30017 ch01 002 031 r10 - jones & bartlett learning

CHAPTER

OBJECTIVES

1

Define criminology and understand how this field ofstudy relates to other social science disciplines.

Understand the meaning of scientific theory and itsrelationship to research and policy.

Recognize a “good” theory of crime, based on criteriasuch as empirical support, scope, and parsimony.

Know the criteria for establishing causation andidentify the attributes of good research.

Understand the politics of criminology and theimportance of social context.

Define criminal law and understand the conflict andconsensus perspectives on the law.

Describe the various schools of criminological theoryand the explanations that they provide.

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 2

© Jones and Bartlett Publishers. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION

WWW.CRIMINOLOGY.JBPUB.COM

InteractivitiesIn the NewsKey Term ExplorerWeb Links

FEATURES

WRAP UP

THEORY IN ACTION

LINKS

YOU ARE THE CRIMINOLOGIST

Headline Crime

Crime andCriminology


CHAPTER SPOTLIGHT

PUTTING IT ALL TOGETHER

KEY TERMS

NOTES

““

”Crime and the fear of crime have permeated

the fabric of American life.

— Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court1

3

“

”

“We don’t seem to be able to check crime, so

why not legalize it and then tax it out of

business?”

— Will Rogers2

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 3


Introduction Crime is a social phenomenon that commands theattention and energy of the American public. Whencrime statistics are announced or a particular crimemakes national headlines, the public demands that“something be done.” American citizens are con-cerned about the safety of their families and theirpossessions. In 2003, for example, 49% of the pub-lic “avoided going into certain places or neighbor-hoods.”3 Because of the public’s concern about thesafety of their communities, crime is a perennialpolitical issue that candidates for political office arecompelled to address.

Dealing with crime commands a substantialportion of the country’s tax dollars. In fiscal year2001, the criminal justice system cost taxpayersover $167 billion. Between 1982 and 1992, thesecosts rose by over 360%.4 Much of this cost is dueto the rise in the prison population that resultedfrom the “get-tough” strategies popular in the 1980sand 1990s (e.g., mandatory minimum sentences,the “war” on drugs, three-strikes legislation). In1987, the number of sentenced prisoners under thejurisdiction of state and federal correctional au-thorities stood at 560,812. The 1987 rate of incar-ceration was 231 per 100,000 citizens. By the year2000, the number of prisoners was 1,381,892 — a

4 CHAPTER 1 Crime and Criminology


A Research Project

You have several friends who spend a considerable amount of time every day on the Internet and they refer to themselvesas “hackers.” Hackers gain illegal access into computer networks to gain information (e.g., credit card numbers) to usefor their profit or interest. From your criminological studies, you know that hackers engage in activities that are illegal.Many of your friends, however, do not see their activities as a problem because they just “look around” the network anddo not take any important information. You begin to wonder how many people engage in hacking, and thus, you conductan Internet search on the term hacker to see what information is available. You discover that there are an abundance ofWeb sites dedicated to various hacker groups. You begin to think about why some people, including your friends, engagein hacking and others do not, even though they may have the same computer skills and ability to access private or con-fidential information.

As a criminologist, where would you start in researching the reasons why some people hack and others do not?

What ethical issues would arise if you were to use your friends as research subjects to answer your question?

Which school of criminological thought might assist you in explaining why hackers engage in illegal behavior and indeveloping policies to stop this crime?

146% increase over the 1987 figure. In addition,the incarceration rate in 2000 more than doubledin comparison to the 1987 rate (478 per 100,000).5

In addition, this rising trend shows little indicationof slowing down. If rates of first-time incarcerationremain the same, population estimates indicatethat about 7% of all persons born in the UnitedStates in 2001 will go to state or federal prison intheir lifetime.6

As these statistics indicate, crime is an impor-tant social issue. Further, how policymakers dealwith crime (via crime policy) can have enormoussocial and financial implications. A basic tenant ofthis text is that a combination of theory and re-search can help provide direction to crime policy.The chapters in this book attempt to organize ideasin order to explain criminal behavior. This includesthe factors that contribute to crime and the socialreactions (including proposed and actual policies)to crime. In short, this book explores the field ofcriminology.

Defining CriminologySimply put, criminology is the scientific study ofcrime. More broadly, Edwin Sutherland identifiedcriminology as the study of law making, law break-

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 4


ing, and the response to law breaking.7 Some scholarsfurther distinguish criminal justice from criminol-ogy. Here, Sutherland’s definition is subdividedinto two related fields, where criminology focuseson law breaking (i.e., the nature, extent, and causesof crime) and criminal justice focuses on the re-sponse (i.e., policing, courts, and corrections) tocriminal behavior. Scholars interested in criminaljustice, for example, may study the causes and con-sequences of prison crowding or the effectivenessof different policing models. Of course there is a re-lationship between criminology and criminal jus-tice. The response to crime depends largely onone’s view of the causes of crime. For this reason,many criminologists dabble in both of these areas.

Another field that overlaps with criminology isthe study of deviance. A “deviant” is anyone whoviolates social norms. Norms are simply guidelinesthat define for members of a society the types of be-haviors that are appropriate or inappropriate incertain situations. Norms are classified as folkways,mores, and laws, based largely on the response totheir violation.8 Folkways are norms against actionsthat may evoke a snicker or some teasing as a re-sponse (e.g., nose picking). Violations of a society’smores evoke a more serious response from oth-ers (e.g., having a child outside of marriage). Lawsare norms that have been codified, and the re-sponse to violations comes from formal govern-ment agencies. Therefore, although some deviantbehavior is criminal, deviance can also include acts(e.g., cross-dressing, membership in a motorcyclegang) that are not defined as crime. Deviancescholars are often interested in how deviant be-haviors come to be criminalized; that is, they focuson the “law-making” aspect of Sutherland’s defi-nition.

Criminology and Academics Until recently, people with an academic interest incriminal behavior sought degrees in social sciencedisciplines such as anthropology, psychology, eco-nomics, law, political science, ethics, and sociology;thus, a student might earn a degree in sociologywith an emphasis on deviance and crime. Althoughsome people still study crime through other dis-ciplines, most universities now offer degrees incriminology or criminal justice. Moreover, manyuniversities have separate criminology depart-ments, divisions, or schools. In that sense, crimi-

Defining Criminology 5

Deviance is behavior that violates social norms.

? Would you consider this person “deviant”?

nology has recently emerged as a distinct socialscience field.

This emergence has been partial, however, anda bit awkward. In part, this is because unlike othersocial science disciplines, criminology is organizedaround a class of behaviors (crime) rather than aparticular way of understanding these behaviors.Social science disciplines tend to be organizedaround common assumptions, guiding insights,and specific research methodologies.9 For example,psychologists generally seek to understand themental processes that explain human behavior,while sociology emphasizes the role of social insti-tutions and processes. Within any social sciencediscipline, “crime” is only one type of human be-havior that attracts interest. A psychologist mightalso be interested in intelligence, a political scien-tist in voting behavior, and a sociologist in ex-plaining social movements. One might expect,therefore, that criminology would be multidiscipli-nary in nature. To some extent, this is indeed thecase; many disciplines have made contributions tothe scientific study of crime. Some of the earliestscientific theories of crime came from biologistsand psychologists. Few would dispute the fact,though, that sociology has had the largest impacton the study of crime.

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 5


The Dominance of SociologyThroughout most of the 20th century, sociologistsdominated scientific discourse about criminal be-havior. The roots of this dominance can be traced tomembers of the sociology department at the Univer-sity of Chicago. Ernest W. Burgess, W. I. Thomas,and a host of other sociologists created a body ofresearch methodology, research findings, and the-ory related to crime that came to be called simplythe “Chicago School of Crime.”10 During the 1930s,Edwin Sutherland, a student of the Chicago Schoolsociologists, became the dominant advocate of asociological criminology. At about the same time,Robert K. Merton, a Columbia University sociolo-gist, developed the sociological theory of anomie toexplain crime. Sociological dominance during the1900s was such that criminology came to be consid-ered a “child” to the “parent” discipline of sociology.As one commentator notes, the two-word term soci-ological criminology, until recently, was redundant.11

The sociological dominance of criminologycontinues to have implications for the study ofcrime. Even where universities have separate crim-inology departments, many of the criminologists inthese departments were trained as sociologists.Also, the shift toward independent criminology de-partments is relatively recent and not complete.Many universities still offer criminology degreesthrough sociology departments.

Supporters of a sociological criminology pointto the importance of the “sociological imagina-tion.”12 Humans tend to see causes of people’s be-havior (including crime) as the result of individualtraits and choices. The sociological imaginationhelps reveal the sometimes subtle social and histor-ical influences on an individual’s behavior. Sociol-ogy is also committed to a “debunking motif” bychallenging taken-for-granted assumptions abouthuman behavior, social institutions, and society.13

Individuals from other disciplines are some-times (understandably) less enthusiastic about thedominance of sociology. For example, psychologistsD. A. Andrews and James Bonta point out that the“debunking” within sociology can become destruc-tive when research from “outside” disciplines (e.g.,psychology, biology) is rigorously attacked, while so-ciological findings are accepted rather uncritically.14

The Current Status of Criminology Criminology remains an unsettled area in acade-mia. Different scholars consider criminology an in-dependent social science discipline, a subfield of

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152

sociology, or a general field open to all disciplines.Currently, many universities have distinct crimi-nology or criminal justice departments. In othercolleges, criminology or criminal justice degreesare still offered through sociology, political science,or other disciplines. A common theme in the growthof criminology has been a call to make the study ofcrime truly interdisciplinary.15 Readers of this bookwill find the disciplines of psychology, biology, andsociology well represented. Sociological theory, how-ever, does receive more attention, primarily becausesociologists have generated more theories of crimi-nal behavior than other disciplines.

The Role of Criminologists If criminology includes the study of law making,law breaking, and the response to law breaking,then the role of the criminologist is to study theseareas. Most criminologists hold advanced degreesin sociology, criminology/criminal justice, psychol-ogy, or other social science fields. Criminologistswith a doctoral degree use their research expertiseto study various aspects of criminal behavior andlaw-breaking dynamics. Persons earning a doctor-ate typically teach in colleges and universities, butthey may also manage large research projects forfederal agencies (i.e., the National Institute of Jus-tice) and private think tanks that specialize in re-search and policy issues.

Most university-based criminologists carry ateaching load and are also expected to engage inscientific research. This research can be basic (e.g.,creating and testing theories of crime) or applied(evaluating a criminal justice program to see whetherit works as intended). Criminologists who have amaster’s degree tend to hold positions in state andfederal agencies and administrative or manage-ment positions within the criminal justice system.

There are numerous local, national, and interna-tional professional organizations for criminologistsof all degree levels and experiences. At the nationallevel, two primary organizations are the AmericanSociety of Criminology and the Academy of CriminalJustice Sciences. Among other things, these organi-zations host annual conferences where criminolo-gists present their most recent research findings.

People who earn a bachelor’s degree in crimi-nology or criminal justice typically obtain entry-level positions within state and federal agenciesrelated to the criminal justice system. For example,criminology/criminal justice graduates work as po-


30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 6


lice officers, probation and parole agents, correc-tional officers within prisons, juvenile detentionofficers, and caseworkers within treatment and re-habilitation programs.

A Primer on the Criminal Law Criminologists do not typically receive extensivetraining in law; the foundation of the law is prima-rily philosophy (rather than science), and law de-grees (Juris Doctor, or J.D.) involve little if anyscientific training. Despite this fact, criminologistsmust have some understanding of the criminal lawbecause, simply put, crimes are violations of thecriminal law. It is also worth noting that somecriminologists hold both a doctorate in criminol-ogy and a J.D., which allows them to apply scien-tific methods in order to study the law.

