Crime As a Normal Phenomenon Ing of Self-Satisfaction for Adhering to the Rules

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION Crime and the fear ofNOT crime FORhave permeated SALE theOR fabric DISTRIBUTION of American life. —Warren E. Burger, Chief Justice, U.S. Supreme Court1 We don’t seem to be able to check crime, so why not legalize it and then tax it out of business? —Will Rogers2 © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONchapter Crime and © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC CriminologyNOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION 1NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION

Objectives Features

Define criminology© andJones understand & Bartlett how this Learning, LLCTheory in Action: Criminology© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC field of study relatesNOT to FORother social SALE science OR DISTRIBUTIONas Peacemaking—SisterNOT FOR Helen SALE OR DISTRIBUTION disciplines. Prejean, Dead Man Walking Understand the meaning of scientific theory and its relationship to research and policy. ©Recognize Jones a& “good” Bartlett theory Learning, of crime, based LLC on © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC criteria such as empirical support, scope, and Wrap Up NOTparsimony. FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION

Know the criteria for establishing causation Chapter Spotlight and identify the attributes of good research.

Understand the politics of criminology and the Putting It All Together © Jones & Bartlettimportance Learning, of social context. LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC Key Terms NOT FOR SALE Define OR criminal DISTRIBUTION law and understand the conflict NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION and consensus perspectives on the law. Notes Describe the various schools of criminological theory and the explanations that they provide. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones & BartlettIntroduction Learning, LLC © Jones2006, & BartlettFederal, state, Learning, and local LLC governments spent a total of about $68 billion on corrections.6 NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALECrime OR is a DISTRIBUTION social phenomenon that commands the As these statistics indicate, crime is an impor- attention and energy of the American public. When tant social issue. Further, how policymakers deal crime statistics are announced or a particular crime with crime (via crime policy) can have enormous makes national headlines, the public demands that social and financial implications. A basic tenant of “something be done.”© Jones American & Bartlett citizens Learning, are con- LLCthis text is that a combination© Jones of & theory Bartlett and Learning,re- LLC cerned about theirNOT own FOR safety SALE and ORthat DISTRIBUTION of their search can help provideNOT direction FOR to SALE crime ORpolicy. DISTRIBUTION families and their possessions. In 2007, for exam- The chapters in this book attempt to organize ideas ple, 48% of the public “avoided going into certain in order to explain criminal behavior. This includes places or neighborhoods.”3 Because of the public’s the factors that contribute to crime and the social concern about the safety of their communities, © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC reactions© (including Jones & proposedBartlett andLearning, actual policies) LLC crime is a perennial political issue that candidates to crime. In short, this book explores the discipline NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION for political office are compelled to address. of criminology. Dealing with crime commands a substantial portion of the country’s tax dollars. In fiscal year 2006, the criminal justice system cost taxpayers Defining Criminology © Jones & Bartlettover $214 Learning, billion. Between LLC 1982 and 2006, these© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALEcosts ORrose DISTRIBUTIONby over 498%.4 Much of this cost is dueNOT FORSimply SALE put, ORcriminology DISTRIBUTION is the scientific study of to the rise in the prison population that resulted crime. More broadly, Edwin Sutherland identified from the “get-tough” strategies popular in the criminology as the study of lawmaking, lawbreak- 1980s and 1990s (e.g., mandatory minimum ing, and the response to lawbreaking.7 Some scholars sentences, the “war” on drugs, three-strikes legisla- further distinguish criminal justice from criminolo- © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC tion). At the end of 2008, the number of sentenced gy. Here, Sutherland’s definition is subdivided into prisoners under theNOT jurisdiction FOR SALE of state OR and DISTRIBUTION federal two related fields, whereNOT criminology FOR SALE focuses OR onDISTRIBUTION correctional authorities stood at 1.6 million— lawbreaking (i.e., the nature, extent, and causes of about 1 in every 198 persons in the United States. crime), and criminal justice focuses on the response However, in recent years, the incarceration trend (i.e., policing, courts, and corrections) to criminal has© Jones slowed &down. Bartlett From Learning, 2000 to 2008, LLC the prison behavior.© ScholarsJones interested& Bartlett in Learning,criminal justice, LLC for populationNOT FOR increased SALE OR an average DISTRIBUTION of 1.8% annually, example,NOT may FORstudy theSALE causes OR and DISTRIBUTION consequences of less than a third of the average annual rate during prison crowding or the effectiveness of different po- the 1990s (6.5%).5 This decline is due in part to the licing models. Of course, there is a relationship fact that governments and citizens have become between criminology and criminal justice. The re- more sensitive to the great cost of incarceration. In sponse to crime depends largely on one’s view of the © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jonescauses & Bartlett of crime. Learning, For this reason, LLC many criminolo- NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FORgists SALEwork in OR both DISTRIBUTION of these areas. Another discipline related to criminology is the study of deviance. A “deviant” is anyone who violates social norms. Norms are guidelines that define © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLCfor members of a society© the Jones types of& behaviors Bartlett thatLearning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONare appropriate or inappropriateNOT FOR in SALEcertain OR situa- DISTRIBUTION tions. Norms are classified as folkways, mores, and laws, based largely on the response to their viola- tion.8 Folkways are norms against actions that may evoke a snicker or some teasing as a response (e.g., © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC nose picking).© Jones Violations & Bartlett of a society’s Learning, mores LLC evoke NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION a more NOTserious FOR response SALE from OR DISTRIBUTIONothers (e.g., teen pregnancy). Laws are norms that have been codi- fied, and the response to violations comes from formal government agencies. Therefore, although © Jones & BartlettDeviance Learning,is behavior that LLC violates social norms. Would you© Jonessome & Bartlettdeviant behavior Learning, is criminal, LLC deviance can consider this person “deviant”? also include acts (e.g., cross-dressing, membership NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION

4 Crimin ol ogy: Theory, Research, and Policy

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones in& Bartlett a motorcycle Learning, gang) LLC that are not defined as © Jonesresearch & findings,Bartlett and Learning, theory related LLC to crime that crimes. Deviance scholars are often interested in came to be called simply the “Chicago School of NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FORhow SALE deviant OR behaviorsDISTRIBUTION come to be criminalized; Crime.”10 During the 1930s, Edwin Sutherland, a that is, they focus on the “lawmaking” aspect of student of the Chicago School sociologists, became Sutherland’s definition. the dominant advocate of criminology with his theories of differential association and white-collar © Jones & Bartlett Learning, crime.LLC At about the same time,© Jones Robert K.& Merton,Bartlett a Learning, LLC Criminology andNOT Academics FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONColumbia University sociologist,NOT developedFOR SALE the so-OR DISTRIBUTION Until recently, people with an academic interest in ciological theory of anomie to explain crime. This criminal behavior sought degrees in social science theory has been utilized to study different forms of disciplines such as anthropology, psychology, crime from street crime to organized crime. economics, law, political science, ethics, and soci- © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC Sociological© Jones theories & have Bartlett provided Learning, one basis forLLC ology; thus, a student might earn a degree in the discipline of criminology. However, criminology NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION sociology with an emphasis on deviance and crime. is now recognized as interdisciplinary. Scholars from Although some people still study crime through many disciplines, such as political science, psychol- other disciplines, most universities now offer de- ogy, social work, public policy, and law, and those grees in criminology or criminal justice. Moreover, with advanced degrees in criminal justice and crimi- © Jones &many Bartlett universities Learning, have separateLLC criminology de- © Jonesnology &all Bartlettcontribute Learning, to criminology. LLC NOT FORpartments, SALE OR divisions, DISTRIBUTION or schools. In that sense, NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION criminology has recently emerged as a distinct social science discipline. This emergence has been partial, however, and A Brief History of a bit awkward. In part, this is because unlike other the Criminal L aw social science disciplines,© Jones criminology & Bartlett is organized Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC around a class of behaviorsNOT FOR (crime) SALE rather OR than DISTRIBUTION a The criminal law has a longNOT history, FOR dating SALE back OR DISTRIBUTION particular way of understanding these behaviors. over 3500 years. The first acknowledged set of laws Social science disciplines tend to be organized (dated 1792 bc), the Code of Hammurabi, estab- around common assumptions, guiding insights, and lished the precept that the punishment should fit specific© Jones research & methodologies. Bartlett Learning,9 For example, LLC psy- the crime. This© Jones code was & Bartlettadopted from Learning, Babylonian LLC chologistsNOT generallyFOR SALE seek ORto understand DISTRIBUTION the mental and HebrewNOT laws FORthat existed SALE as OR early DISTRIBUTION as 2000 bc. processes that explain human behavior, while soci- The Mosaic Code of the Israelites (1200 bc) devel- ologists emphasize the role of social institutions and oped the laws of the Old Testament, which include processes. Within any social science discipline, the Ten Commandments.11 “crime” is only one type of human behavior that at- The root of American law is English common © Jones &tracts Bartlett interest. Learning, A psychologist LLC might also be © Joneslaw. Common & Bartlett law Learning,developed fromLLC English “cir- NOT FORinterested SALE OR in intelligence, DISTRIBUTION a political scientist in vot- NOTcuit” FOR courts, SALE where OR judges DISTRIBUTION traveled from community ing behavior, and a sociologist in explaining social to community hearing cases. Judges kept written movements. One might expect, therefore, that crim- records of their court decisions and initially de- inology would be multidisciplinary in nature. This cided cases based on prevailing community is indeed the case—many© Jones disciplines & Bartlett have Learning, made standards. LLC Over time, these© judges Jones began & Bartlett to unify Learning, LLC contributions to the scientificNOT FOR study SALE of crime. OR SomeDISTRIBUTION and standardize the legal NOT code FOR across SALE different OR DISTRIBUTION of the earliest scientific theories of crime came from communities. To accomplish this, they used past biologists and psychologists. Few would dispute the decisions as precedents (regardless of community) fact, though, that sociology has had the largest im- for new legal disputes. Eventually, this web of legal pact on the study of crime. decisions evolved into a national unified set of Throughout© Jones & most Bartlett of the Learning, 20th century, LLC sociolo- codes or common© Jones law. &12 Bartlett Learning, LLC gistsNOT were FORprominent SALE in ORsocial DISTRIBUTION scientific discourse The EnglishNOT coloniesFOR SALE followed OR DISTRIBUTIONcommon law, about criminal behavior. The roots of this contribu- and after the revolution, the new federal and state tion can be traced to members of the sociology governments of the United States adopted many of department at the University of Chicago. Ernest W. these laws by passing specific legislation called © Jones &Burgess, Bartlett W. I.Learning, Thomas, and LLC a host of other sociolo- © Jonesstatutes. & ForBartlett this reason, Learning, most of LLC the U.S. criminal gists created a body of research methodology, code is considered statutory law. Even here, judges NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION

chapter 1 Crime and Criminology 5

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones & Bartlettmust interpret Learning, laws and LLC apply them to specific cir-© Jones &Some Bartlett offenses Learning, (e.g., traffic LLC offenses) do not re- cumstances; this creates case law. Also, where laws quire criminal intent. These are considered strict NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALEdo not OR cover DISTRIBUTION a particular circumstance, U.S. courts liability offenses. Criminal behavior carries a vari- still rely on common law. Finally, the federal gov- ety of formal punishments, including imprisonment, ernment and each state have separate, written death, fine, or probation. constitutions that define the general organization There are various ways to classify crimes within and the powers (or© Joneslimits of & power) Bartlett of the Learning, govern- LLCthe criminal law. Among© theJones oldest & isBartlett the distinc- Learning, LLC ment. ConstitutionalNOT law FOR is expressed SALE OR within DISTRIBUTION these tion between crimes thatNOT are FORmala inSALE se and OR mala DISTRIBUTION documents and is the supreme law of the land— prohibita. Mala in se crimes, considered “evil in the U.S. Constitution for the country and state themselves,” encompass the core of the criminal constitutions for their respective state.13 code, including acts such as homicide and robbery. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC Mala prohibita© Jones crimes & Bartlett are “wrong Learning, because they LLC are Defining the Criminal Law prohibited.” These crimes represent a particular NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION The substantive criminal law consists of prohibited society’s attempt to regulate behavior, such as drug behaviors and the possible sanctions for these be- abuse, gambling, and prostitution, that offends haviors. As noted previously, each state has its own their moral senses. Mala prohibita offenses are criminal code, as does the federal government. Fed- likely to vary over time and across jurisdictions. © Jones & Bartletteral and Learning,state codes (asLLC well as constitutions) are© JonesFor & example, Bartlett casino Learning, gambling LLC is legal in several NOT FOR SALEaccessible OR DISTRIBUTIONon the Internet. The Legal InformationNOT FORstates, SALE and manyOR DISTRIBUTION states have state-sanctioned lot- Institute at Cornell Law School maintains a site that teries. Similarly, the use of alcohol has shifted from features links to all federal and state statutes.14 legal to illegal and back to legal over time in the Crimes are defined by two components: the United States. specific act (actus© Jones reas) and & Bartlettthe criminal Learning, intent LLC Another common way© Jones to classify & Bartlettcrimes is Learning,ac- LLC cording to the seriousness of the offense. On a (mens rea). ActusNOT reas includesFOR SALE the act OR and DISTRIBUTION the cir- NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION cumstances under which the act occurs (e.g., the general level, jurisdictions distinguish between common law crime of burglary includes the break- felonies (serious crime) and misdemeanors (petty ing and entering of another’s dwelling, at night, crimes). Criminal codes further categorize felonies without consent). Although most crimes require according to degree (e.g., first-, second-, or third- the© Jonescommission & Bartlett of some Learning, act, in some LLC cases involv- degree felony© Jones offenses). & Bartlett Learning, LLC ingNOT special FOR relationships SALE OR (e.g.,DISTRIBUTION parent and child or In additionNOT FOR to theSALE substantive OR DISTRIBUTION criminal law, lifeguard and swimmers), crime can be defined by procedural law dictates what actions actors within the failure to act. Mens rea refers to a person’s men- the criminal justice system may legally take. Proce- tal state. There are different levels of criminal dural law dictates, for example, how police may intent, defined by the elements of purpose, knowl- interact with citizens (e.g., search-and-seizure law) © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC edge, negligence, and recklessness15: and how criminal trials proceed (e.g., the admissi- NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FORbility SALE of evidence). OR DISTRIBUTION OO A person purposely commits a criminal act when they desire to engage in criminal conduct The criminal law can also be distinguished to cause a particular criminal result. from civil law. Civil law includes (among other things) contract law, property law, and tort law.16 OO To knowingly commit a criminal act, a person Among the various forms of civil law, tort law bears must know, believe,© Jones or suspect& Bartlett that an Learning, action is LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC the strongest resemblance to the criminal law. In a criminal. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION tort case, an individual or group seeks compen OO Criminal negligence occurs when a person sation to redress some wrongdoing or harm. grossly deviates from a standard that a reason- Violations of the criminal law can result in both a able person would use under the same circum- criminal and tort trial. For example, a person can © Jonesstances—the & Bartlett person Learning, is accused of LLC taking a sub- be tried© in Jones criminal & court Bartlett for homicide Learning, and LLCalso in NOTstantial FOR andSALE foreseeable OR DISTRIBUTION risk that resulted in civil courtNOT for FOR wrongful SALE death, OR regardlessDISTRIBUTION of how harm. the criminal trial turns out.17 OO Criminal recklessness is the conscious disre- Laws are dynamic and greatly influenced by gard of a substantial risk—a person accused of current events, politics, economics, and numerous © Jones & Bartlettrecklessness Learning, is viewed LLC as more blameworthy© Jones other & Bartlett external factors.Learning, Criminal LLC law continues to NOT FOR SALEthan OR someone DISTRIBUTION accused of negligence. NOT FORchange, SALE as judges OR DISTRIBUTION have to interpret situations with

