ABSTRACT
Any criminology worthy of the name should contain a comparative dimension. The contents of cultural meanings that are loaded into the subject of criminology are too variable for it to be otherwise. It is fair to say that most of the important points made by leading scholars of criminology are comparative in nature. It is just that the basis of comparison is often relatively narrow. For example, the hyphen that both separates and binds the phrase ‘Anglo-American criminology’ implies an obvious basis for comparison, although it remains within ‘Anglophonia’. British criminology invites comparison between England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland, even if the differences are too often disregarded by criminologists there. Federal systems such as Australia, Canada and the United States offer a good basis for comparative work and European criminology provides ample room for comparison, with added richness due to wide linguistic and national variability. At a real stretch comparative criminology would go for total global reach and try to touch upon matters of criminological concern on all the major populated continents of the world. Such an undertaking is rare indeed.