A Brief History of the Criminal Law The criminal law has a long history, dating backover 2000 years. The first acknowledged set of laws(dated 1792 BC), the Code of Hammurabi, estab-lished the precept that the punishment should fitthe crime. This code was adopted from Babylonianand Hebrew laws that existed as early as 2000 BC.The Mosaic Code of the Israelites (1200 BC) devel-oped the laws of the Old Testament, which includethe Ten Commandments.16

The root of American law is English commonlaw. Common law developed from English “circuit”courts, where judges traveled from community tocommunity hearing cases. Judges kept writtenrecords of their court decisions and initially de-cided cases based on prevailing community stan-dards. Over time, these judges began to unify andstandardize the legal code across different commu-nities. To accomplish this, they used past decisionsas precedents (regardless of community) for newlegal disputes. Eventually this web of legal deci-sions evolved into a national unified set of codes orcommon law.17

The English colonies followed common law,and after the revolution, the new governments ofthe United States (federal and state) adopted manyof these laws by passing specific legislation —statutes. For this reason, most of the U.S. criminalcode is considered statutory law. Even here, judgesmust interpret laws and apply them to specific cir-cumstances; this creates case law. Also, where laws

do not cover a particular circumstance, U.S. courtsstill rely on common law. Finally, the federal gov-ernment and each state have separate, written con-stitutions that define the general organization andthe powers (or limits of power) of the government.Constitutional law is expressed within these docu-ments and is the supreme law of the land (the U.S.Constitution for the country and state constitu-tions for their respective states).18

Defining the Criminal LawThe substantive criminal law consists of prohibitedbehaviors and the possible sanctions for these be-haviors. As noted previously, each state has its owncriminal code, as does the federal government.Federal and state codes (as well as constitutions)are readily available on the Internet. The Legal In-formation Institute at Cornell Law School main-tains a site that features links to all federal and statestatutes.19

Crimes are defined by two components: thespecific act (actus reas) and the criminal intent(mens rea). Actus reas includes the act and the cir-cumstances under which the act occurs (e.g., thecommon law crime of burglary includes the break-ing and entering of another’s dwelling, at night,without consent). Although most crimes requirethe commission of some act, in some cases involv-ing special relationships (e.g., parent and child orlifeguard and swimmers), crime is defined by thefailure to act. Mens rea refers to a person’s mentalstate. There are different levels of criminal intent,defined by the elements of purpose, knowledge,negligence, and recklessness20:

• A person purposely commits a criminal actwhen they desire to engage in criminal conductto cause a particular criminal result.

• To knowingly commit a criminal act, a personmust know, believe, or suspect that an action iscriminal.

• Criminal negligence occurs when a persongrossly deviates from a standard that a reason-able person would use under the same circum-stances — the person is accused of taking asubstantial and foreseeable risk that resulted inharm.

• Criminal recklessness is the conscious disregardof a substantial risk — a person accused ofrecklessness is viewed as more blameworthythan someone accused of negligence.

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152

A Primer on the Criminal Law 7

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 7


Some offenses (e.g., traffic offenses) do not re-quire criminal intent. These are considered strictliability offenses. Criminal behavior carries a varietyof formal punishments, including imprisonment,death, fine, or probation.

There are various ways to classify crimeswithin the criminal law. Among the oldest is thedistinction between crimes that are mala in se andmala prohibita. Mala in se crimes, considered “evilin themselves,” encompass the core of the criminalcode, including acts such as homicide and robbery.Mala prohibita crimes are “wrong because they areprohibited.” These crimes represent a particular so-ciety’s attempt to regulate behavior, such as drugabuse, gambling, and prostitution, that offendstheir moral senses. Mala prohibita offenses arelikely to vary over time and across jurisdictions.For example, casino gambling is legal in severalstates, and many states have state-sanctioned lot-teries. Similarly, the use of alcohol has shifted fromlegal to illegal and back to legal over time in theUnited States.

Another common way to classify crimes is ac-cording to the seriousness of the offense. On a gen-eral level, jurisdictions distinguish between felonies(serious crime) and misdemeanors (petty crimes).Criminal codes further categorize felonies accord-ing to degree (e.g., first-, second-, or third-degreefelony offenses).

In addition to the substantive criminal law,procedural law dictates what actions actors withinthe criminal justice system may legally take. Proce-dural law dictates, for example, how police may in-teract with citizens (e.g., search-and-seizure law)and how criminal trials proceed (e.g., the admis-sibility of evidence). The criminal law can also bedistinguished from civil law. Civil law includes(among other things) contract law, property law,and tort law.21 Among the various forms of civillaw, tort law bears the strongest resemblance to thecriminal law. In a tort case, an individual or groupseeks compensation to redress some wrongdoingor harm. Violations of the criminal law can resultin both a criminal and tort trial. For example, aperson can be tried in criminal court for homicideand (regardless of how the criminal trial turns out)also in civil court for wrongful death.22

Laws are dynamic and greatly influenced by cur-rent events, politics, economics, and numerous otherexternal factors. Criminal law continues to change,as judges have to interpret situations with the emer-gence of new technology (e.g., computers) and new

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152

threats (e.g., terrorism). For example, the Septem-ber 11, 2001, terrorist attack in the United States hada substantial impact on the law. The USA Patriot Actwas passed on October 24, 2001, just six weeks afterthe events of 9/11. Although the Patriot Act amendednumerous laws, the primary intent of the act was torelax the procedural laws that restrict law enforce-ment investigation and surveillance powers.

The U.S. Department of Justice hails the PatriotAct as an effective tool for counterterrorism ef-forts.23 Critics contend that the law grants sweep-ing search and surveillance powers to domestic lawenforcement without proper judicial oversight.24

One of the most controversial provisions of the lawis a “sneak-and-peek” search warrant, which au-thorizes law enforcement officers to enter privatepremises without the occupant’s permission orknowledge and without informing the occupantthat such a search was conducted.25 The act alsoexpanded the government’s ability to view recordson an individual’s activities that are held by thirdparties (e.g., libraries, doctors, Internet serviceproviders). Key provisions of the Patriot Act wereset to expire on December 31, 2005. Amid debateabout whether the act sacrifices too many civil lib-erties, Congress approved an extension to Febru-ary 3, 2006, making the future of this legislationuncertain at the time of this writing.

Perspectives on the Criminal LawCriminal law serves several functions in society.First, criminal law discourages revenge because thegovernment, rather than the victim, is responsiblefor punishing law violators. Second, the law servesto express public opinion and morality; this is es-pecially apparent for mala prohibita offenses. Third,the punishment meted out according to criminallaw also serves as a warning to other citizens whomay be thinking of committing the same crime.26

Typically, criminal law also attempts to makethe punishment fit the crime. The aim is to matchthe severity of the offense and the harm that it cre-ates to the punishment; thus, the punishment bal-ances the damage caused by the crime. However,the punishment does not always fit the harm of thecrime. For example, white-collar offenses often in-


LINKLINK In Chapter 3, deterrence theory is presented. Deter-rence theory assumes that punishments will prevent crime. Ra-tional people will think about the pain of the punishment andwill not commit the crime, if the punishment outweighs thepleasure or gain of committing the offense.

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 8


volve large sums of money and affect great num-bers of people but typically result in shorter (ifany) prison sentences than robbery or burglary.Another area to consider is illicit drugs relative toalcohol. By most measures, alcohol is more danger-ous or harmful than marijuana. Despite this fact,marijuana is illegal while alcohol is legal. If crimi-nal laws and the punishments for law violators donot directly reflect the harm caused to society, thenwhat determines how a crime is punished? How dosome acts come to be criminalized while othersdo not? Criminologists approach such questionswithin the framework of two general perspectives.

The consensus perspective illustrates the be-lief that laws are set in place to keep people fromharming others and society as a whole by engagingin behaviors that the majority of society believes tobe hurtful. Consensus is defined as a general agree-ment, and thus, this perspective sees society ashaving come to terms with specific behaviors clas-sified as wrong or immoral. This consensus comesfrom a society’s culture, which includes its beliefs,values, attitudes, and behaviors. From this per-spective criminologists would argue that laws arein place to be fair to all members of society.

In contrast to the consensus view, the conflictperspective portrays the law as the result of a con-tinuous competition or “conflict” among membersof society. Here, the law reflects the interests, values,and beliefs of whatever group has power. Power cancome from a variety of sources such as group sizeor wealth. For example, Karl Marx portrayed capi-talist societies as riddled with constant competitionthat breeds continued conflict among its members.In Marx’s analysis, conflict stems from a system ofinequality that allows the wealthy elite to rule orcontrol all other members of society. On a smallerscale, the conflict perspective sheds light on howpolitical interest groups try to shape laws (e.g., guncontrol, abortion) in a way that is consistent withtheir beliefs and values. The preceding discussionof the controversy surrounding the USA Patriot Actalso illustrates the conflict perspective in action.

These general perspectives on the law influ-ence the research questions that criminologists askand also help determine how they go about an-

swering such questions. Following the consensusmodel generally leads criminologists to ask, “Whydo some in society violate laws that exist to benefitall members of society?” The conflict perspectivegenerally leads to questions regarding the contentand enforcement of the law, such as, “Why is mari-juana illegal and how did it come to be criminal-ized?” Each of these perspectives appears to havesome credence within a specific realm of behavior.Laws against mala in se offenses such as homicideand robbery are backed by widespread consensus.Mala prohibita offenses, such as gambling, prostitu-tion, and illicit drug use are more relevant to theconflict perspective.

Theories of CrimeTheory represents the foundation on which all dis-cussion of crime is built. Unfortunately, students ofcriminology often struggle to understand the vari-ous theories of crime or simply find them to be bor-ing, useless, and confusing. The premise of thissection is that when properly understood, theorycan be exciting, thought provoking, and useful.This section covers basic information on theorythat will allow students to understand and evalu-ate the discussions on crime that follow in laterchapters.

Defining a Scientific TheoryThere is no shortage of opinions regarding theroots of criminal behavior; news articles, movie di-alogue, politicians, relatives, and friends all offeropinions on the causes of crime. Often these sourcespoint to a single factor: drugs, violent movies, poorparenting, or bad companions. Such theories areoften based on speculation or hunches. Scientifictheories of crime include many of these common-sense explanations, yet unlike a “hunch,” a theoryof crime must explain in a logical and clear mannerhow such factors relate to crime.

A theory is nothing more than a set of princi-ples or statements that attempts to explain how con-cepts are related. In the case of crime theory, thesestatements typically explain how one or more fac-tors lead to criminal behavior. A scientific theorymust also be testable, meaning that it must bestated in such a way that other scientists can go outinto the real world, collect information, and testthe theory’s validity. If a theory is too vague or if the

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152

Theories of Crime 9

LINK

LINK In Chapter 15, the various forms of white-collar crimeare analyzed. White-collar crimes are typically committed byhigh-status individuals during the course of their legitimatebusiness operations. They fit the definition of mala prohibitain that they are recognized as harmful with penalties definedby law.

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 9


central concepts cannot be measured, it is essen-tially useless to science.

Consider, for example, the following state-ment: “Little green creatures that live inside peo-ples’ minds cause them to engage in crime.”Furthermore, suppose that one argues that scienceis unable to detect little green creatures throughbrain scans or other technology and that people aregenerally unaware of their existence. How couldone test this theory? Of course, the little greencreature theory is rather absurd. However, whatif the words “little green creatures” were changedto “a lack of conscience” and the theory becomes thata lack of conscience causes crime? Unless research-ers devise a way to measure conscience, this is stilla theory with no scientific value, even though itmay sound more credible.

A theory may also be impossible to test if it isbased on circular reasoning. Scientists refer to thiskind of reasoning as tautological. Literally, a tauto-logical theory of crime would argue that “crimecauses crime.” Of course, tautological statementsare usually not as obvious as that and can thereforebe more difficult to detect. Let us stick with the ex-ample of “a lack of conscience” as the cause ofcrime and think about how one might test that the-ory. One could argue that people who do badthings must not have a conscience. In doing so,

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152

however, one is engaging in circular reasoning:People who do “bad things” engage in criminalbehavior (bad things), which is like arguing thatcrime causes crime.

In order to be useful then, one must be able tosubject a theory to empirical tests. Assuming that atheory meets this minimal standard (and most do),what next? What makes one scientific theory betterthan others?

Evaluating TheoryA number of useful criteria are presented here forevaluating theory. An important fact to keep inmind, however, is that not all criteria are equallyimportant. illustrates how different cri-teria relate to one another. Testability has alreadybeen covered; the remaining criteria include em-pirical support, scope, and parsimony.