6 Crimin ol ogy: Theory, Research, and Policy

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones the& Bartlett emergence Learning, of new technology LLC (e.g., computers) © JonesBy most & measures,Bartlett Learning,alcohol is more LLC dangerous or and new threats (e.g., terrorism). For example, the harmful than marijuana. Despite this fact, mari- NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FORSeptember SALE OR 11, DISTRIBUTION 2001, terrorist attack in the United juana is illegal while alcohol is legal. If criminal States had a substantial impact on the law. The laws and the punishments for law violators do not USA Patriot Act was passed on October 24, 2001, directly reflect the harm caused to society, then just six weeks after the events of 9/11. Although what determines how a crime is punished? How do the Patriot Act amended© Jones numerous & Bartlett laws, the Learning, pri- someLLC acts come to be criminalized© Jones while & Bartlettothers do Learning, LLC mary intent of the actNOT was FORto relax SALE the procedural OR DISTRIBUTION not? Criminologists approachNOT FOR such SALE questions OR DISTRIBUTION laws that restrict law enforcement investigation within the framework of two general perspectives. and surveillance powers. The consensus perspective illustrates the be- The U.S. Department of Justice hails the Patriot lief that laws are set in place to keep people from Act as© Jonesan effective & Bartlett tool for Learning, counterterrorism LLC ef- engaging in ©behaviors Jones &that Bartlett the majority Learning, of society LLC forts.18 Critics contend that the law grants sweeping believes to be harmful to others and society as a NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION search and surveillance powers to domestic law en- whole. Consensus is defined as a general agree- forcement without proper judicial oversight.19 One ment, and thus, this perspective sees society as of the most controversial provisions of the law is a having classified specific behaviors as wrong or im- “sneak-and-peek” search warrant, which autho- moral. This consensus comes from a society’s © Jones &rizes Bartlett law enforcement Learning, officersLLC to enter private © Jonesculture, & whichBartlett includes Learning, its beliefs, LLC values, atti- NOT FORpremises SALE OR without DISTRIBUTION the occupant’s permission or NOTtudes, FOR andSALE behaviors. OR DISTRIBUTION From this perspective, knowledge and without informing the occupant criminologists would argue that laws are in place that such a search was conducted.20 The act also to be fair to all members of society. expanded the government’s ability to view records In contrast to the consensus view, the conflict on an individual’s activities© Jones that & areBartlett held by Learning, third perspectiveLLC portrays the law© as Jones the result & Bartlett of a con- Learning, LLC parties (e.g., libraries, doctors, Internet service tinuous competition or “conflict” among members providers). Key provisionsNOT FOR of the SALE Patriot OR Act DISTRIBUTIONwere of society. Here, the law reflectsNOT theFOR interests, SALE val- OR DISTRIBUTION set to expire on December 31, 2009. Amid debate ues, and beliefs of whatever group has power. about whether the act sacrifices too many civil lib- Power can come from a variety of sources, such as erties, President Barack Obama approved a one-year group size or wealth. For example, Karl Marx por- extension© Jones of the & act Bartlett on March Learning, 1, 2010, without LLC any trayed capitalist© Jones societies & Bartlettas riddled Learning, with constant LLC alterationsNOT FORin its provisions.SALE OR21 DISTRIBUTION competitionNOT that breedsFOR SALEcontinued OR conflict DISTRIBUTION among its members. In Marx’s analysis, conflict stems Perspectives on the Criminal Law from a system of inequality that allows the wealthy Criminal law serves several functions in society. elite to rule or control all other members of society. First, criminal law discourages revenge because the On a smaller scale, the conflict perspective sheds © Jones &government, Bartlett Learning, rather than LLCthe victim, is responsible © Joneslight on & how Bartlett political Learning, interest groups LLC try to shape NOT FORfor SALE punishing OR DISTRIBUTIONlaw violators. Second, the law serves NOTlaws FOR (e.g., SALE gun control,OR DISTRIBUTION abortion) in a way that is to express public opinion and morality; this is es- consistent with their beliefs and values. The pre- pecially apparent for mala prohibita offenses. Third, ceding discussion of the controversy surrounding the punishment meted out according to criminal the USA Patriot Act also illustrates the conflict per- law also serves as a warning© Jones to &other Bartlett citizens Learning, who spective LLC in action. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC 22 may be thinking of committingNOT FOR the SALE same ORcrime. DISTRIBUTIONThese general perspectivesNOT on FOR the SALElaw influ- OR DISTRIBUTION Typically, criminal law also attempts to make ence the research questions that criminologists ask the punishment fit the crime. The aim is to match and also help determine how they go about an- the punishment to the severity of the offense and swering such questions. Following the consensus the harm that it creates; thus, the punishment bal- model generally leads criminologists to ask, “Why ances© theJones damage & Bartlettcaused by Learning, the crime. LLCHowever, do some in ©society Jones violate & Bartlett laws that Learning, exist to benefit LLC the punishmentNOT FOR doesSALE not OR always DISTRIBUTION fit the harm of the all membersNOT of society?” FOR SALE The conflict OR DISTRIBUTION perspective crime. For example, white-collar offenses often in- generally leads to questions regarding the content volve large sums of money and affect great numbers and enforcement of the law, such as, “Why is mari- of people but typically result in shorter (if any) juana illegal, and how did it come to be © Jones &prison Bartlett sentences Learning, than robbery LLC or burglary. Another © Jonescriminalized?” & Bartlett Each Learning, of these perspectives LLC appears NOT FORarea SALE to consider OR DISTRIBUTION is illicit drugs relative to alcohol. NOTto FORhave someSALE credence OR DISTRIBUTION within a specific realm of

chapter 1 Crime and Criminology 7

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones & Bartlettbehavior. Learning, Laws against LLC mala in se offenses, such ©as Jonesone & test Bartlett this theory? Learning, Of course, LLC the little green homicide and robbery, are backed by widespread creature theory is rather absurd. However, what if NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALEconsensus. OR DISTRIBUTION Mala prohibita offenses, such as gam- the words “little green creatures” were changed to bling, prostitution, and illicit drug use, are more “a lack of conscience,” and the theory becomes that relevant to the conflict perspective. a lack of conscience causes crime? Unless researchers devise a way to measure conscience, this is still © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLCa theory with no scientific© Jones value, &even Bartlett though Learning, it LLC Theories NOTof C FORrime SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONmay sound more credible.NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION A theory may also be impossible to test if it is Theory represents the foundation on which all dis- based on circular reasoning. Scientists refer to this cussion of crime is built. Unfortunately, students of kind of reasoning as tautological. Literally, a tauto- criminology often struggle to understand the vari- © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC logical theory© Jones of crime& Bartlett would Learning,argue that “crimeLLC ous theories of crime or simply find them to be causes crime.” Of course, tautological statements NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION boring, useless, and confusing. The premise of this are usually not as obvious as that and can therefore section is that when properly understood, theory be more difficult to detect. Let us stick with the can be exciting, thought provoking, and useful. This example of “a lack of conscience” as the cause of section covers basic information on theory that will crime and think about how one might test that the- © Jones & Bartlettallow students Learning, to understand LLC and evaluate the dis-© Jonesory. & OneBartlett could Learning, argue that LLC people who do bad NOT FOR SALEcussions OR on DISTRIBUTION crime that follow in later chapters. NOT FORthings SALE must ORnot DISTRIBUTIONhave a conscience. In doing so, however, one is engaging in circular reasoning: People who do “bad things” engage in criminal be- Defining a Scientific Theory havior (bad things), which is like arguing that © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLCcrime causes crime. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC There is no shortage of opinions regarding the In order for a theory to be useful then, one roots of criminalNOT behavior; FOR SALEnews articles, OR DISTRIBUTION movie must be able to subject itNOT to empirical FOR SALE tests. Assum- OR DISTRIBUTION dialogue, politicians, relatives, and friends all offer ing that a theory meets this minimal standard (and opinions on the causes of crime. Often these sourc- most do), what next? What makes one scientific es point to a single factor: drugs, violent movies, theory better than others? poor© Jones parenting, & Bartlett or bad companions.Learning, LLCSuch theories © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC areNOT often FOR based SALE on speculation OR DISTRIBUTION or hunches. Scien- NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION tific theories of crime include many of these Evaluating Theory common-sense explanations, yet unlike a “hunch,” a theory of crime must explain in a logical and clear A number of useful criteria are presented here for manner how such factors relate to crime. evaluating theory. An important fact to keep in © Jones & BartlettA theory Learning, is nothing LLC more than a set of princi-© Jonesmind, & Bartlett however, Learning, is that not LLCall criteria are equally NOT FOR SALEples orOR statements DISTRIBUTION that attempts to explain howNOT FORimportant. SALE FigureOR DISTRIBUTION1-1 illustrates how different cri- concepts are related. In the case of crime theory, teria relate to one another. Testability has already these statements typically explain how one or more been covered; the remaining criteria include em- factors lead to criminal behavior. A scientific the- pirical support, scope, and parsimony. ory must also be testable, meaning that it must be © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC stated in such a way that other scientists can go out Empirical Evidence into the real world,NOT collect FOR information,SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONand test After a theory is determinedNOT to FOR be testable, SALE the OR next DISTRIBUTION the theory’s validity. If a theory is too vague or if step in the evaluation process is establishing wheth- the central concepts cannot be measured, it is es- er those tests support the theory. In other words, sentially useless to science. when this theory is applied to the real world, does it © JonesConsider, & Bartlett for example, Learning, the following LLC state- work? Does© Jones the research & Bartlett support Learning, this theory? LLC The ment:NOT FOR “Little SALE green OR creatures DISTRIBUTION that live inside importanceNOT of FORthis criterion SALE cannotOR DISTRIBUTION be overstated; if peoples’ brains cause them to engage in crime.” tests fail to support a theory, that theory is incor- Furthermore, suppose that one argues that science rect. It makes little sense to look at other aspects of is unable to detect little green creatures through the theory if it fails to work in the real world. brain scans or other technology and that people are Unfortunately, most theories of crime are never © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC generally unaware of their existence. How could completely supported or refuted. Some empirical NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION

8 Crimin ol ogy: Theory, Research, and Policy

figure 1-1 Evaluating theories.

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FORtests SALE may OR support DISTRIBUTION the theory; others might offer NOT FORThe firstSALE point OR would DISTRIBUTION be rather easy to demon- partial support; and still others may refute the the- strate. Ask a group of people to report how many of ory. It may also be necessary to compare different their closest friends have been arrested for a crime. theories against each other and consider23: Also ask them to report their own criminal behav-

OO The amount of empirical support (confirming ior. If those with criminal friends are more likely to © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC evidence). engage in crime themselves, a relationship was es- NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONtablished (mathematically,NOT this FOR is SALE called OR a DISTRIBUTION OO The scope of coverage (breadth of explanation correlation). The second point, called time order- offered). ing, is a little more difficult to verify. The researcher OO The weight of statistical evidence. must demonstrate that these individuals had crimi- The© Jones final question & Bartlett suggests Learning, that not allLLC empiri- nal friends before© Jones they & engaged Bartlett in Learning,crime (i.e., theLLC cal tests are the same. How much weight to put on NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION factor that doesNOT the FOR causing SALE must OR happen DISTRIBUTION before the an individual study depends on how confident the effect). Demonstrating this is important because the researcher is in the research design. Some research relationship between criminal friends and criminal designs are better than others at demonstrating behavior might be the result of criminals wanting to cause-and-effect relationships. hang out together. In other words, engaging in © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jonescriminal & behaviorBartlett might Learning, cause peopleLLC to seek out NOT FORDemonstrating SALE OR DISTRIBUTION Cause and Effect NOTother FOR criminals. SALE OROne DISTRIBUTIONway to demonstrate time or- A number of ways are available to test theories of dering is to conduct a longitudinal study. The crime. Because most theories predict cause-and- researcher could measure criminal friends at one effect relationships (e.g., poverty causes crime), a point in time and then measure criminal behavior six months later and then further on in time. As- good empirical test tries© Jones to establish & Bartlett that certain Learning, fac- LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC suming that the researcher can establish time tors have a causal relationshipNOT FOR with SALE crime. ORTo clarify DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION this point, an example may be useful. Start with a ordering, they can move to the third point. simple theory: Hanging around with criminal A relationship is considered spurious when, friends causes criminal behavior. To establish cau- even though two things are related, one does not sation, a test needs to demonstrate three things: cause the other. For example, suppose that a sur- © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC vey of residents© Jones in a city & Bartlettrevealed thatLearning, “time spent LLC 1. Having criminal friends is related to criminal in the past week riding a bicycle” was correlated behavior.NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION (related) to engaging in vandalism. People who re- 2. Having criminal friends happens before engag- ported riding a bicycle were more likely to have ing in criminal behavior. also engaged in vandalism. Does this mean that the 3. The relationship between criminal friends and act of riding a bicycle caused people to vandalize © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC criminal behavior is not spurious. property? A more plausible explanation is that NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION

chapter 1 Crime and Criminology 9

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones & Bartlettyounger Learning,people were LLCmore likely to ride bikes (be-© Jonesdifferences & Bartlett between Learning, the two LLC groups is the experi- cause they do not yet have a driver’s license) and mental treatment. Thus, if a pill designed to reduce NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALEvandalize OR property.DISTRIBUTION Isolating causes of crime (and headaches does so in the experimental group, and excluding spuriousness) is the most difficult chal- there’s no improvement in the control group, this lenge of doing research in criminology. How is very persuasive evidence that the pill works. Un- spuriousness is dealt with depends largely on re- fortunately, many of the factors of interest to search methods.© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLCcriminologists cannot be© assessedJones &through Bartlett experi- Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONments. A criminologistNOT cannot, FOR SALE for example, OR DISTRIBUTION Experimental Designs randomly assign children to “poverty” and “no- Experimental research designs are the most effi- poverty” conditions and assess their criminality. cient way to establish cause-and-effect relationships Nevertheless, some criminologists do use ex- and© Jones exclude & spuriousness.Bartlett Learning, Although LLC there are perimental© Jones methods & Bartlettto study crime.Learning, One wayLLC to many variations, the basic experimental design is test a theory is to follow its policy implications and NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION illustrated in Figure 1-2 . The key to the experi- see whether the policy that was developed reduces mental method is the random assignment of crime. For example, many sociological and psy- subjects to control and experimental groups. If the chological theories of crime identify “targets” (e.g., sample is large enough, random assignment leads procriminal attitudes, delinquent friends) for reha- © Jones & Bartlettto groups Learning, that are equivalent LLC on all factors, mea-© Jonesbilitation & Bartlett programs. Learning, If changing LLC these targets NOT FOR SALEsured OR or DISTRIBUTION not. For example, one would expectNOT FORreduces SALE crime, OR the DISTRIBUTION theory behind the target is sup- roughly the same number of males, overweight in- ported. Researchers can randomly assign offenders dividuals, people with high IQs, and so forth in to either a rehabilitation program or a control each group. The experimental group receives some group and see whether the rehabilitation program form of treatment,© whereasJones the& Bartlett other group, Learning, known LLCreduces future criminal© behaviorJones & or Bartlett recidivism. Learning, LLC as the control, does not. Criminologists have also manipulated policing In drug studies,NOT participantsFOR SALE in OR the DISTRIBUTION control practices, using randomNOT assignment FOR SALEto dictate OR how DISTRIBUTION group are often given a placebo (typically a sugar police respond to a domestic violence dispute or pill) to exclude the possibility that subjects would how they patrol cities. Finally, researchers some- report improvement simply because they received times capitalize on natural experiments, where some© Jones treatment. & Bartlett The power Learning, of the LLCexperimental conditions© Jones in the & environment Bartlett Learning, naturally LLC allow designNOT FOR is that SALE the onlyOR DISTRIBUTION thing that could cause comparisonsNOT betweenFOR SALE two similar OR DISTRIBUTION groups.

