Crime and Behavior 1621315398, 9781621315391

Citation preview

Crime and Behavior First

Edited

by Sylvia and

San

Diego

Edition

Valenzuela, Stuart

State

Paul

Henry

Universit

Kaplan,

Bassim

Hamadeh,

CEO

Simpson,

Vice

Michael Jamie

Giganti,

Jess

Busch,

Seidy

Copyright reproduced, known

or

First

Printed

ISBN:

in

only

in

for

the

identification

United

978-1-62131-539-1

the

United

Product

in

(pbk)/

No part

or by any

photocopying,

of

permission

America

or corporate

of

reserved.

any form

written

States

and

States

All rights

including

without

the

Notice:

Inc.

or utilized

invented,

system

published

Editor Associate

Cognella,

transmitted,

Trademark used

Project

by

hereafter

retrieval

Supervisor

Licensing

2014

Acquisitions

Editor

Senior

Sandler,

of

Editor

Design

Acquisitions

Wheeler,

Stephanie

Publisher

President

Managing Graphic

Cruz,

Sarah

and

in

names

explanation

without

electronic,

microfilming, of

2014

Cognella,

by

intent

(br

publication mechanical,

and

recording,

may be reprinted, or other or in

means,

now

any informa-tion

Inc.

Cognella,

may be trademarks

America

978-1-62131-540-7

of this

to infringe.

Inc.

or registered

trademarks,

and

are

CONTENTS Preface

vii

Introduction

1

PART

MICRO-LEVEL

I:

INDIVIDUAL

THEORIES

Introduction

CHAPTER

1:

7

CLASSICAL

1.The

Rational Derek

2.

Routine

B.

AND

1.

2:

Cornish

Biological

Cesare

3:

Ronald

Tillyer

Clarke

and John

E. Eck

& BIOSOCIAL

Theory

THEORIES

37

D. Crews Lombrosos

The

Born

Criminal

59

Lombroso-Ferrero

PSYCHOLOGICAL

1. Psychological Theories John

V.

23

BIOLOGICAL

Gina

CHAPTER

and

THEORIES

15

Activities

Angela 2.

CHOICE

Choice Perspective

Marie Skubak

CHAPTER

RATIONAL

W. Clark

THEORIES

of Crime

6

IV

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

PART II: MICRO-LEVEL

SOCIAL

PROCESS

THEORIES

Introduction

CHAPTER

1.

4:

79

SOCIAL

ATheory Edwin

of

LEARNING

THEORIES

Diff erential

H. Sutherland

Association and

Donald

85

R. Cressey

2. Social Learning Theory

89

Ronald L. Akers and WesleyG.Jennings

CHAPTER

5:

SOCIAL

CONTROL

THEORIES

1. Self-Control Theory Travis

Hirschi and

103

Michael R. Gottfredson

PART MACRO-LEVEL

III:

STRUCTURAL

Introduction

CHAPTER

6:

THEORIES

121

SOCIAL

1. Social

ECOLOGY

Disorganization

AND

SUBCULTURAL

Theory

THEORIES

129

Jeffery T. Walker

CHAPTER

1.

7:

Strain

ANOMIE

AND

Theories

Robert S. Agnew

STRAIN

THEORIES

14

CONTENTS

V

PART IV: MACRO-LEVEL

CRITICAL

THEORIES

Introduction

157

CHAPTER 8: 1.

CONFLICT,

Critical

RADICAL,

AND LEFT REALIST

Criminology

Stuart

165

Henry

2. Radical

Criminology

171

MichaelJ. Lynch and Paul B.Stretesky

CHAPTER

9:

FEMINIST

1. Feminist Susan

CHAPTER

1.

10:

GENDER

193

F. Sharp

POSTMODERN

Postmodernism

AND

and

Henry and

Cultural Jeff

THEORIES

Criminology

Stuart 2.

AND

CRITICAL

Constitutive

Dragan

CULTURE

Theories

of

Criminal

Behavior

207

Milovanovic 213

Criminology

Ferrell

3. Advancing Critical Criminology Through Avi

CHAPTER11:

THEORIES

Anthropology

225

Brisman

ANARCHIST, PEACEMAKING,

1. Peacemaking

AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE THEORIES

Criminology

253

Michael Braswell, John Fuller, and Bo Lozoff 2.

Responsibility

John

CONCLUSION: Stuart

and

Braithwaite

THE Henry

Restorative

and

Declan

CHALLENGE

26

Justice

Roche

OF INTEGRATIVE

THEORIES

279

PREFACE

T

he focus

students

etiology

of this text is on crime with

an

of crime.

introduction

and behavior. to

the

causes

Our purpose is to provide of

crime,

also

known

as the

We have assembled a set of easily accessible articles that

give

the reader a clear overview of competing explanations for crime, criminals and criminality,

each written by leading criminologists

range from individual-level

in the field. These

explanations through group and institutional

articles expla-nations

to explanations highlighting the role of wider social and cultural forces on human behavior. Project

We would like to thank the Thinking

at San Diego State

Reader possible, and

Universitys

particularly

to

School of Public Cognella

Academic

Outside the Book

Affairs for

making this

Publishing

for

under-writing

the project.

VI

INTRODUCTION

T

his book provides Put another

an overview

study

way,it tries to answer the question: Why

It does so through

a collecting

of criminal

the field of criminology. These

crime?

essays, and

major paradigms (theoretical frameworks)

in

articles address various levels of analysis, from

explanation, to group-level theories, to broader approaches that

include the influence of culture, social structure and institutions criminal

behavior.

do peopledo

works of original research, theoretical

literature reviews addressing the individual-level

of the scholarly

in explaining

behavior.

From the outset it is important a legal category. This the political imposing

to recognize that the behavior called crime

meansthat crimes are definitions

acts of government

through

penalties on off enders.

law forbidding

of behavior

is

decided on by

its process of making criminal

laws and

A crime is defined as an act that violates a public

it, or the omission

of an act violating

Crimes are defined by local, state or federal

a public law commanding

governments,

it.

but where no clear law

exists, decisions by courts can also define crime. Crimes typically

contains

three

elements:

(1) they

harm others, institutions

or society in general; (2) there is a degree of consensus among societys

members

about the immorality

behavior

through

of the

behavior;

a series of government

sanctions

on the

perpetrator(s).

varies in relation

and (3) society

authorized The

reacts to the

processes and imposes

severity

and enforces

of the penalty imposed

to the perceived seriousness

of the crime,

on perpe-trators with persons

committing serious off enses, described asfelonies, typically receiving a sanction of at least one year of imprisonment. Those committing less serious offenses,called misdemeanors,receive penalties of less than a yearimprisonment;

both felonies

and misdemeanors can also receive fines or alternative sanctions, including

com-munity

service, probation, and beforced to payrestitution to the victim(s). For a person to befound established include

by criminal

guilty

law and determined

(1) actus reus (guilty

committed

of a crime they

the act, and (2)

be proven to have criminal

act),

by a criminal

meet certain standards

court. Importantly,

these

meaning the person has to be proven to have

mensrea (guilty intent

have to

mind) which

meansthe person has to

or that they acted recklessly.

2

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

It is also important between

crime

social

which

deviance,

to recognize the diff erence

is

a violation

which

is

a violation

while crime is punishable

ostracism

In seeking to important

criminal

law

of social

by formal

is subject to social reaction control, shaming,

of

and explain

also to distinguish

social

which is a characteristic

common,

that

behaviors

rather than on specific criminal

believe that

what is important

and personality off

criminal

is the

have

acts.

in

motivational

in-tent

of the

biological

or

look

predisposi-tions,

at the

role

of so-cial

and social processes between individu-als people that

may also lead to crime. For

behavior,

and

as shown

are also considered

focus

model, the

behavior

they can also model

by social learning

theory.

micro-level theories,

on the interactive

but they

social

processes that lead to

crime, rather than the qualities

of the kinds of people

who

ender.

theories

whether real or fictional;

criminal These

to individual

excitement

of crime.

people learn from,

of others,

need for

choice or inherent

micro-level

and other example,

Others

profile i.e. the criminality

points

explanations

interaction

of

crime it is necessary to focus

all

seeking,

other

which is

acts. Some criminologists

elements

an enhanced

Rather than rational

people committing

the

produce

psychological

crime it is

between crime,

criminal

that

law, devi-ance and thrill

criminal

such asinformal

a behavior, and criminality

on

a crime because of certain genetic or personality traits

norms;

and public humiliation.

understand

argue that to understand

opposite of rational choice, being predisposed to com-mit

and

commit

In

However,insofar as crime is a legal category it is

crime.

contrast to

micro-level theory is

macro-level

important to notethat as behavior defined bylaw, there

theory

are a variety of diff erent motivations and causesthat

the kind of society welive in, whether this is hierarchi-cal or communal,

can result in a single type of crime. Takefemale rape as an example. Is it caused by to

dominate

others,

gender socialization, penalties

result of a patriarchal

of apprehension? society that treats

objects, which is reinforced What

about

caused by simple in a trusted

the

by their

crime

of

women as sex

embezzlement?

that

provides

problem

Is

it

or by being

access to

money

(e.g. debt) that

by employees resentment

needs a

employer?

groups or broad social classes, reflects class, gender

Or is

monetarysuccessat the expense of other values

Constitution,

Amendment),

can have diff erent explanations. In

this

explanations parts,

book

we

for crime. The

each containing

a free prone

of criminal

behavior that

explanation.

Micro-level

of explanations

diff erent theories

point to a certain level theories

refers to the range

that focus on the individual

For example, choosing simple cost-benefit

to commit

or groups.

a crime based on a

analysis suggests individual

choice as an explanation.

of

rational

And even though it is the polar

For example,

the right to bear arms

as the

United

States (Second

a gun culture that increases the particularly

market economy

founding

gun crime, compared

and the pursuit

crime

and fraud

of profit

than

one

ethos is social responsibility?

games, contribute

culture, to

Does the

particularly

mass

violent

excessive violence

for such behavior,

more

where the

video

by providing

by sensationalizing

it, and

by desensitizing potential off enders to the harmful how

several competing on

whether its structure divisions.

ban guns? Is a society that encourages

to corporate

of such

macro-level

result

in

behavior. forces

can

example, how

are

explanations

families,

schools,

individual

does the type

to

of

behavior

be

between at

social

the

the

mi-cro-and

meso-level.

institutions

like

or neighborhoods.

of school

takes

For

make a diff erence to

place there?

whether it is large or small,

or

lie

on

workplaces,

much violence

principal,

are all examples

that said

focus

share in governance, the

aff ect

explanations

macro-levels

These

These

crime.

Theoretical

text is divided into four

articles

facilitate

with societies that

and

delineate

such

level of violent crime,

such as carefor others, collaboration and mutual sup-port? outcomes Clearly, behavior resulting in particular crimes

or racial

does a society that incorporates in its

scripts of a societal system that cel-ebrates

the result

whether it is madeup of conflicting

media and popular

over bad treatment

boss, or disrespect for their

embezzlement

Or is it the

by mass media and popular

greed and opportunity,

position

and having a financial solution,

desire, a need

women based on

acting out of masculinity, a lack of

or uncertainty

culture?

male sexual

disrespect for

which refers to large social structures such as

Does it

matter

whether it allows students

or whether it is run top-down

whether

it

has zero-tolerance

policie

a by

INTRODUCTION

toward

threats

of

violence,

or

whether

it

uses

restor-ative

justice and peer-problem solving? Is academic tracking,

in

lower-expectation

to

crime

students

or deviance? react

the school is

this

and

deviant

and society

a cause

subsequent

of

criminal

or

hostile

crime

and

violence,

career? These

or

and a

would be examples

book contains

the following

4 parts.

Part 1

focusses on micro-level individual

explanation

of crime

such

or biological

theory

as rational

mentioned

above.

choice Part

by leading

or reviewing discussion.

theory

2 focusses

on

micro-level

social

theories

related

as we find

by anyone knowledge.

their

justice

own theory

to the category

that

these are

and accessible style that without

under

specialized written in

is easily

the ideas and assumptions

overview contained

process explanations, such as social learning theory.

in that part of the book, including the implications

Part 3 focuses on macro-level explanations such as

particular theories for criminal justice policy

social ecology theory that looks at space and place as

a

un-derstandable

prior criminological

Wealso provide an introductory

that summarizes

system

one or more articles

explaining

Several articles are drawn from

comprehensive

have

want to change it.

criminologists

encyclopedias

of meso-level explanations. This

of the existing

not least its criminal

Each part of the book contains

to

even

of society,

system, and they

marginalized

subcultures

that they are critical

or structure

system, a precursor

out of a sense of injustice,

school

critical theories that explain crime as a result of social in common

classes, and as a result

Do alienated

form

shaping crime. Finally, Part 4 focusses on macro-level

forces such as class, or gender or culture and that are put in lower-competency,

which some students

are alienated from the educational

3

of

PART I

Micro-Level

Individual

Theorie

PART I INTRODUCTION

Micro-Level

I

n

Part

in

the

1

we

discuss

individual.

biological

micro-level

These

theories

theories

and biosocial theories,

discussion with classical theory

of

include

Individual

crime

that

classical

and psychological

and

Theories

locate

the

cause

rational

of

choice

theories.

crime

theories,

We will begin our

which is not precisely a theory

of crime, but

rather a philosophical perspective about crime and punishment (Garland 1985). The basicidea underlying classicaltheory is that human beingschoose to act, or not act, based ontheir calculation of the costs and benefits, wheretheir perception of the potential benefit/pleasure of the act outweighs the potential that accompany the consequences Consequently, the underlying free-thinking,

rational,

of committing

assumption

self-interested

the act (Lanier

& Henry 2010).

of classical theory is that

beings

who calculate

cost/pain humans are

the costs of commit-ting

crime and act accordingly. These by

ideas

were first introduced

philosophers,

(17481832),

who were influenced

contract, This

which

of free

by

was a hypothetical

was also tied to notions

individual

during the

European

such as Cesare Beccaria (17381794)

market economics, in

Enlightenment

contract

of rationality, which society

classical

and Jeremy notions

of the social

between individuals logical

deduction,

period1 Bentham

and society.

and the emergence

wasseen as the outcome

of a myriad of

decisions.

From the classical

perspective, the general role of law (as well as specific laws)

is assumed to be based on a consensus among the general population. The

contractthat

assumed weall give up some liberties in exchangefor an ordered

and secure societyis assumed

that

social

those

an integral component who

break

the

law

of this perspective. It

do so for

hedonistic,

selfish

was also

reasons

and

thereby violate the interests and well-being of the wider group, i.e. society as a whole.

If rational policies This

cost-benefit

deriving from

calculation

the classical perspective

assumes that individuals

all individuals

These

are responsible

involve

the idea

criminal

betreated

standards

equally in law and be judged

include

what

are

now

considered

justice

of due process.

for the decisions they

make, that

are equally able to calculate the costs and benefits of their

and that each should standards.

is the cause of crime, then

actions

by the same universal basic

individual

8

CRIME

AND

rights

BEHAVIOR

such as: the presumption

by jury, restraint

of the power of government, and

fairness in the administration McShane 1988; century

radical

of justice

Einstadter argument,

punishment

swift, certain, and proportional lasting contribution These

(Williams

be

to the crime, is another

of classical theory (Beccaria

in response to

(Smith

18th

should

brutal,

1764).

unfair, and cruel systems

in the pre-classical

period in

philosophers,

the

writings of European

are important

laid the foundation

for

world, including

for several reasons. They

many justice

the

in the

also indirectly

led to the development

of crime

(known

United

aspositivists)

about the origins

ideas,

early

scientific

ideas

of crime led to several criticisms.

became clear that

diff erent capacities

humans

and consequently

For

are born there

with

needs to

call classical

theory,

philosophies

about

classical thought today;

justice system (Vold

of the scientific theorists

criticized

theorizing

classi-cal

and for ignoring

the earlier versions that

were not theories crime

and

we

at all but simply

punishment.

Finally,

about crime and justice is still relevant

many correctional

and behavioral strategies

em-ployed

byjustice systems around the world are based

be recognition of the special needs of the mentallyill, juveniles, and other populations whoenter the criminal

set of ideas

grounded

subsequently

scholars for armchair

around

and largest

States. This

when scientifically

the facts of crime. Ironically, classical

systems

most expensive

system found

Europe

1967).

Following

example, it

tice, originating in 18th

were devel-oped study

rights became crucial since the ideas

of justice found

&

& Henry 2006). The that

The so-called classical ideas about crime and jus-century

of innocence, trial

on the set of principles that these ideas embodied. The

& Bernard 1986).This led to a

mirror image of classical theory is biological

decreasedfocus on the idea that all people exercisefull

theory.

rationality, to the argument that off enders sometimes

identical (rational, cost benefit calculators driven by

have imperfect

self-interest)

Indeed,

rationality

and/or

that

not everyone

to reason,

wasrecognized

and this

modification

was labeled

neo-classicism.

Contemporary or choice

reduced

in the early implementation

had the same ability to pure

theories,

more recently, recognize

rational

that

there

to

act fully

of individuals

are limits

rationally

(Lanier

have gone beyond the framework penalties to

provide

a disincentive

for crime and have provided

crime-reduction

concrete

to

or perfectly

& Henry 2010). Importantly,

practice initiatives

do not; criminals

these

of general explana-tion

nature

work

policies are based on analyzing and

manipulating the costs, risks, opportunities, incentives

daughter

fathers

hardening.

theorists, surveillance

(Clarke

Rational choice and routine activi-ties

therefore, measures

that

focus reduce

& Cornish 1983). Their

on design, security the

of classical theorists

systems, rights

and government. The

places some responsibility maintaining

of

and crime

on the law, legal new focus

on the potential

also

victim, for

crime free environments.

those

waysfrom

first

appeared

Ferri

and

of biological

characteristics

was continued

criminology

(Schafer

between humans

to commit

1976).

were seen

and as born

founding

were heavily influ-enced theory

Lombroso

measureand identify

criminals

School,

by his students

Garofalo. These

Darwins evolutionary

students sought to

Cesares

who led the Italian

Raff aele

the

Cesare Lombroso

such, they saw the roots of crime in inherited

some

who non-criminals

in

see Reading by Gina Lombroso, and colleague)

by Charles

physical and

his

physical dif-ferences

non-criminals. criminals,

and as

and

Thus, destined2

crime, if certain physical characteristics

were

present, such as bumps on certain parts of the head, pro-truding eyebrows, sunken cheekbones, and other physical

approach goes beyond

the early focus

creating and

rewards

assume that

diff erence is biological

anthropologist

whose research

Enrico

of this

theory

of criminal

and provocations to crime, whichis known generally as target

diff er in significant

biological

(18351909;

and

of crime

are diff erent from

(Cohen,1966).

Early

policy and

designed to reduce crime. These

theories

and the origin

neo-classicalist

or situational

biological

who break laws

classicism

called

theorists laws and

people

in

classical

theories,

the freedom

capacity.

of these ideas it

Whereasclassicaltheory assumed everyone was

traits. These

born

throwbacks

(or atavistic)

or throwbacks (Gibson

criminals

werecharacterizedas genetic meaning they

werereversions

to an earlier stage of human

& Rafter

2006)

evolution

PART

Initially, characteristics such as facial features and

argue that humans inherit

prone,

were identified, goal

but later

including

of biological

compare variety these

a wider variety environmental

theories

of crime,

of factors

across

factors. The

result,

therefore,

off enders and non-off enders by of features

in

order to identify

diff erences and to

how these

develop

diff erent kinds

is to

measuring a

of people

could

lead to

crime.

By the 1950s the

work of

had been replaced and

criminal

propensity

anthropologist

Lombrosian

with ideas

Ernest

found

in

criminol-ogy

research

research

turned

than

of

William

certain

out

to

be

more

body

of criminal

McDermott beliefs

is

1949).

that

can

Hastl,

theory,

based

on

the

prediction,

and

crime.

go on to

flawed,

nature

contribution

of

introduced

distinguish

and treatment

Further, the

kinds of criminals,

of

these

the use of

this

in studying

approach

diff erences between

the

from each other, eventually led to variations in how them.

This

included

indeterminate

much greater discretion and

correctional

The

on the

biosocial factors

approach

focus and

and rigorous

1998).

that

were more

sentenced

sentences

and

part of police, judges

Contemporary

received

wasreplaced

studies

biological

contexts

biosocial

inherently

defective in crimes. Such

and actions and

will commit

crimes.

most contemporary

do not give priority

over environmental

theories

will prevent or reduce

note that

criminologists

to genetic

causes of crime; rather they

components,

such that

certain

maytrigger inherited tendencies leading

Studies of twins separated at birth have provided some confirmation of the role that heredity playsin hu-man behavior, as havestudies of adoptees. Asscientific techniques found

advanced

much criti-cism

deep (Fishbein

and biosocial theories

so did the range

between criminals

development,

other

diff

The

of diff erences

and non-criminals,

genes, chromosomes,

brain

hormones,

brain

including chemistry,

and diet among

many

erences.

scientific

the study

(positivistic)

of criminals

approach

and their

aid to policing, is increasingly

relevant today.

how police agencies rely

(particularly

DNA),

criminals.

Modern

can now examine

a persons

Unlike the

analysis of the founding

Popular

SceneInvestigation)

on physical evidence

to identify

crime analysis techniques

to crime via

off enses, as well as an

series such as CSI (Crime

previous

deterministic

biological criminologists

most

theorists today argue that a genetic pattern interacting with the appropriate triggering

environment

may be

responsible for an increased proclivity to anti-social and consequently analysis patterns

(PET)

criminal

of off enders are explored (MRI)

and

scans (though

Henry and by more so-phisticated

and greater attention

than skin

to

see these as interactive

imaging

early biological

to factors

courts

officials.

for its limited

that they

It is important

Such individ-ualized genetic structure.

are diff erent from the general population, and different the

theories,

As a

break the law

who is prone to committing

the probability

show

the crime, on the assumption that criminal offenders

how

to

can be taken that

diff er-ent

attention to the specific criminal, rather than

and in

classical

2002).

environmental

propensity

people can be identified,

television

crimes of diff erent severity, and how these

were treated

certain

crime-prone

would

mentally ill, and off enders

may persist, or desist, over time.

off enders

Unlike

diff erences in

and

methods such as measurement, compari-son,

diagnosis,

others.

&

in these

determined

is immense. They

criminals

patterns

be

simplistic,

biological

criminologists

committing

(Sheldon,

physical features.

Despite the

positivistic3

or genetic

Again, the idea reflected

criminals

their inherited

early

tendencies

in

Raine

interventions

of the stereotyping of offenders, and whothe criminal transmission

situated

&

the human brain to makecriminogenic behavior choic-es.

a reflection

justice system arrests, than the inheritability

(Ishikawa

will have a greater

of a propensity to com-mit environments

types wereseen asindicative which

the

when

some

body type

Hooton and physician

Sheldon. In this somatotyping

crime,

about

a continuum

the individual

about

9

a set of biological and ge-netically

suggest that there is something

and catalogue

explanations

INTRODUCTION

determined attributes that differentiate people

the shape of onesskull wereusedto identify those who are crime

I

theorists

Plemmons

in

attributes

limit

can

and

potential

through

some

have criticized

2012).

tomography

Contemporary

that the role

channel

brain

magnetic resonance emission

combination and

off enders

positron

acknowledge

environment

behavior. Sophisticated

see

bioso-cial

of a persons

with their the

this;

behavioral

biological choice

10

CRIME

that

AND

BEHAVIOR

individuals

make.

However,

environment

here

is

narrowly conceived, and rarely includes cultural and structural of

crime

dimensions. The is

to

seeming to

examine

individual

makecrime

and

environment

crimes from

in

that

Freuds

ideas.

Psychological

crime

by studying

criminology

(18561939) theories

the

information),

search for the

(visual,

and

cause of

theme in

&

psychological

crime has been the

emotional

how the

processes (Lanier

particularly

way that

brain

thinking

about

human development,

during childhood,

results

in

diff

is subject to abuse or trauma,

psychopathic types are

personality

to engage in

and violence

A significant

disorders. These

antisocial

to crime is the examination socialized into

conformity

the developmental are personalities

are learned in a variety or punished,

personality

(or

of ways, from

to social learning

from

during

of behavior

being rewarded others, including

modeling the behavior of others, and

mediaimages.

Such personalities are formed through socialization and developmental processes, particularly during the early years of childhood, involving a series of mental, moral, and sexual stages. process is

abnormal

personality

disorders

When this developmental

or subject and

to traumatic

psychological

may become part of the individuals or

may be constructed

events,

disturbances

personality

go beyond

set of emerging

personality

to behavioral the

psychological

between

perspective,

people form

although

(Healy

development behavioral

and

and &

explanations

modeling,

situational

for

to look

at

rewards

and

which also takes

environmental

context

including images, television and other media. Cognitive result from destructive thinking to frustration Indeed, an

the variety

of psychological

under-acknowledged

criminological

theory

Psychologists

wealth

alone,

or

interactive social

of

context

anti-social

such

view that

anti-social

of the personality

and their

an

the

environmen-tal

(Rappaport is

and

between

1977).

Here

outcome

of

an

develops over time,

such that

factors

erratic

may trigger

behavior in those psychologically

who may have developed

thinking

to

& Samenow 1976).

behavior

process that

provides

explanation

an interaction

learning,

or environmental

criminal

theories of

(Yochelson

but

and situational criminal

with aggression.

have also taken the

behavior is not the result

or

predisposed,

particular learned

scripts

and

patterns that respond to certain situations,

as frustration,

antisocial,

and

or

barriers

destructive

to

to

achievement,

others

and

that

are

themselves.

The science of psychology is a wayto examine how psychological processes mayproduce criminal behavior (Lanier

&

Henry

2010).

on scales, inventories,

suff er from who

what dif-ferences

the basis of explaining

patterns that respond

and perceived threats

do

not.

is

normal

pathological.

Psychologists

rely

and questionnaires

heavily

to identify

diff erences between individuals

psychological

disturbances

and

In this regard, it is a positivist

Measurement is thus

circumstances.

From the

gratification

psychological

processes, from

punishments of

seeking, impulsivity

of immediate

and classify the char-acteristics,

as an appropriate

behavioral response, under a particular

For example, the

with balanced personalities

sensation

ap-proachpersons propensities,

Not only

but also patterns

of

sensation

social learning

of how people are

nonconformity)

the development

of parents

1936). Thus,

learning

psychological

with

particularly

pursuit

environmental

process (Aichhorn,1935). formed

or

1944).

of the

do

of the failure

the

behavior, including

(Abrahamsen

component

which can

cases sociopathic

more prone, under triggering

contexts, crime

or in extreme

more to

within families.

to develop children

account

and

psychology contributes the idea that behavior mayalso

erent

These areespeciallylikely to occur whenearlychildhood development

theory)

became an analysis

could control

crime

A

seen

processes and how these emerge

control

that

and aff ects

are

behavior,

to

Bronner

Henry,2010).

diff erences

particularly

socialization

how

personalities, some of which are abnormal or antisocial.

result in antisocial

from

ability

are found

mind; how people think,

we process and react to inputs

cognitive

development,

failure

psychoanalytical

by biological

mind and thought

seeking,

of psychological

recurrent

and

can be made to prevent future

The roots

our

the

occurring.

Sigmund

cognitive

of the individual

these

conduct,

to haveless to do with inherited genetic patterns (as human

factors

morelikely led to interventions

at the level of both the physiology their

social

antisocial

professed

object of biosocial theories

the

their

must

a very critical be

diff

Since criminal

component,

erentiated

behaviors

from

who those theory since what

is

are seen to

PART

stem from abnormal developmental processesaffecting

sentences.

the mindand areinfluenced by environmental triggers,

theories incorporate the interaction

some form

psychological

of psychological

necessary to correct predispositions: personalities which

or counteract

intervention

those

are formed

to

whereby these

manipulate the conditions

antisocial

behavior and to correct

patterns that lead to antisocial

Astechnology

behavior.

information

from

none

culture

and psychiatrists

how

chemicals,

diet,

aff ect our thought

and social

play in our

hormones

and

and subsequent

1. The

other

classical

because

it

behav-ioral

2.

be

psychological

off enders and terrorists; profiles such

screening; the

The

as in the

case

of school

has long

state of the

being incarcerated, as anger

violence.

extended

defendant

manyinmates

And

that

training

and

cognitive

of early classi-cal

about crime and behavior

of

criminals

and

crime

until

the

treatment

off ender

is cured.

brings the injustice for the same crime, for the 1970s turn theories

which can lead to troubling

would essentially

indeterminate

and toward

advocate endless or at in

This

secure

institutions

indeterminate

next

central

idea

inherent

does not

allow

was

occurred

estab-lished.

later

and

section.

are destined,

is the The

method

of positivism

the

people

is

defined

characteristics

1986,

p. 45).

Abrahamsen,

or determined, behind

problem for

the

to be-come

the concept

with

of

determinism

possibility

as the application of the

for

human

of the scientific

biological,

of the

D. (1944).

which

of sen-tence

was a major reason

biological

Aichhorn,

psychological,

criminal

(Vold

and

& Bernard

fixed

Crime

Columbia (1935).

and

the

Human

University

Press.

Wayward

Youth.

Mind.

New

York:

Viking. Beccaria,

(1764).

C.

Translated

On

by

Crimes

Henry

and

Punishment.

Indianapolis,

Paolucci.

IN:

Bobbs-Merrill.

Clarke,

in

R. V. & Cornish,

Britain:

State Cohen,

Einstadter, Theory: New

and psycho-logical Fishbein,

the neo-classical-type

A.

D. B. eds (1983).

A Review

University

of

A. K. (1966).

Cliff s, treat-ment

of diff erent lengths

away from

in

pre-criminological

REFERENCES

high-light

Moreover,it is important to note the views

scientific

social

New York:

mayhave on punishment. Psychological and biological

policies that

and shape

are off ered therapies

the general discrediting

deterministic

considered

the

and, even while

theories have, at their core, deterministic assumptions

least

wider

due to the

the importance of taking into account mitigating ects

is

Positivism

the

(CBT).

and other factors.

is

method to the study

by the

theory, policies related to neoclassical revisions

eff

frame

the

treatment.

but treated

management

behavior therapy Considering

with

change. 3.

police agencies are developing

Some crimes are not punished

such

that

before

emergence

idea that

is that

FBI has profiles of

but these are often defeated

approach

psychological

holistic

and punishment.

deal

period

criminals

unit and develops psychological

psychological

theories

structures

discussed

determinism.

some aspect of psychology. For example, all police undergo

is

The will

Moreover, criminal justice agencies often employ

evidence,

prevention,

more

acts.

of those weclassify as criminal.

criminal

a

NOTES

patterns. Each of these factors has been applied to

a behavioral

such

have shown

the study of crime, or morespecifically, to the behavior

recruits

of

of biological and

advocate

of these

individual

variations

how it inte-grates

how humans learn, the role that emotions

substances

theories

to treatment,

However,

recent

11

and processes with environmental

These

approach

these

traits

various senses and constructs

meaning. Psychologists

and,

influences.

more

INTRODUCTION

has advanced, so too has the study of

human behavior and the brain, particularly

behavior

is

with criminal

To change the process

might trigger

thinking

treatment

However,

I

of Policy New York

and

Crime

Research.

Control

Albany:

Press.

Deviance and

Control.

Englewood

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

W.J., & Henry, S. (1995. An Analysis Boulder,

D.

Criminology.

CO:

of Its Rowman

H. (1998). Criminology,

2006).

Criminological

Underlying and

Assumptions.

Littlefield.

Biological 28: 2772

Perspectives

in

12

CRIME

AND

Garland,

BEHAVIOR

D. (1985).

Penal Strategies. Gibson,

M.

&

Criminal

Healy,

and VT:

Rafter,

Man

Duke

Punishment Brookfield,

by

University

H. (2006).

Cesare

A History of

Introduction

Lombroso.

to

Durham,

NC:

New

New Light on Delinquency Haven,

CT:

Yale

S.

&

Case of

Plemmons,

Ishikawa,

Deception

S. S. & Raine, In J.

Behavior

Academic

D. (2012). Neuroethics: and

A. (2002).

Glickson

fMRI.

New

Psychology:

York:

Holt,

Values,

Rinehart,

and

Introduction

to

Criminology.

Reston,

Reston.

Sheldon,

Complex

W. H., Hastl,

Science and

Behavioral

4: 81110.

Genetics

Neurobiology

Norwell,

MA:

Kluwer

CO:

Vold,

E.

Delinquent

M., & McDermott, Youth.

E. (1949).

New York:

Westview

Essential Press.

Criminology.

B. (1967).

Harper

and

Elizabethan

World.

T.J.(1986). Theoretical

ed.

Oxford

Williams III, Theory.

New

York:

Heritage.

G. B. & Bernard, New York:

University

F. P. & McShane, Englewood

New York: Jason

Criminology.

Press.

M. D.(1988).

Cliff s,

Criminological

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Yochelson, S. & Samenow, S.(1976). The Vol. 1.

Publishing.

Boulder,

of

L.

American

3rd

(Ed.), The

M. M. & Henry, S. (2010). ed.

S. (1976).

Smith,

Neuroscience, The

Ethics 18: 573591.

Crime.

Criminal

3rd

and

Crime,

Engineering

Lanier,

Community

Action.

Brothers.

Neuropolitics,

and

Schafer,

Varieties of

University

Press.

Henry,

and

Winston.

VA:

A. (1936).

Treatment.

J. (1977).

Rappaport, Research,

Press.

W. & Bronner,

and Its

N.

Welfare: Gower.

Aronson

Criminal

Personality.

CHAPTER I

Classical Choice

and Theorie

Rational

THE RATIONAL

CHOICE PERSPECTIVE1

Derek and

B. Ronald

INTRODUCTION

V.

A

pressing or

individuals.

can

their

as these

are (Clarke

two

and

summarized that treats

off

and

then

draws the serve

of the

in

essay. The

pursue

few

to

occur,

distinctions of crime

We will then and

Cornish

self-interest. not just

It the

also

explains people

six

basic

Table 1.1 and

of diff erence

theories.

of its value in

Last,

guiding

greater

is as

2001)

with the

brings

much

it lies

needed

and it

as-sumption

them;

self-interest

involved

enders, it

perspective

conditions

detail

of the rational

for

in crime.

It

emphasizes designed

between

choice

choice

to

perspective.

the rational

we will discuss its

situational

OF THE

of the rational in

it

their

the

decision-making

Cornish

begins

such The

understanding.

main points

propositions

such choice

become

non-off Finally,

the six basic propositions

the

explained

and

causation.

commit.

benefits where

reasons

FUNDAMENTALS

The

of the

calculate

off enders in

decisions

and

perspective

because

overcome

they

Clarke

some

For criminals

and

rational

1986;

for

how to

eff ort.

crimes

of the

who

and

and

criminal

option

of investigating

choice

crime

alternatives,

choices

the

Clarke

rational

choose

criminological

and give brief examples

lives,

benefits

and

as criminological

outline other

victims risk

the

everyday

between

we will describe

cash-rich worth

determining

opportunities

policymaking First,

an attractive

in

decision-makers

that

practical

robbery

main contributions

1985;

as

of other

their

practical

Cornish

enders

well

role

off enders

crimes

role

by in

and

this

a lack

rewards

a significant

importance

and

make armed where to find

make the

best to get play

theoretical

specific

cash, can

And knowing

opposition doing

need for

noncriminal,

crime

policy

prevention

choice

per-spective

relevance eff orts.

PERSPECTIVE

perspective

are summarized

in

below.

1

Clarke

Cornish

16

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

TABLE 1.1 Six Basic Propositions of the Rational Choice Perspective 1.

Crimes

2.

Offenders

3.

Offender

4.

are purposive try to

about

5. Involvement they 6.

decisions

Event

decisions

involve

of the

with the

particular

risks

nature

kinds

act (event

three

of benefiting

can, given the

of the

of crime

the

and

off ender.

uncertainty

involved.

crime.

(involvement

decisions)

are quite

diff erent from

Adapted

Bachman

eds., Explaining

the

stagesinitiation,

a sequence

of choices

from

Ronald

habituation,

made at each stage

V. Clarke

Criminals

and

Purposive

Nature

choice

perspective,

never

rational senseless,

intended

to

benefits can

but

are

bring some

of theft also

are

include

gratification,

relating

and

desistance. These

must be separately

studied

because

diff erent sets of variables. of the

criminal

actfor

example:

preparation,

and

Crime.

of

Derek.

CA:

B. Cornish.

Roxbury,

target

selection,

(2001).

Rational

choice.

In

Raymond

viewed

criminal

obvious,

but

the

A man might brutally

acts

prestige,

rather

than

the

best

decision-making reflects occurs.

of crime

and the defiance or domination

he is a violent thug

are

offender. The

rewards

fun,

excitement,

acts

purposive

benefit to the

and

R.

To usethe technical term, their decision-making is satisfic-ing

Crime

as

Paternoster

p. 24.

rather than optimizingit In

those

decisions).

act, escape, and aftermath.

SOURCE:

The

in

criminal

comprise

by quite

they

considerably

involved

of a specific

are influenced

commission

varies

becoming

commission

with the intention

best decisions

decision-making

Decisions to the

acts, committed

make the

could

be

achieved.

is always less than

the imperfect These

gives acceptable outcomes

that

conditions

conditions

can

Criminal

perfect because it

under

which it

be summarized

naturally

as follows

sexual

of others.

beat his wife, not just

Off enders

because

are rarely

facts

but also becausethis is the easiest

of

about

in

possession

the risks,

of all the

nec-essary

eff orts, and rewards

crime.

wayof making her do what he wants.Senseless acts of

Criminal

vandalism or gang violence might confer considerable

quicklyand

prestige on the perpetrators among their peers.The

Instead of planning their crimes down to the last

term joyriding

accurately conveys the

why cars are stolenjuveniles powerful

It

tempting crimes

pathological

that

exclude

are driven

compulsions.

completely

absent.

hear

voices

take

pains to avoid

so for

to

telling

along

But even

to

kill

arrestand

rational

by clinical

For instance,

them

time.

a tiny

from

that

exclusion

from

its claims

to generality.

rational

serial

killers

prostitutes

might

might succeed in

of all criminal choice

theory

or

here, rationality

In any case, pathological

proportion

choice

delusions

crimes

or

embarked on

rational

choice

perspective

(1990) that an individuals is

characterized

by limited

takes

the view

con-stitute

weakens

or bounded

of

the

criminals crime

possibilities

Much support

Simon

behavior rationality.

for

the

is found in ethnographic have

stated

of

rewards

a crime,

than on the punishments

Rationality

decision-making

when they

circumstances.

on

still

been

interviewed

choices,

Gibbons, that

considerable The

unforeseen

the

made

tend

rather

to

than

its

risks, they focus

on

of being caught, rather they

might receive.

doing

criminal

Bounded

with

Once

the immediate

Don Limited

be

mightrely on a general approach

risks; and, when considering

is

to

has worked before, improvising

meet

focus

have

hastily.

who

acts and their hardly

usually

revised

detail, criminals

enjoy driving around in

machines.

is

analysis

not

main reason

choices

and

1994,

p. 124).

about their

a frequent

studies

of

support

for

offender decision

rational

choice

research in their

motives

critic predatory alimited

perspective

which off enders lifestyles,

and

of the

their

methods.

Even

perspective,

off enders rationality

making by lawbreakers

has

provide view

of

(Gibbons

THE

Like the rest of us, offenders often act rashly and fail to consider the long-term consequencesof their actions. They

maybe encouraged to take risks by their peers, and

their decisions

maysometimes

that result in capture and severe punishment. and failures that

such

made by off enders contribute

behavior

is

irrational.

To

and to those taking a rational

choices Mistakes

to the view

off enders,

choice perspective on their

crimes, they are generally doing the best they can within the

limits

of time,

them. This

resources,

and information

is why wecharacterize their

as rational,

available

PERSPECTIVE1

17

such mattersasthe choice of a particular target and ways to reduce the risks of apprehension. are

decide (1) crime to

or criminal career.

deci-sions

Offenders

must

whether they are ready to begin committing obtain

what they

want; (2)

used by criminologists are initiation,

whether, having

offending; and (3) whether,

at some point, they ought-to

to

Involvement

more complex and are made at three separate

stagesin a delinquent

started, they should continue

however,

CHOICE

to the commission of a particular offense.They concern

be madein afog ofalcohol

and drugs. Asa result, offenders can makefoolish

RATIONAL

stop. The

technical

terms

for these three stages of involve-ment

habituation,

and

desistance.

It is easy to see why event decisions need to be un-derstood

decision-making

and

albeit imperfect.

modeled separately for diff erent kinds of

crime. For example, the task of escaping apprehension The

Importance

of

Crime

is very diff erent for

Specificity

a bank robber

than for someone

vandalizing a parked car. But crime specificity is just as Specific off enses bring and are committed is the

particular

benefits to

with specific

motive for

motives in

bank robbery;

usually sexual gratification women.

Similarly,

the factors

variables

influencing

will diff er greatly

mind. Cash

whereas for rape it is

or the

and the

offenders

desire to

dominate

weighed by off enders, their

is

especially true of event decisions because these are more heavily influenced

by immediate

example, the circumstances

situational

factors.

surrounding

of a mugging,and the setting in

the issuesfaced by people deciding whether to become involved in particular crimes, and the background of relevant experience brought to bear, can vary greatly. The

factors

customers,

developed for specific categories

decision categories

such as auto theft

general to

being

made by

about joining

drug dealers, and those relevant to

are likely

when planning

to de-fraud

to be so diff erent that they

must be separately studied.

The

Separate

Stages

of Involvement

choice cannot prop-erly

criminal choice in the form of simplified depicting

decisions

when thinking

whichit occurs,

be studied in the abstract. Instead, descriptions of as flowcharts

to the

the decisions of bank employees

For

the commis-sion

relevant

from the ghetto

the neighborhood

differ considerably from those of a computer fraud. For these reasons, criminal

at the various stages of involvement. Thus,

juveniles

decision-making,

with the nature of the off ense.This

important

models,such

processes,

must be

of crime.

Broad legal

or burglary

are far too

must involvement

modeled for specific of

criminal

decisions

kinds of crime, so

involvementinitiation,

desistancebecause

be separately must each stage

habituation,

decisions

and

at each stage are influ-enced

by diff erent sets of variables. These

variables fall

many diff er-ently into three groups: motivated off enses, a wide range of off enders, and

a variety

model because they include

Not only

of

methods and skills.

of a car for joyriding theft for temporary from the theft to

overseas

so

For example, the theft

1.

is an off ense very diff erent from transport.

And both are diff erent

of cars for selling to local

customers

or

Background

Distinction

Between

Involvement

and

Current life circumstances,

routines,

Situational

include

variables

motives, together

that

Criminal

choices and

can

be divided

event

decisions.

into

two Event

broad decisions

and

and lifestyles current

with immediate

needs

opportuni-ties

inducement

Events

These are of differing importance

involvement

personality

3.

and The

including

2.

and

customers.

factors,

upbringing

groups: relate

stages of involvement, asfollows:

at the various

18

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

Atinitiation, background factors havetheir great-est

their

criminal

as

well

as

accumulated learning his

or

At habituation,

her

current

now increasingly crime,

current

life

life

unfold in a purposeful

and experience

actions.

circumstances.

circumstances,

accumulating

costs of crime,

must

situational

variables,

the actual

to commit

eff

as

needs,

and inducements,

that

decision about

a particular

such

be taken

into

Sequence

of

account

scripts,

the

procedures

can

assist

1994).

which used

the

The

are

whether or not

WHAT

MAKES THEORY

scripts

TABLE

of

build

1.2

the

event on

to

accounts commit

decisions

off enders

A Simple

off ender

must

variables

that

rewards

of

Crime

just

of

of

Both

points for

RATIONAL

CHOICE

Crime

and

Criminality

crime,

accounts

Script:

the answer

of

Residential

Burglary

in the

What makes certain

more likely

crime and delinquency?

(Cornish

are geared to

to

In current

Get van,

tools,

co-off

ender

(if

Select general Assume Drive into

setting

Drive

Precondition

Target selection

makes them theories

around

Scan for

loiter

cues relating

Approach Break into

Completion

Steal goods

Finish

Load

in

Suburbs

needed)

setting

dwelling

up goods

and

development

to rewards,

surveillability dwelling

Continuation

up

and

and

probe for

Further

crime

applicable)

scripts

(if

applicable)

Store, conceal Market

and

and dispose

and eff ort (e.g.,

occupancy

and enter

drive

away from

disguise

goods

Leave development

Exit setting

risks

potential

and accessibility)

of stolen

good

house

and accessibility

in lan-guage,

of criminality.

crime role for

people or

criminological

development

occupancy, Initiation

area for

appropriate

answer-ing

become involved

Take drugs/alcohol

stages (if

preventive

DIFFERENT?

ACTIONS

Preparation

Further

are

and eff ort involved. The

theories

one question:

groups of people

STAGES

Enter

crime

Decisions

step-by-step

by off enders

analysis

if

for resi-dential

orts.

crime.

Event

in-volving

Accounts like these

decisions that the

Most criminological Crime

one such script

for the risks

A Theory The

as stories

of stages, scenes, and

stages also suggest intervention

motives, opportunities, trigger

the

to compensate

weigh

During all stages, however, it is the immediate of

sequence

make at each step and the situational together

heavily in decisions.

influence

crimes

in the suburbs.

help to identify

of

may be of principal importance.

At desistance, current life circumstances, with the

treat

Table 1.2 provides burglary

which

reflect the ongoing rewards

and

a cast of characters, props, and locations that

influence becausethey shape the nature of the individuals

activities

take,

THE

When

it

focuses

on

involvement,

the

rational

RATIONAL

CHOICE

PERSPECTIVE1

19

factors in determining crime. But even though routine

choice

perspective is also a theory of criminality, though one

activity theory and the rational choice perspective are

that

both

gives a fuller

needs,

and

choice

role to current

opportunities.

perspective

understand

when

particular

of

diverges from

Gottfredson

crime,

off

enders

ostensibly theory

but,

and

unlike

to

a macro theory

com-mit

of low

varying

dealing

important

diff er-ences

Routine activity is

with changes at a societal level

them,

that

choice perspective, on the other hand, is a micro theory dealing

approaches

off enders.

that

self-control.

and

of-fending

an otherwise law-abiding

rational

opportunities

are sought and created.

person into

And the existence

society of-fenders

of diff erent ages,experience, and skills exhibit

which these

Often, opportunities

Diff erent

degrees of planning,

ways in

The

But they also play a more active role: They

general theory think

with the

crime opportunities.

are perceived, evaluated, and acted upon by individual

1990). It shares

not

expand or-limit

Clarke and

way in

similar

do

have enumerated

between the two approaches.

with crime and criminality

we

(1993)

theories,

is one

(Akers

them,

as opportunity

undertake

Hirschis (1990)

is the result off enses require

described

Felson

rational

choose

of crime. This

these dual preoccupations with

when the

off enses, or how they

such as social learning

circumstances,

on the event and seeks to

where

it also becomes a theory which it

But

focuses and

life

might attract

maytempt

occasional trans-gressions.

of easy opportunities

some people into

a life

in

of crime.

These facts presentimportant implications for preven-tion, and the rational choice perspective has proved

varying degrees of understanding and concern about

invaluable in thinking about practical ways of blocking

the consequences of their actions.

opportunities for crime The

Dynamic

Nature

of

Criminality The

Preoccupied with explaining deep-rooted and relatively

off ending in terms

unchanging

criminological

theories

ever-changing

contingent

reality.

particular

crimes

to commit their

current

needs and

reassess their

Offenders

desires, and they

involvement

in

criminal

assessment is deeply aff ected by their committing

particular

the consequences;

acts and

constantly

experience

the commission

bring in its

wake the need or the opportunity

in

of a particular

the crime script

a drunken

of

of crime.

to com-mit

was specially developed to explore

extended sequences of criminal links

between

decision-making and

crimes.

Importance

of

Situation

and

Opportunity

With afew exceptions, such as routine activity theory (Cohen and Felson 1979), most criminological theo-ries ignore or downplay the importance

of situational

rational

choice

streets;

as

with

organized

with

violent

by

women

much

crime;

crime;

Many

as

and

as with crime

as

to

fraud

in

On occasion, we think

a general crime

in

incivilities

much

with

much

with

committed

the

and

property crime

by

of get

among

will cheat

property.

the

all

we can

jobs,

is with

with

have gener-ally

most respectable

perspective

their

do so in

employers

concerned

might

cease to

well-paid

pilfer

they

meeting

or temptation.

when the

people. present

backgrounds.

who

might

need.

steady,

much

other

means for people

chosen

of their

their

have resorted

Even

and

of

need

clerks

holding

is

choices

off enses

claims

for

circumstances,

financial

them.

crimeas

the

of course,

result

legal

per-spective

It recognizes, more consistently

Likewise,

criminal

commit with

us, those

in

their

choice

between

than

as it

choose

bank

rational distinction

much the

in

to

pressing

will

away

is

of overwhelming

respectable

expense

of

as

desires.

avoided

the The

and

face

us

is

a change

begin

needs

the

abiding. crime

circumstances

Given

the

of circumstances this

material

face

of

theories,

people

a variety

crime can

notion

Crime

hard-and-fast

and the law some

of-fending easily

might decide to rape

client. The

for

However,

a woman hefinds sleeping in the house, or a prostitute might decide to rob

that

what they learn from

on some new form

a burglar

to

other

makes no

activity. This

In addition,

other crimes. Thus,

many

readi-ness off enders

it can result in desistance from

or concentrating

Unlike

capture its

varies according

of

of

motivations,

have failed to

Normality

on

Indeed, theory

of

suites

as

disorder

as

crime

as

committed

men. In

short,

20

CRIME

there

is

AND

no

BEHAVIOR

kind

of

crime

in

which

purpose play an unimportant

reason,

choice,

and

the introduction

of exact fare systems; and the virtual

elimination in the 1990s of graffiti on New York City

part.

subway cars by systematic Compatibility

with

Criminal

Situational

Justice

that If crime

is a result

of social

which is the irrelevant This

or

criminal

justice

in

policy

studies.

in for

and

both The

rational

subtle

view

that

for

off enders

have fewer than extent,

from

to

current

crime

every

crime

a

way is

by seeking

to

more risky,

It

less

do

rarely

To this

of

a choice

opened

to influence

background

or or

behavior

off ender.

such

noncriminal of

following

the

and

additional

the implementa-tion can

ways. In fact,

displacement

make do

with

one review found

in twenty-two

out

of

thirty-three

projects, but in every one there

If

was

still a net gain in preventive benefits. Accumulating evidence has also shown that, far from simply displac-ing crime

with little

real

often reduce crime a diff

usion

of

benefit, situational

measures

more widely than expected.

benefits

occurs

because

off

Such

enders

often

measures are morefar-reaching

than they really are.

decisions

less rewarding, CONCLUSION

more difficult.

Policy

to incur

drugs, or they can try to obtain

believe that situational

On the contrary, by the

of easy opportunities,

measures.They

money and fewer

has helped

1994). Some displacement wasreported in the remain-ing

people

disadvantaged

of crime.

involves

read-ily

are

perspective

does not necessarily occur.

eff ort involved

no evidence

needs

more

choice

or

fifty-five crime prevention projects studied (Hesseling

usually

society.

all

more

recognizes

therefore,

by virtue Nor

a

everyday

of

only

make criminal

and

provides

meeting

are,

to alife

and

of situational

and,

backgrounds

However,

act of crime

risks

unfortunate

rational

may be unwilling

these in

members

people turn

hostility

This is

for

circumstances.

so, then

this

dilemma.

choices

commit

deprived

criminal

deprived

understandable. forced

and

apparent

privileged

their

enforcement

perspective

opportunities

more

involved

example, to some other target

why displacement

off enders

become

detect

The

merely results in crimes

Much crime is the result

hostile

society.

choice

of this

are

opportunities

being displacedfor location.

graffiti removal.

prevention is vulnerable to the criticism

reducing

to show

to

criminology.

sidesand

it seems

punishment.

criminologists

often

disparage

with

reluctant

Law

depriva-tion,

most theories,

respond

many

professionals

turn,

of

to

why

to

justice

position

unfair

explains

or psychological

and prompt

As

Relevance

Herrnstein

(1990,

p. 356)

points

out,

rational

choice theory comes close to serving as the funda-mental The

rational

choice perspective

to assist policy, and its to

date

has

preventiona

been

reduce opportunities classified increasing

most important in

broad

was explicitly

the

set

field

of

under the four rational the eff ort required

well-articulated theory of behavior commands solarge

policy applica-tion situational

of techniques

for crime (Clarke

principle of the behavioral sciences. No other

developed

crime

designed to

1997). These

the

the components

the rational

for crime. Morerecently, afurther objective(5)

enough

provocationhas 2003).

1997), including

using these techniques (Clarke

the virtual elimination

of airline hijack-ings

in the 1970s by baggage screening; the elimination of robberies

of bus drivers in

U.S. cities in the 1970s by

of this fully.

powerful

perspective,

or to utility,

needs only to

we were called

must be flexible

the theory incorporate Otherwise,

upon to

some years from new or we

begood

or policy purpose in hand.

new needs. It is continually if

detail all

But to be of practical

choice perspective

for the explanatory

At the same time, it

been added (Cornish and Clarke

Many notable crime prevention successes have

been achieved through

we have yet to set out in

explore its potential

risks, (3) reducing the rewards, and (4) removing excuses remov-ing

of rational choice theory to criminol-ogy

is concerned,

are

choice objectives: (1)

by crime, (2) increasing

a following in so widea range of disciplines. Asfar as the application

enough to accom-modate being refined,

and

make a fresh statement now, we believe this

more fully

will have failed

developed in

our

of

would

concepts.

objective

o

THE

providing a usefultool, one capable of being honed and improved, to assist criminologists in thinking the practical

business of controlling

about

crime.

Advances in

paper is an abridged

of

Clarke

and

Cornish

and

Approach.

Social

L.

Learning

Not Taken. 81:

Clarke,

Offending

and Its

vol. 3 of Crime

Choice,

Derek

Theory-in

Journal

Criminology:

of

Criminal

V., ed.

The

Law and

1997.

Situational

Case Studies.

2d ed.

V., & Derek Decisions:

and

Chicago

A

Norval

Crime

Albany,

_____,

Prevention:

N.Y.:

Harrow

B. Cornish. Framework

1985. Modeling for

Research

B.,

Morris.

Michael

University

of

Crime (pp.

Ronald

2342),

Los V.,

Criminology: 5 of

Choice.

&

edited

Angeles: Marcus

In

Explaining by

Criminals

R. Paternoster

and

Roxbury. Felson.

1993.

A

Routine

Review

Situational

Critique

by

vol. 16 of

Crime

by Ronald

Press. Clarke.

Criminal

of

Practice in

2003.

Decisions:

Situational

Crime

Situational

Martha J. Smith

Justice

eds. 1986. The

V.

and

Prevention

of

Prevention.

Justice

Ronald

for

Analysis

and

Crime Derek

Studies.

B.

Monsey,

Press. Reasoning

Criminal.

New

York:

Springer-Verlag. Don. 1994. and

A

Talking Issues

in

Englewood

Gottfredson,

General Theory

About

R.,

of

Crime and

Theory Cliff s,

Michael.

&

Criminals:

Development N.J.:

Prentice-Hall.

Travis

Crime.

in

Hirschi.

Stanford:

1990.

Stanford

Press.

Herrnstein,

Richard

Necessary 45:

But

J. 1990. Rational Not

Sufficient.

Choice Theory: American

Psychologist

356367.

Hesseling,

Introduction:

&

Wortleys

edited

University

2001. Rational

vol.

Chicago:

by

N.J.:

Social

Sociological

Studies, edited

Precipitators

Criminology.

and

Trends:

N.Y.: Criminal

In Theory

Problems

Press.

R. Bachman.

In

Cornish,

Gibbons,

Ronald

Tonry

Clarke,

Prevention,

Criminology

Policy. In vol. 6 of Crime and Justice, edited

and

Path

Heston.

Off enders

_____.

and

Prevention.

Deterrence

1979.

Procedural

Prevention

Monsey,

N.Y.: Criminal

Successful

Clarke,

Rational

Rate

American

Relevance for

Opportunities,

653676.

Ronald

&

1990.

Felson.

B. 1994. The

A Reply to Ronald

21

New Brunswick,

Marcus

Crime

Derek

Cornish,

Akers,

PERSPECTIVE1

588608.

V. Clarke.

REFERENCES

&

Activity

In

(2001).

E.,

Change

44:

version

Criminological Theory.

Laurence

Cornish, 1. This

CHOICE

Transaction.

Cohen,

NOTE

RATIONAL

Routine

Activity

and

Rational

Choice.

Empirical

Routine

Activity

and

Rational

Choices:

Studies, Criminal

R.B.P. 1994. Displacement: Literature. edited Justice

by

In Ronald

Press

vol.

3 of

A Review Crime

V. Clarke.

of the

Prevention

Monsey,

N.Y.:

ROUTINE ACTIVITIES

Marie

Tillyer and

R

outine

activities

majority

how criminal

theory is a theory

of criminological

people commit

crimesthat

of crime

theories, is, the

motivation

events are produced.

events. This

which focus

diff ers from

on explaining

to commit

Although at first

mayappear inconsequential, it hasimportant

why some

crimerather

glance this

implications

a

than

distinction

for the research and

prevention of crime. Routine activities theory suggeststhat the organization of routine activities in society create opportunities for crime. In other words, the daily routine activities of peopleincluding travel to and from frequent,

school, the groups

and so forthstrongly

occurs. These

routines

can

Because opportunities the

likelihood

theory

of

generally

prevention

crime.

strategies

that

structures

derived from

where, and to

stems

routine

theory

does

activities

that facilitate

activities

crime;

attempt

to

events.

used to explain changes in crime trends

used much more broadly to

Researchers have used various

the theory.

and risky.

people, so too

from

structures

by routine

whom crime

risk, or difficult

to prevent criminal

wasinitially

It has been increasingly

prevent crime problems.

that

opportunity

are informed

Routine activities theory over time.

when,

space, and among

research

various

work, the routes they

whom the socialize, the shops they

make crime easy and low

Therefore,

examines

with

where they

influence

vary over time,

alter these opportunity

aligned

Since its inception,

with aset of theories and perspectives

understand

and

methods to test hypoth-eses

the theory

has become closely

known as environmental

criminology,

which focuses on the importance of opportunity in determining the distribution of crime across time and space. Environmental criminology, and routine activi-ties theory in particular, hasvery practical implications for prevention; therefore, practitioners have applied routine activities theory to inform prevention strategies.This activities

Skubak

theory;

perspectives

a summary

and current

police practices and

chapter contains a review of the evolution of routine of research informed

applications;

and future

by the theory; directions

complementary

for theory, research,

and prevention.

2

John

E. Eck

24

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

number

THEORY

of available targets

viewed as attractive/

suitable by the offender. Cohen and Felson (1979) In

1979,

crime

Cohen

rates

should

a specific

three

minimal an

assaulted

of a guardian

lack

would

of any

and

capable

of these

be sufficient Drawing

to

human

Felson suggested

that

routine

activity

aff ecting

the likelihood

activities

of

converging without

function

in turn,

of the routine

Cohen

and

activities

(1979)

World

of society

had

thus increasing

in the absence

activities

that

take

be associated individual of

are

routine

absence

of

in their

home

of

the

theory

are

not

are they

crime

to take

greatest is

spread infinite.

the

idea

evenly Instead,

the

potential

unguarded,

throughout there

limit

prevent

social

Examples

or

include

sort

of

personal

off enders.Their

ac-tivities

neither on the

off ender

off end-ers

who chap-erone

a probation

and a school

of-ficer

resource

bullies.

connection

Handlers

with

the

po-tential

principal interest is in keeping

suitable targets from off enders(Cohen

more

potential

are

crimes (Felson, parents

who keeps an eye on school

have some

been

are now

over potential

probationers,

to

Handlers are people

their teenagers social gatherings,

officer

have

what they

committing

of handlers

potential

or placeand

control

prevent them from

the crime

whom

risk

opportunities

some

have

the

in the

routine

who

to

ender, target,

who supervises

out of trouble.

Guardians

protect

& Felson, 1979).

Examples of guardians include the owner of a car who locks watch

his vehicle, over

the

a child children

walks another principal their

of

people

that

the

belongings

society; is

to

to

place.

criminal

trends

of crime. Asthe supply

collectively referred to ascontrollers.

of-fenders

they

creating

those

according

supervisingoff

the

people

home,

their thus

targets. These

specify the necessary elements for

and

it. The

1986).

tend

off enders

contributions that

prevent

Routine

a lower

event

subdivided

with suitable

both

away from

aff ecting the crime by

of suitable

developed to further

rates

When

societal trendsthe

opportunities.

who exert informal

motivated

home

and

goods and the design of

productswere

criminal

a criminal

routine

guardianship.

Furthermore,

are left for

that

and space

off enders.

to encounter

and

away from

propertyand

activities

guardians.

opportunities

to shift

Cohen

Sinceits inception, routine activities theory hasbeen

by

a

crime

more guardianshipfor her

of available

oppor-tunities

the

or near the

potential

more likely

One

place at

his or

encountering

perform

in time of capable

with

and

begun

that

because

the likelihood

would converge targets

II

visible to potential

off enders.

suitable targets also rose, thus increasing the number

in society.

argued

War

to

occur-ring.

patternsare

patterns

possible; physically accessible

makes the

Cohen

off enders

words,

weight that

and, in turn, the likelihood

of targets

other

crime

activity

Felson

after

In

size and

means of the supply

As the routine

motivated

will have the fol-lowing

perceived value by the off ender, either

and

durable

and

of small durable goods continued to rise, the level of

rates

likelihood

with

changes.

crimeand,

increased

the

small

Visibility,

in society increased the supply of suitable targets avail-able

crime.

in time

elements.

be

in societal

crime

convergence

change,

also

changes

targeted

Felson argued that two additional

argued,

theories,

can influence

off enders;

to

the they

are repeatedly

material or symbolic;

and (3) the

event from

and space

guardians

elements,

products that

of at least four

All else being equal, those persons or

of-fense; increase in sales of consumer

the

a crime

of the

people

be stolen;

Value, Inertia,

of the target:

Access, or VIVA.

illegal treatment

and space:

victim

qualities

at

people

commit

is a function

qualities:

required

ecological

necessary

in time

for

home,

three

to

structural

patterns

space of these

in time

of preventing

three

prevent

from

events

such as a human to

occurs

specific

crime

was prepared

target,

or a piece of property

absence The

that

that

suggested that suitability

as

suggested

event

to converge

who

a suitable

that

such

dur-ing

and involves

argued

elements

off ender (2)

crime, improved

(1979)

of as an

and time

objects. They

violent

Felson

urban

when the fac-tors

had generally

and

why

1960s,

to cause

be thought

location

and/or

(1)

Cohen

questioned the

conditions,

time.

a crime

during

thought

economic this

Felson

increased

commonly poor

and

to

cameras,

the locks

public,

of guardians

potential targets.

might include

in

and

his car in the

interest

monitor specific

care provider

Finally,

places (Eck,

apartment

a coworker

parking is the

close who

garage.The protection

managers supervise 1994).

the owner of a shop an

who keeps

Place

who installs

landlord

on the doors, and park rangers

who

of and

managers surveil-lance updates

who enforc

ROUTINE

As responsibility

ACTIVITIES

25

movesfrom personal to general, the

likelihood that crime will be prevented diminishes. For example, ashop owner control

and prevent shoplifting

with a stranger Manager Handler

will be much morelikely to take in

her store compared

who infrequently

comes to the store.

Residents will be morelikely to prevent crime on their

Place

own street

Offende

to

and

block, rather than on the blocks they travel

from

The

work.

characteristics

expanded

targeted for theft.

Target/Victim

of a suitable

target

and applied to products that

Felsons (1979)

have been

are frequently

Clarke (1999)

extended

Cohen and

work on target

suitability

to

explain

Guardian

the phenomenon Figure

2.1 The

SOURCE: 2003.

Crime

Courtesy

All rights

Triangle

of John

reserved.

that

E. Eck.

Copyright

Reproduced

with

John

E. Eck

relatively

proportion

permission.

codes. The

functioning

principal

comprehensive

version

as a crime triangle The for

a

inner crime

target

triangle to

A

same

have

crime

with varying

that

was

can

to

occur;

prevent

the

is,

who is

in

handler, to

of responsibility.

event. detail.

all criminological

manager.

discourage or placesvaries four

Personal,

2.

Assigned,

3.

Diff use,such as employees

as owners,

family,

as employees

theories

theory

a specific

activities

intersect

in

standard how

had focused

to commit

others),

happen

at some

to

times

(but

conditions

of factors

produce

criminal

events.

Although

do

not

explain

places (but

others),

and to

do

with a general assigned

why some people commit

not some

not.

It is important

to

note

of

more closely

associated

controllers,

or

take control

and prevent

crime.

will converge in time off

ender

has

routine

might be an increase in the availability

a shift

in

the

society that increase the likelihood

with potential offenders, targets, or places, are more

that

without any change in the number of criminals.

Instead, there

General,such asstrangers and other citizens

crimes and

theory suggests that crime can increase and

suitable targets, a decline in the availability

to successfully

that

Conversely,

at some not

such as

crimes.

theories occur

nearly

on a range

criminal

criminological

way.

theory,

solely on factors

and space to

and, in turn,

crimes

decline

who are

diff ers from

a fundamental

activities

theory focuses

in time

opportunities

as-signed activities

responsibility

likely

theory is a theory theory

and economic

might drive individuals routine

others

and friends with

responsibility

Controllers

Valuable,

targets (but not others), routine activities theory does

1.

4.

Available,

activities

of routine

sociological,

not explain such

Specifically,

motivate off enders to behave criminally,

to success-fully that

He described

routine

criminological

biological,

of

of responsibility:

such

a large

are six key

by thieves.

Removable,

Before the advent

presence

or

off enders,

for

Enjoyable, and Disposable(Clarke, 1999).

that

greater

mostlikely

tendency

targets,

Concealable,

must be ab-sent

criminal

described

account

crime is concentrated on products that are CRAVED, that

other

suitable

controllersguardians,

the

Clarke suggested

He argues there

of crime events. Routine activities

elements

and

potential

individuals

degree

degrees

the

as a guardian,

supervising

ender

managerswho

been

Felson (1995) indicated

He asserted

theory

necessary

products

will be targeted

To summarize,

the off

a crime

controller

control

more

place at the same time. The

and

or ineff ective for

Controllers

activities

motivated

represents

handlers,

one eff ective

managers is the

depicted this

of routine

represents

occur:

triangle

crimeby

of

hot

of all thefts.

they

(see Figure 2.1).

must be at the

outer

interest

of places. Eck (2003)

few

products.

attributes of hot products that increase the likelihood that

littering

of hot

both

is

but

one

theoretical

routine

and

practical

activities

of

that these elements

and space.This contributor

of

or eff ective-ness

to

notion that the the

crime

implications.

event

First,

26

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

it insinuates that theories that focus only on offender

indicates support for the theory. In their initial presen-tation of the theory, Cohen and Felson (1979) pointed

factors are not sufficient to explain crime patterns and trends,

only the supply of

motivated off enders. Second,

to explain possi-bilities.

it suggests a much broader range of prevention Whereas other criminological changes to the social, economic,

theories

crimes,

that

in the availability

shifts

characteristics

routine

activities

motivate people theory

of suitable

targets;

the

guardians,

place

reductions

in the routine

managers, or handlers

activity

that

in crime. patterns

changes

of society that aff ect the

these elements

without

directly

motivated off enders.

Given

activities

conditions,

during this time

argued that

away from the family

In

households

frequently,

other

the disper-sion

and household

caused an increase in target suitability in guardianship.

and a decrease

words, people

unoccupied

and

were leaving

unguarded

as well as exposing themselves

potential

during the

to cause violent crime, had generally improved

period. They

in activities

their

of society

why urban crime rates increased

such as economic

more

as targets to

motivated off enders. To test this hypothesis,

Cohen and Felson developed a household activity ratio

will converge in space

and time can also prevent crime events

affecting the supply of

can produce

Furthermore,

routine

1960s, when the factors thought

indicates

of places; and the presence of capable

immediate

likelihood

suggest

and political institu-tions

of society to alter the factors that to commit

to a shift in the structural

to

measure

the

extent

to

They

unattended.1

which

households

predicted that

were

left

changes in the

these policy implications, researchers have derived vari-ous dispersion of activities away from the family testable hypotheses from routine activities theory

household explained crime rates over time, arguing that

to explore its validity.

nonhousehold activities increase the probabil-ity

that

motivated offenders will converge in time and

space in the absence of capable guardians. METHODS

series analysis, they found ratio

Routine activities theory to understand trends

a range of phenomena,

over time,

and individual

crime

of the home

in

Researchers meet

these

diff

used

erent

needs.

diff

erent

methods

1947

to

with

1974

Cohen

& Felson,

have

structural

& Cohen,

in

1980).

their crime

Consistent

subsequent

In

variations

of routine

in crime trends other

generally shown that routine

selection

1979).

that

organization

rape,

rates from

study,

demonstrated

are related to variations Felson

and homicide

Felsons initial

studies

in societys

activity

related to burglary, forcible

(Cohen

and

Using a time

that the household

assault, robbery,

away from

research

The

of research reviewed in the following the

for

of burglary

various

wassignificantly

aggravated

macro-level

and the features

the likelihood have

addition,

For example, the

of ones neighborhood

victimization. to

In

opportunities

multiple levels.

might influence

crime

across space,

victimization.

how

designed

including

of crime

have considered

might exist at

characteristics

methods

distributions

diff erences

researchers

has guided research

and

activities

over time (e.g.,

words, research

has

activities that take people

home tend to

be associated

with in-creases

rates.

paragraphs il-lustrates

researchers

have

used

Using

to test hypotheses developed from routine activities

Routine

Activities

Distribution

to

of

Crime

theory

has

Predict

Across

the

Space

theory. Routine Using

Routine

Activity

to

Predict

Crime

distributions

Trends

research Routine changes

activities in crime

examine

changes determine

theory trends

how

in

was first over time.

crime

rates

macro-level whether

with changes

in

over

activity

in routine

crime

trends.

rates

understand

To do this,

fluctuate

routine

changes

used to

research-ers time

with

trends

activities If they

activities

to

changed

United examines the

States

activities

of crime

reviewed, in

the

from

how crime

same time

during are as-sociated are, this

just

a given theory

(i.e.,

year to rates

to

used to

space.

Unlike

examined

place year),

how

over time this

type

cities

Researchers testable

in the have

ex-plain the

crime

(i.e.,

the

of research

diff er across various

diff erent

develop

been

across

which same

year).

also

places at

United

States

used routine

hypotheses

abou

ROUTINE

ACTIVITIES

27

why some areas have higher crime rates than others.

Victimization survey data have become increasingly

To do this, they examine whether the routine activities

available in recent decades, making such methodology

of people living diff er from

in

places

the routine

with higher levels

activities

places with lower levels of crime. and

Blau (1987)

of crime

of people living For example,

hypothesized

that

in

more

common.

how

the

Messner

likelihood

leisure

property

routine

Therefore,

routine

researchers

activities

of

of various forms crime

(e.g.,

have

individuals

examined aff ect

of victimization,

Mustaine

including

& Tewksbury,

1998),

will result in

violent

crime (e.g., Sampson, 1987), and stalking

lower crime rates, whereas those that take people away

Fisher,

Cullen,

activities that take place in the

from their

households

household

largest

Standard

United

the routine

Statistical

some people and/or

Metropolitan

States during

Specifically,

used data from the 124

they

the time

hypothesized

aggregate television

viewing

Areas in the

period that

around

1980.

higher levels

would be associated

lower city crime rates, because routine

of with

leisure activities

that take place in the household provide potential

motivated

entertainment

establishments

will

be

associated

their

National

that individuals

hypotheses.

Higher levels

associated

with lower

aggravated

assault,

of television

murder and

non-negligent

rape, robbery, aggravated

Using

and auto theft.

of sports

was associated

were

rape, robbery,

burglary, larceny,

establishments of

viewing

rates of forcible

Conversely, a greater supply

these

Routine

to

activities

theory

to

has also

been

used to

across individuals. initially

explain

A

national-level

crime

by the theory

are actually

victim

comes

absence

to

understand routine

compare

of nonvictims routine

the

with

violent

activities

on the

of

violent

location

of

was not significantly

victimization.

In

activities,

Miethe et al.

with a high frequency

were at an increased

terms

of night-time

risk for

property

victimization.

Routine

Activities

activities

likelihood

have

been

the

to

the

of victims

the eff ect of lifestyle

Land, activities resides

to

the

activities

example, to

at

leaving

ones risk;

both

1987;

In

other

In

his own him

door living

Rountree,

an individual

his victimization characteristics

unlocked

and (e.g.,

do the routine

which

vulnerable

in

risk

Wilcox

more

whether

individual

words,

in

influence

leave

risk.

victimization

neighborhood

eff ect of

separately.

of individuals

victimization

Wooldredge,

that

victimization

activities

to impact

independently

activities

have begun to explore

Miethe, 1994). of the

micro-level

have been used to explain

routine

operate

levels &

&

beyond

Specifically,

the

factors

Sampson

of victimization.

activities

and

Opportunity

macro-and

routine

used to explain

in

given

routine

years, researchers

neighborhood

many

examined

from

rates,

recent

Multilevel

derived

de-scribed opportunity

data

risk

crime

and

researchers

nature:

has led

victim.

understand

in

off ender

victimization potential

the routine to

an

victimization

in

to

mechanisms

This

use individual-level

of the

Although

micro-level

controllers.

diff erences

explain

used the theory

trends,

contact

capable

activities

researchers

and

into

of any

researchers

those

(1979)

major daily ac-tivities

home. The

of night-time

activities and

at

however,

found that individuals

hypotheses

Cohen

Felson

risk

of the frequency

At first,

Predict

Victimization

diff erences in victimization and

of prop-erty

compared with those whose

kept them

the

Macro-level Routine

of

manslaughter, forcible

Activities in

activities

related

assault, burglary, and larceny.

Differences

whether

and frequency

who performed their

major daily activities,

and entertain-ment with higher rates

1975

outside of the home had relatively higher risks daily

analyses support

to

and violent victimization. Their analysesindicated

with

homes leave suitable targets

general, their

data from the

activities

of

vulnerable

night-time activities affected their likelihood

remove

In

them

Miethe et al. explored

major daily

of property victimization

people from their

that place

property in the proximity

Crime Survey,

individuals

argued

diff erentially

Using victimization

higher city crime rates, becauseleisure activities that unguarded.

Long (1987)

of individuals

off enders, thus leaving

victimization.

targets with a greater level of guardianship. Conversely, they hypothesized that a greater supply of sports and

activities

(e.g.,

2002)

Miethe, Staff ord, and

will result in higher crime rates.

To test these hypotheses, they

& Turner,

their

to

risk

and rou-tine crime?

For

might contribute

a neighborhood

wher

28

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

it is common to leave ones door unlocked might also contribute

to

victimization

risk.

In

the

first

case,

house can be easily entered if a burglar should enter. In the second case, a burglar the home given the doors unlocked. These to

the

risk

In the

of

addition,

eff ects

for

vary

activities

by neighborhood.

to

a

level,

whether one lives in the suburbs

of

on

whether

neighborhood individual

activities

does

condition on

of

the eff ect

victimization

(Wilcox,

opportunities and

other

of the neighborhood

characteristics

of

the

victim

victimization.

modeling techniques

that

eff ects of individual-and

heavily from

understand that

might condition

activities

on

all point to theories

assumptions

AND

off ender adaptations for

crime, the research structures

has focused

environmental

primary

The

perspectives

events.

diff erences in focus

of this

produce temporal

help

structures

reviewed

blocking for

here

prevention.

and other criminological Displacement

to blocked criminal

Rational

Whereas routine

Choice

activities

elements

opportunities

Perspective

theory

of a criminal that the

event

describes

the

and

controllers

the

event, the rational

processes

Clarke

to

to

by

choice

which

neces-sary

perspec-tive

off enders

potential

criminology, on

factors

crime

that

under

decision

area of theory

and

the opportunity

and spatial

patterns

for

certain

is influenced

make

The

Situations,

however,

the lens

people;

meeting

instead,

of previous

are the

not

or

This

prior

to

her

of-fender other

needs this

and

type

of

involvement

and

Cornish,

learning

pointthe

perceived

to

The and

the

views them

and event

by situational

person

experience

1985).

Clarke

decision

influenced

and (2)

her readiness

commit

to

the

refers

of crime

his

would

individuals

second

highly

by all

his or

circumstances.

by the

that

important

decision

& Cornish

according

decisionis

two

decision

this form

he or she

process,

While not dis-counting experiences.

motivation to commit

of

(Clarke

options

argued

involvement

recognition

a crime

(1985)

comprises

an involvement

The

has contemplated

as envi-ronmental concluded

primarily

Cornish

actually

(1)

decision.

an individuals

and

and

off end

points:

event

to and shares

and situational

has been on understanding that

opportunity

to

crime.

an

other theories referred

Unlike traditional

or prevent criminal

individual

and

opportunity

which neigh-borhoodwho can disrupt the eff ects of addresses

APPLICATIONS

with several

criminology

proximate

that facilitate

the

policing

theory

and diffusionof benefits,described later, aretwo possible

at

THEORIES,

are collectively

criminology.

the

activities

make different predictions about how off end-ers

commit

environmental

of crime. In addi-tion,

risk.

Routine activities theory is closely linked

that

make them complementary,

routine

theories

decision

PERSPECTIVES,

event.

produce specific crime problems.

decision

perspectives

provides a unique

that

factors

victimization

COMPLEMENTARY

Each

of the criminal

explanations

and interrupt

decisions.

similar

1995).

multilevel

neighborhood-level

characteristics

1981,

a policing approach called problem-oriented draws

allow them to determine the

as well as the extent to

routine

shared assumptions

To analyze

such data, researchers rely on sophisticated

individual

that

for crime, as well as the routine

might put him at risk for

the same time,

& Brantingham

will respond to blocked opportunities.

on both the characteristics

activities

& Brantingham

to the understanding

rather than competing,

2003).

To answer these questions, researchers use data indicate

& Clarke 2003), and crime

develop-mentsEnvironmental criminology

in the area of multilevel opportunity

1985), situational

theories/perspectives

contribution

The

Routine activities theory and these types of research

& Hunt

(Cornish

risk?

questions have inspired further theoretical Land,

& Cornish

pattern theory (P. J. Brantingham

burglary

regardless

or in the city, or do

characteristics

routine

crime prevention

Their

victimiza-tion

For example,

particular

Clarke

of these four

have questioned

routine

criminology encompassesthe rational choice perspective (e.g.,

1993; P. L. Brantingham

individual.

ones door unlocked increase risk for

victimization

the

norm of leaving

may both contribute

this

researchers

of individual

risk leaving

two factors

victimization

try to

knows to try to en-ter

neighborhood

of crime. In addition to routine activities theory, envi-ronmental

ones

factors. same

way

through

and assesses them

usin

ROUTINE

his or her information-processing Cornish,

1985).

At times,

make decisions clouded

information

is inaccurate,

by situational

Although

abilities (Clarke

the

this

&

used

with judgment

range of offenders (Clarke

alcohol. and event

decisions as two discrete choices, in reality the two

may

structures

time,

be shaped criminal

the

reducing

& Clarke 2003).

by experience.

decision

The individuals

to increased

his or readiness

to commit

Clarke and Cornish (1985)

professionalism

in

off ending,

lifestyle, and changes in network

pointed

changes in

his

or

continual

direction

be noted that event

involvement

event but

by altering

of a specific criminal

a criminal

Blocked opportunities criminal

crime preven-tion

change the event decision

during

her

the rewards,

excuses (Cornish

Onits face, situational

However, it should

from

might

and removing

the off enders perceptions

experience of of-fending.

frequency

personal circumstances

reflect

crime. For example,

to

Positive reinforcement

events can lead to increased

change to further

continues

crime by increasing

the risks, reducing

provocations,

techniques

involvement

1997). Situational crime

of a particular

the eff orts, increasing

happen almost simultaneously. Over

29

prevention techniques focus on effectively altering op-portunity

being

changes, drugs, and/or

model describes involvement

to

ACTIVITIES

oppor-tunity.

an off enders

directly

decision

aff ects

over

time.

not only prevent an impending

might also nudge the off ender in the

of abandoning

crime.

of peers and associates

as personal conditions that change overtime to solidify

Crime

Pattern

Theory

ones continual involvement decision. Conversely,an of-fender maychoose to desistin response to reevaluating alternatives

to

crime.

This

decision

could

by an aversive experience during a criminal change

to

ones

in the larger 1985).

opportunity

Both

the

be viewed eff ort,

personal

risks,

event, a

off ender

movements

It is compatible

with routine

activities

it

process

which

search

for

event

excuses

elements turn

to change

change In

crime which

the

terms

decisions

can

are shaped associated

by the with

the

Brantingham premise

(i.e.,

used the

discourage

the

that

or as permanent

of

prevention

forms managing

crime

those

crime

by

to

as perceived

purpose

and

therefore

address

environment

with the

target

the

the

routes

the patterning ma-nipulating in

Brantingham

of

school,

by a wide

traveled

and

referred places

between

the

across

the

nodes

their

their

as will

targets

home,

as nodes. The referred

and well

as

determine

Brantingham

off enders

are

tar-gets

spaces;

activities,

activities,

locations,

across space.

argued

activity

routine

these

of recreation these

(1993)

encounter

come own

these

to

templates

to interpret

or shared

of

of crime

or unfavorable

selection.

of their

to

backcloth

Brantingham

off enders

locations

traveled

the

he or she inter-prets

will form

way off enders

course

cues

political, of

and

will rely

overlapping

words,

the

emits

favorable

they

during

other

in their

economic,

off enders

which

one common

motivated

environmental

either

P. J.

with the

engage

environment

off ender,

of-fenders

targets.

began

who are

legal,

the

P. J. Brantingham

during

interventions.

of

on

is through in

prevention

the

by the

Over time, cues

suitable

characteristics/features

area as being

crime.

that

have

interventions,

spatial

by

(1981)

individuals

cultural,

elements

environment

and

decades, alike

by systematically

the immediate

for

past few

was designed

of crime

a way as possible,

opportunities

managers,

across

are individuals

perceived

the for

or come

process,

and

of these

mechanisms

develop of

off end-ers.

the

As these

the

These

and in

situational

practitioners

situational

are then

potential

place

problems,

area.

more

there

selection

or

describes

Brantingham

crime.

indicate

rational

crime

theory,

Over the

justice

eff ectiveness

crime

specific

of

as the

guardians,

crime.

crime

evaluate

reducing

be viewed

techniques

Situational

making

the

one

for

activities

and criminal

understand

highly

decision

can

in

manipulates

opportunities

of routine

controllers

handlers)

and

the

grounded

it

and

commit

that

Prevention

is

that

prevention

researchers

to

prevention

in

patterned

because

temporal, crime

spatially

of crime.

Crime

perspective

the

and

nature

target

Situational

to explain

of envi-ronmental

perceptions,

theory

to

choice

a framework

off ender

& Cornish,

behavior.

Situational

provides

context (Clarke and

and

theory

characteristics,

or changes

in that they

rewards,

pattern

circumstances,

involvement

as rational

Crime

be influenced

to

and work, routes as th

30

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

paths of the offender. Finally, edgesare those physical

produced by a problem. A problem should be narrowly

and mentalbarriers along the locations of wherepeople

defined; that is, instead of broadly identifying

live, work, or play.The

problem,

for and/or

encounter

off ender is

mostlikely to search

targets at the nodes, along paths,

and at the edges, with the exception around

each

node

that

the

of being recognized. argued that crime

off ender

avoids

Brantingham

events

of a buff er zone

and

will thus

out

of

fear

along

major nodes and paths of activity, as well as constrained by edges of landscapes. The will

reflect

these

two

features:

and the heavily

spatial the

and edges. In addition,

patterns

activity

Brantingham

back-cloth

paths, nodes,

and Brantingham

noted that some places have particularly crime because of the characteristics

as theft rink

then

high levels of

of the activity

of shoes from during

hours. The

and causes.The

crime triangle

depicted in Figure

information

on all sides of the triangle,

responses to prevent future beyond traditional to include

less traditional

the causes of the involve

and

crimes. These

police tools

tools that

problem. These one or

less traditional

more of the three

accordingly, depending on the results.

other

than

crime,

opportunities. in

that

Conversely, other places are crime their

characteristics

draw

there for the purpose of committing

off

enders

crimes.

Policing

and

Problem

of the response and alter the process

theory can be applied for prevention. Problem-oriented policing

complements

research

crime is

not randomly

distributed

2007); instead,

victimized,

Analysis

that

problem-oriented city

prevent crime

problems.

Problem-oriented

1979) is a proactive on systematically

numerous crime incidents

addressing

crime

of reacting

for the police. Within

incident,

Problems

define, understand, numerous

crime

problem,

becomes

policing,

and prevent incidents

the

each

SARA

function

that

problems

Using the terms

of repeat victimization,

off ending can be seen as a

of both the routine victims, and/or

also

activities

of potential

of-fenders,

places as well as the absence or

ineff ectiveness of potential handlers, guardians, and/ or managers. This in turn sheds light

on what steps

from

of

work

pattern.

police

work to

citizen

policing is implemented

Response,and Assessment. The

places, and repeat

but

and disorder

to these elements.

wolf, duck, and den, problems repeat

event

theory

rather than

of crime

processScanning,

of repeat crime

can be connected

calls

to

the

through Analysis,

police scan crime data

and calls for service to identify crime patterns that are

the

same

problem.

A wolf

problem

reflects

the

repeated actions of an off ender or group of offenders, with

absent

one in

both

victims den

or ineff

ective

handlers.

this the

repeat

routine

activities

and

problem

is

or group is repeatedly

victimization

can

be attributed

characteristics

of

the

as well as the absence of capable guardians. problem

is

one in

which

to targets and off enders absent

Aduck

which the same individual

victimized; to

Problem-oriented use of the

specific types

a crime

activities

unit

police.

the

elements

of

the sites of

should be taken to prevent future crimes stemming

problems that gener-ate

and

describe

six

Clarke,

off end. Eck (2001)

not only does routine

the

that

Eck,

some people are repeat-edly

suggested that

that

to and treating

are a form

problem-oriented

problems

and calls for service

call for service in isolation. The individual

policing

policing approach that

produce

to the police, instead

analysis process

policing to understand and

focuses

the

as part of

organizations, and private

the same problem

usedin problem-oriented (Goldstein

theory

policing. In addition, researchers,

planners, nonprofit

citizens follow

activities

indicates

(e.g.,

some places are repeatedly

crime, and some people repeatedly Police agencies use routine

of

discussed earlier. Finally, police assessthe

& Guerette Problem-Oriented

ap-proaches

types

It is during the SARA processthat routine activities

but the routine activities at these places provide crimi-nal attractors

responses go

may help disrupt

travel

reasons

on of-fenders.

of arrest and citation

overall impact

for

not just

On the basis of this analysis, the police develop

controllers

locations

at

police

2.1 is often used to organize the analysis; police collect

people associated with it. Specifically, they suggested these

the

unsecured lockers

after-school

that some places are crime generators,in that people to

atheft

to be specific and identify

analyze the problem to understand its character-istics

of crime

environmental

patterned

problem the roller

Brantingham

be clustered

it is important

place

managers.The

a place is

both

while also having repeat-place

A

attrac-tive

weak or

problem i

ROUTINE

which an apartment building is consistently the site of

ACTIVITIES

31

weredirectly targeted bythe strategy. Oneexplanation

police calls for service mightindicate that place manag-ers, for this diffusion of benefitsis that off enders, uncertain such as the landlord encouraged In

other

or building

manager, need to be

or coerced to take control

words, using routine

theory

during

from

actual

who needs to be empowered Furthermore,

it

or held responsible.

might also reveal the activity

systematically

produce

the

patterns

opportunity

for

the

crime and suggest points of intervention.

that to

scope

(Clarke such

there

&

and

Diffusion

of

Onecommon

simply

concern

when implementing

crime prevention

be displaced. In other

crime

opportunity

structures

Conversely, dispositional

words, a particular

event that appears to be prevented is inevitably to another time, of crime

place, and/or

make diff erent

victim.

predictions

crime

displaced

of displacement in response to blocked criminal opportunities

(Clarke

theories

1997).

criminologi-cal

is consistent

only off enders are infinite

for crime is blocked. This

with the assumptions

that (a)

and evenly spread across time, space, and

people.These theories suggest that will adapt and simply opportunity.

motivated offend-ers theories

such

as routine activities theory suggest that displacement

have

to the issue

displacement

when it

a diffusion

dedicated

of displacement,

on displacement is

that

not inevitable,

nor

does occur. Furthermore,

it

does

55 studies of

does

not

occur,

it

Hesseling

displacement.

appear

tends

of

displacement,

the

a shift

in time,

studies

no sign reported

beyond

33 studies

that

found

complete

that

did occur

The displacement reflected

Of the

22 found

to crimes

Of the

no study

be inevitable.

be limited.

these

of benefits

targeted.

reviewed

suggesting that to

to

reviewed,

Six

diffusion

directly

Hesseling (1994)

articles and reports

displacement When

of benefits in response to crime

strategies.

55 published

moveon to another available

Conversely, opportunity

that

prevention

some

matter because (b) crime opportunities

by

of crime

there is evidence to suggest that there is some-times

of off enders suggest that displacement is in-evitable

when an opportunity prediction

Traditional

theories

criminologists

is it complete

Diff erent theories about the likeli-hood

predict

account for diff usion of benefits.

a body of research

suggests

theory,

with those crimes targeted

attention

producing

will

Opportunity

other crimes share similar

the strategy.

Environmental

opportunity

strategies is that

1994).

activities

blocking if

considerable

blocking

refrain

may be a diff usion of benefits in response

opportunity

Benefits

strategy,

beyond the scope of the

Weisburd

as routine

generally cannot Displacement

of a particular

off ending in situations

strategy

analysis reveals the absent or ineff ective con-troller theories,

problem

that

of the problem.

activities

of the

place, target,

those

reported displace-ment. generally

or tactic

for

offender.

is possible, but only to the extent that other available criminal

opportunities

an increase

in

prediction focus

costs

have similar

to the

is consistent

to

be infinite likelihood

relative

and equally

gratifying

of displacement,

an

opportunities (i.e., they

off ender

is

FUTURE

This

unaware

Although routine

to the

wealth of research to date, there are still

off ender.

of

crime

alternative

their

crime

are very unattractive

or less rewarding),

then

crime

is another

prevention

possible

strategies.

Not only

adaptation

to

might displace-ment

not occur, but also it is possible that the gains from a strategy might extend beyond those crimes that

has informed

a

many av-enues

by routine activities theory are in

early stages.

concepts

within

relatively little guardianship,

off ender

activities theory

of research yet to be exhausted. Several areas of

oppor-tunities.research informed

displacement is unlikely. There

DIRECTIONS

are not assumed

of alternative

risky,

1997).

therefore, is tied to the

or these alternatives

are difficult,

without

activities theorys

Opportunities

costs and benefits If

(Clarke

with routine

on opportunity.

The

off ender

rewards

and the

routine

is one of the earliest

activities

understanding

theory,

when and where these forms

level,

by increasing

yet there is

of the various forms

means by which guardianship

On a superficial off ending

Guardianship

guardianship

are eff ective,

reduces crime. appears to

the likelihood

will be detected and sanctioned.

of

the

deter

off ender

As many guardian

32

CRIME

AND

havelimited sanction

BEHAVIOR

authority, skills, or meansto detect and

offenders, one

guardianship

may wonder whether (a)

can be based on some other

other than

deterrence

guardianship

or (b)

mechanism

Either routine activities theory is limited to place-based crimes or it needs revision. that substituting

many of the examples of

are preventing

crime.

More

research needs to examine this topic. Another

area for research is the concepts

manager and

management.

by managers.The to

Recently, the

of place Madensen

contact

place

(1) the Regulation

of conduct,

(4) the Acquisition and

management consists

Organization

its

(3) the

Control

of resources. The

influence

on

crime

will

of access, and

study of have

to

manage-ment

address

all

sug-gested

mail bomber

victim,

and

the

are governed

uses the

Internet

computers.

postal system

fraudster

uses

a

Research on routine

activities in systems is in its infancy. Although

ac-tivities:of elements

of four

of physical space, (2) the

people, and they

system of networked

model of management unpacks these concepts.

It states that

his

Eck and Clarke (2003)

system for place solves the prob-lem.

Systems connect

we assume are eff ective are really guard-ing;

perhaps other things

ORCA

able to steal from victims from anywhere in the world.

it is possible to study the contribution of routine

activities

of crime, it is impossible elements interacting because

even

our

theory

to create crime best

to the study

to empirically

sources

study

all the

patterns. That

of information

is

contain

data on only one or two of the actors involved:

off end-ers,

targets, handlers, guardians, and managers. Also,

four activities and mergecrime science with business

the best data available are often highly aggregated and

and managementscience. Handlers have received very little

attention

by

rife

with

errors.

Computer

simulations

of crime

pat-terns,

guardians

however, provide a method for exploring how

and managers,yet recent evidence suggests that they

these parts interact in a dynamical system.This is a

routine

activity

researchers, relative to

may have powerful patterns.

Tillyer

of handling crime,

influences

(2008)

on crime

showed

can be used to reduce

from

minor juvenile

and crime

how the

a wide variety

delinquency

very

to

of

new area of research of a wide variety

concept

burglary,

robbery,

that

has spawned

of crime types:

welfare fraud,

and

simula-tions

drug dealing, others (Liu

&

group-related Eck, 2008).

homicide.

Crime concentrations controllers targets,

is present

when none of the

or effective and off enders

but why are these controllers One answer

Rana

appear

Sampson

absent or ineff ec-tive?

might be that the controllers (1987),

a consultant

on

whom

Super

or the

right

controllers

are

influence people

on the

To summarize,

routine

problem-orientedof crime events,

policing, calls super controllers are not exerting sufficient

CONCLUSION

meet

controllers.

and institutions

that

control controllers. For example, a bartender and bar

why some people theory

theory

which distinguishes

of criminological

activities

activities

theories commit

was initially

it from

that focus crimes.

is a theory a

major-ity

on explaining

Although

used to explain

routine changes

in crime trends over time, it has beenincreasingly used

owner are managers,and the state liquor regulatory

much more broadly to understand and prevent crime

agencyis one of their super controllers. Foster parents

problems. Routine activities theory hasguided research

are handlers of children put in their care. Child welfare

designed to understand a range of phenomena, includ-ing

agenciesact astheir super controllers. is a guardian,

and the company that

a super controller. There

is almost

Asecurity guard hired the guard is

no research in this

crime trends overtime, distributions of crime across space, and individual

diff erences in

also has been used in conjunction

area, although it holds great promise for understanding

control strategies, including

crime and developing

and problem

prevention.

Routine activities theory focuses on off enders contact involve crime

malt-ing

with targets at places. Some crimes, however, at a distance.

Mail bombers, for example,

do not come close to their targets. Internet fraudsters

are

analysis.

victimization. with

research.

the controllers

many crime

problem-oriented

policing

Despite the broad applicability

of the theory to date, there are numerous future

It

Examples include

further

directions for research

on

of crime as well as the super controllers

ROUTINE

& D. B. Cornish (Eds.),

NOTE

Theory 1.

Cohen

and

activity

ratio

Felson

by summing

female number

(1979)

of

labor

calculated

the

force

number

of

participant

non-husband-wife

by the total

their

married,

number

of

husband-present

households

households

and

households

in the

(pp.

household

Eck,

J.

Baltimore:

States.

In

AND

FURTHER

Criminal

Drug

markets

and

P. J.,

on the P. J.

& Brantingham,

geometry

of crime.

Brantingham

(pp.

2754).

Brantingham, paths,

P. J., and

Environmental

Criminality

of

attractors. 3,

place:

Webb

Crime

Journal

Clarke,

of

and

crime

Policy

and

&

for

(pp.

Research

Crime

crime

policy.

(pp.

and justice:

Felson,

6, pp. 147185).

Chicago:

Press. D. (1994).

Diff usion of crime on

R. V. Clarke (Ed.),

2, pp. 165183).

the

reverse

Crime

Monsey,

of

prevention

NY: Criminal

American Cornish,

trends: Sociological

D. B.,

& Clarke,

and criminal critique

of situation

A routine Review,

change

activities 44,

R. V. (2003).

decisions: crime

Social

and

approach.

Opportunities,

A reply to

prevention.

In

pre-cipitators

Wortleys M.J. Smith

complexity

for

of

In J. Knutsson

(pp.

79113).

Press. Classifying activity (Eds.),

common

approach.

In

Crime prevention

practice in situational

Monsey,

&

NY:

&

crime

Criminal

Justice

R.

V.

Clarke

for

prevention

& D.

The

New York:

Weisburd

Crime

and

Justice

Justice

Press.

social In

controls, D. Cornish

reasoning

criminal

Springer-Verlag.

who discourage (Eds.),

crime.

Crime prevention

place (pp.

5366).

In J. E. studies:

Monsey,

NY:

Press.

M., & Cohen, A routine

crime

outcomes.

(Eds.),

K. Bowers,

Crime preven-tion

activities,

and criminal

M. (1995). Those

crime:

G. Farrell,

sets of

(Eds.),

NY: Criminal

Routine

Risky

homogeneous

In

M. Townsley

Monsey,

119128).

Criminal

R. T. (2007).

in

Vol. 21. Imagination

decisions,

Felson,

Guerette,

and facilities.

M. (1986).

L. E. (1980).

activity

Human

approach.

ecology

Human

and

Ecology, 8,

389405.

B. S.,

pursued:

the

F. T.,

& Turner,

Criminology

Crime

study ofstalking

policing:

& Delinquency,

R. B. P. (1994).

empirical

M. G. (2002).

Being

among college

and Public Policy, 1, 257308.

H.(1979). Improving

approach. Hesseling,

Cullen,

A national-level

women. Goldstein,

88100.

Justice

R. V.,

225264).

Eck

Fisher,

M. (1979).

The

mainstream

Crime concentration

Vol. 4.

Observations

& Felson,

rate

&

off end-ers

and

to

739).

Clarke,

studies:

Felson,

Press.

L. E.,

E.,

rational

research

analy-sis,

249276).

Vol. 15. Problem-oriented

A routine

(pp.

establishments

112,

Modeling

(pp.

Press.

antici-pating

Directorate.

process

events and crime

R. V., (2003).

Vol 16. Theory

prevention

Press.

and evaluation.

& D. B. Cornish

K. D. Johnson,

Heston.

Office,

research

problems:

facilities:

studies

Understanding,

Home

(Vol.

Weisburd,

In

case

Harrow

D. B. (1985).

Chicago

benefits:

displacement.

police

A case-control

drug dealing.

event concentration.

problems:

From innovation

studies:

R. V. Clarke (Ed.),

Morris (Eds.),

of research

studies (Vol.

Cohen,

& N.

R. V., &

Justice

of

(1995).

demand for stolen goods (Paper

A framework

M. Tonry

control

P. J.

Criminal

In

London:

theory,

M.J. Smith

Successful

and Statistics

decisions:

University

on

NY:

R. V., & Cornish,

A review

Journal

generators

Hot products:

Ed.).

Development

In

complex-ity

places:

NJ: Transaction. Police

Eck, J. E., & Clarke,

13, 328.

Guilderland,

and reducing

Clarke,

on the

Press.

& V. Sacco (Eds.), The

Criminal

Monsey, NY: Criminal

Nodes,

Maryland

Crime prevention studies:

policing:

Brantingham,

prevention:

R. V. (1999).

B.

criminology

environment.

Introduction.

crime

336).

problem

drug

advances in criminology

E. (2003).

(Ed.),

Eck, J.

R. V (1997).

Clarke,

&

526.

Situational (pp.

&

European

Research,

Clarke,

physical

L.,

Brantingham

P. L. (1993).

Consideration

Psychology, P.

Notes

CA: Sage.

& Brantingham,

and the

Brantingham,

P. L.

Environmental

Hills,

edges:

of crime

In

(Eds.),

Beverly

P. L. (1981).

Eck, J.

prevention

Justice

of illicit

and crime

of crime:

theoretical New Brunswick,

Brantingham,

of

Policing

R. Meier, L. Kennedy,

READINGS

crime

NY:

University

and structure REFERENCES

situational

of the spatial structure

Eck, J. E. (2001).

33

Crime prevention studies: Vol. 16.

in

Monsey,

E. (1994).

study

divid-ing

United

practice

4196).

and the

then

for

ACTIVITIES

literature.

A problem-oriented

25, 236258.

Displacement: In

R.

Clarke

A review (Ed.),

of

Crim

34

CRIME

AND

prevention

studies (Vol.

Criminal Liu,

L.,

BEHAVIOR

Justice

3, pp. 197230).

Using

computer

Artificial

simulations

and

Hershey, PA: IGI

Forces,

65,

Miethe,

T.

Social

of routine

risks

E. E.,

R. J.,

victimizations.

information

and

J. (1987).

dimensions

opportunity

Journal

of

activi-ties

analysis.

& Long, J.

criminal

activities/lifestyle

Social

Tillyer,

M. S. (2008).

models

Quantitative

Getting

Using environmental

dissertation,

S. (1987).

victimization:

theories.

& Tewksbury, theft

A

American

circumstance:

R. (1998).

Predicting

A routine measures.

activity

Criminology,

and test

of the

Law and

violence

opportunity

Criminology,

by stranger:

An

model. Journal

78, 327356.

of

predatory

Criminology,

3,

A dynamic,

Wilcox Rountree,

New York:

P., Land,

Macro-micro

integration

A hierarchical

logistic

to

understand

Unpublished

and

doctoral

Cincinnati.

K. C., & Hunt,

theory.

neighborhoods. Personal

of

the

lifestyle-routine

a handle on street violence:

criminology

University

Wilcox, P., Land,

opportunity

victimization: lifestyles

Linking of

371393.

Routine leisure

M. C, in

R.J. (1987).

of Criminal

Wooldredge,

prevent repeat off ender problems.

using refined

extension

&

macro-level

activity

829858.

Sampson,

Sampson,

systems:

Review, 52, 184194.

of larceny

analysis

geographic

A macro-level

D., Staff ord,

Sociological Mustaine,

analysis

10351052.

diff erentiation

test

36,

of crime:

crime

Global.

Messner, S. F., & Blau, J. R. (1987). and rates

NY:

micro-and

& Eck, J. E. (2008).

systems.

Monsey,

Press.

S. A. (2003).

Criminal

multi-contextual

criminal

Aldine

de Gruyter.

K. C., & Miethe, T. D. (1994). in the study

of victimization:

model analysis

Criminology,

32, 387414

across

Seattle

CHAPTER II

Biological

& Biosocial

Theorie

BIOLOGICAL THEORY

Angela

B

iological

theories

within the field of criminology

contrary to societal expectations These

theories

through

are categorized

known as determinism),

attempt to explain

examination

of individual

charac-teristics.

within a paradigm called positivism (also

which asserts that behaviors, including

behaviors, are determined by factors largely beyond individual theories contrast

behaviors

law-violating

control. Positivist

with classicaltheories, which argue that people generally choose

their behaviors in rational

processesof logical decision making, and with critical

theories, which critique lawmaking, social stratification, and the unequal distri-bution of power and wealth. Positivist theories

are further

classified

influences

they identify

as potentially

example,

psychological

and

development structure

opportunity,

strain)

sociological

of individual

look

born) outward

For

mental

theories

evaluate the impact

of social

anomie, subcultural

theories,

and the impact

of social function

social learning,

and processes on individu-als

social bonds, labeling).

on the basis of certain innate

physical traits or characteristics;

source of diff erences to genetic to distinguish

behavior.

at an individuals

can be classified into three types: (1) those that

among individuals

attempt

theories

of external

(e.g., social disorganization,

(e.g., diff erential association, theories

determinative

psychiatric

and functioning;

on individuals

on the basis of the types

or hereditary

among individuals

attempt

(i.e., those

with

Biological

to diff erentiate which you are

(2) those that attempt to trace the characteristics;

and (3) those that

on the basis of structural,

functional,

or

chemical diff erencesin the brain or body. This

chapter is organized in rough chronological order and by historical fig-ures

associated with an important

development. It is difficult to provide an exact

chronology, becauseseveral important

developments and movements happened

simultaneously in various parts of the world. For example, although biological theories

are considered

after the evolution theories

the concept

of some early biological

of behavior that involve

are discussed in terms theories

positivist,

still continued

of positivism

perspectives. In addition,

some aspect of evolution,

of those scientific

did not evolve until

developments,

biological

genetics, or heredity although

physical trait

to be popular.

3

D. Crews

38

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

The following important

sections discuss some of the

that impacted

A brief history the

theories

the scientific methodto test theories against observations of the world; and (3) the rejection of punishment asare-sponse

and relevant considerations in scientific

developments

tracing

more

biological

of positivism

development

from

most current

and

early (largely theories

behavior. This

also is provided,

use of the

on the relationship

of biology to

discusses the role of biological

treatment

a conclusion

based

determinism.

theories in the future

replaces it

VIEWS

OF

BEHAVIOR

scientific

behaviors during the latter part of the 19th perceived

philosophies.

emerged during the

harshness

Classical thought,

Age of Enlightenment

to late 1700s), asserted that of free will and rational

the

or haphazard guesswork.The

committing

theorists, for the of punishment

1.

Punishment

amounts)

crime

to

an act if that

outweighed

because it

as

of

of

choice

behavior. rather

factors largely The

significant

as

were

the

result

seen

of human

action

toward

curing them,

not punishing

Positivist criminology elements:

biological,

who

psychological,

as the

and patterns. A verbal description

or issue, noting

how it impacts

of and

An explanation

of

hypotheses:

explanations statements

Development

or solutions,

educated

of and

about the expected nature of

explanation can betested. 4.

result or

thought

violated

law

controlled to determine

and

central

should

5.

Analyses involves

6.

by three

(2) the

main

whether

use of

experimental

examination

of

account

7.

Publication

of the variables

results;

this

usually

statistics.

of data obtained from the testing and

analyses and the formulation

conclusion

the causes of crime,

manipulation

whether the hypotheses are supported.

of

Interpretation

into

be

them.

or sociological;

Testing of the hypotheses using controlled experi-mentation:

ex-ternal

of science in

behavior. The

is distinguished

(1) the search for

or

components of the problem, specification of vari-ables

wasthat the aim of any social

individuals

of a problem

the problem and relationships among the various

by the individual.

of scientific

and social

focus of these new ideas

seven steps:

of the problem:

problem

informed

than

inherent

method, however, led to the application the study

scientist

involved in the problem sothat the potential

of

uncontrollable

progression

an Iraqi-born

Visual examination

Formulation

a deterrent.

Behaviors than

Statement

potential

Classical views were not very concerned about the causes

(9651039),

of why and how the issue or problem is a problem. 3.

as atype

was more punishment

ective

problem or

development of

relates to other events or factors.

punishment

the pleasure. Classical

most part, denounced torture

be eff

and

Book of Optics between 1011 and 1021.

Observation:

the

(of

would deter an

they believed that punishment should be proportionate the

positivism

methodis credited primarily to

issue, noticing characteristics 2.

wasnecessaryto prevent afuture occurrence of the act; to

modemscientific

who wroteThe

which courses

were pleasurable

were painful.

the right type and in the right from

to

way to examine a particular

It consists of the following

(mid-1600s

choosing

would engage in behaviors that

resulted in pain that

method is important

Ibn al-Haytham

of

which

of action to take. According to classical theorists, indi-viduals

individual

METHOD

man operated on the basis

thought,

and avoid behaviors that

SCIENTIFIC

issue, rather than relying on spiritual or mysticalexpla-nations

Positivism evolved as instrumental in explaining law-violating as a response to the

model.

with scientific

to biological theories of crime becauseit provides a

Biological theories are a subtype of positivist theory.

classical school

(rehabilitation)

of

systematic

century

medical

will and replaces it

with a study of the individual.

THE

POSITIVIST

the

that

The AND

on

with

Finally, it rejects focus on criminal law and

thought.

CLASSICAL

or deviant behavior, replaced

Positivism rejects free

biological

beliefs, to the

also provides

to law-violating

of be-havior.

discredited)

section

criminological

theories

all the

factors,

of a conclusion: the

researcher

Taking makes

a

about the nature of the problem or issue. or dissemination

interested

populations

providing information

of findings and future

to the scientific

to in-form

research:

communit

BIOLOGICAL

about your findings to help future researchers or to inform

policy and practice.

Greeks.

of the scientific

method has

Della

Porta,

and concluded

been used since ancient times to evaluate and solve many

related.

problems, its useto explain social problems, such as crime

from

and criminality,

instead

developed

biological theories Given

the

use

natural

more recently.

of crime

of

the

scientific

method

in

the

eff orts.

hard

or

sciences, early researchers of the causes of crime

attempted to explain criminal scientific diff

Early types of

were among the first

method. The

erences

between

behaviors by applying the

most obvious place to look

criminals

and

on the outside, by studying

other

individuals

often

that

of a scientific

basis of their

men who look like

behave like

TRAIT

was

THEORIES

Johann

period

one of the first

around

to

by observing

is ancient.

mathematician,

the

and scientist 500

BCE,

advocate this

Lavater,

may have been

practice,

judge a

or to

persons

interpret.

through

outward

appearance.

persons

who lived

practice taught

known

as

banned

384 to as were

flourished

in

Henry

322

a

VIII

in

or

of her

persons

concentrated which

Phrenology, mind,

della

Porta

on

ancient

Greeks. The world

England

publication

scholar

of

Giambattista

his

fragments

determine

in

criminal

of a persons eyes,

and

seated

in

in the

and

lack

of

relocating organs

was

in the

until it

was

and criminality.

development

(2)

associated

emotions

choleric

(yel-low

with

and

excitability.

with

(black

phlegmatic

lungs

bile),

depression, (phlegm),

associated

with

Theoretically

for

brain represented

of the scientific

that

and associated

responsibility

to the

development

brain.

beliefs of

on

seated in the liver

melancholic

and (4) and

based

in the

source

and love;

(3)

brain

and

the

gall bladder

spleen

the

and

as

meaning

is

earlier

(blood),

with courage

and irritability; in

various the

humors

bad temper;

phren,

originated from

(1) sanguine

the

sadness,

behavior

departure

four

bile), seated anger

words

knowledge,

from

a major step in

study

of biological

and

behavior

of behavior

explanations

and

of crime

1531.

Joseph

Gall (17581828)

(15351615)

On Physiognomy della

the

and associated

Around The

could

Greek

meaning

major

behaviors:

practically of

the

human

was a

calmness

philosopher

from

belief that

Franz Giambattista

of facial

one

an examination

and logos,

seated

to judge

was a proponent

many areas of the throughout

his

that

Greek

BCE,

many other

universities by

(i.e., of

study

that

who published

Phrenology

to

evaluation

physiognomy

Aristotle,

words

meaning

the

character

Early

Greek

of the face through

from

in

to

examination

nature.

physiognomy,

the

gnomon,

refers

or

an

on characteristics the

It

personality

nature)

from

and

detailed

through

focused

comes

nature,

a Swiss pastor

to Johann

who lived

and physiognomy

pigs

(17411801)

were extremely influential

a

the

meaning

men who resemble

his or

Pythagoras,

Physiognomy

term

to donkeys in

Lavater

He concluded

This

physis,

donkeys are similar

ears, nose, chin, and facial shape.

physiognomy.

The

on the

For example,

pigs.

Kaspar

1783.

a persons character,

or behavior

her physical characteristics

during

humans

for

behavior

philosopher,

perspective

physical traits.

one can determine

moral disposition,

were

animals.

and stupidity;

painstakingly

belief that

one, classifying to

crimi-nologist,

of this relationship

metaphysical

resemblance

their laziness

first

and character

the study

a magico-spiritualistic

the

his medical practice

appearance

He approached

Kaspar

The

considered

patients during

Delia Portas ideas

PHYSICAL

39

renewed focus to this belief and practice ofthe ancient examined

Although some variation

THEORY

Porta

in once

1586 again

by Italian brought

1800, and

the

human

brain

Franz

Joseph

physiologist as

the

Gall, who

source

a

German

pioneered of

mental

neuro-anatomist study faculties

of

40

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

developed the practice of cranioscopy, a technique by which

to infer

behaviors

examination

and

characteristics

of the skull

Gall, a persons strengths,

(cranium).

could

human

particular or

skull.

area of the skull

weakness in

that

several areas of to correspond

to

Galls

the tendency

Since the their

to

source.

a strength

map of the skull

were believed

murder; to steal.

Europe, the

until

area

Although

the

Newton

and somewhat

were

attempted

behavior. tried

to

from

to identity

Although make

inferences

outward

to correlate internal

about

those outward

character

behavior

attempted

physical characteristics (i.e.,

brain

church

to

were vital

shape),

societal

Spurzheim

Spurzheim, actually

and student

of

Galls,

also expanded

the

map of the brain

system

model phrenology

German scientists

on the brain as animportant

addition

bust

among

reasoning

Kepler and Isaac contribu-tions

to the forefront

spiritual

explanations. of

the

church

then-revolutionary

and

human and

had just was

not

ideas

behaviors

may be

application

of cer-tain

that

eff ect.

very

religion.

Needless

popular

However,

understanding

Human

to

Traits

that

generation

depicted

atten-tion

with

these

of

and

about the nature of social and political organizations; and about the place of man,as an individual,

within

those organizations. The

would

synthesis

of these ideas

advance the progress of research related to perspectives of behavior.

mental

to

the

changes

human

and

Characteristic

the

as

Hume,

Mill,

and

Given that

was practiced

how

explain one

used the

current

mental

from

beliefs

broadened

to

hands

were

from

Aristotle

explain

in the

prior include

of philosophers

such

Locke.

and

and traits

generations,

reproduction

to

generate

memories

characteristics

attempt

and

of

also

memories)

processes. These processes

source

characteristics

Plato

to

potential

philosophers and

and

next.

(especially

mental

the

recognize

of association

all

through

been Greek

of traits

to

processes

determinant of indi-vidual

first

persistence

concept

were focusing

having ancient

the

of the organs,

about the development of manas a biological organism;

biological

Johannes

philosophies

advancing

by the

made significant

development

of

the

behavior, various other scholars weretheorizing

significantly

In

of the brain organs.

While-the

promulgated

(15961650),

to

the

provided

behavior.

phrenology to replace cranios-copy. physiognomy,

organs, developed a hierarchical

the location

practice

advance.

a German physician

and created a

re-ligious

(17761832)

coined the term

Spurzheim

all

organized

in

For example,

and

those

Descartes

science

Persistence

Johann

to

principles)

and

is

mid-16th

events

secular

shaping

systems

began in the

in theory

scientific

by the

in

Revolution

main goals,

scientific say,

religions

Galilei (15641642),

their

a divine

and legal

influence.

as a competitor

natural

from

thought

usurping

explained

to

originated

on cre-ationism,

philosophical

Ren

not

(that

of

in that it

and

cranioscopy

characteristics

was a significant

Galls

research

brain as the origin

to physiognomy

characteristics,

physical

which

the

similar

standards,

mystical/

dominated

alternative

brought

on

centered

organized

(16431727)

Although

focused

economic,

immense

Galileo

of thought

that

THE

have questioned

often

life

of the

political,

(15711630),

in America between 1820 and 1850. Although crude, on subsequent

that

Scientific

church.

English elite (and

by todays

forces,

when advances

the wrong areas.The practice also was widely accepted

impact

explanations

theory

explanations

not

humans

spiritual

power

century,

that

ridiculous

AND

OF INHERITANCE

Earliest

to their

whoseskulls had bumps or depressions in

eff orts had significant

HUMANITY

of time,

perspectives

to engage

another

The

testament

others) used Galls ideas to justify the oppression of individuals

and

mans social,

One area corresponded

commit

origins.

the

a

For example,

to the tendency

widely accepted in

in

area.

acts.

beginning

organs

depression

persons tendencies

or deviant

corresponded

by

magical

would indicate

particular

to that

in criminal

be determined

or

OF

According to

of 27 brain

A bump

ORIGINS MECHANISMS

of his or her skull.

Gall mapped out the location on the

THE

exter-nal

weaknesses, morals, proclivi-ties,

character, and personality physical characteristics

from

by the

as a form

Plato state

other,

possibly

undesir-able,

could

potentially

advocated

the

(government).

of population

persist

control Infanticide

control

in ancient

of

BIOLOGICAL

Rome, Athens, and Sparta. Manyof the ancient societ-ies

workObservations

on

exposing

or

otherwise

young children

ones had the strength, Scientists

ideals

to

took

relatively

humans.

little

positively

time

in general, through

doctrine

of association. This

was significant,

processes of the brain.

established,

of

however,

and relatively

little

with these principles.

biologically

memory and thought,

nature of persistent

prior to the application

thoughts

the processes of the He explained

are influenced

the brain because of

As read-ers

by the current circumstances,

research

causing

(Carl)

was among the first to characteristics hierarchical

plants

taxonomies

and

patterns, and

animals,

brain activities that

Hartley called

and become as-sociated

Hartleys

work wasimportant

of classification).

in that it brought

similar

characteristics

across species, hinting at an evolutionary

voluntary action.This is a positivist philosophy in that action is not viewed as being the direct result of strict free

will.

progression.

George-Louis

Leclerc,

Comte

de Buff on

(17071788)

From 1749 to 1778, Leclerc published his mostfamous and

influential

work

in

36

volumes,

with

8 volumes published postmortem. It Pierre-Louis

In

Moreau

1745,

French

Maupertuis Venus), in in to

de

philosopher Venus

naturally

heredity

Physique a theory

examined

statistics.

credited

with

elucidate

a theory

of evolutionary

thought, (see

Burnett

[17141799]

the first

along

James

his

variations

to

can

attempt debated.

be to He

the basic principles

with his contemporary,

Burnett,

Lord

Monboddo

history, from

humans,

change

Following

additional

was a study of

general to the specific.

proposed

(i.e.,

evolve)

throughout

in the footsteps

the radical

idea

genera-tions.

of Linnaeus,

of a relationship

he also between

another

Nature (1778), and sacred

controversial

belief that

divine power, instead was created the on animals

publication,

Leclerc questioned the universe suggesting that

that

seemingly

were spontaneously

Eras of

was created

by celestial collisions. notion

The

the long-standing

our solar system

useless body generated

Associationist

(17051757)

and the

werevestigial, remnants of evolutionary progress. was widespread and impacted

as well as about changes that

of traits hered-ity)

occur over time

School

with each passing generation Hartley

parts

but instead

from one generation to the next (inheritance, Hartley

by a

Finally, he contra-dicted

subsequent beliefs about the transmission David

In

humans and apes.