Empirical EvidenceAfter a theory is determined to be testable, the nextstep in the evaluation process is establishingwhether those tests support the theory. In otherwords, when this theory is applied to the realworld, does it work? Does the research support thistheory? The importance of this criterion cannot beoverstated; if tests fail to support a theory, that the-ory is incorrect. It makes little sense to look at other

FIGURE 1-1


• Clearly stated• Concepts can be measured

Can the theory be tested?

• Weight of the evidence favors theory

Is the theory empiricallysupported?YES YES

Evaluate:• Parsimony• Scope

Not a scientific theory

Stop here!

NO

The theory is incorrect.

Stop here!

NO

Evaluating TheoriesFIGURE 1-1

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 10


aspects of the theory if it fails to work in the realworld.

Unfortunately, most theories of crime are nevercompletely supported or refuted. Some empiricaltests may support the theory; others might offerpartial support, and still others may refute thetheory. For this reason, those who examine theoriesmust consider the “weight of the evidence.”27 To doso, ask questions such as these:

• Do the majority of tests appear to support thetheory?

• Are certain aspects of the theory supportedmore than others?

• Do studies with high-quality research designssupport the theory?

The final question suggests that not all empiricaltests are the same. How much weight to put on anindividual study depends on how confident the re-searcher is in the research design. Some researchdesigns are better at demonstrating cause-and-effect relationships than others.

Demonstrating Cause and Effect A numberof ways are available to test theories of crime.Because most theories predict cause-and-effect re-lationships (e.g., poverty causes crime), a goodempirical test tries to establish that certain factorshave a causal relationship with crime. To clarify thispoint, an example may be useful. Start with a simpletheory: Hanging around with criminal friends causescriminal behavior. To establish causation, a testneeds to demonstrate three things:

1. Having criminal friends is related to criminalbehavior.

2. Having criminal friends happens before engag-ing in criminal behavior.

3. The relationship between criminal friends andcriminal behavior is not spurious.

The first point would be rather easy to demon-strate. Ask a group of people to report how many oftheir closest friends have been arrested for a crime.Also ask them to report their own criminal behav-ior. If those with criminal friends are more likely toengage in crime themselves, a relationship was es-tablished (mathematically, this is called a correla-tion). The second point, called time ordering, is alittle more difficult to verify. The researcher mustdemonstrate that these individuals had criminalfriends before they engaged in crime (i.e., the fac-tor that does the causing must happen before the

effect). Demonstrating this is important becausethe relationship between criminal friends andcriminal behavior might be the result of criminalswanting to hang out together. In other words, en-gaging in criminal behavior might cause people toseek out other criminals. One way to demonstratetime ordering is to conduct a longitudinal study.The researcher could measure criminal friends atone point in time and then measure criminal be-havior six months later and then further on intime. Assuming that the researcher can establishtime ordering, they can move to the third point.

A relationship is considered spurious when,even though two things are related, one does notcause the other. For example, suppose that a surveyof residents in a city revealed that “time spent in thepast week riding a bicycle” was correlated (related)to engaging in vandalism. People who reported rid-ing a bicycle were more likely to have also engagedin vandalism. Does this mean that the act of ridinga bicycle caused people to vandalize property? Amore plausible explanation is that younger peoplewere more likely to ride bikes (because they donot yet have a driver’s license) and vandalize prop-erty. Isolating causes of crime (and excluding spu-riousness) is the most difficult challenge of doing

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152

Theories of Crime 11

If a researcher finds a relationship between bicycle ridingand vandalism, can she conclude that riding a bike causespeople to engage in vandalism?

? What third factor might explain her finding?

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 11


research in criminology. How spuriousness is dealtwith depends largely on research methods.

Experimental Designs Experimental researchdesigns are the most efficient way to establish cause-and-effect relationships and exclude spuriousness.Although there are many variations, the basic ex-perimental design is illustrated in . Thekey to the experimental method is the randomassignment of subjects to a control and experimen-tal group. If the sample is large enough, randomassignment leads to groups that are equivalent onall factors, measured or not. For example, onewould expect roughly the same number of males,overweight individuals, people with high IQs, andso forth, in each group. The experimental group re-ceives some form of treatment, whereas the othergroup, known as the control, does not.

In drug studies, participants in the control groupare often given a placebo (typically a sugar pill) toexclude the possibility that subjects would reportimprovement simply because they received sometreatment. The power of the experimental design isthat the only thing that could cause differences be-tween the two groups is the experimental treatment.Thus, if a pill designed to reduce headaches doesso in the experimental group, but not the controlgroup, this is very persuasive evidence that the pillworks. Unfortunately, many of the factors of interest

FIGURE 1-2

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152

to criminologists cannot be assessed through experi-ments. A criminologist cannot, for example, ran-domly assign children to “poverty” and “no-poverty”conditions and assess their criminality.

Nevertheless, some criminologists do use ex-perimental methods to study crime. One way to testa theory is to follow its policy implications andsee whether the policy that was developed re-duces crime. For example, many sociological andpsychological theories of crime identify “targets”(e.g., procriminal attitudes, delinquent friends) forrehabilitation programs. If changing these targetsreduces crime, the theory behind the target is sup-ported. Researchers can randomly assign offendersto either a rehabilitation program or a control groupand see whether the rehabilitation program reducesfuture criminal behavior or recidivism. Criminolo-gists have also manipulated policing practices, us-ing random assignment to dictate how policerespond to a domestic violence dispute or how theypatrol cities. Finally, researchers sometimes capital-ize on natural experiments, where conditions in theenvironment naturally allow comparisons betweentwo similar groups.

Nonexperimental DesignsDespite the many examples of experimental re-search in criminology, most research on theories of


Experimentalgroup

• Nothing or placebo

Control group

• Treatment

Initial sample

Random assignment

Outcomedata

The Experimental DesignFIGURE 1-2

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 12


crime continues to involve nonexperimental meth-ods. Typically, a sample of individuals are surveyedand asked questions relevant to a particular theory.For example, they may be asked to report on theirattitudes, behaviors (including criminal behavior),and/or social circumstances. Sometimes researchersalso have people complete tasks to measure suchconstructs as “impulsivity” or IQ. Criminologistsalso use information collected by government agen-cies, such as arrest records or census data. Regardlessof how the information is obtained, nonexperi-mental methods share a common problem. Al-though they are useful in establishing whether twothings are related (correlation), they are not veryefficient at excluding spuriousness.

To demonstrate cause-and-effect relationshipsin a nonexperimental design, the researcher must(1) identify and measure those factors that mightrender a relationship spurious and then (2) controlfor these factors in a mathematical model. For ex-ample, recall the hypothetical relationship betweenbicycling and vandalism. A criminologist could sta-tistically control the effects of age. If the relationshipbetween vandalism and bicycling disappears afterthis control, the relationship is spurious. The ma-jor limitation of this approach is that the researchermust identify, measure, and control for many fac-tors that might make a relationship spurious. Thislimitation often leaves an empirical study open forcriticism, because someone can point to an impor-tant factor that was not statistically controlled.

However, that is not to say that nonexperimen-tal research is unworthy of consideration. Indeed,as pointed out earlier, many theoretical conceptscannot be studied experimentally. Furthermore, tothe extent that many empirical studies (each con-trolling each for different factors) find nonspuriousrelationships, one can gain confidence that thestudies have identified a true cause-and-effect rela-tionship.

Scope and ParsimonyAssuming that a theory has generated a goodamount of empirical support, other criteria can beapplied to identify “good” theories. The relatedconcepts of parsimony and scope are two such crite-ria.28 A theory that uses only a few concepts to ex-plain crime is better than a theory that uses manyconcepts. This is the principle of parsimony — amore concise explanation is preferable. Scope refersto what a particular theory can explain. A theory

that explains “criminal behavior” is better than atheory that explains only “burglary committed byyouth gangs.” This is the principle of scope. Grandtheories (wide scope) strive to explain all types ofcriminal behavior. For example, Gottfredson andHirschi argue that their general theory of crime ex-plains all forms of criminal behavior, in addition tosimilar behaviors (adultery, cigarette smoking) thatare noncriminal. Combining scope and parsimony,a good theory is one that explains a lot (scope)with very few concepts (parsimony).

Organizing Theories of CrimeStudents’ first exposure to scientific theories ofcrime is often less than pleasant. Some of this frus-tration stems from the sense that there is evidenceboth for and against most theories. As seen, how-ever, not all research studies are equal. Throughoutthe theory chapters, those studies with strong re-search designs are highlighted to give a sense ofwhere the “weight of the evidence” lies. Anothermaddening aspect of theory is the sheer number oftheories and authors. To help students cope withthis issue, the following sections outline a number ofways to classify theories into meaningful categories.

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152

Organizing Theories of Crime 13

Does having friends who are smokers cause youth tosmoke or do youth who are smokers hang out together?

? What kind of study is necessary to answer sucha question?

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 13


Theories of “Law Making, Law Breaking, and Reaction to Law Breaking” As noted earlier, Edwin Sutherland identified crim-inology as the study of law making, law breaking,and the response to law breaking.29 This definitionof criminology is also a useful way to categorizethe theories covered in this text. Theories of “lawbreaking” are the most common and obvious.These theories seek to answer questions such as,“Why do people commit crimes?” or “What makessome countries more prone to crime than others?”Theories of law making attempt to explain whysome acts are outlawed, whereas others are not, orwhy legal acts become illegal over time. Theories ofthe response to law violations concern the criminaljustice system’s reaction to crime. Many “critical”theories focus on these latter two issues. Such the-ories might question why police arrest certain of-fenders and not others or why certain laws areenforced more stringently than others.

Macro and Micro Level ExplanationsTheories can also be classified by their level ofanalysis. Some theories operate at the individualor micro level. A micro-level theory explains whysome individuals engage in crime and others donot. In contrast, a macro-level theory attempts toexplain differences in groups. For example, a macro-level theory might offer an explanation for whysome neighborhoods have higher crime rates thanothers or why some countries have higher crimerates than others. A simple trick to identify whethera theory is macro or micro level is to look at whatthe theory predicts. If crime is expressed in “rates,”then it is a macro-level theory (only a group has arate). Most theories of crime (especially those inbiology and psychology) operate at the micro level.

Academic Disciplines and Theoretical TraditionsIn some disciplines (particularly sociology), theo-ries develop as a “tradition.” The basic thrust of thetheory remains the same, but different authors up-date, revise, and change the particulars of a theory.For example, the work of Robert Merton spawned

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152

several related “strain” theories that revised orchanged some of his original ideas but maintainedthe same core theme. These theoretical traditionsare another important tool for organizing theoriesof crime — where relevant, how these traditionsunfold is highlighted. Of course, the academic dis-ciplines themselves offer a useful way to classifytheories; for example, two of the chapters in thistext are organized around the specific disciplines ofpsychology and biology. On a much broader scale,students can locate theories of crime in one of twohistorical theoretical traditions: the classical andpositive school crime.

When did humans first begin to devise theories toexplain criminal behavior? The answer dependsgreatly on what qualifies as a “theory.” illustrates the major schools of thought regard-ing the causes of crime. Throughout much of West-ern history, the “demonic perspective” dominatedthinking about crime and punishment.30 Althoughthe specifics differed according to the particular so-ciety and time, the gist of this perspective is that su-pernatural forces caused criminal behavior. Quiteliterally, people believed that the devil (or otherdemons) made people commit crimes. In primitivesocieties, crimes were viewed as acts, aided and abet-ted by evil spirits, against the gods.31 In that context,punishment was often designed to placate the gods.

Throughout the Middle Ages (1200–1600) inEurope, people who engaged in deviant, sinful, orcriminal behavior (especially if they were women)were labeled “witches” and burned at the stake.32

Brutal methods were often used to determine guiltor innocence. Trial by ordeal involved subjectingthe accused to some form of painful torture — onlyGod’s intervention could demonstrate their inno-cence. For example, the suspected witch would betied up and thrown into a body of water. If God al-lowed the individual to float, he or she was inno-cent; if not, the unfortunate person was presumedguilty and allowed to drown.33

Corporal punishments (e.g., gibbeting, ear clip-ping, drawing and quartering, dismembering, blind-ing, burning, and branding) were frequently used

TABLE 1-1

The Origins of Criminological Theory


LINK Chapter 4 presents biological theories of crime andChapter 5 relates psychological explanations of criminal be-havior.