Experimental © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jonesgroup & Bartlett Learning, LLC

NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT• Treatment FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION

10 Crimin ol ogy: Theory, Research, and Policy

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones Nonexperimental& Bartlett Learning, Designs LLC © Jonesexplanation & Bartlett is preferable. Learning, Scope LLC refers to what a Despite the many examples of experimental re- particular theory can explain. A theory that ex- NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION search in criminology, most research on theories of plains “criminal behavior” is better than a theory crime continues to involve nonexperimental meth- that explains only “burglary committed by youth ods. Typically, a sample of individuals are surveyed gangs.” This is the principle of scope. Grand theo- and asked questions relevant to a particular theory. ries (wide scope) strive to explain all types of For example, they may© Jones be asked & to Bartlett report on Learning, their criminalLLC behavior. For example,© Jones Gottfredson & Bartlett and Learning, LLC attitudes, behaviors (includingNOT FOR criminal SALE behavior),OR DISTRIBUTION Hirschi argue that their generalNOT theory FOR of SALE crime ex-OR DISTRIBUTION and/or social circumstances. Sometimes research- plains all forms of criminal behavior, in addition to ers also have people complete tasks to measure similar behaviors (adultery, cigarette smoking) such constructs as “impulsivity” or IQ. Criminolo- that are noncriminal. Combining scope and parsi- gists ©also Jones use information & Bartlett collected Learning, by government LLC mony, a good© Jones theory &is Bartlettone that Learning,explains a lotLLC agencies, such as arrest records or census data. Re- (scope) with very few concepts (parsimony). NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION gardless of how the information is obtained, nonexperimental methods share a common problem: although they are useful in establishing Organizing Theories of Crime whether two things are related (correlation), they © Jones &are Bartlett not very Learning,efficient at excluding LLC spuriousness. © JonesA student’s & Bartlett first exposure Learning, to scientific LLC theories of NOT FOR SALETo demonstrate OR DISTRIBUTION cause-and-effect relationships NOTcrime FOR is SALE often lessOR DISTRIBUTION than pleasant. Some of this in a nonexperimental design, the researcher must frustration stems from the sense that there is evi- (1) identify and measure those factors that might dence both for and against most theories. As seen, render a relationship spurious and then (2) control however, not all research studies are equal. Through- out the theory chapters, those studies with strong for those factors in a© mathematical Jones & Bartlett model. For Learning, ex- LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC ample, recall the hypothetical relationship between research designs are highlighted to give a sense of NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION bicycling and vandalism. A criminologist could sta- where the “weight of the evidence” lies. Another tistically control the effects of age. If the relationship maddening aspect of theory is the sheer number of between vandalism and bicycling disappears after theories and authors. To help students cope with this control, the relationship is spurious. The major this issue, the following sections outline several limitation© Jones of this & Bartlettapproach Learning,is that the researcherLLC ways to classify© Jones theories & into Bartlett meaningful Learning, categories. LLC mustNOT identify, FOR measure, SALE andOR controlDISTRIBUTION for many fac- NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION tors that might make a relationship spurious. This Theories of “Lawmaking, Lawbreaking, limitation often leaves an empirical study open for and Reaction to Lawbreaking” criticism because someone can point to an impor- As noted earlier, Edwin Sutherland identified crim- tant factor that was not statistically controlled. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jonesinology & as Bartlett the study Learning, of lawmaking, LLC lawbreaking, However, nonexperimental research is still and the response to lawbreaking.25 This definition NOT FORworthy SALE of OR consideration. DISTRIBUTION Indeed, as pointed out NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION earlier, many theoretical concepts cannot be stud- ied experimentally. Furthermore, to the extent that many empirical studies (controlling each for different factors) find nonspurious© Jones &relationships, Bartlett Learning, one LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC can gain confidence thatNOT the FOR studies SALE have ORidentified DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION a true cause-and-effect relationship.

Scope and Parsimony Assuming© Jones that &a Bartletttheory has Learning, generated LLCsufficient © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC empiricalNOT support,FOR SALE other ORcriteria DISTRIBUTION can be applied to NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION identify “good” theories. The related concepts of parsimony and scope are two such criteria.24 A theory that uses only a few concepts to explain crime Does having friends who are smokers cause youth to smoke or © Jones &is Bartlettbetter than Learning, a theory thatLLC uses many concepts. © Jonesdo youth & who Bartlett are smokers Learning, hang out together? LLC What kind of study is necessary to answer such a question? NOT FORThis SALE is the OR principle DISTRIBUTION of parsimony: a more concise NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION

chapter 1 Crime and Criminology 11

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones & Bartlettof criminology Learning, is also LLCa useful way to categorize the© Joneshistorical & Bartlett theoretical Learning, traditions: LLC the classical and theories covered in this text. Theories of “law- positivist schools of crime. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALEbreaking” OR DISTRIBUTION are the most common and obvious. These theories seek to answer questions such as, “Why do people commit crimes?” or “What makes The Origins of some countries more prone to crime than others?” Criminological Theory Theories of lawmaking© Jones attempt & Bartlett to explain Learning, why LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC some acts are outlawedNOT FOR whereas SALE others OR are DISTRIBUTION not or When did humans first NOTbegin FORto devise SALE theories OR DISTRIBUTIONto why legal acts become illegal over time. Theories of explain criminal behavior? The answer depends the response to law violations concern the criminal greatly on what qualifies as a “theory.” table 1-1 il- justice system’s reaction to crime. Many “critical” lustrates the major schools of thought regarding the causes of crime. Throughout much of Western his- theories© Jones focus & Bartletton these latterLearning, two issues. LLC Such the- © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC ories might question why police arrest certain tory, the “demonic perspective” dominated thinking NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR26 DISTRIBUTION offenders and not others or why certain laws are about crime and punishment. Although the specif- enforced more stringently than others. ics differed according to the particular society and time, the gist of this perspective is that supernatural Macro- and Micro-Level Explanations forces cause criminal behavior. Quite literally, peo- © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jonesple &believed Bartlett that Learning, the devil (or LLC other demons) made Theories can also be classified by their level of anal- people commit crimes. In primitive societies, crimes NOT FOR SALEysis. ORSome DISTRIBUTION theories operate at the individual, NOTor FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION were viewed as acts against the gods, aided and abet- micro, level. A micro-level theory explains why ted by evil spirits.27 In that context, punishment was some individuals engage in crime and others do often designed to placate the gods. not. In contrast, a macro-level theory attempts to Throughout the Middle Ages (1200–1600) in explain differences© Jonesin groups. & BartlettFor example, Learning, a mac- LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC Europe, people who engaged in deviant, sinful, or ro-level theory might offer an explanation for why NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONcriminal behavior (especiallyNOT ifFOR they SALEwere women) OR DISTRIBUTION some neighborhoods have higher crime rates than were labeled “witches” and burned at the stake.28 others or why some countries have higher crime Brutal methods were often used to determine guilt rates than others. A simple trick to identify whether or innocence. Trial by ordeal involved subjecting a theory is macro or micro level is to look at what © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC the accused© Jones to some & formBartlett of painful Learning, torture—only LLC the theory predicts. If crime is expressed in “rates,” God’s intervention could demonstrate their inno- thenNOT it FORis a macro-level SALE OR theory DISTRIBUTION (only a group has a NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION cence. For example, the suspected witch would be rate). Most theories of crime (especially those in tied up and thrown into a body of water. If God al- biology and psychology) operate at the micro level, lowed the individual to float, he or she was focusing on the individual offender. innocent; if not, the unfortunate person was pre- © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jonessumed & Bartlett guilty and Learning, allowed to LLC drown.29 NOT FOR SALETheoretical OR DISTRIBUTION Traditions in CriminologyNOT FOR CorporalSALE OR punishments DISTRIBUTION (e.g., gibbeting, ear clip- In some disciplines (particularly sociology), theo- ping, drawing and quartering, dismembering, ries develop as a tradition. The basic thrust of the blinding, burning, and branding) were frequently theory remains the same, but different authors up- used in Europe and America as late as 1700. Power- date, revise, and ©change Jones the &particulars Bartlett of Learning, a theory. LLCless members of society© (e.g., Jones slaves, & Bartlettwomen, andLearning, LLC For example, theNOT work FOR of Robert SALE Merton OR DISTRIBUTIONspawned children) were often theNOT targets FOR of corporal SALE punish- OR DISTRIBUTION several related “strain” theories that revised or ment.30 Mutilation and branding identified offenders changed some of his original ideas but maintained and sent a message to others. The punishments also the same core theme. These theoretical traditions were designed to purge the body of the offender of are another important tool for organizing theories evil and restore the community to its proper rela- of© crime—whereJones & Bartlett relevant, Learning, how these LLC traditions tionship© with Jones God. &31 Bartlett Again, the Learning, idea here LLCis that unfolNOTd FORis highlighted. SALE OR Of course,DISTRIBUTION the academic dis- crime wasNOT caused FOR largely SALE by ORdemonic DISTRIBUTION influence. Al- ciplines themselves offer a useful way to classify though the “devil made me do it” is certainly an theories; for example, Chapters 4 and 5 in this text explanation of criminal behavior, it is not a scien- are organized around the specific disciplines of tific theory. Supernatural forces cannot be observed, © Jones & Bartlettpsychology Learning, and biology. LLC On a much broader scale,© Jonesand & the Bartlett demonic Learning, perspective LLC (like our “little green NOT FOR SALEstudents OR DISTRIBUTION can locate theories of crime in twoNOT FORcreature” SALE example) OR DISTRIBUTION is therefore not testable. Toward

12 Crimin ol ogy: Theory, Research, and Policy

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones & TABLEBartlett 1-1 Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FORM SALEajor Schools OR DISTRIBUTIONof Thought in Criminology NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION School of Thought Cause of Crime Implication for Criminals Demonic perspective Demonic possession, God’s will, or Brutal corporal punishments designed to placate the gods, other supernatural forces cause crime. cleanse the community, and identify individuals as deviant. Classical school Crime is the result of a rational Swift, certain, severe punishment within the framework of a ©decision Jones based & Bartlett on a calculation Learning, of rational LLC legal system will deter criminal© Jones behavior. & Punishment Bartlett Learning, LLC NOTcosts FORand benefits. SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONshould fit the crime. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION Positivist school Criminal behavior is determined by Advocate a medical model (and reject the importance of biological, social, or psychological punishment). Individuals are “treated” based on the set of factors outside of a person’s control. factors that caused them to engage in crime. The punishment (rehabilitation) should fit the individual. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION the end of the 1700s, the demonic perspective was ment is desirable only as it helps to prevent challenged by a group of philosophers who came to crime and does not conflict with the ends of be called classical school criminologists. justice.

OO The purpose of punishment is to deter persons © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC The Classical School of Crime from the commission of crime, not to give soci- NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION The Age of Enlightenment burned hot in Europe ety an opportunity for revenge. during much of the 18th century. Enlightenment OO Desirable criminal procedure calls for the open thinkers such as John Locke and Jean-Jacques publication of all laws, speedy trials, humane Rousseau challenged the prevailing belief that God treatment of the accused, and the abolishment (or demons) directly© determined Jones & humanBartlett behavior. Learning, LLCof secret accusations and© Jones torture. & Moreover, Bartlett Learning, LLC Rather, they believedNOT that GodFOR instilled SALE in OR humans DISTRIBUTION the accused must have NOTevery rightFOR and SALE facility OR DISTRIBUTION the capacity to exercise free will and the ability to to bring forward evidence. choose a course of behavior through reason. Schol- OO The criminal code should be written with all ars such as Cesare Beccaria used this general offenses and punishments defined in advance. platform© Jones to argue & Bartlett for legal Learning, reform. In LLCdoing so, © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC OO The criminal law should be restricted in its theseNOT penal FOR reformers SALE also OR articulated DISTRIBUTION a scientific NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION theory of criminal behavior.32 scope because it can result in the curtailment To appreciate the importance of the legal re- of freedoms. forms advocated by Beccaria, one first needs to OO The presumption of innocence should be the understand the state of the legal system at the time in guiding principle at all stages of the justice pro- © Jones &which Bartlett he wrote. Learning, Laws were LLC vague, and judges often © Jonescess. & IndividualBartlett Learning,rights must LLCbe protected. NOT FORinterpreted SALE OR them DISTRIBUTION to suit their own interests. Those NOT FORBeccaria SALE deserves OR DISTRIBUTION much credit for “pulling to- accused of crimes had few legal protections. The gether many of the most powerful 18th century state provided neither legal assistance nor access to ideas of democratic liberalism” and connecting family and friends and commonly used torture to them to issues of criminal justice.38 His ideas di- obtain confessions. Witnesses testified against the © Jones & Bartlett Learning,rectly LLC influenced the American© Jones Bill of& RightsBartlett as Learning, LLC accused in secret proceedings. Punishments for those NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONwell as the Declaration of theNOT Rights FOR of SALE Man and OR DISTRIBUTION found guilty included whipping, branding, mutila- Citizen, the precursor to the French constitution 33, 34 tion, and death by various means. of 1791.39 The linchpin that holds together all of Rebelling against the brutal and arbitrary na- Beccaria’s legal reforms was the argument that a ture of the legal system, Beccaria argued that the properly designed legal system had the potential 35 function© Jones of law & was Bartlett to promote Learning, justice. LLC In his to prevent or© deterJones criminal & Bartlett behavior. Learning, Beccaria be-LLC 1764NOT essay FOR “On SALE Crimes OR and DISTRIBUTION Punishments,” he lieved that NOTbecause FOR humans SALE were OR DISTRIBUTIONrational, they formulated the following principles, which repre- would consider the consequences of their behav- sented a dramatic departure from the way in which ior before acting. Swift, certain, and sufficiently 36, 37 criminal law had previously been conceived: harsh punishment should therefore deter a ratio- © Jones &O O BartlettPrevention Learning, of crime LLCis more important than © Jonesnal actor & fromBartlett engaging Learning, in crime. LLC Beccaria argued NOT FOR SALEpunishment OR DISTRIBUTION for the crime committed. Punish- NOTthat FOR punishment SALE OR should DISTRIBUTION only be severe enough to

