Pamela J. Schram, Stephen G. Tibbetts - Introduction To Criminology - Why Do They Do It - SAGE Publications, Inc (2020)

this would be nice to have, since it has an in memoriam for Steve
Tibbetts
Introduction to Criminology
Third Edition
I dedicate this book to my brothers Douglas Monroe and Jeffrey
Alan Schram.
—Pam Schram
I dedicate this book to my loving wife and best friend, Kim

Tibbetts. My true soulmate, for the last 20 years and forever.
—Steve Tibbetts
In Memoriam
After many years in academia, we are grateful for having the

colleague whom we also consider a dear friend, someone special
in our lives. Steve was one of those exceptional colleagues, a dear
friend, to me. I will miss our conversations. Those who knew
Steve appreciate that those conversations could range from how
much snow he was shoveling, to his thoughts on why SEC is so
wonderful (I’m Big 10), to his favorite episodes of Law and
Order. Steve always expressed such joy and pride when talking
about the special loves in his life—his wife, Kim; his daughter,
Rian; and his mom and dad, Jane and Steve.
Steve was one of those colleagues I could go to when I needed to

discuss a possible project, advice on how to handle a situation, or
just to “vent.” He always had a way of making things seem better.
He was known by many of us in the department to share odd or
strange crime stories. For me, he would enjoy sharing some crazy
cat news story. By the way, Steve did not really like cats, so you
can imagine the type of stories he would share.
Steve has made a significant, and lasting, impact in the field of

criminology in so many ways. But he has impacted so many
people, not just as a criminologist, but as Stephen Tibbetts. He
was a wonderful husband, father, son, and dear friend. I will miss
him.
—Pam Schram
Introduction to Criminology
Why Do They Do It?
Third Edition
Pamela J. Schram
California State University, San Bernardino
Stephen G. Tibbetts
Radford University
Los Angeles
London
New Delhi
Singapore
Washington DC
Melbourne
FOR INFORMATION:
SAGE Publications, Inc.
2455 Teller Road
Thousand Oaks, California 91320
E-mail: [email protected]
SAGE Publications Ltd.
1 Oliver’s Yard
55 City Road
London EC1Y 1SP
Vereinigtes Königreich
SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.
B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area
Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044
Indien
SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.
18 Cross Street #10-10/11/12
China Square Central
Singapore 048423
Copyright © 2021 by SAGE Publications, Inc.
All rights reserved. Except as permitted by U.S. copyright law, no part of

this work may be reproduced or distributed in any form or by any means, or
stored in a database or retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publisher.
All third-party trademarks referenced or depicted herein are included solely
for the purpose of illustration and are the property of their respective
owners. Reference to these trademarks in no way indicates any relationship
with, or endorsement by, the trademark owner.
Printed in the United States of America
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Schram, Pamela J., author. | Tibbetts, Stephen G., author.
Title: Introduction to criminology : why do they do it? / Pamela J. Schram, California State
University, San Bernardino, Stephen G. Tibbetts, Radford University.
Description: Third edition. | Thousand Oaks, California : SAGE Publications, Inc., [2021] | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2019034242 | ISBN 9781544375731 (paperback) | ISBN 9781544375755 (epub) |

ISBN 9781544375762 (epub) | ISBN 9781544375779 (pdf)
Subjects: LCSH: Criminology.
Classification: LCC HV6025 .S38 2020 | DDC 364—dc23 LC record available at

https://lccn.loc.gov/2019034242
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
Acquisitions Editor: Jessica Miller
Editorial Assistant: Sarah Manheim
Content Development Editor: Adeline Grout
Production Editor: Laureen Gleason
Copy Editor: William DeRooy
Typesetter: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd.
Proofreader: Theresa Kay
Indexer: Will Ragsdale
Cover Designer: Scott Van Atta
Marketing Manager: Jillian Ragusa

Brief Contents
1. Preface
2. Acknowledgments
3. About the Authors
4. Chapter 1: Introduction to Criminology
5. Chapter 2: Measuring Crime
6. Chapter 3: The Classical School of Criminological Thought
7. Chapter 4: Contemporary Classical and Deterrence Research
8. Chapter 5: Early Positivism:Biological Theories of Crime
9. Chapter 6: Modern Biosocial Perspectives of Criminal Behavior
10. Chapter 7: Psychological/Trait Theories of Crime
11. Chapter 8: Social Structure Theories of Crime I:Early Development
and Strain Models of Crime
12. Chapter 9: Social Structure Theories of Crime II:Social
Disorganization and Subcultures
13. Chapter 10: Social Process and Control Theories of Crime
14. Chapter 11: Labeling Theory and Conflict/Marxist/Radical Theories of
Crime
15. Chapter 12: Feminist Theories of Crime
16. Chapter 13: Developmental/Life-Course Perspectives on Criminality
17. Chapter 14: White-Collar Crime, Organized Crime, and Cybercrime
18. Chapter 15: Hate Crimes, Mass Murder, Terrorism, and Homeland
Sicherheit
19. Chapter 16: Drugs and Crime
20. Glossary
21. Notes
22. Index
Detailed Contents
Preface
Acknowledgments
About the Authors
Chapter 1: Introduction to Criminology
• Case Study: The “Confidence Man”
Einführung
What Is a Crime?
What Are Criminology and Criminal Justice?
The Consensus and Conflict Perspectives of Crime
• Learning Check 1.1
The Criminal Justice System
Law Enforcement
Courts
Corrections
The Juvenile Justice System
Criminological Theory
• Applying Theory to Crime: Motor-Vehicle Theft
Five Characteristics of Good Theories
Three Requirements for Determining Causality
• Why Do They Do It? David and Louise Turpin
Theory Informs Policies and Programs
• Victimology
Victim Precipitation
The Incidence/Prevalence of Victimization
Child Abuse and Neglect
Compensation and Restitution
Victim Impact Statements
Victim Rights Awareness
Fazit
Schlüsselbegriffe
Discussion Questions
Ressourcen
Chapter 2: Measuring Crime
• Case Study: September 11, 2001, Victims
Einführung
Data From Law Enforcement Agencies
Uniform Crime Reports
Historical Overview
The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program
Limitations
• Why Do They Do It? An Unusual DUI Offense; Dead Man’s
Parrot a Key Witness?; Lottery Winner Arrested; Burglar Can’t
Escape the Escape Room
Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR)
The National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)
Data Collection
Limitations
Hate Crime Data
Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA)
Statistics
Data From Victims of Crime: The National Crime Victimization
Survey (NCVS)
Limitations
Comparing the NCVS With Uniform Crime Reports
Data From Self-Report Surveys
Monitoring the Future (MTF)
The National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)
National Youth Survey—Family Study
Additional Approaches to Collecting Data
The National Prisoner Statistics (NPS) Program
• Applying Theory to Crime: Hate Crime
Spatial Analyses of Crime
Fazit
Schlüsselbegriffe
Ressourcen
Chapter 3: The Classical School of Criminological Thought
• Case Study: Robert Seman, Jr.
Einführung
Pre-Classical Perspectives on Crime and Punishment
The Age of Enlightenment
The Classical School of Criminology
Influences on Beccaria and His Writings
Beccaria’s Proposed Reforms and Ideas of Justice
Beccaria’s Ideas of the Death Penalty
Beccaria’s Concept of Deterrence and the Three Key
Elements of Punishment
Swiftness of Punishment
Certainty of Punishment
Severity of Punishment
Beccaria’s Conceptualization of Specific and General
Deterrence
Summary of Beccaria’s Ideas and Influence on Policy
The Impact of Beccaria’s Work on Other Theorists
The Neoclassical School of Criminology
• Why Do They Do It? The Harpe Brothers
• Applying Theory to Crime: Other Assaults (Simple)
The Decline of Classical/Neoclassical Theory
Policy Implications
Fazit
Summary of Theories
Schlüsselbegriffe
Ressourcen
Chapter 4: Contemporary Classical and Deterrence Research
• Case Study: The Murder of Kristen Crowley
Einführung
The Rebirth of Deterrence Theory and Contemporary Research
The Four Waves of Modern Deterrence Research
Aggregate Studies
Cross-Sectional Studies
Longitudinal Studies
Scenario/Vignette Studies
Formal Versus Informal Deterrence
Rational Choice Theory
• Applying Theory to Crime: Driving Under the Influence
Routine Activities Theory
The Three Elements of Routine Activities Theory
Motivated Offender
Suitable Targets
Lack of Guardianship
Applications of Routine Activities Theory
The Minneapolis Hot Spots Study
Crime Mapping and Geographic Profiling
The Lifestyles Perspective
Policy Implications
• Why Do They Do It? The Green River Killer
Fazit
Summary of Theories
Schlüsselbegriffe
Ressourcen
Chapter 5: Early Positivism: Biological Theories of Crime
• Case Study: John Lotter, the “Boys Don’t Cry” Killer
Einführung
Early Biological Theories of Behavior
Craniometry
Phrenology
Physiognomy
Lombroso’s Theory of Atavism and Born Criminals
Lombroso’s Theory of Crime
Lombroso’s List of Stigmata
Lombroso as the Father of Criminology and the Father of the
Positive School
Policy Implications
• Why Do They Do It? Dr. Harold Shipman
After Lombroso: The IQ-Testing Era
Goddard’s IQ Test
Policy Implications
Reexamining Intelligence
Body-Type Theory: Sheldon’s Model of Somatotyping
• Applying Theory to Crime: Burglary
Policy Implications
Fazit
Summary of Theories
Schlüsselbegriffe
Ressourcen
Chapter 6: Modern Biosocial Perspectives of Criminal Behavior
• Case Study: The Spahalski Brothers
Einführung
Nature Versus Nurture: Studies Examining the Influence of
Genetics and Environment
Family Studies
Twin Studies
Adoption Studies
Twins Separated at Birth
Cytogenetic Studies: The XYY Factor
Hormones and Neurotransmitters: Chemicals That Determine
Criminal Behavior
• Applying Theory to Crime: Aggravated Assault
Brain Injuries
Central Versus Autonomic Nervous System Activity
• Why Do They Do It? Charles Whitman
Biosocial Approaches to Explaining Criminal Behavior
Behavioral Genetics Studies
Diet/Nutrition
Toxins
• Case Study Revisited: The Spahalski Brothers
Policy Implications
Fazit
Summary of Theories
Schlüsselbegriffe
Ressourcen
Chapter 7: Psychological/Trait Theories of Crime
• Case Study: Joel Michael Guy, Jr.
Einführung
Early Psychological Theorizing Regarding Criminal Behavior
Freud’s Model of the Psyche and Implications for Criminal
Behavior
Hans Eysenck: Theory of Crime and Personality
Lawrence Kohlberg: Moral Development
Heinz’s Dilemma
John Bowlby: Attachment Theory
Modern Psychological Perspectives of Criminality
IQ and Criminal Behavior
• Example Case History: Derek B.
James Q. Wilson and Richard J. Herrnstein: Crime and
Human Nature
• Applying Theory to Crime: Rape
Psychopathy and Crime
Mental Health and the Criminal Justice System
Treatment
• Why Do They Do It? Ariel Castro
Mental-Health Courts
The Insanity Defense
The M’Naghten Rule
The Irresistible-Impulse Test
The Durham Rule
The American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code
Policy Implications
Fazit
Summary of Theories
Schlüsselbegriffe
Ressourcen
Chapter 8: Social Structure Theories of Crime I: Early Development
and Strain Models of Crime
• Case Study: The Black-Binder Bandit
Einführung
Early European Theorists of Social Structure: Comte, Guerry, and
Quetelet
Durkheim and the Concept of Anomie
Merton’s Strain Theory
Cultural Context and Assumptions of Strain Theory
Merton’s Concept of Anomie and Strain
Adaptations to Strain
Evidence and Criticisms of Merton’s Strain Theory
Variations of Merton’s Strain Theory
Cohen’s Theory of Lower-Class Status Frustration and Gang
Formation
Cloward and Ohlin’s Theory of Differential Opportunity
General Strain Theory
• Why Do They Do It? Christopher Dorner
Summary of Strain Theories
• Why Do They Do It? Gang Lu
• Applying Theory to Crime: Bank Robbery
Policy Implications
Fazit
Summary of Theories
Schlüsselbegriffe
Ressourcen
Chapter 9: Social Structure Theories of Crime II: Social
Disorganization and Subcultures
• Case Study: Fraternity Members Charged With Engaging in
Alcohol Enemas
Einführung
The Ecological School and the Chicago School of Criminology
Cultural Context: Chicago in the 1800s and Early 1900s
Ecological Principles in City Growth and Concentric Circles
Shaw and McKay’s Theory of Social Disorganization
Reactions and Research
• Applying Theory to Crime: Stalking
Cultural and Subcultural Theories of Crime
Early Theoretical Developments and Research in
Cultural/Subcultural Theory
Disparities of Race in Regard to Subcultural Theories of
Crime
Criticism
Policy Implications
• Why Do They Do It? Whitey Bulger
Fazit
Summary of Theories
Schlüsselbegriffe
Ressourcen
Chapter 10: Social Process and Control Theories of Crime
• Case Study: The Bogles
Einführung
Learning Theories
Differential Association Theory
Elements of Differential Association Theory
Classical Conditioning
Reactions to Differential Association Theory
Glaser’s Concept of Differential Identification
Differential Reinforcement Theory
Elements
Propositions
Psychological Learning Models
Operant Conditioning
• Applying Theory to Crime: Murder
Bandura’s Theory of Imitation/Modeling
Reactions to Differential Reinforcement Theory
Neutralization Theory
Techniques of Neutralization
Reactions to Neutralization Theory
Control Theories
Thomas Hobbes’s Social Contract
Émile Durkheim’s Idea of Collective Conscience
Freud’s Concept of the Id and Superego
Early Social Control Theories of Crime
Reiss’s Control Theory
Toby’s Concept of Stake in Conformity
Nye’s Control Theory
Reckless’s Containment Theory
Modern Social Control Theories of Crime
Matza’s Drift Theory
Hirschi’s Social Bonding Theory
Integrated Social Control Theories
Tittle’s Control-Balance Theory
Hagan’s Power-Control Theory
A General Theory of Crime: Low Self-Control
Psychological Aspects
Physiological Aspects
Policy Implications
• Why Do They Do It? Jesse Pomeroy
Fazit
Summary of Theories
Schlüsselbegriffe
Ressourcen
Chapter 11: Labeling Theory and Conflict/Marxist/Radical Theories of
Crime
• Case Study: The Flint Water Crisis
Einführung
Labeling Theory
Foundation
Frank Tannenbaum: The Dramatization of Evil
Edwin M. Lemert: Primary and Secondary Deviance
Howard S. Becker: The Dimensions of Deviance
Edwin M. Schur: Defining Deviance
Basic Assumptions
Forschung
• Why Do They Do It? The Murder of Dawn Hamilton
Critiques
Conflict Perspectives
• Applying Theory to Crime: Larceny-Theft
Conservative (Pluralist) Conflict Perspectives
George Vold: Group Conflict Theory
Austin Turk: The Power to Define Criminal Behavior
Richard Quinney: The Social Reality of Crime
Radical Conflict Perspectives
Marxist Criminology
William Chambliss and Robert Seidman on the U.S.
Criminal Justice System
Additional Explanations of Crime Using a Marxist
Framework
Colvin and Pauly’s Integrated Structural-Marxist
Theory
Herman and Julia Siegel Schwendinger on Adolescent
Subcultures
Steven Spitzer on Problem Populations
Forschung
Critiques
Additional Critical Theories
Peacemaking Criminology
The Restorative Justice Perspective
Left Realism
Policy Implications
Fazit
Summary of Theories
Schlüsselbegriffe
Ressourcen
Chapter 12: Feminist Theories of Crime
• Case Study: Gertrude Baniszewski
Einführung
A Brief History of Feminism in the United States
Schlüsselbegriffe
Feminist Perspectives on Gender
The Traditional or Conservative Perspective
Liberal Feminism
Radical Feminism
Marxist and Socialist Feminism
Postmodern Feminism
Additional Feminist Perspectives
Traditional Theories of Female Crime
Cesare Lombroso: Physical Attributes of Female Offenders
William I. Thomas: The Biology of Female Offending
Sigmund Freud: Female Inferiority
Otto Pollak: Hidden Female Criminality
Feminist Critiques of Previous Studies of Women and Crime
The Liberation Thesis
• Applying Theory to Crime: Female Sex Offenders
Power-Control Theory
Feminist Perspectives on Crime and Criminal Behavior
• Why Do They Do It? Lavinia Fisher
Objectivity and Subjectivity
Qualitative “Versus” Quantitative Analyses
Feminist Criminology
Critiques of Feminist Theories
Policies Based on Feminist Theories of Crime
Fazit
Summary of Theories
Schlüsselbegriffe
Ressourcen
Chapter 13: Developmental/Life-Course Perspectives on Criminality
• Case Study: The Teen Burglar
Einführung
Basic Concepts and Early Developmental Theory
Antidevelopmental Theory: Low-Self-Control Theory
Sampson and Laub’s Developmental Model
Moffitt’s Developmental Taxonomy
• Why Do They Do It? Henry Earl
Thornberry’s Interactional Model of Offending
Applying Theory to Crime: Arson
Case Study
Empirical Evidence
Policy Implications
Fazit
Summary of Theories
Schlüsselbegriffe
Ressourcen
Chapter 14: White-Collar Crime, Organized Crime, and Cybercrime
• Case Study: William T. Walters
Einführung
White-Collar Crime
Definitions and History
Incidence and Impact on Society
Economic Costs
• Why Do They Do It? Enron
Physical Costs
Breakdown in Social Fabric
Types of White-Collar Crime
Crimes Against the Environment
Labor Violations
Theoretical Explanations
• Applying Theory to Crime: White-Collar Crime
Organized Crime
Definition
The Historical Context of Organized Crime in the United
States
Types of Criminal Organization
The Mafia
Outlaw Motorcyle Gangs
Prison Gangs
Urban Street Gangs
Transnational Organized Crime
Criminal Justice Responses
The Chicago Crime Commission
The Wickersham Commission
The Kefauver Committee
The McClellan Committee
The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and
the Administration of Justice
The Organized Crime Control Act of 1970
The President’s Commission on Organized Crime
Cybercrime
Definition
Types
Hacking
Identity Theft
Child Pornography
Internet Fraud
Cyberstalking
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998
The Child Online Protection Act of 1998
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986
Executive Order 13694: Blocking the Property of
Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious
Cyber-Enabled Activities
The Strengthening State and Local Cyber Crime
Fighting Act of 2017
Fazit
Schlüsselbegriffe
Ressourcen
Chapter 15: Hate Crimes, Mass Murder, Terrorism, and Homeland
Sicherheit
• Case Study: The Poway Synagogue Shooting
Einführung
Hate Crimes
Definition
Hate Groups
Anti-Hate-Crime Legislation
The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act
of 1994
The Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996
The Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act of 1997
The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes
Prevention Act of 2009
Model State Legislation: Hate Crimes/Violence Against
People Experiencing Homelessness
Theoretical Explanations of Hate Crimes
• Why Do They Do It? The Murder of Matthew Shepard
Multicide
Categories of Mass Killers
School Attacks
Disparity in Rates of Committing Multicide Across Race and
Religious Ideology
Terrorism
Definition
Typologies
Extent
Historical Context
The French Revolution
Late-19th-Century and Early-20th-Century Terrorism
Contemporary Terrorism
• Applying Theory to Crime: Terrorism
Current Context
Organizational Networks
Financial Support
The Influence of the Media
Domestic Terrorism
Homeland Security
Origins
Definition
The Homeland Security Organizational Network
Agencies Responsible for Homeland Security
The Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
The Secret Service
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
The Coast Guard
Bureaucratic Problems and Solutions
Issues Related to Civil Liberties
The Torture Debate
Human Rights
The Constitution
The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001
Policy Implications
Fazit
Schlüsselbegriffe
Ressourcen
Chapter 16: Drugs and Crime
• Case Study: Kenneth Saltzman
Einführung
Depressants
Alcohol
• Diagnosing Alcohol Problems
Barbiturates
Tranquilizers (Including Benzodiazepines)
Narcotics
Morphine
Heroin
Other Synthetic Narcotics
Stimulants
Cocaine
Amphetamine
Methamphetamine
Other Commonly Abused Drugs
Cannabis and Marijuana
Steroids
Inhalants
Hallucinogens
Trends of Drug Use
The Early History of Cocaine and Opioid Addiction
Prohibition Era
“Reefer Madness”
The 1960s and the Baby Boomers
The “War on Drugs” Era
Current Trends Regarding Drug Use
• Why Do They Do It? Ryan Thomas Haight
The Link Between Drugs and Crime
Modern Policies Related to Reducing Drug Use
Interdiction Strategies
Eradication Strategies
Drug Courts
Maintenance and Decriminalization
Harm Reduction
• Applying Theory to Crime: Drug Selling/Trafficking and Drug
Use
Legislation and Litigation
Policy Recommendations
• Why Do They Do It? Pablo Escobar
Fazit
Schlüsselbegriffe
Ressourcen
Glossary
Notes
Index
Preface
If you are considering a career in any aspect of criminal justice, and you
want to know more about the motivations and socio-psychological makeup
of serious offenders, then this book is for you! Introduction to Criminology:
Why Do They Do It? applies the dominant theories in the existing
criminological literature as to why people commit crimes. In addition, we
examine many recent (as well as many hypothetical) examples of serious
crimes, and we demonstrate applications of theory as to why the offenders
did what they did. While other textbooks do a decent job in discussing the
basic theories, as well as exploring the various types of crime, our book
integrates various street crimes within each chapter and applies theories that
are appropriate in explaining such criminal activity. This is extremely
important, because most instructors never get to the latter typology chapters
in a given semester or term. So our approach is to incorporate them into the
theoretical chapters in which they apply directly to the theories presented.
Our specific examples and true stories, such as notable serial killings and
other recent crimes, in each chapter, as well as our use of established
theoretical models to explain the offenses, is another primary distinction of
this book. Obviously, this book is meant to be central to an introductory
course in criminology, but due to the emphasis on applied theoretical
explanations, it is also appropriate for higher-level undergraduate and
graduate courses in criminological theory or as a reference for anyone in the
field of criminal justice. In it, we have integrated true crimes (and some
hypothetical examples) both on a general level, such as in the Applying
Crime to Theory sections, and more specifically—in the Why Do They Do
It? sections, which often involve serial killings, mass murderers, or other
notorious examples of offenders/offending.
The subtitle of our book, “Why Do They Do It?” relates to our theme. Our
goal in writing this book was to apply established theories of crime, which
are often seen as abstract and hypothetical, to real crimes that have
occurred, as well as to hypothetical ones that are quite likely to occur. To
this end, we explore the various reasons for offending or the “why they do
it” in various cases, from the first documented serial killers in the United
States—the Harpe Brothers in the late 18th century—to California cop-
killer/spree-killer Christopher Dorner in 2013 and John T. Earnest, who
massacred worshippers in a Poway, California, synagogue in 2019.
Importantly, throughout these discussions of actual crimes we will apply
theories. As you will see, some of the theories that applied to the earliest
crimes seem to apply to the most modern crimes as well.
Unlike other authors in this field, we chose not to include separate chapters
on violent or property crimes, because we have worked those into and
applied them to the theories explored in each chapter. We strongly believe
that by integrating discussions of such serious crimes—all of the FBI Index
offenses of murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor-
vehicle theft, larceny, and arson, as well as non-Index crimes, such as
simple assault and driving under the influence—into the theoretical chapters
provides the best exploration of why people commit such offenses. And the
flip side is good as well; by discussing offenses together with theories, we
show you how to apply theories toward explaining other instances of
criminal behavior. Again, this goes back to our theme of “why do they do
it?” It demonstrates our goal: apply the appropriate theories for the specific
crime.
Additionally, our book is different from other textbooks in that we don’t

have an overwhelming amount of sidebars and special sections that diverge
from the topic at hand. We limited the special sections to a few basic
categories, largely based on the goal of this text and mostly dedicated to
applying criminological theory to actual offenses or true cases.
We feature a separate chapter on feminist criminology. Given that over half

of Americans are female, and there has been a recent increase in certain
crimes (e.g., simple assault) by women, this is an important addition to the
study of crime. Furthermore, while men are still responsible for the vast
majority of violent acts—murder, robbery, aggravated assault—in all
societies, the pursuit of understanding why women commit so much less
violence may have significant implications for reducing violence by men.
Another distinctive aspect of this book is that we devoted separate chapters

to the developmental/life-course perspective, as well as modern biosocial
approaches regarding propensities to commit crime. These two
frameworks/perspectives have become some of the most accepted and valid
frameworks for explaining criminal behavior. A recent survey of key
criminologists in the field showed that the developmental/life-course
perspective ranked as the second most accepted perspective in explaining
chronic offending (and the biosocial perspective ranked number 6, out of
dozens of theories), yet most other textbooks do not cover this perspective
as widely or in depth as we do. The developmental/life-course perspective,
as well as the biosocial perspective, is “cutting edge” right now, and so we
highlight the importance of these theoretical models, as well as the recent
empirical studies in those areas.
Our text does follow a somewhat traditional format in that it presents

theories chronologically from the Classical School to the Positive School of
criminology, discussing all the established theories in the areas of social
structure, social process, and conflict theories as they became popular over
time. However, we look deeply into why certain theories became popular at
certain times, which is often due more to politics and societal trends than
the empirical validity of a given theory. Students of criminology should
understand how historical crime and theories about crime were products of
certain periods and certain ways of thinking.
Finally, our special typology chapters, the last three chapters of the book,
are dedicated to contemporary topics—such as cybercrime, hate crimes,
terrorism, white-collar/corporate crimes, and drug-related offenses—as well
as several others that do not fit into the FBI Index crimes. We have done our
best to provide the most current research on these topics. Gaining insight
into these modern forms of offending is vital if you wish to understand the
current state of crime in our society.
Our book also provides an ancillary package, with numerous resources to

support instructors and students.
Digital Resources
Instructor Resource Site:
edge.sagepub.com/schram3e
SAGE coursepacks for instructors makes it easy to import our quality
content into your school’s learning management system (LMS).* Intuitive
and simple to use, it allows you to
Say NO to . . .
Required access codes

Learning a new system
Say YES to . . .
Using only the content you want and need

High-quality assessment and multimedia exercises
*For use in: Blackboard, Canvas, Brightspace by Desire2Learn (D2L), and

Moodle
Don’t use an LMS platform? No problem, you can still access many of
the online resources for your text via SAGE edge.
With SAGE coursepacks, you get
Quality textbook content delivered directly into your LMS

An intuitive, simple format that makes it easy to integrate the
material into your course with minimal effort
Assessment tools that foster review, practice, and critical thinking,
including
Diagnostic chapter coursepack chapter quizzes that identify
opportunities for improvement, track student progress, and ensure
mastery of key learning objectives
Test banks built on Bloom’s Taxonomy that provide a diverse
range of test items with ExamView test generation
Activity and quiz options that allow you to choose only the
assignments and tests you want
Instructions on how to use and integrate the comprehensive
assessments and resources provided
Assignable SAGE Premium Video (available via the interactive
eBook version, linked through SAGE coursepacks) that is tied to
learning objectives and curated and produced exclusively for this text
to bring concepts to life, featuring
Corresponding multimedia assessment options that
automatically feed to your gradebook
Comprehensive, downloadable, easy-to-use Media Guide in the
Coursepack for every video resource, listing the chapter to
which the video content is tied, matching learning objective(s), a
helpful description of the video content, and assessment questions
Author Video: In these videos, Stephen G. Tibbetts introduces
and summarizes key concepts in the chapter.
Student on the Street Video: These videos feature interviews
with students, illustrating common misconceptions of criminal
justice.
Theory in Action Video: These clips include candid interviews
with former offenders and cement theoretical concepts for the
students.
What Were They Thinking? Videos: In these videos, author
Steven G. Tibbetts provides an example of a bizarre crime and
links it back to theoretical concepts discussed in the chapter.
Editable, chapter-specific PowerPoint® slides that offer flexibility
when creating multimedia lectures, so that you don’t have to start from
scratch
Lecture notes that summarize key concepts on a chapter-by-chapter
basis to help you with preparation for lectures and class discussions
Integrated links to the interactive eBook that make it easy for
students to maximize their study time with this “anywhere, anytime”
mobile-friendly version of the text. It also offers access to more digital
tools and resources, including SAGE Premium Video.
All tables and figures from the textbook
Student Study Site: edge.sagepub.com/schram3e

SAGE edge for students enhances learning, it’s easy to use, and it offers
An open-access site that makes it easy for students to maximize their
study time, anywhere, anytime
Video and multimedia resources that bring concepts to life, are tied
to learning objectives, and are curated exclusively for this text,
featuring
eFlashcards that strengthen understanding of key terms and concepts
eQuizzes that allow students to practice and assess how much they’ve
learned and where they need to focus their attention
Learning Check answers that provide students with the correct
answers to questions in the textbook
New to This Edition

As we mentioned previously, a constant theme of this book is “why do they
do it?” We explore different reasons by presenting various cases, both
hypothetical and actual, both current and historical. For this edition, we
have updated some of these materials, including recent crime data as well as
more current news stories. Other significant changes in this edition include
the following:
Chapter 1 features a more extensive discussion on victimization,

focusing on victims of crime and key concepts in victimology.
An entire chapter (Chapter 2) is dedicated to measuring crime. This
provides a strong, and essential, foundation to understanding and
appreciating how crime data enhance our understanding of criminal
activity, with updated statistics from national databases.
Most chapters have new case studies, which are introduced at the
beginning of the chapter and often revisited at the end in order to
explain the offenses and apply the theories discussed in the chapter.
A new section on multicide examines the motivations behind mass
murders, including school shootings, as well as issues of race and
religious ideology linked to these types of crimes.
Coverage of contemporary issues—such as gun control, mental health,
disparity in the criminal justice system, cybercrime and internet fraud,
hate crimes, and terrorism—has been updated.
Critical-thinking questions and other textual features help readers
make connections between the real-world examples and theory.
The revised learning objectives follow Bloom’s taxonomy and provide
a clearer pedagogical framework.
Pamela J. Schram, PhD
California State University, San Bernardino
Stephen G. Tibbetts, PhD
Radford University
Acknowledgments
We would first like to thank former publisher Jerry Westby. It was Jerry’s
idea for us to write this book, and he had “gone to bat” for us numerous
times regarding various unique aspects of this text, such as integrating
discussion of violent and property street crimes into the theoretical chapters,
rather than having separate chapters on these topics at the end of the book,
as well as including separate chapters on feminist and developmental/life-
course perspectives. This is a rather unorthodox approach, compared to
other introductory criminology textbooks, but Jerry was fully supportive,
even at the outset. So, for his support of our rather deviant way of
approaching this material, he has our highest respect.
We would also like to thank the staff at SAGE Publishing for doing such a
great job of putting the book together, which includes fixing all the
mistakes we made in drafts of the chapters, as well as so many other things
that go into producing a book such as this. We specifically want to thank
acquisitions editor Jessica Miller, content development editor Adeline
Grout, and production editor Laureen Gleason for all of their help in getting
the drafts of the third edition ready to send to the copy editor and for
advising us on how to make the book far more polished than it was. We also
want to thank our copy editor, Will DeRooy. He did a fantastic job, and it
was a pleasure working with him. Also, we offer special thanks to Laura
Kearns for pulling together the original filming. Overall, we give the
greatest thanks to everyone at SAGE who worked on this book!
Pamela Schram would like to acknowledge some very special people who
had an influence on her life prior to her college years. First and foremost,
she would like to thank her ninth-grade English teacher, Joe Devlin, who,
on the first day of class, announced to his students, “I can’t ‘learn’ you.
First, that is poor English, and second, that is not how it works. I can teach
you, but the learning part is on you.” Obviously, those words have stuck
with Pam; it has been more than 30 years and she still remembers Mr.
Devlin’s opening lecture. Later, Mr. Devlin was Pam’s Latin teacher; Pam
continued to take Latin, and she was the only student for Latin III. Mr.
Devlin would stay after school to conduct this class, and it taught Pam the
lengths to which a truly dedicated teacher will go for his or her students.
Pam would also like to acknowledge Mrs. Frank, her second-grade teacher.
Mrs. Frank was one of those teachers who would infuse learning into fun
activities, especially arts and crafts. Mrs. Frank encouraged Pam to write,
especially short stories. These were the times when students learned cursive
writing on specially lined handwriting paper. Pam still has some of those
short stories written on the “special writing paper.” It brings back many
fond memories, as well as an appreciation for another special teacher who
touched her life.
Pam would finally like to give a special thanks to her organ teacher, Mrs.
Cessna. (As you can tell, Pam wasn’t considered popular in school.) Mrs.
Cessna was one of the most patient and continuously encouraging teachers
Pam has ever had. It may have helped that Mrs. Cessna had some hearing
difficulties. When most of her friends were taking piano, Pam decided to try
organ lessons. She predictably endured some ridicule, especially from her
brothers. Their words of encouragement were something like, “Well, with
those lessons you can one day play at the Detroit Tigers stadium.”
As Pam has gotten older, she has realized the many special ways in which
numerous people have touched her life. One of those special people was her
co-author Steve Tibbetts. Steve was an extremely intelligent and well-
respected criminologist. He was also a wonderful friend who delivered vital
encouragement, usually with a sense of humor. He was very patient and
understanding with her not just when writing this book but during his years
at CSUSB. Through his friendship, he helped her be a better person.
Stephen Tibbetts would like to thank some of the various individuals who
helped him complete this book. First, he would like to thank some of the
professors he had while earning his undergraduate degree in criminal justice
at the University of Florida, who first exposed him to the study of crime and
inspired him to become a criminologist. These professors include Ron
Akers, Donna Bishop, and Lonn Lanza-Kaduce. He would also like to
thank several professors who were key influences in his studies during his
graduate studies at University of Maryland, such as Denise Gottfredson,
Colin Loftin, David McDowell, Lawrence Sherman, and Charles Wellford.
A special thanks goes to Raymond Paternoster, who was his mentor during
his graduate studies at Maryland and who provided the best advice and
support that any mentor could have given.
Tibbetts would also like to mention the support and influence of his
colleague Alex Piquero, as well as Alex’s wife, Nicole Piquero. He was
lucky enough to share an office with Alex in graduate school, and the work
that they did together early on in his career was key in inspiring him to do
more work on biosocial and life-course criminology, which are both
important portions of this book. Tibbetts’ collaboration with Nicole Piquero
on the issues of white-collar crime was important and led to more recent
studies in this often-neglected topic of illegal behavior. He would also like
to acknowledge several colleagues who have been important in his research
in more recent years, such as Matthew Logan and Larry Gaines, both at
California State University, San Bernardino; John Paul Wright at University
of Cincinnati; Nichole H. Rafter at Northeastern University; Chris L.
Gibson at University of Florida; Kevin Beaver at Florida State University;
and Cesar Rebellon at University of New Hampshire.
Tibbetts would also like to specially acknowledge Jose Rivera, who has
contributed much to this book in terms of both video and written sections.
Jose has gone above-and-beyond in trying to contribute to the information
provided in this book, given his experience as an inmate for almost 10 years
in various prisons in Southern California. He has shown—by not only
earning his master’s degree in communication studies, but also winning the
Graduate Teaching Assistant of the Year Award from his college at
California State University, San Bernardino, in 2012—that those formerly
incarcerated can excel. Jose also received the Presidential Volunteer Service
Award in 2012 for his work in programs that promote educational
opportunities for Latinos.
Finally, but most important, Tibbetts would like to thank his co-author on
this book, Pamela Schram, for providing him with the inspiration,
motivation, and collaboration for completing this project. Without Pam’s
constant support and advice, his work on this book could not have
materialized. So he gives the highest acknowledgment to Pam; she will
always be his most trusted consigliere.
Pam and Steve would like to thank the reviewers of the initial proposal for
their advice and critiques. They would also like to express their sincere
appreciation to their colleagues who reviewed the text and gave them
invaluable feedback:
Reviewers of the First Edition

Kevin Beaver, Florida State University–Tallahassee
Doris Chu, Arkansas State University–Jonesboro
Christopher Davis, Campbell University–Buies Creek
Melissa Deller, University of Wisconsin–Whitewater
Daniel Dexheimer, San Jose State University
Tina Freiburger, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
Chris L. Gibson, University of Florida
Jennifer Grimes, Indiana State University–Terre Haute
W. Bruce Johnson, Houston Community College/Northeast College
Michael A. Long, Oklahoma State University
Scott Maggard, Old Dominion University–Norfolk
P. J. McGann, University of Michigan–Ann Arbor
Anna Netterville, University of Louisiana at Monroe
Angela Overton, Old Dominion University–Norfolk
Allison Payne, Villanova University–Villanova
Lacey Rohledef, University of Cincinnati
Anne Strouth, North Central State College–Mansfield
Patricia Warren, Florida State University–Tallahassee
Henriikka Weir, University of Texas at Dallas–Richardson
Douglas Weiss, University of Maryland
Shonda Whetstone, Blinn College
Reviewers of the Second Edition

Marilyn S. Chamberlin, Western Carolina University
Charles Crawford, Western Michigan University
Dan Dexheimer, San Jose State University
Terri L. Earnest, University of Texas at San Antonio
Tina L. Freiburger, University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
Frank P. Giarrizzi, Jr., Colorado Technical University
Selena M. Respass, Miami Dade College
Christopher Salvatore, Montclair State University
Shanell Sanchez-Smith, Colorado Mesa University
Julie A. Siddique, University of North Texas at Dallas
Lindsey Upton, Old Dominion University
Bradley Wright, University of Connecticut
Egbert Zavala, University of Texas at El Paso
Reviewers of the Third Edition

Eric J. Connolly, Sam Houston State University
S. Marlon Gayadeen, SUNY Buffalo
Christen C. Shea, Polk State College
Karin J. Storm, Brandman University
Egbert Zavala, University of Texas at El Paso
About the Authors
Pamela J. Schram
has published articles on such topics as violent female offenders,
female juvenile gang members, and issues pertaining to women in
prison, such as stereotypes about mothers in prison and vocational
programming. She has co-authored three books: one on women in
prison, one on theory and practice in feminist criminology, and a
juvenile delinquency text. She is currently interested in issues
pertaining to elderly prisoners. Dr. Schram has been involved in
various research projects that have primarily focused on evaluating the
effectiveness of measures such as juvenile diversion options and
programs for at-risk youths as well as programs for women in prison.
Dr. Schram received her Ph.D. from Michigan State University. She is
a professor in the Department of Criminal Justice. She is currently the
Associate Dean of the College of Social and Behavioral Sciences at
California State University, San Bernardino.
Stephen G. Tibbetts
was a Professor and Chair in the Department of Criminal Justice at
Radford University. He earned his undergraduate degree in
criminology and law (with high honors) from the University of Florida
and his master’s and doctoral degrees from the University of
Maryland. For more than a decade, he worked as a sworn officer of the
court (juvenile), first in Washington County, Tennessee, and then in
San Bernardino County, California, providing recommendations for
disposing numerous juvenile court cases. He published more than 50
scholarly articles in scientific journals (including Criminology, Justice
Quarterly, Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, Journal of
Criminal Justice, and Criminal Justice and Behavior), as well as nine
books, all examining various topics regarding criminal offending and
policies to reduce such behavior. One of these books, American Youth
Gangs at the Millennium, received a Choice award for Outstanding
Academic Title from the American Library Association. In 2010,
Tibbetts received a Golden Apple award from the mayor of San
Bernardino for being chosen as the Outstanding Professor at the
CSUSB campus. One of his books, Criminals in the Making:
Criminality Across the Life Course (SAGE, 2008), was lauded by The
Chronicle of Higher Education as a key scholarly publication in
advancing the study of biosocial criminology.
Chapter 1 Introduction to Criminology
Often, crimes such as the mass shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada,

in 2017, lead people to ask, “Why do they do it?”
© iStockphoto.com/Gain Sapienza
Learning Objectives
After reading this chapter, you will be able to:
1.1 Identify key concepts in understanding criminology.

1.2 Summarize the general structure and organization of the criminal justice system.
1.3 Identify and characterize a good theory.
1.4 Identify key concepts and issues associated with victimology.
Case Study
The “Confidence Man”

On July 8, 1849, The New York Herald, in its “Police Intelligence” section, reported the arrest
of William Thompson. The Herald wrote that Thompson had been scamming men he met on
the streets of New York City. He had a “genteel appearance” and was very personable. After a
brief conversation with the target of his scam (i.e., the “mark”), Thompson would ask, “Have
you confidence in me to trust me with your watch until tomorrow?” The target, possibly
thinking that Thompson was a forgotten acquaintance, would give him his watch.1
The Herald thus disdainfully labeled Thompson a “confidence man,” and the term soon became
part of the American vernacular. It is unclear as to why the “Confidence Man” article drew so
much attention. However, it gave birth to varying phrases such as “confidence game” and “con
man.”2
In November 2018, it was reported that numerous grandparents in Kentucky were victims of
what Kentucky’s attorney general, Andy Beshear, called the “grandparent scam.”3 Essentially,
the victims reported that they had received a call from someone claiming to be their grandchild.
The “grandchild” had said that he or she was in jail in another state following his or her arrest
for driving under the influence and causing an automobile accident. Then, a second person had
gotten in on the conversation, claiming to be an attorney or a law enforcement officer. This
person had confirmed the scammer’s story. Afterward, the grandparent had been asked to wire
money or send cash to pay for the “grandchild’s” bail. The scammer also had asked the
grandparent not to tell anyone of this situation, including his or her parents.
Generally, the “grandparent scam” follows this type of pattern:
A grandparent gets a call from someone posing as his or her grandchild.

The caller explains that he or she is in trouble, with a story such as “There’s been an
accident and I’m _____ (in jail, in the hospital, stuck in a foreign country). I need your
help.”
The caller provides just enough detail to make the story seem believable.
Next, the caller informs the grandparent that a third person, such as a lawyer, doctor, or
police officer, will explain all of this if the grandparent will call that person.
The caller asks the grandparent to send or wire money but “Don’t tell Mom and Dad.”4
According to the Federal Trade Commission, in 2018 one in four people 70 years or older sent
money to an imposter whom they believed to be a family member or friend. The median
individual loss for these victims of fraud was $9,000.5
The “Confidence Man” and the “grandparent scam” are separated by more than 170 years; the
technological expertise needed to carry out these crimes significantly changed during this time.
However, what links these two cases is motive—monetary gain. This is one of the most
fascinating questions in the study of crime—although technology has changed how certain
crimes are committed (e.g., internet fraud), have the explanations (i.e., “why they do it”)
changed?
Introduction
When introducing students to criminology, it is essential to stress how
various concepts and principles of theoretical development are woven into
our understanding of, as well as our policy on, crime. This chapter begins
with a brief discussion of such concepts as crime, criminal, deviant,
criminology, criminal justice, and consensus and conflict perspectives of
crime. The following section presents a general summary of the different
stages of the adult criminal justice system, as well as the juvenile justice
system. Next, this chapter illustrates how criminology informs policies and
programs. Unfortunately, there are instances when policies are not founded
on criminological theory and rigorous research but are more of a “knee-
jerk” reaction to perceived problems. The concluding section provides an
overview of victimology and various issues related to victims of crime.
What Is a Crime?
There are various definitions of crime. Many scholars have disagreed as to
what should be considered a crime. For instance, if one takes a legalistic
approach, then crime is that which violates the law. But should one consider,
also, whether certain actions cause serious harm? If governments violate the
basic human rights of their citizens, for example, are they engaging in
criminal behavior?6
crime: there are various definitions of crime. From a legalistic approach, crime is that
which violates the law.
As illustrated by these questions, the issue with defining crime from a

legalistic approach is that one jurisdiction may designate an action as a
crime while another does not. Some acts, such as murder, are against the law
in most countries as well as in all jurisdictions of the United States. These
are referred to as acts of mala in se (Latin, “evil in itself”), meaning the act
is “inherently and essentially evil, that is immoral in its nature and injurious
in its consequence, without any regard to the fact of its being noticed or
punished by the law of the state.”7
mala in se: acts that are considered inherently evil.
Other crimes are known as acts of mala prohibita, which means “a wrong
prohibited; an act which is not inherently immoral, but becomes so because
its commission is expressly forbidden by positive law.”8 For instance, in the
last few years there has been considerable decriminalization of marijuana.
Some states have legalized medical marijuana, while others have legalized
both recreational and medical marijuana.
mala prohibita: acts that are considered crimes primarily because they have been
outlawed by the legal codes in that jurisdiction.
This text focuses on both mala in se and mala prohibita offenses, as well as
other acts of deviance. Deviant acts are not necessarily against the law but
are considered atypical and may be deemed immoral. For example, in
Nevada in the 1990s, a young man watched his friend (who was later
criminally prosecuted) kill a young girl in a casino bathroom. He never told
anyone of the murder. While most people would consider this highly
immoral, at that time, Nevada state law did not require people who
witnessed a killing to report it to authorities. This act was deviant, because
most would consider it immoral; yet it was not criminal, because it was not
against the laws of that jurisdiction. It is essential to note that as a result of
this event, Nevada changed its laws to make withholding such information a
criminal act.
deviance: behaviors that are not normal; includes many illegal acts, as well as activities
that are not necessarily criminal but are unusual and often violate social norms.
Other acts of deviance are not necessarily seen as immoral but are
considered strange and violate social norms. One example of such acts is
purposely belching at a formal dinner. These types of deviant acts are
relevant even if not considered criminal under the legal definition, because
individuals engaging in these types of activities reveal a disposition toward
antisocial behavior often linked to criminal behavior. Further, acts that are
frowned upon by most people (e.g., using a cell phone while driving or
smoking cigarettes in public) are subject to being declared illegal. Many
jurisdictions are attempting to have these behaviors made illegal and have
been quite successful, especially in New York and California.
While most mala in se activities are also considered highly deviant, this is
not necessarily the case for mala prohibita acts. For instance, speeding on a
highway (a mala prohibita act)—although it is illegal—is not technically
deviant, because many people do it.
This book presents theories for all these types of activities, even those that
do not violate the law.9
What Are Criminology and Criminal Justice?

The term criminology was coined by Italian law professor Raffaele
Garofalo in 1885 (in Italian, criminologia). In 1887, anthropologist Paul
Topinard invented its French cognate (criminologie).10 In 1934, American
criminologist Edwin Sutherland defined criminology as
the body of knowledge regarding crime as a social phenomenon.

It includes within its scope the process of making laws, of
breaking laws, and of reacting toward the breaking of laws. . . .
The objective of criminology is the development of a body of
general and verified principles and of other types of knowledge
regarding this process of law, crime, and treatment or
prevention.11
criminology: the scientific study of crime and the reasons why people engage (or don’t
engage) in criminal behavior.
Criminology is the scientific study of crime, especially the reasons for

engaging in criminal behavior. While other textbooks may provide a more
complex definition of crime, the word “scientific” distinguishes our
definition from other perspectives and examinations of crime.12
Philosophical and legal examinations of crime are based on logic and
deductive reasoning—for example, by developing what makes logical sense.
Journalists play a key role in examining crime by exploring what is
happening in criminal justice and revealing injustices as well as new forms
of crime. However, the philosophical, legal, and journalistic perspectives of
crime are not scientific, because they do not involve the use of the scientific
method.
Criminal justice often refers to the various criminal justice agencies and
institutions (e.g., police, courts, and corrections) that are interrelated and
work together toward common goals. Interestingly, many scholars who have
referred to criminal justice as a “system” have done so only as a way to
collectively refer to those agencies and organizations, rather than to imply
that they are interrelated.13 Some individuals argue that criminal justice
system is an oxymoron. For instance, Joanne Belknap noted that she
preferred to use the terms crime processing, criminal processing, and
criminal legal system, given that “the processing of victims and offenders
[is] anything but ‘just.’”14
criminal justice: often refers to the various criminal justice agencies and institutions (e.g.,
police, courts, and corrections) that are interrelated.
The Consensus and Conflict Perspectives of Crime

A consensus perspective of crime views the formal system of laws, as well
as the enforcement of those laws, as incorporating societal norms for which
there is a broad normative consensus.15 The consensus perspective
developed from the writings of late-19th- and early-20th-century
sociologists such as Durkheim, Weber, Ross, and Sumner.16 This
perspective assumes that individuals, for the most part, agree on what is
right and wrong, as well as on how those norms have been implemented in
laws and the ways in which those laws are enforced. Thus, people obey laws
not for fear of punishment but rather because they have internalized societal
norms and values and perceive these laws as appropriate.17 The consensus
perspective was dominant during the early part of the 20th century. Since
the 1950s, however, no major theorist has considered this to be the best
perspective of law. Further, “to the extent that assumptions or hypotheses
about consensus theory are still given credence in current theories of law,
they are most apt to be found in ‘mutualist’ models.”18
consensus perspective: theories that assume that virtually everyone is in agreement on the
laws and therefore assume no conflict in attitudes regarding the laws and rules of society.
Around the 1950s, the conflict perspective began challenging the

consensus approach.19 The conflict perspective maintains that there is
conflict between various societal groups with different interests. This
conflict is often resolved when the group in power achieves control.
conflict perspective: theories of criminal behavior that assume that most people disagree
on what the law should be and that law is a means by which those in power maintain their
advantage.
Several criminologists, such as Richard Quinney, William Chambliss, and

Austin Turk, maintained that criminological theory has placed too much
emphasis on explaining criminal behavior, and it needs to shift its focus
toward explaining criminal law. That is, the emphasis should not be on
understanding the causes of criminal behavior; rather, it should be on
understanding the process by which certain behaviors and individuals are
formally designated as criminal. From this perspective, instead of asking,
“Why do some people commit crimes while others do not?” one would ask,
“Why are some behaviors defined as criminal while others are not?” Asking
these types of questions raises the issue of whether the formulation and the
enforcement of laws equally serve the good of all, not just the interests of
those with the power to influence such matters.20
Learning Check 1.1
1. Crime that is evil in itself is referred to as mala _______________.

2. Acts that are not necessarily against the law but are considered atypical and may be
considered more immoral than illegal are _______________ acts.
3. Criminology is distinguished from other perspectives of crime, such as journalistic,
philosophical, or legal perspectives, because it involves the use of the
_______________.
Answers at www.edge.sagepub.com/schram3e
The Criminal Justice System
According to the 1967 President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and
Administration of Justice:
any criminal justice system is an apparatus society uses to enforce

the standards of conduct necessary to protect individuals and the
community. It operates by apprehending, prosecuting, convicting,
and sentencing those members of the community who violate the
basic rules of group existence.21
This general purpose of the criminal justice system can be further simplified
into three goals: to control crime, to prevent crime, and to provide and
maintain justice. The structure and organization of the criminal justice
system has evolved in an effort to meet these goals. There are three typically
recognized components: law enforcement, courts, and corrections.22
Law Enforcement
Law enforcement includes various organizational levels (i.e., federal, state,
and local). One of the key features distinguishing federal law enforcement
agencies from state or local agencies is that they have often been established
to enforce specific statutes. Thus, their units are highly specialized and often
associated with specialized training and resources.23 Federal law
enforcement agencies include the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), the
Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Secret Service, the Marshals
Service, and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives
(ATF). Further, almost all federal agencies, including the Postal Service and
the Forest Service, have some police power. In 2002, President George W.
Bush restructured the federal agencies, resulting in the establishment of the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2003. The DHS was created in
an effort to protect and defend the United States from terrorist threats
following the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and Washington,
DC.24
The earliest form of state police agency to emerge in the present-day United
States was the Texas Rangers, founded by Stephen Austin in 1823. By 1925,
formal state police departments existed throughout most of the country.
While some organizational variations exist among the different states, two
models generally characterize the structure of these state police
departments.
The first model can be designated as state police. Michigan, New York,
Pennsylvania, Delaware, Vermont, and Arkansas are states that have a state
police structure. These agencies have general police powers and enforce
state laws as well as perform routine patrols and traffic regulation. They
have specialized units to investigate major crimes, intelligence units, drug-
trafficking units, juvenile units, and crime laboratories.
state police: agencies with general police powers to enforce state laws as well as to
investigate major crimes; they may have intelligence units, drug-trafficking units, juvenile
units, and crime laboratories.
The second model can be designated as highway patrol. California, Ohio,

Georgia, Florida, and the Carolinas are states that have a highway patrol
model. For these agencies, the primary focus is to enforce the laws that
govern the operation of motor vehicles on public roads and highways. In
some instances, this includes not just enforcing traffic laws but investigating
crimes that occur in specific locations or under certain circumstances, such
as on state highways or state property.25
highway patrol: one type of model characterizing statewide police departments. The
primary focus is to enforce the laws that govern the operation of motor vehicles on public
roads and highways.
Agencies on the local level are divided into counties and municipalities. The
primary law enforcement office for most counties is that of county sheriff.
In most instances, the sheriff is an elected position. The majority of local
police officers are employed by municipalities. Most of these agencies
comprise fewer than 10 officers. Local police agencies are responsible for
the “nuts and bolts” of law-enforcement responsibilities. For instance, they
engage in crime prevention activities such as patrol their districts and
investigate most crimes. Further, these officers are often responsible for
providing social services, such as responding to incidents of domestic
violence and child abuse.26
Courts
The United States does not have just one judicial system. Rather, the judicial
system is quite complex. There are 52 different systems: one for each state,
one for the District of Columbia, and one for the federal government. Given
this complexity, however, one can characterize the United States as having a
dual court system. This dual court system consists of separate yet
interrelated systems: the federal courts and the state courts. While there are
variations among the states in terms of judicial structure, usually a state
court system consists of different levels or tiers, such as lower courts, trial
courts, appellate courts, and the state’s highest court. The federal court
system is a three-tiered model: district courts (i.e., trial courts) and other
specialized courts, courts of appeals, and the Supreme Court (see Figure
1.1).27
Figure 1.1 Three-Tiered Model of the Federal Court System
Source: Adapted from https://judiciallearningcenter.org/levels-of-the-

federal-courts.
Before any case can be brought to a court, that court must have jurisdiction
over those individuals involved in the case. Jurisdiction is the authority of a
court to hear and decide cases within an area of the law (i.e., subject matter
such as serious felonies, civil cases, or misdemeanors) or a geographic
territory.28 Essentially, jurisdiction is categorized as limited, general, or
appellate:
Courts of limited jurisdiction. These are also designated as “lower

courts.” They do not have power that extends to the overall
administration of justice; thus, they do not try felony cases and do not
have appellate authority.
Courts of general jurisdiction. These are also designated as “major trial
courts.” They have the power and authority to try and decide any case,
including appeals from a lower court.
Courts of appellate jurisdiction. These are also designated as “appeals
courts.” They are limited in their jurisdiction decisions on matters of
appeal from lower courts and trial courts.29
limited jurisdiction: the authority of a court to hear and decide cases within an area of the
law or a geographic territory.
Every court, including the U.S. Supreme Court, is limited in terms of

jurisdiction.
The U.S. Supreme Court in 2019. Front, left to right: Associate
Justice Stephen Breyer, Associate Justice Clarence Thomas,
Chief Justice John Roberts, Associate Justice Ruth Bader
Ginsburg, Associate Justice Samuel Alito, Jr. Back, left to
right: Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch, Associate Justice
Sonia Sotomayor, Associate Justice Elena Kagan, and
Associate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.
Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images North America/Getty Images
Corrections
After an offender is convicted and sentenced, he or she is processed in the
corrections system. An offender can be placed on probation, incarcerated, or
transferred to some type of community-based corrections facility. Probation
is essentially an arrangement between the sentencing authorities and the
offender. While under supervision, the offender must comply with certain
terms for a specified amount of time to return to the community. These
terms are often referred to as conditions of probation.30 General conditions
may include a requirement to regularly report to one’s supervising officer,
submit to searches, and not be in possession of firearms or use drugs.
Specific conditions can also be imposed, such as participating in methadone
maintenance, urine testing, house arrest, vocational training, or
psychological or psychiatric treatment.31 There are also variations to
probation. For instance, a judge can combine probation with incarceration,
such as in shock incarceration, which involves sentencing the offender to a
certain amount of time each week (often over the weekend) in jail or another
institution; in the interim periods (e.g., Monday–Friday), the offender is on
probation.
probation: essentially an arrangement between the sentencing authorities and the offender
requiring the offender to comply with certain terms for a specified amount of time.
Some offenders are required to serve their sentences in a corrections facility.

One type of corrections facility is jail. Jails are often designated for
individuals convicted of minor crimes. Jails are also used to house
individuals awaiting trial; these people have not been convicted but are
incarcerated for various reasons, such as preventative detention. Another
type of corrections facility is prison. People sentenced to prison are often
those who have been convicted of more serious crimes with longer
sentences. There are different types of prisons based on security concerns,
such as supermax, maximum-security, medium-security, and minimum-
security. Generally, counties and municipalities operate jails, while prisons
are operated by federal and state governments.32
jail: jails are often designated for individuals convicted of a minor crime and to house
individuals awaiting trial.
prison: generally for those convicted of more serious crimes with longer sentences, who
may be housed in a supermax-, maximum-, medium-, or minimum-security prison, based
on security concerns.
Given the rising jail and prison populations, there has been increased use of
alternatives to traditional incarceration. Residential sanctions, for example,
include halfway houses as well as work-release and study-release.
Nonresidential sanctions include house arrest, electronic monitoring, and
day reporting centers.33
The Juvenile Justice System
In America prior to the 19th century, children were treated the same as
adults in terms of criminal processing. Children were considered as
“imperfect” adults or “adults in miniature.” They were held to the same
standards of behavior as adults. The American colonists brought with them
the common law doctrine from England, which held that juveniles seven
years or older could be treated the same as adult offenders. Thus, they were
incarcerated with adults and could receive similarly harsh punishments,
including the death penalty. It should be noted, however, that youths rarely
received such harsh and severe punishments.34
Beginning in the early 19th century, many recognized the need for a
separate system for juveniles.35 For instance, Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, a
Swiss educator, maintained that children are distinct from adults, both
physically and psychologically.
While there is some disagreement in accrediting the establishment of the

first juvenile court, most acknowledge that the first comprehensive juvenile
court system was initiated in 1899 in Cook County, Illinois. One key to
understanding the juvenile justice system is the concept of parens patriae.
This Latin term literally means “parent of the country.” This philosophical
perspective recognizes that the state has both the right and the obligation to
intervene on behalf of and to protect its citizens who have some impairment
or impediment—such as mental incompetence or, in the case of juveniles,
immaturity. The primary objective of processing juveniles was to determine
what was in the best interest of the child. This resulted in the proceedings
resembling a civil case more than a criminal case. The implication of this
approach was that the juvenile’s basic constitutional rights were not
recognized; these rights included the right to confrontation and cross-
examination of the witnesses, the right to protection against self-
incrimination, and compliance regarding the rules of evidence. Another
difference between the juvenile justice system and the adult criminal justice
system is the use of different terms for similar procedures (see Table 1.1).
parens patriae: a philosophical perspective that recognizes that the state has both the right
and the obligation to intervene on behalf of its citizens in the case of some impairment or
impediment—such as mental incompetence or, in the case of juveniles, age and
immaturity.
During the 1960s, there was a dramatic increase in juvenile crime. The
existing juvenile justice system came under severe criticism, including
questions concerning the informal procedures of the juvenile courts.
Eventually, numerous U.S. Supreme Court decisions challenged these
procedures, and some maintained that these decisions would radically
change the nature of processing juveniles. For instance, in the case In re
Gault (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a juvenile is entitled to
certain due-process protections constitutionally guaranteed to adults, such as
a right to notice of the charges, right to counsel, right to confront and cross-
examine witnesses, and right against self-incrimination. The case In re
Winship (1970) decided that the standard of proof in juvenile delinquency
proceedings is proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The first U.S. Supreme
Court case to address juvenile court procedures was Kent v. United States
(1966). The court ruled that juveniles who are facing a waiver to adult court
(see below) are entitled to some essential due-process rights.
Table 1.1 Juvenile Versus Criminal Justice System

Terminology
Table 1.1 Juvenile Versus Criminal Justice System Terminology
Criminal
Juvenile Justice System Justice
System
Adjudicated delinquent – Found to have engaged in

Convict
delinquent conduct
Adjudication hearing – A hearing to determine

whether there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt Trial
to support the allegations against the juvenile
Aftercare – Supervision of a juvenile after release

Parole
from an institution
Criminal
System
Commitment – Decision by a juvenile court judge to Sentence to

send the adjudicated juvenile to an institution prison
Delinquent act – A behavior committed by a

juvenile that would have been a crime if committed Crime
by an adult
Delinquent – A juvenile who has been adjudicated

Criminal
of a delinquent act in juvenile court
Detention – Short-term secure confinement of a

Confinement
juvenile for the protection of the juvenile or for the
in jail
protection of society
Detention center – A facility designed for short-

term secure confinement of a juvenile prior to court Jail
disposition or execution of a court order
Disposition – The sanction imposed on a juvenile

Sentence
who has been adjudicated in juvenile court
Disposition hearing – A hearing held after a juvenile Sentencing

has been adjudicated hearing
Institution – A facility designed for long-term

secure confinement of a juvenile after adjudication Prison
(also referred to as a training school)
Petition – A document that states the allegations

against a juvenile and requests a juvenile court to Indictment
adjudicate the juvenile
Criminal
System
Arrested
Taken into custody – The action on the part of a
police officer to obtain custody of a juvenile accused
of committing a delinquent act
Source: Taylor, R. W., & Fritsch, E. J. (2015). Juvenile justice: Policies, programs, and
practices (4th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Education, p. 9. Used with permission from
McGraw-Hill Education.
Although the major impetus for establishing the juvenile justice system was
to emphasize rehabilitation, since the 1980s, there has been a trend toward a
more punitive approach to juveniles. This trend is due to various converging
developments, such as broadening due-process protections for both adults
and juveniles, the resurgence of retribution, and societal changes in
perceptions about children’s responsibility and accountability.36 Another
aspect of this more punitive trend is in reference to transfer provisions—
waiving a juvenile offender from the juvenile justice system to the adult
criminal justice system. The reasons for waivers have often been that the
juvenile justice system cannot provide the needed treatment or protect the
community from the offender. In reality, however, the reason for waivers is
an immediate increase in the severity of response to the juvenile.37
Learning Check 1.2
1. Law enforcement agencies on the state level that have general police powers as
well as additional functions, such as investigating major crimes, are designated as
the _______________ _______________ model.
2. Law enforcement agencies on the state level whose primary focus is to enforce
laws concerning public roads and highways are designated as the
_______________ _______________ model.
3. Every court, including the U.S. Supreme Court, is limited in terms of
_______________.
4. Recognizing that the state has both the right and an obligation to protect juveniles is
referred to as _______________ _______________.
Some states have had transfer provisions since the 1920s; other states have
had such provisions since the 1940s.38 Transfer provisions can be
categorized into three types: judicial waiver, concurrent jurisdiction, and
statutory exclusion.
Judicial waiver: The juvenile court judge has the authority to waive
juvenile court jurisdiction and transfer the case to criminal court. States
may use terms other than judicial waiver. Some call the process
certification, remand, or bind over for criminal prosecution. Others
transfer or decline rather than waive jurisdiction.
Concurrent jurisdiction: Original jurisdiction for certain cases is
shared by both criminal and juvenile courts, and the prosecutor has
discretion to file such cases in either court. Transfer under concurrent
jurisdiction provisions is also known as prosecutorial waiver,
prosecutor discretion, or direct file.
Statutory exclusion: State statute excludes certain juvenile offenders
from juvenile court jurisdiction. Under statutory exclusion provisions,
cases originate in criminal rather than juvenile court. Statutory
exclusion is also known as legislative exclusion.39
judicial waiver: the authority to waive juvenile court jurisdiction and transfer the case to
criminal court.
concurrent jurisdiction: original jurisdiction for certain cases is shared by both criminal
and juvenile courts; the prosecutor has discretion to file such cases in either court.
statutory exclusion: excludes certain juvenile offenders from juvenile court jurisdiction;
cases originate in criminal rather than juvenile court.
While all states have some type of provision that allows some juveniles to
be tried in adult criminal court, 34 states have what is termed the “once an
adult, always an adult” provision. Under this provision, juveniles who have
been tried and convicted as adults must be prosecuted in criminal court for
any subsequent offenses.
Criminological Theory
Respected scientific theories in all fields of study, whether chemistry,
physics, or criminology, tend to have the same characteristics. This is
further illustrated by the scientific review process (i.e., blind peer review by
experts) used in all fields to assess which studies and theoretical
frameworks are of high quality. The criteria that characterize a good theory
in chemistry are the same ones used to assess what makes a good
criminological theory. These characteristics include parsimony, scope,
logical consistency, testability, empirical validity, and policy implications.40
Each of these characteristics is examined in the next section.41
Applying Theory to Crime Motor-Vehicle Theft
A motor-vehicle theft is defined as “the theft or attempted theft of a motor vehicle. A

motor vehicle is defined . . . as a self-propelled vehicle that runs on land surfaces and not
on rails.”42 Motor vehicles include sport utility vehicles, automobiles, trucks, buses,
motorcycles, motor scooters, all-terrain vehicles, and snowmobiles. They do not, however,
include farm equipment, bulldozers, airplanes, construction equipment, or watercraft. In
2017, about 773,139 motor-vehicle thefts were reported in the United States. In that time,
close to $6 billion was lost as a result of motor-vehicle thefts; the average dollar loss per
stolen vehicle was $7,708.
Slightly over 75% of all motor-vehicle thefts were automobile thefts. According to the
National Insurance Crime Bureau (NICB), in 2016 the Honda Accord (1997 model more
than any other) was stolen more often than any other car in the United States. This was
followed by the Honda Civic (1998), Ford pickup (full-size) (2006), Chevrolet pickup
(full-size) (2004), Toyota Camry (2016), Nissan Altima (2015), Dodge Ram pickup (full-
size) (2001), Toyota Corolla (2015), Chevrolet Impala (2008), and Jeep Cherokee/Grand
Cherokee (2000).43 Further, the NICB noted that one should also consider vehicle theft
fraud. In the past, vehicle thieves focused on stealing cars and trucks the “old-fashioned
way,” such as by forced entry and circumventing ignitions. Today, there are new scams for
stealing vehicles that involve fraud:
Owner give-ups: The owner falsely claims that the vehicle has been stolen, to
collect insurance money. He or she attempts destruction of the evidence—by
driving the vehicle to a secluded area and setting it on fire, by submerging it in a
lake, or, in extreme cases, burying it underground.
Thirty-day specials: Owners whose vehicles need extensive repairs sometimes
perpetrate the 30-day-special scam. They will report the vehicle stolen and hide it
for 30 days—just long enough for the insurance company to settle the claim. Once
the claim is paid, the vehicle is often found abandoned.
Export fraud: After securing a bank loan for a new vehicle, an owner obtains an
insurance policy for it. The owner reports the vehicle stolen to a U.S. law
enforcement agency but, in reality, has shipped it overseas to be sold on the black
market. The owner then collects on the insurance policy, as well as any illegal
profits earned through overseas conspirators who sell the vehicle.
Phantom vehicles: An individual creates a phony title or registration to secure
insurance on a nonexistent vehicle. The insured then reports the vehicle stolen
before filing a fraudulent insurance claim. Often, antique or luxury vehicles are
used in this scam, since these valuable vehicles produce larger insurance
settlements.44
In January 2019, two employees of Tri-County Ambulance in Cleveland, Ohio, were

dispatched to TriPoint Medical Center to pick up a patient.45 These two employees left
the ambulance running to keep it warm, given the Ohio winter temperature; they also left
the door unlocked. While the employees were inside the medical center, Jennette Askew
was leaving the hospital. Ms. Askew was quite upset because she could not get a ride
home. So, upon leaving the hospital, when she noticed the ambulance with the motor
running, she climbed in and drove away. Tri-County Ambulance was able to track the
vehicle through GPS. They forwarded this information to the Willoughby Hills police,
who eventually caught up with the ambulance. At the time, Ms. Askew was traveling at
about 90 mph. She did eventually pull over; she was arrested for theft of a motor vehicle.
After reading about Ms. Askew, you might ask, “Why would she do that?” Perhaps, in her
agitated state, she lacked any type of self-control at that moment. Or she reasoned that
because no one was able to give her a ride home, it was upon her to find one.
When we read about this type of behavior in a newspaper or hear about it on the news, we
may want some kind of explanation. This is what theory attempts to do, but in a more
rigorous, scientific manner. Throughout this text, as we discuss various theories, we
attempt to apply key points of those theories to either a real or hypothetical situation in
boxes labeled “Applying Theory to Crime.” For each of these special boxes, we begin
with a brief discussion of a particular crime, such as motor-vehicle theft, robbery, or
murder. Subsequently, we apply the relevant theory or theories in that chapter to that
particular crime. With this approach, you will obtain general information about particular
offenses as well as apply key features of various theories to those crimes.
Think About It
1. Why did Ms. Askew steal the ambulance?
2. Are there any mitigating factors that you would consider in this situation?
Five Characteristics of Good Theories

Parsimony is attained by explaining a phenomenon, such as criminal
activity, in the simplest way possible. Other characteristics being equal, the
simpler the theory, the better. The challenge with criminal behavior is that it
is highly complex; however, some criminologists have attempted to explain
this complex phenomenon using rather simplistic approaches. For instance,
the theory of low self-control maintains that one personality factor—low
self-control—is responsible for all criminal activity. As will be discussed in
Chapter 10, the originators of this theory, Michael Gottfredson and Travis
Hirschi, contend that every act of crime and deviance is caused by this same
factor: low self-control.46 A simple theory is better than a more complex
one. Given the complex nature of criminal behavior, however, it is likely
that a simple explanation, such as identifying one factor to explain all types
of criminal and deviant behavior, will not be adequate.
parsimony: a characteristic of a good theory, meaning that it explains a certain

phenomenon, such as criminal behavior, with the fewest possible propositions or concepts.
How would Lombroso classify this person?
RAUL ARBOLEDA/AFP/Getty Images
Scope is the trait that indicates how much of a given phenomenon the
theory attempts to explain. Other traits being equal, the larger the scope, the
better the theory. To some extent, this is related to parsimony in the sense
that some theories, such as the theory of low self-control, seek to explain all
crimes and all deviant acts. Thus, the theory of low self-control has a very
wide scope. As we will discuss later, other theories of crime may attempt to
explain only property crime, such as some versions of strain theory or drug
use. However, the wider the scope of what a theory can explain, the better
the theory.
scope: refers to the range of criminal behavior that a theory attempts to explain.
Logical consistency is the extent to which a theory makes sense in terms of

its concepts and propositions. Sometimes it is easier to illustrate this point
with an example. Some theories do not make sense simply because of the
face value of their propositions. For instance, Cesare Lombroso maintained
that the most serious offenders are born criminals; they are biological
throwbacks to an earlier stage of evolutionary development and can be
identified by their physical features.47 Lombroso, who is discussed later in
this book, maintained that tattoos were one of the physical features that
distinguished these born criminals. This does not make sense, or lacks
logical consistency, because tattoos are not biological physical features (i.e.,
no baby has been born with a tattoo).
logical consistency: the extent to which concepts and propositions of a theoretical model
make sense in terms of face value and consistency with what is readily known about crime
rates and trends.
Testability is the extent to which a theory can be empirically and

scientifically tested. Some theories simply cannot be tested. A good
example of such a theory is Freud’s theory of the psyche, discussed in more
detail later in this book. Freud described three domains of the psyche—the
conscious ego, the subconscious id, and the superego. None of these
domains, however, can be observed or tested.48 While some theories can be
quite influential without being testable (e.g., Freud’s theory), a theoretical
model that is untestable and unobservable is at a considerable disadvantage.
Fortunately, most established criminological theories can be examined
through empirical testing.
testability: the extent to which a theoretical model can be empirically or scientifically

tested through observation and empirical research.
Empirical validity is the extent to which a theoretical model is supported

by scientific research. This is closely associated with the previous
characteristic of testability. While almost all accepted modern
criminological theories are testable, this does not mean they are equal in
terms of empirical validity.
empirical validity: the extent to which a theoretical model is supported by scientific

research.
For instance, deterrence theory proposes in part that offenders will not
repeat their crimes if they have been caught and given severe legal
punishment. If research finds that this is true for only a small minority of
offenders or that punished offenders are only slightly less likely to repeat
crimes than are unpunished offenders, then the theory has little empirical
validity.49
Thus, questions of empirical validity include these: “What degree of

empirical support does the theory have?” “Do the findings of research
provide weak or strong support?” “Does the preponderance of evidence
support or undermine the theory?”50
Learning Check 1.3
1. When a theory can explain a phenomenon using a simplistic approach, this is

considered _______________.
2. A theory that attempts to explain all crimes and all deviant acts is broad in
_______________.
3. Empirical validity is the extent to which a theoretical model is supported by
_______________.
Three Requirements for Determining Causality

Various criteria are involved in determining whether a certain variable
causes another variable to change—in other words, causality. For this
discussion, we will refer to the commonly used scientific notation of a
predictor variable—called x—as causing an explanatory variable—called y.
These variables are often referred to as an independent or predictor variable
(x) and a dependent or explanatory variable (y). These criteria are used for
all scientific disciplines, whether chemistry, physics, biology, or
criminology. The three criteria required to determine causality are (1)
temporal ordering, (2) covariation or correlation, and (3) accounting for
spuriousness.
Temporal ordering requires that the predictor variable (x) precede the
explanatory variable (y) if one is attempting to determine that x causes y.
Although this issue of time order appears to be quite obvious, there are
instances when this criterion is violated in criminological theories. For
instance, a recent scientific debate has focused on whether delinquency is an
outcome variable (y) caused by associations with delinquent peers and
associates (x) or whether delinquency (x) causes associations with
delinquent peers and associates (y), which then leads to more delinquent
behavior. This is an example of temporal ordering, or “which came first, the
chicken or the egg?” Research has revealed that both processes often occur,
meaning that delinquency and associations with delinquent peers are likely
to be both predictor and explanatory variables.
temporal ordering: the criterion for determining causality; requires that the predictor
variable (x) precede the explanatory variable (y) in time.
Correlation or covariation is the extent to which a change in the predictor

(x) is associated with a change in the explanatory variable (y). For instance,
an increase in unemployment (x) is likely to lead to a rise in crime rates (y).
This would indicate a positive association, because as one variable
increases, so does the other. Similarly, an increase in employment (x) is
likely to lead to a decrease in crime rates (y). This would be a negative, or
inverse, association, because as one variable decreases, the other increases.
The criterion of covariance is not met when a change in x does not produce
any change in y. Thus, if a significant change in x does not lead to a
significant change in y, this criterion is not met.
correlation or covariation: a criterion of causality that requires a change in a predictor

variable (x) to be consistently associated with some change in the explanatory variable (y).
However, correlation alone does not mean that x causes y. For example, ice
cream sales (x) tend to be highly associated with crime rates (y). This does
not mean that ice cream sales cause higher crime rates. Instead, other
factors, such as warm weather, lead to an increase in both sales of ice cream
and the number of people who are outdoors in public areas, which could
lead to greater opportunities and tendencies to engage in criminal activity.
This example leads to the final criterion for determining causality.
Why Do They Do It?
David and Louise Turpin
Parents Louise and David Turpin following their 2018 arrest.
AP Photo/Riverside County Sheriff’s Department via AP
In January 2018, a 17-year-old girl escaped from her home in Perris, California. She took
a cell phone from the home and dialed 911. When officers arrived, they thought that the
girl was much younger; this was due to her being severely malnourished. Inside the home,
according to a police statement, the officers found “several children shackled to their beds
with chains and padlocks in dark and foul-smelling surroundings.” In addition to the 17-
year-old who had called police, there were 12 siblings in the home, ranging in age from 2
to 29 years.51
For many years, the Turpin children endured severe abuse. Initially the parents tied their
children with ropes as punishment. However, when one of the children, who was hogtied,
escaped from the ropes, the parents used chains and padlocks. Often the children were
shackled to their beds for weeks. There was some evidence that they were not always
released to go to the bathroom. Further investigation revealed that the children were
allowed to shower once a year. They could wash their hands but if they washed above the
wrist area, their parents accused them of playing in the water.
David and Louise Turpin rarely fed their children on any type of schedule. They did buy
food for themselves, but the children were not allowed to eat. It was reported that when
the parents bought food, including pies, they would leave them on the counter. The
children could look at the pies but not eat any of the food.
This abhorrent treatment of children went unrecognized by the community because the
Turpins were very isolated from other families. The children were not allowed to play
with toys; any toys they received were kept in a closet—unopened. The parents did allow
the children to write in journals.52 The children were taught to memorize long passages
from the Bible. However, the children lacked basic “life skills”:
Many of the children did not know what a police officer was, for example, and
the 17-year-old who called to report the abuse did not know what pills or
medications were upon police questioning.53
David and Louise Turpin are currently in custody, charged with several counts of child
abuse, torture, and false imprisonment. They have pleaded “not guilty” to all. If convicted,
however, they may receive life sentences.54
Think About It
1. Why were both parents involved in the severe abuse and torture of their children?
2. If the 17-year-old-daughter had not escaped, how long would the abuse have
continued?
In this text, we will be presenting what some may consider “high-profile” crimes. These
are crimes that have received a great deal of media attention due to the individuals
involved and/or the horrendous nature of the offense. In some instances, such as the
Turpin case, these types of crimes go beyond the question “Why did they do it?”
Considering for spuriousness is a complicated way of saying, to determine

that x causes y, other factors (typically called z factors) that could be causing
the observed association must be accounted for before we can be sure that x
is actually causing y. In other words, these other z factors may account for
the observed association between x and y. What often happens is that a third
factor (z) causes two events to occur together in time and place. Referring
back to Lombroso, tattoos may have predicted criminality at the time he
wrote. However, Lombroso did not account for an important z factor—
namely, associates or friends who also had tattoos. This z factor caused the
simultaneous occurrence of both other factors.
spuriousness: when other factors (often referred to as z factors) are actually causing two
variables (x and y) to occur at the same time; it may appear as if x causes y, when in fact
they are both being caused by z factor(s).
What aspects of this neighborhood would cause it to be
classified as “disorganized”?
© iStockphoto.com/Pawel Gual
Researchers in criminology are fairly good at determining the first two

criteria of causality—temporal ordering and covariance or correlation. Most
scientists can perform classical experiments that randomly assign
participants either to receive or not to receive the experimental manipulation
to examine the effect on outcomes. The problem for criminologists,
however, is that the factors that appear to be important (according to police
officers, parole agents, or corrections officers) are family variables,
personality traits, employment variables, intelligence, and other similar
characteristics that cannot be experimentally manipulated to control for
possible z factors.
Thus, as criminologists, we may never be able to meet all the criteria for
causality. Rather, we are often restricted to building a case for the factors we
think are causing crime by amassing as much support as we can regarding
temporal ordering and covariance or correlation, and perhaps accounting for
other factors in advanced statistical models. Ultimately, social science,
particularly criminology, is a difficult field in terms of establishing causality,
and, as we shall see, empirical validity of various criminological theories is
hindered by such issues.
Theory Informs Policies and Programs

An essential aspect of a good theory is that it can help inform and guide
policies that attempt to reduce crime. After all, a criminological theory is
truly useful in the real world only if it helps reduce criminal offending. For
instance, referring to the Turpin case, one could argue that Donald and
Louise Turpin were able to inflict such severe abuse on their children
because of their isolation from others in the community; this abuse was
undetected particularly by those deemed mandatory reporters (e.g., school
teachers). Thus, these situations could be avoided if there was some
oversight regarding homeschooling. In fact, after learning of the Turpin
case, California assembly members Jose Medina and Susan Talamantes
Eggman introduced two bills that would give the state of California more
oversight of homeschools.55 Many theories have been used as the basis of
such changes in policy.
All major criminological theories have implications for, and have indeed
been utilized in, criminal justice policy and practice. Every therapy method,
treatment program, prison regimen, police policy, or criminal justice
practice is based, either explicitly or implicitly, on some explanation of
human nature in general or criminal behavior in particular.56 In each
chapter, we will present examples of how the theories of crime discussed
have guided policymaking.
One theoretical perspective we will be discussing is differential association.

A central tenet of this theory is the influence of close peer groups or other
role models. The major implication of this theory is that to reduce crime, we
should replace negative, antisocial role models with more positive, prosocial
role models. The influence of this position is reflected in the conditions of
probation or parole; offenders are required to stay away from convicted
felons. Programs that bring juvenile offenders together for positive purposes
and positive interaction with others will face obstacles because “the lure of
‘the streets’ and of the friends they have grown up with remains a powerful
countervailing force regarding rehabilitation.”57
Another theoretical perspective we will be presenting focuses on social

structure. If individuals live in an environment that is considered
disorganized, such as one characterized by high unemployment and
transiency, this could be deemed the root cause of crime. The challenge with
implementing policies and programs with this perspective is that it does not
necessarily focus on the individual. Clifford Shaw argued that rather than
treating individual offenders, one needs to focus on the community.
Subsequently, he developed the Chicago Area Project. Shaw, along with his
staff, organized programs aimed at establishing or enhancing a sense of
community with neighborhoods. He also obtained the assistance and
cooperation of schools, churches, recreational clubs, trade unions, and
businesses.58
Victimology
Victimology can be defined as the scientific study of victims.59 Although
this definition is quite simple, the range of specific topics and the depth to
which they are examined can be complex. Specifically, the study of victims
includes such widely varied topics as theoretical reasons that some
individuals are more likely to be victimized, the legal rights of victims, and
the incidence/spatial distribution of victimization in a given geographic
area. These are just some of the many topics that fall under the general
umbrella of victimology, and even these three topics can be broken into
many categories of study. Before we discuss some of those areas, it is
important to understand the evolution of the study of victims.
Victimology is a relatively new area of criminology, which is strange

because there have been victims since the very beginning of human
civilization. The earliest use of the term victimology is attributed to two
scholars, Fredric Wertham in his book The Show of Violence (1949)60 and
Benjamin Mendelsohn, generally considered the father of victimology, in
his 1956 article titled “Victimology.”61 This may not seem that recent, but it
is when you consider that crime has been studied for hundreds of years.
Another indication that the science of victimology is very young is that the
word “victimology” was not recognized by spell checkers in the most
commonly used word-processing programs until the last few years.
However, the study of victims provides much insight into crime. After all,
for most crimes there is a victim, so to only try to understand the offender is
to miss half the equation. As Wertham wrote:
The murder victim is the forgotten man. With sensational
discussions on the abnormal psychology of the murderer, we have
failed to emphasize the unprotectedness of the victim and the
complacency of the authorities. One cannot understand the
psychology of the murderer if one does not understand the
sociology of the victim. What we need is a science of
victimology.62
It is also important to note that one of the most accurate measures of crime
in existence is based on interviews with victims. Called the National Crime
Victimization Survey (NCVS), it was begun in 1973 and is generally
considered a more accurate estimate of crime in the United States than the
Uniform Crime Reports collected by the police and FBI, especially for
certain types of offenses, such as forcible rape and burglary. It is certainly
the most important source for victimization data across the United States.
Victim Precipitation
One of the most basic underlying concepts of virtually all theoretical
perspectives of victimology is that of victim precipitation.63 Victim
precipitation is when an individual somehow increases the risk that he or
she will be victimized. For example, if someone does not lock their car and
it gets stolen, this is known as passive victim precipitation, because the
crime was facilitated by an action the victim did not take. Active victim
precipitation, on the other hand, involves actually doing something that
increases the probability of being victimized. For example, if John yells a
racial slur at Ron and then Ron attacks John, what Ron did is not justified,
but John clearly increased his likelihood of being attacked, which is why it
was an active form of precipitation. The concept of victim precipitation is
not about assigning blame; it is simply about raising the odds or risk of
being victimized. To be clear, victims should not be blamed, but often what
they did or didn’t do made them more prone to being targeted.
victim precipitation: the increased likelihood of individuals becoming victims of crime

due to something they did (or did not do) that put them more at risk (e.g., not locking their
car door).
Marvin Wolfgang conducted one of the first major studies of victim
precipitation in the late 1940s and early 1950s, in which he found that a
substantial percentage of homicides in Philadelphia involved situations in
which the victim was the first to use force against the person(s) who killed
them.64 At the time, this was a key insight, because previously most
researchers had assumed that most victims were completely innocent.
Wolfgang’s study showed that many victims of homicide were actually
active precipitators of the crime. Many other theorists have expanded on this
theory of victim precipitation, but none have really added to the original
model and data provided by Wolfgang. Recent studies have consistently
supported the importance of victim precipitation in increasing the likelihood
of victimization for a variety of criminal offenses.65
The Incidence/Prevalence of Victimization

One of the most common misperceptions about rates of victimization
involves the type of individual who is most likely to be victimized. Studies
have shown that many people believe that the most likely individuals to be
victims of violent crimes are elderly persons. Perhaps this is due to media
coverage; when a grandmother gets raped or robbed, it makes the front page
of every newspaper. In fact, however, older individuals are by far the least
likely to be victimized by violence. The highest rates of violent
victimization clearly occur among teenagers and young adults.66 This is
likely because young people are the ones who typically associate or “hang”
with the most common offenders, namely young males.
The vast majority of victimization is intraracial, meaning that typically the

offender is of the same race or ethnicity as the victim (see Figure 1.2). Data
from the Department of Justice show that this is true for homicide, for
example. This makes sense, because people of a given race or ethnicity tend
to socialize with other people of the same race or ethnicity.67
The good news is that violent victimization has been falling drastically since
the early 1990s. According to both the National Crime Victimization Survey
and the Uniform Crime Reports (police reports summarized by the FBI),
violent victimization has dropped by over 50% since 1993. New York City
has seen a decrease from over 2,200 homicides per year in the early 1990s
to fewer than 400 per year currently. Los Angeles had well over 1,000
homicides per year in the early 1990s but is now averaging less than 500.
The reasons for this huge decrease are still unknown.
Child Abuse and Neglect

Rates of child abuse and neglect have decreased in the last few decades,
probably due to more acknowledgment and awareness of these issues.68 It is
well known that in traditional times, police and other law enforcement felt
that domestic issues were best handled at home. It should be noted that any
citizen can make an anonymous claim about child abuse or neglect; to do so,
they should call their local child protection agency. However, individuals
working in a professional capacity must reveal their identity and agency if
they report such accusations of abuse or neglect.
Figure 1.2 Homicide by Race of Victim and Offender, United

States, 2017
Source: Crime in the U.S. 2017. FBI. Expanded Homicide Data Table
6.
Note: “Other” includes American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and

Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander. Most recent data available
at time of publication.
Several agencies have been created at the national level to measure rates of
child abuse and to provide helpful services in such cases. One of the most
prominent is the Attorney General’s Defending Childhood Initiative, which
is administered by the federal Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention (OJJDP), and its role is primarily to increase awareness about
the long-term influence of children’s exposure to violence and to seek ways
of addressing the problem. Additionally, the OJJDP’s Internet Crimes
Against Children (ICAC) task force program helps state and local law
enforcement prevent and investigate technology-based sexual exploitation.69
Also, the OJJDP works with the Office of Justice Programs to manage the
AMBER Alert program, in which notices go out nationally in efforts to
locate abducted children; this program is credited with helping to rescue
nearly a thousand children since its launch in 2013.70
Since 1983, the Department of Justice has declared April to be National

Child Abuse Prevention Month. Various agencies have been created to help
children who are victims of crime and to promote awareness of their rights
and the services offered to them.
Compensation and Restitution

The main distinction between victim compensation and restitution is that
the former is given by the state or government and the latter is given by the
offender (typically as part of his or her sentence). New Zealand created the
world’s first victim compensation program in 1963. California had the first
victim compensation program in the United States; it is still one of the
largest and provides at least approximately $70,000 for victims of violent
crime. Property crimes are not included, because victims usually have some
type of insurance; one big exception is drunk driving, which the
organization MADD [Mothers Against Drunk Driving] lobbied hard for and
got, so that is actually allowed in most compensation programs. Now all
states have victim compensation programs and receive federal funding from
legislated programs, most of them enacted in the 1980s.
compensation: often paid to victims of violent acts; funds are provided to victims through
local, state, or federal governmental agencies.
restitution: often ordered by the court to be paid to victims by the offender(s) as part of
their sentence.
The Code of Hammurabi was inscribed on a seven-foot basalt
stele. It is now on display in the Louvre in Paris, France.
Roman Milert/Alamy Stock Photo
Interestingly, the first historical record about victims goes back to the Code
of Hammurabi in 1754 B.C. This code had many laws, a portion of which
called for a restoration of equity between the offender and the victim, as
well as encouraged victims to forgive their offenders.71
Victim compensation programs are typically handled by the victims’

services unit or department at local or county offices. Victims’ services units
are usually housed in the county district attorney’s office, and they typically
do a great job of helping victims, not just as first responders (where they
counsel and give information about social services after a major crime) but
also in helping victims fill out reports to apply for state compensation (for
funeral services, medical expenses, etc.).
If an offender is required to pay restitution as part of his or her sentence, the

victim will likely not fare well in actually receiving it. Most offenders are
unemployed and/or moneyless and thus unable to pay their victims. There
are cases in which victims do receive their court-mandated restitution (often
because the offender is a juvenile and his or her parents pay the money), but
these instances are the exception.
Victim Impact Statements

A victim impact statement is the report of a victim (often a family
member) to the court about how an offender affected his or her life. The first
victim impact statement delivered in the United States was reported in
California in 1976. The admittance of victim impact statements to courts
was challenged, and a number of cases made it to the U.S. Supreme Court,
which wavered on the decision for many cases over the course of many
years. However, the most definitive case is that of Payne v. Tennessee
(1991), in which the highest court ruled that victim impact statements were
relevant during the sentencing hearings. Nothing has really changed since
that case; victim impact statements may still be presented to judges or juries
following a guilty verdict, during the sentencing phase.72
victim impact statements: formal statements given by victims in court about the incident
in which they were offended, often in person but also in other ways (e.g., a video or
written statement read by the court reporter); these statements may be considered in
determining the offender’s sentence.
It is important to note that victim impact statements cannot be given when

the jury is determining the verdict. The reason for this rule, according to the
U.S. Supreme Court, is that it is believed that such statements would too
strongly bias the jury, preventing jurors from making an objective
determination of guilt or innocence. (However, the Court believes they are
relevant at the sentencing phase of the trial, particularly in capital cases—
that is, those in which the defendant is facing the death penalty.) Thus, in
most trials only the judge actually hears and rules based on victim impact
statements, which is likely why most studies show that such statements do
not have much influence on the sentencing outcome.73,74 Nevertheless,
victim impact statements are largely deemed significant and important
contributions to the judicial process (as the U.S. Supreme Court agrees), if
only to provide a voice and some closure for victims and their families.
A woman reads her victim impact statement during sentencing.
Should the impact a crime has on a victim be given more
consideration during a trial and sentencing?
ZUMA Press, Inc./Alamy Stock Photo
Learning Check 1.4
1. Who is considered the father of victimology by most scholars?

a. Lombroso
b. Beccaria
c. Sutherland
d. Mendelsohn
2. When an individual does or does not do something that increases his or her risk of
being victimized, this is referred to as victim _______________.
a. anticipation
b. precipitation
c. expectation
d. consideration
3. When an offender is ordered to pay money to the victim as part of sentencing, it is
referred to as _______________; when the state or federal government provides
funds to the victim for losses due to the crime, it is referred to as
_______________.
a. compensation; restitution
b. restitution; compensation
4. The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that victim impact statements can be given
during what stage(s) of a criminal trial?
a. Before the verdict but not after
b. After the verdict and before the sentencing
c. Both before the verdict and before sentencing
d. Only after the sentence
Victim Rights Awareness

The U.S. Department of Justice has designated April as National Crime
Victims Awareness Month. Although different months bring awareness to
specific offenses (September is Campus Safety Awareness Month, because
that is the beginning of the academic year at many schools; October is
Domestic Violence Awareness Month), April is the most important month
because it brings awareness to all victims of crime. Thus, you will likely see
many candlelight vigils and parades during the month of April. It was first
declared Crime Victims’ Rights/Awareness Month in 1981 by President
Ronald Reagan and was a good representation of the increase in attention to
victims in the 1970s and 1980s.
Other examples of increased attention to victims in the 1980s are the

formation in 1983 of the Office of Victims of Crime (OVC), which was
created by the U.S. Department of Justice to implement recommendations
from the President’s Task Force on Victims of Crime initiated by President
Reagan in 1982. Also, in 1984 the Victims of Crime Act (VOCA)
established the Federal Crime Victims Fund to support state compensation
funds and local victim service units and programs. The fund comprises
various fines, penalties, forfeitures, and so forth collected by federal
agencies.
Overall, far more attention has been given to victims of crime since the
early 1970s. It is surprising that it took until the last five decades before
victims were given such interest in terms of study and rights, especially
when one considers that there have been victims since the beginning of
human civilization. In contrast, extensive scientific studies and theories of
offenders have been conducted and promulgated for centuries. It has been
beneficial to the field of criminology to add such study of victims,
especially considering that they are nearly always half the equation when
trying to determine why offenders attack.
Fazit
The purpose of this chapter was twofold. First, we wanted to provide you with a general
understanding of different aspects related to the field. We started with key concepts in
criminology, such as crime, criminal, deviant, and victim. We explored the difference
between criminology and criminal justice, as well as between consensus and conflict
perspectives of crime. Next, we provided a broad overview of the major components of
the criminal justice system: law enforcement, courts, and corrections. When discussing the
juvenile justice system, we reviewed fundamental differences between the adult criminal
justice system and the juvenile justice system. Next, we introduced criminological theory
by discussing what criteria to consider when assessing the strength of a particular theory.
We also briefly discussed the three requirements to show that a given factor causes
changes in another factor. Next, we noted how theory should inform policies and
programs. It is essential to stress that theory is not to be thought of as some abstract or
out-of-touch scientific endeavor. Rather, theory has an important purpose in terms of
developing policies and programs. As Ronald Akers noted:
The question, then, is not whether policy can be or should be based on theory—
it already is guided by theory—but rather, how well is policy guided by theory
and how good is the theory on which the policy is predicated?75
While you are learning and critiquing the various theories presented in this text, it is
essential to ask that question continually!
Finally, we presented an overview of victimology, or the study of victims. We briefly

discussed such topics as victim precipitation, the incidence and prevalence of
victimization, child abuse and neglect, and victim impact statements.
Key Terms
compensation, 17
concurrent jurisdiction, 9
conflict perspective, 3
consensus perspective, 3
correlation or covariation, 12
crime, 2
criminal justice, 3
criminology, 3
deviance, 2
empirical validity, 11
highway patrol, 5
jail, 7
judicial waiver, 9
limited jurisdiction, 6
logical consistency, 11
mala in se, 2
mala prohibita, 2
parens patriae, 7
parsimony, 11
prison, 7
probation, 6
restitution, 17
scope, 11
spuriousness, 13
state police, 5
statutory exclusion, 9
temporal ordering, 12
testability, 11
victim impact statements, 18
victim precipitation, 15
1. How does criminology differ from other perspectives of crime?
2. Should criminologists emphasize only crimes made illegal by law, or should they also
study acts that are deviant but not illegal? Explain why you feel this way.
3. Do you think the juvenile justice system procedures, as well as its philosophy, have
changed since its inception in 1899? Why?
4. Would you consider the term criminal justice system an oxymoron? Explain your answer.
5. Which characteristics of a good theory do you find most important? Which ones do you
find least important? Make sure to explain why you feel that way.
6. How much do you think an individual’s behavior predicts his or her likelihood of being
victimized? What types of circumstances do you think are most relevant?
7. If a member of your family was violently victimized, would you likely give a victim
impact statement? Why or why not? Do you feel that such statements should be
considered in the sentencing of offenders?
Resources
The Office for Victims of Crime, in the U.S. Department of Justice, oversees programs
that have been designed to benefit and assist crime victims (e.g., victims’ rights, public
awareness).
http://www.ovc.gov
This Office for Victims of Crime fact sheet summarizes the amount of monies that are
deposited into this fund from such sources as criminal fines, forfeited bail bonds, and
penalty fees.
https://ojp.gov/ovc/pubs/crimevictimsfundfs/intro.html
The Bureau of Justice Statistics provides a general overview of the criminal justice
system and a flowchart of events.
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/justsys.cfm
https://www.bjs.gov/
Student Study Site
Get the tools you need to sharpen your study skills. SAGE edge offers a robust online
environment featuring an impressive array of free tools and resources.
Access practice quizzes, eFlashcards, video, and multimedia at

edge.sagepub.com/schram3e.
Media Library
For further exploration and application, take a look at the interactive eBook for these
premium resources:
Author Video
1.1: Criminology
Theory in Action Video

1.1: Juvenile Delinquency
1.2: Probation
What Were They Thinking?! Video

1.1: Cannibalism
Chapter 2 Measuring Crime
New York City memorializes the 10th anniversary of the

September 11, 2001, terrorist attack on the World Trade
Center.
Andrew Burton/Getty Images
Learning Objectives
2.1 Identify and distinguish the various data from law enforcement agencies.
2.2 Distinguish key features and some of the major limitations associated with the
National Crime Victimization Survey.
2.3 Distinguish the major differences between the Uniform Crime Reports and the
National Crime Victimization Survey.
2.4 Identify different types of self-report surveys.
2.5 Describe additional data-collection methods used for more specific purposes or
specific populations.
Case Study
September 11, 2001, Victims

On September 11, 2001, more than three thousand people died in the terrorist attacks on the
World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and United Airlines Flight 93, the wreckage of which was
found in Somerset County, Pennsylvania. In the 2001 report Crime in the United States, it was
decided that the victims of 9/11 would not be included in the general report as victims of
murder. Rather, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) provided a special report that
focused on the terrorist attacks. This report included summaries of the victims, specifying their
race/ethnicity, sex, and age, as well as where they had died (i.e., the World Trade Center, the
Pentagon, or Somerset County). Included with these victims were the 71 law enforcement
officers killed in the line of duty:
37 Port Authority of New York and New Jersey Police Department officers
23 New York Police Department officers
5 New York Office of Tax Enforcement officers
3 State of New York Unified Court System officers
1 New York City fire marshal
1 Secret Service agent
1 FBI agent1
According to the FBI, the reason for not including these victims was, in part, as follows:
The statistics of September 11 are not a part of the traditional Crime in the United
States publication because they are different from the day-to-day crimes committed
in this country. Additionally, combining these statistics with our regular crime report
would create many difficulties in defining and analyzing crime as we know it.2
Further, it was argued that the death toll was so high that if one were to combine this with
traditional crime statistics, it would have what is called an outlier effect. An outlier is an
extreme value that significantly differs from the rest of the distribution in a set of data.
Some have argued that this was not an appropriate decision. In 2002, Paul Leighton, a
professor of criminology, argued that “mass murder is still murder.” He maintained that while
it was reported that homicide increased just 3% from 2000 to 2001, because of 9/11 it actually
increased by 26%. If the FBI had chosen to include the victims of 9/11, he contended, the
various people who refer to the Uniform Crime Reports (e.g., bureaucrats, students, reporters)
would have a vivid reminder of the impact those terrorist attacks had on the country.
Interestingly, the FBI had previously included the victims of other terrorist attacks (e.g., the
first World Trade Center bombing in 1993 and the bombing of Oklahoma City’s Alfred P.
Murrah Federal Building in 1995).3
Think About It
Should the victims of 9/11 have been included in Crime in the United States?
Introduction
One often hears on the news or reads in the newspaper that crime is
increasing or decreasing in certain communities, in certain cities, or on the
whole. Often, these reports are based on official crime statistics or data on
crime that have come to the attention of law enforcement. But some crimes
do not come to the attention of law enforcement or other criminal justice
agencies. These undetected, or unreported, crimes are referred to as the
dark figure of crime or, as illustrated in Figure 2.1, the iceberg. Later in this
chapter, we will cover one way of addressing these undetected or
unreported crimes—by surveying victims of crime.
When thinking further about this dark figure of crime, one may ask, “Do we
truly want to know every crime that has been committed?” To do so may
require “giving up” certain aspects of our lives, such as elements of privacy
and freedom. Currently, there are millions of closed-circuit television
(CCTV) cameras installed in streets and businesses worldwide. The major
impetus of these cameras is to reduce crime while increasing public safety.
However, some civil liberties groups have expressed concern (e.g., that this
surveillance is susceptible to abuse).4 There is a growing area of research
focusing on the evaluation of CCTVs and reducing crime.5 This illustrates
the continuing growth of our technological abilities to track, watch, and
locate different types of activity and behavior. Given these technological
advances, do we also want to improve our ability to detect and take account
of crime? Would we be willing to “give up” our privacy to do so?
Figure 2.1 The Dark Figure of Crime

Source: ©iStockphoto.com/d1sk
Measures of crime are necessary for various reasons,6 such as describing

crime, explaining why crime occurs, and evaluating programs and policies.
It is important to legislators, as well as concerned citizens, that crime
statistics be available to describe, or gauge, criminal activity that can
influence community well-being. Measures of crime are also needed for
risk assessment of different social groups, including their potential for
becoming offenders or victims. Another purpose of measuring crime is
explanation. Identifying causes requires that differences in crime rates be
related to differences in people and their situations. Accounting of crime is
also used to evaluate and justify programs and policies that try to address
criminal activity (e.g., through rehabilitation, incapacitation, or deterrence).
This chapter examines various data-collection methods used to enhance our

understanding of criminal behaviors and patterns. The first portion
describes various statistics collected by law enforcement agencies. The next
portion provides an overview of the National Crime Victimization Survey.
We then present a few examples of self-report surveys. The last portion
summarizes additional approaches used to collect data, such as the National
Prisoner Statistics Program and spatial analyses of crime.
Data From Law Enforcement Agencies

Law enforcement agencies throughout the United States gather a number of
crime statistics. In this section, we look at Uniform Crime Reports,
Supplementary Homicide Reports, the National Incident-Based Reporting
System, Hate Crime Statistics, and Law Enforcement Officers Killed and
Assaulted Statistics.
Uniform Crime Reports
Historical Overview.
Between 1830 and 1930, the collection of crime statistics involved various
agencies. Individual cities, regions, and states collected crime statistics for
their respective regions in an effort to guide policymaking. This resulted in
a somewhat haphazard collection process.7 There was an interest among
police chiefs in developing a crime reporting system. During the 1927
meeting of the International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP), efforts
were made to collect crime statistics in a consistent and uniform manner.8
As a result, seven main classifications of crime were selected to assess
fluctuations in crime rates. These classifications were later identified as Part
I crimes. In 1930, only 400 agencies submitted their crime reports; it was
difficult during the early days of the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR)
Program to assess the crime rate for the entire country. By 2017, however,
more than 18,000 city, university, college, county, state, tribal, and federal
law enforcement agencies voluntarily reported crime data to the FBI.9
In 1960, Part I crimes were termed the Crime Index. Part I crimes were
those crimes most likely to be reported to the police, including murder,
rape, robbery, aggravated assault, larceny, burglary, and motor vehicle theft.
Information was collected on additional categories of crimes, ranging from
sex offenses to parking violations; these are designated as Part II crimes.10
In 1979, by congressional mandate, the offense of arson was added as a Part
I offense. In 2013, human trafficking/commercial sex acts and human
trafficking/involuntary servitude were added as Part I offenses. In the same
year, the definition of rape was changed from its 1929 definition as “the
carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will”11 to:
Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any

body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another
person, without the consent of the victim.12
Table 2.1 provides a list of Part I and Part II offenses.
Table 2.1 Part I and Part II Offenses

Table 2.1 Part I and Part II Offenses
Part I Offenses
Larceny-theft (except motor

Criminal homicide
vehicle theft)
Rape Motor-vehicle theft
Robbery Arson
Human trafficking, commercial

Aggravated assault
sex acts
Burglary Human trafficking, involuntary
servitude
Part II Offenses
Other assault (simple) Gambling
Offenses against the family and

Forgery and counterfeiting
children
Fraud Driving under the influence
Embezzlement Liquor laws
Stolen property: buying,

Drunkenness
receiving, possessing
Vandalism Disorderly conduct
Weapons: carrying, possessing,

Vagrancy
etc.
Prostitution and commercialized

All other offenses
vice
Sex offenses (except rape and

Suspicion
prostitution offenses)
Curfew and loitering laws

Drug-abuse violations
(persons under age 18)
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). (2019). Criminal Justice Information Services
(CJIS) Division: Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. Summary Reporting System (SRS)
User Manual. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.

The primary objective of Uniform Crime Reports is to generate a
consistent (or reliable) set of crime statistics that can be used in law
enforcement administration, operation, and management. Over the years,
however, these reports have become one of the country’s foremost
indicators of crime. They have provided information on fluctuations in the
level of crime for criminologists, sociologists, legislators, city planners, and
the media—information that has subsequently been used for both research
and planning purposes (see Figure 2.2).13
Uniform Crime Reports: annual reports published by the FBI, intended to estimate most
of the major street crimes in the United States.
Uniform Crime Reports have been used for a number of criminal justice
studies, such as examining the implications of the decriminalization and
legalization of marijuana;14 understanding the influence of Jessica’s Law on
reported forcible rape;15 evaluating the effect of home foreclosures on
crime in Indianapolis, Indiana;16 investigating the relationship between
firearm ownership and violent crime;17 and comparing the influence of
community policing in large and small law enforcement agencies on crime
rates.18 In 2004, the FBI discontinued use of the Crime Index, because
although the Crime Index had often been used to detect overall changes in
crime across the country:
The Crime Index and the Modified Crime Index were not true
indicators of the degrees of criminality because they were always
driven upward by the offense with the highest number, typically
larceny-theft. The sheer volume of those offenses overshadowed
more serious but less frequently committed offenses, creating a
bias against a jurisdiction with a high number of larceny-thefts
but a low number of other serious crimes such as murder and
forcible rape.19
Figure 2.2 Crime Clock

Source: Crime in the United States, 2018. FBI. Retrieved from
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-
pages/crime-clock.
The FBI emphasizes that classifying and scoring crimes are the two most
important functions of agencies participating in the UCR Program.
Classifying is defined as determining the appropriate category in which to
report an offense. This is based on information resulting from an agency’s
investigation of the crime.20 An important step in classification has been
referred to as the hierarchy rule. Specifically, when more than one Part I
offense is classified in a multiple-offense situation, the law enforcement
agency must locate the offense that is highest on the hierarchy list and score
that offense but not any of the other offenses.21 There are some exceptions
to this hierarchy rule. For example, the rule does not apply to arson, human
trafficking/commercial sex acts, and human trafficking/involuntary
servitude; these offenses are always reported, even in multiple-offense
situations. See Table 2.2 for examples of how to classify multiple-offense
situations.
Scoring is defined as counting the number of offenses after they have been
classified. The two rules for scoring Part I crimes pertain to the two types of
crimes involved (i.e., crimes against persons and crimes against property).
For crimes against persons, one offense is scored for each victim. For
crimes against property, one offense is scored for each distinct operation or
attempt.22
Table 2.2 Examples of the Hierarchy Rule

Table 2.2 Examples of the Hierarchy Rule
The following scenarios illustrate the proper application of the

hierarchy rule in reporting a multiple-offense incident.
Scenario Crimes Committed Crime Reported
Following the
Two women broke into a hierarchy rule,
car dealership after 1. Burglary only the Burglary
closing hours. They took (Forcible Entry) (Forcible Entry),
the cash from the 2. Motor-Vehicle the highest of the
dealership’s safe and two Theft offenses on the
new automobiles from list of Part I
the garage. offenses, is
scored.
A burglar broke into a

home, stole several items, 1. Burglary After classifying
and placed them in a car (Forcible Entry) the offenses, the
2. Robbery (Other
belonging to the owner of reporting agency
the home. The Dangerous scores only one
homeowner returned and Weapon) offense—
surprised the thief, who 3. Aggravated Robbery (Other
in turn knocked the Assault (Other Dangerous
Dangerous
owner unconscious by Weapon)—the
hitting him over the head Weapon) crime appearing
with a chair. The burglar 4. Motor-Vehicle first in the list of
drove away in the Theft (Auto) Part I offenses.
homeowner’s car.
A 23-year-old woman 1. Prostitution and Following the

was arrested on charges Commercialized hierarchy rule,
of soliciting for Vice only the Part I
prostitution. During the 2. Stolen Property offense,
arrest, she pepper- (Buying, Aggravated
sprayed the arresting Receiving, Assault (Other
officer’s face. The Possessing) Dangerous
officer’s search incident 3. Aggravated Weapon), is
to the arrest resulted in Assault (Other classified and
the recovery of a stolen Dangerous scored. The Part
credit card. There was no Weapon) II offenses are
indication that the card ignored.
had been used
fraudulently.
Exceptions to the Hierarchy Rule
Someone stole a pickup 1. Motor-Vehicle Motor-Vehicle

truck that had a camper Theft Theft is a special
containing camping 2. Larceny-Theft type of Larceny-
equipment attached to it. Theft. It is a
The police recovered the separate
truck and camper but not classification
the equipment. because of the
volume of such
thefts and the
prevailing need
of law
enforcement for
specific statistics
on this offense.
Therefore, when
classifying, the
reporting agency
chooses between
Larceny-Theft
and Motor-
Vehicle Theft. In
cases such as
this, the agency
classifies and
scores the offense
as Motor-Vehicle
Theft.
The Part I crimes

of Murder and
Arson are
involved in this
multiple-offense
As a result of arson in an 1. Murder situation. The
apartment building, six 2. Arson reporting agency
persons were found dead. counts six
Criminal
Homicide
offenses (one for
each victim) and
Arson.
Source: FBI. (2013). Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division: Uniform Crime
Reporting (UCR) Program. Summary Reporting System (SRS) User Manual. Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, pp. 25–26.
Limitations.
As early as 1931, there were criticisms concerning the UCR Program, and
some of these still apply.23 Even with these criticisms, Uniform Crime
Reports continue to be a major source of information pertaining to crime in
the United States.24 Below is a brief overview of the criticisms and
limitations concerning the UCR Program:
1. Some crimes do not come to the attention of those responsible for

collecting this information. In reference to the UCR Program, this
pertains to law enforcement agencies. As stated above, these unknown
crimes constitute the dark figure of crime.25 As outlined by Wesley
Skogan, failure to take these “unreported” crimes into account
restricts the deterrent capability of the criminal justice system by
shielding offenders from police action;
contributes to the misallocation of resources such as police
manpower and equipment;
can influence the police role when officers do not recognize
certain types of criminal activity in their own environment (as a
result, officers might fail to address these problems);
can have a negative influence on victims of crime who do not
become “officially known” to the criminal justice system (for
instance, these victims are ineligible for many supportive benefits
from both public and private agencies); and
can influence the perceived “socialized” costs of crime. (This
misperception can influence private insurance premiums and the
public cost of victim compensation programs.)26
2. Uniform Crime Reports concentrate on conventional street crime (e.g.,
assaults, robbery) but do not adequately include other serious offenses,
such as corporate crime. This is illustrated by the priority given to the
investigation and prosecution of such crimes within the federal
government, including the collection of crime statistics.27
3. Crime statistics, such as those in Uniform Crime Reports, can be used
for political purposes. Some argue that official crime statistics are a
social construction.28 In this vein, these statistics are perceived as an
objective reality for program and policy purposes.29 When these
claims are stated and supported by powerful groups, this can influence
public perceptions, which can then result in policy changes. One
historical example are the efforts to warn individuals of marijuana use
in the 1930s.
In the 1930s, efforts to warn people of the dangers of
smoking marijuana included propaganda films such as
Reefer Madness. How has the societal response to
marijuana changed since then, and what impact has that
had on its classification as a crime?
The Advertising Archives/Alamy Stock Photo
4. Some law enforcement agencies may submit incomplete or delinquent

reports—for example, because (a) an agency experienced a natural
disaster that prevented the timely submission of the data; (b) due to
budgetary restrictions, some police agencies had to limit certain
routine clerical activities, including the collection of crime statistics; or
(c) loss of personnel experienced in preparing UCR data (as a result of
retirement or promotion) resulted in problems with data reporting
because the replacement personnel were not adequately trained and/or
experienced with these activities.30
5. Clerical and data-processing errors can occur in the collection of UCR
data. Based on his experience as a senior analyst in the New York
Division of Criminal Justice Services, Henry Brownstein described
how accuracy can be compromised due to clerical error.31
6. Changes in the law can influence subsequent crime reports and make
later comparisons difficult. Thus, when a previously acceptable
behavior is criminalized or when a classification is altered (e.g., from
misdemeanor to felony, or the reverse), this will likely result in a
change in reported crimes.32 For instance, some have argued that there
are increasing efforts to criminalize homelessness. Some cities have
implemented laws that make it illegal to sleep, eat, or sit in public
spaces.33
It is essential to note that the UCR Program is a “summary-based” system.

UCR data are a summary, or total count, of crimes based on the reporting
agencies. Thus, disaggregation of UCR data can occur only on the reporting
agency level. The units of analysis are groups (i.e., reporting agencies).
UCR data are limited to the totals reported by each participating agency.
The best-known summary UCR measures are numbers of Part I and Part II
offenses. Additional summary data may include property recovered and
weapons used in specific types of offenses, as well as summary totals of
arrests, classified by sex, race, and age grouping of offenders.34
Why Do They Do It?
As mentioned in Chapter 1, throughout this text, we feature “high-profile” crimes or

crimes that have received a great deal of media attention, either due to the individuals
involved or the outrageous nature of the offense. When reading or hearing about these
crimes, many of us may ask ourselves, “Why do they do it?” For this particular chapter,
however, we have decided to present “odd” or “strange” types of offenses. While these
crimes may not have been as highly publicized as other offenses in later sections, they
often evoke the same question, “Why do they do it?”
An Unusual DUI Offense

In January 2019, a New Canaan, Connecticut, woman was arrested for driving under the
influence. At 4:45 p.m., police received a call that a car was stopped at an intersection,
with its apparent driver sitting behind the wheel with her eyes closed. When the police
arrived, they started talking to the woman in question, Stefanie Warner-Grise. They
noticed a strong odor of vanilla on her breath, and her speech was slurred. She had
difficulty answering basic questions. The officers noticed there were numerous bottles of
pure vanilla extract in her vehicle. After failing the sobriety tests and refusing to take a
blood alcohol test, Warner-Grise was taken into custody. According to Food and Drug
Administration regulations, pure vanilla extract must contain 35 percent alcohol, or be 70
proof. This ranks with hard liquors such as rum. One of the most popular brands,
McCormick’s Pure Vanilla Extract, is 82 proof.35
Dead Man’s Parrot a Key Witness?

Glenna Duram of Michigan has been accused of killing her husband, Martin Duram, in
May 2015. Initially, police thought Martin was shot and killed by an intruder. Later,
investigators found a handgun and suicide notes written by Glenna to her ex-husband and
children. Martin’s ex-wife, Christine Keller, believed that his African gray parrot, “Bud,”
witnessed his murder. She inherited the bird after Martin’s murder and was surprised by
what Bud “said.” Two weeks after his murder, Bud would go into rants. He would scream
and yell. He would finish these rants with “Don’t f***ing shoot.” There is video of Bud
saying, “Don’t f***ing shoot!” The prosecutor, Robert Springstead, is contemplating
using that video in court. However, he needs to assess whether anything the bird says can
be admissible in court.36
Lottery Winner Arrested

A 33-year-old Canadian woman believed she had just won the lottery; the award would
have been approximately $50,000. However, when she tried to cash in the ticket, she was
arrested and charged with theft and fraud. The woman had allegedly purchased the ticket
with a credit card belonging to a man who had reported his wallet stolen. While the
woman will not receive any of the lottery winnings, at this time it is unclear as to whether
anyone will receive the $50,000.37
Burglar Can’t Escape the Escape Room

Rye Daniel Wardlaw broke into a Vancouver, Washington, “escape room,” called NW
Escape Experience. He apparently broke into NW Escape Experience by accessing an
adjoining door between the escape room and a vacant store next door. Wardlaw stole a
prop beer (which was used in one of the escape rooms), along with a T.V. remote and a
non-working cell phone. Next, Wardlaw decided to eat a breakfast burrito that he had
brought with him. However, he soon realized that he did not remember how he got into
the space, which resulted in him calling 911 from the business’s phone. When he called,
he stated he was reporting a home invasion and gave the police a false address. The police
were able to track the call, realizing it was from the NW Escape Experience. Wardlaw
eventually found his way out of the “escape room” but ran into the police. He has been
charged with second-degree burglary.38
So, why do they do it? Do you think it may be due to mental illness? Alcohol abuse?
Substance abuse? In the following chapters, we will present theories that try to
understand and explain criminal behavior from various perspectives (e.g., sociological,
psychological, biosocial). Along the way, you will learn how criminologists throughout
the centuries have attempted to understand and explain what is considered criminal
behavior.
Using UCR data, one can obtain total counts of crimes on a city or county
level and move upward to a state or regional level. One cannot obtain
information on individual crimes, offenders, or victims. The U.S.
Department of Justice sponsors two types of crime measures that are based
on incidents, rather than reporting agencies, as the units of analysis. The
first crime measure are Supplementary Homicide Reports; the second crime
measure is the National Incident-Based Reporting System.39
Learning Check 2.1
1. Uniform Crime Reports are based on offenses reported to _______________.

2. Unknown crimes are referred to as _______________.
3. When more than one Part I offense is classified, the law enforcement agency must
locate the offense that is highest on the list; this is referred to as the
_______________.
4. Exceptions to the hierarchy rule are _______________.
Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR)

Homicides are less likely than other crimes to be underreported. Homicides
are also more likely than other offenses to result in an arrest or to be
cleared. Finally, compared to other offenses such as forcible rape, robbery,
and aggravated assault, homicide offense reports are more likely to include
details about the incident, such as information about the victims and/or
offenders.40 Thus, in the 1960s, the FBI launched its Supplementary
Homicide Reports (SHR). Since 1976, these data have been archived at the
National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD), which is maintained
by the University of Michigan’s Inter-university Consortium for Political
and Social Research (ICPSR).41
Supplementary Homicide Reports: part of the UCR Program. These data provide more
detailed information on the incident (e.g., regarding the offender and the victim).
In the Summary Reporting System (SRS) User Manual, Supplementary

Homicide Reports collect additional information pertaining to the incident,
including details of the victim and the offender, their relationship to each
other, the weapon used, and the circumstances.42 For offenses of murder
and nonnegligent manslaughter as well as manslaughter by negligence,
reporting agencies include information such as the following: single or
multiple victims; single, multiple, or unknown offenders; age, sex, race, and
ethnicity of the victim and the offender; a description of the weapon and
how it was used (e.g., if a bottle was used in the commission of a murder,
the reporting agency must note whether the person was killed by beating,
cutting, or stabbing); the relationship of the victim to the offender (e.g., in a
murder incident where a wife is killed by her husband, the relationship must
be reported as “wife”); and circumstances (e.g., lovers’ quarrel,
drunkenness, argument over money, revenge, narcotics, gangland killing).43
Modifications have been put in place when unusual incidents reveal such a
need. For instance, the underlying data structure of the reports allows up to
11 victims and 11 offenders for each record. In those unusual incidents
where a crime involves more than 11 homicides, the victim information is
repeated over more than one record. If an individual does not have any
knowledge of the specific incident, it may be difficult to determine the
separate records involving the same incident:
In April, 1995, an explosion at the Federal Building in Oklahoma

City killed 168 individuals. At the time information was reported
to the Supplementary Homicide Reporting Program, law
enforcement believed three offenders were responsible for this
act. Following reporting guidelines, the information on this
incident in the FBI’s 1995 SHR data file was spread over 16
records (15 containing 11 victims and the last containing 3
victims) with 3 offenders noted on each record. Without
extraordinary knowledge of this incident, an analysis of these
records would yield 168 victims and 48 offenders. The data files
underlying this analysis package have been adjusted to accurately
reflect an incident with 168 victims and 3 offenders.44
In addition to Supplementary Homicide Reports, another national system of

collecting detailed information on homicides is the National Vital Statistics
System (NVSS), developed by the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC). When comparing Supplementary Homicide Reports and
the NVSS, there is substantial overlap in homicide reporting (see Table 2.3).
Overall, the NVSS consistently demonstrates a higher number of homicides
than Supplementary Homicide Reports. This is probably due to the
variations in coverage and score, as well as the voluntary versus mandatory
reporting requirements.45
A bombing on April 10, 1995, devastated the Alfred P. Murrah

Federal Building in Oklahoma City. What challenges do
horrific incidents like this pose for the reporting of crime
statistics?
Staff Sergeant Preston Chasteen, Department of Defense
Supplementary Homicide Reports have been key in developing policy

related to homicide, especially since these data include not only the number
of homicides but also factors associated with these crimes (e.g.,
characteristics of the victims and offenders).46 They have also been used to
enhance our understanding of patterns and trends pertaining to homicides,
including the following: exploring elder abuse homicide, or “eldercide”;47
examining choice of weapon in male sexual homicides;48 comparing and
understanding victims of gun homicide and assault by race, region, and
adversarial factors;49 and examining the effect of the Roper v. Simmons
decision (execution of offenders who were under the age of 18 at the time
of the criminal offense is unconstitutional) on homicides committed by
juveniles.50 Supplementary Homicide Reports can also be considered the
forerunner to the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS),
since they provided additional information about incidents of crime.51
Table 2.3 Comparing the NVSS Fatal Injury Reports and the
UCR Supplementary Homicide Reports
Table 2.3 Comparing the NVSS Fatal Injury Reports and the UCR
Supplementary Homicide Reports
NVSS SHR
Purpose Track all deaths. Track crime statistics.
Reporting Law enforcement

State vital registrars
source agencies
Initial report Death certificate Police report
Report Medical examiners and Law enforcement

responsibility coroners officers
NVSS SHR
Willful killing of one

Injuries inflicted by
human being by another;
Homicide another person with intent
includes murders and
definition to injure or kill by any
nonnegligent
means
manslaughters
Reporting is: Mandatory Voluntary
Manner/cause of death In most states, reports

determined by medical from individual law
Data- examiners/coroners; enforcement agencies are
collection demographic information compiled monthly by
methods is recorded by funeral state-level agencies and
directors on death then forwarded to the
certificates FBI
Source: Regoeczi, W., Banks, D., Planty, M., Langton, L., Annest, J. L., Warner, M., &
Barnett-Ryan, C. (2014). The nation’s two measures of homicide. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, p. 3.
The National Incident-Based Reporting System

(NIBRS)
Initially, Uniform Crime Reports were considered primarily a tool for law
enforcement agencies. By the 1980s, it was evident that these data were
being used by other entities involved with social planning and policy. Thus,
there was a need to collect more detailed information on these data. The
FBI, the Department of Justice Statistics (the agency responsible for
funding criminal justice information projects), and other agencies and
individuals from various disciplines were involved with setting in place the
changes needed to update the program for collecting data.52 After various
stages of development and pilot programs, the FBI drafted guidelines for
this enhanced UCR Program, named the National Incident-Based
Reporting System (NIBRS).
National Incident-Based Reporting System: an enhanced version of the UCR Program
that collects more detailed information on incidents (e.g., regarding the offenders and the
victims).
By the end of the 1980s, NIBRS was operational. As of 2019,

approximately 43 percent of U.S. law enforcement agencies participated in
NIBRS. To further enhance participation, the UCR Program is working with
the Bureau of Justice Statistics on what has been referred to as the National
Crime Statistics Exchange (NCS-X).53 The NCS-X is a “collaborative
undertaking, supported by the Federal Bureau of Investigation and other
Department of Justice agencies” to generate nationally representative,
incident-based data on those crimes reported to law enforcement agencies.54
The goal is to transition the UCR Program to a NIBRS-only data collection
by 2021.55 NIBRS collects data on each incident and arrest within 24
offense categories comprising 52 specific crimes (i.e., Group A). There are
10 Group B offenses for which only arrest data are collected (see Table
2.4).56
The NIBRS data-collection program has two goals: (1) to enhance the
quantity, quality, and timeliness of statistical data collected by law
enforcement entities; and (2) to improve the methodology used for
compiling, analyzing, auditing, and publishing the collected data.57 As a
result of providing more “detailed, accurate, and meaningful data than those
produced by the traditional UCR Program,”58 NIBRS data have also been
used to enhance criminological research. Examples of studies using NIBRS
include the following: exploring the effect of moon illumination on crime
occurring outdoors;59 examining individual and situational factors to
understand assaults against on-duty law enforcement officers;60 examining
elder abuse;61 studying offender, victim, and incident characteristics of
sibling sexual abuse;62 and exploring factors associated with sibling
violence.63
Data Collection.
To illustrate how NIBRS data are collected, here are some of the major
differences between NIBRS and the UCR Program.64
While the UCR Program collects counts on the number of criminal
incidents involving eight offenses (i.e., Part I offenses), NIBRS
expands the types of offenses reported (i.e., Group A and Group B).65
Since NIBRS uses an incident-based reporting system, it includes a
greater degree of detail in reporting (see Figure 2.3). The unit of
analysis for the UCR is the reporting agency. For NIBRS data,
however, there are six possible “units of analysis.” Specifically,
NIBRS data consist of six segments pertaining to the crime incident:
administrative, offense, property, victim, offender, and arrestee. Within
each segment, various information is collected on each incident.
Examples of the various items collected for each segment include the
following: administrative—incident number, incident date/hour;
offense—attempted/completed, type of location, type of weapon or
force involved; property—type of property loss, value of property;
victim—type of injury, victim’s relationship to offender; offender—
age, sex; arrestee—armed with weapon, resident status.66
An incident can consist of multiple offenses. For NIBRS reporting
procedures, the FBI defined an incident “as one or more offenses
committed by the same offender, or group of offenders acting in
concert, at the same time and place.” Acting in concert was defined as
follows: “[A]ll of the offenders to actually commit or assist in the
commission of all of the crimes in an incident. The offenders must be
aware of and consent to the commission of all of the offenses; or even
if nonconsenting, their actions assist in the commission of all of the
offenses.”67 Thus, all the offenders in an incident are considered to
have committed all the offenses that compose the incident. If one or
more of the offenders, however, did not act in concert, then there is
more than one incident.
As mentioned in the previous section, the UCR Program uses the
hierarchy rule (with some exceptions). NIBRS does not use the
hierarchy rule. Thus, if more than one crime was committed by the
same person(s) in close succession and/or proximity, all the crimes are
reported within the same incident.
Table 2.4 NIBRS Offense Categories

Table 2.4 NIBRS Offense Categories
Group A offenses (reported for all incidents)
1. Animal cruelty 14. Human trafficking

2. Arson Human
3. Assault offenses trafficking,
Aggravated assault commercial sex
Simple assault acts
Intimidation Human
4. Bribery trafficking,
5. Burglary/breaking and entering involuntary
6. Counterfeiting/forgery servitude
7. Destruction/damage/vandalism of 15.
property Kidnapping/abduction
8. Drug/narcotic offenses 16. Larceny/theft
Drug/narcotic violations offenses
Drug equipment violations Pocket-picking
9. Embezzlement Purse-snatching
10. Extortion/blackmail Shoplifting
11. Fraud offenses Theft from
False building
pretenses/swindle/confidence Theft from coin-
game operated
Credit card/automatic teller machine or
machine fraud device
Impersonation Theft from
Welfare fraud motor vehicle
Wire fraud Theft of motor
Identity theft vehicle parts or
Hacking/computer invasion accessories
12. Gambling offenses All other larceny
Betting/wagering 17. Motor-vehicle
Operating/promoting/assisting theft
gambling 18.
Gambling equipment Pornography/obscene
violations material
Sports tampering 19. Prostitution
13. Homicide offenses offenses
Murder and nonnegligent Prostitution
manslaughter Assisting or
Negligent manslaughter promoting
Justifiable homicide Purchasing
prostitution
20. Robbery
21. Sex offenses
Rape
Sodomy
Sexual assault
with an object
Fondling
22. Sex offenses,
nonforcible
Incest
Statutory rape
23. Stolen property
offenses
24. Weapon law
violation
Group B offenses (reported for incidents producing arrests)
1. Bad checks
7. Liquor law
2. Curfew/loitering/vagrancy
violations
violations
8. Peeping Tom
3. Disorderly conduct
9. Trespass of real
4. Driving under the influence
property
5. Drunkenness
10. All other offenses
6. Family offenses, nonviolent
Source: FBI. (2018). 2019 National Incident-Based Reporting System User Manual.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, pp. 16–19.
Figure 2.3 The NIBRS Interactive Crime Map

Source: Visit the NIBRS interactive map at https://nibrs.fbi.gov.
Limitations.
Certain limitations of NIBRS have slowed its rate of widespread
adoption.68 A few of these limitations are listed below:
1. As with the UCR Program, NIBRS data include only crimes reported
to law enforcement; unreported and unrecorded crimes are not
included in NIBRS.
2. Because the NIBRS specifications were developed by a federal agency,
local agencies may find it difficult to work with inflexible
specifications and impose problems with reporting procedures.
3. Various organizations may have different goals and incentives. While
the FBI and other national agencies are interested in a national
monitoring system and national-level research applications, local and
state agencies may have different organizational interests. For instance,
local and state agencies may be more interested in local data-collection
requirements and analyses to support local operations, such as the
deployment of law enforcement officers in certain problem areas.
4. While NIBRS data include more detailed information than the UCR
Program, this is also a drawback. With this detailed information, the
NIBRS record structure is more complex; researchers and analysts
may find collecting this detailed information quite a challenge.
5. Currently, little is known about the extent of the errors made when
collecting NIBRS data. While some errors can be addressed, other
types of errors will be noted only after the NIBRS data-collection
program is adopted on a more widespread basis.69
On August 12, 2017, James Alex Fields deliberately drove a

car into a crowd of people who were protesting the Unite the
Right Rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, killing one person
and injuring 28 others.
Heather Heyer Memorial/Cory Clark/NurPhoto via Getty Images
Hate Crime Data

On April 23, 1990, the president signed into law the Hate Crime Statistics
Act. This was due to increasing concern regarding these types of offenses.
As part of the UCR Program, the attorney general is required to develop
guidelines and collect data about crimes that manifest evidence of prejudice
based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. The UCR Program’s
first publication was titled Hate Crime Statistics, 1990: A Resource Book.
This report was a collection of hate crime data from 11 states that compiled
these data and volunteered to submit their data as a prototype. There have
since been significant changes to hate crime data collection.
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to include crimes committed
against people with physical or mental disabilities that should also be
viewed as hate crimes.
The Church Arson Prevention Act was signed into law in 1996.
The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act
of 2009 mandated the collection of data for crimes motivated by any
bias against gender or gender identity.
In 2012, system modifications were implemented that allowed
agencies to report up to four additional bias motivations per offense
type.
In 2013, bias types in the religion category were expanded to include
all of those identified by the Pew Research Center and the U.S. Census
Bureau. The program also started collecting data on anti-Arab bias.
In 2015, law enforcement agencies were allowed to submit the
following religious bias types: anti-Buddhist, anti–Eastern Orthodox
(Greek, Russian, etc.), anti-Hindu, anti–Jehovah’s Witness, anti-
Mormon, anti–other Christian, and anti-Sikh. Also, the program started
to collect data on race and ethnicity bias under the category of
Race/Ethnicity/Ancestry.
In 2016, the UCR Program allowed law enforcement agencies that
provide data to NIBRS to report offenses of animal cruelty.70
Those who developed the Hate Crime Statistics Act, for purposes of
collecting national hate crime data, wished to avoid imposing any new
data-reporting responsibilities on those law enforcement agencies
participating in the UCR Program. Thus, hate crime data are collected as
additional information to traditional UCR data.
hate crime data: the best-known hate crime data source is the Hate Crime Statistics,
which collect information on traditional offenses, such as murder and vandalism, that
have an additional factor of bias.
Hate crimes are not separate, distinct crimes, but rather traditional
offenses motivated by the offender’s bias. For example, an
offender may commit arson because of his/her racial bias. It is,
therefore, unnecessary to create a whole new crime category. To
the contrary, hate crime data can be collected by merely capturing
additional information about offenses already being reported to
UCR.71
Thus, if a traditional offense has been motivated by the offender’s bias, the
reporting agency completes a “Hate Crime Incident Report.” Table 2.5
provides two examples of how hate crimes may be reported. Figure 2.4
provides a breakdown of hate crimes reported in 2017. When it comes to
these single incidents, almost 60% are classified as racial bias, up from 47%
in 2014.
Figure 2.4 Bias Motivations
Source: https://www.fbi.gov/image-repository/hate-crime-statistics-
2017-graphic-111318.jpg.
Table 2.5 Example Scenarios of Hate Crimes

Table 2.5 Example Scenarios of Hate Crimes
The following scenarios offer guidance on how to report hate crime.

Based on the facts available, explanations after each scenario
provide, as applicable, the known offense(s) and the bias type(s) that
law enforcement would report. The number of victims has been
added to some of the incidents, for clarification.
Scenario Offenses Reporting
This
incident
should be
reported
with an
Anti-Black
An African American man had just African-
finished a midnight riverboat cruise American
with his fiancée and friends and was Racial Bias
escorting his blind, male friend by and Anti-
the arm into a restroom while Gay (Male)
holding his fiancée’s purse. Inside Murder (1 Sexual
the restroom, another man shouted victim) Orientation
anti-black and anti-gay insults at the Aggravated Bias
men. The perpetrator followed them Assault (1 because the
out of the restroom, continuing his victim) perpetrator
verbal harassment. He then went to used
his car, retrieved a gun, returned to exclusively
confront the men, and said, “Now anti-black
what have you got to say?” The and anti-
perpetrator fired the gun, killing one gay slurs
of the men. and also
acted out
on his
perception
that the
victim was
gay.
An assailant ran up to a Sikh Aggravated This

pedestrian, shoved him to the Assault incident
ground, forcibly removed his should be
Dastaar (Sikh turban), and said, reported
“Take that thing off your head—we with an
don’t want your kind in this Anti-Sikh
neighborhood!” The victim suffered Religious
a concussion. When law Bias
enforcement responded to the scene, because the
a witness to the attack recognized evidence
the offender as a clerk at a local indicates
convenience store near a that the
predominantly Sikh community. victim was
targeted
due to his
Dastaar and
the
assailant’s
ongoing
dealings
with the
Sikh
community.
Source: FBI, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Uniform Crime Reporting
Program. (2015). Hate crime data collection guidelines and training manual. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Justice, pp. 25–27.
Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted

(LEOKA) Statistics
The FBI also collects data on the number of law enforcement officers killed
and assaulted in the United States each year. This important information has
been used for several reasons, including estimates of the risk involved in
police work and analyses of what influences assaults against, and killings
of, police officers. The UCR Program began gathering these data in 1972.72
Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) is a

supplementary data-collection program of the UCR Program. LEOKA
collects data from participating agencies on officer line-of-duty deaths and
assaults. Information obtained from these data helps agencies develop
policies to enhance officer safety.
Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted: LEOKA is part of the UCR Program.
It collects data on officer line-of-duty deaths and assaults.
The UCR Program provided the following definitions to distinguish

between line-of-duty, felonious, and accidental deaths:
Line-of-duty death: This type of death occurs when the officer is on or

off duty and acting in an official capacity while reacting to a situation
that would ordinarily fall within the scope of his or her official duties
as a law enforcement officer. Suicides and deaths caused by heart
attacks or other natural causes, as well as deaths occurring while the
officer is acting in a military capacity, are not included in this
definition.
Felonious death: This type of death occurs when an officer is killed
because of or while performing his or her official duties and as a direct
result of a criminal act by a subject.
Accidental death: This type of death occurs when an officer dies as a
result of an accident he or she is involved in while performing his or
her duties (e.g., an officer is struck by a vehicle while directing traffic
or drowns during a rescue attempt).73
Participating law enforcement agencies are required to report on officers

who are killed or assaulted and meet the following criteria: (1) working in
an official capacity, (2) having full arrest powers, (3) wearing a badge
(ordinarily), (4) carrying a firearm (ordinarily), and (5) being paid from
governmental funds allocated for payment of sworn law enforcement
representatives. These officers are usually employed by local, county, state,
tribal, or federal entities and working in occupations such as municipal or
county police, constables, state police, highway patrol officers, sheriffs or
deputies, marshals, or special agents. Officers usually not included are those
involved with protective, prosecutorial, or confinement activities, such as
federal judges, U.S. attorneys, probation officers, corrections officers,
jailers, and prison officials.
The UCR Program includes a special form for collecting information on
those incidents involving line-of-duty felonious or accidental killing of an
officer or assault of an officer. In reference to officer assaults, the UCR
Program emphasizes that reporting agencies must count all assaults. Even
those incidents that involve more than verbal abuse or minor resistance to
an arrest but do not result in injury to the officer must be reported.74
Data From Victims of Crime: The National Crime

Victimization Survey (NCVS)
While Canada and some European counties have surveyed individuals
regarding their experiences as victims of crime, the United States has the
longest and most extensive background with such surveys. Unofficial
measures of crime, such as the National Crime Victimization Survey
(NCVS), further broaden our understanding of crime with information from
official measures of crime (e.g., Uniform Crime Reports).
National Crime Victimization Survey: a primary measure of crime in the United States.
It is collected by the Department of Justice and the Census Bureau and is based on
interviews with victims of crime.
The primary purpose of these data is to provide additional insight into what
was referred to at the beginning of this chapter as the dark figure of crime
(e.g., crimes not reported to law enforcement). Victims may fail to report
these crimes to law enforcement because (1) the victim believes nothing can
be done about the incident; (2) the victim feels that the incident is not
important enough to report to the police; (3) the victim perceives the
incident as too private or personal; or (4) the victim thinks that the police
will not want to be inconvenienced with the report.75 The NCVS is also
intended to (1) identify portions of the population at risk of victimization,
(2) estimate multiple victimization rates, (3) provide data needed to
evaluate crime prevention programs, and (4) allow for comparisons of
patterns, amounts, and locations of crime with the Uniform Crime
Reports.76
The NCVS is used by various groups concerned about crime and crime
prevention. Community groups and government agencies use these data to
develop neighborhood watch programs, as well as victim assistance and
compensation programs. Law enforcement agencies use the NCVS for (1)
enhancing citizen cooperation with officials in deterring and detecting
crime, (2) establishing special police strike forces to combat those crimes
that the NCVS reported as being most prevalent, and (3) developing street
and park lighting programs in those areas with high reported crime rates.
The print and broadcast media also use NCVS findings when reporting on
various crime-related topics.77
Learning Check 2.2
1. _______________ are not separate, distinct crimes; rather, they are traditional
crimes motivated by the offender’s bias.
2. Like the UCR Program, _______________ data include only those crimes reported
to law enforcement.
3. NIBRS does not use the hierarchy rule. True or false?
4. Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA) is a supplementary
data-collection program of the _______________.
Researchers also use the NCVS to prepare reports, to make policy

recommendations, to provide testimony before Congress, and to present
documentation in court.78 The NCVS has also been used for criminal justice
research, such as examining stalking victimization in the United States;79
hate crimes related to religion;80 exploring routine activities theory and
lifestyle-exposure theory in terms of demographic characteristics and
victimization risk;81 investigating the epidemiology of self-defense gun
use;82 and understanding characteristics of victims and perpetrators of anti-
LGBT hate crimes.83
From January 1971 to July 1972, the Census Bureau implemented the first
nationwide victimization survey. The survey was included as a supplement
to the existing Quarterly Household Survey (QHS). In July 1972, the
National Crime Survey (NCS) evolved into a separate national sample
survey. Due to a mandate, the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration
(LEAA) was the first sponsor of the NCS. This mandate required that data
be collected, evaluated, published, and disseminated regarding the progress
of law enforcement in the United States.84 In 1979, the NCS was moved to
the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) of the U.S. Department of Justice.
Various groups have had some serious reservations about collecting these
data:
Groups supportive of police-based crime statistics were already

suspicious of this new data collection system. Academics began
to raise questions about a multimillion-dollar data collection with
few variables that could be used in testing theories of crime and
that could not produce estimates for local jurisdictions. They also
worried that this new data collection would take funds away from
criminological research.85
To address these concerns, in the mid-1970s, the Law Enforcement

Assistance Administration commissioned the Committee on Social
Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences–National Research Council
(NRC) to evaluate the victim surveys.86 From 1979 to 1985, experts in
criminology, survey design, and statistics conducted a detailed study of the
NCS. Their findings recommended a redesign of the victim survey that
would (1) increase the reporting of crime victimization and (2) include
additional information on specific crime incidents. These recommendations
were implemented in two stages and were completed by July 1993. In
addition to these changes, in 1991, the BJS renamed the NCS the National
Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS).
These major changes included the following:
1. The new questionnaire uses detailed cues to help respondents recall

and report incidents. These new questions and cues also encourage
responses that include a broad continuum of incidents rather than just
those involving weapons, severe violence, or strangers.
2. The NCVS includes multiple questions and cues on crimes committed
by family members, intimates, and acquaintances.
3. Previously, only the categories of rape and attempted rape were
measured in the survey. The NCVS broadened the scope of sexual
incidents to include sexual assault other than rape, verbal threats of
rape or sexual assault, and unwanted sexual contact without force but
involving threats or some type of harm to the victim.
Other changes have been made to the NCVS, including a series of hate
crime questions as well as a series of identity theft questions. Also, in 2006,
the NCVS was converted to a computer-assisted personal interviewing
(CAPI) environment.87
Any individual living in the United States who is 12 years or older is

eligible for participation in the NCVS. The households are selected by
using scientific sampling methods. The NCVS collects data on individuals
who have been the victims of crimes, whether or not these crimes were
reported to law enforcement. The NCVS estimates the proportion of the
various crime types reported to law enforcement; it also provides
information as to why victims reported or did not report these crimes to law
enforcement. The NCVS provides various information, including data about
the victims (e.g., age, sex, race, ethnicity, marital status, income, and
educational level), the offenders (e.g., sex, race, approximate age, and
victim-offender relationship), and the crimes (e.g., time and place of
occurrence, use of weapons, nature of the injury, and economic
consequences). The victims are also asked about their experiences with the
criminal justice system, whether they used any self-protective measures,
and possible substance abuse by offenders.88
Limitations
1. Crimes such as prostitution, drug dealing, and gambling are not often
revealed in interviews, for obvious reasons. Further, since murder
victims cannot be interviewed, the most serious criminal offense is not
included in the NCVS.89 The NCVS also does not incorporate those
situations when an individual is being victimized by drunkenness,
disturbances of the peace, impaired driving, drug abuse, or sexual
solicitation or procuring. The surveys cannot measure situations in
which individuals are unaware they have been victimized, such as
various types of fraud.90
2. Since the NCVS surveys only households, crimes committed against
commercial businesses (e.g., stores) are not included. Thus, data on
crimes such as burglaries, robberies, and vandalism are not collected.91
3. The validity of the NCVS is also an issue. Validity refers to whether an
instrument is measuring what it intends to measure. The validity of the
NCVS refers to whether it appropriately measures individuals who
have been victims of crimes. Two different procedures have been used
to test the validity of the participants’ responses: forward record
checks and reverse record checks. A forward record check begins with
victims’ reports, and these are subsequently checked against crimes
known to police. A reverse record check starts with police records and
then traces these back to victims to determine whether these crimes
were reported to NCVS interviewers.92
Comparing the NCVS With Uniform Crime

Reports
Because the NCVS was developed to complement the UCR Program, these
programs are similar in some respects. They both collect data on the same
types of serious crimes: rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, theft,
and motor-vehicle theft. The definitions of rape, robbery, theft, and motor-
vehicle theft are practically the same for both programs. However, prior to
2013, the UCR Program measured rape as a crime against women only,
while the NCVS measures rape as a crime against both sexes.
There are some meaningful differences between the UCR Program and the
NCVS. First, the programs were developed to serve different purposes. The
UCR Program’s primary purpose was to provide reliable criminal justice
data for law enforcement administration, operation, and management. The
purpose of the NCVS was to collect information that was previously
unavailable on crime (e.g., crimes not reported to the police), victims, and
offenders.
Second, while both programs collect information on overlapping types of
crimes, these types of crimes are not necessarily identical. As mentioned
previously, the NCVS collects data on crimes that were unreported and
reported to law enforcement. The UCR Program collects information on
homicides, arson, commercial crimes, and crimes against children under the
age of 12, whereas the NCVS does not collect these data.
Third, the UCR and the NCVS programs use different methods of collecting
data. Thus, they use different definitions for some crimes. For instance, the
UCR Program defines “burglary” as the unlawful entry or attempted entry
of a structure to commit a felony or theft. Since the NCVS surveys
individuals, it is difficult for the victims to ascertain offenders’ motives;
thus, “burglary” is defined as the entry or attempted entry of a residence by
a person who had no right to be in that residence.
Fourth, the two programs use different bases to calculate rates of certain
crimes. For property crimes (e.g., burglary, theft, and motor-vehicle theft),
the UCR Program calculates rates using a per-capita rate based on 100,000
persons. The NCVS calculates rates for these crimes using a per-1,000-
household rate. If the number of households does not grow at the same rate
each year compared to the population, trend data for property crime rates
for these two programs may not be comparable.
Fifth, since the UCR Program and the NCVS implement different sampling
procedures, there may be variations in estimates of crime. Estimates from
the NCVS are obtained from interviews; thus, these data are susceptible to
error. The NCVS uses rigorous statistical methods to calculate confidence
intervals around all survey estimates. Trend data in the NCVS reports are
listed as genuine only if there is at least a 90% certainty that the measured
changes are not due to sampling variation. The UCR data are based on
actual counts of those crimes reported by law enforcement agencies. There
are instances when UCR data are estimated for nonparticipating
jurisdictions or those jurisdictions reporting only partial data.
Thus, Uniform Crime Reports and the National Crime Victimization Survey
each have unique strengths. One needs to realize the strengths and
limitations of these programs to obtain a greater understanding of crime
trends, as well as the nature of crime in the United States.93
Data From Self-Report Surveys
Generally, surveys address four broad classes of questions: (1) the
prevalence of attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors; (2) changes in these
attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors over time; (3) differences between groups
of people in their attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors; and (4) causal
propositions about these attitudes, beliefs, and behaviors.94 Self-report
surveys collect data by asking respondents to provide information about
themselves, usually as to whether they have engaged in certain forms of
illegal behavior. Self-report information can be collected either through
written questionnaires or through in-person interviews.
The earliest self-report studies were conducted in the 1940s. In 1946, a

researcher wanted to compare male college students’ involvement in illegal
behavior with that of alleged juvenile delinquents. He compared the court
records of these delinquents with the self-reported behavior of male college
students enrolled at a southwestern university. The study revealed that all
the respondents in the college sample had been involved in at least one of
the 55 offenses listed in the self-report questionnaire. He concluded that
these college students had been involved in offenses that were as serious as
those of the alleged delinquents, although these students may not have
engaged in these behaviors as frequently as the juveniles.95
Research has continued to examine juveniles’ involvement in delinquent

behavior by using self-reporting procedures.96 Self-report studies have also
been administered to measure drug and alcohol use: for example, evaluating
the Minnesota D.A.R.E. Plus Project;97 examining drug use and violent
offending;98 and exploring the relationship between substance use and
weapons aggression.99 Research focusing on physical and sexual abuse has
also used self-reporting procedures: examining the relation between dating
violence and marijuana use;100 investigating the correlation between abuse
and other adverse childhood experiences among low-income women;101
and exploring the prevalence of women’s offending behavior and
experiences with intimate partner violence.102
While there are no nationwide surveys implemented to collect self-report
surveys of all types of crime, various types of self-report surveys have been
implemented to collect data on specific types of behaviors. In addition to
focusing on certain types of behavior, these surveys sometimes focus on
certain groups (e.g., juveniles). Three self-report surveys are discussed
below: Monitoring the Future, the National Survey on Drug Use and
Health, and the National Youth Survey—Family Study.
Monitoring the Future (MTF)

Substance abuse by adolescents continues to be an issue, not only because it
is illegal and can pose a health risk, but also because it may be linked to
other types of criminal activity. In 1975, the National Institute on Drug
Abuse sponsored the annual self-report survey Monitoring the Future: A
Continuing Study of Lifestyles and Values of Youth. It is sometimes referred
to as Monitoring the Future (MTF). MTF collects information to measure
substance and alcohol use patterns among youths. While the survey initially
sampled only 12th-grade students, in 1991, 8th- and 10th-grade students
were also included in the annual survey.
Monitoring the Future: an annual self-report survey that collects information to measure
substance and alcohol use patterns among youths.
Currently, the MTF survey of 12th-grade students contains about 1,400

variables. The survey measures use of drugs such as tobacco, alcohol,
marijuana, hashish, LSD, hallucinogens, amphetamines, Ritalin, quaaludes,
barbiturates, cocaine, crack cocaine, GHB (gamma-hydroxybutyrate), and
heroin.103 MTF also collects information on students’ attitudes and beliefs
about drugs, drug availability, and the social meanings of drug use. In
addition to measuring issues of substance and alcohol use, the survey asks
students about their attitudes on topics such as education, work and leisure,
sex roles and family, population concerns (overpopulation and birth
control), conservation, religion, politics, interpersonal relationships, race
relations, and happiness.104
One limitation to the MTF research design is that it does not survey those
youths who drop out of high school. This is a problem because certain
behaviors, such as illegal drug use, occur at a higher-than-average rate in
this group. However, it would be difficult to survey these individuals. Each
spring, the data from students involve approximately 420 public and private
high schools and middle schools. Within each school, up to 350 students
may be selected to participate in the survey. The surveys are administered
by local Institute for Social Research representatives and their assistants.
The questionnaires are group-administered in classrooms during a normal
class period whenever possible.105
The National Survey on Drug Use and Health

(NSDUH)
Since 1971, the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH;
formerly the National Household Survey on Drug Abuse) has been used to
collect information annually on the use of illegal drugs by individuals in the
United States. The NSDUH is currently sponsored by the Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration of the Department of Health
and Human Services; the data are collected by RTI International (formerly
the Research Triangle Institute).106 The NSDUH is one of the largest
surveys of drug use ever conducted in the United States.
National Survey on Drug Use and Health: since 1971, the NSDUH has been used to
collect information annually on the use of illegal drugs by individuals in the United
States.
The primary goal of NSDUH is to provide national as well as state-level

estimates on
the level and patterns of alcohol, tobacco, and illegal substance use and
abuse;
trends in the use of alcohol, tobacco, and other types of drugs;
the consequences of substance use and abuse; and
groups at high risk for substance use and abuse.
These data are used by various government agencies, private organizations,

and researchers as well as the public at large.107 Numerous studies have
used the NSDUH to examine issues pertaining to crime and criminal
behavior. These include the prevalence and correlates of group fighting
among youths;108 the relationship between alcohol use and violence;109 the
prevalence of externalizing behaviors (e.g., crime, violence, and drug use)
and migration-related factors in immigrant compared to U.S.-born
individuals;110 and the extent of substance use, mental health issues, and
criminal behavior among high-school dropouts.111
National Youth Survey—Family Study

A major shortcoming of earlier juvenile-delinquency research was that it
concentrated on those youths who were already in the juvenile justice
system. (This will be discussed in later chapters, in reference to developing
theories based on these data.) One reason that these data were used for such
studies was that the pertinent records (e.g., police, juvenile hall) were easily
accessible to researchers. The problem was that this research focused only
on those juveniles who had been formally processed in the system. Usually,
these juveniles came from disadvantaged backgrounds and were more likely
to come to the attention of the system, whereas juveniles from middle- or
upper-class backgrounds were more likely to be diverted from the
system.112
Implementing self-report surveys is one approach to addressing problems

associated with studying only those juveniles formally in the system. In
1977, researchers at the University of Colorado implemented the National
Youth Survey (NYS) with an initial sample of 1,725 male and female
juveniles born between 1959 and 1965. Each respondent, along with his or
her parents/legal guardians, was asked about various events and behaviors
that had occurred the previous year. The study is ongoing. In 1993, the
partners and children of the original respondents were interviewed. As a
result, in 2000, the name of the survey was changed to the National Youth
Survey—Family Study.113
The National Youth Survey—Family Study includes items that measure a

respondent’s involvement in criminal activity. It measures more than 40
offenses that represent the full range of offenses reported in Uniform Crime
Reports. It also measures respondents’ attitudes regarding community
involvement, educational aspirations, employment skills, pregnancy,
abortion, neighborhood problems, and the use of drugs and alcohol. Other
questions cover the respondent’s family, family relationships, educational
attainment, and careers.
In regard to comparing data collected only on those youths who have come
to the attention of the criminal justice system (i.e., official statistics) with
self-report studies, researchers have cautioned that “to abandon either self-
report or official statistics in favor of the other is ‘rather shortsighted; to
systematically ignore the findings of either is dangerous, particularly when
the two measures provide apparently contradictory findings.’”114 Thus, to
obtain a full understanding of delinquent behavior, one should use both self-
report surveys and official record research.
Additional Approaches to Collecting Data

In this section, additional approaches to collecting data are briefly covered.
It is important for those in the field of criminal justice to realize that there
are data-collection programs other than the UCR Program and NCVS.
These additional data-collection efforts are usually for a more specific
purpose or target a more specific population. The National Prisoner
Statistics (NPS) Program and spatial analyses of crime are reviewed below.
The National Prisoner Statistics (NPS) Program

In 1926, Congress mandated the gathering of information on individuals
incarcerated in state and federal prisons. As a result, the National Prisoner
Statistics (NPS) Program was initiated under the U.S. Census Bureau.115
Data are collected on the number of prisoners in state and federal prison
facilities; these prisoners’ age, race, and sex; inmates held in private
facilities and local jails; system capacity; noncitizens; and persons age 17 or
younger in custody. From the NPS, the Bureau of Justice Statistics
publishes reports on such topics as the number of prisoners executed, HIV
in prisons, and the aging of the state prison population.116
National Prisoner Statistics Program: this program collects information on individuals
incarcerated in state and federal prisons.
In 2016, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were an

estimated 1,506,800 prisoners under the jurisdiction of state and federal
correctional authorities. Federal prisoners make up about 13% of the total
U.S. prison population. Females comprise about 7% of the national prison
population. Following are other key findings, from the Prisoners in 2016
bulletin.
Approximately 54% of state prisoners were serving sentences for

violent offenses.
About 47% of federal prisoners had been sentenced for drug offenses.
The number of prisoners held in private facilities had increased 2%
from the previous year.
The number of females sentenced to more than one year in state or
federal prison increased by 700 from 2015 to 2016.117
Applying Theory to Crime Hate Crime
Would you consider this hate speech?
Andrew Caballero-Reynolds/Getty Images
As noted previously, the UCR Program collects information on both single-bias and
multiple-bias hate crimes. Law enforcement agencies are required to note at least one bias
motivation. A single-bias incident is “an incident in which one or more offense types are
motivated by the same bias.” A multiple-bias incident is “an incident in which one or
more offense types are motivated by two or more biases.”118
In 2017, more than 16,000 law enforcement agencies participated in the Hate Crime
Statistics Program. Of these, 2,040 reported 7,145 hate crime incidents (single- and
multiple-bias incidents) involving 8,437 offenses. Recall that hate crimes are not separate
or distinct crimes; rather, they are traditional offenses but considered hate crimes when
they are motivated by the offender’s bias. Of the 8,437 hate crime offenses, 60.3% were
crimes against persons and 36.9% were crimes against property. The remaining offenses
were considered crimes against society (see Table 2.6).
As noted previously, in 2009, the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes
Prevention Act was passed. It was named after Matthew Shepard, a gay college student
who was tortured and killed in Wyoming in 1998. His murder was motivated by the
offenders’ bias against gay men. James Byrd, Jr., an African American, was chained to a
pickup truck and dragged to his death, also in 1998. His murder was motivated by the
offenders’ bias against African Americans. The act expanded the definition of hate crimes
to include violence based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability.119
In terms of sexual-orientation bias, law enforcement agencies reported 1,303 hate crime
offenses based on sexual orientation bias in the 2017 Hate Crime Statistics. Of these
offenses,
Table 2.6 Hate Crime Offenses by Persons, Property, or Society

Table 2.6 Hate Crime Offenses by Persons, Property, or Society
Offense type Incidents1 Victims2
Total 7,175 8,828
Crimes against persons: 4,090 5,084
Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter 12 15
Rape3 23 23
Aggravated assault 788 990
Simple assault 1,433 1,745
Intimidation 1,807 2,283
Human trafficking, commercial sex acts 1 1
Other4 26 27
Crimes against property: 3,115 3,506

Offense type Incidents1 Victims2
Robbery 157 171
Burglary 145 185
Larceny-theft 326 379
Motor-vehicle theft 41 44
Arson 42 59
Destruction/damage/vandalism 2,325 2,585
Other4 79 83
Crimes against society4 238 238

Source: FBI. (2018). Uniform Crime Reports: 2017 hate crime statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2017/topic-pages/tables/table-2.xls
1 The actual number of incidents is 7,175. However, the column figures will not add
to the total because incidents may include more than one offense type, and these are
counted in each appropriate offense category.
2 The term victim may refer to an individual, a business/financial institution, a

government entity, a religious organization, or society as a whole.
3 The figures shown in this row for the offense of rape were reported using only the
revised Uniform Crime Reporting definition of rate.
4 Includes additional offenses collected in the National Incident-Based Reporting

System.
58.2% were classified as anti-gay (male) bias;

24.6% were classified as anti-lesbian, -gay, -bisexual, or transgender (mixed-
group) bias;
12.2% were classified as anti-lesbian bias;
2.1% were classified as anti-bisexual bias; and
2.8% were classified as anti-heterosexual bias.120
One example of a violent offense that was subsequently considered a hate crime occurred
in January 2018. Blaze Bernstein, a 19-year-old pre-med student at the University of
Pennsylvania, was visiting his parents in Orange County, California, over the winter
break. His family reported him missing on January 3. On January 9, Bernstein’s body was
found in a shallow grave with more than 20 stab wounds. Samuel Woodward, a 21-year-
old Orange County man who was acquainted with Bernstein from high school, was
charged with the murder. Investigators combed through Woodward’s cell phone, laptop,
and social media. They found a great deal of hateful material, including racist, anti-
Semitic, misogynistic, and homophobic messages. According to an affidavit, Woodward
met up with Bernstein on January 2. Bernstein kissed Woodward on the lips; Woodward
noted that he pushed Bernstein away. Subsequently, Woodward stabbed Bernstein. It was
further revealed that Woodward was part of an armed fascist organization focused on
overthrowing the U.S. government, known as Atomwaffen Division. Orange County
district attorney Tony Rackauckas added a hate crime sentencing enhancement to the
murder charges.121
Think About It
1. After examining the factors associated with this incident, why do you think
Woodward met up with Bernstein on January 2?
2. What do you think would cause Woodward to react violently to the encounter?
3. What are some key factors indicating that this offense should be classified as a hate
crime?
As noted in the previous chapter, throughout this text we will attempt to apply key points
of theories to either real or hypothetical situations. For this particular example, it is
essential to note that while this offense was initially considered a murder, the district
attorney later realized—in light of Woodward’s racist, anti-Semitic, misogynistic, and
homophobic messages—that motivation was a key aspect.
Spatial Analyses of Crime

Spatial analyses of crime focus on crime places. This interest in crime
places “spans theory from the perspective of understanding the etiology of
crime, and practice from the perspective of developing effective criminal
justice interventions to reduce crime.”122 Thus, rather than attempting to
understand crime from an individual perspective, spatial analysis also
incorporates where and when crimes occur. This perspective can then assist
in efforts to reduce criminal activity.
Spatial analyses of crime: this type of analysis focuses on crime places. One major
aspect is mapping crimes, which illustrates the location of crimes, the distance between
them, the direction in which the crimes seem to be moving, and other patterns.
Mapping crimes can provide such information as location, distance,

direction, and pattern. Location is considered the most vital piece of
information. Understanding where crimes have occurred or what crimes
may occur in the future is essential, especially when considering how to
allocate police personnel and community resources. Distance is also a
crucial element. For instance, distance can answer such questions as, “How
far did the victim live from the place where she was attacked?” Direction is
most helpful when considered along with distance. Usually, direction is
referred to in a broader context, in statements such as, “Serial robberies are
moving southeast” or “The east side is becoming a high-crime area.”
Finally, pattern is what crime analysts attempt to develop when using place-
based crime data. Patterns are usually designated as random, uniform,
clustered, or dispersed.123
Attempting to understand crime through location is not new. Law

enforcement agencies have considered crime location to be an important
component of crime control. In fact, the use of maps by the New York City
Police Department can be traced as far back as 1900.124 Police departments
would place pins on maps to represent crimes that occurred in various
locations. Thanks to technological advances, they now have more
sophisticated and responsive ways of tracking this information (see Figure
2.5). Criminologists have also explored whether there is a relationship
between criminal activity and location. These criminologists attempt to
understand crime with what are called social ecological theories.125 They
examine how ecological conditions, such as housing standards, poverty, and
transient populations, influence criminal activity.
Here is an example of using pins on a map to represent crimes

in a particular area. What are some advantages and some
drawbacks of this method?
Bloomberg/Getty Images
Since the 1990s, there have been major advances in the methods available
for analyzing place-based crime data. These advances are primarily due to
technological improvements, especially with computer capabilities. In
addition to these computer capabilities, there have been major contributions
from geographic information systems (GIS). GIS employ computer
software and data that are later used to analyze and describe information
(e.g., crime). This information is then linked to spatial location. Further, law
enforcement agencies continue to enhance the computerization of police
records-management systems as well as computer-aided dispatch systems
(i.e., citizen calls to police).
Not only do spatial analyses of crime assist law enforcement, but

researchers have also used these analyses to further our understanding of
crime, such as by examining the relationship between school vicinity and
criminal activity;126 community factors (e.g., poverty, ethnic diversity) and
residents’ perceptions of bias crime;127 the changes in the spatial patterns of
automotive theft;128 the link between neighborhood income inequality and
property crime;129 and the effects of population displacement after the
demolition of an urban housing project.130
Figure 2.5 The San Jose Police Department Interactive Crime

Map
Source: Visit the San Jose Police Department interactive crime map:
http://www.sjpd.org/CrimeStats/CrimeReports.html.
Learning Check 2.3
1. The _______________ survey collects information regarding substance and

alcohol use among youths.
2. The _______________ started with an initial sample of youths born between 1959
and 1965.
3. In 1926, Congress mandated the collection of information on individuals
incarcerated in state and federal prisons, resulting in the _______________.
4. _______________ focuses on crime places.
Fazit
The Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program is one of the best-known and most
established data-collection programs used to measure crime in the United States. The
UCR Program incorporates supplementary procedures to collect information on
homicides, hate crimes, and law enforcement officers who are killed or assaulted in the
line of duty. To further enhance our understanding of crime in the United States, the
National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) was developed to provide additional
information, especially pertaining to crime incidents and victims, that was not available
with the UCR Program.
A major drawback to understanding crime using law enforcement statistics is that not all
crimes come to the attention of police. In recognition of this “dark figure of crime,” the
National Crime Victimization Survey was developed in the 1970s. The NCVS collects
data from individuals who have been victims of crime, regardless of whether they
reported these crimes to law enforcement. The UCR and the NCVS are the two major
data-collection programs used to measure crime in the United States. While they have
some similarities, there are also key differences. Both data-collection programs are
necessary to understanding patterns and trends of criminal activity in the United States.
More specific data-collection methods are used primarily to collect data on certain issues
related to criminal justice (e.g., Monitoring the Future and the National Survey on Drug
Use and Health) or to collect data on certain populations (e.g., the National Prisoner
Statistics Program). A new technique, spatial analyses of crime, is being explored not
only for law enforcement purposes but for criminal justice research endeavors as well.
Key Terms
hate crime data, 38
Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 40
Monitoring the Future, 44
National Crime Victimization Survey, 40
National Incident-Based Reporting System, 35
National Prisoner Statistics Program, 46
National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 45
spatial analyses of crime, 48
Supplementary Homicide Reports, 33
Uniform Crime Reports, 28
1. How are data collected for Uniform Crime Reports?
2. What are some key limitations of UCR data, and how have these limitations been
addressed?
3. How does the UCR Program collect information on homicides?
4. How does the UCR Program collect information on hate crimes?
5. How does the UCR Program collect information on law enforcement officers killed or
assaulted in the line of duty?
6. What are some key differences between the UCR Program and NIBRS?
7. How does the NCVS attempt to measure the amount of crime that is not reported to law
enforcement?
8. What are some similarities and differences between Uniform Crime Reports and the
NCVS?
9. How do the various self-report surveys differ from Uniform Crime Reports and other
types of law enforcement statistics?
10. What data-collection program should be considered the source for understanding crime
in the United States?
Ressourcen
The FBI Uniform Crime Reporting website includes reports from various sources, such
as the Uniform Crime Reports, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, and Hate
Crime Data.
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats
The National Crime Victimization Survey, on the Bureau of Justice Statistics website,
provides information (such as methodology), questionnaires, and publications regarding
this data source.
http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245
Monitoring the Future provides information regarding their survey, such as press
releases, publications, and tables and figures.
http://www.monitoringthefuture.org
The National Gang Center provides resources such as publications, training materials,
and a newsletter.
https://www.nationalgangcenter.gov/survey-analysis
Student Study Site

Media Library
premium resources:
Student on the Street Video

2.1: Rate of Violent Crime Over the Last 20 Years
2.2: Murders Committed in the U.S.

2.1: Crimes as a Young Adult
Chapter 3 The Classical School of
Criminological Thought
Wally Skalij/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images
Learning Objectives
3.1 Identify the early theories as to why individuals have committed violent and other
deviant acts for most of human civilization.
3.2 Summarize how the Age of Enlightenment drastically altered the theories of how and
why individuals commit crimes, as well as how it changed criminal justice policies.
3.3 Describe how Cesare Beccaria’s work influenced criminal justice systems throughout
the world, and discuss the concepts and propositions recommended in his book.
3.4 Explain what the Neoclassical School of criminology contributed to the propositions
of the Classical School that led most of the Western world (including the United States)
to embrace this model as the major paradigm for the criminal justice system.
3.5 Discuss why the Classical School explanation of crime fell out of favor in the late
19th century.
3.6 Summarize the impact that the Classical/Neoclassical perspective had on modern
criminal justice systems, and identify some of the policy implications that have been
implemented based on this theoretical framework.
Case Study
Robert Seman, Jr.
On April 10, 2017, Robert Seman, Jr., a former assembly-line worker at General Motors,
jumped off the fourth-floor balcony in the rotunda of the Mahoning County Courthouse in
Youngstown, Ohio, and died. The 48-year-old father of three was being transported from his
holding cell to a status hearing in court for jury selection in his capital trial in the rape and
murder of 10-year-old Corinne Gump, as well as the murder of her grandparents.
The lead prosecutor in the case, Dawn Cantalamessa, said later that she was surprised by his
suicide because he had adamantly proclaimed his innocence and there was no inclination that
he had any problems with his attorneys. Further, Mahoning County sheriff Jerry Greene told the
media that the deputies who had been escorting Seman claimed that he “seemed like he was in
good spirits. He was talking about the future of his trial.” Notably, Seman was dressed in
civilian clothes and was not wearing restraints, due to rules in that jurisdiction regarding
defendants who appear in court. Cantalamessa did note that Seman “knew” that the evidence
against him was strong and that it was “telling” that he chose to leap to his death.
Robert Seman, Jr. was accused of repeatedly raping and later murdering 10-year-old
Corinne Gump before he jumped to his death at an Ohio courthouse.
Mahoning County Sheriff’s Office via AP

Some have speculated that Seman realized that, as a pedophile, he would likely be subjected to
assault and even torture by fellow prison inmates. One inmate explained that a “game” that is
commonly practiced by inmates is called “lifeflighting,” in which inmates beat a pedophile to
within an inch of his life, to the point that he must be airlifted to a hospital. As one inmate put
it, “If you kill them, it’s over. But this way we make sure they keep getting what’s coming to
them.”
So perhaps Seman jumped because he feared a horrible, violent prison experience. Or perhaps
he feared being sentenced to death (see Figures 3.1, 3.2, and 3.3).
Think About It
1. Did Seman jump to his death because he was afraid of being incarcerated, or did he do it
because he feared the death penalty?
2. Should the deputies in charge of transferring him be sanctioned in some way, given that
he was in their custody at the time of his death?
3. To what extent did facing incarceration as a child rapist affect Seman’s decision to kill
himself? Would he have jumped if he had been facing only murder charges?
Sources: Associated Press (2017, April 11). Man accused of rape, murder jumps to death from
courthouse. Originally from New York Post (2017, April 11) at
https://nypost.com/2017/04/11/man-accused-of-rape-murder-jumps-to-death-from-courthouse;
https://deathpenaltynews.blogspot.com/2017/04/ohio-robert-seman-jumps-to-his-death-at.html;
https://encyclopediadramatica.rs/Robert_Seman.
Introduction
A 2016 report from the Death Penalty Information Center, citing a study
based on FBI data and other national reports, showed that states with the
death penalty had consistently higher murder rates than states without the
death penalty, and this gap had increased significantly since 1990.1 The
report highlighted the fact that if the death penalty were acting as a
deterrent, the gap between these two groups of states would be expected to
converge, or at least lessen over time. But that has not been the case. In fact,
this disparity in murder rates has grown over the past two decades, with
states allowing the death penalty having a 48% higher murder rate (as of
2016) compared with states that do not—up from only 4% higher in 1990.
Despite the data showing that the death penalty does not appear to reduce
murders, a Gallup Poll in October 2018 showed that when respondents
across the nation were asked “Are you in favor of the death penalty for a
person convicted of murder?” 56% said yes.2 However, it is quite likely that
most respondents were not knowledgeable of the data discussed above or
the extremely high cost of capital trials and executions (more than 10 times
the cost of incarcerating murderers for life). This same survey also revealed
that the most common reason why individuals claimed to be in favor of
capital punishment was retribution, or “an eye for an eye,” with other
reasons being very far behind.
Thus, it appears that in terms of deterrence theory, at least when it comes

to the death penalty, such potential punishment is not an effective deterrent.
This chapter deals with the various issues and factors that go into offenders’
decision-making about committing crime. While many would likely
anticipate that potential murderers in states with the death penalty would be
deterred from committing such offenses, this is clearly not the case, given
the findings above. This type of deterrence, or rather the lack thereof,
regarding the death penalty and related issues makes up a key portion of this
chapter.
deterrence theory: theory of crime associated with the Classical School; proposes that
individuals will make rational decisions regarding their behavior.
This chapter examines explanations of criminal conduct that emphasize

individuals’ ability to make decisions based on the potential consequences
of their behavior. The natural capability of human beings to make decisions
based on expected costs and benefits was acknowledged during the Age of
Enlightenment in the 17th and 18th centuries. This understanding of
human capability led to what is considered the first rational theory of
criminal activity—namely, deterrence theory. Of any other perspective to
date, deterrence theory has had the most profound impact on justice systems
in our nation. Furthermore, it is easy to see contemporary examples of
offenders engaging in such rational decision-making, and a number of
variations of this theoretical model have been developed that focus on the
reasoning processes of people considering criminal acts.
Age of Enlightenment: a period of the late 17th to 18th century in which Western
philosophers and scholars began to emphasize the rights of individuals in society.
Such theories of human rationality stand in stark contrast to the theories
perpetuated for most of human civilization, up to the Age of Enlightenment
—theories that focused on religious or supernatural causes of crime.
Additionally, the Classical School theories of crime are distinguished from
the other theories we examine in future chapters by their emphasis on free
will and rational decision-making, which modern theories of crime tend to
ignore. Specifically, the theoretical perspectives discussed in this chapter all
focus on the human ability to choose one’s own behavior and destiny,
whereas paradigms popular before the Enlightenment and in contemporary
times tend to emphasize the influence of external factors on individual
choice. Therefore, the Classical School is perhaps the paradigm best suited
for analysis of what types of mental calculations a person makes before
committing a crime.
Classical School: a model of crime that assumes that crime occurs after a rational
individual mentally weighs the potential consequences of a crime and then makes a
decision about whether to do it.
The aspects of Classical School theory presented in this chapter vary in

many ways, most notably in what they propose as the primary constructs
and processes by which individuals determine whether to commit a crime.
For example, some Classical School theories emphasize only the potential
negative consequences of criminal actions, whereas others focus on the
possible benefits. Still others concentrate on the opportunities and
circumstances that predispose people to engage in criminal activity.
Regardless of their differences, all the theories examined in this chapter
emphasize a common theme: Individuals commit crimes because they
identify certain situations and actions as beneficial due to a perceived lack
of punishment and a perceived likelihood of profits, such as money or peer
status. In other words, the potential offender weighs the possible costs and
pleasures of committing a given act and then behaves in a rational way
based on the conclusions of that analysis.
Figure 3.1 Causes of Death in State Prisons and Local Jails

Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
Note: Most recent data available at time of publication.
Figure 3.2 Suicide in State Prisons and Local Jails
Sources: Mumola, C. J. (2005, August). Suicide and homicide in state

prisons and local jails. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs. Noonan, M. (2015, August). Mortality in
local jails and state prisons, 2000–2013—Statistical tables.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
https://ojp.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2015/ojp08042015.pdf.
Figure 3.3 Homicide in State Prisons and Local Jails
Sources: Mumola, C. J. (2005, August). Suicide and homicide in state

prisons and local jails. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Justice Programs. Noonan, M. (2015, August). Mortality in
local jails and state prisons, 2000–2013—Statistical tables.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice
Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics.
https://ojp.gov/newsroom/pressreleases/2015/ojp08042015.pdf.
The most important distinction of these Classical School theories, as

opposed to those discussed in future chapters, is that they emphasize
individual decision-making regardless of any extraneous influences on a
person’s free will, such as the economy or bonding with society. Although
many outside factors may influence an individual’s ability to rationally
consider offending situations—and many of the theories in this chapter deal
with such influences—primary responsibility rests on the individual to take
all influences into account when deciding whether to engage in criminal
behavior. Given this emphasis on individual responsibility, it is not
surprising that Classical School theories are used as the basis for U.S.
policies on punishment for criminal activity. After all, the Classical School
theories, because they focus on individual responsibility, are highly
compatible and consistent with the conservative “get tough” movement that
began in the mid-1970s. Thus, the Classical School still retains the highest
influence in terms of policy and pragmatic punishment in the United States,
as well as throughout the Western world.
As you will see, the Classical School theoretical paradigm was presented as
early as the mid-18th century—and, among U.S. legislators and society, as
well as throughout the world, it is still the most popular. However, scientific
and academic circles have somewhat dismissed many of the claims of this
perspective. For reasons we explore in this chapter, the assumptions and
primary propositions of the Classical School theories have been neglected
by most recent theoretical models of criminology, which is likely premature,
given the impact this perspective has had on understanding human nature as
well as its profound influence on most criminal justice systems, especially
in the United States.
Pre-Classical Perspectives on Crime and

Punishment
For the vast majority of human history, people believed that criminal
activity was caused by either supernatural or religious factors. Some
primitive societies believed that crime increased during thunderstorms or
droughts. Most primitive cultures believed that when people engaged in
behavior that violated the rules of the tribe or clan, the Devil or evil spirits
were making them do it.3 For example, in many societies, if a person had
committed a criminal act, it was common to perform an exorcism or
primitive surgery, such as breaking open the offender’s skull to release the
demons thought to be lodged there. Of course, this almost always resulted in
the death of the accused, but it was seen as a liberating experience for the
defendant.
Exorcism was just one form of dealing with criminal behavior, but it
epitomizes the nature of primitive cultures’ understanding of what causes
crime. However, the Catholic Church, among other religious institutions,
still uses exorcism in extreme cases. Exorcisms are performed in the 21st
century by representatives of a number of religions, including Catholicism,
“to get the Devil out.” For instance, in June 2005, a Romanian monk and
four nuns acknowledged engaging in an exorcism that led to the death of a
23-year-old woman. During the procedure, the woman was chained to a
cross, had a towel stuffed in her mouth, and was deprived of food for three
days.4 When the monk and nuns were asked to explain why they did this,
they were defiant and said they were trying to take the devils out of the
woman. Although they were prosecuted by Romanian authorities, many
governments around the world still believe in and condone such practices
and may not have prosecuted in this case.
One of the most common supernatural beliefs of primitive cultures was that
the moon, in its fullest state, was a trigger for criminal activity. Then, as
now, there was much truth to that theory. But in primitive times, this
influence was believed to be caused by higher powers, such as the
“destructive influence” of the moon itself. Modern studies have shown that
this connection between the full moon and crime is primarily due to a
Classical School theoretical model: There are simply more opportunities to
commit crime when the moon is full. Specifically, there is more light during
the full-moon phase, which means there are more people on the streets and
more opportunities for crime. Also, nighttime is well established as a
higher-risk period for adult crime, such as sexual assault.
Some of the primitive theories of crime had some validity in determining

when crime was more likely to occur; however, virtually none of the
primitive theories accurately predicted who would commit the offenses.
During the Middle Ages and before, nearly everyone was part of the lower
classes, and only a subsection of that group engaged in offending against the
normative society. So, for most of human civilization, there was close to no
rational theoretical understanding for why certain individuals violated the
laws of society.
Thus, for most of human history, people believed that crime was caused by
supernatural or religious factors, leading to theories of crime such as “the
Devil made them do it.” There were many variations on this perspective,
such as crime caused by the full moon or excessive thunder. Due to the
assumption that evil spirits were driving the motivations for criminal
activity, punishments for criminal acts—especially for those deemed
particularly offensive to the norms of a given society—were often quite
inhumane by modern standards.
For example, during the Middle Ages (Dark Ages), common punishments
included beheading, torturing, burning alive at the stake, drowning, stoning
(still used by many Islamic courts in portions of Africa and the Middle
East), and quartering (in which the limbs of a convicted criminal are tied to
four horses and then the horses are made to run in opposite directions,
ripping limbs from the torso). These punishments seem harsh by
contemporary standards, but given the context of the times, they were fairly
standard and widely accepted.5
Medieval punishments were quite brutal. This is a gibbet, in

which the body of an executed offender was displayed as a
warning to the public. Most developed countries would
never use such gruesome methods of deterrence today.
AP Photo
Although most Americans would find such forms of punishment and

execution quite barbaric, many societies still practice them. Recent
examples can be seen among Islamic court systems (as well as in other
religious/ethnic cultures), which often carry out executions and other forms
of corporal punishment. For instance, in 2005, in Aceh, Indonesia (a highly
conservative Muslim region of that country), a number of offenders were
publicly flogged (i.e., caned) for what is considered a relatively minor crime
—or no crime at all—in most of the United States: gambling.6
It is interesting that a Gallup Poll addressing the practice of caning (i.e.,

publicly whipping) revealed most of the American public would support it.7
More extreme forms of corporal punishment, particularly the methods of
public execution carried out by many religious courts and countries—such
as stoning, in which persons are buried up to the waist and local citizens
throw small stones (not large stones, as those would lead to death too
quickly)—are drawn-out and painful compared with modern forms of
punishment in the United States. In most of the Western world, such brutal
forms of punishment and execution were done away with in the 18th
century due to the impact of the Age of Enlightenment.
The Age of Enlightenment

In the midst of the draconian times of the mid-17th century, Thomas
Hobbes, in his book Leviathan (1651), proposed a rational theory for why
people are motivated to form democratic states of governance.8 Hobbes
proclaimed that people are rational, so they will logically organize a sound
system of governance to create rules that will help alleviate the constant fear
of offense by others. It is interesting that the very emotion (fear) that
motivates individuals to cooperate in the formation of government is the
same emotion that inspires these individuals to obey the laws of the
government created—because they fear the punishment for breaking the
rules.
Hobbes clearly stated that until citizens in such societies received a certain
degree of respect from their governing bodies, as well as from their justice
systems, they would never fully buy into the authority of government or the
system of justice. Hobbes proposed a number of extraordinary ideas that
came to define the Age of Enlightenment. With this new idea of social
structure, he suggested a drastic paradigm shift, with radical implications for
justice systems throughout the world.
Specifically, Hobbes declared that human beings are rational beings who
choose their destiny by creating a society. Hobbes further proposed that
individuals in such societies democratically create rules of conduct that all
members of society must follow. These rules that all citizens decide on
become laws, and the result of not following these laws is a punishment
determined by the democratically instituted government. It is clear from
Hobbes’s statements that the government, as instructed by the citizens, not
only has the authority to punish individuals who violate the rules of the
society but, more important, is duty-bound to punish such individuals. If
such an authority fails to fulfill this duty, the social order may quickly break
down.
The arrangement of citizens agreeing to abide by the rules or laws set forth
by a given society in return for protection is commonly referred to as the
social contract. Hobbes introduced this idea, but it was later emphasized by
the other Enlightenment theorists, such as Rousseau, Locke, Voltaire, and
Montesquieu, and it embodies their underlying philosophies. Although all
the Enlightenment philosophers had significant differences of belief, they all
believed in the social contract. This idea that people invest in the laws of
their society in exchange for the guarantee that they will be protected from
people who violate those laws was universal among Enlightenment
philosophers.
social contract: an Enlightenment ideal or assumption that stipulates an unspecified

arrangement among citizens in which they promise the state or government not to commit
offenses against other citizens and in turn gain protection from being violated by other
citizens.
Another shared belief was that each individual should have a say in the
government, especially in the justice system. Virtually all the Enlightenment
philosophers also emphasized fairness in determining who was guilty, as
well as the appropriate punishments or sentences for misconduct. During the
time in which they wrote, Enlightenment philosophers saw individuals who
stole a loaf of bread to feed their families receive death sentences, while
upper-class individuals who had stolen large sums of money or even
committed murder were pardoned. This not only goes against common
sense but also violates the social contract. After all, if citizens observe
certain persons being excused from punishment for violation of the law,
their belief in the social contract will break down. This same standard can
be applied to modern times. For example, when Los Angeles police officers
who were filmed beating Rodney King, an African American suspect, were
acquitted of criminal charges in 1992, a massive riot erupted in the
community. The riot was in response to long-standing outrage and
frustration between law enforcement and the community. This is a good
example of the social contract breaking down, largely due to the realization
that the government had failed to punish members of the community
(significantly, police officers) who violated the rules.
Perhaps the most relevant concept the Enlightenment philosophers

highlighted, as mentioned above, was the idea that human beings are
rational and therefore have free will. The philosophers of this age focused
on the ability of people to consider the consequences of their actions, and
they assumed that people freely choose how to behave, especially in regard
to criminal activity. We shall see that this was an extremely important aspect
of Enlightenment philosophy, which the “Father of Criminal Justice”
assumed in his formulation of what is considered to be the first bona fide
theory of why people commit crime.
Learning Check 3.1
1. According to the text, which type of theory was dominant throughout most of
human civilization?
a. Rational/deterrence
b. Psychological/Freudian
c. Supernatural/religious
d. Positive/empirical
2. According to the text, what concept was NOT one of the key propositions of the
Age of Enlightenment theorists?
a. Democracy
b. Social contract
c. Determinism
d. Free will
e. Rationality
3. According to the text, which emotion did Hobbes claim was the motivation for
groups of people both creating a state/government and enforcing its laws/rules?
a. Shame
b. Fear
c. Guilt
d. Empathy
The Classical School of Criminology

The foundation of the Classical School of criminological theorizing can be
traced to the Enlightenment philosophers discussed above, but the more
specific and well-known origin of the Classical School is considered to be
the 1764 publication of On Crimes and Punishments by Italian scholar
Cesare Bonesana, Marchese di Beccaria (1738–1794), commonly known as
Cesare Beccaria. He wrote this book at the age of 26 and published it
anonymously, but after its almost instant popularity, he came forward as the
author. Because of this significant work, most experts consider Beccaria not
only the “Father of Criminal Justice” and the father of the Classical School
of criminology, but, perhaps most important, the father of deterrence theory.
All this will be explained in the following sections, in which we
comprehensively survey the ideas and impact of Beccaria and the Classical
School.
Cesare Beccaria (1738–1794), considered the “Father of
Criminal Justice,” the father of deterrence theory, and the
father of the Classical School of criminology, due to the
influence of his book On Crimes and Punishments (1764).
Wikimedia Creative Commons
Influences on Beccaria and His Writings

As discussed, the Enlightenment philosophers transformed the social and
political climate of the late 1600s and 1700s. Growing up in this time,
Beccaria was a child of the Enlightenment; as such, he was highly
influenced by the concepts and propositions introduced by these great
thinkers. The Enlightenment philosophy is readily evident in Beccaria’s
writing, and he incorporates many of these philosophers’ assumptions into
his work. As a student of law, Beccaria had a solid background for
determining what was rational in legal policy, as well as what was not. But
his loyalty to the Enlightenment ideal is present throughout his work.
Specifically, Beccaria emphasized the social contract and incorporated the

idea that citizens give up certain rights in exchange for protection from the
state or government. He also claimed that actions or punishments carried out
by the government that violate the overall sense of unity will not be
accepted by the populace, largely due to the requirement that the social
contract be a fair deal. Beccaria stated that laws are compacts of free
individuals in a society. Additionally, he appealed to the ideal of the greatest
happiness shared by the greatest number of people, otherwise known as
utilitarianism. This, too, was a focus of the Enlightenment philosophers.
Finally, the importance of free will and individual choice is key to his
propositions and theorizing. Although these points are the main assumptions
of his reforms and ideas on motives for crime, taken directly from
Enlightenment theorists, we shall see in the following sections that
Enlightenment philosophy is present in virtually all his propositions, most
clearly shown in his directly citing Hobbes, Montesquieu, and others.9
utilitarianism: a philosophical concept that relates to the idea of the greatest good for the
most people.
Beccaria’s Proposed Reforms and Ideas of Justice

Beccaria wrote at a time when authoritarian governments ruled the justice
system, which was actually quite unjust. For example, it was not uncommon
for a person who stole food to have his or her family imprisoned for life. A
good example of this appears in Victor Hugo’s story Les Misérables (1862),
in which the protagonist, Jean Valjean, receives a lengthy prison sentence
after stealing a loaf of bread for his starving loved ones in 1830s Paris. On
the other hand, a person at that time who had committed several murders
might be excused by the judge if that person was from a prominent family.
As Beccaria claimed, “The true measure of crimes is namely the harm done
to society”10 (i.e., to the social contract). Thus, Beccaria was very clear that
for a given act, a particular punishment should be administered as
established by law, regardless of the contextual circumstances. (This point is
the subject of much scrutiny later in this chapter.)
However, this principle did not take into account the offender’s intent in
committing the crime. In most modern justice systems, intent plays a key
role in the charges and sentencing for many types of crimes. Most notably,
the degrees of homicide in most jurisdictions of the United States include
first-degree murder (which requires proof of planning or “malice
aforethought”), second-degree murder (which typically involves no
evidence of planning but, rather, is the spontaneous act of killing), and
various degrees of manslaughter (which generally include some level of
provocation on the part of the victim).
The degrees of homicide are just one example of the importance of intent—
legally known as mens rea (literally, “guilty mind”)—in most modern
justice systems. Many types of offending are graded by degree of intent as
opposed to the act itself—known legally as actus reus (literally, “guilty
act”). Beccaria’s propositions focus on only the actus reus, because he
claimed that an act against society was harmful regardless of the intent, or
mens rea. Despite his recommendation, most societies factor in the
offender’s intent. Still, this proposal that “a given act should be given equal
punishment” certainly seemed to represent a significant improvement over
the arbitrary punishments doled out by the regimes and justice systems of
the 1700s.
mens rea: a concept regarding whether offenders actually knew what they were doing and
meant to do it.
actus reus: in legal terms, whether the offender actually engaged in a given criminal act.
Another sweeping reform Beccaria proposed was to do away with certain

practices. For example, he proposed that secret accusations not be allowed;
rather, witnesses should be publicly confronted and cross-examined.
Although some modern countries still accept and use secret accusations, as
well as disallowing the cross-examination of so-called witnesses, Beccaria
set the standard for most modern systems of justice in guaranteeing such
rights to defendants (e.g., in the United States and most other Western
societies).
Additionally, Beccaria claimed that torture should not be used. Although

some countries, such as Israel and Mexico, explicitly allow the use of
torture for eliciting information and confessions, most countries now abstain
from the practice. However, former U.S. attorney general Alberto Gonzalez
(the highest law enforcement rank in the country) wrote a memo condoning
the U.S. military’s torture of terrorist suspects. Despite this relatively recent
change in position regarding torture, the United States has traditionally
agreed with Beccaria, who claimed that any information or oaths obtained
under torture were relatively worthless. And our country apparently still
agrees with Beccaria, at least in terms of domestic criminal defendants.
Beccaria’s belief in the worthlessness of torture is further expressed in this
statement by him: “It is useless to reveal the author of a crime that lies
deeply buried in darkness.”11
Beccaria believed that this use of torture was one of the worst aspects of
criminal justice systems and a manifestation of the truly barbaric acts
common in the Middle Ages (or “Dark Ages”). Beccaria best expressed his
doubt about the relevance of any information obtained via torture in the
following statement: “The impression of pain may become so great that,
filling the entire sensory capacity of the tortured person, it leaves him free
only to choose what for the moment is the shortest way of escape from
pain.”12
Beccaria addresses the possible policy implications of using torture in

stating that, “of two men, equally innocent or equally guilty, the strong and
courageous will be acquitted, the weak and timid condemned.”13
Beccaria also asserted that defendants should be tried by fellow citizens or

peers, not only by judges. He stated, “I consider an excellent law that which
assigns popular jurors, taken by lot, to assist the chief judge . . . that each
man ought to be judged by his peers.”14 Beccaria clearly felt that the
responsibility for determining the facts of a case should be placed in the
hands of more than one person (such as a judge). Related to prior
discussions in this chapter, Beccaria’s feelings on this subject were likely
driven by his Enlightenment beliefs on democratic philosophy, in which
citizens should have a voice and serve in judging the facts and in making
ultimate justice decisions in criminal cases. This proposition is
representative of Beccaria’s overall philosophy toward fairness and
democratic process, which all the Enlightenment philosophers shared.
Like other reforms discussed in this section, the right of all U.S. citizens to a
trial by a jury of their peers is often taken for granted. It may surprise some
readers to know that many modern, developed countries have not provided
this right. For example, Russia just recently held its first jury trials since
Vladimir Lenin (1870–1924) banished the practice. Under Lenin, the “bench
trials” of the old system produced almost a 100% conviction rate (99.6%, to
be exact). This means that virtually every person convicted of a crime in
Russia was found guilty. Given the relatively high percentage of persons
found innocent of crimes (such as murder) in the United States—not to
mention the numerous persons in our country recently released from death
row after DNA analysis proved them not guilty—it is frightening to imagine
how many individuals were falsely convicted and unjustly sentenced in
Russia over the past century.
Although the United States typically uses torture methods only

in times of war, such as in the recent war against terrorism,
many countries still commonly use this practice against
citizens accused of criminal activity.
©iStockphoto.com/stephen mulcahey
Another important aspect of Beccaria’s reforms involves his emphasis on
making the justice system—particularly the laws and decisions made in
processing—more public and understandable. After all, this fits the
Enlightenment assumption that individuals are rational and that if
individuals know the consequences of their actions, they will act
accordingly. Specifically, Beccaria stated, “When the number of those who
can understand the sacred code of laws and hold it in their hands increases,
the frequency of crimes will be found to decrease.”15 In Beccaria’s time, the
laws were often unknown to the populace. This was somewhat due to
widespread illiteracy but perhaps more due to laws not being publicly
declared. Even when laws were posted, they were often printed in languages
(e.g., Latin) that the citizens did not read or speak. So Beccaria stressed the
need for society to ensure that citizens were educated on current laws,
explaining that this alone would lead to a significant decrease in violations.
Furthermore, Beccaria believed that the important stages and decision-

making processes of any justice system should be public knowledge, rather
than being held secretly or decided behind closed doors. As Beccaria stated,
“Punishment . . . must be essentially public.”16 This statement has a highly
democratic and Enlightenment feel to it, in the sense that citizens of a
society have the right to know what vital judgments are being made. After
all, in a democratic society, the citizens assign the government the profound
responsibility of distributing punishment for crimes against the society.
Citizens are entitled to know what decisions their government officials are
making, particularly regarding justice. This provides not only knowledge
and an understanding of what is going on but also a form of “checks and
balances.” Furthermore, the public nature of trials and punishments
inherently produces a form of deterrence for those individuals who may be
considering criminal activity, which is explored in the following sections of
this chapter.
One of Beccaria’s most profound and important proposed reforms is one of

the least noted; in fact, it has been largely ignored by every other review of
his work. Specifically, Beccaria claimed to know the most certain way to
reduce crime: “The surest but most difficult way to prevent crimes is by
perfecting education.”17 Although he clearly expressed education as his
primary recommendation for reducing crime, we know of no other review of
his work that notes this hypothesis, which is amazing considering that most
of the reviews are written for an educational audience. Furthermore, the
importance placed on education makes sense, given Beccaria’s emphasis on
knowledge of laws and consequences of criminal activity, as well as his
focus on deterrence, which is explored in the following sections of this
chapter.
Beccaria’s Ideas of the Death Penalty

Another primary area of Beccaria’s suggested reforms dealt with the use—
and, in his day, abuse—of the death penalty. First, let it be said that Beccaria
was against the use of capital punishment. (Interestingly, he was not against
corporal punishment, which he explicitly stated was appropriate for violent
offenders.) Perhaps this was due to the times in which he wrote, when a
large number of people were put to death, often by harsh methods. Still,
Beccaria provided several rational reasons for why the death penalty was
not an efficient and effective punishment.
First, he claimed that the use of capital punishment inherently violated the
social contract:
Is it conceivable that the least sacrifice of each person’s liberty

should include sacrifice of the greatest of all goods, life? . . . The
punishment of death, therefore, is not a right, for I have
demonstrated that it cannot be such.18
The second reason that Beccaria believed the death penalty to be an

inappropriate form of punishment was that the government’s endorsing the
death of a citizen would provide a negative example for the rest of society.
Beccaria claimed, “The death penalty cannot be useful, because of the
example of barbarity it gives men.”19 Although some studies show evidence
that use of the death penalty in the United States deters crime,20 most show
no effect or even a positive correlation with homicide.21 Researchers have
called this increase of homicides after executions the brutalization effect,
and a similar phenomenon can be seen at sporting events, such as boxing
matches, hockey games, and soccer/football games, when violence breaks
out among spectators. In recent years, there have even been notable
incidents of fighting among spectators at youth sporting events.
brutalization effect: the predicted tendency of homicides to increase after an execution,

particularly after a high-profile execution.
To further complicate the possible contradictory effects of capital

punishment, some analyses show that both deterrence and brutalization
occur at the same time for different types of crime, depending on the level
of planning or spontaneity of a given act. For example, one sophisticated
analysis of homicide data from California examined the effects of a high-
profile execution in 1992, largely because it was the first one in the state in
25 years.22 As predicted, the authors of the study found that following the
high-profile execution, nonstranger felony-murders (which typically involve
some planning) significantly decreased, while the level of argument-based
stranger murders (typically more spontaneous) significantly increased. Thus,
the effects of both deterrence and brutalization were observed at the same
time and in the same location following this execution.
Fights among spectators at sporting events illustrate the type of

“brutalization effect” Beccaria predicted in connection with
the death penalty. Some individuals who see aggressive or
violent acts are more likely to behave aggressively.
AP Photo/Mark J. Terrill
Another primary reason why Beccaria was against capital punishment was
that he believed it to be an ineffective deterrent. Specifically, he thought that
a quick punishment, such as the death penalty, could not be an effective
deterrent compared with a more drawn-out penalty. As Beccaria stated, “It is
not the intensity of punishment that has the greatest effect on the human
spirit, but its duration.”23 Many readers can likely relate to this type of
argument, even if they do not necessarily agree with it; the idea of spending
the rest of one’s life in a cell is a scary one for most people. And for many,
such a concept is more frightening than death, which supports Beccaria’s
idea that a more extended punishment may be a more effective deterrent
than a short, albeit extreme, punishment such as execution.
This idea seems to be supported by the case study at the beginning of this
chapter. As you will recall, when being transported from his holding cell to
a status hearing for jury selection, Robert Seman jumped off the fourth-floor
balcony of the courthouse. Some argue Seman realized that he would likely
be subjected to assaults by fellow prisoners. Thus, he may have considered
that death would be easier than enduring that type of torture.
Beccaria’s Concept of Deterrence and the Three

Key Elements of Punishment
As we noted, Beccaria is widely considered the father of deterrence, and for
good reason. After all, Beccaria was the first known scholar to write a work
that summarized such extravagant ideas regarding the role of choice in
human behavior as opposed to the influence of fate or destiny. Prior to his
work, the common wisdom on the issue of human destiny in criminal
behavior was that it was controlled by the gods or God. At that time,
governments and society generally believed that certain persons were born
either good or bad. Beccaria, as a child of the Enlightenment, defied this
belief by proclaiming that persons freely choose their destinies and, thus,
whether to engage in criminal behavior.
Specifically, Beccaria claimed that three characteristics of punishment make

a significant difference in whether an individual will commit a criminal act
—in other words, they deter crime. These vital deterrent characteristics of
punishment include celerity (swiftness), certainty, and severity.
Swiftness of Punishment.
Beccaria claimed that swiftness of punishment was important for two
reasons. The first dealt with Beccaria’s claim, consistent with his reforms
discussed previously in this chapter, that some defendants were spending
many years awaiting trial—often more than their alleged offenses would
have warranted, even under the maximum penalty. As Beccaria stated, “the
more promptly and the more closely punishment follows upon the
commission of a crime, the more just and useful will it be.”24 Thus,
Beccaria’s first reason for recommending swiftness of punishment was that
reformation of punishment was severely lacking at his time of writing.
swiftness of punishment: the assumption that the sooner an offender is punished (for a
crime of which he or she is guilty), the more he or she will be deterred from breaking the
law.
The second reason Beccaria emphasized swift sentencing was related to the
deterrence aspect of punishment. A swift trial and punishment were
important because, as Beccaria stated, “privation of liberty, being itself a
punishment, should not precede the sentence.”25 By this, he meant that
allowing a suspect to languish in detention pending trial was detrimental in
terms of deterrence, because then the individual would not closely associate
the sanction (the resulting sentence, if convicted) with the violation.
Specifically, Beccaria believed that people build an association between the
pains of punishment and their criminal acts. As he stated:
Promptness of punishments is more useful because when the

length of time that passes between the punishment and the
misdeed is less, so much the stronger and more lasting in the
human mind is the association of these two ideas, crime and
punishment . . . one as the cause, the other as the necessary
inevitable effect.26
We can draw a parallel with training animals or teaching children to avoid
certain behaviors: You have to catch them during or soon after the act of bad
behavior, or the punishment given does not matter because the offender does
not know why he or she is being punished. Ultimately, Beccaria claimed
that, for both reform and deterrent reasons, punishment should occur
immediately after the act. Regarding the reform aspect, the defendant may
spend a longer time in detention than the crime merits, and, more important,
the deterrent effect may be lost because the person will not relate the
punishment with the negative act if punishment comes much later. Despite
the commonsense aspects of swift punishment, this has not been examined
by modern empirical research and is therefore the most neglected of the
three elements of punishment Beccaria emphasized.
Learning Check 3.2
1. Beccaria’s seminal work, published in 1764, regarding criminal justice reforms was
titled (translated from Italian) _______________.
a. The Criminal Man
b. A General Theory of Crime
c. On Crimes and Punishments
d. Criminals in the Making
2. According to the text, Beccaria proposed the use of the following in his book to
make the criminal justice system more effective.
a. Jury trials
b. Secret/anonymous accusations
c. Public trials
d. All of the above
3. According to the text, Beccaria believed that the death penalty/capital punishment
could be an effective deterrent if done correctly. True or false?
4. According to the text, Beccaria claimed that punishments should be based on
_______________.
a. actus reus
b. mens rea
Certainty of Punishment.
The second characteristic Beccaria believed to be vital to the effectiveness
of deterrence was certainty of punishment. “Even the least of evils, when
they are certain, always terrify men’s minds.”27 It is obvious from this
statement that Beccaria felt that certainty was the most important aspect of
punishment—specifically, more important than severity and more important
than swiftness/celerity by implication. He wrote, “The certainty of
punishment, even if it be moderate, will always make a stronger impression
than the fear of another which is more terrible but combined with the hope
of impunity.”28 As will be shown later in this chapter, Beccaria was accurate
in his assumption that perceived certainty or risk of punishment is the most
important aspect of punishment.
certainty of punishment: one of the key elements of deterrence; the assumption is that
people perceive a high likelihood of being caught and punished if they commit a crime.
Sadly, this aspect of punishment—namely, certainty—is also the least likely

to be enhanced in modern criminal justice policy. For example, over the past
few decades, the rate of criminals being caught and/or arrested has not
increased. Specifically, over the past few decades, law enforcement officials
have been able to clear only about 21% of known felonies. For a recent
example, in 2017, 21.7% of arson offenses were cleared by arrest or by
exceptional means. Such clearance rates are based on the rate at which
known suspects are apprehended for crimes reported to police. As shown in
Figure 3.4, law enforcement officials are no better at solving serious crimes
known to police than they were in past decades, despite increased
knowledge, better training, and improved technology for solving such
crimes. Although police are, fortunately, relatively better at solving the
serious violent crimes, such as murder and aggravated assault, they do very
poorly at solving most of the other Part 1/Index crimes, and when averaged
across all Index crimes, they are no better at solving them than they were in
the 1960s.
Figure 3.4 Percentage of Index Crimes Cleared by Arrest or

Exceptional Means, 2017
Source: Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2017). Crime in the United
States 2017. Washington, DC: Department of Justice.
pages/clearances.
Severity of Punishment.
The third characteristic Beccaria emphasized was severity of punishment.
Specifically, Beccaria claimed that in order for a punishment to be effective,
the penalty must outweigh the potential benefits (e.g., financial payoff) of
the crime. However, this came with a caveat: This aspect of punishment was
perhaps the most complicated of the three, primarily because while the
punishment must exceed any benefits expected from the crime, too much
severity would lead to more crime. Specifically, Beccaria stated:
For a punishment to attain its end, the evil which it inflicts has
only to exceed the advantage derivable from the crime; in this
excess of evil one should include the . . . loss of the good which
the crime might have produced. All beyond this is superfluous and
for that reason tyrannical.29
severity of punishment: the assumption that a given punishment must be serious enough
to outweigh any potential benefits gained from a crime.
Beccaria makes clear in this statement that punishments should equal or

outweigh any benefits of a crime if they are to deter individuals from
considering engaging in such acts; however, he also explicitly states that any
punishments that exceed the reasonable punishment for a given crime not
only are inhumane but also may lead to further criminality.
A modern example of how punishments can be taken to an extreme, thereby

causing more crime rather than deterring it, is shown by current “three
strikes” laws. Such laws have become common in many states, such as
California. In such jurisdictions, individuals can be sentenced to life
imprisonment for committing a crime, even a nonviolent crime, that fits the
state statutes’ definition of a “serious felony” if it is their third offense. Such
laws have been known to drive some relatively minor property offenders to
wound or even kill people to avoid apprehension, knowing that they face
life imprisonment if caught. The effectiveness of such “three strikes” laws
in reducing crime will be examined in Chapter 4, but it is worthwhile to
note here that a recent review of the impact of such laws across the nation
shows them to be minimally effective; specifically, the authors analyzed the
impact of three-strikes laws in virtually all large cities (188) in the 25 states
with such laws and concluded that there had been no significant reduction in
crime rates. Furthermore, the areas with three-strikes laws typically had
higher homicide rates.30
Ultimately, Beccaria’s philosophy on the three characteristics—swiftness,

certainty, and severity—that make up a good punishment in terms of
deterrence is still highly respected and adhered to in most Western criminal
justice systems. Despite its contemporary flaws and caveats, perhaps no
other traditional framework is followed as closely as Beccaria’s—with one
exception, as we shall see in the coming sections.
Beccaria’s Conceptualization of Specific and

General Deterrence
Beyond the three characteristics of punishment Beccaria emphasized for
improving the deterrent effect of punishment, he also developed the
concepts of two identifiable forms of deterrence: specific deterrence and
general deterrence. Although these two forms of deterrence tend to overlap
in most sentences assigned by judges, they can be distinguished in terms of
the intended target of the punishment. Sometimes the emphasis is clearly on
one or the other, as Beccaria noted.
specific deterrence: punishments given to individual offenders that are meant to prevent
or deter them from committing crime in the future.
general deterrence: punishments given to individual offenders that are meant to prevent
or deter others from engaging in similar criminal activity.
Although Beccaria did not coin the terms specific deterrence and general
deterrence, he made the case that they are both important. Specifically,
regarding punishment, Beccaria stated, “The purpose can only be to prevent
the criminal from inflicting new injuries on its citizens and to deter others
from similar acts.”31 The first portion of this statement, involving
punishment preventing “the criminal” from reoffending, focuses on the
defendant and only the defendant, regardless of any possible offending by
others. Punishments that focus on the individual are considered specific
deterrence (also referred to as special or individual deterrence). This
concept is appropriately labeled, because the emphasis is on the individual
who offended. On the other hand, the latter portion of Beccaria’s quote
above emphasizes the deterrence of “others,” regardless of whether the
individual criminal is deterred. Punishments that focus primarily on
potential criminals, and not on the criminal in the present case, are referred
to as general deterrence.
You are probably wondering how a punishment might not be inherently both
a specific and a general deterrent. After all, in today’s society, virtually all
criminal punishments for individuals (i.e., specific deterrence) are decided
in court, a public venue; thus, other people are made somewhat aware of the
sanctions (i.e., general deterrence). However, at the time in which Beccaria
wrote—the 18th century—much, if not most, sentencing was done behind
closed doors, thereby having no power to deter potential offenders.
Therefore, Beccaria saw much utility in letting the public know what
punishments were handed out for which crimes. This fulfilled not only the
goal of general deterrence, which was essentially to scare others away from
committing criminal acts, but also his previously discussed reforms of
assuring the public that fair and balanced justice was being administered.
Despite the obvious overlap, there are some distinctions between specific
and general deterrence in modern sentencing strategy. For example, some
judges have chosen to obligate defendants, as a condition of their
probation/parole, to walk along the town’s main streets wearing a sign that
says something like “Convicted Child Molester” or “Convicted Shoplifter.”
Other cities have implemented policies whereby pictures and identifying
information of individuals arrested for prostitution or for soliciting
prostitutes are printed in the paper or even displayed on billboards.
These punishment strategies are likely not much of a specific deterrent.