LINKLINK Chapter 8 presents a discussion of social conflict the-ories. These theories generally attempt to explain the contentof the criminal law and the operation of the criminal justicesystem, rather than crime.

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 14


in Europe and America as late as 1700. Powerlessmembers of society (e.g., slaves, women, and chil-dren) were often the targets of corporal punish-ment.34 Mutilation and branding identified offendersand sent a message to others. The punishmentsalso were designed to purge the body of the offenderof evil and restore the community to its proper re-lationship with God.35 Again, the idea here is thatcrime was caused largely by demonic influence. Al-though the “devil made me do it” is certainly an ex-planation of criminal behavior, it is not a scientifictheory. Supernatural forces cannot be observed,and the demonic perspective (like our “little greencreature” example) is therefore not testable. Towardthe end of the 1700s, the demonic perspective waschallenged by a group of philosophers who came tobe called classical school criminologists.

The Classical School of CrimeThe Age of Enlightenment burned hot in Europeduring much of the 18th century. Enlightenmentthinkers such as John Locke and Jean-JacquesRousseau challenged the prevailing belief that hu-man behavior was directly determined by God (ordemons). Rather, they believed that God instilledin humans the capacity to exercise free will and theability to choose a course of behavior through rea-son. Several scholars — chief among them CesareBeccaria and Jeremy Bentham — used this generalplatform to argue for legal reform. In doing so,these penal reformers also articulated a scientifictheory of criminal behavior.36

To appreciate the importance of the legal re-forms advocated by Beccaria and Bentham, onefirst needs to understand the state of the legal sys-

tem at the time in which the two men wrote. Lawswere vague and judges often interpreted them tosuit their own interests. Those accused of crimeshad few legal protections. The state provided nei-ther legal assistance nor access to family andfriends and commonly used torture to obtain con-fessions. Witnesses testified against the accused insecret proceedings. Punishments for those foundguilty included whipping, branding, mutilation,and death by various means.37

Rebelling against the brutal and arbitrary na-ture of the legal system, Beccaria argued that thefunction of law was to promote justice.38 In his1764 essay On Crimes and Punishments, he formu-lated the following principles, which represented adramatic departure from the way in which criminallaw had previously been conceived:39

• Prevention of crime is more important than pun-ishment for the crime committed. Punishmentis desirable only as it helps to prevent crimeand does not conflict with the ends of justice.

• The purpose of punishment is to deter personsfrom the commission of crime, not to give soci-ety an opportunity for revenge.

• Desirable criminal procedure calls for the openpublication of all laws, speedy trials, humanetreatment of the accused, and the abolishmentof secret accusations and torture. Moreover, theaccused must have every right and facility tobring forward evidence.

• The criminal code should be written with alloffenses and punishments defined in advance.

• The criminal law should be restricted in itsscope because it can result in the curtailment offreedoms.

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152

The Origins of Criminological Theory 15

TABLE 1-1

Major Schools of Thought in Criminology

School of Thought Cause of Crime Implication for CriminalsDemonic Perspective

Classical School

Positive School

Demonic possession, God’s will, or othersupernatural forces cause crime.

Crime is the result of a rational decisionbased on a calculation of costs andbenefits.Criminal behavior is determined by bio-logical, social, or psychological factorsoutside of a person’s control.

Brutal corporal punishments designed to placatethe gods, cleanse the community, and identifyindividuals as deviant.Swift, certain, severe punishment within the frame-work of a rational legal system will deter criminalbehavior. Punishment should fit the crime. Advocate a medical model (and reject the importance of punishment). Individuals are“treated” based on the set of factors that caused them to engage in crime. The punishment (rehabili-tation) should fit the individual.

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 15


• The presumption of innocence should be theguiding principle at all stages of the justiceprocess. Individual rights must be protected.

Beccaria deserves much credit for “pulling to-gether many of the most powerful 18th centuryideas of democratic liberalism” and connectingthem to issues of criminal justice.40 His ideas di-rectly influenced the American Bill of Rights aswell as the Declaration of the Rights of Man andCitizen, the precursor to the French constitution of1791.41 The linchpin that holds together all of Bec-caria’s legal reforms was the argument that a prop-erly designed legal system had the potential toprevent or deter criminal behavior. Beccaria be-lieved that because humans were rational, theywould consider the consequences of their behaviorbefore acting. Swift, certain, and sufficiently harshpunishment should therefore deter a rational actorfrom engaging in crime. Beccaria argued that pun-ishment should only be severe enough to detercrime and denounced the use of the death penalty.42

Another influential scholar and reformer of theclassical school of criminology was Bentham, whoembraced Beccaria’s ideas and made contributionsto his deterrence theory. Specifically, Bentham de-scribed human decision making as a hedonisticcalculus. In other words, people will act in waysthat maximize positive outcomes and minimizenegative ones. Naturally, a person commits a crimebecause of the perception that the benefits of theact are greater than the costs of punishment. Thecorollary to this is that punishment should bepainful enough to outweigh the pleasure of thecriminal act.

Like Beccaria, Bentham believed that the pur-pose of punishment should be crime preventionand that punishment must be proportional to theseverity of the crime to have a deterrent effect.Moreover, the severity of punishment should be di-rectly proportionate to the number of persons in-jured by the crime. Although some of their ideasare taken for granted today, classical theorists wereliberal reformers who sought to restate the defini-tions of crime and to reformulate punishments.Their proposed legal reforms were revolutionary —a complete break with customary practices. As atheory of crime, the classical school idea of deter-rence is relatively simple: People will refrain fromcrime if punishment is swift, certain, and sufficientlysevere. Because empirical tests of this propositionare possible, however, it represented a dramatic

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152

departure from the demonic perspective. Classicalschool theory dominated criminological thoughtinto the late 1800s, until it was challenged by anew group of theorists.

The Positive School of CrimeThe influence of the classical school of criminologybegan to wane in the late 1800s. One reason forthis decline was that changes in the legal systembased on classical theory failed to reduce crime(i.e., crime rates continued to increase).43 More im-portantly, the underlying assumption of the classi-cal school — that behavior was the result of rationalcalculation — was criticized for being too simplis-tic. Throughout the 1700s, scientists such as Galileoand Newton made great discoveries about theworkings of the physical world. These demonstra-tions of cause-and-effect relationships were madethrough careful observation and analysis of naturalevents. It was not long before scholars applied thisscientific method beyond the physical world to thesocial world.

Auguste Compte, the 19th century scientistconsidered the “father of sociology,” argued thathuman behavior was caused, or determined, byforces outside of human control. Compte believedthat societies progressed through various stages,moving from a primitive understanding of theworld (recall the demonic perspective) to a morerational, scientific understanding. He referred tothis last rational/scientific stage as positivism, andthose who continued this line of inquiry were sub-sequently called positivists.44

The history of scientific inquiry into criminalbehavior is uneven — several pioneers in scientificcriminology predate Compte’s positivism. For ex-ample, Benjamin Rush (United States) and PhilippePinel (France), writing in the late 1700s, arguedthat serious, repeat criminal behavior was causedby “moral insanity,” a mental disease.45 Despite theseearly efforts to scientifically study crime, positivismdid not gain wide acceptance until the mid 1800s.During this time, for example, Charles Darwin’sOrigin of Species (1859) outlined the theory of evo-lution.

Influenced by Darwin’s theory of evolution, thefirst widely acknowledged positive theories ofcrime focused on biology. For example, phrenolo-gists like Franz Joseph Gall studied the pattern ofbumps on the skull and attempted to correlatethem to criminal behavior. Cesare Lombroso, build-


30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 16


ing off Darwin’s theory of evolution, argued thatsome criminals were evolutionary throwbacks to amore primitive species. Over time, biology gaveway to a psychology/psychiatry focus on “feeble-mindedness” and mental disease. During the 20thcentury, sociological positivism dominated crimi-nology and found causes of crime in social factorssuch as learning experience and poverty.

Regardless of the particular discipline or his-torical timeframe, positive theories share somecommonality. Positivists are committed to the useof the scientific method to study the causes ofcrime. They emphasize methodological issues suchas proper data collection, statistical sampling, andthe validity and reliability of measurement.46 Crim-inologist C. Ray Jeffrey outlines several other pre-cepts of positivist criminology and contrasts themwith the classical school. According to Jeffrey, thepositive school advocates47:

• A rejection of punishment and its replacementwith treatment based on the medical (rehabili-tation) model

• A rejection of free will and its replacement withscientific determinism

• A rejection of the study of criminal law and itsreplacement with a study of the individual of-fender and his or her medical, psychological,and social characteristics

The positive school of crime, like the classicalschool, had a great deal of influence on the opera-tion of the criminal justice system. In the UnitedStates, rehabilitation (the medical model) emergedas a primary goal of the justice system during theearly 1900s. The underlying assumption of themedical model is that the factors that make a crim-inal can be identified and treatment plans can beformulated and administered to rehabilitate them.In the medical model, the offender is viewed as apatient to be treated, not an evildoer to be pun-ished. The “rehabilitative ideal” involved isolatingand correcting, within each individual, the specificdeficits that led to his or her criminal behavior. Inthat sense, the punishment must fit the offender,rather than the offense.48

Although rehabilitation remained the domi-nant goal of corrections throughout much of the1900s, the medical model was never fully realized.The seriousness of the crime (and not the nature ofthe criminal), for example, remained the primarydeterminant of the punishment. In other words, thepunishment still tended to “fit the offense.” Still,

the rise of rehabilitation produced a number of in-novations that remain part of the current criminaljustice system. For example, many states embracedindeterminate sentencing, where offenders were in-carcerated without a firm release date (e.g., 20years to life). Parole boards emerged as a way tojudge when offenders, based on their treatmentprogress, should be released.

The Classical and Positive School —Where Do We Stand Now?The positive school of criminology has dominatedtheorizing since it replaced the classical school. Clas-sical school theorizing, however, made a comebackin the 1970s. A number of theories derived from theclassical school (called neoclassical theories) nowcompete with positive theories for acceptance.

Crime Policy A tenet of this book is that theory and policy are in-timately related. To be sure, criminology is an “ap-plied” social science. In other words, criminologistsinvestigate crime in order to generate practical so-lutions to the problem. Theory and research on thecauses of crime and criminal behavior can provideinformation that can be used either to preventcrime from occurring or to lessen its impact onsociety.

The applied nature of criminology is illustratedby the research questions that are addressed incriminological research. Gibbs identified four ma-jor questions that criminologists traditionally at-tempt to answer49:

1. Why does the crime rate vary?

2. Why are crimes committed by certain individ-uals and not others?

3. Why is there variation in reactions to allegedcriminality?

4. What are the possible means of controllingcriminality?

The fourth question specifically deals with crimepolicy. Note, though, that the answer to the fourthquestion depends largely on responses to the firsttwo questions. In other words, if one knows whatcauses crime, one is better able to develop effectivepolicies.

Theory, coupled with sound research, shouldhelp guide policy making throughout the criminal

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152

Crime Policy 17

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 17


justice system. Empirically supported theory canprovide clues for the passage of legislation and thesound operation of social programs. To proceedwithout theoretical guidance is to take a shot in thedark — there is no logical basis to assume that aparticular program will work. Policy prescriptionsbased on theories that are not supported empiri-cally are also unlikely to work. Unfortunately,crime policy often violates these principles; pro-grams with little theoretical guidance emerge timeand again.