Leclercs influence

section).

the

an

work, he proposed the idea that species, including

In

contributions

is actively

with outlining

James

discussed

the

Maupertuis

of evolution

is generally credited

mechanisms

examining

Whether

being among

(Physical

this

of reproduc-tion

He subsequently

and

of both sexes to reproduction, through

mathematician

materials contained

organize.

on

natural

(16981759)

and

which he proposed

which organic

views

Maupertuis

published

the origin of

In

with other primates, becom-ing

to recognize

new

creating

of Nature), published in 1735,

humans

one of the first

and physician,

traits,

(systems

Systema Naturae (System Linnaeus grouped

zoologist,

document

among

mediated

emotions, and the impact of feelings on the creation of

(17071778)

Linnaeus, a Swedish botanist,

of

with other ideas and sensations, forming ideas.

Linnaeus

activity

manto act in one

scientific focus to the process of thought, Carolus

and

from an exter-nal

mans past experiences,

sensations are often associated together

in

sciences.

because

actions

by the constant

eff ort to

the

body to the

that

that do not result immediately

stimulus

it

to link

wascharac-terized way or another. These

oriented

1749. In it, he attempted to

explain

he attempted

progress in the natural sciences, which

impacted

social

as

and wit to survive.

mid-to late 18th century

by rapid

the

the

Once

human patterns

will note, the

such

to the elements to see which

began studying

these

members,

intelligence,

traits in plants and animals

explain

unfit

41

Man, His Frame, His Duty,

and His Expectationsin also engaged in practices to weed out weak, dis-eased, malformed,

THEORY

(borrowing

John

somewhat

Locke) published

his

from

philoso-pher

most influential

significantly Charles

impacted

(evolution).

biological

Darwin, in fact, credited

theories

These

ideas

of behavior.

Leclerc with being th

42

CRIME

first

AND

modem

BEHAVIOR

author

of the

time

to

treat

evolution

Contrary to

as a

many economists of the time

believed that increasing fertility rates and populations

scientific principle.

would provide James

Burnett,

Lord

Monboddo

productivity

(17141799)

provision Burnett, a Scottish judge, is credited of the first to promote evolutionary

with being another ideas, in particular,

the idea of natural selection. InThe of Language (1773), of language familiar

Origin and Progress

Burnett analyzed the development

as an evolutionary

process; he clearly

was

with the ideas of natural selection, although

diff ered with Leclerc in his support humans

he

of the notion that

were related to apes.

Erasmus

Darwin

who

Leclercs

ideas

Galton (see subsequent

Darwin from

and

Galton).

Linnaeus,

Latin to

Darwin

translating

to

heart

was

1794 and 1796, discussed and

on

Charles

also integrated

sections

ideas

Linnaeuss

English and publishing

about plants, The

the

used

Darwin

Hartleys

Linneauss

Jean-Baptiste

published

theory

[17441829]

among the lower for existence

Darwin

In

1798,

economist,

(and

of

Population,

struggle His

for main

result

in

believe

later

argued

by

Lamarck

at

the natural

existence

increased food. the

As a society

most (and

often

events

that

die).

late

of the fittest

to

about

to

Charles natural

(a phrase coined

increases for

in scarce

becomes

naturalist,

section

on the

1802. Lemarck

mentored

on Leclerc),

Recherches sur lOrganisation (Research

by

who pub-lished

des Corps Vivans

Organization

of Living Things)

was among the first to attempt

in

to clas-sify

invertebrates and was among the first to use the

during the lifetime stronger

of an organism (e.g., larger or

muscles) are

generations,

passed along to

making them

subsequent

better suited for survival (or

better adapted). Lemarck

is

considered

theory

organisms

through

resources. population

the

first

of evolution, came into

instead

to

articulate

although

being through

of sharing

generations

adaptations of the

a

he believed spontaneous

a common

and (2) that

because of their

source.

organisms

environments

necessity (or lack thereof) (the use-it-or-lose-it

resources,

strata

He explained

marriage)

French

His

develop

or because

of particular

charac-teristics

aspect).

overpopulated,

socioeconomic

serve to

(17441829)

theory was characterized by two main arguments: (1) and po-litical that organisms progress from simpler to more complex Principle

populations

over

war, disease, famine)

(e.g., abstinence,

function.

the

and conditions

(e.g.,

on the

competition

competition

of

Essay

proposed

was that

bottom

growth restraint

in

arguments

Lamarck

was a

generation

demographer An

he

scientists

was instrumental in

Leclerc (see preceding

Lamarck

(17661834)

English

which

premise

primarily those

same

in

of a struggle

acquiredcharacters, in which characteristics developed

pos-sibly

of a more

(see Jean-Baptiste

published

depiction

by subsequent

and

and survival

more poverty

by Herbert Spencer; see Herbert Spencer [18201903]

coherent

an

classes.This

others)

the

advocating a theory of soft inheritance, or inheritance of

Many scholars

of inheritance

Malthus

Malthus,

(and

selection

would result in

was applied

plants and animals

that Robert

and

that

which

section).

Thomas

growth

argued

often not keep pace with

term biology. He primarily is known for promoting and

(reproduction)

were the forerunners

Lamarck

Malthus

Between

Zonomia,

of association

taxonomies).

theory

population

his own book of po-etry

of generation

Darwins propositions well-defined

works from

Botanic Garden (1791).

concept

of a society, of resources could

Jean-Baptiste

took

Erasmus Darwin, grandfather of Charles Darwin and Francis

more workers and would increase the

section).

(17311802)

One individual

who

that

control

could

Impact

of

Positivism

some popula-tion

and that

The

suf-fer

moral

serve the

In the

early

1800s, following

proposals, sciences, revolutionary

and

the

and theories during

struggle

the for

advancement related

to the

discussions

existence,

of

of argu-ments, biologi-cal Malthuss

groundbreakin

BIOLOGICAL

ideas also

were being propagated about the place

and function

of

developments

and

the

perspectives

to

to the application

human

behavior

Adolphe

within

and

social groups.

Quetelet

Andre-Michel

Despite the

Comte

Known

Guerry

scholar

(18021866)

overwhelming

complexity

of

Sociology,

who published

Comte

Plan de Travaux

Scientifiques NecessariesPour Rorganizer la Socit

of social behavior.

was interested

of Society) in 1822. In this

Both

such as crime

was controversial

of Scientific Studies Necessaryfor the Reorganization

techniques

at

the

phe-nomena,

that it

to the in-vestigation

men were primarily

in unraveling the statistical

social problems

(Plan

of social

Guerry were convinced

was possible to apply statistical

(17981857)

as the Father

a French

Sciences

(17961894)

Quetelet and Auguste

Social

43

man within social groups. These

were instrumental

of biological

Statistics

THEORY

laws underlying

and suicide. This

time,

because

it

idea

contradicted

prevailing belief in free will. Quetelets mostinfluential

work, he argued for a

publication wasSur L Homme et le Developpementde meta-physical, ses Facults, ou Essai de Physique Sociale (Treatise on which all societies

universal law of three phases:(1) theological, (2) and (3) scientific, through

Man; 1835), in

have, or will, progress. The theological stage,

stage is

characterized

animistic

explanations

behaviors causes.

for

and a lack The

metaphysical

origin

stage. the

origin

which

stage, is

Positive

can

situations,

in the

forces

The what

(fate,

Comte

but a focus

and

three

experimentation,

and logic

among components.

the

behavior

to understand

of societies

in

connectedness

behavior.

Positivism

social evolution, progress.

is

all

one

attempting

the of

elements the

first

to explain

theories

This

preliminary

development

of

gained through

that

stage also is exemplified

use of

quantitative,

procedures (e.g.,

statistical

procedures

on

work emphasized the possibility

of social laws, similar

social

Guerry

of sociology

relationships,

by the to

expanded

mapsto evaluate

of human actions, forming

Quetelet and

development

in

logical, rational

publication,

measurements could provide insight into

the possibility

Comtes scientific

A subsequent

a basis for the

to the physical laws

govern the behavior of other objects and events in

nature.

actual sense experience

observation).

against persons, and a proxy for edu-cation

and developed shaded

the regularity

how societies

containing

remarkably stable across the other factors.

and to

involved

document

found that these rates varied by region but remained

Comte claimed that the only real knowledge

is knowledge (i.e.,

of

one-page

moral

crime and suicides by age,sex, region, and season. He

that social the behavior of groups within societies and empha-sized the

physics prompted

Moral Statistics of France (1833),

this technique

attempted to apply scientific principles (i.e., the to

phrase social

(school instruction).

outcomes,

Comtes positiv-ism

an 1829

property, crimes

for

by observation,

and attempt

of the

maps of France, shaded in terms of crimes against

Essay on

stages are characterized

method)

Comte had earlier used. Quetelets

statistics in

control.

the relationships

scientific

physics, a term that

accident)

concern

on the

Quetelet called this process social

Comte to adopt the term sociology instead. more ad-vanced Guerry is known for developing the idea of stage,

man,

of meanvalues to form a

distribution.

appropriation

of

called the posi-tive

is little

normal

or

origins

most advanced

point, there

of actions,

man

events,

abstract

At this

primitive

religious,

stage is slightly

of causes.

the scientific

most

of interest

and identifies

as the

the

by supernatural,

which he described the average

developed from the calculation

wereinstrumental

and criminology,

of measuring, determining and identifying

in the

illustrating the nature of

patterns and regularities

situations.

make

decisions based on evidence. Statistical

had been used for some time in the hard sci-ences math, physics), but a positivist

required that the use of such

and

Evolution

perspective

measurement techniques

be applied to the social sciences, as well.

Heredity

As the search for explanations behavior improved

through

of individual

the application

and social of statistica

44

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

methods and the positivist insistence that the only real knowledge wasthat obtained through systematic observation

(i-e.,

the

scientific

the nature and potential more sophisticated had earlier

theorists

the

propositions increasingly

about

passage of certain

acquired

progress

source of biological

earlier

hinted

that

natural

Spencer

An early

from

man, others (Thomas

Huxley in 1863,

in 1864) had actually applied animal

and from

Lombroso

Spencer articulated Its

Law and

behavior

predispositions.

criminologist

of

Charles

theorist

Cause (1857),

Darwins

On the

and

philosopher,

of evolution

in

prior to the

publication

Progress:

Origin of Speciesin

Spencer

proposed

that

everything

developed

from

a single

source

complexity

Wallace

his theories to the human

(18351909)

and

criminals,

Lombroso

and founder

Classical

a theory

Alfred

Among the first to apply Darwins findings to criminal

into the nature and

(18201903)

social

evolution

first.

Cesare

Malthuss

of society

inquiries

and behavioral

English

and

could and should be applied to the development of

positivist criminology. Herbert

selection

(soft inheritance),

benefited

the

became Lemarck

mid-1800s

sophisticated

about

Although

generation to generation

in

beliefs

of man within society

and grounded.

discussed the

traits from

method),

had

in

the

and

with the passing of time

1859.

universe

progressed

in

and generations,

concepts

also coined the phrase survival of the fittest, in 1864, after reading Darwins Onthe Origin of Species,and he applied the idea of natural selection to society.

of the Italian

which

held

of human

School of

that

nature.

crime

was

Instead,

a

using

was inherited

argued, in essence, that criminality

and that

phrase was coined be identified criminal

someone

born

by his student,

by physical

criminal

(this

Enrico Ferri) could

defects,

which confirmed

a

as savage, or atavistic.

Lombroso

published

Criminal

Manin 1876, help-ing

to establish the newly forming

criminology. theory,

Inspired

who did not commit of biological

Positive

School of

by Charles Darwins evolutionary

he believed that criminals

people result

Italian

drawn from earlier perspectives, such as phys-iognomy, Lombroso

becoming differentiated yet being characterized byin-creasing integration of the differentiated parts. Spencer

trait

an

Lombroso rejected the estab-lished

School,

characteristic

was

were not as evolved as

crime and that

crime is a

diff erences between criminals

and

noncriminals.

Charles

Darwin

Although

the

(18091882)

A central focus of Lombrosos work is the concept

preceding

development of scientific thought heredity and evolution, the impact

of Charles

theories in two

the

of atavism. Atavism describes the reappearance in an

on the concepts of

organism of characteristics of some remote ancestor

paragraphs illustrate

most scholars primarily Darwin.

main publications:

Darwin described (1)

Onthe

note

one

Origin of

also

Species by Meansof Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favored Racesin the Struggle for Life (1859) The

Descent of

Man and Selection in

and (2)

Relation to

Sex

In

On the that

of natural

conclusions

selection.

and supported

evidence that boat, the

Origin of Species, Darwin

detailed the

organisms evolve over generations through

a process

The

that

exhibits

mean

atavism,

a reversion

approach.

he collected

Darwin

reached

his observations during

his

through

a sea voyage on a

HMS Beagle, during the 1830s. Descent of

Sex applied

Man and Selection in

Relation to

Darwins theory to human evolution and

described the theory of sexual selection. Although he

to

Lombroso

that criminals

his later

that an earlier

developing

Although

methods

traits

outlook,

or

believ-ing

shared physi-cal

with primitive thought

for

a typological

types)

can

on the evolutionary

to categorize were flawed,

that

humans. In social and

to criminality.

his conclusions

main criminal

It

this concept

factors can contribute

Lombroso reached

his

behavior,

modern criminals

(stigmata)

cadavers of executed criminals of atavism,

a throwback.

were throwbacks

years, he eventually

environmental

is,

approached

scale. He believed that characteristics

(1871).

theory

after several generations of absence.It often refers to

his

by studying

the

physical indicators system (with

four

these individuals. and

most of the

he listed failed to distinguish criminals from

matchedsamples of noncriminals, he was among th

BIOLOGICAL

first to apply scientific principles to the collection of

The

Criminal

THEORY

45

Physique

data and to usestatistical techniques in his data analy-sis. In addition of the

to examining

criminal,

he also

the physical characteristics

evaluated

which crime is committed. to study female

atavistic They

determined

that

criminal

traits

throwbacks

had strong

and long

under

that females

jaws,

about

one third

thirds

werecriminaloids

and

off enders

were born

big teeth, types

in-herited

criminals,

ancestors.

bulging

(minor

off enders)

two

who only

crime.

behaviors

were inherited,

Lombroso

also

ar-gued

that environmental factors can play animportant role in crime.

He speculated that alcoholism, climate

changes, and lack of education

may contribute

to

Lombrosos

path to

work

started

determine

behavior.

His

disagreed

other

a hereditary

student,

instead

focus

individual

and to blame criminality Italian

(18511934),

Ferri

the

criminal

(18561929),

on the physiological,

to examine the interactive

physical factors,

Another

on

source for

Enrico

with Lombrosos

preferring

researchers

factors, on alack

eff ects of

of moral sensibility. Raffaele

by punishment. of individuals

the quality of the society and ensure its survival. Like he believed

crime

was

more the

result

of

a lack

in

moralsensibilities rather than a physiological problem. Lombrosos

conclusions

were challenged

refuted by Charles Goring (18701919), The

English

statistical

Convict in 1913. In a carefully

comparison

and noncriminals,

of

diff erences between the two and

weight (criminals essentially

criminal,

types continued.

controlled

3,000 criminals

no significant

populations

were slightly

discredited

although

more than

Goring found

and

who wrote

physical

except height

smaller).

Hisfind-ings

Lombrosos idea of the born

research into the search for criminal

Kretschmer

psychiatrist,

published

of

body type

with three categories of behaviors (cyclothe-mic,

schizothemic,

shape, to

the

serious

nature.

off enses,

and

Cyclothemes

off enses

were either

(thin

states

Although

and

unable

that

associated

put

much consideration

behavior

and

its

of

their

with

with sexual off enses.

physique,

he did

the

not

nature

of

environment.

this search

wasa con-temporary

Dissatisfied

Ernest

with

Gorings

12 years conducting

research

nature of manto disprove Hisfirst influential

Man (1939),

prisoners

or

to develop a typology

Harvard anthropologist

Hooten spent

Lombroso.

tall)

emotions.

the complex

who continued

(18871954).

to support

14,000

with into

interaction

Goring,

and

by highly charged

control

attempted

behaviors

Among those

findings,

to

associated displastics Kretschmer

antisocial

Displasticscould be any

body type but werecharacterized emotional

more

more serious violent

asthenic

athletic (wide and strong).

tended

were

were

the

were

a round

and

that

Schizothemes

and apathetic, committing

pyknik)

by soft skin,

muscle development,

less

in

athletic,

displastic).

and typified

and little

commit

which he described three (asthenic,

and

manic-depressive

Crime and the

Garofalo also suggested the elimination who posed athreat to society, to improve

German

Ernst

associated

of natural crime, fo-cusinginto the criminal

developed a theory

1925,

outwardly

categories

Hooten

Garofalo

on those acts that could be prevented or reduced

Ferri,

a

In

as research-ers

with some

Character, in

and social factors

contemporary,

crime

body

Physique and

Kretschmer

criminality.

of a persons

also became popular

to link

diff erences.

intellectual

Although primarily remembered for his claim that criminal

observable

foreheads,

remaining

categorizations

or physique attempted

of off enders constituted

of all criminals. The

commit

build

and

(18881964),

passion.

serious

to earlier evolutionary

arms. These

occasionally

speculating

to be criminals by

Lombroso

their

conditions

He also was among the first

criminality,

were morelikely

the

Evaluations

and 3,000

Goring and publication,

documented

his study

of

non-prisoner

controls

in

10 states. Hooten was morerigorous than his methods, differentiating

Goring in

his subjects on the basis

of types of crime and by geographic, ethnic, and racial backgrounds. Hooten agreed with Lombrosos idea of a born criminal

and argued that

by individuals inadaptable, warped, the only

most crime

who were biologically mentally

inferior,

and physically debased.

way to solve crime

was by eliminating

who were morally,

organi-cally

stunted

and sociologically

and

He argued that

mentally, or physically unfit,

segregating them in an environment of society

was committed

people or by

apart from the rest

46

CRIME

AND

As

BEHAVIOR

Hooten was conducting

his research and

developing his conclusions, the sociological world was developing factors

an interest

and social

of criminal the

in the contribution

environments

behavior.

University

of

development

research

Chicago (i.e., the

out

of

Chicago

School)

stressed the impact

of the social environment

rather

than

biology

an individuals of crime.

of his failure

Hooten

His work also led to focus

was widely criticized

cellular level (genotypes)

The

While

Mendel

because Francis

(18221884)

scholars

debated

throwbacks

to earlier

Darwins

claims

work provided

father

Austrian

of genetics

work

was largely

because of the

quantitative

was in

2000).

ignored

until

popularity

of

to the next

most critical

state.

variations

the

is

known

Although after

as

that

the persistence of traits from

gem-mules

arguing

He published

theories),

those traits

of

Charles

suggested by Darwin predates that

cells

determine

bodies shed

that carried specific traits from the parent generation.

Darwin insight-fully

generation

may not have been present in the parent and

doing so,

and

analytic

in

whether

prominent

abilities

men of the time

over several generations. a book called

he concluded

that

this

(1883) in their

human

biographical in-formation

Hereditary human

abil-ity

work with a survey

which he attempted

interest

and

abilities

in

to

science

Galton stimulated interest in the question of

(and coined the phrase) nature versus nurture. Although and

Galtons work at that point was useful

had resulted

in the

development

of numerous

measurement tools (e.g., the questionnaire; analysis)

and statistical

correlation, that

to

determine

exhibited and

diff whether if

published

raised

his

erences

if

twins

who

in

Powers

1883,

for future

debate.

similar

were

work

deviation, with twins

inquiries

into the

Galton surveyed sets of

twins

raised

fingerprint

(standard

was his

whether

asThe

Relative

In

for the theory of inheritance through his experi-ments

it

provided the impetus

twins

the

concepts

regression),

nature-versus-nurture

Mendel, however, wasthe one who developed sup-port

with the cultivation and breeding of pea plants,

Galton

werethe result of heredity (nature) or encouragement

even though

that those traits could develop at any later point.

techniques

Hefollowed

whether

about

set

in humans. In

and he collected

which

wasinherited.

of

pangenesis explained

within

in

theories

animals

was interested

of English scientists ap-plication

and

and development in his laws

traits to the following

Darwins

his results in

Genius (1869),

part

proposed that a parent organisms gemmules could transmit

a cousin

makesense of what he was ob-serving.

about numerous

the

one generation to the next.

that

organism to the subsequent

Evolution:

Eugenics

domestic

measurement

was hereditary,

(nurture).

Mendels research theorized

of

to help him He first

ability

Mendels

1900 (in

Darwins

support to some of the propositions

He discussed transmission

and

Galton,

Reading

traits

he developed

and with annuals (in particular, bees) provided scientific

of inheritance,

observable

Darwinism

and

of

to chart the families

Mendelsexperiments with plants(in particular, peas)

Darwin

in

pieces

of crime.

biological theories of behavior.

1868, although

work

a harmonic

social development resulted in significant advancesin

Darwin.

Heredity Social

(18221911)

the

evidence that

theories

scientist,

(Henig,

overlooked

of his laws of inheritance to individual

in

Gallon

techniques was being redis-covered.

one generation

making it one of the

an

investi-gated

were atavistic

waslargely

of research related to biological Mendel,

of and

periods, a piece of re-searchon a path to study variations

historical

were passed on from

(or inherited),

and

were born and

was published in 1866

This traits

of at the

Darwin, that statistics, biology, and sociology reached

on heredity in plants that at the time it

instead

at the

and his myopic

determinism.

whether criminals

Implications Eugenics

It

Gregor

on the study of traits

level (phenotypes).

as crucial to the develop-ment

to consider social factors

focus on biological

characteristics, passedfrom one generation to the next.

of social

to the

Sociological

and the scientific support for dominant and recessive

in

who diff

fraternal

environments.

were

erent

identical

environments exhibited

simi-larities

This

work

History of Twins as a Criterion of

Nature

and

Nurture

Galton developed the concept

most controversial

in

was

of

1875.

of eugen-ics,

and abused philosophy.

Eugenics advocated the encouragement, through th

BIOLOGICAL

THEORY

47

couplesto reproduce

to the study of mans behavior, its potential biological

in an eff ort to improve human hereditary traits. Part

roots, and to the study of mansrole and obligation in

of his proposals included

society.

distribution of incentives, ofable

to

manipulating

encourage the reproduction

discourage reproduction

those that, of

manipulating

without

reproduction

encouragement,

it

was the natural state mediocrity, a

asregression

toward

of social and

Prevailing thought

at the time

ideals, in the belief that these

was receptive to such policies

would reduce

natural

(most

human

selection,

survival

resulted in perfect condi-tions

which scientific

behavior.

principles

A compilation

and statistical

of social

applied to the structure

and function

competition

Mendels

Darwinism,

originally

of social processes

(e.g., government),

only the strongest

and to

of these philosophies

resulted in the theory

belief that

moral notably

analysis could be applied to the human condition

or eliminate poverty, disease, genetic deformities, ill-nesses, and crime. Eugenics was originally conceived as

of scientists

and evolution,

under

and organizations

progress.

work

on transmutation,

of the fittest,

Comtes soci-ology,

Guerrys social physics and

and the

Darwin)

He believed

of society) to revert to

mean, which he viewed as repressive

individual

Quetelet and

and

or eliminat-ing

less fit.

phrase that came to be clarified the

fit

Malthuss struggle for existence,

Galtons pro-posalsstatistics,

mores and values rather

who were considered

man (and thus

morals

of the more

of the less fit.

were to change social than forcibly

social

with the primary

drives all social

progress and

survive.

contribution

was

critical

to

the

ideas

of

social Darwinism, explaining how observable charac-teristics (phenotypes)

a concept of social responsibility to improve the lives

wereinheritable and how atrait

to

mayappearin one generation that had not appeared in

selectively breed good traits in and bad traits out, but

manyprior generations.These atavisms, or throwbacks

of everyone in society by encouraging individuals many who followed toward

less

than

would use Galtons

desirable

to

philosophies

After Galtons eff orts, others attempted to document that crime

was afamily trait. In 1877, Richard

(18411883)

published The

Pauperism,

Diseaseand

descendants

of

most of the Jukes family not all biologically

1,000

descendants

comparing wedlock who

to

came

a

were criminals,

a

man

woman

with another

of

noble

bloodline

they

named

Martin

birth

to

his

conceived

he later retracted

that the legitimate whereas the illegitimate

evolutionary

evolution)

the

traced

within

of

wed-lock

Goddard

could

were interested

by

of traits,

or controlled

through

Other scientists studying of

whether social this type

of

political

(18401910),

man (e.g., crime) problems

could

manipulation.

be

Many,

economist

William

advocated

a laissez-faire

philosophy

with respect to the survival and prog-ress noting that

problems like

poverty are

process of natural selection and survival of the fittest would

mean a natural reduction in the problems

social

Darwinism,

merging

Galtons propositions and replication

in

(progress,

of societies,

social engineering or interference;

of

were crucial

the lens of social 1800s

Hooten, and

Malthuss ideas

leads

early

social

others

on competition

evolution,

1900s,

were debating

behavior,

Spencers insistence to

led to viewing

Darwinism. and

others

criminal

among societies, evolution

however, inevitably

the late

of biology in

Mendels work on the heritability

in

Sumner

Goring,

Darwinism

that ensued after

became interested

behaviors

however, such as noted

During

Developments

be engineered

through

man through

of eugenics, and after the rediscovery

be physical or behavioral

Hodgson, 2004). Viewing society through the lens of

feeblemindedness.

Social

Darwinists

of these traits.

his conclu-sions)over time (without

wascharacterized

could

the natural result of inherent inequalities and that the

descendants out

Social

more undesirable

Graham

period,

useless appendages)

of whether social development

manipulation

controlled

bloodline waswholesome,

bloodline

(e.g., violence). the question

Kallikak,

woman, one of ill repute.

concluded (although

were

study, published

who were conceived

he

that

prostitutes,

H. Goddard (18661957), of

the

Crime,

and found

members (although

his descendants

from

A Study in

Another family

Henry

Dugdale

which he traced the

Ada Jukes

related)

or welfare recipients. in 1912 by

Jukes:

Heredity, in

matriarch

an earlier

(e.g., vestigial tails,

ends.

while

the role

were quietly and survival

that individual Mendels

ideas

o

48

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

the heritability

of traits,

Darwins ideas on natural

would

result

in

the

reduction

of

elimination

of these

selection and evolution, and Galtonsideas on eugenics

undesirable conditions. Eugenicists, on the other hand,

into

encouraged

warped interpretations and

social

and applications

of eugen-ics

active intervention.

It is this

Darwinism.

active intervention

although The

Legacy

of

Eugenics

and

Darwinism

Activists

in the late 19th and

regulating

Social

promoted

unwanted With unprecedented

immigration

early 20th centuries, increasing

crime,

problems.

American society

poverty,

suicide,

struggled

and

Some, such as the theorists

School, saw the solution

of the

in sociological

a complete

description

Chicago

in eugenics.

of the

misapplica-tion

of eugenics is beyond the scope of this chapter, it

is important

for the student of biological theories to

understand the impact that eugenics had on the study

of human genetic qualities. Positive eugenics aims to of desirable

qualities,

and

negative eugenics aims to discourage the reproduction of undesirable The

qualities, to improve

underlying

negative traits

are inherited

generations. as intelligence presumed These

focused

and on hereditary

to

both positive and

and passed down through

Early eugenicists

on traits

& Kurzman,

traits

and to

fo-cused

of incentives)

among those

discourage

2004).

Galtons philosophies,

on societal changes (the provision to encourage reproduction

such

diseases or defects

be genetic (Barrett

eugenicists, following

popularity

United

were

written

who had ailments

were prohibited

sterilized. This

from

included

marry-ing

individuals

or mentally ill.

of eugenics spread throughout

the

States during the late 1800s and early 1900s.

Charles

Davenport

American

biologist,

(18661944), directed the

an

influential

Cold Spring

Harbor

Laboratory in 1910 and founded the Eugenics Record Office, hiring

Harry

H. Laughlin (18801943)

as

Between 1907 and 1914, several states had passed

reproduction

sterilization laws. Laughlin, however, perceived these as ineff ective and full to draft amodel

with positive among those

defined

the

those

that

including the

were upheld Court

in

until

1981.

With

in

More

were forcibly

the

the

case

than

increased about the

of

by the Buck

v.

by

the very poor,

deaf, the insane,

deformity. These

64,000

sterilized

Laughlin

be targeted

criminals,

as constitutional

1927

model law would

blind,

who had a physical

concerns

with negative traits.

n.d.). In this

alcoholics,

him in 1922

was passed by 18 additional

populations

forced sterilization, epileptics,

of holes, prompting

law that

and so-ciety. states (Lombardo

humanity

premise is that

be genetic

to prevent

state laws

deemed to befeeble-minded

In theory, eugenics argued for the improvement reproduction

and

prob-lematic,

superintendent (Kevles, 1985).

of biological explanations of behavior.

increase the

to

became

viewed as such.

the use of contraception

marriages. Individuals

and forcibly

The

that

was not initially

pregnancies,

thought

social

explanations,

whereas others turned to solutions implied Although

with

other

it

and

practices

U.S. Supreme

Bell

and

individuals

continued

in

33 states

under these laws. immigration quality

increased came

and

purity

of the

races.

In practice, however,and following alogical progres-sion Responding to these concerns, Madison Grant(18651937), of thought, some believed eugenics to

alike in their through

survival

more likely take

to

place in

out.

of the fittest, assert that

a natural

undesirable, weeded

and It

is

unfit for

opposed government as poverty

Darwinists and eugenicists are

goal to improve

this

humanity social

Darwinists

with

individuals reason

that

intervention

and crime,

and society

this improvement

process,

believing

were would

weak, diseased, being eventually

social

mostinfluential

books about racial integrity, The Passing

of the Great Race(1916).

from reproducing, or even be eliminated. Although social

an American lawyer, wrote one of the first and

meanthat

persons with undesirable traits should be prevented

(i.e., white) racial line He warned against supported hygiene

other, and any

problems such

that

natural

forces

miscegenation (race against it.

advocated

the

greater

He also

of

to any

Nordic bloodlines,

warned that undesir-ables

numbers

Nordic population eradication

mixing) and

He argued for racial

mixing would taint

breed in the superior

Nordic

Nordic race was superior

making them impure.

Darwinists

into

legislation because the

Grant wrote that the

wasthe pinnacle of civilization.

and if

would

overrun

not controlled.

undesirables

from

He th

BIOLOGICAL

human gene pool coupled with the promulgation Grants

work

was immensely

avoided,

instrumental

in

Immigration

Act of 1924,

the

of immigrants

was translated translated

German, in

word

shortly

after its translation work

1928,

restrictions founded

eradicating

regions,

His book also In 1925, it

was

Nordic was replaced

into

German,

defects.

in full swing,

eff ort to understand of human

or

humanitys gene

Genome Project is one no-table the genetic

beings

preventing

makeup

with an eye toward

inheritable

diseases and

Advances in science and the development

understand

provide

of

hope that struggles to better

the transmission

traits

and development

and characteristics

is especially important

theories laws

Human

ethical guidelines

This

would later

bible.

of hu-man

are not yet abandoned. to the future

of biological

of criminality.

and immigration

E. S. Gosney (18551942)

Human

Betterment

whose primary

scientific

the

Hitler, who read the book

with sterilization

the

entity

his

modern eff orts to improve

pool persist. The

the num-bers and properties

desirable

Europe.

which

Aryan. Adolph

Grants

In

the less

was

passage of

several languages.

by the

call

and

and

which restricted

and eastern

into

into

drafting

from

such as southern

popular

49

Despite the fact that the word eugenicsis usually

of

more desirable and worthy racial types.

THEORY

Foundation,

purpose

POST-WORLD

an

WAR

BIOLOGY

wasto compile and

II

AND

RESEARCH

ON

BEHAVIOR

distribute propaganda about compulsory sterilization. Gosney hired Paul E. Popenoe (18881979)

Body

to assist

Physique

and

Crime

him in the study of the impact of these sterilization laws

in

California.

Their

collaboration

publication

of Sterilization

Summary

of Results of 6,000

19091929

(Gosney

Germany to support of

Hereditarily

for

Human

Operations in

Offspring.

were used to justify

Nuremburg Law

for

Protection

Honor, and the the

of

or unfit

of the

Laws,

German

really

meantanyone not deemedto be German) and stripped so-called undesirables of their citizenship. population

control

justify

World WarII,

the eradication

policies based on

and an additional

Nazi use of its philosophies to of approximately

1925,

marriage restrictions

6 million Jews

However, sterilizations,

based on fitness, and prohibitions

of racial intermarriage

continued

counseling, ironically

developed by Paul Popenoe as a

eugenic tactic to ensure

for decades.

Running contrary on the

to prevailing sociological

environmental

correlates

chose to instead employ of

the

fittest,

perfectly

of

beliefs about

Lombrosos

formed

temperament

in

1939,

docu-ment

crime,

man,

from

and this

disposition. ideal

his classification

was

Galtons

type, in

which

formed

Any combination

1940s, Sheldon known

with

that

disorders

Heclaimed a physical

in personality

system,

Sheldon

and

perfectly

associated

and behavior.

basis for all variations During the

joined

empha-ses

Darwins survival

criminal

physique

of both personality

and body build.

developed and tested as somatotyping.

(1) ectomorphs,

He

who were

thin, delicate,flat, andlinear; (2) endomorphs, who were heavy or obese, with a round, soft shape; and (3)

me-somorphs,

who wererectangular, muscular,and sturdy.

Marriage

marriage between fit individu-als,

also became a viable area of practice.

Hooten

attempted to

corresponding physical builds (Sheldon 1940).

created three classifications: 3 to 5 million others brought an im-mediate

halt to its proliferation.

and

of aclassification system of personality patterns and

deviated

eugenics enjoyed widespreadsupport in manycountries prior to

in

which pro-hibitedeugenics. Sheldon argued for an ideal

mixing of Germans with Jews (which

Although

Kretschmer

H. Sheldon (18981977)

of Lombroso

and personality (specifically, crime) through the develop-ment

persons

and

WarII, research into the biological roots of

a directlink between biology (specifically, physique)

Aryan ideal. The

Blood

Reich Citizenship

1876,

William

Nazi

Furthermore,

1935 consisted

German

in

Prevention

Nazi Germany enacted

model of the

Laws enacted in

the

A

World

crime persisted. Following in the footsteps

policies of racial

against Jews and other undesirable meet the

After

the

California,

& Popenoe 1929), used by

hygiene and racial cleaning that

who did not

in

Betterment:

its 1934 Law for the

Diseased

these arguments

resulted

In

subsequent studies

Sheldon argued that

of juvenile

delinquency,

mesomorphic types were more

likely to engage in crime, ectomorphs

were morelikel

50

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

to commit suicide, and endomorphs to be mentally ill.

Although Sheldon linked

and psychological both

characteristics

were the result

that

conclusion

Also

during

the

Glueck

longitudinal

valid

late

control

groups

somatotypes. They

1940s

into and

and

early

Glueck

juvenile added

1950s,

are

for

delinquency

to

Sheldons

suggested the addition

Sheldons

proposition

morelikely to commit

they

studied,

the

disproportionately

that

crime.

us-ing

list

of

of a fourth

somatotype

among

genetic research

of inheritance,

influence

our

genetic

greater

behaviors is still

that

another.

traits

with

mid-1950s

of the

Mendels

of how genes

evolving.

Discovery

took

genes were involved

understanding

hereditary

began

our understanding

code in the

recognizing

mesomorphs

Among the juveniles

mesomorphic represented

Although

the

conducted

type they called balanced. In their research, they found support

poor and minority populations overpowered the quest for knowledge.

laws

methods.

Eleanor

research

that

he failed to support

statistical

and

believed that any such research would be usedto op-press

physical

and concluded

of heredity,

with

Sheldon

were morelikely

us beyond

in

heredity to a

process through

are passed from

of

which

one generation

to

Part of this discovery process wasthe clarifica-tion

of

the

structure

and

function

which carry human genetic

of

chromosomes,

material

was

delinquents

by

Chromosomes

a ratio of nearly two to one as compared with nonde-linquent Human cells normally have 22 pairs of chromosomes, controls. In addition, whereasonly about 14% plus a pair of chromosomes that determines sex, for of delinquents could beclassified as ectomorphs, nearly 40% of the nondelinquent controls could be placed in this category. Instead of concluding that body type led to

delinquency,

participation

the

Gluecks (1956)

in delinquency

(for

morelikely to get arrested) a mesomorphic

which individuals

may be facilitated

explanations

popularity

their inherent

for

by having

implication prejudice

much of

often

and discrimination.

sciences.

sciences

and

in

the

social

Once again, criminologists

turned to evaluating

the internal

and

was mis-used In addi-tion,

the 1950s and 1960s brought significant natural

Sex

chromosomes

advances

sperm

of

XY.

carries genetic

chromosome,

Modern

Biological

fetus

aggression

a genetic explanation

have been

met with strong

men

and other scien-tists components

and

are

with

an

termed

and

carries an extra tested

for

some

production

Theories

for violence resistance,

and

In 1992, a conference related to the

Human

withdrawn for attempting to discuss between genes and violence

& Lapp 1994).

embryo

extra

egg, if a Y

will develop into

in

in the

a

Objections by groups who

pattern

other

the

testosterone, research

literature

Given male

sex

the

and

that

Y with

many claims that

more violent. This with scientifically

progress

car-rying

has a normal he

unless he is genetically

reason.

with

usually

never know

Ychromosome,

of behavior

(XYY).

XYY syndrome, asupermale

more aggressive and

Scientific

Y chromosome

will probably

pri-marily not been supported

Genome Project at the University of Maryland hadits

(Murphy

males

a female egg is carrying

the resulting

left

appearance

memories of how research

any particular linkage

material to the females

this chromosomal

were used in the past (eu-genics).

federal funding

the

(XX).

Erroneously

biology

and crime

males carry

abnormally. For example, during the process, some

because of painful linking

XX, and

Y.

During this process, however, things can develop

made

Eff orts to find

X and

malefetus (XY). If the sperm is carrying an Xchromo-some,

association

in

of

termed

During conception,

the sperm that fertilizes

behavioral

processesof the human body.

Genetics

are

Females carry a combination

with the belief that

of inferiority

46.

the resulting embryo will develop into a female

behavior lost

during the 1960s

to justify

the

are

of

a combination

or balanced body type.

Biological

in

that

body type rather than an ectomorphic,

endomorphic,

their

concluded

a total

made inquiry

XYY

chromo-somes

increased

have been males

supposition

are

has

valid research. into

genetic cor-relates

more precise and less speculative.

Although scholars are reluctant to associate criminal behavior with any specific gene,researchers continue to investigate the inheritability

of behavioral traits. Some

of the mostpromising workinvolves the study of twins and adoptees.

BIOLOGICAL

Twin

Galtons

work

become

more

respond

to

between

with

sophisticated

fraternal

of this type

material,

whereas

and share

of the

social

consistent

(and

similarity

between

twins

provide

One of the conducted

pairs

Seventeen

of

pairs

pair

these

was known

Lange found pairs

to

that

2 of the

More followed,

1881

one twin

engaging

but

20%

violent These on the and

twins

by

found

to both

MZ twins twins

and for

(Rowe

supported provided

a genetic

same and

of

sex. 13

each

that

of

conclusions,

who study the link

and genetics are cautious

arguing

that

these types

on behavior.

of

between twins

Whether these similari-ties

are genetic, social, or some combination

of the two

is still open for debate. Studies of adopted individuals constitute

one attempt to resolve this issue.

Adoption

Studies

In

adoption

studies,

the

behavior

of

with the outcomes of their

parents. The

asks

whether

a child

will

adopted

parents or of the biological

is

out the impact

from the influence

research

adoptees

adopted and bio-logical

aim is to separate

of the environment

of heredity. This

exhibit

traits

of

the

parents.

Research indicates that an adoptee

twin

with a biological

MZ twin

crime than other adoptees and that this effect is

both twins

stronger for boys.The findings, from a study of 14,427

among

Rowe

studies

have

evaluated

the

the

chance

other

MZ twin

pairs

correla-tion

of the true

biological for

criminal

serious

and were

in

work

the

1980s

his colleagues. more likely

delinquent

activity.

more delinquent

peers than

This

than

DZ

Moreover, did

DZ

work of Rowe and his colleagues to

delinquency

of a social component.

predisposition

and

in

& the

but also

to

Hutchins

United

Walters and of adoption impact

but

Knowing,

for

has a criminal

also

home. The

in

these

history

both

Sweden

studies, conducted

reinforced

by

the importance determine the

and genetics on criminal

emphasized

difficulties

(Mednick,

conclusions.

as the best way to

example,

social environment

Studies

of adoption

of both environment

behavior

behavior

confirm

White (1989), studies

maybe a genetic factor in

antisocial 1984).

States

A meta-analysis

methodological

careers.

by additional of twins

of

when the

pairs. The

provide evidence that there the

Gabrielli,

Denmark

the

behavior

component

and the same

However,

pairs born in

closeness

in

with their

behavior

problems

in the same

parent whois criminal is morelikely to engagein prop-erty

13

extensive

delinquency

1983). The

evidence

He

with

was especially

C.

Even scholars

criminal

compared was

Christiansen

MZ twins

raised

Danish children adopted between 1924 and 1947,

were supported

be involved

reported

frater-nal link.

a crime.

more lengthy

David that

twins

and

studies

10 of the

DZ twin

genetic

findings

1990s

of

Lange (1929).

one

He found

the

crime

self-reported

research

twin

At least

in criminal

the

crime

O.

was 50%

and

between

compared

1910.

among

between relationship

are

any greater

twins,

of 3,586 twin

and

was criminal only

generally

be equal

DZ

and

Karl

between

these

DZ pairs.

1974,

behavior

that

were of the

in

criminals,

between

twin

twins.

also are theoretical that

social environment.

have some impact

impact

a genetic

have committed

17

criminal

for

were

sophisticated In

than

who

both twins

were known

in only

the

to

simpler

pairs MZ

egg

so the impact

by Johannes

of twins

were

for

Therefore,

twins

and

1920s

genetic

a single

Twins

evidence

earlier

in the 30

these

identical

would

control

controlled).

the influence

studies reveal only that the similarities

is considered

thus

develop

of their

environment,

environment

with the assumption

identical

hypothesizing

social

of genetics from

home are subject to the same treatment

from

for twins.

separate the influence of social factors. There

material. to

are similar

social

studied

genetic

attempt

raised in the same

half

for a genetic component to behavior, it is difficult to

to the so-phistication

DZ twins

develop

environment,

environments

the

about

to

Distinctions and

of research.

have

attempted

[DZ])

MZ twins

studies

have

have contributed

share

all of their

Twin

studies

criticisms.

twins

eggs and

twin

and

(dizygotic

[MZ])

two

twins,

methodological

(monozygotic

from

51

Although twin studies have provided some support

Studies

Since

THEORY

the theoretical

inherent whether

to this approach. an adoptive

parent

no information

on the

provided in the adoptive

parents

definitions

provides

and

of crime

and criminality

also

widely varyin these studies and can be challenged. For example, one study

mayconsider as criminal behaviors

perhaps best classified as antisocial (e.g., using bad language, adultery). Furthermore, these studies do not account for the quantity or quality of social interaction

52

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

experienced within the various settings (adoptive vs. biological).

Finally, the determination that someone

is a criminal

simply

incarceration

is

undetected

Human

and

to

in

researchers

human

consistently

who

Recent

within

that

have

genetic variation

to behavioral

variation

Nearly all of the

behaviors, characteristics, abilities,

samples,

normal

Testosterone levels

these levels

to explain

is produced

(e.g.,

among

to increase

and

extremely

be-havior

throughout

that

prior to

testosterone

aggression instead

of as a re-sponse

makes correlating for

the

stimuli.

athletes increase

controlling

levels to

environmental

stimuli

difficult.

Recent research

behavior)

criminal

environmental

perhaps indicating

to aggression. This behavior

mostfrequently

were still

levels, however, are problematic.

naturally fluctuate

For example, levels

competitions, sub-stantially

across all

aggressive

with attempting

by testosterone

are derived

and conditions

personality,

although

limits.

day and in response to various

individual

studies

Two primary conclusions

from these studies: (1)

cognitive

noncriminal

on the

and adoption

evaluating

behavior.

contributes

worked

however, twin

demonstrated

types of behavior.

studied

does not consider

to have higher testosterone levels when compared with

Problems

are the best source for

erences

or

behaviors.

Genome Project,

studies

basis of a conviction

problematic

criminal

According

diff

on the

malesand females. Criminal samples have beenfound

conducted

by

Ellis in

2003,

are moderatelyto highly heritable, and (2) nonshared

however, has added an evolutionary

environments play a moreimportant

his evolutionary neuroandrogenic theory, Ellis argued

environments and tend to instead

of similar

to,

role than shared

makepeople diff erent from,

their

there

criminal

may be a genetic behavior

but

predispositions

of

levels

of

act

out,

with

reduced

testosterone

also speculated

abilities

reduce

Scholars

not) in a genetic other

potential

testosterone

of crime.

to

brains

control

emotions.

He

of testosterones

eff ects is the result of natural by Darwin.

who study levels

between

the

making a person

that the development

competitive-victimizing

these

and environ-mental selection, as described

on social

does not preclude

explanations

toward

manifestation

However, belief (or

to criminality

biological

predisposition

the

is dependent

factors. link

that

increased

sensitivity to environmental stimuli,

relatives.

Most biological scholars now cautiously conclude that

that

component. In

the

relationship

between

and crime cite as support males

and

females

in

terms

the dif-ferences of

levels

of crime in general and levels of violence in particular. Biochemical

Explanations:

This

Hormones,

Neurotransmitters,

work

biological

involves bodys or

the

bodys

cells

hormones,

or organs

organs.

masculine

explanation

traits,

are

hormones

and estrogens

with female

pregnancy

and

in

cells

associated

are associated

reproductive

of the

other

to

the

treatment

of

derivatives from

urges through

hormones (e.g.,

control for

sex

the introduction

Depo-Provera,

women). This

male

of-fenders

progesterone to of

a brand of birth

has been eff ective in reducing

some types of sex off enses (e.g., pedophilia,

exhibition-ism),

but it has hadlittle or no impact on other crimes

with

with femi-nine

hormone

male sexual

female

behavior

by some

activity

Progesterone is another

primarily

criminal

released

to regulate

Androgens

traits.

for

led

with chemical

Diet

reduce Another

has

or

violence.

associated

processes,

such

as

menstruation.

Premenstrual Dysphoric

Syndrome

and

Premenstrual

Disorder

Researchersalso haveinvestigated the impact of female Testosterone

hormones on behavior in

Testosterone

Although

is

persons

males secrete that

higher

increased

considered

it in levels

levels

of

the

both

sexes

higher levels. of this of

male

secrete

and

two

hormone.

have found

are associated aggression,

both

English cases in 1980 in

premenstrual syndrome (PMS)

testosterone,

Researchers

hormone

violence

sex

with in

violent

in the

off enses.

These

eff orts

women, beginning which two

with

women used

as a mitigating factor in led

to

female

defendants

United States being able to argue reduced culpa-bility due to

PMS

BIOLOGICAL

High levels

Morerecently, a moresevereform of PMS has been identified.

Premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD)

a severe and debilitating by the level

form

of interference

on the ability

of the

the

menstrual process has

woman to engage in the functions

a genetic link

to the

development

Women with a certain genetic structure

resulting

sensitivity

to their

in increased

with aggression.

of

PMDD.

have increased

own normal

symptoms

has examined are

mixed.

and

behaviors

hormones is postpartum

associated

depression syndrome.

mothers experience

in the

with

weeks or

symptoms

months following

and

which

approximately 1% to 2% of these mothers severe symptoms,

such

suicidal or homicidal thoughts,

as

syndrome

has successfully

and

while suff ering from

PMDD, to

its eff ects. Both

however, are controversial

be social constructions

problems instead

of

PMS

concepts,

diagnose as medical conditions,

by some to

there is little

and argued

conditions

(e.g., threats)

Diet, Food

messages between

of the brain, including

emotions, learning, researchers

crime has focused

research

and

on the

with the

response; (2) dopamine,

biological

af-fect

Although

more than

bodys

50 of

bases of

fight-or-flight

which plays a role in thinking

motivation, sleep, attention,

and feelings

manyfunctions, such as sleep, sex drive, anger,

ones body chemistry.

foods, such asfish, eggs, meat, and contain

both

produces serotonin amino

foods),

dopamine

High-protein

many dairy

high levels of the amino acid trypto-phan.

Another

and

may be controlled

(see preceding

acid, tyrosine

is related

to the

norepinephrine.

have suggested that

(also found

in

production

of

These

relation-ships

many aggressive behaviors

with a diet higher in protein and

lower in refined carbohydrates. Carbohydratesspecifically, such

as

white

refined

flour,

refined carbohydrates, white

sugar, and any processed foods sugaralso

are examined

Complex carbohydrates

in the pancreas,

rice,

which in turn

white

refined

with high levels of

as related to

into glucose, which stimulates

problem

of insulin

produces energy for the arc not processed

slowly and result in the rapid release of insulin causing a sharp

decrease in

This

sharp

decline in

blood

into the

blood sugar,

depriving the brain of the glucose necessary for functioning.

be-havior.

are slowly transformed the production

body. Simple or refined carbohydrates

of pleasure and reward; and (3) serotonin, which im-pacts bloodstream, aggression, appetite, and metabolism.

and

Minerals

What one eats impacts

on the

on three of these: (1) norepinephrine,

associated

and learning,

studied

brain

those that

mood, and behavior.

have extensively

these chemicals,

which is

Neurotransmitters

neurons, and have a direct impact

many functions

processes

conditions

Allergies,Sensitivities,

Vitamins,

behavior, they also may directly impact

transmit

and to internal

and environmental

arethe result of our responses and reactions.

products,

In addition to the possibility that human hormones may

that

com-plex

Chemical

changesin our chemistry or changesin our chemistry

high-protein

brain activity.

is extremely

disaggregate.

creates a chicken-and-egg question about

section).

directly impact

to

neurotransmit-ters

processes produce chemical changes in the

body.This

and psychiatric

Neurotransmitters

cells, called

of various

dif-ficult

medical conditions.

chemicals that regulate

in their levels

doubt that there is a direct

nearly impossible

Tryptophan

are chemicals

behaviors, and certain

been used as a

mitigating factor in the legal defense of women accused of crimes

in

whether our responses and reactions are the result of

hallucinations,

mentalconfusion, and

panic attacks. As with PMS and PMDD, postpartum depression

fluctuations

eff ect).

between levels

(e.g., fear, anxiety),

internal is primarily thought to be due to a decreasein pro-gesterone, exhibit

chemicals,

changes are part of the bodys response to environmen-tal

of depres-sion birth,

of

research that

to fluctuations

interaction

Although

female Although

levels

of these neurotransmitters

these

and behavior, this relationship phenomenon

most new

of

may contribute

relationship

physical stress. Another

all

may result in certain

(in a reciprocal

hormones,

of emotional

low

Results from

the impact

With

have estab-lished their levels

researchers

norepinephrine,

53

dopamine, and low levels of serotonin have been as-sociated

of PMS, distinguished

of everyday life. Interestingly,

(abnormal)

is

of

THEORY

proper

sugar

als

54

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

behavior, is particularly sensitive to environmental tox-ins,

triggers the release of hormones such as adrenalin and

such aslead and manganese.Behavioral difficulties,

increasesin dopamine.This combination has beenasso-ciated with increased aggression, irritability, The

state of having chronically

reduced

caused by the excessive production hypoglycemia. Individuals increased difficulty

levels

Hypoglycemia criminal

of irritability, their

Francisco

Supervisor but junk

been used to

1970s

when

George

consuming

food such as Twinkies

days. At trial,

Whitesuff ered from diminished the Twinkie

Defense (Lilly,

populations refined

have indicated

behavioral difficult,

problems

increasing

Other potential

and

disciplinary

of various

vitamins

carbohydrates contain two

and

minerals.

high levels

Facilities

that

produce,

to blame

toxins.

Research

to these types of facilities in-creases

producing

abilities,

behaviors,

store, treat,

wastes are largely

lower

frustration

violence,

and

IQs;

reduc-tions

tolerance,

self-control; andincreases in impulsivity, antisocial

because

and crimino-logical

of the brain and of the general

nervous system, in learning

environmental

promising

of environmental

the impairment central

increased

and

hyperactivity,

crime.

toxins to crime argue that our environment is producing crime by producing neurological damage. and lower-income live

near these facilities

than

not)

may help explain lower

the criminal

classes

to

morelikely

groups to be negatively

by these toxins. This,

the

populations most likely

and as a result are

white and higher-income

from

minority

groups are the ones

according

to the re-searchers,

why minorities

seem

to

catch

and people

the

attention

of

justice system in higher rates than others.

of foods and lead,

Brain

Structure

and

Function

minerals known to cause damage to brain tissue

and impact

the production

Several food

of neurotransmitters.

components

with reactions that

Whereas earlier

have been associated

mayinclude aggressive,violent, or

criminal behavior. Some people may be allergic to or exhibit increased sensitivity to chemicals contained in chocolate (phenylethylamine), (tyramine),

Others

such as monosodium populations

aged cheeses and wine

may react to food

additives,

associated vision),

and B6in comparison

to lack vitamins

to noncriminal

B3

populations.

frontal

the focus

Toxins

lobe

of the

an

area

that

has

of biological investigations into

become

criminal

that

the

the

brain

Some areas of the brain are functions brain

(e.g., speech

and

work together,

and

or event in one area inevitably our understanding

and function

aff ects other

of the brains struc-ture

has significantly

about the relationship

advanced,

we still

between the brain

and many behaviors, such asthose related to crime. In aff ects

brain,

organism. with specific

areas. Although

know little

considered

recognize

but all areas of the

addition, Environmental

theories

with various areas of specialized

modern theories

is a complex

glutamate and food dyes. Criminal

also have been found

biological

brain to be an organ function,

artificial sweeteners (aspartame), and caf-feinea problem

(xanthines).

The

of

with sociological

has shown that proximity

impacted

Once again, refined

of cadmium

impact

Scholars emphasize the fact that

of diet from

types

biological

for the production

related to food intake

may be a culprit. These

particularly

of

write-ups. It is

(or

with

Researchers whostudy the relationship of environ-mental

decreased

and the consumption

associated

and lack

metals.

of the

theories.

criminal

may aff ect behavior.

contributors

allergies

of

consumption

however, to separate the impact

food

due to his

have significantly

other potential factors that

involve

diets

been

aggression,

on human behavior is very

it integrates

nothing

that reducing intake

and

and vegetables

toxins

Cullen, & Ball 2007).

with the

carbohydrates

of fruits

City

Hisargument has come to be known as

Experimentation

Examination

argued that

capacity

have

oc-curredand dispose of hazardous

and soda for several

Whites attorney successfully

hypoglycemia.

and

White killed

Moscone and

Milk after

self-control,

mitigate

example

Dan

of

impulsivity,

levels of these heavy

expe-rience

expressions.

most infamous

Mayor

Harvey

is called

aggression,

emotional

has successfully

behavior. The during the late

San

blood sugar

of insulin

who are hypoglycemic

in controlling

such as hyperactivity,

and anxiety.

we know the

brains

little

about

structure

and

how

the

environment

function.

The frontal lobe and the temporal lobe aretwo parts of the brain examined by researchers interested i

BIOLOGICAL

criminal

behavior.The frontal lobe is responsible for

regulating lobe

and inhibiting

is

responsible

behaviors,

for

and responses Tools

and

to

evaluate

behavior

and

rely

structure,

such

emission

magnetic

tomography,

resonance

and single

computed tomography. These

HPA

An ineff ective

in the inability

childhood caused

imaging,

photon

hormones. Fishbein claimed

the

that

shrink

HPA

HPA

impedes

by damage

to

become

Cortisol

emotions

and

may be caused

its

later

and

depletes

to regulate

A dysfunctional

equipment

as electroencephalography,

tomography,

positron

results

function,

medical

cause

ineff ective.

stimuli. brain

on sophisticated

measurements,

computed

to stressors, con-sciousness,

subjective

to environmental

brain

of important

55

that increased levels of Cortisol, produced in response

and the temporal

emotionality,

production

THEORY

and

behav-ior.

by stress

development,

or it

in

may be

in life.

emis-sion

devices have been

Biosocial

Perspectives

used by researchers to compare the brain structures and

brain

functions

populations.

In addition

many changes after

between

of these

in the

to

Preliminary

physical

and

the

in both structure

providing

neural

studies

off enders

have relied

to

and

technologies

brains

exposure

criminal

indicate

small

the generalizability

before,

the

other

during,

of vio-lent diff

er

many of the studies

of these findings.

which

reduces

Moreover,these

studies also are plagued by questions of whether the brain

causes

changes

the

to

violence

the

brain.

abnormalities

in the

of

early

of

and

neglect,

to

stress.

that

in

of structural

or func-tional

the

has,

resulted

however,

off enses, such

first

the

brains

stress

shown (e.g.,

physiological

normal

exposure to its

after to

and

stress

brain

this

abuse,

responds

produce

found

(inner

enhanced

However,

in

decreased

contribute

to

acceptance

research

development

environments

event.

may result either

to a persons

addition,

the

Cortisol

eff ects

contribute In

a stressful

the

1976

of being

urban,

fight-or-flight

Selfish

disillusion

that

raised high-crime

impulses

in

not

by

Ellis in

purely

1977

(The

illustrated sociological

improved

operate

Dawkins

ex-planations

biological

under

the

faulty

from

resurgence biological scholars

of interest

1950s

to the

in explanations

mid-1970s

factor

in

the

criminal

Modern

brain

biosocial

(i.e., social learning, development

on

the

heritability there

high-stress

mid-1980s led

more closely

theories

as a poten-tial

attempt

conditioning)

to earlier

to

development

of the individual

In contrast

with

behavior.

beliefs about the sociological

victimized.

of behavior

bases. Other advances in the to examine

or

areas) that

the

(e.g.,in the study of genetics) also contributed to the

to

sensitivity

among

by

operating

19752000)

with

would

by emphasizing organism

hope for

the

with current

Publications

Gene) and

writ-ten

was among

theories

of Sociology,

and renewed

publications

disillusion

was a biological

to

biological

New Synthesis, Wilson

express

behavioral

Fall

criminological

in

repeated

by studies

The

environments.

(The and

with

most influential

1975.

to

and

social

Decline

hor-mone

criminality

is supported

of children city,

Wilson in

an individual

Cortisol, which helps to return body functions to

O.

began

assumptions of earlier biological research. Majorscien-tific

that

changes

way a person

under

E.

behavior

perspectives

was Sociobiology:

sociological

within

criminal

One of the

area

criminologists

that

in

study

sociological

perspectives

as reducing

have

to

may cause

who

developments

development

impact

Human

results

Evidence

exposure

violence)

violence

brain

in this

manslaughter.

brain

chronic

brain

whether

of criminal

murder

Studies

the

in

mitigation

charges

or

synthesize

by

brains

sizes,

scholars

perspectives.

and

individuals

but

sample

real-time

stimuli.

that of

Some

of struc-ture,

can track

or emotional

and function,

on very

images

activity

brains

noncriminal

with the biological who engages in behav-ior.

biological

of behaviors,

integrate

of behavior

theories that imply

biosocial

theories

may be a genetic predisposition

sug-gest

for certain

behaviors.

These

these

predispositions

are

expressed

in

terms

of

biological risk factors associated with increased prob-abilities

children.

A recent study by Diana Fishbein in 2003 con-cluded that behavioral problems mayoriginate in the hypothalamicpituitary-adrenal the

brain

to the

adrenal

certain

axis (HPA) that con-nectsfactors glands,

which regulate

the

of delinquency and crime when paired with environmental that

(social)

have been

performance, attention

evaluated

conditions. include

Various

risk

levels

and

IQ

deficit hyperactivity

disorder

56

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

and conduct disorder. Although low IQ is not directly associated with crime or delinquency, individuals lower

IQs

may experience

traditional

learning

environments,

delinquent, of attention

or criminal

deficit

been associated and criminal

with increased

out that this is true

be traced

to

difficult

In

levels

disorder. in

disentangle

undesirable

disorder

the

also

has

point

who also are

Both disorders

the

frontal

lobe,

can

so it

is

of each to

contrast

antisocial,

deviant, or criminal Increasing

genes pass along (or characteristics,

still

have

not

of

acts have biological

awareness of how our

do not pass along) our behavioral

how

our

brain

structures

of

how

our

are interrelated,

and

environmental

stimuli,

and

in a social environment processes

will bring

and reacts to

of how our development

impacts

all of these biological

us closer to being able to

behavior and therefore

func-tions

body chemistry

aff ects and is aff ected by our behavior

predict

being able to better control it.

Care must be taken to separate the act from the ac-tor

behaviors.

probabilities

however,

reached the level where wecan definitively determine that

of delinquent

relationship

advancements,

anti-social, roots or correlations.

in

A diagnosis

only for individuals

abnormalities

to

resulting

However, some scholars

with conduct

with

and stress in

behaviors.

hyperactivity

behavior.

diagnosed

frustration

Our scientific

to risk factors

of an individual

that

and to avoid the atrocities

may enhance the

engaging in

delinquency

to determine

biological

of the past. As our ability

correlates

of behavior expands,

so too does the danger of using such information and crime, biological protective factors, such as em-pathy, mayinhibit

this development. Empathy is the

ability of one person to identify

with another person

unethical and inhumane

ways that

or punish people on the basis of what prohibited

and to appreciate another personsfeelings and perspec-tives.behaviors their biological profiles suggest they Research has indicated that empathy is largely (68%) inherited.

This

biological

tendency

the impact

of biological risk factors.

inhibiting

protective

may help explain predispositions from

those

may counter

Research on these

will parallel corresponding to

prevent initial

behaviors

and to treat

undesirably

because

is still

quite sparse but

individuals

who do behave

people

who have genetic

biological

or biosocial influences.

and crime refrain

CONCLUSION

Adler,

F.,

theories

advances in

our

behavior

have evolved theoretical

and in

significantly

understanding

our technological

with of

hu-man

capabilities

measuring human biological characteristics

and

processes. Whereasearliest attempts to understand the relationships between biology and behavior focused on the outwardly observable, modern eff orts are looking to

the

of our bodies.

chemical

and

structural

Contemporary

biological

recognize the interactive

relationship

biological

external

events

Moreover, increasing

and

theories

Barrett,

events.

our behavior is contributing

to the development

epistemology

of criminal

of a

behavior.

O.

W.,

READINGS

&

Laufer,

justice

W. (2004).

system (5th

ed.).

McGraw-Hill.

D.,

&

movement

Kurzman, theory:

C. (2004).

The

case

Globalizing

of eugenics.

social

Theory

and

Society, 33, 505. Burnett,

J. (1773).

Edinburgh, Christiansen,

The

York:

Comte,

and

progress

of language.

A Kincaid.

K. O.(1974)

Free

among

Seriousness

of criminality

Danish twins.

In

and

R. Hood (Ed.),

and public policy (pp. 6377).

New

Press.

A. (1822).

studies

origin

Scotland:

Crime, criminology,

awareness of the complex inter-relationships our biology, and

G.

FURTHER

and the criminal

York:

concordance

also

between internal

sociological

among our environment,

rich and promising

foundations

New

AND

Mueller,

Criminology

Biological

inward,

of

behaviors.

REFERENCES

of

advances in our capabilities

undesirable

factors

delinquency

might

do. It is hoped that progress in these areas of inquiry

why some

toward

in

would stigmatize

pour

Plan

des travaux

rorganiser

la

scientifiques

socit

[Plan

necessary for the reorganization

Suite destravaux Du

Contrat

nces-saires

of scientific of society].

ayant pour objet de fonder le systme Social.

Paris:

Par

Saint-Simon

In in-dustriel,

BIOLOGICAL

Curran,

D.J.,

& Renzetti,

(2nd

ed.).

Needham

Darwin,

C.(1859).

selection,

Onthe

or the

for life.

C. (1871).

relation Darwin,

M.(2001).

origin

Harvard

John

of crime

betterment: in

means ofnatural

races in

Press. in

T &J

life.

E. (17941796). London:

Dawkins,

Zonomia

or the laws

of organic

The

selfish gene.

New York:

Oxford

G. (1586).

physiognomy].

De humana

Vico

physiognomonia

Equense, Italy:

[On

M. (1745).

Venus

Jukes:

disease and heredity. L. (1977).

The

Ellis,

L. (2003).

New York:

decline

American

and

Sociologist, Genes,

neuroandrogenic

A study in crime,

fall

12,

criminality,

theory.

In

Kevles,

Challenging Hauppauge,

E. (1896).

(5th

Sociologia

laws

Wadsworth.

and consequences.

relative

12,

development.

into

its

London:

as a criterion

and

nurture.

of

Frasers

human

faculty

and its

[Criminology].

Naples,

& Glueck,

New York: Goddard,

Samuel

garden: The

Darwinism

and

in

Anglophone of the

17, 428463.

man.

Cambridge,

MA:

Press.

New York: Physique

New

(1802).

Paris:

lost

of Genetics.

to the history

Sociology,

and the

heredity.

Trans.). J.-B.

Genetics and the

Knopf.

and

York:

Harcourt

Research

on the

character

(W.

J.

Brace. organization

of liv-ing

Maillard.

The

importance

Allgemeine

of twin

Zeitschrift

pathology

fur

for

Psychiatric

und

90, 122142.

Essays on physiognomy;

of the knowledge

Leclerc,

G.(1778). The

theory:

for the promo-tion

and love of

mankind.

eras of nature.

Paris:

London:

T.

Context

R. A. (2007).

NP. Criminological

and consequences (4th

ed.).Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage. C. (1735).

Holmiae:

from

E. (1956).

Physique

and

delinquency.

Systema

Laurentii

P. (n.d.).

naturae [System

of nature].

Salvii.

Eugenic sterilization

laws.

Retrieved

http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/

C. (1876).

Milan, Italy:

Harper.

H. H. (1912).

Lombroso,

The

Kallikak

family.

New York:

Malthus,

C.(1913). His

The

English convict:

Majestys

Stationery

A statistical Office.

study.

Mednick,

T. R. (1798).

S.,

May 25).

Luomo

delinquent

[Criminal

man].

Hoepli.

London:

Macmillan.

London:

his

essay8text.html.

NP. S.,

London:

In the name of eugenics:

E. (1925).

things.

Lombardo,

Macmillan.

Criminologia

University

D.(1985).

Linnaeus, into

Historical

Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F., & Ball,

Macmillan.

of twins

nature

Inquiries

R. (1885).

Italy:

An inquiry

566576.

F. (1883).

Garafalo,

London:

of

of France.

Holcroft.

genius:

history

powers

Magazine,

Glueck,

The

York:

Mifflin.

Crime

Lavater, J. C.(1783).

perspectives in criminol-ogy.

Hereditary

New

Mendel, the Father

Social

Psychisch-Gerichtliche,

sociology]

UTET.

CA:

of

psychiatry.

Turin, Italy:

F. (1875).

Galton,

[Criminal

race.

man, his frame,

A contribution

E. (1939).

Lange, J. (1929). su-premacy

NY: NovaScienee.

on

Monk in the

Houghton

Journal

Lamarck,

evolutionary

environmentalisms

criminate

great

(2 vols.).

Gregor

journals:

Kretschmer,

& L. Ellis (Eds.),

Biobehavioral

F. (1869).

Galton,

the

D. (2003). Belmont,

Galton,

19752000.

ed., 2 vols.).

Fishbein,

Goring,

M. (2000).

G. M.(2004).

Sprott,

and

(pp. 1336).

the

his expectations

uses of human

Putnam.

A. Walsh

Macmillan.

moral statistics

Observations

genius of

Hodgson,

pauper-ism,

5666.

Biosocial criminology:

Ferri,

R.

found

Hooten,

of sociology,

Essay on

D. (1749).

Harvard R. L. (1877). The

of the

for hu-man

operations

Richardson.

Paris:

physique.

NP.

Dugdale,

Ellis,

Hartley,

term. P.

New York:

passing

M. (1833).

academic

Apud losephum

Cacchium.

Maupertuis,

of6,000

Crochard.

New York:

Press.

Porta,

de

A.

Henig,

J.Johnson.

R. (1976).

University

della

Guerry,

duty, and

Swords.

Darwin,

The

Sterilization

ofresults

19091929.

M. (1916).

Paris:

New York:

Asummary

57

Scribners.

man and selection

garden.

California,

Grant,

the struggle

Murray.

botanic

Gosney, E. S., & Popenoe, P. E. (1929).

& Bacon.

University

descent of

to sex. London: E. (1791). The

by

of favored

MA:

The

Theories

MA: Allyn

ofspecies

preservation

Cambridge.

Darwin,

C.

Heights,

THEORY

An essay on the principle

of popula-tion.

J. Johnson.

Gabrielli,

W. F.,

Genetic influences

& in

Hutchins, criminal

B. (1984, convictions

58

CRIME

AND

Evidence

BEHAVIOR

from

an

adoption

cohort.

Science,

224,

Murphy,

T.,

Genome

& Lapp, Project.

M. (1994). Berkeley:

Justice

and the

University

of

Human California

Quetelet,

A. (1835).

D. C. (1983).

delinquent 13,

Sabra,

W. H. (1940).

Harper Spencer, The

Press.

Rowe,

Sheldon,

An introduction

891894.

Treatise on man. Paris: Biometrical

behavior:

A twin

Bachelier.

models of self-reported study.

Behavior

Genetics,

Warburg Institute.

varieties

of human

psychology.

physique: New York:

Brothers.

H. (1857,

April).

Progress:

Review,

67,

445447,

White,

T.

W.(1989).

Westminster

Its

law

and

451,

causes.

454456,

46465.

Walters, crime:

G. D., & Bad genes

or bad research?

Heredity

and

Criminology,

27,

455485.

473489.

A. (1989). The

and

The

to constitutional

optics of Ibn al-Haytham.

London:

Wilson,

E.

Cambridge,

O.(1975).

Sociobiology:

MA: Belknap

Press

The

new

synthesis.

CESARE LOMBROSOS THE BORN CRIMINAL

Gina

A

criminal

is a

the relations

man who violates the laws between its citizens,

times set forth these laws treat

multitude

decreed by the State to regulate

but the voluminous

only of crime,

codes

which in past

never of the criminal. That

whom Dante relegated to the Infernal

ignoble

Regions were consigned by

magistrates and judges to the care ofjailers and executioners, who alone deigned to deal with them. The judge, immovable in his doctrine, unshaken by doubts, solemn in all hisinviolability

and convinced of his wisdom, which no one dared

to question, passedsentence without remission according to his whim, and both judge

and culprit

were equally ignorant

of the

ultimate

eff ect of the

penalties

inflicted.

In public

1764, the great Italian attention

extorted

to those

by torture

jurist

can thus

without

founder

Classical

School

and Francesco

only at establishing undiscerning founder

(if

the sole foundation

of

for the trial,

sentence

were

not on human souls and bodies.

Penal Jurisprudence,

Carrara the greatest and

of

which

Beccaria

most glorious

of penalties. In

writing

was the

disciple,

and fixed laws to guide capricious

judges in the application wasinspired

called

statements

which was bestowed blindly,

hearing the defense, exactly as though

sound judgments

of this School

Cesare Beccaria first

whose confessions

of the punishment,

being passed on abstract symbols, The

beings,

be called) formed

the sole guide in the application without formality,

and economist,

wretched

aimed

and often

his great work, the

bythe highest of all human sentimentspity;

but although the criminal incidentally receives notice, the writings of this School treat only of the application of the law, not of off endersthemselves. This

is

the

diff

erence

Jurisprudence. The

between

the

Classical

and

the

Modern

School

of

Penal

Classical School basedits doctrines on the assumption that

all criminals, except in a few extreme cases, are endowed with intelligence and feelings

like

normal

individuals,

being prompted

thereto

was considered,

and on it the

severity of

his

of the sentence

by their

and that

they

unrestrained

whole existing

commit desire for

misdeeds consciously, evil. The

off ence alone

penal system has been founded,

meted out to the off ender being regulated

the

by the gravity

misdeed.

59

Lombroso-Ferrer

60

CRIME

AND

The

BEHAVIOR

Modern,

Jurisprudence, anti-social

their

or

Positive,

School

on the contrary,

tendencies

of

of

Penal

maintains that the

criminals

are

the

physical and psychic organization,

result

of

which diff ers

essentially from that of normal individuals;

and it aims

at studying

the

functional

phenomena

of the criminal

morphology

instead of punishing founded which

Modern School is there-fore

on a new science, Criminal as the

because it embraces

constitution

human

as anthropology

does

beings and the diff erent

races.

If

we

examine

a

number

of

criminals,

in civilized

only of primitive back

as the

we shall

times characteristics,

...

was explained

developed

orbital

the

arches

to carnivores raw flesh. Thus the span the

not

savages, but of still lower types as far

carnivora.

origin

jaws, strong canines, prominent

of the

his organic and psychic

and social life, just

in the case of normal

History

who reproduces

remarked in criminals,

Anthropology,

Natural

asin a vast plain under a

flaming sky, the problem of the nature of the criminal,

Thus

with the object of curing,

him.The

may be defined

Criminal,

and various

standing out clearly illumined

of the enormous

zygom,

and strongly

which he had so frequently

for these peculiarities

are com-mon

and savages, who tear and

also it

was easy to

of the arms in

understand

criminals

are used in

anomalies

exhibited

why

so often exceeds

height, for this is a characteristic

fore-limbs

devour

of apes, whose

walking and climbing. The by criminalsthe

other

scanty beard as

find that they exhibit numerous anomalies in the face,

opposed to the general hairiness of the body, prehensile

skeleton, and various psychic and sensitive functions,

foot, diminished

so that they strongly resemble primitive races. It

was

these anomalies that first drew myfathers attention to the close relationship savage and

made him suspect that

are of atavistic

When a young

a criminal

tendencies

doctor

at the

Asylum in

named

Vilella, an Italian crimes

of Lombardy.

Pavia, he

examination Jack the

had spread

Ripper,

terror

Scarcely had he laid

on

in the open the

when he perceived at the base, on the spot

where

the internal

occipital

crest or ridge is found in

normal

individuals,

a small

hollow,

median

occipital

fossa. ... This

which

abnormal

he

called

of the vermis, i.e., the spinal cord

separates the cerebellar lobes lying cerebral hemispheres.This the

case

of

Vilella,

that

it

underneath the

vermis wasso enlarged in almost

formed

a small,

inter-mediate

cerebellum like that found in the lower types of apes, rodents, and birds.This among inferior

races,

American Indian Peru, in is seldom

tribe

in

anomaly is very rare

with the exception of the

of the

met with in the insane

found

(40%).

It

or other degenerates,

have shown it to be prevalent

criminals.

This

discovery

of that skull,

waslike

a flash of light. At

says myfather, I

common

of

the

so

the sight

seemed to see all at once,

to

development

of the

absence of the lateral

orbits,

often

criminals

which,

imparts

jaws (prognathism) supernumerary double bone

row as in

and

criminals

snakes)

Peruvian

to

of the criminal,

and

the

hooked

aspect

of

birds

part of the face and

in some cases to a cranial

Indians):

the

who reproduces

Subsequent research showed

(epactal

character-istics

atavistic

physical,

origin

psychic, and

ancestors.

on the

that

bones

all these

one conclusion,

qualities of remote

his disciples

the

of the lower

excessive

found in negroes and animals, and

as in the

the

with

teeth (amounting

pointed

apes;

combined

to

of prey, the projection

other

part of factors

my father besides

and

atavism

come into playin determining the criminal type.These are: disease and environment.

Later on, the study of

innumerable

to

off enders

led

them

the

conclusion

that

all law-breakers cannot be classed in a single species, for their ranks include very diversified types, who dif-fer not only in their

South

Aymaras of Bolivia and

whom it is not infrequently

but later investigations

skull,

nose,

the which

enormous

ones,flattened nose and angular or sugar-loaf form of the

was cor-relatedfunctional

character

to a still greater anomaly in the cerebellum, hypertrophy

cheek-pouches,

middle incisors and frequent

size

make a post-mortem

who by atrocious

skull,

criminal

origin.

wasrequested to

Province

between the criminal and the

hand,

number of lines in the palm of the

crime,

bent towards

a particular

but also in the degree of tenacity

displayed

by them

in their

perverse

form

of

and intensity

propensities,

so

that, in reality, they form

a graduated scale leading from

the

normal

born

criminal

Born

criminals

to

the

form

off enders, but, though the

individual.

about

one

inferior

in

most important

part

third

of the

mass

of

numbers, they con-stitute

of the

whole

crimina

CESARE

army, partly becausethey are constantly appearing be-fore common to the region the public and also becausethe crimes committed by them

are of a peculiarly

other two thirds off enders),

normal

are composed

occasional

do not show

monstrous character;

and

such a

of criminaloids

habitual

(minor

criminals,

etc.,

marked degree of diversity

us

and

who

from

nucleus

naturally salient

with

the

of the

born

criminal,

wretched

manifests the

who

of the

contrast

to the

skull,

face

intimately

features just enumerated

fossa

and

myfather

brought to light

abnormal

connected

excessive dimensions

of off ender. By care-ful

and others

manyanomalies in bodily organs, and

criminal,

size,

with the greater with that of the

setting

muscles of the

and cheek-bones

besides the atavistic

of the

may have been influenced

masticatory system.

by the habit of certain

of the teeth

or tension

mouth, which accompany

eff orts and are natural to

of his School have

of the

of the jaws

admit of other explanations

They

narrow fore-head

...

gestures, the

are not the only peculiarities

by this aggravated type

research,

other

the

of the senses ascompared

centers.

and

which the

most animals, is of disproportionate

one of a greater development

median occipital

exhibited

vault

a phenomenon

of law-breakers, The

army

most numerous

anomalies.

The

low

like those of

nervous

or country from

61

...

Face. In striking

development

commence

as principal

hails.

The

the

persons.

Let

criminal

LOMBROSOS

of the

violent

mus-cular

men who form energetic

or violent resolves and meditate plans of revenge. Asymmetry is a common characteristic

functions both physical and mental,all of which serve

of the

to indicate the atavistic and pathological origin of the

criminal physiognomy.The eyesand ears arefrequently

instinctive

situated at different levels and are of unequal size, the

criminal.

It

would be incompatible

summary,

were I to give a

innumerable Modern traits

anomalies

School, to

back

to

their

with the scope of this minute description

of the

discovered in criminals

by the

attempt

to trace such abnormal

source,

or

eff ect on the organism. This

to

demonstrate

Criminal

has been done in a very

Man and his subsequent

subject,

to

Anthropology,

Prison

Recent Research in

Palimpsests,

which readers desirous of obtaining

knowledge The the

etc., etc.,

present

volume

The

senses

briefly

of criminals,

and

Eye.This

shifty

with

marked irregulari-ties

world, is

which the

naturally

of a psychic character,

glance, which are difficult

mind

the centre

of

hard expres-sion,

to

describe but

are, nevertheless, apparent to all observers. Side by side with peculiarities

of expression,

anomaliesptosis,

a drooping

unilateral;

of the iris,

on

with the

asymmetry, as

functions.

window, through

outer

many anomalies

frequently

will only touch

characteristics

the

wefind

many physical

of the

upper

eyelid,

appearance

and is

which gives the eye a half-closed

a morethorough

of the subject should refer.

principal

in

work

writings on the same

Modern Forms of Crime,

Criminal

weshall seelater, is connected

opens to the

their

minute fashion in the three volumes of myfathers

nose slants towards one side, etc.This

its fellow;

oblique

...

Other anomalies

which frequently eyelids, a

are asym-metry

diff ers in color from

Mongolian characteristic,

object of presenting a general outline of the studies of

with the edge of the upper eyelid folding inward or a

criminologists.

prolongation

of the internal fold of the eyelid, which

Metchnikoff regards as a persistence of embryonic characters. PHYSICAL

The

ANOMALIES

OF THE

BORN

CRIMINAL

The

Head. Asthe seat of all the greatest disturbances,

this

part

naturally

anomalies,

which

manifests the greatest extend

from

the

external

of the brain-case to the composition The

criminal

characteristics

skull

does not exhibit

of size and shape.

it tends to be larger

or smaller

number

of

conforma-tion

of its contents. any

marked

Generally speaking,

than the average skull

Ear.The

external ear is often of large size;

occasionally

also it is smaller than the ears of normal

individuals.

Twenty-eight

handle-shaped chimpanzee: levels.

...

per cent.

ears standing

of criminals

have

out from the face asin the

in other cases they are placed at diff erent

Anomalies

are

also

found

in

the

lobe,

which

in some cases adheres too closely to the face, or is of huge size as in the ancient

Egyptians; in

other cases

62

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

the lobe is entirely absent, or is atrophied till the ear

especially in

assumesa form like that common to apes.

swindlers.

The

Nose.This

of aflattened,

is frequently

twisted,

up-turned

negroid character in thieves; in

The

or

murder-ers,

on the contrary, it is often aquiline like the beak of

The

Mouth. This

part shows

perhaps

a greater

any other facial

organ.

have already alluded

to the excessive development

the jaws in criminals.

...

The

lips

have thin,

of violators

The

of women and

lips.

of

is

An increase

found

character

of

human

murderers are

more common

in

in

common

races

The

uncommon

Palate. ...

in

as in

Another frequent

Teeth.These

abnormality is

are specially important,

have normal

incisors

dentition. The

are

absent

and

excessive size, a peculiarity rodents.

the

incisors

Sometimes

the

show

homodontism

middle

show

both the

ones

the premolars,

are

Premature

projects

of

of

caries

Chin.

is

is limited

to

part of the face

Europeans. In criminals it is

almost invariably

manifested by criminals,

observer.

Hair.The

cannot fail

Pelvis

hair of the scalp, cheeks and chin,

of anomalies. In general it hair,

criminals

of

both

sexes

sex.

Abdomen.

lowest

The

organs sometimes

The

Upper

frequent

limbs,

Limbs.

anomalies of the

owing to

nipples,

order

of

a

the

exhibited

of

humerus

in the

and

with the lower

which the span of the arms exceeds the character.

bones

Six per cent exhibit

rare among

foramen,

where

it

normal in-dividualsthe

a perforation

articulates

is normal in the ape and

found

most striking

by criminals is the exces-sive

which is extremely

the

pelvis,

show an inversion

arms as compared

olecranon head

abdomen,

One of the

height, an ape-like

an anomaly

with

in the the

ulna.

dog and is frequently

of prehistoric

man and in some

of

the existing inferior races of mankind. Several

abnormal

characters,

which

point

to

an

Supernumerary fingers (polydactylism)

tend

to

exhibit

Dark hair prevails

or a reduction

in the usual number are not uncommon. ... The length of the fingers

varies according

which the individual

crimes

against the

The often

lines

thieves,

have short,

sexual

of crime guilty

lines

nature

of

clumsy fingers

Long fingers are common off enders,

and

pickpockets.

on the palmar surfaces of the finger-tips

of a simple

principal

to the type

is addicted. Those

person

and especially short thumbs.

to swindlers, may be said that in the dis-tribution

of the opposite

and

...

to

...

eyebrows, and other parts of the body, shows a number

of

anomaly.

we often find

or absence of the or

are

normal ones

atavistic origin, are found in the palm and fingers.

Wrinkles. Although common to normal individu-als,

characteristics

nipples (which

women.

sex-characters.

This

common.

Generally speaking, this

the abundance, variety, and precocity of wrinkles

The

unifor-mity

Polymastia,

on the contrary,

monotremata

Hottentot

with tubercles like

of gorillas and orang-outangs.

moderately in

the

or prehistoric

below the

of

total

vertebrates.

long, short or flat, asin apes.

strike

atavistic

numerical

mankind.

and reproductive

often small and receding, asin children, or else exces-sively

to

of civilised

of

The

of

uniformity,

lower

uniformity

which are furnished

molars, a peculiarity

The

a strange of the

In some cases, however, this

...

the

number

an

The chest is often covered with hair which givesthe

for crimi-nals

which recalls the incisors

Very often the teeth

the

with

development

length

recalls

contrasts

the is

many mammals) is not an uncommon

those

...

which

in

This

subject the appearance of an animal.

the greatest number of anomalies. lateral

are not

mammals; or the breasts are flabby and pendent like

criminals.

development. rarely

decrease

criminals.

placed symmetrically

imperfect

cleft palate, a fissure in the palate, due to defective The

or

of

or the presence of supernumerary generally

which recall the pouches of certain species of mam-mals, not

delinquent

to animals and lower

and

characteristic

are

12%

... In female criminals,

persons. Folds in the flesh of the cheek

to the

limbs.

Thorax.

ribs

We

asin negroes. Swindlers

Hare-lip is

than in normal Cheek-pouches.

peculiar

characteristic

and protruding,

straight

criminals

and The

of anomalies than

fleshy, swollen

blemishes

only confined to the face and head, but are found in the trunk

a bird of prey. ...

number

murderers, and curly and woolly hair in

...

as in

the

anthropoids.

are The

on the palm are of special significance

CESARE

whereasin normal individuals

Normal persons possessthree, two horizontal and one vertical, to

but

one

in

criminals

or two

of

these

horizontal

lines

are

often

or transverse

direction,

as

in the normally constituted scarce or entirely

in apes. The

Lower

Limbs.

Of

a number

of

criminals

16% showed an unusual development trochanter,

a protuberance

where it

articulates

on the

with the

The

above

of the

mobility

big-toe,

of the quadrumana,

used for

prehensile

Cerebrum

and

the

Cerebellum.

chief

and acquired

of the vermis, in

the

In

lower

through

which represents

born criminals of large,

illness. The

the

middle lobe found

and epileptics and

numerous

to criminal

skull and

and, marked,

anthropologists

peculiar to cretins form

what is called

case have the anomalies

since they are neither the cause

tendencies

of

the

criminal

of the cretin. They

nor

of

the

are the outward

...

The

above-mentioned

anomalies

cells,

supplemented

and all these

converge,

mountain

there is a preva-lence the

polymorphous

are further

physiognomical and skel-etal

peculiarities, as

plain, towards

...

pyramidal,

trunk,

evokes evil impulses that arelargely of atavistic origin.

most

of the cerebellum is the hypertrophy

mammals.

when

type. In neither

importance,

anti-social

limbs,

of degeneration, which in the case of the criminal

and

to the sensory and functional left-handedness common anomaly

abound in

and visible signs of a mysterious and complicated pro-cess The

mostcommon anomalyis the prevalenceof macroscopic

notable

they

type, in exactly the same way as the sum

mental deficiencies

grasping.

anomalies in the left hemisphere, which are correlated to criminals

the

face,

the

what is known

an intrinsic of

in

the

the cretinous

of the toes and

produce the

which is

and in

The foot is often flat, asin negroes.... The

in

the inter-digital of the characters

hand are very common,

with the greater

greater length

all,

asthe criminal

Feet. Spaces between the toes like

conjunction

anomalies

constitute

of the

in quadrupeds.

spaces of the

foot,

These

distinctly

with the position

white substance, in the

and epileptics

this part of the brain. ...

head of the femur

pelvis. This

atavistic character is connected hind-limb

of the third

Whereas, moreover,

brain, nervous cells are very

absent in the

case of born criminals

exam-ined,

63

small, triangular, and

star-shaped cells predominate. ...

reduced

LOMBROSOS

born

criminal

abnormal

streams to the

a central ideathe

by functional characteristics hollow in the

atavistic

nature of

CHAPTER III

Psychological

Theorie

PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES OF CRIME

John

W

hy do individuals

commit

in our society? The questions,

crimes?

criminal

and criminologists

At the same time,

why is crime present

justice system is very concerned

are attempting

to answer them.

with these

In actuality,

the

question of why crime is committed is very difficult to answer. However,for cen-turies, people have been searching for answers ( Jacoby 2004). It is important

to

recognize that there are manydiff erent explanations asto whyindividuals commit crime (Conklin

2007). One of the

mainexplanations is based on psychological

theories, which focus on the association among intelligence, personality, learning, and criminal

behavior. Thus,

must contemplate

Whenexamining three

theorists

have expanded

the

Also germane Combined,

perception to

work of

perception

his or her potential to commit how an individuals

crimes. The

Gabriel Tarde through

crime. In other

one

of the on the

his or her likeli-hood Behavioral

behavior

modeling

major premise of which sug-gests

manifested ( Jacoby, 2004) aff ect

words, behavioral theory focuses on

of the world influences theories

his or her behavior.

are personality

or characteristics

behavioral, personality, and intelligence) individual

which is centered

experience influences

and how it is

psychological

these five theories

causation,

second is behavioral theory.

third is cognitive theory, the

that an individuals

crime

of crime, one must be cognizant

early, childhood

future

and social learning. The

theories

first is psychodynamic theory,

an individuals

for committing

concerning

theories.

psychological

major theories. The

notion that

in any discussion

psychological

and intelligence.

(i.e., psychodynamic,

cognitive,

off er appealing insights into

maycommit a crime (Schmalleger 2008).

why an

However, one should not

assume this there is only one reason why a person commits crime. Researchers looking for a single explanation should be cautious, becausethere is no panacea for the problem of crime.

EARLY

Charles

Goring (18701919)

flawed intelligence.

RESEARCH

discovered

Goring examined

a relationship

more than

between

3,000 convicts in

crime

and

England. It is

6

W. Clark

68

CRIME

AND

important

BEHAVIOR

is morality.The superego serves to passjudgment Goring found no physical dif-ferences

to note that between

noncriminals

he did find that criminals to be unintelligent,

that

ultimately thought

or inventive

the

however,

poor social behavior.

Gabriel Tarde (18431904),

individuals

imitate that

criminals;

are morelikely to beinsane,

and to exhibit

A second pioneer is maintained

and

learn

from

one another.

other

Interestingly,

out of 100 individuals, and the remainder

each

who

behavior

The

ego

Tarde

actions

of individuals

gratification

and the strict

right from committed,

wrong.

advocates of psychodynamic committed

miserable

of psychodynamic

individuals

theory

personality is controlled

suggest that

an

by unconscious

mental processesthat are grounded in early childhood.

and aggravated. They

which

by a lack of love and/or

is

most

often

nurturing,

of psychoanalysis. Imperative to

this theory are the three elements or structures that make up the

human

personality:

ego, and (3) the superego. as the

primitive

part

(1) the id, (2), the

One can think

of a persons

that is present at birth.

biological

has a weak(or absent) ego. Mostimportant, suggeststhat having a weak egois linked

unconscious

sex, and other

necessities over the life span.

is known

is often paramount All

too

criminal

often,

one

with instant

while disregarding

stories

and

concern for and it

behavior.

studies

Is it possible that these

MENTAL

orders. Criminal

DISORDERS

AND

CRIME

but

off enders

of crime are mood dis

may have a number

disorders that are ultimately

disorder

found

and

in

children

disorder

is

Clark,

are ultimately

mood

One example

conduct

acceptable

& Cornell

of

manifested as depression,

disorder.

have difficulty

behaving in socially

maleand female of-fendersMurrie,

are driven by instant gratification? The second

theory

rage, narcissism, and social isolation.

with conduct

about

off enders who have no concern for anyone

themselves.

with weak egos maybe morelikely to engagein drug

makeup

as the pleasure principle,

news

and dependence

abuse.

Most im-portant Within the psychodynamic

when discussing criminal sees

research

with poor or

drives for food,

is the idea that the id is concerned

others. This

off ender

on others. Researchfurther suggests that individuals

believed the id

represents the

pleasure or gratification

or

of the id is

mental

Freud (1933)

unhappy, characterized

a criminal

This theory was originated by Sigmund Freud (18561939), absenceof social etiquette, immaturity, the founder

are

occurred in their

Because of a negligent,

childhood,

would

suggests that crimi-nal

drawn to past events that

early childhood.

theory

a crime because

superego.

theory

off enders are frustrated constantly

Proponents

of the superego.

However, when a crime is

In sum, psychodynamic

THEORY

desire for instant

morality

suggest that an individual

( Jacoby 2004).

PSYCHODYNAMIC

on

1933).

One can assume that young adults as well as adults un-derstand

he or she has an underdeveloped

were prone to imitation

(Freud

mediates between the ids

and

only 1 was creative

and

2008).

of a

Children

following

rules

ways (Boccaccini, Conduct

disorders

manifested as a group of behavioral and

element of the human personality is the ego, which is

emotional problems in young adults. It is important

thought to develop earlyin a persons life. For example,

note that children diagnosed with conduct disorder are

to

whenchildren learn that their wishescannot be grati-fied viewed by adults, other children, and agencies of the instantaneously, they often throw atantrum. Freud (1933)

suggested that

the

ego compensates

demands of the id by guiding

an individuals

for the actions or

behaviors to keep him or her within the boundaries society. The third

ego is guided

element

friends

the

moral standards

parents; and significant

and clergy

members.The

ill.

focus of the superego

It is important

to inquire

include

child

school performance, Children

as to

why some children

some of the

and atraumatic

with conduct

disorder

aggressive behaviors toward

et

2008),

and

are

most promi-nent

abuse, brain damage, genetics, poor

exhibit al.

or evenmentally

disorder and others do not.There

many possible explanations;

and values of others, such as

bad, delinquent,

develop conduct

principle. The

of personality, the superego, develops as a

person incorporates the community;

by the reality

of

state astrouble,

they

event. are

morelikely

to

others (Boccaccini

may be cruel

to

animals

PSYCHOLOGICAL

Other manifestations include fear; initiating

fights;

golf club, or a baseball bat. could

also

sexual activity. one

someone

Other conduct into

to destruct unacceptable

an individuals

obligations,

Last,

more likely

to

A second example

most often

behaviors lying

fires

with the

associated

and stealing,

obtain

desirable

with

violate

conduct

curfews

build-ing

despite their

home

and

to

be

late

for

or

truant

There is no question that children above-mentioned

behaviors

must

a

and psychological examination. It is important that

many children

with conduct

well have another posttraumatic attention

existing

stress disorder,

to recognize

that

children

likely to have continuing, do

not

receive

treatment, accustomed

to

continue

the

the

earliest

will

not

demands

of

onset.

be

able

adulthood

and even with finding

or occupation.

disorder

Treatment

is often considered

with a variety

and

of children complex

oppositional defiant disorder

or attachment that

are

are

viewed

The

second theory

disorder focuses

learned

of a

with conduct It

in authority that the and

at

medical doctor convincing

Behavior therapy help the

anger.

clinician

to consider is

others, and eliminate

fear in their lives.

and psychotherapy

may be necessary

child learn

Moreover, special

required for children cases, treatment

how to

control

education

with learning

may include

and express

classes

disabilities.

prescribed

may be In some

medication,

with in

issues

to explain

oppositional theory

of oppositional that

years. defiant

suggests the defiant

demonstrate

disor-der

the

eff ects

used by parents or persons to recognize

observed in adolescents

oppositional

defiant

children

disorder

without

this

also

disorder.

Relevantexamplesinclude a child whois hungry,tired, or disobeys/argues to

note that

with his or her parent. adolescents

and

children

with oppositional defiant disorder often exhibit symp-toms that

component for the

the child to develop a good attitude, learn to

cooperate, trust

to

or psychological

a productive

developmental

on learning. This

times,

disorder

during the early toddler

attitudes

children

occur,

It is important

ultimately living

of

defiant

(Siegal 2009). It is important

troubled,

An important

or autonomous

oppositional

majority of symptoms

behavior patterns takes time. As mentioned previously, and for

problems begin in

mayhave experienced a

as a continuation

early treatment offers a child a greater probability for and successful life.

of

of negative reinforcement

will

is rarely brief, because establishing new attitudes and

improvement

however, there

figure. In essence, the bad attitudes

characteristic

were not resolved

are

maintaining

and exigent.

is no known

skills andlearning to separate from their primary care-taker

become and

figures,

2008). There

suggests that

negative characteristics

Without

to

and other authority

children as early asthe toddler years.It is important to

are

problems if they

to have problems and issues

relationships job

at

children

disorder

toward

defiant disorder;

Onetheory

that

2008). It is important

with conduct

and

behaviors

are two primary theories that attempt to explain its de-velopment.

very

such as anxiety,

long-lasting

treatment

these

to note

drug or alcohol abuse, or

deficit disorder (Siegal

a very

to lose ones temper;

difficult time developing independent

medical

disorder could

condition,

disorder

note that adolescents and small children who develop

school.

who exhibit the receive

defiant irritability;

annoying

peers, parents, teachers,

parents

from

atendency

deliberately

cause of oppositional

are

desires.These children also are morelikely to run away from

negative attitude;

is

Manifestations

of oppositional

defiance; uncooperativeness;

in children

2008). This

childhood.

such as police officers (Siegal

individuals disorder

disorder (Siegal

diagnosed in

exhibiting

goods, avoiding

possessions from

children

with

breaking

of a disorder found

defiant

or characterizations

or even kill some-one. include

house or an unoccupied to

and taking

stores.

starting

69

medicine would ideally be reserved for chil-dren

is oppositional

unwanted

CRIME

or spontaneity/impulsivity.

with conduct

into

property

disorder include

or car, lying

bottle, a

damage may also be a concern;

may observe these children

ultimate intent

or

Adolescents

force

Property

a broken

OF

experiencing problems with depression, attention,

and using a weapon, such as

a gun, a knife, a box cutter, rocks,

disorder

although

bullying; intimidation;

THEORIES

hinder the learning process, lead to poor

adjustment

in school, and

relationships oppositional tantrums, comply to follow

with others.

hurt the childs

Some of the symptoms

defiant disorder include excessive arguments

with adult requests,

frequent

others for ones

mistakes, being easily annoyed

of

temper

with adults, refusal to

questioning

rules, refusing

rules, engaging in behavior intended

or upset others, blaming or

most likely

to annoy

misbehaviors

by others, frequentl

70

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

having an angry attitude, speaking harshly or unkindly,

marked by extreme highs and lows; the person alter-nates

and deliberately behavingin waysthat seek revenge. In

regard

parents

to

diagnosis,

who identify defiant

the child disorder.

be taken to a qualified health professional Doctors

is

it

often

into the history

of any previous

childs

behavior.

are desirable.

often prevent future

mental

disturbance

into their

often

behavior.

is schizophrenia.

exhibit

illogical

processes, and they

and

often lack in-sight

behavior and do not understand

reality.

also experiences

behavior delusions that involve

persecution

A

wrongdoing

( Jacoby 2004). Individuals

or

with paranoid

schizophrenia

often believe everyone is out to get them.

It is important

to note that research shows that female

and

Actually, early treatment

can

off enders appear to have a higher probability mental health symptoms include

problems.

disorders, conduct

melancholic

individuals

thought

behavior

of the

As always, early detection

mental health problems, including

anxiety

incoherent

loud

may assist

observations

Oppositional defiant disorder mayexist alongside other

mental health

complex

will verify the

also

and

and

be-havior,A person with paranoid schizophrenia

of all interested

testing

assertive,

listless,

Schizophrenic

diagnosis.

of the childs

and

clinical

Psychological

in assigning a diagnosis. treatment

and/or

the perspective

parties (i.e., parents and teachers)

must

excited,

and lethargic,

second with op-positional

or adolescent

medical doctor

which includes

and

However, children

who will make an official

will inquire

results

teachers

between

mood and

disorder, and attention

symptoms

obsessive

than

male off enders. These

of schizophrenia,

behaviors.

At the

of serious

same

paranoia,

time,

studies

and

of

males

accused of murder havefound that three quarters could be classified as having some form

of

mentalillness.

deficit hyperactivity disorder. Treatment for children

Another interesting fact is that individuals

and adolescents with oppositional

been diagnosed with a mentalillness are morelikely

will be determined childs

physician childs

medications

caretaker include

health,

also considers

symptoms,

or parent.

anger

childs

expectations

that

therapy.

making changes

for

of a certain

for the course

treatment

and they

appear in court

rate. Last, research suggests children

have a higher rate of clinical

compared (Siegal

with adolescents in the

at a dispro-portionate

mat delinquent mental disorders

general

population

2008).

Treatment

could BEHAVIORAL

control,

may also be in the

system

The

with the

second This

major psychological

theory

skills. Peergroup therapy, whichis focused on developing social skills and interpersonal skills, also

theory

maintains that

developed through

of behavioral and com-munication

interaction

THEOR

and

Here, the approach is focused

family

be arrested,

problem-solving

impulse

within the family

desired goal of improved

to

or preference of the

teaches

skills,

management skills. of family

or totality

tolerance

Most important,

communication

form

who considers the medical history. The

and the opinion

psychotherapy

skills,

and

the extent

the

or therapies,

of the condition,

on

by a physician

age, overall

defiant disorder

who have

learning

is behavior-ism.

human

behavior is

experiences. The

theory is the notion that

hallmark

people alter or

change their behavior according to the reactions this behavior elicits in other people (Bandura 1978). In an

is an option.The last and least desirabletreatment op-tion ideal situation, behavior is supported by rewards and is

extinguished

medication.

by negative reactions or punishments.

Behaviorists view crimes aslearned responses to lifes situations. MENTAL

ILLNESS

AND

CRIME

behavior The

The result

most serious forms in

mental

disturbances

are referred

Examples

of

disorder

and

of personality

disorders.

The

most

disturbance serious

to as psychoses (Siegal

mental health schizophrenia.

disorders include Bipolar

will

Social learning theory, theory, is the

most prominent

Bandura

(1978).

are not born

mental

2008).

suggested that, are learned

disorder

is

(Bandura

most relevant

social learning

Bandura

in

through

contrast,

ability

1977). In

other

that

is

Albert

individuals

to act violently.

violence

a process

of

of

to criminology. theorist

maintains

with an innate

bipolar

which is a branch

and

He

aggression

behavior

words, children

model-ing learn

PSYCHOLOGICAL

violence through the observation of others. Aggressive acts are modeledafter three primary sources: (1) family

the relationship the fact that

experiences, and (3) the

mass media. Research on family that

children

demon-strates enables

interaction

who are aggressive are morelikely

to have been brought

up by parents or caretakers

who

The

second

source

of behavioral

experiences, who reside in to

reside

in low-crime

display

argue that and absence

who

local

2006).

areas are without 2001).

norms, rules,

Furthermore,

behavior.

One could

there

is

an

Manifestations

of

to gain

who

adhere

to

conventional

behavior

children

and

from

with sorrow

acts, social learning to inflict

adjusting

to the

when the

does the child

or

or indiff erence ( Jacoby

for stimuli

theorists harm

10,000 prevents

response. Thus,

about a homicide,

When searching

is likely

Furthermore,

over a 10-year period

an individual

news reports

2004)?

or adolescents

behavior.

desensitizes

psychological

adolescent respond

that foster

suggest that

violent

an individual

when he or she is subject to a

violent assault, verbal heckling or insults,

disparage-ment,

and the inability to achieve his or her goals and

drug or alcohol abuse; and failure to

obeythe local, state, and federal laws. Mostimportant,

71

media violence

A person could argue that viewing on television

aggressive behavior than those areas (Shelden

their

violence

(i.e., desensitizes)

individuals

prone

unconventional behavior include the inability

individuals

media

appropriate

conventional

employment;

consistent

more

(Bohm

of

that

are crime

CRIME

media and violence is

aggressive children

or rationalize

are

high-crime

customs

suggests

areas that

likely

or allows

to justify

homicides en-vironmental

problems,

between the

many studies suggest that

adolescents.

are aggressive ( Jacoby 2004).

OF

whom does society blame or punish? Substantiating

interaction,

(2) environmental

THEORIES

aspirations (Siegal 2009).

are

invested in society and committed to a goal or belief system. They activities,

are involved

such

as football,

baseball,

often they have an attachment The It

is

difficult

to

video

violence

are

theories

the

harmful

Scouts,

the

ultimate

2004).

role

mass of

to

mass media are responsible

violence in our society. They

major psychological

criminal framework.

shows that

depict

processes

Ultimately,

social

theorists

children. us to

A third

In recent years, significant

the

Scholars have suggested that

beckon

accept the fact

that

for a great deal of the

hypothesize

that children

who play violent

video games and later inflict

or psychological

damage to someone

at school

THEORY

and

problems is the

games, and television

learning

Girl

to family (Kraska

discern

media in regard to crime. films,

or

third source of behavioral

media.

COGNITIVE

in schools or extracurricular

within the cognitive

Here, psychologists of individuals.

is cognitive theory.

focus

on the

More important,

attempt to understand

theory mental

cognitive

how criminal

off enders

perceive and mentally represent the world around them (Knepper

2001).

individuals

solve

19th-century

physical did so

behavior

theory

gains have been madein ex-plaining

and

Germane to cognitive problems.

Two

psychologists

William James.

theory is how

prominent are

pioneer-ing

Wilhelm

Two subdisciplines

Wundt

of cognitive

becauseof the influence of the video game.Important

theory are worthy of discussion.The first subdiscipline

to note that in the above-mentioned

is the

mediaoutlets (e.g.,

moral development branch, the focus of which

video games), violence is often acceptable and even

is understanding

celebrated.

reason about the world.The second subdiscipline is in-formation

Moreover,there are no consequences for

the actions of the provide

significant

athletes

the

of misbehavior

Over the last

many documented

children

who

50 years, there

behavior

cases have important observe

a 10-year-old

amateur

he haslearned

by observing

this

without

people acquire, retain, and retrieve information 2009).

behavior.

athlete imitates

on and

and retrieval). focuses

implications Thus,

when

One theory on

reasoning fashion.

Thus,

from

(Siegal,

with the pro-cess retention,

within the cognitive frame-work

moral and intellectual

Jean Piaget (18961980)

behavior that

professional sports figures,

Ultimately, scholars are concerned

of those three stages (i.e., acquisition,

cases of professional

who engaged in inappropriate

off the field. These for

example

consequences.

have been

processing. Here,researchers focus on the way

major players. Professional athletes

an interesting

how people morally represent and

hypothesized

development. that

the in-dividual

process is developed in an orderly birth

onward

an individual

wil

72

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

continue to develop. Another pioneer of cognitive

to stage four, the premise is based on law and order.

theory is

In this stage, individuals recognize the importance

applied

Lawrence

Kohlberg (19271987),

the concept theory.

of

Kohlberg

pass through Most important are levels, levels

(1984)

who

laws, rules, and customs. This to crimi-nological

moral development

believed that

stages of

to his theory is the notion that there

stages, and social

orientation.

are Level I, preconventional; and Level III,

The

three

postconventional.

With respect

I. Stages 3 and 4 fall under

Level

under

This

Level II, and Stages 5 and

level is

wrong.

most often found

through

fifth

at the grade levels

grade.

themselves

in

a

manner

that

is

consistent

with socially acceptable norms (Kohlberg

in society, pillars

to

chaos.

In

the

obedience.

must obey Ultimately, of right and

without laws and punish-ments if

an individual

suggested that

in our society remain

morality is driven

Stages 5 and 6 exist at the postconventional Stage 5 is referred are

to as the social contract.

concerned

with

the

moral

of

with the basic values of liberty, the

terms associated with this stage are majority decision and compromise. Stage 6 is often termed

the threat

or application

conscience. This

of punishment.

by individualism, Ultimately,

individuals

seek

recognize that

the to

their

conventional in

individuals likely

level

young adults

own

the

(Kohlberg

stage

of

Mostimportant

through

way are more

viewpoints

and expectations

and fourth

Important that

this stageis the idea that individuals or not other

of them (Kohlberg attorney,

what role

Tangentially, It is important this

where agood

his or her standing

or disapprove

For example, if you are an

does society

expect you to

play?

does the clergy hold in society?

to note that

stage as well.

this is

people approve

1984).

what role

concept within

perception is germane to

Ultimately,

the literature

boy or girl attempts or role

within society.

suggests

and criminology

is

The

would ultimately

argued that

call for

Hesuggested that individuals

is that

are significantly

the

disobeying could

prog-ress

fashion.

Kohlberg suggested

lower

in their

moral

development. next subdiscipline This

people

to recognize that

Kohlberg

for criminology

judgment

stages fall

areinterested in

universal

the six stages in a chronological

criminals

area

is

When

is the information-processing

predicated

use information

with this is the understanding of

the roles that one plays. Animportant

justice

is subjective. Thus,

unjust laws.

recognizes that he or she is now a member of

whether

to criminal

by

human autonomy.

or grounded in justice. It is important justice

is often

by comparing

characterized

and respect for

principled

the notion that laws are valid only if they are based on

under this level of development. In Stage 3, the indi-vidual branch. society. Coinciding

stage is

of justice

It is believed that

moral reasoning

of actions

third

principles

quest for justice

1984).

morality

1984). The

and

means acting in ones

or adults.

those actions to societal

suggests

interests

who reason in a conventional

to judge

and

do the same. This

behavior

own best interests (Kohlberg The

Stage 2 is

instrumentalism,

characterization

fulfill

others should

maintains that the right

found

societal

rules and values, but only insofar as they are related to or consistent

Ultimately, this obedience is compelled by

exchange.

level.

Here,indi-viduals

worth

principal.

that

at this

by outside forces.

behavior is attributed to au-thoritywelfare of humanity, and human rights. Fundamental

conforming

figures such as parents, teachers, or the school

characterized

who

others would recognize that

Kohlberg (1984)

majority of individuals which

one

of society.

contrast,

breaks the law is punished, and exhibit

of

because in

the significance

Obviously, a society

During this stage,

conduct

function

the social

must recognize

leads

with obedience and punish-ment.

individuals

1984). This

individuals

stage, in

III.

Stage 1 is concerned

of kindergarten

Level

properly

and recognize

Level II, conven-tional;

to the diff erent stages, Stages 1 and 2 fall under

6 fall

order to in-dividuals

moral development.

is important

to

on the

understand

an individual

makes

notion their

a decision,

that

environ-ment. he

or she

engagesin asequence of cognitive thought processes.To illustrate, or

store

and

these

individuals the

relevant

interpreted

information

at a later

individuals

and then they they

experience

search

findings

regarding

use information

With respect

delinquent

or

for

and

so

be

it

can

(Conklin

the

appropriate

this

decision. There

Second,

response,

action.

are

more likely

behavior

Last,

are some vital

process. First, individuals

properly criminal

encode

retrieved

2007).

determine the appropriate

must act on their

to ascertain

date

an event

(Shelden

to

who avoid 2006)

PSYCHOLOGICAL

Second,

those

who

judgments

to

avoid

a mental script that

is prolonged

third

of faulty

or rejection

by parents

consequences

has

Contemplating

rejection

demonstrated

violence as a coping

that

preference for

entertain

the

who

Openness, referring

73

who score high on

In contrast,

than

The

is related

fourth to

have a curious.

maintain

who

are

unconven-tional

closed-minded.

who score low in behave in

and have a conservative

pleasure

positive and negative emo-tions

individuals

persons

find

Openness are willing to

or novel ideas,

prefer the familiar,

more

& Mazarolle 2001).

so

to indi-viduals

feelings,

and are intellectually

values, and experience

use

likely to exhibit other problems, such as alcohol and

to their inner

variety,

unique

more

self-esteem.

individuals

is

beauty, are attentive

A

or dismissal is

mechanism are substantially

drug dependency (Piquero

in

is oversensitivity

or peers.

of long-lasting

domain

Individuals

may account for

likely to produce damage to an individuals Research

may be

exposure to violence.

reasoning

third

who have an active imagination,

on a

waslearned in childhood

flawed reasoning

The

for flawed

he or she

CRIME

and shy (Clark et al. 2007).

decisions

may be relying

Asecond reason that

possibility

events are

an explanation

OF

often characterized by being reserved, independent,

reasoned

behavioral

process; specifically,

( Jacoby 2004).

make

with emotional

is that the individual

cognitive

following

to

antisocial

2008). Interestingly,

reasoning faulty

conditioned

when faced

more likely (Siegal

are

THEORIES

Openness often

conventional

viewpoint

(Clark

manners,

et al. 2007).

domain is

Agreeableness. This

interpersonal

tendencies.

domain

Individuals

who score high on this domain are considered warm, altruistic,

forgiving,

softhearted,

sympathetic,

and

trusting. In contrast, those who are not agreeable are described as hard-hearted, intolerant, impatient, PERSONALITY

AND

CRIME

argumentative.

Conscientiousness, the fifth Personality can be defined as something what

we are

and

others (Clark, Ideally,

also

between

theories

model provides

results.

Big Five

a vigorous

five

Conscientiousness

Individuals

from

Examinations

of

and crime

have

One of the

most

used to examine

structure

into

which

domains (1)

anxiety. In

Neuroticism

are often

persons described

tempered,

calm, and relaxed.

whoscore high

The

domain,

second

by sociability,

optimistic

is

as even

(Clark

are thought

are often

also are more

In contrast, introverts

to be careless, lazy, and

morelikely

et al. 2007).

One personality

study

discovered

of hostility, impulsivity, with delinquent

that

the

per-sonality

and narcissism

and criminal

research conducted

Furthermore,

behavior.

by Sheldon and

a number of personality traits that

are

werecharacteristic

of antisocial youth (Schmalleger 2008). Another im-portant figure is

who examined the criminal personality

Hans Eysenck (19161997).

antisocial

score

Individuals

(extraverts)

and assertive. They

toward the future.

on

characterized

and stimulation.

who score high on Extraversion very active, talkative,

domain

personality

neuroticism.

Extraversion,

excitement,

by others

who are conscien-tious

Eleanor Glueck during the 1930s and 1940s identified

Neuroticism

who score low

those

are

determined,

assign fault to others than to accept blame themselves

ideas, uncontrollable impulses,

contrast,

efficient,

desires. In contrast, people who score low on this

traits

on this domain often demonstrate anger and sadness and

willed. In addition,

Conscientiousness

are morelikely to achieve high academic and occu-pational

are correlated

et al. 2007).

involves emotional stability. Individuals and have irrational

and strong

for

Openness,(4) Agreeableness,and (Clark

who score high on

Neuroticism,

account

and exercise self-control.

described as organized, thorough,

can be categorized.

diff erences in personality:

(2) Extraversion, (3)

erent

model of personality.

characteristics

model suggests that

individual

diff

domain, focuses on a per-sons

ability to control impulses

makes us

& Chaplin 2007).

personality

of personality

is the

most personality

(5)

us

Caillouet,

yielded inconsistent

well-known

This

makes

that

personality is stable over time.

this relationship This

which

Boccaccini,

the relationship often

that

and

at

the

neuroticism criminal

(1) extraversion

ends

are

of

either

morelikely

(Eysenck

domain

to

of

extra-version

be self-destructive

& Eysenck 1985).

two

and (2)

Eysenck suggested that individuals

is associated abusing

traits:

Eysenck identified

who and

and

Moreover, neurot-icism

with self-destructive

drugs and alcohol and committing

behavior (e.g., crimes)

74

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

PSYCHOPATHIC

illustrate, some people have short fingers like their

PERSONALITY

mother and brown eyeslike their father. Antisocial terms

personality,

are often

a product

Psychopaths within

a product

themselves.

rights

others,

relationships,

shallow

include

if

individual

suff

by

may engage as

in

thrill to

childhood

a

It is important

and of

Thus,

crime

if

personality

in

the

forces

at an early stage

Other

off enders

can predict

that

root

influence

With respect to nurture themselves inherited.

are

on the There

exists

have suggested

crime cause

society (i.e., environment). To demonstrate, their

2008).

CRIME

a link

2004).

between

Some

childrens play

quality time

beliefs

delinquents

possess low

intelligence

causes

that

the

Holy

criminals

from

ideology into

the The

or

scholars

noncriminals of IQ

of individuals

that

is

related

impacts

this

have continued The

to

ultimate

crime debate

goal. The

whether

the

psychological

&

we share

Rosenfield our

2007).

parents

Science DNA.

The

To

of of

children,

poorly

major influence

children

on

in

art,

in

and these children

on intelligence

a childs

test.

nurturing

are Other

are friends,

Ultimately, the child

Research

has

who has no

demonstrated

nature-versus-nurture

that

the

debate

will

continue.

The debate has peaks and valleys. For years,the debate subsides,

and this

is followed

highlighted Hirschi scholars

likelihood

development

of the role

moreeducation a person has,the higher his or her IQ.

These

environment

not

events. Some parents spend no

with their

times.