After all, these individuals have now been labeled, so they may be
psychologically encouraged to do what the public expects them to do (for
more discussion and studies regarding labeling, see Chapter 11). So the
specific deterrent effect may not be particularly strong in such cases.
However, there is likely a strong general deterrent effect, which is what
authorities are counting on in most of these cases. Specifically, they are
expecting that many of the people who see these individuals wearing signs
on the streets or publicly shamed in pictures will be frightened away from
criminal activity.
Public arrest is a formal sanction due to the embarrassment and

trauma of going through the booking process, even if
charges are later dismissed. Arrest is a form of both specific
deterrence and general deterrence.
Kevin Hagen/Getty Images
On the other hand, numerous diversion programs, particularly for juvenile,

first-time, and minor offenders, seek to punish offenders without engaging
them in public hearings or trials. The goal of such programs is to hold the
individuals accountable and have them fulfill certain obligations without
dragging them through the often-public government system. The goal in
such cases is specific deterrence, without pillorying the person for the crime,
which thus negates any possibility of general deterrence.
So while most judges likely invoke both specific and general deterrence in
many of the sentences they hand down, in notable cases either specific or
general deterrence is emphasized, sometimes exclusively. Ultimately,
Beccaria seemed to emphasize general deterrence and overall crime
prevention, suggested by this statement: “It is better to prevent crimes than
to punish them. This is the ultimate end of every good legislation.”32 In
other words, it is better to deter potential offenders before they offend than
to impose sanctions after the fact. Beccaria’s emphasis on prevention (rather
than reaction) and general deterrence is also evident in his claim that
education is likely the best way to reduce crime, as discussed previously in
this chapter. After all, the more educated an individual is regarding the law
and potential punishments, as well as public cases in which offenders have
been punished, the less likely he or she will be to engage in criminal
activity. As mentioned previously, Beccaria did not coin the terms specific
deterrence and general deterrence; however, his explicit identification of
the differential emphases in terms of punishment was a key element in his
work and is still considered important today.
Summary of Beccaria’s Ideas and Influence on

Policy
Ultimately, Beccaria summarized his ideas on reforms and deterrence with
this statement:
In order for punishment not to be, in every instance, an act of
violence of one or of many against a private citizen, it must be
essentially public, prompt, necessary, the least possible in the
given circumstances, proportionate to the crimes, dictated by the
laws.33
Beccaria is saying here that the processing and punishment administered by

justice systems must be known to the public that delegates to the state the
authority to make such decisions. Furthermore, he claims that the
punishment must be appropriately swift, certain, (i.e., necessary), and
severe, in keeping with his concept of deterrence. Finally, he reiterates the
need to standardize the punishments for given criminal acts, as opposed to
allowing arbitrary punishments imposed by a judge. These are just some of
the many ideas Beccaria proposed, but he apparently saw them as being
most important.
Although we, as U.S. citizens, take for granted the rights proposed by
Beccaria, they were quite novel in the 18th century. In fact, they were so
revolutionary that Beccaria thought it best to publish them anonymously. He
was worried that the church would accuse him of blasphemy and the
government would persecute him for his views.
Regarding the first worry, Beccaria was right; the Roman Catholic Church
excommunicated him when On Crimes and Punishment’s authorship
became known. In fact, his book remained on the list of condemned works
until the 1960s. On the other hand, government officials of the time
embraced his work. Not only did the Italian government endorse Beccaria’s
book; most European and other world officials, particularly dictators,
embraced it as well. Specifically, Beccaria was invited to visit many
countries’ capitals, even those of the most authoritarian states at that time, to
help reform their criminal justice systems. For example, Beccaria was
invited to meet with Catherine the Great, empress of Russia during the late
18th century, to help revise and improve that country’s justice system. Most
historical records suggest that Beccaria was not an ideal diplomat or
representative of his ideas, largely because he was not physically or socially
equipped for such endeavors. However, his ideas were strong and stood on
their own merit.
It is likely that the reason why dictators and authoritarian governments liked
his reformatory framework so much was that it explicitly named treason as
the most serious crime. Beccaria stated:
The first class of crime, which are the gravest because most
injurious, are those known as crimes of lese majeste [high
treason]. . . . Every crime . . . injures society, but it is not every
crime that aims at its immediate destruction.34
After all, treason was the criminal offense that most directly violated the
government. To clarify, according to Enlightenment philosophy, violations
of law are not only criminal acts against the victims (if any), but also attacks
on society as a whole, because they disregard the social contract. As
Beccaria stated, the most heinous criminal acts are those that directly violate
the social contract—treason and espionage. Therefore, it is not surprising
that treason and similar offenses were considered the most serious crimes.
This is likely the reason why dictators of the time invited him to visit and
presented him to the citizens as a “reformer” of their systems. These
dictators likely saw a chance to pacify the revolutionaries among their
citizenry. In many of these cases, it was only a temporary solution. After all,
the American Revolution began in the 1770s, the French Revolution was
sparked in the 1780s, and other revolutions soon followed.
We will see in later sections that governments that tried to apply Beccaria’s
ideas to the letter experienced problems, but most European (and American)
societies that incorporated his ideas were more fair and democratic in their
justice systems than those societies implementing any framework in
existence prior to Beccaria. This is why he is, to this day, considered the
“Father of Criminal Justice.”
Learning Check 3.3
1. According to the text, which element of deterrence did Beccaria believe was the
most important in ensuring that individuals were deterred from committing crime?
a. Swiftness of punishment
b. Certainty of being caught
c. Severity of punishment/sentences
d. All were equally important
2. According to the text, Beccaria claimed which crime was the absolute worst
offense?
a. Murder
b. Rape
c. Robbery
d. Treason
3. According to the text, Beccaria’s book was well received by dictators around the
world, even in those countries with draconian criminal justice systems. True or
false?
The Impact of Beccaria’s Work on Other

Theorists
As discussed above, Beccaria’s work had an immediate impact on the
political and philosophical state of affairs in the late 18th century. In
addition to being invited to help reform other countries’ justice systems, his
propositions and theoretical model of deterrence were incorporated into
many countries’ newly written constitutions, most of them on the heels of
major revolution. The most notable of these was the U.S. Constitution and
Bill of Rights.
It is apparent that the many documents constructed before and during the
time of the American Revolution in the late 18th century, such as the
Declaration of the Rights of Man (a key political document of the French
Revolution), were heavily influenced by Beccaria and other Enlightenment
philosophers. Specifically, the concept that our government is “of the
people, by the people, and for the people” makes it clear that the
Enlightenment idea of democracy and having a voice in the government is
of utmost importance in the United States. Another clear example is the
emphasis on due process and individual rights in the U.S. Bill of Rights.
Specifically, the concepts of right to trial by jury, right to confront and
cross-examine witnesses, right to a speedy trial, requirement that the public
be informed of all decisions regarding their justice system (charges, pleas,
trials, verdicts, sentences, etc.), and many other rights contained in our
Constitution are all products of Beccaria’s work.
Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), one of the seminal theorists of
the Classical and Neoclassical perspectives of criminology,
insisted that his body be displayed at University College
London. His preserved skeleton, dressed and with a wax
head, sits there still.
Michael Reeve/Licensed by author under GNU Free Documentation

License
Beyond the incredible influence the Enlightenment and Beccaria had on

individual rights in the United States via the Constitution and Bill of Rights,
the impact of Beccaria’s propositions on the working ideology of our justice
system cannot be overstated. Specifically, the public nature of our justice
system comes from Beccaria, as does the emphasis on deterrence. After all,
our criminal justice system (as well as those of virtually all Western
countries) uses the method of increasing the certainty and severity of
punishment to reduce crime. This system of deterrence remains the
dominant model in criminal justice, in which the goal is to deter potential
and previous offenders from committing crime by enforcing punishment
that will make them reconsider the next time they think about engaging in
such activity. This model assumes a rational thinking human being, as
described by Enlightenment philosophy, who can learn from past
experiences or from seeing others punished for offenses that he or she is
rationally thinking about committing. Thus, Beccaria’s work has had a
profound impact on the philosophy and workings of the justice systems in
most countries throughout the world.
Beyond his influence in the workings of justice systems, Beccaria also had a
large impact on further theorizing about human decision-making related to
criminal behavior. One of the more notable theorists inspired by Beccaria’s
ideas was Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) of England, who has become a
well-known Classical theorist in his own right, perhaps because he helped
spread the Enlightenment/Beccarian philosophy to Britain. His influence in
the development of Classical theorizing is debated, with a number of major
texts not covering his writings at all.35 Although he did not contribute a
significant amount of theorizing beyond Beccaria’s propositions regarding
reform and deterrence, Bentham did further refine the ideas presented by
previous theorists, and his legacy is well known.
One of Bentham’s more important contributions was the concept of

“hedonistic calculus,” which was essentially the weighing of pleasure versus
pain. This, of course, is strongly based on the Enlightenment/Beccarian
concept of rational choice and utility. After all, if the expected pain
outweighs the expected benefit of committing a given act, the rational
individual is far less likely to do it. On the other hand, if the expected
pleasure outweighs the expected pain, a rational person will likely engage in
the act. Bentham listed a set of criteria that he thought would enter into a
rational individual’s decision-making process. One analogy for this is a
theoretical two-sided balance scale on which the pros and cons of crimes are
weighed, with the individual then making a rational decision either to
commit the crime or not.
Beyond the idea of hedonistic calculus, Bentham’s contributions to the

overall assumptions of Classical theorizing did not significantly revise the
theoretical model. Perhaps the most important contribution he made to the
Classical School was helping popularize the framework in Britain. Bentham
became best known for his design of a prison structure, known as the
“Panopticon,” that was used in several countries, including the United States
in early Pennsylvania penitentiaries. (This model used a type of wagon-
wheel design, in which a post at the center allowed a 360-degree visual
observation point for the various “spokes,” or corridors, containing the
prison cells. See Figure 3.5.) Thus, Beccaria remains the primary figure in
the formation and articulation of the Classical School, and his
conceptualization is the one that persisted for most of the late 18th and early
19th centuries.
The Neoclassical School of Criminology

As discussed in prior sections, a number of governments, including the
newly formed U.S. government, incorporated Beccaria’s concepts and
propositions in the development of their justice systems. However, the
government that most strictly applied Beccaria’s ideas—the French
government, after that country’s revolution in the late 1780s—found that his
concepts worked pretty well, with just one exception. Beccaria had claimed
that every individual who committed a given act against the law should be
punished in the same manner and to the same extent. Although equality in
punishment sounds like a good philosophy, what the French quickly realized
was that not everyone who commits a given act should be punished
identically.
Figure 3.5 Rendering of Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon Prison

Source: Public domain.
Why Do They Do It?
The Harpe Brothers

The Harpe brothers, also known as the “Bloody Harpes,” were likely the first notable
serial killers in the United States and certainly the first sibling team of serial killers, if one
marks our beginning as the colonial era. In the late 18th century, Micajah “Big” Harpe and
Wiley “Little” Harpe were basically river pirates and highway robbers (in the traditional
sense) who were active in various parts of the southeastern United States, including
modern-day Tennessee, Kentucky, North Carolina, Mississippi, and Illinois. Despite the
financial gains from their various crimes, they seemed more motivated by the act of
kidnapping, raping, and killing. They were known to butcher all their enemies and their
enemies’ families, including infants. In one notable incident, Micajah Harpe bashed his
own daughter’s head against a tree because of her constant crying. It is claimed that this
was the only crime for which he actually showed remorse when he confessed.
The brothers also took part in the kidnap and rape of several teenage girls in North
Carolina and pillaged (in every sense of the word) various farms. They later joined several
different militias and Native American tribes, such as the renegade Creek and
Chickamauga Cherokees (whom they had lived with at certain points), to attack frontier
settlements and forts, such as Fort Nashborough (now Nashville, Tennessee). They were
also known for kidnapping women and forcing them to become their wives. Given the
time when they offended, little can be certain regarding the number of their victims or
extent of their offenses, outside of the fact that historical records report they killed no
fewer than 40 people and seemed to take great joy in doing so.
Regarding their demise, Micajah Harpe was killed by a revenge posse (after he killed a
woman); he died after being shot and then attacked with a tomahawk. Legend has it that
his head was hung on a pole at a crossroads known as Harpe’s Head or Harpe’s Head
Road in Webster County, Kentucky. Wiley Harpe lived under an alias for a while to elude
the local authorities but was captured, tried, and hanged in 1804.
So why did they do it? Aside from the psychological motivation to kidnap, rape, and kill
so many people, the primary reason likely was because they could. This sounds crude and
harsh, but there have always been evil people in the world. With no systematic formal
justice system in the colonial period, especially in the frontier areas of Tennessee,
Kentucky, and so on, there was likely a sense of “do whatever you want.” At that time,
this was the Wild West of the colonies, and even if you violated local norms or rules, who
was going to track you down and arrest you? After all, the first official law enforcement
department did not form until the early 1800s in Texas (Texas Rangers, 1835), and the
first municipal police force did not form until after that (Boston Police, 1838). Although
some regions had a constable or similar officer who was supposed to enforce the rules or
laws of that area, even such men must have been hesitant to go after two violent brothers
who would likely attack anyone.
Without a certain formal policing authority, people can literally get away with murder. We
have seen this happen in modern times when there is no stable law enforcement in place,
such as in regions undergoing widespread chaos, like New Orleans, Louisiana, after
Hurricane Katrina. The bottom line is that any time there is no formal, stable law
enforcement authority in place, individuals can commit any number of crimes without
facing sanctions or accountability. This is perhaps why New Orleans recently ranked as
the top city in the United States for violent crime; formal structures were thrown into
complete chaos after the flooding and resulting disarray from Hurricane Katrina. So it is
for this reason—the lack of any stable law enforcement or criminal justice system—that
the Harpe brothers were able to get away with as much as they did, until they were finally
apprehended by more informal authorities, such as the revenge posse made up of
nonsworn individuals and local constables that had limited authority at that time. But by
the time they were stopped, they had for years been brutalizing dozens of victims.
Think About It
1. Can you think of a theory that would explain why the Harpe brothers committed
their crimes?
2. If formal police authorities had existed on the American frontier, would the Harpe
brothers’ actions have been any different?
Sources: Musgrave, J. (1998, October 23). Frontier serial killers: The Harpes. American
Weekend; Rothert, O. A. (1927). The Harpes, two outlaws in pioneer times. Filson Club
Historical Quarterly, 1(4), 155–163.
Applying Theory to Crime Other Assaults (Simple)
The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report Program defines “other assaults,” or “simple assaults,”
as “assaults and attempted assaults where no weapon was used or no serious or aggravated
injury resulted to the victim. Stalking, intimidation, coercion, and hazing are included.”36
In 2017, there were a total of 1,062,370 simple assaults. From 2008 to 2017, the number
of simple assaults by males decreased by 19.8%; for the same period, the number of
simple assaults by females decreased by 6.5%.37 Based on 2017 National Crime
Victimization Survey data, the Bureau of Justice Statistics reported that there were
3,611,680 victims of simple assault, which means 13.3 simple assaults per 1,000 persons
age 12 or older. Comparing this rate with the rate of simple assaults for 2015 (i.e., 11.8)
reveals an increase of simple assaults.38
Police officers are a primary component of deterrence. Without the police, chaos
might ensue. However, studies show that concentrating officers in certain
neighborhoods doesn’t reduce crime in those areas.
©iStockphoto.com/Susan Chiang
It is essential to stress, however, that the scope and extent of domestic violence varies a
great deal depending on the definition used to measure the incidence and prevalence of
these assaults. Further, there is a general assumption that both official reports and self-
reports understate the problem of domestic assault for a variety of reasons. For instance, a
direct question pertaining to past victims or perpetrators of violence may not evoke a
positive response. Some individuals may not remember or may not be willing to
acknowledge or admit to illegal or inappropriate behavior.39
One area of study that has explored the application of deterrence theory is that of law
enforcement responses to domestic violence. In the early 1980s, Lawrence Sherman and
Richard Berk wished to examine the effects of police responses in deterring domestic
assaults.40 In what became known as the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment,
officers were randomly assigned to respond in one of the following manners: (a) separate
the parties and order one of them to leave, (b) inform the parties of various alternatives
(e.g., mediating disputes), or (c) arrest the abuser. The results revealed that 10% of those
arrested, 19% of those advised of alternatives, and 24% of those ordered to leave
subsequently engaged in further violence. Thus, Sherman and Berk concluded that
arresting perpetrators of domestic violence has the strongest deterrent effect. Some
researchers, however, noted methodological shortcomings of the Minneapolis Domestic
Violence Experiment. For instance, some officers involved in the experiment claimed to
have prior knowledge of what type of action they were to take when responding to a
domestic violence call. Thus, they would reclassify the offense in an effort to have it
omitted from the study.41
The Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment had a tremendous policy impact:
Within 1 year of the study’s first publication, almost two thirds of major police
departments had heard of the Minneapolis experiment, and three quarters of the
departments correctly remembered its general conclusion that arrest was the
preferable police response. Similarly, the number of police departments
encouraging arrests for domestic violence tripled in 1 year from only 10% to
31%.42
It has also been suggested that the Minneapolis experiment was favorable among
policymakers, given the emerging support for deterrence theory. Due to the major policy
impact of this experiment, the National Institute of Justice funded six experimental
replications of the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment; these have been
collectively referred to as the “Replication Studies.”43 Essentially, these replications
failed to confirm the findings of the Minneapolis experiment. Buzawa and Buzawa
contend that there may be a “middle ground”: specifically, deterrence may result for some
offenders but not all offenders.44
To further highlight key aspects of deterrence theory, let’s apply this perspective to the
crime of domestic violence. In the early 1990s, in college, Nicole met the man who would
become her husband. Early in their relationship, he was controlling as well as verbally and
emotionally abusive. One summer, things took a turn for the worse. The verbal and
emotional abuse turned physical. It started with pushing and throwing objects; the abuse
then escalated to punching as well as pointing a gun at her for hours. After keeping silent
for months, Nicole realized she needed to tell someone, because “either he was going to
kill me or I was going to kill him.” She told her mother. Immediately they developed an
exit plan (e.g., setting up a bank account, discreetly removing personal items from her
home).
In November of that year, Nicole filed for a protection order. On the day the order was
served, she picked up her children from school and left to stay with her sister in Canada.
After a few weeks, she returned to a new home. Nicole realized, however, that her
husband had “lost control.” This resulted in an escalation of the threatening behavior, to
include stalking her and making intimidating telephone calls. Thus, the protection order
did not deter him. When he went to court for violating the order, the judge would just give
him a lecture; he was arrested multiple times for aggravated stalking. Eventually, he went
to prison for aggravated stalking. While he was incarcerated, Nicole learned that he had
been caught soliciting inmates to murder her for $50,000.45
Nicole’s experience illustrates the concepts associated with deterrence theory, such as the
protection order and imprisonment. For instance, there appeared to be a lack of certainty
of punishment, because when her husband was brought in court for violating the
protection order, he got only a lecture from the judge. The concept of swiftness, or lack of
swiftness, is also apparent in this case. Finally, imprisonment did not appear to have
deterred Nicole’s husband, seeing as how he so brazenly solicited prisoners to murder his
wife.
Think About It
1. How do the rates of simple assault vary between males and females?
2. What did the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment show regarding different
ways to deal with cases of domestic violence?
3. What did the replication studies reveal about the original Minneapolis study on
domestic violence?
Specifically, the French found that sentencing a first-time offender the same
as a repeat offender did not make much sense, especially if the first-time
offender was a juvenile. Furthermore, there were many cases in which
malice did not appear to motivate the defendant’s actions, such as when the
defendant had limited mental capacity or committed a crime out of
necessity. Perhaps most important, Beccaria’s framework specifically
dismisses the intent (i.e., mens rea) of criminal offenders and focuses only
on the harm done to society by a given act (i.e., actus reus). French society
—as well as most modern societies, including the United States’—deviated
from Beccaria’s framework in considering the intent of offenders, often in a
crucial way, such as in determining what types of charges should be filed
against those accused of homicide (see the previous discussion on degrees
of homicide in this chapter). Therefore, a new school of thought regarding
the Classical/deterrence model developed, which became known as the
Neoclassical School of criminology.
Neoclassical School: assumes that aggravating and mitigating circumstances should be
taken into account for purposes of sentencing and punishing an offender.
The only significant difference between the Neoclassical School and the
Classical School is that the Neoclassical (“neo” means new) takes into
account contextual circumstances of the individual or situation that allow
for increases or decreases in the punishment. For example, would a society
want to punish a 12-year-old, first-time shoplifter the same way as a 35-
year-old, previous offender who shoplifted the same item? Additionally,
does a society want to punish a mentally challenged, one-time car thief to
the same extent as it would a normally functioning person who has been
convicted of stealing more than a dozen cars? The answer to both is
“probably not.” At least that is what most modern criminal justice
authorities, including those in the United States, have decided.
This was also the conclusion of French society, and although French
authorities for some time fully embraced the idea of equal punishment for a
given act against society (i.e., equal harm done to society, as Beccaria
advised), they quickly realized that the system was neither fair nor effective
in terms of deterrence. So they came to acknowledge that circumstantial
factors play an important part in how malicious or guilty a defendant is. A
number of contextual factors either alleviate or increase the level of
malicious intent involved in engaging in criminal activity.
Thus, the French revised their laws to take into account both mitigating and
aggravating circumstances. This Neoclassical concept became the standard
in all Western societies’ justice systems. Fortunately, the United States also
follows this model and considers such contextual factors in virtually all
decisions related to charging and sentencing. For example, if a defendant is
a juvenile, he or she is processed in a completely different system from the
criminal court. Furthermore, first-time offenders are generally given the
option of a diversion program or probation, as long as their offense is not
serious.
The Neoclassical School was an important departure from the previously

important Classical School. Still, it assumed most of the concepts and
propositions of the Classical School. For example, it endorsed the idea of
the social contract, due-process rights, and rational beings who are deterred
by the certainty, swiftness, and severity of punishment. So, with the
exception of aggravating and mitigating circumstances in sentencing and
punishment, the Neoclassical School is identical to the Classical School.
And this Neoclassical School is the model used by all Western societies in
their justice systems. Thus, this framework continues to have an extremely
important influence around the world.
The Decline of Classical/Neoclassical Theory

For about 100 years after Beccaria wrote his book, the
Classical/Neoclassical School was dominant in criminological theorizing.
During this time, most governments, especially those in the Western world,
shifted their justice frameworks toward the Neoclassical model. This has not
changed, even in modern times. After all, virtually every society still uses
the Neoclassical/Classical model as the framework for its system of justice.
However, the Classical/Neoclassical framework lost favor among academics

and scientists in the 19th century, especially after Charles Darwin’s 1860s
publication of The Origin of Species, a book that introduced the concept of
evolution and natural selection. This perspective shed new light on other
influences of human behavior (e.g., genetics, psychological deficits) beyond
that of free will and rational choice (covered in Chapters 5 and 6). Despite
this shift in emphasis among academic and scientific circles, the actual
workings of the justice systems in most Western societies retained use of the
Classical/Neoclassical model.
Policy Implications
Even now, when authorities want to crack down on certain crimes, such as
drugs or gang activity, they focus on law enforcement and enhanced
punishments to create more certainty and severity of being caught,
respectively. So, although the Classical/Neoclassical perspective has fallen
out of favor with researchers and academics over the past 150 years, it
remains the primary model in terms of policy implications favored by most
officials in the criminal justice system, most legislators, and the general
public. Many policies are based on deterrence theory: the premise that
increasing punishment sanctions will deter crime. This is seen throughout
the system of law enforcement, courts, and corrections.
Yet Classical/deterrence theory has not been the dominant explanatory

model among criminologists for decades. In fact, a 2008 poll of nearly 400
criminologists in the nation ranked Classical theory as one of the least valid
explanations for serious and persistent offending.46 Still, given the
dominance of Classical/deterrence theory in most criminal justice policies, it
is important to discuss the most common strategies.
For example, “three strikes” laws have become prevalent in many states, as
have police department gang units and injunctions (which condemn any
observed loitering by or gathering of gang members in a specified region by
listing members of established gangs). Furthermore, some states, such as
California, have created gang enhancements in which juries decide whether
the defendant is guilty of a given crime and also make a separate decision as
to whether the person is a gang member. If a jury in California determines
that the defendant is a gang member (usually with evidence provided by
local police gang units), this automatically adds more time to any sentence
assigned by the judge. However, some states are starting to reconsider this
hard-line approach under which offenders may receive life imprisonment for
nonviolent felonies, such as in the case of Shane Taylor, who was sentenced
to life under California’s “three strikes” law after being convicted of two
burglaries (a property crime, according to the FBI definition) and then
possession of 0.14 grams of methamphetamine.47
Also, the still-common use of the death penalty and programs such as
“scared straight” are based heavily on the deterrence framework of the
Classical/Neoclassical perspective, despite much evidence showing that
neither tends to be effective in deterring individuals from committing crimes
and both may have even led to more recidivism by participants of such
programs.48 Furthermore, in terms of individuals’ decision-making when it
comes to crime, formal deterrence elements, such as law enforcement or
severe possible sanctions, tend to have little impact. This is because such a
model assumes that people are rational and think carefully before engaging
in criminal behavior, whereas most research findings suggest that people
often engage in behaviors they know to be irrational or that offenders tend
to engage in behaviors without rational decision-making. Criminologists
often use the phrase “bounded rationality” to refer to people’s tendency to
be oblivious to many of the risks that may result from their behavior.49 On
the macro or group level, the same can be said for adding more officers to
random street patrols in a given neighborhood or area, which has been
shown to only negligibly reduce crime.50 Most deterrence effects and
reductions in crime are more attributable to informal elements, such as
families and communities having strong ties and “policing” their own
neighborhoods, which we discuss in the next chapter.
These are just some examples of how the American justice system, like
most Western systems, still relies primarily on deterrence of criminal
activity through increased formal controls, such as law enforcement and
enhanced sentencing, despite much evidence that these changes likely have
little impact on individuals’ decisions to engage in illegal behavior. The
bottom line is that modern justice systems still base most of their ideology
on the ability of individuals to be deterred by the certainty, severity, and
swiftness of punishment—namely, the Classical/Neoclassical School of
thought—despite the fact that this theoretical framework fell out of favor
among scientists and philosophers in the mid-to-late 19th century.
Fazit
This chapter began with a discussion of the dominant perspectives on criminal behavior
throughout most of human civilization, which were supernatural- or religious-based
theories. Once the Age of Enlightenment presented a more logical framework of
individual decision-making and rationality in the 18th century, the Classical School of
criminological thought arose, largely due to the propositions in Beccaria’s On Crimes and
Punishments (1764). Along with many proposed reforms, Beccaria’s perspective focused
on the assumption that individuals have free will and make a rational choice to commit a
given offense after first considering the risk of getting caught and punished, a proposition
that established the deterrence approach to crime. The goal was to deter people from
engaging in criminal activities by increasing their likelihood of being caught and/or
punished via formal sanctions.
We also started this chapter with a case study of Robert Seman, Jr., who leapt to his death
in the courthouse before he could be tried for a triple murder case, not to mention his
repeated rape of a very young girl. Even the deputies who were escorting him said that he
was in good spirits just before he leaped. But it is likely that the weight of what was about
to happen got to him and he realized he might never see the outside of a prison cell again.
This is proof that there is a lot to be said for the deterrent effect of formal sanctions, which
is the keystone of the Classical School. Thus, there is still a case to be made for the
deterrent effects of formal sanctions, such as incarceration, among many potential
offenders in our society.
The Classical School as originally proposed by Beccaria included some elements that
virtually all countries had problems implementing, which led to the Neoclassical
perspective that allowed for consideration of contextual aspects in sentencing decisions.
This improved Neoclassical framework became the dominant model for close to a century,
until the late 19th century, but is still the basis for most criminal justice systems in the
Western world, especially in the United States. We will see in the next chapter that the
concepts and propositions of the Classical/Neoclassical framework were recently
expanded to develop a more logically valid and empirically supported theory of criminal
behavior.
Summary of Theories
Key
Theory Concepts Proponents
Propositions
Various pre-
Classical Crime is caused
groups by Satan (i.e.,
Full moon “the Devil made
Supernatural/religious/metaphysical Most common them do it”) or
Lightning
theories belief among exceptional
God/gods societies prior phenomena
to (e.g., full moon,
Enlightenment thunderstorms)
period
Rationality
Free will
Social Individuals
contract have rational
Cesare thought and
Deterrence
Beccaria decide to
theory
Classical theory commit crime
Jeremy based on
Swiftness of
Bentham perceived risk
punishment
of being
Certainty of caught/punished
punishment
Severity of
punishment
Key
Theory Concepts Proponents
Propositions
Takes into
account the
contextual
Same as
factors in a No one key
Classical
given crime proponent, but
School but
in terms of this is the
takes into
punishment model all
account
but assumes criminal
mitigating and
Neoclassical perspective all other justice
aggravating
propositions systems in the
factors when
of the Western world
deciding the
Classical are based on
sentence for a
School (e.g., United
given criminal
(e.g., States)
activity
rationality,
free will,
deterrence)
Key Terms
actus reus, 61
Age of Enlightenment, 54
brutalization effect, 63
certainty of punishment, 65
Classical School, 54
deterrence theory, 54
general deterrence, 67
mens rea, 61
Neoclassical School, 74
severity of punishment, 66
social contract, 58
specific deterrence, 67
swiftness of punishment, 64
utilitarianism, 60
1. How do pre-Enlightenment perspectives of crime differ from those in the Age of
Enlightenment?
2. What Enlightenment philosophy do you feel was most important for criminal policy?
3. Can you think of modern examples of violations of Enlightenment philosophy in
criminal justice systems, or in society in general?
4. What concept/proposition of Beccaria’s reforms do you find least practical? Most
practical?
5. Which of the three elements of deterrence do you find to be most important? Least
important?
6. Do you agree with Beccaria’s assessment of the death penalty? What portions of his
reasoning do you most agree or disagree with?
7. Can you define and explain the differences between general and specific deterrence?
Give examples of each.
8. How did the Neoclassical School differ from the traditional Classical School? Do you
believe it was an improvement? Why or why not?
9. What modern-day applications and policies do you think were inspired or influenced by
Beccaria and Bentham?
Ressourcen
For most of human civilization, theories of crime were based on supernatural or

spiritual theories, such as “the Devil made them do it.”
http://www.salemweb.com/memorial
The Age of Enlightenment established that individuals are rational and make decisions
regarding their behavior, breaking from the belief that criminal behavior is caused by
demons or other supernatural explanations.
https://www.history.com/topics/british-history/enlightenment
Hobbes was one of the first, and perhaps the most notable, Enlightenment theorists, in his
focus on individuals being rational and having free will, thereby placing criminal behavior
as a choice to be made and not up to fate.
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/3x.htm
Beccaria was highly influenced by the Enlightenment and proposed the theory of
deterrence and many reforms, which is why he is considered the father of deterrence as
well as the “Father of Criminal Justice” and the father of the Classical School of
criminology.
http://www.constitution.org/cb/beccaria_bio.htm
Deterrence is one of the key propositions of the Classical School of criminology. It

assumes that individuals have free will and weigh the potential benefits and punishments
of their behavior.
http://nij.gov/five-things/pages/deterrence.aspx
Bentham extended the ideas and concepts advanced by Beccaria and proposed a
hedonistic calculus that further specified how individuals decide whether to commit crime
based on a cost/benefit ratio.
http://www.utilitarianism.com/bentham.htm
The Neoclassical School of criminology added the consideration of aggravating and

mitigating circumstances to sentencing of offenders, thus putting the context of the
offense as a primary consideration, which the Classical School did not.
https://study.com/academy/lesson/neoclassical-criminology-school-theory.html
Student Study Site

Media Library
premium resources:
Author Video
3.1: Deterrence

3.1: Deterrence Theory

3.1: Punishment
Chapter 4 Contemporary Classical and
Deterrence Research
Shena Hardin holds up a sign to serve a highly public sentence

for driving on a sidewalk to avoid a Cleveland school bus
that was unloading children.
AP Photo/Tony Dejak
Learning Objectives
4.1 Explain why modern deterrence research underwent a rebirth, and identify the four
waves of modern deterrence research.
4.2 Name the components of rational choice theory that were not included or emphasized
by traditional Classical/deterrence theory in explaining criminal behavior.
4.3 List the three key elements of routine activities theory.
4.4 Provide examples of modern-day applications and policies that most apply
Beccaria’s principles and the Classical/Neoclassical school.
Case Study
The Murder of Kristen Crowley
Grieving family and friends of Kristen Crowley, who was viciously attacked and
murdered.
AP Photo/pool/Mike Adaskaveg
In 1996, 27-year-old Kristen “Krissy” Crowley was recently married and worked for a
computer company. She had honeymooned in south Florida and during that trip had stayed at
the Palm Beach home of her cousin, one of the authors of this book. Unbeknown to most of her
family, she had been moonlighting as an exotic dancer at private parties.
Not long after the honeymoon trip, in early June 1996, she was attacked and killed on her way
home from a performance at a party. Her two assailants had seen her at the convenience store
where she stopped to buy a soda.
They followed her to the entrance of her condo and dragged her into a nearby forested area.
There they sexually assaulted her before bludgeoning her to death with a 48-pound rock.
Among her friends and family members, reactions to Krissy’s murder ranged from disbelief to
outrage. Her parents found it very hard to believe she had a life they did not know about. Yet
security footage showed her assailants seeming to plan their attack after the convenience-store
clerk told them Krissy was a “stripper.” Her husband of 18 months mourned privately.
There was a raucous scene in Peabody District Court as the suspects, Timothy Dykens, 23, and
John P. Keegan, 25, were about to be arraigned for murder. Several friends of the victim began
shouting and cursing at the pair, with at least three men attempting to jump across a cordoned-
off area to get at the suspects.
During their arraignment, the convenience-store clerk testified that he saw Keegan look at
Krissy and say he “wanted a piece of that.” He then quoted Dykens as saying repeatedly, “You
know what we’ve got to do.” Authorities said the suspects did not know the victim and that
they had been drinking earlier in the night at the Golden Banana strip joint on Route 1. Dykens
had been taken into custody a couple hours after Krissy’s murder as he walked along a road
with his bloodied shirt in hand, police said. He had soon confessed and also identified the other
man in the incident as Keegan.
Following a trial in October 1997, Dykens was convicted of first-degree murder and received a
life sentence without possibility of parole. Keegan pleaded guilty to second-degree murder,
making him eligible for parole after serving 15 years, which was denied in 2012, and he was
ruled ineligible for parole for another 5 years.1 He was found dead in his prison cell in August
2013.2
Think About It
1. Had Krissy not been an “exotic dancer,” might this incident not have occurred? How
does this relate to theories presented in this chapter?
2. To what extent, if any, should offenders’ level of intoxication alleviate their legal
culpability?
Introduction
In August 2012, 13-year-old Brandon Mathison’s mother forced him to wear
a humiliating sign and walk along a busy intersection in Beaufort, South
Carolina.3 She made him do this because she had caught him smoking
marijuana with his friends. On the front, the sign read, “Smoked pot, got
caught! Don’t I look cool? NOT!” On the back, it read, “Learn from me,
don’t do drugs.”
This type of shaming strategy is an informal form of deterrence that stems

from family, friends, and community as opposed to the formal sanctions of
law enforcement, courts, and jail or prison. And for most individuals in
society, the informal controls are what actually deter and reduce their
likelihood of engaging in criminal activity, because (a) they don’t want to
risk losing their friends and jobs and (b) they care what their family
members and others think about them. In this chapter, we’ll examine various
theoretical models that emphasize such informal deterrent elements.
In the previous chapter, we examined the early history of theorizing about

crime, which included pre–Classical School perspectives (e.g., religious and
supernatural explanations) as well as early Classical School theorizing
during and just after the Age of Enlightenment. Early theorizing by Cesare
Beccaria and others during the late 18th century remained dominant in terms
of academics and, more important, policymakers for close to 100 years. But
the Classical framework as a model for understanding crime fell out of favor
among academics and researchers in the late 19th century.
While the Classical model never stopped being the favorite of policymakers,
virtually all dominant theories presented by scientists of the past century
have been premised on assumptions and propositions that go against such
Classical concepts as deterrence, free will/choice, and rational decision-
making. However, Classical School concepts, assumptions, and propositions
have experienced a “rebirth” in the past few decades. Furthermore, since the
1980s, several modern theoretical frameworks, such as rational choice,
routine activities, and lifestyle perspectives, have given new life to the
Classical perspective of criminological theorizing.
We will see that some of these more modern Classical School–based

theories emphasize only the potential negative consequences of criminal
actions, whereas other theories focus on the possible benefits. Still others
concentrate on the opportunities and situations that predispose people to
engage in criminal activity. Regardless of their differences, the modern
theoretical perspectives discussed in this chapter emphasize a common
theme: Individuals commit crime because they identify certain situations
and/or acts as beneficial due to their perception of a low risk of punishment
and a high likelihood of profits, such as money or status. In other words, the
potential offender weighs the possible costs and pleasures of committing a
given act and then behaves in a rational way based on this analysis of the
situation.
The most important distinction of these Classical School theories, as
opposed to those discussed in future chapters, is that they emphasize
individual decision-making regardless of any extraneous influences on a
person’s free will, such as the economy or bonding with society. Although
many outside factors may influence an individual’s ability to rationally
consider offending situations—and many of the theories in this chapter deal
with such influences—the emphasis remains on the individual to consider
all influences before making the decision to engage in or abstain from
criminal behavior.
Given the focus on individual responsibility in modern times, it is not

surprising that Classical School theories are still used as the basis for
policies on punishment for criminal activity in the United States. Because
they place responsibility on the individual, the modern Classical School
theories discussed in this chapter are highly compatible and consistent with
the conservative “get tough” movement that has existed since the mid-
1970s. Thus, the Classical School still retains the highest influence in terms
of policy and pragmatic punishment in the United States, as well as
throughout the Western world. So the theories we examine in this chapter
are the modern versions of the important assumptions, concepts, and
propositions currently in use in virtually every system of justice in Western
nations. Although most practitioners (even the judges who decide on
sentences for a given illegal act) are likely not aware of these modern
Classical theories of why people commit crimes, these modern perspectives
represent the very types of concepts that all practitioners in our criminal
justice system use to decide what is deserved or needed to reform an
individual who has engaged in criminal activity.
The Rebirth of Deterrence Theory and

Contemporary Research
As discussed above, the Classical/Neoclassical framework fell out of favor
among scientists and philosophers in the late 19th century, largely due to
Darwin’s ideas on evolution and natural selection. However, virtually all
Western criminal systems, particularly that of the United States, retained the
Classical/Neoclassical framework for their models of justice. Despite the
use of Beccaria’s framework as the model for most justice systems, the
ideology of his work was largely dismissed by academics and theorists after
the presentation of Darwin’s theory of evolution in the 1860s. Therefore, the
Classical/Neoclassical model fell out of favor in terms of criminological
theorizing for about 100 years. In the late 1960s and early 1970s, however,
the Beccarian model of offending experienced a rebirth.
This rebirth was largely due to scientific reviews showing that the
rehabilitation programs popular during the 1960s had virtually no impact in
reducing recidivism, especially among chronic offenders.4 Specifically,
Walter Bailey’s review of 100 programs in the late 1960s revealed that very
few showed beneficial outcomes in reducing offenders’ recidivism. Even
more attention was given to Robert Martinson’s review of such
rehabilitative programs, which concluded that “nothing works.” Although
this conclusion was overstated, it was true that virtually none of the rehab
programs significantly reduced offending among participants. Therefore,
criminologists returned to their “roots” in focusing more on
Classical/deterrence principles.
The Four Waves of Modern Deterrence Research
Aggregate Studies.
In the late 1960s, several studies used aggregate measures of crime and
punishment and a deterrence model for explaining why individuals engage
in criminal behavior.5 These aggregate studies revealed a new interest in
the deterrent aspects of criminal behavior and further supported the
importance of certainty and severity of punishment in deterring individuals
from committing crime, particularly homicide. Specifically, increased risk
or certainty of punishment was associated with less crime for most serious
offenses. Plus, most offenders who are arrested once never get arrested
again, which lends some basic support for deterrence.
aggregate studies: collections of studies, generally on a particular topic.

Many of these studies used statistical formulas to measure the certainty and
severity of punishment in various jurisdictions. Specifically, certainty of
punishment often was measured by a ratio of the crimes reported to police
compared with the number of arrests in a given jurisdiction. Another
measure of certainty of punishment was the percentage of arrests that
resulted in convictions, or findings of guilt, in criminal cases. Although
other similar measures were employed, most of the studies showed the same
result—namely, that the higher the likelihood of arrest given reports of
crime, or the higher the conviction rate after arrest, the lower the crime rate
in a given jurisdiction. On the other hand, the scientific evidence regarding
measures of severity, which such studies generally indicated by the length of
the sentence for comparable crimes, or a similar type of measure, did not
show much impact on crime.
Additional aggregate studies examined the prevalence and influence of

capital punishment and crime in given states.6 The evidence largely showed
that states with death-penalty statutes had higher murder rates than other
states. Furthermore, murderers in death-penalty states who were not
executed actually served less time than did murderers in other states. Thus,
the evidence regarding increased sanctions for murder, including capital
punishment, was mixed. Still, a review by the National Academy of
Sciences of the early deterrence studies concluded that there was some
evidence for a deterrent effect overall, although the Academy stated this in a
tone that lacked confidence—perhaps one that was cautious of what future
studies might show to the contrary.7
A traditional electric chair. At one point in American history,
electrocution was the primary method of execution, but it
has since been largely replaced by lethal injection.
Courtesy NYS Department of Correctional Services via Wikimedia

Creative Commons
However, it was not long before critics noted that studies incorporating
aggregate (i.e., macro-level) statistics were not adequate indicators or valid
measures of the deterrence theory framework, largely because the model
emphasizes the perceptions of individuals. After all, aggregate/group
statistics are unreliable, because different regions may have higher or lower
crime rates than others, thereby creating bias in the level of ratios for
certainty and/or severity of punishment. Further, the group measures
produced by these studies provided virtually no information on the degree to
which individuals in those regions perceived sanctions to be certain, severe,
or swift. Therefore, the emphasis on the unit of analysis in deterrence
research shifted from the aggregate level to a more individual level.
Cross-Sectional Studies.
The following phase of deterrence research focused on individual
perceptions of certainty and severity of sanctions, primarily drawn at one
point in time. These were known as cross-sectional studies. A number of
cross-sectional studies of individual perceptions of deterrence showed that
perceptions of the risk or certainty of punishment were strongly associated
with intentions to commit future crimes, but individual perceptions of
severity of crimes were mixed. Furthermore, it was not clear whether
perceptions were causing changes in behavior or whether behavior was
causing changes in perception. This led to the next wave of research—
longitudinal studies of individual perceptions and deterrence, which
measured perceptions of risk and severity as well as behavior over time.8
cross-sectional study: a type of research design in which a collection of data is taken at

one point in time (often in survey format).
Longitudinal Studies.
One of the primary concepts revealed by longitudinal research, or studies
that take certain measures over two or more time periods, was that behavior
was influencing perceptions of the risk and severity of punishment more
than perceptions were influencing behavior. This was appropriately named
the experiential effect, because an individual’s previous experience highly
influences his or her expectations regarding the chances of being caught and
the resulting penalties. A common example involves people who drive
under the influence of alcohol (or other substances).
experiential effect: the extent to which previous experience affects individuals’

perceptions of how severe criminal punishment will be when deciding whether to offend
again.
Studies show that when asked the chances of getting caught driving under
the influence, most people who have never driven drunk predict an
unrealistically high likelihood of arrest. However, if you ask persons who
have been arrested for driving drunk—even those arrested several times for
this offense—they typically predict that the chance of being caught is low.
The reason for this is that chronic drunk drivers have typically been driving
under the influence for many years, mostly without being caught. After all,
it is estimated that drunk drivers traverse more than 1 million miles before
one drunk driver is arrested.9 If anything, this is a conservative estimate.
Thus, people who drive drunk—sometimes every day—are not likely to be
deterred even when arrested more than once, largely because they have been
driving drunk for years by that time. In fact, H. L. Ross—perhaps the most
notable expert on the deterrence of drunk drivers—and his colleagues
concluded that drunk drivers who “perceive a severe punishment if caught,
but a near-zero chance of being caught, are being rational in ignoring the
threat.”10 Even the most respected scholars in this area admit that sanctions
against drunk driving are nowhere certain enough, even if they are growing
in severity.
A police field test for suspected drunk driving. Driving under

the influence is a popular topic in deterrence research,
because it tends to range across social status and
racial/ethnic groups.
Joe Raedle/Getty Images
A similar phenomenon is seen among white-collar criminals. Some

researchers have used the measure of being caught by authorities for
violating government rules—often enforced by the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC)—as an indication that the organizations in violation will
be less likely to commit future offenses.11 However, organizations in
violation of established practices that have been caught once by authorities
have likely been committing these offenses for years, so they are more
likely to continue doing so than are organizations that have never violated
the rules. As with drunk driving, the certainty of punishment for white-
collar violations is so low (and many would argue that the severity is also
quite low) that it is rational for businesses and business professionals to take
the risk. (For more on white-collar crime, see Chapter 14.)
You might expect that, of the many forms of criminal offending, white-
collar crimes and drunk driving would be among the most likely to be
deterred, due to their prevalence among citizens of the middle and upper
socioeconomic classes. After all, if the extant research on deterrence has
shown anything, it is that individuals who have something to lose are the
most likely to be deterred by sanctions. Many unemployed, poor individuals
will probably not be deterred by incarceration or other punishments, largely
because they do not have much to lose. For some persons, particularly those
of lower-class minority populations, incarceration does not present a
significant departure from the deprived lives they already lead.
The fact that official sanctions are not very effective at deterring individuals
—many of whom have a lot to lose—from drunk driving and white-collar
crime is not a good indication of effectiveness for deterrence-based policies
in general. The effectiveness of such policies is even more questionable
when we consider other populations, particularly the offenders in most
predatory street crimes (e.g., robbery, burglary), who typically have nothing
to lose because they come from poverty-stricken areas and are often
unemployed. A 2005 study that examined the influence of sanctions showed
that arrests had little effect on perceptions of certainty, whereas offending
corresponded with decreases in such perceptions.12
Some individuals do not consider incarceration much of a step down in life,

given the three meals a day, shelter, and relative stability entailed. This
epitomizes one of the most notable paradoxes of the discipline: The
individuals we most want to deter are the least likely to be deterred,
primarily because they have nothing to fear. Even going back to early
Enlightenment thought, Thomas Hobbes claimed that fear is the tool used to
enforce the social contract; however, this means that persons who don’t fear
punishment cannot be effectively deterred. Thus, the individuals we most
need to deter (chronic violent offenders) are the least likely to be deterred by
the threatened punishments of our society, because they have so little to
lose.
Along these lines, studies have consistently shown that official deterrence is
highly ineffective against criminal acts that involve
immediate payoff,
young male offenders,
higher risk,
low emotional/moral inhibitions,
low self-control, and
impulsivity.13
Thus, many factors affect the extent to which official sanctions can deter
crime. However, even among the most “deterrable” offenders, official
sanctions exhibit failings, particularly when individuals in the highly
deterrable categories have much experience in the criminal behavior
because they are rarely caught.
Identification and understanding of the experiential effect had a profound

influence on evidence regarding the impact of deterrence. After all, any
estimation of the influence of perceived certainty or severity of punishment
must control for previous behaviors and experiences with such behavior to
account for an experiential effect. Identification of the experiential effect
was the primary contribution of the longitudinal studies of deterrence, but
such studies faced even further criticism.
Longitudinal studies of deterrence provided a significant improvement over

cross-sectional studies. However, such longitudinal studies typically
involved designs in which measures of perception of certainty and severity
of punishment were collected up to a year apart, including long stretches
between the time of the criminal offense and when offenders were asked
their perceptions of punishment. After all, psychological studies have
clearly established that perceptions of the likelihood and severity of
sanctions vary significantly from day to day, not to mention month to month
and year to year.14 Therefore, in the late 1980s and early 1990s, a new wave
of deterrence research asked study participants to estimate their immediate
intent to commit a criminal act in a given situation, as well as to report their
immediate perceptions of certainty and severity of punishment in the same
situation. This wave of research was known as scenario research, or
vignettes.15
scenario research: studies that involve providing participants with specific hypothetical
scenarios and then asking them what they would do in each situation.
vignettes: short, descriptive sketches or hypothetical narratives.
Scenario/Vignette Studies.
Scenario research was created to deal with the limitations of the previous
methodological strategies for studying the effects of deterrence on criminal
offending. Specifically, the critics of longitudinal research argued that
individuals’ perceptions of the certainty and severity of punishment changed
drastically over time, especially in different situations. The scenario method
dealt with this criticism directly by providing a specific, realistic (albeit
hypothetical) situation in which a person engages in a criminal act. The
participant in the study was then asked to estimate the chances that he or she
would engage in such an activity under the given circumstances, as well as
to answer questions regarding his or her perceptions of the risk of getting
caught (i.e., certainty of punishment) and the expected severity of the
punishment.
Another important and valuable aspect of scenario research was that it

promoted a contemporaneous (i.e., instantaneous) response regarding
perceptions of the risk and severity of possible sanctions. In comparison,
previous studies (e.g., aggregate, cross-sectional, and longitudinal) had
always relied on either group rates or individual measures of perception
across long stretches of time. As discussed previously, individuals’
perceptions regarding risk and/or severity of punishment vary significantly
by time and situation, but the scenario method eliminates such criticisms.
Critics of the scenario method argue that the estimated likelihood of
committing a crime given a hypothetical situation is not an accurate measure
of what one would actually do. However, studies have shown an extremely
high correlation between what one reports he or she would do and what he
or she would do in real life.16 A 2002 review of criticisms of this method
showed that one of the areas in which this research was lacking was in not
allowing respondents to develop their own perceptions and costs associated
with each offense.17 Despite such criticisms, the scenario method appears to
be the most accurate method of estimating the effects of individuals’
perceptions on the likelihood of their engaging in a given criminal activity
at a given time. This is something the previous waves of deterrence research
—aggregate, cross-sectional, and longitudinal studies—could not estimate.
Formal Versus Informal Deterrence

Ultimately, the studies using the scenario method showed that participants
were more affected by perceptions of certainty and less so—albeit
sometimes significantly—by perceptions of severity. This finding supported
previous methods of estimating the effects of formal/official deterrence
(see Figure 4.1), meaning the deterrent effects of law enforcement, courts,
and corrections (i.e., prisons and probation or parole). So the overall
conclusion regarding the effects of official sanctions on individual decision-
making remained the same. However, one of the more interesting aspects of
scenario research is that it helped solidify the importance of extralegal
variables in deterring criminal behavior, which previous methods had
neglected.
formal/official deterrence: the deterrent effects of law enforcement, courts, and

corrections.
These extralegal variables, called informal deterrence factors, include any

factors beyond the formal sanctions of police, courts, and corrections—such
as employment, family, friends, and community. These studies helped show
that such informal sanctions are what provide most of the deterrent effect
for individuals considering criminal acts. These findings coincided with the
advent of a new model of deterrence, which became known as rational
choice theory.
informal deterrence: crime-deterrent factors such as family, church, and friends that do
not involve official aspects of criminal justice such as police, courts, and corrections (e.g.,
prisons).
rational choice theory: a modern, Classical School–based framework for explaining

crime that includes traditional formal deterrence aspects and other, informal factors that
studies show consistently and strongly influence behavior.
Rational Choice Theory
Criminologists adapted rational choice theory from economists, who used it
to explain a variety of individual decisions regarding different behaviors.
This framework emphasizes all important factors that go into a person’s
decision to engage, or not engage, in a particular act. In terms of
criminological research, the rational choice model emphasized
official/formal forms of deterrence as well as the informal factors that
influence individual decisions to engage in criminal behavior. This
represented a profound advance in the understanding of human behavior.
After all, as studies showed, most individuals are affected more by the
influence of informal factors than by official/formal factors.
Although there were several previous attempts to apply the rational choice
model to the understanding of criminal activity, the most significant work
that brought rational choice theory into the mainstream of criminological
research was Derek B. Cornish and Ronald V. Clarke’s (1986) The
Reasoning Criminal: Rational Choice Perspectives on Offending.18
Furthermore, around the same time, Jack Katz’s Seductions of Crime was
the first work to emphasize the benefits (mostly the inherent physiological
pleasure) of committing crime.19 Before Katz’s publication, virtually no
attention had been paid to the benefits of offending, let alone the “fun”
people can have when engaging in criminal behavior. A 2002 study showed
that the publication of Cornish and Clarke’s book, as well as the timing of
publications such as Katz’s, led to an influx of criminological studies based
on the rational choice model in the late 1980s to mid-1990s.20
Figure 4.1 Formal Deterrence Versus Informal Deterrence

These studies on rational choice showed that while official/formal sanctions
tend to have some effect on people’s decisions to commit crime, they almost
always are relatively unimportant compared with extralegal/informal
factors. Specifically, individual perceptions of how much shame or loss of
self-esteem one would experience, even if no one found out about the crime,
was one of the most important variables in determining whether one would
commit a crime.21 Additional evidence indicated that women were more
influenced by shame and moral beliefs when deciding to commit offenses
than were men.22 Studies have shown that relative lack of self-control,
relative lack of empathy, and other personality traits are likely the reason
why men more often engage in criminal activity.23 Finally, the influence of
peers has a profound impact on individuals’ perceptions of the pros and
cons of offending—namely, seeing one’s friends get away with crimes
significantly decreases the perceived risk of punishment for engaging in
crimes oneself.24
Another area of rational choice research dealt with the influence of an

individual’s behavior on other individuals. A recent review and test of
perceived social disapproval showed that this was one of the most important
variables in people’s decisions to commit crime.25 In addition to self-
sanctions, such as feelings of shame and embarrassment, the perception of
how loved ones and friends (as well as employers) will react is perhaps the
most important factor in a person’s decision to engage in criminal activity.26
Learning Check 4.1
1. According to the text, for which type of studies examining deterrence does the
“experiential effect” pose the biggest threat of biased results?
a. Longitudinal studies
b. Aggregate studies
c. Cross-sectional studies
2. According to the text, when looking at the results from the various waves of studies
examining deterrence, which element of punishment has shown the most consistent
deterrent effect?
a. The perceived certainty of getting caught
b. The perceived severity of the punishment/sentence
c. The perceived swiftness of being punished
d. They are all about equally important
3. According to the text, which type of studies, by definition, use data collected at a
single point in time?
a. Longitudinal
b. Aggregate
c. Cross-sectional
After all, these are the people we deal with every day, so it should not be too
surprising that our perceptions of how they will react strongly affect how we
choose to behave. And, clearly, this applies to the story at the very
beginning of this chapter—namely, 13-year-old Brandon Mathison.
Applying Theory to Crime Driving Under the Influence
As discussed in Chapter 2, the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program separates

criminal offenses into two categories: Part I and Part II. Part I offenses include criminal
homicide, forcible rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, motor-vehicle
theft, and arson. Part II offenses include fraud, vandalism, gambling, and driving under
the influence (DUI), defined as “driving or operating a motor vehicle or common carrier
while mentally or physically impaired as the result of consuming an alcoholic beverage or
using a drug or narcotic.”27 According to the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, 49
states and the District of Columbia have laws defining what constitutes “drunk driving.”
These laws designate a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) at or above which it is a crime
to drive; typically, this level is 0.08%; in Utah, it is 0.05%.28
The FBI reported a total of 764,569 DUI arrests in the United States in 2017 (down
approximately 22% from about 975,000 in 2008), with a national rate of 301.4 arrests per
100,000 people. By region, the West reported the highest rate (347.0), followed by the
Midwest (302.6), the Northeast (276.5), and the South (275.5), with all four regions
showing a decrease in rates over the last few years.29 Perhaps the efforts to reduce drunk
driving, such as checkpoints and other law enforcement efforts, actually worked.
According to the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration (NHTSA), in
2017 there were 10,874 deaths due to drunk driving. The NHTSA also reported that every
day, almost 30 people in the United States die in drunk-driving crashes—for 2017, that’s
one person every 48 minutes. So although these deaths have fallen by a third in the last 30
years, drunk-driving crashes still claim more than 10,000 lives per year. In 2010, the most
recent year for which cost data is available, these deaths and damages contributed to a cost
of $44 billion.30
One of the suggestions to prevent death and injury due to impaired driving is to reduce the
legal BAC limit to 0.05%. “[The National Transportation Safety Board has] pushed for
states to reduce the threshold for DWI/DUI to 0.05 BAC or lower because research clearly
shows that most people are impaired by the time they reach 0.05.”31 So far, Utah is the
only state to have done so.
Another suggestion is to install ignition interlock devices in vehicles. This device is

installed in the vehicle, usually in the glove compartment on the passenger’s side. It is
then wired to the engine’s ignition system. In a vehicle with such a device installed, the
driver has to blow about 1.5 liters of air into a handheld alcohol sensor unit. If his or her
BAC is over a preset limit, the car will not start. While these preset limits vary by state,
they are usually between 0.02% and 0.04%.32 All 50 states have some type of ignition
interlock law. Twenty-three states have mandatory ignition interlock provisions for all
offenses. California currently has a pilot program in four of its largest counties. In
Colorado and Maine, although an ignition interlock device is not mandatory following a
first DUI conviction, there are incentives to install the device on the first conviction.33
For instance, in Florida, certain individuals convicted of DUI are required to install an
ignition interlock device. The offender has to contact specific vendors who install
approved devices. If the court determines that the offender is unable to pay for the
installation of the device, then a portion of the fine paid by the offender can be reallocated
to the cost of the installation.34
It is obvious that drunk drivers make a type of rational choice when they choose to drive,
but are they in a mental state to make a rational decision about this act? This is what is
known in the field as “bounded rationality,” meaning that they are impaired and thus not
thinking as rationally as a sober person would be. Thus, the rational choice framework is
limited by such caveats, such as this type of situation, when someone is not thinking
clearly. However, it is important to note that on many occasions people plan an evening of
binge-drinking knowing that they will likely drive home later in the evening. It is likely,
then, that most individuals consider the potential risk and costs of drunk driving before
they drink to the point of impairment.
Think About It
1. Do these efforts, such as lowering the BAC limit and requiring offenders to install
an ignition interlock, deter individuals from driving while under the influence?
2. If these laws were removed “from the book,” would more people drive while under
the influence?
Perhaps the most important finding of rational choice research was that the
expected benefits, particularly the pleasure gained from offending, were one
of the most significant influences in decisions to offend. Many other
conclusions have been reached regarding the effect of extralegal/informal
factors on criminal offending, but the ultimate conclusion is that these
informal deterrent variables typically influence individuals’ decisions
regarding deviant activity more than do the official/formal deterrent factors
emphasized by traditional Classical School models of behavior.
Excessive alcohol consumption has been strongly linked to

criminal offending, especially violent crimes.
Sean Murphy/Lifesize/Thinkstock
The rational choice model of criminal offending became the modern

framework of deterrence. Even official authorities acknowledged the
influence of extralegal/informal factors, as seen in modern efforts to
incorporate the family, employment, and community in rehabilitation
efforts. Such efforts are highly consistent with the current state of
understanding regarding the Classical School/rational choice framework—
namely, that individuals are more deterred by the impact of their actions on
the informal aspects of their lives than by the formal punishments they may
face.
Routine Activities Theory

Routine activities theory is another contemporary form of the Classical
School framework in the sense that it assumes a rational, decision-making
offender. The general model of routine activities theory was originally
presented by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson in 1979.35 This
theoretical framework emphasized the presence of three factors that
converge in time and place to create a high likelihood of
crime/victimization. These three factors are (1) a motivated offender, (2)
suitable targets, and (3) lack of guardianship (see Figure 4.2). Overall, the
theory is appropriately named in the sense that it assumes that most crime
occurs in the daily “routine” of people who happen to see tempting
opportunities and seize them. Studies tend to support this idea, as opposed
to the idea that most offenders leave their homes having already decided
they are going to commit a crime; such offenders are called “hydraulic” and
are relatively rare compared with the opportunistic type.
routine activities theory: an explanation of crime that assumes that crime and
victimization are highest in places where three factors come together in time and place:
motivated offenders, suitable or attractive targets, and absence of a guardian.
Figure 4.2 Routine Activities Theory

The Three Elements of Routine Activities Theory
Motivated Offender.
Regarding the first factor thought to increase the likelihood of criminal
activity—a motivated offender—the theory of routine activities does not
provide much insight. The model assumes that there are certain individuals
who tend to be motivated and leaves it at that. Fortunately, we have many
other theories, as discussed previously in this chapter and in the remainder
of the book, that can fill this notable absence. The strength of routine
activities theory is in its elaboration on the other two characteristics of a
crime-prone environment: suitable targets and lack of guardianship.
Suitable Targets.
Suitable targets can include a variety of situations—for example, a house in
the suburbs left vacant over summer vacation or people spending more time
outside due to warmer temperatures (see Figure 4.3). Other suitable targets
include anything from an unlocked car to a lone woman assumed to be
carrying a lot of cash or credit cards and/or having purchased goods at a
shopping mall, which is a common setting for victimization. Another likely
location to be victimized is a bar or other place that serves alcohol, which
has much to do with the fact that offenders have traditionally targeted drunk
persons because they are less likely to be able to defend themselves—going
back to “rolling” drunks for their wallets in the early part of the 20th
century. This is only a short list of the many types of suitable targets
available to motivated offenders in everyday life.
Figure 4.3 Violent Crime and Temperature in Columbus, Ohio:

Violent Crime Increases as the Temperature Rises
Source: Adapted from Fox, J. A. (2010, July 6). Heat wave has chilling
effect on violent crime. Boston.com.
Lack of Guardianship.
The third and final aspect of the routine activities model for increased
likelihood of criminal activity is a lack of guardianship. Guardianship is
often thought of as an on-duty police officer or security guard. However,
there are many other forms of guardianship, such as a household dog, which
can be quite effective in home protection. Even a car or house alarm
constitutes a form of guardianship. Furthermore, the presence of an adult,
neighbor, or teacher can be quite effective in guarding an area against crime.
Studies show that just increasing the lighting in an area can help prevent
crime, with one study showing a 20% reduction in overall crime in areas
randomly chosen to receive improved lighting compared with control areas
that did not.36 Regardless of the type of guardianship, the absence of
adequate guardianship sets the stage for crime; on the other hand, each step
taken toward protecting a place or person is likely to deter offenders from
choosing that target over others. Locations that have a high convergence of
motivated offenders, suitable targets, and lack of guardianship are typically
referred to as “hot spots.”
Applications of Routine Activities Theory
The Minneapolis Hot Spots Study.

Perhaps the most supportive study of routine activities theory and “hot
spots” was one that analyzed 911 calls for service in Minneapolis,
Minnesota.37 This 1989 study examined all serious calls (as well as total
calls) to police in a one-year period. Of the top 10 locations police were
called to, half were bars or other places where alcohol was served (see Table
4.1). As mentioned above, establishments that serve alcohol are often
targeted by motivated offenders because of a high proportion of suitable
targets. Furthermore, many bars have low levels of guardianship in relation
to the number of people served. Many readers of this book can likely relate
to this situation. After all, most college towns and cities have certain
drinking establishments known for being “hot spots” for crime.
Table 4.1 Top 10 Hot Spots in Minneapolis With 10 or More

Predatory Crimes
Table 4.1 Top 10 Hot Spots in Minneapolis With 10 or More Predatory
Crimes
Robberies, Rapes, All

Rank Description
Auto Thefts Types
Intersection: bars, liquor,

1. 33 461
store, park
2. Bus depot 28 343

Robberies, Rapes, All
Rank Description
Auto Thefts Types
3. 27
Intersection: homeless
549
shelters, bars
4. Downtown mall 27 445
Intersection: adult
5. 27 431
bookstore, bars
6. Bars 25 510
Intersection: theater, mall,

7. 25 458
record store
8. Hotel 23 240
9. Convenience store 22 607
10. Bar 21 219

Source: Sherman, L., Gartin, P., & Buerger, M. (1989). Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine
activities and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27, 27–56.
Still, the Minneapolis study showed that many other types of establishments
made the top 10. These included bus depots, convenience stores, rundown
motels and hotels, downtown malls and strip malls, fast-food restaurants,
and vehicle impound lots. The common theme across these locations and the
bars was the convergence of the three aspects described by routine activities
theory as being predictive of criminal activity. Specifically, these are places
that attract motivated offenders, largely because they feature a lot of
vulnerable targets or lack sufficient levels of security or guardianship. The
routine activities framework has been applied in many contexts and places,
many of them international.38
Crime Mapping and Geographic Profiling.

One of the many applications of routine activities theory is geographic
profiling, which uses satellite positioning systems and is perhaps the most
attractive and marketable aspect of criminological research in contemporary
times. Essentially, such research applies global positioning systems (GPS)
software to identify and plot the exact location of every crime in a given
jurisdiction. Such information has been used to solve and/or predict various
crimes; serial killers have been caught because investigators triangulated the
victims’ locations to determine the most likely residence of the killer.
Furthermore, GPS software has been used to predict where certain chronic
offenders or crews/gangs will strike next. In police departments that use
geographical mapping software to show where crimes take place or 911
calls for service originate (i.e., “hot spots”), this technology helps policing
authorities determine where they should concentrate their efforts, such as in
which areas to assign more officers.
Routine activities theory focuses on the presence of suitable or
vulnerable targets, such as a woman walking alone in a
secluded location.
© iStockphoto.com/Darren Mower
The Lifestyles Perspective.

Another theory strongly related to routine activities theory is that of the
lifestyles perspective. The lifestyles theory claims that individuals increase
their probability of becoming victims (as well as offenders) according to the
type of lifestyle they choose. However, some reviews of the literature have
noted the strong, perhaps even redundant, relationship between lifestyles
theory and the more established routine activities theory.39 To clarify, such
reviews have noted that “deviant lifestyles bear more risk of victimization
than do conforming ones.”40 For example, elderly persons are far less likely
to be victimized, because they tend to stay indoors, especially at night. On
the other hand, young adults (especially those in their teens or early 20s) are
far more likely to be victimized, probably because they tend to go out late at
night or hang out with other young persons, since this is also the age group
most likely to offend. Still, the bottom line in terms of theorizing about
lifestyles is that certain individuals tend to increase the likelihood of their
own victimization by associating with the very individuals most likely to
commit offenses (e.g., young men), hanging out in places where alcohol is
served, or not taking adequate measures to protect themselves. This is a
perfect scenario for raising the risk of victimization according to routine
activities theory, which shows how lifestyles theory is simply an extension
of routine activities theory; by itself, it offers no new revelations as to why
some individuals are victimized more than others.41
Learning Check 4.2
1. According to the text, which theorists first proposed the rational choice theory of
criminal behavior?
a. Clarke and Cornish
b. Gottfredson and Hirschi
c. Sampson and Laub
d. Cohen and Felson
e. Sykes and Matza
2. According to the text, which theorists first proposed the routine activities theory of
crime?
a. Clarke and Cornish
b. Gottfredson and Hirschi
c. Sampson and Laub
d. Cohen and Felson
e. Sykes and Matza
3. According to the text, what is NOT one of the elements of routine activities theory
that create a likely crime opportunity?
a. Motivated offender
b. Suitable/attractive target
c. Time of day/night
d. Absence of guardianship
Policy Implications
In this section, we concentrate on some of the most important policy
implications that can be derived from the theories and scientific findings
discussed in this chapter. The famous “broken windows” perspective—
which shares many assumptions with routine activities theory and rational
choice theory—emphasizes the need for police to crack down on minor
offenses to reduce major crimes.42 Although many cities (such as New York
and Los Angeles) have claimed reductions in serious crime after applying
this theory in the late 1990s to the mid-2000s, crime fell by the same
amount across most cities during the same time period.
Other policies that can be derived from theories in this section include the
“three strikes and you’re out” policy, which assumes that offenders will
make a rational choice not to commit future offenses if they could go to
prison for life after committing three; in such a case, the downside would
certainly outweigh any expected benefits of the third crime. For deterrence
to be most effective, punishment must be swift, certain, and severe. Where
does the “three strikes” policy fit into this equation? The bottom line is that
it is much more severe than it is swift or certain. Given Beccaria’s theory
and philosophy (see Chapter 3), this policy will probably not work because
it is not certain or swift; however, it is severe, in the sense that a person can
be sentenced to life for committing three felony offenses over time.
In 1994, the “three strikes” law was enacted in California, and other states
have adopted similar laws. From 1994 to 2012, this law sent third-time
felons to prison for 25 years to life, regardless of the nature of that third
felony. California first required convictions for two “strikable” felonies—
crimes such as murder, rape, aggravated assault, burglary, and drug offenses.
Then any third felony could trigger the 25-to-life sentence. Cases of
nonviolent offenders going to prison for life after stealing a piece of pizza or
shoplifting DVDs, while rare, did occur. On November 6, 2012, California
voters passed Proposition 36, which significantly amended the “three
strikes” law. Now, a sentence of 25 years to life is imposed only for “serious
or violent” third offenses.43
Why Do They Do It?
The Green River Killer

Gary Leon Ridgway was convicted and sentenced in 2003 after many decades of
committing murders in the Seattle area; he had stabbed his first victim at age 16, in 1965.
He confessed to killing 71 people (although he was convicted of only 48), virtually all of
them women. He appeared to live separate lives. In one aspect of his life, he had a wife
and son. The other side involved picking up women, mostly prostitutes and strippers, who
were willing to engage in sexual activity with him in remote locations.
He claimed that he would hide or bury the bodies of the victims he really “liked” because
he knew he would want to go back and have sex with them later, which he did on
occasion. He would also place various objects, such as a fish, a bottle, or a sausage, at the
crime scene to throw off authorities, because these objects didn’t match the modus
operandi they were expecting to help link the crimes together. So he did appear to plan his
crimes, at least in terms of manipulating the crime scenes (whether the primary scene,
where the killing took place, or the secondary scene, where he dumped the body of the
victim).
He also notably said, “I would choke them . . . and I was really good at it.” But when
asked by an investigator in an official interview how evil he was on a scale of 1 to 5, he
said he was a 3. So there appears to be a disconnect between the way Ridgway thought
and the way society at large thinks.
Ridgway was caught after DNA from crime scenes was matched to a saliva test he had
taken years before, when authorities had suspected him but didn’t have enough evidence
to make an arrest. So he continued his killing spree for many years, until investigators
finally obtained further evidence linking him to some of the murders. Ridgway is now
serving 480 years in prison for 48 life sentences.
But why did he do it? Obviously, there were psychological issues. But Ridgway was not
ruled legally insane. Virtually all his victims easily fit within his lifestyle, as he traveled
around in his truck and picked up women in essentially the same area where he worked
and lived. He never went far out of his way. In fact, none of his victims seemed to come
from outside the Seattle area. And he would almost always dump or bury the bodies
within a relatively limited radius in that region—hence his label, “the Green River Killer.”
Because he tended to pick up and kill women as part of his daily routine, which included
working at a truck-painting factory, this case applies to the routine activities theory and
lifestyles perspective covered in this chapter. Also, even at the time he was apprehended
for these murders, he had a relatively stable marriage, which is not atypical for serial
killers. They often lead separate lives, and both lives can seem fairly routine despite
extreme contradictions.
Think About It
1. What was the Green River Killer’s typical method of operation (MO), or how he
carried out most of his killings?
2. How is the Green River Killer’s case a good example of routine activities theory?
Source: Jensen, J., & Case, J. (2011). Green River Killer: A true detective story.
Milwaukie, OR: Dark Horse Books.
The question we are concerned with here is, does the “three strikes” policy
work? As a specific deterrent, the answer is clearly yes; offenders who are
imprisoned for life cannot commit more crimes on the street. In that regard,
“three strikes” works well. Some people believe, however, that laws such as
“three strikes” need to include a general deterrent effect, meaning that this
law should deter everyone from engaging in multiple crimes. So is “three
strikes” a general deterrent? Unfortunately, there are no easy answers to this
question, because laws vary from state to state, the laws are used at different
rates across counties in a given state, and so forth. There is at least some
consensus in the literature, however.
One study from California suggests that “three strikes” reduced crime,44 but
the remaining studies show that “three strikes” either has no effect on crime
or actually increases crime.45 How could “three strikes” increase crime?
The authors of those studies attributed an increase in homicide following the
1994 establishment of “three strikes” to the possibility that third-strikers
have more incentive to kill their victims (and any witnesses) to avoid
apprehension. Although this argument is tentative, it may be true.46 This is
just one of the many policy implications that can be derived from this
section. We expect that readers of this book will come up with many more,
but it is vital to examine the empirical literature in determining policies’
usefulness in reducing criminal activity. Other policy implications regarding
the theories and findings discussed in this chapter are discussed in the final
section of this book.
During a 2002 protest against California’s “three strikes” law,

Sequoia, Floyd, and Deonta Earl hold photos of their father,
Floyd Earl, in jail for a term of 25 years to life. California
voters and lawmakers approved the “three strikes” law amid
public furor over the 1993 kidnapping and murder of 12-
year-old Polly Klaas by Richard Allen Davis, a repeat
offender on parole at the time of the kidnapping.
AP Photo/Damian Dovarganes
In another strategy strongly based on the rational choice model, a number of

judges have started using shaming penalties to deter offenders from
recidivating. They have ordered everything from posting pictures of men
arrested for soliciting prostitutes to forcing offenders to walk down their
towns’ main streets wearing signs that announce their crimes. These are just
two examples of an increasing trend that emphasizes the informal or
community factors required to deter crime effectively. Unfortunately, to date
there have been virtually no empirical evaluations of the effectiveness of
such shaming penalties, although studies of expected shame for committing
an act consistently show a deterrent effect.47
Fazit
In this chapter, we reviewed the rebirth of deterrence studies in criminological literature.

This reemphasis on deterrence was largely a response to the failure of most rehabilitation
programs to lower recidivism. Specifically, the empirical evidence from studies in the late
1960s and early 1970s regarding various rehabilitation programs showed that they were
not effective in reducing recidivism, especially among chronic offenders. The first wave
of research in this new focus on deterrence emphasized comparisons of jurisdictions
(often various states in the United States) that tended to use more severe punishments than
other jurisdictions. The subsequent waves of the rebirth of deterrence focused on
longitudinal or panel studies that estimated how perceptions affect behavior, but this was
quickly criticized by researchers who noted that the reverse is more likely: Behavior
affects perceptions of being caught or punished. This led to the scenario methodology, in
which individuals are asked their perceived likelihood of engaging in a specific situation
at a given time, which is essentially where the current research on Classical/deterrence
models remains.
We also examined more recent forms of Classical/deterrence theory, such as rational

choice theory, which emphasizes the effects of informal sanctions (e.g., family, friends,
and employment) and the benefits of offending (e.g., the “fun” of offending). We also
discussed routine activities theory, which explains why victimization tends to occur far
more often in certain locations (i.e., “hot spots”) due to the convergence of three key
elements in time and place—a motivated offender, suitable targets, and lack of
guardianship—creating an attractive opportunity for crime as individuals go about their
everyday activities. Another theory closely related to routine activities theory is the
lifestyles perspective. The common element across all these perspectives is the underlying
assumption that individuals are rational beings who have free will and thus choose their
behavior based on assessments of a given situation, such as the possible risks versus the
potential payoff. The bottom line of these various modern theories is that the perceptions
and decisions made by individuals often put them at a much higher likelihood of engaging
in criminal acts, as well as becoming victims of such crimes.
To follow up on the case study of Kristen “Krissy” Crowley at the beginning of this
chapter, you should be able to see how this story relates well to some of the theories and
concepts presented in this chapter—most notably, routine activities theory and lifestyles
theory. To remind you, surveillance video showed the two men planning the attack after
the store clerk told them Krissy was a stripper, and the clerk overheard one saying to the
other, “You know what we have to do.” Although it is not placing blame on the victim,
because no one deserves to have this violence against them, it is likely that Krissy’s being
an exotic dancer increased her odds of being attacked, which is a good example of
lifestyles theory. Further, routine activities applies well to this situation—the two men saw
an opportunity because there was lack of guardianship in front of Krissy’s home, they
perceived a vulnerable target (i.e., a women by herself at night), and of course they were
motivated to offend.
Although this case goes well beyond the traditional Classical version of deterrence, which
focused only on formal sanctions, it provides a far more robust and valid model for
explaining criminal behavior and victimization. The assumptions of this type of theorizing
will be somewhat contradicted in the following chapters, which discuss theories that
assume there is virtually no rationality or free will on the part of offenders—let alone
calculated decision-making—in committing a crime. However, it seems very clear that
some incidents of crime are best explained by modern Classical School–based theoretical
frameworks.
Summary of Theories
Theory Concepts Proponents Key Propositions
Assumes virtually all

aspects of the traditional
Includes all traditional deterrence model but adds
deterrence factors but concepts that go into
adds individuals’ decisions to
engage in criminal activity:
informal factors The more a person believes
Ronald
Rational (e.g., family, his or her family, friends,
Clarke and
choice friends, and so forth will look
Derek
theory employers) down on the behavior, the
Cornish
benefits of the more likely it is that he or
crime (e.g., payoff she will be deterred. The
and pleasure/thrill higher the expected
of offending) pleasure or payoff of the
crime, the less likely it is
that a person will be
deterred.
Likely opportunity for

victimization, given Victimization/crime is
three factors: much more likely to occur
when three elements
Lawrence
Routine Motivated converge in time and place
Cohen and
activities offender (see “Concepts”), typically
Marcus
theory Attractive/suitable as an individual goes about
Felson
target daily activities, such as
Absence of going to school or work or
guardianship hanging out.
Very similar propositions

to routine activities theory
but emphasizes the risky
Lifestyles Risky lifestyles of
Various behavior (such as hanging
perspective offenders/victims
out at seedy bars) of
offenders as opposed to
victims.
Key Terms
aggregate studies, 83
cross-sectional studies, 84
experiential effect, 84
formal/official deterrence, 87
informal deterrence, 87
rational choice theory, 87
routine activities theory, 91
scenario research, 86
vignettes, 86
1. Do you think the deterrence model should have been revived or left for dead? Why do
you feel this way?
2. Regarding the aggregate level of research in deterrence studies, do you find such studies
valid? Why or why not?
3. In comparing longitudinal studies with vignette/scenario studies, which one offers the
most valid method for examining individual perceptions regarding the costs and benefits
of committing offenses? Why do you feel this way?
4. Can you relate to the experiential effect? If you can’t, do you know someone who seems
to engage in the behavior that results from this phenomenon? Make sure to articulate
what the experiential effect is.
5. Regarding rational choice theory, if you were to shoplift, would you rather be subject to
formal sanctions but be assured that none of your family members, friends, or employers
would find out that you had shoplifted, or would you rather face informal sanctions with
no formal punishment (other than being arrested)? Explain your decision.
6. As a teenager, did you or family or friends get a “rush” from doing things that were
deviant or wrong? If so, did that feeling seem to outweigh any potential legal or informal
consequences?
7. Regarding routine activities theory, which places, residences, or areas of your
community fit this idea that certain places attract more crime than others (i.e., where are
the “hot spots”)? Explain how you, your friends, or others (including police) in your
community deal with such areas. Does it work?
8. Which of the three elements of routine activities theory do you feel is the most important
to address in efforts to reduce crime in “hot spots”?
9. What types of lifestyle characteristics lead to the highest criminal/victimization rates?
List at least five factors that lead to such propensities.
10. Find at least one study that uses mapping/geographical (GPS) data, and report the
conclusions of that study. Do the findings and conclusions fit the routine activities
theoretical framework? Why or why not?
11. What types of policy strategies derived from rational choice and routine activities
theories do you think would be most effective? Least effective?
Ressourcen
This Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology article provides a good explanation of
the key issues involved in modern longitudinal studies of deterrence.
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?
article=6586&context=jclc
The Death Penalty Information Center is one of the very best sources of facts and
reports on the use and cost of capital punishment, as well as its limited effectiveness as a
deterrent.
https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/FactSheet.pdf
University of Missouri instructor Robert Keel thoroughly discusses the concepts and
propositions that rational choice theory added to the traditional deterrence model.
http://www.umsl.edu/~keelr/200/ratchoc.html
The National Institute of Justice has an excellent summary of routine activities theory
and discusses its application to their approaches to policing and making high-crime places
safer.
https://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/strategies/hot-spot-
policing/Pages/why-hot-spots-occur.aspx
This slideshow reviews routine activities theory and discusses how some scholars have
claimed that risky lifestyles often raise the likelihood of victimization.
http://www.slideshare.net/khadijahtgo/routine-activities-theory
Student Study Site


Media Library
premium resources:
Author Video
4.1: Frameworks

4.1: Formal and Informal Deterrence Theory
4.2: Social Influences

4.1: Shaming
Chapter 5 Early Positivism Biological
Theories of Crime
© iStockphoto.com/Henrik5000
Learning Objectives
5.1 Explain how the early, pre-Darwinian theories, such as craniometry and phrenology,
are different from (and similar to) post-Darwinian theories, such as Lombroso’s theory
of offending.
5.2 Identify the key assumptions, propositions, and weaknesses of Lombroso’s theory of
atavism and the born criminal.
5.3 Discuss the shift to more psychological areas, namely IQ testing, and how it affected
the field in terms of policy and thinking about individuals’ risk of criminality.
5.4 Evaluate the key propositions, concepts, and weaknesses of Sheldon’s body type
theory and how he measured the various body types of this perspective.
5.5 Identify and explain some of the policy implications that used Lombroso’s theory
and IQ testing as a theoretical framework.
Case Study
John Lotter, the “Boys Don’t Cry” Killer

On December 31, 1993, 22-year-old John Lotter killed Brandon Teena, a 21-year-old
transgender man—as well as two witnesses to the murder—in Humboldt, Nebraska,
approximately 75 miles south of Omaha. He was sentenced to be executed in 1996, although as
of 2018 he was still on death row. Teena’s murder inspired the 1999 movie Boys Don’t Cry
(starring Hillary Swank as Brandon Teena), and it was one of the key cases used to advance
federal legislation against hate crimes.
In 2018, Lotter’s attorneys filed motions claiming he should be ruled ineligible for execution
because he had consistently scored very low on standard IQ tests—his lawyers compared his
IQ to that of a young child. Specifically, they said, Lotter was intellectually disabled and
therefore couldn’t be put to death, under a 2002 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that claimed that an
IQ of 70 or below is presumptive evidence of an intellectual disability. Court records showed
that Lotter scored a 67 the previous year, indicating that he possessed an intellectual age of 8.
John Lotter, center, is escorted from the Richardson County Courthouse in Falls City,
Nebraska, after being sentenced for the 1993 murders of Brandon Teena, Phillip
DeVine, and Lisa Lambert.
AP Photo/St. Joseph News-Press, Eric Keith, file
Neuropsychologist Ricardo Weinstein determined that Lotter qualified for an intellectual

developmental disability diagnosis after reviewing trial and school records, as well as
interviewing Lotter’s mother, his foster mother, and a psychiatrist who had worked with him as
a child. Although Lotter had scored 73 on a standard IQ test when he was 10 years old, the
U.S. Supreme Court, in a Florida case, had found a consensus among medical experts that IQ
scores should be read not as a single number, but as a range that can fluctuate for many
reasons. Thus, it was quite likely that Lotter fell somewhere close to, and likely below, the
previously used 70 score cut-off, making him ineligible for execution.
Think About It
1. Should Lotter’s case be further examined to see whether he is eligible to be executed?
Why?
2. Would your response change if you were a U.S. Supreme Court justice, and you were
supposed to follow precedent and abide by the cut-off of an IQ score of 70?
3. Would your response change if you were a relative of one of Lotter’s three victims?
Sources: Associated Press. (2018, April 4). “Boys Don’t Cry” inmate’s IQ too low to execute,
attorneys say. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/boys-don-t-cry-inmate-s-
iq-too-low-execute-n862686; “John Lotter.” (n.d.). Murderpedia.
http://murderpedia.org/male.L/l/lotter-john.htm.
Introduction
In the early 1940s, Charlie Follett was a teenager in California’s Sonoma
State Home, a residential facility for individuals deemed by the courts and
other authorities to be undesirable, with the common “medical” term being
feeble-minded or moron,1 meaning they scored relatively low on an IQ test.
One day, facility workers told Charlie to lie down on an operating table, and
without telling him what was about to happen, vasectomized him. He was
one of more than 20,000 people—most of them women—to be forcibly
sterilized by the state of California from the early 1900s to 1963.
Sometimes they never learned of the procedure, and sometimes they were
lied to (for example, told that they had an appendectomy or some other
medical procedure). This procedure was performed throughout the nation
(Virginia had the second-highest number of such sterilizations, at about
8,300), with the support of the U.S. Supreme Court via its 1927 decision in
Buck v. Bell. Although California governor Gray Davis apologized much
later, in 2003, no financial reparations had ever been offered to the victims
of this misguided policy. This is one of the ways in which early theories of
criminality were abused in terms of policy.
In this chapter, we examine the early formulations of scientific
criminological testing and theorizing, referred to as the Positive School of
criminology. The emphasis on science in criminology started in the mid-
19th century and provided a basis for what continues today. First, we
examine why criminological theories became the topic of science at that
time, and then we examine the early explanations of criminal behavior (as
well as the many criticisms of such models), how such theories were tested,
and especially the policy implications. We then discuss how Darwin’s work
inspired a major change in how both academics and society viewed
criminals.
Positive School: a perspective that assumes that individuals have no free will to control
their behavior.
We examine how the father of criminology developed his theory, as well as

how IQ testing impacted the field and policies, as noted in the story above.
We will also explore how these two models merged to form body type
theory. Then we will discuss how such theories inspired future models of
criminality, with an emphasis on how such traditional frameworks have
contributed to modern-day applications and explanatory frameworks.
Early Biological Theories of Behavior

After many decades of dominance by the Classical School (see Chapter 3),
academics and scientists were becoming aware that the deterrence
framework was not explaining the distribution of crime. This restlessness
led to new explanatory models of crime and behavior. Most of these
perspectives focused on the fact that certain individuals or groups tend to
offend more than others and that such “inferior” individuals should be
controlled or even eliminated. This ideological framework fit a more
general stance toward eugenics, which is the study of and policies related to
improvement of the human race via control over selective reproduction
(policies that were explicitly mandated for certain groups, as we will see).
Thus, the conclusion was that there must be notable variations across
individuals (and groups) that can help determine those most at risk of
offending.
eugenics: the study of and policies related to the improvement of the human race via
discriminatory control over reproduction.
So in the early to mid-19th century, several perspectives were offered

regarding how to determine which individuals or groups are most likely to
commit crime. Many of these theoretical frameworks were based on
establishing a method for distinguishing the superior individuals and groups
from the inferior individuals and groups. Such intentions were likely related
to the increased use of slavery in the world during the 1800s as well as
European empires’ efforts to suppress colonial rebellions. For example,
slavery was at its peak in the United States during this period, and many
European countries had taken control of large regions of Africa and Asia.
Craniometry
Perhaps the first example of this theory was craniometry, the belief that the
size of the brain or skull represents the superiority or inferiority of certain
individuals or ethnic/racial groups.2 The reason the size of both the brain
and the skull were considered is that a person’s skull was believed to
perfectly conform to the structure of his or her brain; thus, the size of the
skull was thought to match the size of the brain. Although modern science
has somewhat dismissed this assumption, there is a significant correlation
between the size of the skull and the size of the brain. Still, even according
to the assumptions of the craniometrists, it is unlikely that we can deduce
much by measuring the overall mass of the brain much less the size of the
skull.
craniometry: a 19th-century field of study that emphasized the belief that the size of the
brain or skull reflected superiority or inferiority, with larger brains and skulls being
considered superior.
Craniometrists measured people’s brains and skulls and
attempted to show that the larger the brain, the more
superior the person or race.
Cicely D. Fawcett and Alice Lee, “A Second Study of the Variation

and Correlation of the Human Skull, With Special Reference to the
Naquada Crania,” Biometrika, Vol. 1, No. 4 (Aug., 1902).
The scientists who studied this model would, if they were dealing with
living subjects, measure the various sizes, or circumferences, of the skull. If
they were dealing with recently deceased subjects, they would measure the
weight or volume of the brain itself. When dealing with subjects who had
died long before, they would pour seeds into the skull and then determine
the volume by pouring the seeds into a graduated cylinder. Later, when
these scientists realized that seeds were not a valid measure of volume, they
substituted buckshot or ball bearings.
Most studies by craniometrists showed that subjects of white, Western

European descent tended to be far superior to other ethnic groups in terms
of skull circumference or brain size. Furthermore, the front portion of the
brain (i.e., genu) was thought to be larger in the superior individuals and
groups, and the hind portion of the brain/skull (i.e., splenium) was predicted
to be larger in the lesser individuals and groups. Notably, these researchers
typically knew to which ethnic/racial group the skulls/brains belonged
before measuring them, making for an unethical and improper
methodology. Such biased measurements of brains and skulls continued
into the early 1900s.3 These examinations were largely done with the
intention of furthering the assumptions of eugenics, which aimed to prove
under the banner of “science” that certain individuals and ethnic/racial
groups were inferior to others.
This intent of noted craniometrists is supported by subsequent tests of some

of these studies, with the difference that the subsequent researchers did not
know in advance which skulls/brains were from which ethnic/racial groups.
These new studies showed only a small correlation between size of the
skull/brain and certain behaviors or personality traits.4 Furthermore, once
some of the early “forefathers” of craniometry died, their brains showed
average or below-average volume. The existing craniometrists then
switched their postulates such that it was the more convoluted or complex
structure of brains (those with more fissures and gyri than others) that
distinguished superior brains from inferior ones.5 However, this argument
was even more tentative and vague than the former hypotheses of
craniometrists and thus did not last long.
So craniometry itself did not last long, likely due to its notable lack of
validity and the fact that Darwinian theory (which came along in the 1860s)
had not been presented or accepted at that time, so the model lacked a
popular framework for basis. However, it is important to note that modern
studies show that persons who have significantly larger brains do tend to
score higher on intelligence tests.6
Phrenology
Despite the failure of craniometry to explain the difference between
criminals and noncriminals, scientists were not ready to give up the
assumption that this phenomenon could be explained by visual differences
in the skull (or brain)—and they certainly weren’t ready to give up the
assumption that certain ethnic or racial groups were superior or inferior to
others. Therefore, experts developed the perspective of phrenology.
Phrenology is the science of determining human dispositions based on
distinctions (e.g., bumps) in the skull, as the skull is believed to conform to
the shape of the brain (see the illustration).7 Keep in mind that much of the
theorizing of phrenologists was still aimed at supporting the assumptions of
eugenics and showing that certain individuals and groups were inferior or
superior to others.
phrenology: the science of determining human dispositions based on distinctions (e.g.,

bumps) in the skull, which is believed to conform to the shape of the brain.
A prototypical mapping of the skull by phrenologists, showing

the various characteristics believed to be influenced by
abnormalities in certain parts of the brain.
© iStockphoto.com/Chris Price
Like the craniometrists, phrenologists assumed that the shape of the skull
conformed to the shape of the brain. Thus, a bump or other abnormality on
the skull directly related to an abnormality in the brain. This assumption has
been entirely refuted by modern scientific evidence, so it is not surprising
that phrenology quickly fell out of favor in criminological thought.
However, like its predecessor, phrenology did get some things right: Certain
parts of the brain are indeed responsible for specific tasks.
For example, in the original phrenological map (see the illustration),

“destructiveness” was determined by the presence of abnormalities above
the left ear. Modern scientific studies show that perhaps the most vital part
of the brain in terms of criminality regarding trauma is that of the left
temporal lobe, or the area above the left ear.8 There are other indications
that the phrenologists were right. After all, most readers are well aware of
the fact that specific portions of the brain govern the operation of
individualized activities in our bodies. For example, a particular portion of
the brain governs the action of our hands, whereas other areas govern our
arms, legs, and so forth. So the phrenologists weren’t completely wrong,
but the extent to which they relied on bumps on the skull to indicate who
would be most disposed to criminal behavior was inaccurate.
Physiognomy
After phrenology fell from academic favor, researchers and society still
were unwilling to part with the assumption that certain individuals or ethnic
groups were inferior to others. Thus the discipline of physiognomy became
popular in the mid-19th century. Physiognomy is the study of facial and
other bodily aspects to indicate developmental problems, such as
criminality. Not surprisingly, early physiognomical studies focused on
contrasting various racial/ethnic groups to prove that certain groups or
individuals were superior or inferior, as illustrated in Figure 5.1.9
physiognomy: the study of facial and other bodily aspects to identify developmental
problems, such as criminality.
Using modern understandings of science, it should be obvious from the

illustrations in Figure 5.1 that physiognomy did not last long as a respected
scientific perspective of criminality. At any time other than the late 1800s,
the importance of observed facial and bodily features in determining
criminality would not be highly accepted for long, if at all. However, the
timing of this theory was on its side. Specifically, the publication of
Darwin’s On the Origin of Species in the late 1800s made a huge impact on
societal views regarding the rank order of ethnic groups.
Figure 5.1 Physiognomists attempted to show that criminals’

facial profiles resembled those of animals, such as monkeys,
apes, birds, and lions, implying they were a genetic
“throwback” to an earlier, inferior stage of evolution.
Source: The physiognomist’s own book: An introduction to
physiognomy drawn from the writings of Lavater. Philadelphia;
Pittsburg 1841. © Charles Le Brun.
Darwin’s model outlined a vague framework proposing that humans had

evolved from more primitive beings and that the human species (as all
others) developed with a number of adaptations preferred by natural
selection. In other words, some species are selected by their ability to adapt
to the environment, whereas others do not adapt so well and die off, or at
least become inferior in terms of dominance. This assumption of Darwin’s
work, which was accepted rapidly and widely by both laypeople and
scientists throughout the world, inclined many to believe that certain
ethnic/racial groups are inferior or superior to others.
Italian physician and psychiatrist Cesare Lombroso (1836–

1909) is considered the father of criminology and the father
of the Positive School for his contributions to the field in the
late 19th century.
National Library of Medicine via Wikimedia Creative Commons

Darwin was not a criminologist, so he is not considered the father or
theorist of any major school of criminological thought. However, he did set
the stage for what followed. Specifically, Darwin’s theory laid the
groundwork for what would become the first major scientific theory of
crime—Cesare Lombroso’s theory of born criminals. Lombroso’s theory
also tied together the assumptions and propositions of the disciplines of
craniometry, phrenology, and physiognomy.
Lombroso’s Theory of Atavism and Born

Criminals
Informed largely by Darwin’s theory of natural selection, Lombroso (1836–
1909) created what is widely considered the first attempt at scientific theory
in criminological thought. After all, most previous theorists were not
scientists (Cesare Beccaria, for example, was trained in law and never went
out to test his propositions) or did not concentrate on explaining levels of
criminality (as did the craniometrists and phrenologists). However,
Lombroso was trained in medical science and oriented toward documenting
his observations and using scientific methodology. Furthermore, timing was
on his side in the sense that, by the time he published his own major work,
Darwin’s theory had become immensely popular with both scientists and
the public in the 15 years since its publication.
Lombroso’s Theory of Crime

The first edition of Lombroso’s The Criminal Man was published in 1876.
It triggered an immediate response from most Western societies, in terms of
both their ideas and their policies related to crime and justice.10 It outlined a
theory of crime that brought together the pre-Darwinian theories of
craniometry, phrenology, and physiognomy. Furthermore, Lombroso’s
theory was largely based on certain groups (and individuals) being
“atavistic” and likely born to commit crime. Atavism means that a person
or particular feature of an individual is a throwback to an earlier stage of
evolutionary development. In other words, people who are serious criminals
are manifestations of lower forms of humanity in terms of evolutionary
progression. For example, Lombroso would likely suggest that chronic
offenders are more similar to the earlier stages of humankind, such as the
“missing link,” than they are to modern humans.
atavism: the belief that certain characteristics or behaviors of a person are throwbacks to
an earlier stage of evolutionary development.
Although Lombroso noted that there were other types of offenders, such as
the mentally ill and “criminaloids,” who committed minor offenses due to
external or environmental circumstances, he claimed that the “born
criminals” were the ones who should be singled out in addressing crime.
Specifically, born criminals were the most serious and violent criminals in
any society—those whom most criminologists now refer to as chronic
offenders. Furthermore, Lombroso claimed that born criminals cannot
reverse their natural tendencies to be antisocial.
On the other hand, Lombroso claimed that despite the born criminal’s
inevitable tendency to commit crime, there was a way for societies to
prevent or reduce these crimes—by identifying born criminals. According
to Lombroso, the way for societies to identify born criminals, even early in
life, is through stigmata—physical manifestations of the atavism of an
individual, with such physical features indicating the prior evolutionary
stages of development.
stigmata: the physical manifestations of atavism (biological inferiority), according to

Lombroso.
Lombroso’s List of Stigmata

According to Lombroso, the manifestation of more than five stigmata
indicates that an individual is atavistic and thus a born criminal. You may
be wondering what these stigmata are, given the importance of these
criteria. This is a great question, the answer to which was constantly
changing according to Lombroso’s list of what constitutes stigmata. In the
beginning, this list was largely based on Lombroso’s work as a physician
and included large eyes and large ears. It is hard today to determine the
exact criteria of the list, because Lombroso changed this list as he went
along (which can be argued is very poor science), even up until the last
edition of his book well into the 1900s.
For the most part, though, stigmata consisted of facial and bodily features
that deviated from the norm—in other words, an abnormally small or large
nose, abnormally small or large ears, abnormally small or large eyes, an
abnormally small or large jaw, or almost anything that fell outside the “bell
curve” of normal physical development in human beings. Beyond deviant
physical features, Lombroso also threw in some extraphysiological features,
such as tattoos and a history of epilepsy (or other disorders) in the family.
Lombroso’s documentation of some of the tattoos he saw on known

criminal offenders included many tattoos that featured female names or
some motto such as “born under an unlucky star” or “man of misfortune.”
Others were more intriguing, such as a tattoo on the penis of one offender
that read “Entra Tutto,” which means “it all goes in” or “it enters all.”11
Although it is likely that these latter features are somewhat correlated to
crime and delinquency, is it likely that they cause such antisocial behavior?
Given Lombroso’s model that persons are born criminal, how many babies
are born with tattoos? Regardless of the illogical nature of many of the
stigmata, Lombroso professed that if a person had more than five of the
physical features on his list, that person was indeed a born criminal and
should be, somehow, prevented from offending.
As a physician working for the Italian army, Lombroso examined the bodies
of captured war criminals. According to Lombroso, he first realized the
nature of the criminal when a particular war criminal was brought in for
examination:
This was not merely an idea, but a flash of inspiration. At the

sight of that skull, I seemed to see all of a sudden, lighted up as a
vast plain under a flaming sky, the problem of the nature of the
criminal—an atavistic being who reproduces in his person the
ferocious instincts of primitive humanity and the inferior animals.
Thus were explained anatomically the enormous jaws, high cheek
bones . . . solitary lines in the palms, extreme size of the orbits,
handle-shaped ears found in criminals, savages and apes,
insensibility to pain, extremely acute sight, tattooing, excessive
idleness, love of orgies, and the irresponsible craving of evil for
its own sake, the desire not only to extinguish life in the victim,
but to mutilate the corpse, tear its flesh and drink its blood.12
While most of us laugh at his words now, this description likely rang true to
most of his contemporaries, which is perhaps why his book was the leading
text in the field of criminology for many decades. In the description above,
Lombroso incorporates many of the core principles of his theory—namely,
the idea of criminals being atavistic, or biological evolutionary throwbacks,
and the stigmata that became so important in his theoretical model.
Furthermore, Lombroso’s theory synthesized the themes of craniometry,
phrenology, and physiognomy. This theory came just a decade after Darwin,
when society was ready to accept such a perspective, which was not too far
removed from the dominant perspective of the slavery period in this
country. Perhaps this is why Lombroso’s theoretical framework became so
popular.
Lombroso provided numerous profile images of criminals and
claimed that his list of stigmata could identify a born
criminal by facial features.
A good example of the popular acceptance of Lombroso’s “scientific”

stigmata appears in Bram Stoker’s Dracula, in which the physical
description of the Count (Dracula) is based on “Lombrosian” traits, such as
a thin nose, arched nostrils, massive eyebrows, and pointed ears. This
reference makes sense, given that the novel was published at a time (the late
19th century) when Lombroso’s theory was highly dominant in society and
science. This is just one indication of this theory’s importance among
academics, scientists, philosophers, fiction writers, and criminal justice
policy during that period. The theory became popular for other reasons as
well.
Not only did Lombroso claim that he could identify born criminals by their
stigmata; he also claimed that he could identify certain types of criminals.
For example, certain stigmata could be identified among groups of
anarchists, burglars, murderers, and shoplifters. Of course, if you are
confused by your failure to distinguish one kind of offender from another,
that is fine; virtually no one can. Lombroso’s stigmata as a way to
distinguish certain individuals as born criminals, let alone to identify certain
forms of criminals, are quite invalid by modern research standards.
However, as mentioned above, Lombroso’s theory became extremely
popular throughout the developed Western world, and much of this
popularity was due to good timing.
Lombroso as the Father of Criminology and the

Father of the Positive School
Lombroso’s theory came a decade and a half after Darwin’s work was
published, so Darwin’s views had already spread throughout the Western
world. As mentioned previously, Lombroso’s model coincided with much
of the Western world’s views on slavery and deportation at that time.
Because of this fortuitous timing and because he became known as the first
individual to test his hypotheses through observation, Lombroso is widely
considered the father of criminology. He deserves the title, not out of
respect for his theory (which has been largely rejected) or his methods
(which are considered highly invalid by modern standards) but because he
was the first person to gain recognition in testing his theoretical
propositions. Furthermore, his theory coincided with political movements
popular at that time—the Fascist and Nazi movements of the early 1900s.
Lombroso is also considered the father of the Positive School of

criminology because he was the first to gain prominence in identifying
factors beyond free will or free choice (i.e., the Classical School) that were
predicted to cause crime. Although previous theorists had presented
perspectives that went beyond free will, such as craniometry and
phrenology, Lombroso was the first to gain widespread attention, due to the
revelation of Darwin’s perspective. The pre-Darwinian frameworks had not
gained much attention, due to the lack of a theoretical perspective
conducive to these models. Lombroso’s perspective gained almost
immediate support in all developed countries, which is the most likely
reason why he is considered the father of the Positive School of
criminology.
It is important to understand the assumptions of positivism, which most

experts consider somewhat synonymous with the term determinism.
Determinism is the idea that most human behavior is determined by factors
beyond free will and free choice ( as in the Classical School). In other
words, determinism (as in the Positive School) assumes that human beings
do not decide how they will act by rationally thinking through the costs and
benefits of a given action. The Positive School, by comparison, is based on
the fundamental belief that factors outside free will and choice—such as
biological, psychological, and sociological variables—determine the
choices we make regarding all types of behavior, especially decisions to
engage in criminal activity.
determinism: the assumption that human behavior is caused by factors outside free will
and rational decision-making.
The majority of readers probably believe they have chosen their career
paths, as well as most other aspects of their lives. However, scientific
evidence shows otherwise. For example, although most people consider
religion one of the most important aspects of their lives, far more than 90%
of the world’s population have chosen their religious affiliation (e.g.,
Baptist, Buddhist, Catholic, Judaism) based on the religious affiliation of
their parents or caretakers. Therefore, what most people consider an
extremely important decision—namely, what to believe regarding a higher
being or force—is almost completely determined by their environment. To
clarify, almost no one sits down and goes through a list of descriptions of
various religions to decide which seems best. Rather, in almost all cases,
religious affiliation is determined by culture, which dismisses the factor of
free will/free choice assumed by the Classical School. The same type of
argument can be made regarding the clothes we wear, the food we prefer,
and the activities we enjoy.
Another way to distinguish positivism and determinism is in the way

scientists view human behavior, which can be understood using a chemistry
analogy. Specifically, a chemist assumes that if a given element is subjected
to certain temperatures, pressures, or mixtures with other elements, it will
react in a predictable way. In a highly comparable way, a positivist assumes
that when human beings are subjected to poverty, delinquent peers, low
intelligence, or other factors, they will react in a predictable way. Therefore,
there is virtually no difference between how a chemist feels about the
behavior of atoms and molecules and how a positivistic scientist feels about
human behavior.
In Lombroso’s case, the deterministic factor was individuals’ biological

makeup. However, we shall see in the next several chapters that positivistic
theories focus on a wide range of variables, from biology to psychology to
social aspects. For example, many readers likely believe that bad parenting,
poverty, and associating with delinquent peers are some of the most
important factors in predicting criminality. If you believe that such variables
significantly influence decisions to commit crime, then you are likely a
positive theorist; you believe that crime is caused by factors above and
beyond free choice or free will.
Learning Check 5.1
1. The study of and policies related to the improvement of the human race via control
of selective reproduction is known as _______________.
a. cytogenetics
b. ethnographics
c. racionology
d. eugenics
e. fascionics
2. What is the 19th-century study of the size of the brain/skull that posited that the
bigger the brain, the more superior the person or race?
a. Phrenology
b. Physiognomy
c. Craniometry
d. Skullography
e. Cerebrotology
3. What is the 19th-century study of various bumps on the skull believed to reveal the
strength of certain cognitive or personality traits?
a. Phrenology
b. Physiognomy
c. Craniometry
d. Skullography
e. Cerebrotology
Policy Implications
Beyond the theoretical aspects of Lombroso’s theory of criminality, his
perspective had profound consequences for policy as well. For example,
Lombroso was called to testify in numerous criminal processes and trials.
Under the banner of science (in much the same way we now view DNA or
fingerprint analysis), Lombroso was consulted to determine the guilt of
certain persons in key criminal testimony, often during trial.13 He even
wrote about many of the trials and official identifications he made as an
“expert” witness, which often included identifying which suspect (often out
of many) had committed a crime. Lombroso based such judgments solely
on the visual stigmata evident in the line of suspects.14 In one such account
of his experiences as an expert witness, he noted:
[One suspect] was, in fact, the most perfect type of the born
criminal: enormous jaws, frontal sinuses, and zygomata, thin
upper lip, huge incisors, unusually large head . . . , tactile
obtuseness . . . with sensorial mancinism. . . . He was convicted.15
Why Do They Do It?
Dr. Harold Shipman

Harold Shipman is the third most prolific serial killer on record in the Western world. A
British physician, he is known to have killed more than 250 of his patients. The only
serial killers on record who exceed him are both from Colombia: Pedro Lopez, the
“Monster of the Andes,” believed to have killed 300 people; and Luis Garavito, “the
Beast,” believed to have killed more than 400 people, including more than 100 children.
However, whereas Lopez and Garavito were predatory, hedonistic serial killers, Shipman
was an “Angel of Death.” He was supposed to be helping his patients (indeed, he was
paid to do so), but instead he killed them.
Shipman would typically inject his victims, almost always women, with lethal doses of
diamorphine (i.e., heroin). It is believed he began killing patients in the late 1970s or
early 1980s and continued until he was caught in the late 1990s. Investigators became
suspicious when he was named in one of his victim’s wills, which left him about 380,000
British pounds. When it was discovered that Shipman had forged this will, it triggered a
much larger investigation. However, financial gain is not believed to be his main motive,
because an investigation of the records revealed that this forged will was an isolated case;
he had been killing his patients for years without any apparent monetary incentive.
Despite his consistent denials of guilt, in 2000 he was convicted and sentenced to 15
consecutive life sentences with recommendation of no release. Notably, he was the only
doctor in British legal history to be found guilty of killing his patients. Shipman hanged
himself in his cell at Wakefield Prison in West Yorkshire, England, on January 13, 2004.
So why did he kill? BBC News recently released a report examining why he may have
done it but essentially gave up trying to understand his motive.
He has never revealed anything about the extent of his murderous career, and
probably never will. . . . The experience of killing was personal and private to
him, and he is never going to give that up. . . . We are never going to know the
truth.
The best guess came from some of those present when he was tried in Preston Crown
Court, who claimed that he likely “enjoyed exercising the power over life and death.”
This explanation probably doesn’t seem satisfactory, but the truth is that many serial
killers kill simply because they enjoy it. A large part of that enjoyment is the power and
control they hold over their victims. Fortunately, there are not many doctors who feel this
way. But doctors are people, too. And where you have people, you will have killers.
Although this high-profile case is not specifically linked to any of the theories described
in this chapter, it is presented here because the father of criminology, Lombroso, was also
a medical doctor. In fact, it was during one of his criminal autopsies that he formulated
his theoretical model.
Think About It
1. What was the basic method of operation for Harold Shipman in how he killed his
victims? This would make him what type or category of serial killer?
2. What is the best guess as to why he committed his many killings?
Sources: The secret world of Harold Shipman. (2001, January 5). BBC News. Retrieved
from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/1102270.stm; Smith, J. D. (2004). 100 most
infamous criminals. New York, NY: MetroBooks.
When Lombroso was not available for such “scientific” determinations of

guilty persons, his colleagues or students (often referred to as “lieutenants”)
often substituted. Some of these students, such as Enrico Ferri and Raphael
Garrofalo, became quite active in the Fascist regime of Italy in the early
1900s. This model of government, like the Nazi party in Germany, sought
to remove “inferior” groups from society. Thus, Lombroso’s theory was
well-timed in terms of both societal and governmental ideologies. This was
another reason why Lombroso gained such prominence throughout the
Western world throughout the late 1800s and early 1900s.
Another policy implication that was implemented in some parts of the

world was identifying young children on the basis of stigmata. This led to
tracking or isolating certain children as potential criminals, based largely on
their physiological features. Although many readers may consider such
policies ridiculous, modern medicine has supported the identification,
documentation, and importance of certain physical features as indications of
possessing a high risk of developmental problems. For example, modern
medicine identifies a number of minor physical anomalies (MPAs) that
indicate developmental problems. These include
head circumference out of the normal range,

malformed ears,
low-set ears,
a large gap between the first and second toes,
webbing between toes or fingers,
no earlobes,
a curved fifth finger,
asymmetrical ears,
a furrowed tongue, and
a simian crease (see Figure 5.2).16
minor physical anomalies: physical features, such as asymmetrical or low-seated ears,

that are believed to indicate developmental problems.
Figure 5.2 The simian crease is one of many minor physical

anomalies recognized by modern medical science as
manifestations of early developmental disorders.
Source: National Park Service Digital Image Archives.
Given the practice of correlating such visible physical aspects with

developmental problems, including criminality, it is obvious that
Lombroso’s model of stigmata as predictors of antisocial behavior has
implications to the present day. Perhaps surprisingly, such implications are
more accepted by modern medical science than they are in the
criminological literature. For example, MPAs are still used to diagnose and
predict the future development of young children. Furthermore, some
modern scientific studies have shown that being unattractive predicts
criminal offending, which somewhat supports Lombroso’s theory of
crime.17
Learning Check 5.2
1. Who is considered the father of criminology, as well as the father of the Positive
School of criminological thought?
a. Beccaria
b. Binet
c. Lombroso
d. Sheldon
e. Hirschi
2. The father of criminology said that the most dangerous, chronic criminals could be
identified by their _______________.
a. having bad parents
b. being poor
c. having delinquent peers
d. stigmata
e. having weak ties to conventional society
3. What does the Positive School of criminology assume that clearly distinguishes it
from the Classical School of criminology?
a. Free will/free choice
b. Rational decision-making in choosing behavior
c. Determinism
d. Hedonism
e. Utilitarianism
About three decades after Lombroso’s original work was published,

criminologists began to question his theory of atavism and stigmata.
Furthermore, it became clear that there was more involved in criminality
than just the way people looked, such as psychological aspects. However,
scientists and societies were not ready to depart from theories, such as
Lombroso’s, that assumed that certain people or groups of people were
inferior to others, so they simply chose another factor to emphasize—
intelligence, or IQ.
After Lombroso: The IQ-Testing Era

Despite the evidence presented against Lombroso, his theorizing remained
dominant until the early 1900s, when criminologists realized that stigmata
and the idea of a “born” criminal were not valid. However, even at that
time, theorists and researchers were not ready to give up the assumption
that certain ethnic or racial groups were superior or inferior to others. Thus,
a new theory emerged based on a more quantified measure, originated by
Alfred Binet in France. This new measure was IQ, which represents an
individual’s intelligence quotient. At that time, IQ was calculated as
chronological age divided by mental age, which was then multiplied by 100
—the average score being 100. This scale has changed enormously over
time, but the bottom line is determining whether someone is above or below
the base score of average (100).
Binet had good intentions in creating the concept of IQ scores, which he

formulated to identify French youths who were not up to par in academic
skill. Binet was explicit in stating that IQ could be changed, which is why
he proposed a score to identify slow learners—so that they could be trained
to raise their IQs.18 However, when Binet’s work on the idea and methods
of scoring IQ was brought to the United States, his basic assumptions and
propositions were twisted. One of the most prominent people who utilized
Binet’s IQ test in the United States for purposes of deporting,
incapacitating, sterilizing, and otherwise ridding society of low-IQ
individuals was H. H. Goddard.
Goddard’s IQ Test
Goddard is generally considered the leading authority on the use and
interpretation of IQ testing in the United States.19 Goddard used the IQ test
he adopted from Binet’s model to examine immigrants coming into the
United States. It is important to note that Goddard proposed quite different
assumptions regarding intelligence or IQ than did Binet. To clarify,
Goddard believed and claimed that IQ was static or innate, meaning that
such levels could not be changed, even with training. The assumption of
Goddard’s perspective of intelligence was that it was passed from
generation to generation, from parents to offspring.
Goddard is known for labeling this low IQ feeble-mindedness, which

became a technical, scientific term in the early 1900s referring to those who
had significantly below-average intelligence. Of course, being a scientist,
Goddard specified certain levels of feeble-mindedness, which were based
on the degree to which the score was below average. In order from highest
to lowest intelligence, the first group were the “morons,” the second group
were the “imbeciles,” and the lowest group were the “idiots.”
feeble-mindedness: technical, scientific term in the early 1900s meaning those who had
significantly below-average intelligence.
According to Goddard, from a eugenics point of view, the biggest threat to

the progress of humanity was not the idiots. Rather, it was the morons:
those who were of only slightly less than average intelligence. In Goddard’s
words,
The idiot is not our greatest problem. He is indeed loathsome. . . .

Nevertheless, he lives his life and is done. He does not continue
the race with a line of children like himself. . . . It is the moron
type that makes for us our great problem.20
Immigrants entering the United States via Ellis Island circa
1920. Many of these immigrants were tested by Goddard
and his research team for “feeble-mindedness.”
Library of Congress
According to Goddard, of the three categories of feeble-mindedness, the

morons are the group smart enough to slip through the cracks and
reproduce, thus posing the biggest threat to humanity.
Goddard received many grants to fund his research, and he took his
research team to Ellis Island in the early 1900s to identify the feeble-
minded as they attempted to enter the United States. Much of his team was
made up of women, who he believed were better at distinguishing the
feeble-minded by sight:
After a person has had considerable experience in this work, he

almost gets a sense of what a feeble-minded person is so that he
can tell one afar off. The people who are best at this work, and
who I believe should do this work, are women. Women seem to
have closer observation than men. It was quite impossible for
others to see how . . . women could pick out the feeble-minded
without the aid of the Binet test at all.21
Although Goddard never provided a good reason why, he insisted that

women could pick out the feeble-minded better than men could.
Policy Implications
Goddard was proud that this work contributed to an increase in the
deportation of potential immigrants to the United States. For example, he
enthusiastically reported that deportations for the reason of mental
deficiency increased by 350% in 1913 and 570% in 1914 from the average
of the preceding five years.22 However, over time, he realized that his
policy recommendations of deportation, incarceration, and sterilization
were not based on accurate science.
Specifically, after consistently validating his IQ test on immigrants and

mental patients, Goddard finally tested his intelligence scale on a relatively
representative cross-section of American citizens—namely, draftees for
military service during World War I. The results showed that many of these
recruits scored as feeble-minded (i.e., lower than a mental age of 12) on the
given IQ test. Therefore, Goddard changed (lowered) the criterion for
feeble-mindedness; specifically, from a mental age of 12 to a mental age of
8. Although this appears to be a clear admission that his scientific method
was inaccurate, Goddard continued to profess his model of the feeble-
minded for many years, and societies utilized his ideas.
Toward the end of his career, Goddard did admit that intelligence could be
improved, despite his earlier assumptions that it was innate and static.23 In
making this refutation, Goddard claimed that he had “gone over to the
enemy.”24 However, despite Goddard’s admission that his assumptions and
testing were not determinant of individuals’ intelligence, in many ways it
was too late.
Specifically, the sterilization of individuals, mostly women, based on IQ

scores continued in the United States. Often, the justification was based not
on the person’s IQ score but on the scores of that person’s parents. After all,
as Goddard had proclaimed, the “germ-plasm” that determined feeble-
mindedness was passed on from one generation to the next, so it inevitably
resulted in feeble-minded offspring. Thus, the U.S. government typically
sterilized individuals—again, mostly women—based on their parents’ IQ
scores.
This issue came to the highest court in the 1920s. The case of Buck v. Bell
made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court in 1927, and the Court discussed
the issue of sterilizing individuals who had scored, or whose parents had
scored, as mentally deficient on intelligence scales. The majority opinion,
written by one of the court’s most respected jurists, Oliver Wendell Holmes,
Jr., stated:
We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call
upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it
could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the state
for these lesser sacrifices. . . . Three generations of imbeciles are
enough.25
Thus, the highest court in the United States upheld the use of sterilization
for the purposes of limiting reproduction among individuals deemed feeble-
minded by a test score that even the creator and administrator of the test
admitted was not valid or accurate.
The result was that such sterilizations continued for many years, up to the
1970s. Governors of many states, such as North Carolina, Virginia, and
California, have since delivered public apologies for these practices. For
example, in 2003 the governor of California, Gray Davis, apologized for the
state law passed almost a century before that resulted in the sterilization of
about 19,000 women.
Although this aspect of U.S. history is often hidden from the public, it is
important to acknowledge this blot on our nation’s history, especially since
it occurred at a time when we were supposed to be fighting the Nazis’ and
other regimes’ disregard of human rights.
Reexamining Intelligence
Ultimately, the sterilizations, deportations, and incarcerations based on IQ
testing contributed to an embarrassing period in U.S. history. So, for many
decades, due to the atrocities that had been committed in the name of this
theory, as well as the “Nazi” mentality of its assumptions, IQ was not much
researched or discussed in the criminological literature. However, in the
1970s, an important study was published in which Travis Hirschi and
Michael Hindelang examined the apparent relation of intelligence to
juvenile delinquency.26 Hirschi and Hindelang found that even among
youths of the same race and social class, low intelligence was a significant
predictor of delinquency and criminality. This study, as well as others,
showed that the IQs of delinquents or criminals are about 10 points lower
than those of noncriminals.27
This led to a resurgence of criminological research regarding intelligence

testing. A number of subsequent studies have shown that certain types of
intelligence are more important than others. Specifically, low verbal
intelligence has the most significant impact in predicting delinquent and
criminal behavior.28
This makes sense, because verbal skills are important in virtually all aspects
of life—from everyday interactions with significant others, to filling out
forms at work, to dealing with people in the workplace, and so on. In
contrast, most people do not have to display advanced math or quantitative
skills, let alone spatial and more abstract forms of intelligence, in their jobs
or in their day-to-day interactions. Low verbal intelligence represents the
most direct predictor of criminality, most likely because many persons who
lack communication skills find it hard to obtain or retain employment or to
deal with family and social problems.
Research interest in the link between intelligence and criminality seemed to

peak with the publication of Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s Bell
Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in the United States in 1994.29
Although it eschewed the terminology of moron, imbecile, and idiot in
favor of relatively benign terms (e.g., cognitively disadvantaged),
Herrnstein and Murray’s argument was consistent with that of the feeble-
mindedness researchers of the early 20th century. Specifically, Herrnstein
and Murray argued that persons with low IQ scores were somewhat
destined to be unsuccessful in school, become unemployed, produce
illegitimate children, and commit crime. They also suggested that IQ or
intelligence is primarily innate, or genetically determined, with little chance
of improvement. These authors also noted that African Americans tend to
score the lowest, while Asians and Jewish persons tend to score the highest.
They provided results from social indicators that supported their argument
that these intelligence levels relate to relative success in life in terms of
group-level statistics.
The Bell Curve inspired a public outcry, resulting in symposiums at major

universities and other venues during which the authors’ postulates were
largely condemned. As noted by other reviews of the impact of this work,
some professors at public institutions were sued over their use of this book
in their classes.30 The book also received blistering reviews from other
scientists.31 However, none of these scientific critics have fully addressed
the undisputed fact that African Americans consistently score low on
intelligence tests and that Asians and Jewish people score high.
Furthermore, none have adequately addressed the issue that even within
these populations, low IQ scores (especially on verbal tests) predict
criminality. For example, in samples of only African Americans, the group
that scored lowest on verbal intelligence consistently committed more
crime, and, even among this population, the persons who scored low overall
were more likely to become delinquent or criminal. So despite the harsh
criticism of The Bell Curve, it is apparent that the authors’ arguments carry
some validity.
Body-Type Theory: Sheldon’s Model of

Somatotyping
Although numerous theories in the late 19th and early 20th centuries were
based on body types, such as Lombroso’s theory and those of other criminal
anthropologists, none of these perspectives had a more enduring impact
than that of William Sheldon. In the mid-1940s, this new theoretical
perspective merged the concepts of biology and psychology. Sheldon
claimed that in the embryonic and fetal stages of development, there is an
emphasis on the development of certain tissue layers.32 According to
Sheldon, these varying degrees of emphasis are largely due to heredity,
which leads to the development of certain body types and temperaments or
personalities. This theory, also known as somatotyping, became the best-
known body-type theory, for reasons we will discuss below.
somatotyping: the area of study, primarily attributed to William Sheldon, that links body
type to likelihood of delinquent and criminal behavior. Also, as a methodology, it is a way
of ranking body types based on three categories: endomorphy, mesomorphy, and
ectomorphy.
Applying Theory to Crime Burglary
The FBI (in its Uniform Crime Reports) defines burglary as “the unlawful entry of a
structure to commit a felony or theft” and classifies it as a serious Index crime. Although
burglaries are nonviolent by definition, they certainly have much potential to become
violent—for example, if the residents return while the burglary is taking place. Although
some people may believe that burglaries occur only at night, most police departments and
certainly the FBI have moved beyond that common-law definition of this crime.
The FBI recorded just over 1.4 million burglaries in 2017, which was a decrease of 7.6%
when compared with 2016 data. The number of burglaries decreased 27.4% when
compared with 2013 data and was down 37.1% when compared with the 2008
estimate.33 Thus, the good news is that the number/rate of burglaries is very low
compared with previous years. However, there are still many burglaries happening every
day.
The vast majority of these burglaries involve some form of forced entry, and most are of
home residences. Most burglaries occur between 6 a.m. and 6 p.m., when residents are
most likely to be out. Still, even when victims do not encounter the burglar, the
experience can be traumatic, given that victims know someone has intruded into their
home, a place often considered one of refuge and security. In 2017, the overall
monetary/property loss from burglary was estimated to be $3.4 billion nationally; the
average monetary/property loss per incident was $2,416.34
According to arrest reports, the vast majority (more than 80%) of burglars were male, and
a notable number (although not the majority) were under 18. Notably, the likelihood of an
offender being caught for burglary is extremely low, perhaps because of the
categorization of burglary as a property crime as well as the fact that there are typically
no witnesses. This is reflected in the low national clearance rate/arrest rate for burglary,
which was 13.5% in 2017.35
In an example of burglary’s low priority with police, the San Diego Police Department, in
a 1998 press release, informed citizens that police would no longer investigate home
burglaries. The department claimed that the low likelihood of catching anyone (i.e., the
low clearance rate), as well as burglary’s status as a nonviolent property crime, led them
to decide they would rather spend their resources on more serious cases or those they had
a greater chance of solving. In 2013, the Chicago Police Department officially stated that
they would not actively investigate motor-vehicle thefts, home burglaries, and several
other crimes, due to their low priority compared to more violent offenses.36 Although
alarming, this reflects the opinion of many other police and sheriff departments
throughout the country regarding incidents of burglary; specifically, most law
enforcement officers find burglaries incredibly hard to solve, because they typically
involve no witnesses or hard evidence.
Burglary rates have decreased over the past decade, but this crime still occurs more
than a million times each year in the United States.
© iStockphoto.com/choja
Rational choice theory appears to be a good explanation for the incidence of burglaries.
After all, as mentioned before, most household burglaries occur during the day, when
occupants are outside of the household, whether for work, for school, or simply for
meeting up with friends. So burglars, most of whom do not want to have any interaction
with the victims (because then it becomes more serious and likely will turn into a violent
robbery, which carries far harsher penalties and draws more police investigation), target
homes that appear vacant. This shows a certain amount of planning and rational choice
decision-making on the part of the offender. Specifically, the burglars plan their act as to
coincide with the victims not being present in the house/apartment they are stealing from,
thereby reducing the risk of both being caught later and violent confrontation.
Sources: Associated Press. (1999, July 28). San Diego police may stop routine home
burglary investigations. The Lodi News-Sentinel, p. 8; FBI. (2018). Crime in the United
States, 2017. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice; Walsh, A., & Ellis, L. (2007).
Criminology. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
According to Sheldon, all embryos must develop three distinct tissue layers,
which are still acknowledged by perinatal medical researchers. The first
layer of tissue is the endoderm, which is the inner layer of tissues and
includes the internal organs, such as the stomach, large intestine, and small
intestine. The middle layer of tissue, called the mesoderm, includes the
muscles, bones, ligaments, and tendons. The ectoderm is the outer layer of
tissue and includes the skin, capillaries, and much of the nervous system
sensors.
endoderm: the medical term for the inner layer of tissue in our bodies.
mesoderm: the medical term for the middle layer of tissue in our bodies.
ectoderm: the medical term for the outer layer of tissue in our bodies.
Sheldon used these medical facts regarding the three tissue layers to
propose that, in the womb, certain tissue layers develop more robustly than
others, typically due to inherited dispositions. In turn, Sheldon believed that
such emphases led to certain body types, such that persons in whom the
endoderm was most prominently developed would inevitably become
endomorphic, or obese. In the same way, individuals in whom the middle
layer of tissue was most prominently developed typically became
mesomorphic, or of an athletic or muscular build. Finally, someone in
whom the third layer of tissue was most prominently developed would end
up having an ectomorphic, or thin, build (see Figure 5.3).
endomorphic: the body type associated with an emphasis on the inner layer of tissue
(endoderm) during embryonic development.
mesomorphic: the body type associated with an emphasis on the middle layer of tissue
(mesoderm) during embryonic development.
ectomorphic: the body type associated with an emphasis on the outer layer of tissue
(ectoderm) during development.
Sheldon and his research team would grade each subject on three
dimensions, corresponding respectively to the body types described above.
Each body type was measured on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being the highest.
Obviously, no one could score a 0 for any body type, because we all need
our internal organs, bone/muscular structure, and outer systems (e.g., skin,
capillaries). As stated above, each somatotype always had the following
order: endomorphy, mesomorphy, ectomorphy.
Figure 5.3 These three body types have been shown to have an
influence on both temperament or personality and risk of
criminality, with the mesomorph being at highest risk of
delinquency or criminality.
Source: © 2010 Encyclopedia Britannica, Inc.
So the scores on a typical somatotype might be 3-6-2 (a similar example is

seen in Figure 5.3), which would indicate that this person scored a 3 (a little
below average) on endomorphy, a 6 (high) on mesomorphy, and a 2
(relatively low) on ectomorphy. According to Sheldon’s theory, this
hypothetical subject would be a likely candidate for criminality, because he
or she scored relatively high on the mesomorphy scale. In fact, the results
from Sheldon’s data—as well as those from all studies that have examined
the association of body types with delinquency and criminality—would
support this prediction.
Perhaps most important, Sheldon proposed that these body types matched
particular personality traits or temperaments. Specifically, Sheldon claimed
that individuals who were endomorphic (obese) tended to be more jolly or
lazy. The technical term for this temperament is viscerotonic. In contrast,
persons who were mesomorphic (muscular) typically had a risk-taking and
aggressive temperament, called somatotonic. Last, individuals who were
ectomorphic (thin) tended to be introverted and shy, a personality type
referred to as cerebrotonic. Obviously, it was the middle group, the
mesomorphs, who had the greatest propensity for criminality, due to their
risk-taking and aggressive dispositions.
viscerotonic: according to somatotyping, the type of temperament or personality

associated with an endomorphic (obese) body type; these people tend to be jolly, lazy, and
happy-go-lucky.
somatotonic: the type of temperament or personality associated with a mesomorphic

(muscular) body type; these people tend to be risk-taking and aggressive.
cerebrotonic: the type of temperament or personality associated with an ectomorphic

(thin) body type; these people tend to be introverted and shy.
Learning Check 5.3
1. According to the text, which theorist invented IQ testing in France in the early
1900s?
a. Lombroso
b. Binet
c. Goddard
d. Sheldon
e. Hirschi
2. According to the text, which theorist was one of the key proponents of IQ testing
in the United States in the early 1900s and had his research team identify “feeble-
minded” persons at New York’s Ellis Island?
a. Lombroso
b. Binet
c. Goddard
d. Sheldon
e. Hirschi
3. According to the text, which level of “feeble-mindedness” was considered the
biggest threat to society, because it was the closest to average intelligence?
a. Moron
b. Idiot
c. Imbecile
d. Stupid
e. Retarded
4. According to the text, what U.S. Supreme Court case (decided in 1927) ruled it
constitutional for individuals to be sterilized based on IQ scores?
a. Miranda v. Arizona
b. Buck v. Bell
c. Mapp v. Ohio
d. McKeiver v. Pennsylvania
e. Breed v. Jones
Interestingly, many politicians who have been in the news in the past few
years were subjects in Sheldon’s research. Specifically, most entering
freshmen in Ivy League schools, especially Harvard, were asked to pose for
photos in Sheldon’s studies. According to most sources, these subjects were
told that posing naked in this way was for their own good (i.e., to check for
medical conditions, such as scoliosis), when it was actually for Sheldon and
his colleagues’ research.37
Sheldon tested his theory using poor methodology. Specifically, he based

his measures of individuals’ body types on what he subjectively observed
from three perspectives of each subject. He also had his trained staff view
many of the photos and score these individuals in each body-type category.
Reliability among these scores was weak, meaning that the trained staff did
not tend to agree with Sheldon or among themselves on the somatotype of
each participant.
This is not surprising, given the high level of variation in body types and
the fact that Sheldon and his colleagues did not employ the technology used
today, such as caliper measurements and submersion in water tanks, that
provides virtually all the information needed. After all, probably many
readers have experienced fluctuations in their weight and have gone from
an ectomorphic or mesomorphic build to a more endomorphic form, or vice
versa. Presented with the argument that individuals often alter their body
types via diet and exercise, Sheldon’s position was that he could tell what
the “natural” body type of each individual was from the three pictures
taken. This position is not a strong one, further evidenced by the poor inter-
rater reliability among his staff. Therefore, Sheldon’s methodology is
questionable and raises concerns regarding his entire theoretical framework.
Despite problematic methodology, Sheldon clearly showed that
mesomorphs, or individuals who have muscular builds and tend to take
risks, are more delinquent and criminal than are individuals of other body
types/temperaments.38 Furthermore, other researchers, even those who
despised Sheldon’s theory, found the same associations between
mesomorphy and criminality, as well as between related temperaments (i.e.,
somatotonia) and criminality.39 Specifically, subsequent studies showed that
mesomorphic boys were far more likely to have personality traits predictive
of criminality, such as aggression, a short temper, self-centeredness, and
impulsivity.
Even recent theorists have noted the obvious link between an athletic,
muscular build and the highly extroverted, aggressive personality often
associated with that body type.40 In fact, some recent theorists have gone so
far as to claim that chronic offenders can be identified early in life by the
shape of the muscles in their pelvic region. Specifically, these theorists
claim that the most likely criminals (both male and female) can be
identified by their “V-shaped” pelvic structure as opposed to a “U-shaped”
pelvic structure.41 The V-shaped pelvis, in both men and women, is seen as
an indication of a relatively high level of androgens (male hormones, such
as testosterone), which predisposes individuals to crime. On the other hand,
a more U-shaped pelvis is indicative of relatively low levels of androgens
and, therefore, a lower propensity for aggression and criminality. Using this
logic, it may be true that the more hair on an individual’s arms (whether
male or female), the higher that person’s likelihood of committing crime.
However, no research exists to address this particular factor.
Regarding the use of body types/characteristics to explain crime, many of

the hard-line sociologists who have attempted to examine or replicate
Sheldon’s results have not been able to refute (a) the association between
mesomorphs and delinquency and criminality or (b) the association between
mesomorphy and somatotonic temperament toward risk-taking or
aggression.42 Thus, the association between being muscular or athletically
built and engaging in criminal activities is undisputed and assumed to be
true. Still, sociologists have taken issue with determinations of what causes
this association.
Whereas Sheldon claimed this association was due to inherited disposition
toward a certain body type, sociologists claimed it was due to societal
expectations for muscular male youths to engage in risk-taking and
aggressive behavior. For example, if a young man has an athletic build, he
will be expected to be aggressive and will be encouraged to join sports
teams and engage in high-risk behavior. After all, who would be most
desirable to gangs? More muscular, athletic individuals are assumed to be
better at fighting and other acts that require a high degree of physical
strength and stamina.
Ultimately, it is now established that mesomorphs are more likely to

commit crime.43 Furthermore, the personality traits linked to having an
athletic or muscular build are dispositions toward risk-taking and
aggressiveness, and few scientists dispute this correlation. No matter which
theoretical model is adopted—whether it be that of the biopsychologists or
that of the sociologists—mesomorphs are indeed more likely to be risk-
taking and aggressive and, thus, more likely to commit crime than
individuals of other body types.
However, whether the explanation is biological or sociological is a question

that shows the importance of theory in criminological research. After all,
the link between mesomorphy and criminality is undisputed, but the reasons
are still up for debate. Is it the biological influence or the sociological
influence? The answer is up to future researchers (perhaps you or your
classmates), and we hope they will be able to make their own determination
—if not now, then later, after we have discussed other theories of crime.
Our position is that the answer is likely the interaction between biology and
social environment, or that both “nature and nurture” are at play in the
association between mesomorphy and crime. This would mean that both
Sheldon and some of his critics were correct. There is often a middle
ground to be found in theorizing on criminality, but many people don’t
recognize this. Keep in mind that theories in criminology, as in any science,
are always subject to falsification and criticism and can always be
improved. Therefore, our stance on the validity and influence of this theory,
as well as others, should not be surprising.
Learning Check 5.4
1. According to the text, which theorist developed the most prominent theory on body
types, known as somatotyping?
a. Lombroso
b. Binet
c. Goddard
d. Sheldon
e. Hirschi
2. According to the text, which body type is a muscular/athletic build and the most
likely among individuals who tend to be delinquent or criminal?
a. Ectomorphic
b. Endomorphic
c. Mesomorphic
d. Klectomorphic
e. Candomorphic
3. According to the text, which type of personality is correlated with an ectomorphic
body type?
a. Jolly/happy-go-lucky
b. Aggressive/extroverted
c. Shy/introverted
d. None of the above
Policy Implications
A variety of policy implications can be derived from the theories presented
in this chapter. First, one could propose more thorough medical screening at
birth and in early childhood, especially regarding MPAs. The studies
reviewed in this chapter implicate numerous MPAs in developmental
problems (mostly originating in the womb). These MPAs are red flags,
especially in regard to cognitive ability, signaling problems that are likely to
increase the likelihood of criminal behavior.44
Other policy implications derived from the theories and findings of this
chapter involve implementation of gender-segregated classes to allow for
more focus on deficiencies shown to be specific to young boys or girls. For
example, numerous school districts now have policies that prescribe
separate math courses for female students. This same strategy might be
considered for male students in English or literature courses, because boys
are biologically predisposed to have a lower aptitude in this area of study.
Furthermore, far more screenings should be done regarding the IQ and
aptitude levels of young children to identify which children require extra
attention, because studies show that early intervention can make a big
difference in improving IQ/aptitude.
A recent summary of the extant literature addressing what types of

programs work best for reducing the long-term impact of early
physiological risk factors for criminality noted the importance of
diagnosing early head trauma and, further, concluded that the most
consistently supported programs for at-risk children are those that involve
weekly infant home visits.45 Another obvious policy implication of
biosocial theory is affordable health care for pregnant mothers and children,
which is likely the most efficient way to reduce crime in the long term.
Finally, all youths should be screened for abnormal levels of hormones,
neurotransmitters, and toxins (especially lead).46
Fazit
This chapter discussed the early formation of the Positive School of criminology, which
was a giant departure from the Classical School. The Classical School assumes free
will/choice in criminal behavior, whereas the Positive School assumes that free will is not
involved at all. Rather, according to the Positive School, our behavior is determined by
factors such as bad parenting, poverty, and low intelligence.
We started this chapter by discussing the earliest positive perspectives, which included
craniometry, phrenology, and physiognomy. Thus, the early formation of criminology was
largely based on examinations of the skull and brain (e.g., craniometry) in the early
1800s. But these disciplines did not become popular then, because Darwin had not yet
presented his theory of evolution. The post-Darwinian explanations of the late 19th
century, on the other hand, became very popular, largely because society was ready to
accept their similar basis in biology.
Once Darwin’s theory spread worldwide, the ground was more fertile for a theory of
crime that claimed that certain individuals (or groups) were more likely to become
criminals, which led to a eugenics movement among both scientists and society as a
whole. By far the most notable of these theories are Lombroso’s (the father of
criminology) and Goddard’s theory of feeble-mindedness and IQ. These studies
ultimately inspired far more focus on the influence of inheritance and genetics in
predisposing certain individuals to criminal activity (which we also cover in the next
chapter). This was supported by later studies on IQ testing and minor physical anomalies
(MPAs) that show that individuals with low IQ scores and numerous MPAs do indeed
engage in more criminal behavior than do their counterparts without MPAs.
We started this chapter with a case study about John Lotter, who was convicted of killing
Brandon Teena, a 21-year-old transgender man, as well as two witnesses to the murder, in
Humboldt, Nebraska. Lotter spent 22 years on death row before his lawyers filed motions
to have him ruled ineligible for the death penalty due to his low IQ scores. The Nebraska
Supreme Court rejected his appeal in September 2018, and thus Lotter still awaits
execution.47
Also, in this chapter we examined the connections between various body types,
temperaments, and criminality, with recent research supporting a link between certain
body types and criminal behavior. To some extent, body-type theories provide a bridge
between the early emphasis on physical features (skull size, stigmata, etc.) and the focus
on psychological factors (e.g., temperament, personality). Thus, body-type theories
seemed to advance the field of criminology by emphasizing more than one dimension.
Furthermore, most studies have supported the claim that body type does predict
criminality, as well as the corresponding temperament or personality associated with most
delinquents and criminals.
However, there are many criticisms of such early Positive School perspectives of crime.
The next chapter sheds much more light on how valid these perspectives are, especially in
terms of the empirical validity of the idea that biological or physiological factors
influence criminality. Readers will likely be surprised by the results of these modern
studies.
Summary of Theories
Key
Theories Factors/Concepts Key Propositions
Proponents
Larger skulls/brains
Craniometry Various Brain/skull size
are superior.
Abnormalities on the
Phrenology Various Bumps on skull skull reveal
deficiencies.
Certain facial or body

Physiognomy Various Facial/bodily attributes features reveal
inferiority.
Cesare
Variety of stigmata Stigmata reveal
Atavism/born Lombroso,
identify “born individuals likely to
criminal father of
criminals.” be born criminals.
criminology
Key
Theories Factors/Concepts Key Propositions
Proponents
Alfred Binet,
invented IQ;
IQ/feeble- IQ identifies who is Low-IQ persons are
mindedness H. H. Goddard, superior/inferior. likely criminals.
used in United
States
Body-type
theories Tissue-layer growth in Body type determines
William
embryonic stage leads personality and
(we focused Sheldon
to body type. behavior.
on the best
known)
Key Terms
atavism, 108
cerebrotonic, 121
craniometry, 105
determinism, 111
ectoderm, 120
ectomorphic, 120
endoderm, 120
endomorphic, 120
eugenics, 104
feeble-mindedness, 116
mesoderm, 120
mesomorphic, 120
minor physical anomalies, 114
phrenology, 106
physiognomy, 107
Positive School, 104
somatotonic, 121
somatotyping, 118
stigmata, 109
viscerotonic, 121
1. What characteristics distinguish the Positive School from the Classical School of
criminology? Which of these schools do you lean toward in your own perspective of
crime and why?
2. Name and describe the various positivistic theories that existed in the early to mid-1800s
(pre-Darwin), as well as the influence they had on later schools of thought regarding
criminality. Do you, like modern medical scientists, see any validity in these
approaches? Why or why not?
3. What was the significant reason(s) these early positivistic theories did not gain much
societal popularity? Does this lack of popularity relate to the neglect of biological
perspectives of crime in modern times?
4. What portion of Lombroso’s theory of criminality do you find least valid? Which do you
find most valid?
5. You have probably taken the equivalent of an IQ test (e.g., the SAT or ACT). Do you
believe that this score is a fair representation of your knowledge as compared with
others? Why or why not? Do your feelings reflect the criticisms of experts regarding the
use of IQ in identifying potential offenders, such as in the feeble-mindedness theory?
6. In light of the scientific findings that show verbal IQ to be a consistent predictor of
criminality among virtually all populations or samples, can you provide evidence from
your personal experience for why this occurs?
7. Regarding Sheldon’s body-type theory, what portion of this theory do you find most
valid? What do you find least valid?
8. If you had to give yourself a somatotype (e.g., 3-6-2), what would it be? Explain your
choice, and note whether this score would make you a likely criminal in Sheldon’s
model.
9. Provide a somatotype for five of your family members or best friends. Does each
somatotype have any correlation with criminality according to Sheldon’s predictions?
Describe your findings.
10. Ultimately, do you believe that some of the positive theoretical perspectives presented in
this section are valid in terms of understanding or predicting crime, or do you think they
should be entirely dismissed? State your case.
11. What types of policies would you implement, if you could, given the theories and
findings in this chapter?
Ressourcen
The Skeptic’s Dictionary presents a brief review of craniometry, with some images:
http://skepdic.com/cranial.html
Phrenology: The History of Brain Localization, by Renato Sabbatini, offers a concise,

albeit detailed, biography of Lombroso:
http://www.cerebromente.org.br/n01/frenolog/lombroso.htm
The Eugenics Archive provides a review of eugenics and gives details of the use of IQ
testing and “feeble-mindedness” in that context:
http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/html/eugenics/static/themes/9.html
James Arraj, in Tracking the Elusive Human, provides more details of and insight into
the methodology of Sheldon’s research on body types:
http://www.innerexplorations.com/psytext/shel.htm
Student Study Site

Media Library
premium resources:
Author Video
5.1: Lombroso

5.1: Determinism
Chapter 6 Modern Biosocial Perspectives
of Criminal Behavior
© iStockphoto.com/Highwaystarz-Photography
Learning Objectives
6.1 Discuss the role of nature and nurture in exploring risk factors for offending.
6.2 Describe the various types of cytogenetic disorders and which type(s) puts a person
at highest risk for criminality.
6.3 Identify the hormones that play a key role in individuals who tend to engage in
chronic offending.
6.4 Explain how neurotransmitters differ from hormones, and note which of the former
are the most often implicated in criminality at either high or low levels.
6.5 Identify the regions of the brain that criminological studies implicate for both
structural trauma and functioning disorders.
6.6 Identify the ways the central nervous system and the autonomic nervous system play
an important part in individuals’ decisions to engage in criminal activity.
6.7 Discuss the current emphasis on biosocial interactions that have advanced the
understanding of the development of criminality.
6.8 Evaluate how modern biosocial perspectives have informed policies to reduce the
likelihood of individuals in becoming criminal offenders.
Case Study
The Spahalski Brothers

Stephen and Robert “Bruce” Spahalski were twin brothers born in 1955 and raised together in
Elmira, New York. As youths, when they committed some of their early crimes, they would
mostly do them separately, and instead of collaborating they would even compete to see who
could steal more than the other. And they continued such contests when they progressed into
murder, which is exactly what makes them unique: These identical twins, who obviously
shared a disposition toward criminal offending, committed at least five murders independently
and without the other, with Stephen killing first at the age of 16 and on his own. Later, Bruce
killed at least four people on separate occasions, primarily while Stephen was incarcerated.1
Stephen was the first to murder, by stabbing and beating a bar owner in 1971. He was only a
minor at the time but was convicted of manslaughter and given his first of many terms in
prison. He spent nearly all of the next 38 years in prison. Later on, Bruce killed at least four
people between 1990 and 2005, bludgeoning and strangling them to death, typically while he
was high on cocaine. In November 2005, he walked into the local police station and confessed
to most of his murders. The remains of his most recent victim—54-year-old Vivian Irizarry—
were still in his basement. He was convicted of four counts of second-degree intentional
murder and sentenced to 100 years in prison.
“I thought I was the only murderer in the family,” Stephen said from Attica Correctional
Facility while serving his own sentences, after being told about his brother’s convictions.2
Although criminality is commonly found to be shared among siblings, especially twins, what
makes this case unique is that these twins each acted alone, without the support or influence of
his brother.
Think About It
1. Does being identical twins explain why both brothers were so driven to engage in
criminal behavior, especially murder?
2. Given that they committed their offenses independently, which was more influential on
the Spahalski brothers’ criminal behavior: their genetics or their upbringing?
Introduction
In 1996, a pair of identical twin sisters in Orange County, California, made
headlines because, despite their remarkable similarities—both were co-
valedictorians of their high school, and both had criminal records for
stealing from family and friends—one of the pair conspired to kill the other
when they were 22 years old.3 Sunny and Gina Han, both originally from
South Korea, were virtually identical in terms of looks, personality, and
criminality. But at a certain point, Gina hatched a plot with two teenage
boys to kill her sister. Sunny was tied up, confined to a bathtub, and
threatened for a while. She survived, and Gina was later convicted and
sentenced to 26 years to life in prison; after that, an appellate court upheld
her sentence. During her sentencing hearing, she infamously said through
tears, “Sunny is my flesh and blood.”4
This chapter examines the modern perspectives on the biological aspect of

criminality by exploring modern factors and theories of biosocial positivism
in the current criminological literature. First, we will go back in time and
explore some of the early waves of studies that specifically examined the
influence of biology versus environment (i.e., nature vs. nurture), which
include studies of identical twins, such as the Han sisters, as well as family
and adoption studies. We shall see that virtually all these studies support a
more integrative approach of genetics/physiology via environment (i.e.,
nature via nurture). Then we will examine randomly occurring
chromosomal mutations as well as discuss which mutations seem most
likely to predict criminality.
Next, we will discuss the influence of various hormones, such as

testosterone, and the level and activity of neurotransmitters (e.g., dopamine
and serotonin) in how we behave in terms of criminality. Then we will
discuss various parts of the brain that are most likely to show a high
correlation to criminality when traumatized or otherwise not performing
properly. In relation to brain trauma, we will then explore the extreme
importance of the functioning of the central nervous system, in which the
brain plays a vital part. We will also review the findings from various
studies regarding the autonomic nervous system, which is vital in many
aspects of our everyday lives—especially in making decisions related to
illegal behavior.
Finally, we will discuss the integration of both physiology and environment

in what are called interaction effects, which modern studies show have the
greatest impact on our behavior, whether in illegal activities or more
conventional activities. But before we dive into the theories, let’s look at a
case study that applies some of the theoretical concepts, propositions, and
criticisms presented in this chapter.
Nature Versus Nurture: Studies Examining the

Influence of Genetics and Environment
In the early 20th century, researchers became highly interested in testing the
influence of heredity and the environment to see which of these had the
strongest effect on predicting criminality in people. This type of testing
produced four waves of research: family studies, twin studies, adoption
studies, and, in recent years, studies of identical twins separated at birth.
Each of these waves of research, some more than others, contributed to our
understanding of how much criminality is inherited from our parents (or
other ancestors) versus how much is due to cultural norms, such as family
and community. Ultimately, all have shown that it is the interaction
between genetics and environment that causes crime among individuals and
groups in society.
Family Studies
The most notable family studies were done in the early 20th century by
Richard L. Dugdale, in his work with the Jukes family, and H. H. Goddard
(introduced in Chapter 5), who studied the Kallikak family.5 These studies
were intended to test the proposition that criminality is more likely to be
found in certain families, which would indicate that propensity for crime is
inherited. Due to the similarity of the results from the two studies, we will
focus here on Goddard’s work with the Kallikak family.
family studies: studies that examine the clustering of criminality in a given family.
Goddard’s study of the Kallikak family showed that a high proportion of

children from that family became criminals. Furthermore, Goddard claimed
that many of the individuals (often children) in the Kallikak family actually
looked like criminals, which fit Cesare Lombroso’s theory of stigmata.
Goddard had many members of this family photographed to back up these
claims. However, follow-up investigations of Goddard’s “research” show
that many of these photographs were altered to make the subjects appear
more sinister or evil—specifically by altering their facial features, most
notably their eyes, to fit Lombroso’s stigmata.6
The Hatfield clan poses in April 1897 at a logging camp in

southern West Virginia. This familial clan is part of the most
infamous feud in American folklore, the long-running battle
between the Hatfields and McCoys. Criminality tends to
cluster in certain families, as the first wave of “nature versus
nurture” studies showed.
Public domain via Wikimedia Creative Commons

Despite the falsification of Goddard’s data and the obvious issues with his
subsequent conclusions, two important conclusions can be made from the
family studies done in the early 20th century. The first is that criminality is
indeed more common in some families; in fact, no study has ever shown
otherwise. However, this tendency cannot be shown to be a product of
either heredity or genetics. After all, individuals from the same family are
also products of a similar environment (often a bad one), so this conclusion
of the family studies does little to advance knowledge regarding the relative
influence of nature versus nurture in predicting criminality.
The second conclusion of family studies was more insightful and

interesting. Specifically, the family studies showed that criminality in the
mother (or head female caretaker) had a much stronger influence on the
future criminality of the children than did the father’s criminality. This is
likely due to two factors. The first is that the fathers were often absent while
the children were being raised. But perhaps more important, it was less
common for a woman to transgress social norms and become a convicted
offender. Thus, it was argued that when this does occur, it indicates that the
mother is highly antisocial and gives some (albeit limited) credence to the
argument that criminality is inherited. Despite this conclusion, it should be
apparent from the weaknesses in the methodology used in family studies
that this finding did not hold much weight in the nature-versus-nurture
debate. Thus, a new wave of research soon emerged that did a better job of
measuring the influence of genetics versus environment—twin studies.
Twin Studies
Twin studies were specifically meant to determine, through examination of
identical twin pairs versus fraternal twin pairs, the relative influence of
nature and nurture on criminality. Identical twins are also known as
monozygotic twins because they come from a single (hence “mono”) egg
(or zygote); they are typically referred to in the scientific literature as MZ
(monozygotic) twins. Such twins share 100% of their genotype, meaning
they are identical in terms of genetic makeup. On the other hand, fraternal
twins are typically referred to as dizygotic twins because they come from
two (hence “di”) separate eggs (or zygotes); they are known in the scientific
literature as DZ (dizygotic) twins. DZ twins share 50% of the genes that can
vary, which is the same amount that any siblings from the same two parents
share. DZ twins can be of different genders and may look and behave quite
differently, as many readers have probably observed.
twin studies: studies that examine the relative concordance rates for monozygotic versus
dizygotic twins.
monozygotic twins: pairs of twins who come from a single egg (zygote) and thus share
100% of their genetic makeup.
dizygotic twins: pairs of twins who come from two separate eggs (zygotes) and thus
share only 50% of the genetic makeup that can vary.
It follows that the goal of the twin studies was to examine concordance
rates of delinquency for MZ twin pairs versus DZ twin pairs. Concordance
is a count based on whether two people (or a twin pair) share a certain trait
(or lack of a certain trait); for our purposes, the trait is criminal offending.
Regarding a count of concordance, if one twin is an offender, then we look
to see if the other is also an offender. If he or she is, then there is
concordance, given that the first twin is also a criminal offender. If neither
of the twins is an offender, that also is concordant because they both lack
the trait. However, if one twin is a criminal offender and the other is not,
this is discordant because one has a trait that the other lacks.
concordance rates: rates at which twin pairs either share or lack a certain trait (e.g.,
criminality).
Members of the extended Kallikak family. Family studies such

as Goddard’s research on the Kallikak family were among
the first attempts to examine the influence of genetics on
deviant behavior.
Henry H. Goddard’s The Kallikak Family, 1912. via Wikimedia
Creative Commons
Thus, the twin studies focused on comparing the concordance rates of MZ

twin pairs with those of DZ twin pairs, with the assumption that any
significant difference in concordance could be attributed to the similarity of
the genetic makeup of the MZ twins (100%) to that of the DZ twins (50%
[of what can vary in humans]). In other words, if genetics play a major role
in determining the individuals’ criminality, then MZ twins will be expected
to have a significantly higher concordance rate for criminal offending than
will DZ twins. After all, it is assumed that both the MZ twin pairs and DZ
twin pairs compared in these studies were raised in the same relative
environments, since they were raised in the same families at the same time.
The studies that have compared the concordance rates of MZ twins versus
DZ twins clearly showed that MZ twins were far more similar in the trait of
criminality than were DZ twins. Specifically, a number of studies in the
early and mid-20th century showed that identical twins had far higher
concordance rates than did fraternal (DZ) twins, with most studies showing
twice as much or more concordance for MZ twins, even for serious
criminality.7
However, these studies regarding comparisons between twins were strongly

criticized, for reasons most readers see on an everyday basis. Specifically,
identical twin children are typically dressed the same by their parents, as
well as treated the same by the public. In other words, they are not only
treated the same by society but also generally expected to behave the same.
You can confirm this by visiting any large public space, such as a shopping
mall or a theme park. When you see identical twins, they are often dressed
the same, treated the same, and expected to act the same. However, this is
not true for fraternal twins, who often look very different and quite often are
of different genders.
Twin studies are vital in building an understanding of the
influence of genetics on criminal behavior.
© iStockphoto.com/Richard Upshur
This produced the foundation for criticisms of the twin studies, mainly that
the higher rate of concordance among MZ twins could have been due to the
extremely similar way they were treated, or were expected to behave, by
society. Another criticism of the early twin studies pertained to
identification of twins as fraternal or identical, which was often determined
by sight.8 Although these criticisms were seemingly valid, the most recent
meta-analysis, which examined virtually all the twin studies conducted up
to the 1990s, concluded that the twin studies showed evidence of a
significant hereditary basis for criminality.9 Still, the criticisms of such
studies were valid, so researchers in the early to mid-20th century involved
in the nature-versus-nurture debate attempted to address these criticisms by
moving on to another methodological approach for examining this debate—
adoption studies.
Learning Check 6.1
1. According to the text, family studies showed that the past criminality of which
family member(s) was the best predictor of whether others in the family would
become criminals?
a. Male siblings
b. Grandfathers
c. The mother
d. The father
e. All of the above
2. According to the text, which type of twins share 50% of their genotype?
a. MZ
b. DZ
c. XZ
d. ZZ
3. According to the text, studies have consistently shown that which type of twins
have the highest concordance rates in terms of criminality (as well as virtually all
other behaviors and traits)?
a. MZ
b. DZ
c. XZ
d. ZZ
Adoption Studies
Due to the valid criticisms leveled at twin studies in determining the
relative influence of nature (biology) versus nurture (environment),
researchers in this area moved on to adoption studies that examined the
predictive influence of the biological parents of adopted children versus that
of the adoptive parents who raised the children from infancy to adulthood.
It is important to realize that in such studies, the adoptees were typically
given up for adoption prior to six months of age, meaning that these
children had relatively no interaction with their natural parents; rather, they
were raised almost entirely by the adoptive parents.
adoption studies: studies that examine the criminality of adoptees as compared with the
criminality of their biological and adoptive parents.
Although there have been many adoption studies, perhaps the most notable
was done by Sarnoff Mednick and his colleagues, who examined boys born
in Copenhagen between 1927 and 1941 and who were adopted early in
life.10 In this study, as well as in other similar analyses, the findings can be
considered as a 2-by-2 matrix, containing four cells that represent adoptees
in various circumstances in terms of the criminality of their biological
and/or adoptive parents (see Table 6.1).
As you can see from Table 6.1, the primary questions posed in such studies
regarding each adoptee are whether the biological parents were criminal
(yes or no) and whether the adoptive parents were criminal (yes or no). The
final question is what percentage of youths in each of these four cells ended
up becoming criminal.
Table 6.1 “Cross-Fostering” Analysis: Percentage of Adoptive

Sons Who Have Been Convicted of Criminal Law Offenses
Table 6.1 “Cross-Fostering” Analysis: Percentage of Adoptive Sons
Who Have Been Convicted of Criminal Law Offenses
Are Adoptive Parents Criminal?

Are Biological Parents Criminal?
No Yes
13.5% 14.7%
No
(of 2,492) (of 204)
20.0% 24.5%
Yes
(of 1,226) (of 143)
Source: Adapted from Mednick, S. A., Gabrielli, W. F., & Hutchings, B. (1984). Genetic
influences in criminal convictions: Evidence from an adoption cohort. Science, 224, 891–894.
Also reported in Wilson, J. Q., & Herrnstein, R. J. (1985). Crime and human nature. New
York, NY: Simon & Schuster, p. 96.
Note: The numbers in parentheses are the numbers of cases in each cell, for a total sample of
4,065 adopted males.
This study, as well as virtually all others that have examined adoptees in
this light, found that the highest predictability for future criminality by far
was for adopted youths whose biological parents and adoptive parents were
both convicted criminals. On the other hand, the adopted children for whom
neither set of parents was criminal were the least likely to become criminal.
These findings support the major contentions of the authors of this
textbook, because they fully back up the “nature via nurture” argument as
opposed to the “nature versus nurture” argument; they support the idea that
both biological and environmental factors contribute to the future
criminality of youth.
Unfortunately, the researchers who performed these studies focused on the
other two groups (or cells) of youth—namely, only those who had either
criminal biological parents or criminal adoptive parents. As you can see in
Table 6.1, the adoptees who had only criminal biological parents had a
much higher likelihood of becoming criminal, compared with the youths
who had only criminal adoptive parents. In other words, when the influence
of biological versus adoptive parents was compared, the biological parents
had far more influence on future criminality. The results of this study were
used to support the existence of a genetic predisposition toward criminality;
however, this methodology was subject to criticism.
Perhaps the most notable criticism of adoption studies was that adoption
agencies typically incorporated a policy of selective placement. Selective
placement is when adoptees are placed with adoptive families similar to
their biological parents in terms of demographics and background. Such
selective placement of adoptees could bias the results of the adoption
studies. However, recent analyses that have examined the impact of such
bias have concluded that even when accounting for the influence of
selective placement, the ultimate findings of the adoption studies are still
somewhat valid.11 Specifically, the biological parents of adopted children
likely have more influence on the children than do the adoptive parents who
raise the child from infancy to adulthood. Still, the criticism of selective
placement was strong enough to encourage a fourth wave of research in the
“nature versus nurture” debate surrounding criminality—studies on
identical twins separated at birth.
selective placement: a policy of placing adoptees in households that resemble those of

their biological parents; for example, adoptees from rich biological parents are placed in
rich adoptive households.
Twins Separated at Birth

Until the early 1990s, studies of identical twins separated at birth were
virtually impossible because it was difficult to find a sufficiently large
sample of identical twins separated so early in life. Keep in mind that for
many of the identical twin pairs studied in these investigations, the
individuals did not know they had a twin. Furthermore, the environments in
which they were raised were often extremely different, such as one twin
being raised by a poor family in an urban environment while the other was
raised by a middle- to upper-class family in a rural environment.
Some of the most advanced twin studies examine identical

twins who were separated as infants, grew up in different
environments, and yet often ended up sharing many
personality traits and behavior patterns.
Ronna Gradus/Miami Herald/MCT via Getty Images
The studies on identical twins separated at birth—the most notable of which

was conducted at the University of Minnesota—found that the siblings
often showed extremely similar tendencies for criminality, sometimes more
than those seen in concordance rates for identical twins raised together.12
This finding supported the profound influence of genetics and heredity,
which is not surprising to most well-read scientists, who now acknowledge
the extreme importance of the inheritance of physiological and
psychological aspects of human behavior. Perhaps more surprising was why
separated identical twins who never knew they had a twin, and who were
often raised in extremely different circumstances, had just as similar or even
more similar concordance rates than did identical twins raised together.
The leading explanation for this phenomenon is that identical twins who are
raised together each go out of their way to deviate from their natural
tendencies in an effort to form an identity separate from that of their twin,
with whom they have spent their entire life. No significant criticism of this
methodology has been presented. Thus, at this point, it is somewhat
undisputed in the scientific literature that the studies of identical twins
separated at birth have shown that genetics has a significant impact on
human behavior, especially regarding criminal activity.
Ultimately, taking all the “nature versus nurture” methodological

approaches and subsequent findings together, the best conclusion that we
can make is that genetics and heredity both have a significant impact on
criminality. After all, environment simply cannot account for all the
consistent results from comparisons of identical twins and fraternal twins,
or from those of identical twins separated at birth, or from those of adoptees
with criminal biological parents versus noncriminal biological parents.
Despite the taboo nature of and controversial response to the findings of
such studies, it is quite clear that when nature and nurture are compared,
biological factors, rather than environmental factors, tend to have the most
influence on criminality. Still, we hope that readers will emphasize the
importance of the interaction between nature and nurture (better stated as
nature via nurture). After all, we hope that we have shown quite
convincingly through scientific study that the interplay between biology and
the environment is what is most important in determining human behavior.
Perhaps in response to this “nature versus nurture” debate, a variety of new

theoretical perspectives were offered in the mid- to late 20th century that
merged biological and psychological factors in explaining criminality.
Although leaning more toward the “nature” side of the debate, critics would
use this same perspective to promote the “nurture” side; thus, this
framework was useful in promoting the interaction between biological and
sociological factors. One of the first biosocial factors that we will examine
is mutations of chromosomes (called cytogenetic abnormalities), which
interact with environmental factors to increase the likelihood of criminality.
Learning Check 6.2

1. According to the text, numerous adoption studies have shown which category of
adoptees to have the highest likelihood of becoming criminals, based on the
criminality of their biological and adoptive parents?
a. Biological parents criminal/adoptive parents criminal
b. Biological parents not criminal/adoptive parents criminal
c. Biological parents criminal/adoptive parents not criminal
d. Neither biological nor adoptive parents criminal
2. According to the text, numerous adoption studies have shown that adoptees with
criminal _______________ but not _______________ parents have a higher
likelihood of becoming criminals than adoptees with criminal _______________
but not _______________ parents.
a. adoptive; biological; biological; adoptive
b. biological; adoptive; adoptive; biological
c. Both of these categories of adoptees have about the same likelihood of
becoming criminals
3. According to the text, many studies have shown that identical twins separated at
birth have far lower concordance rates in terms of criminality than do identical
twins raised together. True or false?
Cytogenetic Studies: The XYY Factor

Beyond the body-type theories, in the early 20th century another theory was
proposed regarding biological conditions that predispose individuals toward
crime: cytogenetic studies. Cytogenetic studies of crime focus on
individuals’ genetic makeup, with a specific focus on chromosomal
abnormalities. Chromosomal abnormalities that occur randomly in the
population are the primary focus of these types of studies. Many of the
chromosomal mutations that have been studied (such as XYY) are typically
not hereditary but rather largely due to random mutations in chromosomal
formation.
cytogenetic studies: studies of crime that focus on individuals’ genetic makeup, with a
specific focus on chromosomal abnormalities.
First, we should begin with the basics of chromosomal makeup, which is

probably a review for most readers but may be necessary for some (see
Figure 6.1). The normal chromosomal makeup for women, when it comes
to sex chromosomes (the chromosomes that determine biological gender), is
XX, which represents an X chromosome from the mother and an X from
the father. The normal chromosomal makeup for men is XY, which
represents an X from the mother and a Y from the father. However, as in
many species of animals, genetic mutations often occur in human beings.
Consistent with evolutionary theory, virtually all possible variations of
chromosomes have been found in the human population, such as XXY,
XYY, and many others. We will focus our discussion on the chromosomal
mutations that have been most strongly linked to criminality.
One of the first chromosomal mutations recognized as a predictor of

criminal activity was that of XYY. In 1965, Patricia A. Jacobs and her
colleagues presented the first major study showing that this mutation was
far more common in a Scottish male population of mental patients than in
the general population.13 Specifically, in the general population, XYY
occurs in about 1 of every 1,000 males.
Jacobs and her colleagues sampled about 200 men in the mental hospital,
which would have predicted (assuming general population occurrences)
about 1 occurrence of the XYY mutation. However, they found 13
individuals who were XYY, which suggested that men who have obvious
mental disorders are more likely to have an extra Y chromosome than those
who do not have mental disorders. In other words, XYY individuals are at
least 13 times (or 1,300%) as likely to have behavioral disorders as are men
without this chromosomal abnormality. Subsequent studies examining this
association have not been able to dismiss the effect of XYY on criminality
but have concluded that this mutation is more linked with property crime
than with violent crime.14
Figure 6.1 The Structure of DNA: Studies consistently show

that genetics play an important role in how we think and
behave.
Source: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Science. (2016).
Biological and Environmental Research (BER). Retrieved from sci
ence.energy.gov/ber.
However, can knowing this relationship help guide our policies regarding
crime? Probably not, considering that 90% of the male mental patients in
the study discussed above were not XYY. Still, this study showed the
importance of looking at chromosomal mutations as a predictor of criminal
behavior.
Such mutations include numerous chromosomal abnormalities, such as the

following:
XYY—A male receives an extra Y chromosome, which makes him

more “manly.” These individuals are often very tall but slow in terms
of social and intelligence skills.
XXY—Otherwise known as Klinefelter’s syndrome, this mutation
results in a higher likelihood of homosexuality and other behaviors but
is not typically linked to criminality.
XXX—Otherwise known as triple X syndrome, this mutation is
characterized by the presence of an extra X chromosome. The
condition occurs only in females. People with triple X syndrome have
three X chromosomes instead of two, and this occurs about once in
every 1,000 female births. However, there is typically no
distinguishable difference between those with triple X syndrome and
the rest of the female population, and this mutation has not been
consistently linked with criminality.
XO—Commonly referred to as Turner’s syndrome, this is a mutation
in which females are missing an entire sex chromosome. This is
typically accompanied by physical mutations (such as a webbed neck)
but has not been consistently linked with criminal behavior.
One study examined the relative criminality and deviance of a group of

individuals in each of these groups of chromosomal mutations (see Figure
6.2).15 This study found that the more the chromosomal mutation produced
“male” hormones (androgens), the more likely the individuals were to
commit crimes and deviant acts. On the other hand, the more the
chromosomal mutation produced “female” hormones, the less likely the
individuals were to commit criminal acts. Ultimately, all these variations in
chromosomes show that there is a continuum of “femaleness” and
“maleness” and that the more “male” the individual is in terms of
chromosomes, the more likely he or she will be to engage in criminal
behavior.
Figure 6.2 Hypothetical Scattergram Relating

Masculinity/Androgen Level (Designated by Karyotype) to
Deviance
Source: Tibbetts, S., & Hemmens, C. (2010). Criminological theory: A
text/reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, p. 254.
Ultimately, the cytogenetic studies showed that somewhat random

abnormalities in an individual’s genetic makeup can profoundly influence
that person’s level of criminality. Whether this can or should be used in
policies related to crime is another matter, but the point is that genetics do
indeed contribute to dispositions toward criminality. Furthermore, most of
the associations seen in these chromosomal mutations directly address the
influence of increased male hormones, or androgens, which predict a high
level of criminal traits. This leads us to the effects of hormones on behavior.
Hormones and Neurotransmitters: Chemicals

That Determine Criminal Behavior
Various chemicals in the brain and the body determine how we think,
perceive, and react to a range of stimuli. Hormones, such as testosterone
and estrogen, carry chemical signals to the body as they are released from
certain glands and structures. Some studies have shown that a relative
excess of testosterone in the body is consistently linked to criminal or
aggressive behavior, with most studies showing a moderate relationship.16
This relationship is seen even in the early years of life.17 On the other side
of the coin, studies have shown that hormonal changes in females can cause
criminal behavior. Specifically, a high proportion of women in prison for
violent crimes committed those crimes during their premenstrual cycle, at
which time women experience a high level of hormones that make them
more “male-like” due to relatively low levels of estrogen compared with
progesterone.18
Applying Theory to Crime Aggravated Assault
Assault, especially aggravated assault, is a serious crime in terms of FBI/Uniform Crime

Reporting (UCR) standards and is categorized as an Index crime. After all, an aggravated
assault is typically considered an unsuccessful murder, in the sense that it usually
involves an inherent intent to do serious harm, such as use of a weapon or infliction of
major bodily injury. This leads us to the FBI/UCR definition of aggravated assault as “the
unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or
aggravated bodily injury on another.”
According to recent FBI reports, there are around 725,000 to 760,000 aggravated assaults
each year. The National Crime Victimization Survey reports higher figures—from
850,000 to more than 1,000,000 in recent years—but that is consistent with differences in
methodology and accounts for the “dark figure of crime,” as discussed in previous
chapters. Reports of such assaults were highest in urban areas, which is not surprising
since that is where homicide rates are highest. Some reviews have noted that aggravated
assault occurs most often during the summer months, when people (including offenders)
are more likely to be out and about. Importantly, the rate of aggravated assault (like that
of homicide) has decreased significantly over the last few decades.
One significant difference between most aggravated assaults and homicides is that the
largest proportion of the former includes blunt objects—baseball bats, sticks, and so forth
—as opposed to firearms, which is probably why the victims of aggravated assault do not
die in the attack. Like those of most other Index crimes, rates of assault have dramatically
decreased over the past few decades. Although most of the time there is a living victim,
the clearance rate of aggravated assault is close to or less than 50% for most years. This is
likely due to victims not wanting to contribute to the investigation, because usually their
attacker is a family member, good friend, or other associate. Also, the attacker may be a
person in the community, such as a gang member, from whom the victim fears retaliation.
Regardless of the reasons, aggravated assault is not typically reported to authorities, and
even when it is, the offender is typically not formally prosecuted.
Some of the leading theories for violence, especially aggravated assault, relates to issues
explained in this chapter. For example, Adrian Raine, in his comprehensive review of
various physiological factors that predict criminality, concluded that high levels of
testosterone and low levels of serotonin are consistently linked to aggression, especially
when individuals are raised in disadvantaged environments (poverty, abusive households,
etc.).19 Raine also concluded that certain toxins, especially lead, cadmium, and
manganese, predict violent crime, as does lack of nutrition that results in low levels of
iron and zinc in one’s diet.
Think About It
1. Do national data indicate that aggravated assaults have increased or decreased over
the past few decades?
2. To what extent has this change been influenced by developments in the regulation
of toxins in the environment?
Source: FBI. (2017). Crime in the United States, 2017. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice.
If anyone doubts the impact of hormones on behavior, they should examine
the scientific literature regarding performance on intelligence tests taken at
different times of day. Virtually everyone performs better on spatial and
mathematical tests early in the day, when they have relatively high levels of
testosterone and other “male” hormones in their bodies. On the other hand,
virtually all individuals perform better on verbal tasks in the afternoon or
evening, when they have relatively high levels of estrogen or other
“female” hormones.20 Furthermore, studies have shown that individuals
who are given an injection of androgens (“male” hormones) tend to do
significantly better on spatial and mathematics tests than they would
otherwise. Studies show the same is true for persons given injections of
“female” hormones prior to verbal/reading tests.
This process of differential levels of hormones begins very early in life,

specifically around the fifth week of fetal development. It is at that time that
the Y chromosome in male fetuses stimulates production of higher levels of
testosterone. So even during the first few months of gestation, the genes on
the Y chromosome significantly alter the course of genital, and thus
hormonal, development.21
Not only does this level of testosterone alter the genitals of the
fetus/embryo through gestation; the changes in the genital area later
produce profound increases in testosterone in the teenage and early adult
years. This produces not only physical differences but also huge personality
and behavioral alterations.22 High levels of testosterone and other
androgens tend to “masculinize” the brain, increasing the tendency toward
risk-taking behavior, while lower levels typically found in females tend to
result in the default feminine model.23 These high levels of testosterone
result in lowered sensitivity to pain, enhanced seeking of sensory
stimulation, and a right-hemisphere shift of dominance in the brain, which
has been linked to higher levels of spatial aptitude but lower levels of verbal
reasoning and empathy. This has profound implications for criminal activity
and has been found to be more likely in males than females.24
Figure 6.3 The Role of Neurons: Neurons are the basic cell in
the functioning of our nervous system, and levels of certain
neurotransmitters (the chemicals that transfer the electric
message across neural pathways) have been consistently
linked to criminal behavior.
Source: U.S. National Institutes of Health, National Institute on Aging.
Ultimately, hormones have a profound effect on how individuals think and

perceive their environment. It should be apparent that all criminal behavior,
whether it is something we do or don’t do, comes down to cognitive
decisions in our brain. So it should not be surprising that hormones play a
highly active role. Although hormones are a key part of the criminal
decision-making process, they probably are secondary in terms of levels of
neurotransmitters.
Neurotransmitters are chemicals in the brain and body that help transmit
electric signals from one neuron to another. They can be distinguished from
hormones in the sense that hormones carry a signal that is not electric,
whereas the signals carried by neurotransmitters are indeed electric.
Specifically, neurotransmitters are chemicals released when a neuron, which
is the basic unit of our nervous system, wants to send an electric message to
a neighboring neuron(s) (see Figure 6.3). When a message is sent from
somewhere in the brain or body, it requires that the neural pathways be told
of this message, which necessitates that neurotransmitters be activated in
processing the signal. Specifically, in immediate time, this requires that
healthy levels of various neurotransmitters be allowed to pass messages
from one neuron to the next across gaps between neurons. These gaps
between neurons are called synapses, and the passing of the electric
message across them is dependent on a multitude of neurotransmitters.
neurotransmitters: nervous-system chemicals in the brain and body that help transmit
electric signals from one neuron to another.
Although there are many types of neurotransmitters, the ones that are most
studied in relation to criminal activity are dopamine and serotonin.
Dopamine is the neurotransmitter most commonly linked to feeling good.
For example, dopamine is the chemical that tells us when we are
experiencing good sensations, such as when we eat delicious food, have
sex, or engage in another pleasurable activity. Most illicit drugs elicit a
pleasurable sensation by enhancing our level of dopamine. Specifically,
cocaine and methamphetamine work to raise the level of dopamine in the
body by telling the body to produce more dopamine or by inhibiting the
enzymes that typically “mop up” the dopamine in our system after it is
used.
dopamine: a neurotransmitter that is largely responsible for good feelings in the brain; it
is increased by many illicit drugs (e.g., cocaine).
Although a number of studies show that low levels of dopamine are linked
to high rates of criminality, other studies show no association or even a
positive link between dopamine and criminal behavior.25 However, it is
likely that there is a curvilinear relationship between dopamine and criminal
behavior, such that both extremely high and extremely low levels of
dopamine are associated with deviance. Raine’s (1993) archetypal review of
the biological research, as well as reviews by Wright, Tibbetts, and Daigle
(2008) and Beaver (2008), have supported this curvilinear effect.26
Unfortunately, no conclusion can yet be drawn about dopamine levels and
criminality, due to the lack of scientific evidence regarding this chemical.
However, a number of studies by Kevin Beaver and his colleagues
regarding various receptor genes of the dopaminergic system have revealed
an association with criminological behaviors, especially given the presence
of certain alleles on an individual’s genotype.27 Furthermore, such studies
have shown how receptor genes of the dopaminergic system interact with
environmental factors, thus creating a biosocial effect.28
On the other hand, a clear conclusion can be reached about the other major
neurotransmitter that has been implicated in criminal offending: serotonin.
Specifically, low levels of serotonin have consistently been linked with
criminal offending.29 Serotonin is important in virtually all information
processing, such as learning and emotional processing; thus, it is vital in
most aspects of people’s interactions with their environment. Those who
have low levels of serotonin are likely to have problems in everyday
communication and life in general. Therefore, it is not surprising that low
levels of serotonin are strongly linked to criminal activity.
serotonin: a neurotransmitter that is key in information-processing and most consistently

linked to criminal behavior in its deficiency; low levels have been linked to depression
and other mental illnesses.
Brain Injuries
Another area of physiological problems associated with criminal activity is
that of trauma to the brain. As mentioned before, the brain is responsible for
virtually every criminal act an individual commits, so any problems related
to this structure have profound implications regarding behavior, especially
deviance and criminal activity.
Studies have consistently shown that damage to any part of the brain
increases the likelihood of criminal behavior. However, trauma to certain
portions of the brain tends to have more serious consequences than trauma
to other portions. Specifically, damage to the frontal lobes or temporal
lobes (particularly on the left side) appears to have the most consistent
associations with criminal offending (see Figure 6.4).30 These findings
make sense, primarily because the frontal lobes (which includes the
prefrontal cortex) are largely responsible for higher-level problem-solving
and “executive functioning.”31 Thus, the frontal lobes, and especially the
left frontal lobe, govern our conscious thoughts and are in charge of
inhibiting us from doing what we are emotionally charged to do. After all,
most of us have desires and emotional responses, but our (pre)frontal lobes,
located just behind the forehead, inhibit us from acting on many of our
natural instincts. Thus, any moral reasoning is reliant on this executive area
of the brain, because it is the region that considers long-term consequences
of behavior.32 Therefore, if there is damage to the frontal lobes, we will be
far more inclined to act on our emotional urges without any logical
inhibitions.
frontal lobes: the frontal region of the brain; most of the executive functions of the brain,
such as problem-solving, take place here.
temporal lobes: a region of the brain (on either side of the head) responsible for a variety
of functions and located right above many primary limbic structures that govern our
emotional and memory functions.
In a similar vein, the temporal lobe regions are highly related to the
memory and emotional structures of the brain. To clarify, the temporal lobes
cover and communicate almost directly with certain structures of the brain’s
limbic system. Certain limbic structures, the hippocampus and the
amygdala, largely govern our memories and our emotions, respectively.
Any damage to the temporal lobes, generally located above the ears, is
likely to damage these structures or the effective communication of these
structures with other portions of the brain. Therefore, it is understandable
why trauma to the temporal region of the brain is linked to future
criminality.
Figure 6.4 The Primary Lobes of the Brain: The four primary
lobes of the brain, located in what is referred to as the
cerebrum or cerebral cortex. Trauma to these lobes,
especially the frontal and temporal lobes, has been
consistently linked to criminality.
Source: U.S. National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of

Health.
Learning Check 6.3
1. According to the text, which type of cytogenetic mutation has been most linked to
criminality?
a. XXY
b. XXX
c. XYY
d. XX
2. According to the text, which type of neurotransmitter, when at low levels, has been
consistently linked to criminality?
a. Norepinephrine
b. GABA
c. Serotonin
d. Dopamine
e. None of the above
3. According to the text, which type of neurotransmitter is likely to have a curvilinear
effect on criminality, meaning that both very high and very low levels have been
linked to deviant, antisocial behavior?
a. Norepinephrine
b. GABA
c. Serotonin
d. Dopamine
Studies of brain structure and activity—using sophisticated brain-scanning

techniques (functional MRI)—have investigated the brain as it makes moral
choices.33 These studies have shown that certain regions of the brain (e.g.,
the medial frontal gyrus, an area related to the emotional portion/system of
the brain) tend to be more active in making moral decisions, while other
regions (e.g., the prefrontal cortex, the decision-making portion of the
brain) are involved in more rational, calculated decisions.
Of course, it depends on the situation, but when it comes to crime, it is

likely that both portions of the brain play a part. The criminal acts an
individual finds morally offensive will likely be governed by the emotional
centers of the brain, such as the medial frontal gyrus, whereas the crimes he
or she finds less morally offensive will be governed by the higher-level,
rational parts of the brain, such as the prefrontal cortex. It is likely that the
latter instance is more about whether the individual can get away with the
act, whereas the former is so deeply based in a personal moral code that the
person likely wouldn’t commit the act even if he or she knew there was no
chance of getting caught.34 This is highly consistent with studies showing
that moral beliefs typically trump any perceptions of getting caught for a
given crime, no matter what the benefits or payout.35 These types of brain
activities, or lack thereof, are key to our next discussion.
Central Versus Autonomic Nervous System

Activity
As has been mentioned in this chapter, our brain largely governs our
decisions regarding whether to engage in criminal behavior. The brain is a
key player in two different types of neurological systems that have been
linked to criminal activity. The first we will discuss is the central nervous
system, which encompasses our brain and spinal column and governs our
voluntary actions.
Slices of brain from the autopsy of John Wayne Gacy, a serial

killer who murdered at least 33 teenage boys and young
men.
© AP Photo/M. SPENCER GREEN
The central nervous system (CNS) consists mostly of the brain and spinal
column, which are largely responsible for what we as individuals choose to
do, meaning our voluntary activities (see Figure 6.5). For example, that you
are reading this sentence means you are in control of this brain-processing
activity. Empirical studies of the influence of CNS functioning on
criminality have traditionally focused on brain-wave patterns, mostly using
electroencephalograms (EEGs). Although EEGs do not do a good job of
describing which areas of the brain are active or inactive, they do reveal
how much electrical activity the brain as an entire organ is undergoing at
certain times.
central nervous system: the portion of the nervous system that largely consists of the
brain and spinal column and is responsible for our voluntary actions and all higher
functions.
Specifically, studies have compared brain-wave patterns of known chronic

offenders (psychopaths and repeat violent offenders) with those of “normal”
persons (those who have never been charged with a crime).36 These studies
consistently show that the brain-wave patterns of chronic offenders are
abnormal compared with the normal population, with most studies showing
slower brain-wave patterns in psychopaths compared with normals.37
Specifically, people exhibit four types of brain-wave patterns. From slowest
to fastest, they are delta, theta, alpha, and beta.38 Delta waves are often seen
when people sleep, whereas theta waves are typically observed in times of
lower levels of wakefulness, such as drowsiness. Relatively, alpha waves
(which tend to be divided into “slow” and “fast” wave patterns, as are beta
waves) tend to be related to relaxed wakefulness, and beta waves are
observed with high levels of wakefulness, such as in times of extreme
alertness and particularly in times of excited activity.
Figure 6.5 Contrast Between the Central Nervous System

(Primarily Brain and Spinal Cord, Voluntary Motor
Activities) and the Autonomic Nervous System (Fight-or-
Flight Responses, Involuntary Motor Activities)
The studies that have compared brain-wave patterns among chronic
offenders and “normals” have shown significant differences. Psychopaths
tend to have more activity in the theta (or sometimes “slow alpha”) patterns,
whereas normals tend to show more activity in the “fast alpha” or beta types
of waves. These consistent findings reveal that the cortical arousal of
chronic offenders tends to be significantly slower than that of persons who
do not typically commit crimes. Thus, it is likely that chronic offenders
generally do not have the mental functioning that would dispose them
toward making accurate assessments about the consequences of criminal
behavior. For a recent review of various forms of brain trauma, as well as
the effects of such trauma on the functioning of the CNS, see Boots,39 who
concluded that regarding traumatic brain injury (TBI), “there is compelling
evidence of a connection between TBI, antisocial behaviors, and mental
health disorders that has been produced over the past two decades.”40
Consistent with these relatively low levels of cortical activity in the CNS
are the findings of studies examining the autonomic nervous system.
Why Do They Do It?