chapter 1 Crime and Criminology 13

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones & Bartlettdeter crime Learning, and denounced LLC the use of the death© Jones of & the Bartlett scientific Learning, method to LLC study the causes of penalty.40 crime was known as positivism.42 NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALEAnother OR DISTRIBUTION influential scholar and reformer of the The history of scientific inquiry into criminal classical school of criminology was Jeremy Bentham, behavior is uneven—several pioneers in scientific who embraced Beccaria’s ideas and made contribu- criminology predate Auguste Comte’s positivism. tions to his deterrence theory. Specifically, Bentham For example, Benjamin Rush (United States) and described human© decision Jones making& Bartlett as a Learning,hedonistic LLCPhilippe Pinel (France),© writing Jones in & the Bartlett late 1700s, Learning, LLC calculus. In otherNOT words, FOR people SALE will act OR in DISTRIBUTIONways that argued that serious, repeatNOT criminal FOR SALE behavior OR was DISTRIBUTION maximize positive outcomes and minimize negative caused by “moral insanity,” a mental disease.43 De- ones. Naturally, a person commits a crime because spite these early efforts to scientifically study crime, of the perception that the benefits of the act are positivism did not gain wide acceptance until the greater© Jones than &the Bartlett costs of Learning,punishment. LLCThe corollary mid 1800s.© Jones During & this Bartlett time, for Learning, example, Charles LLC to this is that punishment should be painful enough Darwin’s Origin of Species (1859) outlined the the- NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION to outweigh the pleasure of the criminal act. ory of evolution. Like Beccaria, Bentham believed that the pur- Influenced by Darwin’s theory of evolution, the pose of punishment should be crime prevention and first widely acknowledged positivist theories of that punishment must be proportional to the sever- crime focused on biology. For example, phrenolo- © Jones & Bartlettity of the Learning, crime to have LLC a deterrent effect. Moreover,© Jones gists & likeBartlett Franz Learning,Joseph Gall LLCstudied the pattern of NOT FOR SALEthe severity OR DISTRIBUTION of punishment should be directly pro-NOT FORbumps SALE on the OR skull DISTRIBUTION and attempted to correlate them portionate to the number of persons injured by the to criminal behavior. Cesare Lombroso, building off crime. Although some of their ideas are taken for Darwin’s theory of evolution, argued that some granted today, classical theorists were liberal re- criminals were evolutionary throwbacks to a more formers who sought© Jones to restate & Bartlett the definitions Learning, of LLCprimitive species. Over time,© Jones biology & gaveBartlett way toLearning, a LLC crime and to reformulate punishments. Their pro- psychology/psychiatry focus on “feeble-mindedness” posed legal reformsNOT were FOR revolutionary—a SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONcomplete and mental disease. DuringNOT the FOR 20th century,SALE OR socio- DISTRIBUTION break with customary practices. As a theory of logical positivism dominated criminology and found crime, the classical school idea of deterrence is rela- causes of crime in social factors such as learning tively simple: People will refrain from crime if experience and poverty. punishment© Jones & is Bartlettswift, certain, Learning, and sufficiently LLC severe. Regardless© Jones of the& Bartlett particular Learning, discipline orLLC his- BecauseNOT FOR empirical SALE tests OR of DISTRIBUTIONthis proposition are pos- torical timeNOT frame, FOR positivistSALE OR theories DISTRIBUTION share some sible, it represented a dramatic departure from the commonality. Positivists are committed to the use demonic perspective. Classical school theory domi- of the scientific method to study the causes of nated criminological thought into the late 1800s, crime. They emphasize methodological issues such until it was challenged by a new group of theorists. as proper data collection, statistical sampling, and © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jonesthe & validity Bartlett and Learning,reliability of LLCmeasurement.44 Crimi- NOT FOR SALEThe PositivistOR DISTRIBUTION School of Crime NOT FORnologist SALE C. OR Ray DISTRIBUTION Jeffery outlined several other The influence of the classical school of criminology precepts of positivist criminology and contrasted began to wane in the late 1800s. One reason for them with the classical school. According to Jeffery, this decline was that changes in the legal system the positivist school advocated the following:45 based on classical© Jonestheory failed& Bartlett to reduce Learning, crime LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC OO A rejection of punishment and its replacement (i.e., crime rates continuedNOT FOR to SALEincrease). OR41 MoreDISTRIBUTION im- NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION portantly, the underlying assumption of the with treatment based on the medical (rehabili- classical school—that behavior was the result of tation) model. rational calculation—was criticized for being too OO A rejection of free will and its replacement with simplistic. Throughout the 1700s, scientists such scientific determinism. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC as Galileo and Newton made great discoveries OO A rejection of the study of criminal law and its NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION about the workings of the physical world. These replacement with a study of the individual demonstrations of cause-and-effect relationships offender and his or her medical, psychological, were made through careful observation and analy- and social characteristics. sis of natural events. It was not long before scholars © Jones & Bartlettapplied thisLearning, scientific LLC method beyond the physical© Jones &The Bartlett positivist Learning, school of crime,LLC like the classical NOT FOR SALEworld OR to theDISTRIBUTION social world. In criminology, the useNOT FORschool, SALE had OR a greatDISTRIBUTION deal of influence on the

14 Crimin ol ogy: Theory, Research, and Policy

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones operation& Bartlett of Learning, the criminal LLC justice system. In the © JonesThe & applied Bartlett nature Learning, of criminology LLC is illustrated United States, rehabilitation (the medical model) by the research questions that are addressed in NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FORemerged SALE ORas a DISTRIBUTIONprimary goal of the justice system criminological research. Gibbs identified four ma- during the early 1900s. The underlying assump- jor questions that criminologists traditionally tion of the medical model is that the factors that attempt to answer47: make a criminal can be identified and treatment 1. Why does the crime rate vary? plans can be formulated© Jones and administered & Bartlett to Learning, reha- LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC 2. Why do certain individuals and not others bilitate them. In the NOTmedical FOR model, SALE the offenderOR DISTRIBUTION is NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION commit crimes? viewed as a patient to be treated, not an evildoer to be punished. The “rehabilitative ideal” involved 3. Why is there variation in reactions to alleged isolating and correcting, within each individual, criminality? the specific© Jones deficits & Bartlett that led Learning,to his or her LLC criminal 4. What are© Jones the possible & Bartlett means Learning, of controlling LLC behavior. In that sense, the punishment must fit criminality? NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION46 NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION the offender, rather than the offense. The fourth question specifically deals with Although rehabilitation remained the domi- crime policy. Note, though, that the answer to the nant goal of corrections throughout much of the fourth question depends largely on responses to 1900s, the medical model was never fully realized. the first two questions. In other words, if one © Jones &The Bartlett seriousness Learning, of the crime LLC (and not the nature of © Jonesknows &what Bartlett causes Learning,crime, one is LLC better able to de- NOT FORthe SALE criminal), OR DISTRIBUTION for example, remained the primary NOTvelop FOR effective SALE policies. OR DISTRIBUTION determinant of the punishment. In other words, Similarly, Canton and Yates contend that crim- the punishment still tended to “fit the offense.” inology can inform criminal justice policy and Still, the rise of rehabilitation produced a number practice by answering three key questions48: of innovations that remain© Jones part of& theBartlett current Learning, crim- LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC inal justice system. For example, many states 1. What is to be done with offenders? embraced indeterminateNOT sentencing, FOR SALE where OR offend- DISTRIBUTION 2. What is to be done aboutNOT crime? FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION ers were incarcerated without a firm release date 3. What is to be done for (or on behalf of) victims (e.g., 20 years to life). Parole boards emerged as a of crime? way to judge when offenders, based on their treat- Theory, coupled with sound research, should ment© progress, Jones should& Bartlett be released. Learning, LLC help guide policymaking© Jones & Bartlett throughout Learning, the criminal LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION justice system.NOT Empirically FOR SALE supported OR DISTRIBUTION theory can The Classical and Positivist Schools— provide clues for the passage of legislation and the Where Do We Stand Now? sound operation of social programs. To proceed The positivist school of criminology has dominat- without theoretical guidance is to take a shot in © Jones &ed Bartletttheorizing Learning, since it replaced LLC the classical school. © Jonesthe dark—there & Bartlett is noLearning, logical basis LLC to assume that Classical school theorizing, however, made a NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOTa particularFOR SALE program OR DISTRIBUTION will work. Policy prescrip- comeback in the 1970s. A number of theories de- tions based on theories that are not supported rived from the classical school (called neoclassical empirically are also unlikely to work. Unfortu- theories) now compete with positivist theories for nately, crime policy often violates these principles; acceptance. programs with little theoretical guidance emerge © Jones & Bartlett Learning,time LLC and again. Thus, students© Jones need & to Bartlett be pre- Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONpared with a firm groundingNOT FOR in theoretical SALE OR DISTRIBUTION Crime Policy criminology and an understanding of how these theories can be applied to policy and practice in A tenet of this book is that theory and policy are criminal justice.49 intimately related. To be sure, criminology is an “applied”© Jones social & Bartlett science. Learning, In other LLC words, © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC criminologistsNOT FOR investigate SALE OR crime DISTRIBUTION in order to gener- Policy WithoutNOT FOR Theory— SALE OR DISTRIBUTION ate practical solutions to the problem. Theory and The Case of Intensive Supervision research on the causes of crime and criminal be- To illustrate the need to link theory with policy, havior can provide information that can be used consider the highly praised intensive supervision © Jones &either Bartlett to prevent Learning, crime from LLC occurring or to lessen © Jonesprograms & Bartlett(ISPs). These Learning, programs LLC reflect the belief NOT FORits SALE impact OR on society.DISTRIBUTION NOTthat FOR probation/parole SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONofficers can do a better job of

chapter 1 Crime and Criminology 15

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones & Bartlettmonitoring Learning, and supervising LLC high-risk offenders© if Jonestherapists & Bartlett receive Learning, extensive training LLC and support and the officers’ caseloads are smaller. ISPs emerged in are held accountable for the progress (or lack thereof) NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALEthe 1980s OR DISTRIBUTIONas a potential solution to the crowding of offenders. Also, treatment plans are individualized problem in U.S. jails and prisons. One attractive fea- to the needs/problems of each offender, and each ture of intensive supervision is that it pleases people treatment has multiple targets for change. A central with conflicting views. ISPs promise to increase sur- reason for success, however, is that MST identifies veillance (protect© society), Jones provide & Bartlett more Learning,treatment, LLCknown (from theory and© empirical Jones &research) Bartlett causes Learning, LLC and reduce the sizeNOT of jail FOR and SALE prison populations—OR DISTRIBUTIONof delinquency and targetsNOT these FOR factors SALE for change.OR DISTRIBUTION yet, the emergence of intensive supervision took For example, parental discipline is a key factor in place in “the absence of any true theory that more several theories of crime, and empirical research supervision will lead to lower recidivism rates.”50 consistently demonstrates that lax supervision and © JonesResearch & Bartlett on intensive Learning, supervision LLC initially harsh/inconsistent© Jones & punishment Bartlett Learning, promote LLC delin- found that it led to higher rates of probation revo- quency. Therefore, theory dictates that improving NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION cation and had little influence on recidivism (repeat the disciplining skills of the parents of delinquents offending).51 In fact, had ISP supporters reviewed should lead to a reduction in recidivism. research from the 1960s, they would have discov- ered that lowering probation caseloads did not © Jones & Bartlettreduce recidivism. Learning,52 Although LLC research on ISPs was© Jones &L Bartlettimitations Learning, of LLC NOT FOR SALElargely OR negative, DISTRIBUTION it did provide information thatNOT FOR CSALEriminological OR DISTRIBUTION R esearch suggested conditions under which these programs might be more successful. In particular, the reha- One purpose of research is to validate or test the bilitative aspects of the program (providing better accuracy of theories, yet the most common conclu- 53 services and referrals)© Jones have & Bartlett proven effective.Learning, LLCsion of criminological© researchJones & isBartlett that more Learning, LLC There is evidence that ISPs that implemented the information on a given subject is needed before suggested changesNOT achieved FOR SALEreductions OR inDISTRIBUTION recidi- any definite conclusionsNOT can be FOR drawn. SALE There OR are DISTRIBUTIONat vism rates.54, 55 least three reasons for this. First, criminology is a part of the research tradition in sociology. One norm of sociological Theoretically© Jones & Bartlett Informed Learning, Policy— LLC research,© established Jones & primarilyBartlett byLearning, German sociolo- LLC TheNOT Case FOR of SALE Multisystemic OR DISTRIBUTION Therapy gist MaxNOT Weber FOR (1864–1920) SALE OR is DISTRIBUTIONthat the research In contrast to ISPs, multisystemic therapy (MST) is and its results should be value free. Weber con- based explicitly on well-known and empirically tended that if researchers sought definite supported theories of crime. Developed by psy- conclusions, their work could be biased by their chologist Scott Henggeler and his associates, MST desire to achieve certain results. The primary aim © Jones & Bartlettis a community-based Learning, LLC treatment program that tar-© Jonesof sociological& Bartlett researchLearning, was LLC to generate accurate, NOT FOR SALEgets many OR DISTRIBUTIONknown causes of delinquency and crime.NOT FORunbiased, SALE and OR objective DISTRIBUTION data—not to draw conclu- The targets of MST are drawn from several empiri- sions. As a result, some criminological studies do cally supported theories of crime, including social not contain policy recommendations on crime. learning theory, social control theory, and cogni- Second, most criminological studies are based tive theory. Examples© Jones of treatment & Bartlett targets Learning, include LLCon limited data. Because© all Jones statistical & Bartlett analyses ofLearning, a LLC parental supervisionNOT and FOR discipline, SALE antisocialOR DISTRIBUTION atti- given sample reflect probabilities,NOT FOR a SALE small sampleOR DISTRIBUTION tudes, association with delinquent peers, and the increases the chance of drawing erroneous conclu- mix of rewards and punishments for antisocial be- sions. The possibility always exists that the havior.56 MST has accumulated a track record of conclusions based on a single study are wrong and success, reducing crime substantially among seri- that the patterns found in the sample under study ous/chronic© Jones & offenders, Bartlett including Learning, inner-city LLC juvenile may not© truly Jones exist & in Bartlett the general Learning, population. LLC The delinquents,NOT FOR SALEadolescent OR sex DISTRIBUTION offenders, and abusive possibilityNOT of inaccurateFOR SALE findings OR DISTRIBUTIONcauses criminolo- parents. This track record has led some scholars to gists to be cautious. conclude that MST is perhaps the best treatment Third, criminological studies are not always option available to reduce recidivism.57 methodologically sound. For example, Robert © Jones & BartlettHow Learning, has MST achieved LLC this success? Part of the© Jones Martinson & Bartlett reviewed Learning, studies LLC and research reports NOT FOR SALEanswer OR lies DISTRIBUTION in the structure of the program: MSTNOT FORpublished SALE betweenOR DISTRIBUTION 1945 and 1967 on the