Policy Without Theory — The Case of Intensive SupervisionTo illustrate the need to link theory with policy,consider the highly praised intensive supervisionprograms (ISP). These programs reflect the beliefthat the probation/parole officer can do a better jobof monitoring and supervising high-risk offendersif the officers’ caseloads are smaller. ISP programsemerged in the 1980s as a potential solution to thecrowding problem in U.S. jails and prisons. There-fore, one attractive feature of intensive supervisionis that it pleases people with conflicting views. ISPspromise to increase surveillance (protect society),provide more treatment, and reduce the size of jailand prison populations — yet, the emergence ofintensive supervision took place in “the absence ofany true theory that more supervision will lead tolower recidivism rates.”50

Research on intensive supervision initiallyfound that it led to higher rates of probation revo-cation and had little influence on recidivism (re-peat offending).51 In fact, had ISP supportersreviewed research from the 1960s, they would havediscovered that lowering probation caseloads didnot reduce recidivism.52 Although research on ISPswas largely negative, it did provided informationthat suggested conditions under which these pro-grams might be more successful. In particular, therehabilitative aspects of the program (providingbetter services and referrals) have proven effec-tive.53 There is evidence that ISPs that implementedthe suggested changes achieved reductions in re-cidivism rates.54

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152

Theoretically Informed Policy —The Case of Multisystemic Therapy In contrast to ISPs, multisystemic therapy (MST) isbased explicitly on well-known and empiricallysupported theories of crime. Developed by psy-chologist Scott Henggeler and his associates, MSTis a community-based treatment program that tar-gets many known causes of delinquency and crime.The targets of MST are drawn from several empiri-cally supported theories of crime, including sociallearning theory, social control theory, and cogni-tive theory. Examples of treatment targets includeparental supervision and discipline, antisocial atti-tudes, association with delinquent peers, and themix of rewards and punishments for both antiso-cial and prosocial behavior.55 MST has accumulateda track record of success, reducing crime substan-tially among serious/chronic offenders, includinginner-city juvenile delinquents, adolescent sex of-fenders, and abusive parents. This track record hasled some scholars to conclude that MST is perhapsthe best treatment option available to reduce re-cidivism.56

How has MST achieved this success? Part ofthe answer lies in the structure of the program —MST therapists receive extensive training and sup-port and are held accountable for the progress (orlack thereof) of offenders. Also, treatment plans areindividualized to the needs/problems of each of-fender and each treatment has multiple targets forchange. A central reason for success, however, isthat MST identifies known (from theory and em-pirical research) causes of delinquency and targetsthese factors for change. For example, parental dis-cipline is a key factor in several theories of crime,and empirical research consistently demonstratesthat lax supervision and harsh/inconsistent pun-ishment promote delinquency. Therefore, theorydictates that improving the disciplining skills ofthe parents of delinquents should lead to a reduc-tion in recidivism.

One purpose of research is to validate or test theaccuracy of theories, yet the most common con-

Limitations of CriminologicalResearch


LINKLINK In general, programs that emphasize only supervisionand punishment do not reduce recidivism. “Scared Straight,”discussed in Chapter 3, is another example of a punishment-based program that has proven to be ineffective.

LINK MST, and the theories of crime that underlie this pro-gram, are discussed in more detail in Chapter 5.

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 18


clusion of criminological research is that more in-formation on a given subject is needed before anydefinite conclusions can be drawn. There are atleast three reasons for this.

First, criminology is a part of the research tra-dition in sociology. One norm of sociological re-search, established primarily by German sociologistMax Weber (1864–1920) is that the research andits results should be value free. Weber contendedthat if researchers sought definite conclusions,their work could be biased by that desire to achievecertain results. The primary aim of sociological re-search was to generate accurate, unbiased, and ob-jective data — not to draw conclusions. As a result,some criminological studies do not contain policyrecommendations on crime.

Second, most criminological studies are basedon limited data. Because all statistical analyses ofa given sample reflect probabilities, a small sampleincreases the chance of drawing erroneous con-clusions. The possibility always exists that theconclusions based on a single study are wrong andthat the patterns found in the sample under studymay not truly exist in the general population. Thepossibility of inaccurate findings causes criminolo-gists to be cautious.

Third, criminological studies are not alwaysmethodologically sound. For example, RobertMartinson reviewed studies and research reportspublished between 1945 and 1967 on the effective-ness of correctional treatment. He included onlythose studies that met the following methodologiccriteria: “[They] had to employ an independentmeasure of the improvement secured by thatmethod, and [they] had to use some control group,some untreated individuals with whom the treatedones could be compared.”57 Reviewing over 20years of research, Martinson found only 231 stud-ies that met these basic standards of research. Basedon this information, the “Martinson report” reachedthis now-famous conclusion: “With few and iso-lated exceptions, the rehabilitative efforts that havebeen reported so far have had no appreciable effectupon recidivism.”58

A related research problem is overgeneraliza-tion.59 Overgeneralization is a problem related tothe researcher’s interpretation of the research re-sults. Martinson’s own pessimistic conclusion onoffender rehabilitation (“Nothing works!”) is anexample of an overgeneralization — one that helater recanted.60 Recent reviews of rehabilitationprograms have shown success in the treatment of

offenders.61 Unfortunately, overgeneralization is farfrom uncommon — two additional examples in-clude research on felony probation and domesticviolence.

Studies of Felony ProbationA classic example of overgeneralization is the studyby Rand Corporation researchers of felony proba-tion in California.62 They reached the widely publi-cized conclusion that these offenders represented athreat to public safety. Rand reported that 65% offelony probationers (offenders placed on probationbased on a felony-level offense) were rearrestedwithin two years of their release. What the medianeglected to report was that the sample understudy was not representative of the Californiafelony offender population. Moreover, the resultscould not reflect felony probation recidivism ratesacross the nation. Indeed, replications of this studyreported much lower rearrest rates, ranging from22% to 43%.63 Replication helps determine whetherresearch findings and their policy implications arestable over time and place. Despite these replica-tions, the Rand study was used to justify the cre-ation of intensive supervision programs.

Experiments on the Impact of Mandatory Arrest in Domestic Violence CasesA third example of overgeneralization occurredwith domestic violence experiments. LawrenceSherman has conducted several studies on the im-pact of arrest in domestic violence cases. In the firststudy, suspects in Minneapolis were randomly as-signed to one of three potential responses by thepolice: (1) arrest, (2) threat of arrest (with the sus-pect leaving the home), and (3) a “talking to” bythe police (with the suspect left at the scene).64 Theresults supported the use of arrest in domesticviolence cases as a way to protect the victim. Thesuspects who were arrested had the lowest rate ofrecidivism.65

This study had a dramatic impact on policingin domestic violence cases. Although the authorswere careful to recommend against the passage ofmandatory arrest laws until further research wasconducted, the results of the Minneapolis experi-ment contributed to the passage of such laws in 15states by 1991.66 The study was replicated (repeatedwith the same method in a different location) in

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152

Limitations of Criminological Research 19

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 19


Omaha,67 Charlotte,68 and Milwaukee69 with dis-similar results. Arresting domestic violence sus-pects in both Omaha and Charlotte was no moreeffective than other methods of handling the case(e.g., citation or advisement).

In Milwaukee, Sherman and his colleagues spe-cifically examined the impact of arrest on domesticviolence cases in poverty-stricken inner-city areas.The authors concluded that short-term arrestmight even cause harm by increasing anger at soci-ety without increasing the fear of rearrest.70

Sherman and Berk have been severely criti-cized for the impact of their studies on publicpolicy in domestic violence cases. Critics havechastised the researchers for failing to acknowledgethat the use of arrest in domestic violence casesfailed to achieve the desired result upon replica-tion. They also note that the Minneapolis study re-sulted in a “dramatic change in public policy withpotentially substantial negative effects on manypeople and an unwarranted large expenditure ofpublic monies.”71 Sherman72 and Berk73 counteredthese objections by noting that three of the six ex-periments provided some evidence of deterrenceand that they always fully listed the policy limita-tions of the findings of the studies.

As these examples suggest, criminological stud-ies must be interpreted with caution. Sound policyshould only follow accurate research. Researchshould be replicated in other locations to be certainthat results generated in one area apply to others.For these reasons, criminologists are often reluctantto reach definite conclusions based on their studies.

Students are often frustrated by the failure of crim-inology to provide certain and clear-cut answers tothe crime problem. This frustration also promotesthe view that theory is both illogical and impracti-cal. Jeffery has accurately portrayed this attitude74:

Theoretical courses are characterized as use-less. “I want some course material that is rele-vant,” is the usual student response to thecurriculum. When one asks, “What is rele-vance?” it turns out to be vocational training inbeing a police [officer] or a corrections officer.Clearly, these students are saying that “street

smarts” are more valuable than “book knowledge”of criminal behavior.

Theory Versus StreetwiseCriminology

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152

One exemplar of this type of thinking is thestudent who has worked or is working in the crim-inal justice system and who believes that the onlylegitimate source of knowledge is experience. Theargument is summarized by Carter75:

Nothing personal, but most professors don’tknow what they are talking about. They sit oncampus putting out all this good shit about re-habilitation and causes of crime. Most of themhaven’t ever been on the street and if you wantto know what’s happening, you have to be onthe street. Instead of telling us about crime, weought to be telling them. If they would spend acouple of days with us, they might find outwhat’s happening. No, they don’t want to dothat. It might upset all their theories.Indeed, this belief is not limited to students.

In academia, one of its most vocal and visibleadherents is George Kirkham. His experience as“the professor who became a cop” led him to firstgently admonish his colleagues to observe first-hand the problems of police officers before criticizingthem.76 He later turgidly stated that a “criminolo-gist would not know a criminal if one bit him onthe ass.”77

Another source of the street-smarts bias stemsfrom what Carter calls the Dick Tracy Mentality.This mindset is characterized by several beliefs78:

• The crime fighter is no mere mortal but, rather,a SUPER crime fighter.

• The criminal is distinctive, unique, readilyidentifiable, and different (from “normal”people).

• There are two kinds of people in society —good guys and bad guys.

A corollary view holds that theoretical state-ments represent attempts to provide a defense forcriminals. The reality, however, is that criminolog-ical theory attempts to explain rather than excusecriminal behavior.

Still another version of this mentality can bebluntly called the “asshole theory” of crime bywhich police officers guide their actions in specificsituations. “Assholes” commit crimes that are mo-tiveless, completely senseless, or otherwise irra-tional. Carter relates this statement by a policeofficer/student79:

I’ve heard all the theories of crime. Let me tellyou, crime is caused by assholes. That’s the ass-hole theory. If you want to check that, comeout on the street. See it like it is.


30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 20


Readers of this text, however, will discover thattheory does not always clash with street knowl-edge. In fact, theory is often verified by experience.Students will find within many theories examplesof commonsense, streetwise factors that influencecrime.

Although scientists often attempt to offer “value-neutral” theories and research, the reality is that sci-ence occurs within the political landscape of society.Crime has been a major campaign issue in almostevery presidential election since 1964 and most vic-tors have made criminal justice policy a centraltheme in their administrations. For example, con-sistent with his aim of creating a “Great Society”through civil rights legislation and a war on poverty,Lyndon Johnson made fighting crime an integralpart of his programs. Democrats Johnson and laterJimmy Carter were guided by the promise of distrib-utive justice: that increased economic opportunityis the best defense against crime. President Bill Clin-ton emphasized community policing — an ap-proach that attempts to foster closer relationshipsbetween police and citizens. In contrast to this lib-eral tradition, Republicans such as Richard Nixon,Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush gen-erally took the more conservative law-and-orderstance against crime, emphasizing individual re-sponsibility, deterrence, and retribution.80

Each president was aware of the political capi-tal that could be generated by addressing the crimeproblem and each dealt with the issue in ways thatreflected his own political ideologies. For example,as part of his campaign to promote a new federal-ism, Nixon cut the strings attached to the Law En-forcement Assistance Administration funds, allowingstate and local governments to decide spendingpriorities. Ford established career criminal prose-cution programs. In accord with his populist views,Carter stepped up federal efforts to apprehendand prosecute white-collar criminals. Reagan de-nounced liberal spending programs as destructiveto individual values and made the fight against vio-lent crime a priority of his administration. Bush de-railed Democratic nominee Michael Dukakis’ bidfor the presidency with his infamous Willie Hortonads that painted Dukakis as a liberal who was more

Politics: The “Left” and“Right” of Criminal JusticePolicy

concerned with the rights of criminals than theirvictims (Horton was a convicted murderer whocommitted a violent rape and murder while onfurlough from a Massachusetts prison). Duringhis presidency, President George Bush continuedthe Reagan administration’s war on drugs. After theSeptember 11, 2001 tragedies, President George W.Bush made terrorism his crime priority through thecreation of the Department of Homeland Security.