Charles Whitman
Charles Whitman’s shooting spree is legendary and notorious for many reasons. On
August 1, 1966, from the observation section of the 30-story library tower at the
University of Texas–Austin (where he was an architectural engineering student), he
targeted dozens of random people, killing 13 and injuring 31 others. But what is almost
more fascinating than the terror of his assault from that lofty perch is his life story up
until that fateful day.
Born in Lake Worth, Florida, in 1941, Whitman was, by most accounts, a great person
and a good soldier. He was one of the youngest Eagle Scouts ever to earn the honor. He
graduated near the top of his class in high school and then went on to become a stellar
member of the U.S. Marine Corps, earning the rating of sharpshooter. On September 30,
1966, he killed his wife and mother. Then he planned out his attack on the university for
the following day.
Before noon that day, he proceeded to the main tower at UT–Austin, killed the
receptionist, ascended the tower, and waited for classes to break; he then opened fire on
the crowd of students. It is notable that he had taken with him a variety of materials that
imply he was in it for the long haul. These items included toilet paper, spray deodorant,
water canteens, gasoline, rope, and binoculars, as well as a machete, a hatchet, a .357
Magnum revolver, a sawed-off 12-gauge shotgun, two rifles (one with a telescopic sight),
700 rounds of ammunition, and other weapons.
Whitman was shooting people on the run and in places only a trained sharpshooter could
hit. He shot a pregnant woman, who later gave birth to a stillborn baby. He also shot a
person crossing a street 500 yards away. This is the type of shot glorified in Full Metal
Jacket (1987), a Stanley Kubrick film that examined the Marine boot camps of the late
1960s. There is no doubt that Whitman was an expert sharpshooter and that the Marine
Corps trained him well. Unfortunately, in this case his training was used against innocent
targets. Whitman continued his onslaught for over an hour, until police officers were able
to find a way through ground tunnels and then up to the top of the tower, where they shot
and killed him.
But why did he do it? The best guess we have begins with one of his last letters, which he
presumably left for police to find. He wrote, “After my death, I wish an autopsy on me to
be performed to see if there is any mental disorder.” An autopsy was indeed performed,
and it revealed the presence of a brain tumor about the size of a golf ball. As we examine
how vulnerable our brain functioning can be to trauma, imagine the likely effects of a
large tumor such as this on thinking and processing skills.
Think About It
1. Was Whitman insane? Explain your reasoning.
2. Given the amount of planning he put into his attack, how much of an effect do you
believe his tumor had on him at the time of the attack?
Sources: Holmes, R. M., & Holmes, S. T. (2000). Mass murders in the United States.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall; Smith, J. D. (2003). 100 most infamous criminals.
New York, NY: MetroBooks; Sniper sought to save loved ones embarrassment. (1966,
August 2). The Free-Lance Star (Fredericksburg, Virginia), p. 1.
The second area of the nervous system that involves the brain and has been
most linked to criminal behavior is the autonomic nervous system (ANS),
which is primarily responsible for involuntary motor activities, such as
heart rate, dilation of pupils, and electric conductivity in the skin (see
Figure 6.5). This is the type of physiological activity that can be measured
by a polygraph, or lie detector. Polygraph measures capitalize on
individuals’ inability to control these physiological responses to anxiety,
which occur in most normal persons when they lie, especially regarding
illegal behavior. However, such measures are not infallible, because the
individuals who are most likely to be serious, violent offenders are also the
most likely to pass such tests even when they are lying (this will be further
discussed below).
autonomic nervous system: the portion of the nervous system that controls our anxiety
levels, such as the fight-or-flight response, as well as our involuntary motor activities
(e.g., heart rate).
Consistent with the findings regarding CNS arousal levels, studies have
consistently shown that individuals who have a significantly low level of
ANS functioning are far more likely to commit criminal acts.41 For
example, studies consistently show that chronic violent offenders tend to
have much slower resting heartbeats than do normal persons, with a number
of studies estimating this difference at 10 heartbeats per minute.42 This is a
highly significant gap that cannot be explained by alternative theories, such
as that offenders are less excited in laboratory tests. However, a review by
Armstrong argued that the lower heart rate among serious violent criminals
may not be causal but, rather, a spurious effect from a more limited ability
to regulate emotions via brain functioning.43 But even if this position is
true, Armstrong admits that criminality still likely relates back to brain
functioning, which is perhaps the most important component in ANS
theory.
Temper tantrums can happen often among children who have a
low-functioning autonomic nervous system.
© iStockphoto.com/Lokibaho
Furthermore, persons who have such low levels of ANS arousal tend to
experience what is known in the psychological literature as “stimulus
hunger.” Stimulus hunger is a phenomenon in which individuals constantly
seek out experiences and stimuli that are risky and often illegal. Most
readers have probably known children who could never seem to get enough
attention, with some even seeming to enjoy being spanked or receiving
other forms of harsh punishment. In other words, individuals who have a
low level of ANS arousal constantly seek out stimuli, to the point that they
feel no anxiety from punishment (even corporal punishment) and thus do
not adequately learn right from wrong through normal forms of discipline.
This is perhaps one of the reasons why children who are diagnosed with
attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) have a higher likelihood of
becoming criminal than do their peers.
After all, persons who are accurately diagnosed with ADHD have a
neurological abnormality; specifically, they have a significantly low level of
ANS arousal. This is why doctors prescribe stimulants (e.g., Ritalin) for
such youths. Although it may seem counterintuitive to prescribe a
“hyperactive” person a stimulant, what the medication does is boost the
individual’s ANS functioning to a normal level of arousal. This enables
such individuals to experience a healthy level of anxiety related to
wrongdoing. Assuming that the medication is properly prescribed and at the
correct dosage, such persons tend to become more attuned to the discipline
they face if they violate the rules.
All readers of this book have likely encountered children who do not seem
to fear punishment at all. In fact, some of them do not feel anxiety even
when being physically punished (e.g., spanked). Such children are likely to
have lower-than-average levels of ANS functioning and are also likely to
become chronic offenders if this disorder is not addressed. This is largely
due to their lack of response to discipline and inability to consider long-
term consequences of risky behavior. After all, if human beings do not fear
punishment or negative consequences, what will stop them from engaging
in selfish, greedy behavior? So it is important to address this issue when it
becomes evident that children and teenagers do not seem to be deterred by
traditional forms of punishment. On the other hand, children will be
children, and ADHD and other disorders have been overdiagnosed in recent
years. So it is up to a well-trained physician to determine whether an
individual has such a low level of ANS functioning that medication and/or
therapy is required to curb deviant behavior.
Individuals with significantly low levels of ANS arousal are likely to pass
lie-detector tests because they feel virtually no anxiety when they lie, so it
is no surprise that many of these persons lie constantly. Thus, the very
people that lie-detecting measures are meant to capture are the most likely
to pass such tests, which is probably why these tests are typically not
admissible in court. Only through medication and/or cognitive-behavioral
therapy can such individuals develop the ability to consider the long-term
consequences of their decisions.
Individuals with low levels of ANS functioning are not always destined to
become chronic offenders. In fact, there is some evidence that persons with
low levels of ANS arousal often become successful corporate executives,
decorated soldiers, world-champion athletes, and high-level politicians.
After all, most of these occupations require persons who seek out exciting,
risky behavior, and others require the ability to lie constantly and
convincingly. So there are many legal and productive outlets for the natural
tendencies of individuals with low levels of ANS functioning. These
individuals could perhaps be steered toward such occupations and
opportunities when they present themselves. It is clearly a better option than
committing antisocial acts.
Learning Check 6.4
1. According to the text, which area of the brain seems most important in terms of
trauma when considering the likelihood of criminality?
a. Occipital lobes
b. Parietal lobes
c. Frontal lobes
d. Cerebellum
2. According to the text, our _______________ nervous system governs involuntary
motor activity and is key in the “fight-or-flight” responses we have when in
danger.
a. central
b. gastronomic
c. autonomic
d. cerebral
3. According to the text, many studies have consistently shown that individuals who
have a _______________ heart rate and brain waves are more likely to be
criminals.
a. slower
b. faster
Ultimately, abnormalities in the CNS and ANS are physiological aspects

that contribute greatly to individuals’ decisions regarding criminal activity,
the general conclusion being that low levels of cortical arousal—in terms of
both voluntary (CNS) and involuntary (ANS) activities—are clearly linked
to a predisposition toward criminal activity. However, modern medical
research and societal opportunities exist to help such individuals divert their
tendencies toward more prosocial uses, often giving them an advantage in
our competitive society.
Biosocial Approaches to Explaining Criminal

Behavior
Perhaps the most important, and most recent, perspective on how
criminality is formed is that of biosocial approaches to explaining crime.
Specifically, if any conclusion can be made regarding the theories and
research discussed so far in this chapter, it is that both genetics and
environment influence behavior, particularly via the interaction between the
two. After all, even the most fundamental aspects of life can be explained
by these two groups of factors.44
For example, we can predict with a great amount of accuracy how tall a
person will be by looking at the individual’s parents and other ancestors,
because height is largely determined by a person’s genotype. However,
even for a trait as physiological as height, the environment plays a large
role. As many readers will observe, individuals who are raised in poor,
underdeveloped areas of the world are shorter than U.S. citizens. However,
individuals who descend from parents and relatives in these underdeveloped
areas but are raised in the United States tend to be just as tall as (if not taller
than) U.S. citizens. This is largely due to diet, which is an environmental
factor.
In other words, genotype provides a certain range or “window” that

determines the height of an individual, which is based on ancestral factors.
But the extent to which an individual grows toward the maximum or
minimum of that range is largely dependent on what occurs in the
environment as he or she develops. This is why biologists make a
distinction between genotype, which is directly due to genetics, and
phenotype, which addresses the factors that are a manifestation of genetics
interacting with the environment. Thus, diet influences height, as well as
behavior, in human beings. The same type of biosocial effect is seen in
connection with criminal behavior.
phenotype: an observed manifestation of the interaction between an individual’s
genotypical traits and his or her environment, such as that individual’s height.
Empirical investigations have examined the extent to which physiological

variables interact with environmental variables, and the findings of these
studies have shown consistent effects regarding criminality. Such studies
have been more accurate than those that rely separately on either
physiological/genetic variables or environmental factors. For example,
findings from a cohort study in Philadelphia showed that individuals with a
low birth weight were more likely to commit crime, primarily if they were
raised in a lower-income family or a family with a weak social structure.45
To clarify, if a person had a low birth weight but was raised in a relatively
high-income household or a strong family structure, then the person was not
likely to become criminal. Rather, it was the coupling of a physiological
deficiency (i.e., low birth weight) and an environmental deficit (i.e., weak
family structure or low income) that had a profound effect on criminal
behavior.
Exposure to secondhand smoke during infancy has been
consistently linked to future criminal behavior.
© iStockphoto.com/Igor Skrbic
Consistent with these findings, other studies have shown that pre- and
perinatal problems alone do not predict violence accurately. However, when
perinatal problems were considered along with environmental deficits, such
as weak family structure, this biosocial relationship predicted violent, but
not property, crime.46 Other studies have shown the effects on criminality of
a biosocial interaction between the impact of physiological factors within
the first minute of life, called Apgar scores, and environmental factors, such
as exposure to cigarette smoke.47 Additional studies have found that the
interaction of maternal cigarette smoking and father’s absence in the
household, especially early in life, is associated with criminal behavior,
which is one of the biggest predictors of chronic offending.48 One of the
most revealing studies showed that although only 4% of a sample of 4,269
people had both birth complications and maternal rejection, this relatively
small group accounted for more than 18% of the total violent crimes
committed by the whole sample.49 So studies have clearly shown that the
interaction of biological factors and environmental deficiencies is the most
consistent predictor of criminality.
Behavioral Genetics Studies

One recent approach to using identical twins to examine the influence of
genetics and physiology on crime is the behavioral genetics approach,
which estimates both the environmental and genetic influences on a given
phenotype, such as criminal behavior.50 These studies estimate heritability
based on percentages derived from the variance of scores among identical
versus fraternal twin pairs on a variety of characteristics and behaviors.
This provides an approximate percentage of the influence in a given
phenotype accounted for by genetic factors, shared environmental factors
(i.e., factors that are the same across both twins in the pair, such as growing
up in the same family), and nonshared environmental factors (i.e.,
accounting for different peer groups, significant events [employment,
college education, arrests, etc.], and other nonshared environmental
factors).51
The meta-analyses (a methodological tool used to summarize all the studies

on a particular topic) of the 80-plus studies of behavioral genetics regarding
criminality or antisocial behaviors consistently show that
heritability/genetic factors explain about 50% of the variance in antisocial
behavior.52 It is notable that this conclusion is based on several meta-
analyses, which examined studies that included thousands of twin pairs.
One further insightful conclusion from these studies is that heritability
estimates appear to fluctuate over the life course, with such estimates being
very high during early childhood, relatively low during adolescence (during
which time peer and environmental influences, and sometimes parents, are
likely to have their greatest influence), and much stronger again in
adulthood.53 It should also be noted that while the heritability estimates
show about half of the variation in antisocial behavior and criminality,
environmental factors—such as peer, familial, and community influence—
also explained about half of such variation across these many studies. This
finding goes a long way toward supporting a “nature via nurture”
perspective as opposed to a “nature versus nurture” model—the latter of
which was the dominant model for most of the history of criminological
theorizing. As Beaver and Walsh said in 2011, the “nature via nurture”
perspective of biosocial interactions between physiology/genetics and
environmental factors is the most accurate and current theoretical
framework we have and can help us develop more fully specified models of
criminality.54
Diet/Nutrition
Studies have shown that when incarcerated juveniles were assigned to diets
with limited levels of simple carbohydrates (e.g., sugars), their reported
violations during incarceration declined by an impressive 45%.55 Reviews
of the existing studies on nutrition and criminal offending concluded that
dietary deficiencies in iron, zinc, protein, riboflavin, and omega-3 fatty
acids are significantly related to criminality. Furthermore, other studies
have reported that various food additives and dyes, such as those commonly
found in processed foods, can also have a significant effect on criminal
behavior. Thus, the old saying “You are what you eat” appears to have some
scientific weight behind it, at least regarding criminal behavior.
Toxins
High levels of certain toxins, particularly lead, cadmium, and manganese,
have been found to profoundly effect people’s behavior, including with
regard to criminality. Recent studies have found a consistent, strong
connection between criminal behavior and exposure to high levels of lead.
Unfortunately, medical studies have also found many everyday objects that
contain lead, such as the play jewelry many children wear. Also unfortunate
is that children, as with virtually every toxin, are the most vulnerable to lead
poisoning and the most likely to be exposed to it. Even more unfortunate is
that the populations (e.g., poor, urban, etc.) most susceptible to biosocial
interactions are also the most likely to be exposed to high levels of lead,
largely due to old paint in their homes and other household products that
contain dangerous toxins.56 Exposure to toxins and nutritional problems are
some of the best examples of the biosocial nature of criminality;
specifically, the way our environments impact our physiology has the
greatest impact on how we will behave, including our decisions regarding
criminal behavior.
Many household paints contain lead, a toxin that has been

linked to criminal behavior. Such tainted paint is more
commonly found in older homes—especially inner-city,
urban homes.
Baltimore Sun/Tribune News Service/Getty Images
Case Study Revisited: The Spahalski Brothers

At the beginning of this chapter, we discussed the case of the Spahalski
twins, who independently killed a handful of people between the two of
them. As discussed in this chapter, it is likely that a genetic predisposition
toward aggression and other criminal activity is to blame. After all, the twin
brothers did not support or influence each other in this highly antisocial
behavior. One detail that was not discussed earlier was that both were
extremely physically strong, which demonstrates that they had a very high
level of testosterone. For example, as Michael Benson reports in his book,
police reports revealed that Bruce became angry during an interview and, in
his rage, snapped his metal handcuffs. The investigator in charge claimed
he had only seen that done once before, and by a man far larger than Bruce,
who was rather thin (albeit muscular).57 Thus, it is likely that genetics and
hormonal levels played a large role in Bruce’s ability to subdue his victims,
whom he typically overpowered and strangled. Ultimately, the story of the
Spahalski brothers gives some anecdotal support to the significant influence
of biological dispositions toward violence and other criminal behavior.
Policy Implications
Various policy implications have been introduced throughout this chapter,
appropriate to the biological or biosocial factors presented in each section.
However, it is appropriate to emphasize one policy implication in particular
—maternal/infant health care at all stages, including prenatal, postnatal, and
in the first years of life. After reviewing all the extant research as well as
other experts’ reviews of this literature, there is no doubt that providing
adequate health care for expecting mothers, as well as extended care for
infants in their first years of life, is the most cost-effective way for any
society to reduce future criminality. If such maternal health care during
pregnancy is not available, the risk of a multitude of birth and delivery
complications rises.58
In fact, we know of very few respected researchers in medicine,

psychology, or any other field who do not believe that this policy
recommendation should be followed. For every dollar spent on such
maternal/infant health care, studies show that not only many dollars in
criminal justice processing and prison time, but also many lives, will be
saved, due to the reduction in violence. There are many other policy
implications, some discussed in this chapter, but we stand by
maternal/infant health care in the perinatal stage as being the number-one
priority for any society in preventing biological or biosocial factors from
contributing to future criminality.59
Fazit
In this chapter, we examined a wide range of explanations for criminal behavior that
place most of the blame on biological and/or psychological factors, which are typically
intertwined. (These types of explanations are not as popular as they were in the early
years of the development of criminology as a science, but they have been shown to be
quite valid as significant factors in individual decisions to commit crime.) Specifically,
we discussed the early studies that explored the relative influence of nature versus
nurture, such as the early family studies as well as the more robust subsequent wave of
twin studies, adoption studies, and studies of identical twins raised apart. These studies
revealed not only an answer to the nature-versus-nurture argument but also that “nature
via nurture” should be emphasized when it comes to predicting criminality.
We then examined the influence of hormones (e.g., testosterone) on human behavior, as

well as the effect of chromosomal mutations (e.g., XYY). Research has supported both of
these theories in showing that persons with high levels of “male” androgens are far more
likely to commit crime than are those who do not have high levels of these hormones. The
link between brain trauma and criminality was also discussed, with an emphasis on the
consistent association with damage to the left and/or frontal parts of the brain as well as
trauma to special limbic structures involved in emotions and memory.
We also examined theories regarding variations in levels of functioning of the CNS and
the ANS, and all empirical studies have shown that low levels of functioning in these
systems have links to criminality. Next, we explored the extent to which the interaction
between physiological factors and environmental variables contributes to the most
consistent prediction of criminal offending (hence, the importance of “nature via
nurture”). Finally, we discussed how diet and nutrition, as well as exposure to certain
toxins, have furthered our understanding of how people’s environment interacts with their
physiology to predict criminality. Ultimately, the very theories that were key in the early
years of criminology as a science, such as brain structure/functioning and other early
diagnostics from the first year(s) of life (Apgar scores, etc.), are now showing strong
evidence of being a primary influence on criminal behavior.
Summary of Theories
Key
Theories Concepts/Factors Key Propositions
Proponents
Richard L.
Dugdale, Criminality runs in
Family studies Criminality
H. H. families.
Goddard
MZ twins have higher

Concordance for
Twin studies Various concordance than DZ
criminality
twins.
Sarnoff Adoptees with criminal

Criminality
Mednick biological parents
Adoption studies among various
and compared with criminal
adoptees
colleagues adoptive parents.
Concordance
Criminality among MZ
MZ twins rates of MZ
Various twins reared apart are
separated at birth twins raised
similar.
apart
Cytogenetic Patricia A. Chromosomal XYY individuals have

studies Jacobs mutations more criminality.
Higher levels of
Testosterone, testosterone and lower
Hormonal theory Various
estrogen levels levels of estrogen predict
criminality.
Low levels of serotonin

predict more criminality,
Dopamine,
Neurotransmitters Various whereas findings for other
serotonin
neurotransmitters are
mixed.
Trauma to certain portions

Various lobes of the brain (e.g., frontal
Brain injury Various and brain lobes) and structures (e.g.,
structures limbic structures) predict
criminality.
Key
Theories Concepts/Factors Key Propositions
Proponents
Central nervous
Brain-wave Slower brain-wave patterns
system Various
patterns predict criminality.
functioning
Autonomic Heart rate,

Lower functioning predicts
nervous system Various sweating, and
criminality.
functioning other indicators
A variety of both
Weak physiological factors
physiological
Biosocial interact with weak social
Various and
interaction theory and environmental factors
developmental
to predict criminality.
factors
Key Terms
adoption studies, 133
autonomic nervous system, 145
central nervous system, 143
concordance rates, 131
cytogenetic studies, 136
dizygotic twins, 131
dopamine, 141
family studies, 130
frontal lobe, 141
monozygotic twins, 131
neurotransmitters, 140
phenotype, 148
selective placement, 134
serotonin, 141
temporal lobe, 141
twin studies, 131
1. Is there any validity to family studies in determining the role of genetics in criminal
behavior? Why or why not?
2. Explain the rationale of studies that compare the concordance rates of identical twins
and fraternal twins who were raised together. What do most of these studies show
regarding the influence of genetics on criminal behavior? What are the criticisms of
these studies?
3. Explain the rationale of studies that examine the biological and adoptive parents of
adopted children. What do most of these studies show regarding the influence of
genetics on criminal behavior? What are the criticisms of these studies?
4. What are the general findings of research on identical twins separated at birth? What
implications do these findings have for the importance of genetics or heritability
regarding criminal behavior? Can you think of a criticism for such findings?
5. Explain what cytogenetic disorders are, and describe the related disorder that is most
linked to criminal behavior. What characteristics of this type of disorder seem to be
driving the higher propensity toward crime?
6. What types of hormones have been shown by scientific studies to be linked to criminal
activity? Give specific examples of this link.
7. Explain what neurotransmitters are, and describe which neurotransmitters are key in
predicting criminal offending. Provide support from previous scientific studies.
8. Which areas of the brain have shown the greatest vulnerability to trauma in terms of
criminal offending? Does the lack of healthy functioning in these areas/lobes make
sense? Why?
9. How do brain-wave patterns differ between chronic, violent criminals and normal
people? Does this make sense in biosocial models of criminality?
10. How does the autonomic nervous system differ between chronic, violent criminals and
normal people? Does this make sense in biosocial models of criminality?
11. What types of policy implications would you support based on the information provided
by empirical studies reviewed in this chapter?
Ressourcen
Family/Twin/Adoption Studies
Avi G. Haimowitz of the Rochester Institute of Technology provides an excellent review

of adoption, family, and twin studies:
http://www.personalityresearch.org/papers/haimowitz.html
A concise historical review of twin studies, including some of the earliest in the late 19th
century:
http://www.bookrags.com/research/twin-studies-wog
Cytogenetics
The British Medical Journal presents a study and findings regarding Klinefelter’s
syndrome and, more importantly, XYY chromosomal mutation:
http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/2/1/e000650.full
Wikipedia serves up a good review of both past and modern cytogenetic studies and
conclusions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytogenetics
Hormones and Neurotransmitters
This webpage (last updated in 2002) at Gender.org discusses the link between
testosterone and aggression:
http://www.gender.org.uk/about/06encrn/63faggrs.htm
In June 2019, VICE News examined the disadvantages and advantages of Alabama’s
proposed use of chemicals to castrate pedophiles:
https://news.vice.com/en_us/article/qv7end/alabama-wants-to-chemically-castrate-
pedophiles-eligible-for-parole
This chapter from the Ashgate Research Companion to Biosocial Theories of Crime
compares several approaches to explaining the causes of criminality, particularly the
interactions among different factors:
https://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1098
This former slideshow presentation outlines the link between low central nervous system
and autonomic functioning and criminality:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?
q=cache:Eq0RES5KVf4J:www.d.umn.edu/~rlloyd/MySite/Mind-
Body/Student%2520Presentations%2520su2007/Relationships%2520Between%25
20Central%2520and%2520Autonomic%2520Measures%2520of%2520Arousal%2
520%26%2520Criminality,%2520Third%2520Presentation.ppt
Brain Trauma and Crime
This Medical News Today article from 2012 reviews research that further supports a link
between brain injury and criminality in young individuals:
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/251798.php
A 2013 publication by a neurologic rehabilitation institute looks at research in which it

was found that 60% of sampled prisoners had had traumatic brain injuries in their past:
http://www.traumaticbraininjury.net/does-brain-injury-contribute-to-criminal-
behavior
Student Study Site


Media Library
premium resources:
Author Video
6.1: Neurotransmitters

6.1: Family Studies

6.1: Twin Studies
Chapter 7 Psychological/Trait Theories of
Crime
©iStockphoto.com/4khz
Learning Objectives
7.1 Describe how the early psychological theories explained criminal behavior.
7.2 Summarize the modern psychological perspectives of criminality.
7.3 Explain the relation between mental health and the criminal justice system.
7.4 Describe the policy implications associated with psychological explanations of
criminal behavior.
Case Study
Joel Michael Guy, Jr.
Police photograph of Joel Michael Guy, Jr.
Knox County Sheriff’s Office
On Thanksgiving 2016 the four Guy children celebrated the holiday at their parents’ home in
Knoxville, Tennessee. This would be the last family get-together at this home; in two weeks
Joel Guy, Sr. and his wife, Lisa, were moving to his mother’s home in Surgoinsville. The
parents said their good-byes to their children. Three of them lived in Tennessee; their son, Joel
Michael Guy, Jr., 28 years old, was living in Baton Rouge. His parents financially supported
him. However, they planned on telling Joel after the holiday that they were “cutting him off.”
The details are not quite clear as to what specifically occurred after the children left their
parents’ home on Thanksgiving. Joel Guy, Jr. stayed in Tennessee three days longer than he
had planned. On the Monday following the holiday, Lisa Guy’s employer informed police that
she did not show up for work. The police then conducted a welfare check on the Guys’ home.1
Upon entering the home, Knox County Sheriff’s Office detective Jeremy McCord was
overwhelmed by an odd chemical smell. It was quite warm in the home—93 degrees. Heaters
had been set up throughout the house. Further investigation revealed that blood was
everywhere in the home—down the hallway, on the walls and floor. When Detective McCord
walked toward the bathroom, he saw the first body part—hands. Detective McCord and the
other officers soon located more body parts. A number of these parts had been placed in
Tupperware containers. Lisa Guy’s head was boiling in a pot on the stove. Acid and other
chemicals were used during the commission of this gruesome crime.2
At the time of this writing, the trial of Joel Michael Guy, Jr. for the killing and dismembering
of Lisa and Joel Guy, Sr. is underway.
Think About It
If Joel Michael Guy, Jr. is convicted . . .
1. Why did he murder his parents in such a gruesome manner?

2. Are there any psychological factors that would explain Joel Michael Guy, Jr.’s behavior?
3. How should the criminal justice system handle offenders like Joel Michael Guy, Jr.?
Introduction
Most sociological theories of crime focus on shared factors that influence
offenders rather than factors that are unique to individuals:
Individual difference variables are relegated to a minor, if not

trivial, status in favor of influences that are thought to
homogenize a collection of individuals into a population that is at
risk for crime. At-risk populations are produced when social-
cultural conditions combine to lower some groups’ endorsement
of legal norms and prohibitions.3
In contrast to sociological theories, psychological theories of crime focus on

the influence of individuals’ experiences or their emotional adjustment, as
well as on their personality traits and types.4
In this chapter, we will highlight early psychological perspectives, such as

the theories developed by Sigmund Freud, Hans Eysenck, Lawrence
Kohlberg, and John Bowlby.
Then we will review more contemporary psychological theories of criminal

behavior, beginning with a brief discussion on the controversial perspective
concerning intelligence (e.g., IQ) and criminality, before moving to the
theoretical perspective developed by James Q. Wilson and Richard J.
Herrnstein. While these scholars never formally labeled their theory, one
researcher suggested the name operant-utilitarian theory of criminality. The
most controversial aspect of Wilson and Herrnstein’s perspective concerns
biological factors, such as gender, low intelligence, impulsiveness, and
body type, in criminal behavior.
We will then explore the ways in which psychopathy has been linked with
criminality. Finally, we will briefly examine issues pertaining to mental
illness and the criminal justice system—specifically, treatment, mental-
health courts, and the insanity defense.
Early Psychological Theorizing Regarding

Criminal Behavior
Early psychological perspectives on criminality included psychoanalysis,
dimensions of an individual’s personality (e.g., psychoticism, extroversion,
and neuroticism) and criminal behavior, moral development, and
attachment to significant others.
Freud’s Model of the Psyche and Implications for

Criminal Behavior
Sigmund Freud (1856–1939) originated psychoanalysis, which is founded
on the perception of resistance used by individuals when therapists attempt
to make them conscious of their unconscious.5 The psychoanalytic
perspective is both complex and extremely systematized. This discussion
provides an overview of the general principles of psychoanalysis.
psychoanalytic perspective: an individual’s behavior is presumed to be due to the three

aspects of his or her personality: the id, ego, and superego; anxiety, defense mechanisms,
and the unconscious are key principles of the psychoanalytical perspective.
First, an individual’s behavior is presumed to be due to the three aspects of

his or her personality: the id, ego, and superego. The id is the source of
instinctual drives; it contains everything that is present at birth.6 Essentially,
there are two types of instinctual drives: constructive and destructive.
Constructive drives are usually sexual in nature. These drives make up the
libido. Freud used the term “sex” in a broader context than we typically do
today; thus, “sex” included those activities, such as painting, that give
people pleasure. The other type of instinctual drive is destructive.
Destructive drives refer to such things as aggression, destruction, and
death.7
id: a subconscious domain of the psyche, according to Freud, with which we are all born;
it is responsible for our innate desires and drives (such as libido [sex drive]), and it battles
the moral conscience of the superego.
ego: the only conscious domain of the psyche; according to Freud, it functions to mediate
the battle between the id and superego.
superego: a subconscious domain of the psyche; according to Freud, it is not part of our
nature but must be developed through early social attachments.
The ego is the moderator between the demands of an instinct (i.e., the id),
the superego, and reality. When discussing the relationship between the id
and the ego, Freud noted that the ego characterizes what is referred to as
reason and sanity, while the id refers to passions. Further, there are no
conflicts in the id, whereas in the ego, conflicts between impulses need to
be resolved.8 The superego is also designated as a conscience. This aspect
of the psyche evolves during the course of an individual’s development,
during which he or she learns the restrictions, mores, and values of society.
Anxiety, defense mechanisms, and the unconscious are also key principles of
the psychoanalytical perspective. Anxiety is considered a warning of
looming danger or a painful experience. It motivates the individual to
attempt to correct the situation. In most instances, the ego can cope with
this anxiety through rational measures. When this does not work, however,
the ego uses irrational measures, such as rationalization. These are referred
to as ego-defense mechanisms.9 (For example, a woman who has been
harassed by her boss at work becomes anxious as a result. However, it
would be too risky to try to work through the issue with her boss, so her
anxiety persists. Later, her unresolved anxiety leads her to initiate an
argument with her husband.) Discharging pent-up feelings, often of
hostility, on objects less dangerous than those arousing the feelings is an
example of a defense mechanism.10
Freud maintained that large portions of the ego and superego may remain
unconscious (see Figure 7.1). Further, it takes a great deal of effort for
individuals to recognize their unconscious.11 The unconscious may include
disturbing memories, forbidden urges, and other experiences that have been
repressed or pushed out of the conscious. While individuals may be
unaware of their unconscious experiences, they continue to seek some form
of expression, such as in fantasies and dreams. Until these unconscious
experiences are brought to awareness, they may lead the individual to
engage in irrational and destructive behavior.12
Figure 7.1 Freud’s Conception of the Human Psyche: The

Iceberg Metaphor
*Ego is free-floating in all three levels.
In reference to criminal behavior, Freud stated:
I must work out an analogy between the criminal and the hysteric.
In both we are concerned with a secret, with something hidden. . .
. In the case of the criminal, it is a secret which he knows and
hides from you, but in the case of the hysteric it is a secret hidden
from him, a secret he himself does not know.13
One of the most well-known experts to apply psychoanalysis to criminal
behavior was August Aichhorn (1878–1949).14 While most applications of
psychoanalysis treated nervous disorders, Aichhorn attempted to uncover
the unconscious motives of juveniles engaging in delinquent behavior.
Aichhorn distinguished between manifest and latent delinquency.
Delinquency is considered manifest when it results in antisocial behavior;
latent delinquency is when the same state of mind exists but has not yet
expressed itself through such behavior.15
Since Aichhorn, there have been various adaptations of Freudian theory to

understanding delinquency; some of these adaptations differ a great deal
from the work of Freud and Aichhorn. For instance, Erik Erikson (1902–
1994) examined adolescents struggling to discover their own ego identity
while negotiating, learning, and understanding social interactions as well as
developing a sense of morality and right and wrong.16 David Abrahamsen
(1903–2002) maintained that criminal behavior is a symptom of more
complex personality distortions; there is a conflict between the ego and
superego as well as the inability to control impulsive and pleasure-seeking
drives, because these influences are rooted in early childhood and later
reinforced through reactions to familial and social stresses.17 Like these
theories, other psychoanalytic perspectives focused on formative
experiences that resulted in unconscious, internal conflicts during early
childhood. These conflicts can explain why one engages in delinquent
behavior.18
Hans Eysenck: Theory of Crime and Personality

For more than 20 years, Hans J. Eysenck (1916–1997) developed a theory
that linked personality to criminality.19 Often, discussions of this theory
emphasize that human personality can be viewed in three dimensions (i.e.,
the PEN model). Eysenck developed his Personality Questionnaire to
measure individuals on these three dimensions (see Table 7.1). The first
dimension is psychoticism. Individuals considered to have high
psychoticism are associated with being aggressive, cold, egocentric,
impersonal, impulsive, antisocial, unempathic, creative, and tough-minded;
individuals with low psychoticism are characterized as being empathic,
unselfish, altruistic, warm, peaceful, and generally more pleasant.20
PEN model: discussions of this theory emphasize that human personality can be viewed
in three dimensions: psychoticism, extroversion, and neuroticism.
psychoticism: individuals considered to have high psychoticism are associated with being
aggressive, cold, egocentric, impersonal, impulsive, antisocial, unempathic, creative, and
tough-minded; individuals with low psychoticism are characterized as being empathic,
unselfish, altruistic, warm, peaceful, and generally more pleasant.
The second dimension is extroversion, with the associated traits of being

sociable, lively, active, assertive, sensation-seeking, carefree, dominant,
surgent, and venturesome. Introverts are usually characterized with the
opposite type of traits (e.g., passive, cautious). Most individuals, however,
are not exclusively extroverted or introverted; rather, these personality
dimensions and associated traits exist on a continuum, with most
individuals being somewhere in the middle. The last dimension is
neuroticism, or instability, which is linked with such traits as anxiety,
depression, guilty feelings, low self-esteem, tension, irrationality, shyness,
moodiness, and emotionality.21
extroversion: in reference to the PEN model, traits associated with extroversion include
being sociable, lively, active, assertive, sensation-seeking, carefree, dominant, surgent,
and venturesome.
neuroticism: in reference to the PEN model, neuroticism is often linked with anxiety,
depression, tension, irrationality, shyness, moodiness, emotionality, guilty feelings, and
low self-esteem.
Nicole Hahn Rafter provided an insightful description of Eysenck’s

evolving development of a link between criminality and personality.22
Initially, Eysenck focused on two personality dimensions: neuroticism and
extroversion. During this stage of theoretical development, he emphasized
the extroversion dimension. Subsequently, he incorporated the psychoticism
dimension. Thus, he moved “from his original concept of criminals as
extroverts to identifying them with arch-villainous psychopaths.”23 In an
effort to explain individual differences in criminality, Eysenck maintained
that these can be understood in terms of biology. He offered three
arguments: (1) genetics, (2) Pavlovian conditioning, and (3)
neurophysiology.
Table 7.1 Example Questionnaire Items From the Eysenck

Personality Questionnaire–Revised
Table 7.1 Example Questionnaire Items From the Eysenck Personality
Questionnaire–Revised
Extroversion
Do you like telling jokes and funny stories to your friends?
Do you prefer reading to meeting people?
Do you spontaneously introduce yourself to strangers at social

gatherings?
Neuroticism
Are you a worrier?
Are you inclined to tremble and perspire when faced with a difficult
task ahead?
Do you sometimes withhold your opinions for fear that people will
laugh and criticize you?
Psychoticism
Do you enjoy hurting people you love?
Would it upset you a lot to see a child or an animal suffer?
Do people who drive carefully annoy you?

Do you get so excited and involved with new ideas that you never
think of possible snags?
Source: Miles, J., & Hempell, S. (2004). The Eysenck personality scales: The Eysenck
Personality Questionnaire–Revised (EPQ-R) and the Eysenck Personality Profiler (EPP). In
M. J. Hilsenroth, D. L. Segal, & M. Hersen (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of psychological
assessment: Personality assessment (Vol. 2, pp. 99–100). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
In terms of genetics, or heredity, Eysenck drew on data from twin studies.

He stated that “these data . . . demonstrate, beyond any question, that
heredity plays an important, and possibly a vital part, in predisposing a
given individual to crime.”24 (This type of assertion, however, is what made
many critics distrustful of Eysenck’s conclusions.25) The second argument,
Pavlovian conditioning, is an essential part of his biological explanation,
which is that
socialized and altruistic behavior had to be learned and that this

learning was mediated by means of Pavlovian conditioning. The
newborn and the young child have no social conscience and
behave in a purely egocentric manner. They have to acquire a
“conscience” through a process of conditioning.26
The argument was that it is more difficult to condition extroverts than

introverts. Further, Eysenck maintained that classical conditioning is
associated with moral behavior. Referring to various studies, Eysenck
argued that “conscience is . . . a conditioned reflex.”27 The last type of
argument was initially based on brain physiology. When he raised this
argument, it was relatively undeveloped. Later, he noted that the differences
between extroverted and introverted behavior were due to cortical arousal.
Eysenck maintained that cortical arousal differs among individuals “with
respect to the ease or difficulty with which their level of arousal can be
increased (arousability), their usual level of arousal, and the ease with
which this arousal level can be maintained.”28
According to Eysenck, extroverts are characterized by a low level of

cortical arousal. To achieve an ideal level of arousal, extroverts need more
excitement and stimuli in their environment. Further, they are less
susceptible to pain and punishment and experience less fear and anxiety.
For neurotics, the biological link is in the sympathetic part of the autonomic
nervous system, which involves the fight-or-flight response. Finally, the
cortical arousal level is also associated with psychoticism. Like those who
score high on Eysenck’s measure of extroversion, those who score high in
psychoticism have low levels of cortical arousal and are more difficult to
condition, as well as more prone to developing antisocial behavior.29
Eysenck’s model of personality and criminality has received mixed

support.30 For instance, people who score high in psychoticism are often
linked to criminal behavior regardless of the methodology (e.g., self-report
among the general population or offender samples). Compared with the
general population, neuroticism is also higher among criminal offenders.
When employing self-report methods, extroversion is usually higher among
the general population but not among criminal offenders.31
Lawrence Kohlberg: Moral Development

A central feature of Lawrence Kohlberg’s theory is that moral development
occurs in stages.32 According to Kohlberg, moral judgment evolves in
children in a three-level progression, each level consisting of two stages
(see Table 7.2). Labeling certain behaviors as “right” and “wrong”—for
instance, “telling on your brother is wrong because it is ‘tattling,’ breaking
into the druggist’s store is wrong because ‘you’re not supposed to steal,’”
regardless of the circumstances—is characteristic of the preconventional
level of morality.33 At this level of morality, what is deemed “right” and
“wrong” is defined by those in authority. Stage 1 is characterized as a
“punishment and obedience orientation”; rewards and punishments are key
components of this stage. An individual follows the rules for his or her own
benefit as well as to avoid punishment.34 Stage 2 is when one develops
moral relativity. A person recognizes that different people have varying, yet
just as valid, justifications for their claims of justice.35 Thus, an individual
views justice as an equal exchange of favors, such as “you scratch my back,
I’ll scratch yours.” Or one may view justice as a “settling of scores,” such
as “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.”36
preconventional level of morality: a level of morality characteristic of designating what
is considered “right” and “wrong.”
Table 7.2 Kohlberg’s Levels of Moral Development

Table 7.2 Kohlberg’s Levels of Moral Development
Level of Moral
Stage of Reasoning:
Development
Stage 1: obedience to power and avoidance of

punishment
Preconventional
Stage 2: taking responsibility and leaving others
to be responsible for themselves
Stage 3: being considerate: “Uphold the values of

other adolescents and adults’ rules of society at
large.”
Conventional
Stage 4: being good as defined by the values and
norms of family and society at large
Stage 5: finding an inner “universal rights”

balance between self-rights and societal rules—a
social contract
Postconventional
Stage 6: a higher order of applying principles to
all humankind; being nonjudgmental and
respecting all human life
Source: Adapted from Kohlberg, L. (1986). The just community approach to corrections.
Journal of Correctional Education, 37, 57–58.
Stages 3 and 4, which compose the conventional level of morality, are

what Kohlberg considered the normal adult approaches used to maintain the
family and social order. At Stage 3, individuals begin to understand and live
by the principle of the golden rule; they appreciate the value of generosity
and forgiveness. At Stage 4, these values of justice are expanded to the
social order, such as establishing good citizenship, instilling a strong work
ethic, and following the laws of society.37 Kohlberg designated certain
types of justice as corrective justice (e.g., impartiality in the application of
the law and the offender paying his or her debt to society) and others as
commutative justice (e.g., the importance of contractual agreements for
maintaining social order). Below is an example of commutative justice:
Question—Is it important to keep a promise to someone you don’t

know well?
Answer—Yes. Perhaps even more so than keeping a promise to
someone you know well. A man is often judged by his actions in such
situations, and to be described as being a “man of honour,” or a “man
of integrity” is very fulfilling indeed.38
conventional level of morality: a level of morality considered the normal adult approach
to maintaining the family and social order, including appreciation of the golden rule and
the importance of social order.
An individual with a postconventional level of morality, at Stage 5,

considers such “meta-ethical” issues as “why one should be moral.” There
is an attempt to establish a balance between an individual’s rights and
societal rules; this is considered a “social contract” perspective of
morality.39 Kohlberg designated the final stage, Stage 6, “the moral point of
view.” A key aspect of this stage is that a person takes equal consideration
of each individual’s point of view in terms of the moral decision to be
made. Stage 6 morality concerns the principle of the maximum quality of
life for each, equity or fairness in the distribution of goods and respect, and
the principle of utility or benevolence.40 Below is an example of Kohlberg’s
theory of moral development.
postconventional level of morality: when a person attempts to establish a balance

between individual rights and societal rules.
Heinz’s Dilemma.
Heinz’s wife was dying from cancer. Doctors said a drug that had just been
invented by a local chemist might save her. Heinz desperately attempted to
buy the drug, but the chemist was charging 10 times the amount it cost to
make the drug, and this was much more than Heinz could afford.
Even after family and friends tried to help Heinz, he could only raise half
the money. He explained to the chemist that his wife was dying and asked if
he could have the drug cheaper or pay the rest of the money later.
The chemist refused, saying that he deserved to make money from his
discovery of the drug. The husband was desperate to save his wife, so one
night he broke into the chemist’s store and stole the drug (see Table 7.3).
Carol Gilligan’s work explored gender differences in terms of moral

orientations.41 Gilligan distinguished between moral orientations toward
“care” and moral orientations toward “justice”:
In early childhood, girls often gravitate towards the morality of

care, whereas boys often gravitate towards the morality of justice.
. . . Males and females alike can develop an awareness of both
care and justice; but because of widespread patterns of early
experience, girls often orient more towards the former and boys
towards the latter.42
Gilligan noted that women may construct a problem differently than do

men. Thus, women may fail to develop within the constraints of Kohlberg’s
system of moral development.43 She noted that Kohlberg’s six stages of
moral development were based on a study of 84 boys whose development
Kohlberg followed for more than 20 years.44
Table 7.3 Heinz’s Dilemma by Kohlberg’s Stages of Morality

Table 7.3 Heinz’s Dilemma by Kohlberg’s Stages of Morality
Below are typical answers to Heinz’s dilemma (whether “Heinz”

should steal a drug he can’t afford, to save his dying wife) to
illustrate the different stages of moral development:
Stage Pro Con
Preconventional Level of Morality
He shouldn’t steal the drug. It’s

a big crime. He didn’t get
He should steal the drug. It
permission; he used force and
Stage isn’t really bad to take it. It
broke and entered. He did a lot
1 isn’t as if he hadn’t asked to
of damage, stealing a very
pay for it first.
expensive drug and breaking
up the store, too.
It’s all right to steal the

drug, because his wife He shouldn’t steal it. The
needs it and he wants her to druggist isn’t wrong or bad; he
Stage
live. It isn’t that he wants to just wants to make a profit.
2
steal, but that’s what he has That’s what you’re in business
to do to get the drug to save for—to make money.
her.
Conventional Level of Morality
He should steal the drug.

He is only doing something He shouldn’t steal. If his wife
that is natural for a good dies, he can’t be blamed. It
husband to do. You can’t isn’t because he’s heartless or
Stage
blame him for doing that he doesn’t love her enough
3
something out of love for to do everything that he legally
his wife. You’d blame him can. The druggist is the selfish
if he didn’t love his wife or heartless one.
enough to save her.
Stage You should steal it. If you It is a natural thing for Heinz
4 did nothing, you’d be to want to save his wife, but
letting your wife die. It’s it’s still always wrong to steal.
your responsibility if she He still knows that he’s
dies. You have to take it stealing and taking a valuable
with the idea of paying the drug from the man who made
druggist. it.
Postconventional Level of Morality
You can’t completely blame

someone for stealing, but
The law wasn’t set up for extreme circumstances don’t
these circumstances. Taking really justify taking the law
Stage
the drug in this situation into your own hands. You can’t
5
isn’t really right, but it’s have people stealing whenever
justified. they are desperate. The end
may be good, but the ends
don’t justify the means.
This is a situation that

Heinz is faced with the
forces him to choose
decision of whether to consider
between stealing and letting
the other people who need the
his wife die. In a situation
drug just as badly as his wife.
Stage where the choice must be
Heinz ought to act not
6 made, it is morally right to
according to his particular
steal. He has to act in terms
feelings toward his wife, but
of the principle of
considering the value of all the
preserving and respecting
lives involved.
life.
Source: Adapted from Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-developmental
approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization theory and
research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally; as cited in Lickona, T. (Ed.). (1976). Moral
development and behavior. New York, NY: Holt.
John Bowlby: Attachment Theory

Development of attachment theory is the combined work of John Bowlby
and Mary Ainsworth. Bowlby formulated the basic propositions of the
theory; the roots of Bowlby’s interest in attachment and separation lay in
his own early childhood and in his clinical experiences while training as a
psychoanalyst prior to World War II.45 Ainsworth implemented innovative
methodology to test some of Bowlby’s concepts, as well as to further refine
the perspective. While these scholars initially worked independently of each
other, both were influenced by the work of Freud and other psychoanalytic
theorists.46
attachment theory: there are seven essential features of this theoretical perspective
focusing on attachment: specificity, duration, engagement of emotion, course of
development, learning, organization, and biological function.
In discussing attachment theory, reference is often made to research

examining the effects of separation on mother and infant monkeys. Bowlby
cited this research and noted that these types of studies “show plainly not
only that the attachment behaviour of young non-human primates is very
similar to the attachment behaviour of young children but that their
responses to separation are very similar also.”47
Bowlby maintained that this theoretical perspective has seven essential

features:
Specificity—Attachments are selective or “choosy”; these attachments

are often focused on one or more individuals, usually with some order
of preference.
Duration—Attachments are enduring and persistent, sometimes
lifelong.
Engagement of emotion—Some of the most intense and passionate
emotions are associated with attachment relationships.
Course of development—In the first nine months of life, infants
develop an attachment to a primary figure. This primary figure is the
person who provides the most fulfilling and pleasing social interaction.
Learning—While learning does have some influence on a person’s
attachments, the key component is social interaction.
Organization—Attachment behavior follows cognitive development,
as well as interpersonal maturation from birth.
Biological function—Attachment behavior has a biological function in
terms of survival, which is supported by research on various species.48
For example, in terms of engagement of emotion, Bowlby discussed the
emotion of fear:
In the presence of a trusted companion, fear of situations of every

kind diminishes; when, by contrast, one is alone, fear of situations
of every kind is magnified. Since in the lives of all of us our most
trusted companions are our attachment figures, it follows that the
degree to which each of us is susceptible to fear turns in great part
on whether our attachment figures are present or absent.49
Bowlby’s interest in early parent-infant interactions evolved from his

clinical work with young offenders; his theoretical framework evolved from
this work.50 From 1936 to 1939, Bowlby assessed and treated 88 children
between the ages of 5 and 16 at the London Child Guidance Clinic. In his
study, “Forty-Four Juvenile Thieves,” he stressed the importance of
studying the relationship between mother and child. As Bowlby noted,
inquiries were made into not only the mother’s conscious attitude but also
her unconscious attitude. He developed a classification procedure to
distinguish the various character types. Of the 44 juveniles in his study, 14
were classified as affectionless, 13 were classified as hyperthymic (i.e.,
children who tend toward constant overactivity), and 9 were designated as
depressed.51 On page 164 is a case history of one of the youths designated
as affectionless.
Example of attachment.
© iStockphoto.com/digitalskillet
Modern Psychological Perspectives of Criminality
The following section presents more current psychological perspectives,
beginning with the controversial discussion concerning intelligence and
criminality.
IQ and Criminal Behavior

As noted in Chapter 5, in the early 20th century, French psychologist Alfred
Binet, along with his colleague Theodore Simon, developed what was
considered a more quantified measure of intelligence—the intelligence
quotient (IQ). Binet noted that this new approach was a “metric scale of
intelligence.” The Binet-Simon Intelligence Test was initially developed to
study intellectual disabilities among French schoolchildren.52 A Stanford
University professor of educational psychology, Lewis M. Terman, revised
the Binet-Simon Intelligence Test. Since its publication in 1916, it has been
known as the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test. Two American psychologists
often considered Terman’s rivals in the area of developing a scaled mental
test were Henry H. Goddard and Robert Yerkes.53
intelligence quotient (IQ): a quantified measure of intelligence.
Goddard is credited with bringing intelligence testing to the United States.54

He translated and adapted Binet’s model to study immigrants who were
coming into the United States. An interesting difference between Goddard’s
and Binet’s assumptions about intelligence or IQ was that Goddard
maintained that intelligence or IQ was static or innate; thus, an individual’s
IQ could not change. He argued that intelligence was passed from
generation to generation; intelligence was inherited from parents. As noted
in Chapter 5, Goddard labeled low IQ as “feeble-mindedness.” There were
specified levels of feeble-mindedness, such as moron, imbecile, and idiot.55
Goddard’s The Kallikak Family: A Study in Hereditary Feeble-Mindedness
has been considered one of the major contributions to the myth of the
“menace” or “threat” of feeble-mindedness, as well as to the eugenic
prescriptions suggested to address such problems of poverty and crime.
Example Case History Derek B.
History. He was the second of two boys, the elder being a cheerful, normal lad who had
never got into trouble. He lived with his mother and father, whose marriage was happy
and who appeared to treat the children sensibly and kindly and without discriminating
between them. On enquiry into his early history it was found that he was a wanted child
and had been breast-fed for three months, after which he throve on the bottle. Indeed he
was said to be a happy normal child until the age of 18 months, when he got diphtheria.
Because of this he was away in [the] hospital for nine months, during the whole of which
he remained unvisited by his parents. In [the] hospital he was said to have been adored by
everyone, but when he returned home he was a “little stranger.” He refused all food and
finally was left to starve for a while. His mother described how “it seemed like looking
after someone else’s baby. He did not know us, he called me ‘nurse’ and seemed to have
no affection for us at all.” She said it was fully 18 months before he settled down,
although to an external eye it appeared that in fact he had never done so yet.
Personality. He seemed not to care for anyone except possibly his elder brother, but even
with him there were spells of unreasonable temper. Usually he was happiest when playing
alone. He was markedly undemonstrative and his schoolteacher commented that
emotionally he was “very controlled for a young boy.” The mother also remarked on this,
saying that he was quite unmoved by either affection or punishment, and she had come to
regard him as hard-boiled. On the other hand he was always fighting and was at times
destructive of both his own and his brother’s toys. The teacher complained particularly of
his untruthfulness, “wanton destructiveness” and habits of annoying other children.
Stealing and Truanting. He began school at 4 1/2 and liked it at first. But later he
disliked the teacher and wanted his brother’s teacher. This led to truanting on and off for
about a month. The pilfering was noticed soon after his beginning school. It seems to
have been quite undiscriminating, for he was said to pilfer from children’s pockets, the
teacher’s desk, from shops and from his mother. Any money he obtained he spent on
sweets which he would share with his brother and other children, but not with his parents.
He had been repeatedly beaten both by school authorities and at home for stealing, but the
beating had no effect on him beyond making him cry for a few moments.
Examination. On tests he was found to have an [IQ] of 125 and to be slow, careful and
deliberate in his work. To the psychiatrist he gave the impression of being an engaging,
sociable kid. But in his play there was much violent destructiveness. On many occasions
he pilfered toys from the Clinic.
Diagnosis. His superficial geniality was misleading at first. As time went on it was clear
that his mother’s and school-teacher’s accounts of his detachment represented the truth.
In view of this, his destructiveness, his hard-boiledness, and his unresponsiveness, he
seemed to be a typical case of Affectionless Character. This was clearly related to his
prolonged hospitalization.57
Think About It
1. Applying Bowlby’s attachment theory, what are some essential features that
resulted in Derek’s being “affectionless”?
2. What are some possible treatments that could help Derek?
Source: Bowlby, J. (1944). Forty-four juvenile thieves: Their character and home-life.
International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 25, 40–41.
Between 1888 and 1915, researchers administered intelligence tests to

prisoners and boys in reform schools. For instance, in the early 1900s, the
Ohio Board of Administration was convinced that more than 40% of the
juveniles incarcerated in the state reformatories were “definitely feeble-
minded.” Further, the board maintained that it was “folly” to try to reform
these juveniles, because they were not immoral; rather, they were
unmoral.56 There were critics, however, of such research and the
subsequent findings. Edwin Sutherland maintained that the intelligence tests
administered were inadequate and that there were too many variations of
such tests. He also maintained that delinquency is associated more with
social and environmental influences than with IQ or intelligence.58
Learning Check 7.1
1. According to Freud, which of the following is also designated as a conscience?

a. Ego
b. Superego
c. Libido
d. Id
2. According to Kohlberg, designating certain behaviors as “right” and “wrong”
regardless of the circumstances is characteristic of the _______________ level of
morality.
a. preconventional
b. conventional
c. postconventional
d. nonconventional
3. According to Eysenck, which of the following is NOT associated with one of the
three dimensions linked to criminality?
a. Psychoticism
b. Extroversion
c. Anxiety
d. Neuroticism
James Q. Wilson and Richard J. Herrnstein:

Crime and Human Nature
During the 1960s, the dominant liberal political climate was one of
optimism; there was a perception that any social problem could be solved.
Environmental or sociological explanations of crime were more “palatable,”
while biological explanations lost favor among many social scientists. In
the 1980s, however, there was a political shift to a more conservative
perspective. Wrightsman maintained that this pendulum shift was more
tolerant of hereditary factors being considered to explain criminal
behavior.59 In this vein, conservatives are more likely to consider causes of
crime within the individual as well as to blame the behavior on the
criminal’s lack of moral sense; liberals are more likely to consider the
causes of crime in society, such as unequal distribution of wealth. Thus,
“conservatives are much more likely to see criminals as different from
normal citizens, while liberals are more likely to see them as people who
have simply reacted differently to different situations they find themselves
in.”60
In their 1985 book Crime and Human Nature, Wilson and Herrnstein
reviewed a considerable number of criminological studies that examined the
influence of genetic and familial factors on criminal behavior.61 Wilson (at
the time, a Harvard University political scientist) and Herrnstein (a Harvard
University psychologist) never explicitly “named” their theory,62 but Jack
Gibbs has suggested that they use the label operant-utilitarian theory of
criminality, since they often use concepts associated with operant
psychology.63 They maintained that there had been an overemphasis on
sociological explanations for criminal behavior:
The existence of biological predispositions means that

circumstances that activate criminal behavior in one person will
not do so in another, that social forces cannot deter criminal
behavior in 100 percent of a population, and that the distributions
of crime within and across societies may, to some extent, reflect
underlying distributions of constitutional factors. Perhaps the
simplest thing to say at this point is that crime cannot be
understood without taking into account individual predispositions
and their biological roots [italics added].64
Applying Theory to Crime Rape
Many feminists maintain that when placing rape in a historical context, one needs to
realize that women have historically been considered as property (of either their fathers or
their husbands) and thereby denied equal status within patriarchal societies. Thus, rape
has been considered only within the realm of the male perspective (i.e., as a violation of
his property) rather than within the realm of a female perspective (i.e., as a violation of
her body).65 In ancient history, according to lex talionis—or the “eye for an eye”
approach to dealing with offenders—the father of a raped daughter was allowed to rape
the rapist’s wife. “Bride capture” involved a man raping a woman to establish a
permanent relationship with her.66
Some feminists argue that the 19th-century approaches to protecting women (e.g.,
chivalry) were actually efforts among the middle class to control the activities of women
working in the public sphere as opposed to the private sphere (i.e., the home). Anne Clark
maintains that such efforts perpetuated the myth that as long as “proper” women
remained in the home rather than “roaming the streets,” they would not be vulnerable to
rape.67 During this time, it was even more difficult if women attempted to involve the
court system to seek justice for the crime of rape.
Some have maintained “that the victim of a sexual assault is actually assaulted twice—
once by the offender and once by the criminal justice system.”68 With the increasing
public awareness of rape since the 1970s, legislative reforms have been enacted in an
effort to modify rape statutes. Changes in the legal definitions of rape reflect society’s
changing attitudes toward this crime. These changes have been especially influenced by
the feminist movement.
In 1975, the state of Michigan led the country in reforming rape laws. First, it replaced
the term “rape” with “criminal sexual conduct.” Second, it identified four degrees of
criminal sexual conduct, which were differentiated by the amount of force used, the
resulting injury, and the age as well as mental state of the victim. This change emphasized
the force or coercion used by the perpetrator rather than focusing on the resistance (or
lack thereof) of the victim. This shift in perspective incorporated rape with other violent
offenses. For instance, a prosecutor does not have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt
that a robbery victim did not consent to the offense; thus, why should the prosecutor have
to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a rape victim did not consent to the offense?69
A key issue in the definition of rape is whether to include the term sexual. One
perspective maintains that it is essential to take the “sex out of” rape; rather, rape should
be viewed as a crime of violence. Rape is no different than other crimes of violence, such
as murder and robbery. Another perspective argues that rape is essentially sexual in nature
but also violent (i.e., sexual violence). Thus, “to take the sex out of rape is to make it
something it is not.”70
These variations have two important implications regarding measuring rape in the United
States. First, because of these differing definitions and procedures, state comparisons are
difficult. Second, while some states may have similar legal definitions, the enforcement,
prosecution, and conviction procedures may emphasize different legal and possibly
extralegal factors.71
In reference to the definition issues pertaining to rape, as noted in Chapter 2, the Uniform
Crime Reporting (UCR) Program changed the definition of rape in 2013. Previously the
definition was for forcible rape: “the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against
her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also
included.” Since 2013, the definition has been “penetration, no matter how slight, of the
vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another
person, without the consent of the victim.” Attempts or assaults to commit rape are
included, but statutory rape and incest are excluded.72 In 2017, there were approximately
135,755 rapes (revised definition) reported to law enforcement. This was about 2.5%
higher than 2016; compared to 2013, this number increased by approximately 19.4
percent.73
The FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit has attempted to provide a classification of rapists.
Researchers have also attempted to categorize types of rapists.74 One such typology was
developed by Raymond Knight and Robert Prentky.75 They classified rapists into four
categories: compensatory, displaced-anger, exploitive, and sadistic (see Table 7.4 for a
more detailed description of each type).
David Parker Ray, who was convicted of kidnapping and torture in 2001, could be
characterized as a sadistic rapist (see Table 7.4). Suspected of murdering at least 60
people, he was nicknamed the “Toy-Box Killer” because he spent about $100,000
soundproofing a truck trailer and purchasing various devices used to torture his victims;
he referred to the trailer as his “toy box.” In 1999, Cynthia escaped from Ray’s “toy box.”
She was naked and covered in blood. She had a metal choker collar padlocked around her
neck. She ran to a mobile home and pleaded for help from the homeowner. After the
police arrived, Cynthia told them how she had been kidnapped and tortured. Ray, along
with another woman, had held her as a sex slave for three days before she escaped.
Table 7.4 Four Categories of Rapists

Table 7.4 Four Categories of Rapists
Category Description Characteristics

Compensatory rapists, also

referred to as power-
reassurance rapists, reveal In reference to adult social
the least amount of sexual characteristics, compensatory
and general aggression rapists average a 10th-grade
when compared with the education level. They often are
other typologies. These single and live with either one or
individuals also demonstrate both parents; this type of rapist is
little evidence of childhood most likely to be dominated by
and adolescent impulsivity, an aggressive and sometimes
Compensatory seductive mother. They are most
such as running away,
rapists likely employed in menial
involvement in the juvenile
justice system, or problems occupations and considered
in grammar school. steady and reliable employees. In
Compared with the other reference to sexual deviance, the
typologies, these offenders compensatory rapist may be
most often come from stable involved in transvestism,
families with intact parental voyeurism, fetishism, or
marriages; fewer of these excessive masturbation.76
individuals experienced
neglect and physical abuse.
The displaced-anger, or
anger-retaliation, rapists had
the most chaotic and
unstable childhoods.
Compared with the other
typologies, more of these
rapists were either adopted
or placed in foster homes.
They often come from
single-parent homes; as
with the exploitive and
sadistic groups, a number of
these individuals were
neglected and abused.77 In
reference to adult social
characteristics, the
displaced-anger group’s
primary reason to rape is to
hurt their victim. Rapes by This group averages a 9th-grade
such individuals are education. This type of offender
characterized by: perceives himself as athletic and
masculine. Thus, he may engage
Displaced- (1) the presence of a high in sports and work in an action-
anger rapists degree of nonsexualized oriented occupation as well as
aggression or rage, engage in extramarital affairs.
expressed through verbal While this offender is often
and physical assaults that married, he is not violent toward
clearly exceed what is his partner.
necessary to force the
compliance of the victim;
(2) clear evidence, in
verbalizations or behavior,
of the intent to demean,
degrade, or humiliate the
victim;
(3) no evidence that

aggression is eroticized or
that sexual pleasure is
derived from injurious acts;
(4) injurious acts are not

focused on parts of the body
that have sexual
significance.78
In reference to adult
characteristics, these rapists have
many domestic issues; they also
may have experienced a number
Exploitive, or power- of unhappy marriages. They are
assertive, rapists are twice typically well-dressed and may
as likely to have some frequent clubs to pick up women.
contact with youth services This type of offender may be
compared with the other employed in a traditionally male
groups. Many of these occupation, such as construction.
Exploitive offenders were raised in He attempts to exude an image of
rapists single-parent families; masculinity in his physical
almost one-third lived in
appearance and demeanor.79 For
foster homes. As with the
this offender, the “sexual
displaced-anger rapists, a
behavior is hypothesized to be an
large number of these
impulsive, predatory act. . . . The
offenders were physically
victim seems to have little or no
abused.
psychological meaning to the
offender, and represents,
hypothetically, a masturbatory
object.”80
Of the various typologies,

the sadistic rapist is the
most dangerous. With this
type of offender, as sexual
arousal increases, the
aggressive nature of the In reference to adult
offense emerges; this characteristics, the sadistic rapist
usually results in the most is usually married, and some
bizarre and intense forms of consider him to be a “good
sexually aggressive family man.” He often lives in a
Sadistic
middle-class residential area with
rapists violence.81 More than half low criminal activity; he
of those designated as typically has a better-than-
sadistic rapists were raised average education and is
in single-parent homes. employed in a white-collar
Many of these offenders occupation.
were physically abused; a
number of them also
experienced some type of
sexual deviance during
childhood.
David Parker Ray was born in New Mexico in 1939. His parents, Cecil and Nettie Ray,
were poor and lived with Nettie’s parents. Cecil was an alcoholic and often beat his wife
as well as his children, David and Peggy. When David was 10 years old, Cecil left his
family and eventually divorced Nettie. Afterward, David and his younger sister Peggy
lived with their grandparents. David’s grandparents were extremely strict; the children
were often physically disciplined. David was shy and awkward; often he was bullied by
other children. He would spend time drinking alone and using drugs. It was at this time he
began his obsession with sadomasochism. At one point, his sister found his collection of
photographs depicting acts of bondage as well as sadomasochistic drawings.82
One theoretical perspective that could be applied to this offense is Bowlby’s attachment
theory. Due to David Ray’s unstable childhood, he was unable to form healthy
attachments, especially with his mother. Further, these attachments lacked specificity,
given his unstable family life. Thus, his attachments lacked duration; they were short-
lived and sporadic, at best.
Think About It
1. Are there any other essential features of Bowlby’s theory that could apply to David
Ray’s behavior?
2. What approaches could be implemented to enhance David Ray’s relationships,
especially with women?
Wilson and Herrnstein attempted to explain street crime by demonstrating

how human nature develops and evolves from the interaction of three
factors:
1. Social environment. While broad societal values have often been

neglected as explanations, Wilson and Herrnstein maintained, the shift
in American culture from valuing restraint and discipline to the recent
narcissistic “me-first” orientation had a strong influence on the
individual level and had contributed to the increasing crime rate during
the previous two decades.
2. Family relationships. Parents who are uncaring, inconsistent in the
treatment of their children, or unskilled in dispensing rewards and
punishments contribute to their children’s criminal behavior. Further,
being from a broken home or a single-parent household is not
necessarily an influential factor; rather, it is the parent’s failure to teach
the child the consequences of his or her actions.
3. Biological makeup. Qualities considered influential include gender,
low intelligence, impulsiveness, and body type. These are at least
partly hereditary.83
The third factor, biological makeup, is the most controversial aspect of
Wilson and Herrnstein’s theoretical perspective. They stressed that this
theory was not one of predestination. Rather, they argued that the question
of whether criminals are “born or made” is poorly phrased. The word born
implies that some part of criminality may be due, categorically and
permanently, to assigned constitutional factors (e.g., genetics); the word
made implies that some aspect of criminality may be due, categorically and
permanently, to social factors. They maintained that such a viewpoint
“neglects, obviously, the complex interactions that exist between those
causes.”84
Wilson and Herrnstein contended that at any time, a person can choose
between committing a crime and not committing a crime. The consequences
of committing a crime consist of rewards and punishments. The greater the
ratio of net rewards of crime to net rewards of noncrime, the greater the
tendency to commit the crime.85 Further, constitutional factors, such as
intelligence and impulsivity, can influence an individual’s ability to judge
future and immediate rewards and punishments. Thus, “aggressive and
impulsive males with low intelligence are at a greater risk for committing
crimes than are young males who have developed ‘the bite of conscience,’
which reflects higher cognitive and intellectual development.”86 In
reference to intelligence, Wilson and Herrnstein argued that social scientists
have maintained that individuals identified as offenders have an average IQ
of 92, which is about 8 points below the population average. Further, they
contend that a low IQ may result in offenders’ inability to think past “short-
term” situations or difficulty understanding society’s rules and the
consequences of their actions.87
One of the various criticisms of Wilson and Herrnstein’s theoretical

perspective88 is that they failed to empirically test their terms, such as “ratio
of rewards.” Specifically, they did not adequately operationalize these
terms; this makes it difficult for researchers to test their theory. Another
concern was the focus on street and predatory crimes, such as murder,
robbery, and burglary. Wilson and Herrnstein had not included other
offenses, such as white-collar crimes. As Gibbs asked, “Are some white-
collar crimes predatory?”89 Some argued that while Wilson and Herrnstein
objectively selected and presented relevant literature, they may have
actually selectively reviewed literature that supported their theory. Thus,
“although readers were given the impression that the authors’ arguments
were based on solid science and, therefore, should be believed, critics
asserted that, in more than one instance, these arguments were based on
shaky evidence.”90
Psychopathy and Crime

David Lykken distinguished between the terms sociopath and psychopath.
Sociopath refers specifically to antisocial personalities attributed to social
or familial dysfunction. Psychopath refers to individuals whose antisocial
behavior may be the result of a defect or abnormality within them, rather
than the result of issues in their rearing or socialization. In his classic book
Mask of Sanity, Hervey Cleckley maintained that psychopaths are
intelligent, self-centered, glib, superficially charming, verbally shallow, and
manipulative. In terms of emotions, these individuals lack essential human
characteristics such as empathy and remorse. Behaviorally, psychopaths
engage in irresponsible behavior, are prone to seek novelty and excitation,
and often engage in moral transgressions or antisocial acts.91
sociopaths: people whose antisocial personalities are due to social or familial

dysfunction.
psychopaths: individuals whose antisocial behavior may be the result of a defect or

abnormality rather than the result of their rearing or socialization.
While many researchers attempted to develop an assessment tool measuring

psychopathy, it was not until the mid-1980s that major advances were
made. Robert Hare developed the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R)
to examine psychopathy in adult samples. His scale adapted some of
Cleckley’s concepts of psychopathic individuals, as well as included such
factors as impulsivity and criminological components (e.g., criminal
versatility).92 The Hare PCL-R includes scales measuring two factors: (1)
the callous, selfish, remorseless use of others, and (2) a chronically unstable
and antisocial lifestyle.93
While a majority of the research on psychopathy has considered it as one
construct, other studies in the adult literature have focused on possible
subtypes or subgroups of psychopathy.94 One subgroup is consistent with
Cleckley’s original concept of the primary psychopath:
[An individual] who displays certain characteristics that are

maladaptive and pathological (e.g., lack of conscience,
irresponsibility, failure to learn from experience)—as well as key
traits that appear ostensibly adaptive, or at least nonpathological
(e.g., low anxiety, interpersonal charm, absence of irrational
thinking).95
Another subgroup also has many of the same maladaptive traits as the
primary psychopath. However, this subtype, or secondary psychopath,
seems to be more prone to exhibit extensive symptoms of psychological
turmoil and emotional reactivity. Also, these individuals tend to be more
reactive, antagonistic, and impulsive; they are also more at risk for
engaging in destructive behavior, such as drug use/abuse, suicidal
ideation/gestures, and interpersonal aggression.96
Referring to Lykken’s low-fear-quotient theory, do you think
this woman has a low or a high fear quotient?
©iStockphoto.com/aluxum
David T. Lykken attempted to explain psychopathy with his low-fear-

quotient theory. He maintained that all individuals have an innate
propensity to fear certain stimuli, such as snakes, strangers, or loss of
support. Individuals subsequently associate, or condition, fear of stimuli
and situations that they have previously experienced with pain or
punishment. This is referred to as an innate fear quotient; this fear quotient
varies from person to person. Primary psychopaths are at the low end of this
fear-quotient continuum. Further, most of the normal socialization process
relies on punishing antisocial behavior. However, “someone who is
relatively fearless will be relatively harder to socialize in this way.”97
Lykken provided the following example of a child who demonstrated

fearlessness. The letter was written by the mother of a teenage daughter in
response to an article Lykken wrote for a popular magazine:
Your article on fearlessness was very informative. I was able to identify

with many of the traits. However, being thirty-six and a single parent of
three children, I have managed to backpack on the “edge” without breaking
my neck. I have a 14-year-old daughter who seems to be almost fearless to
anything in her environment. She jumps out second-story windows. When
she was in first grade, I came home from work one afternoon and found her
hanging by her fingers from our upstairs window. I “calmly” asked her what
she was doing. She replied that she was “getting refreshed.” Later, she
stated that she did things like that when she needed a lift—that she was
bored and it made her feel better. Nancy is bright, witty, attractive,
charismatic, and meets people easily. She tends to choose friends who are
offbeat, antisocial, and into dope, alcohol, etc. During her month’s visit here
with me, she stole money from my purse, my bank card, etc., etc.98
Another explanation of psychopathy is inhibitory defect or
underendowment. Some psychopathic individuals seem to act impulsively
without assessing the situation, appreciating the dangers, or considering the
consequences. This perspective maintains that lesions in certain areas of the
brain can cause a decrease in inhibitory control in animals as well as
humans. This view does not argue that all psychopaths have lesions or
qualitative defects in their frontal cortex areas; rather, frontal lesions can
produce a syndrome similar to psychopathy.99
The interpersonal and affective factors associated with psychopathy often

are related to a socially deviant lifestyle, including irresponsible and
impulsive behavior; these behaviors tend to ignore or violate social rules
and mores. While not all psychopaths have any type of formal contact with
the criminal justice system, the interpersonal, affective, and behavioral
features of psychopathy place them at high risk of aggressive and violent
behavior.100 With the widespread adoption of the PCL-R to assess
psychopathy, there is empirical evidence on the association between
psychopathy and criminal behavior.101 Research has revealed that while
psychopathy occurs in about 1% of the general population, these individuals
make up a significant proportion of the prison population.102
Hare stressed that while psychopathy is closely associated with antisocial

and criminal behavior, it should not be confused with criminality in
general.103 He noted that psychopaths are qualitatively different from other
individuals involved in criminal behavior. Specifically, psychopaths have a
distinct criminal career in terms of the number and type of antisocial
behaviors, as well as the ages when they engage in these behaviors. Also,
the motivation to engage in these antisocial behaviors differs between
psychopaths and nonpsychopaths.
In terms of treatment of psychopaths, most clinicians and researchers are

less than optimistic about successful outcomes. A major reason is that
unlike most other types of offenders, psychopaths do not experience
personal distress and do not appreciate the problems associated with their
attitudes and behavior. Further, when they do seek treatment, it is usually in
an effort to benefit their situation, such as seeking probation and parole,
rather than to improve themselves. Thus, “it is not surprising that they
derive little benefit from traditional treatment programs, particularly those
aimed at the development of empathy, conscience, and interpersonal
skills.”104
Mental Health and the Criminal Justice System

The proportion of male and female jail detainees with a mental disorder is
significantly higher than the proportion of people in the general population
with a mental disorder.105 Some have referred to the “in and out” of prison
and/or jail among offenders with mental disorders as “the revolving
door.”106 According to the Treatment Advocacy Center:
Prisons and jails have become America’s “new asylums”: The

number of individuals with serious mental illness in prisons and
jails now exceeds the number in state psychiatric hospitals
tenfold. Most of the mentally ill individuals in prisons and jails
would have been treated in the state psychiatric hospitals in the
years before the deinstitutionalization movement led to the
closing of the hospitals, a trend that continues even today. The
treatment of mentally ill individuals in prisons and jails is critical,
especially since such individuals are vulnerable and often abused
while incarcerated. Untreated, their psychiatric illness often gets
worse, and they leave prison or jail sicker than when they
entered.107
In this section, we briefly present some of the issues associated with mental
health and the criminal justice system, beginning with treatment
approaches.
Learning Check 7.2
1. Goddard maintained that intelligence, or IQ _______________.

a. was influenced by one’s environment
b. was influenced by one’s socialization
c. was static or innate
d. did not influence criminality
2. Wilson and Herrnstein argued that street crime is associated with human nature and
maintained that human nature develops and evolves from the interaction of three
factors. Which of the following is NOT one of those three factors?
a. Social environment
b. Peer relationships
c. Family relationships
d. Biological makeup
3. According to Cleckley, an individual who displays certain characteristics that are
maladaptive and pathological, as well as key traits that appear ostensibly adaptive
or at least nonpathological, is a _______________.
a. primary psychopath
b. secondary psychopath
c. sociopath
d. nonpsychopath
Treatment
Attempted methods of treatment to address problems linked to criminality
include coping and problem-solving skills, conflict resolution, empathy, and
relationships with peers, parents, and other adults.
For instance, in 1997 the Thinking for a Change program was developed
by Bush, Glick, and Taymans in cooperation with the National Institute of
Corrections. Thinking for a Change is an integrated cognitive-behavioral
change program that includes cognitive restructuring, social skill
development, and the development of problem-solving skills. The program
was designed to be used in prisons, jails, community corrections, and
probation and parole settings.108 Generally, cognitive intervention is
an approach that focuses on the ways that offenders think.

Thinking includes a wide array of skills and processes, such as
problem-solving skills, the ability to empathize with others and
victims, the ability to formulate and then achieve plans for the
future, and the ability to foresee the consequences of one’s own
behavior.109
Thinking for a Change: an integrated cognitive-behavioral change program that includes
cognitive restructuring, social skill development, and the development of problem-solving
skills.
Part of the impetus for this program was the finding that criminal behavior
was more inclined to change when offenders were able to apply, and
incorporate, both cognitive restructuring and cognitive skills programs.110
In reference to studies evaluating the Thinking for a Change program,

Golden, Gatchel, and Cahill revealed some “mixed” results concerning
recidivism.111 They concluded that problem-solving skills did improve
among offenders who completed the program. These skills may
subsequently deter them from engaging in criminal activity. The researchers
also noted that future research might consider exploring whether “booster
sessions,” such as an aftercare group or relapse prevention measures, could
further deter these offenders from criminal behavior. While cognitive-
behavioral approaches have been applied to case management,
psychologically oriented treatments, and psychoeducational programs, such
applications have, according to Wilson, resulted in no differences between
offenders who participate in a problem-solving-skills-development program
and those who do not.112
Why Do They Do It?
Ariel Castro
On May 6, 2013, the world learned of the horrific ordeal three young women endured at
the house of Ariel Castro on Seymour Avenue in Cleveland, Ohio. The first woman,
Michelle Knight, was abducted on August 23, 2002. She was 21 years old at the time.
The second young woman, Amanda Berry, disappeared on April 21, 2003; she was
almost 17 years of age at the time. The third, Georgina “Gina” DeJesus, went missing on
April 2, 2004. She was 14 years old.113 All three women suffered unimaginable sexual,
physical, and emotional abuse for years. Amanda Berry described the conditions of her
imprisonment. She was forced to sleep on a filthy mattress and had only a bucket for a
latrine, resulting in a despicable odor. Castro would give her a bag of chips or crackers or
some other food. However, this, along with other essentials, such as a shower, was given
at a price. Berry also mentioned that one of the cruelest deeds was when Castro would
play “mind games.” DeJesus stated that Castro made her play “Russian roulette.”
On Christmas Day, 2006, Amanda Berry gave birth to a girl, Jocelyn. As she grew older,
Castro allowed Jocelyn certain freedoms that were not given to Knight, Berry, or
DeJesus. While Jocelyn was often locked in with the three women, on occasion, Castro
would allow her to go outside to play in the backyard or the park or attend Sunday
services. Berry stated that “she loved him and he loved her.” However, she was nervous
because she feared he might sexually abuse Jocelyn.
After 10 years, the women finally escaped. One day, Berry realized that the bedroom door
was unlocked and Castro was not in the home. A neighbor, Charles Ramsey, helped Berry
free herself from the padlocked storm door. Subsequently, Berry called 911. On August 1,
2013, Ariel Castro was sentenced to life plus 1,000 years. He pled guilty to 937 counts of
kidnapping and rape. On September 3, 2013, he hanged himself in his prison cell.114
Findings from a report by a prison mental-health clinician prior to Castro’s suicide

revealed that he believed that his victims were equally to blame for his crimes. He stated
that his behavior had been due to his addiction to pornography. The report noted that
Castro was a deeply troubled man who was simultaneously pompous, demanding, happy,
paranoid, and frustrated. While in prison, he was warned on numerous occasions to wear
clothes in his cell when female corrections officers were present. He would ask for clean
underwear and bedding while claiming, “Still nothing gets done. I don’t know if I can
take this neglect anymore, and the way I’m being treated. . . . I feel as though I’m being
pushed over the edge, one day at a time.” Castro was diagnosed with narcissistic
personality disorder with antisocial features. However, he was not considered a high
suicide risk.115
Think About It
1. What should the criminal justice system do for offenders such as Castro?
2. Is there a strong link between individuals with mental-health issues and criminal
behavior?
3. Should there be more coordination and collaboration between the criminal justice
and mental-health-care systems?
Six areas of treatment that have demonstrated some effectiveness for

offenders with mental illness include the following:
Collaborative psychopharmacology—symptoms of mental illness

improve when clients are included in the medical decision-making
process.
Assertive community treatment—providing services to clients in their
community, as opposed to a clinical setting, such as an outpatient
clinic or psychiatric hospital.
Family psychoeducation—educating family members about mental
illness, as well as the effects of mental illness; enhancing interpersonal
relations; and encouraging a supportive support system.
Supported employment—helping clients obtain competitive
employment and provide assistance when needed (e.g., skill
development).
Illness management and recovery—helping clients take responsibility
for their recovery in an effort to manage their illness.
Integrated dual disorders treatment—focusing on issues of mental
illness and substance abuse simultaneously in an integrated
approach.116
Mental-Health Courts
The concept of mental-health courts developed from the drug-court model
in the late 1980s. The first mental-health court was created in 1997 in
Broward County, Florida. In 2000, President Clinton signed America’s Law
Enforcement and Mental Health Project into law. This act authorized the
establishment of up to 100 mental-health courts and allocated $10 million a
year, for up to four years, to maintain these courts.117 As with drug courts, a
major reason for establishing mental-health courts was to address the large
proportion of individuals with mental illnesses involved in the criminal
justice system. Thus, “like drug courts and other ‘problem-solving courts,’ .
. . mental-health courts move beyond the criminal court’s traditional focus
on case processing to address the root causes of behaviors that bring people
before the court.”118 The goals of mental-health courts include increasing
public safety, increasing treatment participation and quality of life for
offenders, and enhancing the use of community resources.119
mental-health courts: courts established to address the large proportion of individuals

involved in the criminal justice system who have mental illnesses. The first was created in
1997.
Based on a “working definition,” mental-health courts share some common

features. First, this is a specialized court for offenders with mental illnesses.
Second, as noted above, this court focuses more on problem-solving
approaches. Third, participants in this court are identified through a series
of mental-health screenings and assessments. Fourth, these offenders
voluntarily participate in a judicially supervised treatment plan. Finally,
there are incentives for adherence to the treatment, as well as sanctions for
nonadherence.120 There are, however, variations among mental-health
courts, such as target population, charge accepted (i.e., misdemeanor or
felony), plea arrangement, intensity of supervision, program duration, and
type of treatment available.
Mental-health courts, modeled after drug courts, attempt to

address the issues that bring a person to court.
Craig F. Walker/The Denver Post/Getty Images
Most mental-health-court participants suffer from serious mental illnesses,

such as schizophrenia, schizoaffective disorder, bipolar disorder, severe
depression, and anxiety disorders. Based on the Bureau of Justice Statistics,
National Inmate Survey (2011–2012), Figure 7.2 shows the mental-health
status of prisoners and jail inmates. Most states, when determining the
criteria for participating in mental-health courts, consider offenders’ level of
functioning, as well as the severity and persistence of their disorders, to
prioritize their access to mental-health services. Some mental-health courts
accept individuals with a broad range of mental conditions.
The Insanity Defense

Society has often been challenged with the idea that a mentally ill person
should not be held criminally responsible for his or her actions.121 The idea
of excusing offenders for their criminal actions due to a mental disease has
been in existence for centuries.122 Insanity is not a medical term; rather, it
is a legal term. In this context, questions such as the following are raised:
insanity: the idea—which has been in existence for centuries—of excusing offenders for
their criminal actions due to a mental disease; the term is not a medical term but a legal
term.
Figure 7.2 Mental Health Status of Prisoners and Jail Inmates,

by Type of Mental Health Indicator, 2011–2012
Source: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,

National Inmate Survey, 2011–2012, Figure 1.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/imhprpji1112.pdf.
*Comparison group.
**Difference with the comparison group is significant at the 95%

confidence level.
aIncludes
inmates with a score of 13 or more on the K6 scale. See
Methodology.
bIncludes inmates who reported they had ever been told by a mental-
health-care professional they had a mental disorder.
cIncludes inmates with a score of 7 or less on the K6 and who had

never been told by a mental-health-care professional they had a mental
disorder.
Is the person so insane that he or she:
cannot make a valid will?

should be civilly committed?
cannot be tried for his or her alleged crime?123
The general rationale for an insanity defense is that a person should not be
punished for engaging in a criminal act if he or she could not refrain from
committing the act. The law is established to punish those individuals who
make the wrong choices; thus, those people who do not have free choice,
due to a mental illness, should not be punished for such acts.124
The standards for establishing an insanity defense vary extensively. Four

states—Kansas, Montana, Idaho, and Utah—do not allow for an insanity
defense. However, Montana, Idaho, and Utah do have a provision under
which an offender can receive a guilty but insane, or mentally ill, verdict.125
Among the states that do allow an insanity defense, there are essentially
four types of tests—again, with modified versions as well. These include
the M’Naghten rule, irresistible impulse test, Durham test, and American
Law Institute’s Model Penal Code (see Table 7.5). Table 7.6 summarizes
defenses related to mental health that have been attempted by defense
attorneys.
Table 7.5 Five Insanity-Defense Standards

Table 7.5 Five Insanity-Defense Standards
Legal Standard Who Bears the
Final Burden
Test Because of Mental Burden of
of Proof
Illness Proof?
“Didn’t know what

he was doing or Varies between proof by a
M’Naghten
didn’t know it was balance of probabilities on the
wrong” part of the defense to proof
beyond a reasonable doubt on
Irresistible “Could not control the part of the prosecutor
impulse his conduct”
“The criminal act Beyond

Durham was caused by his reasonable Prosecutor
mental illness” doubt
“Lacks substantial
capacity to
Beyond
Brawner– appreciate the
reasonable Prosecutor
ALI wrongfulness of his
doubt
conduct or to
control it”
“Lacks capacity to
Clear and
Present appreciate the
convincing Defense
federal law wrongfulness of his
evidence
conduct”
Source: Morris, N. (n.d.). Crime file: Insanity defense. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, p. 3. Retrieved from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/100742NCJRS.pdf.
Table 7.6 Attempted Mental-Health Defenses

Table 7.6 Attempted Mental-Health Defenses
Defense Description
Defense Description
In Texas in 2013, 16-year-old Ethan Couch, the son

of wealthy parents, was driving while under the
influence, as well as speeding, when he struck a
Affluenza stalled vehicle, killing four individuals.
Couch was a product of “affluenza”—his privilege

and upbringing did not provide him the ability to
connect his actions with consequences.
In Arizona in 1997, Scott Falater stabbed his wife 44

times before drowning her in their swimming pool.
Sleepwalking
He did not remember killing his wife because he had
been sleepwalking.
In Florida in 1977, 15-year-old Ronny Zamora shot

and killed his elderly neighbor because she caught
Television him burglarizing her home.
intoxication Zamora could not distinguish between reality and
fantasy due to his obsession with violent television
shows, such as Kojak.
In San Francisco in 1978, former supervisor Dan

White shot and killed Mayor George Moscone and
Supervisor Harvey Milk.
After White lost his job on San Francisco’s board of

Twinkie supervisors, he had consumed large amounts of junk
food (e.g., Twinkies and Coca-Cola). Because he had
been depressed, as supported by his large
consumption of junk food, he had brought a gun to
his former workplace at city hall.
Defense Description
In Florida in 1984, Margaret Mileau went into a rage

Premenstrual and rammed her car into the rear as well as the
syndrome passenger’s and driver’s doors of a car in which her
(PMS) boyfriend was a passenger.
She had been premenstrual.
The M’Naghten Rule.

This is the oldest rule for determining insanity.126 The M’Naghten case
introduced the modern concept of insanity into English common law, which
later influenced law in the United States. In 1843, Daniel M’Naghten shot
Edward Drummond, who was the secretary to the British prime minister,
Sir Robert Peel. M’Naghten thought that Peel, along with the “Tories,” was
involved in a conspiracy against him. He believed that the only feasible way
to resolve this issue was to kill Peel. Unfortunately, M’Naghten mistook
Drummond for Peel. The issue of insanity was formally introduced in
M’Naghten’s trial. He was subsequently acquitted by a jury on the grounds
of insanity.127 As noted in Table 7.5, the legal standard is that “he didn’t
know what he was doing or didn’t know it was wrong.” Specifically, the
M’Naghten rule is as follows:
1. Every person is presumed sane unless the contrary can be proven.

2. A person suffering a “partial” delusion should be dealt with as if the
circumstance of the delusion was real.
3. To establish a defense on the grounds of insanity, it must be clearly
proved that
at the time of committing the act,
the accused was laboring under such a defect of reason,
from a disease of the mind,
as not to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing,
and if he did know it (the nature and quality of the act he was
doing), that he did not know what he was doing was wrong.128
M’Naghten rule: the legal standard that “he didn’t know what he was doing or didn’t
know it was wrong” resulting from the M’Naghten case, which introduced the modern
concept of insanity into English common law.
The Irresistible-Impulse Test.

In 1897, the federal courts, and subsequently many state courts, included
the irresistible-impulse test with the M’Naghten “right-wrong” test. With
this test, offenders can claim that, due to a mental disease, they were unable
to control their behavior.129 The standard for this test is that the individual
could not control his or her conduct. One well-known case that used this
defense was that of Lorena Bobbitt. In 1993, Lorena Bobbitt severed her
husband’s penis with a kitchen knife.
irresistible impulse: one standard for the insanity defense; offenders can claim that, due
to a mental disease, they were unable to control their behavior.
During the testimony, Mrs. Bobbitt stated that minutes after her drunken
husband raped her, she was drinking a glass of water in the kitchen. It was
at this time that she noticed a 12-inch knife. She picked up the knife and cut
off her husband’s penis while he was sleeping. She further testified that she
had not realized what she had done until later. She noticed the knife in one
hand and her husband’s penis in the other. The defense argued that, given
the abuse from her husband and also her various mental illnesses, after her
husband raped her, Mrs. Bobbitt experienced an “irresistible impulse” to
retaliate against him.130
The Durham Rule.

In the 1954 case Durham v. United States, the court included a volitional or
free-choice component to the insanity defense. Thus, according to the
Durham rule, offenders are not criminally responsible, even if they are
aware of their conduct, if this behavior was the “product of mental disease
or defect.”131 Judge David Bazelon noted that the M’Naghten rule was too
narrow. The court argued that the test should incorporate the situation in
which psychopathic disorders are qualifying conditions.132
Durham rule: offenders are not criminally responsible, even if they are aware of their
conduct, if this behavior was the “product of mental disease or defect.”
The American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code.

About one year after the Durham decision, the American Law Institute’s
Model Penal Code (ALI/MPC) developed the substantial capacity test.
Due to vague and contradictory rules about insanity, a number of states
adopted the ALI test. The test includes the following, in Section 4.01 of the
Model Penal Code:
A person is not responsible for criminal conduct if at the time of

such conduct as a result of mental disease or defect he lacks
substantial capacity either to appreciate the criminality
(wrongfulness) or his conduct or to conform his conduct to the
requirements of the law.133
American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code (ALI/MPC): one standard for the insanity
defense; the ALI/MPC test stipulates that the offender demonstrate a lack of substantial
capacity.
A key difference between the M’Naghten and ALI/MPC tests is that the
M’Naghten test stipulates that the offender must demonstrate total mental
impairment; the ALI/MPC test stipulates that the offender must demonstrate
a lack of substantial capacity.
Policy Implications
Although estimates of the number of offenders with mental disorders vary,
the number of these individuals is quite high and has been increasing in
recent years.134 As noted earlier, some have referred to the “in and out” of
prison and/or jail among offenders with mental disorders as “the revolving
door.” Thus, a major policy implication would be to address this “revolving
door.” One suggested approach would be to implement primary, secondary,
and tertiary prevention programs. Generally, primary prevention focuses on
eliminating influences that could potentially result in criminal activity.135
For instance, teachers, employers, and family members may make referrals
to family-therapy organizations, substance-abuse clinics, and mental-health
associations.136 Secondary prevention focuses on intervening for
individuals who demonstrate a tendency toward criminal behavior.137 In
reference to mental health, these types of prevention programs can provide
psychological counseling to at-risk individuals.138 Tertiary prevention deals
with eliminating recidivistic behavior of offenders.139 For offenders with
mental-health problems, tertiary prevention programs may involve
requirement of a probation order or diversionary sentence, as well as an
aftercare program, at the end of a prison sentence.140
The “Wanted” poster for Ethan Couch. Couch’s attorney

argued that he was suffering from “affluenza” and should
not be held accountable for his actions. Should this be a
viable defense?
U.S. Marshalls Service

According to Morgan and his colleagues, a meta-analysis revealed that
interventions with mentally ill offenders lessened the offenders’ symptoms
of distress, as well as improved their ability to cope with their problems.
These effects resulted in offenders’ demonstrating improved institutional
adjustment and behavioral functioning. Further, these interventions
significantly reduced psychiatric and criminal recidivism. Morgan et al.
noted that these results should be of great interest to policymakers and
others: “[T]he results of this review suggest that improvements in the co-
occurring dimensions of mental illness and criminalness are possible
[italics added].”141
Learning Check 7.3
1. Some have referred to the “in and out” of prison and/or jail among offenders with
mental disorders as _______________.
a. the downward spiral
b. the revolving door
c. the elevator system of justice
d. the inverted sieve
2. Mental-health courts were modeled after _______________.
a. the American Psychological Association’s Model Health Court
b. civil court procedures
c. drug courts
d. family courts
3. For this standard, the court included a volitional or free-choice component to the
insanity defense.
a. M’Naghten rule
b. Irresistible impulse
c. Durham
d. ALI/MPC
Fazit
In this chapter, we summarized theories that focus on psychological, rather than

sociological, aspects of criminality. According to Mischel, some of the fundamental
assumptions of psychological theories of criminality include the following.142
1. Personality is the major motivational element within individuals, because it is the

seat of drives and the source of motives.
2. Crimes result from abnormal, dysfunctional, or inappropriate mental processes
within the personality.
3. Criminal behavior, although condemned by the social group, may be purposeful for
the individual insofar as it addresses certain felt needs.
4. Normality is generally defined by social consensus.
5. Defective, or abnormal, mental processes may have a variety of causes, including a
diseased mind, inappropriate learning or improper conditioning, the copying of
inappropriate role models, and adjustment to inner conflicts.143
We reviewed early psychological perspectives, such as psychoanalysis, dimensions of an

individual’s personality (e.g., psychoticism, extroversion, and neuroticism) and criminal
behavior, moral development, and attachment to significant others. Then we looked at
more current psychological perspectives, beginning with the controversial discussion
concerning intelligence and criminality. Next, we reviewed the theoretical perspective
some have named the operant-utilitarian theory of criminality, which maintains that
various factors influence criminal behavior, including biological factors, such as gender,
low intelligence, impulsiveness, and body type. We concluded this section with various
issues pertaining to mental health in the criminal justice system.
At the beginning of this chapter, we presented the case of Joel Michael Guy, Jr. At the
time of this writing, he has been charged in his parents’ murder. During one point in the
trial, Joel Guy took the witness stand; he testified that he saw “yellow crime scene tape”
in his parents’ yard and noticed he had “severe cuts” on his person.144 However, he
never stated as to why he thought there was yellow crime scene tape or why he had severe
cuts. At this point, his attorneys have not submitted an insanity defense. What do you
think?
Summary of Theories
Individuals may be
unaware of their
unconscious experiences;
they seek some form of
The id, ego, and Sigmund
expression until these
Psychoanalytic superego; anxiety, Freud,
experiences are brought
perspective defense mechanisms, August
to their awareness.
and the unconscious Aichhorn
Attempt to uncover
unconscious motives for
engaging in criminal
behavior.
Initially, Eysenck
Personality can be focused on two
viewed in three personality dimensions
Theory of dimensions: (neuroticism and
Hans
crime and psychoticism, extroversion) in terms of
Eysenck
personality extroversion, and how they are linked to
neuroticism (the PEN criminality; later, he
model) incorporated the
psychoticism dimension.
Depending on
individuals’ level of
Three levels of
moral development, they
morality:
will perceive issues such
preconventional,
Moral Lawrence as right and wrong,
conventional, and
development Kohlberg avoiding punishment,
postconventional.
responsibility, societal
Within each level are
rules, and respecting
two stages.
human life in a different
form of reasoning.
Seven essential
Individuals may react in
features: specificity,
John certain ways if they
duration, engagement
Attachment Bowlby, experienced some type
of emotion, course of
theory Mary of separation or if they
development, learning,
Ainsworth have weak attachments
organization, and
to significant others.
biological function.
Crime cannot be
understood without
Overemphasis on
considering the
sociological
individual’s
explanations; human
predisposition and
Operant- nature develops and James Q.
biological makeup.
utilitarian evolves from the Wilson,
Constitutional factors,
theory of interaction of three Richard J.
such as intelligence and
criminality factors: social Herrnstein
impulsivity, can
environment, family
influence an individual’s
relationships, and
ability to judge future
biological makeup.
and immediate rewards
and punishments.
Individuals have an
innate propensity to fear
Fear quotient; fear-
Low-fear- certain stimuli, or an
quotient continuum; David
quotient innate fear quotient.
normal socialization Lykken
theory Psychopaths are at the
process; psychopathy
low end of this fear-
quotient continuum.
Key Terms
American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code (ALI/MPC), 177
attachment theory, 162
conventional level of morality, 160
Durham rule, 177
ego, 156
extroversion, 158
id, 156
insanity, 175
intelligence quotient (IQ), 163
irresistible impulse, 177
mental health courts, 174
M’Naghten rule, 177
neuroticism, 158
PEN model, 158
postconventional level of morality, 160
preconventional level of morality, 159
psychoanalytic perspective, 156
psychopath, 169
psychoticism, 158
sociopath, 169
superego, 156
Thinking for a Change, 172
1. What are some of the key principles of Freud’s psychoanalytic perspective?
2. How did Aichhorn apply some of these principles to juvenile offenders?
3. What is the PEN model?
4. How would you distinguish the various levels of moral development?
5. What are the key features of attachment theory?
6. What are some of the main issues regarding the link between intelligence and
criminality?
7. According to Wilson and Herrnstein, what are the three factors associated with street
crime and human nature?
8. How would you distinguish between a psychopath and other criminal offenders?
9. What are the key differences between the M’Naghten, irresistible impulse, Durham, and
ALI/MPC tests?
Ressourcen
The American Bar Association provides various resources, such as publications

including periodicals and the ABA Journal.
http://www.americanbar.org/aba.html
The National Center for State Courts provides information on mental-health courts.
https://www.ncsc.org/Topics/Alternative-Dockets/Problem-Solving-Courts/Mental-
Health-Courts/Resource-Guide.aspx
Student Study Site

Media Library
premium resources:
Author Video
7.1: Psychological Models

7.1: Psychological Theories
7.2: Hans Eysenck Theory of Crime and Personality
7.1: Assault
Chapter 8 Social Structure Theories of
Crime I Early Development and Strain
Models of Crime
© iStockphoto.com/aluxum
Learning Objectives
8.1 Describe the early theories of social structure presented in the 19th century.
8.2 Identify Émile Durkheim’s contributions to the evolution of social structure theories.
8.3 Explain why Robert K. Merton’s theory of strain become popular when it did, as well
as how his conceptualization of “anomie” differed from Durkheim’s.
8.4 Identify some of the revisions or variations of strain theory and note how they differ
from Merton’s original theory.
8.5 Discuss how Robert Agnew’s proposed model of general strain added more sources
of strain to Merton’s original framework.
8.6 Identify some ways the various models of strain theory have informed the making of
policies intended to reduce criminality.
Case Study
The Black-Binder Bandit
During his bank robberies, Urquijo typically carried a black binder, which he used both to
hide his revolver and to stash the loot.
Public domain
In July 2011, a jobless man was arrested for robbing banks across the Phoenix valley in
Arizona. The man, Cristian Alfredo Urquijo, 39, told authorities that he did it to survive and
that “desperation was a great motivator.” He was accused of robbing at least a dozen banks in
2010 and 2011. The criminal complaint noted that he had been laid off from work, was unable
to find employment, and robbed the banks to survive. He went on to say, “It’s pretty simple. It’s
black and white. I don’t have a job, I had to work, and I rob to survive.” During his crime spree,
before his identity became known, authorities had dubbed him “The Black-Binder Bandit,”
because he typically hid a revolver in a black binder and also would usually place the stolen
money in this binder.
Urquijo pleaded guilty to nine counts of bank robbery, three counts of armed bank robbery, and
one count of use of a firearm in a crime of violence, which carried an enhanced sentence. He
had originally been charged with 16 counts of bank robbery, but as often happens in plea
negotiations, the counts were reduced. He did admit that he had robbed at least 12 banks and
taken more than $49,000.
It is obvious that Urquijo committed these crimes because he wanted to provide for himself in
an economic recession. Many individuals like him are strongly motivated to commit crimes—
even the major federal crime of bank robbery—to deal with the economic strain or frustration
of not being able to “get ahead” or achieve the American Dream of success. In this chapter, we
discuss the evolution of theories that address this concept of trying to provide for oneself or
succeed while dealing with American societal and economic dynamics. Specifically, we review
the development of anomie/strain theory, starting with its origins among early social structure
theorists, such as Durkheim, and moving to its further development by Merton. We examine the
development of various strain models of offending, as well as the most modern versions of
strain theory (e.g., general strain theory). We also examine the empirical research findings on
this perspective, which reveal that this framework remains one of the dominant theoretical
explanations of criminal behavior. We will finish this chapter by examining the policy
implications of this perspective, and we will further discuss the case of “The Black-Binder
Bandit.”
The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) typically assigns nicknames (such as “The Black-
Binder Bandit”) to serial bank robbers, for a very important reason: The public is more likely to
take note of serial bank robbers when there is a catchy moniker or nickname attached to them.
Apparently, this strategy is useful, because bank robbery has a much higher clearance rate than
other types of robbery. Thus, other serial bank robbers in recent history include the “Mesh-
Mask Bandit” (arrested in 2013 in Texas; wore a mesh mask), the “Geezer Bandit” (still at large
in Southern California; authorities believe that the offender may be a young person disguising
himself as an elderly person), and the “Michael Jackson Bandit” (still at large in Southern
California; wears one glove during robberies). Many robbers like these have been caught as a
result of a nickname that caught on with the public.
Think About It
1. Can you articulate why the “Black-Binder Bandit” is a good example of Merton’s strain
theory?
2. Based on what he said to the police and his behavior, what adaptation of strain best fits
Urquijo?
3. Besides the ones already listed in this discussion, do you know of any robbers the
authorities have nicknamed and the reason(s) the robbers were given that moniker?
Introduction
In this chapter, we will examine explanations of criminal conduct that
emphasize differences among social groups, particularly in the United
States. Such differences are easy to see in everyday life, and many
theoretical models have blamed crime on observed inequalities and/or
cultural differences among groups. In contrast to the theories presented in
previous chapters, social structure theories disregard biological or
psychological variations at the individual level. Rather than emphasizing
physiological factors, social structure theories assume that crime is caused
by the way societies are organized.
These social structure theories vary in many ways, most notably in what
they propose as the primary constructs and processes that lead to criminal
activity. For example, some structural models emphasize variations in
economic or academic success, whereas others focus on differences in
cultural norms and values. Still others concentrate on the breakdown of
social structure in certain neighborhoods and the resulting social
disorganization (which we will examine in the next chapter). Regardless of
their differences, all the theories examined in this chapter agree that certain
groups of individuals are more likely to break the law due to disadvantages
or cultural differences resulting from the way society is structured.
The most important distinction of social structure theories, as opposed to

theories discussed in previous chapters, is that they emphasize group
differences instead of individual differences. In other words, structural
models tend to focus on the macro level of analysis, as opposed to the micro
level. Therefore, it is not surprising that social structure theories are
commonly used to explain (a) the propensity of certain racial or ethnic
groups to commit crime and (b) the overrepresentation of the lower class in
criminal activity.
As you will see, these theoretical frameworks were presented as early as the
1800s and reached their prominence in the early to mid-1900s, when the
political, cultural, and economic climate was most conducive to such
explanations. Although in recent decades the popularity of social structure
models of crime has diminished,1 many of their propositions are valid, and
numerous applications for social structure theories exist in contemporary
society.
Early European Theorists of Social Structure:

Comte, Guerry, and Quetelet
Most criminological and sociological historians trace the origin of social
structure theories to the work of 19th-century European researchers Auguste
Comte, Andre-Michel Guerry, and Adolphe Quetelet.2 Although we will not
discuss the various concepts, propositions, and findings of these researchers,
their work was largely inspired by the social dynamics that resulted from the
Industrial Revolution, which was in full swing at the turn of the 18th
century and continued throughout most of the 1800s. This transition, from a
primarily agricultural to a primarily industrial economy, led many people to
migrate from farms and villages to dense urban centers, which precipitated
an enormous increase in social problems. These social problems ranged
from failure to properly dispose of waste and garbage, to woefully
insufficient child supervision, to much higher rates of crime (which continue
to grow in urban areas compared with suburban and rural areas).
Around this time, the problems associated with rapid urbanization, as well
as the shift in economics, led to a drastic change in basic social structures in
Europe as well as the United States. In addition to the Industrial Revolution,
other types of revolutions were affecting social structure across the Western
world. One of the first important theorists in the area of social structure was
Auguste Comte (1798–1857); in fact, Comte is widely credited with coining
the term sociology, because he was the first to be recognized for
emphasizing and researching concepts based on macro-level factors, such as
social institutions (e.g., economic factors).3 Although such
conceptualization is elementary by today’s standards, it had a significant
influence on the sociological thinking that followed.
Soon after the first modern national crime statistics were published in
France in the early 19th century, a French lawyer named André-Michel
Guerry (1802–1866) examined these statistics and concluded that property
crimes were higher in wealthy areas but violent crime was much higher in
poor areas.4 Some experts have claimed that this likely represents the first
study of scientific criminology.5 Ultimately, Guerry concluded that
opportunity, in the form of material wealth, is the primary cause of property
crime. This conclusion is supported by U.S. Department of Justice
statistics.6 Wealthy households or establishments present thieves with more
opportunities to steal goods and currency.
Adolphe Quetelet (1796–1874) was a Belgian researcher who, like Guerry,

examined French crime statistics. Among other things, Quetelet showed
that, statistically, certain types of individuals were more likely than others to
commit crime.7 Specifically, young, male, poor, uneducated, and
unemployed individuals were the most frequent offenders.8 The same is true
today, according to modern research. Similar to Guerry, Quetelet concluded
that opportunity, in addition to demographics, had a lot to do with where
crime tended to occur.
However, Quetelet added a special component by suggesting that greater

inequality tends to excite temptations and passions among the poor. This is a
concept referred to as relative deprivation, as distinguished from a simple
state of poverty. Quetelet noted that neighborhoods that exhibited large
differences in wealth, with many poor and many wealthy people in close
proximity, were the ones most plagued by crime.
relative deprivation: the heightened perception of inequality that results when relatively
poor people live in close proximity to relatively wealthy people.
For example, a number of deprived areas in the United States do not have
high rates of crime. This suggests that when virtually everyone is poor,
people are generally content with their lives relative to their neighbors’. In
other areas of the country, however, where very poor people live in close
proximity to very wealthy people, animosity and feelings of deprivation
arise. Studies have supported this hypothesis,9 and it may help explain why
Washington, DC, which is perhaps the most powerful city in the world but
has a large portion of severely run-down and poor areas, exhibits such a
high crime rate.10 There is a clear linear association between higher crime
rates and localities with more relative deprivation. For example, in the
1990s, David Sang-Yoon Lee found that crime rates were far higher in cities
where there were greater disparities in wealth; specifically, the larger the
difference in income between the poorest 10% and the richest 10% of
residents, the higher the crime levels.11
In addition to the concept of relative deprivation, Quetelet showed that areas

with the most rapidly changing economic conditions exhibited high crime
rates (this will be discussed later in the chapter, when we review Durkheim).
Quetelet is perhaps best known for this comment: “The crimes . . .
committed seem to be a necessary result of our social organization. . . .
Society prepares the crime, and the guilty are only the instruments by which
it is executed.”12 This statement makes it clear that crime is a result of
societal structure and not of individual propensities or personal decision-
making. Thus, it is not surprising that Quetelet’s position was controversial
at a time when most theorists were focusing on free will and deterrence and
that he was rigorously attacked for removing all decision-making
capabilities from his model of criminal behavior. In response, Quetelet
argued that his model could help lower crime rates by leading to social
reforms that address inequalities (such as those between the wealthy and the
poor).13
One of the essential points of Guerry’s and Quetelet’s work is the

positivistic nature of their conclusions. Specifically, they both concluded
that the distribution of crime is not random; rather, it is the result of certain
types of persons committing certain types of crime in particular places,
largely due to the way society is structured and the uneven distribution of
resources. Such findings support a structural, positivistic perspective of
criminality, in which criminality is caused by factors outside an individual’s
control.
In some ways, the early development of structural theories was a response to

the failure of the Classical approach to crime control. As the 19th century
drew to a close, Classical and deterrence-based perspectives of crime fell
out of favor, clearing the way for social structure theories and other
positivistic theories of crime, such as the structural models developed by
Guerry and Quetelet, to attract a great deal of attention.
Durkheim and the Concept of Anomie

Although influenced by earlier theorists (e.g., Comte, Guerry, and Quetelet),
Émile Durkheim (1858–1916) was perhaps the most influential theorist in
modern structural perspectives on criminality.14 As discussed above, like
most other social theorists of the 19th century, he was strongly affected by
the political (e.g., American and French) revolutions and the Industrial
Revolution. In his doctoral dissertation (1893) at the University of Paris—
the first sociological dissertation at that institution—Durkheim developed a
general model of societal development largely based on the economic/labor
distribution, in which societies are seen as evolving from a simplistic
mechanical society toward a multilayered organic society (see Figure 8.1).
As outlined in Durkheim’s dissertation, titled The Division of Labor in

Society, primitive mechanical societies are those in which all members
essentially perform the same functions, such as hunting (typically males)
and gathering (typically females). Although there are a few outliers (e.g.,
medicine men), virtually everyone shares the same daily routine. Such
similarities in routine and constant interaction with like members of society
lead to a strong uniformity in values, which Durkheim called the collective
conscience. The collective conscience is the degree to which individuals of
a society think alike—or, as Durkheim put it, the totality of social
likenesses.
collective conscience: according to Durkheim, the extent to which people in a society

share similarities or likeness; the stronger the collective conscience, the less crime in that
community.
Due to very little variation in the distribution of labor in these primitive

mechanical societies, or those with “mechanical solidarity,” their members
tend to share similar norms and values, which creates a simple-layered
social structure with a strong collective conscience. Because people have
more or less the same jobs and mostly interact with similar individuals, they
tend to think and act alike, which fosters strong group solidarity. In
mechanical societies, the law functions to enforce the conformity of the
group. However, as societies become more modern and start to industrialize,
the distribution of labor becomes more highly specified. (Think of the
changes in our own society at the time of the Industrial Revolution.) In these
progressive organic societies, there is still a form of solidarity, called
“organic solidarity,” because people depend on other groups in society
through the highly specified division of labor, and the law’s primary
function is to regulate interactions and maintain solidarity among the
groups.
mechanical societies: in Durkheim’s theory, primitive societies with a simple distribution

of labor (e.g., hunters and gatherers) and thus a high level of agreement regarding social
norms and rules because nearly everyone is engaged in the same roles.
organic societies: in the Durkheimian model, those societies that have a high division of
labor and thus a low level of agreement about societal norms, largely because there is such
a wide variety of roles.
Figure 8.1 Durkheim’s Continuum of Development From

Mechanical to Organic Societies
For example, researchers at universities in the United States tend to be

trained in extremely narrow topics, some as specific as the antennae of
certain species of ants. Meanwhile, individuals who work as garbage
collectors gather waste from trash cans on the same streets every single day.
The antennae experts probably have little interaction with or in common
with the garbage collectors. According to Durkheim, moving from such
universally shared roles in mechanical societies to such extremely specific
roles in organic societies results in huge cultural differences, which leads to
giant contrasts in normative values and attitudes across such groups. Thus,
the collective conscience in such societies is weak, largely because there is
little agreement on moral beliefs or opinions. Therefore, the preexisting
solidarity among the members breaks down and the bonds are weakened,
which creates a climate for antisocial behavior.
Learning Check 8.1
1. Which early social structure theorist emphasized the concept of “relative

deprivation”?
a. Merton
b. Guerry
c. Durkheim
d. Comte
e. Quetelet
2. Which early social structure theorist is credited with coming up with the term
sociology?
a. Merton
b. Guerry
c. Durkheim
d. Comte
e. Quetelet
3. Early studies by social structure theorists/researchers found that there were higher
rates of property crime in _______________ neighborhoods but higher rates of
violent crime in _______________ neighborhoods (which still holds true in modern
times).
a. poor/wealthy
b. wealthy/poor
Durkheim’s theory is often considered a good representation of

functionalism, which assumes that virtually all types of behaviors or groups
(such as crime and criminals) play an important role in a given community.
Durkheim was clear in stating that crime is not only normal but necessary.
Specifically, he claimed that all social behaviors, especially crime, serve
essential social functions. Durkheim held that crime is important because it
defines the moral boundaries of societies. Few people know or realize what
is against the societal laws until they see someone punished for a violation.
This reinforces their understanding of both what the rules are and what it
means to break the rules. Furthermore, the identification of rule-breakers
creates a bond among the other members of society, perhaps through a
common sense of self-righteousness or superiority.
In later works, Durkheim explained that this need for bonding is what
makes crime so necessary. Given the possibility that a community does not
have any law violators, a society will change the legal definitions of
criminal behavior in order to brand some of its members as criminals, even
though their actions had not previously constituted a crime. Examples of
this are prevalent, but perhaps the most convincing is that of the Salem
witch trials, in which hundreds of individuals were accused and tried for an
almost laughable offense and more than a dozen were executed. Although
this case is hard to relate to, Durkheim would say it was inevitable because
crime was so low in the Massachusetts Bay Colony (historical records
confirm this) that the society had to come up with a fabricated criterion for
defining certain members of the population as offenders.
Other examples are common in everyday life, but the most readily apparent
are those in which a group of people are thrown together. The fastest way
for such a group to bond is to unite over a common enemy, which often
means forming cliques and ganging up on others in the group. As college
students can usually relate to, in a group of three or more roommates, two or
more will quickly join together and complain about the other(s). Human
interaction and group dynamics make this phenomenon inevitable. As
Durkheim said, even in
a society of saints . . . crimes . . . will there be unknown; but faults

which appear venial to the layman will create there the same
scandal that the ordinary offense does in ordinary
consciousnesses. . . . This society . . . will define these acts as
criminal and will treat them as such.15
This is why law enforcement should always be cautious in “cracking down”

on gangs, especially during relatively inactive periods, because crackdowns
will likely make the gangs stronger by giving them a common enemy (i.e.,
law enforcement). In all societal groups, when a common enemy rears its
head, the persons in the group (even those who do not typically get along)
will come together and “circle the wagons” to protect themselves via
strength in numbers. This usually produces a powerful bonding effect.16
Émile Durkheim’s (1858–1916) theories on the progression of

societies from mechanical to organic, as well as the
“collective conscience” and “anomie,” have heavily
influenced many modern theories of crime.
Public domain
While traditional (mostly mechanical) societies can count on relative

consensus in regard to moral values and norms, this sometimes leads to too
much control and to stagnation of creative thought. In fact, Durkheim
claimed that progress, especially in a more mechanical society, typically
depends on deviating from established moral boundaries. There are many
examples of this, including virtually all religious icons. Jesus, Buddha, and
Mohammed were all criminally persecuted for deviating from societal
norms. Political heroes—such as Mahatma Gandhi in India, Nelson
Mandela in South Africa, and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. in the United
States—have also been prosecuted and incarcerated as criminals. Perhaps
one of the most compelling cases is that of Italian scientist and astronomer
Galileo Galilei (1564–1642). Galileo proposed that Earth was not the center
of the universe, in contradiction to the doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Even though he was right, he was persecuted for this theory because of the
demand for strict adherence to the beliefs of his society. At times, the
normative structure in some societies is so strong that it hinders progress,
such that crime is the price societies pay to advance.
Mechanical societies often have extreme restraint against deviations from

established norms. In organic societies, on the other hand, the highly
specialized division of labor leads to extreme differences in the cultural
values and norms of the various groups. In other words, there is a
breakdown in the collective conscience because society no longer possesses
a “collective” nature. Therefore, in an organic society, law no longer is
primarily interested in defining norms but rather is focused on governing the
interactions among the different classes. According to Durkheim, law
provides a service in regulating such interactions as societies progress
toward more organic (more industrial) forms.
Importantly, Durkheim emphasized that human beings—unlike other animal

species, which live according to their spontaneous needs—have no internal
mechanism to signal when their needs and desires are satiated. Therefore,
the selfish desires of humankind are limitless, and the more an individual
has, the more he or she wants. In other words, people are greedy by nature,
and unless taught what they need and deserve, they will never feel content.17
According to Durkheim, it is society that provides the mechanism for
limiting the insatiable human appetite. Specifically, he claimed that only
society has the power necessary to create laws that reasonably bound
citizens’ selfishness and passions.
Durkheim also noted that in times of rapid change, society fails in this very
regard, in the regulation of desires and expectations. Rapid changes in
society can be due to numerous factors, such as war or social movements
(such as the changes seen in the United States in the 1960s). The transitional
events that Durkheim likely had in mind were those that affected the time in
which he wrote—namely, the American and French Revolutions and also
the Industrial Revolution. Durkheim claimed that with rapid change,
society’s ability to serve as a regulatory mechanism breaks down, and the
selfish, greedy tendencies of individuals are uncontrolled, causing a state
Durkheim called anomie, or “normlessness.” Societies in such anomic
states would experience increases in many social problems, particularly
criminal activity.
anomie: a concept originally proposed by Durkheim, which meant normlessness or the

chaos that takes place when a society (e.g., economic structure) changes very rapidly.
Durkheim was clear that it really did not matter whether the rapid change
was for the better or the worse; either way, it would have negative effects on
society. For example, in the 1930s (during the Great Depression), the U.S.
economy was tanking; in the late 1960s, the U.S. economy was improving.
According to Durkheim, in both of these periods we should expect to see
increased criminal activity, due to the lack of stability in regulating human
expectations and desires. Indeed, the 1930s and the late 1960s witnessed the
greatest crime waves of the 20th century, with soaring murder rates.18
Another fact that supports Durkheim’s predictions is that suicide is more
prevalent among the middle and upper classes than it is among the lower
classes. This is consistent with the idea that it is better to have stability, even
if it means always being poor, than it is to have instability at higher levels of
income.
In his most widely known work, Suicide, Durkheim applied his theoretical
model to an act that was (and often still is) considered an individual
decision—namely, the taking of one’s own life. This was a major step for
several reasons. First, Durkheim took an act—suicide—that would seem to
be the ultimate form of free choice or free will, and he showed that the
decision to commit this act is largely determined by external, social factors.
To clarify, Durkheim claimed that suicide was a “social fact,” meaning that
it was a product of meanings and structural aspects that result from
interactions among persons.
Specifically, Durkheim showed that the rate of suicide was significantly
lower among individuals who were married, young, and adherents of
religions that were more interactive and communal (e.g., Judaism). All these
characteristics boil down to one aspect: The more social interaction and
bonding with the community, the less suicide. So Durkheim concluded that
variations in suicide rates are due to differences in social solidarity or
bonding to society. Examples of this are still seen today, as in the recent
reports of high rates of suicide among persons who live in remote areas,
such as Alaska (which has the highest rate of juvenile suicide), northern
portions of Nevada, and Wyoming and Montana. Another way of looking at
the implications of Durkheim’s conclusions is that social relationships are
what make people feel happy and fulfilled. If we are isolated or have weak
bonds with society, we will likely be depressed and discontent with our
lives.
The second reason Durkheim’s examination of suicide was important was

that he showed that in times of both rapid economic growth and rapid
decline, suicide rates increased. Although researchers later argued that crime
rates did not always follow this pattern,19 Durkheim used quantified
measures to test his propositions, as the positivistic approach recommended.
In the least, he created a prototype combination of theory and empirical
research to test differences across social groups. This theoretical framework
would be drawn on heavily for one of the most influential and accepted
criminological theories of the 20th century—strain theory.
Learning Check 8.2
1. Durkheim’s model emphasized the evolution of more primitive _______________

types of societies to more advanced _______________ types of societies.
a. mechanical; organic
b. organic; mechanical
2. Durkheim’s proposed theory included the concept of “anomie,” which can best be
defined as _______________.
a. stability
b. normlessness
c. status quo
d. deprived
e. ritualistic
3. Durkheim wrote an entire book on what type of criminal behavior?
a. Murder
b. Robbery
c. Rape
d. Burglary
e. Suicide
Merton’s Strain Theory

The one thing that all forms of strain theory have in common is their
emphasis on a sense of frustration in crime causation—hence the name
“strain” theory. Although the theories differ regarding what exactly is
causing the frustration, as well as in the way individuals cope (or fail to
cope) with such stress and anger, they all identify the strain placed on
individuals as the primary causal factor in the development of criminality.
Another common feature of strain theories is that they all trace their origin
to the seminal theory of Durkheim, as well as to Robert K. Merton’s
theoretical framework.
When formulating his theory of structural strain in the 1930s, Merton drew
heavily on Durkheim’s idea of anomie.20 As we shall see in this chapter,
although Merton altered the way anomie was defined, it is apparent that
Durkheim’s theoretical framework was a vital influence on the development
of strain theory. By combining Durkheimian concepts and propositions with
an emphasis on American culture, Merton’s structural model became one of
the most popular perspectives in criminological thought in the early 20th
century, and it remains one of the most cited theories in the criminological
literature.
Cultural Context and Assumptions of Strain

Theory
Some have claimed that Merton’s 1938 article, “Social Structure and
Anomie,” was perhaps the most influential theoretical formulation in the
criminological literature and one of the most frequently cited papers in
sociology.21 Although partially due to its strong foundation in previous
structural theories, the popularity of Merton’s strain theory is likely more
related to the timing of its publication. As we have discussed previously,
virtually every theory addressed in this book became popular when it did
because the political and social climate desired that type of theory for its fit
with the current worldview. Perhaps no theory better represents this
phenomenon than strain theory.
Virtually all historians would agree that the most significant social issue in
the 1930s was the economy. The Great Depression, largely a result of the
stock-market crash in 1929, affected virtually every aspect of life in the
United States. Not only did unemployment and extreme poverty soar, but
suicide rates rose and crime rates skyrocketed, particularly murder rates.22
So it is not surprising that there was fertile ground in American society for a
theory of crime that placed virtually all the blame on the economic structure
in the United States.
Virtually all Americans are raised to believe in the American

Dream: if we just work very hard, we will gain financial
success. However, this does not always hold true, especially
for those who are not given the educational and occupational
opportunities that others are given.
© iStockphoto.com/Craig McCausland
Not only was society ready for a perspective such as strain theory, but on the
other side of the coin, Merton was highly influenced by what he saw
happening to the country during the Great Depression. Specifically, he
observed how much the economic institution impacted almost all other
social factors, particularly crime. He watched how the breakdown of the
economic structure drove people to kill themselves or others, not to mention
the rise in property crimes, such as theft. After all, many individuals who
had once been successful were now poor, and some felt driven to crime for
survival. Notably, Durkheim’s hypotheses regarding crime and suicide were
supported during this time of rapid change, and Merton apparently realized
that the framework simply had to be updated and supplemented.
One of the key assumptions distinguishing strain theory from Durkheim’s

perspective is that Merton altered his version of what “anomie” means, a
definition we will explore below. Specifically, Merton discussed the nearly
universal socialization of the American Dream in U.S. society. To clarify,
this is the idea that as long as someone works hard and pays his or her dues,
that person will achieve every goal in the end. According to Merton, the
socialized image of the goal is material wealth, whereas the socialized
concept of the means of achieving the goal is hard work (e.g., education,
labor). So the conventional model of the American Dream was consistent
with the Protestant work ethic: work hard and long, knowing you will be
repaid in the distant future.
Furthermore, Merton claimed that nearly everyone is socialized to believe in

the American Dream, no matter what economic class they are raised in.
There is some empirical support for this belief, which makes sense because
virtually all parents, even if they are poor, want to instill in their children a
hope for the future, particularly if one is willing to work hard in school
and/or at a job. In fact, parents and society usually use celebrities as
examples of this process—namely, those individuals who started off poor
and rose to wealth. Modern examples include former secretary of state Colin
Powell, Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban, Oscar-winning actress Hilary
Swank, and Hollywood director/screenwriter Quentin Tarantino, not to
mention Arnold Schwarzenegger, who went from teenage immigrant to Mr.
Olympia and governor of California.
These stories epitomize the American Dream, but parents and society do not
always teach the reality of the situation. As Merton points out, while a small
percentage of persons can rise from the lower class to become materially
successful, the vast majority of poor children don’t have much chance of
ever obtaining such wealth. So it is this near-universal socialization of the
American Dream, without it being obtainable in most cases, that causes
most of the strain and frustration in American society. Furthermore, Merton
claims that most of the strain and frustration is due not necessarily to the
failure to achieve conventional goals (i.e., wealth) but rather to the
differential emphasis placed on the material goals and the de-emphasis of
the importance of the conventional means.
Merton’s Concept of Anomie and Strain.

Merton claimed that an ideal society would feature an equal emphasis on (a)
conventional goals (i.e., wealth) and (b) the means of attaining them.
However, in many societies, according to Merton, one of these aspects is
emphasized more than the other. Merton claimed that the United States
epitomized the type of society that emphasizes goals over means. This
disequilibrium in emphasis between the goals and means of societies is what
Merton called anomie. So, like Durkheim’s anomie, Merton’s anomie was a
negative state for society; however, the two men had different explanations
for how this state of society came about. While Durkheim believed that
anomie was primarily caused by a society transitioning too fast to maintain
its regulatory control over members, for Merton, anomie represented too
much focus on the goals of wealth in the United States at the expense of the
conventional means of attaining wealth.
There are numerous examples of how the goals are emphasized more than
the means in our society, but perhaps the best way to illustrate this is
through hypothetical situations. Which of the following two men would be
more respected by youths (or even adults) in our society: (1) John, who has
a PhD in physics but lives in a one-bedroom apartment because as a
postdoctoral student, he is given only a stipend of $25,000 a year, or (2) Joe,
a relatively successful drug dealer who owns a four-bedroom home, drives a
Hummer, dropped out of school in the 10th grade, and makes about $90,000
a year? In years of asking this question in our classes, the answer is usually
Joe, the drug dealer. After all, he appears to have obtained the American
Dream.
Still another way of supporting Merton’s idea that America is too focused
on the goal of material success is to ask you, the reader, to think about why
you are taking the time to read this chapter and/or to attend college.
Specifically, the question is this: If you knew for a fact that you would not
get a better employment position by studying this book or, furthermore, by
earning a college degree, would you do it anyway? In more than a decade of
posing this question to about 10,000 students in university courses, one of
the authors of this book found that only about 5% (usually less) of
respondents said yes. Interestingly, when asked the reason they would put
all this work into attending classes, many of them said they would do it for
the partying or social life. Ultimately, it appears that most college students
would not engage in the hard work it takes to educate themselves if it
weren’t for some future payoff. In some ways, this supports Merton’s claim
that the emphasis in our society is on goals, with little or no intrinsic value
placed on the work itself (i.e., the means). This phenomenon is not meant to
be disheartening or a negative statement; it is only meant to exhibit the
reality of American culture and to show that it is quite common in our
society to place an emphasis on the goal of financial success as opposed to
hard work for hard work’s sake.
Merton went on to say that individuals, particularly those in the lower class,
eventually realize that the ideal of the American Dream is a lie, or at least an
illusion, for the vast majority of people. For example, people might work
very hard in school but then get stuck in jobs that will never produce the
type of material success they were socialized to believe in. This realization
tends to occur when people are in their late teens to mid-20s. Accordingly,
this is the age at which people are most likely to commit a crime.
According to Merton, this is when the frustration or strain is evident.

Therefore, some individuals begin to think of ways that they can achieve the
goals of society (i.e., material success) without having to use the
conventional means of attaining them. Obviously, this often involves
criminal activity. However, not all individuals deal with strain in this way;
after all, most people who are poor do not resort to crime. To Merton’s
credit, he explained that individuals deal in different ways with the limited
economic structure of society. Merton referred to these variations in dealing
with the revelation of the economic structure as adaptations to strain.
adaptations to strain: as proposed by Merton, the five ways that individuals deal with
feelings of strain; see conformity, innovation, rebellion, retreatism, and ritualism.
Adaptations to Strain.
There are five adaptations to strain, according to Merton. The first of these
is conformity, in which people buy into the conventional goals of society
but also buy into the conventional means of working hard in school or at a
job.23 This would include the vast majority of the readers of this book, in
the sense that, like most of us, conformists want to achieve material success
and are willing to do so by educational effort and diligent work. As the label
suggests, these individuals are conforming to the goals and means that
society suggests. Another adaptation to strain is ritualism. Ritualists do not
seek to achieve the goals of material success, probably because they know
they don’t have a realistic chance of obtaining such success. However, they
do buy into the conventional means, in the sense that they like to do their
jobs or are happy just making ends meet. For example, studies have shown
that some of the most content and happy people in society are those who
don’t seek to become rich; rather, they are quite content with their blue-
collar jobs and often have a strong sense of pride in the work they do, even
if it is sometimes menial. To clarify, such a person considers his or her work
a type of ritual and performs it without a goal in mind; rather, the work itself
is a form of intrinsic goal. Ultimately, conformists and ritualists tend to be at
low risk of offending.
conformity: in strain theory, an adaptation to strain in which an individual buys into

conventional goals (wealth, success, etc.) and conventional means of attaining them (work,
school, etc.).
ritualism: in strain theory, an adaptation to strain in which an individual buys into

conventional means (work, school, etc.) of attaining goals but does not buy into
conventional goals (wealth, success, etc.).
The other three adaptations to strain—innovation, retreatism, and

rebellion—are far more likely to lead to criminal offending. Perhaps most
likely to become predatory street criminals are the innovators, who Merton
claimed greatly desire the conventional goals of material success but are not
willing to engage in conventional means of obtaining those goals. Drug
dealers and professional auto thieves, as well as many other variations of
chronic property criminals (e.g., burglary offenders), fit this adaptation. To
clarify, as their name suggests, they are innovating ways to achieve material
goals without doing the hard work usually needed to succeed. However,
innovators are not always criminals. In fact, many of them are the most
respected individuals in our society. For example, some entrepreneurs have
used the capitalistic system of our society to create useful products and
services (e.g., the internet search engine Google) and have made a fortune at
young ages without advanced college educations or years of work at a
company. Another category of innovators includes successful athletes who
sign multimillion-dollar contracts at age 18. So it should be clear that not all
innovators are criminals.
innovation: in strain theory, an adaptation to strain in which an individual buys into

conventional goals (wealth, success, etc.) but not conventional means of reaching those
goals.
retreatism: in strain theory, an adaptation to strain in which an individual does not buy
into conventional goals and also does not buy into conventional means of reaching them.
rebellion: in strain theory, an adaptation to strain in which an individual buys into the idea
of conventional goals and means of reaching them but does not buy into the current
conventional means or goals.
The fourth adaptation to strain is retreatism, in which individuals neither

seek to achieve the goals of society nor buy into the idea of conventional
hard work. There are many varieties of this adaptation, such as people who
become homeless by choice or who isolate themselves in desolate places
without human contact. A good example of a retreatist is Ted Kaczynski, the
Unabomber (see https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/unabomber),
who left his position as a professor at the University of California to go and
live in an isolated Montana cabin, which had no running water or electricity,
and shun human interaction for many months at a time. Another example is
filmmaker and aviator Howard Hughes (1905–1976), who became one of
the wealthiest individuals in the world. In his later years, Hughes was a
recluse, often moving from one hotel to another in various cities but having
only limited contact with people. Other types of retreatists, perhaps the most
likely to be criminal, are those who actively disengage from social life and
try to escape via psychoactive drugs. All these forms of retreatists seek to
drop out of society altogether.
The last adaptation to strain, according to Merton, is rebellion—the most

complex of the five adaptations. Interestingly, rebels buy into the idea of
societal goals and means, but they do not buy into the conventional goals
and means currently in place. Most true rebels are criminals by definition,
largely because they are trying to overthrow the established societal
structure. For example, the founders of the United States were all rebels
because they actively fought the governing state (British rule) and clearly
committed treason in the process. Had they lost the war or been captured,
they would have been executed as the criminals they were by law. However,
because they won the war, they became heroes and presidents. Another
example of a rebel is German politician philosopher Karl Marx (1818–
1883), who will be discussed later in this text. Marx bought into the goals
and means of society, just not those of the current American culture. Rather,
he proposed socialism/communism as a means to the goal of utopia. So
there are many contexts in which a rebel can become a criminal, but
sometimes rebels end up becoming heroes.
Merton also noted that one individual can represent more than one
adaptation to strain. Perhaps the best example is the Unabomber, Ted
Kaczynski, who started out as a conformist in that he was a respected
professor at the University of California, Berkeley, well on his way to tenure
and promotion. He then seemed to shift to a retreatist state, isolating himself
from society (as mentioned above). Later, he became a rebel who bombed
innocent people in his quest to implement his own goals and means—as
described in his manifesto, which he coerced several national newspapers to
publish (and which subsequently resulted in his apprehension, because his
brother read it and informed authorities that he thought his brother had
written it!).
A sports analogy may help you understand and remember the differences
among the five adaptations to strain.24 Let’s use the example of a basketball
game. In a basketball game, conformists play to win, but they always play
by the rules and won’t cheat. Ritualists play the game just because they like
to play, and they don’t care about winning. Innovators play to win, and they
will break any rules they can to triumph in the game. Retreatists don’t like
to play and obviously don’t care about winning. Finally, rebels do not like
the rules on the official court, so they will try to steal the ball and play by
their own rules on another court.
Learning Check 8.3
1. According to Merton’s theory, _______________ deal with strain by emphasizing

the conventional goals of success without any consideration for the conventional
means of gaining such success.
a. ritualists
b. conformists
c. retreatists
d. rebels
e. innovators
the conventional means of gaining success without any consideration for the
conventional goals of such success.
a. ritualists
b. conformists
c. retreatists
d. rebels
e. innovators
the conventional goals of success as well as strongly considering the conventional
means for gaining such success.
a. ritualists
b. conformists
c. retreatists
d. rebels
e. innovators
Evidence and Criticisms of Merton’s Strain

Theory
Although Merton’s framework, which emphasized the importance of the
economic structure, appeared to have a high degree of face validity during
the Great Depression, many scientific studies showed mixed support for
strain theory. While research that examined the effects of poverty on
violence and official rates of various crimes has found relatively consistent
support (albeit weaker effects than strain theory implies), a series of studies
of self-reported delinquent behavior found little or no relationship between
social class and criminality.25 Furthermore, the idea that unemployment
drives people to commit crime has received little support.26
On the other hand, some experts have argued that Merton’s strain theory is
primarily a structural model of crime that is more a theory of societal groups
than a theory of individual motivations.27 Therefore, some modern studies
have used aggregated group rates (i.e., macro-level measures) to test the
effects of deprivation, as opposed to using individual (micro-level) rates of
inequality and crime. Most of these studies provide some support for the
hypothesis that social groups and regions with higher rates of deprivation
and inequality have higher rates of criminal activity.28 Furthermore, the case
study at the beginning of this chapter, that of Cristian Alfredo Urquijo (the
“Black-Binder Bandit”), clearly shows that in some cases economic
desperation is a primary motivation for robbery. In sum, there appears to be
some support for Merton’s strain theory when the level of analysis is the
macro level and official measures are being used to indicate criminality.
However, many critics have claimed that these studies do not directly
measure perceptions or feelings of strain, so they are only indirect
examinations of Merton’s theory. In light of these criticisms, some
researchers have focused on the disparity in what individuals aspire to in
various aspects of life (e.g., school, occupation, and social life) versus what
they realistically expect to achieve.29 The rationale of these studies is that if
an individual has high aspirations (i.e., goals) but also has low expectations
of actually achieving the goals due to structural barriers, then that individual
is more likely to experience feelings of frustration and strain. Furthermore,
it was predicted that the larger the gap between aspirations and expectations,
the stronger the sense of strain. Of the studies that examined discrepancies
between aspirations and expectations, most did not find that a large gap was
linked to criminal activity. In fact, several studies found that for most
antisocial respondents, there was virtually no gap between aspirations and
expectations. Rather, most of the subjects (typically young men) who
reported the highest levels of criminal activity tended to report low levels of
both aspirations and expectations.
Surprisingly, when aspirations were high, it seemed to inhibit offending,

even when expectations of achieving those goals were low. One
interpretation of these findings is that individuals who have high goals will
not jeopardize their chances for obtaining such aspirations, even when they
realize their chances are slim. On the other hand, individuals who don’t
have high goals are likely to be indifferent to their future and, in a sense,
have nothing to lose. So without a stake in conventional society, this
predisposes them to crime. While this conclusion supports social control
theories (discussed in the following chapters), it does not provide support
for strain theory.
Some critics have argued that most studies on the discrepancies between
aspirations and expectations have not been done correctly. For example,
Farnworth and Leiber claimed that it was a mistake to examine differences
between educational goals and expectations, or differences between
occupational goals and expectations, which is what most of these studies
did.30 Rather, they proposed testing the gap between economic aspirations
(i.e., goals) and educational expectations (i.e., means of achieving these
goals). Farnworth and Leiber found support for a gap between these two
being predictive of criminality. However, they also reported that persons
with low economic aspirations were more likely to be delinquent, which
supports the previous studies they criticized. Another criticism of this type
of strain theory study is that it is possible that individuals who report a gap
between expectations and aspirations do not necessarily feel strained;
researchers have simply, and perhaps wrongfully, assumed that a gap
between the two measures indicates feelings of frustration.31
Other criticisms of Merton’s strain theory include some historical evidence

and its failure to explain the age-crime curve. Regarding the historical
evidence, it is hard to understand why some of the largest increases in crime
took place during a period of relative economic prosperity—namely, the late
1960s. Crime increased more than was ever measured between 1965 and
1973, which were generally good economic years in the United States.
Therefore, if strain theory is presented as the primary explanation for
criminal activity, it would probably have a hard time explaining this
historical era. On the other hand, it can be argued that the economic growth
in the 1960s and early 1970s caused even more disparity between rich and
poor, thereby producing more relative deprivation.
The other major criticism of strain theory is that it does not explain one of
the most established facts in the field: the age-crime curve. Specifically, in
virtually every society in the world, across time and place, predatory street
crimes (robbery, rape, murder, burglary, larceny, etc.) tend to peak sharply in
the teenage years to early 20s and then drop off quickly, well before age 30.
However, most studies show that feelings of stress and frustration tend to
continue rising after age 30 and do not diminish significantly. For example,
as people age, suicide rates tend to stay the same or increase, with those
over 55 being most at risk.
On the other hand, it can be argued that the reason why strain continues or
even increases as one ages but the rates of crime go down is that individuals
develop coping mechanisms for dealing with their frustrations. While
Merton never discussed (outside the adaptations) actual methods of coping
with strain, a variation of Merton’s theory—general strain theory—did
emphasize this concept. Before we cover general strain theory, we will
discuss two other variations of Merton’s theory, which were developed to
explain gang formation and behavior.
Variations of Merton’s Strain Theory
Cohen’s Theory of Lower-Class Status Frustration

and Gang Formation
In 1955, Albert Cohen presented a theory of gang formation that used
Merton’s strain theory as a basis for why individuals resort to such group
behavior.32 In Cohen’s model, young males from lower classes are at a
disadvantage in school because they lack the normal interaction,
socialization, and discipline instituted by educated parents of the middle
class, which is in line with Merton’s original framework of a predisposed
disadvantage among underclass youth. According to Cohen, such youths are
likely to experience failure in school due to this lack of preparation in
conforming with middle-class values, so they fail to live up to what is
considered the “middle-class measuring rod,” which emphasizes motivation,
accountability, responsibility, deferred gratification, long-term planning,
respect for authority and property, and emotional control.
Like Merton, Cohen emphasized the youths’ internalization of the American

Dream and fair chances for success, leading to frustration when they fail to
be successful according to this middle-class standard. This strain that they
feel due to failure in school and a lack of respect among their peers, often
referred to as “status frustration,” leads them to develop a system of values
that is contrary to middle-class standards and values. Some have claimed
that this represents a Freudian defense mechanism known as reaction
formation, which involves adopting attitudes or committing behaviors that
are the opposite of what is expected—a form of defiance and avoidance of
guilt for not living up to the assumed standards. According to Cohen, these
lower-class male youths adopt a normative value system that defies the very
values they are expected to live up to. Specifically, instead of abiding by
middle-class norms of obedience to authority, school achievement, and
respect for authority, these youths change their normative beliefs to value
the opposite characteristics: Namely, they value malicious, negativistic, and
nonutilitarian delinquent activity.
reaction formation: a Freudian defense mechanism applied to Cohen’s theory of youth

offending, which involves adopting attitudes or committing behaviors that are opposite of
what is expected.
For example, these youths begin to value destruction of property and

skipping school, not because these behaviors lead to a payoff or success in
the conventional world but simply because they defy the conventional order.
In other words, they turn the middle-class values upside down and consider
activity that violates conventional norms and laws, thereby psychologically
and physically rejecting the cultural system placed on them without benefit
of equal preparation and fair distribution of resources. Furthermore, Cohen
claimed that while these behaviors do not appear to have much utility or
value, they are quite valuable and important from the perspective of the
strained youth. Specifically, these behaviors earn them the respect of their
peers (those who have gone through the same straining experiences and
reactionary formation), which they could not gain through school
performance and adherence to middle-class normative culture.
Cohen stated that he believed this tendency to reject middle-class values is

the primary cause of gangs, because a number of these lower-class
individuals who have experienced the same strains (i.e., status frustration)
and experiences often form a group—a classic example of “birds of a
feather flock together.” Cohen claimed that not all lower-class males resort
to crime and join a gang in response to this structural disadvantage. Other
responses, beyond that of the delinquent boy, are the college boy and the
corner boy. The “college boy” responds to his disadvantaged situation by
dedicating himself to doing well in school despite his unlikely chances for
success. The “corner boy” responds to the situation by accepting his place in
society as a lower-class individual who will somewhat passively make the
best of life at the bottom of the social order.
delinquent boy: a type of lower-class male youth, identified by Cohen, who responds to
strain and status frustration by joining with similar youths to commit crime.
college boy: a type of lower-class male youth who has experienced the same strain and
status frustration as his peers but responds to his disadvantaged situation by dedicating
himself to doing well in school despite his unlikely chance of success.
corner boy: a type of lower-class male youth who has experienced the same strain and
status frustration as others but responds to his disadvantaged situation by accepting his
place in society as someone who will somewhat passively make the best of life at the
bottom of the social order. As the label describes, such youths often hang out on corners.
As compared with Merton’s original adaptations to strain, Cohen’s

delinquent boy is probably most similar to rebellion, because the delinquent
boy rejects the means and goals (middle-class values and success in school)
of conventional society and replaces them with new means and goals
(negativistic behaviors and peer respect in a gang). Some would argue that
delinquent boys should be seen as innovators, because their goal is
ultimately the same: peer respect. But the peers involved completely
change, so we argue that through the reaction-formation process, the
delinquent boy actually creates his own goals and means that go against the
conventional, middle-class goals and means. Regarding the college boy, the
adaptation that seems to fit best is conformity, because the college boy
continues to believe in the conventional goals (i.e., financial
success/achievement) and means (i.e., hard work via education/labor) of
middle-class society. Finally, the corner boy probably best fits the
adaptation of ritualism, because he knows that he likely will never achieve
the goals of society, so he essentially resigns himself to not obtaining
financial success. At the same time, he does not resort to predatory street
crime but, rather, holds a stable blue-collar job or makes ends meet in other
typically legal ways. Some corner boys who end up collecting welfare and
giving up on work altogether may become more like retreatists, because
they have virtually given up on the conventional means (hard work) of
society as well as the goals.
At the time when Cohen developed his theory, official statistics showed that
virtually all gang violence—and most violence, for that matter—was
concentrated among lower-class male youths. However, with the
development of self-report studies in the 1960s, Cohen’s theory was shown
to be somewhat overstated, in the sense that middle-class youths were well
represented among those committing delinquent acts.33 Other studies have
also been critical of Cohen’s theory, particularly the portions that deal with
his proposition that crime rates increase after youths drop out of school and
join a gang. Although the findings are mixed, many studies have found that
delinquency is often higher before the youths drop out of school and may
actually decline once they drop out and become employed.34 Some critics
claim that such findings discredit Cohen’s theory, but this is not necessarily
true. After all, delinquency may peak right before youths drop out because
that is the time when they feel most frustrated and strained, whereas
delinquency may decrease after they drop out because some of the youths
improve their self-esteem by earning a wage and take pride in holding a job.
Organized crime syndicates are typically found in

neighborhoods with more structured criminal organizations,
which mentor youths in these neighborhoods and result in a
prevalence of criminal gangs.
© iStockphoto.com/PointImage
Still, studies have clearly shown that lower-class youths are far more likely
to have problems in school and that school achievement is consistently
linked with criminality.35 Furthermore, there is little dispute that much of
delinquency represents malicious, negativistic, and nonutilitarian activity.
For example, what do individuals have to gain from destroying mailboxes or
spray-painting graffiti on walls? So, ultimately, it appears that there is some
face validity to what Cohen proposed, in the sense that some youths engage
in behavior that has no other value than earning peer respect, even though
that behavior is negativistic and nonutilitarian according to the values of
conventional society. Regardless of some criticisms of Cohen’s model, he
provided an important structural-strain theory of the development of gangs
and lower-class delinquency.
Cloward and Ohlin’s Theory of Differential

Opportunity
Five years after Cohen published his theory, Richard A. Cloward and Lloyd
E. Ohlin presented yet another structural-strain theory of gang formation
and behavior.36 Similar to Merton and Cohen, Cloward and Ohlin assumed
that all youths, including those in the lower class, are socialized to believe
in the American Dream and that when they realize they are blocked from
conventional opportunities, they become frustrated and strained. What
distinguishes Cloward and Ohlin’s theory from the previous strain theories
is that they identified three different types of gangs, based on the social
structure of the neighborhood. To clarify, the nature of gangs varies
according to the availability of illegal opportunities. So whereas previous
strain theories focused only on lack of legal opportunities, Cloward and
Ohlin’s model emphasized both legal and illegal opportunities, and the
availability (or lack) of these opportunities largely determined what type of
gang would form in that neighborhood—hence the name differential
opportunity theory. Furthermore, the authors acknowledged Edwin
Sutherland’s (see Chapter 10) influence on their theory, and this influence is
evident in their focus on the neighborhood associations that largely
determine what type of gang will form. According to differential
opportunity theory, there are criminal gangs, conflict gangs, and retreatist
gangs.
Criminal gangs are those that form in lower-class neighborhoods that have
an organized structure of adult criminal behavior. Such neighborhoods are
so organized and stable that the criminal networks are often known and
accepted by the conventional portion of individuals in the area. The adult
gangsters in these neighborhoods mentor the youth and take them under
their wing. This can pay off for the adult criminals, too, because youths can
often be used to do the “dirty work” for the criminal enterprises in the
neighborhood without risk of serious punishment if caught. The successful
adult offenders supply the youths with the motives and techniques for
committing crime. So while members of criminal gangs are blocked from
legal opportunities, they are offered ample opportunities in the illegal realm.
criminal gang: a type of gang identified by Cloward and Ohlin that forms in lower-class
neighborhoods with an organized structure of adult criminal behavior. Such gangs tend to
be highly organized and stable.
Due to the strong organization and stability of such neighborhoods, criminal

gangs tend to reflect this high degree of organization and stability.
Therefore, criminal gangs primarily commit property or economic crimes,
with the goal of making a profit. These crimes can range from “running
numbers” as local bookies to “fencing” stolen goods to running businesses
that are a front for vice crimes (e.g., prostitution, drug trading). Regardless
of the type, they all involve making a profit illegally, and there is often a
system or structure in which the criminal activity takes place. Furthermore,
criminal gang members are most like innovators, in Merton’s adaptations to
strain (discussed previously in this chapter), because they still want to
achieve the goals of conventional society (financial success). Because of the
strong organizational structure of these gangs, they are not as conducive to
individuals who are highly impulsive or uncontrolled as they are to those
who have self-control and are good at planning for the future.
Examples of criminal gangs are seen in movies depicting highly organized

neighborhoods (often consisting of primarily one ethnicity). The Godfather,
A Bronx Tale, State of Grace, Sleepers, New Jack City, Clockers,
Goodfellas, Better Luck Tomorrow, and many other “gangster” movies were
partially based on real events. All these depictions involve a highly
structured hierarchy in a criminal enterprise, which is largely a
manifestation of the organization of the neighborhood. The Hollywood
motion pictures also involve stories about the older criminals in the
neighborhood taking younger males from the neighborhood under their
wing and training them in the ways of the criminal network. Furthermore,
virtually all ethnic groups have examples of this type of gang/neighborhood;
for example, in looking at the list of movies above, there are Italian
American, Irish American, African American, and Asian American
representations. Thus, criminal gangs can be found across the racial and
ethnic spectrum, largely because all groups have certain neighborhoods that
exhibit strong organization and stability.
Conflict gangs are another type of gang that Cloward and Ohlin identified.
Conflict gangs tend to develop in neighborhoods that have weak stability
and little or no organization. In fact, the neighborhood often seems to be in a
state of flux because people are constantly moving in and out of the area.
Because the youths in the neighborhood do not have a solid crime network
or adult criminal mentors, they tend to form a relatively disorganized gang.
Due to this disorganization, they typically lack the skills and knowledge to
make a profit through criminal activity. Therefore, the primary illegal
activity of conflict gangs is violence. This violence is used to gain
prominence and respect among themselves and others in the neighborhood,
but due to the disorganized nature of the neighborhood as well as the gang
itself, conflict gangs never quite achieve the respect and stability of criminal
gangs. The members of conflict gangs tend to be more impulsive and lack
self-control compared with members of criminal gangs, largely because
there are no adult criminal mentors to control them.
conflict gang: a type of gang identified by Cloward and Ohlin that tends to develop in
neighborhoods with weak stability and little or no organization; gangs are typically
relatively disorganized and lack the skills and knowledge to make a profit through
criminal activity.
According to Cloward and Ohlin, conflict gangs are blocked not only from
legitimate opportunities but also from illegitimate opportunities. If applying
Merton’s categories of adaptations to strain, conflict gangs would probably
fit best with rebellion. But it can be argued that conflict gangs have rejected
the goals and means of conventional society and implemented their own
values, which emphasize violence. Motion pictures that depict this type of
breakdown in community structure and a mostly violent gang culture
include Menace to Society, Boyz n the Hood, A Clockwork Orange, Colors,
and The Outsiders. These films emphasize the chaos and violence that
results when neighborhood and family organization is weak.
Finally, if an individual is a failure in both the legitimate and the illegitimate

world, meaning he or she can’t achieve success in school or status in a local
gang, that person may join other such people to form a retreatist gang.
Because members of retreatist gangs are no good at making a profit from
crime (as criminal gang members are) or at using violence to achieve status
(as conflict gang members are), their primary form of offending is usually
drug usage. As in Merton’s retreatist adaptation to strain, members of
retreatist gangs often simply want to escape from reality. Therefore, the
primary activity of the gang is usually getting high, which is well
represented in such movies as Trainspotting, Drugstore Cowboy, and Panic
in Needle Park. In all these movies, the only true goal of the gangs is to get
stoned and escape from the world in which they have failed.
retreatist gang: a type of gang identified by Cloward and Ohlin that tends to attract
individuals who have failed to succeed in both the conventional world and the criminal or
conflict gangs of their neighborhoods.
Many gangs thrive more on violence than on profit-making

activities. Such gangs, called conflict gangs, tend to be
highly territorial and are often found in neighborhoods
lacking the structure provided by established crime
syndicates.
Robert Nickelsberg/Getty Images

There have been a number of empirical studies and critiques of Cloward and
Ohlin’s theory, with much of the criticism being similar to that of Merton’s
strain theory—specifically, there is little evidence among lower-class youths
that a gap between aspirations and expectations is predictive of feelings of
frustration and strain or that such gaps are predictive of gang membership or
criminality.37 Another criticism of Cloward and Ohlin’s theory is the
absence of empirical evidence behind their model of the three types of
gangs and their specialization in offending. While some research supports
the existence of gangs that appear to specialize in certain forms of
offending, many studies find that the observed specialization of gangs is not
exactly the way Cloward and Ohlin proposed.38 Additional studies have
shown that many gangs tend not to specialize but engage in a wide variety
of offending behaviors.
Despite the criticisms of Cloward and Ohlin’s model of gang formation,

their theoretical framework inspired policy, largely due to the influence of
their work for Attorney General Robert Kennedy. In fact, Kennedy asked
Ohlin to assist in developing federal policies regarding delinquency, which
resulted in the Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1961.
Cloward and Ohlin’s theory was a major influence on the Mobilization for
Youth project in New York City, which, along with the federal legislation,
stressed creating education and work opportunities for youth. Although this
program had little effect on delinquency,39 it was impressive that such
theorizing about lower-class male youths could have such a large impact on
policy interventions.
Ultimately, the variations of strain theory presented by Cohen and by

Cloward and Ohlin seemed to advance the validity of strain theory.
However, as discussed above, most of these revisions were based on official
statistics that showed lower-class male youths as committing the most
crime, which were later shown by self-reports to be exaggerated.40 Once it
was realized that most of the earlier models of strain were not empirically
valid for most criminal activity, strain theory became unpopular for a time.
But during the 1980s, Robert Agnew renewed the interest in strain theory by
making it more general and thus applicable to a larger variety of crimes and
forms of deviance.
General Strain Theory
In the 1980s, Robert Agnew proposed general strain theory, which covers a
wide range of behavior and provides a model for the frustrations that all
individuals feel in everyday life.41 Unlike other strain theories, general
strain theory does not necessarily rely on internalization of the American
Dream and resulting frustration with it. Nor does it focus only on members
of the lower class. Rather, this theoretical framework assumes that people of
all social classes and economic positions deal with frustrations that virtually
everyone can relate to.
Previous strain theories, such as the models proposed by Merton, Cohen,

and Cloward and Ohlin, focused on individuals’ failure to achieve positively
valued goals that they had been socialized to work toward. Like these
previous models, general strain theory also focuses on this source of strain;
however, general strain theory emphasizes two additional categories of
strain: presentation of noxious stimuli and removal of positively valued
stimuli (see Figure 8.2). In addition to the failure to achieve one’s goals,
Agnew claimed that the presentation of noxious stimuli (i.e., bad things) in
one’s life could cause major stress and frustration. Examples of noxious
stimuli are an abusive parent, a teacher who always picks on one student, or
a boss who puts undue strain on one employee. These are just some of the
many negative factors that can exist in one’s life, and the examples of this
category of strain are endless.
Figure 8.2 Model of General Strain Theory

The other strain category Agnew identified was the removal of positive
stimuli (i.e., good things), which is likely the largest cause of frustration.
Examples are the loss of a job, loss of the use of a car, or loss of a loved
one. Like the other two sources of strain, examples of removal of positive
aspects of one’s life are infinite, and the effects may be mild or profound,
depending on the individual. To clarify, one person may not feel much
frustration over losing a job or getting a divorce, whereas another person
may experience severe anxiety or depression related to such events.
We all experience stressors every day, and general strain theory

emphasizes that stress and anger increase the likelihood of
engaging in criminal behavior, especially for individuals
who have not developed healthy coping mechanisms.
© iStockphoto.com/peeterv
Why Do They Do It?
Christopher Dorner
In early February 2013, Christopher Dorner went on a killing spree that resulted in four
people dead, including two police officers, and three officers wounded. His intent was to
murder as many law enforcement officers as possible, especially those whom he blamed
for losing his job with the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), where he had served
as an officer from 2005 to 2008. One of the initial victims of his killing spree included the
daughter (and her fiancé) of the LAPD captain who unsuccessfully represented him in his
appeal of charges of misconduct while on patrol.
Dorner made his intentions quite clear in a “manifesto” he wrote and posted on his
Facebook page just before he began his killing spree. In this manifesto, he listed many
individuals he planned to stalk and kill, as well as celebrities and others whom he claimed
to admire, such as the actor Charlie Sheen. He also made very clear in the manifesto that
his goal was to get the LAPD to admit that his termination was in retaliation for reporting
excessive force by a fellow officer. After his initial killings, he fled to rural Big Bear,
California, in San Bernardino County, where he burned his truck and holed up in a vacant
cabin.
Dorner’s rampage led to one of the largest manhunts in LAPD history, involving many
other agencies in the search. These agencies included the San Bernardino County Sheriff’s
Office and several federal agencies, such as U.S. Fish and Wildlife, whose agent finally
spotted Dorner and exchanged gunfire with him just before the siege that took place at the
cabin near the small town of Angelus Oaks, in the San Bernardino National Forest.
Despite Dorner’s killing of innocent victims, many people came out in support of him for
taking a stand against the LAPD. Although the authors of this book find it hard to
comprehend, he did gain much support in stalking and killing police officers and their
family members. Perhaps Dorner gained this support by articulating his reasons, albeit
sometimes delusionally (e.g., praising drug-addicted, sex-crazed celebrities), in his
manifesto.
Christopher Dorner went on a shooting spree, killing police officers and innocent
victims in retaliation for his termination from the LAPD.
Public domain
Dorner shot himself in the head during the mountain siege, after an intense gun battle that
claimed the lives of two more officers. (One of the coauthors of this book [Tibbetts] lives
in Angelus Oaks. The official population, according to the 2010 census, is 535.) Law
enforcement authorities had used incendiary devices to force Dorner out of the cabin,
eliciting an outcry from some of his supporters, who saw this as an attempt to kill him by
any means. Regardless of the motives of law enforcement officers, Dorner was
neutralized.
So why did Dorner do it? Given the reasons laid out in his manifesto, he likely was feeling
frustrated or strained after being fired from the LAPD as well as being relieved from his
service in a U.S. Naval Reserve unit on February 1, 2013. So in addition to an unstable
psychological state (revealed by his manifesto, along with documented domestic issues
with several of his romantic partners), he was likely acting out a deep-seated anger that
stemmed from his being fired by the LAPD. Thus, general strain theory, which places a
focus on anger, as well as lack of conventional coping mechanisms, may best explain why
Dorner took out his frustrations by killing law enforcement officers and innocent family
members of persons against whom he wanted revenge.
Think About It
1. Can you articulate reasons why Dorner’s case is a good example of strain/general
strain theory?
2. Do you see any justification to Dorner’s actions, based on the issues in his past and
his frustrations?
Sources: Cart, J., & Stevens, M. (2013, February 12). Dorner manhunt: Fish and Wildlife
officers make the big break. The Los Angeles Times.
https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2013/02/dorner-manhunt-fish-and-wildlife-
officers-make-the-big-break.html; Lloyd, J., Ebright, O., Pamer, M., & Tata, S. (2013,
February 28). Charred human remains found in rubble of Big Bear–area cabin. NBC
News. https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/national-international/Christopher-Dorner-
LAPD-Manhunt-Search-Big-Bear-190902721.html.
Ultimately, general strain theory proposes that these three categories of

strain (failure to achieve goals, noxious stimuli, and removal of positive
stimuli) will lead to stress and a propensity to feel anger. Anger can be seen
as a primary mediating factor in the causal model of the general strain
framework. In other words, it is predicted that to the extent that the three
sources of strain cause feelings of anger in an individual, that individual will
be predisposed to crime and deviance. However, Agnew was clear in stating
that if an individual can somehow cope with this anger in a positive way,
then such feelings are less likely to result in criminal activity. Coping
mechanisms vary widely across individuals, with certain strategies working
better for some people than for others. For example, some people de-stress
by working out or running, whereas others do so by watching television or a
movie. One type of activity that has shown relatively consistent success in
relieving stress is laughter, which psychologists are now prescribing as a
release of stress. Another is yoga. Yoga makes use of deep breathing, which
is physiologically shown to enhance release of stress (see any recent study
on stress reduction).
Although he did not originally provide details on how coping mechanisms

work or explore the extant psychological research on these strategies,
Agnew specifically pointed to such mechanisms in dealing with anger in
prosocial ways. The primary prediction regarding coping mechanisms is that
individuals who find ways to deal with their stress and anger in a positive
way will no longer be predisposed to commit crime, whereas individuals
who do not find a healthy, positive outlet for their anger and frustrations will
be far more likely to commit crime. Obviously, the goal is to reduce the use
of antisocial and negative ways of coping with strain (drug usage,
aggression, etc.), which either are criminal in themselves or increase the
likelihood of offending.
Fortunately, in recent times, research and theoretical development have

more fully examined various coping mechanisms and their effectiveness in
reducing anger and, thus, preventing criminal activity. Obviously, in
focusing on individuals’ perceptions of stress and anger, as well as their
abilities to cope with such feelings, general strain theory places more
emphasis on the micro level of analysis. Still, due to its origins in structural-
strain theory, it is typically classified as belonging to the category of strain
theories that includes the earlier, more macro-level-oriented theories.
Additionally, recent studies and revisions of general strain theory have
attempted to examine the validity of its propositions at the macro, structural
level.42
Since general strain theory was first proposed in the mid-1980s, much
research has been done to examine various aspects of it.43 For the most part,
studies have generally supported the model. Specifically, most studies find a
link between the three categories of strain and higher rates of criminality, as
well as a link between the sources of strain and feelings of anger or other
negative emotions (e.g., anxiety and depression).44 However, there have
been criticisms of the theory, especially of the way it has been tested.
For example, similar to the problems with using objective indicators to

measure perceptions of deterrence (as discussed in Chapter 4), it is
important that strain research measure subjects’ perceptions and feelings of
frustration, not simply the occurrence of certain events. Unfortunately, some
studies have looked only at the latter, and the validity of such findings is
questionable.45 Fortunately, a number of other studies have directly
measured subjective perceptions of frustration, as well as feelings of
anger.46
Such studies have found mixed support for the hypothesis that certain
events lead to anger47 but less support for the prediction that anger leads to
criminality, and this link is particularly weak for nonviolent offending.48 On
the other hand, studies have supported a link between strain and anger, as
well as between anger and criminal behavior, particularly when coping
variables are considered.49 Still, many of the studies that do examine the
effects of anger incorporate indicators of anger using time-stable “trait”
measures, as opposed to incident-specific “state” measures that would be
more consistent with the situation-specific emphasis of general strain
theory.50 This is similar to the methodological criticism, discussed in other
chapters in this text, that has been leveled against studies of self-conscious
emotions, particularly shame and guilt; namely, when it comes to measuring
emotions such as anger and shame, criminologists should choose their
measures carefully and make sure the instruments are consistent with the
theory they are testing. Thus, future research on general strain theory should
employ more effective, subjective measures of straining events and
situational states of anger.
Regardless of the criticisms of general strain theory, it is hard to deny its

face validity. After all, virtually everyone can relate to the tendency to react
differently to certain situations based on what type of day they are having.
For example, we all have days when everything seems to be going great—it
is Friday, you receive accolades at work, and you are looking forward to a
nice weekend with your friends or family. If someone says something
derogatory to you or cuts you off in traffic, you will probably be inclined to
let it go. On the other hand, we also all have days when everything seems to
be going horribly wrong—it is Monday, you get blamed for mishaps at
work, and you have a fight with your spouse or significant other. If someone
yells at you or cuts you off in traffic, you may be more inclined to respond
aggressively. Or, perhaps more commonly, you will overreact and snap at a
loved one or friend without much provocation; this is a form of
displacement in which a cumulative buildup of stressors causes us to lash
out. In many ways, this supports general strain theory and its prevalence in
everyday life.
Learning Check 8.4
1. According to Agnew, which of the following is NOT one of the key reasons why
individuals become strained or frustrated?
a. Failure to acquire goals/expectations
b. Dealing with negative stimuli
c. Loss of positive stimuli
d. Low self-control
2. Which type of adaptation to strain did Cohen NOT label/identify in his theory?
a. Corner boy
b. Drug boy
c. College boy
d. Delinquent boy
3. Which of the following types of gangs did Cloward and Ohlin NOT label/identify
in their theory of gangs?
a. Ritualistic gangs
b. Conflict gangs
c. Criminal gangs
d. Retreatist gangs
Summary of Strain Theories

The common assumption found across all variations of strain theory is that
crime is far more common among individuals who are under a great degree
of stress and frustration, especially those who can’t cope with or handle
such stress in a positive way. The origin of most variations of strain theory
can be traced to Durkheim’s and Merton’s concepts of anomie, which
essentially means a state of chaos or normlessness in society due to a
breakdown in the ability of societal institutions to regulate human desires,
thereby resulting in feelings of strain.
Why Do They Do It?
Gang Lu
Gang Lu was a PhD graduate at the University of Iowa in 1991 when he entered a meeting
of his former academic department and, with a .38-caliber revolver, shot several faculty
members (including the chair of his PhD dissertation committee and two other committee
members) to death. He also shot and killed his former roommate, who had recently won
the elite Spriestersbach Dissertation Prize for exemplary research in the field of physics.
Lu then proceeded to another building, where he shot and killed the associate vice
president for academic affairs and the campus grievance officer, to whom Lu had made
numerous complaints about not being nominated or chosen as a candidate for the
Spriestersbach prize. Lu believed that winning this award would have helped him get
hired as a tenure-track professor.
He also shot a temporary student employee who was in the grievance office; she survived
the attack but was paralyzed. Apparently, the president of the university was also on Lu’s
“hit list,” but he happened to be out of town that day. Lu was later found dead in a campus
room, where he had shot himself in the head.
So why did Lu perform this massacre? It is likely that one of the primary reasons can be
explained by both traditional and general strain theory. Specifically, he failed to obtain
positively valued goals (the dissertation award) despite high expectations, which is
consistent with the original version of strain theory proposed by Merton. However, anger
over not winning the award and his complaints going unaddressed was clearly a key
factor, and this anger is best explained by Agnew’s general strain theory, a more recent
and robust framework regarding how strain and frustration can increase propensities to
commit crimes. Lu obviously did not deal or cope with this frustration and anger in a
healthy way, which is also key in general strain theory; people who can’t find an
appropriate outlet or stress reliever are likely to be predisposed to violence or other illegal
activity.
The 2007 movie Dark Matter, starring Meryl Streep and Aiden Quinn, is not a factual
depiction of what occurred in this case, but it is largely based on real events. It comes
close to the mark in portraying why Lu might have committed these murders.
Think About It
1. Can you articulate why Gang Lu’s case appears to fit well with general strain
theory?
2. Might there have been some early predictors or interventions that could have
prevented Gang Lu’s fatal actions?
Sources: Beard, J. A. (1997, June 24). The fourth state of matter. The New Yorker;
Eckhardt, M. L. (2001, November 1). 10 years later: U. Iowa remembers fatal day. The
Daily Iowan; Marriott, M. (1991, November 3). Gunman in Iowa wrote of plans in five
letters. The New York Times.
Although different types of strain theories gained popularity at various

points throughout the 20th century, they all became accepted during eras
that were politically and culturally conducive to such perspectives,
especially regarding the differences across the strain models. For example,
Merton’s formulation of strain, which emphasized the importance of the
economic institution, became popular during the Great Depression. Then, in
the late 1950s, two strain theories that focused on gang formation became
popular among politicians and society due to the focus on official statistics
suggesting that most crime was committed by lower-class, inner-city male
youths, many of whom were gang members. Finally, Agnew developed his
general strain model in the mid- to late 1980s, during a period when a
number of general theories of crime were being developed (e.g., Gottfredson
and Hirschi’s low self-control theory and Sampson and Laub’s
developmental theory); thus, such models were popular at that time,
particularly those that emphasized personality traits (such as anger) and
experiences of individuals. So all the variations of strain, like all the theories
discussed in this book, were manifestations of the periods in which they
were developed and became widely accepted by academics, politicians, and
society.
Applying Theory to Crime Bank Robbery
Bank robbery, unlike everyday “street” robbery, is within the jurisdiction of the FBI as
opposed to local police. Robbery is defined by the FBI, in its Uniform Crime Reports, as
“the taking or attempting to take anything of value from the care, custody, or control of a
person or persons by force or threat of force or violence and/or putting the victim in fear.”
Bank robbery is a special form of robbery. A working definition of bank robbery is the act
of entering a bank when it is open (or when some person is on the premises) to take
money or other goods, and then taking them by force or threat of force. It should be noted
that if a break-in occurs at a bank and no one is there, it is typically defined as a burglary.
Each year, the FBI compiles a comprehensive review of the thousands of bank robberies
in the United States. But there is no established, systematically collected database of bank
robberies for other countries throughout the world. In fact, virtually all other countries
simply include bank robberies with other types of robbery that occur in a given year. That
said, the United States likely is well represented in the world in terms of bank robbery.
In 2018, at least 3,033 bank robberies were committed in the United States. Notably, this
did not include more than 50 bank burglaries (those occurring when the bank was closed).
The FBI statistics of these bank robberies include gender and race of the offender, day of
the week, time of day, type of bank, areas of the bank involved, and modus operandi.
Regarding gender, 93% of the robbers were known to be male. This statistic backs up data
previously reviewed in the text showing that males commit the overwhelming majority of
violent crimes. In terms of race, black robbers (1,448) outnumbered white offenders
(1,396). This is likely due to the high rates of poverty among black Americans, which
makes sense especially in terms of the theories reviewed in this chapter.
Another notable factor in the etiology of bank robbery in the United States is that of day
of the week, as well as time of day. The modal category for day of bank robberies is
Friday (628), which leads us to guess that offenders may have been thinking about getting
money for weekend activities. Friday is followed by Monday (544), perhaps because
offenders felt a need to make up for what they spent on the weekend, or perhaps because
they believed banks have the most money on hand those days. Consistent with this theory,
Saturday (267) and Sunday (41) were the least frequent days for bank robberies, probably
because most banks are not open on weekends.
One of the most consistent predictors of bank robbery is the time of day. In 2018, as well
as for the past few decades, bank robbers were most likely to strike between 3 p.m. and 6
p.m. Perhaps offenders speculate that as the day progresses, the more money the bank
collects, so the more they can gain by staging a robbery late in the day.
Another factor highlighted in the 2018 FBI report is the type of bank location robbed. In
2018, only 93 main offices were robbed; most robberies occurred at branch offices (2,826
robberies), with other locations such as in-store branches and other remote facilities being
robbed infrequently. Also, in 2018, metropolitan banks were robbed far more often (1,514
robberies) than were small-town (786), suburban (618), or rural (115) banks. Additionally,
nearly all the robberies (2,867) were carried out at the bank counter as opposed to the
vault/safe, safe-deposit boxes, office area, drive-in/walk-up, armored vehicles, or other
areas.
Finally—and this may come as a surprise, given the current Hollywood depictions of
“takeover robberies,” such as in the movies Heat and The Town—the vast majority of
bank robberies in 2018 (as well as for every year in the past few decades) were committed
without a weapon. Most robbers simply made a verbal demand of or presented a note to
the teller at the counter.
It is likely that bank robbery is largely driven by unemployment and/or poverty, especially
during hard times. In one recent incident, a jobless man was arrested for committing a
dozen bank robberies across the Phoenix valley. The man, Cristian Alfredo Urquijo,
discussed in the case study at the beginning of this chapter, told authorities that he did it to
survive and that “desperation was a great motivator.”
Urquijo’s case is reflective of some of the various theories discussed in this chapter,
especially those regarding strain theory. After all, we are talking about a man who, up to
that time, appeared to have a clean record. However, when he became unemployed, he
innovated a new way to obtain the money he needed to survive. In addition, according to
general strain theory, when positive stimuli (such as a stable job) are removed, individuals
are more likely to engage in criminal offending, especially when such illegal acts are
attempts to replace the lost positive stimuli (in such cases, income from work).
Think About It
1. How do peak times of bank robberies differ from those of other robberies? Can you
provide a reason (or reasons) for this?
2. Why are “takeover” bank robberies far rarer than “oral command” or “passing note
to the teller” bank robberies?
Sources: FBI. (2016). Bank crime statistics 2015: Federally insured financial institutions,
January 1, 2015–December 31, 2015. Washington, DC: Author; Jobless Arizona bank
robber says he “stole to survive.” (2011, August 23). Reuters.
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-arizona-bankrobber/jobless-arizona-bank-robber-says-
he-stole-to-survive-idUSTRE77N0AS20110824.
Policy Implications
Although this chapter deals with a wide range of theories regarding social
structure, the most applicable policy implications are those suggested by the
most recent theoretical models of this genre. Thus, we will focus on policies
that are most relevant in contemporary times and are key factors in the most
modern versions of this perspective. Specifically, the factors that are most
vital for policy regarding social structure are those involving educational
and vocational opportunities and programs that emphasize healthy coping
mechanisms to help individuals deal with stress.
Empirical studies have shown that intervention programs that focus on

educational and/or vocational training and opportunities are needed for
high-risk youths, because such endeavors can significantly reduce rates of
offending.51 Specifically, providing an individual with a job, or the
preparation for such, is key to building a more stable life, even if the
position is not a high-paying job. Thus, the individual is less likely to feel
stressed or “strained.” In modern times, people are lucky to have a stable
job, and this must be communicated to our youth. And, ideally, they will
find some intrinsic value in the work they perform.
Another key area of recommendations from this perspective involves
developing healthy ways of coping with strain. After all, every individual
deals with stress virtually every day. The key is not to avoid stress or strain,
because that would be impossible. Rather, the key is to develop healthy,
legal coping mechanisms. Many programs have been created to help
individuals build strategies for handling stress without resorting to antisocial
behavior. Such “anger management” programs—particularly ones that take
a cognitive-behavioral approach, which teaches individuals to think before
they act and often involves role playing—have seen some success.52
Fazit
In this chapter, we examined the theories that emphasize inequitable social structure as the
primary cause of crime. We examined early perspectives that established that societies
vary in the extent to which they are stratified, as well as the consequences of the
inequalities and complexities of such structures. Early European researchers showed that
certain types of crimes occurred more often in certain areas and that these areas differed
socioeconomically. These early models set the stage for later theoretical development in
social structure models of crime, especially strain theories.
Our examination of strain theories explored theoretical models stating that individuals and
groups who are not offered equal opportunities to achieve success experience feelings of
stress and frustration and, in turn, develop dispositions toward committing crime. There
have been many such theories, some focusing on economics and others emphasizing
school performance, neighborhood dynamics, or many other factors that can also produce
frustration.
We also examined the policy recommendations suggested by the various strain theoretical
models, which include providing individuals with educational and job opportunities as
well as helping them develop healthy coping mechanisms to deal with the daily stressors
we all face. Recent programs that have helped high-risk individuals develop better coping
mechanisms have shown success in reducing criminality. These programs hold much
promise for future interventions.
Finally, we followed up on our initial case study of a jobless man—Cristian Alfredo

Urquijo, or the “Black-Binder Bandit”—arrested for bank robberies across the Phoenix
valley. Urquijo confessed to authorities that he engaged in these bank robberies to survive
and that “desperation was a great motivator,” as he had been laid off and could not find a
stable job. This “Black-Binder Bandit,” so nicknamed because he often hid a revolver in a
black binder, is a good representation of some of the theories discussed in this chapter,
especially those regarding strain theory.
Summary of Theories
Early Areas that have the greatest

European differences in wealth in close
Relative Adolphe
social proximity (i.e., very poor living near
deprivation Quetelet
structure very rich) tend to have the highest
theories crime rates.
Early
Violent crime rates tend to be highest
European André-
in poor areas, whereas property
social Michel
crimes tend to cluster in wealthier
structure Guerry
areas.
theories
Societies evolve from mechanical to

Mechanical organic, with the former having a
versus limited division of labor/roles, which
organic strengthens the “collective
Early strain societies Émile conscience” of members. As the
theory Durkheim division of labor increases in the
Anomie
move to a more organic society, the
Collective collective conscience breaks down
conscience and results in “normlessness” or
anomie.
U.S. economic structure causes a

differential emphasis on the goals
Anomie
(“wealth”) compared with the
(different
conventional means of obtaining the
meaning
goals, which results in anomie.
Merton’s from Robert K.
Individuals with limited access to
strain theory Durkheim’s) Merton
success and wealth adapt to such
Adaptations strain in different ways, with many
to strain innovating ways to achieve the goals
via illegal methods instead of through
legitimate means.
Lower-class youth are not prepared

Reaction for school and are at a disadvantage
formation because schools are based on middle-
class norms. Due to failure at school,
Lower-class Corner boy they socialize with other “failures”
Albert
frustration and defy the middle-class norms/rules
Cohen
theory College boy (“reaction formation”), which leads to
gang formation. Different adaptations
Delinquent to this frustration exist, with
boy delinquent boys being the most likely
to commit crimes.
Criminal Gangs in lower-class city areas are a

gangs manifestation of the type of
Richard A. neighborhood structure that exists
Differential there, as well as the ability of youths
Conflict Cloward
opportunities to be accepted by adult criminal
gangs and Lloyd
theory enterprises. Some youths are given
E. Ohlin
Retreatist opportunities to engage in illegal
gangs structures (e.g., the mafia), and others
are blocked from these illegitimate
opportunities as well as legitimate
ones.
Failure to
obtain goals
This greatly expanded the sources of
Loss of strain to include everything that had
positive been presented by previous models
stimuli (economics, school frustration, etc.)
and also added much more in the
General Robert
Presentation sense of having constant stressors
strain theory Agnew
of noxious (noxious stimuli) and the loss of
stimuli positive aspects in one’s life. It also
added the component of coping
Coping mechanisms and individuals’ ability
mechanisms to deal with stress in a healthy way.
(or lack
thereof)
Key Terms
adaptations to strain, 193
anomie, 190
collective conscience, 186
college boy, 198
conflict gangs, 200
conformity, 193
corner boy, 198
criminal gangs, 199
delinquent boy, 198
innovation, 194
mechanical societies, 186
organic societies, 187
reaction formation, 197
rebellion, 194
relative deprivation, 185
retreatism, 194
retreatist gangs, 200
ritualism, 194
1. How does sociological positivism differ from biological or psychological positivism?
2. Which of the early sociological positivism theorists do you think contributed the most to
the evolution of social structure theories of crime? Why? Do you think their ideas still
hold up today?
3. Can you think of modern examples of Durkheim’s image of mechanical societies? Do
you think such societies have more or less crime than modern organic societies?
4. What type of adaptation to strain do you think fits you most? Least? What adaptation do
you think best fits your professor? Your postal delivery worker? Your garbage collector?
5. Do you know people you went to school with who fit Cohen’s model of status
frustration? What did they do in response to the feelings of strain?
6. How would you describe the neighborhood where you or people you know grew up in
terms of Cloward and Ohlin’s model of organization/disorganization? Can you relate to
the types of gangs they discussed?
7. If you were the attorney general of the United States, what types of policy
recommendations would you give to help alleviate some of the financial (or other types
of) strain on individuals or disadvantaged groups?
Ressourcen
Émile Durkheim
A brief, but very insightful, review of Durkheim’s personal and professional life:
http://durkheim.uchicago.edu/Biography.html
The Encyclopædia Britannica provides an extensive history of Durkheim’s influences and

theoretical perspectives and their influence on modern criminology:
https://www.britannica.com/biography/Emile-Durkheim
Strain Theory
This site provides a concise synopsis of key factors in Merton’s strain theory:
https://revisesociology.com/2016/04/16/mertons-strain-theory-deviance
This bibliographical site provides a basic introduction to, as well as a list of the key
publications for, classic strain theory and general strain theory:
http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/document/obo-9780195396607/obo-
9780195396607-0005.xml
Student Study Site

Media Library
premium resources:
Author Video
8.1: Strain Theory Examples

8.1: Cohen’s Theory of Lower-Class Status Frustration and Gang Formation

8.1: Robbery
Chapter 9 Social Structure Theories of
Crime II Social Disorganization and
Subcultures
© iStockphoto.com/andrearoad
Learning Objectives
9.1 Describe how the model presented by Chicago theorists explains the development of
cities and the causes of crime in varying regions of a city.
9.2 Discuss Shaw and McKay’s theory of social disorganization.
9.3 Identify some current, modern-day examples of specific cultures or subcultures in
the United States and how they relate to crime.
9.4 Evaluate the criticisms of cultural theories of crime.
9.5 Evaluate policies that have come from the Chicago/social-disorganization theories of
crime.
Case Study
Fraternity Members Charged With Engaging in Alcohol

Enemas
On the night of Friday, September 21, 2012, fraternity members held a party at the Pi Kappa
Alpha house on the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, campus. They referred to the party as
“Tour de Franzia,” as it involved a competition to see who could drink the most Franzia, a
cheap red boxed wine. One of the partygoers, 20-year-old Alexander “Xander” Broughton, was
hospitalized at 1:15 a.m. the next morning for alcohol poisoning and a near-fatal blackout, with
a blood alcohol content of approximately .45—more than five times the legal limit. Doctors
declared him in critical condition, with rectal injuries so pronounced that officials called for a
sexual assault nurse.
Attorney Daniel McGehee, left, with his client, Alexander P. Broughton, right, addresses
the University of Tennessee alcohol enema incident during a news conference.
AP Photo/Knoxville News Sentinel, Adam Brimer
It soon came to light that the members of Pi Kappa Alpha had been giving each other alcohol
enemas, often referred to as “butt-chugging.” (Alcohol is absorbed into the bloodstream faster
this way.) Although Broughton later claimed he had not butt-chugged, evidence of bloodstains,
his injuries (which some medical professionals thought at first included anal rape), and
witnesses showed otherwise.
Knoxville and UT police officers went to the Pi Kappa Alpha house and found the courtyard,
halls, and rooms littered with beer cans, empty bags from Franzia wine boxes and three passed-
out frat members—one of them naked, according to the reports. “There was a plastic bag with
a light pink wine on the floor,” UT police Sgt. Angela O’Neal wrote. “In front of the
(restroom) door there was an empty plastic bag. There was bloodstained tissues on the sink, the
sink counter top and the floor. I observed two of the toilet stalls had blood on the floor. . . .
There was a plastic bag with a pink wine in front of the couch and a red Solo cup containing
this same liquid.”
Police records indicate the frat members showed little concern when told Broughton might die.
The chapter president, George Bock, arrived at the house drunk, called members to warn them
to stay away from the house, and would not answer police officers’ questions directly.
Broughton did recover the following week and returned to classes. Officers cited 12 others on
charges of underage drinking, and UT suspended the Pi Kappa Alpha chapter indefinitely. The
chapter has since been dissolved. Further, the UT campus has created new policies to try to
stem such activity on or near campus.
It is very likely that the theories included in this chapter would explain why Broughton and his
fellow Pi Kappa Alphas engaged in such activity. So keep this case study in mind. The
theoretical frameworks and concepts in this chapter may help to understand why people engage
in activities that can put them into an alcohol-induced coma.
Think About It
1. If you were rushing a fraternity or sorority, would you likely engage in behavior that
might be hazardous to your health?
2. What was the primary factor in this incident? Was it personal decision-making, or was it
social influence?
3. If you were a member of this fraternity, what would YOU have done while this party
was going on? Would you have stopped it? Simply spectated? Played a part in it,
especially if you were pledging the frat (or sorority)?
Source: Lakin, M. (2018, October 10). From the archives: UT’s case of the “butt-chugging”
frat brothers. Knoxville News Sentinel.
https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/crime/2018/10/10/university-tennessees-case-butt-
chugging-frat-brothers/1588470002.
Introduction
In this chapter, we will continue our survey of key social structure theories
of criminal behavior. In the previous chapter, we discussed early social
structure theories that evolved in Europe in the 19th century, as well as
more modern versions of strain theory. In this chapter, we will focus on a
different type of social structure framework, one that emphasizes the risk
factors and social dynamics in certain neighborhoods. Specifically, we will
examine the Chicago School of criminology, which is otherwise known as
the Ecological School or theory of social disorganization, for reasons that
will become clear by the end of this chapter.
The Ecological School and the Chicago School of

Criminology
The Chicago School of criminology represents one of the most valid and
generalizable theories we will discuss in this book, in the sense that many
of its propositions can be readily applied to the growth and evolution of
virtually all cities around the world. The Chicago School, which is often
referred to as the Ecological School or the theory of social disorganization,
also represents one of the earliest examples of balancing theorizing with
scientific analysis. It has guided many important programs and policies to
this day. Perhaps most important, the development of the Chicago School of
criminology was the epitome of using theoretical development and
scientific testing to address chaos and crime of the sort that existed in
Chicago in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The Chicago School is
also credited with the first attempts at understanding cultural or subcultural
differences in groups that do not fit with the mainstream of society; a
significant portion of the Chicago perspective involves the transmission of
certain cultural and antisocial values, both from delinquents to their peers
and from veteran offenders to young children. In this chapter, we will
examine this cultural aspect of the Chicago model, as well as other
subculture frameworks of offending behaviors.
Chicago School of criminology: a theoretical framework of criminal behavior that

emphasizes the environmental impact of living in a high-crime neighborhood, applies
ecological principles to explain how cities grow, and highlights levels of neighborhood
organization to explain crime rates.
Cultural Context: Chicago in the 1800s and Early

1900s
No American city has ever experienced faster growth than Chicago did in
the 19th century.1 The population of Chicago exploded from about 5,000
people in the early 1800s to more than 2 million people by 1900; put
another way, it more than doubled every decade.2 This massive rate of
growth, which was much faster than that seen in other large U.S. cities such
as Boston, Baltimore, New York, Philadelphia, and San Francisco, was due
to Chicago’s centrally located geographic position; in other words, it was in
many ways “landlocked,” because although it sits on Lake Michigan, there
was no water route to the city from the Atlantic Ocean until the Erie Canal
opened in 1825, which opened the Great Lakes region to shipping
(including migration of people). Three years later, the Baltimore and Ohio
Railroad—the first American passenger train with a route from a mid-
Atlantic city to central areas—began operation. These two transportation
advancements created a continuous stream of (im)migration to the Chicago
area, which only increased with the completion of the transcontinental
railroad in 1869, linking both coasts with the Midwestern portions of the
country.3
This type of run-down residential area was key in early

theories of crime, such as the Chicago School of
criminology, also known as the theory of social
disorganization or Ecological School.
National Archives and Records Administration (Chicago 1930s) via