Travis

debate is a psychological to

difficult

that

2004).

is

At an early age, parents read

and a great deal of attention.

has crystallized ( Jacoby

for

re-search

predict

ground

friends or relatives and drops out of school is destined

low

to suggest

ability

makechoices.

is placed on the role

music; and engage their

relatives, and teachers.

and

As criminological

and

the

(Messner that

criminals

Manyindividuals

intelligence

parents are a

behavior.

groups important

there

(Dabney,

and that

is the

nature-versus-nurture

heredity

recognizes

criminality.

that

crime

are that

intelligence

nature-versus-nurture

argument

and

Grail is causality.

or concept

centuries

intelligence

common

has advanced,

for

an individuals

is some recognition

believed to perform Criminologists

studies,

who havealow IQ but

that

however, emphasis

museum, and sporting AND

(Siegal

other

theory, advocates

premise

heredity;

books;

INTELLIGENCE

that

refrain from committing crime.

human

of life (Siegal

influences

Last,there are manyindividuals

discipline.

the

which in turn

in our society believein the ability to

level.

that

IQ,

behaviors

tendencies,

assume

and

he or she

pathologic

traits

intelligence

data

the failure to account for free will.

psychopathic

many chronic

of these

IQ tests to

indicated

criminal behavior? Onecriticism of this perspectiveis

as

the

or inconsistent

one could

found

development

with

note that

then

is

arousal

to

basis

on

decades of

However, can researchers assume a priori that heredity determines

arousal

high-risk

low

events;

to

violence,

their

parent

traumatic

sociopaths.

or

may contribute

is

of

score low

administered results

has

some scholars argue that the role of nature is prevalent.

may

Interestingly,

levels

typically

male children. The

On the

population

2008). In the early

40% had below-average

2008).

disorder,

examination,

seeking

off set

that

personality

low

a neurological

crime

dynamics

from

close to

cold-heartedness,

2008).

nature-versus-nurture With respect to

on the prison

shown that inmates

delinquent

egocentricity,

origin

humor? The

the 20th century, researchers

of

enduring

neurological

(Siegal ers

charm,

to form

and

consistently

IQ tests (Schmalleger

violations

2004). The

socialization,

the nature side, research is

superficial

taking,

(Jacoby

abnormality

measured

such

risk

forcefulness

traumatic brain

guilt,

persistent

and

get their love

debate addresses this issue.

or aberration

However,the

Where do individuals

of sports, literature,

personality

an incapacity

emotions

and an

of

impulsivity,

manipulativeness, and

levels

are

Sociopaths

home environment. defect

antisocial

intelligence, of

sociopath

2009).

of a

The

by low

above-average

or

(Siegal

of a destructive

are

characterized

the

psychopathy,

used interchangeably

question remains:

school

this

and

Michael that low

major stud-ies

was conducted Hindelang IQ

argument

argument is that

by

(1977).

increases

behavior through

performance. This

elementary. Their

One of two debate

suggested

of criminal

by years of scrutiny

the

its eff ect on

seems somewhat a child

with a lo

PSYCHOLOGICAL

IQ

will perform poorly in school. In turn, this school

failure is followed school

by dropping out. Given the poor

performance, (Hirschi

a child is left

&

Hindelang

leads to delinquency this

position

important

has been widespread.

to note that

populated

The

it is

U.S. prisons and jails are highly

education.

At the same time, these same

second

attention and

Furthermore,

Charles

of their

nature-versus-nature

Murray (1994).

In their

book The

Curve, these scholars suggested individuals IQ are morelikely to commit

Bell

theory

is the

behavior real

world, there

individuals

criminals

data, the researchers have a lower

research

concludes

those

criminal

who have been caught and those IQ lower

general

these public.

the

the

that

to criminal

is significant. attempting

This

For centuries,

to explain

scholars

be-haviorexisted

for

a crime.

criminal

that

are the roles of the id, ego, and superego in criminal

criminality

behavior.This

wasfollowed by a discussion of mental

disorders

crime.

conduct Through

disorder

and

oppositional

both disorders,

defiant

associated

ultimately

crime. the

Bipolar

next

was

disorder

most serious

the

role

concluding

of

disorder.

mental

are two

of

Research suggests that

Neuroticism,

Agreeableness, and Extraversion

Concerning can be

Neuroticism

are

behavior.

Last, the intelligence and

data

are

mea-sured

Conscientiousness.

and

IQ

dis-cussed

Extraversion,

centuries,

debate has

demonstrate

more likely

We

related

that

in-dividuals

to engage in

to the discussion of intel-ligence

delinquency and adult

haveconsistently demonstrated the link be-tween

the two. In reality, it is not difficult to understand in

his or her career or future

options.

Occupations

have desirable salaries often require

a high school

degree

as

well as a bachelors

when citizens

or

masters

and scholars attempt

why people commit given to psychological

and

of

of-fenders

and evaluat-ing

major topics

personality

have examined future

that treat-ment In sum,

illness

next

criminal

why a person whofails or drops out of school is limited

pos-sess that

is paramount.

and schizophrenia

disorders.

were

with delinquency

is a necessity and early intervention Discussed

here

welearned that children

many characteristics and adult criminality,

examination

that

and IQ is school performance. Researchstudies

theory as developed by Sigmund Freud. Included here

Under

how

were Kohlbergs

and intelligence.

behavior. Important

chapter examined the role of psychodynamic

and

on

and information-processing

that

domains

with a low

have been

why someone commits

followed

we can conclude

we learned

Openness, learned

and criminal

theory

were personality

&

CONCLUSION

psychology

mental processes of

examined

world around them. The

via

between

of

are poor at processing information

(Herrnstein

social

examined is cogni-tion.

discussion

subdisciplines

personality,

relationship

theory

A

Ultimately,

off enders

Murray 1994).

The

most prominent

Albert Bandura,

examined.

moral development theory.

who have not have an

than the general population

which

most relevant

perceiveand mentally represent the world.

important self-reported

discovered that

IQ than the

theory,

Furthermore, how do individuals solve problems? Two

those

whose actions go undetected?Through

individuals Thus,

what about

behavior

by a negative

is the

Moreover, the

Here, the importance

suggested that prisons and jails are highly populated

that

Social learning

psychological

is

others. In the

assumption

theory,

of this

change their

from

and eliminated

of behavior

third

individuals

exists the

theorist is

The

that

via rewards

to criminology.

crime, get caught, and be

however,

mentioned,

At the forefront

to reactions

or punishment.

individuals

IQs;

premise

according

IQ and crime link to another level. Specifically, they with low

As previously

experiences.

learning

sent to prison. Importantly, these authors transport the

with inmates

major psychologi-cal

through

learning

with alower

with bipolar

suggests human behavior is fostered

is a branch

Herrnstein

75

and delinquency and/

second

is behaviorism.

CRIME

behavioral theory

war-rants reaction

study that

by Richard

behavior. The

is reinforced

off ense were unemployed.

was conducted

and schizophrenia

theory

of

who only have an average of

at the time

disorder

ultimately Support

with inmates

eighth-grade inmates

1977). This

and adult criminality.

OF

there is a correlation betweenindividuals

op-tions or criminal

with very few

THEORIES

a crime, recognition

theories.

a serious error in judgment

degree.

to under-stand must be

Not doing so would be

76

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

REFERENCES

AND

FURTHER

READINGS

Hirschi,

T., & Hindelang,

M.(1977).

A revisionist Bandura,

A, (1977).

Cliff s,

NJ: Prentice

Bandura,

A. (1978).

Journal

Social

Englewood

How Behavioral

Bohm, (2nd Clark,

J.,

Belmont,

and

Law,

CA:

26,

theory

model

Chaplin,

or personality

outcomes

in

Criminology

(9th

Messner,

jury

and

civil

Boston:

CA:

Cengage

Eysenck,

Crime types:

H., & Eysenck,

S. (1933). New

Herrnstein,

R.,

Intelligence York:

Free

A text/reader.

Allyn

Belmont,

New York: New

York:

&

Plenum

introductory

and indi-vidual

Schmalleger,

Shelden,

on

Siegal,

C. (1994). in

The

American

bell curve: life.

of

moral development:

New York:

criminal

justice.

Harper

Long

(2007).

R.

dream

(4th

Mazarolle,

ed.).

&

Grove,

Crime

and

Belmont,

P. (2001).

CA

Life course criminol-ogy:

and classic readings.

New

F. (2008). ed.).

Criminal

Englewood

Belmont,

Cengage

L. (2009).

Silver,

E.

theory:

Long

Cliff s,

CA:

The

A brief introduc-tion

NJ: Prentice

and

Grove,

Criminology:

juvenile

IL:

Waveland

core (3rd

ed.).

Hall. justice

in

Press. Belmont,

Learning.

Criminology

(10th

ed,).

Belmont,

CA:

Learning.

(2002).

Extending

A multilevel

among

justice:

Delinquency

society.

L. (2008).

psycho-analysis. Siegal,

Norton.

Murray,

psychology

Rosenfield,

R. (2006).

CA:

Press.

lectures

&

A., &

Cengage

and class structure Press.

Personality

in criminology.

Press.

Press.

Contemporary

American

M. (1985).

Long

Wadsworth.

Learning.

diff erences. Freud,

S.,

(7th D. (2004).

The

American

Piquero,

34, 641660. ed.).

ed.).

Wadsworth.

W.

traits,

criminal

Academic

moral development.

Waveland

Bacon.

Dabney,

L. (1984).

the

Wadsworth.

Justice and Behavior,

J. (2007).

IL:

&

and symptoms

Carolina

Kraska, P. (2004). Theorizing

jurors?

487510.

B.,

NC:

(3rd

Row.

psychopathy:

influence

and de-linquency: Sociological

Press.

P. (2001). Theories

Essays on

D.(2008).

of criminology

Waveland

Durham,

ac-tion.

Classics

IL:

Kohlberg,

and delinquency

M., Caillouet,

case

cases. Criminal Conklin,

& the

Five factor

selection,

naming labels

Primer on crime

Boccaccini,

(2007).

and

and

Hall.

D., Clark, J., & Cornell,

Sciences

ed.).

of thought

NJ: Prentice

psychopathy

R. (2001).

of aggression.

American

471741.

J. (2004).

Knepper,

foundations

diagnosing,

do youth

theory

42,

Grove,

28, 1229.

Cliff s,

M., Murrie,

Describing,

Review,

Englewood

Jacoby,

Social learning

A. (1986).

Boccaccini,

theory.

Hall.

of Communication,

Bandura,

&

Social learning

Intelligence

review.

persons

with

social

approach

disorganization

to the study

mental illness.

of violence

Criminology,

40,

191212.

Tarde, Holt.

G. (1903).

The

laws

of imitation.

New

York:

PART II

Micro-Level Process

Social

Theorie

PART II INTRODUCTION

Micro-Level

I

n Part 2 weexamine social learning

a shift

Social

Process

Theories

micro-level social process theories, focusing

and social control theories. The

away from the individually

oriented

theories

theories

on

covered in Part 2 mark

(rational

and psychological theories) discussedin Part 1toward

specifically

choice,

biological,

micro-level social process

theories that incorporate social, cultural, structural, and interactive factors. This is in stark contrast to psychological and biological theories locus of criminal behavior lies within the individual. and psychological arguments that criminals to normal

human beings, or that they

process theories socialization,

learning,

key assumption

no diff erent from

authors

theories,

of the

social learning

interactionism here).

theory

harm

For

Part 2 discuss two theory

morality

control

(a third

and rationalizations

what

are

not covered

is what people

during

early child

human beings can learn criminal

of off enses that

theorists

process

theory, social

theorists

occurs primarily

words, normal

norms, attitudes,

social

A

or criminals

diff erent social

of social constructionism

process that

periods. In other

others.

social

individual

with others.

delinquents

behavior for social learning

the socialization

behaviors,

criminal,

and interaction

and social control

with the skills and excuse the to

monitoring,

madethem

developed through

non-criminals.

theory

and a related

developmental techniques,

behavior is

Readings in

Whatleads to criminal

learn through

had traits that

criminal

supervision,

wereatavistic throwbacks orinferior

made by social process theorists is that

are essentially The

argue that

which argue that the

Contrary to early biological

leads

that

makeit to

provide them

possible for them

criminal

behavior

is

the

failure of childhood socialization to develop effective inner controls or the lack of self-control.

Social control theories then shift attention away from the causes of

crime to focus on what keeps most peoplefrom committing crime. Social learning theory focuses on how normal people learn wrong and values that criminal

or

both teach them

delinquent

sociological, associated

with theories

genetic components the positivist

behavior.

insofar

as it

how, and allows them, to justify Consequently,

engaging in

theory

goes beyond the stimulus-response

of behavioral

of biological

social learning

behavior is con-sidered learning

psychology1 and beyond the trait-based

theories.

And, social learning

push for the study of crime and behavior

theory

using scientific

and

continues principles.

7

80

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

The founding social learning theorists Sutherland and

Cressey(1966) argued that criminals

diff erent from

non-criminals.

fundamental

diff

erence

Instead,

between

off

enders as rooted in the learning non-criminals

learn

conventional

life,

values

and

criminals

well as justifications, primary learning

for law

and

process.

and

offending

others. This

Whereas to

values,

as

small intimate

with others, usually in

groups. Those

most influential

process are those

learned.

motives

contrary

friends,

and peers.

enders

that

learn

learn

conform

values,

norms,

to

or

norms,

skills,

whereas

and

motives

of-fenders

that

are

and which equip them crime.

when criminal

with

Crime is

values

out-weigh

values. the specific

techniques

act,

values,

skills,

happen

with learning

motives and criminal

criminal

convention,

and values, to commit

conventional Along

the to

to the convention

the knowledge, most likely

of learning,

pro-cess

key diff erence is the content of what is

Non-off

and

in the

not only occurs in close association

posits that the learning

is the same for all forms

we have a close relation-ship

with such as parents, family, However, learning

theory

noncriminal. The

behavior. The

is because social learning

is conveyed in close association

Social learning

non-off

conducive

norms

theory of psychologist Albert Bandura.

saw the

mechanism occurs in close association

with significant

learning

enders

norms

learn

were no

they

and movedthe theory closer to the cognitive learning

about

individuals

also

knowledge,

how to

learn

skills,

commit

a

rationalizations,

or

with others but can also occur vicariously, or through

neutralizations, that excuse or justify their criminal or

social modelingfrom role models,celebrities, or others

delinquent behavior. Neutralization theory (Sykes &

who may be available via social mediaand television (Bandura

1973;

1977;

2001).

Celebrities,

Matza 1957) which is another social process theory, challenges the idea that there is a stark contrast be-tween

cultural

conventional mainstreamsociety and delinquent

heroes, and other personas on television, the Internet, or other social knowledge

media and gaming

and thus,

of knowledge, influenced,

may play a part in the transmis-sion values, and/or

taught,

around them

can also transmit

and ultimately

norms.

of

Edwin

Sutherlands

theory.

what others

diff erential behavior

interaction.

is

(1947)

diff erential

association learned

definitions

favorable

theory

within

Social interaction

varying configurations

crime

exceed

proposes that of

exposure

those

founded in

behavioral

to

when

was

movedthe concept from its early behaviorist

roots toward recognizing context

of learning

others.

Unlike the posited in

theorists through

the importance

through

symbolic

association

Sutherland

behavioral

interaction

with

models, social learning is active

and occurs

how the transmission

occurs, Akers (1968)

of

Neutralization are able to

maintaining other

and

theory neutralize

a connection

to

words, no one engages

all the time;

crime

values

rather

conventional

people drift behavior

and

allow them to be morally free to do so

1964).

Unlike the previous theories theorists

do

mechanisms.

not

see

the

discussed, social con-trol

cause

of

crime

as

rooted

Instead,

social

control

theorists

turn

the

ask what keeps most people from offending? Similar to classical theory, social control theorists believethat without

restraint

went on to

While of do so

there

would

be

a

universal

to crime. In essence, they explore

mecha-nism or restrains

with others in small groups.

did not specify

social learning

of the social

passive stimulus-response

propose that learning

behavior

and

mainstream society, and

offenders

society. In

both

question of what causescrime around and instead they of psycho-logical

components

theory but its adaptation to explaining criminal behavior

in

while still

learn

in biological, psychological, or even social learning

unfavorable

to crime, criminal behavior results. Social learning

how

of guilt

out

individuals norms

underbelly.

neutralizations (Matza

social

of behavior;

their involvement

explains

in and per-spective,

Rather,

non-conventional

subterranean

in criminal

association

contexts

provides

of definitions to

its

and

conventional

developed as areformulation

Drawing from the symbolic-interactionist

criminal

through

feelings

heroes.

subcultures.

conventional

whether these are par-ents, thus

expose them to,

theory

People are

act on

peers, gang members or cultural Social learning

or criminal

people from

committing

internal disciplinary

to examine a variety and external controls,

controls,

may also include

the

societal failure

However,

view of control

of control

mecha-nisms:

parental controls,

controls, to

what controls,

crimes.

they go beyond classical theorys limited because ofcosts

motiva-tion

form

etc.

Controls

attachment

PART

and commitments to conventional parents and teachers (Hirschi

others, especially

1969).

Social control

II

gratification. The

mainidea behind control theory is

that the ties, or bonds, to conventional

the social processesand social organizational arrangements to

friends,

help explain crime and deviance.

a risk for

have developed This

Hirschi

a theory

thrill-seeking

through

and

main types

of social control theory,

and failure to bond theory

Henry 2010). Broken bond theory beings are socialized

into

(Lanier

argues that

conventional

and so on make crime too

process theories focus

and

reduction

exchange

policies

of

should

nature. Policymakers

group

knowledge,

be social

would identify

potential

group therapy, counseling

dynamics,

then

crime

psychological

off enders and

provide such

legal behaviors for illegal

prevention

rationalizations

in

programs

or other interventions

that they learn to substitute

reasons,

on the learn-ing

are urged to implement

hu-man ones. Furthermore,

behavior

much of

most people.

behavior

that

behavior.

are two

broken bond theory and

parental controls

engaging in sensation

parents, school,

processes that involve interaction,

of self-control.

of adequate

employers,

Because social

(2001)

child rearing, lead some to seek imme-diate

gratification

There

Gottfredson

of the failure

suggests that a lack

and inadequate

and

81

the lure of sensation-seeking behavior for immediate

theories are considered sociologically rooted since they look at

More recently,

INTRODUCTION

or

involves

exposing

neutralizations

for

the

crime

from an early age, but something breaks or weakens

asincorrect, inaccurate or misguided. Control theories

the bonds to convention, freeing a person to deviate

advocate creating or strengthening ties to conventional

(Akers

1994).

As we have seen this

broken

occur through the neutralization of the law

or

as

we shall

see

in

Part

disorganizationisolation

conform

to

the

dominant

or

of a commitment

go

stake in conformity more likely to

maintenance

bond

attachment

attachment,

forming

of time

Although (1973),

and can easily

a variety

provide

analysis

of

that

not just

theory.

learning

learning

presented

several its from

via the

Ronald

principles

criminals

and

theorist

many of these

the

has

behaviorism,

which requires a responsible, lovingly re-sponsive

learning

learning reject

Psychology

a secure

social

incorporates

generally

place, humans

to

to

leading

sociological

or

break the law. This

has been attributed parents failure

1.

and

commitment

in the first

to deviate and to

factors, including

NOTE

assumes that the very cre-ation

much investment

Without this

controls and

to

and to socially

requires

the quality of

culture.

to achieve (Box

and considerable

failure

mainstream

activities, and improving

of com-munitiescan supervision.

to convention,

wrong.

are

breakdown

society by strengthening involvement in conventional institutions,

parenting, and both direct and indirect

social

book,

norms and values is difficult

1971). This energy

can

a persons commitment

Failure to bond theory

approved

3 of this

and

undermine

bond

moral bind of

Social

personality-type are

diff erent

versions social

into

his

theorists

psychological

from

non-criminal.

of learning,

learning

others,

Akers

theory

but

also from

mass media (Bandura,

1977;

beyond involves images 2001).

and sensitive mother-figure whois empathetic and able to satisfy childhood

needsfor emotional and REFERENCES

physical security (Bowlby 1946). Otherssuggest the cause of a failure to bond is the inability

to internalize

absence

of

threat from

direct

of punishment, parental

of internal

parents

to

social

the failure

monitoring

or self-control,

an internalized 2001). This

personal

external

self-control controls

of indirect

and supervision

and the as

the

controls

and a failure

which for some depends on

sense of guilt (Hirschi too is seen as the result

adequately

such

train

their

& Gottfredson of a failure

children

by

to resist

Akers,

R.(1968).

Social

Problems

Definitions

in the

and

Sociology

of Deviance:

Behavior.

Social

Forces,

Behavior:

A Social

46:

455465.

Akers,

R. (1973).

Approach.

Akers,

Deviant

Belmont,

R. (1994).

and Evaluation.

CA:

Criminological Los

Learning

Wadsworth.

Angeles:

Theories: Roxbury

Introduction Press

82

CRIME

AND

Bandura,

BEHAVIOR

A. (1973).

Analysis. Bandura,

A. (1977).

Cliff s,

A.

Research, 154196.

J. (1946). and

Holt,

Social

Learning

Hall.

Theory.

Cognitive

Englewood

by

of

Theory

of

Personality: Theory

and

by L. A. Pervin Guilford

Forty-four

and P. J. Oliver,

Juvenile

Lanier, 3rd

Matza,

Theives: Bailliere,

of

Reality, and Society.

and

The

Their Tindall,

New York:

California

Press.

M. (2001). Criminals

and

Roxbury

M.M.

R.

Edition.

Crime, pp.

Edited

8196.

Los

Press.

Boulder,

D. (1964).

Self-Control

and

Bachman,

& Henry, S. (2010).

Sutherland,

E.

Philadelphia:

CO:

Essential

Westview

Delinquency

and

Criminology.

Press.

Drift.

New York: John

Delinquency.

Berkeley:

H. (1947).

Principles

E. H. & Cressey,

G.

Philadelphia:

&

Neutralization: American

of

Criminology.

J. B. Lippencott.

Criminology. Sykes,

Winston.

Causes of

Gottfredson, Explaining

R. Paternoster

Sutherland,

Reinhart,

& In

Wiley.

Press.

Home Life. London:

Deviance,

T. (1969).

University

T.

Angeles:

Handbook

York:

Hirschi, Theory.

Cox.

Box, S. (1971).

Hirschi,

Learning

Social

ed. edited

New

Characters and

In 2nd

A

NJ: Prentice

Hall.

(2001).

Personality.

Cliff s,

Social

NJ: Prentice

Bandura,

Bowlby,

Aggression:

Englewood

Matza,

D. R. (1966).

D. (1957). A

Sociological

Principles

of

J. B. Lippencott.

Theory Review;

Techniques of

Delinquency.

22: 664670

of

CHAPTER IV

Social Learning

Theorie

A THEORY OF DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION

Edwin Sutherland

S

utherlands theory is stated in the form of nine propositions.

behavior is learned byinteracting learn

others. Criminals

Donald

crime and the definitions favorable to crime

from these others.The sixth proposition, whichforms the heart of the theory, states that a

person becomesdelinquent becauseof an excessof definitions favorable to law

violation over definitions unfavorable to violation of law.

Accordingto Sutherland,

factors such associal class,race, and broken homesinfluence crime becausethey affect the likelihood that individuals to

The

1.

following

statement

Criminal

Criminal

also the

Negatively, this

criminal

communication

communication

person

in

behavior is

who is not already trained

in crime

make mechanical

mechanics.

behavior is learned in interaction

principal

means that criminal

behavior, just as a person does not

unless he has had training

communication. This

3. The

process by which a particular

as such; also, the person

does not invent inventions

refers to the behavior:

behavior is learned.

not inherited,

2.

will associate with others whopresent definitions favor-able

crime.

comes to engage in criminal

with other persons in

is verbal in

many respects

a process of but includes

of gestures.

part of the learning

personal groups. Negatively,this

of criminal

behavior occurs within intimate

meansthat the impersonal agencies of com-munication,

such as moviesand newspapers, play a relatively unimportant part in the genesis of criminal behavior. 4.

Whencriminal behavior is learned, the learning includes (a) techniques of com-mitting the crime, whicharesometimes very complicated, sometimesvery simple; (b) the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations,

and attitudes.

5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes asfavorable or unfavorable. In some societies an individual

is surrounded

persons who invariably

define the legal codes as rules to be observed,

others heis surrounded

by persons whose definitions

of the legal codes. In our

and

He argues that criminal

with others, especially intimate

both the techniques of committing

H.

by

while in

are favorable to the viola-tion

American society these definitions

are almost

85

R. Cresse

86

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

always mixed, with the consequencethat

would be stated in quantitative form and a math-ematical

we have

culture conflict in relation to the legal codes. 6.

ratio

such aformula

definitions favorable to violation oflaw over definitions

of

differential

and

association.

anti-criminal

refers

associations

counteracting they

It

forces.

is the principle to

both

and

has

do so because of contacts

patterns.

culture

are in conflict; r

a Southerner

because other

r.

means far

as

crime

other learning.

associations

concerned

instance, learns

which have

are

little

or

as

9.

needs

and

effect on criminal

are concerned

with the legal codes. This

behavior is important the

time

of

criminal in

7.

the

a child

especially

so

that

he is

not

neutral

criminal

Frequency

with

also

as

and

striving

continue

to

behavior

as completely

differentiate

associations

It

modalities

to

be futile

an

for social status, the have been and

since they as they

are similar

criminal

is

not

explain

explain explain

but

must

lawful criminal

to respiration,

from

which

which does not

non-criminal

things.

at this

necessary,

why a person

this

he has; of as-sociations

need no explanation.

is assumed to beimportant in the sense

that lawful

is

behavior.

meansthat associa-tions and

and duration

behavior

work in order to secure money.

principle,

behavior. They

he is so engaged

behavior vary in those respects.

are obvious

Priority

non-criminal

money motive, or frustration,

of

may vary in frequency, dura-tion,

behavior

with anti-criminal

since

is necessary for any behavior

priority, and intensity. This

be described

by general drives and values, such as the

happiness

neutral

contact

by association,

behavior is an expression of general

values

behavior

behavior.

Differential associations

with

in

behavior

The attempts by manyscholars to explain criminal

which

as an occupier

behavior during the time

to the

who is seduced, for

steal in order to secure money,but likewise

behavior

may be related to associations

not restricted

A person

criminal

honest laborers

learning to brush onesteeth.This behavior has no or positive

behavior is

meansthat the learn-ing

expressionofthe same needsand values. Thieves gen-erally

effect

on the genesis of criminal behavior. Much of the

negative

patterns

imitation.

Whilecriminal

experience of a personis neutral in this sense,e.g.,

except as it

by as-sociation

needs and values, it is not explained by those general

as-sociation

neutral no

of

difficult. behavior

but this process would not ordinarily

patterns

of differential

sense

mechanismsthat areinvolved in any

of criminal

assimilates

other

this

and anti-criminal

Negatively, this

process of imitation.

anti-criminal

do not pronounce

proposition

that is

involves all ofthe

does not pronounce

Southerners

Negatively, this

so

unless

criminal

with criminal with

from

in

would be extremely

process of learning

with criminal

Any person inevitably

surrounding

do

When persons become crimi-nal,

patterns and also because of isolation

the

8. The

criminal to

A formula

has not been developed, and the development

A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of

unfavorable to violation of law. This

be reached.

In

certainly

level

of explanation,

has the associations

involves

a complex

an area where the delinquency

which

of

many

rate is high,

a boy whois sociable, gregarious, active, and athletic is

behavior developed in early child-hood verylikely to comein contact with the other boysin the life, and also that

neighborhood, learn delinquent behavior from them,

delinquent behavior developedin early childhood

and become a gangster; in the same neighborhood the

may persist throughout may persist throughout has not priority

been adequately

seems to beimportant

its selective influence. defined

life. This tendency, how-ever, psychopathic boy who is isolated, introverted,

but it

has to

demonstrated, principally

Intensity do

is

pattern

and

with emotional

the associations. criminal

behavior

In

through

not precisely

with such things

prestige of the source of a criminal

a precise

and

as the

related

description

of a person these

may remain

with the

other

to

of the

modalities

at

athletic,

behavior. The

boy

situation,

and

not

the sociable,

may become a member of a

not become involved persons associations

in a general context ordinarily

neighborhood,

In another

aggressive and

home, not become acquainted

boys in the

become delinquent.

scout troop

or anti-criminal

reactions

inert

and

of social

reared in a family;

in

delinquent

are determined

organization.

A child is

the place of residence

o

A

the family is determined largely by family income; and

frequency

THEORY

OF

DIFFERENTIAL

ASSOCIATION

87

with which they commit crimes. Oneof the

the delinquency rate is in

manyrespects related to the

best explanations of crime rates from this point of view

rental value of the houses.

Many other aspects of social

is that

organization

affect the kinds

of associations

a person

The

term social

satisfactory

has.

The

preceding

explanation

purports

to

behavior

of individual

explain

the

of criminal

criminal

persons.

it is possible to state sociological behavior

to

and

account

comparison

for

variations

explanation

and

involves

a

group at different times. The

of a crime rate

of the criminal

must be consistent

is that

with the

behavior of the person,

criminal

organized

not entirely

The

is based, regardless

crime is rooted in the social

against

is

social organization.

of that

social

may be organized for criminal

when thus stated, rates

the term differential

is an expression

of criminal

of a community,

of the crime rates of various groups or the

crime rates of a particular explanation

crime

earlier,

disorganization

disorganiza-tion.

and it seems preferable to substitute

on which this theory

non-criminal

theories

problem, in

behavior

As indicated

which explain the criminality

nation, or other group. The is

a high crime rate is due to social

behavior.

both for criminal

for it

postulate

of the name,

organization

organization. behavior

A group

or organized

Most communities and anti-criminal

group

organization.

as an explanation

Differential

of the

group or-ganization

of variations in crime rates

is consistent with the differential association theory of

sincethe crime rate is a summary statement of the num-ber the processesby which persons become criminals of personsin the group whocommit crimes and the

are

behavior

and in that sense the crime rate is an expression differential

and

SOCIAL LEARNING

THEORY

Ronald

and

T

he purpose theory

association

of this chapter is to provide with attention

theory

and the

an overview

to its theoretical behavioral

Empirical research testing the utility

roots in

psychology

of

Sutherlands Skinner

diff erential

and

Bandura.

of social learning theory for explaining by a discussion

macro-level applications of the theory (i.e., social structure and social

learning). The chapter concludes with a brief offering of suggestions for future research and a summary of the importance theory in the criminological

ORIGIN

Burgess and an eff ort to association for

AND

literature.

OVERVIEW

Akers (1966)

theory

(1947)

and principles

(1968,

further

development

learning

theory).

OF SOCIAL

diff erential

meld Sutherlands

Akers

of social learning theory as a general

1973;

of the theory,

Sutherlands

THEORY

association-reinforcement sociological

of behavioral

Alters,

LEARNING

Krohn,

approach

in

psychology. This

Lanza-Kaduce,

theory

was

his diff erential wasthe founda-tion

& Radosevich

1979)

which he came more often to refer to as social

diff erential

association

theory

is contained

in

nine

propositions:

1.

2.

Criminal

behavior

is learned.

Criminal behavior is learned in interaction

with other persons in a process of

communication.

3.

The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups.

4.

When criminal (a) techniques sometimes (b)

5.

The

behavior is learned, the learning includes of committing

the crime,

which are sometimes

very compli-cated,

very simple, and

the specific direction

of

specific direction

motives and drives is learned from

legal codes asfavorable

of

motives, drives, rationalizations,

and attitudes. definitions

of the

or unfavorable.

89

Akers

Wesley G.

of Akers social learn-ing

variation in crime or devianceis then reviewed; this is followed of recent

L.

Jenning

90

CRIME

6.

AND

BEHAVIOR

A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of

definitions

favorable

definitions

The

7.

to

unfavorable

to

of

the

of

criminal

with criminal all

of law

violation

process of learning

involves

violation

the

involved

in

any other learning. 8.

Although

behavior

is an expression

needs and values, it is

of

not explained

behavior is an expression

of the same needs

association

priority,

and intensity.

longest-running, will

be

varies in frequency,

most

earliest

efficacious

The and

or

dura-tion,

that

violating

aff

being

the law.

an

definitions

(intensity)

in

likelihood

More specifically, definitions

more likely

and

deviant

Although theory

of

if a person is ex-posed first (priority),

in frequency

to

and

and strength (duration),

demonstrate

the

involvement

acts.

Sutherlands

(1947)

began to accumulate

of attention throughout

of learned

of the diff erential

individuals

increase

with law-abiding

behavior. It is the

and persist for some time is

criminal

most frequent,

with criminals

associated

and balance

ect

to pro-criminal these

closest influences

determinant

or that

nature, characteristics,

individual

values.

Diff erential

9.

crime

being associated

persons leads to conforming

by

those general needs and values, because noncrimi-nal

and

to

association

criminal

general

merely state that

patterns

are

(see Cressey 1960, p. 49). According to

Sutherlands (1947) seventh principle, the theory does

leads by as-sociation

behavior

that

criminals not

law.

and anti-criminal

mechanisms

over

diff erential

associa-tion

a rather large amount

the sociological and crimi-nological

literature in the years after its emergence,

behavior. (pp. 67)

Burgess and Akers (1966) noted that the theory had Sutherland

(1947)

referred

to

the

sixth

still

statement

as the principle of differential association. According to

Sutherland,

definitions He

can

that

either

that

favorable

behavior,

that

of

definitions

or

favorable

he

can

learn

excess

of

the

criminal

is

that

he will

behavior.

to

more likely

of

versus

unfavorable

and criticisms.

between studies regarding

the support criticism

and a common

response

of operationalizing to

of diff erential

these

of the

To

(as exemplified

their

for

and

diff erential

the

theorists theory,

and

among scholars

on

concepts.

prior

failure

in specifying Burgess and

the Akers

version of the theory, that

association-reinforcement

describe

within

the theorys

criticisms

association

process

is, diff erential

the

definitions

support

Some of these

both

association

modifications

favorable

empirical

the inconsistency

presented their reformulated

act(s).

Learning

considerable

some of its shortcomings issues included

learning law

violations

to commit

receive

and had yet to be adequately modifiedin response to

In

Stated

of the

to

the difficulty

an individual

violations

unfavorable

the law, that individual

others

unfavorable

when

toward

definitions

of

behavior.

decrease the probability

involvement,

definitions

types

from

the probability

would likely

criminal

two

a particular

he would engage in a particular

terms

learns in

learn

the

definitions

learns

committing

would likely increase

commit

in

an individual

toward

failed

revised

theory.

version

in

terms

of

its

and derivations from the original theory in

Sutherlands

[1947]

nine principles),

can also be described as a process wherebyindividuals

Burgess and Akers (1966) offered the following seven

attempt to balance pro-criminal

principles that illustrate the process wherein learning

prosocial or conforming

definitions

against

takes definitions. It is logical to as-sume

place:

that individuals learn favorable or pro-criminal definitions for committing in

crime

themselves

learn crime

crime,

from

unfavorable those

and this

It should

(i.e.,

individuals

assumption

be remembered,

for law-abiding attitudes for an individual

crime from those involved the

criminals)

definitions who

and,

for are

not

is supported

in

1.

con-trast,

committing involved

and definitions,

in

2.

empirically.

to pro-criminal

just as it is possible

to learn conforming

definitions

behavior is learned according to the

principles

of operant conditioning

of

however, that it is possible

persons to expose individuals

Criminal

from

Sutherlands

Criminal

situations

Principles

behavior

that

and through behavior

is

of other

of Sutherlands

learned

8). both

are reinforcing

that

for

(reformulation

1 and

in

or discriminative

social interaction

in

persons is reinforcing

criminal

behavior

Principle

2)

nonsocial

which the or dis-criminative

(reformulation

SOCIAL

The

3.

principal

part of the learning

behavior occurs in those groups which comprise

learning theory association theory.

major source of Sutherlands

The learning

of criminal

techniques,

attitudes,

a function

of

the

eff

(reformulation The

and avoidance and

of the

frequency

reinforcers

are

and the rules or norms are applied Principle

by which these reinforc-ers of

Sutherlands

1966)

draws

is

behavior

is

a function

for

of

criminal

norms

behavior,

such

(reformulation

its

of criminal

reinforcement

Principle

learn-ing

behavior is a direct func-tion

frequency,

and probability

(reformulation

of

and, later,

modifications

1985,

of

and empirical

developments

to ease the interpretation assumptions

discussed

to this original serial list and has further

revised the theory in response to criticisms,

and explanations

of social learning

tenets remain

theoreti-cal

in the literature,

theory,

and

of the key

but the central

the same. It is important

that, contrary to how social learning

to

social

B. F. Skinner,

through

reinforcement.

on how his

with cognitive learning with

According to

Albert

Burgess and

1977,

1985,

operant Stated

Bandura

Akers

1998),

the

process takes

conditioning

or

more clearly, operant

actions taken by an individual,

are

reinforcers and punishers(described later) ultimately in-fluence anindividuals

decision of whether to participate

in conforming and/or nonconforming behavior. imitation

element of the behavioral learning

modeling) to be subsumed operant conditioning;

Sutherlands

has since

of

commented

Akers (1973,

place are primarily

as simply

1998)

Akers

mechanisms by which the learning

note here

successive approximations mechanism.

accept the

uniqueness

imitation

from

reinforcement. importance principles

in the literature, social learning is not a rival or com-petitor

or instrumental

Burgess and

began to

learning

and to

or vicarious

Akers also recognized behavioral

of learning

theory, stimuli,

other

seen

be shaped

mechanism of

of observational learning

of additional

of

and not a separate

of the learning

discriminative and

wasitself could

However, Akers later

operant

discuss it in terms

is often described

of Sutherlands (1947) theory and his original

of behavior that

behavioral

process (or

under the broad umbrella

that is, imitation

one kind

through 1977,

work

associated

(1996)

of

Burgessand Akers(1966) originally considered the

7). (pp. 132145)1

Akers (1973,

those

among others.

of Sutherlands Principle 6).

of the amount,

classical

Akers (1998)

(1977),

of which takes place when such behavior is

strength

as

differential

affected by asystem of rewards and punishments.These

which

the

91

proposed by Burgess and Akers,

the

behavior, or voluntary

discriminative

The

from

aspect

more closely aligned

diff erential

more highly reinforced than noncriminal behavior

7.

learning

theory (as first

specific

available,

5).

Criminal

are

are a function

(reformulation

learning

theories

which are learned

and

behavioral

theory

Principle 4).

eff ective

do not negate/discredit

yet, morerecently,

reinforc-ers,

contingencies

of occurrence

which

specific

procedures, is

reinforcement

of Sutherlands

The

3).

available

specific class of behaviors

and their

6.

Principle

behavior, including

ective

and the existing

5.

of reinforcements

THEORY

sociallearning theory, and findings that support social

the individuals (reformulation 4.

of criminal

LEARNING

components

the and

such as classical condi-tioning, schedules

of reinforce-ment,

mechanisms.

Considering the brief overview of social learning

propositions. Instead, it is offered as a broader theory

theory as described earlier, the central assumption and

that

proposition of social learning theory can be bestsum-marized

modifies and builds on Sutherlands theory and

integrates this theoretical of other scholars learning

theory,

continuation, Taken together,

principles in

particular

explicated

social learning

theory

explanation

in

crime

compared

original

theory; thus,

theory

acquisition,

is presented as for involvement

with

any such support

for diff erential association

behavioral

Akers 1985, p. 41).

more comprehensive deviance

in

behavioral

and cessation (see

a

and

in the two following statements:

perspective with aspects

Sutherlands

that it off ered

provides support

for

The

basic assumption

in

social

theory is that the same learning context

situation, deviant

direction on

behavior

of social

structure,

produces behavior.

...

[of]

The

the

learning

process in a

interaction,

both diff

and

conforming erence

balance

lies

and in

the

of influences

92

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

The in

who engagein certain kinds of behavior (criminal/

probability that persons will engage

criminal

and

and the

deviant

probability

behavior

of their

the norm is decreased associate

others

criminal

behavior

favorable

to it, are relatively

in-person

the

to

diff eren-tially

or symbolically

in a situation

in the current

or future

relatively

greater reward

than

the

decision

Sutherlands face-to-face that

or

to

for the

of

whether

are the

and/or

exposing

nonconforming

It is worth emphasizing that social learning theory whyindividuals first participate in crime and deviance, why they specialize/generalize, and why they Social learning do

not

from

theory

become

opting

to

Thus,

and

peer groups

involved

considering

only in

during

is

of the theory

devoted in the following central concepts

learning

theory

have received

that

of attention

in the criminological definitions,

(Akers

diff

1985,

literature:

erential

1998;

more

paragraphs

out the four

amounts

as an

in (or lack

behaviors,

fleshing

varying)

behaviors.

participation

pro-criminal

to

of Akers social

considerable

and empirical diff erential

reinforcement,

(yet

support

association,

and

imitation

assume the status of the primary group that provides groups can also indirectly with

the

Secondary or reference

provide the context for

diff erentially

behaviors,

norms,

associates him-or

values,

beliefs with groups of individuals,

including

leaders,

or

(2002)

called virtual

the

Internet,

schoolteachers,

and

so

even

early (priority); amount

last longer

Although to

theory

and involve

important

partners/peer

having bad

friends,

person

decides to

(either

directly

providing occurs.

An

or indirectly)

individuals

simply

the individuals

diff erentially

the social

component

cannot

context direct

in

Akers

be reduced with

play an integral

interaction

most

closest, or

most

the intimate,

groups (intensity)

exert the greatest eff ect on an individuals participate

in

either

conforming

or

will likely decision to

nonconforming

consideration, are exposed to

and prosocial norms, values, and defini-tions

is diff erentially

whom a

transmitted

and secondary

her probability

by means of his or her

peer groups, the greater his or

is for engaging in

deviant

or criminal

behavior:

role in

social learning with

primary

morean individual

associated and exposed to deviant be-havior

and attitudes

importance,

associate and interact

wherein

happen the

as well as patterns of reinforcement supportive of

is one of primary

its significance

mass media,

or occupy a disproportion-ate

of ones time (duration);

criminal or prosocial behavior.The social learning

Warr

on.

frequently;

ASSOCIATION

association

neighbors, what

groups, such as the

and

According to the theory, the associations that occur

pro-criminal

diff erential

attitudes,

church

the theory proposes that individuals

The

years and

groups typically

behavior. Taking these elements into

Akers et al. 1979).

DIFFERENTIAL

oc-curs

adolescence. In

spouses, work groups, and friendship

herself

instead

conforming

the generality

and

why individuals

crime/deviance,

for an individuals prosocial

attention

in

For the

contrast, during young adulthood and later in life, the

learning if an individual

involvement.

also explains

participate

explanation thereof)

criminal/deviant

behaviors.

diff erential association

the social context for learning. why they continue to offend, why they escalate/dees-calate, desist

an individual

by means of the associations formed in school, leisure,

1995, p. 50)

is a general theory in that it offers an explanation for

to

groups

and exhibiting

within the family in the early childhood

punishment

(fol-lowing

on intimate

the primary

definitions

through

individual

and friends

emphasis

most salient for

most part, learning

situation

the

to

of these

behavior.

are typically

favorable/unfavorable

recreational,

choose

supportive

that family

[1947]

groups)

conforming

behavior, and have received in the past and anticipate

ects

Akers has indicated

crimi-nal/deviant

as desirable

discriminative

for the behavior. (Akers

aff

more exposed

it

and expose the individual

values, and attitudes

opts to participate in a particular

who commit

to salient

define

norms,

behaviors

and espouse definitions

models,

justified

conforming

when they

with

deviant or conforming)

is increased

others

The

groups

association

with which one is in diff erential provide the

major social context

SOCIAL

in

which

all

of

the

mechanisms

learning operate.They to definitions, models

to

necessarily indulge,

social

definitions

not only expose one

(source,

and

diff

schedule,

erential

value,

or conforming

commission

and amount)

For instance, toward DEFINITIONS

toward

and

attitudes

consider

the

commission

appropriate or inappropriate. definitions

that

Akers considered these

definitions

that

orient

or away from

specific beliefs are personal

an individual

either

participating

toward

that it is

com-mitting

may believe

not to partake in or condone this sort of violence.

bit of

wrong in smoking

Yet,

definitions

influence individual

behavioral in

criminal

beliefs

some free drinks;

restaurant

I

want

was under the

my fault;

and This

deserves to get beat up because he is annoy-ing. types

of beliefs

have both a cognitive

eff ect on an individuals or

deviant

provide a readily

individual

The

money, so they can aff ord it if I

of alcohol, so it is not

that

as

etc.) include

office supplies;

an internal

personal

rationalizations,

going to take these

a criminal

alittle

marijuana here and there.

Akers also has discussed

that

do not get paid enough, so I am

violence, this same individual

may not see any moral or legal

techniques

disengagement

statements such asI

These

morally wrong to assault someone and choose

despite his belief toward

(i.e., justifications,

in certain criminal

or deviant acts. For example, an individual

verbalizations, moral

definitions

Matza 1957). Examples of these neutralizing defini-tions

moral, and other conven-tional to give myfriends

values. In comparison,

of

as using

or excuse its use.

of neutralizing

and

of

with users come

literatures (see Bandura 1990; Cressey1953; Sykes &

makes enough

General beliefs are ones personal definitions

are based on religious,

observation

associating

come to justify

notions

neutralization,

or unjustified,

to be expressed in two types: (1) general and

(2) specific.

negative attitude

are apparent in other behavioral and criminological

of

a particular act as being moreright or wrong, good or bad, desirable or undesirable, justified

incorporates

of asso-ciation)

(i.e., diff erential

by an individuals justifications, that

behavior is permissible.

marijuana but through

Akers conceptualization

and attitudes

personal as opposed to

definitions

areinfluenced excuses,

why a particular

justifications

to accept it as not really bad, or not as harmful

orientations

a given behavior. These

peer and other group

belief also favors the

by an individuals

or otherwise

or

or deviant act, but this type

models and through

alcohol, own

conventional

one may have an initially

smoking

using

are ones

A neutralizing

of a criminal

or excuses for

93

who adhere to these

who hold to

of belief is influenced

behavior. (Akers

THEORY

much higher probability of using

those

negative definitions.

reinforce-ment

& Sellers 2004, pp. 8586)

Definitions

but those

have a

marijuana than

but they also present one with

imitate

for criminal

of

LEARNING

discriminative as

these

more likely Behaviorally,

stimulus to

what

that kind

to commit

they

provide

presents of

an

behavior

appropriate/justified

neutralizing beliefs. Conventional beliefsare definitions

example, if a minimum-wage employee who has been

criminal

and

deviant

conforming neutralizing favorable

beliefs

toward

is a definition criminal

acts

that it is cool

favorable

toward

com-mitting

dishwasher,

are supportive

crime and deviance.

For instance,

marijuana.

5 years suddenly gets his or her hours reduced to part-time

are those that

holds that

A positive belief committing

morally desirable or if

an

individual

or

a

wholly

decide to steal

will

employee

money from the register

and

deserves

some personal definitions into

might

or steal food unjustly

it.

Akers and Silverman (2004)

wholly acceptable to get high on

Not all who hold this attitude

then the long-time

because she believes that she has been treated

believes

marijuana, then this is a positive belief favorable toward smoking

at the same restaurant for

becausethe managerchose to hire another part-time

an individual

and

washing dishes full-time

committing

For

behaviors. In contrast, positive or

or deviant act is

permissible.

or

a particular situation.

is

comprising either conventional beliefs or positive or that are negative or unfavorable toward

in

Cognitively,

accessible system of justifica-tions

or deviant act.

cues

decision to engage

behavior.

make an individual

with

and

an individuals

radical ideologies

learned of

went on to argue that

are so intense

and ingrained

belief system, such as the

militant and/or

terrorists

groups

94

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

that these definitions alone exert a strong eff ect on

classmatessmile with approval andinvite John to come

an individuals

overto their house after school to play with them.This

or criminal

probability

the street

Andersons

can serve as another

definition

For example, if

a deviant

(1999)

code

peer approval

of

assault.

example of a personal

that is likely to have a significant

an individual

down

of committing

act. Similarly,

an urban inner-city and

youth is

observes another

Positive

(who

that

a behavior

nice jewelry, then the

individual

urban juvenile

in jumping

stimuli.

and taking

his jewelry

these examples, criminal

makes right.

Akers suggested that

and deviant acts are not

they are either

the kid

because of the code of the street

or the personal belief that might

the

Despite

majority

motivated in this

weak conventional

commit

the

can increase

the likelihood

to escape or avoid For example,

adverse

or unpleasant

Chris hates driving to and home

work because every day he has to drive through on the interstate.

decides to come into

One day, Chris

work 1 hour early so he can in

turn leave 1 hour early. Chris realizes that early and subsequently

leaving

by coming in

early, he is able to avoid

the speed trap becausethe officers are not posted on

the interstate during his new travel times. motivate anin-dividual

are positive or neutralizing beliefs that criminal/deviant

act

when

faced

money,

will be repeated if the act allows the

the same speed trap

beliefs that off er little

to no restraint for engaging in crime/deviance or they to

from

of way;

can also be provided

an increase in status,

Negative reinforcement

walking

youth

yields

for the

awards, or pleasant feelings.

resides in the same area) flaunting might feel justified

reinforcement

moti-vating when a behavior

role in

to participate in crime or deviance.

the street

serves as positive reinforcement

this new travel schedule the following again he avoids the speed trap.

with an opportunity or the right set of circumstances.

Herepeats

day, and once

His behavior (coming

in an hour early and leaving an hour early) has now been negatively reinforced DIFFERENTIAL

REINFORCEMENT

In Similar

to

the

mechanism

whereby an imbalance favorable

toward

of

diff erential

increases the probability

a deviant

that

increases

will commit present,

the

and

in

he the

or

she

future.

an

Furthermore, and/or

continues

or diff

behavior

the

that

from

an

the yellow line influence. drink

place

know that

scenario. John is a quiet and making friends.

him on the playground

will be his friend if

friendship.

hitting

others is

Two of his and tell

he hits another

not right,

child. John

boy may

but he decides

with their suggestion in order to gain their Immediately

has

when she decides to go

and is arrested for

Her decision

driving

and subsequent

and drive resulted

in a painful

under the behavior

to

and unpleasant

This last scenario is an example of negativepunish-ment.

positive punishment,

because they do not like this particular

to go along

Rachel

Marks mom decidesto buy him a new car but

tells him not to smoke cigarettes in the car. Despite his moms warning, Mark and his friends still decide

shy boy who has difficulty

him that they

of a particular

For example, driver

serve

consequence: an arrest (a positive punishment).

the

reinforcement

and negative punishment.

classmates approach

or decrease the probability being repeated.

that

bar. On her way home, she gets pulled over for crossing

past,

process operatesin four key modes:positive reinforce-ment,

Consider the following

and negative),

punishers

night she decides to drive herself to and from the local

experienced

refrains

erential

negative reinforcement,

(positive

and negative

always had a designated

individual

aff ect the probability

The

to reinforcers

diff erential reinforce-ment out to the bar on Friday nights, but on one particular

will participate in a behavior in the first

whether

behavior

contrast

are positive

to increase

act

will engage

that

anticipated

rewards and punishments individual

in

likelihood

a given behavior.

and future

or criminal

an individual

in such behavior, an imbalance also

there

association,

of norms, values, and attitudes

committing

because he avoids the speed

trap (i.e., the negative stimulus).

after he punches the boy, his

to smoke cigarettes in the vehicle. odor

when she chooses to

His mom smells the

drive his car to the grocery

store one day and decides to take away privileges for

2

months for

Marks behavior (smoking been negatively Similar

to

not following

her rules.

cigarettes in the car) has now

punished (removal diff erentia]

Marks driving

of driving privileges).

association,

for diff erential reinforcement;

there

are

mo-dalities

more specifically

SOCIAL

LEARNING

THEORY

95

rewards that are higher in value and/or are greater in

context

number are morelikely to increase the chances that a

process of imitation is still assumed to exert an effectin

behavior

will occur and be repeated.

the reinforcement an either/or

occur

law

but instead

in

favor

operates according

of effect wherein the behaviors

most frequently

chosen

maintaining

of

and

are highly reinforced

alternative

perhaps

dimensions occurs is

Although

the least

complex

or

individuals

his

behavior.

or An

the behavior of potential

her

observation

individual

of can

an-other

models either directly or themselves,

of

the

models

the

and the observed consequences

all aff ect the probability the behavior. The

process of imitation

to as vicarious reinforcement (1981)

until the late

provided

embezzlers, diff erential

did not emerge in the

qualitative

provided

association

for social learning).

study

of professional

well-known

research on ap-prehended

preliminary

these seminal

various components of social learning theory, and the evidence

is rather

robust

(see

Akers

&Jensen

to list

or discuss each individually;

of

some of the of

most recognizable

Akers social learning

and

his

to

therefore,

if they like the

model

imitate

modeled

or respect the

and comprehensive

theory

performed

receive

model, see

reinforcement,

see

performance is

where imitating is reinforced....

common

when

an

the

models

Inverse imita-tion observer

does

with a number

behavior,

process of imitation

the initial

acquisition

new behavior. Thus,

most salient in

and performance

of a novel or

an individuals

show for the first time

an individuals is

in crime or deviance after

another

maintains that the

occurs throughout

Akers has argued that imitation

peer for the first

decision to engage

watching a violent television

or observing time

his friends

best

be summa-rized

drinking

study, and first of these

projects, and by far the

and cited, is

2006). This

most well-known

research project involved primary collec-tion

of survey datafrom approximately 3,000 students Grades 7 through 12 in eight communities in the Midwest.The

life,

can

(4) the rape and sexual coercion study.The

in

being punished. (p. 187) theory

of samples and

minor deviance to serious

research

(2) the Iowa study, (3) the elderly

oris in an environment where conformity is

social learning

and this

of

the Boys Town study (for a review, see Akers &Jensen,

not

like the model,seesthe model get punished,

Although

tests Akers

in terms of four projects: (1) the Boys Town study,

the

model give off signs of pleasure, or are in an environment

criminal

by

of

associates.

on a range of behaviors from

behav-ior

the fol-lowing

noting the findings

scholars over the years across a variety to

2006).

makean attempt

Akers has tested his own theory

tend

studies,

research now spanning morethan five decadeshascon-tinued

this process:

Observers

support

(e.g., also off ering support

Following

discussion is limited

Baldwin

a concise summary

(1937)

and Cresseys (1953)

will imitate

1977).

tests of all of the dimensions

There are far too manystudies to

is often referred

(Bandura

THEORY

theory

behavior

of the behavior

that an individual

LEARNING

to demonstrate varying levels of support for the

characteristics

Baldwin

a given behavior.

1970s, early research, such as

observe

media). Furthermore, the

and

the

of Akers social learning

for

theory. Imitation

indirectly (e.g., through the itself,

Nevertheless,

literature

of the four

engages in a behavior that

follows

SOCIAL

full empirical

Sutherlands

of Akerss social learning

on

occur.

are

behaviors.

when an individual

modeled

can

or desisting from

TESTING

that

theft is

imitation

to

IMITATION

Imitation

which

process does not necessarily occur in

fashion

a quantitative

Akers clarified that

in

attack

provides the key social

on

adolescent

the first

majority of the survey questions focused substance

use

and

survey that included

The

results

Town data provided social learning sets

of variables

studies

of

diff

erential

was also

permitted

theory.

relying

overwhelming

theory, including

it

et al. 1979) to fully test

of social learning

of the

but

questions that

Akers and his associates (Akers the four components

abuse,

on the

support

for

Boys Akers

each of its four association,

definitions

main

96

CRIME

diff

AND

erential

BEHAVIOR

reinforcement,

and

imitation.

The

multi-variate

results indicated that greater than half of the total

variance in

(R2

= .54)

in

the frequency

and

marijuana

more

than

use (R2

social learning

two

variables

eff ect on explaining elements

eff ect on the

dependent

of imitation).

The

variable

more

eff ect of imitation

modest

on substance

(with results

cumulative

of

learning

use.

also

variables

the termination

Akers,

of alcohol,

the

social sanctions,

Krohn, the

and

and

definitions

these

correlated

to

to abstinence continued

use

of

of

and senior

of smoking

high school students in

among

provided the initial

3 years of data indicated

approximately

3% of the variance

being a smoker in either of wasrelatively

werefound for the ability

of the

41% explained variance; Krohn, Skinner, provided longitudinal

support for the social learning

capacity to

predict the frequency

using the complete

behavior The

on the social learning third

see

project

in

eff ects for smoking

variables.

use and problem

of elderly

Florida

& Jensen,

and

2006).

in four

New Jersey (for to the

a review, results

which examined

use among adolescents, the

significant

study drinking

respondents

Similar

the Boys Town and Iowa studies,

in this study

the Iowa

was a 4-year longitudinal

of alcohol

a large sample

Akers

of smok-ing

5 years of data from

study and revealed some reciprocal

Muscatine,

test of social learning

models

Massey, & Akers 1985). Akers and Lee(1996) also

among

was

Path

variables to predict the continuation

each

Iowa (for areview, see Akers &Jensen 2006). Spear and Akers (1988)

theory.

and the cessation of smoking by the third year (ap-proximately

of the frequency

project, the Iowa study,

examination

smokers.

eff ects of the social learning

had not reported

social learning

nega-tive

of

3

who would be a smoker in Year 3 if that

communities

second research

a 5-year longitudinal junior

explained

models,

substances.

The

variables

with

aversive drug experiences,

unfavorable

using the first

that the direct and indirect

variables

social

marijuana, and hard drug

exposure

constructed

more than

analysis of the Iowa data also pro-vided

for social learning

weak, stronger results

among

use, with cessation being related to a preponderance nonusing associations,

support

use (first

that

were significantly

The longitudinal

being regular

the 2 prior years. Although this evidence

role in initiating

demonstrated

and nearly half reported

when the

having smoked,

individual

for

use was not surprising

Lanza-Kaduce,

(1984)

and peers smoked,

found

use) versus having a strong effect on the frequency or maintenance

none of these youth

smokers. In contrast,

the exception

considering the hypothesized interrelationships

Radosevich

parents

in predicting

independent

the social learning variables. Also,imitation is expected to play a more important

being regular

out of every 4 of these youth reported

who

use, but also each of

a substantial

smoking, and virtually

reported

more seri-ous

Not only did

yield a large

substance exerted

by the variables

move on to

from

adolescents

variance

that the adolescent

would

drugs and alcohol.

the social learning

the four

the

social learning

also aff ected the probability

in

of

alcohol

were explained

variables. The

involvement

drinking

thirds

= .68)

began to use substances

of

very high probability that the adolescent abstained

of elderly individuals

multivariate

of

sub-stance

results

also demonstrated

eff ects for the social learning

variables

as

theory onthe first wave(year) of the Iowa datain an at-temptpredictors of the frequency of alcohol use and prob-lem drinking. The

to replicate the findings of the Boys Town study. The

results of the cross-sectional analysis revealed

for

more than

Once again, the

social learning

variables

over half of the variance in self-reported each of the social learning independent

neither

Additional

illustrated

adolescents

smoking,

and

had a rather strong

eff ect on the outcome (with the exception

of imitation). (1998)

variables

explained

the

evidence

provided

substantial

influence

of the

of the

process accounted

explained

variance

in

self-reported

The last project by Akersand his associatesreviewed here is a study samples

of rape and sexual coercion

of college

1991). The

findings

men (Boeringer,

among two

Shehan,

in these studies also

& Akers

mirrored the

results of the previous studies by Akers and his associ-ates, with the social learning

variables exerting

to strong eff ects on self-reported

behavior.

When

coercion in sex in addition

smoked, there

was a

proclivity

parents and peers on their

of the parents or friends

by Akers

social learning

elderly alcohol use/abuse.

nearly identical results among the youth in the Iowa study as was previously found in the Boys Town study.

50%

use of nonphysical

to predicting

(i.e., the readiness to rape).

moder-ate

rape and rape Although

Aker

SOCIAL

theory to various degrees using dependent variables Akers

alcohol

2003),

cross-national

2006),

and

Jensen

2004),

homicide

even terrorism

the findings

reviewed

and drug

from

clearly identify

&

rates

&

(Akers

the

(Akers

studies

anomie,

defined structural

class oppression,

group conflict,

variables

social

disorganization,

conditions

of societies,

Differential

social

location

refers

to

membership in and relationship SOCIAL

PRELIMINARY

amount

behavior

of

at the

the

LEARNING:

ASSUMPTIONS

Akers social learning

and reference

AND

friendship/peer

EVIDENCE

theory

in

criminal

level

(see

individuals

to primary,

sec-ondary,

groups such as the family,

groups, leisure

groups, colleagues,

and work groups.

has explained

variation

individual

communi-ties,

or groups.

AND

THEORETICAL

to

patriarchy, and other concepts that

criminogenic

of the empirical

theory.

STRUCTURE

refer

have been used in one or more theories to identify

just

4. SOCIAL

97

structure.

3. Theoretically

& Silverman

classic

the strength

status of social learning

use (Hwang

THEORY

groups, or social categories in the overall social

and his associates havecontinued to test social learning such as adolescent

LEARNING

a consider-able and

Akers

With

attention

to

these

social

structural

domains,

Akers contended that the differential social organiza-tion

deviant

of society and community

& Jensen

2006), and Akers (1998) recently extended it to posit

locations

of individuals

within

and the differential

the social

structure

(i.e.,

individuals gender, race, class,religious affiliation, etc.) an explanation for the variation in crime at the macro-level. Akers social structure and sociallearning (SSSL) theory

hypothesizes

factors

that

have

The

an

that

indirect

assumption

diff erential

reinforcement,

on

structural

individuals

be-havior.

effect hypothesis is guided

and

definitions,

imitation)

that

decisions

Akers (1998;

p. 91) identified

the social learning

association,

on individuals deviance.

are social

eff ect

by the

that the eff ect of these social structural

is operating through (i.e.,

there

indirect

to

see also

four

specific

a direct

engage in

ef-fect

crime

& Sellers,

domains

wherein the social learning

variables diff erential

have

Akers

fac-tors

or

2004,

of social struc-ture

process can operate:

provide the context in which learning occurs (Akers Sellers 2004, p. 91). Individuals crime/deviance

wherein the learning exposure

Differential social organization

refers to the struc-tural

definitions

or

deviant

including agecomposition, population density,and other

2.

attributes

that

lean

societies,

and other social systems toward

relatively high or

relatively low crime rates (Akers

1998, p. 332).

mediate

hypothesized, should

characteristics

of individuals

and social groups that indicate

their

the larger

Class, gender, race

social

and ethnicity, positions

structure.

marital status,

and standing

niches within

and age locate

the

of persons and their roles,

place and the individuals

to

the

possession

commission

interactions

social

then

exhibit

variables;

of

with

(a) the

direct

(b)

direct

structural

criminal

deviant

models.

the

on

crime

as

variables

eff ects on the social learning

social

eff ects

eff ects

social structural

structural

on the

(c) once the social learning

variables

should

dependent

variable;

variables

are included

and

in

model,these variables should demonstrate strong

independent

eff ects

on the

dependent

variable,

and

the social structural variables should no longer exhibit eff ects on the

dependent

variable,

or at least their

direct effects should besubstantially reduced. Considering

Differential location in the social structure refers to sociodemographic

environment

Stated in terms of a causal process, if the social learning

direct

communities,

of the

peers and attitudes,

favorable

and

decisions to engage in

a function

takes

deviant

acts,

variables

correlates of crime in the community or soci-ety the that affect the rates of crime and delinquency,

to

of

exert

1.

are thus

&

social only to

the relative structure

a handful

examine

mediation studies

to

in support delinquency

its

date

and

of studies theoretical

hypothesis.

novelty social

thus

of

learning

far

assumptions

have demonstrated

and substance

pro-posed

theory,

have attempted and/or

However, the few

of social structure

Akers

its

preliminary

positive findings

and social learning use, elderly

alcohol

for

abuse

98

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

rape, violence, binge drinking by college students, and variation

in cross-national

homicide

rates (for

a review,

than alternative programs), but there are still

unanswered questions about the feasibility and eff ec-tiveness of programs

see Akers &Jensen 2006). Yet, despite the consistency of positive

preliminary

social structure

some nonsupportive make a definitive primary

findings,

statement

mediating

social

findings

structure

that

Akers

social learning association

crime/deviance.

these few studies provide

of

theory, there

is the between

a suitable

benchmark

studies testing the theory

against

can build upon

and improve.

likely the

to

life

be in the form course

empirical

and

validity

to

of longitudinal

be

cross-cultural

is truly

also

have already

societies

2008),

The future of sociallearning theory lies alongthree paths. First,

there

will continue

to

be further

and

tests of social learning at the micro-or processlevel (i.e.,

theory

Miller, Jennings, much

Western

world.

There

studies

sup-porting

(see, e.g., Hwang

Alvarez-Rivera,

more research

of

&

& Miller

needs to examine

both

how wellthe theory holds upin diff erent societies and on

more accurate

but

the

been some cross-cultural

Akers 2003;

the

and control

American and

around

the social learning DIRECTIONS

over of

a general theory, then it should

to the explanation

crime and deviance not only in but

studies studies

of the theory in diff erent societies. If

have applicability

societies

FUTURE

social learning

Future research along all of these lines is also more

social learning

Nevertheless,

designed around

theory.

are

and it is still too soon to

force in the

and

which future

in support

and social learning

many

how

much

variation

there

is

in

the

eff ects

of

the

social learning variables in different cultures.

at the level of differences acrossindividuals), including measures of variables from other criminological and

these

studies

will

use

better

measures

central concepts of the theory.

theories,

of

all

of

Having said this, it is not

likely that the empirical findings

will be much diff erent

from

future

the

continue

research

so far,

to include

explanations

of the

but these

more research most serious

behavior as well as white-collar

studies

of the

SSSL

and violent

take

would follow

the lead

direction of Jensen

and

to the

Akers (2003,

and

most macro-level.

Structural theories at that level are moreapt to be valid the

of the theoretical

learning

wasto provide a historical development

structure of

morethey reference or incorporate the mostvalid

in

of Akers so-cial

theory, review the seminal research testing

the general theory,

better

principles

of this chapter

and discuss the recently

macro-level version of social learning

development

that this could

2006) to extend the basic social learning

the SSSL modelglobally

criminal

using

purpose

overview

should

and corporate crime.

model, again

measures. A very promising

The

on social leaning

Second, there is need for continued and testing

CONCLUSION

the

and social learning), where future

order to further

research

may wish to

the research

along

proceed

of the theory.

evidence

with a number

have not been specifically

(i.e., social

as well as off er sugges-tions

advance the status

What is clear from in this chapter,

theory

proposed

presented

of studies that

mentioned or discussed in

this chapter (for a review, see Akers &Jensen 2006), is that social learning hasrightfully

earned its place as a

principles found at the individual level, and those are

general theory of crime and deviance. Onetheorist has

social learning principles.

referred to it (along with control and strain theories) as

Third,

social learning

be applied in Gendreau, rehabilitation,

principles

cognitive-behavioral

& Andrews

2003)

and correctional

provide some theoretical

(Cullen,

prevention, programs underpinning

policy.

Research on the application

of such

programs

least

will continue

Wright, treatment,

and other-wise for social

and evaluations

have thus far found

moderately eff ective (and

to

usually

them to

be at

more eff ective

constituting theory

the core

(Cullen,

Wright,

has been rigorously by the theorist criminologists

of contemporary

& Blevins 2006). The

tested a number of times,

himself

theory not only

but also by other influential

and sociologists;

cited in the scholarly literature a common

criminological

it

has been

and in textbooks;

topic covered in a variety

widely it is

of undergraduat

SOCIAL

and graduate courses; and it provides a basisfor sound

Akers,

policy and practice. Ultimately, the task levied

at any general theory

crime and deviance is that it should crime/deviance culture,

and context. Therefore, of future

type, time, place,

if past behavior is the

theory

its generalizability

across these various dimensions

support

will continue to demonstrate

tests of Akerss SSSL theory

as a macro-level explanation

outcomes

L.,

are indeed

open to

for

all variations

in

through

the process of continuing

and its

macro-level version to rigorous

No theory

criminal

behavior,

tests in sociology and criminology

Angeles:

can it be

Anderson,

of the

Sutherlands

theory,

York:

Burgess

and

Akers

Bandura,

R. L. (1968).

Problems

Social

definitions

READINGS

behavior.

of devi-ance:

Social

Forces,

Learning

Press.

approach.

Akers,

(2nd

(3rd

R. L.,

Belmont,

of

& Jensen,

past, present,

NJ: Transaction.

theory

(Eds.),

theory

(pp.

Cressey,

A social learning

deviance.

3776).

Cullen,

3,

and

status Brunswick,

of

coercion

and

of fraternity

A diff erential

of criminal

behav-ior.

128147.

money.

Epidemiology

A case from

Glencoe, IL:

criminology.

&Blevins,

Pacific Sociological

K. R. (Eds.).

of criminological

Wright, J. P., Gendreau, What correctional

In

individual

(2006).

theory.

New

NJ: Transaction.

criminological theory.

and

4758.

status

(2003).

in

Social

40, 558564.

Other peoples

J. P.,

Cullen, F. T.,

New

sexual

theory

Wright,

deviance: The

stock: The

R. L. (1991).

R. L. (1966).

14,

stock: The

Brunswick,

Wright,

in

Press.

contribution

Relations,

& Akers,

Psychologies,

mind (pp. 161191).

R. (1960).

F. T.,

status

In. F. T. Cullen, J. P. Taking

D.

Review,

Press. empirical

the

York:

disengagement.

University

learning

Family

Problems,

conduct:

Boston:

moral

C. L., & Akers,

Assessing

L.,

of

New

Press.

Taking

of crime

W. W.

Beyond sociobiology.

theory.

and states of

D. R. (1953).

Free

and social structure:

The

OH:

Decency, violence,

of terrorism:

Cambridge

and social

R.

Cressey,

A social learning

Wadsworth.

and

G. F. (2006).

and future.

& K. R. Blevins criminological

crime

UK:

association-reinforcement

learning

Wadsworth.

CA:

Social learning

University

of social learning

CA:

behavior:

Violence:

New York:

learning

Origins

S., Shehan,

Social

behavior:

Belmont,

theory

A social

Wadsworth.

Deviant

ed.).

Northeastern Akers,

CA:

ed.).

R. L. (1998).

A general

behavior:

Deviant

R. L. (1985).

approach

Akers,

Belmont,

R. L. (1977).

approach

Akers,

Deviant

M. A. Zahn,

Cincinnati,

city.

Mechanisms

theologies,

membership. Burgess,

R. L. (1973).

ed.)

Elsevier.

aggression:

46,

455465.

Akers,

(4th

(Eds.),

1935).

J. I. (1981).

W. Reich (Ed.),

Boeringer,

in the sociology

and

theo-ries:

asocial learn-ing

In

Code of the street:

Social

contexts Akers,

Toward

& S. L. Jackson

of the inner

A. (1990).

In

principle.

FURTHER

A.(2004).

A. (1977).

Cambridge, AND

and application

to research (pp.

moral life

ideologies,

REFERENCES

of

Criminological

and terrorism.

J. D., & Baldwin,

Bandura,

ninth

evaluation,

E. (1999).

and the

General

omit

Journal

LexisNexisAnderson.

New

reformulation

of

Norton.

NOTE

their

C. S. (2004).

H. Brownstein,

Baldwin,

chose to

smoking.

test

317343.

model of violence

own and in comparison to other theories.

In

American

Roxbury.

From theory

determined how muchthe theory can account for onits

theory.

&

deviant

A longitudinal

Adolescent

R. L., & Silverman,

H.

L.,

and

636655.

theory: 26,

99

Lanza-Kaduce,

a general

G. (1996).

R. L., & Sellers,

Akers,

of

44,

Introduction,

Only

and sound em-pirical

test

Review,

Drug Issues,

Los

D.,

THEORY

Social learning

& Lee,

social learning

can

to subject the theory

A specific

R. L.,

and

of crime. Yet these

M.

M. (1979).

Sociological

Akers,

Akers,

will also gamer

debate.

account

1.

Krohn,

behavior:

behavior, then the expectation is

that social learning

that future

of

be able to explain

across crime/deviance

best predictor

R.

Radosevich,

LEARNING

theory: R. L. Akers

criminological

theory:

P., & Andrews,

treatment

Implications

can tell for

social learning

& G. F. Jensen (Eds.), Vol. II.

D. A.

us about

Social learning

Advances theor

100

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

and the explanation (pp. Hwang,

S.,

R. L. (2003).

& Akers,

& G.F. Jensen (Eds.), Vol. 11. crime:

In

and

variation

in

peers as

delinquency:

Advances

(pp.

New

M. D., Skinner,

smoking.

Lanza-Kaduce,

Radosevich,

W. F.,

Social learning

L.,

Massey, J. theory

Social Problems, Akers,

M. (1984).

R.

L.,

L.,

and

Cessation

of

M.

Warr,

alcohol

D.,

smoking American

among

variables

adolescents:

Journal

of Preventive

Chicago

E. H.(1947).

professional thief

Chicago:

Press. Principles ofcriminology

(4th

ed.).

Lippincott.

G., & Matza,

D.(1957). of

Techniques

delinquency.

of neutraliza-tion:

American

Journal

of

Sociology, 22, 664670.

adolescent

32, 455473. Krohn,

study.

A theory

& Akers,

use among

test of social learn-ing

Social learning

H. (1937). The of

Philadelphia: Sykes,

NJ: Transaction.

&

336348.

E.

Sutherland,

theory

151178).

L.,

Drug Issues, 38, 261284.

of habitual

4,

University

of

L.

substance

A partial

R. L. (1988).

Muscatine

Medicine,

model.

Alvarez-Rivera,

Explaining

Journal

Spear, S., & Akers,

mecha-nisms. Sutherland,

mediating

W. G.,

M. (2008).

and the risk

A social learning

5, 7996.

Rican adolescents:

theory.

of New

Vol. 11. Social learning

of crime

J.

Puerto

theory:

3964).

& G. F. Jensen (Eds.),

theory:

explanation

R. L. (1985). cigarette

(pp.

Miller,

learning,

R. L. Akers

adolescents:

Behavior,

H. V., Jennings,

The

Gender

beliefs,

Brunswick, Krohn,

In

and the explanation

new century

R. L. Akers

criminological the

social

Miller,

Korean

NJ: Transaction.

G. F. (2003).

and

theory

A guide for the

Self-images,

in

of

theories.

Advances in criminological

Social learning

Brunswick, Jensen,

test

and self-control

use by

use among

Deviant

NJ: Transaction.

Substance

A cross-cultural

bonding,

drug

A guide for the new century

New Brunswick,

adolescents:

social

of crime:

339362).

&

and

of

M. (2002). criminal

University

Companions conduct.

Press

in crime: The

Cambridge,

UK:

social

aspects

Cambridge

CHAPTER V

Social

Control

Theorie

SELF-CONTROL

THEORY

Travis Michael

I

n the

summer

of

1998,

three

to the rear of a pickup backroads

truck

white

men in

and

dragged

near his hometown. The

the road the next morning.

victims

east

Texas

chained

him for several

remains

a black

strewn

Whenarrested that same day,the three

along

men hadin

their possession a large quantity of meatthey had stolen during a burglary of a packing plant. According to

mediareports, all had served time in prison and

all had been drinking heavily at the time the crimes werecommitted. In federal law, murder involving race hatred is punishable by death. In Texaslaw, murder involving

kidnapping

death penalty.

(forcing

the

movement of the victim)

Many calls for speedy execution

days that followed. These

is also subject to the

of the offenders

calls were not limited

were heard in the

to one area of the country

one ethnic group. In fact, a good guess would bethat about 95 percent of the population arrested

favored the death penalty in this case.Through men quickly

A theory and

denied participation

of crime should

horrible

they

more common

be able to

truancy, shoplifting,

U.S.

one of the

make sense of these facts, however rare should

also

make sense of the far

at the other end of the seriousness

underage smoking,

or to

in the act.

may be. A general theory

crimes and delinquencies

his lawyer,

scale:

bicycle theft, cheating on tests.

What are the facts in this case? You may have heard that theories favor some facts and ignore theory

others. If so, what you have heard is true. Facts accepted by one

may be rejected

or ignored

by other theories.

Self-control

theory

focuses

on the typical features of criminal acts and on the criminal record of the offender. In the case in question, self-control (1).The

theory

would emphasize the following:

offenders had long records of involvement in criminal and deviant acts.

(2).They

did not limit themselves to one kind of crime, but engaged in a wide

variety of criminal and deviant acts, evenin a short period of time (burglary, kidnapping, believes

that

these

punishment. are considerable (5).

drinking acts

are

(4). The

deviant

under the influence). and

that

to commit

costs to the off enders of the crimes described

deserve

minimal and of short

described,

Although three

them

Everyone

potential

them. (6).

of

(3).

or

of the crimes

some

mur-der,

criminal

and long term; the benefits are

Despite the enormity

is required

excessively, driving

no special skill

off enders

se-vere

duration.

or knowledge

were involved

R.

man

miles along the

were found

Hirschi

in these

103

Gottfredso

and

104

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

crimes, they did not act as an organized group. Indeed, one off ender took the first opportunity to claim that he did not participate

in the

Self-control theory features its

most serious

unusual

brutality

Self-control of

pays little

and

is

not

theory case

ignore

interested

in

the

of the

motives

The

would lead usto guess that the off enders in this were

uneducated

so because it

unskilled,

assumes that

crimes are unlikely to obtain

and

but

it

would

people committing

do

such

to have exerted the eff ort required

an education

or a high level

have in common? They

quick and easy ways of getting

safety, reputation, The

of occupational

skill, not because poverty forced them into the acts in

features

what one wants.They

and economic common

to

unless these features enduring

tendency

the likelihood regardless

well-being.

various

crimes

and

Those

that they

people the theory

must diff er in

current

enduring

calls self-control.

degree of self-control

damaging

the

People

consequences. This

who have a high

whatever

one another

will take the quick and easy way

of long-term

acts potentially

devi-ant

were reflected in some relatively

of individuals.

diff erence between

are all

dangerous to ones health,

acts would not cause them to predict

of

in the social

perpetrators.

manyforms of criminal and devi-ant

not listed)

are all also, in the long run,

to the serious-ness

uninterested

backgrounds

the two

of race hatred.

attention

off enders. It is also relatively or economic

behavior

madeit so newsworthy:

and its element

theory

crimes

that

drug use (and the

offense.

would largely

of the homicide

Whatdorobbery, theft, burglary, cheating, truancy, and

to their

benefits

these

avoid

prospects,

acts

seem

to

question. In short, self-control theory takes the social

promise.Those

and

easily swayed by current benefits and tend to forget

economic

conditions

of

off

enders

as

a reflection

future of their tendency to off end, not as a cause of their of-fending.

Bythe same token, the theory would paylittle attention

to the time and place of the crime. In its view,

there is nothing

special

with respect

to crime about

east Texas or the end of the twentieth Which of the facts listed

is

We

begin to answer this question

by asking another:

answer is previous crime.

want to know the likelihood

commit do

no

criminal better

count

the

diff

erent

kinds

is the central fact

theorist

theory is

degree of self-control are

are between

these

extremes,

sometimes doing things they know they should not do, other times

being careful not to take unnecessary risks

for short-term

of previous

advantage.

criminal

criminal

and

the theory

heart of the theory and

deviant

deviant

acts. The

is self-control,

or short-term for

important

theories.

theory

that all crimi-nal

predict at the

future heart

as the tendency

of

to

costs exceed their immedi-ate

facts

view, it also questions the by competing

concept

benefits. This

the

is the ability

acts to

defined

avoid acts whose long-term

accounts

criminal

in the past.

on which self-control

based. It says to the self-control

will

you can

of

and deviant acts he or she has committed This

What

that a person

or deviant acts in the future,

than

Most people

So, a fact at the

century.

most important?

fact best predicts crime? The If you

costs.

with a low

future

concept,

in

about

crime.

our In

view, our

meaning of the facts claimed Where did our version

of self-control

come from?

and deviant acts, at whatever age they are commit-ted,

whatevertheir level of seriousness, havesomething BACKGROUND

in common. It says also that people differ in the degree

AND

HISTORY

to which they are attracted to or repelled by whatever it is

crime

and

We know

deviance that

in common them

predicts

who smoke

have

criminal

to

and

For a hundred years or so, criminologists, social work-ers,

off er. deviant

acts

because participation

participation and drink

to

cheat

on tests,

in any one of

in all of the others. People

are

more likely

who do not smoke or drink to useillegal classes,

have some-thing

to

break

into

than

people

drugs, to cut houses,

to

rob

and steal. People who rob and steal are morelikely than people

who do not rob and steal to smoke and drink,

use illegal

drugs, break into

houses, and cheat on tests.

and ordinary citizens havetried to draw a clearline between the delinquencies of adults. justice juvenile

As a result, juveniles

systems,

universities

delinquency

continue to focus ignore

of children

the

and

and the crimes

and adults have separate off er separate courses in

criminology,

on the activities

and theories

of one group and to

other.

Beginning in the

1960s, academics

became interested

in the connection

between juvenile

delinquency

and adult

crime,

often called the issue o

SELF-CONTROL

maturational reform. It

wasthen

widely believed that

THEORY

105

are morally wrong. Hirschi assumed that these causes

mostdelinquents quit delinquency asthey enter adult-hood,could change over the life course, and could thus ac-count with only a small careers.

Although reform

explanations In

was thought

before Robert

famous

delinquency

Glueck (1940), work

of

Martinson (1974a)

researchers,

had concluded Nature

Sheldon and

that reform

and

Father

wasthought

Commit

popular at the time. The

delinquency

most popular

called strain theory, the theory

acts

kids

were less likely

whether

by self-reports

research on the theory

Hirschis

was

theories

was what is now

behind the

measured

parents, kids attached to

and diligent

delinquent

Great Society

theory In

or

to

delinquency

was

police records.

Initial

did not, however, test its ability

exposition

and

over time.

test

of social

control

was published in 1969 as Causesof Delinquency.

1974,

Robert

article just

Martinson

published

mentioned, What

his famous

WorksQuestions

and

Answers about Prison Reform, concluding that indeed

Waron Poverty programs of the 1960s and 1970s.

This theory said that peopleturn to crime becausethey

ways not true

worked reasonably

to account for change in delinquency

Time.

to be common, it

seen as a serious problem for the

and

school, ambitious

Eleanor

was simply

was testable in

When tested, it

well. Kids attached to their

works in the justice system, two

Mother

Because reform

of earlier theories.

credit.

popularized

changes in delinquency.

Social control theory

to be common,

of it tended to be vague and unsatisfactory.

the view that nothing

for corresponding

going on to criminal

mostaccounts, the justice system wasgiven little

Indeed,

the

number

nothing

works.In the same year, he delivered at a con-ference a paper titled The

cannot realize the American Dream through conven-tional

Myth of Treatment and the

Reality of Life Process.The second paper attempted to means.So, according to the theory, poverty, dis-crimination, and lack of opportunity are majorcauses of crime. This and to

sounded

plausible to

most academics.

flaw. It could delinquent,

perhaps explain but it

being delinquent.

could

delinquency

this

theory

much delinquency. do not

are still there

when

defect. This

theory

or broken.

In

one version

society, the individuals

in

says that

part to

delinquent

bond to society is weak

(Hirschi

1969),

the

ties to institutions

bond

and

made up of four elements: (1).

to

bond of respect, love, or aff ection. The

more

the adolescent cares for the opinion of others, the less likely

he or she is to commit

delinquent acts.

(2). Commitment, the bond of aspiration, investment, or ambition. The (Toby

greater the individuals

1990), the

of delinquent

(3).

of

commit activities.

the

delinquent (4).

by the

restriction

social

more he or

she has to lose by the commission Involvement,

Put bluntly, something the

opportunity

acts. to

view that

bond

criminal

to and

conformity delinquent

about

the

treatment

of

behavioral

crime

sciences.

said there

was

of crime on which

was based.

Martinson turned

said

theories

and

of treatment

enterprise

for crime, ageis

of

with the theories

To illustrate

to the relation

this

between

140 years earlier, the French statistician had said: . . . among all the causes that

the growth

Martinson

failure

social

the failure

Quetelet (1833)

and abatement

without admitted

of the penchant

question the that

we

most energetic.

did

not

know

shape of the entire age-crime curve, but he thought knew enough to useit to judge theories.

the

we

Weknew when

crime tends to begin and weknew something about the peak age. Wealso knew that

what he called drop out

after the peak ageis quite common, and that complete of life.

usually takes place sometime

Another thing

are chronic allowed

we knew, he said,

or persistent

before the end wasthat there

off enders. This

knowledge

Martinson to sketch a hypothetical

age-crime

curve for two societies (see Figure 8.1). Martinson then applied the

major theories

to these facts, quickly concluding

cre-ated acts

the

the

wrong

age and crime:

acts by engaging in conventional

Belief, the

in

treatment

influence

that

important

dominant

stake in con-formityremission

1957), the greater the individuals

and personal capital (Coleman

saw

something then

other

Attachment,

of delinquency.

Martinson

inadequacy,

was developed

when an individuals

the

stop

begins to decline.

acts result

people, is

why they

and lack of opportunity

middle teens. They

Social control remedy

why some kids become

too

control theories

had an obvious

not explain

It predicted

Poverty, discrimination, go away in the

many Americans

But the theory

deal with issues raised by hisfirst paper and by social

them

was adequate to the task.

that

of delin-quency none of

Hethen introduced

106

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

2200

B

800 Incidenc

A

010

30

20

50

40

70

60

Age

Figure

8.1

Hypothetical

Curves of the

Age

Distributions

of

Acts

Definable

as

Deliquency

or

Crime in

Birth

Cohorts in

Two

Societies

theory

he thought

he called the

A

New

attention

theory.

of

The

actually

This

was

After

for

before

him.

much

eff ort,

Martinsons

was

whether

the

the

No existing for

such

of

5.

and adequate

that

conclusions

they

deserve

could

in

to

desist

that from

treatment 2.

The

is

failure

the idea

criminal

a of

off enders

off ending

crime

treatment

is analogous

by appropriate

is

a

failure

to a disease treatment

of

theory

of ...

for the

complex

age, and

should

reflecting

variations and

nonoff

crime

relationship therefore in

enders.

the life

between include

the

crime

variables of

must

be expanded

of social

for

both

himself

later

arguing

the

to

include:

of legal

punish-ment;

damage

persistence

in

We did

its

which is of off end-ers

one

arguing to

better,

worse

[Hirschi

1975].)

social

bonds

had shown actually

maturation social

extend

Martinsons such

his position

off enders

of

by

processes. the

criminal

age limits.

with

way or the

idea

unpublished

delay

ordinary

that

make

of-fendersno evidence

fact

therefore,

normal

on the

a book-length

from

not agree

maturation,

expanded

may in

at treatment,

beyond

must be able to ac-count work,

course

theory

(1617)

prison

was contrary

An adequate

and

career

which of

individual.

3.

control

eff ect of the threat

off enders

Attempts

correctional

that

that

shielding

correctional

myth.

may be cured

damage,

work

may be induced

through

although

account

do so.

account

crime.

is able to

repeat-ing

social idea

theory

b) a notion

to

Martinson

The

to

theory deterrent

age curves

here.

1.

potential

Control a) the

belief

sociological

age distributions,

has the

concepts

hypothetical

4.

control

and

he concluded

(1974b)

which to

social

involvement,

account

had

eff ort,

and commend[ed]

audience.

commitment,

Martinson

not.

be useful in this

Beginning

his

question

attachment,

could

might

other. it

idea

an eff ect

of delayed

of treatment

that

treatment

does

not

(If

treatment

does

not

also

does

We did

not

agree,

that

change

accounts

for

in the

make

them

however, the

strength

reformation

that of of

SELF-CONTROL

THEORY

107

800

600

400 Rat

1970 1974 1983

200

0

40

020

60

80

Age

Figure

8.2

Arrests for

Burglary

by Age, United

States, 1970,

1974,

1983

juvenile delinquents. It seemed necessaryto look

more

accidents, legal drug use, promiscuous sexual activity.

closely at the connection

Does

It appears to be true for all groups and societies,

crime follow In

the path described by

1983,

we published

in a paper titled Age This

what

This shows

the

than vary from

facts

Crime.

cause of crime, and what

more

but

less

com-plex

But wherever

in

prisons.

It

their

At the

restricted

own

time

delinquent

to

or prison

is

true

our

article,

official

measures of crime

and

had been in usefor some time, they

allowed

doubters

to

argue that

the

data was evidence only

as they get older. undermined

peak levels, and continue to decline throughout

reckless acts diff er greatly in the likelihood

appears

to

to

be true

be true

for

as well for

all, or almost behavior

life.

all, crimes.

similar

It

to crime:

decline in

of off enders to avoid detection improves

adolescence and early adulthood, decline rapidly from appears

data.

delin-quency

had not yet

the place and whatever the time, they are highest in

This

were

way to the age question.

with age shown in official

that the ability

we

based on po-lice,

recordsso-called

been applied in a convincing This

whether

or by asking people

measures of crime

self-report

at all

acts.

we published

largely

court,

one society to an-other, crime

over time.

even

to report

in Figure 8.2, which

dramatic

places,

measured by police records

Although

guessed them to be. Crime rates

often change

and

crime is

Goring 70 years earlier

group to group and from

and they

of

of nature.

are

Martinson

times

question

Quetelet 150 years earlier

law of nature is illustrated that

to this

Explanation

Charles

had called a law

Martinson?

answer

mostenergetic

English physician

(1913)

our

and the

paper rediscovers

had called the the

between age and crime.

such

Webelieved facts already available skepticism.

Criminal,

deviant,

and

that they

will be observed or recorded, yet almost all decline with age. Automobile accidents,for example, arein important

108

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

mayresult from short-term deviant behavior seen early in life are still presentlong

waysanalogousto crimes.They

advantage (speeding, drinking, inattention) may produce long-term are

considered

accidents,

conceal themand so.The is

those

could

involved

accidents

much like the decline in crime

accounted for by a quirk of predicted that

self-report

turned

it does not. It to require in crime

data.

from

the

age.

Active, high-rate

itself

Self-reported

Illegal

Behavior

by

that

in

of off enders to reform

up with facts suggesting Criminal

statistics

on

of crime

activity

declines

with age, but it

True reform is too rare to show crime.

What

was

needed

was

the tendency to offend over the life course.

and

Age and Sex: Percent

18

17

Reporting

One or

More

Offenses

19

Chi2

Gamma

20

21

22

23

1.1

.7

2.5

1.3

18.2*

.38

10.2

5.3

8.7

6.2

32.7*

.27

12.0

7.5

8.7

3.1

47.7*

.32

4.5

4.1

1.6

53.6*

.38

21.7*

.52

31.8*

.18

12.1

.17

Males

Hit Supervisor Fight

at

3.8

Work/School

Gang

Fight

Hurt

Someone

Badly

Robbery

16.2

14.1

20.3

15.9

15.6

14.8

4.2

Steal

< $50

Steal

> $50

41.2

39.0

Joyride Parts

Trespass Arson

28.8

10.2

34.0

25.8

Damage

School

Work Property

Any

Aggressive

Any

Property

Any

Offense

Sample

Property

Offense Offense

Size (Weighted)

6.4

1.5

1.2

.0

32.1

4.2

2.8

1.2

6.0

6.3

3.7

.5

2.1

11.5

10.4

3.2

2.2

21.7

6.2

19.4

.5

2.3

10.4

5.7

.5

.1

.7

102.8*

.0

3.3

9.2

19.3

.3

24.3

5.7

16.4

16.4

1.1

31.3

7.5

22.8

4.2

11.5

9.7

37.3

7.3

3.2

Damage

7.9

11.6

39.9

5.2

Car

.1

3.0

8.9

Shoplift

Steal

1.8

.0

.36

18.2*

.39

31.0*

.33

111.3*

20.3*

.40

.59

19.5

14.5

4.9

4.3

3.1

2.7

10.4

10.7

5.5

6.7

3.1

4.4

34.9

28.0

21.8

20.6

13.8

17.0

68.5

59.6

47.8

46.4

42.1

31.0

27.7

140.2*

.36

74.3

65.4

54.6

53.1

45.7

40.7

29.7

149.8*

.3

593

289

246

with

that reform is

Age

Offense

It,

diff er

a

theory capable of explaining persistent diff erences in

with age, but so does everyone else. criminal

Weended

declines for everyone.

off end-ers

everywhere.

by factors

one society to another.

not the issue.

It

to explain the decline

decline is found

be explained

must explain the tendency

all too rare in

meaningful to ask, why do delinquents do not.

cannot

theories

to of-fendbecause

meaningful

So, we began with the idea that a theory

Our pre-diction

these facts changed everything.

with age.The

therefore,

Wetherefore

measures would confirm

sociological

was no longer

was

justice

system changes, for good or for ill, the tendency

to

with age, could not be

measurement.

Differences between people in their

Table 8.1

need

Table 8.1).

because they

slow down

no

meaningful to ask how the criminal

wished to do

out to be true, something

Once recognized, was no longer

no longer

with age, which

described by official

social science (see

quit?

feel

not even if they

decline in automobile

age-crime relation

after the peak ages of crime are behind them. It

and

ill eff ects. Precisely because they

269

241

122

.8

127

113.0*

.56

3.1

25.4*

.29

8.7

77.2*

.32

SELF-CONTROL

Table

THEORY

109

(continued) Age

Offense

20

19

18

17

23

22

21

Gamma

Chi2

Females

Hit Supervisor Fight

at

Work/School

Gang Fight Hurt

10.9

Someone

Badly

2.8

Robbery

.7

Steal


$50

23.2

1.6

Shoplift

Steal

Car

Parts

Trespass

1.9

1.0

1.1

1.0

1.0

19.3

18.2

15.4

Damage

Work Property

Any

Aggressive

Any

Property

Any

Offense

Sample

Offense Offense

Size (Weighted)

16.4

1.9

1.0

1.3

.1

.6

.0

.0

.4

.1

6.4

3.3

2.5

1.5

1.4

1.1

1.9

1.7

1.1

2.0

1.1

1.7

2.9

9.3

5.4

14.6

34.7

29.3

28.3

18.9

22.7

16.8

50.8

40.1

35.9

32.1

25.3

25.2

24.3

318

304

8.5

314

157

306

.36

9.5

.35

.38

.30

34.7*

.50

2.0

.09

1.1

15.0

9.8

3.2

.2

45.0

.35

69.6*

.2

19.5

676

9.3

1.3

.0

.0

.01

80.4*

.9

4.4

6.1

.17

4.0

7.0

.0

8.2

23.5*

1.6

11.8

8.0

.34

5.6

11.2

1.1

.4

.3

Property

.0

.8

Arson

School

.2

2.0

10.5

.41

.1

1.9

9.6

12.3

.7

2.3

12.7

.38

.6

13.3

.6

45.3*

.5

2.3

18.8

Damage

19.2

1.1

1.0

26.6

Joyride

3.0

23.0

1.6

2.7

8.6

.2

.16

3.2

9.1

7.2

11.4

3.2

6.3

9.9

7.4

6.1

7.1

.2

.80

.0

.2

.1

18.8*

.0

.0

1.6

44.7*

.28

.31

104.1*

98.3*

.29

147

* p < .05 Source:

Osgood et al. (1989,

398)

THE

To construct distinguish forced Crimes

in follow in the

such

a theory,

it

between

crime

and

us by the

age

upon

rise

and

fall

the tendency this

pattern.

2nd

trouble

THEORY

and

3rd

with juvenile

more likely

to serve

more likely

to

during

to

the

in

grades

are

authorities

have trouble

was first

necessary

criminality,

of

life

but

course,

criminal

at 15 and

with their

diff er-ences

to

be in

that

element

that

We began this chapter

Texas

in

take

the

summer

of

Crimes

man to a battered

1998.

pickup

points

describing

in

men

and

acts

space

or

and

an event in east

Three

truck

are

tied

another

dragged

him to

his

death.

That

trial

is

lies

drives

a

crime:

under

after

murder.

oath. That

drinking

under

are are

Each year in the

United

15

to

million

A

is

ten

16; they

and jobs

crime.

place at specific

20s; they

families

is

events

driving

cans

the influence.

arrests

the

witness

a crime:

a

criminal

perjury.

of beer. That Crimes

States, the Federal

in

A man

is a crime:

are very common. police

Bureau

report

about

of Investigation

(FBI).

at all ages. So, to

changeable

time.

do not

with teachers

more likely

in their

crimes.

acts

trouble

terms

to

a distinc-tion

distribution

commit

Children

prison

The

discuss the facts

may change

sensibly,

we need something

with age and something

that

may not.

The

unchangeable ofpeople

element

is criminality,

to engage in or refrain

from

the

criminal

ten-dency acts

110

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

was unusually difficult, possibly requiring several min-utes

Becausecriminality is a propensity or tendency, it can-not be

counted,

From

such

would

but

it

can

be

observation,

allow

themselves

observed

we know to

or

that

be involved

in

everybody foolish

does it

is obviously

elsewhere as well.)

And

we know that

murder

foolish.

It is

We know that

many

are

that

usually

commit

more likely

Criminality

than

act

others actually to commit

deviant

following

act

another

may be compli-cated,

the commission

should

not

be

confused

of with

characteristic

of criminal

and

acts is that they entail just such long-term difficulties,

or costs. These

are called sanctions. Jeremy

Following

Bentham ([1789]

of sanctions.

them.

naturally from

1970),

devi-ant

compli-cations,

costs or penalties

the British

philosopher

weidentify

Physical sanctions

four

kinds

are those that follow

the act, without the active intervention

of others. Examples include

the task of theory is clear: It

maytake only a split

of perjury

itself.

Indeed,

some

however, it shows that

distinction,

the

or

would and do drive after

is a matter of degree.

With this

a criminal

perjury.

or deviant

consequences

but the difficulties

of

more than the law allows. In fact, experience

More meaningfully,

second. The

more people

shows that everyone is capable of criminal acts.

people

statement

might, under the right circumstances,

drinking

few

the

a stranger. (In context, the oft-repeated

to accomplish. Perjury too

measured.

hangovers and diminished

health from the consumption

of drugs, disease from

is to identify and explain criminality and to relate it to

promiscuous sexual activity, injuries from the actions

the

of victims attempting to defendtheir persons or prop-erty,

commission

of

criminal

acts.

Webegin by looking deviant acts.

under the influence (and theft, assault, cheating on tests,

burglary,

robbery,

common? The

require

down a mountain.

no special learning

them

without

practitioners.

and fraud)

an outnumbered

Indeed,

and relatively

by (1).

wrapping

man; (2).

hooking

bumper; (3). driving

Children in-vent

by saying No

to

major

and trust.

around

law.They

wrap and hook a chain, and

pictured

happened

present the moment the child is able to affirm or deny the occurrence of an event.

rarely the

product

of lengthy

and elaborate

Among our examples, drunk the

most time-consuming

considered

hard

work.

is most often committed

the

United

States,

be

Compared to this,

madeinstantaneously,

on

our east Texas homicide

form

var-ies

but they

are usually

of legal

and

and serious.

refer

to the

risk

because they cannot

be imposed

moral

unless the

or caught in the act.This

as an eff ort to

punish

deviant

or religious emphasizes

theory

suggests

whose application

as devices

or not it is seen

does not require

super-natural

physical or natural sanctions

does not require third-party (2), It emphasizes

of deviance, the tendency

level and variety

problem,

whether

sanctions for several reasons: (1). It

often serious

and to be involved

solve this

behavior

by others. Self-control

or intervention;

homicide

with a gun. In the typical case,

the decision to aim and fire is the spot.

prepara-tion.

driving appears to be

but would not normally In

are

aslong-term

by supernatural Their

on the luck of offenders or their ability to avoid explained

or eff ort. They

and even execu-tion. and impeachment.

hereafter.

to another,

of

detection. Indeed, religious sanctions are sometimes that

time

the

violations

the possibility of cost-free crime and deviance, depend-ing

highest rates of drunk driving arefound among those take little

expulsion

in

off ender is convicted

still learning these skills. Most crimes

for

are those imposed

and

one religion

sanctions

Driving drunk requires

only the ability to drink and the ability to drive.The

now

We often

may be accom-plished

are those imposed

organizations

also include

Religious sanctions

from

perjury is thus

and

include

and reduced responsibility

include lines, imprisonment,

They

Most people know or could

capacity for

of public opinion. They

Political or legal sanctions

by governments

a pickup

when what actually

Yes. The

in the court

divorce, shaming, shunning,

murder

a chain it

Moralor social sanctions arethose imposed by

family, friends, neighbors, employers, clients, and con-stituents

authorities,

away.

on the spot how to

complex

most adults know how to drive. Perjury

would require

is as

most crimes

or knowledge.

truancy.

have in

help. Young people are their

Afiendish

may be committed

learn

forgery,

Chinese have a saying: Crime

easy as falling

and diminished earning capacity from repeated

more closely at crimes and

What do murder, perjury, and driving

knowl-edge

the generality

of people to repeat off enses

in a wide variety

of them.

of deviant activity increase,

As the detectio

SELF-CONTROL

THEORY

and automatic penalties become more and morecer-tain; life of another, an offender insufficiently (3). It emphasizes the spontaneous and unplanned nature

of

criminal

inconsistent

deviant

acts,

reckless,

among deviant acts

it is judged

deviant,

and

family

simple. It requires

only a ques-tion

who has sworn to tell the truth,

person is insufficiently

restrained to prevent

logical structure

of two distinct

by the legal system, but it

(usually

that is available and attractive to the

sinful.

off ender,

In

the

under

misleading.

fact,

one reason

natural tendency

Driving

make

assault.)

the crime.

alcohol) a

an off ender

own

intoxicated,

said

prevent the crime. The

that

capable

to seek their

to bethe quintessential criminal act, but lying in other

under the influence

vehicle

oath) is sometimes

and friends

Perjury (lying

would

most concerned

a crime is to control

of the victims

intervention

murder or aggravated

asked of a person where that

third-party

and

system

Murder is a crime punished reckless,

deviant,

all produce potentially

Distinctions

basis of the sanction

revenge.

(Life-saving

ultimately

that

with them are to some extent arbitrary

also

intervention.

concealment.

and sinful acts tend to go together, to be com-mitted Perjury is

reason

by the same people:They

is

the scene, and absence of life-saving

attempted

another

restrained to

prevent the crime, a victim unable to remove himself from

characteristic

the crime

see

painful consequences. on the

a

with successful long-term

We now

criminal,

and

111

is

combines

acts. It requires

accessible

to

of operating

the

the

element

common

to these

off ender,

vehicle

and an off ender insufficiently

the

a drug

while

restrained

acts (and

all

to

other

contexts is also subject to natural, social, and religious

criminal

penalties. Driving under the influence of alcohol has

a person willing to risk long-term costs for immediate

only recently become a major concern of the criminal

personal benefits. Self-control theory

justice system.

Notlong ago, it

and considered taken to

only

mildly deviant. This

mean that it

legal or

was widely practiced

moral status, few acts are

drunk

driving.

Since the invention

in the

United

States alone, drunk

hundreds

of thousands

countless

others).

The

idea that

of its

murder!

driving

driving

practitioners

has killed (as

drunk

well as

driving, and

(and all other criminal

have something

Sex

more reckless than

acts) is an unrestrained

in common

crime, that they as

well,

and

is not shoplifting!

under the influence!

smoking Perjury

Self-control

is

and

in

practice

not restricted

to

of

in their

erence

disease,

The

and

benefits

Everyone

ease, euphoria,

them.

awareness

is

not

activities an

efficient

that aware-ness of

crime

enjoys

are

money,

and revenge.

crime provides a direct and easy

between

So, according off

enders

and

to the theory, nonoff

enders

is

of and concern for the long-term

costs of crimesuch

does

the

off enders.

way of obtaining diff

crime

them. It says further

appreciation

sex, power, excitement,

is not

theory

says there is

may be found in noncriminal

that

method of producing

and delin-quent the

is sometimes

as: Marijuana

off ender,

nothing extraordinarily attractive about the benefits of

of the automobile,

murder, perjury,

met by such statements not

not be

Whatever its

deviant

Everyone can see that

marijuana smoking acts)

should

was not punished.

and

things

even

eternal

idea that

crime

as arrest, prison, disgrace,

damnation.

satisfies

special

needs

and that

not saythese acts are the same thing. It says they have

off enders are strongly

something in common. This

purposesis acceptedin manytheories of crime and dis-cussions

be identified structure

common element

more clearly by focusing

of criminal

and

deviant

may

motivated to accomplish their

of crime control policy.The source of this idea

on the logical

maybe the obvious imbalance between the short-term

acts.

The logical structure of an act is the set of condi-tions and uncertain rewards of crime and its long-term and necessary for it to

occur. Each distinct

criminal

more

certain

penalties.

Off enders

often

or deviant act has a unique set of necessary conditions.

a cow for a bag of beans, to risk

For example, smoking

for

marijuana requires attractive (for

reasons of cost, quality, and reputation)

and available

marijuana. It also requires an off ender unrestrained the consequences complex.

of

It requires

marijuana use. Homicide is interaction

and a victim, an offender

with the

by more

between an off ender means of taking the

brief sexual pleasures or small

strike

such

bargains, the logic

be driven by emotions of considerable this problem

strength.

powerful

of or concern for the long term.

trade

positions

monetary gains. To must

and compulsions)

Self-control the

to

goes, off enders

(seductions

by reducing

appear

theory

off enders

solves

awareness

What distinguishe

112

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

off enders from othersis not the strength of their appe-tites but their freedom to enjoy the quick and easy and ordinary

pleasures of crime

the pains that

mayfollow

From the crime,

nature

without

the

nature of criminality.

who engage in crime are people long-term

of the

moment. They

are,

to

People

who tend to

consequences. They

children

consequences,

or tend

self-control

strong

support

does low

in pursuit

come

from?

All

whine, hit, and steal. They

these

shows that the greater the attachment

of us, it

with the ability to useforce and fraud

horrendous

for

the child, the lower

be,

have what we call low

of our private goals. Small children

do lie, bite, consider

self-control

Delinquency

to

shows that

can and

also sometimes

crimes they are too small to carry

linquency.

By extension,

way toward

factors

in crime;

number

conclusions.

of the parent to It

discipline of nonde

this child-rearing

model goes

all of the

neglect, abuse, single

of children,

It

of delinquency.

predictors

explaining

low

research

and adequate

most important

a long

are

the likelihood

careful supervision

are among the

Where

missing, continued

neglect

self-control.

appears, are born

is

may be the result.

provides

nega-tive

whatever their legal or moral status.

When any one of them

them.

are present, the child

presumably learns to avoid acts with long-term

undue concern for

of crime, and acts analogous

we thus infer

When all of these conditions

major family parents, large

parental criminality.

All of these

measures of the extent of parental concern for the

off. By the age of 8 or 10, most of uslearn to control

child or are conditions that affect the ability of the

such tendencies to the degree necessaryto get along at

parent to

home and school. Others, however, continue to employ

would be expected, they are also major predictors of

monitor and correct the childs behavior. As

behaviors wecall analogous to crime: truancy, quitting the devices of children, to engage in behavior inap-propriate to their age.The differences observed at ages 8 to 10 tend to persist from remain good. concern to their criminal

then

Not so good children

on.

that low self-control

a source of

consider

learn from

the long-range

sanctions,

certain forms

It include

burns from

down stairs

of their

we previously

penalties that follow

from

many sources to

called

acts. natural

list is long.

hot stoves, bruises from falling

or out of trees, and injuries

from

eff orts

to

use the theory

reckless

attracted

acts.

to

acts

certain

force

that

speed

to explain deficient

provide

with

up the

immedi-ate

Criminal,

definition.

process

and

in

minimal ef-fort,

consequences.

and reckless acts fit this

and fraud

Persons

pleasure

whatever their collateral

In

many,

reduce

the

eff ort required to produce the desired result. In others, mind-altering

more or less automati-cally

of behavior. The

are

and

and apparently

deviant,

consequences

source

deviant,

self-control

is natural and that self-control

presumably

One important

criminal,

facts lead to the conclu-sion

is acquired in the early years of life. Children

We are now ready

Good children

remain

parents, teachers, and eventually to the

justice system. These

school, smoking, excessivedrinking, andjob instability.

In still or in

the

chemicals others,

risks

Persons

it

pleasure

shortcuts

inheres

to

in the

happi-ness. act itself

entails.

sufficient

because they

the

provide

find

in

self-control

that their

avoid

collateral

such

acts

consequences

by others to belong to them.

outweigh their benefits. Force and fraud in the service

Obviously, natural sanctions can be dangerous and

of self-interest are opposed by the law and by most

to take things thought

painful. In fact, the natural system is so unforgiving

people (including

that parents and other adults spend alot of their time

entail risks to self and others inconsistent

major sources

are the actions Parents

who

best they something

of self-control,

can.

for

their

When they

they should

children

our view,

see their

watch

thus

monitor, recognize

has four (deviant

adults. them

children

not do, they correct,

or punish them. The logical structure socialization

in

of parents or other responsible care

Drugs

with long-term

goals. And reckless behavior gains its charm from

protecting children from it. But the

those lacking self-control).

doing admon-ish,

of successful

necessary conditions: behavior),

as

and

care, correct.

the very possibility prospects,

that

it

whatever they

Theories from example, in every particle

may put an end to future

may be.

explain facts

by stating

which specific facts

general

proposi-tions

may be derived.

For

Newtons theory, apples fall to earth because of

matter in the universe is attracted

every other particle. The the attraction.

larger

by

the particle, the stron-ger

We often condense this explanatio

SELF-CONTROL

THEORY

113

into one word, gravity, but the truth and value of the

periods of time.This is among the best-established

explanation are not reduced by this practice. By the

facts in criminology (Nagin and Paternoster 1991;

same logic, in self-control

theory, people commit

acts because they fail to consider consequences. This into

explanation,

a single concept,

(low)

and value are not reduced Other theories

been blocked from

crime

would

by saying that

theory

people commit

have learned

such

treat

or

might

criminal

behavior

from

their peers. Choosing among theories is not, then, so much a matter of their logic as of their relative ability

or

treatment

Goggin 1996).

rehabilitate

off enders

to engage in established,

do

to

show

crime

search for eff ec-tive

extraordinarily

that

once

treatment

difficult;

But

tendencies

and delinquency

successful

have been

is, at

a minimum,

(Martinson

1974a;

et al. 1979. For a strongly contrary Andrews

not

programs of course continues.

continues

acts because they have

success by noncriminal

means. And social learning

acts because they

acts can be

strain theory

criminal

to

research

which specific

attaining

orts

produce the desired results. The

but its truth

by this practice.

from

say that people commit

explain

may be condensed

self-control,

For example, traditional

conventional

their long-term

Gendreau, Little, and Eff

of course also explain crime by stat-ing

general principles derived.

too,

crimi-nal

Se-chrest

view, see

et al. 1990).

Intervention

eff

orts

greatest promise (Tremblay

in

childhood

off er

the

of success in crime reduction

et al. 1992).

The law enforcement or criminal justice system has

little

to predict the facts about crime and criminals.

eff

ect

on the

Off enders

do

volume

not

of

attend

to

criminal

behav-ior.

increases

in

the

number of police or in the severity of penalties for TESTS

OF SELF-CONTROL

THEORY

violations

Crimes

of law (Andrews

may be prevented byincreasing

required to commit Our version 1990,

of self-control

which

Given the traditions definition

of the field,

untested. They

whose fate

theory

was published

makes it a new or contemporary new theories

are hypotheses

depends on the results

conducted. This problematic

suggests that

than theories

to test or falsify

them.

true. If theories

are logical

understandings

of research

not yet are

have withstood

more eff orts

Actually, the reverse should systems

with the results

be

based on current

of the facts, new theories

consistent

are by

or conjectures

new theories

that

in

theory.

should

of current

be es-pecially

research.

And the use of old theories to explain facts they once ignored or denied should be viewed with considerable

declines

off enders

them (Murray

with age among

and in almost

(Cohen

and

Hirschi

Land

all groups

all types

1987;

the eff ort

1995). of

of off ending

Gottfredson

and

particular

forms

1990).

Offenders

do not specialize in

of crime.

Career criminals

(Wolfgang

et al. 1972; Britt 1994).

Offenders

have

higher

death rates than

are extremely

accident,

illness,

nonoff enders (Farrington

rare

and

and

Junger 1995) Offenders are

morelikely

than

nonoff enders to

uselegal and illegal drugs (Boyum and Kleiman 1995).

Offenders are morefrequently involved in non-criminal

suspicion.

Self-control theory is based on and, predicts

Crime

et al. 1990).

forms

therefore,

of deviance

to restrictive Differences between high-and persist over the life on the frequency ranked once

similarly acriminal

diff erences

low-rate

course.

of their

always a criminal.

in height,

to commit

off end-ers

Children ranked

delinquent

later in life. This

in tendencies

(Evans

et al. 1997).

Offenders are more weaklyattached than nonof-fenders

the following facts:

acts will be is

not to say

It is to say that crime,

maintain themselves

like

dif-ferences

over long

careersfamilies,

Glueck

institutions schools,

jobs

and long-term (Glueck

and

1968).

Compared

to

nonoff enders,

off enders

with respect to intellectual skills (Hirschi

and

Family structure,

are

disad-vantaged

or cognitive

Hindelang 1977).

family relations,

practices are important

and childrear-ing

predictors

of deviant

114

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

behavior

(Glueck

Stout

and

Glueck

Hamer-Loeber

1950;

Loeber

Although it focuses on an element common to all

and

1986).

forms

of

crime

and

theory In

our view, these facts

consistent

with all of them, something

that

one type

theory is cannot

be

particular IMPLICATIONS

OF THE

THEORY

or burglary.

by analyzing

spray

control

the

features

theory of

the

approach to

act to occur.

criminal

of off enders and to The

act

pattern

major relevant

period

and

the

off ender.

characteristics

eff orts accord-ingly. one of its

prevention characteristics

of off enders

the

are youthfulness, limited cognitive skills, and low self-control. Becausethe rates of such important

crimes as

are unguarded also requires

at

generally

for a predict-able

by removing

any

or by altering

off enders.

Clearly, ef-forts

off enderstreatment,

incapacitationwill

a

an unrestrained

may be controlled

of unrestrained

directed

approaches

necessary for

necessary physical conditions

behavior

others.

have no impact

accessible, paintable,

of time. It Graffiti

to

Graffiti, for example, requires

paint and large,

policy is to analyze

hijacking

conditions

observable surfaces that The

Procedures for prevent-ing

Offense-specific

the

self-control

an off ense-specific

may be inapplicable

Eff ective eff orts to control

begin

self-control,

supports

of crime

on vandalism

said for any of its competitors.

POLICY

actually

low

con-firmed approach to crime prevention.

have been repeatedly

by research. In our view, self-control

deviance,

deterrence,

be highly inefficient compared to

burglary, robbery, theft, shoplifting, and vandalism all

programs that restrict accessto paint and to paintable

peakin

surfaces.

mid-to late adolescence and fall to half their

Self-control theory is based onthe idea that behav-ior

peaklevels as early asthe mid-twenties, effective crime control

policies

activities

will naturally focus on the interests

of teenagers.

Because the cognitive

off enders are relatively limited,

their

typically

simple and easily traced.

targeting

sophisticated

have low self-control, the immediate

of

criminal

acts are

As a result,

policies

off enders or career criminals

unnecessarily complex and inefficient.

are

Because off enders

they are easily deterred by increas-ing difficulties

and risks of criminal

costs of criminal are

behavior.

auto theft, and than increased The

Consequently, steering

more eff ective than increased

of

criminal

acts

wheel

moreeff ective

relevant

to

to

which crime

the likelihood

As we have seen,

as fines

and imprisonment.

system,

by increas-ing

of such legal sanctions

Nevertheless, self-control

theory leads to the conclusion justice

justice

may be reduced

and severity

that the formal

criminal

system can play only a minor role in the preven-tion

and control

of crime.

do not consider

eff

ect

on

Because potential

the long-term

their acts, modification their

of these consequences

behavior.

observed

off enders

legal consequences

Because

so quickly and easily accomplished, directly

police presence in preventing robbery.

characteristics

according

penalties in re-ducinglittle

movingin groups is

by its consequences.

this idea is also central to the criminal

acts

and are generally unaff ected by changes in the long-term

locks

is governed

and

skills

criminal

of

will have acts

are

they are only rarely

by agents of the criminal

justice sys-tem.

As a result, evenlarge increases in the number of

their

such agents would have minimal effect on the rates of prevention have beenlisted earlier. Crimes provide im-mediate, obvious benefit, are easily accomplished, and

most

require little skill, planning, or persistence.They involve no driving force beyond the satisfaction of everyday human

desires.

criminal

opportunities

can be prevented difficult.

Because people

by

are unavailable to them, making them

For example, increasing

banning its use in particular with little

lots

complexes

preventing

eff ort.

theft and vandalism.

when

other

the following policy (from

or

1.

considerations

led

recommendations Gottfredson

Do not attempt adults.

and

for

us to

advance

crime control

Hirschi 1995):

parking

can also be eff ective in

to control

crime by incapacitating

A major factor in the decision to incarcer-ate

off enders is the number

will often produce Guarding

and

crimes

more complex

the cost of alcohol or

settings

the desired result or apartment

do not suff er

crimes.

These

have

committed.

more likely

The

to

Most people

result

of prior off enses they is

be imprisoned would

agree

that

adults

than that

are

much

adolescents. prior

record

SELF-CONTROL

should be considered, but the age distribution

of

media

to

be. In

fact,

control

gangs and highly

are too old.The

Do not attempt

are two

eff ect,

which

above, there

program

for

has been shown to be eff ective. If nothing

Do not attempt

crime

and truancy

self-control nothing

8.

target

and seek to remedy lack of

have been shown to have promise. This the control theory

notion that

is acquired early in life. The finding

works in the treatment

to programs focusing

the

penalties available to the criminal justice system.

families

does not contradict

but time

by altering

programs designed to provide early educa-tion

supervision

adults

and

organiza-tions

and eff ective child care. Programs that

to pretend otherwise.

to control

asks, do people unable to resist

that force them to resist such pleasures? Support

dysfunctional

first is the age

unnecessary. The

no treatment

works, it seems ill-advised

7.

against treatment

makes treatment

second is that

syndicates.

violence find the discipline to construct

the crime rate by reha-bilitating

very good arguments

criminal

the pleasures of drugs and theft

morethan

As has been shown

programs for adult off enders. The

organized

Where,the theory

average age of persons

to control

adults.

Support

that

area maybelimited

on adolescents and adults.

policies that

promote

and facilitate

Legal penalties do not havethe desired effect be-cause

two-parent families and that increase the number

offenders do not consider them. Increasing

of caregivers relative to the number of children.

their certainty and severity may makecitizens and

Large families

policymakers feel better about the justice system,

handicapped with respect to

but it

will have a highly limited of

likely

unsupervised

requires

individuals.

activities

opportunity

walls,

Much can be gained from limiting

unattended

houses,

and

of the great success stories the century

uniforms,

and

prevention

license

other.

in fatal

increases in the

truancy

have potential

each

ac-cess

unwatched

of the last

wasthe reduction

that followed Curfews,

to

justice

unrestrained

of teenagers to guns, cars, alcohol,

of

is

pregnancy

is itself

with the criminal

should therefore

to

weak families

among adolescent

important

Programs

are more

acts and are especially

A major source of

unmarried

which

criminal

are

evidence

prevent

such

girls,

of low

self-control.

pregnancies

be given high priority.

auto acci-dents

drinking

age. CRITICISMS

school

of

OF THE

THEORY

these

Self-control

value for the same reason.

Limit proactive policing including

families

monitoring and dis-cipline.

to become involved

system.