For all of the rhetoric, however, crime policy isnot a distinct entity. Criminal justice policy doesnot drive any administration’s programs; rather, itfollows the same themes as other social policies —it fits within a political ideology.81 Ideology is a setof relatively unquestioned assumptions about howthe world works. Walter Miller outlined the “cru-sading issues and general assumptions” of bothconservatives and liberals regarding crime.82 Con-servative politicians tend to view crime as a “badchoice” made freely by an offender. Conservativestherefore view the criminal as directly responsiblefor his or her own behavior. Their ideology is con-sistent with the classical school of crime.

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152

Politics: The “Left” and “Right” of Criminal Justice Policy 21

Convicted killer Gary Sampson is escorted into courtwhere he pleaded guilty to killing Robert Whitney in New Hampshire. Sampson is already facing execution for the murder of two men in Massachusetts.

? What might a liberal or conservative say causedsuch horrendous crimes?

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 21


Furthermore, traditional conservative valuesinclude discipline and respect for authority. There-fore, they see the following as the most importantcauses of crime83

• Excessive leniency toward lawbreakers• Emphasis on the welfare and rights of law-

breakers at the expense of the welfare andrights of victims, law enforcement officials, andlaw-abiding citizens

• Erosion of discipline and respect for authority• Excessive permissiveness in society

In contrast, liberals are generally dissatisfiedwith the present social order and emphasize dys-functional elements of the criminal justice systemsuch as the following84:

• Overcriminalization• Labeling and stigmatization• Overinstitutionalization• Overcentralization of authority• Discriminatory bias, especially racism and sex-

ismThe schism between left and right is reflected

not only among politicians but among criminolo-gists as well. On the right, the neoclassical school has

a common interest in dealing with predatorycrimes and substantially less interest in the“root causes” of crime which have entertainedthe more liberal social determinists for so long.The neoconservatives are concerned morewith dealing with the symptoms and inter-mediate correlates of social problems than inaffecting major changes in the social fabric ofsociety.85

As noted previously, the neoclassical schoolhas influenced criminal justice policy in several ar-eas, particularly with respect to career criminallaws and incapacitation.

One leading advocate of this point of view isJames Q. Wilson. In the provocative book ThinkingAbout Crime, Wilson argues that the typical causalanalysis of sociologists has nothing to do with pol-icy analysis86:

Causal analysis attempts to find the source ofhuman activity in those factors which them-selves are not caused, which are, in the lan-

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152

guage of sociologists, “independent variables.”Ultimate causes cannot be the object of policyefforts precisely because, being ultimate, theycannot be changed.Policy analysis considers only the condition

that the government wishes to create. Its focus ison current circumstances and its purpose is identi-fying the forces the government can marshal tobring the desired state into being.

In fact, Wilson declares that there is no reasonfor criminologists to be policy analysts.87 He be-lieves the policy analyst should ignore the study ofthe causes of crime and instead focus on the ma-nipulation of objective conditions because “theonly instruments society has by which to alter be-havior in the short run require it to assume thatpeople act in response to the costs and benefits ofalternative courses of action.”88 Thus, Wilson advo-cates such policies as the incapacitation of careercriminals, a return to foot patrols by police, and thecontinued criminalization of drugs.

Left-leaning criminologists identify with thepositive school of crime and seek the root causes ofcriminal behavior. Liberal criminologists also at-tempt to debunk the assumptions that inform theconservative law and order ideology in the UnitedStates.”89 A leading critic of conservative criminol-ogy is Elliot Currie. He considers crime a symptomof such social problems as child poverty andabuse/neglect, inadequate public services, and eco-nomic inequality. As a result, Currie calls for thefollowing reforms90:

• We should move to reduce inequality andpoverty.

• We should move toward crime preventionrather than incapacitation. Prevention priori-ties include preventing child abuse, enhancingchildren’s intellectual and social development,and providing support to vulnerable adoles-cents.

• We should work toward a genuinely support-ive national family policy.

• We should begin assuming greater responsibil-ity for the economic and social stability of localcommunities.

• We need to learn more about how to createcomprehensive strategies for high-risk com-munities and understand why some societieshave lower crime rates than others.91

Clearly, politics cannot be divorced from policymaking. Ideas from the left and right will always


LINKLINK In Chapter 3, the theories of the neoclassical schoolare presented. Deterrence and incapacitation (preventingcrime through incarceration of active offenders) are discussed.Chapter 9 presents theories of criminal careers and examples ofhow the policy of incapacitation has been implemented.

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 22


shape criminology research, theories of crime, andcrime policy. The value of science, however, is thattheories of crime from both the left and right aresubject to the same empirical scrutiny. There ismuch to be learned, however, about how policy ismade and implemented within a political context.92

The Influence of Social Context —The “Martinson Report” as a Case StudyAs the preceding discussion of ideology and poli-tics makes clear, science does not operate in a com-pletely objective, value-neutral environment. Socialcontext shapes scientific research, theory, policy,and the law. The previously discussed “Martinsonreport” provides an illustration of how social con-text can shape the interpretation of research results.As noted, Martinson concluded that few, if any, re-habilitation programs appeared to work. Manycredit this report with ending rehabilitation as agoal of corrections and ushering in a conservativeget-tough approach to crime. Did the Martinsonreport, through a scientific review of the litera-ture, persuade lawmakers and scholars to abandonrehabilitation? A careful analysis suggests otherwise.

First, Martinson was not the first scholar to re-view the rehabilitation literature and conclude thatrehabilitation programs appeared to be ineffective.Between 1950 and 1966, several scholars reachedequally pessimistic conclusions about scientific eval-uations of rehabilitation programs. The response,however, was a call to find better programs, conductbetter research, and enhance funding for rehabilita-tion. Also, few people are even aware that Martinsonrecanted his original statements. If the Martinson re-port led to the demise of rehabilitation, then whydidn’t the recant have a similar influence? Finally,positive findings in reviews of rehabilitation effortsin the 1980s and 1990s have been met with a greatdeal of skepticism.93

Why did the Martinson report generate suchinterest and why was it interpreted as the deathknell of rehabilitation? The answer lies largely inthe social context of the late 1960s and early 1970s.This was a period of great social change in Amer-ica — events such as the Vietnam war, the Water-gate scandal, civil rights protests, the Kent StateUniversity shootings, and the Attica prison riotshaped the social context. For liberals, governmentresponses to civil rights marchers and the Water-gate scandal signified that the government could

not be trusted at any task, including rehabilitation.To conservatives, the “hippie movement” was evi-dence of a decaying social disorder that a “get-tough approach” might correct. Thus, by the timethe Martinson report appeared, many criminologistsand other commentators had already concludedthat rehabilitation was a failed endeavor.94

Apart from corrections policy, social contextimpacts which theories of crime gain popularity,how research findings are interpreted, and indeed,what areas within criminology are deemed impor-tant enough to study. For this reason, readers areencouraged to keep in mind the social context ofresearch and theory; social context is discussed ex-plicitly on a number of occasions throughout theremaining chapters.

A common belief is that crime is something thatcan and must be eliminated from society. PresidentLyndon Johnson’s War on Crime in the 1960s and,more recently, President George Bush’s War on Drugsrepresent large-scale efforts to reduce crime. Thesemuch-trumped campaigns notwithstanding, oneneeds to consider what French sociologist EmileDurkheim (1858–1917) wrote about crime throughthe course of history95:

Crime is present not only in most societies ofone particular species but in societies of alltypes. There is no society that is not confrontedwith the problem of criminality. What is nor-mal is the existence of crime. Crime is normalbecause a society exempt from it is utterly im-possible. Even a community of saints will cre-ate sinners.Clearly, Durkheim did not mean that it was de-

sirable or even acceptable to kill one’s neighbor.Rather, he was pointing out that wherever there isconformity, there is also deviance — and some de-viance will inevitably be deemed criminal.

Durkheim also noted that deviance is a prereq-uisite for social change. Without deviance, a societystagnates. Cohen followed up on this observationby outlining seven ways the deviant may make pos-itive contributions to the success and vitality of so-cieties96:

1. Deviance cuts through “red tape.” The deviantrebels against the categorical and stereotypical

Crime as a NormalPhenomenon

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152

Crime as a Normal Phenomenon 23

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 23


nature of the rules, often violating the rules toaccomplish organizational tasks.

2. Deviance acts as a “safety valve” for societalpressures. The deviant prevents the excessiveaccumulation of discontent and reduces strainon the legitimate order.

3. Deviance clarifies the “rules.” The deviant en-ables other members of society to learn whatdeviance is and how far one may safely venture.

4. Deviance unites the group (against the deviant).The deviant provides society with a commonenemy.

5. Deviance unites the group (for the deviant).The deviant gives society an opportunity tosave and reclaim or rehabilitate the deviant.

6. Deviance accents conformity. The deviant servesas a reference point against which conformitycan be measured and gives others a feeling ofself-satisfaction for adhering to the rules.

7. Deviance acts as a “warning signal.” The de-viant alerts others to the defects in an organiza-tion or society.

Of course, there is a point at which crime be-comes dysfunctional. If a high level of crime becomes“normalized” or considered inevitable, the conse-quences can be devastating for a community,97 yetcrime and deviance are not always threatening. Al-though Durkheim and Cohen were writing aboutdeviant behavior such as political protest and notmurder, the message is that the elimination ofcrime cannot be accomplished.

How to Study CrimeKnowledge about crime stems from several sources,including personal experience and studies by oth-

123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152

ers. Each source, however, has its own problemsand limitations. Commonsense observations aboutcrime may be limited to an individual’s own experi-ence and not reflect broader trends. Such a limitedperspective impedes one’s ability to understand thenature of crime. As noted previously, scientific stud-ies also may have problems with generalizability, andinterpretations of findings are always subject to theinfluence of social context. However, the construc-tion of theory, the development of hypotheses, andempirical testing provide the best promise of under-standing the crime problem. Such careful study bothgenerates and organizes data in a meaningful way.

Where do these limitations leave the student?This book offers several suggestions on how thereader should approach criminology. First, keep anopen mind. One student probably will enthusiasti-cally agree with certain theories about the nature ofcriminal behavior and the causes of crime; anothermay violently disagree with others (this is ideologyat work). Keep in mind, however, that the readers’task here is to learn the components of each theoryno matter what their personal feelings may be.Only then can the student compare and contrasttheories, see how they interact, and synthesizethem. Remember, too, that each theory is a productof and is influenced by its social, intellectual, andhistorical context.98

Second, students are cautioned against dis-counting a theory based on the “exceptional case.”Students often cite the one instance, example, orindividual that the theory fails to explain. Thereare always exceptions to the rule, but they are justthat — exceptions beyond the average. For exam-ple, many people know a person who smoked cig-arettes their whole life and did not die of cancer.Does this mean that cigarettes do not cause cancer?Try to examine the strengths and weaknesses ofeach theory in its own context. In other words, ap-


30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 24


ply another of Max Weber’s sociological concepts,verstehen, or empathetic understanding. To exam-ine a theory properly, the student must understandit on its own terms.

Third, learn not to expect easy answers and donot accept them without reservation. Finckenauercautions against settling for simple solutions to thedelinquency problem, but his words apply to anyaspect of criminology99:

The highway of delinquency prevention his-tory is paved with punctured panaceas [em-phasis added]. First, a certain approach is posedas a cure-all or becomes viewed and promotedas a cure-all — as an intervention which willhave universal efficacy and thus be appropriatefor nearly all kids. Unfortunately, the approach,no matter what it is, almost always fails to de-liver; fails to live up to the frequently unrealis-tic or unsound expectations raised by the salespitch.If easy answers were readily available, crimi-

nologists would have delivered them long ago, andthe crime problem would not exist today.

Criminological theory often cannot provide lit-eral answers to the crime problem. Nevertheless,when studying a social problem like crime, re-searchers are trying to explain it and figure out itscauses. Explanations do more than describe whathas happened. They give reasons for what has oc-curred — the “how” and the “why.” To be of prac-tical value, explanations should improve the abilityto predict events more accurately than throughcommon sense alone. As noted, each criminologi-cal theory provides a set of causes.

