SOCY 6004: Department of University of Colorado Boulder

Professor: David Pyrooz, Ph.D. Classroom: KTCH 1B40 Office: Institute of Behavioral Science: 381 Date/Time: M 3:00-5:30pm Phone: 303-492-3241 Office Hours: By appointment Email: [email protected]

Course Description and Objectives

The purpose of this course is to provide students with a comprehensive introduction to leading theories of crime etiology. The primary aim of criminological theory is to explain variability in crime and delinquency between and within individuals and aggregates defined by demographic, geographic, political, or social boundaries. Although they should not be viewed as mutually exclusive, this is a course on criminology rather than criminal justice. The practices of law enforcement, prosecutors and courts, and corrections is relevant to this course to the extent that they influence the distribution of crime across people and places. Although sociology was its parent discipline, criminology is interdisciplinary. Peruse any volume of a top criminological journal and readers will encounter the perspectives and scholarship commonly found in various branches of economics, political science, psychology, and sociology. Criminology has no shortage of theories; each passing year there is more ground to cover to expose students to the leading theories in the discipline. There is a balance that must be struck between the comprehensive aims of this course and the sociological origins of criminology, the latter of which generally emphasizes social sources of crime such as peers, families, institutions, and communities. Accordingly, there are five core objectives in this course: 1. Understand the key assumptions and propositions of leading criminological theories;

2. Trace the intellectual lineage of theories;

3. Evaluate the empirical status of theories;

4. Synthesize knowledge about criminological theories,

5. Identify gaps in knowledge that would benefit from theoretical and empirical analysis, development, and/or synthesis; The aim of this course is not to provide complete coverage of criminological theories. To be sure, this course should not be viewed as a substitute for specialized theoretical training that is found in courses devoted to a single theory (e.g., self-control, social learning), theories associated with a unit of analysis (e.g., communities and crime, co-offending and criminal groups), or perspectives or paradigms of criminological thought (e.g., intersectionality, developmental and life course). Theoretical proficiency in a given substantive area will require extensive reading, an independent study, or a specialized course.

1 Course Requirements Students will be assessed in four ways, and final grades will be determined as follows: (1) class participation (20%) (2) discussion leader (10%) (3) response essays (20%) (4) research paper (40%) (5) paper presentation (10%)

Class Participation and Discussion Our class will have 14 meetings where we will discuss substantive issues in criminological theory. Class meetings are viewed as a collaborative exercise. Our time together will consist of focused discussions pertaining directly to the readings, general discussions related to criminology as a discipline and its relationship to sociology, and individual presentations of student papers beginning with initial ideas and ending with formal presentations. All students must be actively involved in these discussions. As a graduate seminar, students must come to class prepared. Readings should be completed prior to class. Notes and questions should be jotted down in preparation for discussion. All students should be thinking about the following questions while covering the assigned readings: (1) What is the research question and why is it important to understand? (2) To what literatures does this research contribute? (3) How did the authors establish the importance of the question? (4) What are the assumptions and propositions of the theory under examination and how are they distinguishable from other theories? (5) What is the logical progression of the front end of the paper and how well does it justify the methods used to test the research question(s)? (6) What aspects of the front end did you find confusing or hard to follow? (7) In what ways could we advance our state of knowledge on the theory with further theoretical or empirical analysis, development, or synthesis? (8) If you were to have written this paper, what, if anything, would you have done differently? For readings that are strictly theoretical, emphasis is placed primarily on logical assumptions, core propositions, and causal pathways. For readings that test theory empirically, emphasis is placed primarily on the framing of the paper (“front end”) and the discussion of the findings (“back end”). Our discussions will certainly address methods of research, such as how to test theories of crime empirically, as well as how the framing of the paper motivated the specific methods employed by researchers. Each week one student will serve as the “discussion leader” for the class period, as determined at the beginning of the class. This student will be responsible for leading the conversation about the readings covered during that week. Handouts to guide the discussion are encouraged, but not required, such as (1) a table that takes stock of the body of knowledge on a topic, (2) a figure that traces the evolution of a theoretical perspective, or (3) a figure that details the causal mechanisms of a theory. Handouts containing extensive notes that summarize the readings are discouraged. Take the readings seriously. They are the foundation for your career, especially for students who intend to pursue employment as a researcher, teacher, or analyst in criminology or criminal justice. In a doctoral 2 course, students must begin to think about how they will put the knowledge they are consuming to work, whether it is for the purposes of designing lectures, writing summary articles, testing theory, or advocating for public policy. It is not unreasonable to budget about two hours per reading; some readings will require more time, some less. The assigned readings provide a good starting point to understand criminological theory, but they should not be viewed as exhaustive. Students should become regular consumers of work published in the leading journals in the field of criminology. These may include Criminology (flagship journal of the ASC), Justice Quarterly (flagship journal of the ACJS), Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, and Journal of Quantitative Criminology. These are leading generalist outlets, but depending on your substantive interests (e.g., race, gender, policy, methods), there may also be a number of specialty journals that students should follow regularly. Signing up for RSS feeds and Google Scholar alerts is one way to do this. All students should employ bibliographic management software to organize the literature (e.g., Zotero, Mendeley), and must do so for the paper assignments that require in-text citations and a reference section.

Response Essays Students are responsible for writing two essays in response to weekly readings of their choosing. The broad parameters of these essays include (1) synthesis of what was learned in the readings and (2) identify gaps in knowledge with the goal of advancing theory or research on the topic. Students have the discretion to focus the essay on the logical or empirical adequacy of the theory, or both. Students may also apply a theory and the associated readings to a topic that has been understudied. These essays should not exceed five double-spaced 8.5” x 11” pages (1” margins all around; 12 point font) of main text and should include a title page with a theme that summarizes the writing, along with a section at the conclusion of the document that includes the references cited in text. The incorporation of additional references independent of the weekly readings is encouraged. Essays should be submitted during the meeting period associated with the readings addressed in the essay. Notify your instructor during class that you intend to write an essay addressing the following week’s readings.

