Theories of Crime Causation 3

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 57

Chapter 1

Introduction to Criminological Theory

Terms
1. Causality. A concept more applicable to the hard sciences. Does the appearance of X cause
effect Y? In a perfect relationship, the appearance of X would always cause the effect Y each and
every time the relationship is seen.
2. Empirical Validity. This is the most important factor in evaluating a theory, and means that
the theory has been supported by research evidence.
3. Ideology. A belief system and a set of core values or philosophy. In a pure sense, an
ideology states or explains how things should be, and a theory explains how things actually are.
4. Internal Logical Consistency. A theory needs to be presented in a logical manner and to
have clearly stated propositions that agree with or do not contradict one another. Restated, does
the theory make logical and consistent sense?
5. Macro. Macro theories of criminal behavior explain the “big picture” of crime—crime across
the world or across a society. They attempt to answer why there are variations in group rates of
crime. Other authors have used the terms “epidemiology” or social structural theories.
6. Micro. Micro theories of criminal behavior focus on a small group of offenders or on an
individual crime. They attempt to answer why some individuals are more likely than others to
commit crime. Other authors have used the terms “individual conduct” or processual theories.
7. Necessary Condition. This means that X must be present to produce effect Y. If X is
not present, Y will not occur.
8. Parsimony. This refers to how many propositions, steps, or statements are involved. How
simple is the theory?
9. Policy Implications. If the theory is empirically valid, what solutions are suggested.
10.Probabilistic Causality. A concept more applicable to the social sciences. X is more or
less likely to cause effect Y. Restated, X tends to cause Y.
11.Scope. Refers to how much or how many types of crime or deviance the theory covers.
12.Soft Determinism. The view that human behavior is not wholly caused, determined, or
predictable by any set of biological, psychological, or sociological forces but that these interact
with exercise of choice and will by individuals. Therefore, explaining or predicting human
behavior is difficult.
13.Sufficient Condition. Each time X is present, effect Y will always occur.
14.Tautology. Circular reasoning. If a theory states that greed causes people to commit crime,
and then says we know Jon is greedy because he committed a crime, it becomes impossible to
subject the theory to the scientific process. In this case, you would find that greed has been
defined as someone who commits criminal acts. The circle of the reasoning never stops.
15.Testability. To be valid and ultimately useful, a theory must be able to be subjected to
scientific research. Theories may be untestable if they are tautological, propose causes that are
not measurable, or are so open-ended that empirical findings can always be reinterpreted to
support the theory.
16.Theory. In simple terms, theory is an explanation of something.
17.Theories of Criminal and Deviant Behavior. Theories in this category attempt to explain
why an individual commits criminal or delinquent acts.
18.Theories of Law and Criminal Justice. Theories in this category attempt to explain how
laws are made, and how the criminal justice system operates as a whole.
19.Usefulness. This refers to the real-world applications that the theory proposes or suggests,
and the ability to implement those applications.

What is a Criminological Theory?


It is a set of interrelated propositions that attempt to describe, explain, and predict a set
of events.

What is the goal of a theory?


To permit the construction of models that allow for a better understanding of criminal
behavior that enhance the development of strategies which allow us to address the problem of
crime.

The Schools of Thought in Criminology

1. Demonological/ Pre-Scientific School


Centers on the idea that crime is a handiwork of evil.

2. Free-Will School
It was developed during the 16th & 17th century with the idea that man commits crime
out of its own free accord.

3. Ecological School (1830)


It posits that social environment affects the behavior of the individual.

4. Classical School
It believes that all person who violated specific law should receive identical punishment
regardless of age, gender and sanity.

5. Positivist/Italian School
It is an application of science; criminal behavior is caused by internal and external
factors.

It presumes that criminal behavior is caused by internal and external factors outside of
the individual's control. Scientific method was introduced and applied to study human behavior.
Positivism can be broken up into three segments which include biological, psychological and
social positivism.

6. Neo-Classical School
This school accepted the fact that crime is committed in accordance with the free will of
man but the act of committing a crime is modified by some causes that finally prevail upon the
person to commit crimes. These causes are: pathology, incompetence, and insanity or any
condition that will make it possible for the person to exercise the free will entirely.

7. Cartographic/Geographical School
It proposes that crime is closely related with geography climate and attitude of the place
8. Typological School
It believes that the criminal belongs to particular type

9. Chicago School
The Chicago School arose in the early twentieth century, through the work of Robert
Ezra Park, Ernest Burgess and other urban sociologists at University of Chicago. In the 1920s,
Park and Burgess identified five concentric zones that often exist as cities grow, including the
"zone in transition" which was identified as most volatile and subject to disorder.

In the 1940s, Henry McKay and Clifford R. Shaw focused on juvenile delinquents, finding
that they were concentrated in the zone of transition. Chicago School sociologists adopted a
social ecology approach to studying cities, and postulated that urban neighborhoods with high
levels of poverty often experience breakdown in the social structure and institutions such as
family and schools.

10. Psychiatric School


This continued theory of Lombroso and gave emphasis on morphological(biological)
traits.

Historical Roots of Theories in Criminology

Demonological Theory

Crime does not evolve from any single source. There can be several reasons behind a
person’s criminal behavior. The theorists in criminology have tried to explain these reasons
through several theories. From Demonology to the Born Criminal theory, several theories have
been advanced in an attempt to explain criminal behavior. However, to grow a better
understanding of crime and deviant behavior, it is important to know these theories. They
provide different perspectives on crime. These theories are important for understanding the
sources of motivation or circumstances which may lead to criminal behavior.

Demonology is one of the earliest theories in criminology. In the ancient times, people
believed that evil spirits or demons entered human body to commit sins. This was the earliest
explanation given regarding crime and criminal behavior. Terms like demons, witches and
windigo were used for people who had turned criminals. The society thought that it happened
due to evil influence. Supernatural powers were considered the best explanation behind crime
and sin. It was believed that a person did not commit crimes of his own free will but under evil
influence.

Still, demonology is not a proper explanation for criminal behavior since instead of
relying on real factors it relies upon unreal and mythical explanations. Several theories have
followed demonology that provide newer and better perspectives on crime. However,
demonology has not still grown totally irrelevant as in many parts of the world people still believe
in the existence of evil spirits. Such people or communities try to explain sinful or criminal
behavior as the wrongdoings of Satan. At that time science and technology had not advanced as
much and therefore everything evil was committed under the influence of demons and satanic
powers. Due to a lack of education, no proper explanation was available for criminal behavior.
Demonology provided generalized explanations that did not provide a suitable explanation for
criminal behavior.

Key Concepts

1. Theories are useful tools that help us to understand and explain the world around us. In
criminology, they help us to understand the workings of the criminal justice system and the
actors in the system.

2. Theories suggest the way things are, not the way things ought to be. They are not inherently
good or bad; however, they can be used for good or bad purposes.

3. A theory can try to explain crime for a large social unit or area (macro), or it can attempt to
explain crime at the individual or smaller unit level (micro).

4. Because we are dealing with human behavior, the social sciences will never be like the hard
sciences. In the hard sciences, the theory of relativity will not change. In the social sciences,
however, we deal with probabilities. The social scientist will say things such as, “A severely
neglected child will probably commit, or tend to commit, delinquent acts.”

5. To be used for maximum effectiveness, theories must make sense (logical consistency),
explain as much crime as possible (scope), and be as concise as possible (parsimony). Most
important, the theory must be true or correct (validity). Having
met these basic goals, the theory must then have some real world applications and policy
implications.

6. Many theories have common traits, but differences among them still exist.
Understanding these differences is key to understanding the often contradictory views of crime
and deviance they purport to explain.

Chapter Review

The goal of criminological theory is to help one gain an understating of crime and
criminal justice. Theories cover the making and the breaking of the law, criminal and deviant
behavior, as well as patterns of criminal activity. Individual theories may be either macro or
micro. Theories can be used to guide policy making, and can be evaluated on a number of
criteria including: clarity, scope, parsimony, testability, practical usefulness, and empirical
validity.
Chapter 2
Deterrence and Rational Choice Theories

Terms
1. Absolute Deterrence. This refers to the amount of crime that has been prevented simply
due to the fact that a formal system is in place so that an individual could be legally punished
for committing a criminal act.
2. Acute Conformists. One of three types of individuals coined by Pogarsky. These
individuals comply with the law because it is the right thing to do.
3. Boot Camps. Programs used in place of incarceration, and based upon a military model of
discipline and order. These programs are designed to have a deterrent effect on young
offenders, but they have generally failed to yield long-term reductions in recidivism.
4. Celerity. One of the three elements of deterrence. Celerity refers to how quickly an individual
is punished after committing a crime.
5. Certainty. One of the three elements of deterrence. Certainty refers to how likely it is that an
individual will be caught and punished for a crime that he or she has committed. Certainty is the
most important of the three elements.
6. Classical Criminology. A school of thought based upon utilitarian notions of free will and
the greatest good for the greatest number. At its core, classical criminology refers to a belief
that a crime is committed after an individual weighs the pros and cons. The decision to commit
a crime is a rational decision, and is best countered through a deterrence-based system.
7. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED). This refers to a set of
practices designed to make potential criminal targets less attractive. The belief that crime is a
rational act is used to make a potential target less attractive to a criminal, and thus not a
“rational” target.
8. Deterrable Offenders. One of three types of individuals coined by Pogarsky. This is the
only group that may be deterred by threat of sanctions.
9. Deterrence Theory. A core principle of classical school and rational choice theories. This
theory states that crime can be controlled through the use of punishments that combine the
proper degrees of certainty, severity, and celerity. Deterrence is a key element in the U.S. justice
system.
10.Expected Utility Principle. Economic theory which states that people will act in a manner
that increases their benefits and reduces their losses. This ties in closely with classical
criminology and, by definition, rational choice theory, where people seek to increase their
pleasure and reduce their pain.
11.Free Will. The belief that humans are rational, and have the ability to make decisions
according to each individual’s own will and purposes. Under this perspective, people can
understand the difference between right and wrong, and can choose to commit criminal acts or
to follow the law. In later chapters, this view will be contrasted with views that claim that crime
is a result of biological, psychological, or social forces beyond an individual’s control.
12.General Deterrence. General deterrence is the doctrine that a community or a society of
people can be deterred from committing a criminal act after having witnessed the punishment of
an individual or individuals for having committed that act.
13.Incorrigible Offenders. One of three types of individuals coined by Pogarsky. These
people are so committed to criminal activity that they cannot be deterred.
14.Perceptual Deterrence. This concept applies to an individual offender, and refers to what
he or she believes the likelihood of arrest to be, and how severe he or she believes the
punishment for a crime will be if caught. The perceptions of the individual are often very
different from the actual reality experienced.
15.Proportionality. Punishment should fit the crime without regard to individual differences.
16.Rational Choice Theory. This is the 1980s formulation of classical criminology. While the
beliefs of rational choice theory can be traced back to eighteenth-century philosopher Cesare
Beccaria, this version adds a new dimension that emphasizes the expanding role of the
economist in criminological thought. The emphasis is placed on the expected reward for
committing a crime, and other associated costs and benefits surrounding criminal activity.
17.Retribution. Making the punishment fit the crime. Also referred to as “an eye for an eye.”
18.Routine Activities Theory. This theory states that for crime to be committed, three
elements must be present: an available target, a motivated offender, and a lack of guardians.
19.Scared Straight. This program began in the 1970s with the belief that taking young
offenders or potential offenders to a prison environment, and exposing them to the realities of
prison life, could prove beneficial in reducing delinquency. Like boot camps, however, Scared
Straight did not produce the expected results.
20.Severity. One of the three elements of deterrence. Severity refers to how harsh the
punishment for a crime will be. In classical criminology, it is important to remember that a
punishment must fit the crime. If a punishment is not severe enough, it will not deter crime. If it
is too severe, it is unjust and can lead to more crime.
21.Shock Incarceration. This approach generally uses a combination of a brief prison sentence
followed by probation. The hope is that a brief exposure to the realities of incarceration will deter
the offender from further criminality.
22.Specific Deterrence. This style of deterrence is used with a specific offender in mind. The
belief is that if an individual is punished for a criminal act, then that individual will be less likely to
violate the law in the future.
23.Thoughtfully Reflective Decision Making (TDRM). This term describes a process of
good decision making where all the relevant information is collected and analyzed, and possible
solutions and alternative solutions are thought about. Reflection on what went right and wrong
is also part of the process.

Classical theory and the rational choice theory

The origins of Classical theory of crime can be found in the works of Cesare Beccaria and
Jeremy Bentham. Cesare Beccaria was an Italian criminologist and Jeremy Bentham was from
England. The basic concept underlying this theory was that the humans did not act according to
God’s will or under the influence of any other supernatural power. They acted as per their own
free will. They acted after having judged the rewards and punishments. Any individual has the
ability to calculate the outcome of his own actions and can consider the pleasure and pain to
result from his activities. Every person can judge his gains and losses before trying to act in a
specific manner. Based on his judgement, a person can avoid the acts that he thinks would result
in a loss.

An important strength of this theory is that it considers both juveniles and insane people
as unable to commit crimes since they cannot rationally calculate the outcomes of their actions.
Our current criminal and juvenile justice system are based on the basic propositions of this
approach. The Rational Choice theory is also somewhat similar to the classical theory in its
approach towards crime. The rational choice theory also stresses upon a rational choice made
after consideration of the rewards and punishments before committing a crime. A major strength
of the rational choice theory is that it emphasizes the use of rational thoughts, scientific laws and
an empirical approach to develop policies for tackling crime. Apart from that, this theory
promotes the tough on crime attitude through the application of rational thought.

Deterrence theory and the Routine activities theory

The Deterrence theory is considered an extension of the classical approach. The focus of
this theory is the link between punishment and behavior at both individual and group levels.
Deterrence can be of two types. It can be specific or general. Specific deterrence is aimed at the
wrongdoer and tries to deter him from crime by punishing him. General deterrence is aimed at
everyone. It deters everyone from crime by punishing the criminal and thus establishing an
example. Still, a major weakness of the deterrence theory has been noted. It is that the theory
does not clearly consider the impact of punishment on people which have not committed but
might be ready to commit crime. In several cases, there are people who are about to commit
crimes but do not weigh the possibility of being punished.

Routine activities theory suggests something different about crime and criminal behavior.
It suggests that crime is a product of people’s daily activities. However, it suggests a number of
factors that can become the motivation behind crime. Living in the company of delinquent peers
or being to places frequently rounded by offenders can motivate anyone to become one of them.
Initially, this theory had been used to explain the changing trends in crime. Its one important
strength is that it has been used to understand and prevent crime.