Good theory should be linked to reality throughresearch: The empirical testing of theory confersrelevance — and criminological theory is no ex-ception. This text presents the latest research on the

various theories and reviews the policy implicationsof this research, but it will become clear that the“doctors don’t always have the cure.” In otherwords, physicians can often find the causes of anillness (e.g., AIDS), but they cannot develop a cure.This is also frequently the case in criminology.Knowledge of the nature of the problem is no guar-antee that a solution will be found. Unfortunately,such knowledge is also no consolation to the victimsof crime. Approaches to the crime problem, how-ever, should have a firm foundation — one pro-vided by both theory and research, not guesswork.

ConclusionCrime should be viewed not as a single phenome-non but as one in which many kinds of behavioroccur in different situations and under differentconditions. No single theory can provide all the ex-planations for — let alone answers to — the crimeproblem. Again, criminological theory attempts toexplain the causes of criminal behavior, not to ex-cuse crimes or the people who commit them.

The next several chapters discuss theories ofcrime across several disciplines, including biology,psychology, and sociology. The reader is encour-aged to organize them in some meaningful wayas they are encountered. This chapter provided anumber of ways to accomplish this task. Theoriescan focus on law breaking (crime) or the criminaljustice system response to crime. They can operateat the micro or macro levels; they are generally partof an academic discipline, and they are often part ofa specific theoretical tradition within a discipline.Although virtually all of the theories encounteredare positivistic, a few theories are grounded firmlyin the classical school of crime.

12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152

Conclusion 25

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 25


WRAP UPYOU ARE THE CRIMINOLOGIST

Chapter Spotlight

• Edwin Sutherland defined criminology asthe study of law making, law breaking, and theresponse to law breaking. Modern scholarsoften distinguish criminology (the study oflaw breaking) from criminal justice (the studyof responses to law breaking). The study ofdeviance also overlaps with criminology.

• Within academia, criminology is currently ina state of flux. Some consider criminology anindependent discipline, while others view itas a general field open to all social science dis-ciplines. Historically, sociology has had thelargest impact on the study of crime, and so-ciologists tend to view criminology as a sub-discipline of sociology.

• The substantive criminal law is a codificationof prohibited behaviors and the possible sanc-tions for these behaviors. The definition of acriminal act has two components, the mens

rea (criminal mind) and the actus reas (crimi-nal act).

• Criminal laws can be classified in a number ofways. Mala in se (evil in themselves) crimes,including homicide, robbery, rape, and bur-glary make up the core of the legal code. Malaprohibita (wrong because they are prohibited)crimes such as gambling and illicit drug usetend to vary across societies and over time.

• Two general perspectives on the law exist. Theconsensus perspective views the law as the re-sult of widespread societal agreement aboutwhat acts should be illegal. The conflict per-spective suggests that the legal code is the endresult of a power struggle among competing in-terest groups.

• A scientific theory is a set of principles or state-ments that attempt to explain how concepts arerelated. In the case of crime theory, these state-


ww

w.cr

imin

olog

y.jb

pub.

com

A Research Project

A criminologist would start any research project by locating existing information and research studies on the area inquestion. Studies may already exist that attempt to answer the same question. The value of reviewing the existing lit-erature on hacking (or any research area) is in exploring if the question has been answered and how, so that if youwanted to further the study of hackers you could do so by changing the research question and/or using a different re-search method.

You might consider using your friends to conduct a scientific study of why people are or are not hackers, but youwould encounter problems with this approach. Asking someone whether he or she would commit a crime could alsomake you liable to contact the authorities with this information. If the research participants are your friends, you maybe less likely to contact the police, which in turn holds you accountable for knowing about a crime. The problem of biaswould also be present because you are friends with the research subjects and you may be less inclined to follow thescheduled questions that should be asked of all participants. Moreover, you may bias the interpretation of the informa-tion you receive from your friends.

A researcher from the classical school perspective might argue that people engage in hacking because current lawsare not severe enough to deter people from this activity. In addition, various news accounts have shown that somehackers who are caught actually get hired by the federal government and large corporations instead of receiving fines orincarceration for their illegal acts. When rational individuals weigh the costs and benefits of hacking, the benefits mayoutweigh the costs.

The positive school approach to the question of why some people hack relates to understanding their behaviors.Individuals are influenced by inherent abnormalities (e.g., biological and psychological) and by their environment (e.g.,upbringing and community). Hackers may engage in illegal behaviors because of internal and/or external factors.

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 26


12345678910111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152

ments typically explain how one or more factorslead to criminal behavior. A scientific theorymust also be testable, meaning that it must bestated in such a way that other scientists can goout into the real world, collect information,and test the theory’s validity.

• A good theory of crime is supported by empir-ical tests. In other words, it appears to “work”in the real world. Aside from empirical sup-port, a good theory is also parsimonious (con-cise) and wide in scope (explains a wide rangeof phenomena).

• Historically, the first explanations of criminalbehavior invoked spirits and gods to explaincrime. The scientific study of crime is dated tothe classical school of crime. Classical schooltheorists argued that humans were rational, he-donistic beings — they choose criminal actionsbecause of the benefits of crime. Accordingly,humans could be deterred from crime if the le-gal system was properly structured. The posi-tive school of crime suggests that criminal

behavior is determined by factors that are par-tially or completely outside the control of indi-viduals. Different social science disciplines(e.g., psychology, sociology, biology) highlightdifferent factors that cause criminal behavior.

• Criminology is an applied science. Theory, cou-pled with sound research, should help guidepolicy making throughout the criminal justicesystem. To proceed without theoretical guid-ance is to take a shot in the dark — there isno logical basis to assume that a particularprogram will work. Intensive supervision pro-grams are an example of a policy implementedwith little theoretical guidance, while multisys-temic therapy (MST) is theoretically grounded.

• Although science generally strives to be “valuefree,” criminology is heavily influenced by ide-ology. Liberal (left) criminologists tend to asso-ciate with the positive school of crime and tofocus on social causes of crime. Conservative(right) criminologists lean toward the classicalschool of crime and to focus on deterrence.

Wrap Up 27

ww

w.criminology.jbpub.com

Putting It All Together

1. What is “criminology?” How does criminologyrelate to other social science disciplines?

2. What is a scientific theory? How can you tellwhether or not a theory is good?

3. What is the substantive criminal law? Describethe two main perspectives on the criminal law,and give an example of a crime that is consis-tent with each perspective.

4. Describe the history of theorizing about crime.How does the classical school of crime differfrom the positive school of crime?

5. Discuss the linkage between theory and policy.

6. What does it mean to be a “liberal” or “conser-vative” criminologist? How does ideology im-pact the study of crime?

Key Terms

case law Law that is created when judges interpretconstitutional provisions, statutes, or regulationscreated by administrative agencies.

conflict perspective View that criminal law is the re-sult of constant clashes between groups with dif-ferent levels of power. Those groups that win the

clashes define the legal code in a manner consis-tent with their values.

consensus perspective View that criminal law is theresult of widespread agreement among mem-bers of society as to what should be legal and il-legal.

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 27


123456789

10111213141516171819202122232425262728293031323334353637383940414243444546474849505152

constitutional law The law as expressed in the U.S.Constitution, as well as the constitutions of in-dividual states. Constitutions are the supremelaw of the land.

distributive justice Campaign theme of liberal De-mocrats that increased economic opportunity isthe best defense against crime.

grand theories Sweeping theories that attempt toexplain all types of criminal behavior.

hedonistic calculus Jeremy Bentham used this termto describe human nature — humans seek plea-sure (hedonism) in a rational, calculating man-ner.

hypotheses Testable statements about the relation-ship between variables in a scientific study.

intensive supervision Practice based on the assump-tion that probation/parole officers with reducedcaseloads can better monitor and supervise high-risk offenders more effectively. This practice hasalso been touted as a potential solution to jailand prison-crowding problems.

law and order Campaign theme of conservative Re-publicans that a “hard line” is the best defense.

Notes 1. Simpson’s Contemporary Quotations, available at http://

www.bartleby.com/63, accessed January 2, 2006.2. Brainyquote, available at http://www.brainyquote.com/

quotes/quotes/w/willrogers106272.html, accessed Janu-ary 2, 2006.

3. Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal JusticeStatistics Online, 30th ed., available at http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/index.html, accessed December 2, 2005.

4. Ibid.5. Allen J. Beck and Paige M. Harrison, Prisoners in 2000

(Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2001): 1.6. Thomas P. Bonczar, Prevalence of Imprisonment in the U.S.

Population, 1974–2001 (Washington, DC: Bureau of Jus-tice Statistics, 2003): 1.

7. Edwin Sutherland and Donald Cressey, Principles ofCriminology, 6th ed. (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1960).

8. William Sumner, Folkways (Boston: Gin, 1906).9. Joachim J. Salvelsberg and Robert J. Sampson, “Introduc-

tion: Mutual Engagement: Criminology and Sociology?”Crime, Law, and Social Change 37 (2002): 99–105.

10. James F. Short, Jr. “Criminology, the Chicago School, and

Sociological Theory,” Crime, Law, and Social Change 37(2002): 107–115.

11. Steven R. Barkan, Criminology: A Sociological Understand-ing (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2006).

12. C. Wright Mills, The Sociological Imagination (London:Oxford University Press, 1959).

13. Barkan, 2006, 8.14. D.A. Andrews and James Bonta, The Psychology of Crimi-

nal Conduct, 2nd ed. (Cincinnati, OH: Anderson, 1998). 15. Margaret A. Zahn, “Thoughts on the Future of Criminol-

ogy — The American Society of Criminology 1998 Presi-dential Address,” Criminology 37 (1999): 1–16.

16. Larry J. Seigel, Criminology: Theory Patterns, and Typolo-gies, 8th ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2004): 27.

17. Ibid., 29–31.18. Larry K. Gains and Roger L. Miller, Criminal Justice in Ac-

tion, 2nd ed. (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2004): 54.19. Cornell Legal Information Institute, “Constitution and

Codes,” available at http://www.law.cornell.edu/, accessedJanuary 10, 2006.

20. Gains and Miller, 2004, 62–63.


ww

w.cr

imin

olog

y.jb

pub.

com

mala in se Crimes that are considered as “evil inthemselves” (e.g., homicide).

mala prohibita Crimes that are forbidden by lawsthat attempt to regulate behavior (e.g., drugabuse, gambling, prostitution).

overgeneralization Jumping to sweeping conclusionsbased on the results of a single study.

panaceas Cure-alls. Applied to criminology, theterm refers to the search for simple solutions tothe crime problem.

policy analysis Focuses on the condition the gov-ernment wishes to create, rather than on the rootcauses of crime.

procedural law The portion of the criminal law thatdictates the type of behaviors in which criminaljustice actors can legally engage.

recidivism Repeat offending. statutory law Criminal code created by legislatures

and governing bodies.value free The belief that researchers should keep

their personal views out of their study and theinterpretation of its findings. Objectivity is thegoal.

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 28


Wrap Up 29

ww


48. Francis T. Cullen and Karen E. Gilbert, Reaffirming Reha-bilitation (Cincinnati, OH: Anderson, 1982).

49. John P. Gibbs, “The State of Criminological Theory,” Crim-inology 25 (1987): 821–840.

50. Lawrence A. Bennett, “Practice in Search of Theory: TheCase of Intensive Supervision — An Extension of an OldPractice or a New Approach?” American Journal of Crimi-nal Justice 12 (1988): 293.

51. Joan Petersilia and Susan Turner, “Evaluating IntensiveSupervision Probation/Parole,” Research in Brief (Wash-ington, DC: National Institute of Justice, 1993).

52. Robert M. Carter, James Robison, and Leslie T. Wilkins,The San Francisco Project: A Study of Federal Probation andParole (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1967).

53. Edward J. Latessa and Gennaro F. Vito, “The Effects of In-tensive Supervision on Shock Probationers,” Journal ofCriminal Justice 16 (1988): 319–330.

54. James M. Byrne, Arthur J. Lurigio, and Christopher Baird,“The Effectiveness of the New Intensive Supervision Pro-grams,” Research in Corrections 2 (1989): 1–48; Betsy Ful-ton, Edward J. Latessa, Amy Stichman, and Lawrence F.Travis, “The State of ISP: Research and Policy Implica-tions,” Federal Probation 61 (1997): 65–76.