One

quarter

programs,

restrictionsall

to commit

morelikely

of teenagers.

and

and single-parent

As a consequence, their children

eff ect on the deci-sions

off enders.

Restrict the Crime

5.

out

theory questionsthe very existence of hugejuvenile

prison is ineff ective because by then it is too

ten years after the peak age of crime.

4.

them

crime (see Figure 2) shows us that putting adults

sentenced to prison is the late twenties,

3.

make

115

in

late. They

2.

often

THEORY

police sweeps,

theory

is

among

the

most frequently

tested theories in the field of crime and delinquency. It

is also frequently criticized. These criticisms are con-centrated police stings, intensive arrest programs, and ag-gressive drug policies. Control theory seescrime as

three

more

or less

traditional

issues:

a product of human weakness.It sees no point in

(1) the definition

creating opportunities for crime in order to iden-tify

and deviant behavior; (2) the logical structure

those suff ering from such point in exploiting benefit

6.

around

of the

law

such

weakness. It sees no

weakness

enforcement

that

repeated

by the

off enders

are

and (3) the ability

particular

of crime

media.The the

to deal

with

off enses.

off ered by THE

justice system and uncriti-cally

not

of the theory

of the

establishment.

Question the characterization agents of the criminal

merely for the

theory;

of the dependent variablecrime

DEPENDENT

VARIABLE

evidence suggests

dedicated,

and clever professionals law enforcement

inventive,

and the

Self-control

theory attempts to explain short-term behavior that

entails the risk

self-interested

of long-ter

116

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

sanctions. Becauseit is framed

law, this definition includes actsthat maynot be defined as criminal

and

may exclude acts defined as criminal

the jurisdiction

in question.

Examples of the first

behaviors

we have labeled analogous

premarital

pregnancy,

Examples

The

divorce, job-quitting,

on behalf

definition

in the

to crime

of the second are terrorism

acts committed

also

public interest

(e.g., killings

the

use

by soldiers,

forced removals

This

definition

restricted

pointless,

That

fraud

by po-lice, fact trivial

activities

to

and

according

includes

all

to

which

behavior

in

the

crime is

violation

of

by the laws or norms of all societies (terrorism)

choice

in

this

explain

without from

matter.

and their

changing

Terrorists long-term their

Theories

define

definition

cannot

them.

self-control

Terrorist

theory

reflect commitment

to a political

consequences

cause or organization.

acts.

of their

they

do not meet by control

by an unrestrained

The

seriousness

of

this

criticism

of

to

cover

As far

as

we can

see, this

is

of

low

self-control

tautological.

nature

STRUCTURE

to

the

crimes

of interest.

is These

the

pure theory term

necessary

the

definition

On the

theories.

and

Selvin

Theories

or and

or circular contrary,

is always tautological

(Hirschi

entail

with

between

in this

[1967]

entail

we

1994).

definitions,

source of confusion

appears

to be the belief among social scientists that tautological theories

cannot

be falsified.

This

belief,

in

our

view,

is

false.

Applicability

In

element

of the

constructing on the

The

statements

theory.

It cannot be otherwise. The

us to

self-control

as behavior

is logically

repeats

negative

a relation

We do not deny the tautological

Definitions

Self-control theory says that crime is the best predictor that

theory

of self-control

believe that

from

and

defined

and crime

The

vice versa.

small

crime

and crime is

negative consequences,

Theory

to

Particular

losses purpose looking bizarre

of the

are

has led some

theory,

Crimes.

triviality

with

which

and

smaller

was to first

crimes,

the

they

crimes

that

justice

of the theory

to concen-trate

crimes. This predictability,

are

committed, typically

distractions

mainly at large,

media and criminal critics

and they

gains

avoid

or

we tried

of ordinary

their

speed

common often

self-control characteristics

emphasize

ease and

of

meaning of tautology is that the logical

consequences, long-term

by traditional

crime.

LOGICAL

are not

small,

especially when compared to the theorys coverage of definitions

be

self-control

number

the very large number of acts ignored

Theories

to engagein behavior with long-term

theory will depend on the range and frequency of actsit fails

theory.

possibly

definitions. Thus, if low self-control is defined by will-ingness

demonstrably

ender.

of control

nor

for the nauseousness of the behavior they

However hei-nous sense of the

to acts explained

be committed

criticism

1998,

relations among concepts may be derived from their

acts, and however se-verely

by the state, they

common

(Akers

is neither logically

necessary. It cannot therefore

Another

Onthe contrary,

quo.

pointless

labeled this

attempt to explain.

regard for the broad or

of their

they are punished

theorythat

be changed

described

may be tautologi-cal,

have indeed

But such repetition

responsible

we have behavior

acts are excluded

purpose is to alter the status

the requirement

the

because they are assumed to

do not act without

the consequences

off

a valid

behavior that is rarely if ever punished

by the state (accidents)? The answer is that

repeat themselves

and theoretically

168169).

owners by university

repetition

or worse.

and some criminologists

How can weexclude behavior that is clearly crimi-nal

they

crimes

Universal whole Life

statement introduces

meaning of the term: The

of crime is very diff erent from

definition,

and include no

is but a nauseous Tautology. This another

or

Oxford

1687: Our

is trivial,

force

of the

or, by extension,

again. The

Dictionary lists an example from

empirically

traditional

saying

organizations.

officials).

law.

doing the same thing

are (e.g.,

by the legal system

undercover

of property

of tautology is repetition;

and espionage,

of

or as required

a serious criticism

theory in the eyes of manysocial scientists. One mean-ing

by

accidents).

of political

excludes

described as tautological,

without regard to the

attract

the

system. This

the the

involve. that

serious,

led

come

or appar-ently attention strategy

to the conclusion

tha

SELF-CONTROL

it applies only to the ordinary, mundane crimes from which

it

ignores

was constructed.

We believe

this

the success of our strategy

shared

in revealing

by rare and common,

off enses. Indeed, most serious

we began this

Evans,

conclusion

fea-tures

off ense to show that it fell

easily

crimes

outside

at

where

self-control

is

The

Testing

the

Criminology,

within

or

another

include

to

fall

Burton,

R.

social

Dunaway,

&

consequences

general

theory

of

of

crime.

35:475504.

David P.

Criminal

&

Behavior

income

not

from

Those a factor

Gendreau,

tax

Paul,

Marianne Junger

and

Mental

involved should

(eds.).

Health,

the law-abiding

of the

& Claire

predictors

What works! Glueck,

in crimes

be

Tracy Little,

meta-analysis

crime, organized

Tests of these alleged exceptions

us straightforward.

indistinguishable

time

crime, corporate

crime, and gambling. seem to

one

of the theory

white-collar

V.

(1997).

117

(1995).

5(4):

Special

Issue.

said

the scope

evasion,

Cullen,

Farrington,

the scope of the theory. Other

T.,

self-control:

serious and trivial

essay with a rare and

F.

M. Benson.

THEORY

Sheldon

&

Delinquents

of adult

Criminology,

Eleanor

Grown

Goggin. (1996).

Up.

off ender

A re-cidivism:

34:575607.

Glueck.

(1940).

New York:

Juvenile

Commonwealth

Fund.

otherwise

population.

As

(1950).

Unraveling

Juvenile

Delinquency.

_____.

of

now,

it

seems

to

us, the

evidence

on

these

points in directions favorable to the theory. Those involved in such apparently exceptional crimes tend to have

been

involved

in

other

forms

of

Cambridge,

matters

crime

and

devi-ance

as well(Le Blanc and Kaspy 1998).

MA:

(1968).

Delinquents

Perspective.

Charles. (1913). The

Theory

University

Structure:

A General Theory

Boston:

Northeastern

Andrews, Bonta,

Does

Ivan

Paul

Bentham,

Gendreau,

Principles

and

Crime and

Social

Deviance.

D.

& Francis

T.

treatment

Cullen.

(1970). and

An Introduction

Legislation.

to the

other

J. Petersilia

Britt,

Chester

&

Mark

Reprint.

Pp. 295326

(eds.).

Crime.

L. (1994).

of Deviance.

London:

Lawrence

Hirschi.

Crime.

crime

(1990).

Stanford,

CA:

control

policies.

Causes of

California

A

Stanford

Society,

Labeling

Walter

Delinquency.

Berkeley:

Press. theory

An assessment

Hirschi.

and

juvenile

of the evidence.

Gove (ed.),

Travis

and

(1990).

ICS.

Pp. 173192

in

Generality

&

The

Michael

explanation

C. Land. (1987). versus

rates through

Age

Labeling

Gottfredson.

of crime.

MA: Belknap.

of

&

Michael

Intelligence

and

delin-quency:

Pp. 181203 of

Deviance.

(1983).

American

American

Sociological

Hirschi.

Travis

&

Delinquency

Age

Journal

of

Le Blanc,

Marc

An

and

of

personal

and

adjudicated paths. 14:181214

boys

A revisionist

review.

Selvin.

[1967]

(1994).

of

Analytic

Appraisal

Kaspy. (1998).

problem

behavior:

control

on synchronous

Journal

(1977).

NJ: Transaction.

& Nathalie

of delinquency

Social Theory.

C.

Brunswick.

asymmetry

social

Hindelang.

Review. 42:571187.

Hunan

Research: New

J.

delinquency:

the 1990s.

Review, 52:170183. Foundations

Travis

Methods.

NJ: Transaction.

Symmetry

of crime

Sociological

James.

Cambridge,

crime:

Alcohol

(eds.), The

C. & Kenneth

projection

Hirschi,

Wilson and

Francisco:

Versatility.

New Brunswick,

and the American

San

(1995).

in J.Q.

M.R. Gottfredson

structure

Coleman,

A. R. Kleiman.

drugs.

T. Hirschi and

Cohen,

Travis

Montelair.

Sociology, 89:552584.

David

and

of

(1975).

and the

Althone.

Boyum.

Convict.

Halsted.

[1789] Morals

of

&

National

University

in

28:369404.

of

R.

Travis. (1969),

A clinically meta-analysis.

English

Press.

(1995).

_____.

(1990).

in

University

32:3037.

Hoge, James

work?

informed

_____.

Hirschi,

Press.

Robert

and psychologically

Jeremy.

The

Zinger,

correctional

Criminology,

of

University

D.A.,

relevant

Learning

Nondeliquents Harvard

Smith.

Michael

General

Social

MA:

Press.

Goring,

REFERENCES

(1998).

Press.

and

Cambridge,

NJ: Patterson

Ronald.

University

_____.

Gottfredson,

Akers,

Harvard

of

Trajectories Comparison

characteristics and

Quantitative

of

nonsynchro-nous Criminology,

118

CRIME

AND

Loeber,

BEHAVIOR

Rolf

Family

&

Magda

factors

conduct

problems

M.H.

Tonry

Stouthamer-Loeber.

as correlates and

&

N.

delinquency.

Morris

A Review of Research.

29149

Crime

University

in

Robert.

and answers Spring,

Justice:

of

Chicago

about

of life

process.

the

April.

in J.Q.

The

The

behavior.

at the

Eastern

physical

in

Crime.

to

Social

of

Criminology,

& Lloyd in

Criminology,

Paternoster.

past to

Patrick

future

J.

On in

of hoodlums.

Richard

Helene

M.

and

27:389417.

OMalley, (1989).

Jerald

Time

self-reported

trends illegal

G.

early

McCord

onset

and

Behavior.

Marvin,

Delinquency in Chicago

factors

(eds.):

Offenders:

DC:

National

and stake in the

preda-tory

of Criminal

Vitaro,

Press

Lucie

Beauchesne,

David. (1992).

prevent

Antisocial

Criminal

Journal

E., Frank

LeBlanc,

Wolfgang.

29:163189.

D.Johnston. arrests

(1991).

participation

Brown

disorganization

Complementary

Man.

Reprints.

Law,

and Police Science, 48:1217.

& Lucille

Pp.

(eds.),

and

Washington,

Parent of

and child

Study.

R. New

Tremblay York:

Robert Figlio, a Birth

Bertrand,

Helene

delinquency:

Longitudinal-Experimental

Wayne,

trends

(1957).

conformity:

Tremblay,

of

Prospects.

A Treatise on

& Elizabeth

Rehabilitation

of Sciences.

Marc

environment.

White,

Academy

Philadelphia.

S. & Raymond

delinquency.

age

delivered

O.

and

Criminology,

reality

ICS.

Daniel

Bachman,

The

and the

Facsimiles

Problems

Toby, Jackson.

Questions

Public Interest,

Wilson and J. Petersilia

relationship

D.

Paper

Association,

Francisco:

Osgood,

and

reform.

myth of treatment

Charles. (1995).

349361

Nagin,

works?

(1969).

Scholars

Susan

behavior

The

Psychological

San

prison

What

A.J. [1833]

FL:

Lee,

35:2254.

_____.(1974b).

Murray,

(1974a).

Sechrest, (1979).

and

Press.

Martinson,

Lambert

Gainesville,

of juvenile

Pp.

(eds.),

Chicago:

Quetelet,

(1986).

and predictors

A

Boileau,

training Montreal

Pp. 117138 (eds.),

in

Preventing

Guilford.

&Thorsten

Cohort-Chicago:

Sellin. (1972). University

of

PART III

Macro-Level

Structural

Theorie

PART III INTRODUCTION

Macro-Level

S

o far

the

we have only looked free

choice

at

(classical

more deterministic

micro-level theories and

biological

Structural

rational

that

choice,

Theories

either focus

routine

on in-dividual

activities)

diff erences and psychological

or on

and personality

propensities that predispose people to the potential for committing

crime.

We

have also seen social processtheories that explain crime by humans exposure to diff erent kinds of interaction

with their peers and parents that socialize them

into the norms and values of deviant subcultures, or that fail to sufficiently bond them

into

the

norms,

values

and

we change up the analytical institutions,

level

social structure,

These

kinds

behavior

of convention.

of theory

and culture

from

social

of analysis are described

actor

embedded

within

by limiting

them from

families

them.

Social

forces

include

can significantly

what they

Asimple example

will illustrate

white

from

family in a

black

Wellfleet,

female

a

New

Orleans

look after her younger siblings life diff

female

teen

Massachusetts who goes to

from

an

the point.

established

them

Consider

Wellesley College, compared

because her single parent

and

well-to-do

Ward who stops attending

9th

race

a persons life

might have been and channeling

erent

of

class,

impact

a certain set of choices. chances

to social

which refers to social

the

life

book

and groups as well asthe

toward diff

3 of this

the individual/group

as macro-level,

gender each of which, or their intersections, choices

Part

of the wider society.

and cultural forces that shape the institutions, individual

In

with

high school to

mother is

working. The

chances for each of these teenagers is likely to be very diff erent as each has a erent

cultural,

structural,

and

class

location

characteristics, personality and abilities. If profile the teenager from divide

than

an

which

transcends

their

individual

we add gender to the demographic

Wellfleetis likely to experience an even greater experien-tial

African

American

male from

New

Orleans.

But these

forces

are

not inevitable or consistent in determining outcomes as New Orleans native and jazz impresario California,

Branford

Marsalis or Serena and Venus

demonstrate;

Williams from

Compton

however, asfar as the general trend is concerned

Branford,

Serena and Venus are exceptions. we might think rather than

of these

proximate)

and career possibilities

From a criminological

wider systems

and structures

perspective, even though as having

distant (distal

eff ects, those eff ects acutely reach into family, and they also channel

children

education,

and teenagers subject to

12

122

them

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

into

diff erent

kinds

of

encounters

with

the

law.

These encounters have different consequences and are shaped by the structural

and cultural

contexts in

which

people are located. There

are

a number

of

part of the book (Part

macro-level

forces

In the

we will consider

in

and (2)

next part of the

a range of critical

take a diff erent interpretation

Anomie/

book (Part

macro-theories

of the

4)

that

waystructural

becauseof low rents. However,these areastypically lack community

integrity

that

the

reduces

among

this

3) we are going to consider just

two kinds: (1) Social Ecology Theory Strain Theory.

and

bottom end of the socio-economic spectrum to the area

and

other

neighbors and

each

children.

violation

SUBCULTURAL

THEORIES

by geography and the importance

in

organization

that reduce informal

transition

mentioned

lead

to

earlier,

areas seem insulated

of a

1950), founded

Chicago School of Sociology

in 1920s and 30s (Park et al. 1925; Shaw & McKay

places and/or inhabits

cultural

McKenzie 1929; Thrasher

the characteristics groups

in crime (Henry

some neighborhoods

etc.

argued the

more or less prone to engage

the common-sense

are bad

others, e.g.crack

barrio,

or

city, the red

As Robert empirical

Sampson

view that

contain

that

of

social

social control

crime

from,

as an

which

the

p. 38)

has

means

occurs

not

crime-prone

supportive

not

community

seen

as

because

structured

limited

fractured

residents

are

makechoices

toward

by the

and disorganized

Areas of cities that transition

preda-tory

meaning of life

settings

are constantly

with people

(Henry

&

in

population

moving in and out, coming

(at least

street

crime),

relative

to those

environments.

found

Charles heart

English historians Booth, of

and demographers

documented

London.

These

in

Chicago sociolo-gists

were one of the first to point his out, although

the

as

tend to become areas with higher rates of

more stable suburban

such

19th

such as

neighborhoods

rookeries

were

rife

in with

gin houses and houses of debauchery, as well asinfa-mous gambling parlors and shops for receiving stolen

area or imported into the area becauseof its reputation Whatis clear is that rates of arrest

is

Lanier 2006, p. 129).

have relevance for ex-plainingCentury

a higher than average rate

Crime

in impoverished

crime

district,

within

are

are environmentally

light (1997,

outcome

or experience less crime,

communities

actionschoices

immigrants,

Whetherthis crime is indigenous to the

is not always clear.

and for In short,

levels

forced into offending, but becausethey

more crime-prone

macro-level variations in violence. This that these locations

control

Where neighborhoods are more prone

these

broken:

data suggest that the structural

elements of social disorganization

of street crime.

or

& Lanier 2006, p. 129). Research over

the years tends to support

than

of specific

crime

may make a person who

those spaces, or who is engaged in the social

networks formed in them,

of

or church-based networks with close ties in organized to

1927) share a view that

low

Where neighborhoods

communities.

1942; Shaw, Burgess &

absence

to go uncontrolled.

communities

persons spatial location, social ecology theories (Amos by the

control

members over each

This

this is believed to result from

Influenced

social

between groups to gain traction

crime and law

inevitable. AND

fragmentation

of informal

and community

others

allows conflict

As

ECOLOGY

experience

allows crime to run rampant.

cultural forces shape crime and behavior.

SOCIAL

and

eff ectiveness

property: Generally, the geographic area in question

for street crime in these areasare higher than in other

is a particular neighborhood and the crime-promoting

areas, and that people who do not want to participate

tendency is often related to the economic and social

in crime, as a perpetrator

factors

Social ecologists something area that

ask questions

about

avoid the area. whether there is

that

makesit

more crime prone than

social disorganization.

provided

other areas.

by social ecologists is

Areas with dilapidated

have become run

down

a diverse range of immigrants

housing

or blighted,

high density

and conflicting economic urban

factors

are themselves urban land

and abandonment

experienced

areas. Inhabitants

feel excluded from the

these neighborhoods,

population,

cultures

development,

these en-courage

and others at the

shape and sustain

such as poverty,

about the area and about those drawn to an

One answer to this

stock, that

or a victim,

social

disor-ganization,

or subcultures. The

tied

to the

use, and the

by those

of blighted

politics

of

alienation

who inhabit

neighborhoods

mainstream of society

and, as

PART

result,

become

hostile

to

all

but

those

in,

their particular ethnic group (Henry

or closest

& Lanier 2006,

areas,

and this

flight)

movement

most

residents

suburbs, those remain

and

loss

become

neighborhoods, born there,

those as

vital

able

to

concentrated.

eff ect on a

move

out

models for

children

who

often

behind

live even

networks

children

didnt

isolation.

more

those to

be

to

areas typically

are

become the catalyst

which provide

the anonymity

neighborhoods.

protection

and lack

Gangs,

because of the rather than

more systemic

community problem

good apples in

a bad barrel

bad; the problem, in other

than individual.

or neighborhood

requiring

level.

Indeed,

the level

change to communities,

geographic

to the economic

and political

where police work in partnership

migration

anything

or

in the

deviant,

and transience

particular

gangs

form

of the areas,

One pattern

of

low income

Sub-groups

within

deriving

from

occurs because of

that is aff ordable,

and already rife

a larger

which

mainstream culture

from

with other subcultures in a neighborhood. Feelings of from

the

mainstream

cultural groups canlead to formation groups, including other struggling

Some gangs have become

identity

generations.

both violent

drug trafficking

other

to

in

which

are removed

demonstrate

that

simply engaging in arrest

combined

with

dilapidations,

and cleaned

people

At a broader level

property

aff ect land

transience,

of criminal

concept

policing

(Henry

are

justice system that change the face

areas has led to social

capital,

produce supportive, self-monitoring,

practices

and social ecologists

the

nurturing,

efficacy

and

through

the

not least dense

disorga-nization

more generally,

of collective

empowerment,

of social

vandalism

permanence, rather than

the importance

neighborhood

of

care and are in control.

beyond

blight. The

theorists,

idea

up immediately,

use and urban design that

of neighborhood

the

social

ties

that

resource-sponsoring,

and safe and social environments

& Lanier 2006, p. 131).

features

ANOMIE

of cer-tain

AND

STRAIN

THEORIES

features that span

these gangs

crime and

windows

and graffiti

is

with each

As a meansto sustain their autonomy

enhance their reputation

This

and reputation.

permanent

urban areas with organizational

and

of self-protective

gangs,that arein conflict over territory,

broken

with problems.

whichthey disaff ect, and they also mayhave differences alienation

incarceration.

to explore may have long-standing

culture

diff erences with the

and

and

policies that lie outside the criminal

neighborhoods

migration to a neighborhood is typically

to prevent crime, rather than

about the individuals

gang formation

disorganized

polic-ing

with commu-nity

membersto develop solutions to area problems

and

members

of community

criminal

of

is seen as a sociological

Onesuch local-level but national policy that can

for

to their

will

words,

makea diff erence to the structure of a neighborhood

further

who live in the neighborhoods.

in

Even putting many of them

victimization

control

social environment,

of the bad apple verses the bad

regions, and particularly

makes

some individu-als

major challenge is at a diff erent structural

are pockets of resistance to the circum-stances

to form

isolation

of the toxic

forces that shape these areas.

turn

ordained by such crime-prone locations

socially

is

and the inculcation

or community is problem-solving community

There

from

the impact

in

undermined.

these

development

are able to insulate

Consider the analogy

turn a

skill

or group level. Even if treat-ment,

the remaining

This

social

in

choose

vulnerable

of informal

in

the

barrel.

the

results

demoralizes

in

to

of problems

This

role

which further

who left

are

from

or black

is because when the

with the greatest amount

of adequate

residents

white

or amplifying

neighborhood. This

successful

training,

of coping strategies

out (whether

has an intensifying

deteriorating

strive to leave to live in better

residents

unstable neighborhoods

123

provide a policy challenge since it is not effective to deal with crime at an individual

Perhaps not surprisingly,

INTRODUCTION

Such crime creating orsocially toxic environments

to,

pp. 129130).

these blighted

III

and

may be involved crime,

and human sex trafficking.

as well as

The

second kind of macro-level theory

stems from

work of one of the Founding

Fathers

Emile

wrote

Durkheim

(1892),

who

to society in the 19th century major structural

change:

from

one

the

of sociology,

about

as it

the

chal-lenges

underwent

dominated

b

124

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

agriculture and small-scale, face-to-face communities

production, specializa-tion crime is just as pathological as too

to one dominated byindustrial and

high levels

disorganization

control,

of division

theory,

communities

that

obligations

anomie

theory,

about a system-wide from

societal change that

a social structure

common

breakdown

cities, anomie theory

characterized

or shared values among its

characterized

1994), in

in

and

much crime

In this tradition is institutional

movessociety

is

which the

manifest

the

would

be found (Henry

a recent theoretical

development

materiality

undermines

Dream,

social

institutions,

over-emphasis

these institutions

altruism

and

Institutional

pursued

through

criminal

argued that this didnt recognized if those

their

aspirations,

interdependence

which they

Healso said that emerge around

Durkheim

on each other and

rose to the positions in

new forms

of moral regulation specializations.

that this

would

of special interest

would However,

morelikely lead to

groups, than to

collaboration and interdependent

mutual

community.

Anomie theory then explicitly links variables (the type of society, free

1957) wrote

American

on materiality

ability

to

provide

ad-equate

not only builds on

theory,

What

diff erential

has

become

after the

known

societys

members to

Pursuing

the

if

befrustration,

achieve the

pursue the

American

behavior;

uniform

the

is

of the social

goals that American

blocked,

behavior, either

the

drive Dream.

result

as an illicit to

by the system

& Lanier 2006, p. 154). This

can

that can means to

desired goals, or as a reaction

perceived as unjust treatment

without the

the

as strain

depression and anger, emotions

what is (Henry

mismatch between goals

provided

strain

to

Dream is a driving force for

Dream

and the institutionally

Great

access

sees a clash between the inequality and its culturally

much

1930s

the

structure

leads to structural

macro-level

who in the

about

Dream.

convert to illegal

were best suited (meritocracy).

occupational

he did not anticipate a competition

which

have to be the outcome if people

with the best abilities

society to

and

then

some of

behavior.

drive

as educa-tion,

in higher rates of crime

anomie theory

Merton (1934; Depression

social respon-sibility,

mutual interdependence,

the outcome is unlimited are

achievement

and de-emphasizes

seen to

such

of be-havior.Durkheims original insights but also that of Robert

Wherethis structural change is accompanied success (egotistical),

and is

be acceptable,including illegal ones.

manufacturing, and eventually

by a culture that celebrates individual

society is

since all meansto achieve material goals are believed to

Anomie states that at times of rapid change the divisions created to maximizethe production of goods moral regulation

&

& Rosenfeld

of industrial

American

of its

health care, etc.This

diff erences in

(Messner

moral control, resulting

services, can undermine the

in

measured by monetary achievements,

in the

character

values.

and services through

over-controlling

rapid transformation

anomie theory

based on success,

members, to one

by diff erences, including

Too

undergoing

much crime. Too

a rigid,

Lanier 2006, p. 154).

talks

by similarity

would represent

system.

societies

levels of

disorganization

about community

crime

social

social

having fewer

members and lower

urban contexts, specifically

little

tight-knit

of informal

However, unlike social

which talks

Like social

contrasts

communities

among their

social control.

of labor.

have high levels

with fragmented

to ameliorate these problems. Surprisingly, too little

meansto achieve them

and relative

deprivation;

those

meansare denied reaching these com-monly

shared cultural goals, such as material success:

market capitalism,

for example) with micro-level behavior (such asfrus-tration,owning a house, a car etc. In contrast, those who have anger, depression, suicide, or crime). It explores how the total behavior

of its

of societal others. view

of these

of a society

impacts

members, and asserts that

organization

As

abnormal

organization

Durkheim

produce

theories,

crime

circumstances. Thus,

can be determined

is

a normal

the health

by the amount

some forms

more crime from

revealed,

the

the

the the

meanssucceed in achieving these goals, forcing under-achievers

Adaptations

than

point

reaction

of to

of a society

of crime present or

by the ineff ectiveness of the societys social institutions

to

included

crime,

into the

deviance,

committed

subcultures

a state

strain

of some

individually

and gangs

of relative perceived of

deprivation. relative

which

can

or collectively

who use illegitimate

depri-vation involve

through means to

achieve these same material goals of success. However,

some

such

as

Nicos

Passas (1990),

out that strain does not just aff ect lower

point

class member

PART

of society whocannot achievethe culturally prescribed

III

INTRODUCTION

125

REFERENCES

goals of materialism, but it also impacts corporations and

white collar

means) to

Agnew (1992) Strain Theory

diff erent direction, strain and and

who cheat (use illegitimate

maximize their achievement

Robert General

off enders

developed that took

emotional

this

strain

theory

results

from

situations

and

frustration

as

micro-than

blocked

macro-in

His

version

its level

of

strain

of analysis

is

to escape their

from

this results in anger that can turn violent.

Park,

As Henry and Lanier (2006) point out, the policy implications

of these various

macro-level theories

aspirations, reducing inequalities,

enabling those suff ering strain to better cope far the

majority of policy suggestions

from

traditional

such

as

micro-level increasing

Agnew,

have suggested

by stopping their

social

intervening

people treating supports

Sampson,

By

and

others

and coping

Others, Shaw,

badly,

in

mecha-nisms.

Few have been brave enough to challenge the deep-seated forces that in the first

place.

create these structural

strains

C. R. Urban

&

The

Essential

and Social

Press. Structure.

Crime

and

the

Wadsworth.

R.(1925). The

City.

Press. and

Corporate

Deviance.

Crises 14(3):15778. The

embeddedness

development:

on urban

Cambridge:

at the

of

Press.

Westview

R. (1994).

Anomie

adolescent

Violence and

(2006).

E., & McKenzie,

R. J. (1997).

perspective

Press. A Theory

Ronald

CO:

Belmont:

Chicago

N. (1990).

Contemporary

and

have attempted

opportunities.

Rosenfeld,

of

Free

Ecology:

Social Theory

Dream.

University

and implementa-tions

strain theories

to increase access to legitimate

with it.

&

Strain

Press.

R. E., Burgess,

Passas,

involve a variety of waysto change the society, includ-ing lowering

S.

NY:

M. M. (Eds.)

Free

American

General

of Labor in Society.

New York:

Reader. Boulder,

York:

Messner,

and that

Human

R.K. (1957).

New

Division

Suicide.

Structure.

S. & Lanier,

Merton,

a

4787.

Press.

H. (1950).

Criminology

but shows

present situation

A.

Community Henry,

1933).

Free

for

30(1),

E. (1897/1997).

Hawley,

more

how people can become alienated and frustrated their inability

Durkheim,

and they are forced to suff er pain

a result.

E. (1893;

New York:

in

Foundation

Criminology

Durkheim,

a

to structural

which people find their lives and opportunities or are unachievable

in

to social and psychological

that

R. (1992).

Theory.

what he calls a

giving less importance

moreimportance

Agnew,

of goals.

violence.

Childhood Cambridge McKay, Areas.

H.

child

A community-level In

in the Inner University D. (1942).

Chicago:

of

McCord,

J., (Ed.),

City, (pp.

3177).

Press. Juvenile

University

Delinquency of

Chicago

Press.

Shaw,

C. R., Zorbaugh,

S. (1929). Chicago Thrasher, Chicago

Delinquency

H., McKay, Areas.

H. D. & Cottrell,

Chicago:

L.

University

of

University

of

Press. F. (1927) Press

The

Gang.

Chicago:

CHAPTER VI

Social Ecology and Subcultural

Theorie

SOCIAL

DISORGANIZATION THEORY

Jeff ery T.

A

description

of the

history

theory is not asimple because of an abundance

and

current

undertaking,

of it.

state

of social

disorganization

not because of a lack of information

From its beginnings in the study

but

of urban change

and in plant biology, research related to social disorganization theory hasspread to many different fields. These areas of concentration range from simple spin-off s of the original studies (Bordua 1959; Chilton 1964; Lander 1954), to the variety of research in environmental criminology (Brantingham to the growing field related to crime such far-reaching

topics

the space limitations, to the original

PRECURSORS

The

forerunners

as the behavior

OF

SOCIAL

of social disorganization

and the growth

1974).

Given

THEORY

research are probably

thought. The

ecological study

more varied than of delinquency

is

of the study of change in France, plant biol-ogy,

of the urban city.

direct lineage biology.

dogs (Stewart

its discussion to studies closely related

DISORGANIZATION

the result of the unlikely combination

The

of fighting

& Rafcliffe 2005), to

of the theory.

any other area of criminological

plant

mapping (Chainey

this chapter limits

principles

& Brantingham 1981),

of social disorganization

Warming (1909)

proposed

that

research is found in the study plants live in communities

varying states of symbiosis, or natural interdependence.

of with

Communities containing

plants predominantly of the same species were morein competition

with nature

than with each other. Communities with several different species, however, com-peted for limited resources more among themselves than

with the environment.

Warmingcalled this relationship a natural economybecauseof the use of resources by the plants. This used

the

German

natural economy word

oikos,

from

was expounded which

economics

on by a Haeckel (1866), was formed

to

coin

the

who term

ecology. One of the first Guerry compared 1825 through

social ecological studies the crime rates in

1830.

was conducted

86 departments

by

(counties)

Guerry in in

1833.

France from

His study showed that crime rates had marked variation

in

12

Walker

130

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

diff erent cities in the country. Similar studies compared diff erent regions

and cities in

diff

1862/1983),

erent

Kingdom (Rawson, countries

The

and juvenile

delinquency

was first

business

district,

rates were located

United

and

by Burt

Abbott in

the

lowest

studies by

examined

in

Breckinridge

delinquents

theory.

high

Burgess

and

used the concept

phenomenon

people

in

describe disrupt

in

reestablish previously

through

order

dominant

Park,

They also applied

which a stronger

the community

where

and succession group

area

would

(succeeding)

a

in

(1969)

expanded

work by observing

majority;

then

previous

level.

proximity

McKay

and

Burgess

cluster in rings set at about 1-mile increments from

central

the center of Chicago and that the patterns changed

and

dramatically from one ring to the next. For example,

a ring

Part et al. found a zone of manufacturing enterprises

economic,

immediately

surrounding

of the city.

ring,

the center homes.

housing.

dominant

working-class

central

Outside this factory

of very low-income the

the

of the city

fourth

and fifth

this

pattern

dis-trict

industry.

and

and

the

in the

prevalence

upper-class the

Burgess

outskirts

of delinquency. and

McKay

condemned was

an

final

analyzed

association

would

from

Park the

of

manufacturing zone

of

they

the

rate.

an

between

homes in

the

and the

characteristic

number

area. They number

an area and its

Moving

a reduction

characteristics

was the in

was

physical,

were studying

delinquency

physical

Shaw

surrounding

industrial

factors

to

home ad-dresses

Borrowing

levels

be-came

return

delinquency,

that

the

would

relationship

areas and the

high

The

group

of the city, they found of these

The

homes

condemned

high

ethnic)

that

the

was a zone

population

a corresponding

toward

rings from

and

the

organization

invading

rates

found

by

of

a term

(typically

To analyze

Surrounding

characterized

concentric was

the

delinquents.

district

was an area

characteristic

were middle-and

Park et al. labeled

zonal hypothesis.

zone

In the third

residential

homes. The

business

business

popula-tion

neighborhood.

crime

they

that

social one

to industry

(1928),

as population

a rise in crime

mapped industrial

of juvenile

The

examined

because

the

until

the

and

that

groups

caused worse

near their

that

of the population tended to

order

progressively

deterio-rated,

and succession,

of

another

with

was a corresponding

delinquency

of

(3)

areas

residents.

proposed

members

and

McKay

found

They

population

of heavy industry,

and

dominance,

into

to

be physically

there

disruption

moved

disruption get

to

areas

change. They

because

variables

that

transient

or decreased

used for an

between

McKenzie

on Park and Burgesss (1928)

certain characteristics

of

(2)

housing,

proposed

Shaw

influenced

status,

of an area: (1)

highly

of invasion,

group

to

group.

Burgess, and

they

change and eventu-ally

by replacing

with

delinquency.

shifts process

goals and at the

of dominance

in

status.

used three

tended

characteristic

increase

population

close to

basis

centered

physical

They

rates

increased

and

describe

communities

compete for resources.

a situation

to

to industry.

ecological

disorganization

(1)

condemned

ecol-ogy

On the

disorganization

status and

urban

social

(1942)

physical vacant

was population

what

Park

of symbiosis

for common

Warmings concepts

develop

Specifically,

human

work together

same time

Abbot to

McKay

populated

Warming, and the re-search rates

ecology.

and (3)

and

primary

Haeckel, the concepts of human

of social

of variables:

geographically

used the terminology

of Breckenridge

developed

sets

delinquency

and

between

of human

delinquency.

study

status,

(2)

of these delin-quents

used the ideas

association

they

three

measure the

Park and Burgess (1928)

called

THEORY:

MCKA

and juvenile

Their

around

proximity

in

juveniles homes werelocated in afew areas of the city.

they

the

research

change,

indicated that a disproportionate number of the

the

this

economic

the geographic

homes of juvenile

study

Shaw

undertaken

Chicago. A mapshowing the location

of

of

of the city.

was conducted

1912. They

of the

adjacent to

with

McKay (1942)

characteristics

with the

areas

ecological

States

distribution

and

district

London

near the periphery

One of the first the

Shaw and

explored

were located

THE

AND

United

a citys central

who proposed that areas in

central

the

to

between

highest rates of delinquency the

in

OF

SHAW

1836).

relationship

in 1925,

England (Mayhew

countries

1839), and England and European

(Bulwer,

DEVELOPMENT

of found

vacant that

of

vacant

delinquency

rate Shaw and there and

rate.

SOCIAL

Next, Shaw and association

between

and its

McKay (1942) the

delinquency

economic

rate. They

assistance, (2) the

area, and (3) the

rented.

Shaw and

of families

of families

receiving

low

that

rise in

status

status.

relationship

between

and

delinquency. They as the

to

the

found

and

with

higher

McKay analyzed

median rental that

median rental

Finally, Shaw and

with

delinquency

waslow, there As home ownership from

economic

Shaw and

conditions

rates. They

between

of delinquency

atmosphere

of social

affluence

produced

delinquency This

controls, an

influenced

delinquency

areas off ered

an

whereas areas of low

environment

because of the diversity

diversity

on

suggested that

influence

affluent

conducive

for these

acts, thus

behaviors.

Finally,

Shaw and

people

residents, eff ort to

of its

McKay

conducive to delinquency. Shaw and

McKay found

that

highly

conventional

norms

areas but that

competitive

way of life,

existed

delinquency such that

in

was a

there

was

advantage for some people to engage in

delinquency

and there

became the

were fewer consequences. This

core of social disorganization replicated their cities. Their

theory.

Chicago findings

research

research, becoming

Shaw and

most of the current

also spawned

criminological

McKay

in at least eight other a

wealth

one of the key theoretical

THE

SECOND OF

WAVE:

SHAW

AND

Shaw and

of

other

seeds for

theories.

REPLICATIONS MCKAY

McKays(1942) research generated several

replications spanning

morethan a decade. Each added

the relationships McKay in slightly

first

diff erent

considered

Lander

would be permanent

tried

would expend less

organization

rate of the neighborhood.

or decrease

(1954)

1939 through from

the

in

the

1942

correlated Baltimore

diff erent conclusions

8,464 juvenile Juvenile

with demographic

1940 census.

by Shaw and

ways. None of the replica-tions,

from those in the original study.

whereas people renting

Shaw and

that

in areas with high delinquency werecontributing

homes had a greater stake

where they

McKay concluded

to a breakdown in the social order of the area, resulting

however, drew substantially

maintain the social

the delinquency

rates

who

ones home in that

own their

Delinquency

Onthe basis of their findings,

McKay

delinquency

aff ord to

group.

areas where the displaced

off ering tacit sup-port to the knowledge base of ecological literature by exam-ining

proposed that economic status influenced

could

total

majority of people

in the case of owning

in the neighborhood

heads

(1942) concluded that the ecological conditions exist-ing

in the

rates of delinquency, however, some of the residents delinquent

minority

despite the

to

would not tolerate abnormal behavior. In areas of high condoned

and

rates

of the residents.

rates of delinquency

delinquency, a substantial

nativity

wasthe factor contributing

area because of the disparity in social norms. In areas of low

meanthat

Delinquency

to delinquency.

of economic status

indirectly

in

They

constant

moved. Shaw and

even in small incre-ments high-delinquency

McKay (1942)

asserted that

constant

household.

or ethnicity

of home ownership. the influence

shift to another

also remained

in conditions Where home own-ership

the lowest level, the level

delinquency,

population

foreign-born

remained

of

residents,

were high rates of delinquency. increased,

does not

numbers

the area of study, and not the nativity

being lowest in areas with the highest levels

In explaining

households

McKay examined the relationship

home ownership and delinquency.

heads of

wasthe cause of crime.

in areas containing of

with the highest

higher

rates

price of the area rose.

negative relationship

black

that this finding

or ethnicity

areas

population

own homes and the delinquency rate.Their findings

dropped,

cautioned

that

contained

price

between the percentage of residents who owned their revealed a significant

McKay found

foreign-born

rates. They

areas

Shaw and

than

there

McKays

of an area and its rate of delinquency.

rates

was higher in areas

relative

composition

delinquency

rather

131

(1942) study wasthe relationship betweenthe popula-tion

of the

that, as the number

Next, Shaw and

the

dropped

owned

delinquency

delinquency

economic

economic

price

social assistance increased,

was a corresponding concluded

of homes

McKay found

receiving

area

variables

median rental

number

an

used three

for this analysis: (1) the number social

of

THEORY

The final analysis included in Shaw and

analyzed the

status

DISORGANIZATION

Specifically,

delin-quents

Court from

variables taken Lander

analyze

132

CRIME

juvenile

AND

BEHAVIOR

delinquency in terms of the

of school completed, with 1.51 or substantial

median monthly rent, homes

more persons per room,

repairs

and

median years homes

residents,

and

owner-occupied

Landers

(1954)

Lander

findings

established

noted,

however,

followed

the concentric

by Shaw and

McKay (1942).

that

the

use

for the zones oversimplified of delinquency delinquency

rates

because it

McKays (1942) and

1 -mile

the spatial

incre-ments

distribu-tion

obscured the range of

did not support

correlation

close

followed

Shaw of

Shaw and

to industry.

His results

indicated that the delinquency rate in census tracts

analysis

and

the

were better

physical

or economic

conclusions

(1942).

status

Zero-order that

these

of delinquency

variables.

Although

supported

those

than

Landers

of Shaw

and

were some diff erences in the findings.

For example,

Lander found

inverse relationship

noting that

population

demonstrated

predictors

generally

McKay, there

of

McKays

variables

variables

a statistically

significant,

between delinquency

residents.

Lauder

most of the foreign-born

and number

explained

many of the foreign-born

were recent immigrants,

between high delinquency

proximity

(1954)

of foreign-born

within each zone.

Landers (1954) findings

rates

of

Landers

correlation

homes.

ring pattern

highly correlated variable in Landers analysis.

needing

or having no private bath, foreign-born

non-white

and delinquency. In fact, home ownership wasthe most

by

Chicago resi-dents

whereas in

residents

this

Baltimore

were wellintegrated

into the community, characterized by a high degree

pur-posesof home ownership. Lander also found that in areas

with lessthan 50% of the area zoned for industrial

waslower than the city average. Lander, however,

with a moderate proportion of blacksthere wasa high

found a more pronounced relationship in Baltimore in

rate of delinquency. As the percentage of blacks rose

areas

above 50%, however,the rate of delinquency dropped

zoned

for

these findings identifying

commercial

that

Shaw and

He concluded

McKay

areas close to the center

highest in delinquency to ecological factors Lander

also found

between

population

conclusions

increase increases

of

to those

diff erent

of

rate

tracts

had with

delinquency

or no population

housing.

juvenile data

as an additional

measureof the physical status of the area and found

In

Landers (1954)

of housing

units in

because they a person

might live.

the

an eff ort to clarify

had drawn

criticism.

data from

1950

Borduas

U.S.

(1959)

the

status

housing

were generally

and contradictory

(1942).

Bordua found

Also supporting

study

Michigan,

1952 and census tract

physical

(1954)

between

some of

Borduas

Detroit,

and

analysis

supportive to

Shaw

only

overcrowding. of Landers and

McKays

a weaker but significant

overcrowding

and

Lander and counter to the findings

of Shaw and

McKay, Bordua found a nonsignificant

relationship

between

substandard

housing

Borduas (1959) findings regarding economic status found the

median rental value to be nonsignificant

values

were Lander

were an unreliable

merely indicators did find

of

a significant

less

substantial

significant

pre-dictor percentage where

added

than

those of Lander (1954).

Lander

did.

but less substantial

Bordua

relationship

also

median income

to represent

significant

indicator

that income

Bordua and

found

a

between the

of homes owned and delinquency.

the analysis and found re-lationship,

however, between homes owned in an area

and

delinquency.

analysis, the

median rental value

re-lationship

delinquency.

supported

was not significantly

of

Census.

substandard

His findings

part

essentially

Lander reasoned that economic

variables such as rental

from

replicate

and delinquency.

Baltimore

related to delinquency.

study in

to

court for 1948 through

included

a substantial (r= .73) but nonsignificant relationship between overcrowding

attempted

(1954)

change.

between delinquency and substandard He added overcrowding

(1959)

Landers

showed that

Lander found asubstantial (r =.69) but nonsignificant relationship

Bordua

used delinquency

Landers

of 40% or more and decreases of

with little

proportionately.

the issues that

correlation

delinquency

20% and that

due

to industry.

the

His findings

more had substantially

rates than those

for

wholly contradictory

McKay, however.

population

was primarily

change and delinquency.

with the third-highest

a population

were correct in

proximity

no support

from

of the city as the

but that this other than

are not

Shaw and the tract

20% or

use.

economic

Bordua status

in

was not a statisti-cally

of delinquency

SOCIAL

Borduas (1959)

analysis

was supportive but contrary

findings

revealed that

to

related to delinquency

individuals

to

number of black heads

chose

total

number

unrelated individuals

was significantly

On the basis of these the

ratio of

of

133

were supported

by the replications, McKays findings

characteristics not supported

and delinquency but not completely. concerning

and delinquency

popu-lation

were generally

by the replications.

unrelated

families

status.

between economic characteristics Finally, Shaw and

birth

measure of population that

Borduas

foreign

Bordua the

(1954).

but that

was nonsignificant.

contradictions,

McKays (1942)

Landers

THEORY

vari-ables McKays (1942) findings concerning the relationship

population

of Shaw and

research

of households

of

DISORGANIZATION

as

an

ad-ditional

Lander found

THE

LEAN

TIMES: IN

was significantly-correlated

SOCIAL

THE 1970S

DISORGANIZATION AND

1980S

with delinquency. Chilton

(1964)

Indianapolis,

used juvenile

Indiana,

data from the

1950

from

data from

1948 through

1950 and

U.S. Census to compare the find-ings

of Lander (1954)

and Bordua (1959)

with those

After the replications (1942)

research,

that followed

social

began to decline. This on the use of official

Shaw and

disorganization was primarily

McKays

as a theory

a result

of attacks

data in crime studies and growing

results of Chiltons analyses of

criticism of theoretical problems with the theory. Afew

between physical characteristics and

studies, however, continued to follow the principles of

in Indianapolis. The the relationship

court

delinquency essentially confirmed the findings

of the

social disorganization. The

general direction of these

other replications. Chiltons findings of the relationship

studies followed that of Shaw and

between delinquency and substandard housing showed

followed their design closely enough to be considered

a substantial

but nonsignificant

Chilton

also found

overcrowded per room) though,

conditions

delinquency. essentially

confirmed

studies. The

delinquency

ownership

of Landers

between

was found

Borduas value

to be nonsignificant

Chiltons findings

to

of

variables

and

and

concerning

home

the other replications.

population

characteristics

example,

status

through

His

tended

these

studies

scale

examined

measurement

analysis of change in population

characteristics In analyzing

correlations.

between

indicators

median rental

For

than single-variable

in Indianapolis

significant

those

also supported related

1.5 persons

analyses of economic

relationship

similar to Landers.

findings

(more than

Unlike the other two stud-ies,

statistically

Chiltons

be-tweenpopulation

correlation

the degree of overcrowding

was one of two

and

a substantial

and delinquency.

replications. with delin-quency.

correlation

McKay, but few

research

in

this

individuals

economic

era

status

focused

on

the

and

rather the as-sociation

delinquency,

economic

status

rather than the housing conditions

by Shaw and economic

McKay.These

characteristics

and the occupational contradictory

of

studied measured

educational

status of residents.

findings

contention delinquency,

studies typically through

and

levels

Because of the

of earlier research and the grow-ing

that foreign

birth

these studies

had little

to do with

began to look to additional

to refute both Shaw and McKay(1942) and the other

measuresof population status in an eff ort to better

replications. Chilton found both percentage of foreign-born

measureits relationship

people and percentage of black people to not be significantly related to delinquency in Indianapolis.

He

concluded that ecological research can identify general conditions

associated

with delinquency

The and

findings

of Landers (1954),

Chiltons (1964)

relationship area and

social disorganization

to be a sustained

and (3) be ad-dressed

theory.

Borduas (1959),

studies suggest that although the

between the physical characteristics delinquency

may vary by city there

relationship

Kentucky, in

of an appears

at some level. Shaw and

status.

status, Quinneys

most closely

McKays (1942)

Lexington, with social

Quinneys research included

(1) economic

ethnic

the variable

with delinquency.

obtained data from

1960 and analyzed them

area analysis.

diff er-ences dimensions;

but that

between cities exist such that they cannot with traditional

Quinney (1964)

women in

rates, and single-structure analysis showed that family with juvenile

(2) family family

associated

physical status.

data concerning

the

status,

status

was

with Shaw and

Quinney used census workforce,

housing. The status

three

fertility

results

of his

was negatively cor-related

delinquency. These

findings

wer

134

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

significant even when interaction variables wereincluded. to

examine

economic

grades completed The

the

The

(1)

and (2) number

correlated census

racial

the

Quinney used two variables status:

race

to

degree

of delinquency

in

areas

with

white

less

Quinney

was found

to

steadily as the proportion

Quinney the

by each race. This

2%

blacks

rates and

were

however was highest in areas with less than 2% black or

more

than

50%

black

but

was lowest

when

the

1940 to

drawn from court in

1970 in 10-year increments. male referrals

to the

the years of 1940,

1950,

and from

all

analysis revealed that with the indicators

Chicago juvenile 1960, and

was

reversed.

Bursik

years.

delinquency

the

Webb

also

communities

exhibiting

characterized

by the highest increases in

most rapid

change

analysis showed that communities change

with the high-est

had an average of 12

more off enses per 1,000 youth than

areas with either

moderate or slow change.They concluded on the basis not the peopleinvolved in the change,that wasaffecting

high and low economic status and high and low family

from Shaw and McKays, Bursik and

status. In this analysis, delinquency

that

self-reported In

this

through

of using official

research, Johnstone

administered

questionnaires

18 living

in

measures

results

of a factor

data in

youth

Four

theory.

aged 14

also used a

status

measures. The

analysis revealed that

wrong but that it historical

context

was and

process that [has] of the 1942

(p. 36). Schuerman

and

Kobrin

a study similar to Bursik and

a 20-year

County.This the juvenile

historical

analysis

was accomplished court for

them composition,

area-status

differed

Webbconcluded

since the publication

years later,

conducted with

was not

a specific

in a model of ecological

monograph

social area analysis using area

and family

within

changed dramatically

used

self-reported

1,124

Chicago. Johnstone

modified ShevskyBell status

to

study,

(1978)

data to test social disorganization

study, Johnstone

delinquency

Quinneys (1964)

the earlier study

conducted

grounded...

the rate of delinquency. of

and to address the criticism social disorganization

rates varied in rela-tion

however, the presence of high

status always lowered

were

delinquency.

delinquency. In explaining how their findings

In a partial replication

that

of these findings that it wasthe nature of the change,

racial

mix was predominantly, but not completely, white. In a

family

was not

found

third analysis, census tracts were divided into areas of

to economic status;

A

periods, however, this

and

rates of population

1970

of change between 1940

and 1950. For the two following trend

Data were

census data for the corresponding

associated

peaking

Black delinquency,

McKays own data and updated

it to the time of their study to facilitate an examination

The

increased

of blacks increased,

in the 15% to 40% black grouping.

used Shaw and

regression be

determine

delinquency

than

was

status.

analysis to

exhibited

that

work-ers.

ethnic

with delinquency.

a second

analysis revealed lowest

status.

examine

They from

school

delinquency

makeup of a census tract

conducted

of

of blue-collar

with economic

variable

most highly correlated

then

number

results showed that juvenile

negatively used

eff ects of economic

with

Webbs(1982)

of

Los

by gathering

Angeles data from

1950, 1960, and 1970 and cor-relating measures of land

socioeconomic

Schuerman

(1986)

and

status,

Kobrin

(1986)

use, population

and subculture. proposed

that

measureshad a positive but nonsignificant relationship

neighborhoods travel through three stages: (1) emerging

with fighting and weapon-related crimes and a negative

areas, with verylow delinquency rates; (2) transitional

and nonsignificant relationship

areas, with moderatelevels of delinquency; and (3) en-during with all other delin-quency areas, which maintain high levels of delinquency

measures.In regard to family status measures, lower-class

status

was significantly

associated

with

Uniform

Crime

Report Index

many years.They (supporting

off enses, and city

arrests.

An enduring research

was the

criticism

pattern in the community change. test this

of Shaw and

assumption

Bursik

hypothesis

and

McKays (1942)

of a stable

rather than Webb (1982)

by examining

delinquency

one experienc-ing attempted

data from

also proposed that deterioration

preceded a rise in delinquency in early stages of transi-tion

fighting and weapons off enses, burglarylarcenyrobbery off enses,

for

to

Chicago.

Shaw and

McKay 1942) but that asthe

movedto the enduring stage, rises in the delinquency

rate

preceded

In

deterioration.

analyzing

the

relationship

between

land

use

(physical status) and delinquency, Schuerman and Kobrin (1986)

land

found

use type

that

the

number

wasinversely

of

related

homes

owned

and

with delinquency

SOCIAL

They

also found high mobility levels in personsliving

in high-delinquency

areas. A cross-lagged regression

analysis revealed that highly

associated

emerging and

and

Kobrin

in

rose, however, the

to

economic

than the change itself

to

in

even

more substantial

Schuerman

on delinquency, the

occupation,

housing

characteristics

Sampson and

of a low

and

analysis

number

workers and a low

in

exam-ined

education,

of census tracts. This

population

percentage of

238

was that that

localities

in

were not valid

Sampson and

data were superior

mobility, and family social disorganization,

was a general housing

units

as one

McKays

proposal

negatively

correlated

of

which

supported

characteristics,

significant

in

the and

was positively

percentage

findings Chilton

of homes

of

Lander

transmit

(1954),

theory

participation

slightly

from

of

Kobrin

were

in emerging

(1986)

areas.

force

Similar

not

a

areas of

examined

four

trends

non-white

force. In

1970,

From

participation

in

1950

population

while the

dramatically

occurred

female

high-delinquency

of blacks in the

decreased

participation.

black female

white and (4)

1950 through

whites

Shaw and

sur-vey

McKays (1942)

also proposed that

and

Groves concluded was supported,

variations

in social

that

social

stating

that

disorganiza-tion

on

rates

of

both

criminal

(p. 774).

structural

victimization

Furthermore,

they

Shaw

and

States

(p.

Anironic research

McKays

the

other than the

776).

major drawback

of social disorganization

has been the relative lack

or explain

model explains

rates in a culture

research

(Bursik

of theory

1988).

to guide

Much

of the

research in this area has paid tribute to social disorga-nization in the literature review and then simply con-ducted analyses with little theoretical explanation for

in the labor

areas, the percentage

structure

which in turn, increased crime

off ending

in that

United

population characteristics: (1) white and (2) non-white and (3)

on census data

disruption lead to community

crime and delinquency

preceded increases in delinquency only in transitional

population

rationale

argued for expanded support for social disorganization

and enduring stages. and

Their

much ofthe eff ect ofcommunity

and criminal

Unlike physical

variables

of delinquency

areas,

Schuerman and Kobrins study. Socioeconomic status

Schuerman

disorga-nization

Groves also argued that

theory

characteristics

and

increases in the

(1964).

Sampson

disorganization

Shaw and

high-delinquency

economic

factor

Britain.

had relied

to

between-community

low-delinquency

delinquency

overcrowding

Bordua (1959),

multiple

percentage of people renting with the

analysis,

owner-to

supported

were also significant

degree

status

from

single to

moved from

that

with the

owned. There

trend

and from

areas.This

correlated

the rate of

McKay(1942) and the replica-tions. and delinquency rates (p. 775). Onthe basis of their

findings of Shaw and

high-delinquency

turn-over,

low economic status, ethnic heterogeneity, residential

among housing characteristics in

housing

and population

reliance on official crime. They

Kobrins study also supported the

to

along

measures of community

trend

There

analysis

a survey of 10,905 resi-dents

Great

research

Schuerman and

renter-occupied

this

characteristics,

Groves (1989) tested social

using data from

previous

or crime.

of profes-sional

people with advanced education in high-delinquency areas.The

from

were

analysis.

were preceding and greatly influencing

factors

Kobrin (1986)

Kobrin concluded

change in

theory

unemployment,

revealed expected results

and skilled

and

cross-lagged

increase in delinquency.

of change rather

of socioeconomic

in the

with high rates of deterioration

that resulted in a neighborhood

Schuerman

and

rapid

moving from low to high crime rates. In analyzing the influence

135

labor force dropped substantially. These findings

Schuerman

the speed

THEORY

slightly in high-delinquency areas, but the whitefemale

that

deteriorate

most significant

characteristics.

argued that

was most

delinquency

As the area continued

delinquency shifted

deterioration

with increases

areas.

factors

physical

DISORGANIZATION

in

the

female

through

in the labor force

same labor

1970, the dropped

Two authors (Sampson 1986, and Stark

1987) attempted to advance the theory itself and to provide

a better link

research

and

the

Responding

rose

percent-age the

the findings.

lacked and

an intervening

in

this

show the link

that

factor

Sampson informal

premise

neighborhood-oriented

foundation.

to criticisms

criminality,

breakdown

With

between

theoretical

in

ecological

between

(1986)

the

variables

proposed

social

controls

mind,

Sampson

among ecological

research

is

this

set

characteristics,

that

a

link.

out

to

socia

136

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

disorganization, loss of informal delinquency.The first link the structural earlier in

reduced

maintain surveillance strangers.

in

the

it

area.

was

When

able to recognize their

activities,

for

residential

this

difficult

in

were

an increased

First,

a link

turnover

with

he proposed

poor there

anonymity

and less

supervision

also linked

economic

status to

in

his

maintaininformal social control.

that

people who owned their

attachment took

and commitment

steps to

maintain

social control. families informal

and their

families that

and

delinquency.

networks versus

ability

to

increased

to

add

important

that poor,

dense

status to delinquency,

physically

unattractive

areas

also supported Shaw and

McKays

cannot

and

maintain

with a highly transient commitment

and cannot

to

the

area

maintain social control

of

maintain that

A

two-parent

supervision

RESURGENCE:

SOCIAL

THEORY

and

IN

DISORGANIZATION THE

1990S

were aware of and intervened in

more serious

delin-quent At least focus

furthered

a theoretical

research

Stark through

one-parent

activities.

ort

of children.

mixed-use neighborhoods

population

to industry

by the residents

of involvement

Stark (1987) eff

proximity

and

relative

because of this they

proposition

to the neighborhood

two-parent

were

was more

conclusion that physically deteriorated areasin close

own homes had a greater

Sampson proposed

provided

in predecessors

He also proposed

neighborhood

social control.

This

willingness

population

He examined

areas

delinquency

proposition

tend to be

status).

reduced peoples commitment to their neighborhood.

that economic status wasrelated to delinquency

to

to delinquency

population

therefore,

between new residents and strangers. Sampson pro-posedStark proposed that

the neighborhood and the neighborhoods

and

homes in

(p. 902). In relating

through the attachment or social bond a person hadto

waslinked

status

that

neighborhoods

had a greater

such

Stark pro-posed

more crowded;

neighbor-hoods physical status

making it difficult to distinguish

be committed.

economic status

ways (physical

typically

with

opportunity

whereby he argued that

of new faces,

that in two

less

or be concerned

who wanted to commit

might have to travel a great distance to get to a

place where such acts could

and

who lived

also proposed

with a high population number

know

residents

neighbors

Sampson

mobility

to

occurred,

resulting

of youth

available and close by. In purely residential

areas, however, juveniles thefts

to

of persons in a given living

more

their

delinquency.

of a neighborhood

and guardianship

As the number

area increased,

were readily

In an

proposed that increases

the ability

businessesthere was more opportunity

to commit delinquent acts (e.g., theft) becausetargets makecon-cerned

he attempted to

density of a neighborhood.

work, Sampson (1985)

density

or industrial

social control, and

Sampsons framework

to

by formalizing

aspects of

(1985, social

on neighborhoods

1986)

the 1990s.This

disor-ganization

increasing

some of the

Shaw and

within criminology

more

McKays (1942)

and criminal

experienced

waslargely

justice,

the

a resurgence

in

based on recognition

of the

decline of American cities, increasing

crime

rates, and the popularity

of community

policing. This

renewed focus produced a great deal of research on

findings in developing a set of 30 propositions. The

neighborhoods.

primary focus

social disorganization theory but largely abandoned it

of Starks propositional

was on Shaw and

framework

McKays physical status variables.

The factors Stark used to analyze population status were transience

of population,

and overcrowding. transience

directly reducing social control

Stark (1987)

weakens voluntary

basis for understanding

how proximity

mixed-use areas influenced that

in

areas

and formal

sources

where

residents

to industry

delinquency. lived

close

of a

and

Stark argued to

commercial

Some studies,

Raudenbush,

theory. These

thereby

(p. 900). Stark also sought to provide

basis.

& Grasmick 1993; Sampson

studies

understanding

In

one

of social

often attempted

of neighborhoods

methodological

techniques

of

neighborhoods Grasmick (1993)

the

however

more

and

(Bursik

& Raudenbush 1999;

& Earls 1997),

at least some of the tenets

proposed that

organizations,

both informal

as a theoretical

neighbor-hoods, Sampson,

mixed-use

Most of the research paid homage to

maintained

disorganization to further

and crime

with better

more appropriate

extensive

and crime in the

statements

1990s,

presented a reformulation

the

data. of

Bursik and of socia

SOCIAL

disorganization theory by placing it within systemic theory of community,

a broader

which emphasized how

neighborhood

life is shaped by the structure

and informal

networks

and

Grasmick

three-level

system of relationships

relationships

first level, the strength

within a neighborhood,

next two levels.

strong

neighborhood

second level. neighbors

to events that

which

are influencing

of the community.

The

was the when

final

the common

level

wasthe level at which a

would be able to

Wikstrm.

marshal resources to

and

that youth in

organizations

(e.g., a halfway

house) or crime

of public housing collectively

Bursik

and

Grasmick

(1993)

found

to exert social control. population to

turnover

other residents.

housing

unit

relationship

At the level

to

maylive there for years and never form with his or her neighbors.

do not know the children to intervene

a public

displayed

research. This

extensive

but that

project

and

diversity

and examine

disorganization

et al. (1996)

of neighborhoods

neighborhood

theory.

analyzed

(measured

when there

erences

groups.

were a variety

in

Elliott

on the

control

Bursik

capacity

and introduced

combined

& Raudenbush

wasan intervening

of the

among

with shared expec-tations of public 2001,

space

(p. 3;

p. 1).

argued that collective efficacy

variable between structural condi-tions

of neighborhoods (poverty, residential instabil-ity) and crime..They examined collective efficacy using as part of PHDCN. In their analysis, Sampson

the

For

ethnic

by the number

et al. examined residential

values

and

norms

et al. proposed that

of languages

being spoken,

structural

stability,

characteristics

immigrant

measures.They

regardless of

characteristics

of residents

status, etc.), and collective

a statistically

between the ethnic

diff

social

Sampson et al. (1997)

of

on

residents

for informal

crime

based

crime

For example,

p. 627) took

research

control

theory

of collective efficacy, defined ascohesion

of diff erent languages spoken) to examine the influence crime

(1993) to

paths.

(1999,

his-tory

a wealth of

disorganization

conceptual

Raudenbush

work of

perhaps in the

research. It spawned

diff erent

and

since the

most

data on 343 Chicago neighborhoods and their resi-dents

in the 1990s began to fragment of social

took

neighborhoods

Alarge part of research related to social disorga-nization

Elliott

Human

was easily the

and

related to social

the se-curity see also Sampson

in the open without being detected.

portions

Project on

criminology

McKay (1942)

Grasmicks

concept

weak networks increased the ability of crime to occur

only

&

used social disorganization

Chicago.This

research in

Sampson

the places crime could hide from surveillance, whereas

example,

ability to

theory as a basisfor a reexamination of neighborhood

because it reduced informal

surveillance. A strong neighborhood network reduced

disadvantage

of the residents

Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN)

unacceptable

also negatively influenced

of the neighborhood

a

who

of the area were less likely

when the children

behavior. Instability

Residents

argued that this

began to change the nature of social disorganization

of criminology

high

were morelikely to

neighborhood

and alack

research

p. 1135) indi-cated

defend against crime (as stated by Bursik

publications

ability

maintain ties

a tenant in

& Bellair

of single-family

off ending. They

By the end of the 1990s, the

instabil-ity

of residents,

made it difficult For example,

that

residents

of the family

1993).

Shaw and

greatly reduced the neighborhood

consensus

McNulty

public housing

in serious

crime patterns in combat invasions into the neighborhood, such as un-wanted (e.g., drug dealers).

137

was also con-siderable

Loeber (2000,

could be due to the serious

of relation-ships

werethose between residents and organizations

neighborhood

of P.-O.

Grasmick

external to the neighborhood, such aslocal government officials or the police.This

Much of this research (e.g.,

participate

would result

know each other, they are morelikely to pay

attention good

the base

Grasmick argued that

might not be reached. There research related to a breakdown

unit.

Grasmick argued

networks,

Bursik and

and

units (especially related to race) on crime. The

of individual

among residents

difficult,

2003) sought to examine the influence

informal

formed

Bursik and

mat strong relationships in

influencing

a

be

THEORY

concerning appropriate values and behaviors for the

(p. 55). Bursik argument

could

community

of formal

used as a backdrop to their

social control. The

for the

of association

communication

DISORGANIZATION

concentration,

etc.),

(race, age, socioeconomic efficacy in relation

to violent

found that collective efficacy had

significant of structural

neighborhoods.

(disadvantage,

They

relationship

to violent

or individual argued

that

crime

characteristics in low-crim

138

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

neighborhoods, residents

used informal

control

to

(P.-O.

Wikstrm

& Loeber 2000), sexual activity at

regulate the behavior of members by developing rules

an early age (Browning,

Leventhal, & Brooks-Gunn

and collective

2004),

addition,

goals for the neighborhood.

occur, residents

must develop relationships

among one another. had a high level them,

informal

disorder In

of social cohesion

addressing

was easier

neighborhoods

residents

and develop

and trust

to

exert,

among

and

social

and

the influence

many of the variables

disorder in the

more likely

(2003)

and

of collective

Raudenbush (1999)

used in early social

efficacy followed

disorganiza-tion

socialization level

in an area was often associated

delinquent

which

would lead

these

witness violence

that

P. H. Wikstrm the

development

propensities

was influenced

among chil-dren

by community

and that this relationship

was due to the

low

in

collective

efficacy

who were often unsupervised,

threat

of repercussions

Sampson and

in turn increased

neighborhood,

to

in

of collective efficacy present in the neighborhood.

Neighborhoods

little

juveniles

problems.

argued

and adolescents

with high levels of disadvantage. This the

were

Sampson

children research. For example, they argued that a high per-centage of immigrants

In

mental health

of antisocial

wereless likely.

Sampson and

and violence.

and trust

When a neighborhoods

control

and crime

on crime,

For this to

allegiance

for

was

negative behaviors.

Raudenbush

to social

produced

and there

(2001)

disorganization

also indicated

but strayed from

mostinnovative

its original connotation. They conceded that the ability

research involved

to understand social disorganization is crucial to rally

driving down selected streets using video equipment

understanding urban neighborhoods. In their research,

to capture

however, social disorganization consisted primarily of

to high levels of crime.

One of the

and extensive parts of the PHDCN

measuresof physical and social disorder.

Sampson and Raudenbush found that both social and physical

disorder

characterized

in

neighborhoods

by a diverse commercial

were observed

and residential

use of property. They could

be explained

disadvantage,

concluded by collective

wasresponsible

They

efficacy,

meaning that of a

for high levels of crime.

of neighborhood physical deteriora-tion.

proposed

was an indication

predictions in the

changing the calculus

IN

THE

21ST

THEORY

CENTURY

and social efficacy

By the turn

of the

theory

20th century,

had largely

social

disorganiza-tion

died out in its original

form.

that

attributions

homebuyers,

proposed that

of disorder.

was low,

Where physical

high levels

of collective

proposed,

did not produce crime. They

relationship

real

(p. 1).

rather than social disorganiza-tion

the level

disorder

and

and outsiders alike,

Raudenbush (2001)

were usually found. They

disorder

deterioration

agents, and investors

structure

influenced

triggers

of prospective

estate agents, insurance

neighborhood DISORGANIZATION

physical

minds ofinsiders

Sampson and SOCIAL

that this

of what was happening in the neigh-borhood,

such that disorder

that the level of crime

not race or the ethnic composition

neighborhood,

visual indications

between

disorder

and

however, found

homicide,

no sug-gesting

that crime and disorder were both influenced

It wasreplaced with (a) research paying tribute to the theory but straying from its original intent, (b) research

by something else.They

focused on collective efficacy, and (c) research focused

underlying factor

on neighborhood characteristics but using a diff erent

the neighborhood and the cohesiveness and informal

theoretical

social control of its residents (Sampson & Raudenbush

conducted

base (including

the variety

under the term environmental

A number

of studies acknowledged

criminology). social

but did not use the theory. These tribute

to the theory

from

of the theory. These socially

disorganized

that juveniles

neighborhoods

likely to engage in aggressive and delinquent

were more behaviors

would feed into

on collective Continuing

paid

but they rarely used the

studies found

2001). This

disorga-nization

studies

by using the term social disorganiza-tion

to describe neighborhoods, tenets

of research

and

disorganization They

line

(2001),

(2001)

Sampson and others re-search

of

research Morenoff ,

made a connection

and

viewed local

of

efficacy.

the

Raudenbush

Raudenbush

proposed that the common

comprised the characteristics

what they termed

communities

made up of friendships,

kinships,

of

Sampson

Sampson, between

and social

social capital.

as complex

systems

and acquaintances

SOCIAL

They

argued these groups

were tied to each other

through family life and other aspects of their sociallives. Morenoff et al. (2001) the social

ties

used social capital to

between

people and

positions. They

argued social capital increases the social and trust

within

networks,

They

proposed that

of social capital and

maintain

control.

This

of the neighborhood

social problems, including

of

to

lead

to

ward off unwanted Morenoff

expectations

were shared among a community,

one

of

the

few

disorganization,

pointed

(1942)

few ties were

findings

that

Kubrin and

refocused

on

for a return

and

be

and

models of neighbor-hood

the

that although

inclusion

could then influence

research.

community

characteristics

of

models

community

Kubrin

the reciprocal

in

which

between crime and community characteristics has They

aided in recent research systemic

by addressing it as more of a

model that included factors.

substantive

and

trend in

They

argued,

methodological

however,

to

continue

The and

to

Weitzer

(2003)

Kubrin

included

proposed

by Kubrin

advancements

between

neighborhood

and crime. They

variable that efficacy.

hasimproved and

research. Finally,

neighborhoods

in

the

of

complete

and

and

that,

should

although

Weitzer

more rigorous

testing

shortcomings,

of social

They

continued

measurement

neighborhood their

level

more

disorga-nization because

conceded

that

to be challenged

of central

concepts

and

social disorganization

with meth-odological

theory

of crime at the

with the improvements

outlined

in

article.

Combining

social control was not central to social disorganization

that

was possible

innovations.

devel-oped

and research.

concluded

propositions

researchers

proper

one anothers

more fully

theory

Weitzer (2003)

methodological

although the

be

the pri-mary could greatly increase the understanding

the theory is collective

Weitzer argued

of

structural

argued that

outcomes

Kubrin and

could influence

in social disorganization Kubrin

theorys

of key concepts and the addition

mediating variables characteristics

adjacent

mat

theory

that

argued that spatial interdependence, whereby spatially

advance.

substantive improvements

operationalization

theory

that

issues remained

mul-tilevel

Weitzer proposed

should receive greater attention in social disorganiza-tion

level of disorganization, extra-neighborhood

both intra-and

needed to be overcome if social disorganization were

was

is still

contextual effects addressing the connection between

of social disorganization theory.

argued that social disorganization theory

com-munity

characteristics

that experimental and analytical work on the connec-tion the neighborhood andits effect onindividual led to clarification

to

crime and crime

on the current and

Kubrin

were beginning

could influence

Drawing

modeling,

stated

dynamic

Weitzer also indicated

addressed,

nature of Shaw and

urban dynamics, and they called

to including

eff ects of crime

McKays

was the changing

change in social disorganization

social

Weitzer (2003)

one of Shaw and

decried the research following

not sufficient.

articles

139

models, reciprocal effects,

out that

principal

of social

necessary among neighbors. In

correctly

values

control

increases in crime.

et al. did concede that if strong control

devoid

hold common

THEORY

contextual effects, and spatial interdependence. They

McKays as dismissing maintain co-operation.

helps

lack

as dynamic

cities. They

organization

neighborhoods

were less able to

social

an inability

which

describe

innovations

DISORGANIZATION

many of the developments from the

theory, formal social control (police, code enforcement,

previous 15 years, Warner(2007) sought to delineate

etc.) was a critical concept in social disorganization

the forms of social control (and collective efficacy) by

research and should be brought into future research.

examining the willingness of residents to directly inter-vene in a situation rather than relying onformal

Finally, Kubrin and Weitzer bemoaned the fact that the culture

of the neighborhood

in recent research. They

McKays (1942) Kubrin

and

original

Weitzer (2003)

innovation that clarify

been ignored

proposed that there should

a return to the neighborhood and

has largely

culture included

in

causal

Like

paid tribute

the

recent meth-odologicalthe theory

in social disorganization

theory

many of the previous studies,

identified

these

variables.

by

review

but did little

Warner

mobility

were social ties

Warner

to support

disadvantage

as classic social

Other independent

or

theory in the in-troduction

in the research, only including

and residential

and

police, but also avoidance

to social disorganization and literature

described

models.They

(typically

tolerance).

work.

had helped researchers test key propositions relevant

be

Shaw

of control

means

disorganiza-tion

variables

and faith

included

in the

police

140

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

Life course theory and research from the PHDCN

Warnerfound that the relationship between neighbor-hood disadvantage and social control She argued that this

methods of control

tolerate

the situation,

were morelikely

theory, the

people

direct

and positively

of using indirect etc.),

but it

The

related

Furthermore,

was not related

(police,

the

efficacy

through

quickly

means that

research

another

decade.

of Sampsons

probably

work on

ensured

numerous

1970s with the work of crime

environmental

developed into

design

research

( Jeff ery

wasformed.

what is now termed

envi-ronmental

based morein routine activities theory (among other than social disorganization

theory, but the tenets of social disorganization theory 21st century

than in the last

seemed to fare

no better

part of the 20th century. The

still received some support

from research

a few

of the variables,

to the theory in the literature

conducted

neighborhood

consistent

with

the

research

theoretical

theory

can easily be found in recent

only parts

or simply review

that

paid

complex ability

place for social

was faintly of

social

of social disorganization

on which it

human

FUTURE

DIRECTIONS

used the

theory to explain neigh-borhood Walker termed

was based (social

ecology, environmental

complex systems theory). annual

Walker (2007)

this

new

ecodynamics theory after the various theoretical

traditions

disorganization.

may theory

an eff ort to improve

change and crime. theory

criminology

disorganization

criminology.

systems science in

and then

foundation

much of this line of study. A

development in environmental

signal a larger

on neighbor-hoods, within environmental

most of the research included

of the theory,

Chicago.

criminology.This line of research is typically

to the likelihood

methods. Warnerfound support for

Overall, social disorganization theory in the first

tribute

have

the intricacies

change in

at least

popularity

the

other researchers and

1971), a new area of neighborhood This

over

in this area for the foreseeable future.

prevention

theory.

but

detailing

probably

has

work

other researchers

data for

theoretical foundations) these results in confirming the tenets of social disorga-nization

decade of the

and

of these data for

Beginning in the late

was

theoretical

neighborhood

popularity

collective

with the likelihood control

availability

publications disad-vantage

Mobility

Sampson

will be using these

Warner found

mobility:

of the

many publications

its current

pattern of

asthe

lessened.

methods of social

of using direct

middle

methods and

of direct action increasing

patterns for residential

much

of crime related to

Warner stated

using indirect

of the neighborhood

significantly

produced

to use

of social disorganiza-tion

which would hold a morelinear

the likelihood

avoidance,

action.

to the tenets

most disadvantaged

similar

were likely

(the police) or to avoid or

whereas people in the

to take

this is in opposition

dominated

highly disadvan-taged past 20 years.

meant that both

and highly advantaged indirect

was nonlinear.

has

Afew conference

meeting on environmental

and

papers at an

criminology

to the argument that social disorganization continue to be tested

disorganiza-tion,

criminology,

gave rise

theory

morein its classic form

may

by these

Onecould argue that the future of social disorganiza-tion researchers than by othersin criminology. theory looks bleak. Although it is likely to still be considered one of the

majortheories, especially given

a continued focus on neighborhood research, it very well dissipatein its classicform. articles likely

to be related to

likely that replications McKays (1942) do look

promising theory,

PHDCN and (2)

work

Otherthan afew

dissertation

or semireplications will disappear.

work, it is of Shaw and

Two directions

for the vestiges of social

disorgani-zation

however: (1) studies using data from the

and its associated work from

collective

environmental

CONCLUSION

may

efficacy theory

criminology.

Social disorganization

theory

has its roots in some of

the oldest research in criminological

theory,

dating back

to the early 1800s. Studies of neighborhoods, crime

characteristics,

with the development began to University

build the

rose almost

simultaneously

of the field of sociology. Department

of Chicago,

he centered

includ-ing

of Sociology

As Park at the

on the concept

o

SOCIAL

human ecology.This

examination of human behavior,

REFERENCES

DISORGANIZATION

AND

FURTHER

THEORY

141

READINGS

mostly at the neighborhood level, gaverise to Burgesss research

and ultimately

Shaw and the

Henry

of

Cliff ord

R.

social disorganization

McKays (1942)

development

researchers

work resulted

of social disorganization

in the

theory

neighborhoods

and how changes in those characteris-tics

disorganization

the

level

theory

in criminological

of crime.

enjoyed

thought,

and research through

and characteristics

After

a time

producing

Breckinridge, and the

Bursik,

disrepute in

the theory,

theorys

Bursik,

neighborhoods interest in

understanding

theory

and researchers

relation

of

American

to new

this

period,

a new

however, social

again downplayed

methods and theory.

the theory

in

By the end of the

began to produce a new line

of

based on collective efficacy.

After the turn

paid tribute

of the

to the

20th century,

most research

historical importance

of social

modern research. Research on collective efficacy

prevailed, as did research focusing on neighborhoods but doing little to further the theory itself. The

future

of social disorganization

close to its current status. the theory

Afew criminologists

close to its original configuration.

of the research is likely to follow collective

theory

efficacy theory

more along the lines

or to examine

theory.

disadvantage Research in

Jeff ery,

of true

social

of

Continuity of

London:

mapping.

delinquency for

area

Baltimore,

American

W.J., Huizinga, B. (1996). The

Sociological

R., Elliott,

development.

Delinquency,

Journal

of

33, 389426.

Essai sur la statistique

Generelle

Germany:

C. R. (1971).

Georg

Beverly

morphologie Reimer

Crime

W. C.(1978).

C. E.,

D., Sampson,

eff ects of neighborhood

morale de la

Crochard.

E. (1866).

&

Weitzer,

disorganization

Crime and

in studies

Indianapolis.

M. (1833).

J.

delinquent.

Wiley.

Hills,

Delinquency,

der organismen.

Verlag.

prevention

through

environ-mental

CA: Sage.

Social class, social areas, and de-linquency.

Sociology and Social Kubrin,

Journal

GIS and crime

on adolescent

design. Johnstone,

American

change

Press.

Crime and

Paris:

Haeckel,

of eff ective

7183.

of

neighborhoods

with only parts (or even none) of the tenets social disorganization

and

A.

G. (1993),

Community

young

e, J. (2005).

UK:

D., Wilson,

are test-ing Most

The

of London

29,

France.

H.

and

Lexington.

delinquency.

A comparison

Berlin,

appears

New York:

R. J. (1964).

Guerry,

Problems

dimensions

Webb, J. (1982).

of

A., & Rankin,

disorganization theory but didlittle to bring its tenets into

&

& Rateliff

Detroit,

Elliott,

&

and

88, 2442.

research:

Review,

and political.

delinquency:

Grasmick,

West Sussex,

Chilton,

41, 697720.

disorganization

and crime: The

L. (1925).

S.,

and

control.

University Chainey,

of neigh-borhoods.

was seldom tested in its classic

century, the PHDCN theory

deterioration

C.

Social

Jr.,

patterns

J. (2004).

diff erences in early ad-olescent

26, 519551.

R. J., Jr.,

and

made a brief resur-gence Burt,

the characteristics

Even during

form

social

and rising crime rates produced

disorganization

community Bursik,

child

Bentley.

crime

X,

Sociology),

theory

1990s as the

R.

Foundation.

Criminology,

Neighborhoods

future.

Social disorganization in the

foretelling

of

Sage

Demography,

Jr. (1988).

J.,

prospects.

not muchresearch using social disorganization theory wasconducted during this time.The research that was

R.

delinquent

France, social, literary,

Richard

theories

of Shaw and

Russell

The

T., & Brooks-Gunn, and racial

(1981)

L.

Hills, CA: Sage.

E. (1912).

York:

context

H. L. (1836).

London:

work and because of a moveaway

downplayed

New

P.

Beverly

C. R., Leventhal,

Bulwer,

from official data concerning crime. As a consequence,

disorganization

home.

and anomie:

Brantingham,

& Abbott,

Neighborhood

many replications

theory fell into

&

criminology.

S. P.,

Browning,

delinquency

Social Problems, 6, 230238.

sexual activity.

of prominence

the 1970s as a result of sharp criticism

conducted

P. J.,

social

the early 1960s.

Social disorganization

McKays (1942)

this,

of

Juvenile

at replication.

Brantingham,

as

of the behavior

influence

D. J. (1959).

An attempt

Environmental

an explanation

could

Bordua,

half of the 20th century.

Shaw and formal

hiring

D. McKay, who went on to become

most influential

in the first

to the

Research, 63, 4972.

R. (2003). theory.

Journal

40, 374402.

New

directions of

Research

in in

142

CRIME

Lander,

AND

BEHAVIOR

B. (1954).

delinquency. Mayhew,

Towards

New York;

H. (1983).

London

Neuberg,

Ed.).

published

1862)

McNulty, and

T. L.,

ethnic

and

understanding

AMS labor

Mineola,

London

Dover.

(V.

DC:

work

Sampson,

poor

(Original

& Bellair, P. E. (2003). in

family

adolescent

Explaining violence:

racial

well-being, and social capital. Justice

Neighborhood

the spatial

R. J.,

&

inequality,

dynamics

Raudenbush, collective

of urban violence.

S.

W.

efficacy, and

Criminology,

39,

R. E.,

science

& Burgess

E. W. (1928).

of sociology.

Chicago:

Introduction

University

to the

of

Chicago

R. E., Burgess,

growth

of the

E. W., & McKenzie,

city,

Chicago:

R. (1969). The

University

of

(1964).

R.

areas.

Journal

of

Crime,

Research

and

delinquency,

in

Crime

and

social

Delinquency,

Rawson,

W. (1839).

England

London,

Sampson,

An inquiry

and

2,

Researchin

R.(1987).

crime.

University

victimization.

Stewart, J.

& M. Tonry (Eds.), Chicago:

social control.

and crime: American Journal

603651.

of

In

M. Tonry Chicago:

Warming,

places:

Testing

social

disorganization

struc-ture theory.

of

S. W.(1999).

of public spaces:

neighborhoods.

Systematic

A new look

American Journal

so-cial

at disorder of Sociology,

of the ecology

of

and the control of

dissertation,

Complex

Bowling

plant

systems

theory

and

Quarterly, 24, 555581.

Oecology

of

plants:

communities.

An introduction

Oxford,

a social

Directly intervene

of forms

UK:

Oxford

or call the authori-ties?

of neighborhood

disorganization

social

framework.

control

Criminology,

99130.S

P. H., & Sampson, of community

in

Press.

Press.

criminality.

Caspi (Eds.),

In

R. J. (2003).

influences

on crime

B. L. Benjamin,

Causes of conduct

delinquency (pp. 118148).

Social

mecha-nisms

and pathways

T. E.

Moffitt,

disorder

and

New York:

& A. serious

Guilford

Press.

Wikstrm,

P.-O.,

neighborhoods

of Sociology, 94, 774802.

of Chicago

Advancing science and research in crim-inal

Warner, B. D.(2007).

45,

Chicago

A theory

doctoral

analyses. Justice

study

within

of

Social disorganization

E. (1909).

juvenile Community

University

University.

Walker, J. T. (2007).

Wikstrm,

A.J. ReissJr. &

Communities

4, 893909.

dogs. Unpublished State

eff ects of formal

Press.

R.J., & Raudenbush,

observation

Journal

and crime (pp. 271311).

of Chicago

struc-tural

careers in

Juvenile delinquency and

University

Deviant

M.(1974).

University

Delinquency, 22, 740.

R., & Groves, B. W.(1989).

urban

of crime

Society of

and crime: The

Crime in cities: The

Communities

Sampson,

Sampson,

of personal

Crime and

and informal

statistics

August

A multi-level

Community

H. D.(1942).

Criminology,

A study Neighborhood

R.J. (1986).

(Eds.),

the

of the Statistical

crime:

S. (1986).

urban areas. Chicago:

334344.

R.J. (1985). determinants

Sampson,

into

Wales.Journal

W., & Earls, F. (1997,

efficacy. Science, 277, 918924.

& Kobrin,

Shaw, C. R., & McKay,

to the

149154.

105,

S.

A. J ReissJr.

non-linear 1,

Disorder in Washington,

Press.

Green

Chicago

S.

and violent

justice/criminology:

Quinney,

in

L.,

W.(2001).

it lead to crime? of Justice.

Raudenbush,

of collective

crime. In

Press.

in

R. J.,

fighting

Press.

Park,

Department

Neighborhoods

study

Stark,

517559.

Park,

& Raudenbush,

and crime (pp. 67100).

D., Sampson,

(2001).

US.

Schuerman,

Structural

Quarterly, 20, 501528. Morenoff , I

R.J.,

urban neighborhoodsDoes

and the

NY:

Sampson,

15).

diff erences

disadvantage,

of juvenile

Press.

adolescent

& Loeber, cause

delinquents?

R. (2000).

well-adjusted A study

off ending, risk and protective context.

Criminology,

of

factors,

38, 11091142

Do disadvantaged children

to

become

malejuvenile

serious

and neighborhood

CHAPTER VII

Anomie

and

Strain

Theorie

STRAIN

THEORIES

Robert Agne

S train

theories

state

crime. These

that

certain

strains

or

stressors

increase

the

likelihood

of

strains involve the inability

to achieve ones goals (e.g.,

monetary

or status goals), the loss of positive stimuli

(e.g., the death of a friend,

the loss

of valued possessions), or the presentation of negative stimuli (e.g., verbal and physical abuse).Individuals

who experience these strains become upset, and they

mayturn to crime in an effort to cope. Crime may be a wayto reduce or escape from strains. For example, individuals

maysteal the moneythey want or run away

from the parents who abuse them. Crime maybe usedto seek revenge against the source of strain

or related targets.

who harass them.

Crime also

individuals

may engage in illicit

feel better. Strain theories

orts

to

This strains

control

chapter increase

that

describes (a) the types of strain the likelihood

make themselves

explanations

of crime,

and,

have had a major impact

of crime,

most conducive

and (c) the factors

will cope with strains through

mostindividuals cope with

back on expenses, borrowing to explain

certain strain theories

for ex-ample,

on

crime.

that individuals

most individuals

may assault the peers

negative emotions;

drug usein an eff ort to

are among the dominant

as discussed in this chapter, eff

For example, individuals

may be used to alleviate

that

crime.

increase

the likeli-hood

All strain theories

cope with strains in a legal

monetary problems

to crime, (b) why

manner. For example,

by doing such things

as cutting

money, or working extra hours. It is therefore

why some individuals

engage in criminal

coping.

ac-knowledge

critical

After presenting

a

basic overview of strain theories, this chapter describes how strain theories have been usedto explain group differences, such as gender differences,in crime.The chapter concludes with a discussion of the policy implications

TYPES

OF STRAIN

Inability

Merton (1938) theory

to

developed the first

MOST

Achieve

CONDUCIVE

Monetary

major strain theory

was developed in the midst of the

TO

of strain theories.

CRIME

Success

of crime in the 1930s.This

Great Depression, so it is not surprising that

145

S.

146

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

it focused on that type of strain involving the inability to achieve monetarysuccess. Accordingto Merton,everyone in the

United

Statedregardless

encouraged to strive for time, lower-class from

are frequently

achieving such success through

not equip them do

well

inferior

in

prevented

legal channels. In

particular, the parents of lower-class

children

with the skills and attitudes

school.

Lower-class

individuals

college educations

or start their

consequence, they

more often find themselves

This

own businesses.

As a

unable to

creates

and prostitution.

much frustration,

and

crimes such as theft, drug selling, Merton(1938), however,emphasized

mostindividuals

do not cope

Agnew (1992)

with this strain

claimed that the inability might result in

According to and conditions

Agnew (1992),

that are disliked

events and conditions ones goals. Asindicated strains

by individuals.

why some individuals

crime and others do not. is whether individuals

to achieve

or on others.

Crime is

earlier in this chapter, however,

of negative stimuli.

language, strains involve (a) lose something

In

situations in

and

Mertons (1938) gangs. Like

of strain in the

Cloward

and

Ohlin (1960)

theory to the explanation

Merton, they said that the

which individuals

United States is the inability

basis of Agnews generalstrain theory (GST),

Literally hundreds of specific strains fall under the of these

However, they

strains

example,

went

by forming or joining delinquent groups, such as gangs. Strained juveniles selling.They

conducive

mayform gangsin order to better

money-making opportunities, such as drug mayform gangsin an eff ort to achieve

the status or respect they desire. In particular, juveniles

conducive

to

Strains

Conducive

to

crime.

GST

middle-class status

of strain.

For example,

to achieve

out

by ones

of strain that is not that

strains

are

most

when they (a) are high in

magni-tude,

social

control

(or

with little

to lose

and (d) create some pressure or incentive coping (see Agnew 2006).

crime),

for criminal

Homelessness is clearly con-ducive

to crime: It is high in as unjust, and associated

from

with

magnitude, often perceived

with low social control

who are homeless havelittle

(indi-viduals

to lose by engaging

in crime). Furthermore, being homeless creates much pressure to engagein crime, because one must often steal to

meet basic needs and engagein violence to

protect oneself (see Baron 2004). Being placedin time out

for

misbehavior

has

none

of these

characteristics.

most likely to result in crime. to achieve

monetary goals as

specific strains are mostlikely to result in crime:

began

monetary success

was not the only important Greenberg (1977)

of strain that is very

(b) are perceived as unjust, (c) are associated

following

or

states

For

well as a good number of other strains. In particular, the

Crime

Beginning in the 1960s and 1970s, criminologists to suggest that the inability

GST. Not all however.

Being placed in time

These include the inability Other

crime,

misbehaving is a type

GST lists the strains

sometimes join gangs in an eff ort to feel important.

to

homelessness is a type

parents for

on to state that juveniles sometimes cope with this strain

pursueillicit

are

conducive to crime.

monetary success or,in the case of Cohen, the somewhat broader goal of middle-class status.

now the

dominant version of strain theory in criminology.

ofju-venile low

to achieve

bad, or

(c) cannot get what they want.These ideas formed the

have

major type

and

more simplistic

good, (b) receive something

likely to lead to crime

when the blame is placed on others.

Cohen (1955)

applied

with

One key factor, for example,

blame their inability

monetary success on themselves morelikely

cope

These

to achieve

may also involve the loss of positive stimuli

money,and still oth-ers three broad categories of strain listed in

some guidance as to

in psychol-ogy

mayinvolve the inability

strain, others lower their desirefor

Merton provided

Later,

strain refers to events

simply endure this

of other goals.

to achieve

and sociology to point to still other types of strain.

through crime. Some individuals turn to the pursuit

relations

delinquency.

drew on the stress literature

the presentation

may cope by engaging in crime, including

income-generating that

attend

monetary goals through legal channels.

goal blockage

individuals

with parents. They

often do

often

from adults, and harmonious

any of these goals

necessary to

schools, and they often lack the funds to obtain

achieve their

pursue a broad range of goals,including popularity with peers, autonomy

of class positionis

monetary success. At the same

individuals

Huizinga, and Ageton (1979) suggested that juveniles

type

and Elliott,

Parental rejection. aff ection

for

their

Parents do not express love or children,

show

them, and provide little support

little

interest

to them

in

STRAIN

Harsh/excessive/unfair discipline. Such discipline

THEORIES

147

to haverelatively large eff ects on crime.The following

involves physical punishment, the use of hu-miliation aretwo examples of recent research in this area. Spano, and insults, injury.

screaming,

and threats

of

Also, such discipline is excessive given the

nature

of

the

infraction

disciplined

or

when

are

when they do not deserve it.

Child abuse and neglect.This abuse;

sexual

failure

to

medical

individuals

abuse;

provide

abuse;

adequate

food,

negative relations treat

or belittle

account

of such things

shelter,

include

the juvenile),

unfairly,

and the

or

low (e.g.,

humiliate

experience

whether the juvenile

(2004)

studied

common

a sample

among

finding

little prestige,few benefits,little advancement, being fired),

coercive

control

and unpleasant

(e.g., simple,

repetitive

taxing

on

opportunity for (e.g., threats

that

they

had

such as age, gender, and

peer association.

These findings,

however, test only one part of

GST. GST not only asserts that certain strains in-crease these

strains

of crime but also describes why

increase

crime.

The

next

section

focuses

on this topic.

WHY

autonomy;

work).

STRAINS

INCREASE OF

THE

CRIME

when it is chronic and Strains

frequent

conflicts

are

said

based on race/ethnicity,

gender,

that

is,

goals, including

excitement, high levels of autonomy,

thrills/

masculine

likelihood

of

crime

they lead to

negative

depression,

individuals

about it.

and

bad

and

ac-tion;

want

to

Crime is one possible response.

earlier in this

means for reducing

feel

chapter,

crime

or escaping from

may be a

strains, seeking

revenge against the source of strain or related targets, or alleviating negative emotions (through illicit

status, and monetary goals.

for

create pressure for corrective

strained

As indicated

Homelessness.

the

Most notably,

emotions

do something

or religion.

increase

such as anger, frustration,

fear. These

victimization.

to

several reasons. emotions

and verbal and physical abuse.

Failure to achieve certain

was much more

of

others.

Discrimination

crime

who reported

LIKELIHOOD

Marital problems, including

Criminal

that

working conditions

tasks; little

Unemployment, especially blamed

pay,

monitoring,

many months in the prior year.This

the likelihood have low

sex,

belonged to a gang. Baron

were taken into account,

assaults.

jobs. Such jobs

as the juveniles

wastrue even after a broad range of other fac-tors

criminal

Abusivepeerrelations. Peerabuseincludes insults,

to

of homeless street youth in a

youth

been homeless for

of

gossip, threats, attempts to coerce, and physical Workin bad

more likely

and

the

who

held true even after

age, prior level of violence, level of parental

with teachers

the juvenile

much

physical

school as boring and a waste of time.

physically

were

that juveniles

violence. This

Canadian city and found

Negative school experiences. These

teachers

victimized

found

and

care.

grades,

were violently

engage in subsequent they took

includes

emotional

Riveria, and Bolland (2006)

use). Anger occupies a special place in

drug

GST, because

it energizes individuals for action, reduces inhibitions, Research

on

Strains

and

and creates a strong desirefor revenge.

Crime

Several Researchers

have

preceding strains these

strains

certain

examined

on crime. Their

do increase

of them

the

the

eff ect

most

of

the

of

crime,

with

most important

causes of crime (see Agnew 2006, for an overview). example, victimization,

parental and

rejection, homelessness

the

studies suggest that

likelihood

being among

of

harsh discipline, have

all

For

criminal

been

found

attempts

have attempted

to

whether strains lead to negative emotions these

emotions,

have focused

in

turn,

lead

on the emotion

to

determine and whether

crime.

Most

studies

of anger, and they tend to

find that strains increase anger and that anger explains part of the eff ect of strains on crimeespecially crime (Agnew (2003)

asked

2006). individuals

violent

For example, Jang and Johnson to

indicate

the

strains

o

148

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

personal problems they had experienced. strains werelisted, including problems,

family

feeling

and criminal

found

more strains

angry and that

Also,individuals

different types of financial

problems,

Jang and Johnson experienced

arethreatened by others mayjoin gangsfor protection.

Manysuch

that

were

individuals

more likely

others

chronically

depression,

frustration,

and fear

the eff ect of strains Recently, strains than

researchers

may be

may sometimes

have suggested

morelikely

anger.

by others

that

certain

to lead to some emotions that involve

one cannot

long

escape from

may

lead to depression. Furthermore, certain emotions may be morelikely to lead to some crimes than others. As suggested earlier, anger maybe especially conducive to

period

Individuals

level

negative treatment

by people such as parents, teach-ers,

spouses, and employers. can

reduce

the

conventional

or the termination treatment

can

also

involves

reduce

the

cause

to

these

such things

grades

extent

as low

Furthermore,

direct

control

to

to

others. Individuals

and

retreat

from

that

who arelow in these types of con-trol

teach

(1955)

is, strains

others beliefs

who

and Cloward and

strained individuals

may lead individuals

to

crime, crime.

with their

abused or neglected juveniles acceptance

model ...

Ohlin (1960)

may associate

in an eff ort to cope

to find

do tend

to

reduce

of crime,

the

&

Mazerolle

likelihood

simply through

social

control,

and contribute

to

(see Agnew 2006;

1994).

of crime

Strains, then,

for

several

may

reasons,

not

their eff ect on negative emotions.

FACTORS

THAT

INCREASE

THE

CRIMINAL

LIKELIHOOD

OF

COPING

are a variety

of ways to cope

schoolwork,

for example,

homework;

friends;

convince

important;

with strains,

most

who are having trouble

with

might devote

seek help from themselves

exercise or listen to

As

to

typically

school

Cohen

have suggested,

parents, or is

not

who experience

that

strains

cope using legal strategies such as these.

some individuals

to

musicin an eff ort to feel

this fact, it is critical for strain theories as-sociate

crime,

more time

teachers,

that

better; and so on. Individuals

reinforce

favorable

Paternoster increase

their

conventional

Furthermore, strains mayfoster the social learning

and

strains

of them legal. Juveniles

haveless to lose by doing so.

with

is,

such as negative emotionality

There

sanction

are morelikely to engagein crime, becausethey

of crime;

that

nega-tive

may occur if strains such as child

individuals

morelikely to

exercised

which conventional

behavior

are more

individuals

if the

individuals

rule violations). This

the

society, particularly

the

(i.e., the

monitor

bond

reduce

of employment.

can

over individuals

abuse

emotional

It

in conventional

negative treatment

others

Such negative treatment

individuals others.

investment

involve

to cope in a

new strains

Severalstudies havefound support for these argu-ments;

traits

often

ability

continued

copethrough crime.

foster the social learning

Strains

are easily up-set

Not surprisingly, such people are then

of

control.

over a

conducive

when upset.The

of strains reduces their

may also lead to crime because they reduce social

strains traits

traits such as negative emotionality.

manner. As a consequence,

to drug use. Researchersare now examining theseideas. Strains

personality

likely to overwhelm them and makethem very upset.

violence. Depression, however, maybe moreconducive

ones

who experience

high in negative emotionality

experience

who are

may come to believe that theft

and become very angry

legal

by

or excusable.

may develop

to crime, including

unjust

may be especially likely to lead to

Also, strains that

unemployed

Finally, individuals

ex-plain

bullied

wayto cope. Individuals

is sometimes justifiable

such as

on crime (see Agnew 2006).

others. For example, strains

treatment

emotions

who are regularly

may come to believe that violence is ajustifiable,

or at least excusable,

this anger had a large effect on

also suggest that

may develop beliefs favorable to crime.

For example, individuals

who

to report

crime.

A few studies

who are subject to those strains con-ducive

to crime

victimiza-tions.

Given

to explain

why

choose crime as a means of coping,

According to GST,criminal coping is mostlikely to be enacted byindividuals

with certain characteristics:

with other criminals

strains. mayjoin

and support.

For example, gangs in an ef-fort

Individuals

who

Possesspoor coping skills and resources. Some individuals lack the skills and resources to legally cope

on their

own. They

have poor

problem

STRAIN

traits

such

as negative

constraint.

Individuals

emotionality with

these

are

Money is allows

have limited

a great coping

one to

purchase

(including tutors,

financial

resources.

resource,

because it

can turn

individuals

for

strains.

Not

others to

assistance. This

having trouble in school

crime

provocations worse)

coping.

is

an

Some

excusable,

believe that

response to

(Anderson

violence

a wide range

1999). They

others, especially

Also, as indicated

learn these

criminal

previously,

of

they

others,

sometimes

develop these beliefs after experiencing chronic

assistance, and direct assis-tance

in coping. For example, children

to criminal

that

For example, they

beliefs from

assistance

For example, gang

or even desirable response to certain

provocation

advice on how to cope, emotional

support, financial

believe

is an appropriate

whom

may

harassed.

Hold beliefs favorable

justifiable,

own but also they lack

responses.

of-ten

they

may be called cowards (or

and regularly

unable to legally cope

Furthermore,

who do not respond to

with violence

and lawyers).

Havelow levels of conventional social support.

might include

nonviolent

members

needed goods and ser-vices

only are some individuals

they

punish

Fur-thermore,

the services of people such as

counselors,

on their

with social approval.

eas-ily

upset and tend to act without thinking. they

and they reinforce violent responsesmost

possess and low

traits

149

members directly encourage a violent response,

solving and social skills, including skills such as the ability to negotiate with others.They

THEORIES

or long-term

who are

strains (e.g., being bullied over a

long period).

might seek assistance

from their parents, who maycomfort them, give

Arein situations wherethe costsof criminal coping

them advice on how to study, and arrange special

arelow andthe benefitshigh.In particular, strained

assistance

are

from

their

unemployed

their friends, loan them Are

low

may obtain

individuals

who

assistance

who may help them find

in

social

control.

and

Some

they

individuals

also

engage in

criminal

because their family others

sanctions

havelittle

In

members,

sum, individuals

criminal

when they

to lose if they are

others, such as parents and teachers, think

coping

(c) are

disposed with

and

or work in bad

of

jobs, and do not have a good

criminal

model criminal

others.

Other

coping, frequently

gang

when it

occurs. Imagine,

member who is insulted

gang member is because

that

how

gang respond to similar

other

these

coping

coping,

because of the

attractive

opportunities

for

have factors

examined

the

influence

the

extent

to

which

likelihood

of

cer-tain

criminal

coping.The results of their studies have been mixed

through encourage in-dividuals

for

example,

a

provocations;

of

the

other gang

morelikely to cope

coping is

morelikely

with strains

among individuals

are high in negative emotionality delinquent

with vio-lence found

members

are

crime; for example, some research indicates that

criminal

by someone. This

morelikely to respond is

to lose by criminal

criminal

encounter

with these factors

criminals

to engage in crime, and often reinforce crime

to

(see Agnew, 2006). Some havefound that individuals

view crime as wrong orimmoral. with

to engage in

crime.

Researchers

also do not

most likely

whom they associate and the beliefs they

(d)

do not plan on going to college, are unemployed reputation in the community. They

are

when they (a) are unable to engage in

legal coping, (b) have little

hold,

Also, they are doing poorly in school,

Associate

An individual

morelikely to engage in theft if he or she comes

because they do not care what conven-tional people

punished,

...

money, for example, is

across a valuable item that is unguarded.

do not closely supervise

and rarely impose misbehave.They

of them.

absence of capable guardians.

work and

when

attractive targets for crime in the

are unlikely to be punished if they

engage in crime, neighbors,

are more likely to turn to crime

they encounter

from

with a desperate need for

to lose if

coping. They

do

Individuals

money.

have little

them

teachers.

peers.

or who associate

Other studies,

however,

who with

have not

this.

Criminologists these

mixed results

are now trying (see

to

Agnew, 2006;

make sense of Mazerolle

150

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

Maahs2000). Onepossibility for the conflicting results has to

the

do

with

the

preceding

However, it coping the

standing

factors

is favorable

Maahs (2000)

association

with criminal

criminal

all

three

coping,

of

one another.

engage in criminal

parental

to

most of

such

coping.

(1) low

constraint,

(2)

factors

Maahs found

were

favorable

highly strained individuals

to

were quite

Part

morelikely

on all or

Mazerolle and

these

...

conducive

peers, and (3) beliefs favor-able

coping.

maleshavesubstantially higher levels of offending than females.

examine

explored this possibility.

three factors:

to criminal

often

from

when their

examined

when

researchers

may be that individuals

only

Mazerolle and

that

that

factors in isolation

preceding

They

fact

of the

to experience to

crime.

discipline,

and

GROUPS

however, that

females than

DIFFERENCES

IN

CRIME

Strain theories have been used primarily to explain why someindividuals are morelikely to engagein crime than

are

that

conducive

are

explain group diff erences in crime, in particular class, and community

gender,

diff erences. An

explain

individuals crime

version of strain theory

class

diff erences in

because they

have

monetary goals through that the relationship

in

achieving their

legal channels.

Note, however,

between class and crime is not as

between class and

lower-class individuals

experiences

are somewhat

minor crime (see

appears to belittle

minor crime,

although

through gender

experience

as

much or

Many of the strains

with the care of

to experience

crime,

such

to

close supervision

and elderly parents).

more likely to

to

however, are not conducive

Furthermore, certain

as sexual

strains

abuse

and

Overall, however, males are

crime.

morelikely to cope with strains

Part of the reason for this has to do with

diff erences in the emotional males and females

reaction to strains.

tend to

they experience strains. The

become angry

anger of females,

more often accompanied

by emotions

shame, anxiety, and depression. This more often strains,

blame themselves

view their anger

anger

males, however, is

by

of

when

however,

such as guilt,

is because females

when they

experience

anger as inappropriate,

that their

morelikely to en-gage to

Agnew 2009). Furthermore,

(e.g.,

It is important

strains involving

Males are also

Lower-class is

higher rates of

more trouble

strong as many people believe.There relationship

crime.

are said to engage in

has been

are

harsh

morelikely than females to experience strains that are

Both

example of this use has already been presented.

as

conducive to crime (see Agnew 2006).

others. Increasingly, however,they are also being usedto

used to

such

are

homelessness, and

males.

by females,

crime. These include

females

males

to achieve goals such as thrills/

gender discrimination.

Mertons (1938)

strains

masculine status.

others (e.g., children

age, ethnicracial,

is that

by others and the burdens associated

likely to engage in crime.

EXPLAINING

includes

victimization,

more overall strain experienced

this

negative school

perhaps the inability excitement

for

many of the strains that

This

low grades), criminal

note,

reason

and

worry

might lead them to harm others. The

moral outrage. This

is

blame others for their

negative treatment

they

more often accompanied because

strains

males are quicker

and to interpret

have experienced

the

as a deliber-ate

are morelikely to engagein

challenge or insult. These gender differencesin the

certain types of white-collar crime, especially corporate

experience of anger reflect differences in socialization

crime. Recentversions of strain theory haveattempted

and

middle-classindividuals

to explain this by noting that individuals especially

middle-and upper-class

do sometimes experience monetary strain, when they

more advantaged

compare

themselves

with even

members of certain groups are morelikely to (a)

experience strains that

are conducive

cope with these strains through consider and crime.

With the exception

to crime and (b)

crime.

the strong relationship

position.

Females,

often taught to be nurturing

As an illustra-tion, between gender

of a few types of crime,

for

example,

are

more

and submissive, and so

they are morelikely to view their anger asinappropri-ate. In any event, the

moral outrage of angry

more conducive to criminal

others (Passas 1997).

GST explains group diff erences in crime by arguing that the

social

malesis

coping, especially to crimes

directed against others. Also, coping

males are

increase the likelihood things,

more likely

because of their

standing of criminal

to engage in criminal on those factors that coping.

Among other

malesare higher in negative emotionality

in constraint.

and low-er

Maleare lower in certain types of socia

STRAIN

supportespecially lower in

emotional supportsand

aggressive behavior, to condemn

more weakly tied to school, and less males are

likely to associate with other criminals favorable to crime. have delinquent

more

and hold beliefs

Males,for example, are morelikely to

friends

remain

and to be gang

members than

Association, program. in

beliefs that are conducive to criminal as the belief that they should Data provide

experience

that

for these arguments.

males are

many of the strains that

more likely

to

are conducive

to

crime, and studies tend to suggest that

males are more

is the

which sponsors

National

Head Start

a preschool

enrichment

Head Start focuses on preschool-age children

preschool

areas. Such children

program

are placed in a

designed to equip them

skills and attitudes

with the

necessary to do well in school. The

also works with the parents of these children,

teaching them how they can help their children in school.

betough.

some support

Research does indicate

coping, such

existence.

program

disadvantaged

Finally, malesare morelikely to hold gender-relatedprogram

are females.

in

One such

be punished for

crime. Furthermore,

151

status) through legal channels. Certain of these pro-grams

manytypes of social control. In particular, males

are less well supervised, less likely to

likely

they are

THEORIES

Another

older juveniles

program,

Job

and adults. This

equip individuals

to obtain a good job. both these programs

Corps, focuses

program

with the skills

do well on

attempts

and attitudes

to

neces-sary

Some evidence suggests that

are successful in reducing

crime,

likely to cope with strains through crime, although not

especially whenthey are wellimplemented (see Agnew,

all studies havefound this (see Agnew 2006; Broidy &

2009, and Agnew,in press,for further discussion), GST suggests still other strategies for controlling

Agnew 1997). Strain theory, then, can partly explain has also

crime (Agnew, 2006,in press).These strategies fall into

age,class, and

two broad groups. First, GST recommends reducing the

gender diff erences to crime. Strain theory been usedto help explain ethnicracial, community

diff erences in crime (see Agnew 2006 for

an overview;

see Agnew 1997;

Eitle

and

& Fowler

selected

Warner

argument

2003,

for

here is the same. The

& Turner

2003;

studies).

The

members of groups

with higher rates of crime are morelikely to experience strains that

are conducive

such strains through

early strain

(1955),

and

with

FOR

theories

crime.

CONTROLLING

of

Cloward and

CRIME

Merton (1938),

Ohlin (1960)

because their primary goal is to reduce the likelihood individuals

will experience school and/or

such as working in bad

major

Waron Poverty, which

under President Johnson.The

War on Poverty consisted of a number of programs designed to eliminate While eliminating goal in itself, it would reduce

poverty in the

poverty

THE

STRAINS

THAT

other

social

Poverty

were directly inspired

programs

were designed to

achieve the goal of

eradicating

problems,

poverty

such as crime.

were part of the

War on

by strain theories. These help lower-income

monetary success (or

that

work problems, unemployment.

reducing the likelihood

will cope with strains through

REDUCING

EXPOSURE ARE

Several programs reduce

that

crime.

OF INDIVIDUALS

CONDUCIVE

certain

people

middle-class

have tried

of

the

strains

example, parent training

TO

TO

CRIME

that

to eliminate

or at least

conducive

crime.

to

For

programs attempt to reduce

parents will reject their children

and use harsh or abusive disciplinary

methods.These

programs target at-risk parents, such as teenage par-ents, or the parents

States.

was, of course, a desirable

was also felt that

Several of the programs that

United

jobs or chronic

Second, GST recommends

was developed under President Kennedys administra-tion the likelihood and implemented

Corps fall into this category,

Cohen

had a

impact on eff orts to control crime.These theories were one of the inspirations for the

to strains that are conducive to

Head Start and Job

individuals

crime.

RECOMMENDATIONS

The

to crime and to cope

exposure of individuals

believed to things,

of delinquent

be at risk for

delinquency.

such programs teach parents

discipline conflicts

their that

children arise. They

members to spend activities.

youth

and

Among

other

how to eff ectively

how to

better

resolve

may also encourage family

more time together

Furthermore,

or juveniles

these

programs

in

pleasurable may attempt

to reduce some of the stresses or strains that

parent

152

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

experience, such as work and housing problems.These

Parents,for example, mayeventually come to reject and

stresses have been found to contribute to a range of

harshly discipline children

poor

programs,

parenting

Another

practices.

This

on bullying

administrators

consequences

or peer abuse at school.

more

aware

of bullying. These

of the

extent

individuals

REDUCING

and teachers and others closely

WILL

Still

reduce strains

as poor

work and employment

other

of bullying

programs

academic

attempt

to

performance,

problems, and homelessness.

Many of these programs haveshown

much successin

Although

Still other programs recognize that, that

we

will

not

be able

are conducive to crime.

likely

continue

however,

alter

to give low strains

so

that

to

eliminate

all

strains

Teachers, for example,

make them

less

will

Wecan, conducive

crime.

as fair

punished.

more likely to be perceived

that

by individuals

are more likely to be who are arrested

Many such techniques

are embodied

restorative justice approach. ... In addition, to avoid strains that

and

in the

we can make are conducive

to crime. For example, we can makeit easier for students to change teachers or schools with

school-related

strains

for individuals to

Or

we can

make

it

easier

movefrom high-crime communities

Finally, wecan equip individuals

with the traits and

skills to avoid strains. Individuals sometimes provoke treatment

peers, teachers, when individuals negative

are low

upset, tend

in

individuals

act

these individuals

who maythen respond

much to reduce the exposure

eliminate

may be taught

skills, thereby increasing be able to

of

to crime, it is unlikely such exposure.

For that

develop and implement

On a related

methods for better

increase

may

anger.

with increased lev-els

For example, they

might be assigned Also, a range

may be developed to

cope when they face strains such aslong-term

unemployment,

in the job

may

manner if they are

managing their

assistance programs

help individuals

methods for

individuals

mentors who provide assistance in coping. of government

will

note, individuals

also may be provided

of social support.

and social

that they

legal

Toillustrate,

how to respond in a legal

Individuals

For example,

problem-solving the likelihood

with their strains.

be taught

homelessness, and discrimination

market. Beyond that, steps may betaken to

the

level

of

social

control

to

which

individuals

parents,

increase the bond between parent and children and im-prove parental supervision. Also,school-based programs can raise academic performance relations. These

is especially true

constraint

As indicated, to

have an antagonistic

surprisingly, people,

others, including

and employers. This

emotionality.

are easily often

from

CRIME

are subject. For example, parent training programs can

wherethey areregularly victimized.

negative

WITH

coping skills and resources of individuals.

when other eff orts to deal

fail.

STRAINS

to strains conducive

profes-sionalsharassed by peers.

Likewise, police and justice

it easier for individuals

TO

INDIVIDUALS

One set of programs attempts to improve the

be taught

perceived

RESPOND

THAT

reason,it is alsoimportant to reduce the likelihood that

grades in a

can adopt techniques

nega-tive

individuals respond to strains with crime. Several pro-grams

dealing

manner that is

LIKELIHOOD

we can entirely

to crime. For example, teachers can be taught to assign

as fair by students.

elicit

in this area haveshown some successin reducing

despite our

grades to students.

as to

THE

we can do

individuals

reducing crime (see Agnew, 2006, 2009, in press). eff orts,

that individuals

others.

Bullies are disciplined

manner, and the victims

are off ered support.

best

from

anger and show

As such, these programs

program.

are established,

monitor the school for bullying.

such

manage their

before acting.

treatment

these rules

Clear rules against bullying

in an appropriate

and

Several

are then

given assistance in designing an anti-bullying

are widely publicized,

to better

some restraint

makestudents, teachers, par-ents, may reduce the likelihood

program attempts to and

individuals

program that attempts to reduce exposure

to strains focuses

with these traits.

however, have shown some success in teach-ing

and high in

such individuals

without

interactional frequently

thinking, style.

and Not

upset other

with negative treatment.

that individuals

coping, because

morelikely to result in punishment,

and

have moreto lose if they are punished.

Programs with criminal criminal

studentteacher

programs reduce the likelihood

will engage in criminal

such coping is individuals

and improve

may also be used to reduce peers and alter

coping.

beliefs that

For example, certain

association encourage

programs

hav

STRAIN

THEORIES

153

shown some successin altering beliefs that are favor-able strain theory constitutes one of the majorexplanations to drug use. Unfortunately, it has been more dif-ficult of crime and has much potential for controlling crime. to convince individuals

to quit juvenile

stop associating

with their

progress is being

made, however.

delinquent

gangs or

friends.

Some REFERENCES

Agnew, CONCLUSION

R. (1992).

of crime Agnew,

Strain theories idea:

are based on a simple,

When people are treated

upset and engage in crime. this idea

badly, they

may become

Strain theories

elaborate

most likely

to result in crime,

why negative treatment

of crime, and why some people

morelikely than others to respond to negative

treatment

with

low social control, and they create some pressure or for

crime.

Examples include

harsh or abusive or

work in bad

homelessness, achieve

discipline, jobs,

discrimination,

parental

chronic

criminal and

monetary goals.These

of negative emotions,

victimization,

the inability

strains lead to a range

action,

emotions

with crime being

one possible response.

Crime

strains, seek revenge, or allevi-ate

their

negative emotions

control,

may allow individuals

(through,

e.g., illicit

to

drug

may also increase crime by reducing social

fostering

beliefs favorable

association to crime,

with criminal

to traits

such as negative emotionality. Individuals

are

by engaging in crime, are disposed to criminal coping, and arein situations that present attractive opportuni-ties strain theory

are using the theory

to

42,

for controlling Agnew (2006)

Also, the implications crime

In

A test

of

Recommendations

H. Barlow

work.

Press. New York:

General strain, Agnews

& S. Decker,

Putting theory to

Code of the street.

W. (2004).

Press.

Causes and control.

revised

street

Norton. youth

theory.

and

Criminology,

457483.

Broidy,

L.