Personalities

1. Cesare, Marquis Beccaria-Bonesana (1738-1794)


- an Italian philosopher and politician best known for his treatise On Crimes and Punishments
(1764), which condemned torture and the death penalty and was a founding work in the field of
criminology.
- Man is fundamentally a biological organism with intelligence and rationality that control his
behavior.

Essay on Crimes and Punishments


Includes reforms to the criminal justice system which we now take for granted, in particular:
1. the prompt administration of clearly prescribed and consistent punishments,
2. well-publicized laws made by the legislature rather than individual courts or judges,
3. the abolition of torture in prisons and the use of the penal system to deter would-be
offenders, rather than simply punishing those convicted.

The work had a great success in the whole Europe, especially in France and at the court
of Catherine II of Russia. The judiciary reform advocated by Beccaria led to the abolition of death
punishment in the Grand Duchy of Tuscany, the first Italian state taking this measure.
2. Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832)
He was an English jurist, philosopher, and legal and social reformer. He advocated
utilitarianism and fair treatment of animals that influenced the development of liberalism. He
invented the panopticon.

Summary Points of Classical School


The following are the assumptions to Bentham:
1. People have free will to choose how to act and what to do.
2. Deterrence is based upon the ontological notion because a human being is any of the
following:
a. Hedonist- It refers to a person who only seeks pleasure and avoids pain.
b. Rational Calculator- It refers to person’s weighing up the costs (pains) and benefits
(pleasures of the consequences of each of his action) before committing any act.
3. The swifter and certain the punishment, the more effective it is in deterring criminal behavior.
4. Punishment (of sufficient severity) can deter people from committing crime because the cost
(penalties) outweighs benefits and severity of punishment should be proportionate to the crime.

Arguments Against Classical School Theory


1. UNFAIR- Unfair because it treats all men as if they were robots without regard to the
individual differences and the surrounding circumstances when the crime was committed.
2. UNJUST- Unjust because it provides the same punishment whether a criminal is a first time
offender or recidivists.
3. The theory has nature and definition of punishment that is NOT individualized.
4. The Classical thinkers consider only the injury caused not the mental condition of the offender.
Thus the focus is the crime, not the criminal.

Key Concepts

1. Classical criminology was designed to provide a rational, logical, and philosophical alternative
to what was often an abusive, cruel, inhumane, and arbitrary system of justice.

2. The operation of the current criminal justice system relies on the classical criminological
perspective. The Classical School is reflected in both the Declaration of Independence and the
United States Constitution.

3. Classical school theories operate from a perspective of choice. The assumption is that
individuals have the ability to make a rational choice to either follow the law, or to violate it. A
system of punishments is necessary to deter individuals from committing criminal acts.
Committing criminal acts brings a certain amount of pleasure to the individual. To counteract this
pleasure, punishments must be provided that carry with them enough pain to outweigh the
pleasure received by committing a deviant or criminal act.

4. A classical school approach is attractive to many because it is centered on choice. People


choose to commit criminal acts. This perspective will be countered in later chapters by theories
that rely on biology, psychology, and the environment, to name just a few. Choice theory is
attractive to politicians because it puts the blame for the crime problem squarely on the
shoulders of the individual, and not on society as a whole. The theory implies that the criminal
needs to take responsibility and to make better choices.

5. Various programs have been tried around the country using deterrence and choice as primary
elements. Programs such as Scared Straight have attempted to use fear and deterrence to keep
young offenders from committing additional crimes. Boot camps have attempted to use fear,
discipline, and brief incarceration to keep offenders from committing additional crimes. These
types of programs are controversial, and have yielded mixed results at best.

6. While deterrence is a factor in preventing individuals from committing criminal acts, it most
likely is not the deciding factor. Most people will not commit criminal acts because they believe it
is wrong to do so, and because they have been socialized to follow the norms of society.

Chapter Review

Deterrence theory states that if punishment is certain, severe, and swift, then people will
refrain from committing criminal acts. Deterrence theory is at the core of the criminal justice
system, and the basis for most of strict punishments and long prisons sentences. Is deterrence
theory empirically valid, however? That is a difficult question to answer. Studies have found
mixed support for deterrence theory. Modifications like rational choice and routine activity
theory have found mixed support as well.

Notable Individuals

Beccaria, Cesare: (1738–1794) Italian nobleman, prominent in the eighteenth century, wrote
On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

Bentham, Jeremy: (1748–1832) Jurist and philosopher, prominent in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries, advocated abolishing the death penalty.

Cohen, Lawrence E.: Collaborated with Marcus Felson in developing the routine activities
theory.

Felson, Marcus: Collaborated with Lawrence Cohen in developing the routine activities theory.
Chapter 3
Biological and Biosocial Theories

Terms
1. Adoption Studies. Studies that have been done with children reared by biological
parents compared to their siblings or twins reared by adoptive parents in an attempt to
demonstrate a genetic link to criminal behavior. Results have been mixed.
2. Atavism. Part of the theory developed by Lombroso in which a person is a “born criminal.”
Atavistic or primitive man is a throwback to an earlier stage of human evolution, and will commit
crimes against society unless specifically restrained from doing so.
3. Autonomic Nervous System (ANS). Mednick’s theory that individuals who inherit a slower
than normal autonomic nervous system learn to control aggressive or antisocial behavior slowly
or not at all. This leads to increased violence and criminal activity.
4. Behavioral Genetics. This covers a range of theories in which a combination of genetics
and the environment influences behavior.
5. Biological School. A view of crime, also referred to as biological positivism, that claims
that criminal behavior is the result of biological or inborn defects or abnormalities. This view
directly conflicts with classical criminology, which claims that criminal activity is the result of
free will. Under a biological perspective, deterrence is of little value.
6. Biosocial Theories. Theories that examine the combined effects of biology, behavior, and
the environment on criminal behavior.
7. Biosocial Arousal Theory. This theory states that an individual’s level of arousal works in
conjunction with the social environment. Those with low levels of arousal are less likely to learn
appropriate ways to deal with aggression and violence and thus are more prone to commit
crime.
8. Born Criminal. One of three criminal types identified by Lombroso. This type of criminal is
the most dangerous, and can be identified through his or her stigmata or identifying
characteristics.
9. Concordance. This examines the degree to which criminal or law-abiding behavior of
siblings, identical twins, or fraternal twins is similar to one another.
10.Criminaloid. One of three criminal types identified by Lombroso. The criminaloid is
motivated by passion, and will commit criminal acts under the proper circumstances.
11.Determinism. In considering biological theories, determinism refers to the view that an
individual’s criminal lifestyle or actions is the direct result of genetic inheritance or biological
predisposition. Soft Determinism, as explained by Matza, examines the role of determinism,
but also acknowledges that other factors, from environmental to choice, may be part of the
equation. This assumes that behavior is not completely and strictly determined by the individual’s
genetic or biological makeup.
12.Evolutionary Theory. A broad-based view that certain types of criminal behavior are
genetic and passed down from one generation to the next through evolutionary processes of
natural selection and survival.
13.Gene-Based Evolutionary Theory. A general approach that suggests that the process of
natural selection has resulted in criminal genetic tendencies that are passed down from
generation to generation.
14.Insane Criminal. One of three criminal types identified by Lombroso. The insane criminal
type includes idiots, imbeciles, epileptics, psychotics, and the mentally unstable. These criminals
are unable to control their actions; however, they do not possess the stigmata or identifying
characteristics of the born criminal.
15.Mental Functioning and Delinquency. A neurophysiology approach that believed that
delinquents were feebleminded or had some form of a learning disability. This approach has also
been used to look for a relationship between IQ and crime. Additionally, aspects of mental
functioning, verbal ability, and mental flexibility have been examined.
16.Stigmata. Characteristics claimed by Lombroso that could be used to identify the “born
criminal.” They include things such as extra fingers or toes, large lips, receding chins, excessive
skin wrinkles, and large monkey-like ears.
17.Testosterone and Criminal Aggressiveness. A biochemistry approach that looks at the
relationship between the male hormone testosterone and antisocial aggressive behavior.

Positivist school of theory, Biological theories and the Born Criminal theory

The Positivist school of theory came into being during the second half of the 19th
century. Its founder was Cesare Lombroso. He believed that empirical or scientific study of crime,
criminals and criminal behavior was essential. Apart from it, his emphasis was on determinism
against free will. This theory also suggested that the environment could be a causal factor behind
criminal behavior and that empirically studying crime could provide important insights into factors
that cause it. This can help at planning effective prevention strategies. The Positivist school did
not employ a highly sophisticated or effective methodology according to the modern standards to
study crime. Nevertheless, it played an important role in the development of modern criminology.
Positivists held that environment and hereditary factors could be important causal factors behind
crime. The Biological theories in criminology were mainly based on the belief that delinquency
could be inherited. A delinquent father could make his children delinquent. However, it does not
become clear if children become delinquent because they are his offspring’s or because they live
in his company and adopt the delinquent attitude.

Apart from it, the approach highlights some physiological differences between the
criminals and the non-criminals. It noted factors like racial heritage, nutrition, learning disabilities
etc. to be possible explanations behind criminal behavior and the tendency to get involved in
crime. In this regard the biological theories were considered more credible than many of the
theories that came before them. The biological theories are also used with sociological theories
to explain criminal behavior and the factors causing it. Over time, the biological theories gained
more credibility than most of the other theories in criminology. Cesare Lombroso also gave
another theory called the Born Criminal theory. He believed that there were some external
features that differentiate the criminals from the normal people like enormous jaws and large
ears. He believed that such people could not suppress the urge to indulge in criminal behavior.
Still, this theory has a major weakness. It does not recognize the importance of the social
factors. However, Lombroso later modified his theory and also included social factors in his
theory. Based upon his emphasis on biological causes, several theorists after him were
encouraged to find similar causes that could explain crime.

a. Biological Positivism- It includes the study of the following theories in relation to


criminality: criminal anthropology, phrenology, physiognomy, heredity and other similar theories.
b. Psychological Positivism- It relates criminality through the study of the following theories:
psychodynamics/psychoanalytical theory, behavioral learning theories, and cognitive learning
theories.

c. Social Positivism- It relates criminality through the study of the following theories: social
disorganization theory, Chicago School theory and anomie theory.

The Holy Three of Criminology (Positivist Trio)

1. Cesare Lombroso (1836-1909)


- was an Italian criminologist and founder of the Italian School of Positivist Criminology.
Regarded as the "Father" of Criminology and has the largest contributions to biological
positivism through scientific approach, insisting on empirical evidence, for studying crime
concepts drawn from physiognomy, early eugenics, psychiatry and Social Darwinism, Lombroso's
theory of anthropological criminology essentially stated that criminality was inherited, and that
someone "born criminal"' could be identified by physical defects, which confirmed a criminal as
savage, or atavistic. He wrote a book entitled “The Criminal man” in 1876.

Four Categories of Criminal (According to Lombroso)


1. Atavist- known as born criminal

2. Insane criminal- refers to alcoholic, kleptomaniac, nymphomaniac, and child


molesters.
3. Criminaloid- Criminaloids were further categorized as "habitual criminals", who
become so by contact with other criminals, or other "distressing circumstances"
(criminal by passion hot-headed and impulsive persons who commit violent acts
when provoked).
4. Criminal by Passion- Lombroso referred to a person who committed a crime
motivated or because of anger and love and honor.

The Theory of Criminal Man


In November 1872, Lombroso performed an autopsy on the body of Giuseppe
Villela, a 70-year old Calabrian brigand, whom he had examined in prison the previous
year. The autopsy revealed an anomaly in cranial structure, a smooth concavity the
occipital area described as the median occipital fosette.
The discovery of fosette convinced Lombroso that this anomaly is NOT present in
normal individuals, but only in skulls of madmen and is “proof” that criminals are born.

Stigmata Related to an Atavistic Criminal:


1. Deviation in head size and shape from type common to race and region from which
the criminal came.
2. Asymmetry of the face.
3. Eye defects and peculiarities.
4. Excessive dimensions of the jaw and cheek bones.
5. Ears of unusual size, or occasionally very small, or standing out from the head as to
those of a chimpanzee.
6. Nose twisted, upturned, or flattened in thieves, or aquiline or breaks like in murderers,
or with a tip rising like a peak from swollen nostrils.
7. Lips fleshy, swollen, and protruding.
8. Pouch in the cheek like those of some animals.
9. Chin preceding, or excessively long, or short and flat, as in apes.
10. Abnormal dentition.
11. Abundance, variety, and precocity of wrinkles.
12. Anomalies of the hair, marked by characteristics of the opposite sex.
13. Defects of the thorax, such as too many or too few ribs, or supernumerary nipples.
14. Inversion of sex characters in the pelvic organs.
15. Excessive length of arms.
16. Supernumerary fingers and toes.
17. Imbalance of the hemisphere of the brain (asymmetry of the cranium).

The Female Offender 1901


Most women are not criminal those that are, are most often occasional criminals but, some
women are atavistic criminal.

2. Enrico Ferri (1856-1929)


A student of Lombroso, believed that social as well as biological factors played a role, and held
the view that criminals should not be held responsible for the factors causing their criminality
were beyond their control.
He argued that criminal behavior could be explained by studying the interaction of a
range of factors. He observed:
 First, physical factors in relation to crime such as race, geography and temperature.
 Second, individual factors in relation to crime such as age, sex and psychological
variables.
 Third, social factors in relation to crime such as population, religion and culture.

3. Raffaele Garofalo (1852-1934)


An Italian jurist and a student of Cesare Lombroso. He rejected the doctrine of free will and
supported the position that crime can be understood only if it is studied by scientific methods. He
attempted to formulate a sociological definition of crime that would designate those acts which
can be repressed by punishment. These constituted "Natural Crime" and were considered
offenses violating the two basic altruistic sentiments common to all people, namely, probity and
pity.

Types of Criminal by Garofalo


a. Murderer- This refers to a criminal who kills another person and is satisfied
from vengeance or revenge. This type of criminal totally lacks both pity and
probity and kill whenever opportunity arises.
b. Violent Criminal- This criminal lacks pity and can be influenced by
environmental factors such as consumption of alcohol or the fact that criminality
is endemic to criminal’s particular population.
c. Deficient Criminal- It refers to a person who commits crime against property
like thieves and robbers.
d. Lascivious Criminal- It refers to a person who commits crime against chastity
like acts of lasciviousness, seduction, adultery and the like.

Key Concepts

1. The fundamental concept behind the early biological theories was the belief that individual
difference could be scientifically measured.

