ONE CHALLENGE IS THAT CRIMINOLOGY WILL BE SUBSUMED BY SOCIAL PATHOLOGY AS CRIMINALITY COMES TO BE VIEWED WITHIN THE WHOLE OF DEVIANT BEHAVIOR. BUT PURE CRIMINOLOGY DEALS WITH A SPECIFIC KIND OF ACT, ONE THAT IS CRIMINAL IN THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL SENSE. SOCIAL CRIMINOLOGY, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS THE TASK OF APPROACHING PROBLEMS OF SOCIAL PATHOLOGY (ALCHOLISM, DRUG ADDICTION, ROAD ACCIDENTS, FINANCIAL FRAUD, ABORTION, ADULTERY, ETC.) FROM A CRIMINOLOGICAL POINT OF VIEW. A SECOND CHALLENGE IS THAT OF THE 'ANTICRIMINOLOGISTS'--THOSE WHO LOOK TO THE SIGNIFICANCE RATHER THAN THE CAUSE OF DELINQUENCY, ABANDONING THE EMPIRICAL METHOD IN FAVOR OF DOGMA. THE DANGER OF ANTICRIMINOLOGY IS THAT IT TENDS TO IGNORE A LARGE PART OF CRIMINAL REALITY. CRIMINOLOGY NEEDS TO USE THE EMPIRICAL PROCESS TO OBSERVE AND GATHER FACTS, TO GROUP AND SYSTEMATIZE THEM, AND TO EXTRACT FROM THEM WORKING HYPOTHESES TO BE CHECKED. HOWEVER, THERE IS AN AREA IN WHICH SCIENTIFIC PRECISION CAN BE MODERATED. CRIMINOLOGISTS HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY, EVEN IN THE ABSENCE OF ESTABLISHED FACTS, TO CONTRIBUTE TO POLICYMAKING EFFORTS IN THE FACE OF A THIRD CHALLENGE: RISING LEVELS OF CRIMINALITY. DOGMATISM CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN CRIMINOLOGY, BUT NEITHER CAN SCIENTIFIC RIGIDITY BE PERMITTED TO CRIPPLE THE PRACTICAL USE OF CRIMINOLOGY. THE DANGER IN ANTICRIMINOLOGY IS THE TENDECY TO ATTTACH A SCIENTIFIC IMAGE TO AN APPROACH BASED ESSENTIALLY ON IDEAS AND ON A PRECONCEIVED IDEOLOGICAL SYSTEM. BUT INTERVENTION IN CRIMINAL POLICYMAKING BASED ON ANTICIPATED FACTS PRESENTS NO SUCH DANGER BECAUSE IT MAKES NO SCIENTIFIC CLAIMS. CRIMINAL POLICYMAKING IS AN ART AND A SCIENCE. AS AN ART, IT PERMITS THE USE OF INTUITION WHERE THERE IS NO CERTAINTY. (LKM)