Harry Shulman

Intelligence and Delinquency

This is another contribution to the recent International Congress of Criminology in Paris. The author is Associate Professor of Sociology and Director of the Community Service Division of the City College, New York City. He has served as Research Director for the New York State Crime Commission, and is author of a series of research monographs published by the Commission. He is now conducting field studies in gang treatment under a New York City Youth Board grant.-EDIToR.

Measurement of Crime in the United States

The author is Professor of Sociology at the City College of the City University of New York. Among his many publications are Juvenile Delinqumcy in American Society (1961), Sllems oj Nw York (1938), and a series of research monographs on the causation and social control of juvenile delinquency and youth crime, published by the New York State Crime Commission (1926-1931). He was on leave, 1954-1956, to serve as First Deputy Commissioner of Correction in New York City. In 1964-1965 he was consultant on criminal statistics to the Office of Statistical Standards, U. S: Bureau of the Budget, Washington, D. C. Professor Shulmans article is based upon a paper he presented at the International Congress of Criminology in Montreal, Canada, on September 3, 1965. In it he reviews critically the current American practice of depending heavily upon police statistics as the national measure of crime, describes police statistics as a product of the vezy limited function exercised by the police in American crime control, and urges the extension of crime measurement to the full volume of sanctionable offenses dealt with by administrative and regulatory agencies, in the areas of administrative and civil law as well as those arising under criminal law. He also proposes a continuing review of data in sources of information on unreported crimes and offenses. Finally, he recommends the establishment of a central federal facility, under a professionally trained staff of criminologists, to direct the collection, analysis and publication of American criminal statistics.

Cultural Aspects of Criminal Responsibility

The author is Associate Professor of Sociology and Director of the Community Service Division at the City College of New York. He has initiated there a demonstration of functional higher education, utilizing college-community relations to bridge for students the gap between classroom and life situations. Among projects of criminological interest in the program of the Division are group work with street clubs and gangs, group dynamics research into the behavior interactions of classroom teachers and problem children, and a vocational guidance and testing service for maladjusted youths.-EDITOR.

THE STANDARD OF CARE REQUIRED OF CHILDREN

, It is undoubtedly true that the law of torts does not generally hold children to the exercise of the same degree of care and intelligence that it requi:J;es of adults. To do otherwise, would be to shut its eyes, ostrich-like, to the facts of life and to burden unduly the childs growth to majority. Similar concessions to immaturity are made in other branches of the law. The same realism, however, necessitates the recognition of the fact that at some age prior to twenty-one, and in some situations, a minor is fully as competent as a person over twenty-one and should be held to the same standard of conduct. It is not the purpose of this paper to discover that age and those situations. Assuming that the adult standard is not to be applied, the problem is what standard, if any, is to be used. Again, it is not the purpose of this paper to discuss the legal presumptions that many jurisdictions apply to minors. Such fictitious presumptions can be justified only, if at all, on grounds of expediency and facility in the administration of trials. But, whether or not the law of the particular jurisdiction raises a conclusive presumption that infants under seven years are incapable of contributory negligence, and rebuttable presumptions that minors between seven and fourteen are not capable and minors over fourteen are capable of contributory negligence/ still the question is raised: If the minor is capable of negligence, by what standard, if any, is his conduct to be measured? There are very few cases in which the problem is raised in an issue of direct negligence for which the infant is sought to be held Iiable. Most of the cases discussing the problem are concerned with the childs alleged contributory negligence, or assumption of risk or some other disabling contributory fault. In many cases where the childs conduct is considered, the only issue relates to the negligence of the defendant, and the infants conduct is important only in determining whether or not the de-