55. Scott W. Henggeler, Phillippe B. Cunningham, Susan G.Pickrel, Sonja K. Schoenwald, and Michael J. Brondino,“Multisystemic Therapy: An Effective Violence PreventionApproach for Serious Juvenile Offenders,” Journal of Ado-lescence 19 (1996): 47–61.

56. Francis T. Cullen and Paul Gendreau, “Assessing Correc-tional Rehabilitation: Policy, Practice, and Prospects,” inCriminal Justice 2000 (Washington, DC: National Instituteof Justice, 2000).

57. Robert M. Martinson, “What Works? Questions and An-swers About Prison Reform,” The Public Interest Spring(1974): 24.

58. Ibid., 10.59. Michael G. Maxfield and Earl Babbie, Research Methods for

Criminal Justice and Criminology (Belmont, CA: Wadsworth,2005): 10.

60. Robert M. Martinson and Judith Wilks, “Save Parole Super-vision,” Federal Probation 41 (1977): 23–27; Robert M. Mar-tinson, “New Findings, New Views: A Note of CautionRegarding Sentencing Reform,” Hofstra Law Review 7(1979): 242–258; Jose E. Sanchez, “The Use of Robert Mar-tinson’s Writings on Correctional Treatment: An Essay onthe Justification of Correctional Policy,” Journal of Contem-porary Criminal Justice 6 (1990): 127–138.

61. Paul Gendreau and Richard R. Ross, “Revivication ofRehabilitation: Evidence from the 1980s,” Justice Quar-terly 4 (1987): 349–407; Craig Dowden and D.A. An-drews, “The Importance of Staff Practice in DeliveringEffective Correctional Treatment: A Meta-Analytic Reviewof Core Correctional Practice,” International Journal of Of-fender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 48 (2004):204–214; Craig Dowden and D.A. Andrews, “EffectiveCorrectional Treatment and Violent Reoffending: A MetaAnalysis,” Canadian Journal of Criminology 42 (2000):449–467.

21. Seigel, 2004, 33.22. Ibid.23. U.S. Department of Justice, “Preserving Life and Liberty,”

available at http://www.lifeandliberty.gov/highlights.htm,accessed January 2, 2006.

24. Electronic Freedom Foundation, “The USA Patriot Act,”available at http://www.eff.org/patriot, accessed January 2,2006.

25. Ibid.26. Seigel, 204, 35–36.27. Ronald L. Akers and Christine S. Sellers, Criminological

Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application (Los An-geles: Roxbury, 2004): 141–147.

28. Akers and Sellers, 2004, 5–6.29. Edwin Sutherland and Donald Cressey, Principles of Crim-

inology, 6th ed. (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1960).30. Harry E. Barnes, The Story of Punishment (Montclair, NJ:

Patterson-Smith, 1972).31. Barnes, 1972.32. William E. Burns, Witch Hunts in Europe and America: An

Encyclopedia (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2003).33. J. Robert Lilly, Francis T. Cullen, and Richard A. Ball,

Criminological Theory: Context and Consequences, 3rd ed.(Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 2002): 11.

34. Graeme Newman, The Punishment Response (Philadelphia:Lippincott, 1985).

35. Stephen J. Pfohl, Images of Deviance and Social Control: ASociological History (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1985): 25.

36. Lilly, Cullen, and Ball, 2002, 13–15.37. Ibid., 14.38. David Young, “Let Us Content Ourselves with Praising the

Work While Drawing a Veil Over Its Principles: Eigh-teenth Century Reactions to Beccaria’s On Crimes andPunishments,” Justice Quarterly 1 (1984): 155–170.

39. Lilly, Cullen, and Ball, 2002, 14–15; George B. Vold, Theo-retical Criminology (New York: Oxford University Press,1970): 18–22.

40. Lilly, Cullen, and Ball, 2002, 15.41. Ysabel F. Rennie, The Search for Criminal Man: A Concep-

tual History of the Dangerous Offender (Lexington, MA:Lexington Books, 1978): 18.

42. Elio Monachesi, “Cesare Beccaria,” in Hermann Mann-heim, ed., Pioneers in Criminology (Montclair, NJ: Patter-son-Smith, 1960).

43. Francis T. Cullen and Robert Agnew, Criminological The-ory: Past to Present (Los Angeles: Roxbury, 2003): 18.

44. Larry J. Seigel, Criminology, 8th ed. (Belmont, CA:Wadsworth, 2003): 6.

45. Nicole Rafter, “The Unrepentant Horse-Slasher: Moral In-sanity and the Origins of Criminological Thought,” Crim-inology 42 (2004): 979–1008.

46. Gideon Fishman, “Positivism and Neo-Lombrosianism,”in Israel Barak-Glantz and C. Ronald Huff, eds., The Mad,the Bad, and the Different: Essays in Honor of Simon Dinitz(Lexington, MA: Lexington, 1981): 17.

47. C. Ray Jeffrey, “The Historical Development of Criminol-ogy,” in Hermann Mannheim, ed., Pioneers in Criminology(Montclair, NJ: Patterson-Smith, 1960): 468.

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 29


62. Joan Petersilia, Susan Turner, J. Kahan, and J. Peterson,“Executive Summary of Rand’s Study: ‘Granting FelonsProbation: Public Risks and Alternatives,’” Crime andDelinquency 31 (1985): 379–392.

63. Johnny McGaha, Michael Fichter, and Peter Hirschburg,“Felony Probation: A Re-examination of Public Risk,”American Journal of Criminal Justice 11 (1987): 1–9; Gen-naro F. Vito, “Felony Probation and Recidivism: Replica-tion and Response,” Federal Probation 50 (1987): 17–25;John Whitehead, “The Effectiveness of Felony Probation:Results from an Eastern State,” Justice Quarterly 9 (1991):525–543; Patrick A. Langan and Mark A. Cunniff, Recidi-vism of Felons on Probation, 1986–89 (Washington, DC:Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1992); W. Reed Benedict andLin Huff-Corzine, “Return to the Scene of the Punishment:Recidivism of Adult Male Property Offenders on FelonyProbation, 1986–1989,” Journal of Research in Crime andDelinquency 34 (1997): 237–252; Barbara Sims and MarkJones, “Predicting Success or Failure on Probation: Fac-tors Associated with Felony Probation Outcomes,” Crimeand Delinquency 43 (1997): 314–327.

64. Lawrence W. Sherman and Douglas A. Smith with Janell D.Schmidt and Dennis P. Rogan, “Crime, Punishment, andStake in Conformity: Legal and Informal Control of Do-mestic Violence,” American Sociological Review 57 (1992):680–690.

65. Lawrence W. Sherman and Richard A. Berk, “The SpecificDeterrent Effects of Arrest for Domestic Assault,” Ameri-can Sociological Review 49 (1984): 261–272; Richard A.Berk and Lawrence W. Sherman, “Police Responses to Do-mestic Violence Incidents: An Analysis of an Experimental

Design with Incomplete Randomization,” Journal of theAmerican Statistical Association 83 (1988): 70–76.

66. Sherman and Smith, 1992, 680.67. Franklyn W. Dunford, David Huizinga, and Delbert S. El-

liott, “The Role of Arrest in Domestic Assault: The OmahaPolice Experiment,” Criminology 28 (1990): 183–206.

68. J. David Hirschel, Ira W. Hutchison, and Charles W. Dean,“The Failure of Arrest to Deter Spouse Abuse,” Journal ofResearch in Crime and Delinquency 29 (1992): 7–33.

69. Lawrence W. Sherman, Janell D. Schmidt, Dennis P. Rogan,Patrick R. Gartin, Ellen G. Cohen, Douglas J. Collins, andA.R. Bacich, “From Initial Deterrence to Long-Term Esca-lation: Short Term Custody Arrest for Poverty GhettoDomestic Violence,” Criminology 29 (1991): 821–850;Sherman and Smith with Schmidt and Rogan, 1992.

70. Sherman, Schmidt, et al., 1991, 846.71. Arnold Binder and James W. Meeker, “Implications of the

Failure to Replicate the Minneapolis Experimental Find-ings,” American Sociological Review 58 (1993): 887.

72. Lawrence W. Sherman, “Implications of the Failure to Readthe Literature.” American Sociological Review 58 (1993): 888.

73. Richard A. Berk, “Policy Correctness in the ASR,” Ameri-can Sociological Review 58 (1993): 889.

74. C. Ray Jeffery, Crime Prevention Through Environmental De-sign (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1977): 331.

75. Robert M. Carter, “The Police View of the Justice System,”in Malcolm W. Klein, ed., The Juvenile Justice System (Bev-erly Hills, CA: Sage, 1976): 123.

76. George L. Kirkham, “From Professor to Patrolman: AFresh Perspective on the Police,” Journal of Police Scienceand Administration 2 (1974): 137.


ww

w.cr

imin

olog

y.jb

pub.

com

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 30


WWW.CRIMINOLOGY.JBPUB.COM

InteractivitiesIn the NewsKey Term ExplorerWeb Links

Wrap Up 31

ww


77. George L. Kirkham, Signal Zero: The Professor Who Becamea Cop (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1976): 206.

78. Robert M. Carter, “Where Have All the Crime FightersGone?” Gunsmoke Gazette 1 (1972): 9.

79. Carter, 1976, 124.80. James O. Finckenauer, “Crime as a National Political Is-

sue, 1964–76,” Crime and Delinquency 24 (1978): 10–19.81. Gennaro F. Vito, “The Politics of Crime Control: Impli-

cations of Reagan Administration Pronouncements onCrime,” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 2 (1983):1–7.

82. Walter B. Miller, “Ideology and Criminal Justice Policy,” inNorman Johnson and Leonard D. Savitz, eds., Justice andCorrections (New York: John Wiley, 1978).

83. Ibid., 8–9.84. Ibid., 9–10. 85. Richard R.E. Kania, “Conservative Ideology in Criminol-

ogy and Criminal Justice,” American Journal of CriminalJustice 13 (1988): 80.

86. James Q. Wilson, Thinking About Crime (New York: Vin-tage Books, 1985): 46.

87. Ibid., 49.88. Ibid., 50–51.89. Robert M. Bohm, “Crime, Criminal and Crime Control

Policy Myths,” Justice Quarterly 3 (1986): 194. See alsoSamuel Walker, Sense and Nonsense About Crime and Drugs(Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2000); Jeffrey Reiman, TheRich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison: Ideology, Class andCriminal Justice (Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 2003); Gregg

Barak, Jeanne M. Flavin, and Paul S. Leighton, eds. Class,Race, Gender and Crime: Social Realities of Justice in Amer-ica (Los Angeles: Roxbury, 2001).

90. Elliot Currie, “Confronting Crime: Looking Toward theTwenty-First Century,” Justice Quarterly 6 (1989): 16.

91. Ibid., 21. See also Elliot Currie, Confronting Crime: AnAmerican Challenge (New York: Pantheon Books, 1985);Elliott Currie, Crime and Punishment in America (NewYork: Henry Holt, 1998).

92. Lawrence F. Travis III, Edward J. Latessa, and Gennaro F.Vito, “Agenda Building in Criminal Justice: The Case ofDeterminate Sentencing,” American Journal of CriminalJustice 10 (1985): 1–21.

93. Cullen and Gendreau, 2000, 119–122.94. Ibid.95. Emile Durkheim, “Crime as Normal Phenomenon,” in

Leon Radzinowicz and Marvin E. Wolfgang, eds., TheCriminal in Society: Crime and Justice, Volume 1 (NewYork: Basic Books, 1971): 391–392.

96. Albert K. Cohen, Deviance and Control (Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice Hall, 1966): 6–10.

97. Daniel P. Moynihan, “Defining Deviancy Down,” inRichard C. Monk, ed., Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Con-troversial Issues in Crime and Criminology (Guilford, CT:Dushkin, 1996): 11.

98. Franklin P. Williams III and Marilyn McShane, Criminolog-ical Theory (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1988): 7.

99. James O. Finckenauer, Scared Straight! and the Panacea Phe-nomenon (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1982): 5–6.

30017_CH01_002_031_r10.qxp 4/7/06 11:57 AM Page 31


30017 ch01 002 031 r10 - jones & bartlett learning

Documents