2. Early biological theories view criminal behavior as the result of a defect in the individual. This
defect can be biological or genetic in nature, and serves to separate the criminal from the law-
abiding citizen. Contemporary biological theories concentrate more on variations in genetic and
other biological factors in interaction with the environment, and are less likely to refer to
biological defects or abnormalities.

3. Punishment serves a different goal in biological theories. While punishment may be


appropriate to protect society, it will not have a deterrent effect. Because there is an inherent
defect or abnormality within the individual, deterrence or the threat of punishment will not affect
behavior.

4. Although early biological theories lacked validity, they were among the first to use the
scientific method. The process of measuring body parts, shapes, and sizes (although flawed)
represented a dramatic shift from the philosophical approach offered by the classical school.

5. Biological theories trace back to Lombroso, and vary in the amount of determinism built in.
Atavistic man or the “born criminal” was always going to be at odds with civilized society. More
modern biological theories seek to establish a link between things like IQ, testosterone, and
criminality. While they share a biological link, modern theories understand that the influences of
choice and the larger society also play a role in the crime dynamic.

6. If traditional biological theories are correct, then society is limited in its responses to
offenders. There are five basic responses. First, we could try to fix the offender. This may be
accomplished through medication, treatment, or therapy. Second, we could lock the offender up
and keep him or her physically separated from larger society. Third, we could sterilize the
offender. This would keep individuals from passing along defective genes to future generations.
Fourth, we could deport or banish the offender. Finally, we could choose to kill the offender. If
crime is truly biologically determined, these options, or close derivatives of these options, would
prove more useful than any punishment designed to remove the pleasure from a criminal act.

7. More recent biological or biosocial theories believe that even if some biological traits are
passed down that would make an individual more predisposed to commit criminal acts, these
traits can be dealt with through effective social programs. Having a biological trait, then, is not
the end of the story. It does not doom one to a life of crime, and can in fact be dealt with and
managed.
Chapter Summary/Keeping Tabs

Chapter 1 introduced the basic vocabulary and rules necessary to understand crime from
a criminological point of view. Understanding the terms and rules is necessary to go beyond a
“commonsense” understanding of criminal and deviant activity. Theories of the causes of crime
and deviance fall on a continuum from a “micro” focus on the characteristics of individuals to a
“macro” focus on the characteristics of the larger society.

Chapter 2 examined classical school criminology. Classical school, or rational choice


theory, advances the view that crime is the result of a choice made by the individual offender.
Under this perspective, the offender weighs the potential pleasure of committing the act along
with potential pain if caught and punished for the act. If the pleasure outweighs the pain, the
offender will make a rational choice to commit the crime. Under this perspective, the proper way
to prevent criminal activity is through the use of deterrence and punishment.

Chapter 3 looks at biological theories. Traditional biological theories state that individuals
commit criminal acts due to biological or genetic defects. Crime is a result of these abnormalities,
and not a choice made by the offender. Crime can be prevented by isolating, treating,
separating, sterilizing, or killing the individual. Modern biosocial theories believe that an individual
with an inherited trait can benefit from social programs, and that an inherited trait alone is not
sufficient to doom an individual to a life of crime. It is important to note that biosocial theories
have found new life in mainstream criminological theory. After being widely discredited, new
biosocial theories that rely on advances in genetics, brain functioning, neurology, nutrition, and
biochemistry, and less on strict determinism have gained growth and acceptance in the field.
While controversy still exists when trying to establish a relationship between IQ and crime, for
example, biologically based theories remain an important part of criminological theory.

Notable Individuals

Lombroso, Cesare: (1836–1909) First to use scientific method in criminology, wrote The
Criminal Man (1876).

Eysenck, Hans J.: Proposed the biosocial “arousal” theory.

Ferrero, William: Coauthored Female Offender (1958 [1897]) with Lombroso.

Goring, Charles: (1870–1919) British criminologist, proposed the idea that criminals are
shorter, weigh less, and “mentally defective,” wrote The English Convict: A Statistical Study
(1913).

Hooten, E. A.: (1887–1954) Anthropologist and neo-Lombrosian, proposed the idea that crime
is caused by physical inferiority, wrote Crime and the Man (1939).

Mednick, Sarnoff: Developed the best-known and most systematically stated and tested
modern biosocial theory.
Chapter 4
Psychological Theories

Terms
1. California Psychological Inventory (CPI). A test designed to measure personality traits
such as dominance, tolerance, and sociability.
2. Ego. One of the three components of Freudian personality development. The ego is referred
to as the executive or rational part of the personality, and it acts to keep the id in check.
3. Electra Complex. This occurs at the beginning of the phallic stage (around ages 3 to 6) in
which a girl develops a desire to possess her father and a hatred and fear of her mother.
4. Freudian. This view of behavior focuses on early childhood development. It claims that
criminal activity is the result of a conflict between the id, ego, and superego, which can be traced
back to a conflict in early childhood.
5. Id. One of the three components of Freudian personality development. The id contains
basic instincts and drives, such as the need for food, water, sex, and pleasure.
6. Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). A test designed to use different
scales of questions to measure abnormal personality traits, such as depression, hysteria,
paranoia, psychopathology, and compulsiveness.
7. Oedipus Complex. This occurs at the beginning of the phallic stage (around ages 3 to
6) in which a boy develops a desire to possess his mother and a hatred and fear of his
father.
8. Personality Theory. This theory believes that criminal activity is the result of a defective,
deviant, or inadequate personality. Examples of deviant personality traits include hostility,
impulsiveness, aggression, and sensation-seeking.
9. Psychoanalytic Theory. A general perspective stating that the causes of criminal behavior
can be found in the mind of the individual.
10.Psychological Counseling. The process by which an underlying mental issue can be
addressed. The assumptions are that only by treating an individual who has committed a
criminal act as someone who is sick and in need of treatment can the problem truly be
addressed; punishing the criminal act without addressing the root mental cause is of little or no
value; and counseling is the only way in which the root mental cause can be dealt with
adequately.
11.Psychological Theory. A general perspective that looks to the psychological functioning,
development, and adjustment of an individual in explaining criminal or deviant acts. Under this
approach, the criminal act itself is important only in that it highlights an underlying mental issue.
12.Psychopathic. A general term referring to a variety of antisocial personality disorders.
13.Psychopathy Checklist (PCL-R) Developed by Hare, this is a tool comprised of a checklist
that is designed to measure the feeling and relationships of an individual, along with the social
deviance of an individual. This tool is the main one used in the measurement of a psychopathic
personality.
14.Superego. One of the three components of Freudian personality development. This part of
the personality contains the conscience of the individual.

Key Concepts

1. Psychoanalytic theorists believe that criminal behavior is the result of a mental disturbance.
From a Freudian perspective, this may have been caused by a conflict between the id, ego, and
superego, or it may be the result of an improper fixation during a stage of emotional
development.

2. Personality theorists believe that criminal behavior is the result of an improper or defective
personality or personality traits. Instead of developing a conforming appropriate-social
personality, the criminal has developed a personality based upon conflict, impulsiveness, and
aggression. The criminal does not have the ability to feel empathy, remorse, or guilt for his or
her actions, and has not developed a sense of right and wrong.

3. Under both of these approaches, the criminal act is not important, in that it is only one of
many symptoms of the underlying psychological or personality disorder. Both approaches
recommend various forms of therapy and treatment to fix the disorder. When the underlying
psychological or personality disorder is addressed, the criminal and deviant acts should cease.

4. Psychological theories are difficult if not impossible to test. One cannot see, identify, or
measure the id, ego, or superego. As a result, testing these theories becomes virtually
impossible. Similar difficulties are faced when trying to test personality theories, and tautological
issues remain a problem.

5. Programs that offer therapy and counseling in attempts to reduce delinquency have not been
shown to be particularly effective. While the role of psychology in criminal justice and criminology
is indeed important, we have not yet reached a place where the key concepts of psychological
and personality theories, along with their recommended treatments, have had a measured
impact on criminal activity.
Chapter Review/Keeping Tabs

Chapters 2, 3, and 4 all focus on characteristics and processes within the individual that
produce individual criminal behavior. In Chapter 4, crime is viewed not as a choice or a biological
defect, but rather as a problem deep in the offender’s mind. Problems in early childhood
development, or in the personality of the offender, are viewed as responsible for deviant activity.
Criminal activity is seen not as the core problem, but rather as a symptom of the underlying
mental issue. According to this theory, crime and deviant activity can be prevented through
counseling, treatment, or modification of an individual’s personality. Indeed, this approach is
used most often in the juvenile justice system, but the results of this technique cast doubt on the
ability of counseling alone to reduce criminal activity. It is also doubted that the true psychopath
can benefit from any type of counseling or treatment.

Notable Individuals

Freud, Sigmund: (1856–1939) Psychologist, pioneer of psychoanalysis and psychological


theory, theorized the Oedipus complex and the Electra complex, coined the terms id, superego,
ego, sex drive, and libido.

Friedlander, Kate: Wrote The Psychoanalytic Approach to Juvenile Delinquency (1947).


Chapter 5
Social Learning Theory

Terms

1. Behavior Theory. Burgess and Akers expanded differential association and included
elements of behavior theory and behavior modification. This expansion allowed them to identify
the learning process, and included elements such as operant behavior, respondent conditioning,
discriminative stimuli, and schedules of reinforcement.
2. Definitions. One of the four main concepts of Akers’s social learning theory. The process
through which an individual rationalizes, evaluates, and assigns right and wrong. Definitions of
the law may be general or specific. One may have the general view that the law needs to be
obeyed, but a specific view that a 20-year-old who can fight in a war should be allowed to drink
a beer. This person may follow the law in general, but violate the liquor law.
3. Differential Association. A theory of crime and delinquency developed by Sutherland. This
is a social learning theory presented in nine steps. Criminality is basically the result of engaging
in inappropriate behaviors exhibited by those with whom we interact. Also, one of the four main
concepts of Akers’s social learning theory. Akers retains the process of differential association,
and expands upon it in his theory.
4. Differential Identification. A modification of differential association theory. In this view,
people commit criminal or delinquent acts if they believe that it will lead to acceptance by and
approval of these important people in their lives.
5. Differential Reinforcement. One of the four main concepts of Akers’s social learning
theory. The concept refers to the potential rewards and punishments for committing or not
committing a criminal or deviant act. This process includes a consideration of punishments and
rewards that have been received in the past, as well as present and future rewards and
punishments.
6. Discriminative Stimuli. Internal or external factors or cues that aid an individual in
determining an appropriate response to a given situation.
7. Imitation. One of the four main concepts of Akers’s social learning theory. Behavior modeled
by others for an individual may be copied by that individual. Impressions of the individual doing
the modeling, along with perceived risks and rewards, will factor into the imitation decision.
8. Negative Reinforcement. This refers to an individual escaping something painful such as
a punishment or reprimand by committing a certain act.
9. Neutralizing Definitions. This type of definition helps a person justify committing a
crime by making it seem that although the act itself might be wrong, under certain
conditions it is all right.
10.Operant Conditioning. The view that voluntary actions and decisions made by an individual
are influenced and shaped by punishments and rewards found in the external world.
11.Positive Reinforcement. This refers to an individual receiving something of value
for committing a certain act. This may include things such as money, food, or approval.
12.Retroflexive Reformation. This process is based upon differential association and often
takes place in a group setting working with both offenders and non-offenders. This concept
suggests that the offenders in such groups who join on the side of the non-offenders in
attempting to get the other offenders to change their definitions favorable to law violation,
actually wind up reducing their own definitions favorable to crime.
13.Self-Reinforcement. The exercise of self-control used by an individual to reinforce his or
her own behavior, by seeing that behavior through the eyes of another.
14.Social Learning Theory. In general, social learning theory proposes that both criminal and
conforming behaviors are acquired, maintained, or changed by the same process of interaction
with others. The difference lies in the conforming or deviant direction or balance of the social
influences such as reinforcement, values and attitudes, and imitation.
15.Social Reinforcement. This refers to the actual, perceived, expected, tangible, or
intangible rewards or punishments conveyed upon an individual by society or a subset of
society.
16.Social Structure and Social Learning Model. A model proposed by Akers in which
social structural factors have an indirect effect on an individual’s actions through the social
learning process.
17.Symbolic Interactionism. The process by which two or more individuals share a commonly
understood language or set of symbols. All individuals have the ability to incorporate other
people’s reactions into their own behavior and use those reactions as part of their own
understanding of themselves. Example: You want to know how you look in a new outfit. Part of
your understanding of how you look is going to be based upon how others respond to you. You
have the ability to understand other people’s facial reactions, body language, and verbal
language in understanding how they view you. You then use this information when deciding if
you look good in the outfit.

Social learning theory

Why do people engage in crime according to social learning theory? They learn to
engage in crime, primarily through their association with others. They are reinforced for crime,
they learn beliefs that are favorable to crime, and they are exposed to criminal models. As a
consequence, they come to view crime as something that is desirable or at least justifiable in
certain situations. The primary version of social learning theory in criminology is that of Ronald
Akers and the description that follows draws heavily on his work. Akers's theory, in turn,
represents an elaboration of Edwin Sutherland's differential association theory (also see the
related work of Albert Bandura in psychology).

According to social learning theory, juveniles learn to engage in crime in the same way
they learn to engage in conforming behavior: through association with or exposure to others.
Primary or intimate groups like the family and peer group have an especially large impact on
what we learn. In fact, association with delinquent friends is the best predictor of delinquency
other than prior delinquency. However, one does not have to be in direct contact with others to
learn from them; for example, one may learn to engage in violence from observation of others in
the media.

Most of social learning theory involves a description of the three mechanisms by which
individuals learn to engage in crime from these others: differential reinforcement, beliefs, and
modeling.

Differential reinforcement of crime. Individuals may teach others to engage in crime


through the reinforcements and punishments they provide for behavior. Crime is more likely to
occur when it (a) is frequently reinforced and infrequently punished; (b) results in large amounts
of reinforcement (e.g., a lot of money, social approval, or pleasure) and little punishment; and
(c) is more likely to be reinforced than alternative behaviors.

Reinforcements may be positive or negative. In positive reinforcement, the behavior


results in something good—some positive consequence. This consequence may involve such
things as money, the pleasurable feelings associated with drug use, attention from parents,
approval from friends, or an increase in social status. In negative reinforcement, the behavior
results in the removal of something bad—a punisher is removed or avoided. For example,
suppose one's friends have been calling her a coward because she refuses to use drugs with
them. The individual eventually takes drugs with them, after which time they stop calling her a
coward. The individual's drug use has been negatively reinforced.