16 Crimin ol ogy: Theory, Research, and Policy

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones effectiveness& Bartlett Learning, of correctional LLC treatment. He in- © JonesExperiments & Bartlett on Learning, the LLC cluded only those studies that met the following NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOTImpact FOR SALE of Mandatory OR DISTRIBUTION Arrest in methodologic criteria: “[They] had to employ an Domestic Violence Cases independent measure of the improvement secured by that method, and [they] had to use some control A third example of overgeneralization occurred with group, some untreated individuals with whom the domestic violence experiments. Lawrence Sherman treated ones could be© compared.” Jones & 58Bartlett Reviewing Learning, over hasLLC conducted several studies© Joneson the impact & Bartlett of ar- Learning, LLC 20 years of research,NOT Martinson FOR SALE found ORonly DISTRIBUTION 231 rest in domestic violence cases.NOT In FOR the firstSALE study, OR DISTRIBUTION studies that met these basic standards of research. suspects in Minneapolis were randomly assigned to Based on this information, the “Martinson report” one of three potential responses by the police: (1) reached this now-famous conclusion: “With few arrest, (2) threat of arrest (with the suspect leaving and isolated© Jones exceptions, & Bartlett the Learning, rehabilitative LLC efforts the home), and© Jones (3) a “talking & Bartlett to” by theLearning, police (with LLC that have been reported so far have had no appre- the suspect left at the scene).75 The results support- NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION ciable effect upon recidivism.”59 ed the use of arrest in domestic violence cases as a A related research problem is overgeneraliza- way to protect the victim. The suspects who were tion, which relates to the scope of the applicability arrested had the lowest rate of recidivism.76, 77 of the research findings.60 Martinson’s own pessi- This study had a dramatic impact on policing © Jones &mistic Bartlett conclusion Learning, on LLC offender rehabilitation © Jonesin domestic & Bartlett violence Learning, cases. Although LLC the authors NOT FOR(“Nothing SALE OR works!”) DISTRIBUTION is an example of an overgener- NOTwere FOR careful SALE to recommendOR DISTRIBUTION against the passage of alization—one that he later recanted.61–63 Reviews mandatory arrest laws until further research was of rehabilitation programs have shown success in conducted, the results of the Minneapolis experi- the treatment of offenders.64–66 Latessa asserts that ment contributed to the passage of such laws in 15 78 correctional programs© haveJones become & Bartlett more evidence Learning, statesLLC by 1991. The study© Jones was replicated & Bartlett (re- Learning, LLC based and that correctional research can be used to peated with the same method in a different location) implement change andNOT improve FOR SALE programs OR whileDISTRIBUTION in Omaha,79 Charlotte,80 andNOT Milwaukee FOR SALE81, 82 with OR DISTRIBUTION holding both offenders and administrators ac- dissimilar results. Arresting domestic violence sus- countable for performance.67 Unfortunately, over- pects in both Omaha and Charlotte was no more generalization is far from uncommon—two effective than other methods of handling the case additional© Jones examples & Bartlett include Learning, research onLLC felony (e.g., citation© orJones advisement). & Bartlett Learning, LLC probationNOT andFOR domestic SALE violence.OR DISTRIBUTION In Milwaukee,NOT FOR Sherman SALE and ORhis colleagues DISTRIBUTION specifically examined the impact of arrest on domestic violence cases in poverty-stricken inner-city areas. Studies of Felony Probation The authors concluded that short-term arrest A classic example of overgeneralization is the study might even cause harm by increasing anger at soci- © Jones &by BartlettRand Corporation Learning, researchers LLC of felony proba- © Jonesety without & Bartlett increasing Learning, the fear of LLC rearrest.83 NOT FORtion SALE in California.OR DISTRIBUTION68 They reached the widely NOT FORSherman SALE and OR Berk DISTRIBUTION have been severely criticized publicized conclusion that these offenders repre- for the impact of their studies on public policy in sented a threat to public safety. Rand reported that domestic violence cases. Critics have chastised the 65% of felony probationers (offenders placed on researchers for failing to acknowledge that the use probation based on a© felony-level Jones & offense)Bartlett were Learning, re- of LLC arrest in domestic violence© cases Jones failed & toBartlett achieve Learning, LLC arrested within 2 yearsNOT of FORtheir release.SALE ORWhat DISTRIBUTION the the desired result upon replication.NOT FOR They SALE also note OR DISTRIBUTION media neglected to report was that the sample un- that the Minneapolis study resulted in a “dramatic der study was not representative of the California change in public policy with potentially substantial felony offender population. Moreover, the results negative effects on many people and an unwar- could not reflect felony probation recidivism rates ranted large expenditure of public monies.”84 across© theJones nation. & BartlettIndeed, replications Learning, of LLCthis study Sherman85 and© Jones Berk86 &countered Bartlett these Learning, objections LLC reportedNOT much FOR lower SALE rearrest OR DISTRIBUTION rates, ranging from by noting thatNOT three FOR of SALEthe six OR experiments DISTRIBUTION pro- 22% to 43%.69–74 Replication helps determine vided some evidence of deterrence and that they whether research findings and their policy implica- always fully listed the policy limitations of the find- tions are stable over time and place. Despite these ings of the studies. © Jones &replications, Bartlett Learning,the Rand study LLC was used to justify the © JonesAs &these Bartlett examples Learning, suggest, criminological LLC stud- NOT FORcreation SALE ofOR intensive DISTRIBUTION supervision programs. NOTies FOR must SALEbe interpreted OR DISTRIBUTION with caution. Sound policy

chapter 1 Crime and Criminology 17

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones & Bartlettshould onlyLearning, follow LLC accurate research. Research© JonesOO &The Bartlett criminal Learning, is distinctive, LLC unique, readily iden- should be replicated in other locations to be certain tifiable, and different (from “normal” people). NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION that results generated in one area apply to others. OO There are two kinds of people in society—good For these reasons, criminologists are often reluctant guys and bad guys. to reach definite conclusions based on their studies. A corollary view holds that theoretical state- © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLCments represent attempts© Jonesto provide & Bartletta defense Learning,for LLC criminals. The reality, however, is that crimino- NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION Theory Versus Streetwise logical theory attempts to explain—rather than excuse—criminal behavior. Criminology Still another version of this mentality can be Students are often frustrated by the failure of crimi- bluntly called the “asshole theory” of crime, by nology© Jones to provide & Bartlett certain Learning, and clear-cut LLC answers to which police© Jones officers & guideBartlett their Learning, actions in specific LLC theNOT crime FOR problem. SALE This OR frustrationDISTRIBUTION also promotes situations.NOT “Assholes” FOR SALE commit OR DISTRIBUTION crimes that are the view that theory is both illogical and impracti- motiveless, completely senseless, or otherwise ir- cal. Jeffery has accurately portrayed this attitude:87 rational. Carter relates this statement by a police officer/student:92 Theoretical courses are characterized as useless. “I © Jones & Bartlettwant some Learning, course material LLC that is relevant,” is the usual© JonesI’ve & heard Bartlett all the Learning,theories of crime. LLC Let me tell you, crime NOT FOR SALEstudent OR response DISTRIBUTION to the curriculum. When one asks,NOT FORis caused SALE by ORassholes. DISTRIBUTION That’s the asshole theory. If you “What is relevance?” it turns out to be vocational train- want to check that, come out on the street. See it like it is. ing in being a police [officer] or a corrections officer. Readers of this text, however, will discover that Clearly, these students are saying that “street theory does not always clash with street knowl- smarts” are more© valuable Jones than& Bartlett “book knowledge” Learning, LLCedge. In fact, theory is often© Jones verified & by Bartlett experience. Learning, LLC of criminal behavior.NOT One FOR exemplar SALE ofOR this DISTRIBUTION type of Students will find withinNOT many FOR theories SALE examples OR DISTRIBUTION thinking is the student who has worked or is work- of common-sense, streetwise factors that influence ing in the criminal justice system who believes that crime. the only legitimate source of knowledge is experience.© Jones Carter & summarizes Bartlett Learning, the argument: LLC88 The Utility© Jones of Criminological & Bartlett Learning, Theory LLC NOTNothing FOR personal, SALE but mostOR professorsDISTRIBUTION don’t know what A good NOTdeal of FOR frustration SALE exists OR DISTRIBUTIONover the apparent they are talking about. They sit on campus putting out inability of criminology to solve the crime prob- all this good shit about rehabilitation and causes of lem. Indeed, serious questions about the utility of crime. Most of them haven’t ever been on the street and criminological theory have arisen. Mary Tuck asserts the following:93 © Jones & Bartlettif you want Learning, to know what’s LLC happening, you have to be on© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC the street. Instead of telling us about crime, we ought to NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FORMany SALE argue ORthat criminologicalDISTRIBUTION theories have changed be telling them. If they would spend a couple of days so wildly over the years—that criminologists have often with us, they might find out what’s happening. No, they provided “the wrong” advice about policies now claimed don’t want to do that. It might upset all their theories. to be “right.” They have argued for rehabilitative custody and against it, for longer sentences and against Indeed, this belief© Jones is not & limited Bartlett to students. Learning, In LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC academia, one of its most vocal and visible adher- them; criminology both created the treatment model and NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION ents is George Kirkham. His experience as “the destroyed it. As for “the causes of crime”—you are as professor who became a cop” led him to first gently aware as I am that “you pay your money and you take admonish his colleagues to observe firsthand the your choice.” Even on supposedly narrow practical problems of police officers before criticizing them.89 questions . . . criminologists speak with no single voice. He© Joneslater turgidly & Bartlett stated thatLearning, a “criminologist LLC would As Austin© Jones indicates, & Bartlett when Learning,Congress and LLC state 90 notNOT know FOR a criminal SALE ifOR one DISTRIBUTION bit him on the ass.” legislaturesNOT consider FOR SALE crime OR legislation, DISTRIBUTION their first Another source of the street-smarts bias stems question is not, “What do the criminologists from what Carter calls the Dick Tracy Mentality. think?”94 However, Tuck also suggests that policies 91 This mindset is characterized by several beliefs: cannot proceed directly from any one criminological © Jones & BartlettOO The crimeLearning, fighter LLC is no mere mortal but, rather,© Jonestheory. & Bartlett They emerge Learning, from LLC debate—“the gradual NOT FOR SALEa ORSUPER DISTRIBUTION crime fighter. NOT FORworking SALE out ORof disagreement DISTRIBUTION and contradiction.”95

18 Crimin ol ogy: Theory, Research, and Policy

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones & BartlettSimilarly, Learning, Joan Petersilia LLC believes that this prob- © Jonesof critical & Bartlett analysis ofLearning, both issues LLC and actions; for lem stems from the development of criminology example, a theory that explains homicide may not NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FORinto SALE an academic OR DISTRIBUTION discipline. As academics, she ar- apply to serial or mass murder. How can social gues, criminologists have lost touch as they pursue learning theory provide an explanation for such theories rather than deal with day-to-day realities. disparate crimes as computer theft, insider stock As a result, they often lose sight of the value of prac- trading, and domestic violence? Is it possible that tical applications. Like© JonesTuck, Petersilia & Bartlett asserts Learning, that theLLC nature of crime is changing© Jones so rapidly & thatBartlett some Learning, LLC research can be an unimpeachableNOT FOR SALE guide ORto policy. DISTRIBUTION criminological theories areNOT no longer FOR SALE applicabl ORe DISTRIBUTION She argues that criminologists should strive for “re- without modification or even replacement?99 search [that] is more likely to influence the way Second, Williams criticizes the overconcentra- policymakers think about problems than to provide tion of criminology on empiricism—quantitative, 96 solutions© Jones ‘off the & shelf.’”BartlettFurthermore, Learning, LLCshe urges multivariate© analyses Jones of & large Bartlett data sets.Learning, The recent LLC criminologists to make clear the policy implications training of criminologists emphasizing quantitative NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION of their research findings. As noted throughout this skill “has raised methodology and large data sets text, this is not an easy task, but it is certainly es- above theory development.” Intuitive skills—the sential if criminology is to stay relevant. very skills needed to determine the policy implica- Criminology must also abandon the pretense of tions of any given research findings—are thus not © Jones &value-free Bartlett research Learning, and stateLLC how findings can be © Jonesdeveloped. & Bartlett One wonders Learning, how LLCwell the work of NOT FORbest SALE applied OR in DISTRIBUTION real-world situations. There is a rich NOTSutherland, FOR SALE Sykes, OR Matza,DISTRIBUTION and other qualitative tradition to draw from in this regard. From Beccaria analysts would be accepted today. Is quantitative and Bentham, Shaw and McKay, to Cloward and analysis the only route to scientific validity? Ohlin, criminologists have developed theories to Like Petersilia, Williams blames the demise of meet the problems of© theJones day and& Bartlett have sought Learning, to criminologicalLLC theory on the© emergenceJones & Bartlettof crimi- Learning, LLC apply them. As James Gilsinan has aptly noted, nal justice as an academic discipline. Williams “criminological theoryNOT has FORnever SALEbeen confined OR DISTRIBUTION to claims that the disciplineNOT emphasizes FOR SALE how theOR DISTRIBUTION the ivory tower.”97 Policy and criminology have a criminal justice system responds to crime—there- symbiotic relationship that forms a significant link fore, it ignores the behavior of criminals. Naturally, with research. Clearly, each cannot function effec- one can take exception to this characterization. tively© in Jones isolation. & TheoryBartlett organizes Learning, thoughts LLC about Academicians© Jonesin criminal & Bartlett justice programs Learning, may LLCbe crimeNOT and FORits causes; SALE research OR DISTRIBUTION tests the validity of more concernedNOT FOR with questionsSALE OR of DISTRIBUTION management theory. Policy is fed by both theory and research. (efficiency and effectiveness of policies and pro- For example, Gibbs declares that criminolo- grams), but many of them are or were practitioners gists must take up the question of crime control or have their academic training in applied areas and prevention:98 (e.g., public administration).100 © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © JonesSimilarly, & Bartlett L. Edward Learning, Wells notesLLC that research No scientific enterprise will be supported indefinitely NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOTand FOR policy SALE seem OR to “controlDISTRIBUTION the development of unless it benefits someone other than the scientists, and limited theories chosen to suit practical contingen- perhaps much of criminology’s support stems from a cies.”101 New models that promote deterrence and concern with crime prevention. There is simply no justi- incapacitation have not been supported by re- fication for the indifference of theorists to attempt to search, but they are still favored because they “are prevent criminality, including© Jones delinquency. & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONcloser to political sensibilitiesNOT and FOR more SALEconsistent OR DISTRIBUTION Criminology must return to its roots as an ap- with what people feel should be true.”102 plied social science. The complex nature of the crime problem demands that policy implications be developed through criminology. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC Politics:© Jones The &“ LBartletteft” and Learning, “R ight” LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION of CriminalNOT FOR Justice SALE ORPolicy DISTRIBUTION The Demise of the Although scientists often attempt to offer “value- Criminological Imagination? neutral” theories and research, the reality is that sci- Frank Williams has decried the “demise of the ence occurs within the political landscape of society. © Jones &criminological Bartlett Learning, imagination.” LLC He cites three major © JonesCrime has& Bartlett been a major Learning, campaign LLC issue in almost NOT FORreasons SALE forOR thisDISTRIBUTION decline. First, there is a lack NOTevery FOR presidential SALE OR election DISTRIBUTION since 1964, and most