In the early to mid-1800s, many large U.S. cities had virtually no formal
social agencies such as we have today to handle problems of urbanization.
For example, there were no social workers, building inspectors, garbage
collectors, or even police officers. Once police agencies did start in some of
these cities, their duties often included tasks we associate with other
agencies, such as finding lost children and collecting garbage, primarily
because there weren’t other agencies to perform these tasks. Therefore,
communities were largely responsible for solving their own problems,
including crime and delinquency. However, by the late 19th century,
Chicago was largely made up of citizens who did not speak a common
language and did not share one another’s cultural values. This phenomenon
is consistent with Census Bureau data that show 70% of Chicago’s residents
were foreign-born and another 20% were first-generation American. It was
almost impossible for these citizens to organize themselves to solve
community problems, because their backgrounds varied so greatly. In most
cases, they could not even understand one another. This resulted in the type
of chaos and normlessness that Durkheim predicted would occur when
urbanization and industrialization occurred too rapidly (see previous
chapter); in fact, Chicago represented the archetypal example of a society in
an anomic state, with almost a complete breakdown in control. There were
many manifestations of this breakdown in social control, but one of the
most notable was children roaming the streets in gangs with little
intervention from the adults in the neighborhoods. Delinquency was
soaring, and it appeared that the gangs controlled the streets as much as any
other group.
The city of Chicago was desperate for ways of dealing with its
exponentially growing problem of delinquency and crime. The leaders and
people of Chicago needed theoretical guidance to develop solutions to their
problems, particularly regarding the high rates of delinquency. In this
regard, the Department of Sociology at the University of Chicago became
extremely important in the early 1900s. Essentially, modern sociology
developed in Chicago because the city needed it to solve its social
problems. Thus, Chicago became a type of laboratory for the sociological
researchers, and they developed a number of theoretical models of crime
and other social ills that are still empirically valid today.
Ecological Principles in City Growth and

Concentric Circles
In the 1920s and 1930s, sociologists at the University of Chicago offered
several new perspectives of human behavior and city growth. The first
relevant model was proposed by Robert E. Park, who claimed that much of
human behavior, especially the way cities grow, follows the basic principles
of ecology.4 Ecology is essentially the study of the dynamics and processes
through which plants and animals (i.e., wildlife) interact with their
environment. In an application of Darwinian theory, Park proposed that the
growth of cities follows a natural pattern of evolution.
Specifically, Park claimed that cities represent a type of complex organism

that has a sense of unity formed from the interrelations among citizens and
groups in the city. Park applied the ecological principle of symbiosis to
explain the dependency of the various citizens and units on one another:
Everyone is better off working together as a whole. Furthermore, Park
claimed that all cities contain identifiable clusters, which he called natural
areas, where the group has taken on a life or organic unity of its own. To
clarify, many cities have neighborhoods with a majority ethnic group or
with certain distinctive features. For example, Hell’s Kitchen, Times
Square, and Harlem represent areas of New York City that have each taken
on a unique identity; however, each of them contributes to the whole—
namely, the makeup and identity of the city. The same can be seen in other
cities, such as Baltimore, with its Inner Harbor, Little Italy, and Fells Point.
From Miami to San Francisco to New Orleans, cities across America—and
throughout the world, for that matter—contain these identifiable natural
areas.
natural areas: refers to the Chicago School’s idea that all cities contain identifiable
clusters, such as a Chinatown or Little Italy, and neighborhoods that have low or high
crime rates.
Applying several other ecological principles, Park also noted that some
areas (or species) may invade and dominate adjacent areas (species),
causing the recession of previously dominant areas (species). The
dominated area or species may either recede and migrate to another location
or die off. In wildlife, this can be seen in the incredible proliferation of a
weed called kudzu. Kudzu grows at an amazing pace and has large leaves.
It grows on top of other plants, trees, fields, and even houses, covering
everything in its path and stealing all the sunlight. A vine of Asian origin, it
was introduced to North America in the 1800s at a world exposition.
Americans found it useful in controlling erosion, but the plant soon became
a menace, especially in the southeastern region of the United States. Now
this weed costs the government more than $350 million each year in
destruction of crops and other fauna. This is a good example of a species
that invades, dominates, and causes the recession of other species in the
area. As is often the case, kudzu was not a completely natural phenomenon;
it was synthetically introduced to this country at a world expo.
Kudzu covers other plants, monopolizing the available

sunlight. The Ecological/Chicago School of criminology
applied this type of natural process to show how a criminal
element invades and comes to dominate certain areas.
Galen Parks Smith via Wikimedia Creative Commons Attribution-

Share Alike 3.0
A similar example is the introduction of buffalo to Santa Catalina Island,
off the coast of Southern California. In the 1930s, about three dozen buffalo
were brought to the island for a movie shoot. Once the production was over,
the film producers decided not to spend the money to remove the beasts.
Had this occurred in many other parts of the United States, it would not
have caused a problem; however, the largest mammal native to the island
was a 4-pound fox. So the buffalo herd, with no competition and no natural
predators, multiplied into the many hundreds. They destroyed much of the
environment, driving to extinction some plants and animals unique to
Catalina Island. Similar to kudzu, the buffalo came to dominate the
environment, and other species died off.
Park claimed that a similar process occurs in cities, where some areas
invade other zones or areas and the previously dominant area must succeed
or die off. This is easy to see in modern times with what is known as urban
sprawl. Geographers and urban planners have long acknowledged the
detriment caused to traditionally stable residential areas when businesses
move in. Some of the most recent examples involve the battles of longtime
homeowners against the introduction of malls, businesses, and other
industrial centers to a previously residential district. The media have
documented such fights, especially with the proliferation of such
establishments as Walmart and Super Kmarts in areas where residents
perceive (and perhaps rightfully so) their presence as an invasion. Such an
invasion can create chaos in a previously stable residential community due
to increased traffic, a transient population, and, perhaps most important,
crime. Furthermore, some cities are granting power to such development
through eminent domain, in which the local government can take land from
the homeowners to rezone and import businesses.
The American buffalo was introduced to Catalina Island for a
movie shoot in the 1930s and destroyed much of the native
plant life. This is an example of a foreign element creating
chaos and destruction, as crime does in residential areas
when they are invaded by industries or other factors.
Stefan Didam via Wikimedia Creative Commons Attribution-Share

Alike 3.0
At the time when Park developed his theory of ecology, he observed the
trend of businesses and factories invading traditionally residential areas of
Chicago, causing chaos and instability in those areas. Readers, especially
those who were raised in suburban or rural areas, can likely relate to this, in
that when they go back to where they grew up or even currently live, they
can often see fast growth. Such development can devastate the informal
controls (neighborhood networks, family ties, etc.) in these areas due to the
“invasion” of a highly transient group of consumers and residents who do
not have strong ties to the area.
This leads to a psychological indifference toward the neighborhood—no

one cares about protecting the community anymore. Those who can afford
to leave the area do, and those who can’t afford to leave remain only until
they can save enough money. After all, especially in the time when Park
presented his theory of ecology in the 1920s, when factories moved into the
area, it often meant a lot of smoke billowing out of chimneys. No one
wanted to live in such a state, particularly at a time when there was no real
regulation of pollution and virtually no filters on such smokestacks. In fact,
certain parts of Chicago, as well as all other cities in America, were
perpetually covered by smog from these factories. In highly industrial areas,
it appeared to be always snowing or overcast due to the constant and vast
coverage of smoke and pollutants across the sky. So it is easy to see how
such “invasions” by factories and businesses can completely disrupt the
previously dominant and stable residential areas of a community.
Park’s ideas became even more valid and influential with the
complementary perspective offered by Ernest W. Burgess.5 Burgess
proposed a theory of city growth in which cities were seen as growing not
simply on the edges but from the inside outward. To clarify, while it is easy
to see cities growing on the edges, as in the example of urban sprawl
described above, Burgess claimed that the source of the growth is in the
center of the city. Specifically, the growth of the inner city puts pressure on
the adjacent zones of the city, which in turn begin to grow into the next
adjacent zones (following the ecological principle of “succession”
identified by Park). This type of development is referred to as “radial
growth,” meaning it begins in the middle and ripples outward.6
An example of radial growth can be seen by watching a drop of water fall

into the center of a bucket filled with water. The waves from the impact will
form circles that ripple outward. This is exactly how Burgess claimed that
cities grow. Although the growth of cities is most visible on the edges,
largely due to development of businesses and homes where only trees or
barren land existed before, the growth on the edges originates from pressure
forming in the very heart of the inner-city area. Another good analogy is the
“domino effect,” because pressure from the center leads to pressure to grow
in the next zone, which leads to growth in the adjacent zones, and so forth.
The Chicago/Ecological model proposed that as factories

invaded and dominated residential areas, the residents who
could afford to leave did; the only people who remained
were the poor and deprived, increasing the risk of crime.
Comstock/Thinkstock
To his credit, Burgess also specified the primary zones all cities appear to
have, including five pseudo-distinctive natural areas (in a constant state of
flux due to growth). Burgess exhibited these zones as a set of concentric
circles (see Figure 9.1). The first, center circle is called Zone I, the central
business district; this zone is also referred to as “The Loop” because that is
what downtown Chicago is called, even today. This area of a city contains
the large business buildings (modern skyscrapers), including banking
establishments, chambers of commerce, the courthouse, and other essential
business and political centers, such as police headquarters and the post
office. The adjacent area, just outside the business district, is the “factory
zone” (unnumbered), which is perhaps the most significant in terms of
causing crime, because it invaded the previously stable residential zones in
Zone II—identified as the transition zone or zone in transition. Zone II is
appropriately named, because it is truly in a state of transition from
residential to industrial, primarily because of businesses and factories
encroaching on residential areas. Zone II is the area most significantly
subjected to the ecological principles suggested by Park—invasion,
domination, recession, and succession. This is the zone subsequent theorists
focused on in criminological theorizing, and it is based on the
encroachment of factories and/or businesses in the areas that were
previously stable residential communities.
zone in transition: in the Chicago School, this refers to a zone (Zone II) that was once
residential but is becoming more industrial; it tends to have the highest crime rates.
Figure 9.1 Major Zones of the City of Chicago

Source: Rubenstein, J. M. (2016). Contemporary human geography
(3rd ed.). New York, NY: Pearson.
According to Burgess’s theory of concentric circles, Zone III is the

“workingmen’s homes,” largely made up of relatively modest homes and
apartments; Zone IV consists of higher-priced family dwellings and more
expensive apartments; and Zone V is considered the suburban or commuter
zone. These outer three zones identified by Burgess are of less importance
in terms of distinction, primarily because as a general rule, the farther a
family can move out of the city, the better in terms of social organization
and the lower the rate of social ills (e.g., poverty, delinquency). The
important point of this theory of concentric circles is that the growth of each
inner zone puts pressure on the next zone to grow and push on the next
zone.
It is easy to see examples of this model of concentric circles. Whether you

live on the East Coast, on the West Coast, or in the middle of the United
States, all you have to do is drive on a highway into a major city to see real-
life evidence of the validity of this perspective. For example, whether you
drive on Interstate 95 through Baltimore or Interstate 10 through Los
Angeles, you will see the same pattern of structures as you travel through
the city. As you approach each of the cities, if you look closely you will see
suburban wealth in the homes and buildings (often hidden by trees). As you
get closer to the cities, you will see the homes and buildings deteriorate in
terms of value. From the raised highway system near Baltimore and Los
Angeles, it is readily apparent when you enter Zone II, due to the
prevalence of factories and the highly deteriorated nature of these areas.
Many of the factories have been abandoned or are limited in use, so many
of these factory zones feature rusted-out or demolished buildings. This is
also often the location of subsidized or public housing. In other words, this
is where the people who can’t afford to live anywhere else live. Finally, as
you enter the inner-city area of skyscrapers, the conditions improve
drastically, because this is where the major businesses have invested their
money; it appears to be a relative utopia compared with Zone II.
concentric circles: model proposed by Chicago School theorists that assumes that all
cities grow in a natural way with the same five zones.
This theory does not apply just to U.S. cities, and we challenge readers to
find any major city in the world that did not develop this way. In modern
times, some communities have tried to plan their development, and other
communities have experienced the convergence of several patterns of
concentric circles due to central business districts (i.e., Zone I) starting in
what were previously suburban areas (i.e., Zone V). However, for the most
part, the theoretical framework of concentric circles still has a great deal of
support. In fact, even cities in Eastern nations have evolved this way.
Therefore, Park’s application appears to be correct: Cities grow in a natural
way across time and place and abide by the natural principles of ecology.
Shaw and McKay’s Theory of Social

Disorganization
Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay drew heavily on their colleagues at the
University of Chicago in devising their theory of social disorganization,
which became known as the Chicago School theory of criminology.7 Shaw
had been producing excellent case studies on the individual (i.e., micro)
level for years before he took on theorizing on the macro (i.e., structural)
level of crime rates.8 However, once he began working with McKay, he
devised perhaps the most enduring and valid model for why certain
neighborhoods have more social problems, such as delinquency, than
others.
In this model, Shaw and McKay proposed a framework that began with the
assumption that certain neighborhoods in all cities have more crime than
other parts of the city—most of them located in Burgess’s Zone II, the zone
in the transition from residential to industrial due to invading factories.
According to Shaw and McKay, the neighborhoods that have the most
crime typically have at least three common problems (see Figure 9.2):
physical dilapidation, poverty, and heterogeneity (which is a fancy way of
saying a high cultural mix). Shaw and McKay noted other common
characteristics, such as a highly transient population, meaning that people
constantly move in and out of the area, as well as unemployment among the
residents of the neighborhood.
As noted in Figure 9.2, other social ills are included as antecedent factors in
the theoretical model. The antecedent social ills tend to lead to a breakdown
in social organization, which is why this model is referred to as the theory
of social disorganization. Specifically, it is predicted that the antecedent
factors of poverty, heterogeneity, and physical dilapidation will lead to a
state of social disorganization, which in turn will lead to crime and
delinquency. This means that the residents of a neighborhood that fits the
profile of having a high rate of poor, culturally mixed residents in a
dilapidated area cannot come together to effectively solve problems, such as
delinquency among the neighborhood’s youth, especially in terms of
transient populations. (You may remember that such was the case in
Chicago in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.)
One of the most significant contributions of Shaw and McKay’s model was
that they demonstrated that the prevalence and frequency of various social
ills—be they poverty, disease, low birth weight, or other problems—tend to
overlap with higher delinquency rates. Regardless of what social problem is
measured, higher rates of social problems are almost always clustered in the
zone in transition. It was in this area that Shaw and McKay believed there
was a breakdown in informal social controls and that children began to
learn offending norms from their interactions with peers on the street
through what they called “play activities.”9 Thus, the breakdown in the
conditions of the neighborhood leads to social disorganization, which in
turn leads to delinquents learning criminal activities from older youths in
the neighborhood. Ultimately, the failure of the neighborhood’s residents to
organize themselves allows the older youths to govern the behavior of the
younger children. Basically, the older youths in the area provide a system of
organization where the neighborhood cannot, so younger children follow
their guidance, which leads them astray of the norms of conventional
society.
Figure 9.2 Model of Shaw and McKay’s Theory of Social

Disorganization
Shaw and McKay supplied data to support these theoretical propositions.
Specifically, they demonstrated through data from the U.S. Census and city
records that neighborhoods with high rates of poverty, physical dilapidation,
and a high cultural mix also had the most delinquency and crime.
Furthermore, the high rates of delinquency and other social problems were
consistent with Burgess’s framework of concentric circles, in that the
highest rates were observed for the areas in Zone II, the zone in transition.
However, there was an exception to the model; the Gold Coast area along
the northern coast of Lake Michigan was notably absent from the high rates
of social problems, particularly delinquency, that existed throughout the
otherwise consistent model of concentric circles and neighborhood zones.
Learning Check 9.1

1. In Shaw and McKay’s theoretical model, which zone was predicted to have the
most crime and delinquency, largely due to other social problems there?
a. Central business district
b. Zone in transition
c. Zone VI
d. Zone V
2. Which unit of analysis does Shaw and McKay’s theory focus on?
a. Macro level
b. Micro level
c. Situational level
So Shaw and McKay’s findings were as predicted, in the sense that high
delinquency was apparent in areas where factories were invading the
residential district. Furthermore, Shaw and McKay’s longitudinal data
showed that it did not matter which ethnic groups lived in Zone II (zone in
transition), because all groups (with the exception of Asians) who lived in
that zone had high delinquency rates while they lived there. On the other
hand, once most of each ethnic group moved out of Zone II, their
delinquency rates decreased significantly.
This finding rejects the notion of social Darwinism (i.e., individuals are
influenced by the same Darwinism in laws of natural selection as plants and
animals), because it shows that it is not culture but, rather, the criminogenic
nature of the environment that influences crime and delinquency. After all,
if ethnicity or race made a difference, we would expect the delinquency
rates in Zone II to fluctuate based on the ethnic or racial makeup of that
area, but they do not. Rather, the zone determines the rates of delinquency,
regardless of what ethnic or racial groups live there.
Reactions and Research

Over the past few decades, the Chicago School theoretical framework has
received an enormous amount of attention from researchers.10 Virtually all
the research has supported Shaw and McKay’s version of social
disorganization and the resulting crime in neighborhoods that exhibit such
deprived conditions. Modern research has supported the theoretical model
proposed by Shaw and McKay, specifically in terms of high crime rates in
disorganized neighborhoods. Also, virtually every city that one can drive
through on an elevated highway (e.g., Richmond, Virginia; Baltimore,
Maryland; Los Angeles, California) supports Shaw and McKay’s model of
concentric circles. Specifically, one can see while driving into almost any
city that dilapidated structures surround the inner-city area, which is the
zone of transition. Preceding (and following) this layer of dilapidated
structures, one encounters a layer of houses and residential areas that seem
to increase in quality as the driver gets closer to (or farther away from) the
inner-city area (refer to Figure 9.1).
However, critics have raised some valid concerns regarding the original
model. Specifically, it has been argued that Shaw and McKay’s original
research did not actually measure their primary construct: social
disorganization. Although this criticism is accurate, recent research has
shown that the model is valid even when measures of social disorganization
are included in the model.11 Such measures of social disorganization
include simply asking members of the neighborhood how many neighbors
they know by name or how often they observe unsupervised peer groups in
the area.
Additional criticisms of Shaw and McKay’s formulation of social

disorganization also focus on the emphasis the theory places on the macro,
or aggregate, level of analysis. After all, while their theory does a good job
of predicting which neighborhoods will have more crime than others, it
does not even attempt to explain why most youths in the worst areas do not
become offenders. Furthermore, it does not attempt to explain why some,
albeit a very small number of, youths in the best neighborhoods (in Zone V)
choose to commit crime. However, Shaw had previously attempted to
address the individual (micro) level of offending in published case studies.
Also, there was one notable exception to Shaw and McKay’s proposition
that all ethnic/racial groups would have high rates of delinquency and crime
while they lived in Zone II. Evidence showed that when Japanese residents
made up a large portion of residents in this zone in transition, they had very
low rates of delinquency. Thus, as in most theoretical models in social
science, there was an exception to the rule.
Perhaps the biggest criticism of Shaw and McKay’s theory, and one that has
yet to be adequately addressed, deals with their blatant neglect in targeting
the most problematic source of criminality in the Zone II neighborhoods.
Their findings seem to point undoubtedly to the invasion of residential areas
by factories and businesses as a problem, yet the researchers did not focus
on slowing such invasions as a recommendation. This may have been due to
political and financial concerns, seeing as how the owners of Chicago
factories and businesses were financing their research and later funded their
primary policy implementation. Furthermore, this neglect is represented in
their failure to explain the exception of the Gold Coast in their results and
conclusions.
Despite the criticisms and weaknesses of the Chicago School perspective on

criminology, it provided the basis for a massive effort to reduce
delinquency. Clifford Shaw was allowed to lead the Chicago Area Project,
which established youth activity centers in the most crime-ridden
neighborhoods of Chicago. These neighborhood centers sought to foster ties
between parents and officials in the neighborhood. Although this program
was never scientifically evaluated, it still exists, and many cities have
implemented programs based on this model. An evaluation of a similar
program in Boston showed that while it was effective in establishing
relationships and interactions between local gangs and community groups,
as well as providing more educational and vocational opportunities, it
appeared to fail in reducing delinquent or criminal behavior.12 Thus, the
overall conclusion was that the Boston project and similar programs, such
as the Chicago Area Project, typically fail to prevent criminal behavior.13
Applying Theory to Crime Stalking
January is National Stalking Awareness Month, as designated by the U.S. Department of

Justice. Although this suggests an unprecedented interest in stalking—including the first-
ever national survey sponsored by the National Institute of Justice, a branch of the U.S.
Department of Justice (Tjaden & Thoennes, 1998)—the number of studies on stalking is
still small. Despite the recent passage of laws to combat stalking in virtually every state
and the District of Columbia, very little is known about the most common stalkers, how
much stalking occurs, and so forth.
Follow-up studies, according to a summary report from the Office of Victims of Crime in
the Department of Justice, have found that this rate is growing, likely due to the
advancement of internet access and social media.14 Specifically, according to the
National Intimate Partner and Sexual Violence Survey (NISVS), 16% of women and 5%
of men experienced stalking in their lifetime. More than 50% of victims who were stalked
in their lifetime reported that the perpetrator had approached them or showed up at places
they frequented; threatened physical harm; damaged personal property; left unwanted text
or voice messages; or made unwanted telephone calls.15
“Stalking” generally refers to repeated threatening or harassing behavior (e.g., making

harassing phone calls, following a person, leaving numerous messages, continuously
appearing at a person’s home or place of work). Unfortunately, legal definitions of
stalking vary from state to state. Regardless of the definition, there is a strong link
between stalking and other forms of violence in intimate relationships (Tjaden &
Thoennes, 1998), with 81% of women who were stalked by a current or former partner
also having been physically abused by that person.
Women are significantly more likely to be stalked, with some estimates showing that
females are twice as likely as males to be victimized in this way (Tjaden & Thoennes,
1998). A study by the Bureau of Justice Statistics (Baum, Catalano, & Rand, 2009)
concluded that a pattern of decreasing risk for such stalking victimization is evident for
persons in higher-income households. This study also showed that a large portion of
stalking victims experienced some form of cyberstalking, such as e-mail or text messages,
and almost half (46%) of all victims felt fear of not knowing what would happen next.
Importantly, more than half of stalking victims lost more than a week of work due to this
victimization.
© iStockphoto.com/bombuscreative
These findings relate to the theories covered in this chapter in the sense that with the
advancement of technology and media, there seems to be a certain cultural element that
encourages stalking. After all, Twitter, Facebook, and other social networking sites enable
the “following” of individuals, and some individuals, given their instability, tend to have
problems drawing appropriate lines regarding intrusion into others’ lives. Much more
study must be done to determine how to discourage and decrease stalking, because the
current popularity of cyber-related networking will likely only increase stalking in the
near future. (In 2009, a Bronx man was sentenced to 40 years in prison for international
stalking, harassment, and so forth; see http://www.fbi.gov/newyork/press-
releases/2009/nyfo091609.htm.)
Think About It
To what extent are social media and other modern technologies increasing the risk of
stalking? Do you know people who were stalked in this way?
Sources: Baum, K., Catalano, S., & Rand, M. (2009). Stalking victimization in the United
States. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics; Tjaden, P., & Thoennes, N. (1998).
Stalking in America: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice.
Cultural and Subcultural Theories of Crime

Cultural/subcultural theories of crime assume that there are unique groups
in society that socialize their children to believe that certain activities that
violate conventional law are good and positive ways to behave. Although it
is rather difficult to find large groups of people or classes that fit this
definition, it is somewhat likely that there are subcultures or isolated groups
of individuals who buy into a different set of norms than the conventional,
middle-class set of values.
Cultural/subcultural theorists claim that residents of

environments like this one have a different normative code
or different moral values than mainstream society.
Aaron Huey/National Geographic/Getty Images
Early Theoretical Developments and Research in

Cultural/Subcultural Theory
One of the key developments of cultural theory has been largely attributed
to the 1967 work of Franco Ferracuti and Marvin E. Wolfgang, who
examined the violent themes of a group of inner-city youths from
Philadelphia.16 Ferracuti and Wolfgang’s primary conclusion was that
violence is a culturally learned adaptation to deal with negative life
circumstances and that learning such norms occurs in an environment that
emphasizes violence over other options.17 These researchers based their
conclusion on an analysis of data that showed great differences in rates of
homicide across racial groups. However, Ferracuti and Wolfgang were clear
that their theory was based on subcultural norms. Specifically, they
proposed that no subculture can be totally different from or totally in
conflict with the society of which it is a part.18 This cultural/subcultural
theory brings the distinction of culture and subculture to the forefront.
cultural/subcultural theory: a perspective on criminal offending that assumes that many

offenders believe in a normative system distinctly different from and often at odds with
conventional norms.
The distinction between a culture and a subculture is that a culture

represents a distinct, separate set of norms and values among an identifiable
group of people that are summarily different from those of the dominant
culture. For example, communism is distinctly different from capitalism
because it emphasizes equality over competition, and it values utopia (i.e.,
everyone gets to share all profits) over the idea that the best performer gets
the most reward. So it can be said that communists have a different culture
than capitalists. However, there is a substantial difference between a culture
and a subculture, which is typically only a pocket of individuals who may
have a set of norms that deviate from conventional values. Therefore, what
Ferracuti and Wolfgang concluded is not so much a cultural theory as a
subcultural theory.
This is also seen in the most prominent (sub)culture theory, which was
presented by Walter Miller.19 Miller presented a theoretical model that
proposed that the entire lower class has its own cultural value system. In
this model, virtually everyone in the lower class believes in and socializes
the values of six focal concerns: fate, autonomy, trouble, toughness,
excitement, and smartness.
Fate is the concern of luck, or whatever life deals you; it disregards

responsibility and accountability for one’s actions.
Autonomy is the value of independence from authority.
Trouble is the concern of staying out of legal problems, as well as
getting into and out of personal difficulties (e.g., pregnancy).
Toughness involves maintaining your reputation on the street.
Excitement is engagement in activities (some of them illegal) that help
liven up a mundane lower-class existence.
Smartness emphasizes “street smarts” or the ability to con others.
focal concerns: a primary concept of Miller’s theory, which asserts that all members of
the lower class focus on six concepts they deem important: fate, autonomy, trouble,
toughness, excitement, and smartness.
Miller claimed that these six focal concerns are emphasized and taught by
members of the lower class as a culture or environment (or “milieu,” as
stated in the title of his work).
A more recent subculture model, proposed by Elijah Anderson, has

received a lot of attention.20 This theory focuses on African Americans and
claims that due to deprived conditions, inner-city residents feel a sense of
hopelessness, isolation, and despair. Anderson clearly notes that while
many African Americans believe in middle-class values, these values have
no worth on the street, particularly among young men. According to
Anderson, “the code of the streets”—also the title of his book—is to
maintain one’s reputation and demand respect. For example, to be
disrespected (“dissed”) is considered grounds for a physical attack.
Masculinity and control of one’s immediate environment are treasured
characteristics; this is perceived as the only thing these young men can
control, given the harsh conditions they live in (with unemployment,
poverty, etc.).
Learning Check 9.2
1. Which theorist proposed the theory of lower-class focal concerns?

a. Burgess
b. Shaw
c. Anderson
d. Miller
2. Which theorist wrote a significant book on inner-city, African American subculture
titled The Code of the Streets?
a. Burgess
b. Park
c. Anderson
d. Miller
Disparities of Race in Regard to Subcultural

Theories of Crime.
Recent reviews of race and crime rates have shown that the most consistent
predictor of crime is the percentage of black people who live in the area,
whether that area be a particular neighborhood, county, state, or
industrialized nation.21 The relationship between race and crime has been
consistent over time, with virtually all studies finding that, in the United
States, blacks have the highest crime rates (especially for violent crimes,
such as homicide), followed by whites, and then Asians. As Wright has
noted, “the undeniable fact is that blacks commit more crime than any other
group; and they commit more violent crime than any other group . . . [T]he
data on this fact could not be any clearer.”22
For example, according to the FBI, blacks commit 85% of all interracial
crimes, and although 45% of violent crimes involve blacks offending
whites, only 3% involve whites offending blacks. Furthermore, black
youths account for 45% of all juvenile detention cases, despite accounting
for only approximately 15% of the juvenile population.23 This supports the
existence of a strong subculture of black youths in the United States, which
reinforces Anderson’s concept of subcultures that lead to a higher
propensity for crime.
Consistent with previous research, a 2015 study in the United Kingdom

found that extreme disadvantage was more predictive of crime in black
communities than it was of crime in white or South Asian
communities/boroughs. This supports the idea of subcultural influence,
even among similarly deprived groups.24 This is also seen on the other side
of the fence regarding victims of crime, in which there is a consistently
greater prevalence of intraracial crime (e.g., blacks violating blacks) than
interracial crime (e.g., whites violating blacks). Specifically, a study using
the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) for 2009 and 2010
for aggravated assault rates found that as racial residential segregation
increased, the relative frequency of black intraracial assault to black
interracial assault increased. On the other hand, there was no effect on the
ratio of white intra- versus interracial assault.25 This also supports a
subcultural perspective, given that certain racial groups seem to respond
differently to similar living conditions.
Criticism
Studies on cultural theories of crime, at least in the United States, show that
no large groups blatantly flout the middle-class norms of society.
Specifically, Miller’s model of lower-class focal concerns simply does not
exist across the entire lower class. Studies consistently show that most
adults in the lower class attempt to socialize their children to believe in
conventional values—respect for authority, hard work, delayed
gratification, and so forth—and not the focal concerns that Miller specified
in his model. Even Ferracuti and Wolfgang admitted that their research
findings led them to conclude that their model was more of a subcultural
perspective and not one of a distinctly different culture. So there are likely
small groups or gangs that have subcultural normative values, but that does
not constitute a completely separate culture in society. Perhaps the best
subculture theories are those presented by Cohen, as well as Cloward and
Ohlin (see the previous chapter), in their variations of strain theory that
emphasize the formations of gangs among lower-class male youths.
Therefore, it can be concluded that if there are subcultural groups in our
society, they seem to make up a small percentage of the population, which
somewhat negates the cultural/subcultural perspective of criminality.
Policy Implications
Many of the policy implications suggested by the theoretical models
proposed in this chapter are rather ironic. Regarding social disorganization,
a paradox exists in the sense that the very neighborhoods most desperately
in need of organizing are the same inner-city poor areas that are, by far, the
most difficult places in which to cultivate such organization (e.g.,
neighborhood watch or “Block Watch” groups). The neighborhoods that do
have high levels of organization tend to be those that already have low
levels of crime, because the residents naturally “police” their neighbors’
well-being and property since they have a stake in keeping the area crime-
free. Although there are some anecdotal examples of success by
neighborhood watch programs, the majority of the empirical evidence is
“almost uniformly unsupportive” of this approach’s ability to reduce crime.
Furthermore, many studies of neighborhood watch programs find that in a
notable number of communities, they actually increase residents’ fear of
crime, perhaps because they create a heightened awareness of it.
Also, as explained above, perhaps the most prominent program that resulted
from the Chicago School/social-disorganization model—the Chicago Area
Project—and similar programs have been deemed failures in reducing
crime. Still, there have been some advances in organizing residents of high-
crime areas. To clarify, the more specific the crime-reduction goals, such as
more careful monitoring of high-level offenders (e.g., more intensive
supervised probation) and the better the lighting in neighborhoods at night,
the more effective the implementation will be.
Why Do They Do It?
Whitey Bulger
Whitey Bulger (James Joseph “Whitey” Bulger, Jr.) is perhaps the most notorious
gangster from the South Boston area—which is saying a lot, given the history and
tradition of organized crime in “Southie,” as it is known. Bulger was a key figure of a
criminal organization from the early 1970s to the mid-1990s and head of this organization
for much of that time.
Bulger is believed to have been largely in charge of narcotics distribution and extortion
rackets in the Southie area during the 1980s and early 1990s, along with the violence
inherent to such a position. Most sources show that he was also an FBI informant during
much of this time, which allowed him to essentially “get away with murder” and continue
his other illegal activities. In 1994, under heat from authorities, he went into hiding, and
for 12 years he was on the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted” list. Bulger was apprehended with
his long-term girlfriend, Catherine Greig, in Santa Monica, California, in 2011. In 2013
he was convicted of 31 (out of 32) counts of racketeering and firearms possession; he was
sentenced to two terms of life imprisonment, plus five years. He was killed in prison in
2018.
Boston-area residents viewed Bulger as a type of Robin Hood figure, a sort of guardian
protecting the interests of the neighborhood or local area. His being a key element of
organized crime in that area for many years led to a subcultural/cultural climate placing
him as an authority for all that happened in that locale. Furthermore, much of his business
dealt with narcotics distribution and extortion, so his motives seemed to have been largely
based on finding criminal opportunities despite the relatively poor and deprived
conditions of the South Boston region.
Whitey Bulger (1929–2018) was the head of one of the most notorious organized-
crime syndicates in Boston until he was apprehended in Southern California in
2011.
United States Marshals Service (United States Department of Justice)
So why did he do it? As alluded to before, Bulger likely saw organized crime as his only
way to achieve the higher financial and/or social status that could be obtained in the
South Boston area. After all, there were not many legitimate opportunities open to him,
given his early criminal record, not to mention the deprivation and lack of stable
employment in that region. He probably also desired to become an important figure in the
subculture/culture of that area, and the only likely way to do that was to become a
prominent figure in the organized-crime syndicates.
Think About It
1. Can you relate to his local community’s attitude toward Bulger as a type of hero?
2. How do you think such a subculture develops in local communities for prominent
gangsters like him?
Sources: MacKenzie, E., & Karas, P. (2004). Street soldier: My life as an enforcer for
“Whitey” Bulger and the Boston Irish Mob. Hanover, NH: Steerforth; Weeks, K., &
Karas, P. (2009). Brutal: My life inside Whitey Bulger’s Irish Mob. New York, NY:
HarperCollins.
Regarding cultural/subcultural programs, some promising intervention and

outreach programs have been suggested by such models of offending. There
are now many programs that attempt to build prosocial attitudes (along with
other health and opportunity aspects) among high-risk youths, often young
children. A program called PeaceBuilders, which focuses on children in
early grades, was shown to foster (a) gains in conflict resolution, (b) the
development of prosocial values, and (c) reductions in aggression, and a
follow-up showed that these attributes were maintained over time.26
Another program, for foster-home boys, showed much success in increasing
levels of empathy, self-efficacy, and attribution style among boys who had
exhibited early-onset aggression.27 Ultimately, there are effective programs
out there that promote prosocial norms and culture. More effort should be
devoted to promoting such programs that will help negate antisocial cultural
norms, especially among high-risk youths.
Fazit
In this chapter, we examined theoretical perspectives proposing that the social

organizations in neighborhoods that are broken down and dilapidated are unable to
control delinquency and crime. Furthermore, we discussed how this model of crime was
linked to processes derived from ecological principles. This type of approach has been
tested numerous times, and virtually all studies show that the distribution of delinquents
and crime activity is consistent with this model.
We then discussed the ability of cultural and subcultural theories to explain criminal
activity. Empirical evidence shows that cultural values do make a contribution to criminal
behavior but that the existence of an actual alternative culture in our society has not been
found. However, pockets of certain subcultures, particularly regarding inner-city youth
gangs, provide some validity for the subculture perspective of crime. Furthermore, the
Chicago perspective plays a role, because these subcultural groups typically form in
inner-city areas (i.e., zones of transition).
We also examined some policy implications suggested by these theoretical models.

Regarding social disorganization, we noted the paradox that exists: The very
neighborhoods most desperately in need of organization are the same inner-city ghetto
areas that are, by far, the most difficult places to cultivate such organization (e.g.,
neighborhood watch groups). On the other hand, the neighborhoods that do have high
levels of organization tend to be those that already have low levels of crime, because the
residents naturally “police” their neighbors’ well-being and property. Still, there have
been some advances in organizing residents to fight crime. Regarding the cultural and
subcultural perspectives, we examined some of the intervention and outreach programs
suggested by such models of offending.
Finally, let us now revisit the case study at the beginning of this chapter, which involved
members of a fraternity giving themselves alcohol enemas, resulting in legal sanctions
after one of them was hospitalized. It is clear that most individuals would not engage in
such acts if it was not for peer associations and subcultural influences. So although much
of the Ecological/Chicago School framework was proposed more than 50 years ago, the
principles and concepts of this approach can be applied to contemporary subcultures in
society.
Summary of Theories
Virtually all cities grow in a

Natural
Ecological/Chicago Robert E. natural way, whereby they form
areas
School Park and distinct areas that tend to grow
perspectives on Concentric Ernest W. in a radial fashion from the
city growth circles Burgess center outward, forming rings of
concentric circles.
Various
zones in Nearly all cities experience
the city large growth of factories around
Clifford
Social- the city center, which invades
Shaw and
disorganization Zone in residential areas and essentially
Henry
theory transition creates a state of transition and
McKay
instability, leading to chaos,
Factory crime, and delinquency.
zone
Marvin E. Some groups of people have

Wolfgang normative structures that deviate
Subcultural and Franco significantly from the
theories Ferracuti; mainstream culture, which
Elijah inevitably leads to illegal
Anderson behavior.
Six focal
The lower class has an entirely
concerns
separate culture and normative
(that go
Lower-class focal Walter value system (i.e., focal
against
concerns Miller concerns), in many ways
middle-
opposite to middle-class
class
standards.
norms)
Key Terms
Chicago School of criminology, 214
concentric circles, 219
cultural/subcultural theory, 224
focal concerns, 224
natural areas, 216
zone in transition, 218
1. Can you identify and discuss an example of the ecological principles of invasion,
domination, and succession among animals or plants that was not discussed in this
chapter?
2. Can you see examples of the various zones that Shaw and McKay described in the town
or city where you live (or nearest you)? Try obtaining a map or sketching a plot of the
town or city closest to your home and then draw the various concentric circles where
you think the zones are located.
3. What forms of organization and disorganization have you observed in your own
neighborhood? Try to supply examples of both if possible.
4. Can you provide modern-day examples of different cultures and subcultures in the
United States? What regions, or parts of the country, would you say have cultures that
are more conducive to crime?
5. Do you know people who believe most or all of Miller’s focal concerns? What social
class do they belong to? What are their other demographic features (age, gender,
urban/rural, etc.)?
6. Do you know individuals who seem to fit either Ferracuti and Wolfgang’s cultural
theory or Anderson’s model of inner-city youth street code? Why do you believe they fit
such a model?
Ressourcen
The Chicago School of Criminology
This site provides a brief but well-applied video example of the theory of social
disorganization/Chicago School perspective.
http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-chicago-schools-social-disorganization-
theory.html
This site provides a brief summary of the Chicago School of criminology and offers an
extensive bibliographical list of key studies that have examined this perspective:
9780195396607-0077.xml
Subcultural Theories
Here is an excellent video that gives all the key concepts and propositions of subcultural
theory in criminology:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2Gn4ibhRLM
This site provides a good, published book review of Anderson’s Code of the Streets.
http://cultureandyouth.org/urban-youth/articles-urban-youth/review-code-streets-2/
Student Study Site

Media Library
premium resources:
Author Video
9.1: City Comparisons

9.1: Shaw and McKay’s Theory of Social Disorganization

9.1: Fraternity Case
Chapter 10 Social Process and Control
Theories of Crime
SAID KHATIB/AFP/Getty Images
Learning Objectives
10.1 Explain what distinguishes learning theories of crime from other perspectives.
10.2 Distinguish differential association theory from differential reinforcement theory.
10.3 Discuss early models of social control theory, especially the theoretical frameworks
presented by Nye, Reckless, Matza, and Hirschi.
10.4 Explain the key tenets of integrated social control theories, with special focus on
low self-control theory, such as what personality traits are involved.
Case Study
The Bogles
Fox Butterfield first met the Bogles through an Oregon Department of Corrections official. Mr.
Butterfield was initially told that the Bogles had six family members in prison. After further
research, he found that the number of people in the Bogle family who had been incarcerated, or
placed on probation or parole, was 60. The family’s criminal involvement spanned four
generations and involved burglaries, armed robberies, kidnapping, and murder.
One of the most violent members of the family was Rooster. Rooster’s mother and father made
and sold moonshine during Prohibition.1 When Bobby Bogle was 4 years old, he received one
Christmas gift from his father, Rooster. In a brown paper bag was a heavy metal wrench. Later,
Bobby, along with his brothers, used that gift to break into a grocery store and steal soda. Upon
learning of their crime, Rooster smiled and said, “Yeah, that’s my sons.”2
Tracey Bogle, another of Rooster’s sons, told Butterfield that:
“Rooster hated toys and sports, and the only fun things to him was stealing, . . . so he
took us out with him to burglarize our neighbors’ homes, or steal their cows and
chickens, or take their Social Security checks out of their mailboxes.”3
Rooster would take his sons to look at the local prison in Salem, Oregon. He told his children
that when they grew up, they were going to live in that prison. Sadly, all of Rooster’s seven
sons and three daughters were incarcerated at one time in their lives.
Think About It
1. Did the Bogles learn criminal tendencies from their family members?
2. What other factors (e.g., peers) may have influenced them?
Introduction
People learn rules, morals, and values through a process of socialization.
Early socialization usually occurs within the family. During this stage,
children start learning how to behave. Ideally, they learn what behavior is
appropriate when at home and what behavior is appropriate when in public.
Socialization also takes place later in life and outside the family context. As
individuals grow older, other influential agents of socialization become
school and peers. The workplace, community and religious organizations,
and countless other entities also contribute to the socialization process.
Most people understand that socialization is important and, possibly,

connected to how one behaves later in life. It is well-known, for instance,
that broken homes,4 poor parental control,5 and child abuse and neglect6
often lead to certain problems. For example, a child who suffers repeated
abuse may be inclined to abuse his or her children in adulthood. Even if one
is fortunate enough to grow up in a fully functional family, outside factors—
such as being bullied in school or ridiculed in the workplace—can
contribute to inappropriate behavior.7
In short, people are influenced by numerous sources, which is why it is

useful to examine the role of socialization in criminal behavior. Theories
that claim socialization is linked to criminal activity are known as social
process theories. Social process theories examine how individuals interact
with other individuals and groups. These theories focus carefully on how
behavior is learned, internalized, and transmitted between individuals.
This chapter begins with social process theories known as learning

theories. Learning theories attempt to explain how and why individuals
learn criminal, rather than conforming, behavior. Learning theorists believe
that individuals are “socialized” in criminal behavior. For example, learning
theorists argue that delinquent peers may contribute to a person’s decision to
violate the law. Next, we discuss control theories. Control theories focus on
social or personal factors that prevent individuals from engaging in selfish,
antisocial behaviors.
learning theories: theoretical models that assume that criminal behavior is due to a
process of learning from others the motivations and techniques for engaging in such
behavior.
control theories: theories of criminal behavior that assume that humans are born selfish
and assert that their tendencies toward aggression and offending must be controlled.
A useful way to distinguish between learning and control theories is as
follows: Learning theories are concerned with why individuals are
socialized into criminal activity (e.g., by witnessing domestic violence over
a period of years and then acting abusively in adulthood). By contrast,
control theories are concerned with why individuals are not socialized into
conforming behavior. That is, what is it about one’s surroundings and
upbringing that leads one to follow the rules of society despite a natural
disposition to offend?
Learning Theories
In this section, we review theories that explain the social processes of how
and why people engage in criminal behavior through learning. Unlike
theories that assume that we are born with offending tendencies (e.g.,
control theories), virtually all learning theories assume that our attitudes and
behavioral decisions are acquired via communication after we are born;
thus, individuals enter the world with a blank slate (often referred to as the
tabula rasa). Thus, learning theories seek to explain how criminal and
noncriminal behavior is learned through cultural values people internalize
and acquaintances they make. A key feature of learning theories is
recognizing the influence of peers and significant others on an individual’s
behavior. Three learning theories are discussed in this section, starting with
differential association theory.
Differential Association Theory

Edwin H. Sutherland is considered one of the most influential
criminologists of the 20th century. In the third edition of Principles of
Criminology, Sutherland fully introduced his differential association
theory.8 He was especially interested in explaining how criminal values and
attitudes could be culturally transmitted from one generation to the next.
Sutherland was greatly influenced by Shaw and McKay’s concept of social
disorganization9 (see Chapter 9). He was also influenced by Gabriel Tarde’s
imitation theory,10 which, as its name suggests, claims that people imitate
one another. Tarde formulated three laws of imitation: (1) People imitate
one another in proportion as they are in close contact, (2) often the superior
is imitated by the inferior, and (3) when two mutually exclusive methods or
approaches come together, one method can be substituted for another.11
differential association theory: a theory of criminal behavior that emphasizes association

with significant others (peers, parents, etc.) in learning criminal behavior.
Elements of Differential Association Theory.

Sutherland presented his theory of differential association with nine specific
statements.12 The statements are listed below in italics, and each statement
is followed by a brief interpretation and clarification.
1. Criminal behavior is learned. Criminal behavior is not inherited;

rather, a person needs to be trained, or educated, in crime.
2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with other persons in a
process of communication. In most instances, this communication is
verbal. However, communication can also be nonverbal in nature.
3. The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within
intimate personal groups. Sutherland distinguished personal and
impersonal groups. Personal communications between family and
friends, he theorized, will have more of an influence than impersonal
communications, such as those occurring with simple acquaintances as
well as through the movies and other entertainment media.
4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes (a)
techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very
complicated, sometimes very simple; and (b) the specific direction of
motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes. Criminals learn from
others the techniques, methods, and motives necessary to sustain their
behavior.
5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions
of the legal codes as favorable or unfavorable. Individuals may
associate with others who define the legal codes as rules that should be
observed; these individuals, however, may also associate with others
whose definitions favor violating these legal codes.
6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions
favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation
of law. Sutherland noted that this is the essence of differential
association. Individuals can have associations that favor both criminal
and noncriminal behavior patterns. A person will engage in criminal
behavior when there is an excess of definitions that favor violating the
law.
7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and
intensity. Frequency and duration refer to how often and how long
associations occur. Priority refers to whether an individual has
developed a strong sense of lawful behavior during early childhood.
Intensity is not precisely defined.
8. The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal
and anticriminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are
involved in any other learning. This statement asserts that the process
of learning criminal behavior is similar to the process of learning other
types of behavior.
9. While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values,
it is not explained by those general needs and values, since
noncriminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values.
Sutherland argued that motives, needs, and values as explanations for
criminal behavior are inadequate because they are also explanations for
noncriminal behavior. For instance, needing money is a motivation for
a thief to steal as well as for a student to get a part-time job. This final
proposition was largely an argument against the other dominant social
theories of crime at the time when Sutherland wrote—namely, strain
theory, which emphasized economic goals and means in predicting
criminal activity.13
To further elaborate on these principles, it is important to understand the

cultural context when Sutherland developed his theory in the early to mid-
20th century. At that time, most academics, and society for that matter,
believed that there was something abnormal or different about criminals.
For example, Sheldon’s body-type theory was popular, as was the use of IQ
(intelligence quotient) to pick out persons who were of lower intelligence
and predisposed to crime (both of these theories are covered in Chapter 5).
Thus, the common assumption at the time when Sutherland created the
principles of differential association theory was that there was something
essentially wrong with individuals who committed crime.
In light of this common assumption, it was extremely profound for
Sutherland to propose that criminality is learned just as any conventional
activity is learned. He asserted that any normal individual, when exposed to
definitions and attitudes favorable toward crime, will learn both the
motivations and techniques for engaging in illegal behaviors. Furthermore,
Sutherland proposed the idea that the various learning mechanisms and
processes—namely, social interaction—involved in developing criminality
are identical to the learning processes of virtually all conventional activities,
such as reading, playing football, or riding a bike.
Almost everyone learns to swim or ride a bike from friends, parents, or

teachers. In contrast, almost no one learns how to do these activities from
reading a book. Instead, we typically learn the techniques (e.g., how to float
in a pool or balance and turn on a bike) as well as motivations (e.g., it is
pleasurable and fun to do with friends) for engaging in such activities from
our significant others. According to Sutherland, crime is learned the same
way—through interactions with individuals with whom we are close—and
from them we learn both the techniques (e.g., how to hot-wire a car) and the
motivations (e.g., taking a joyride in a stolen car can be a thrill). Although
in modern times most people and researchers take it for granted that
criminal behavior is learned, the idea was quite radical when Sutherland
presented his theory of differential association.
Still, differential association theory is just as deterministic as were the

earlier theories that emphasized biological factors (e.g., stigmata and body
types) or psychological factors (e.g., low IQ). In other words, Sutherland
strongly felt that if a person was receiving from significant others and
internalizing a higher ratio of definitions that breaking the law is beneficial,
then that person certainly would engage in illegal behavior (see principle 6
above). So there is virtually no room for any free choice or decision-making
in this model of criminal activity. In contrast, individuals’ propensities to
commit crimes are determined through social interactions with significant
others. Thus, individuals do not actually make decisions to commit (or not
commit) criminal acts; rather, we are predetermined to do so, which makes
differential association theory as highly positivistic (i.e., deterministic) as
any of the preexisting positivistic theories we reviewed in Chapter 5 (e.g.,
Lombroso’s theory of born criminals).
However, the primary distinction of differential association theory from the
earlier positivistic theories is that instead of biological or psychological
traits, it is social interaction and learning that are emphasized as primary
factors in causing criminality. In fact, Sutherland was quite clear in asserting
that individual differences in terms of physiological functioning have
nothing to do with the development of criminality. It should be noted at this
point that this hard stance against the relevance of biological and
psychological factors in criminal activity has been negated by the extant
empirical research, which clearly shows that such variations in
physiological functioning do significantly influence criminal behavior. In
defense of Sutherland, this body of research suggests that such influence
may be due to the effects of physiological factors on the learning processes
of people in everyday life.
Classical Conditioning.
At the time when he developed his theory of differential association,
Sutherland used the dominant psychological theory of learning of the early
20th century. This learning model was called classical conditioning and
was primarily developed by Pavlov.14 Classical conditioning assumes that
animals, as well as people, learn through associations between stimuli and
responses. The organism, animal, or person is a somewhat passive actor in
this process, meaning that the individual simply receives various forms of
stimuli and responds in natural ways. Furthermore, the organism (or
individual) will learn to associate certain stimuli with certain responses over
time.
classical conditioning: a learning model that assumes that animals, as well as people,
learn through associations between stimuli and responses.
In developing the theory, Pavlov performed seminal research that showed

that dogs, which are naturally afraid of loud noises, could be quickly
conditioned not only to be less afraid of loud bells but actually to desire and
salivate at their ringing. A dog naturally salivates when presented with meat,
so when this unconditioned stimulus (meat) is presented, a dog will always
salivate (unconditioned response) in anticipation of eating the meat. Pavlov
demonstrated through a series of experiments that if a bell (conditioned
stimulus) is always rung at the same time as the dog is presented with meat,
then the dog will learn to associate what was previously a negative stimulus
(loud bell) with a positive stimulus (food). Thus, the dog will quickly begin
salivating at the ringing of a bell, even when meat is not presented. When
this occurs, it is called an unconditioned response, because it is not natural;
however, it is a powerful and effective means of learning, and it can
sometimes take only a few occurrences of coupling the ringing bell with
meat before the unconditioned response takes place.
How could you explain this dog salivating in terms of classical

conditioning?
© iStockphoto.com/Wavetop
A common, real-life example of classical conditioning that virtually

everyone can relate to is associations with songs or smells. Specifically, you
probably have heard a song on the radio that reminded you of a good (or
bad) event that occurred years before while that same song was playing. It
may seem as though you are reexperiencing that event in your mind
whenever you hear the song. Similarly, people diagnosed with posttraumatic
stress disorder may reexperience traumatic events from exposure to certain
stimuli. For example, the sound of a car backfiring may remind a war
veteran of being under fire in combat. A similar phenomenon occurs with
odors, in the sense that a certain scent, such as a particular perfume or
cologne, may remind us of someone we once dated. Another version of this
experience is when a spouse has to leave for a long time and the pillow
retains his or her natural scent; this can hold a powerful association with
memories and often elicits strong emotions (responses) in the partner or
spouse left behind. On a simpler level, the smell of a turkey cooking in the
oven may automatically remind us of Thanksgiving (or other holidays).
These are just a couple of the many types of associations typically

experienced by people in everyday life, and there are many other forms of
this type of learning that virtually all persons experience but may not realize
they are experiencing. Still, all involve the primary components of classical
conditioning in that they all include a stimulus (e.g., a song), an association
with the stimulus, and the resulting response (e.g., good/bad feelings). This
continues to be a highly supported learning model.
Another modern use of this learning model in humans is the prescribed

administration of drugs that make people ill when they drink alcohol.15
Alcoholics are often prescribed drugs that will make them feel sick, even to
the point of throwing up, if they ingest any alcohol. The idea behind these
drugs is primarily that users will learn to associate feelings of sickness with
drinking and that this will curb the desire to consume alcohol. One
drawback of this strategy is that if alcoholics do not consistently take the
drugs, they often slip back into addiction. However, in defense of this
strategy, if alcoholics were to maintain their prescribed drug regimen, it
would likely work, because people do tend to learn effectively through
association, which in this case is feelings of nausea (the response)
associated with ingesting alcohol (the stimulus).
A similar form of the classical conditioning learning model was prominently

used in the critically acclaimed 1964 novel (and subsequent motion picture)
A Clockwork Orange. In this novel, the author, Anthony Burgess, tells the
story of a juvenile murderer who is “rehabilitated” by doctors who force
him to watch hour after hour of violent images while simultaneously giving
him drugs that make him sick. In the novel, the protagonist is “cured” after
only two weeks of this treatment, having learned to consistently associate
violence with sickness. However, once he is released he lacks the ability to
choose violence and other antisocial behavior, which is seen as losing his
humanity. Therefore, the ethicists order a reversal treatment and restore him
to his former self, a violent predator. Although a fictional piece, A
Clockwork Orange is probably one of the best illustrations of the use of
classical conditioning in relation to criminal offending and rehabilitation.
Reactions to Differential Association Theory.
Since Sutherland’s nine statements were published, they have been
subjected to significant scrutiny and interpretation. Researchers have been
critical of his statements and have also pointed to several
“misinterpretations” of his work.16 For example, some people assume that
Sutherland’s theory is concerned only with associations between criminals.
If this were the only relevant type of association, then the theory would be
invalid, because some people have an association with criminals but are not
considered criminals themselves. These people include police officers,
corrections officers, and judges.
As indicated, Sutherland theorized that crime occurs when associations

favorable to violation of the law “outweigh” associations favorable to
conforming to the law. But measuring this ratio and understanding when the
balance tips in favor of a criminal lifestyle is all but impossible.17 Still,
some empirical studies have found support for differential association
variables, particularly in the area of white-collar crime. For example, one
study involving a sample of 133 graduate business students found that
participants would go against their friends’ and professors’ opinions and
commit corporate crime if they felt that their coworkers and superiors at
work agreed with the illegal behavior.18 This study found that the influence
of associating with people who have a different set of values—in this case,
strong corporate attitudes—on a daily basis can have a powerful effect on
criminal decision-making, even to the point where individuals will do things
they know their family and friends believe are immoral. It should be noted
that Sutherland coined the term white-collar crime and did much of the
seminal work on that topic (for more discussion, see Chapter 14), so perhaps
it is not so surprising that much of the support for differential association
theory is found in the context of corporate crime.
On a related note, Sutherland theorized that criminal associations lead to

crime but also that the reverse is plausible. That is, one may commit crime
and then seek out individuals with attitudes similar to one’s own.19 This is
similar to the “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” debate. Do youths
learn to commit crime once they start hanging out with delinquent peers, or
do the youths that commit crime start hanging out with similar people (i.e.,
“Birds of a feather flock together”)? After a rather lengthy literary debate,
most research points to the occurrence of both causal processes: Criminal
associations cause more crime and committing crime causes more criminal
associations.20 Another criticism that has been leveled at differential
association theory is the argument that if criminal behavior is learned, and
people are born with a blank slate (i.e., tabula rasa), then who first
committed crime if no one taught that person the techniques and motives for
it? After all, if someone was the first to do it, then who could expose that
person to the definitions favorable to violation of law? Furthermore, what
factor(s) caused that individual to do it first, if it was not learned? If the
answers to these questions involve any factor(s) other than learning—which
they must, because the theory’s assumption is that there was no one to teach
this behavior—then the action cannot be explained by learning theories.
This is a criticism that cannot be addressed, so it is somewhat ignored in the
scientific literature.
At the same time, some research is supportive of Sutherland’s theory. For

example, researchers have found that young criminals are “tutored” by older
ones,21 that criminals sometimes maintain associations with other criminals
prior to their delinquent acts,22 and that the deviant attitudes, friends, and
acts are closely connected.23 Unfortunately, many of Sutherland’s principles
are somewhat vague and cryptic, which does not lend the theory to easy
testing.24 Related to this issue, perhaps one of the biggest problems with
Sutherland’s formulation of differential association is that he used primarily
one type of learning model—classical conditioning—to formulate most of
his principles, which neglects the other important ways we learn attitudes
and behavior from significant others. More current models of his framework
have incorporated other learning models that are easier to test and provide
more empirical validity.
Do you think children are influenced by video games, movies,
and other forms of media?
© iStockphoto.com/mike mols
Finally, Sutherland was adamant that such learning about how and why to
commit crime occurred only through social interaction with significant
others and not via any media role models, such as those in movies or on the
radio. It was not long before another theorist, Daniel Glaser, proposed an
alternate theory that included the important influence that such media can
play in behavior. We will now review Glaser’s theory.
Glaser’s Concept of Differential Identification.

As stated above, Sutherland claimed that learning of criminal definitions
could take place only through social interactions with significant others, as
opposed to reading a book or watching movies. However, in 1956, Daniel
Glaser proposed the idea of differential identification, which allows for
learning to take place not only through people close to us but also through
other reference groups, even distant ones such as sports heroes or movie
stars whom the individual has never actually met or corresponded with.25
Glaser claimed that it did not matter much whether the individual had a
personal relationship with the reference group(s); in fact, he claimed that
they could even be imaginary, such as fictitious characters in a movie or
book. Thus, “a person pursues criminal behavior to the extent that he
identifies himself with real or imaginary persons from whose perspective his
criminal behavior seems acceptable.”26 The important thing, according to
Glaser, was that the individual identify with the person or character and thus
behave in ways that fit the norm set of this reference group or person.
differential identification: a theory of criminal behavior similar to differential association

theory, the major difference being that this theory takes into account associations with
persons and images presented in the media.
Glaser’s proposition has been virtually ignored by subsequent

criminological research, with the exception of Dawes’s 1973 study of
delinquency, which found that identification with persons other than parents
was strong when youths reported a high level of rejection from their
parents.27 Given the profound influence of video games, movies, music, and
television on today’s youth culture, it is obvious that differential
identification was an important addition to Sutherland’s framework. Thus,
far more research should examine the validity of Glaser’s theory in
contemporary society. Although Glaser and others modified differential
association, the most notable, respected, and empirically valid variation of
Sutherland’s model is differential reinforcement theory.
Learning Check 10.1
1. _______________ theories focus on social or personal factors that prevent

individuals from engaging in selfish, antisocial behavior.
2. According to Sutherland, criminality is _______________.
3. _______________ assumes that animals, as well as people, learn through
associations between stimuli and responses.
4. According to Glaser, _______________ _______________ is when learning takes
place not only through people close to us but also through other reference groups.
Answers at edge.sagepub.com/schram3e
Differential Reinforcement Theory

In 1965, a notable study reevaluated Sutherland’s differential association
theory and made some pointed criticisms. One of the primary criticisms was
that the theory was incomplete without some attention to the more modern
psychological models of learning.28 That is, C. R. Jeffery called out the
failure of Sutherland’s model to include the concept that people can be
conditioned, via rewards or punishments, to behave in certain ways. Soon
after this critical review, in 1966, Robert Burgess and Ronald Akers
criticized and refined Sutherland’s work.29 The product of this follow-up
was what is now known as differential reinforcement theory. Burgess and
Akers argued that by integrating Sutherland’s work with contributions from
the field of social psychology—namely, the learning models of operant
conditioning and modeling/imitation—we could more clearly understand
people’s decisions to commit criminal behavior.
differential reinforcement theory: a theory of criminal behavior that emphasizes various

types of social learning, specifically classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and
imitation or modeling.
operant conditioning: a learning model based on the association between an action and
feedback following the action.
modeling/imitation: a major factor in differential reinforcement theory that proposes that

much social learning takes place via imitation or modeling of behavior.
Elements.
In their 1966 article, Burgess and Akers presented seven propositions to
summarize differential reinforcement theory (see Table 10.1)—often
referred to as “social learning theory” in the criminological literature—
which largely represent efficient modifications of Sutherland’s original nine
principles of differential association. The influence of the relatively new (in
1966) learning models proposed by social psychologists is illustrated in
their first statement as well as throughout the seven principles. Although
differential reinforcement incorporates elements of classical conditioning
learning models, the first proposition clearly states that the essential
learning mechanism is operant conditioning (we will discuss operant
conditioning in the “Psychological Learning Models” section). The
inclusion of both modern models of learning (e.g., operant conditioning and
modeling) and classic models of learning (e.g., classical conditioning)
explains why differential reinforcement theory is commonly referred to as
the social learning theory of crime.
Table 10.1 Differential Reinforcement Theory Propositions

Table 10.1 Differential Reinforcement Theory Propositions
1. Criminal behavior is learned according to the principles of operant
conditioning.
2. Criminal behavior is learned both in nonsocial situations that are

reinforcing or discriminative and through that social interaction in
which the behavior of other persons is reinforcing or discriminative
for criminal behavior.
3. The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs in

those groups which comprise the individual’s major source of
reinforcement.
4. The learning of criminal behavior, including specific techniques,

attitudes, and avoidance procedures, is a function of the effective and
available reinforcers, and the existing reinforcement contingencies.
5. The specific class of behaviors which are learned and their

frequency of occurrence are a function of the reinforcers which are
effective and available, and the rules or norms by which these
reinforcers are applied.
6. Criminal behavior is a function of norms which are discriminative

for criminal behavior, the learning of which takes place when such
behavior is more highly reinforced than noncriminal behavior.
7. The strength of criminal behavior is a direct function of the

amount, frequency, and probability of its reinforcement.
Source: Burgess, R., & Akers, R. (1966). A differential association-reinforcement theory of
criminal behavior. Social Problems, 14, 146.
Propositions.
Differential reinforcement theory may appear, in many ways, to be no
different than rational choice theory (see Chapter 4). Both models focus on
punishments and reinforcements that occur after an individual offends.
Differential reinforcement theory, however, can be distinguished from the
rational choice perspective in that it assumes that humans are born with an
innate capacity for rational decision-making, whereas the differential
reinforcement perspective assumes that individuals are born with a blank
slate (tabula rasa) and thus must be socialized and taught how to behave
through various forms of conditioning (e.g., classical and operant
conditioning) and modeling. Also, differential reinforcement theory is far
more deterministic than rational choice theory, in the sense that the former
assumes that individuals have virtually no free will or free choice (i.e.,
behavior is based on the definitions, beliefs, rewards, punishments, etc., that
individuals are subject to after their previous behaviors), whereas the latter
is based almost entirely on the assumption that individuals do indeed have
the ability to make their own choices and tend to make calculated decisions
based on circumstances. Thus, it is clear that differential reinforcement
theory has different assumptions, as well as distinctive concepts, that clearly
distinguish it from rational choice models of behavior. We will now review
some of the concepts that differential reinforcement theory proposed that
were important additions to the differential association model and that made
it a far more robust and valid theory of criminal behavior.
Psychological Learning Models
Operant Conditioning.
Operant conditioning was primarily developed by B. F. Skinner,30 who
coincidentally was just across campus from Edwin Sutherland when he was
developing differential association theory at Indiana University; just as it is
now, academia tended to be too intradisciplinary and intradepartmental. If
Sutherland had been aware of Skinner’s studies and theoretical
development, he likely would have included it in his original framework of
differential association theory. However, operant conditioning was not well-
known or researched at the time Sutherland developed his theory of
differential association; rather, he simply incorporated the dominant learning
model of his time—classical conditioning. So it was up to others, such as
Burgess and Akers, to later incorporate operant conditioning (as well as
Bandura’s social learning principles, discussed below) into Sutherland’s
theoretical model.
To explain it simply, operant conditioning is concerned with how behavior
is influenced by reinforcements and punishments. Operant conditioning
assumes that people (and animals) actively seek out rewards; they do not
simply receive stimuli, as classical conditioning assumes. Specifically,
certain behaviors are strengthened (i.e., subsequently increased in
likelihood) through reward (positive reinforcement) or through avoidance
of punishment (negative reinforcement). For example, if a child is given a
toy or video game for doing well in school, that is a positive reinforcement.
On the other hand, if a child who has been grounded for not doing
homework is allowed to start playing with friends again after completing his
or her homework every day for a week, this is a negative reinforcement,
because the child is now being rewarded via the avoidance of something
negative. Like reinforcement, punishment also comes in two forms. Thus,
behavior is discouraged, or weakened, via adverse stimuli (positive
punishment) or lack of reward (negative punishment). A good example of
positive punishment is putting a child in a “time-out,” where he or she is
forced to sit alone for many minutes—a punishment that tends to be quite
effective with young children. Another form of positive punishment—
perhaps the best example—is “spanking,” but this has been frowned on in
recent times because it is certainly a positive form of a negative stimulus. So
anything that directly presents negative sensations or feelings is a positive
punishment. On the other hand, if parents take away their child’s
opportunity to go out with friends (say, to a movie or theme park) because
he or she skipped school, this is an example of negative punishment because
the parents are removing a positive aspect or reward.
positive reinforcement: a concept in social learning in which people are rewarded for a
particular behavior by means of the addition of a positive stimulus (e.g., by receiving
something they want).
negative reinforcement: a concept in social learning in which people are rewarded for a
certain behavior by means of the subtraction of a negative stimulus (e.g., by being rid of
something they dislike).
Applying Theory to Crime Murder

According to common law, as well as traditionally in the United States, the crime of
murder is defined as the “unlawful killing of a human being by another human being with
malice aforethought.”31 However,
proving malice aforethought is sometimes difficult, because, under the modern

interpretation, it is not necessary to prove either malice as it is commonly
defined, nor forethought. Therefore, it is preferable not to rely upon this
misleading expression for an understanding of murder.32
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reports, murder
and nonnegligent manslaughter are defined as the “willful (nonnegligent) killing of one
human being by another.”33 The UCR Program does not include such incidents as deaths
caused by negligence, suicide, or accident; justifiable homicides; or attempts to murder or
assaults to murder, which are counted as aggravated assaults.34 Based on the 2017 report,
the FBI summarized the following key findings concerning murder:
About 17,284 people were murdered nationwide in 2017. This is a 0.7% decrease
from 2016 and a 20.7% increase from 2013.
Of the number of murders nationwide, 45.9% were in the South, 22.6% were in the
Midwest, 20.2% were reported in the West, and 11.3% were reported in the
Northeast.
Figure 10.1 provides a summary of the types of weapons used in these murders.
Sometimes individuals accused of murder provide some type of defense to justify their
criminal actions. For instance, self-defense is most often used as a defense in homicide
cases. The defendant must show some evidence of the following to make such a claim:
Unlawful force was threatened against him or her.

Danger of harm was imminent.
He or she was not the aggressor.
He or she fully believed that danger existed.
Force was necessary to avert the danger.
The type and amount of force used was necessary.
The jury is then required to determine whether the defendant’s perception of the need of
self-defense, or the degree of force used, was reasonable.35 Another defense in homicide
cases is the insanity defense. Throughout American history, the insanity defense has
varied (see Chapter 7). A well-known use of the diminished-capacity defense occurred in
1978, when Dan White shot and killed San Francisco mayor George Moscone and San
Francisco supervisor Harvey Milk. The media termed White’s diminished-capacity
defense the “Twinkie Defense.” It was based on psychological testimony that White’s
junk-food diet exacerbated a chemical imbalance in his brain. Thus, he was not deemed
legally responsible for these deaths.36
To clarify key aspects of differential association, let us apply this perspective to the crime
of murder.
In the spring of 2012, high-school sophomores Skylar Neese, Shelia Eddy, and Rachel
Shoaf were best friends. They were popular and sociable; many people in their home of
Morgantown, West Virginia, considered them “inseparable.”37 One night in July 2012,
Eddy and Shoaf persuaded Neese to sneak out of her home; they told her they were going
for a joyride. The teens drove to a wooded area in Pennsylvania. They all got out of the
car; Eddy and Shoaf counted to three and then stabbed Neese to death.38 Eddy and Shoaf
covered her body with twigs and leaves; they changed into clean clothing and drove
away.39
After the murder, Eddy and Shoaf told Neese’s parents that they had picked her up around
11:00 p.m. and dropped her off at home before midnight. A few days later, Eddy and her
mother helped Neese’s parents canvass the neighborhood looking for Skylar; during that
time, Shoaf left for Catholic summer camp. When interviewing Eddy regarding Neese’s
disappearance, the police grew suspicious of her demeanor: “Just complete blank on
emotions and there was absolutely nothing. It was like iced over.” Months later, Shoaf had
a nervous breakdown and was committed to a local psychiatric hospital. Upon her
discharge in January 2013, she confessed to her attorney and the police that she and Eddy
had stabbed Neese to death.40
On May 1, 2013, Rachel Shoaf pleaded guilty to second-degree murder. She received a
sentence of 30 years in prison, with eligibility for parole after 10 years. Sheila Eddy
pleaded guilty to first-degree murder. She was sentenced to life in prison, with the
possibility of parole after 15 years. Both women are incarcerated at the Lakin Correctional
Center in Mason County.41
Incorporating Sutherland’s differential association, we can argue that Shoaf and Eddy
engaged in a learning process that supported murdering Neese, especially since the
murder involved the actions of both teens.
Figure 10.1 Murder by Weapon in 2017

Source: FBI. (2018). Crime in the United States, 2017. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, n.p.
Think About It
In terms of Sutherland’s differential association theory, consider the following:
1. What influenced Sheila Eddy and Rachel Shoaf to murder their friend, Skylar
Neese?
2. When Rachel Shoaf was hospitalized, away from Sheila Eddy, was she less
exposed to “definitions favorable to crime” (i.e., murder)?
3. What could have deterred either girl from engaging in the murder of Neese?
One notable example of operant conditioning is teaching a mouse to

successfully run a maze. When the mouse takes the right paths and finishes
the maze within a certain time limit, it is either positively reinforced (e.g.,
rewarded with a piece of cheese) or negatively reinforced (e.g., not shocked
with an electric prod, as it was when it chose the wrong path). On the other
hand, when the mouse takes wrong turns or does not complete the maze fast
enough, it is either positively punished (e.g., shocked with electricity) or
negatively punished (e.g., not given the cheese). Mice, like humans, tend to
learn the correct behavior extremely fast using such consistent
implementation of punishments and reinforcements.
Especially in humans, such principles of operant conditioning can be found

even at very early ages. In fact, many of us have implemented such
techniques (or been subjected to them) without knowing they constituted
operant conditioning. For example, during “toilet training,” we teach our
children to use the toilet rather than urinating and defecating in their pants.
To reinforce the act of going to the bathroom on a toilet, we encourage the
correct behavior by presenting positive rewards, which can be as simple as
showing extreme pleasure and hugging the child or giving the child a
“treat.” While modern parents rarely use spanking in toilet training, there is
an inherent positive punishment for children who use the bathroom in their
pants; specifically, they have to stay in their dirty diaper for a while and face
the embarrassment most children feel when this happens. Also, negative
punishments are present in such situations, because the child does not get
the positive recognition or treats, so the rewards are absent as well.
A large amount of research has shown that humans learn attitudes and
behavior most through a mix of punishments and reinforcements throughout
life. For example, studies have clearly shown that rehabilitative programs
that appear to be most effective in reducing recidivism are those that have
many opportunities for rewards as well as threats of punishments. To clarify,
empirical research that has combined the findings from hundreds of studies
of rehabilitation programs has demonstrated that the programs that are most
successful in changing offenders’ attitudes and behavior are those that offer
at least four reward opportunities for every one punishment aspect of the
program.42 So whether it is training children to use the toilet or altering
criminals’ thinking and behavior, operant conditioning is a well-established
form of learning that makes differential reinforcement theory a more valid
and specified model of offending than differential association.
Referring to Bandura’s theory of imitation/modeling, do you
think this boy learned this hand sign by observing others?
© iStockphoto.com/Stuart Monk
Thus, whether deviant or conforming behavior occurs and continues

“depends on the past and present rewards or punishment for the behavior,
and the rewards and punishment attached to alternative behavior.”43 This is
in stark contrast to Sutherland’s differential association model, which
looked only at what happens before an act (i.e., classical conditioning), not
what happens after (i.e., operant conditioning). Burgess and Akers’s model
looks at both what occurs before the act and what occurs afterward. Thus,
illegal behavior is likely to occur, as Burgess and Akers theorized, when its
perceived rewards outweigh the potential punishments for committing such
acts.
Bandura’s Theory of Imitation/Modeling.

Burgess and Akers emphasized another learning model in their formulation
of differential reinforcement theory, which was imitation and modeling.
Given that Sutherland’s original formulation of differential association
theory was somewhat inspired by Tarde’s concept of imitation,44 it is
surprising that his nine principles did not adequately emphasize the
importance of modeling in the process of learning behavior. Similar to the
neglect of acknowledging Skinnerian models of operant conditioning,
Sutherland’s failure to focus on imitation and modeling was likely due to the
fact that the primary work by Albert Bandura in this area had not become
well-known at the time when differential association theory was being
formulated.45
Bandura demonstrated, through a series of theoretical and experimental

studies, that a significant amount of learning takes place absent virtually any
form of conditioning or responses to a given behavior. To clarify, he claimed
that individuals can learn even if they are not punished or rewarded for a
given behavior (i.e., operant conditioning) or exposed to associations
between stimuli and responses (i.e., classical conditioning). Instead,
Bandura proposed that people learn much of their attitudes and behavior
from simply observing the behavior of others—namely, through mimicking
others. This type of phenomenon is often referred to as “monkey see,
monkey do”—but not just monkeys do this. Social psychological research
has clearly established that humans, as well as most animal species, are
physiologically “hardwired” (meaning it is instinctive) to observe and learn
the behavior of others, especially one’s elders, to see what behavior is
essential for success and survival.
The most important finding of Bandura’s experiments was that simply

observing the behavior of others, especially adults, can have profound
learning effects on the behavior of children. To clarify, in Bandura’s
experiments, a randomized experimental group of children watched a video
of adults acting aggressively toward a Bobo doll (a blow-up plastic doll),
and a control group of children did not watch such illustrations of adults
beating up the dolls. These different groups of children were then sent into a
room containing Bobo dolls. The children in the experimental group, who
had seen the violent adult behavior, mimicked this behavior by acting far
more aggressively toward the dolls than did the children in the control
group, who had not seen the adults beating up the dolls. So although the
experimental group was not provided with previous associations or rewards
for being more aggressive toward the dolls, they became far more
aggressive (compared with the control group) simply because they were
imitating or modeling what they had seen the older people do.
In light of these findings, Bandura’s theory of modeling and imitation has

implications not only for criminal behavior but also for the influence of
television, movies, video games, and so on. The influences demonstrated by
Bandura simply supported a phenomenon we can see in everyday life—
namely, the source of fashion trends, such as wearing low-slung pants or
wearing one’s baseball hat a certain way. These types of styles tend to ebb
and flow based on respected persons (often celebrities) wearing clothing a
certain way, which leads to many people, typically youth, mimicking that
behavior. This can be seen very early in life, with parents having to be
careful what they say and do because their children, as young as two years
old, will imitate them. For example, this is why parents often must censor
their language when in the presence of toddlers. This continues throughout
life, especially in teenage years, as young people imitate the “cool” trends
and styles as well as behavior. Of course, sometimes this behavior is illegal,
but individuals are often simply mimicking the way their friends or others
are behaving, with little regard for potential rewards or punishments. Thus,
Bandura’s theory of modeling and imitation adds a great deal of explanation
to a model of learning, and differential reinforcement theory included such
influences; Sutherland’s model of differential association did not, largely
because the psychological perspective had not yet been developed.
Reactions to Differential Reinforcement Theory.

Just as Sutherland’s work has been interpreted and criticized, so too has that
of Burgess and Akers. For instance, Reed Adams criticized the theory for
incorrectly and incompletely applying the principles of operant
conditioning. Further, Adams noted that the theory does not adequately
address the importance of “nonsocial reinforcement.”46 Nonsocial
reinforcement can be considered self-reinforcement. For example, if
someone gets enjoyment out of abusing others, then the person can be
considered “reinforced” through nonsocial means.
Perhaps the most important criticism of differential reinforcement theory is
that it appears tautological, which means that the variables and measures
used to test its validity are true by definition. To clarify, studies testing this
theory have been divided into four groups of variables or factors:
associations, reinforcements, definitions, and modeling. Some critics have
noted that if individuals who report that they associate with those who
offend (a) are rewarded for offending, (b) believe offending is good, and (c)
have seen many of their significant others offend, they will be more likely to
offend. In other words, if your friends and/or family are doing it, there is
little doubt that you will also do it.47 For example, critics would argue that a
person who primarily hangs out with car thieves, knows he will be rewarded
for stealing cars, believes stealing cars is good and not immoral, and has
observed many respected others stealing cars will inevitably commit auto
theft himself. However, it has been well argued that such criticisms of
tautology are not valid, because none of these factors necessarily make
offending by the respondent true by definition.48
Differential reinforcement theory has been criticized in the same way as

Sutherland’s theory has, in the sense that delinquent associations may take
place after criminal activity rather than before. However, Burgess and
Akers’s model clearly addresses this area of criticism, because differential
reinforcement covers what comes after the activity. Specifically, it addresses
the rewards or punishments that follow criminal activity, whether those
rewards come from friends, parents, or other members or institutions of
society.
It is arguable that differential reinforcement theory may have the most

empirical validity of any contemporary (nonintegrated) model of criminal
offending, especially considering that studies have examined a variety of
behaviors, ranging from drug use to property crimes to violence. The
theoretical model has also been tested in samples across the United States,
as well as in other cultures, such as South Korea, with the evidence being
quite supportive of the framework. Furthermore, many age groups have
been examined, ranging from teenagers to middle-aged adults to the elderly,
with all studies providing support for the model.49 Specifically, researchers
have empirically tested differential association–reinforcement theory and
found that the major variables of the theory have a significant effect in
explaining marijuana and alcohol use among adolescents.50 The researchers
concluded that the “study demonstrates that central learning concepts are
amenable to meaningful questionnaire measurement and that social learning
theory can be adequately tested with survey data.”51 Other studies have also
supported the theory when attempting to understand delinquency, cigarette
smoking, and drug use.52 One recent empirical study—a meta-analysis of
virtually all the scientific studies that have tested differential
reinforcement/social learning theory—concluded that there was
considerable variation in the magnitude and stability of key variables in the
theory.53 Specifically, in this comprehensive study, the effects of all
variables—differential association, definitions, modeling/imitation, and
differential reinforcement—were typically significant predictors. However,
although the former two concepts (differential association and definitions)
showed stronger magnitude in terms of explaining criminal behavior, the
latter two (differential reinforcement and modeling/imitation) had only
modest effects on such behavior. Overall, the model appeared to be
relatively supported by the extant empirical evidence. Therefore, the
inclusion of three psychological learning models—namely, classical
conditioning, operant conditioning, and modeling/imitation—appears to
have made differential reinforcement one of the most valid theories of
human behavior, especially in regard to criminal behavior. Thus, it appears
that differential reinforcement/social learning theory is one of the more
valid theories in terms of explaining criminal behavior, perhaps due to its
incorporation of so many distinct concepts and learning theories in its
primary assumptions and propositions.
Neutralization Theory
Neutralization theory is associated with Gresham Sykes and David Matza’s
Techniques of Neutralization54 and Matza’s Drift Theory.55 Like Sutherland,
both Sykes and Matza claimed that social learning influences delinquent
behavior, but they also claimed that most criminals hold conventional
beliefs and values. More specifically, Sykes and Matza argued that most
criminals are still partially committed to the dominant social order.
According to Sykes and Matza, youths are not immersed in a subculture
committed to extremes of either complete conformity or complete
nonconformity. Rather, these individuals vacillate, or drift, between these
two extremes:
The delinquent transiently exists in a limbo between convention

and crime, responding in turn to the demands of each, flirting now
with one, now the other, but postponing commitment, evading
decision. Thus, he [or she] drifts between criminal and
conventional action.56
While still partially committed to conventional social order, youths can drift
into criminal activity and avoid feelings of guilt for these actions by
justifying or rationalizing their behavior. Why is it called neutralization
theory? People justify and rationalize behavior through “neutralizing” it, or
making it seem more acceptable. In other words, individuals make up
situational excuses for behavior they know is wrong, and they do this to
alleviate the guilt they feel for committing such immoral acts. In many
ways, this technique for alleviating guilt resembles Freud’s defense
mechanisms (see Chapter 6), which allow our mind to forgive us for the bad
things we do even though we know they are wrong. So the specific
techniques of neutralization outlined by Sykes and Matza in 1957, which we
consider next, are much like excuses for inappropriate behavior.
Techniques of Neutralization.
Sykes and Matza developed five methods, or techniques of
neutralization,57 that people use to justify their criminal behavior. These
techniques allow people to neutralize their criminal and delinquent acts by
making them look as though they are conforming to the rules of society.
Individuals are then freed to engage in criminal activities without serious
damage to their self-image. These five techniques of neutralization are as
follows:
1. Denial of responsibility. Denial of responsibility is more than just

claiming that deviant acts are an accident. Rather, individuals may
claim that due to outside forces (e.g., uncaring parents, bad friends, and
poverty), they are not responsible or accountable for their behavior.
Statements such as “It wasn’t my fault” are extremely common among
both youth and adult offenders.
2. Denial of injury. Criminals may evaluate their wrongful behavior in
terms of whether anyone was hurt by it. For instance, vandalism may
be considered “mischief”; stealing a car may be viewed as
“borrowing.” Sometimes society agrees with people who evaluate their
wrongfulness in this manner, designating these activities as “pranks.”
3. Denial of the victim. Criminals sometimes accept responsibility for
their actions and admit these actions caused an injury but neutralize
them as being a rightful retaliation or punishment. Criminals may
perceive themselves as avengers and the victim as the wrongdoer. For
instance, vandalism is revenge on an unfair teacher, and shoplifting is
retaliation against a “crooked” store owner. Another variation is when
shoplifters claim that no one is getting hurt because the stores have
theft insurance, failing to acknowledge that stores raise their prices to
counteract such losses and the cost of higher insurance premiums.
4. Condemnation of the condemners. Criminals may also shift the focus
of attention from their deviant acts to the motives and behavior of those
who disapprove of these actions. They may claim the condemners are
hypocrites, deviants in disguise, or compelled by personal spite. For
instance, one may claim that police are corrupt, teachers show
favoritism, or parents “take it out” on their children. Thus, criminals
neutralize their behavior through “a rejection of the rejectors.”58
5. Appeal to higher loyalties. Criminals may sacrifice the rules of society
for the rules of their particular social group, such as the gang or other
peer group to which they belong. To their way of thinking, then, they
do not necessarily deviate, because they reject the norms of society.
Rather, their higher loyalty is to their group; they subscribe to the
norms of this group over general social norms. They may claim, for
example, that one must “always help a buddy” or “never squeal on a
friend.” Another example of this neutralization technique is
antiabortion radicals who shoot doctors who perform abortions; they
claim they are appealing to a higher loyalty (a supreme being), which
relieves them from responsibility and guilt.
techniques of neutralization: a theory that suggests that individuals, especially in their
teenage years and early adulthood, make excuses to alleviate their guilt about committing
certain criminal acts.
Sykes and Matza emphasized that the techniques of neutralization may not
be strong enough to protect individuals from their own internalized values
and the reactions of conforming others. But neutralization techniques do
lessen “the effectiveness of social controls” and “lie behind a large share of
delinquent behavior.”59
One area where techniques of neutralization have been applied is white-

collar crime. For example, a study that examined the decision-making of
133 students in a graduate business program found that not only did
neutralizing attitudes have significant effects on the respondents’ decisions
to commit corporate crime (involving distributing a dangerous drug), but the
older students—namely, those with more seniority and experience in the
business world—were more likely to employ techniques of neutralization.60
Furthermore, studies of corporate crime have identified two more common

types of excuses that white-collar criminals use in their illegal activities.61
Specifically, the two techniques of neutralization that experts have observed
primarily among corporate criminals are “defense of necessity” and
“metaphor of the ledger.” Defense of necessity implies that an individual
should not feel shame or guilt about doing something immoral as long as the
behavior is perceived as necessary. Often in the corporate world, the climate
puts pressure on the bottom line, and all that matters is increasing profits; in
other words, criminal activity is often seen as a necessity.
The other neutralizing technique found primarily in corporate settings is

metaphor of the ledger, which essentially is the belief that an individual or
group has done so much good (e.g., provided a useful product or service for
public consumption) that he or she is entitled to a “pass” for doing
something illegal (e.g., “cooking the books” or knowingly distributing a
faulty, dangerous product). Many of us likely use this latter technique often,
especially when it comes to studying or writing a paper right before the test
or deadline. At times when we know we should be working, we may often
say something along the lines of, “I worked hard yesterday, so even though I
am not close to being finished, I deserve to go with my friends to the beach
today.” This is a good example of using the fact that you did a good thing to
justify doing something you know you probably shouldn’t if you want to do
well on the test or paper. So it is not just in corporate climates that these
neutralizing techniques—seven altogether—are used to alleviate guilt.
Regular people, especially college students and professors, use them all the
time.
How would you explain sending/reading personal texts while at

work in terms of the various techniques of neutralization?
© iStockphoto.com/Yuri_Arcurs
Learning Check 10.2
1. Burgess and Akers, in their differential reinforcement theory, integrated

Sutherland’s work with the learning models of _______________ conditioning and
modeling/imitation.
2. The differential reinforcement perspective assumes that individuals are born with a
_______________ _______________.
3. According to Sykes and Matza, youths engaging in criminal behavior are still
partially committed to the dominant _______________ _______________.
4. People use certain methods, or _______________ _______________, to justify
their criminal behavior.
Reactions to Neutralization Theory.

Studies that have attempted to empirically test neutralization theory are, at
best, inconclusive. Robert Agnew argued that there are essentially two
general criticisms of studies that support neutralization theory.62 The first
challenge is that several researchers have improperly measured the
acceptance of neutralization techniques. Based on his research on
neutralization among incarcerated adults, one researcher noted that
the relationships between vocabularies of motive and criminal

behavior are more subtle, complex, and situation-specific than
previously recognized. The major tasks for subsequent
neutralization research are to empirically distinguish between
neutralization and unconventional commitment.63
Second, researchers have expressed concern that criminals may use

techniques of neutralization prior to committing a criminal offense. This
ordering, they claim, is just as plausible as when neutralization follows a
criminal act.64 This uncertain time-order problem is due to research
conducted at a single point in time. Additional research conducted over time
could prove supportive of neutralization theory. However, some would
argue that the temporal ordering problem is not a major criticism of the
theory, because some individuals may be predisposed to make up such
rationalizations for their behavior regardless of whether they do it before or
after the offending act. Such a propensity may be related to low self-control
theory, which we examine later in this chapter.
Control Theories
The learning theories discussed in the previous section assume that
individuals are born with a conforming disposition, or at least a blank slate
(tabula rasa). By contrast, control theories assume that all people would
naturally commit crimes if not for restraints on the selfish tendencies that
exist in every individual. Social control perspectives of criminal behavior
thus assume that there is some type of basic human nature and that all
human beings exhibit antisocial tendencies toward being violently
aggressive and taking from others what they want. Therefore, such control
theories are more concerned with explaining why most individuals don’t
commit crime or engage in deviant behaviors. Specifically, control theorists
rhetorically ask, “What is it about society, human interaction, and other
factors that causes people not to act on their natural impulses?”
The assumption that people have innate antisocial tendencies is a

controversial one, because it is nearly impossible to test. Nevertheless, there
is some evidence that human beings are inherently selfish and antisocial by
nature. Specifically, researchers have found that most children are oriented
toward selfish and aggressive behaviors at a very early age, with such
behaviors peaking before age 3 (see Figure 10.2).65 Such studies are
observational and examine children interacting with their peers. But it is
clear from such studies that young individuals are predisposed toward
selfish, physically aggressive behavior.
Antisocial disposition in early life was reported by Tremblay and

LeMarquand, who found that for most young children (particularly boys),
aggressive behaviors peaked at 27 months of age. These behaviors included
hitting, biting, and kicking.66 The findings are not surprising; virtually all
developmental experts acknowledge that toddlers exhibit aggressive
behaviors. We are sure virtually all readers can relate to this, even if they
don’t have children of their own. All you need to do is observe a typical
preschool playground, and you will see numerous “felonies” occur in a short
period of time. The bottom line is that the “terrible twos” is a true
phenomenon; most individuals exhibit a high tendency toward violence, as
well as stealing from others, at this time in life. This line of research would
seem to support the notion that people are predisposed toward antisocial,
even criminal, behavior.
Control theorists do not necessarily assume that people are predisposed

toward crime in a way that remains constant throughout life. On the
contrary, research shows that most individuals begin to desist from such
behaviors after age 2. This trend continues until about age 5, with only the
most aggressive individuals (i.e., chronic offenders) continuing into higher
ages. Furthermore, this extreme desistance from engaging in such antisocial
behavior supports the control perspective in explaining criminal behavior,
especially in the long term, because it is clear from these scientific studies
that something must be controlling virtually all individuals (who previously
showed tendencies toward aggressive, antisocial behavior) to inhibit
themselves from carrying out their natural propensities to fight and take at
will.
Figure 10.2 Frequency of Hitting, Biting, and Kicking at Ages

2 to 12 Years
Source: Tremblay, R., & LeMarquand, D. (2001). Individual risk and

protective factors. In R. Loeber & D. Farrington (Eds.), Child
delinquents: Development, intervention, and service needs (pp. 137–
164). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, p. 145.
When considering potential factors that inhibit people from following their
instincts, it is important to note that at the same time selfish and aggressive
behaviors decline, self-consciousness is formed. Specifically, it is around
age 2 when children begin to see themselves as entities or beings; prior to
that time, they have no understanding that they are people. Subsequently,
various social emotions—such as shame, guilt, empathy, and pride—begin
to appear, largely because they become possible in children’s knowing that
they are part of a society.67 This observation is critical, because it is what
separates control theories from the classical school of criminology and the
predispositional theories that we already discussed. According to control
theories, without appropriate socialization or personal inhibitions, people
will act on their “preprogrammed” tendency toward crime and deviance.
In short, control theories claim that all individuals have natural tendencies to
commit selfish, antisocial, and even criminal behavior. So what curbs this
natural propensity? Many experts believe the best explanation is that
individuals are socialized and controlled by social attachments and
investments in conventional society. Others claim that there are internal
mechanisms (such as self-control or self-conscious emotions, such as shame
and guilt), but even those are likely a product of the environment in which
one is raised. This assumption regarding the vital importance of early
socialization is probably the primary reason why control theories are
currently among the most popular and accepted criminological theories.68
We will now discuss several early examples of these control theories.
Thomas Hobbes’s Social Contract

Although control theories are found in a variety of disciplines, perhaps the
earliest notable form of social control in explaining deviant behavior is
found in a perspective offered by the 17th-century Enlightenment
philosopher Thomas Hobbes (see Chapter 3). Hobbes claimed that the
natural state of humanity was one of greediness and self-centeredness,
which led to a chaotic state of constant struggle among individuals. In this
state, Hobbes claimed that individuals were essentially looking out for their
own well-being, and without any law or order there was no way for them to
protect themselves.69 But Hobbes also theorized that this constant state of
chaos created such fear among many individuals that it resulted in their
coming together to rationally develop a pact that would prevent such chaos.
This became the concept of a society. Hobbes claimed that creating a society
and forming binding contracts (or laws) would alleviate the chaos by
deterring individuals from violating others’ rights. However, despite such
laws, Hobbes doubted that humans’ innately greedy nature could be
completely eliminated. Rather, the existence of such innate selfishness and
aggressiveness was exactly why the use of punishments was necessary, their
purpose being to induce fear in any societal members who chose to violate
the societal law. In a way, Hobbes was perhaps the first deterrence theorist,
in the sense that he was the first notable theorist to emphasize the use of
punishment to deter individuals from violating the rights of others.
Émile Durkheim’s Idea of Collective Conscience

Consistent with Hobbes’s view of individuals as naturally selfish, Émile
Durkheim proposed a theory of social control in the late 1800s that
suggested humans have no internal mechanism to let them know when they
are fulfilled.70 To this end, Durkheim coined the terms automatic
spontaneity and awakened reflection. Automatic spontaneity can be
understood in reference to animals’ eating habits. Specifically, animals stop
eating when they are full and are content until they are hungry again; they
don’t start hunting again right after they have filled their stomachs. In
contrast, awakened reflection concerns the fact that humans do not have
such an internal regulatory mechanism. People often acquire resources
beyond what is immediately required. Durkheim went so far as to say that
“our capacity for feeling is in itself an insatiable and bottomless abyss.”71
This is one of the reasons Durkheim believed crime and deviance to be quite
normal, even essential, in any society.
Durkheim’s “awakened reflection” has become commonly known as greed.

People tend to favor better conditions and additional fulfillment because we
apparently have no biological or psychological mechanism to limit such
tendencies. As Durkheim noted, the selfish desires of mankind “are
unlimited so far as they depend on the individual alone. . . . The more one
has, the more one wants.”72 Thus, society must step in and provide the
“regulative force” that keeps humans from acting too selfishly.
One of the primary elements of this regulative force is the collective

conscience, which is the extent of similarities or likenesses that people
share. For example, almost everyone can agree that homicide is a serious
and harmful act that should be avoided in any civilized society. The notion
of collective conscience can be seen as an early form of the idea of social
bonding, which has become one of the dominant theories in criminology,
discussed later in this chapter.73
collective conscience: according to Durkheim, the extent to which people in a society
share similarities or likenesses; the stronger the collective conscience, the less crime in
that community.
According to Durkheim, the collective conscience serves many functions in

society. One such function is the ability to establish rules that inhibit
individuals from following their natural tendencies toward selfish behavior.
Durkheim also believed that crime allows people to unite in opposition
against deviants. In other words, crime and deviance allow conforming
individuals to be “bonded” together in opposition to a common enemy, as
can be seen in everyday life. This enemy consists of the deviants who have
not internalized the code of the collective conscience.
Many of Durkheim’s ideas hold true today. Just recall a traumatic incident
you may have experienced together with strangers (e.g., being stuck in an
elevator during a power outage, weathering a serious storm, or being
involved in a traffic accident). Incidents such as this bring people together
and permit a degree of bonding that would not take place in everyday life.
Crime, Durkheim argued, serves a similar function.
How is all this relevant today? Most control theorists claim that individuals
commit crime and deviant acts not because they are lacking in any way but
because certain controls have been weakened in their development. This
assumption is consistent not only with Durkheim’s theory but also with the
Freudian model of human behavior discussed in Chapter 7.
Freud’s Concept of the Id and Superego

Although psychoanalytic theory would seem to have few similarities with a
sociological positivistic theory, in this case it is extremely complementary.
One of Freud’s most essential propositions is that all individuals are born
with a tendency toward inherent drives and selfishness due to the id domain
of the psyche.74 According to Freud, not only are all people born with id
drives; they all have an equal amount of such motivations toward
selfishness. Another one of Freud’s assumptions is that this inherent, selfish
tendency must be countered by controls produced from the development of
the superego. According to Freud, the superego, which is the domain of the
psyche that contains our conscience (see Figure 10.3), is formed through the
interactions that occur between a young infant/child and significant others.
As you can see, the control perspective has a long history rooted in many
philosophical and scientific disciplines.
Early Social Control Theories of Crime

Throughout the 1950s and 1960s, criminologists borrowed and built on
some of the ideas we have just discussed. Until that time, most research in
the criminological literature was dominated by the learning theories
discussed earlier in this chapter or by social-structure theories, such as
Merton’s strain theory and the Chicago School perspective (see Chapters 8
and 9, respectively). While early control theories may not be particularly
popular in this day and age, they were vitally important because they laid
the groundwork for future theoretical development.
Figure 10.3 Freud’s Model of the Three Domains of the

Psyche
Reiss’s Control Theory.

One of the first control theories of crime was proposed by Albert Reiss in
1951. Reiss claimed that delinquency was a consequence of weak controls
that resulted in weak ego or superego controls among juvenile
probationers.75 Reiss assumed that there was no explicit motivation for
delinquent activity; rather, he claimed that it would occur in the absence of
controls or restraints against such behavior.
Like Freud, Reiss believed that the family was the primary entity through
which deviant predispositions were discouraged. Furthermore, Reiss
claimed that a sound family environment would provide for an individual’s
needs and the essential emotional bonds that are so important in socializing
individuals. Another important factor in Reiss’s model was close
supervision, not only by the family but also by the community. He claimed
that individuals must be closely monitored for delinquent behavior and
adequately disciplined when they break the rules.
Personal factors, such as the ability to restrain one’s impulses and delay
gratification, were also important in Reiss’s framework. These concepts are
similar to later, more modern concepts of control theory that have been
consistently supported by empirical research.76 For this reason, Reiss was
ahead of his time when he first proposed his control theory. Although direct
tests of Reiss’s theory have provided only partial support for it, its influence
is apparent in many contemporary criminological theories.77
Toby’s Concept of Stake in Conformity.

Soon after Reiss presented his theory, in 1957, Jackson Toby proposed a
theory of delinquency and gangs.78 He claimed that individuals were more
inclined to act on their natural tendencies when the controls on them were
weak. Like most other control theorists, Toby claimed that such inclinations
toward deviance were distributed equally across all individuals. Further, he
emphasized the concept of a stake in conformity that supposedly prevents
most people from committing crime. The stake in conformity Toby was
referring to is the extent to which individuals are invested in conventional
society. In other words, how much is a person willing to risk by violating
the law?
According to Reiss’s model, close supervision by the family
discourages deviant predispositions.
© iStockphoto.com/Steve Debenport
Studies have shown that stake in conformity is one of the most influential
factors in individuals’ decisions to offend. For example, individuals who
have nothing to lose are much more likely to take risks and violate others’
rights than are those who have relatively more of an investment in social
institutions.79
One distinguishing feature of Toby’s theory is his emphasis on peer

influences in terms of both motivating and inhibiting antisocial behavior,
depending on whether most of one’s peers have low or high stakes in
conformity. Toby’s stake in conformity has been used effectively in
subsequent control theories of crime.
Nye’s Control Theory.

A year after Toby introduced the stake in conformity, F. Ivan Nye (1958)
proposed a relatively comprehensive control theory that placed a strong
focus on the family.80 Following the assumptions of early control theorists,
Nye claimed that no significant positive force causes delinquency, because
such antisocial tendencies are universal and would be found in virtually
everyone if not for certain controls usually found in the home.
Nye’s theory consists of three primary components of control:

1. Internal control is formed through social interaction. This socialization,
Nye claimed, assists in the development of a conscience. Nye further
claimed that if individuals are not given adequate resources and care,
they will follow their natural tendencies toward doing what is
necessary to protect their interests.
2. Direct control consists of a wide range of constraints on individual
propensities to commit deviant acts. Direct control includes numerous
types of sanctions, such as jail and ridicule, and the restriction of one’s
chances to commit criminal acts.
3. Indirect control occurs when individuals are strongly attached to their
early caregivers. For most children, it is through an intense and strong
relationship with their parents or guardians that they establish an
attachment to conventional society. Nye suggested that when the needs
of an individual are not met by caregivers, inappropriate behavior can
result.
As shown in Figure 10.4, Nye predicted a U-shaped curve of parental

controls in predicting delinquency. Specifically, he argued that either no
controls (i.e., complete freedom) or too much control (i.e., no freedom at
all) would predict the most chronic delinquency. Thus, he believed, a
healthy balance of freedom and parental control was the best strategy for
inhibiting criminal activity. There is some research supporting Nye’s
prediction.81 We will see later in this chapter that contemporary control
theories, such as Tittle’s control-balance theory, draw heavily on Nye’s idea
of having a healthy balance of controls and freedom.82
Figure 10.4 Nye’s Control Theory

Source: F. Ivan Nye, Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior,
Copyright © 1959, Oxford University Press.
Reckless’s Containment Theory.

Another control theory, known as containment theory, has been proposed by
Walter Reckless.83 This theory emphasizes both inner containment and
outer containment, which can be viewed as internal and external controls.
Reckless broke from traditional assumptions of social control theories by
identifying predictive factors that push and/or pull individuals toward
antisocial behavior. However, the focus of his theory remained on the
controlling elements, as evidenced by the word “containment.”
Reckless claimed that individuals can be pushed into delinquency by their

social environment, such as by a lack of opportunities for education or
employment. Furthermore, individual factors, such as brain disorders or
risk-taking personalities, could push some people to commit criminal
behavior. Reckless also noted that individuals could be pulled into criminal
activity by hanging out with delinquent peers, watching too much violence
on television, and so on. All told, Reckless went beyond the typical control
theory assumption of inborn tendencies. In addition to these natural
dispositions toward deviant behavior, containment theory proposes that
extra pushes and pulls can motivate people to commit crime.
Reckless further claimed that the pushes and pulls toward criminal behavior
could be enough to force individuals into criminal activity unless they are
sufficiently contained or controlled, both internally and externally. Inner
containment involves building a person’s sense of self, to help him or her
resist the temptations of criminal activity. Other forms of inner containment
include the ability to internalize societal norms. With respect to outer
containment, school, church, and other societal institutions are essential in
building bonds that inhibit individuals from being pushed or pulled into
criminal activity.
Reckless described a visual image of containment theory, which we present

in Figure 10.5. The outer circle (Circle 1) in the figure represents the social
realm of pressures and pulls, whereas the innermost circle (Circle 4)
symbolizes a person’s natural pushes to commit crime. In between these two
circles are the two layers of controls—namely, external containment (Circle
2) and internal containment (Circle 3). The structure of Figure 10.5 and the
examples included in each circle are those specifically noted by Reckless.84
While some studies have shown general support for containment theory,
other studies have shown that some components of the theory, such as
internalization of rules, seem to have much more support in accounting for
variation in delinquency than do other factors, such as self-perception.85 In
other words, external factors may be more important than internal ones
when it comes to criminal behavior. Furthermore, some studies have noted
weaker support for Reckless’s theory among minorities and females. Thus,
the model appears to be most valid for white males.86
Figure 10.5 Reckless’s Containment Theory

One of the problems with containment theory is that it does not go far
enough toward specifying the factors that are important in predicting
criminality. For example, an infinite number of concepts exist that could
potentially be categorized as either a “push” or a “pull” toward criminality,
or as an “inner” or “outer” containment of criminality. Thus, the theory
could be considered too broad and not specific enough to be of practical
value. To Reckless’s credit, though, containment theory has increased the
exposure of control theories of criminal behavior. And although support for
containment theory has been mixed, there is no doubt that it has influenced
subsequent control theories.87
Modern Social Control Theories of Crime

As the previous sections attest, control theory has been around, in various
forms, for some time. Modern social control theories, to which we now turn
our attention, build on these earlier versions of social control but add a level
of depth and sophistication. Two modern social control theories that we
consider here are Matza’s drift theory and Hirschi’s social bonding theory.
Matza’s Drift Theory.

The theory of drift, presented by David Matza in 1964, claims that
individuals offend at certain times in their lives when social controls, such
as parental supervision, employment, and family ties, are weakened.88 In
developing his theory, Matza criticized earlier theories and their tendency to
predict too much crime. For example, theories such as those of the Chicago
School would wrongfully predict that all individuals in bad neighborhoods
will commit crime. Likewise, strain theory predicts that all poor individuals
will commit crime. Obviously, this is not true. Thus, Matza claimed that
there is a degree of determinism (i.e., Positive School) in human behavior
but also a significant amount of free will (i.e., Classical School). He called
this perspective soft determinism, which is the gray area between free will
and determinism. This is illustrated in Table 10.2.
soft determinism: the assumption that both determinism and free will play a role in
offenders’ decisions to engage in criminal behavior.
Returning to the basics of Matza’s theory, he claimed that individuals offend

at times in life when social controls are weakened. As is well-known, the
time when social controls are most weakened for the majority of individuals
is during their teenage years. It is at this time that parents and other
caretakers stop having a constant supervisory role. At the same time,
teenagers generally do not have too many responsibilities—such as careers
or children—that would inhibit them from experimenting with deviance.
This is consistent with the well-known age-crime relationship; most
individuals arrested are in their teenage years (see Figure 10.6).89 Once
sufficient ties are developed, people tend to mature out of criminal
lifestyles.
Table 10.2 Matza’s Concept of Soft Determinism as the
Middle Stance Between Two Extreme Assumptions of
Criminal Behavior
Table 10.2 Matza’s Concept of Soft Determinism as the Middle Stance
Between Two Extreme Assumptions of Criminal Behavior
Assumption of Soft Assumption of Total

Complete Free Will Determinism (“Hard”) Determinism
A sort of
Belief held by middle- Belief held by positive
classical theorists ground theorists
position
Assumes that all Assumes that all behavior is

behavior is the result the result of factors (e.g.,
of decisions freely economy, upbringing and
chosen by a person peers) determining behavior
Figure 10.6 Matza’s Theory of Drift

Matza further claimed that when supervision is absent and ties are minimal,
the majority of individuals are the most “free” to do what they want. Where,
then, does the term drift come from? As shown in Figure 10.6, it is during
the times when people have few ties and obligations that they “drift” in and
out of delinquency. Matza pointed out that previous theories were
unsuccessful in explaining this age-crime relationship. For example, he
claimed that “most theories of delinquency take no account of maturational
reform; those that do often do so at the expense of violating their own
assumptions regarding the constrained delinquent.”90
Are sports such as mixed martial arts or boxing socially

acceptable forms of violence?
Daniel Shirey/Zuffa LLC/Getty Images
Matza insisted that “drifting” is not the same as a commitment to a life of

crime. Instead, it involves “experimenting” with questionable behavior and
then rationalizing it. The way youths rationalize behavior that they know to
be wrong is through techniques of neutralization, discussed earlier in this
chapter.
Drift theory goes on to say that most individuals do not reject the
conventional normative structure. On the contrary, much offending is based
on neutralizing or adhering to subterranean values that they have been
socialized to use as a means of circumventing conventional values. This is
basically the same as asserting one’s independence, which people tend to do
with a vengeance during their teenage years.
Subterranean values are quite prevalent and underlie many aspects of our
culture. For example, while it is conventional to believe that violence is
wrong, boxing and other injurious sports are some of the most popular
spectator activities. Such phenomena create an atmosphere that readily
allows neutralization or rationalization of criminal activity.
We will see other forms of subterranean values when we discuss risk-taking

and low self-control later in this chapter. In many contexts (such as
business), risk-taking and aggressiveness are seen as desirable
characteristics; so, many individuals are influenced by such subterranean
values. This, according to Matza, adds to individuals’ likelihood of
“drifting” into crime and delinquency.
Matza’s theory of drift seems sensible on its face, but empirical research
examining the theory has been mixed.91 One of the primary criticisms,
which even Matza acknowledged, is that it does not explain the most
chronic offenders—the people responsible for the vast majority of serious,
violent crimes. Chronic offenders often offend long before and well past
their teenage years, which clearly limits the predictive value of Matza’s
theory.
Despite its shortcomings, Matza’s drift theory does appear to explain why
many people offend during their teenage and young adult years but then
grow out of it. Also, the theory is highly consistent with several of the ideas
presented by control theorists, including the assumption that (1) selfish
tendencies are universal, (2) these tendencies are inhibited by socialization
and social controls, and (3) the selfish tendencies appear at times when
controls are weakest. The theory goes beyond the previous control theories
by adding the concepts of soft determinism, neutralization, and subterranean
values, as well as the idea that in many contexts selfish and aggressive
behaviors are desirable.
Hirschi’s Social Bonding Theory.

Perhaps the most influential social control theory was presented by Travis
Hirschi in 1969.92 Hirschi’s theory of social bonding takes an assumption
from Durkheim that “we are all animals, and thus naturally capable of
committing criminal acts.”93 However, as Hirschi acknowledged, most
humans can be adequately socialized to become tightly bonded to
conventional entities, such as families, schools, and communities. Hirschi
claimed also that the stronger a person is bonded to conventional society, the
less prone to engaging in crime he or she will be. More specifically, the
stronger the social bond, the less likely it is that an individual will commit
criminal offenses.
social bonding: a control theory that assumes that individuals are predisposed to commit
crime and that conventional bonds prevent or reduce offending. This bond is made up of
four constructs: attachments, commitment, involvement, and moral beliefs regarding
committing crime.
As shown in Figure 10.7, Hirschi’s social bond is made up of four elements:

(1) attachment, (2) commitment, (3) involvement, and (4) beliefs. The
“stronger” or more developed a person is in each of the four elements, the
less likely he or she will be to commit crime. Let us now consider each
element in detail.
The most important factor in the social bond is attachment, which consists
of affectionate bonds between an individual and his or her significant others.
Attachment is vitally important for the internalization of conventional
values. Hirschi claimed that “the essence of internalization of norms,
conscience, or superego thus lies in the attachment of the individual to
others.”94 Hirschi made it clear, as did Freud, that strong early attachments
are the most important factor in developing a social bond. Commitment,
involvement, and belief, he argued, are contingent on adequate attachment
to others. That is, without healthy attachments, especially early in life, the
probability of acting inappropriately increases.
Commitment, the second element of Hirschi’s social bond, is the investment

a person has in conventional society. This has been explained as one’s
“stake in conformity,” or what is at risk of being lost if one gets caught
committing crime. If a person feels that much will be lost by committing
crime, then he or she will probably not do so. In contrast, if someone has
nothing to lose, what is to prevent that person from doing something he or
she may be punished for? The answer is, of course, not much. And this,
some theorists claim, is why it is difficult to control “chronic offenders”
who have nothing to lose. Instilling a “commitment” to conventional society
in such individuals is extremely difficult.
Another element of the social bond is involvement, which is the time spent
in conventional activities. The assumption is that time spent in constructive
activities will reduce time devoted to illegal behaviors. This element of the
bond goes back to the old adage that “idle hands are the devil’s
workshop.”95 Hirschi claimed that taking an active role in all forms of
conventional activities can inhibit delinquent and criminal activity.
Figure 10.7 Hirschi’s Social Bonding Theory

The last element of the social bond is beliefs, which have generally been
interpreted as moral beliefs concerning the laws and rules of society. This is
one of the most examined, and consistently supported, aspects of the social
bond. Basically, individuals who feel that a course of action is against their
moral beliefs are much less likely to pursue it than are individuals who don’t
see a breach of morality in such behavior. For example, you probably know
some people who see drunk driving as a serious offense because of the
injury and death it can cause. However, you also probably know individuals
who don’t see a problem with such behavior. The same can be said about
speeding in a car, shoplifting from a store, or using marijuana; people differ
in their beliefs about most forms of criminal activity.
According to Hirschi, participating in conventional activities

can inhibit delinquent and criminal activity.
© iStockphoto.com/monkeybusinessimages
Hirschi’s theory has been tested by numerous researchers and has, for the
most part, been supported.96 However, one criticism is that the components
of the social bond may predict criminality only if they are defined in a
certain way. For example, with respect to the “involvement” element of the
bond, studies have shown that not all conventional activities are equal when
it comes to preventing delinquency—only academic or religious activities
seem to have consistent effects. In contrast, many studies show that
teenagers who date or who play sports are more likely to commit crime.97
Another major criticism of Hirschi’s theory is that the effects of

“attachments” on crime depend on whom one is attached to. As explained
earlier in this chapter, studies have clearly and consistently shown that
attachment to delinquent peers is a strong predictor of criminal activity.
Finally, some evidence indicates that social bonding theory may explain
why individuals start offending but not why people continue or escalate in
their offending. One reason for this is that Hirschi’s theory does not
elaborate on what occurs after an individual commits a criminal act. This is
likely the primary reason why some of the more complex integrated theories
of crime (some of which are discussed below) often attribute the initiation
of delinquency to a breakdown in the social bond. However, they typically
see other theories (such as differential reinforcement) as better predictors of
what happens after the initial stages of the criminal career.98
Despite the criticism it has received, Hirschi’s social bonding theory is one
of the most accepted theories of criminal behavior.99 It is a relatively
convincing explanation for criminality because of the consistent support it
has found among samples of people taken from all over the world.100
Integrated Social Control Theories

It is worthwhile to briefly discuss the two integrated models that most
incorporate the control perspective into their frameworks. These two
integrated models are control-balance theory and power-control theory. Both
have received considerable attention in the criminological literature.
Tittle’s Control-Balance Theory.

Building largely from Nye’s theory (see previous discussion in this chapter),
and presented by Charles Tittle in 1995, control-balance theory proposes
that (1) the amount of control to which one is subjected and (2) the amount
of control one can exercise determine the probability of deviance. The
“balance” between these two types of control, Tittle argued, can even
predict the type of offense likely to be committed.101
Tittle argued that a person is least likely to offend when he or she has a
balance of controlling and being controlled by others. Further, the likelihood
of offending will increase when these factors become imbalanced. If
individuals are more controlled (Tittle calls this control deficit), then the
theory predicts that they will commit predatory or defiant acts. In contrast, if
an individual possesses an excessive level of control (Tittle calls this control
surplus), then he or she will be more likely to commit acts of exploitation or
decadence. Note that excessive control is not the same as excessive self-
control. People who are controlling—that is, who have excessive control
over others—will be predisposed toward inappropriate activities.
Initial empirical tests of control-balance theory have reported mixed results,
with both surpluses and deficits predicting the same types of deviance.102
Additionally, researchers have uncovered differing effects of the control-
balance ratio on two types of deviance that are contingent on gender. This
finding is consistent with the gender-specific support found for Reckless’s
containment theory, described earlier in this chapter.103
Hagan’s Power-Control Theory.

Power-control theory is another integrated theory, proposed by John Hagan
and his colleagues.104 The primary focus of this theory is on the level of
patriarchal attitudes and structure in the household, which are influenced by
parental positions in the workforce. Power-control theory assumes that in
households where the mother and father have relatively similar levels of
power at work (i.e., balanced households), mothers will be less likely to
exert control over their daughters. These balanced households will be less
likely to experience gender differences in the criminal offending of the
children. However, households in which mothers and fathers have dissimilar
levels of power in the workplace (i.e., unbalanced households) are more
likely to suppress criminal activity in daughters. Additionally, assertiveness
and risky activity among the males in the house will be encouraged. This
assertiveness and risky activity may be a precursor to crime.
Most empirical tests of power-control have provided moderate support for

the theory, while more recent studies have further specified the validity of
the theory in different contexts.105 For example, one study reported that the
influence of mothers, not fathers, on sons had the greatest inhibiting effect
on delinquency in young males.106 Another researcher has found that
differences in perceived threats of embarrassment and formal sanctions
varied between more patriarchal and less patriarchal households.107 Finally,
studies have also started measuring the effect of patriarchal attitudes on
crime and delinquency.108 Power-control theory is a good example of a
social control theory in that it is consistent with the idea that individuals
must be socialized and that the gender differences in such socialization
affect how people will act throughout life.
We will revisit this theory again in Chapter 12.
A General Theory of Crime: Low Self-Control

In 1990, Hirschi, along with his colleague Michael Gottfredson, proposed a
general theory of low self-control, which is often referred to as the general
theory of crime.109 This theory has led to a significant amount of debate and
research, more so than any other contemporary theory of crime. Like the
previous control theories of crime, this theory assumes that individuals are
predisposed toward selfish, self-centered activities and that only effective
child-rearing and socialization can foster self-control. As shown in Figure
10.8, without such adequate socialization (i.e., social controls) and reduction
of criminal opportunities, individuals will follow their natural tendencies to
become selfish predators. Furthermore, the general theory of crime assumes
that self-control must be established by age 10. If it has not formed by that
time, according to the theory, individuals will forever exhibit low self-
control.
low self-control: a theory that proposes that individuals either develop self-control by age
10 or do not; those who do not will manifest criminal or deviant behaviors throughout life.
Figure 10.8 Gottfredson and Hirschi’s Theory of Low Self-

Control
Source: Tibbetts, S. G. (2018). Criminological theory: The essentials
(3rd ed., p. 219). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Although Gottfredson and Hirschi still attribute the formation of controls to

the socialization process, the distinguishing characteristic of this theory is
its emphasis on the individual’s ability to control himself or herself. That is,
the general theory of crime assumes that people can take a degree of control
over their own decisions and, within certain limitations, “control”
themselves.
The general theory of crime is accepted as one of the most valid theories of
crime.110 This is probably because it identifies only one primary factor that
causes criminality—low self-control. But low self-control may actually
consist of a series of personality traits, including affinity for risk,
impulsiveness, self-centeredness, short-term orientation, and a quick temper.
For example, research has supported the idea that inadequate child-rearing
practices tend to result in lower levels of self-control among children and
that these low levels lead to risky behaviors, including criminal activity.111
Psychological Aspects
Criminologists have recently claimed that low self-control may be due to
the emotional disposition of individuals. For example, one study showed
that the effects of low self-control on intentions to commit drunk driving
and shoplifting were tied to individuals’ perceptions of pleasure and shame.
More specifically, the findings of this study showed that individuals who
had low self-control had significantly lower levels of anticipated shame but
significantly higher levels of perceived pleasure in committing both drunk
driving and shoplifting.112 These results suggest that individuals who lack
self-control will be oriented toward gaining pleasure and taking advantage
of resources but also toward avoiding negative emotional feelings (e.g.,
shame) that are primarily induced through socialization.
Physiological Aspects
Low self-control can also be tied to physiological factors. Interestingly,
research has shown that chronic offenders show greater arousal toward
danger and risk-taking than toward the possibility of punishment.113 This
arousal has been measured by monitoring brain activity in response to
certain stimuli. The research suggests that individuals are inwardly
encouraged to commit risky behavior due to physiological mechanisms that
reward their risk-taking activities by releasing “pleasure” chemicals in the
brain.114
In a similar vein, studies show that chronic gamblers tend to get a

physiological “high” (a sudden, intense release of feel-good
neurotransmitters similar to that following a small dose of cocaine) from the
activity of betting, particularly when they are gambling with their own
money and risking a personal loss.115 Undoubtedly, there exists a minority
group of individuals who thrive on risk-taking behaviors significantly more
than others do. This suggests that there are not just psychological
differences but also physiological differences that may explain why certain
individuals favor risky behaviors.
Researchers have also found that criminal offenders generally perceive a
significantly lower level of internal sanctions (e.g., shame, guilt,
embarrassment) than do nonoffenders.116 So, in summary, a select group of
individuals appear to derive physiological and psychological pleasure from
engaging in risky behaviors while simultaneously being less likely to be
inhibited by internal emotional sanctions. Such a combination, Gottfredson
and Hirschi claimed, is dangerous and helps explain why impulsive
individuals often end up in prison.
Finally, the psychological and physiological aspects of low self-control may

help explain the gender differences observed between men and women.
Specifically, studies show that women are significantly more likely than
men to experience internal emotional sanctioning for offenses they have
committed.117 In other words, there appears to be something innately
different about men and women that helps explain their differing levels of
self-control.
Control perspectives are among the oldest and most respected explanations
of criminal activity. The fundamental assumption that humans have an
inborn, selfish disposition that must be controlled through socialization
distinguishes control theories from other theories of crime. The ability of the
control perspective to remain among the most popular criminological
theories demonstrates its legitimacy as an explanation of behavior. This is
likely due to the dedication and efforts of criminologists who are constantly
developing new and improved versions of control theory, many of which we
have discussed here.
Learning Check 10.3
1. Which theorist(s) developed the theory of drift?

a. Gottfredson and Hirschi
b. Tittle
c. Hagan
d. Matza
2. Which theorist(s) developed the integrated theory of power-control?
a. Gottfredson and Hirschi
b. Tittle
c. Hagan
d. Matza
3. Which theory emphasizes the concepts of control deficit and control surplus?
a. Theory of drift
b. Social bonding theory
c. Differential reinforcement theory
d. Control-balance theory
Policy Implications
Learning theories, such as differential association, focus on the influence of
role models and significant others on individuals’ attitudes and behaviors.
Thus, one needs to emphasize positive, or prosocial, role models and avoid
negative, or antisocial, role models. For example, a standard condition of an
individual’s probation or parole is that he or she not associate with any
known felons:118
Associates: You shall not associate with individuals who have

criminal records or other individuals as deemed inappropriate by
the Division. You shall not have any contact with persons
confined in a correctional institution unless specific written
permission has been granted by your supervising officer and the
correctional institution.119
Programs such as Head Start attempt to provide youths with more positive
or favorable definitions of conventional behavior. Various school districts
are incorporating conflict-resolution programs into their curricula.120
Tremblay and Craig maintained that the developmental prevention approach
is primarily founded on the premise that criminal activity is influenced by
behavioral and attitudinal patterns that are learned during development. In
their review of various preventive interventions, however, they stated:
It does appear that money invested in early (e.g., preschool)

prevention efforts with at-risk families will give greater pay-offs
than money invested in later (e.g., adolescence) prevention efforts
with the same at-risk families. This general rule is not easy to
apply, because juvenile delinquents attract much more public
attention than high risk infants or toddlers.121
In reference to social control theories, some policies focus on enhancing

crime- and delinquency-control measures. These types of efforts are often
popular with the public. In a similar vein, Boy Scouts, Girl Scouts, 4-H
clubs, and Little League baseball are examples of programs that attempt to
engage youths in more conventional-type activities.122
Why Do They Do It?
Jesse Pomeroy
AP Photo
Jesse Pomeroy was born on November 29, 1859, in Charlestown, Massachusetts. His
father, Thomas, was a violent alcoholic. He would often beat his two sons, Charles and
Jesse. Jesse’s mother, Ruth Ann, eventually divorced Thomas in the 1870s; divorce was
extremely uncommon during this time. In fact, Ruth Ann revealed that she divorced her
husband after one of these brutal beatings:
Jesse later admitted to his doctors that his father had made him go to his room
and strip totally naked, whereupon Thomas had proceeded to lash out with a
leather belt . . . [Jesse] realized the beatings . . . were not that bad, not nearly as
horrific as the relentless pummeling he had received almost four years earlier,
when his father had taken Jesse, just eight years old, to an abandoned shed in
the woods. There Thomas had become so enraged that the blows from a
horsewhip had nearly killed his son.123
Ruth Ann realized that Jesse was a strong-willed boy. Jesse was often made fun of at
school, primarily because of a deformity in his right eye. Jesse’s teacher complained of his
problem behavior. The teacher noted that he was a loner; he preferred to read cheap “dime
novels.” During this time, these novels were full of violence, sex, battles, and mayhem.
Eventually, Ruth Ann was asked to remove her son from school.
Jesse’s problems were not restricted to school. His mother brought home two canaries and
kept them in a cage; she would come home looking forward to their chirping. One
afternoon, she came home to find the two canaries dead—their necks were twisted off
their bodies. Prior to this, a neighbor had told Ruth Ann that her little kitten had gone
missing. A few days later, Ruth Ann saw Jesse walking down a nearby street with the
dead kitten in one hand and a kitchen knife in the other. In 1871, there were reports that
children in the neighboring city of Chelsea were being beaten by an older boy. Some of
these children were sexually assaulted. The victims reported that this boy would offer
them money and treats; then he would suggest they go to a remote location. There he
would abuse the children.124 The newspapers referred to the offender as “The Boy
Torturer” and “The Red Devil.” After reading a description of this boy in the Boston
Globe, Ruth Ann recognized this was her son; she moved her family to South Boston. In
August 1872, a young boy was found tortured in South Boston; a month later, a child was
found beaten, assaulted, and tied to a telephone pole. This victim, however, was able to
give a very detailed description. This resulted in Jesse’s being arrested and sentenced to
the State Reform School at Westborough for the remainder of his minor-status years (e.g.,
six years). Ruth Ann, however, diligently worked to have her son released earlier; Jesse
was released months after.125
In March 1874, nine-year-old Katie Curran disappeared. During the investigation, it was
revealed that the last place she had been seen was at Ruth Ann Pomeroy’s dress shop;
Jesse was interrogated, but there was no arrest at that time. In April, the body of 4-year-
old Horace Millen was found on the beach of Dorchester Bay. His throat had been cut and
he had been stabbed 15 times; also, one of his eyes had been torn out. The police recalled
the beatings of the other children two years earlier and arrested Jesse; he was 14 years old
at the time. In July 1874, he confessed to Horace Millen’s murder. He also confessed to
the murder of Katie Curran. He had lured her into the basement of his mother’s dress
shop, cut her throat, and buried her body under an ash heap. When he was asked why he
committed the murders, he stated, “I couldn’t help it.”126 On September 7, 1876, Jesse
Pomeroy was sentenced to death. Subsequently, his sentence was commuted to life in
solitary confinement. In 1916, he was released from solitary confinement and was allowed
to mix with other prisoners at the Charlestown Prison. On September 29, 1932, he died at
the age of 73 years.127
Think About It
Why did he do it? As described by the theories presented in this chapter, specifically
various social control theories (such as Hirschi’s theory of social bonding) and
socialization theories (e.g., differential association theory, differential reinforcement
theory), it appears that Jesse Pomeroy never had much of a chance to form strong social
bonds with conventional society, nor was he adequately socialized. To clarify, his father
was abusive. He was considered a loner at school. He began early in life to demonstrate
cruel behavior toward animals.
Thus, do you think Jesse Pomeroy engaged in such behavior out of selfishness and
personal satisfaction, and without any empathy for his victims, because that was what his
experience in the world taught him to do?
If you maintain that Jesse engaged in these behaviors because he had low self-control,
then why did he have such low self-control?
What types of things could have been done to improve young Jesse’s self-control?
Fazit
In this chapter, we first discussed learning theories. These theories focus on how and why
individuals learn criminal behavior, including the techniques, justifications, and
underlying values. These theories also give substantial attention to significant people
involved in the socialization process—specifically, family, friends, and important others.
Learning theories continue to be helpful in our understanding of criminal behavior, as
shown by virtually all empirical studies that have evaluated the validity of these
theoretical models. If we theorize that individuals learn various techniques, justifications,
and values that influence their potential to engage in criminal activity, then these
individuals can also learn how to engage in law-abiding behavior.
We then examined a large number of control theories, which assume that we are
essentially born greedy and selfish and that we have to be controlled to resist acting on
these drives. Although the many different control theories have some unique distinctions,
they all assume that people must be socialized in such a way that their learning of right
and wrong will control the antisocial tendencies they are born with.
Thus, we discussed a wide range of theories. However, all the criminological theories
covered in this chapter share an emphasis on social processes as the primary reason why
individuals commit crime. This is true for the learning theories, which propose that people
are taught to commit crime, as well as for the control theories, which claim that people
offend naturally and must be taught not to commit crime. Despite their seemingly opposite
assumptions of human behavior, the fact is that learning and control theories both identify
socialization, or the lack thereof, as the key cause of criminal behavior.
Summary of Theories

Criminality is learned
Criminal behavior is just like any
learned in interaction conventional activity;
with other persons; any normal individual,
learning occurs within when exposed to
intimate personal groups; definitions and
Differential Edwin
learned definitions are attitudes favorable
association Sutherland
favorable or unfavorable toward crime, will
to the legal code; learn both the
associations vary in motivations and
frequency, duration, techniques for
priority, and intensity. engaging in illegal
behaviors.
Assumes that
Criminal behavior is
individuals are born
learned according to the
with a “blank slate”
principles of operant
and socialized and
conditioning and
taught how to behave
modeling/imitation; Robert
Differential through classical and
criminal behavior is Burgess
reinforcement operant conditioning as
learned in both nonsocial and Ronald
theory well as modeling;
and social interactions; Akers
behavior occurs and
learning occurs in groups
continues depending
that make up the
on past and present
individual’s major source
rewards and
of reinforcements.
punishments.
Individuals can engage

in criminal behavior
and avoid feelings of
guilt for these actions
Criminals are still by justifying or
partially committed to rationalizing their
Gresham
the dominant social behavior; since they
Techniques of Sykes and
order; there are five are partially committed
neutralization David
techniques of to the social order,
Matza
neutralization to justify such justifications help
criminal behavior. them engage in
criminal behavior
without serious
damage to their self-
image.
Most of the early

theorists emphasized
Sigmund the need for external
Freud, societal controls to
Individuals are naturally Jackson counter people’s inner
born selfish and greedy, Toby, drives; Reckless called
Early control and they must be Albert such a process
theories socialized by others to Reiss, F. “containment,” in the
control their inherent Ivan Nye, sense that if such
desires and drives. Walter drives are not
Reckless, contained, there is little
and others to stop a person from
doing what is natural,
which is to offend.
Offending typically
peaks in the teenage
years, because that is
Soft determinism, the time when social
meaning that offending controls are weakest;
behavior is the result of i.e., we are no longer
Theory of David
both free will/decision- being monitored
drift Matza
making and deterministic constantly by
factors outside our caretakers, and the
control. adulthood control
factors of marriage,
employment, etc., have
not yet kicked in.
A simple theory in the

sense that as each of
The social bond is made
the four elements of
up of four elements:
Social the social bond grows
attachments, Travis
bonding stronger, the likelihood
commitment, Hirschi
theory of offending lessens
involvement, and moral
due to the individual’s
beliefs.
being more bonded to
conventional society.
Individuals who either

are too controlled by
others or have too
much control over
Control-
Control deficit and Charles others are more likely
balance
control surplus Tittle to commit crimes,
theory
compared with people
who have a healthy
balance between the
two.
Households in which
the parents have
similar types of jobs
are more balanced and
tend to control their
sons and daughters
Power- Balanced and unbalanced more equally than in
John Hagan
control theory households unbalanced
households, where the
parents have different
jobs, which leads to
more controls placed
on daughters than on
sons.
Bad parenting
(abusive, inconsistent,
lack of monitoring,
Michael
neglectful) results in
Low self- Gottfredson
Bad child-rearing lack of development of
control theory and Travis
self-control, which
Hirschi
then leads to
criminality and risky
behaviors.
Key Terms
classical conditioning, 234
collective conscience, 250
control theories, 232
differential association theory, 232
differential identification, 237
differential reinforcement theory, 238
learning theories, 232
low self-control, 259
modeling/imitation, 238
negative reinforcement, 239
operant conditioning, 238
positive reinforcement, 239
social bonding, 256
soft determinism, 255
techniques of neutralization, 245
1. What distinguishes learning theories from other criminological theories?
2. What distinguishes differential association from differential reinforcement theory?
3. What did differential identification add to learning theories?
4. Which technique of neutralization do you use/relate to the most? Why?
5. Which technique of neutralization do you find least valid? Why?
6. Which element of Hirschi’s social bond do you possess in the highest amount?
7. Which element of Hirschi’s social bond do you possess in the lowest amount?
8. Does someone you know fit the profile of a person with low self-control?
9. Which aspects of the low self-control personality do you think you fit?
10. Regarding Matza’s theory of drift, do you think this relates to times when you or your
friends have committed crimes? Why or why not?
Ressourcen
Social Learning Theories
What Is Social Learning Theory?
http://sociology.about.com/od/Sociological-Theory/a/Social-Learning-Theory.htm
How Social Learning Theory Works
http://psychology.about.com/od/developmentalpsychology/a/sociallearning.htm
Control Theories
“Social Control Theory” on Oxford Bibliographies:

9780195396607-0091.xml
Professor Robert M. Worley deconstructs control theories of crime (video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvwd8R5_OGs
“Gottfredson and Hirschi’s Low Self-Control Theory; or why kids feed lizards to
crocodiles” in Everyday Sociology (blog):
http://www.everydaysociologyblog.com/2008/11/gottfredson-and.html
Student Study Site

Media Library
Author Video
10.1: Distinguishing Theories

10.1: Differential Association Theory
10.2: Differential Identification
Chapter 11 Labeling Theory and
Conflict/Marxist/Radical Theories of
Crime
A row of tents and other belongings of homeless people in Los

Angeles, California.
© iStockphoto.com/Tero Vesalainen
Learning Objectives
11.1 Summarize the basic assumptions of labeling theory.
11.2 Evaluate the research and criticisms of labeling theory.
11.3 Describe and distinguish between the various conflict perspectives.
11.4 Evaluate the research and criticisms of conflict perspectives.
11.5 Describe the key contributors of alternative perspectives such as peacemaking
criminology, the restorative justice perspective, and left realism.
11.6 Summarize the policies associated to labeling and conflict theories of crime.
Case Study
The Flint Water Crisis

To save money, in April 2014, the state of Michigan decided to switch the water supply for
Flint, a city of around 100,000, from the treated Detroit Water and Sewerage Department water
to the Flint River. The Detroit water supply was essentially from Lake Huron and the Detroit
River. The problem with the switch to water from the Flint River was that officials had failed
to employ corrosion inhibitors. The switch was implemented during a time when the city of
Flint was in a state of emergency. It was intended to be temporary; a new state-run supply line
to Lake Huron was supposed to be connected in approximately two years.
Soon, residents of Flint began to notice that the water in their homes looked, smelled, and
tasted funny. Some thought the contaminant was sewage, but it was actually iron. What made
things worse was that residents did not realize that a large number of water lines to their homes
were made of lead. Since the water was not properly treated, lead started to leach into the water
supply. This continued for almost two years. Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, a pediatrician in Flint’s
Hurley Medical Center, was noticing more and more frantic parents concerned over their
children’s rashes and hair loss. By comparing blood lead levels in toddlers, Dr. Hanna-Attisha
found that these levels had doubled—in some instances, tripled—since the water supply was
switched. When she released her findings, initially officials denounced her work, accusing her
of causing hysteria. A week later, they admitted her findings were correct.
In October 2015, the city switched back to using Detroit water, but this did not address the
damage that had been done to the lead pipes. The state then responded by distributing filters
and bottled water. However, there are potential long-term health consequences. Dr. Hanna-
Attisha stated that lead is “a well-known, potent neurotoxin. There’s tons of evidence on what
lead does to a child, and it is one of the most damning things that you can do to a population. It
drops your IQ, it affects your behavior, it’s been linked to criminality, it has multigenerational
impacts. There is no safe level of lead in a child.”1
As of January 2019, 15 people have been charged in relation to the water crisis. Seven people
have pleaded no contest to misdemeanors. These individuals will have no criminal record:
Michael Prysby, Stephen Busch, Liane Shekter Smith, and Adam Rosenthal, all from the
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
Mike Glasgow and Daugherty “Duffy” Johnson, employees of the city of Flint
Corinne Miller, of Michigan’s Department of Health and Human Services
The following eight people have charges pending:
Nick Lyon, former director of the state health department (charged with involuntary
manslaughter and misconduct in office)
Dr. Eden Wells, former Michigan chief medical executive (charged with involuntary
manslaughter, obstructing justice, lying, and misconduct in office)
Nancy Peeler and Robert Scott, both of the state health department (charged with
misconduct in office and conspiracy)
Patrick Cook, of the Department of Environmental Quality (charged with misconduct in
office and conspiracy)
Gerald Ambrose, former Flint emergency manager (charged with conspiracy,
misconduct in office, and false pretenses)
Darnell Earley, former Flint emergency manager (charged with involuntary
manslaughter, conspiracy, and misconduct in office)
Howard Croft, former director of Flint public works (charged with involuntary
manslaughter and conspiracy)2
For over 30 years, Flint has been a city in decline, given that the failed automotive industry
was its foundation. As a result, population and employment have gone down, while poverty
and violent crime have gone up.3 Do you think this type of water crisis could have happened in
a more affluent area? As one resident stated, “you can’t treat cities the way you treat some
corporation that you might just sort of sell off.”
Think About It
1. Might issues of social class explain how this situation was handled?
2. Could the same thing have happened in a more affluent area?
3. What policies/programs could be developed to prevent this from happening again in
Flint or any other city?
Introduction
During the 1960s and 1970s, one of the most prominent paradigms to rival
traditional theoretical explanations of crime was radical and/or critical
criminology.4 Traditional criminology theories (e.g., classical and positive)
were considered a part of mainstream criminology; they had a tendency to
support the status quo and the dominant ideologies of that time. Critical
criminology, however, was initially based on a critique of both the state and
the political economy of crime and crime control.5 While this earlier radical
criminological perspective continued for a relatively brief time, this
framework is typically used as a gauge for assessing whether theories in the
1980s and 1990s were evolving or devolving.6
By the late 1980s and early 1990s, this radical perspective was
transforming. First, the paradigm was designated as critical rather than
radical. Second, while the earlier radical paradigm primarily focused on
Marxist and neo-Marxist frameworks of class, state, and social control, the
critical paradigm began to broaden its focus and diversify. A common
feature of the earlier radical and subsequent critical perspectives, however,
is their “anti-establishment stances or criticisms, their pursuits of
transformation of one kind or another, and their relative appreciations for
the political economy of crime and crime control.”7
This chapter presents several critical criminology theories. We start with a

discussion on labeling theory. Next, we focus on selected contributions to
the conflict perspective, including the conservative (pluralist) and the
Marxist/radical. Additional critical perspectives are reviewed, including
peacemaking criminology, restorative justice, and left realism. This chapter
concludes with examples of policies and programs related to the labeling
and conflict theories of crime.
Labeling Theory
As with fashions, ideas can be influenced by fads, even ideas that attempt to
explain crime.8 Labeling theory came to the forefront during a time when
various assumptions concerning societal authority were being questioned
and reexamined. Near the end of the 1950s, the unfair and inequitable
treatment of underprivileged individuals in society was becoming a
widespread concern for many Americans. As a result, protests and
demonstrations were held to fight for civil rights and women’s rights.
Others were questioning the legitimacy of political authority regarding U.S.
foreign policy in Vietnam. Thus, many protested the United States’
involvement in the Vietnam War; a number of these protests were held on
college campuses.
labeling theory: a theoretical perspective that assumes that criminal behavior increases
because certain individuals are caught and labeled as offenders; their offending increases
because they have been stigmatized.
Comparing water from the Flint River and the Detroit River.
Which would you rather drink?
Jake May/The Flint Journal via AP
Within this broader societal context, scholars were also beginning to

question existing explanations of crime. These scholars maintained that too
much emphasis was placed on explaining individual characteristics
contributing to criminal behavior. These scholars were concerned with the
structure of social class and power; thus, the labeling perspective is not
overly concerned with questions of why an individual engages in deviant
behavior. Rather, it focuses on such questions as, “Who applies the deviant
label to whom? Who establishes and enforces the rules?”9 Specifically,
these scholars argued that it is important to understand how criminal, or
deviant, behavior is defined or labeled. Furthermore, these scholars were
interested in how society reacts to this labeled behavior.
Foundation
Labeling theory was influenced by symbolic interactionism, especially the
works of Charles Horton Cooley, William I. Thomas, George Herbert Mead,
and Erving Goffman. Symbolic interactionism focuses on how an
individual’s personality and thought processes evolve through social
interactions such as symbolic language and gestures. Cooley argued that an
individual gains a sense of his or her social self through primary groups or
significant others.10 Thus, if a child learns how to spell a word correctly and
a teacher tells her that she did an excellent job, that child will feel pride and
pleasure. If, however, the child misbehaves in the classroom and the teacher
reprimands her, she may feel shame and embarrassment. Cooley identified
this process of obtaining one’s self-image through the “eyes of others” as
the looking-glass self. This also illustrates the influence of primary groups.
Cooley noted that primary groups are those characterized by intimate and
personal interactions.11 Some of the most important primary groups are the
neighborhood and play groups, and especially the family.12
symbolic interactionism: proposes that many social interactions involve symbolism,

which occurs when individuals interpret each other’s words or gestures and act based on
the meaning of those gestures.
While Cooley essentially focused on the process of self-formation during

childhood, Thomas was concerned with the later years, specifically when
the adult self is redefined.13 Further, Thomas maintained that to understand
human behavior, one needs to understand the “total situation,” which
consists of objective factors, as well as an individual’s subjective definitions
of those factors.14 One needs to understand the “definition of the
situation.”15
Mead identified two types of social interaction—nonsymbolic interaction

and symbolic interaction. Nonsymbolic interaction occurs when individuals
respond to gestures or actions. For instance, two dogs may go through a
series of gestures (e.g., snarling, growling and baring their teeth). The dogs
are responding to each other’s gestures. These responses are dictated by
preexisting tendencies to respond in certain ways. These dogs are not
responding to the intention of the gestures; therefore, these animal
interactions are devoid of any conscious or deliberate meaning.16 Symbolic
interaction occurs when individuals interpret each other’s gestures and act
based on the meaning of those gestures.
Do you think some people would “label” this individual?
©iStockphoto.com/muldoon
Mead was primarily interested in symbolic interaction. Specifically, Mead

was concerned with the “interpretation, or ascertaining the meaning of the
actions or remarks of the other person, and definition, or conveying
indications to another person as to how he is to act [italics in original].”17
Symbolic interactionism emphasizes how human behavior and social
relationships are developed through social interactions. This perspective
focuses on how an individual’s behavior is intertwined with another’s.
An essential component of symbolic interactionism is that individuals who

are stigmatized as being deviant are predisposed to take on a deviant self-
identity.18 Goffman defined stigma as an “attribute that is deeply
discrediting” and that diminishes the individual “from a whole and usual
person to a tainted, discounted one.”19 He maintained that stigmatized
individuals differ from “normals” in terms of how society reacts to them.
Subsequently, society attributes a wide range of deficiencies based on the
original perceived flaw. In the next section, we further explore how
symbolic interactionism influenced labeling theory.
Frank Tannenbaum: The Dramatization of Evil.

Many scholars identify the origins of the labeling perspective in Frank
Tannenbaum’s 1938 publication, Crime and the Community. Drawing on
the school of symbolic interactionism, Tannenbaum focused on the process
that occurs after an individual has been caught and designated as violating
the law. He maintained that there is a gradual shift from the definition of the
specific act as evil to the definition of the individual as evil.20
The “community’s point of view,” or the social reaction to illegal behavior,

is designated the dramatization of evil. According to Tannenbaum, the
process of making the criminal involves tagging, defining, and identifying
the individual as such, resulting with that person becoming the very thing
he or she is described as being.21 Tannenbaum contends that the first
dramatization of evil has a greater influence on “making the criminal” than
any other experience.
dramatization of evil: a concept proposed by Tannenbaum in relation to labeling theory;

states that when relatively minor laws are broken, the community tends to dramatize it.
Along with the dramatization of evil, Tannenbaum argued that acts are not
inherently good or bad; rather, there are differing degrees of good and bad.
The social reactions also influence how those behaviors will be labeled.
Furthermore, these behaviors are placed within a context that includes a
person’s social status, the social setting, and other factors. For instance,
society might react differently to an attorney drinking a glass of wine at
dinner than to a homeless person drinking a bottle of wine on a street
corner.
Edwin M. Lemert: Primary and Secondary

Deviance.
In his 1951 book, Social Pathology, Edwin Lemert made a significant
contribution to the labeling perspective by distinguishing between primary
deviance and secondary deviance. Primary deviance is behavior that is
situational or occasional. A person uses excuses or rationalizations to justify
his or her deviant behavior. These behaviors continue to be considered
“primary deviations or symptomatic and situational as long as they are
rationalized or otherwise dealt with as functions of a socially acceptable
role.”22 Lemert argued that this process occurs either through normalization
(i.e., a problem of everyday life) or through minimal controls that do not
seriously hinder individuals’ getting along with each other.23 Thus, a person
engaging in primary deviant behavior perceives the behavior as bad; this
individual, however, does not perceive himself or herself as a bad person.
primary deviance: in labeling theory, the type of minor, infrequent offending people
commit before they are caught and labeled as offenders.
Secondary deviance is deviant behavior, or social roles based

upon it, which becomes a means of defense, attack, or adaptation
to the overt and covert problems created by the societal reaction
to primary deviation. In effect, the original “causes” of the
deviation recede and give way to the central importance of the
disapproving, degradational, and isolating reactions of society.24
secondary deviance: in labeling theory, the type of serious, frequent offending people
commit after they have been caught and labeled as offenders.
A person engaging in secondary deviant behavior uses this behavior as a

way to defend against, or adjust to, the various problems related to the
social reactions to his or her primary deviance.
The sequence of interaction that results in secondary deviation essentially

consists of the following: (1) primary deviation; (2) social penalties; (3)
further primary deviation; (4) stronger penalties and rejections; (5) further
deviation, possibly with hostilities and resentment toward those imposing
the penalties; (6) crisis reaching the tolerance quotient, expressed in formal
action by the community stigmatizing the deviant; (7) strengthening of the
deviant conduct as a reaction to the stigmatizing and penalties; and (8)
ultimate acceptance of the deviant social status and efforts at adjusting to
the associated role.25 (See Figure 11.1 for an example of the process of
secondary deviation.) A key aspect of secondary deviance is not only
society’s reaction to the individual’s behavior but also the individual’s
response to that reaction. According to this perspective, when the societal
reaction and label are integrated into an individual’s self-image, they will
likely lead to the amplification of deviance.
Howard S. Becker: The Dimensions of Deviance.
In 1963, another major contribution to the labeling perspective was Howard
S. Becker’s Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. Becker argued
that the term outsiders refers to those individuals considered by others to be
deviant; these individuals are deemed to be “outside” the circle of the
“normal” members of the group.26 Furthermore, deviance is created by
society. Social groups create deviance by making the rules, whose
infraction is considered deviance, and by applying those rules to particular
people and labeling them as outsiders.27 A key aspect to labeling deviance
is realizing that certain groups have the power to impose rules, and
subsequently labels, on other groups. This power differential results in
groups with this “authority” to designate other individuals as deviants and
outsiders.
Becker argued that deviance has two dimensions. One dimension is that
only those behaviors considered deviant by others are truly deviant. The
second dimension is whether a behavior or an act conforms to a certain rule.
With this conceptual framework, Becker developed a typology of deviant
behavior (see Table 11.1). Two of the four types of behavior are both
correctly perceived by society. A person engaging in conforming behavior
obeys the rules, and society perceives that person as obeying the rules. At
the other extreme, the pure deviant is an individual who disobeys the rules
and is perceived by society as doing so.
pure deviant: based on Becker’s typology, an individual who disobeys the rules and is
perceived as doing so.
Table 11.1 Typology of Deviant Behavior

Table 11.1 Typology of Deviant Behavior
Obedient Rule-Breaking
Behavior Behavior
Perceived as deviant Falsely accused Pure deviant

Obedient Rule-Breaking
Behavior Behavior
Not perceived as
Conforming Secret deviant
deviant
Source: Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York, NY:
Free Press, p. 20.
Figure 11.1 An Example of the Process of Secondary

Deviation
Source: Adapted from Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology: A
systematic approach to the theory of sociopathic behavior. New York,
NY: McGraw-Hill, p. 77.
The remaining two types of behavior are more problematic. First, the
falsely accused is an individual who has been identified as disobeying the
rules when he or she did not violate the rules. For instance, a juvenile who
occasionally associates with a group of delinquents is arrested with these
youths, on suspicion of burglary. This juvenile will show up in the official
statistics as a delinquent, along with other juveniles who actually engaged
in delinquent behavior. Researchers, using official data, will attempt to
develop an understanding of delinquency, including this youth who was
falsely accused. Second, the secret deviant is an individual who violates
the rules of society, without society reacting to this behavior. These
individuals are able to avoid detection; thus, they are not labeled as deviant.
Self-report studies reveal that a large number of individuals fall into this
group.28
falsely accused: based on Becker’s typology, an individual who has been identified as
disobeying the rules but did not violate the rules.
secret deviant: based on Becker’s typology, an individual who violates the rules of
society but elicits no reaction from society.
Edwin M. Schur: Defining Deviance.

In the late 1960s, Edwin M. Schur’s work significantly contributed to the
labeling perspective,29 by addressing some of the criticisms and
misunderstandings surrounding it. First, he noted that some scholars
maintained that this perspective failed to distinguish adequately between
deviance and nondeviance. The labeling perspective, however, attempts to
explain the varieties of the deviant experience rather than just the “mere
counting and classifying of deviating acts and individuals.”30 Second, Schur
acknowledged the argument that the labeling perspective was too narrow—
for instance, that the focus was on the ascribed aspects of the deviant status
rather than on the deviant motivation. Third, he cited critics who maintained
that this perspective failed to explain some forms of deviance.
One reason for this confusion and controversy, Schur answered, was the
failure of labeling theorists to provide a concise definition of “deviance”
that researchers could use. To remedy this, he provided the following
working definition:
Human behavior is deviant to the extent that it comes to be

viewed as involving a personally discreditable departure from a
group’s normative expectations, and it elicits interpersonal or
collective reactions that serve to “isolate,” “treat,” “correct,” or
“punish” individuals engaged in such behavior.31 [italics in original]
Schur argued that the terms deviant and delinquent are what sociologists
designate as an ascribed status and not an achieved status. Specifically, an
ascribed status is a social position an individual occupies not only due to the
consequence of that individual’s actions but also as a result of the actions of
others.32
Schur identified key factors in the labeling process, including stereotyping,

retrospective interpretation, and negotiation. Stereotyping is usually
associated with racial prejudice and discrimination. Citing the work of
Piliavin and Briar,33 Schur argued that stereotyping can also occur in police
encounters with juveniles. During the various decision-making stages of
these encounters (bringing the juvenile into the station, type of disposition
to invoke, etc.), police react to various cues from the juvenile. These cues
include the youth’s group affiliations, age, race, grooming, dress, and
demeanor.34 The second key factor, retrospective interpretation, was
defined as the process by which an individual is identified as a deviant and
thereafter viewed in a “new light.”35 Through this process, an individual is
given a new personal identity. The most dramatic way of initiating this
process is through a public status-degradation ceremony, such as a
criminal trial.36 Schur contended that the individual’s character, both past
and present, is reexamined. In terms of youths adjudicated as delinquent,
retrospective interpretation is applied through such terms as delinquency
proneness and predelinquent. Studies focus on these adjudicated
delinquents to identify certain “indicators” of such behavior after these
youths have been labeled delinquent.
stereotyping: in labeling theory, usually associated with racial prejudice and

discrimination.
retrospective interpretation: in labeling theory, the process by which an individual is

identified as a deviant and thereafter viewed in a “new light.”
status-degradation ceremony: the most dramatic way to initiate the process of giving an
individual a new identity, such as a criminal trial.
The last key factor, negotiation, is more noticeable in cases involving

adults rather than juveniles, usually in criminal trials that involve plea
bargaining. This negotiation process, however, is still present when working
with juveniles. For instance, alleged delinquents may try to influence their
disposition by exploiting the relationship between the image they present
and the probable outcome of their case. Citing Aaron Cicourel’s work on
juveniles,37 Schur noted that a juvenile who is “appealing and attractive,”
wants to be liked, and relates in a friendly manner to those around him or
her is a prime candidate for clinical interpretations rather than criminal
imputations.38
negotiation: one of the key factors identified by Schur (i.e., labeling process); more
noticeable in cases involving adults rather than juveniles (e.g., plea bargaining).
Basic Assumptions
Referring to works such as those by Tannenbaum, Lemert, and Becker,
Clarence Schrag identified the following basic assumptions of labeling
theory:
1. No act is intrinsically criminal. The law designates an act as a crime;

thus, crimes are defined by politically influential and organized
groups.
2. Criminal definitions are enforced in the interest of the powerful. While
the law incorporates detailed guidelines, as well as definitions and
procedures, the implementation of the law can vary by decisions of
local officials and other social leaders.
3. A person does not become a criminal by violating the law. Rather, a
person becomes a criminal by authorities designating him or her as
such.
4. The practice of dichotomizing individuals into criminal and
noncriminal groups is contrary to common sense and research. Self-
report and other unofficial sources reveal that most acts committed by
criminals conform with the law, while some actions of “conformists”
violate the law. Thus, the “criminal” label designates an individual’s
legal status and not his or her behavior.
5. Only a few persons are caught in violating the law, even though many
individuals may be equally guilty. The act of “getting caught” begins
the labeling process. When an individual is labeled as a criminal, he or
she may become one of a few that many can blame for the ills of
society (i.e., a scapegoat).
6. While the sanctions used in law enforcement are directed against the
individual and not just the criminal act, the penalties for such an act
vary according to the characteristics of the offender. Therefore, the
decisions of many authorities appear to reflect the perspective “Once a
criminal, always a criminal, but some are more criminal than others.”
7. Criminal sanctions also vary according to other characteristics of the
offender. Further, these sanctions tend to be more severe among males,
the young, the unemployed or underemployed, the poorly educated,
members of the lower classes, members of minority groups, transients,
and residents of deteriorated urban areas.
8. Criminal justice is founded on a stereotyped conception of the criminal
as a pariah—a willful wrongdoer who is morally bad and deserving of
the community’s condemnation. The criminal justice system is based
on a free-will perspective that allows for the condemnation and
rejection of the identified offender.
9. Confronted by public condemnation and the label of an evil man, it
may be difficult for an offender to maintain a favorable image of
himself. Thus, labeling is a process that produces, eventually,
identification with a deviant image and subculture and, subsequently,
the “rejection of the rejectors.”39
Although some might add to, or modify, these assumptions, the preceding
list represents a comprehensive analysis of labeling theory as it is generally
discussed and used in criminological theory, research, and policy.40
Learning Check 11.1
1. According to Tannenbaum, the social reaction to illegal behavior is designated as

the _______________ of evil.
2. A person engaging in _______________ deviant behavior perceives the behavior
as bad; this individual, however, does not perceive himself or herself as a bad
person.
3. Becker maintained that the _______________ _______________ is when an
individual has been identified as disobeying the rules but did not violate the rules.
4. When an individual is given a new personal identity, the most dramatic way of
initiating this process is through a public _______________-degradation
ceremony, such as a criminal trial.
Research
Researchers from various disciplines have conducted empirical studies of
labeling theory using different types of research methods. In the field of
criminal justice, a central focus of research for a number of studies was the
process of deviance amplification due to labeling an individual as a criminal
or a delinquent. Examples of this line of research include examining the
relationship between the severity of a juvenile court disposition and future
offending,41 parental labeling and delinquency,42 perceived teacher
disapproval and subsequent delinquency,43 racial differences between
negative labeling and criminal behavior,44 labeling youth as delinquent or
mentally ill based on their dress or taste in music (e.g., punk, heavy metal)
and future criminal behavior,45 the effects of processing status offenders
and subsequent delinquent behavior,46 and the influence of formal police
intervention and increase in criminal involvement.47
As mentioned previously, researchers from various disciplines have used
labeling theory to study different types of phenomena. Using a field
experimental method, Richard Schwartz and Jerome Skolnick examined the
effect of an employee’s criminal court record on the reactions of potential
employers.48 The researchers constructed four employment folders that
differed only with respect to the applicant’s reported record of criminal
court involvement. The results revealed that only one employer
demonstrated an interest in the convicted folder, three demonstrated an
interest in the tried-but-acquitted folder, six demonstrated an interest in the
tried-but-acquitted folder (including a letter from the judge), and nine
demonstrated an interest in the no-criminal-record folder. The researchers
concluded that “the individual accused but acquitted has almost as much
trouble finding even an unskilled job as the one who was not only accused
of the same offense, but also convicted.”49
D. L. Rosenhan examined how the label of “insanity” can influence the

behavior and perceptions of hospital staff.50 Eight individuals from various
backgrounds, but deemed “sane,” applied for admission to different mental
hospitals. Upon their arrival at the hospitals, each individual pretended to
hear voices, which is a symptom of schizophrenia. When questioned about
their backgrounds and significant life events, they all gave truthful and
accurate responses. All but one individual was labeled schizophrenic. After
their admission, these individuals were responsible for demonstrating their
sanity. The various hospital staff treated them as schizophrenic patients.
Subsequently, these individuals were discharged from the hospital, with a
diagnosis of schizophrenia “in remission.”
Why Do They Do It?
The Murder of Dawn Hamilton

Kirk Bloodsworth holding a picture of himself during his 1985 trial.
US-LAW-DEATH SENTENCE-DNA/MLADEN ANTONOV/AFP/Getty Images
One summer day in 1984 in Rosedale, Maryland, Elinor Helmick was taking care of 9-
year-old Dawn Hamilton, whose father was working. Dawn was playing with Elinor’s
daughter, Lisa. At some time, Dawn went looking for Lisa at a nearby pond; she ran into
a man who told her he would help her find Lisa. The man led Dawn into the woods.
When Dawn did not return to the Helmicks’ home, Elinor started to look for her. Elinor
later called the police. Two hours later, the police found Dawn’s body. The autopsy
revealed that the manner of death was strangulation and blunt-force trauma to the head;
Dawn had also been sexually assaulted.51
During the investigation, law enforcement received more than 500 tips. One anonymous
caller stated that based on the composite drawing released to the public, he saw Kirk
Bloodsworth with the victim the day she died. Subsequently, Bloodsworth was charged;
at his trial five witnesses testified they had seen Bloodsworth with the victim; two of
these witnesses, however, were not able to identify Bloodsworth during a lineup. While
there was no physical evidence linking him to the crime, Bloodsworth was convicted of
rape and murder; he was sentenced to death row.
In the early 1990s, the incarcerated Bloodsworth learned about DNA testing. In the hope
of proving his innocence, he requested that the evidence in his case be tested, and in 1992
the prosecution finally agreed. Subsequently, it was determined that Bloodsworth was not
the person responsible for Dawn’s death. He was released from prison in June 1993 and
pardoned in December 1993. He had spent almost nine years in prison; for two of those
years, he had been facing execution.52
In 2004, Kimberly Ruffner, a former resident of Maryland with a history of sexual

attacks, confessed that he alone had sexually assaulted and murdered Dawn. He was
sentenced to life in prison.53
Think About It
In this example, the question “Why do they do it?” refers to those people who may have
initially labeled Kirk Bloodsworth.
1. What did Kirk Bloodsworth experience as a result of being labeled a convicted
murderer?
2. Before Ruffner confessed to the crime, do you think some people still considered
Bloodsworth the perpetrator, even though he had been exonerated?
Critiques
There have been various critiques of labeling theory, including the
following:
1. The various propositions to be tested are not adequately specified. This

lack of specificity does not allow researchers to empirically examine
the relationship between significant variables. Charles Tittle noted that
advocates of labeling theory argue “that the particular strength of
labeling theory lies in its resistance to formalization and in its
vagueness and ambiguity, since such features alert us to important
aspects of social life which are themselves relativistic and elusive.”54
2. Due to the lack of satisfactory data and empirical research, evaluating
the adequacy of labeling theory has been difficult. Furthermore, since
the theory is vague with respect to its propositions, it is difficult to
obtain additional information from research conducted for other
purposes.55 Additional refinement is needed, especially with respect to
deviance amplification.56
If you saw this woman walking in a store, would you

perceive her as a potential shoplifter? Why or why not?
Ulrich Baumgarten/Getty Images

3. Labeling theory focuses on the reaction to criminal and/or deviant
behavior. It avoids the question of causation; specifically, why do
some individuals commit a certain act while others do not?57
4. Labeling theory focuses on the “reactors” rather than the “actors.”
Thus, it views the “actor” or “labellee” as overly passive.58 John
Hagan emphasized that labeling theory would likely benefit
empirically from the recognition of a reciprocal relationship in terms
of the actor and reactor, stimulus and response, and preexisting
differences and “reaction effects.”59
5. Labeling should be viewed as a perspective rather than a theory.
Specifically, it is not a theory in the strictest sense, nor does it focus
exclusively on the act of labeling. Rather, it is one approach to
studying a general area of human activity.60 Erich Goode argued that
not only is labeling theory not a theory; it may not even be a
perspective. Instead of examining deviance in general, the theory
examines specific features of deviance.61
In 1975, Charles Wellford argued that labeling theory had weaknesses as an

explanatory model of criminal behavior.62 Eighteen years later, along with
his former student Ruth Triplett, Wellford commented on the future of
labeling theory in understanding deviant and criminal behavior. They
maintained that the future of labeling theory could be promising, especially
in terms of social thought or symbolic interactionism.63
Some scholars have been examining more complex versions of labeling

theory.64 For instance, some are interested in shaming.65 David R. Karp
maintained that the previous terms associated with labeling theory (e.g.,
primary and secondary deviance) have been replaced with other terms, such
as shame.66 Specifically, the central issue now is the potential of shaming as
a tool of formal social control. Shaming involves self-labeling or self-
stigmatizing. The concept of shaming is not new, especially when we look
at how society has dealt with individuals considered to be deviant and/or
criminal (e.g., the stocks, the “scarlet letter”).67
Conflict Perspectives
Most of the theories presented in the previous chapters are based on what
are generally referred to as the consensus perspective of law. In the 18th
and 19th centuries, consensus perspectives of law were identified as “social
contract theories.” These theories stressed that law serves a necessary social
function (i.e., functionalism). A major proponent of this perspective,
Thomas Hobbes, argued that without either law or the state, individuals
would pursue their self-interests without considering how these pursuits
could affect others. To avoid such a lawless condition, individuals enter into
an agreement, or consensus, to sacrifice their self-interests in an effort to
form a society for the common good of all people.72 Criminologists from
this consensus perspective maintain that
consensus perspective: theories that assume that virtually everyone is in agreement on

the laws and therefore assume no conflict in attitudes regarding the laws and rules of
society.
Applying Theory to Crime Larceny-Theft
Hammurabi (1792–1750 B.C.), king of Babylon, was the earliest known ruler to publicly
provide the people with a body of laws. His “Code of Laws” includes various references
to the crime of theft:
If anyone steals the property of a temple or of the court, he shall be put to death,
and also the one who receives the stolen thing from him shall be put to death.
If anyone steals cattle or sheep, or an ass, or a pig or a goat, if it belonged to a god
or to the court, the thief shall pay thirtyfold therefor; if they belonged to a freed
man of the king he shall pay tenfold; if the thief has nothing with which to pay he
shall be put to death.
If anyone takes a male or female slave of the court, or a male or female slave of a
freed man, outside the city gates, he shall be put to death.68
According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Uniform Crime Reports, larceny-
theft is the “unlawful taking, carrying, leading, or riding away of property from the
possession or constructive possession of another.” Examples of larceny-theft are
“bicycles, motor vehicle parts and accessories, shoplifting, pocket-picking, or the stealing
of any property or article that is not taken by force and violence or by fraud.” Thus,
embezzlement, confidence games, forgery, and check fraud are not counted as theft.69
Based on the 2017 report, the FBI summarized the following key findings concerning
larceny-theft:
There were an estimated 5,519,107 larceny-thefts nationwide.
When comparing the 2016 and 2017 larceny-theft rates, there was a drop of 2.2%.
Larceny-thefts accounted for an estimated 71.7% of property crimes.
The average value of property taken during larceny-thefts was $1,007 per offense.
When the average value was applied to the estimated number of larceny-thefts, the
loss to victims was an estimated $5.6 billion. The largest portion of reported
larcenies (26.8%) was thefts from motor vehicles (except accessories).70
Table 11.2 provides a summary of larceny-theft by type from the FBI’s Crime in the
United States, 2017.
In an effort to further illustrate key aspects of labeling theory, let us apply this perspective
to the crime of larceny-theft.
Table 11.2 Larceny-Theft by Type in 2017

Table 11.2 Larceny-Theft by Type in 2017
Number of Percentage Average

Typ
Offenses Distribution Value
Pocket-picking 27,673 0.6% $648
Purse-snatching 19,588 0.4% $564
Shoplifting 1,021,226 20.8% $260
From motor vehicles (except

1,318,007 26.8% $879
accessories)
Motor-vehicle accessories 363,035 7.4% $505
Bicycles 155,914 3.2% $477
From buildings 523,223 10.6% $1,381
From coin-operated machines 10,716 0.2% $538
All others 1,477,890 30.1% $1,700

Source: FBI. (2018). Crime in the United States, 2017. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
When Michelle was 13 years old, she was arrested for stealing a $25 shirt from a store in
New York City. Her boyfriend, who was significantly older than her, had placed the shirt
in her book bag and instructed her to carry it out of the store. He thought that because she
was younger, she would not get in as much trouble for stealing as he himself might. As a
result of her arrest, Michelle received over a year of probation. She was later placed in a
juvenile detention center. Michelle stated, “Nobody tried to find out if I was really guilty
or not. . . . They didn’t consider how a young girl could be manipulated or if I even
understood what was going on. No one asked or explained, they just assumed I was bad.”
Afterward, Michelle started engaging in more delinquent behavior (i.e., running away and
skipping school). As a result, she spent a significant part of her teenage years on
probation as well as in and out of juvenile facilities.71
Think About It
1. What there a pivotal point when Michelle decided to engage in more criminal
behavior?
2. How does labeling theory designate this “pivotal point”?
3. What policies/programs should be implemented to address criminal/delinquent
behavior that results from being labeled?
law reflects the need for social order,

law is a product of value consensus,
law is an impartial system that protects public rather than private
interests, and
where differences between groups exist, law is the neutral mechanism
that helps individuals resolve their conflicts.73
Around the 1950s, conflict theory began to challenge the assumptions

associated with the consensus and functional models of criminology.74 The
various conflict theoretical perspectives all share a critical position
concerning the existing social order; they differ, however, as to their
conceptualization of the nature of social order.75 Generally, there are two
forms of conflict theory: conservative (pluralist) and critical-radical. The
primary focus of conservative (pluralist) conflict theories is power and the
use of that power; this theoretical framework views society as consisting of
diverse interest groups competing for power.76 George Vold, Austin Turk,
and Richard Quinney have made major contributions to the conservative
(pluralist) conflict theoretical perspective. The other form of conflict theory,
critical-radical, can be traced back to the writings of Karl Marx; this
theoretical framework views contemporary society as being dominated by a
unified, capitalist ruling class.77 William Chambliss and Robert Seidman, as
well as Mark Colvin and John Pauly, have incorporated Marxist themes to
understand crime and criminals.
Conservative (Pluralist) Conflict Perspectives

George Vold: Group Conflict Theory.
In his 1958 book Theoretical Criminology,78 George Vold introduced
group-conflict theory. Prior to introducing this theory, Vold provided an
interesting evaluation of various theoretical perspectives.79 He noted that,
historically, there have been two basic types of criminological theories:
spiritualism and naturalism. Spiritual explanations are influenced by
“otherworld” powers. However, these explanations “cannot be considered
scientific, even if some thoughtful and intelligent people believe that they
represent the best explanation of crime.” Natural explanations are more
systematic and scientific. Vold identified three types of naturalistic theories:
1. Those that focus on the individual

2. Those that emphasize group and intergroup relations
3. Those that are “eclectical,” including various factors that might
explain criminal behavior80
group-conflict theory: Vold argued that people’s lives are a part, and a product, of their
group associations; groups come into conflict with one another due to conflicting and
competitive interests.
In the preface of his book, Vold stated:
No special plea is made for any particular theoretical position

examined, though it should be clear that there is some preference
for approaches that recognize and make more explicit the concept
of crime as a by-product of the struggle for power in the group
structure of society.81
Thus, he focused on the issue of conflicting group interests. According to

Vold, part of human nature is that people’s lives are a part of, and a product
of, group associations. Individuals are fundamentally group-involved
beings. These groups usually evolve out of situations in which individuals
have common interests and common needs that can be further promoted
through some type of collective action. Subsequently, “groups come into
conflict with one another as the interests and purposes they serve tend to
overlap, encroach on one another, and become competitive.”82
A key aspect of group-conflict theory is recognizing the social process view

of society as a collection of various groups that are held together in a
dynamic equilibrium of opposing group interests and efforts. This social
process involves a continuous struggle to maintain, or enhance, the position
of one’s own group within the context of these other competing groups.
Conflict is an essential component of this social process. Thus, “these social
interaction processes grind their way through varying kinds of uneasy
adjustment to a more or less stable equilibrium of balanced forces, called
social order or social organization.”83 Vold stressed that the conflict
between these groups to maintain, or enhance, their own interests is
especially apparent through the legislative political process.
In reference to crime, Vold maintained that the process of lawmaking,

lawbreaking, and law enforcement reflects essential and fundamental
conflicts between group interests, as well as the struggles among groups for
control of state police power. Subsequently, criminal behavior is the course
taken by less powerful groups who could not promote and defend their
interests and purposes in the legislative process.84
Group-conflict theory focuses only on those situations in which criminal

behavior is a result of conflicting group interests. Generally, these types of
crimes include (1) crimes arising from political protest, (2) crimes resulting
from labor disputes, (3) crimes arising from disputes between and within
competing unions, and (4) crimes arising from racial and ethnic clashes.85
Group-conflict theory does not explain more individual types of behavior,
such as rape and robbery.
The importance of Vold’s contribution is that it offered another explanation

of understanding crime—critical criminology. Like many new approaches
to explaining crime, Vold’s was not as well defined or soundly based as
those that followed.86 These are discussed below.
Austin Turk: The Power to Define Criminal
Behavior.
In his 1969 book, Criminality and Legal Order, Austin Turk stated that
“nothing and no one is intrinsically criminal; criminality is a definition
applied by individuals with the power to do so, according to illegal and
extra-legal, as well as legal criteria.”87 While this appears to reflect the
assumptions of labeling theory, Turk argued that one also needs to
recognize the milieu that establishes the social categories.88
According to Turk, society is characterized by conflict arising among

various groups seeking to establish or maintain control over one another.
Thus, criminology should focus on differences between the status and role
of legal authorities and subjects.89 Individuals in society become
accustomed to living with the social roles of authorities and subjects in such
a manner that these roles are not questioned. While consensus theorists
would contend that social order occurs through the internalization of the
norms reflected in the law, Turk maintained that social order is based in a
consensus–coercion balance preserved by the authorities.
Turk’s theory proposes that criminalization (i.e., the process of being

labeled a criminal) occurs through the interaction between those who
enforce the law and those who violate the law. This interaction is influenced
by various social factors. One such factor is the congruence of cultural and
social norms.90 Cultural norms are associated with verbal formulations of
values (e.g., the law as written); social norms are associated with actual
behavior patterns (e.g., the law as enforced). Conflict will occur between
authorities and subjects regarding the congruence of the cultural and social
norms.
Two additional social factors are the level of organization and the level of
sophistication of both the authorities and the subjects. It is assumed that
authorities are organized, since organization is essential for establishing and
maintaining power. Conflict is more likely when subjects are also
organized. Turk defined sophistication as the understanding of patterns in
the behavior of others, which is then used in an effort to manipulate them.
When either the subjects or the authorities are less sophisticated, conflict is
more likely to occur. For instance, when authorities are less sophisticated,
they may have to use more overt forms of coercion to achieve their goals, as
opposed to more subtle approaches.91
From September to November 2011, thousands of peaceful

protestors camped in New York City’s financial district in
Lower Manhattan. This organized demonstration, known as
Occupy Wall Street, denounced greed and corruption among
the disproportionate wealthy, the richest 1% of Americans,
in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. It was largely
coordinated using social media.
Carolyn Cole/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images
Another social factor is the power differential between enforcers and

violators. Criminalization will most likely occur when the enforcers (e.g.,
the police, prosecutors, and judges) have a great deal of power compared
with the resisters. Finally, the “realism” of moves is another essential social
factor. Conflict will most likely occur when either the enforcers or the
resisters engage in inappropriate or unsuitable behavior—for instance, a
motorist, while driving alongside a highway patrol officer, lights up a
marijuana cigarette. That would be an unrealistic move. A realistic move
would be for the motorist to wait until she was in the privacy of her home to
smoke a marijuana cigarette.
In a subsequent article, Turk attempted to develop a model of social
deviance and proposed various “working premises.”92 He also stressed that
his proposed nonpartisan conflict perspective differs from a partisan
conflict perspective. For instance, Richard Quinney (discussed below)
argued for the partisan conflict perspective:
In understanding criminal justice—its theory and practice under

capitalism—we provide a theory and a practice that has as its
objective changing the world. The importance of criminal justice
is that it moves us dialectically to reject the capitalist order and to
struggle for a new society. We are engaged in socialist
revolution.93
nonpartisan conflict perspective: according to Turk, the ideological position or political

utilities of theories are irrelevant when assessing the validity of knowledge claims; truth
should be independent of political ideology or personal values.
partisan conflict perspective: according to Quinney, provides a criminal justice theory

and practice with the purpose of changing the world; associated political objective.
Turk stressed the importance of nonpartisan conflict theory. Specifically, he

maintained that the ideological position or the political utilities of theories
are irrelevant when assessing the validity of knowledge claims.94 Thus,
truth should be independent of an individual’s political ideology or personal
values.
Richard Quinney: The Social Reality of Crime.

Drawing from Vold’s comments, as well as from social interaction and
labeling theory, Quinney set forth six propositions that described his social
reality of crime. These propositions are as follows:
Proposition 1 (definition of crime): Crime is a definition of human conduct

that is created by authorized agents in a politically organized society.
This proposition reflects assumptions of labeling theory. Quinney
maintained that crime is created. Further, he argued that this proposition
avoids the more commonly used “clinical perspective,” which focuses on
the quality of the act and assumes some type of individual pathology. Crime
is considered a process that culminates in defining persons and behaviors as
criminal.95
Proposition 2 (formulation of criminal definitions): Criminal definitions

describe behaviors that conflict with the interests of the segments of society
that have the power to shape political policy.
Quinney stressed that those groups who have the power to represent their
interests in public policy are able to regulate the formulation of these
criminal definitions. These interests are essentially based on desires, values,
and norms. The formulation of criminal definitions is one of the most
obvious indications of conflict in society. Specifically, formulating criminal
law, such as legislative statutes, administrative rulings, and judicial
decisions, allows these powerful segments of society to protect and
perpetuate their own interests.96
Proposition 3 (application of criminal definitions): Criminal definitions are

applied by the segments of society that have the power to shape the
enforcement and administration of criminal law.
The interests of the powerful groups cannot be effectively protected by just

formulating criminal law; it is essential that these groups protect their
interests by applying criminal definitions. Furthermore, the likelihood that
criminal definitions will be applied differs according to the extent to which
the behaviors of the powerless groups conflict with the interests of powerful
groups. Powerful groups usually do not directly apply the criminal law.
Instead, they delegate the enforcement and administration of law to
authorized legal agents.97
Proposition 4 (development of behavior patterns in relation to criminal

definitions): Behavior patterns are structured in segmentally organized
society in relation to criminal definitions, and within this context persons
engage in actions that have relative probabilities of being defined as
criminal.
Individuals in segments of society that are not represented in formulating

and applying the criminal definitions are more likely to act in a manner that
will be defined as criminal. Individuals in segments of society that are
represented in formulating and applying the criminal definitions are less
likely to act in a manner that will be defined as criminal. As this process of
formulating and applying criminal definitions continues, those individuals
identified as criminal begin to perceive themselves as criminal and
subsequently learn to play the role. This process results in these individuals
engaging in behavior that increases their chances of being defined as
criminals.98
Proposition 5 (construction of criminal conceptions): Conceptions of crime

are constructed and diffused in the segments of society by various means of
communication.
Quinney noted that the “real world” is a social construction. Social reality is
constructed through various processes that include the type of “knowledge”
they develop, the ideas they are exposed to, the manner in which they select
information that fits the “world” they are developing, and how they
interpret these conceptions. As a result, individuals behave in reference to
the social meanings they attach to their experiences. Within this broad
context of constructing social reality, the concept of crime is also
constructed. These conceptions are constructed by communication.
Furthermore, the most fundamental conceptions are those of the powerful
segments of society; these conceptions are usually incorporated into the
social reality of crime.99
Proposition 6 (the social reality of crime): The social reality of crime is

constructed by the formulation and application of criminal definitions, the
development of behavior patterns related to criminal definitions, and the
construction of criminal conceptions.
Quinney maintained that the five propositions can be accumulated into a

composite. The theoretical framework for the social reality of crime
describes, as well as explains, factors that increase the probability of crime
in society, which subsequently results in the social reality of crime (see
Figure 11.2).100
Figure 11.2 Model of the Social Reality of Crime
Source: Adapted from Quinney, R. (1970). The social reality of crime.

Boston, MA: Little, Brown, p. 24.
Learning Check 11.2
1. Group-conflict theory does not explain more individual types of behavior, such as
_______________.
2. According to Turk, social order is maintained not through consensus but, rather,
through a _______________–_______________ balance.
3. Unlike Quinney, Turk argued that the political use of a theory is irrelevant when
assessing the validity of that theory; this has been designated as the
_______________ conflict perspective.
Radical Conflict Perspectives

While it is difficult to summarize the various conservative (pluralist)
conflict perspectives, it is even more difficult to summarize the radical
conflict perspectives. Criminologists within this perspective have covered a
broad range of interests, including Marxism (discussed below) and left
realism (discussed at the end of this chapter). Regardless of these various
positions, the recent radical conflict perspectives can be traced to the
writings of Karl Marx (1818–1883).101
Marxist Criminology.
Marx wrote very little about crime and criminal behavior. Radical
criminologists, however, applied his ideas concerning social class to
understanding crime. His philosophy was greatly influenced by the poor
economic conditions following the Industrial Revolution. He argued that
societies are characterized by class struggles. These class struggles are
essentially based on the economic organization of a society.102
Marx claimed that society is divided into two classes, and this partition is
based on the means of production. The superordinate class, or bourgeoisie,
owns the means of production (e.g., factories); the subordinate class, or
proletariat, works for those who own the means of production. This
division of labor results in class struggles:
The division of labor offers us the first example . . . that . . . as

long as a cleavage exists between the particular and the common
interests, . . . man’s own deed becomes an alien power opposed to
him, which enslaves him instead of being controlled by him. For
as soon as labor is distributed, each man has a particular,
exclusive sphere of activity, which is forced upon him and from
which he cannot escape.103
bourgeoisie: a class or status Marx assigned to the dominant, oppressing owners of the
means of production; believed to create and implement laws that helped retain their
dominance over the working class.
proletariat: in Marx’s conflict theory, the oppressed group of workers exploited by the
bourgeoisie; they never profit from their own efforts because the upper class owns and
controls the means of production.
This poster from 1911 illustrates social stratification by social
class and economic inequality.
International Pub. Co., Cleveland, Ohio. Public domain via Wikimedia

Creative Commons
Awareness of common interests among members in a class was designated

as class consciousness. Alternatively, not being aware of these common
interests was identified as false consciousness. This false consciousness
causes the proletariat to believe that maintaining the capitalist system is in
their best interest, rather than in the interest of the bourgeoisie.
Generally, criminologists have incorporated Marxist ideology in three ways.

First, they have maintained that the law is a tool of the ruling class. The law
represents the interests of the ruling class, essentially perpetuating concepts
of capitalism. Second, they argue that all crime, in capitalist countries, is a
product of a class struggle. When the accumulation of wealth and property
is emphasized, this produces individualism and competition, which can
result in conflict between, as well as within, classes. Third, scholars need to
address the relationships between the mode of production and
understanding crime.104
William Chambliss and Robert Seidman on the

U.S. Criminal Justice System.
In their book Law, Order, and Power, William Chambliss and Robert
Seidman used a Marxist perspective to provide a critical understanding of
the American justice system. Compared with the consensus perspective, the
conflict perspective provides a very different explanation of the criminal
justice system. Chambliss and Seidman claimed that there was a “myth”
(i.e., consensus perspective) regarding the operation of the law—that myth
included the concepts that the law represents the values of society as a
majority, operates through a value-neutral government controlled by the
people, and serves the best interests of society.105
From a conflict perspective, Chambliss and Seidman stressed that society is

made up of various groups that are in conflict. The law is a tool of those in
power (i.e., the ruling class), and its function is to provide coercive power
in conflict.106 The myth of the operation of the law is revealed daily:
We all know today that blacks and the poor are not treated fairly
or equitably by the police. We know that judges have discretion
and in fact make policy (as the Supreme Court did in the school
desegregation cases). We know that electoral laws have been
loaded in the past in favor of the rich, and the average presidential
candidate is not a poor man, that one-fifth of the senators of the
United States are millionaires.
It is our contention that, far from being primarily a value-neutral

framework within which conflict can be peacefully resolved, the
power of the state is itself the principal prize in the perpetual
conflict that is society.107
Table 11.3 Functioning of Law Enforcement Agencies
Table 11.3 Functioning of Law Enforcement Agencies
1. The agencies of law enforcement are bureaucratic organizations.
2. An organization and its members tend to substitute for the official

goals and norms of the organization’s ongoing policies and activities,
which will maximize rewards and minimize the strains on the
organization.
3. This goal-substitution is made possible by:
a. the absence of motivation on the part of the role-occupants to

resist pressures toward goal-substitution.
b. the pervasiveness of discretionary choice permitted by the
substantive criminal law, and the norms defining the roles of the
members of the enforcement agencies.
c. the absence of effective sanctions for the norms defining the
roles in those agencies.
4. Law enforcement agencies depend for resource allocation on

political organizations.
5. It will maximize rewards and minimize strains for the

organization to process those who are politically weak and powerless
and to refrain from processing those who are politically powerful.
6. Therefore it may be expected that law-enforcement agencies will

process a disproportionately high number of the politically weak and
powerless, while ignoring the violations of those with power.
Source: Chambliss, W., & Seidman, R. (1971). Law, order, and power. Reading, MA: Addison-
Wesley, p. 269.
Chambliss and Seidman maintained that the relationship between power

and the use of the law extends to various institutions, such as the
legislatures, law enforcement, and especially the appellate courts.
In reference to the appellate courts, judges make rulings that have a lasting
effect on future cases. Through their socialization process and privileged
social position, these judges “are necessarily biased in favor of ensuring
that courts are more available to the wealthy than to the poor, and tend to
produce solutions in the interests of the wealthy.”108 Chambliss and
Seidman also examined how law enforcement agencies are connected to the
powerful and wealthy political structure. The specific points of this
assertion are listed in Table 11.3.
Additional Explanations of Crime Using a Marxist

Framework
Colvin and Pauly’s Integrated Structural-Marxist

Theory.
In their integrated structural-Marxist theory of delinquency, Mark Colvin
and John Pauly maintained that structures of control have various “patterns
associated with work, families, school, and peer groups and that those
patterns form the mechanisms for the reproduction of the class
structure.”109 Parents’ socialization and discipline practices with their
children are influenced by their workplace experiences. Working-class
parents in an unstable workplace setting experience more coercive controls.
As a result, these parents tend to enforce an uneven and erratic family
control structure that fluctuates between being lax and highly punitive.
Working-class parents with steadier, long-term employment tend to enforce
a more utilitarian compliance structure in the family. Their children can
usually expect predictable consequences for their behavior. Parents who are
characterized as “white-collar workers” tend to enforce a more normative
family compliance structure, which results in more positive bonds with their
children. Such socialization and discipline practices influence delinquent
behavior; specifically, there are significant positive associations between
more physical and punitive parental discipline practices and delinquent
behavior.110
Another essential aspect of the reproduction of labor and capitalist
production relations is the school experience. Colvin and Pauly contend that
parents’ bonds engendered by workplace control structures are

reproduced in the child through family controls; the child’s initial
ideological orientation toward authority is most likely to be
reinforced in school control structures by mechanisms which
render the child suitable for eventual placement in a workplace
control structure similar to that of the parent. Thus, inequality and
the class structure are subtly reproduced.111
Some studies have maintained that school control structures correlate with
delinquent behavior. For instance, positive bonds with school have been
associated with lower levels of delinquency.
In reference to peer associations, Colvin and Pauly suggested that such

associations act as a mediator between delinquent behavior and the other
control structures of family and school. Youths with similar bonds to family
and school will be drawn to one another and subsequently share comparable
values and experiences. For instance, juveniles in advanced educational
tracks, which reinforce positive bonds, form peer associations that consist
of more normative and compliant structures that discourage delinquent
behavior. Alternatively, youths in lower educational tracks, characterized by
more alienated bonds with family and school, form peer associations that
reinforce more negative, delinquent behavior.112
The integrated structural-Marxist theory incorporates various theoretical

perspectives in an attempt to provide a more comprehensive understanding
of criminal behavior. The basic premise is that social relations are grounded
in the process of capitalist material production. This perspective also
incorporates aspects of learning theory, strain theory, control theories, and
labeling theory.
Herman and Julia Siegel Schwendinger on

Adolescent Subcultures.
In their book Adolescent Subcultures and Delinquency, Herman
Schwendinger and Julia Siegel Schwendinger incorporated a Marxist
framework to explain adolescent subcultures and delinquency.113 They
based this theoretical explanation on extensive observations and interviews
conducted from the 1950s through the 1980s. They argued that previous
theoretical explanations of delinquency were inadequate and maintained
that it is essential to incorporate structural conditions, especially economic
conditions, under which certain peer groups develop and which promote
delinquent behavior.
A capitalistic economic system is conducive to developing and maintaining

various social-class relationships that are primarily reproduced in
individuals’ places in the labor force. The Schwendingers contended that
certain stratified networks of adolescent groups negotiate those
relationships between the broader social context (e.g., socioeconomic
conditions) and patterns of delinquent behavior among peer groups. These
adolescent groups may be designated by such labels as “rich kids” and
“poor kids.” These groups may violate the law more often than other
youths; however, both groups represent subcultures that have historically
evolved with the rise of capitalism. Their lifestyles may reveal conspicuous
consumption or other status accompaniments.114
These stratified networks may be solidified in the public school system.

Most adolescents in the United States attend public schools that help youths
develop the skills needed to eventually participate in the labor force;
resources, however, are not equally distributed among youths. Some
adolescents benefit more than others, due to economic and cultural
privileges awarded to certain ethnic, racial, or occupational groups.
Steven Spitzer on Problem Populations.

Steven Spitzer applied a Marxian perspective to understanding deviance.
He argued that one of the most essential functions of the superstructure in
capitalist societies is the regulation and management of problem
populations. These groups are problems when they question or disturb:
1. capitalist modes of appropriating the product of human labor (e.g.,
when the poor “steal” from the rich);
2. the social conditions under which capitalist production takes place
(e.g., those who refuse or are unable to perform wage labor);
3. patterns of distribution and consumption in capitalist society (e.g.,
those who use drugs for escape and transcendence rather than
sociability and adjustment);
4. the process of socialization for productive and non-productive roles
(e.g., youths who refuse to be schooled or those who deny the validity
of “family life”); and
5. the ideology that supports the functioning of capitalist society (e.g.,
proponents of alternative forms of social organization).115
Problem populations have similar characteristics, but a key factor is that

their behavior, personal qualities, and/or position threatens the social
relations of production.
Official control of these individuals is determined by how much of a

problem they pose for the continuation of a capitalist society. Those
individuals who are passive and do not attempt to disrupt society are
viewed by the dominant class as social junk. Social junk rarely comes to the
attention of officials except when attempts are made to regulate or contain
these individuals. Examples of what Spitzer called social junk are the aged,
handicapped, and mentally ill. Those individuals who question established
relationships, especially relations to production and domination, are
designated as social dynamite. Officials usually deal with social dynamite
through the legal system. Examples of individuals considered to be social
dynamite are political activists and criminals.116
Learning Check 11.3
1. According to Marx, the _______________ own the means of production; the

_______________ work for those who own the means of production.
2. _______________ and _______________ maintained that law enforcement
agencies are connected to the powerful and wealthy political structure.
3. Colvin and Pauly contended that working-class parents in an unstable workplace
environment experience more _______________ controls.
Research
Research using a conflict perspective can be categorized into one of two
broad approaches:
1. Studies examining laws that are formulated in the interests of those in

power
2. Studies examining the differential processing of certain individuals in
the criminal justice system117
Research from the first approach includes examining vagrancy laws118 and
the Marihuana Tax Act.119 One example of a more recent study using the
first approach is Amanda Robinson’s research on public reaction to a
domestic violence pro-arrest policy.120 Robinson hypothesized that there
would be differences between powerful groups (i.e., middle- and upper-
class white men) and less powerful groups (i.e., women, minorities, and the
economically and educationally disadvantaged) in their support for the
criminalization of domestic violence. The analyses revealed that there were
differences by age, education, income, and gender; these differences
supported the conflict perspective.
Various studies have used the second approach to examine differential

processing of individuals in the criminal justice system. A number of
studies have explored whether race and ethnicity are significant factors
during various stages of criminal justice processing: intake diversion,121
arrests,122 juvenile justice dispositions,123 and felony dispositions.124
Other aspects of the criminal justice system were examined using this
approach. Malcolm Holmes hypothesized that the number of threatening
acts and people was directly related to the number of police-brutality civil-
rights criminal complaints filed with the U.S. Department of Justice.125 The
results revealed that the presence of threatening people (percentage black,
percentage Hispanic, and majority/minority income inequality) was
positively related to the mean number of civil-rights criminal complaints.
Mitchell Chamlin tested two hypotheses:
1. Increases in the size of threatening groups (e.g., blacks, Hispanics, and
the poor) will increase the level of hostility between crime control
agents (e.g., law enforcement officers) and civilians.
2. These increased levels of hostility will enhance the volatility of
encounters between citizens and police, resulting in increased rates of
police killings.126
The results revealed that economic inequality did not have an effect on
police killings. Support for the increase in population size of racial
minorities, however, was related to “mutually suspicious interactions
between civilians and police.”
Critiques
George Vold and his colleagues presented some of the limitations associated
with the conflict perspective.127 First, while there have been advancements
in research methodologies, especially with the use of sophisticated
techniques using multivariate analyses, there is still a fundamental problem
when testing conflict theory; specifically, a similar finding may be
interpreted in more than one way:
If a direct effect of race on the decision to arrest or the length of a

sentence is found, controlling for hosts of other factors, what does
this mean? It could be evidence of widespread racial prejudice in
society, manifested in unequal treatment of minorities by criminal
justice system actors. On the other hand, it could represent
systematic and institutionalized protection of those in power
(whites) from the threatening group (blacks).128
Thus, some studies that reveal unequal treatment of individuals of different

races haphazardly and erroneously assume support for conflict theory.
Second, some research studies testing conflict theory are unable to

distinguish between alternative explanations. For instance, some studies
(such as those discussed in the previous section) attempt to reveal that in
areas where threatening groups (e.g., minorities and the poor) pose an
increasing threat to those in power, there is an increase in law enforcement
activity. These researchers, when finding such a positive relationship, argue
that this supports conflict theory. There may, however, be alternative
explanations. For example, nonwhites may want or need more law
enforcement protection than do whites. Or nonwhites may encounter
different types of social problems that require more social services.
Finally, few attempts have been made to develop and test well-constructed
conflict theories. As demonstrated in the previous section, there are
variations of the conflict perspective. As a result, many empirical studies do
not adequately specify which conflict propositions on conflict theory are
being tested. Vold and his colleagues cited a study conducted by Lanza-
Kaduce and Greenleaf, however, that addresses this problem by specifically
identifying how Turk’s theory of norm resistance can be operationalized
and tested when examining encounters between police and citizens.129
“Their effort is encouraging, in that it shows that a particular conflict theory
can be tested empirically, if the researcher is careful to be true to the
original theory.”130
Additional Critical Theories

We finish up the chapter with a brief discussion of three other critical
criminological theories: (1) peacemaking criminology, (2) the restorative
justice perspective, and (3) left realism.
Peacemaking Criminology
Peacemaking criminology has incorporated three intellectual traditions:
religious, feminist, and critical.131 Generally, peacemaking criminology
contends that rather than using punishment and retribution as a means of
social control, society should attempt reconciliation through mediation and
dispute settlement.132 Individually and collaboratively, Harold Pepinsky and
Richard Quinney have been involved in developing peacemaking
criminology.133 Figure 11.3 is a theoretical model of peacemaking
criminology. This model consists of five basic elements—social structure,
crimes, social harms, the criminal justice system, and peacemaking
alternatives:
Peacemaking criminology research, in its strictest sense, will opt

to examine how people in our present times become affected by
and, in turn, affect these five basic elements within the
peacemaking criminology theoretical model. Leaving out an
element would lead, in a peacemaking criminology view, to an
incomplete understanding of crime and how to address crime in a
humane way.134
peacemaking criminology: incorporates three intellectual traditions: religious, feminist,

and critical; contends that society should attempt reconciliation through mediation and
dispute settlement.
Figure 11.3 Theoretical Model of Peacemaking Criminology

Source: Wozniak, J. F. (2001). Toward a theoretical model of
peacemaking criminology: An essay in honor of Richard Quinney.
Crime and Delinquency, 48, 221.
Understanding the world in terms of its interconnections, rather than

focusing on individual elements, is a key aspect of this model.
John Wozniak identified three predominate themes of peacemaking

criminology. The first theme is types of crime and social harms. A common
approach among peacemaking criminologists is to focus on different crimes
(i.e., violation of a law) in the same context as other social harms (i.e.,
physical, mental, or social damages or injuries that are not violations of law
in the strictest sense).135 A key tenet of peacemaking criminology is to
realize how different types of crime are inextricably related to different
types of social harm.
The second theme is the types of peacemaking frameworks or perspectives.