M., & Agnew,

general strain Crime

and

Cloward,

R.,

R. (1997).

theory

perspective.

Delinquency, &

Ohlin,

34,

Cohen,

A. (1955).

Gender and crime: Journal

A

of Researchin

275306.

L. (1960).

Glencoe, IL:

Delinquency

and

op-portunity.

Free Press.

Delinquent

boys.

Glencoe,

IL:

Free

Press.

Eitle,

D. J.,

and

&

Turner,

young

adult

in impor-tant

Elliott,

D., Huizinga,

help explain

diff erences in crime, such as gender

off ending.

theory.

University

E. (1999).

University

Press.

Temple

S.

of Researchin

R. J. (2003).

crime.

Stress

Sociological

exposure,

race,

Quarterly,

44,

243269.

Researchers are extending

group

strain

general

most likely

An overview ofgeneral

crime:

Philadelphia:

crime:

for such coping.

in

University

Controlling

policy:

Anderson,

resources to legally cope with strains, havelittle to lose

Oxford

and public

most

likely to engagein criminal coping whenthey lack the

ways.They

general

theory:

of

Journal

delinquency:

Criminology

Baron,

peers and

and contributing

Oxford

T. P.

38, 319361.

Juvenile

R.(in press).

from

to

reduce

use). Strains

New York: Agnew,

over

In

and delinquency

of strain

and delinquency.

New York:

R.(2009).

crime

foundation

types

Pressured into crime:

strain theory.

in

NJ: Transaction.

on the the

Delinquency,

Agnew, R.(2006).

Agnew,

Brunswick,

Specifying

to lead to crime

theory

explanation.

theories in crime

Building

theory:

change

theory

strain

30, 4787.

Advances in criminological

New

R. (2001).

strain

rejec-tion,

unemploy-ment

such as anger. These

create pressure for corrective

or escape from

101132).

Crime and

magnitude, perceived as unjust, and associated with incentive

(Ed.),

a general

and

A strain

Vol. 7. Developmental

Agnew,

for

READINGS

Criminology,

Stability

course:

Thornberry

crime.

The strains mostlikely to lead to crime are high in

Foundation

R. (1997).

(pp.

FURTHER

and delinquency.

the life

on

by describing the types of negative treatment

increases the likelihood

are

commonsense

AND

diff erences

of strain theory

are receiving increased

perspective Research in Greenberg,

attention.

described still other extensions.

In sum,

S. J.,

behavior.

Delinquency,

Delinquency

Contemporary

& Johnson, and

S. (1979).

Crime and

D.(1977).

of society. Jang,

D., & Ageton, on delinquent

deviant

of

16, 327.

and the age structure

Crises, 1, 189223.

B. R. (2003). coping

An inte-grated Journal

among

Strain,

negative

African

emo-tions,

Americans

154

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

A test of general Criminology, Mazerolle, and

P.,

strain

&

Maahs,

delinquency:

R.(1938).

Sociological Passas,

relative The

J. (2000).

General

strain

examination

Quarterly,

Social structure

Anomie,

deprivation. of

Northeastern

theory

Quantitative

theory of condi-tioning

and anomie.

reference

N. Passas

Mazerolle,

delinquency:

of

Research in

Crime

and

Delinquency,

31,

Spano,

R.,

American

Riveria,

of timing

of

a high

American

C.,

& Bolland

exposure

to

poverty

youth.

J. (2006).

violence

sample

Journal

The

on violent

of inner

of Youth and

city

impact behav-ior

African

Adolescence, 35,

681692.

theory

University

R., & and

In

anomie

Journal

in

17, 323343.

Review, 3, 672682.

future

Paternoster,

of

235263.

Justice

(1997).

N.

Journal

An alternative

influences. Merton,

theory.

19, 79105.

groups,

and

& R. Agnew (Eds.),

(pp.

6294).

Boston:

Press. P. (1994).

General strain

A replication

and extension.

Warner, B. D., & Fowler, Testing a general Journal

of Criminal

S. K. (2003).

strain

Strain

and violence:

model of community

Justice,

31, 511521

violence.

PART IV

Macro-Level

Critical

Theorie

PART IV

INTRODUCTION

Macro-Level

W

e have already seen that

to explain meso-to

crime

and

theories

behavior

macro-levels of analysis.

about

Critical

Theories

crime causation

can be targeted

at diff erent levels from

Here we look

at a cluster

micro-through of seven diff erent

theories that are targeted at the macro-level of analysis but that are alsocritical. According to

Henrys overview (Reading 1) macrotheories assume that external

forces, resulting from the configuration

and organization of society as a whole,

shape the nature of social institutions,

and within these, channel the behavior

of humans and their interaction. Thus, crime

as the

outcome

from criminogenic outcome,

or

of biological

structural,

rather than choosing crime, or seeing

or psychological

cultural

and social

more accurately, the co-production

tendencies,

crime results

processes. Crime then is the

of society;

societies

having a lot

of crime are referred to as criminogenic. Henry (Reading seen ascritical. definitions

of

rights; (2) do of the

crime

but

(1)

instead

define

context;

or race-divided

crime

advocate radical

macro-level theories

as

social

themselves

harm

that

violates

are

to state human

off ender causes crime independently

(3) oppose the existing social order of capi-talist,

society; (4) question the justice

which they see as a reflection

individual

ways these

neither accept, nor limit

not accept that the individual

wider social/cultural patriarchal,

justice,

1) says that there are five

because they:

of the dominant

of the criminal

power structure;

and (5)

policy changes to society rather than just to its institutions

or its

members.

Critical theories share a similar view of humans and their relationship to society which Henry and Lanier (2006, p. 183) sayview

humans as potentially

active creative entities who havethe ability to shape their social world, but who also recognize that the world,in the form of hierarchical power structures, shapes them.

Critical theories are not structurally

of society does not force individuals a degree of individual cultural

deterministic (meaning that the struc-ture

to act criminally)

human agency that is channeled

but instead

recognizes

by wider structural

and

forces.

Critical theorists crime. This

also see powerful interests

occurs when dominant

of subordinate

segments

at work in defining

groups/segments

or classes threatening

what counts as

or classes define the behavior

their interests.

Henry and Lanier

15

158

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

(2006, p. 183) explain that Dominant as a weapon to criminalize

groups uselaw

others behavior, and use

the criminal justice system to enforce their definitions

of reality

about

dominant

positions in soci-ety.

also see crime occurring

the direct

harms to subordinate

dominant

segments, such as when corporations

the environment,

or violate

segments

of society

Critical

theories

divided into to

each

reflect their

comprised

two

interest

other

and

existing

political

groups

define

groups interests;

who struggle

law

and

crime

and (2) radical

whoseadvocates believe, based on a

was

to

programs

Marxist analysis,

those

and it

mitigate the

through

advocates for

harsh inequalities

than

waiting for revolu-tionary

& Lanier 2006, p. 298).

through

the excluded

job training

Left

segments

of

and education-for-work

(p. 298).

Parallel to this

theory

pushes for the im-mediate

of social institutions

want to reintegrate

the population

to

It

structure,

change (Henry realists

classes, as well

over criminal justice,

of social justice:

programs

kinds:

based on the idea that society

competing

dominate

control

democratization the

of social institu-tions

of the lower

community

in the present system rather

originally

theory

and empowerment

and safety regula-tions support

health

greater democratization

as democratic

by

pollute

governing the workplace.

(1) conflict

involving

and the pursuit

through

& Lanier 2006,

p. 297).The left realist reform agendalooked to poli-cies

own groups

what is unacceptable for the

purpose of preserving their Critical theories

bythe criminal justice system (Henry

development

who challenged

in critical

theory

were

whether class alone was suf-ficient

to explain domination and inequality. Feminist

that the major division in society is power based on the wealth and property; the resulting

theorist formed afourth approach (4) in critical theory

classinequality

allows the economically powerful elite

that saw the bigger challenge coming from patriarchal

social

determine

social structure. Patriarchy is the law

private ownership

as

classes

crime

to

and

criminals.

to romanticize and

white

resistance their

street

collar

laws

own domination,

kinds

of

produced and

seen

as

counts tended

of

of society, both to

and to perceived economic

crime

the reality

and

fails

to

justice

which

corporate a form

Critics point out that this left

by the criminal

their

is

segments

as it is called, ignores both

what

theories

and demonize

Crime

by subordinate

define

radical

crime

crime.

social injustices.

and

These

and

ideal-ism

of the victims

consider

the

of

system to off enders

known

as left

institutions,

realism,

by social inequalities,

perspective (3)

which saw crime as produced relative

deprivation

and exclu-sion

of lower classes members of society, particularly its underclass.

Left realists (e.g. Young & Matthews

from

Main Street to

simultaneously marginalizes

relative

each other.

society,

frustration

disrespect

Added to their

is a class-biased

criminal

primarily

class and

vulnerable

lower

nots

while

as Jock Young has called

and abandons

deprivation,

express through

have

of the excluded,

its

poor; they

suff er

and anger, which they

and violence inflicted

on

misery and self-destruction justice

system that

minority

targets

males, the

most

who are then also punished

societal and from

to

privilege

disagreed about the in patriarchal

saw domination

as a result

males

social

through

of socialization

institutions;

and

more

(ii)

in

radical

as rooted in biological females;

these

are

real

physiological

diff erences that science and observation

have

and

clarified,

these

diff erences

result

in increased

aggression and violence by men relative to illustrated

promoting competitive individualism,

greed. This exclusive it,

and

feminists

between

by the fact that

domination

haves

theorists domination

saw male domination

divide

the

to the factory,

male-dominated

of all serious

into

the family

Wall Street are structured

discrimination

diff erences

are

Under patriarchy

systems: (i) liberal

traditionally

of the father in

accomplishments

of females.

malegender

1992) believe that the polarizing eff ects of capitalism societies

and

men. However, feminist source of

feminists

led to a more moderate third

activities

valued than those

gender

harms

families.

This

male

(iii)

as a result

that

inequality

crime;

men commit 80 percent

socialist

of social

perpetuate

male

there

feminists

and

were social

Marxist

constructionist

perspective

genders. In

postmodernist feminists,

as performing

identities.

the

their

argue that the

of the

lat-ter

masculine

Feminists taking

a social

diff erence in

maleviolence is a result of the gender-structured and see crime as an outcome

male

hierarchical

between

feminists,

saw

and institu-tions

dominated

constructionist

of which saw crime socially constructed

feminists structures

diff erences of power

addition

women,

world

way males claim

PART

build and sustain their domination

over

masculinity

women.

Crime

is

a

and is seen asdoing

manifestation

gender

of

(Henry

&

Current feminist

criminological

a more integrational

organizing

race, and ethnicity in

womens

lives.

includes

diff erent

experiences

to

of

cultural

these

experience,

market situation

criminal

correct

Gender, class,

oppress and channel

intersection

justice

structural

and

forces

policy

created at

multiple levels

emphasizes

the

diff

a coproduction decisions whom

harmful

For radical

the complete removal of patriarchy and its replacement

and

diff erences

Crime is thereby than the

Postmodernist

policies that

voices

bad

or groups through

perpetrated.

toward

change, including

care

of a series of power

individuals

action is

looks

was

and Punish.

constructed

of all of society, rather

of particular

criminology

by including

seek to

them

changing the discourse

in

em-power social

of crime talk

a replacement

discourse

of

reconstruction.

Since

er-ences

of crime is dependent upon

Discipline

of society.

and harm spectacles into

institutionalized

159

of power and control

book

based on socially

divergent

justice

2006).

that expose women to victimization. feminists, the reduction

also

critique

his 1977

Foucault saw crime as an outcome

socialization

and criminal

of women of color (Daly

Feminist need

has adopted

social life.

coalesce to

The

patterns, labor

theory

stance arguing that gender is one

of several divisions

post-structuralist expressed in

relationships

Lanier 2006, p. 203).

INTRODUCTION

Postmodernist criminology is rooted in Foucaults

power. For them, crime stems

from and is an expression of, menspower, control, and

IV

the

criminology

1990s

a

distinctive

postmodernist

has emerged, the mostelaborated version

of which has been termed constitutive (Henry

&

Milovanovic 1996).

criminology

Constitutive theory

with the values of matriarchy, that is, connectedness,

recognizes that the social structures of inequality

nurturing

not only the source of the harm that is crime, but are

2006,

and creative diff erence (Henry

p. 204).

criminology

Other feminists

is too narrow

this to include

feminist

arguing that by

criminology

men and doesnt

masculinist

themselves inequalities

and social justice has largely

stud-ies,

been framed

have the capacity to transcend

its

limitations.

Postmodernism, informed

a fifth

and transcends disciplines. arbitrary

whether

want to broaden

question

a field and

theory

& Lanier

including (5)

dimension

Postmodernism

but also

exposes norms

postmodern-ism,

the

modern

somewhat

values and institu-tions,

a process called deconstruction

which the fundamental

assumptions

Postmodernism questions

in

are laid

bare.

whether truth can ever be

create

socially

Moreover, humans

through

their

divisions

and

constructed

use of values.

complex

generate these

discourse Once

systems

these

of inequality

and are sustained

continued

of energy into elaborating

investment

(talk),

created,

are self-perpetuating,

through

the these

inequalities. The

of critical theory

not only criminology

nature of society

through

feminist

which

crimes.

are

policy

response

replace harm-producing

of constitutive discourse

is healthy and constructive institutional

structures

constitutive

theorists

of restorative justice

theory

is to

with discourse that

and invest energy and build around

this.

Like

anarchists

believe in a decentralized designed to reintegrate

victims and community. They

system

off enders,

also believesocial judo

known and particularly questions the value of scientific

(turning the power of the offender back on itself), is

methods as being any better at discovering truth than

preferable to a retributive system that adds new harms

any other method of inquiry. Its advocates believe that rational thought is just thinking,

and that it is not necessarily a superior

It also believes (1) that rational power; (2) that that there

truth

about

of knowledge.

knowledge

rather than truth itself

p. 221).

thought

is a form

knowledge is not cumulative;

are pluralities

all statements

to those already present. The postmodernist critique wasone ofthe forerun-ners

one among several ways of of

and (3)

It claims that

are simply

(Henry

way.

of a holistic approach to thinking is called cultural

(Ferrell

explores the use and subversion

of

et al. 2010) that

mass mediaimages

by those subject to the power of others discursive

claims to

& Lanier 2006,

criminology

about crime that

Crime

here is seen

meaning that and

filters

criminology,

as a

mediated

mass media and popular

discourse

in

stories

then, represents

about

prac-tices.

phenomenon,

culture shapes crime.

Cultural

a sixth (6) area of critica

160

CRIME

theory

AND

BEHAVIOR

which suggests that

any individual

action

that produces harm is a reflection and an outcome of media communication criminology forces

explores the

interweave

crime control.

of

power

of crime

entertainment

is

meaning, contested

(Ferrell crime

expression

as

as social et al.

becomes a

and

moments of

a means to escape the constraint

that

Lanier

2006, p. 257). of justice,

on crime threat

of crime emanates

crime

&

retributive makes war or the

violence simply

does not reduce crime but adds

its own violence to that

which has already

occurred

& Lanier 2006, p. 258).

Whereas anarchists

a

ways

with violence

State sanctioned

a cycle that

when

in (Henry

state (government)

and suppresses

(Henry

them

under-standing

and

be approached

Under conventional

The

of violence. ...

perpetuates

and

to produce conflict,

arise these should

the existing

A seventh (7) critical theory

mutual respect

diff use them rather than solidify

of linear

and orderly social structures.

on problems, peacemaking advocates

celebrating

are less likely problems

forms

protest,

subversion,

violence.

and

constructed

or political

criminology

of play, and artistic

of

always

crime

or state-sanctioned

resistance;

the

event or subcultural

p. 2). In cultural

form

in

of makingwar believe that

cultural

which cultural

practices

crimewhether

as video-taped

2008,

many waysin

with the

and

construction

danger

culture:

It emphasizes the centrality

representation,

ephemeral

and popular

collaborative negotiation to overcome conflict. Instead

system

call for

total

of state-run

replacement

criminal

of

justice

mutual aid system of decentralized,

with

face-to-face

from an anarchist perspective that opposes all forms

justice, peacemaking criminology calls for alternatives

of power and domination,

that

and that

has blossomed

into two other applications: peacemaking criminology and restorative justice. It sees crime as conflict and seeks to reconcile peace through criminology and

the conflicting

restorative first

emerged

Dennis Sullivans The

Criminology

and

Jeff

Ferrell

(who

of cultural

the

1980

Larry

and reappeared

Tiff t Crime,

become

one of the found-ers

criminology).

Anarchist

criminology

and conflict

between

people,

and embodiment

conflict.

In

spite

This

of the connotation

disorder and overthrow

that

anarchy implies

of government, it

actually

of traditional

institutions

and change

in

the

process.

should be a system of restorative justice

incorporates

1980s peacemaking

ideas

than

rather

typical

war-making

of state control

of restorative

justice

toward

into

conflict

and punishment. The

It

many levels of justice,

punitive taking

discipline

justice,

and

with victims

and

restoration.

has

circles and

been incorporated

In

developing

forms

replac-ing

contrast

involves

for the harm they

Interestingly,

in-volving

participation

schools.

justice

concept

principles

and is increasingly in

restorative

responsibility

these

active community

resolution.

traditional

and abolitionist

mediation, talking

requires

that

and fear-mongering

employing

off ender-victim conferencing,

systems of power and authority

divisions

problem solve among participants structure

in the

Hal Pepinsky and

indeed it sees crime as an expression of

with

Anarchist

writing of

went on to

charges all hierarchical with creating

in

by bringing

practices.

Struggle to be Human:

Anarchism

1990s, largely through

parties

justice

the

to

off enders

cause victims

of compensation

some

of the

original

anarchist criminologists such as Sullivan and Tifft have

refers to a society without rulers (disorder is feared

becomeleading figures in the field of restorative justice,

by supporters of hierarchical systems). Instead of the

contributing

feared chaos, anarchists believe that

without govern-ment,topic.

humans would organize a world through aid

and

in

1991 laid

would look like.

Although restorative justice has been criticized

bysome radical criminologists for failing to addressthe fundamental

collaboration.

Hal Pepinsky joined

is

mutual

out

what

with

Richard

peacemaking

Peacemaking, like

predicated

on individual

Quinney and

(Shank

criminology

over time

anarchist

criminol-ogy,

responsibility

and

books and editing ajournal devoted to the

social structure

structural

inequalities

that create conflict

& Takagi 2004), it argues that it by changing the

control

systems

that

makes change

wayintuitions

operate their

eventually

changes their

PART

REFERENCES

Henry,

S.

&

Milovanovic,

Criminology: Daly, S.

K. (2006). Henry

and

Criminology Westview Ferrell,

J.,

Feminist

Thinking

M.M.

Reader,

Lanier pp.

about (Eds.),

Crime

The

205213.

in

Essential

Boulder,

CO:

Hayward,

Foucault,

K. J.

Criminology

UK:

Lanier,

J. (2008).

London,

(1977).

Harmondsworth,

Henry, S. and

& Young,

An Invitation. M.

D.

INTRODUCTION

(1996).

161

Constitutive

Postmodernism.

London,

UK:

Sage. Pepinsky

as

H.

&

Quinney,

Peacemaking.

R. (Eds.).

Bloomington:

(1991).

Criminology

Indiana

Universit

Press.

press.

Criminology:

Beyond

IV

UK:

Discipline Allen

and

Punish.

The Essential

Westview

Press.

P. (2004).

Critique

Social Justice 31 (3):

147163.

Tiff t, L. & Sullivan, Crime

(2006). CO:

G. &Takagi,

Justice.

Sage.

Lane.

M. M. (Eds.)

Reader. Boulder,

Cultural

Shank,

UK: Young,

Cienfuegos J.

&

Criminology: Sage.

D. (1980).

Criminology

and

Restorative

Struggle to be

Anarchism.

Sanday,

Human: Orkney,

Press.

Matthews, The

The

of

R. (Eds.). Realist

(1992)

Debate.

Rethinking

London,

UK:

CHAPTER VIII

Conflict, Left

Realist

Radical, and Theorie

CRITICAL

CRIMINOLOGY

Stuart CRITICAL

CRIMINOLOGY

theory

can be divided

Criminological advocates

believe

or assume

and structural.

Critical

type. Individual-based individual

choice

circumstance (biological, of these

choices social

actions,

follow

anomie,

such

strain,

criminology,

social

within

Critical from

ecology,

channel

more

although

can

Frankfurt

through

School) critical

critical realist,

anarchist

is

choices

consequences such

the term

as

critical

configuration

and

institutions,

and

diff ers in significant of

strain

and

Moreover,

of social

social

ecol-ogy,

critical

it also consid-ers human

structure

role is to

ways

social

although

structure

as a distinctly

criminologys

rela-tions

product

only

demystify

has the that

ap-pearance

change.

(not not

theory, theories

actions. Thus,

as social

interaction.

with conflict.

critical

the

or

social

theories,

of social

their

and sees society

what

under

from

nature and

importance

human

force;

social

criminology

diff erent

similarities

be significant,

to facilitate

the

such

of individuals

grouped

in

combination

ongoing

and

and those

a structural

crucial

meaning

resulting

some

the

and laws,

struc-tural

either

diff erences

theories

that

structure-based

structural

the

of an external

Critical

of

although

some

be changed

believe

humans

lie

pro-cess,

by opportunity

or in

process-based

shape of

reformist-oriented

agency to

appearance

behavior

of the

bio-psychological

social

forces,

as a whole,

emphasizes

human

conflict,

where their social

of crime

may belimited

the

on

of theories

the causes

or in

rules

contrast,

external

the

having

criminology

violate

based individual,

to a group

that

influence

they In

that

criminology,

the

that

Social

of groups

kinds

psychological),

theory

of society

these,

or

THEORY

is located:

that

forces.

violation.

broad

choice),

and labeling

whether

assume

organization

assume

and neoclassical)

members

including

from

refers

and internal

between and

criminology

personality,

control,

three

of crime

and situational

trait-based

learning,

into

STRUCTURAL

the source

theories

(classical

(rational

AS

one

to

be confused

distinct

theory

structurally-oriented

criminology or abolitionist,

includes

with but

theories. the

following

peacemaking,

critical

critical

social

an umbrella In its

theory

term

most inclusive

theories: feminist,

conflict, critical

of the

for

a range interpre-tation,

radical, race,

left queer,

16

Henry

166

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

postmodernist, constitutive,

chaos, and topology.

morerestrictive interpretation three

of these, reserving developments

primarily

would exclude the first

are post-1970s,

by non-Marxist

A second

manifestation

criminologist

for theo-retical subordinate

the term critical

that

influenced

A

and those

when corporations

suite OF

by dominant

CRIME

range of theories has changed

there

associated

with critical criminol-ogy

and expanded

are underlying

unifying

over time,

themes

although

that

cut across

these diff erences. In its broadest interpretation,

harm is compounded

criminology

includes

all theoretical

the source of crime stemming

positions

from societally

that

see

conflict, fueled by a system of domination, based on in

their

claim

that

crime

is

the

Third,

direct

by the legal

are liable.

the

Another

when whites,

and

discriminate

see crime as a form

segments to their

perceived economic

Resistanceis looting,

that limit

occurs

marginalize

by subordinate

and to

em-ployees

women, gays, and lesbians.

critical criminologists

resistance

generated

inequality, alienation, and injustice. Critical theories are similar

males, or heterosexuals against blacks,

or violate

crime, also called

holes or purchased legal protection

version of this kind of disrespect

critical

critical

designed to protect

consequences to which the powerful The

the

segments, such as

and organizational

crime). This

loop

to

pollute the environment,

health and safety regulations

social theory.

crime

is the direct abuse and disrespect of segments

(corporate TYPES

of

of

domina-tion

and social injustices.

manifestthrough such

meansas riots,

workplace theft, sabotage, and civil disobedi-ence

(also called political crime or collective crime).

or indirect

outcome of conflict between different segments of soci-ety. Crime as resistance is also seen in

political action

campaigns and protests. They see membersof society divided bytheir differ-ences, and they challenge the

typically

advocate

a change from

criminal justice to the broader concept

social justice.

Looking

critical criminologies,

Fourth,

way diff erence is exploited

as a basis of power and interest. They

at the similarities

of

among these

they all assume that

to the critical

harm created such that

personal, individual,

or humanistic

segments of

believe that

of inequality

powerless

meaning that some segments

have more power than others, existing in a hierarchical relationship

to each other. Individual

as products Although individual

of these

theorists human

hierarchical

variously

humans are seen power

recognize

agency, ultimately

as repressed, co-opted,

and

structures.

criminologist,

crime is the

being competitively

divided

and egotistic interests

are pursued at the expense of social, collective,

society, based on whatever diff erence, exist in relations to each other,

by a society

Critical

criminologists

many of the crimes that the structurally commit

violence, street

interests.

altru-istic,

on each

theft,

crimes),

are

other,

such

hate,

and

domestic

the

result

of

as interper-sonal abuse

this

(called

competitive

individualization.

a degree of

they see humans DEFINING

manipulated for the benefit

CRITICAL

CRIMINOLOGY

of dominant powerful interests. Crime, from the critical criminological

perspective,

Critical criminology is designatedcritical

for several

is harm that comes from differencein power, andit can

reasons. It is critical

be manifestin several ways. One manifestation occurs

nor limit themselves to state definitions of crime.They

when dominant groups or segments definethe behavior

prefer to define crime associal harm or as violations of

of subordinate Dominant others

segments as threatening

groups

groups

is unacceptable one kind of state

(this

the

social

of reality

use of law

can be considered

crime).

order.

system to

definitions

about

Groups or segments

for the purpose of preserving their in

justice

own dominant

human rights. the individual

use law as a weapon to criminalize

behavior, and use the criminal

enforce their

their interests.

what as

do this

the

becausetheorists neither accept

Nor does critical criminology

off ender causes crime independently

wider social context,

off enders

have

themselves

occurs, first, dehumanization,

posi-tions criminal justice

accept that

without also considering been

victimized.

Such

of how vic-timization

by society through its inequities,

and alienation and subsequently, system, through

of the powerless for punishment.

its selective

by the

processing

Critical criminologist

CRITICAL

are critical too, becausethey oppose the existing social

DIFFERENCES

BETWEEN

CRIMINOLOGY

CRITICAL

167

CRIMINOLOGISTS

order of inequality, facilitated through the capitalist, patriarchal, They

or race-divided

organization

question the purpose and

justice

system,

dominant

which they

power structure,

correct injustice critical

methods of the criminal

see as a reflection

of the

rather than an instrument

or achieve social justice.

to

Finally, they are

because the policy changes they advocate usually

demand justice,

a radical transformation,

not just

but the total social and political

society. Thus, bad

instead

apples

criminologists

of criminal

organization

of

of seeing some people as inher-ently

(individual

theories)

other apples to go bad (social

turn

of society.

or as causing

process theories),

see the society as a bad

critical

barrel that

will

most of the apples bad that are put into it; the only

In

1958,

George

was rooted

in

of

George

of

Ralf

up

Simmel

control

public

clash

of cultures,

instrumental

or from

Austin

Turk

allegiance

cluster of critical criminologies it is helpful not only to

gaining

identify

able to criminalize

what they havein common, but also to outline

how their analysesdivergefrom each other.

to

their

own

Critical

OF

criminological

take to be the

CRITICAL

CRIMINOLOGY

theories

diff er over

of the

diff erences that are the basis of social inequality. These diff erences include ideology,

class, race, gender, ethics or moral-ity,

religion

some, an infinite

or belief, social status,

variety

and for

of yet to be constructed

power, especially (both

elite group

its instrumental

power.

society, sites

multiple

Radical criminol-ogy

and structural

Marxist

versions) - challenges class power, especially

Other

dominant

such

Taylor,

Paul

radicals Tony

such

works

Marxist of the

this

social structure heterosexual from it;

critical

especially

based on it; queer theory challenges

power and the race theory

white supremacy;

criminology

challenges

homophobia

that

results

challenges

white

power,

anarchist

challenge

theory (including

and peacemak-ing

governmental

the power ofprofessionalism; constitutive

conflict

power and

and postmodernist

known and yet to be constructed

diff erences.

the structure of

diff ered

based on

by also

to

by

rooted

in

occurring

concentration

of capitalism,

dominant

of

Marxism), forces

Willem

and

symbolic

mere epiphenomenona, conflict.

power of

They

and in

wealth

by

on the

of

whether

class

sustains

or

of capitalism

whether

ap-propriation

minority to

owner-ship

that

provide

criminologists

the state is

ruling

that

the

crimogenic

wealth

Marxist

saw

point

private

a society

But

economic system

and

beginning

societies. They

vast inequalities

clas-sic

Engels

at the

social

renders

crime.

Chambliss, on the

criminologist

based

which

American

Friedrich crime

economic

class-divided

1970s, Ian

and

William

economic

in

early

drew

the

were

and

for

the

Young

Dutch that

of a deeper

over the issue

(instrumental constituent

and

believed

the

both

criminologists

Spitzer,

Marx

property,

mystify

norms.

having

control

in new

application

century

conditions

are from

a multidimensional

Quinney,

Steven

Karl

by generating the

and

varieties of chaos theory)

all bases of power and inequality

class interests

groups

deviating

as

for

Jock

of inequality

Marxist,socialist, and post-modernist)

challenges malepower and the patriarchal

and

of

dimensions

powerful to control state institutions,

especially the

Walton,

Bonger. They

consequences

police; feminism (radical,

British

theorys

class power; left realism challenges the rights of the

by

in

criminologists

as the

and

20th

an

behavioral

with struggles

as Richard

Platt,

claiming dominant

of diff erence.

critical

however,

Thus,

groups,

crime

roots

in

become

and

and symbolic

ethnicity.

a

and

diff erences

of those

saw

that

wealth,

Dominant

behavior

standards

at

dif-ferences.

Conflict theory, for example, challenges group

the

fragmented

what they

nature and relative importance

of key resources.

and

of symbolic

and

some

own

define

recognize

from

culture,

criminologists,

instrumental THEORIES

their

to

outcome

race,

that

cultural

Conflict

defining

theorists

the

mainstream

control

Sellin. dimensions,

power

over status,

religion,

argued

solution is a new barrel. In seeking to understand this

sociology

diff erences in economic

struggles morality,

reformist

each

the

Conflict

from

that

sociology

on several

groups,

for

theory

century

and Thorsten

as divided

issues.

may stem

ideology,

Coser

struggling

crime

19th

1950s

Louis

numerous

and

a conflict

late

and the

was seen

of

interests

developed

classic

Darendorf,

Here society made

Vold

the

manipu-lated

interests

their

the

who

domination

impersonal

are responsible

for it

168

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

maintenance and reproduction Instrumentalists as shaping

see the economic

the

the intensity

need to

semiautonomous

monetary

in

and

corresponding

Through its

the

powerful

of legitimating

whole capitalist

by the

and

of power and authority, as flawed. They

that

the

the state and

conflict

and

Marxist

theorists,

criti-cal

feminist criminologists, such as Carol Smart, Meda Chesney-Lind, see the

Kathleen

major division

as patriarchy. This male activities than

those

is the law

of females,

men.These

challenged

Sally

and

of the father

in

are

which

to the factory, critical

Simpson,

which conflict

and accomplishments

from the family privilege

Daly, and

around

which

more valued

societal

institu-tions,

are structured

feminist

the gender-structured

emerges in

construction

authority.

A similar

transcendent

to

position

justice. This abolitionist

been

ways minority groups

on everyone.They

systemic discrimination,

obscures racial

marginalization,

movedto oppose

prejudice, bigotry, economic

harassment, and

oppression. The

ultimate challenge is to help bring social change that reduces the harms caused by these social and institu-tional of diff erence. Indeed,

critical race theorist

inequality

Katheryn

the intersections

many, such as

Russell, now see a value of these structures

of

and diff erence based on class, race, gender,

of class,

anarchist

and eco-nomic

replacement

criminal justice

with

should be a system of restorative

ideas of

typical

of state control

In

a

polar

and

Harold Pepinsky and Richard

criminology,

and punishment.

opposition

left

to

realism

1980s by Jock Young, Brian

of the

the

idealism

of

anarchist

was a position founded

Roger

MacLean. Instead

celebrations

Matthews, John

in the

Lea, and

of what they saw as romantic

off ender

as a primitive

by some idealist

structurally

revolution-ary,

Marxist theorists on the reality

powerless street

perspectives,

which

definitions

gender, race, or sexual

criminologists

such as Larry

focus

of crime,

and

and serious-ness

between

off enders,

justice system. Left realists

Unlike critical

of the

and victimization

of

powerful, powerless

emphasizes

victims,

and the

the re-lationship criminal

want to both strengthen

and democratically control the criminal justice system of capitalist society, believing that the law can provide the structurally

powerless with real gains, if not ideal

victories.

Finally, and most recently, through Henry, Arrigo,

Dragan

Milovahovic,

the work ofStuart

Peter

Manning,

Bruce

Gregg Barak, and T.R. Young, the 1990s saw the

arrival in critical

criminology theory,

prefer-ence, of social constructionist Tiff t and

off enders. on crimes

off enders by the state, left realism

constitutive

and sexual preference. Instead

and its larger

Quinney, rather than war making and fear mongering,

identity, resulting in white and heterosexual standards

in exploring

criminol-ogy

a mutualaid system of warm,living, decentralized, face-to-face

have dif-ferent anarchists, left realists focus

has also

and how the legal system

structures

deci-sions.

of resistance to

call for total

of the existing system of state-run

argued

race and by queer theorists. They

began by observing the diff erent

being imposed

which

approaches that seeks

processes of political

Anarchists

by

of harm to the powerless created by the similarly

by critical

were treated,

in

and share their

in social interaction

through

of and

be replaced

of negotiated justice participate

of critical

both its construction

emphases.

adopted

should

to relate crime as a meaningful activity

criminologists

world but

systems

be opposed

justice that incorporates the 1980s peacemaking

inequality to prevail without obvious challenge. to

system

is an integration

maintenance of

other elements of this superstructure appear as neutral

contrast

should

of justice

all members of society

elements in the power structure, allowing capitalist In

hierarchical

domination

a decentralized

configuration,

According to Ferrell, recent anarchist

mitigated in the

As a result,

whatever their

believe that

and

existing systems

religion

and the cri-ses

the long-term

system.

Jeff Ferrell in the 1990s, see all hierarchical systems

influences

including

exploitation,

these create, are controlled

Dennis Sullivan writing initially in the late 1970s and

authority many-headed

mediating influence,

worst excesses of economic

interests

to specific

of social institutions,

and education.

Structural

a dual or

whose position is supported

mechanism

a variety

and

which the state serves a

role in relation

economic interests

as crime

strategies.

conceptualizes

power structure

Marxism).

base of society

define behavior

of enforcement

Marxist criminology

from

(structural

and topology

of postmodernist

which also incorporated

influ-enced ideas

theory, chaos theory, semiotics,

theory, into an integrated

critical theory

CRITICAL

At its simplest, constitutive theory recognizes that the social structures of inequality of the

harm that is crime,

themselves

are crimes.

generated

by human

(talk). complex their

are not only the source but that

Moreover, these inequalities agents through

Once created, these socially

systems of inequality

own expansion,

are

constructed

are self-perpetuating

and are sustained

continued

investment

constantly

elaborates the inequality.

of energy into

and Japan. take into

use of dis-coursethat

their

through

Moreover, by implicitly, if

a discourse that

socialism,

character minimized

Furthermore,

of early versions

for the

of critical

criminology

these criminologists

of the crudest

of the

determin-istic

uncooperative

wholesale rejection

and their adoption principles

conditions

portions

the implicit

the self-generated

of humans. Thus,

EVALUATION

dehumanizing

as practiced in large

world, produced.

not explicitly,

early critical theorists failed to

account the known

socialism,

in the

169

rate in some very capitalistic societies like Switzerland romanticizing

the inequalities

CRIMINOLOGY

behavior

were unpre-pared

of socialist

practice

and more exploitative

and practices of capitalism.

Most recently,

critical

and radical

have been forced to acknowledge

criminologists

that other dimensions

of social inequality

such as race, gender, and sexuality

new waysto seethe world than it has at being proven

are also important.

Yet these other versions of critical

through

criminology havealso been subject to criticism. Stanley

Critical

criminology

has fared

better

empirical research findings,

social justice.

Early formulations

at

providing

or at delivering

of critical criminol-ogy

lend themselves readily to the criticism that they either

tend

toward

left idealism

romanticism,

or to the

instrumental

Marxism

as in

anarchism

dogmatic

and

doctrinal,

or

feminism.

radical

case, they embodied

an unrealistic

conspiracy

Some critics

critical

theory.

criminologys

unremarkable,

and

as in

In

either

and untestable air of have pointed

class-based revelations

merely a restatement

Cohen

are rather Robin

Hood adage that the poor steal from the rich to survive

the

late

empirical argued

1970s,

base of that

Klockars

much

radicals

as destructively class

Carl

class

divisions

can

divided,

divisions involve interest across

class

boundaries.

the

developments

capitalist

and

societies

when in

reality,

and that

many

groups that unite people The

instrumental

Marxist

view has beencriticized by outsiders and insiders alike for obscuring the diversity and conflict

turn

as

such as stable conservative

growing

awareness

ecology

of the relevance

movements, and the

Left realism contradictions

a reflection

and the

governments,

of feminism

collapse

for its central

between the call for increased

a minimalist

crime, and their

state, subject to

and

of state social-ism.

has been challenged

of the state to control

off crimes

weak

Marxist criminology

be beneficial,

reformist

powers

preferences for

public scrutiny

and ac-countability.

It has been questioned for taking the spot-light

attacked

misrepresent

realisms

tempering of their ideas in response to broader social

but also, like the rich, they steal for greed. In

left

of both the aging of radical criminologists

out that

of the old

sees

of the economically

the state, especially damning like

criticism

those

powerful

of corporations.

comes from feminist

outside

The

most

scholars

who,

Phil Scraton, have argued that the construction

the realism

or idealism

of

debate has been diversionary,

regressive, and purposefully

misrepresentative of the

advances within critical feminist criminology since the mid-1970s.

Feminists

criminology

within both

claim

that

left

realism,

like

radi-cal

generally, has remained gender blind

the state and corporate elites. Critics point out that

and assuch remains part of the male stream ignoring

not all law is designed to protect ruling capitalist

activism,

interests

but is intended

of capitalism.

Like left

to

protect the overall system

realists

such as Jock

Klockars later asserted that the state actually of oppressed

peoples rights

sham or a mystification. theorists

of ignoring

crime in socialist

class

as genuine,

empow-ers

their

not as a

these stems from

facts, such as

societies and the apparent low

crime

and theory

However, feminist

Young,

Klockars accused early critical

the contradictory

research,

drawn

from

womens

experiences.

central

own

inherent

organizing

of essentialism,

criminologist weaknesses.

the

least

have of

the very

notion that

gender is the

theme,

which some

have accused

exclusionism,

spite of recognizing

positions Not

and implicit

the socially constructed

racism.

In

nature o

170

CRIME

AND

femininity

there is a failure to refer-ence that these theorists are criticizing? The

and sexuality,

the

different cultural

patterns, criminal

BEHAVIOR

and

experiences

experience, socialization in

the labor

market and

justice system of black women.This

does not

humans locked in their local struggles will become aware that their specific issues are merely a facet of the underlying

problem

deny a gender analysis but requires that gender include

the problems

sensitivity

to

the paradox is that

sensitivity

would also need to overcome the simplistic

black and

white distinction

racial

Different cultural women, women

Asian with

ethnic

within a gender

American

disabilities,

Indian

would

analysis.

also

women,

benefit

from

identification

and

especially its

chaos theory,

questioning

concepts,

and especially through

theory,

of traditional

CA:

and

Barak,

challenge. Postmodern

by which to judge

outcomes

has faced considerable

criticism

years from

more traditional

but

from

rivals,

within

that

has

Henry,

theorists

mostimportant

that applies its critique to any criteria

while simultaneously and local features how do critical

recognizing

of any specific

criminologists

Readings in

while using diff erence to distinguish

M.J.,

Milovanovic,

Radical

diff erence, from

the necessary broader changesthat critical theories of invested

in reproducing

Criminology:

majority is

the very system

Vancouver:

Crossroads: NY:

Criminology:

UK: Sage, 1996. Groves,

W.B.,The

Critical

Willow

New

Perspectives

on

Tree Press, 2000.

and

Littlefield,

Milovanovic,

D.(Ed.)

New

NY:

Reiman,

York,

J., The

Ideology,

Rich

Crime

Allyn and Russell,

K.K.,

New York Young, J. and Realist

Press,

and

Crime.

Critically

1997.

Lanham,

MD:

1993.

Milovanovic,

Criminology.

D.(Eds.) Thinking

Collective

Masculinities

D.S. and

Classin

is the implementation in practical terms of their theo-retical

substantially

London, R.J., and

Milovanovic,

J.,

Rowman

Martin,

Moreover,

challenge. How doesone realistically bring about

Crime.

Messerschmidt,

the mainstream?Finally, perhapsthe ultimate challenge

crime imply in a society where by far the

Allyn

New York,

D., Constitutive

Michalowski,

in

about

position

themselves

at the

Crime and Justice.

Crime, Power and Identity.

the unique historical

problematize

MA:

most

over others,

diff erences.

Boston,

1998.

Primer

of diff erence that

is used by one group to privilege themselves

Maturation

Deviance. Belmont,

1999.

Criminologies,

Beyond Postmodernism.

challenge facing criti-cal

is how to develop a transcendent

Justice: The

Law, Crime and

Maher, L., Criminology

MacLean, B. D.and

devastating. The

READING

1998.

S. and

Lynch,

over the

the

in

D. and

Oxford,

more recently, been

Bacon,

Feminist

contributions

criminology

criticism

requires the very

FURTHER

West/Wadsworth,

Kathleen,

constitutive

and eff ects. Critical

Theory

G., Integrating

and

criminological the

AND

B.A., Social Justice/Criminal

ofCritical

prose, and for claiming that there are no absolute stan-dards

the

Of course,

with others humanity that is undermined

of post-modernism

have been criticized for their obscurelanguage, difficult

is

such a revelation

REFERENCES

more recent

topology

increased

it

form.

such

catastrophe theory, its influence is being felt in the

criminological

unless this is addressed

by a system based on diff erence and division.

Arrigo,

it is early to evaluate the impact

into

Such a

analysis.

on criminology, adventures

diff erences.

and that

will emerge in another

experiences, such as those of Latino

women,

a broadened feminist Though

and

hope is that

D. (Eds.)

New York,

Get

and

Gender

and

NY: Garland, 1996.

Chaos, Criminology Greenwood,

Race,

and Social Justice.

1997.

Richer

and the

Criminal

Poor

Justice.

Get

Boston,

Prison:

MA:

Bacon, 1998. The

Color

University Matthews,

Debate. London,

of

Crime.

Press,

New

York,

NY:

1998.

R., Rethinking UK: Sage

Criminology.

The

RADICAL

CRIMINOLOGY

Michael J. Lynch and

C

riminology all critical

of critical

textbooks theories

explanations

tend to lump

critical

were the same.This of crime.

theories

of crime together,

results in a superficial

To avoid this

Stretesk

examination

problem, this essay examines one

form of critical perspective, radical criminology (on other forms see Arrigo 1995; Ferrell and Sanders 1995;

Henry and

Milovanovic 1996;

Milovanovic 1994,

1995; DeKeseredy and Schwartz 1996; Schwartz and Friedrichs 1994). Radical criminology

examines how forms

of inequality,

oppression, and

conflict affect crime and law. Consequently, radicals areinterested in how struc-tural inequalities (1)

evident

participation

enforcement

of laws.

the social, economic, given society

To

(2)

answer

at a particular

general rules

in practice, radical

preference into

issues,

radicals

structures

moment in

and (3) the examine

and forms

and

of crime vary depending

which they are applied.

of inequality

relative

to

found in a

Groves 1995).

As a

primarily

of radical criminology,

historical

on modern

era

and cultural

U.S. society.

of inequalityrace,

has an impact

who holds power

even

upon the historical

Taking this

American society, three forms

out. Each form

crime

to history and culture. Thus,

are useful for describing the content

course, the nature of power, and

aff ect

making and

of inequality

history (Lynch

pay close attention

account, this essay focuses

In contemporary genderstand

these

explanations

and cultural system to

class, race, and gender structures

how crime is defined,

and political

result, radical explanations though

in a societys

in crime,

class, and

on an individuals

within society. These

life

forms

of

inequality and their impact on crime are examined below. Whenradicals speak about race, class and gender, they usethese terms dif-ferently than traditional criminologists. and gender tend to beinterpreted

For traditional

radicals, race, class, and gender are both identities race, class, and gender contain

criminologists, race, class,

as characteristics of individuals, and are used

to identify subjects of study asmiddle-class, African culturally

American, or female.

and structures.

and historically

within society, and (3) the opportunities typically

possess. Asidentities,

specific rules

concerning

the behavior

for success people from

For

As structures, that

(1) the types of power groups possess, (2) a groups social and economic

define

positions

these groups

race, class, and gender tell us about social expecta-tions of people from

diff erent groups and the

Paul

asif

ways in

171

B.

172

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

which people act to construct themselves (their identi-ties). society,the greater a problem crime becomes.Inequality For example,middle-class U.S. social structure, power

defines alocation in

which in turn

persons can access and

defines the types of

wield, their

opportuni-ties

or pathways to success, and the forms conditions

which they control

But, being middle-class and

we expect

in particular what they attend.

of oppressive

or which control

them.

middle-class

people by

American (or

white or

male) aff ects a persons access expectations

and responses. In short, a persons structural

location

carries

diff

erent

position

forms

of

access

and

success

will engage in crime or will be

as criminals.

defined positions

of inequality background view

in

U.S. society.

issues

gender,

discussion

power,

the radical

view

crime, and environmental this to

essay examines

this

the nature

Next, we examine

of the relationship

economic

examine

examine

necessary to understand

of crime. This

examination

wefirst

some

the radi-cal

is followed

by an

between

class, race,

and inequality.

We then

on street

crime,

justice. The

final

corporate section

some policy implications

their

opportunities

for

Radicals focus

to explain

on

patterns

who occupy these structurally

have similar

sets of opportunities

behave or are treated in similar

and

ways or both. Evidence

of how race, class, and gender

structure

success and

crime is examined later in this essay.

Crime

There

are

and

Inequality:

ways to

on

crime.

argue

chances

for

crime

that

An

Overview

(or

Studies

point.

coercive

form

to focus for

A few

of social

is

more likely

indicate

society and

and

are lower-class

in

engage in

and labeled illustrate

law, the

can render, minorities.

lower-class

prisons

and

to (1)

examples

classes

most tends

Policing, and

primarily

minorities.

of crime,

access to life

criminal

control

concentrated

street

defined

brief

that

influence

to

equal

behaviors

both).

communities, who

will be

on the lower

instance,

the

respect

denied

have their

as criminal

examine

With those

success

or (2)

this

of

related

two

inequality

such

as vagrancy

the

working

Harring RACE,

STRATIFICATION

AND AND

GENDER:

ECONOMIC

SOCIAL

served

INEQUALITY

and

and

similar

functions,

minor-ity

house

people

Historically,

by a conflict

between the haves

and Engels 1995, 1970). The

these conflicts relative

vary historically

nature

of

this

claim,

character-ized

and have-nots nature and form

and culturally. radicals

view

Inequality also

helps

issues

of

Despite conflict

crimes

neglecting

power

a lopsided distribution

of power.The

(Friedrichs

more unequal a

the forms of the

crimes

here.

1998). and

1996;

Simon

of inequality,

organization

helps

of

on acquiring

have

our

obtain In

power

classes of the

short,

society

while power-ful

emphasis

why people even

and conflict

American

Two

and

cultures

explain

power

powerful.

inequality

behavior

1999).

power,

laws

on control-ling

on the lower

harmful

means to

1964;

and the lower

of the

First,

Second,

wealth

control

2000).

the

equally

use illegal

focusing

emphasis

why law focuses the

(Reiman on power

1996,

to

drug

minorities

the

explain

help explain

and inequality asthe basis of mostcrime. Asa result, it

For radicals, unequal societies are characterized by

1991, and

enacted

(Chambliss

history,

used by

are important

follows that the best wayto reduce crime is to eliminate social, economic, and political inequality.

were

classes

typically

commonly

class (Brownstein

are based on unequal social relationships

loitering

lower

1983). Throughout

drugs

Radical analysis stems from the observation that societ-ies

the

success,

view.

CLASS,

(Marx

for

many people occupy

are also similar.

of crime because people

radicals

view,

Because

locations,

failure)

chances

of a persons structural

help

explain the probability that peoplelocated in diff erent

To explain this

life

race, class, and gender inequality

behavioral expectations. For radicals, these differences

labeled

to

erent

are evidence of inequality, and these inequalities structural locations

access

within society.

(or

being African

diff

more)

behave

to power and success and our behavioral

it

(or

for individuals living

meansthat some people will

success is a function

also defines behavioral

or female (or

with

less

middle-class

ways. Weidentify

Similarly,

have

and that

structural

people to

implications

within asociety. Inequality

expec-tations,similar

wear, where they live, and the schools they

Hispanic)

also hasimportant

more for that

with power

radicals, are part

can be used t

RADICAL

explain the crime of the lower classes(and

Law is an important

minorities

and women) as well asthe crimes of the upper classes.

conflicts

between

property Class

Inequality

and

Crime:

these

criminologists In

examining

crime,

the

early radicals

views

on

Marxs

on class

overview

in societya

all of this

have-nots.

societies. There,

control

that

forms

position

most

workers capital,

ability

capitalists

economic

power

this

into

occurs

contributions

the

ability

political

through

the labor to

crime

activities

such

to

that

Messerschmidt

protect,

establishing

and that

circumstances

demonstrated

to

inequality

to

keep

workers

wages, and in capitalists

capitalists

interests

general,

disadvantage

capitalists

are relatively

wages to

are

workers. powerful,

and

directly

element

around

that

advantage

Further, workers

in-creasing

of

of the

having

little

economic

processes.

workers

have struggled

power

and

wealth,

opportunities, and

health

relied

to achieve fail

these

or are closed

to legitimate

obtain

demanding

and

on strikes,

to

retirement

Sometimes,

off , they turn

and

means to success (Quinney

1996).

1993, 1997; Schwartz

Today, a radical

the important

Milovanovic

view that

eff ect each of these inadequate

1996; Lynch,

(see

Michalowski,

radical

radical

additions, theories

view

class remains of

crime.

of class is

an important

Further

presented

discussion

in

the

next

section.

RADICAL

ECONOMIC

MODEL

history, of societys

conditions, Workers

have

work stoppages

when these

to crime

in

and

employment

working

benefits.

work slowdowns, goals.

share

expanded

wages, better

of inequality

whereas

throughout their

dimensions

are relatively

over law-making

Nevertheless,

higher care

influence

by radicals (e.g.,

2000).

THE

powerless,

focus

have since incorpo-rated

has on crime is considered

Groves

were

on class and

unidimensional

Messerschmidt

Despite these

a minimum.

activities

(e.g.,

Schwartz and

wasin the capital-ists

revolve

early

of crime, especially racial and gender

Milovanovic

structures

is

profit-making.

profits

wages, and that it

best interests contrast,

to

view,

But radicals

focus

1986), and they

fails to acknowledge

set of

interest

this

powerful.

1980). This

their explanations so-cieties

as campaign

primary

conducive

that

workers

their

position.

on crime, and for focusing at-tention

other important

their

have a particular

and

distinct

the social, eco-nomic,

privileged

Employing

of the

(see Inciardi

and

capitalists

a

of society that serves

on class has, however, been addressed

from

modern

have

protecting

organization

criminology.

on crimes

of workers.

In

of capitalists

laws,

also criticized for their singular

need

translate

power.

radical

and

results

of all people

called consensus theory.

criminal

of class and inequality

of accumulating power

widely

radicals wereacknowledged for highlighting the effects

and lobbying.

Marx argued

related

economic

possess

own

and capital,

objectives

and exploit

in

capitalist

who

Traditional

reflect

As noted, this class view of crime and law is unique to

the opposition

Capitalists,

out their

also

around

laws

best interests

even

as the basis of the powerfuls

and

interested out in

of production

to control

Capitalists

of the haves

played

revolve

workers.

carry

and

interests

conflicts

machinery

to

laws,

advantage for the powerful,

is

was the history

was particularly

conflicts and

the

opposition

Marx

how these

of capitalists

of all societies

or the

But

examining

view commonly

and political history

history.

these

the defin-ing

working condi-tions

represent the interests

not always) favor the

crimi-nology,

other

that

laws

In contrast, radicals suggest that laws generally (though

emphasis

of radical

it from

wage levels, and

argue

shared values that

and

basing their

The

characteristic

A brief

Marx, the

In

class,

of capitalism.

distinguished

of class conflict,

Marx

inequality

below.

For

their

on social

analysis

criminology.

presented

between

focused

was a defining which

of

relationship

Numerous

have been passed throughout

Background

173

method of mediating classes.

rights,

CRIMINOLOGY

avenues

as an alternative 1980).

For radicals,

classes are defined

to a societys

economic system or

The

contemporary

capitalism

and is a blend of

sector production. shifted

American

from

mode of production.

economy

is

manufacturing

based

on

and service

mid-1970s, the U.S. economy

a highly concentrated

capitalism one example

In the

by how people relate

form

to service capitalism.

of a mode of production.

of

manufac-turing

Capitalism

is

Other example

174

CRIME

include

AND

BEHAVIOR

socialism,

communism,

and feudalism,

to

CLASS,

name

Each to

mode of production

production,

located

in

or

this

distinction practice,

and social

of conflicts

capitalism,

the

that

communist also

though

nations

have

determine

the

will emerge in society.

most important

conflicts

of the productive

means of production)

Radicals employ device.

power (theoretically,

Class divisions

the owners (capitalists) called the

People

more than two classes (Wright large companies, (2)

on

mass-production

to clerical to

and fast-food

has

which can

or owners of

construction

(6) groups that or the surplus populations

workers

marginalized

consist

of the

homeless,

and

2 percent;

are

criminals

In

distributed

the middle

partially

class

(whom

Marx

U.S. society, these

as follows:

capitalists,

(two,

and four),

three,

15 percent; workers, 65 percent; surplus population, 18 percent (Perlow 1988). because

it affects peoples accessto power. Researchhasshown that

being born into

impacts

a particular class significantly

a persons life chances for success and,

often than

not,

people remain

which they

are born (Frank

Americans

dont

relationship income

the review

or

define

To

make

way most Americans information

on

but rather our

think

wealth

and

discussion

as far

of a persons

relevant

to

we next

Other

of inequality.

In owns

39

In the

Faced

with

land

the

that

hand

opportunity,

Evidence

market

Edward that

Wolff (1995) 1983

holders

marketable

of the

well:

in

the

middle-income show

of wealth

and families

1988)

the

top

total 80

gain

percent trend

1992

number

of

same

savings

(Wolff

million-aires time

United

and

that

declined

1995,1995b). lines

of

in the following

at the

class

percent

(58). This to

have

Economist data show

20

of the

1989

(Wolff of

time,

wealthy did.

bottom

the

for

over

federal

is revealed

and classes in the

years (Perlow

the

retirement

a hardening

America,

invisible

1 percent

States,

in

inequality.

the

increased

that

once

between

United

1 percent

reduced

that

while only

France Sweden

workthe

percent

inequality

billionaires

home-ownership

fifty

got

Increasing

and

data

wealth,

more exaggerated

1995). as

99

in

have improved

today,

1989

of the

in

structure

they

noted and

received

population

was

otherwise:

poor less than

between

in

hard

in

1995).

argue

and

rich

picture

richest

(Wolff

systemshave

indicates

more and the

as the

a similar

wealth;

social

the

20 percent

25 percent;

the

It

In Japan, five; in

of the

things

competition

of

world.

1 percent

people

data

Development

poor

States, the

facts,

of

the

richest

wealth

by to

These

in

paint

is about

United

bottom

owned

most lopsided

Germany,

the

the

of the these

of

at

from

the

compared

nine (U.N.

18 percent

percent

wealth

of crime.

in

measures

figure

of

words, the richest

Britain,

Canada, this

owns

and

examine

has the

rates

is

other

removed

nations.

population

ratio

In

to

nation

is four;

States, this

are twice

Most

with respect to

about class, income.

more

class into

Cook 1995).

class in terms

to production, wealth.

part of the and

of inequality

is

population.

States

highest

one

1993).

and

of the

United

of the

other

the capital

holdings

population

has

wealth

For radicals, class membershipis important

the

ratio

of the

advanced

em-ployed, those work-ers,

property

of any

United

(stored-up

assess inequality

20 percent

Program

the

and

system

ratio

production, Surplus

savings

and inequal-ity

when examining

wealth

of wealththe

that

16 percent.

and

emerges

nations

20 percent

workers),

as well as migrant

career

also this

stratification

and income.

concentration

class

States our

way to

and

populations.

called the lumpenproletariat). populations

to

assets)

One

workers),

(laborers)

unemployed,

and underemployed the

(service

have no relationship or

who work

(manufacturing

or unskilled

or

such as doctors,

employees

other

indicate

workers, from those

lines

by

poorest

1978),

(4) professionals,

represented

the

managers of large businesses,

or teachers, (5)

of

forces (also

two and three comprise the petty-bourgeois small capitalists),

U.S. SOCIETY

of social

United

richest

(3) self-employed owners of small businesses(catego-ries

lawyers,

the

distribution

the

however,

(1) capitalists

in

evidence

are between

model as a heuristic

U.S. society,

be defined as follows:

Under

and workers.

a two-class

Contemporary

Decisive

degrees

does not apply to communism,

self-proclaimed

been class societies).

kinds

a class system.

classes possess diff erent

political,

IN

entails specific relations

more simply,

diff erent

of economic,

in

WEALTH, AND INCOME:

INEQUALITY

a few.

for Other

a polarization

States over the

past

Income

Inequality

Inequality

and

the

Shift

income. took

is also evident in the unequal distribution In 1994, the top 20 percent of income

home

about

20 percent

half

of

received

all income,

only

while

Bureau 1999). The super

richthe

top

Census

5 percenttook

home nearly 22 percent of all income. This of income

inequality

we consult evidence

income

income

saw

their

of

accelerated

occurred

and

Skolnick

decline

4.0 percent to 3.6 percent (19671999).

path of inequality

income for the top 1 percent morethan doubled

in the

by economic

to

United States

transformations

States began to shift

from

a

manufacturing

a decline in

high-wage

manufacturing

employment

asthese jobs

of rewards levels

associated

with

service sector and

with white-collar among

decreases in leisure

and

1995;

Wilson

work; high

minorities residing

areas; and Cook

to nations

declines in the quality and quan-tity

of unemployment

Frank

caused

or blue-collar

were shifted

wage rates; a rise in low-wage,

menial employment;

that

mid-1970s, the

a nutshell, this shift

In con-trast, urban

time

(Schor

in

1995;

1997).

To this point, we havereviewed inequality asit re-lates

during atime when medianincome wasrelatively stable and the cost of living doubled (19791989)

Manufacturing

over the past 25 years. In the

United

20 percent

income

a

Economy

to a service economy. In

has wid-ened lower

inequality

share

if

and available

In recent years, the lowest

earners

picture

more exaggerated of time,

past 50 years (Currie

1984,100107).

from

period

suggests that

over the

of

becomes

a broader

The

can be explained

bottom

3.6 percent (U.S.

175

of

earners

the

CRIMINOLOGY

from

a Service

Inequality

RADICAL

(Frank

to

income,

wealth,

and

social

class.

In

the

United

and Cook 1995, 5). Contrary to capitalist ideology,

States,inequality is also a function of gender, race, and

these facts indicate little

hope for the vast majority of

ethnicity.

people

classand

within the lower

middle classto

improve

Wealth and income,

in

their other

increasingly,

economic

the

conditions.

words, trickle

down, and

many of the wealthy are so well off that they

are referred

to as the super

top-out-of-sight

(Fussell

Increasing

inequality

rich

(Perlow

despite

1988) or the

question

the idea

Cook (1995)

harder and longer,

U.S.

workers are worse off today than 30 years ago, working longer

hours for

reduced

(Frank

and

wages, accumulating

Cook 1995;

more

Schor

1995).

In short,

the rich are getting muchricher, while most ofthe rest

despite

eliminated

Many object to this depiction of American society, citing evidence of people they know success

whomade it.

big picture, however, suggests that these kinds of stories

are

rare.

National

statistics

indicate

that

seen their

economic

Steele 1992;

Frank

were decades earlier, or have

circumstances and

Cook

and 1990s accelerated a growing that

has characterized

the past 50 years.

the

decline

1995).

(Barlett

In sum, the

and 1980s

pattern of inequality

American class system over

claims

men, and this remains true

that

discrimination

affirmative

has

1994; Lynch 1996; Lynch and Patterson 1996).

Recent

reviews of income

data have generated

concerning for example, that incomes

have

face,

this

against

action

Carnoy

gender income

increased

relative

statement

transformation

has

incomes.

not

because

decline in

relative to the shift to a menfrom

white-collar had

On

because mens

1995, 207).The

which displaced

who have traditionally

mens

more, but rather

jobs and high-paying

noting,

years womens

But it is true

mens wages can be explained

This

disparity,

to

is true.

wages have declined (Amott

service economy,

misleading con-clusions

over the past fifteen

women are being paid

many more people failed to achieve economic success, are in the same place they

gender dimen-sion.

women (see

its

of us are working harder and losing ground.

The

INEQUALITY

has an important

and political power than today

personal debt, and having less in savings and retirement benefits

ECONOMIC

Historically, women haveless accessto economic

calls into

working

AND

Economic inequality

1997).

that hard work gets you ahead. Frank and argue that

GENDER

up, not

little

eff ect

manufac-turing

employment. on

women,

been employed in low-wage

service sector jobs (Figart and Lapidus 1996, 1998). On average, women earn only 73 percent as much as men(U.S. disparity

Census Bureau 1999). This

is evident

across all forms

gender wage

of employment

176

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

and even womenin high-status positions (physicians,

financial independence and revitalize their communi-ties (Massey and Denton 1993).

lawyers, and accountants) earn significantly less than men in those fields (Ruth 1998).

Occupational

numerous

1995;

and income

adverse impacts

Figart and

gender inequality

on women, which

number

to gender inequality

Kozol

1995;Sklar

segregation

segregated

over the

economic

AND

RACISM

ECONOMIC

AND

crime policy

INEQUALITY:

which

has

in

must include

result

conditions,

minority

com-munities

Any sensible

means of dismantling and

of to

African-American

white communities.

the economic basein

more

contributed

that crime is higher in

discrimination

INEQUALITY

become

Given these poor economic

in

of

States shows that have

circumstances

than ETHNICITY,

analysis

30 years as the

racism,

it is no surprise

RACE,

United

past

Movement.

(1993)

communities

communities.

1995).

Dentons

in the

institutionalized

poor

of poverty (Messerschmidt

1995;Rotella

racial

and segrega-tion

since the Civil Rights

Massey and

is the in-creasing

households that are at or below the poverty level, a pro-cess

1986;

However,

African-American

of women who live in female-headed

called the feminization

assumed that racism

have diminished

has

may help

explain the increase in female crime over the past two decades. Contributing

It is commonly

Lapidus

insti-tutional

methods for revitalizing

minority communities.

In the United States,economic inequality hasimportant racial and ethnic

dimensions.

For example, although

women are disadvantaged relative to are equally

disadvantaged;

greater economic

are morelikely than part of the lower crime

or

To

to

be

and

Hispanics

lower

as

to

or be

to turn to

African-Americans

median family

incomes

(U.S.

Bureau

In

whites was

and

one-third

Further,

the

unemployment rate for black malesis morethan twice menare usually paid less

tor the same work, or are morelikely to berestricted to wage, poorly paid service sector jobs (Carnoy

hazardous

result

racism

has

African-Americans. meant

not only hold lower-paying segregated (Massey ensures

from

that

economic

1994, 1529).

and

African

structures

that

jobs Denton

Americans

that

force In the

that United

African-Americans

remain

Lynch

factors

would promote

their

and

and

1992b;

to

more likely

neighborhoods,

be victims that

these

general

enhanced

section

We will

such

Associated

have

hazardous

discuss

these

as

near polluting

Knox

induced 1996,

1997;

1994,

Stretesky

poor

crime.

and

persons

are

It is important

class-linked for

have less

(e.g.,

to

not least,

difficult

granted,

environmentally

of violent

How are the inequalities crime?

for

poor

DiMaggio

also

to live

Gilman

but

racial

the it

1982;

1995;

Knox and And last

are negatively

classes,

people

take

(Oilman

and

making

(DiMaggio

and to suff er from

1999).

upper

and the Internet

are

these

but rather

class

education,

affluent

that

people

eco-nomic

liabilities.

Lower-income the

and

the

remember

certain

poverty

1985).

problems

more likely

Segregation detached

quality

pollution

descend

a particular

middle

computers,

industries,

to

inad-equate

care, problems

to

we

of poor

with it

to

of lifeevident

health

as

within

things

to remember

but are also spatially 1993).

access

1998)

1992a,

States,

Bottom

difficulties,

proximity

qualities

waste sites in their

on blacks than

structural

in

to escape

access to

impact

whites (Carnoy

or living

to the

telephones, Press

access to

carries

Mohr

health

negatively impacts

working classes lost

have less

for them

over the past 20 years, these losses had a greater

powerful

the

quality

limited

living

Compared

Eventhough the

a

at

health

It is important

that

and

the

mental

are not

from

ground

is

Being

wastedeclines

context

1994).

Racism

show that

of self-esteem,

Hispanic

were about 1999).

middle and

of

illness,

housing,

indicators

disadvantaged.

while black ($25,400)

Employed African-American

of

ladder.

whites,

that for white males(U.S. Department of Labor 1996).

minimum

levels

why minorities

median family income for

Census

Disadvantages

Many indicators in

criminals.

are economically

$42,000,

($28,330)

helps explain

whites to havelower incomes,

relative

1998, for instance, nearly

women suff er

white women.The

classes, and are morelikely

be labeled

sure,

minority

disadvantages than

eff ect of race and ethnicity

The

men, not all wom-en

life-chance

minorities.

reviewed

above

explanations

in

related the

to next

RADICAL

THE

CAUSES

OF

CRIME:

A

RADICAL

CRIMINOLOGY

simple result of aberrant individual

VIEW

177

behavior; rather, it

is caused by structural circumstances, indicating that Crime

and

Social

the behavior

Structure

of individuals

kinds of societies in Radical

criminologists

within

societys

structural the

The

economic

idea

society

deserves other

that

knowing

the

systems

kinds

of laws

are in not

that and

but is also shaped which

the

law

claim

of crime

it

2000).

In

systems

society.

as

enforcing In this

of factors

that

of law

above,

and

well as the law

view,

which they live (Mills

address the

radicals

have

crime in capitalist

England,

Canada, and

criminologists As a result, inequalities

and

or come from

focus

studies of crime by Friedrich

on

States,

most radical

these countries. how the

characterized

capital-ism

wasinherited Engels (Marxs

who was himself a capitalist) Willem Bonger.

set

eff orts

societies (United

and processes that

criminologist

1959).

analyses of crime explore

produce crime. This

by the

hypothesis their

Australia),

work in radical

broader

concentrated

explaining

coauthor,

found

class, racial,

for

it

requires

society,

out

kinds

of crime crime

in that

by the forms

is

the

stratification

of economic,

result

to and

the

explaining

in that

the

society social

of

is organized,

mechanisms

operation

simply

one the

Groves

and amounts

operate

crime

a variety

amount

and

gender

kinds

of

gives rise to

way a society

kinds

with

and

society. Thus,

about

gender

type

and

from

varies

Michalowski

shapes the

within

is

gets the

racial,

causes contain

vary

crime

of a society

words, the

contains,

that

which

(Lynch,

of economic,

the

Societies

that

features

a

the

structure.

inequalities,

next.

that

locate

Rather than

is greatly influenced

from

the

friend

and

and the

Dutch

We briefly review

their

work below, updating their view where necessary. This review is cursory and omits

manysubsequent studies

by radical criminologists.

crime

cause

crime,

and the

ways in

FRIEDRICH

ENGELS

enforced.

In 1845, Engels published Macro

versus

Micro

a study of the English

class, which included

Explanations

work-ing

his observations on crime.

Whatfollows is a description of Engels observations Typically,

traditional

theories

of crime

employ

a micro-level

and some background information sense

perspective crime. to

In

contrast,

examine

level

preference

argue

that

it is

society

without

radical

analyses

and

very

why individuals employ

criminal in

for

macro-level to

examining of crime

for

the level

rates in the

the

see

with

States

(Lynch, Lynch,

one

that

class survives

labor

in and have

Groves,

sells.The lowest

maximize

profits.

the

Inequality,

and

costs

capitalists

Crime

labors.

purchase labor

The

because ap-plied class

class wants to purchase labor

at the

Historically,

waslabor-saving

the

work-ing

the capitalist

and

most important

manufacturing Structure,

that

produces the products

capitalist

reducing

Connecting

one

by selling its labor to the capitalist need to

Machinery intensifies

Groves 2000).

and

possible price, and it suppresses labor

writing, labor

Michalowski,

owns

class. Capitalists

radicals of crime

United

classes:

social,

behaviors,

predictions review,

to its

explanations,

individuals

accurate

how

Consistent

predict

make

As noted, capitalist society contains two primary

models

and

relates

structures.

possible

1994;

off ending

needed to

observations.

commit

macro-level

a society

economic

their

Lizotte

of

found

and

produced

examine radicals

rates

of crime

cultural,

and

to

of those

number

labor, of

when Engels

was

means of suppressing technologymachinery. making it workers

process. Technological

by lowering

costs to

more efficient,

required

in

the

advances benefit

the cost of doing business. In

contrast, technological advances negatively impact the Radicals extensive and than

hypothesize networks

gender)

that

of economic

inequality

more equal

societies

societies.

characterized

(class)

will have higher For radicals,

crime

working class. First, these advances decreasethe num-ber

(race

of jobs as machinelabor replaces human laborers,

of crime

generating an unemployed population that wereferred

and social levels

by

is not the

to

earlier as the surplus

or

marginal population

178

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

the

Second,

generation

increases competition contributes

for

a modern example, see OConnor 1985).The result

available jobs,

which also

is a population that does not consider how their ac-tions

wages, Engels (1973,

argued that job loss and

declining

understandable

and even employed to supplement

crime is a rational

legitimate

Richard

to

Quinney (1979,

for

words, produce egoistic people, and Bonger argued that egoism

Left

(1975)

people

suggested

that

in social

came to characterize

and that

marginalize whole groups of

people is unique in the history of economic systems,

Under

systems,

competition

is

viewed as a positive force that improves generates innovations, Engels argued,

neglected

a reduction

working-class

capitalists

number

224;

short,

that

of jobs.

result

1973,

209)

from

Competition

Consequently,

over resources

201202,

wages, and the erosion

to violate the law to

more cheaply.

(1964,

an increase in the surplus

in

solidarity

for a limited

of

competing also caused

as a cause of crime the

middle

Engels demonstrated

by the

businessman classes

(1981,

how capitalism

masses (1964,

namely, that

or working classes,

acts are not treated

as crimes

criminologists focus on

by the lower classes,radicals

by businesses and corporations that escape legal or which are defined as harms and regulatory by agencies, such Commission

and the

which

quality

polices

and safety

pollution

1999;

Michalowski, crimes

Administration

and

drugs; and the which regu-lates

laws, among

Friedrichs and

Food

which regulates

Agency (EPA),

1992;

Exchange

transactions;

safety; the

(FDA),

and environmental

Lynch, these

Health

of foods

by adminis-trative are enforced

and

stock

workplace

Protection

(see Frank and Lynch

examine

Securities

Administration

Environmental

laws

oversees

Safety and

which

Drug

laws. These

as the

(SEC)

(OSHA),

produce commodities

Engels viewed competi-tion

168173),

and the

view,

an idea that

have concentrated on equally serious acts commit-ted

the Occupational negative con-sequences,

competitions

which include: population,

products,

to the lower

street crimes committed

gener-ally

and decreases prices. This

criminology,

Even though traditional

controls,

capitalist

explains

are processed by the

upper-class individuals.

radical

many harmful

hav-ing

becausethe people who committed them are power-ful.

capitalism is seen as responsible for the resulting levels behavior.

acts without

Engels emphasized

crime is not confined

among

as criminal. This

individuals

Bonger and

Although

political strength

exploitive

justice system than

Both

enhances the probability of criminal behavior. Because

criminal

all classes.

was evenly distributed

those acts treated/labeled why morelower-class criminal

attachments and a reduced stake in conformity that

of

among

enabled them to perform

with no

marginalized

suff er a reduction

capitalisms tendency to

generates crime

Bonger believed egoism

1980)

of inequitable

capitalism.

Spitzer

populations

of

example, argued that

for survival,

crime.

marginalized

writings

response to systems

alternatives

societies, in other

all classes, he noted that the powerfuls

that characterize

may turn

turn to crime

appears in contemporary

David Gordon (1971),

distribution

why marginalized

their incomes.

theme

might harm others. Capitalism

173)

wages can explain

terms)

workers increasingly

radical criminologists. and

population

to a decline in

(in rationally

This

of a surplus

1996;

others Simon

Groves 2000).

We

below.

49). In

gener-ates CORPORATE

crime. In capitalist systems, crimes are typically

CRIME

committed to survive and enhance profit and are the by-product of intense competition and individualism.

In 1992, the Justice Department estimated that street crime costs approximately sum pales in comparison

WILLEM

BONGER

in

dividual

billion; Bonger (1916), like competitive that

capitalist

Engels, argued that

spirit

in-tense

produces crime. Bonger argued

systems socialize

as individuals

capitalisms

and to look

estimates

themselves

(for

governmental of lost

damage to

people to view them-selves billion. out for

corporate

work

buildings

$18 billion. This

to the costs of the following

crimes:

business frauds$400

frauds$164 time

billion;

due to illness,

associated

Recently, Reiman (1998)

costs of corporate

substantial

and EPA

diseases,

and

with pollution$23 estimated

crime at $1 trillion,

the total

nearly 60 time

RADICAL

the

cost

of

all

street

crimes

committed

in

the

CRIMINOLOGY

179

dismantled safety equipment designed to prevent the

United

leak of deadly gases at its production facility.

States!

Monetarily, it is clear that society

much

more than street

crimes are also and injuries the

corporate

and

Lynch

1992).

workplace injures

(Lynch,

Michalowski,

surgeries

and inadequate

and

10,000

greater

of a violent

Groves 2000).

crime

Unnecessary

(Reiman

1998,

been prevented if corporations 100,000

that

leak occurred

at that

as many as 200,000 1988).

plant, killing

1990s during testimony that to their

Nalla, and

executives

Miller

have keep secret

since 1955, and in the early

before

Congress, they argued

knowledge tobacco

1996). The

A gas

2,500 and injuring

people (Lynch,

Tobacco company

evidence of tobaccos toxicity

pharmaceutical

wassafe (Glantz

firm

Wyeth-Ayerst

et al. was one

of two companies to produce and sell FEN/PHEN, diet drug, even though indicated

pre-ventable

could

had followed

as

7880).

people die each year from

workplace accidents (injuries

while another

For example,

medical care cause twice

many deaths as homicides Approximately

deaths

are 11 times

than the odds of being the victim

costs

But corporate

more violent, causing extensive

(Frank

odds of

crime.

crime

Michalowski,

the law),

drug and its compounds

and

Groves 2000).

and chemical

people die due to preventable

30 years of re-search

severe health consequences associated

with the use of the

have

evidence from

a

companies

(Lynch,

Many pharmaceuti-cal

knowingly

sell products

diseasescontracted in the workplace(deaths that could

banned in the United States (to protect public health

have been prevented if corporations

had protected

and safety) to other countries that lack strict drug and

workers

Kramer

chemical regulations (Silverman,

from

toxic

substances;

see

1984).

Together, these deaths, which corporations allow by their inactions, arefour times higher than the number of

homicides

known

in

the

United

deaths and injuries,

by the

marketing

households pesticides,

In

addition

of unsafe foods,

and the

et

al.

to

1996;

1996;

injuries

and

of tobacco

Friedrichs

criminological now

knowingly

endanger

the

cause are accidents.

neglect of this form

1996;

chemicals to reach the should suffice to

This

corporate

products and dangerous

are

collisions

could

(Cullen,

staff at CBSs 60

unearthed

that

Ford

evidence

Mustangs produced had evidence have surfaced

the 1970s. In

of this

a similar

more reprehensible

William

1984 in

Bhopal, India,

street

ways Gibbs

1997; Simon

corporate

executives

and death

crimes

such acts

because the

Young, Ian

criminologists

Schwendinger,

Chambliss,

Paul

Taylor, and

Paul

Tony

on

the

behavior

of

the

Walton, among

of corporate

lower

crimes

criticized

classes (e.g., see Inciardi

Similar

Union

excluded

classes.

Carbide

an

discussed

this

explanation

These

the

radicals

of crime and

work,

which

reveals

Taylor,

book,The to explaining

that

above.

approach,

of the

this

of radical criticism

Traditional

arguing

crimes

of

1980). This

based upon a narrow reading

allega-tions example, in

others,

questioned

wereresponsible for redirecting attention toward the

Maakestad, and

GM produced

Quinney, Platt, Jock

definition of crime, whichthey saw asnarrowly focused

Minutesrecently plagued

including

Richard

Takagi,

perspective that

it

problem

design flaw. cars

Karliner

gain. For radicals,

than

Herman and Julia

criminologists

cause

during the 1960s, and that

concerning

1996;

that

In the early 1970s, radical

Motor Company

Cavander 1987). The

Ford

various

Friedrichs

sought to broaden our understanding

In the 1970s, executives at Ford

gas tank leaks and explosions

health in

1992;

other

corporations

place people at risk of injury

execu-tives advanced a theoretical

marketplace. A few examples

rear-end

that

purposefully

excuse

makethis point.

that

public

Lynch

for the sake of economic

kinds allowed Pintos to be produced even though they pos-sessed evidence

show

cases establish

deaths and

of violence. It is

however, that

knowingly allow faulty

that

1999). These

violence has been employed to legitimize

well established,

exist

of

scope of harm is so much greater.

we have assumed that

corporations

for corporate

cases

1995; Feagin and Lavelle 1996;

herbicides

Simon 1999; Frank and Lynch 1992). Typically,

documented

Lee, and Lydecker

1982). Thousands

drugs, cosmetics,

Feagin and Lavelle 1996;

Gibbs

Shapiro

(see Frank and

aggressive advertising 1997;

these

Weir and

others are caused

countless

chemicals, life-threatening

and alcohol (Karliner Glantz

States.

1982;

the

criticism

street crimes;

was

criminologists has

no

merit.

Walton, and Youngs (1973)

New Criminology,

that lower

was devoted almost Chambliss (1964)

For

classical wholly work o

180

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

delinquency and vagrancy included clear examples of explanations of lower-class crime; and Julia

Schwendinger

and

Richard

attention

to

(1970,

1985),

Quinney (1980) explaining

also devoted significant

lower-class

Colvin and Pauly 1983;

Herman and

Tony Platt (1978),

crimes

(see also

Greenberg 1985, 1993;

of crime, namely, how law-making

and enforcement,

which are also products of contextual factors, shape crime.

In

addition,

our

crime (for corporate 1999; Lynch,

discussion

is

limited

crime, see Friedrichs

Michalowski, and

to

street

1996; Simon

Groves 2000).

Hagan

1994). It is not possible to review each of these views here. Instead,

we present a unified radical

of crime that draws on ideas (rather contained

explanation

BACKGROUND

FACTORS

RADICAL

than specific theo-ries)

FOR

A

CONTEXTUALIZED

EXPLANATION

OF

CRIME

in the work of radical criminologists. The

United States is a capitalist

society

based on inher-ently

unequal class divisions that translate into THE A

CAUSES

UNIFIED

OF

CRIME:

RADICAL

abilities

APPROACH

to

culturally

access political

valued goods.

anomie, radicals

Crime is not caused by one factor, but rather by many forces coming together.Thus, to explain crime, theories styles capable of shifting across diff erent levels of associated

that is, theories

with

racial, and gender structures

level

Mertons theory

cultural

class,

aff ect crime rates in a given

Radicals, however, have also examined

other levels

intermediary

of analysis

(institutional)

social

and Pauly 1983), group structures Schwendinger

1985), cultural

Sanders

1995),

1998).

Contemporary

structures

(Schwendinger

conditions

and individual

level

radicals

Radicals

call

modelcontextual

this

kind

of

on

Lynch 1990).The term contextual

(Barak

each level to

one

relational

1959;

Groves and

analysis meansto

expect certain

Consequently, most Americans havesimilar life goals. to

Not all U.S. citizens,

attain

class into

culturally

however, possess the ability

prescribed

which anindividual

that

a person

and institutions

that those from courses that

goals. The

wealth, power,

as pathways to success. In the

popular

theory

of crime,

maximize success and

minimize the prob-ability

of engaging in crime and being labeled (Sampson Class

not

good education

the

sole

determinant

of

is also a means to success.

its initial

entry into the public educational system.

of a number

Americas cultural provide the crime.

and economic context

Before beginning,

statements.

of radical

broad

which

we off er the following

First, due to space limitations,

omits an important

related

system. These

against

experienced

upon

better schools

criminologists.

observations

to

condi-tions

we explain qualify-ing

are likely

outdated), worsestates

whereteachers can select assign-ments,

teachers are

with more facilities

choose assignments

in lower-class

morelikely

to choose

and are less likely to public schools.

Not

only are these schools deprived of resources and better teachers, they suff er from learning.

attending our dis-cussion

aspect of radical theories

with

Lower-class public schools havefewer resources, such

of repair. In addition,

with several

Here, too,

beginning

and libraries, and physically they are in

We begin

A

class is at a disadvantage,

of macro-intermediary, and micro-level structures and

the insights

success.

the lower

conditions.

draws

criminal

and Laub 1993). is

as computers, textbooks (that

model of crime

we can say

higher social classes have preferable life

place crime in its context, which radicals see as a mix

Our contextualized

higher the

is born, the greater likeli-hood

will have access to

acting

of another

and

mixed levels

multilevel,

analysis (Mills

and

(Ferrell

conditions

rely

of analysis to explain crime, relating another.

(Colvin

to

rewards and the attainment of socially desirable posi-tions.

terms

aff ect crime, including

of

values are widely

culturally valued goals is not. To paraphrase Merton,

Macro-level theory is an example of one kind of

of analysis.

how

macro-level theoriz-ing;

about how social, economic,

purchase

shared within a society, while the ability to achieve

analysis (Groves and Lynch 1990). Radical criminol-ogy is primarily

and to

Following

argue that

mustincorporate a wide variety of explana-tory U.S. society socializes citizens

of crime

society.

power

varying

environments

For example, evidence indicates lower-class

in school (Rusk

inconducive

that students

schools are less likely

1995).

Empirical

to

to succeed

evidence also note

RADICAL

that schools in poor neighborhoods are morelikely to

be situated

chemicals

near

known

(Lynch

the

to

waste

wealth

attend,

sites

negatively impact

and Stretesky

Parental

children

hazardous

has

their

children

schools.

attend

Across the

schools

success

that

hierarchy

have,

For ex-ample,tells resort

can opt to send them to private

that

establishes enhances

of the elite.

a life course

access

to

Entry into

and better jobs later in life. This

same kind of

characterizes

and colleges,

U.S. universities

the

the

more

than

$20,000

annual

tuition

costs

at

manystate

The

kinds

of

schools

of the

structural

society. Young children attendthat

is

children

attend

location

are

a

in

cannot choose the school they

determined

by where their

parent(s)

as

an

alternative

conditions

the

in

mid-1970s

States. This

chances

are intergenerational

circumstances

of their

Race and ethnicity life

chances

for

success.

States is characterized

depend

upon the

impact

also have important Earlier,

we noted

impacts

that

the

by a system of institutionalized whites, blacks, and

racism

limits

minorities

Hispanics. life

chances

racial

diff erences

minorities

chances

chances

can

restructuring

decades.

be traced

in the

transformation

to

United

had its

great-est

on urban minorities who, because of past wereclosely tied to entry-level

manufacturing jobs in inner cities (Frank and Cook 1995;

Wilson 1996). As the economy shifted

manufacturing to service provision and jobs

were eliminated,

minorities

manu-facturing

were most

hard hit. Further, the late 1970s and early 1980s also

marked by an economic

unemployment

power

(Box

recession

1987). That

and increased was also

toward

inflation

by a general tendency

and

Ironically,

wages (a decline in purchasing

wages; Frank and

Cook 1995). In recent

has increased,

throughout

attainment

rose,

remained

this

while

constant

in educational

were

period

but largely

sectors, and has had its greatest impact

on

United

they

mechanisms

participation.

employment discrimination,

years, employment

parents.

racism that segregates Institutionalized

and

life

to crime

goods society

market

As noted,

economic

economic

and a decline in relative

childrens

at odds

And sometimes

to

life

accompanied

Thus,

resort

also impact

minorities

a form

discrimination.

American

achieve the goals

means of obtaining

can aff ord to live or by other factors such as redlining, of housing

to

sometimes

participation.

decline

con-sequence

of children

in

for success have decreased over the past two

from

universities.

who fail

measures of success.

crime

in criminal

of life

beliefs are clearly

have excluded them from

most prestigious schools in our nation, compared

to the $3,000 to $4,000 it costs to attend

People

Economic

and only those with adequate economic resources can aff ord

to

in-stitutions The

educational

structure

by our society

us are

private

or pathway to

better

point.

as an alternative

with the schools

States, numerous

The

and its ideological

promoted

schools

options.

dissatisfied

cater to the children

these schools

the

more wealth parents

United

be successful.

on this on

181

American culture promotes the belief that any-one

can

pro-cessessociety

cognitive

eff ects

greater the choice in schooling parents

time,

contain

1999).

clear

and the

affluent

that

CRIMINOLOGY

period,

white

(Carnoy

attainment,

in low-wage

on whites.

black educational

educational

1994).

attainment

Despite this

black employment

rise

did not

for success. Proportionate to their representation in the

expand as rapidly as white employment,

population,

income fell relative to whiteincome (Carnoy 1994).

more blacks and Hispanics are poor than

whites, and fewer attend college or earn high school degrees.In addition, blacks and of institutionalized Further,

although

chances for them, minorities

Thus,

success than

lower-class have

(and fewer

classes have morelimited people from

within chances

it is not surprising

that

other for

being a member of a particular

classes above classes

success

than

as

well)

whites.

minorities are morelikely

to engage in street crimes compared to

the life chances a person

whites.

whites. In sum,

class structures

has for success.

(aff ects)

At the same

profit,

owners

of productive

in corporate downsizing, shifting

Hispanicsface forms

racism that do not impact the lower

To increase

while black forces

en-gaged

manufacturing

to foreign nations andincreasing the use oftechnology in the

manufacturing

sector.

Each of these economic

changes reduced the

number

of well-paying jobs and

elevated

unemployment.

especially in

cities

human

detrimental like

Detroit,

labor

on

of unemployment 30 percent.

These to where

automobile for

young

Crime among this

conditions

have been

African-Americans, machine

labor

assembly black

and replaced

lines,

rates

males are nearly

population

is also high

182

CRIME

In

AND

the

BEHAVIOR

modern

era,

the

contraction

of

manufactur-ing

the criminal justice system (though this cannot be done

extended unemployment until increased employ-ment without analyzing patterns of discrimination). was generated The

creation

could with

of newly

not find the

rise

in

crime

populations

employment

that

broadest

themselves

service industries.

marginalized

meaningful

1980s. In the find

by expanding

occurred

sense,

in

the

detached from

making a contribution

Spitzer (1975)

noted, these populations

conformity,

which

means

of

process impacts those

whose

makes crime

survival.

It

should

employed

economic

has

to society.

As

lack a stake in alterna-tive

noted

declined

and increased

that

this

due

to

It

bears

mention

corresponds in the

use of technology,

noted,

that

the

recent

decline

in

analysis

rates

have

misses the

increased

in

opportuni-ties In

have suggested that

United

States

since

can be illustrated environmental

Recent analysis suggests that there is little between rising rates of incarceration

The

correlation

In sum, by examining United

patterns and trends in crime

changes in the social and economic country.

Crime,

or self-reports, the

middle

whether

structure

minorities relative to

to

of the

measured by official statistics

is higher among the lower or upper

classes, and is

among

whites. Crime is also higher in and social capital,

such as school resources (Hagan evidence

demonstrates

processes that Groves, and economic crime

generate Lizotte

inequality,

trends.

that

Other

a manufacturing

indicate

related

to

(Lynch,

unemployment,

are also related that

the

shift

that

minimize

these economic

conditions

on minorities,

which

why these groups are overrepresented

in

a constant

that occur criminology and

is

widely associated

with envi-ronmentally

and is often employed

gimmick.

Framed

more broadly,

natural

resource

conservation

and

mostextreme level, being green

human

and

environmental

harms.

This

movement began to take shape in the early 1960s fol-lowing of

Rachel Carsons (1962)

book,

Silent Spring, and green

movements grew out of

general

concerns

environmental

the 1960s and 1970s. By the had

ethnicity,

been formed, connecting

in how

that

1980s, the green

environmental

racism

aff

pollution,

(toxic

the

dumps).

location

of

also

For example, examined

environmental

Vandana Shiva (1988)

role of women as activists in green

race,

that

criminologists.

Dixie, Robert Bullard (1990) ected

move-ment

theoretical

class, and gender inequalityareas

Dumping in

more

characterized

encompassing

hold concerns for radical

haz-ards

exposed the

movements.

More

recently, economist James OConnor (1998) called for of environmental

race-based (red) analysis.These

(green), class-and works signaled the

emergence of a perspective that

exposed how the

negativeimpacts of environmental pollution stem from oppressive and unequal race, class, ethnic structures

that characterize

In

years,

take

from

in

is a political commitment to clean production practices

to

to a service economy also had an im-pact

greatest negative impact

helps explain

are

of profit

and that

and poverty studies

1994). Empirical rates

high rates

1994)

on crime. Importantly, had their

crime

are

green meansshowing concern for the con-nection

urban areas, especiallyin regions marked by the great-est an integration declines in capital investment

OF

green theorizing

products

advertising

thinking

rather than

higher

by examining

friendly as an

explanations

States, we see that they correspond

crime

nature of radical

concept green

and crime (Irwin

and Austin 1994; Lynch 1999).

in the

STUDY

justice research.

publication

1972.

of

changing

human welfare. At its

crime

mark because imprisonment the

THE

JUSTICE

state of change, adapting to transformations

these declines are due to rising rates of imprisonment. This

DIRECTION:

theories

between

manufacturing and service industries. criminologists

radical

in society. The

Grovesand Lizotte 1994).

with increased employment

contrast, traditional

As

eco-nomic

contributing to conditions that could propel them to commit crime (Lynch,

NEW

workers are

be

A

ENVIRONMENTAL

and

where they

an attractive also

TOWARDS

workers as well, especially

status

transformation

1970s

marginalized

in social conditions

who

corresponds

recent

1997;

One example environmental 1999;

South

of this

U.S. society.

criminologists

green issues seriously

Cliff ord

1998;

and gender

(Frank South

have

begun

and Lynch and

concern involves

Beirne

Stretesky

and

Hogan

1998;

1992; 1998).

the study

justice (see Lynch and Stretesky Stretesky

to

of

1998, an

RADICAL

Lynch 1999). Environmental justice examines whether

CRIMINOLOGY

183

processes and to act aslobbyists and consultants on

environmental harms(e.g., pollution, toxic wastedump-ing) avoiding compliance with existing regulations. Between are distributed

evenly

among social

groups,

or

whether specific groups are overexposed to these harms. Radicals are interested relate to environmental polluters

in four

harmful

which corpo-rate

power through

production,

dangerous,

distribution,

and

corporations

engage in,

and the social control

responses (if any) these activities environmental

gender;

victimization

and (4) solutions injustice.

elicit; (3) patterns

related

to the

to

race,

class,

John

employ

industries

former

recommended

refute all studies

of and

capricious

(CPSC).

that

by CPSC

actions;

former

use legislation

the chemical

to claims

chemical industry

use

for arbitrary

and

personnel

who

made by industry;

to stall

CPSCs

progress;

CPSC hearings.

also uses lawsuits

against

industry

with its own research;

and lobbying

strategic lawsuits

Consumer

In his new role,

win over government

are already sympathetic

The

maintain their

136

head of the

Safety Commission

Byington

hired

officials (Feagin and Lavelle 1996) includ-ing

of environ-mental and hire attorneys to attend

problem

manytactics to

chemical

Byington,

Product

Weexplore these points below.

Corporations

1995,

CPSC rules to sue the government

waste disposal practices; (2) the types of environmental crimes

and

government

primary issues that

justice: (1) waysin

maintain their

environmentally

1990

(SLAPPs:

public participants)

to harass

power and protect their economic positions. Of prime

public interest groups that push for industry regulation

importance

(Rebovich 1998). In addition,

are legislative lobbying

(e.g., attempts to

derail legal protections that limit behaviors

that

aff ect the

harmful corporate

environment

and

humans)

destructive industries

and pollution

(Karliner and

harms as minimal or nonexis-tent

1997; Feagin and Lavelle 1996; Stauber

Rampton

1995).

processes.For example,in the 1970s and 1980s,

donated

nearly

candidates

companies

nine

(Feagin

million and

and their

1996,

Representative

Charles

legislation

to forbid

governments

local

pesticides. If implemented, the additional

have traditionally above and

beyond federal

Charles Stenholm,

contributions,

124).

from

regulat-ing

this legislation local

pesticide

regulations.

also a recipient

One

Hatcher, introduced

protection

applied to

employees

dollars to congressional

Lavelle

recipient,

eliminate

would

governments

Representative

of chemical industry

criminologist

David Simon (1999,

for the interests the

government

in

various

dumping)

25

million

United

poor, the

of school mentally

122): Who

speaks

minority

groups,

children, retarded,

short, for the relatively environmental

regulations

Another successful industry governmental regulatory

employees, agencies, to

powerless

where

tactic is hiring former

especially former gain insight

into

heads of regulatory

of illegal

chemical

people

EPA

estimates

market advantage

dumping

(e.g.,

midnight

waste. Combined,

dump sites place an estimated

at risk

of disease

estimated

that

contain illegally

making

Many also engaged

dispose of hazardous

and

sites) is

criminological

90 percent

dumped

death in

cost for cleaning

Superfund

is an important

of all

hazardous

the

up the

$100

mil-lion.

issue since the Superfund

sites

waste.

Our society has become so reliant on dangerous chemicals that nearly everyoneis exposed to some type of environmental hazardin his daily life.

However, mi-norities

and the poor are disproportionately

exposed

to a wider variety, and higher concentrations, of toxic hazards and

because

dump

sites

live

Moses 1993;

of

class

to the

1990;

Krieg 1995;

Medicine 1998;

and

chemical

closer

1996; Stretesky

arguments race

toxic are

(Bullard

Ringquist

are at issue?

1999).

worst of these sites (EPA

they migrant-workersin

renters,

(Simon

States.The

This

admitted

secret funds to for-eign

officials to gain a

forms to

legal and illegal

close connection between corporations and gov-ernment raises an interesting question posed byradical

payments from

over competitors

pushed legislation to allow manufactur-ers

to sue the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

and oil companies

millions in illegal

manufacturing

for undue economic hardship caused by the agency. This

several chemical

For example, between 1979 and

1995, twelve chemical

have employed criminal tactics

to influence legislation and other environmental regu-latory

and the production of scientific evidence that depicts chemical

many environmentally

production

facilities

communities

in

Mohai and

Bryant

1992;

Pollack and

Vittas

1994;

and

Stretesky

Hogan 1998; Institute and

Lynch

are often off ered to explain this bias

which

1999).

Two

pattern

of

184

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

One argument minorities live because

suggested that in

aff ected

and attract the economically

is

Existing

explanations

are

Stretesky and argument, of

or

impoverished.

evidence

wanting.

suggests that

Radicals (Stretesky

Hogan 1998)

economic

waste

sites

characteristics

the following

off ered by Cerrell

does

of

policy for

both 1996;

have countered the choice

waste production

placing

likelihood

not

alter

an area.

the

Also,

of contracting

Because facility

with

hazardous

evenly

distributed

facili-ties

to the State of

[disposal]

their opposition [A]...

great deal of time,

resources

could

by knowing

companies

look

neighborhoods

for lower

chemicals

of injustice

found

adverse impacts

in

officials

if any, commercial

higher ... [class] neighborhoods within

the

one-mile

and

contain

placement

of

Given this advice, it should

well known

produces

activity

should

lower-class

minority communities.

how race and class waste facilities. that

Because hazardous

waste siting decisions disproportionately

injustice.

and

waste

of heavy

met-als,

impacts

on

aff ect

wastefacilities

contaminants.

to

pesticides

may explain

and homicides)

study

why rates of are higher in

of environmental

for

social

mechanism for

justice

transformation

dealing

waste is the result

produced.

none)

It is

(and lead)

minority communities.

need

of hazardous

even

will turn to crime

hazardous

In

with crime

of the

of the

many

un-derscores as

To alarge degree, the production

currently

affect the

poor, they are also likely to disproportionately

have

of hazardous substances and

which

these facilities are disproportionately found in lower-class alternative production and

also

Many hazardous

of pesticide

crime (assaults

Finally, the

radius

come as no surprise

sites

high levels

overexposure

aggression,

violent

not

that

the

hazardous

waste

that these children

also have high levels

appropriate

aff ect the

short,

can be predicted

which have detrimental

the probability

of the proposed site. (43, 117)

Cerrells siting advice illustrates

In

not

exists. Second, some of

on behavior.

as they grow up. In addition,

and

Middle and

five-mile

are

may,in turn, aff ect their progressthrough life, enhanc-ing

socioeconomic

place disposal facilities]...

fall

population.

hazardous

the unequal distribution

that are... heavily industrial-ized...

with little, [to

the

associated

States

the race and class of an area, an institu-tionalized system

the

be saved and

avoided if

United

childrens poor school performance may be a result of

middle and upper socioeconomic

and planning

the

meansthat some portion of minority and lower-class

facilities,

strata possessesbetter resource to eff ectuate

problems

to the geography

childrens learning abilities and behavior. In brief, this

All socioeconomic group[s] ... resent the

political

in

among

such as lead,

but the

diseases and illnesses.

is linked

chemicals

disposal facilities

of ...

certain

proximity

of race and class, the health consequences

consider

waste-to-energy

Associates (1996)

racial

California:

nearby siting

and disposal sites increases the

that the place-ment because adverse health consequences

off ering data demonstrating hazardous

A second

of these facilities

are important

for a number of reasons. First, proximity to hazard-ous

areas are inexpensive

holds that the placement

unplanned.

Studies of environmental justice

poor and

near hazardous waste sites by choice

properties

argument

the

an

and

and disposal way things

manufacturing

are

areas,

methods that generate less (or

toxins

that

result

from

current

pro-duction

practices already exist. But, corporations avoid these alternatives becausethey are more costly, and

minorities. Interestingly, studies funded by the toxic

show little concern for the general publics health. In

waste industry

short,

hazardous

find

no relationship

waste siting

(e.g.,

Our own independent utilizing

several

waste production; and locales United race

eff ect.

Anderton

assessments diff erent

et al. 1994).

of this relation-ship,

data sets (hazardous

waste disposal; chemical

(Tampa,

States),

between race and

accidents)

Florida; the State of Florida; the

however,

demonstrated

a consistent

the

waste

problem

production

margins.These the

human

and

is that and

profit

corporations

disposal

make

decisions

based

current

environmental

that

profit-oriented

characterizes

the

on profit

margins exclude calculations harms

these

generate. There is a clear need to de-emphasize the basis for decision

hazardous

making, a difficult social United

and States

task

economic

of

practices

profit as within the structure

RADICAL

POLICY

consistent

IMPLICATIONS

CRIMINOLOGY

185

with policies offered by both radical and

traditional criminologists for reducing crime. Radicals that

are

would

work

often reduce

radicals

to reduce

crime

for

grasp the

central

the

economic

will thus the

of these

policies

Examples

of radical

25 years,

crime

Solutions

to

crime

for

reduce

communities past.

Rather

locations

for

educated

global

(and,

that

if

sensitive

Many such as profitable

techniques

stability

to helps

communities

and

the

U.S.

and

produces

people economy,

fewer

to

coerced)

reinvest

as studies

have shown,

is

part

of the

whether or not to engagein unlawful activities.

CONCLUSION

This

chapter

one form

has reviewed

of critical

Much more could have

been

investigate

be written written

discussion. Thus,

the

central ideas

theorizing,

on

radical

on this topic, materials

behind

criminology. and

omitted

whole

from

our

for those of you who are intrigued we have presented,

radical

and critical

by

wesuggest that you

criminology

further,

di-gest

these ideas, and compare them to those off ered by

in

traditional

as

concerning the appropriateness of each of these views.

criminology

and reach your own conclusions

must be

REFERENCES

prac-tices

local

of

which

producing is the eco-city,

activity,

These

and,

environmental some

deprived

pollutants.

corpo-rate

to see these

polluting

decreases

broad social and economic

In the case of corporate crime, this strategy makessense

in

from

production

exist,

their

is

In response,

crime is to increase the penalties for these off enses.

any of the ideas

produc-tion

One example

now

waste

executives

economic

more punishment. There

changes, the only wayto protect the public from

books

communities

minimizing

1997).

to

(Roseland

to

for local

to

local

of toxic

resources

as traditional,

enhances

attach

fails,

sites

these

reorganizating

alternatives

(Roseland

which

disposal

minority

education

for

has been criti-cized

of this criticism.

without

past

by environmentalists

communities

view

to

also be connected

waste, corporate

as viable are

damages.

than

punishment

calculations corporate executives make when deciding

women.

remedy

withdrawn

radicals argue that

offered by makers.

in lower-class

corporations

have

the

among

therefore,

and

with policies

suggestion

because it argues for

Lynch,

Many,such

as well as policy

suggest equalizing

justice

1998;

commu-nities,

over

also

should

criminal

Reiman

are consistent

policy

restructuring

States

requires

toxic

communities

economic

minority

they

minority

developed

strategy forcing

and

and

production

be shown

the

(see

off enders. This

economic Economic

can

numerous

becausethe motivation for corporate off ensesis clearly

inability

follow.

that

to increase

policies

and

1997). This and

the

must,

change

the

crime.

United

has tended

in lower-class

base,

the

These

programs

reduce

jus-tice

altering

no denying the accuracy

crime.

of criminal general

policies

communities

inequalities.

are just

crime

policy

on reducing

the

of crime

During

in

minority

impact

and

off ered

Groves 2000 for review).

radicals

corporate

to

namely,

justice

eff ectiveness

lower-class

women.

occurred

aff ect

social

to

criminologists

Third,

fail

in

criminal

to significantly

impact

and

located

demonstrates

is a source

diff erentially

the

of the

changes

inequality

that

have little

to

have

crime

Michalowski, and as gun-control,

institution alter

related

traditional

institutions

criminology;

are

and that

history

policy

and

of radical crime

institutions,

changes Indeed,

that

of

radical

criminologists

initiatives

process to reduce

broad-scale

involve

would

traditional

idea

causes

First,

systemthe

criminologists

the

initiatives

with

that

justice

As a result,

that

of reasons.

changes

most traditional crime.

neglect

policy

deal

Second, radicals

off er policies

criticisms

often

criminal

to

on

a variety

economic

of the

Such

undertaken

policies

and

outside

of failing

crime.

have

criminological social

accused

of an

provides

Anderson

work.

and

are

P.

Race,

H.

Class

Collins

and

(eds.).

E.

Andy, P. Rossi, J.

Oakes,

Calabrese.

Hazardous

Environmental

unemployment,

Shortchanged:

In

Restructuring Gender.

M.

Belmont,

L.

CA:

Wadsworth.

and

communities

(1995).

Theresa.

womens

Anderton,

economic

outcomes

Amott,

Evaluation

Review,

(1994).

equity

issues

118:23140

in

M. Fraser,

E.

Weber,

waste facilities:

metropolitan

areas.

186

CRIME

Arrigo,

AND

BEHAVIOR

Bruce.

(1995).

and

criminology:

and

conceptual

The

peripheral

On

postmodern

integration.

Justice

core

of law

social

theory

Quarterly,

DeKeseredy,

DiMaggio,

12,

Gregg. (1998).

Allyn and Bartlett,

Integrating

Criminologies.

Bacon.

Went

Wrong?

Kansas

City,

America:

MO:

Andrews

and

Willem.

Conditions.

(1916).

Boston:

Stephen. London:

Criminality

Little,

(1987).

and

Engels,Fredrick.

Brown.

Recession,

and

of

random

The drug

media

and

violence.

the

Social

con-struction

Justice,

_____.

(1996). The

Rise and Fall of a Violent

Wave: Crack Cocaine and the Social Problem. _____.

NY:

The

Robert.

Little,

Harvard

Houghton Cerrell

Associates.

Class

MA:

Spring.

New

York:

Political

Conversion

Difficulties

Plant Siting.

Los

Facing Angeles:

A

sociological

analysis

of

Social Problems, 12:6777.

and

Robert

Seidman. MA:

(1982).

Law,

and

Responsibility.

Gaithersburg,

Social

Toward

Frank,

an

delinquency

MD:

A

integrated

critique

of crimi-nology:

American

Elliott

Problems.

and

(1996).

Toxic

Manipulates

Endangers

Your

Health.

Sanders

(eds.).

(1998).

(1995).

Cultural

University Will

Press.

comparative

wage discriminiation?

worth

The

Review

of

Economics. 30(3):1424.

and

Michael J. Lynch.

Corporate

Violence.

(1992).

Albany,

Corporate

NT-Harrow

and

Robert and

Friedrichs,

Phillip

Whythe

Under

Little,

Winner Take

Get So

Much

More

Restof Us. New York: Penguin. David

O. (1996).

Trusted

Criminals.

Belmont,

Wadsworth.

Fussell, Paul. (1997).

Class. New York: Ballentine. Dying From

Dioxin. Boston,

MA: South

End.

Gibbs, Lois. (1996).

Philadelphia,

Toxic

struggles: The

justice.

PA:

E.A. (1995). in

and

G. Cavander. (1987).

Attack.

Cincinatti,

OH:

Glantz,

In Forward,

theory

and practice

R. Hofrichter

(ed.).

New Society. Childhood

Britain.

Journal

cancers: ofEpidemology

Skolnick. Brown.

(1984).

Americas

Stanton, J. Slade, L.A.

Barnes. (1996). The of

and Jerome

Cook. (1995). The Few at the Top

Space-time and

distri-bution

Community

Health. 49(2):158163.

W. Maakestad,

Boston:

political

Manuscripts

Industry

Northeastern

race-based

All Society:

Journal

Anderson.

Currie,

Frank,

Gilman,

structural-Marxist

production.

90, 3:513551.

Crime

Law,

C.R.

of environmental Mark and J. Pauly. (1983).

Corporate

of

Philosophic

Lavelle.

Chemical

Boston:

Gibbs, Lois. (1995).

Addison-Wesley. Crime: Enforcement,

of Sociology,

Class in

NJ: Carol.

Nancy

CA:

Environmental

of

of a critique

Marianne

How the

Radical Political

crime,

Working

New York: International.

and J. Lapidus.

than the

Board.

(1964).

Mary. (1997).

theory

Outlines

and

and

D.M.

reduce

Westview.

Cambridge,

Aspen.

Cullen,

Jeff

Figart,

American

D. Greenberg (ed.).

of the

Economic and

Science, Bends the

Frank,

Silent

Order and Power. Reading,

Policy

CO:

Dreams.

Race,

selection.

Capitalism.

D. Struik (ed.).

Dan

Ferrell,

capital,

Heston.

of vagrancy. William

Cliff ord,

Dixie:

Boulder,

(1996).

William.

the law

in

Press.

Management

Chambliss,

Violent

Mifflin.

Chambliss,

Colvin,

of 1844.

Criminology.

Faded

(1962).

Waste-to-Energy Waste

Violence and

Justice.

University

Rachel.

Crime

Cultural

Progress.

(1964).

Secaucus,

Reality of

Dumping

Martin. (1994).

Carson,

ofa

Heston.

Brown.

(1990).

Environmental

Carnoy,

Construction

marital

Conditions

In The

Deception:

Crime

Harrow and

Social

Boston:

Bullard, and

Albany,

(2000).

Crime.

The

economy.

Feagin,

18:85103.

success.

Mayfield.

Moscow:

_____.[1844]

Henry. (1991).

school

47:189201.

(1985).

and

Crime and

Alto, CA:

England.

Punishment.

Mohr.

and

(1981). DemoralisationoftheEnglishwork-ing

_____.(1973).

Crime

Tavistock.

Brownstein,

Palo

Economic

(1996).

of Sociology. 90:12311261.

class. In

Bonger,

Review.

J.

Schwartz.

capital

attainment

Journal

What

McMeel.

Box,

P. and

educational

D. L. and J. B. Steele. (1992).

Martin

Belmont,CA:Wadsworth.

Cultural

Sociological

DiMaggio,

Boston:

and

Criminology.

P. (1982).

American

3:447472.

Barak,

Walter

Contemporary

California

Gordon, The

Bero, P. Hanauer, and

Cigarette Papers. Berkeley:

D.E.

University

Press.

David. (1971). Class

and the economics

Review of Radical Political

of crime.

Economy, 3(3):5172

RADICAL

Greenberg,

David F. (1985). Age, American Journal

_____.(1993).

Crime

Temple

and

University

Greer, Jed and

crime and social explana-tion.

Capitalism.

Philadelphia,

W., Byron

Reconciling the

Lynch,

and

structural

study

of crime.

Delinquency. Hagan, John.

Greenwash: The

Reality

and subjective

Journal

of

appoaches

Research in

to

Crime

and

and

Sidney. (1983).

Brunswick, Stuart

Henry,

and

Constitutive London: Inciardi,

Criminology:

James

(ed).

New

of

Medicine. Research,

Washington, John

and

Toward and

National

James

Criminology:

Austin.

(1994).

Policy

Needs.

Its

About

Time:

Belmont,

CA:

(1997).

Corporate

J. (1995).

Feminism. Knox,

Homeless

in

S. Ruth (ed.).

E.G.

(1996).

cancers in

Spatial

Great

Community

America.

Palo Alto, clustering

Britain.

Journal

In

CA:

Issues in

of

and

Space-time

Leukaemia

clusters

in

interaction.

Journal

of Epidemiology

Community

Great

Britain,

1: and

Leukaemia

clusters

Geographical

analysis

Epidemiology

and

in

in

Britain.

Community

childhood:

Lynch,

of

Heston.

criminology.

In

Vol. 5. F. Adler and

Groves, and

surplus

value

Alan and

examination

Lizotte.

crime:

of

and criminology.

Primer

Monsey,

Michael

(1988).

J.,

J.

A

Marxian

Crime,

of

NY:

Thinking

Albany,

Radical

Willow

Mahesh

Bhopal.

Michalowski

in

K.

Cross-cultural

Law

and

Nalla,

of

W. Byron Third

Tree. and

perceptions

Journal

and

Criminology,

Keith

Miller.

of deviance: The

Research in

Crime

and

26(l):735.

Michael

J.

and

about

race

politics

E. and and

M.J. Lynch NY:

Harrow

Patterson.

criminal

justice. The

through

Critical

(1999). Class, on

In

E. Britt

The

Patterson

the study

Criminologist,

9(1):1,

Uniting

(eds.).

Capital,

class,

46. criminology:

dislocations

Criminologist,

(1976).

with

of environmental

race, gender, and critical

Critical

Racism,

Justice

Heston.

Milovanovics

Karl. [1867]

(1996).

justice:

academia.

and and

Britt

Michael J. and Paul Stretesky. (1998).

race and criticism

Marx,

Primer in

NY: Harrow and

empircal

(2000).

of 48(4):

Albany,

Michael J., Raymond

A comment

Journal Health.

Crime,

Change. 21:1548.

Groves.

_____.

Health. 46(6):566572.

_____.(1994).

and

recon-structions.

9(3):48. Vol. I.

New York:

International.

369376.

Knox,

theory

Lynch,

Health. 48(4):369376.

_____.(1992).

any empirical

Groves. (1989).

W. Byron

economic

Prejudice.

childhood

of Epidemology

Garland.

eff ect of imprisonment?

W. Byron

rate

stereotypes,

Mayfield.

crime.

New York: Transaction.

and

Lynch,

Sierrra.

Kozol,

The

Delinquency,

Planet. San Francisco:

and

M. Schwartz

New York:

Criminological Theory

theoretical

case

Wadsworth.

Karliner, Joshua.

gender

defense of comparative

Michael J.,

Edition.

Press.

Binge.

In

Advances in

Lynch,

Environmental

race,

Criminology.

(eds.).

a deterrent

(1995).

Social

Health

Academy

Imprisonment

The

CA: Sage.

(1998).

Education

DC:

Americas

Radical

Hills,

of

of Economics

a dead horse: Is there

Michael J. and

(1994).

Postmodernism.

Journal

Law and Social Change, 38:117.

Lynch,

(1996).

interpretation

American

Class,

Beating

W.Lafuer (eds.).

Milovanovic. Beyond

(1980).

Crisis. Beverly

Justice:

Irwin,

Dragan

J. (1996).

evidence for

Press.

Sage.

Coming Institute

a Class Society.

University

Michael

187

114.

Radical Criminology.

Disrepute. Thousand

Policing in

54:

D. Milovanovic

_____.

NJ: Rutgers

Sociology,

(1999).

Lynch,

Crime

socio-historical

Race, Class, Gender and

_____.

Oaks, CA: Pine Forge. Harring,

and

In

A

waste sites. The

and

New York; Apex.

Michael J. Lynch. (1990).

27(4):348375. (1994).

Eric. (1995).

Lynch,

Bruno. (1996).

Behind Corporate Environmentalism. Groves,

PA;

Press.

Kenny

Krieg, toxic

of Sociology, 91:121.

CRIMINOLOGY

E.G.

and of

Kramer,

cancer

Journal

(1997). in

Hazard Great

of Epidemiology

prom-itities

Britain

and

Ron.

Hills,

_____.

In

from

Community

(1984). as

Corporate

Criminals.

CA: Sage.

E.

criminality. Hochstedler

In

(ed.).

[1848]

Crime

Capitalism.

and

capital

accumulation.

D. Greenberg (ed.).

Palo Alto,

Mayfield. Karl

Communist _____.

(1981).

Crime and

CA: Marx,

51:151159.

Corporations Beverly

Gilman.

childhood

19531980. Health,

E.A.

[1846]

International

and

Fredrick

Engels.

Manifesto. Arlington (1970). The

German

[1848]

(1955).

Heights, IL: Ideology.

The

Crofts. New York:

188

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

Massey, Douglas

and

Apartheid.

Nancy

Denton.

Cambridge,

MA:

(1993).

American

Harvard

University

Messerschmidt,

James.

Crime. Totowa, _____.

(1986).

Masculinities

and

and

Crime.

Lanham,

Making.Thousand

Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ray. (1998). In

MD:

Gender, Race and

International

Environmental

Rusk,

environmental

Crime.

M. Cliff ord (ed.).

Law.

Sociological Imagination.

New

A Primer in the Sociology of

NY:

Harrow and

_____. (1995). Dueling

paradigms:

thought.

Humanity

racism:

Reviewing

Confronting Boston:

Marion.

Boston:

Modernist vs. postmod-ernist

(1992).

evidence.

Pp.

Racism,

R.

Farmworkers

Environmental

South

16178

in

Bullard

(ed.).

and

Racism.

pesticides.

In

R. Bullard

(ed.).

Accumulation

Crisis.

New York:

Natural Causes: Essaysin Ecological

York:

Perlow,

Marxism.

Super

Profits and

Crises.

New York:

Street

crime:

A view from

the left.

Philip

Boston:

(1994).

pollution? Florida. Quinney, MA:

and

Little,

Little,

Vittas.

(1979).

bears the

Race, ethnicity,

burdens

of environmental

(1979).

Brown.

and environmental

Criminology.

Quinney,

equity

in

new

(1998).

Environmental

Crime.

Richard.

Prison. Boston:

Palo Alto, CA:

and

Martin

Race,

Class, State,

crime

we should

M. Cliff ord (ed.).

University

Life.

Press.

American.

David

O.

New York:

understanding

(1994).

Friedrichs.

and criminological

B. and

Gender

(1985).

CA:

discontent:

violence.

A

Criminology,

Dragan

and

Class

Milovanovic

in

(eds.).

(1996).

Criminology.

New

York:

Subcultures

of

Delinquency.

Beverly

Hills,

Sage.

Herman

Defenders

of

and Julia

order

Berkeley:

Staying

Atlantic

Milton,

of

(1970).

human

rights?

5:113126.

Shiva, Vandana. (1988).

Silverman,

Schwendinger.

or guardians

Criminology,

P.

Lee,

University

Alive:

Women, Ecology, and

Highlands,

of

NJ: Zed.

and

Profit: The

David. (1999).

Sklar,

Holly. (1995). In

South,

re-search:

go. In

Gaithersburg,

Race, (eds.).

Nigel.

S.

Lydecker.

(1982).

Drugging of the Third

California

Elite

Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get

The

World.

Press.

Deviance.

Boston:

for

upper class and

Class

and

Belmont,

(1998).

Allyn

and

a

A

Gender. CA:

green

perspective.

mothers in the

M.

Anderson

and

Wadsworth. field

for

criminology:

Theoretical

A

Criminology,

2:211234.

South, to

Nigel and Piers Beirne. (1998). special issue:

Criminology,

Allyn and Bacon.

Crime in the

Points Through

Garland.

proposal

Environmental

Laub. (1993). Turning

Overworked

thought

metaphor for

P. Collins

Boston, (1980).

Aspen.

Reiman, Jeff rey. (1998). The

Washington,

32:221246.

hood.

New York: Longman.

Donald,

Palo

Bacon.

Social Science Quarterly, 76:294310.

Richard.

American

Press.

Issues in Feminism.

Harvard

Martin

Simon,

Where we have been, where

MD:

Criminology.

Brown.