chapter 1 Crime and Criminology 19

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones & Bartlettvictors have Learning, made criminal LLC justice policy a central© Jonesissues & Bartlett and general Learning, assumptions” LLC of both conserva- theme in their administrations. For example, consis- tives and liberals regarding crime.105 Conservative NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALEtent withOR DISTRIBUTION his aim of creating a “Great Society” politicians tend to view crime as a “bad choice” through civil rights legislation and a war on poverty, made freely by an offender. Conservatives therefore President Lyndon Johnson made fighting crime an view the criminal as directly responsible for his or integral part of his programs. Democrats Johnson her own behavior. Their ideology is consistent with and later Jimmy Carter© Jones were & guided Bartlett by the Learning, promise LLCthe classical school of crime.© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC of distributive justiceNOT: FORthat increased SALE OReconomic DISTRIBUTION op- Furthermore, traditionalNOT FORconservative SALE ORvalues DISTRIBUTION portunity is the best defense against crime. President include discipline and respect for authority. There- Bill Clinton emphasized community policing—an fore, they see the following as the most important approach that attempts to foster closer relationships causes of crime:106 between© Jones police & Bartlett and citizens. Learning, In contrast LLC to this lib- OO Excessive© Jones leniency & Bartlett toward lawbreakers;Learning, LLC eral tradition, Republicans such as Richard Nixon, NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OO EmphasisNOT onFOR the SALEwelfare andOR rightsDISTRIBUTION of lawbreak- Gerald Ford, Ronald Reagan, and George H. W. ers at the expense of the welfare and rights of Bush generally took the more conservative law and victims, law enforcement officials, and law- order stance against crime, emphasizing individual abiding citizens; responsibility, deterrence, and retribution.103 OO Erosion of discipline and respect for authority; © Jones & BartlettEach Learning, president was LLC aware of the political capital© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC and NOT FOR SALEthat couldOR DISTRIBUTION be generated by addressing the crimeNOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OO Excessive permissiveness in society. problem, and each dealt with the issue in ways that reflected his own political ideologies. For example, In contrast, liberals are generally dissatisfied as part of his campaign to promote a new federal- with the present social order and emphasize dys- ism, Nixon cut the strings attached to the Law En- functional elements of the criminal justice system © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC 107© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC forcement Assistance Administration funds, such as the following: NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION allowing state and local governments to decide OO Overcriminalization; spending priorities. Ford established career crimi- OO Labeling and stigmatization; nal prosecution programs. In accord with his popu- OO Overinstitutionalization; list views, Carter stepped up federal efforts to OO Overcentralization of authority; and apprehend© Jones & and Bartlett prosecute Learning, white-collar LLC criminals. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC OO Discriminatory bias, especially racism and ReaganNOT FOR denounced SALE liberalOR DISTRIBUTION spending programs as sexism.NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION destructive to individual values and made the fight The schism between left and right is reflected against violent crime a priority of his administra- not only among politicians but among criminolo- tion. President George H. W. Bush derailed Demo- gists as well. On the right, the neoclassical school has cratic nominee Michael Dukakis’ bid for the © Jones & Bartlettpresidency Learning, with his LLCinfamous Willie Horton ads© Jonesa common& Bartlett interest Learning, in dealing with LLC predatory crimes and NOT FOR SALEthat paintedOR DISTRIBUTION Dukakis as a liberal who was moreNOT FORsubstantially SALE OR less interestDISTRIBUTION in the “root causes” of crime concerned with the rights of criminals than their that have entertained the more liberal social determin- victims. (Horton was a convicted murderer who ists for so long. The neoconservatives are concerned committed a violent rape and murder while on fur- more with dealing with the symptoms and intermediate lough from a Massachusetts© Jones & Bartlettprison.) During Learning, his LLCcorrelates of social problems© Jones than in & affecting Bartlett major Learning, LLC presidency, GeorgeNOT H. W.FOR Bush SALE continued OR DISTRIBUTION the Rea- changes in the social fabricNOT of society. FOR108 SALE OR DISTRIBUTION gan administration’s war on drugs. After the Sep- As noted previously, the neoclassical school has tember 11, 2001, tragedies, President George W. influenced criminal justice policy in several areas, Bush made terrorism his crime priority through the particularly with respect to career criminal laws and creation of the Department of Homeland Security. incapacitation. One leading advocate of this point © JonesFor all of& theBartlett rhetoric, Learning, however, crimeLLC policy is © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC of view is James Q. Wilson. In the provocative book notNOT a distinctFOR SALE entity. OR Criminal DISTRIBUTION justice policy does NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION Thinking About Crime, Wilson argues that the typi- not drive any administration’s programs; rather, it cal causal analysis of sociologists has nothing to do follows the same themes as other social policies—it with policy analysis:109 fits within a political ideology.104 Ideology is a set of © Jones & Bartlettrelatively Learning, unquestioned LLC assumptions about how the© JonesCausal & Bartlett analysis attempts Learning, to find theLLC source of human activ- NOT FOR SALEworld OR works. DISTRIBUTION Walter Miller outlined the “crusadingNOT FORity in SALE those factors OR whichDISTRIBUTION themselves are not caused, which

20 Crimin ol ogy: Theory, Research, and Policy

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones &are, Bartlett in the language Learning, of sociologists, LLC “independent vari- © Jonesshape criminology& Bartlett research,Learning, theories LLC of crime, and ables.” Ultimate causes cannot be the object of policy efforts crime policy. The value of science, however, is that NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION precisely because, being ultimate, they cannot be changed. theories of crime from both the left and the right are subject to the same empirical scrutiny. There is Policy analysis considers only the condition much to be learned, however, about how policy is that the government wishes to create. Its focus is made and implemented within a political context.119 on current circumstances,© Jones and its& Bartlettpurpose is Learning, iden- LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC tifying the forces the government can marshal to NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION bring the desired state into being. In fact, Wilson declares that there is no reason The Influence of Social 110 for criminologists to be policy analysts. He be- Context—The “Martinson lieves the policy analyst should ignore the study of the causes© Jones of crime & Bartlett and instead Learning, focus on LLC the ma- R eport”© Jones as a &Case Bartlett Study Learning, LLC nipulation of objective conditions because “the NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION As the precedingNOT discussionFOR SALE of ideologyOR DISTRIBUTION and poli- only instruments society has by which to alter be- tics makes clear, science does not operate in a com- havior in the short run require it to assume that pletely objective, value-neutral environment. people act in response to the costs and benefits of Social context shapes scientific research, theory, alternative courses of action.”111 Thus, Wilson ad- © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jonespolicy, & and Bartlett the law. Learning, The previously LLC discussed vocates such policies as the incapacitation of career “Martinson report” provides an illustration of how NOT FORcriminals, SALE OR a return DISTRIBUTION to foot patrols by police, and the NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION social context can shape the interpretation of re- continued criminalization of drugs. search results. As noted, Martinson concluded that Left-leaning criminologists identify with the few, if any, rehabilitation programs appeared to positivist school of crime and seek the root causes work. Many credit this report with ending rehabili- of criminal behavior.© Liberal Jones criminologists & Bartlett alsoLearning, at- LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC tation as a goal of corrections and ushering in a tempt to debunk the assumptions that inform the NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONconservative, get-tough approachNOT toFOR crime. SALE Did theOR DISTRIBUTION conservative law and order ideology in the United Martinson report, through a scientific review of the States.112–114 A leading critic of conservative crimi- literature, persuade lawmakers and scholars to nology is Elliot Currie. He considers crime a abandon rehabilitation? A careful analysis suggests symptom of such social problems as child poverty © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC otherwise. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC and abuse/neglect, inadequate public services, and First, Martinson was not the first scholar to re- economicNOT inequality.FOR SALE As ORa result, DISTRIBUTION Currie calls for NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION view the rehabilitation literature and conclude that the following reforms:115 rehabilitation programs appeared to be ineffective. OO We should move to reduce inequality and Between 1950 and 1966, several scholars reached poverty. equally pessimistic conclusions about scientific © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC OO We should move toward crime prevention evaluations of rehabilitation programs. The re- NOT FOR SALErather OR than DISTRIBUTION incapacitation. Prevention priori- NOTsponse, FOR however,SALE OR was DISTRIBUTION a call to find better programs, ties include preventing child abuse, enhanc- conduct better research, and enhance funding for ing children’s intellectual and social develop- rehabilitation. Also, few people are even aware that ment, and providing support to vulnerable Martinson recanted his original statements. If the adolescents. © Jones & Bartlett Learning,Martinson LLC report led to the demise© Jones of rehabilitatio & Bartlettn, Learning, LLC then why didn’t the recant have a similar influence? OO We should workNOT toward FOR a genuinely SALE OR support- DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION ive national family policy. Finally, positive findings in reviews of rehabilitation efforts in the 1980s and 1990s have been met OO We should begin assuming greater responsibil- with a great deal of skepticism.120 ity for the economic and social stability of local Why did the Martinson report generate such communities. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC interest, and© whyJones was & it Bartlett interpreted Learning, as the death LLC OO WeNOT need FOR to SALElearn more OR DISTRIBUTIONabout how to create knell of rehabilitation?NOT FOR SALEThe answer OR DISTRIBUTIONlies largely in comprehensive strategies for high-risk com- the social context of the late 1960s and early 1970s. munities and understand why some societies This was a period of great social change in Amer- 116–118 have lower crime rates than others. ica—events such as the Vietnam War, the Watergate © Jones & BartlettClearly, politicsLearning, cannot LLC be divorced from policy- © Jonesscandal, & civil Bartlett rights Learning,protests, the LLCKent State Univer- NOT FORmaking. SALE Ideas OR DISTRIBUTIONfrom the left and the right will always NOTsity FOR shootings, SALE andOR theDISTRIBUTION Attica prison riot shaped

chapter 1 Crime and Criminology 21

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones & Bartlettthe social Learning, context. LLC For liberals, government© Jones 1. &Deviance Bartlett cuts Learning, through “red LLC tape.” The deviant responses to civil rights marchers and the Water- rebels against the categorical and stereotypical NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALEgate scandalOR DISTRIBUTION signified that the government could nature of the rules, often violating the rules to not be trusted at any task, including rehabilitation. accomplish organizational tasks. To conservatives, the “hippie movement” was evi- 2. Deviance acts as a “safety valve” for societal dence of a growing social disorder that a “get-tough pressures. The deviant prevents the excessive approach” might© correct.Jones Thus,& Bartlett by the Learning, time the LLC accumulation of discontent© Jones and & reducesBartlett strain Learning, LLC Martinson reportNOT appeared, FOR SALEmany criminologistsOR DISTRIBUTION on the legitimate order.NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION and other commentators had already concluded 3. Deviance clarifies the “rules.” The deviant en- 121 that rehabilitation was a failed endeavor. ables other members of society to learn what Apart from corrections policy, social context deviance is and how far one may safely venture. impacts which theories of crime gain popularity, © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC 4. Deviance© Jones unites & the Bartlett group againstLearning, the deviant. LLC how research findings are interpreted, and what NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION The NOTdeviant FOR provides SALE society OR DISTRIBUTION with a common areas within criminology are deemed important enemy. enough to study. For this reason, readers are encouraged to keep in mind the social context of 5. Deviance unites the group for the deviant. The research and theory; social context is discussed ex- deviant gives society an opportunity to save © Jones & Bartlettplicitly on Learning, a number LLCof occasions throughout the© Jones &and Bartlett reclaim Learning, or rehabilitate LLC the deviant. NOT FOR SALEremaining OR DISTRIBUTION chapters. NOT FOR 6. DevianceSALE OR accents DISTRIBUTION conformity. The deviant serves as a reference point against which conformity can be measured and gives others a feel- Crime as a Normal Phenomenon ing of self-satisfaction for adhering to the rules. 7. Deviance acts as a “warning signal.” The devi- © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC A common belief is that crime is something that ant alerts others to the defects in an organization can and must beNOT eliminated FOR SALE from society.OR DISTRIBUTION Presi- or society. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION dent Lyndon Johnson’s War on Crime in the Of course, there is a point at which crime be- 1960s and, more recently, President George H. W. comes dysfunctional. If a high level of crime Bush’s War on Drugs represent large-scale efforts becomes “normalized” or considered inevitable, to© reduceJones crime. & Bartlett These much-trumpedLearning, LLC campaigns the consequences© Jones can& Bartlett be devastating Learning, for a commu- LLC notwithstanding,NOT FOR SALE one OR needs DISTRIBUTION to consider what nity,124 NOT yet crime FOR andSALE deviance OR DISTRIBUTION are not always French sociologist Emile Durkheim (1858–1917) threatening. Although Durkheim and Cohen were wrote about crime through the course of writing about deviant behaviors such as political 122 history: protest and not murder, the message is that the elimination of crime cannot be accomplished. © Jones & BartlettCrime is Learning,present not only LLC in most societies of one particu-© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALElar species OR DISTRIBUTION but in societies of all types. There is no societyNOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION that is not confronted with the problem of criminality. What is normal is the existence of crime. Crime is nor- How to Study Crime mal because a society exempt from it is utterly impossible. Knowledge about crime stems from several sources, Even a community of saints will create sinners. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLCincluding personal experience© Jones and studies & Bartlett by others. Learning, LLC Clearly, DurkheimNOT FOR did notSALE mean OR that DISTRIBUTION it was Each source, however, NOT has its FOR own SALE problems OR and DISTRIBUTION desirable or even acceptable to kill one’s neighbor. limitations. Common-sense observations about Rather, he was pointing out that wherever there is crime may be limited to an individual’s own experi- conformity, there is also deviance—and some devi- ence and not reflect broader trends. Such a limited ance will inevitably be deemed criminal. perspective impedes one’s ability to understand the © JonesDurkheim & Bartlett also noted Learning, that deviance LLC is a prereq- nature of© crime. Jones As ¬ed Bartlett previously, Learning, scientific LLC stud- uisiteNOT forFOR social SALE change. OR WithoutDISTRIBUTION deviance, a soci- ies also mayNOT have FOR problems SALE with OR generalizability, DISTRIBUTION and ety stagnates. Cohen followed up on this interpretations of findings are always subject to the observation by outlining seven ways the deviant influence of social context. However, the construc- may make positive contributions to the success tion of theory, the development of hypotheses, and © Jones & Bartlettand vitality Learning, of societies: LLC123 © Jonesempirical & Bartlett testing Learning, provide the LLCbest promise of under- NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION

22 Crimin ol ogy: Theory, Research, and Policy

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones standing& Bartlett the crimeLearning, problem. LLC Such careful study both © Joneswhen studying& Bartlett a socialLearning, problem LLC like crime, re- generates and organizes data in a meaningful way. searchers are trying to explain it and figure out its NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALEWhere OR do DISTRIBUTIONthese limitations leave the student? causes. Explanations do more than describe what This book offers several suggestions on how the has happened. They give reasons for what has oc- reader should approach criminology. First, keep an curred—the “how” and the “why.” To be of open mind. One student probably will enthusiasti- practical value, explanations should improve the cally agree with certain© Jonestheories &about Bartlett the nature Learning, of abilityLLC to predict events © more Jones accurately & Bartlett than Learning, LLC criminal behavior andNOT the causesFOR SALEof crime; OR another DISTRIBUTION through common sense alone.NOT As noted,FOR SALEeach crim- OR DISTRIBUTION may violently disagree with others. (This is ideol- inological theory provides a set of causes. ogy at work.) Keep in mind, however, that the Good theory should be linked to reality through reader’s task here is to learn the components of research: The empirical testing of theory confers each ©theory Jones no & matter Bartlett what Learning, his or her LLC personal relevance—and© Jones criminological & Bartlett theory Learning, is no excep- LLC feelings may be. Only then can the student com- tion. This text presents the latest research on the NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION pare and contrast theories, see how they interact, various theories and reviews the policy implica- and synthesize them. Remember, too, that each tions of this research, but it will become clear that theory is a product of and is influenced by its so- the “doctors don’t always have the cure.” In other cial, intellectual, and historical context.125 words, physicians can often find the causes of an © Jones & BartlettSecond, studentsLearning, are cautioned LLC against discount- © Jonesillness (e.g.,& Bartlett AIDS), Learning,but they cannot LLC develop a cure. NOT FORing SALE a theory OR based DISTRIBUTION on the “exceptional case.” Students NOTThis FOR is alsoSALE frequently OR DISTRIBUTION the case in criminology. often cite the one instance, example, or individual Knowledge of the nature of the problem is no guar- that the theory fails to explain. There are always ex- antee that a solution will be found. Unfortunately, ceptions to the rule, but they are just that—exceptions such knowledge is also no consolation to the vic- beyond the average.© ForJones example, & Bartlett many peopleLearning, timsLLC of crime. Approaches ©to Jonesthe crime & Bartlettproblem, Learning, LLC know a person who smoked cigarettes their whole however, should have a firm foundation—one pro- life and did not die ofNOT cancer. FOR Does SALE this meanOR DISTRIBUTION that vided by both theory and research,NOT FOR not guesswork. SALE OR DISTRIBUTION cigarettes do not cause cancer? Try to examine the strengths and weaknesses of each theory in its own context. In other words, apply another of Max We- Conclusion ber’s ©sociological Jones & concepts, Bartlett verstehen Learning,, or empathetic LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC understanding.NOT FOR To SALE examine OR a DISTRIBUTIONtheory properly, the Crime shouldNOT be viewedFOR SALE not as ORa single DISTRIBUTION phenome- student must understand it on its own terms. non but as one in which many kinds of behavior Third, learn not to expect easy answers, and do occur in different situations and under different not accept them without reservation. Finckenauer conditions. No single theory can provide all the cautions against settling for simple solutions to the explanations for—let alone answers to—the crime © Jones &delinquency Bartlett Learning,problem, but LLC his words apply to any © Jonesproblem. & BartlettAgain, criminological Learning, theoryLLC attempts to NOT FORaspect SALE of ORcriminology: DISTRIBUTION126 NOTexplain FOR theSALE causes OR of DISTRIBUTION criminal behavior, not to excuse crimes or the people who commit them. The highway of delinquency prevention history is paved The next several chapters discuss theories of with punctured panaceas [emphasis added]. First, a crime across several disciplines, including biology, certain approach is posed as a cure-all or becomes psychology, and sociology. The reader is encour- viewed and promoted as© aJones cure-all—as & Bartlett an intervention Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONaged to organize them in someNOT meaningful FOR SALE way ORas DISTRIBUTION that will have universal efficacy and thus be appropriate they are encountered. This chapter provided a for nearly all kids. Unfortunately, the approach, no number of ways to accomplish this task. Theories matter what it is, almost always fails to deliver; fails to can focus on lawbreaking (crime) or the criminal live up to the frequently unrealistic or unsound expecta- justice system response to crime. They can operate tions© raised Jones by the & salesBartlett pitch. Learning, LLC at the micro© or Jones macro levels;& Bartlett they are Learning, generally part LLC IfNOT easy FOR answers SALE were OR readily DISTRIBUTION available, crimi- of an academicNOT discipline, FOR SALE and theyOR DISTRIBUTIONare often part nologists would have delivered them long ago, and of a specific theoretical tradition within a disci- the crime problem would not exist today. pline. Although virtually all of the theories Criminological theory often cannot provide lit- encountered are positivistic, a few theories are © Jones &eral Bartlett answers Learning, to the crime LLC problem. Nevertheless, © Jonesgrounded & Bartlettfirmly in Learning,the classical LLCschool of crime. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION

chapter 1 Crime and Criminology 23

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones & BartlettWRAP UP Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION Chapter Spotlight stated in such a way that other scientists can go OO Edwin Sutherland defined criminology as the © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC out into the real world,© Jonescollect information, & Bartlett andLearning, LLC study of lawmaking, lawbreaking, and the re- test the theory’s validity. sponse to lawbreaking.NOT FOR Modern SALE scholarsOR DISTRIBUTION often NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION distinguish criminology (the study of lawbreak- OO A good theory of crime is supported by empiri- ing) from criminal justice (the study of responses cal tests. In other words, it appears to “work” in to lawbreaking). The study of deviance also the real world. Aside from empirical support, a overlaps with criminology. good theory is also parsimonious (concise) and © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC wide © in Jones scope & (explains Bartlett Learning, a wide range LLC of OONOTWithin FOR academia, SALE ORcriminology DISTRIBUTION is currently in a phenomena).NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION state of flux. Some consider criminology an independent discipline, while others view it as a OO Historically, the first explanations of criminal general field open to all social science disci- behavior invoked spirits and gods to explain plines. Historically, sociology has had the largest crime. The scientific study of crime is dated to © Jones & Bartlettimpact Learning, on the study LLC of crime, and sociologists© Jones the& Bartlett classical Learning, school of crime. LLC Classical school NOT FOR SALEtend OR to DISTRIBUTION view criminology as a subdiscipline NOTof FORtheorists SALE arguedOR DISTRIBUTION that humans were rational, he- sociology. donistic beings—they choose criminal actions because of the benefits of crime. Accordingly, OO The substantive criminal law is a codification of humans could be deterred from crime if the legal prohibited behaviors and the possible sanctions © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC system was properly© structured. Jones & TheBartlett positivist Learning, LLC for these behaviors. The definition of a criminal school of crime suggests that criminal behavior NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION act has two components: the mens rea (criminal is determined by factors that are partially or mind) and the actus reas (criminal act). completely outside the control of individuals. OO Criminal laws can be classified in a number of Different social science disciplines (e.g., psy- ways. Mala in se (evil in themselves) crimes, in- chology, sociology, biology) highlight different © cludingJones homicide,& Bartlett robbery, Learning, rape, LLCand burglary, factors© thatJones cause & criminalBartlett behavior. Learning, LLC make up the core of the legal code. Mala prohi- NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION OO CriminologyNOT FOR is an SALE applied OR science. DISTRIBUTION Theory, cou- bita (wrong because they are prohibited) crimes, pled with sound research, should help guide such as gambling and illicit drug use, tend to policymaking throughout the criminal justice vary across societies and over time. system. To proceed without theoretical guid- OO Two general perspectives on the law exist. The © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones ance& Bartlett is to take Learning, a shot in LLCthe dark—there is no consensus perspective views the law as the re- logical basis to assume that a particular program NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION sult of widespread societal agreement about will work. Intensive supervision programs (ISPs) what acts should be illegal. The conflict perspec- are an example of a policy implemented with tive suggests that the legal code is the end result little theoretical guidance, while multisystemic of a power struggle among competing interest therapy (MST) is theoretically grounded. groups. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLCOO Although science generally© Jones strives & Bartlett to be “value Learning, LLC OO A scientific theoryNOT is FOR a set ofSALE principles OR DISTRIBUTION or state- free,” criminology is heavilyNOT FOR influenced SALE by OR ideol- DISTRIBUTION ments that attempt to explain how concepts are ogy. Liberal (left) criminologists tend to associate related. In the case of crime theory, these state- with the positivist school of crime and to focus ments typically explain how one or more factors on social causes of crime. Conservative (right) © leadJones to criminal& Bartlett behavior. Learning, A scientific LLC theory criminologists© Jones lean& Bartlett toward theLearning, classical LLCschool must also be testable, meaning that it must be NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION of crimeNOT and FOR tend SALE to focus OR on DISTRIBUTIONdeterrence.

24 Crimin ol ogy: Theory, R esearch, and Policy

1. What is “criminology”? How does criminol- 4. Describe the history of theorizing about crime. ogy relate to other© Jonessocial science & Bartlett disciplines? Learning, LLCHow does the classical© school Jones of &crime Bartlett differ Learning, LLC 2. What is a scientificNOT theory? FOR SALEHow can OR you DISTRIBUTION tell from the positivist schoolNOT of crime?FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION whether or not a theory is good? 5. Discuss the linkage between theory and 3. What is the substantive criminal law? Describe policy. the two main perspectives on the criminal law, 6. What does it mean to be a “liberal” or “conser- and give an example of a crime that is consis- vative” criminologist? How does ideology © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC tent with each perspective. impact the study of crime? NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION

Key Terms © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jonespervise & Bartlett high-risk Learning, offenders. ThisLLC practice also case law Law that is created when judges interpret NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT hasFOR been SALE touted OR as DISTRIBUTION a potential solution to jail- constitutional provisions, statutes, or regulations and prison-crowding problems. created by administrative agencies. law and order Campaign theme of conservative Re- conflict perspective View that criminal law is the publicans that a “hard line” is the best defense. result of constant clashes between groups with different levels of power.© Jones Those & Bartlettgroups that Learning, win malaLLC in se Crimes that are © considered Jones & as Bartlett “evil in Learning, LLC the clashes define theNOT legal FOR code SALE in a manner OR DISTRIBUTION con- themselves” (e.g., homicide).NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION sistent with their values. mala prohibita Crimes that are forbidden by laws consensus perspective View that criminal law is the that attempt to regulate behavior (e.g., drug result of widespread agreement among members abuse, gambling, prostitution). of society© Jones as to & what Bartlett should Learning, be legal and LLC illegal. overgeneralization© Jones Jumping & Bartlett to sweeping Learning, conclu- LLC constitutionalNOT FOR law SALEThe law OR as expressedDISTRIBUTION in the U.S. sions basedNOT on the FOR results SALE of a ORsingle DISTRIBUTION study. Constitution, as well as the constitutions of indi- panaceas Cure-alls. Applied to criminology, the term refers to the search for simple solutions to vidual states. Constitutions are the supreme law http://criminaljustice.jblearning.com/criminology3e of the land. the crime problem. distributive justice Campaign theme of liberal Dem- policy analysis Focuses on the condition the gov- © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jonesernment & Bartlett wishes to Learning, create rather LLC than on the root NOT FOR SALEocrats thatOR DISTRIBUTION increased economic opportunity is NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION the best defense against crime. causes of crime. grand theories Sweeping theories that attempt to procedural law The portion of the criminal law that explain all types of criminal behavior. dictates the type of behaviors in which criminal hedonistic calculus Jeremy Bentham used this term justice actors can legally engage. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC to describe human nature—humans seek plea- recidivism Repeat offending. sure (hedonism) inNOT a rational, FOR SALEcalculating OR man-DISTRIBUTIONstatutory law Criminal code NOTcreated FOR by legislatures SALE OR DISTRIBUTION ner. and governing bodies. hypotheses Testable statements about the relation- value free The belief that researchers should keep ship between variables in a scientific study. their personal views out of their study and the intensive© Jones supervision & Bartlett Practice Learning, based on the LLC assump- interpretation© Jones of its & findings. Bartlett Objectivity Learning, is theLLC tionNOT that FOR probation/parole SALE OR officersDISTRIBUTION with reduced goal. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION caseloads can more effectively monitor and su-

chapter 1 Crime and Criminology 25

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones & BartlettNOTES Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION 1. Great-Quotes.com. Retrieved October 17, 2010, from 26. Barnes, H. E. (1972). The story of punishment. Montclair, http://www.great-quotes.com/quote/853703 NJ: Patterson-Smith. 2. Brainyquote.com Retrieved January 2, 2006, from 27. Note 26. http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/w/ 28. Burns, W. E. (2003). Witch hunts in Europe and America: willrogers106272.html© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC An encyclopedia. Westport,© Jones CT: Greenwood & Bartlett Press. Learning, LLC 3. Bureau of JusticeNOT Statistics. FOR (n.d.). SALE Sourcebook OR DISTRIBUTION of criminal 29. Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., NOT& Ball, R.FOR A. (2002). SALE Criminologi- OR DISTRIBUTION justice statistics online. Retrieved March 7, 2010, from cal theory: Context and consequences (3rd ed.). Thousand http://www.albany.edu/sourcebook/pdf/t2402007.pdf Oaks, CA: Sage, p. 11. 4. Note 3. 30. Newman, G. (1985). The punishment response. Philadel- 5. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (2009, December 8). Growth phia: Lippincott. © Jonesin the total & correctional Bartlett population Learning, during 2008LLC was the slow- 31. Pfohl,© S.Jones J. (1985). & Images Bartlett of deviance Learning, and social control: LLC A est in eight years. Retrieved March 7, 2010, from http:// sociological history. New York: McGraw-Hill, p. 25. NOTbjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/press/p08ppus08pr.cfm FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION 32. NoteNOT 29, pp. FOR 13–15. SALE OR DISTRIBUTION 6. Bureau of Justice Statistics. (n.d.). Employment and expen- 33. Note 29, p. 14. diture. Retrieved March 7, 2010, from http://bjs.ojp.usdoj 34. Wellford, C. F. (2009). History and evolution of criminol- .gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=5 ogy. In J. M. Miller (Ed.), 21st century criminology: A 7. Sutherland, E., & Cressey, D. (1960). Principles of crimi- reference handbook, Vol. 1.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, p. 11. © Jones & Bartlettnology Learning, (6th ed.). Philadelphia: LLC J.B. Lippincott. © Jones 35. & Young, Bartlett D. (1984). Learning, Let us content LLC ourselves with praising NOT FOR SALE 8. Sumner,OR DISTRIBUTION G. W. (1906). Folkways. Boston: Ginn & Co.NOT FOR theSALE work ORwhile DISTRIBUTION drawing a veil over its principles: Eigh- 9. Salvelsberg, J. J., & Sampson, R. J. (2002). Introduction: teenth century reactions to Beccaria’s “On Crimes and Mutual engagement: Criminology and sociology? Crime, Punishments.” Justice Quarterly, 1, 155–170. Law, and Social Change, 37, 99–105. 36. Note 29, pp. 14–15. 10. Short, J. F., Jr. (2002). Criminology, the Chicago School, 37. Vold, G. B. (1970). Theoretical criminology. New York: and Sociological© Theory.Jones Crime, & Bartlett Law, and Social Learning, Change, LLC Oxford University Press,© pp. Jones 18–22. & Bartlett Learning, LLC 37, 107–115. 38. Note 29, p. 15. 11. Enriquez, R., &NOT Barnes, FOR J. C. SALE (2009). ORCriminal DISTRIBUTION law. In 39. Rennie, Y. F. (1978). TheNOT search FOR for criminal SALE man: OR A con- DISTRIBUTION J. M. Miller (Ed.), 21st century criminology: A reference ceptual history of the dangerous offender. Lexington, MA: handbook, Vol. 2. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, p. 646. Lexington Books, p. 18. 12. Note 11. 40. Monachesi, E. (1960). Cesare Beccaria. In H. Mannheim 13. Pollock, J. M. (2009). Criminal law (9th ed.). Cincinnati: (Ed.), Pioneers in criminology. Montclair, NJ: © JonesAnderson, & p.Bartlett 8–12. Learning, LLC Patterson-Smith.© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT14. Cornell FOR University SALE LawOR School. DISTRIBUTION Legal Information Insti- 41. Cullen,NOT F. T .,FOR & Agnew, SALE R. (2003). OR DISTRIBUTIONCriminological theory: tute. Available at http://www.law.cornell.edu Past to present. Los Angeles: Roxbury, p. 18. 15. Note 13, 119–121. 42. Note 23, p. 32. 16. Note 13, pp. 4, 21. 43. Rafter, N. (2004). The unrepentant horse-slasher: Moral 17. Note 11, p. 647. insanity and the origins of criminological thought. Crimi- 18. U.S. Department of Justice. Preserving life and liberty. Re- nology, 42, 979–1008. © Jones & Bartletttrieved Learning, January 2, 2010,LLC from http://www.justice.gov/© Jones 44. & Fish Bartlettman, G. Learning,Positivism and LLC neo-Lombrosianism. In I. NOT FOR SALE archive/ll/archive.htmOR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR Barak-Glantz,SALE OR &DISTRIBUTION C. R. Huff (Eds.), The mad, the bad, and 19. Electronic Freedom Foundation. The USA Patriot Act. Re- the different: Essays in honor of Simon Dinitz. Lexington, trieved January 2, 2010, from http://www.eff.org/patriot MA: Lexington Books, p. 17. 20. Note 19. 45. Jeffrey, C. R. (1960). The historical development of crimi- 21. Farrell, M. B. (2010, March 1). Obama signs Patriot Act nology. In H. Mannheim (Ed.), Pioneers in criminology. extension without© Jones reforms. Christian& Bartlett Science Learning, Monitor. Re- LLC Montclair, NJ: Patterson-Smith,© Jones p. 468. & Bartlett Learning, LLC trieved March 8, 2010, from http://www.csmonitor.com/ 46. Cullen, F. T., & Gilbert, K. E. (1982). Reaffirming rehabili- USA/Politics/2010/0301/Obama-signs-Patriot-Act-NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION tation. Cincinnati, OH: NOTAnderson. FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION extension-without-reforms 47. Gibbs, J. P. (1987). The state of criminological theory. 22. Note 13, pp. 4–6. Criminology, 25, 821–840. 23. Miller, J. M., Schreck, J. C., & Tewksbury, R. (2008). 48. Canton, R., & Yates, J. (2008.) Applied criminology. In B. Criminological theory: A brief introduction. Boston: Allyn Stout, J. Yates, & B.Williams (Eds.), Applied criminology. © Jonesand Bacon, & Bartlettpp. 196–197. Learning, LLC London:© Jones Sage Publications & Bartlett Ltd, p.Learning, 6. LLC NOT24. Aker FORs, R. L.,SALE & Sellers, OR C. DISTRIBUTION(2004). Criminological theories: 49. NoteNOT 48, p. FOR12. SALE OR DISTRIBUTION Introduction, evaluation and application. Los Angeles: Rox- 50. Bennett, L. A. (1988). Practice in search of theory: The bury, pp. 5–6. case of intensive supervision—An extension of an old 25. Sutherland, E., & Cressey, D. (1960). Principles of crimi- practice or a new approach? American Journal of Criminal nology (6th ed.). Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott. Justice, 12, p. 293. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION

26 Crimin ol ogy: Theory, R esearch, and Policy

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION 51. Petersilia, J., & Turner, S. (1993). Evaluating intensive probation: Public risks and alternatives.” Crime and De- supervision probation/parole. Research in Brief. Washing- linquency, 31, 379–392. ton, DC: National Institute of Justice. 69. McGaha, J., Fichter, M., & Hirschburg, P. (1987). Felony 52. Carter, R. M., Robison, J., & Wilkins, L. T. (1967). The probation: A re-examination of public risk. American San Francisco project:© AJones study of federal& Bartlett probation Learning, and pa- LLCJournal of Criminal Justice, 11,© 1–9.Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC role. Berkeley: UniversityNOT of FOR California SALE Press. OR DISTRIBUTION 70. Vito, G. F. (1987). Felony probationNOT FORand recidivism: SALE Rep- OR DISTRIBUTION 53. Latessa, E. J., & Vito, G. F. (1988). The effects of intensive lication and response. Federal Probation, 50, 17–25. supervision on shock probationers. Journal of Criminal 71. Whitehead, J. (1991). The effectiveness of felony proba- Justice, 16, 319–330. tion: Results from an eastern state. Justice Quarterly, 9, 54. Byrne, J. M., Lurigio, A. J., & Baird, C. (1989). The ef- 525–543. fectiveness© Jones of & the Bartlett new intensive Learning, supervision LLC programs. 72. Langan, P.© A., Jones & Cunniff, & BartlettM. A. (1992). Learning, Recidivism of LLCfel- Research in Corrections, 2, 1–48. ons on probation, 1986–1989. Washington, DC: Bureau of 55. FultNOTon, FORB., Latessa, SALE E. J., OR Stichman, DISTRIBUTION A., & Travis, L. F. Justice Statistics.NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION (1997). The state of ISP: Research and policy implica- 73. Benedict, W. R., & Huff-Corzine, L. (1997). Return to the tions. Federal Probation, 61, 65–76. scene of the punishment: Recidivism of adult male prop- 56. Henggeler, S. W., Cunningham, P. B., Pickrel, S. G., Scho- erty offenders on felony probation, 1986–1989. Journal of enwald, S. K., & Brondino, M. J. (1996). Multisystemic Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34, 237–252. © Jones & Bartletttherapy: AnLearning, effective violence LLC prevention approach for © Jones 74. Sims &, B.,Bartlett & Jones, M.Learning, (1997). Predicting LLC success or failure NOT FOR SALEserious OR juvenile DISTRIBUTION offenders. Journal of Adolescence, 19, NOT FORon probation: SALE ORFactors DISTRIBUTION associated with felony probation 47–61. outcomes. Crime and Delinquency, 43, 314–327. 57. Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2000). Assessing correc- 75. Sherman, L. W., Smith, D.A., Schmidt, J. D., & Rogan, tional rehabilitation: Policy, practice, and prospects. D. P. (1992) “Crime, punishment, and stake in confor- Criminal Justice 2000. Washington, DC: National Insti- mity: Legal and informal control of domestic violence. tute of Justice. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLCAmerican Sociological Review,© 57, Jones 680–690. & Bartlett Learning, LLC 58. Martinson, R. M. (1974). What works? Questions and an- 76. Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984). The specificdeter- swers about prison reform.NOT TheFOR Public SALE Interest Spring,OR DISTRIBUTION p. 24. rent effects of arrest for domesticNOT FOR assault. SALE American OR DISTRIBUTION 59. Note 58, p. 10. Sociological Review, 49, 261–272. 60. Vito, G. F., Kunselman, J., & Tewksbury, R. (2008). Intro- 77. Berk, R. A., & Sherman, L. W. (1988). Police responses duction to criminal justice research methods: An applied to domestic violence incidents: An analysis of an experi- approach, (2nd ed.). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, mental design with incomplete randomization. Journal of ©p. 111.Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC the American© Jones Statistical & Association, Bartlett 83, Learning, 70–76. LLC 61. NOTMartinson, FOR R. M., SALE & Wilks, OR J. (1977).DISTRIBUTION Save parole super- 78. Note 75,NOT p. 680. FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION vision. Federal Probation, 41, 23–27. 79. Dunford, F. W., Huizinga, D., & Elliott, D. S. (1990). The 62. Martinson, R. M. (1979). New findings, new views: A role of arrest in domestic assault: The Omaha police ex- note of caution regarding sentencing reform. Hofstra Law periment. Criminology, 28, 183–206. Review, 7, 242–258. 80. Hirschel, J. D., Hutchison, I. W., & Dean, C. W. (1992). 63. Sanchez, J. E. (1990). The use of Robert Martinson’s The failure of arrest to deter spouse abuse. Journal of Re- © Jones & Bartlett“Writings Learning,on correctional LLC treatment: An essay on the jus- © Jonessearch & Bartlettin Crime and Learning, Delinquency, 29, LLC 7–33. NOT FOR SALEtification ORof DISTRIBUTION correctional policy.” Journal of Contemporary NOT 81. FOR Sherman, SALE L. W., OR Schmidt, DISTRIBUTION J. D., Rogan, D. P., Gartin, P. R., Criminal Justice, 6, 127–138. Cohen, E. G., Collins, D. J., and Bacich, A. R. (1991). 64. Gendreau, P., & Ross, R. R. (1987). Revivication of reha- From initial deterrence to long-term escalation: Short bilitation: Evidence from the 1980s. Justice Quarterly, 4, term custody arrest for poverty ghetto domestic violence. 349–407. Criminology, 29, 821–850. 65. Dowden, C., & Andr©ews, Jones D. A. (2004). & Bartlett The importance Learning, LLC82. Note 75. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC of staff practice in delivering effective correctional treat- 83. Note 81, p. 846. ment: A meta-analyticNOT review FOR ofSALE core correctionalOR DISTRIBUTION 84. Binder, A., & Meeker, J. W. NOT(1993). FOR Implications SALE of ORthe DISTRIBUTION practice. International Journal of Offender Therapy and failure to replicate the Minneapolis experimental find- Comparative Criminology, 48, 204–214. ings. American Sociological Review, 58, 887. 66. Dowden, C., & Andrews, D. A. (2000). Effective correc- 85. Sherman, L. W. (1993). Implications of the failure to read tional treatment and violent reoffending: A meta analysis. the literature. American Sociological Review, 58, 888. ©Canadian Jones Journal & Bartlett of Criminology, Learning, 42, 449–467. LLC 86. Berk, R. A.© (1993).Jones Policy & Bartlett Correctness Learning, in the ASR. Ameri- LLC 67. NOTLatessa, FOR E. J. (2004). SALE The OR challenge DISTRIBUTION of change: Correc- can SociologicalNOT Review,FOR 58,SALE 889. OR DISTRIBUTION tional programs and evidence-based practices. 87. Jeffery, C. R. (1977). Crime prevention through environ- Criminology and Public Policy, 3, 554–558. mental design. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, p. 331. 68. Petersilia, J., Turner, S., Kahan, J., & Peterson, J. (1985). Executive summary of Rand’s Study: “Granting felons © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION

chapter 1 Crime and Criminology 27

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION 88. Carter, R. M. (1976). The police view of the justice sys- 109. Wilson, J. Q. (1985). Thinking about crime. New York: tem. In M. W. Klein (Ed.). The juvenile justice system. Vintage Books, p. 46. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, p. 123. 110. Note 109, p. 49. 89. Kirkham, G. L. (1974). From professor to patrolman: A 111. Note 109, pp. 50, 51. fresh perspective© Joneson the police. & Bartlett Journal of PoliceLearning, Science LLC 112. Bohm, R. M. (1986). Crime,© Jones criminal & and Bartlett crime control Learning, LLC and Administration,NOT 2, 137.FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION policy myths. Justice Quarterly,NOT FOR3, 194. SALE OR DISTRIBUTION 90. Kirkham, G. L. (1976). Signal zero: The professor who be- 113. Walker, S. (2005). Sense and nonsense about crime and came a cop. Philadelphia: Lippincott, p. 206. drugs. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. 91. Carter, R. M. (1972). Where have all the crime fighters 114. Reiman, J. (2006). The rich get richer and the poor get gone? Gunsmoke Gazette, 1, 9. prison: Ideology, class and criminal justice. Boston: Allyn ©92. Jones Note 88, &p. 124.Bartlett Learning, LLC and ©Bacon. Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC 93. Tuck, M. (1989). Is criminology any use? The Criminolo- 115. Currie, E. (1989). Confronting crime: Looking toward NOTgist FOR 16, 1. SALE OR DISTRIBUTION the twenty-firstNOT FOR centur SALEy. Justice OR Quarterly, DISTRIBUTION 6, 16. 94. Austin, J. (2003). Why criminology is irrelevant. Crimi- 116. Note 115, p. 21. nology and Public Policy, 2, 557. 117. Currie, E. (1985). Confronting crime: An American chal- 95. Note 93, p. 6. lenge. New York: Pantheon. 96. Petersilia, J. (1991). Policy relevance and the future of 118. Currie, E. (1998). Crime and punishment in America. New © Jones & Bartlettcriminology. Learning, Criminology, LLC 29, 1–16. © Jones &York: Bartlett Henry Holt.Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE 97. Gilsinan,OR DISTRIBUTION J. F. (1991). Public policy and criminology: NOTAn FOR 119. TravSALEis, L. OR F., III, DISTRIBUTION Latessa, E. J., & Vito, G. F. (1985). historical and philosophical reassessment. Justice Quar- Agenda building in criminal justice: The case of determi- terly, 8, pp. 202, 204. nate sentencing. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 10, 98. Note 47, p. 824. 1–21. 99. Williams, F. (1984). The demise of criminological imagi- 120. Note 58, pp. 119–122. nation: A critique© Jonesof recent criminology. & Bartlett Justice Learning, Quarterly, LLC 121. Note 58. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC 1, 91–106. 122. Durkheim, E. (1971). Crime as normal phenomenon. In 100. Note 99. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION L. Radzinowicz, & M. E.NOT Wolfgang FOR (Eds.), SALE The ORcriminal DISTRIBUTION 101. Wells, L. E. (1995). Explaining crime in the year 2010. In in society: Crime and justice, Vol 1. New York: Basic Books, J. Klofas, & S. Stojkovic (Eds.), Crime and justice in the pp. 391–392. year 2010. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, p. 45. 123. Cohen, A. K. (1966). Deviance and control. Englewood 102. Note 101, p. 53. Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 6–10. 103.© Jones Finckenauer, & Bartlett J. O. (1978). Learning, Crime as a nationalLLC political 124. Moynihan,© Jones D. P. (1996).& Bartlett Defining Learning, deviancy down. LLC In R. NOTissue, FOR 1964–76. SALE Crime OR and DISTRIBUTION Delinquency, 24, 10–19. C. MonkNOT (Ed.), FOR Taking SALE sides: ORClashing DISTRIBUTION views on controver- 104. Vito, G. F. (1983). The politics of crime control: Implica- sial issues in crime and criminology. Guilford, CT: Dushkin, tions of Reagan administration pronouncements on p. 11. crime. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 2, 1–7. 125. Williams, F. P., III, & McShane, M. (1988). Criminological 105. Miller, W. B. (1978). Ideology and criminal justice policy. theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, p. 7. In N. Johnson and L. D. Savitz (Eds.), Justice and correc- 126. Finckenauer, J. O. (1982). Scared straight! And the pana- © Jones & Bartletttions. Learning, New York: John LLC Wiley, p. 7. © Jones &cea Bartlett phenomenon. Learning, Englewood LLC Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, NOT FOR SALE 106. NoteOR 105, DISTRIBUTION pp. 8, 9. NOT FOR pp.SALE 5, 6. OR DISTRIBUTION 107. Note 105, pp. 9, 10. 108. Kania, R. R. E. (1988). Conservative ideology in criminology and criminal justice. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 13, 80. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION

28 Crimin ol ogy: Theory, R esearch, and Policy

© Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC. NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION. © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTIONTheo r y in Actio nNOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION

Criminology as Peacemaking—Sister Helen Prejean, Dead Man Walking © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC The death penalty isNOT the ultimateFOR SALE weapon OR in theDISTRIBUTION war tims. She recognized that theNOT families FOR of SALE the victims OR DISTRIBUTION on crime—it personifies the violent response of the and the inmates shared one element: They were aban- criminal justice system to crime. Sister Helen Prejean, doned by friends and family. As a result, she founded a Roman Catholic nun in Louisiana, has committed Survive, a victim’s advocacy group, and works closely herself© Jones to stand & Bartlett against the Learning, death penalty. LLC Her ac- with other groups© Jones such &as BartlettMurder Victims’ Learning, Families LLCfor tionsNOT demonstrate FOR SALE the commitment OR DISTRIBUTION that criminology as Reconciliation.NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION peacemaking requires—service to both offenders and She has received two of the highest honors bestowed victims—and a classic example of applied criminology. on American Catholics—the Vision 2000 Award from Her work as a spiritual advisor to condemned men was Catholic Charities USA and the Laetare Medal from documented in her book, Dead Man Walking, and in an the University of Notre Dame for illustrating the ide- © Jones & BartlettAcademy Award–nominated Learning, LLC movie by the same name.© Jonesals of &the Bartlett church—and Learning, eight other LLC peace awards. She NOT FOR SALEIt was OR also theDISTRIBUTION basis for an opera. The book was onNOT has FOR been SALE nominated OR forDISTRIBUTION the Nobel Peace Prize as well. the New York Times Best Seller List for 31 weeks and Her second book, The Death of Innocents, analyzes how was nominated for a Pulitzer Prize. Over the span of 15 flaws in the death penalty system allow innocent peo- years, she has witnessed five executions and accompa- ple to be executed. nied three men to the© electricJones chair. & Bartlett One received Learning, a life LLC © Jones & Bartlett Learning, LLC sentence on appeal. So u r ces: Helen Prejean official Website. Retrieved NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION NOT FOR SALE OR DISTRIBUTION Her personal journey has encouraged many people to March 11, 2010, from http://www.prejean.org; Prejean, rethink their position on the death penalty. To Sister H. (1994). Dead man walking. New York: Vintage; Helen, the death penalty embodies “the three deepest Prejean, H. Would Jesus pull the switch? Retrieved wounds of our society: racism, poverty, and violence.” March 11, 2010, from http://salt.claretianpubs.org/ It ©led Jones her to consider & Bartlett not only Learning, the plight LLCof the death issues/deathp/prejean.html;© Jones & Bartlett Prejean, Learning, H. (2004). TheLLC rowNOT inmate FOR but SALEalso that OR of theDISTRIBUTION families of their vic- death of innocentsNOT .FOR New York: SALE Random OR House.DISTRIBUTION

chapter 1 Crime and Criminology 29