According to social learning theory, some individuals are in environments where crime is
more likely to be reinforced (and less likely to be punished). Sometimes this reinforcement is
deliberate. For example, the parents of aggressive children often deliberately encourage and
reinforce aggressive behavior outside the home. Or the adolescent's friends may reinforce drug
use. At other times, the reinforcement for crime is less deliberate. For example, an embarrassed
parent may give her screaming child a candy bar in the checkout line of a supermarket. Without
intending to do so, the parent has just reinforced the child's aggressive behavior.
Data indicate that individuals who are reinforced for crime are more likely to engage in
subsequent crime, especially when they are in situations similar to those where they were
previously reinforced.

Beliefs favorable to crime. Other individuals may not only reinforce our crime, they may
also teach us beliefs favorable to crime. Most individuals, of course, are taught that crime is bad
or wrong. They eventually accept or "internalize" this belief, and they are less likely to engage in
crime as a result. Some individuals, however, learn beliefs that are favorable to crime and they
are more likely to engage in crime as a result.

Few people—including criminals—generally approve of serious crimes like burglary and


robbery. Surveys and interviews with criminals suggest that beliefs favoring crime fall into three
categories. And data suggest that each type of belief increases the likelihood of crime.
First, some people generally approve of certain minor forms of crime, like certain forms of
consensual sexual behavior, gambling, "soft" drug use, and—for adolescents—alcohol use,
truancy, and curfew violation.

Second, some people conditionally approve of or justify certain forms of crime, including
some serious crimes. These people believe that crime is generally wrong, but that some criminal
acts are justifiable or even desirable in certain conditions. Many people, for example, will state
that fighting is generally wrong, but that it is justified if you have been insulted or provoked in
some way. Gresham Sykes and David Matza have listed some of the more common justifications
used for crime. Several theorists have argued that certain groups in our society—especially
lower-class, young, minority males—are more likely to define violence as an acceptable response
to a wide range of provocations and insults. And they claim that this "subculture of violence" is at
least partly responsible for the higher rate of violence in these groups. Data in this area are
somewhat mixed, but recent studies suggest that males, young people, and possibly lower-class
people are more likely to hold beliefs favorable to violence. There is less evidence for a
relationship between race and beliefs favorable to violence.

Third, some people hold certain general values that are conducive to crime. These values
do not explicitly approve of or justify crime, but they make crime appear a more attractive
alternative than would otherwise be the case. Theorists such as Matza and Sykes have listed
three general sets of values in this area: an emphasis on "excitement," "thrills," or "kicks"; a
disdain for hard work and a desire for quick, easy success; and an emphasis on toughness or
being "macho." Such values can be realized through legitimate as well as illegitimate channels,
but individuals with such values will likely view crime in a more favorable light than others.

The imitation of criminal models. Behavior is not only a function of beliefs and the
reinforcements and punishments individuals receive, but also of the behavior of those around
them. In particular, individuals often imitate or model the behavior of others—especially when
they like or respect these others and have reason to believe that imitating their behavior will
result in reinforcement. For example, individuals are more likely to imitate others' behavior if they
observe them receive reinforcement for their acts.

Social learning theory has much support and is perhaps the dominant theory of crime
today. Data indicate that the people one associates with have a large impact on whether or not
one engages in crime, and that this impact is partly explained by the effect these people have on
one's beliefs regarding crime, the reinforcements and punishments one receives, and the models
one is exposed to.

Control theory

Strain and social learning theorists ask, Why do people engage in crime? They then focus
on the factors that push or entice people into committing criminal acts. Control theorists,
however, begin with a rather different question. They ask, Why do people conform? Unlike strain
and social learning theorists, control theorists take crime for granted. They argue that all people
have needs and desires that are more easily satisfied through crime than through legal channels.
For example, it is much easier to steal money than to work for it. So in the eyes of control
theorists, crime requires no special explanation: it is often the most expedient way to get what
one wants. Rather than explaining why people engage in crime, we need to explain why they do
not.

According to control theorists, people do not engage in crime because of the controls or
restraints placed on them. These controls may be viewed as barriers to crime—they refer to
those factors that prevent them from engaging in crime. So while strain and social learning
theory focus on those factors that push or lead the individual into crime, control theory focuses
on the factors that restrain the individual from engaging in crime. Control theory goes on to
argue that people differ in their level of control or in the restraints they face to crime. These
differences explain differences in crime: some people are freer to engage in crime than others.
Control theories describe the major types of social control or the major restraints to crime. The
control theory of Travis Hirschi dominates the literature, but Gerald Patterson and associates,
Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi, and Robert Sampson and John Laub have extended
Hirschi's theory in important ways. Rather than describing the different versions of control
theory, an integrated control theory that draws on all of their insights is presented.

This integrated theory lists three major types of control: direct control, stake in
conformity, and internal control. Each type has two or more components.

Direct control. When most people think of control they think of direct control: someone
watching over people and sanctioning them for crime. Such control may be exercised by family
members, school officials, coworkers, neighborhood residents, police, and others. Family
members, however, are the major source of direct control given their intimate relationship with
the person. Direct control has three components: setting rules, monitoring behavior, and
sanctioning crime.

Direct control is enhanced to the extent that family members and others provide the
person with clearly defined rules that prohibit criminal behavior and that limit the opportunities
and temptations for crime. These rules may specify such things as who the person may associate
with and the activities in which they can and cannot engage.

Direct control also involves monitoring the person's behavior to ensure that they comply
with these rules and do not engage in crime. Monitoring may be direct or indirect. In direct
monitoring, the person is under the direct surveillance of a parent or other conventional
"authority figure." In indirect monitoring, the parent or authority figure does not directly observe
the person but makes an effort to keep tabs on what they are doing. The parent, for example,
may ask the juvenile where he or she is going, may periodically call the juvenile, and may ask
others about the juvenile's behavior. People obviously differ in the extent to which their behavior
is monitored.

Finally, direct control involves effectively sanctioning crime when it occurs. Effective
sanctions are consistent, fair, and not overly harsh.

Level of direct control usually emerges as an important cause of crime in most studies.
Stake in conformity. The efforts to directly control behavior are a major restraint to crime. These
efforts, however, are more effective with some people than with others. For example, all
juveniles are subject to more or less the same direct controls at school: the same rules, the same
monitoring, and the same sanctions if they deviate. Yet some juveniles are very responsive to
these controls while others commit deviant acts on a regular basis. One reason for this is that
some juveniles have more to lose by engaging in deviance. These juveniles have what has been
called a high "stake in conformity," and they do not want to jeopardize that stake by engaging in
deviance.

So one's stake in conformity—that which one has to lose by engaging in crime—functions


as another major restraint to crime. Those with a lot to lose will be more fearful of being caught
and sanctioned and so will be less likely to engage in crime. People's stake in conformity has two
components: their emotional attachment to conventional others and their actual or anticipated
investment in conventional society.
If people have a strong emotional attachment to conventional others, like family
members and teachers, they have more to lose by engaging in crime. Their crime may upset
people they care about, cause them to think badly of them, and possibly disrupt their relationship
with them. Studies generally confirm the importance of this bond. Individuals who report that
they love and respect their parents and other conventional figures usually commit fewer crimes.
Individuals who do not care about their parents or others, however, have less to lose by
engaging in crime.

A second major component of people's stake in conformity is their investment in


conventional society. Most people have put a lot of time and energy into conventional activities,
like "getting an education, building up a business, [and] acquiring a reputation for virtue"
(Hirschi, p. 20). And they have been rewarded for their efforts, in the form of such things as
good grades, material possessions, and a good reputation. Individuals may also expect their
efforts to reap certain rewards in the future; for example, one might anticipate getting into
college or professional school, obtaining a good job, and living in a nice house. In short, people
have a large investment—both actual and anticipated—in conventional society. People do not
want to jeopardize that investment by engaging in delinquency.

Internal control. People sometimes find themselves in situations where they are tempted
to engage in crime and the probability of external sanction (and the loss of those things they
value) is low. Yet many people still refrain from crime. The reason is that they are high in
internal control. They are able to restrain themselves from engaging in crime. Internal control is
a function of their beliefs regarding crime and their level of self-control.

Most people believe that crime is wrong and this belief acts as a major restraint to crime.
The extent to which people believe that crime is wrong is at least partly a function of their level
of direct control and their stake in conformity: were they closely attached to their parents and
did their parents attempt to teach them that crime is wrong? If not, such individuals may form an
amoral orientation to crime: they believe that crime is neither good nor bad. As a consequence,
their beliefs do not restrain them from engaging in crime. Their beliefs do not propel or push
them into crime; they do not believe that crime is good. Their amoral beliefs simply free them to
pursue their needs and desires in the most expedient way. Rather then being taught that crime is
good, control theorists argue that some people are simply not taught that crime is bad.

Finally, some people have personality traits that make them less responsive to the above
controls and less able to restrain themselves from acting on their immediate desires. For
example, if someone provokes them, they are more likely to get into a fight. Or if someone offers
them drugs at a party, they are more likely to accept. They do not stop to consider the long-term
consequences of their behavior. Rather, they simply focus on the immediate, short-term benefits
or pleasures of criminal acts. Such individuals are said to be low in "self-control."

Self-control is indexed by several personality traits. According to Gottfredson and Hirschi,


"people who lack self control will tend to be impulsive, insensitive, physical (as opposed to
mental), risk-taking, short-sighted, and nonverbal" (p. 90). It is claimed that the major cause of
low self-control is "ineffective child-rearing." In particular, low self-control is more likely to result
when parents do not establish a strong emotional bond with their children and do not properly
monitor and sanction their children for delinquency. Certain theorists also claim that some of the
traits characterizing low self-control have biological as well as social causes.

Gottfredson and Hirschi claim that one's level of self-control is determined early in life
and is then quite resistant to change. Further, they claim that low self-control is the central cause
of crime; other types of control and other causes of crime are said to be unimportant once level
of self-control is established. Data do indicate that low self-control is an important cause of
crime. Data, however, suggest that the self-control does vary over the life course and that other
causes of crime are also important. For example, Sampson and Laub demonstrate that
delinquent adolescents who enter satisfying marriages and obtain stable jobs (i.e., develop a
strong stake in conformity) are less likely to engage in crime as adults.

In sum, crime is less likely when others try to directly control the person's behavior,
when the person has a lot to lose by engaging in crime, and when the person tries to control his
or her own behavior.

1. Differential Association Theory (DAT)

In criminology, Differential Association(1883–1950) is a theory developed by Edwin


H. Sutherland proposing that through interaction with others, individuals learn the values,
attitudes, techniques, and motives for criminal behavior.

Edwin H. Sutherland was the author of the leading text Criminology, published in
1924, first stating the principle of differential association in the third edition retitled Principles
of Criminology. He coined the phrase white-collar criminal in a speech to the American
Sociological Association on December 27, 1939. Note: Edwin Sutherland was known as the
Father of American Criminology

Asserts that criminal behavior is learned primarily within interpersonal groups and that
youths will become delinquent if definitions they have learned favorable to violating the law
exceed definitions favorable to obeying the law within the group.

Nine Principles of Differential Association Theory


1) Delinquent behavior is learned.
2) Delinquent behavior is learned in interaction with others through a process of communication.
3) Learning takes place in intimate groups.
4) In intimate groups, children learn techniques for committing crime as well as the appropriate
motives, attitudes, and rationalizations.
5) The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal code as
being favorable or unfavorable.
6) A child becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law
over definitions unfavorable to violation of law. Definitions favorable to the violation of law are
learned from both criminal and non-criminal persons.
7) The tendency toward delinquency will be affected by the frequency, duration, priority, and
intensity of learning experience.
8) Learning delinquent behavior involves the same mechanisms involved in any other learning.
9) Criminal behavior and non-criminal behavior are expressions of the same needs and values.

Key Concepts

1. As a general concept, social learning theory has been applied to the fields of sociology,
psychology, criminal justice, and criminology in an attempt to explain how criminal values, ideas,
techniques, and expressions are transmitted from one individual to another.

2. Differential association theory, developed by Sutherland, is a learning theory that


concentrates on one’s associates and the normative definitions one learns from them.

3. Akers identified four dimensions of the social structure that can possibly be integrated with
social learning: differential social organization, differential location in the social structure,
theoretically defined structural variables, and differential social location.

4. Learning theorists believe that deviant behavior can be eliminated or modified by taking away
the reward of the behavior, increasing the negative consequences of the behavior, or changing
the balance of reward/punishment for the behavior.

5. Just as positive behaviors reinforce positive behaviors, deviant behaviors also reinforce
deviant behaviors. Deviant peers who reinforce one another’s behaviors can form fast bonds of
friendship. The effects of such a relationship subjects all of the individuals involved to higher
rates of future substance abuse and criminal activity.

Chapter Review/Keeping Tabs

If crime is not the result of choice, biology, or psychology, then how can it be explained?
The theorists in Chapter 5 believe that crime is learned through interaction with others in one’s
social environment. Social learning theorists of criminology state that criminal behavior, like other
behaviors in life, are a learned activity. Social learning theorists seek to understand and explain
how a person learns to become criminal, and then to develop strategies and programs that
model appropriate behavior.

Notable Individuals

Akers, Ronald: Sociologist and criminologist, collaborated with Robert Burgess to develop the
differential reinforcement theory, wrote Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach (1973,
1977).

Bandura, Albert: Psychologist and child development expert, examined stages of development
and concluded that conduct develops at particular stages when certain interaction stimuli are
present.

Burgess, Robert L.: Behavior sociologist, collaborated with Ronald Akers to develop a
“differential association-reinforcement” theory of criminal behavior.
Elliot, Delbert: Developed an integrated theory, wrote Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use
(1985).

