features
of each range of social relations. This classification fa­
cilitates the task of comprehensive planning. It enables us
to establish correctly the means and methods of planned
regulation of different sets of relations. The main ones are
social relations: in the sphere of labour and labour (product­
ion) discipline; in the sphere of everyday life and family
relations; in the sphere of leisure; in the sphere of social act­
ivity. It is also permissible, of course, to talk of the sphere
of ensuring legality and law-enforcement. We could mention
many other sets of relations. But this is not the main point.
Their classification may be extremely varied. What needs
to be stressed is simply that in comprehensive plans of
prevention the activity of the various bodies and organi­
sations can be carried out in corresponding spheres of social
relations. Then the sphere of influence, the functional rights
and duties of the various bodies are allocated in a completely
concrete way. We cannot accept the view that insofar as
social relations in any given sphere are of an objective na­
ture, they cannot be influenced. All social relations are the
object of regulation and, consequently, also the object of
influence and even of active influence.
An organic part of the system of social relations is rela
tions that develop in the sphere of keeping public order
The concretised object of comprehensive planning of preven­
tion is, thus, the keeping of public order. Here it should be
a question of planned preventive activity aimed at achiev­
ing certain goals and accomplishing certain tasks.
343
 The comprehensive planning of prevention makes it pos­
sible to detect social needs more deeply (from the point of
view of the protection of social values) and, correspondingly,
also the range of social problems requiring special regula­
tion. Here (if the plan takes account of the special nature
of different sets of relations) state and departmental inter­
ests can be coordinated more fully and opportunely. True,
in the process of the comprehensive planning of prevention
another type of relation arises: relations connected with
the drafting of the plan and the realisation of an approved
plan, and supervision of its implementation. These groups
of social relations are interconnected. They are distinguished
from other relations by the fact that they have been cement­
ed together by the act of passing the comprehensive plan.
They play a dual role: firstly, they promote the uniting of
efforts of the subjects carrying out the plan and the subjects
supervising its implementation; secondly, they bring the
planned work to the level of state and public activity,
the interests of those who supervise the preventive work
and the interests of those who carry it out coincide. A com­
prehensive plan of prevention acquires state significance.
♦ * *
Today raising the efficiency of preventive work is of
special importance. The problem of effectiveness in preven­
tive activity is very complex, particularly if we have in
mind not only the quantitative, but also the qualitative
aspects of the successes achieved. This is in no way to belit­
tle, of course, the real successes, but these must also not be
overestimated. It must be acknowledged that the tasks
of strengthening law and order are so far not being solved
effectively enough. And raising the effectiveness of pre­
vention means applying the comprehensive approach skil­
fully in practice, it means improving the organisation of
prevention, mastering the Leninist style of work and man­
agement. Effectiveness is an assessment category. It reveals
the degree to which action corresponds to the aims set.
Definition of the clear aims of prevention and the tasks
that derive from it is, therefore, of major importance. The
assessment of effectiveness means not only defining aims,
but also establishing the consequences of preventive work,
analysing its results. The end result—that is the main
thing to be taken into account in determining the effective­
ness of preventive activity.
 %MJF&* &&%9 f* • i t y f
A .* V ’,* » * .V « \t
sJA!t*V V //.V .V .V .**
, » *
5

• _
— -
* .# ! ^
^ iiL ~ ^ W W 'W'
f c A t * # -
^
* “

* * P # ■ • . * « * # # # * 9 * <
» « • * * ;
a ^ » •* # * * $
w 3 u * L m m *
&Jr^LFH
m
* * w*#
m
w ^ ;^ : •■
W W W •# # # # ;# •» ■<#. * .< * 4 :» * « % 4)
» • # * ? • #).••#£« # # P # # *>
I » | # t i # f i 9 f
:* * ’ « - ♦ * ■ * ■ #
•IP “ W T .“ J t 5«# ’l » . # • * #
* .'» Jk 2* * !p «•
i m
kfcpa -