Who

and Crime. Rebovich,

Elliot

the

S. Ruth (ed.).

Basic.

Prescription for

Crime and Social Justice, 9:2634. Pollock,

Gabriola

Without Suburbs. Center

and

MA:

Development.

International.

Tony. (1978).

Cities

Pathways

Issues in

Guilford.

Victor. (1988).

and

Feminism.

Robert J. and John

Schwendinger,

(1998).

of Social

Dimensions.

Women

Wilson

Cambridge,

_____.

End.

James. (1985).

distribution facilities.

Mayfield.

Postmodern

Blackwell.

New

_____.

Sampson,

Schwartz,

(1993).

(1995).

Shelia. (ed). (1995).

Schwartz,

Environmental

End.

Confronting

OConnor,

the

Eco-City

Schor, Juliet. (1995). The

Heston.

and Society, 19(l):l22.

Bryant.

Environmental South

Moses,

Basil

Bunyan

TRI

Mayfield.

Dragan. (1994).

Mohai, Paul and

(1997).

Woodrow

Making:

Albany,

of

78:811829.

David. (1995).

Ruth,

and the

case

In Issues in

CA:

DC:

Equity

The

New Society.

Elyce.

Alto,

Oxford.

Milovanovic,

Mark.

BC:

Rotella,

MD: Aspen.

Mills, C. Wright. (1959). The

Platt,

Roseland,

economy. Action:

Gaithersburg,

York:

and

risk:

Quarterly,

Island,

Crime as Structured

Classin the Michalowski,

Patriarchy

and Littlefield.

Littlefield.

(1997).

problems.

Capitalism,

NJ: Rowman

(1993).

Rowman

_____.

Evan. (1996).

environmental Science

Press.

_____.

Ringquist,

Spitzer,

For a green criminology.

introduction Theoretical

2:147148.

Steven. (1975). Social

Editors

Problems,

Toward 22:638651

a

Marxian theory

of devi-ance.

RADICAL

Stauber, John is

and

Sheldon

Good For You!

Stretesky,

Paul

Pathology,

Stretesky,

2(3):

(1995).

ME: Common

Toxic Sludge

Environmental

Equity?

Social

chemical

and

Hogan. (1998).

of superfund

sites in

Florida.

the

predictions in

of

Social

Environmental

distance

Hillsborough

to

County,

The

accidental Florida.

Criminology.

London:

Routledge

and

The

Keegan Paul.

New

of the States,

1998.

of

Wright,

http://

Human

Nations.

Wealth and Income

in the

www.census.gov.

Labor.

(1996).

Employment

and

U.S. http://www.dol.gov. Circle of Poison. San Francisco:

Institute.

Erik

London:

189

(1993).

United

(1999).

Shapiro. (1982).

Food

Program.

New York:

Census.

Unemployment in the

Wolff,

Walton and J. Young. (1973).

Development Reprot.

Department

Weir, and

Michael J. Lynch. (1999).

releases

I.P.

Bureau

U.S.

Environmental

Social Science Quarterly, 80:830843. Taylor, Ian,

U.S.

United

Michael

Paul and

Nations

Development

45:268287.

justice

United

Courage.

293298.

An analysis

Problems,

Stretesky,

B. (1996).

Paul and

justice:

Rampton.

Monroe,

CRIMINOLOGY

Olin. (1978). New

Edward

Class,

Crisis

and the

State.

Left.

N. (1995).

Increasing

Inequality

Twentieth

Century

of Fund

Top

Heavy:

Wealth in Press

A Study

America.

of the

New York:

CHAPTER IX

Feminist

and

Gender

Theorie

FEMINIST

CRIMINOLOGY

Susan F. Sharp

C

riminology

has traditionally fields

and theory

been one of the

of study in the social sciences. The

have been based on the study of

system responses to

maleoff enders.

to adhere to traditional

majority of the research

male criminality

and criminal

justice

ways, with a focus on their failure

models of appropriate female behavior, as in

research,

using official records

failure to consider important

bringing

criminologists

national

justice seek to

Feminist

used in feminist

of feminist

has been a

criminology

of both

place gender at the center the

criminology;

criminological

both in scholarship

result

pathways into

crime,

seeks to

male and female

system responses to their crimes. of the

discourse,

world into the scholarship

on crime,

and responses to crime. In the following

the emergence

surveys. The

male and female

our understanding

womens ways of understanding

criminality,

hasfocused on objective empirical

and punishments.

by enhancing

off ending as well as criminal Feminist

and large

diff erences in

of crime, victimization,

address this limitation

the range

research;

and the

sections, the focus of perspectives maturing

will be on

and

of feminist

methods criminol-ogy,

and in visibility.

THE

SCOPE

It is readily apparent that those deemedimportant

OF

FEMINIST

CRIMINOLOGY

malesdo indeed commit far

more offenses, especially

to criminology, than females do (see Daly & Chesney-Lind

1988).This focus has beenin part dueto the relationship of criminology legislative

and corrections

understanding

of

commit

crimes that

systems. The

why people commit

to reduce those crimes.

Thus,

W.I.

(1923) paternalistic view of women. Furthermore, in its quest to be

recognized as a scholarly field, criminology

types

(male-centered)

Women, when considered at all, have been

represented in negative and stereotypical Thomass

most androcentric

field crimes

developed in so that

part to

are of less interest

women werelargely ignored

help improve

policies could

Not only do women commit fewer crimes, to those concerned

about

with

be enacted

but also they public safety.

until the 1970s.

19

194

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

Additionally, the

Weberianvalue-free approach to

the study of criminology the experiences and formulate This

their

data and theories

an unreflective

about boys and

to girls and have assumed that generic study

themselves

own approaches

has resulted in

in crime

has failed to recognize that

of the researchers

women.

in research

supposition

justice

male crime women

were more of an aberration

to be studied in and of itself. approach to criminology

was the

who engaged

than

a subject

Ultimately, the feminist

emerged from the critique

It

on girls,

women, crime,

Many scholars

primary

explanations

criminological

in criminology. criminology is somewhat

into

a recognized

to the war

reforms

on

of the 1980s

of the large increase in

scholarship.

and federal

reforms increase

in

However, the roots

feminism

1960s per-spective

Clearly, the

are the the

behind the

incarceration

of

the

women.

criminology

are instead found

as well as in the radical

and

war on drugs

driving forces

of feminist

these changes. They

has developed

and the criminal

point

and the federal sentencing

as the

leading to a surge

female prisoners as well as of the emergence of feminist

of

has been only in the last 30 years that feminist

by males. However,

were skyrocketing,

system.

tremendous

this practice.

criminology

rates

to their research. that

wascommitted

bythe last two decades of the 20th century, female in-carceration

drugs men would be gener-alizable

of

of crime and that

most crime

shape

Researchers and theorists

the study

that

predate

in second-wave

criminology

of the

1970s.

However, the term feminist misleading;it

might perhaps

The

Gender

Equality

Argument

be better to speak of feminist criminologies. Feminist criminology

encompasses a wide range of theoretical

perspectives and in

methodologies that place the

which gender

shapes experience

scholarly inquiry. related

to

It focuses

women and

explanations

of crime,

programming

in

the field prisoners.

Feminist

focus

thought

for

of womens oppression, male domination

of

theoretical

is

women as workers in

not

the liberal

a homogeneous feminist

women, the

focus

on

Marxist feminist as the source

socialist feminists

blending

of

with political and economic structures and the radical

feminist focus on patriarchal domination of women,to name

the

feminist

most

well-known

branches.

However,

these

approaches havein common their focus on

the waysin which the gendered structure of society is related

to

the

1960s,

were ignored This

to

crime.

scholars

ignored,

1969,

and the

other

explain

the

lacking

in

led

than

to

from

equality:

Simons

focused

OF FEMINIST

CRIMINOLOGY

in

two

more

as

with the focus response Until the latter half of the 20th century, most crimi-nological

workfocused on maleoffenders and criminal justice system responses to

malecrime. The lack of

attention to female offending stemmed from the fact

and

less

Both attention

crime.

to

a result

on equal

female

of

female

early

movement and

on

Crime and

Although and

they

reached

argued

that

changed

perceptions

the both

of female

central

thesis

women

would

engage

womens

liberation.

treatment,

off ending

the

Two

1970s,

focus

Sisters in Crime.

both

cen-tury

off enders.

the

of the issue

Indeed,

was that

were sorely

feminisms

(1975)

in crime

works

crime

in

liberal

aspects

could

mid-20th

female

published

womens

participation

participation

of the

in

more

that

well explain

conclusions,

mid-20th-century female

been largely

but that

Women and

diff erent

According

had

crime

Adlers

on diff erent

somewhat

these EMERGENCE

(1)

(1975)

(see

males committed

equally

second-wave

United

1968).

developed

interest

were

the

Great Britain

been

feminism

books

derived

gender

gap in

women

and research.

gender

that

able to

a renewed

important

of

had

second-wave

that

within

and

Heidensohn role

noting

gender being

argue

theorizing

Canada

theories

The

to

not from

from

scholars,

crime. Thus,

(2)

come

but instead

these

began

in criminological

early interest

States

crime.

and capitalism

as the source of inequality,

In

Bertrand

off ending,

and the special needs of women

on class relations

in society

crime, including

responses to female

approach; it incorporates equal opportunities

at the center

on a broad range of issues

womens prisons,

of corrections,

ways

the would

of in

Also,

criminal

justice

become

harsher

chivalrous.

books to

were important

female

crime

and

in the

bringing criminal

more justic

FEMINIST

systems response to female crime, but the focus on increased criminal out of the feminist

opportunities for

push for

equality

criminologists.

broad

themes

Among the

emerged.

whether lower-class

First,

female

off enders with

whether increases in female crime of poverty,

families in

poverty

female-headed

pointed to

by two

In

more traditional

addition,

these

scholars

views

of

compete

with

Radical

men in the

& Chesney-Lind 1988). Second,

that the gap between maleand female offending was narrowing (Steff ensmeier & Allan 1996).The focus of began shifting to the

which social and economic

structures

participation

and

the

shaped

in crime.

early

1970s,

labored

such

Influence

of

of

blamed

works

second

Critical

major factor

Criminology

during

the

criminologies, the

study

in the

1970s

or the of crime.

and

Marxist

theory,

as the

result

of

and

class

feminist

political, United

socially

much

was an era of rapid

social

ideologies

and

and social anti-war womens

by

and

development Susan

movement,

somewhat overly

(1975)

analysis

of the

crime

of rape.

Similarly,

for

their

the

feminist

civil

The

viewed

the

two

In

world,

political

the

were chal-lenged, laws the

and the

quickly

public

The

state

new warrior (Young

as

the

criminology engaged 1979)

in

a

also

laws

against

scrutiny.

placed

could

perspective enacted

past sexual

of the

for

approach victim, barred

into

to

women

from of rape

Proof

of

had resisted

as

Also, the

victims

as evidence rape

and ultimately

evidence

rape

victims

themselves.

introduction

mat-ter

and

victims

victim

to

eff ect

a

battered

the

the

de-velopment

for

community

protect

be introduced

behavior

and

the

became

mid-1970s,

that

that

to

able

country,

evidence.

feminist

with

the

on trial

evidence

conduct

were

to the

how the

to

were

Shelters

Until

argued

is important

women

throughout

were essentially

sexual

feminism

scholars

were reformulated

undue

defense. The

approach

radical

concern.

emerging

only

women.

collaboration

Violence

well as corroborating

became

was perceived

in

in cri-tiqued

victimization Smart

contributed

criminology

feminist

change.

of began

First,

radical

social

this

unrest.

including

male-centered

as a noble

powerful

reasons.

activists,

highly

1970s.

of

of feminist

criminology

movement,

what

still

criminology.

a

contribution

rape required

with

and

off ender

with

of

was

not

to recognize

victimization

gender,

Will

a gendered

that

failed

shaped

structures

rights

theories

the

(1976)

through

all victims.

in

and

emerged,

for

Our

Smart

assumption

grounded

the

in

thought.

theories,

at crime

their

victimiza-tion of feminist

male dominance

criminological

experience

mainstream

of

of society

during

criminologists

disenchanted idealistic

of the

struggle

power

also for

were

influential

Carol

structure

radical

and

but

the

Against

role

to

seminal

criminological

patriarchal

Western

change

extremely

a searing

was a similar

Prior

victims

brought

to look

to

Two

the forefront

the

failure

rape

men into

feminist

and

response

violence.

mid-1970s

to

movement.

of critical/radical view

the

intimate and laws,

were

of

scholars

public

victimization.

Brownmillers

that

of the new

especially

1960s of

movements

liberation

However,

the

Both

conscious

crimi-nology

perspectives

emerged

and

Existing

these

oppression.

criminological

feminist

approaches

roots

oppression,

criminology

States

conflict

With intellectual

crime

and

of feminist

was the emergence

conflict

race,

rise

radical,

with

contrib-uted

Criminology

the

and

their

the

women

criminology

radical

policies for

during of

lens The

feminism,

of patriarchy,

Feminist

reform

as rape

revision

often

to

mainstream The

Radical

body of feminist

Feminism

the

crimes

careful analysis of datafailed to support the contention

womens lives, as well astheir

women.

society

scholarship.

activists

off enders

ways in

of

on the consequences

During

female off enders tended

feminist criminological thought

abuse

which a patriarchal

by

question the idea that these

realm of crime (Daly

the

ways in

to the burgeoning

of

dominated

and stereotypical

to

beganinstead

on the

might be due to the

womens roles, calling into were trying

violence and rape. Feminist criminology focusing

out

because the composition

households.

end intimate

enabled

male off enders or

195

working to

its focus

questioned

were acting

became increasingly

out that lower-income

have

criticisms,

scholars

of a desire to achieve equality

feminization

women coming

has been critiqued

angered radical feminists

CRIMINOLOGY

past by the

incorporated rape shield of the

vic-tims

196

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

Second, the feminist scholarship on rape and inti-mate to theoretical explanations of crime and criminality. violence impacted

mainstreamcriminology. This

has led to a revised understanding of victimization. that

Statistics

womens

fundamentally

close to them. this

is

the

support

victimization

because

perspective,

of

Much like

and

norms

FROM

As suggested

facilitate

feminist

scholarship

criminological

partners.

A

on sexual

research

of violence

has helped

work using the

on

Conflict

approach

Tactics Scale developed by Straus and Gelles(1986).

the

chapter,

is not limited

criminologists

feminist

PERSPECTIVE

earlier in this

perspectives, the

within the home

Much of the early research

violence stems from

Feminist

THEORIES

FEMINIST

theorizing

reshape our understanding and between

CRIMINOLOGICAL

women.

the

violence, feminist

scholarship.

of men. For example,

From the radical feminist institutions

feminist

and

by someone

social

This is followed by a summary of the subject matter of

posi-tion

morelikely to be victimized

victimization

intimate

the feminist is intrinsically

diff erent than that

women are far

of the complexities

many diff erent

of which are a femi-nist

mainstream

criminological

pathways theory, socialist feminist

most recent

development:

intersectionality

crimi-nological

one approach.

have adopted

most noteworthy

to

feminist

to

multiple

theory,

theory, and marginalities/

theories.

Feminist scholars have pointed out that although this scale measuresthe incidence of a widerange of aggressive

Mainstream

Theories

and

Feminist

Criminology

tactics, it fails to placethem in context. Stankos (1990) examination

of everyday violence provided evidence

that

womens victimization

Thus,

research conducted

conjunction

criminologists,

in

with activism, impacted

not only laws

but

Victimization

Eventually, the

Survey

passed.

funding

Federal

Violence

Against

for research

prosecution

programs

By

Against

and

More recently, Women

Act has

carried this focus on the rights of womento safety into the

international

A

major thrust of the

based

on research

and

stir

been

of

only

if

criminal

females,

than

criminality

research. in

take

are

this

approach

issue.

First

males are far criminal

which

tacit

more likely

behavior,

through

this

about

assumptions feminist

than

of

inher-ent

criminologists

that,

females

to

are somehow

mainstream

more

this type

assumption

females

Second,

Although

no information

unspoken

with

has

males are indeed

virtually

is the

women

criminology

variable.

that

two

theories

add

at all, has frequently

can be garnered

There

to the field.

mainstream

mainstream

as a control

confirmation

has been the

men.The

considered

has provided

female

of

with boys and

gender,

used

criminology

development

approach

meant that

because engage

in

unimportant

criminology

assumes

arena. that

In summary, feminist criminological thought gained prominence during the highly political era of the 1960s and 1970s. At first, the field focused on the information

on girls

scholarship.

As the field

include

of feminist

critique

were

was pursued,

became available.

Violence

2000).

Women Act was

and intervention

aggressive

the International

to address the

Questions about rape

in the home (Britton

Prevention

developed,

victims.

Crime

were added, as were questions about

victimization

1994, the

National

wasreformulated

of female

and sexual assault violent

unreported.

by feminist

also police practices.

experiences

wasfrequently

and

women in

shifted

explain

explain

missing

criminological

grew, the focus

to

males

In theory

to

for

their

and

females

are

alike

male criminality

female

and

will

that

work

what

equally

works

well to

criminality.

particular,

theories

like

have been criticized focus

Mertons

by feminist

on economic

goals

(1938)

strain

criminologists

and their

failure

to

violence against

women as well as the develop-ment consider how personal relationships may contribute to of feminist criminological theories and feminist criminality. Merton argued that crime was largely the ways of approaching existing theories. A broad base of result of having the American dream as a goal but lack-ing

scholarship

has been amassed from the

movement,

The

following

critical

theories,

section focuses

and

womens libera-tion

radical

on feminist

feminism.

approaches

opportunities manner. theory

Feminist

to

achieve

this

criminologists

was obviously

not equally

goal in argued

a legitimate

that

applicable

Mertons to

women

FEMINIST

They

pointed out that, although women werecertainly

more financially

blocked than

far less crime (Belknap social learning

and

with their focus been

criticized

gendered

nature

& Holsinger, 2006). diff erential

the

failure

take

into

linked

to

have

account

of peer relationships.

is strongly

delinquent

to

the

Whereas male

having

initiation

peers

Actually, females

with older delinquent to crime and rather than

by their

peers.

not an exhaustive list of by feminist

Although

it

approach

taken

critiqued

by

vice

versa.

In

a broad

determines

the

women, it

may be

likelihood

may be important the birth

life

that

someone

case

However, for

to examine other reasons. may provide sufficient

motivation for a woman engaging in criminal to a noncriminal

Overall, the gendered is not particularly

course

will cease. In the

of a child

to change her trajectory

to

of an event or

marriage or career.

men, this

occur-rences

criminal

sense,

behavior

use of

well received

behaviors

one.

mainstream theories

by feminist

criminolo-gists.

Many argue that these theories fail to explore in

of the

detail the waysin

purportedly

which the experiences of girls and

womenshape their lives. In contrast, feminist pathways

However,other feminist criminologists mainstreamtheories

haveargued

maystill be usedif they are

theory focuses explicitly

more sensitive to the predictors

of crime in both

Agnews (1992)

theory attempts to be gender sensitive.

on the relationship

between

life experiences and future criminality, arguing that one mustconsider the role, of patriarchal society if onetruly

restructured and operationalized in a mannerthat is and women. In particular,

examine

of

gender-neutral theories. that

that

this is certainly

does give an idea

or

in-volvedIn particular,

partners

mainstream theories

criminologists,

male-dominated

by these intimate

also

engaging in criminal

males may beintroduced

delinquency

but

suggest that it is the salience

reason

with

who are intimately

behavior

may change the pathways from

noncriminal,

theories

behaviors and attitudes, this is far less true

for females.

of criminal

that

theories,

and behaviors,

197

These theories not onlylook at factors important in the

Likewise,

association

on peer attitudes

for

delinquency

men,they committed

CRIMINOLOGY

wishes to understand

men

female crime and criminality.

general strain

Byincorporating

Feminist

Pathways

Theory

a broader range of sources of strain in the theory, he has attempted In

to address the concerns voiced by feminists.

his theory,

strains

he has explicitly

focused

as well as on negative life

which are important

predictors

Also, he has pointed

out that

have diff erent emotional

experiences, of female

of off enses (Broidy

operationalization

both of

men and women tend to

reactions to strain,

feminist

& Agnew 1997).

how

Afeminist

of general strain theory

could

pathways

which

criminal

lifestyles.

per se but rather negative emotional responsesto strain that lead to crime. Again, a thoughtful

and gendered

analysis would focus on how emotional responses and coping

resources

are gendered

and how this

help explicate the diff erent relationships experiences

would

between life

2004)

has laid

of males and females and their subsequent

participation lends itself not all, of the

in

crime.

Indeed,

more to a gendered

for a gendered exploration

ultimately

She argues

that,

with the juvenile of status sexual

immoral

girls

and

have historically

analysis than

in

most, if

theories.

may off er an opportu-nity of womens criminality.

in

behaviors

often

boys

or girls

been

and

into

criminal

girls

initial

system

double

most

engaging

standard

and

women

for mildly

engaging

frowned

on

of sexual misconduct

more in

result

are seen as

Girls

girls suspected treated

the

or engaging

behaviors

of correction.

were at the

lifestyles.

away

patriarchal in these

a patri-archal

encounters

are largely

as running

Pasko

opportunities

them

faced institutionalization

males. Indeed,

have

the

on them

&

abuse

shape

life

and books,

boys,

need

that

leads

articles

forcing

The

the

focuses

unlike

engaging

in

society

childhood

justice

activity.

means that

in

to

Chesney-Lind

system

off enses, such

general strain theory

mainstream criminological

Likewise, life course theories

of girls,

how

theory

numerous

(see

justice

this

place

In

crimino-logical

means of the

linked

girls,

womens

out

juvenile

in

and

Chesney-Lind

examine the role of abuse histories in predicting female crime. Agnew has argued that it is not strain

women

by

eff ort to demonstrate

is inextricably

ways in

Meda

ex-plicitly

of

in feminist

has come

model. In the

crime

experiences

into

breakthrough

and research

female

possess dif-ferent the diff erent

greatest

theory

delinquency.

coping skills and resources, and commit types

Perhaps the

on relationship

criminal

harshly

than

activity.

It

either is thi

198

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

patriarchal, paternalistic approach to the social control of the behavior of females that contact there

with the juvenile

frequently

of gender relations in society tends to relegate

Furthermore,

to recognize that

as well as running

early sexual

away from

of intervening

in the lives

of abused girls, society

with a double standard

as incorrigible girls for

and/or

(e.g., running society identifying

away from

them

By punishing

may actually

limiting

these

then life

as delinquents. This

In

homes),

chances

perspective

against

by also

women,

and

capitalism

order

to

patterns

in

women.

off ense leading

of theories

imprisonment.

womens

Substance abuse is seen as a coping

mechanism.

Girls

and

women

often

use

alcohol

and

point, because the

abuse problems.

majority of these off enders sexual, or emotional seeks

to

illuminate

abuse. Feminist the

connections

that

relations

structure

the

and exploitation

of young females and their subsequent

off ending.

arguably

It is

contemporary

feminist

Socialist

the

dominant

approach

most criminology

the feminist

would

be

criminology

to

criminology and

gender is intrinsically

Feminist

Criminology

exclude to

As discussed

Feminist

As

(1986)

of both

focused

capitalism

Helaid

one cannot

gender

minority

of

part

in

many

of

a clearer

ways in

crimes

suggests

in that

that

of various either any true

and

explanation

crimes

lower

both argued or

of crime. class and

because

of

crimi-nology

how gender

illustrates

cognizant

and

the

of

that

both

mens how

has

that

of their

have in of

by the

individuals. not simply lesbian,

of

argue that

for

women

its

race critique to the

The

the in-tertwined iden-tity.

of feminist

feminist

critique

charge is that

feminist

ways essentialized that

all

intersectionality

structure

gender

and in

the

women

and

race, class, and

multiple

turn

impact

Furthermore,

these

impacts

interact.

being

African

American,

or being

cumulative.

evolves

from

the

poor that Instead,

intersection

matters;

there

is

neither

an interaction

of statuses.

Ones

are

are each

being female,

eff ects

as-sumption

are similar.

acknowledges

assuming

social

feminist

race, class, and sexual

many

women,

early

criticized

of all

has been similar

Proponents

impacted

been

critical

criminology.

Marginalities

sciences,

scholarship

criminologists

marginality

Multiple

social

ways, the

mainstream

alike.

males and

structures

many

experiences

patriarchal

types

economic

marginalized

males engage in street

of the

seeks to explain

of feminist ignores

the experiences to

criminology

has led

of both

of higher level which are com-mitted

related to crime.

eff ects of gender,

Messerschmidt which

experiences

has led

In

examination

understanding

males and females.

the

This

feminist

scholarship

blending

seeking to illuminate

scholarship

that

masculinity

ungendered

masterful

as well as theories

His theory

is

Criminology

feminist

how feminist

of the

is the

ignore

relationships

His theory

of

earlier,

out a theory

male and female that

on

examination

on the

structures

females.

treatise

criminological

eff orts to incorporate

experiences

any

a discussion

of criminology

of crime. to

in

has led

crime.

critique

remiss

crime.

approach

criminological

It

a

against

in

criminology.

Feminist

family

male violence

development

and womens experiences,

abuse

between

because he directly addresses the feminist criticism

pathways theory

links

in

by males. His work is extremely

of physical,

between

of

male privilege

to the

Likewise, the

have histories

drew

male-dominated

he provided

primarily important

desperate

exploitation

white-collar and corporate crimes,

majority of incarcerated girls and

women have substance

he

and

about

to

about capitalism in his examination

drugs to self-medicate their trauma that has resulted from abusethey haveexperienced.This is an important

women in

submit

his discussion

Finally,

also explored

how both patriarchy

addition,

inequality

between abuse and substance to

In

on crimes

of women in the sex trade in

place these

survive.

economic

focus

(1986)

showing

where they

abuse, the

one

Messerschmidt

world countries,

examines the relationship number

with the feminist

the sexual exploitation third

womens

larceny and fraud.

keeping

situations

be self-preserving

abusive or neglectful

may be further

has

that labels these girls

immoral.

behaviors that

crime to low-level

home, are

the result of abuse within the home. Instead

reacted

capitalistic society. In contrast, the structure

pushes them into

justice system.

has been a failure

behaviors,

blocked opportunities and their roles as malesin a pa-triarchal

It is be-ing

are the that action

FEMINIST

and opportunities

are structured

by ones placement

FEMINIST

CRIMINOLOGY

CRIMINOLOGICAL

199

SCHOLARSHIP

along each of these dimensions.Thus, the experiences of, for

example,

those

of

Hispanic

Hispanic

American

women are diff erent from

men as well as white or

women (Burgess-Proctor

The

African

subject

discipline

2006).

of

topics.

to

criminological

focus. METHODOLOGY

IN

FEMINIST

CRIMINOLOGY

is

Not only does feminist but it

their

mainstream use both

quantitative

to

explore

feminist

and

official

them

off enders;

Like

also

draw

On the quantitative

between

may be colored

by gender.

range of methodologies. In particular, focus groups, in-depth interviews,

or official qualitatively statistics

and

(see

qualitative

Owen

One final research

should

perspective, is that

to

research

the

number Changes

surveys

be explored

informing

the

lower

scholarship

We have

places emphasis

seen

that

and main-stream

than

on the researcher himself

matter of the research.

or herself

From the femi-nist

however, this is an impossibility.

The

we are never free of our own beliefs

criminological

are evident

for praxis or participatory action research.In contrast to

have consistently

women in science re-search,

participatory action research and praxis-driven methodologies stress the importance

of research that

is geared toward social change. In feminist criminol-ogy, this policies,

has meant working toward and prisons.

most areas of feminism, intrinsically

intertwined.

In feminist activism

changes in laws, criminology,

and scholarship

However, female

the

second

that

as in are

this

the

because life

and types not

women

to

women,

of 2007,

research

(see

that

felony

the

arrest,

have focused

2003).

Two

the treatment

as

the criminal

of girls and

with

behavior.

pointing

but instead

Feminist men

scholars

criminal

end

scholars

have

justice the

point

to out

diff er-ent for

system same

out

leads

essentially

motivations

women

ma-jor

scholar-ship

First, feminist

then

on

programs

criminological

crime

well

of female

and the

Sharp

not

and

on

also

prisons

into

treat

more

for

incarceration

does

as

of crime,

be designed

end

for

aggressive

has impacted

helps shape

experiences

of indeter-minate sentences

day.

and

characteristic:

the

prisons.

were incarcerated

argued

focus

in

particular,

By the

of feminist

pathways

guidelines

increases

mandatory

in the research.

society

on the

and federal

In

of

off ending.

sentencing

off enses

inmates

characteristics

off ending

the inequities in

womens

to female

women

has focused

criminologists

in

of

criminological

to female

state

extensive

Feminist

approach suggests the need

the value-neutral approach of muchsocial

to

conviction,

conditions

available

to

the

the

massive

of color.

women

has led

both

of feminist

response

on any given

off enders. the

on

in

drug

100,000

This

eff ects

off enders.

of

prosecution,

the

to reduce

women

convictions

explored

resulted

female

prosecution

and values, that those shape our research. In addition, the feminist

level

mother-hood

have

mid-1980s

sent

designed

the

to

abuse

numerous

and the federal

sentencing

or

and

has examined

the

women

quite likely abuse

account,

bulk

resulted

of

are

and

2003).

systems

1980s

especially

a value-free stance, detaching

argument

from

questions

of feminist

be addressed.

from the subject

Often, a

1998).

aspect

criminology taking

and offending.

used, with information

data suggesting

of relation-ships

since justice

war on drugs

and life histories provide infor-mation

between victimization is

The of

to help tease out the complexity combination

criminal

recognizes

of victims

Furthermore,

incarceration

girls. The

women

into

(Sharp

research

and

scholarship

In qualitative research, feminist scholars use a broad

1996).

female

Extensive women

criminology

off enders

be taken

children

against

of childhood

criminologists

and their

womens

female

must

an important

dichotomy

whether

the

range

approaches

been

violence

Feminist

(Belknap

large-scale

surveys

that

as in a broad

feminist

have

not a clear-cut

instead,

feminist

side, they

puzzle.

includes

earlier,

evident

victims,

role

off ending and official responses

women and how those

be

as adults

on

is

is

criminology,

overall,

theorizing

of the

there

methods, to

data and use large-scale

and their

many

criminolo-gists

qualitative

both the relationships

experiences to

encompass methodologies.

or combining

of each.

may examine

many

counterparts,

often triangulating the strengths

criminology

also uses

of feminist

As described

Also, it

part

that

topics,

matter

of criminology

crime

should as

men

200

CRIME

Thus,

AND

BEHAVIOR

considerable recent scholarship has focused on

both the problems ofincarcerated

women and difficul-ties

with how the system is serving them. gone as far as to challenge corrections

approach equity,

designed for

a sort

equality.

that

a detailed

see Chesney-Lind

menis a form

by feminist bylooking

Eventually, she

drugs, and

of vengeful

of this

argument,

criminologists

may be

at an example.

Perhaps a

or sexually

may run

away,

may engage in sexual

abused in the may start

behaviors,

money or drugs in order to survive.

in

prison, she finds

using

perhaps

She is eventu-ally

caught and remanded back to the custody of her parents. As a result of her behavior, conditions in the

victimization training, into

arrested for drug possessionthis time. the location, family,

she

deemed incorrigible. abuse.

a juvenile

finds that she is now labeled behind academically

society

she quickly

is further

foster

as a bad

in school; she

drugs. They

may be old enough that

crowd.

She

who seems to

eventually

and she becomes pregnant.

her as a runaway.

and she

become

By this time, she

her parents no longer

She drops out of school

herself in

that

sent

her parole is revoked,

prison

again.

Her situation

by the fact that

she is a single

may be with her family,

or social

and placed the child in

When men go to

prison, the

childrens

with the children,

but

when

women areincarcerated, the majority of the time there is no father present to care for the children, creating for

the

child

as well as the

mother.

Because

womens prisons are often in remote areas,sheis rarely if ever able to see her child. If the child is with family members, he or she

may be abused, just

as the

pris-oner

was as a child. If the child is in state custody, parental rights

may be terminated.

more depressed

The

and feels like

cycle then

interventions

that

and resulting she

will remain

on

continues.

can

help

release,

mother-hood.

eff ective

with past traumas

off drugs is low.

network,

there

is

that

Without assistance

and job skills, and finding

small

her

woman is at

Without

her deal

her educational

a healthy support live

Now the

she has failed

mental health issues, the likelihood

in improving

chance

building

a safe place to she

will

be suc-cessful

when released again. This

scenario

interwoven

or choice. Nowshe is a poorly educated single mother,

that

probably with a drug problem.

She is rearrested,

may have intervened

child.The boyfriend leaves, whether through boredom with low self-worth,

reintegrate

behaviors

care.

report

and hasthe

job

once she is released,

the same

mother usually remains

girl. She may be

male, several years older,

have ready access to

she

may have difficulty

begins hanging out with an older, tougher

intimate,

more

education,

falls into

Her child

services

programs

needs: drug abuse,

self-esteem,

how to successfully

complicated

mother.

Onceshe ar-rives

are few

on her release. Thus,

and she finds

and

to her community

peers with whom she can spend time;

meets a young

of her

facility

While there, she experience

Upon release, returning

finding

Depending on

her status, and perceived resources may be placed into

issues, low

and planning

hardship home maybecome worse, with moreabuse or unrea-sonable

rules. She again runs away, perhaps getting

that there

there to help her with her greatest

her to prison.

1999, cited in Sharp 2003.)

emphasis

better understood

for

of the

the puni-tive

women demanding

discussion

young girl is being physically home.

equity

to hold a job and to pay fees

makes her a noncompliant probationer.

Some have

applying

of backlash against

(For

This

the gender

systems, arguing

as well as her inability

illustrates

nature of feminist

illuminate

the

the

complexity

and

criminology. Theories

victimization

and

experiences

of women may help explain their criminal

behavior

She has difficulty finding and holding ajob. She may

where mainstream theories cannot. Also, the plights

steal to support

of the hypothetical

herself, her child, and her drug use.

Eventually, she mayfind her.This

relationship

another

is likely

becomes even lower, and eventually to

prison.

treatment child,

to be abusive.

may or

with felonies

may not

been on probation,

have been limited. but her inability

and sent

have sought

prior to incarceration.

her options

drug

With a dependent She

like

her, have driven feminist

the criminal Her self-esteem

her drug use progresses,

she is charged

She

maleto help support

may have

to stay off drugs

Awareness

womanjust described, and thou-sands

justice of

to the need for

criminologists

system to examine

womens

pathways

into

prisons and prison

geared to the

needs of female

prison system

and programming

have become

major foci

into

its structure. crime

points

programs that

off enders. Thus, in

womens

of feminist

research as well. Because the correctional

are the

prisons

criminological system aros

FEMINIST

in response to of

women

maleoff ending, the needs and abilities

are

often

criminologists

not

demonstrate,

the characteristics programs

taken

into

account.

through

of female

as which ones Even

on

what types

would be most beneficial for

abuse

and therapy

women as well

treatment,

in

vocational

prisons

are viewed through

1990s, the therapeutic

communities

boot camp

program

these

of rehabilitation

programs

and females.

fact

in

positively

to confrontation,

programs

(Marcus-Mendoza,

have

This

males

of both types

Klein-Saff ran,

was

not

even

to

this As

is

smaller,

the

justice

social

field

moved

women

emerging

The

entire

system

need for

more

criminals

were

feminist

and in

field

of

by

men, in

been dominated men.

of

workers

scholarship

have

prisoners, there is a burgeoning

the taken

part because

most

criminologists

body of

the

there

crime

at

the

meetings

until

has also

been

been

In

issue

peer-reviewed

treatment

Sage

of

to

on feminist victimization

in

publish

a wide range justice

Publications

intro-duced

the official

This

Crime

journal

scholarship,

articles

girls

violence

criminal

Criminology.

on feminist

women

Then,

Women and

off ending, of

system.

Criminology,

on

of

and

1990s, and

of Feminist

Society

publication

gender-based

early

2006,

jour-nals. Justice

womens

waslaunched

crime,

Division

a broad focus

female

justice

on

women,

of the

criminology & Criminal

of

Women

was relegated

to the

aspects

criminal

published.

American

journals

Since the

about

of has

publishing

criminological

theo-ries,

of women,

and girls in the justice

and the

systems.

work by

that takes a gendered ap-proach FEMINIST

to studying policing, corrections, and the law. This

marginaliza-tion

and

devoted

Against

the first

has

of female

dis-interest.

getting

Indeed,

Society

Women

scholarship

publication

justice

and

women

prestigious,

on all

victims.

books

corrections

criminal

with

well as

scholarship

specifically

Violence

have

working in law the

simply

difficulty

as

on

not very

in

and female

began

prisoners

or

theories mainstream

has been published.

the journal

peer-reviewed

With the rapid increase in both

criminological

feminist

criminal

within that

of women

as attorneys,

the

women, scholarship

of female

to an increase

enforcement, industry.

number

on

disdain

criminology

research

involvement 1995,

a focus

as well. Both the

contributed

long

into

working

and the increasing

and

was launched,

issue.

system and its response to

related to

apparent

the

much feminist

1989,

Withtwo thirds of female pris-onersscholarly

minor children, it is readily

a serious

challenging

Criminology

in

and

In

of successful reentry, motherhood must

mothers to that

dominated

mainstream

considerable

a session

Given the

has been

published

American

crimino-logical

task.

wed to

with

to

work that

Publication

demanding activities (Sharp, 2003). Finally, to increase betaken into account.

CENTURY

1975.

& Lutze

that maypreclude their participation in physically

met

scholarship

annual

of

more

has led

of the

1998). Also,female prisoners tend to have health prob-lems difficult,

the likelihood

21ST

of feminist

of criminology

approaches

perspective

women respond less

a staple

THE

acceptance

who are

research,

However,

well suited to

Among other issues,

IN

has been a daunting

the field

became com-mon feminist

US. prisons.

are not equally

that

reha-bilitation, and

During the

and

widespread scholarship

by scholars

a gendered lens.

forms

Gaining

of

might not be eff ective.

substance

CRIMINOLOGY

201

Feminist

their research

prisoners,

FEMINIST

CRIMINOLOGY

approach has primarily focused on two aspects

FROM

A

CRIMINOLOGY GLOBAL

PERSPECTIVE

of the gendered nature of criminal justice employ-ment. First,

in the asks

the

looks

practices

at

how

women

of then jobs.

what characteristics

justice work.

it

and

Feminist

women

men

criminology

working in criminal

bring to their jobs and how these impact Second,

ways in

corrections, inequality

some

feminist

scholars

which the structure and courts

(Britton

continues

2000).

diff er

have

of law

their

examined

enforcement,

to lead to

gender

Feminist

criminology

outside

of

because

of the focus

is

a

the

has arguably

hallmark

recognized focused

and

and

States

the

India,

female

abuse

female

than

on violence

of feminist problem

on

in

United

had

more impact

within.

against

criminology

women

as

in

Muslim

to

name

that

well as a ha

countries

circumcision/genital

infanticide,

is

Research

internationally. of

This

women

mutila-tion, a few

topics.

202

CRIME

Because

AND

BEHAVIOR

international

attention

has

been

drawn

to

the plight of women and girls in various parts of the world,

research

that

victimization At the

has

takes

a feminist

been

international

welcomed

level,

sex industry.

study the policies around

particular

some viewed

and

in regard

because they

feminist

criminolo-gists justice

traditional

gender

to sexuality.

For example, in

off enders

instead

of

as

have violated the expectations

American Society of Criminology. criminological

building

violence

scholarship

and theory testing,

against

women;

includes

as well as research

womens

crime;

and

women in the criminal justice system, both as off enders and

workers. The

criminology

norms,

women who are raped

as

on

women, sanc-tioningaff ect

may victimize

violating

treated

has

of women and girls in the

addition,

Muslim countries,

theory

2006).

attention

as Fellows by the Current feminist

womens

which laws and criminal

the world

them for in

In

waysin

on

(Maidment,

considerable

been paid to the exploitation global

slant

a century, and feminist scholars have been recognized

defining

characteristics

of feminist

are the emphasis on how social structures

men and

women diff erently, the relationship

research

and

activism,

between victimization

and

the

be-tween

interrelatedness

and off ending among

women.

may be victims

REFERENCES

regarding

AND

FURTHER

READINGS

womens sexuality.

Some feminist criminologists

haverecently argued

Adler, F. (1975).

that there has been a global backlash against feminist attempts to improve the situations of girls and women,

criminal.

Agnew,

not only in third world countries but alsoin the indus-trialized West. A 2008 issue of Feminist Criminology was

devoted

to

initiatives

articles

on

byfeminists

how

crime

and

victimization

York:

R. (1992).

Foundation

J. (1996).

Belknap,

a general theory

CA:

for

of crime

30, 4787.

invisible

woman:

Gender,

crime

and

Wadsworth.

& Holsinger,

of risk factors

for

Criminology, The

Belmont, J.,

rise of the new female

McGraw-Hill.

and delinquency.

Belknap,

justice.

have led to a countermovement.

Sisters in crime: The

New

K. (2006).The

delinquency.

gendered

Feminist

nature

Criminology,

1,

4871.

CONCLUSION

Bertrand,

M. A. (1969).

Self-image

to the study

Although

progress in the publication

has been made,it remains in the overall discipline. journals

publish

also textbooks

somewhat

only limited

feminist

mainstream

scholarship,

to feminist

new generations

and yet given little

schol-arship

marginal-ized

Not only do

give scant attention

theory. Thus, are educated

of feminist

if

but

image.

D.

L.

general

any information

Crime

receiving scant education on

strain

and

well.

The

of the largest Criminology, series focusing continue Crime, in the

to

feminist

and

Division

on

sections several

Women

of the major

remains and

American publishers

Crime

alive is

one

Society have

of

book

on women and crime, and new scholars emerge. The

which started mid-1980s,

Division

on

with a small group

Women and of scholars

has now existed almost a quarter

of

Feminism

in

Annals ofthe

rape.

R. (1997).

criminology:

American

Academy

Delinquency,

New

York:

Chesney-Lind,

34,

Journal

Simon

Research in

will:

Men, women and

& Schuster.

Intersections

Future

directions

Criminology,

M.(1986).

of

A

275306.

Against our

A. (2006).

gender, and crime:

Gender and crime:

perspective.

S. (1975).

Feminist

criminology

(2000).

theory

Burgess-Proctor,

feminist criminology (Renzetti 1993). However,

womens

2, 71144.

the outlaw.

M., & Agnew,

about feminist criminology. This is reflected in their re-searchBrownmiller,

with new criminologists

and

Acon-tribution

of Political and Social Science, 571, 5776.

of criminologists

as well asin their teaching and mentoring of new

M.

Engendering

crimino-logical Broidy,

scholars.The cycle therefore remains self-perpetuating,

of female criminality

Acta Criminologia,

Britton,

and delinquency:

of race,

for feminist

class, crimi-nology.

1, 2747.

Women

and crime: The

female

off ender. Signs, 12, 7896. Chesney-Lind, Girls,

women

M., & Pasko, L. (2004). The and crime

(2nd

female off ender:

ed.). Thousand

Oaks,

CA:

Sage. Chesney-Lind,

M., & Shelden,

and juvenile justice.

R. G. (1992).

Belmont,

CA:

Girls, delin-quency

Wadsworth

FEMINIST

Daly, K., & Chesney-Lind,

M.(1988),

Justice Quarterly, Flavin,

J. (2001).

and crimi-nology. Renzetti,

Feminism

Feminism

for

An invitation.

the

Journal

of

mainstream Criminal

crimi-nologist:

Justice,

29,

271285.

Goodstein, justice 3,

Feminist

perspectives

and the criminal

Journal

of Criminal

Justice Education,

F.

critique

(1968).

The

and an enquiry.

deviance

of

British Journal

women:

A

of Sociology, 19,

M.(2006).

perspectives

in

Transgressing

criminology.

B. Perry (Eds.),

In

Advancing

and application

boundaries:

criminology:

&

Sharp,

S. F. (2003). The

Prentice

Simon,

MD: Lexington

Smart,

S., Klein-Saff ran, J., &. Lutze, F. (1998).

Smart,

(pp.

4362).

Lanham,

Afeminist

examination

women.

Merton, R. K.(1938). Sociological

J.

Toward

Rowman

a socialist

and anomie.

In

womans prison.

American

feminist

patriarchy

criminology.

and

Totowa,

NJ:

partner

and criminology.

N.

the

thats

Routledge.

woman:

Rehabilitative

Upper Saddle

River,

NJ:

how it looks

is a mans world ...

in the journals.

Critical

15, 318. Women and crime.

Lexington,

MA:

Books.

C. (1976).

Women, crime and criminology:

Boston:

Routledge and

C. (1997).

concerning

Afeminist

Kegan Paul.

Criminological

E. (1990).

Everyday

Toward

D.,

&

Allan,

a gendered

Struggle and survival

State

An argument

University

of

in

a

New York

for black feminist

womens experience

using an integrated

criminol-ogy:

with intimate

approach.

Feminist

1, 106124. Partial justice:

Boston:

M. A.,

Its

theory: women.

violence.

ideology

British Journal

London:

theory

E. (1996).

Gender

of female

& Gelles, R.J. (1986).

change in family

mix:

American

H.(1985).

18001935.

gendered entrap-ment

New York:

womens prisons.

R. J. (1975).

Steff ensmeier,

Straus,

Philadelphia:

Press.

Albany:

abuse

Criminology,

in

women.

incarcerated

S. F., & Hefley, K. (2006). This

Stanko,

by two

of

Pandora

and

crime:

off ending.

Annual

Northeastern

Womenin state prisons, University

Press.

violence from

national

surveys.

Societal

change and

1975 to 1985 as revealed

Journal

of

Marriage and the

Family, 48, 465479. Thomas,

African

Justice

Review of Sociology, 22, 459488.

Press.

H. (2006).

Criminal

Press.

Capitalism,

Feminism

B. (1998).

of

analyses

Sociology, 28, 89100

& Littlefield.

University

Journal

Compelled to crime: The

and implications

programs

3, 672682.

W. (1986).

N.(1996).

Temple

prison

21, 173185.

Social structure

Review,

Messerschmidt, crime:

of boot camp

Women &.Therapy,

malestream

Feminist

Hail.

critique.

Marcus-Mendoza,

Rafter,

B. (1996).

Sharp,

margins of the do they?):

education.

Richie,

Lexington

Theory

Books.

Potter,

justice

Criminology,

Feminist

W. S. DeKeseredy

critical

get it,

203

4, 219234.

or at least

160176.

Maidment,

Owen,

criminal

Education,

On the

dont

programming

165181.

Naffire,

in

M. (1993). still

of black battered

L. (1992). curriculum.

Heidensohn,

for

C.

(or, they

5, 497538.

CRIMINOLOGY

W. I. (1923). The

unadjusted

girl.

Boston:

Little,

Brown.

Young, J. (1979). Hutchinson.

Capitalism

and the rule

of law.

London:

CHAPTER X

Postmodern Culture

and Theorie

Critical

POSTMODERNISM AND CONSTITUTIVE

THEORIES

OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR

Stuart and

P

ostmodernism

is skeptical progress.

is a movement among social theorists of science

Postmodernism

and the scientific transcends

and philosophers

method and its

disciplinary

and indeed

began

in the arts and the humanities before arriving in the social sciences. It did not reach criminology

until the late 1980s.The basic position of those termed post-modernist

is found in a cluster of ideas, which include the following: unknowable; rational thought is merelyone way of thinking,

truth is

and not necessarily

a superior way;rational thought is aform of power; knowledge is not cumulative; facts are merely social constructions that

constitute

a discourse

assumes an alternative which is the

truth

knowledge

by revealing

of postmodernist

alternative

version,

of postmodernism In

other

and should

continuous

this cluster

that are supported

or way of talking

the

to

assumptions ideas

on

it through

is no more truthful,

attended

diff erent

or deconstruc-tion,

of the social

also implies

An

reconstruction.

through

discourse.

discourse, it is

Such reconstruction

and no less contingent,

world could

of

based. In criminology, but too skeptical.

to in such a waythat the consequences for those investing

in the construction

nature

accepted the basic tenets

constructed

possible to reconstruct

and criticism

constructed

which it is

deconstruction

was socially

replacement

discourse

by critique

expose the

postmodernism

but argued that world

phenomena;

was seen as valuable

called affirmative

words, if the

be replaced

attempt

by various claims to truth

about

be less harmful

or

but can be their

energy

and less painful.

Suchreconstruction implies a continuous ongoing societal process of struggle to replace harmful social constructions

withless harmful ones.

The affirmative postmodern position in criminology strands of social theory including Garnnkels Berger

ethnomethodology,

and Thomas

structuration

theory,

Paulo

and it also incorporates Mandlebrot, as well as topology theorists

introducing

Michel

Luckmanns

draws on several other

Ferdinand de Saussures semiotics, Jacques

Lacans psychoanalysis, Alfred Schutzs sociological Foucaults

social

Freire

and

poststructuralism,

constructionism, Henry

the diverse ideas from theory

phenomenology,

A. the

aspects of postmodernist

theory into

L.

Giddens

critical

mathematics

and chaos and catastrophe

Harold Peter

Anthony Girouxs

peda-gogy,

of Benoit

theory. Leading

criminology

Dragan

that

promise to deliver

boundaries,

Henry

include

207

Milovanovi

208

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

Bruce Arrigo, Lippens,

Gregg Barak, Stuart

Dragan

Henry, Ronnie

only shape their social world, but are also shaped byit.

Manning, Rob

They are coproducers and coproductions of their own

Milovanovic, Peter

develop-ment and others

Schehr, and T. R. Young, however, the fullest of these ideas into an integrated is

with Stuart

Henry and

how some of this per-spective

theoretical

Dragan

agency.

Milovanovics

as the

humans

impaired,

Constitutive Criminology.

CONSTITUTIVE

CRIMINOLOGY

criminology, roots,

cannot

be

cultural,

viewed

that

separately

and social contexts Constitutive

and

from

rejects

the

historical,

the

arguments

in

mainstream criminology that see crime and off enders

be

harmed,

process and

by

by each

argue that the coproduction

occurs through

criminologists

psychosocial-cultural

societys structure by human actions.

look at what it is about the

matrix that

provides the

medium

meaningful

harms

which humans construct

to others. They

find that this

medium is to befound in

relations of inequality and power. Constitutive criminologists

as disconnected from the wider society or the result of individuals

can

process: ultimately

as these are energized

Constitutive

control

which it is gener-ated. through

within

theory

its

order, as well

it,

by both the

theorists

relations

and culture, post-modernist

with its

crime

is about

humans.

Constitutive

consistent

believes

constructed

during that

as fellow

criminology

within

and destroyed

of harmful Constitutive

socially

constituted

what is built other

Constitutive

argue that relation-ships

of inequality established throughout

acting independently from the context

the whole

of which they are a part. Constitutive criminologists

of society and reflected in its

argue that it is relationships

cultural arrangements translate into specific harmful

by humans through

their

of power, constructed

discourse, that

provide the

motivation, the scripts, and the props for the play that creates

they

the

harms

that

are

labeled

crime.

argue, are active coconstructors

They

construct

surroundings discourse

their

worlds

through

humans identify

these social constructions

language

of their

categories,

of reality

we also coproduce

harmful

also provide

for

produced

humans

act.

by our collec-tive

the harm in our

world.

Thus constitutive criminology shifts the criminological

outcomes,

but they

how all relationships

criminologist,

operate.

human relationships

a blueprint

To the constitutive in hierarchically

or-dered

societies as diff erent asthose in the U.S., Europe, China, or India power

power that

be formal

and

corporations, family. This part

are first

and foremost

and relationships

The

world that gives

that

and the powerless.

not only produce directly

and sym-bols

chaotic states. It is toward

as our world is socially

actions,

their

between the powerful

and

Social processes of inequality

not least via

diff erences, construct

order to otherwise

worlds.

by transforming

use.Through

and share a belief in the reality

Insofar

of their

social interaction,

or language

apparent

Humans,

relationships

organizational

about

frames

stabilized

power

of a historical

social

institutions,

agencies,

cultural

may

such

as

marriage, and the

may be traditionally and

of

power.

human relationships

in

government

relationships

established

context,

as

as in relations

between diff erent races, ethnicities, and genders.It may

focus away from narrow dichotomized issues focusing

beinformal

either

or within interpersonal relationships among otherwise

on

the

individual

off ender

or

on

the

social

envi-ronment.

Crimeis not parasitic behavior on our social uncontrollable

forces

Rather it is an integral the

world

we

and society

social

similar individuals. In any of these frames of power, is

environment.

part of our relationships

with

so

either

criminology

that

thus

constructed

process categories

a

holistic

mutuality

of investing

of order, humans

dormant

Thus,

crime

the waysin

of all three, harm

outcome.

by inequality

of inequality.

Harm

is

not

as it is embedded rather

than

in

identifying

criminology

seeks

which harm is the frequent

of unequal power relationships the

in not

or

specific causes of crime, constitutive

outcome and inter-relationship. energy

manifest

to demonstrate

between the individual

examines their the

takes

a

much caused

relations

of the relationship

In socially

our

create.

Constitutive conception

of

asin subcultural groups

nor is it the re-sult and particularly in the interrelations

world perpetrated by evil individuals, of

and fluctuating,

, and to dem-onstrate

waysthat some of this harm is labeled

as

POSTMODERNISM

AND

CONSTITUTIVE

THEORIES

OF

of humans investing energy in harm producing, socially

diff erence that themselves limit

constructed

the same.

constructed less than

of power, based on inequalities

around

diff erences.

to

do

with denying

or preventing

fully social beings. to

the

world,

and together

us from

to

act

on it,

to transform

than

human;

to interact

with

criminologists their

harmed.

define crime as the

ability to

criminology

is that

of

constitutes

what

diff erence

power to deny oth-ers

it is to

paradox the

the

a diff

erence

constitutes

the

Constitutive criminology types: crimes

of reduction

Crimes of reduction

that

and crimes

have property

in hate crime. experience from

Crimes of repression

a limit,

achieving

an accomplishment Considered

number

or repression

of

In

constructed

Western

harms cluster

constructed

preventing

them

or standing

diff

may be based on an infinite

around familiar

such

socially

crimes

or

differences: economic (class, property),

political (power, corruption),

(racism,

hate),

morality, human rights,

social position (status or prestige, inequality), state (security, or actualization, the

they they from

biological

construction,

actions

integrity, harms

move an off ended away from currently occupying

a position

considered

of

However, harms

which actions

Whatever

a position

occupy, or because they

the achievement another.

etc. either

or state that

of repression

processes

harmful

al-ways

which or

of

off ender, and

crime

more

victim

causation.

To

the

crime is not so much caused through

human processes of

However, there is something

about

in the

an excessive

those

power on

designated

to impose

others. The

investor

in

Excessive investors magnifying

This

uniquely

as criminals.

crime

to

the

potentialities.

others

freedom.

process,

the

victim

or the ability to

investor

is thus

viewed

oth-ers.

creating

and

and others. disables, and

The

investors

crime

is

domination some

that

such

of their

hu-manity,

make a diff erence or to be dif-ferent.

this and

rendered

less complete

loses

as

dominate

Their

others as objects for

Victims, from

crime

to

disadvantages,

human

limit

they act toward

excessive

power

discursive

is

put energy into

of energy

others

is

order (i.e., off ender

diff erences between themselves

investment

destroys

perspective, suff

er loss.

are disabled Victims

suff

own humanity. The

a nonperson,

by

er the

victim

a nonhuman,

of or a

being.

Constitutive

criminology

justice, as it is traditionally

envisions

criminal

practiced, as part of the

very problem it claims to control. Its

practitioners

crime and crime control asif they werereal. Criminal justice is an exercise in the investment perpetuates

or state

excessive

desire,

does not deny or deprive and

manner in

or less

of crime, notion

criminologist

because

prevent them they

also

psy-chological act toward the discursively constructed categories of

well-being), self-realization are

erent

constructions)

the

and discursively

gender (sexism), race and ethnicity

extent

but the more

pain of being denied their

societies

some

Whether single human beings or human groups,

crimes

erences.

industrial

diff

or real-izing that, in the

of deprivation,

be

to

constitutive criminology seessuch people asexcessive

as occurs in sexism or racism.

along a continuum

of reduction

from them as

occur when people

or restriction,

a desired position

present

stolen from them,

but they could also have dignity stripped

a

which it is one.

off ended expe-rience

relative to their

can

reconception

to

investors

crime.

of repression.

occur when those

could

is

divides crime into two

a loss of some quality standing. They

harm

of repression,

concentrated

use

of diff erenceto deny others the right to be different and make

is

as discursively constructed

of

making

be human,

leads

constitutive

constitutive

although

control

achieved

This

and our-selves.

make a diff erence. The

constitutive

is

to others, then the

might be more correctly

or less justified.

others,

we become

Thus

Such

a crime control

makea

others attempts to do

are themselves limiting of these attempts

control.

becoming

the environment

we are

called

make a diff er-ence

If this process is prevented or limited less

repression

ways, but all have

Whatis human is to

209

Where attempts to achieve a desired position

or standing

Crimes are nothing

people being disrespected for being diff erent.

People are disrespected in numerous

BEHAVIOR

attempts by some person or social process to

Constitutive criminology seescrime asthe outcome relations

CRIMINAL

are

when they limit

further

investor

harm. in

of the victimized thus feed crime. notions

harm.

of law

the

institutions

Criminal justice Both

the

and the system

and criminal

of criminal

as indicated

justice, the

of society,

is a

discursive

Both fuel the energies that

of crime. Indeed,

not

of energy that

fear

justice

drive our

above, agencies

official social

are themselves

major

control

organization

210

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

Given the

that exercise power (and, therefore, harm). Agencies

continuous

of justice and law not only accomplish both crimes of

and its compounding

reduction

and the

(of liberty,

of property,

(incapacitation), labeling

of power relationships

ascrime,

ornot

control,

crime.

harmful

subject to justices are amplification,

leaving

for harm.

Contributing harm

documentaries,

very relations

of power that

can be done? crime

Constitutive

process, and that

to

provide the linguistic

The

results

crime

crime

invest-ment resistance, the concept

crime

news,

crime

books,

crime

of reality

and as

medium by

can take

of replacement

unofficial,

displace

of power

which

place. Beyond discourse off ers

crime

a celebration

films,

ignored knowledge through its discursive diversity. In

dramas,

of

mayappear.

are designed to exercise

off er an alternative

the crime

discourses that

materials out of which new con-ceptualizations

multiple

shows,

discursive

must take place.The

replacement

moments in the

control. They

what

suggests that

as an ongoing

new constructions as

of the

their reality,

of being human in society

these emerge

excessive

affirm

reconstruction

on creating

become

multiple layering

reproduction

criminology

must be deconstructed

emphasis is

of crime,

by the criminal justice process,

mass medias discursive

social constructions

further are

they

relations. The and

and from

who produce

justice;

own powerful

possibilities

other harmful

and those

concentration,

relations

by

behavior

were acceptable, legal,

by criminal

of powerful

harmful

In this process of societal so-cial

behavior

it become colonized

in

only some

unlabeled, as though it

legitimate,

and repres-sion

they also deepen the problem

and categorizing

behavior

of life)

coproduction

informal,

discounted,

and

crime precautions, agencies of criminal justice, lawyers,

terms of diminishing the harm experienced from all

and academic criminologists.

types of crime (street, corporate, state, hate, etc.), con-stitutive

continuous coproduction relations of

crime

of power

Each contributes to the

and by perpetuating

the discourse

discourses

Language is a key ingredient of power that

discourse (language

our

of powerful

(harm)

suggests alternative is crime

that

seek

discourse

deal

this,

criminology

with the harm that

on the central role

of language.

economies

simultaneously

materialistic

changes; one

Replacement

through

attempts

reconstruct through

by constitutive

engaging

newsmaking

in

what

reorganization comesfrom a deconstruction of the lan-guage ordiscourse

of power. To help bring about such

reorganization and social change, constitutive suggest developing replacement These that

are alternative do not

existing

nor create new relations relationships

founded

relations

than

action

in

the

minimizing

harm.

can

also

Doan (1994)

to

mass media has called be induced

call narrative

developed as part of fam-ily

therapy to enable offenders (excessive investors in

power) to construct

moreliberating life narratives and

EVALUATION

of power,

of power, but help constitute

for inequality.

discourses

reconstruction

criminologists

world

on human interconnectedness.

a foundation

such replacement

implemented

through these reconstitute themselves. crimi-nologists

Here diff erence is the basis for greater understanding rather

be

discourses.

ways of describing the

perpetuate

practices

other renders

Barak (1998) It

Narrative therapy

minimize

pre-vailing

as well as

of crime in the

criminology.

what Parry and

to

can

popular images

therapy.

society

the

criminology

without the

discourse

through

reorganizing

Constitutive

argues for ideological

the

involves

both

and the associated

harm that is based on diff erences of power. Part of this

This

replacement

of

change only in part.

social change, changes and, through

transformation

of crime and social control. thus

we conceive

Constitutive

ways to

build

use) that

relations

reduction.

of

harm. It is through

world.Therefore,

major means of achieving

crime

in the coproduction

produce

and symbol

of and act to produce

in structures

that

political

(domination).

the relations

is a

criminology talks of liberating

of crime by exploiting the

of

Developing

will be a key practical human

relations

toward

Constitutive

criminology

recent literature

has raised

and several arguments

against it, although

must be confronted

have been lev-ied

most share Thomsons

view that this theory is stimulating,

and

much discussion in

raising

(1997)

issues that

by scholars in the empirical,

Marxist traditions

of

ro-mantic,

modern theorizing.

POSTMODERNISM

Several of the criticisms of constitutive

criminology

relate to its postmodernist leanings. For example, a central

theme

is

that

prose is excessively Constitutive

complex,

theorists

because of the

postmodern

narrow range

criminologists

are exposed to.

artificial integration

methodology.

positions or

such as

idealism

and

believe that

modernism

these

Constitutive

positions

much

will

versus

of

modernisms

determinism,

and the

conflict

such

versus

as

cynicism,

nave in believing

211

power structures.

Some point the idea

to

about

that limits

harm reducing

Indeed,

indicate

be harm

that

constructions to

consensus

its strategic

use

Nor is

of one particular

even some sympathetic

replacement

producing,

discourse

objectives.

discourse the prerogative

persuasion.

supporters itself

and

for be-ing

out that there is nothing

of replacement

of reconstruction

progressive

Others

criminology

changes in discourse can change

a means of resistance it

free

and conservatism.

sacrosanct

political

one over the other.

dualisms

nihilism,

replacement

theorists

are interrelated,

mistake is to separate and prioritize Unlike

theoreti-cal

and postmodernism

materialism.

BEHAVIOR

Herecritics often feel

challenge the policy of constitutive

as aform

theorizing

of incompatible

CRIMINAL

that they havethe last word against constitutive crimi-nology,

main-stream

A second issue is

general charge here is that constitutive

attempts

OF

also led to significant reaction.

toward

and esoteric.

of discourse that

THEORIES

claiming that such theorizing can too easily lead

that it is only difficult

to challenge the value of using integrative The

CONSTITUTIVE

or constitutive

difficult

counter

AND

discourse

and that

may

while aff ording

can also allow

new negative

occur. Finally, there are critics

who

versus chaos, constitutive theory seesthat

believe that the constitutive approach to social change

each of these is operative. Indeed, according to the

implies a vanguard of intellectuals rather than workers,

insights generated by chaos theory, wecan have order

which they claim, embodies a pacifism that is likely to

and order

be ineff ective against the powerful excessiveinvestors.

and disorder in the same system. Third,

some critics

embrace assume that

disparage constitutive

of social constructionist

because of constitutive

that crime is socially constructed, crime

concepts. They

criminologys

theorists

believe

people acting toward

realities,

asis clearly

crimes committed Fourth,

others

claim

advocates also believe

does not have any real consequences.

constitutive

from

criminol-ogys

that

real

constructions

demonstrated

However,

harm

comes

asif they are

in the example

of

in the name of religion. have criticized

the

constitutive

redefi-nition

of crime as harm, saying that this expands crime beyond its real scope, but constitutive the arbitrary

theorists

point to

nature defining only some harm as crime.

Fifth, questions have been raised over whether a set of causal assumptions still really underlie the

The

problem

for

to remove that

constitutive

theorists,

existing institutional

reproduce

the

however,

is

diff erences

whose

investment

how to cease our nonreflexive

rebuilding

and structures

energy in alternative,

connective, interrelational

forms. They

suggest that structures

sensitive

their

environment

and consequently still

providing

action

undergo

provisionally

may become the

social policy.

while reinvesting

that

continuous

perturbations

change

horizons

basis of political

while

for social action

Whether these reconstructed

orders will be able to replace existing

social

are extremely

and its

stable

with

Instead, the

of these social forms

to

not

and social structures

power results in oppression and inequality. problem

is

and

contingent

more harmful

onesis the challenge to constitutive criminology.

analysis, and if so whether this can be measured. For example, critiques havebeenlevied against constitutive criminologys

use of chaos theory analysis.

Leading

rather

than

mainstream

Ron Akers complain

conventional

causal

modernist theorists

like

that constitutive

not yet off ered a testable criminal

FURTHER

use of nonlinear logic, especially the

explanation

criminology

has

of either crime or

justice. of repressive practices

of what to do about crime that

we address above through

replacement

discourse

has

G. (1998).

Integrating

Criminologies,

Boston,

MA,

Allyn and Bacon. Henry, S. & Milovanovic, at

Sixth, given the various forms in society, the question

Barak,

READING

SUNY

D. (1999).

Work: Applications to

Constitutive

Crime and Justice,

Criminology Albany,

NY,

Press.

Henry, S. & Milovanovic, Beyond Postmodernism,

D.(1996). London,

Constitutive Sage

Criminology:

212

CRIME

AND

Milovanovic, Justice,

D. Ed., (1996a). Westport,

Milovanovic, New

Parry,

BEHAVIOR

D. York,

and Social

Praeger.

(1998).

in the

Postmodern

Criminology,

Postmodern

Princeton,

A. (1997).

Story Re-Visions: World,

New York,

Narrative Guilford

of

Postmodernism

NJ, Princeton

University

and the Social Sciences, Press.

presented

Socialist

available Journal

M.(1992).

of Postmodern

Thomson, Paper

R. E. (1994).

Publications.

Rosenau, P.

The Journal

Criminology.

Red Feather Institute

website.

Garland.

A. & Doan,

Therapy

CT,

Chaos, Criminology

at:

Post-Modernism at the

Annual

and Meeting

Studies,

St. Johns,

Ashorter

version is published

of Sociology, 23, 109113

Social of the

Society

Newfoundland.

(1998)

in

Justice,

Also

Canadian

CULTURAL CRIMINOLOGY

Jeff Ferrell

O

ver the past two perspective

criminology

decades, cultural

criminology

on crime and crime control.

emphasizes

the role

of culturethat

has emerged as a distinc-tive Asthe name suggests, cultural

is, shared styles and symbols,

subcultures of crime, mass media dynamics, and related factorsin nature of criminals, criminal actions, and even criminal justice. contend that these factors

shaping the Cultural crimi-nologists

must be considered if we are to understand

crime in any of its forms: as a moment of victimization

in the street or in the

home, as a collective or group activity, or as asocial issue of concern to politicians or the public. Cultural criminologists, recruit

and retain

styles of clothing,

members through

and exclusive

police officers display their language

and the

in the court

for example, study the waysin

or the prison.

and the

secretive shared experiences,

ways of talking. They

power and authority

waysin

through

which the authority

Cultural criminologists

communicate

particular

than

which politicians

and lawmakers

broad focus

on culture

distinctive which

and spe-cial

justice is symbolized

often focus on media technol-ogy

images of them.

shows,

popular films,

of crime, criminals,

as more important

in laws and enforcement

and communication,

and

Similarly, they look at the

define some crimes

others and then encode these definitions

subcul-tures

waysin

police uniforms

of criminal

criminal justice and so aff ect public perceptions

This

examine the

mass media and the process by which television

and newspaper reports

ways in

which criminal

cultural

criminologists

policies. argue,

allows scholars, students, and the public to develop a deeper and more critical understanding of crime and criminal justice. From this view,the subject matter of criminology cannot simply becriminals and whatthey do;instead, it the waysin which crime is perceivedby others; the particular

mustinclude

meaningsthat crime

comes to havefor criminals, victims, crime control agents, and everyday citizens; and the consequences crime control

also intend

meanings and perceptions for criminal

policies, and even the politics of contemporary

It is significant the subject

of these

that

cultural

criminologists

matter and analytic approach for cultural

criminology

criminology

to

intend

this

society. perspective to expand

of conventional

criminologybut

provide a distinct

alternative

and at times to directly confront

activities,

they to conven-tional

what they see as its current

21

214

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

weaknessesand limitations.

As already suggested,this

divergence between cultural criminology conventional subject

forms

of criminology

is

and

partly

more one of

matter; over the past few decades, conventional

criminology

has largely

very components

of social lifemedia,

meaningthat essential

for

dismissed from

cultural

a fully

analysis the style, symbol-ism,

criminologists

developed

argue are

criminology.

criminologists

elementsor,

as discussed in this chapter, reincorpo-rate

theminto we

will

also

criminology

perspectives

runs

the

deeper than

tension

subject

with social class, investigated subcultures

criminological

more

theories

are

inadequate for explaining crime precisely becausethey and meaning. They likewise argue that the most widely designed in such a way that they inevitably

And they

of crime, culture,

point out that

are the result

many of these current

of conventional

with criminal governmental

cultural

justice,

failings

and its overreliance definitions

criminology

on

of crime.

is designed not only

some of the

and criminal

deviance (Becker

to anindividual

primary theoretical

orientations,

British, the other primarily

one largely

American. In the 1970s,

scholars associated with the Birmingham cultural studies, the and the new 1972;

criminology

Taylor,

the distinctive

National in

Deviancy Conference,

Great Britain (S.

cultural

was exercised

and

dynamics through maintained.

crime controlthat

is, the

waysin

often tapped into

they linked

In this

dimensions

which power context

which crime issues

larger

political

all of this to emerging

murder, self-defense, politicians

Killing another per-son,

heroism,

or insanity.

or police officers or the family

can subsequently

make the

harms engendered

a symbol

of

morality, the dangers of

guns, or the need for stronger laws. The about it,

Likewise,

of the victim

killing into

else: the decline in

crimefears

social reality

models for confronting

of

it, social

by it, even the visceral experience or victimis

in

Great Britain,

and labeling

crime, culture,

therefore

and political

seen to be process. Like

American symbolic

theorists

were beginning to

and power. Significantly,

to

document

they

these linkages

were

through

ethnographic research inside the worlds of drug users, pool hustlers, and other outsiders

(Becker 1963),

producing a series of case studies that revealed how criminals

and

anti-crime

crusaders

alike

constructed

meaningand negotiated symbolic communication. In the following co-evolved,

with

criminologists

decades, these two British

American

inspiration

cultural

providing theoretical

and

two agen-dasand

patterns

were not inherent

for example,can mean manythings to manypeople:

they

of crime and

scholars argued that the

of crime

is, by others perceptions and bythe meaningsthey

Cohen

Walton, & Young 1973) began to explore

also examined the ideological

and concerns

School of

of crime and

criminal act; instead, they werelargely

also beginning

of two

sociologists interactionist

theory in their study

attributed to the act orindividual.

link

has developed from a synthesis

this crimi-nology

determined by others reactions to an act or personthat

interactionists

Cultural criminology

between

During roughly

American

1963). These

their counterparts THEORY

way they be-gan

point for cultural

among

part of an ongoing cultural

criminology.

and ideologies

manylinks

processes.

nature and consequences

these

worlds and illicit

who used symbolic

and labeling

it,

defiance to authority,

mediated campaigns

to study crime, but to study and critique the taken-for-granted of it as perpetrator practices of contemporary

leisure

same time, a second starting

overiden-tificationsomething

criminologys

grants and legalistic

In this sense, cultural

ignore the

and social life.

to

practices associated

of stylized

to conceptualize

usedresearch methodsin conventional criminology are features

the

Reconceptualizing

resistance

essential to social and legal control. In this

exclude any understanding of culture, communication,

mostimportant

as sites

and recorded

theory

matter.

many of the

and

the cultural

and criminologists

between

criminological

simply

contend that

contemporary

control

was emerging see,

and conventional

Cultural criminologists

popular

these

of social

documented

criminology.

as

cultural

push to incorporate

nature

scholars

In this

sense, cultural

But,

of social and economic inequality. the

to

orientations

critiques

of ideological off ering

scholars. In the

were synthesized

into a distinct cultural

and

American scholars

interactionists British

orientations

theorists

criminology

new

with so-phisticated control

ethnographic mid-1990s, the

for the first (Ferrell

time

& Sander

CULTURAL

1995) that,

while building

primarily

on these twin

CRIMINOLOGY

215

risk, aggressive law enforcement strategies designed

to stop illegal edgework often serve only to heighten foundations, alsointegrated the work of subcultural re-searchers, postmodern and

progressive

the

symbolic

theorists,

political

theorists.

components

criminology waysin

cultural

components

(2) the

ways in

especially

which criminal

which cultural

moral entrepreneurs

(Becker

to integrate

1963).

scholarly

such as art

Honoring the this

has also contin-ued

work from the

United States,

and so to force the

skillsthereby

development

the

very

seek and legal authorities

Two other cultural address the links

has in

through

a theory

of dangerous excess, ridicule, was ritualized,

and places, it

emotion,

percep-tion,

crimes such as drug taking,

many human societies

yet since it

that

Mike Presdee (2000)

arson, and joyriding

be understood

experience

theories likewise

among experience,

posited that contemporary gang rituals,

of further

seek to prevent.

criminological

and larger social conditions.

periods

and beyond.

amplifying

participants

and

co-evolution,

criminology

the risk

dynamics:

by legal authorities

of trans-Atlantic cultural

Great Britain,

cul-tural

incorporate

enterprises

and

moreformalized

further new

on two

enterprises

music are often criminalized

history

this

of style, dress, and language

and

informal

geographers,

Exploring

of crime,

focused

(1) the

cultural

in stolen

cars can

of carnival.

Carnival

historically

been a time

and ritualized

and so confined

vulgarity;

to particular

also served to contain

dangerous

Cultural criminologists today usea variety of theo-reticaldesires,to serve asasort of temporary emotional safety modelsthat incorporate intellectual

orientations.

and expand on these

Among the

moreinfluential

of these is the concept of edgework, as developed by

valve after which normalcy wasrestored.

Now, Presdee

argued, carnival has beenfor the most part destroyed, outlawed in some societies and converted into legally

Steve Lyng (1990, 2005), Jeff Ferrell (1996), and oth-ers regulated and commercialized spectacles in others. As (Ferrell,

Milovanovic,

argue that

& Lyng 2001). These

takinggraffiti

writing, street racing,

antenna, span, earth) jumping object best

understood

not

self-destruction reclaim

as

off a fixed

cliff s or buildingscan

moments

but as situations

a sense of self through

risk and skill. This

risk

BASE (building,

(i.e., jumping

with a parachute) from

be

theo-rists

acts of extreme and often illegal

in

of

sold,

some remnants

and

consumed

pornography

because

which participants mix of

allows participants

the

now

cut

as crime,

loose

from

contemporary

defined

by the increasing

of large

portions

work, and it forces them to test these skills in situations

that

matter profoundly. This

meaning-ful mix of skill

mainstream

containment

economic

of the

after all, the more polished ones skills as a street racer

manyinner cities, the

or graffiti writer, the morerisk one can takeand

United Statesall poor, ethnic

and

population loss of

seductions of crimethat

is, inside its experiential

this

edgework

experience

as a response to larger,

social forces. The helps explain and criminal seductive

another, ironic justice.

adrenalin

also seeing

edgework dynamic

Given that

concept

rush as participants

of the

culturally

of

generates a mix skill and

lifestyle

resentment,

through

mass advertising,

retaliation

insecurity,

with them, and frustration

middle

groups tend to the

levels

and humiliation

Young pointed

power

of

of frus-tration, are the

out, crimes

as well. Echoing

be

they learn

goods and symbols

success as do others. Increasing

resultand

of jobs, the

mainstream society. Yet

included;

mass media and

to want the same consumer de-humanizing also

between crime

edgework

increasingly

from respectable, millions

minorities, and even the formerly

at the same time, these and other

meaning and allure for participantswhile

society is

and legal exclusion

massincarceration rates in the

go inside

called the immedi-ate

of

serve to exclude many among the

class from the comforts

Katz (1988)

dynamics

His theory

work, the economic decay of

become.In this way,cultural criminologists attempt to what Jack

but

within

cultural

to criminality.

society. The

prevalence of low-wage

morerisk onetakes, the morepolished those skills must

shows,

more dangerous

notes that contemporary

and risk in turn spirals participants closer to the edge; the

all the their

economic

exclusion/ inclusion

daily

sadomasochistic

widened this focus in address-ing

connections

often absent from

of daily life and

are now bought, of

ritual.

Jock Young (1999)

and their

form

or degrading reality television

to develop the sort of finely crafted skills that are today the tedium

of carnival

in

others are enacted

a community

out-of-control

an exhilarating

sort of edgework

a result,

Robert

of K

216

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

Mertons (1938) famous formulation

symbolism in shaping perceptions of crime and crimi-nals.

of adaptations to

To conduct research that is informed

socially induced strain, Young argued that this height-ened strain

between

inclusion

economic

exclusion

helps us understand

all

and

manner of crimes,

from those of passion to those of economic A final theoretical interplay

of the

contemporary (2008)

media, crime,

theory

we are now

media loops and spirals

media report

cause copycat

and

on crime or

crimes.

media images that

criminologists

justice in Youngs

argues that

whether

Instead,

they

a clear distinction

are confronted

mass media and that

loops

and spirals

Whengang membersstage violent assaults so

as to record them and post them on the

Web, when

assaults and arrest,

when police officers alter their

strategies

because of their

regularly

and

media have become inherently

Moreover, these loops time,

spawning

justice,

and

example, which

often reproduce

an ongoing

spiral

media. Videotapes

entangled.

themselves

images

covered

in local

of criminality

legal evidence,

of police activities, for

news reporting.

or

national

cases,

media;

often function

Because of this, cultural

adopt alternative

that

the re-search

used by criminologists criminologists

methods of research. criminology,

for example,

analysis of survey re-sultsthe

most widely used methodsin conventional engagement with

by their very design any deep meaning, emotion, and the social

processes by which meaning and emotion are gener-ated. Such methodsforce the complexities of human experience

and emotion

into

simplistic

choices prear-ranged

by the researcher and so reduce research partici-pants to carefully cross-tabulation.

from

controlled Such

categories

methods

of counting

remove

the

and

researcher

the people and situations

to be studied,

creating

a sort of abstract, long-distance

research that

excludes

essential

dynamics

of crime

surprise, angerfrom (Kane

2004).

argue, such

and justiceambiguity,

the process of criminological Worse yet, cultural

do produce safe findings

criminologists

the service of political

and abstract statistics in

agencies or criminal

thereby forfeiting

crime and

re-search

criminologists

methods are often used precisely because

they

violence mustalso be a cultural criminology of media

and of the

crime and its image.

argue, though,

to this task, and so cultural

and fodder for

of day-to-day

situations

media technology

entangle

criminologypreclude

simi-larly,

over time as

marketed entertainment,

argue, any useful criminology

over

of crime, criminal

of

From the view of cultural

own po-lice

often become the basis for later court

are then

criminal

methods

can catch something

survey research and the statistical

car cameras or the presence of news cameras, then crime

by these

need

also need methods that

methods conventionally are ill-suited

reality television shows entrap their participants in ac-tual street enforcement

that

criminologists

effect in

which crime and the image of crime circle back on one another.

particular

can penetrate the dynamics the

between

exists, and so

by a looping

criminologists

meaning, and symbolism. They

media argued,

with media technol-ogy

mediated image seldom

cultural

can get them inside

Cultural of how ac-curately

questions

everyday life is today so saturated

an event and its

on the

Hayward, and

well beyond simple

the images

of

and criminal

Ferrell,

that

then,

and experiences and that can attune them to emotion,

gain.

model focuses especially

society.

theories,

cultural

justice

or-ganizations,

the critical, independent

scholarship that cultural criminologists

see as neces-sary

for good criminological research and analysis.

and representation.

Instead of relying on such methods,then, cultural criminologists METHODS

Cultural Cultural

criminologys

with its cultural on the

theoretical

and its

various

theories

experiences

and

more generally;

that

and on the role of

animate

crime

focus

in particular

on the emotions and criminal

mediated representation

and

justice;

and cultural

criminologists of criminals,

who are deeply immersed crime

victims,

or police of-ficers

can become part of the process by which such

As already seen,

meaning of crime, as constructed

situations

inter-twine in the lives

orientations

methods of research.

criminology

often turn to ethnography: long-term,

in-depth field research with the people to bestudied.

people

make meaning and can

which they symbolic them their

make sense of their

codes

and

situations

witness the experiences

shared language. and experiences,

to their tragedies and triumphs,

cultural

ways in through

Sharing

with

and vulnerable criminologist

CULTURAL

participant. This

likewise learn something of the emotions that course through their experiences of crime, victimization, criminal

For cultural

criminologists,

in the concept

Max

actions

understanding lives.

Notice

criminology

and

for

that

here

deeply

fully the

criminology.

methods

of preset surveys

Instead

text,

of

analysis

event or elicit information of its

the

patterns,

meanings. not as

cultural

process

and

content

cultural

analysis,

then,

and analyze

but it also taps into the fluid, looping define crime and justice.

approach

goes a step further

returns

us to ethnography:

criminal

justice

their

researcher

media text

media, political,

Like conventional

interacting

producing assumed, it

the

of the text and its

various

alternative

cultural

field

workers,

with the

work

A sec-ond

and in fact

with criminals,

or others as they

go about

mass media, developing images of

own lives, or even inventing

their

own alternative

media(Snyder 2009).

is in fact emotional subjectivity that ensures accuracy in research; without it, the researcher

that

as an emergent

media that increasingly

methods of

as is commonly

such

method allows researchers to identify

textual

felt

of the objectivity

and statistical

accurate research results,

this

comprehending

in fact oppose and reverse the

conventional

dynamics.

of verstehen

understanding

motivationsa

but

incorporating

verstehen. As developed

or appreciative

essential

a single entity

is embodied

Weber, the concept

denotes the subjective

their

the

It is also designed to approach

goal of gaining

knowledge

of criminological

by sociologist

others

this

and emotional

217

method is designed to produce deep

with

develops a deep account

justice.

deep cultural

of

and

involvement

CRIMINOLOGY

mayobserve an

but will gain little

under-standing APPLICATIONS

meaning or consequencesfor the actors

involved. A similar

diff

erence

approach criminologists using the

to

cultural

quantitative

textual

categories

media texts.

justice

cannot

of textual

missthe larger

analysis is regularly

of

the

meaning.

real

nature

representation

of

a crime

of itbut

issue

and

this approach

be

within

Moreover, of

media

missesthe

multiplicity of audiences and interpretations

will confound crime

issue

In

runs

the real and the representational its

criminologists first is

of

the

best-known

has used ethnographic

and the

between researcher

justice

media.This

to confront

and research

to particular

cultural justice

sub-cultural

criminologists stereotypes

and to deepen scholarly

of

knowledge

of them. Ferrell (1996, 2001, 2006), for example, has conducted long-term

participatory

ethnographies of

three urban subcultures: (1) hip hop graffiti writers, (2) street-level political activists, and (3) trash scroungers. have served to humanize

members of the subcultures,

campaigns (1997, various

against them.

2002) long-term subcultures

terrorism

to reveal the

meaningful collective

cul-tural to challenge the validity

such

criminol-ogy

with legal authorities

close attention has allowed

media and criminal

these subcultures

cultural

methods to explore illicit

the

meaning and a process of intel-lectual

in

and their interactions

as a

methods. The

conceptualizes

and criminal

work

In each case, his findings

method of ethnographic

content analysis, an approach that

give-and-take

analysis, then,

use two alternative

David Altheides (1987)

analysis as a search for

Some

which they engage in content

haveinvestigated

meaning, and representa-tion

of criminal

that

course.

place of traditional

a variety

has been ap-plied

within criminology;

criminologists

of symbolism,

dynamics

morecomplex dynamic of medialoops and spirals and the

amid

structural

a biased

perspective areas

situations.

objectively proving the degree of divergence between the

put diff erently, cultural the dynamics

word

used with the intent

criminological

to a range of subject

of dis-crete subcultures

aesthetic

and ignore

cultural

Cultural interplay

Numeric summaries

frames that shape a texts flow

by

measuring of

summaries

which a text takes shape

The

Conventional

that the fluid

and criminal

or source type.

crimi-nologists

media and crime

within

argue, though,

in

content

in

media research.

categories

media, crime,

captured

seen

most often study

criminologists

frequency

be

method of content analysisthe

static content

among

can

action, and

of aggressive criminal Alternatively, ethnographic

associated

Mark

justice Hamms

research among

with extremist,

has revealed hidden dimensions

strategies and ideologies

waysin

right-wing of their

and so has helped strengthe

218

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

legal eff orts to contain them. From the perspective of cultural criminologists, of a subcultures more appropriate whether

other

or

responses

eventually

more condemnatory.

researchers

perspectives illegal

practices can help shape

public and legal responses to them,

those

tolerant

then, a deep understanding

values and

communities,

As Ferrells three suggest,

In a similar

have used cultural

in the in-depth,

to

subcultures,

images,

fashion,

brawlers,

study

models have

applicable

and interactions

life and urban criminality.

policing.

also explored

especially

to the swirl that

Keith

animate

ur-ban

Hayward (2004)

by the theory

cultural

boundaries

crime,

of the

waysin

and criminal Cultural

in

on the

of

media

criminologists

have

outside

mediated representa-tion,

subcultures

are increasingly

criminologists

have, for example,

symbolism

of the shrines

memory of the September

11, 2001 at-tacks

United States and the symbolic

off ered by roadside tragedy. They

shrines

the

mass media, focusing

which

studied the cultural

constructed

on prisons

media and representation

on the

interwoven.

of

and films

As suggested

loops and spirals, though,

police officers,

criminological

be especially

and

Scene Investigation]),

of urban subcul-tures carefully

ethnographies

heavy metal music, bluegrass music,

cartoons and comic books, television shows (e.g., CSI [Crime

conventional of

drug users, and youth gangs.

cultural

been found

more

criminological

ethnographic

street racers, youthful

immigrant

become

forms, including

to victims

have also documented

reminders

of automotive

the waysin

which

in particular has developed a comprehensive cultural

graffiti, corporate advertising, and political

criminological analysis of urban crime and urban social

are confused within shared urban spaces and the ways

control in the context of consumer culture.

in which criminal subcultures areincreasingly defined

theory and urban scholarship, revealed the

many ways in

has come to

penetrate

intertwining

Hayward has

which consumer

urban life

and

criminologists

and symbolic

interaction,

eye for

situated

COMPARISONS

of urban

planners

economies

A variety

the

rational-ized

spontaneous

and illicit

of cultural

the interplay

meaning

and legal authorities,

on the other hand, the ambiguous, underground

With

within large

urban areas: on the one hand, the regulated,

explored

culture

he has also documented

existence of two diff erent sorts of city life

and city of

As already their

studies

noted,

conventional of it.

cultural

work as a distinct

Given this built-in

approaches,

to

criminologists

alternative

criminology,

exists in contrast

sense that cultural

two comparisons

and some of the

have

Many of these studies have investigated the

pose of

criminology

more mainstream criminological are especially between cultural

more conventional

media, and represen-tation. perspectives and (2) the comparison

of crime,

often

to the practice

and even as a direct critique

(1) the comparison

urban subcultures.

criminological

mediaand so to

urban spaces,

many ways defining the city itself.

the cultural

own

communicate beyond any onelocality.

with the practice of both legal control and

crime and in

city

Drawing

by their ability to invent their of crimi-nological

on and revitalizing long-standing traditions

messages

worth ex-ploring: criminol-ogy

criminological between cultural

criminology and other alternative approaches that, like

complex dynamics by which the mass mediaconstruct

cultural criminology, seek to distinguish themselves

a particular crime concern or criminal justice issue

from

and the waysin intertwine for example, strikes

way,cultural

has already been noted: the distinction between

of child

drug use,female criminals, Cultural

three

movements, and they have

media representations

controversies.

have studied,

conventional

though,

music

perspectives

have also been applied to a wide range of popular

media

The

and statistical

choice of

derives from

use of survey

based on a general external

research

research

methods such

analysis and cultural

methods of ethnography

field research. This

sexual abuse,

and popular

criminological

criminological

as survey research

policy and reform-mindedcriminological

out sentencing

get smart on crime

regional

criminologists

mass media campaigns surrounding

and youre

analyzed

Regarding the first of these comparisons, one as-pect

which these media dynamics in turn

with public perceptions and criminal justice

policy. In this

mainstreamcriminology.

and in-depth

methodological a still

deeper

and statistical

assumption

that there

orienta-tions, diff erence. analysis is exists

and objective social reality to be studied;

an thi

CULTURAL

CRIMINOLOGY

219

objective reality can therefore betapped into through

themselves. Becauseof this, another key differencearises:

survey questions, and its

Instead of relying on governmental statistics asthe basis

through

statistical

meaning can be deduced

analysis and comparison.

victimization

their frequency

exist

can be ascertained

responses or noting statistical act

and

another.

From

though,

the

the reality

of being constructed,

view

world;

meaning for

by compiling

of

survey

between one

cultural

ongoing.

the subject

matter of criminology

theory,

For cultural

this

process

criminologists,

then,

is not the objective,

and measurablereality of crime or criminal

argue that these statistics should

can tell

be studied

researchthat

is, should

by criminologistsfor

us about criminal

justice

what they

and its

political

and

legal limitations. issue

of gangs and gang crime provides

instructive anti-gang

example.

policy

Department

and contestedand,

of labeling

themselves

is

but always in the process

is inevitably

research into crime or victimization,

be a focus of criminological

The

criminolo-gists,

of crime and victimization

interpreted,

the insights

obvious,

social

correlations

never objective or self-evident

following

in the

can be measured, and then

those involved

for criminological

cultural criminologists rates of crime com-mission

to this view, for example, particular or crime

According

and the war

of Justice

Delinquency

on gangs,

the

U.S.

Office of Juvenile Justice and

Prevention

Gang Survey so asto gang

a par-ticularly

As part of governmental

conducts

a

National

Youth

measurethe number of gangs and

members in the

United States, as well as trends in

gang membership and activities.The survey seemingly

justice but rather the complex cultural process by which

produces precise measurementsof gangs numbers and

this reality is constructed and made meaningful. In this

gang membersbut

in fact the survey, which self-admittedly

sense,for example, the rate of domestic violence is not

provides no guidelines or definitions asto

an objective fact that can be measured but instead a

what might constitute a gang member or a gang crime,

shifting

reality aff ected by how domestic couples define

violence and how they choose to report it to the police, police officers subsequent domestic

domestic of

discretion

in responding

violence calls, varying legal statutes violence, the

domestic

violence

the interaction

among

this, cultural

greater

the

or lesser

all these factors.

content

news reporters

collectively

It is significant

that

and/or

argue that

gain this

knowledge

analysis that process by

2003)but

anti-crime

its

where it is

unknown

official

mix

records.

Cultural

objective

or nothing

of

about gangs

ethnography

is

needed to

Brotherton,

& Barrios,

us much about the inadequate

biased foundations

for

governmental

policy.

Cultural criminologys and

assumptions

an

such supposedly

(Kontos,

they do tell

and inherently

agencies,

of

research procedures tell uslittle

police officers, and

diff erent

recollections

criminologists

basis

Because of

make sense of crime. these

personal

enforcement

on the

culturescareful

them in ongoing, interactional and crime victims,

completed

and their

must have methods such

or ethnographic

which criminals

visibility

then

moreover,

mediaand,

criminologists

as ethnography can immerse

in

to

regard-ing

is sent only to law

perspective

methods, in this

on

preferred research

methods,

more

research

conventional

way bolster its critical

approach

to

about the nature of social reality show up not only

both

in the original research that criminologists

system. Asimilar sort of critical stance becomesappar-ent

but also in their approach to information

undertake

Many mainstreamcriminologists rely on governmental agency statistics of objectively of

crime

as a relatively

prevalence

areas. Cultural hand,

increases

or

decreases

of particular

criminologists

morelikely to see such statistics

the objective, external reality

with some

in

crimes in are, on the as reflecting

crime

not

generally focus on

animate

and

crime,

agencies

shape the

widely used in

crime

theories

on the subtleties the

shared

on the

in

mainstream

of symbolism

human

powerful

meaning and importance

contrast, for example, rational

of crime, but rather the in-ternal denies or ignores

workings and biases of the governmental

more popular

Recall that cultural criminological theo-ries

representation,

par-ticularthat other

of the

criminology.

measurement

knowable facts, such as the distribution

occurrences,

rates, or the

accurate

whencultural criminological theories are compared

produced by

governmental agencies or the criminal justice system.

mainstream criminology and the criminal justice

emotions

cultural

forces

of crime.

choice theory,

mainstream criminology,

and that

In

which is

systematically

these factors in its attempts to explain

and criminality.

According

to

rational

choic

220

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

theory, criminal events unfold along alinear sequence

simply assumesthe

of rational decision making, with criminal perpetrators

and imputes the nature of public perception instead

inevitably

of actually

to

seeking through maximize their

theorists

further

this rational

own

benefits.

target selection,

even if the perpetrator

that

Rational choice

modelignores

is drunk,

ignores the ambiguous,

drugged, or in a

criminologists

contentious

society.

Given this, cultural

rational

choice

theory

for

cultural

criminologists

for

being

particular

complex

process by

crime

in

also critique

more a simplistic control

campaigns

(e.g.,target hardening, increasing security for a specific

theorists

symbols, for example, they

most politically

and widely applied in criminal justicealso dramatically The

with cultural

broken

of crime broken

windows

causation

criminological

model (Wilson and crime

windows,

graffiti,

of neglected

property

as invitations

to further

contrasts orientations.

& Kelling 2003)

prevention

and similar

and

petty

popular

posits that

public

criminality

criminality.

displays operate

According to the

extent

that

building

baseballs from

failure

of local

code

of the

nearby

homeless.

intergenerational

the

bro-ken

any

as

manner

depending

on

resistance to

personal grudge,

Little

enforcement,

broken

function

community

a long-standing

errant

have shown, graffiti ap-proachin

mainstream criminological

fact, one of the

the

more crimi-nality

that

may symbolize

and the context:

absentee ownership,

are far

to further

of activities to any number of audiences,

location or target) than an explanatory theory of crime, Another popular

To

windows in a neighborhood

the situation

own ethno-graphic

social control

assume.

As

meanings of phenomena

windows and street graffiti

markers of failed

windows

them.

have found in their

than the simple invitations

or

events and that it also

which crime comes to have meaning and significance

or understanding

research, the symbolic

counter that this

the highly charged emotions

often explode in criminal

justification

cultural

investigating

and escape remains ra-tional such as broken

panic. Cultural criminologists

theoretical

mak-ing

argue that this sequence of choices as

to preparation,

hurried

decision

meaning of everyday symbolism

League games, the or the

Likewise,

illicit

as field

accom-modation

researchers

maysymbolize a neighborhoods

history, suggest changing patterns of

ethnic occupation or conflict, or even enforce a degree of community

self-policing.

Cultural

argue that the job of the criminologist these

urban

environments

and

to

explore

meanings and not, as with the broken to impose

assumed

perceptions

the service of a particular

criminologists is to investigate these

various

windows

model,

and consequences in

political

and criminal

justice

model, such displays suggest to the public and to po-tentialagenda. criminals

alack

of social control; up hope, criminals

the public begins to give

see signs of encouragement

crime, and so a downward and accelerated criminality politicians

In

of public concern and a failure

consequently,

and criminal

spiral of further

ensues.

justice

for fur-ther neglect

Widely adopted

by

officials, the logic of the

this

contrasts

approaches,

variety The

first

both

such as graffiti

crimes,

marginalized urban

populations, such asthe homeless. Cultural that

criminologists,

although

the

a convenient justice

campaigns, it is

of crimeand directly

broken

scholarly

from

criminological

on the windows

its

model

pretext for

of

notions such as symbolism

From this critical

as a theory

its inadequacy

misunderstanding

view, the broken

may of-fer

such criminal

wholly inadequate

moreover, that

hand, argue

stems

windows

criminology

also reveals

similarities

criminological

criminologists

and

criminologi-cal with

a

perspectives. widely used by

mainstream

crimi-nologists.

subcultural theory argues in general that criminolo-gists must understand manycases of criminal behavior as being rooted in the collective reality of a criminal Because

explore that of

the

particular

subculturecodes dress,

in turn

(if

shared

of

this,

cultural

criminologists

define

of speech and conduct,

styles

the

dynamics

common

waysin

may off er subcultural

imperfect)

subcultural to cultural

must

that

emotions,

must investigate

criminality

mean-ing. This model

cultural mainstream

As developed by Cohen (1955) and others,

key cultural and

more

of these, subcultural theory, is

subculture.

other

critique,

but it

cultural

writing and panhandling, and police

enforcement strategies that target

of with

of other alternative

broken windows model has spawned aggressive police campaigns against small-scale quality-of-life

sort

clearly

which subcultural members a collec-tive

solution

to their

approach

clearly

criminology;

problemsand

shared

off ers

it likewise

problems.

many simi-larities suggests

CULTURAL

similar critique

of criminological

modelsthat

would

expeditionseven

CRIMINOLOGY

221

women who hone their skills so as

ignore, or simply assume, the subtleties of meaning,

to push the dangerous, outer boundaries of anorexia

symbolism,

and bulimia.

and style that shape criminal

Other

criminological

share cultural mainstream

their

and

primarily

system; it

justice.

from

into

media stereotypes

& Ross 2001).

this

Feminist

international

criminologists

Finland,

in

the

the culture

support

criminology

it

shares with cultural criminology an analysis of the

Britainand

is

widening.

of

for

from now

Cultural

example, illegal

immigration

cultures

Netherlands,

violence

and

against

Australia, crime discourse in Japan,

Russian prisons,

and the international

of urban street gangs.

Cultural

criminologists

methodologies

are also

designed to

particular

like-wise

Great

are now studying,

law

mainstream

and

in

women in

has from

in equal part scholarship

racing

poli-cies affiliations

criminology

sensibility

Filipino

cultural

cultural

States

criminal

justice

that

United

of the

a critical,

the criminal

have produced it, and the sorts of

prison research and

the

research

a critique

other approaches to construct

(Richards

who

Similarly,

its origins incorporated both

Convict

scholars

uses ethnographic

analysis of massincarceration, that

stance toward

and who have trans-formedstreet

once imprisoned

own incarceration

justice

more explic-itly

critical

and criminal

has emerged

were themselves

criminal

approaches

criminologys

criminology

criminology

subcultures.

theoretical

developing

mirror cultural

orientations

new

criminol-ogys

and to resonate

with the particular nature of contemporary social and

sorts of cultural assumptions that tilt both criminology

cultural life. For example, ethnographic research and

and criminal justice toward privileged groups, as wellas

the questfor criminological verstehenhavetraditionally

a critique of media distortions offemale criminals and

been defined bythe researchers long-term

crime victims (Chesney-Lind

with the individuals

generally,

cultural

and feminist that

large

critical

criminology,

criminology subfield

of the

ground

generally

approach

oriented

many waysin

shape crime, victimization,

More

that the

criminology,

common

of criminology

critical investigation

2008).

convict

all find

criminologyan

and inequality

& Irwin

in

its cultural

labeled

toward

a

which power

the

dynamics.

and

cultureas

DIRECTIONS

in

virtual

news

and

employmenthave

theoretical

crime

Among the current

criminology

the substantive

are

criminological analysis, especially in the direction of greater diversity and inclusivity.

for

Originally, for

the experiences and ethnographic

research of malescholars involved in predominantly masculine forms

of illicit

the concept is increasingly of

ways in high-risk

womens

which

of

on

women experience

and

with

Recent research

has investigated

underground,

search-and-rescue

Now, though,

being explored in the con-text a focus

activities.

male scholars jumping

lives,

risk taking.

distinctive

make sense of by female

women who lead

women teams

the

or

who are whitewater

and BASE

members rafting

et

al.

Consequently,

notion

2008)a

re-search.

and the seductions on the immedi-ate,

cultural

experiences

criminologists

of instant

researchers

deepimmersion in fleeting transgressionand

and

ethnographic

dynamics that shape criminal

have developed the

(Ferrell ex-ample,

the cultural criminological concept of edgework developed from

situated

range of cul-tural and emotions.

com-munications,

models have suggested this as

well; concepts such as edgework

trends in cultural

are expanding

and

suggested to cultural

of crime, for example, focus attention

those that

still crime

entertainment,

new possibilities

Their

a group

pace of contemporary

embodied

criminologists

spends inside

Although this can certainly

instant

short-term

FUTURE

a researcher

more deeply he or she can understand

be the case, the rapid-fire

and criminal

justice.

being studied, on the assumption

more time

or situation,

participation

ethnography

immediate

and

moments of criminality

have begun to usethe

or

methodin

studying BASE jumpers and other groups. The al. 2008)

new notion

has developed from

ethnographic focused occupies

of liquid

research.

a similar

Ethnography

(Ferrell

a distinct

location

new locations

global economies

of has that

as well. Today, though,

are often on the or

et

rethinking typically

on a single, definable group or subculture

groups and subcultures into

ethnography

mixing

and global

move, migrat-ing

with new groups as

migration

blur

distinc

222

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

boundaries and identities. with the concept of groups

are today

more likely

own image,

come to shape the

among alternative Liquid

ethnography

attuned

it is ethnography

of images;

then, is a type

to the dynamics

which

scholarship

gangs

Aware of this

nature

example, the

of this

off -putting

and

potential contribution with criminologists

on the sidelines

problem,

response increasingly

and

of public

for students,

ways

and sensitive to issues

cultural

criminologists

experimenting

and alternative

with the intention

criminologists

move beyond

often left

and impenetrable

debate and eff orts at social progress.

scholarship

to explore, for

urban street

society is lost,

style and representation,

social life.

are now beginning

to the larger

of transi-tory

shifting

As a result

style, criminologys

their

dry and confusing lan-guage,

concepts,

exclusionary

is,

in the ongoing interplay

Using this sort of approach, cultural

in

of

to these circumstancesthat

immersed

needlessly abstract

graphs and tables.

of

and to flow

mass media, and other

and aware of the ambiguous,

of contemporary

other, and they do so through

be con-founded

as representations

ethnography,

sensitive

communities;

to

group itself

media, the

institutions.

too often, criminologists talk and write only for each

medialoops and spirals, social

more and

with their the group

Moreover, as already seen

of

with new styles of

modes of communication,

making criminology

policymakers,

more engag-ing

and the public. In place

oflengthy reports, they at times issue

crime to

of

are in

manifestosshort,

political resistance, community empower-ment,sharply written texts that can communicate succinctly

intermingle

key ideas and issues. Instead of relying on traditional

and religious practice in their shifting collective et

forms of academic writing, they on occasion write short

al. 2003) are also finding that global forces regularly

stories that embody cultural criminological themes, or

intersect

craft true fi ctionthat

identities. These

cultural

and

actual, existing to the eff ects of im-migration

responding

mediated communication,

alliances

cultural

(Kontos

with local dynamics, with gangs embodying

multiethnic identities,

global

criminologists

with other

criminologists

Likewise,

are now conducting

with prostitutes, and others

groups.

and forming

immigrants,

British

is

crime issues into

awash in

media images, they

asylum seek-ers, they produce their

sites as a way of

alternative

this

media, such as art, photography,

& Scoular

(ONeill, 2007).

Campbell,

Such research

to collaborate and contingent

allows

with even the

communities

and identity,

developing

and street

Hubbard, cultural

to

in defining their

making criminology

conversant

with

CONCLUSION

meaning criminology

emphasizes

the essential role

of

symbolism, meaning,and emotion in shaping the com-plex

criminologists

violence, and criminal

justice lie at the very

criminologists scholarship,

debate, and so help to

work toward

just society. Yet conventional,

must find

contribute

to

a safer and

and ways public more

mainstream criminology,

they contend, is poorly equipped to

way designed to operate as a double challenge: to sim-plistic public

issues

society and its challenges

because of this, their

argue that

criminals, victims, crime control agents, politicians, the

mat-ter, media,and the public. Cultural criminology is in this

methodology but on representation

Cultural

disseminate

Web

reality of crime and crime control for all involved:

heart of contemporary that

col-lections,

2005), and

world.

the verstehen of shared emo-tional Cultural

final trajectory focuses not so much on subject

of crime,

photographic

crimi-nologists

Appropriately enough for cultural criminology, a

and style.

to and

(Redmon

most transitory

of social justice.

or

turn

documents,

Pitcher,

knowledge, and working toward a holistic sense

theory,

also increasingly as visual

films

that

Responding to a world

own photographs,

documentary

margins of

the global economy, and in this research they are using

performance

a narrative form

more appealing to the reader.

the analysis of these images eth-nographies

liquid

who are pushed to the legal

is, stories that blend a number of

meetthis challenge;

justice

and to the theories

criminology Today there

assumptions

that

more than

exclude

about and

and criminal

methods of

analysis

ever, cultural

can be no useful study

the study of culture

crime

mainstream

of cultural

criminologists

forces. argue,

of crime that is not also

CULTURAL

REFERENCES

AND

FURTHER

READINGS

Hayward,

K., & Young, J. (2004b).

Some Altheide,

(1987).

D.

Qualitative Becker,

content

analysis.

New

Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of devi-ance.

York:

Chesney-Lind,

Free

M.,

New York:

K. (2008).

Beyond

bad

girls.

Delinquent

boys.

New

York:

Free

Press.

S. (1972).

MacGibbon

Cultural

Folk devils and

and

moral panics.

J. (1996).

Team:

Crimes of style.

J. (1999).

Cultural

J. (2001).

University

Boston:

Seductions

of cultural

8, 303321.

of crime.

New

J.,

&

Press of

New England.

criminology.

Annual

95,

York:

Basic

Review of

down

the

streets.

New York:

edge.

(Eds.).

M. (Eds.).

Boston:

Glasshouse/

Theoretical

W.,

&

Presdee,

M.

and

& Sanders,

the

S. (2001).

convict

elongation

Edgework, of

meaning.

5, 177202.

C.(Eds.).

Northeastern

(1995).

Cultural

University

Press/University

Northeastern

University

in

Oklahoma.

Muncie,

Press/University

Press

of

M.(2002).

University Hayward,

In bad company.

Press/University

K. (2004). the

Routledge.

urban

(pp.

City limits: experience.

Boston:

Press of

Northeastern

New England.

Crime, consumer London:

culture

GlassHouse/

Young,

(2005). picture].

of

Mardi

Gras:

New

York:

new school

of

Social Justice, 28, 177190. Graffiti

lives.

Harper

New

York:

New York

neighborhood

published The

Thousand

new criminol-ogy.

& Row.

G.(2003).

Broken

safety. In

& G. Hughes (Eds.),

J. (1999).

Sage

and the carnival

Films.

& Kelling,

400411).

work

New England. Hamm,

L,

of toler-ance.

Press.

New York:

Boston:

degrees

& sex

7393.

Walton, P., & Young, J. (1973). The

police and

Apocalypse

4,

[Motion

criminology.

L,

Wilson,

New England.

M. (1997).

China

University

criminol-ogy.

and

Culture,

J.,

Street

Routledge.

G. (2009).

Taylor,

P., Pitcher Other:

the

S. C., & Ross, J. I. (2001). The

Snyder,

American

with

D. (Producer/Director).

Cultural crimi-nology: Richards,

Routledge.

Hubbard,

Cultural criminology

London:

Carnivalesque

D., & Lyng,

of Sociology,

and anomie.

communities Media,

M.(2000).

Redmon,

R., Living

contingent

Presdee,

New York:

Social structure

J. (2007).

Made in

Oaks, CA: Sage.

analysis

Review, 3, 672682.

Crime,

unleashed. London:

psychological

American Journal

Edgework.

M., Campbell,

Scoular,

crime.

Morrison,

Thousand

Criminology,

Boston:

Hamm,

Press/

A social

risk taking.

R. (1938).

at

England.

K., & Young, J. (2008).

practices,

Press of

Ethnography

Routledge.

Milovanovic,

Ferrell, J.,

New York

University

Cultural criminology

Aninvitation.

media

New K.,

Hayward,

Ferrell, J.,

(1998).

Northeastern

of

Hayward,

(2004).

Ferrell, J.,

New York:

(2003).

New York:

Press.

Edgework:

(2005).

Sociological

work,

Press

J.,

Lyng, S. (Ed.).

ONeill,

Empire of scrounge.

L. (Eds.).

perspectives.

851886.

Merton,

Tearing

Hamm,

D., & Barrios, Alternative

University

S. (1990).

of voluntary

Northeastern

Press.

University

and

Cultural

Criminology,

methods

Criminology,

L., Brotherton,

Columbia

http://www.culturalcrimi-nology.org

Press/University

Ferrell, J. (2006).

Ferrell,

(2004a).

unconventional

Gangs and society:

Palgrave/MacMillan.

the

J. (Eds.).

issue]. Theoretical

Theoretical

Katz, J. (1988).

Kontos,

London:

Sociology, 25, 395418.

Ferrell,

& Young,

[Special

Kane, S. (2004). The

Kee.

Criminology

University

Ferrell,

K. J.,

criminology

Lyng,

Ferrell,

8,

Books.

Cohen,

Ferrell,

criminology: Criminology,

259273.

criminology.

Routledge.

A. (1955).

Cultural

on the script. Theoretical

223

8(3).

Press.

& Irwin,

notes

Hayward,

Sociology, 10, 6577.

H.(1963).

Cohen,

Ethnographic

CRIMINOLOGY

E.

windows: The McLaughlin,

Criminological Oaks,

CA:

J.

perspectives

Sage. (Original

1982) exclusive

society. Thousand

Oaks,

CA:

ADVANCING

CRITICAL

CRIMINOLOGY THROUGH ANTHROPOLOGY

Avi

Since its genesis, critical domination to include

criminology

has been committed to a critique

of

and to developing and exploring broader conceptions ofcrime harms

that

are not necessarily proscribed by law.

Without

diminishing the contributions of early or current critical criminologists, this article suggeststhat critical criminology can further its goals bylooking to anthropology. Such a recommendation is not without risk. Early criminal anthropology regarded criminality asinherited and contendedthat indi-viduals could beborn criminal (e.g., Fletcher 1891). Subsequentanthro-pological investigations

of crime

were and have continued to be sporadic,

and the disciplines approach to crime has not been particularly (Anthropology

has often considered crime

unified.

within broader explorations

law, for example, or through related, albeit diff erent, examinations and witchcraft.) presents three

Despitethese limitations

waysin

critical criminologys

which anthropology insistence

the boundaries imposed of domination

or shortcomings, this article

can speak to, and engage with,

that criminological

by legalistic

(Michalowksi

definitions

1996:11):

inquiry

move beyond

of crime

and its critique

1) anthropology

can help reveal

processes of domination that are pervasive; 2) anthropology can remind that

what constitutes crime

is culturally specific and temporal;

to be not just critical,

us

and 3) an-thropology

can help provide paradigms for better livingallowing criminologists

of

of sor-cery

critical

not just prescriptive, but aspirational.

A widerange of ethnographic accountsis considered.

INTRODUCTION

A

s a subject, crime cultural

review

essay there,

anthropology

has not generated

anthropology.1

significant

While one could

one would be hard-pressed

has approached

to support

crime in a coherent,

that it has even generated substantial,

ongoing

interest

in the field

point to an anthology

unified,

the contention or sustained

debates about crime.2

of

here or a that

wayor Most

often

225

Brisman

226

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

crime appears in the context of some other inquiry,

3) relatively few ethnographies of crime existthick

such as disorder

accounts (in the

(Comaroffand

violence (e.g., witchcraft 1997), the

Betzig et al. 1988;

law

relationship

(Driberg

between

or labor,

law

and

employment,

Phillips

1999;

Sullivan

1989),

its own and as the primary

subject

attention

Kane

(see

Schneider

Parnell

and

crime, of being a victim,

(Collier

because

Bourgois

rather

than

on

last

point

and

shaped our

may be due, in

hegemony

(before criminology

over all

part, to sociol-ogys

depending on ones perspective).3

1985;

cul-tural

anthropologys lack of attention to crime mayalso be attributed, at least in part, to the regrettable subfield

I do not

have not employed

methods in their of crime

study

of crime.

have improved

of the convergence

and of cul-tural

processes in various societies

Becker

1963;

Humphreys

Ferrell

1993;

1975).

have been written

or sub-discipline, But

researchers

understanding

Hamm 1998;

matters crime-related

became its own discipline

Adler

that

community

merits some clarification.

field

(e.g.,

Ferrell

and

But only asmall

by anthropologists

his famous

address to the

Washington,

yields to temptation

(Rafter

study

such

who,

hereditary

of vice, poverty, and ill example, and

eff orts

2007:808)

in

Society of

of the being

of physical conformation,

or surroundings

Although

Anthropological

defined as the

in consequence taint,

which Fletcher (1891:204),

an anthropological perspective (e.g., Malinowski 1959; Merry 1981).

Whileethnography does not and should

not reside solely under the dominion of anthropology this

biologize

has been increasingly research

were later

discredited

see also

Brennan

(Cullen

et al. 1995:65;

experience

may have left

venture

the

into

and

world

Such unwillingness

of

Agnew 2006:22;

Raine

2002:43),

anthropology

the

reluctant

to

a number

of

Polsky 1969; Groves

is unfortunate

for

a

on

how

propensity

need

(Ferrell for

more

studies of crime (see gener-ally Burawoy et al. 1991;

Hagedorn

Maanen 1995; and

Sampson

1989).

Furthermore,

either

survey

analysis

tremendous

Van

while sociology

social structures (and

is often focused

while criminology

individual

characteristics

on

tends to focus influence

actors

for aggression, violence, and crime based on

biological

crime.4

is

Betzig et al. 1988;

because of concerns for their racist and eugeni-cist policy implications

there

by shallow

statistical

anthropologically-oriented

aban-doned and

and

dominated

and abstract

1999:402),6

1990;

law-breaking

with

methodology and the fact that the study of crime

begins a career of crime.

to

per-centage

or with

of criminal anthropology (also known as anthropo-logical(see Kratz 2007), given anthropologys strength criminology),

of

rate.

mean to suggest that ethnographic

of residing in a community

crime

and criminal

phenomenon near

low

in a subculture

migrating to a particular

Many fine ethnographies

of anthropological Schneider

or of

of its

This

stratification,

2008).

This

or participating

fears crime,

of

(e.g.,

2003;

Geertzian sense) of the experience of

crimes

Geschiere

conflict

social

committing

nature

1980;

1928), the

and the eff ects of deindustrialization 1996;

2006),

Knauft et al. 1991),

and sorcery (Favret-Saada

primitive

1975),

Comaroff2004,

or social psychological in relation

antecedents,

or on in-dividuals

to their larger social environments,

very basicreasons: 1) anthropology sharessociologys and

such as schools, neighborhoods, and nation states

criminologys forefathers (e.g., Durkheim, Marx, Weber)

(Griffiths,

and canonical figures (e.g., Foucault)individuals

Yule, and Gartner 2011), anthropology ap-preciates these structures, characteristics, and environ-ments,

who

contemplated issues of conflict and cooperation, power

but

realizes

that

much

of

what

and punishment, whichlie at the heart of or areintegral

human

lies

to understandings

In other

words, because anthropology

proscribed

of crime;5 2) while all cultures

behaviors, crime

is still

and peoples diff er (over time)

possess

culturally-specific

than its sister

and

Wilson

1891:204; longitudinal

Cullen and

1997:53;

Ellis

and

Agnew 2006:26667; Walsh

1997:230;

Daly Fletcher

Herrnstein 1995:40), rendering crime ideal for and comparative

anthropological

study; and

cultural

ideation

discipline,

(Donovan

humans

2008:xiv).

casts a wider net

sociologybecause

anthro-pology

extends beyond society and social structuresbe-cause

over what behavior is to

anthropology

be condemned and condoned (see, e.g., Betzig et al. 1988; Brisman 2006;

in

makes

considers elements of culture, such

as beliefs, ideas, symbols, and other internal of group living can provide crime

(Donovan

further

is, has been, or

dimensions

2008:xviii)anthropology

avenues for

understanding

how

might be defined, prevented, an

ADVANCING

CRITICAL

CRIMINOLOGY

THROUGH

ANTHROPOLOGY

227

These categories or types of intersections

controlled, as wellasits meaningfor offenders, victims,

between

cultural groups, and society, more generally. Assuch,

anthropology and critical criminology are but the tip

anthropology

of the iceberg. The

of, and

should

be more heavily invested in issues

matters pertaining

contribute

to criminologists

study

Despite anthropologys singular

subject

sporadic interest

is

as a whole could gain from anthropological on crime.

anthropological Quinneys maystill

support

(1969,

much that

for

both labeling

will prompt

criminological becomes both

crimi-nology

an exhaustive

inquiries. further

My hope

investigations

which, anthropological-critical

linkages existso

that the typol-ogy

more elaborate and more robust.

of

theory

ANTHROPOLOGY

anthropology

OF

and

CAN

HELP

DOMINATION

REVEAL

THAT

ARE

PROCESSES

PERVASIVE

There

between criminology

biological and evolutionary

article

into the nature of, and extent to

provides

Marxist criminology.

linkages

as a

anthropological

and perspectives

Collier (1975:125)

1974)

be fruitful

crime

of relevant this

anthropologys

a consideration

approaches, insights,

For example,

is that

to

at least,

in crimethere

account

suggests,

of crime.

inattention

matteror,

off ers repre-sentative

examples for each, rather than

to, crime and criminology,

or can, at the very least, and as this article

discussion that follows

and

European

anthropologists

in the

early twentieth

were morelikely to be complicit in, rather than

(see, e.g.,

challengers of, processes of domination. example: anthro-pologists,

Brisman 2010c). To offer a third

cen-tury

and ethnography at this time

becauseof the time spent in the field, and the

Muchfield-work

was undertaken

scope of their inquiries, can consider the distinctions

by anthropologists at the behest of, and with funding

and relationships

between norms

from, European powers with colonialist and imperial-ist

legal

and legal

formalities

behaviors

(Donovan

which could

anthropology reasons

realities,

2008:14,

have bearing

and explorations.