Sutherland, Edwin: (1883–1950) Developed the differential association theory, wrote The
Professional Thief (1937) and Principles of Criminology (1947).
Chapter 6
Social Bonding and Control Theories

Terms
1. Containment Theory. A control theory in which the inner and outer pushes and pulls on
an individual will produce delinquency unless they are constrained or counteracted by inner
and outer containment measures.
2. Control Theories. A classification of theories that claim to ask not why do people commit
criminal acts, but why do they not commit criminal acts? These theories assume everyone has
the desire to commit criminal and deviant acts, and seeks to answer why some people refrain
from doing so.
3. Delinquent Subculture. A group of delinquent peers who may influence an individual
to commit criminal acts in order to receive approval from the group. This concept works in
conjunction with control theory and may pull an individual toward delinquency.
4. Drift Theory. This theory states that people can “drift” or float back and forth between
obeying and breaking the law. People can use techniques of neutralization as excuses to break
the law when other forms of social control are weak. When social control is stronger, the
offender will drift or float back to law-abiding behavior.
5. External Control. A concept in control theory in which agents outside the control of the
individual are responsible for keeping that individual from committing criminal or deviant acts.
These agents include parents, teachers, or members of law enforcement.
6. Internal Control. A concept in control theory that explains why a person will not commit a
criminal act by reference to the person internally monitoring and controlling his or her own
behavior. This includes such things as feelings of guilt and not wanting to disappoint others.
7. Natural Motivation. This refers to the belief in control theories that the desire to commit
criminal acts is uniform and spread evenly across society.
8. Self-Control Theory. A specific type of control theory developed by Gottfredson and Hirschi
in which self-control is the key factor in understanding criminal and deviant acts.
9. Self-Concept. An element of containment theory thought to be responsible for insulating an
individual from criminal activity. Similar to self-esteem.
10.Social Bonding Theory. A control theory that states that individuals will commit criminal or
delinquent acts when their ties (bonds) to society are weakened or have broken. There are four
types of bonds: attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief. When the bonds are strong,
an individual will refrain from criminal activity.
11.Social Control. Under a control theory perspective, social control refers to those elements
that keep an individual from committing a criminal or deviant act. Examples include the family,
church, and school.

Key Concepts

1. Social bonding and control theories are nontraditional criminological perspectives because
they seek to explain why individuals conform to societal norms, and not why they commit crime.
2. Travis Hirschi’s theory has many policy implications and can be used to reduce delinquency.
His theory can be seen in policies such as curfew laws, after-school programs, parenting classes,
and job placement programs.

3. Hirschi utilized theory construction, conceptualization, operationalization, and empirical testing


to develop a perspective that still stands as a criminological model today.

4. The Social Development Model (SDM) has supported bonding and learning theories and has
demonstrated success in areas of commitment and attachment.

Chapter Review/Keeping Tabs

Why is a person not a criminal? That is the central question asked by control theorists.
Instead of asking why people break the law, this perspective wants to know why people do not
break the law. Instead of focusing on choice, body type, the mind, or the learning process,
control theorists look at how people are controlled by society. Has the individual bonded with
society, and if so, how strong are those bonds? This perspective seeks the same basic answers
to the crime problem, but asks a slightly different question. Weak to moderate support has been
found for control and selfcontrol theories.

Notable Individuals

Gottfredson, Michael: Coauthored A General Theory of Crime (1990) with Travis Hirschi.
Hirschi, Travis: Criminologist, developed the social bond theory, wrote The Causes of
Delinquency (1969), coauthored A General Theory of Crime (1990) with Michael
Gottfredson.

Matza, David: Collaborated with Gresham Sykes in 1957 and proposed


“techniques of neutralization,” developed drift theory of delinquency in 1964, wrote Delinquency
and Drift (1964).

Nye, F. Ivan: Wrote Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior (1958), expanding on Reiss’s
definitions of social controls.

Reckless, Walter: Proposed the containment theory of delinquency and crime.

Reiss, Albert J.: In 1951, identified delinquency as resulting from the failure of “personal” and
“social” controls.

Sykes, Gresham: Collaborated with David Matza in 1957 and proposed “techniques of
neutralization.”
Chapter 7
Labeling and Reintegrative Shaming Theory

Terms
1. Decriminalization. Removing of status offenders from the jurisdiction of the juvenile justice
system.
2. Deinstitutionalization. The removal of juveniles from jails, detention centers, and
institutions. Removing juveniles from these facilities, and when possible removing status and
minor offenders from the juvenile justice system as a whole, is the most basic type of diversion.
3. Disintegrative Shaming. The process by which an individual is punished, labeled, and
made to feel shame for committing a deviant act in a manner that degrades and devalues the
individual. This occurs without an attempt after the offenders have been punished to reconcile
them with or restore them to the larger community.
4. Diversion Movement. This refers to all those efforts to divert individuals, primarily youth
but also adults who are suspected of or have been charged with minor offenses, from the full
and formal process of the juvenile or adult justice system. The intent is to reduce the stigma of
formal delinquent or criminal labels on the individuals and to reduce or avoid the costs of formal
processing of the crime.
5. Faith-Based Programs. These are religiously based programs which can be operated within
the institution or the larger community. They can be run by inmates or religious leaders, and use
spiritual beliefs and values to change offenders’ attitudes and behaviors.
6. Labeling Theory. The theory that the formal and informal application of stigmatizing and
deviant “labels” or tags applied to an individual by society will not deter, but rather instigate
future deviant or criminal acts.
7. Net-Widening. A problem that occurs when offenders who would have been released from
the system are placed in a program simply because a program exists. This often occurs in
diversion programs. Boot camps may be a viable option to keep kids out of institutions, but it
becomes net-widening when kids, who otherwise would have been sent home, are sent to boot
camps.
8. Pre-Trial Intervention or Delayed Adjudication. Programs for first-time, nonviolent adult
offenders. Those who agree to specific conditions may avoid trial or sentencing altogether.
9. Primary Deviance. Deviant acts that are committed in the absence of or preceding the
application of a deviant label for the acts. While it may or may not be the first crime a person has
committed, it is not based on a response to being labeled as a deviant (see also Secondary
Deviance).
10.Radical Non-Intervention. The belief that it is better to simply tolerate minor offenses
rather than risk labeling the offender.
11.Reintegrative Shaming. The process by which an individual is punished, labeled, and made
to feel shame for committing a deviant act, but done in a way that the individual who is shamed
is brought back into the larger community and restored to a position of respectability.
12.Restorative Justice. This refers to programs which are designed to make offenders take
responsibility for their actions and restore them and their victims, as much as possible, back to
things as they existed before the offense. Often offenders will apologize to the victims and to the
community, and attempt to financially compensate the victims for their losses.
13.Secondary Deviance. Criminal or deviant acts that are committed in response to, or
because of, a label that has been applied to an individual.

Labelling Theory and Humanistic psychological theory of crime

The Labelling theory is another important theory in the context of criminology. As per
this theory, deviance is not inherent to an act but instead it is a product of labelling. A person
becomes a deviant after being labelled as one. Similarly, acts are not inherently deviant but do
become deviant acts after being labelled so. Moreover, once a person has been labeled as
deviant, the other aspects of his life and personality become secondary. Once deviance becomes
central to a person’s identity, a deviant career follows. The Most important concept underlying
this theory is that of self-identity and how people’s lives and behavior are influenced by labelling.
In this way, what the labelling theory tries to explain is that the labels applied on people can
change the course of their lives and careers and turn them into criminals. However, this also
provides insufficient explanation related to criminal behavior.

Apart from labelling, there can be several other reasons to deviance that labelling does
not appropriately explain. Another important theory of crime is the Humanistic psychological
theory of crime given by Maslow and Helleck. One important strength of this theory is that it
explains crime and criminal behavior in terms of human needs. People tend to adopt criminal
behavior because they do not have other options available for sustenance. Crime for such people
can be a way of adapting. People have physiological needs, safety needs, belongingness needs
as well self-esteem needs. However, several times these needs remain unfulfilled and people feel
helpless because of suppression. People may need to adapt when they feel helpless. In such
situations, they adopt criminal behavior as an option for release from suppression and the
resulting helplessness. Crime can release someone from the stress born of oppression.

Labeling theory

The above theories examine how the social environment causes individuals to engage in
crime, but they typically devote little attention to the official reaction to crime, that is, to the
reaction of the police and other official agencies. Labeling theory focuses on the official reaction
to crime and makes a rather counterintuitive argument regarding the causes of crime.

According to labeling theory, official efforts to control crime often have the effect of
increasing crime. Individuals who are arrested, prosecuted, and punished are labeled as
criminals. Others then view and treat these people as criminals, and this increases the likelihood
of subsequent crime for several reasons. Labeled individuals may have trouble obtaining
legitimate employment, which increases their level of strain and reduces their stake in
conformity. Labeled individuals may find that conventional people are reluctant to associate with
them, and they may associate with other criminals as a result. This reduces their bond with
conventional others and fosters the social learning of crime. Finally, labeled individuals may
eventually come to view themselves as criminals and act in accord with this self-concept.

Labeling theory was quite popular in the 1960s and early 1970s, but then fell into decline
—partly as a result of the mixed results of empirical research. Some studies found that being
officially labeled a criminal (e.g., arrested or convicted) increased subsequent crime, while other
studies did not. Recent theoretical work, however, has revised the theory to take account of past
problems. More attention is now being devoted to informal labeling, such as labeling by parents,
peers, and teachers. Informal labeling is said to have a greater effect on subsequent crime than
official labeling. Ross Matsueda discusses the reasons why individuals may be informally labeled
as delinquents, noting that such labeling is not simply a function of official labeling (e.g., arrest).
Informal labeling is also influenced by the individual's delinquent behavior and by their position in
society—with powerless individuals being more likely to be labeled (e.g., urban, minority, lower-
class, adolescents). Matsueda also argues that informal labels affect individuals' subsequent level
of crime by affecting their perceptions of how others see them. If they believe that others see
them as delinquents and trouble-makers, they are more likely to act in accord with this
perception and engage in delinquency. Data provide some support for these arguments.

John Braithwaite extends labeling theory by arguing that labeling increases crime in
some circumstances and reduces it in others. Labeling increases subsequent crime when no
effort is made to reintegrate the offender back into conventional society; that is, when offenders
are rejected or informally labeled on a long-term basis. But labeling reduces subsequent crime
when efforts are made to reintegrate punished offenders back into conventional society. In
particular, labeling reduces crime when offenders are made to feel a sense of shame or guilt for
what they have done, but are eventually forgiven and reintegrated into conventional groups—like
family and conventional peer groups. Such reintegration may occur "through words or gestures
of forgiveness or ceremonies to decertify the offender as deviant" (pp. 100–101). Braithwaite
calls this process "reintegrative shaming." Reintegrative shaming is said to be more likely in
certain types of social settings, for example, where individuals are closely attached to their
parents, neighbors, and others. Such shaming is also more likely in "communitarian" societies,
which place great stress on trust and the mutual obligation to help one another (e.g., Japan
versus the United States). Braithwaite's theory has not yet been well tested, but it helps make
sense of the mixed results of past research on labeling theory.

Key Concepts

1. Labeling theory focuses on formal and informal applications of stigmatizing and deviant
“labels” by society on some of its members. Many have argued however, that these labels are
often the result of the statuses of the individual, e.g., race, social class, and socioeconomics, as
opposed to any act committed.

2. Labeling theory treats such labels as both cause and effect, as independent and dependent
variables.

3. Lemert focused on two stages of deviance: Primary deviance is the commission of criminal
acts before the individual is caught and punished for them; and secondary deviance refers to
crimes committed due to the label society has placed upon an offender.

4. A major concept in symbolic interactionism is the “looking-glass self,” in which our self
concepts are reflections of other people’s conceptions of us, as revealed in their interactions with
us.

5. Labeling theory mirrors conflict theory in that the individuals with power create and enforce
rules at the expense of the less powerful.

Chapter Review/Keeping Tabs

What happens once a child has been labeled a trouble maker, or a young man labeled a
thief? This is the primary concern of the labeling theorist. The key difference between labeling
theory and the other theories examined so far is this: Labeling theory makes no attempt to
understand why an individual committed a crime in the first place. The labeling theorist wants to
understand what happens after an individual is caught committing a crime and society attaches a
label to the offender. This differs from the view of choice, biological predisposition, psychological
factors, social learning factors, and societal bond and control theories, which seek to explain the
first and subsequent criminal acts. Little empirical support has been found for labeling theory,
and it has been criticized for failing to account not only for primary deviance, but for the wide
variety of other social factors that influence crime prior to, and after, the application of any
specific label.
Notable Individuals

Becker, Howard: Criminologist and social psychologist, primary theorist in labeling, wrote
Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (1963).

Braithwaite, John: Wrote Restorative Justice and Responsive Regulation (2002), developed the
concept of reintergrative shaming, which remains at the core of restorative justice.

Cooley, Charles Horton: (1875–1940) Sociologist, developed the concept of “looking-glass


self.”

Lemert, Edwin M.: Sociologist, collaborated with Howard Becker to extend the labeling theory
to include both primary and secondary deviance, wrote Social Pathology (1951) and Human
Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control (1967).

Tannenbaum, Frank: Criminologist, coined the phrase “dramatization of evil,” wrote Crime and
the Community (1938).

Chapter 8
Social Disorganization Theory: Social Structure, Communities, and Crime

Terms
1. Chicago Area Projects. This was the first large-scale urban delinquency prevention
program. Started by Shaw and McKay in the 1930s, it used their social disorganization theory
as a core.
2. Collective Efficacy. This refers to the actual or perceived ability of the residents of a given
neighborhood to maintain informal social control over the criminal or deviant behavior of other
residents. This would have the effect of keeping crime rates lower.
3. Concentrated Disadvantage. This looks at a variety of factors including percent of
families below the poverty level, percent of female headed households, the percent of families on
welfare, percent black, percent unemployed, and the percent under 18.
4. Concentric Zone Theory. Refers to the work of Burgess. Looks at a city with the graph of
a target depicting a series of concentric zones. The zones and their occupants are used to
understand crime in a city.
5. Social Capital. This refers to investment in the community, and looks at things like club and
organization membership, volunteer activities, political activities, and general community
engagement.
6. Social Disorganization. Social disorganization refers to the breakdown in traditional social
control and organization in the society, community, neighborhood, or family so that deviant and
criminal activity result. It is most often applied to urban crime.
7. Structural Theories. This refers to macro-level theories that account for differences in
crime rates across communities by looking at variations in structural characteristics and
conditions of each community.
8. Urban Ecology. A theory that views a city as analogous to the natural ecological community
of plants and animals. This relationship is understood through the use of concentric zones that
spread from the center to the outer regions of a city. This work done by Park and Burgess
influenced the social disorganization theory developed by Shaw and McKay.

Social disorganization theory

The leading sociological theories focus on the immediate social environment, like the
family, peer group, and school. And they are most concerned with explaining why some
individuals are more likely to engage in crime than others. Much recent theoretical work,
however, has also focused on the larger social environment, especially the community and the
total society. This work usually attempts to explain why some groups—like communities and
societies—have higher crime rates than other groups. In doing so, however, this work draws
heavily on the central ideas of control, social learning, and strain theories.

