Van Vechten, C. C.

English

Northwestern University Illinois, School of Law: Scholarly Commons

Journal of Criminal Law and CriminologyVolume 31Issue 1 May-June Article 8Summer 1940Central State Bureaus for the Collection ofCriminal StatisticsC. C. Van VechtenFollow this and additional works at: https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/jclcPart of the Criminal Law Commons, Criminology Commons, and the Criminology and CriminalJustice CommonsThis Article is brought to you for free and open access by Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted forinclusion in Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology by an authorized editor of Northwestern University School of Law Scholarly Commons.Recommended CitationC. C. Van Vechten, Central State Bureaus for the Collection of Criminal Statistics, 31 Am. Inst. Crim. L. & Criminology 69(1940-1941)CENTRAL STATE BUREAUS FOR THE COLIECTION OFCRIMINAL STATISTICSC. C. Van VechtenThe demand for centralized statecriminology units represents in facttwo quite distinct needs. The first isfor a centralized identification bureauto do the sort of thing that the Fed-eral Bureau of Investigation is doingso spectacularly well in the nationalfield. This is essentially a police func-tion and one which involves participa-tion in the business of current admin-istration. The second need is for astatistical information service whichwould be of value in influencing policydetermination by presenting and inter-preting the whole broad range of fig-ures regarding the genesis, prevention,and treatment of crime and of crim-inals. Such an agency would have nointerest in persons except as they wereillustrative of type problems and thegreat part of its material would dealwith summaries.It is my conviction that these twofunctions cannot be effectively com-bined in any single agency. You can-not expect the policeman to be a com-petent analyst and critic of the systemof which he is a part; nor can youexpect a statistician to make good as adetective. This fact, is I submit, amplydemonstrated by the Federal Bureau' Instructor on Sociology, Wayne University,Detroit, Mich.of Investigation. Here is an agencywhich is a conspicuous success as apolice agency. It gets, keeps, and pro-duces when needed, identifications andhistories of criminals; frequently it isable to deliver the person as well. Butdoes any statistician feel that theF. B. I. is doing a competent statisticaljob of analysis and interpretation of thefigures they obtain? True they countcrimes and criminals but mere count-ing is not statistical analysis. WhenJ. Edgar Hoover gets up and tells anaudience the exact number of crimescommitted in a given interval of timehe is guilty of an outright misstatementfor widely varying degrees of accuracyof reporting "crimes known to the po-lice" is the only hypothesis by whichthe intercity differences in such crimesas burglary can be explained. The one-sided view of the F. B. I. on such a sub-ject as parole is probably inevitable toan active agency but it does not repre-sent an objective statistical analysis.When the proposed "Uniform Crim-inal Statistics Act" is considered interms of the two divergent functionsdiscussed it will be seen that it failscompletely to recognize the severanceof function. It is my conviction that aBureau set up in terms of the act mustfail at one or both the functions it at-[691C. C. VAN VECHTENtempts to cover. Almost certainly itwould fail to provide competent statis-tical analysis.Assuming that you are familiar withthe text of the act in question, I wouldlike to discuss it from the point of viewof the fundamental objectives sought.Sec. 1. Why put the agency underthe attorney general? His functionsare mostly civil. The identification partof the work is already being compe-tently done in this state by a bureauattached to the state police.Sec. 2. According to Mr. Leonard ofour Detroit Bureau of GovernmentalResearch "violates every principle ofgood statute making." If the directorof the bureau is to develop good crim-inal statistics he should have tenurenot the two year term he would havein Michigan under this statute. Andwhy a seal of Office? And why writethe salary into the Law? And why notbudget the cost of the bureau as anyother expense of government? Mostimportant why not specify statisticalqualifications if you want a statisticalbureau?Sec. 3. Attempts to be specific as toduties. A competent man doesn't needsuch detailed instructions; an incompe-tent wouldn't follow them. The effectof such efforts is in fact to limit theactivities of the bureau.Sec.4. Why "promulgate classifica-tions," especially in view of the provi-sions of Sec. 9 for adopting the existingones of the F. B. I.? And what differ-ence is promulgating going to makeanyway?Sec. 5. Means little as is. Better,"let the Director prepare rules andforms which shall be transmitted tothe Director not later than the tenth ofthe month following. etc., etc., and onfailure to perform the Director shallnotify the State Treasurer who shallwithhold such funds as may be owingthe local community." This wouldn'tbe done either, of course, but it repre-sents teeth in a law which will be diffi-cult to enforce.Sec. 8. The picture of a statisticiansleuthingaround a penitentiary is ridic-ulous. The identification work therecan and should be done by profes-sionals.Sec. 9. Is apparently in conflict withSec. 4 on classifications. Also it is un-necessary because it could have beencovered by adding the word File inSec. 3.Sec. 10. Meaningless if statistical an-alysis and interpretation is wanted. Ifwe want a state identification bureauthe title should be changed. It is thefundamental point of this paper thatthe two cannot be combined.Sec. 11. On Cooperation is silly un-less you have an incompetent, thenmeaningless.Sec. 12. Here the Director acts as aconsulting criminologist telling thewhole state how things should be done.Quite out of character with his otherduties. The possibilities of this sort ofthing are indicated by J. Edgar Hoo-ver's efforts along this line.Secs. 13 and 14. Here I have the ob-jections as to Sec. 10 and others. Par-ticularly 14 would prevent study of therecords by university people or pri-vately financed research organizations.This whole difficulty is the product ofCRIMINAL STATISTICSthe unfortunate confusion noted in thebeginning. A statistical as distinguishedfrom an identification bureau has noneed for personal data which, thougha part of the public records, cannotbe made public.The inescapable conviction which Iobtain from study of this bill is that itwould set up the Director as a smallsized Dick Tracy with statistics as asideline. That is not the sort of BureauI am anxious to see. It is as a crimin-ologist rather than as a statistician thatI speak when I say I am virtually inter-ested in an agency to gather, analyze,and to some extent interpret for mystate as a whole the data relevant toall aspects of the problem of crime. Iam not sure but that a state centralstatistical board with a coverage muchbroader than the field of crime is thenext desirable step. I am convinced,however, that the sort of Bureau whichwould result from the enactment if thisuniform Criminal Statistics Act wouldpostpone rather than advance the datewhen we have available comprehen-sive, valid, and reliable criminal sta-tistics.

Central State Bureaus for the Collection of Criminal Statistics

https://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2938&context=jclc

Central State Bureaus for the Collection of Criminal Statistics

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Northwestern University Illinois, School of Law: Scholarly Commons