sector the less this is so and conversely. In this respect, two very specific cases, Chessy and SaintOuen, need to be excluded from the list of fifteen towns here examined. The police station of Chessy picks up the crime focused on the Disneyland Park and associated facilities (hotel business), which in the vast majority of cases is not committed by members of the district’s population, but by criminals originating from elsewhere: the number of persons implicated is admittedly very high as compared with the local population, but in an artificial manner; the proportion is therefore of little importance. The same applies, though to a lesser degree, to SaintOuen, for analogous reasons associated with the presence of a “Flea Market” three days a week. If these two towns are excluded, the difference is substantially reduced, by 11.2 to 31 per thousand. It remains considerable, even for towns where it may be assumed that crime is for the most part (in terms of number of cases) local in origin: thus a factor of 2.5 separates SaintQuentin (28.2°/00) and Douai (11.2°/00). These differences are obviously not attributable to crime alone; they also reflect police activity and therefore the organisation thereof, number of officers etc. Similar comments need to be made with regard to rates of police custody, which are affected by considerations arising from the more or less serious nature of crime, and the propensity of local OPJs to place persons brought to them in police custody. This is reflected in the ratio between the number of placements in police custody and the number of persons implicated. Once again, the calculations for each town here show substantial differences, ranging between a minimum of 31.5 % (less than a third of persons arrested for questioning and taken to the police station are placed in police custody) and a maximum of 80% (Saint-Denis probably constituting a special case). Admittedly the seriousness of the offences committed provides part of the explanation for this difference. Probably only a minor part however. Local traditions are likely to have a considerable influence, along with the ideas held by persons in charge with regard to the role of police custody. The objectives of the latter, as set out under article 62-2 of the Code of Criminal Procedure27 can give rise to different interpretations. To this may be added the desire to use custody measures in order to “punish” offenders who, in view of the level of seriousness of their offence, is unlikely to be referred to trial. The differences in the proportion of minors and persons committing road traffic offences in the number of persons placed in police custody are also marked and surprising. Indeed, the proportion of juvenile delinquency is variable: in view of the sociology of the district of Vénissieux, the reasons for the relatively high number of children placed in police custody (40%) are evident; this is moreover a sign that gives cause for concern. Once again, this proportion is admittedly dependent upon the denominator, that is to say upon the volume of crime that is in no way “juvenile” in character (“intelligent” crime, burglaries etc.). However, were these the only factors, it would be impossible to explain the differences between the levels in Amiens and Pointe-à-Pitre, a city in which the population pyramid contains very large numbers of young people, where local delinquency accounts for a considerable part of crime as a whole and the phenomenon of youth gangs (the “Squirts” (“Microbes”), the “Street Dogs” (“Chiens Lari”) etc.) has grown to proportions unheard of in Metropolitan France. The police station of Pointe-à-Pitre shows a percentage of youths in police custody that is half that of Amiens. The differences in the proportion of road traffic offences in the number of placements in police custody as a whole, which varies from 8.6% to 40%, i.e. a ratio of 1 to 4.6, are less related to the social composition of districts and are therefore even more difficult to explain. However, in this case the influence of police activity can be taken into account in view of the fact that driving without a licence, for example, constitutes an offence (article L. 221-2 of the Highway Code (Code de la route) and that officers, according to the proceedings of the State Prosecutor’s Office, only have to station 27 Enabling the execution of investigations, prevention of tampering with evidence, prevention of collusion between offenders and intimidation of victims etc. 32