Social disorganization theory seeks to explain community differences in crime rates (see
Robert Sampson and W. Bryon Groves; Robert Bursik and Harold Grasmick). The theory identifies
the characteristics of communities with high crime rates and draws on social control theory to
explain why these characteristics contribute to crime.

Crime is said to be more likely in communities that are economically deprived, large in
size, high in multiunit housing like apartments, high in residential mobility (people frequently
move into and out of the community), and high in family disruption (high rates of divorce, single-
parent families). These factors are said to reduce the ability or willingness of community
residents to exercise effective social control, that is, to exercise direct control, provide young
people with a stake in conformity, and socialize young people so that they condemn delinquency
and develop self-control.
The residents of high crime communities often lack the skills and resources to effectively
assist others. They are poor and many are single parents struggling with family responsibilities.
As such, they often face problems in socializing their children against crime and providing them
with a stake in conformity, like the skills to do well in school or the connections to secure a good
job. These residents are also less likely to have close ties to their neighbors and to care about
their community. They typically do not own their own homes, which lowers their investment in
the community. They may hope to move to a more desirable community as soon as they are
able, which also lowers their investment in the community. And they often do not know their
neighbors well, since people frequently move into and out of the community. As a consequence,
they are less likely to intervene in neighborhood affairs—like monitoring the behavior of
neighborhood residents and sanctioning crime. Finally, these residents are less likely to form or
support community organizations, including educational, religious, and recreational organizations.
This is partly a consequence of their limited resources and lower attachment to the community.
This further reduces control, since these organizations help exercise direct control, provide
people with a stake in conformity, and socialize people. Also, these organizations help secure
resources from the larger society, like better schools and police protection. Recent data provide
some support for these arguments.

Social disorganization theorists and other criminologists, such as John Hagan, point out
that the number of communities with characteristics conducive to crime—particularly high
concentrations of poor people—has increased since the 1960s. These communities exist primarily
in inner city areas and they are populated largely by members of minority groups (due to the
effects of discrimination). Such communities have increased for several reasons. First, there has
been a dramatic decline in manufacturing jobs in central city areas, partly due to the relocation
of factories to suburban areas and overseas. Also, the wages in manufacturing jobs have become
less competitive, due to factors like foreign competition, the increase in the size of the work
force, and the decline in unions. Second, the increase in very poor communities is due to the
migration of many working- and middle-class African Americans to more affluent communities,
leaving the poor behind. This migration was stimulated by a reduction in discriminatory housing
and employment practices. Third, certain government policies—like the placement of public
housing projects in inner-city communities and the reduction of certain social services—have
contributed to the increased concentration of poverty.

Key Concepts

1. Social disorganization is a macro theory looking across different communities or


neighborhoods.

2. The theory was developed by Shaw and McKay, who demonstrated that juvenile offenders
followed a very consistent pattern over several decades, with the highest rates of deviance
concentrated in the inner city and diminishing outward from the core of the city.

3. This suggests that forces are at work beyond the individual delinquents. Those larger forces
may be found in the structure or organization of the city itself.
4. Factors in a city that have been examined by others include the poverty rate, unemployment
rate, percentage of female-headed households, percentage of those under the age of 18, and
various measures of community involvement.

Chapter Review/Keeping Tabs

The theories examined in Chapters 2 through 7 have looked primarily at the processes
that generate criminal behavior within an individual. Chapter 8 looks at features of society that
may produce higher rates of crime within neighborhoods or other large groups. Social
disorganization theory is a macro approach developed by Shaw and McKay. Some theorists
believe that neighborhoods characterized by constant change and deterioration are more likely to
be crime-ridden because they are less likely to be successful in controlling the behavior of their
residents. Crime rates in inner-city urban areas remain high over time, and the belief is that the
structure of the city is in part responsible. Other theorists have looked at the concentration of
unemployment, welfare, community engagement, political activity, and volunteer work as a
gauge of the relative health of a community.

Notable Individuals

Ohlin, Lloyd: Collaborated with Cloward to form a theory of opportunity and coauthored
Delinquency and Opportunity (1960) with Cloward.

Park, Robert Ezra: (1864–1944) Associated with the “Chicago School,” collaborated with
Sutherland and Burgess.

Shaw, Clifford R.: Sociologist, collaborated with McKay on the social disorganization theory.

Chapter 9
Anomie and Strain Theories

Terms
1. Anomie. A state of normlessness or norm confusion within a society. The term was coined by
Durkheim to explain suicide in French society, and later applied by Merton and others to other
forms of deviance and crime in American society.
2. Aspirations and Expectations. This refers to anomie strain theory. Aspirations refer to
what one hopes to achieve in life, and expectations refer to what the individual believes is
realistic. The greater the difference between aspirations and expectations, the more likely
strain becomes.
3. Cohen’s Anomie Strain. This version of anomie theory examines juveniles. Though Cohen
is in agreement with Merton that blocked goals produce strain, his theory looks at status as
opposed to material gain. Under this perspective, juveniles are measured against the standard of
the middle class. Lower-class kids who cannot meet the middle-class standards of dress, talk,
and manners are, in a sense, deprived. This “status deprivation” leads to “status frustration,”
which in turn causes deviant and criminal acts. Instead of five groups like Merton proposes,
Cohen sees only one group—a conflict group that values toughness, fighting, and respect.
4. Decommodification. The belief that a government can provide social welfare programs to
protect vulnerable members of society from market forces.
5. Differential Opportunity. A theory that draws from anomie and the work of Merton and
Cohen; the social disorganization theory of Shaw and McKay; and the differential association
theory of Sutherland. This view says that although one may be denied legitimate opportunity,
that does not mean that one has access to illegitimate opportunity. Although deprivation and
strain can and do play a role, one learns a good or bad response to that strain depending on the
available opportunities and role models, legitimate or illegitimate. Three groups exist under this
perspective: The first is criminal. In criminal groups, juveniles are organized, and the primary
goal of the activity is to make money. A lack of legitimate means has been replaced by
illegitimate ones, such as theft or extortion. The second group is the conflict group. In this
group, there are few legitimate or illegitimate opportunities. These groups are found primarily in
poor, socially disorganized neighborhoods. As a result, toughness and fighting are the primary
goals.
6. The final group is the retreatist. This group cannot fight well, or profit from their crimes. They
are the double failure.
7. Focal Concerns of the Lower-Class Culture. The list of focal concerns or values believed
to be prevalent among lower-class males was developed by Miller to describe the behavior of
street corner groups or gangs. According to Miller, the behavior of these juveniles was an
adaptation to lower-class culture. This culture valued things such as: trouble, toughness,
smartness, excitement, fatalism, and autonomy.
8. Agnew’s General Strain Theory of Crime and Delinquency. A micro-level social
psychological revision of strain theory. According to this theory, criminal and deviant acts are one
possible adaptation to stress. The three major types of deviance-producing strain are: failure to
achieve positively valued goals, removal of positively valued stimuli, and confrontation with
negative stimuli. Deviance is most likely to occur when the response of the individual to any of
these stressors is anger. Factors such as peer associations, beliefs, attributions of causes, self-
control, and self-efficacy will affect each individual’s reaction to stress. Agnew also expands the
concepts of strain to include not only objective and subjective strains, but also vicarious and
anticipated strains.
9. Institutional Anomie. This theory was created by Messner and Rosenfeld. The premise of
the theory is that American society is set up to give prestige and priority to economic institutions.
This means that the accumulation of wealth and individual success are people’s highest priorities.
Prioritizing economic institutions weakens the ability of other social institutions (family,
education, government) to control crime that occurs in response to the lack of access to or
failure in the economic sphere. Therefore, a high level of criminal activity is a natural result of
the setup of American society.
10.Merton’s Anomie Theory. This version of anomie theory looks at American society, and
what happens when an individual realizes that not everyone can achieve the American dream of
equal opportunity for economic success. When this happens, one of five adaptations will occur.
The conformist accepts the goals of society and the means for achieving them: the college
student. The innovator accepts the goals of society but rejects the means of achieving them:
the drug dealer. The mode of rebellion refers to one who rejects both the goals and means of
society, and wants to replace them with new goals and means: the militia member. The
retreatist gives up on both the goals and means, and withdraws from society: the alcoholic.
Finally, the ritualist rejects the goals and accepts the means: this person has given up on the
promotion, nice car, and so on, and simply punches the time clock to keep what they have.

Anomie Theory

In contemporary English, means a condition or malaise in individuals, characterized by


an absence or diminution of standards or values. When applied to a government or society,
anomie implies a social unrest or chaos.

The word comes from Greek, namely the prefix a- “without”, and nomos “law”.

Anomie is a reaction against or a retreat from the regulatory social controls of society.
Anomie defined anything or anyone against or outside the law, or a condition where the current
laws were not applied resulting in a state of illegitimacy or lawlessness.

Anomie is normlessness produced by rapidly shifting moral values, this occurs when
personal goals cannot be achieved using available means.

Anomie refers to a breakdown of social norms and it is a condition where norms no


longer control the activities of members in society.

Individuals cannot find their place in society without clear rules to help guide them.
Changing conditions as well as adjustments in life leads to dissatisfaction, conflict, and deviance.

Strain theory

Why do people engage in crime according to strain theory? They experience strain or
stress, they become upset, and they sometimes engage in crime as a result. They may engage
in crime to reduce or escape from the strain they are experiencing. For example, they may
engage in violence to end harassment from others, they may steal to reduce financial problems,
or they may run away from home to escape abusive parents. They may also engage in crime to
seek revenge against those who have wronged them. And they may engage in the crime of illicit
drug use to make themselves feel better.

A recent version of strain theory is Robert Agnew's 1992 general strain theory. Agnew's
theory draws heavily on previous versions of strain theory, particularly those of Robert Merton,
Albert Cohen, Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin, David Greenberg, and Delbert Elliott and
associates. Agnew, however, points to certain types of strain not considered in these previous
versions and provides a fuller discussion of the conditions under which strain is most likely to
lead to crime.
The major types of strain. Agnew describes two general categories of strain that
contribute to crime: (1) others prevent you from achieving your goals, and (2) others take
things you value or present you with negative or noxious stimuli.

While strain may result from the failure to achieve a variety of goals, Agnew and others
focus on the failure to achieve three related goals: money, status/respect, and—for adolescents
—autonomy from adults.

Money is perhaps the central goal in the United States. All people, poor as well as rich,
are encouraged to work hard so that they might make a lot of money. Further, money is
necessary to buy many of the things we want, including the necessities of life and luxury items.
Many people, however, are prevented from getting the money they need through legal
channels, such as work. This is especially true for poor people, but it is true for many middle-
class people with lofty goals as well. As a consequence, such people experience strain and they
may attempt to get money through illegal channels—such as theft, selling drugs, and
prostitution. Studies provide some support for this argument. Criminals and delinquents often
report that they engage in income-generating crime because they want money but cannot easily
get it any other way. And some data suggest that crime is more common among people who
are dissatisfied with their monetary situation—with such dissatisfaction being higher among
lower-class people and people who state that they want "a lot of money."

Closely related to the desire for money is the desire for status and respect. People want
to be positively regarded by others and they want to be treated respectfully by others, which at
a minimum involves being treated in a just or fair manner. While people have a general desire
for status and respect, theorists such as James Messerschmidt argue that the desire for
"masculine status" is especially relevant to crime. There are class and race differences in views
about what it means to be a "man," although most such views emphasize traits like
independence, dominance, toughness, competitiveness, and heterosexuality. Many males,
especially those who are young, lower-class, and members of minority groups, experience
difficulties in satisfying their desire to be viewed and treated as men. These people may attempt
to "accomplish masculinity" through crime. They may attempt to coerce others into giving them
the respect they believe they deserve as "real men." In this connection, they may adopt a tough
demeanor, respond to even minor shows of disrespect with violence, and occasionally assault
and rob others in an effort to establish a tough reputation. There have been no large scale tests
of this idea, although several studies such as that of Elijah Anderson provide support for it.

Finally, a major goal of most adolescents is autonomy from adults. Autonomy may be
defined as power over oneself: the ability to resist the demands of others and engage in action
without the permission of others. Adolescents are often encouraged to be autonomous, but they
are frequently denied autonomy by adults. The denial of autonomy may lead to delinquency for
several reasons: delinquency may be a means of asserting autonomy (e.g., sexual intercourse
or disorderly behavior), achieving autonomy (e.g., stealing money to gain financial
independence from parents), or venting frustration against those who deny autonomy.
In addition to the failure to achieve one's goals, strain may result when people take something
one values or present one with noxious or negative stimuli. Such negative treatment may upset
or anger people and crime may be the result. Studies have found that a range of negative
events and conditions increase the likelihood of crime. In particular, crime has been linked to
child abuse and neglect, criminal victimization, physical punishment by parents, negative
relations with parents, negative relations with teachers, negative school experiences, negative
relations with peers, neighborhood problems, and a wide range of stressful life events—like the
divorce/separation of a parent, parental unemployment, and changing schools.
Factors influencing the effect of strain on delinquency. Strainful events and conditions make
people feel bad. These bad feelings, in turn, create pressure for corrective action. This is
especially true of anger and frustration, which energize the individual for action, create a desire
for revenge, and lower inhibitions. There are several possible ways to cope with strain and these
negative emotions, only some of which involve delinquency. Strain theorists attempt to describe
those factors that increase the likelihood of a criminal response.

Among other things, strain is more likely to lead to crime among individuals with poor
coping skills and resources. Some individuals are better able to cope with strain legally than
others. For example, they have the verbal skills to negotiate with others or the financial
resources to hire a lawyer. Related to this, strain is more likely to lead to delinquency among
individuals with few conventional social supports. Family, friends, and others often help
individuals cope with their problems, providing advice, direct assistance, and emotional support.
In doing so, they reduce the likelihood of a criminal response.

Strain is more likely to lead to delinquency when the costs of delinquency are low and
the benefits are high; that is, the probability of being caught and punished is low and the
rewards of delinquency are high. Finally, strain is more likely to lead to delinquency among
individuals who are disposed to delinquency. The individual's disposition to engage in
delinquency is influenced by a number of factors. Certain individual traits—like irritability and
impulsivity—increase the disposition for delinquency. Another key factor is whether individuals
blame their strain on the deliberate behavior of someone else. Finally, individuals are more
disposed to delinquency if they hold beliefs that justify delinquency, if they have been exposed
to delinquent models, and if they have been reinforced for delinquency in the past (see below).
A variety of factors, then, influence whether individuals respond to strain with delinquency.
Unfortunately, there has not been much research on the extent to which these factors condition
the impact of strain—and the research that has been done has produced mixed results.