A general review of the literature reveals that many peacemaking
criminology scholars tend to deviate from mainstream criminology theories
in their research. They tend to focus on the type of theories that begin with
questioning existing political, economic, and underlying ideologies of the
status quo. They also maintain that answers to violence and social harm, as
well as the injustices associated with such harm, are essentially outside the
criminal justice system.136 Not only is peacemaking criminology diverse; it
is also optimistic. For instance, this approach encourages individuals
working in the field of criminal justice to believe that society could be
reorganized in a way that would result in human reactions conducted in a
more humane manner.
The third theme is the types of peacemaking alternatives.137 Peacemaking

alternatives are quite diverse with respect to confronting crimes and social
harms. Wozniak selected various examples to illustrate this point. Within
the feminist tradition of peacemaking, he cited how researchers’
examination of sexual assault led to the promise of community “Take Back
the Night” marches, sexual assault centers, rape crisis programs, Men and
Women Committed to Stopping Violence Against Women, and watchdog
programs committed to monitoring the treatment of victims.138 Another
scholar’s research endeavors directed attention toward the Alternatives to
Violence Project for prisons, as well as transformation of the correctional
center to a healing center that advocates for the teaching of nonviolent
techniques.139
The Restorative Justice Perspective

Retributive justice refers to the repair of justice through a one-sided
approach of imposing punishment; restorative justice refers to the repair of
justice by reaffirming a shared consensus of values, involving a joint or
multisided approach.140 Restorative justice emphasizes the victim, the
community, and the offender. The restorative justice framework is based on
the balanced approach (see Table 11.4 and Figure 11.4).
The Balanced Approach mission addresses the public need for 1)

sanctioning based on accountability measures which attempt to
restore victims and clearly denounce and provide meaningful
consequences for offensive behavior; 2) offender rehabilitation
and reintegration; and 3) enhanced community safety and
security. It does this by articulating three system goals directed
toward the three primarily “client/customers” of the system—the
victim, the offender, and the community. These system goals,
which also govern the response to each offense, are:
accountability; competency development; community
protection.141
retributive justice: refers to the repair of justice through a one-sided approach of

imposing punishment.
restorative justice: refers to the repair of justice by reaffirming a shared consensus of

values involving a joint or multisided approach; emphasizes victim, community, and
offender.
Table 11.4 Model of Restorative Justice

Table 11.4 Model of Restorative Justice
Client/Customers Goals Values
When an offense occurs, an

Victims Accountability obligation to victims and
community incurs.
Offenders who enter the juvenile

Competency
Youth justice system should exit more
Development
capable than when they entered.
Client/Customers Goals Values
Juvenile justice has a

Community responsibility to protect the
Gemeinschaft
Protection public from juveniles in the
system.
Source: Adapted from Maloney, D., Romig, D., & Armstrong, T. (1988). Juvenile probation:
The balanced approach. Reno, NV: National Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges.
Figure 11.4 The Balanced Approach
Source: Bazemore, G., & Umbreit, M. (1997). Balanced and

restorative justice for juveniles: Framework for juvenile justice in the
21st century. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, p. 14.
To further illustrate how the restorative justice perspective differs from a

more traditional and retributive perspective, Gordon Bazemore and Mark
Umbreit compared these two perspectives (see Table 11.5) and found key
differences. For instance, retributive justice focuses on public vengeance, as
well as punishment exacted through an adversarial process. Restorative
justice is more inclusive in that it considers not only the offender but also
the victim and the community.
J. Wheeldon argued that although there have been definitional challenges,

existing restorative justice programs share three key principles. The first is
to focus on harms. Such harms include those suffered by communities. The
second is to root procedures in the communities where such harms
occurred. Such procedures or processes include understanding the
community’s part in crime commission as well as prevention. When the
community is involved in this process, there is a realization that even those
individuals not personally harmed by a specific crime have an interest in the
resolution of this offense. The third is the moral potential for restorative
justice. This is related to the spiritual or religious traditions as well as a
sense of humanism.142
Table 11.5 Retributive Versus Restorative Justice Assumptions

Table 11.5 Retributive Versus Restorative Justice Assumptions
Retributive Justice Restorative Justice
Crime is an act against the

Crime is an act against another
state, a violation of a law, an
person or the community.
abstract idea.
The criminal justice system Crime control lies primarily in the

controls crime. community.
Offender accountability is Accountability is defined as

defined as taking assuming responsibility and taking
punishment. action to repair harm.
Crime is an individual act,

Crime has both individual and social
with individual
dimensions of responsibility.
responsibility.
Punishment is effect: (a) Punishment alone is not effective in

Threat of punishment deters changing behavior and is disruptive
crime; (b) punishment to community harmony and good
changes behavior. relationships.
Victims are peripheral to the Victims are central to the process of

process. resolving a crime.
The offender is defined by The offender is defined by capacity

deficits. to make reparation.
Focus on establishing blame Focus on problem-solving, on

or guilt, on the past (did liabilities/obligations, on the future
he/she do it?). (what should be done).
Emphasis on adversarial Emphasis on dialogue and

relationship negotiation
Restitution as a means of restoring

Imposition of pain to punish
both parties; goal of
and deter/prevent
reconciliation/restoration
Community on sideline,
Community as facilitator in
represented abstractly by
restorative process
state
Response focused on harmful

Response focused on
consequences of offender’s behavior;
offender’s past behavior
emphasis on the future
Dependence upon proxy

Direct involvement by participants
professionals
Source: Bazemore, G., & Umbreit, M. (1997). Balanced and restorative justice for juveniles:
Framework for juvenile justice in the 21st century. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, p. 15.
Left Realism
Jock Young identified four major processes that have transformed
criminological thinking:
1. The etiological crisis due to rising crime rates

2. The crisis in penalty in terms of the failure of prisoners, as well as a
reappraisal of the role of police
3. The increased awareness of victimization and of crimes that had
previously gone “unnoticed”
4. A growing public demand and criticism of public service efficiency
and accountability143
In the 1980s, some theorists were questioning the narrow focus of Marxism
and other radical theories.144 The major criticism was that these theoretical
perspectives placed too much emphasis on the notion that crime is a result
of the capitalist system and the abuses of those in the “elite” class. As a
result, this focus fails to recognize that crime also exists in socialist
countries; it ignores how crime challenges those in the lower classes who
are often victims of violence; and it results in approaches that do not
adequately address the problem of crime. This critical perspective was
identified as left realism. Realism contends that previous criminological
theories are incomplete in that they emphasize only one part of the “square
of crime”: the state (as in labeling theory, neoclassicism), the public (as in
control theory), the offender (as in positivism), or the victim (as in
victimology). One of the major goals of left realism is to provide an
analysis of crime on all levels, as well as to develop a range of policy
recommendations.145
left realism: contends that previous criminological theories have been incomplete in that
they emphasize only one part of the “square of crime”; attempts to provide an analysis of
crime on all levels and develop a range of policy recommendations.
Criminological realism refers to the notion of the square of crime. This term
serves as a reminder that crime occurs at the intersection of a number of
lines of force. One should not view crime solely in terms of victims and
offenders without also including the role of the state and public opinion.146
The square of crime is illustrated in Figure 11.5.
Left realists stress the necessity of a crime-control strategy in a capitalist

society. It is essential that this crime-control strategy protect those
individuals from the lower and working classes who are more vulnerable to
becoming victims of crime and also experience a more intense fear of
crime. (In fact, this increased fear of crime has provided one reason for the
right wing to adhere to a “law-and-order” campaign that is repressive to
many of these individuals.)147
Figure 11.5 The Square of Crime

Source: Matthews, R., & Young, J. (1992). Reflections on realism. In
J. Young & R. Matthews (Eds.), Rethinking criminology: The realist
debate (pp. 1–23). London, England: SAGE, p. 20.
Policy Implications
A major policy implication of labeling research is that if deviance
amplification occurs, the criminal justice agency, especially the juvenile
justice system, should strive to divert certain individuals from formal
processing to avoid the negative effects of such labeling.148 In reference to
policies related to the labeling perspective, a general approach has been to
incorporate diversion programs, particularly for juveniles. Diversion occurs
when a juvenile is not formally processed in the juvenile justice system
(e.g., adjudication or incarceration); rather, these youths may be referred to
a treatment or work program. Some would maintain that when a youth is
diverted from the juvenile justice system, he or she avoids the label of
“juvenile delinquent.” Thus, “by keeping juveniles out of the system, the
labeling impact of courts and judges will be reduced. Juveniles will also
develop less of the secondary deviance patterns that result from being
labeled by the system as ‘delinquent.’”149
One example of a diversion program is youth courts (also known as peer

courts or teen courts). Youth courts are typically for juveniles between 10
and 15 years who have no prior arrests and are charged with less serious
law violations (e.g., shoplifting, vandalism). In most cases, such youths are
provided with an option to participate in this program rather than continue
through the formal juvenile justice system. These courts differ from other
programs in that the juveniles determine the disposition; however, adults do
oversee the program.150
An example of policies that reflect the conflict theoretical perspective

relates to crack and cocaine legislation.151 In the mid-1980s, crack cocaine
was becoming prevalent and receiving a great deal of media attention.
Crack was characterized as inducing violence, being highly addictive, and
constituting a major problem in urban areas. This public perception led to
the quick passage of two federal sentencing laws: the Anti–Drug Abuse Act
of 1986 and the Omnibus Anti–Drug Abuse Act of 1988.
These sentencing laws used a 100-to-1 ratio between the amount of powder
cocaine and crack cocaine needed to instigate mandatory sentences for
trafficking, as well as minimum penalties for simple possession of crack
cocaine. For instance, possession with intent to distribute 5 grams of crack
cocaine carried the same sentence (five years) as possession with intent to
distribute 500 grams of powder cocaine. These laws resulted in crack users
and dealers receiving harsher penalties than users and dealers of powder
cocaine.
These sentencing laws have been challenged. First, some argue that these
differences resulted in racial disparity. About two thirds of crack users are
white or Hispanic; most individuals convicted of possession in federal
courts were African American. According to the U.S. Sentencing
Commission, in 1994, defendants convicted of crack possession were
84.5% black, 10.3% white, and 5.2% Hispanic. Second, some maintained
that the sentences were unconstitutional on the grounds that (1) they denied
equal protection or due process, (2) the penalties constituted cruel and
unusual punishment, and (3) the statutes were unconstitutionally vague.
On August 3, 2010, President Barack Obama signed the Fair Sentencing

Act. This law lessened the disparity between mandatory minimum
sentences for crack and powder cocaine offenses. Specifically, it reduced
the sentencing disparity to 18 to 1. Thus, the five-year mandatory minimum
sentence for a person who is convicted of selling 500 grams of powder
cocaine will also apply to a person convicted of selling 28 grams, rather
than 5 grams, of crack.
Fazit
An overriding theme of this chapter was to illustrate various theoretical perspectives that
challenge the traditional criminological theories and dominant ideologies. These critical
perspectives question various assumptions that were considered as “given” in the
traditional perspectives. A major aspect of the labeling perspective is critically examining
how deviant behavior is defined and who has the power to define this behavior as such.
The various conflict perspectives share a common assumption—conflict is natural to

society. While it is difficult to generally categorize these conflict perspectives, we can
group them in two categories. The first is conservative (pluralist) theories. Conservative
(pluralist) conflict theories emphasize power and the use of power. The second is critical-
radical theories. These perspectives have incorporated Marxist themes to understand
crime and criminals. Three additional critical perspectives are peacemaking criminology,
the restorative justice perspective, and left realism.
It is essential to appreciate how these diverse criminological theories have evolved. A

major contribution of these critical theoretical perspectives is that they provide an
additional lens not previously considered in traditional, mainstream criminological
theories. These critical perspectives also emphasize that attempts to understand individual
criminal behavior need to incorporate the broad societal context.
With these theoretical perspectives in mind, recall the case study on the Flint Water Crisis
at the beginning of this chapter. Think about issues such as whether poverty is a key
reason why this crisis was ignored for quite some time, and consider the lasting effects on
the residents of Flint.
Summary of Theories
No act is intrinsically
criminal; criminal
Not overly
definitions are enforced in
concerned with
the interest of the
questions of why an
powerful; an individual
individual engages
Frank does not become a criminal
in deviant behavior;
Tannenbaum, by violating the law;
rather, it is
Edwin penalties for a criminal act
Labeling important to
Lemert, vary according to the
theory understand how
Howard characteristics of the
criminal, or deviant,
Becker, offender; criminal justice
behavior is defined
Edwin Schur is based on a stereotyped
or labeled, as well
conception of the criminal;
as how society
public condemnation may
reacts to this
make it difficult for an
behavior.
offender to sustain a
positive self-image.
Conflict is an
essential
component; groups Conflict arises between
have competing various groups seeking to
interests; society is establish or maintain
Conservative made up of groups George Vold, control over one another;
(pluralist) with different levels Austin Turk, the law is an essential tool
conflict of power; group Richard used to reflect the interests
perspectives interests are Quinney of those powerful groups;
reflected in various differences in power are
aspects of society, reflected in who defines
especially in the behavior as criminal.
legislative political
process.
Modes of
production Similar propositions to
influence various those of conservative
Radical
aspects of the social (pluralist) conflict
conflict Various
structure, including perspectives, with an
perspectives
the criminal justice emphasis on wealth and
system, family, and social class.
school.
Key Terms
bourgeoisie, 285
consensus perspective, 279
dramatization of evil, 272
falsely accused, 275
group conflict theory, 281
labeling theory, 271
left realism, 295
negotiation, 276
nonpartisan conflict perspective, 283
partisan conflict perspective, 283
peacemaking criminology, 291
primary deviance, 272
proletariat, 285
pure deviant, 275
restorative justice, 292
retributive justice, 292
retrospective interpretation, 275
secondary deviance, 273
secret deviant, 275
status-degradation ceremony, 275
stereotyping, 275
symbolic interactionism, 271
1. What are the major assumptions of labeling theory?
2. According to Lemert, how does an individual get labeled as a “deviant”?
3. According to Becker, what two behaviors are incorrectly perceived by society?
4. Is labeling a theory, a perspective, or neither?
5. What key features distinguish the consensus model of law from the conflict model of
law?
6. How has Marxist theory been incorporated to explain crime?
7. What are some of the limitations of conflict theories?
8. What are the key features of peacemaking criminology?
9. How has the restorative justice perspective incorporated the offender, victim, and
community?
10. What are some examples of policies that reflect the labeling and conflict perspectives?
Resources
Critical criminology
This site discusses the origins, principal and emerging strings, and the key concerns of
critical criminology.
http://criminal-justice.iresearchnet.com/criminology/critical-criminology
Restorative Justice Online
This site provides a comprehensive understanding of the mission, vision, and values
associated with restorative justice in practice.
http://www.restorativejustice.org
Student Study Site

Media Library
premium resources:
Author Video
11.1: Labeling Theory

11.1: Howard S. Becker: The Dimensions of Deviance
11.2: Labeling Theory

11.1: Tattoos
Chapter 12 Feminist Theories of Crime
Women exercise in a prison yard, circa 1890.
iStockphoto.com/ilbusca
Learning Objectives
12.1 Summarize the key points associated with the history of feminism in the United States.
12.2 Identify the key features of the various feminist perspectives on gender.
12.3 Describe how traditional theories of crime perceived female offenders and problems
associated with traditional research methods.
12.4 Identify the main tenets of the liberation thesis.
12.5 Discuss how power-control theory attempts to explain gender differences in
delinquency rates.
12.6 Describe key features of feminist perspectives on understanding criminal behavior.
12.7 Describe some of the key policies based on feminist theories of crime.
Case Study
Gertrude Baniszewski
In 1965, the parents of Sylvia Likens, age 16, and Jenny Likens, age 15, had found employment as
carnival workers. This required them to move around, so Gertrude Baniszewski, herself a mother
of seven, agreed to board the girls at her home in Indianapolis, Indiana, for $20 a week. When one
of the checks arrived late, Baniszewski lashed out at the Likens girls. This was followed by three
weeks of violent and sadistic attacks, especially on Sylvia. A number of Baniszewski’s seven
children, along with some neighborhood children, watched or joined in the torture. This was all
done under the supervision of Baniszewski. No one reported the abuse.1
Sylvia was burned with cigarettes numerous times; she was forced to dance naked in front of the
other children; she took baths in scalding water; and she was constantly beaten and starved. On
one horrible night, Baniszewski took a sewing needle and carved an “I” in Sylvia’s abdomen. She
then gave the needle to a neighbor boy and instructed him to spell the word “prostitute.”
A 1965 photograph of Sylvia Likens.
AP Photo/The Indianapolis Star
When the police arrived at Baniszewski’s home in October 1965, they found Sylvia lifeless. Her
emaciated corpse was covered with more than 150 wounds. Baniszewski was arrested along with
eight children ranging in age from 11 to 17 years. The children stated that they had participated in
the torture because “Gertie” told them to. In 1966, Baniszewski was convicted of first-degree
murder; her daughter, Paula, was convicted of second-degree murder; and the remaining offenders
were found guilty of lesser homicide charges.2
Think About It
1. Do we as a society perceive such offenses committed by a woman differently than similar
offenses committed by a man?
2. Do we initially ask, “How could a woman do that to another child?”
Introduction
Feminist criminology evolved as a result of various assumptions and
stereotypes about women in criminal justice coming under question. Such
questions concerned women as professionals, as well as women as offenders
and victims. This chapter begins with a brief history of feminism in the United
States. To understand feminist theories of crime, it is essential to bear in mind
that there is no one feminist perspective. Rather, there are various feminist
perspectives. Some of these feminist perspectives are discussed in the
subsequent section. Next, we discuss traditional theories of female crime,
followed by feminist critiques of previous research focusing on women. We
then present issues pertaining to understanding crime and criminal behavior
that have been raised in feminist research. Finally, we discuss policy and
program recommendations based on theories and research grounded in a
feminist perspective.
A Brief History of Feminism in the United States

Feminism is a belief that women and men are inherently of equal worth.
Because most societies privilege men as a group, social movements are
necessary to achieve equality between women and men, with the
understanding that gender always intersects with other social hierarchies.3
Most scholars contend that feminism has evolved in three major waves. The
first wave of feminism started in the mid-19th century when American
women demanded the right to vote.4 A major event associated with this first
wave occurred in 1848. About 300 women and men met in Seneca Falls, New
York. At the Seneca Falls Convention, these participants established a
“Declaration of Sentiments” as well as 12 resolutions. This declaration was
modeled after the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of
Sentiments stressed the need for reforms in marriage, divorce, property, and
child custody laws. A major criticism of this convention was that the focus
was primarily on white, upper-class women. Thus, working-class and black
women were essentially invisible.
first wave of feminism: started in the mid-19th century, when women demanded the right to
vote.
These “invisible” women, however, did contribute to the 19th-century
women’s rights movement. For instance, at an 1851 women’s rights
convention in Akron, Ohio,5 Sojourner Truth delivered an impromptu speech
that included her well-known question, “Ain’t I a woman?” Earlier that
evening, feminist views had been “taking a beating” in the debate. Eventually,
a man claimed that women needed to be protected with chivalrous acts. It was
at this time that Sojourner Truth rose and replied with her now famous
speech.6
The first wave of feminism peaked between 1870 and 1928. This time was
characterized by intense activity toward winning women the right to vote as
well as achieving educational and social reforms. While women from various
backgrounds were involved in these reforms, those who were particularly
involved in the antislavery and temperance movements worked together to
secure women the right to vote.7 With the passage of the Nineteenth
Amendment, which in 1920 legislated that right, many suffragists believed
that women had indeed become men’s equals.8
The second wave of feminism developed in the 1960s, when other

marginalized groups were also challenging the status quo (e.g., civil rights
activists, prisoners’ rights activists).9 Feminists of this wave argued that to be
fully liberated, women needed to have equal access to economic opportunities
and sexual freedoms as well as civil liberties. Some women advocated a
reformist, liberal agenda, whereas others pushed for a more revolutionary,
radical program of change and action.10 The liberal political perspective was
influenced by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which banned racial
discrimination as well as sex discrimination. The radical political perspective
was influenced by both the civil rights and student movements of the 1960s.11
second wave of feminism: developed in the 1960s, when other marginalized groups were
also challenging the status quo (e.g., in the civil rights movement and the prisoners’ rights
movement). Feminists of this wave argued that to be fully liberated, women needed to have
equal access to economic opportunities and sexual freedoms as well as civil liberties.
Many liberal feminists were joining emerging women’s rights groups such as
the National Organization for Women (NOW), the National Women’s Political
Caucus, and the Women’s Equity Action League. Most radical feminists were
involved with women’s liberation groups, which were much smaller and more
personally focused. Among these groups were the Women’s International
Terrorist Conspiracy from Hell (WITCH), the Redstockings, the Feminists,
and the New York Radical Feminists.12 It was in this social context, within
these emerging political perspectives, that feminist criminology began to
question assumptions and stereotypes concerning women in criminal justice.
This included women as professionals, as well as women as offenders and
victims.
Suffragists demonstrating in Chicago on October 20, 1916.
Everett Collection Inc/Alamy Stock Photo
The third wave of feminism evolved around the late 1980s. This wave of
feminism was an extension of, as well as a response to, the shortcomings of
the second wave.13 Some have maintained that this third wave coincided with
the birth of Generation X; in fact, the literature associated with the third wave
often describes younger women’s experiences of frustration with the second
wave of feminism.14 The one major theme of third-wave feminism is
willingness to accommodate difference, diversity, and change:
They seem to be feminist sponges, willing and able to absorb some

aspects of all the modes of feminist thought that preceded the third
wave’s emergence on the scene. Third-wave feminists are
particularly eager to understand how gender oppression and other
kinds of human oppression co-create and co-maintain each other . . .
[D]ifference is the way things are. Moreover, contradiction,
including self-contradiction, is expected and even willingly
welcomed.15
third wave of feminism: began around the late 1980s; was an extension of as well as a
response to the shortcomings of the second wave.
More than any other group of feminists, the third-wave feminist perspective
has provided a voice for many women who otherwise did not identify with
previous feminist perspectives, especially women of color.
Key Terms
Before we discuss the various feminist perspectives, it is essential to introduce
key terms associated with these perspectives. A few of these terms are sex,
gender, chivalry, paternalism, and patriarchy.
Differences between women and men have usually been identified as either
“sex” or “gender” differences. Sex differences typically refer to biological
characteristics, such as reproductive organs and hormones. Gender
differences usually refer to social definitions of what it means to be a
“woman” or a “man.” These social definitions may include appearance,
occupation, and other characteristics. It is confusing when the terms sex and
gender are used interchangeably; sometimes individuals will use these terms
imprecisely and assume that everyone understands the difference between sex
and gender.16
sex: sex differences typically refer to biological variations, such as reproductive organs and
hormones.
gender: gender usually refers to social definitions of what it means to be a “woman” or a

“man.”
West and Zimmerman illustrated the complexity of the concepts of sex and
gender by distinguishing between sex, sex category, and gender.17 As
mentioned above, sex is determined through the use of socially agreed on
biological criteria. An individual is located in a sex category by applying
socially determined criteria of sex. By applying these criteria, society has
defined sex as a binary category. Gender is not a set of characteristics, a
variable, or a role. Rather, gender is a product of social “doings,” constituting
activity considered appropriate for a person’s sex category. These activities are
determined through social constructions of sex and sex category. “Doing
gender” is a continuous activity embedded in everyday interactions. By
understanding the independence of these constructs, people can question
whether differences between women and men are due to sex or to social
constructions of gender.
Chivalry pertains to behaviors and attitudes toward certain individuals that

treat them as though they are on a pedestal.18 Chivalrous behavior is more
complex than just preferential treatment. Engaging in a chivalrous relationship
usually entails a bartering system in which men hold a more powerful status
than do women. Social class and race/ethnicity are also intertwined with such
treatment. Women of certain social classes and racial/ethnic backgrounds are
considered more worthy of chivalrous treatment than other women. This is
best illustrated by Sojourner Truth’s speech “Ain’t I a Woman?” The idea of
paternalism is that women need to be protected for their own good. In a
broad social context, paternalism implies independence for men and
dependence for women. Both chivalry and paternalism suggest that certain
individuals or groups need protection because they are weak and helpless.
This protection may also lead to various types of control.
chivalry: pertains to behaviors and attitudes toward certain individuals that treat them as
though they are on a pedestal.
paternalism: the idea that women need to be protected for their own good. In a broader
social context, paternalism implies independence for men and dependence for women.
The Latin word pater refers to the social role, as opposed to the biological
role, of a father. Patriarchal societies exclude women from the exercise of
political responsibilities; patriarchy refers to the subordinate role of women
and male dominance.19 Thus, patriarchy is a social, legal, and political climate
based on male dominance and hierarchy. A key aspect of this ideology is that
women’s nature is biologically, not culturally, determined.20
patriarchy: a social, legal, and political climate based on male dominance and hierarchy. A
key aspect of this ideology is that women’s nature is biologically, not culturally, determined.
Feminist Perspectives on Gender
As noted previously, it is essential to understand that there is no one feminist
perspective. Rather, there are various feminist perspectives. This section gives
readers a summary of these different perspectives of gender. These summaries
“are crude and oversimplified, but they offer a starting point for different ways
of conceptualizing gender in social and political theory.”21
Learning Check 12.1
1. _______________ is determined through the use of socially agreed on biological

criteria.
2. _______________ is a product of social “doings.”
3. Engaging in a _______________ relationship usually involves a bartering system in
which men hold a more powerful status than do women.
4. The idea of _______________ is that women need to be protected for their own good.
_______________ is a social, legal, and political climate founded on male dominance
and hierarchy.
The Traditional or Conservative Perspective

Kathleen Daly and Meda Chesney-Lind highlighted key features of the
traditional or conservative perspective. First, they maintained that from this
perspective, the causes of gender inequality are due to biological sex
differences, including hormonal differences (e.g., greater testosterone
production in males) or reproductive capacities (e.g., female child bearing and
lactation). Second, they identified the process of how gender is formed. The
conservative perspective stresses that social behavior is based on these
biological sex differences. These biological sex differences can be amplified
to explain social behavior, such as greater strength and innate aggression
among males as well as innate nurturing and caregiving among females.
Unlike the other feminist perspectives, the conservative perspective does not
offer any strategies for social change, since men’s and women’s behaviors
reflect evolutionary adaptations of sex differences.22
traditional or conservative perspective: causes of gender inequality are due to biological

sex differences, and social behavior is based on the biological sex differences; does not offer
any strategies for social change, since men’s and women’s behaviors reflect evolutionary
adaptations of sex differences.
Liberal Feminism
Liberal feminism, also termed mainstream feminism, is founded on political
liberalism, which holds a positive view of human nature as well as the ideals
of liberty, equality, justice, dignity, and individual rights. A major feature of
liberal feminism is that women should receive the same rights and treatment
as men.23 This perspective purports that gender inequality is due to women’s
blocked opportunities to participate in various aspects of the public sphere,
such as education, employment, and political activity.24 Strategies for social
change are devised to free women from oppressive gender roles—for instance,
performing only those jobs associated with the traditional feminine personality
(e.g., nursing, teaching, and child care).25
liberal feminism: one of the areas of feminist theories of crime that emphasize the
assumption that differences between males and females in offending are due to the lack of
opportunities for women in education, employment, etc., compared with men.
There are generally two types of liberal feminists: classical and welfare. Both
approaches rely a great deal on legal remedies to address gender inequality.
Classical liberal feminists support limited government and a free market, as
well as political and legal rights. Central facets of this approach are freedom
of expression, freedom of religion, and freedom of conscience. Welfare liberal
feminists favor government involvement in providing citizens, particularly
underprivileged individuals, with housing, education, health care, and social
security. They also maintain that the market should be limited through
significant taxes and restriction of profits.26
A major criticism of the liberal feminist perspective is that it primarily focuses

“on the interests of white, middle-class, heterosexual women.”27 Specifically,
within the area of feminist criminology, some argue that the liberal perspective
poses “men as the criminal yardstick.” This results in equating justice with
equality and not considering other influential standpoints, such as
race/ethnicity and social class.28 Joanne Belknap maintains that
prison reform for women would not be nearly as effective in
achieving equality with men’s prisons if the only goal was to allow
the same access to health care, vocational, educational, legal, and
treatment programs. While these would be significant advances, it is
also necessary to request reforms that address women prisoners’
experiences, needs, and histories that differ from male prisoners.29
Another area where the “equal treatment” doctrine is problematic is in

sentencing. Specifically, sentencing reforms aimed at reducing race- and class-
based disparities in sentencing for male offenders “may yield equality with a
vengeance” for female offenders.30 Thus, “equality defined as equal treatment
of men and women . . . forestalls more fundamental change and in some
instances may worsen women’s circumstances.”31
Radical Feminism
Radical feminism evolved from the women’s liberation movement of the
1960s. This perspective emphasizes the importance of personal feelings,
experiences, and relationships. Gender is a system of male dominance, and
women’s biology is the main cause of patriarchy.32
radical feminism: emphasizes the importance of personal feelings, experiences, and

relationships; gender is a system of male dominance, and women’s biology is the main cause
of patriarchy.
The cause of gender inequality, according to this perspective, is men’s need or

desire to control women’s sexuality and reproductive potential. Further, the
process of gender formation is founded on the power relations between men
and women, in which boys and men view themselves as superior to and
having a right to control girls and women. These relations are further
intensified through heterosexual sexuality, as defined by men.33
Radical feminists maintain, in principle, that sexism is the first, most

widespread form of human oppression. They do not, however, agree on the
nature or function of this sexism or on what strategies are needed for social
change. Rosemarie Tong identified two types of radical feminism: libertarian
and cultural.34 Radical-libertarian feminists assert that an exclusively feminine
gender identity will most often limit a woman’s development as a full human
person. They encourage women to become androgynous individuals who
embody both (good) masculine and (good) feminine characteristics. Radical-
cultural feminists argue that women should be strictly female/feminine. They
should not try to be like men. Women should emphasize such values and
virtues as interdependence, community, connection, sharing, emotion, body,
trust, absence of hierarchy, nature, immanence, process, joy, peace, and life.
Alternatively, women should not emphasize such values as independence,
autonomy, intellect, will, wariness, hierarchy, domination, culture,
transcendence, product, asceticism, war, and death.
Tong noted that this distinction, while not perfect,
helps explain not only why some radical feminists embrace the
concept of androgyny and others eschew it, but also why some
radical feminists view both sex and reproduction as oppressive, even
dangerous for women and why others view these aspects as
liberating, even empowering for women. . . . [R]adical feminists are
not afraid to take exception to each other’s views [italics added].35
Suggested strategies for social change among some radical feminists include
overthrowing patriarchal relations, developing methods of biological
reproduction to permit women’s sexual autonomy, and establishing women-
centered social institutions and women-only organizations. Other radical
feminists celebrate gender differences, particularly women’s special capacities
or talents; however, these feminists do not pose gender differences in the
framework of power relations.36
One of the criticisms of radical-libertarian and radical-cultural feminism is

that they need to reconcile the split between themselves in an effort to avoid
polarization, particularly in the area of sexuality. Even though radical-
libertarian feminists are hesitant about consensual heterosexuality, they
maintain that these relationships can be pleasurable for women. Radical-
cultural feminists warn against the dangers of heterosexuality and have
implied that there is no such thing as consensual heterosexuality. Thus,
according to this view, “only lesbians are capable of consensual sex in a
patriarchal society.”37 Citing Ann Ferguson, a socialist feminist, Tong noted
that there is no one universal “function” for human sexuality.38
Marxist and Socialist Feminism

Some scholars maintain that it is difficult to distinguish between Marxist
feminism and socialist feminism, particularly because these two
perspectives’ differences are more an issue of emphasis than of substance.39
Marxist feminism places gender in the context of production methods. The
burdens of physical and social reproduction in the home are operated and
reinforced in a male-dominated economic and political order.40 The causes of
gender inequality are due to hierarchical relations of control with the increase
of private property and ownership among men. Class relations are primary,
and gender relations are secondary.41 An insightful example of such gender
and class relations involves housework. Traditionally, housework has been
delegated to women; however, housework does not produce surplus value or
profit. Thus, some do not consider this labor. Van Hooff conducted semi-
structured interviews to examine dual-career heterosexual couples’
explanations and justifications for the division of housework that followed
more traditional gender roles. Table 12.1 provides some of these explanations
and justifications for both men and women. Marxist feminism focuses
essentially on work-related inequalities, as well as enhancing our
understanding of the trivialization of women’s work in the home (e.g., raising
children, doing housework) and the tedious, poorly paid jobs predominately
occupied by women.42 The General Social Survey reveals that when men and
women are asked who does most of the cleaning in the household, the
response is overwhelmingly one-sided (see Figure 12.1).
Marxist feminism: a perspective of crime that emphasizes men’s ownership and control of
the means of economic production; similar to critical or radical feminism but distinguished
by its reliance on the concept of economic structure.
socialist feminism: refers to feminist theories that moved away from economic structure
(e.g., Marxism) and focused on control of reproductive systems, stating that women should
take control of their own bodies and reproductive functions via contraceptives.
Women’s Liberation Movement protesters marching down Fifth
Avenue in New York in 1970.
Photos 12/Alamy Stock Photo
Table 12.1 Heterosexual Couples’ Explanations and

Justifications for the Division of Household Tasks
Table 12.1 Heterosexual Couples’ Explanations and Justifications for the
Division of Household Tasks
Females Males
It’s kind of ended up that I do

the cleaning and shit, and I
Ali would do most of it. We argue
don’t know how it happened,
about it quite a lot. It’s not fair,
but it’s like two years later I’m
really, I should do more.
a 1950s housewife or
something.
I don’t think it was really a

decision, but I am the cleaner in Well, I would clean, but by the time I
the relationship, just because get there Chloe’s already done it.
I’m better at it.
Females Males
I do it. It’s not something that Sara does do most of it, I’ve got to
we’ve ever discussed, I just sort admit, but it’s not because I think she
of have done it, and neither of should do it because she’s a woman,
us is sort of bold enough to it’s just because she’s got higher
bring it up now, so instead I just standards of cleanliness than me
do it. (laughs).
Source: van Hooff, J. H. (2011). Rationalising inequality: Heterosexual couples’ explanations and
justifications for the division of housework along traditionally gendered lines. Journal of Gender
Studies, 20, pp. 21–22.
Socialist feminism attempts to synthesize radical and Marxist feminism. This

perspective attempts to integrate concepts such as male domination and
political-economic relations. Social feminists focus on gender, class, and
racial relations of domination. They differ from Marxist feminists in that both
class and gender relations are deemed primary.43 Within the socialist feminism
perspective, there are two general themes: (1) two-system explanations of
women’s oppression and (2) interactive-system explanations of women’s
oppression. Under the two-system explanations, these emphases are less
committed to the Marxist-founded framework; they maintain that patriarchy,
not capitalism, may be women’s ultimate worst enemy.44 The interactive-
system explanations attempt to illustrate that both capitalism and patriarchy
are equal and interdependent contributors to women’s oppression. These
feminists use terms such as capitalist patriarchy or patriarchal capitalism.45
Figure 12.1 Who Does Household Cleaning Among Married

Persons 18–65?
Source: “Modern Family: Division of Labor, Perception, and Reality,”
Austin Institute, December 17, 2014. http://www.austin-
institute.org/research/modern-family-division-of-labor-perception-and-
reality.
Postmodern Feminism
Postmodern feminism is a more contemporary intellectual movement that
has been modified and adapted by feminist theory. This perspective rejects
traditional assumptions about truth and reality; the emphasis is more on the
plurality, diversity, and multiplicity of women as distinct from men.46 Tong
argues that the relationship between postmodernists and feminists is
“uneasy.”47 For instance, similar to all postmodernists, postmodern feminists
reject ideas centered on an absolute world that is “male” in style (e.g.,
phallogocentric). They also reject any attempts to provide a single explanation
or steps women must take to achieve liberation (i.e., a feminist “to-do list”).
Those who identify themselves as postmodern feminists “invite each woman
who reflects on their writings to become the kind of feminist she wants to be.
There is, in their estimation, no single formula for being a ‘good feminist.’”48
However, this emphasis on diversity, and “no single formula for being a ‘good
feminist,’” poses dilemmas for feminists:
The emphasis on diversity in postmodernism . . . ignores the need

for political entities . . . that can pursue collective political action on
women’s issues. If one calls for unity among women, one assumes
that women are an entity that has “essentially” the same interests. . .
. Thus, the marriage between postmodernism and feminism poses a
threat to the political agenda of feminists.49
postmodern feminism: a perspective that says women as a group cannot be understood,

even by other women, because every person’s experience is unique; therefore, there is no
need to measure or research such experiences.
One suggested solution is to adopt a stance of “positionality” or “both/and.”

An individual does not need to choose between the postmodern focus on
multiplicity and feminist politics. Rather, when a person is engaged in politics,
he or she can act as though women (or African Americans, or poor people) are
a group united around a similar cause or purpose. In other situations, however,
that person realizes and appreciates women’s (or other groups’) diversity.50
Learning Check 12.2
1. ______________ feminism has also been termed mainstream feminism.

2. According to the ______________ feminist perspective, gender is a system of male
dominance, and women’s biology is the main cause of patriarchy.
3. Some have maintained that there are two types of radical feminism: __________ and
______________.
4. The ______________ feminist perspective views class relations as primary and
gender relations as secondary.
5. The ______________ feminist perspective rejects traditional assumptions about truth
and reality and emphasizes the plurality, diversity, and multiplicity of women as
distinct from men.
Additional Feminist Perspectives

Additional feminist perspectives include ecofeminism as well as global and
postcolonial feminism. Ecofeminism was developed around the 1980s to
examine relations between environmental issues and women’s issues. It
sprang from the growing global environmental crisis. Ecofeminists perceive
domination—of women, minority groups, animals, and the Earth—as the
essential problem, rather than patriarchy.51 This perspective, however,
contains many varieties, such as nature ecofeminism, radical-cultural
ecofeminism, and spiritual ecofeminism.52
Global and postcolonial feminism emerged in the mid-1970s. This is an

international women’s movement founded in the commonalities of women’s
lives, such as low economic status. This perspective critically explores the
impact of development, patriarchal religions, international trafficking in
women, and the Westernization of the Third World.53 While feminists from
First World nations (i.e., those nations that are heavily industrialized, located
primarily in the Northern Hemisphere) are essentially interested in issues
revolving around sexuality and reproduction, a number of Third World
feminists (i.e., those in economically developing nations, located primarily in
the Southern Hemisphere) are concerned not only with gender issues but with
political and economic issues as well.54
In the next section, we provide a brief overview of the traditional theories of

female criminality. This context will provide readers with a better
understanding of the development of feminist criminology.
Traditional Theories of Female Crime

From antiquity to the present, cultures have categorized women into
“either/or” roles.55 One such pervasive conceptualization is the
Madonna/whore duality. This cultural ideology has been reflected and
perpetuated by the criminal justice system. It is grounded in two contrasting
perceptions of the female “nature” or sexuality. The Madonna image
personifies women as faithful and submissive wives, as well as nurturing
mothers. The whore image portrays women as temptresses who prey on a
man’s sexuality and self-control. Inherent in this dichotomization are class and
racial/ethnic assumptions. The Madonna image was primarily restricted to
women from white, middle- to upper-class backgrounds.56
V. D. Young determined that black women have not experienced this
“good/bad” dichotomy.57 Rather, stereotypes of black women have essentially
been all “bad.” Young attempted to identify the gender role characterizations
that have been attributed to black women. For instance, the characterization of
the black woman as a matriarch has revealed two negative images—the
Amazon (domineering, strong, assertive, independent, and masculine) and the
sinister Sapphire (dangerous, castrating, and treacherous toward black men).
Another instance of contradictory images is founded on myths concerning a
black woman’s sexuality—mammy (long-suffering, patient, nurturing, and
asexual) and seductress (loose, immoral, and sexually depraved).58 Young
argued that black women in American society have been victimized by their
double status as blacks and as women. Specifically, discussions of blacks have
focused on the black man, and discussions of females have focused on the
white woman. Rather than being considered as a primary focus, black women
have been on the periphery of understanding in terms of their position relative
either to black men or to white women. Thus, “these images have influenced
the way in which black female victims and offenders have been treated by the
criminal justice system.”59
This photo of a Victorian woman illustrates what is referred to as

the cult of true womanhood.
Archive Image/Alamy Stock Photo
Another pervasive cultural perception is “femininity.” The concept of

femininity is made up of various traits, such as gentleness, sensitivity,
nurturance, and passivity. Comparatively, traits associated with masculinity
include intelligence, aggressiveness, independence, and competitiveness.60
These conceptualizations become problematic when such traits are assumed to
be inherent to an individual’s sex or are considered as “biological fact.”61
Gender roles guided by concepts of femininity and masculinity are considered
to be sex-linked behaviors as well as traits.62 Related to the conceptualization
of femininity was the cult of true womanhood. The attributes of true
womanhood comprised four virtues: piety, purity, submissiveness, and
domesticity.63
Theories of female criminality emerged within this cultural context and the
prevailing assumptions regarding women (e.g., the Madonna/whore duality,
femininity, and the cult of true womanhood). When contextualized, the
development of such theoretical constructs illustrates that “those women who
do commit offenses are judged to be either criminal by nature or pathological
because they deviate from the ‘true’ biologically determined nature of women
which is to be law abiding.”64 Nichole Rafter Hahn argued that a woman was
usually deemed “bad”—because she was loosening not only her morals and
values but also those of her mate and descendants—if she had one of the
following characteristics: (1) she was indecisive and lacked “moral fortitude,”
(2) she was promiscuous, or (3) she was simply irresponsible.65
Let us now briefly review some early theories of female crime that reflect and
incorporate these negative perceptions. Specifically, we will discuss the views
and work of Cesare Lombroso, William I. Thomas, Sigmund Freud, and Otto
Pollak.
Cesare Lombroso: Physical Attributes of Female

Offenders
One of the earliest theorists focusing on the female offender was Cesare
Lombroso, the aforementioned father of criminology (1836–1909).66 In his
book The Female Offender, Lombroso emphasized the physiological and
psychological determinants of female criminality, rather than socializing
factors or social-structural constraints.67 For instance, Lombroso summarized
some of the anomalies associated with prostitutes and other female offenders.
He noted that prostitutes essentially do not have any wrinkles but are more
likely to have moles, hairiness, large jaws and cheekbones, and anomalous
teeth (see Table 12.2). According to Lombroso, women who committed
homicides often had cranial depressions as well as prominent cheekbones.
Table 12.2 An Example of Lombroso’s Summary Data Collected

on Female Offenders—Wrinkles
Table 12.2 An Example of Lombroso’s Summary Data Collected on Female
Offenders—Wrinkles
14 to 24 years 25 to 49 years 50 years and over
Normal Criminal Normal Criminal Normal Criminal
54. 20. 72. 41. 32. 9.
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
Deep frontal,
horizontal 9.2 25 41.7 53.6 90.6 88.8
wrinkles
Deep
frontovertical 1.8 – 6.9 7.3 40.6 71
wrinkles
Crow’s-feet 5 12.5 20 33 78 88.8
Wrinkles
under the 1.8 – 15 14.6 46.6 44.4
eyelids
14 to 24 years 25 to 49 years 50 years and over
Normal Criminal Normal Criminal Normal Criminal
54. 20. 72. 41. 32. 9.
Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent Percent
Nasolabial
25.9 25 69.5 63.3 96.7 100
wrinkles
Zygomatic
– – 5.5 12.2 28.1 22.2
wrinkles
Goniomental
– 25 36.1 31.7 53.1 44
wrinkles
Labial
– – 6.9 12.2 28.1 44
wrinkles
Source: Lombroso, C. (1898). The female offender. New York, NY: Appleton, p. 72.
Lombroso implemented a typology for female offenders similar to his one for
male offenders (see Chapter 5). He begins the chapter “The Born Criminal” by
citing sexist comments such as the following Italian proverb: “Rarely is a
woman wicked, but when she is she surpasses the man.”68 Other traits of this
born criminal include a lack of the maternal instinct (which was regarded as a
biological trait) as well as an excessive desire for revenge, cruelty, greed and
avarice, love of dress and ornaments, a lack of religious feeling, and
untruthfulness. When summarizing traits of the occasional criminal,
Lombroso notes that occasional offenders can be divided into two classes—
one that includes the milder types of born criminals and another that differs
only slightly from the normal, or “consisting of normal women in whom
circumstances have developed the fund of immorality which is latent in every
female.”69 Although “biological determinism” has been refuted, this
perspective is entrenched in some theories of female criminality. For instance,
while more sophisticated and technical, this biological determinism is evident
in premenstrual syndrome explanations of female crime.70
William I. Thomas: The Biology of Female

Offending
William I. Thomas (1863–1947) argued that there are basic biological
differences between males and females. For instance, maleness is “katabolic,”
which denotes the animal force that uses the destructive release of energy,
resulting in the potential for creative work. Femaleness is “anabolic,” which
denotes motionless, lethargic, and conservative energy.71 Thus, females were
seen as passive and motionless, while males were seen as active and
dynamic.72 In his subsequent work, Thomas focused on female delinquency.
This work was noted for a transition from physiological explanations to more
sophisticated theoretical explanations that incorporate physiological as well as
psychological and social-structural explanations.73
Thomas maintained that humans essentially have four desires: (1) the desire
for new experience, (2) the desire for security, (3) the desire for response, and
(4) the desire for recognition.74 The desire for new experience and the desire
for response were the two wishes that influenced criminal behavior. Therefore,
Thomas argued that a woman who went into prostitution did so to satisfy a
desire for excitement and response; for a woman, prostitution was the option
most likely to satisfy those needs.75 Environmental factors were also
incorporated in Thomas’s work. For instance, he maintained that “when crime
and prostitution appear as professions they are the last and most radical
expressions of loss of family and community organization.”76
Sigmund Freud: Female Inferiority

Many early theories of female deviance embraced the psychoanalytic writings
of Sigmund Freud (1856–1939). Many of these theories evolved from two key
concepts: (1) the structure of the personality and (2) the psychosexual stages
of development of the child.77 Freud perceived women as anatomically
inferior—biologically destined to be wives and mothers. The basis for this
inferiority was that women’s sex organs are inferior to men’s sex organs.
Further, according to Freud, a girl assumes that she has lost her penis as a
punishment; as a result of this assumption, she is traumatized and matures
with a sense of envy and vengeance. The boy also realizes that the girl has lost
her penis; he fears a similar punishment and is wary of the girl’s envy and
vengeance. Thus, “women are exhibitionistic, narcissistic, and attempt to
compensate for their lack of a penis by being well dressed and physically
beautiful.”78 The Freudian orientation is not just restricted to this form of
penis envy for understanding female deviant behavior. Freud also maintained
that women are inferior because they are more concerned with personal
matters than are men and have very little interest in social issues.79
Within this perspective, a deviant woman is essentially attempting to be a

man. Such a woman is forcefully rebellious. This drive to accomplishment is
due to her longing for a penis. Since this drive will never be fulfilled, the
result is that the woman will become “neurotic.” According to the Freudian
orientation, the best way to treat such a woman is to help her adjust to her
normal sex role. Thus, this reflects “the notion of individual accommodation
that repudiates the possibility of social change.”80
Otto Pollak: Hidden Female Criminality

In his 1950 book The Criminality of Women, Otto Pollak’s concluding
statement was that “the criminality of women reflects their biological nature in
a given cultural setting.”81 Pollak argued that women are more criminal in
nature than many have generally perceived. He suggested that criminologists
address the following three questions:
1. Are those crimes in which women seem to participate exclusively, or to a

considerable extent, offenses that are known to be greatly underreported?
2. Are women offenders generally less often detected than are men
offenders?
3. Do women, if apprehended, meet with more leniency than do men?82
This unknown criminality is essentially due to women’s deceitful nature and

the “masked” quality of female criminality. Pollak maintained that “the
criminality of women is largely masked criminality.”83
Pollak supported his theory of “hidden” criminality by noting such factors as
the relative weakness of a woman, which makes deceit necessary as a defense;
that all oppressed classes use subversion as a common tactic; that a woman’s
socialization teaches her to conceal many things, such as menstruation,
aggression, and marital frustration; and that the biology of the female enables
her to deceive (i.e., she can fake an orgasm, while a man cannot).84
Man must achieve an erection in order to perform the sex act and
will not be able to hide his failure. His lack of positive emotion in
the sexual sphere must become overt to the partner, and pretense of
sexual response is impossible for him, if it is lacking. Woman’s
body, however, permits such pretense to a certain degree and lack of
orgasm does not prevent her ability to participate in the sex act.85
While Pollak did consider biological factors, he incorporated sociological

factors as well. Like the other theorists we have discussed above, however,
these sociological factors were based on assumptions and prejudices.86
In her classic essay on female crime, Dorie Klein revealed that theorists such
as Lombroso, Thomas, Freud, and Pollak focused primarily on women’s
biology (i.e., their sexuality) or some type of psychological problem. Klein
argued that these theorists focused on women’s sexuality or other stereotypical
traits, such as manipulation, to explain criminal behavior. They did not,
however, examine economic, political, or social factors that provide a more
comprehensive understanding of female criminality.87
Learning Check 12.3
1. According to ______________, the criminality of women is primarily due to their

ability to mask or hide their criminal behavior.
2. ______________ maintained that women are inferior to men; this is primarily due to
women’s sex organs being inferior to men’s sex organs.
3. Lombroso’s theory has been designated as ______________ determinism.
4. According to Thomas, maleness is “katabolic” and femaleness is ______________.
Feminist Critiques of Previous Studies of Women
and Crime
Feminist scholars have argued that science reflects the social values and
concerns of dominant societal groups.88 Subsequently, research in the social
sciences has often ignored women and issues of concern to women, or it has
created differences between women and men, girls and boys that are not
“natural, essential, or biological.”89 Studies of women and crime have also
been either marginalized or “invisible.”90 In 1977, Carole Smart noted that
while women had not been entirely ignored in the study of crime and
deviance, the quality of work was questionable at best. She stressed the
importance of contextualizing female criminality within a broader framework:
moral, political, economic, and sexual spheres.91
Does society view female offenders differently than male

offenders?
© iStockphoto.com/Milan Markovic
From a critical, feminist perspective, Ngaire Naffine conducted an extensive

review of the literature pertaining to female criminality. Her review examined
such theoretical perspectives as strain theory, differential association,
masculinity theory, the Control School, labeling theory, and the women’s
liberation thesis (discussed below).92 With the exception of the women’s
liberation thesis, female criminality was rarely a major focus of these various
theoretical perspectives. In fact, these theories were primarily based on adult
and juvenile male offenders. If female criminality was mentioned, in most
instances these explanations were founded on sexist assumptions and biases.
It is essential to understand that the inclusion of women does not necessarily
imply that the study is using a feminist framework. To illustrate this point,
feminists note that research using either an “add-and-stir” approach or a sex
roles approach do not incorporate key feminist concepts:
1. Add women and stir. One approach to eliminating the “male-

centeredness” (i.e., androcentrism) of traditional analyses is the “add-
and-stir” approach. That is, one uses an existing theoretical perspective
based on men and “adds” women. Feminists argue, however, that if one
merely “adds women and stirs” in a perspective or schema established by
an androcentric analysis, the experiences of women will be marginalized
or ignored. Women’s experiences would then be located “as compared to
men’s” perspective. Many scholars contend that a great deal of
criminological research incorporates this approach. Thus, although
women are not necessarily invisible, their experiences and representation
are infrequent and distorted.93
2. Sex roles. Another approach to conducting research on women has been
to focus on the social construction of sex roles, currently referred to as
gender roles.94 Research using this approach has been criticized
primarily because there is a tendency to perceive these roles as being
almost sex-linked, without incorporating the context in which these roles
have been defined or “determined.” This approach can lead to a form of
biological determinism, due to the limited explanation or theoretical
understanding of the conceptualization of roles.95 (The “Why Do They
Do It?” section in this chapter further illustrates this idea of “the
conceptualization of roles” as related to a sex offender.) Candace West
and Don Zimmerman proposed that it is essential to move beyond this
approach of sex role, or gender role, studies. Instead, the focus of
research should be “what is involved in doing gender as an ongoing
activity embedded in everyday interaction.”96
The first of the modern gender-based perspectives on crime tried to

understand female criminality rather than provide a more gender-sensitive
approach to criminal behavior. The liberation thesis is one example of such a
theoretical perspective. Another example of a gender-based perspective is
John Hagan’s power-control theory (introduced in Chapter 10). While this is
not a feminist theory, it is an integrated theory informed by feminism.97
add women and stir: when one uses an existing theoretical perspective based on males and
“adds” women.
sex roles: research using the sex-role approach has been criticized, primarily because of the
tendency to perceive these roles as being almost sex-linked, without incorporating the context
in which these roles have been defined, leading to a form of biological determinism.
The Liberation Thesis

The liberation thesis, also referred to as the emancipation hypothesis,
attempted to link the women’s liberation movement with rising female crime
rates during the 1960s and 1970s. Two predominant explanations were (1) the
increased opportunities for women to participate in the labor force and, thus,
increased opportunities to commit certain types of crime and (2) the changing
self-concept and identity of women and girls due to the consciousness-raising
aspects of the movement.98 Two often-cited scholars of this perspective are
Freda Adler and Rita Simon. It is essential to stress that these perspectives
were offered during the second wave of feminism. Thus, they were influenced
by what was occurring in the broader social context of that time (e.g., the civil
rights movement).
liberation thesis: also referred to as the emancipation hypothesis; attempts to link the
women’s liberation movement with female crime rates.
Applying Theory to Crime Female Sex Offenders
According to the Uniform Crime Reports, a total of 2,234 females were arrested for sex
offenses in 2017 (excluding rape and prostitution).99 Sex offenses were defined as
“[o]ffenses against chastity, common decency, morals, and the like. Incest, indecent
exposure, and statutory rape are included. Attempts are included.” Below are a few reports of
female teachers who were arrested for sexually abusing their students:
Dawn Diimmler, an assistant principal at Airport High School, admitted that she had
an inappropriate relationship with a student. Diimmler apologized to the student’s
mother; she stated that she was in love with him.100
Joy Morsi, a Queens, New York, gym teacher, was charged with having sex with two
underage students. She pleaded guilty to one count each of rape and criminal sexual
act charges. She was ordered to attend an outpatient program for a diagnosed
depressive disorder and sentenced to 10 years of probation.101
Alexandria Vera, an English teacher at a Texas middle school, was accused of sexually
abusing a 13-year-old boy; she later turned herself in to authorities. Vera, who claimed
that she and the boy were in love, was charged with the continuous sexual abuse of a
child.102
Brianna Altice, a high-school English teacher in Utah, was accused of having sexual
relationships with three of her students; one boy was 16 years old and the other two
boys were 17 years old. To avoid prosecution on first-degree felony charges, she
pleaded guilty to 3 counts of forcible sexual abuse.103
In 2007, journalist Robert Tanner wrote a national article about the unequal treatment of and
attitudes toward male versus female victims of sex offenses by teachers.
A 17-year-old girl in upstate New York is forced into sex by a male teacher.
Instead of sympathy, the student gets harassed for causing trouble for a popular
teacher, threatened and pushed around by other girls. Just six weeks before
graduation, she quits school.
A 17-year-old boy in Colorado is seduced by his attractive female teacher. A

neighbor tells the teen’s mom it was a sexual conquest, like “climbing Mount
Everest.” He has to hide from the crush of media attention.
They are crimes and abuses, but often they’re treated as entertainment. Girls are
pressed into the role of seducer or naive victim. Boys are seen as studs. Sexual
misconduct by teachers is remarkably common in American schools, an Associated
Press investigation found. But how Americans react to it is deeply split, depending
on the victim’s gender.104
Franca Cortoni and her colleagues conducted a meta-analysis of female sexual offenders
based on 17 samples from 12 countries. Their study showed that about 2% of the sexual
offenses reported to law enforcement were committed by females; however, victimization
surveys revealed higher rates of occurrence, recording that 12% of sexual offenses were
committed by females. Thus, it appears that those individuals who are sexually victimized by
female perpetrators are less likely to report the offense to law enforcement. In conclusion, the
researchers noted that the “[p]olice and the courts should recognize that while not as
widespread as male sexual offending, female sexual offending cannot be minimized as an
aberration with little or no consequences for victims or society.”105
Think About It
1. Some would argue that Diimmler, Morsi, Vera, and Altice do not fit the stereotype of a
sex offender. Do you think they are sex offenders?
2. Do some people view male sex offenders differently than they view female sex
offenders?
In her 1975 book Sisters in Crime, Freda Adler argued that as women continue
to strive for equality with men, they will also have more opportunities to
commit crimes that were previously unavailable to them due to occupational
discrimination:
Women are closing many of the gaps, social and criminal, that have
separated them from men. The closer they get, the more alike they
look and act. . . . The simplest and most accurate way to grasp the
essence of women’s changing patterns is to discard dated notions of
femininity. That is a role that fewer and fewer women are willing to
play. In the final analysis, women criminals are human beings who
have basic needs and abilities and opportunities. Over the years
these needs have not changed, nor will they. But women’s abilities
and opportunities have multiplied, resulting in a kaleidoscope of
changing patterns whose final configuration will be fateful for all of
us.106
As the position of women becomes similar to that of men, this will result in
women obtaining not only legitimate opportunities in the labor force but
illegitimate opportunities as well.107
In her book Women and Crime, also published in 1975, Rita Simon proposed a
similar argument.108 She differed from Adler, however, with respect to the
types of crime that would be influenced by the women’s movement. Adler
predicted that due to women’s liberation, the violent crime rate among women
would increase. Simon suggested that only property crime rates among
women would increase and that violent crime rates among women would, in
fact, decrease because women’s frustrations would lessen as they were
provided more opportunities in employment and education.109
Ngaire Naffine outlined the assumptions of the women’s liberation theory:
1. The liberation movement can be linked to an increase in female crime.

2. The increase in female crime is a function of women becoming more
masculine.
3. These increases in female crime are due to women becoming actively
competitive with men.110
There are various problems with these assumptions, including the assumption
about the relation between enhanced structural opportunities and the increase
in women’s offending rates. Statistics have revealed that women have not
achieved equality in those high-paying and managerial professions.111 There
have been additional criticisms of the liberation thesis, including the
manipulation of statistics in attempts to support the assumption that gender
equality “produces” increases in crime rates among women.112
Power-Control Theory
John Hagan and his colleagues developed power-control theory,
incorporating a conflict-oriented theory with social-control theory.113 The
power-control theory attempted to explain gender differences in delinquency
rates by including family dynamics. Specifically, Hagan argued that youths
from families characterized as patriarchal (i.e., where the mother has lower
status than the father) revealed greater gender differences in delinquency rates
compared with youths from more egalitarian homes (i.e., where the parents
have the same status or there is only one parent in the home; see Figure 12.2).
power-control theory: an integrated theory of crime that assumes that, in households where
the mother and father have relatively similar levels of power at work, mothers will be less
likely to exert control over daughters, and in households where mothers and fathers have
dissimilar levels of power in the workplace, mothers will be more likely to suppress criminal
activity in daughters than in sons.
The argument was that female youths from more egalitarian families were
encouraged to engage in risk-taking behaviors—just as their brothers were.
Risk-taking behavior is considered to be related to delinquent behavior.
Alternatively, female youths from patriarchal families were encouraged to
avoid risk-taking behavior—unlike their brothers. Thus, these female youths
were less likely to engage in delinquent behavior.
An integral aspect of the relationship between family dynamics, gender, and

delinquency rates was social class. Hagan and his colleagues stressed the
importance of class structure in the relationship between gender and
delinquency. While in all classes males are freer to engage in delinquent
behavior than females, males in more powerful classes are even freer to
engage in such behavior than are males in less powerful classes.114 As a result,
individuals—especially those from various social classes—experience power
relationships in the larger society differently. Specifically, “the social
reproduction of gender relations” refers to those activities, institutions, and
relationships that are involved in maintaining and reinforcing gender roles.
These activities include those individuals responsible for caring for,
protecting, and socializing children for their adult roles. According to this
theoretical perspective, family class structure shapes the social reproduction of
gender relations, which then influences rates of delinquency.115 These power
relationships in the larger society are reflected in the family relationships.
Evaluations of power-control theory reveal inconsistent findings;116 some
have maintained that power-control theory is just a variation of the liberation
thesis (i.e., the mother’s liberation causes the daughter’s criminal behavior).117
Figure 12.2 Causal Model of Gender and Delinquency
Source: Hagan, J., Gillis, A. R., & Simpson, J. (1985). The class structure
of gender and delinquency: Toward a power-control theory of common
delinquent behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 1157. Reprinted
with permission from the University of Chicago Press.
Feminist Perspectives on Understanding Crime and

Criminal Behavior
In 1987, Sandra Harding asked the question, “What’s new in feminist
analyses?” She provided three characteristics or features that distinguish
feminist research.118 The first feature is that the empirical and theoretical
bases emanate from women’s experiences. These bases, or resources,
question, as well as challenge, traditional understandings of what has been
considered human activity, as defined by white, European, middle-class men.
By examining women’s experiences, various issues are raised that contradict
traditional research. The second feature of feminist analyses was the new
purpose for women, whereas traditional analyses have primarily been for men.
Research questions and answers are not part of efforts “to pacify, control,
exploit, or manipulate women.” Furthermore, this research is implemented to
meet the needs of women and to understand, as well as voice, their
experiences. The final characteristic of feminist research, according to
Harding, is locating the researcher in the same critical plane as the subject
matter. Harding initiated this discussion by stressing that the sources of social
power need to be examined. Specifically, she provided an example of how
numerous studies have focused on the “peculiar mental and behavior
characteristics” of women. Only recently, however, have there been studies on
the “bizarre mental and behavioral characteristics of psychiatrists.”119
Feminist scholars have raised various concerns with traditional research

methods. Below, we briefly discuss two of these issues: (1) objectivity and
subjectivity and (2) qualitative “versus” quantitative analyses.
Why Do They Do It?
Lavinia Fisher
During the early 1800s, Lavinia Fisher and her husband, John Fisher, operated the Six Mile
Wayfarer House, a hotel six miles outside of Charleston, South Carolina. After a time, men
visiting Charleston started going missing—all after staying at the Six Mile Wayfarer House.
After receiving numerous reports of these missing men, authorities initiated an investigation.
But given the couple’s popularity and the lack of evidence, it was halted.
The local townspeople, however, were not satisfied and assembled a group of vigilantes, who
attempted to stop the activities occurring at the hotel. Apparently, they were satisfied with
their endeavors and returned to Charleston. At around the same time, John Peeples was
traveling from Georgia to Charleston. He stopped at the Six Mile Wayfarer House to see if
they had an available room. Lavinia greeted Mr. Peeples and informed him they did not have
a room but invited him to tea and dinner. Mr. Peeples was attracted to Lavinia’s beauty and
charm. She asked him numerous questions. After some time, she informed Mr. Peeples that a
room was available. During this time, Lavinia kept pouring tea for him; he did not like tea,
but rather than appearing rude by refusing the tea, he poured it out when she was not looking.
Soon, Mr. Peeples grew uncomfortable. He noticed that Lavinia’s husband, John, was
shooting him odd glances while he talked to Lavinia; also, Mr. Peeples was worried that he
had provided Lavinia with too much information and thought he might be a target for
robbery. So he decided to rest in the chair by the door rather than in the bed. Later in the
evening, he was awakened by a loud noise. He realized that the bed he should have been
sleeping in had disappeared into a deep hole in the floor. Mr. Peeples jumped out the window
and quickly informed the authorities. The police arrested John and Lavinia Fisher along with
two men working with them. The police thoroughly searched the Six Mile Wayfarer House,
uncovering hidden passages, items that could be linked to various travelers who had been
reported missing, tea laced with an herb that puts a person to sleep, a mechanism that opened
the floorboards underneath the bed, and almost 100 sets of human remains in the basement.
On February 18, 1820, the Fishers were hanged in Charleston.
Think About It
Some have considered Lavinia Fisher to be the first known female serial killer in the United
States.
1. Why was Lavinia Fisher involved with robbing and murdering men visiting the Six
Mile Wayfarer House?
2. Is there a biological explanation? Perhaps a psychological explanation? Or are there
other factors that one should consider in explaining Lavinia Fisher’s criminal activity?
Source: South Carolina legends: Lavinia Fisher—First female American serial killer.
Retrieved from http://www.legendsofamerica.com/sc-laviniafisher.html; See also Orr, B.
(2010). Six miles to Charleston: The true story of John and Lavinia Fisher. Charleston, SC:
History Press.
Objectivity and Subjectivity

Objectivity refers to being “neutral,” “value free,” or “unbiased.” Feminist
scholars challenge research claims of objectivity. In fact, they maintain that
such claims are tautological; “value free” (i.e., objective) research is a value.
Furthermore, feminist scholars argue that the standards of objectivity are
founded on biases established by, and for, individuals of privilege. Science
and its practice are influenced by the values and experiences of its
practitioners.120 These practitioners are primarily from privileged
backgrounds (i.e., white, middle-class males);121 thus, androcentric and sexist
biases are implicit in the standards they implement for conducting scientific
research.122 In the context of feminist jurisprudence, Catharine MacKinnon
noted that “objectivity—the nonsituated, universal standpoint, whether
claimed or aspired to—is a denial of the existence or potency of sex inequality
that tacitly participates in constructing reality from the dominant point of
view.”123
objectivity: refers to being “neutral,” “value free,” or “unbiased.” Feminist scholars

challenge research claims of objectivity.
Carolyn Wood Sherif also challenged “objective” research.124 Her criticisms

were primarily directed toward psychological research, but the issues that she
raised can be directed to various types of social-science research. She pointed
out that biases can occur at many points in the research process, including
when establishing what to study, how to study the participants, and which
behaviors or attitudes of the participants will be observed or ignored:
The opportunity starts when a researcher decides what to study and

it continues to widen during decisions about how to study the
subject. . . . The researcher decides, of course, often in highly
arbitrary ways dictated by custom in previous research, not by what
the person does or is doing in daily life. . . . The researcher makes
all of these decisions, often forgetting at times that he or she is a
human being who is part of the research situation too.125
Feminist researchers acknowledge their biases and argue that other researchers
need to do so as well. “In doing so, the false idealization of objectivity and the
criticisms of subjectivity become meaningless and irrelevant.”126
Qualitative “Versus” Quantitative Analyses

On the surface, the major distinction between these two types of analyses
appears to be how the data are represented: qualitative is nonnumerical, and
quantitative is numerical. But feminist researchers have raised questions
regarding qualitative and quantitative methods. Toby Epstein Jayaratne and
Abigail J. Stewart noted that quantitative methods translate individuals’
experiences into predefined categories designated by the researchers. This
method distorts women’s experiences and results in “silencing women’s own
voices.”127 Those scholars advocating qualitative methods maintain that
women’s understandings, emotions, and actions must be explored in those
women’s own terms.
qualitative: nonnumerical research methods; often compared with quantitative research

methods.
quantitative: numerical research methods; often compared with qualitative research

methods.
Researchers advocating quantitative methods maintain that although these

methods can be, and have been, used to distort women’s experiences, they
need not be. As this discourse continues, emphasizing only qualitative
methods for feminist research has also been critiqued. For instance, Jacquelyn
White and Richard Farmer conducted a study on sexual violence and
implemented a multiple-strategic approach. They argued that it is essential to
recognize that both the qualitative and quantitative methods have strengths
and weaknesses:
Empirical analytic methods cannot help us know the

phenomenological experiences of a beautiful sunset, nor can we
know the phenomenological experience of a rape survivor using
traditional research paradigms. Conversely, subjective reports shed
little light on the incidence and prevalence of sexual assault. There
is, however, much that can be learned from both subjective methods
and traditional scientific approaches when applied to the study of
sexual aggression and victimization.128
It is essential to note that issues relevant to these types of research methods

have been “politicized”—specifically, one method (i.e., quantitative) being
deemed more “scientific” than the other (i.e., qualitative). However, one
method is not “inherently” superior to the other; rather, these methods are only
different approaches to understanding reality.
Feminist Criminology
Feminist criminology evolved, primarily from liberal feminists, with the
realization and objection that gender was essentially ignored and excluded
from criminological theory.129 This exclusion was difficult to understand,
given that gender was such a strong predictor of criminal behavior.130 Further,
feminists recognized the limitations of critical and radical criminological
perspectives, given the primary focus on economic disparities without
examining the issues of race and gender. Thus, “early feminist criminologists
demanded that analyses of crime include consideration of gender in ways that
had not occurred before.”131 Twenty years after her essay on female crime,
Dorie Klein included an afterword; she maintained that feminist
criminologists need to address three major challenges:
1. continue to search for the scientific basis of theories of men’s and

women’s criminal behavior,
2. reexamine gender and racial/ethnic biases in the social sciences, and
3. develop a new definition of crime.132
Joanne Belknap gave an overview of the potential of various traditional

criminological theories to provide insight into gender differences and
similarities. Some of the traditional criminological theories that do have some
promise in this area of understanding include differential association theory
and strain and general strain theory.133
In 1988, Kathleen Daly and Meda Chesney-Lind identified the following five
elements that distinguish feminist thought from other forms of social and
political thought:
1. Gender is not a natural fact but a complex social, historical, and cultural
product; it is related to, but not simply derived from, biological sex
differences and reproductive capacities.
2. Gender and gender relations order social life and social institutions in
fundamental ways.
3. Gender relations are constructs of masculinity and femininity and are not
symmetrical but are based on an organizing principle of men’s superiority
and social and political-economic dominance over women.
4. Systems of knowledge reflect men’s views of the natural and social
world; the production of knowledge is gendered.
5. Women should be at the center of intellectual inquiry, not peripheral,
invisible, or appendages to men.134
When addressing whether there can be a feminist criminology, Daly and
Chesney-Lind maintained that feminist theories and research should be
incorporated in any criminologist’s study of crime. Incorporating such
perspectives entails more than just a focus on women or sexism. Rather, these
approaches provide an opportunity to study unexplored aspects of men’s crime
and forms of justice, as well as forms of theory construction and verification.
Thus, they argued that the promise of feminist thought has barely been
realized.135
Almost 20 years after Daly and Chesney-Lind’s article on feminist

criminology, Amanda Burgess-Proctor argued that for contemporary third-
wave feminist criminologists, it is essential to build on the foundation laid by
previous feminist criminologists.136 Specifically, feminist criminology needs
to embrace all sources of oppression without prioritizing gender. Thus,
feminist criminology should incorporate an intersectional framework,
informed by multiracial feminism, which includes such defining social
characteristics as race, class, gender, sexuality, nationality, and age.137
multiracial feminism: an intersectional framework that includes such defining social

characteristics as race, class, gender, sexuality, nationality, and age.
One feminist framework that has been used to explore the experiences of
women in the criminal justice system is pathways research:
A feminist approach to understanding the etiology of females’ (and

sometimes males’) offending is termed by some as “pathways to
crime.” . . . [T]his approach attempts to determine life experiences,
particularly childhood ones, that place one at risk of offending. The
pathways research indicates that traumas such as physical and
sexual abuse and child neglect are not only defining features in the
lives of many female offenders, but also these traumas are often
related to one’s likelihood of committing crimes.138
pathways research: typically collects data, usually through interviews, at a particular point
in time to provide retrospective inquiry as to an individual’s life and life experiences.
Whereas life-course research collects longitudinal data over the course of an
individual’s life, pathways research typically collects data, usually through
interviews, at a single point in time to provide retrospective inquiry as to an
individual’s life and his or her life experiences.139 Some feminists have argued
that the pathways perspective has provided researchers with a greater
understanding of how a woman’s offending is influenced by the social
conditions of her life as well as by her being a woman in a patriarchal
society.140
Recently, a growing area of research has been using the pathways framework.
Barbara Owen conducted what she termed a “quasi-ethnography” of women
incarcerated in the Central California Women’s Facility.141 This methodology
included in-depth interviews with these women, as well as detailed
observations of everyday life. When inquiring about these women’s lives prior
to prison, Owen identified three key issues that were central pathways to their
incarceration—(1) multiplicity of abuse in their pre-prison lives; (2) family
and personal relationships, especially those involving male partners and
children; and (3) their spiraling marginality and subsequent criminality.142 A
majority of these incarcerated women had experienced physical, sexual, and
emotional abuse. In addition, many had abused drugs and alcohol. Many had
experienced poverty, as well as early parenthood. The spiraling marginality
shared by many of these women included limited educational and vocational
preparation, which resulted in a lack of employment opportunities. Owen
concluded her book by noting that “this description of the lives of women in
prison then is offered as a starting point for constructive dialogue and public
policy concerning the lives and experiences of women on their own terms.”143
Other research incorporating a pathways perspective has focused on women

incarcerated in an Iranian prison;144 transferring female juveniles to adult
court;145 drug abuse among women;146 sexual assault victimization and
suicidal behavior;147 the development of antisocial behavior;148 the impact of
serious mental illness and trauma in women’s pathways to jail;149 and risk
factors among Arab female youths in Israel.150
Critiques of Feminist Theories

A number of criticisms concerning feminist theories have been raised by
feminist scholars. In the 1960s, women of color challenged feminism by
arguing that these perspectives essentially focused on the experiences of white
middle-class women.151 After reviewing feminist theory in sociology, in 1997
Janet Saltzman Chafetz argued that the current topic among feminist scholars
was the intersection of race, class, and gender.152 A number of feminist
scholars maintain that examining difference, rather than equality, is a major
emphasis of current feminist studies.
While some feminist scholars maintain that this shift in focus has revitalized
feminist theory,153 others assert that it has introduced new conflicts in feminist
studies.154 Maxine Baca Zinn and Bonnie Thornton Dill stress, however, that
while there may be problems when focusing on difference,
our perspectives take their bearings from social relations. Race and
class difference are crucial, we argue, not as individual
characteristics . . . but insofar as they are primary organizing
principles of a society which locates and positions groups within
that society’s opportunity structures.155
Learning Check 12.4
1. When one uses an existing theoretical perspective based on males and adds women,
this is referred to as “add _______________ and _______________ .”
2. The _______________ _______________ is also referred to as the emancipation
hypothesis.
3. _______________ -_______________ theory attempts to explain gender differences
in delinquency rates by including family dynamics.
4. Some scholars maintain that approaches to assessing _______________ are based on
biases established by, and for, individuals of privilege.
5. The _______________ research approach attempts to determine life experiences,
particularly childhood ones, that place one at risk of offending.
Some feminist scholars emphasize the importance of examining the

interlocking, or intersection, of race, class, and gender.156 The development of
an intersectional perspective on gender and race is rooted in the work of
scholars focusing on women of color.157
Amanda Burgess-Proctor identified key conceptual factors that distinguish
multiracial feminism from other feminist perspectives.158 First, multiracial
feminism claims that gender relations do not exist in a vacuum; rather, men
and women are also characterized by their race, class, sexuality, age, physical
ability, and other social locations of inequality. Second, multiracial feminism
stresses the importance of recognizing the ways intersecting systems of power
and privilege interact on all social-structural levels. Third, multiracial
feminism is founded on the concept of relationality; this “assumes that groups
of people are socially situated in relation to other groups of people based on
their differences.”159 Other key conceptual facets to multiracial feminism
include appreciating the interaction of social structure and women’s agency,
implementing various methodological approaches, and an emphasis on
understandings founded on the lived experiences of women. This evolving
perspective uses various terms, such as multiracial feminism, multicultural
feminism, and U.S. Third World feminism.160
Another issue that has been raised by feminist scholars is that, when
conducting research on women, it is essential that one avoid placing these
women as either offenders or victims. This has been referred to as the “blurred
boundaries” theory of victimization and criminalization. As Mary Gilfus
noted, “criminalization is connected to women’s subordinate position in
society where victimization by violence coupled with economic marginality
related to race, class, and gender all too often blur the boundaries between
victims and offenders.”161 This false categorization of women as either
offenders or victims does not advance our understanding of women who
commit crime.
Lisa Maher critiqued both traditional and feminist research with respect to the
importance of neither overemphasizing nor ignoring women’s agency.162 The
more traditional approach often overlooks the social locations of women’s
marginalization and places too much emphasis on female offenders as “active
subjects” who pursue criminal opportunities. This places women with
“overendowed” agency. On the other end of the spectrum, in connection with
some feminist research, women are denied agency. Thus, “women are
portrayed as the passive victims of oppressive social structures, relations, and
substances, or some combination thereof.”163 These women are then situated
as submissive objects that are mere instruments for the reproduction of
determining social structures.
women’s agency: the more traditional approach to criminological research overlooks social
locations of women’s marginalization and places too much emphasis on female offenders as
“active subjects” who pursue criminal opportunities. On the other hand, in some feminist
approaches, women are denied agency and situated as mere instruments for the reproduction
of determining social structures.
Policies Based on Feminist Theories of Crime

Policies based on feminist theories of crime are not always directly related to
crime, because feminist perspectives also incorporate broad social issues that
are connected to criminal behavior.164 Thus, aspects of policies related to
feminist theories of crime are reflected in broader concepts of feminism. For
instance, feminist researchers emphasize the importance of reflexivity.165 This
is when research empowers women; this form of research takes women’s
experiences seriously and centers on the idea that “the personal is the
political”:
Feminist work has demonstrated that even the most apparently

private interactions have political consequences and motivations.
The inextricable connections between the personal and the political
means that what happens to “the individual” is not merely the result
of individual processes. As a consequence, it is unsatisfactory to
treat individuals as if they were isolated from society—at the very
least because this cannot give an accurate picture of people and their
lives.166
“the personal is the political”: refers to the notion that the “private sphere” is just as
structured by power relations involving gender, sexuality, race, class, and age as is the
“public sphere.”
This phrase “the personal is the political” refers to the notion that the “private
sphere” (e.g., sexuality and domestic life) is just as structured by power
relations involving gender, sexuality, race, class, and age as is the “public
sphere” (e.g., waged work outside the home, party politics, and state
institutions).167
Another aspect related to feminism is praxis. According to Josephine
Donovan, praxis does not refer just to consciousness-raising. Rather, praxis
also refers to “the development of alternative arrangements that will
themselves provide models for change and will in the process change
consciousness.168 Praxis also implies building institutions, such as rape crisis
centers and shelters, as well as establishing changes in personal relationships.
Generally, praxis is when theory translates into action. One of the most
essential opportunities for praxis centers on the pursuit of social justice.169
praxis: refers not just to consciousness-raising but also to the establishment of alternative
arrangements that will provide models for change, which then change consciousness.
“SlutWalk Detroit” demonstrators protest against blaming and

shaming victims of sexual violence.
AP Photo/Detroit News, John T. Greilick
Influenced by the women’s movement (i.e., the second wave of feminism), our
understanding of and the legal response to rape have undergone substantial
changes.170 For instance, the Schwendingers theorized how rape myths have
pervaded the legal sphere of society, as exemplified by the belief that if a rape
victim did not “fight back” or resist, as well as demonstrate physical evidence
of such a confrontation, then she must have initially given her consent and
afterward “changed her mind.”171 In the past, this myth has been significant in
laws that required a demonstration of resistance. However, the Schwendingers
provided the following analogy to elucidate the misconceptions associated
with this myth:
Businessmen may forcibly resist theft of their property. But no law
demands this kind of personal resistance as a condition for the
lawful protection of his property rights. Women’s rights, on the
other hand, seem to be another matter [italics in original].172
Beginning in the 1970s, legislative reforms were enacted in an effort to

modify state rape statutes. Searles and Berger asserted that the major goals of
the legislative reforms included
increasing the reporting of rape and enhancing the prosecution and

conviction in rape cases,
improving the treatment of rape victims involved in the criminal justice
process,
achieving comparability between the legal treatment of rape and other
violent offenses,
prohibiting a broader range of coercive sexual conduct, and
expanding the range of persons protected by the law.173
Four major types of legislative reforms were identified: (1) redefinition of the
offense, (2) evidentiary reforms, (3) statutory offenses, and (4) penal
structure.174
Another example of how feminist criminologists have informed policies is in

the area of gender-specific programming. The Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP) established a funding opportunity to
enhance programs specifically targeted to juvenile girls.175 Such programming
gives females an increased sense of community. This sense of community has
been associated with juveniles developing and integrating a healthy
identity.176 Table 12.3 outlines factors associated with gender-specific
programs for girls.
gender-specific programming: programs for juvenile girls that cultivate an increased sense
of community, which has been associated with developing and integrating a healthy identity.
There have been efforts to incorporate these key factors of gender-specific

services into the processing of female juvenile offenders. For instance, Bond-
Maupin and her colleagues’ study revealed that intake officials recognized an
appreciation of how gender, class, and race influence the lives of female
juveniles.177 Other studies have also recommended that agencies providing
services to female juveniles incorporate gender-specific or gender-responsive
programs.178 Such programming has also been recommended for adult female
offenders with substance abuse problems,179 as well as for adult female
prisoners.180 When examining the effects of gender-responsive programming,
one study revealed that girls who followed more gendered pathways to secure
detention responded more positively to this type of approach than to a more
traditional, reinforcement-type programming.181
Table 12.3 Factors Associated With Gender-Specific Programs

for Girls
Table 12.3 Factors Associated With Gender-Specific Programs for Girls
The Valentine Foundation outlined 14 factors that should be

incorporated in a gender-specific program for girls:
1. Ask girls who they are, what their lives are like, and what they need.
2. Allow girls to speak up and actively participate in the services they

receive.
3. Assist girls with their family relationships and help them deal with
family issues.
4. Assist girls in becoming grounded in some form of spirituality.
5. Allow staff more time and opportunity for building trusting

relationships with girls.
6. Allow girls the safety and comfort of same-gender environments.
7. Provide girls with mentors who reflect girls’ lives and who model
survival, growth, and change.
8. Assist girls with child care, transportation, and safe housing issues.
The Valentine Foundation outlined 14 factors that should be
incorporated in a gender-specific program for girls:
9. Maintain a diverse staff who reflect the girls served.
10. Weave a multicultural perspective through programming.
11. Teach girls strategies to overcome domestic violence, physical and

sexual abuse, and substance abuse.
12. Understand that relationships are central to girls’ lives; help girls
maintain important connections without sacrificing themselves to their
relationships.
13. Connect girls with at least one capable and nonexploitive adult for
an ongoing supportive relationship.
14. Promote academic achievement and economic self-sufficiency for

girls.
Source: The Valentine Foundation and Women’s Way. (1990). A conversation about girls. Bryn
Mawr, PA: The Valentine Foundation. Reprinted courtesy of the Valentine Foundation.
Fazit
In an effort to provide a context for feminist theories of crime, this chapter started with a
brief history of feminism in the United States. Many describe this history in terms of waves
(i.e., first, second, and third waves). As noted at the beginning of this chapter, it is essential
to understand that there is no one feminist perspective. Thus, we presented various feminist
perspectives, such as liberal feminism, radical feminism, Marxist and socialist feminism, and
postmodern feminism.
Our brief overview of traditional theories of female crime gave readers an enhanced
appreciation of the development of feminist criminology. These traditional theories were
developed by such scholars as Cesare Lombroso, W. I. Thomas, Sigmund Freud, and Otto
Pollak. The next section provided feminist critiques of previous research that focused on
women and crime. Such critiques include using an “add-women-and-stir” approach and
implementing a sex roles perspective.
Subsequently, we discussed problems feminist scholars have raised pertaining to traditional
research methods, such as those surrounding objectivity and subjectivity, as well as those
surrounding qualitative “versus” quantitative analyses. Our brief overview of multiracial
feminism distinguished it from previous feminist perspectives. We also illustrated one
example of research within a feminist perspective—feminist pathways. Then we moved to
some key critiques of feminist theories. These criticisms included earlier feminist theories
focusing on the experiences of white, middle-class women; placing women as either
offenders or victims; and ignoring women’s agency.
We concluded this chapter with a discussion of policies based on feminist theories of crime.
Two related concepts pertaining to any feminist research presented in this section were “the
personal is the political” and praxis. We reviewed such policies as early rape reform efforts,
as well as the current trend of providing gender-specific programs for female offenders.
At the beginning of this chapter, we studied the case of Gertrude Baniszewski, who was
convicted of the first-degree murder of Sylvia Likens. We asked if some individuals would
perceive such offenses committed by a woman differently than they would similar offenses
committed by a man. Some may answer “yes” to this question; others may contend that this
is due to stereotypes, such as the perception that women have a biologically determined
sense of maternal and nurturing capabilities.
Summary of Theories
Various Female criminality

(e.g., explained in terms of
Dichotomize women into Cesare physiology and
Traditional “either/or” roles in terms of Lombroso, psychology, rather
theories of sexuality; femininity; the cult of W. I. than social factors;
female true womanhood; emphasis on Thomas, particular emphasis
crime biological and psychological Sigmund on stereotypical
factors Freud, assumptions of
Otto women and
Pollak) sexuality.
As opportunities for
women in the legal
sphere are enhanced,
Increased opportunities for so are opportunities
Freda
women to participate in the labor for women in the
Liberation Adler
force; changing self-concept and illegal sphere;
thesis
identity of women; liberation Rita Simon increases in female
movement crime are due to
women becoming
actively competitive
with men.
Youths from
patriarchal families
have greater gender
differences in
delinquency rates
compared with
Power- Family dynamics; patriarchal John youths from
control families; egalitarian families; Hagan et egalitarian families;
theory social class al. individuals
experience power
relationships in the
broader social
context, especially
those from different
social classes.
Continue to search
for the scientific
Gender is not a natural fact but a basis of theories of
complex social, historical, and men’s and women’s
cultural product; gender criminal behavior;
relations order social life; gender reexamine gender
relations are constructs of and racial/ethnic
Feminist masculinity and femininity biases in the social
Various
criminology based on organizing principle of sciences; develop a
men’s superiority; systems of new definition of
knowledge reflect men’s view of crime; recognize the
the natural and social world; ways interesting
women should be at the center systems of power
of intellectual inquiry. and privilege interact
on all social-
structural levels.
Key Terms
add women and stir, 314
chivalry, 304
first wave of feminism, 302
gender, 303
gender-specific programming, 324
liberal feminism, 305
liberation thesis, 314
Marxist feminism, 306
multiracial feminism, 320
objectivity, 318
paternalism, 304
pathways research, 320
patriarchy, 304
postmodern feminism, 308
power-control theory, 316
praxis, 323
qualitative, 319
quantitative, 319
radical feminism, 305
second wave of feminism, 302
sex, 303
sex roles, 314
socialist feminism, 306
“the personal is the political,” 323
third wave of feminism, 303
traditional or conservative perspective, 304
women’s agency, 322
1. How would you distinguish the first, second, and third waves of feminism?
2. What are the key features of the various feminist perspectives?
3. How did traditional theories of crime perceive female offenders?
4. What are some of the problems associated with traditional research methods when studying
gender?
5. What are some of the key concepts associated with feminist thought?
6. What is feminist pathways research?
7. What are some critiques of feminist criminological theories?
8. What is meant by “the personal is the political”?
9. What is praxis?
10. What are some of the major rape reforms?
11. What are the key factors of gender-specific programming?
Ressourcen
The National Organization for Women (NOW) is dedicated to identifying the various
challenges to women’s rights and strategies for overcoming them.
http://now.org
The American Society of Criminology Division on Women and Crime focuses on
the increasing interest in the study of gender in terms of offenders, victims, and
professional employees of the criminal justice systems.
http://ascdwc.com
Student Study Site

Media Library
premium resources:
Author Video
12.1: Feminist Perspective

12.1: Feminism and Feminist Perspectives

12.1: Prostitution
Chapter 13 Developmental/Life-Course
Perspectives on Criminality
iStockphoto.com/Mknoxgray
Learning Objectives
13.1 Discuss how developmental or life-course theories differ from other theoretical
perspectives presented in this book.
13.2 Explain how factors that are important in life-course/developmental perspectives,
such as onset, frequency of offenses, duration of offending, seriousness of the offenses,
and desistance of offending, play key roles in when individuals offend and why they do
so at certain times in their lives.
13.3 Identify some of the primary criticisms or weaknesses of the life-
course/developmental perspective, as well as which theories are clearly
“antidevelopmental.”
13.4 Identify which specific theoretical frameworks in the developmental/life-course
genre seem best to account for specific transitions or trajectories either toward or away
from crime.
13.5 Summarize some of the key policy implications of developmental/life-course
theories.
Case Study
The Teen Burglar

A news story from the spring of 2012 reported that a 14-year-old boy had been arrested in
Tennessee in connection with nearly 100 burglaries in the north Nashville area.1 Officers said
the teen was linked to these burglaries over the previous two years (making him 12 when he
started offending). According to police, he had a specific and consistent modus operandi, or
method of operation. Specifically, he would kick in back doors, enter, and steal whatever he
could grab quickly, such as flat-screen TVs or video games. Officers noted his creativity and
innovation, which included using a go-kart as his getaway vehicle, driving from house to house
through back alleys. The police also mentioned that he had lost both parents and likely didn’t
have much guidance or anyone looking out for him. They had evidence tying him to the
burglaries, such as fingerprints and items found inside his home, which likely is why he
admitted to many of the break-ins. It is unfortunate that this boy had such a poor family life and
so little parental supervision, but one must wonder what inspired him to commit more than 100
residential burglaries, starting when he was 12 years old! We will revisit this case in our
conclusion, with additional insight into why he may have committed these crimes.
Think About It
1. Have you ever met or known about a child this young in your neighborhood committing
so many crimes? If so, what do you think was the cause(s)?
2. How much do you think having poor parental supervision contributed to his crimes? Do
you think he would have been prevented, or do you think he was driven to commit these
crimes regardless of family supervision?
3. What do you think of his method of operation (i.e., modus operandi) in how he
committed his burglaries? Do you see some intellectual skill in how he did it, given that
he wasn’t caught for two years?
Introduction
This chapter discusses the development of the life-course perspective in the
late 1970s and its influence on modern research on criminal trajectories.
During this period, criminological theorists and researchers began to realize
that tracking the offending patterns of certain individuals over their lifetimes
would add much to the understanding of why such individuals commit more
offenses at certain points in their lives. The same type of examination also
shows why individuals reduce, or even stop, offending after certain
significant life events (e.g., getting a good job, getting married, and having
children).
Thus, this chapter focuses on explaining the various concepts in the life-
course perspective, such as early onset, desistance, frequency of offending,
and factors involved in criminal careers. Perhaps the best predictor of
chronic, habitual offending is an individual’s age when first arrested, labeled
“early onset.” To clarify, when an individual is arrested prior to age 14, he
or she is at high risk of becoming a habitual offender. Another important
factor is when the person committed his or her most serious offenses. The
other aspects of developmental theory also further our understanding of why
individuals commit crime, especially in terms of when they commit most of
their offenses (i.e., frequency), and perhaps more so regarding why they
desist or stop offending. We will also discuss the criticisms and arguments
against this developmental/life-course perspective. Finally, we will review
the current state of research regarding the perspective of life-course or
developmental theory.
To clarify, this chapter presents one of the most current and progressive
approaches toward explaining why individuals engage in criminal activity—
namely, developmental theories of criminal behavior. Developmental
theories are explanatory models of criminal behavior that follow individuals
throughout their life course of offending, thus explaining the development
of offending over time. Such developmental theories represent a break with
past traditions of theoretical frameworks, which typically focused on the
contemporaneous effects of constructs and variables on behavior at a given
point in time. Prior to the 1970s, virtually no traditional theories attempted
to explain the various stages (e.g., onset, desistance) of individuals’ criminal
careers, and certainly no models differentiated the varying factors that are
important at each stage. Developmental theories have been prominent in
modern times, and we believe that readers will agree that developmental
theories, also known as the life-course perspective, have added a great deal
to our understanding and thinking about why people engage in criminal
behavior.
developmental theories: perspectives of criminal behavior that emphasize the evolution

of individuals’ criminality over time, with the individual as the unit of analysis.
Basic Concepts and Early Developmental Theory

Developmental theories emphasize the evolution of individuals’ criminality
over time. This perspective offers a new approach, in the sense that nearly
all the theories we have examined so far have focused on making
generalizations based on data from large groups of offenders; this approach
looks at changes (or lack thereof) in individuals’ trajectories toward
engaging in criminal behavior.
Developmental theories tend to look at the individual as the unit of analysis,

and such models focus on the onset, the frequency, the intensity, the
persistence/duration, the desistance, and other aspects of the individual’s
criminal career. The onset of offending is when the offender first begins
offending. Frequency refers to how often the individual offends at certain
times, whereas intensity is the degree of seriousness of the offenses.
Persistence or duration involves the length of an individual’s criminal
career in terms of time from onset to final offense. Finally, desistance refers
to when the criminal career of an individual ends and he or she stops
offending (or, at least, doesn’t get caught again).
Experts have long debated and examined these various aspects of the
development of criminal behavior. Perhaps the earliest notable focus on
such development was presented in the 1950s by Sheldon and Eleanor
Glueck of Harvard University, who for more than 40 years examined the
development of criminal careers among 1,000 boys (500 were persistent
delinquents and 500 were not).2 The Gluecks examined a plethora of
variables, ranging from IQ scores to body types to personalities, as well as
multiple sociological factors. The data from this research have been utilized
by researchers in modern times, primarily Robert Sampson, John Laub, and
their colleagues, in exploring the various reasons why individuals offend
early in life, as well as why some desist and others continue to offend,
sometimes throughout their lives.3 Many other studies have followed this
model of examining a multitude of factors that may influence the
development of individuals, especially in terms of criminality.
Virtually all studies on the life-course/developmental perspective show that

most individuals who get arrested are never arrested again.4 However, for
those who offend many times, a certain pattern emerges. This pattern
involves an escalation from minor-status offending (e.g., truancy, underage
drinking, and smoking tobacco), usually committed in their preteen or early
teenage years. This then leads to some higher-level petty crimes (e.g.,
shoplifting and smoking marijuana) and then to far more serious criminal
activity, such as robbery and aggravated assault, and eventually murder and
rape. This development of criminality is shown across every study that has
ever been performed and demonstrates that, with very few exceptions,
people begin with relatively minor offending and progress toward more
serious, violent offenses.5
Chronic offending often starts with minor offenses, such as
truancy, smoking, and underage drinking, but then escalates
to more serious offenses, such as burglary, robbery, and
assault.
© iStockphoto.com/PIKSEL
Although this trend is undisputed, other issues remain unresolved. For

example, studies have not yet determined when police contact or an arrest
becomes early onset. Most empirical studies draw the line at age 14, so any
arrest or contact prior to this time is considered early onset.6 However, other
experts disagree and say this line should be drawn earlier (e.g., 12 years old)
or even later (e.g., 16 years old). Still, however it is defined, early onset is
one of the most important predictors of any of the measures we have for
determining who is most likely to develop serious, violent offending
behavior. Given extensive research, the current “cut-off” age is considered
to be 13 years.7
Another key area is persistence or duration of offending. This has become
one of the most researched components of the developmental perspective.8
A great example of persistence in offending is the story of 41-year-old
Kevin Holder of Lincoln, Nebraska, who has been arrested 226 times.9 You
might guess that Mr. Holder has just committed simple misdemeanors, but
that is not the case. His past offenses include assault, resisting arrest, assault
on a police officer, and violation of a restraining order. What is even more
shocking is that he is nowhere near the top rank in terms of number of
arrests in that particular Nebraska county; he ranks number 40! Thus, there
are 39 offenders in that county who have been arrested more frequently. In
fact, a few of them have been arrested more than 500 times. This is an
example, albeit extreme, of what is meant by persistence or duration of a
criminal career.
Perhaps the most discussed and researched aspect of developmental theory

is offender frequency, referred to as lambda. Estimates of lambda, or
average frequency of offending by criminals over a year period, vary
greatly.10 Some estimates of lambda are in the high single digits, and some
are in the triple digits. Given this large range, it does not do much good in
estimating the frequency of most offenders. Rather, the frequency depends
on many, many variables, such as what types of offenses the individual
commits. Perhaps if we were studying only drug users or rapists, it would
make sense to determine lambda, but given the general nature of most
examinations of crime, such estimates are not typically useful. Thus, the
frequency of offending, even within crime type, varies so widely across
individuals that we question its use in understanding criminal careers.11
Still, it can sometimes be useful to have an estimate of lambda or frequency,
such as when a researcher is investigating a specific type of offense or
particular group of offenders.
It is notable that the developmental/life-course perspective has recently

become one of the most dominant theories of criminality. A study conducted
in 2008 surveyed 387 criminologists to discover which theories each of
them considered the most viable explanations for serious/persistent criminal
behavior.12 This study found that life-course/developmental theory was the
second-most-accepted theoretical explanation of serious crime (after social
learning theory). This represented a giant leap in ranking from similar
surveys done in past years.13
Before we discuss the dominant models of developmental theory, it is

important to discuss the opposing viewpoint, which is that of complete
stability in offending. Such counterpoint views assume that the
developmental approach is a waste of time because the same individuals
who show antisocial behavior at early ages (before age 10) are those who
will exhibit the most criminality in their teenage years, 20s, 30s, 40s, and so
on. This framework is most notably represented by the theoretical
perspective proposed by Gottfredson and Hirschi in their model of low self-
control.
Antidevelopmental Theory: Low-Self-Control

Theory
In 1990, Travis Hirschi, along with his colleague Michael Gottfredson,
proposed a general theory of low self-control as the primary cause of all
crime and deviance (see prior discussion in Chapter 10); this is often
referred to as the general theory of crime.14 This theory has led to more
debate and research in the field than any other contemporary theory of
crime. Like other control theories of crime (see Chapter 10), this theory
assumes that individuals are born predisposed toward selfish, self-centered
activities and that only effective child-rearing and socialization can create
self-control. Without such adequate socialization (i.e., social controls) and
reduction of criminal opportunities, individuals will follow their natural
tendencies to become selfish predators.
The general theory of crime assumes that self-control must be established by

age 10. If it has not formed by that time, according to the theory, individuals
will forever exhibit low self-control. This assumption of the formation of
low self-control by age 10 is the oppositional feature of this theory
compared with the developmental perspective. Once low self-control is set
at age 10, there is no way to develop it afterward, the authors asserted. In
contrast, developmental theory assumes that people can, indeed, change
over time.
Like others, Gottfredson and Hirschi attributed the formation of controls to
socialization processes in the first years of life; the distinguishing
characteristic of this theory is its emphasis on the individual’s ability to
control himself or herself. That is, the general theory of crime assumes that
people can exercise a degree of control over their own decisions and, within
certain limitations, control themselves. The general theory of crime is
accepted as one of the most valid theories of crime.15 This is probably due
to the parsimony, or simplicity, of the theory, because it identifies only one
primary factor—low self-control.
But low self-control may actually consist of a series of personality traits,

including risk-taking, impulsiveness, self-centeredness, short-term
orientation, and quick temper. Research has supported the idea that
inadequate child-rearing practices tend to result in lower levels of self-
control among children and that this leads to risky behaviors, including
criminal activity.16 It is important to note that even this theory has a
developmental component, in the sense that it proposes that self-control
develops from parenting practices during the early years; thus, even this
most notable antidevelopment theory includes a strong developmental
aspect (see Figure 13.1).
In contrast to Gottfredson and Hirschi’s model, one of the most dominant

and researched frameworks of the past 20 years, another sound theoretical
model asserts that individuals can change their life trajectories in terms of
crime. Research shows that certain events or realizations can lead people to
alter their frequency or incidence of offending, sometimes to zero. To
account for such extreme transitions, we must turn to the dominant life-
course model of offending, which is Sampson and Laub’s developmental
model of offending.
Figure 13.1 Gottfredson and Hirschi’s Theory of Low Self-

Control
Source: Tibbetts, S. G. (2018). Criminological theory: The essentials
(3rd ed., p. 219). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Learning Check 13.1
1. According to the text, how do developmental/life-course theories of crime differ

from traditional explanatory models?
a. Developmental models focus more on group rates of crime
b. Developmental theories tend to put more emphasis on the state of the
economy
c. Developmental models emphasize following individuals through various
stages in their lives
d. Developmental theories focus more on the political changes that occur
2. According to the text, which of the many concepts/factors in developmental theory
seems to offer the best chance of predicting future criminality?
a. Desistance
b. Early onset
c. Duration
d. Frequency (lambda)
3. According to a study discussed in the text, a survey of 387 criminologists found
that developmental/life-course theory was ranked _______________ among all
existing theoretical perspectives in its ability to explain serious criminal behavior.
a. No. 1
b. No. 2
c. No. 4
d. No. 7
Sampson and Laub’s Developmental Model

One of the best-known and best-researched developmental theoretical
models to date is that of Robert Sampson and John Laub.17 Sampson and
Laub have proposed a developmental framework largely based on a
reanalysis of data collected by Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck in the 1940s. As
a prototype developmental model, individual stability and change are the
primary foci of their theoretical perspective.
Most significantly, Sampson and Laub emphasized the importance of certain

events and life changes that can alter an individual’s decisions to commit (or
not commit) criminal actions. Although based on a social control
framework, this model contains elements of other theoretical perspectives.
First, Sampson and Laub’s model assumes, like other developmental
perspectives, that early antisocial tendencies, regardless of social variables,
are often linked to later adult criminal offending. Furthermore, some social-
structure factors (family structure, poverty, etc.) also tend to lead to
problems in social and educational development, which then lead to crime.
The influence of delinquent peers or siblings further increases an
individual’s likelihood of delinquency.
Studies have shown that getting married and obtaining steady

employment significantly reduce the offending rates of even
chronic offenders.
© iStockphoto.com/Georgijevic
However, Sampson and Laub also strongly emphasized the importance of

transitions, or specific events (marriage, stable employment, etc.) that are
important in altering long-term trends in behavior, which are referred to as
trajectories. Trajectories are general, longitudinal patterns of behavior
either toward or away from committing crime and are typically the
cumulative result of certain or many specific transitions, such as having
children or enlisting in military service, which drastically change a person’s
criminal career. Sampson and Laub presented sound evidence that many
individuals who were once on a path toward a consistent form of behavior—
in this case, serious, violent crime—suddenly (or gradually) halted due to
such a transition or series of transitions. In some ways, this model is a more
specified form of David Matza’s theory of drift, which we discussed in
Chapter 10, in which individuals tend to grow out of crime and deviance
due to the social controls imposed by marriage, employment, and so on.
transitions: life events important in altering trajectories toward or away from crime, such
as marriage and employment.
trajectories: paths people take in life, often due to life transitions.
Terrie Moffitt developed the most renowned and studied

developmental framework, which not only identified
different types of offenders but also provided a causal
etiology for why chronic, persistent offenders differ from
relatively normal individuals who commit crime only during
their adolescent years.
© iStockphoto.com/Vincent Shane Hansen
Still, Sampson and Laub’s framework contributed much to the knowledge of

criminal offending by providing a more specified and grounded framework
that identified individuals’ ability to change their criminal trajectories via
life-altering transitions, such as marriage, the effect of which can be quite
profound. In fact, research has consistently shown that marriage and full-
time employment significantly reduced recidivism among California
parolees, and other studies have shown similar results from employment in
later years.18 Getting a great job that one would never want to lose and
having children are also examples of transitions that can steer an individual
away from criminal offending.
Moffitt’s Developmental Taxonomy

Another primary developmental model that has had a profound effect on the
current state of criminological thought and theorizing is Terrie Moffitt’s
developmental theory or taxonomy, proposed in 1993.19 Moffitt’s
framework distinguishes two types of offenders: adolescence-limited
offenders and life-course persistent offenders. Adolescence-limited
offenders make up most of the general public and include all persons who
committed offenses when they were teenagers or young adults. Their
offending was largely due to association with peers and a desire to engage in
activities exhibited by the adults they were trying to emulate. Such activities
are a type of “rite of passage” and quite normal among all people who have
normal social interactions with their peers in teenage or young adult years. It
should be noted that a small percentage (about 1% to 3%) of the population
are nonoffenders who, quite frankly, do not have normal relations with their
peers and therefore do not offend at all, even in adolescence.
On the other hand, there exists another, smaller group of offenders, referred
to in this model as life-course persistent offenders. This small group,
estimated to account for 4% to 8% of all offenders—albeit the most violent
and chronic—commit the vast majority of the serious, violent offenses in
any society. In contrast to the adolescence-limited offenders, the disposition
of life-course persistent offenders toward offending is caused by an entirely
different model: an interaction between neurological problems and the
disadvantaged or criminological environments in which they were raised.
Moffitt’s developmental theory or taxonomy: a theoretical perspective proposing that

criminal acts are committed by (1) adolescence-limited offenders or (2) life-course
persistent offenders.
adolescence-limited offender: a person who commits crimes only during adolescence and
desists from criminal behavior in his or her 20s or adulthood.
life-course persistent offender: a person who starts offending early and persists in
criminal behavior through adulthood.
For example, if an individual has only neurological problems or only comes

from a poor, disadvantaged environment, then that individual will be
unlikely to develop a life-course persistent trajectory toward crime.
However, if a person has both neurological problems and comes from a
disadvantaged environment, then that individual will have a very high
likelihood of becoming a chronic, serious, violent offender. This
proposition, which has been supported by empirical studies,20 suggests that
it is important to pay attention to what happens early in life.
Because illegal behaviors are normal among teenagers and young adults,
more insight can be gained by looking at the years prior to age 12 to
determine who is most likely to become a chronic, violent offender. Life-
course persistent offenders begin offending very early in life and continue to
commit crime far into adulthood, even middle age, whereas adolescence-
limited offenders tend to engage in criminal activity only during their
teenage and young-adult years. Moffitt’s model suggests that more than one
type of development explains criminality. Furthermore, this framework
shows that certain types of offenders commit crime due to entirely different
causes and factors.
Why Do They Do It?

Henry Earl
Henry Earl is, according to all available sources, the most arrested individual on record, at
least in recent times. Hailing from the area of Lexington, Kentucky (Fayette County), Earl
was born in 1949 and has since done quite an impressive job of getting himself arrested,
especially after he turned 21. Specifically, Earl is on record for being arrested well over
1,500 times since 1970. Although the actual number is disputed, and likely growing every
month, recent official reports from the local jurisdictions show that Earl has been arrested
for more than 1,500 offenses and has spent more than 16 years in jail. Despite being jailed
for much of his life, Earl appears to make up for lost time when he is not incarcerated, as
the data show.
Henry Earl, who has been arrested more than 1,500 times, is widely considered the
most arrested individual in U.S. history.
United States Department of Justice
Although many of his arrests were for public intoxication, he also had a number of more
serious charges, including third-degree trespassing, and various charges of disorderly
conduct. How is it that this man is repeatedly freed to offend again? The most likely
explanation is that virtually all his arrests were for nonviolent, nontheft, and nondrug
(except alcohol) violations, which tend not to get much jail time. However, one would
think that after the first hundred arrests, not to mention the first thousand, a judge would
try to put this public nuisance away for a long time. Apparently, that is not the case. Earl’s
last reported arrest was in 2017, so he is seemingly still active and perhaps trying to
achieve a record of arrests that may be hard for anyone to beat.
This goes to show that, first, if someone is highly motivated to commit crime, he or she
can easily find ways to do so. After all, anyone can simply leave the house and commit
numerous felonies against neighbors, people driving by, and so forth—not to mention
what that person is capable of outside of his or her neighborhood. Second, there is
virtually no way to deter or stop a person from committing a crime he or she is highly
motivated to commit, especially if that person has nothing to lose. Obviously, Earl has
nothing at stake in terms of conventional society.
This case is notable in the context of developmental/life-course criminology. Although

highly extreme, it reveals that normal development, such as key transitions in life, as
noted by Sampson and Laub’s theory, clearly doesn’t apply in this case. Some individuals
have an extremely high predisposition to offend, perhaps even higher than Gottfredson
and Hirschi imagined possible when formulating their theory of low self-control.
Regardless, this amazingly strong disposition toward such antisocial behavior is likely due
to major failures in all areas of development throughout Earl’s life course, beginning with
his genetics, early development, and adolescence.
Think About It
1. Can you apply the life-course persistent label from Moffitt’s theory to Henry Earl?
2. Might any intervention or policy help Mr. Earl reduce his rate of arrest?
Sources: Henry Earl, arrested more than 1500 times, in jail again. (2013, November 27).
HuffPost. Retrieved from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/henry-earl-arrest-1500-
thanksgiving-in-jail_n_4352833; Henry Earl: Setting the record straight. (2008,
September 25). Smoking Gun. Retrieved from
http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/henry-earl-setting-record-straight;
Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government, Division of Community Corrections.
(n.d.). JailWebsite.com.Retrieved from http://jail.lfucg.com/Secure/Account/Login.aspx?
ReturnUrl=%2fQueryProfile.aspx%3foid%3d137&oid=137.
Thornberry’s Interactional Model of Offending

A final major developmental theory was presented by Terence Thornberry
in 1987.21 This model incorporated empirical evidence that addressed an
extremely important aspect never before addressed in criminological theory.
Specifically, Thornberry’s interactional theory was the first to emphasize
reciprocal, or feedback, effects in the causal modeling of the theoretical
framework. To clarify, this was the first widely acknowledged model that
presented certain factors, such as peer associations, both as a predictor
variable and as a factor that is subsequently influenced by other factors that
follow it temporally, such as offending. In other words, negative peer
influences predict future offending, but such offending can then cause even
more negative peer influence, thus leading to even more criminality.
As a basis for his model, Thornberry combined social control and social
learning models. According to Thornberry, both of these theories try to
explain criminality in a straightforward, causal process and are largely
targeted toward a certain age population.22 Thornberry uniquely claimed
that the processes of both social control and social learning theory affect
each other in a type of feedback process.
Thornberry’s interactional model incorporates five primary theoretical

constructs, which are synthesized in a comprehensive framework to explain
criminal behavior: (1) commitment to school, (2) attachment to parents, (3)
belief in conventional values (these first three are taken from social control
and bonding theory), (4) adoption of delinquent values, and (5) association
with delinquent peers (these last two are drawn from social learning and
differential association–reinforcement theory). These five constructs, which
most criminologists would agree are important in the development of
criminality, are obviously important in a rational model of crime; so, at first,
it does not appear that Thornberry has added much to the understanding of
criminal behavior. Furthermore, Thornberry’s model clearly points out that
different variables will have greater effects at certain times; for example,
association with delinquent peers will have more effect in the mid-teenage
years than at other ages.
What Thornberry adds beyond other theories is the idea of reciprocity or

feedback loops, which no previous theory had mentioned, much less
emphasized. In fact, much of the previous criminological literature spent
much time debating whether (a) individuals become delinquent and then
start hanging out with similar peers or (b) individuals start hanging out with
delinquent peers and then begin engaging in criminal activity. This was the
traditional “chicken-or-egg” question in criminology for most of the 20th
century—namely, “Which came first, delinquency or bad friends?” It has
often been referred to as the self-selection versus social learning debate; in
other words, do certain individuals decide to hang out with delinquents
based on their previous behavior, or do they learn criminality from
delinquents with whom they associate? One of the major contributions of
Thornberry’s interactional model is that he directly answered this
question.
Thornberry’s interactional model: the first major perspective to emphasize reciprocal,
or feedback, effects in the causal modeling of the theoretical framework.
Specifically, Thornberry noted that most, if not all, contributors to

delinquency (and criminal behavior itself) are related reciprocally. Thus,
Thornberry postulated that engaging in crime leads to hanging out with
other delinquents and that hanging out with delinquents leads to committing
crimes. It is quite common for individuals to commit crime and then start
hanging out with peers who are doing the same, and it is also quite common
for people to start hanging out with delinquent peers and then start
committing crimes. Furthermore, it is perhaps the most likely scenario for a
person to be offending and also dealing with both the influences of past
experiences and peer effects (see Figure 13.2).
Applying Theory to Crime Arson
Arson is a serious crime in terms of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)/Uniform Crime

Reporting (UCR) standards; it is categorized as a Part I/Index crime. According to
Winslow and Zhang, the FBI did not seriously consider arson an Index crime until around
1978, when it was realized that incidents of arson had increased more than 3,100% since
1951. Thus, the authorities at the U.S. Department of Justice in charge of the FBI and the
UCR Program decided that arson should be added to the other seven Index crimes.
The FBI definition of arson is “any willful or malicious burning or attempting to burn,
with or without intent to defraud, a dwelling house, public building, motor vehicle, or
aircraft, personal property of another, etc.” As you can see, this is a wide definition, which
is why there are so many different types of arson. After all, some youths start fires for
excitement, some business owners start fires to cash in on insurance claims, and
pyromaniacs light fires to fulfill a psychological compulsion, whereas others burn crime
scenes to destroy evidence or to get revenge on others. There are even more reasons to
start illegal fires, but they all fall under this category of arson.
The reason why we are discussing arson in this chapter is because it is the only Part
I/Index offense primarily committed by young people (under 14). The vast majority of
arsonists are male. Furthermore, early onset of offending (a key factor of the
developmental perspective) is often seen in an act of arson—“boys playing with fire.”
And although such youths often do not realize the implications of their actions, those
actions still cause much property damage and sometimes cost lives. Given the prevalence
and clustering of arson in young ages, we are discussing it in this chapter; however, the
act of arson spans a variety of ages and motives.
According to the FBI, there were about 41,171 official reports/incidents of arson in the
United States in 2017. The average damage/loss due to arson in that year was $15,573.
Arsons involving structures (e.g., residential, public, and storage structures) accounted for
about 45% of the total, whereas mobile property (e.g., vehicles) and other types of
property (e.g., crops, fences) accounted for about 24.5% and 3.5%, respectively. This
shows the need for further prevention of this Index offense and reveals why it is a top
priority for the FBI and other federal agencies.
Perhaps this is why many programs to prevent arson, especially among youths, have been
developed. Various types of intervention programs have attempted to curb this destructive
behavior. And, as mentioned before, this is one of the early predictors or “red flags” that
developmental/life-course researchers examine in determining the likelihood someone
will become a chronic offender. As you may have heard, serial killers often have a history
of cruelty toward domesticated animals (such as dogs and cats) or a history of bed-
wetting. Early engagement in arson is another early key predictor of a chronic criminal
career, such as in the case of David “Son of Sam” Berkowitz, who killed at least six
people and wounded seven others with a .44-caliber handgun over the course of about a
year (1976–1977) in New York City. Berkowitz had a long record of committing arson
early in life.
On the other hand, some young arsonists simply may be bored or experimenting and not
ever intend harm to anyone or anything. However, early incidents of arson are certainly a
“red flag” in developmental theory and should be taken seriously.
Think About It
1. How do you see arson as a “red flag” for habitual offending?
2. Do you think arson should be considered one of the key Index/Part I offenses in the
FBI’s annual national index of offending? Why or why not?
Sources: U.S. Department of Justice. (2018). Uniform crime report, 2017. Washington,
DC: Author; Winslow, R., & Zhang, S. (2008). Criminology: A global perspective. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson, p. 42.
As mentioned previously, Thornberry considered the social control and

bonding constructs, such as attachment to parents and commitment to
school, which are some of the most essential predictors of delinquency. Like
other theoretical models of social bonding and control, Thornberry’s model
puts the level of attachment and commitment to conventional society ahead
of the degree of moral beliefs that individuals hold regarding criminal
offending. However, lack of such moral beliefs leads to delinquent behavior,
which in turn negatively affects the level of commitment or attachment an
individual may have built in his or her development. As Thornberry
claimed,
While the weakening of the bond to conventional society may be
an initial cause of delinquency, delinquency eventually becomes
its own indirect cause precisely because of its ability to weaken
further the person’s bonds to family, school, and conventional
beliefs.23
Figure 13.2 A Reciprocal Model of Delinquent Involvement at

Middle Adolescence
Source: Tibbetts, S. G., & Hemmens, C. (2010). Criminological

theory: A text/reader (p. 718). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Thus, the implications of this model are that variables relating to social
control or bonding and other factors cause delinquency, which then
becomes, in itself, a predictor and cause of the breakdown of social control
or bonding and other important contributors to delinquency and crime.
Terence Thornberry proposed one of the most complex, albeit
accurate, models of how various factors interact with one
another during individuals’ development in terms of
predicting delinquency and criminality.
© iStockphoto.com/sturti
Case Study
As an example case study, consider a person we shall call Johnny, who has
an absent father and a mother who uses inconsistent discipline and
sometimes inflicts harsh physical abuse on her son. Johnny sees his
mother’s state of constant neglect and abuse as proof that belief in
conventional values is wrong, and he becomes indifferent toward
governmental laws; his main goal is to survive and be successful. Because
of his mother’s psychological and physical neglect, Johnny pays no
attention to school and turns to older youths for guidance and support.
These youths guide him toward behavior that gives him both financial
rewards (by selling what they steal) and status in their group (respect for
performing well in illegal acts). At some point, Johnny gets caught, and this
makes the youths who taught him how to engage in crime proud while also
alienating him from the bonds he had with his school, from which he may
be suspended or expelled, and with his mother, who further distances herself
from him. This creates a reciprocal effect, or feedback loop, to the previous
factors—lack of attachment to his mother and lack of commitment to
school. The falling level of social bonding and control of conventional
institutions and factors (mother, school) and increased influence of
delinquent peers then leads Johnny to commit more frequent and more
serious crimes.
Empirical Evidence
Thornberry’s theoretical model is based on reciprocal effects, meaning that
what is an outcome variable (e.g., association with delinquent peers) also
becomes a predictive variable, in that it influences previous variables (e.g.,
commitment to school). Figure 13.2 shows how such relationships function,
with negative signs (−) denoting an inverse relationship between variables
(e.g., more association with delinquent peers is associated with less
commitment to school) and positive (+) signs indicating a direct positive
association between variables (e.g., more belief in conventional values is
associated with more commitment to school). These variables tend to have a
feedback loop, as represented in the figure.
Such a model, although complex and hard to measure, is logically

consistent, and the postulates are sound. However, the value of any theory
has to be determined by the empirical evidence supporting its validity. Much
of the scientific evidence regarding Thornberry’s empirical model has been
contributed by Thornberry and his colleagues.
Although the full model has yet to be tested, the researchers “have found
general support for the reciprocal relationships between both control
concepts and learning concepts with delinquent behavior.”24 One test of
Thornberry’s model used the longitudinal Rochester Youth Development
Study to test its postulates.25 This study found that the estimates of previous
unidirectional models (nonreciprocal models) did not adequately explain the
variation in the data. Rather, the results supported the interactional model,
with delinquent associations leading to increases in delinquency,
delinquency leading to reinforcing peer networks, and both directional
processes working through the social environment. In fact, this longitudinal
study demonstrated that, once the participants had acquired delinquent
beliefs from their peers, these beliefs had further effects on their future
behavior and associations, which is exactly what Thornberry’s theory
predicts.26
Another empirical test of Thornberry’s interactional model examined the

age-varying effects of the theory.27 This study incorporated hierarchical
linear modeling in investigating a sample of the National Youth Survey.
While the effects of delinquent peers were relatively close to predictions,
peaking in the mid-teenage years, the predictions regarding the effects of
family on delinquency were not found to be significant in the periods
expected, although family was important during adolescence.
Finally, it should be said that in many ways Thornberry’s interactional
model is far more developmental than others discussed here, because it
gives equal weight to the traditionally separate theoretical frameworks
combined into his model, in the sense that both are considered antecedent
and reciprocal in their effects on criminal behavior. Thornberry’s model is
likely the most convoluted framework we examine in this book, but it sheds
much light on a complex phenomenon. After all, not only do certain factors,
such as family influences, play a part in our peer influences, but peer
influences come back and influence familial factors. So although readers
may find such a model highly complicated, that is how human behavior
works. We live in and experience a complicated world, with numerous
interactions among a plethora of constantly occurring factors.
Learning Check 13.2
1. According to the text, which developmental theory focuses on transitions and

trajectories in our life course as reasons why individuals reduce their criminal
offending—transitions such as getting married and obtaining a desirable job?
a. Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy
b. Thornberry’s interactional model
c. Sampson and Laub’s developmental theory
d. Gottfredson and Hirschi’s theory of low self-control
2. According to the text, which developmental theory focuses on two different types
of offenders—namely, life-course persistent offenders and adolescence-limited
offenders?
3. According to the text, which developmental theory focuses on certain factors
having different influences at certain times in a person’s life, as well as the
reciprocal or feedback effects of subsequent variables or behaviors on the earlier
antecedent factors, creating a feedback loop?
4. According to the text, which theoretical model is considered “antidevelopmental”
in the sense that it proposes that once an individual has an early propensity toward
criminality, it is virtually impossible to change that propensity and such a person
will likely continue offending?
Answers at www.sagepub.com/schram3e
Policy Implications
Many—perhaps an infinite number of—policy implications can be derived
from developmental theories of criminality. Thus, we will focus on the most
important, which are those policies emphasizing the prenatal and perinatal
stages of life; the most significant and effective interventions can occur
during this time. If policymakers hope to reduce early risk factors for
criminality, they must insist on universal health care for pregnant women, as
well as for their children through the first few years of life. The United
States is one of the few developed nations that does not guarantee this type
of maternal and infant medical care and supervision. Doing so would go a
long way toward avoiding the costly damages (costly in many ways) of
criminal behavior among youths at risk.28 In fact, in one of the most recent
publications regarding this issue, J. C. Barnes stated that “hundreds of
studies have shown support for the notion that life-course-persistent
offending is often preceded by deficiencies in pre-, peri-, and postnatal care
that result in structural and/or functional brain abnormalities.”29
Furthermore, there should be legally mandated interventions for pregnant

women who are addicted to drugs or alcohol. Although this is a highly
controversial topic, it appears to be a no-brainer that women who suffer
from such addictions may become highly toxic to the child they carry and
should receive closer supervision and more attentive health care. Perhaps no
other policy implementation would have as much influence in reducing
future criminality in children as making sure their mothers do not take toxic
substances while pregnant.30
An additional concern is inadvertent exposure to toxins, such as lead, which

has shown an alarming causal connection to persistent criminality. In a
recent review of the evidence regarding such toxins, particularly lead, John
Wright stated that “a series of studies shows a consistent link between pre-
and postnatal lead ingestion and delinquency in adolescence and criminal
behavior in adulthood.”31 Although lead is just one of the many toxins
likely to affect the development of an individual’s brain, it is currently the
most prominent of the various toxins that can predispose a young person
toward criminality. Thus, people’s exposure to lead or any other toxins
should be monitored, especially in certain areas where such toxins are
known to exist.
Other policy implications include assigning special caseworkers for high-

risk pregnancies, such as those involving low birth weight or low Apgar
scores. Another advised intervention would be to organize a centralized
medical system that provides a flag for high-risk infants who have
numerous birth or delivery complications, so that the doctors seeing them
for the first time are aware of their vulnerabilities.32 Finally, universal
preschool should be funded and provided for all young children; studies
have shown that this leads to better performance, both academically and
socially, once they enter school.33
Ultimately, as the many developmental theories have shown, many concepts

and stages of life can have a profound effect on the criminological
trajectories lives can take. However, virtually all these models propose that
the earlier stages of life are likely the most important in determining
whether an individual will engage in criminal activity throughout life.
Therefore, policymakers should focus their efforts on providing care and
interventions within this time period.
Fazit
In this chapter, we discussed the importance of developmental or life-course theories of

criminal behavior. This perspective is relatively new—becoming popular in the late 1970s
—and did not become a mainstream or popular perspective until the 1990s. Ultimately,
this is one of the most cutting-edge areas of theoretical development, and life-course
theories are likely to be the most important frameworks in the future of the field of
criminological theory.
Developmental or life-course theory focuses on the individual and following such

individuals throughout life to examine their offending careers. This perspective puts a lot
of emphasis on life events, often referred to as transitions (such as getting married or
becoming employed in a stable job), that significantly affect an individual’s trajectory in
regard to criminal behavior. In-depth consideration of changes during the life course are of
highest concern, especially regarding general conclusions about the factors that tend to
increase or decrease someone’s likelihood to continue offending.
Life-course perspectives emphasize such concepts as onset, frequency of offending,

duration of offending, seriousness of offending, desistance from offending, and other
factors that play key roles in when and why individuals offend at certain times in their
lives. There are many critics of the developmental or life-course perspective, particularly
those who buy into the low-self-control model. This model is antidevelopmental in the
sense that it assumes that propensities for crime do not change over time but, rather,
remain unchanged throughout life.
One of the developmental models that has received the most attention is that of Sampson
and Laub, which emphasizes transitions in life (marriage, military service, employment,
etc.) that alter trajectories either toward or away from crime. Moffitt’s developmental
theory of chronic offenders (whom she labeled life-course persistent offenders) versus
more normal offenders (whom she labeled adolescence-limited offenders) is the
developmental model that has received the most attention over the past decade, and much
of this research is supportive of the interactive effects of biology and environment
combining to create chronic, habitual offenders. Another key developmental theory is
Thornberry’s interactional model, which emphasizes different types of influences of
certain factors at different times in our development, as well as the reciprocal or
“feedback” effects of certain outcome variables on previous antecedent factors. This type
of “feedback loop” can often lead to a vicious cycle of criminality that may be hard to
escape.
To follow up on the case study from the opening of this chapter, the Thornberry model is
likely the best explanation for the 14-year-old Tennessee boy arrested in connection with
nearly 100 burglaries in the north Nashville area. Given that his parents had been absent
for quite some time, as well as the rewards (or property) he was obtaining in stealing from
these homes, the youth experienced success and then kept repeating the same illegal acts
that allowed him to survive and be successful. Therefore, this created a cycle in which he
lacked support from society, which forced him to do what it took to stay alive. When this
paid off the first time, he naturally kept doing the same thing, time after time. Although
this example may seem extreme, it is likely that many more individuals also face
extremely deprived conditions that essentially force them to engage in high levels of
criminal activity.
In this chapter, we also examined the policy implications of this developmental approach,
which emphasize the need to provide universal care for pregnant mothers as well as their
newborn infants. Other policy implications include legally mandated interventions for
mothers who are addicted to toxic substances (e.g., alcohol and drugs) and assignment of
caseworkers for high-risk infants and children, such as those with birth or delivery
complications. Such interventions would go a long way toward sparing society from the
many problems (financial, victimization, etc.) that will persist without such interventions.
Ultimately, a focus on the earliest stages of intervention will provide the “biggest bang for
our buck.”
Ultimately, life-course/developmental theory is one of the most important perspectives in

criminology today, in terms of empirical validity of the theoretical framework and the
growing attention being given to the model in the research and discussion in
criminological literature.
Summary of Theories

Early onset,
duration,
Developmental/life- persistence,
Various
course theory frequency, The focus is on following
desistance individuals through life.
from crime
Individuals can change and

stop offending despite early
Transitions
Developmental/life- Sampson propensities, especially when
and
course theory and Laub positive transitions occur
trajectories
(e.g., marriage and
employment).
There are two primary types

Life-course of offenders. The life-course
persistent type are more chronic
offenders offenders who start early and
Developmental/life-
and Moffitt continue throughout life; the
course theory
adolescence- adolescence-limited type
limited offend only during teenage
offenders years to early 20s and then
grow out of it.
Key predictive factors have

differential effects at certain
times in life. These variables
tend to influence or interact
Interactions with each other and cause
among “feedback loops,” or
Developmental/life- predictive reciprocal effects, in which an
Thornberry
course theory factors and outcome variable influences a
reciprocal prior antecedent variable,
effects such as when being caught
offending causes further
tension in a youth’s
relationships with his or her
parents.
Once a low-self-control
disposition is formed by age
Antidevelopmental Low self- Hirschi and
10, there is no way to change
theory control Gottfredson
or develop away from
criminality.
Key Terms
adolescence-limited offenders, 335
developmental theories, 330
life-course persistent offenders, 335
Moffitt’s developmental theory or taxonomy, 335
Thornberry’s interactional model, 337
trajectories, 334
transitions, 334
1. What characteristic distinguishes developmental theories from traditional theoretical
frameworks?
2. What aspects of a criminal career do experts consider important in such a model?
Describe all the aspects they look at in a person’s criminal career.
3. Discuss the primary criticisms regarding the developmental perspective, particularly that
presented by Gottfredson and Hirschi. Which theoretical paradigm do you consider the
most valid? Why?
4. What transitions or trajectories have you seen in your life or your friends’ lives that
support Sampson and Laub’s developmental model? What events encouraged offending
or inhibited it?
5. Given Moffitt’s dichotomy of life-course persistent and adolescence-limited offenders,
which of these should be given more attention in research? Why do you feel this way?
Ressourcen
Chapter 3 of Matt DeLisi’s Career Criminals in Society provides an overview of

developmental theories of crime; it discusses all the primary developmental theories.
http://www.sagepub.com/sites/default/files/upm-
binaries/5182_Delisi_I_Proof_Chapter_3.pdf
An article by Joanna Ferreira in the journal Inquiries shines a spotlight on Terrie

Moffitt’s theory.
http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1421/life-course-criminology-comparing-
the-dual-taxonomy-and-age-graded-theories-of-criminal-behavior
An article by Charles Coe in Harvard magazine examines Sampson and Laub’s model.
http://harvardmagazine.com/2004/03/twigs-bent-trees-go-stra.html
Sangmoon Lee’s dissertation describes a test of Thornberry’s interactional model.
https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1600&context=rtd
Springer’s Encyclopedia of Criminology and Criminal Justice contains an entry on

Thornberry’s model, by Thornberry himself.
https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4614-5690-2_499
Student Study Site

Media Library
premium resources:
Author Video
13.1: Life-Course Perspective

13.1: Developmental Theory

13.1: Arson
Chapter 14 White-Collar Crime,
Organized Crime, and Cybercrime
© iStockphoto.com/PeopleImages
Learning Objectives
After you read this chapter, you will be able to:
14.1 Explain the criteria experts use to distinguish white-collar crime from traditional
forms of offending, as well as criticisms of these criteria.
14.2 Discuss the ways in which corporate crimes impact society in terms of physical and
property damage, as well as weakening the moral fabric of society.
14.3 Classify the various types of white-collar crime.
14.4 Explain some of the theoretical explanations for white-collar crime.
14.5 Describe various aspects of organized crime, such as definitions, criminal justice
responses, and theoretical explanations.
14.6 Discuss the key issues associated with cybercrime.
Introduction
This chapter examines a large group of offenses that do not generally fit in
the traditional concept of predatory street crimes, such as murder, rape,
assault, burglary, and motor-vehicle theft. The types of offending examined
in this chapter include various types of white-collar, organized, and
computer (or cyber) crime. Although these crimes do not receive nearly the
amount of attention that traditional street crimes get on the evening news or
in newspapers, they cause far more damage to society, in terms of both
property/financial losses and violence, than all street crimes combined.
Case Study
William T. Walters
William T. Walters was considered the most successful sports gambler in the country.
Peter Foley/Bloomberg via Getty Images
Phil Mickelson is a professional golfer; he has won five major golf championships, as well as
garnered numerous endorsement agreements. Thomas Davis is a former investment banker; he
has a Harvard education and lives a “country club lifestyle.” Both men had something in
common—they owed money to William Walters. William Walters was often considered the
most successful sports gambler in the country. After an extensive investigation, the debts of
Phil Mickelson and Thomas Davis were revealed to be at the center of an insider trading
scheme.1
According to Mike Fish in a 2015 ESPN article, William Walters
is thought to have bet more money more successfully than anyone in history, earning
hundreds of millions of dollars. Federal and state investigators sniff around his
operation regularly. Scores of bettors and bookies have tried to crack his methods so
they can emulate him. . . . Walters has outrun them all.2
In May 2016, federal prosecutors brought criminal charges against Walters, alleging that he
used illegal stock tips from Thomas Davis to accumulate approximately $40 million in profits.
Phil Mickelson has not been criminally accused of any wrongdoing. However, the Securities
and Exchange Commission (SEC) has listed him in a civil complaint.3 The SEC maintains that
Mickelson earned almost $1 million from illegal stock tips. In a separate statement, Mickelson
entered into an agreement with the SEC to repay those monies.4 Thomas Davis, however, had
debts that far exceeded Mickelson’s. Walters lent Davis money. In return, Davis, who was
chairman of Dean Foods, returned the favor by providing Walters with “boardroom secrets.” In
an effort to conceal their scheme, Walters and Davis used disposable cellphones and developed
a “secret code” when discussing Dean Foods. For instance, Dean Foods is a Dallas company.
Thus, the two men referred to the company as “the Dallas Cowboys.” Andrew Ceresney,
director of the SEC’s enforcement division, stated, “Davis breached his duty and broke the law
as the result of being in dire financial straits. . . . Mr. Walters . . . was ‘gambling on a sure
thing.’”5
Think About It
1. Does this fit your perception of crime?
2. Does William Walters fit the description of a criminal?
3. Will he be treated differently than other criminal offenders?
While in years past, clear distinctions were made between organized and
white-collar crime, recently some researchers have maintained that these
two types of offense may be similar rather than fundamentally distinct.6
White-Collar Crime
White-collar crime did not gain much attention from criminological
researchers until the 1940s and remained a relatively low priority until the
past few decades. Despite years of being relatively ignored by researchers,
white-collar crime is currently receiving much attention, probably due to
high-profile chief executive officers (CEOs) and celebrities, such as Martha
Stewart, being convicted of illegal business practices.
white-collar crime: criteria include (1) upper-class offender, (2) work-related violations,
(3) work-related violations of blue-collar workers excluded, and (4) regular crimes
committed by upper-class persons excluded.
This section examines the way the concept is defined and how it has
evolved, with particular emphasis on its huge impact on modern societies,
especially in the United States, due to the global, multibillion-dollar nature
of many modern corporations.
Definitions and History

Experts in the area of white-collar crime consider it one of the most difficult
concepts to define, with there being little consistency from researcher to
researcher.7 The first prominent acknowledgment of “white-collar crime” as
an important concept for criminologists to study was presented at an
American Sociological Society (ASS, later renamed the American
Sociological Association, or ASA) conference in 1939 by Edwin
Sutherland,8 who coined the term white-collar crime and is generally
considered the most prominent criminologist of the 20th century (for this
and other work, such as the formation of differential association theory, see
Chapter 10). In this presentation, which was the ASS presidential address,
Sutherland did not provide a clear definition of white-collar crime but
simply presented a variety of cases that seemed to apply.9 For example, he
discussed the racketeering cases against Chicago’s Al Capone, as well as the
Federal Trade Commission investigations of automobile companies that
falsely advertised low-interest-rate loans and the false claims of some of
Hearst’s publications, such as Good Housekeeping. His discussion also
included cases in which judges and various officials accepted bribes or
engaged in other unethical practices in which they abused the power of their
positions. Perhaps the reason why Sutherland did not provide a clear
definition of crime in his address was because he first needed to convince
other academics that white-collar crime was an actual, serious form of
criminal activity. Perhaps the most profound statement he made in his
address was “White-collar crime is real crime.”10
Before we discuss the contents and importance of Sutherland’s presidential
address, it is important to note that there was a history of research in the
study of corporate and occupational crimes—even going back to the ancient
Greeks, who issued decrees against those who forced up prices of imported
grain, the penalty for which was death for that person and his entire
family.11 Although most textbooks claim that Sutherland introduced the
concept of corporate, occupational, or industrial crimes, that is not true.
Specifically, prior to Sutherland’s address, there were numerous scientific
studies on “white-collar bandits,” “robber-barons,” “corporate crime,”
“muckrakers,” and “industrial crime,” all of which refer to forms of
corporate, industrial, occupational, or political corruption.12 In fact, some of
these studies are considered seminal, such as Matthew Josephson’s Robber
Barons: The Great American Capitalists13 and George Anderson’s
Consolidation of Gas Companies in Boston,14 published in 1934 and 1905,
respectively—well before Sutherland’s address.
Edwin Sutherland: coined the term white-collar crime; generally considered the most
prominent criminologist of the 20th century.
Al Capone’s mug shot, taken by the Chicago police after his

1931 arrest.
United States Bureau of Prisons
Although similar terms, such as white-collar bandits, had been used many
times before, Sutherland does deserve credit for coining the term white-
collar crime and, more important, for bringing far more attention to the
topic by making it the primary focus of his ASS presidential address, which
was prominently reported by the mainstream press and significantly
increased public attention to this type of offending.
At the end of Sutherland’s presidential address at the ASS conference in

1939, he provided a summary list of his four primary propositions, the first
(implying its importance) being that “white-collar criminality is real
criminality, being in all cases in violation of the criminal law,” which is a
vague and weak definition.15 Subsequently, in 1945, Sutherland published a
study on the prevalence of white-collar crime (discussed below); again, a
clear definition of the concept was not provided.16 However, in 1949,
Sutherland published two works that supplied definitions, albeit still
somewhat vague, for white-collar crime. One of these was White-Collar
Crime,17 in which he provided the definition in a footnote, stating that
white-collar crime
may be defined approximately as a crime committed by a person

of respectability and high social status in the course of his
occupation . . . [which] excludes many crimes of the upper class,
such as . . . murder . . . since these are not customarily a part of
their occupational procedures . . . and refer[s] principally to
business managers and executives.18
There are a number of things to note about this definition. First, as you can
see from the wording, particularly use of the word approximately, even
Sutherland (the man who coined the term) appears to have lacked
confidence in what “white-collar crime” means.19 However, the definition
contains some key distinctions that separate it from descriptions of typical
street crimes.
The first necessary condition is that the offenders are at the top of the
socioeconomic structure, due to the requirement of having a “white-collar”
job as opposed to a “blue-collar” job or no job at all. According to this
portion of Sutherland’s definition, if a clerk at a fast-food restaurant steals
money from the register, it is not considered white-collar crime because,
although the person committed the crime while engaging in work-related
duties, he or she clearly does not hold a white-collar position. Later, we will
discuss modern criticisms of this requirement in defining white-collar
crime.20 Another key element of this definition is that offenses by upper-
class individuals are considered white-collar crime only if they are
employment-related. A business executive may be a serial killer or a drug
dealer, but if these violations do not pertain to his actual job, then they do
not count as white-collar crime. Finally, the definition notes that this term
refers “principally” to business executives, but such a word is vague (once
again suggesting Sutherland’s lack of confidence in specifying the exact
meaning of the term) and therefore allows some deviation from including
only violations committed by executives. Still, it is clear that the person
must have a white-collar position to qualify, even if not that of a manager or
high-ranking corporate officer.
The second relevant publication by Sutherland in 1949 was a brief, five-

page entry titled “The White Collar Criminal” in Branham and Kutash’s
Encyclopedia of Criminology.21 Despite its relative obscurity, this entry
seemed to provide the most straightforward definition of this form of
offending. Specifically, Sutherland wrote that the
white-collar criminal is defined as a person with high

socioeconomic status who violates the laws designed to regulate
his occupational activities. . . . The white collar criminal should be
differentiated . . . from the person of lower socio-economic status
who violates the regular penal code or the special trade
regulations which apply to him, and . . . from the person of high
socio-economic status who violates the regular penal code in ways
not connected with his occupation.22
For the most part, this definition is highly consistent with Sutherland’s first
definition, taken from White-Collar Crime. Specifically, in both definitions,
Sutherland stipulated four criteria constituting white-collar crime:
1. The offender is upper-class.

2. The committed violations are work-related.
3. The work-related violations of blue-collar workers are excluded.
4. Regular crimes (i.e., those occurring outside employment) committed
by upper-class persons are excluded.
Also in the encyclopedia entry, Sutherland stated that the laws violated by
white-collar offenders are sometimes in the regular penal code but often
found only in regulatory or trade codes (many of which are now created and
enforced by agencies such as the Securities and Exchange Commission, or
SEC).
Perhaps the most important consequence of Sutherland’s creation of the

term white-collar crime, and his definition and promotion of the concept,
was the almost immediate attention, particularly empirical studies, focused
on the topic.23 Although many of these studies failed to apply his
definitional criteria to the offenses they examined and some clearly deviated
from the parameters set by his criteria, there is no doubt that Sutherland’s
writings and presentations between 1939 and 1949—not to mention his
subsequent work in the area—got the ball rolling in terms of research and
theoretical development regarding white-collar crime. Still, despite the
criteria established by Sutherland, the term white-collar crime was both
criticized and loosely applied to a variety of behaviors, particularly by the
researchers of the 1940s through the 1960s, while others questioned the
limits that had been set or the use of the term criminal in such situations.
For instance, some argued that many, if not most, of the persons Sutherland
referred to had not been convicted in criminal court and therefore could not
be considered “criminals” who had committed “crimes.”24 Sutherland
responded to this argument by (a) noting the need to determine the harm
done by such acts and to acknowledge that these individuals’ behavior was
in violation of the mandate of legal codes and (b) stating that these factors
deserved more emphasis in the criminal justice system and/or society’s
response to such offenders.25
Unfortunately, even today, white-collar criminals are far less likely than
traditional street criminals to be investigated, caught, charged, and
convicted, let alone sentenced to significant prison time. Perhaps the
epitome of this type of minor “wrist-slapping” is seen in the case of Michael
Milken, an American financier. In 1990, Milken admitted to stealing about a
billion dollars via illegal business practices. He was ordered to pay back
only about 60% of that and spent only a few years in prison. (He later
received a standing ovation in Congress after donating some money—likely
stolen via insider trading—to prostate cancer research—likely because he
had just been diagnosed with this disease.)
Some of these criminologists acknowledged considering the criteria

established by Sutherland when determining whether the offenses they were
examining deserved the label “white-collar crime.” For example, one
researcher explicitly questioned whether embezzlers were white-collar
offenders, considering that many of them were not persons of high status,
although most had committed their crimes during the course of their
occupational duties.26 A similar doubt was expressed by a researcher who
examined individuals who had violated wartime regulations regarding meat
rationing, involving unauthorized distribution and/or consumption (i.e., the
black market).27 Other experts outright claimed that Sutherland’s
definitional criteria were far too restrictive and should allow for inclusion of
any offenders working for a business.28 These are just a couple of the many
examples of offending that fall in the “gray area” between white-collar
crimes and regular types of crime, as well as bring up questions of what
constitutes criminal behavior.
Another major cause of confusion when it comes to defining white-collar

crime is that a variety of other terms are typically used synonymously.
These terms include corporate crime, organizational crime, occupational
crime, upperworld crime, business crime, and suite crime (as opposed to
traditional street crime).29 Some have even claimed that there is virtually no
distinction between white-collar crime and organized crime (this issue will
be discussed further in a later section in this chapter).30 Others would argue
that these terms do have distinctions. For example, a strong argument has
been made regarding the difference between occupational crime and
corporate crime: The former includes offenders at all levels of the
business/social structure, whereas the latter is generally crime committed by
managers or executives (often under the direction of the CEO or board of
directors).31
One summary of the early scientific works on white-collar crime,

particularly regarding definitional issues, concluded that the primary
criterion is that the act occur in relation to the offender’s occupational role,
which the author claimed was more important than the type of offending or
the person’s socioeconomic standing.32 Unfortunately, there is also debate
over what behaviors are considered a part of one’s occupational role and,
thus, what activities constitute white-collar crime. Even in more recent
times, experts have offered refined definitions, such as suggesting that the
primary criterion is abuse of a position of authority or trust.33 Still other
theorists go as far as to claim that there is no reason at all to distinguish
white-collar crimes from traditional crimes.34 Interestingly, some
recommendations have been to go back to using Sutherland’s original
criteria,35 an idea that appears to be gaining support.36
Despite such pointed criticisms and ongoing disagreements among

criminologists about a clear definition of white-collar crime, a short list of
the general categories of various white-collar offenses includes (1) fraud, (2)
labor violations, (3) manufacturing violations, (4) unfair business practices,
(5) abuse of authority, and (6) regulatory or administrative violations.37
Each of these categories contains many specific forms of crime; in this
chapter, examples will be provided for each general type and variations will
be discussed.
Examples of fraud include tax evasion and false advertising. Labor

violations, discussed in detail later, include different forms of harassment
and dangerous working conditions that can cause injuries and death.
Manufacturing violations include the production and distribution of unsafe
consumer products, as well as environmental violations (e.g., toxic-waste
dumping). The category of unethical business practices has likely gotten the
most attention in the media recently, due to the prosecution and/or
conviction of many high-ranking business executives in the United States.
Unfair business practices include insider trading, bid rigging, antitrust
violations, and illegal mergers. Perhaps one of the better-known categories
for criminal justice practitioners is abuse of authority, including bribery,
extortion, brutality, and kickbacks. Finally, a host of rules and codes
established by federal, state, and local agencies govern the functioning of
businesses and other organizations; offenses against these codes are
considered regulatory/administrative violations and include copyright,
trademark, and patent infringements.
Learning Check 14.1
1. According to the text, which theorist is largely credited for coining the term white-
collar crime in the late 1930s in his presidential address to the American
Sociological Society?
a. Hirschi
b. Sutherland
c. Lombroso
d. Matza
e. Agnew
2. According to the text, there were numerous studies of corporate crime prior to the
above theorist’s presidential address in the 1930s. True or false?
3. According to the text, “white-collar/corporate crime” has a clear definition. True or
false?
Incidence and Impact on Society

After his presidential address to the ASS, Sutherland published a key study
regarding corporate crime and violations by most of the largest companies
in the United States at that time (the 1940s).38 In this seminal study,
Sutherland examined the decisions of courts and regulatory commissions
against the 70 largest mercantile and industrial corporations in the nation.
Considering that the study was done in the 1940s, the findings are quite
startling. Sutherland found that a total of 547 adverse decisions had been
made against these 70 companies, with an average of almost eight decisions
per corporation. Even more surprising was the prevalence of the
substantiated rule violations; specifically, every single one of the
corporations that Sutherland included in his sample had a decision against it,
which implies that all highly successful businesses in the United States had
engaged in unethical practices (and been caught).
Perhaps most shocking, virtually every corporation had committed more

than one offense, with 97.1% recidivating. It appears that being caught and
charged once did not do much to deter the businesses from engaging in
unethical behaviors again. Keep in mind that corporate crime usually goes
undiscovered, so the fact that almost every business in this study was caught
more than once implies that the most successful companies actively and
repeatedly engage in unethical activity for a profit. Interestingly, although
Sutherland made a strong argument that all these activities were criminal,
only 9% (49 out of the 547) of the decisions were made by criminal courts.
The others were made mostly by federal or state oversight agencies, which
often lack the power that criminal courts can wield in terms of punishment
and/or stigma.
It is amazing that every highly successful company in the United States was
found by an authoritative body to have committed a rule violation, and most
had committed more than a handful of such violations. When comparing
these rates of violations, some may argue that there were a higher
percentage of companies committing such violations in the 1940s due to
lower regulation. However, that doesn’t seem to be a strong argument,
because there was enough regulation to catch every single company (of the
top 70) engaging in unethical practices and, furthermore, enough to catch
most of them numerous times.
Has the increase in laws, regulatory codes, and investigation reduced this
rate of violations among modern corporations? The scientific answer is that
we do not know for sure, because there was no stable, consistent measure of
such violations from the 1940s to now. But given the recent revelations
regarding the extensive amount of grossly unethical practices at some of the
nation’s most respected and “successful” corporations—especially those
with strong political ties, such as Enron (see “Why Do They Do It?”) and
others (e.g., WorldCom and Adelphia)—there has not likely been a
significant reduction in the incidence of corporate criminality in the past 70
years.
After all, other investigations of the largest businesses in the nation have all
found that corporate misbehavior is not the exception but the norm; in fact,
it appears that the more successful the company, the more it has been
charged with violations. For example, one analysis of the 582 largest
manufacturing and retail/service corporations in the United States from
1975 to 1976 found that 60% of the corporations had at least one violation,
and this was in just the two-year period of the study! Close to half the
companies had more than one violation, and some had more than 30
violations in this short period of time, which of course represents a chronic
state of corporate offending.39 Furthermore, a review of corporate crime
among Fortune 500 companies found that well over half (62%) were
involved in at least one violation between 1975 and 1984, while another
analysis found that every single one of the 25 largest Fortune 500
corporations had been convicted of a violation between 1977 and 1990.40
Further, a 2012 review by the nonpartisan, nonprofit group Ethics Resource
Center (ERC), led by former U.S. congressman Michael Oxley—co-author
of the federal Sarbanes-Oxley Act (passed in 2002) that sought to hold
corporations more accountable for unethical activity—found that workplace
misconduct at Fortune 500 companies is higher than the corporate average
in the nation.41 More specifically, this study by the ERC found that high-
level employees of 52% of Fortune 500 companies said they had observed
misconduct in their workplace during the last 12 months! Given that this
study only covered a one-year period, it is highly likely the percentage of
Fortune 500 corporations that engage in unethical activity even once every
few years is far higher.
In sum, a review of the evidence of the rate (and causes) of modern white-
collar crime summarily concluded:
The reality of corporate crime in U.S. society changes little from

year to year. Corporate crime is rampant; corporations are
criminal recidivists . . . and corporate crime is treated with kid
gloves by government agencies and the criminal justice system.42
Economic Costs.
There is now little doubt that white-collar crime causes far more financial
damage to society than all other crimes combined. As one review
concluded:
The general public loses more money by far . . . from price fixing
and monopolistic practices and from consumer deception and
embezzlement than from all the property crimes in the Federal
Bureau of Investigation’s Index combined. Yet these far more
costly acts are either not criminal, or, if technically criminal, not
prosecuted, or if prosecuted, not punished, or if punished, only
mildly. In any event, although the individuals responsible for these
acts take more money out of the ordinary citizen’s pocket than our
Typical Criminal, they rarely show up in arrest statistics and
almost never in prison populations.43
Some estimates by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)’s Uniform

Crime Reports have put the cost of all street crimes at close to $17 billion
for the year 2002.44 In a shocking comparison, just one act of corporate
crime (Enron) in the early years of the millennium resulted in estimated
losses of $60 billion, and it is estimated that the savings and loan industry
bailout from 1989 will cost taxpayers $473 billion by the year 2020
(showing the long-term consequences of such events).51
Why Do They Do It?
Enron
Enron Corporation was founded in 1985 by Kenneth Lay. It was an energy company based
in Houston, Texas. When Enron was established, natural gas and energy were produced,
transmitted, and sold by state-regulated monopolies. These regulations were largely
ineffectual. Enron creatively transformed energy supplies into financial instruments,
which subsequently could be traded online like stocks and bonds.45 In 15 years, Enron
grew to become the United States’ seventh-largest company, with about 21,000 employees
in more than 40 countries.46 Its declaration of bankruptcy in 2001 therefore came as a
shock to the public. Unbeknown to investors and even most of its employees, company
executives had been covering up massive losses (totaling billions of dollars) for years.47
Apparently, Enron’s problems had developed when it moved from trading energy to other
trading ventures. So, “for a time, Enron swept its failures into creative hiding places, but
ultimately the truth came out [and] confidence in the company collapsed.”48
Enron attempted to hide its losses in an effort to protect company profits. The following is
just one example of such an attempt:
Enron invested a bunch of money in a joint venture with Blockbuster to rent out
movies online. The deal flopped eight months later. But in the meantime Enron
had secretly set up a partnership with a Canadian bank. The bank essentially lent
Enron $115 million in exchange for Enron’s profits from the movie venture over
its first 10 years. The Blockbuster deal never made a penny, but Enron counted
the Canadian loan as a nice, fat profit.49
The fallout of one of the largest bankruptcies in U.S. history included several high-level
executives being sentenced to prison and thousands of people losing their jobs and
retirement savings.50
Think About It
1. What are the similarities and differences between this crime and a robbery or a
burglary? When answering this question, think in terms of type of harm
experienced by the victims.
2. How would these similarities and differences be reflected in punishment of such
offenses?
So the “suite” crimes committed by Enron caused more than three times the
financial damage of all “street” crimes combined, not to mention the impact
of the savings and loan bailout. And these are just two cases discovered and
brought to public attention. Furthermore, a “very conservative” estimate of
the total economic costs from white-collar crimes each year is about $500
billion, about 30 times (i.e., 3,000%) as much as the total for combined
street crimes.52 This works out to an average annual loss of about $1,800
per person, compared with the estimated loss of $60 per person from
combined street crimes. And yes, we all pay for such corporate crimes,
because such losses, bailouts, recovery funds, and so forth typically come
out of federal or state funds, which means taxpayers pick up the bill.
Physical Costs.
The financial cost of white-collar crime is not the most disturbing type of
damage that results from corporate misbehavior. Most experts now agree
that the scientific evidence clearly shows that “corporate crime kills, maims,
and injures enormously larger numbers of innocent people than all street
crimes combined.”53 Empirical studies are consistent regarding the high
numbers of deaths and physical injuries that directly result from the
wrongdoings of business executives.
For example, one study showed that a conservative estimate of how many
individuals die annually due to corporate crime is at least 105,000 persons,
which includes about 55,000 employees who are harmed while working
(including occupational illnesses), another 30,000 consumer deaths from
unsafe products, and at least 20,000 citizen deaths from a variety of types of
environmental pollution.54 Of course, these estimates do not include how
many persons die from falsely prescribed or marketed pharmaceutical drugs,
which likely totals many thousands each year and, due to the aging
population in the United States, is probably increasing every year—as is the
number of people who die from criminally negligent nursing home or
medical care.
Finally, these estimates do not include the estimated 4.7 million Americans
harmed (but not killed) at work, which includes 4.4 million persons who
suffer physical injuries and 300,000 who contract occupational illnesses
(i.e., get sick due to work conditions),55 with a high percentage of these
being directly due to corporate crime. These workplace injuries are far more
common than injuries due to traditional street crimes and, on average, are
more serious. This was measured by comparing the number of workdays
missed due to work-related injuries/illnesses versus workdays missed due to
violent assaults; the average number of days missed from work was higher
for those injured on the job.
Keep in mind that there are only about 15,000 homicides due to street
crimes in the United States each year.56 So, considering the previous
estimates of annual deaths, it appears that corporate crime causes at least 7
times (and likely 10 times) as many deaths than do traditional street crimes.
Furthermore, it appears that while the rate of homicides and assaults due to
street crimes has been cut in half over the past 25 years (with most of this
decrease coming in the past 15 years), there is no indication that deaths or
injuries due to corporate crimes have decreased; on the contrary, there is
evidence that such injuries are on the rise.57 A review of the empirical
evidence comparing the damages between traditional and white-collar crime
concluded, “The total of all violent crime and all property crime combined
is less of a threat to society than the crime committed by corporations.”58
Breakdown in Social Fabric.
Beyond the relatively high levels of economic and violent damage caused
by white-collar crimes, a number of theorists have made the argument that
these “suite” crimes are also far worse than “street” crimes in terms of the
damage done to the moral and social fabric of society.59 To clarify, they
argue that corporate crime creates a higher level of immorality in American
society because of the nature of hypocrisy typically inherent in the offenders
and/or offending. After all, these offenders are often individuals who are
looked up to by other members of society, and they are often persons, such
as community leaders, politicians, or judges, who have condemned and even
prosecuted others for street crimes that didn’t inflict near the damage of
their own “suite” crimes. As Clinard and Yeager (1980) claimed in their
classic work:
It is hypocritical to regard theft and fraud among the lower classes

with distaste and to punish such acts while countenancing upper-
class deception and calling it “shrewd business practice.” A
review of corporate violations and how they are prosecuted and
punished shows who controls what in law enforcement in
American society and the extent to which this control is effective;
. . . corporate crime is generally surrounded by an aura of
politeness and respectability rarely if ever present in cases of
ordinary crime.60
Furthermore, most high-profile businesses guilty of corporate wrongdoing

had strong political ties to certain groups—namely, the Republican Party.
Specifically, an analysis showed that virtually every corporate violator made
more contributions to the Republican Party (which has a generally more
pro-business or laissez-faire [hands-off] attitude) than to the Democratic
Party.61 However, the history of corporate and white-collar violations
clearly is on both sides of the aisle in terms of political ideology.
What are some of the negative effects experienced by victims
of white-collar crime?
© iStockphoto.com/Pamela Moore
When we poll our students about how serious they perceive white-collar
crime to be compared with street crimes, they often claim that they don’t
care much about white-collar crime because it doesn’t directly affect them.
But indeed it does! After all, who will be paying for the Enron fallout, the
savings and loan scandal of the late 1980s, fraudulent insurance claims, and
the other thousands of corporate violations each year? American taxpayers
and consumers. Furthermore, we are far less likely to be injured or killed by
traditional street offenders than by corporate offenders, whether from unsafe
pharmaceuticals, hazardous consumer products, or dangerous working
conditions.
Types of White-Collar Crime

We will now examine several notable forms of white-collar crime. Although
there are hundreds of varieties of corporate offending, due to space
limitations, we concentrate here on what we consider to be the most
influential and/or fastest-growing types of white-collar crime: violations
against the environment, labor violations, and organized crime (i.e.,
racketeering).
Crimes Against the Environment.

Although forms of pollution have existed throughout human civilization, the
real turn for the worse for the environment was the Industrial Revolution
(mid-1700s to mid-1800s), which resulted in a dramatic shift from rural-
based economies to industrial-based economies.
In the preindustrial period, farmers were dependent on the land, so for the
most part, they treated it well. Once the Industrial Revolution began,
countless numbers of factories and plants were built, and this resulted in
unprecedented dumping of deadly chemicals and waste products into bodies
of water, toxins being released from endless streams of smoke from factory
chimneys, and massive destruction of majestic forests and natural resources.
However, there was virtually no understanding of the damage being done,
and pollution was not acknowledged as a concept, let alone a problem.
In the 20th century, it became obvious that much damage had been done,
and efforts have since been made to repair and restrict harm to the
environment. Many laws and regulations were passed, and federal, state,
and local agencies were created, such as the most prominent federal agency,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA; see http://www.epa.gov).
The EPA is not a Cabinet agency, but the administrator (appointed by the
president) is normally given Cabinet rank, so he or she certainly has almost
daily contact with the president of the United States.
Environmental Protection Agency: started in 1970, charged with protecting human

health and safeguarding the natural environment.
Learning Check 14.2
1. According to the text, what percentage of the 25 largest Fortune 500 corporations
were convicted of a violation between 1977 and 1990?
a. 20%
b. 40%
c. 60%
d. 80%
e. 100%
2. According to the text, white-collar/corporate crimes cost U.S. society far more each
year in terms of injuries/deaths than all street crimes combined. True or false?
The EPA, established in 1970, is charged with protecting human health and
safeguarding the natural environment, which is quite a burden.62 For
instance, there are 30,000 waste sites, along with more than 10 billion
pounds of toxic chemicals that pose a significant threat of pollution, in the
United States.63 Furthermore, the EPA estimates that about 60,000 deaths—
mostly among the elderly and young children—each year in the United
States are a direct result of toxic particles emitted from manufacturing
plants. Also, in one report, the EPA identified 149 manufacturing plants
throughout the nation where air in nearby communities had been determined
to be toxic and dangerous.64
Oil-covered pelicans being held in a pen, after which they will

be cleaned. In 2010, a disaster at one of British Petroleum’s
contracted offshore drilling rigs, Deepwater Horizon, caused
an estimated 4.9 million barrels (210 million gallons) of oil
to be discharged into the Gulf of Mexico. Much of that oil
washed onto U.S. beaches.
Xavier MOLINERO/Gamma-Rapho via Getty Images
The EPA often works with the U.S. Department of the Interior and U.S.
Department of Agriculture in developing and enforcing regulations to
protect the environment from corporate crimes. These include laws against
air pollution, against water pollution, for preserving forests and other natural
areas, for appropriate hazardous waste disposal, and for protecting
endangered species. This has been one of the most common areas of
corporate violation over the past few decades, and the EPA has been busy.
Although the vast majority of the nearly 20,000 people working for the EPA
are doing their best to protect us and the environment, imagine their shock,
as well as the public’s, when it was discovered that EPA executives in the
early 1980s were committing corporate crime. Specifically, Rita Lavelle was
appointed by President Reagan and put in charge of a large fund to clean up
the most extreme cases of corporate pollution resulting from improper
disposal of hazardous waste.65 She participated in questionable decisions
with some of the most chronic corporate polluters and used the dispersal of
monies for political purposes; she was later convicted on four felony counts
in 1983. So again, here is an example of the hypocrisy of white-collar crime
and how it destroys the moral fabric of society. After all, why should any
business respect the environmental codes when the very people who create
and enforce the codes have been known to engage in high levels of
corruption?
Labor Violations.
One of the more common corporate violations involves crimes against the
people who work for the business. Like environmental crimes, these types
of offense became far more common during and after the Industrial
Revolution. Labor violations range from hiring illegal workers (e.g.,
children) to exploiting workers to keeping unsafe work conditions and many
more variations.
The primary legislation developed to investigate labor violations is the

Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), passed in 1970. Among
other things, this act made it a misdemeanor to cause the death of a worker
by willfully violating safety laws.66 Unfortunately, the maximum jail time
for this offense is six months, which some theorists have noted is half the
maximum term for a person caught riding a wild burro on federal lands.67
OSHA inspectors are charged with establishing and enforcing standards for
the safety of American workers; however, that means overseeing 115
million workers, which is near impossible, especially with only about 2,500
inspectors. So they remain busy and often find violators.
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970: among other things, this federal act
established the Occupational Safety and Health Administration and made it a
misdemeanor to cause the death of a worker by willfully violating safety laws.
For example, OSHA conducted about 40,000 inspections in 2003 alone,

finding about 83,600 violations.68 Violators are sometimes fined, but these
fines are usually relatively low in relation to the profits being made by the
companies. Also, OSHA almost never pursues criminal charges; between
1970 and 2002, OSHA referred only 151 cases to the Department of Justice
for criminal prosecution despite finding tens of thousands of violations each
year. Of these 151 cases, only 11 resulted in prison sentences, with the
maximum being six months. A comprehensive analysis of 170,000 workers
killed during the 20-year period from 1982 to 2002 revealed that OSHA
investigated only about 24% of these cases, and even in the cases where
willful safety violations occurred, the fines were typically $70,000 or less
and jail time was extremely rare.69 Thus, it is obvious that little enforcement
or deterrence is involved in labor violations. So corporations simply have
little or nothing to lose by even willfully violating the labor regulations and
codes. Interestingly, labor issues, especially regarding workers’ unions, are
often related to the next category of white-collar crime we will discuss later
in the chapter—organized crime and racketeering.
This photograph illustrates the dangerous conditions associated

with child labor. In 1836, Massachusetts was the first state to
pass a minimum-age law for workers.
Universal History Archive/Universal Images Group via Getty Images
Although historically the empirical research on theories explaining white-
collar crime was limited, in the past few decades there has been a significant
increase in attention to this area. A 2012 review of the extant scientific
research testing the empirical validity of various theories discussed
previously in this book found that some theories were better than others at
explaining white-collar crime.70
Regarding the conclusions that can be reached from this review of the
empirical research, the theory of differential association, techniques of
neutralization, and other social learning principles are extremely valid in
understanding the influence of the corporate world. In white-collar crime,
however, it is not a person’s significant others (friends, family, etc.) who
form the important definitions of doing “good”; rather, it is his or her
supervisors and professional colleagues who are most likely to affect
decisions to act unethically in business practices. Furthermore, this is
consistent with the use of excuses or neutralization techniques to allow an
individual to do what he or she knows is inherently wrong for the good of a
higher authority (company, supervisors, loyalty to colleagues, etc.). In fact,
one study showed that executive MBA candidates, who had much
experience in the corporate world, were significantly more likely to use
neutralization techniques in explaining why they agreed to market and sell
an admittedly dangerous drug than were normal MBA students, who had far
less experience in the corporate world.71
Applying Theory to Crime White-Collar Crime
In this section, we discuss several theories that seem to explain some of the reasons why
individuals engage in various forms of white-collar crime. First, it should be apparent that
although most crimes don’t pay well, white-collar crime often does come with a large
payoff. Second, the individuals in white-collar positions tend to have a low likelihood of
getting caught; even if they are caught, they are typically not punished severely. So given
the obvious failure of traditional, formal deterrence theory in trying to explain this
phenomenon, we must turn to other theoretical frameworks.
Despite its similarity to traditional deterrence, one theoretical model that has shown much
promise in understanding criminal decision-making in the corporate world is rational
choice theory. In a recent review of the extant research, Paternoster and Tibbetts
concluded that one of the key reasons for the empirical support of rational choice theory
over formal deterrence theory is that the informal pressures and controls that exist within a
corporation often override any possible deterrent effect from authorities outside the
organization.72 Rational choice theory places an emphasis on accounting for such
informal factors and, thus, is an improvement over models focused on formal sanctions, or
lack thereof.
Additional theoretical models found to be helpful in explaining white-collar crime include

the social process/learning models of differential association/reinforcement theory, which
place an emphasis on the influence of significant others in individuals’ decisions of
whether to engage in illegal behavior.73 A study by Piquero, Tibbetts, and Blankenship
showed that several components of the differential association theoretical framework did,
in fact, predict intentions to make unethical business decisions in a scenario presented to
participants (MBA students). The scenario involved a drug that was known to cause
detrimental (even fatal) side effects. However, it wasn’t the perceived attitudes of peers,
family members, or business professors that led to higher intentions to commit the
unethical act of further marketing and selling the dangerous drug; it was their coworkers’
attitude and the perceived beliefs of their employers/bosses.74
Thus, it appears that social learning theory is supported for white-collar crime, but not in
the same way as for most street crimes, which typically are more influenced by family
members or good friends. Rather, the influence of social learning factors in predicting
white-collar/corporate crime is due to the differential associations and reinforcements
present in the workplace environment. These findings are consistent with additional
research that has examined the validity of cultural/subcultural theory in understanding
white-collar crime, with the vast majority of findings supporting the use of this framework
in corporate offending.75 What virtually all the studies reveal is that the climate in the
corporation plays a much stronger role in individuals’ decisions to commit white-collar
crime than do other associations or learning from significant others, such as parents, peers,
and/or professors from their college years.
Another theory tested in the Piquero et al. study was that of techniques of neutralization,
which are strategies used by offenders to alleviate their guilt for committing an act they
know is wrong. In this study, there were numerous such neutralization techniques
examined, and it was found that several of them (e.g., denial of responsibility, appeal to
higher loyalties) were highly important in decisions to engage in illegal corporate activity.
The participants noted the importance of making a profit for their company as trumping
any hesitation in making their decision, despite what friends or family would think.76
Ultimately, the rational choice perspective has been supported as an important framework
for understanding individuals’ perceptions and intentions to engage in illegal business
practices. Also, the social learning theories of differential association/reinforcement, as
well as the concepts of techniques of neutralization, appear to be highly influential in
decisions to engage in unethical behavior when it comes to white-collar crime. These
theories are consistent with the empirical validity found for cultural and subcultural
models of unethical corporate decision-making.
Other theories can help explain why individuals engage in white-collar crime, but the
three theories discussed in this section are the most supported models for understanding
crime in the corporate realm.
Think About It
1. Why do many scholars believe that rational choice theory and/or social learning
theory may provide a better explanation for white-collar crime than formal
deterrence?
2. How have techniques of neutralization been used to understand why individuals
engage in corporate crime?
This may help explain why there is virtually no evidence for deterrence at
the corporate level. Companies that have been caught have, in all likelihood,
gotten away with such violations for many years, and they know that the
potential benefits far outweigh any sanctions they may face if they are
brought to account for a few of their total violations. Relatedly, portions of
rational choice theory are strongly supported by empirical research, in the
sense that violating ethical business rules often leads to much gain in terms
of financial profit and/or employer recognition. This also relates to the
cultural/subcultural findings regarding motivations to commit white-collar
crime, which clearly show the significant cultural emphasis in most
companies that focus solely on making a profit; thus, any other normative
value system pales in comparison with helping contribute to the profit
margin. And with few exceptions, individuals tend to take on the mentality
or normative culture of the company at which they work. After all, that
company is paying them and providing their livelihood, so it is only natural.
But aren’t business majors at most universities instructed in ethics? Yes, and
such moral beliefs are both key in social bonding theory and a key
conditional variable in many rational choice theories of offending. However,
studies show that the cultural norms of one’s environment seem to
overwhelm university-led ethical training.77 Not surprisingly, an individual
will typically follow the orders of superiors and/or subcultural pressures
among colleagues to make a profit for the company, despite any ethical
principles learned in school or opposing personal beliefs.
Regarding opportunity theories, such as routine-activities theory, the ready-

made opportunity to commit various white-collar crimes is quite attractive,
especially given the low likelihood of being caught and the ease of
achieving economic gain via one’s everyday job. After all, there doesn’t
seem to be much of a downside to engaging in illegal and unethical behavior
in most white-collar positions, especially when one sees on the news that
even when someone is caught and convicted, that person usually doesn’t
spend any time in prison. And even when such persons do serve time, it is
often at a minimum-security facility—quite a difference from serving “hard
time.” So there doesn’t seem to be much certainty or severity of
punishment, but there is likely to be a huge payoff or promotion if one does
engage in unethical practices. Given the current lack of enforcement of laws
against such behaviors in the course of business, it only makes sense to
engage in them. Until more certain enforcement and far more severe
penalties are mandated, it is highly unlikely that white-collar workers’
perceptions and motivations will change, especially given the constant
opportunities to engage in criminal activity.
Regarding strain theory, especially institutional anomie theory, there is

believed to be an American cultural value of monetary success, which often
takes priority over other important social factors (family, friends, education,
etc.). This strain for success, or even greed, has its source in both
individuals and corporations. Furthermore, the source of strain for monetary
gain emanates from sources both internal and external to the company,
ranging from the performance of specific employees to global economic
trends.
In terms of conflict theory, especially regarding the overall political or

economic ideology of various corporations (such as those in other
countries), studies show that whether a company is based in a communistic
or a capitalistic country, the goal is profit. Specifically, studies have shown
that white-collar crime existed at a high rate in more socialist and
communist countries.78 This is likely due to these countries not having
much enforcement against such practices, since they are believed not to
exist in such idealistic societies. But greed is a universal pattern, so you will
find it everywhere, in any society and at any time.
After reviewing all the relevant empirical studies for each of the theories
above, the authors concluded:
The majority of empirical research in white-collar crime thus far

has been built off traditional theories that were originally
developed to explain conventional crimes. However, white-collar
and conventional offenders . . . are distinctly different. . . . Our
next step should be to move beyond conventional explanations.79
We agree with this assessment, and more topic-specific theories must be

created to understand fully the reasons and motivations for committing
white-collar crime. This is also true of another form of corporate-related
offending, which we will discuss next—organized crime and racketeering.
Organized Crime
For decades, the American public has had a curious fascination with
organized crime. For instance, after notorious bank-robbing gang leader
John Dillinger was gunned down by the FBI in 1934, photographs were
circulated of his body in the morgue. In fact, the Cook County (Chicago)
morgue allowed the public to view his body. Many people enjoy watching
movies and television programs that depict the so-called mob lifestyle, such
as The Godfather, Goodfellas, The Sopranos, and Peaky Blinders. However,
many of these movies and television programs contain some myths or
“entertainment” license. In this section, we provide a general overview of
issues pertaining to organized crime, beginning with a definition and
followed by the historical context of organized crime in the United States.
Next, we will review different types of criminal organization as well as
criminal justice responses to organized crime. We will conclude this section
with a brief outline of various theoretical explanations for this type of
criminal activity.
Actors from The Sopranos, a fictional series about a family

involved in organized crime. What effect does the media
have on our perceptions of organized crime?
Photo 12/Alamy Stock Photo
Definition
In the 1986 Report to the President and the Attorney General, the
President’s Commission on Organized Crime noted that when defining
organized crime, the problem is not in the word crime; rather, the difficulty
is with the term organized.80 One approach to defining organized crime is
to incorporate a typology. This typology includes such factors as the means
of operation (e.g., violence, theft, corruption) and the reasons for engaging
in such activities—an economic objective (e.g., through common crime,
illegal business, or legal business) or a political objective (e.g., through the
existing order, against the existing order).81
While there is no agreed-on definition of organized crime, Howard

Abadinsky listed various factors associated with this type of criminal
activity as identified by law enforcement agencies and researchers.82
1. Organized crime is absent of political goals.

2. Organized crime is hierarchical.
3. Organized crime has limited or exclusive membership.
4. Organized crime constitutes a unique subculture.
5. Organized crime perpetuates itself.
6. Organized crime is willing to use illegal violence.
7. Organized crime is monopolistic.
8. Organized crime is governed by rules and regulations.
organized crime: sometimes defined through a typology, such as the means of obtaining
the goals and the reasons for engaging in such activity: an economic objective or a
political objective.
The Historical Context of Organized Crime in the
United States
No sooner had crime become profitable in America than it became

organized. And no sooner did it become organized than it became
a regular part of the American way of life, thanks to the
cooperation and collusion of government officials. Organized
crime did not begin with twentieth century Prohibition. It began
with the colonial pirates.83
Some scholars argue that pirates during the American colonial era were a
form of organized crime group. These pirates developed a well-structured,
hierarchical organization; engaged in nonideological goals; and had a
restricted membership.84
Crime at the end of the piracy era was essentially disorganized. By the turn
of the 19th century, New York City was the “entrepreneurial center” of the
country. Many immigrants entered the country to seek freedoms,
opportunities, and fortunes. These factors also made New York the center
for conspiracies, crooks, and criminals.85 In the 1850s, gangs began to
dominate the criminal arena. These gangs included the Forty Thieves, the
Hudson Dusters, the Short Tails, and the Dead Rabbits; they evolved when
groups of immigrants banded together for protection as well as for the
exploitation of other immigrants. These gangs eventually formed
partnerships with the political machines of the time in an effort to control
their vice enterprises.86 One notorious political machine was Tammany
Hall. Tammany Hall took its name from a 17th-century Delaware chief
named Tamanend. It was founded in 1789 to oppose the ruling conservative
Federalist party. A primary strength of Tammany Hall was its skill in getting
candidates elected to the state legislature in Albany and to the board of
aldermen in New York City.87
Tammany Hall: a notorious Democratic political machine in New York City from the
1790s through the 1960s with major influence in city and state politics.
In 1919, the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution was passed,
outlawing the manufacture, sale, distribution, and transportation of alcoholic
beverages.88 Prohibition created an opportunity for criminals, who
recognized the need for a means of meeting the continued, if diminished,
public demand for alcohol. They set about innovating ways of producing,
transporting, and importing it. At about this time, Prohibition and the
Chicago political machine created one of the most notorious criminal
organizations in U.S. history.89 Prohibition provided Italian American,
Jewish, and Irish American gangsters with an opportunity to increase their
clout. The profits earned from illegally supplying alcohol were great;
however, even with a more powerful position, many of these gangs
continued to operate as they did in their “wild early days.”90 This often
resulted in violence among various gangs to increase their control over this
illegal market.
In response to the need for tax revenue during the Great Depression, the
state of Nevada legalized gambling in 1931. Bugsy Siegel was the first
prominent criminal to realize the potential of legalized gambling.91 In 1947,
Siegel and partners opened the Flamingo Hotel in Las Vegas, Nevada. This
opening heralded organized crime’s control of the legal gambling industry.92
Given their experience as “bootleggers,” criminal organizations had the
business acumen to control gambling. Many of the lavish hotels, such as the
Flamingo, were controlled, albeit through hidden interests, by organized
crime. Usually, monies were “skimmed” before being counted for tax
purposes; this money was distributed to the organized crime bosses in
proportion to their “hidden” ownership. In fact, from 1973 to 1983, at least
$14 million was skimmed from just one hotel, the Stardust. Today, Las
Vegas is not controlled by organized crime; rather, casinos are now major
corporate entities.93
In 1986, the President’s Commission on Organized Crime noted that of the

various developments in organized crime during the preceding 20 years,
three developments were significant. One was the increasing awareness of
various criminal organizations other than the Mafia. While many were based
on ethnicity, others had originated in U.S. prisons and outlaw motorcycle
gangs. Another development was the success of law enforcement against the
leadership, membership, and associates of La Cosa Nostra (literally, “Our
Thing”), which some considered to be the best-known organized crime
group of the past 30 years. The third significant development was organized
crime’s involvement in drug trafficking:94 “It is essential that we broaden
our view to include all significant facets of organized crime. There will be
little lasting benefit in disabling La Cosa Nostra if other groups successfully
claim its abandoned criminal franchise.”95
Today there is growing concern over organized crime groups using new
technology to engage in various criminal activities. Such crimes involve
credit card cloning, phone-card piracy, computer viruses, child pornography,
electronic banking fraud, music piracy, counterfeit medicine, and software
piracy.96
Types of Criminal Organization

Organized crime is not synonymous with the Mafia. In this section, we
begin with a brief discussion of the Mafia followed by discussion of other
types of criminal organization, including outlaw motorcycle gangs, prison
gangs, and urban street gangs.
The Mafia.
The origins of the Mafia are unclear. One opinion is that the Mafia evolved
as a ninth-century response to Arabic domination of Sicily. Another view is
that the Mafia evolved in Palermo, Italy, in 1282 as a political organization
to free Sicily from French domination. The group’s rallying cry was “Morte
alla Francia Italia anela” (“Death to the French is Italy’s cry”). The
acronym of this pledge is MAFIA.97 The true origins of the term Mafia are
convoluted by assorted use and personal preference.98 Some of the most
common references are listed in Table 14.1. Originally, the Mafia was
similar to an extended social family. While not necessarily related by blood,
members were related by home village and Sicilian nationality. The
members took an oath, swearing under punishment of death to a code of
silence. Initially, the Mafia was a self-protection group; by the 1860s,
however, they had expanded to criminal activities such as smuggling, cattle
rustling, and extortion.99 While the term Mafia referred to beauty,
perfection, grace, and excellence, the term Mafioso referred to
characteristics of a man, such as pride, self-confidence, and an “arrogant”
attitude.100
Mafia: similar to an extended social family; members took an oath swearing, under
punishment of death, to a code of silence. It started as a self-protection group, but by the
1860s expanded to criminal activities such as smuggling, cattle rustling, and extortion.
Mafioso: referred to characteristics of a man, such as pride, self-confidence, and a sense

of “arrogant” behavior.
Table 14.1 Common References to the Term Mafia

Table 14.1 Common References to the Term Mafia
Term Definition
Maffia Tuscan word for “misery”
Mauvia French word for “bad”
Ma-afir Arabic tribe that settled in Sicily
Mazzini autorizza furti incendi auvelenamenti, or

MAFIA
Massini authorizes thefts, arson, and poisons
Arabic word meaning “protects from death in the

Mu’afy
night”
Mafia The name of a stone quarry in Sicily
I Mafiusi di la The title of a play written in 1860 by Giuseppe

Vicaria di Rizzotto, The Heroes of the Penitentiary of
Palermo Palermo.
Source: Albini, J. (1971). Mafia: Genesis of a legend. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-
Crofts, p. 83.
In 1878, the newly consolidated Italian government began concentrated

efforts to eliminate the Sicilian Mafia. Thus, many Sicilian Mafiosi
immigrated to the United States, settling in major urban cities such as
Boston, Chicago, Kansas City, New Orleans, New York, and St. Louis.101
The Mafiosi in the United States were similar to other immigrants. When
these criminals entered the United States, they assimilated with others but
continued their criminal activities. From 1890 to the 1920s, the Mafiosi
preyed on other immigrants by forcing their participation in the protection
scam. This was known as La Mano Nero, or “The Black Hand.” Soon their
activities expanded to other crimes, especially during Prohibition.102
Michael Lyman and Gary Potter pose an interesting question: “Does the
Mafia really exist?” They provide arguments from both positions. From the
“yes” position, they note that there have been high-profile trials on such
“mob bosses” as Al Capone, Sam Giancana, “Lucky” Luciano, Vito
Genovese, and John Gotti. While the convictions of these “bosses” did not
result in total disbanding of the organization, they did provide law
enforcement the opportunity to survey, monitor, arrest, interview, and
collaborate with members of the Mafia and other organized crime groups.
Some also maintain that in 1963, Joe Valachi revealed information about the
structure of the Mafia, claiming that there were about 25 Italian gangs
throughout the United States, referred to as “families.”
The Hells Angels are incorporated in the United States and

Canada. Their strongest presence is in California.
Steve Thorne/Redferns via Getty Images
From the “no” position, some argue that there is no single organization
known as the Mafia; rather, there are loosely structured criminal gangs,
some of which are of Italian descent. These Italian gangs, or families, do
exist but are not as organized or structured as thought by law enforcement
and the media. These individuals maintain, however, that by claiming the
existence of a well-organized Mafia, law enforcement agencies can justify
their own existence.103
Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs.

During the late 1940s, outlaw motorcycle gangs (OMGs) evolved as
disorganized and unruly groups made up of disgruntled World War II
veterans. Through the decades, the tough-guy image was perpetuated and
membership increased, along with the organization and sophistication of
these groups.104 Soon, some of these groups’ behavior was more rebellious
than openly criminal.105 In fact, OMG members refer to themselves as “one-
percenters”:
Some years ago . . . the American Motorcycle Association . . .

[estimated] that outlaw motorcyclists comprised less than one per
cent of the motorcycling population. Outlaw gangs immediately
seized on the figure as a reflection of their belief that they are
rebels, operating outside society’s laws and norms.106
outlaw motorcycle gangs: the tough-guy image of these groups was perpetuated and
membership increased, along with organization and sophistication. Soon, behavior of
some groups was less rebellious and more openly criminal; some members refer to
themselves as “one-percenters.”
While the 1% figure is meaningless today, members refer to themselves as

“one-percenters” to flaunt their status as lawless outsiders.
OMGs today are secretive and close-knit groups with selective membership.
Membership in OMGs is symbolized by “colors,” which are often displayed
on denim or leather jackets with embroidered patches sewn on the back.
These patches display a gang logo and may also include “rockers” that
identify the name of the gang and home city of the chapter. The colors are
the member’s most prized possession and represent his primary commitment
—to the gang and its criminal lifestyle. The outrageous treatment of women
who associate with the members is also part of the OMG lifestyle. Women
are considered less important than the gang itself or the member’s
motorcycle. In some gangs, women are used to generate money through
prostitution as well as for the transportation of drugs and weapons.107
Some of the most notorious OMGs are the Hells Angels, the Outlaws, the
Bandidos, and the Pagans (see Table 14.2). Among these, the Hells Angels
are regarded as the wealthiest and most powerful. They have not only an
extensive membership in the United States but also chapters in Brazil,
Canada, Colombia, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, and seven Western
European countries. The Hells Angels also have a sophisticated and wide-
ranging counterintelligence structure to protect their members against arrest
and prosecution.108 There are sophisticated but smaller OMGs, including
the Vagos (in the West and Southwest), the Warlocks (in the region of
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware), the Dirty Dozen (in Arizona), the
Gypsy Jokers (in the Pacific Northwest), and the Sons of Silence (in
Colorado).109
Prison Gangs.
Some have attributed the growth of prison gangs to the 1964 U.S. Supreme
Court decision in Cooper v. Pate. As a result of this decision, prisoners
were allowed to sue state officials in federal court, which resulted in a great
deal of litigation and had the effect of easing oppressive prison conditions.
In the 1970s, under the more liberal prison environment, gangs flourished.
Prior to Cooper v. Pate, only Washington and California reported the
existence of prison gangs; by 1984, more than 60% of state and federal
prisons reported gang activity. By the 1990s, some prison gangs had evolved
into well-organized crime groups. These gangs were different from previous
gangs primarily in their demand for absolute obedience to the “parent”
group. For instance, the “death oath,” or “blood in and blood out,” requires
the member to remain a member forever.110 Specifically, this oath requires
that to become a member, an inmate must kill or assault another prisoner or
staff member; if a member wants to leave the gang, then his blood “will be
spilled.”111 Often, prison gangs are more powerful in state correctional
facilities compared to federal correctional facilities.112
Cooper v. Pate: as a result of this 1964 Supreme Court decision, prisoners were allowed to
sue state officials in federal court, which resulted in much litigation and changed the
prison conditions in the 1970s.
Table 14.2 Hells Angels California Bylaws

Table 14.2 Hells Angels California Bylaws
Bylaw Fine
1. All patches will be the same on the back, nothing

will show on the back except the HELLS ANGELS
$100 for
patch. City patch is optional for each chapter. 1 patch
breaking
and 1 membership card per member. Member may keep
above by-
original patch if made into a banner. Prospects will wear
law.
California rocker on back and prospect patch left from
where top of pocket is on a Levi jacket.
2. No hypes. No use of Heroin in any form. Anyone Automatic

using a needle for any reason other than having a doctor kick-out
use it on you will be considered a hype. from club.
Ass-
whipping
3. No explosives of any kind will be thrown into the and/or
fire where there is one or more HELLS ANGELS in this subject to
area. California
President’s
decision.
Bylaw Fine
4. Guns on CA runs will not be displayed after 6 PM.

$100 for
They will be fired from dawn until 6 PM in a
breaking
predetermined area only. Rule does not apply to anyone
above by-
with a gun in a shoulder holster or belt that is seen by
law.
another member if it is not being shot or displayed.
$100 for
5. Brothers shall not fight with each other with breaking
weapons; when any HELLS ANGELS fights another above by-
HELLS ANGELS, it is one on one; prospects same as law or
members. If members are from different chapters, fine possible
goes to CA Treasurer. loss of
patch.
Automatic
6. No narcotics burns. When making deals, persons
kick-out
get what they are promised or the deal is called off.
from club.
7. All HELLS ANGELS fines will be paid within 30

days. Fines will be paid to that chapter’s treasurer to be
held for the next CA run.
8. One vote per chapter at CA officer’s meetings. For

CA 2 no votes instead of a majority to kill a new charter
and a charter goes below 6 they must freeze or dissolve
on the decision of CA Officers’ Meeting.
9. If kicked out, must stay out 1 year then back to

original chapter. HELLS ANGEL tattoo will have an in-
date and out-date when the member quits. If kicked out
HELLS ANGELS tattoo will be completely covered
with a ½ X through the tattoo.
Bylaw Fine
10. Runs are on the holidays; 3 mandatory runs are

Memorial Day, July 4th, and Labor Day.
11. No leave period except hospital, medical or jail.

Source: Abadinsky, H. (2013). Organized crime (10th ed.). Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning, p.
230.
Organized in the late 1950s, one of the oldest prison gangs is the Mexican
Mafia, whose members are primarily Mexican Americans from Southern
California.113 In some prisons, the Mexican Mafia controls homosexual
prostitution, gambling, and narcotics. Both inside and outside prison, the
Mexican Mafia is involved in burglary, assault, robbery, extortion, drug
trafficking, and contract killing. Another major prison gang is La Nuestra
Familia (literally, “Our Family”), considered an enemy of the Mexican
Mafia. This prison gang was established in Soledad Prison (California) in
1967. La Nuestra Familia’s outside prison operations include a protection
racket, similar to more traditional organized crime groups. The Texas
Syndicate originated in Folsom Prison (California) in 1974. Its members are
predominately Mexican Americans from the El Paso and San Antonio
region. The gang has a reputation for being one of the most violent. The
Black Guerilla Family was established at San Quentin Prison by black
activist prisoner George Jackson in 1966. This gang is closely associated
with the Crips street gang. The Black Guerilla Family is controlled by a
central committee consisting of generals, captains, lieutenants, and soldiers.
The Aryan Brotherhood is a motorcycle-oriented, white-supremacist gang
founded in San Quentin Prison in the 1960s. The Aryan Brotherhood’s
criminal activities include extortion, protection rackets, drug trafficking, and
contract killing.114
Urban Street Gangs.

Using Maltz’s115 characteristics associated with organized crime groups,
Dennis Kenney and James Finckenauer evaluated whether urban street
gangs could be deemed organized crime groups. The first characteristic of
organized crime groups is corruption. At this time, there is no evidence to
support the notion that urban street gangs systematically pay off public
officials in an effort to avoid arrest and prosecution. The second
characteristic, violence or the threat of violence, is a major feature of urban
street gangs. The third characteristic, continuity, is a feature of certain street
gangs. Some gangs, such as social or party gangs, are more spontaneous;
they exist as a gang for a short time and quickly split up. The fourth
characteristic is multiple enterprises. The drug “business” is essentially the
only enterprise for urban street gangs. While some may be involved in other
types of crime, such as property crime, they do not run illegal business
enterprises such as gambling, prostitution, and loans.
Structure and involvement in legitimate businesses is the fifth characteristic.

While some street gangs appear to have some type of organizational
structure, there does not seem to be a great deal of expansion from illegal
business into legitimate business. The last characteristic is sophistication,
discipline, and bonding. While some gangs engage in sophisticated
activities, such as speaking in code over the telephone, most gangs do not.
In reference to discipline, many urban gangs, especially those involved in
the drug business, do stress the need for discipline. Finally, many street
gangs emphasize bonding, such as rituals and initiation rites.116
Transnational Organized Crime.

Born in the 1970s, and accelerating in the 1990s, a new type of organized
crime has evolved—transnational organized crime. Given changes in the
geopolitical climate, a globalized world economy, and softer borders, along
with an astonishing development of information technology, criminal
organizations are no longer restricted to domestic organizations within a
regional area.117
The Department of Justice defined transnational organized crime as
self-perpetuating associations of individuals who operate

internationally for the purpose of obtaining power, influence,
monetary and/or commercial gains, wholly or in part by illegal
means, while protecting their activities through a pattern of
corruption or violence.118
Following are other factors associated with transnational organized crime:
In at least part of their activities, they commit violence or other acts

that are likely to intimidate, or they make actual or implicit threats to
do so.
They exploit differences between countries to further their objectives,
enriching their organization, expanding its power, and/or avoiding
detection/apprehension.
They attempt to gain influence in government, politics, and commerce
through corrupt as well as legitimate means.
They have economic gain as their primary goal, not only from patently
illegal activities but also from investment in legitimate businesses.
They attempt to insulate their members from detection, sanction,
and/or prosecution through their organizational structure.119
The FBI noted that “major theft crimes” carried out by not only
transnational, but also nationally based and regionally based, criminal
organizations have a significant impact on the U.S. economy, in the form of
increasing consumer prices as well as the loss of tax revenues to states and
communities. Major theft crimes include art theft, cargo theft, and jewelry
and gem theft.120
The Chicago Crime Commission.

In 1919, a group of Chicago businessmen, concerned about Chicago’s
“gangland” reputation, formed the Chicago Crime Commission. While some
would argue that the Commission was “a self-serving exercise in
hypocrisy,” it was able to demonstrate the city’s crime problem through a
successful public-relations campaign. For instance, the public-relations
committee introduced the “Public Enemy” list prior to J. Edgar Hoover’s
version.
The Wickersham Commission.

To assess the effect of Prohibition on criminal activity, the Wickersham
Commission was formed in 1929. The findings from the commission
revealed that organized criminal activity flourished around bootlegging
activities. The commission recommended a more in-depth study of
organized crime and its criminal activities. This recommended, more in-
depth study was not conducted, however, until years later. This delay was
attributed to various factors, including the well-publicized arrests and
prosecutions of organized crime “bosses” such as Al Capone and “Lucky”
Luciano, giving the public a sense that law enforcement and the criminal
justice system were successfully deterring such activities. Further, the
public’s attention was largely elsewhere, with the Great Depression and
World War II. Given these “diversions,” organized crime prospered, and it
was not until the formation of the Kefauver Committee that there was an
extensive investigation into organized crime.121
Wickersham Commission: formed in 1929, this commission found that organized

criminal activity flourished around bootlegging operations.
The Kefauver Committee.

In May 1950, Senator Estes Kefauver became chair of the Special
Committee to Investigate Organized Crime in Interstate Commerce. The
Kefauver Committee was charged with three responsibilities:
1. To conduct an extensive study and investigation to assess whether

organized crime used the services, or avenues, of interstate commerce
to promote any transactions that violated federal or state law
2. If such transactions did occur, to investigate the persons, firms, or
corporations involved
3. To determine whether such interstate criminal operations were
responsible for developing corrupting influences in violation of federal
or state laws122
During Kefauver’s term as chair, the committee heard from more than 600
witnesses in Miami, Tampa, New Orleans, Kansas City, Cleveland, St.
Louis, Detroit, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Las Vegas, Philadelphia,
Washington, Chicago, and New York.123
The Kefauver Committee provided invaluable information on organized

crime; however, the committee did not provide support for the existence of
an international Mafia conspiracy:124
Neither the Senate Crime Committee in its testimony nor

Kefauver in his book presented any real evidence that the Mafia
exists as a functioning organization. . . . The only other
“evidence” presented . . . is that certain crimes bear “the earmarks
of the Mafia.”125
Kefauver Committee: in 1950, charged with three responsibilities that focused on

whether organized crime used the services of interstate commerce to engage in illegal
activities and identifying the persons, firms, or corporations involved in such activities.
The McClellan Committee.