In this

and institutions, 18,

on criminological

three

waysin

to, and engage that

criminologists

might look

critique

criminologys

inquiry

of

definitions

dominationfor

embracing a commitment

can speak insistence

move beyond the

by legalistic

bound-aries

of crime

1996:11,

externally

Africa

imposed

tribals

deficiencies

as Bodley were quick

of tribal

political of this

for implicitly

foreign

knowledge

Asiaand,

cultures

change or a rejection

be granted

been criticized British

and

anthropologists

social anthropologists

policy,

& Murphy 2003;

utilized indirect

for

British

particular,

and explicitly

which

to

of proposals

autonomy.

era, in

to govern through

have

supporting ethnographic

rule (Erickson

Kottak 2008).

Nineteenth-century

American

anthropology

should also be considered in aless-than-positive such as Samuel

racism, sex-ism,

working class oppression and USneo-colonialism (Michalowksi

in

explains,

stress the presumed

and

unapologetically

to confronting

(2008:21)

that to

More specifically,

which anthropology

with, critical

criminological imposed

its

studies ways that

can help or advance critical criminologyor why critical

objectives

and of

article, I consider

some of the work of anthropologists. I identify

and rules 2324)all

George

lightindividuals

Morton and Josiah

Clark Nott promoted racial polygenism (the doctrine that races are immutable, separately created species),

12):

which was used to defend slavery in the ante-bellum 1.

Anthropology can help reveal processesof domi-nationAmerican South (see Erickson & Murphy 2003). But many American anthropologists in the early twentieth

that are pervasive. 2.

Anthropology crime alluded

3.

can remind

is culturally

usthat

what constitutes

specific and temporal

Anthropology

can

of help

provide

critical

paradigms

criminologists

for to be

not just critical, not just prescriptive, but aspirational.

operated in

today.

(a point

to above).

better livingallowing

century

Franz

American

polygenism

Benedict,

anthropology,

argued that

by environment, Boas student,

for the

of critical

Boas, often considered

cultural

and

influenced

the spirit

the father

rejected

cultural

rather than

racial

diff erences are heredity.

Ruth

worked with other anthropolo-gists

United States Office of

promote cultural

criminolo-gists

relativism,

WarInformation

combat ethnocentrism

to an

228

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

racism, and help defeat Nazism and the Axis powers (see Erickson and Murphy 2003).7 Thus,

while

anthropology

early

and

anthropology

American

findingsand

onward

to be,instrumental attention planet

the

acknowledges

that

nineteenth-century

seeking to generate

on the

capacious view,

[a]nthropologists exposing

Bodley

who

the

ethnocentrism

often

industrialization

(2008:21,

well-founded

anthropological have

and

economic

knowledge

will

continue

which is and should criminological To take that be,to

contest

persist in

close to

routine

[from

I get a shock. my definition

different.

of

violence

with its

pay, and

of

Instead

of

...

the

violence

unemployment,

humiliating

working

violence of the economy

violence,

political

which in turn

and

gives wayto

and numbness punctuated

Taussigs treatment

frequently

Knauft

by panic.

is, or should

human inequality

of unemployment,

and disastrous can

bolster

critical that

that

asserts North

of violence

also

Colombia il-lustrates

occurs

Western Europe, and

Taussig could

as violence

broad conception

his example is from

this type

America,

underpay-ment,

working conditions criminologists

usual loci for criminological

position that is very

outside

of

Australiathe

research.

prove

helpful for

critical

Michalowskis description of, and prescrip-tion criminologists interested in state crimespecifically

for, critical criminology above. WhatI would like to suggest in this section is that critical criminology might further domination I

diaries

gives way to the blatantly

of violence;

(1996:50)a

more

writing,

endeavor.

expose, analyze, and critique

quite

... The

criminal

inatten-tion

being vital to the criti-cal

one of the goals of anthropology

and domination

...

ethnocentrism,

matters one step further,

my

all that

class

miserable

Bodleys

development

and insights to

for their

knives and guns and corpses

another

conditions

that

and commercial-lization

concerns about anthropological

to ethnocentric

support

Taussig (2005:13435),

19701972,

of

is

at

of the economy

poverty,

Notwithstanding

24).8

criminologists,

alongside the roads just outside of town, I see

attributed to [small-scale cultures]

accompany

for

in-your-face

that

health, and

look

see first

violence

the ethnocen-trism

may be related to the inequalities

I

Colombia] I

but heis less

on economic developmentwriting ill

of violence (i.e., those Critical

might turn to

[W]hen

of

who described indigenous

of starvation,

desire

may justifi-ably

that ... commonly occurred in the professional

which actually

by an indi-vidual

writes:

Donovan. Bodley points out that until

the conditions

additional

worlds

writers

often mistakenly

statute).

extant

recently, anthropologists overlook[ed] literature

by criminal

to the

2008:198).

behavior

or causes physical, sexual, or psy-chological

beyond legal definitions

bringing

peoples as badly in need of improvement,

eff usive than

to look

of cultures

(Donovan

credit for

the

to

frequently

harm and resist critical criminologists

govern-ments from

of violence

that threatens

have con-tinued defined

were, and

in

wide variety

we all share

take

of colonial

mainstream criminologists

their study

goals or

2008:1)anthropologists

mid-twentieth-century

limit

anthropology)

occurrences.

For example,

social

most laudatory

were often agents

(Bodley

(British

cultural

may not have possessed the

which they arerampant and raging, rather than unique or isolated

achieve its (shared) goal of critiquing

through

anthropology.

wish to propose that

accounts, critical locate instances our day-to-day

by looking

criminologists of domination

of domination

are

at anthropological

might be able to better that

lives (either in the

and to discover the extent to

More specifically,

we may not see in U.S. or elsewhere),

which particular instances

more widespread

the

extent to

extra-judicial between

domination and violenceand

various

economic

interests

and violence. Criminologists often and

study

political

manipulation associated

institutional terrorism, criminality

of health

racism); torture,

(i.e.,

of the electoral

at the social and

crime

corruption

process); criminal-ity

and corporate

activities

and safety regulations);

and cultural genocide,

and other security

(McLaughlin

linkages state

whoresearch state crime9

criminality

with economic

(such as violations criminality

and

2001).

levels (such ethnic

as

cleansing,

or police force

While anthropolog

ADVANCING

has the potential to contribute to critical criminologi-cal discourse on all of these categories of state crime.10 I will confine If

mycomments

Vincent (1989:156)

the hands of interests, in the

here to the fourth

contends that lawmaking

members of the ruling

hands

of

paramilitaries

(limpieza)

wing of the

function

army and police,

Colombian

by the

critical

armed forces

Scheper-Hughes

(1992,

have all extensively

and the restric-tions

2006),

Linger (2003),

and

documented

the

Pinheiro waysin

229

and profound

of

social in-equalities civil soci-ety

of, and necessaryfor, a democratic

words, anthropology

criminologys

study

can contribute

of state crime

to

by off ering

within the above-mentioned

Work like that

on its aid to the

(2005:xii).

other

examples that fall

as a clandestine

U.S. government

ANTHROPOLOGY

and that a democratic

is both a product

class serves Colombian

discrimination,

(2000:139),

in

catego-ries.

of Pinheiro can help uncover vari-ous

processes, trends,

meaning that they lie

beyond the reach of law, human rights, imposed

slavery, racial

state. In

members of the ruling

THROUGH

the elites and the general population, the longevity

lawbreaking

Taussig describes how the

CRIMINOLOGY

that violence is deeply rooted in the wide gap between

class serves their

Taussig and others show that

their interests.

category.

CRITICAL

and features

of civil society that

may play a role in, or exacerbate, state crime, thereby aff ording

critical

expand their

criminologists

critique

and off er

for reform

(2000)

Aside from

which and

the

a

opportunity

more holistic

to

recom-mendations

and change. more capacious

conception

of

the potential reasons why acts of abduction, torture,

violence and more pervasive examples of extrajudicial

and

violence and state crime,

murder have continued

to

occur throughout

Brazil, in spite of democratic governance and long after the formal

end of authoritarian

(2006:157) in

northeastern

describes how the

Brazil

critical criminology

relations rule. Scheper-Hughes

are complicit

of power

unleashing

through

Pinheiro

records a

other

continuation

repressive

practices that

organizations

during

dictatorship

and

police tend to see the rule

of law

prevailed

explains that [t]he

the

and

as an obstacle rather than as an eff ective guarantee public security

(2000:121,

police violence (including

127). Pinheiro torture

classeswho

defender of rights

place both

directed toward

do not view the state as a/the

or protector

While Pinheiros

details how

and taking

in prisons and on the streets) is largely dangerous

of

of security

account, like that

in

and

historical

which state authorities,

discourse

(which

phenomena)

may or

define

criminal,

with

ignor[ing]

or

of criminal-ization

perspective, an-thropology

who

and forms

in

and

others

such

state-level

and

criminologists examples

of

interdisciplinary

of such institutionalized

might consider

1995:174)11

(1989:201)

activities

(Schneider

Critical

who are seeking

(Ortner

illegal

352).

examples

power

Colliers

some

prosecuting

cross-national of

groups and practices as

consequencesselectively

sponsor[ing]

are interested

domination

(2000:126).

particular

2008:351,

media, and citizen

may not be separate entities/

prejudicial

while vigorously Schneider

of Linger and

Scheper-Hughes, and that of Taussigin Colombiaas

processes

has exposed processes of criminalizationways

of the death squads

clandestine

maintains that crime stems from and selective

a comparative

death squads to sweep the streets of ... social garbage.

and

how

(Chadwick and Scraton 2001). Similarly, albeit

middle class

in

we might consider

broad

observations

about

the

well asthose of state crime critical criminologists, illus-trates relationship between the forms that laws take and the how contempt for the penal code by state-level or quasi-state-level authorities

maystill exist in countries

impact of laws at the local level. Orthey Borneman (1997:25),

might review

discussedin greater detail below,

with democratic governance, whatis particularly com-pellingwho asks(in the context of formerly communist states about

his work is that

law is far from certain

he posits that the rule

being eff ectively

established

of

because a

tolerance for violence continues in government

organizations Essentially,

and in society in while

state institutions constitutional

Pinheiro (and

calls for, among

amendments

system and the institution

general

(2000:136).

places the larger

onus on

other things,

to reform the judicial

court

of the police), he recognizes

attempting which

to transition

to

crimes are the states

what are the justifications Others

might find

her description to criminalize subjects, harm

democratic

governance):

business to

punish?

Merry (1998;

2000) instructive

of how European colonizers the everyday

applying

to society

the

And

for these criminalizations?

practices

unfamiliar

as distinct

for

attempted

of their

colonial

legal framework

from

harm to

specifi

of

230

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

others punishable through compensation, and for her illustration to

the

of severe

a shift

from

the

interdiction

criminalization

of work

violations

as

seeking

find

Sharff

waysin

a

more contemporary

(1987:47)

which the

early-to-mid

useful for

domination

British

and U.S. planters set up the sugar economy in Those

Hawaii.

example

might

description

of the

War on Drugs was carried out in the

1980s in

critiques of dominationI

1986;

is or can be resisted (see, e.g., Abu-Lughod

Ong 1987; see also Abu-Lughod

Ortner

significant

attention

literature,

has

military-type the

campaign

neighborhood

agents. They police as

police and

were supported

well as

by

perspectives (1984)

and

anthropological

of inquiry

and repre-sentation

of contention,

and

critical

the state of the

and approaches

and

concern

attention

discipline

of an-thropology

between theoretical

since the 1960s, about

to,

debates.

Ortner

the growing

domination

in

inter-est

the

of

anthropology.

into the workings of asymmetrical social relations is

neighborhood, of whom the

to penetrate to the heart of much of what is going on

majority were

are

so

fact

that

overcrowded

prisoners

means

cannot

rehabilitative prisons

these

in any given system,

be reached

programs. The

with its chicanery

most

of

by training

few lucky

and

from

existing

And

the

theoretical

refinements

justice,

remain, raising children

Selecting (February

Whilethere have been numerous critiques of the War on Drugs (see, e.g., Austin, et al.

2001;

Ferrell

2002;

2008;

Preson

and

instance

Robinson

2001;

Roots 2004), of

what

has

see

Sharffs been

also

off ers

criminalized

and

the ongoing those

support

to research

eff ects of such military-type arrested

Before turning

and

from

their

the

campaigns

waysin

passing (1996:729).

can help reveal processes of domination pervasiveand

the

ways in

assist critical criminology

in

that

which anthropology

are can

makingits claims about and

in the study of the

trans-gression,

Ethnologist

one finds that

or internal others

perhaps

of social life.

American

subheads

of

mention it in

Brown decries [t]he

of resistance almost everywhere,

discovery

worrying that an-thropologys

with multiplelayers of resistance

[can] blind usto certain features of the story that are potentially of great interest is not to disparage but

rather

to

more to interlocutors resisting

which anthropol-ogy

myriad

assubversion,

more or less at random,

concern

1996:729).

has become a central,

theme

appears in the title

on

families.12

(Brown

half the essays off ered; still

intention who have been the objects of such processes of crimi-nalization, and lends further

1994)

Merolla

account

of the

to the

as well asits

(such

a recent issue

resistance

and hoping.

about

militaristic

an

Patterns

constitute

had shifted

of resistance

and so forth),

to

concern

mutations

even a dominant,

women

are certain

stay hooked up to the system. The

one-sided.

Brown [r]esistance, and

programs.

men, once caught in the

wheels of criminal

hegemony

According to

very

men will profit

educational

most of the

is

and solidarity

Ten years later, the

and debasement

persistent

by itself,

reciprocity,

arguing that such

other side of the coin of social being (1984:157).

or

stressful life in

of every detail of daily life ensures that

taken

cooperation,

the

penetrate

Ortner voiced her unease with

centrality of domination,

enterprise,

institutions

that

Whileacknowledging that to

field

over 17,000 young men werearrested in the

The

both

been

helicopter units. During the next two years,

in city jails, state prisons and federal peni-tentiaries. the

on

has

with these anthropological

expressed

in,

street dealers. Many of them now languish

another

in

and the relationships

mounted

canine,

matter

there

seeking to undertake studies of resistance

be familiar

housing, undercover

motorcycle,

a

1990:53 n.1 and

while

as a subject

been

Writing about

on drug dealing in

with regular,

and transportation

should

a massive,

said,

to resistance

resistance

New York City:

1984, the city launched

That

1995:183).13

criminologists Early in

would like to offer onefinal

comment and caveat. Anthropology can help reveal how

of vice

that Brown

blind

the struggles of the down-trodden,

make

the

us to

myopic focus zones

there

is

often

concludes

on resistance

of complicity

matter, of sui generis creativity (1996:734)

case

social life than just resistance/

and that [a]

can easily

(1996:730, 731). Browns

...

and, for

(1996:730,

733).

ADVANCING

subordination,

which

hierarchy intrinsic socialization

mirror

to the family

process itself.

forms

studies

the

... that

Resistance to

architecture

of

of our

as they

anthropology

as it always has been, to illuminate beings usetheir aesthetic,

and

emotional,

material

to

thrive

things,

than

as fully

of the forms

of resis-tance

to consider

of resistance

for

the

our theories

calls for a small shift in the

of power

identify

more concerned resistance

scholars

at resistance

as adiagnostic

in

Domination

of studies Abu-Lughod

way welook

how hu-man

intellectual,

resources

a range of social settings. subordination

of power,

remains,

the

it seems

do not explore

might the implications

many to

political,

and explaining

Urging

of

contribution

of the

power, they

locate.

231

sophistication

are ultimately

resistors

implications task of cultural

ANTHROPOLOGY

their

definition

with examining

trees.

and

because they

they

The

THROUGH

resistance

with finding

myriad

of culture than gravity can explain the

varied

of

widening

and to the

such power can no more explain the

CRIMINOLOGY

the considerable theoretical

All social life entails degrees of dominance and

CRITICAL

so that

resistance is

so that it can, among

historical

used other

shifts in configurations

or

methods of power (1990:42).

and

Focusing

are, of course, key elements of

on the

Awlad Ali

Bedouins

in

Egypt,

Abu-Lughod endeavors to describe not only the rich

this process. But so are reciprocity, altruism, and the creative power of the imagination,

and sometimes contradictory

details of resistance, but

forces that serve to remind us that society

also how such details can revealthe complex workings

cannot berelegated to the conceptual status

of social power (1990:42).

Essentially, Abu-Lughod

usesresistance as a lens: contemplating various forms of a penal colony without impoverishing an-thropological theory

of resistance in

and, worse still, violat-ing

defiances

the complex and creative understandings of those for

of

Abu-Lughods

than

that

way in

perspective

interest of

in

Brown.

which

resistance

resistance,

subversions

overthrow

or local

of systems

a shift

of

that

of

collec-tive not

the

men and

tied

midst of ordinary subversive the

focus

such minor on

as signs and

of the ineff ectiveness

of the

resilience

spirit

in its refusal

42).

Put

to

diff erently,

most interesting resistance is

thing

and

forms

of

of systems

creativity

be dominated Abu-Lughod to come

of domination,

to

her to

relations

poems/

public in the

and that

enables power

(1990:4248).

structures

of power

of the

human

(1990:41, states

out of the

that

43, the

work on of the

but that [d]espite

of

in of

(1990:53).

resistance

a greater sense of the complexity

nature and forms

and

function

as

bring to light are historically

But her larger

pointand

criminologistsis

that

resistances the existence of arange of specific strategies and

resistance

critical

read

jokes,

we should learn to read in various local and everyday

resistance

to

which

marriage; making fun

previously devalued

has been undertaken at the expense of an analysis resistance,

as

of

matters,

one that is relevant for critical

of power, and fears that there is now atendency romanticize

minor

are recited in conversations

discourse)

ways in

transformed

such

manhood; folktales,

songsghinnawasthat

what

forms

in the hiding

to (arranged)

discourse,

minor

male elders,

While she seems to

of resistanceto

asserts

in the

or even to ideologies

value the attention paid to such defiancesshe

irreverent

resistances

(1990:41).

or neglected forms

in secret; resistance

sexually

rather than large-scale

small

of emancipation

smoking

with unlikely

womens by

covering for each other in

more nuanced

anthropologys

has been studied:

now is a concern

to the

is

She recognizes

one finds

insurrections,

on

resistance

enforced

such as secrets and silences, collusion

whom we presume to speak.

knowledge,

heightened

Bedouin society (e.g.,

restrictions

particular

partial

Attention

societies

may essentialize

In Resistance

in

help

theories

forms

of

us become of

Abu-Lughod

or idealizing

power

suggests,

and the

resistance).

Problem

expresses

studies of resistance, exhibiting

domination

the

power (in as much as it runs the risk

Ortner (1995)

criticism

to

can

or reductionist

To do otherwise,

of oversimplifying

Refusal,

power.

that

she

her

1984

showed

article,

her

of

Ethnographic

displeasure

with

much of the same tren-chant in

her

discussed

comments

above.

about

Ortne

232

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

begins by discussing various waysin which resistance

in the oppressor-resistor relationship and have neglected

has been conceptualized. She explains that resistance

to scrutinize the politics in the relationships of resistors

was initially

a

relatively

of the seemingly resistance.

simple

binary,

category,

domination

of power; resistance

opposition

half

was essentially

to power institutionalized

in this

She then

acknowledges

success in shifting

attention

to less institutionalized,

Scotts (1985)

and quotidian

illumination

and persistent

forms

Foucaults

(i.e.,

of power, and

In

of resistance.14

whether an act can be deemed one

objective to resist), before stating that while resistance may be ambiguous and

the

may present problems as a

becauseit highlights the presence and play of power in

and

With this

box

called

backdrop,

concernresistance

resistance

Ortner refers to this as the problem refusala

refusal

or density

of

thickness,

which itself

presents a number ethnographic

(1995:174).

domination

First,

of

are doing

more than

and that ignoring

Ortner claims

simply

opposing

the dynamics, tensions,

and conflicts among subalterns produces aromanticized picture of the resistorsa makes to stresses

that

which

I

point Abu-Lughod (1990)

alluded

individual

above. acts

of

Ortner

as

well

as

large-scale resistance movements,are often themselves conflicted,

internally

ambivalent,

in large part due to these internal

complexities,

contradictory,

an adequate examination

In

affectively political

and she emphasizes that in order to con-duct of resistance, one

observe the prior and ongoing politics groups.

and

other

words,

studies have devoted too

must

within resistance

Ortner feels that much attention

resistors

resistance

to the politics

resistance

(1995:183).

behind

specific

Ortner cultural

to cultural

may reveal some resistance

will help avoid the

movements,

depiction

of resistors

as ad hoc and springing

situations

or instances

maintains that recognizing

a subaltern

processes, practices, and features

of order, justice, and meaningand

solely

of domination. groups

will also help

show the depth and range of the groups

own notions

the basisfor and

vision of their world without the oppressors. Finally, Ortner reminds usthat subaltern monolithic

identity and consciousness (1995:183). the poststructuralist

(1995:185, subjects

186)and

they

portraits

I

of subjects in

and enact. For it is in

and enactment

or transform

(1995:187).

Doing so also uncovers

of those

become and transform

(1995:187).

they

better representation

(1995:187).

that they sustain

ethnographic

voicesthat

disappear

of providing

projects that they construct

universe

that

powerful

not representationally

both

of the subject

argues

need to retain

the formulation

Shecriti-cizes

move ... to de-essentialize

the de(con)struction

and of themselves the

is not a

category ... whois presumed to havea uni-tary

projects that

who they

are, and

their social and cultural

would

add

that

while

retain-ing

and representing the subject can help scholars to depict the internal

politics and cultural complexity of

the resistorsissues

(1995:179)

resistance,

the

of subjects is to create better

Ortner asserts

of the resistors.

of

values

Part of the purpose

holism

do not contain enough analysis

politics

and

which

should

of ethnographic

a failure

may take various formsand

that studies of resistance

that resistors

thinness.

of issues that arise as a result of this

refusal

of the internal

with her key

ethnographic

alleges that

as religionwhich

the subjector

(1995:175).

Ortner proceeds

studies

richness

beliefs

from

to decide once and for all whether any given a fixed

cultural

Ortner

do not attend to, or even recognize,

Here, Ortner urges scholars to pay attention

mostforms of relationship and activity. ... [W]e are not into

vein,

dynamicssuch

category, it is still a reasonably useful category, if only

act fits

a similar

responses to domination more en-veloping

of less organized, everyday forms

of resistance if the actor does not possess the conscious

required

other.

of the

Ortner notes how some have addressed the question of intentionality

each

versus

way (1995:174).

more omnipresent

to

studies frequently was a relatively fixed and insti-tutionalized

Domination form

organized

unambiguous

alluded to abovean

adequate

treatment of the individual subject can also reveal how domination and resistance is experienced personally (as well as collectively), in consciousness, To

instances

domination

processes. Anthropology for the study

as reflections

(however

criminologys

political

can

help of

models

conceived).

anti-positivism

perspectives

expose

widespread

can also provide some

of resistance

because of critical the left-leaning

awareness, and identity.

anthropology

conclude,

of

and can disclose transforma-tions

But and

of its adherents

ADVANCING

CRITICAL

CRIMINOLOGY

THROUGH

ANTHROPOLOGY

233

critical criminologists should be aware of, contemplate,

the behavior of middle-or upper-class persons are not

and engage the anthropological

likely to be enforced (1971:475).

studies

and

accounts

of

debates surrounding

resistance

so

as

not

to

Chambliss reworks

roman-ticize

article

it.

and

many of hisideas from

his 1971 book in

Radical Criminology,

his chapter, Toward

in the first

edition

of Law: A Progressive Critiquea ANTHROPOLOGY WHAT

CAN

CONSTITUTES

REMIND

CRIME

SPECIFIC

AND

US

IS

THAT

CULTURALLY

TEMPORAL

In A

Sociological

William J. of sociological between

Analysis of the

Chambliss laments relevant

and part of both the anthropology

critical

criminology

particular

laws

which these laws

form

(1964:67).

Law of Vagrancy,

social

setting

are interpreted,

jurisprudence,

support for the

Weberian contention that

groups determine the content of the law citing Rheinstein 1954)a the perspective that

citing

Chambliss further

the

books

co-author, order

the

Friedmann

develops

between the law in

Law,

Order,

Robert

and

rules

determine

the

whether

the

formal rules

agencies

a self-serving

privilege (1971:4).

and

have

been

his

maintain

Chambliss

wake

acts

come

to

be

defined

of power

position,

leaders

suggests that

as a constant and

as criminal

and

political

because

struggles

(1982:23031).

of

analyses

[have]

insti-tutions

creation

of criminal

down

theft

and

power and

arose to

property

of and

law.

...

protect

of

England among feudal

[T]he

law

the of

and

against the in-terests workers; vagrancy

the tensions

and the emergent

the

behind

the interests

mercantilists property

laws reflected

revealed

forces

in

precapitalist

landlords

capitalist

peasants,

class in the cit-ies;

machine smashing in rural England was a rational response to

defy the trend toward boring, monotonous

of law. Towards

the end of their treatise, in a chapter on poverty and

industrial

workers seeking to

production,

but the state came

the criminal process, Chambliss and Seidman set forth

down on the side of the capitalist class and

a number

criminalized

decision to

enforce the laws against certain

persons and not against

others. Two of the propositions

are asfollows:

societies,

political

position. Therefore, types are

of behavior morelikely

to

In

com-plex

power is closely tied to social

those laws popular

which prohibit

among lower-class

be enforced,

this

states:

criminal law, and the implementation

the

the

reflecting

To support

the creation of formal rules of law, general principles of

regarding

the

are some acts defined

Chambliss (1982:233)

Historical

Chambliss and Seidman examine

of propositions

of

War

while others are not? (1982:230).

and economic

which enforce the lawis

system to

the

crime

(1982:233). The latter question recognizes that many

which

breached,

In

by political

is Why

political

the tribu-nals,

informal,

criminology

anti-Vietnam

criminality

question

and

in

legal

State lay

of officials and citizens,

unofficial,

bureaucratic

in fact

that is the

of law

of his earlier

takes the definition of behavior by the state asa given

interplay

the

he and

which the various law-making

in the bureaucracy

and

about

and the law where

blatant

economic conditions

B. Seidman, argue that [t]he

for the governance official

Power,

with

of public

his ideas

(1982:230).

demonstrations,

by law as criminal

1959).

in action

not?

The former question treats crime

status

position inconsistent

and

more salient

(1964:77,

the law is a reflection

(1964:77,

disparities

finds

do

legal

some people commit

and giant corporations,

in

and take

Chambliss

others

protests,

Examining the law of vagrancy in

Anglo-American

opinion

while

is it that

1960s civil rights

shortage

of the relationship

and the

emerge,

canons. In the spirit

a

Politics

work ofcritical

work, Chambliss asserts that traditionally,

the severe

analyses

ofThe

theory

has asked Why

his 1964

certain persons

while laws restricting

such acts; rights of rural village

dwellers to hunt, fish, and gather wood were retracted

and

criminality of

the

landed

states

such

activities

punishable

on

gentry in opposition

population;

acts

of

by death as a result

intervention

values, and interests rural

became

of the

the

side

of

the

to the customs, majority

indeed, even

of the

murder cam

234

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

to be defined as an act against the state (that

posesto their

is, as a crime) as a result of political and

to examine the legal

economic

struggles in

which the

of the people were simply their

violations laws

at law.

of personal freedom

and

found,

economic

of political

Crime,

and

that

defined

history

forces

as criminal

can reveal the

behind

the

changes

political

creation

law. Chambliss contends that

of

and

when one adopts this

crime rates frequently

distort

or

waves

off enses, criminology

cannot

as usual

Chambliss

revolutionone

criminology question

should of why

while others do not

understand

defines crime not as

(1982:239).

According to

Chambliss

(1982:239):

as a category,

that

we are

now

back

Although Chambliss illustrate

We mustunderstand the political, economic, and social forces leading to differences in

an

diff erences

in the same

period.

between

diff erences between crime in capitalist socialist at

the

societies. historical

the legislative that

define

acts

We must look

roots

of

criminal

and appellate court as

criminal

to

the and

carefully laws

and

processes

understand

of

to

business

as

Nader

applied

expressed in law

in Indonesia

among the

in the

and

how

to social

(2003:57).

Drawing

natural resource

Papua

of

the

to

crime

in relation

plun-dering

New Guinea, to toxic

United States, to her own research

Zapotec on the seriousness

interests

accepts

and attempts

examination

arbitrarily

appears

usual.

anthropologist,

cross-cultural

explains. So

CommonsNader

wetake for granted in

of endangering illustrates

how

andcriminal

Westernlaw and that

that more or

less help to circumscribe the field of criminology (ef-forts of critical criminologists

notwithstanding)

either

do not exist or exist in very diff erent configurations in

countries

We must explore

edition

she laments. It

challenge for criminology via

tort litigation

crime rates in different historical periods as

and the

Nader explains,

Nader (2003:57)

on a range of examplesfrom

the

well

United

and Punishment in

the very distinctions betweencivil

as

the

third

in 1998),

muchfor paradigm revolutions,

try to

and explain the entire range of phenom-ena

called crime

chapter

in

United States. Curries chapters pay little attention to

configurations

people commit instead

Curries

details the growth of incarceration in the

not try to answer the

and should

Politics of

Elliott

United States: Myths, Realities and Possibilities,

is a category

some

revolution

of new and old prisons.The

Chambliss

phenomenon.

Laura

ofThe

with

updated chapter by Currie,Crime

and calls for

or as a social-psychological

as a cultural

argues that

of

with business

describes

that

problem

impossible crime

continue

anthropologist

1990, eight years after

chapter

Politics of Law (published

misrep-resentcrime

the actual danger of crime and the seriousness

problembut

not.

also omits Chambliss chapter and includes instead an

criminal

1960s and 1970s, as wellasfindings that crime

justice

prosecuted,

are

years later,

a conservative

privatization The

that further

a criminal

not;

marked by a rapid rise in incarceration

the

aparadigm

others

are

Justice, and the Social Environmenta

perspective and considers revelations of white-collar,

(1982:234).

while

Chambliss

discusses

corporate, governmental and organized crime in the and soaring

others

describes how in

Law replaced

values and to

as a result

what is

and

and

Chambliss chapter, the second edition

on closer scrutiny,

forces.

Essentially,

sentenced,

Nader (2003)

States

over time

process to see why

enforced

Writing twenty

and security

to be based on contradictory have emerged

are

why some people are arrested,

Laws that

murder, rape, vandalism,

and theftwere

laws

by everyone as serious

prohibiting

economic

some

powerless to have

views represented

were acknowledged

majority

well-being. We mustcontinue

the

larger issues and enlighten the public asto ex-actly what crime is and what kind of threat it

many of the study.

non-Western

According to

Nader (2003:58),

native categories forces categories

of

go elsewhere to

work.

we cannot

simply

question

of

powerful

and criminalthat

part of our cultural

anthropologists

the

usto address the two

Western lawcivil

are ipso facto

when

places that anthropologists

baggage when

we

As Nader (2003:58)

explains,

work in

contexts

accept

the

non-Western categories

civil

an

ADVANCING

criminal

as given. In

CRITICAL

She continues:

Although

from the

Western perspective, are violations

violations

of the law from

are not necessarily crimes. The an idea

related

becomes

to

(2003:59).

to

perspec-tive

concept

when applied

Following

Chambliss

and

why some acts are defined

toward

the current

heresy,

blasphemy

disappeared

have

Fletcher

practically

as

while

(1934)

an

world

discipline crime

and

descriptive,

against

Despiteits omission from subsequent editions of

crime

from

of anthropologyOberg

wide social in

milieu.

Tlingit

individual

of

is purely

or theoretical.

Oberg (1934:146) did

His account

Society

rather than comparative when

on and pre-scription

as merely one issue among

Punishment

an individual

a somewhat

as a reflection

for the

adher-ence instance,

(2003:71).

about

leveli.e.,

many in a cultures Crime

paradigm

rather than rigid

writes

approaches

his

inquiries

civil and the criminal

Whereas

meta-analytical

extending

by law as criminal

consequence thinking

to categories

changes. Sorcery, sacrilege,

(1891:204).

history,

others are not, and suggests that such examinations mightshift

235

of crime,

cross-culturally

Nader calls for continued

ANTHROPOLOGY

from the penal codes of the civilized

of the law,

Western jurisprudential

problematic

line of thinking,

crimes,

the cross-cultural

THROUGH

maydisappear altogether as public opinion

developing nation states they

are clearly cultural constructs, the legacy of a specific Western tradition.

CRIMINOLOGY

For

states that crime

not exist. The

loss

of an

by murder,the loss of property by theft, or

shame brought to a member of a clan, wereclan losses The Politics of Law, Chambliss chapter remains an im-portant tract for both legal anthropologists and critical criminologists. as relevant

that

As wellit should.

now

as in

1982

(or

matter), and perhaps

commended for

for

persuasively

in

1971

more so.

responding arguing

Chambliss appeal is

to

to cross-cultural anthropology

illustrating of)

that

(and

proscribed

time)

condoned,

historical)

particularly

over

examination. to

is still

For example,

is to

be condemned

Fletcher, his ideas regarding

(noted

the

more generally. statements

relation

the critical economic

diff er and

criminal

at the outset of this article)

individual

He is not interested

wish to

who reads Obergs finding

depends largely

in

interested power

Tlingit

U.S. society.

Oberg today

and

what

constitutes

crime.

True,

the

crime is to be punished

upon the rank of the criminal.

Men of

a payment

of goods (1934:152). In

her review, Law eighty

and

years after

Anthropology, Fletcher

written

and thirty-five

Oberg, Moore explains that anthropolo-gists

is

which is a crime under one govern-ment not so regarded

Duelling,

for

example,

punished

as

murder in

is

not cognizable

by law

under which, if

has been fairly

So, also,

was formerly

crime

becomes diminished

is

many countries, at all in

the encounter what

another. fatal,

of its

others if

in its gravity

context,

and

that

breaches of legal rules not named

as a or

categories

(1969:289, legal

like

while

outside

most (if

all formalize

felony

not

266)categories

but that

are hardly as fixed be and

to

that in

contexts.

(1997), in his study of transitional East

Germany (with

have tremendous U.S. jurisprudence,

as we sometimes

which carry little

in cross-cultural

these into

and misdemeanor

and practical importance

them

conducted.

regarded

social

all) peoples distinguish between serious and trivial

criminal

law of every country answers the question; but that

of pun-ishment

might be interested

believe that law is incomprehensible of deciding

But

the relationship

high rank could often escape death through

years after

we are met with the difficulty

clan

making larger

to enforcement

that [h]ow

the

on crime in

to crime in

political

to

approaches to crime,

comment

criminologist and

almost not-withstanding,

comments that:

of the

about anthropological

does he

culturally-specific in

people(s)

and how weshould respond to the former.

anthropology

illuminate

when sub-jected society in relationship

well-suited

and that

what behavior

to

possess (some form

behaviors, crime

and location-specific, (over

moorings

while all cultures

be

plea and

does so for purposes of using crime and punishment

nor is a culturally-constructed

that crime

is

for

Nader should

Chambliss

category that loses its

Indeed,

or 1964,

and the clan demanded an equivalent in revenge, he

currency Similarly,

imagine qua cat-egories Borneman

justice in the former

some select comparisons

with

236

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

other formerly communist statesin Europe), addresses

prohibition

to the notion of the impermanence of criminal law,

the question of how societies deal with the abuses of power, crimes, and

human rights

previous regime. In so doing, how taken-for-granted

Borneman

and vindication)

socially

(1997:62).

Borneman,

and

like

to

of

prohibited.

of crime vary by place and is not to suggest that

Moore

and

Nader (or

interested

statute

homosexual for critical

or

although

Borneman states that

both criminals and victims are culturally

and historically of intensive

variable categories ...

who in

change can easily switch

places, it

nonetheless

be necessary in a legal regime

of law

to reaffirm

two

type

(1997:144).

are

In

other

and injustices.

specific

(established

democracies.

is conceptualized

substantial

and,

to

more notably,

state-level

be, consistent

of)

how harm

with

the

crime is, critical

support

the

proposition

that crime is culturally, temporally, and geographically specific, but do so almost in passing or in the context of a broader

inquiry.

Greenhouse

example,

notes that associating

the town

of

woman

Hopewell [GA]

was a capital

Greenhouses focus is structure

in the town

meaning of conflict than

on capital

crimes

(1986:165),

in the

nighttime

with [ones]

development

of

Hopewell,

for

Hopewell

before the

in

negro slave

off ense in the 1860s. on the

for

13th

in informal

means

anthropology

can

provide

broad

for the notion that crime

incomprehensible

and

is a cul-tural

outside of its social,

inquiry

unto

can offer useful examplesfor critical crimi-nologists interested in investigating such mattersas: 1) while

others are not (Chamblisss and Naders question); 2) the

relationship

of economic

and

punishment

and

political

(noted

above

of

Oberg); 3) why some crimes

and

others misdemeanors Moore);

(noted

4) how to respond

state crimes committed above in the context of race and Greenhouse).

crime

asking

the

en-forcement

context

are labeled felonies above in the

to and

(noted

context

make amends

and

above in

Nader (and

goal of considering

in

to

for

by oppressive regimes (noted

of Borneman);

For

power

for

5) the relation-ship the

context

Chambliss),

crime as a cultural

construct

why some acts are defined by law

of

the real

and

ascriminal

while others are not, is to help shift our analyses to the consequences

of various acts and omissions,

however

they

maybe categorized (e.g.,civil

orcriminal).

I

would take the additional

step of proposing

that contemplating of

various

criminal, critical

acts

and

and exposing the consequences omissions

whether legal criminologists

harmsharms

to

(whether

or illegal)

push for regulation

that are not (necessarily)

law, but that

civil

or

could enable of social

proscribed

are nonetheless injuriousas

by

well asfor

Although

the decriminalization

of certain types of behavior that

of social

cause little

or may actually

Georgia, and the residents,

interested

adult

as well as

why some acts are defined by law ascriminal

criminological endeavor. Other anthropologists

laws

consensual, sodomy),

and geographic contextan

itselfand

is that

to (the legitimacy

to and rectify

continue

abuses

retributive

But his concern for

classifying as illegal

support

temporal,

cat-egories of

what

various

argument

and perpetrated,

how states respond should

such

in part through

is of central importance

emerging

because

is the response to

Bornemans

accountability

and

words,

between the

marriage), in

Lawrence v. Texas (which

Texass law

sum,

will

of the rule

distinction

malleable, ductile, and impermanent,

becomes imperative

justice)

the

periods

down a

resolution.

or diminish violence and atrocities by quibbling over To the contrary,

struck

between anti-miscegenation

intercourse

construct

meaningless. Nor does Borneman wish to downplay

criminologists

interracial

prior to

criminologists

conflict

situationally-constructed,

that he also regards such categories asinsignificant

terminology.

prohibiting

laws

invalidated

In

critical

Loving v. Virginia (which

and sodomy

Fletcher

for

in the range and scope of anti-miscegenation

before

Virginia

be-causeof

matter), views categories such as

be culturally-or

prove insightful

drawing comparisons con-structed:

category

of and legally

This

Oberg, for that

crime

reconcili-ation

and politically

constructed

but could

laws

deeds; such acts are by definition

disapproved

Needless to say, definitions over time

demonstrates

and victim,

are socially

is a socially

wrong and unjust both

of the

categories (such as criminality

and the rule of law, perpetrator

Crime

violations

of slavery, her account not only adds sup-port

rather

Amendments

detriment

Brisman 2010e). In other a lens

with

have delineated

which

to

permissible

be beneficial (see

words, anthropology

can pro-vide

examine

cultures

and

how

other

proscribed

behaviors

ADVANCING

turning

criminologists

to anthropological

ethnological

study)

of the crime

might help to reduce the supremacy weconsider the eff ects of

a wider range of acts and omissions (however rather than confining the crime

our study to that

grouping.

behaviors,

and practices on the corporate-and to

environmental

destruction and

degradation

Act to include

devices (or

of

patterns,

natural

resource

Resource Conservation E-waste

parts of electronic

hazardous

to

Renteln

2005),

required

for

behaviors (e.g., possession have a disproportionate

on certain groups of people (e.g., sentencing

that

the

defense

apply

this

arenaan

critical

criminologists

has explained, received

of

impact disparities

off er

examples

criminologists is culturally

that

of

position specific and

number (that

the

defendant

property

vitsa) and that secretiveness a long-established

criminal

has been a challenge for Michalowski

have been politically invitations

the

to

sit

the

diff

involving

erences

child

(parent-child

have

involved

been

and

who

have

often

homicide

syndromes,21

testimony

from

involving

cultural

witnesses in cases involving

cultural

discussion is

Sutherland

1994).

occasionally

construct

in

defensecharacterized

guilt

that

diff ers

consider

relevant

features

anthropologists

have

the culture

extensive

treat

to

dismiss,

them

condemn,

of domination, in

of

charged

the

that

defendants

when

cultural

as-certaining

on context,

is a

circum-stance,

might be willing and In

if they have

addition,

own cultural or

criminalize

even

because

assump-tionsto

natural

others

and

cultural

who, as noted above, are committed

critique

claim

and

2010b).

accept that crime based

fieldwork.

as normal

in cases

beliefs and practices (see Donovan 2008:225)critical criminologists,

to

a

Brisman

able to serve in this capacityespecially

a penalty the court should

as

or setting

diff erences (e.g.,

cases involving

capacity,22

of anthropologists

geography, and time, they

have served as expert

To explicate,

testified

might examine the

cultural

cases

defenses based

diminished

diff erences (see

legal systems tend to reify their

which anthropologists

in

anthropologists).24

suggest that ways in

stake

not all of these cases have

conducted

criminologists

at

cases involving

outside the scope of this article, I would also like to critical

is

and marriage-by-capture,20

that is akin to that of

encountered

Although an in-depth

people by tradi-tion)

Essentially, I could envision a role for critical crimi-nologists

obstacles to achieving progressive reform, let alone social justice.

to

marriage,17 polygamy,18 oyako-shinju

government or to dine at the trough of government-fundedBecausecritical criminologists research,

intent

Gypsies who have been

also

suicide),19

as well as in

(2010:5)

councils

the

persecuted around the world for centuries (1994:75).16

marginalized, at

lacked

of their kin group (or

of

on culture-bound

in

of his five-year-old

and concealing identity

pattern

and provocation23 (although

who, as

with using

numbers because they consider

might also off er a paradigm

issue that

few

man was charged

knowledge

anthropology

how to

justice

have

crime

Gypsies which a

frequently borrow each others American names

Cultural

can

to critical

what constitutes

temporal, for

anthropology

support

with

in a case in

defraud because Gypsies (nomadic

for crack and powder cocaine). Finally, if

or

nephew) to obtain credit to purchase a car. Shetestified

them ascorporate

and lend

in the group an anthropologist

a false social security

push for the repeal of statutes

certain

for commit-ting

extensive fieldwork

Gypsy

negated

and anthropolo-gists

Sutherland,

United States, participated

nineteen-year-old

asserted

heritage or tradition

membership

For example,

who has conducted in the

have

properly

1994:143)

and to the individuals culture.

animals, at-tire,

defendants

to the cultural

critical criminologists or laws that

the

cases,

and death/the

background

(Goldstein

have testified

and social security

criminalize

such

to be held responsible

consequences of various acts and omissions could help

marijuana)

In

drugs, homicide,

cultural

a crime

a cultural construct and shifting our analyses to the

that

2008:217).

237

devices)that

). Conversely,treating crime as

waste15

ANTHROPOLOGY

materialelec-tronic

are currently exempt under the legislations definition of

(see

the intent

state-level that lead and

(e.g., amending the

Recovery

dead

that their their

which falls with-in

push for regulation

of) activities,

(Donovan

and children

For example, such an endeavor

could help critical criminologists (or better regulation

defined)

THROUGH

which have ranged from those involving

notwithstanding),

examples (and engaging in

category so that

CRIMINOLOGY

background

Given that criminology reifies the category of crime (eff orts of critical

CRITICAL

assist

the

defense

to a

might embrace the opportunity of

with a crime and

an

individual

who

whose non-dominant

has

been

cultur

238

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

of capitalist society; (2) that the

is, effectively, on trial. That said, critical criminologists would

need

culture

to

be careful

that

their

of various cultural

229),

position

practices that

who has argued that

not reflect multicultural racist,

sexist,

and

Notwithstanding

are themselves

of capitalist

the culture

sensitivity,

colonialist

defense

of knowledge.25

such concerns, critical

might agree with Starr and

in

from

all strata of society

Rentelns (2005)

be treated

that the

equally under the law [they

diff erentlysomething

that

the

arena [for]

to

must be] treated

the culture

justice

of the

powerless.26

defense has

class structure

labeling

to the

with a critique

the

arrangements

of

ascausal forces in the and have linked

in the political-economic

of

(1996:12)

havefram[ed]

and the institutional capitalism

protect

disadvantage

Michalowski

of crime and criminals

con-tradictions

(3) that

system generally

powerful Similarly,

constructionism

of domination framework

social as mani-fest

of the nation

and the world. At its best, this analysis helped reveal the subtle dynamics of race, class, and gender oppression in the

making of laws and the administration

Because critical

the potential to off er and which critical criminologists

critical

might provide.

social organization;

explicates that critical criminologists

and find inspira-tion

reasoning that for litigants

and the criminal

20th century corporate

criminologists

Collier (1989:7)

system does not provide an impartial

contestants

does

but rather sustains

forms

laws

the interests

taken by Koptiuch (1996:228,

majority of crime in

capitalist societies is the result of the inherent

of the

defense does not result in support for or accep-tance

oppressivea

legal

endorsement

criminology

of justice.

has been both

of the discipline of criminology

and critical

of capitalism as an economic system,27 one might be inclined, then, to view critical criminology in purely ANTHROPOLOGY PARADIGMS

CAN

FOR

CRITICAL

BETTER

HELP

oppositional termsas

LIVINGALLOWING

CRIMINOLOGISTS

CRITICAL,

PROVIDE

concepts,

TO BE NOT JUST

NOT JUST PRESCRIPTIVE (IN

in

THE

ASPIRATIONAL (HOW

ONE

economic,

OUGHT

Critical

criminology of

challenges

orthodox

academic

contests this administrative crime

as a value

accepts the the interest

in

free

prevailing

problem

of crime,

the

the

assumptions

or traditional

structural

criminology, concept

definitions and forces

and

criminology.

It

which treats non-reflectively

of

what constitutes

and

social

and

of

economic

added).

Likewise,

harsher

and crime

justice

power

are integral has

and racial, as well as gender) to

understanding

maintained

system,

which defends the existing social order,

interests

of the capitalist

criminal

and protects the

class. As Maguire (1988:134)

explains, critical criminology domination

in society

the

and

and

reflects the power structure

that

crime

control,

and repression

contends (1)

that conflict,

are characteristic

elements

138)

hold fast to the

makes sense only in the and that criminal

asserts: The

more prisons,

sentences,

somethingsocial

(economic

criminologists

Young (1985:552)

orthodox or traditional of inequality

Maguire (1988:134,

justice

[to crime] is

radical policy is

criminology,

public and

need to be married to social justice

justice. Thus,

oradministrative

and that frame the

Similarly,

critical

confronting the goals, knowledge base,and theories of has also assertedthat the concepts

with the political, definition

larger context of social justice,

trials,

states that

forces that shape the

of crime,

causes of crime (see Presdee 2004). In the process of

critical criminology

are concerned

notion that criminal

solution

(1996:9)

discourse about how we might achieve justice

observes that

reforms

and

which possesses a lack

Michalowski

and cultural

(emphasis

content

But

and character

TO BEHAVE)

approaches,

orders, and systems, rather than for anything

particular.

critical criminologists

SENSE OF OFFERING RECOMMENDATIONS), BUT

against certain

and

closer

justice reforms.

conservative

more police, faster surveillance.

The

more social justice and less criminal critical

criminologists

justiceand

do stand for

havetaken additional

stepsto propose and promote specific policy proposals. This

is, by no means, a new development.

it is a critique Class,

State,

for popular conflicts

and

of advanced capitalist and

Crime

justicewhere

between

state

a

society,

in

their

[o]utside

own

call

to resolve

communities

the legal institutions

(1977:16263).

presents an agenda

Quinneys

Marxist-based

people attempt

themselves

workplaces [and]

of the capitalist 56774)

contains

In as much as

for critical

Young (1985: criminology

ADVANCING

to transform criminal justice into social justice, and to movefrom production

for profit to production

human need, for community, survey

of radical

found

that

and for praxis.

criminologists,

for radical

opportunities

health

income

care

and

the

arrangements

distribution

behavior.

respondents a number

in

1986:1604)

and

and

dispute resolution,

current

criminal

increased

police training

and

and job rotation and officers

and humanizing

wrongs that harm),

to

thereby

in

us/them

Crime

Reports,

combat equal

overhaul

the

FBIs

crime);

(e.g.,

legal insurance);

and the

community-based

retrospective

the establishment for criminal

public

than

murder

disposition

of

many, if

of communities

(1969,

1980,

to

be

2003;

more serious

Nader

criminologists

description

of the Philippines,

of

to the ability (2006)

most,

fines

(1992)

interested

promulgated is unattainable

in this era

of

programs

by critical

to use

based

about on

courts issuing

Finally,

income.28

of Yanomami

for the type

of characteristics

cross-fertilization

to accrue ... knowledge for its own sake, hoping instead

kind

to be able to use these insights

bring

all persons and cultures that if their

critical

methodology

and informants)critical

(Donovan

criminologists

the condi-tions

2008:xi)a likely

does not involve criminologists

if

not

ethnography might build future

a

and qualities

would need to

raids on theories and

together

and

citing

accounts.

has its own and tension

and children,

the

between

seniors

Comaroff

they 1982).

will need to

peoples

described

As Ortner reminds

politicse.g.,

what

of history

criminologists

not to romanticize

anthropological group

what kind

(1992:261,

More on point, critical

friction

conducting interdisciplinary

should be wary of precisely

of anthropology

careful per-spective

share (even

upon and expand their ideas for an imagined

who must be

theoreticians run significant risks, Laveand Fernandez caution, and individuals

informants,

who

possess.

Of course critical criminologists

becausemost anthropologists today arerarely satisfied to improve

Chagnons

village headmen,

our leaders and public figures should

I wishto take the more modeststep of suggesting that

ethnographic

consult

was organized accord-ing

Scandinavian

ones

be careful. Cross-disciplinary proposed programs and recom-mendations

is outside the scope of this article. Instead,

of the original

pro-gressive, penal-ize

of fines among the Ifugao

whose system

description

paradigm

Ortners (1995:176) phrase. Even a cursory overview of critical criminologists

in

more generous than any other villager, could provide and re-commendations

criminologists

of interdisciplinarity,

Todd

that

mustlead by example and persuasion, and examination

and

of each class to pay, as well as Rosens

comments

traffic

off enses).

An in-depth

Horizon

more heavily than the poormight

Bartons (1919)

tribu-nals

not

and other

Deepwater

Naders study of the Zapotec, whocon-sidered

critical

the rich

of

justice (e.g.,

of neighborhood

dignity

penalties for en-vironmental

rather than regressive finesones

national

development

victims

When proposing

Commons (e.g., the

health

1978). Those

Uniform

the guarantee

representation

that

(agreed-upon

pollution of the water supply and endangering the

or an increase in funds to

corporate legal

of

of justice

moral injuries

oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico?),critical criminologists

the

of laws and legal procedure to an

a form

do not necessarily result in specific

1997:7).

mightlook to

reflect asocial harms standard (e.g.,the com-mission of

for greater/

accountability

crimes, such as water pollution

police

terms]);

and for victims for

crimi-nology

world (and

and the imagined

helping to reestablish

damage to the

plans [reduce police burn-out

think

formulation

paradigms)

(and corporate)

1997:16)

of

work (e.g., sabbaticals

mitigate the tendency for

can help critical

models and arguments

seeks to compensate

(Borneman the professionalization

accounts of

and the like.

justice

governmental

(Borneman

239

(Cover

narrow the gap between the existing

survey identified recommendations:

ANTHROPOLOGY

or world-that-might-be

For example, anthropology

macro-emphasis,

Maguires (1988:145)

of specific criminal justice

wealth

THROUGH

1984:181) bylooking to anthropological justice,

of

have an influence

Beyond this

CRIMINOLOGY

Work edu-cation, world by providing

of

are social justice foci that ...

on criminal

etiology

and constraints.

the

(Cover

Maguire (1988:145)

criminologists,

crime has to do with social structural institutional

for

And in his

CRITICAL

local

be in

us, every

categories

of

men and women, parents

and juniors;

conflicts

amon

240

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

brothers over inheritance;

struggles for supremacy

between religious sects (1995:177). societies, she continues, be as complex

contain

of capitalism

1995:179). Thus,

mindful of the context in

and the like

critical

study the circumstances cultures we do

or ignore

models of

appear.

While

can provide some ideas, before importing

rules or penalties,

particular

(Ortner

will need to be

which appealing

justice,

may

that

will need to

have taken

place in those

have given rise to such ideas

not romanticize

instances

there). That

models, perspectives,

criminologists

that

these

of oppression

(Michalowski

cultures

and

and/

domination

1996:11,

12). I do not

to ignore the early calls for trans-societal

bit as oppres-sive, (Young

every

any broad or specific approaches,

(so that

that

and colonialism

critical criminologists

dispute resolution, anthropology

Even the simplest

a politics

and sometimes

as those

racism, sexism, working class oppression and US neo-colonialism

1985:567)

(however the

diff

of anti-social

defined

erent

comparisons

behavior

and crime

by diff erent societies)as

contexts

and

social

well as

formations

in

which

such behavior and crime appears and the responses to them.

Nor do I intend

to

work of comparative

disregard the

criminologists,

more recent

who have urged

criminologists,

in general, to engage in the systematic

and theoretical

comparison

and

crime

Barak

that

control

2000a,

in

of crime, crime prevention,

two

2000b),

or

more cultural

and

professors introduce

their teachings.

who

have

comparative

states

recommended

criminology

AsJohnson (2009:15)

that criminology

as a field

by the influence

[g]iven the chance, manystudents getinter-ested in comparative criminology

has always been shaped

of, and borrowings from,

many

it

scratches

their

itch

to

know

because

about

other

peoples and cultures and becauseit reveals

criminologists

assumptions

disciplines

have been open to influence

from

other

and have been willing to poach theories

approaches from

other fields,

pay attention

provided

to context

and history, there is little

not look to anthropology

critical

that

and

reason they

for prescription,

but that

crimi-nologists

and raises questions about pat-terns

are taken for granted in do not get

the preoccupation

and circumstances,

important

should

is distinctive

and

and punishment CONCLUSION

I

wish to conclude

a

word

this

caution

as

article

I look

with three

ahead

the intersections

to

future

points and

at

the

outset

critical criminology of

domination

of

this

of crime

are not necessarily

proscribed

Advancing

Anthropology,

I

do not

who have admirably

beyond legalistic

stressed

wish to

undertaken the

definitions

by law.

By titling

diminish

critical (and

boundaries of crime

of comparative

problematic

that

this

crimi-nology of what

about

crime

in ones own country.

is a vibrant and

division/perspective

comparative

criminological

have become increasingly criminology

more popular;

nor comparative

criminol-ogy

Mygoal in this

article has been to generate further avenues of inquiry for current and future critical criminologistsinqui-ries that

will also benefit the discipline of anthropol-ogyrather than to find fault

or identify

the con-tributions

to the field

succeeded in)

and criminality.

unit

criminology

In

of study

of this article,

and sociological

of criminology

and sociology their

beginning

anthropological

criminologists

of criminology

with critical

a deficiency.

Second, at the

through

andconfronting

One

can be considered flailing, stagnant or in need of

harms that

Criminology

or current

the task of expanding

undertakings

when

United States.

resuscitation from another discipline. I

to include

Critical

of early

criminology,

developing and exploring

broader conceptions

article,

article,

has been committed to a critique

and to

criminology

within

and exchanges between

critical criminology and anthropology. First,

Critical

neither critical

endeavors

much attention

is the

purpose

America

is to deepen understanding

inspiration,

and aspiration.

involving

into

explains,

other academic disciplines. In other words, given that

of

(see

said, whereassome disciplinary divisions

are tenaciously sustained, South (2010:228) suggests

politics

want

contributions

and to the study

particular,

I noted that

share common and history

I distin-guished

of crime

anthropol-ogy

ancestors,

but that

with respect to crime

ADVANCING

CRITICAL

CRIMINOLOGY

criminality, and criminology has been different. I made

disciplinary

only passingreference to the issue of methodology and

insularitythis

then

critical criminology

proceeded to focus

anthropology

(see

on the results

Donovan 2008:vii),

process by which anthropologists It bears

generated

by

mention that the reason that I have neglected

a consideration

of the

general) and critical benefit from

waysin

anthropological

methods is that I firmly 1999;

(in

particular)

insights

into

believe that

Ferrell

1993,

1989)

have persuasively

ethnographic

which criminology

criminology

Ferrell

and

Hamm

argued

1998;

for

use of

is attuned to this debate, even if its researchers and scholars

they

have not responded

as enthusiastically

as

this article hasfocused on the waysin which

anthropology of

can help critical

crimethat

culturally

present

what

specific

endeavored

to

criminology

expose

for

article

anthropology,

this

to the

ways in

through

critical

benefits that

criminology article

repeated

(to

elsewhere

criminological

need to

or cross-fertilization

mix biological

with

metaphors).

thereby

outside

of the

that

are

major loci

and are pervasive, and

of

while

can off er paradigms for better living,

who fights

into

(i.e.,

attention)

be careful.

As

with

Nietzsche famously

monsters should

we

warned:

be careful lest he

become a monster. And if thou gazelong enough

an abyss, the abyss will gaze into thee (1886:52).

sexism, misogyny, homophobia, xenophobia, working class oppression, environmental degradation and natu-ral resource destruction, economic exploitation,

anthropology

The

might advance

might provide for

which at its

promotion

for critical discourse 2011b;

criminology,

of human

each

of the 2011a,

domineering.

Merry 2006; further

Riles

develop its

But in the process, weshould

be

monsters ourselves; regardless of we should

domination,

be

mindful

that

we, ourselves, do not become

For example,

one of the

waysin

which

the British justified their own dominance in colonial

India was to point to than a com-mensalist

where anthropology is neither

Merry 2007;

and influences,

in critiquing

and its

prove instruc-tive

and its examination

in this regard.

interests

of ethno-centrism

xenophobia,

should

2006) can help critical criminology

our

and

rights (see, e.g., Brisman

Goodale and

careful not to become

and critical

rejection

racism

relativism

U.S.

And anthropology

worst, can lead to genocide)

of cultural

critical

criminology in a mutualistic relationshipwhere relationship

and

underpins

thinking

has little to off er to anthropol-ogy.

provides benefits to the otherrather

(which

on the

as an indication

I see anthropology

and imperialism.

can be helpful in these fightsits

has stressed the

emphasis

not be interpreted

To the contrary,

prescrip-tive,

can advance through

which anthropology

that critical criminology

critical

not just

neo-colonialism

can

has devoted less attention

criminology.

should

is

has also

better livingallowing

While this article

which critical

crime

how anthropology

to be not just critical,

but aspirational.

criminology

constitutes

and temporal. This demonstrate

paradigms

criminologists

waysin

is, or would be, unaff ected

can help expose processes of domination

processesof domination and illuminate the contingent nature

as a sug-gestion

Critical criminologists should battle monstersracism,

might.

Third,

and

Finally, while this article has argued that anthropol-ogy

of crimi-nology He

methods and that the discipline

parochialism

not be understood

anthropology

anthropology

Sullivan

greater

should

critical criminology

(in

qualitative

241

articles emphasis on the benefits to

or harmed by collaboration

could

many others (e.g.,

ANTHROPOLOGY

and subdisciplinary

that

rather than the

have arrived at them.

THROUGH

what they considered barbaric

practices, such as sati (widow

burning), and to claim

helped nor harmed.29 And this article has proposed

they (the British) wereengagedin a civilizing

that anthropology could profit from

that would saveIndian womenfrom these practices(see

comprehensive implied

that

ethnographic there is

gain from the theoretical

study

much that

critical

of crime and has

anthropology

orientations

While I leave for another examination

(for diff erent

could

example,

ethnography

into

regions)or

anthropology

and critical criminology

might learn from how to

Ortner

1987;

1995:178;

see

Mani 1987)a

crimi-nology.described as one in

of critical

day a morein-depth

of what anthropologists

criminologists

more direct or

expand

how

both

might overcome

women from

brown

critical criminologists imperialists. can (and with

also

Jain,

situation

Misra,

that

and

Srivastava

Spivak (1988:296)

which white

men are saving brown

men.This

is not to suggest that

have become British colonialists/

But a critique

or challenge to domination

often does) result in replacing old

new ones (Omi

mission

and

Winant

prejudices

1994:198n.9)on

242

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

form of domination with another. In as muchas we need

as new

to critique domination,

approaches

over

our

critique

cautious

we need to exercise vigilance

(Rosse

discernment

198485:196).

1993:290)or

among

employ

commitments

Anthropology

a

have

(Cover

history, and context to help

to

code,

or

of a state, (see

but

I specify been

cultural from

evolutionary a

anthropology

explored

anthropological

more substantive

is

perspective.

the

anthropology

and

burned,

human cases

Kottak

or

are

worth

well noting

way.

process,

Schneider

some

patches,

there

would

mid-1980s,

ever actually

Note,

and small

a period

she in

the

however,

practices

that

too

no single criminology

that

studies

quarter

to

Barak

are

too

diverse,

and its

discipline

collapse

of the

20th

Henry

classic/legalistic

witches

or

cannot

pursuing

self-contained this

fact

to state

in

(2003:218), wide

and

has

own

rise right

the Lanier definitions

the law product

(2001)

of states for

of crime,

and

a presenta-tion as

well

it

to

5.

the

Ortner of such

are interested

for in

in the shared

could) for

to

con-template

prevention, and society, that

the

focused

societies in

(and

promot-ing

explain/understand

made it

more difficult

regrettable

endeavor

for of

criminology

move past the shortcomings

of crime

(1984) figures

to

slow

suggest

sociology to

or per-ceived

inquiry

traditionally protostate

as While

real

at least, of

victims,

would

models

may have

theories

the

(or,

anthropology/anthropological

See, e.g., impact

I

than

overcome

was for sociology

of positivist

makes pun-ishableis

or

phenomena)

criminal

the

than that

theories

anthropolo-gists

definition,

anthropology and

classical

nation-states

has been its

interested

were

organization.

subject

addition,

moral

or chiefdoms

(and

to off enders,

non-state

less

anthropology

century.

and

been

social

to

of cultural during

In

cultural

grand

monopo-lize

had appeared

that

as

As a result,

should

(including meaning

toward a

norms

close

within

political

state)

as

the

or punished

tribes,

anthropology

on small-scale,

ranging,

too interdepen-dent,

meteoric

their

fact

exist

appropriate

crime control,

is

organization

of the an

anthropologists, was

of

until

had

of

as

crime.

control.

forms

make crime

this

bands,

political

presence

that

violators

studying

investigate

of

and

and

Indeed,

was oriented deviance

entities

practices

anthropologists

explain,

which

But

all political

and

had

compliance,

up for retribution,

came to

have

norms.

(2008:354)

sorcerers.

and are subject

that

a single

been able to

Sociology

and the

act or omission

(see

theories

has ever

quintessentially state law

held

of shreds

anthropology

interests

and criminologies

Crimean

status,

Today,

of identifiable

of adopting

legal

crime,

all

classical

research

ridiculed,

anthropologists

were a few large

according

successfully.

do so until its

than

influence

a discussion).

law,

cultural

in

borders

notstudy

ensure

some

societies

state

beliefs

norms,

Schneider

more generally).

criminologys

of

claimed

a set

sense

as

cultural

acknowledged

when there

denied

is

mainly to them-selves

Ortner

affiliation,

it

(1984:126).

because

and

societ-ies

the

for

had

controli.e.,

from

tended

and state law.

have

anthropological

rather

a unified

coteries

and talking

Although

unified

in

had become a thing

of individuals

or schools,

article,

on states

maintain

and a judiciary

within

could

societies

deviation

small-scale

of (see

whether

Ortner

the

of theoretical

paradigm

ask

in

was at least

camps

of this

anything

investigations

categories

scope

to

study

1950s,

have

stages

unrecognizable

has ever approached

(1984:126).

last

the

of anthropology

disjunctive

4.

physical

remains

advanced

otherwise

outside that

Writing

the field

its

the

all

a formal

and protostate

1971

notor

conflictand

did

shamed,

anthropology

3.

to the legal

where the victims are in

of

did

societies

possessing

very limited

Seidman

of social

operate

regulate

anthro-pology

2008).

Although

and

science

not

form

that

a cultural

forensic

osteology

mutilated,

decomposition,

has been from

of the

some

arguably

to

and

all

anthropologists

non-state

was contingent

While

and

point in

Indeed,

application

usually in criminal

2.

it

which

has

anthropological

vantage

way than

anthropological

been

because crime

a biological

of

technically

subject

they

and integrating Not

mechanism,

in

peoples

Chambliss

Accordingly, 1.

sense

classical

fieldwork

among

crime

of crime).

the

indeed,

to conduct

ENDNOTES

defining

study

an enforcement

systemand,

mitigate such risks.

in

the

had lawin

legal

can provide the theory,

directions

(e.g.,

Lombroso). of the role

and

anthropology.

a discussion

Readers

who

epistemological

foundation

ADVANCING

and complementary

objectives

might

Levi-Strauss

Sahlins 6.

consult

(1981),

Writing ten the shift

years earlier,

in research

studies

toward

aggregate

that

bears

mention

to

social

people

Where

the

(Bodley

Bodley

further

8.

in

the

1960s

with

irrelevant

indicts

to

explicitly

citing

Bodley

mention

hold

to legal me

I

of

scholars.

crime.

state

crime

14.

is a subject

that

perspectives,

I thank

L. Rothe for

Dawn

not

wish to imply critical been

deficient

Fredrichs

(1998),

and

See

breadth

and

state

improve

criminology the range

anthropological

I leave for criminologists

in its

(2010)

depth

crime. to

day

a few

a

family

examples

positions

of its examples)

anthropological

of

17.

18.

19.

by looking

2009b,

wish to this

see, e.g., 2009c,

suggestas articlethat

positions

examples) and

(and

by look-ing

perspectives

on

of

binary

relations,

Axelrod

(2010)

explains,

by

of a relative, tradition

v.

legal

people

see

for

Benu,

87

Crim.Ct.

People v. Ezeonu,

to remain society

issue in

virtually

factor

using

defendant

with fixed

who consider

defining

the

non-Gypsy

serious

ties the

People

a

no

was anony-mous

and that

a bureaucratic abodes

meaning

descent

the

and

and for

a

the

extended

for identification.

Misc.2d

139,

385

N.Y.S.2d

222

1976). 155

Misc.2d

344,

588

N.Y.S.2d

116

Ct. 1992).

People v. Kimura,

Review

81)

from

of

No. A-091133

Ct. Nov. 21, 1985); how critical

and

time-honored separate

Gypsies

(N.Y.Sup.

(and

examples

criminology

regard;

its

and

on resistance

2009a,

of its

scholars back

in this

of postcolonial

languagehas

(N.Y.City

and perspectives.

a consideration

might explore

written

has

number

composed

nomadic

paperthat

its

society

(2009),

this

strengthen

work

2001;

domination-resistance

(1994:75,

security

of state

suggestas

the

McGarrell,

[i]dentificationa

has

criminology

1993, that

critical

accounts

that

As Sutherland

following

gen-eral,

wish to

do throughout

accounts

another

which

merely

detail

Rothe

are but

with

I

could and

investigations

has been defied,

and

strengthen

detail

To the

(1992).

Gibbs,

social

reminding

in

and

somehow

toggled

do throughout

do and

discussion.

16.

as well as

particularly,

range

I

or cultural

Ferrell

own

merely

an understanding

Mbembe

has

who do

criminology, more

Ross (2000),

Mullins

have endeavored

critical

here that

criminology,

I

could

For an argument obscures

of

by the

to criminologists

criminological

and

Rothe

of the

to

were unaff ected

Rather,

anthropological

and

considered

11.

attitudes

the

to

15.

and is of interest

critical

somehow

I

that

improve

power

2008b,

to

has

already

(My

2008a,

n.10,

in general,

resistance.

According

the

2009).

criminology

supra

want to insinuate

have not

have endeavored

this.

do

and

2010f.)

critical

to

brain surgeons

that

Norton-Hawk

critical

e.g.,

been cross-disciplinary

2010d,

in

how

anthropology

Kane

2007,

of social

Niehoff1964).

appears

United

of resistance.

(see,

Nor do I

Brisman

I

writers

underdevelop-ment

agents to

reformers

It

writers

of the medicine

and

[i]t

of ethnocentrism.

not

to economic

Arensberg

(2008:25),

appeal

has also

another

development

e.g.,

crime,

working

resistance between

(see,

peoples indiscriminately

change

modern cultural

bears

upon

of the

particularly,

examined

2009).

forth

becomes

and takes such

speaking

discovery

broad

10.

tribal

peoples,

and comparing

some

9.

economic

for lumping

as asickness,

(2008:25,

standards

impact

investigations

and subverted

Snyder

problem-aticand

it

have closely

studying

(Kottak

2008:21).

for referring

change,

when

more everyday

criminology,

more

in its

criminologists

opposed,

community,

becomes

deadlyis

underdeveloped

task

and

243

1995:175).

see, e.g.,

of state

here that

criminology,

veins

to the integ-rity

tradition

abroad,

my discussion

contrary,

the

and contributes

value

ethnocentrism

basis for forcing

culture

of

a cultural

and

(Ortner

gendered

Drugs

wish to imply

critical

do not portray

vital

2008:21)

a sense

As with not

in

of the

War on

been lacking

cultureis

(Bodley

potentially

13.

well.

who share

2008:196).

data and of

belief

la Foucault

For a discussion

unemployment,

methods

very

ones own

society

on

more pervasive,

of power

States

ANTHROPOLOGY

(2010).

ethnographic

survey

on crime

12.

THROUGH

institutionalized,

forms

lamented

from

ethnocentrismthe

solidarity,

among

(1989:67)

CRIMINOLOGY

less

his-tory

(1968),

Worsley (1968).

of self-report

that

of

of any

Sullivan

statistics

processes

superiority

and

away

and

Lewis

(1962),

such quantitative

... local-level It

(1963),

methods

analyses

social

claiming

7.

Schapera

of anthropology

CRITICAL

(1986);

Woo (1989)

see also

Pound

(Santa

Monica

Bryant (1990);

(1985);

Rosen

Harvard

(2006:17175);

Super. Law

244

CRIME

20.

AND

BEHAVIOR

People v.

Moua,

No. 3159720

(Fresno

County

criminology

Super.

and the

Ct. Feb. 7, 1985). 21.

State

v.

Ganal,

81

Hawaii

358,

917

P.2d

438,

103

370

and public

People v. Poddar, (Cal.App.

23.

24.

It

v. Aphaylath,

N.Y.S.2d

bears

that

and

violence

ordinarily

redefined

science

Rosen (1991);

term,

among

others.

that

there

exist

as feminism,

and

postmodemism,

critical

such

as

as

criminology,

anarchist

criminology,

criminology,

peacemaking

criminology,

criminology.

In this

radical the

criminology criminology

context

of

(or radical

discussing

consistency

with

Maguire

(1988:146)

attempting

to

paper, I primarily (or critical

his

the label

perspec-tives, also notes

distinct

hybrid

constitutive

and left employ

criminologist)

and

that reshape

in

$20

million

hour

(fifty-seven

the fifty-mile-an-hour (Huffington

any intimate

members

of two

mutualism,

Post

one

parasitism,

or

to

between

benefits in

more species.

benefits

association

which

relationship

where diff erent

provide

species

each other,

two

and the

which

other is adversely

Poetry

to

the

realist

other

diff

erent

is

unaf-fected,

one organism

benefits

aff ected.

Lila.

Tracing

Patricia

A. of

maintain

to of

of

of

1985. an

of

and of

Resistance:

Power through

Ethnologist

Conrad

Bedouin

17:4155.

Wheeling Upper-Level New

M. and

Social

and

Dealing:

An

Drug

Dealing

and

York:

Columbia

Use

and of

Deviance.

A.

Bruce,

Stephen

Incarceration

Criminology

Howard

A

Manual

Leo C.

in

Niehoff . for

1964.

Americans

Carroll,

Patricia

Richards.

2001.

the

United

States.

10(1):1741

S. 1963. New

H.

Aldine.

Marino

McCall,

Arthur

Change:

Chicago:

James,

The

Romance

Community.

Overseas.

Becker,

Honor University

Press.

Introducing

only in

Sentiments: Berkeley:

1990. The

American

Smuggling

L.

Veiled Society.

Transformations

Women.

Austin,

1986.

Bedouin

Press.

Abu-Lughod,

using

field

a

California

Arensberg,

the term,

addition

Lila.

in

University

newsmaking

order

and the

Critical

explains

in

to

association an

Ethnography

writing.

influence

species

Adler,

theories

criminologist),

Maguire in

includes

in close

commensalism,

and that

criminology,

cultural

critical

the

social

own

than

fined

REFERENCES

poststructuralism

well as its

over

limit

refers

between

concept

Abu-Lughod, employs

criminologies

political-economy,

symbiosis

(1991);

that

broad

only

accord-ing

a Swiss court of

mil-lionaire, bears

not the fined

miles an

faster

a

a

Sheybani

(1996:14)

encompasses

are

wealth

hour)

to It

been

2010,

thirty-five

an

gave

(1994);

and Marxist

Michalowski

biology,

living

de-bates

Volpp (1994).

but indicates

driving

$216,900

have

In January

police

defense

(1986);

(1988:134)

critical,

multiple

such

theories

and

income.

and

the

Rimonte

Sherman

Maguire

criminology

in

culture

system,

information.

countries

enders

with an estimated

The

the

science

Gallin

(1993);

criminology, conflict,

interested

off

for

anthropological

of the

of tax

Scandinavian traffic

or association

gender

U.S. legal

Choi (1990);

Renteln

that

defense,

of

Readers

(1985);

mention

by

and cons

Sams (1986);

radical

culture

justice

2010).

about

within

crimi-nologists

administra-tors,

Finnish

amount

his income

$290,000

In

29.

colonial

exuberance

authority

example,

encompasses

critical

27.

pros

Thompson

It bears

unacknowledged

the

216).

for

track[s]

the

that

a speeder

ap-plicability

critical

criminal

(eighty-kilometer-an-hour)

of recent

Koptiuch

uncritical

[i]n

(1991);

groups

that

kilometers

over the

of multiculturalism

by

the

might consult,

(1987);

diaspora,

in

defendant.

debate

in on

which

to their

allowed

resulted

notes

ticket

in

testimony. have

to select

ones

society,

opinion.

based

not

in

representatives,

in the

(2006:192)

998,

have

always

for the

criminalized

(1996:217,

Magnarella

law

of the

as ritual

regarding

courts

cultural

haunts

that

courts

not

mitigation

potential

argues

N.E.2d

cultural

where

of the

darkly

Rosen

mention

have

genealogy

the liberatory

26.

cases

Americas

historical

502

cases,

disallowed

U.S. criminal in

shadow

is

or

or sentencing

immigrants

945,

these

testimony

of

law,

N.Y.2d

in

her examination

the

28.

84

1986).

that

those

cultural

acquittal In

68

permitted

Furthermore,

25.

Cal.Rptr.

speeding

83 (N.Y.

mention

uniformly

such

Cal.App.3d

1 Dist. 1972).

People 510

26

elected

and functionaries

(Haw.

1996). 22.

powerful

also target

York:

Outsiders: Free

Studies Press.

in the

Sociology

ADVANCING

Barak,

Gregg. 2000a. Comparative

View. The Barak,

Critical

Gregg

Global

Barak,

(ed.).

View.

R.

Needs-Based

F.

University

1919

A

Justice.

of

Laura,

Contemporary

Simple

Ifugao

Brisman,

Law.

1988. On

Bruce

M. Knauft,

MD:

Reconsidering

Societies.

Current

Violence

Anthropology

at

Victims of

Progress 5/e.

Lanham,

and

John.

Princeton

1997.

Settling

Philippe.

Selling

1995.

San

El Barrio.

Biomedical

,

2nd

of

the

Mednick,

Factors

ICS

edition.

Respect:

in

Q.

and Jan

Crime.

pp.

Volavka. 6590

Wilson and Joan

in

Petersilia.

2010b.

Jurisprudence

of

at

the

Avi.

on the

Tyranny

of the

Brisman,

Notes on

Culture-Drug/Drug-Crime

North

Dakota

Law

Review

Edge:

Paper

Transgression

Criminal

Justice

University Aug.

Paper

at

and The

Dangerous

Conference.

John

and The

New York

College

Center,

City

New York,

NY,

2008a.

Issues

the

Docile

of

Time,

Withdrawal

Paper

presented

Western February Avi.

Society

of

Bodies

or

Power,

and

Death

at

the

35th

of

Criminology,

Rebellious

Spectacle

Penalty Annual

Appeals. Conference,

Sacramento,

CA,

2008b.

Fair

Fare?:

and Jails.

Food

Terrain in

U.S. Prisons

on Poverty

Law and Policy 15(1):4993.

as

Contested

Georgetown Journal

CA,

Comparative

and

Paper

the

presented

Annual

Nov. 20.

All

at the of

of

Criminology

Over Again:

Reconceptualizing

Society

and

Center-City

Criminology

of

vu

pre-sented

26.

M. Cover.

Francisco,

Preliminary

Evolution 37th

and

Annual

Criminology,

Crime.

Conference, Honolulu,

HI,

5.

Avi. 2010d. Creative

Analogy. Brisman,

Crime

Avi.

The

of Environmentally in

Global

Crime and the Phytological

Media Culture 6(2):205225.

2010e.

Indiscriminate

Beneficial

Criminalisation

Activities.

Environmental

Harm:

by Rob

White.

Pp. 16192 Criminological

Devon,

UK:

Willan

Publishing. Brisman,

Avi.

2010f.

Death

Penalty

Acts.

Western

Brisman,

Critical at the

The

What

Critical

the

Kinds Not

in the

Parameters

of Critical

Domination Paper

and Justice

by the

of

11(2):2741.

Critique?

Criminology

Program

of

Withdrawal Communicative

Review

Avi. 2011a. Probing

Criminology

and

as Extreme

Criminology

hosted Studies

Waiver

Appeals

Criminology:

16.

Department

and

Graduate

Graduate

Society

presented

Brisman,

Other:

Jay

Graduate

(CUNY),

On the

Feb.

Paper

Interdisciplinary

Robert

Perspectives, edited Avi.

Spirits?:

Brisman,

presented

and

10.

Brisman,

in

of

Interventionism,

Sabotage,

Disruption.

An Interdisciplinary of

San

Free Speech,

Ideology,

NY, Feb.

Avi. 2010c. Dj

University,

Aesthetics,

Appreciative

American

Western

2007.

Art of

the

Cross

Criminology.

The

New York,

Avi.

Media,

A

State

Cruelty,

Annual

New York,

Crime,

7.

Critical

of

Meeting,

Chic and the

Relationships.

of

presented

Conference:

Poetics of Pain:

University

82(4):12731396. Brisman,

Parameters

Brisman,

Valparaiso

Paper

Indiana

October

Conference,

Press.

Reflections

International

Studies

Student

Cambridge:

Rebellious

Waiver and

Appeals.

Annual

IN,

atThe

Annual

or

Speed.

Avi. 2010a. Animal

Literature,

A.

Avi. 2006. Meth

Immediate:

Search

In

Press.

by James

Francisco:

Brisman,

Princeton:

Penalty

Culture

Representation,

[2003].

A., Sarnoff

Crime, edited

Violence, Justice,

Europe.

Bodies

Exploration,

Haute,

Criminology

5, 2009).

Review 43(2):459512.

First

Popular

Terre

Press.

University

Patricia

Accounts:

Postsocialist

1996

Crack in

Cambridge Brennan,

in

University

Bourgois,

the

and

presented

Power in the

Avi. 2009c. Resisting

Brisman,

Accountability

Death

Law

of

Time and

of

for

Paper

PA (Nov. Docile

of

Art:

Communiqu

Liberation.

Society

2009b.

Issues

Disciplinary

H. 2008.

AltaMira.

Borneman,

Avi.

Brisman,

29(4):624636. Bodley, John

American

University

Dentan,

Animal

245

as Conceptual

Role of the

Philadelphia,

Withdrawal

Berkeley:

Press.

Know

Human

2009

ANTHROPOLOGY

Action

of the

and

Meeting,

Spirits:

California

Robert

Eco-Defense

Visionary

THROUGH

Avi. 2009a. Direct

at the

Press.

History,

[1969].

Keith F. Otterbein. in

Criminology:

Greenwood

and

Brisman,

CRIMINOLOGY

An Examination

Review 6(3):217225.

Barton,

Betzig,

CT:

Revisionist

A Global

10(2):810.

Comparative

2003.

Criminology, Justice

2000b. Westport,

Gregg.

Criminology:

Criminologist

CRITICAL

Studies

Criminology

Department

Should presented

of

Mini-Conference,

and Justice Sociology

a

246

CRIME

AND

California

BEHAVIOR

State

with the Public

Aff airs,

Aff airs B.C.

Brisman,

and

the

Marcos, in conjunc-tion

State

University

School

of

of

School

Urban

and

Texas-Arlington,

of

Public

Journal

Avi.

2011b.

Probing

Criminology:

Society

at the of

Michael

38th

F.

Annual

1996.

Taimie.

1990.

,

Jean

On

and

30(Summer):80024.

Resisting

in

Press.

Robert

Shinju:

Death

at

the

Michael, J.

Alice

Leslie

Hurst,

Charles

Josepha

Schiff

man, and

Unbound:

Power

Metropolis.

Ann

Arnett

Gamson,

Cover,

Kurzman, Shiori

Robert.

and

Resistance

Berkeley:

in

University

the

Daly,

Modern

1986.

Kathryn,

Criminology, Muncie.

and

edited

London:

Chagnon,

Kinship.

by Eugene

William

New York:

William

Criminology.

Chambliss,

in

Criminal

Journal Collier, Labor

Harcourt

Pp. 23041

in The

edited

by

Robert

Reading,

of

Politics

Law:

A

Pantheon.

B. Seidman.

1971.

of a Cultural

Proceedings.

UCLA

Pacific

Law,

Law

8(1/2):8090.

George

in

The

Power in the

Study of

Anthropology,

edited

Ithaca, Collier, Jane

NY: Cornell 1975. Legal

Anthropology

Impact

Spain.

4:12144.

of

Second

Pp. 20122

Law:

by June University

New

in

Lee

of

and

Legal

Starr and Jane F. Collier.

Ferrell,

Annual

Review

Yale

Law

Criminological

Los

Angeles,

CA:

1982. Homicide

and

84(2):372378.

of

Authority.

Law:

The

Cardozo

Legal

Lanham,

MD:

AltaMira.

1928.

Primitive

Anthony

Walsh.

Theories

Paul

A. and

Anthropological

Mystical

Law

Review

Anthropology:

An

Law in

East

in

1997.

Gene-Based

Criminology.

Criminology

Liam

Theory

Jeanne. 1980.

Jeff . 1993. of

Review

of

Murphy.

2003.

2nd edition.

A History

Orchard

Park,

Deadly

Words:

Cambridge

Crimes of Style:

Criminality.

Jeff . 1999.

Witchcraft in the

Univ. Press.

Urban

Boston,

Graffiti

MA:

and the

Northeastern

Cultural

Anarchy.

Jeff .

Criminology.

Annual

Review

25:395418.

Jeff. 2001.

Urban

UK:

Press.

of Sociology

Ferrell,

D.

Broadview.

Politics

Ferrell,

Press.

Processes.

Wilson.

M. 2008.

and

Favret-Saada

Ferrell,

Republic History

Directions in

of Justice: Law

Africa 1: 6372.

University

A. 1989.

Reforms

Agnew. 2006.

Force

Bocage. Cambridge,

Defense Basin

of

Word.

Herbert.

Evolutionary

NY:

MA: Addison-Wesley.

1990. Application

Jack

Erickson,

Radical

of

Univerity

35(2):229276.

12(1):6777.

New York:

of

Africa. Ellis,

a

and

Folktales

Anthropologist

1990.

James

Donovan,

The

Analysis

Toward

Law

University

and the

Robert

American

Introduction.

Brace.

Sociological

1982.

William J. and

Carolyn.

of

and John

Yanomamo:

Social Problems J.

Critique,

Order, and Power. Choi,

Critical

Dictionary

McLaughlin

[1983].

J. 1964. A

Law of Vagrancy.

Progressive

2001.

Sage

Violence

Margo

Jacques.

Driberg,

A. 1992

Fierce People 4/e.

Chambliss,

Scraton.

in The

Inquiry

11:9191046.

Sage.

Napoleon

Chambliss,

Phil

Pp. 7072

The

Present. 3rd edition.

Martin and

Foundation

Criminology.

Chicago:

Capital

T. and

Past to

Derrida,

California

Press.

Chadwick,

Critical

Roxbury.

Salzinger, Ethnography

of

Policing,

95:160129.

Theory:

Gartrell,

Leslie

Ui. 1991.

Criminal

Comaroff , eds. 2006.

M. 198485.

Cullen, Francis

Ferguson,

Nadine

2004.

14:179203.

Pacific Basin Law Journal

Burton,

Fox, Joshua

.

Disorder.

Postcolony.

and

of theory.

Postcoloniality,

of

Tales of Jurisdiction.

Journal

Kathryn

the

history

8:14372.

Comaroff

Foucault:

and John

Chicago

systems, and questions

Studies

John

Metaphysics

Disorder

Cover,

Resistance.

98(4):72935.

UCLA

the

Comaroff , Jean

Western

8(1):131. Burawoy,

and

of

B.C., Feb. 4.

of study African

After

of

Paper

Conference,

Oya-ko

Heart.

Critique

Itself?

Vancouver,

Anthropologist

Center of the

Parameters

Does the

Domination

Criminology,

American

the

When

Become

presented

units

of Southern

Comaroff

Vancouver,

L. 1982. Dialectical

anthropology:

Obsessions,

Domination

the

Comaroff , John

3.

Critical

Bryant,

San

Diego

University

Feb.

Brown,

University

San

2002.

11(3):185198

Tearing

Down the Streets:

New York: Palgrave Speed

Kills.

Adventures in

Macmillan.

Critical

Criminology

ADVANCING

Ferrell, Jeff and the

Mark S. Hamm eds. 1998.

Edge: Crime,

Northeastern

Fletcher,

Deviance, and Field

Univ. Robert.

Criminal

Ethnography

at

1891.

New

School

American

1978.

R. Hurley, trans. David

Aldershot,

of

Friedmann,

California

of

Press.

Policies

Gaston.

1959.

Los

vols

1 and

Domestic

University

of

Undermining

Violence.

Boston

the

Politics,

and

the

Carole,

Occult

F.

from

Criminology

and

Law

Public

American

Recognize

Review

Goodale,

the

of

Global

and

University

Press.

Greenhouse,

Carol

Order, and NY: Cornell Griffiths,

Criminology

edited Harvard

1990.

the

in

Huff.

Criminal

Is

Stuart, Crime?

and

an

System

Law

for

Knauft,

and

Millionaire (http://

Public

Misra; and

1975.

Places.

Kavita

Womens

Tearoom New

York:

Srivastava.

Protest

in

1987.

Rajasthan.

Weekly, XXII:45(November

in

Rosemary

in

the

7):

1986.

again:

Park, The

gang

Law

M. Lanier,

eds.

M.,Thomas Boehm,

over the

Nature of

Crime

S.

wa-terscapes

John

and

Comments

Present

Laura

Knox

Keith F. Otterbein, Violence

the

Abler,

Robert

in

Betzig,

Dentan, Thomas Paddock,

Sociality

and

and

in

Lars

Human

Replies].

Current

32(4):391428.

Kristin.

Cultural

1996.

Defense

Displacements:

(Trans)Nation

in

Pp.21533

in

Swedenburg.

the

and

Gender,

Race,

Legal

Surveillance

Displacement,

Diaspora,

edited

by Smadar

Durham,

Concise

New

Phillip.

NC:

What and

2008.

Introduction

York,

NY:

Corinne Dec.

99

Conrad

Laview

Duke

of and

and

University

to

Window

on

Anthropology

Humanity: 3rd

edition.

McGraw-Hill. A.

2007.

Personal

communication.

7.

Lave, Jean,

Paul

Duguid,

Axel. 1992. Coming 2001.

urban Argentina.

for

[and

Kratz, Defense

Review

in

Rosario,

Routledge.

1991.

A

re-search

America,

Culture

graffiti

and

Press.

CA: Sage.

Harvard

Criminologist

New York:

Rodseth.

Ted

Explaining

Gangs in

Teaching

5:928.

Geographies of Identity,

Altercations.

in

Tip:

The

Aires

Culture

Evolution

and

Gartner.

field

Buenos

Criminological

Faith,

Town. Ithaca,

Things:

Teaching

Genealogies

Anthropology

Cambridge

Violent

2009.

M. 1996.

Bruce

U.S.

Trivial

T.

Anthropology.

Christopher

Between

Justice:

American

Yule, and

Newbury

Controversies

Wilson

7, 2010

Rainwater.

C. 2009. Stencil

Bruce

Kottak,

Mark

Q.

Press.

January

Criminology.

Media

Cultural

Dickinson

(April):12931311. Henry,

Nirja

David

Crime

Press.

Law.

ICS

Fines Speeding

Lee

Episode:

of

Merry, eds. 2007. The

Pp. 24059

Review.

Court

Sex in

Comparative

Court:

Justice Defense?

Praying

in

Back

nineties.

Law

de Gruyter.

risk:

49(1):6194.

by CR

Impersonal

Aldine

Knauft,

Cambridge:

Contention

J.M. in the

Traits.

by James

Retrieved

Trade:

Johnson,

waste.

Conflicts

Local.

Over

of

and

Criminogenic

edited

and

Kane, Stephanie

Axelrod. and

electronic

Tracking

Carlyn

Rowman

34(6):1516.

9(3):54360.

Engle

1986.

Fighting

Issue

Hagedorn,

in

Rights:

University

MD:

San Francisco:

Laud

Koptiuch, J.

Elizabeth,

2011. the

Mark

crime

Criminal

Sally

Community

Crime,

2010.

M. Kiefer,

the

1995.

Economic and Political

Africa.

Press.

and

a Culture

Human

J.

Post. Swiss

Sharada;

99:14168.

Mark, and

Practice

trade

Policy

Witchcraft:

Postcolonial

F. 1994. Cultural

the

Formally

global

of

Virginia

white-collar

the

Taryn

Should

in of

McGarrell,

Transnational

Goldstein,

Modernity

Univiversity

Edmund

Lanham,

18911894.

1997. The

Charlottesville:

Lessons

in

Petersilia.

Deorala

College

Review 35(3):72345. Peter.

It.

247

2.

Law in a Changing

Angeles:

Defense:

about

ANTHROPOLOGY

www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/07/swiss-court-fines-speedin_n_414644.html).

Crime,

Jain,

Against

2010.

3963

Humphreys,

and

THROUGH

Richard

$290,000.

Sexuality,

Pantheon. State

Alice. 1994. Cultural

Gibbs,

History

1998.

Wolfgang Berkeley

in

The

New York:

O. ed.

Society.

Law

Pp.

Joan

Anthropologist

Gower.

Geschiere,

Do

Huffington

Michel.

Gallin,

What to

Herrnstein, The

4(3):20136.

Fredrichs,

CRIMINOLOGY

Littlefield.

Research. Boston:

Press.

Anthropology.

Foucault,

CRITICAL

Studies Review of

and

Nadine

Fernandez,

Age in

Birmingham:

Cultural

Subjectivity.

Annual

of

Conceptions

Anthropology

of

21:257282

and

Erik

248

CRIME

AND

Levi-Strauss,

BEHAVIOR

Claude.

Anthropology. Claude

Levi-Strass,

Grundfest

Lewis,

1963.

trans.

Schoepf.

I.M.

Introduction:

History

in

Anthropology.

Pp.328

by

Claire Jacobson

Garden

ed. 1968.

Structural

City,

History

NY:

and

and

Anchor

Social

and

an

Intellectual

Michalowski,

Brooke

Brazil.

T. 2003.

Pp. 99124

the Ethnography Stephanie

Wild

in

Power

edited

Cultural

Palgrave

on

and

C. Parnell and

Journal

Brendan.

Radical

1988. The

Criminology:

Criminologists. Malinowski,

Sociological

Society. Totowa,

1959.

on Sati in

and the Parnell

Colonial

Co. The

1992.

Aesthetics

Roitman, McLaughlin, The

of

trans.

Cultural

Critique

Vulgarity

Public

Dictionary

McLaughlin

Pp. 140

in

the

Power

Crime.

Muncie.

perspective.

Critical

Sally

Neighborhood University

Life.

Trouble Engel,

Sally

Power

1998.

Danger:

Life in

Philadelphia:

The

Pp. 1440

Cases, edited V.

Northwestern Merry,

Strangers.

by

Hans,

S.

Engle.

2000.

Law.

Everyday

A. Sarat,

Temple

of

Practices

and

M. Constable,

Lawrence.

Evanston,

IL:

Colonizing

Hawaii:

The

Princeton

and

Engle.

Anthropologist Michalowski, and

the

2006. Transnational

Activism:

Mapping the

Human Middle.

Critique

J. 1996.

Kalervo.

1990s. Ong,

of

Domination:

Rights

American

Criminology The

Anthropologists by

Philip

New York:

Story

Process: Law in Harry

(1997).

C.

Palgrave

Ten Societies,

F. Todd.

Beyond

of the Dover

Impact

New

York:

Good and

Future.

Helen

Publications,

2010. of the

Evil:

Zimmern,

Inc.

Exporting U.S.

Women.

1934. Crime

American

Gender

War on

Critical

in

State

Howard

the

United

2nd edition.

Aihwa.

1987.

Drugs

Criminology

Sixties.

Punishment

Factory of

From

Racial

1960s

to

the

Routledge.

Women in

and

Malaysia.

Capitalist

Albany,

NY:

Press.

B. 1984. Theory Comparative

the

Resistance

New York

Tlingit

1994.

Winant.

States:

of

in

36(2):14556.

New York: Spirits

University Sherry

and

Anthropologist

and

Discipline:

of

Sherry

in

Studies

B. 1995. Resistance

Ethnographic and Parnell,

Critical

and

Anthropology in

Society

and

since History

26(1):12666.

108 (1):3851.

Raymond

N.Y.:

The

Michael

Ortner,

Local

Press.

Press.

1886

Ecuadorian

Omi,

the

Cultural University

Press.

Merry, Sally

Academic

Kane.

and

Maureen.

Society.

Ortner,

Press.

Princeton:

System, ed-ited

18(2):133146.

a

Criminalization

in

University

of

University

Formation

Engle.

Everyday

D.

of

Urban

No Accessto

Crime, edited C.

Nader

Mineola,

on

gender Sociology

Press.

Sally

Merry,

1981.

in

Judicial

Crimes Power:

Disputing

Laura

Norton-Hawk,

Oberg, Engle.

Culture and Society,

Harry F. Todd, Jr. 1978. Introduction.

inThe

Injustice:

Sage.

34(2):255270. Merry,

of

Stephanie

Friedrich.

trans.

in

by Eugene

war on drugs and the

a critical

make

as a CategoryDomestic

Ethnography

by

Nietzsche,

Janet

Pp. 28990

London:

To

Aldine.

New York:

Prelude to a Philosophy

edited

Law in

American

in

Columbia

and

Postcolony.

of Criminology,

and John

arrests;

of

Culture 4(2):130.

David. 2008. The

gap in

Banality

Eugene. 2001. State

Sage

Merolla,

The

Nader.

Biennial

procedure:

Pp. xv-xix

to the

Pp. 5576

and

edited

Achille.

Western

Anthropology.

Chicago:

2003. Crime

Nader, Laura and

7(Fall):11956. Mbembe,

Age.

Macmillan.

Traditions:

India.

in

Nader.

1980. Preface.

Globalized.

8:133151.

Address:

Global

and

Pp.6991

Alternatives

Nader, Laura.

Radical

Adams and

Contentious

of

a

of court

by Laura

Custom in Savage

Spectrum Crime and

NJ: Littlefield,

1987.

Debate

Dimension

A Survey of Prominent

Bronislaw.

Lata.

Applied

for

1969. Styles

by Laura

Ethnic Studies 19(3):6584. Maguire,

Criminology

Keynote

6:252300.

balance.

Law:

of

2010.

Anthropology

Nader, Laura.

Pluralistic

Trial.

the

J.

F. 1969. Law

Nader, Laura.

edited

Macmillan.

in a Culturally

Defense

Critical

Review 11(1):310.

Review of

Post-Military

by Philip

New York:

Paul. 1991. Justice

Society: The

in

Crimes Power: Anthropologists

ofCrime,

C. Kane.

Magnarella,

the

Criminology

Criminology Moore, Sally

Daniel

Mani,

Raymond

Critical

Books.

Anthropology.

London.

Linger,

Movement.

7(1):916.

Refusal.

and the

Comparative

Problem

of

Studies in

Society

C. Kane (eds.).

2003.

History 37(1):173193. Philip

C. and

Crimes

Power:

Crime.

New York:

Stephanie

Anthropologists Palgrave

and the Macmillan

Ethnography

of

ADVANCING

Phillips, in

Susan L.A.

A. 1999.

Chicago:

Pinheiro,

Paulo

WallbanginGraffiti

University

Srgio.

Violence,

and

of

2000.

the

and

Chicago

Law.

Rose,

Daedalus

N. 1969.

NY:

Hustlers,

Beats, and

Others.

Garden

City,

Pound,

Leslie.

Cultural 30,

1985.

Mothers

Gap. Chicago

2011

Tragic

Crime

Exposes

a

Tribune. June 10. Retrieved July

Mike.

Cultural

2004.

winding

road.

criminology:

Theoretical

American Rosen,

1991.

Behavioral

Lawrence.

Crimes.

W., and

Roots,

R. I.

2004.

Law

American

and

its

Behavioral

un-intended

Scientist

Richard.

Boston:

Little,

A Critical

ed.

David

Criminal

Class,

of

Justice

in

Little,

State,

Pp. 4374

in

Crime:

Justice.

On the

New York:

Oakland:

Q.

Crime.

Wilson and

Dundes.

A

Justification

Partial

Excuse.

2005. The

University

Max. 1954.

of

Southern

Max

Cambridge,

Defense.

Knowledge:

Weber on Law in Harvard

of

Human

Culture in the Iron

Economy University

Rights,

and

Cage.

American

Culture:

Cultural

Violence

Community

Question Against

and the

Review 43(6):131127.

of

Women in the

Cultural

2nd edi-tion.

The

Crime of

All

W. Mullins (eds.).

Perspectives.

2010.

New Brunswick,

NJ:

Politics

of Aging:

of

Youth

Globalization

and

Childhood.

35:35173. 1981.

Realities.

Michigan

Historical

Ann

Metaphors

Arbor,

MI:

and

University

of

Press.

Sampson,

Robert

J.

and

W. Byron

Structure

Julia

and

Groves.

Crime:

1989.

Testing

American Journal

P. 1986. The

Defense

as

an

Georgia Journal

Schapera,

Availability

Excuse

for

Social-Disorganization

ofSociology

of the Cultural Criminal

of International

1962.

Isaac.

Historians?

and

Behavior.

Comparative

Law

Pacific-Asian

Defense. Stanford

Anthropologists

the

Nancy. 1992.

Violence

Berkeley:

of

Everyday

University

Scheper-Hughes, in

Royal

of

Jane,

be

Anthropological

Anthropology

2006.

squads

Pp. 15088

Comaroff .

and

in

Law edited

Chicago:

Press. Peter

of Crime

Anthropology

Brazil.

Press

An Introduction,

L.

Weeping:

Northeast

Death

Brazil.

and John

and

Without

Life in

Postcolony:

Chicago

Death

California

Northeast in the

Comaroff

Review of

of

Nancy.

Disorder

by Jean

Schneider,

of

92(2):14356.

Scheper-Hughes,

and

Should

Journal

University

108(1):5265. 1991. A

Crime

Press.

Restructuring

democracy

Nilda.

Current

Marshall.

The

Press.

MA:

State

Publishers.

Christopher

Sue. 2003. The the

Institute Cultural

2006. Anthropology,

Anthropologist

Law

An Invitation.

16(Spring):33554.

Press.

1993. as

of

Review of Law 2(2):437526.

Oxford

Approval

Cultures.

94(4):774802.

Knowledge.

Basis

by James

ICS

Dundes.

Alison

Annelise.

Rimonte,

and

Sams, Biological

Defense

Society.

Legal

Culture:

Controlling

Theory.

Press.

Riles,

of

34(5):594617.

as

State Criminality:

University

Antimodernism,

Criminological

Crime, edited

Alison

Rheinstein,

of

2002. The

Cultural

Oxford:

Rutgers

Mythical

45(4):805833.

Joan Petersilia.

California

State Crime:

Sahlins,

America:

Brown.

and

Criminal

Somatotyping,

Production

Adrian.

Renteln,

Law

Transaction

L. 2009.

Community

2007.

Criminology

and

Society.

McKay.

and the

the

and Justice in

Boston:

1977.

Practice

Nicole.

Renteln,

and

Lexington.

Antipode

1974.

Understanding.

and

Rafter,

Crime

Brown.

Richard.

Theory

Raine,

ed. 1969.

Richard.

Quinney,

and

Economy

Integrity

Scientist.

2000.

Dawn L., and

Ruddick,

47(11):13711376.

Quinney,

Critical

Authority,

Liberalism.

The

2006.

York:

Dawn

Rother,

consequences.

Quinney,

Justice?

Discipline.

Government,

Advanced

Lawrence.

Rothe,

The

Criminology

8(3):27585. F.

Criminal

Reformed

(http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1985-06-10/features/8502060678_1_first-degree-murder-suicide-fumiko-kimura). Princeton: Princeton University Press.

and

Preston,

249

Society. 22(3):283299.

New

long

a

1993.

in

Ross, Jeff rey Ian.

Presdee,

ANTHROPOLOGY

B. 2001. Wither for

Nikolas.

Rosen,

Anchor.

THROUGH

10(2):97106.

Expertise

129(2):11943. Polsky,

Matthew Argument

Criminology

Governance,

of

CRIMINOLOGY

Robinson, An

Press.

Democratic

(Un)Rule

Gangs

CRITICAL

and

Schneider. Criminalization.

37:35173

2008.

The

Annual

250

CRIME

AND

Scott, James Forms

C. 1985.

of

Weapons of the

Peasant

University

Resistance.

Haven:

Vincent, Joan. in

Yale

1987. The

Underground

Neighborhood.

Pp. 1950

States: Studies in

Leith

Mullings.

Urban

Columbia

edited

and

Legal

Volpp,

University

Powr in

Leti.

Sherman,

Spencer.

California Sheybani,

Lawyer

When

6(1):3336,

Malek-Mithra.

Persons

Cultures

Culture

1987. Cultural

is

Anothers

Angeles International

and

Defense:

Crime.

Loyola

Comparative

Law

One of

Journal

Gregory J. 2009.

New Yorks

Urban

University

South,

Graffiti

Underground.

ecocidal

transnational rights.

Harm:

Spivak,

Pp.

22847

Speak?

in

Devon,

Chakravorty.

Pp. 271316

Cultures,

Urbana, IL: Sullivan,

Peter.

and Jane

Culture:

Defense.

F.

Press.

(Mis)identifying

Asian

Harvard

People v. Fumiko

International

1968. The

T.R. 1985. Social

Agenda for

Critical

and Social

New York

by

University

Mercer

Womens

Journal

Kimura:

But

of the Sociology of

Trumpet

Shall

Sound.

New

Justice

vs. Criminal

Criminology.

Justice:

Journal

An

of Sociology

Welfare 12:55275.

Environmental edited

UK:

mo-dernity:

by

C.

Nelson

of Illinois

Subaltern

L.

Paid:

City. Ithaca:

Cornell

Crime

University

539

2d

1010

388

68

123

S.

Ct.

2472,

U.S. 1, 87 S. Ct. 1817,

N.Y.2d 945, 502

83 (N.Y.

Benu,

(N.Y.City People v.

558,

156

L.

18 L. Ed.

(1967).

N.Y.S.2d

v.

U.S.

(2003).

v. Virginia,

People Youth

Texas,

508

People v. Aphaylath,

Grossberg.

Press.

Getting

v.

Ed. 2d

Loving

the

and

Lawrence

Rob

Willan. Can

Cases

victims

Marxism and the Interpretation

L. 1989.

Work in the Inner

of late

exclusion,

Global

1988.

in

edited

tendencies social

Perspectives,

Cullompton,

Gayatri

and

crime,

Criminological

White.

Starr

University

Directions

York.

Beyond the Tag in

New York:

by June

New

in

Press.

Nigel. 2010. The

and

Lives:

Law:

Law

15367

17:40328.

Young,

9(3):75183. Snyder,

Law

Worsley,

Los

Agrarian

Pp.

of

edited

1989. The

Which People?

6061.

Change:

17: 57101.

Woo, Deborah.

Collide.

Study

the Cultural

Law Journal 1986.

the

NY: Cornell

1994. and

of

18951962.

Anthropology,

Women

Press.

of

Uganda,

Collier. Ithaca,

Cities of the

Anthropology,

New York:

in

Economy

in

1989. Contours

Colonial History

Wojcicka.

of a Poor United

Weak: Everyday

New

Press.

Sharff , Jagna

by

BEHAVIOR

998, 510

1986).

87

Misc.2d

Crim.Ct. Ezeonu,

N.E.2d

139,

385

N.Y.S.2d

222

N.Y.S.2d

116

1976).

155

Misc.2d

344,

588

Press.

(N.Y.Sup.

Sutherland,

Anne.

Social Taussig,

Security.

1994. PoLAR

Michael. 2005.

Limpieza

in

Gypsy

Identity,

Names

Chicago:

Lawyer Van

University

Diary of a

People v.

of Chicago

Feb.

People v. Mark. 1985. The

Cultural

Defense.

Student

14(1):2429.

Maanen, John.

Thousand

v.

Ct.

Press.

Thompson,

People

17(2):7583.

Law in a Lawless Land:

Colombia.

and

Oaks,

Representation

CA: Sage.

in

Ethnography.

Kimura, Nov.

v. 1996)

No.

A-091133

(Santa

Monica

Super.

21, 1985).

Moua, No. 3159720

(Fresno

County

Super.

Ct.

7, 1985).

Poddar,

(Cal.App. State

1995.

Ct. 1992).

Ganal,

26

Cal.App.3d

438,

103

Cal.Rptr.

1 Dist. 1972). 81

Hawaii

358,

917

P.2d

370

(Haw.

84

CHAPTER XI

Anarchist,

Peacemaking,

Restorative

Justice

and

Theorie

PEACEMAKING

CRIMINOLOGY

Michael John

M

ajor

wisdom traditions

the principles peacemaking

and religions

of the

world

of peace, love, and social justice

perspective is first

and foremost

in the heart of the individual. This

into

a personal

their

messages.The

philosophy

that starts

and the cultural context. It

is argued that for the peacemaking perspective to be effective, we need an over-arching philosophy that allows individual

goodness andintegrity to be carried on

in collective actions, and gives us hopethat our institutions transformed

and come to a point

crime, the criminal starting

point.

Personal change, however,

transformation Fortunately,

we do not have to fashion is a rich

history

of society. In this chapter,

of

is the necessary

must lead to social and institutional

institutional

we will review

Central to our investigation who have addressed the

perspective, particularly

and that

and critical

of crime and social justice.

of the individual

transformation

perspective

peacemaking

and

asit applies to

here is the eff orts of feminists

Chapter 2, we hope to show how the peacemaking tradition,

social change at all levels

some of these ideas and theories

problems

these two types of voices to that

rich, and productive

and societal change from

of attempts to induce

suggest how they relate to the peacemaking

theorists

individual

to achieve our goals of peace and social justice.

a vacuum. There

corrections.

and society can be

of more eff ectively addressing the problems

justice system, and corrections. The

By add-ing

outlined

has along,

can be a lens through

in

diverse, which

the corrections system can be viewed in a newlight. The religious and humanist, feminist,

There

and

conflict

traditions

need

are scholars and practitioners

not

how each contributes

in isolation

who incorporate

traditions and would feel constrained if only one tradition.

be viewed

from

each

other.

more than one of these

we wereto label them as subscribing to

Nevertheless,for our purposes here, it is useful to consider to the peacemaking

Fuller,

have incorporated

chapter, however, extends the peacemaking

perspective beyond the individual to the institutional

Braswell,

perspective.

25

Bo Lozoff f

and

254

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

FEMINIST

men. Therefore,

TRADITIONS

our comments here needto be quali-fied

as only suggestive of the impact of gender roles. A At first to

glance it

may seem

discuss feminism. however,

to include

because

status that

be politically,

come

to

way to in

have

their recognize

rewards

costs

much men, and women,

everyone.

more

lives

demands

idea

equally

that by

implications

United

other

for

how

justice

into

very

the examine

In

of

fabric

women

at the

world.

It

that

transcend

is

simple

beliefsthat

all

cannot

and

be linked a

deep

social

the relationships

can

East

to

the

systems between

than

the

personal

Feminism,

theme,

but rather, between

context

systems. The is linked

as

and felicity

power

and

political

not

and

are

possession,

...1

across

all

to

have shaped and

at the rela-tions

those

way those relations

political

relations

and political are envisioned

that is adopted. The

of feminism

are significant,

are key tenets that cut

variations.

diff

erentiate

between

many ways. One

the

variations

look at the 12 types of feminism identified

is

to

by Lorber.2

Eachtype presents questions,issues, and concerns that developmental

how

as

Feminism can be envisioned in method

a

of social, economic,

exact

the

simply

men

to the type of feminism

the

peacemak-ing

women

value

a new way of looking

women

guide its underlying

change.

of

erences.

have

is the

is

therefore,

his-tory

grasping

of social

appreciation

It is China

consider

without

has on eff orts

without

economic,

to

States

and that

harmony

American

in

diff

people

but, as Harris points out, there

and recent

problematic

the

diff erences between types

religion.

be

for grant-ing

are a number of varying strands

with ideas

Middle

should

merely as a prescription

values

exist in the more en-trenched

are treated

the ancient

United

in

are embedded

the

Feminism

a way of

far-reaching

It is impossible

in

beliefs,

consciousness,

human beings, that

at this issue

of the Islamic

for

in the

feminism

treated

of values,

Among the keytenets offeminism arethree

are

engaged

the

roles

M. Kay

within feminist thought, but there aresome core

globe.

perspective

of cultures. are

capitalism

and constrained

at the

There

of

be contrasted

simply

way women

country.

women

perspective

cultural,

than

life-changing

rights to women, but as afar broader vi-sion.

should

the

is concerned

Gender

an appreciation

impact short,

context

an understanding

of that role

off ers and is a set

seen not

and

has

are

a historical

peacemaking

social

to look

without

the

and

women

Looking

schools of thought

fundamental

For example, in defining feminism

looking

contemporary

struggles

we must expand

to realize that

and experiencesa

to

unrealistic

can

feminism,

require

Feminism

to

and

an arena

and

more space than

Harris argues:

is harmful

around

been

equity

system.

how

without

societies

more deadly.

have a broader

futile

those

institutions,

where the

a cross-cultural

criminal

to

gender

often

demonstrate that

challenges.

are, obvi-ously,

families,

and

societys

has long

cultures

and from

sometimes

well

oppression

of the

men

for

States

struggle

with

men as

than

by the

way of thinking

but that

are susceptible

their

our can

more important

simple

treated

the

from

In order to understand

a fairer

society

lives,

takes

men have

women

the

it

of feminism

issues.

role.

This

The

deny

shorter

unhealthy

masculine

be

want to

alienated

While

because

other

to

made dysfunctional

oftentimes

idea

severe

a way of organizing

are

equal.

are costs to

and

is

should

opportunities,

of patriarchy

Men live

stress,

living

and

more extensive

but such

socially this

is

understanding

available for our present purposes of simply identifying the

not an

only is feminism

there

we do not

is

women

of dominance,

society,

as women. The

and

not

human

Feminism

men and

embraced

that,

distribute

a patriarchal

to

not

source

be fully

females.

men

trepida-tion,

Feminism

to

that

economically,

men

challenges

argues

without

to

perspective. only

for three

step

we believe

available

a philosophy

many

Wetake this

the feminist

ascribed

presumptuous

full

feminist

feminism

of women in

philosophy.

is concerned

developing

countries,

many ways diff erent than those in the

For example, with the prob-lems which are in United States.

Lorber suggests: For developmental feminism, on universal

the theoretical

empha-sis

human rights is reflected in developing

countries in political

pressure for the education

of girls

PEACEMAKING

maternity and child health care, and economic resourc-es for women who contribute heavily to the support of their families. calls for to

However, when feminist

frequently

autonomy,

has to confront

and practices that and

developmental

wives.

The

cultural

give men power over their

womens

is community

traditional

own

organizing

solution

to

this

around their family

Clearly, when it comes to feminism, not fit

all. The

the religious the family,

state of development

context

values

a university

She

women

whose

work

professor

M. Kay Harris is

who has had extensive experience crime control

policies.

daughters A feminist

dilemma

orientation

leads

to

greater

awareness of the role and responsibility

roles.3

society,

in the

of conflict. This

suggests that

groups,

and societies

accept greater responsibility

of education

and reducing

and daughter all

of

not just the individual,

individuals,

structures

for

produce

need to

preventing

those conditions,

that

de-velopment

values, and

violence and strife.

Removing the idea of power from its cen-tral

are the conscious

position is key here, and this requires

decisions women makein deciding to becomeinvolved in conventional society.These types of feminism arguethat

continually

conformity is too high a priceto be paidfor fundamental

and assumptions that glorify power, control,

particularly

the least

or moral systems of those In this light, tradition

the

power

the fight

which

against

peacemaking

deny equality

society

paternalism

war on crime.

caught speaks to

to individuals,

are suggested

of feminism

both

policies that

it is only reasonable for

In that complaint,

ways of relationships

is

up in

and such policies as the

When the state sanctions

citizens to complain.

forms

criminology

dominant

alternatives.4

Another

can be seen as a natural

concern for the individual of the

felicitous

above the religious

who happen to bein power.

feminism

from

derived. The

put the welfare of all citi-zens,

of those,

challenging actions, practices,

and domination, as well as developing more

human rights.There should betolerance for diversity in societies that arejust, and that

by both the

and peacemaking

feminist

peacemaking McDermott

who

criminologist argues that

personal life

is

at the

are

in

her

a

McDermott. between ones

and responsibility.

personal level should

criminology

criminology.

many

Ethical concerns and priorities as peacemaking

For

feminist

ethics,

of criminol-ogy

are similar

and

these

to those of

include

...

:

We

are all tied to other human beings and also

criminal justice system, and treatment of sex offend-ers.

the environment.

problems such as the international

justice,

individuals.

both feminists

love

for

cornerstones

both

nonviolence

of feminism

Using domination oxymoron. for

criminologists. and social justice

and

peacemaking

to eliminate

The are

criminol-ogy.

domination

is an

Its like the old 1960s saying about fighting

peace. Feminism

based on cooperation

argues for instead

be said for peacemaking

and

service,

Wealso need equality. From compassion

flow

and justice. The

assumes that emotion

To achieve peace and

we needloving and compassionate

trafficking in women and girls have been addressed by concern

and

work:

violence, gender discrimination in employment in the

and peacemaking

be

and global levels. The

of both peacemaking seen

considered

M. Joan

there is a link

to the institutional

connectedness feminism

be

and social awareness

To her, peacemaking extended

can

however, new

instance, they converge onissues such asrape, domestic

Additionally,

in

writes:

and roles that are

aff orded women. Equally important

of

values and practices.

of the country,

wife and father

of opportunities

number

working in agencies that form

one size does

diff erences in the level

between husband and

a

to feminist

of the culture, the social status of

and the

mediate the types

women

feminism

are

255

peacemaking criminology flows from their commit-ment

gender politics

wives and husbands to be equal, and for

have sexual

There

CRIMINOLOGY

as

understanding, nonviolent

human action is well

as reason,

is both rational

and

ethic

motivated by that

knowl-edge

and emotional.5

new ways of knowing

of conflict. The

criminology.

same can

Peacemaking

criminology

perspectives,

and

shares

practitioners

many of its values, with

the

feminis

256

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

perspective. Many would hesitateto makea distinction

the interests of some individuals

others,is at the heart of the critical intellectual

between them and would object to being identified as one and not the other. They points

of view. In

are not mutually exclusive

many ways, peacemaking

can be expressed as feminism problem

while they

share

and feminism criminology mimic

it.

from

many characteristics,

secular

criminology

draws

and humanist

Peacemaking looks

traditions

to

religious

and

for inspiration

Marxism as a social

Peacemaking

in

addition

humanist

critical

criminology

in his book.

While peacemaking

is not as indebted it

detail just

is a

does

owe

by Pepinsky and

to

Marxism as other

some

of its

criminology

understand

the individual.

Before

how funda-mental of how crime

are problems located rather than

we

is related to

just

Marxism is to the understanding

society and institutions

orientation

crime and conflict.

how peacemaking

and social control

criminol-ogy

of all 11 variations

Marxism, it is useful to

intellec-tual

Marx. father

way of analyzing

to

and guidance. There

Karl

is the intellectual

traditions,

to this

evolution

works of

philosophy of critical

other intellectual

third intellectual tradition identified

of critical

in the

criminology

of its

criminology,

Arrigo situates the emergence

Peacemaking but does not

traditions.

also includes ideas from

traditions. feminism,

much

But

in criminology.

peacemaking

includes ideas from feminism, feminism

criminol-ogy

justice system.

are not the same concept.