Strain theory – is sometimes called by the French word anomie, is a 1938 American
version of French sociology, invented by the father of modern sociology, Emile Durkheim
(1858-1917). This type of theory sees crime as the normal result of an "American dream" in
which people set their aspirations (for wealth, education, occupation, any status symbol) too
high, and inevitably discover strain, or goal blockages, along the way. The only two things to do
are reduce aspirations or increase opportunities.

Robert Merton and Robert Agnew


 This contend that certain classes are denied legitimate access to culturally determined
goals and opportunities and the resulting frustration, results in illegitimate activities or
rejection of the society’s goal.
 Although most people share common values and goals, the means for legitimate
economic and social success are stratified by socio economic class.
 Consequently these youths may either use deviant methods to achieve their goals or
reject socially accepted goals or substitute deviant ones.

Sources of Strain According to Robert Agnew:

a) Strain caused by the failure to achieve positively valued goals- This type of strain
occurs when a youth aspires to wealth and fame but, lacking financial and educational resources,
assumes that such goals are impossible to achieve.

b) Strain caused by the disjunction of expectations and achievements- Strain can also
be produced when there is a disjunction between achievement and expectation.

c) Strain as the removal of positively valued stimuli from the individual- Strain may
occur because of the actual or anticipated removal or loss of positively valued stimuli from the
individual.

d) Strain as the presentation of negative stimuli- Strain may also be caused by the
presence of negative or noxious stimuli. Included within this category are such pain-inducing
social interactions.

Key Concepts

1. Anomie was coined by the French sociologist Durkheim, and first applied to French society to
examine rates of suicide. The concept of anomie was first used in this country by Merton, in an
effort to describe adaptations in behavior and the interaction between legitimate and illegitimate
means.

2. Anomie may apply when there are not enough legitimate means to reach legitimate societal
goals. This can occur when society is in a state of disorder and disintegration, as opposed to
stability and integration.

3. Depending on the theorist, anomie has been applied to the acquisition of wealth, the
attainment of status, or the expression of cultural or class values.

4. Agnew’s revision of anomie strain theory examines several possible sources of strain that may
result in criminal activity: failure to achieve positively valued goals, removal of positively valued
stimuli, and confrontation with negative stimuli.

5. With mixed support, anomie strain theories have been used to develop projects designed to
bring stability and order to disorganized communities. The hope has been that increasing the
stability of the community, the schools, and the family would reduce criminal and delinquent
acts.
Chapter Review/Keeping Tabs

Some theorists believe that communities in a state of anomie, where the norms are
unclear or absent, produce conditions favorable to the proliferation of crime. In other words,
there has to be a way to achieve the goals universally sought after in a society. If the goals
remain, but there is no manner in which certain members of society may achieve those goals,
anomie may take effect. Society has laid out a blueprint for success: If you play by the rules,
you will succeed. This blueprint explains the proper way to achieve this success. But what
happens if everyone does not have an equal opportunity to achieve the “American Dream”?
According to anomie/strain theorists, these blocked opportunities, and the strain associated with
them, can lead to criminal or deviant activity. Crime is committed as an effective but illegitimate
way to gain success. Anomie and strain have been used to discuss entire societies in a macro
approach, or groups of people in a micro approach.

Notable Individuals

Agnew, Robert: Sociologist, proposed the general strain theory to account for criminal
behavior.

Burgess, Ernest: (1886–1966) Helped form the “Chicago School,” collaborated with Sutherland
and Park.

Cloward, Richard: Collaborated with Lloyd Ohlin to form a theory of differential opportunity,
coauthored Delinquency and Opportunity (1960) with Ohlin.

Cohen, Albert K.: Criminologist, developed the perspective of delinquent subculture.

Durkheim, Emile: (1858–1917) French sociologist, wrote Suicide (1893).

McKay, Henry D.: Sociologist, collaborated with Shaw on the social disorganization theory.

Merton, Robert K.: Focused on anomie and strain theory, wrote Social Theory and Social
Structure (1957).

Messner, Steven F.: Collaborated with Rosenfeld on the ideology of the “American Dream” and
institutional anomie theory.

Miller, Walter: Criminologist, focused on gang delinquency as a result of lower-class values.

Rosenfeld, Richard: Collaborated with Messner on the ideology of the “American Dream” and
institutional anomie theory.
Chapter 10
Conflict Theory

Terms
1. Conflict Theory. The view that society is divided into two or more groups with competing
ideas and values. The group(s) with the most power makes the laws and controls society. Groups
lacking the formal power to make the rules still maintain their own group norms, and continue in
their behavior, which is now viewed as criminal by the larger society. This perspective explains
both law and criminal justice (why some acts are legally defined as criminal), as well as criminal
and deviant behavior (why some individuals commit acts defined as criminal).
2. Consensus Theory. In general, this theory states that laws are a result of, and a reflection
of, general agreement in society. Views of right and wrong, which can be reflected through
folkways and mores, influence the laws and rules that govern a society.
3. Functionalist Theory. Similar to consensus theory, but this theory also looks at how the law
acts to resolve everyday disputes in society, and how it acts to serve everyone, not just the
powerful. The law also serves a symbolic function and discourages deviant behavior.
4. Interest Groups. These groups form and act in such a manner so as to influence the
political system in ways that will provide the greatest benefits to members of the group. They
are also referred to as pressure groups.
5. Law. Rules and regulations backed with the coercive power of the state. Depending upon
one’s view, law is either formed with the agreement of the majority of society and designed to
promote order, or formed by the powerful in society to keep control of the masses.
6. Mechanical Solidarity. A type of less complex society where members share common
beliefs and values. In these societies, law is repressive and punitive.
7. Organic Solidarity. A complex type of society marked by functional interdependence. The
main type of punishment is depravation of liberty and incarceration.
8. Pluralistic Conflict. A type of conflict perspective which emphasizes that instead of one
centralized, all-powerful group making the rules, there are several power groups, both formal
and informal and often with overlapping interests, that wrestle for control and power.
9. Political Crimes. Crimes committed by radical groups to overthrow a government or
overturn a government action, or crimes committed by government officials to control groups
seen as a threat. Which side in any given conflict is labeled radical depends upon which side one
supports and which side wins the dispute.
10.Racial Profiling. Actions taken by the police based solely on the race of an individual.
11.Social Control. A normative system with rules concerning the way people should and should
not behave. This is combined with a formal and informal system to encourage and promote
conformity, while at the same time discouraging and punishing deviance. Informal social control
is exhibited by the family, church, and school, while formal social control is exhibited by the
police and the courts.
12.Social Threat Hypothesis. This hypothesis states that criminal and deviant acts will
increase as the number of people opposed to the interests of the powerful increases.
13.Socialization. A process of learning and teaching expected norms and values of a society.
This teaching and learning is reinforced through positive and negative social sanctions.
Key Concepts

1. Conflict theory proposes that the law and the criminal justice system primarily embody the
interests and norms of the most powerful groups in society, rather than those of society as a
whole.

2. Consensus theory explains the content and operation of the law by referring to a broad-based
agreement in society on social and moral norms within the society, and the common interests of
all elements of society.

3. Conflict and consensus theories imply support for fair representation of differing interests and
values and non-discrimination in the law and criminal justice system.

4. There are two forms of social control. Informal social control exists in families, peer groups,
churches, and in communities. When there is a breakdown of informal social control, formal
social control increases. Law is formal social control.
5. Empirical evidence on consensus and conflict theory is based on studies of the enactment of
laws and studies of public opinion; on crime; and on disparities in arrests, convictions, and
penalties based on race, sex, and socioeconomic status.

Chapter Review/ Keeping Tabs

Law is the formal method of social control used by the criminal justice system to punish
offenders and maintain order in society, but where does the authority for law stem from? The
consensus perspective believes that law is formed as a result of a general societal agreement on
the basic social norms, morals, and common interests necessary to operate society in a smooth
and safe manner. The conflict perspective believes that laws are formed to meet the needs and
interests of the powerful in society. The law and criminal justice system are then used to keep
the powerful in power. Those who commit criminal acts are simply conforming to the norms and
values expressed in the culture of the powerless, and are acting to fight the powerful. This
perspective differs from the others examined thus far in that it looks into law formation. For the
consensus theorist, the law is the glue that holds society together. For the conflict theorist, the
law is the club that keeps the powerless in line.

Notable Individuals

Chambliss, William J.: Criminological and sociological theorist, coauthored Law, Order, and
Power (1971) with Robert Seidman (see Chapter 10).

Durkheim, Emile: (1858–1917) French sociologist, wrote Suicide (1893).

Marx, Karl: European theorist whose view of the history of society as class struggle and
capitalism as a two-class system of the ruling elite and the proletariat inspired many scholars and
revolutionaries (see Chapter 10).

Quinney, Richard: Sociologist, known early on as a conflict theorist and later as a Marxist
theorist, more recently has been known for viewing criminology for its peacemaking potential,
wrote The Social Reality of Crime (1970) and Class, State, and Crime (1980) (see Chapter
10).

Sumner, William Graham: Pioneering sociologist, proposed the classic statement of


consensus theory, developed the terms “folkways” and “mores,” wrote Folkways (1906).

Turk, Austin T.: Sociologist and criminologist, has written extensively on the conflict
perspective, wrote Criminality and the Legal Order (1969).

Vold, George B.: Conflict theorist, wrote Theoretical Criminology (1958).

Weber, Max: German sociologist, pioneered work on bureaucracy, law, and economy.
Chapter 11
Marxist Theories

Terms
1. Bourgeois. The ruling-class elite in a capitalist system; those with the power.
2. Capitalism. A system of economic organization in which the means of production are
held privately in the hands of a few. Late Stage Capitalism
3. Crimes of Accommodation and Resistance. Crimes committed by the lower class against
the upper class, or the capitalist system.
4. Crimes of Control. Crimes committed by criminal Justice personnel.
5. Crimes of Domination and Repression. Crimes committed by the ruling class against the
lower class.
6. Crimes of Government. Crimes committed by both appointed and elected officials.
7. Instrumental Marxism. The political state (including the law and the criminal justice
system) is always and only a tool of the capitalist class to oppress the working class.
8. Marxist Theory. This theory explains both law and criminal justice, and focuses upon the
division between the ruling-class elite and the laborers. In a capitalist society, the ruling-class
elite (bourgeoisie) control the means of production, which allows them to control the political
state as well. They use this control to manipulate the laborers (proletariat) and keep them in a
position of powerlessness. The masses are thus controlled both economically and legally.
9. Proletariat. The working class or laborers in a capitalist society; those with no power.
10.Socialism. A system of economic organization in which the means of production are held by
the state for the benefit of all.
11.Structuralist Marxism. While close to the view of Instrumental Marxism, this perspective
states that the political state is not under the total control of the ruling elite; that from time to
time, laws may be passed that harm the ruling elite; and that their members, on occasion, may
be subject to state control.

Marxist theories

Marxist theories argue that those who own the means of production (e.g., factories,
businesses) have the greatest power. This group—the capitalist class—uses its power for its own
advantage. Capitalists work for the passage of laws that criminalize and severely sanction the
"street" crimes of lower-class persons, but ignore or mildly sanction the harmful actions of
business and industry (e.g., pollution, unsafe working conditions). And capitalists act to increase
their profits; for example, they resist improvements in working conditions and they attempt to
hold down the wages of workers. This is not to say that the capitalist class is perfectly unified or
that the government always acts on its behalf. Most Marxists acknowledge that disputes
sometimes arise within the capitalist class and that the government sometimes makes
concessions to workers in an effort to protect the long-term interests of capitalists.

Marxists explain crime in several ways. Some draw on strain theory, arguing that workers
and unemployed people engage in crime because they are not able to achieve their economic
goals through legitimate channels. Also, Marxists argue that crime is a response to the poor living
conditions experienced by workers and the unemployed. Some draw on control theory, arguing
that crime results from the fact that many workers and the unemployed have little stake in
society and are alienated from governmental and business institutions. And some draw on social
learning theory, arguing that capitalist societies encourage the unrestrained pursuit of money.
Marxist theories, then, attempt to explain both class and societal differences in crime.

Key Concepts

1. Marxist theorists believe that capitalism is the cause of crime and delinquency.

2. The instrumental Marxist theorist believes that the entire system of capitalism serves to
benefit the ruling elite; while the structural Marxist believes that, at least in the short term, the
political state maintains some degree of independence from the ruling elite.

3. The Marxist view states that crime is either committed by the ruling class to keep the working
class in place, or by the working class to strike out against the ruling class.

4. Marxist theory is unable to explain the level of power and control held by an elite few in the
former Soviet Union, as well as the rise and popularity of groups like the Taliban in Afghanistan.
The collapse of the government and the use of the law as a weapon against the oppressed has
been more evident in those societies than in the United States.

Chapter Review/Keeping Tabs

In Marxist theory, the cause of crime is capitalism. The law and the criminal justice
system are used to protect the interests of the capitalist elite. In a capitalist system, the means
of production are owned by a small elite (bourgeoisie) and are used to control the working-class
laborers (proletariat). Instrumental Marxists view the entire political state, to include the law and
the criminal justice system as tools of the ruling class. Structural Marxists believe that in the
short run, the political state is relatively independent and may reflect the interests of the
working class. Crimes committed by the bourgeoisie are crimes of domination and repression,
and are designed to keep the proletariat in place. Crimes committed by the proletariat are
crimes of accommodation or resistance to the bourgeoisie.

Notable Individuals

Bonger, Willem: (1876–1940) Dutch theorist, endorsed the Marxist view of class conflict, wrote
Criminality and Economic Conditions (1916).
Chambliss, William J.: Criminological theorist, wrote Law, Order, and Power (1982).

Kirchheimer, Otto: European theorist, coauthored Punishment and Social Structure (1968) with
Rusche.

Marx, Karl: (1818–1883) European theorist, wrote The Communist Manifesto (1848).

Quinney, Richard: Sociologist, wrote The Social Reality of Crime (1970) and Class, State, and
Crime (1980).