In the early 1960s, the Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigation,
chaired by Senator John McClellan (D-AR), was formed to investigate labor
racketeering in the country’s trade unions. In 1963, the committee held
televised hearings, including the testimony of Joseph Valachi, the first
“made member” of the Genovese crime family to testify on Italian
American organized crime:126
Valachi was a barely literate, low-echelon soldier whose firsthand

knowledge of organized crime was limited to street-level
experiences. Much of the information attributed to him is
obviously well beyond his personal experience. . . . Nevertheless,
this did not prevent his disclosures from becoming the core of a
chapter on organized crime in the final report of the President’s
Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of
Justice.127
Valachi’s testimony did not result in any convictions; further, the McClellan
Committee failed to recommend a specific definition of organized crime.
These hearings, however, did contribute to the government’s understanding
of this type of criminal activity.128
The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement

and the Administration of Justice.
In 1965, President Lyndon Johnson established the President’s Commission
on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice; there were nine
different task forces, one of which was the Task Force on Organized Crime.
In its 1967 report to the commission, the task force noted:
Today the core of organized crime in the United States consists of

twenty-four groups operating as criminal cartels in large cities
across the Nation. . . . To date, only the Federal Bureau of
Investigation has been able to document fully the national scope
of these groups, and the FBI intelligence indicates that the
organization as a whole has changed its name from the Mafia to
Cosa Nostra.129
The commission maintained that gambling was the largest source of revenue
for organized crime, followed by loan sharking and narcotics trafficking.130
The task force continued efforts initiated by the Kefauver Committee.
Further, the task force made various recommendations, including a witness
protection program, special federal grand juries, and legislation allowing
electronic surveillance.131
The Organized Crime Control Act of 1970.
As a result of the President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the
Administration of Justice, Congress passed the Organized Crime Control
Act in 1970. A key component of this legislation was titled Racketeer
Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO). It would take nearly a
decade, however, for authorities to adequately apply RICO. There are three
criminal penalties for RICO violations, which can be applied
simultaneously: (1) a fine of no more than $25,000, (2) a prison term of no
more than 20 years (for each racketeering count), and (3) the forfeiture of
any interest obtained or maintained in the course of state violations.132
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO): Title IX of the 1970

Organized Crime Control Act; provides for enhanced criminal and civil penalties for
individuals engaging in activities with criminal organizations.
The President’s Commission on Organized Crime.

Under Executive Order Number 12435, President Reagan created the
President’s Commission on Organized Crime in 1983. During its three years
of existence, the commission produced five reports. Some of the key issues
highlighted by the commission were money laundering, labor union
racketeering, and “mob lawyers.” The commission avoided focusing
primarily on Italian American organized crime, focusing also on Colombian
cocaine cartels and other criminal groups, such as outlaw motorcycle
clubs.133 The commission also provided a more meaningful definition of
organized crime. Further, in an effort to enhance its understanding of
organized crime groups, the commission developed a contingency model
that highlighted levels of involvement of members and nonmembers; these
levels included the criminal group (i.e., the core of the organized crime
unit), the protectors (e.g., corrupt public officials, businesspersons, judges,
attorneys, and financial advisers), specialized support (i.e., those who
provide services that facilitate organized crime, such as pilots, chemists,
arsonists, and hijackers), user support (i.e., consumers of organized crime’s
illegal goods and services, such as drug users and people who buy stolen
goods), and social support (i.e., those who provide the perception of
legitimacy of the criminal organization, such as politicians who seek the
organization’s support and community leaders who invite its bosses to social
gatherings).134
Learning Check 14.3
1. The President’s Commission on Organized Crime noted that when defining

organized crime, the problem is with the word _______________.
2. Outlaw motorcycle gangs refer to themselves as “_______________-percenters.”
3. Some have attributed the growth of prison gangs to the 1964 U.S. Supreme Court
decision _______________ v. _______________.
4. A key component of the _______________ _______________ _______________
Act is called Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO).
Dennis Kenney and James Finckenauer noted that while there had been
some positive developments in understanding organized crime, there were
criticisms that this type of criminal activity lacked a sound theoretical
framework.135 Kenney and Finckenauer reviewed various theoretical
perspectives that attempt to provide an understanding of organized criminal
behavior, such as cultural transmission, culture conflict, and strain theories,
as well as low self-control theory. Another theoretical perspective they
discussed was ethnicity and ethnic succession:
Organized crime has been described as being “caused” by the

efforts of successive immigrant groups to make it in America. Cut
off from legitimate opportunities for achieving socioeconomic and
political success, immigrants have been forced by circumstances
to climb . . . the “queer ladder” of upward social mobility, namely,
crime, and especially organized crime.136
Another theoretical perspective presented was enterprise theory. This

perspective maintains that the legitimate marketplaces do not provide an
opportunity for customers to obtain goods and services; thus, illicit
entrepreneurs fill this void by providing such goods and services
themselves.137
Kenney and Finckenauer concluded with an outline of a theory proposed by

Peter Reuter.138 Reuter was attempting to understand under what
circumstances some gangs are deemed organized crime groups. He
contended that adult gangs are primarily in existence for economic purposes
—specifically, to make money. Another key characteristic is the supply-and-
demand conditions that help organized crime flourish. Thus, according to
Reuter, three factors affect the extent of organized crime in a particular city:
1. Illegal market opportunities (e.g., gambling, drugs, and loan sharking)

that are contingent on coordinated groups of people in frequent
interaction
2. The extent of recent migration of significant ethnic groups into the
community, allowing for recruitment as well as potential clients for
goods and services
3. The strength and corruptness of local political authority139
Kenney and Finckenauer stressed that Reuter’s “mini-theory” provides an

exploratory foundation for conceptual and empirical research in an effort to
enhance our understanding of organized criminal behavior. Further, a sound
theoretical framework is essential to providing effective intervention to
prevent or control organized crime.
Cybercrime
Evgeniy Mikhailovich Bogachev is on the FBI’s most wanted list; a reward
of $3 million has been offered for information that could lead to his arrest
and/or conviction. Beginning in September 2011, the FBI initiated an
investigation of a modified version of the Zeus malware (computer software
with the purpose of disrupting, damaging, or obtaining unauthorized access
to a computer), known as GameOver Zeus (GOZ). The FBI estimates that
GOZ is responsible for more than one million computer infections, resulting
in financial losses of more than $100 million. In August 2012, Bogachev
was indicted by a federal grand jury in the District of Nebraska on charges
of conspiracy to participate in racketeering activity; bank fraud; conspiracy
to violate the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; conspiracy to violate the
Identity Theft and Assumption Deterrence Act; and aggravated identity
theft.140
Cybercrime is a relatively new area of criminal activity. As there have been

tremendous advances in technology in recent years, there have also been
tremendous opportunities for criminals to hijack this technology. In 2000,
the Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), within the FBI, was established
to provide the public with a reliable and convenient reporting

mechanism to submit information to the FBI concerning suspected
Internet-facilitated criminal activity, and to develop effective
alliances with industry partners.141
From 2014 to 2018, the IC3 received approximately 300,000 complaints per
year. The complaints covered a wide range of scams affecting victims
worldwide (see Figure 14.1). One part of the IC3 is their Recovery Asset
Team (RAT). From February to December 2018, RAT was able to recover
$192,699,195.72 lost due to internet crime—a 75% recovery rate.
In this section, we provide a brief definition of cybercrime, followed by a

general overview of various types of cybercrime, such as hacking, identity
theft, child pornography, internet fraud, and cyberstalking. Next, we present
some of the criminal justice responses to cybercrime. We conclude this
section by reviewing some theoretical explanations of cybercrime.
Definition
Scholars have recognized some of the issues surrounding terms and
definitions for crimes committed by electronic means, terms such as
computer crime, computer-related crime, and cybercrime. There is a
question of whether this process of definitional clarification is “hyper-
defining”:
The result of such hyper-definition is to negate some emerging
legislation. This is not to suggest that legislators should cease
efforts to specifically criminalize computer-specific criminal
activity. Indeed, further legislation should be pursued to enhance
prosecutorial toolboxes, not to replace or supplant traditional
mechanisms.142
Figure 14.1 Number of IC3 Complaints and Associated Losses

From 2014 to 2018
Source: FBI. Internet Crime Complaint Center. (2018). 2018 Internet

Crime Report, p. 5. Retrieved from
https://www.ic3.gov/media/annualreport/2018_IC3Report.pdf.
Another term was introduced for such crimes—high-technology crime. This

refers to any criminal act involving the use of high-technology devices,
including computers, telephones, check-reading machines, and credit card
machines. High-technology crimes can comprise traditional crimes
committed prior to technological developments and more recent crimes that
use high-technology devices.143 Thus, this term incorporates crimes that
may involve limited use of computers and networks as well as those that
completely rely on the use of computers and networks.144
Soumyo Moitra acknowledged that there were initially heated debates as to

the various definitions for these crimes; however, he maintained that the
term “cybercrime” has gained in both usage and popularity. Interestingly,
“cybercrime” was derived from the term “cyberspace,” originated by the
author William Gibson.145 Cybercrime was defined as follows: “any
unauthorized, or deviant, or illegal activity over the Internet that involves a
computer (or computers) as the tool to commit the activity and a computer
(or computers) as the target of that activity.” Cybercrime consists of at least
three features: The act was committed using (1) a computer, (2) a “victim”
computer, and (3) an intermediary network.146 Interestingly, the term
“cybercrime” may have some limitations. Given the emergence of multiple
technologies (e.g., mobile devices, social media), it has been suggested to
use the term “digital technology crime” or “electronic crime.”147
cybercrime: cybercrime consists of at least three features: The act was committed using
(1) a computer, (2) a “victim” computer, and (3) an intermediary network.
Types
Hacking.
The term hacker most likely emerged from the electrical engineering labs at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). As at other universities,
some MIT students engaged in attention-seeking pranks; these students
were called “hacks.” The term soon took on the meaning of creative
invention, especially as computing was developing as a discipline.148
However, today individuals who claim to be hackers contend that true
hackers are concerned with enhancing computer security. Later, the term
cracker was suggested to replace hacker in the media. Although some use
this term, it usually refers to an individual who violates copyright
protection. In the computer science community, the distinction between
these two terms is recognized; outside this community, the two terms often
refer to the same activity.149 One suggested definition of hackers is that used
by those within the hacker community: A hacker is one who obtains
unauthorized access to a computer system, file, or network.150
hackers: individuals who violate computer security.
Robert Moore described six general types of hacker: black hat hackers,
white hat hackers, gray hat hackers, script kiddies, hactivists, and cyber
terrorists:151
Black hat hackers. These individuals violate computer security

essentially out of malice or for personal gain. They write programs to
damage computer systems and networks. Because of these hackers,
organizations have had to spend millions of dollars to develop
protected computer networks and operating systems.
White hat hackers. These hackers are involved in writing programs to
protect systems and networks from being illegally and maliciously
accessed. They attempt to hack into targeted computers. If successful,
they subsequently notify the computer system’s owner of its
vulnerabilities.
Gray hat hackers. A blend of black hat and white hat hackers, these
individuals may be considered “opportunistic.” They may successfully
target and access a computer system and then notify the system’s
owner. Rather than informing the administrator of how the system was
exposed, these hackers offer to correct the defect for a fee.
Script kiddies. These hackers are deemed the lowest on the hacker
ladder, due to their limited technical ability. Essentially, they search the
internet for hacker utility programs and then launch the programs at a
target computer system. Due to their limited technical knowledge, they
are considered risky because they are not aware of how programs will
affect the attacked computer system. Some well-known hacking
attacks, such as the shutting down of the eBay and Amazon websites,
were done by script kiddies.
Hactivists. In reference to their methods, these individuals are similar
to those hackers described above. They differ, however, in their
motives. Hactivists attempt to hack computer systems or networks that
will provide them an avenue to spread their political message. They
may access the server that hosts a webpage and then modify the page to
reveal their message.
Cyber terrorists. These individuals access computer systems linked to
critical infrastructures, such as water purification, electricity, and
nuclear power plants. Such “attacks” can cause damage or even death
due to loss of service. These hackers are relatively new but are gaining
attention and inspire a great deal of public fear.152
The IC3 also recognizes hactivists, as hackers whose interests focus on

promoting a social or political cause.153
In 2015, a group of hackers stole data from the Ashley

Madison website—a website that provides services to
individuals wanting to engage in extramarital affairs.
The Freeranger/Alamy Stock Photo
Identity Theft.
Identity theft is defined as “the procuring of . . . false identity regardless of
its use . . . [often] to commit identity fraud, but in some cases, it is used by
criminals and terrorists to establish false identities and escape detection.”154
There are generally three types of identity theft. The first type is when the
identity thief assumes the life of the victim. One possible motivation for this
form of identity theft is that of someone engaging in organized criminal
activities. The trail left behind would lead to someone else, with no
affiliation to the criminal organization, rather than to the thief. This type of
identity theft is rare, possibly because taking over an individual’s life is
extremely difficult.
identity theft: obtaining someone’s personal details in order to commit identity fraud; can
be used by criminals and terrorists to establish false identities and escape detection.
The second form of identity theft is beginning to evolve but has received
little attention, perhaps due to the lack of financial or physical harm to its
victims. This type of identity theft is “virtual” identity theft. Today, most
internet users have email accounts. Recently, individuals have hijacked
others’ accounts for the purpose of, for example, harassing people or
spamming them.
The third type of identity theft is the most common. It occurs when a
victim’s credit identity is stolen, such as his or her Social Security number
or other identifying information. Subsequently, the offender will use this
stolen information to apply for credit in the victim’s name.155 There are
various approaches to obtaining an individual’s identity in this regard,
including the following:
1. Carding. This refers to stealing a victim’s credit card information and

subsequently using the information to purchase items, especially
electronics. A key feature of carding is delivery of purchased items.
One method has been to have the items delivered to a shipping facility
(e.g., Mail Boxes Etc. or The UPS Store) where the offender can open
a fake account to store these items.
2. Dumpster-diving. This method involves offenders obtaining materials,
such as credit card carbons or preapproval credit card forms, that
include identity information. One new development in this area is
Dumpster-diving in university unions, particularly those that provide
postal service for students. Students often receive preapproval notices
and usually throw them in the trash immediately.
3. Credit card skimming. A majority of companies no longer use slider
machines that create credit card carbons. Rather, they use electronic
card readers. When a credit card is slipped into this reader, the
information is scanned from the magnetic strip on the back of the credit
card. Subsequently, this information is sent to a credit card verification
service through a call made by the machine. If the card is accepted,
then the machine will save the authorization numbers in a separate
digital file. Offenders can implement various methods to steal this
information during the scanning procedure.
4. Shoulder-surfing. In this method, when a victim presents his or her
credit card to pay for merchandise at a retailer, the offender peers over
the victim’s shoulder and memorizes the card number. Interestingly,
offenders need not memorize all 16 numbers. Experienced thieves may
have a listing that includes information on the first eight numbers
associated with the card. For instance, the gold Visa cards begin with a
different eight-number sequence than do regular Visa cards. Thus, the
offender needs to memorize only half the numbers and the expiration
date.156
Child Pornography.
Child pornography portrays children engaged in sexual acts or in a sexual
way. These depictions are the same as those in adult pornography except
that the media (e.g., photographs, video) include images of children,
children and adults, or children and animals or objects.157 As with adult
pornography, child pornography exists to meet the demand for such
material. During the spring of 2018, the Department of Justice initiated the
Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) task forces. The 61 ICAC tasks
forces coordinated their efforts in what was designated “Broken Heart.”
This operation resulted in the arrest of more than 2,300 suspected online
child sex offenders. During this three-month operation, these task forces
investigated more than 25,200 complaints of technology-facilitated crimes
against children. Specifically, the operation targeted those who “(1) produce,
distribute, receive and possess child pornography; (2) engage in online
enticement of children for sexual purposes; (3) engage in the sex trafficking
of children; and (4) travel across state lines or to foreign countries and
sexually abuse children.”158 Further, there are national and international
organizations that support pedophiles and child sexual exploitation. One
such organization is the North American Man/Boy Love Association
(NAMBLA). A review of the literature identified four common categories
of online users of child pornography:
1. Individuals who encourage prevailing or developing sexual interests in
children
2. Individuals who communicate with other sexual offenders who use
child pornography as a broader pattern of offending
3. Individuals who are impulsive and curious
4. Individuals who are involved in child pornography for nonsexual
reasons, such as financial gain159
During the 1980s, federal law enforcement agencies aggressively focused

on pursuing those involved in the manufacturing and distribution of child
pornography. Such efforts resulted in the belief that the issue of child
pornography was a “controllable problem.” That all changed, however, with
the advent of the internet.160 Deputy Assistant Attorney General Kevin V.
Di Gregory testified before Congress in June 1996 that
the trafficking in child pornography by computer users has, in

some ways, challenged the progress of nearly eight years of
aggressive child pornography investigation and prosecution.
Whereas by the early 1990s, the Government had largely
eradicated the cottage trade within the United States for this
material and distribution was typically limited to trading or
sharing between individual pedophiles who actually knew each
other, today computer technology has reinvigorated both the
commercial and non-commercial distribution of obscene child
pornography.161
With the ever-growing World Wide Web, there will be a continuous

expansion of child pornography. Further, law enforcement efforts are
difficult and characterized by legal definitional issues, overlapping
jurisdictions, and entrapment problems.162
Internet Fraud.
Businesses have the option of placing their operations, either entirely or as
an added component, online. While this has allowed legitimate businesses to
expand their customer base, it has also given illegitimate businesses or
operations an opportunity to engage in internet fraud. Some of the most
common types of online fraud are listed below.
internet fraud: use of the internet to engage in fraud, often identity theft.
Fraudulent sales. Online purchases create risks for both the merchant and
the customer. The merchant does not want to release the goods until
payment has been received, and the customer does not want to pay before
delivery. While offline purchases require payment upon delivery, more trust
is required when making online purchases.163 Ubid and eBay are two of the
most popular internet auction sites. Some interesting items have been put up
for auction, illustrating that practically anything can be sold:
A man’s family. The man promised that the highest bidder would
receive a happy family, ready for holidays and family events.
An island. The island, apparently located off the coast of the United
States, was advertised as ideal for a remote casino resort.
Escort services. The winner was promised an “unforgettable
afternoon.”164
Even in more ordinary cases of online auction fraud, the winning bidder
pays the seller but never receive the merchandise. Further, since these
transactions can occur between a seller and purchaser living in different
states or even different countries, it can be difficult to investigate and
prosecute these offenses. However, many states have statutes that
criminalize fraudulent selling practices, and these statutes apply to auction
fraud cases just as they would to more traditional transactions.165
Advance-fee frauds. In this type of fraud, the victim is lured to pay monies
with the expectation of receiving some service or benefit that never
materializes. One of the most well-known advance-fee frauds is the
Nigerian email scam (see Figure 14.2 for an example). Others include dating
scammers, someone impersonating an FBI or other government official
requesting the payment of a fine, and computer support scams, in which
fraudsters call victims to inform them that they have detected malware.166
Mail-order bride services/solicitation of prostitutes. Mail-order bride
services and solicitation of prostitutes are not new offenses, but engaging in
these crimes through the internet is a relatively new phenomenon. For
instance, there are more than 30,000 websites for mail-order brides. There
are various types of mail-order bride fraud. One scam is when a woman
contacts numerous men and states that she likes their letters. A man may
then respond by asking her to visit, usually in the United States. As soon as
he sends the woman money to pay for her trip, she cuts off all contact. In
another type of scam, the woman is actually a man posing as a potential
wife.167
Figure 14.2 Example of a Nigerian Email Scam
Source:
http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2012/06/21/1226404/301658-
email-scam.jpg.
Online prostitution refers to soliciting sexual acts through the internet, either
by facilitating communication between prostitutes and those seeking their
services or by using electronic communications and websites to facilitate
meetings. It is this second form that fraudsters often employ. One type of
fraud occurs when a “date” is scheduled, with a required deposit prior to the
arranged meeting. The website obtains the “customer’s” credit card
information, but the services are never provided.168
Cyberstalking.
The term stalking has been in use since the early 1990s to describe
harassment or physical threat. Prior to this time, a victim of such harassment
was informed that nothing could be done to the perpetrator until he or she
made a physical attempt that threatened the victim’s safety or well-being.169
After five women were murdered by stalkers, California became the first
state in the United States to criminalize this behavior.170 These statutes,
however, did not foresee how stalking behavior would emerge within
cyberspace.
Florida statute explicitly defines cyberstalking as a
means to engage in a course of conduct to communicate, or to

cause to be communicated, words, images, or language by or
through the use of electronic mail or electronic communication,
directed at a specific person, causing substantial emotional
distress to that person and serving no legitimate purpose.171
cyberstalking: when an individual engages in stalking behavior through such means as

electronic mail or electronic communication
Cyberstalking may include the following actions:
Monitoring electronic communication directly or by using some form

of spyware or keystroke-logging hardware
Sending electronic messages that threaten, insult, or harass
Disrupting electronic communications by inundating a victim’s inbox
with unwanted messages
Disrupting electronic communications by sending a virus
Using the victim’s email identity to send false messages to others or to
purchase goods and services (i.e., committing virtual identity theft)
Using the internet to seek and collect a victim’s personal information
and whereabouts172
Various motivations have been offered as to why someone would turn to

stalking. For instance, some stalkers may select their victims
opportunistically and subsequently get a sense of satisfaction from
intimidating them; this is a type of power-assertive motivation.173 For
instance, an abusive ex-husband was involved in a two-year crusade against
his ex-wife through email communications. Although the ex-wife obtained a
restraining order against him, he continued to send her more than 1,500
pages of threatening messages from numerous email accounts. One such
message outlined his plans to shoot her children with a rifle and then beat,
rape, and mutilate her with sulfuric acid before slashing her spinal cord so
she could never walk again.174 Other individuals may be obsessed with a
need to retaliate against their victims for perceived wrongs; this is a type of
anger-retaliatory motivation. Gary Dellapenta was a cyberstalker who went
to extreme efforts to terrify Randi Barber. He stated that he had an “inner
rage” toward her and that he was unable to control this rage. He would send
messages that were degrading and intended to bring harm to Barber; he
arranged to have other people harm her but was unwilling to do so
himself.175

Law enforcement has lagged behind the remarkable technological advances
and the easy availability of this technology to millions of individuals. A
number of large law enforcement agencies have devoted resources to
electronic crime investigation; medium-sized agencies may be attempting to
develop an electronic crime investigation unit or cross-train detectives from
traditional fields. Small agencies, however, are often not able to devote the
resources to a specialized computer crime unit.176 Further, law enforcement
needs to determine whether they will be reactive or proactive when
investigating the various types of cybercrime:
The question facing law enforcement has been whether to handle

these crimes in a reactive or proactive manner. Cyberstalking and
identity theft are almost always viewed in a reactive manner
because a victim’s complaint is necessary in order to begin an
investigation. However, digital child pornography has become
such a widespread problem that many agencies have begun
employing proactive investigations in attempts to control the
problems that develop from this activity.177
For instance, the FBI, through Operation Innocent Images, has been
proactively investigating pedophiles for years, and now local and state law
enforcement agencies are also implementing these types of investigations.
One method has been for the officer to enter various chat rooms, pretending
to be a child, usually between the ages of 6 and 14, in an attempt to lure
potential groomers (i.e., pedophiles). The officer agrees to meet with the
groomer; then, at the arranged time and place of the meeting, the groomer is
arrested by an undercover officer.178
Former Subway restaurant spokesman Jared Fogle leaves his

home. In 2015 he pleaded guilty to possessing child
pornography and paying for sex with minors.
AP Photo/Michael Conroy
Another important facet of investigating cybercrime involves search

warrants. It is essential that operating systems, storage devices, and
hardware specifications be clearly articulated in the development of a
comprehensive search warrant.179 For instance, where other types of crime
are concerned, investigators may seize additional evidence under the “plain
view” exception to search warrant requirements. In reference to computers,
however, the concept of “plain view” may not be as clear. The 1998 case of
United States v. Carey illustrated this point. Patrick Carey had been under
investigation for possible sale and possession of cocaine. During his arrest,
officers observed in plain view a “bong.” Subsequently, the officer asked
Carey to consent to a search of his apartment. Carey consented to the search
and signed a formal written consent. The officers recovered cocaine,
marijuana, and hallucinogenic mushrooms. They also confiscated two
computers, thinking they could be subject to forfeiture of evidence of drug
dealing. The investigators then obtained a warrant to search the files on the
computers for evidence related to drugs. Their investigation revealed files
containing child pornography; Carey was charged with one count of child
pornography. On appeal, Carey challenged the admissibility of the child
pornography because it was discovered as a result of a warrantless search.
The court ruled that the investigators had exceeded the scope of the warrant
and reversed Carey’s conviction, noting that “the plain view doctrine may
not be used to extend a general exploratory search from one object to
another until something incriminating at last emerges.”180
In 2015, Thomas Holt and his colleagues recommended that policies and
practices targeting cybercrime make use of such strategies as enhancing
public awareness, systematic data reporting, uniform training and
certification courses, onsite management assistance for electronic crime
units and task forces, and cooperation with the high-tech industry.181
Compared with state legislatures, the U.S. Congress has acted more swiftly
to enact legislation establishing computer-specific statutes—specifically,
legislation that addresses such crimes as electronic fraud and hacking.182
Below, we present a brief overview of some legislation focusing on
cybercrimes.
The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984.

The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) was initially enacted in
1984; it was amended in 1986 and has been amended further since that time.
It was originally designed to protect national security, financial, and
commercial information; medical treatment; and interstate communication
systems from malicious acts, including unauthorized access. In addition, the
CFAA allows those who have been victims of such crimes to bring a civil
suit against violators. The CFAA does not exclude application of other laws,
such as computer crime statutes that broaden the scope of CFAA.183
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984: originally designed to protect national
security, financial, and commercial information; medical treatment; and interstate
communication systems from malicious acts, including unauthorized access; allows
victims of such crimes to bring civil suits against violators.
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998.

The music and video industries have modified their businesses in response
to advances in digital technology. These industries have used the internet as
a vehicle for individuals to purchase (i.e., download) movies and music. A
major problem with such availability, however, is internet piracy.184 Internet
piracy is the “unauthorized copying of copyright material for commercial
purposes and the unauthorized commercial dealing in copied materials.”185
In the 1990s, various entities claimed that they were losing millions of
dollars due to copyright violations.186 Under pressure from the motion
picture industry, record labels, software publishers, and other entities whose
profits are linked to copyrighted material, Congress passed the Digital
Millennium Copyright Act in 1998. This act incorporates part of the
Copyright Act; it criminalizes making, distributing, or using tools, such as
software, to evade technological measures implemented by copyright
owners to prevent access to copyrighted material.187
Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998: criminalized making, distributing, or using

tools, such as software, to evade technological protection measures implemented by
copyright owners to prevent access to copyrighted material.
The Child Online Protection Act of 1998.

In 1998, Congress also passed the Child Online Protection Act, which
prohibits individuals from knowingly engaging in communication for
commercial purposes that includes material “harmful to minors” and
available to minors.188 Such prohibited material includes pictures, writings,
recordings, and videos that are obscene—or what the average person would
consider, in the context of minors, to appeal to prurient interests. Each
violation is a misdemeanor, punishable by up to six months’ imprisonment
and a $50,000 fine.189 It is essential to note that this is just one example of
legislation that has been enacted to address digital child pornography. For
instance, the Child Pornography Protection Act attempted to prohibit the use
of electronically altered photographs depicting child pornography, such as
artificial images of children (i.e., virtual images). This act has been
challenged on the grounds of vague language and possible violation of the
First Amendment right to free speech.190
Child Online Protection Act of 1998: prohibits individuals from knowingly engaging in
communication for commercial purposes that includes material “harmful to minors” and
available to minors.
The Electronic Communications Privacy Act of

1986.
In 1986, Congress passed the Electronic Communications Privacy Act,
which regulates the interception of electronic communications by
individuals as well as by the government. In reference to investigators, this
act regulates the amount of information that law enforcement can obtain
based on the level of service. Law enforcement is required to obtain a
subpoena for basic subscriber information (e.g., name, address, local and
long-distance telephone billing records, length of service, and type of
service). A court order is needed to acquire transactional information (e.g.,
records or logs pertaining to the subscriber, such as destinations of outgoing
mail). Law enforcement needs to obtain a search warrant to be privy to the
actual content of electronic messages.191
Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986: regulates the interception of

electronic communications by individuals as well as the government.
Executive Order 13694: Blocking the Property of
Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious
Cyber-Enabled Activities.
In April 2015, President Obama issued Executive Order 13694, which
allows the government to impose sanctions against individuals and groups
that threaten the United States’ infrastructure through malicious activities in
cyberspace.192 As outlined by the executive order, malicious activities
constitute those that have the purpose or effect of
harming or significantly compromising the provision of services by

entities in a critical infrastructure sector;
significantly disrupting the availability of a computer or network of
computers (e.g., through a distributed denial-of-service attack); or
causing a significant misappropriation of funds or economic resources,
trade secrets, personal identifiers, or financial information for
commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain (e.g., by
stealing large quantities of credit card information, trade secrets, or
sensitive information).193
The Strengthening State and Local Cyber Crime

Fighting Act of 2017.
The Strengthening State and Local Cyber Crime Fighting Act of 2017
amended the Homeland Security Act of 2002. This law recognized the
authority of the National Computer Forensics Institute (housed in the U.S.
Secret Service) to
disseminate information related to the investigation and prevention of

cyber and electronic crime and related threats; and
educate, train, and equip state, local, tribal, and territorial law
enforcement officers, prosecutors, and judges.194
In 2006, Robert Taylor and his colleagues reviewed several theories to
explain computer crime.195 In this section, we highlight a few of these
theoretical perspectives to illustrate how theories that have been applied to
“traditional” types of criminal behavior can also explain more
technologically advanced activities.
Routine activities theory contends that when a motivated offender, a suitable

target, and the absence of a capable guardian converge, a crime will occur.
With the rapid increase in use of computers as well as the internet, the
number of suitable targets has also increased. The insufficient software
protection for these types of crimes reveals the absence of a capable
guardian. Thus, “when motivated offenders are present, they make rational
choices by selecting suitable targets that lack capable guardianship.”196 This
also lessens the offender’s chances of being apprehended. A number of
studies have applied routine theory to cybercrime, such as by examining
national characteristics that would predict a high level of spamming or
phishing197 and exploring country-level mechanisms to address online
identity theft in Europe.198
Social process theories, such as learning theory and differential

reinforcement theory, can help explain crimes committed by individuals
who develop and spread computer viruses. A person needs to have a certain
level of technical competency to program a virus. This often involves
learning how to write the code necessary to develop a virus. In most
instances, this learning does not take place face to face; rather, it happens
through chat rooms, bulletin boards, or distance learning. There are also
positive reinforcements involved with this type of activity, including the
excitement of propagating the virus and infecting systems, “admiration”
from one’s peer group, and possible financial gains. Negative
reinforcements can include experiencing hostility from other virus writers
and being wanted by law enforcement.199
Social structure theories, specifically strain theory, can be applied when

attempting to understand internet fraud schemes and corporate espionage.
From this theoretical perspective, criminal behavior may be linked to
blocked legitimate opportunities. Thus, individuals who engage in this type
of behavior could be considered “innovators”; they use illegitimate means to
attain the conventional goal of success, usually measured by financial gain.
Interestingly, Merton initially applied this theoretical perspective to explain
blocked legitimate opportunities for people predominantly from the lower
class. Contemporary strain theorists, however, have attempted to apply this
perspective to those from the middle and upper-middle classes. Specifically,
individuals from higher socioeconomic classes may also enjoy a certain
amount of success by perceiving that legitimate means of accumulating
more wealth are blocked.200
Learning Check 14.4
1. _______________ _______________ hackers are individuals who violate

computer security essentially out of malice or for personal gain.
2. The _______________ method of identity theft occurs when a victim presents his
or her credit card to pay for merchandise and the offender peers over the victim’s
shoulder and memorizes the card number.
3. Activities associated with _______________ include monitoring electronic
communication; sending electronic messages that threaten, insult, or harass; and
using the victim’s email identity to send false messages to others or to purchase
goods and services.
4. The _______________ _______________ _______________ Act of 1998 was
established to address various problems associated with the internet, including
piracy.
Fazit
In this chapter, we presented three general categories of crime that some may not consider
as fitting in with traditional street crimes, such as murder, larceny, and assault. This does
not mean that these types of crime are not associated with more traditional types of
offenses. For instance, criminal organizations do engage in murder, and cybercrimes can
involve theft. Rather, some would argue that there are unique aspects to these types of
offenses that should be recognized. In the first section of this chapter, we attempted to
illustrate how scholars have distinguished white-collar crime from traditional forms of
offending. We also explored the various ways corporate crimes have harmed society.
The next section focused on organized crime. Again, we presented the various complex
factors involved in defining organized crime. We then briefly discussed the historical
events that have influenced organized criminal behavior, including criminal justice
responses to organized crime. We concluded this chapter with a discussion on cybercrime.
This is a relatively new type of criminal activity; thus, there are growing challenges
associated with investigating cybercrime, as well as legislation that has been enacted to
address it.
At the beginning of this chapter, we presented the case of William T. Walters. We asked
you about your perceptions and descriptions of crime and criminals, as well as whether
you thought Walters would be treated differently from other criminal offenders. As noted
earlier, in this chapter we attempted to illustrate that criminal behavior is not restricted to
what some deem traditional types of offenses; rather, criminal behavior can involve high-
level executives and powerful corporations, groups organized around the purpose of
engaging in criminal activity, and criminal behavior in which there is no physical contact
between the victim and the offender.
Key Terms
Child Online Protection Act, 379
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, 378
Cooper v. Pate, 365
cybercrime, 372
cyberstalking, 376
Digital Millennium Copyright Act, 378
Edwin Sutherland, 348
Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 379
Environmental Protection Agency, 356
hackers, 372
identity theft, 373
internet fraud, 375
Kefauver Committee, 368
Mafia, 363
Mafioso, 363
Occupational Safety and Health Act, 357
organized crime, 361
outlaw motorcycle gangs, 364
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), 369
Tammany Hall, 362
white-collar crime, 348
Wickersham Commission, 367
1. How does white-collar crime differ from traditional street crimes?
2. How does white-collar crime compare with traditional street crimes in terms of property
damage and damage to society? In terms of physical damage, such as injuries and death?
3. Can you provide recent examples of crimes against the environment in the United
States?
4. What impact did OSHA seem to have on corporate labor violations?
5. What are some key features that distinguish organized crime from traditional types of
crime?
6. How did Prohibition influence organized crime groups?
7. What are three different types of criminal organization?
8. What are some of the major contributions from the Kefauver Committee?
9. What is RICO?
10. What is Reuter’s “mini-theory” of organized crime?
11. What are some similarities and differences between traditional forms of crime and
cybercrime?
12. What are some of the different types of cybercrime?
13. What difficulties are related to search warrants for cybercrimes?
14. What statutes did Congress enact to address problems associated with digital
technological advances?
15. How have some of the traditional theories of crime been applied to cybercrime?
Ressourcen
10 White Collar Crime Cases That Made Headlines, including the most notable Ponzi
scheme, insider trading, and corporate scandals.
https://www.criminaljusticeusa.com/blog/2011/10-white-collar-crime-cases-that-
made-headlines
A 2002 report by CNN Money examines President Bush’s proposal to enforce tougher
standards following the WorldCom scandal involving massive accounting irregularities.
http://money.cnn.com/2002/06/28/news/companies/worldcom/index.htm
Professor John Coffee’s CNN article on the SEC’s oversight failure in regard to Bernie
Madoff’s illegal investment operation.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/12/16/coffee.madoff/index.html
A 2014 documentary on the Pagans Outlaw Motorcycle Gang.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lMZ2kkv3rJU
This Cyberstalking Documentary is from the Crime & Investigation Channel.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZ6LByl0pgw
Student Study Site


Media Library
premium resources:
Author Video
14.1: White-Collar Crime
Student on the Street Video

14.1: Jails versus Prisons

14.1: Organized Crime

14.1: Identity Theft
Chapter 15 Hate Crimes, Mass Murder,
Terrorism, and Homeland Security
US-crime-shooting/SANDY HUFFAKER/AFP/Getty Images
Learning Objectives
15.1 Discuss some of the key issues pertaining to hate crime, such as the definition,
various hate groups, and the type of legislation passed to address such offenses.
15.2 Describe the various forms and rates of multicide in the United States.
15.3 Distinguish terrorist activities from more conventional forms of criminal activities.
15.4 Describe homeland security, such as its origins and organizational structure.
15.5 Discuss the pros and cons of policy solutions addressing gun violence in the United
States.
Case Study
The Poway Synagogue Shooting
On April 27, 2019—the final day of a major Jewish holiday, Passover—19-year-old John T.
Earnest entered a synagogue in Poway (a suburb of San Diego, California) and opened fire on
the crowd with an assault rifle. Lori Kaye was killed; Rabbi Yisroel Goldstein, Almog Peretz,
and Joya Dahan were injured. The victims ranged from 8 to 60 years of age. According to
Sheriff William Gore, Earnest’s assault rifle may have malfunctioned soon after he began
firing, preventing him from inflicting more casualties. This horrific event occurred just six
months after the massacre of 11 people at Pittsburgh’s oldest synagogue, Tree of Life.1
Soon after the shooting, Earnest was arrested. He was subsequently charged with 109 federal
hate crimes and civil-rights violations; he could possibly be sentenced to death. The federal
authorities included numerous charges that addressed Earnest’s evident hatred toward Jews.
Earnest had also been responsible for a fire at a mosque in Escondido, California, on March
24.2
Earnest had published a manifesto to the online message board 8chan, in which he called for
the murder of Jews, stating, “I would die a thousand times over to prevent the doom fate that
the Jews have planned for my race.” A number of message-board members urged Earnest on,
telling him to “get the high score.”3 Earnest’s manifesto also stated that he was inspired by
Brenton Tarrant (the Australian white nationalist who killed 51 people in two mosques in
Christchurch, New Zealand, on March 15, 2019). The Earnest family subsequently issued a
statement:
“Our sadness pales in comparison to the grief and anguish our son has caused for so many
innocent people. Our son’s actions were informed by people we do not know, and ideas we do
not hold. How our son was attracted to such darkness is a terrifying mystery to us.”4
Think About It
1. Why was this considered a hate crime?
2. What makes this crime different than other types of crimes involving mass shootings?
3. Should John T. Earnest receive the death penalty?
We will address these questions at the end of this chapter.
Introduction
In recent years, increased attention has been given to certain types of
criminal activities that were not often discussed in the newspaper, on
television, or, for that matter, in criminology textbooks. Specifically, these
activities include hate crimes and terrorism. These types of offenses
illustrate the multicultural and multinational aspects of crime.
It is essential to appreciate how crime, and the concept of crime, expands

beyond national boundaries. There has been some debate, however, as to
whether hate crime offending and terrorism should be considered as similar
behavior. While scholars have recognized that there are legal distinctions,
some have maintained that there are also similarities, such as motivations,
objectives, and perpetrator characteristics.5 These types of offenses focus
on terrorizing a larger social group.6 Others argue that hate crimes and
terrorism are distinct types of behavior, conceptually and empirically. For
instance, terrorism is often considered an upward crime; these offenses are
committed by individuals from a lower social standing. Hate crimes are
often deemed downward crimes; these offenses are often perpetrated by
individuals from a majority or powerful group against members of minority
groups.7
In this chapter, we present a discussion of both hate crimes and terrorism

but do so in separate sections. The chapter begins with a discussion on hate
crimes; this section presents issues pertaining to hate crimes, such as the
definition and legislative responses to these offenses. Multicide, the killing
of multiple individuals, is the next topic discussed in this chapter. The
following section focuses on terrorism, including the definition and the
types and extent of terrorism. The chapter concludes with a section on
homeland security that covers such issues as agencies involved in homeland
security and potential conflicts regarding civil liberties.
Hate Crimes
In February 2016, The New York Times reported that since the terrorist
attacks in Paris on November 13, 2015, as well as the mass shooting in San
Bernardino, California, on December 2, 2015, there have been an increasing
number of attacks and threats, such as the following, against Muslims in the
United States.
Two mosques were vandalized in Hawthorne, California. At one
mosque, “Jesus” graffiti was spray-painted on the wall. At another
mosque, a hand grenade (later determined as a plastic replica) was left
in the driveway.
A Sikh temple in Buena Park, California, was vandalized with spray-
painted obscenities referring to Islam and the Islamic State (known as
ISIS and ISIL). The graffiti included gang codes, a racial slur, and
profanity in reference to ISIS and Islam.
In Coachella, California, Carl James Dial attempted to burn the Islamic
Society of Coachella Valley prior to scheduled prayer services. There
were no injuries as a result of the fire.
A convenience-store worker in Grand Rapids, Michigan, was shot by a
man attempting to rob the store. The attacker called the clerk a terrorist
and then put the gun in the clerk’s mouth, saying, “I killed guys like
you in Iraq, so I never think about it when I shoot them anymore.”
In Brooklyn, New York, a postal worker pushed and spat on a Muslim
woman who was pushing a baby in a stroller. Using obscenities, the
man said, “I’m gonna burn your Muslim temple down.”8
An anti-Muslim hate crime of vandalism.

How does a hate crime differ from a traditional crime? Are there various
types of hate crimes? What is the extent of hate crimes in the United States?
How has the criminal justice system responded to these crimes? Why do
people engage in these types of offenses? In this section, we attempt to
answer these questions.
Definition
An incident designated as a hate crime is a traditional offense, such as
murder or vandalism, with an additional factor of bias. Congress defined
hate crime as follows: “A criminal offense against a person or property
motivated in whole or in part by an offender’s bias against a race, religion,
disability, ethnic origin or sexual orientation.”9 The Federal Bureau of
Investigation (FBI) has provided guidelines as to how one can identify a
crime as being motivated by bias. The FBI stresses that just because an
offender has a bias against the victim’s race, religion, disability, sexual
orientation, and/or ethnicity/national origin, there are not sufficient grounds
to designate the offense a hate crime. Rather, this offense must be motivated
by bias.10
hate crimes: traditional offenses, such as murder and vandalism, with an additional factor
of bias.
The FBI recognizes the subjective nature of such an assessment; however, it

provides various factors to consider:
The offender and the victim were of a different race, religion,

disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, and/or gender identity.
For example, the victim was African American and the offender was
white.
Bias-related oral comments, written statements, or gestures were made
by the offender indicating his or her bias. For example, the offender
shouted a racial epithet at the victim.
Bias-related drawings, markings, symbols, or graffiti were left at the
crime scene. For example, a swastika was painted on the door of a
synagogue, mosque, or LGBT center.
Certain objects, items, or things which indicate bias were used. For
example, the offenders wore white sheets with hoods covering their
faces or a burning cross was left in front of the victim’s residence.
The victim is a member of a specific group that is overwhelmingly
outnumbered by other residents in the neighborhood where the victim
lives and the incident took place.
The victim was visiting a neighborhood where previous hate crimes
had been committed because of race, religion, disability, sexual
orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity and where tensions
remained high against the victim’s group.
Several incidents occurred in the same locality, at or about the same
time, and the victims were all of the same race, religion, disability,
sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.
A substantial portion of the community where the crime occurred
perceived that the incident was motivated by bias.
The victim was engaged in activities related to his or her race, religion,
disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity. For
example, the victim was a member of the National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) or participated in an LGBT
pride celebration.
The incident coincided with a holiday or a date of significance relating
to a particular race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity,
gender, or gender identity, e.g., Martin Luther King Day, Rosh
Hashanah, or the Transgender Day of Remembrance.
The offender was previously involved in a similar hate crime or is a
hate group member.
There were indications that a hate group was involved. For example, a
hate group claimed responsibility for the crime or was active in the
neighborhood.
A historically established animosity existed between the victim’s and
the offender’s groups.
The victim, although not a member of the targeted racial, religious,
disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity
group, was a member of an advocacy group supporting the victim
group.11
While a hate crime is not exclusively a federal offense, the federal

government can, and does, investigate and prosecute hate crimes as civil-
rights violations.
The types of hate crimes are identified by bias motivations. Common biases
include those against race and religion. There are, however, also biases
against rich people, poor people, men with long hair, smokers, drinkers, and
people with diseases such as AIDS. The biases reported to the FBI’s
Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program are restricted to those mandated
by the sanctioning act and subsequent amendments.12 The bias categories
and bias motivations are listed in Table 15.1.
Table 15.1 Bias Motivation by Category

Table 15.1 Bias Motivation by Category
Bias Category Bias Motivation
Anti–American Indian or Alaska Native
Anti-Arab
Anti-Asian
Anti–Black or African-American
Anti-Hispanic or Latino
Race/Ethnicity/Ancestry
Anti–Multiple Races, Group*
Anti–Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific

Islander
Anti–Other Race/Ethnicity/Ancestry
Anti-White
Anti-Buddhist
Anti-Catholic
Anti–Eastern Orthodox
Anti-Hindu
Anti-Islamic (Muslim)
Anti–Jehovah’s Witness
Anti-Jewish
Religion
Anti-Mormon
Anti–Multiple Religions, Groups
Anti–Other Christian
Anti–Other Religion
Anti-Protestant
Anti-Sikh
Anti–Atheism/Agnosticism
Anti-Bisexual
Anti-Gay (Male)
Anti-Heterosexual
Sexual Orientation
Anti-Lesbian
Anti–Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or

Transgender (Mixed Group)**
Anti–Mental Disability
Disability
Anti–Physical Disability
Anti-Female
Gender
Anti-Male
Anti–Gender Nonconforming
Gender Identity
Anti-Transgender
Source: FBI. (2015). Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division: Uniform Crime
Reporting (UCR) Program. Hate crime data collection guidelines and training manual.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, p. 11.
* Anti–Multiple Races, Group, is reported if more than one victim in

the incident is of a different race. This also applies to the Anti–
Multiple Religions, Group, category.
**Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender is referred to as LGBT.
Hate Groups
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, in 2018 the total number of
hate groups increased to 1,020, about a 7% increase from 2017 (see Figure
15.1). White nationalist groups increased by almost 50%; specifically, in
2017 there were 100 such chapters, and in 2018 there were 148 chapters.
There has also been an increase in black nationalist hate groups (who are
usually anti-Semitic and anti–LGBT organizations), from 233 such groups
in 2017 to 264 groups in 2018. One reason for these increases is social
media:
Hate groups themselves still run websites and forums with

massive audiences. According to Alexa web traffic analytics, the
neo-Nazi Daily Stormer site has about 4.3 million page views a
month, and the oldest hate site, Stormfront, grabs 2.2 million a
month.13
One study revealed that an increase in access to the internet leads to an

increase in racial hate crimes. Interestingly, there was no relation to an
increase in internet access to an increase in local hate-group formation.
Rather, there is a link with internet access in terms of racial hate crimes
committed by “lone-wolf” perpetrators (e.g., John T. Earnest).14
Anti-Hate-Crime Legislation
Since 1990, Congress has passed various laws that have greatly influenced
hate crime initiatives and prevention measures. Below, we briefly review
some of this legislation.
The Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990.

On April 23, 1990, the president signed into law the Hate Crime Statistics
Act of 1990 in response to increasing concern about these types of
offenses.15 As part of the UCR Program, the attorney general was required
to develop guidelines and collect data about crimes that manifest evidence
of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or ethnicity—
including, where appropriate, the crimes of murder, nonnegligent
manslaughter, forcible rape, aggravated assault, simple assault,
intimidation, arson, and destruction, damage, or vandalism of property.16
Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990: as part of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program,
this act required the attorney general to develop guidelines and collect data about crimes
that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual orientation, or
ethnicity.
Figure 15.1 Number of Hate Groups in the United States,

1999–2018
Source: Beirich, H. (2019, Spring). The year in hate and extremism:

Rage against change. Intelligence Report. Montgomery, AL: Southern
Poverty Law Center. Reprinted with permission.
To develop procedures for collecting national hate crime data, many

emphasized avoiding any new data-reporting responsibilities for those law
enforcement agencies participating in the UCR program. Thus, the
collection of hate crime data provides additional information on traditional
UCR collection procedures.
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement

Act of 1994.
The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 amended
the Hate Crime Statistics Act to enhance penalties for offenses that involved
a motivation bias.17 Further, to complement the state hate crime penalty-
enhancement statutes in the 1994 Crime Bill, Congress passed the Hate
Crime Sentencing Enhancement Act. Specifically, this act directed the U.S.
Sentencing Commission to enhance hate crime sentences to no fewer than
three offense levels. The amendment took effect on November 1, 1995.18
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994: amended the Hate Crime
Statistics Act to enhance penalties for offenses that involve a motivation bias.
The Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996.

From January 1, 1995, to January 7, 1997, the Department of Justice
opened 328 investigations of suspicious fires, bombings, and attempted
bombings. Of these, 138 attacks were on houses of worship, predominantly
African American institutions.19
In 1996, Congress unanimously enacted the Church Arson Prevention

Act. This act prohibits
Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996: prohibits intentional destruction of any religious
real property or attempts to obstruct any person in the free exercise of his or her religious
beliefs.
1. the intentional defacement, damage, or destruction of any religious real

property, because of the religious, racial, or ethnic characteristics of
that property, or
2. the intentional obstruction by force or threat of force, or attempts to
obstruct any person in the enjoyment of that person’s free exercise of
religious beliefs.20
The punishment can vary from a fine and one year in prison to death. The
punishment depends on such factors as whether anyone was injured or
killed as a result of the conduct prohibited by this act.
The Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act of
1997.
The Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act of 1997 amends a section
of the Higher Education Act of 1965 that provides “for the disclosure of all
criminal incidents that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race,
gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability.”21 Findings from
the congressional hearing include the following: The incidence of violence
based on bias on college campuses poses a serious national problem; this
violence disrupts the tranquility and safety of campuses and results in
divisiveness; the existing reporting requirements are inadequate to deal with
the problem of hate crimes, since the majority of hate crimes on college
campuses do not result in murder, rape, or aggravated assault; and omitting
certain hate crimes from official campus crime reports deprives students
and their parents of important information needed to protect students and to
make informed decisions in choosing a college or university.
Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act of 1997: amends a section of the Higher
Education Act of 1965 that provides for disclosure of all criminal incidents that indicate
any evidence of prejudice based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or
disability.
The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate

Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.
The Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention
Act of 2009 is named after two victims of hate crimes. Matthew Shepard
attended the University of Wyoming. In 1998, he was assaulted because he
was perceived to be a homosexual; he died from his injuries. Also in 1998,
James Byrd, Jr., an African American man, was tied to a truck by white
supremacists and then dragged and decapitated. The act states that it is
unlawful to willfully cause bodily injury, or attempt to do so, with a
dangerous weapon when the offense is committed because of the actual or
perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender, sexual orientation,
gender identity, or disability of any person.22 This act gives the FBI
authority to investigate violent hate crimes, including those aimed at the
gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender community.23
Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009: makes it
unlawful to willfully cause bodily injury, or attempt to do so, with a dangerous weapon
when the offense is committed because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion,
national origin, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person.
Matthew Shepard was assaulted because he was perceived to

be homosexual.
Steve Liss/The LIFE Images Collection via Getty Images/Getty

Images
James Byrd, Jr. was viciously attacked by white supremacists.
AP Photo
Model State Legislation: Hate Crimes/Violence

Against People Experiencing Homelessness.
Founded in 1989, the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty
and the National Coalition for the Homeless advocated for state legislation
that includes homelessness in hate crime statutes. They proposed a model
state legislation for hate crimes/violence against people experiencing
homelessness. The National Coalition for the Homeless reported that
communities across the country are actively addressing this problem. For
instance, in 2008, Alaska added homeless status to a law that increases
protection for vulnerable populations; in 2004, California passed a law
requiring police officer training on hate crimes against persons who are
homeless; and Florida passed a law in 2010 that added “homeless status” to
hate crime legislation.24
model state legislation for hate crimes/violence against people experiencing

homelessness: the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty and the National
Coalition for the Homeless advocated state legislation that includes homelessness in hate
crimes statutes.
The model state legislation designates the following acts as hate crimes
motivated by a person’s status as homeless:
Assault, aggravated assault, battery, or aggravated battery on the

person
Acts that deface, damage, or destroy, or attempt to deface, damage, or
destroy the personal property of the person
Acts that result in the death of the person
Any other crime against the person25
Theoretical Explanations of Hate Crimes

Byers and Crider examined hate crimes against the Amish using routine
activities theory (see Chapter 4).26 Specifically, they were studying
offenders who engaged in acts called “claping.” Clape is a derogatory term
used by some non-Amish to insult and degrade Old Order Amish. Claping
is any act of persecution committed against the Amish. Examples of claping
are verbal harassment, blowing up mailboxes, forcing Amish buggies off
the road with motorized vehicles, killing Amish-owned animals, and
spraying the Amish with fire extinguishers.
Why Do They Do It?
The Murder of Matthew Shepard

On October 9, 1998, a bicyclist was passing through a rural area in Laramie, Wyoming.
When he glanced at the side of the road, he thought he saw a scarecrow tied to a ranch
fence. He stopped and realized that the form was not a scarecrow but the battered and
nearly dead body of Matthew Shepard.
Shepard was a 22-year-old student at the University of Wyoming. Prior to his vicious
assault that evening, he attended a meeting of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgendered
Association. Later, he went to a bar. While he was drinking a beer, two men approached
him. The two men stated that they were gay; Shepard also indicated that he was gay. Just
after midnight, the two men, Russell Henderson and Aaron McKinney, lured Shepard to
Henderson’s pickup truck. They beat Shepard inside the truck and then pulled into an
isolated part of a rural subdivision. They tied Shepard to a fence and pistol-whipped him
with a .357 magnum handgun “while he begged for his life.” They stole his wallet and
shoes and left him there, where he was discovered by the bicyclist about 18 hours later.27
Five days after he was found tied to the fence, Shepard died from his injuries.28
Henderson pleaded guilty and received two consecutive life sentences. McKinney was
found guilty of felony murder and received two consecutive life terms without the
possibility of parole. Shepard’s death outraged people across the country; many called for
the need to develop federal hate crime legislation. As one writer noted in a New York
Times opinion piece:
In a nation sickened by the gratuitous thuggery of his murder, he may do much

to dispel the stubborn belief in some quarters that homosexuals are not
discriminated against. They are. Hatred can kill. . . . [H]is death makes clear the
need for hate-crime laws to protect those who survive and punish those who
attack others, whether fatally or not, just because of who they are.29
Think About It
1. What could be done to prevent these types of hate crimes from occurring?
2. Why did Henderson and McKinney brutally kill Shepard?
The qualitative data supported routine activities theory in that the

participants (i.e., offenders) were motivated, the Amish were considered
suitable targets, and there was a perception that guardians to discourage
these types of crimes were absent. Based on interviews, the offenders
revealed various motivations for engaging in these crimes, such as the
perception that the Amish are “different,” a desire for excitement, and the
belief that the Amish deserve such treatment. The Amish were considered
suitable targets for various reasons, such as the perceived absence of
consequences, the belief that the Amish were inferior, and the belief that
they were vulnerable or an “easy target.” The participants cited various
themes indicating the lack of capable guardians, such as the low probability
of getting caught and a belief that society accepted claping and devalued the
Amish.
Waldner and Berg applied a revision of routine activities theory to

understanding antigay violence.30 They employed Finkelhor and Asdigian’s
revised routine activities theory, which includes the concept of target
congruence.31 Target congruence is when various personal characteristics
might enhance individuals’ vulnerability to victimization, since these
characteristics have some congruence with the needs and motives of the
offenders. Thus, certain offenders are attracted, or respond, to particular
types of victims or particular characteristics in victims, making these
victims more vulnerable.32
Some researchers have attempted to understand hate crime within the

social-disorganization theoretical framework. Further, those factors
associated with non-hate crime are similar to factors related to hate crime
(i.e., bias crime always consists of behavior that is criminalized).33 Thus,
low residential stability, poverty, and increased racial diversity may result in
a breakdown of social relationships, which leads to an increase in hate
crimes as well as non-hate crimes.34 Some research has supported the
social-disorganization theory.35
Another facet of studying hate crimes is examining individuals’ perceptions

of hate crimes, or how people view such offenses.36 K. M. Plumm and her
colleagues implemented a jury simulation model to explore different forms
of victim blame involving an assault motivated by bias against sexual
orientation.37 They concluded that jurors may consider various factors in
these types of cases. Jurors may not agree that a violent crime motivated by
bias should necessarily be deemed a hate crime. Rather, other factors may
be considered in the context of attributions of victim blaming. Thus,
“prosecution of hate crimes may, therefore, be unsuccessful to the extent
that extra-legal factors contribute to victim blaming.”38
Learning Check 15.1
1. The Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 is named after what two victims of hate
crimes?
2. The _______________ _______________ _______________ Act of 1990 is part
of the UCR Program.
3. A hate crime is an offense that must be _______________ by an individual with a
bias against the victim’s race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, and/or
ethnicity/national origin.
4. _______________ _______________ theory was applied to understanding hate
crimes against the Amish.
Multicide
There are several categories of multicide, or multiple killings. Some
multicides are the work of serial killers, who kill single victims over time
with a cooling-down period between the killings; others are carried out by
mass murderers, who kill multiple victims in one place at one time. On the
other hand, there are spree killers who kill victims in different places
without a cooling-off time, typically driving/moving as fast as they can to
the next place of violence.39
The deadliest mass shooting in U.S. history, by a single

gunman, occurred on October 1, 2017, at the Route 91
Harvest country-music festival in Las Vegas.
David Becker/Getty Images News/Getty Images
A good example of a serial killer is Ted Bundy, who committed dozens of

killings over many years in the 1970s. He would carefully plan his offenses,
often planning the primary site, where he would rape and kill women, as
well as the secondary site at a distant location, where he would dump the
body. He would often go months between murders as he traveled across the
country, starting in Washington State and heading down through California
and across the southern United States until his final murders in Tallahassee,
Florida, at the Chi Omega sorority house at Florida State University.
Therefore, this fits the definition of a cooling-off period between many
killings over a very long period of time.
A good example of a mass murderer would be Stephen Paddock. On
October 1, 2017, he fired more than 1,100 bullets into a large crowd
attending the Route 91 Harvest country-music festival in Las Vegas, killing
58 people and wounding 422 others. This was the deadliest mass attack in
U.S. history. And there is Omar Mateen, who, on June 12, 2016, killed 49
people (and wounded at least 50 others) at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando,
Florida, a well-known hangout for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender
individuals. A married couple, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, killed 14
people in December 2015 at a workplace holiday event in San Bernardino,
California. They also clearly fit the criteria of mass murderers, because they
killed many people in a single incident.
A good example of a spree killer is Daniel Remeta, who drove across

several states to kill his five victims in a six-day period. Specifically, in
February 1985, Remeta first killed a 60-year-old convenience-store clerk in
Florida. His next victims were two individuals in Arkansas and two more in
Kansas. The distinguishing feature of this killer is that he essentially had no
cooling-down period; rather, he drove almost as fast as possible to different
locations to kill his victims.
There are many cases in which a killer fits more than one category. A good
example is the notorious case of Charles Whitman (see Chapter 6), who in
1966 first killed his wife and mother in Austin, Texas, and the next day
climbed the marquee tower at the University of Texas–Austin, killed the
receptionist, and then waited for classes to break at noon, when he shot 13
people to death from the top of the tower and wounded many others,
including a pregnant woman who subsequently lost her baby. Whitman
would fall into at least two categories, because he clearly was a mass
murderer, but given his killing of his wife and mother the previous day, he
is also either a spree killer or a serial killer, depending on whether you think
a night is a “cooling-off” period. If you think one night was enough to cool
off, then he would be a serial killer; more likely, he would be considered a
spree killer, especially given his planning of the event and that it happened
within 24 hours.
Some scholars believe that for multiple homicides to count as multicide, at

least three people must have died in the attacks.40 In fact, some of the most
cited researchers set the bar at four.41 Specifically, the notable scholar
James Alan Fox has reported, based on the criterion of four or more killed
by gunfire, that an average of 19 mass murders have occurred in the United
States each year since 1976.
However, the authors of this book take issue with this criterion for both
serial killers and mass murderers. Imagine a case, for example, in which an
individual murders one person, has a cooling-off period, and then kills
another. Then, while the killer is carefully planning the next attack, the
authorities catch the person. Shouldn’t that person be counted as a serial
killer? The same goes for the other categories. For example, if an individual
shoots 20 people in a single attack but only two people die, should this
person not be labeled a mass murderer? Clearly the shooter intended for
many more victims to die. It is understandable that researchers have drawn
a certain line to produce criteria to use for a given study, but, especially
with advances in life-saving medical technology that keep wounded victims
from becoming fatalities, we hope that new definitions/criteria will be
developed that take into consideration how many victims were intended to
be killed.
Categories of Mass Killers

Notable scholars have distinguished many categories of mass killers. We
will define them, and then examine the final one—school shooters—in
more detail.42
Disciple mass killer: The desire to kill is related to the relationship

between the killer and the leader of a group/cult.43
Family annihilator killer: Intends to kill victims he or she knows well,
especially family members.
Disgruntled employee killer: As the label says, this is when angry
(ex-)employees kill those whom they blame either for losing their job
or for their problems at work.
Ideological mass killer: Wants to kill people who are against his or her
values, morals, or religious persuasion.
Disgruntled citizen killer: Angry with certain aspects of society (e.g.,
financial issues) and wants to take it out on people perceived as
responsible for social injustices.
Psychotic mass killer: Psychotic (often with schizophrenia) and
perceive others as being out to get them.
School killer: This category will be explored in depth below.
School Attacks
There has been much attention on school shootings and attacks in the last
20 years, so much that it led to a collaborative federal study by the U.S.
Secret Service and the Department of Education. This type of collaborative
effort illustrates the importance of inter-agency cooperation when
addressing deadly attacks.44 This study, which examined all school attacks
from 1975 to 2000, resulted in a comprehensive report in 2004. Many of the
findings are contrary to what many experts had claimed were the
motivations/characteristics of school killers. It is likely that these experts
did not examine the data and simply based their conclusions on a couple of
high-profile cases, such as the Columbine High School massacre in April
1999, in which Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold killed 12 of their fellow
students and one teacher (and injured many more) with assault weapons.
The report debunked a number of myths about school attacks. Specifically,

it revealed that the vast majority were perpetrated by only one student (not
two or more, as in the Columbine massacre) and that the most common
weapon was a handgun (not an assault weapon). Perhaps even more
surprising, the study found that most perpetrators were socially
“mainstream” (not social outcasts of peer culture or “grunge,” as many
media reports claimed Harris and Klebold were). Additionally, most were
receiving A’s and B’s in school, unlike the mistaken profile in the media of
perpetrators being poor students. Furthermore, the vast majority were from
two-parent households, not from split or single-parent households. Most of
the attacks didn’t target any of the attacker’s peers but, rather, targeted a
teacher or administrator. Finally, almost none of the attacks were stopped by
law enforcement; most ended as a result of intervention by other teachers or
staff at the school, likely because most of the attacks took only a few
minutes or less to complete. Most of these conclusions were the opposite of
those provided by many experts in the media in the late 1990s and early
2000s.
Since the Columbine High School massacre and others during the late
1990s and early 2000s, police agencies have changed the way they handle
“active shooter” situations. Before, their tactics involved stopping to help
victims, but in recent years, the strategy has changed to emphasize
neutralizing the shooter(s) before providing aid to the victims, which has
likely saved lives in recent events.
Disparity in Rates of Multicide Across Race and

Religious Ideology
Recent studies have noted that it is a common myth that African Americans
are underrepresented as multicide offenders, especially serial killers.
Specifically, a study by Allan Branson in 2012 revealed that African
Americans are actually overrepresented among serial killers, yet they are
often not acknowledged by mainstream media.45 Branson noted that more
than 90 black serial killers since 1945 are not typically highlighted by
movies or journalistic reports, and, thus, their notoriety and celebrity are
absent from the popular cultural landscape in America. As Branson
claimed: “This is an interesting conundrum. The media show little reticence
in portraying black males as low-level criminals, but rarely portray them as
serial killers.” Branson cited research by Eric Hickey, which found that
approximately 20% of all serial killers are black, although blacks compose
only 13% of the population.46 Branson concluded that the FBI was largely
responsible for creating this profile of predominantly white serial killers,
and that the media, as well as common myth in our society, followed in suit
with this line of thought.
Regarding the notably horrible attacks in the United States by Muslims, it is

also important to note the data on recent mass murders. Specifically, a
review of the data on mass murders in the United States through most of
2015 showed that only 1 out of 207 incidents were committed by known
Muslim offenders.47 According to FBI data, 94% of terrorist attacks in the
United States from 1980 to 2005 were committed by non-Muslims.48 Thus,
an American terrorist suspect is more than nine times as likely to be a non-
Muslim as a Muslim. And the rate of terrorist attacks by radical Islamists is
even less (approximately 2%) in Europe. Thus, to blame an entire religion
for recent acts of terrorism would be the same as blaming all of Christianity
for the killing of doctors who perform abortions or the violent actions of the
Ku Klux Klan, who claim to be Christian.49
Still, there have been radical Islamic factions that seek to advance their
ideology via terrorism, especially in recent years; however, these radical
Islamic groups do not represent the vast majority of the 1.6 billion Muslims
around the world. There have always been terrorists, and there always will
be, who represent all races and religions. While we should always be
adamant in fighting and preventing violent acts by any and all
religious/ideological groups, it is important to bear in mind that by far the
majority of the terrorist attacks and multicides on American soil, and in
Europe as well, are home-bred and non-Muslim.
Terrorism
In May 2011, Osama bin Laden was killed by Navy SEALs in the U.S.
Naval Special Warfare Development Group. He was not found in a remote
area near the Pakistani–Afghan border, where he was presumed to be
hiding; rather, he was located in a large compound in the city of
Abbottabad, about an hour’s drive from the Pakistani capital of Islamabad.
As noted in The New York Times, “Bin Laden’s demise is a defining
moment in the American-led fight against terrorism, a symbolic stroke
affirming the relentlessness of the pursuit of those who attacked New York
and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001.”50 President Barack Obama addressed
the nation to announce bin Laden’s death. Part of his address included the
following:
After nearly 10 years of service, struggle, and sacrifice, we know

well the costs of war. These efforts weigh on me every time I, as
Commander-in-Chief, have to sign a letter to a family that has lost
a loved one, or look into the eyes of a service member who’s been
gravely wounded. So Americans understand the costs of war. Yet
as a country, we will never tolerate our security being threatened,
nor stand idly by when our people have been killed. We will be
relentless in defense of our citizens and our friends and allies. We
will be true to the values that make us who we are. And on nights
like this one, we can say to those families who have lost loved
ones to al Qaeda’s terror: Justice has been done.51
Terrorism has existed for hundreds of years. However, after the September
11, 2001, attacks, terrorism has become more intertwined with Americans
and their lives than in previous years. For instance, we read about it more in
the newspapers and have experienced changes in how we travel, due to
increased security measures.
In this section, we provide an overview of terrorism, starting with the

question, “What is terrorism?” Next, we provide a brief history, as well as a
discussion on the context of modern terrorism, such as organizational
networks and financial support. We conclude with a brief review of some
theoretical explanations of terrorism.
Demonstrators participate in a mass-unity rally following

terrorist attacks in Paris in 2015.
Dan Kitwood/Getty Images News/Getty Images
In the past few years, through newspapers, television, the internet, and
personal conversations, we have heard a great deal about terrorism. Given
that exposure, how would you define terrorism? What are some key
features of terrorism? Who engages in terrorist activities? In this section,
we will try to answer the question “What is terrorism?” First, we will
discuss issues pertaining to the definition of terrorism. Then we will briefly
review various types of terrorism, as well as the extent of terrorism.
Definition
In one respect, terrorism is a social construct, meaning it is defined through
social and cultural practice. People have varying definitions of the term
terrorism:
It is a pejorative term in that it has extremely negative

associations and always connotes death and destruction. Society
is constantly exposed to the term by the news media, politicians,
and popular entertainment venues, and it is applied to a wide
variety of actors, conditions, activities, and situations. As a social
construct, the term is used to demonize people, societies, and
actions.52
Today, “terrorism” is a significant word in our vocabulary, evoking highly

emotional responses and reactions. Billions of dollars are spent worldwide
to control terrorism, and people die every day from acts of terrorism.
However, “some people do not seem to bother to define terrorism nor do
they consider it worthwhile defining the concept.”53 Thus, there is no clear
and concise definition of the word.
During a presentation at the War Crime Research Symposium, Alex Schmid

stated that the United Nations has found it difficult to agree on a common
definition of terrorism. In fact, various agencies in the U.S. government
with interests in counterterrorism missions have different definitions of
terrorism (see Table 15.2). In an attempt to distinguish terrorism from other
types of criminal activity and irregular warfare, Bruce Hoffman identified
terrorism as combining the following characteristics:
Inevitably political in aims and motives

Violent or threatens violence
Designed to have far-reaching psychological consequences beyond the
immediate victim or target
Conducted either by an organization with an identifiable chain of
command or conspiratorial cell structure or by individuals or a small
collection of individuals directly influenced, motivated, or inspired by
the ideological aims or example of some existent terrorist movement
and/or its leaders
Perpetrated by a subnational group or nonstate entity54
Table 15.2 Definitions of Terrorism by Four U.S. Government

Agencies
Table 15.2 Definitions of Terrorism by Four U.S. Government
Agencies
Federal “Terrorism is the use of force or violence against

Emergency persons or property in violation of the criminal laws
Management of the United States for purposes of intimidation,
Agency
coercion, or ransom.”55
(FEMA)
Terrorism “means premeditated, politically

State motivated violence perpetrated against non-
Department combatant targets by subnational groups or
clandestine agents.”56
Terrorism is defined as “the unlawful use of force or

Federal
violence against persons or property to intimidate or
Bureau of
coerce a government, the civilian population, or any
Investigation
segment thereof in furtherance of political or social
(FBI)
objectives.”57
Terrorism is “the unlawful use of violence or threat

Department of violence, often motivated by religious, political,
of Defense or other ideological beliefs, to instill fear and coerce
(DoD) governments or societies in pursuit of goals that are
usually political.”58
Typologies
Identifying typologies of terrorism helps us focus on the varying forms of
violence, as well as the social meanings, of terrorism while avoiding the
controversial debate about the lack of a concise definition. It is essential to
emphasize that while these typologies may enhance our understanding of
terrorism, each incident should be appreciated within its particular social,
historical, and political context.59
There are a number of terrorist organizations and terrorist activities around

the world.60 The U.S. Department of State identified 60 foreign terrorist
organizations, including al-Shabaab, Revolutionary Struggle, Continuity
Irish Republican Army (CIRA), and the National Liberation Army. The
most recent foreign terrorist organization identified at the time of this
writing was the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant’s Branch in Libya
(ISIL-Libya) on May 19, 2016.61 Upon examining worldwide terrorism,
criminologist Gus Martin identified eight terrorist typologies:62
The New Terrorism arose at the end of the 20th century. This kind of
terrorism is characterized by threat of mass casualties, new
organizational configurations, transnational religious solidary, and
moral justifications for political violence.63
State terrorism includes terrorist acts that transpire due to the guidance
of the state or government against perceived enemies. Targets of this
type of terrorism may include politicians and political parties or groups
within the host country or in other countries.64 The U.S. Department of
State currently identifies three countries as state sponsors of terrorism:
Iran, Syria, and Sudan. In 1982, Cuba was designated as a state
sponsor of terrorism; however, in 2015 it was removed from that list.65
Dissident terrorism involves terrorist activities committed by
rebellious groups against the government. In some instances, these
terrorist acts are committed for power, wealth, and control; some are
used to obtain independence.
Religious terrorism involves terrorist acts legitimized by religious
dogma. Terrorism motivated by religious philosophy has been the
predominant form for the past several decades.66 It is essential to stress
that religious terrorism should not be associated with just the Muslim
religion. For instance, American Christian white supremacists have
engaged in terrorist acts based on their faith and their hatred for
African Americans, Jews, and other groups.
Ideological terrorism is motivated by political systems of belief. This
belief system focuses on a group’s “self-perceived inherent rights”;
thus, members of the group claim philosophical justifications for
violently asserting their rights.
International terrorism “spills over onto the world’s stage.” Targets of
this type of terrorism are chosen because of their significance as
symbols of international interests.67
Criminal dissident terrorism involves engaging in criminal activity
for profits, as in the drug cartels in Mexico, for example. Traditional
organized crime enterprises, such as the Italian Mafia, profit from
criminal activity for personal gain; criminal-political enterprises, such
as Sri Lanka’s Tamil Tigers, profit from criminal activity to sustain the
movement.68
Gender-selective terrorism focuses on an enemy population’s men or
women solely based on their gender. Thus, attacks on men may be due
to their perceived threat as potential soldiers; attacks on women may
be meant to destroy the group’s cultural identity.69
dissident terrorism: involves terrorist activities against the government that are
committed by rebellious groups
religious terrorism: terrorist acts that are legitimized by religious dogma
criminal terrorism: terrorism motivated by engaging in criminal activity for profit, such
as in the drug cartels in Mexico
Extent
A major aid to understanding the extent of terrorism is the Global Terrorism
Index (GTI). This is a wide-ranging study that collects information on
terrorism from 163 countries. In 2018, the GTI reported that, worldwide,
deaths from terrorism decreased by 27% from 2016 to 2017. There were
18,814 deaths in 2017. Afghanistan had more deaths from terrorism than
any other country. Egypt and Somalia had the largest increases in deaths
from terrorism (123% and 93%, respectively). The four terrorist groups
responsible for the most deaths in 2017 were the Islamic State of Iraq and
the Levant (ISIL), the Taliban, Al-Shabaab, and Boko Haram. These groups
were responsible for 10,632 deaths from terrorism, or 56.6% of the total
deaths, in 2017. The countries most impacted by terrorism are Iraq,
Afghanistan, Nigeria, Syria, Pakistan, and Somalia (see Figure 15.2).
Figure 15.2 The Global Impact of Terrorism
Source: © Institute for Economics and Peace. Global Terrorism Report

2018: Measuring and Understanding the Impact of Terrorism, Sydney,
November 2018. Downloaded from visionofhumanity.org 05/30/2019.
The most common types of terrorist attacks are bombing/explosion,

followed by armed assault, hostage-taking, assassination, and
facility/infrastructure attack.
The global economic impact of terrorism was about $52 billion in
2017, compared to about $90 billion in 2016.
Individuals in Western Europe who possess a criminal background
may be especially susceptible to extremist beliefs, radicalization, and
recruitment by terrorist groups.
Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, there have been four
distinct trends in global terrorism:
1. From 2002 to 2007, terrorist attacks increased; this increase was

associated with rising violent conflict in Iraq.
2. After peaking in 2007, terrorism steadily fell, with deaths from
terrorism decreasing 35% from 2007 to 2011.
3. From 2011 to 2014, there was an increase in global terrorism; deaths
from terrorism rose more than 350%.
4. Since 2014, there has been a noticeable decrease in deaths from
terrorism.70
Historical Context
Even though it is difficult to offer a clear and concise definition of
terrorism, it is essential that we provide a brief historical overview.
Presenting some historical context provides a better understanding of
terrorism’s origins and helps develop an appreciation of its implications.71
Terrorism is a type of political warfare; thus, like war, while it retains its
consistent nature, the causes, objectives, and motivations of terrorism
evolve. The first known terrorist group was the Sicarii, an extremist group
of the religious sect of Zealots who tried to banish the Romans and their
Jewish collaborators from the Judean region from A.D. 66 to 73. The term
Sicarii refers to the short sword (sica), their weapon of choice.72 During the
11th and 12th centuries, members of a Shiite Muslim sect in Syria and
Persia killed politicians and clerics who did not adhere to their form of
Islam. These individuals became known as “Assassins.” Literally, the term
assassin meant “hashish eater.” This may be a reference to the rumor,
possibly false, that these individuals engaged in ritualistic drug use prior to
their missions. Like other religiously inspired terrorists, when engaging in
terrorist missions, the Assassins perceived their deaths as sacrificial and
believed that such a death would guarantee entrance into paradise.73
The French Revolution.

The term terrorism originated from the regime de la terreur (“reign of
terror”) that prevailed during the French Revolution. The regime was
intended to consolidate the power of the new revolutionary government and
protect it from what were considered “subversive” factors. Terrorism was
initially considered a positive action.74 In 1794, Maximilien Robespierre,
the French revolutionary leader, stated that
terror is nothing other than justice, prompt, severe, inflexible; it is

therefore an emanation of virtue; it is not so much a special
principle as it is a consequence of the general principle of
democracy applied to our country’s most urgent needs.75
Under this reign of terror, about 40,000 people were executed by guillotine.
In fact, Robespierre and his top lieutenants were also put to death after he
announced that he would be issuing a new list of subversives; some of the
individuals in the revolutionary government feared their names would be on
this list. Soon, the French Revolution involved individuals turning on each
other; the term terrorism eventually had a negative connotation, similar to
today’s value-laden meaning.76
Late-19th-Century and Early-20th-Century

Terrorism.
From the 1800s into the early 1900s, anarchists and socialists were
responsible for a great deal of terrorism.77 Anarchism and radical socialism
were leftist ideologies that advocated for the rights of the working class and
abhorred central government control, as well as private ownership of
property.78 Thus, most of the attacks by anarchists and socialists were
directed toward those perceived as supporters of the oppressive
government.79 For example, many officials in the Serbian government and
military were engaged in supporting, training, and arming Balkan terrorist
groups, one of which was responsible for the assassination of Archduke
Franz Ferdinand on June 28, 1914, an act to which many have attributed the
start of World War I. Terrorist acts during this time have been labeled state-
sponsored terrorism.80
state-sponsored terrorism: includes terrorist acts facilitated by the state or government

against perceived enemies
After World War II, there was a shift in terrorist activity from Europe to its
various colonies. There was an increase in national movements, as well as
resistance to European attempts to continue colonization across the Middle
East, Asia, and Africa. These nationalist and anticolonial groups were often
involved in guerrilla warfare. Conflicts in Kenya, Malaysia, Cyprus, and
Palestine involved groups that learned how to exploit the increasing
globalization of the international media.81
They also began to target innocent civilians from other countries

who often had little if anything to do with the terrorists’ cause or
grievance, simply in order to endow their acts with the power to
attract attention and publicity that the attacks against their
declared or avowed enemies often lacked. Their intent was to
shock and, by shocking, to stimulate worldwide fear and alarm.82
These groups realized that terrorism, and the fear of terrorism, could be
used to serve their needs.83
During the 1960s and 1970s, groups engaging in terrorist activities

increased; these groups expanded to include not only nationalists but those
who were motivated by ethnic as well as ideological issues. Nationalist
groups included the Palestinian Liberation Organization and the Provisional
Irish Republican Army; groups motivated by ethnic and ideological issues
included the Red Army Faction and the Italian Red Brigades.84
Contemporary Terrorism.
Since the September 11, 2001, attacks, terrorism has had a tremendous
influence not only in the United States but on the international stage as
well. A great deal of emphasis has been placed on the threat posed by the
secret international Muslim organization al Qaeda. Interestingly, “the U.S.
view of terrorism nonetheless remains, to a degree, largely ego-centric—
despite the current administration’s rhetoric concerning a so-called ‘Global
War Against Terrorism.’”85 Gus Martin contended that the modern world is
challenged by the “New Terrorism,” which is characterized by the
following:
Loose, cell-based networks with minimal lines of command and

control
Desired acquisition of high-intensity weapons and weapons of mass
destruction
Politically vague, religious, or mystical motivations
Martin then compared the New Terrorism with traditional terrorism,

characterized by the following:
Clearly identifiable organizations or movements

Use of conventional weapons, usually small arms and explosives
Explicit grievances championing specific classes or ethno-national
groups
Relatively surgical selection of targets86
Applying Theory to Crime Terrorism
This section applies different theories of crime to one of the primary offenses discussed in
this chapter—terrorism. Empirical studies show that both traditional and more recent
versions of strain theory (introduced in Chapter 8) are best suited to explain this category
of criminal behavior.87 Social-learning perspectives (differential
association/reinforcement theory; see Chapter 10) are another theoretical framework that
applies directly to terrorist activities. Although other theories can also be applied to
explaining terrorist behavior, versions of strain theory and social process/learning
currently lead our understanding of why individuals engage in such activities.
Many notable recent acts of terrorism are based on the loss of some key positive element,
whether it be land/territory (such as in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; see below) or other
types of principles/goals, such as what motivated Timothy McVeigh to bomb the Alfred P.
Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. These incidents of terrorism fit well
in the framework of strain theory, including both Merton’s traditional strain theory and
the more modern versions of general strain theory, such as Agnew’s. After all, most
elements of terrorism are rooted in a feeling of strain or frustration, whether it be
frustration with the current governmental structure or with another government/state.
Specifically, in the case of the current dispute over land in Israel, many Palestinians are
motivated to rebel due to the belief that their lands were unfairly taken from them (via the
1948 ruling by worldwide bodies that concluded that they belong to the state of Israel),
which is clearly a case of losing a positive aspect of their livelihood. For the past five
decades or so, angry Palestinians have lashed out against the existing Israeli state that
they believe robbed them of this important positive aspect. This type of anger and strain
clearly fits into the general strain theory model of criminal offending, which emphasizes
the loss of a positive stimulus (e.g., land/territory), without compensation for this loss.
A recent study by Agnew has shown that terrorism fits well in the framework of general
strain theory, due to the feelings of anger and strain that create strong motivations for
engaging in terrorist attacks against those who are primarily to blame for the loss of
positive stimuli (in this case, land/territory, the Palestinian state, etc.).88 And it certainly
fits regarding the anger and frustration of the Palestinians in trying to reacquire their land
in the face of an overwhelming force—the state of Israel (with the backing of the United
States and other governments).
Another example is that of Timothy McVeigh, who was responsible for one of the worst
incidents of domestic terrorism. As a sympathizer of militia movements, McVeigh wanted
to get revenge against the U.S. federal government for its 1993 siege (which killed 76
people) of the Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas, as well as the killing of
militia citizens at Ruby Ridge in Idaho in 1992. Ultimately, his goals fit well in traditional
strain theory,89 especially regarding the adaptation of rebel or rebellion, in which a
person desires certain means and goals for society but strongly disagrees with the current
conventionally established means and goals and therefore seeks to change them. This is
exactly what McVeigh sought to do by bombing the federal building. Unfortunately,
many of the victims of the bombing were children in the building’s day care center. Thus,
his act was seen not as an attack on authority or the current political state but, rather, as a
massacre of innocent people who had nothing to do with the ideological and political
climate he was fighting against.
Other theories can also help explain the terrorism we have discussed in this section. For
example, the social process/learning theories of differential association/reinforcement90
offer a good explanation for why certain individuals engage in terrorist activity. To
clarify, these theories emphasize the influence of significant others (e.g., peers, family) in
promoting such behavior. Regarding the two notable incidents of terrorism described in
this section, it is obvious that both cases involve a social-learning element. Specifically,
in both the Israeli/Palestinian conflict and the Oklahoma City bombing, certain ideals are
being internalized by the offenders via their peers and other significant others. In fact, a
rather extensive doctoral dissertation study by A. L. Silverman supported the fact that
social learning played an important role in various forms of terrorism.91 It is quite certain
that such social-learning factors play a key role in the ongoing hostilities within the state
of Israel, which appears to be socialized from generation to generation via families and
peers, as well as in McVeigh’s motivation for bombing the federal building, which was
documented by his association with coconspirator Terry Nichols, who taught him how to
make explosives.
Ultimately, these two examples of terrorism fit well in the framework of strain theory
(both traditional and modern versions), as well as various social-learning components.
Think About It
1. What theoretical framework might further our understanding of the June 2016
massacre at the Pulse nightclub in Orlando, Florida?
2. What theoretical framework might further our understanding of the July 2016
attack in which a terrorist drove a cargo truck into a crowd, killing 86 and injuring
hundreds more, in Nice, France?
Current Context
It is essential that terrorists constantly move, develop more effective tactics,
and create new structures to avoid detection. Terrorist groups need to
continually change for their prolonged existence. In addition to an
organizational structure, a terrorist group also needs financial resources.
These two factors interact with change. The organizational structure and
financial resources are influenced by the strategic philosophy of a given
movement.92
Organizational Networks.
Jonathan White provided an overview of how terrorist organizational
structures have changed over time (see Figure 15.3).93 The traditional
terrorist organization comprised cells; groups of cells formed columns.
Members in the cells rarely knew one another. Soon the organizational
structure was modified to a pyramid, either large or small. The pyramids
represent the hierarchical nature of the groups, with the passive and active
supporters at the base and the active cadre and command at the top.
During the early 1980s, a new organizational structure developed from the
pyramid. The first structural change was the umbrella organization. In this
organizational structure, numerous small pyramids are assembled under a
sheltering group. This sheltering group manages supplies, acquires
resources, develops support structures, and obtains intelligence. The
umbrella organization is disconnected from the terrorist activities. In the
1990s, the RAND Corporation identified other types of new organizational
structures.94 One is virtual organizations. This organizational structure
evolves through communication, financial, and ideological links. A virtual
organization has no central leadership. Another structure is chain
organizations. Chain organizations are temporary associations with various
groups. These groups gather for a specific operation; upon completion of
that operation, they disperse. Hub organizations are established to manage
or support cells; they function similarly to umbrella groups.
Financial Support.
An essential method of combating terrorism is restricting the financing of
such organizations.95 Limiting their financial resources can have the
following consequences: (1) It can directly or indirectly influence an
organization’s leadership, morale, and legitimacy (e.g., diminish support
from members and other terrorist organizations), and (2) it can have
strategic implications (e.g., a group may not have the necessary resources to
accomplish a planned attack).96 For example, in 2003, a terrorist group was
planning to simultaneously bomb the Egyptian embassy, the U.S. embassy,
and other Western embassies in Pakistan. Due to a lack of financial
resources, the group focused solely on attacking the Egyptian embassy:
A short time before the bombing of the [Egyptian] embassy the

assigned group . . . told us that they could strike both the Egyptian
and American embassies if we gave them enough money. We had
already provided them with all that we had and we couldn’t
collect more money.97
Figure 15.3 Timeline of Terrorist Organizational Styles

Source: Adapted from White, J. R. (2012). Terrorism and homeland
security (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, p. 77.
Authorities have tried to hamper two general financial activities to limit

terrorist financing: (1) money laundering and (2) fundraising. Money
laundering is a process whereby funds, obtained through illegal activities,
are “cleansed.”98 It involves three steps: (1) The illegally obtained monies
are placed into the financial system; (2) these monies are layered, or
processed, through the system, usually internationally, and subsequently
intermingled with legal monies; and (3) the monies are turned and
reintegrated into the legitimate economy.99
money laundering: a process whereby funds, obtained through illegal activities, are
“cleansed.” The illegally obtained monies are placed into the financial system; these
monies are layered, or processed, through the system, usually internationally, and
subsequently intermingled with legal monies; finally, the monies are turned and
reintegrated into the legitimate economy.
fundraising: used by terrorist organizations to finance their activities.
These ill-gotten monies are obtained through various criminal activities.

One such activity is drug trafficking: “If we cannot kill them with guns, . . .
we will kill them with drugs.”100 There are documented connections
between terrorist groups and drug trafficking, particularly in reference to
smuggling pseudoephedrine (used to manufacture methamphetamine).
Another criminal activity linked to terrorist financing is fraud. Such fraud
may involve credit cards, welfare, Social Security, insurance, food stamps,
and coupons.101
Terrorist organizations also use fundraising to finance their activities. One

such method has been to use charities. The Irish Republican Army has used
this method for decades to fund its attacks in Northern Ireland and
England.102 Osama bin Laden used charity fundraising to finance al
Qaeda.103 In November 2008, five former leaders of a U.S.-based Muslim
charity, Holy Land Foundation, were convicted of channeling more than
$12 million to the Palestinian terrorist group Hamas. Patrick Rowan,
assistant attorney general for National Security, stated that “for many years,
the Holy Land Foundation used the guise of charity to raise and funnel
millions of dollars to the infrastructure of the Hamas terror
organization.”104
In 1989, the Financial Action Task Force (FATF) was established to set
standards, as well as promote the effective implementation of measures, to
combat money laundering, terrorist financing, and associated threats to the
integrity of the international financial system. In their 2012 report,
International Standards on Combating Money Laundering and the
Financing of Terrorism and Proliferation, FATF outlined 40
recommendations, which included enhancing policies and coordination,
targeting financial sanctions related to terrorism and terrorist financing,
reporting suspicious transactions, and transparency and beneficial
ownership of legal arrangements.105
The Influence of the Media.

Much of what the general public knows about terrorism is from the media.
Professor of media and communication Simon Cottle identified the various
communication frames, or the manner in which the media construct an
event (or issue) within a specific field of meaning, in reports of
terrorism.106 These frames include reporting frames that are short and
blended with facts; dominant frames from one authority’s viewpoint;
conflict frames consisting of two perspectives; contention frames
comprising various positions; investigative frames that expose corrupt or
illegal behavior; campaigning frames, which are the broadcaster’s opinion;
reportage frames comprising comprehensive coverage; community service
frames, which provide information to the public; collective interest frames
that reinforce common values and viewpoints; cultural recognition frames
that reflect a group’s values and norms; and mythic tales frames consisting
of hero stories.
As noted in the beginning of this section, terrorism is a social construct.

One area that can shape the social construction of terrorism is the media;
the meanings associated with terrorism can be shaped by the media.
Terrorists are also attentive to the power of the media and will increase the
use of various forms of media, such as the internet, to convey their message
and purpose.107 Jonathan White outlined some of the issues associated with
the media and reporting terrorism.108 One of these issues centers on
whether the media present information on terrorism in an unbiased and
objective manner. Governments and terrorists attempt to manipulate the
news; thus, it is essential that the media take an objective position and “just
tell the truth.” However, some maintain that the assumption of objectivity is
naive.109 Another issue is the contention effect. This refers to whether
media coverage of a terrorist incident inspires more terrorism. The issue of
censorship is also raised when individuals assume that terrorist acts are
influenced by irresponsible media coverage and that this coverage can
provide terrorists with information. As White noted:
These new media organizations not only cover the drama but add
differing interpretations and flavors to their stories. An Algerian
terrorist once said he would rather kill one victim in front of a
news camera than one hundred in the desert where the world
would not see them. His point should be noted: Modern terrorism
is a media phenomenon.110
Domestic Terrorism
While this section has focused on what some designate as international
terrorism, another form of terrorism has been identified as domestic
terrorism. Referring to the U.S. Code, the FBI identifies domestic
terrorism as activities that
Involve acts dangerous to human life that violate federal or state law;
Appear intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to
influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or
(iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction,
assassination, or kidnapping; and
Occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the U.S.111
domestic terrorism: unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or

individual based in the United States as an effort to intimidate or coerce others in service
of political or social objectives.
Essentially, this is when Americans attack other Americans, often based on

extremist ideologies. The FBI contends that domestic terror threats include
white supremacists, destructive eco-terrorists, violence-prone
antigovernment extremists, and radical separatist groups, among others.112
Martin maintained that most of the political violence in the United States
can be categorized as either left or right.113 The left applies to those political
trends and movements that stress group rights, such as labor activism,
people’s rights, single issues (e.g., environmentalists, peace movements),
and questioning traditions.114 Examples of single-issue groups from the left
are the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and the Earth Liberation Front
(ELF). ALF’s credo includes the following:
The Animal Liberation Front (ALF) carries out direct action

against animal abuse in the form of rescuing animals and causing
financial loss to animal exploiters, usually through the damage
and destruction of property. . . . Because ALF actions may be
against the law, activists work anonymously, either in small
groups or individually, and do not have any centralized
organization or coordination.115
ELF was founded in England by a former activist of the group Earthfirst!
These individuals separated from Earthfirst! because of that organization’s
decision to stop engaging in criminal activities. Some consider this group
more radical than ALF.116
The right consists of political trends and movements that stress

conventional and traditional principles, such as family values, educational
content, and social-order politics.117 Right-wing terrorism is often
motivated by racial supremacism and antigovernment viewpoints.
Compared with left-wing groups, right-wing terrorist activities are rare,
with an attack such as the Oklahoma City bombing being uncommon.118
Moralist terrorism is one example of right-wing political violence. Most
moral terrorist activities are motivated by a religious doctrine that is
considered a “fringe interpretation” of Christianity. Abortion clinics and
gay bars have often been the targets of moralist violence.119 One such group
is the Army of God, which opposes abortion and homosexuality.
Apparently, the Army of God’s ideology is an extreme interpretation of
fundamentalist Protestantism. There are some racial supremacist
predispositions as well.120 For instance, on its website, when referring to
individuals who have killed doctors who perform abortions, the Army of
God used such phrases as these:
“This is why the shooting of babykilling abortionist George Tiller was

Justifiable Homicide.”
“Thank you Scott Roeder for stopping Babykilling abortionist George
Tiller from murdering any more innocent children.”
“Now George Tiller will never murder another child.”121
In June 2006, FBI director Robert Mueller gave a speech to the City Club of
Cleveland on the threat of homegrown terrorism:
I want to talk today about the changing shape of terrorism and, in

particular, the threat of homegrown terrorism. I want to talk about
the radicalization process—how an extremist becomes a
terrorist.122
On December 2, 2015, Syed Rizwan Farook and his wife, Tashfeen Malik,
entered a Christmas party for employees of the San Bernardino County
Public Health Department. Heavily armed, with military-style clothing, they
started shooting at the unsuspecting partygoers. Farook and Malik killed 14
people. Investigation of their background later revealed that they were
college graduates with no criminal records. He was a native-born American,
and she had recently emigrated from Pakistan. What was surprising to many
is that seemed like “mainstream” members of American society, but this is
exactly the case with homegrown terrorists.123 Because homegrown
terrorists are familiar with American culture, it is difficult to detect them
before they strike. This is an ever-growing concern for U.S. Homeland
Security experts.124
Brian Forst noted that “the challenges presented by terrorism are in many
ways more formidable than those presented by conventional crime.”125 He
identified three general barriers to understanding terrorism. First, while
terrorism cases are similar with respect to having a political motive, there
are numerous differences as well. For instance, terrorism cases vary by type
of extremism (e.g., Islamic, Christian fundamentalist, environmental),
connection to a larger network, extent of planning, type of attack (e.g.,
assassination, hostage-taking), ideological justification, nature of target,
weapon of choice, and extent of fatalities.
Second, in most instances, terrorists, unlike other criminals, engage in

unpredictable activities. These terrorists attempt to create fear and mayhem
by purposely operating outside of conventional patterns. For instance, after
the September 11, 2001, attacks, when terrorist screening procedures
overlooked women as suicide bombers, terrorists enlisted women for this
type of bombing. These unpredictable patterns are difficult to examine in
the data.
Finally, compared with other types of crime, terrorism is difficult to analyze

because there is a relatively small amount of reliable data on cases of each
major form of terrorism to provide a foundation for statistical inference. As
Forst noted, while a few terrorist cases in the United States have provided
some empirical analysis, this lack of data “is a curse for empirically
oriented analysts interested in understanding terrorism.”126
Despite these barriers, there have been attempts to enhance our

understanding of terrorism. The National Counterterrorism Center,
formed in 2003, is collecting data on terrorist incidents. This type of
information is helpful in developing theoretical models to understand causal
factors associated with terrorism. One such model is routine activities
theory. In Chapter 4, we discussed key components of routine activities
theory: For a crime to occur, there must be willing offenders, suitable
targets, and an absence of adequate guardianship.127 If any one of these
factors is unmet or absent, there is no opportunity for a terrorist act to occur.
One notable conclusion of this theory in explaining and preventing
terrorism is that people should avoid situations where there is a lack of
guardianship. Another factor to consider is diminishing willing offenders,
such as by enhancing surveillance of extremists and targeting individuals
and groups with terrorist affiliations.
National Counterterrorism Center: provides the Department of State with statistical

information on terrorism
Another theoretical model that could enhance our understating of terrorism

is game theory. The military uses game theory for teaching, training, and
operational studies. Another formal use of this theory is with business and
economic games. However, game theory has also been used increasingly to
study social and other problems, such as political and social processes.128
This analytic approach assesses various scenarios by applying simulation
gaming models.129 Generally, the analysis of games has two goals. The first
goal is to understand why the parties (i.e., players) in competitive situations
behave as they do. The second goal is to advise the players of the best way
to play the game.130 Thus, game theory “could prove equally useful for
assessing alternative approaches to protecting any prospective target against
threats posed by terrorism.”131
game theory: assesses various scenarios by applying simulation gaming models, usually
to understand why parties in competitive situations behave as they do and to advise
players of the best way to play the game.
Learning Check 15.2
1. _______________ terrorism includes terrorist acts that transpire due to the direct,
or indirect, guidance of the state or government.
2. The term “terrorism” originated from the reign of terror that prevailed during the
_______________ Revolution.
3. The traditional terrorist organization comprised _______________.
4. One theoretical model that could enhance our understating of terrorism, used in the
military for teaching, training, and operational studies, is _______________
theory.
Homeland Security
On September 11, 2001, the most horrible attacks of modern international
terrorism occurred in the United States. Nineteen al Qaeda terrorists were
responsible for these attacks. They were on a suicidal “martyrdom mission”
to fight in the name of a holy cause against what they perceived to be an
evil enemy from the West. Their purpose was to attack symbols of
American, and Western, interests that they deemed responsible for the
continuing domination and exploitation of Muslim countries.132 These
attacks targeted the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon
in northern Virginia. The attacks resulted in 3,047 deaths and 2,337 injuries.
Additionally, 343 firefighters and 71 police officers were killed responding
to these attacks.133
After these attacks, the United States realized the need to develop a national
security strategy. In this section, we will first attempt to answer the question
“What is homeland security?” including a summary of the origins and
definition. Next, we will provide an overview of the organizational structure
of homeland security, including those agencies responsible for this task
and some bureaucratic problems and solutions. Finally, we will cover some
of the civil liberty issues that are challenged by national security concerns.
homeland security: a unified national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United
States, lessen America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the damage resulting
from such attacks.
Origins
When these attacks occurred, it was painfully clear not only that the United
States was vulnerable to such attacks but also that the country was ill-
equipped to prevent them. While there was a history of terrorist attacks
throughout the world, and there had been a few in the United States,
preparing for such attacks was a low priority.134 The September 11 attacks,
as well as the fear of subsequent attacks, “significantly changed the national
philosophy and ushered in a new strategy and American defense system.
Nonetheless, the country had little foundation from which to build a
national prevention strategy.”135
On October 8, 2001, President George W. Bush issued Executive Order

13228. The order established the Office of Homeland Security as well as
the Homeland Security Council. Specifically, it laid the foundation for
implementation of a new concept of homeland security as it relates to
counterterrorist policies.136 The initial responsibility of the Office of
Homeland Security was to produce the first National Strategy for Homeland
Security in 2002. This strategy was to address four questions:
1. What is “homeland security,” and what missions does it entail?

2. What do we seek to accomplish, and what are the most important goals
of homeland security?
3. What is the federal executive branch doing now to accomplish these
goals, and what should it do in the future?
4. What should nonfederal governments, the private sector, and citizens
do to help secure the homeland?137
In 2003, the Department of Homeland Security was created from the Office
of Homeland Security.138 This was considered the most noteworthy
transformation of the U.S. government in more than 50 years, primarily
because it transformed and realigned “the current confusing patchwork of
government activities into a single department whose primary mission is to
protect our homeland.”139
Definition
The 2002 National Strategy for Homeland Security defined “homeland
security” as
a concerted national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the

United States, reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and
minimize the damage and recover from attacks that do occur.140
This strategy outlined a framework for achieving homeland security, which

comprised four general goals: (1) Prevent and disrupt terrorist attacks; (2)
protect the American people, critical infrastructure, and key resources; (3)
respond to and recover from incidents that do occur; and (4) continue to
strengthen the foundation to ensure long-term success.141
Upon examining the literature on homeland security, Christopher Bellavita

recognized the various definitions of homeland security implemented since
the September 11 attacks.142 These definitions have been developed to
address the events that have been the focus of homeland security
programming; they include terrorism, all hazards, terrorism and
catastrophes, jurisdictional hazards, meta hazards, national security, and
security uber alles (see Table 15.3 for a detailed list of these definitions).
For instance, under the definition of jurisdictional hazards, homeland
security is founded more on a local jurisdiction and its experiences with
various hazards (e.g., hurricanes, wildfires, floods, tornados) than on a
federal decree.
The Homeland Security Organizational Network

Since the creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), there
have been various modifications, given the evolving nature of the range of
threats faced by the United States. Eleven days after the September 11
attacks, Pennsylvania governor Tom Ridge was appointed the first director
of the Office of Homeland Security. In November 2002, Congress passed
the Homeland Security Act, making the DHS into a stand-alone, Cabinet-
level department. In February 2005, Michael Chertoff took office as
secretary of homeland security and instigated a review of the DHS’s
operations, policies, and structures. Subsequently, modifications were
adopted, including the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act
of 2006 and the Security Accountability for Every Port (SAFE Port) Act of
2006.143 In 2013, Jeh Johnson was named the fourth secretary of DHS.
Figure 15.4 shows the department’s organizational chart. In 2017, John
Kelly was the next secretary, followed by Kirstjen Hielsen. Currently the
acting secretary of homeland security is Kevin McAleenan.
Department of Homeland Security: a Cabinet department of the U.S. federal

government, established in 2003 in response to the September 11 attacks; its main
responsibilities include protecting the United States from terrorist attacks and responding
to terrorist attacks, man-made accidents, and natural disasters.
Table 15.3 Definitions of Homeland Security

Table 15.3 Definitions of Homeland Security
1. Terrorism. Homeland security is a concerted national effort by

federal, state, and local governments, by the private sector, and by
individuals to prevent terrorist attacks within the United States,
reduce America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the
damage and recover from attacks that do occur.
2. All Hazards. Homeland security is a concerted national effort to

prevent and disrupt terrorist attacks, protect against man-made and
natural hazards, and respond to and recover from incidents that do
occur.
3. Terrorism and Catastrophes. Homeland security is what the

Department of Homeland Security—supported by other federal
agencies—does to prevent, respond to, and recover from terrorist
and catastrophic events that affect the security of the United States.
4. Jurisdictional Hazards. Homeland security means something

different in each jurisdiction. It is a locally directed effort to prevent
and prepare for incidents most likely to threaten the safety and
security of its citizens.
5. Meta Hazards. Homeland security is a national effort to prevent
or mitigate any social trend or threat that can disrupt the long-term
stability of the American way of life.
6. National Security. Homeland security is an element of national

security that works with the other instruments of national power to
protect the sovereignty, territory, domestic population, and critical
infrastructure of the United States against threats and aggression.
7. Security Uber Alles. Homeland security is a symbol used to

justify governmental efforts to curtail civil liberties.
Source: Bellavita, C. (2008). Changing homeland security: What is homeland security?
Homeland Security Affairs, 4, 1–2.
Figure 15.4 Organizational Chart for the Department of

Homeland Security
Source: Department of Homeland Security. (2018). Department

Organizational Chart. Retrieved from
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/18_1204_DHS_Or
ganizational_Chart.pdf.
Agencies Responsible for Homeland Security
In this section, we provide a brief summary of some key agencies within the
DHS, including the Transportation Security Administration, Customs and
Border Protection, Citizenship and Immigration Services, the Secret
Service, FEMA, and the Coast Guard (see Table 15.4).
Table 15.4 Agencies Transferred to the Department of

Homeland Security Since Its Creation in 2003
Table 15.4 Agencies Transferred to the Department of Homeland
Security Since Its Creation in 2003
Previously Today, under DHS
Customs and Border Protection—

inspection, border, and ports of entry
The Customs Service responsibilities
(Treasury Department) Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE)—customs law enforcement
responsibilities
Customs and Border Protection—

inspection functions and the U.S.
Border Patrol
The Immigration and
Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Naturalization Service
(ICE)—immigration law enforcement:
(INS) (Justice
detention and removal, intelligence, and
Department)
investigations
Citizenship and Immigration Services—

adjudications and benefits programs
Immigration and Customs Enforcement

The Federal Protective until 2009; currently resides within the
Service National Protection and Programs
Directorate
The Transportation
Security Administration
Transportation Security Administration
(Transportation
Department)
Federal Law Enforcement

Federal Law Enforcement Training
Training Center (Treasury
Zentrum
Department)
Animal and Plant Health Customs and Border Protection—

Inspection Service (part) agricultural imports and entry
(Agriculture Department) inspections
Office for Domestic

Responsibilities distributed within
Preparedness (Justice
FEMA
Department)
The Federal Emergency

Federal Emergency Management
Management Agency
Agency
(FEMA)
Strategic National
Stockpile and the National (Returned to Health and Human
Disaster Medical System Services, July 2004)
(HHS)
Nuclear Incident
Response Team (Energy
FEMA
Department)
Domestic Emergency
Support Teams (Justice
FEMA
Department)
National Domestic Responsibilities distributed within

Preparedness Office (FBI) FEMA
CBRN (Chemical,
Biological, Radiological,
Nuclear) Countermeasures Science and Technology Directorate
Programs (Energy
Department)
Environmental
Measurements Laboratory Science and Technology Directorate
(Energy Department)
National BW Defense
Analysis Center (Defense Science and Technology Directorate
Department)
Plum Island Animal

Disease Center Science and Technology Directorate
(Agriculture Department)
United States Computer Emergency

Federal Computer Readiness Team, Office of
Incident Response Center Cybersecurity and Communications in
(GSA) the National Protection and Programs
Directorate
National Communications Office of Cybersecurity and

System (Defense Communications in the National
Department) Protection and Programs Directorate
Dispersed throughout the Department,

National Infrastructure including Office of Operations
Protection Center (FBI) Coordination and Office of
Infrastructure Protection
Energy Security and

Integrated into the Office of
Assurance Program
Infrastructure Protection
(Energy Department)
Coast Guard Coast Guard
Secret Service Secret Service

Source: Department of Homeland Security. (2015). Who joined DHS. Retrieved from
http://www.dhs.gov/who-joined-dhs.
The Transportation Security Administration

(TSA).
With the passage of the Aviation and Transportation Security Act in
November 2001 as a response to the September 11 attacks, the
Transportation Security Administration (TSA) was established in the
Department of Transportation to strengthen the security of the country’s
transportation system. The TSA issued three mandates:
1. Take responsibility for security for all types of transportation.

2. Recruit, assess, hire, train, and deploy security officers for 450
commercial airports.
3. Provide screening of all checked luggage for explosives.
Transportation Security Administration (TSA): provides security for all types of

transportation; recruits, assesses, hires, trains, and deploys security officers for
commercial airports; and provides screening of all checked luggage.
In March 2003, the TSA was moved from the Department of Transportation
to the DHS.144 Most people assume that the TSA is primarily concerned
with airport security; as noted above, however, the TSA is responsible for
all types of transportation, including aviation, waterways, rail, highways,
public transportation, and pipelines.145
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS).

In 2003, the services and functions of the Immigration and Naturalization
Service (INS) were moved to the DHS, and the department was
subsequently renamed U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services
(USCIS).146 As noted above, the enforcement and inspection functions of
INS were moved to Customs and Border Protection.147 USCIS is
responsible for administration of immigration and naturalization
adjudication functions. Some of these functions include granting U.S.
citizenship, processing immigrant visa and naturalization petitions,
adjudicating asylum and refugee applications, and issuing documents for
employment authorization.148
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS): responsible for administration of

immigration and naturalization adjudication functions.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was created as the
primary investigative arm of the DHS.149 ICE was created by merging the
law enforcement branch of the INS, the intelligence and investigative
sections of the former Customs Service, and the Federal Protective
Services.150 While CBP focuses on securing U.S. borders, ICE’s
responsibilities go beyond the borders. Thus, “ICE attempts to identify
criminal activities and vulnerabilities that pose a threat to the nation, as well
as enforcing economic, transportation, and infrastructure security.”151 The
ICE Strategic Plan includes preventing terrorism and improving security;
protecting the borders against illicit trade, travel, and finance; and
protecting the borders through enhanced interior immigration
enforcement.152
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): focuses on identifying criminal

activities and vulnerabilities that may be a threat to the country.
The Secret Service.

The Secret Service was created in 1865 to suppress counterfeit currency.
After the assassination of President William McKinley in 1901, the Secret
Service became responsible for the protection of the president. In 1984,
Congress passed legislation making the fraudulent use of credit and debit
cards a federal violation; the Secret Service was authorized to investigate
these violations. Under the PATRIOT Act of 2001 (discussed below), the
Secret Service was authorized to investigate fraud and similar activities
related to computers. The Secret Service was transferred from the
Department of the Treasury to the DHS in 2003.153 As noted in its mission
statement,
the United States Secret Service is to safeguard the nation’s

financial infrastructure and payment systems to preserve the
integrity of the economy, and to protect national leaders, visiting
heads of state and government, designated sites and National
Special Security Events.154
Secret Service: responsible for safeguarding the country’s financial infrastructure and
payment systems, as well as protecting national leaders and visiting heads of state and
government.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency

(FEMA).
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was created in
1979 and strengthened under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act of 1988. This act established the statutory
authority for most federal response activities to prepare for, protect against,
respond to, recover from, and alleviate all types of hazards. In 2003, FEMA
became part of the DHS, along with many other agencies.155 FEMA focuses
on four initiatives:
1. Foster a whole community approach to emergency management

nationwide.
2. Build the country’s ability to stabilize and recover from a catastrophic
event.
3. Build unity of effort and common strategic understanding among the
emergency management team.
4. Enhance FEMA’s ability to learn and innovate as an organization.156
When the president declares an area a disaster, FEMA is then initiated to

respond. FEMA activities include both short- and long-term responses;
these activities also include coordinating with state and local personnel.157
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): focuses on emergency

management and recovery from a catastrophic event on a local and national level.
The Coast Guard.

Established in 1790, the Coast Guard’s primary responsibility was to
enforce the country’s maritime laws, interests, and environment. The Coast
Guard is one of the five armed forces of the United States; it is now the
only military organization within the DHS.158 The Coast Guard’s homeland
security role includes the following:
Protecting ports, the flow of commerce, and the marine transportation

system from terrorism
Maintaining maritime border security against illegal drugs, illegal
aliens, firearms, and weapons of mass destruction
Ensuring that the United States can rapidly deploy and resupply
military assets by maintaining the Coast Guard at a high state of
readiness, as well as by keeping marine transportation open for other
military services
Protecting against illegal fishing and indiscriminate destruction of
living marine resources
Preventing and responding to oil and hazardous material spills
Coordinating efforts and intelligence with federal, state, and local
agencies159
Coast Guard: the only military organization within the Department of Homeland
Security; its role includes protecting ports, maintaining border security, and coordinating
intelligence with various government entities.
Bureaucratic Problems and Solutions

Following the September 11 attacks, the United States took swift action to
implement various measures to defend the country from further terrorist
attacks. Numerous measures were established, including a major
governmental reorganization for such a defense, the DHS. In view of the
Boston Marathon bombing on April 15, 2013, there is a question as to
whether the government’s defense efforts have been effective. Further,
“policy discussions of homeland security issues are driven not by rigorous
analysis but by fear, perceptions of past mistakes, pork-barrel politics, and
insistence on an invulnerability that cannot possibly be achieved.”160
Since its establishment, there have been problems with the DHS, which is
not unusual for a newly developed agency or organization. Larry Gaines
and Victor Kappeler noted that one such problem is when conflicting
political interests overshadow the organizational imperative. “Politicians
were all too often more interested in managing appearances as opposed to
solving real problems.”161 The White House and Congress have significant
oversight responsibility, as well as authority, over the DHS. For instance,
about 80 committees and subcommittees in the House and Senate have
some form of oversight responsibilities regarding homeland security. Many
have realized that this is a problem and have suggested that the secretary of
homeland security be given more autonomy to manage the department.
However, some politicians are not willing to give up this oversight,
especially when such “authority over some aspect of homeland security
always plays well with their electorates.”162
As noted previously, the establishment of the DHS—a major governmental

reorganization—occurred in a rapid fashion. This resulted in a great deal of
confusion among the newly formed departments and other agencies. Many
would assume that the DHS has exclusive responsibility for homeland
security; however, other agencies, such as the Department of Defense, the
FBI, and the Treasury Department, also have major interests in homeland
security. A problem related to this rapid reorganization is mission
distortion. Those agencies involved in the reorganization not only acquired
new responsibilities but also were expected to continue with their agency’s
missions prior to the merge. Thus, “homeland security duties, for the most
part, were simply added to the agencies’ original or traditional
responsibilities.”163
mission distortion: occurred when those agencies involved in the reorganization that
created the Department of Homeland Security in 2003 acquired new responsibilities and
also were expected to continue with their agency’s missions prior to the merge.
Issues Related to Civil Liberties

In recent years, efforts to counter terrorism have posed some serious
challenges for civil liberties. For instance, some countries have engaged in
torture to counter terrorism; other countries have disregarded monitoring of
detention centers to prevent torture. Further, other countries have returned
persons suspected of being involved with terrorist activities to countries
where they may be tortured for these activities; this is a violation of
international law, or non-refoulement. In this section, we briefly review
some of the serious challenges to civil liberties as they relate to
counterterrorism efforts.164
The Torture Debate.

Gus Martin highlighted the issues concerning whether counterterrorist
methods of torture should be used on terrorist suspects. Such issues came to
the forefront when there were reports of abuse at the U.S.-controlled Abu
Ghraib prison, outside of Baghdad.165 Once the Abu Ghraib prison was
under U.S. control, there were several thousand civilian prisoners, including
women and teenagers. They were picked up during random military sweeps
and at highway checkpoints. These prisoners fell into three broadly
designated categories: common criminals, security detainees suspected of
“crimes against the coalition” (i.e., U.S. Coalition Forces, or CF), and a few
suspected “high-value” leaders of the insurgency against the coalition
forces.
General Janis Karpinski, an Army reserve brigadier general, was named

commander of the 800th Military Police Brigade and put in charge of the
military prisons in Iraq. Later, General Karpinski was suspended and an
investigation into the Army’s prison system launched. Major General
Antonio Taguba submitted his report, not meant for public release, on the
conditions of the prison.166 His report included the following:
Breaking chemical lights and pouring the phosphoric liquid on

detainees; pouring cold water on naked detainees; beating
detainees with a broom handle and a chair; threatening male
detainees with rape; allowing a military police guard to stitch the
wound of a detainee who was injured after being slammed against
the wall in his cell; sodomizing a detainee with a chemical light
and perhaps a broom stick, and using military working dogs to
frighten and intimidate detainees with threats of attack, and in one
instance actually biting a detainee.167
Subsequently, incriminating photographs were released, several of which
were broadcast on CBS’s 60 Minutes II. As a result, various criminal courts
martial were convened and numerous guards were convicted and
imprisoned.
According to Martin, the practice of torture has historically been disdained

by the United States, both morally and as a questionable interrogation
technique. However, during the war on terrorism, Americans have debated
the definition of torture and whether certain forms of coercion, whether
physical or psychological, are justifiable in this context. Martin then asks
whether the following techniques should be considered torture:
Waterboarding, during which prisoners feel as though they are

drowning
Sexual degradation, whereby prisoners are forced to pose in painful
positions for performance of sex acts
Stress positions, whereby prisoners are forced to pose in painful
positions for extended periods
Creating a chronic state of fear
Environmental stress, accomplished by adjusting a detention cell’s
temperature
Sleep deprivation
Disorientation about one’s whereabouts or the time of day
Sensory deprivation, such as depriving suspects of sound or light168
He concludes this discussion by noting that policymakers are still involved

in this debate and disagree as to whether certain situations necessitate the
use of such techniques on terrorist suspects.
Human Rights.
The United Nations has defined human rights as universal values and legal
guarantees that protect individuals against actions or omissions, primarily
by government agents, that infringe on their fundamental freedoms,
entitlements, and human dignity. Further, these human rights include
“respect for, and protection and fulfillment of, civil, cultural, economic,
political and social rights as well as the right to development.”169 These
rights are universal, meaning they are owed to all human beings.
human rights: universal values and legal guarantees that protect individuals against
actions or omissions, primarily by government agents, that infringe on their fundamental
freedoms, entitlements, and human dignity.
U.S. Army military police escort a detainee to a cell in

Guantanamo, Cuba.
DOD Photo/Alamy Stock Photo
Generally, there are two controversial areas involving the intersection of

human rights with terrorism and homeland security.170 The first is that
terrorist attacks on innocent people violate the right of people to be free
from such violence. Terrorists, however, justify their use of physical
violence by maintaining that people are not innocent, because they live
within the governmental system.171 The second is that governments must
recognize the human rights of their adversaries. Governments often justify
inhumane actions against terrorists by arguing that such terrorists have
forfeited their right to humane treatment due to their use of violence.172
The United Nations stressed that the issue of human rights within the
context of terrorism and counterterrorism measures has often focused on the
protection of civil and political rights. There has been little attention to how
terrorism and counterterrorism measures affect economic, social, and
cultural rights. Thus, “greater efforts must . . . be made to understand and
address the linkages between terrorism and the enjoyment of economic,
social, and cultural rights.”173
The Constitution.
The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law in the United States. It establishes
the organizational framework of the government, including the relationship
between federal and state governments, as well as U.S. citizens. The Bill of
Rights, the first 10 amendments to the Constitution, also regulates the
authority of government. Cole and Dempsey argue that some of the United
States’ fundamental rights are being challenged by new government
policies focused on addressing terrorism. These fundamental rights include
the presumption of innocence, the right to counsel, the right to confront
witnesses, the right of access to the courts, and privacy rights.174 One of the
most controversial of these new government policies is the USA PATRIOT
Act (discussed below).
An interesting facet of the Constitution involves the Equal Protection

Clause for noncitizens:
It might be argued that because noncitizens do not have a vested

interest in American society the way that citizens do, they are
more apt to commit acts of terrorism, even if they are no more
practically capable of doing so. And, therefore, the distinction
between citizens and aliens in counterterrorism law is appropriate.
But this is plainly a false premise.175
Cohen concluded that the compromise to the Equal Protection Law after the
September 11 attacks not only is problematic from a practical perspective
when combating terrorism, but also undermines the most basic foundational
principle of American government. Thus, the court needs to renew its
commitment to the concept of equality under the law.
The USA PATRIOT Act of 2001.

Following the attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress responded quickly
by passing the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing
Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act (i.e.,
the USA PATRIOT Act) on October 26, 2001. Initially, the USA PATRIOT
Act consists of 10 sections, or titles, that provide new powers for
government operations.176 The act focuses on four significant areas of
concern for homeland security:
1. The collection of communications information and data

2. Conducting foreign intelligence investigations
3. Controlling money laundering
4. Funding and enhancing national border security177
Examples of these provisions include the following:
USA PATRIOT Act of 2001: focuses on collecting communications information and

data, conducting foreign-intelligence investigations, controlling money laundering, and
funding and enhancing national border security.
Revisions of the standards for government surveillance, including

federal law enforcement access to private records
Enhancement of electronic surveillance authority, such as tapping into
e-mail, electronic address books, and computers
The use of “roving wiretaps” by investigators, which permit
surveillance of an individual’s telephone conversations on any phone
anywhere in the country
Requiring banks to identify sources of money deposited in some
private accounts and requiring foreign banks to report on suspicious
transactions
The use of nationwide search warrants
Deportation of immigrants who raise money for terrorist organizations
The detention of immigrants without charge for up to one week on
suspicion of supporting terrorism178
This act, especially those provisions that allow for the gathering and sharing
of intelligence, has sparked a great deal of controversy. Various groups,
from constitutional conservatives to civil libertarian activists, were
concerned that the law would encroach on civil freedoms, particularly those
that protect citizens from government infringement on those freedoms
guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.179 However, some
emphasize the need to be less emotional and partisan when analyzing the
provisions of the act:
The Patriot Act headlines and sound bites that have permeated the
print media and airwaves have created genuine public concern in
the United States. . . . It is important for lawyers and scholars to
stand back and look at the exact provisions of the Patriot Act,
consider how they relate to established law, and identify where
these provisions are consistent with the Constitution and case law
and where they may have reached beyond the boundaries.180
In May 2011, President Obama approved a four-year extension of expiring

provisions of the PATRIOT Act. These three provisions included extending
the government’s authority to conduct “roving wiretaps,” allowing the
government to access personal records of terrorism suspects (i.e., the
“library provision”), and permitting the government to investigate
foreigners who have no known affiliation with terrorist groups (i.e., the
“lone-wolf” provision).181
On June 1, 2015, the PATRIOT Act expired. A major issue was in reference
to the bulk collection of telecommunication data on U.S. citizens by
American intelligence agencies. On June 2, 2015, the USA Freedom Act
was enacted. This restored several provisions of the PATRIOT Act.182
However, the Senate voted to end the National Security Agency’s (NSA)
very controversial collection of phone data of Americans who have no
association with terrorist groups.183
Learning Check 15.3
1. The establishment of the _______________ of _______________

_______________ was considered the most noteworthy transformation of the U.S.
government in more than 50 years.
2. The problem of _______________ _______________ arose when agencies
involved in the reorganization not only acquired new responsibilities but also were
to continue with their agencies’ missions prior to the merge.
3. One of the most controversial of the government policies in response to the
September 11, 2001, attacks is the _______________ Act.
Policy Implications
When tragic events occur, such as the San Bernardino, Orlando, and Las
Vegas massacres, the topic of gun control inevitably is raised as a policy
that needs to be revisited in this country. After the shooting in San
Bernardino, President Obama stated the following:
The one thing we do know is that we have a pattern now of mass

shootings in this country that has no parallel anywhere else in the
world. And there are some steps we could take not to eliminate
every one of these mass shootings, but to improve the odds that
they don’t happen as frequently: common-sense gun safety laws,
stronger background checks.184
After the shooting in Orlando, President Obama stated the following:
My concern is that we start getting into a debate, as has happened

in the past, which is an either/or debate, and the suggestion is
either we think about something as terrorism and we ignore the
problems with easy access to firearms. Or it’s all about firearms
and we ignore the role, the very real role, that organizations like
[the Islamic State] have in generating extremist views inside this
country. It’s not an either/or. It’s a both/and.185
The term gun control is a very broad term. It can refer to restricting the
types of firearms that can be sold and bought, who can possess or sell them,
and where and how they can be stored or carried.186 Interestingly, one
journalist argued that some, particularly gun-control activists, have
advocated getting rid of the term. This is due to some associating gun
control with confiscation. Some possible alternatives are “gun-violence
prevention,” “gun safety,” and “firearms regulation.” However, these
alternatives have failed to become a part of our conversation regarding this
topic.187
Over the past 25 years, Americans have revealed less support for stricter
gun control. Thus, “[w]hile some high-profile shootings have resulted in
calls for increased restrictions, that support has proved fleeting thus far.
Gun control is one of the most sharply divisive issues in the U.S. today.”188
Table 15.5 provides a summary of the arguments for and against gun
control.
Table 15.5 Arguments for and Against Gun Control

Table 15.5 Arguments for and Against Gun Control
For Against
The Second Amendment to the

The Second Amendment protects
U.S. Constitution is not an
individual gun ownership.
unlimited right to own guns.
Gun-control laws do not deter

More gun-control laws would
crime; gun ownership deters
reduce gun deaths.
crime.
High-capacity magazines
Gun-control laws infringe upon
should be banned because they
the right to self-defense and deny
too often turn murder into mass
people a sense of safety.
murder.
Gun-control laws, especially those

More gun-control laws are
that try to ban “assault weapons,”
needed to protect women from
infringe upon the right to own
domestic abusers and stalkers.
guns for hunting and sport.
For Against
Gun-control laws will not prevent

Guns are rarely used in self-
criminals from obtaining guns or
defense.
breaking laws.
Gun-control laws give too much

Legally owned guns are power to the government and may
frequently stolen and used by result in government tyranny and
criminals. the government taking away all
guns from citizens.
Gun-control laws such as

Gun-control laws would reduce
background checks and micro-
the societal costs associated
stamping are an invasion of
with gun violence.
privacy.
A majority of adults, including

gun owners, support
More gun control is unnecessary
commonsense gun control such
because relatively few people are
as background checks, bans on
killed by guns.
assault weapons, and bans on
high-capacity magazines.
Gun-control laws and lower gun-

More gun control leads to fewer
ownership rates do not prevent
suicides.
suicides.
Enacting gun-control laws such

Education about guns and gun
as mandatory safety features
safety would reduce the number of
would reduce the number of
accidental gun deaths.
accidental gun deaths.
For Against
The presence of a gun makes a Gun-control laws would prevent

conflict more likely to become citizens from protecting
violent. themselves from foreign invaders.
Armed civilians are unlikely to

stop crimes and are more likely Strict gun-control laws do not
to make dangerous situations, work in Mexico and will not work
including mass shootings, more in the United States.
deadly.
Countries with restrictive gun-

control laws have lower gun
Gun-control laws are racist.
homicide and suicide rates than
the United States.
The Second Amendment was

The Second Amendment was intended to protect gun ownership
intended to protect the right of of all able-bodied men so that they
militias, not individuals, to own could participate in the militia to
guns. keep the peace and defend the
country if needed.
Civilians, including hunters,

Gun-control efforts have proved
should not own military-grade
ineffective.
firearms or firearm accessories.
Source: Adapted from ProCon.org. (n.d.). Should more gun control laws be enacted?
https://gun-control.procon.org.
Fazit
Certain types of crime have, in recent years, received significant attention in the media as
well as in criminal justice courses. Criminal activities such as terrorism and hate crimes
reveal the multicultural and multinational facets of crime.
In the first section of this chapter, we discussed hate crimes. A hate crime is a
conventional offense (e.g., murder, vandalism, robbery) with an additional factor of bias.
Hate crimes must be motivated by some form of bias, such as the victim’s race, religion,
disability, sexual orientation, or ethnicity/national origin. Further, various types of hate
crimes are identified by this particular motivation.
Next, we provided a general overview of anti-hate-crime legislation, such as the Hate

Crime Statistics Act of 1990, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of
1994, and the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009.
One theoretical framework that has been applied to understanding hate crimes is routine
activities theory.
We then looked at various categories of mass killers—disciple mass killer, family

annihilator killer, disgruntled employee killer, and others. We focused on one category
that has been the focus of a great deal of attention—school shooters.
Next, we presented an overview of terrorism. This type of criminal activity has received a
tremendous amount of media attention and governmental response, especially after the
September 11, 2001, attacks on American soil. It is interesting to note that there is no
common definition of terrorism, even among federal agencies.
Next, we briefly reviewed various types of terrorism, such as state-sponsored and

religious terrorism, as well as the extent of terrorist activities. The following portion of
the chapter provided a brief historical context of modern terrorism. While many may
consider terrorism a relatively “new” type of criminal behavior, this section illustrated
that terrorism has deep historical roots. A noteworthy aspect of terrorism is the fluidity
and constant flexibility of the organizational structure, as well as the financial support;
this is especially evident given the major advances in digital and mobile technology. We
concluded this section on terrorism with a few theoretical explanations, including routine
activities theory and game theory.
The last section in this chapter began with an overview of homeland security, including
its origins and definition. Next, we highlighted some of the agencies responsible for
homeland security, such as TSA, CBP, ICE, and FEMA. With the establishment of the
DHS, and the merging of these various agencies, there have been some bureaucratic
problems, such as conflicting political interests and mission distortion. We concluded this
section with a discussion of how counterterrorism efforts have been seen as threatening
civil liberties; especially controversial is the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001.
At the beginning of this chapter, we studied the case of the 2019 Poway Synagogue
shooting. John T. Earnest entered the synagogue, armed with an assault rifle. He killed
one person and injured others. Some maintain that he would have killed more people but
the rifle malfunctioned. What distinguishes this incident from a “conventional” mass
shooting is the shooter’s motivation. As illustrated in Earnest’s manifesto, he called for
the killing of Jews, stating, “I would die a thousand times over to prevent the doom fate
that the Jews have planned for my race.”
Key Terms
Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act of 1997, 390
Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996, 390
Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), 413
Coast Guard, 414
criminal terrorism, 399
Department of Homeland Security, 409
dissident terrorism, 398
domestic terrorism, 405
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 413
fundraising, 404
game theory, 407
Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, 389
hate crimes, 386
homeland security, 408
human rights, 416
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 413
Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act of
2009, 390
mission distortion, 414
model state legislation for hate crimes/violence against people
experiencing homelessness, 391
money laundering, 404
National Counterterrorism Center, 407
religious terrorism, 398
Secret Service, 413
state-sponsored terrorism, 401
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), 412
USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, 417
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 390
1. What are the various motivations associated with hate crimes?
2. What have been some of the major legislative responses to hate crimes?
3. How would you apply routine activities theory to hate crimes?
4. What are some key features of terrorist activities?
5. What are some of the motivations for engaging in terrorist activities?
6. What are the different organizational networks associated with terrorist groups?
7. How do some terrorist groups finance their activities?
8. How would you apply routine activities theory to terrorist activities?
9. What is the purpose of homeland security?
10. What are some of the agencies that make up the Department of Homeland Security?
11. What are some of the bureaucratic problems associated with the Department of
Homeland Security?
12. What are some of the controversial issues and challenges associated with
counterterrorism efforts?
Ressourcen
Terrorism (FBI)
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism
Hate Crime Statistics
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2017
The Southern Poverty Law Center
https://www.splcenter.org
The Department of Homeland Security
https://www.dhs.gov
Student Study Site

Media Library
premium resources:
Author Video
15.1: Hate Crimes
15.1: Domestic Terrorism
15.2: Gun Control

15.1: Hate Crimes
Chapter 16 Drugs and Crime
© iStockphoto.com/IPGGutenbergUKLtd
Learning Objectives
16.1 Distinguish between the different types of commonly abused drugs.

16.2 Describe key factors associated with the various trends of substance use in the
United States.
16.3 Summarize the key links between drugs and crime.
16.4 Outline some of policies and/or programs aimed at reducing drug use.
16.5 Discuss what should be considered in future policies on substance use.
Case Study
Kenneth Saltzman
On June 25, 2015, 18-year-old Samuel Ellis, a former star quarterback at Thomas S. Wooton
High School in Maryland, drove his car off the road. The car struck a tree and flipped as it flew
more than 100 feet through the air. Two of the passengers, Ellis’s classmates, were killed, and
another passenger was injured. When police arrived on the scene, they found alcohol from a
party, and it was still cold. Ellis pleaded guilty to two counts of vehicular manslaughter and
was given a four-year prison sentence.1
A major issue surrounding this accident was where Ellis obtained the alcohol. Kenneth
Saltzman, 49 years old at the time of the accident, was hosting a party for his daughter’s
friends. His teenage daughter invited her friends to the house. A 21-year-old bought vodka and
a 17-year-old used a fake driver’s license to buy beer. It was also reported that the teens were
playing beer pong and doing shots. The teenagers were in the basement, while Kenneth
Saltzman was upstairs.
Saltzman pleaded guilty to furnishing alcohol to a minor. He was fined $2,500 for each
criminal count, which amounted to a total of $5,000 in fines.2 The parents of one of the
victims, the Murks, viewed the fine “as the equivalent of nothing more than going to court,
paying a parking fine and being done with it.” Following the accident, further investigation
revealed that many teenagers reported that they thought of the Saltzman’s house as a “safe
place” to drink without the fear of getting into trouble.
Some maintain that the reason parents allow teenagers to have parties where alcohol is allowed
is because “teens are going to drink anyway and it is safer at home.”3 States vary in terms of
passing laws that impose liability against individuals deemed responsible for underage
drinking events on property they own, lease, or control. These laws are referred to as “social
host” laws. See Figure 16.1 for a summary of states that have “social host” laws.
Think About It
1. Do some people consider drinking alcohol to be less of a problem than taking other
types of drugs?
2. What do you think when you hear parents say, “I’d rather my kids drink in our home,
with our knowledge, than somewhere else behind my back”?
3. Should all states have “social host” laws?
Figure 16.1 Prohibitions Against Hosting Underage Drinking

Parties as of January 1, 2018
Source: Alcohol Policy Information System. (n.d.). Underage
drinking: Prohibitions against hosting underage drinking parties:
Maps & charts. Retrieved from
https://alcoholpolicy.niaaa.nih.gov/apis-policy-topics/prohibitions-
against-hosting-underage-drinking-parties/41/maps-and-charts.
Introduction
Over the past few decades, there has been an increase in public attention on
drug and alcohol abuse. Some popular antidrug and anti-alcohol slogans
have been
“Just say no”;

“This is your brain. This is your brain on drugs. Any questions?”;
“Say not to pot”;
“Hugs, not drugs”;
“Stay alive. Don’t drink and drive”;
“If you choose the booze, you lose”; and
“Get high on life, not on drugs.”
There also has been tremendous emphasis on law enforcement strategies to

combat illegal drug possession and sales in the United States. This has had
some significant effects on the criminal justice system—from rates of arrest
to rates of incarceration.4 For instance, in 2017, there were 1,632,921
arrests for drug abuse violations and 990,678 arrests for driving under the
influence.5 In 2019, 45.3% of all federal prisoners were serving time for
drug offenses;6 in 2017, about 15% of prisoners under state jurisdiction
were serving time for drug offenses.7 This does not, however, include those
individuals who committed a crime while under the influence of alcohol
and/or drugs or those who committed a crime to support their drug habit.
Drugs (including alcohol) and crime go hand in hand, and this chapter
illustrates that relationship. It begins with a section on the various types of
drugs. Next, we review trends over the past century regarding drug use, as
well as society’s response. Then, we examine the primary ways drugs
contribute to the increasing crime rate, with an emphasis on violent crime.
The next section of this chapter presents different strategies that have been
implemented to address the drug problem in the United States, including
eradication, interdiction, and drug courts. The chapter concludes with
recommendations for future policies regarding drugs and alcohol.
Depressants
With the exception of alcohol, most depressants are prescription drugs.8
Depressants slow down, or “depress,” the normal activity of the central
nervous system (i.e., the brain and spinal cord). Thus, physicians often
prescribe depressants for people who are anxious or cannot sleep.9 Below,
we briefly discuss various types of depressants that are routinely abused,
including alcohol, barbiturates, and tranquillizers (including
benzodiazepines).
depressants: substances that slow down, or “depress,” the normal activity of the central
nervous system.
Alcohol
In 2017, 51.7% of Americans aged 12 or older reported using alcohol at
least once in a 30-day period; 56.3% of young adults aged 18 to 25 were
current alcohol users; and 9.9% of adolescents aged 12 to 17 were current
users of alcohol. Table 16.1 lists the general effects of alcohol, ranging by
dose. In terms of binge alcohol use, almost one quarter (24.5%) of people
aged 12 or older reported being binge alcohol users in the past 30 days.
Figure 16.2 is a breakdown, by age group, of binge and heavy alcohol use
for 2017.10
alcohol: ethanol is the only alcohol that should be consumed; it is rapidly absorbed
through the stomach and small intestine into the bloodstream.
In this society, alcohol is often the drug of choice. C. Kuhn and her
colleagues argue that this is clearly evident when one critically observes
how alcohol is advertised in the United States:
We use alcohol to celebrate successes, to mourn failures and

losses, and to celebrate holidays of cultural and religious
significance. Implicit in these uses are the hope and promise that
alcohol will amplify the good times and help us through the bad
ones.11
They also maintain that alcohol advertising is most often targeted toward
adolescents and young adults, especially young men. Below are two
examples of screening tests that are implemented to assess whether an
individual may have an alcohol problem.
An issue related to alcohol use is binge drinking. According to the

National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism, binge drinking, or
heavy episodic drinking, refers to drinking so much alcohol within a two-
hour period that it results in at least a .08% blood alcohol concentration.12
According to the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services
Administration, binge drinking is defined for males as at least five drinks
and for females as at least four drinks on the same occasion (i.e., at the
same time or within a few hours of each other) on at least one day.13
binge drinking: heavy episodic drinking; drinking so much alcohol within a two-hour
period that it results in at least a .08% blood alcohol concentration.
Table 16.1 Effects of Alcohol on Behavior and Physical State

Table 16.1 Effects of Alcohol on Behavior and Physical State
Blood
Ethanol
Ethanol Physical
Dose Function Impaired
(mg/100 State
(oz/hour)
ml)
Judgment Happy
1–4 Up to 100 Talkative

Fine motor coordination
reaction time
Boastful
Staggering
Slurred
4–12 100–300 Motor coordination reflexes speech
Nausea,
vomiting
Hypothermia
Voluntary responses to
12–16 300–400 Hyperthermia
stimulation
Anesthesia
Blood
Ethanol
Ethanol Physical
Dose Function Impaired
(mg/100 State
(oz/hour)
ml)
Sensation
16–24 400–600 Movement Comatose
Self-protective reflexes
Breathing
24–30 600–900 Dead
Heart function
Source: Kuhn, C., Swartzwelder, S., & Wilson, W. (2003). Buzzed: The straight facts about the
most used and abused drugs from alcohol to ecstasy. New York: W. W. Norton, p. 37.
Copyright © 1998 by Cynthia Kuhn, Scott Swartzwelder, and Wilkie Wilson. Used by
permission of W. W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Figure 16.2 Past-Month Binge and Heavy Alcohol Use

Among People Aged 12 or Older, by Age Group:
Percentage, 2002–2017
Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
(2018). Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United
States: Results from the 2017 National Survey on Drug Use and
Health. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. Retrieved from
https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-
reports/NSDUHFFR2017/NSDUHFFR2017.pdf.
Note: Since 2015, the threshold for determining binge alcohol use for
males is consuming five or more drinks on an occasion; for females, it
is consuming four or more drinks on an occasion.
Diagnosing Alcohol Problems
Kuhn, Swartzwelder, and Wilson provided two different screening tests that are used in
doctors’ offices and clinics as a first indicator that an individual may have an alcohol
problem. They did stress that a diagnosis of alcohol abuse, alcohol dependency, or
alcoholism can be made only by a health professional trained specifically in addiction;
sometimes it does more harm than good to confront a friend or relative with the
impression that he or she may have a drinking problem; and these screening techniques
rely on one critical component—the individual’s responses.
The first screening test is called CAGE:
Have you ever felt the need to Cut down on your drinking?
Have you ever felt Annoyed by someone criticizing your drinking?
Have you ever felt Guilty about your drinking?
Have you ever felt the need for an Eye-opener (a drink at the beginning of the
day)?
If an individual gives two or more positive responses to these questions, there is a chance
that he or she has some type of alcohol problem.
The second screening test is called TWEAK; this has been especially useful with women:
Tolerance: How many drinks does it take to make you high?

Worried: Have close friends or relatives worried or complained about your
drinking?
Eye-opener: Do you sometimes take a drink in the morning to wake up?
Amnesia (memory loss): Has a friend or family member ever told you things you
said or did while you were drinking that you could not remember?
(K) Cut: Do you sometimes feel the need to cut down on your drinking?
This test is scored differently than CAGE; however, a positive score of three or more is
considered to indicate that the person has a drinking problem.14
One facet of binge drinking is drinking games. Drinking games have been
known to be popular on college campuses. Binge drinking, however, does
vary among student populations. For instance, African American, Asian,
female, and older students are less likely to engage in binge drinking
compared with white, male, and younger students.15 B. L. Zamboanga and
his colleagues defined drinking games as consisting of a set of rules and
guidelines that encourage heavy alcohol use.16 Continued involvement in
such games can result in an individual becoming more intoxicated and his
or her skill at the game diminishing, leading to more drinking. Further, most
drinking games include those individuals who are purposely “losing” to
receive the penalty of drinking.
An intoxicated woman sitting on a bathroom floor is offered a

glass of water. Nausea is a common effect of alcohol
consumption.
PYMCA/UIG via Getty Images
Individuals involved in such drinking games are at a higher risk of heavy

alcohol consumption and negative alcohol-related consequences. For
instance, this kind of drinking could result in increased aggression and
driving under the influence.17 Also, others on campus may experience the
negative effects of this type of drinking in the form of physical assaults,
property damage, and unwanted sexual advances.18
Barbiturates
The first barbiturate, barbital, was discovered in 1903 by two German
scientists working at Bayer—Emil Fischer and Joseph von Mering. Barbital
was marketed by Bayer under the trade name Veronal.19 There are now
about a dozen barbiturates in medical use.20 The various types of
barbiturates are often referred to “on the street” by their color; the most
common types include Amytal (blue heavens), Nembutal (yellow jackets),
Seconal (red birds), and Sombulex and Tuinal (rainbows, or reds and
blues).21 Barbiturates can induce a wide continuum of central nervous
system depression, ranging from mild sedation to coma.22 They can be
physically and psychologically addictive. In general practice, barbiturates
have essentially been replaced by benzodiazepines for treatment of anxiety
and insomnia.23
barbiturate: a type of depressant; can induce a wide continuum of central nervous

system depression, ranging from mild sedation to coma.
Tranquilizers (Including Benzodiazepines)

Kuhn and her colleagues noted that benzodiazepines are “remarkable
because they are one of the closest drugs we have to a ‘magic bullet’ for
anxiety.”24 If used properly, benzodiazepines can help individuals with
anxiety without disrupting normal functions. In fact, these are among the
most commonly prescribed drugs. Diazepam (Valium), alprazolam (Xanax),
and estazolam (ProSom) are some types of benzodiazepines. However, this
is not a “perfect” class of drug. Problems with benzodiazepines are that
initial use causes sleepiness and incoordination, they can affect an
individual’s learning process, and they can cause amnesia.25
Recently, two specific types of tranquilizers have received a great deal of

media attention and have been dubbed “date-rape drugs,” or predatory
drugs. The first is flunitrazepam, trade name Rohypnol. Some of the street
names associated with Rohypnol are “forget-me-pill,” “lunch money drug,”
“roofies,” “ruffies,” “wolfies,” “pingus,” and “R2.” The Food and Drug
Administration has never approved Rohypnol for medicinal use in the
United States. It was brought to the public’s attention when some
individuals used it to physically and psychologically incapacitate women,
for the purpose of sexually assaulting them.26 The second type of
tranquilizer is gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB). Some of the street
names for GHB are “liquid ecstasy,” “scoop,” “easy lay,” “liquid X,” and
“goop.” GHB can come in the form of an odorless, colorless liquid or as a
white powder. As with Rohypnol, offenders have used GHB as a predatory
drug in the commission of sexual assaults because it renders the victim
incapable of resisting, as well as causing memory problems.27
tranquilizers: a type of depressant; can help treat anxiety without disrupting normal
functioning. Side effects may include sleepiness and uncoordination, difficulty learning,
and amnesia.
Narcotics
The term narcotics has been used historically, and often inaccurately, to
refer to all illegal drugs. More accurately, narcotics refers to opiates (drugs
derived from the opium poppy) or opioids (synthetically produced
opiates).28 In this section, we briefly discuss morphine, heroin, and other
synthetic narcotics such as oxycodone.
narcotics: opiates (drugs derived from the opium poppy) or opioids (synthetically
produced opiates); include morphine, heroin, and oxycodone.
Morphine
The term morphine is derived from the Greek god of dreams, Morpheus,
who was often depicted with a handful of opium poppies. The effect of
opiate use was even depicted in the 1939 film The Wizard of Oz, when
Dorothy and her friends are running through the field of poppies. In 1805,
morphine, the major active ingredient in the opium poppy, was purified.
Coupled with the invention of the hypodermic syringe in 1853, the first
major wave of morphine addiction occurred during the American Civil
War.29 Morphine has a high potential for abuse. It is also one of the most
effective drugs for relieving severe physical pain. Street names include
“dreamer,” “God’s drug,” “Mister Blue,” “morf,” and “morpho.”30
morphine: one of the most effective drugs for relief of severe physical pain; has high
potential for abuse.
Heroin
Perhaps the most infamous opiate drug is heroin, a chemically modified
form of morphine. The color of heroin can range from white to black.
Highly purified heroin is a white powder, but on the other end of the
continuum, it is a black, sticky substance, sometimes referred to as “black
tar heroin.”31 Heroin can be snorted/sniffed, smoked, or injected. Initially, it
is often sniffed or snorted. When tolerance builds, one may use the method
of “skin-popping” (injecting it into the skin but not into a vein). When
tolerance builds further, one may “mainline” heroin (injecting it into the
bloodstream).32 Those users who inject heroin are at risk of contracting
infectious diseases, including HIV/AIDS and hepatitis. Further, street
heroin usually contains toxic contaminants or additives that can lead to
serious health issues.33
heroin: the most infamous opiate drug; a chemically modified form of morphine that
ranges in color from white to black.
Other Synthetic Narcotics

Synthetic narcotics are produced entirely within the laboratory, as opposed
to other narcotics derived from opium.34 Synthetic opiates include
hydrocodone (Vicodin, Lorcet, Lortab), hydromorphone (Dilaudid),
meperidine (Demerol), oxycodone (OxyContin, Percodan, and Percocet),
propoxyphene (Darvon and Darvocet), and codeine.35 OxyContin has
recently been the focus of much media attention. While the promotion and
marketing of OxyContin could be deemed a commercial success, the result
has also been a public health concern:
oxycodone: a synthetic narcotic produced entirely in the laboratory; brand names include
OxyContin, Percodan, and Percocet.
The extraordinary amount of money spent in promoting a

sustained-release opioid was unprecedented. During OxyContin’s
first 6 years on the market, Purdue spent approximately 6 to 12
times more on promoting it than the company had spent on
promoting MS Contin. . . . Although OxyContin has not been
shown to be superior to other available potent opioid
preparations, by 2001 it had become the most frequently
prescribed brand-name opioid in the United States for treating
moderate to severe pain.36
Prescriptions for OxyContin have practically doubled every year since its
release in 1996. In 2000, physicians issued more than 6.5 million
prescriptions for OxyContin.37
Recently, fentanyl has also received a great deal of media attention.

Fentanyl is a synthetic opioid; it is 80 to 100 times stronger than morphine.
Fentanyl was developed for cancer patients to manage their pain; it was
applied with a patch on the skin. Soon it was diverted for abuse. Fentanyl
may be combined with heroin to enhance its potency, or it may be disguised
as a highly potent type of heroin. Because fentanyl is cheaper to produce,
there are situations when illegal users believe they are purchasing heroin;
however, they are purchasing fentanyl, which more easily leads to overdose.
Street names include “Dance Fever,” “Goodfellas,” Tango and Cash,” and
“China Town.” As noted by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA),
“[c]landestinely-produced fentanyl is primarily manufactured in Mexico.”38
Stimulants
As the name implies, stimulant drugs create a sense of energy, alertness,
talkativeness, and well-being considered pleasurable to the user.
Physiological effects include increased heart rate and blood pressure, as
well as dilation of the bronchioles (breathing tubes) in the lungs.39 Two of
the most common forms of stimulants in our society, and perhaps the most
popular drugs in the world, are caffeine (in coffee, tea, and a number of soft
drinks) and nicotine (consumed through tobacco products such as
cigarettes).40 In this section, we briefly discuss stimulants such as cocaine,
amphetamine, and methamphetamine.
stimulant: a substance that creates a sense of energy, alertness, talkativeness, and well-
being considered pleasurable to the user.
Cocaine
Cocaine appears in the leaves of various species of plants grown in Bolivia,
Peru, and Colombia. In fact, Colombia produces about 90% of the cocaine
powder entering the United States. Street names for cocaine include “coca,”
“coke,” “crack,” “flake,” “snow,” and “soda cot.” It is usually distributed as
a white, crystalline powder and often diluted or “cut” with various
substances such as sugars and local anesthetics. Cocaine base or crack
comes in small, irregular-shaped pieces, or “rocks,” of an opaque whitish
color. Powdered cocaine can be snorted or, after dissolving it in water,
injected into the veins. Crack cocaine is smoked, either by itself or with
marijuana or tobacco. Known as “speedballing,” sometimes cocaine is used
in combination with an opiate such as heroin.41
cocaine: a type of stimulant that appears in the leaves of various species of plants; usually
processed and distributed as a white, crystalline powder diluted with substances such as
sugars and local anesthetics.
An 1885 advertisement for toothache drops containing
cocaine.
mith Collection/Gado/Getty Images
Amphetamine
Like other stimulants, amphetamine boosts the body’s functioning. A
number of amphetamines are legally prescribed, in some instances to treat
attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and attention-deficit disorder.
Adderall and Dexedrine are some commonly prescribed amphetamines.
Street names include “bennies,” “black beauties,” “crank,” “ice,” “speed,”
and “uppers.” The effects of amphetamines are similar to those of cocaine;
however, the onset of these effects is slower and the duration longer.42 As
with cocaine, amphetamines decrease appetite. In fact, these drugs were
used in the first diet pills, popular in the 1950s and 1960s.43
amphetamine: a type of stimulant; effects are similar to cocaine, but onset is slower and
duration longer.
Methamphetamine
The most common form of amphetamine today is methamphetamine.44
Methamphetamine can take the form of a white, odorless powder that
dissolves in water; clear, “chunky” crystals (i.e., crystal meth); or small,
brightly colored tablets. Street names include “meth,” “poor man’s
cocaine,” “crystal meth,” “ice,” “glass,” and “speed.” Methods of use
include injecting, snorting, smoking, and oral ingestion. Some of the
consequences associated with methamphetamine use are psychotic behavior
and brain damage. Chronic use can result in violent behavior, anxiety,
confusion, insomnia, auditory hallucinations, mood disturbances, delusions,
and paranoia; brain damage due to methamphetamine use is similar to that
occurring from Alzheimer’s disease, stroke, and epilepsy.45
methamphetamine: the most common form of amphetamine today, it can take the form
of a white, odorless powder that dissolves in water; clear, “chunky” crystals; or small,
brightly colored tablets.
Methamphetamine was created in Japan in 1919 but did not become popular
until the 1980s and 1990s.46 Methamphetamine is most accessible in the
Pacific region of the United States, followed by the West, Southwest,
Southeast, Midwest, and Northeast regions; abuse of methamphetamine
predominately occurs in the western, southwestern, and midwestern United
States.47 Another problem of the increased popularity of methamphetamine
is that a major source of supply for use in the United States is clandestine
laboratories in California and Mexico.48 Methamphetamine can be made
from a number of household products; thus, it is difficult to regulate the
production of this drug and to prevent the dangers of such production to
people and the environment.49
Other Commonly Abused Drugs
Cannabis and Marijuana

Cannabis is an extremely useful plant. For instance, hemp, a strong fiber
found in the stem of this plant, can be used to make rope, cloth, and paper.
The leaves and flowers can be dried into marijuana and used for their
psychoactive and medicinal effects. The most prevalent species of cannabis
are Cannabis sativa and Cannabis indica. While the cannabis plant contains
hundreds of psychoactive chemicals, the most psychoactive is delta-9-
tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).50 Large quantities of marijuana are grown in
countries such as Colombia, Mexico, Jamaica, and the United States. In the
United States, the largest marijuana-producing states are California,
Kentucky, and Hawaii.51 Hashish and hashish oil are drugs also derived
from the cannabis plant; however, they are stronger than marijuana. The
main sources of hashish are the Middle East, North Africa, Pakistan, and
Afghanistan.52
cannabis: an extremely useful plant that contains hundreds of psychoactive chemicals,

particularly delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC).
marijuana: the dried leaves or flowers of the cannabis plant.
Street names for marijuana include “Aunt Mary,” “bud,” “blunts,” “hash,”
“indo,” “joint,” “Mary Jane,” “pot,” “reefer,” “skunk,” and “weed.” It is
usually smoked as a cigarette (called a “joint”) or in a pipe or bong (water
pipe). It can also be smoked in blunts, which are cigars that have been
emptied of tobacco. Sometimes other drugs are used in combination with
marijuana. It has also been used in foods, as well as brewed to make tea.53
Some of the psychoactive effects of marijuana include problems with
memory and learning, distorted perception, difficulty in thinking and
problem solving, and loss of coordination. Some of the physiological effects
include sedation, bloodshot eyes, increased heart rate, coughing due to lung
irritation, increased appetite, and decreased blood pressure.54
Steroids
Anabolic-androgenic steroids are synthetically produced variations of the
male sex hormone testosterone.55 Some steroids have been approved for
medical and veterinary use. A legitimate use for humans is in replacement
therapy for inadequate levels of hormones (e.g., delayed puberty, diseases
such as cancer and AIDS that result in loss of lean muscle mass). Steroids
are also used in veterinary medicine for improving weight gain, increasing
vigor, and enhancing coat.56 Street names include “Arnolds,” “gym candy,”
“pumpers,” “roids,” “stackers,” “weight trainers,” “gear,” and “juice.”57
Research has revealed that abuse of steroids can lead to aggression and
other negative effects.58 While some users report “feeling good about
themselves,” others experience extreme mood swings and manic symptoms
that could lead to violence.59 Steroid abuse can lead to serious, and in some
instances irreversible, health problems, including liver damage, jaundice,
fluid retention, high blood pressure, renal failure, and severe acne.60
steroids: synthetically produced variations of the male sex hormone testosterone; some
are approved for medical and veterinary use.
Inhalants
Although other abused substances can be inhaled, the term inhalants is
used to refer to various substances whose primary trait is that they are rarely
taken by any delivery method other than inhalation. Inhalants are volatile
substances that produce chemical vapors. These vapors are inhaled to
produce a psychoactive, or mind-altering, effect.
inhalants: volatile substances that produce chemical vapors and whose primary trait is
that they are rarely taken by any other delivery method than inhalation.
The categorization of inhalants is difficult. One classification system

identified four general categories: volatile solvents, aerosols, gases, and
nitrites. These categories are based on the forms in which they are often
found in household, industrial, and medical products. Inhalant use includes
“sniffing” or “snorting” fumes from containers; spraying aerosols directly
into the nose or mouth; “bagging,” which is sniffing or inhaling fumes from
substances in a plastic or paper bag; “huffing,” which involves stuffing an
inhalant-soaked rag over the mouth; and inhaling from balloons filled with
nitrous oxide. The effects of intoxication last only a few minutes; thus,
abusers often prolong the high by inhaling repeatedly over the course of
several hours.61
Hallucinogens
Hallucinogens are drugs that alter one’s thought processes, mood, and
perceptions. The word is derived from the Latin word alucinare, which
means “to wander in mind, talk idly, or prate.”62 There are three general
categories of hallucinogens. The first category, and the most familiar, is
lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD). The second major category is belladonna
alkaloids; these have been used for thousands of years for medical and
ritual purposes. The third category is dissociative anesthetics, or “horse
tranquilizers,” including phencyclidine (PCP) and ketamine (an anesthetic
used on children and in veterinary practices).63 Since it is so individualized,
it is difficult to describe a person’s experience when using a hallucinogen.
However, the onset of a “trip” includes nausea, feeling jittery, and a mild
increase in blood pressure, heart rate, and breathing. Subsequently, the
effects include a slight distortion of sensory perception, with visual effects
such as wavering images and distortion of size.64 In some instances, these
drugs can cause schizophrenia-like psychosis.65
hallucinogens: drugs that alter one’s thought processes, mood, and perceptions.
Learning Check 16.1
1. In this society, _______________ is often the drug of choice.

2. Two types of _______________ have received a great deal of media attention and
have been dubbed “date-rape drugs,” or predatory drugs.
3. The color of _______________ ranges from white to black.
4. Prescriptions for _______________ have practically doubled every year since its
release in 1996.
5. refers to when cocaine is used in combination with an opiate such as heroin.
6. The most common form of amphetamine today is _______________.
7. Street names for _______________ include “Mary Jane,” “pot,” “reefer,” and
“weed.”
Trends of Drug Use

The history of drug use can be traced back at least 10,000 years.
Anthropologists have maintained that earlier cultures learned, through a
process of trial and error, that chewing, sucking, or inhaling the leaves,
fruits, or roots of certain types of plants would induce physical and
psychological changes. Further, some anthropologists have speculated that
the discovery of grain-derived alcohol, especially beer, may have been a
reason why wandering hunter-gatherer tribes of the Old Stone Age
established villages. By establishing villages, these tribes could pursue
agriculture to ensure a stable supply of grain.66 As Sally Freeman noted,
“drug use is woven into the history of civilization. People have used drugs
for pleasure, social interaction, medicine, rebellion, self-exploration,
creativity, religious ceremonies, and as commodities in economic trade.”67
Drugs have been an integral aspect of, and woven into, American history
since the arrival of the first European colonists. Interactions between the
Native American and European cultures exposed each group to drugs that
were new to it but familiar to the other. For instance, in the early 17th
century, the British encountered the use of tobacco, which was smoked by
Native Americans to achieve mystical states of mind and to strengthen
social agreements. For the Europeans and the British, drinking was an
integral aspect of life; the colonials introduced the Native Americans to
alcohol.68 In this section, we provide a brief overview of key trends of drug
use in the United States, starting with the history of opioid and cocaine
addiction.
The Early History of Cocaine and Opioid

Addiction
Around the time of the U.S. Civil War (1861–1865), opioid addiction was
prevalent.69 Soldiers were given morphine not only to ease the pain of their
injuries but also to relieve the symptoms of dysentery. Upon returning
home, many of the soldiers were dependent on morphine, and their
addiction became known as the “soldier’s disease.” Some of England’s
most well-known literary talents were introduced to opiates through their
physicians; American writer Louisa May Alcott, author of Little Women,
used opium and morphine to address her physical ailments. Interestingly,
under different pen names, she later authored thrillers that delved into topics
such as drugs and violence.70
In 1898, the Bayer Company developed heroin, an opium derivative 10

times more powerful than morphine. It was extremely effective in relieving
coughs, emphysema, asthma, and tuberculosis. As with previous opium
derivatives, however, many soon realized that heroin was also highly
addictive. In fact, by 1919, almost 1 million Americans were addicted to
heroin or some form of opium. Physicians, pharmacists, and “opportunists”
were able to prescribe opioids with no restrictions. Thus, patent medicines,
claiming to treat a range of ailments, were often laced with opiates, cocaine,
or alcohol.71 To address this widespread addiction and questionable
practices, the government enacted the 1906 Pure Food and Drug Act, which
authorized federal regulations on any medication.72 This was followed by
the Harrison Act in 1914 (named for Francis Burton Harrison, a New York
congressman), which, among other things, required doctors to be licensed to
prescribe narcotics.73
Harrison Act of 1914: required doctors to possess a license to prescribe narcotics.
Like opiates, cocaine has some therapeutic properties but is also highly
addictive. Cocaine was introduced in the United States initially for
medicinal use, designated as a “wonder drug.” In fact, cocaine was
considered by many influential physicians as a cure for addiction to
morphine, opium, and alcohol.74 Before Sigmund Freud achieved fame as
the founder of psychoanalysis, he was a neurologist. In several articles for
medical journals, Freud maintained that cocaine could be used for a variety
of ills, such as asthma, digestive upset, and morphine addiction.75 In 1887,
however, Freud conceded that cocaine should not be used for morphine
addiction. It is also essential to note that in the early 1900s, medical
viewpoints concerning cocaine (as for other forms of opium) were
becoming more critical of its use in the field, with the exception of its use
as a local anesthetic.76
Prohibition Era
On December 18, 1917, the U.S. Senate proposed the Eighteenth
Amendment. Mississippi was the first state to ratify the amendment; on
January 16, 1919, Nebraska was the 36th state to ratify the amendment.
Thus, national Prohibition took effect on January 16, 1920.77 The
amendment had two operative sections:
Section 1: After one year from the ratification of this article the
manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within,
the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the
United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof
for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.
Section 2: The Congress and the several States shall have

concurrent power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
(USCS Constitutional Amendment 18)
Eighteenth Amendment: the U.S. constitutional amendment that effected national
Prohibition on January 16, 1920.
Prohibition: After the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment, an era (1920–1933) in

which it was illegal to manufacture, sell, or transport intoxicating liquors within the
United States.
The passage of the amendment was influenced by such groups as the

Prohibition Party, the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union, and the Anti-
Saloon League.78
During the Prohibition era, America’s drinking patterns went through some
changes. First, there was a significant drop in alcohol consumption among
the working class; Prohibition made alcohol expensive, and many of these
individuals could no longer afford to drink. Second, while beer and wine
were difficult to manufacture and ship, distilled liquors (e.g., gin, rum,
whiskey) were easy to produce and transport, which made these the more
popular beverages. One of the most notable, and often cited, outcomes of
Prohibition was the development of an underground system of producing
and distributing alcohol.79 While “Prohibition probably reduced per capita
alcohol use and alcohol-related harm, . . . these benefits eroded over time as
an organized black market developed and public support . . . declined.”80
Prior to Prohibition, organized crime essentially comprised corrupt political

machines, vice entrepreneurs, and, at the bottom, gangs. The onset of
Prohibition provided gangs an opportunity to engage in criminal activity
that changed the power order, with gang leaders such as Arthur “Dutch
Schultz” Felgenheimer and Al Capone rising to the top of the organized
crime “ladder.”81 On December 5, 1933, the Twenty-First Amendment
was ratified, repealing the Eighteenth Amendment.
Twenty-First Amendment: repealed the Eighteenth Amendment in December 1933.
“Reefer Madness”
Although the cannabis plant has been used for various purposes since
colonial times, it was not until the early 1900s that the act of smoking
marijuana was considered a social problem in the United States. Further,
those identified as smoking marijuana were from marginalized groups.
Specifically, these individuals included Mexicans who came to America to
work in the fields in the Southwest; sailors who brought back marijuana
from South and Central American ports; and blacks in the South, where it
was noted that as early as colonial times they smoked the hemp plant,
having become familiar with the drug in Africa.82
Prior to the mid-1920s, there was not a great deal of public interest or
concern about marijuana use. Soon thereafter, various articles appeared
linking marijuana use with criminal activity.83 For instance, in 1936,
Scientific American reported, “Marijuana produces a wide variety of
symptoms in the user, including hilarity, swooning, and sexual excitement.
Combined with intoxicants, it often makes the smoker vicious, with a desire
to fight and kill.”84
Some have maintained that were it not for the zeal of Harry Anslinger, the
commissioner of the new Federal Bureau of Narcotics in 1931, marijuana
might be legal in the United States today. These articles, a number of which
were written by Anslinger, stressed the negative effects of marijuana use.
For instance, a 1927 article in The New York Times reported a story about a
Mexican woman who went insane after eating cannabis leaves. At the
congressional hearings on the Marihuana Tax Act in 1937, Anslinger
testified that a 21-year-old man from Florida murdered his entire family
because he was smoking marijuana. However, Anslinger failed to note that
the authorities had already attempted to institutionalize the man for insanity
a year before he ever tried marijuana.85
Marihuana Tax Act of 1937: did not criminalize marijuana or its preparations but did tax
the grower, distributor, seller, and buyer.
The Marihuana Tax Act became effective October 1, 1937. While this
federal law did not criminalize marijuana or its preparations, it did tax the
grower, distributor, seller, and buyer. This law essentially made it
impossible for a person to have any involvement with marijuana. In 1969,
the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the Marihuana Tax Act was
unconstitutional. The case involved Timothy Leary, who was found with
marijuana in his car while going through customs at Laredo, Texas. The
Supreme Court stated that the act violated Leary’s Fifth Amendment
privilege against self-incrimination.86 Some maintain that the Marihuana
Tax Act of 1937 is one example of what one could characterize as a
racialized drug policy. David Musto argued that the act was essentially a
response to political pressure among those who feared the use of marijuana
by individuals they labeled “Mexicans.”87 For example, in 1935, C. M.
Goethe of Sacramento, a member of the American Coalition—a group
whose goal was to “keep America American”—noted that
marihuana, perhaps now the most insidious of our narcotics, is a

direct by-product of unrestricted Mexican immigration. Easily
grown, it has been asserted that it has recently been planted
between rows in a California penitentiary garden. Mexican
peddlers have been caught distributing sample marihuana cigarets
[sic] to school children. Bills for our quota against Mexico have
been blocked mysteriously in every Congress since the 1924
Quota Act. Our nation has more than enough laborers.88
As noted previously, there was a great deal of publicity regarding the

“evils” of marijuana; this media attention exaggerated marijuana’s effects.
In certain regions of the United States, the fear of marijuana was more
intense. Specifically, a report published in 1932 noted that the abuse of
marijuana was often associated with Latin American or Spanish-speaking
populations and that the sale of cannabis cigarettes usually occurred in
states along the Mexican border, as well as in cities in the Southwest and
West.89 Musto concluded that initially the Federal Bureau of Narcotics
resisted any involvement in terms of enforcing the anti-marijuana law.
However, pressure, most likely motivated by fear, from those in the
southwestern and western regions of the country led to the implementation
of federal legislation.
The 1960s and the Baby Boomers

According to the U.S. Census, the population born between 1946 and 1964
is commonly referred to as the baby-boom generation. Due to a dramatic
increase in birth rates following World War II, baby boomers now form
what is considered to be one of the largest generations in U.S. history.90
During the 1960s, these individuals were extremely influential to what has
been identified as the “counterculture” of that time. Sociologist Kenneth
Westhues identified various characteristics of countercultures, including
communistic relationships among members, sexual relationships that
deviate from the nuclear family ideal, claims of superiority over the
dominant society, members who look to spiritual leaders, and members who
reject many of the status symbols of the larger society.91
An example of psychedelic art. What role might drugs have

played in the creation of such art?
Ikon Images/Alamy Stock Photo
The countercultural movement has also been associated with “mind-

opening substances,” or drugs such as LSD, mescaline, psilocybin, and
other related chemicals, as well as marijuana.92 Drugs were interwoven in
various facets of this cultural movement. For instance, drug use was often
referenced in music—appearing in songs by Bob Dylan, Jefferson Airplane,
Jimi Hendrix, The Beatles, and The Grateful Dead, just to name a few.
Art, specifically psychedelic art, was also influential at this time. Some
argue that psychedelic art was inspired by the effects of such drugs as LSD
and mescaline.
The “War on Drugs” Era
The 1980s initiated what was designated as the War on Drugs:
The drug “panic” or “crisis” of the mid-to-late 1980s illustrates

the notion of the politics of social problems very nicely. Public
concern about drugs, although building throughout the 1980s,
exploded late in 1985 and early 1986—at a time, ironically, when
the use of most drugs was actually declining [italics in original].93
War on Drugs: a public concern about drugs, building throughout the 1980s, that
exploded in late 1985 and early 1986.
There was extensive media coverage of drug use in the United States at this
time. A well-known advertising campaign was “Just Say No.” This phrase
has been attributed to First Lady Nancy Reagan. During a presentation in
Oakland, California, a schoolchild in the audience asked Mrs. Reagan what
she and her friends should say when someone offered them drugs. The First
Lady stated, “Just say no.” Soon thereafter, thousands of “Just Say No”
clubs had emerged in schools around the country.94
In the 1980s, Congress enacted mandatory minimum drug sentencing laws

that resulted in lengthy prison terms for individuals convicted of nonviolent
drug offenses.95 In 1986, President Ronald Reagan stressed the need for a
“nationwide crusade against drugs,” such as $2 billion in federal monies to
address the problem. This money included $56 million for drug testing
federal employees. In September 1986, the House of Representatives
approved increased spending for education, treatment programs, and
penalties against drug-producing countries. This was approved by the
Senate in October. The Anti-Drug Abuse Act ultimately cost $1.7 billion.96
One particular drug often noted during this period was crack cocaine.97 G.
Witkin and his colleagues stated that it is amazing that crack cocaine did not
become a social problem sooner. In fact, crack made its appearance in the
1970s. However, Witkin argued, crack became a craze due to mass
marketing involving three groups of “sinister geniuses.” The first group was
the nameless kitchen chemists and drug traffickers who could set up small-
scale operations. The second group comprised criminal organizations,
primarily in medium-sized and large American cities; these organizations
seized the local markets from smaller operators. Finally, the third group
comprised gangs from both the East and West Coast; these gangs franchised
crack operations.98
During the 1990s, there was intense focus and scrutiny on women who used
illegal drugs during pregnancy; this was especially evident among women
who gave birth to “crack babies.” Again, the media played a prominent role
in perpetuating the problem of crack babies. From the media perspective,
“the inhumane actions of addicted mothers often produced children who
were almost beyond the pale of humanity.”99 However, some researchers
have noted that after years of research, medical experts have not identified a
distinctive condition, syndrome, or disorder that merits the label “crack
baby.”100
Current Trends Regarding Drug Use

Today, the United States faces a serious national crisis—the misuse of and
addiction to opioids. This includes prescription pain reliever, heroin, and
synthetic opioids such as fentanyl. Some argue that this crisis developed in
the late 1990s. At that time, pharmaceutical companies assured the medical
community that patients would not become addicted to prescription opioid
pain relievers. As a result, doctors prescribed these drugs at an increased
rate. This “led to widespread diversion and misuse of these medications
before it became clear that these medications could indeed be highly
addictive.”101 Subsequently, opioid overdose rates started to increase; in
2017 more than 47,000 Americans died due to opioid overdose. This
includes prescription opioids, heroin, and fentanyl.102 In 2017,
approximately 11.4 million people aged 12 or older misused opioids in the
past year. This is about 4.2 percent of the entire population aged 12 or older
(see Figure 16.3).
According to Altarum, a nonprofit health research and consulting institute,
the cost of the opioid crisis in the United States from 2001 to 2017
exceeded $1 trillion. In terms of costs in the healthcare sector, a large
portion of those expenses are from emergency room visits to treat and
stabilize victims of overdose, any ambulance and Naloxone (anti-narcotic)
use needed, as well as other indirect costs (i.e., other diseases or
complications).103
Figure 16.3 Past-Year Opioid Misuse Among People Aged 12

or Older: 2017
Source: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.

(2018). Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United
States: Results from the 2017 National Survey on Drug Use and
Health. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services. Retrieved from
https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-
reports/NSDUHFFR2017/NSDUHFFR2017.pdf.
Note: Opioid misuse is defined as heroin use or prescription pain

reliever misuse. The percentages do not add to 100% due to rounding.
The United States and New Zealand are the only countries that allow
pharmaceutical companies to advertise their products directly to consumers,
called direct-to-consumer advertising. In recent years, the amount of
advertising among these companies has significantly increased.104 Further,
researchers found that for every dollar pharmaceutical companies spend on
“basic research,” approximately $19 goes toward promotion and
marketing.105 Access to prescription drugs becomes even more problematic
when such drugs are available online. The DEA has noted that the internet
has become one of the fastest-growing methods of distributing controlled
pharmaceuticals (see the sidebar about Ryan Thomas Haight for an
example).
There has been growing concern over a group of drugs called designer
drugs. Designer drugs are substances considered to be for recreational use;
they are derivatives of approved drugs, so they can circumvent existing
legal restrictions. The term designer drugs, however, has been misused and
popularized by the media.106 Unfortunately, it appears as though the only
use of the term is to differentiate between synthetic drugs and drugs that
appear in nature. Interestingly, the term was coined by Gary Henderson,
PhD, at the University of California at Davis in the 1970s. He used the term
to refer to analogues of fentanyl, a powerful synthetic opioid used in
hospitals. One could use this substance only in controlled hospital settings.
Henderson reported that an analogue of fentanyl, alpha-methylfentanyl, was
being sold on the street as “China white”—synthetic heroin. The problem
was that prosecuting the individuals selling this substance was not possible
given the limitations of the Controlled Substances Act:107
The Controlled Substances Act, as it was originally enacted,

contained an unforeseen but, as it turned out, major flaw. It was
very specific in describing the drugs within its several schedules.
Unfortunately for the drug enforcement community, underground
chemists, or cookers . . . were capable of altering the chemical
structure of certain drugs, including fentanyl, so that their street
products no longer fit the description of the controls.108
designer drugs: substances considered to be for recreational use; derivatives of approved

drugs that can circumvent existing legal restrictions.
Why Do They Do It?
Ryan Thomas Haight

In 2001, Ryan Thomas Haight was a student at Grossmont High School in La Mesa,
California. He was outgoing and successful academically, and he enjoyed various athletic
activities, such as skiboarding and swimming. Ryan also enjoyed using the computer.109
On February 12, 2001, his mother, Francine Haight, came home in the afternoon and
noticed that her son’s car had not moved. She knew then that something was wrong. She
found Ryan dead in his bed. Later, sheriff’s deputies found a large bottle of Vicodin in his
room. Ryan had overdosed.
What made this situation even worse was that Ryan had been able to purchase the
Vicodin online with a debit card. This drug is strictly regulated by the DEA.110 A
physician on the internet, whom he had never met, prescribed the drug to Ryan, and an
online pharmacy mailed the Vicodin to his home. Ryan was only 17 years old when he
purchased the drug; he was 18 when he died.111
Due to the growing concern over distribution of controlled substances via the internet, the
Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008 went into effect in April
2009.112 Some of the requirements include the following:
A face-to-face requirement for prescribing (With few exceptions, a doctor must

conduct at least one in-person medical evaluation of the patient.)
An endorsement requirement (The DEA must provide an endorsement before a
pharmacy can dispense controlled substances via the internet.)
Enhanced penalties for unlawfully dispensing controlled substances in Schedules
III through V (as designated by the DEA, drugs with a moderate to low potential
for physical and psychological dependence—see www.dea.gov/drug-scheduling)
A prohibition on advertising illegal sales
A requirement that online pharmacies post certain information on their websites
DEA acting administrator Michele M. Leonhart stated: “Cyber-criminals illegally

peddling controlled substances over the Internet have invaded households and threatened
America’s youth for far too long. . . . This landmark piece of legislation will bring rogue
pharmacy operators out of the shadows.”113
Think About It
1. Will the Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act prevent these
types of incidents?
2. Should any other policies or laws be in place to address the sale of controlled
substances over the internet?
Synthetic cannabinoids may be sold in packages with brand

names such as “Scooby Snax” and “Bizarro.”
Michael McGurk/Alamy
The number of designer drugs continues to grow. “Spice,” or synthetic

cannabinoid, refers to various herbal mixtures intended to produce the same
experience as marijuana. These “spice” mixtures have been easily
accessible in head shops (i.e., stores specializing in selling drug
paraphernalia), at gas stations, and online. Interestingly, the DEA has
designated five chemicals often found in spice as Schedule I controlled
substances; thus, it is illegal to sell, buy, or possess these chemicals.
However, manufacturers of spice products continue their attempts to evade
the legal restrictions by substituting different chemicals in the mixture.114
“Bath salts” are another designer drug. The active chemicals in bath salts
are mephedrone, pyrovalerone, and methylenedioxypyrovalerone. These all
have stimulant properties; thus, while they are different from such drugs as
amphetamine and cocaine, they have similar effects on the brain.115 Bath
salts are sold under various brand names, such as Bloom, Cloud Nine,
Lunar Wave, Vanilla Sky, White Lightning, and Scarface. The National
Institute on Drug Abuse noted that there have been reports of severe
intoxication and dangerous health effects related to the use of bath salts.
Some users experience euphoria and increased sociability and sex drive;
others experience paranoia, agitation, and hallucinations. There have also
been some instances of individuals displaying psychotic and violent
behavior while on bath salts.116
The Link Between Drugs and Crime

From the general public’s perspective, drugs and crime are inseparable; the
problem of crime and the problem of drugs are often discussed
simultaneously.117 In 1981, researcher James Inciardi concluded that “the
pursuit of some simple cause-and-effect relationship [between a drug
problem and a crime problem] may be futile.”118 The relationship between
drugs and crime usually falls into one of three categories:
Drug-defined crimes involve the sale and/or possession of an illegal

substance.
Drug-related crimes involve (a) violent behaviors induced by the
effects of a drug or (b) illegal activity that is motivated by continued
drug use.
Crimes associated with drug use involve illegal activities that may
have occurred while a person was under the influence of an illegal
substance but those activities were not a direct result of the drug
use.119
The time order of the drug-crime link (i.e., “Which came first?”) has been
the primary research focus of a number of investigators. Studies have
revealed that individuals who use substances such as cocaine, heroin, and
marijuana have consistently engaged in criminal behavior prior to, or while,
using illegal drugs.120 Substance use does not necessarily precipitate an
individual’s involvement in criminal activity; however, substance use does
influence the extent of crime, the types of crime, and the length of time an
individual engages in criminal behavior.121 In this vein, “existing data and
research indicate that drug abuse and criminal activity are a part of a
broader set of integrated deviant behaviors involving crime, drug use, and,
often, high-risk sex.”122
Learning Check 16.2
1. In 1898, the Bayer Company developed _______________, an opium derivative

that was 10 times more powerful than morphine.
2. The _______________ Amendment prohibited the manufacture, sale, or
transportation of intoxicating liquors in the United States.
3. Some have argued that were it not for the zeal of Harry _______________, the
commissioner of the new Federal Bureau of Narcotics, marijuana might be legal in
the United States today.
4. Some researchers have noted that after years of research, medical experts have not
identified a distinctive condition, syndrome, or disorder among babies born of
drug-abusing mothers that merits the label “_______________ baby.”
5. New Zealand and _______________ are the only countries that allow
pharmaceutical companies to advertise their products directly to consumers.
Duane McBride and Clyde McCoy suggested that to enhance our

understanding of the relationship between drug use and criminal behavior,
we should apply an analytical framework that incorporates the following
issues:
(1) The historical underpinnings of current perspectives

(2) The types of drugs and criminal behavior
(3) The statistical relationship, specifically the extent and type of
criminal behavior among different types of drug users, as well as the
extent and type of drug use among different types of criminals
(4) The etiological nature of the relationship, such as causality and
interaction
(5) The theoretical interpretations of the relationships
(6) The policy implications of research conclusions123
Benjamin Nordstrom and Charles Dackis conducted an extensive review of
the literature that focuses on addiction and crime. They sought to assess
whether there was support for any of the three leading hypotheses that
attempt to explain the drug–crime association:
1. Drug use and criminal behavior have a common cause, which might be
biological, psychological, or sociological.
2. Drug use influences criminal behavior by either disinhibiting behavior
or creating the need to finance a drug habit.
3. Deviance increases the likelihood of drug use later, such as in seeking
deviant, drug-using peers.124
Nordstrom and Dackis found that certain risk factors were apparently
associated with both substance abuse and criminal behavior. These factors
included a history of victimization, attachment to parents, a propensity for
violence or aggression, and impulsivity. They also examined research that
explored whether meaningful life events can change the trajectory of an
individual’s criminal and drug-using behavior. In their review of the
literature, they found support for all three of the hypotheses listed above.
They concluded by emphasizing that “drug users are not a monolithic
group, as many drug users do not commit crimes. . . . Criminally active
drug users are also not a monolithic group.”125
Paul Goldstein developed what has been designated the Tripartite

Conceptual Framework of the relationship between drugs and violence.126
This framework suggests that drugs and violence are related to each other in
three ways: through (1) psychopharmacological violence, (2) economically
compulsive violence, and (3) systemic violence. Psychopharmacological
violence occurs when individuals, due to either short-term or long-term use
of drugs, become excitable, irritable, and/or irrational, resulting in violent
behavior. The most relevant drugs within this model include alcohol,
stimulants, barbiturates, and PCP.
Tripartite Conceptual Framework: suggests that drugs and violence are related to each
other through psychopharmacological, economically compulsive, and systemic violence.
There may also be instances when substance use has reverse
psychopharmacological effects and subsequently offsets violent tendencies.
Thus, individuals prone to violence may engage in self-medication to
control their violent tendencies. Similarly, certain drugs may be used in a
psychopharmacological manner because of their perceived effects. Such
functional substance use includes use of tranquilizers and marijuana to
control nervousness or use of barbiturates and alcohol to provide courage.
Economically compulsive violence refers to when substance users engage in

violent crime, such as robbery, to support their drug use. Heroin and
cocaine are expensive drugs often associated with compulsive use; these
substances are germane within this model. Individuals within this model are
essentially motivated by economic incentives rather than impulses to act
violently. Often, the victims of economically compulsive drug-related
violence live in the same neighborhood as the offenders. Sometimes the
victims are involved in illegal activities themselves; they may be drug
users, strangers coming into the neighborhood to buy drugs, or prostitutes.
Systemic violence encompasses the aggressive behaviors associated with the

system of drug distribution and use, such as
disputes over territory between rival drug dealers, assaults and

homicides committed within dealing hierarchies as a means of
enforcing normative codes, robberies of drug dealers and the
usually violent retaliation by the dealers or their bosses,
elimination of informers, disputes over drugs and/or drug
paraphernalia, punishment for selling adulterated or phony drugs,
punishment for failing to pay one’s debts, and robbery violence
related to the social ecology of copping areas [areas for people to
obtain, or buy, drugs].127
Some issues pertaining to systemic violence are unresolved. For instance,

while there is no question that participating in the drug business increases
likelihood of engaging in violence, there is no clear time order for this
association. Specifically, does the drug business make people violent, or are
violence-prone individuals drawn to the violent roles associated with the
drug business?
Modern Policies Related to Reducing Drug Use

Howard Abadinsky asked the question, “To what extent does knowledge
actually affect drug policy?”128 To address this question, he emphasized the
importance of distinguishing between scientific knowledge and political
knowledge:
Scientific knowledge in the field of drug use is the body of facts

and theories related to the uses of drugs. Political knowledge
concerns public attitudes and organization toward drug use,
including scientific knowledge. . . . Scientific knowledge can be
only one of a number of factors which bear upon the symbolic
and instrumental character of official public opinion.129
Abadinsky concluded that enhancing law enforcement efforts and providing

large-scale treatment programs to reduce consumption of drugs will not
solve other sociological problems associated with drug use. These problems
include the lack of educational and employment opportunities, as well as
residential instability.130 Drug abuse is not an isolated problem; rather, it is
linked to family dysfunction, child abuse and neglect, delinquency, alcohol
abuse, and other problems.131
In this section, we review some current policies and programs that have
been implemented to reduce drug use. These include interdiction,
eradication, drug courts, maintenance and decriminalization, and harm
reduction. When examining these policies and programs, consider how
these efforts address the other sociological problems linked to substance
abuse.
Interdiction Strategies
According to the National Interdiction Command and Control Plan,
interdiction is a “general term used to describe the multi-step, usually
sequential continuum of effort/events focused on interrupting illicit drug
trafficking.”132 The various steps in the interdiction continuum start with
cueing (providing intelligence), followed by detection (initial acquisition of
a contact), sorting/classifying (distinguishing drug-smuggling traffic from
legitimate traffic), monitoring (tracking and/or intercept of a contact), hand-
off (shifting primary responsibility between forces or actors), disruption
(halting an activity, usually the transportation of contraband), apprehension
(detention, arrest, or seizure of suspects, evidentiary items, contraband,
and/or vehicles), and prosecution (federal activities related to the conduct of
criminal proceedings).133
interdiction: describes the various steps implemented to interrupt illicit drug trafficking
(e.g., cueing, detection, apprehension, prosecution).
A DEA agent involved in the eradication of marijuana plants.
© AP Photo/David Bundy
With the Anti–Drug Abuse Act of 1988, Congress established the High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program. The program’s efforts
focus on reducing drug trafficking and production in the United States by
facilitating cooperation with federal, state, local, and tribal law enforcement
agencies, such as information and intelligence sharing and coordinated law
enforcement strategies. There are currently 29 areas designated as High
Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas, or HIDTAs, in the United States; the most
recent HIDTA to be established was the Alaska HIDT, on May 1, 2018.
These areas are located in all 50 states and Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, and the District of Columbia.134 The HIDTA program is involved
in multiagency investigative, interdiction, and prosecution activities, as well
as prevention and treatment efforts. Operations in each HIDTA are directed
and guided by an executive board consisting of both federal and nonfederal
(i.e., state, local, and tribal) law enforcement leaders.135 A key aspect of the
HIDTA program is “the discretion granted to the Executive Boards to
design and implement initiates that confront drug trafficking threats in each
HIDTA.”136
Part of Ohio is designated as an HIDTA; this area consists of 13

counties.137 This area is also linked to major drug-source regions, including
Chicago, Detroit, New York City, the Southwest Border, and Canada. The
Ohio HIDTA emphasizes how drug traffickers use the numerous interstate
highways to move illegal drugs throughout the region. For instance, Ohio
has the eighth-largest national highway system; it carries the seventh-
highest volume of traffic in the nation. This traffic flow allows drug
transporters to blend in with the natural flow of traffic. Key issues identified
by the Ohio HIDTA include the following:
The availability of heroin has increased in this region due to an

increased supply of Mexican heroin.
The availability and abuse of cocaine has declined in this region.
The availability and abuse of controlled prescription drugs (CPD) has
increased in this area, particularly with the abuse of prescription
opioids.
Availability and local production of methamphetamine have been
low.138
Eradication Strategies
There are four recognized techniques of eradicating plants used in the
production of illegal drugs (e.g., in illegal farming operations): mechanical
destruction (i.e., slashing or uprooting), burning, chemical eradication, and
biological (including genetic) eradication.139 Among these four techniques,
mechanical and chemical destruction are the most commonly used
eradication strategies.140 Eradication efforts have focused on the opium
poppy, the coca bush, and the cannabis plant.141
Colombia continues to be a major source country for cocaine, heroin, and

marijuana. Peru is the world’s second-largest cocaine-producing country.
The government of Colombia maintains efforts to eliminate the production
and trafficking of illegal drugs through eradication, interdiction, and law
enforcement strategies. However, the production of pure cocaine from 2013
to 2017 increased by 292%; coca cultivation increased by 160%. According
to the U.S. Department of State’s Bureau of International Narcotics and
Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), more than 90% of the cocaine seized in
the United States is from Colombia.142 Interestingly, in 2015, Colombian
officials stopped their eradication efforts involving aerial spraying, due to
concerns that the spray may cause cancer. This decision ended a program
that had continued for over 20 years in partnership with the United States,
to eradicate coca production.
eradication: the destruction of plants used in the production of illegal drugs; there are
four recognized techniques: mechanical destruction (i.e., slashing or uprooting), burning,
chemical eradication, and biological (including genetic) eradication.
The United States has been criticized for its efforts to eradicate coca crops
in other countries. For instance, Colombian officials have condemned the
United States for not adequately addressing the issue of cocaine
consumption within its own borders. In the lead-up to the Colombian
presidential election of 1990, campaign speeches often included negative
references to Marion Barry, the mayor of Washington, DC, who had been
caught on video smoking crack cocaine, to inflame public opinion against
our country.143 There are similar criticisms among citizens of Peru and
Bolivia. The cultivation of coca in the region is intertwined with factors
such as culture, tradition, and poverty; these social conditions render
enforcement efforts ineffective.144 Thus, when the most profitable crops are
linked to an underground economy, and there is no viable, legal crop
substitute, it is difficult to prevent coca cultivation.145
According to the DEA Domestic Cannabis Eradication/Suppression
Program (DCE/SP), in 2017 the DCE/SP eradicated 3,078,418 cultivated
outdoor cannabis plants and 303,654 indoor plants; these efforts accounted
for 4,502 arrests and more than $20 million in asset seizures.146 The
primary marijuana cultivation states include California, Hawaii, Kentucky,
Oregon, Tennessee, Washington, and West Virginia. While cannabis
cultivation operations are more prevalent in western states, they are
increasing in eastern states. Further, indoor cannabis cultivation continues
to rise. Many cultivators have either relocated or established their
operations indoors to avoid law enforcement detection. Indoor cultivators
can generate higher profit margins, since they can produce higher-potency
marijuana and cultivate year-round.147 In their assessment of cannabis
cultivation in the United States, the National Drug Intelligence Center noted
the following intelligence gaps:
No reliable estimates are available regarding the amount of

domestically cultivated or processed marijuana.
The amount of cannabis cultivated and marijuana produced in the
United States by large-scale drug trafficking organizations, including
Asian, Caucasian, and Mexican groups, is unknown.
The extent of indoor cannabis cultivation in the United States is largely
unknown and likely underreported because of the challenges posed to
law enforcement entities in locating indoor grow sites.148
Drug Courts
By the late 1980s, offenders with substance abuse problems were clogging
up the criminal justice system—from initial arrest up to prisoner reentry.149
Rigorous prosecutions and harsh sentencing policies are often costly, as
well as ineffective in stopping the cycle of drug use and crime. Using prison
as a solution to America’s drug problem is expensive and ill-advised.150 In
an effort to address the increasing number of drug-using offenders clogging
the criminal justice system, drug treatment court programs were
established, especially in highly populated areas. The first drug court was
established in 1989 in Miami, Florida. Arthur Lurigio noted that some of
the basic features of drug treatment courts include expedited case
processing, outpatient treatment, support services (e.g., job placement and
housing), mandatory drug testing, and intensive court or probation
supervision151 (see Table 16.2 for a more detailed list of these basic
features). As of June 2015, there are more than 3,000 drug courts operating
in the United States. The types of drug courts include adult, juvenile,
family, veterans, tribal, and campus.152
drug treatment court programs: established in an effort to address the increasing

number of drug-using offenders clogging the criminal justice system.
Drug courts consist of the collaborative efforts of justice and treatment

professionals to intervene and break the cycle of substance abuse, addiction,
and crime. Individuals identified as substance-abusing offenders are placed
under ongoing judicial monitoring and community supervision and
provided with long-term treatment services.153 Specifically, the offender is
required to participate in substance abuse treatment, drug testing, and
probation supervision and to report to regularly scheduled status hearings
before a judge familiar with the drug court model.154
Individuals who participate in a drug court program can have their charges
dismissed or reduced, address their substance abuse problem, obtain
employment, and regain custody of their children. There are, however,
additional rights not available to them, because other aspects of public
policy continue to consider addiction from a more punitive perspective.
Individuals who have completed a drug court program but are charged or
convicted of a drug offense may be denied welfare benefits, access to
educational loans, public housing, and voting rights.155 Jeanne Stinchcomb
argued that the
ongoing debate over the efficacy of drug courts . . . continues to

raise questions concerning the strength of their conceptual
foundation, the execution of their implementation strategies, and
ultimately, the future potential of their ability to maintain a
prominent position on the public-policy agenda.156
Table 16.2 Basic Features of Drug Treatment Courts
Table 16.2 Basic Features of Drug Treatment Courts
• Prompt identification of clients and their immediate placement in

treatment
• Nonadversarial court proceedings enacted by a team of judges,

attorneys, and treatment providers and designed to protect
community safety as well as defendants’ and offenders’ due-process
rights
• Regular contact between clients and judges in judicial status

hearings or other types of court sessions
• Intensive supervision practices that include close monitoring and

frequent, random drug testing of clients
• Treatment interventions that are delivered on a continuum of

care, evidence based, comprehensive, and integrated for individuals
with co-occurring psychiatric disorders
• Contingencies of rewards and punishments that encourage

compliance with treatment and other conditions of program
participation
• Ongoing evaluations to monitor program implementation and

measure the accomplishment of program objectives and goals
• Close working relationships with a wide range of community

service providers and public agencies
• Interdisciplinary educational opportunities to help program staff

stay current with the latest advances in offender drug treatment and
case management strategies
Source: Lurigio, A. J. (2008). The first 20 years of drug treatment courts: A brief description
of their history and impact. Federal Probation, 72, 15.
Sarah Messer and her colleagues applied the life course theory to drug
courts. Specifically, they maintained that drug courts could be considered a
turning point for an offender. They interviewed former drug court
participants. During these interviews, the participants discussed how drug
court helped them with various aspects of their lives, such as self-esteem,
general educational development, and relationships with family. Overall,
recidivism rates for these participants were lower when compared to
similarly situated offenders who had not participated in drug court.157
Maintenance and Decriminalization

A maintenance policy advocates for the accessibility of drugs through
governmental regulation, such as distribution and legal age of use. A
decriminalization policy supports the end of criminal sanctions to address
individual drug use. Often, this policy is advocated for marijuana
possession.158 Table 16.3 outlines three models of drug
maintenance/decriminalization.
maintenance: advocates for the accessibility of drugs through governmental regulation,

such as distribution and legal age of use.
decriminalization: a policy related to labeling theory, which proposes less harsh

punishments for some minor offenses, such as the possession of small amounts of
marijuana.
The arguments in favor of a maintenance/decriminalization policy are as

follows:
The resources that have been allocated for law enforcement efforts
could be shifted to other areas of crime control, as well as treatment
and education.
Due to the low cost of psychoactive substances, there would be a
reduction in secondary crime (i.e., crimes committed to support an
expensive drug habit).
Criminal organizations would no longer remain viable if they
continued in drug trafficking.
The aggressive marketing strategies of traffickers would no longer be
operative.
Individuals dependent on psychoactive substances could lead more
productive lives; abusers would have an opportunity to become
contributing members of society.
Individuals using heroin intravenously would not be at risk of getting
AIDS or hepatitis, because each user would have his or her own
hypodermic kit.
Decriminalization would enable use of social controls that inhibit
antisocial, although legal, behavior. For example, various social
controls attempt to influence the behavior of smokers and drunk
drivers.159
Table 16.3 Three Models of Drug

Maintenance/Decriminalization
Table 16.3 Three Models of Drug Maintenance/Decriminalization
1. Dangerous drugs can be dispensed only through government-

controlled clinics or specially licensed medical personnel and only
for short-term treatment purposes; unauthorized sale or possession
entails criminal penalties. Long-term maintenance is limited to the
use of methadone. This is basically the approach currently used in
England.
2. Dangerous drugs can be prescribed by an authorized medical

practitioner for treatment or maintenance; criminal penalties are
imposed for sale or possession outside medical auspices. This is the
old British system.
3. Dangerous drugs can be sold and used as tobacco and alcohol

products are; that is, nonprescription use by adults is permitted. This
was the case in the United States before the Harrison Act.
Source: Abadinsky, H. (2004). Drug abuse: An introduction (5th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, p. 369 (table only).
The arguments against a maintenance/decriminalization policy are as

follows:
Drugs such as cocaine, amphetamines, and heroin that are easily
available to adults could also be abused by youths, similar to cigarettes
and alcohol.
More people would be tempted to try legalized controlled substances,
which could result in an increase in abuse-related problems.
Legalizing psychoactive substances would convey some form of
acceptance of their use, similar to alcohol and tobacco use.
Making psychoactive substances legal may reduce the incentive for
individuals addicted to these substances to enter drug treatment or
pursue a drug-free lifestyle.160
One current policy that continues to be controversial is legalized medical

marijuana. Currently, only 17 states—Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana,
Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Nebraska, North Carolina, South
Dakota, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Wisconsin, and
Wyoming—have not enacted laws to legalize medical marijuana (see Figure
16.4).161 California was the first state to pass a medical marijuana law,
designated as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996. This allows seriously ill
Californians the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes.
According to the act, a physician needs to determine that an individual’s
health would benefit from the use of marijuana in treatment for such
ailments as cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma,
arthritis, and migraines.162
Figure 16.4 States That Have Legalized Marijuana as of 2019

Source: National Conference of State Legislatures.
As of May 2019, bills in more than 20 state legislatures proposed to in some

manner legalize, as well as regulate, marijuana (i.e., legal recreational
marijuana).163 There are, however, questions pertaining to voters’ support
of this law. Some of these concerns are related to health and safety. For
instance, legalization may cause an increase in use among teens; marijuana-
related traffic deaths might increase; and marijuana use could increase the
risk of mental health problems.164
Needle-exchange programs are one type of intervention
associated with harm reduction policy.
Joe Mabel via Wikimedia Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike

3.0
Harm Reduction
A harm reduction policy attempts to incorporate a public health approach
to lessen the risks and harms associated with illegal drug use.165 Harm
reduction includes
(1) the provision of sterile injecting equipment (i.e., needle

exchange),
(2) outreach and peer education efforts, and
(3) substitution therapies, such as methadone and supervised
injection facilities.
Such interventions, it is argued, assist in transforming drug use contexts that

promote safe drug use, as well as healthier behaviors.166
harm reduction: attempts to incorporate a public health approach to lessen the risks and
harms associated with illegal drug use.
As noted above, needle exchange programs are one type of intervention

associated with harm reduction. The purpose of such programs is to
exchange used syringes for unused syringes among intravenous drug users
to prevent the reuse of contaminated injection equipment. Needle exchange
programs may offer other related materials, such as bleach bottles, cotton
swabs, skin ointment, condoms, and educational materials pertaining to
sexually transmitted diseases and other communicable illnesses. However,
“most [needle exchange programs] combine a program goal of risk
reduction through needle exchange with a program goal of offering
counseling and referral of participants to drug treatment programs.”167
The legal aspects pertaining to needle exchange programs focus essentially

on drug paraphernalia. Specifically, the manufacture, possession, or
distribution of drug paraphernalia is illegal in most states, as well as a
violation of federal law.168 Kate Ksobiech examined outcome measures
from 31 studies of U.S. and international needle exchange programs. Her
results revealed that while injection frequency lessened slightly among
those in needle exchange programs compared to those not in such
programs, this could be considered positive, given that one major criticism
of these programs is that providing clean needles encourages increased drug
use. However, participating in such a program was not strongly associated
with a lessening of sharing drug paraphernalia.169
There are also ethical issues surrounding needle exchange programs. Cheryl
Delgado asserts,
The principle of risk reduction accepts that a dangerous behavior

like intravenous drug use is inevitable. Health officials therefore
have a responsibility to the general public to reduce risks
associated with the acts (drug use) they cannot prevent. Risk
reduction is a more reasonable goal than attempts to eradicate
illegal intravenous drug use.170
Applying Theory to Crime Drug Selling/Trafficking and Drug Use

This section applies two theoretical frameworks of crime to two of the primary offenses
discussed in this chapter—drug selling/trafficking and drug use. Although readers may
think the theoretical explanations for these activities are similar because both deal with
illegal drugs, this is a good example of how theories can differ, even within the same
general category of criminal behavior.
Specifically, regarding drug selling/trafficking, the most logical and empirically

supported theory is traditional strain theory.171 Traditional strain theory places a high
emphasis on individuals innovating ways they can obtain the goals of financial success
without having to go through common conventional means (e.g., education and
employment). Selling/trafficking drugs can be a fast, albeit risky, way of obtaining a lot
of money, without having to work hard in school or at a conventional job. Scientific
studies have shown that this theory is supported as a primary reason why individuals
engage in this activity. After all, the lure of a fast payoff, given the high demand for
various drugs, provides an extremely high motivation for people who have low levels of
education and/or mainstream work experience.
On the other hand, drug use is not as well explained by traditional strain theory. Although
Merton172 did identify a type of retreatist adaption to strain (i.e., escaping from reality),
which would include chronic drug users, this is not a strong motivation for their behavior.
Rather, other theories are likely better at explaining why some individuals become
habitual drug users. Specifically, various types of social learning theory and subcultural
theory are highly supported explanations of chronic drug use.173
Regarding the social learning theories of drug use, differential association/reinforcement

theory emphasizes the importance of peer influence in decisions to commit certain
behaviors. This is likely most important in terms of drug use. After all, virtually
everyone’s initial experience of taking any drug (from alcohol to marijuana to cocaine to
heroin) almost always involves other persons providing it and showing them how to
ingest it, which for higher drugs (e.g., freebasing and injecting heroin) can be a
complicated process. To a large extent, the initial taking of any drug is typically a social
process; the person does it because a friend or group motivates him or her to “try it.”
Of course, later episodes of drug use often become more solo, but the first experience is
almost always peer influenced, which highly supports the social learning theories of
differential association/reinforcement models of offending. This is supported by recent
empirical studies, such as that by Golub et al., which showed that the influence of friends,
peers, and intimate partners was key in engaging in drug use.174
Furthermore, numerous empirical studies have shown a cultural or subcultural emphasis

regarding initial drug use. After all, it is likely that many individuals would not engage in
drug use if it wasn’t highly prevalent in the community or neighborhood culture. Recent
studies, such as that by Golub, Johnson, and Dunlap, have supported this drug subcultural
effect among many individuals, regarding not only their initial use but also their
subsequent chronic use.175
General strain theory176 is also a good explanation for chronic drug use. This model
places an emphasis on coping mechanisms (or lack thereof) to deal with various stressors
and frustrations. When an individual has not developed healthy coping mechanisms (e.g.,
exercising, watching television, and engaging in religious worship), then he or she has a
high likelihood of using drugs to self-medicate and “deal” with reality. Unfortunately, this
usually leads such drug users into a downward spiral, in which the drugs create even
more stressors, which in turn lead to further heavy drug use and addiction.
Ultimately, the key purpose of this section is to demonstrate that several different theories
may explain various illegal behaviors regarding drugs. Furthermore, it is likely that the
best explanations for selling/trafficking drugs are somewhat different from those for
chronic use of drugs, which reveals how important theory is for understanding certain
criminal behaviors, even those within a given category of offending, such as drug activity.
Think About It
Critical thinking question:
1. Would any other theories provide likely explanations for various illegal behaviors
regarding drugs?
From this perspective, one would maintain that the reduced risk is not just
to the drug user but to the community as well, with respect to limiting the
spread of communicable diseases. Some, however, would argue that
providing such a service may encourage intravenous drug use. Further, the
time, money, and effort to implement needle exchange programs could be
more productively used for treatment programs.177
Legislation and Litigation

There have been efforts in terms of legislation and litigation to address the
current opioid crisis. For instance, in October 2018, President Trump signed
the Substance Use Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery and
Treatment for Patients and Communities (SUPPORT) Act. This bipartisan
legislation attempts to address concerns associated with the opioid
epidemic, including treatment, prevention, and recovery, as well as
enforcement.178
A recent development has been in terms of litigation. For example, in 2019,

Oklahoma’s attorney general, Mike Hunter, brought a multibillion-dollar
case against Johnson & Johnson (a multinational pharmaceutical and
household goods corporation), who have been accused of using deceptive
marketing strategies to create an oversupply of painkillers that has resulted
in enhancing the country’s opioid epidemic. This case was the first to have
reached the trial stage, out of almost 2,000 such attempts by state and local
governments to hold the pharmaceutical companies accountable for this
crisis in the United States. This trial followed other claims that had been
resolved in the state of Oklahoma (leaving just Johnson & Johnson):
OxyContin maker Purdue Pharma—$270 million

Teva Pharmaceutical Industries—$85 million
Brad Beckworth, an attorney for the state, maintained that Johnson &
Johnson, as well as Purdue and Teva, “used misleading marketing
beginning in the 1990s to push doctors to prescribe more opioids. . . [These
companies] marketed the opioids as ‘safe and effective for everyday pain’
while downplaying their addictive qualities, helping to create a drug
oversupply.”179
Learning Check 16.3
1. The _______________ conceptual framework suggests that drugs and violence are
related through psychopharmacological, economically compulsive, and systematic
violence.
2. _______________ strategies refer to multistep efforts or events that focus on
interrupting illicit drug traffic.
3. The four techniques associated with _______________ include mechanical
destruction, burning, chemical, and biological.
4. Due to the growing number of offenders with substance-abuse problems clogging
up the criminal justice system, _______________ courts were established.
5. The _______________ _______________ policy attempts to incorporate a public
health approach to lessen the risks and harms associated with illegal drug use.
Policy Recommendations
Drug policies in the United States will never be simple; policy can often be
contradictory, especially when state- and local-level policies conflict with
national policy.180 McBride and McCoy maintain that three policy
implications result from the current research on the relation between drugs
and crime:181
Why Do They Do It?
Pablo Escobar
In December 1993, Pablo Escobar was killed by security forces in his hometown of
Medellin, Colombia. Escobar started his criminal career by selling tombstones he stole
from a cemetery and sanded flat. His first arrest was in 1974 for stealing a car. He soon
became known to his associates and enemies as intelligent, ambitious, a fast learner,
having a knack for business, and possessing an unforgiving memory. He later engaged in
the practice of kidnapping individuals from wealthy families and seeking ransom from
their family members. However, these criminal endeavors apparently did not get him the
riches he desired, so he switched to the drug business.182 Ironically, Escobar did not
enjoy taking cocaine or other hard drugs. His drug of choice was marijuana, which he was
known to smoke on a consistent basis. Persons who knew him closely called him a
“pothead.”
By 1976, he had earned a reputation as an established drug smuggler. He also had a

reputation for killing people and blowing up neighborhoods, shopping centers, and a
jetliner. Escobar’s innovations in the drug-smuggling business included new ways of
transporting drugs, such as by soaking designer jeans in a liquid form of cocaine.
Furthermore, he was likely the first to use submarines to ship cocaine up the Pacific
coastline, now a common practice.183 However, he was considered by some as a type of
Robin Hood. He built houses for the poor, paved roads, constructed sports stadiums, and
gave employment opportunities to thousands. This may be why 20,000 local citizens
showed up for his funeral.
Escobar also enjoyed a luxurious lifestyle. His favorite estate was a 7,000-acre ranch in
Colombia, valued at an estimated $63 million. He imported various exotic animals, such
as giraffes, camels, bison, llamas, cockatoos, and a kangaroo. He is known to have
actually burned $2 million just to stay warm when he was “on the lam” from U.S.
authorities. Later, he wanted to give the impression that he was a legitimate businessman,
so he owned his own radio station and many times was accompanied by Roman Catholic
priests. At the peak of Escobar’s criminal activities, he and others associated with the
Medellin cartel produced 60% of the cocaine in Colombia; this was about 80% of the
U.S. market. In fact, Forbes magazine listed him as one of the world’s richest people.
In 1991, after a massive manhunt, Escobar negotiated his surrender. The terms included
his presiding over his drug business while incarcerated in Colombia. He had cellular
phones, computers, and meetings in board rooms. His living conditions were quite
comfortable, with a waterbed, rugs, curtains, a stereo system, and a 60-inch television. He
was soon concerned that his enemies would try to bomb the jail; officials built him a
bomb shelter.
In 1992, the details of Escobar’s luxurious incarceration were revealed and the
government decided to transport him to a regular jail. During transport, however, he
escaped. He then began targeting suspected traitors and rivals. When his cartel
diminished, the government began to search for him, which resulted in his shooting death
in December 1993.184
Think About It
1. Why did Escobar engage in this criminal activity?
2. Why did the government and some of the Colombian citizens support Escobar and
his activities?
3. How would you deter someone from engaging in this type of criminal activity?
1. While there is no clear causal relation between drugs and crime, there
is a link between substance use and levels of criminal involvement.
Policy should be directed toward providing treatment services for drug
users who are involved in criminal activity. Such an approach has the
potential to reduce levels of crime.
2. It is essential to appreciate that the history of drug use is entangled
with the differential social, political, and economic opportunities of
certain marginalized groups. Policy needs to incorporate efforts to
enhance educational and economic opportunities. Such efforts need to
be a priority on both the local and national levels.
3. Any drug policy that is implemented must never compromise an
individual’s civil rights. “Drug law enforcement” must never be an
excuse for a retreat on hard-won legal and civil rights, and drug law
and policy must rest on a strong public support base.185
Elliott Currie argues that substance abuse is not an isolated problem limited
to certain communities and groups; rather, it is intertwined with broader
social problems such as family dissolution, child abuse and neglect, and
alcohol abuse. If policy focuses only on treating individual substance
abusers, “new” substance abusers will follow, given the broader social
problems. Thus, “the best, most comprehensive programs to help addicts
transform their lives will inevitably be compromised if we do not
simultaneously address the powerful social forces that are destroying the
communities to which they must return.”186
Conclusion
The relationship between substance use and crime is complex. This relation is dynamic
and is influenced by factors on an individual level, a group level, and a societal level. A
review of the various types of drugs reveals that the mere definition of “drugs” is not
necessarily simple. For instance, some drugs (e.g., nicotine) are legal but highly
addictive; some drugs (e.g., OxyContin) are legally prescribed for medical purposes but
can be used illegally; and some drugs (e.g., heroin) were initially deemed legal but are
now illegal.
To understand the link between drug use and crime, we must review various trends of
substance abuse, such as the early history of cocaine and opioid addiction, Prohibition,
the “reefer madness” era, the 1960s and the baby boomers, the War on Drugs, and current
patterns of substance abuse. To appreciate the current societal perspectives of substance
use, it is essential to look at the historical context of such trends.187 For instance,
historically, certain drugs (e.g., cocaine) were legal and subsequently designated illegal;
other substances, such as alcohol, were legal, then illegal, and later made legal again.
While the general public may believe that the link between drugs and crime is
straightforward (i.e., drugs lead to crime), it is more complex than this simple causal
explanation. The Tripartite Conceptual Framework of the relation between drugs and
violence proposes that substance use and violent behavior are related in three ways:
through psychopharmacological, economically compulsive, and systemic violence.
Policies in place to address the problem of substance use and criminal activity include
interdiction and eradication strategies, drug courts, maintenance and decriminalization,
harm reduction, as well as legislations and litigation. It is important to critically question
whether such policies are effective, as well as what other policy approaches should be
considered.
We started this chapter with the case study of Samuel Ellis, convicted of two counts of
vehicular manslaughter, and Kenneth Saltzman, convicted of furnishing alcohol to a
minor. This case study illustrates various influences and issues pertaining to alcohol use
in this country. These influences and issues include peer pressure to drink, parental
approval of drinking, legal implications of such parental approval, and attitudes regarding
drinking alcohol in private residences.
Key Terms
alcohol, 425
amphetamine, 430
barbiturate, 427
binge drinking, 425
cannabis, 430
cocaine, 429
decriminalization, 445
depressants, 425
designer drugs, 437
drug treatment court programs, 444
Eighteenth Amendment, 433
eradication, 442
hallucinogens, 431
harm reduction, 447
Harrison Act, 433
heroin, 428
inhalants, 431
interdiction, 441
maintenance, 445
Marihuana Tax Act, 434
marijuana, 430
methamphetamine, 430
morphine, 428
narcotics, 428
oxycodone, 429
Prohibition, 433
steroids, 431
stimulant, 429
tranquilizers, 428
Tripartite Conceptual Framework, 440
Twenty-First Amendment, 434
War on Drugs, 435
1. What are the differences between stimulants and depressants?
2. What were the key features of the Prohibition era?
3. What are some key issues related to the 1937 Marihuana Tax Act?
4. What is meant by “racialized drug policy”?
5. How would you characterize the War on Drugs?
6. What is the main purpose of harm reduction programs?
7. Why were drug courts established?
8. What are the main arguments for and against maintenance and decriminalization
policies?
9. What features should be eliminated from or incorporated in future policies on substance
use?
Resources
The National Institute on Drug Abuse provides information on various aspects

pertaining to drug abuse, including a summary of related topics, such as criminal justice
and drug testing.
http://www.drugabuse.gov
The Drug Enforcement Administration provides news as well as discussing various

operations and career opportunities.
http://www.justice.gov/dea/index.shtml
The Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration provides

information on issues related to substance abuse and mental health, including treatment,
programs, and campaigns.
http://www.samhsa.gov
Student Study Site

Media Library
premium resources:
Author Video
16.1: War on Drugs

16.1: Drugs

6.1: Marijuana
Glossary
active victim precipitation:

when individuals increase the likelihood they will be victimized,
particularly by proactively doing something, such as yelling a racial
slur or “throwing the first punch” (1)
actus reus:
in legal terms, whether the offender actually engaged in a given
criminal act; literally, “guilty act” (2)
adaptations to strain:
as proposed by Merton, the five ways that individuals deal with
feelings of strain; see conformity, innovation, rebellion, retreatism, and
ritualism (8)
add women and stir:

when one uses an existing theoretical perspective based on men and
simply “adds” women (12)
adolescence-limited offender:
a person who commits crimes only during adolescence and desists
from criminal behavior in his or her 20s or adulthood (13)
adoption studies:
studies that examine the criminality of adoptees as compared to the
criminality of their biological and adoptive parents (6)
Age of Enlightenment:
a period of the late 17th century to 18th century in which Western
philosophers and scholars began to emphasize the rights of individuals
in society (3)
aggregate study:
a collection of studies, generally on a particular topic (4)
alcohol:
ethanol is the only alcohol that should be consumed; rapidly absorbed
through the stomach and small intestine into the bloodstream (16)
American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code:

one standard for the insanity defense. A key difference between the
M’Naghten and the ALI/MPC tests is the M’Naghten test stipulates
that the offender demonstrate total mental impairment; the ALI/MPC
test stipulates that the offender demonstrate a lack of substantial
capacity (7)
amphetamine:
a type of stimulant; effects are similar to cocaine, but onset is slower
and duration longer (16)
anomie:
a concept originally proposed by Durkheim, which meant
normlessness or the chaos that takes place when a society (e.g.,
economic structure) changes very rapidly (8)
atavism:
the belief that certain characteristics or behaviors of a person are
throwbacks to an earlier stage of evolutionary development (5)
attachment theory:
there are seven essential features of this theoretical perspective
focusing on attachment: specificity, duration, engagement of emotion,
course of development, learning, organization, and biological function
(7)
autonomic nervous system:

the portion of the nervous system that controls our anxiety levels, such
as the fight-or-flight response, as well as our involuntary motor
activities (e.g., heart rate) (6)
barbiturate:
a type of depressant; can induce a wide continuum of central nervous
depression, ranging from mild sedation to coma (16)
binge-drinking:
heavy episodic drinking; drinking so much alcohol within a two-hour
period that it results in at least a .08% blood alcohol concentration (16)
bourgeoisie:
a class or status Marx assigned to the dominant, oppressing owners of
the means of production; believed to create and implement laws that
helped them retain their dominance over the working class (11)
brutalization effect:
the predicted tendency of homicides to increase after an execution,
particularly after high-profile executions (3)
Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act of 1997:

amended a section of the Higher Education Act of 1965 to provide for
disclosure of all criminal incidents that indicate any evidence of
prejudice based on race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity,
or disability (15)
cannabis:
an extremely resourceful plant that contains hundreds of psychoactive
chemicals, particularly delta-9-tetrahydrocannibinol (THC) (16)
central nervous system:

the portion of the nervous system that largely consists of the brain and
spinal column and is responsible for our voluntary motor activities and
all higher functions (6)
cerebrotonic:
according to somatotyping, the type of temperament or personality
associated with an ectomorphic (thin) body type; these people tend to
be introverted and shy (5)
certainty of punishment:
one of the key elements of deterrence; the assumption is that when
people commit a crime, they will perceive a high likelihood of being
caught and punished (3)
Chicago School of criminology:
a theoretical framework of criminal behavior that emphasizes the
environmental impact of living in a high-crime neighborhood, applies
ecological principles to explain how cities grow, and highlights levels
of neighborhood organization to explain crime rates (9)
Child Online Protection Act of 1998:

prohibits individuals from knowingly engaging in communication for
commercial purposes that includes material “harmful to minors” and
available to minors (14)
chivalry:
pertains to behaviors and attitudes toward certain individuals that treat
them as though they are on a pedestal (12)
Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996:

prohibits intentional destruction of any religious real property or
attempts to obstruct any person in the free exercise of his or her
religious beliefs (2)
Citizenship and Immigration Services:

responsible for administration of immigration and naturalization
adjudication functions (15)
classical conditioning:
a learning model that assumes that animals, as well as people, learn
through associations between stimuli and responses (10)
Classical School:
a model of crime that assumes that crime occurs after a rational
individual weighs the potential consequences of a crime and then
makes a decision about whether to engage in it (3)
Coast Guard:
the only military organization within the Department of Homeland
Security; its role includes protecting ports, maintaining border security,
and coordinating intelligence with various government entities (15)
cocaine:
a type of stimulant that appears in the leaves of various species of
plants; usually processed and distributed as a white, crystalline powder
diluted with substances such as sugars and local anesthetics (16)
Code of Hammurabi:
created in 1754 B.C., this Babylonian code had many laws, including a
portion that called for a restoration of equity between the offender and
the victim provided by the government, referred to now as
compensation (1)
collective conscience:
according to Durkheim, the extent to which people in a society share
similarities or likenesses; the stronger the collective conscience, the
less crime in that community (8)
college boy:
a type of lower-class male youth who has experienced the same strains
and status frustration as his peers but responds to his disadvantaged
situation by dedicating himself to doing well in school despite his
unlikely chance of success (8)
comparative criminology:
the study of crime across various cultures to identify similarities and
differences in crime patterns (1)
compensation:
often paid to victims of violent acts; funds are provided to victim
through local, state, or federal governmental agencies (1)
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984:

originally designed to protect national security, financial, and
commercial information; medical treatment; and interstate
communication systems from malicious acts, including unauthorized
access; allows victims of such crimes to bring civil suits against
violators (14)
concentric circles:
model proposed by Chicago School theorists that assumes that all
cities grow in a natural way with the same five zones (9)
concordance rates:
rates at which pairs of twins either share or lack a certain trait (e.g.,
criminality) (6)
concurrent jurisdiction:
original jurisdiction for certain cases is shared by both criminal and
juvenile courts; the prosecutor has discretion to file such cases in either
court (1)
conflict gang:
a type of gang identified by Cloward and Ohlin that tends to develop in
neighborhoods with weak stability and little or no organization; gangs
are typically relatively disorganized and lack the skills and knowledge
to make a profit through criminal activity (8)
conflict perspective or conflict theory:

criminal behavior theories that assume that most people disagree on
what the law should be and that law is used as a tool by those in power
to oppress other groups (1)
conformity:
in strain theory, an adaptation in which an individual buys into
conventional goals (wealth, success, etc.) and also buys into
conventional means of attaining them (work, school, etc.) (8)
consensus perspective:
theories that assume that virtually everyone is in agreement on the
laws and therefore assume no conflict in attitudes regarding the laws
and rules of society (1)
control theories:
theories of criminal behavior that assume that humans are born selfish
and assert that their tendencies toward aggression and offending must
be controlled (10)
conventional level of morality:
the level of morality considered the normal adult approach used to
maintain the family and social order, such as the principle of the
golden rule and appreciating social order (7)
Cooper v. Pate:
as a result of this 1964 Supreme Court decision, prisoners were
allowed to sue state officials in federal court, which resulted in much
litigation and changed the prison conditions in the 1970s (14)
corner boy:
a type of lower-class male youth who has experienced the same strains
and status frustration as others but responds to his disadvantaged
situation by accepting his place in society as someone who will
somewhat passively make the best of life at the bottom of the social
order. As the label describes, they often hang out on street corners (8)
correlation or covariation:
a criterion of causality that requires a change in a predictor variable (x)
to be consistently associated with some change in the explanatory
variable (y) (1)
craniometry:
a 19th-century field of study that emphasized the belief that the size of
the brain or skull reflected superiority or inferiority, with larger brains
and skulls being considered superior (5)
crime:
there are various definitions of crime; from a legalistic approach, crime
is that which violates the law (1)
criminal gang:
a type of gang identified by Cloward and Ohlin that forms in lower-
class neighborhoods with an organized structure of adult criminal
behavior. Such gangs tend to be highly organized and stable (8)
criminal justice:
criminal justice often refers to the various and interrelated criminal
justice agencies and institutions (e.g., police, courts, and corrections)
(1)
criminal terrorism:
terrorism motivated by engaging in criminal activity for profit, such as
in the drug cartels in Mexico (15)
criminology:
the scientific study of crime and the reasons why people engage (or
don’t engage) in criminal behavior (1)
cross-sectional studies:
a model of research design in which a collection of data is taken at one
point in time (often in survey format) (4)
cultural/subcultural theory:
a perspective on criminal offending that assumes that many offenders
believe in a normative system distinctly different from and often at
odds with conventional norms (9)
Customs and Border Protection:

the agency responsible for securing U.S. borders while also monitoring
the flow of legitimate trade and travel (15)
cybercrime:
cybercrime consists of at least three features: the act was committed
using (1) a computer, (2) a “victim” computer, and (3) an intermediary
network (14)
cyberstalking:
when an individual engages in stalking behavior through such means
as electronic mail or electronic communication (14)
cytogenetic studies:
studies of crime that focus on the genetic makeup of individuals, with
a specific focus on chromosomal abnormalities (6)
decriminalization:
a policy related to labeling theory, which proposes less harsh
punishments for some minor offenses, such as the possession of small
amounts of marijuana (16)
delinquent boy:
a type of lower-class male youth, identified by Cohen, who responds to
strain and status frustration by joining with similar others to commit
crime (8)
Department of Homeland Security:

a Cabinet-level department of the U.S. federal government, established
in 2003 in response to the September 11 attacks; main responsibilities
include protecting the United States from terrorist attacks and
responding to terrorist attacks, man-made accidents, and natural
disasters (15)
depressants:
substances that slow down, or “depress,” the normal activity of the
central nervous system (16)
designer drugs:
manufactured substances considered to be for recreational use;
derivatives of approved drugs that can circumvent existing legal
restrictions (16)
determinism:
the assumption that human behavior is caused by factors outside of
free will and rational decision-making (5)
deterrence theory:
a theory of crime associated with the Classical School; proposes that
individuals make rational decisions regarding their behavior (3)
developmental theories:
perspectives of criminal behavior that emphasize the evolution of
individuals’ criminality over time, with the individual as the unit of
analysis (13)
deviance:
behaviors that are not normal; includes many illegal acts, as well as
activities that are not necessarily criminal but are unusual and often
violate social norms (1)
differential association theory:

a theory of criminal behavior that emphasizes association with
significant others (peers, parents, etc.) in learning criminal behavior
(10)
differential identification:
a theory of criminal behavior similar to differential association theory,
the major difference being that this theory takes into account
associations with persons and images presented in the media (10)
differential reinforcement theory:

a theory of criminal behavior that emphasizes various types of social
learning, specifically classical conditioning, operant conditioning, and
imitation or modeling (10)
Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998:

criminalized making, distributing, or using tools, such as software, to
evade technological protection measures implemented by copyright
owners to prevent access to copyrighted material (14)
dissident terrorism:
involves terrorist activities against the government that are committed
by rebellious groups (15)
dizygotic twins:
twin pairs who come from two separate eggs (zygotes) and thus share
only 50% of their genetic makeup (aka fraternal twins) (6)
domestic terrorism:
unlawful use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or
individual based in the United States as an effort to intimidate or
coerce others in service of political or social objectives (15)
dopamine:
a neurotransmitter largely responsible for good feelings in the brain; it
is increased by many illicit drugs (e.g., cocaine) (6)
dramatization of evil:
a concept proposed by Tannenbaum in relation to labeling theory;
states that when relatively minor laws are broken, the community tends
to dramatize it (11)
drug treatment court programs:

established in an effort to address the increasing number of drug-using
offenders clogging the criminal justice system; individuals who
participate in a drug court program can have their charges dismissed or
reduced, address their substance abuse problem, obtain employment,
and regain custody of their children (16)
Durham rule:
offenders are not criminally responsible, even if they are aware of their
conduct, if this behavior was the “product of mental disease or defect”
(7)
ectoderm:
the medical term for the outer layer of tissue in our bodies, including
skin, capillaries, and much of the nervous system sensors (5)
ectomorphic:
according to somatotyping, the body type associated with an emphasis
on the outer layer of tissue (ectoderm) during embryonic development
(5)
ego:
the only conscious domain of the psyche; according to Freud, it
functions to mediate the battle between id and superego (7)
Eighteenth Amendment:
the U.S. constitutional amendment that effected national Prohibition on
January 16, 1920 (16)
Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986:
regulates the interception of electronic communications by individuals
as well as the government (14)
empirical validity:
refers to the extent to which a theoretical model is supported by
scientific research (1)
endoderm:
the medical term for the inner layer of tissue in our bodies, which is
the inner layer of tissues and includes the internal organs, such as the
stomach, large intestine, and small intestine (5)
endomorphic:
on the inner layer of tissue (endoderm) during embryonic development
(5)
Environmental Protection Agency:

a federal bureau started in 1970, charged with protecting human health
and safeguarding the natural environment (14)
eradication:
the destruction of plants used in the production of illegal drugs,
involving any of four recognized techniques: mechanical destruction
(i.e., slashing or uprooting), burning, chemical eradication, and
biological (including genetic) eradication (16)
eugenics:
the study of and policies related to the improvement of the human race
via discriminatory control over reproduction (5)
experiential effect:
the extent to which previous experience affects the perceived severity
of punishment for future crimes (4)
extroversion:
in reference to the PEN model, traits associated with extroversion
include being sociable, lively, active, assertive, sensation-seeking,
carefree, dominant, surgent, and venturesome (7)
falsely accused:
based on Becker’s typology, an individual who has been identified as
disobeying the rules but did not violate the rules (11)
family studies:
studies that examine the clustering of criminality in a given family (6)
Federal Emergency Management Agency:

established in 1979, FEMA focuses on emergency management and
recovery from a catastrophic event on a local and national level (15)
feeble-mindedness:
a technical, scientific term used in the early 20th century to denote a
significantly below-average level of intelligence (5)
first wave of feminism:

started in the mid-19th century, when women demanded the right to
vote (12)
focal concerns:
a primary concept of Miller’s theory, which asserts that all members of
the lower class focus on concepts they deem important: fate,
autonomy, trouble, toughness, excitement, and intelligence (9)
formal/official deterrence:
the deterrent effects of law enforcement, courts, and corrections (3)
Freud, Sigmund:
originated psychoanalysis, founded on the perception of resistance
used by individuals when therapists attempt to make them conscious of
their unconscious; perceived women as anatomically inferior (12)
frontal lobes:
the foremost portion of the brain; most of the executive functions of
the brain, such as problem-solving, take place here (6)
fundraising:
used by terrorist organizations to finance their activities (15)
game theory:
assesses various scenarios by applying simulation gaming models,
usually to understand why parties in competitive situations behave as
they do and to advise players of the best way to play the game (15)
gender:
usually refers to social definitions of what it means to be a “woman” or
a “man” (12)
gender-specific programming:
programs for juvenile girls that cultivate an increased sense of
community, which has been associated with developing and integrating
a healthy identity (12)
general deterrence:
punishments given to individual offenders that are meant to prevent or
deter others from engaging in similar criminal activity (3)
group-conflict theory:
Vold argued that people’s lives are a part, and a product, of their group
associations; groups come into conflict with one another due to
conflicting and competitive interests (11)
hackers:
individuals who violate computer security (14)
hallucinogens:
drugs that alter one’s thought processes, mood, and perceptions (16)
harm reduction:
attempts to incorporate a public-health approach to lessen the risks and
harms associated with illegal drug use (16)
Harrison Act of 1914:
required doctors to possess a license to prescribe narcotics (16)
hate crime data:

the best-known hate crime data source is the Hate Crime Statistics,
which collect information on traditional offenses, such as murder and
vandalism, that have an additional factor of bias (2)
hate crimes:
traditional offenses, such as murder and vandalism, with an additional
factor of bias (15)
Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990:

as part of the Uniform Crime Reporting Program, this act required the
attorney general to develop guidelines and collect data about crimes
that manifest evidence of prejudice based on race, religion, sexual
orientation, or ethnicity (2)
heroin:
the most infamous opiate drug; a chemically modified form of
morphine that ranges in color from white to black (16)
highway patrol:
one type of model characterizing statewide police departments. The
primary focus is to enforce the laws that govern the operation of motor
vehicles on public roads and highways (1)
homeland security:
a unified national effort to prevent terrorist attacks within the United
States, lessen America’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimize the
damage resulting from such attacks (15)
human rights:
universal values and legal guarantees that protect individuals against
actions or omissions, primarily by government agents, that infringe on
their fundamental freedoms, entitlements, and human dignity (15)
id:
a subconscious domain of the psyche, according to Freud, with which
we are all born; it is responsible for our innate desires and drives (such
as libido [sex drive]) and it battles the moral conscience of the
superego (7)
identity theft:
obtaining someone’s personal details in order to commit identity fraud;
can be used by criminals and terrorists to establish false identities and
thus escape detection (14)
Immigration and Customs Enforcement:

a federal agency with a focus on identifying criminal activities and
vulnerabilities that may be a threat to the country (15)
informal deterrence:
deterring factors—such as family, church, or friends—that do not
involve official aspects of criminal justice, such as police, courts, and
corrections (e.g., prisons) (4)
inhalants:
volatile substances that produce chemical vapors and whose primary
trait is that they are rarely taken by any delivery method other than
inhalation (16)
innovation:
in strain theory, an adaptation to strain in which an individual buys into
conventional goals (wealth, success, etc.) but does not buy into
conventional means of attaining them (work, school, etc.) (8)
insanity:
the idea of excusing offenders for their criminal actions due to a
mental disease has been in existence for centuries. The term insanity is
not a medical term; rather, it is a legal term (7)
intelligence quotient:
a quantified measure of intelligence (5)
interdiction:
describes the various steps implemented to interrupt illicit drug
trafficking (e.g., cueing, detection, apprehension, and prosecution) (16)
internet fraud:
use of the internet to engage in fraud, often identity theft (14)
irresistible impulse:
one standard for the insanity defense. Offenders can claim that, due to
a mental disease, they were unable to control their behavior (7)
jail:
residential facility often designated for individuals convicted of a
minor crime and to house individuals awaiting trial (1)
Kefauver Committee:
in 1950, charged with three responsibilities that focused on whether
organized crime used services of interstate commerce to engage in
illegal activities and identifying the persons, firms, or corporations
involved in such activities (14)
judicial waiver:
the authority to waive juvenile court jurisdiction and transfer the case
to criminal court, which brings about an immediate increase in the
severity of response to the juvenile (1)
labeling theory:
a theoretical perspective that assumes that criminal behavior increases
because certain individuals are caught and labeled as offenders; their
offending increases because they have been stigmatized (11)
Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted:

part of the UCR Program. LEOKA collects data on officer line-of-duty
deaths and assaults (2)
learning theories:
theoretical models that assume that criminal behavior is due to
learning from others the motivations and techniques for engaging in
such behavior (10)
left realism:
contends that previous criminological theories have been incomplete in
that they emphasize only one part of the “square of crime”; attempts to
provide an analysis of crime on all levels and develop a range of policy
recommendations (11)
liberal feminism:
one of the areas of feminist theories of crime that emphasize the
assumption that differences between males and females in offending
are due to the lack of opportunities for women in education,
employment, etc., compared with men (12)
liberation thesis:
also referred to as the emancipation hypothesis; attempts to link the
women’s liberation movement with female crime rates (12)
life-course persistent offender:

a person who starts offending early and persists in criminal behavior
through adulthood (13)
limited jurisdiction:
the authority of a court to hear and decide cases within an area of the
law or a geographic territory (1)
logical consistency:
the extent to which concepts and propositions of a theoretical model
makes sense in terms of both face value and consistency with what is
readily known about crime rates and trends (1)
Lombroso, Cesare:
one of the earliest theorists focusing on the female offender; his book
emphasized the physiological and psychological determinants of
female criminality rather than socializing factors or social-structural
constraints (12)
low self-control:
a theory that proposes that individuals either develop self-control by
age 10 or do not; those who do not will manifest criminal or deviant
behaviors throughout life (10)
Mafia:
a criminal organization similar to an extended social family; members
take an oath swearing, under punishment of death, to a code of silence.
It started as a self-protection group, but by the 1860s expanded to
criminal activities such as smuggling, cattle rustling, and extortion (14)
mafioso:
a term referring to a set of characteristics, such as pride, self-
confidence, and a sense of “arrogant” behavior, in men (14)
maintenance:
a political stance that advocates for the accessibility of drugs through
governmental regulation, such as distribution and legal age of use (16)
mala in se:
acts that are considered inherently evil (1)
mala prohibita:
acts that are considered crimes primarily because they have been
declared so by the legal codes in that jurisdiction (1)
Marihuana Tax Act of 1937:

did not criminalize marijuana or its preparations but did tax the
grower, distributor, seller, and buyer (16)
marijuana:
the dried leaves or flowers of the cannabis plant (16)
Marxist feminism:
a perspective of crime that emphasizes men’s ownership and control of
the means of economic production; similar to critical or radical
feminism but is distinguished by its reliance on the concept of
economic structure (12)
2009:
made it unlawful to willfully cause bodily injury, or attempt to do so,
with a dangerous weapon when the offense is committed because of
the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, gender,
sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability of any person (2)
mechanical societies:
in Durkheim’s theory, primitive societies with a simple distribution of
labor (e.g., hunters and gatherers) and thus a high level of agreement
regarding social norms and rules because nearly everyone is engaged
in the same roles (8)
Mendelsohn, Benjamin:
an attorney who is generally considered the father of victimology and
proposed the first typology or theory of victimization that categorized
victims by the degree to which the victims contributed to the criminal
act in which they were victimized (1)
mens rea:
refers to whether offenders actually knew what they were doing and
meant to do it; literally, “guilty mind” (3)
mental-health courts:
established beginning in 1997 to address the large proportion of
individuals with mental illnesses involved in the criminal justice
system (7)
mesoderm:
the medical term for the middle layer of tissue in our bodies, including
muscles, bones, ligaments, and tendons (5)
mesomorphic:
on the middle layer of tissue (mesoderm) during embryonic
development (5)
methamphetamine:
the most common form of amphetamine, it can take the form of a
white, odorless powder that dissolves in water; clear, “chunky”
crystals; or small, brightly colored tablets (16)
minor physical anomalies:

physical features, such as asymmetrical or low-seated ears, which are
believed to indicate developmental problems (5)
mission distortion:
occurred when those agencies involved in the reorganization that
created the Department of Homeland Security in 2003 acquired new
responsibilities and also were expected to continue with their agency’s
missions prior to the merge (15)
M’Naghten rule:
the M’Naghten case (in 1843, Daniel M’Naghten shot Edward
Drummond, secretary to the British prime minister) introduced the
modern concept of insanity into English common law. The legal
standard is that “he didn’t know what he was doing or didn’t know it
was wrong” (7)
model state legislation for hate crimes/violence against people

experiencing homelessness:
the National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty and the
National Coalition for the Homeless advocated for state legislation that
includes homelessness in hate crimes statutes (15)
modeling/imitation:
a major factor in differential reinforcement theory that proposes that
much social learning takes place via imitation or modeling of behavior
(10)
Moffitt’s developmental theory or taxonomy:

a theoretical perspective proposing that criminal behavior is caused by
(1) adolescence-limited offenders and (2) life-course persistent
offenders (13)
money laundering:
a process whereby funds obtained through illegal activities are
“cleansed.” The illegally obtained monies are placed into the financial
system; these monies are layered, or processed, through the system,
usually internationally, and subsequently intermingled with legal
monies; and then the monies are turned and reintegrated into the
legitimate economy (15)
Monitoring the Future:

an annual self-report survey that collects information to measure
substance and alcohol use patterns among youths (2)
monozygotic twins:
also referred to as identical twins, these are pairs of twins who come
from a single egg (zygote) and thus share 100% of their genetic
makeup (6)
morphine:
one of the most effective drugs for relief of severe physical pain; has
high potential for abuse (16)
multiracial feminism:
an intersectional framework that includes such defining social
characteristics as race, class, gender, sexuality, nationality, and age
(12)
narcotics:
opiates (drugs derived from the opium poppy) or opioids (synthetically
produced opiates); include morphine, heroin, and oxycodone (16)
National Counterterrorism Center:

provides the Department of State with statistical information on
terrorism (15)
National Crime Victimization Survey:

a primary measure of crime in the United States; collected by the DOJ
and the Census Bureau, based on interviews with victims of crime (2)
National Incident-Based Reporting System:

an enhanced version of the UCR Program that collects more detailed
information on incidents (e.g., regarding the offenders and the victims)
(2)
National Prisoner Statistics Program:

this program collects information on individuals incarcerated in state
and federal prisons (2)
National Survey on Drug Use and Health:

since 1971, the NSDUH (formerly the National Household Survey on
Drug Abuse) has been used to collect information annually on the use
of illegal drugs by individuals in the United States (2)
natural areas:
refers to the Chicago School’s idea that all cities contain identifiable
clusters, such as a Chinatown or Little Italy, and neighborhoods that
have low or high crime rates (9)
negative reinforcement:
a concept in social learning in which people are rewarded for a
particular behavior through the removal of something they dislike (10)
negotiation:
one of the key factors identified by Schur (i.e., labeling process); more
noticeable in cases involving adults rather than juveniles (e.g., plea
bargaining) (11)
Neoclassical School:
assumes that aggravating and mitigating circumstances should be
taken into account for purposes of sentencing and punishment (3)
neuroticism:
in reference to the PEN model, neuroticism has often been linked with
such traits as being anxious, depressed, tense, irrational, shy, moody
and emotional, and having guilty feelings and low self-esteem (7)
neurotransmitters:
naturally occurring chemicals in the brain and body that help transmit
electric signals from one neuron to another (6)
nonpartisan conflict perspective:
according to Turk, the ideological position or political utilities of
theories are irrelevant when assessing the validity of knowledge
claims; truth should be independent of political ideology or personal
values (11)
objectivity:
refers to being “neutral,” “value free,” or “unbiased.” Feminist
scholars challenge research claims of objectivity (12)
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970:

among other things, made it a misdemeanor to cause the death of a
worker by willfully violating safety laws (14)
operant conditioning:
a learning model based on the association between an action and
feedback following the action (10)
organic societies:
in the Durkheimian model, those societies that have a high division of
labor and thus a low level of agreement about societal norms, largely
because there is such a wide variety of roles (8)
organized crime:
sometimes defined through a typology, such as the means of obtaining
collective goals and the reasons for engaging in such activity: an
economic objective or a political objective (14)
outlaw motorcycle gangs:

the tough-guy image of these groups was perpetuated and membership
increased, along with organization and sophistication. Soon, behavior
of some groups was less rebellious and more openly criminal; some
members refer to themselves as “one-percenters” (14)
oxycodone:
a synthetic narcotic produced entirely in the laboratory; brand names
include OxyContin, Percodan, and Percocet (16)
parens patriae:
a philosophical perspective that recognizes that the state has both the
right and an obligation to intervene on behalf of its citizens due to
some impairment or impediment such as mental incompetence, or in
the case of juveniles, age and immaturity (1)
parsimony:
a characteristic of a good theory, meaning that it explains a certain
phenomenon, such as criminal behavior, with the fewest possible
propositions or concepts (1)
partisan conflict perspective:

according to Quinney, provides a theory and practice with the purpose
of changing the world; associated political objective (11)
passive victim precipitation:

when individuals increase the likelihood they will be victimized,
particularly by not doing something, such as not locking their home or
car doors (1)
paternalism:
the idea that women need to be protected for their own good. In a
broad social context, paternalism implies independence for men and
dependence for women (12)
pathways research:
typically collects data, usually through interviews, at a particular point
in time to provide retrospective inquiry as to an individual’s life and
life experiences (12)
patriarchy:
a social, legal, and political climate based on male dominance and
hierarchy. A key aspect of this ideology is that women’s nature is
biologically, not culturally, determined (12)
peacemaking criminology:
incorporates three intellectual traditions: religious, feminist, and
critical; contends that society should attempt reconciliation through
mediation and dispute settlement (11)
PEN model:
discussions of this theory emphasize that human personality can be
viewed in three dimensions: psychoticism, extroversion, and
neuroticism (7)
“the personal is the political”:

refers to the notion that the “private sphere” is just as structured by
power relations involving gender, sexuality, race, class, and age as is
the “public sphere” (12)
phenotype:
an observed manifestation of the interaction of an individual’s
genotypical traits with his or her environment, such as that individual’s
height (6)
phrenology:
the science of determining human disposition based on distinctions
(e.g., bumps) in the skull, as the skull is believed to conform to the
shape of the brain (5)
physiognomy:
the study of facial and other bodily aspects to identify developmental
problems, such as criminality (5)
Pollak, Otto:
argued that women are more criminal in nature than has been generally
perceived; suggested that criminologists should address the unknown
criminality of women (12)
positive reinforcement:
a concept in social learning in which people are rewarded for a
particular behavior by receiving something they want (10)
Positive School:
a perspective that assumes that individuals have no free will to control
their behavior (5)
postconventional level of morality:
when a person attempts to strike a balance between individual rights
and societal rules (7)
postmodern feminism:
a perspective that says women as a group cannot be understood, even
by other women, because every person’s experience is unique;
therefore, there is no need to measure or research such experiences
(12)
power-control theory:
an integrated theory of crime that assumes that, in households where
the mother and father have relatively similar levels of power at work,
mothers will be less likely to exert control over daughters, and in
households where mothers and fathers have dissimilar levels of power
in the workplace, mothers will be more likely to suppress criminal
activity in daughters than in sons (12)
praxis:
refers not just to consciousness-raising but also to the establishment of
alternative arrangements that will provide models for change, which
then change consciousness (12)
preconventional level of morality:

a level of morality, characteristic of designating what is considered
“right” and “wrong” (7)
primary deviance:
in labeling theory, this refers to the minor, infrequent offenses that
people commit before they are caught and labeled as offenders (11)
prison:
generally for those convicted of more serious crimes with longer
sentences, who may be housed in a supermax, maximum-, medium-, or
minimum-security prison (1)
probation:
probation is essentially an arrangement between the sentencing
authorities and the offender requiring the offender to comply with
certain terms for a specified amount of time (1)
Prohibition:
After the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment, an era (1920–1933)
in which it was illegal to manufacture, sell, or transport intoxicating
liquors within the United States (16)
proletariat:
in Marx’s conflict theory, the oppressed group of workers exploited by
the bourgeoisie; they never profit from their own efforts, because the
upper class owns and controls the means of production (11)
psychoanalytic perspective:
an individual’s behavior is presumed to be due to the three aspects of
his or her personality: the id, ego, and superego. Anxiety, defense
mechanisms, and the unconscious are key principles of the
psychoanalytic perspective (7)
psychopaths:
individuals whose antisocial behavior may be the result of a
physiological defect or abnormality rather than issues in their rearing
or socialization (7)
psychoticism:
individuals considered to have high psychoticism are associated with
being aggressive, cold, egocentric, impersonal, impulsive, antisocial,
unempathic, creative, and tough-minded; individuals with low
psychoticism are characterized as being empathic, unselfish, altruistic,
warm, peaceful, and generally more pleasant (7)
pure deviant:
based on Becker’s typology, an individual who disobeys the rules and
is perceived as doing so (11)
qualitative:
nonnumerical research methods; often compared with quantitative
research methods (12)
quantitative:
numerical research methods; often compared with qualitative research
methods (12)
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations:

Title IX of the 1970 Organized Crime Control Act; provides for
enhanced criminal and civil penalties for individuals engaging in
activities with criminal organizations (14)
radical feminism:
emphasizes the importance of personal feelings, experiences, and
relationships; gender is a system of male dominance, and women’s
biology is the main cause of patriarchy (12)
rational choice theory:

a modern, Classical School–based framework for explaining crime that
includes the traditional formal deterrence aspects as well as informal
factors that have been shown to consistently and strongly influence
behavior (4)
reaction formation:
a Freudian defense mechanism applied to Cohen’s theory of youth
offending, which involves adopting attitudes or committing behaviors
that are opposite of what is expected (8)
rebellion:
the idea of conventional goals and means of reaching them but does
not buy into the current conventional means (work, school, etc.) or
goals (wealth, success, etc.) (8)
relative deprivation:
the heightened perception of inequality that results when relatively
poor people live in close proximity to relatively wealthy people (8)
religious terrorism:
terrorist acts that are legitimized by religious dogma (15)
restitution:
funds that offenders must provide to victims of crime as a condition of
their sentence (1)
restorative justice:
refers to the repair of justice by reaffirming a shared consensus of
values involving a joint or multisided approach; emphasizes victim,
community, and offender (11)
retreatism:
in strain theory, an adaptation to strain in which an individual does not
buy into conventional goals (wealth, success, etc.) and also does not
buy into conventional means of attaining them (work, school, etc.) (8)
retreatist gang:
a type of gang identified by Cloward and Ohlin that tends to attract
individuals who have failed to succeed in both the conventional world
and the criminal or conflict gangs of their neighborhoods (8)
retributive justice:
refers to the repair of justice through a one-sided approach of imposing
punishment (11)
retrospective interpretation:
in labeling theory, the process by which an individual is identified as a
deviant and thereafter viewed in a “new light” (11)
ritualism:
conventional means (work, school, etc.) of attaining goals but does not
buy into conventional goals (wealth, success, etc.) (8)
routine activities theory (lifestyle theory):

an explanation of crime that assumes that crime and victimization are
highest in places where three factors come together in time and place:
motivated offenders, suitable or attractive targets, and the absence of a
guardian (4)
scenario research or vignettes:

studies that involve providing participants with specific hypothetical
scenarios and then asking them what they would do in each situation
(4)
scope:
the range of criminal behavior that a theory attempts to explain (1)
second wave of feminism:

started in the 1960s, when other marginalized groups were also
challenging the status quo (e.g., in the civil rights movement and the
prisoners’ rights movement). Feminists of this wave argued that to be
fully liberated, women needed to have equal access to economic
opportunities and sexual freedoms as well as civil liberties (12)
secondary deviance:
in labeling theory, this refers to the serious, frequent offenses people
commit after they have been caught and labeled as offenders (11)
secret deviant:
based on Becker’s typology, an individual who violates the rules of
society but elicits no reaction from society (11)
Secret Service:
the federal agency responsible for safeguarding the financial
infrastructure and payment systems, as well as protecting national
leaders and visiting foreign leaders (15)
selective placement:
a policy of placing adoptees in households that resemble that of their
biological parents; thus, children of rich biological parents are placed
in rich adoptive households (6)
serotonin:
a neurotransmitter that is key in information-processing and most
consistently linked to criminal behavior in its deficiency; low levels
have been linked to depression and other mental illnesses (6)
severity of punishment:
the assumption is that a given punishment must be serious enough to
outweigh any potential benefits gained from a crime (3)
sex:
sex differences typically refer to biological variations such as different
reproductive organs and different levels of hormones (12)
sex roles:
research using the sex-role approach has been criticized, primarily
because of the tendency to perceive these roles as being almost sex-
linked, without incorporating the context of how these roles have been
defined, leading to a form of biological determinism (12)
social bonding:
a control theory that assumes that individuals are predisposed to
commit crime and that conventional bonds prevent or reduce
offending. Conventional bonds are made up of four constructs:
attachments, commitment, involvement, and moral beliefs (10)
social contract:
an Enlightenment ideal or assumption that stipulates an unspecified
arrangement among citizens in which they promise the state or
government not to commit offenses against other citizens, and, in turn,
to gain protection from being violated by other citizens (3)
socialist feminism:
refers to feminist theories that moved away from economic structure
(e.g., Marxism) and placed a focus on control of reproductive systems;
revolves around the belief that women should take control of their own
bodies and reproductive functions via contraceptives (12)
sociopaths:
people whose antisocial personalities are due to social or familial
dysfunction (7)
soft determinism:
the assumption that both determinism and free will play a role in
offenders’ decisions to engage in criminal behavior (10)
somatotonic:
associated with a mesomorphic (muscular) body type; tends to be risk-
taking and aggressive (5)
somatotyping:
the area of study, primarily attributed to William Sheldon, that links
body type to likelihood of delinquent and criminal behavior. Also, as a
methodology, it is a way of ranking body types based on three
categories: endomorphy, mesomorphy, and ectomorphy (5)
spatial analyses of crime:

this type of analysis focuses on crime places. One major aspect is
mapping crimes, which illustrates the location of crimes, the distance
between them, the direction in which the crimes seem to be moving,
and other patterns (2)
specific deterrence:
punishments given to individual offenders that are meant to prevent or
deter them personally from committing crime in the future (3)
spuriousness:
when other factors (often referred to as z factors) are causing two
variables (x and y) to occur at the same time; it may appear as if x
causes y, when in fact they are both being caused by z factor(s) (1)
state police:
agencies with general police powers to enforce state laws as well as to
investigate major crimes; may include intelligence units, drug-
trafficking units, juvenile units, and crime laboratories (1)
state-sponsored terrorism:
includes terrorist acts facilitated by the state or government against
perceived enemies (15)
status-degradation ceremony:
the most dramatic way to initiate the process of giving an individual a
new identity; one example of such a ceremony is a criminal trial (11)
statutory exclusion:
excludes certain juvenile offenders from juvenile court jurisdiction;
thus, their cases originate in criminal rather than juvenile court (1)
stereotyping:
in labeling theory, usually associated with racial prejudice and
discrimination (11)
steroids:
synthetically produced variations of the male sex hormone
testosterone; some have been approved for medical and veterinary use
(16)
stigmata:
the physical manifestations of atavism (biological inferiority),
according to Lombroso (5)
stimulant:
a substance that creates a sense of energy, alertness, talkativeness, and
well-being considered pleasurable to the user (16)
superego:
a subconscious domain of the psyche; according to Freud, it is not part
of our nature but must be developed through early social attachments
(7)
Supplementary Homicide Reports:

part of Uniform Crime Reports. These data provide more detailed
information on the incident (e.g., regarding the offender and the
victim) (2)
Sutherland, Edwin:
coined the term white-collar crime; generally considered the most
prominent criminologist of the 20th century (14)
swiftness of punishment:
assumes that the sooner an offender is punished, the more he or she
will be deterred in the future (3)
symbolic interactionism:
proposes that many social interactions involve symbolism, which
occurs when individuals interpret each other’s words or gestures and
then act based on the meaning of those gestures (11)
Tammany Hall:
a notorious Democratic political machine in New York City from the
1790s through the 1960s, with major influence in city and state politics
(14)
techniques of neutralization:
a theory that suggests that individuals, especially in their teenage years
and early adulthood, make excuses to alleviate their guilt about
committing certain criminal acts (10)
temporal lobes:
the region of the brain responsible for a variety of functions; located
near many primary limbic structures that govern emotions and memory
(6)
temporal ordering:
the criterion for determining causality; requires that the predictor
variable (x) precede the explanatory variable (y) (1)
testability:
the extent to which a theoretical model can be empirically or
scientifically tested through observation and empirical research (1)
Thinking for a Change:

an integrated cognitive behavioral–change program that includes
cognitive restructuring, social skill development, and the development
of problem-solving skills (7)
third wave of feminism:

started around the late 1980s; an extension of as well as a response to
the shortcomings of the second wave (12)
Thomas, W. I.:
argued that there are basic biological differences between males and
females (12)
Thornberry’s interactional model:

the first major perspective to emphasize reciprocal, or feedback,
effects in the causal modeling of the theoretical framework (13)
traditional or conservative perspective:

causes of gender inequality are due to biological sex differences, and
social behavior is based on the biological sex differences; does not
offer any strategies for social change, since men’s and women’s
behaviors reflect evolutionary adaptations of sex differences (12)
trajectories:
the paths people take in life, often due to life transitions (13)
tranquilizers:
a type of depressant; can help treat anxiety without disrupting normal
functioning. Side effects may include sleepiness and decreased
coordination, difficulty learning, and amnesia (16)
transitions:
life events important in altering trajectories toward or away from
crime, such as marriage and employment (13)
Transportation Security Administration:

provides security for all types of transportation; recruits, assesses,
hires, trains, and deploys security officers for commercial airports; and
provides screening of all checked luggage (15)
Tripartite Conceptual Framework:
suggests that drugs and violence are related to each other through
psychopharmacological, economically compulsive, and systemic
violence (16)
Twenty-First Amendment:
repealed the Eighteenth Amendment in December 1933 (16)
twin studies:
studies that examine the relative concordance rates for monozygotic
versus dizygotic twins (6)
Uniform Crime Reports:

annual FBI reports meant to estimate most of the major street crimes in
the United States (2)
USA PATRIOT Act of 2001:

focuses on collecting communications information and data,
conducting foreign-intelligence investigations, controlling money
laundering, and funding and enhancing national border security (15)
utilitarianism:
a philosophical concept that relates to the idea of the greatest good for
the greatest number of people (3)
victim impact statements:

statements given by victims during the sentencing phase of a criminal
trial; these can be given in many ways, such as in person, a letter, or a
video (1)
victim precipitation:
when individuals increase the likelihood they will be victimized, either
actively (as a result of something they do) or passively (as a result of
something they don’t do) (1)
victimology:
the scientific study of victims of crime (1)
vignettes:
short, descriptive sketches or hypothetical narratives (4)
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994:

amended the Hate Crime Statistics Act to enhance penalties for
offenses that involve a motivation bias (2)
viscerotonic:
associated with an endomorphic (obese) body type; these people tend
to be jolly, lazy, and happy-go-lucky (5)
War on Drugs:
a public concern about drugs, building throughout the 1980s, that
exploded in late 1985 and early 1986 (16)
white-collar crime:
criteria include (1) upper-class offender, (2) work-related violations,
(3) work-related violations of blue-collar workers excluded, and (4)
regular crimes committed by upper-class persons excluded (14)
Wickersham Commission:
formed in 1929, this commission found that organized criminal activity
flourished around bootlegging operations (14)
women’s agency:
the more traditional approach to criminological research overlooks
social locations of women’s marginalization and places too much
emphasis on female offenders as “active subjects” who pursue criminal
opportunities. On the other hand, in some feminist research, women
are denied agency and situated as mere instruments for the
reproduction of determining social structures (12)
zone in transition:
in the Chicago School, refers to a zone (Zone II) that was once
residential but is becoming more industrial; tends to have the highest
crime rates (9)
Notes
Chapter 1
1. “Arrest of the Confidence Man.” (1849, July 8). The New York Herald, p.
2.
2. Braucher, J., & Orbach, B. (2015). Scamming: The misunderstood

confidence man. Yale Journal of Law and the Humanities, 27, 249–290.
3. WSAZ News Staff. (2018, November 1). “At least 3 Kentucky victims
lose thousands in ‘grandparent scam.’” Retrieved from
https://www.wsaz.com/content/news/At-least-3-Kentucky-victims-lose-
thousands-in-grandparent-scam-499306461.html
4. Colino, S. (2018, April 18). “Beware of Grandparent Scam.” AARP.

Retrieved from https://www.aarp.org/money/scams-fraud/info-
2018/grandparent-scam-scenarios.html
5. Fletcher, E. (2018, December 3). “New twist to grandparent scam: Mail

cash.” Retrieved from https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/blogs/data-
spotlight/2018/12/new-twist-grandparent-scam-mail-cash
6. Henry, S., & Lanier, M. (2001). What is crime? Controversies over the
nature of crime and what to do about it. Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield.
7. Black, H. C., Nolan, J. M., & Nolan-Haley, J. M. (1990). Black’s law

dictionary (6th ed.). St. Paul, MN: West, p. 959.
8. Ibid., p. 960.
9. Tibbetts, S. G. (2012). Criminological theory: The essentials. Thousand

Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 3–4.
10. Adler, F., Mueller, G. O. W., & Laufer, W. S. (2007). Criminology (6th
ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, p. 10.
11. Sutherland, E. H. (1934). Principles of criminology (2nd ed.).

Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott, p. 3.
12. Brown, S., Esbensen, F., & Geis, G. (2007). Criminology (6th ed.).
Cincinnati, OH: LexisNexis.
13. Bernard, T. J., Paoline, E. A., & Pare, P. (2005). General systems theory
and criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 203–211, p. 205.
14. Belknap, J. (2007). The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice
(3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth, p. 1.
15. Akers, R. L. (1997). Criminological theories: Introduction and

evaluation (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
16. Ibid., p. 139.
17. Barkan, S. E. (2012). Criminology: A sociological understanding (5th

ed.). Boston, MA: Prentice Hall.

evaluation (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury, p. 140.
19. Ibid.
20. Ibid., p. 141.
21. President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of

Justice. (1967). The challenge of crime in a free society. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office, p. 7.
22. Gaines, L. K., & Miller, R. L. (2011). Criminal justice in action (6th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, p. 11.
23. Inciardi, J. A. (1993). Criminal justice (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX:
Harcourt Brace College Publishers, p. 176.
27. Ibid., p. 15.
28. Ibid., p. 275.
31. Allen, H. E., Latessa, E. J., & Ponder, B. S. (2010). Corrections in

America: An introduction (12th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson, p. 93.
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning, pp. 468–488.
33. Cromwell, P., Alarid, L. F., & del Carmen, R. V. (2005). Community-
based corrections (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
34. Platt, A. M. (1977). The child savers: The invention of delinquency.

Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
35. This portion of our discussion on juvenile justice is primarily based on

Trojanowicz, R. C., Morash, M., & Schram, P. J. (2001). Juvenile
delinquency: Concepts and control (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall.
36. Gardner, M. R. (1995). Punitive juvenile justice: Some observations on

a recent trend. In M. L. Frost (Ed.), The new juvenile justice. Chicago, IL:
Nelson-Hall, pp. 103–108.
37. Rudman, C. J., Hartstone, E., Fagan, J. A., & Moore, M. (1986). Violent
youth in adult court: Process and punishment. Crime and Delinquency, 32,
75–96.
38. Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (2006). Juvenile offenders and victims:
2006 National report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention.
39. Ibid., p. 110.
40. Akers, R., & Sellers, C. (2004). Criminological theories (4th ed.). Los
Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
41. This discussion and the examples provided for the characteristics are
taken from Akers, R., & Sellers, C. (2004). Criminological theories (4th
ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury, pp. 5–12.
42. FBI. (n.d.). 2017 Crime in the United States. Retrieved from
pages/motor-vehicle-theft
43. National Insurance Crime Bureau. (2017). NICB’s Hot Wheels:

America’s 10 most stolen vehicles. Retrieved from
https://www.nicb.org/sites/files/2017-11/2016-Hot-Wheels-Report.pdf
44. National Insurance Crime Bureau. (n.d.). Vehicle theft fraud: Taking an
age-old crime to the next level. Retrieved from
https://www.nicb.org/theft_and_fraud_awareness/fact_sheets
45. Shea, J. (2019, January 7). “Woman accused of stealing ambulance

when she couldn’t find a ride home from hospital.” Fox 8 Cleveland.
Retrieved from https://fox8.com/2019/01/07/woman-accused-of-stealing-
ambulance-when-she-couldnt-find-ride-home-from-hospital
46. Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Palo
Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
47. Lombroso, C. (1876). The criminal man. Milan, Italy: Hoepli.
48. See Tibbetts, S. G., & Hemmens, C. (2010). Criminological theory: A

text reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, p. 9.
50. Ibid.
51. James, M. (2018, January 15). “Calif. couple charged with abuse for
starving, chaining their children.” USA Today. Retrieved from
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/2018/01/15/calif-couple-charged-
abuse-starving-chaining-children/1034651001
52. Andone, D. (2018, January 18). “The Turpin children were chained to
their beds and starved, officials say.” CNN. Retrieved from
https://www.cnn.com/2018/01/18/us/turpin-family-conditions-inside-
house/index.html
53. Eltagouri, M. (2018, January 19). “A look at the lives of 13 siblings

held captive in a house full of chains—what comes next.” The Washington
Post, para. 28. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-
nation/wp/2018/01/19/starved-beaten-unbathed-how-a-17-year-old-
escaped-a-house-full-of-chains-and-freed-her-12-siblings
54. Newell, S. (2019, January 12). “One year later, Turpin torture case
continues to move forward in court, but questions remain.” The Desert Sun.
Retrieved from
https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/crime_courts/2019/01/11/one-year-
turpin-torture-case-abuse-perris-trial/2542456002
55. Hong, J. (April 9, 2018). “In Turpin aftermath, two California assembly
members seek tighter homeschool regulations.” The Desert Sun. Retrieved
from https://www.desertsun.com/story/news/education/2018/04/09/turpin-
aftermath-two-california-assembly-members-seek-tighter-homeschool-
regulations/500373002
56. Faller, K. C. (1993). Child sexual abuse: Intervention and treatment

issues. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
p. 11.
57. Walsh, A., & Ellis, L. (2007). Criminology: An interdisciplinary
approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, p. 135.
58. Ibid., p. 104.
59. Shichor, D., & Tibbetts, S. G. (2002). Victims and victimization:

Essential readings. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, p.1. See also
Wallace, H., & Roberson, C. (2015). Victimology: Legal, psychological, and
social perspectives (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson, p. 1.
60. Wertham, F. (1949). The show of violence. New York, NY: Doubleday.
61. Mendelsohn, B. (1956, July–September). Victimology. Etudes

Internationales de Psycho-Sociologie Criminelle, 23–26.
62. Fattah, E. (1994). Some problematic concepts, unjustified criticism and

popular misconceptions. In International debates of victimology (pp. 82–
103). London, UK: USV.
63. Shichor, D., & Tibbetts, S. G. (2002). Victims and victimization:

Essential readings. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, pp. 5–6. See also
Wallace, H., & Roberson, C. (2015). Victimology: Legal, psychological, and
social perspectives (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson, pp. 5–6.
64. Wolfgang, M. (1958). Patterns of criminal homicide. Philadelphia, PA:

University of Pennsylvania Press.
65. Ganpat, S. M., van der Leun, J., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2013). The
influence of event characteristics and actors’ behaviour on the outcome of
violent events. British Journal of Criminology, 53(4), 685–704; Muftic´, L.
R., & Hunt, D. E. (2013). Victim precipitation: Further understanding the
linkage between victimization and offending in homicide. Homicide
Studies, 17(3), 239–254. For a recent review of such studies, see Daigle, L.
E. (2017). Victimology: A text/reader (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
66. Truman, J. L., & Morgan, R. E. (2018). Criminal victimization, 2017

(NCJ252472). U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Table 8, p. 9.
67. Ibid.
68. Straus, M., & Gelles, R. (1989). Physical violence in American families:
Risk factors and adaptations to violence in 8,145 families. New Brunswick,
NJ: Transaction. For more recent estimates, see Office of Juvenile and
Delinquency Prevention. (2015, September). Children’s exposure to
violence, crime, and abuse: An update. Washington, DC: Department of
Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. For a recent
review, see Daigle (2017), op. cit.
69. “OJJDP observes child abuse prevention month.” (2016, March/April).

OJJDP News @ a Glance. Retrieved from
https://www.ojjdp.gov/newsletter/249801/topstory.html
70. Ibid. For the most recent tally of children saved, see National Center for
Missing and Exploited Children, https://api.missingkids.org/amber/success.
71. Wallace, H., & Roberson, C. (2015). Victimology: Legal, psychological,

and social perspectives (4th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
72. Payne v. Tennessee, 111 S. Ct. 2597, 115 L. Ed. 2d 720 (1991).
73. Davis, R. C., & Smith, B. E. (1994). The effects of victim impact
statements on sentencing decisions: A test in an urban setting. Justice
Quarterly, 11(3), 453–470.
74. Schweitzer, K., & Nuñez, N. (2017). Victim impact statements: How
victim social class affects juror decision making. Violence and Victims,
32(3), 521–532.

Chapter 2
1. FBI. (2002). Crime in the United States, 2001. Washington, DC: U.S.
2. Ibid., p. 303.
3. Leighton, P. (2002, August 28). Decision on 9/11 victims is a crime.

Newsday. Retrieved from http://www.newsday.com/decision-on-9-11-
victims-is-a-crime-1.399909
4. Leighton, W. K., & Maximino, M. (2014, February 11). The effect of

CCTV on public safety: Research roundup. Journalist’s Resource.
Retrieved from http://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-
justice/surveillance-cameras-and-crime
5. See McLean, S. J., Worden, R. E., & Kim, M. (2013). Here’s looking at
you: An evaluation of public CCTV cameras and their effects on crime and
disorder. Criminal Justice Review, 38, 303–334; Piza, E., Caplan, J., &
Kennedy, L. (2014). Analyzing the influence of micro-level factors on
CCTV camera effect. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30, 237–264.
6. Maxim, P. S., & Whitehead, P. C. (1998). Explaining crime (4th ed.).

Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, p. 55.
7. Duncan, B., & Eglin, P. (1979). Making sense of the reliability and
validity of official crime statistics: Review and prospect. Canadian
Criminology Forum, 2, 9.
8. Maltz, M. D. (1977). Crime statistics: A historical perspective. Crime

and Delinquency, 23, 33.
Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/file-
repository/ucr/about-the-ucr-program.pdf/view
10. FBI. (2004). Uniform Crime Reporting handbook. Washington, DC:

U.S. Department of Justice, p. 7.
11. Ibid., p. 19.
Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-
u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/rape
13. Ibid.
14. Maier, S. L., Mannes, S., & Koppenjofer, E. L. (2017). The implications
of marijuana decriminalization and legalization on crime in the United
States. Contemporary Drug Problems, 44, 125–146.
15. Dierenfeldt, R., & Carson, J. V. (2017). Examining the influence of

Jessica’s Law on reported forcible rape: A time-series analysis. Criminal
Justice Policy Review, 28, 87–101.
16. Studky, T. D., Ottensmann, J. R., & Payton, S. B. (2012). The effect of
foreclosures on crime in Indianapolis, 2003–2008. Social Science
Quarterly, 93, 602–624.
17. Monuteaux, M. C., Lee, L. K., Hemenway, D., Mannix, R., & Fleegler,
E. W. (2015). Firearm ownership and violent crime in the U.S.: An ecologic
study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 49, 207–214.
18. Sozer, M. A., & Merlo, A. V. (2013). The impact of community policing
on crime rates: Does the effect of community policing differ in large and
small law enforcement agencies? Police Practice & Research, 14, 506–521.
19. FBI. (2004). Uniform Crime Reporting handbook. Washington, DC:

20. Federal Bureau of Investigation, Criminal Justice Information Services

Division, Uniform Crime Reporting Program. (2013). Summary Reporting
System (SRS) user manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, p.
20.
21. Ibid., p. 23.
22. Ibid., p. 20.

23. Sellin, T. (1931). The basis of a crime index. Journal of Criminal Law
and Corrections, 22, 335–356.
24. FBI. (2015). Crime in the United States: About the Uniform Crime
Report (UCR) Program. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-
u.s/2015/crime-in-the-u.s.-2015/resource-pages/aboutucrmain_final
25. Biderman, A. D., & Reiss, A. J. (1967). On exploring the “dark figure”
of crime. Annals, pp. 1–15.
26. Skogan, W. G. (1977). The “dark figure” of unreported crime. Crime

and Delinquency, 23, 41.
27. Simon, D. R. (2007). Elite deviance (9th ed.). London, UK: Pearson.
28. Brownstein, H. H. (1996). The rise and fall of a violent crime wave:
Crack cocaine and the social construction of a crime problem. Guilderland,
NY: Harrow & Heston. See also Leverentz, A. (2012). Narratives of crime
and criminals: How places socially construct the crime problem.
Sociological Forum, 27, 348–371; Herd, D. (2011). Voices from the field:
The social construction of alcohol problems in inner-city communities.
Contemporary Drug Problems, 38, 7–39; Brownstein, H. H. (1995). The
social construction of crime problems: Insiders and the use of official
statistics. Journal of Crime and Justice, 18, 17–30.
NY: Harrow & Heston, p. 27.
30. Maltz, M.D. (1999). Bridging gaps in police crime data: A discussion
paper for the BJS Fellows Program. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice, p. 16.
NY: Harrow & Heston, p. 22.
32. Savitz, L. D. (1978). Official police statistics and their limitations. In L.
D. Savitz & N. J. Johnston (Eds.), Crime in society (pp. 69–81). New York,
NY: Wiley, p. 75.
33. National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty. (2011).

Criminalizing crisis: The criminalization of homelessness in U.S. cities.
Washington, DC: Author.
34. Maxfield, M. G. (1999). The National Incident-Based Reporting

System: Research and policy applications. Journal of Quantitative
Criminology, 15, 121.
35. Shay, J. (2019, January 24). Police: New Canaan driver drunk on vanilla
extract. CTPost. Retrieved from
https://www.ctpost.com/policereports/article/New-Canaan-driver-charged-
with-driving-under-13558651.php
36. Moye, D. (2016, June 27). Dead man’s parrot could become key witness
in murder trial. Huffington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/parrot-witness-in-murder-
trial_us_57715942e4b0f168323a4729
37. Dier, A. (2019, February 1). Woman tries to collect lottery winnings,
gets arrested. Newser. Retrieved from
http://www.newser.com/story/270732/woman-tries-to-collect-lottery-
winnings-gets-arrested.html
38. Garrand, D. (2018, July 12). Burglar breaks into escape room business,
calls 911 when he can’t get out, owner says. CBS News. Retrieved from
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/nw-escape-experience-vancouver-
washington-burglar-breaks-into-escape-room-business-calls-police-for-help
39. Maxfield, M. G., & Babbie, E. (2001). Research methods for criminal
justice and criminology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, p. 134.
40. Fox, J. A., & Zawitz, M. W. (n.d.). Homicide trends in the United
States. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/htius.pdf
41. Regoeczi, W., Banks, D., Planty, M., Langton, L., Annest, J. L., Warner,
M., & Barnett-Ryan, C. (2014). The nation’s two measures of homicide.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Office of Justice Programs.
42. FBI, Criminal Justice Information Services Division, Uniform Crime

Reporting Program. (2013). Summary Reporting System (SRS) user manual.
43. Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention. (n.d.). Easy

access to the FBI’s Supplementary Homicide Reports: 1980–2013.
Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from
http://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/ezashr/asp/methods.asp#modification
44. Ibid., para. 2.
45. Regoeczi, W., Banks, D., Planty, M., Langton, L., Annest, J. L., Warner,
M., & Barnett-Ryan, C. (2014). The nation’s two measures of homicide.
Washington, DC: Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office
of Justice Programs, p. 3.
46. Maltz, M. D. (1999). Bridging gaps in police crime data: A discussion

Justice, p. 31.
47. Salari, S. & Maxwell, C. D. (2016). Lethal intimate partner violence in

later life: Understanding measurements, strengths, and limitations of
research. Journal of Elder Abuse and Neglect, 28, 235–262.
48. Chan, H., & Beauregard, E. (2016). Choice of weapon or weapon of

choice? Examining the interactions between victim characteristics in single-
victim male sexual homicide offenders. Journal of Investigative Psychology
and Offender Profiling, 13, 70–88.
49. Felson, R. B., & Pare, R. (2010). Firearms and fisticuffs: Region, race,
and adversary effects on homicide and assault. Social Science Research, 39,
272–284.
50. Flexon, J. L., Stolzenberg, L., & D’alessio, S. J. (2011). Cheating the
hangman: The effect of the Roper v. Simmons decision on homicides
committed by juveniles. Crime and Delinquency, 57, 928–949.
51. Maltz, M. D. (1999). Bridging gaps in police crime data: A discussion

Justice, p. 31.
Department of Justice.
53. FBI, Uniform Crime Reporting. (n.d.) National Incident-Based

Reporting System (NIBRS). Retrieved from
https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr/nibrs
54. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (n.d.). The National Crime Statistics

Exchange (NCS-X). Retrieved from
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ncsx_bjs_flyer.pdf
55. FBI, Uniform Crime Reporting. (n.d.) National Incident-Based

Reporting System (NIBRS). Retrieved from
https://www.fbi.gov/services/cjis/ucr/nibrs
56. FBI. (2018). 2019 National Incident-Based Reporting System User

Manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
57. Ibid.
58. FBI. (2000). National Incident-Based Reporting System: Vol. 1. Data

collection guidelines. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, p. 3.
59. Stolzenberg, L., D’Alessio, S., & Flexon, J. (2017). A hunter’s moon:
The effect of moon illumination on outdoor crime. American Journal of
Criminal Justice, 42, 188–197.
60. Barrick, K., Strom, K., & Richardson, N. (2018). Individual and
situational influences on injurious assaults against the police. Policing: An
International Journal, 41, 202–214.
61. Krienert, J., Walsh, J. A., & Turner, M. (2009). Elderly in America: A
descriptive study of elder abuse examining National Incident-Based
Reporting System (NIBRS) data, 2000–2005. Journal of Elder Abuse and
Neglect, 21, 325–345.
62. Krienert, J. L., & Walsh, J. A. (2011). Sibling sexual abuse: An

empirical analysis of offender, victim, and event characteristics in National
Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS) data, 2000–2007. Journal of
Child Sexual Abuse, 20, 353–372.
63. Krienert, J., & Walsh, J. (2011). My brother’s keeper: A contemporary

examination of reported sibling violence using national level data, 2000–
2005. Journal of Family Violence, 26, 331–342.
64. FBI. (2000). National Incident-Based Reporting System: Vol. 1. Data

collection guidelines. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, pp. 5–
20.

Criminology, 15, 121–122.
66. Ibid.


69. See also Bibel, D. (2015). Considerations and cautions regarding

NIBRS data: A few from the field. Justice Research and Policy, 16, 185–
194.
70. FBI. (2018). Uniform Crime Reports: 2017 hate crime statistics: About
hate crime statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2017/resource-pages/about-
hate-crime

Reporting Program. (2015). Hate crime data collection guidelines and
training manual. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, p. 8.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, p. 147.
73. Ibid.
74. Ibid., p. 148.
75. U.S. Census Bureau. (2012). National Crime Victimization Survey:

CAPI interviewing manual for field representatives. Washington, DC:
Author, p. A1-4.
76. Maxim, P. S., & Whitehead, P. C. (1998). Explaining crime (4th ed.)
Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann, pp. 91–92.

Author, pp. A1-11–A1-12.
78. Ibid., p. A1-11.
79. Owens, J. (2016). Why definitions matter: Stalking victimization in the

United States. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 31, 2196–2226.
80. Scheitle, C., & Hansmann, M. (2016). Religion-related hate crimes:

Data, trends, and limitations. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion,
55, 859–873.
81. Bunch, J., Clay-Warner, J., & Lei, M. K. (2015). Demographic

characteristics and victimization risk. Crime and Delinquency, 61, 1181–
1205.
82. Hemenway, D., & Solnick, S. J. (2015). The epidemiology of self-
defense gun use: Evidence from the National Crime Victimization Surveys
2007–2011. Preventative Medicine, 79, 22–27.
83. Coston, L. (2018). Understanding characteristics of victims and

perpetrators of anti-LGBT hate crimes in the United States. Violence and
Victims, 33, 453–471.

Author, p. A1-5.
85. Cantor, C., & Lynch, J. P. (2000). Self-report surveys as measures of

crime and criminal victimization. In D. Duffee (Ed.), Measurement and
analysis of crime and justice (Vol. 4), p. 108. Washington, DC: National
Institute of Justice.
86. Penick, B. K. E, & Owens, M. (1976). Surveying crime. Washington,

DC: National Academy Press.

Author, pp. A1-5–A1-6.
88. Barnett-Ryan, C., Langton, L., & Planty, M. (2014). The nation’s two
crime measures. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved
from http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=245


93. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of

Justice Statistics. (2014). The nation’s two crime measures. Washington,
DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ntcm_2014.pdf
94. Weisberg, H. F., Krosnick, J. A., & Bowen, B. D. (1989). An

introduction to survey research and data analysis (2nd ed.). Glenview, IL:
Scott Foresman, pp. 14–15.
95. Porterfield, A. L. (1946). Youth in trouble. Fort Worth, TX: Leo

Potisham.
96. Examples of this research include Jolliffe, D., Farrington, D. P., &
Hawkins, D. J. (2003). Predictive, concurrent, prospective, and
retrospective validity of self-reported delinquency. Criminal Behaviour and
Mental Health, 13, 179–197; Farrington, D. P., Jolliffe, D., & Hawkins, D.
J. (2003). Comparing delinquency careers in court records and self-reports.
Criminology, 41, 933–958; Tompsett, C. J., Veits, G. M., & Amrhein, K. E.
(2016). Peer delinquency and where adolescents spend time with peers:
Mediation and moderation of home neighborhood effects on self-reported
delinquency. Journal of Community Psychology, 44, 263–270; and Jencks,
J. W., & Burton, D. L. (2013). The role of trait anxiety in reducing the
relationship between childhood exposure to violence/victimization and
subsequent violent behavior among male delinquent youth. International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 57, 985–995.
97. Komro, K., Perry, C. L., & Munson, K. A. (2004). Reliability and
validity of self-report measures to evaluate drug and violence prevention
program. Journal of Child and Adolescent Substance Abuse, 13, 17–51.
98. Torok, M., Darke, S., & Kaye, S. (2012). Predisposed violent drug users
versus drug users who commit violence: Does the order of onset translate to
differences in the severity of violent offending? Drug and Alcohol Review,
31, 558–565.
99. Goldstick, J. E., Lipton, R. I., Carter, P., Stoddard, S. A., Newton, M. F.,
Reischl, T., . . . Cunningham, R. M. (2015). The effect of neighborhood
context on the relationship between substance misuse and weapons
aggression in urban adolescents seeking ED care. Substance Use and
Misuse, 50, 674–684.
100. Shorey, R. C., McNulty, J. K., Moore, T. M., & Stuart, G. L. (2016).
Being the victim of violence during a date predicts next-day cannabis use
among female college students. Addiction, 111, 492–498.
101. Cambron, C., Gringeri, C., & Vogel-Ferguson, M. B. (2014). Physical

and mental health correlates of adverse childhood experiences among low-
income women. Health and Social Work, 39, 221–229.
102. Thornton, A. J. V., Graham-Kevan, N., & Archer, J. (2012). Prevalence

of women’s violent and nonviolent offending behavior: A comparison of
self-reports, victims’ reports, and third-party reports. Journal of
Interpersonal Violence, 27, 1399–1427.
103. Johnston, L. D., Miech, R. A., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman J. G.,

Schulenberg, J. E., & Patrick, M. E. (2019). Monitoring the Future National
Survey Results on Drug Use 1975–2018: Overview: Key findings on
adolescent drug use. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for
Political and Social Research. Retrieved from
http://www.monitoringthefuture.org/pubs/monographs/mtf-
overview2018.pdf
104. Johnston, L. D., Bachman J. G., O’Malley, P. M., Schulenberg, J. E., &
Miech, R. A. (2014). Monitoring the Future: A continuing study of
American youth (8th- and 10th-grade surveys), 2014 (ICPSR36149-v1).
Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social
Research. http://doi.org/10.3886/ICPSR36149.v1
105. Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Miech, R. A., Bachman, J. G., &
Schulenberg, J. E. (n.d.). Purpose and design of the MTF. Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research. Retrieved from
http://www.moni toringthefuture.org/purpose.html
106. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2014).
Results from the 2013 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Summary
of national findings (NSDUH Series H-48, HHS Publication No. (SMA)
14-4863)). Rockville, MD: Author.
107. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (n.d.).

National Survey on Drug Use and Health: About the survey. Retrieved from
https://nsduhweb.rti.org/respweb/project_description.html
108. DeLisi, M., Vaughn, M. G., & Salas-Wright, C. P. (2015). Rumble:

Prevalence and correlates of group fighting among adolescents in the
United States. Behavioral Sciences, 5, 214–229.
109. Liang, W., & Chikritzhs, T. (2015). Examining the relationship

between heavy alcohol use and assaults: With adjustment for the effects of
unmeasured confounders. BioMed Research International, 2015, 1–10.
110. Salas-Wright, C., Vaughn, M., Schwartz, S., & Cordova, D. (2016). An
“immigrant paradox” for adolescent externalizing behavior? Evidence from
a national sample. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 51, 27–
37.
111. Maynard, B., Salas-Wright, C., & Vaughn, M. (2015). High school
dropouts in emerging adulthood: Substance use, mental health problems,
and crime. Community Mental Health Journal, 51, 289–299.
112. See, for example, Lemert, E. M. (1972). Human deviance, social

problems, and social control (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall.
113. University of Colorado, Boulder. (n.d.). National Youth Survey: Family

study. Retrieved from http://www.colorado.edu/ibg/human-research-
studies/national-youth-survey-family-study
114. Snyder, H. N., & Sickmund, M. (1999). Juvenile offenders and

victims: 1999 national report. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice
and Delinquency Prevention, p. 52.
Justice Statistics. (2018). National Prisoner Statistics, 1978–2016. Ann
Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research.
Retrieved from
https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/NACJD/studies/37003

Justice Statistics. (n.d.). Data Collection: National Prisoner Statistics
(NPS) Program. Retrieved from https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?
ty=dcdetail&iid=269
117. Carson, E. A. (2018). Prisoners in 2016. U.S. Department of Justice,

Office of Justice Programs, Bureau of Justice Statistics. Retrieved from
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/p16.pdf
118. FBI. (2015). Uniform Crime Reports: 2014 hate crime statistics.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-crime/2014/topic-
pages/incidentsandoffenses_final
119. Weiner, R. (2011, May 25). Hate crimes bill signed into law 11 years
after Matthew Shepard’s death. Huffpost Politics. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/28/hate-crimes-bill-to-be-
si_n_336883.html
120. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2015). Uniform Crime Reports: 2014

hate crime statistics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/hate-
crime/2014/topic-pages/incidentsandoffenses_final
121. Fry, H. (2018, August 2). Newport Beach man charged with murdering
Blaze Bernstein now also accused of hate crime. Los Angeles Times.
Retrieved from https://www.latimes.com/socal/daily-pilot/news/tn-dpt-me-
woodward-update-20180802-story.html; Dedaj, P. (2018, August 2).
Suspect in Blaze Bernstein murder is charged with hate crime. Fox News.
Retrieved from https://www.foxnews.com/us/suspect-in-blaze-bernstein-
murder-is-charged-with-hate-crime
122. Anselin, L., Cohen, J., Cook, D., Gorr, W., & Tita, G. (2000). Spatial
analyses of crime. In D. Duffee (Ed.), Measurement and analysis of crime
and justice (Vol. 4), p. 215. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.
123. Harries, K. (1999). Mapping crime: Principle and practice.

Washington, DC: Office of Justice Programs, pp. 18–19.
124. Ibid., p. 1.
125. See Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. (1986). The reasoning criminal:
Rational choice perspectives on offending. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag;
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A
routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–605.
126. Murray, R. K., & Swatt, M. L. (2013). Disaggregating the relationship

between schools and crime: A spatial analysis. Crime and Delinquency, 59,
163–190.
127. Sydes, M. L., Wickes, R. L., & Higginson, A. (2014). The spatial
concentration of bias: An examination of the community factors that
influence residents’ receptions of bias crime. Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Criminology, 47, 409–428.
128. Hodgkinson, T., Andresen, M. A., & Farrell, G. (2016). The decline
and locational shift of automotive theft: A local level analysis. Journal of
129. Metz, N., & Burdina, M. (2018). Neighbourhood income inequality

and property crime. Urban Studies, 55, 133–150.
130. Melsness, D., & Weichelt, R. (2014). Spatial crime displacement on

Chicago’s south side. Geographical Bulletin, 55, 63–80.
Chapter 3
1. Death Penalty Information Center. (2016). Murder rates of death penalty
states compared to non–death penalty states. Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/facts-and-research/murder-
rates/murder-rate-of-death-penalty-states-compared-to-non-death-penalty-
states
2. Gallup. (2019). Death penalty. N.p.: Author. Retrieved from

https://news.gallup.com/poll/1606/death-penalty.aspx
3. Brown, S. E., Esbensen, F., & Geis, G. (2004). Criminology: Explaining

crime and its context (5th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
4. Tanacu exorcism. (n.d.). Wikipedia. Retrieved from

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanacu_exorcism
5. A good discussion of harsh punishment, such as quartering, can be found

in Brown, S. E., Esbensen, F., & Geis, G. (2004). Criminology: Explaining
crime and its context (5th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
6. Firdaus, I. (2005, June 25). Gamblers whipped in Muslim Indonesia.

Associated Press.
7. Shenon, P. (1994, April 1). U.S. youth in Singapore loses appeal on

flogging. The New York Times.
8. Hobbes, T. (1958). Leviathan. New York, NY: Library of Liberal Arts.

(Original work published 1651)
9. Ibid.; Montesquieu, C. (1949). The spirit of the laws. New York, NY:
Library of Liberal Arts. (Original work published 1748)
10. Beccaria, C. (1963). On crimes and punishments (H. Paolucci, Trans.).

New York, NY: MacMillan, p. 64. (Original work published 1764).
11. Ibid., pp. 30–31.

12. Ibid., p. 32.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid., p. 21.
15. Ibid., p. 17.
16. Ibid., p. 99.
17. Ibid., p. 98.
18. Ibid., p. 45.
19. Ibid., p. 50.
20. For a review and analysis of the deterrent effect of capital punishment,
see Stack, S. (1998). The effect of publicized executions on homicides in
California. Journal of Crime and Justice, 21, 1–16. See also Ehrlich, I.
(1975). The deterrent effect of capital punishment: A question of life and
death. American Economic Review, 65, 397–417; Ehrlich, I. (1977). Capital
punishment and deterrence. Journal of Political Economy, 85, 741–788;
Layson, S. K. (1985). Homicide and deterrence: A reexamination of United
States time-series evidence. The Southern Economic Journal, 52, 68–89;
Phillips, D. P. (1980). The deterrent effect of capital punishment: Evidence
on an old controversy. American Journal of Sociology, 86, 139–148; Stack,
S. (1987). Publicized executions and homicide, 1950–1980. American
Sociological Review, 52, 532–540; Stack, S. (1990). Execution publicity
and homicide in South Carolina. Sociological Quarterly, 31, 599–611; and
Stack, S. (1995). The impact of publicized executions on homicide.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 22, 172–186.
21. Bailey, W. C. (1979). The deterrent effect of the death penalty for
murder in California. Southern California Law Review, 52, 743–764;
Bailey, W. C., & Peterson, R. D. (1989). Murder and capital punishment: A
monthly time series analysis of execution publicity. American Sociological
Review, 54, 722–743; Bowers, W. J. (1988). The effect of execution is
brutalization, not deterrence. In K. Haas & J. Inciardi (Eds.), Capital
punishment: Legal and social science approaches (pp. 49–89). Newbury
Park, CA: SAGE; Cochran, J. K., Chamlin, M., & Seth, M. (1994).
Deterrence or brutalization? An impact assessment of Oklahoma’s return to
capital punishment. Criminology, 32, 107–134; Fox, J. A., & Radelet, M. L.
(1990). Persistent flaws in econometric studies of the deterrent effect of the
death penalty. Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review, 23, 29–44; Lester, D.
(1989). The deterrent effect of execution on homicide. Psychological
Reports, 64, 306–314. For a review, see Bailey, W. C., & Peterson, R. D.
(1999). Capital punishment, homicide, and deterrence: An assessment of
the evidence. In M. D. Smith & M. A. Zahn (Eds.), Studying and preventing
homicide (pp. 223–245). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
22. Cochran, J. K., & Chamlin, M. (2000). Deterrence and brutalization:

The dual effects of executions. Justice Quarterly, 17, 685–706.

New York, NY: MacMillan, pp. 46–47. (Original work published 1764)
24. Ibid., p. 55.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid., p. 56.
27. Ibid., p. 58.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid., p. 43.
30. Tomislav, V., Kovandzic, J., Sloan, J., & Vieraitis, L. (2004). “Striking
out” as crime reduction policy: The impact of “three strikes” laws on crime
rates in U.S. cities. Justice Quarterly, 21, 207–240.

New York, NY: MacMillan, p. 42. (Original work published 1764)
32. Ibid., p. 93.

33. Ibid., p. 99.
34. Ibid., p. 68.
35. Vold, G., Bernard, T., & Snipes, J. (2002). Theoretical criminology (5th
ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
36. FBI. (2015). Crime in the United States, 2014: Offense definitions.
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-
u.s.-2014/cius-home
u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/tables/table-33.
38. Morgan, R. E., & Truman, J. L. (2018). Criminal victimization, 2017.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv17.pdf
39. Buzawa, E. S., & Buzawa, C. G. (2003). Domestic violence: The

criminal justice response (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, p. 104.
40. Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984). The Minneapolis Domestic

Violence Experiment. Washington, DC: Police Foundation; Sherman, L. W.,
& Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic
assault. American Sociological Review, 49, 261–272.
41. Mederer, H. J., & Gelles, R. J. (1989). Compassion or control:

Intervention in cases of wife abuse. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 4,
25–43. See also Binder, A., & Meeker, J. (1988). Experiments as reforms.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 16, 347–358; Lembert, R. (1989). Humility is a
virtue: On the publicization of policy relevant research. Law and Society
Review, 23, 145–161.

43. See Berk, S. F., Campbell, A., Klap, R., & Western, B. (1992). Beyesian
analysis of the Colorado Springs spouse abuse experiment. Criminal Law
and Criminology, 83, 170–200; Dunford, F. W., Huizinga, D., & Elliott, D.
(1989). The Omaha domestic violence police experiment: Final report to
the National Institute of Justice and the City of Omaha. Boulder, CO:
Institute of Behavioral Science; Hirschel, J. D., Hutchison, I. W., Dean, C.
W., Kelley, J. J., & Pesackis, C. E. (1991). Charlotte Spouse Assault
Replication Project: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Justice; Pate, A., & Hamilton, E. (1992). Formal and informal deterrents to
domestic violence: The Dade County Spouse Assault Experiment.
American Sociological Review, 57, 691–697; Sherman, L. W., Schmidt, J.
D., Rogan, D. P., Smith, D. A., Gartin, P. R., Cohn, E. G., . . . Bacich, A. R.
(1992). The variable effects of arrest on criminal careers: The Milwaukee
Domestic Violence Experiment. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,
83, 137–169.

45. Jeltsen, M. (2017, December 6). When I realized that one of us was
going to die, I knew I needed to leave. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/why-didnt-you-just-leave-fear_n_5806006
46. Ellis, L., Cooper, J., & Walsh, A. (2008). Criminologists’ opinions
about causes and theories of crime and delinquency: A follow-up. The
Criminologist, 33, 23–26.
47. Henderson, P. (2012, October 13). California may lead prison-reform

trend, ease “3 strikes.” NBC News. Retrieved from
http://www.nbcnews.com/ID/49400913/ns/politics/t/california-may-lead-
prison-reform-trend-ease-strikes
48. For a review and evaluations of these programs, see Lundman, R.

(1993). Prevention and control of juvenile delinquency (2nd ed.). Oxford,
UK: Oxford University Press.
49. See Pratt, T. (2008). Rational choice theory, crime control policy, and
criminological relevance. Criminology and Public Policy, 7, 43–52.
50. Walker, S. (2005). Sense and nonsense about crime and drugs (6th ed.).
Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth.
Chapter 4
1. Manganis, J. (2012, November 3). Crowley killer denied parole. The
Salem News. https://www.salemnews.com/news/local_news/crowley-killer-
denied-parole/article_d0be9653-f929-553f-8e18-d4f60d0d27ee.html
2. Burke, A. (2013, September 7). Kristen Crowley killer dies in prison. The
Salem News. https://www.salemnews.com/news/local_news/kristen-
crowley-killer-dies-in-prison/article_dd8ace7c-ac9e-5a11-a23a-
5f520078cbc7.html
3. Dailey, J. (2012, August 24). Mom has son wear “Smoked pot, got
caught” sign as punishment. WTOC 11. Retrieved from
http://www.wtoc.com/story/19373395/mother-has-son-wear-smoked-pot-
got-caught-sign-as-punishment
4. Martinson, R. (1974). What works? Questions and answers about prison

reform. Public Interest, 35, 22–54. See also Bailey, W. C. (1966).
Correctional outcome: An evaluation of 100 reports. Journal of Criminal
Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 57, 153–160.
5. Becker, G. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach.

Journal of Political Economy, 76, 169–217; Chiricos, T. G., & Waldo, G. P.
(1970). Punishment and crime: An examination of some empirical
evidence. Social Problems, 18, 200–217; Gibbs, J. P. (1968). Crime,
punishment and deterrence. Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, 48,
515–530; Tittle, C. R. (1969). Crime rates and legal sanctions. Social
Problems, 16, 409–423.
6. Andenaes, J. (1974). Punishment and deterrence. Ann Arbor: University

of Michigan Press; Gibbs, J. P. (1975). Crime, punishment and deterrence.
New York, NY: Elsevier; Glaser, D., & Zeigler, M. S. (1974). Use of the
death penalty v. outrage at murder. Crime and Delinquency, 20, 333–338;
Tittle, C. R. (1969). Crime rates and legal sanctions. Social Problems, 16,
409–423; Zimring, F. E., & Hawkins, G. J. (1973). Deterrence: The legal
threat in crime control. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
7. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., & Nagin, D. (Eds.). (1978). Deterrence and
incapacitation: Estimating the effects of criminal sanctions on crime rates.
Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences.
8. Paternoster, R. (1987). The deterrent effect of the perceived certainty and

severity of punishment: A review of the evidence and issues. Justice
Quarterly, 4, 173–217; Paternoster, R., Saltzman, L. E., Waldo, G. P., &
Chiricos, T. G. (1983). Perceived risk and social control: Do sanctions
really deter? Law and Society Review, 17, 457–480.
9. Ross, H. L. (1982). Deterring the drunk driver: Legal policy and social
control. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books; Ross, H. L. (1992). Confronting
drunk driving: Social policy for saving lives. New Haven, CT: Yale
University Press; Ross, H. L. (1994). Sobriety checkpoints, American style.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 437–444; Ross, H. L., McCleary, R., &
LaFree, G. (1990). Can mandatory jail laws deter drunk driving? The
Arizona case. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 81, 156–170.
10. Ross, H. L., McCleary, R., & LaFree, G. (1990). Can mandatory jail
laws deter drunk driving? The Arizona case. Journal of Criminal Law and
Criminology, 81, 164.
11. Simpson, S., & Koper, C. S. (1992). Deterring corporate crime.

12. Pogarsky, G., Kim, K., & Paternoster, R. (2005). Perceptual change in
the National Youth Survey: Lessons for deterrence theory and offender
decision-making. Justice Quarterly, 22, 1–29.
13. For a review, see Brown, S., Esbensen, F., & Geis, G. (2004).
Criminology: Explaining crime and its context (5th ed.). Cincinnati, OH:
LexisNexis, pp. 201–204; Finley, N., & Grasmick, H. (1985). Gender roles
and social control. Sociological Spectrum, 5, 317–330; Grasmick, H.,
Blackwell, B. S., & Bursik, R. (1993). Changes in the sex patterning of
perceived threats of sanctions. Law and Society Review, 27, 679–705;
Grasmick, H., Bursik, R., & Kinsey, K. (1991). Shame and embarrassment
as deterrents to noncompliance with the law: The case of an antilittering
campaign. Environment and Behavior, 23, 233–251; Loewenstein, G.,
Nagin, D., & Paternoster, R. (1997). The effect of sexual arousal on
expectations of sexual forcefulness. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 34, 209–228; Makkai, T., & Braithwaite, J. (1994). The
dialects of corporate deterrence. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 31, 347–373; Nagin, D., & Paternoster, R. (1993). Enduring
individual differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law and
Society Review, 27, 467–496; Nagin, D., & Pogarsky, G. (2001). Integrating
celerity, impulsivity, and extralegal sanction threats into a model of general
deterrence: Theory and evidence. Criminology, 39, 404–430; Paternoster,
R., & Simpson, S. (1996). Sanction threats and appeals to morality: Testing
a rational choice model of corporate crime. Law and Society Review, 30,
549–583; Piquero, A., & Pogarsky, G. (2002). Beyond Stanford and Warr’s
reconceptualization of deterrence: Personal and vicarious experiences,
impulsivity, and offending behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 39, 153–186; Piquero, A., & Tibbetts, S. (1996). Specifying
the direct and indirect effects of low self-control and situational factors in
offenders’ decision making: Toward a more complete model of rational
offending. Justice Quarterly, 13, 481–510; Richards, P., & Tittle, C. (1981).
Gender and perceived chances of arrest. Social Forces, 59, 1182–1199. For
a recent review and altered explanation of these conclusions, see Pogarsky,
G. (2002). Identifying “deterrable” offenders: Implications for research on
deterrence. Justice Quarterly, 19, 431–452.
14. Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A

theoretical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological
Bulletin, 84, 888–918; Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding
attitudes and predicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice
Hall; Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and
behavior. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–
918. For a recent review, see Pogarsky, G., Kim, K., & Paternoster, R.
(2005). Perceptual change in the National Youth Survey: Lessons for
deterrence theory and offender decision-making. Justice Quarterly, 22, 1–
29.
15. Bachman, R., Paternoster, R., & Ward, S. (1992). The rationality of
sexual offending: Testing a deterrence/rational choice conception of sexual
assault. Law and Society Review, 26, 343–372; Grasmick, H., & Bursik, R.
(1990). Conscience, significant others, and rational choice: Extending the
deterrence model. Law and Society Review, 24, 837–861; Grasmick, H., &
Green, D. (1980). Legal punishment, social disapproval and internalization
as inhibitors of illegal behavior. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology,
71, 325–335; Klepper, S., & Nagin, D. (1989). The deterrent effects of
perceived certainty and severity of punishment revisited. Criminology, 27,
721–746; Loewenstein, G., Nagin, D., & Paternoster, R. (1997). The effect
of sexual arousal on expectations of sexual forcefulness. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 209–228; Nagin, D., &
Paternoster, R. (1993). Enduring individual differences and rational choice
theories of crime. Law and Society Review, 27, 467–496; Paternoster, R., &
Simpson, S. (1996). Sanction threats and appeals to morality: Testing a
rational choice model of corporate crime. Law and Society Review, 30, 549–
583; Piquero, A., & Tibbetts, S. (1996). Specifying the direct and indirect
effects of low self-control and situational factors in offenders’ decision
making: Toward a more complete model of rational offending. Justice
Quarterly, 13, 481–510; Tibbetts, S. (1997). Gender differences in students’
rational decisions to cheat. Deviant Behavior, 18, 393–414; Tibbetts, S.
(1997). Shame and rational choice in offending decisions. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 24, 234–255; Tibbetts, S., & Myers, D. (1999). Low self-
control, rational choice, and student test cheating. American Journal of
16. Ajzen, I. (1987). From intentions to actions: A theory of planned

behavior. In J. Kuhl & J. Beckmann (Eds.), Action control: From cognition
to behavior (pp. 11–39). Berlin, Germany: Springer-Verlag; Ajzen, I., &
Fishbein, M. (1969). The prediction of behavioral intentions in a choice
situation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 5, 400–416; Ajzen, I., &
Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and
review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888–918; Ajzen,
I., & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social
behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; Green, D. (1989). Measures
of illegal behavior in individual behavior in individual-level deterrence
research. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 253–275.
17. Bouffard, J. A. (2002). Methodological and theoretical implications of

using subject-generated consequences in tests of rational choice theory.
Justice Quarterly, 19, 747–771.
18. Cornish, D., & Clarke, R. (Eds.). (1986). The reasoning criminal:
Rational choice perspectives on offending. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.
19. Katz, J. (1988). Seductions of crime: Moral and sensual attractions in

doing evil. New York, NY: Basic Books.
20. Tibbetts, S. G., & Gibson, C. (2002). Individual propensities and

rational decision-making: Recent findings and promising approaches. In A.
Piquero & S. Tibbetts (Eds.), Rational choice and criminal behavior (pp. 3–
24). New York, NY: Routledge.
21. Grasmick, H., Blackwell, B. S., & Bursik, R. B. (1993). Changes over
time in gender differences in perceived risk of sanctions. Law and Society
Review, 27, 679–705; Grasmick, H., & Bursik, R. (1990). Conscience,
significant others, and rational choice: Extending the deterrence model. Law
and Society Review, 24, 837–861; Grasmick, H., Bursik, R., & Arneklev, B.
(1993). Reduction in drunk driving as a response to increased threats of
shame, embarrassment, and legal sanctions. Criminology, 31, 41–67; Nagin,
D., & Paternoster, R. (1993). Enduring individual differences and rational
choice theories of crime. Law and Society Review, 27, 467–496; Pogarsky,
G. (2002). Identifying “deterrable” offenders: Implications for research on
deterrence. Justice Quarterly, 19, 431–452; Tibbetts, S. (1997). Gender
differences in students’ rational decisions to cheat. Deviant Behavior, 18,
393–414; Tibbetts, S. (1997). Shame and rational choice in offending
decisions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 234–255; Tibbetts, S. G.
(2004). Self-conscious emotions and criminal offending. Psychological
Reports, 93, 101–131; Tibbetts, S. G., & Herz, D. (1996). Gender
differences in factors of social control and rational choice. Deviant
Behavior, 17, 183–208; Tibbetts, S., & Myers, D. (1999). Low self-control,
rational choice, and student test cheating. American Journal of Criminal
Justice, 23, 179–200.
22. Finley, N., & Grasmick, H. (1985). Gender roles and social control.
Sociological Spectrum, 5, 317–330; Grasmick, H., Blackwell, B. S., &
Bursik, R. (1993). Changes in the sex patterning of perceived threats of
sanctions. Law and Society Review, 27, 679–705; Pogarsky, G., Kim, K., &
Paternoster, R. (2005). Perceptual change in the National Youth Survey:
Lessons for deterrence theory and offender decision-making. Justice
Quarterly, 22, 1–29; Tibbetts, S. G. (1997). Gender differences in students’
rational decisions to cheat. Deviant Behavior, 18, 393–414; Tibbetts, S. G.,
& Herz, D. (1996). Gender differences in factors of social control and
rational choice. Deviant Behavior, 17, 183–208.
23. Grasmick, H., Blackwell, B. S., & Bursik, R. (1993). Changes in the sex
patterning of perceived threats of sanctions. Law and Society Review, 27,
679–705; Nagin, D., & Paternoster, R. (1993). Enduring individual
differences and rational choice theories of crime. Law and Society Review,
27, 467–496; Tibbetts, S. G. (2004). Self-conscious emotions and criminal
offending. Psychological Reports, 93, 101–131.
24. Pogarsky, G., Kim, K., & Paternoster, R. (2005). Perceptual change in
the National Youth Survey: Lessons for deterrence theory and offender
decision-making. Justice Quarterly, 22, 1–29.
25. Pogarsky, G. (2002). Identifying “deterrable” offenders: Implications

for research on deterrence. Justice Quarterly, 19, 431–452.
26. See review in Paternoster, R., & Tibbetts, S. (2015). White-collar crime
and perceptual deterrence. In S. Van Slyke, M. L. Benson, & F. T. Cullen
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of white-collar crime (pp. 622–640). Oxford,
28. Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. (2019, May). Alcohol and
drugs. Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved from
https://www.iihs.org/topics/alcohol-and-drugs#by-the-numbers
u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/tables/table-32
30. National Highway Transportation Safety Administration. (n.d.). Drunk
driving. https://www.nhtsa.gov/risky-driving/drunk-driving
31. Harrington, E. (2016, January 15). Feds want to lower legal driving
limit to one drink. The Washington Free Beacon. Retrieved from
http://freebeacon.com/issues/feds-want-to-lower-legal-driving-limit-to-one-
drink
32. Ignition Interlock Device.org. (n.d.). How the ignition interlock device
works. Retrieved from http://www.igni
tioninterlockdevice.org/ignitioninterlockdevice.html
33. National Conference on State Legislatures. (2016). State ignition

interlock laws. Retrieved from
http://www.ncsl.org/research/transportation/state-ignition-interlock-
laws.aspx
34. Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles. (n.d.).

Ignition interlock program. Retrieved from
http://www.flhsmv.gov/ddl/iid.html
35. Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rates: A
routine activities approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 214–241.
36. Farrington, D. P., & Welsh, B. C. (2002). Improved street lighting and
crime prevention. Justice Quarterly, 19, 313–343.
37. Sherman, L., Gartin, P. R., & Buerger, M. (1989). Hot spots of
predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place.
38. Bernburg, J. G., & Thorlindsson, T. (2001). Routine activities in social

context: A closer look at the role of opportunity in deviant behavior. Justice
Quarterly, 18, 543–567; see also Bennett, R. (1991). Routine activity: A
cross-national assessment of a criminological perspective. Social Forces,
70, 147–163; Hawdon, J. (1996). Deviant lifestyles: The social control of
routine activities. Youth and Society, 28, 162–188; Massey, J. L., Krohn, M.,
& Bonati, L. (1989). Property crime and the routine activities of
individuals. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 26, 378–400;
Miethe, T., Stafford, M., & Long, J. (1987). Social differences in
criminological victimization: A test of routine activities/lifestyles theories.
American Sociological Review, 52, 184–194; Mustaine, E., & Tewksbury,
R. (1998). Predicting risks of larceny theft victimization: A routine activity
analysis using refined lifestyle measures. Criminology, 36, 829–857;
Osgood, D., Wilson, J., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J., & Johnston, J. L.
(1996). Routine activities and individual deviant behavior. American
Sociological Review, 61, 635–655; Roncek, D., & Maier, P. (1991). Bars,
blocks, and crimes revisited: Linking the theory of routine activities to the
empiricism of hot spots. Criminology, 29, 725–753; Sampson, R., &
Wooldredge, J. (1987). Linking the micro- and macro-level dimensions of
lifestyle-routine activity and opportunity models of predatory victimization.
Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 3, 371–393.
39. Brown, S., Esbensen, F., & Geis, G. (2004). Criminology: Explaining
crime and its context (5th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: LexisNexis, p. 175.
40. Ibid.
41. Ibid.
42. Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling, G. (1982, March). Broken windows: The
police and neighborhood safety. The Atlantic Monthly, 29–38.
43. Leonard, J., & Dolan, M. (2012, November 8). Softer 3-strikes law has
defense lawyers preparing case reviews. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved
from https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2012-nov-08-la-me-three-
strikes-20121108-story.html
44. Shepherd, J. M. (2002). Fear of the first strike: The full deterrent effect
of California’s two- and three-strikes legislation. Journal of Legal Studies,
31, 159–201.
45. Males, M., & Macallair, D. (1999). Striking out: The failure of
California’s “three strikes and you’re out” law. Stanford Law and Policy
Review, 11, 65–72; Stolzenberg, L., & D’Alessio, S. J. (1997). Three strikes
and you’re out: The impact of California’s new mandatory sentencing law
on serious crime rates. Crime and Delinquency, 43, 457–469.
46. Marvell, T. B., & Moody, C. E. (2001). The lethal effects of three-
strikes laws. Journal of Legal Studies, 30, 89–106; see also Kovandzic, T.,
Sloan, J. J., III, & Vieraitis, L. M. (2002). Unintended consequences of
politically popular sentencing policy: The homicide-promoting effects of
“three strikes” in U.S. cities (1980–1999). Criminology and Public Policy,
1, 399–424.
47. Tibbetts, S. G. (1997). Shame and rational choice in offending

decisions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 234–255.
Chapter 5
1. Cohen, E., & Bonifield, J. (2012, March 15). California’s dark legacy of
forced sterilizations. CNN Health. Retrieved from
http://www.cnn.com/2012/03/15/health/california-forced-
sterilizations/index.html
2. For a good example of this perspective, see Morton, S. G. (1849).

Observations on the size of the brain in various races and families of man.
Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences (Philadelphia), 4, 221–
224; see also Broca, P. (1862). Sur la capacité des crânes parisiens des
diverses époques. Bulletin Societe d’ Anthropologie Paris, 3, 102–116;
Morton, S. G. (1839). Crania Americana: A comparative view of the skulls
of various aboriginal nations of North and South America. Philadelphia,
PA: John Pennington. For a review of various studies, see Rafter, N. (2005).
The murderous Dutch Fiddler. Theoretical Criminology, 9, 65–96.
3. For example, see Bean, R. (1906). Some racial peculiarities of the Negro
brain. American Journal of Anatomy, 5, 353–432 (showed a distinct
difference in the brains across race when brains were identified by race
before comparison); Mall, F. P. (1909). On several anatomical characters of
the human brain, said to vary according to race and sex, with especial
reference to the weight of the frontal lobe. American Journal of Anatomy, 9,
1–32 (showed virtually no differences among the same brains when
comparisons were made without knowing the races of the brains prior to
comparison); for the comparison/contrast, see discussion in Gould, S. J.
(1996). The mismeasure of man (2nd ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
4. See Mall, F. P. (1909). On several anatomical characters of the human

brain, said to vary according to race and sex, with especial reference to the
weight of the frontal lobe. American Journal of Anatomy, 9, 1–32; much of
the discussion in this section is taken from Gould, S. J. (1996). The
mismeasure of man (2nd ed.). New York: W. W. Norton.
5. Spitska, E. A. (1907). A study of the brains of six eminent scientists and

scholars belonging to the anthropological society, together with a
description of the skull of Professor E. D. Cope. Transactions of the
American Philosophical Society, 21, 175–308.
6. Coren, S. (1993). The left-hander syndrome. New York, NY: Vintage;

Kalat, J. (2004). Biological psychology (8th ed.). New York, NY:
Wadsworth.
7. Fowler, O. S. (1842). Fowler’s practical phrenology: Giving a concise

elementary view of phrenology. New York, NY: Author.
8. For a review, see Raine, A. (1993). The psychopathology of crime. San

Diego, CA: Academic Press.
9. Nott, J. C., & Gliddon, G. R. (1854). Types of mankind. Philadelphia, PA:

Lippincott, Grambo; Nott, J. C., & Gliddon, G. R. (1868). Indigenous races
on Earth. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
10. Lombroso, C. (1876). L’uomo delinquente [The criminal man]. Milan,

Italy: Hoepli; Lombroso, C. (1878). The criminal man (2nd ed.). Turin,
Italy: Bocca.
11. Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
W. W. Norton, p. 153.
12. Lombroso, C. (1876). L’uomo delinquente [The criminal man]. Milan,

Italy: Hoepli, as cited and discussed in Taylor, I., Walton, P., & Young, J.
(1973). The new criminology: For a social theory of deviance. London,
UK: Routledge, p. 41.
13. See Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: W. W. Norton; Taylor, I., Walton, P., & Young, J. (1973). The new
criminology: For a social theory of deviance. London, UK: Routledge.
14. For a review of such identifications, see Gould, S. J. (1996). The

mismeasure of man (2nd ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
15. Lombroso, C. (1911). Crime: Its causes and remedies. Boston, MA:
Little, Brown, p. 436.
16. From Waldrop, M., & Halverson, C. (1971). Minor physical anomalies
and hyperactive behavior in young children. In J. Hellmuth (Ed.),
Exceptional infant: Studies in abnormalities (pp. 343–381). New York, NY:
Brunner/Mazel, as cited in Fishbein, D. (2001). Biobehavioral perspectives
on criminology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
17. Agnew, R. (1984). Appearance and delinquency. Criminology, 22, 421–

440.
W. W. Norton.
19. Again, most of this discussion is taken from Gould, S. J. (1996). The
mismeasure of man (2nd ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton; his review is
perhaps the best known in current literature.
20. Goddard, H. H. (1912). The Kallikak family: A study of the heredity of

feeble-mindedness. New York, NY: Macmillan.
21. Goddard, H. H. (1913). The Binet tests in relation to immigration.

Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 18, 105–107; quote taken from p. 106, as
cited in Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man (2nd ed.). New York,
NY: W. W. Norton.
W. W. Norton, p. 198.
23. Goddard, H. H. (1928). Feeblemindedness: A question of definition.

Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 33, 219–227, as discussed in Gould, S. J.
(1996). The mismeasure of man (2nd ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
24. Goddard, H. H. (1928). Feeblemindedness: A question of definition.

Journal of Psycho-Asthenics, 33, p. 224.
25. As quoted in Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man (2nd ed.).

New York, NY: W. W. Norton, p. 365.
26. Hirschi, T., & Hindelang, M. (1977). Intelligence and delinquency: A
revisionist review. American Sociological Review, 42, 571–587.
27. For a review, see Paternoster, R., & Bachman, R. (2001). Explaining
criminals and crime. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
28. For a review, see Gibson, C. L., Piquero, A. R., & Tibbetts, S. G.
(2001). The contribution of family adversity and verbal IQ to criminal
behavior. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 45, 574–592; see also Hirschi, T., & Hindelang, M. (1977).
Intelligence and delinquency: A revisionist review. American Sociological
Review, 42, 571–587; Moffitt, T. (1990). The neuropsychology of
delinquency: A critical review of theory and research. In M. Tonry & N.
Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Vol. 12, pp.
99–169). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; Moffitt, T., & Henry, B.
(1991). Neuropsychological studies of juvenile delinquency and juvenile
violence. In J. S. Miller (Ed.), The neuropsychology of aggression (pp. 67–
91). Boston, MA: Kluwer; see also the conclusion in Paternoster, R., &
Bachman, R. (2001). Explaining criminals and crime. Los Angeles, CA:
Roxbury, p. 51.
29. Herrnstein, R. J., & Murray, C. (1994). The bell curve: Intelligence and
class structure in the United States. New York, NY: Free Press.
30. See Brown, S., Esbensen, F., & Geis, G. (2009). Criminology:
Explaining crime and its context. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson, p. 260.
31. Cullen, F., Gendreau, P., Jarjoura, G. R., & Wright, J. P. (1997). Crime
and The Bell Curve: Lessons from intelligent criminology. Crime and
Delinquency, 43, 387–411; Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man
(2nd ed.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton, pp. 367–390; Hauser, R. (1995).
Review of The Bell Curve. Contemporary Sociology, 24, 149–153; Hudson,
J. B. (1995). Scientific racism: The politics of tests, race and genes. Black
Scholar, 25, 1–10; Perkins, D. (1995). Outsmarting IQ: The emerging
science of learnable intelligence. New York, NY: Free Press; Taylor, H.
(1995). Book review, The Bell Curve. Contemporary Sociology, 24, 153–
158.
32. Sheldon, W., Hartl, E. M., & McDermott, E. (1949). Varieties of
delinquent youth. New York, NY: Harper.
33. FBI. (2018). Crime in the United States, 2017: Burglary.

pages/burglary
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid.
36. Greenfield, D. (2013, February 6). Chicago police will no longer

respond to burglaries and robberies. Frontpage Mag. Retrieved from
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/176479/chicago-police-will-no-longer-
respond-burglaries-daniel-greenfield
37. Greenberg, B. (1995, January 21). Johnson City Press, as cited in

Brown, S., Esbensen, F., & Geis, G. (2009). Criminology: Explaining crime
and its context. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson, p. 229.
38. Sheldon, W., Hartl, E. M., & McDermott, E. (1949). Varieties of

delinquent youth. New York, NY: Harper.
39. Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1956). Physique and delinquency. New York,
NY: Harper & Row; see also Cortes, J. (1972). Delinquency and crime.
New York, NY: Seminar Press; Hartl, E. (1982). Physique and delinquent
behavior. New York, NY: Academic Press. For the most recent applications,
see Eysenck, H. J., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1989). The causes and cures of
criminality. New York, NY: Plenum.
40. Wilson, J. Q., & Herrnstein, R. J. (1985). Crime and human nature.
New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
41. Eysenck, H. J., & Gudjonsson, G. H. (1989). The causes and cures of
criminality. New York, NY: Plenum.
42. Cortes, J. (1972). Delinquency and crime. New York, NY: Seminar
Press; Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1956). Physique and delinquency. New
York, NY: Harper & Row. For a review, see Eysenck, H. J., & Gudjonsson,
G. H. (1989). The causes and cures of criminality. New York, NY: Plenum.
43. For a review, see Ellis, L. (2000). Criminology: A global perspective.

Minot, ND: Pyramid Press.
44. Waldrop, M., & Halverson, C. (1971). Minor physical anomalies and
hyperactive behavior in young children. In J. Hellmuth (Ed.), Exceptional
infant: Studies in abnormalities (pp. 343–381). New York, NY:
Brunner/Mazel. See discussion in Fishbein, D. (2001). Biobehavioral
perspectives on criminology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
45. Fishbein, D. (2001). Biobehavioral perspectives on criminology.

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
46. Wright, J., Tibbetts, S., & Daigle, L. (2008). Criminals in the making:
Criminality across the life course. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
47. Pilger, L. (2018, September 28). Nebraska Supreme Court rejects death
row inmate Lotter’s appeal. The Lincoln Journal Star.
https://journalstar.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/nebraska-supreme-
court-rejects-death-row-inmate-lotter-s-appeal/article_5407addd-2ffb-57ce-
9acd-912a1bc7eadb.html
Chapter 6
1. Benson, M. (2010). Killer twins. New York, NY: Pinnacle Books.
2. Ibid. Also see “Robert Spahalski.” (n.d.). Murderpedia, the encyclopedia

of murderers. http://murderpedia.org/male.S/s/spahalski-robert.htm
3. Ma, K. (2011, August 26). Top 10 weirdest twin-crime stories. Time.

Retrieved from
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,2090549_2090
540_2090537,00.html
4. Ibid.
5. Dugdale, R. L. (1910). The Jukes: A study in crime, pauperism, disease,

and heredity. New York, NY: Putnam; Goddard, H. H. (1912). The Kallikak
family. New York, NY: Macmillan.
6. For an excellent discussion of the alteration of Goddard’s photographs,

see Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
W. W. Norton.
7. See the review in Raine, A. (1993). The psychopathology of crime. San

Diego, CA: Academic Press; see also Christiansen, K. O. (1974).
Seriousness of criminality and concordance among Danish twins. In R.
Hood (Ed.), Crime, criminology, and public policy (pp. 63–77). New York,
NY: Free Press; Cortes, J. B. (1972). Delinquency and crime. New York,
NY: Seminar Press.
8. Raine, A. (1993). The psychopathology of crime. San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.
9. Walters, G. (1992). A meta-analysis of the gene-crime relationship.

10. Hutchings, B., & Mednick, S. A. (1977). Criminality in adoptees and

their adoptive and biological parents: A pilot study. In S. Mednick & K. O.
Christiansen (Eds.), Biosocial bases of criminal behavior (pp. 127–141).
New York, NY: Gardner Press.
11. See Walters, G. (1992). A meta-analysis of the gene-crime relationship.

Criminology, 30, 595–613; Wilson, J. Q., & Herrnstein, R. J. (1985). Crime
and human nature. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
12. Bouchard, T. J., Lykken, D. T., McGue, M., Segal, N., & Tellegen, A.
(1990). Sources of human psychological differences: The Minnesota study
of twins reared apart. Science, 250, 223–228.
13. Jacobs, P., Brunton, M., Melville, M., Brittian, R., & McClemmot, W.
(1965). Aggressive behavior, mental sub-normality, and the XYY male.
Nature, 208, 1351–1352.
14. See review in Paternoster, R., & Bachman, R. (2001). Explaining

criminals and crime. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury, p. 53.
15. Walsh, A. (1995). Genetic and cytogenetic intersex anomalies: Can they
help us to understand gender differences in deviant behavior? International
Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminality, 39, 151–166.
16. Booth, A., & Osgood, D. W. (1993). The influence of testosterone on

deviance in adulthood: Assessing and explaining the relationship.
Criminology, 31, 93–117; Soler, H., Vinayak, P., & Quadagno, D. (2000).
Biosocial aspects of domestic violence. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 25,
721–773; for a review, see Ellis, L., & Walsh, A. (2000). Criminology: A
global perspective. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
17. Sanchez-Martin, J. R., Fano, E., Ahedo, L., Cardas, J., Brain, P. F., &
Azpiroz, A. (2000). Relating testosterone levels and free play social
behavior in male and female preschool children.
Psychoneuroendocrinology, 25, 773–783.
18. Halpern, D. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.
19. Raine, A. (2013). The anatomy of violence: The biological roots of
crime. New York, NY: Pantheon.
20. Halpern, D. (2000). Sex differences in cognitive abilities. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.
21. Ellis, L. (2005). A theory explaining biological correlates of criminality.

European Journal of Criminality, 2, 287–315.
22. Ibid.
23. Burr, C. (1993). Homosexuality and biology. The Atlantic Monthly, 271,
47–65; Ellis, L. (2005). A theory explaining biological correlates of
criminality. European Journal of Criminality, 2, 287–315; Ellis, L., &
Ames, M. (1987). Neurohormonal functioning and sexual orientation: A
theory of homosexuality-heterosexuality. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 233–
258.
24. Badger, K., Simpson Craft, R., & Jensen, L. (1998). Age and gender
differences in value orientation among American adolescents. Adolescence,
33, 591–596; Moll, J., de Oliveira-Souza, R., Eslinger, P. J., Bramati, I. E.,
Mourão-Miranda, J., Andreiuolo, P. A., & Pessoa, L. (2002). The neural
correlates of moral sensitivity: A functional magnetic resonance imaging
investigation of basic and moral emotions. Journal of Neuroscience, 22,
2730–2736; Reite, M., Cullum, C., Stocker, J., Teale, P., & Kozora, E.
(1993). Neuropsychological test performance and MEG-based brain
lateralization: Sex differences. Brain Research Bulletin, 32, 325–328.
25. For reviews, see Fishbein, D. (2001). Biobehavioral perspectives in

criminology. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning; Raine, A.
(1993). The psychopathology of crime. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
26. Beaver, K. (2008). Biosocial criminology: A primer. Dubuque, IA:

Kendall/Hunt; Raine, A. (1993). The psychopathology of crime. San Diego,
CA: Academic Press; Wright, J. P., Tibbetts, S. G., & Daigle, L. (2008).
Criminals in the making: Criminality Across the Life Course. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
27. Burt, S. A., & Nikolajewski, A. J. (2008). Preliminary evidence that
specific candidate genes are associated with adolescent-onset antisocial
behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 1–9; for a review, see Beaver, K. (2008).
Biosocial criminology: A primer. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
28. Beaver, K., Wright, J. P., DeLisi, M., Daigle, L., Swatt, M. L., &
Gibson, C. (2007). Evidence of a gene X environment interaction in the
creation of victimization: Results from a longitudinal sample of
adolescents. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative
Criminology, 51, 620–645. For a review, see Beaver, K. (2008). Biosocial
criminology: A primer. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
29. For a review, see Beaver, K. (2008). Biosocial criminology: A primer.

Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt; see also Blumensohn, R., Ratzoni, G.,
Weizman, A., Apter, A., Tyano, S., Israeli, M., . . . Biegon, A. (1995).
Reduction in serotonin 5HT2 receptor binding on platelets of delinquent
adolescents. Psychopharmacology, 118, 354–356; Coccaro, E. F., Kavoussi,
R. J., Cooper, T. B., & Hauger, R. L. (1997). Central serotonin activity and
aggression. American Journal of Psychiatry, 154, 1430–1435; Davidson,
H., Putnam, K. M., & Larson, C. L. (2000). Dysfunction in the neural
circuitry of emotion regulation: A possible prelude to violence. Science,
289, 591–594; Dolan, M., Deakin, W. J. F., Roberts, N., & Anderson, I.
(2002). Serotonergic and cognitive impairment in impulsive aggressive
personality disordered offenders: Are there implications for treatment?
Psychological Medicine, 32, 105–117; Ellis, L. (2005). A theory explaining
biological correlates of criminality. European Journal of Criminality, 2,
287–315.
Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 129–154; see also Tonkonogy, J. M.
(1991). Violence and temporal lobe lesion: Head CT and MRI data. Journal
of Neuropsychiatry, 3, 189–196; Wright, P., Nobrega, J., Langevin, R., &
Wortzman, G. (1990). Brain density and symmetry in pedophilic and
sexually aggressive offenders. Annals of Sex Research, 3, 319–328.
31. Ellis, L. (2005). A theory explaining biological correlates of criminality.

European Journal of Criminality, 2, 294; see also Fishbein, D. (2003).
Neuropsychological and emotional regulatory processes in antisocial
behavior. In A. Walsh & L. Ellis (Eds.), Biosocial criminology: Challenging
environmentalism’s supremacy (pp. 185–208). New York, NY: Nova
Science.
32. Anderson, B. J., Holmes, M. D., & Ostresch, E. (1999). Male and
female delinquents’ attachments and effects of attachments on severity of
self-reported delinquency. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 26, 435–452.
33. Ohlson, K. (2012, Fall). The good, the bad, and the brain. Discover: The
Brain [Special issue].
34. Ibid.
35. For a review, see Piquero, A., & Tibbetts, S. G. (2002). Rational choice
and criminal behavior: Recent research and future challenges. New York,
NY: Routledge. See also Paternoster, R., & Simpson, S. (1996). Sanction
threats and appeals to morality: Testing a rational choice model of corporate
crime. Law and Society Review, 30, 378–399.
36. Bauer, L. O. (1997). Frontal P300 decrements, childhood conduct

disorder, family history, and the prediction of relapse among abstinent
cocaine abusers. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 44, 1–10; Raine, A., &
Venables, P. H. (1988). Enhanced P3 evoked potentials and longer P3
recovery times in psychopaths. Psychophysiology, 25, 30–38; for a review,
see Ellis, L. (2005). A theory explaining biological correlates of criminality.
European Journal of Criminality, 2, 287–315.
Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 174–178; see also Hare, R. D. (1970).
Psychopathy: Theory and practice. New York, NY: Wiley; Venables, P. H.
(1988). Psychophysiology and crime: Theory and data. In T. E. Moffitt & S.
A. Mednick (Eds.), Biological contributions to crime causation (pp. 3–13).
Dordrecht, Holland: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; Venables, P. H., & Raine,
A. (1987). Biological theory. In B. McGurk, D. Thornton, & M. Williams
(Eds.), Applying psychology to imprisonment: Theory and practice (pp. 3–
28). London, UK: Her Majesty’s Stationery Office; Volavka, J. (1987).
Electroencephalogram among criminals. In S. A. Mednick, T. E. Moffitt, &
S. Stack (Eds.), The causes of crime: New biological approaches (pp. 137–
145). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
38. For further discussion and explanation, see Raine, A. (1993). The
psychopathology of crime. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 174–177.
39. Boots, D. P. (2011). Neurobiological perspectives of brain vulnerability

in pathways to violence over the life course. In K. Beaver & A. Walsh
(Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to biosocial theories of crime (pp.
181–211). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
40. Ibid., p. 197.
Diego, CA: Academic Press, pp. 159–173; see also reviews and studies by
Bice, T. (1993). Cognitive and psychophysiological differences in proactive
and reactive aggressive boys. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of Southern California, Department of Psychology; Raine, A., & Venables,
P. H. (1988). Skin conductance responsivity in psychopaths to orienting,
defensive, and consonant-vowel stimuli. Journal of Pyschophysiology, 2,
221–225; Venables, P. H. (1989). Childhood markers for adult disorders.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatric and Allied Disorders, 30,
347–364.
42. See Kindlon, D. J., Tremblay, R. E., Mezzacappa, E., Earls, F., Laurent,
D., & Schaal, B. (1995). Longitudinal patterns of heart rate and fighting
behavior in 9- through 12-year-old boys. Journal of the American Academy
of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 34, 371–377; Mezzacappa, E.,
Tremblay, R. E., Kindlon, D., Saul, J. P., Arseneault, L., Seguin, J., . . .
Earls, F. (1997). Anxiety, antisocial behavior, and heart rate regulation in
adolescent males. Journal of Psychiatry, 38, 457–469; Rogeness, G. A.,
Cepeda, C., Macedo, C. A., Fischer, C., & Harris, W. R. (1990). Differences
in heart rate and blood pressure in children with conduct disorder, major
depression, and separation anxiety. Psychiatry Research, 33, 199–206.
43. Armstrong, T. (2011). The relationship between low resting heart rate
and antisocial behavior: Correlation or causation? In K. Beaver & A. Walsh
(Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to biosocial theories of crime (pp.
45–68). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
44. For a review, see Rudo-Hutt, A., Gao, Y., Glenn, A., Peskin, M., Yang,
Y., & Raine, A. (2011). Biosocial interactions and correlates of crime. In K.
Beaver & A. Walsh (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to biosocial
theories of crime (pp. 17–44). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
45. Tibbetts, S., & Piquero, A. (1999). The influence of gender, low birth
weight, and disadvantaged environment in predicting early onset of
offending: A test of Moffitt’s interactional hypothesis. Criminology, 37,
843–878.
46. Piquero, A., & Tibbetts, S. (1999). The impact of pre/perinatal

disturbances and disadvantaged familial environment in predicting criminal
offending. Studies on Crime and Crime Prevention, 8, 52–71.
47. Gibson, C., & Tibbetts, S. (1998). Interaction between maternal

cigarette smoking and Apgar scores in predicting offending. Psychological
Reports, 83, 579–586.
48. Gibson, C., & Tibbetts, S. (2000). A biosocial interaction in predicting

early onset of offending. Psychological Reports, 86, 509–518.
49. Raine, A., Brennan, P. A., & Mednick, S. A. (1994). Birth

complications combined with early maternal rejection at age 1 year
predispose to violent crime at age 18 years. Archives of General Psychiatry,
51, 984–988; for a thorough review of research, see Beaver, K. (2008).
Biosocial criminology: A primer. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
50. Beaver, K. (2008). Biosocial criminology: A primer. Dubuque, IA:

Kendall/Hunt.
51. Ibid.
52. Ibid.
53. Ibid. See also Lyons, M. J., True, W. R., Eisen, S. A., Goldberg, J.,
Meyer, J. M., Faraone, S. V., . . . Tsuang, M. T. (1995). Differential
heritability of adult and juvenile antisocial traits. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 52, 906–915.
54. Beaver, K., & Walsh, A. (2011). Biosocial criminology. In K. Beaver &
A. Walsh (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to biosocial theories of
crime (pp. 3–16). Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
55. Shoenthaler, S. J. (1991). Improve your child’s IQ and behaviour.

London, UK: BBC Books.
56. For a review, see Beaver, K. (2008). Biosocial criminology: A primer.

Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt, pp. 174–176; see also the review in Wright, J.,
Tibbetts, S., & Daigle, L. (2008). Criminals in the making: Criminality
Across the Life Course. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
57. Benson, M. (2010). Killer twins. New York, NY: Pinnacle Books, p. 67.
58. For a recent review of such birth complications, see Tibbetts, S. (2011).
Birth complications and the development of criminality: A biosocial
perspective. In K. Beaver & A. Walsh (Eds.), The Ashgate research
companion to biosocial theories of crime (pp. 273–290). Burlington, VT:
Ashgate.
59. For more recent reviews, see Raine (2013), op. cit., as well as Tibbetts,
S. (2017). Biosocial theory. In A. Brisman, E. Carrabine, & N. South (Eds.),
The Routledge companion to criminological theory and concepts (pp. 55–
59). New York, NY: Routledge.
Chapter 7
1. Mettler, K. (2016, December 1). He was fine at Thanksgiving, his sisters
said. But now he is accused of dismembering their parents. Washington
Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-
mix/wp/2016/12/01/at-thanksgiving-his-sisters-said-he-was-fine-but-days-
later-he-dismembered-their-parents-police-say
2. Satterfield, J. (2018, December 4). Joel Guy, accused of killing,

dismembering parents inside Knox home, takes witness stand. Knox News.
Retrieved from
https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/crime/2018/12/04/joel-guy-trial-
murder-dismembering-parents-farragut/2187392002
3. Nietzel, M. T. (1979). Crime and its modification: A social learning

perspective. New York, NY: Pergamon Press, p. 51.

5. Freud, S. (1964). New introductory lectures on psycho-analysis. New

York, NY: W. W. Norton.
6. Freud, S. (1989). An outline of psycho-analysis (Standard ed.). New

York, NY: W. W. Norton; see also Fodor, N., Gaynor, F., & Reik, T. (1975).
Freud: Dictionary of psychoanalysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, p.
90.
7. Coleman, J. C., Butcher, J. N., & Carson, R. C. (1984). Abnormal

psychology and modern life (7th ed.). Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman, p. 62.
8. Freud, S. (1960). The ego and the id. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.

10. Ibid., p. 64.

11. Freud, S. (1964). New introductory lectures on psycho-analysis. New
York: W. W. Norton.

13. Fodor, N., Gaynor, F., & Reik, T. (1975). Freud: Dictionary of
psychoanalysis. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, pp. 29–30.
14. Aichhorn, A. (1935). Wayward youth. New York, NY: World Publishing
Company.
15. Ibid., p. 31.
16. Erickson, E. (1968). Identity, youth and crisis. New York, NY: W. W.
Norton.
17. Abrahamsen, D. (1944). Crime and the human mind. New York, NY:
Columbia University Press.
18. Trojanowicz, R. C., Morash, M., & Schram, P. J. (2001). Juvenile

delinquency: Concepts and control (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice Hall, p. 49.
19. Eysenck, H. J. (1964). Crime and personality. London, UK: Routledge

& Kegan Paul; see also Eysenck, H. J. (1977). Crime and personality (3rd
ed.). London, UK: Routledge & Kegan Paul.
20. Eysenck, H. J., & Gudjonson, G. H. (1989). The causes and cures of
criminality. New York, NY: Plenum Press, p. 44.
21. Ibid., pp. 44–45.
22. Rafter, N. H. (2006). H. J. Eysenck in Fagin’s kitchen: The return to

biological theory in 20th-century criminology. History of the Human
Sciences, 19, 37–56.
23. Ibid., p. 43.

24. Eysenck, H. J. (1970). Crime and personality (2nd ed.). London, UK:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, as cited in Rafter, N. H. (2006). H. J. Eysenck in
Fagin’s kitchen: The return to biological theory in 20th-century
criminology. History of the Human Sciences, 19, p. 43.
25. Rafter, N. H. (2006). H. J. Eysenck in Fagin’s kitchen: The return to

biological theory in 20th-century criminology. History of the Human
Sciences, 19, p. 43.
criminality. New York, NY: Plenum Press, pp. 110–111.
27. Eysenck, H. J. (1970). Crime and personality (2nd ed.). London, UK:
Routledge & Kegan Paul, p. 120, as cited in Rafter, N. H. (2006). H. J.
Eysenck in Fagin’s kitchen: The return to biological theory in 20th-century
criminology. History of the Human Sciences, 19, p. 44.
criminality. New York, NY: Plenum Press, p. 109.
29. Van Dam, C., De Bruyn, E. E. J., & Janssens, M. M. A. M. (2007).

Personality, delinquency, and criminal recidivism. Adolescence, 42, 763–
765.
30. See Blackburn, R. (1999). The psychology of criminal conduct. New

York, NY: Wiley; Farrington, D. P., Biron, L., & LeBiron, M. (1982).
Personality and delinquency in London and Montreal. In J. Gunn & D. P.
Farrington (Eds.), Abnormal offenders, delinquency, and the criminal
justice system (pp. 153–201). New York, NY: Wiley.
31. Levine, S. Z., & Jackson, C. J. (2004). Eysenck’s theory of crime

revisited: Factors or primary scales? Legal and Criminological Psychology,
9, 137.
32. Kohlberg, L. (1969). Stage and sequence: The cognitive-development

approach to socialization. In D. A. Goslin (Ed.), Handbook of socialization
theory and research. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally; Kohlberg, L. (1976).
Moral stages and moralization: The cognitive-developmental approach. In
T. Lickona (Ed.), Moral development and behavior: Theory, research, and
social issues (pp. 31–53). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
33. Kohlberg, L. (1986). A current statement on some theoretical issues. In

S. Modgil & C. Modgil (Eds.), Lawrence Kohlberg: Consensus and
controversy (pp. 485–586). Philadelphia, PA: Falmer Press, p. 491.
34. Ibid.
35. Ibid., p. 492.
36. Damon, W. (1980). Structural-developmental theory and the study of

moral development. In M. Windmiller, N. Lambert, & E. Turiel (Eds.),
Moral development and socialization (pp. 35–68). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
37. Ibid., p. 42.

39. Damon, W. (1980). Structural-developmental theory and the study of

moral development. In M. Windmiller, N. Lambert, & E. Turiel (Eds.),
Moral development and socialization (pp. 35–68). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon, p. 42.

41. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and

women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
42. Damon, W. (1988). The moral child: Nurturing children’s natural moral
growth. New York, NY: Free Press, p. 96.
43. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and

women’s development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
44. Ibid., p. 18; see also Kohlberg, L. (1958). The development of modes of
thinking and choices in years 10 to 16. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
University of Chicago; Kohlberg, L. (1981). The philosophy of moral
development. San Francisco, CA: Harper & Row.
45. Van der Horst, F. C. P., & van der Veer, R. (2008). Loneliness in
infancy: Harry Larlow, John Bowlby and issues of separation. Integrative
Psychological Behavior, 42, 326.
46. Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby

and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28, 759–775.
47. Bowlby, J. (1975). Attachment and loss: Separation, anxiety and anger
(Vol. 2). New York, NY: Basic Books, p. 60.
48. Adler, F., Mueller, G. O. W., & Laufer, W. S. (2007). Criminology (6th
ed.). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, p. 88. See also Bowlby, J. (1969, 1975).
Attachment and loss: Separation, anxiety and anger (Vols. 1 & 2). New
York, NY: Basic Books.
49. Bowlby, J. (1975). Attachment and loss: Separation, anxiety and anger
(Vol. 2). New York, NY: Basic Books, p. 201.
50. Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby

and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28, 759–775.
51. Bowlby, J. (1944). Forty-four juvenile thieves: Their character and

home-life. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 25, 19–52.
52. Schneider, W. H. (1992). After Binet: French intelligence testing, 1900–

1950. Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 28, 111–132.
53. Cravens, H. (1992). A scientific project locked in time: The Terman

genetic studies of genius, 1920s–1950s. American Psychologist, 47, 183–
189.
54. Ryan, P. J. (1997). Unnatural selection: Intelligence testing, eugenics,

and American political cultures. Journal of Social History, 30, 669–685.
55. Tibbetts, S. (2012). Criminological theory: The essentials. Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE, p. 73.
56. Holmes, R. M., & Holmes, S. T. (2002). Profiling violent crimes: An

investigative tool (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, p. 671.
57. Source: Bowlby, J. (1944). Forty-four juvenile thieves: Their character

and home-life. International Journal of Psychoanalysis, 25, 40–41.
58. Sutherland, E. H. (1931). Mental deficiency and crime. In K. Young

(Ed.), Social attitudes (pp. 357–375). New York, NY: Henry Holt.
59. Wrightsman, L. S. (1987). Psychology and the legal system. Monterey,

CA: Brooks/Cole, p. 347.
60. Kaplin, J. (1985, September 22). Why people go to the bad. New York
Times Book Review, p. 7, as cited in Wrightsman, L. S. (1987). Psychology
and the legal system. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, p. 348.
New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
62. Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R. A. (2011). Criminological theory:
Context and consequences (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, p. 307.
63. Gibbs, J. P. (1985). Review essay. Criminology, 23, 381.
New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, p. 103.
65. Brownmiller, S. (1975). Against our will: Men, women, and rape. New
York, NY: Simon & Schuster. See also Clark, A. (1987). Women’s silence,
men’s violence: Sexual assault in England, 1770–1845. London, UK:
Pandora.
66. Ibid. See also Clark, A. (1987). Women’s silence, men’s violence: Sexual
assault in England, 1770–1845. London, UK: Pandora; Belknap, J. (2001).
The invisible woman: Gender, crime, and justice (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth, pp. 228–230; Burgess-Jackson, K. (1999). A history of rape
law. In K. Burgess-Jackson (Eds.), A most detestable crime: New
philosophical essays on rape. New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp.
16–17.
67. Clark, A. (1987). Women’s silence, men’s violence: Sexual assault in

England, 1770–1845. London, UK: Pandora.
68. State v. Sheline, 955 S.W. 2d. 2, 44 (Tenn. 1997).
69. Burgess-Jackson, K. (1999). A history of rape law. In K. Burgess-

Jackson (Eds.), A most detestable crime: New philosophical essays on rape.
New York, NY: Oxford University Press, p. 21.
70. Ibid., p. 24.
71. Ibid.
72. FBI. (2015). Crime in the United States, 2014. Violent crimes: Rape.
Washington, DC: Department of Justice, para. 1. Retrieved from
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2014/crime-in-the-
u.s.-2014/offenses-known-to-law-enforcement/rape
73. FBI. (2018). Crime in the United States, 2017. Violent crimes: Rape.
Washington, DC: Department of Justice. Retrieved from
pages/rape

investigative tool (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 144–145.
75. Knight, R. A., & Prentky, R. A. (1987). The developmental antecedents

and adult adaptations of rapist subtypes. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 14,
403–426.

investigative tool (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, p. 145.

421.
78. Ibid., p. 411.

investigative tool (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 150–151.

410.
81. Ibid., p. 411.
82. Montaldo, C. (2019, January 31). Profile of serial rapist David Parker
Ray. ThoughtCo. Retrieved from https://www.thoughtco.com/profile-of-
serial-rapist-david-parker-ray-973147
83. Wrightsman, L. S. (1987). Psychology and the legal system. Monterey,

CA: Brooks/Cole, p. 348.
84. Ibid., p. 510.
New York, NY: Simon & Schuster, p. 61.
New York, NY: Simon & Schuster. See also Wrightsman, L. S. (1987).
Psychology and the legal system. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole, p. 348.
88. Ibid., pp. 309–311.
89. Gibbs, J. P. (1985). Review essay. Criminology, 23, 382.
91. Cleckley, H. (1982). The mask of sanity: An attempt to clarify some
issues about the so-called psychopathic personality (Rev. ed.). St. Louis,
MO: C. V. Mosby.
92. Salekin, R. T., Neumann, C. S., Liestico, A. R., & Zalot, A. (2004).
Psychopathy in youth and intelligence: An investigation of Cleckley’s
hypothesis. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 33, 731.
93. Hare, R. D. (1991). Manual for the Revised Psychopathy Checklist.

Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Multi-Health Systems.
94. Vaughn, M. G., Edens, J. F., Howard, M. O., & Smith, S. T. (2009). An
investigation of primary and secondary psychopathy in a statewide sample
of incarcerated youth. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 7, 172–188.
95. Ibid., p. 173.
96. Ibid.
97. Lykken, D. T. (1996). Psychopathy, sociopathy, and crime. Society, 34,

31.
98. Ibid., p. 32.
99. Ibid., pp. 33–34.
100. Hare, R. D. (1999). Psychopathy as a risk factor for violence.

Psychiatric Quarterly, 70, 183–184.
101. Ibid., p. 186
102. See Hemphill, J. F., Hare, R. D., & Wong, S. (1998). Psychopathy and
recidivism: A review. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 3, 141–172;
Salekin, R. T., Rogers, R., & Sewell, K. W. (1996). A review and meta-
analysis of the Psychopathy Checklist and Psychopathy Checklist–Revised:
Predictive validity of dangerousness. Clinical Psychology: Science and
Practice, 3, 203–215.
103. Hare, R. D. (1999). Psychopathy as a risk factor for violence.
Psychiatric Quarterly, 70, 186.
104. Ibid., p. 191.
105. Teplin, L. A. (1994). Psychiatric and substance abuse disorders among

male urban jail detainees. American Journal of Public Health, 84, 290–293.
See also James, D. J., & Glaze, L. E. (2006). Mental health problems of
prison and jail inmates [Bureau of Justice Statistics Special Report].
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
106. Martin, M. S., Dorken, S. K., Wambolt, A. D., & Wooten, S. E. (2012).
Stopping the revolving door: A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of
interventions for criminally involved individuals with major mental
disorders. Law and Human Behavior, 36, 1–12.
107. Torrey, E. F., Zdanowica, M. T., Kennard, A. D., Lamb, H. R.,

Eslinger, D. F., Biasotti, M. C., & Fuller, D. A. (2014). The treatment of
persons with mental illness in prisons and jails: A state survey. Arlington,
VA: The Treatment Advocacy Center. Retrieved from
http://www.tacreports.org/storage/documents/treatment-behind-
bars/treatment-behind-bars.pdf
108. Bush, J., Glick, B., & Taymans, J. (2006). Thinking for a Change:
Facilitator training. Longmont, CO: National Institute of Corrections, U.S.
109. Allen, H. E., Simonsen, C. E., & Latessa, E. J. (2004). Corrections in

America: An introduction (10th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall,
p. 277.
110. Bush, J., Glick, B., & Taymans, J. (1997). Thinking for a Change:
Facilitator training. Longmont, CO: National Institute of Corrections, U.S.
Department of Justice. See also Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (1994). The
psychology of criminal conduct. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson; Ross, R. R., &
Fabiano, E. A. (1984). Time to think: A cognitive model of delinquency
prevention and offender rehabilitation. Ottawa: Institute of Social Sciences
and Arts.
111. Golden, L. S., Gatchel, R. J., & Cahill, M. A. (2006). Evaluating the
effectiveness of the National Institute of Corrections’ “Thinking for a
Change” program among probationers. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation,
43, 55–73.
112. Wilson, R. J. (2005). Are cognitive problem-solving skills programmes

really not working? A response to “evaluating evidence for the
effectiveness of the reasoning and rehabilitation programme.” Howard
Journal, 44, 319–321.
113. O’Malley, N. (2014, May 10). Betrayal: Michelle Knight tells of life
inside Ariel Castro’s house of hell. Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved from
http://www.smh.com.au/world/betrayal-michelle-knight-tells-of-life-inside-
ariel-castros-house-of-hell-20140504-37r6h.html
114. Diaz, J., Pearle, L, & Valiente, A. (2015, April 27). What life in
captivity was like for Cleveland kidnapping survivors Amanda Berry and
Gina DeJesus. ABC News. Retrieved from http://abcnews.go.com/US/life-
captivity-cleveland-kidnapping-survivors-amanda-berry-gina/story?
id=30532737
115. Johnson, A. (2013, December 3). Ariel Castro blamed victims,

addiction to porn for crimes. Columbus Dispatch. Retrieved from
http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2013/12/03/Ariel-Castro-
blamed-victims.html
116. Mueser, K. T., Torrey, W. C., Lynde, D., Singer, P., & Drake, R. E.
(2003). Implementing evidence-based practices for people with severe
mental illness. Behavioral Modification, 27, 387–411, as cited in Morgan,
R. D., Flora, D. B., Kroner, D. G., Mills, J. F., Varghese, F., & Steffan, J. S.
(2012). Treating offenders with mental illness: A research synthesis. Law of
Human Behavior, 36, p. 40.
117. Steadman, H. J., Davidson, S., & Brown, C. (2001). Law & psychiatry:
Mental health courts: Their promise and unanswered questions. Psychiatric
Services, 52, 457.
118. Council of State Governments Justice Center. (2008). Mental health
courts: A primer for policymakers and practitioners. Washington, DC: U.S.
119. Ibid., p. 8.
120. Ibid., p. 4.
121. Allnutt, S., Samuels, A., & O’Driscoll, C. (2007). The insanity
defence: From wild beasts to M’Naghten. Australian Psychiatry, 15, 292.
122. Perlin, M. L. (1994). The jurisprudence of the insanity defense.

Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
123. Morris, N. (n.d.). Crime file: Insanity defense. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/100742NCJRS.pdf
124. Ibid. See also Slodov, M. D. (1990). Criminal responsibility and the
noncompliant psychiatric offender: Risking madness. Case Western Reserve
Law Review, 40, 271–330.
125. FindLaw. (n.d.). The insanity defense among the states. Retrieved from
http://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-procedure/the-insanity-defense-
among-the-states.html
126. Wallace, H., & Roberson, C. (2008). Principles of criminal law (4th
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson, p. 95.
127. Allnutt, S., Samuels, A., & O’Driscoll, C. (2007). The insanity
defence: From wild beasts to M’Naghten. Australian Psychiatry, 15, 292–
293.
128. Ibid., pp. 293–294.
129. Morris, N. (n.d.). Crime file: Insanity defense. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice. Retrieved from
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/100742NCJRS.pdf
130. Margolick, D. (1994). Lorena Bobbitt acquitted in mutilation of
husband. New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/01/22/us/lorena-bobbitt-acquitted-in-
mutilation-of-husband.html
131. Cobun, L. S. (1984). The insanity defense: Effects of abolition

unsupported by a moral consensus. American Journal of Law and Medicine,
9, 471–498.
132. Felthous, A. R. (2010). Psychopathic disorders and criminal

responsibility in the USA. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical
Neuroscience, 260, 138.
133. Wallace, H., & Roberson, C. (2008). Principles of criminal law (4th
ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson, p. 96.
134. Martin, M. S., Dorken, S. K., Wamboldt, A. D., & Wootten, S. E.

(2011). Stopping the revolving door: A meta-analysis on the effectiveness
of interventions for criminally involved individuals with major mental
disorders. Law and Human Behavior, 36, p. 1. See also Swanson, A. (2015,
April 30). A shocking number of mentally ill Americans end up in prison
instead of treatment. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/04/30/a-shocking-
number-of-mentally-ill-americans-end-up-in-prisons-instead-of-psychiatric-
hospitals; Treatment Advocacy Center (2016, September). Serious Mental
Illness (SMI) prevalence in jails and prisons. Office of Research and Public
Affairs. Retrieved from
https://www.treatmentadvocacycenter.org/storage/documents/backgrounder
s/smi-in-jails-and-prisons.pdf
135. Lab, S. P. (2016). Crime prevention: Approaches, practices, and

evaluations (9th ed.). New York, NY: Routledge, p. 53.
136. Siegel, L. J. (2013). Criminology (11th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth,

p. 172.

p. 172.


p. 172.
141. Morgan, R. D., Flora, D. B., Kroner, D. G., Mills, J. F., Varghese, F., &
Steffan, J. S. (2012). Treating offenders with mental illness: A research
synthesis. Law and Human Behavior, 36, p. 39.
142. Mischel, W. (1968). Personality and assessment. New York, NY:

Wiley.
143. Schmalleger, F. (2009). Criminology today: An integrative

introduction (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Prentice Hall, pp.
216–217.
144. Satterfield, J. (2018, December 4). Joel Guy, accused of killing,

dismembering parents inside Knox home, takes witness stand. Knox News.
Retrieved from
https://www.knoxnews.com/story/news/crime/2018/12/04/joel-guy-trial-
murder-dismembering-parents-farragut/2187392002
Chapter 8
1. Ellis, L., & Walsh, A. (1999). Criminologists’ opinions about causes and
theories of crime and delinquency. The Criminologist, 24, 1–4; Walsh, A.,
& Ellis, L. (1999). Political ideology and American criminologists’
explanations for criminal behavior. The Criminologist, 24, 14.
2. Much of our discussion of the 19th-century development of structural

theories is drawn from Zanden, J. W. V. (2000). Sociology: The core (2nd
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, pp. 8–14.
3. Ibid., pp. 8–9.
4. For more thorough discussions of Guerry and Quetelet, see the sources
from which we have drawn the information presented here: Beirne, P.
(1993). Inventing criminology: Essays on the rise of “Homo criminalis.”
Albany, NY: SUNY Press; Vold, G. B., Bernard, T. J., & Snipes, J. (2002).
Theoretical criminology (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
5. Morris, T. (1957). The criminal area. New York, NY: Routledge, pp. 42–
53, as cited in Vold, G. B., Bernard, T. J., & Snipes, J. (2002). Theoretical
criminology (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, p. 22.
6. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2001).

Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics, 2000 (NCJ-190251). Washington,
DC: USGPO, Table 3.13, p. 194; U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of
Justice Statistics. (2001). Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics, 2000
(NCJ-190251). Washington, DC: USGPO, Table 3.26, p. 202.
7. Beirne, P. (1993). Inventing criminology: Essays on the rise of “Homo

criminalis.” Albany, NY: SUNY Press, pp. 78–81.
8. Vold, G. B., Bernard, T. J., & Snipes, J. (2002). Theoretical criminology

(5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 23–26.
9. Burton, V., & Cullen, F. (1992). The empirical status of strain theory.
Journal of Crime and Justice, 15, 1–30; Passas, N. (1995). Continuities in
the anomie tradition. In F. Adler & W. S. Laufer (Eds.), Advances in
criminological theory: Vol. 6. The legacy of anomie theory (pp. 91–112).
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction; Passas, N. (1997). Anomie, reference
groups, and relative deprivation. In N. Passas & R. Agnew (Eds.), The
future of anomie theory (pp. 62–94). Boston, MA: Northeastern University
Press.
10. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2001).

Sourcebook of criminal justice statistics, 2000 (NCJ-190251). Washington,
DC: USGPO, Table 3.124, p. 290.
11. Lee, D. S. (1993). An empirical investigation of the economic incentives

for criminal behavior. Bachelor of Arts thesis in economics, Harvard
University, Boston, MA, as cited in Freeman, R. B. (1995). The labor
market. In J. Q. Wilson & J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime (pp. 103–105). San
Francisco, CA: ICS Press.
12. Beirne, P. (1993). Inventing criminology: Essays on the rise of “Homo

criminalis.” Albany, NY: SUNY Press, p. 88, as cited in Vold, G. B.,
Bernard, T. J., & Snipes, J. (2002). Theoretical criminology (5th ed.). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press, p. 25.
(5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 25–26.
14. Much of our discussion of Durkheim is taken from Vold, G. B.,

Bernard, T. J., & Snipes, J. (2002). Theoretical criminology (5th ed.). New
York, NY: Oxford University Press, Chapter 6, as well as Zanden, J. W. V.
(2000). Sociology: The core (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, pp.
11–13.
15. Durkheim, E. (1965). The rules of the sociological method (G. E. G.

Catlin, Ed.; S. A. Solovay & J. H. Mueller, Trans.). New York, NY: Free
Press, as cited in Vold, G. B., Bernard, T. J., & Snipes, J. (2002).
Theoretical criminology (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
16. See discussion in Klein, M. (1995). Street gang cycles. In J. Q. Wilson

& J. Petersilia (Eds.), Crime (pp. 217–236). San Francisco, CA: ICS Press.
17. For more details on these issues, see E. Durkheim’s works The division
of labor in society. (1965). New York, NY: Free Press. (Original work
published 1893); Suicide. (1951). New York, NY: Free Press. (Original
work published 1897)
18. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics. (1996). Violent

crime in the United States. Washington, DC: Author, as illustrated in Senna,
J., & Siegel, L. G. (1999). Introduction to criminal justice (8th ed.).
Belmont, CA: West/Wadsworth.
19. Chambliss, W. J. (1976). Functional and conflict theories of crime: The

heritage of Emile Durkheim and Karl Marx. In W. J. Chambliss & M.
Mankoff (Eds.), Whose law? What order? A conflict approach to
criminology (pp. 1–28). New York, NY: Wiley, pp. 11–16.
20. For reviews of Merton’s theory, see both his original and more recent
works: Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American
Sociological Review, 3, 672–682; Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and
social structure. New York, NY: Free Press; Merton, R. K. (1995).
Opportunity structure: The emergence, diffusion, and differentiation as
sociological concept, 1930s–1950s. In F. Adler & M. Laufer (Eds.),
Advances in criminological theory: The legacy of anomie theory (Vol. 6, pp.
3–17). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press. For reviews by others, see
Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2004). Criminological theories: Introduction,
evaluation, and application (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury, pp. 164–
168; Bernard, T. J. (1987). Testing structural strain theories. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 24, 262–280; Brown, S. E., Esbensen,
F., & Geis, G. (2004). Criminology: Explaining crime and its context (5th
ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson, pp. 297–307; Clinard, M. B. (1964). The
theoretical implications of anomie and deviant behavior. In M. B. Clinard
(Ed.), Anomie and deviant behavior: A discussion and critique (pp. 1–56).
New York, NY: Free Press.
21. Clinard, M. B. (1964). The theoretical implications of anomie and

deviant behavior. In M. B. Clinard (Ed.), Anomie and deviant behavior: A
discussion and critique (pp. 1–56). New York, NY: Free Press; see also the
discussion in Brown, S. E., Esbensen, F., & Geis, G. (2004). Criminology:
Explaining crime and its context (5th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson, p.
297.
22. Senna, J., & Siegel, L. J. (1999). Introduction to criminal justice (8th
ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, p. 44.
23. Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York,
NY: Free Press.
(5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, p. 140.
25. For examples and reviews of this research, see Akers, R. L. (1964).
Socio-economic status and delinquent behavior: A retest. Journal of
Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1, 38–46; Dunaway, G. R., Cullen, F.
T., Burton, V. S., & Evans, T. D. (2000). The myth of social class and crime
revisited: An examination of class and adult criminality. Criminology, 38,
589–632; Hindelang, M. J. (1980). Measuring delinquency. Beverly Hills,
CA: SAGE; Hindelang, M. J., Hirschi, T., & Weis, J. C. (1979). Correlates
of delinquency: The illusion of discrepancy between self-report and official
measures. American Sociological Review, 44, 995–1014; Nye, F. I. (1958).
Family relationships and delinquent behavior. New York, NY: Wiley;
Thornberry, T., & Farnworth, M. (1982). Social correlates of criminal
involvement. American Sociological Review, 47, 505–517; Tittle, C. R., &
Villemez, W. J. (1977). Social class and criminality. Social Forces, 56, 474–
503; Tittle, C. R., Villemez, W. J., & Smith, D. A. (1978). The myth of
social class and criminality: An empirical assessment of the empirical
evidence. American Sociological Review, 43, 643–656; for one of the most
thorough reviews, see Tittle, C. R., & Meier, R. F. (1990). Specifying the
SES/delinquency relationship. Criminology, 28, 271–299.
26. Kleck, G., & Chiricos, T. (2000). Unemployment and property crime: A
target-specific assessment of opportunity and motivation as mediating
factors. Criminology, 40, 649–680.
27. Bernard, T. J. (1987). Testing structural strain theories. Journal of

Research in Crime and Delinquency, 24, 262–280; Messner, S. F. (1988).
Merton’s “social structure and anomie”: The road not taken. Deviant
Behavior, 9, 33–53; see also discussion in Burton, V. S., & Cullen, F. T.
(1992). The empirical status of strain theory. Journal of Crime and Justice,
15, 1–30.
28. For a review of these studies, see Land, K. C., McCall, P. L., & Cohen,
L. E. (1990). Structural covariates of homicide rates: Are there any
invariances across time and social space? American Journal of Sociology,
95, 922–963.
29. For examples and reviews of these types of studies, see Agnew, R. F.,
Cullen, F. T., Burton, V. S., Evans, T. D., & Dunaway, R. G. (1996). A new
test of classic strain theory. Justice Quarterly, 13, 681–704; Burton, V., &
Cullen, F. (1992). The empirical status of strain theory. Journal of Crime
and Justice, 15, 1–30; Burton, V. S., Cullen, F. T., Evans, T. D., &
Dunaway, R. G. (1994). Reconsidering strain theory: Operationalization,
rival theories, and adult criminality. Journal of Quantitative Criminology,
10, 213–239; Farnworth, M., & Leiber, M. J. (1989). Strain theory
revisited: Economic goals, educational means, and delinquency. American
Sociological Review, 54, 263–274; Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of
delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press; Liska, A. E. (1971).
Aspirations, expectations, and delinquency: Stress and additive models.
Sociological Quarterly, 12, 99–107; see also discussion of this issue in
Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2004). Criminological theories: Introduction,
175.
30. Farnworth, M., & Leiber, M. J. (1989). Strain theory revisited:

Economic goals, educational means, and delinquency. American
Sociological Review, 54, 263–274.
31. Agnew, R. F., Cullen, F. T., Burton, V. S., Evans, T. D., & Dunaway, R.
G. (1996). A new test of classic strain theory. Justice Quarterly, 13, 681–
704.
32. Cohen, A. (1955). Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang. New York,
NY: Free Press.
33. Hindelang, M. J., Hirschi, T., & Weis, J. C. (1979). Correlates of
delinquency: The illusion of discrepancy between self-report and official
measures. American Sociological Review, 44, 995–1014; Tittle, C. R.,
Villemez, W. J., & Smith, D. A. (1978). The myth of social class and
criminality: An empirical assessment of the empirical evidence. American
34. See Bernard, T. J. (1987). Testing structural strain theories. Journal of

Research in Crime and Delinquency, 24, 262–280; Elliott, D., & Voss, H.
(1974). Delinquency and dropout. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books;
Jarjoura, G. R. (1993). Does dropping out of school enhance delinquent
involvement? Results from a large-scale national probability sample.
Criminology, 31, 149–172; Jarjoura, G. R. (1996). The conditional effect of
social class on the dropout-delinquency relationship. Journal of Research in
Crime and Delinquency, 33, 232–255; Merton, R. K. (1995). Opportunity
structure: The emergence, diffusion, and differentiation as sociological
concept, 1930s–1950s. In F. Adler & M. Laufer (Eds.), Advances in
criminological theory: The legacy of anomie theory (Vol. 6, pp. 3–17). New
Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Press; Thornberry, T. P., Moore, M., &
Christenson, R. L. (1985). The effect of dropping out of high school on
subsequent criminal behavior. Criminology, 23, 3–18; see also discussion in
Shoemaker, D. J. (2005). Theories of delinquency (5th ed.). New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
35. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley: University of

California Press; Liazos, A. (1978). School, alienation, and delinquency.
Crime and Delinquency, 24, 355–370; Rogers, J. W., & Mays, G. L. (1987).
Juvenile delinquency and juvenile justice. New York, NY: Wiley; Tygart, C.
E. (1988). Strain theory and public school vandalism: Academic tracking,
school social status, and students’ academic achievement. Youth and
Society, 20, 106–118.
36. Cloward, R. A., & Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity: A

theory of delinquent gangs. New York, NY: Free Press. For discussion and
theoretical critique of the model, see Bernard, T. J. (1987). Testing
structural strain theories. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
24, 262–280, and Merton, R. K. (1995). Opportunity structure: The
emergence, diffusion, and differentiation as sociological concept, 1930s–
1950s. In F. Adler & M. Laufer (Eds.), Advances in criminological theory:
The legacy of anomie theory (Vol. 6, pp. 3–17). New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction Press.

California Press; see discussion in Shoemaker, D. J. (2005). Theories of
delinquency (5th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 121–
130; Liska, A. E. (1971). Aspirations, expectations, and delinquency: Stress
and additive models. Sociological Quarterly, 12, 99–107; Short, J. F.
(1964). Gang delinquency and anomie. In M. B. Clinard (Ed.), Anomie and
deviant behavior: A discussion and critique (pp. 98–127). New York, NY:
Free Press; Short, J. F., Rivera, R., & Tennyson, R. A. (1965). Perceived
opportunities, gang membership, and delinquency. American Sociological
Review, 30, 56–67; Short, J. F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1965). Group processes
and gang delinquency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
38. Short, J. F., & Strodtbeck, F. L. (1965). Group processes and gang
delinquency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; Spergel, I. (1964).
Racketville, Slumtown, and Haulburg. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press; Tracy, P. E., Wolfgang, M. E., & Figlio, R. M. (1990). Delinquency
careers in two birth cohorts. New York, NY: Plenum.
39. Empey, L. T. (1991). American delinquency (4th ed.). Homewood, IL:

Dorsey.
40. Hindelang, M. J., Hirschi, T., & Weis, J. C. (1979). Correlates of

delinquency: The illusion of discrepancy between self-report and official
measures. American Sociological Review, 44, 995–1014; Tittle, C. R.,
Villemez, W. J., & Smith, D. A. (1978). The myth of social class and
criminality: An empirical assessment of the empirical evidence. American
41. For Agnew’s writings on this theory, see Agnew, R. (1985). A revised
strain theory of delinquency. Social Forces, 64, 151–167; Agnew, R.
(1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency.
Criminology, 30, 47–88; Agnew, R. (1995). Controlling delinquency:
Recommendations from general strain theory. In H. Barlow (Ed.), Crime
and public policy: Putting theory to work (pp. 43–70). Boulder, CO:
Westview Press; Agnew, R. (2001). Building on the foundation of general
strain theory: Specifying the types of strain most likely to lead to crime and
delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 319–361;
Agnew, R., Cullen, F., Burton, V., Evans, T. D., & Dunaway, R. G. (1996).
A new test of general strain theory. Justice Quarterly, 13, 681–704; Agnew,
R., & White, H. R. (1992). An empirical test of general strain theory.
42. Brezina, T., Piquero, A., & Mazerolle, P. (2001). Student anger and
aggressive behavior in school: An initial test of Agnew’s macro-level strain
theory. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 38, 362–386.
43. Agnew, R., Cullen, F., Burton, V., Evans, T. D., & Dunaway, R. G.
(1996). A new test of general strain theory. Justice Quarterly, 13, 681–704;
Agnew, R., & White, H. R. (1992). An empirical test of general strain
theory. Criminology, 30, 475–500; Baron, S. W. (2004). General strain,
street youth and crime: A test of Agnew’s revised theory. Criminology, 42,
457–484; Baron, S. W., & Hartnagel, T. F. (2002). Street youth and labor
market strain. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 519–533; Brezina, T. (1996).
Adapting to strain: An examination of delinquent coping responses.
Criminology, 34, 39–60; Broidy, L. M. (2001). A test of general strain
theory. Criminology, 39, 9–36; Hay, C. (2003). Family strain, gender, and
delinquency. Sociological Perspectives, 46, 107–135; Hoffman, J. P., &
Cerbone, F. G. (1999). Stressful life events and delinquency escalation in
early adolescence. Criminology, 37, 343–374; Hoffman, J. P., & Miller, A.
S. (1998). A latent variable analysis of general strain theory. Journal of
Quantitative Criminology, 14, 83–110; Hoffman, J. P., & Su, S. S. (1998).
Stressful life events and adolescent substance use and depression:
Conditional and gender differentiated effects. Substance Use and Misuse,
33, 2219–2262; Jang, S. J., & Johnson, B. R. (2003). Strain, negative
emotions, and deviant coping among African Americans: A test of general
strain theory. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 79–105; Mazerolle,
P. (1998). Gender, general strain, and delinquency: An empirical
examination. Justice Quarterly, 15, 65–91; Mazerolle, P., Burton, V.,
Cullen, F., Evans, T. D., & Payne, G. (2000). Strain, anger, and delinquent
adaptations: Specifying general strain theory. Journal of Criminal Justice,
28, 89–101; Mazerolle, P., & Maahs, J. (2000). General strain and
delinquency: An alternative examination of conditioning influences. Justice
Quarterly, 17, 753–778; Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Linking
exposure to strain with anger: An investigation of deviant adaptations.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 26, 195–211; Mazerolle, P., Piquero, A., &
Capowich, G. E. (2003). Examining the links between strain, situational and
dispositional anger, and crime: Further specifying and testing general strain
theory. Youth and Society, 35, 131–157; Paternoster, R., & Mazerolle, P.
(1994). General strain theory and delinquency: A replication and extension.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 31, 235–263; Piquero, N.
L., & Sealock, M. (2000). Generalizing general strain theory: An
examination of an offending population. Justice Quarterly, 17, 449–484.
44. A review of this research can be found in Baron, S. W. (2004). General

strain, street youth and crime: A test of Agnew’s revised theory.
45. For examples, see Hoffman, J. P., & Cerbone, F. G. (1999). Stressful life
events and delinquency escalation in early adolescence. Criminology, 37,
343–374; Hoffman, J. P., & Su, S. S. (1998). Stressful life events and
adolescent substance use and depression: Conditional and gender
differentiated effects. Substance Use and Misuse, 33, 2219–2262;
Paternoster, R., & Mazerolle, P. (1994). General strain theory and
delinquency: A replication and extension. Journal of Research in Crime
and Delinquency, 31, 235–263.
46. Baron, S. W. (2004). General strain, street youth and crime: A test of
Agnew’s revised theory. Criminology, 42, 457–467; Broidy, L. M. (2001).
A test of general strain theory. Criminology, 39, 9–36.
47. See Brezina, T. (1996). Adapting to strain: An examination of

delinquent coping responses. Criminology, 34, 39–60; Broidy, L. M. (2001).
A test of general strain theory. Criminology, 39, 9–36; Mazerolle, P., &
Piquero, A. (1998). Linking exposure to strain with anger: An investigation
of deviant adaptations. Journal of Criminal Justice, 26, 195–211.
48. Mazerolle, P. (1998). Gender, general strain, and delinquency: An

empirical examination. Justice Quarterly, 15, 65–91; Mazerolle, P., &
Piquero, A. (1998). Linking exposure to strain with anger: An investigation
of deviant adaptations. Journal of Criminal Justice, 26, 195–211; Piquero,
N. L., & Sealock, M. (2000). Generalizing general strain theory: An
examination of an offending population. Justice Quarterly, 17, 449–484.
49. Baron, S. W. (2004). General strain, street youth and crime: A test of
Agnew’s revised theory. Criminology, 42, 457–484; Mazerolle, P., Piquero,
A., & Capowich, G. E. (2003). Examining the links between strain,
situational and dispositional anger, and crime: Further specifying and
testing general strain theory. Youth and Society, 35, 131–157.
50. For examples, see Baron, S. W. (2004). General strain, street youth and
crime: A test of Agnew’s revised theory. Criminology, 42, 457–484;
Mazerolle, P., Burton, V., Cullen, F., Evans, T. D., & Payne, G. (2000).
Strain, anger, and delinquent adaptations: Specifying general strain theory.
Journal of Criminal Justice, 28, 89–101; see also discussion in Akers, R.
L., & Sellers, C. S. (2004). Criminological theories: Introduction,
182; Mazerolle, P., Piquero, A., & Capowich, G. E. (2003). Examining the
links between strain, situational and dispositional anger, and crime: Further
specifying and testing general strain theory. Youth and Society, 35, 131–157.
51. Wright, J. P., Tibbetts, S. G., & Daigle, L. (2015). Criminals in the
making: Criminality across the life course. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp.
204–207.
52. Van Voorhis, P., Braswell, M. C., & Lester, D. (2014). Correctional
counseling and rehabilitation (9th ed.). New Providence, NJ: Anderson.
Chapter 9
1. For an excellent discussion of the early history of Chicago, see Bernard,
T. J. (1992). The cycle of juvenile justice. New York: Oxford University
Press.
2. See discussion in Vold, G. B., Bernard, T. J., & Snipes, J. B. (2002).

Theoretical criminology (5th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press,
pp. 117–122.
3. These dates were taken from Famighetti, R. (2000). The world almanac
and book of facts, 2000: Millennium collector’s edition. Mahwah, NJ:
Primedia Reference.
4. Park, R. E. (1936). Human ecology. American Journal of Sociology, 42,

32–51; Park, R. E. (1952). Human communities. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
5. Burgess, E. W. (1928). The growth of the city. In R. Park, E. W. Burgess,

& R. D. McKenzie (Eds.), The city. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Press.
6. See Vold, G. B., Bernard, T. J., & Snipes, J. B. (2002). Theoretical

criminology (5th ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp. 118–121.
7. Shaw, C., & McKay, H. D. (1969). Juvenile delinquency and urban

areas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; Shaw, C., & McKay, H. D.
(1972). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas (Rev. ed.). Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
8. Shaw, C. (1930). The Jackroller. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago

Press; Shaw, C. (1931). The natural history of a delinquent career. Chicago,
IL: University of Chicago Press; Shaw, C. (1938). Brothers in crime.
Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
9. Shaw, C. (1938). Brothers in crime. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago

Press, pp. 354–355.
10. Bursik, R. J. (1986). Ecological stability and the dynamics of
delinquency. In A. J. Reiss & M. H. Tonry (Eds.), Crime and community
(pp. 35–66). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; Bursik, R. J. (1988).
Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: Problems and
prospects. Criminology, 26, 519–551; Heitgard, J. L, & Bursik, R. J. (1987).
Extracommunity dynamics and the ecology of delinquency. American
Journal of Sociology, 92, 775–787; Laub, J. (1983). Urbanism, race, and
crime. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 20, 283–298;
Sampson, R. (1985). Structural sources of variation in race-age-specific rate
of offending across major U.S. cities. Criminology, 23, 647–673; Sampson,
R. (2002). Transcending tradition: New directions in community research,
Chicago style—The American Society of Criminology 2001 Sutherland
Address. Criminology, 40, 213–230; Sampson, R., Morenoff, J. D., &
Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002). Assessing “neighborhood effects”: Social
processes and new directions in research. Annual Review of Sociology, 28,
443–478; Taylor, R., & Covington, J. (1988). Neighborhood changes in
ecology and violence. Criminology, 26, 553–589; Wikstrom, P. O., &
Loeber, R. (2000). Do disadvantaged neighborhoods cause well-adjusted
children to become adolescent delinquents? Criminology, 38, 1109–1142.
11. Sampson, R., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime:
Testing social disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94,
774–802.
12. Miller, W. B. (1962). The impact of a “total-community” delinquency

control project. Social Problems, 10, 168–191.
13. For a review, see Lundman, R. (1993). Prevention and control of

juvenile delinquency (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
See also the review by Vold, G. B., Bernard, T. J., & Snipes, J. B. (2002).
pp. 125–126.
14. Anonymous. (n.d.). 2018 National Crime Victims’ Rights Week

Resource Guide: Crime and Victimization Fact Sheets: Stalking. N.p.
https://ovc.ncjrs.gov/ncvrw2018/info_flyers/fact_sheets/2018NCVRW_Stal
king_508_QC_v2.pdf
15. Ibid.
16. Schmalleger, F. (2006). Criminology today (4th ed.). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Prentice Hall; Vold, G. B., Bernard, T. J., & Snipes, J. B. (2002).
pp. 165–169.
17. Ferracuti, F., & Wolfgang, M. (1967). The subculture of violence:

Toward an integrated theory of criminology. London, UK: Tavistock.
18. As quoted in Schmalleger, F. (2006). Criminology today (4th ed.).

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 230–231.
19. Miller, W. B. (1958). Lower class culture as a generating milieu of gang

delinquency. Journal of Social Issues, 14, 5–19.
20. Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the
moral life of the inner city. New York, NY: W. W. Norton.
21. Wright, J. P. (2009). Inconvenient truths: Science, race, and crime. In A.

Walsh & K. M. Beaver (Eds.), Biosocial criminology: New directions in
theory and research (pp. 137–153). New York, NY: Routledge.
22. Ibid., p. 144.
23. Ibid.
24. Laurence, J. (2015). Community disadvantage and race-specific rates of

violent crime: An investigation into the “racial invariance” hypothesis in
the United Kingdom. Deviant Behavior, 36, 974–995.
25. Sangmoon, K., Willis, C. L., Latterner, K, & LaGrange, R. (2016).

When birds of a feather don’t flock together: A macrostructural approach to
interracial crime. Sociological Inquiry, 86, 166–188.
26. Flannery, D. J., Vazsonyi, A. T., Liau, A. K., Guo, S. Powell, K. E.,
Atha, H., Vesterdal, W., & Embry, D. (2003). Initial behavior outcomes for
the PeaceBuilders universal school-based violence prevention program.
Developmental Psychology, 39(2), 292–308. doi:10.1037/0012-
1649.39.2.292
27. Weichold, K. (2004). Evaluation of an anti-aggressiveness training with

antisocial youth. Gruppendynamik, 35, 83–105; for a review, see Tibbetts,
S. (2009). Perinatal and developmental determinants of early onset of
offending: A biosocial approach for explaining the two peaks of early
antisocial behavior. In J. Savage (Ed.)., The development of persistent
criminality (pp. 179–201). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Chapter 10
1. Butterfield, F. (2018, October 22). When crime is a family affair. The
Atlantic. Retrieved from
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/10/crime-runs-
family/573394
2. Spitznagel, E. (2018, October 6). This “loving” family raised four

generations of criminals. The New York Post. Retrieved from
https://nypost.com/2018/10/06/this-loving-family-raised-four-generations-
of-criminals
3. Butterfield, F. (2018, October 22). When crime is a family affair. The

Atlantic, para. 7. Retrieved from
https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2018/10/crime-runs-
family/573394
4. Free, M. (1991). Clarifying the relationship between the broken home

and juvenile delinquency: A critique of the current literature. Deviant
Behavior: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 12, 109–167; Rankin, J. (1983).
The family context of delinquency. Social Problems, 30, 446–497;
Thornberry, T. P., Smith, C. A., Rivera, C., Huizinga, D., & Stouthamer-
Loeber, M. (1999). Family disruption and delinquency (Juvenile Justice
Bulletin). Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency
Prevention.
5. Cernkovich, S., & Giordana, P. (1987). Family relationships and

delinquency. Criminology, 25, 295–321; Wells, L. E., & Rankin, J. H.
(1988). Direct parental controls and delinquency. Criminology, 26, 263–
285.
6. Brezina, T. (1998). Adolescent maltreatment and delinquency. Journal of

Research in Crime and Delinquency, 35, 71–98; Smith, C., & Thornberry,
T. P. (1995). The relationship between childhood maltreatment and
adolescent involvement in delinquency. Criminology, 33, 451–476; Widom,
C. S. (1989). Child abuse, neglect, and violent criminal behavior.
Criminology, 27, 251–271; Widom, C. S., & Ames, M. A. (1994). Criminal
consequences of childhood sexual victimization. Child Abuse and Neglect,
18, 303–318.
7. Harlow, C. W. (1994). Comparing federal and state prison inmates,

1991. Washington, DC: Department of Justice; Kaufman, P., Klein, S., &
Frase, M. (1999). Dropout rates in the United States: 1997. Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education; Lotz, R., & Lee, L. (1999). Sociability,
school experience, and delinquency. Youth and Society, 31, 199–223; Reed,
M. D., & Rose, D. R. (1998). Doing what Simple Simon says? Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 25, 383–393; Warr, M. (1996). Organization and
instigation in delinquent groups. Criminology, 34, 863–864; Warr, M., &
Stafford, M. (1991). The influence of delinquent peers. Criminology, 29,
851–866.

evaluation (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury, pp. 59–61.
9. Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1931). Report on the causes of crime:

Social factors in juvenile delinquency, 2 (National Commission on Law
Observance and Enforcement, Report No. 13). Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office; Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile
delinquency in urban areas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
10. Tarde, C. (1903). The laws of imitation. Gloucester, MA: Henry Holt;
see also Tarde, G. (1972). Penal philosophy. In S. F. Sylvester (Ed.), The
heritage of modern criminology. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman. (Original
11. Vine, M. S. (1960). Gabriel Tarde. In H. Mannheim (Ed.), Pioneers in

criminology (pp. 228–240). Chicago, IL: Quadrangle Books.
12. Sutherland, E. H. (1939). Principles of criminology (3rd ed.).

Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
13. Sutherland, E. H., & Cressey, D. R. (2006). A theory of differential

association. In F. T. Cullen & R. Agnew (Eds.), Criminological theory: Past
to present (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury, pp. 123–124.
14. Pavlov, I. P. (1906). The scientific investigation of the psychical
faculties or processes in the higher animals. Science, 24, 613–619; see also
Pavlov, I. P. (1902). The work of the digestive glands (W. H. Gantt, Ed. &
Trans.). London, England: Charles Griffin.
15. See Abraham, A. J., Ducharme, L. J., & Roman, P. M. (2009).

Counselor attitudes toward pharmacotherapies for alcohol dependence.
Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 70, 628–635; Krishnan-Sarin, S.,
O’Malley, S., & Krysta, J. H. (2008). Treatment implications. Alcohol
Research and Health, 31, 400–407.
16. Sutherland, E. H., & Cressey, D. R. (1974). Criminology (9th ed.).

Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
17. Matsueda, R. L., & Heimer, K. (1987). Race, family structure, and
delinquency: A test of differential association and social control theories.
American Sociological Review, 47, 489–504; Tittle, C. R., Burke, M. J., &
Jackson, E. F. (1986). Modeling Sutherland’s theory of differential
association: Toward an empirical clarification. Social Forces, 65, 405–432.
18. Piquero, N. L., Tibbetts, S. G., & Blankenship, M. B. (2005).

Examining the role of differential association and techniques of
neutralization in explaining corporate crime. Deviant Behavior, 26, 159–
188. This study also reviews other recent corporate crime studies that test
differential association and other theoretical models.
19. Tittle, C. R., Burke, M. J., & Jackson, E. F. (1986). Modeling

Sutherland’s theory of differential association: Toward an empirical
clarification. Social Forces, 65, 405–432.
20. Thornberry, T. (1987). Toward an interactional theory of delinquency.

21. Tunnell, K. (1993). Inside the drug trade: Trafficking from the dealer’s
perspective. Qualitative Sociology, 16, 361–381.
22. Smith, D., Visher, C., & Jarjoura, G. R. (1991). Dimensions of

delinquency: Exploring the correlates of participation, frequency, and
persistence of delinquent behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and
Delinquency, 28, 6–32.
23. Ploeger, M. (1997). Youth employment and delinquency: Reconsidering

a problematic relationship. Criminology, 35, 659–675.
24. Adams, R. (1974). The adequacy of differential association theory.

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1, 1–8; Short, J. F. (1960).
Differential association as a hypothesis: Problems of empirical testing.
Social Problems, 8, 14–25.
25. Glaser, D. (1956). Criminality theories and behavioral images.

American Journal of Sociology, 61, 433–444.
26. Ibid., p. 440.
27. Dawes, K. J. (1973). Family relationships, reference others, differential

identification and their joint impact on juvenile delinquency. Ann Arbor,
MI: University Microfilms.
28. Jeffery, C. R. (1965). Criminal behavior and learning theory. Journal of

Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 56, 294–300.
29. Burgess, R., & Akers, R. (1966). A differential association-

reinforcement theory of criminal behavior. Social Problems, 14, 131.
30. Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York, NY:
Macmillan.
31. Klotter, J. C. (2004). Criminal law (7th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson,
p. 68.
32. Ibid., p. 69.
Department of Justice, n.p. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-
u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/murder
34. Ibid.
35. Klotter, J. C. (2004). Criminal law (7th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson,
p. 580.
36. McGee, K. P. (1995). Comment: The absence of malice? In re Christian

S., the second wind of the imperfect self-defense doctrine. Golden Gate
University Law Review, 25, 297–330.
37. Deutsch, G., & Valiente, A. (2014, July 16). From best friends to killers:
Teens murder friend because they “didn’t like her.” ABCNews. Retrieved
from https://abcnews.go.com/US/best-friends-killers-teens-murder-friend-
didnt/story?id=24573749
38. Caulfield, P. (2013, September 5). Second teen girl suspected of slaying
best friend in shocking West Virginia murder will be tried as an adult. The
New York Daily News. Retrieved from
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/teen-girl-suspected-slaying-
best-friend-shocking-west-virginia-murder-adult-article-1.1446955
39. Jauregui, A. (2014, January 25). Sheila Eddy murdered Skylar Neese
because she “didn’t want to be friends with her anymore.” HuffPost.
Retrieved from https://www.huffpost.com/entry/sheila-eddy-murdered-
skylar-neese_n_4664833
40. Deutsch, G., & Valiente, A. (2014, July 16). From best friends to killers:
Teens murder friend because they “didn’t like her.” ABCNews. Retrieved
from https://abcnews.go.com/US/best-friends-killers-teens-murder-friend-
didnt/story?id=24573749
41. Lang, A. (2017, July 6). Judgement is served in Skylar’s case: “It was
just draining.” The Dominion Post. Retrieved from
https://www.dominionpost.com/2017/07/06/judgment-is-served-in-skylars-
case-it-was-just-draining
42. Van Voorhis, P., Braswell, M., & Lester, D. (2000). Correctional
counseling (4th ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
43. Akers, R. L. (1977). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach (2nd

ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, p. 57.
44. Tarde, G. (1972). Penal philosophy. In S. F. Sylvester (Ed.), The
heritage of modern criminology. Cambridge, MA: Schenkman. (Original
45. See Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New

York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston; Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A
social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; Bandura, A.
(1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
46. Adams, R. (1973). Differential association and learning principles

revisited. Social Problems, 20, 458–470.
47. Warr, M. (1991). Parents, peers, and delinquency. Social Forces, 72,
247–264; Warr, M., & Stafford, M. (1991). The influence of delinquent
peers: What they think or what they do? Criminology, 29, 851–866.
48. See Akers, R., & Sellers, C. (2004). Criminological theories (4th ed.).
Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury, pp. 98–101.
49. See studies such as Akers, R., & La Greca, A. J. (1991). Alcohol use
among the elderly: Social learning, community context, and life events. In
D. J. Pittman & H. Raskin White (Eds.), Society, culture, and drinking
patterns re-examined (pp. 242–262). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Center
of Alcohol Studies; Akers, R., & Lee, G. (1996). A longitudinal test of
social learning theory: Adolescent smoking. Journal of Drug Issues, 26,
317–343; Akers, R., & Lee, G. (1999). Age, social learning, and social
bonding in adolescent substance abuse. Deviant Behavior, 19, 1–25;
Hwang, S. (2000). Substance use in a sample of South Korean adolescents:
A test of alternative theories. Ann Arbor, MI: University Microfilms;
Hwang, S., & Akers, R. (2003). Adolescent substance use in South Korea:
A cross-cultural test of three theories. In R. Akers & G. F. Jensen (Eds.),
Social learning theory and the explanation of crime: A guide for the new
century. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
50. Akers, R., Krohn, M. D., Lanza-Kaduce, L., & Radosevich, M. (1979).
Social learning and deviant behavior: A specific test of a general theory.
American Sociological Review, 44, 638.
51. Ibid., p. 651.
52. Akers, R., & Lee, G. (1996). A longitudinal test of social learning
theory: Adolescent smoking. Journal of Drug Issues, 26, 317–343; Krohn,
M., Skinner, W., Massey, J., & Akers, R. (1985). Social learning theory and
adolescent cigarette smoking: A longitudinal study. Social Problems, 32,
455–471; Lawrence, R. (1991). School performance, peers and
delinquency: Implications for juvenile justice. Juvenile and Family Court
Journal, 42, 59–69; Winfree, L. T., Sellers, C., & Clason, D. (1993). Social
learning and adolescent deviance abstention: Toward understanding the
reasons for initiating, quitting, and avoiding drugs. Journal of Quantitative
53. Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Sellers, C. S., Winfree, L. T., Madensen, T. D.,
Daigle, L. E. . . . Gau, J. M. (2010). The empirical status of social learning
theory: A meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 27(6), 765–802.
54. Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A

theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22, 664–670.
55. Matza, D. (1964). Delinquency and drift. New York, NY: Wiley.
56. Ibid., p. 28.

theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22, 664–670.
58. McCorkle, L., & Korn, R. (1954). Resocialization within walls. Annals
of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 293, 88–98.

theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22, 669.