Paper and Presentation Journal articles are the “currency of the business” in the sciences, and sociology is no exception. Students are required to write a paper that is the equivalent—in terms of content, quality, and structure—to the “front end” or “framing” of a refereed journal article. The overall goal of this assignment is for students to use this paper as a launch point for a journal article (preferably), conference paper, chapter in an edited volume, fellowship proposal, or even a dissertation. The topic can be anything criminological, including a theory that is not covered in the readings. Research questions requiring qualitative or quantitative data and methods can be proposed. The paper should include: (1) An introductory section that: a. establishes the phenomena of interest and its importance to the field of criminology, b. specifies the ignorance in the literature and the gap that needs to be filled, and c. introduces the research question, data, and methods that will be used to make a contribution to the state of knowledge on the designated topic; (2) A discussion of theory and prior research with which your study is situated, where sections: a. develop a conceptual model through a theoretical framing that establishes the importance of a research question and its contribution to the literature,

3 b. examines the current state of knowledge on the topic and sets the stage methodologically for the unit of analysis, data, measures, and analytic strategy to be employed. Think of this as a research proposal. No formal analyses will be conducted or findings reported. However, students are encouraged to be thinking about data sources that are capable of providing the necessary information to test the research questions proposed in the paper. The paper will be carried out in four stages, as follows: Phase 1: propose a research question (in class); Phase 2: draft an outline of the front end that will be presented briefly to the class (email); Phase 3: produce a first draft of the front end (hard copy + email); Phase 4: submit a final copy of the paper and present it to the class (hard copy + email). Phases 1 to 3 are designed to elicit feedback from your classmates and me. What is submitted for Phases 1 and 2 will be discussed in class. Phase 3 will involve exchanging papers with a classmate at the time of submission, and feedback will be provided within a week from your partner and myself. The purpose of this approach is not evaluation; rather, it is to lead to a conceptually sound framing of the paper. Students should approach feedback to fellow students (i.e., colleagues) as they would an anonymous referee. Civil. Informative. Unassuming. Thoughtful. Judicious. Students who articulate a better theoretical argument and more deeply engage the literature on a topic will likely receive feedback that is more constructive from their peer reviewer and from me. It is expected that what is submitted for Phase 1 will evolve over the course of the semester; however, students should have a solid plan for the framing of the paper by mid-October. If students intend to write a paper tackling issues covered later in the semester, for example, labeling theory, it is necessary to start reading about labeling theory immediately. In deciding on a topic, it would be wise to consult the introductory section of the Cullen et al. book (see below), where they lay out the general thrust of the various theories we will cover in this class. It should be understood that the readings covered in a single week are not (even remotely) comprehensive enough to write an entire front end. Students must engage the broader literature on the topic, and recognize the interdependencies across theoretical perspectives. Paper presentations will be held on the final day of class. They will consist of a short, 15-minute (maximum) in-class presentation that should be structured comparable to an ASA presentation. These presentations should be well-polished. Powerpoint or other presenter software (e.g., Prezi) should be used. Operate under the assumption that this presentation will be delivered at a professional conference. Presentations should include the following: (1) Title slide that contains name, title, affiliation, and contact information, (2) Opening slide that establishes the importance of the issue, (3) Theoretical development, which should include a conceptual model, (4) Review of the relevant literature, (5) The current study, including research questions and hypotheses, (6) A roadmap to advance the paper, including methods, analyses, and timeline, (7) Implications of positive, null, and negative findings for theory, research, policy, and practice.

4 Schedule of Topics and Assignments

Date Meeting Topic Assignment*

Introduction to criminology theory + Aug. 27 #1 Classic and positivist origins of criminology Sept. 3 --- No class – Labor Day Sept. 10 #2 Biosocial criminology Sept. 17 #3 Communities and crime: Control and culture Sept. 24 #4 Learning to be bad: Associations, orientations, and scripts Phase 1 Oct. 1 #5 Controlling criminal tendencies: Part I Oct. 8 #6 Controlling criminal tendencies: Part II Oct. 15 #7 , strain, and crime Phase 2 Oct. 22 #8 Specific and general deterrence Oct. 29 #9 Environment, opportunity, and choice Nov. 5 #10 Reactions, labeling, and stigma Nov. 12 #11 Crime at the demographic intersections: Race and gender Nov. 19 --- No class – Thanksgiving Phase 3 Nov. 26 #12 Developmental and life-course criminology Dec. 3 #13 Integrated perspectives on crime Dec. 10 #14 The next generation TBD #15 Final meeting Phase 4 * response essays are submitted according to the topic chosen

Schedule of Readings

Required books:

 Cullen, Francis T., Robert Agnew, and Pamela Wilcox. 2017. Criminological Theory: Past to Present. 6th ed. Essential Readings. New York: Oxford University Press.  Posick, Chad, and Michael Rocque. 2018. Great Debates in Criminology. Routledge. o In the reading list below, these works are referred to as “CAW” and “P&R”

30 books that every criminologist should have on their shelf (and read):

1. Agnew, Robert. 2007. Pressured into Crime: An Overview of General Strain Theory. New York: Oxford University Press. 2. Akers, Ronald. 2009. Social Learning and Social Structure: A General Theory of Crime and . New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. 3. Anderson, Elijah. 1999. Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. 5 4. