Abstract
This paper examines two questions. First, at a time when welfare-states, which are basically actuarial in nature, are believed to be receding, why is actuarial justice gaining ground among criminal justice experts? Second, contrary to the reasonableness or the "smartness" of actuarialism, why is there a rapid spread of zero-tolerance policing, CCTV, "Megan's" law, and "Three-Strikes" laws, which all seem excessive compared with the actual risk of victimization? The author examines the concept of the "risk" of crime and contrasts it with "safety" and "danger", respectively. By so doing, crime can be conceptualized as a new risk in the late modern period, and it is apparent that the principle of crime control is based on precaution and not actuarial prevention.