Rusche, Georg: European theorist, coauthored Punishment and Social Structure (1968) with
Kirchheimer.
Chapter 12
Radical and Critical Theories

Terms
1. Constitutive Criminology. A variation of critical criminology, which recommends that we
search for the cause of criminal activity. It examines how the relationships between criminals,
victims, and agents of control act and react to form our understanding of crime.
2. Critical Criminology. An extension of Marxist theory that goes beyond the examination of
the effects of capitalism on crime. It takes a critical stance against mainstream criminology.
3. Cultural Criminology. Looks at all of the cultural forces in and around the crime, the
ffender, and the criminal justice system.
4. Hegemony. A perspective that seeks modern scientific thought and testable explanations for
the causes of crime. The postmodern movement wants to replace this view with a linguistically
based non-scientific approach that recognizes disadvantaged people in society.
5. Left Idealism. Overlooking the pain caused to victims as the result of criminal activities.
6. Left Realism. A variation of critical criminology. While this perspective examines the role
capitalism plays in society, it also recognizes the impact, damage, and fear caused by traditional
street crime. It proposes reforms to the system that would deal with these crimes, assist the
victims, reduce the use of prisons, and reduce crime as a whole. This perspective rejects both
the conservative and choice perspective of the right, and the tendency of the left to overlook or
disregard the true damage caused by crime.
7. Peacemaking Criminology. This perspective is often viewed as a philosophy as opposed to
a theoretical perspective, and it may or may not contain a religious core. In essence, it is an
attempt to get all players in society (victims, offenders, and criminal justice agents) to recognize
and reduce the violence that is at the heart of the society and the system. The violence can then
be replaced with non-violent solutions.
8. Postmodernism. Closely related to critical criminology, this perspective seeks to discover
and eliminate the power of language and text that is used to give power and privilege to specific
groups, while denying it to others. This perspective also seeks to eliminate reliance on testable
scientific explanations of criminology, and replace it with a language-based perspective that
recognizes and advances the cause of disadvantaged individuals.

Key Concepts

1. All of the theories presented in this chapter offer a critique of the normal way crime and
deviance is understood and studied.

2. These perspectives offer a break from traditional methods of scientific method, and in its
place propose a non-quantitative approach based on a variety of factors.

3. Constitutive criminology recommends that we abandon traditional searches for the cause of
criminal activity. It examines how all the actors in the system collectively influence our
understanding of crime.

4. Critical criminology is similar to Marxist theory in the belief that crime and delinquency are
defined by those who have the power in society. The law and criminal justice system are then
used to keep the powerless under control. After this has been acknowledged, critical criminology
works to find ways to empower the powerless.

Chapter Review/Keeping Tabs

Critical criminology also believes that crime is caused by a power struggle in society.
Variations include constitutive, postmodern, left/critical realism, cultural criminology, and
peacemaking. Various forms of this perspective suggest we reexamine the scientific method,
rediscover the amount of pain and suffering in our society, and undertake a quest to discover
more peaceful, and possibly religious- or humanistic-based reforms. None of these forms
however, has managed to put forth a clear and testable theory of crime or criminal justice.

Chapter 13
Feminist Theories

Terms
1. Bootstrapping. Refers to the practice of charging girls with criminal offenses once status
offenses have been eliminated. This allows the system to maintain control over young girls.
2. Chivalry Hypothesis. The view that male police officers, prosecutors, and judges tend to
have traditional views of women and girls. As a result, the officials are more lenient on the
females for committing criminal acts than on their male counterparts.
3. Economic Marginalization Hypothesis. The belief that economic pressures put on
women to support themselves and their dependent children, along with the stepping back of
men from their roles of financial support of women and children has pushed women into
criminal activity for economic gain.
4. Egalitarian Family. Part of Hagan’s power-control theory. A family in which the mother
and father occupy similar roles in the workplace and share power and control in the family.
5. Feminist Theory. This theory attempts to define criminology and criminal justice based upon
the experiences, understanding, and view of the world as perceived by women. It tries to
counter most theories of criminology that have been developed, tested, and applied by men to
men, which have incorporated women only as an afterthought.
6. Gendered Context Approach. This approach examines the different opportunities males
and females have to commit criminal acts, and how males and females respond differently to
similar situations and events.
7. Gendered Pathways Approach. A descriptive approach that gives voice to and
acknowledges the physical and sexual abuse common to many female offenders.
8. Liberation Hypothesis. This view states that as men and women become more equal in
society in terms of family, politics, and education, their crime rates will begin to equalize as
well.
9. Masculinities. A trait shared by all men, but one that changes and evolves depending upon
the race, economic status, and sexual orientation of any particular man. Crime may be viewed
as an attempt to claim, reclaim, or prove the very qualities that make one a man.
10.Masculinity thesis. The view that as women become more equal in society with men, their
crime rates will increase.
11.Opportunity hypothesis. The view that as women increase their numbers in corporate
America, their rates of white-collar and corporate crime will increase along with this increased
opportunity.
12.Paternalism. This view claims that men act in a manner designed to keep women and girls
in a subservient position in society. While women and girls may be treated less severely as
indicated under the chivalry hypothesis, they may also be treated more harshly in an attempt to
keep them from achieving equality with men.
13.Patriarchal Family. Part of Hagan’s power-control theory. In a patriarchal family, the father
is typically in a command position in the workplace and runs the family. Mothers are more likely
to supervise daughters more closely than sons and encourage risk-taking in sons, more than in
daughters.
14.Patriarchy. A manner of societal organization where the rights and privileges of men are
more important and trump the rights and privileges of women.
15.Power-Control Theory. A theory proposed by Hagan in which patriarchal and egalitarian
families are examined. In patriarchal families, sons are more likely than daughters to be
delinquent because sons receive less supervision than daughters. In egalitarian families, the
delinquent behavior of sons and daughters becomes more similar.
16.Selectivity hypothesis. The belief that chivalry in the criminal justice, in other words,
lenient sentencing, is extended primarily to white, middle-class, privileged women.
17.Transinstitutionalization. In this process, status offenders are being placed into
private residential psychiatric facilities by their own families as opposed to the criminal
justice system. Most of the time, the juvenile justice system would not have made these
same referrals.
18.Typicality hypothesis. The belief that chivalry in the criminal justice, in other words, lenient
sentencing, is extended primarily to women who commit crimes consistent with the stereotypical
view of women, and to women who can still be viewed as “feminine.”
Feminist theories

Feminist theories focus on gender differences in power as a source of crime. These


theories address two issues: why are males more involved in most forms of crime than females,
and why do females engage in crime. Most theories of crime were developed with males in mind;
feminists argue that the causes of female crime differ somewhat from the causes of male crime.
Gender differences in crime are said to be due largely to gender differences in social learning and
control. Females are socialized to be passive, subservient, and focused on the needs of others.
Further, females are more closely supervised than males, partly because fathers and husbands
desire to protect their "property" from other males. Related to this, females are more closely tied
to the household and to child-rearing tasks, which limits their opportunities to engage in many
crimes.

Some females, of course, do engage in crime. Feminist theories argue that the causes of
their crime differ somewhat from those of male crime, although female crime is largely explained
in terms of strain theory. Meda Chesney-Lind and others argue that much female crime stems
from the fact that juvenile females are often sexually abused by family members. This high rate
of sexual abuse is fostered by the power of males over females, the sexualization of females—
especially young females—and a system that often fails to sanction sexual abuse. Abused
females frequently run away, but they have difficulty surviving on the street. They are labeled as
delinquents, making it difficult for them to obtain legitimate work. Juvenile justice officials, in
fact, often arrest such females and return them to the families where they were abused. Further,
these females are frequently abused and exploited by men on the street. As a consequence, they
often turn to crimes like prostitution and theft to survive. Theorists have pointed to still other
types of strain to explain female crime, like the financial and other difficulties experienced by
women trying to raise families without financial support from fathers. The rapid increase in
female-headed families in recent decades, in fact, has been used to explain the increase in rates
of female property crime. It is also argued that some female crime stems from frustration over
the constricted roles available to females in our society.

Key Concepts

1. While there is no one feminist theory, all variations focus on patriarchy and the role it plays in
society.

2. According to feminist theory, women can be treated less severely than men for committing a
crime, or more severely than men in an attempt to keep them subservient to men. Feminist
theory focuses on the patriarchal system as the root division in society between the dominant
and subordinate groups.

3. Feminist theory questions whether or not theories of crime developed by men and for men
adequately explain female crime. In addition, they seek to understand why men traditionally
commit so many more crimes than women.
4. Power-control theorists contend that traditional families encourage male delinquency, while
they inhibit female delinquency. In addition, many feminist scholars contend that as females
achieve more power and equality in society, female crime rates will rise.

5. In order to correct the inequities facing women, feminist theorists contend that major societal
changes must occur. In addition, many feminist theorists believe that when dealing with female
offenders, prevention and treatment are preferable to punishment.

6. Gendered pathways and gendered contexts have offered news ways to examine feminist
theories and beliefs, while at the same time remaining connected to broader criminological
concepts. Gendered pathways focuses on the courses women and girls have taken which lead to
criminal activity, while gendered contexts examines how the opportunities, contexts, and
meanings of criminal activity may vary among the genders.

Chapter Summary/Keeping Tabs

Feminist theory is still in development, and no one version has gained prominence over
the others. While there are different versions of feminist theory, similarities remain. Feminist
theory examines the role of patriarchy in society and the manner in which women are put in a
subservient position to men. Feminist theorists seek to explain why men commit more crime than
women, and they question whether theories developed by men and for men adequately explain
female crime and deviance. In contrast to earlier theories examined in this book, feminist
theorists examine the role society puts women in, identifies their strengths and vulnerabilities,
and seeks to use that basis to understand female criminality. Feminist theorists then predict
future rates of female offending and propose system reactions to female offending. It must be
noted however, that not all feminists view these issues the same, and feminist perspectives often
change based upon the age, race, and status of the both the feminist researcher, and the
feminist as victim.

Notable Individuals

Adler, Freda: Wrote Sisters in Crime: The Rise of the New Female Criminal (1975).

Chesney-Lind, Meda: Feminist criminologist, attempted to balance coverage of both males and
females in criminological research, wrote The Female Offender: Girls, Women, and Crime (1997).

Messerschmidt, James W.: Wrote Crime as Structured Action: Gender, Race, Class, and
Crime in the Making (1997).

Simon, Rita: Wrote Women and Crime (1975).


Chapter 14
Integrating Criminological Theories

Terms
1. Conceptual Absorption. Concepts from one theory are subsumed as special cases of the
phenomena defined by the concepts of another theory.
2. Conceptual Integration. Concepts from one theory are shown to overlap in meaning
with concepts from another theory.
3. Control Balance Theory. The ratio of how much the individual is liable to control to how
much he or she is able to control. It operates in the context of four main variables:
predisposition, provocation, opportunity, and constraint.
4. Interactional Theory. This theory integrates elements of social structure, social bonding,
and social learning theory into an “interactional theory” of delinquency. A child is more likely to
commit delinquent acts when his or her underlying bonds to society are weakened.
5. Life-Course Theories. These theories attempt to explain better the stability and changes in
criminal and deviant behavior through time and at different life stages.
6. Network Analysis. An explanation of delinquency that draws on social learning and social
bond theories. It connects the structural characteristics of social networks and interactional
processes.
7. Population Heterogeneity. This refers to the stability in criminal behavior when compared
to others over the life course.
8. Propositional Integration. This explains how two or more theories make the same
predictions about crime or make propositions that can be put together, even though each may
begin with different concepts and assumptions.
9. Self-Derogation Theory. A theory in which delinquency and drug use are explained through
the use of social learning theory, control theory, strain theory, and labeling theory. In this
perspective, delinquency is viewed as the result of the weakening of one’s self-esteem.
10.Social Support. Social integration in a group relationship in which emotional, material, and
social assistance is provided to each group member.
11.State Dependence. Changes in criminality over the course of one’s life are dependent
on the occurrence, or lack of occurrence, of a variety of other factors.
12.Theoretical Elaboration. A term coined by Thornberry in which he states that one begins
with a particular theory and extends it as far as one can.
13.Theoretical Integration. This occurs when two or more theories are combined in such a
manner so as to make the new theory explain criminal activity in a more comprehensive manner.
It can also be used to combine two competing theories which, upon reflection, were not as
incompatible as once thought.
14.Theory Competition. Logical, conceptual, or empirical comparison of two or more theories
to determine which offers the better or best explanation.

Key Concepts

1. Theoretical integration is the process of combining similar theories. The goal is to produce a
theory that is superior to any theory individually. It also recognizes the fact that new theories are
not created in isolation, and that they are created with the knowledge gained from earlier
theoretical exercises.
2. Theoretical integration has had minimal success. While theories may be recognized for a while
as integrative, over time they tend to be cited and tested as separate theories.

3. There are different types of theoretical integration such as conceptual and propositional
integration.

4. Social learning theory, in one way or another, is a main component of integrative models in
criminology, along with social bonding and strain theories.

5. Theoretical development takes place through explicating, testing, and modifying a single
theory; through competition of rival theories; and through theoretical integration.

Chapter Summary/Keeping Tabs

Should any one theory be used to explain crime or deviance, or would some combination
of theories present a more accurate picture? Those questions are difficult to answer, and there is
no consensus within the field of criminology. Criminological Theories has presented a wide range
of theoretical perspectives. While these perspectives differ, they all seek to explain all or part of
the crime phenomenon. Perhaps it is best to let all these theories “fight it out” until only a single
perspective remains. There is, however, another approach. Theoretical integration is a process in
which two or more competing theories are combined to make a new theory which provides a
more comprehensive view of crime. This integration can be conceptual or propositional.
Conceptual absorption can also be used to combine elements from different theories. The benefit
of these techniques is that it allows for the combination of the best elements of various theories.
It demonstrates how theories once viewed as competitive can benefit and become more inclusive
than was once thought. The final chapter has yet to be written, and the question of the benefits
of theory competition verses theoretical integration has yet to be answered.

Notable Individuals

Akers, Ronald L.: Proposed the absorption of concepts from other theories by social learning
concepts, wrote Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application (1994, 1997,
2000, and with Christine S. Sellers, 2004).

Bernard, Thomas: Proposed an integration of conflict and social learning theories to account
for both criminal behavior and criminal law.

Colvin, Mark: Proposed that coercion may be a unifying concept in criminology.

Cullen, Francis T.: Proposed that social support can be used as a central concept around which
all of criminology can be unified.

Elliott, Delbert S.: One of the first to integrate strain, control, and social learning theories,
wrote Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use (1985).
Kaplan, Howard B.: Proposed a self-esteem/derogation theory of adolescent deviance.

Krohn, Marvin D.: Proposed the social network theory.

Laub, John H.: Collaborated with Robert Sampson to propose and test life-course perspectives.
Wrote Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life (1993).

Sampson, Robert. Collaborated with John Laub to propose and test life-course perspectives,
coauthored Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life (1993) with
Sampson.

Thornberry, Terence P.: Proposed an interactional theory of delinquency.

Tittle, Charles R.: Proposed the control balance theory, wrote Control Balance: Toward a
General Theory of Deviance (1995).

You might also like