188.
61. Ibid., p. 164.
62. Agnew, R. (1994). The techniques of neutralization and violence.

63. Minor, W. W. (1980). The neutralization of criminal offense.

Criminology, 18, 116; Minor, W. W. (1984). Neutralization as a hardening
process: Considerations in the modeling of change. Social Forces, 62, 995–
1019. See also Austin, R. L. (1984). Commitment, neutralization, and
delinquency. In T. N. Ferdinand (Ed.), Juvenile delinquency: Little brother
grows up. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE; Thurman, Q. C. (1984). Deviance and
the neutralization of moral commitment: An empirical analysis. Deviant
Behavior, 5, 291–304.

California Press, p. 207. See also Hamlin, J. (1988). The misplaced concept
of rational choice in neutralization theory. Criminology, 26, 425–438;
Pogrebin, M., Poole, E., & Martinez, A. (1992). Accounts of professional
misdeeds: The sexual exploitation of clients by psychotherapists. Deviant
Behavior, 13, 229–252.
65. Lewis, M., Alessandri, S., & Sullivan, M. (1990). Expectancy, loss of
control, and anger in young infants. Developmental Psychology, 25, 745–
751; Restoin, A., Rodriguez, D., Ulmann, V., & Montagner, H. (1985). New
data on the development of communication behavior in the young child
with his peers. Recherches de Psychologie Sociale, 5, 31–56; Tremblay, R.
E., Japel, C., Perusse, D., McDuff, P., Boivin, M., Zoccolillo, M., &
Montplaisir, J. (1999). The search for the age of “onset” of physical
aggression: Rousseau and Bandura revisited. Criminal Behaviour and
Mental Health, 9, 8–23.
66. Tremblay, R., & LeMarquand, D. (2001). Individual risk and protective
factors. In R. Loeber & D. Farrington (Eds.), Child delinquents:
Development, intervention, and service needs (pp. 137–164). Thousand
Oaks, CA: SAGE.
67. For reviews of supporting studies, see Lewis, M. (1992). Shame: The
exposed self. New York, NY: Macmillan; Tangney, J. P., & Fischer, K. W.
(Eds.). (1995). Self-conscious emotions: The psychology of shame, guilt,
embarrassment, and pride. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
68. Walsh, A., & Ellis, L. (1999). Political ideology and American
criminologists’ explanations for criminal behavior. The Criminologist, 24,
1, 14.
69. Hobbes, T. (1904). Leviathan. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University

Press. (Original work published 1651)
70. Durkheim, É. (1951). Suicide. New York, NY: Free Press. (Original
work published 1897); Durkheim, É. (1965). The division of labor in
society. New York, NY: Free Press. (Original work published 1893).
71. Durkheim, É. (1951). Suicide. New York: Free Press, pp. 246–247.
(Original work published 1897). Also, much of this discussion is adapted
from R. Paternoster & R. Bachman (Eds.). (2001). Explaining criminals
and crime. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
72. Durkheim, É. (1951). Suicide. New York, NY: Free Press, p. 254.
(Original work published 1897).
73. A good discussion of Durkheim’s concepts, particularly the collective

conscience, can be found in Vold, G. B., Bernard, T. J., & Snipes, J. B.
(1998). Theoretical criminology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford
University Press, pp. 124–139.
74. Freud, S. (1959). The ego and the id. In J. Strachey (Ed.), The complete
psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol. 19). London, England:
Hogarth Press. (Original work published 1923).
75. Reiss, A. (1951). Delinquency as the failure of personal and social

controls. American Sociological Review, 16, 196–207.
76. For a comprehensive review of 20th-century studies of low self-control,

see Pratt, T., & Cullen, F. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and
Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931–
964.
77. Vold, G. B., Bernard, T. J., & Snipes, J. B. (1998). Theoretical
criminology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 202–
203.
78. Toby, J. (1957). Social disorganization and stake in conformity:

Complementary factors in the predatory behavior of hoodlums. Journal of
Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 48, 12–17.

California Press; Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (1993). Crime in the making:
Pathways and turning points in life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
80. Nye, F. I. (1958). Family relationships and delinquent behavior. New

York, NY: Wiley.
81. Seydlitz, R. (1993). Complexity in the relationships among direct and

indirect parental controls and delinquency. Youth and Society, 24, 243–275.
82. Tittle, C. (1995). Control balance: Toward a general theory of deviance.

Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
83. Reckless, W. (1967). The crime problem (4th ed.). New York, NY:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
84. Ibid., p. 479.
85. Dodder, R. A., & Long, J. R. (1980). Containment theory reevaluated:

An empirical explication. Criminal Justice Review, 5, 74–84; Lawrence, R.
(1985). School performance, containment theory, and delinquent behavior.
Youth and Society, 7, 69–95.
86. Thompson, W. E., & Dodder, R. A. (1986). Containment theory and

juvenile delinquency: A reevaluation through factor analysis. Adolescence,
21, 365–376.
87. Akers, R. L. (2000). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation,

and application (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury, pp. 103–104.
88. Matza, D. (1964). Delinquency and drift. New York, NY: Wiley.
89. OJJDP Statistical Briefing Book. Arrest data for 1980–1997 from
unpublished data from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and for 1998,
1999, and 2000 from Crime in the United States reports. Washington, DC:
U.S. Government Printing Office, 1999, 2000, and 2001, respectively.
90. “Age–arrest rate curve” is loosely based on data provided by FBI.

(1997). Crime in the United States, 1996. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.

207.

California Press.
93. Ibid, p. 31, in which Hirschi cites Durkheim.
94. Ibid., p. 18.
95. Ibid., p. 22.
96. For a review, see Akers, R. L. (2000). Criminological theories:

Introduction, evaluation, and application (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA:
Roxbury, pp. 105–110.
97. Ibid.
98. Elliott, D., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. (1985). Explaining delinquency
and drug use. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE.
99. Walsh, A., & Ellis, L. (1999). Political ideology and American
criminologists’ explanations for criminal behavior. The Criminologist, 24,
1, 14.
100. Eisner, M. (2002). Crime, problem drinking, and drug use: Patterns of
problem behavior in cross-national perspective. Annals of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science, 580, 201–225; Vazsonyi, A., &
Killias, M. (2001). Immigration and crime among youth in Switzerland.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 28, 329–366; Wong, D. (2001). Pathways to
delinquency in Hong Kong and Guangzhou, South China. International
Journal of Adolescence and Youth, 10, 91–115.
101. Tittle, C. (1995). Control balance: Toward a general theory of

deviance. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
102. Hickman, M., & Piquero, A. (2001). Exploring the relationships

between gender, control balance, and deviance. Deviant Behavior, 22, 323–
351; Piquero, A., & Hickman, M. (1999). An empirical test of Tittle’s
control balance theory. Criminology, 37, 319–342.
103. Hickman, M., & Piquero, A. (2001). Exploring the relationships

between gender, control balance, and deviance. Deviant Behavior, 22, 323–
351.
104. Hagan, J. (1989). Structural criminology. Newark, NJ: Rutgers

University Press; Hagan, J., Gillis, A., & Simpson, J. (1985). The class
structure of gender and delinquency: Toward a power-control theory of
common delinquent behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 1151–
1178; Hagan, J., Gillis, A., & Simpson, J. (1990). Clarifying and extending
power-control theory. American Journal of Sociology, 95, 1024–1037;
Hagan, J., Simpson, J., & Gillis, A. (1987). Class in the household: A
power-control theory of gender and delinquency. American Journal of
Sociology, 92, 788–816.
105. Hagan, J., Simpson, J., & Gillis, A. (1987). Class in the household: A
Sociology, 92, 788–816; McCarthy, B., & Hagan, J. (1987). Gender,
delinquency, and the Great Depression: A test of power-control theory.
Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 24, 153–177; Morash,
M., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1991). A reformulation and partial test of the
power-control theory of delinquency. Justice Quarterly, 8, 347–377; Singer,
S., & Levine, M. (1988). Power-control theory, gender, and delinquency: A
partial replication with additional evidence on the effects of peers.
106. McCarthy, B., Hagan, J., & Woodward, T. (1999). In the company of
women: Structure and agency in a revised power-control theory of gender
and delinquency. Criminology, 37, 761–788.
107. Blackwell, B. S. (2000). Perceived sanction threats, gender, and crime:

A test and elaboration of power-control theory. Criminology, 38, 439–488.
108. Ibid.; Bates, K., & Bader, C. (2003). Family structure, power-control
theory, and deviance: Extending power-control theory to include alternate
family forms. Western Criminology Review, 4, 170–190.
110. For an excellent review of studies regarding low self-control theory,

see Pratt, T., & Cullen, F. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and
964. For critiques of this theory, see Akers, R. (1991). Self-control as a
general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 7, 201–211.
For a study that demonstrates the high popularity of the theory, see Walsh,
A., & Ellis, L. (1999). Political ideology and American criminologists’
explanations for criminal behavior. The Criminologist, 24, 1, 14.
111. Hay, C. (2001). Parenting, self-control, and delinquency: A test of self-

control theory. Criminology, 39, 707–736; Hayslett-McCall, K., & Bernard,
T. (2002). Attachment, masculinity, and self-control: A theory of male
crime rates. Theoretical Criminology, 6, 15–33.
112. Piquero, A., & Tibbetts, S. (1996). Specifying the direct and indirect
effects of low self-control and situational factors in offenders’ decision
making: Toward a more complete model of rational offending. Justice
Quarterly, 13, 481–510.
113. Raine, A. (1993). The psychopathology of crime: Criminal behavior as

a clinical disorder. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
114. Walsh, A. (2002). Biosocial criminology: Introduction and integration.

Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.
115. Fiorillo, C., Tobler, P., & Schultz, W. (2003). Discrete coding of
reward probability and uncertainty by dopamine neurons. Science, 299,
1898–1902.
116. Grasmick, H., & Bursik, R. (1990). Conscience, significant others, and
rational choice: Extending the deterrence model. Law and Society Review,
24, 837–861; Tibbetts, S. (1997). Shame and rational choice in offending
decisions. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 24, 234–255.
117. Tibbetts, S., & Herz, D. (1996). Gender differences in factors of social
control and rational choice. Deviant Behavior, 17, 183–208.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01639625.1996.9968022

119. Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners. (2007). Conditions of parole.

Retrieved from http://parole.nv.gov/FAQs/ConditionsOfParole
120. For example, Sandy, S. V., & Boardman, S. K. (2000). The Peaceful
Kids conflict resolution program. International Journal of Conflict
Management, 11, 337–357; Levine, E., & Tamburrino, M. (2014). Bullying
among young children: Strategies for prevention. Early Childhood
Education Journal, 42, 271–278.
121. Tremblay, R. E., & Craig, W. M. (1997). Developmental juvenile

delinquency prevention. European Journal on Criminal Policy and
Research, 5, p. 44.
122. Williams, F. P., & McShane, M. D. (1999). Criminological theory (3rd

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
123. Montillo, R. (2015). The wilderness of ruin: A tale of madness, fire,

and the hunt for America’s youngest serial killer. New York, NY: William
Morrow, p. 18.
124. Ibid.
125. The story of Jesse Pomeroy, 14-year-old serial killer. (2015, March
13). CBS News. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-story-
of-jesse-pomeroy-14-year-old-serial-killer
126. Celebrate Boston. (n.d.). Jesse Pomeroy: The boy fiend. Retrieved
from http://www.celebrateboston.com/crime/jesse-pomeroy-serial-
killer.htm
127. McDade, T. M. (1961). The annals of murder. Norman: University of

Oklahoma Press.
Chapter 11
1. Ganim, S., & Tran, L. (2016, January 13). How tap water became toxic in
Flint, Michigan. CNN. Retrieved from
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/11/health/toxic-tap-water-flint-michigan
2. Associated Press. (2019, January 18). 15 people have been charged in the
Flint water scandal. AP News. Retrieved from
https://www.apnews.com/bd7cac3dee0341fba374a28cf716a6a6
3. Ganim, S., & Tran, L. (2016, January 13). How tap water became toxic in
Flint, Michigan. CNN. Retrieved from
http://www.cnn.com/2016/01/11/health/toxic-tap-water-flint-michigan
4. Barak, G. (2003). Revisionist history, visionary criminology, and needs-

based justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 63, 217–225.
5. Ibid., pp. 218–219. See also Platt, T. (1974, Spring–Summer). Prospects

for a radical criminology in the United States. Crime and Social Justice, 1,
2–6; Schwendinger, H., & Schwendinger, J. (1970). Defenders of order or
guardians of human rights. Issues in Criminology, 5, 123–157.
6. Barak, G. (2003). Revisionist history, visionary criminology, and needs-

based justice. Contemporary Justice Review, 63, 219.
7. Ibid.

9. Akers, R. L. (1973). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach.

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, pp. 21–22; see also Becker, H. S. (Ed.). (1964).
The other side. New York: Free Press.
10. Cooley, C. H. (1909). Social organization. New York, NY: Scribner’s;

Cooley, C. H. (1922). Human nature and social order (Rev. ed.). New York,
NY: Scribner’s.
11. Cooley, C. H. (1909). Social organization. New York, NY: Scribner’s, p.
23.
12. Reynolds, L. T. (1994). The early interactionists: Cooley and Thomas.

In N. J. Herman & L. T. Reynolds (Eds.), Symbolic interaction: An
introduction to social psychology (pp. 30–37). New York, NY: General
Hall.
13. Ibid., p. 36.
14. Thomas, W. I., & Thomas, D. S. (1928). The child in America. New
York, NY: Knopf.
15. Thomas, W. I. (1923). The unadjusted girl. New York, NY: Harper &
Row.
16. Meltzer, B. N. (1994). Mead’s social psychology. In N. J. Herman & L.

T. Reynolds (Eds.), Symbolic interaction: An introduction to social
psychology (pp. 38–54). New York, NY: General Hall.
17. Blumer, H. (1968). Symbolic interactionism: Perspective and method.

Berkeley: University of California Press, pp. 65–66.

19. Goffman E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled

identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, p. 3.
20. Tannenbaum, F. (1938). Crime and the community. Boston, MA: Ginn,
pp. 17–18.
21. Ibid., pp. 19–20.
22. Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology: A systematic approach to the

theory of sociopathic behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, p. 75.
23. Lemert, E. M. (1972). Human deviance, social problems, and social

control (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, p. 63.
24. Ibid., p. 48; see also Lemert, E. M. (1948). Some aspects of a general
theory of sociopathic behavior. Proceedings of Pacific Sociological Society,
16, 23–29.
25. Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology: A systematic approach to the

theory of sociopathic behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, p. 77.
26. Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance.

New York, NY: Free Press, p. 15.
27. Ibid., p. 9.
28. Ibid., pp. 19–21. See also Arrigo, B. A. (2000). Social justice and
critical criminology: On integrating knowledge. Contemporary Justice
Review, 3, 7–37.
29. Schur, E. M. (1971). Labeling deviant behavior: Its sociological

implications. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
30. Ibid., p. 17.
31. Ibid., p. 24.
32. Schur, E. M. (1973). Radical nonintervention: Rethinking the

delinquency problem. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, p. 120.
33. Piliavin, I., & Briar, S. (1964). Police encounters with juveniles.
American Journal of Sociology, 70, 206–214.

delinquency problem. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 120–121.
35. Ibid., p. 121.
36. Ibid., p. 122.
37. Cicourel, A. V. (1968). The social organization of juvenile justice. New

York, NY: Wiley, p. 132.
delinquency problem. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 123–126.
39. Schrag, C. (1971). Crime and justice: American style. Washington, DC:
Government Printing Office, pp. 89–91.
40. Wellford, W. (1975). Labelling theory and criminology: An assessment.

Social Problems, 22, 333.
41. Horwitz, A., & Wasserman, M. (1979). The effect of social control on
delinquent behavior: A longitudinal test. Sociological Focus, 12, 53–70;
Shannon, L. W. (1988). Criminal career continuity: Its social context. New
York, NY: Human Sciences Press; Smith, D. A., & Paternoster, R. (1990).
Formal processing and future delinquency: Deviance amplification as
selection artifact. Law & Society Review, 24, 1109–1131; Wooldredge, J.
(1988). Differentiating the effects of juvenile court sentences on eliminating
recidivism. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 25, 264–300.
42. Matsueda, R. L. (1992). Reflected appraisals, parental labeling, and

delinquency: Specifying a symbolic interactionist theory. American Journal
of Sociology, 97, 1577–1611.
43. Adams, M. S., & Evans, D. T. (1996). Teacher disapproval, delinquent

peers, and self-reported delinquency: A longitudinal test of labeling theory.
The Urban Review, 28, 199–211.
44. Adams, M. S., Johnson, J. D., & Evans, D. T. (1998). Racial differences
in informal labeling effects. Deviant Behavior, 19, 157–171; Albonetti, C.
A., & Hepburn, J. R. (1996). Prosecutorial discretion to defer
criminalization: The effects of defendant’s ascribed and achieved status
characteristics. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 12, 63–81.
45. Rosenbaum, J. L., & Prinsky, L. (1991). The presumption of influence:

Recent responses to popular music subcultures. Crime and Delinquency, 37,
528–535.
46. Kelley, T. M. (1983). Status offenders can be different: A comparative

study of delinquent careers. Crime and Delinquency, 29, 365–380; Rausch,
S. (1983). Court processing versus diversion of status offenders: A test of
deterrence and labeling theories. Journal of Research in Crime and
47. Lopes, G., Krohn, M.D., Lizotte, A.J., Schmidt, N.M., Vasquez, B.E., &
Bernburg, J.G. (2012). Labeling and cumulative disadvantage: The impact
of formal police intervention on life changes and crime during emerging
adulthood. Crime and Delinquency, 58, 456-488.
48. Schwartz, R. D., & Skolnick, J. H. (1962). Two studies of legal stigma.
49. Ibid., p. 136.
50. Rosenhan, D. L. (1973). On being sane in insane places. Science, 179,

250–258.
51. Hanes, S. (2004, May 21). Guilty plea closes ’84 case of Rosedale girl’s
murder. The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved from
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2004-05-21-0405210277-
story.html
52. Innocence Project. (n.d.). Kirk Bloodsworth. Retrieved from

https://www.innocenceproject.org/cases/kirk-bloodsworth
53. Hanes, S. (2004, May 21). Guilty plea closes ’84 case of Rosedale girl’s
murder. The Baltimore Sun. Retrieved from
https://www.baltimoresun.com/news/bs-xpm-2004-05-21-0405210277-
story.html
54. Tittle, C. R. (1976). Labelling and crime: An empirical evaluation. In

W. R. Gove (Ed.), The labelling of deviance: Evaluating a perspective (p.
158). New York, NY: John Wiley.
55. Ibid.
56. Smith, D. A., & Paternoster, R. (1990). Formal processing and future
delinquency: Deviance amplification as selection artifact. Law and Society
Review, 24, 1129.
57. Gibbs, J. P. (1970). Conceptions of deviant behavior: The old and the
new. In H. L. Voss (Ed.), Society, delinquency, and delinquent behavior (p.
217). Boston, MA: Little, Brown.
58. Rogers, J. W., & Buffalo, M. D. (1975). Fighting back: Nine modes of
adaptation to a deviant label. Social Problems, 22, 101–118.
59. Hagan, J. (1973). Labelling and deviance: A case study in the

‘sociology of the interesting.’ Social Problems, 20, 456.
60. Martin, R., Mutchnick, R. J., & Austin, W. T. (1990). Criminological

thought: Pioneers past and present. New York, NY: Macmillan, p. 361.
61. Goode, E. (1975). On behalf of labeling theory. Social Problems, 22,

581.
62. Wellford, C. (1975). Labelling theory and criminology: An assessment.

Social Problems, 22, 332–345. See also Goode, E. (1975). On behalf of
labeling theory. Social Problems, 22, 570–583; Manning, P. K. (1975).
Deviance and dogma: Some comments on the labeling perspective. British
Journal of Criminology, 15, 1–20; Meade, A. C. (1974). The labeling
approach to delinquency: State of the theory as a function of method. Social
Forces, 53, 83–91.
63. Wellford, C. F., & Triplett, R. (1993). The future of labeling theory. In
F. Adler & W. Laufer (Eds.), New directions in criminological theory (p.
22). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction. See also Wellford, C. F. (1997).
Controlling crime and achieving justice: The American Society of
Criminology 1996 Presidential Address. Criminology, 35, 1–11.

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, p. 148.
65. See Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge,

UK: Cambridge University Press; Grasmick, H. G., Bursik, R. J., &
Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Reduction in drunk driving as a response to
increased threats of shame, embarrassment, and legal sanctions.
Criminology, 31, 41–67; Grasmick, H. G., Bursik, R. J., & Kinsey, K. A.
(1991). Shame and embarrassment as deterrents to noncompliance with the
law: The case of an antilittering campaign. Environment and Behavior, 23,
233–251.
66. Karp, D. R. (2000). The new debate about shame in criminal justice: An
interactionist account. Justice System Journal, 21, 301–322.

68. Van de Mieroop, M. (2005). King Hammurabi of Babylon: A biography.

Malden, MA: Blackwell.
u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/larceny-theft
70. Ibid.
71. Rosenthal, L. (2017, October 4). What it’s like to be a 13-year-old girl
and in jail for shoplifting. Bustle. Retrieved from
https://www.bustle.com/p/what-its-like-to-be-a-13-year-old-girl-in-jail-for-
shoplifting-2477958
72. Lynch, M. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). A primer in radical criminology

(2nd ed). New York, NY: Harrow & Heston, pp. 19–20.
73. Ibid., p. 20.
74. Dahrendorf, R. (1959). Class and class conflict in industrial society.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
75. Colvin, M., & Pauly, J. (1983). A critique of criminology: Toward an

integrated structural-Marxist theory of delinquency production. American
Journal of Sociology, 89, 513–551.
76. Ibid., p. 521.

77. Ibid.
78. Vold, G. B. (1958). Theoretical criminology. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press.

criminology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, pp. 4–7; see
also Pelfrey, W. V. (1980). The evolution of criminology. Cincinnati, OH:
Anderson.
80. Pelfrey, W. V. (1980). The evolution of criminology. Cincinnati, OH:

Anderson, p. 62.
81. Vold, G. B. (1958). Theoretical criminology. New York, NY: Oxford

University Press, p. vii.

criminology (4th ed.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, p. 236.
83. Ibid., p. 237.
84. Ibid.
85. Brown, S. E., Esbensen, F., & Geis, G. (1991). Criminology: Explaining
crime and its context. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson, p. 401.

Anderson, p. 64.
87. Turk, A. (1969). Criminality and legal order. Chicago, IL: Rand
McNally, p. 10.

Anderson, pp. 64–65.
89. Turk, A. (1969). Criminality and legal order. Chicago, IL: Rand
McNally, p. 18.
90. Ibid., pp. 36–38.

241.
92. Turk, A. T. (1979). Analyzing official deviance for nonpartisan conflict

analyses in criminology. Criminology, 16, 459.
93. Quinney, R. (1977). Class, state, and crime. New York, NY: David
McKay, p. 165.
94. Turk, A. T. (1979). Analyzing official deviance for nonpartisan conflict

analyses in criminology. Criminology, 16, 464.
95. Quinney, R. (1970). The social reality of crime. Boston, MA: Little,
Brown, pp. 15–16.
96. Ibid., pp. 16–18.
97. Ibid., pp. 18–20.
98. Ibid., pp. 20–22.
99. Ibid., pp. 22–23.
100. Ibid., p. 23.
101. Greenberg, D. F. (Ed.). (1981). Crime and capitalism: Readings in

Marxist criminology. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield; Williams, F. P., & McShane,
M. D. (1999). Criminological theory (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ:
102. Marx, K. (2006). The communist manifesto. New York, NY: Penguin
Books.
103. Marx, K. (1962). Selected works [of] Karl Marx and Frederick Engels.
Moscow, USSR: Foreign Languages Publishing House, p. 22.

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 169–170.
105. Chambliss, W., & Seidman, R. (1971). Law, order, and power.
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, p. 502.
106. Ibid., p. 503.
107. Ibid., p. 7.
108. Ibid., p. 113.
109. Colvin, M., & Pauly, J. (1983). A critique of criminology: Toward an

integrated structural-Marxist theory of delinquency production. American
Journal of Sociology, 89, 542.
110. Ibid., pp. 536–537.
111. Ibid., p. 538.
112. Ibid., pp. 539–542.
113. Schwendinger, H., & Schwendinger, J. (1985). Adolescent subcultures

and delinquency. New York, NY: Praeger.
114. Ibid., p. xiii.
115. Steven Spitzer, S. (1975). Toward a Marxian theory of deviance. Social

Problems, 22, 641.
116. Ibid., p. 649.
117. Williams, F. P. (1980). Conflict theory and differential processing: An

analysis of the research literature. In J. A. Inciardi (Ed.), Radical
criminology: The coming crises. Beverly Hills, CA: SAGE, p. 215.
118. Chambliss, W. (1964). A sociological analysis of the laws of vagrancy.

119. Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance.

New York, NY: Free Press.
120. Robinson, A. (1999). Conflicting consensus: Public reaction to a
domestic violence pro-arrest policy. Women and Criminal Justice, 10, 95–
120.
121. Lieber, M. J., & Stairs, J. M. (1999). Race, contexts, and the use of
intake diversion. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36, 56–86.
122. Cureton, S. R. (2001). An empirical test of the social threat

phenomenon: Using 1990 census and uniform crime reports. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 29, 157–166; Mosher, C. (2001). Predicting drug arrest
rates: Conflict and social disorganization perspectives. Crime and
123. Frazier, C. E., Bishop, D. M., & Henretta, J. C. (1992). The social
context of race differentials in juvenile justice dispositions. Sociological
Quarterly, 33, 447–458.
124. Holmes, M. D., Hosch, H. M., Daudistel, H. C., Perez, D., & Graves,
J. (1996). Ethnicity, legal resources, and felony dispositions in two
Southwestern jurisdictions. Justice Quarterly, 13, 11–30.
125. Holmes, M. D. (2000). Minority threat and police brutality:

Determinants of civil rights criminal complaints in U.S. municipalities.
126. Chamlin, M. B. (1989). Conflict theory and police killings. Deviant

Behavior, 10, 353–368.

257.
128. Ibid., p. 256.
129. Lanza-Kanduce, L., & Greenleaf, R. (1994). Police-citizen encounters:

Turk on norm resistance. Justice Quarterly, 11, 605–624.
130. Ibid., p. 257.

131. Pepinsky, H. E. (1991). Peacemaking in criminology and criminal
justice. In H. E. Pepinski & Quinney, R. (Eds.), Criminology as
peacemaking (pp. 299–327). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
132. Wheeldon, J. (2009). Finding common ground: Restorative justice and

its theoretical construction(s). Contemporary Justice Review, 12, 93.
133. Pepinsky, H. E. (1988). Violence as unresponsiveness: Toward a new

conception of crime. Justice Quarterly, 5, 539–563; Pepinsky, H. E. (1991).
The geometry of violence and democracy. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press; Pepinsky, H. E., & Quinney, R. (Eds.). (1991). Criminology as
peace-making. Bloomington: University of Indiana Press; Quinney, R.
(1988). Crime, suffering, service: Toward a criminology of peacemaking.
Quest, 1, 66–75; Quinney, R. (1989). The theory and practice of
peacemaking in the development of radical criminology. Critical
Criminologist, 1, 5.
134. Wozniak, J. F. (2002). Toward a theoretical model of peacemaking

criminology: An essay in honor of Richard Quinney. Crime and
Delinquency, 48, 221.
135. Ibid., p. 214.
136. Wozniak, J. F. (2000). The voices of peacemaking criminology:

Insights into a perspective with an eye toward teaching. Contemporary
Justice Review, 3, 273–274.
137. Wozniak, J. F. (2002). Toward a theoretical model of peacemaking

criminology: An essay in honor of Richard Quinney. Crime and
138. Caringella-MacDonald, S., & Humphries, D. (1991). Sexual assault,

women, and the community: Organizing to prevent sexual violence. In H.
E. Pepinsky & R. Quinney (Eds.), Criminology as peacemaking (pp. 98–
113). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
139. Rucker, L. (1991). Peacemaking in prisons: A process. In H. E.

Pepinsky & R. Quinney (Eds.), Criminology as peacemaking (pp. 172–
180). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
140. Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Feather, N. T., & Platow, M. J. (2008).
Retributive and restorative justice. Law and Human Behavior, 32, 375.
141. Bazemore, G., & Umbreit, M. (1999). Balanced and restorative justice
for juveniles: Framework for juvenile justice in the 21st century.
Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, p.
11.
142. Wheeldon, J. (2009). Finding common ground: Restorative justice and

its theoretical construction(s). Contemporary Justice Review, 12, 93.
143. Young, J. (1992). Ten points of realism. In J. Young & R. Matthews

(Eds.), Rethinking criminology: The realist debate (pp. 25–26). London,
England: SAGE.
144. See Dekeseredy, W. S., & Schwartz, M. D. (1991). British and U.S.
left realism: A critical comparison. International Journal of Offender
Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 35, 248–262; Lea, J. (1987). Left
realism: A defense. Contemporary Crises, 11, 357–370.
145. Matthews, R., & Young, J. (1992). Reflections on realism. In J. Young

& R. Matthews (Eds.), Rethinking criminology: The realist debate (pp. 19–
20). London, England: SAGE.
146. Ibid., pp. 17–19.
147. Schwartz, M., & DeKeseredy, W. (1993). Contemporary criminology.

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
148. Coumarelos, C., & Weatherburn, D. (1995). Targeting intervention

strategies to reduce juvenile recidivism. Australian and New Zealand
Journal of Criminology, 28, 55–72; Levi, K. (1982). Relative redemption:
Labeling in juvenile restitution. Juvenile and Family Court Journal, 33, 3–
13.
149. Patrick, S., & March, R. (2005). Juvenile diversion: Results of a 3-year
experimental study. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 16, 62.
150. Butts, J. A., & Buck, J. (2000). Teen courts: A focus on research.
Juvenile Justice Bulletin. Washington, DC: Office of Juvenile Justice and
Delinquency Prevention, n.p.
151. Inciardi, J. A., Pottieger, A. E., & Surrat, H. L. (1996). African

Americans and the crack-crime connection. In D. D. Chitwood, J. E. Rivers,
& J. A. Inciardi (Eds.), The American pipe dream: Crack, cocaine and the
inner city. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt Brace; Jensen, E. L., Gerber, J., &
Mosher, C. (2004). Social consequences of the War on Drugs: The legacy of
failed policy. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 15, 100–121.
Chapter 12
1. Stall, S. (2015, October 21). Looking back on Indiana’s most infamous
crime, 50 years later. The Indianapolis Monthly. Retrieved from
http://www.indianapolismonthly.com/features/looking-back-indianas-
infamous-crime-50-years-later
2. Bovsun, M. (2013, April 6). Teen girl fatally bullied in Indiana house of
horrors. New York Daily News. Retrieved from
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/justice-story/teen-girl-fatally-bullied-
indiana-house-horrors-article-1.1309751
3. Freedman, E. B. (2002). No turning back: The history of feminism and

the future of women. New York, NY: Ballantine Books, p. 7.
4. Van Wormer, K. S., & Bartollas, C. (2000). Women and the criminal
justice system. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, p. 5. See also Byers, M., &
Crocker, D. (2012). Feminist cohorts and waves: Attitudes of junior female
academics. Women’s Studies International Forum, 35, 1–11.
5. Tong, R. (2009). Feminist thought (3rd ed.). Boulder, CO: Westview

Press, pp. 21–22.
6. Lebedun, J. (1974). Harriet Beecher Stowe’s interest in Sojourner Truth,

black feminist. American Literature, 46, 359–363.
7. Boles, J. K., & Hoeveler, D. L. (2004). Historical dictionary of feminism

(2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, pp. 7–9.

Press, p. 22; see also Hole, J., & Levine, E. (1971). Rebirth of feminism.
New York, NY: Quadrangle Books, p. 3.
9. Schnittker, J., Freese, J., & Powell, B. (2003). Who are feminists and
what do they believe? The role of generations. American Sociological
Review, 68, 607–622; see also Van Wormer, K. S., & Bartollas, C. (2000).
Women and the criminal justice system. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Press, pp. 23–24; see also Freedman, E. B. (2002). No turning back: The
history of feminism and the future of women. New York, NY: Ballantine
Books, pp. 84–87.
11. Freedman, E. B. (2002). No turning back: The history of feminism and

the future of women. New York, NY: Ballantine Books, pp. 84–87.
Press, p. 24.
13. Krolokke, C., & Sorensen, A. S. (2006). Gender communication

theories and analyses: From silence to performance. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
14. Byers, M., & Crocker, D. (2012). Feminist cohorts and waves: Attitudes
of junior female academics. Women’s Studies International Forum, 35, 1–
11.
Press, pp. 284–285.
16. Lorber, J., & Farrell, S. A. (1991). Principles of gender construction. In

J. Lorber & S. A. Farrell (Eds.), The social construction of gender (pp. 7–
8). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
17. West, C., & Zimmerman, D. H. (1991). Doing gender. In J. Lorber & S.
A. Farrell (Eds.), The social construction of gender (pp. 13–37). Newbury
Park, CA: SAGE, pp. 24–27.
(3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, pp. 150–151; Moulds, E. F. (1980).
Chivalry and paternalism: Disparities of treatment in the criminal justice
system. In S. K. Datesman & F. R. Scarpitti (Eds.), Women, crime, and
justice (pp. 277–299). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, p. 279.
19. Boles, J. K., & Hoeveler, D. L. (2004). Historical dictionary of

feminism. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, p. 253.
(3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, p. 10; see also Edwards, A. (1987).
Male violence in feminist theory: An analysis of the changing conception of
sex/gender violence and male dominance. In J. Hanmer & M. Maynard
(Eds.), Women, violence, and social control (pp. 13–29). Atlantic
Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press International.
21. Daly, K., & Chesney-Lind, M. (1988). Feminism and criminology.

Justice Quarterly, 5, 523.
22. Ibid., pp. 536–537.


Justice Quarterly, 5, p. 537.
Press, p. 34.
26. Ibid., p. 35.
27. Ibid., p. 43.
28. Britton, D. B. (2000). Feminism in criminology: Engendering the law.

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 571, 57–
76.
(3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, p. 13.

31. Ibid., p. 526.

feminism. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, pp. 270–271.
Press, pp. 48–51.
35. Ibid., p. 51.

Press, pp. 92–93; see also Ferguson, A. (1984). Sex war: The debate
between radical and libertarian feminists. Signs: The Journal of Women in
Culture and Society, 10, 106–112.
Press, p. 93.
39. Ibid., p. 96.


(3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, p. 13; see also Hardin, S. (2004). Can
men be subjects of feminist thought? In S. N. Hesse-Biber & M. L. Yaiser
(Eds.), Feminist perspectives on social research (pp. 39–64). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press; Hartmann, H. I. (1987). The family as the
locus of gender, class, and political struggle: The example of housework. In
S. Harding (Ed.), Feminism and methodology (pp. 109–134). Bloomington,
IN: Indiana University Press.
Press, p. 111.
45. Ibid., p. 115.

Press; see also Moi, T. (1985). Sexual/textual politics. London, England:
Methuen.
Press, p. 270.
49. Sands, R. G., & Nuccio, K. (1992). Postmodern feminist theory and
social work. Social Work, 37, 492.
50. Ibid., p. 492; see also Haraway, D. (1989). Situated knowledges: The
science question in feminism and privilege of partial perspective. Feminist
Studies, 14, 575–599.

Press, pp. 237–269.

Press, p. 215.
55. Pomeroy, S. B. (1975). Goddesses, whores, wives, and slaves. New

York, NY: Schocken Books, p. 8.
56. Feinman, C. (1980). Women in the criminal justice system. New York,
NY: Praeger.
57. Young, V. D. (1986). Gender expectations and their impact on black
female offenders and victims. Justice Quarterly, 3, 305–327.
58. Ibid., p. 310.
59. Ibid., p. 322.
60. Dugger, K. (1991). Social location and gender-role attitudes: A

comparison of black and white women. In J. Lorber & S. A. Farrell (Eds.),
The social construction of gender (pp. 38–59). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
61. Brownmiller, S. (1984). Femininity. New York, NY: Fawcett

Columbine.
Park, CA: SAGE, p. 15.
63. Carlen, P. (1982). Papa’s discipline: An analysis of disciplinary modes

in the Scottish women’s prison. Sociological Review, 30, 97–124; Smith, B.
A. (1990). The female prisoner in Ireland, 1855–1878. Federal Probation,
54, 69–81; Welter, B. (1973). The cult of true womanhood: 1820–1860. In
J. E. Friedman & W. G. Shade (Eds.), Our American sisters: Women in
American life and thought (pp. 96–123). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
64. Smart, C. (1977). Criminological theory: Its ideology and implications

concerning women. British Journal of Sociology, 28, 91–92.
65. Hahn, N. R. (1980). Too dumb to know better: Cacogenic family studies
and the criminology of women. Criminology, 18, 3–25.
66. Lombroso, C. (1898). The female offender. New York, NY: Appleton.
68. Lombroso, C. (1898). The female offender. New York, NY: Appleton, p.
147.
69. Ibid., p. 216.
70. See Beaman, L. G. (1998). Women’s defenses: Contextualizing

dilemmas of difference and power. Women and Criminal Justice, 9, 87–115;
Harry, B., & Balcer, C. M. (1987). Menstruation and crime: A critical
review of the literature from the clinical criminology perspective.
Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 5, 307–321; Welch, M. (1997).
Regulating the reproduction and morality of women: The social control of
body and soul. Women and Criminal Justice, 9, 17–38.
71. Thomas, W. I. (1907). Sex and society. Boston, MA: Little, Brown; see
also Van Wormer, K. S., & Bartollas, C. (2000). Women and the criminal
justice system. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, p. 27.
72. Bowker, L. H. (1978). Women, crime, and the criminal justice system.
Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath, p. 44.
justice system. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon, p. 27.
74. Thomas, W. I. (1967). The unadjusted girl; with cases and standpoint
for behavior analysis. Foreword by Mrs. W. F. Dummer. New York, NY:
Harper & Row, p. 4. (Original work published 1923)
Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath, p. 45.
76. Thomas, W. I. (1967). The unadjusted girl; with cases and standpoint
for behavior analysis. Foreword by Mrs. W. F. Dummer. New York, NY:
Harper & Row, p. 69. (Original work published 1923)
77. Mann, C. R. (1984). Female crime and delinquency. University, AL:

University of Alabama Press, p. 79.
78. Klein, D. (1980). The etiology of female crime: A review of the

literature. In S. Datesman & F. R. Scarpitti (Eds.), Women, crime, and
79. Freud, S. (1933). New introductory lectures on psychoanalysis. New
York, NY: W. W. Norton; see also Van Wormer, K. S., & Bartollas, C.
(2000). Women and the criminal justice system. Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon, p. 28.

81. Pollak, O. (1950). The criminality of women. Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press, p. 161.
82. Ibid., p. 1.
83. Ibid., p. 5.
Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath, p. 48.
85. Pollak, O. (1950). The criminality of women. Philadelphia: University of

Pennsylvania Press, p. 10.
86. Smart, C. (1976). Women, crime and criminology: A feminist critique.

London, England: Routledge & Kegan Paul.

justice (pp. 70–105). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
88. Eichler, M. (1979). The double standard: A feminist critique of feminist

social science. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press; Harding, S. (Ed.). (1987).
Feminism and methodology. Bloomington: Indiana University Press; Keller,
E. F. (1978). Gender and science. Psychoanalysis and Contemporary
Thought: A Quarterly of Integrative and Interdisciplinary Studies, 1, 409–
433; McHugh, M., Koeske, R., & Frieze, I. (1986). Issues to consider in
conducting nonsexist psychological research. American Psychologist, 41,
879–890; Nielsen, J. M. (Ed.). Feminist research methods: Exemplary
readings in the social sciences. Boulder, CO: Westview Press; Stanley, L.,
& Wise, S. (1979). Feminist research, feminist consciousness, and
experiences of sexism. Women’s Studies International Quarterly, 2, 359–
374; Westkott, M. (1979). Feminist criticism of the social sciences. Harvard
Educational Review, 49, 422–430.
(3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
91. Smart, C. (1977). Criminological theory: Its ideology and implications

concerning women. British Journal of Sociology, 28, 185.
92. Naffine, N. (1987). Female crime: The construction of women in

criminology. Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin.
93. Daly, K. (1995). Looking back, looking forward: The promise of

feminist transformation. In B. R. Price & N. J. Sokoloff (Eds.), The
criminal justice system and women: Offenders, victims, and workers (pp.
443–457). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Park, CA: SAGE, pp. 15–16.
95. Edwards, A. R. (1989). Sex/gender, sexism and criminal justice: Some

theoretical considerations. International Journal of the Sociology of Law,
17, 165–184.

98. Mann, C. R. (1984). Female crime and delinquency. University, AL:
University of Alabama Press, pp. 107–108.
Department of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/about-
us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-33
100. Kulmala, T. (2019, January 9). Fired Airport High administrator pleads
guilty to 2nd charge on student sex allegations. The State. Retrieved from
https://www.thestate.com/news/local/crime/article224124845.html
101. Valentine, L. (2015, January 16). Teacher who had sex with 2 students
gets probation. The New York Post. Retrieved from
http://nypost.com/2015/01/16/teacher-who-had-sex-with-2-students-gets-
probation
102. Teacher accused of sexual relationship with 13-year-old turns herself

in. (2016, June 1). ABC13 News. Retrieved from
http://abc13.com/news/teacher-accused-of-sex-with-13-year-old-turns-
herself-in/1366303
103. Ex-teacher Brianne Altice admits to sex with three teen boys. (2015,
April 23). The Huffington Post. Retrieved from
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/23/brianne-altice-
guilty_n_7125596.html
104. Tanner, R. (2007). Abuse victims viewed differently. Associated Press.

Retrieved from http://www.tdcaa.com/node/1277
105. Cortoni, F., Babchishin, K. M., & Rat, C. (2017). The proportion of
sexual offenders who are female is higher than thought. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 44, p. 157.
106. Adler, F. (1975). Sisters in crime: The rise of the new female criminal.
Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, p. 30.
107. Ibid., p. 251.

108. Simon, R. (1975). Women and crime. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.
110. Naffine, N. (1987). Female crime: The construction of women in

criminology. Sydney, Australia: Allen & Unwin, p. 95.
112. See Leonard, E. B. (1982). Women, crime, and society: A critique of

criminology theory. New York, NY: Longman; Radosh, P. (1990). Women
and crime in the United States: A Marxian explanation. Sociological
Spectrum, 10, 105–131; Steffensmeier, D., & Steffensmeier, R. H. (1980).
Trends in female delinquency. Criminology, 18, 62–85.
113. Hagan, J., Gillis, A. R., & Simpson, J. (1985). The class structure of
gender and delinquency: Toward a power-control theory of common
delinquent behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 1151–1178;
Hagan, J., Simpson, J., & Gillis, A. R. (1987). Class in the household: A
Sociology, 92, 788–816.
114. Hagan, J., Gillis, A. R., & Simpson, J. (1985). The class structure of
gender and delinquency: Toward a power-control theory of common
delinquent behavior. American Journal of Sociology, 90, 1156–1157.
115. Hagan, J. (1991). A power-control theory of gender and delinquency.

In R. J. Silverman, J. A. Teevan, & V. Sacco (Eds.), Crime in Canadian
society (4th ed.). Toronto, Ontario, Canada: Butterworths, p. 130.
116. See Dornfeld, M., & Kruttschnitt, C. (1992). Do the stereotypes fit?
Mapping gender-specific outcomes and risk factors. Criminology, 30, 397–
420; Kruttschnitt, C. (1996). Contributions of quantitative methods to the
study of gender and crime, or bootstrapping our way into the theoretical
thicket. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 12, 135–161; Morash, M., &
Chesney-Lind, M. (1991). A re-formulation and patriarchal test of the
power control theory of delinquency. Justice Quarterly, 8, 347–378.
117. Chesney-Lind, M. (1987). Girls’ crime and woman’s place: Toward a

feminist model of female delinquency. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Society of Criminology, Montreal, Canada.
118. Harding, S. (Ed.). (1987). Feminism and methodology. Bloomington:

Indiana University Press.
119. Ibid., pp. 8–9.
120. Campbell, R., & Schram, P. J. (1995). Feminist research methods: A

content analysis of psychology and social science textbooks. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 19, 88.
121. Jayaratne, T. E., & Stewart, A. J. (1991). Quantitative and qualitative

methods in social sciences: Current feminist issues and practical strategies.
In M. M. Fonow & J. A. Cook (Eds.), Beyond methodology: Feminist
scholarship as lived research (pp. 85–106). Bloomington: Indiana
University Press; Stanley, L., & Wise, S. (1983). Breaking out: Feminist
consciousness and feminist research. London, England: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
122. Denmark, F., Russo, N. F., & Frieze, I. H. (1988). Guidelines for
avoiding sexism in psychological research: A report of the Ad Hoc
Committee on Nonsexist Research. American Psychologist, 43, 582–585;
McHugh, M. C., Koeske, R. D., & Frieze, I. H. (1986). Issues to consider in
conducting nonsexist psychological research. American Psychologist, 41,
879–890.
123. MacKinnon, C. A. (1987). Feminism, Marxism, methods and the state:

Toward feminist jurisprudence. In S. Harding (Ed.), Feminism and
methodology (pp. 135–156). Bloomington: Indiana University Press, p. 136.
124. Sherif, C. W. (1987). Bias in psychology. In S. Harding (Ed.),

Feminism and methodology (pp. 37–56). Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
125. Ibid., p. 47.
126. Campbell, R., & Schram, P. J. (1995). Feminist research methods: A

content analysis of psychology and social science textbooks. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 19, 88.
127. Jayaratne, T. E., & Stewart, A. J. (1991). Quantitative and qualitative

methods in social sciences: Current feminist issues and practical strategies.
In M. M. Fonow & J. A. Cook (Eds.), Beyond methodology: Feminist
scholarship as lived research (pp. 85–106). Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
128. White, J., & Farmer, R. (1992). Research methods: How they shape
views of sexual violence. Journal of Social Issues, 48, 179.
129. Burgess-Proctor, A. (2006). Intersections of race, class, gender, and

crime: Future directions for feminist criminology. Feminist Criminology, 1,
30.
130. Ibid.; see also Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J. A., & Visher, C.
(1986). Introduction: Studying criminal careers. In A. Blumstein, J. Cohen,
J. A. Roth, & C. Visher (Eds.), Criminal careers and “career criminals”
(pp. 12–30). Washington, DC: National Academy Press; Steffensmeier, D.,
& Allan, E. (1996). Gender and crime: Toward a gendered theory of female
offending. Annual Review of Sociology, 22, 459–487.

31.

literature. In B. R. Price & N. J. Sokoloff (Eds.), The criminal justice system
and women: Offenders, victims, and workers (2nd ed., pp. 48–52). New
York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
(3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, pp. 36–56.
135. Ibid.

27–47.
137. Ibid., p. 43.
138. Gaarder, E., & Belknap, J. (2002). Tenuous borders: Girls transferred
to adult court. Criminology, 40, 484.
140. Chesney-Lind, M. (1995). Girls, delinquency, and juvenile justice:

Toward a feminist theory of young women’s crime. In B. F. Price & N. J.
Sokoloff (Eds.), The criminal justice system and women: Offenders, victims,
and workers (2nd ed., pp. 71–88). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
141. Owen, B. (1998). “In the mix”: Struggle and survival in a women’s
prison. Albany: State University of New York Press.
142. Ibid., p. 41.
143. Ibid., p. 192.
144. Sadeighi-Fassei, S., & Kendall, K. (2001). Iranian women’s pathways

to imprisonment. Women’s Studies International Forum, 24, 701–710.
145. Gaarder, E., & Belknap, J. (2002). Tenuous borders: Girls transferred
to adult court. Criminology, 40, 481–518.
146. Evans, R. D., Forsyth, C. J., & Gauthier, D. K. (2002). Gendered

pathways into and experiences with crack cultures outside of the inner city.
Deviant Behaviors, 23, 483–510.
147. Ullman, S. (2004). Sexual assault victimization and suicidal behavior
in women: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 9,
331–351.
148. Silverthorn, P., & Frick, P. J. (1999). Development pathways to

antisocial behavior: The delayed-onset pathway in girls. Development and
Psychopathology, 11, 101–126.
149. DeHart, D., Lynch, S., Belknap, J., Dass-Brailsford, P., & Green, B.
(2014). Life history models of female offending: The roles of serious
mental illness and trauma in women’s pathways to jail. Psychology of
Women Quarterly, 38, 138–151.
150. Shechory-Bitton, M., & Kamel, D. (2014). Pathways to crime and risk
factors among Arab female adolescents in Israel. Children and Youth
Services Review, 44, 363–369.
151. Zinn, M. B., & Thornton Dill, B. T. (1996). Theorizing difference from
multiracial feminism. Feminist Studies, 22, 321–331.
152. Chafetz, J. S. (1997). Feminist theory and sociology: Underutilized

contributions for mainstream theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 23, 97–
120. See also Burgess-Proctor, A. (2006). Intersections of race, class,
gender, and crime: Future directions for feminist criminology. Feminist
153. Ginsberg, F., & Tsing, A. L. (1990). Introduction. In F. Ginsberg & A.

L. Tsing (Eds.), Uncertain terms: Negotiating gender in American culture
(pp. 1–32). Boston, MA: Beacon Press.
154. Martin, S. (1994). “Outsider within” the station house: The impact of
race and gender on black women police. Social Problems, 41, 383–400.
155. Zinn, M. B., & Thornton Dill, B. T. (1996). Theorizing difference from
multiracial feminism. Feminist Studies, 22, 322.
156. Collins, P. H. (1999). Black feminist thought: Knowledge,

consciousness and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). London,
England: HarperCollins.
157. Browne, I., & Misra, J. (2003). The intersection of gender and race in
the labor market. Annual Review of Sociology, 29, 487–513.

36–37.
159. Ibid., p. 37.
160. See Jagger, A. M., & Struhl, P. R. (1993). Feminist frameworks:

Alternative theoretical accounts of the relations between women and men
(3rd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; Sandoval, C. (1991, Spring). U.S.
Third World feminism: The theory and method of oppositional
consciousness in the Postmodern World. Genders, 10, 1–24; Zinn, M. B., &
Dill, B. T. (1996). Theorizing difference from multiracial feminism.
Feminist Studies, 22, 321–331.
161. Gilfus, M. E. (1992). From victims to survivors to offenders: Women’s

routes of entry and immersion into street crime. Women and Criminal
Justice, 4, 86.
162. Maher, L. (1997). Sexed work: Gender, race and resistance in a

Brooklyn drug market. Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press.
163. Ibid., p. 1.

165. Griffin, C., & Phoenix, A. (1994). The relationship between qualitative
and quantitative research: Lessons from feminist psychology. Journal of
Community and Applied Social Psychology, 4, 290.
166. Ibid.
167. Ibid.
168. Donovan, J. (1985). Feminist theory: The intellectual traditions of
American feminism. New York, NY: Frederick Ungar, p. 88.

42. See also Andersen, M., & Collins, P. H. (2004). Race, class, and gender
(5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; Weber, L. (2001). Understanding race,
class, gender, and sexuality: A conceptual framework. Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill.
justice system. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
171. Schwendinger, J. R., & Schwendinger, H. (1974). Rape myths: In

legal, theoretical, and everyday practice. Crime and Social Justice, 1, 18–
26.
172. Ibid., p. 21.
173. Searles, P., & Berger, R. J. (1987). The current status of rape reform
legislation: An examination of state statutes. Women’s Rights Law Reporter,
10, 25.
174. Ibid., pp. 25–27.
175. Bownes, D., & Albert, R. L. (1996, September). State challenge

activities. OJJDP Juvenile Justice Bulletin; Kempf-Leonard, K., & Sample,
L. (2000). Disparity based on sex: Is gender-specific treatment warranted?
Justice Quarterly, 17, 89–128.
176. Smith, P., & Smith, W. A. (2005). Experiencing community through

the eyes of young female offenders. Journal of Contemporary Criminal
Justice, 21, 364–385.
177. Bond-Maupin, L., Maupin, J. R., & Leisenring, A. (2002). Girls’

delinquency and the justice implications of intake workers’ perspectives.
Women and Criminal Justice, 13, 51–77.
178. Kakar, S., Friedemann, M., & Peck, L. (2002). Girls in detention: The
results of focus group discussion interviews and official records review.
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 18, 57–73; Walters, W., Dembo,
R., Beaulaurier, R., Cocozza, J., La Rosa, M., Poythress, N., et al. (2005).
The Miami-Dade Juvenile Assessment Center National Demonstration
Project: An overview. Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 41, 1–37.
179. Fendrich, M., Hubbell, A., & Lurigio, A. (2006). Providers’

perceptions of gender-specific drug treatment. Journal of Drug Issues, 36,
667–686.
180. Van Wormer, K., & Kaplan, L. E. (2006). Results of a national survey
of wardens in women’s prisons: The case for gender specific treatment.
Women and Therapy, 29, 133–151.
181. Day, J. C., Zahn, M. A., & Tichavsky, L. P. (2015). What works for
whom? The effects of gender responsive programming on girls and boys in
secure detention. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52, 93–
129.
Chapter 13
1. 14-year-old suspected in nearly 100 Nashville burglaries. (2012, May
18). WSMV.com. Retrieved from http://www.wsmv.com/story/18151966/14-
year-old-suspected-in-north-nashville-burglaries
2. Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1950). Unraveling juvenile delinquency. New

York, NY: Commonwealth Fund. See also Glueck, S., & Glueck, E. (1968).
Delinquents and nondelinquents in perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
3. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways

and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
See also Laub, J. H., Nagin, D. S., & Sampson, R. J. (1998). Trajectories of
change in criminal offending: Good marriages and the desistance process.
American Sociological Review, 63, 225–238. For a brief discussion of how
the Gluecks’ work has influenced the current state of developmental theory,
see Tibbetts, S. (2014). Prenatal and perinatal predictors of antisocial
behavior: Review of research and interventions. In M. DeLisi & K. M.
Beaver (Eds.), Criminological theory: A life-course approach (2nd ed., pp.
27–43). Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett.
4. Brame, R., Turner, M., Paternoster, R., & Bushway, S. (2012).

Cumulative prevalence of arrest from ages 8 to 23 in a national sample.
Pediatrics, 129, 21–27.
5. For an excellent review, see Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., &

Blumstein, A. (2003). The criminal career paradigm: Background and
recent developments. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of
research (Vol. 30, pp. 137–183). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6. For more discussion, see Gibson, C. L., & Tibbetts, S. (2000). A

biosocial interaction in predicting early onset of offending. Psychological
Reports, 86, 509–518; Tibbetts, S., & Piquero, A. (1999). The influence of
gender, low birth weight, and disadvantaged environment in predicting
early onset of offending: A test of Moffitt’s interactional hypothesis.
7. DeLisi, M. (2006). Zeroing in on early onset: Results from a population
of extreme career criminals. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 17–26. For a
review, see Tibbetts, S. (2009). Perinatal and developmental determinants of
early onset of offending: A biosocial approach for explaining the two peaks
of early antisocial behavior. In J. Savage (Ed.), The development of
persistent criminality (pp. 179–201). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
8. See numerous studies presented in Savage, J. (Ed.). (2009). The

development of persistent criminality. New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
9. Lincoln police arrest man for 226th time. (2006, August 14). KETV.com.
Retrieved from https://www.ketv.com/article/lincoln-police-arrest-man-for-
226th-time/7603563
10. Walker, S. (2001). Sense and nonsense about crime and drugs: A policy
guide (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
11. For a review, see Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., & Blumstein, A.
(2003). The criminal career paradigm: Background and recent
developments. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research
(Vol. 30, pp. 137–183). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
12. Ellis, L., Cooper, J. A., & Walsh, A. (2008). Criminologists’ opinions
about causes and theories of crime and delinquency: A follow-up. The
Criminologist, 33, 23–26.
13. For discussion of this ranking and past rankings, see Tibbetts, S. (2014).
Prenatal and perinatal predictors of antisocial behavior: Review of research
and interventions. In M. DeLisi & K. M. Beaver (Eds.), Criminological
theory: A life-course approach (2nd ed., pp. 27–43). Boston, MA: Jones
and Bartlett.
15. For an excellent review of studies regarding low-self-control theory, see
Pratt, T., & Cullen, F. (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and
964. For critiques of this theory, see Akers, R. (1991). Self-control as a
general theory of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 7, 201–211.
For a study that demonstrates the high popularity of the theory, see Walsh,
A., & Ellis, L. (1999). Political ideology and American criminologists’
explanations for criminal behavior. The Criminologist, 24, 1, 14.
16. Hay, C. (2001). Parenting, self-control, and delinquency: A test of self-

control theory. Criminology, 39, 707–736; Hayslett-McCall, K., & Bernard,
T. (2002). Attachment, masculinity, and self-control: A theory of male
crime rates. Theoretical Criminology, 6, 5–33.
17. Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (1990). Crime and deviance over the life
course: The salience of adult social bonds. American Sociological Review,
55, 609–627; Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (1993). Crime in the making:
Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press; Sampson, R., & Laub, J. (1993). Turning points in the life
course: Why change matters to the study of crime. Criminology, 31, 301–
326.
18. Piquero, A., Brame, R., Mazzerole, P., & Haapanen, R. (2002). Crime in
emerging adulthood. Criminology, 40, 137–170; Uggen, C. (2000). Work as
a turning point in the life course of criminals: A duration model of age,
employment, and recidivism. American Sociological Review, 65, 529–546.
19. Moffitt, T. (1993). Adolescence limited and life course persistent

antisocial behavior: A developmental taxonomy. Psychological Review,
100, 674–701.
20. See Tibbetts, S., & Piquero, A. (1999). The influence of gender, low
birth weight, and disadvantaged environment in predicting early onset of
offending: A test of Moffitt’s interactional hypothesis. Criminology, 37,
843–878.

Criminology, 25, 863–887; see also Thornberry, T., Lizotte, A., Krohn, M.,
Farnworth, M., & Jang, S. (1991). Testing interactional theory: An
examination of reciprocal causal relationships among family, school and
delinquency. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 82, 3–35;
Thornberry, T., Lizotte, A., Krohn, M., Farnworth, M., & Jang, S. J. (1994).
Delinquent peers, beliefs, and delinquent behavior: A longitudinal test of
interactional theory. Criminology, 32, 47–83.
22. Much of this discussion is taken from Bernard, T. J., & Snipes, J. B.
(1996). Theoretical integration in criminology. Crime and Justice, 20, 314–
316; and also Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2008). Criminological
theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (5th ed.). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press, p. 278.

Criminology, 25, 876, as quoted in Bernard, T. J., & Snipes, J. B. (1996).
Theoretical integration in criminology. Crime and Justice, 20, 315.
24. Bernard, T. J., & Snipes, J. B. (1996). Theoretical integration in

criminology. Crime and Justice, 20, 316.
25. Thornberry, T., Lizotte, A., Krohn, M., Farnworth, M., & Jang, S. J.
(1994). Delinquent peers, beliefs, and delinquent behavior: A longitudinal
test of interactional theory. Criminology, 32, 47–83.
26. Ibid.
27. Jang, S. J. (1999). Age-varying effects of family, school, and peers on

delinquency: A multilevel modeling test of interactional theory.
making: Criminality across the life course (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE, pp. 256–257.
29. Barnes, J. C. (2014). The impact of biosocial criminology on public

policy: Where should we go from here? In M. DeLisi & K. M. Beaver
(Eds.), Criminological theory: A life-course approach (2nd ed., pp. 83–98).
Boston, MA: Jones and Bartlett, p. 93.
SAGE.
31. Wright, J. P. (2014). Prenatal insults and the development of persistent

criminal behavior. In M. DeLisi & K. M. Beaver (Eds.), Criminological
theory: A life-course approach (2nd ed., pp. 45–58). Boston, MA: Jones
and Bartlett, p. 54.
SAGE.
33. Ibid.
Chapter 14
1. Goldstein, M., Protess, B., & Stevenson, A. (2016, May 19). Insider
trading case links golfer, banker, and gambler. The New York Times.
Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/business/dealbook/insider-trading-
billy-walters-sports-gambler.html
2. Fish, M. (2015, February 6). A life on the line. ESPN The Magazine.
Retrieved from http://espn.go.com/espn/feature/story/_/id/12280555/how-
billy-walters-became-sports-most-successful-controversial-bettor
3. Ibid.
4. Perez, A. J. (2016, May 19). Phil Mickelson to repay profits after being
named in insider trading lawsuit. USA Today. Retrieved from
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/golf/2016/05/19/phil-mickelson-
insider-trading-sec-lawsuit/84584120
5. Goldstein, M., Protess, B., & Stevenson, A. (2016, May 19). Insider
trading case links golfer, banker, and gambler. The New York Times.
Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/20/business/dealbook/insider-trading-
billy-walters-sports-gambler.html
6. Gerber, J. (2000). On the relationship between organized and white-collar

crime: Government, business, and criminal enterprise in post-communist
Russia. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal Justice, 8,
328.
7. For an excellent discussion of the origin, evolution, and

recommendations regarding the definition of white-collar crime, see Geis,
G. (2002). White-collar crime: What is it? In D. Shichor, L. Gaines, & R.
Ball (Eds.), Readings in white-collar crime (pp. 7–25). Prospect Heights,
IL: Waveland Press.
8. Ibid., p. 8.
9. A full written version of E. Sutherland’s 1939 presidential address at the
American Sociological Association Conference in Philadelphia can be
found in the 1940 American Sociological Review, 5, 1–12.
10. Ibid., p. 4.
11. For a comprehensive review of this research, see Geis, G. (2007).

White-collar and corporate crime. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
12. For a review of this research prior to Sutherland’s address, see

Schoepfer, A., & Tibbetts, S. (2012). From early white-collar bandits and
robber barons to modern-day white-collar criminals: A review of the
conceptual and theoretical research. In D. Shichor, L. Gaines, & A.
Schoepfer (Eds.), Reflecting on white-collar crime and corporate crime:
Discerning readings (pp. 63–83). Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
13. Josephson, M. (1934). The robber barons: The great American

capitalists. New York, NY: Harcourt Brace.
14. Anderson, G. W. (1905). Consolidation of gas companies in Boston.

Boston, MA: Public Franchise League.
15. Sutherland, E. (1940). White-collar criminality. American Sociological

Review, 5, 12.
16. Sutherland, E. (1945). Is “white-collar crime” crime? American

17. Sutherland, E. (1949). White-collar crime. New York, NY: Dryden.
18. Ibid., p. 9.
19. For more discussion, see Geis, G. (2002). White-collar crime: What is
it? In D. Shichor, L. Gaines, & R. Ball (Eds.), Readings in white-collar
crime (pp. 7–25). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
20. For example, see Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general
theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, Chapter 9.
21. Sutherland, E. (1949). The white collar criminal. In V. C. Branham & S.
B. Kutash (Eds.), Encyclopedia of criminology (pp. 511–515). New York,
NY: Philosophical Library.
22. Ibid., p. 511; see further discussion about this entry and following
discussion in Geis, G. (2002). White-collar crime: What is it? In D. Shichor,
L. Gaines, & R. Ball (Eds.), Readings in white-collar crime (pp. 7–25).
Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
23. For theoretical discussions and critiques, see Burgess, E. (1950).

Comment & Concluding comment. American Journal of Sociology, 56, 32–
34; Caldwell, R. G. (1958). A re-examination of the concept of white-collar
crime. Federal Probation, 22, 30–36; Geis, G. (1962). Toward a delineation
of white-collar offenses. Sociological Inquiry, 32, 160–171; Newman, D.
(1958). White-collar crime: An overview and analysis. Law and
Contemporary Problems, 23, 737–748; Quinney, R. (1964). The study of
white collar crime: Toward a reorientation in theory and research. Journal
of Criminology, Criminal Law, and Police Science, 55, 208–214; Tappan, P.
W. (1947). Who is the criminal? American Sociological Review, 12, 96–
102; for empirical studies, see Clinard, M. (1952). The black market: A
study of white collar crime. New York, NY: Rinehart; Cressey, D. (1953).
Other people’s money: A study in the social psychology of embezzlement.
Glencoe, IL: Free Press; Hartung, F. (1950). White-collar offenses in the
wholesale meat industry in Detroit. American Journal of Sociology, 56, 25–
44.
24. Caldwell, R. G. (1958). A re-examination of the concept of white-collar

crime. Federal Probation, 22, 30–36; Tappan, P. W. (1947). Who is the
criminal? American Sociological Review, 12, 96–102.

Sociological Review, 10, 132–139; see discussion in Geis, G. (2002).
White-collar crime: What is it? In D. Shichor, L. Gaines, & R. Ball (Eds.),
Readings in white-collar crime (pp. 7–25). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland
Press.
26. Cressey, D. (1953). Other people’s money: A study in the social

psychology of embezzlement. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
27. Hartung, F. (1950). White-collar offenses in the wholesale meat industry
in Detroit. American Journal of Sociology, 56, 25–44.
28. Edelhertz, H. (1970). The nature, impact and prosecution of white-

collar crime. Washington, DC: Law Enforcement Assistance
Administration.
29. For the purposes of this chapter, these terms will all be considered
relatively synonymous, considering that we are providing only a cursory
review of the topic.
30. Smith, D. (1981). White-collar crime, organized crime, and the business
establishment: Resolving a crisis in criminological theory. In P. Wickman &
T. Dailey (Eds.), White-collar and economic crime: Multidisciplinary and
cross-national perspectives (pp. 23–38). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books;
Sparks, R. (1979). Crime as business and the female offender. In F. Adler &
R. J. Simon (Eds.), The criminology of deviant women (pp. 171–179).
Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
31. Clinard, M. B., & Quinney, R. (1973). Criminal behavior systems: A

typology (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
32. Newman, D. (1958). White-collar crime: An overview and analysis.

Law and Contemporary Problems, 23, 737; for further discussion, see Geis,
G. (2002). White-collar crime: What is it? In D. Shichor, L. Gaines, & R.
Ball (Eds.), Readings in white-collar crime (pp. 7–25). Prospect Heights,
IL: Waveland Press.
33. Shapiro, S. (1990). Collaring the crime, not the criminal: Liberating the
concept of white-collar crime. American Sociological Review, 55, 346–367.
34. Gottfredson, M., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime.

Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press. See also Hirschi, T., &
Gottfredson, M. (1987). Causes of white-collar crime. Criminology, 25,
957–972.
35. Braithwaite, J. (1985). White collar crime. In R. H. Turner & J. F. Short

(Eds.), Annual review of sociology (pp. 1–25). Palo Alto, CA: Annual
Reviews.
36. See conclusion of Geis, G. (2002). White-collar crime: What is it? In D.

Shichor, L. Gaines, & R. Ball (Eds.), Readings in white-collar crime (pp. 7–
25). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
37. Coleman, J. W. (1998). The criminal elite: Understanding white-collar

crime (4th ed.). New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

39. Clinard, M., & Yeager, P. (1980). Corporate crime. New York, NY:
Macmillan.
40. Donahue, J. (1992). The missing rap sheet: Government records on

corporate abuses. Multinational Monitor, 14, 37–51.
41. LaRocco, L. A. (2012, July). Workplace misconduct at Fortune 500

firms higher than US average: Survey. CNBC. Retrieved from
https://www.cnbc.com/id/48306092
42. Much of our discussion on the impact of corporate crime is drawn from
Chapter 7 of Kappeler, V. E., & Potter, G. (2005). The mythology of crime
and criminal justice (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland; quote from pp.
148–149.
43. Reiman, J. (2004). The rich get richer and the poor get prison:
Ideology, class, and criminal justice (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon; quote from p. 61.
44. FBI. (2003). Crime in the United States, 2002 (Uniform Crime
Reports). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
45. Keller, B. (2002). Enron for dummies. The New York Times. Retrieved
from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/26/opinion/enron-for-dummies.html
46. Enron scandal at-a-glance. (2002). BBC News. Retrieved from

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1780075.stm
47. CNN Library. (2019). Enron fast facts. CNN. Retrieved from
https://www.cnn.com/2013/07/02/us/enron-fast-facts/index.html
48. Keller, B. (2002). Enron for dummies. The New York Times. Retrieved
from http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/26/opinion/enron-for-dummies.html
49. Ibid., para. 10.
50. Associated Press. (2011). Enron’s victims: Still angry, but coping.
Omaha.com. Retrieved from
http://www.omaha.com/article/20111203/MONEY/712039931
51. U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Committee on Ways and

Means. (1989). Budget implications and current tax rules relating to
troubled savings and loan institutions: Hearings before the Committee on
Ways and Means, House of Representatives, 101st Congress, first session,
February 22, March 9 and 15, 1989. Washington, DC: Government
Printing Office.
52. Eitzen, D. S., & Zinn, M. (2004). Social problems (9th ed.). Boston,
MA: Allyn and Bacon; Kappeler, V. E., & Potter, G. (2005). The mythology
of crime and criminal justice (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland.
53. Kappeler, V. E., & Potter, G. (2005). The mythology of crime and
criminal justice (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland, p. 148.
54. Barkan, S. (2001). Criminology: A sociological understanding (2nd

ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, as cited and discussed in
Kappeler, V. E., & Potter, G. (2005). The mythology of crime and criminal
justice (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland.
55. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2003). Number and rates of fatal

occupational injuries for select occupations, 2002. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
56. FBI. (2003). Crime in the United States, 2002 (Uniform Crime
Reports). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
57. See discussion of corporate crime over recent years in Kappeler, V. E.,
& Potter, G. (2005). The mythology of crime and criminal justice (4th ed.).
Long Grove, IL: Waveland, pp. 151–157.
criminal justice (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland, p. 148.
Macmillan; Mills, C. W. (1952). A diagnosis of moral uneasiness. In I.
Horowitz (Ed.), Power, politics and people (pp. 330–339). New York, NY:
Ballantine.
Macmillan, p. 21.
criminal justice (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland, pp. 164–169.
62. Some of this discussion is taken from “Environmental Protection

Agency,” Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia, retrieved from
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Environmental_Protection_Age
ncy
63. Rosoff, S., Pontell, H., & Tillman, R. (2004). Profit without honor:
White-collar crime and the looting of America (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
64. Simon, D. (2002). Elite deviance (7th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn and
Bacon.
65. See discussion in Kappeler, V. E., & Potter, G. (2005). The mythology of
crime and criminal justice (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland. See also
Hagan, F. (2005). Introduction to criminology (5th ed.). Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth.
criminal justice (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland.
67. Barstow, D. (2003, December 22). When workers die: U.S. rarely seeks
charges for deaths in the workplace. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/22/us/us-rarely-seeks-charges-for-deaths-
in-workplace.html
criminal justice (4th ed.). Long Grove, IL: Waveland.
69. Barstow, D. (2003, December 22). When workers die: U.S. rarely seeks
charges for deaths in the workplace. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/12/22/us/us-rarely-seeks-charges-for-deaths-
in-workplace.html
70. Schoepfer, A., & Tibbetts, S. G. (2012). From early white-collar bandits
and robber barons to modern-day white-collar criminals: A review of the
Schoepfer (Eds.), Reflecting on white-collar and corporate crime:
Discerning readings (pp. 63–83). Long Grove, IL: Waveland.
71. See ibid., discussion of Piquero, N., Tibbetts, S., & Blankenship, M.
(2005). Examining the role of differential association and techniques of
188.
72. Paternoster, R., & Tibbetts, S. G. (2016). White-collar crime and

perceptual deterrence. In S. R. van Syke, M. L. Benson, & F. T. Cullen
(Eds.), The Oxford handbook of white-collar crime (pp. 627–640). Oxford,
73. Akers, R. L. (1985). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach (3rd

ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; Sutherland, E. H. (1939). Principles of
criminology (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.

188.
75. Shover, N., & Hochstetler, A. (2002). Cultural explanation and
organizational crime. Crime, Law and Social Change, 37, 1–18; for a recent
review of these studies, see Schoepfer, A., & Tibbetts, S. G. (2012). From
early white-collar bandits and robber barons to modern-day white-collar
criminals: A review of the conceptual and theoretical research. In D.
Shichor, L. Gaines, & A. Schoepfer (Eds.), Reflecting on white-collar and
corporate crime: Discerning readings (pp. 63–83). Long Grove, IL:
Waveland.

188.
77. Schoepfer, A., & Tibbetts, S. G. (2012). From early white-collar bandits
and robber barons to modern-day white-collar criminals: A review of the
Schoepfer (Eds.), Reflecting on white-collar and corporate crime:
Discerning readings (pp. 63–83). Long Grove, IL: Waveland, pp. 72–73.
78. Ibid., p. 71.
79. Ibid., p. 79.
80. President’s Commission on Organized Crime. (1986). Report to the

president and the attorney general. The impact: Organized crime today.
Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 25.
81. Maltz, M. D. (1995). On defining “organized crime”: The development

of a definition and a typology. In N. Passas (Ed.), Organized crime.
Brookfield, VT: Dartmouth, pp. 19–21.
82. Abadinsky, H. (2013). Organized crime (10th ed.). Belmont, CA:

Cengage Learning, pp. 1–4.
83. Browning, F., & Gerassi, J. (1980). The American way of crime. New
York, NY: G. P. Putnam, as cited in Kenney, D. J., & Finckenauer, J. O.
(1995). Organized crime in America. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, p. 52.
84. Kenney, D. J., & Finckenauer, J. O. (1995). Organized crime in
America. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, p. 69.
85. Ibid., p. 72.
86. Ryan, P. J. (1995). Organized crime: A reference handbook. Santa

Barbara, CA: ABC-CLIO, p. 95.
87. Lyman, M. D., & Potter, G. W. (2000). Organized crime (2nd ed.).
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, pp. 100–101; see also Kelly, R. J.
(1999). United States. Trends in Organized Crime, 5, 85–114.
88. Hall, W. (2010). What are the policy lessons of National Alcohol
Prohibition in the United States, 1920–1933? Addiction, 105, 1164.
90. Reppetto, T. (2004). American Mafia: A history of its rise to power.

New York, NY: Henry Holt.

Wadsworth/Thompson, pp. 297–298.



95. Ibid., p. 34.
96. Roth, M. P. (2010). Organized crime. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice
Hall, pp. 570–586.
98. Albini, J. (1971). Mafia: Genesis of a legend. New York, NY: Appleton-
Century-Crofts, p. 83.

100. Hess, H. (1973). Mafia and mafioso: The structure of power.

Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

102. Ibid., p. 37.
104. Ibid., p. 264.

106. Ibid., p. 61.
107. Ibid., p. 60.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, p. 264.
Hall, p. 287.
112. Department of Justice. (2015). Prison gangs. Retrieved from

https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ocgs/gallery/prison-gangs
113. Jackson, R. K., & McBride, W. D. (2000). Understanding street gangs.

Incline Village, NV: Copperhouse.

America. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, pp. 303–304.
115. Maltz, M. (1985). Towards defining organized crime. In H. Alexander

& G. Caiden (Eds.), The politics and economics of organized crime.
Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

America. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, pp. 286–289.
117. National Institute of Justice. (2011, November 3). The evolution of

transnational organized crime. NIJ Journal, No. 268. Retrieved from
https://www.nij.gov/journals/268/pages/transnational-evolution.aspx
118. Department of Justice. (2015, June 2). International organized crime.

Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/criminal-ocgs/international-
organized-crime
119. Ibid.
120. FBI. (n.d.) What we investigate: Transnational organized crime.

Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/investigate/organized-crime
122. Kefauver, E. (1951). Special committee to investigate organized crime

in interstate commerce: Third interim report. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office, p. 20.
Wadsworth/Thompson, p. 441.
125. Bell, D. (1953). Crime as an American way of life. Antioch Reviews,

13, 139.
126. Kelly, R. J. (2000). Encyclopedia of organized crime in the United

States: From Capone’s Chicago to the new urban underworld. Westport,
CT: Greenwood Press, p. 215.

Wadsworth/Thompson, p. 444.
129. Task Force on Organized Crime. (1967). Task force report: Organized
crime. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, p. 6.
Hall, p. 31.

Hall, p. 522.


America. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, p. 29; see also Reuter, P. (1987).
Methodological problems of organized crime research. In H. Edelhertz
(Ed.), Major issues in organized crime control: Symposium proceedings.
Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice; Walsh, M. (1983). An
overview of organized crime. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.

America. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, p. 39; see also Bell, D. (1953). Crime
as an American way of life. In M. E. Wolfgang, L. Savitz, & N. Johnston
(Eds.), The sociology of crime and delinquency (pp. 213–225). New York,
NY: Wiley; Ianni, F. (1972). A family business: Kinship and control in
organized crime. New York, NY: Russell Sage; Ianni, F. (1974). Black
Mafia: Ethnic succession in organized crime. New York, NY: Simon and
Schuster.

America. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, p. 41; see also Fox, S. (1989). Blood
and power: Organized crime in twentieth-century America. New York, NY:
William Morrow; Smith, D. (1980). Paragons, pariahs, and pirates: A
spectrum-based theory of enterprise. Crime and Delinquency, 26, 358–386.
138. Reuter, P. (1987). Methodological problems of organized crime

research. In H. Edelhertz (Ed.), Major issues in organized crime control:
Symposium proceedings. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice, as
cited in Kenney, D. J., & Finckenauer, J. O. (1995). Organized crime in
America. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

140. FBI. (n.d.) Most wanted: Evgeniy Mikhailovich Bogachev. Retrieved

from https://www.fbi.gov/wanted/cyber/evgeniy-mikhailovich-bogachev
141. FBI. Internet Crime Complaint Center. (2018). 2018 Internet Crime
Report, p. 3. Retrieved from
https://www.ic3.gov/media/annualreport/2018_IC3Report.pdf
142. Britz, M. T. (2004). Computer forensics and cyber crime: An

introduction. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall, p. 4.
143. Moore, R. (2005). Cybercrime: Investigating high-technology
computer crime. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson, p. 2.
144. Ibid., p. 5.
145. Moitra, S. D. (2005). Developing policies for cybercrime: Some

empirical issues. European Journal of Crime, Criminal Law and Criminal
Justice, 13, 438.
146. Ibid., pp. 445–446.
147. Mehan, J. E. (2014). CyberWar, CyberTerror, CyberCrime and

CyberActivism. Ely, Cambridgeshire, UK: IT Governance Publishing, p. 26.
148. Wark, M. (2010). Hackers. In G. E. Higgins, Cybercrime: An

introduction to an emerging phenomenon. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, p.
129.

computer crime. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson, pp. 18–19.
150. Meyer, G. R. (1989). The social organization of the computer

underground. Master’s thesis, Northern Illinois University, as cited by
Wade, C., Aldridge, J., Hopper, L., Drummond, H., Hopper, R., & Andrew,
K. (2011). Hacking into the hacker: Separating fact from fiction. In T. J.
Holt (Ed.), Crime on-line: Correlates, causes, and context. Durham, NC:
Carolina Academic Press.
151. Ibid., 24–26.
152. See also Wall, D. S. (2008). Cybercrime, media and insecurity: The
shaping of public perceptions of cybercrime. International Review of Law
Computers and Technology, 22, 45–63.
153. FBI. Internet Crime Complaint Center. (2018). 2018 Internet Crime
Report, p. 3. Retrieved from
https://www.ic3.gov/media/annualreport/2018_IC3Report.pdf
154. Gaines, L. K., Kremling, J., & Kappeler, V. E. (2019). Homeland
security and terrorism. New York, NY: Pearson, p. 314.

156. Ibid., pp. 62–66.
157. Osanka, F., & Johann, S. L. (1989). Sourcebook on pornography.

Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
158. Department of Justice. (2018, June 12). More than 2,300 suspected
online child sex offenders arrested during operation “Broken Heart.” Justice
News. Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/more-2300-
suspected-online-child-sex-offenders-arrested-during-operation-broken-
heart
159. Beech, R. B., Elliott, I. A., Birgden, A., & Findlater, D. (2008). The
internet and child sexual offending: A criminological review. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 13, 216–228.

161. Caeti, T. J. (2009). Sex crimes, Part 1: Child pornography. Law

Enforcement Training Network, p. 8.
162. Ibid., p. 5.
163. Clough, J. (2015). Principles of cybercrime (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK:

Cambridge University Press.
164. Lieberman, J. (2001). Name your own price . . . for hookers?!? Ebay
and Priceline.com muscle in on the world’s oldest business model.
PCTyrant.com, as cited in Moore, R. (2005). Cybercrime: Investigating
high-technology computer crime. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson, pp. 93–94.

166. Clough, J. (2015). Principles of cybercrime (2nd ed.). Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 214–216.
167. Ibid., p. 96.
168. Ibid., pp. 105–109.
169. Ibid., pp. 113–114.
170. Casey, E. (2004). Digital evidence and computer crime: Forensic

science, computers and the internet (2nd ed.). London, England: Elsevier, p.
601.
171. Florida Statute § 784.048.
172. Baughman, L. L. (2007). Friend request or foe? Confirming the misuse

of internet and social networking sites by domestic violence perpetrators.
The Widener Law Journal, 19, 933–966, p. 941.

611.
174. Baughman, L. L. (2007). Friend request or foe? Confirming the misuse

of internet and social networking sites by domestic violence perpetrators.
The Widener Law Journal, 19, 942.

611.
176. Taylor, R. W., Caeti, T. J., Loper, D. K., Fritsch, E. J., & Liederbach, J.
(2006). Digital crime and digital terrorism. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson Prentice Hall, p. 280.

178. Ibid., p. 135.


science, computers and the internet (2nd ed.). London, England: Elsevier,
pp. 213–214.
181. Holt, T. J., Burruss, G. W., & Bossler, A. M. (2015). Policing

cybercrime and cyberterror. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press, pp.
115–123.


science, computers and the internet (2nd ed.). London, England: Elsevier,
pp. 62–65.

185. Piquero, N. L. (2010). Intellectual property theft. In G. E. Higgins

(Ed.), Cybercrime: An introduction to an emerging phenomenon. Boston,
MA: McGraw-Hill, p. 93.
186. Gillen, M., & Garrity, B. (2000). Industry’s anti-piracy efforts:

“Doomed to fail” says Forester. Billboard, 112, 9–11.

60.
188. Ibid., p. 47.
Pearson Prentice Hall, p. 188.

192. Boyd, A. (2015, April 1). Obama signs order authorizing sanctions
against cyber criminals. The Federal Times. Retrieved from
http://www.federaltimes.com/story/gov
ernment/cybersecurity/2015/04/01/obama-executive-order-sanctions-cyber-
criminals/70770684
193. Office of the Press Secretary. (2015, April 1). Executive Order
Blocking the Property of Certain Persons Engaging in Significant Malicious
Cyber-Enabled Activities (Fact Sheet), para. 4. Retrieved from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/04/01/fact-sheet-
executive-order-blocking-property-certain-persons-engaging-si
194. Strengthening State and Local Cyber Crime Fighting Act of 2017.
(H.R. 1616). 115th United States Congress.
Pearson Prentice Hall.
196. Ibid., p. 38.
197. Kigerl, A. (2012). Routine activity theory and the determinants of high
cybercrime countries. Social Science Computer Review, 30, 470–486.
198. Williams, M. (2016). Guardians upon high: An application of Routine

Activities Theory to online identity theft in Europe at the country and
individual level. British Journal of Criminology, 56, 21–48.
Pearson Prentice Hall, pp. 58–59.
200. Ibid., pp. 45–46.
Chapter 15
1. Paul, D., & Mettler, K. (2019, April 28). Authorities identify suspect in
“hate crime” synagogue shooting that left 1 dead, 3 injured. The
Washington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2019/04/27/california-synagogue-
shooting-multiple-injuries
2. Zapotosky, M. (2019, May 9). Syspect in synagogue shooting charged

with federal hate crimes and civil rights violations. The Washington Post.
Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-
security/suspect-in-synagogue-shooting-charged-with-federal-hate-crimes-
and-civil-rights-violations/2019/05/09/928389f0-7280-11e9-8be0-
ca575670e91c_story.html
3. Lavin, T. (2019, April 29). The San Diego shooter’s manifesto is a

modern form of an old lie about Jews. The Washington Post. Retrieved from
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2019/04/29/san-diego-shooters-
manifesto-is-modern-form-an-old-lie-about-jews
4. Times Staff. (2019, April 29). Poway synagogue suspect charged with
murder and hate crime allegations. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from
https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-fbi-manifesto-attack-poway-
20190429-story.html
5. Deloughery, K., King, R. D., & Asal, V. (2012). Close cousins or distant
relatives? The relationship between terrorism and hate crime. Crime and
Delinquency, 58, 664. See also Green, D. P., McFalls, L. H., & Smith, J. K.
(2001). Hate crime: An emergent research agenda. Annual Review of
Sociology, 27, 479–504; Herek, G. M., Cogan, J. C., & Gillis, J. R. (2002).
Victim experiences in hate crimes based on sexual orientation. Journal of
Social Issues, 58, 319–339.
6. Green, D. P., McFalls, L. H., & Smith, J. K. (2001). Hate crime: An

emergent research agenda. Annual Review of Sociology, 27, 483.
7. Ibid., p. 665; see also Black, D. (2004). Terrorism as social control.

Sociology of Crime, Law and Deviance, 5, 9–18; Messner, S. F., McHugh,
S., & Felson, R. B. (2004). The distinctive characteristics of assaults
motivated by bias. Criminology, 42, 585–618.
8. Stack, L. (2016, February 15). American Muslims under attack. The New
York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/12/22/us/Crimes-Against-
Muslim-Americans.html
9. FBI. (n.d.). Hate crime: Overview. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of

Justice. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-
us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview
10. FBI. (2015). Criminal Justice Information Services (CJIS) Division:

Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program. Hate Crime Data Collection
Guidelines and Training Manual. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice.
11. Ibid., pp. 12–13.
12. Ibid., p. 10.
13. Beirich, H. (2019, Spring). The year in hate and extremism: Rage
against change. Intelligence Report. Montgomery, AL: The Southern
Poverty Law Center, p. 41.
14. Chan, J., Ghose, A., & Seamans, R. (2016). The internet and racial hate
crime: Offline spillovers from online access. MIS Quarterly, 40, 381–404.
15. FBI. (1999). Hate crime data collection guidelines. Washington, DC:
16. Ibid., p. 37.
17. Ibid., p. 1; see also U.S. Department of Justice. (1994). Violence Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994: Fact sheet. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice.
18. Hate Crime Sentencing Enhancement Act 28 U.S.C. 994.

19. National Church Arson Task Force. (n.d.). Interim report to the
president. Retrieved from
http://www.justice.gov/crt/church_arson/00000008.pdf
20. Title 18, U.S.C., Section 247. Retrieved from http://www.fbi.gov/about-

us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes
21. 105th Congress, S. 1493IS. Retrieved from http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-

bin/query/z?c105:2.1493
22. Title 18, U.S.C., Section 249.
23. U.S. Department of Justice. (n.d.). Matthew Shepard/James Byrd, Jr.,

Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
from http://www.jus tice.gov/crt/about/crm/matthewshepard.php
24. National Coalition for the Homeless. (2012). Hate crimes and violence
against people experiencing homelessness. Washington, DC: National
Coalition for the Homeless. Retrieved from
http://www.nationalhomeless.org/factsheets/hatecrimes.html
25. National Law Center on Homelessness & Poverty (NLCHP) and

National Coalition for the Homeless (NCH). (n.d.). Model state legislation:
Hate crimes/violence against homeless people. Retrieved from
http:/www.nlchp.org/content/pubs/Model%20State%20Legislation.pdf
26. Byers, B. D., & Crider, B. W. (2002). Hate crimes against the Amish: A
qualitative analysis of bias motivation using routine activities theory.
Deviant Behavior, 23, 115–148.
27. Brooke, J. (1998, October 10). Gay man beaten and left for dead; 2 are
charged. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/10/us/gay-man-beaten-and-left-for-dead-
2-are-charged.html
28. Brooke, J. (1998, October 13). Gay man dies from attack, fanning
outrage and debate. The New York Times. Retrieved from
https://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/13/us/gay-man-dies-from-attack-
fanning-outrage-and-debate.html
29. Murdered for who he was [Editorial]. (1998, October 13). The New York
Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/1998/10/13/opinion/murdered-for-who-he-
was.html
30. Waldner, L. K., & Berg, J. (2008). Explaining antigay violence using
target congruence: An application of revised routine activities theory.
Violence and Victims, 23, 267–287.
31. Finkelhor, D., & Asdigian, N. L. (1996). Risk factors for youth
victimization: Beyond a lifestyles/routine activities theory approach.
Violence and Victims, 11, 3–19.
32. Ibid., p. 6.
33. Grattet, R. (2009). The urban ecology of bias crime: A study of

disorganized and defended neighborhoods’. Social Problems, 56, pp. 132–
150.
34. Benier, K., Wickes, R., & Higginson, A. (2016). Ethnic hate crime in
Australia: Diversity and change in the neighbourhood context. British
Journal of Criminology, 56, 480–481.
35. Hipp, J. R., Tita, G. E., &Boggess, L. N. (2009). Intergroup and

intragroup violence: Is violent crime an expression of group conflict or
social disorganisation? Criminology, 47, 521–564; Lyons, C. J. (2007).
Community (dis)organization and racially motivated crime. American
Journal of Sociology, 113, 815–863.
36. See Craig, K. M., & Waldo, C. R. (1996). “So what’s a hate crime
anyway?” Young adults’ perceptions of hate crimes, victims, and
perpetrators. Law and Human Behavior, 20, 113–129; Dunbar, E., &
Molina, A. (2004). Opposition to the legitimacy of hate crime laws: The
role of argument acceptance, knowledge, individual differences, and peer
influence. Analysis of Social Issues and Public Policy, 4, 91–113.
37. Plumm, K. M., Terrance, C. A., Henderson, V. R., & Ellingson, H.
(2010). Victim blame in a hate crime motivated by sexual orientation.
Journal of Homosexuality, 57, 267–286.
38. Ibid., p. 282.
39. Holmes, R. M., & Holmes, S. T. (2001). Mass murder in the United
States. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
40. Ibid.
41. J. A. Fox, as cited in Why did they die? (2016, June 27). Time
magazine, pp. 31–41.
42. Holmes, R. M., & Holmes, S. T. (2001). Mass murder in the United
States. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
43. Bugliosi, V. (2001). Helter skelter: The true story of the Manson
murders. W. W. Norton & Company.
44. U.S. Secret Service & U.S. Department of Education. (2004). The final
report and findings of the Safe School Initiative: Implications for the
prevention of school attacks in the United States. Washington, DC: U.S.
Secret Service. Retrieved from
https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/safety/preventingattacksreport.pdf
45. Branson, A. (2012). African-American serial killers: Over-represented

yet underacknowledged. Howard Journal of Criminal Justice, 52, 1–18.
46. Hickey, E. (2002). Serial murderers and their victims. Belmont, CA:
Wadsworth/Thomas Learning.
47. Clark, K. J. (2015, July 21). Muslims, mass shootings, and the media.
Huffington Post.
48. FBI. (2005). Terrorism 2002–2005. Retrieved from

https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/terrorism-2002-2005, as
reported by Alnatour, O. (2015, December 9). Muslims are not terrorists: A
factual look at terrorism and Islam. Huffington Post.
49. Ibid.
50. Baker, P., Cooper, H., & Mazzetti, M. (2011, May 2). Bin Laden is
dead, Obama says. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/02/world/asia/osama-bin-laden-is-
killed.html
51. CNN Wire Staff. (2011, May 2). Transcript: Obama’s speech
announcing the death of Osama bin Laden. Retrieved from
http://www.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/05/02/obama.bin.laden.transcri
pt/index.html
52. Gaines, L. K., & Kappeler, V. E. (2012). Homeland security. Boston,

MA: Prentice Hall, p. 109.
53. Schmid, A. (2004). Terrorism: The definitional problem. Case Western

Reserve Journal of International Law, 36, 376.
54. Hoffman, B. (2009). Defining terrorism: Means, ends, and motives. In

R. D. Howard, R. L. Sawyer, & N. E. Bajema (Eds.), Terrorism and
counterterrorism: Understanding the new security environment (3rd ed.).
Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill, p. 33.
55. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (n.d.) General info about

terrorism: Are you ready? Washington, D.C.: FEMA. Retrieved from
http://www.fema.gov/pdf/areyouready/terrorism.pdf
56. U.S. Department of State. (n.d.). Legislative requirements and key

terms. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of State. Retrieved from
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/65464.pdf
57. FBI. (2010). What we investigate. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department

of Justice. Retrieved from https://www.fbi.gov/albuquerque/about-us/what-
we-investigate
58. Department of Defense. (2015) DOD Dictionary of Military Terms.

Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense. Retrieved from
http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/dod_dictionary
59. White, J. R. (2012). Terrorism and homeland security (7th ed.).
Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, p. 13; see also Borum, R. (2004). Psychology of
terrorism. Tampa: University of South Florida; Schmid, A. P., & Jongman,
A. J. (2005). Political terrorism: A new guide to actors, authors, concepts,
data bases, theories, and literature. Somerset, NJ: Transaction Books.

61. U.S. Department of State. (n.d.). Foreign terrorist organizations.

Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of State, Bureau of Counterterrorism.
Retrieved from: http://www.state.gov/j/ct/rls/other/des/123085.htm
62. Martin, G. (2014). Types of terrorism. In M. Eid (Ed.), Exchanging

terrorism oxygen for media airwaves: The age of terroredia (pp. 81–94).
Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
63. Ibid., p. 82.

MA: Prentice Hall, pp. 123–125.
65. U.S. Department of State. (2015). Country reports on terrorism, 2015.

Retrieved from http://www.state.gov/j/ct/list/c14151.htm
66. Hoffman, B. (2006). Inside terrorism. New York, NY: Columbia

University Press.

terrorism oxygen for media airwaves: The age of terroredia. Hershey, PA:
Information Science Reference, p. 82.
68. Martin, G. (2013). Understanding terrorism: Challenges, perspectives,

and issues (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, p. 40.

terrorism oxygen for media airwaves: The age of terroredia. Hershey, PA:
Information Science Reference, p. 82.
70. Institute for Economics and Peace. (2018). Global Terrorism Index,
2018. New York: IEP. Retrieved from
http://visionofhumanity.org/app/uploads/2018/12/Global-Terrorism-Index-
2018-1.pdf

72. Pratt, A. N. (2011). Terrorism’s evolution: Yesterday, today, and forever.

In C. C. Harmon, A. N. Pratt, & S. Gorka (Eds.), Toward a grand strategy
against terrorism. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill, p. 8.
73. Burgess, M. (2003). A brief history of terrorism. Washington, DC:

Center for Defense Information.
74. Ibid.
75. Halsall, P. (1997). Maximilien Robespierre: Justification of the use of

terror. Modern History Sourcebook. Retrieved from
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/robespierre-terror.asp


78. Martin, G. (2011). Terrorism and homeland security. Thousand Oaks,

CA: SAGE, p. 30.


81. Ibid.
82. Hoffman, B. (2006). Inside terrorism. New York, NY: Columbia
University Press, p. 64.


85. Ibid.

CA: SAGE, p. 41.
87. Agnew, R. (2010). A general strain theory of terrorism. Theoretical

Criminology, 14, 131–153; Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and
anomie. American Sociological Review, 3, 672–682.
88. Agnew, R. (2010). A general strain theory of terrorism. Theoretical

89. Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American

90. Akers, R. L. (1985). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach (3rd

ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; Sutherland, E. H. (1939). Principles of
criminology (3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
91. Silverman, A. L. (2002). Exploratory analysis of interdisciplinary

theory of terrorism. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Florida.

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, p. 64.
93. Ibid., pp. 64–78.
94. Arquilla, J., Ronfeldt, D., & Zanini, M. (1999). Networks, netwar, and
information-age terrorism. In I. O. Lesser et al. (Eds.), Countering the new
terrorism. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, as cited in White, J. R. (2012).
Terrorism and homeland security (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
95. Levitt, M., & Jacobson, J. (2008). The U.S. campaign to squeeze
terrorists’ financing. Journal of International Affairs, 62, 67–85.

97. Kochan, N. (2005). The washing machine. New York, NY: Thompson,
p. 32, as cited in Olson, D. T. (2007). Financing terror. Washington, DC:
U.S. Department of Justice.

99. Roberge, I. (2007). Misguided policies in the war on terror? The case
for disentangling terrorist financing from money laundering. Politics, 27,
196–203, as cited in Gaines, L. K., & Kappeler, V. E. (2012). Homeland
security. Boston, MA: Prentice Hall, p. 304.
100. Ehrenfeld, R. (2003). Funding evil: How terrorism is financed and

how to stop it. Seattle, WA: National Press, p. 123, as cited in Olson, D. T.
(2007). Financing terror. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
101. Olson, D. T. (2007). Financing terror. Washington, DC: U.S.


103. Kohlmann, E. (2006). The role of Islamic charities in international

terrorist recruitment and financing. Copenhagen: Danish Institute for
International Studies.
104. FBI. (2008). No cash for terror: Convictions returned in Holy Land
case. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2008/november/hlf112508
105. FATF. (2012). International Standards on Combating Money
Laundering and the Financing of Terrorism & Proliferation. (updated
October 2015). FATF: Paris, France. Retrieved from www.fatf-
gafi.org/recommendations.html
106. Cottle, S. (2006). Mediatizing the global war on terror: Television’s

public eye. In A. P. Kavoori & T. Fraley (Eds.), Media, terrorism, and
theory: A reader. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
107. Ross, J. I. (2007). Deconstructing the terrorism news media

relationship. Crime, Media, Culture, 3, 215–225.

Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, pp. 116–125.
109. See Anderson, B. C. (2005). South Park conservatives: The revolt

against liberal media bias. Washington, DC: Regnery; Goldberg, B. (2003).
Bias: A CBS insider exposes how the media distort the news. New York,
NY: Perennial Editions (HarperCollins); Slisli, F. (2000). The Western
media and the Algerian crisis. Race and Class, 41, 43–57.

111. FBI. (2013). Definitions of terrorism in the U.S. Code. Washington,

D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from
https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/terrorism/terrorism-definition
112. FBI. (2009). Domestic terrorism: In the post-9/11 era. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice, para. 3. Retrieved from
http://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/2009/september/domterror_090709

114. Ibid., pp. 383–384.

115. Animal Liberation Front (ALF). (n.d.). The ALF credo and guidelines.
Retrieved from
http://www.animalliberationfront.com/ALFront/alf_credo.htm

117. Ibid., pp. 383–384.
118. Ibid., p. 409.
119. Ibid., p. 417.
120. Ibid., p. 418.
121. Anonymous. (n.d.). Army of God. Retrieved from

http://www.armyofgod.com
122. Mueller, R. S. (2006, June 23). Speech to the City Club of Cleveland.
Washington, D.C.: FBI. Retrieved from
https://www.fbi.gov/news/speeches/the-threat-of-homegrown-terrorism
123. Bergen, P. (2016, January 22). Can we stop homegrown terrorists? The
Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/can-we-
stop-homegrown-terrorists-1453491850
124. Olsson, P. A. (2015). The making of a homegrown terrorist.

Psychiatric Times, 34, 1–2.
125. Forst, B. (2010). Memorandum: Afterword to the State Department’s

country reports on terrorism for 2010—Challenges, accomplishments, and
prospects. In National Counterterrorism Center. (2010). 2009 report on
terrorism. Washington, DC: Author, n.p.
126. Ibid.
127. Cohen, L., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends:
A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.
128. Shubik, M. (1975). The uses and methods of gaming. New York, NY:
Elsevier, p. 6.

130. Morris, P. (1994). Introduction to game theory. New York, NY:

Springer-Verlag, p. vii.


CA: SAGE, p. 270.
133. FBI. (2002). Crime in the United States, 2001. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
134. Clarke, R. (2008). Your government failed you: Breaking the cycle of
national security disasters. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
135. Ibid., p. 6.

CA: SAGE, p. 267.
137. Bush, G. W. (2002). Letter from the White House. National Strategy
for Homeland Security, 2002. Washington, DC: Office of Homeland
Security, n.p.

139. White House. (2002). The Department of Homeland Security.

Washington, DC: Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved from
http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/book.pdf
140. Office of Homeland Security. (2002). National strategy for homeland

security, 2002. Washington, DC: Author, p. 2.
141. Ibid., as cited in Gaines, L. K., & Kappeler, V. E. (2012). Homeland

security. Boston, MA: Prentice Hall, p. 6.
142. Bellavita, C. (2008). Changing homeland security: What is homeland

security? Homeland Security Affairs, 4, 1–2.
143. Department of Homeland Security. (2015). Creation of the Department

of Homeland Security. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
https://www.dhs.gov/creation-department-homeland-security
144. Transportation Security Administration. (n.d.). About TSA.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved from
http://www.tsa.gov/about-tsa

146. Ibid., p. 40.
147. Ibid., p. 43.
148. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services. (2010). USCIS overview:

About the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS). Washington,
DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.uscitizenship.info/us-citizenship-
and-immigration-services-uscis.html
149. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (n.d.). Overview.

http://www.ice.gov/about/overview

151. Ibid.
152. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. (n.d.). Overview.
http://www.ice.gov/about/overview

MA: Prentice Hall, p. 45; see also U.S. Secret Service. (2010). Secret
Service history. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.secretservice.gov/history.shtml
154. U.S. Secret Service. (2010). Mission statement. Washington, DC:

Author. Retrieved from http://www.secretservice.gov/mission.shtml
155. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2011). About FEMA.

Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.fema.gov/about-fema
156. Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2011). FEMA strategic

plan: Fiscal years 2011–2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, p. 1.

158. U.S. Coast Guard. (2011). About us. Washington, DC: Author.
Retrieved from http://www.uscg.mil/top/about
159. Haddal, C. C. (2010). Border security: Key agencies and their

missions. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, p. 4.
160. Shapiro, J. (2007). Managing homeland security: Develop a threat-

based strategy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, p. 1.

162. Ibid., p. 36.

MA: Prentice Hall.
164. Office of the United Nations. (2008). Human rights, terrorism and
counter-terrorism. Geneva, Switzerland: Author, p. 1.

166. Hersh, S. M. (2004). Torture at Abu Ghraib. The New Yorker.

Retrieved from
http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2004/05/10/040510fa_fact
167. Ibid., para. 6.

and issues (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE, pp. 498–499.

171. Pew Foundation. (2005). Pew global attitudes project. Retrieved from
http://pewglobal.org/reports/pdf/248.pdf, as cited in White, J. R. (2012).
Terrorism and homeland security (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, p.
539.
172. Porteous, T. (2006). The al Qaeda myth. TomPaine.com. Retrieved

from http://www.tompaine.com/arti
cles/2006/04/12/the_al_qaeda_myth.php, as cited in White, J. R. (2012).
Terrorism and homeland security (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, p.
539.
174. Cole, D., & Dempsey, J. X. (2006). Terrorism and the Constitution:
Sacrificing civil liberties in the name of national security (3rd ed.). New
York, NY: New Press.
175. Cohen, D. H. (2010). Post-9/11 anti-terrorism policy regarding
noncitizens and the constitutional idea of equal protection under the laws.
The Texas Law Review, 88, 1339.

177. Doyle, C. (2002). CRS report for Congress: The USA PATRIOT Act: A
sketch. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service; Executive Order
13025 of November 13, 1995, Amendment to Executive Order 13010, the
President’s Commission on Critical Infrastructure Protection, as cited in
Gaines, L. K., & Kappeler, V. E. (2012). Homeland security. Boston, MA:

CA: SAGE, p. 279.

180. Sievert, R. J. (2007). PATRIOT 2005–2007: Truth, controversy, and

consequences. The Texas Review of Law and Politics, 11, 350.
181. Mascaro, L. (2011, May 27). PATRIOT Act provisions extended just in
time. The Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from
http://articles.latimes.com/2011/may/27/nation/la-na-patriot-act-20110527
182. Nelson, S. (2015, June 2). Senate passes Freedom Act, ending
PATRIOT Act provision lapse. U.S. News World and Report. Retrieved
from http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/02/senate-passes-
freedom-act-ending-patriot-act-provision-lapse
183. Kelly, R. (2015, June 2). Senate approves USA Freedom Act. USA
Today. Retrieved from
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/06/02/patriot-act-usa-
freedom-act-senate-vote/28345747
184. The White House. (2015, December 5). Summary: President Obama
speaks about the shooting in San Bernardino, California. Retrieved from
https://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2015/12/02/president-obama-shooting-
san-bernardino
185. Nakamura, D. (2016, June 13). Orlando massacre turns triumphant

week for Obama into referendum on terrorism. The Washington Post.
Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/obama-ties-
debate-over-terrorism-and-guns-together-after-
orlando/2016/06/13/40ca1564-317b-11e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html
186. Pérez-Peña, R. (2015, October 7). Gun control explained. The New
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/07/us/gun-control-
explained.html
187. Ball, M. (2016, January 16). Don’t call it “gun control.” The Atlantic.
Retrieved from http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2013/01/dont-
call-it-gun-control/267259
188. Pérez-Peña, R. (2015, October 7). Gun control explained. The New
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/07/us/gun-control-
explained.html (para. 19)
Chapter 16
1. Kraut, A. (2016, June 9). Samuel Ellis sentenced to four years in prison.
Bethesda Magazine. Retrieved from
http://www.bethesdamagazine.com/Bethesda-Beat/Web-2016/Samuel-Ellis-
Sentenced-to-Four-Years-in-Prison
2. Belt, D. (2015, December 11). Potomac party host pleads guilty in teen
drinking case. Patch. Retrieved from
http://patch.com/maryland/rockville/potomac-party-host-pleads-guilty-teen-
drinking-case-0.
3. St. George, D., & Morse, D. (2015, December 23). Report: Teens said
parent allowed parties “on a regular basis.” The Washington Post. Retrieved
from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/report-teens-said-
parent-allowed-parties-on-a-regular-basis/2015/12/23/c228ce02-a5d5-11e5-
ad3f-991ce3374e23_story.html
4. Lurigio, A. J. (2008). The first 20 years of drug treatment courts: A brief

description of their history and impact. Federal Probation, 72, 13.
u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/topic-pages/tables/table-29
6. Bureau of Prisons. (2019). BOP statistics: Inmate offenses. Retrieved

from https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_offenses.jsp
7. Bronson, J. (2019). Prisoners in 2017. Washington, DC: U.S. Department

of Justice.
8. Gaines, L. K. (2014). The psychopharmacology and prevalence of drugs.

In L. K. Gaines & J. Kremling (Eds.), Drugs, crime, and justice:
Contemporary perspectives (3rd ed., pp. 105–138). Prospect Heights, IL:
Waveland Press, p. 113.
9. National Institute of Drug Abuse. (2011). What are CNS depressants.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Retrieved from http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-
reports/prescription-drugs/cns-depressants/what-are-cns-depressants

Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States:
Results from the 2017 National Survey on Drug Use and Health.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Retrieved from https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq-
reports/NSDUHFFR2017/NSDUHFFR2017.pdf
11. Kuhn, C., Swartzwelder, S., & Wilson, W. (2003). Buzzed: The straight
facts about the most used and abused drugs from alcohol to ecstasy. New
York, NY: W. W. Norton, p. 198.
12. National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. (n.d.). Moderate

and binge drinking. Retrieved from http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-
health/overview-alcohol-consumption/moderate-binge-drinking

Results from the 2011 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Key
definition for the 2011 detailed tables and national findings report.
Rockville, MD: Author, p. 4.
14. Kuhn, C., Swartzwelder, S., & Wilson. W. (2003). Buzzed: The straight
York, NY: W. W. Norton, pp. 49–50. Copyright © 1998 by Cynthia Kuhn,
Scott Swartzwelder, and Wilkie Wilson. Used by permission of W. W.
Norton & Company, Inc.
15. Wechsler, H., Dowdall, W., Davenport, A., & Castillo, S. (1995).
Correlates of college student binge drinking. American Journal of Public
Health, 85, 921–926.
16. Zamboanga, B. L., Schwartz, S. J., Van Tyne, K., Ham, L. S., Olthuis, J.
V., Huang, S., et al. (2010). Drinking game behaviors among college
students: How often and how much? American Journal of Drug and
Alcohol Abuse, 36, 176.
17. Borsari, B. (2004). Drinking games in the college environment: A
review. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 48, 29–51.
18. Perkins, H. W. (2002). Surveying the damage: A review of research on

consequences of alcohol misuse in college populations. Journal of Studies
on Alcohol, 56, 628–634.
19. Sneader, W. (2005). Drug discovery. New York, NY: John Wiley.
20. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. (n.d.). Barbiturates.

https://www.dea.gov/druginfo/drug_data_sheets/Barbiturates.pdf
21. Gaines, L. K. (2014). The psychopharmacology and prevalence of

drugs. In L. K. Gaines & J. Kremling (Eds.), Drugs, crime, and justice:
22. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. (n.d.). Barbiturates.

https://www.dea.gov/druginfo/drug_data_sheets/Barbiturates.pdf
23. Ainsworth, S. (2011). Barbiturates: Soldiers, saints and spies. Practice

Nurse, 41, 32–33.
25. Ibid., p. 199.
26. Zilney, L. A. (2011). Drugs: Policy, social costs, crime, and justice.
Boston, MA: Prentice Hall; see also U.S. Drug Enforcement
Administration. (n.d.). Drug fact sheet. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Justice. Retrieved from
http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/all_fact_sheets.pdf
27. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. (n.d.). Drug fact sheet.


32. Neaigus, A., Atillasoy, A., Friedman, S., Andrade, X., Miller, M.,
Ildefonso, G., et al. (1998). Trends in the noninjected use of heroin and
factors associated with the transition to injecting. In J. Inciardi & L.
Harrison (Eds.), Heroin in the age of crack-cocaine (pp. 131–159).
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
33. National Institute of Drug Abuse. (n.d.). Drug facts: Heroin.

Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from
http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/heroin.html
34. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. (n.d.). Drug fact sheet:

Narcotics. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from
http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/drug_data_sheets/Narcotics.pdf

36. Van Zee, A. (2009). The promotion and marketing of OxyContin:

Commercial triumph, public health tragedy. American Journal of Public
Health, 99, 225.
37. Tough, P. (2001, July 29). The alchemy of OxyContin: From pain relief
to drug addiction. The New York Times Magazine. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/29/magazine/29OXYCONTIN.html
38. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. (n.d.). Fentanyl. Washington,

DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from
https://www.dea.gov/factsheets/fentanyl


42. Ibid.

46. Gahlinger, P. M. (2001). Illegal drugs: A complete guide to their history,

chemistry, use and abuse. Salt Lake City, UT: Sagebrush Press.
47. National Drug Intelligence Center. (2005). Methamphetamine drug

threat assessment. Johnstown, PA: Author, p. 10.

49. Hunt, D., Kuck, S., & Truitt, L. (2005). Methamphetamine use: Lessons
learned. Cambridge, MA: Abt Associates, pp. iv–v.


53. Ibid.
54. Ibid.
55. National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2012). Drug facts: Anabolic

steroids. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from
http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/steroids.html; see also Mosher, C. J., &
Akins, S. (2007). Drugs and drug policy: The control of consciousness
alternation. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Waveland Press, p. 134; National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2012). Drug
facts: Anabolic steroids. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health.
Retrieved from http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/steroids.html
57. U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. (n.d.). Drug fact sheet:

Steroids. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Retrieved from
http://www.justice.gov/dea/druginfo/drug_data_sheets/Steroids.pdf
58. Pope, H. G., Kouri, E. M., & Hudson. J. I. (2000). Effects of

supraphysiologic doses of testosterone on mood and aggression in normal
men: A randomized controlled trial. Archives of General Psychiatry, 57,
133–140.
59. Pope, H. G., & Katz, D. L. (1988). Affective and psychotic symptoms
associated with anabolic steroid use. American Journal of Psychiatry, 145,
487–490.
60. National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2012). Drug facts: Anabolic

steroids. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health. Retrieved from
http://www.drugabuse.gov/infofacts/steroids.html
61. National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2012). Research report series:

Inhalant abuse. Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health. Retrieved
from http://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/inhalant-
abuse
63. Ibid., pp. 86–87.

64. Ibid., p. 89.
65. Mosher, C. J., & Akins, S. (2007). Drugs and drug policy: The control
of consciousness alteration. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
66. Freeman, S. (1988). Drugs and civilization. (Encyclopedia of

Psychoactive Drugs, Series 2, Ed. S. H. Snyder.) New York, NY: Chelsea
House, pp. 19–20.
67. Ibid., p. 20.
68. Tracey, S. W., & Acker, C. J. (Eds.). (2004). Altering American

consciousness: The history of alcohol and drug use in the United States,
1800–2000. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, pp. 2–3.
69. NIDA International Program. (n.d.). Question 2: What is the history of

opioid addiction in the United States? Retrieved from
https://www.drugabuse.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/parta.pdf

House, pp. 64–67.
71. Ibid., p. 48.
72. NIDA International Program. (n.d.). Question 2: What is the history of

opioid addiction in the United States? Retrieved from
https://www.drugabuse.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/parta.pdf

House, pp. 48–49.
74. Ibid., pp. 49–50.
75. Flynn, J. C. (1991). Cocaine: An in-depth look at the facts, science,

history and future of the world’s most addictive drug. New York, NY: Carol
Publishing Group, pp. 24–31.
76. Ibid.
77. Vick, D. (2011). Drugs and alcohol in the 21st century: Theory,
behavior, and policy. Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett, p. 128.
78. Clark, N. H. (1965). The drug years: Prohibition and social change in
Washington. Seattle: University of Washington Press.
79. Levine, H. G. (1984). The alcohol problem in America: From

temperance to alcoholism. British Journal of Addiction, 79, 114.
80. Hall, W. (2010). What are the policy lessons of National Alcohol
Prohibition in the United States, 1920–1933? Addiction, 105, 1171.
81. Abadinsky, H. (2007). Organized crime. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, pp.

43–53.
82. Sloman, L. R. (1998). Reefer madness: A history of marijuana. New

York, NY: St. Martin’s Griffin, p. 29.
83. Ray, R. (1983). Drugs, society, and human behavior (3rd ed.). St. Louis,
MO: C. V. Mosby, p. 424.
84. Marihuana menaces youth. (1936). Scientific American, 154, 151.
85. Morais, R. C. (1996). Reefer madness. Forbes, 157, 118.
86. 395 U.S. 6; 89 S. Ct. 1532; 23 L. Ed. 2d 57.
87. Musto, D. F. (1972). The history of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 26, 101–108.
88. Goethe, C. M. (1935, September 15). [Letter]. The New York Times,
Section IV, p. 9, as quoted in Musto, D. F. (1972). The history of the
Marihuana Tax Act of 1937. Archives of General Psychiatry, 26, 101–108,
p. 104.
89. Musto, D. F. (1972). The history of the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937.
Archives of General Psychiatry, 26, 101–108, p. 105.
90. U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). Selected characteristics of baby boomers 42
to 60 years old in 2006. Retrieved from
http://www.census.gov/population/age/publications/files/2006babyboomers.
pdf
91. Westhues, K. (1972). Society’s shadow: Studies in the sociology of

countercultures. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, pp. 15–
17.
92. Miller, T. (1999). The 60s communes: Hippies and beyond. Syracuse,
NY: Syracuse University Press.
93. Goode, E. (1999). Drugs in American society (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill, p. 70.
94. Remarks at the Nancy Reagan Drug Abuse Center Benefit Dinner in Los
Angeles, California. (1989, January 4). Retrieved from
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1989/010489a.htm
95. Chitwood, D. D., Murphy, S., & Rosenbaum, M. (2009). Reflections on

the meaning of drug epidemics. Journal of Drug Issues, 39, 29–39.
96. Goode, E. (1999). Drugs in American society (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
McGraw-Hill, pp. 70–71.
97. Chitwood, D. D., Murphy, S., & Rosenbaum, M. (2009). Reflections on

the meaning of drug epidemics. Journal of Drug Issues, 39, 29–39.
98. Witkin, G., Mukenge, M., Guttman, M., Arrarte, A., Glastris, K.,
Burgower, B., et al. (1991). The men who created crack. U.S. News and
World Report, 111, 44–53.
99. Logan, E. (2004). The wrong race, committing crime, doing drugs, and
maladjusted for motherhood: The nation’s fury over “crack babies.” In P. J.
Schram & B. Koons-Witt (Eds.), Gendered (in)justice: Theory and practice
in feminist criminology. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press, p. 247.
100. Lewis, D. C. (2004). Stop perpetuating the “crack baby” myth. Brown
University Digest of Addiction Theory and Application, 23, 8.
101. National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2019, January). Opioid overdose

crisis. Retrieved from https://www.drugabuse.gov/drugs-
abuse/opioids/opioid-overdose-crisis
102. Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality (CBHSQ). (2018).
2017 National survey on drug use and health: Detailed tables. Rockville,
MD: Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
103. Altarum. (2018, February 13). Economic toll of opioid crisis in U.S.
exceeded $1 trillion since 2001. Retrieved from
https://altarum.org/news/economic-toll-opioid-crisis-us-exceeded-1-trillion-
2001
104. Zilney, L.A. (2011). Drugs: Policy, social costs, crime, and justice.
Boston, MA: Prentice-Hall, p. 101.
105. Light, D. W., & Lexchin, J. R. (2012). Pharmaceutical research and

development: What do we get for all that money? British Journal of
Medicine, 345, 22–25.
106. Buchanan, J. F., & Brown, C. R. (1988). “Designer drugs”: A problem

in clinical toxicology. Medical Toxicology and Adverse Drug Experience, 3,
1.
107. Seymour, R. B. (1997). Some so-called designer drugs are not. Brown
University Psychopharmacology Update, 8, 1–2.
108. Ibid., p. 2.
109. RyansCause.org. (2006). About Ryan. Retrieved from

http://www.ryanscause.org/section.php?id=1
110. Mother crusades for online pharmacy regulation. (2005).

ABC10News.com. Retrieved from http://www.10news.com/news/mother-
crusades-for-online-pharmacy-regulation
111. RyansCause.org. (2006). About Ryan. Retrieved from
http://www.ryanscause.org/section.php?id=1
112. Drug Enforcement Agency. (2009, April 31). New rules governing
internet pharmacies go into effect next week [News release]. Retrieved from
http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/pr041309.html
113. Drug Enforcement Agency. (2008, October 1). Congress passes Ryan
Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act [News release].
Retrieved from http://www.justice.gov/dea/pubs/pressrel/pr100108.html
114. National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2015). Drug facts: Spice (synthetic
cannabinoids). Retrieved from
https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/synthetic-cannabinoids
115. Miller, M. C. (2011). Bath salts: A new way to get high? Harvard
Medical Health Letter, 28, 8.
116. National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2016). Drug facts: Synthetic

cathinones (“bath salts”). Retrieved from
ps://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/synthetic-cathinones-bath-
salts
117. Gaines, L. K. (2014). The relationship between drugs and crime. In L.

K. Gaines & J. Kremling (Eds.), Drugs, crime, and justice: Contemporary
perspectives (3rd ed., pp. 511–530). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press,
p. 511.
118. Inciardi, J. A. (1981). Heroin addiction and street crime. In

International narcotics trafficking: Hearings before the Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations. Washington, DC: U.S. Government
Printing Office, p. 59.
119. Walker, S. (2006). Sense and non-sense about crime and drugs: A
policy guide (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
120. Gaines, L. K. (2014). The relationship between drugs and crime. In L.

K. Gaines & J. Kremling (Eds.), Drugs, crime, and justice: Contemporary
perspectives (3rd ed., pp. 511–530). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press,
p. 513.
121. Zilney, K. A. (2011). Drugs: Policy, social costs, crime, and justice.
Boston, MA: Prentice Hall, p. 173.
122. McBride, D. C., & McCoy, C. B. (2003). The drugs-crime

relationship: An analytical framework. In L. K. Gaines & P. B. Kraska
(Eds.), Drugs, crime, and justice: Contemporary perspectives (2nd ed., pp.
87–108). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, p. 108.
123. Ibid.
124. Nordstrom, B., & Dackis, C. A. (2011). Drugs and crime. Journal of
Psychiatry and Law, 39, 666. See also Brook, J. S., Whiteman, M., Finch,
S. J., & Cohen, P. (1996). Young adult drug use and delinquency:
Childhood antecedents and adolescent mediators. Journal of the Academy
of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 35, 1584–1592; White, H. R., Pandina,
R. J., & LaGrange, R. L. (1987). Longitudinal predictors of serious
substance use and delinquency. Criminology, 25, 715–740.
125. Nordstrom, B., & Dackis, C. A. (2011). Drugs and crime. Journal of
Psychiatry and Law, 39, 683.
126. Goldstein, P. J. (1989). Drugs and violent crime. In N. A. Weiner & M.

E. Wolfgang (Eds.), Pathways to criminal violence (pp. 16–48). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
127. Ibid., p. 30.
128. Abadinsky, H. (1997). Drug abuse: An introduction (3rd ed.). Chicago,

IL: Nelson-Hall, p. 308.
129. Gusfield, J. (1975). The (f)utility of knowledge? The relation of social

science to public policy toward drugs. Annals, 147, 13.
130. Abadinsky, H. (1997). Drug abuse: An introduction (3rd ed.). Chicago,

IL: Nelson-Hall, p. 357.
131. Currie, E. (1993). Reckoning: Drugs, the cities, and the American
future. New York, NY: Hill and Wang.
132. Office of National Drug Control Policy. (2010, March 17). National
interdiction command and control plan. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
from http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy.gov/pdf/usic_2011_niccp.pdf
133. Ibid., pp. 9–10.
134. Finklea, K. (2018, May 3). High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas
(HIDTA) Program. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R45188.pdf
135. Office of National Drug Control Policy. (n.d.). High Intensity Drug
Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved
from https://www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp/high-intensity-drug-trafficking-
areas-program
136. Ibid., n.p.
137. Ohio HIDTA (High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas). (n.d.).

Retrieved from http://ohiohidta.net
138. U.S. Department of Justice. (2011). Ohio High Intensity Drug

Trafficking Area. Washington, DC: National Drug Intelligence Center.
Retrieved from https://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/dmas/Ohio_DMA-
2011(U).pdf
139. Farrell, G. (1998). A global empirical review of drug crop eradication

and United Nations’ crop substitution and alternative development
strategies. Journal of Drug Issues, 28, 395–436.
140. United National Economic and Social Council. (1996). Crops from
which drugs are extracted and appropriate strategies for their reduction
(Commission on Narcotic Drugs, 39th Session document E/CN.7/1996/11),
pp. 16–25.
141. Farrell, G. (1998). A global empirical review of drug crop eradication
and United Nations’ crop substitution and alternative development
strategies. Journal of Drug Issues, 28, 395–436.
142. Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. (n.d.).

Colombia summary. Retrieved from https://www.state.gov/bureau-of-
international-narcotics-and-law-enforcement-affairs-work-by-
country/colombia-summary
143. Brooke, J. (1990). Near-acquittal of Barry is outraging Colombians.

The New York Times, p. 4, as cited in Abadinsky, H. (1997). Drug abuse: An
introduction (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall, p. 344.
144. Wisotsky, S. (1987). Breaking the impasse in the war on drugs.

Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, p. 57, as cited in Abadinsky, H. (1997).
Drug abuse: An introduction (3rd ed.). Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall, p. 344.
145. Morales, E. (1986). Coca and cocaine economy and social change in
the Andes of Peru. Economic Development and Social Change, 35, 157, as
cited in Abadinsky, H. (1997). Drug abuse: An introduction (3rd ed.).
Chicago, IL: Nelson-Hall, pp. 344–345.
146. Drug Enforcement Administration. (n.d.). 2017 Final domestic

cannabis eradication/suppression program statistical report. Retrieved
from https://www.dea.gov/sites/default/files/2018-07/cannabis_2017.pdf
147. National Drug Intelligence Center. (2009, July). Domestic cannabis

cultivation assessment, 2009. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice.
Retrieved from
http://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs37/37035/37035p.pdf
148. Ibid., p. 29.
149. Lurigio, A. J. (2008). The first 20 years of drug treatment courts: A

brief description of their history and impact. Federal Probation, 72, 13.
150. Hennessey, J. J. (2001). Introduction: Drug courts in operation.

Journal of Offender Rehabilitation, 33, 1–10.
151. Lurigio, A. J. (2008). The first 20 years of drug treatment courts: A
brief description of their history and impact. Federal Probation, 72, 13–17.
152. National Institute of Justice. (2018, August 23). Drug courts.

Retrieved from https://www.nij.gov/topics/courts/drug-
courts/Pages/welcome.aspx
153. Huddleston, C. W., Marlow, D. B., & Casebolt, R. (2008). A national

report card on drug courts and other problem-solving court programs in the
United States. Washington, DC: National Drug Court Institute, p. 2.
154. Fox, C. L., & Huddleston, C. W. (2003, May). Drug courts in the U.S.
Issues of Democracy, 8, 13–19.
155. Cooper, C. S. (2007). Drug courts: Just the beginning; Getting other
areas of public policy in sync. Substance Use and Misuse, 42, 243–256.
156. Stinchcomb, J. B. (2010). Drug courts: Conceptual foundation,

empirical findings, and policy implications. Drugs: Education, Prevention
and Policy, 17, 161–162.
157. Messer, S., Patten, R., & Candela, K. (2016). Drug courts and the
facilitation of turning points: An expansion of life course theory.
Contemporary Drug Programs, 43, 6–24.
158. McBride, D. C., Terry-McElrath, Y., Harwood, H., Inciardi, J. A., &
Leukefeld, C. (2009). Reflections on drug policy. Journal of Drug Issues,
39, 76.
159. Abadinsky, H. (2004). Drug abuse: An introduction (5th ed.). Belmont,

CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning, pp. 364–365.
160. Ibid., pp. 365–366.
161. ProCon.org. (2019). 33 legal medical marijuana states and DC.

Retrieved from https://medicalmarijuana.procon.org/view.resource.php?
resourceID=000881
162. California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5.

163. Marijuana Policy Project. (2019, May 13). 2019 marijuana policy
reform legislation. Retrieved from
https://www.mpp.org/issues/legislation/key-marijuana-policy-reform
164. ProCon.Org. (2019, May 28). Should recreational marijuana be legal?

Retrieved from https://marijuana.procon.org
39, 71.
166. Duff, C. (2010). Enabling places and enabling resources: New

Directions for harm reduction research and practice. Drug and Alcohol
Review, 29, 337.
167. Delgado, C. (2004). Evaluation of needle exchange programs. Public

Health Nursing, 21, 171.
168. National Drug Intelligence Center. (2003). Drug paraphernalia: Fast

facts. Retrieved from
https://www.justice.gov/archive/ndic/pubs6/6445/6445p.pdf
169. Ksobiech, K. (2006). Beyond needle sharing: Meta-analyses of social

context risk behaviors of injection drug users attending needle exchange
programs. Substance Use and Misuse, 41, 1379–1394.
170. Delgado, C. (2004). Evaluation of needle exchange programs. Public

Health Nursing, 21, 171.
171. Desroches, F. J. (2005). The crime that pays: Drug trafficking and
organized crime in Canada. Toronto, Ontario: Canadian Scholars’ Press;
Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological
Review, 3, 672–682.
172. Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American

Sociological Review, 3, 672–682
173. Akers, R. L. (1985). Social learning theory and adolescent cigarette
smoking. Social Problems, 32, 455–473; Golub, A., Dunlap, E., & Benoit,
E. (2010). Drug use and conflict in inner-city African-American
relationships in the 2000s. Journal of Psychoactive Drugs, 42, 327–337;
Golub, A., Dunlap, E., & Benoit, E. (2010). Drug use and conflict in inner-
city African-American relationships in the 2000s. Journal of Psychoactive
Drugs, 42, 327–337.
174. Golub, A., Dunlap, E., & Benoit, E. (2010). Drug use and conflict in
inner-city African-American relationships in the 2000s. Journal of
Psychoactive Drugs, 42, 327–337.
175. Golub, A., Johnson, B. D., & Dunlap, E. (2005). Subcultural evolution
and illicit drug use. Addiction Research and Theory, 13, 217–229.
176. Agnew, R., & Raskin White, H. (1992). An empirical test of general
strain theory. Criminology, 30, 475–500.
177. Ibid.
178. Musumeci, M. (2018, October 5). Federal legislation to address the

opioid crisis: Medicaid provisions in the SUPPORT Act. Henry J. Kaiser
Family Foundation. Retrieved from https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-
brief/federal-legislation-to-address-the-opioid-crisis-medicaid-provisions-
in-the-support-act
179. Fenwick, B. (2019, May 28). J&J’s greed helped fuel U.S. opioid
crisis, Oklahoma claims at trial. Reuters. Retrieved from
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-opioids-litigation-oklahoma/jjs-
greed-helped-fuel-u-s-opioid-crisis-oklahoma-claims-at-trial-
idUSKCN1SY0Z5
39, 81.

(Eds.), Drugs, crime, and justice: Contemporary perspectives (2nd ed.).
Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, pp. 114–115.
182. Penhaul, K. (2003, October 5). Drug kingpin’s killer seeks Colombia
office. The Boston Globe. Retrieved from
http://archive.boston.com/news/nation/arti
cles/2003/10/05/drug_kingpins_killer_seeks_colombia_office
183. Ceaser, M. (2008, June 2). At home on Pablo Escobar’s ranch. BBC
News. Retrieved from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7390584.stm
184. McFadden, R. D. (1993, December 3). Head of Medellin cocaine cartel

is killed by troops in Colombia. The New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/1993/12/03/world/head-of-medellin-cocaine-
cartel-is-killed-by-troops-in-colombia.html

Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, p. 115.
186. Currie, E. (1993). Reckoning: Drugs, the cities, and the American
future. New York, NY: Hill and Wang, p. 279.

Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press, pp. 100–119.
Index
Abadinsky, Howard, 361

Abrahamsen, David, 157
Abu Ghraib prison, 415
Abuse of authority, 352
Acting in concert, 37
Active victim precipitation, 16
Actus reus, 61, 74
Adams, Reed, 243
Adaptations to strain, 193–194
Addiction, 432–433
ADHD. See Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)
Adler, Freda, 314–316
Adolescence-limited offenders, 335
Adolescent Subcultures and Delinquency (Schwendinger &
Schwendinger), 288
Adolescent substance use, 45–46, 423
Adoption studies, 133–134
Advance-fee frauds, 375
Advertising, pharmaceutical, 436–437
Affluenza defense, 178
Afghanistan, 399
African American serial killers, 395–396
African American subculture model, 225–226
African American women, 309–310
Age-crime curve, 197
Agency theory (women’s agency), 322
Age of Enlightenment, 54, 58–59
Aggregate studies, 83–84
Agnew, Robert, 201, 206, 402
Aichhorn, August, 157
Ainsworth, Mary, 162
Air pollution, 217
Akers, R., 238, 239, 242–244
Alcoholism treatment, 235
Alcohol use, 424, 425–428
adults facilitating teen parties, 423
binge drinking, 425–427
crime hot spots and, 93
diagnosing problems, 427
driving under the influence, 18, 32, 84–85
enemas, 213
fraternities and, 213
pregnant women and, 341
prevalence, 425
Prohibition era, 362, 367, 433–434
self-report data, 45–46
vanilla extract, 32
Alcott, Louisa May, 433
ALF. See Animal Liberation Front (ALF)
ALI/MPC. See American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code
(ALI/MPC)
Al Qaeda, 401, 404, 407–408
Al-Shabaab, 399
AMBER Alert program, 17
American Dream, 192–193, 197, 199
American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code (ALI/MPC), 177–178
Amish, 391–392
Amphetamines, 430
Amytal, 428
Anarchism, 401
Anderson, Elijah, 225
Anderson, George, 349
Androgens, 139–140
Anger and strain theory, 202, 204
Animal Liberation Front (ALF), 405
Anomie, 190–193
ANS. See Autonomic nervous system (ANS)
Anslinger, Harry, 434
Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, 442
Antisocial early disposition, 248
Anxiety, 157
Apgar scores, 148
Appellate jurisdiction (appeals courts), 6
Army of God, 406
Arson, 27, 29, 38, 338, 390
Aryan Brotherhood, 366
Asdigian, N., 392
Aspirations and expectations, 196–197
Assassins, 400
Assaults, 73–74
Attachments, social bonding theory, 257, 258
Attachment theory, 162–163, 168
Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), 146
Attorney General’s Defending Childhood Initiative, 16–17
Austin, Stephen, 4
Automatic spontaneity, 249
Automobile theft, 10
Autonomic nervous system (ANS), 145–147
Awakened reflection, 249–250
Baby boomers and drug use, 435

Bailey, Walter, 83
Balanced Approach (restorative justice perspective), 292–293
Bandura, Albert, 242–243
Baniszewski, Gertrude, 301
Bank robbery, 183–184, 196, 207
Barbiturates, 427–428
Barnes, J. C., 341
Barry, Marion, 443
Bath salts, 438–439
Bazemore, Gordon, 292
Beaver, Kevin, 141
Beccaria, Cesare, 60–71
death penalty perspectives, 62–64
deterrence and punishment ideas, 64–68
impact on other theorists, 70–71
non-scientific background of, 108
proposed reforms and justice ideas, 60–62
Becker, Howard S., 273, 275
Beckworth, Brad, 449
Behavioral genetics studies, 149
Beliefs, social bonding theory, 258
Belknap, Joanne, 3, 305, 320
Belladonna alkaloids, 431–432
Bellavita, Christopher, 409
Bell Curve, The (Herrnstein and Murray), 118
Benson, Michael, 150
Bentham, Jeremy, 70–71
Benzodiazepines, 428
Berg, J., 392
Berk, Richard, 73
Bill of Rights, U.S., 70
Binet, Alfred, 115, 163
Binge drinking, 425–427
Bin Laden, Osama, 396, 404
Biological theories of behavior, 104–108, 311
body-type theory (somatotyping), 118, 120–124, 233
craniometry, 105
Darwin and, 107–108, 111
eugenics, 104, 116
female offending and, 310–312
Lombroso’s theories, 108–115, 310–311
low self-control (general theory of crime), 261
minor physical abnormalities, 114, 124
modern perspectives. See Biosocial perspectives
phrenology, 105–106
physiognomy, 106–107
policy implications, 124, 150
stigmata, 109, 114
See also IQ
Biosocial perspectives
behavioral genetics studies, 149
brain injuries, 141–143, 145
central vs. autonomic nervous system activity, 143–147
cytogenetic studies, 136–138
diet/nutrition, 149
early biological theories. See Biological theories of behavior
explaining criminal behavior, 147–150
Eysenck’s personality theory, 158–159
family studies, 130–131, 163
genetic and environmental influences (nature vs. nurture), 130–
136
neurotransmitters, 140–141
perinatal problems, 148
policy implications, 150
sex hormones, 138–140
toxins, 149–150
twin studies, 129–132, 134–135, 149, 150
Wilson and Herrnstein’s model, 168–169
See also IQ
Birth weight, 148
“Black-Binder Bandit,” 183–184, 196
Black Guerilla Family, 366
Bobbitt, Lorena, 177
Body-type theory, 118, 120–124, 233
Bogachev, Evgeniy Mikhailovich, 370
Bogles family, 231
Boko Haram, 399
Born criminals, 11, 108–115, 311
Boston Marathon Bombing of 2013, 414
Bounded rationality, 76
Bourgeoisie, 285
Bowlby, John, 162–163, 168
“Boys Don’t Cry” killer, 103
Brain injuries, 141–143, 145
Brain or skull size or shape, 105–106
Brain tumors, 145
Brain-wave patterns, 143–144
Branson, Allan, 395–396
“Broken windows” perspective, 95
Brownstein, Henry, 31
Brutalization effect, 63
Buck v. Bell (1927), 104
Bulger, James Joseph “Whitey,” Jr., 227
Bundy, Ted, 393–394
Bureau of Justice Statistics, 35, 41, 46
Burgess, Anthony, 235–236
Burgess, Ernest W., 217–218, 221
Burgess, R., 238, 239, 242–244
Burgess-Proctor, Amanda, 320, 322
Burglary, 32, 119, 329
Byers, B. D., 391–392
Byrd, James, Jr., 47
Caffeine, 429
California “three strikes” law, 66, 75–76, 95–96
Campus Hate Crimes Right to Know Act of 1997, 390
Cannabis. See Marijuana
Capital punishment. See Death penalty
Capone, Al, 348, 349 (photo), 367, 434
Carding, 373
Castro, Ariel, 173
Causality, requirements for determining, 12–14
CCTV. See Closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras
Census Bureau, U.S., 41, 46
Central nervous system (CNS), 143–146
Cerebrotonic, 121
Certainty of punishment, 65, 83, 84, 85
Chafetz, Janet Saltzman, 321
Chambliss, William, 3, 281, 286–287
Chamlin, Mitchell, 290
Chesney-Lind, Meda, 304–305, 320
Chicago, Illinois, 214–215
Chicago Area Project, 222, 226
Chicago Crime Commission, 367
Chicago Police Department, 119
Chicago School of criminology, 214, 219–222, 226
Child abuse and neglect, 16–17
homeschooling and, 14
Turpin case, 13, 14
victim’s future behaviors and, 231
Child development. See Developmental/life-course perspectives
Child Online Protection Act, 379
Child–parent attachment, 162–163, 168
Child pornography, 374–375, 379
Child protection agencies and programs, 16–17
Chivalry, 304
Christchurch, New Zealand mass killing, 385
Chromosomal abnormalities, 136–138
Church Arson Prevention Act of 1996, 38, 390
Cicourel, Aaron, 276
Citizenship and Immigration Services, U.S. (USCIS), 413
Civil Rights Act of 1964, 302
Clarke, Ronald V., 87
Class. See Socioeconomic class
Class consciousness, 286
Classical liberal feminists, 305
Classical School theories of crime, 54, 56, 57–58, 59–60
Age of Enlightenment, 54, 58–59
Beccaria and, 60–71
Bentham’s contribution, 70–71
“broken windows” perspective, 95
decline of, 75
modern theoretical perspectives and, 82–83
Neoclassical School of criminology, 71, 74–75
policy implications, 95–97
rational choice, 87–91. See also Rational choice theory
routine activities, 91–95. See also Routine activities theory
See also Beccaria, Cesare; Deterrence theory
Classifying and scoring crimes, 29–30
Cleckley, Hervey, 169
Clinard, M., 355
Clockwork Orange, A (Burgess), 235–236
Closed-circuit television (CCTV) cameras, 26
Cloward, Richard A., 199–201, 226
CNS. See Central nervous system (CNS)
Coast Guard, U.S., 414
Coca cultivation and eradication, 442–443
Cocaine, 296, 429–430, 433, 436, 443, 450
Code of Hammurabi, 18
Cohen, Albert, 197–199, 226
Cohen, Lawrence, 91
Collective conscience, 186–187, 250
College boy, 198
Colombia, 443, 450
Columbine High School shootings, 395
Colvin, Mark, 281, 287–288
Commitment, social bonding theory, 257
Communication skills, 118
Commutative justice, 160
Compensation and restitution, 17–18
Compensatory rapists, 167t
Computer crime. See Cybercrime
Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1984, 378
Comte, Auguste, 185
Concentric circles, 219, 221
Concordance rates, 131–132
Concurrent jurisdiction, 9
Conditioning
classical (Pavlovian), 159, 234–236
operant, 238, 239, 241–242
Conditions of probation or parole, 14
Confidence criminals, 1
Conflict gangs, 200
Conflict perspectives, 3–4
conservative (pluralist), 281–285
critiques, 290–291
group-conflict theory, 281–282
partisan versus nonpartisan, 283
radical Marxist criminology, 285–289
research, 289–290
white-collar crime and, 360
Conformity, 193–195
Conscience, 159, 186–187, 250
Consensus perspectives, 3–4, 279, 281
Conservative (pluralist) conflict perspectives, 281–285
Constitution, U.S., 70, 416–417
Containment theory, 253–254
Control-balance theory, 259–260
Controlled Substances Act, 436
Control theories, 247–262
containment, 253–254
control-balance, 259–260
drift, 254–256
early criminology, 250–254
Freudian (psychoanalytic) theory, 250
general theory of crime, 259–261, 332
Hobbes’s social contract, 249
integrated models, 259–260
low self-control, 259–261, 332–333
power-control, 260, 314
social bonding, 256–258
Conventional level of morality, 160
Cooley, Charles Horton, 271
Cooper v. Pate (1964), 365–366
Coping with strain, 204, 208
Copyright protection, 378–379
Corner boy, 198
Cornish, Derek B., 87
Corporal punishment, 57–58, 63
Corporate crime. See White-collar crime
Corrections. See Incarceration; Prisons and jails; Probation
Corrective justice, 160
Correlation or covariation, 12–14
Corruption, 366
See also Organized crime
Cortoni, Franca, 315
Cottle, Simon, 404
Couch, Ethan, 178
County sheriffs, 5
Court system, 5–6
drug courts, 443–445
jurisdictions, 6
juvenile justice, 7
See also Criminal justice system
Crack cocaine, 296, 429–430, 436
Craig, W. M., 262
Craniometry, 105
Credit card-related crimes, 373, 374
Crider, B. W., 391–392
Crime, defining, 2, 282–285
Crime Index, 27–28
Crime mapping, 48–49, 94
Crime measurement and statistics, 26–27
data from law enforcement agencies, 27–40. See also Uniform
Crime Reporting (UCR) program
hate crime data, 38–39, 47–48, 389–390
National Crime Victimization Survey, 15, 40–44
National Incident-Based Reporting System, 32, 34–38
National Vital Statistics System, 34
political uses of, 31
prisoner statistics, 46
routine activities theory and, 94
self-report survey data, 44–46
September 11 victims, 25
spatial analyses/mapping, 48–49, 94
Supplementary Homicide Reports, 32–34
surveillance technology, 26
undetected/unreported crimes, 26, 30, 41
Crime prevention and education, 62
Crime waves, 190
Criminal dissident terrorism, 399
Criminal justice, definition, 3
Criminal justice system, 3, 4–9
arrests for illegal drugs, 424–425
Beccaria’s proposed reforms, 61–62
conflict theory-oriented research, 289–290
cybercrime and, 377–379
insanity defense, 174–178
juvenile justice, 7–9
Marxist conflict perspective, 286
mental health and, 171–178
opioid crisis responses, 449
organized crime and, 367–369
pathways research, 320–321
rape laws, 166
See also Court system; Law enforcement; Policy implications
Criminological realism, 295
Criminological theory, 9–15
See also specific theories or perspectives
Criminology, definition, 3
Crips, 366
Critical criminology theories, 270
conflict perspectives, 3–4, 279–291
critiques, 290–291
defining criminality, 282–285
labeling theory, 271–279, 296
left realism, 294–295
peacemaking criminology, 291–292
radical Marxist perspectives, 285–289
restorative justice, 292–294
summary of, 297–298
See also Conflict perspectives; Feminist theories of crime
Cross-sectional studies, 84
Crowley, Kristen, 81, 98
Cultural and subcultural perspectives, 214, 223–226, 227
chronic drug use, 448
Marxist conflict perspective, 288
subterranean values, 256
Cultural norms, 282
Currie, Elliott, 450
Cybercrime, 370–380, 438
criminal justice responses, 377–379
defining, 371–372
theoretical explanations, 380
types of, 372–377
Cyberstalking, 223, 376–377
Cyber terrorists, 373
Cytogenetic studies, 136–138
Dackis, Charles, 440

Daly, Kathleen, 304–305, 320
Dark figure of crime, 26, 30, 41
Darwin, Charles, 75, 83, 107–108, 111
Date-rape drugs, 428
Davis, Thomas, 347
Death penalty
Beccaria’s ideas of, 62–64
deterrence effectiveness, 54, 63, 84
intellectual disability and, 103
Decriminalization, 2, 445–447
Defense mechanisms, 157, 197–198, 245
Delgado, Cheryl, 447
Delinquency
adolescent subcultures and, 288
control theories, 251–252
power-control theory, 316–317
psychoanalytic (Freudian) perspective, 157
theory of social disorganization, 220–221
See also Developmental/life-course perspectives; Gangs
Delinquent boy, 198
Dellapenta, Gary, 377
Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 4, 409–414
See also Homeland security
Department of Justice, crime data and statistics, 32, 35, 41
Dependent variable (y), 12
Depressants, 425–428
Designer drugs, 437–439
Desistance, 330
Determinism, 111, 255, 311
Deterrence theory, 54, 56
aggregate studies, 83–84
Beccarias’s concept of, 64–67
cross-sectional studies, 84
death penalty and, 54, 63, 84
domestic violence and, 73–74
drunk driving and, 84–85
empirical validity, 12
fear of punishment and, 85
formal versus informal deterrence, 87, 88f
longitudinal studies, 84–86
official sanctions, 86, 87
rational choice model, 87–91. See also Rational choice theory
rebirth of, 83
scenario/vignette studies, 86–87
shaming and informal controls, 82
specific and general deterrence, 67
“three strikes” laws, 66, 75–76, 95–97
waves of modern research, 83–87
Developmental/life-course perspectives, 329–330
arson and serial killing, 338
basic concepts, 330–332
early onset, 329–330, 331, 335, 338
Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy, 335
Sampson and Laub’s model, 334–335
self-consciousness formation, 249
selfish and aggressive behaviors, 248
summary of, 343
teen burglar case, 329
Thornberry’s interactional model, 337–341
See also Attachment theory; Control theories
Developmental theory, 329
See also Developmental/life-course perspectives
Deviance
defining, 275–276
dimensions of, 273, 275
morality and, 2
primary and secondary, 272–273, 274f
Deviant lifestyles, 94
DHS. See Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Dietary deficiencies, 149
Differential association theories, 14, 232–237, 262, 359, 402, 448
Differential identification theory, 237
Differential opportunity theory, 199–201
Differential reinforcement theory, 238–244, 359, 380, 402, 448
Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, 378–379
Dill, Bonnie Thornton, 321
Dimensions of deviance, 273, 275
Diminished-capacity (insanity) defense, 174–178, 240
Disorganized environments, 15
Displaced-anger rapists, 167t
Dissident terrorism, 398
Diversion programs, 68, 296
Dizygotic twins, 131–132
DNA evidence, 278
Domestic terrorism, 33, 394, 405–406, 414
Domestic violence, 73–74, 289–290
Donovan, Josephine, 323
Dopamine, 141
Dorner, Christopher, 203
Downward crimes, 386
Dracula (Stoker), 110
Dramatization of evil, 272
Drift theory, 254–256, 334
Drinking games, 425, 427
Driving under the influence (DUI). See Drunk driving (driving under
the influence, DUI)
Drug courts, 443–445
Drug trafficking, 404, 448, 450
See also Drug use
Drug use, 424
addiction, 432–433
ADHD treatment, 146
cocaine, 296, 429–430, 433, 436, 450
criminal behavior and, 439–441
criminal justice responses, 424–425, 433, 434, 435–436, 441–444
current trends, 436–439
date-rape drugs, 428
depressants, 425–428
dopamine levels and, 141
hallucinogens, 431–432
historical trends, 432–436
inhalants, 431
marijuana, 2, 31, 430–431, 434–435
narcotics, 428–429, 432–433, 436
opioid crisis, 429, 436–437, 449
pharmaceutical advertising, 436–437
pregnant women and, 341
self-report data, 45–46
sentencing inequities for crack cocaine, 296
steroids, 431
stimulants, 146, 429–430
“War on Drugs,” 435–436
See also Alcohol use; specific substances
Drug use, policies and programs
eradication strategies, 442–443
harm reduction, 447–448
interdiction strategies, 441–442
legislation and litigation, 449
maintenance/decriminalization, 2, 445–447
recommendations, 449–450
Drunk driving (driving under the influence, DUI), 32
deterrence theory and, 84–85
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), 18
rational choice theory and, 90
Dual court system, 5
Due process protections, 8
Dugdale, Richard. L., 130
DUI. See Drunk driving (driving under the influence, DUI)
Dumpster-diving, 374
Durham rule, 177
Durham v. United States (1954), 177
Durkheim, Émile, 186–191, 215, 249–250
Earl, Henry, 336

Early onset, 329–330, 331, 335, 338
Earnest, John T., 385
Earth Liberation Front (ELF), 405
Ecofeminism, 309
Ecological theories, 48–49, 215–219
Economic costs of white-collar crime, 353–354
Ectoderm, 120
Ectomorphic, 120–122
Education and crime prevention, 62
EEGs. See Electroencephalograms (EEGs)
Ego, 156–157
Ego-defense mechanisms, 157
Egypt, 399
Eighteenth Amendment, 362, 433
Elder abuse homicide, 34
Electroencephalograms (EEGs), 143
Electronic Communications Privacy Act of 1986, 379
Electronic crime. See Cybercrime
ELF. See Earth Liberation Front (ELF)
Embezzlers, 351
See also White-collar crime
Empirical validity, 11–12
Endoderm, 120
Endomorphic, 120–122
Enemas, 213
Enlightenment Era, 54, 58–59
Enron Corporation, 353, 354
Enterprise theory, 370
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 356–357
Environmental toxins, 149–150, 269–270, 341–342, 356–357
Environmental vs. genetic influences on criminal behavior (nature vs.
nurture), 130–136, 147–148
EPA. See Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Equal Protection Clause, 416–417
Eradication strategies, 442–443
ERC. See Ethics Resource Center (ERC)
Erikson, Erik, 157
Escobar, Pablo, 450
Ethics Resource Center (ERC), 353
Ethnic neighborhoods, 216
Eugenics, 104, 116
Executive Order 13228, 408
Executive Order 13694, 379
Exorcism, 56–57
Experiential effect, 84–86
Exploitive rapists, 167t
Extroversion, 158, 159
Eysenck, Hans, 158–159
Facial or bodily features (physiognomy), 106–107, 109

Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, 296
False consciousness, 286
Falsely accused, 275
FATF. See Financial Action Task Force (FATF)
Family influences, control theories, 251, 252, 316
Family studies, 130–131, 163
Farmer, Richard, 319
Farook, Syed, 394, 406
“Father of Criminal Justice,” 60, 69
See also Beccaria, Cesare
FBI. See Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
Fear, 162, 170
Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)
cybercrime and, 377
defining hate crimes, 386–387
Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), 371
most wanted list, 370
National Incident-Based Reporting System, 35–38
nicknaming bank robberies, 183–184
rapist classification, 166, 167–168t
September 11 special report, 25
See also Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program
Federal court system, 5
Federal Crime Victims Fund, 20
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), 413
Federal law enforcement agencies, 4
See also Federal Bureau of Investigation
Feeble-mindedness, 104, 116, 117, 163
Felgenheimer, Arthur “Dutch Schultz,” 434
Felson, Marcus, 91
FEMA. See Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
Female criminals
biological perspectives (male points of view), 309–312
black women, 309–310
case studies, 301, 318
feminist critiques of studies, 313–314
hidden criminality, 312–313
liberation thesis, 314–316
psychoanalytic (Freudian) perspective, 312
sex offenders, 315
Female hormones, 138–140
Femininity, 310
Feminism, 302
ecofeminism, 309
gender perspectives, 304
global and postcolonial, 309
historical context, 302–303
intersectional perspectives, 321–322
key terms, 303–304
liberal or mainstream, 305
Marxist/socialist, 306–307
multiracial, 320, 322
postmodern, 308
praxis, 323
radical, 305–306
traditional or conservative perspective, 304–305
See also Feminist theories of crime
Feminist criminology, 319–321
See also Feminist theories of crime
Feminist theories of crime, 302
biological theories and, 310–312
critiques of, 321–322
critiques of traditional research, 317–319
female offending perspectives, 309–316
feminist criminology, 319–321
liberation thesis regarding female crime, 314–316
pathways research, 320–321
power-control theory, 314, 316–317
rape, 166, 323
summary of, 325
Fentanyl, 429, 436, 437
Ferguson, Ann, 306
Ferracuti, Franco, 224, 226
Financial Action Task Force (FATF), 404
Financial crime. See White-collar crime
Finckenauer, James, 366, 370
Finkelhor, D., 392
First-degree murder, 61
First wave of feminism, 302
Fisher, Lavinia, 318
Flint water crisis, 269–270
Focal concerns, 224
Follett, Charles, 104
Formal/official deterrence, 87, 88f
Fox, James Alan, 394
Fraternal (dizygotic) twins, 131–132
Fraternities, 213
Fraud, 351, 375–376
Freeman, Sally, 432
French Revolution, 400
Frequency of offending, 330, 331
Freud, Sigmund, 11, 156–157, 245, 250, 312, 433
Frontal lobes, 141
Full moon and crime, 57
Functionalism, 188
Fundraising, 404
Gacy, John Wayne, 143 (photo)

Gaines, Larry, 414
Galilei, Galileo, 189
Gamblers, 261
GameOver Zeus (GOZ), 370
Gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB), 428
Gangs
crack cocaine operations, 436
crackdowns against, 189
differential opportunity theory and types of, 199–201
enhanced sanctions against members, 75–76
organized crime and, 362, 364–366
outlaw motorcycle gangs, 364–365
prison, 365–366
stake in conformity model, 251–252
strain theory variations, 197–201
See also Organized crime
Garavito, Luis, 113
Garofalo, Raffaele, 3
Gay victims of hate crimes, 38, 47–48, 390, 392
Gender bias, hate crimes legislation, 38, 48
Gender differences, 303–304
hormones and criminality, 138–140
low self-control theory, 261
moral orientations, 161
policy implications of biology-based theories, 124
power-control theory, 316–317
See also Female criminals; Feminism; Feminist theories of crime
Gender roles, 310, 314
Gender-selective terrorism, 399
Gender-specific programming, 324
General deterrence, 67
General jurisdiction, 6
General strain theory, 201–206, 402
General theory of crime, 259–261, 332
Genetics
chromosomal abnormalities, 136–138
nature vs. nurture (genetics vs. environment), 130–136, 147–148
Geographic information systems (GIS), 49
GHB. See Gamma-hydroxybutyric acid (GHB)
Gibson, William, 372
Gilfus, Mary, 322
Gilligan, Carol, 161
GIS. See Geographic information systems (GIS)
Glaser, Daniel, 237
Global feminism, 309
Global positioning systems (GPS), 94
Global Terrorism Index (GTI), 399
Glueck, Eleanor, 334
Glueck, Sheldon, 334
Goddard, H. H., 115–117, 130–131, 163
Goethe, C. M., 434–435
Goffman, Erving, 271
Goldstein, Paul, 440
Gonzalez, Alberto, 61
Gottfredson, Michael, 11, 259–260, 332
GOZ. See GameOver Zeus (GOZ)
GPS. See Global positioning systems (GPS)
Grandparent scam, 1
Great Depression, 191–192
Greed, 250
Greenleaf, R., 291
Green River Killer, 96
Group-conflict theory, 281–282
GTI. See Global Terrorism Index (GTI)
Guardianship, routine activities theory, 91, 93
Guerry, André-Michel, 185–186
Gun control, 418–419
Guy, Joel Michael, Jr., 155
Hacking, 372–373
Hagan, John, 260, 314, 316–317
Hahn, Nichole Rafter, 310
Haight, Ryan Thomas, 438
Hallucinogens, 431–432
Hamas, 404
Hamilton, Dawn, 278
Hammurabi’s Code of Laws, 280
Han sisters (Sunny and Gina), 129–130
Harassment, 223, 376, 392
See also Hate crimes
Harding, Sandra, 317
Hare, Robert, 169, 171
Harm reduction policy, 447–448
Harpe brothers, 72
Harris, Eric, 395
Harrison Act of 1914, 433
Hashish, 431
Hate crimes, 385–387
bias motivations, 388t
data collection and statistics, 38–39, 47–48, 389–390
defining, 386–388
example scenarios, 39t
hate groups, 389
Poway Synagogue shooting, 385
related legislation, 38, 47, 389–391
terrorism and, 385
theoretical explanations, 391–393
Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, 38, 389–390
Hate groups, 389
Head Start programs, 262
Heart rates, 146
Hedonistic calculus, 70–71
Heinz’s Dilemma, 160–161
Hells Angels, 364 (photo), 365
Henderson, Gary, 437
Heredity. See Genetics
Heroin, 428–429, 433, 436, 443
Herrnstein, Richard, 118, 156, 168–169
Hickey, Eric, 396
HIDTA. See High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program
Hierarchy rule in crime classification, 29, 37
High Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (HIDTA) program, 442
Highway Patrol, 5
Hindelang, Michael, 117–118
Hirschi, Travis, 11, 117–118, 256–258, 259–260, 332
Hobbes, Thomas, 58, 85, 249, 279
Hoffman, Bruce, 397
Holmes, Malcolm, 290
Holmes, Oliver Wendell, Jr., 117
Holt, Thomas, 378
Holy Land Foundation, 404
Homeland security, 408
agencies, 411–414
bureaucratic problems and solutions, 414
civil liberties issues, 415–416
defining, 408–409
organizational network, 409–410
PATRIOT Act of 2001, 413, 416, 417–418
Homeland Security Act of 2002, 409
Homelessness, 31, 391
Homeschooling, 14
Homicide. See Murder
Hoover, J. Edgar, 367
Hormones and neurotransmitters, 138–141
Hot spots for crime, 93–94
Hughes, Howard, 194
Hugo, Victor, 60
Human rights issues, 416
Human trafficking, 27, 29
Hunter, Mike, 449
ICAC. See Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) task force

program
ICE. See Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
IC3. See Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3)
Id, 156, 250
Identical twins, 129–130, 131–132, 134–135, 149, 150
Identity theft, 373–374
Ideological terrorism, 398
Imbeciles, 116
Imitation theory, 232, 238, 242–243
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), 413
Incarceration, 7
alternatives to, 7
arrests for illegal drugs, 424–425
deterrence theory and, 85
feminist perspectives, 321
inmate suicide, 53, 55f, 63–64
mental health issues, 171
National Prisoner Statistics (NPS) Program, 46
See also Deterrence theory; Prisons and jails
Inciardi, James, 439
Industrial Revolution, 185, 356
Infant health care, 341
Informal deterrence, 82, 87, 88f
Inhalants, 431
Inhibitory defect, 170
Innovation, strain theory, 194–195
In re Gault (1967), 8
In re Winship (1970), 8
Insanity defense, 174–178, 240
“Insanity” label, 277–278
Intellectual property, copyright protection, 378–379
Intelligence and criminality. See IQ
Intelligence quotient. See IQ
Intensity of offenses, 330
Intent, 60–61
Interdiction strategies, 441–442
International terrorism, 399
Internet access and hate crimes, 389
Internet and controlled substance sales, 438
Internet crime. See Cybercrime
Internet Crime Complaint Center (IC3), 371
Internet Crimes Against Children (ICAC) task force program, 17, 374–
375
Internet fraud, 375–376
Internet piracy, 378
Intersectional feminist perspectives, 321–322
Involvement, social bonding theory, 257
IQ, 115, 163–164, 233
capital punishment and, 103
criminality and, 117–118
definition, 163
low-score classifications, 116, 163
policy implications, 116–117, 124
sterilization policy and, 104, 117
testing, 115–118, 163–164
Iraq, 399
Irresistible-impulse test, 177
ISIL. See Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL)
Islamic punishments, 57–58
Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), 399
Islamic terrorists, 396, 401
Jacobs, Patricia A., 136–137

Jails, 7
See also Prisons and jails
Jayaratne, Toby Epstein, 319
Jessica’s Law, 28
Johnson & Johnson, 449
Josephson, Matthew, 349
Judicial system. See Court system; Criminal justice system
Judicial waivers, 8–9
Jurisdictions of court systems, 6
Jury trials, 61–62
Justice categories, Kohlberg’s moral development model, 160
Juvenile Delinquency Prevention and Control Act of 1961, 201
Juvenile diversion programs, 68, 296
Juvenile justice system, 7–9
Juvenile self-report surveys, 44–46
Kaczynski, Ted, 194, 195

Kallikak family, 130–131, 163
Kappelet, Victor, 414
Karp, David R., 279
Karpinski, Janis, 415
Katz, Jack, 87
Kefauver Committee, 367–368
Kennedy, Robert F., 201
Kenney, Dennis, 366, 370
Kent v. United States (1966), 8
Ketamine, 432
King, Rodney, 59
Klebold, Dylan, 395
Klein, Dorie, 313, 320
Klinefelter’s syndrome, 137
Knight, Raymond, 166
Kohlberg, Lawrence, 159–162
Kudzu, 216
Kuhn, C., 427
Labeling theory, 271–279, 296

Labor violations, 357–358
La Cosa Nostra, 362–363
Lambda, 331
La Nuestra Familia, 366
Lanza-Kaduce, L., 290–291
LAPD. See Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD)
Larceny-theft, 280
Las Vegas, Nevada, 362, 394
Latent delinquency, 157
Laub, John, 334–335
Law enforcement, 4–5
crime data and statistics from, 27–40
former officer as killer, 203
September 11 victims, 25
Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA), 41
Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (LEOKA), 40
Lay, Kenneth, 354
LEAA. See Law Enforcement Assistance Administration (LEAA)
Lead exposure, 269, 341–342
Learning theories, 232–247
classical conditioning, 159, 234–236
cybercrime and, 380
differential association, 14, 232–237, 262. See also Differential
association theories
differential identification, 237
differential reinforcement, 238–244. See also Differential
reinforcement theory
imitation and modeling, 238, 242–243
neutralization, 244–247
operant conditioning, 238, 239, 241–242
terrorism and, 402
Leary, Timothy, 434
Lee, David Sang-Yoon, 185–186
Left realism, 294–295
Left-wing associated terrorism, 405–406
Leighton, Paul, 25
LeMarquand, D., 248
Lemert, Edwin M., 272–273
Lenin, Vladimir, 62
LEOKA. See Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted
(LEOKA)
Les Misérables (Hugo), 60
Liberal feminism, 305
Liberation thesis, 314–316
Libido, 156
Lie detector tests, 145, 146
Life-course persistent offenders, 335
Life-course perspectives. See Developmental/life-course perspectives
Lifestyles perspective, routine activities theory, 94
Limited jurisdiction, 6
Local law enforcement agencies, 4, 5
Logical consistency, 11
Lombroso, Cesare, 11, 13–14, 108–115, 310–311
Longitudinal studies, 84–86
Looking-glass self, 271
Lopez, Pedro, 113
Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD), 203
Lotter, John, 103
Lottery winner case, 32
Low birth weight, 148
Low-fear-quotient theory, 170
Low self-control theory, 259–261, 332–333
LSD, 431
Lu, Gang, 206
Luciano, “Lucky,” 367
Lurigio, Arthur, 444
Lykken, David T., 170
Lyman, Michael, 364
MacKinnon, Catharine, 318

MADD. See Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD)
Madonna/whore duality, 309
Mafia, 363–364, 368
Maher, Lisa, 322
Mail-order bride fraud, 375
Maintenance policy, 446–447
Major theft crimes, 367
Mala in se acts, 2
Mala prohibida acts, 2
Male hormones, 138–140
Malice aforethought, 240
Malik, Tashfeen, 394, 406
Manifest delinquency, 157
Manslaughter, 61, 240
Manslaughter data, 33
Mapping crime, 48–49, 94
Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, 434
Marijuana, 2, 31, 430–431, 434–435, 443
Martin, Gus, 401, 405–406, 415
Martinson, Robert, 83
Marx, Karl, 194, 285
Marxist criminological perspectives, 281, 285–289
Marxist feminism, 306–307
Mass murderers, 145, 206, 385, 393–396, 418
See also Terrorism
Mateen, Omar, 394
Maternal health care, 341
Maternal influences on criminal behavior, 148, 150
Mathison, Brandon, 89
2009, 38, 47, 390
Matza, David, 244–247, 254–256, 334
McBride, Duane, 440, 449–450
McClellan Committee, 368
McCoy, Clyde, 440, 449–450
McKay, Henry, 219–222, 232
McVeigh, Timothy, 402
Mead, George Herbert, 271–272
Measuring crime. See Crime measurement and statistics
Mechanical societies, 186–187
Media
crime and, 237
drug advertising, 436–437
terrorism and, 404–405
Medical marijuana, 2, 446
Medieval punishments, 57
Mednick, Sarnoff, 133
Mendelsohn, Benjamin, 15
Mens rea, 61, 74
Menstrual cycle, 138
Mental disorders
brain injuries and, 145
brain-wave patterns and, 144
chromosomal abnormalities and, 137
criminal justice system and, 171–178
insanity defense, 174–178, 240
“insanity” labels, 277–278
psychopathy and crime, 169–171
treatment approaches, 171, 172–174
See also Psychological theories
Mental health courts, 174
Merton, Robert K., 191–197, 206, 402
See also Strain theory
Mesoderm, 120
Mesomorphic, 120–123
Messer, Sarah, 445
Metaphor of the ledger, 246
Methamphetamine, 430
Mexican Mafia, 366
Milk, Harvey, 240
Milken, Michael, 351
Miller, Walter, 224–226
Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment, 73
Minneapolis Hot Spots Study, 93–94
Minor physical abnormalities (MPAs), 114, 124
Mission distortion, 414
M’Naghten rule, 175–177
Modeling/imitation, 238, 242–243
Model state legislation for hate crimes, 391
Modern Classical theories of crime, 82–83
Moffitt’s developmental theory or taxonomy, 335
Moitra, Soumvo, 372
Money laundering, 404
Monitoring the Future (MTF), 45–46
Monozygotic twins, 131–132
Moon and crime, 57
Moore, Robert, 372–373
Moralist terrorism, 406
Morality
collective conscience, 186–187
deviance, 2
gender differences, 161
Kohlberg’s moral development model, 159–162
Morons, 104, 116
Morphine, 428, 432–433
Moscone, George, 240
Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), 18
Motivated offender, routine activities theory, 91, 92
Motorcycle gangs, 364–365
Moto-vehicle theft, 10
MPAs. See Minor physical abnormalities (MPAs)
MTF. See Monitoring the Future (MTF)
Mueller, Robert, 406
Multicide, 393–396
See also Mass murderers; Serial killers
Multiracial feminism, 320, 322
Murder, 240–241
brutalization effect following executions, 63
capital punishment and rates of, 84
case studies, 81, 96, 98, 103, 129, 155, 203
female perpetrators, 301
intent and degrees of, 60–61
mass murderers, 145
multicide, 393–396
social process theories and, 240–241, 263
See also Mass murderers; Serial killers
Murray, Charles, 118
Musto, David, 434
NACJD. See National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD)

Naffine, Ngaire, 313, 316
Narcissistic personality disorder, 173
Narcotics, 428–429, 436
Narcotics addiction, 432–433
National Archive of Criminal Justice Data (NACJD), 33
National Crime Statistics Exchange (NCS-X), 35
National Crime Survey (NCS), 41
National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), 15, 16, 40–44
National Crime Victims Awareness Month, 20
National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), 32, 34–38
Nationalist terrorists groups, 401
National Organization for Women (NOW), 303
National Prisoner Statistics (NPS) Program, 46
National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), 45
National Vital Statistics System (NVSS), 34
National Youth Survey (NYS), 45–46, 340
Natural areas, 216
Naturalism-oriented criminological theories, 281
Nature vs. nurture, 130–136
NCS. See National Crime Survey (NCS)
NCS-X. See National Crime Statistics Exchange (NCS-X)
NCVS. See National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)
Needle exchange programs, 447–448
Negative reinforcement, 239, 241
Negotiation, in labeling theory, 276
Neoclassical School of criminology, 71, 74–75
Neuroticism, 158, 159
Neurotransmitters, 140–141
Neutralization theory, 244–247, 359
New Orleans violent crime rate, 72
New Terrorism, 398
New York City, 362
NIBRS. See National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS)
Nicotine, 429
Nigerian email scams, 375, 376f
Nigerian terrorism, 399
Nineteenth Amendment, 302
Nonpartisan conflict perspective, 283
Nordstrom, Benjamin, 440
NOW. See National Organization for Women (NOW)
NPS. See National Prisoner Statistics (NPS) Program
NSDUH. See National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH)
Nutrition studies, 149
NVSS. See National Vital Statistics System (NVSS)
Nye, F. Ivan, 252
NYS. See National Youth Survey (NYS)
Obama, Barack, 296, 396, 418

Objectivity of research, feminist critiques of, 318–319
Occupational crime, 351
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA), 357–358
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention (OJJDP), 17
Office of Victims of Crime (OVC), 20
Ohlin, Lloyd E., 199–201, 226
OJJDP. See Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention
(OJJDP)
Oklahoma City bombing of 1995, 33, 402, 406
Online pharmacies, 438
Online prostitution, 375–376
Operant conditioning, 238, 239, 241–242
Operant-utilitarian theory of criminality, 156, 165, 168–169
Operation Innocent Images, 377
Opiates, 428–429
See also Narcotics
Opioid crisis, 429, 436–437, 449
Organic societies, 187
Organized crime, 361
criminal gangs, 199, 364–366
criminal justice responses, 367–369
defining, 361
outlaw motorcycle gangs, 364–365
Prohibition and, 362, 434
Mafia, 363–364, 368
transnational, 366–367
typology, 361
Whitey Bulger, 227
See also Gangs
Organized Crime Control Act of 1970, 369
Orlando, Florida, Pulse club mass shooting, 394, 418
OSHA. See Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA)
Other assaults, 73–74
Outlaw motorcycle gangs, 364–365
OVC. See Office of Victims of Crime (OVC)
Owen, Barbara, 321
Oxley, Michael, 353
Oxycodone and OxyContin, 429, 449
Paddock, Stephen, 394

Pakistan, 399
Palestinians, 401, 402, 404
Panopticon, 71
Parens patriae, 7
Park, Robert E., 215–217
Parrot as a witness, 32
Parsimony, 11
Part I and Part II offenses, 27, 28t
Partisan conflict perspective, 283
Passive victim precipitation, 15–16
Patent medicines, 433
Paternalism, 304
Pathways research, 320–321
Patriarchy, 304
PATRIOT Act of 2001, 413, 416, 417–418
Pauly, John, 281, 287–288
Pavlovian conditioning, 159, 234–236
Payne v. Tennessee (1991), 18
PCP (phencyclidine), 432
PeaceBuilders, 227
Peacemaking criminology, 291–292
Peer groups
differential association perspective, 14
primary groups and symbolic interactionism, 271
stake in conformity model, 251–252
See also Gangs
PEN model, 158–159
Pepinsky, Harold, 291
Perinatal problems, 148, 150, 341
Persistence of offending, 330, 331
See also Recidivism
“Personal as political,” 323
Personality, 121, 158–159
See also Psychological theories
Peru, 443
Pestalozzi, Johann Heinrich, 7
Phencyclidine. See PCP (phencyclidine)
Phenotype, 148
Phrenology, 105–106
Physiognomy, 106–107
Pirates, 362
“Plain view” warrant exception, 377–378
Plumm, K. M., 393
Police. See Law enforcement
Policy implications, 116–117, 124
adoption, 134
biological theories, 116–117, 124, 150
Classical/Neoclassical perspectives, 75–76
control theories, 262
critical perspectives, 296
developmental/life-course perspectives, 341–342
drug use, 441–450
feminist perspectives, 322–324
IQ scores, 104, 116–117
learning theories, 262
Lombroso’s theories, 112–114
mass shooting, 418–419
modern Classical theories, 95–97
psychological/trait theories, 178
social structure theories, 208
social structure theories and, 226–227
theory and, 14–15
uses of crime statistics, 31
Political uses of crime statistics, 31
Pollak, Otto, 312–313
Pollution, 149–150, 217, 269–270, 356–357
Polygraph testing, 145, 146
Pomeroy, Jesse, 263
Pornography, 374–375, 379
Positive reinforcement, 239, 241
Positive school of criminology, 104, 255
biological theories. See Biological theories of behavior
Darwinian perspectives, 107–108, 111
determinism, 111, 255, 311
IQ-testing era, 115–118. See also IQ
Lombroso’s theories, 108–115. See also Lombroso, Cesare
Postcolonial feminism, 309
Postconventional level of morality, 160
Postmodern feminism, 308
Posttraumatic stress disorder, 235
Potter, Gary, 364
Poverty, 185–186, 196
See also Socioeconomic class
Poway Synagogue shooting, 385
Power-control theory, 260, 314, 316–317
Praxis, 323
Preconventional level of morality, 159
Predictor variable (x), 12
Pregnant women’s substance use, 341
Premenstrual cycles, 138
Prescription drug issues, 436–437
President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration
of Justice, 368–369
President’s Commission on Organized Crime, 369
Prevention programs, 178
Primary deviance, 272–273
Primary groups, 271
Primary prevention, 178
Prison gangs, 365–366
Prisons and jails, 7
Abu Ghraib abuses, 415
Bentham’s “Panopticon,” 71
mental health issues, 171
See also Incarceration
Probation, 6–7, 14
Problem populations, 288–289
Prohibition, 362, 367, 433–434
Proletariat, 285
Prostitution, 375–376
Protection orders, 74
Psychoanalytic perspective, 156–157, 250, 312
See also Freud, Sigmund
Psychological theories, 156
Bowlby’s attachment theory, 162–163
insanity defense, 174–178, 240
Kohlberg’s moral development model, 159–162
low self-control (general theory of crime), 260–261
psychoanalytic (Freudian) perspective, 156–157, 250, 312
psychopathy and crime, 169–171
sociological theories vs., 156
treatment approaches, 172–174
Wilson and Herrnstein’s study, 156, 165, 168–169
See also Learning theories
Psychopathy and crime, 169–171
See also Mental disorders
Psychoticism, 158, 159
“Public Enemy” list, 367
Pulse nightclub, Orlando, mass shooting, 394, 418
Punishment
Beccaria’s ideas of, 64–68
certainty of, 65, 83, 84, 85
fear of and deterrence, 85
gang member sentencing, 75–76
insanity defense and, 175
juvenile diversion programs, 68
operant conditioning, 239, 241–242
primitive forms, 57–58
retributive versus restorative justice, 292–294
severity of, 66, 83–84, 95
shaming and informal controls, 82, 97
swiftness of, 64
“three strikes” laws, 66, 75–76, 95–97
See also Death penalty; Deterrence theory; Incarceration;
Sentencing
Pure deviant, 275
Pure Food and Drug Act of 1906, 433
Qualitative versus quantitative analysis, 319

Quantitative analysis, 319
Quetelet, Adolphe, 185–186
Quinney, Richard, 3, 281, 283–285, 291
Race and ethnicity

black women, 309–310
critiques of conflict perspectives, 290
critiques of feminist theories, 321–322
cultural/subcultural model of crime, 225–226
ethnic neighborhoods, 216
hate crimes, 38, 47, 390. See also Hate crimes
intersectional feminist perspectives, 321–322
multiracial feminism, 320
sentencing inequities for crack cocaine, 296
serial killers, 395–396
victimization incidence/prevalence and, 16
Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO), 369
Radical feminism, 303, 305–306
See also Feminism
Radical Marxist perspectives, 285–289
Rafter, Nicole Hahn, 158
Rape, 168
comparing data collection programs, 43
defining, 166
feminist perspectives, 166, 323
Jessica’s Law, 28
legal definition of, 27
legislative reforms, 323–324
rapist classification, 166, 167–168t
Rational choice theory, 87–91
burglary and, 119
differential reinforcement theory versus, 239
DUI and, 90
Ray, David Parker, 166, 168
Reaction formation, 197–198
Reagan, Ronald, 436
Realism, 295
Rebellion, strain theory, 194–195
Recidivism
marriage or employment and, 335
offenders with mental illnesses, 172
rehabilitation programs and, 83
Reckless, Walter, 253–254
Rehabilitation, 8, 83
Reinforcement, differential. See Differential reinforcement theory
Reiss, Albert, 251
Relative deprivation, 185–186
Religious bias hate crimes, 38
Religious terrorism, 396, 398
Remeta, Daniel, 394
Research approaches, feminist critiques of, 317–319
Residential sanctions, 7
Restitution and compensation, 17–18
Restorative justice perspective, 292–294
Retreatism, 194–195
Retreatist gangs, 200–201
Retributive justice, 292
Retrospective interpretation, 275
Reuter, Peter, 370
RICO. See Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO)
Ridgway, Gary Leon, 96
Right-wing associated terrorism, 406
Riots, 59
Risk-taking behaviors, low self-control theory, 261
Ritalin, 146
Ritualism, 194–195
Robbery, 207
See also Bank robbery
Robespierre, Maximilien, 400
Robinson, Amanda, 289–290
Rochester Youth Development Study, 340
Rohypnol, 428
Roofies, 428
Roper v. Simmons, 34
Rosenhan, D. L., 277–278
Ross, H. L., 85
Routine activities theory, 91–95, 360, 380, 391–392
Rowan, Patrick, 404
Ruffner, Kimberly, 278
Russia, 62, 69
Ryan Haight Online Pharmacy Consumer Protection Act of 2008, 438
Sadistic rapists, 168t

Salem witch trials, 188
Saltzman, Kenneth, 423
Sampson, Robert, 334–335
Sampson and Laub’s developmental model, 334–335
San Bernardino, California mass shooting, 394, 406, 418
San Diego Police Department, 119
Santa Catalina Island, 216
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, 353
Scenario research, 86–87
Schmid, Alex, 397
School shootings and attacks, 395
Schrag, Clarence, 276
Schur, Edwin M., 275–276
Schwartz, Richard, 277
Schwendinger, Herman, 288, 323
Schwendinger, Julia Siegel, 288, 323
Scope, 11
Scoring crimes, 29–30
Screening policies for biological abnormalities, 124
Search warrants, 377–378
SEC. See Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Seconal, 428
Secondary deviance, 273, 274f
Secondary prevention, 178
Second-degree murder, 61
Second wave of feminism, 302–303
Secret accusations, 61
Secret deviant, 275
Secret Service, 413
Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), 85, 347
Seidman, Robert, 281, 286–287
Selective placement, 134
Self-control. See Control theories
Self-defense, 240
Self-report survey data, 44–46
Seman, Robert, Jr., 53, 63–64
Sentencing
crack cocaine and, 296
liberal feminist perspective, 305
sanctions against gang members, 75–76
victim impact statements and, 18–19
“War on Drugs,” 436
See also Punishment
September 11, 2001 attacks, 25, 396, 407–408
Serial killers, 393
Bundy, Ted, 393–394
female, 318
Gacy, John Wayne, brain of, 143 (photo)
Harpe brothers, 72
life-course characteristics, 338
races and ideologies, 395–396
Ridgway, Gary Leon (Green River), 96
Shipman, Harold, 113
Serotonin, 141
Severity of punishment, 66, 83–84, 95
See also Death penalty; Deterrence theory; “Three strikes” laws
Sex chromosome abnormalities, 136–138
Sex differences, 303–304
biology and female offending, 310–312
See also Feminism; Gender differences
Sex hormones, 138–140, 431
Sexism, radical feminist perspectives, 306
Sex offenders, female, 315
Shame, 89
Shaming, 82, 97, 279
Shaw, Clifford, 15, 219–222, 232
Sheldon, William, 118, 120–124, 233
Shepard, Matthew, 47, 392
See also Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes
Prevention Act of 2009
Sherif, Carolyn Wood, 318–319
Sheriffs, 5
Sherman, Lawrence, 73
Shipman, Harold, 113
Shock incarceration, 7
Shoulder-surfing, 374
SHR. See Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR)
Sicarii, 400
Siegel, Bugsy, 362
Simian crease, 114
Simon, Rita, 314, 316
Simon, Theodore, 163
Simple assaults, 73–74
Skinner, B. F., 239
Skogan, Wesley, 30
Skolnick, Jerome, 277
Slavery, 104
Smart, Carole, 313
Social bonding theory, 256–258
Social class. See Socioeconomic class
Social contract, 58–59, 63, 249
Social control perspectives. See Control theories
Social Darwinism, 221
Social disorganization theory, 214, 219–222, 226, 393
Social dynamite, 289
Social ecological theories, 48–49, 215–219
Social fabric breakdown, 355
Socialist feminism, 306–307
Socialization in criminal behavior. See Developmental/life-course
perspectives; Social process theories
Social junk, 289
Social learning. See Learning theories
Social process theories, 231–232
control, 247–262. See also Control theories
cybercrime and, 380
group-conflict theory, 282
learning theories, 232–247
murder and, 240–241
terrorism and, 402
See also Learning theories
Social reality of crime, 283–285
Social structure theories of crime, 15, 184, 206, 214
anomie, 190–193
Chicago School, 214, 219–222, 226
cultural and subcultural, 214, 223–226
cybercrime and, 380
Durkheim and, 186–191, 215
early European theorists, 185–186
policy implications, 208, 226–227
relative deprivation, 185–186
strain theory, 191–206. See also Strain theory
summaries of, 209, 227
See also Critical criminology theories
Socioeconomic class
gender and delinquency relationship, 316–317
relative deprivation, 185–186
strain theories of gang formation, 197–199
upward and downward crimes, 385–386
Sociological theories of crime, 156
See also Social process theories; Social structure theories of crime
Sociopaths, 169
Soft determinism, 255
Somalia, 399
Somatotonic, 121
Somatotyping, 118, 120–124
Sombulex, 428
Spahalsky brothers, 129, 150
Spatial analyses of crime, 48–49, 94
Specific deterrence, 67
“Spice,” 438
Spiritualism-oriented criminological theories, 281
Spitzer, Steven, 288–289
Spree killers, 393, 394
Spuriousness, 13–14
Stake in conformity model, 251–252
Stalking, 223, 376–377
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Test, 163
State court system, 5
State law enforcement agencies, 4–5
State police, 5
State-sponsored terrorism, 398, 401
Status-degradation ceremony, 275
Statutory exclusion, 9
Stereotyping, 275
Sterilization, 104, 117
Steroids, 431
Stewart, Abigail J., 319
Stewart, Martha, 348
Stigmata, 109, 114
Stimulants, 146, 429–430
Stimulus hunger, 146
Stinchcomb, Jeanne, 444
Stoker, Bram, 110
Strain theory, 206
coping, 204, 208
cybercrime and, 380
drug selling, 448
evidence and criticisms of, 196–197
gang formation and, 197–201
general, 201–206, 402
Merton and, 191–197, 206
terrorism and, 402
Structural theories. See Social structure theories of crime
Subculture perspectives. See Cultural and subcultural perspectives
Substance abuse. See Alcohol use; Drug use
Substance Use Disorder Prevention that Promotes Opioid Recovery
and Treatment for Patients and Communities (SUPPORT) Act of 2018,
449
Substantial capacity test, 177–178
Subterranean values, 256
Suicide, 53, 55f, 63–64, 190, 197
Suitable targets, routine activities theory, 91, 92
Superego, 156–157, 250
Supplementary Homicide Reports (SHR), 32–34
SUPPORT Act of 2018. See Substance Use Disorder Prevention that
Promotes Opioid Recovery and Treatment for Patients and
Communities (SUPPORT) Act of 2018
Supreme Court, 5, 6
Surveillance technology, 26
Sutherland, Edwin, 3, 163–164, 199, 232–237, 239, 242, 348–350, 352
Swartzwelder, S., 427
Swiftness of punishment, 64
Sykes, Gresham, 244–247
Symbolic interactionism, 271–272
Synthetic opioids, 429, 436, 437
Syria, 399
Tabula rasa, 232, 236, 239, 247

Taguba, Antonio, 415
Taliban, 399
Tammany Hall, 362
Tannenbaum, Frank, 272
Tanner, Robert, 315
Tarde, Gabriel, 232, 242
Target congruence, 392
Targets for victimization, routine activities theory, 92
Task Force on Organized Crime, 368
Tattoos, 13–14, 109–110
Taylor, Robert, 380
Taylor, Shane, 76
TBIs. See Traumatic brain injuries (TBIs)
Techniques of neutralization, 245–246
Teena, Brandon, 103
Temporal lobes, 106, 141
Temporal ordering, 12
Terman, Lewis M., 163
Terrorism, 396–397
defining, 397, 398t
domestic, 33, 394, 405–406, 414
extent of, 399–400
financial support, 403–404
hate crime and, 385
media and, 404–405
organizational networks, 403
religion and, 396
September 11 attacks, 25, 396, 407–408
theoretical explanations, 402, 406–407
typologies, 398–399
See also Hate crimes; Homeland security; Mass murderers
Tertiary prevention, 178
Testability of theoretical models, 11
Testosterone, 138–140, 150
Tetrahydrocannabinol. See THC (tetrahydrocannabinol)
Texas Rangers, 4–5, 72
Texas Syndicate, 366
THC (tetrahydrocannabinol), 431
Thinking for a Change program, 172
Third wave of feminism, 303
Thomas, William I., 271, 311–312
Thompson, William, 1
Thornberry’s interactional model, 337–341
“Three strikes” laws, 66, 75–76, 95–97
Tittle, Charles, 259–260, 278
Tobacco use, 432
Toby, Jackson, 251–252
Tong, Rosemarie, 306, 308
Topinard, Paul, 3
Torture, 61, 415–416
Toxins, 149–150, 269–270, 341–342
Traditional or conservative gender perspective, 304–305
Trajectories, 334
Tranquilizers, 428
Transitions, 334
Transition zone, 218, 220
Transnational organized crime, 366–367
Transportation Security Administration (TSA), 412–413
Traumatic brain injuries (TBIs), 141–143, 145
Treason, 69
Treatment
drug court programs, 444
for ADHD, 146
for alcoholism, 235
for offenders with mental illnesses, 172–174
of psychopaths, 171
opioid crisis responses, 449
Treatment Advocacy Center, 171
Tremblay, R., 248, 262
Trial by jury, 61–62
Tripartite Conceptual Framework, 440–441
Triplett, Ruth, 279
Truth, Sojourner, 302, 304
TSA. See Transportation Security Administration (TSA)
Tuinal, 428
Turk, Austin, 3, 281, 282–283, 291
Turpin, David, 13, 14
Turpin, Louise, 13, 14
Twenty-First Amendment, 434
Twinkie defense, 240
Twin studies, 129–132, 149, 150
Eysenck’s personality theory, 159
twins separated at birth, 134–135
UCR. See Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program

Umbreit, Mark, 292
Umbrella organization, 403
Unabomber, 194, 195
Unconscious, 157
Undetected or unreported crimes, 26, 30, 41
Unfair business practices, 351–352
Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program, 15, 27–33, 40
arson, 338
burglary, 119
classifying and scoring crimes, 29–30
DUI offenses, 90
female sex offenders, 315
hate crimes, 38–39, 388, 390
larceny-theft, 280
murder and manslaughter, 240
National Crime Victimization Survey comparison, 43–44
National Incident-Based Reporting System, 32, 35–38
other or simple assaults, 73–74
rape, 166
robbery and bank robbery, 207
victimization incidence/prevalence and, 16
United States v. Carey (1998), 378
Upward crimes, 385–386
Urban growth models, 217–219, 221–222
Urbanization, 215
Urban street gangs, 366
Urquijo, Cristian Alfredo, 183–184, 196, 207
USA PATRIOT Act of 2001, 413, 416, 417–418
U.S. Bill of Rights, 70
U.S. Census Bureau, 41, 46
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), 413
U.S. Coast Guard, 414
U.S. Constitution, 70, 416–417
U.S. Department of Justice, crime data and statistics, 32, 35, 41
Utilitarianism, 60
Valachi, Joe, 364, 368

Validity of theoretical models, 11–12
Vanilla extract, 32
Verbal intelligence, 118
Victim compensation and restitution, 17–18
Victim impact statements, 18–19
Victimology, 15–20
data and statistics, 15, 40–44
lifestyles perspective, 94
routine activities theory, 92, 94
target congruence and hate crimes, 392
victimization incidence/prevalence, 16
victim precipitation, 15–16
Victim precipitation, 15–16
Victim rights awareness, 20
Victims of Crime Act (VOCA), 20
Vignette studies, 86–87
Violence
cultural explanations, 224–225
domestic, 73–74, 289–290
drugs and, 440–441
Moffitt’s developmental taxonomy, 335
other or simple assaults, 73–74
Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 38, 390
Viscerotonic, 121
VOCA. See Victims of Crime Act (VOCA)
Vold, George, 281–282, 290
Waivers from juvenile justice system, 8–9

Waldner, L. K., 392
Walters, William T., 347
“War on Drugs,” 435–436
Water pollution, 269–270
Weinstein, Ricardo, 103
Welfare liberal feminists, 305
Wellford, Charles, 279
Wertham, Fredric, 15
West, Candace, 314
Wheeldon, J., 293
White, Dan, 240
White, Jacquelyn, 319
White, Jonathan, 403, 405
White-collar crime, 348
defining and history, 348–352
differential association theory, 236
incidence and impact of, 352–356
insider trading case study, 347
neutralization theory, 246
theoretical explanations, 358–361
types of, 351–352, 356–358
White nationalist groups, 389
Whitman, Charles, 145, 394
Wickersham Commission, 367
Wilson, James Q., 156, 168–169
Wilson, W., 427
Wolfgang, Marvin, 16, 224, 226
Women criminals. See Female criminals
Women’s agency, 322
Women’s liberation thesis, 314–316
Women’s rights movement, 302–303
See also Feminism
Wozniak, John, 292
Wright, John, 341
XYY and other chromosomal abnormalities, 136–138
Yeager, P., 355

Yerkes, Robert, 163
Yoga, 204
Young, Jock, 294
Young, V. D., 309–310
Zamboanga, B. L., 427

Zeus malware, 370
Zimmerman, Don, 314
Zinn, Maxine Baca, 321
Zone in transition, 218, 220

Pamela J. Schram, Stephen G. Tibbetts - Introduction To Criminology - Why Do They Do It - SAGE Publications, Inc (2020)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pamela J. Schram, Stephen G. Tibbetts - Introduction To Criminology - Why Do They Do It - SAGE Publications, Inc (2020)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

this would be nice to have, since it has an in memoriam for Steve

I dedicate this book to my loving wife and best friend, Kim

After many years in academia, we are grateful for having the

Steve was one of those colleagues I could go to when I needed to

Steve has made a significant, and lasting, impact in the field of

SAGE Publications, Inc.

2455 Teller Road

Thousand Oaks, California 91320

SAGE Publications Ltd.

London EC1Y 1SP

SAGE Publications India Pvt. Ltd.

B 1/I 1 Mohan Cooperative Industrial Area

Mathura Road, New Delhi 110 044

SAGE Publications Asia-Pacific Pte. Ltd.

18 Cross Street #10-10/11/12

China Square Central

Copyright © 2021 by SAGE Publications, Inc.

All rights reserved. Except as permitted by U.S. copyright law, no part of

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Names: Schram, Pamela J., author. | Tibbetts, Stephen G., author.

Identifiers: LCCN 2019034242 | ISBN 9781544375731 (paperback) | ISBN 9781544375755 (epub) |

Subjects: LCSH: Criminology.

Classification: LCC HV6025 .S38 2020 | DDC 364—dc23 LC record available at

This book is printed on acid-free paper.

Acquisitions Editor: Jessica Miller

Editorial Assistant: Sarah Manheim

Content Development Editor: Adeline Grout

Production Editor: Laureen Gleason

Copy Editor: William DeRooy

Typesetter: C&M Digitals (P) Ltd.

Proofreader: Theresa Kay

Indexer: Will Ragsdale

Cover Designer: Scott Van Atta

Marketing Manager: Jillian Ragusa

Additionally, our book is different from other textbooks in that we don’t

We feature a separate chapter on feminist criminology. Given that over half

Another distinctive aspect of this book is that we devoted separate chapters

Our text does follow a somewhat traditional format in that it presents

Our book also provides an ancillary package, with numerous resources to

Required access codes

Using only the content you want and need

*For use in: Blackboard, Canvas, Brightspace by Desire2Learn (D2L), and

With SAGE coursepacks, you get

Quality textbook content delivered directly into your LMS

Student Study Site: edge.sagepub.com/schram3e

New to This Edition

Chapter 1 features a more extensive discussion on victimization,

Pamela J. Schram, PhD

California State University, San Bernardino

Stephen G. Tibbetts, PhD

Reviewers of the First Edition

Reviewers of the Second Edition

Reviewers of the Third Edition

Often, crimes such as the mass shooting in Las Vegas, Nevada,

1.1 Identify key concepts in understanding criminology.

The “Confidence Man”

Generally, the “grandparent scam” follows this type of pattern:

A grandparent gets a call from someone posing as his or her grandchild.

As illustrated by these questions, the issue with defining crime from a

mala in se: acts that are considered inherently evil.

What Are Criminology and Criminal Justice?

the body of knowledge regarding crime as a social phenomenon.

Criminology is the scientific study of crime, especially the reasons for