In fact,

tradition

that is applied to the

of crime and the criminal

while selectively op-pressing

at the level

of

only at the level

of

For example, David Greenburg writes:

Quinney that gives life to peacemaking criminology: the

critical

intellectual

Tostudy crime in relation to the waysocieties

tradition.6

organize their economic and political institu-tions is to ask different sorts of questions CRITICAL

TRADITIONS

about crime than in

The

critical intellectual criminology

tradition

that informs

of readings titled,

does an excellent job

showing the relationships of critical

theory

recognizing

and

deviance.7

book

details

anarchism,

for

understanding

criminal

justice,

shaped

by larger

do

processes

may have some crime

and

but they try to see these as social structures.

these

structures,

And in they

particular attention to the organization

give of eco-nomic

activity, without neglecting the political

of critical

and ideological

and

the

peacemaking,

postmodern

Marxists

social-psychological

characterizing

While

12 important

Marxism, social feminism,

criticism,

but of

between, the various strains

in law, crime,

Arrigos

distinct types: prophetic

not only of listing,

that there are countless variations

criminology,

importance

essay of his book

Social Justice, Criminal Justice, Bruce

been asked

criminology.

and face-to-face interactions

covers a wide range of issues, theories,

and perspectives. In the introductory

Arrigo

not deny that

peacemak-ing

have typically

non-Marxist

dimensions

Marxist perspective directs criminological

theory outward

feminism,

of society. Thus

rather than inward.8

semiotics, constitutive criminology, critical race theory, Critical criminology asit follows its

chaos, catastrophe/topology, and queertheory.

Marxist heritage

Each of these critical perspectives examines waysin

willlook at how the economic arrangements and social

whichindividuals are oppressed by society and howthis

organizations of a society will contribute to its crime

oppression is related to the problems of crime. Critical

problems.

criminology

of capitalism

is

very

much a

societys contribution problem

to the formulation

and just as importantly,

how society responds system is atool crime

macro-level

to crime.

of the powerful

control

of repression. The uses the criminal

can

be looked

critical justice

analysis

of the crime

of the implications As the criminal to

of

of

justice

maintain their inter-ests, at

analysis

those

Marx wasinterested in the contradictions and

how the

who owned

many contemporary an

unexamined

criminologist

the

workers

means of

assumption,

as an instrument

of how the state

to society. Peacemaking criminology

system to selectively

protect

the

economic

that

dimension

mediates

as

how

much

by While

take capitalism

will examine the economic

structural

feature

production.

criminologists

background

were exploited

the

the

critical

system

individual

as

as a

relates

does not emphasize as

some

of

the

othe

PEACEMAKING

CRIMINOLOGY

257

variations of critical criminology, but viewsit asa genuine

economic systems are not only inferior,

concern. Peacemaking criminologists are interested in

people who choose those systems are somehow bad

the causes of suff ering and in

people.

ways of relieving the pain

of both victims and off enders, and the economic system is an important

variable that

and possibilities For

peacemaking

can shed light

change.

Arrigo points out the distinction structural

Marxism.

the economy

as the primary

Marxists

do

see

factor in the development

perspectives such asleft realists, social feminists, and

postmodern

emphasis On the

criminologists

on the economy

other

hand,

are influenced

of instrumental

structural

the problems

Marxists

see

by the Marxism.

other

forces

debate about

socialism, and commu-nism,

of crime and the criminal

be incomplete

economic

without

organization

of crime

looks

at capitalism,

the and from

playing football

maytackle the quarterback.

to crime.

including

perspectives,

that

To exclude capitalism

at the contradictions

system that contribute

look

recognizing

would be like

saying that no one

justice system

of a society is a legitimate

area to study.

the study

Critical crimi-nology thought

of crime and societys response to crime.

merits of capitalism,

important

between instrumental

Instrumental

an extended

we would like to suggest that a critical analysis of

however, the eco-nomic would

criminology,

system is just one factor in the struggle for justice.

and

the relative

on the con-straints

of social and individual

Without getting into

but that the

and

Marxist

in the capitalist Critical criminology

peacemaking

criminology,

as well as a host of other features

of society, in their attempts to understand crime and

such as politics, education, personal beliefs, and moral-ity formulate criminal justice policy. Anintellectually to be underlying structures that influence

football player musttackle anyone who hasthe ball,

how a

society develops definitions about crime, deviance, and

hon-est

evenif it is sometimes his own quarterback.

law. Here,according to Arrigo, peacemaking criminol-ogy shares its heritage

with other critical

such as critical race theory Peacemaking for drawing

criminology

is

sometimes

some of its heritage from

associated

with

The

revolution.9

perspectives A

and anarchist criminology.

can peacemaking criminology

confusion

arises from traditions

question is asked, how arise out of a perspective

of violence

as a justified

peacemaking Martin Luther

Just

because

some

ideas

be constructed. that

not supported Gandhi

metviolence

by and of a

with nonviolence.

derived

from

Marxism

doesnt meanthat all of Marxismappliesto peacemaking criminology. The

Marxisttradition is just one areafrom

which peacemaking criminology drawsinspiration, and there

are

other

intellectual

and feminist

that

the efficacy of violent

traditions

such

as the

off er diff erent proscriptions

behavior.

One should

Marxism with peacemaking criminology

reli-gious

on

not confuse

simply because

For

some

students,

the

term

negative connotations. communism, capitalistic

which state

Marxism

PERSPECTIVE

issues.

has

associated

ex-tremely

many ways that

examine the issues system, so too,

peacemaking

criminology

here is just

us. As peacemaking

of crime, it is still

one way

evolving.

of peacemaking

of one

way of looking

criminology

We do

We present here the structure

criminology

is

only

at the important

of peacemak-ing

used by Fuller in his book, Criminal

Justice: A PeacemakingPerspective.10 In alater chapter we will apply this perspectiveto the field of corrections. Fuller envisioned peacemaking criminology pyramid

of ideas.

Pyramid

Paradigm.

foundation

of

Tolstoy,

He calls this

model the

At the base of the

nonviolence. Gandhi, and

as a

Peacemaking pyramid is the

Following

the ideas

Martin Luther

of

King, Jr.,

and other saints and sages, any proposal that advocates or tolerates

violence as a response to infractions

law cannot

be considered

other

can

is relatively

with

to believe that

are

what we present here will be definitive.

Our conception suggestive

are

we have been taught is evil. In our

we are socialized

It is

new to the study not claim that

justice

What we present

makes sense to

Christ,

they sometimes travel on the same road.

can be used to

many ways that

how

For example,

are

there

there

and the criminal

idea

King, Jr., were both revolutionaries

sort, but they stubbornly

Marxist thought of crime

about

action is

criminology.

Just as we have seen that

peacemaking. The

a misunderstanding influence

CRIMINOLOGY

faulted

Marxism that is

that advocates violence as a way of seeking justice? This

intellectual

PEACEMAKING

State violence

such

a peacemaking

as excessive

of the

perspective.

use of police force

258

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

Categorical Imperative

Ascertainable Criteria

Correct

Means

Inclusion

Social

Justice

Nonviolence

Figure

capital idea

punishment, that

the

engaged

models the

for

all

as a social

doomed

be

of

in a vicious,

suff ering and

can

bounds

state that

is

corporal

citizens

outside

17.1

Peacemaking

punishment, punished

or any

into

violence

criminal

to

A is

of pain and

Violence

begets

violence

justice

policy,

violence

to failure

and

carries

with it

nonviolence,

the

next criteria

peacemaking are

perspective,

resolved

in

social justice solution

the not

that

cant

underlying

example,

in

his classmates, the

young

would bully

must

it

to

system

that

gave rise

of a juvenile

would

his victims.

how

his behavior

have

their

not

another

repairing

and

the

the The

concerns

remains,

Peacemaking

to

be enough

to

the

strives

classroom.

conflict.

causes suff ering,

For bullies

move

Peacemaking between

must learn

to

principle All

not

under-stand

act

such

who are

agents for eligible

In

the

an

family

change in the

needs

benefit

the

dividends

the

process.

to

accrued Fuller

off enders

to

his

or

her

concept

from

be

officials.

life should

out

From

a

into

the sen-tence.

more than

voice

heard.

of inclusion

simple

There

and

that

participation

way:11

involvement

in

peacemaking of

the

the

process

perspective, off ender

and

can

much

do

be

case.This

and rehabilitate,

community

puts it this

aff ected

of the

help transform

have

off ender,

or are significant

have some input

the sentence

of this

the

or school

in the resolution

and for it to

off ender

victim(s),

violation

should

justice

making. This

more tangentially

by the

order for

added

but the

perspective

in its

off enders

off ender

in the

by a criminal

as the

means the

rug. This

movement.

harmed

inclusion

vic-tims.

through

the

peacemaking

and even some

positive

problem

under

be included

state,

weaker

as demonstrated

who are aff ected

for

punishment,

the

it

justice

of the

should

and

the

and the victims and

All

solve

sweep

being expanded

decision

parties,

younger

to

and community

the community,

is a resolve

to simply

relationship

addressed

with should

who continually

bully

when

keeping

attempts

a

under-lying

Peacemaking

that

for

Even if

be in

peacekeeping. concept

man to

entail

justice.

gave rise to the problem

with

case

necessary

manner,

perspective.

issues the

social

be considered

peacemaking be confused

is

a nonviolent

more comprehensive the

restorative

other

not simply

idea is currently

is inclusion.

far-reaching

on

means not just the

After

the

social justice,

A third

consequences.

cases

behaviors Peacemaking

is

prevent

cycle

bullying

such

criminology.

it is trying

concerned.

Paradigm

conformity

peacemaking

self-perpetuating

and

Pyramid

this the

vic-tims

towar

is

is

in

PEACEMAKING

who are not professional in the waythey administer

Whenthe vic-tim

justice,

and the off ender are pawns in the games played by the courtroom

work group they

that

become disenfranchised.

When mandatory

rights

sentences the

are

decided

criminal

become

justice

also

become

system

we

have

from also

the criminal

removed

bond individuals

the

to

court

from

system,

attachments

the

to

violate

the legal,

of citizens. The

of the procedural law

and

arrest

sometimes

of Rodney

fifth

step

in

the

Peacemaking

a useful book on negotiating One of the

Yes.12

dispute

about the

appraisal

perspective,

what is needed is a wayto bring people back

principles

can

Paradigm,

Los

conflict of the

Pyramid

idea is taken titled

Getting

book is that

o

means that if there is a

price of a house, an independent

can be conducted

everyone

into the system.

human,

King in

means.

criteria. This

using objective criteria. This

that

process and the

outcomes. From a peacemaking

may be so negligent

Paradigm is ascertainable

alienat-ed

from the process. In our rush to remove discretion

they

The

practitioners and

but

Angeles is a good example of incorrect

by the legislature,

distanced

259

conscientious professionals.There are, however, some

revitalizing the trust citizens havein their ability to govern themselves.

CRIMINOLOGY

In

agree.

ascertainable

to fix a price upon the

Peacemaking

criteria

expands

which

Pyramid

on this idea

by ensuring the meansof justice are not only objective, The

but are actually understood by all concerned.The legal

next step on the pyramid is the concept of

correct

means. This

idea is found in

many religious

jargon of the criminal justice system is not understood

traditions and argues that the end, however desirable,

by many.Individuals are processedthrough the system

does not justify immoral

with little understanding of how or when they agreed

justice include

system, this idea

the principle

constitutional should how they means

means. Applied to the crimi-nal

and human rights.

the

idea

process should Gandhi

that

means and supported

our

the

world.This

off enders.

determination

be a

Correct

model of the

out-comes

themselves. desired

the idea that

we must become

is no less true for the criminal means requires

the criminal

criteria

to committing their other crimes, it is believed by some that trickery

and subterfuge are acceptable meansto

use in the criminal

justice

system. The

that dictates how law enforcement is crafted to prevent abuse of the The tying

law is sometimes

all citizens from dealing fairly challenging

and justly

officers do their jobs means of enforcement.

viewed asgetting

the hands of the police. The overzealous

procedural law

in the

way or

and

would not be a problem. In the criminal

justice

however,

system,

most of the off enders do not

what is happening,

and it is

desirable to

educate them to the process so they can feel they

have

been treated fairly. Finally, the Peacemaking the Simply action

Kantian concept

Pyramid

Paradigm advo-cates

of the categorical imperative.

put, the categorical imperative should

be

considered

as

a difficult concept for some criminal justice practitio-ners a universal law. In other to accept. Because offenders often lie in addition

who do

means.If all

off enders were lawyers, the use of highly technical

justice

system to be the paragon of fairness and virtue.This is

parlance.Those

cannot object to incorrect

legal language

and

justice

and unintelligible

not understand

out-come. understand

of the notion ofcorrect

we want to see in our community

Correct

system as well as other professions, to employ compli-cated

of-ficers

dictates

of

as the outcomes

was a champion

the change that

system.

Law enforcement

detect crime and arrest

entails

to give up legal rights. It is useful to the criminal justice

means would

adhere to the procedural law that

is as important The

of correct

that the off enders be given their

to have something

if

says that

it

would

become

words, I cannot be willing

done to you that I

willing to have done to

every

myself.This

would not be would ensure a

certain consistency to how our laws are enforced and give individuals of

a clear idea

appropriate

Additionally,

behavior the

are

categorical

to the peacemaking

of

where the boundaries drawn

and

imperative

perspective

enforced.

can

be ap-plied

according to the

procedural law pro-tects following: police officers.

with criminals

is a difficult

While and

task, the vast majority of police officers are

From a peacemaking that solutions

perspective, this

to particular

criminal

means justice

260

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

problems should entail

underlying

reasoning so that the solution applicable in other times categorical imperative principles

that

circumstances

problem is their feelings of shame.

would be

I have yet to see a serious act of violence that

attempts to establish the

individual

serve as guides to

was not provoked

particular

cases

and

shamed

can

As can be seen, the Peacemaking to include

a number

and organize them in a way that a comprehensive criminal

justice system. There

of conceptualizing

be applied to the criminal

other

philosophy

justice

if

system,

it

death.

did

say they

ways

live

we

without

kill or

mutilated

even

misunderstand

we do not

meanit literally

or

attempt

punishment,

For

would rather

be killed

wefind

not

of faceno

men at our own peril, if

realize that they

that can

but

and that

of feel-ing

disrespected

or undo this loss

includes

these

peace in the

are certainly

a peacemaking

prin-ciples

demonstrates

process of envisioning

humiliated,

matter how severe the

Pyramid Paradigm

of peacemaking

prevent

by the experience

and

and ridiculed,

moral behavior.13

to

attempts

with violent inmates that an underlying

and places. Kants

transcend of

extensively

moral

when they mutilate oth-ers,

themselves,

than

pride, dignity, and self-respect. 14

They literally prefer death to dishonor.

the Peacemaking Pyramid Paradigm sufficient for our needs to explore how peacemaking can be applied to corrections.

In

fact,

corrections

is

one

of the

areas

This intrapersonal dimension is a key and a possible

of

the justice system that has tremendous potential for

starting point to the understanding of how we mightap-proach the rehabilitation of offenders. Whilesome critics

adopting the peacemaking perspective. of the

peacemaking

should LEVELS

OF

PEACEMAKING

perspective

might contend that

we

not care if off enders see potential value or worth

in themselves

or not, but that

we should

only

worry

about their behavior, the peacemaking perspective argues One of the

strengths

of the

lies in its applicability levels

of analysis. The

be envisioned

at

While

three

our

peacemaking

the intrapersonal,

institutional/societal, levels.

peacemaking

and focus

on

the

peacemaking

as we consider

how

to

corrections

perspective

can

interpersonal,

is

on

the

that

how

proactively

individuals

feel

others is a primary The

interpersonal

perspective harmony,

first

to

correct problems with other countries and how other

stranger,

the

themselves

deals

to

with

how peace-making

here as a guide for

and intimacy.

coworker,

peacemaking

your interactions

relation

our daily lives. The

has relevance

child,

in

of their behavior.15

dimension

togetherness,

is a spouse,

level

respond

about

determinant

we relate to each other in

an opportunity

to the international/global weshould

many

international/global

of these levels, there is certainly

to link

perspec-tive

and integration

fellow

Whether

inmate,

perspective

it

or total

suggests that

be based on trust, fairness,

kindness,

and compassion. For too many of us,the pressures of

countries choose to deal with offenders. Briefly, the

competition in a perceived zero-sum game prevent us

levels of analysis of the peacemaking perspective are

from interacting in a positive and co-operational

important

because of the

way they form a seamless

web of thought and action for the problems of crime, The

of

intrapersonal

individuals

who they

think

is

themselves.

are is a powerful

behavior. Thoreau desperation.

dimension about

said, most

concerned Their

contributor menlead lives

with sense

to their of quiet

For some off enders, their lives are not so

quiet and are punctuated It is the opinion

by acts of extreme

The institutional/societal

of one psychiatrist

of potential

who has worked

to

invite

such

racism

many other arenas

as the family,

way westructure

can have profound we allow

justice system and, of

It also includes

conflict

workplace. The

level of the peacemaking

the criminal

course, corrections.

violence.

way

others.

perspective includes

social order, and justice.

how

with

school,

our social institutions

eff ects on how people behave. or sexual

be tolerated

reactions that

in

our

(or

and

other

schools

may be violent.

kinds and

of)

When harass-ment

businesses,

we

When we do no

PEACEMAKING

allow equal opportunity

and social justice,

and

staff alike,

conflict

for

off enders

when we allow inmates

and

paradigm of how peace principles can be ap-plied at manylevels

correctional

to be brutalized

by

This

perspective,

of analysis has also been outlined.

while just

correctional

officers and each other.

We model killing

peacemaking

for society

when we employ

punishment.

system, hasthe advantage

changing the

capital

way we operate our institutions,

began to have a more positive impact to each other. It is a reciprocal

and

is a

armed

major concern for

Nations. of

of

organizations

While some

wars in

the

world,

preven-tion

international

like

the

United

might claim there are still it

seems

clear

that

there

our thinking through

conflicts

plenty

could

be

of illustrating

we would suggest that

is increasingly

peacemaking

has a well-recognized tradition. The resolution

way to envision

on the criminal

how

justice

how intercon-nected

are.

Finally,

level the

one

can be focused

the personal and political realms of life actually

we can

on how werelate

process.

At the international/global perspective

By

261

A peacemaking perspectivethat presents a compre-hensive

weinvite

fraud and deceit. In the corrections system, weinvite violence

CRIMINOLOGY

about

crime.

is

criminals,

how

dispute resolu-tion

peacemaking criminol-ogy

more than just an academic curiosity. of crime,

crimi-nology

We will demonstrate

processes such as alternative

and restorative justice, that

world

peacemaking

becoming a major perspective in

In the real

and societys

response

to

issues of social control, the peacemaking perspective is even more but for the eff orts of organizations and indi-viduals whoactively workto resolve conflicts.The

Camp

a viable and powerful choice.

David Accord is an example of peacemakingthat has maintainedthe peacebetweenIsrael and Egyptfor many years.The international/global

perspective can also be applied to the environment can the in

other levels).

harmony

Human beings

with the environment

survival. There

are concerns by

is being destroyed in the results

(as

must learn to live

1.

for their long-term

and

many parts of the world with

there are longer-term,

complex

such as global warming and the destruction such

as the

Amazon

rain

forest

problems

have

M.

a Feminist

Richard

pp.

2.

Fuller

or regional impact.

and

how interdependent

social

we all have become.

CRIME

AND

4.

Harris,

p. 93.

5.

McDermott,

two intellectual

traditions

perspective critical

from

draws inspiration.

traditions

in

challenge

the

which the peacemak-ing The

feminist

power structures

very

society.

much about

Crime and criminal

how power is distributed

in this society, as we will demonstrate chapter.

justice

are

and used

in a following

Press,

Feminist

Roxbury types

Publishing of feminism:

developmental,

radical,

standpoint,

multiracial,

postmodern

and queer

Joan.

Change?

From

a

Change

More

No.

(eds.)

In

John

(1999).

Boston,

Harold

Arrigo,

mens, theory.

Peacemaking

R.

Important Fuller

Controversial

MA:

Allyn

and Issues

and

Bacon,

A. (1999). of

Belmont,

Greenburg,

Mayfield

Richard

Quinney

(eds.)

(1991).

IN:

Indiana

Bloominton,

Press.

Maturation

Readings

and

as Peacemaking.

Bruce

Deviance.

8.

University

as

119126.

Pepinsky,

The

12

Personal

Hickey

University

of 7.

contemporary

W.

Criminology

and

Pepinsky

Criminology

Inequality:

Angeles:

socialist,

and

Criminology.

pp.

6.

and

Is

Social

Eric

We have done this by outlining

Los

M.

Perspective, Than

criminal justice system.

Millennium:

Harold

Indiana

identifies

construction, p. 16.

of the peacemaking perspective to the

In

Gender

psychoanalytic,

Lorber,

It has beenour intention in this chapter to demonstrate the applicability

Politics Lorber

3.

PEACE

New

(1991).

IN:

(1998).

Marxist

lesbian,

who coined the term spaceship earth to illustrate

the

of Justice. (eds.)

Bloomington,

Company.

It was Buckminster

Vision

Quinney

Judith

Theories

more

into

8397.

Lorber,

liberal,

than just alocal

Kay Moving

Peacemaking.

of important

that

Harris, Toward

manythat the environ-ment

being unsafe air, water, and scarcity of food.

Additionally,

resources

NOTES

level of the peacemaking

David in

CA:

in

Criminal

Justice:

Law,

Crime,

and

and

Capitalism:

West/Wadsworth.

F. (1981).

Marxist

Publishing,

Social Justice,

Critical Theory

Crime

Criminology. p. 18

Palo

Alto,

CA:

262

CRIME

9.

AND

Akers,

BEHAVIOR

Ronald

Angeles, 10.

CA:

Fuller, John Perspective.

11.

Fuller,

12.

Fisher,

L.

and

Introduction

(1997).

Roxbury

Second

Publishing

R. (1998). Boston,

Criminal MA:

Theories: Edition.

Los

Company. Justice:

Allyn and

A Peacemaking

Bacon.

Roger,

13. 14.

Fuller,

James

National

Epidemic

15. These

Be William

Ury and Edition.

Bruce New York,

p. 57.

Gilligan,

critics

Patton

Done.

(1996).

Violence:

New York,

include,

Rehabilitation:

p. 121.

Getting to Yes, Second Books.

Criminological

Evaluation,

Gendreau,

What

Criminal

We

Justice

Reflections

NY: Vintage Paul (1996).

Know

and

and

What

Behavior,

on

a

Books. Off

ender

Needs

to

23:144161.

(1995).

NY: Penguin

Ross,

R. and

Treatment.

Gendreau,

Toronto,

CN:

P. (1980). Butterworth

Effective

Correctional

RESPONSIBILITY AND

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

John and

R

estorative justice appeal,

getting

owes part of its growth in popularity

off ering something

to

politicians

off enders to take responsibility

of varying stripes.

for their

actions

political appeal of restorative justice. So hasgetting for their kids. restorative justice

Whileit

to its broad political In

particular,

has been part of the

families to take responsibil-ity

mayseem appropriate to exploit such political appeal,

must havea more meaningful sense of responsibility than this.

Restorativejustice cannot sell itself in these terms yet simultaneously distanceit-self from similar sounding neoconservative ideas of responsibility, articulating

its own conception

of responsibility political

Right, and they

(OMalley

1994:22).

are ...

only a punitive

is afundamental

response

first find

of responsibility

might be conceived asthat form

of responsibility

off enders,

a useful distinction

of ajurisprudence

and

communities.

Given

between active responsibility

weshow how that distinction

deterrence, rehabilitation,

part of any

restorative justice.

hypothesis, let

victims,

of the

to off ending

and contestable

As a starting

restorationof

says, Discourses

not possessions

purpose of this chapter is to explore the concept

restorative justice framework.

Then

As OMalley

prevention

do not imply

Responsibility

scheme of justice, including The

of responsibility.

for crime and crime

without clearly

and incapacitation.

us see if restorative re-sponsibility mostlikely to promote that

framework,

we will

and passive responsibility.

mapsonto distinctions

of active responsibility.

within a

between active and passive

Wethen seek to develop the rudiments

Finally, weconsider some worries about the

restorative conception ofresponsibility we havedeveloped.

ACTIVE

Carol the

Heimer (1999:18)

AND

PASSIVE

makes a distinction

RESPONSIBILITY

between

wrong one has done in the past and taking

Bovens (1998:27)

makes a similar

and active responsibility. mostly concerned

distinction

Twentieth-century

with passive responsibility.

shifts the balance toward

being held accountable for

responsibility between

for the future.

Mark

passive responsibility

Western retributive Restorative justice,

justice

has been

we will argue,

active responsibility.

263

Braithwaite Declan

Roch

264

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

Bovens says that in the case of passive respon-sibility(1) an adequate perception of threatened violations of one is called to account after the event and either

held responsible

or

not. It is

who bears the responsibility The

central

(Bovens

1998:27).

as requiring

transgression

and sometimes toward The

the

a special

1997; Thomas

about

Bovenss conception not

here.

While

discuss

as our

code(Bovens positivist

responsibility

doubts

interest

is

to

it

however,

justice cannot responsibility. is

must

after

the event, in

the

Bovens terms)

of guilt

bears responsibility).

and in light

Furthermore,

least in its early stages,

but that

to create a forum

justice in

a crime

Those

of the admis-sion in the

determines

at

asking the is

can

restorative

nurture

active

dialogue

without

when people claim that restor-ative

not

priority the

can

active

Bovens? He sees active responsibility

according to as a virtue, the

when something needs

making a claim

hurt

concerned

with

priority is to be just

wrongdoers. The

shift in the

occurs because the

proponents is to be just in

heal. clear that

theory concerned

are

because their

of restorative justice

While it is

such

a backward-looking, as retributivism

de-ontological

is

clearly

more with passive than active responsibil-ity,

the influence

of passive responsibility

forward-looking, Utilitarians equally

active responsibility,

retribution

active responsibility

waythat they

then, is about shifting toward

favor

way that they

passive responsibility,

which active responsibility

virtue of taking responsibility

who

balance toward

who

a conference,

passive responsibility

what is

and consistent

norms.

passive responsibility

(after

responsibility.

So

families

through

their

along the lines

preoccupied

also per-meates

consequentialist of Jeremy

with hurting

theories. Bentham

rather than

and with passiverather than active responsibility. will argue that utilitarians deterrence, rehabilitation,

prevention to that of restorative justice theorists.

events ... The done?

central

(Bovens

repair

here is: what

and

is to

to

be

in a restorative

especially

with passive responsibility responsibility.2 restorative

justice frame, active

entails seeking to take responsibility

harm, and

According

question

situations

1998:27).

To interpolate responsibility

of unwanted

to restore

to

relationships.

Bovens, active responsibility

requires:

maps onto

First,

we

alternative, passive

is the utilitarians

while

deterrence,

maps onto active deterrenceand powerful. Then and incapacitation

show

how

At

obsession

to the exclusion will

of

and crime

the root of this inferiority

present, on the prevention

We

have an inferior theory incapacitation,

[T]he

much more on action in the

are

healing,

to be done to deal with a problem or put things right: emphasis lies

as

about whatis accomplished by active responsibility.

con-ference

uses passive responsibility

Restorative justice,

the balance from

justice

Our argument

justice abandons

restorative

active

seems to be an excessively

court sentencing,1 they are impliedly

restorative

will often involve

why he or she did it.

be fostered.

of

by the off ender (which

that restorative

that

a restorative

commission

of

justice offers better responsibility than traditional

said

do without some concept of passive For example,

held

off ender

be

based on a verifiable

1998:36). This

responsibility, so that

of his concept of active responsibility. First,

virtue

Staff en (1998:369)

Weargue that restorative justice reconceptualizes

move

on to the special appeal for restorative justice theory

and

value, seems

of other people that inspires

requirement;

codifying

Bovens

Heimer

1995), and

Bovens also sees active responsibility

requiring conduct

have

is a central

cultivate

As

responsibility.

example,

some

listening

to

Restorative

problem rather than the person

put it, it is the humanity

of obligation

of passive responsibility,

them,

well designed

seriously.

of the circle (Melton,

which respectful

We will not add to

we

obligations

which the

responsibility.

1998:2831).

(see, for

1998).

debates

will

in

of debates about the best way to

those

we

relationship

harmed (Bovens

is full

and (4) taking

is put in the center

do it?

of a norm, a causal connec-tion

of passive responsibility

Mulgan

did you

and damage, blameworthiness,

person(s)

literature

conceive

is: Why

Bovens sees passive responsibility

between conduct

a norm, (2) consideration of consequences, (3) auton-omy,

of

a given state of af-fairs. dialogue, in

for

question

a question

of active under

the

passive responsibility active responsibility the latter

is

more

we will do the same for rehabilitation

RESPONSIBILITY AND

Passive

and

Active

In

fact, to

not an objective

make deterrence

would destroy restorative that

making shaming

Pranis (1998:45) add

deter] is

of restorative

justice.

wrongdoing

a value

of

a value would destroy it.

puts it, An

intention

them in taking full responsibility

to

help a

for that

harm is

However, this is not to deny that theories

justice

that

that the severity level of punishment significant

deterrent eff ect.

First, the regulator

the

do better than with some

webs of complex

restorative

Australian

approach

business regula-tion.

meets with the agents in the

who seem along

most passively responsible

for

with some victims

ap-propriate).

Because the corporate

indicates

rarely has a

theory

Let us illustrate

Consider

the lawbreaking,

processes. in criminology

justice

has been developing in

po-tentialcorporation

more preventive

than retributive/deterrent

Deterrence

analogies to active

interdependence.

restorative

Most deterrence literature

and

deterrence theory?

why

might have

Justice

How could restorative legal

of shame and deterrence can help us understand processes

to be passively optimal.

As Kay

to shame [we

An intention

about certain response with

calibrated

Restorative

the harm they caused and to sup-port restorative

person understand

respectful.3

punishments

justice for the same reason

not respectful.

265

International relations theory has escapedthe shackles

Deterrence

of Benthamite thinking Deterrence is

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

(where

actors

most directly

responsible havethe mostto lose from a criminal con-viction ofthe corporation, they will be hard targets, dif-ficult

While a criminal justice

to deter.They arelikely to fight passivedeterrence

system with no passive deterrence would clearly be one with alot of crime, the data give utilitarians reason to

by denial of responsibility.

be discouraged that increasing the quantum of passive

crime fighters, that is the end of the storyanother

deterrence

will reduce crime (or that reducing

deterrence

will

increase

crime).

Active

passive

deterrence,

we

contested court case that they to fight,

that

deterrence

compared

to

theory

(1992:1953) in

seeks

to

deter

have argued

criminology

deterrence theory

a form

is

X will be Y, if they

United

behavior,

punishment

do 2X, it

will be 2Y,

and so on with a passive deterrence tariff . Instead, its deterrence

strategy is active in two important

First, the

United

States

uses its

power to

senses.

some reason (for

example,

trade)

to

the

philosophers

Whatis being mobilized

Braithwaite

States strategic

deterrence is active in the sense of be-ing

dynamic rather than does not just sit there

passive.The

deterrent threat

as a passive promise

of punish-ment;

pyramid in response to the level

of cooperative

made by the rogue state.

widening

conference to agent of the

When that fails, her

out to

we convene

boss.

Fisse

have described

and

one restor-ative

which the process led right

up

to the Chief Executive Officer, who wasthe toughest of them all. After that, though, the Australian

Trade

Practices

include

the

Commission

Chair

of the

widened

Board,

who

the

circle

was shocked

to

at this

unwillingness to restore the victims losses the corporations

Chair actually fired

the

compliance

CEO. (Not

systems. The

very restorative!

A

case of active deterrence leading to passive deterrence.) In

deterrence is escalated up and down an enforce-ment theory

response and the concessions

another

invite

(1993:230232)

and reform

United

and

justice experience in

interdependency

Second, the

overdetermined.

Often the boss will turn

as well.

conference

recalcitrant

1984).

1986),

crime is, as

move up the organization,

is invited.

be a hard target another

by this kind of active deterrence is a web of complex (Keohane

say (Lewis

which the boss of the passively responsible corporation

who con-trol

However, what we know is that

the circle of dialogue, convening

nut

intervene

(actively) to persuade the rogue state that it should refrain from the rogue action.

power.

causal and preventive power over corporate

persuade

other states on whom the rogue state is dependent for

do not have the resources

defeat at the hands of those

rela-tions So what we do is

Whenthe

of international

it does not announce in advance that the if states do

primitive

in international

because it is excessively passive. States

another

corporate

will suggest, is a diff erent story. Ayres and Braithwaite

For Benthamite corporate

other

more

extended

of restorative justice,

has argued that common

treatments

Braithwaite

of the

deterrence

(1997a,

1999)

corporate

crime is not diff erent from

crime in that it is

mostly a collective, or at leas

266

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

THE RESTORATIVE JUSTICE PROCESS AND

a socially embedded, phenomenon, in which there are manyactors with preventive capabilities. For example, one interpretation anti-bullying

for

success

programs in reducing

percent (Olweus fourth

the

whole-school

bullying

1993) is in these terms.

grader is bullying

another child,

in the school (particularly

from

in a position to intervene a deterrence theory anti-bullying

of

50

grade up) are

to prevent the bullying.

perspective, therefore,

programs

up to

Whenever a many children

the fifth

From

whole-school

work because the deterrence tar-get

shifts from the bully (a hard target to deter passively) to active deterrence of responsible One reason that of restorative take

justice is that it

Conferences nurture

the

people to

active responsibility

environmentally

conscious citizen

of the corpora-tion

though she has no passiveresponsibility for causing it.

punitive

Aschool friend intervenes to stop bullying eventhough for it.

design of restorative institutions spaces for the nurturing among citizens, In

the

and

justice seriously,

violence

more likely

to be attempted,

to

of

restorative

deterrence

advocate

basis of threat.

that

which the

justice

couple

This

powerful

when deterrence is threaten-ing

foreground (for the theory, see Ayres and Braithwaite 1992:4751).

The

an ever-present

idea is not that

passive threat

it is democratically dialogue fails this,

there

is

need

to

is counterproductive. to

is there

an appearance in court, to passive responsibility.

Becauseeveryone

make threats;

So an offender

participate in a conference

as

but that everyone knows

available as an active possibility

or is spurned. no

deterrence

In

indeed,

if

knows

off ender

that

to

do so

who chooses not

knows the alternative

is

where he or she will be subject

shattered display

not have the

that

her stoic

from harm, the

school the off ender,

help them small

and the

with tasks

it

loss

couple

that

was one that

steps to resume

pur-sue

choose

of this married

young the

person car the

of dollars to

man explained

that,

had been privately

car that

he had hoped to

since the

off ense, he did

over. She also explained

of the

car

helped

stages

of

only

difficult

to

grandchildren Yet, despite the

physical outcome

him (in this

his education).

that

of a difficult

made it their

shopping.

off ers the

the

damage to the car, prob-ably

advanced

grocery

declined

insisting

to

they

was explained

as collecting

and doing

to So

repair

husband

that

such

usually 1993).

meet the

beyond

of the

was in the

is

Morris opportunity

After the

heart to start

daughter

it is rarely

years and thousands

at car showsand

pregnancy

to

conference,

the loss

overturn

A middle-aged

damaged

it.

about

court-room

to

by one of the authors

realizing

his wife shared

as as

expect.

he had done great

without

help

might

three

the

not not

it

and

example.

and

had spent

restoring.

their

an

are

be, and

responsibility,

came to the conference

who had stolen

criminals are morelikely to succumb to the entreaties in the background instead of threatened in the

we

also

conferences,

have the

convened

provides

husband

on

than

A conference

upshot will

less

justice

citizens

instead,

passive

part

of adversarial

(Maxwell

and

that

of restorative

do intervene

punitive;

while people

do so far

chapter

transacted

Rather it is to say that

of restorative justice

less

know

deterrence.

would

justice

punishment

punitiveness

within

other

they

even

greater

restorative

are in the context

make them

the

passive

When courts

confronting

we

usually

does

Moreover,

grueling

experience

and

of restorative

increase

re-storative to

conferences

and incapacitation.

restorative

to

taken

work, if it is located strategy in

decisions

women,

have argued

is

as they justice.

of

because

is

empirical

victims

justice

are often

1979),

we expected

it seems that

against

Daly (1994)

failure

be escalation

the

of

enforcement

of repeated

not to

young and old.

and to actually

a dynamic

is

of the virtue of active responsi-bility

context

Braithwaite

An ideal of the

is to create democratic

that as

wrongdoer.

2000).

processes

of process-related the

the

restorative

and

(Feeley

However, is

a wrong,

(Daly

all systems

of punishment

punitive

citizens

put right

own families

in

alot

empower

against

justice

to

you

that

off enders,

process

opportunities

how to

punitively

suggests

restorative

justice

If

decide

of retribution

and their

delivers

intervenes to stop the environmental crime even

she bears no passive responsibility

Daly

hardened

delivers, among other things, active deterrence.The

to

do so

a deal

victims

provide

responsibility.

to

Kathleen

because

circles

society

choose

deliver

for

encourages

active

many

is a central

value

and

in a punitive

peers of the bully.

empowerment

active responsibilityand

RESPONSIBILITY

In

labor

from

that

would

case, taking

Bovens terms

RESPONSIBILITY AND

the couple wasconcerned that the young person exercise

rehabilitation

his active responsibility in respect to this incident in a

1999). There

way that nurtured him

for

the

the virtue of active responsibility

in

A process that

allows victims to

and his or her family

meet the off ender

often generates compassion for the

off ender and a better understanding

of his or her actions.

Compassion contributes to the pursuit of restoration active responsibility punishment.

way of delivering

more than it does to the pursuit

of

to

there

often

is

retribution.

How

can

model of justice if citizens often choose

deter or seek revenge?

One response is to

what is

most empowering

restorative

by Burford deal

draw an

explain

by a plurality

civil society,

private

with

anti-democratic

Whatis happening there is that

values.

we honor the institu-tion

(democracy) that conduces to a shift to democratic values rather than honoring the values themselves. To manifestanti-democratic values would be not only

perverse but a prescription democracy. that put limits

on anti-democratic restorative

Likewise,

anti-democratic

own

any incarcerative

aims

allow.4

restorative

to

We think

the

limits

which would beimposed

by a

to

options

available.

of rehabilitative

services

of service

enterprise,

providers

from

and the state.

More

we know are outcomes are:

of that choice in networks

1994) rather than choice

of social support

byisolated individu-als.

Wesuspect that the reason for active rehabilitation

being superior to passive rehabilitation documented

communities

with good professional

advice

superior

This

choices from

options, they

and social support. of care empowered

will actually

maketech-nically

among a smorgasbord

because of the richer

plausible in a world in

psychotherapy

often seems to

of

contextual

have of the case (Bazemore,

is particularly

example,

goes beyond the

eff ects of commitment

Wealso suspect that

knowledge and any pun-ishment

court for the same wrongdoing.6

the conference

interventions.

any punish-ment rehabilitative

punishment,

sub-jected

(1) active choice as opposed to passive receipt, and (2)

extent

these

or humiliating,5

in excess of that

of

pursue

not

but are empowered

associated with superior rehabilitative

justice conferences against

or corporal

that is degrading

pursuit

are

The two variables in play here that

(Cullen,

they insist)

anti-restorative

which those systems

should constrain

rehabilitative

must be constitu-tionalized

are placed on the

which

help for communities of care to craft and operate their

embedding

action.

people can (if or

unsustainable

write constitutions

justice

so that limits deterrence. Thus,

to

for historically

What we do instead is

the

radically, resourcing can be available for professional

take democracy awayfrom people as soon asthey chose to

care

of rehabilitative

are replaced

candidates

In

violence, the victims, of

State monopolies of provision

criminals

Pennell (1996),

Experts come into

the range

often

for

and

the

programs, such as

prescription

analogy to democracy. If you set up a democracy, citizens vote

justice

communities

to rehabilitative

1998, eff ective

benevolence.

with family

their

267

programs is for

of that

one described

and

Braithwaite the least

best and to require

is designed to off enders,

see that

rehabilitation

with knowledge.

this

detail,

be passive recipients

However, there is not always compassion in and

be an alternative to

and

more

much evidence

state to decide

future.

conferences

(for is

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

1999).

which, for work but in

which there is no consistent evidence showing that one Active

and

Passive

school of psychotherapy works better than another.

Rehabilitation

The hopeis that contextually informed community-of-care Support moral support

without

accountability

weakness. is a form

leads

Accountability

choices (assisted by professional choice brokers)

to

will be better on average than individual

without

choices

of cruelty. Harriet The

United

Book of Methodist

Jane

Olsen,

Discipline

of the

Active

Having passive

how to

apply

outlined

in some

deterrence, the

same

detail

we hope principles

1998).

and

Passive

Incapacitation

Church (1996) In

and

(Braithwaite

or state

the

story

we can to

active

state passive

and

pyramid,

of active

briefly and

Braithwaite

are in fact include

Dalys (1994) most of the

more incapacitative

options

like a

relative

family options than

or other

violence for

en-forcement

escalation

deterrent. supporter

They of th

268

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

woman movinginto the household, the to a friends

household, and imprisonment.

move beyond which is

a passive conception

statically

prisons,

man moving

linked

to

theoretically

equivalent

confinement

Hence, in

a family

violence

in

of victims

to incapacitation

or funding

for

her disposal (victim equivalent

alternative

the

state

of off enders.

enforcement

a bank at

can be functionally

offender from

the

home

Court-ordered eff ective

than

incapacitation

it

to perpetrate

would

is

seem.

notoriously

Violent

assault and rape in

men

prison.

Judgesincapacitate drunk drivers by canceling their

cases than units.

here, but

them is that they are concerned

with the

way restorative justice

the virtue

of active responsibility.

deliberation

nurtures

Active responsibility

does not come naturally in response to a plea to attend Neighborhood

Watch meeting. It comes

in reply to a plea from of crime to support

a neighbor

who has been a

health and safety

workplace proclaiming Reporting

everyonesresponsibility

more natu-rally

them in a conference/circle.

Similarly, an occupational

the

continue to entice vulnerable young people.

when coupled

of criminal

We will not reiterate the four sets of arguments

victim

Drug dealers

processing

one way of summarizing

less

continue

have more momentum

mainstream

on

when ghettoized into specialized crime prevention

a

(off ender incapacitation).

Motivation, resources, and follow-through

crime prevention to the

pyramid,

accommodation

capacitation)

to removing

programs.

can be

giving a victim the capacity to leave by putting account

those four reasonsfor the failure of crime prevention

Once we

of incapacitation,

we can see that capacitation

prevention deliberation in the community can help rem-edy

poster in

(accidents) is

does not foster asense of active

licenses only to find that a majority of them continue to

responsibility in the waythat conferences heldto discuss

drive

specific workplaceinjuries do.

(Barnes

1999).

By contrast, the active intervention of care evokes alternative

modalities

with a grace that

of incapacitation.

If the problem is that it is only on Friday and Saturday nights that the off ender gets out on the town, Harry can take

responsibility

for

holding

to the car on Friday and Saturday

can volunteer

drinking

intervene

the

to call a taxi every time.

Or the

where the off ender to

so

off ender

the

owner

someone

home.

We

active incapacitation

else

have

seen

negotiated

the

in

the

all

these

or club the staff

bar

of

drunk

driving conferences. All of them require cultivation of the virtue of active responsibility.

and

care.

his

Wenever seethem

transforms

Desmond

Truth

and

to confront evil

human lives to

Tutu

would

Reconciliation

want

us

paths of to

Commission

of how it prevents crimes of violence and

terms

of how its healing lays the foundation

humane

South

While

we can to

community

building,

If

never

be the

expect

morein

of a more

we believe that

Madikizela-Mandela

and

of

part in the

that is the indispens-able development.

reintegrative

with the

justice

institutions

can play their

of community

to deal

restorative

most important they

of active responsibility

is required

in

Africa.

institutions

nurturing

evalu-ate less

terms

ingredient

drives

forms

at restorative

love

Or the

driver agreement

of the pub

drinks can agree to train

that

keys

Alternatively,

matescan sign a designated

at the conference.

Uncle

nights and ensur-ing

that the car stays in the garage. girlfriend

Serious crime is an opportunity

of communities

shaming

wrongdoing

a P.W.

Botha

is

of a

alike,7

what Winnie

no

one

is

required to take active responsibility for saying shame

in drunk driving court cases, which last an average of

on you for the killings and the racism under an evil

seven minutesin Canberra, compared with 90 minutes

regime.The testimony

for

conferences

(Barnes

sufficient Active

Crime

Prevention,

Active

(1998,

programs motivation, deliberation, that

1999)

has argued

mostly fail for

(2) lack

four

of resources,

and (4) lack

making restorative

crime

reasons:

through.

conferences

preven-tion

(1) lack

(3) insufficiently

of follow

justice

that

to accomplish

evil of violence.

Grace

citizens Braithwaite

of the victims and the apolo-gies

(when they occur, as they often enough do) are

1999).

of

plural He argued

a site of crime

the necessary shaming

However, there can never be enough

active in the reintegration

shaming. If is true that reintegrative crime,

of the

part of reintegrative shaming

prevents

and if it is true that it is the reintegration

part

that is always in short supply, then the particular, if lim-ited, kind of integration

into communities

of care tha

RESPONSIBILITY AND

humanitarian significance.

with

the

victim

the victim that A JURISPRUDENCE OF

ACTIVE

essential element for securing restoration.

there is risk requirement

without

of injustice.

honor,

At the same

for the

that

For example, a minimum

term

causal responsibil-ity

this picture

is not only a

Fisses (1983)

developed in

theory

Fisse and

is

done.

enormously

The

from

balance

of reac-tive

at the

causal end

(such as that even

in

the

the

of the

West, reactive

with hit-and-run

as

also

two

in

to

that the

understood

the

airport,

result

in

illustrate

wrote

to

the

her viola-tion

none of the excuses

would not normally

and

because

apologized; felt it

proceed

in

of a bald

face

In a case

merit prosecution,

went forward

Department

she

the

U.S.

was obliged to admission

of

guilt. (emphasis in original)

that

sentence

the

reductions.

Braithwaite extremes

In

Crime,

(1989:165) in

the

told

cultural

bal-ancing

Wagatsuma and

Haley Rosett

These

are

stories

about

while the Japanese justice (1983) of

would

advocates

two

accused of raping

American

servicemen

a Japanese

woman.

criminal

fault.

United

States

In

assault

fault its

requires as the

most

radical

it.

core

Fisse criteri-on

version,

this

mean in a case of assault, the alleged assailant a restorative

basis of admitting On

the

system

reactive

the basis of an admission of

how

justice system creates disincentives for reactive fault,

would go into

is

she

After the

available to her, apologizing

prosecution

the

that which

driving, the running is the greater

the second from

first

doubt form

declaration.

Justice

domi-nates

(1986:486):

The

the

Service acknowledging

has confessed

end.

of causal and reactive fault, the first from (1982:272),

was

profusely, and seeking forgiveness.

Western criminal

intuition

left

was no sugges-tion

there

the currency

or explanations

varies

sometimes

and there

of the law, raising

United States) are

our

had

Customs

Asian systems

fault

evidenced

Shame and Reintegration, stories

of

which she had not ac-curately

Second,

woman

while

evil than the hitting. Early guilty pleasin court and remorse

U.S. with a large amount

activities,

woman

one reacts after

between

of the continuum;

fault,

not suspended.

of cash which is the proceeds

this.

required

Braithwaite

of Japan) tend to be at the reactive

causal

the

and reactive fault.

system to system.

systems (such as that

two

of illicit

here. All criminal justice systems of causal fault

justice

Yet,

importation

but also of the normative

reactive fault is about how responsibly harm

maximum

declared on the entry form. It was

matter of the

Causal fault is about being causally responsible,

the

the repentant

prosecuted.The law is intended to catch the

Brent

notions

him

second story is of a Japanese woman

of

1993) for key insights incorporate

might not adopt

to

not the sort of casethat would normally be

of restoration

to

your

Japanese lawyer

were sentenced to the

American currency

of justice.

(further

had

are not guilty,

on which

on active responsibility

We turn

and

depends.That is, the emphasis

a morejust notion of criminal liability,

fault

say. We

arriving in the

by arguing that

while passive responsibility remains indispensable to

theory

compensated

Americans completely.

of imprisonment,

justice in this way,restorative justice propels usto de-velop

jurisprudence

stating

had not even occurred

they

The

passive responsibility

in the court

they replied. Their

role. They

wrong.

Now we will complicate

to

cringed; it

passive responsibil-ity

to demonstrate

from

and asked the soldiers if they

anything

as the

for punishing an offender for doing wrong

would be an inquiry

a letter

After hearing the evidence, the judge leaned

of active responsibility

we have argued that

was tabled

she had been fully

forward

time,

was secured;

that she absolved the

RESPONSIBILITY

Sofar, we have conceived

269

Japaneselegal advice, private reconciliation

is transacted in restorative justice rituals has a special

TOWARD

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

(I

was the

justice

conference

of criminal

guilt

responsibility one

who

not on

but on the

for the actus reus of an punched

her).8

Whethe

270

CRIME

the

AND

BEHAVIOR

mental element required for crime

was present

that

wecannot guarantee that this will occur is deeply

troubling. would be decided reactively, on the basis of the con-structiveness and

restorativeness

to the problem If

the

of

were

restorative,

would be removed;

remain.

However,

if

reactive

the

a conviction;

element

the

mental

would

before

or during

would

commit

more

with two

who

offenders

who

exactly the same off ense: one apologizes

and

heals a victim who grants him mercy;the other refuses to participate in a circle and is punished severely by a

court.

The

answer

is

that

while

the

two

off

formal

of proving that sexual not relevant

processes that

to

does not occur in criminal lawyers and treatment

who have acted in ... sexually

ways (1998:65).

normal

of guilt. In any case, it is hard to

have often been derisory in their

complainants

as-sault

are not concerned

As Hogg and Brown put it, Police,

trials.13

guar-antees

Most of these, however,

argue that victim-vilification

judges

of penalty than causal fault.

is the justice

justice

might further

do incorporate

play at the level

with the adjudication

its

be a

trials

processes

occurredguarantees

would

gives us an answer to the retributivist

says: Where

come into

restorative

for

crime

legal

against victim-blaming.

were found

the

fault

protest that criminal

criminal

be insufficient

for

reactive

determinant

This

would

be demonstrated However,

important

1998).

of

fault

Defenders of formal

reaction

only civil liability

that

commission.10

her

risk

criminal

by a court to be present,9

have to

or

caused by the act (Braithwaite

reaction

liability

also

his

Indeed,

argue that the problem

restorative

of

provocative

justice

with the criminal

advocates

trial is that it

creates incentives for the prosecution to vilify defence witnesses,and vice versa.This is what puts the vulner-able mostat risk of stigmatization. The problems that

enders

are equal in causal fault, they are quite unequal in

formal legal guarantees against victim-blaming

reactive fault.

to redress are in part problems created by the formal

they

Viewedin terms of passiveresponsibility,

might be equal; in terms

though,

adversarial

of active responsibility,

process.

In terms

they are not.11

of the impact

of victim-blaming

adversarial justice, The

Major

Worry

about

Active

Responsibility

examination

to trials

suggests that of unreported

say they are responsible for their own victimization

(and

or others blame them for it. This

victim-blaming)

victims

blame themselves

through

for leaving

which the

burglar

can be a good thing if it in target

hardening

fight

to

may reflect

open the

entered;

protect

them

a victim

on the provocation

from

if a girl

who is a victim

wearing a short skirt. this type

freedom,

a repeat

of the

off ender

matter, though,

Whatis the diff erence? It is that

of young

is connected

much exacerbated

Ngaire

are much

our

Naffine

on the extent active resistance

we would suggest, rapes involving

out of the criminal

other types

less likely to find their

justice system (Naffine

Hence, it is clear that

of way

victim-blaming

of by

victim-blaming.

1992:761).

is a problem

at

every level.

that

while

the

criminal

trial

of restorative assembles

those capable of inflicting

in

justice is one

room

maximum damage on the

other side, the restorative justice conference assembles in the room those capable of offering

to a history

women, and the denial

which has been

without

What can be said in favor

of sexual assault is blamed for

of victim-blaming

of subordination their

it

to invest

of a schoolyard

that led to the assault. It is a diff erent

not confine

of the statistics

rapes, rapes

on tra-ditional

win-dow into a court of law ... (and) are morelikely to befiltered

indeed,

motivates victims

Similarly,

victimization.12

when

we should

and sentencing.

in light

In restorative justice conferences, sometimes victims is not a worry

seek

to their own sidebe side.

It is

in

this

structural

diff erence,

of care and active responsibility restorative

justice

places

maximum sup-port

it the victim or the off ender

its

and

in

the

ethic

that it engenders, that hope

against

victim

Restorativejustice implies a grave risk ofthe occur-rencevilification. of oppressive victim-blaming. The

hope is that

It

whenit occurs, participants in the circle will speak up in defense and support of the victimthat

there will

be reintegrative

The

shaming

of victim-blaming.

fact

will be a hope that from

higher

time

priorities

to improve

the

for

will continue

to time, research

micro-design

to

we fear. There and

be disap-pointed are few

development

than

of conferences/circles

RESPONSIBILITY AND

Videos shown to participants before they go into their

contrasted

citizens

within them,

against

victim-blaming

speak

out

against

but perhaps they could also warn and

both

should

court

urge a responsibility

victim-blaming

Training for convenors For

can be actively responsible

should

which procedures

it

occur.

also address this risk.

and conference

be able to test a variety

to discover

should

to

processes, research

of innovations

in order

best protect victims from

(Garland

responsibility that

JusticeBeyond

Responsibilization

At least

its

traditional

tended to contrast,

criminological objectify

forms,

and infantilize

community

policing

as involving

a new form

and responsibilization Garland 1997; identifies

OMalley

a new

characterizes

1992).

through

been suffered

as a result

is needed to elicit responsibility.

involves the

central

government

that

crime,

which he

strategy:

justice

There

This

functions

which once belonged to the institu-tions with its own

of control

over

recurring

messageof this approach, as Garland puts it, is that the

preventing

and controlling

crime

be, responsible

(Garland

1996).

of restorative

justice in this frame. There

however.

are

some

that

must

strategies

work is the theoretical

influence

literature.

becomeresponsible homo

for it.

be drawn,

justice

their

underlying

1997:191)

to

the

context

a criminal

asks)

should

to

assume

not

of

a

are legal

duties

of

restorative

off ense, though,

a

be viewed

as a breach

any

works because people are an active

when they beyond

responsibility

have a personal

allocated

(enforced

collective and

restricted

crime

responsibility)

that

prevention

allocating cannot.

or

moral re-sponsibility.

often involves

responsibility

to

(par-ticularly

involvement)

passive legal

Active responsibility assumed

prudens.

is

parents as having

In

for

than

attend.16

bytech-niquesrestoration

interpretation

as gifts rather

of any duty.15 No one,including the offender, hasa duty even

courts

Foucauldian

most depends

put the claim formally. The

children.

conference

of the self for cultivating a security-conscious This

participationall

decision by parents to refuse to attend (or do anything the

the to

of

not as legal duties. They

recognizes

conference

be held legally

justice

be conceived

supererogatory,14 to

to

and

on which restorative

system rightly

makeit

Active responsibility

love,

moral duties, and certainly

prepared

Foucaults

Subjects are taught

(Garland

must

off ers of help and support, forgive-ness,

care, compassion,

care

should

for crime should

morally responsible

vary in their

approaches to achieving responsibility.

capability

who are passively responsible

Restorative justice distinctions

Responsibilization

responsibilization

justice

(causally responsible)

for success, should

Clearly, it is possible to read our account

this natural

which restorative justice

actors

that having

for

a regulatory

clear that

of restorative

only individual

predicament

state alone is not, and cannot eff ectively

a

theory

the things

1996:449). The

is itself

of

normative

Garland says that this is a response to the

deliver the expected levels

we must

institution

for the delinquencies of their children.The

1996:452).

conduct(Garland

within it,

in laws that hold parents legally liable

part of non-state agencies and organizations (Garland

to

however

are many unattractive features of responsi-bilization

all kinds, including

criminal

of active

though,

the

conference

trends from

by acting indirectly, seeking to activate action on the

inability

of

have

is all that

proffering

dialogue

to cultivate

(police, courts, prisons, social work, etc.) but instead

of civil society, the state is now faced

the

that

wrongdoing

for responsibility.

or

and responsibilities

process of human

consequences of

creation

crime not in a direct fashion through state agencies

over control

the

spontaneous

the

1997;

seeking to act upon

taken

of restorative

for responsibility.

At the same time,

and unforced

and

Garland, for example,

as a responsibilization

as-sumed

of sub-jectification keepits distance. Weseethe worst manifestation of re-sponsibilization

(Crawford

mode of governing

capability

beings talking

off enders. In

many writers see newer crime prevention

are

capable of responsible action Our conception

we assume that the simple

restorative

utilitarian-ism

individuals

271

is closer to the end of the continuum

move designed In

which

assumes a natural

concede

Restorative

in

1997:191).

natural

stigmatization.

one

to benaturally

first conference could not only show how conferences work and how participants

with

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

in

can

an

provide

ways that

passive responsibility A more structura

272

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

is that it passesgen-der-relatedjudiciary engaged in further

worry about responsibilization burdens

This

of

worry is that

state to slough

down

concern

arises

of a states strategy to in

developing the

law.

individuals.

welfare obligations.

with

to deal with regulatory

to regulate

to

what is going on is a move by the

off some of its social

A comparable justice

care

off enses; it

may be part

walk away from its obligations

areas such

has clear responsibilities)

The

as environment

(where

it

by delegating them to civil

theory

sounds fine,

to imagine

using restorative

bubbling

but it all seems rather roman-tic

day-to-day

up to influence

potentially,

though,

In communities justice

the

the law.

this is

in

work

of conferences

Cumulatively

and

not necessarily romantic.

which conferencing

is

dilemmas that arise in conferences

widespread, are discussed

in civil society (at dinner parties, for example, including

society. Christine

Parkers

here (see

(1999)

also

work

Braithwaite

Parker sees a need for two-way wants institutions

in

down into

is

Parker

of the

She

of the law fil-ters

attended

byjudges).17

Wecan already

1999).

communication.

which the justice

the justice

cor-rective those

a useful

and

Zealand that law. In the

cite specific

have had an impact, Clotworthy

for community

people as manifest

conferences

in

New

albeit small, on the

case, the decision of a confer-ence

service and victim

compensation

in restorative justice processes(so that, for example,

to fund cosmetic surgery needed as a result of a vicious

respect for fundamental

knife attack wasoverruled by the Court of Appeal.18

informal justice).

human rights

constrains

Obversely, Parker wants a restora-tive

justice that

gives the justice

of the people an

opportunity to percolate up to influence the justice of the law. In terms we want the

active responsibility

on the is apparent (1995)

of active and passive responsibility,

passive responsibility. in recent

and Jurgen

state can open itself issues,

writings Habermas up to the

in a civil

society

have an influ-ence

The

of

same theme

Cliff ord

(1996) input

information,

contributions,

circulating

to

on

arguments

Habermas

the theory is clear:

the

Moreover, the

back room

of the

parliamentary

complex, but as the impulse-generating

all parts of the political system

forms

of general

elections

of participation,

converted into

without

authorizes

the legislature

regulatory

agencies,

critique

and various

public opinions

a communicative

of judicial

more-intense justificatory

are

power that

and legitimates

while a publicly

mobi-lized

decisions imposes obligations

in

on a

the

conference.

principle

that

can aff ect sentences way,conferencing

Although

is

processing

what happens

might be the bulk of the law in ac-tion

(and therefore is impact

the

to the routine

courts.

in the lowest courts

the law), rarely does it have any

on the law in the

books, or formal

the

law. In rare

Magistrates bubble

up the

case.

One can imagine

how restorative

might achieve this task in a variety

justice

processes

of contexts.

for schoolgirls caught smoking

A con-ference

marijuanacould

communicate to school principals that passiverespon-sibility such asexpulsion is excessiveandinappropriate.

normative reasons, it affects

intending to conquer it. Passingthrough the channels

not dissimilar

of cases in the lowest

pe-riphery

that surrounds the political center: in cultivating

articulated

Court did recognize

strategic cases, though,

public sphere is not conceived simply

as the

as

the demands of restorative justice

Clotworthy [T]he

victim

in a position

the state

(1996:442),

of

how the

According to

1996:183184).

However,the sentence wasreduced in response to the wishes

in very serious cases. Put another

set apart from

(Habermas

Court of Appeal ordered a custodial sentence.

Shearing

of free-floating and

To the disappointment of restorative justice advocates, the

Conferences can and do also bubble

up community

disapproval of certain investigative techniques by the police,

which tend

capacity

can

how fairly

to

be suppressed

be reinforced

participants

in this formal

by

in

court. This

making an inquiry

have been treated

part of the restorative

of

by the police

justice

process.

Where there is a concern, the police, as a signatory the conference

agreement, can commit

to the participants ombudsman

about the results

investigation

to report of an internal

of their conduct

of

back or

RESPONSIBILITY AND RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

Fisse

and

documented

Braithwaite

of

Australian

communities

major insurance the

have

how a series of conferences exposed

the victimization remote

(1993:232237)

through

companies.

Aboriginal fraudulent

practices

by

decisions

of

meetings between off ending companies,

victims,

and

Aboriginal

Community

call a press conference. The and shocking

be briefed by the regulatory to regulatory While it conferences

Councils

Prime

often

agency. Significant

to percolate the justice

be

the

A strong philosophical foundation in responsibil-ity for action and responsibility

3.

A promising jurisprudential

was to

Practical

as a virtue;

future

of Fisses notion

through

devel-opment

of reactive fault; and

promise in its links

to theories

of crime

prevention.

change

At the

same

remain

unsolved

such as the risks

on single parents to do too

vehicle

of the people into the justice

there

of sexual assault and foisting

hope that

transmission

time,

about responsibilization, victims

to

the law, such cases show this is a possibility

be realized.The

2.

Minister asked to

would be overly optimistic

political rationale;

were so sys-temic

law and practice ensued.

would

Animportant

4.

regulators,

abuses exposed

that the

1.

people in

One of the

273

worries

of blaming

unreasonable

ex-pectations

who already are expected

much with too little support.

of

that

can NOTES

Aboriginal insurance cases show that

just as restorative justice can serve to responsibilize individuals in a waythat relieves the state of burdens,

1. The

so is it possiblefor powerless individuals to userestor-ative

recent

Glaude

justice to responsibilize the state whenthe stateis failing in its regulatory

ball

away

a group

from

the

feet

of a judge

of citizens. The

goes on depends

type

the

in that it takes a

and

puts it

at the

of responsibilizing

on how those

citizens

feet

care for

which

Others

responsibility the

will learn

for

state

should

decide to exercise

from

the

awesome

be giving example

need to

accept

burdens

them

more

of those

2.

Some readers aims

to

about

help.

Aboriginal

the

of the of

people

3.

of responsibilitythe that and

will

maximise

restoration

communities.

We

responsibility

will

conceptions

of criminal

balance a substantial

kind

between shift

have

be very

We have seen that

diff erent

and active the

1990;

4.

restorative

from It

will involve

responsibility

Some hand,

traditional a with

on the

responsibility

has:

restore to

to

their the

added)

(at

events.

is

the

the

Praniss

claim

might

active

punish),

active

At the

and

passive between

form)

and

passive form).

assertion

arises

that respectfulness

in

our

view

(Braithwaite,

(Braithwaite

is the a punitive victims then

argue

and Pettit,

(Braithwaite,

that

responsibility

are not

some

us-ing

1999b)

values.

critics

and

events

active

(the

beside non-domination

other,

is

But it is our

future

distinction

(the

as

responsibility

avoid

Pettit, 1997) and empowerment

and

that

or active responsibility.

of

restorative

an approach

active

between

accountable

normative

responsibility harm,

latter.

restorative

as central

off enders,

that

is

be characterised

unwanted

responsibility held force

the

can

all,

seek

theories

normative

1989) ranks

con-ception

of responsibility victims,

seen

responsibility.

passive toward

of

The

these

being

from

research

of a restorative

can

diff erence

taking

risking

agenda has been the development

of

one

whether

events

passive responsibility

forms

justice

for obviates

(emphasis

After

prevention that

heart

CONCLUSION

of the restorative

future

responsibility.

contention

kick the goals of state responsibilization.

part

process

responsibility

might question

prevent

passive

of

Community Councils from far North Queens-landand

A neglected

justice)

incarceration

responsibility

R v.

a com-parison:

72)

power. To useasoccer analogy, many will kick their own by taking

to take

decision

of such

(restorative

off enders

By comparison,

of

Court

an example

to the

actions.

that then

their political imagination in the use of that little pieceof goals

need for

Supreme

provides

Central

or welfare obligations.

Restorative justice is empowering

Canadian

(1999)

exclusive:

punitive

(by

is

what is

satisfying

outcomes

one

justice

that is, if active

of responsibility

outcome harm

on

and restorative

mutually taking

punitiveness

to

restore

required their

can involve

to

desire activ

274

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

responsibility.

However

is imposed it in

no

way involves

does seek then

it

For

active

or actively

may involve

nevertheless 5.

consent active

the

Rights

prohibits

example,

conferencing not

in

court

in

Australia,

objectives

murder

P.W. Botha a period

of the

was the

when his

murder

and

the

off ence

(Section

South

their

child.

only

National

Congress.

head of state

atrocities

to

against

New

result

by

on the

Zealand

putting

not on the but

law

when the

Indeed

opportunity

refused

to

Brent

Fisse

those

of this the

Court

opposed

District

group

confer-ences

to

deny

guilt,

would

the

be if

a report

simply

from

cursed

radical

can

be

view

conduct

to respond

a confer-ence

the

victim

that

if

known

responsibly sufficient

and

and prosecutor,

serious

cases to

court

acts of responsibility

during

or of their

their

own

life-times

children

as off enders.

Appeal)

(CA

114/98,

allowing

appeal

Court Judge Thorburn,

for

a

womans

be harm-ful

is harmful,

to

establish

Australia, sentence

to

that

assume would

assaults

is seen as

off enders

(Braithwaite, of

of burglary

experience

harm than

for

been a victim

Victoria,

received

victims

then

burglary

man took

she

part of

morally

wrong

a higher

victimisation a

other

Braithwaite

Transcending the

24

Testing the

29 June from

April

1998,

sentence

of

1998

Responsive

Regulation:

Debate. Oxford,

England:

Press. Procedural

Fairness

Intoxicated

(1992).

Deregulation

University

G. (1999).

Justice

of

Drivers.

in

Two

Diversionary

Ph.D.

who into

is the

1991,

value than

single

big-gest

(Pease) raped account

unreported,

a

Justice

Restorative

Contexts:

Conferencing

dissertation,

for

University

woman

of

was rea-sonable

victims Victorian

Justice

of

the

and L.

Harm

In of

Walgrave.

Youth

Monsey,

Press.

M.

Dooley

Offender: The

M.(1998). The

England:

(2000).

Restorative

Challenge of

Cambridge,

Sticks:

Journal

Questfor

Cambridge J.

Justice

Reintegration,

Crime,

England:

J. (1997a).

this

On

of

Powers.

Cambridge,

Press. Shame

Cambridge

Neglected

47:157

Responsibility.

University

(1989).

Separation

psychological

Repairing

G. Bazemore

Reintegration: Rehabilitation.

volume.

Braithwaite,

the

Relational

Justice:

by

G., and

andThe

Shaming,Whither

and

Juvenile

Criminal

Bazemore,

Braithwaite,

that

meant it

suff ered less

G.(1999). After

Restorative

Bovens,

have been suff ered by other

[Hakopian,

J.

Crime, edited

criminal

1999).

as a prostitute that

and

Bazemore,

criminal

to

however. The

deserts theorist

equal justice

predictor

sexual

whole answer,

the just

Having just

In

I.,

NY: not the

equal justice

13.

par-ents

protect

Maryland.

more

punishing

fault

to consider

12.

Ayres,

Oxford

criminal

liability.

it is that

and

to

restitution.

takes

reactive

is

police

conferences

Clotworthy

of

whether

are spurned.

of victims

trouble

is

care for

voluntary

will attend

Queen v.

NZ

during

of criminal

declining

off ender

discuss

and if failure

11. This

for

conference,

accomplishes

family

basis of an admission

is about

such

duty to

with the

framework

judges

18. The

Barnes,

An example

liability

of the conference legal

here rests

in a restorative

with care and

justice

have authorized

already

cases into

basis of formally

said that

10.

position

who have a duty to take sufficiently

17.

allegations. 9.

and

REFERENCES

Functionally, this

case summary

to a criminal

their

Apartheid. 8.

not be the

subject

duty

who get into

of political

African

would

meeting

16. The

Madikizela-Mandela

is alleged

this

as supporters

her pursuit

African

Cabinet

other

must

have been

Winnie

of a child in

on behalf

outcome might

for

Heyd, 1982.

as opposed

are

Act 1997 (NSW)).

against

the

Of course, protection

treat-ment

one

Cass 1992

1991;

where the legal

that

for

(see

Mellema,

and

governing the

those

Offenders

allegations

included

Civil

or degrading

legislation

See

outcomes.

7).

proceedings

52(6)(a)Young 7. The

inhuman

14.

we would

on

Court

comment)].

15.

outcome,

but

Covenant

more severe than

imposed

If an off ender

on such

County

out-come

consent

a punitive

limits

the

scheme

(be)

to

(Article

under

their

responsibility,

International

or punishment For

say if a punitive without

responsibility.

seek to impose

instance,

Political

6.

we would

on an off ender

and

University

Reintegration.

Press.

Speaking

Softly and

Dimensions

of

University

of

Carrying

Republican Toronto

Law

RESPONSIBILITY AND

Braithwaite,

(1998).

J.

Restorative to

Linking

Justice.

Wrongdoing. American

In

Crime

Conferencing:

Proceedings

Conference

of

on

Prevention A New

the

First

Conferencing,

to

August

Fisse,

68,

(1999).

(ed.)

Restorative

and Pessimistic

Crime and Justice:

Braithwaite, and

J., and

K. Daly (1994).

Business, edited

by T. Newburn, Routledge.

J., and

Harm of Youth

and

Lode

In

Boys

E. Stanko.

Doing

J., and

Crime, edited

Restorative

by

Monsey,

P. Pettit

Republican Theory Oxford Burford,

Justice is

Gordon

NY:

University

New

Family

Criminal

Not Just

Justice.

Deserts:

Oxford,

A

England:

Roles

for

Family

Old

Group

Partners

Implementation

in

Report

Family

Group

Decision Resolving

Summary.

Decision

St.

Making

Case

Law Journal Crawford,

and

Comment:

Hakopian.

Criminal

A. (1997). The

Local Governance ofCrime:

and

Partnerships.

Oxford,

Appeals England:

Limits

of the

Sovereign

Contemporary

of Criminology

State: Society.

36(4):445471.

Governmentality

and the

Criminology,

Sociology.

Habermas, J. (1996).

Between Facts and

DiscourseTheory

Problem

of

Theoretical

of

Norms: Contributions

Law and

Democracy. London:

Press. C.(1999).

Heimer,

Legislating

C., and

F.T. (1994).

Social

Support

Criminology:

Academy of

Criminal Justice

as an

Presidential

Organizing

Address to the

Sciences. Justice

Quarterly

Relationship

Between

Responsibility,

unpublished

D. (1982).

K. (2000)

Justice:

Revisiting and

the

Restorative

Philosophy

J.

to

Justice.

Practice, 3354.

Braithwaite,

edited

In

Restorative

by

H. Strang

Aldershot,

England:

Dartmouth.

Keohane,

A

Repentance: and

Buddhist

Approach

A Comparative D.E.

Carney.

to

Its

in

University

Pluto

Status in

Cambridge

D. Brown (1998).

of

Ethical Theory.

University

Rethinking

Press.

Law and

Order.

Press.

R. (1984).

After

World

Hegemony:

Politics.

Cooperation

Princeton,

NJ:

and

Princeton

Press.

D. (1986).

England:

Causation

and Postscript:

In

Philosophical

Oxford

University

T., and

Shaming

J.

Papers,

Redundant II.

Vol.

Oxford

Press.

Braithwaite

and

Maxwell,

(1994a).

Regulatory

Perspective, edited New York:

Rowman

M.(1979). The

G.M., and

Culture:

Reintegrative

Compliance.

by and

A. Morris (1993).

Youth Justice in

Criminology

of Criminology, Zealand.

Wellington,

York

Melton,

New

G. (1991). and

Beyond Offence.

New York:

the

Call of

Albany:

Family,

Zealand.

Agency and Institute

Victims and Social

Victoria

Duty:

State

Policy

University

Supererogation,

University

of

New

Press.

A.P.(1995).

Indigenous

Society. Judicature Processis the Punishment.

New

of

Obligation

Repentance.

Littlefield.

Russell Sage.

England:

University

Mellema,

M.D. (1997).

A. Etzioni

Sake of the

Responsibility

Home. Chicago: The

Supererogation:

Cambridge,

Makkai,

of

Press.

Hogg, R., and

Lewis,

For the

Organization

Hospital and the

Chicago Heyd,

Staff en (1998).

Social

32(3):361385.

11(4):527559.

Retributive

L.

Children: The

Causation.

Press.

Concept for

Feeley,

Crime

Cambridge

1:173214.

Discord in

16:200204.

Community

Clarendon

In

Corporations,

England:

Control in

Foucault,

Sydney:

Project.

Eckel,

(1993).

Cambridge,

of Crime

D. (1997).

Heimer,

Justice

Law:

Southern

56:11411246.

The

British Journal

to a

Criminal

Sanctions.

Press.

The

the

(1996).

Newfoundland:

Cass, D. (1992).

and

Braithwaite

Garland,

Polity

Bazemore

Press.

Violence.

Johns,

(1990).

of Criminal

G., and J. Pennell

Making:

Daly,

J.

and

275

manuscript.

Braithwaite,

Cullen,

Review

Criminology

Press.

to

Law

D. (1996).

Crime:

London

Restoring Juvenile Justice: Repairing

Walgrave.

University

Garland,

Corporate Fault,

Accountability.

Strategies Violence

Just

and

C. Parker (1999).

Republican Justice. In the

Assessing

Michael Tonry

Masculinities,

Control.

and

Braithwaite,

In

A Review of Research.

Communitarian

New York:

Justice;

Accounts.

Retribution,

B., and

and

J.

Optimistic

Reconstructing

Deterrence, California

North

Minneapolis. Braithwaite,

Fisse, B. (1983).

Response

RESTORATIVE JUSTICE

Mulgan, R.(1997). The

Justice

Systems and Tribal

79:126133. Processes of Public

Australian Journal of Public

Administrion

Accountability. 56(1):25.

276

CRIME

Naffine,

AND

BEHAVIOR

N. (1992).

Evocation

Windows

of

on the

Rape in

Legal

Legal

Writings.

Mind: The 18

MULR

Olweus,

D. (1993).

Facts

and

Program.

Annotation:

Eff ects

Journal

of

of

Bullying a

School

Child

at

School:

Based

Psychology

Basic

Psychiatry

P. (1992).

Risk,

Power

and

Crime

Prevention.

P. (1994).

Responsibility

and

Crime

Prevention:

A Response to

Adam Sutton. The

Zealand Journal

of Criminology

27:2124.

Just

Oxford,

England:

Victimization:

Taking

C. (1999b).

University

Pease,

and

New

Oxford

Detection

Research

Thomas,

by

Recht

and Prevention

Group, London.

Stock.

Series, Paper 90. Police

In Konzepte, und

Staat

P.(1998). The Taking Stock: G. Peters and

University

Repeat

England:

Press

and

New

the

Response

North

August 68,

C. (1995).

Governance.

zu

A

of the First

Conferencing.

In

Press.

K. (1998).

Crime

Lawyers.

Australian

Oxford,

Conferencing

Conferencing:

Befunde,

Economy and Society 21:252275. OMalley,

In

Shearing,

35:11711190.

OMalley,

K. (1998).

Proceedings

Intervention

and

Republicanism.

Clarendon

Press.

Pranis,

741.

Parker,

Pettit, P.(1997).

Community.

to

American

Wrongdoing.

Conference

on

Policing

as

Minneapolis.

Reinventing

Policing:

Privatisierung

staatlicher

Tendenzen. Interdisziplinare

Kontrolle: Studien

3:6988.

Changing

Nature ofAccountability.

Assessing Public Sector Reforms, edited D. Savoie.

Montreal:

McGill-Queens

Conclusio

CONCLUSION The

Challenges

of Integrating

Criminological

Theories*

Stuart

I

ntegrative theory in criminology & Canter, 1979; Johnson,

& Pauly 1983;

1990;

can be traced

1979)

back to 1979 (Elliott,

with continuing

Elliott et al. 1979;

Hagan 1989;

Agerton,

work in the 1980s (Colvin

Hawkins

&

Weis 1985; Jeff rey

Messner, Krohn, & Liska 1989; Pearson & Weiner 1985), extending to

more recent developments (Agnew 2006,

2009;

Bernard

2004;

2006;

Robinson

2001;

Colvin

2011;

2000;

& Beaver

2009;

Akers 1994; Barak 1998a, 1998b,

Fishbein

1998;

Shoemaker

Muftic

1996;

2009,

Tittle

Robinson

1995).

Integrative theory, asits name suggests, involves not one theory but many which are integrated

or combined

that transcends moves us toward

to produce a comprehensive

the explanatory

developing

more holistic

& Henry 2006, p. 310). Instead framework, theorists

or even through

multiple

more pre-existing

theories,

into a single reformulated explanatory

on the impact on the

juvenile

development,

disciplinary

criminological

combination

of two or

perceived commonalities,

theories

delinquency,

another

of social control

way the intersection

and

model with greater comprehensiveness

value than any one of its component

personality

a third fourth

defined as:the

selected on the basis of their

95). For example, in explaining a childs

a single

perspectives, integrative

approach

theoretical

frame-work

theories

policies to address crime (Einstadter

of seeing crime through

take an interdisciplinary

analytical

power of any of its constitutive

(Farnworth

one theory

on the interactive

and parental

may focus

learning

and school

and

1989, p. on

process,

bonding,

and a

of class, race and gender shape these diff erent

processes.Integrative theory combines each of these explanatory components into one theoretical explanation.

*

This

Reading

commentary

draws on

Criminology,

4(2):

applied

and

the

(eds.)

Henry, toward

1026,

to

R. Szostak

Oaks,

on

Agnews

and

complex

S. (2012). a unified

The

challenges

criminology

Henry, S. & Bracy, social

problem

Journal

ofTheoretical

N.L. (2012).

of school

Case studies in interdisciplinary

of integrating

violence

research

Integrative In

(pp.

criminology: and

A.

theory Repko,

259282).

A

Philosophical

in crimi-nology W.

Newell

Thousand

CA: Sage.

27

Henry

280

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

Advocates of integrative

theory

see distinct

advantages in integrating the insights from discipline-based

theories.

Barak (1998b)

(2) to

engaging

do so: (1) because of a desire to develop

central concepts that provide

fragmented

are common

coherence

theories,

to

to several theories;

a bewildering

(3) to achieve comprehensiveness and thereby

enhance their

advance scientific

progress

and (5) to synthesize social control

array

and thereby reduce their

original

and completeness,

more theories into

and theory

development;

(Paternoster

seem to

mono-disciplin-ary

Toward a

Unified Criminology:

Integrating Assumptionsabout Crime, Peopleand Society,

have been selective

and partial, reflecting

and politics of the discipline theoretical

traction

to accomplish

the

division

But this lack of

may also reflect the variety

integration,

integrative

(p. 191).

theories

and the that

Finally, some theoretical

number

of ways of diff er-ent

have emerged as a result.

perspectives

So the first

important

propositional

statements

events and factors? know

that

question

the

is what

concepts

is to

about the relations

A related

question

be

are the same?The

way diff erent theories

of abstraction of

the

or generality

(Bernard

&

Snipes,

1996;

Liska, 1989, pp. 515). than concepts

least

13

if

of potential

other

just and

social

erent

kinds

1996

1979;

Liska,

Conceptual integration combining that

theories.

have similar

Henry

2006,

It

is the simplest involves

a common

p. 316). This

finding

idea

diff erent theories language

when

concepts and

(Einstadter

has also been called

&

rather

causes

example, to

at

number

would soon ap-proach

p. 254).

that there are at least that

describe

the

rela-tionships

causality,

which takes the form of a sequential chain of events

one

as the

outcome

event which

dialectical events

1989).

the

between crime variables: (i) linear

and

& Henry 2006;

& Messner

meanings in

merging them into &

(Einstadter

Krohn,

Krohn,

amount

included

recognizes of

for

control,

are

multiple causality, which sees of several

diff erent

of

Hirschi

al.,

two theories,

theories

50! (Shoemaker

diff

et

much

theories

propositions

variables in the analysis

Causal integration four

alevel

has its own challenges, since the propo-sitions

association and

Messner

Integrating

causes; (iii) interactive causality, in

(4) cross-level integration

which im-plies

constituent

of crime, there are four different ways that theories (3) causal integration;

proposi-tions

encompasses

the

can be integrated:

integration;

et al. 1989, pp.

between

that

of

crime

propositional

through

how theoretical

related (Liska

conceptualization

resulting in crime; (ii)

(2)

A key issue in

whichrefers to identifying

Bracy 2012). In the literature

(1) conceptual integration;

or relate the

which implies a sequential causal order;

of much discussion (for a recent review see Henry & on integrative theories

consider

of relationships

vertical integration,

are integrated

and what precisely is integrated has been the subject

...

overlapping influences; and (iii) up-and-down or

we

meanings of the elements integrated

theory

(ii) side-by-side or horizontal integration,

between

is how do

types

derived from

or a theorys

link-ing

have beenidentified: (i) end-to-end or sequential

diff erential

Is it theoretical

meaningfully

understanding

is to

are logically

Three

defy integration

because they areincompatible.

integrated?

a combined

theory

integration,

points out that none of the integrated theories haveat-tracted widesupport, not least becausethe integrations

entails

and not just the concepts of two or

a comprehensive

propositions

theories that wehaveexplored in this book, Robert in

ground?

& Bachman 2001, p. 307).

generating

515).

in the

of diff erent theories into the new theory

integrating theory

when individual

do they lose their integrity

Propositional integration

propositions

and

merger distort the

A related issue is

the propositions

power; (4) to

of the traditional

& Bracy, 2012;

new emergent synthesis of common

explanatory

While the advantages of integrative

Agnew (2011)

concepts?

concepts are distilled,

of

policy.

supersede the limits

(Henry

Repko, 2008). If theoretical concepts are mergedbut

number;

ideas about crime causation

ground

they are diff erent, how far does that

summarizes

these advantages, arguing that criminologists in integration

existing

finding common

or then

1998a;

Milovanovic

influence

influences

or reciprocal

are not

and interrelated, (Barak

factor

the

causality, in

discrete

entities

&

event;

or fac-tors, and

(iv)

which causes and

of the crime event

Henry 2006;

1996). If a combination

causes is used, how is that configured combination

events

but are overlapping,

and codetermining Einstadter

which the eff ects

other crime

independent

Henry

&

of these types

of

and how does the

vary by level of analysis and type of crime

CONCLUSION

If

Cross-levelintegration involves integrated theorists explicitly

paying attention to

integrated

address a micro-,

whether theories to be

all levels,

are integrated

which is called cross-level

et al. 1989;

Muftic 2009). The integrational

considered in cross-level integration of people, their

(meso);

and (3)

kinds

(Einstadter

a further

include: (1)

kinds

of culture,

structure,

of

only theories

Astor,

between groups, organizations and

Structural-Cultural

Feminism

(Hagan,

Simpson

Alternatively,

(macro-micro)

integration

Paulys (1983) and strain

attempt

(macro-level),

in criminology

and

three levels (and even a fourth addressed simultaneously integration 305). (See also

in

&

social learn-ing,

is the goal, then

global level)

all

(Paternoster

& Bachman

2001, p.

Muschert et al 2013,

multi-level integrated application to school violence). As Henry and Bracy (2012) explicit awareness that occur, it

point out, without an

macro-micro level interactions

over

ef-fects

historical

multi-level application Benbenishty

&

can be inte-grated,

as we mentioned above,

Einstadter

16 different integrated or

more discipline-based

theories, the most popular being: sociallearning and social control and

bob from

macro)

and

theory

(micro),

conflict

one integrated

followed

(macro).

went even further

to theory in

by strain Hunter

and

identifying

theories. Thus,

one-sided interpretations

we

our failure

of reality,

21 in-tegrated

now no longer to transcend

but scamper from

theory to another in an attempt to tran-scend

the transcenders

(Einstadter

and

Henry 2006

pp. 33031).

Finally,

need to be

what has been called mul-tilevel

Henry 2009; and

and their

or

waystheories

Henry (2006) identify

theories. Intuitively,

it seems that if comprehensiveness

lifecourse,

theories, each drawing on two

or holistic

Marxist, conflict,

with subculture,

and social control (micro-level)

Colvin

as the

the 2006 edition of CriminologicalTheory,

Dantzker (2002)

integrate

is

to explain the

there are manycombination orintegrated packages. In

An example of such cross-level

to combine

ofchronosystem

theories in the field,

(meso

theories

such

the con-nection

and because if the number of diff erent disciplin-ary-based

(micro)

as in power-control

& Gillis 1987)?

should integrative

across analytical levels?

time,

which the

macro-systems,

of changes in the relationships

ra-tional

beintegrated; and finally, should different

in

2005).

that operate at one level

macro-leveltheories beintegrated such as Marxismand theory

meso-, and

Because of the diff erent

choice, with biological and psychological causes?

institutions

micro-,

periods (For an example of this

theorists

Similarly, should theories at the meso-leveladdressing the relationships

development

ecological

is used to comprehend

as well asthe concept dynamic

(1979)

to school violence see Hong et al, 2013;

rais-es

of analysis, such as micro-, for example integrating

of childhood

between

their

and context

whether integrative

Bronfenbrenners

ofexosystem

over

processes

& Henry 2006, p. 319).This

question

should combine

organizational

so-cial

as in

systems theory

levels to be

(2) kinds of organization,

agency, and their

(macro)

concept

concept

(Liska

human agency, and their interactive

processes (micro); collective

across

integration

multi-level integration is adopted, then how do

the levels relate to each other and do we need a bridg-ing

meso-, or macro-levels of

analysis, or whether these theories

281

a critical

as

Henry and

question

for

Bracy (2012)

those

favoring

point

theory is how to assess the relative contribution theoretical

explanation

to the totality

out,

integrative of each

of an integrated

explanation of crime. In explaining a particular crime or criminal

behavior, whatis the relative explanatory

strength of eachtheory, at eachlevel, to the overall inte-grated explanation, and doesthat change for diff erent

might be seductive to believe that an integra-tion

of a range of theories is adequate, without real-izing crimes, or different crime types, or different contexts? that

macro-level theories

have been omitted.

example, the 16 diff erent integrated by Lanier micro-level they

and

theories

draw on

integration has typically cross-level

Henry (2010, in

greater

of discipline-based

theories identified

pp. 38589) numbers

macro-level theories

For

(33%).

draw (66%)

on

than

Put simply,

theories in criminology

been biased toward same-level rather than analyses.

Indeed,

Agnew acknowledges most

merit, explaining crime

(Agnew

much is explained the

a portion

of the

2011, p. 191).The and to

theories variation

have some of some

key question is how

what extent

does each explain

phenomenon?

Related to this, if an eff ective policy is developed it would seem that the components be included

of the policy should

to the extent that they address the strengt

282

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

list of elements rather than oneintegrated

of causal explanations. If this varies across crimes,

Whatis problematic about this is the relativity of the

populations and contexts, that presents challenges un-less policies are adapted some integrative

and

theorists

multi-level integrational

micro-and

but then

have distal

Paradoxically, meso-levels,

this

and

or side-step

influence

definition,

and its failure

Determining

process.

politics of a legal process, albeit international. condemnation

factors, from

assessment depending is their social context, to

historical

period.

AGNEWS

UNIFIED

CRIMINOLOGY

by so

of harm, to per-ception

on whois the perceiver and what and spatial location

Finally, acts determined mediated political

hardly

addresses the

or

state,

or

many

is reflected in its changing

cultural

are part of a power

the

mediated

mass media to knowledge

criminology

of these challenges

harm is anchored to the

can be

of loss; its relativity

to the

integration?

by

political

macro-level.

the

to define crime other than

variable Public

(Hong

gives priority

abandons

some

diff erenti-ate

have proximate

So, how far does Agnews recent unified overcome

Indeed,

what appears to be a

theories that

and those that

et al. 2013).

adopt approach

between constitutive influence

multi-variegated.

definition.

omitted

because of the interests

by corporations

from

of those

by the state

process, which

harms created

those

and

criminalization

with lobbying

power

overthat process. Such an integrated

Agnew argues that recent developments in science to assessthe relative contribution that

underlying

criminologists

have not

while all underlying

empirical

support,

underlying

assumptions

only captures

of providing

resolution

...

a complete

but that ...

are diff erent and

that

to each of the

each assumption

Each theory

explanation

of crime

(Agnew

many theories these can-not

diff erences in underlying

resolved. It is toward just such a

Agnews

reducing a person from

work is directed.

socially definition

integration

erent

by the state. not

As he acknowledges,

much, further

statement

in

than

his pyramid

far as our own prism 2001),

this goes a little,

Hagans (1977; of crime,

of crime (Henry

1985)

and

original

& Lanier 1998;

with the exception that it draws on international

law to define blameworthy

harm.

with Agnews restatement

of

crime

all we have

Hagan is an end-to-end

do not diminish

stringing and

definition

together to

either,

because of

process.The

an integrated

point needs

elements

become

is

of

transcendent

next dimension tackled by Agnewis whether (or

for

that

matter

other

action)

is

determined

byforces or voluntarily chosen by active human agents. This

is

a version

of

the

classic

free

will

debates, applied to crime. recent research that fully

behaviors

free

choice but

to somewhat theorists

research

does not

but suggests ranging

agentic

say, human

have limited

or

deter-minism

Agnew argues that

along a continuum,

what Agnew calls bounded although

versus

does not settle this issue fall

determined

rational

fully However, asfar as ad-dressing

the issue of what is to be integrated,

criminologies

inclusive.

but

not quite as

system. The

one over another

definitions

who

deprivations

justice

of the political

out that

go beyond simply

of crime and in doing so he arrives at an inte-grated The Crimes are acts that: (1) cause blameworthy harm; (2)

waysthat

privilege

structure

here is to point

agencies

others, including the criminal

in

but nor do they

diff

by corporations

and state

mainstream and critical

hereby integrated,

Agnews first task is to review and integrate defini-tions and

are condemned by the public and (3) are sanctioned

over

through of

the current

crimes

by governments

power

reduces a per-son,

But such an integrated

also includes suite

exercise

to

murder that

and biologically).

and crimes

other

definition of crime that contains three elements.

what they were) or crimes of

violence (such as rape or

administered or per-spective

but falls far short

are contradictory,

unless the

are first

that

they

Moreover, since

make assumptions

assumptions

He points have some

has some support

pp. 19394).

be integrated

done this.

is some truth

part of the truth

typically

2011,

there

he notes

assumptions

even though

often oppositional,

through theft, force or deception (economically

of each

assumptions, though

out that

takes account of

both street crimes, where property is taken from an-other makeit easierfor crimi-nologists

and social science knowledge theorys

definition

(p. 195).

As

agents are not

bounded

agency.

from

rationality,

Agnew says that

prove the

existence

o

CONCLUSION

agency it shows that, humans exercise greater agency

by the exercise of control under the guise of producing

whenthey: (a) are motivatedto alter their behavior, (b)

stability.

believe they can produce change, (c) have the traits and

is how some exercising

Whatthis integration

resources to exercise agency ... and (d) are in environ-ments creatively that provide

have weak or countervailing

numerous

encourage

agency

opportunities (Agnew

harm

constraints,

for

agency

2011, p. 195).

and

Moreover,

he says the exercise of agency is subject to guidance and influence be

and that we

more unpredictable

involve

crime

agency

(Agnew

somewhat

when

conditions

favor

2011, p. 195).

tautological

is the very definition be morelikely

would expect

and somewhat

behavior to

more likely the

to

exercise

Apart from

this

of

and

does it explain control

limit

others

impact

producing.

positions. and

in

which some

we know in

produce

mono-theoretical

what pro-portions,

negative outcomes,

However, we will have raised serious

begsthe question of causality. If agency is morelikely

a criminal justice system that,

when there is

holds individuals

questions

about

with a few exceptions,

asthough they are fully accountable,

and belief that change can occur, and that this is facili-tated even whenthe conditions by resources, then what explains the

systems

we will not only be unable to prevent such outcomes.

of agency: acting freely is stated to

occur when there is less constraint, it also

make behavioral change

and

are themselves

an advance over

But until

what kinds

nor

agency and determinism

there is a continuum

of both are present is certainly

being

waysthat

of constraint

and influence

Integrating

do so

humanity;

excesses, and yet other

guidance

and recognizing

freely

and others do so in

negatively

how some conditions

of constraint, harm

doesnt help us explain

agency relatively

and positively,

others

in that the evidence for agency

motivation to

283

werecontributing factors. Yet

we do not, except is some restorative justice processes,

motivation

and belief, and are those subject to internal or external

ensurethat the producers and systems that contributed

forces, and if so, how

to

controls

or confusion

resources to

much agency is left? If lack about controls

and availability

of

causes

of action, so again, how free is the agency to act, and how

muchis a part of the overall equation?

of influence

or the

absence

thereof,

person seen to be acting agentically accountable

for his or her actions?

be held fully

accountable,

does not leave agency free from However, an even

can

of the

be held

definition

here

of conditions.

part of this agency

are

also

held

accountable.

to the issue of human previous

discussion

is

nature (though

embodied

Agnew points out that research supports humans

are not discretely

by

this)

but are consti-tuted and

(2) social concern for others, especially those

members of an in-group, protect,

classifiable

in

the view that

more or less degrees of: (1) self-interest

rationality, a

Clearly they cannot

a variety

more disturbing

how

and thus

since the

some

Moreover,

from the policy perspective, if agency is subject to this amount

behaviors

In turning

of

make change are factors, then the presence

or absence of these can be seen as contributing

the

cooperate

with whom they empathize,

and engage in reciprocal

activities

mutual support, and (3) capacity for social learning: So people

show

evidence

of social

and social learning--with varying

concern,

the strength

across individuals

and social

self-interest

of these traits circumstances

versus determinism picture is that the very conditions

(Agnew

2011, p. 196). Along with other integrative

that result in highest agency are the same ones that

criminologists

produce the highest levels of creativity, innovation

human nature suggesting that all theories of crime are

Agnew holds a more complex view of

and art; they are the hallmarks of think tanks, and the

relevant, including those that focus on the constraints

substance of positive

to

being even

deviance. Indeed, rather than

morelikely to produce crime, they are aslikely, or morelikely to be expressions

that

crime

and

on the

criminologists

for

crime

...

need to pay much attention

factors,

of the very essence of

motivations

since the underlying

[and]

to bio-psychological

traits

that

cause crime vary across individuals

for reasons that are

and determinacy, then, is that it assumes agency acting

in part biologically

2011, p. 196).This

freely is

seems to

humanity. The

dangerous

and control

with this integration

and

and influence

and reduced of the

problem

deviance.

worst atrocities

harmful,

and that

of agency

constraint

produces conformity,

stabil-ity

However, as we know, some

of humanity

have been produced

based (Agnew,

privilege some components

least because there is no explanation concepts are linked

over others, of the

not

ways that

and no analysis of causal type or di-rection,

nor a recognition

that

biology (or

psychology

284

CRIME

AND

BEHAVIOR

does not stand separately from the macro-levels within recognizes

more meso-and

which it is enmeshed.

these levels

aff ect or impact

an interactive

dialogical

rather than a dialectical

coproduction.

and psychological structure

of the culture and

of a society, and if so why do societies

very diff erent rates and kinds of crimes? biology

and

psychology

kind of group,

characterize

social

concern

social

circumstances also

refer

social that

to

how

aff ect

foster these

of the

them

patterns

societies

condemnation beyond

a

of

vary (Agnew based

on

accentuated

by conflict

neglected kinds

this

are

interrelated

a

common

violence

that

harms

and

of conflict (Agnew

crimes

conflict

are

gener-ally

and oppressed,

might reduce crime

2011, p. 197).

Whatis

here is not just the harm produced

of conflict

and

and nature of consensus and

among oppressors

how

crime,

and

and that Group

certain types

ways

aff ect

to recognize

and

theft

view

2011 p. 197) there is an assump-tion,

research,

increases crime although

consensus

personal

to the and

core

that the extent

conflict

what an integrative

Whileit is important

have

among the oppressed

crime,

elements

us to consider

When Agnew

pay attention

interest

have

leads

of society looks like. that

kind of culture

way of life?

should

and

part, a product

organizations,

a peoples

This

Canindividual

and even the discursive

says criminologists

must

be, in

place in

and social structure, that

or even

For example, are the biological

traits independent

production to be aless harmful species.

Agnew

one another,

but not that they are or can be mutually constitutive, implying

reconstitute our social, cultural, biological and psycho-logical

such as discrimination,

by some

that

Agnew

acknowledges needs more research, but research on the

ways consensus imbued

with power produce

with each other and coproduce the very human agents

harms, and the waysthat conflict can be productively

whose

healthy in reducing power differentials and balancing

behavior

becomes

manifest

as

individuals

identities and human subjects in the total social matrix. An integrative relationship,

theorist

want to

know the

Gregg Barak (2003; eff

ects

at

erent

interests

would want, in the words of

numerous

harms of repression

levels

of

the

structure

over the life course and over time.

and

For example,

Barak points

out that in spite

societal levels, to focus

across a range of

most analyses are un-reflexive,

much, if any reflection these fragmented

form

tending

of violence,

on the other forms.

and isolated

without

is this

maylink

various forms of violence together

(Barak

simplistic),

very subjects it often in

So it is not enough to say

but rather

is bad (not that to

examine

the

Agnew distribu-tion

of power in a society and to assess what harms are of power, both those

subject to it and those expressing it, which Agnew Agnew then

attempts

macro-and

to integrate

with theories

that it is important of

which is a point

makes.

consensus in society

the workings of a given form of violence without try-ing to understand the common threads or roots that

the globe.

created by diff erent distributions

He argues

analyses seek to explain

of the

to produce

as we have seen too

consensus is good and conflict

of clear evidence that

interrelated

on one particular

regimes around

of a chaos of

in its absence, is likely

claims to be protecting, in-teractive

in his analysis of pathways to violence and non-violence

violence is cumulatively

by the fear

competing

2006) to know the reciprocal diff

power hierarchy, legitimated

but to

not just of these elements to crime,

each other over time. They

culture

would

opposing interests. A consensus about the value of a

the conflict

or

of causation recog-nizing

to examine not only a range

micro-causes,

but also the

relationship

between these causes,thereby providing a better sense

2003, p. 39). Hearguesthat pathways to violence (and

of whythey vary and how they work together to cause

nonviolence) rangeacross the spheres ofinterpersonal,

crime (Agnew 2011, p. 162). Hestates that

institutional

and

the domains these

structural

of family, subculture

pathways are

and inversely criminology

cumulative,

related

(Barak

then requires

or even interactive

the interrelated constituted

relations

process;

complexity

as human

as

well

and culture

across

2003, p. 169).

requires

of the

us to

multiple

Unifying additive examine

ways weare

agents and to explore

conflict

theory tends to focus on the larger social envi-ronmental causes, it often neglects individual

and that

mutually reinforcing,

more than a simple it

as

ways to

whereas

mechanisms.

including

contrast

or micro-level

mainstream

theories,

those rooted in a consensus perspective focus

on individual-level impacted

In

causes, neglecting the waysthese are

by the wider social environmental

says since integrative

theory

causes.

draws on both

He

conflic

CONCLUSION

and consensus perspectives,it provides a good vehicle for cross-level integration Importantly,

the

but that

an integrative

applicability

that

causes

of the causes sometimes

in this

the diff

of crime

extent erence

that are

and has

some

... societies

of consensus/conflict. eff

most applicable

depends on

ect

on

(Agnew

the

dif-fer

causes

of

more or less advantaged affiliation,

and vary

across types

depending

He says integrated

What is

needs to

pay

more attention to the role of context in facilitating

or

mitigating crime causation and how this varies across

in

this

two

been in

fails

raised them.

theory needs to recognize that not all causes of crime

responsible

for

increase its likelihood, since crime is only one response and,

indeed,

the

motives

for

such

action

may be not to harm others as much as reduce their pain, frustration,

or oppression: The

shaped or conditioned theory

should

general criminology only

the

value

also

the

contribution

field.

describe those factors that condition (Agnew

2011, p.

Ironically,

what in

what

ways,

and

at

as the research

on crime,

human agents and

society is subject to the assumptions reality

about

whether so-cial

can be measured, raises questions about the

of its socially

this as a problem techniques

constructed

of designing

nature.

Agnew sees

more eff ective

to take account

overall

off enders, for

of both objective and

crime is produced and the eff ectiveness of prevention of tapping

Importantly,

significant

not only as objective disciplinary based knowledge by in organized

and less organized knowledge

produced

in communities, measures. (See

professional

by practitioners

other

Agnews

integration,

but to

the

us precisely

how

much

con-tribution

makes to

kinds

the

of crimes

combination

or

varies

may be less

symbolic

impact

advocates

unifying raises

integrationalists

he does not answer for

not

be integrated,

or peoples, the

unifying

has

that

made the

turn.

need for

how they

but also spon-taneousunique

or

ways this

than

criminol-ogy,

contribution,

what

entities

field

in

criminology

level,

single-theory

he lays

may be answered,

and accessible

criminology many of the

have raised,

them,

restates same

and

although

out a research and

ques-tions

agenda

does all this

in

a

way.

and subjective

and professionals REFERENCES

in order to reduce the bias of existing Henry 2012 on moving from interdis-ciplinary

to transdisciplinary in criminology).

academia,

the

On balance, the

what

agencies,

to

integrative

he recognizes the value

multiple knowledge producers, seeing these

criminologists

and in

diff erent

rather

recognizing

should

of

core

theorist

Toward

explanation

explanation

measure-ment one of its leading

subjective features of reality, since both affect the way and intervention.

causal

on

the but

does not tell

what

each theoretical

Insofar

extent

Agnew

he

literature

theories

theory,

has

because

work,

mainstream

propositions

This

address

major shift

and

assump-tions

mainstream

by critical

that

concepts

163).

a

of the

not

central

he

major innova-tion

previous

as a

strain

represents

response taken is

by a range of factors. . [I]ntegra-tive

the responses to the causes of crime

one of the

own

a

previous

Nonetheless,

or revised

core

However,

the

by this

is that

integration.

does

far

criminological

and represents

Agnew

How

credit

using the

review

theory

perspec-tives

201).

mainstream

thinking.

one

to interpretation.

great

theoretical

to systematically

side-steps

causes

for before

and

(p.

open

theories,

criminological

questions

is

Agnews

is

of crime,

and incorporates

relevance

endeavor

critical

done

integrative

of crimes

approaches,

and

criminology

theory

major theories

have some

as a vehicle not

integrated

a unified

new, and is to

diff erent societies. Heemphasizes too, that integrative

to these

for

of all

all

he succeeds

on the type

theory

Agnews

a broad range

because

marries

across

of crime.

examines

key arguments

theories

he says causes diff er across groups, particularly

goal of

the

crime

2011, pp. 162163).

groups,

the

that

And

Indeed,

of group

Overall,

to lay the foundation

which people being

being explained nature

of

approach suggests that

the nature of society, the groups to and the type

CONCLUSION

(Agnew 2011, p. 162).

Agnew also recognizes

do not necessarily apply to all people and all types crime,

285

producers

of knowledge

Agnew,

R. (2011).

assumptions New York

Toward

a unified

about crime, University

criminology:

people and society.

Press

Integrating

New York:

286

CRIME

Akers,

AND

BEHAVIOR

R. (1994).

evaluation Athens,

L.

H. (1992).

criminals. Barak,

&

UK:

Introduction, Roxbury.

of

University

(1998a).

G.(1998b).

theories: Angeles:

creation

Champaign:

Aldershot,

Los

The

(Ed.).

G.

Barak,

Criminological

and application.

dangerous

Farnworth,

violent

of Illinois

criminology.

criminologies.

G. (2003).

Violence and

Boston:

Applying

theory

of violence

and

Mark

nonviolence:

integrative and

theory:

A recip-rocal

336-346).

In

Stuart

essential crimi-nology

Boulder,

CO:

Westview

Barak,

G. (2009).

New

York:

gender.

In

and

Culture,

S.

and

criminals

Oxford

Bernard,

&

and

Roxbury

T. J.,

crime

and

Chicago:

In

(Eds.), Los

its

M. Tonry

University

of

Chicago

U. (1979). The

Harvard M. (2000).

and coercion: New

Cambridge,

An integrative Palgrave

M. & Pauly, J. (1983).

Toward

an integrated

A

critique

production.

American

theory

Journal

&

Henry,

An analysis

Boulder,

CO:

Rowman

D., Agerton, theoretical

Journal

of

S. (1995.

of its

S.,

2006).

underlying

of Sociology,

and

Research on

New

Littlefield.

& Canter,

perspective

R. (1979).

Crime

and

An

inte-grated

behavior.

Delinquency,

New Brunswick,

Class

theory Journal

of of

The

in

gender Sociology

social

approach

of

Primary

to

develop-ment

delinquency

Prevention,

violence

problem

in

beyond

need

American

of

6(2),

Columbine:

an interdisciplin-ary

Behavioral

Expanding and

Scientist,

S.

Journal 4(1):

52(9),

for

Case

S.

Boulder,

In

Studies

& Lanier,

T. (1979).

of Research in

Philosophical

prism

definition

of crime: of crime.

Roman

Integrative

to the complex A. Repko, in

CA:

M. (eds.). and

Crime and

problem

in of

& R. Szostak Research

(pp.

Sage.

(2001).

What is crime?

Littlefield.

D. (1996)

Separate

theory

social

W. Newell

Interdisciplinary Oaks,

Beyond postmodernism. Hirschi,

of

crimino-logical

and

The

N. L. (2012).

Henry, S. & Milovanovic.

16,

place

integrative

an integrated

Thousand

CO:

on theoriz-ing The

15: 609-27.

applied

violence

in

ofTheoretical

M. (1998).

S. & Bracy,

criminology

justice?

62-89.

& Lanier,

Quarterly

259-282).

our thinking

criminal

perspectives

Criminology Henry,

Henry,

on delinquent

McGraw-Hill.

R. Gillis. (1987).

American

S. (2012).

(eds.)

Criminological

assumptions.

&A.

criminology

school W.J.,

theory:

J.

School

evolutionary

Henry, of de-linquency

513551.

Einstadter,

York:

An integrated

S. (2009).

Justice

of criminology:

structural-Marxist

Toronto:

Press.

Journal

Arguments

Press.

Colvin,

York:

Crime, criminal

criminology.

J. D., & Weis, J. G. (1985).

analysis.

develop-ment:

York:

New

pleasures.

A power-control

theory.

criminality.

New

delinquency.

Press.

Crime

of chronic

control.

Simpson,

A complex

Henry,

design.

92109).

12461265.

Press.

and

(pp.

crimi-nology.

7397.

and

20, pp. 301348).

ecology of human

by nature

University

Crime

in

(Eds.), The

Press.

University

prevention.

integra-tion

(Ed.),

93100).

perspectives

disreputable

Structural

model:

Angeles:

(pp.

deviance

92:788816.

Hawkins,

Explaining

335346).

of research (Vol.

Experiments

89,

and

of

New York.

Modern criminology:

household:

criminology.

& Snipes, J. B. (1996). Theoretical

Bronfenbrenner,

Hagan, J.,

study

Ryerson.

Hagan, J. (1989).

Henry,

A review

theory

in

Bachman

school

Press.

theories

R.

School violence

family,

University

(pp.

criminology.

justice:

Colvin,

A. (2005).

Press.

in

MA:

R.

Integrating

R. Paternoster

approach.

model

& A. Liska

W.J. Einstadter

reader

The

Hagan, J. (1985). behavior

the

prospects

of

&

University

McGraw-Hill

in

Biological Henry

theory

New York

the

neighborhood,

New York: T. J. (2001).

An integrated

Littlefield.

R., & Astor,

context:

Bernard,

Criminology:

Rowman

Benbenishty,

327.

D. (1998).

versus

M. D. Krohn,

and

University

NJ: Rutgers

Press.

Elliott,

Problems

State

In

integration

integration

Hagan, J. (1977).

nonviolence.

M. Lanier (eds). The

reader, (pp.

Pathways to

S. F.

crime:

Albany:

Allyn

Oaks, CA: Sage.

G. (2006).

Henry

in

Messner,

criminology

understanding. Thousand Barak,

Theory

In

Theoretical

Fishbein,

Ashgate. Integrating

Bacon.

Barak,

(Eds.), and

Press.

Integrated

M. (1989).

building.

Constitutive

London:

criminol-ogy:

Sage.

and equal is better. Delinquency,

16, 3438

Journal

CONCLUSION

Hirschi,

T. (1989).

theory.

In

(Eds.),

Exploring

S. F.

Theoretical

and

crime

New

Hong, J.

3749).

In

G.

(Eds.).

Confronting

Boulder, R.

Causes and

study

in the study State

CO:

Theoretical

Muftic,

University

deviance

L.

&

for and

of

theoretical

crime.

New York

integration

In

S. F.

in

Messner,

M.

119).

Albany:

State

An

unexplored

M. B. (2004).

Prentice

and crime: of

theoretical

theoretical frontier.

integra-tion: Journal

&

school

Peguero, violence:

CO:

Lynne

Boulder,

Roxbury. Toward Journal

ed.). Tittle,

an inte-gration of Criminal

research:

Sociology:

Process and

A multi-paradigm

1517.

Why crime?

The

behavior. essential

An integrated

Upper

Saddle

integrative

In

systems River,

NJ:

systems theory

S. Henry

criminology

Westview

M. B.,

Durham,

Explaining

Hall.

CO:

Robinson,

(2001).

116150.

behavior.

M. B. (2006).

The

NC:

K. (2009).

Carolina

D. J. (1996).

of deviance.

M. M. Lanier

(pp.

319335).

Why crime?

criminal

Academic

Oxford Control Boulder,

of

delinquency:

of delinquent University

behavior

An (3rd

Press.

balance: CO:

An in-terdisciplinary

behavior.

Press.

Theories

of explanations

New York:

&

reader

Press.

& Beaver,

C. R. (1995).

theory Macro-micro

76(1),

Sociologist,

of antisocial

examination

(1989).

University

R.(Eds.).

Interdisciplinary

American

Shoemaker,

in the study ofdeviance

to

approach to explaining

Albany:

A. E. (Eds.)

L.,

Boulder,

theories.

August).

integration

Press.

R. (2009).

theory

(Eds.),

Press.

M. D. & Liska,

prospects.

science.

Pearson

S. F. (1989).

1(2),

Oaks, CA: Sage.

G. (1975,

of anti-social Messner,

of deviance and crime (pp.

and

York

Press.

eff ect.

N.,

N. A. (1985).

Criminology,

theory. Thousand

Essential crimi-nology. Robinson,

2010).

Bracy,

Los Angeles:

Weiner,

A. F. (2008).

Robinson,

and its origins.

& A. E. Liska (Eds.), Theoretical

integration

Problems

D.,

requisites

University

Repko,

ap-proach.

Westview. M.

Messner, S. F., Krohn,

New

delinquency

Criminology,

Responding

of criminological

and

NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Cambridge

Krohn,

of

D. Krohn,

(2013).

Pearson, F. S., &

Saddle

An interdisciplinary

S.,

the columbine

and crime.

Law and

Upper

Henry,

R., & Bachman,

criminals

Ritzer,

M. M., & Henry, S. (2004;

and

W.,

A. (Eds.).

139-156).

Crime

Philosophical

Rienner.

&

to school

eff ect (pp.

consequences.

Cliff s,

Strategies

G.

Paternoster,

Hall.

Juvenile

Boulder,

the

Responding

M. L. (2002).

Englewood

E.,

& Allen-Meares,

and interven-tion.

Rienner.

R. E. (1979).

A.

A.

of

N. L. Bracy,

Columbine

Criminology:

UK:

C. J.

Henry,

(2013). the

NJ: Prentice

Cambridge,

Liska,

S.

Dantzker,

C. R. (1990).

Lanier,

Muschert,

of deviance University

prevention

CO: Lynne

D., &

criminality:

Johnson,

State

D. L., Ferguson, Violence

W. Muschert,

A. A. Peguero, violence:

Jeff rey,

Albany:

study

and

3371.

Confronting

P. (2013).

River,

the

& A. E. Liska

Press.

S., Espelage,

Hunter,

in

of Theoretical

to integrated

M. D. Krohn,

integration

(pp.

York

alternatives

Messner,

287

Toward

Westview

a general

CREDITS

Derek

B. Cornish

Essential

and

Copyright

2006

Marie Skubak

Tillyer

A Reference

and John

Handbook,

Gina

W.

Clark,

Reference

H. Sutherland of

Donald Ronald

Akers

and

and

with

Donald

2009

in

Crime,

Miller,

the

21st

pp. 271278.

Criminology:

Copyright

2009

by

A Reference Handbook, by

Sage Publications.

Public

Domain.

Century

Criminology:

Copyright

A

2009

by

permission.

R. Cressey, A Theory

ed. Jean

Wesley

McGloin.

G. Jennings,

of

Diff erential

Copyright

1955

Handbook,

Association, by

Estate

of

S. Agnew,

Strain

Mitchell

Reprinted

& Francis

Gottfredson,

21st

Miller, pp. 323331.

Century

Copyright

Self-Control

pp.

Criminological

8196.

Theory,

Explaining

Theory,

Copyright

ed.

2000

Raymond by

Oxford

with permission. Theory,

Miller,

pp.

21st Century 312322.

Criminology:

Copyright

A Reference

2009

by

Sage

with permission.

Theories,

Miller,

Mitchell

Theory,

pp.

21st 332339.

Century

Criminology:

Copyright

2009

A Reference by

Sage

Handbook, Publications.

with permission.

Henry, Critical

Richard

Mitchell

Reprinted

Learning

with permission.

Contemporary

Disorganization

ed. J.

Publications.

R.

Bachman,

Reprinted

Walker, Social

Reprinted

Essays in

Ronet

Press.

Social

Handbook, ed. J.

Michael

Crime:

and

University

Stuart

21st Century

Criminology:

Copyright

of

Reprinted and

A Reference

Paternoster

J.

Man.

Mitchell

and

Hirschi

Criminals

ed.

with permission.

Activities,

Copyright

Theories

2009 by Sage Publications.

Robert

The

pp. 1829.

permission.

ed. J.

Criminology,

Criminology:

Jeff rey

Perspective,

M. Lanier,

R. Cressey.

L.

Travis

Reprinted

21st Century

Criminal

Psychological

Handbook,

Principles

Choice Mark

Miller, pp. 279287.

pp. 184201.

The

Sage Publications. Edwin

with

and

permission.

Lombroso-Ferrero,

John

Group.

Mitchell

Theory,

Miller,

with

Rational

Henry

E. Eck, Routine

Reprinted

Mitchell

Reprinted

Books

ed. J.

D. Crews, Biological

ed. J.

V. Clarke, The

Reader, ed. Stuart by Perseus

Sage Publications. Angela

Ronald

Criminology

Criminology:

Wright and J. Group

LLC.

Mitchell Reprinted

An

Overview,

Miller, pp. 347351.

Encyclopedia Copyright

of

Criminology, 2005

ed.

by Taylor

with permission.

28

290

CRIME

Stuart

AND

BEHAVIOR

Critical

Henry,

Encyclopedia J.

Mitchell

by

of

Criminology:

Criminology,

Miller,

Taylor

&

pp.

ed.

An Richard

347351.

Francis

Copyright

Group

LLC.

Jeff

Overview,

Miller,

2005

Reprinted

J.

Lynch

in

and

Contemporary

Bachman

and

Raymond 2000

Reprinted

pp.

ed.

Oxford

pp.

Essays

no. 2.

Ronet

Review.

Press.

and

Michael

Criminology,

ed.

Milovanovic,

Richard

LLC.

ed. J. 2009

Criminology,

Miller, pp. 12451249. Group

Handbook,

LLC.

by Elsevier

A.

Encyclopedia

Wright

Copyright Reprinted

and J.

with

permission.

&

Criminology

Sage

Through

Review, vol.

by

with

permission.

Western

12,

Criminology Provided

by

reserved.

John

Fuller,

Criminology,

Science and

Braithwaite

Justice, 6384.

Mitchell

2005 by Taylor

by

Criminology

and

Bo

Corrections,

Restorative Justice, pp. 2942.

and of

Mitchell

Lozoff

Peacemaking

Copyright

Technology.

,

2001

Reprinted

with

permission.

John Postmodern

Century

permission.

2011

All rights

Braswell,

Mitchell Sage

Western

Reprinted

and

by

with

21st ed. J. 2009

Critical

Copyright

Century

with permission.

D.

Constitutive

21st

Copyright

Reprinted

Reprinted

ProQuest

267286.

University

Handbook,

Copyright

Advancing

Peacemaking

A Reference

Henry

Francis

Theory,

Criminology,

245252.

Publications.

and

Crime:

219227.

Anthropology,

Radical

and

Paternoster,

by

Feminist

Criminology:

Stuart

Stretesky,

with permission.

Sharp,

Miller,

B.

Criminals

Criminological

Copyright

Sue

Paul

Explaining

Criminology,

A Reference

pp.

Avi Brisman,

Criminology,

Cultural

Publications.

with

permission.

Michael

Ferrell, Criminology:

Wright and

and

Restorative ed.

Declan Justice,

Gordon

Copyright

Technology.

Roche,

Reprinted

Restorative

Bazemore 2001

Responsibility

by

and

Elsevier

with permission

Community

Mara Schiff , pp. Science

and