The editors point out in their introduction that when criminality becomes global, also the response to it must become global. We need a global criminology. The earliest pioneers in criminology and victimology emerged in Western Europe and North America: Cesare Lombroso, Enrico Ferri, Raffaele Garofalo, Hermann Mannheim, Leon Radzinowicz, Hans von Hentig, and many others. Ever since that time, the two sides of the North Atlantic have been the bedrock and point of reference for these disciplines. This has been both a strength and a weakness. Strength, in that the two regions have provided a welcoming academic and governmental background for the study of crime and victimization, allowing for the development, testing, and application of new theories and research methods. Weakness, in that the research interests in capitalistic, urbanized, and postindustrialist societies are likely to follow specific paths. Because of the dominance of Western research, its conclusions may all too readily be assumed to apply to societies around the world, East and West, North and South, industrialized and industrializing. It is true that Western criminology and victimology have spawned comparative studies, which have tried to offset this imbalance. Even so, Western researchers cannot totally shake their research interests and cultural blinkers. Comparative studies in these fields have tended to assume that Western research should remain the touchstone. If a topic or a research approach is suitable for Western Europe and North America, it is assumed to be more or less equally so for Latin America, Africa, and Asia. The fundamental interest seems to be to find out how different or similar the situation is elsewhere— but using Western yardsticks in the process.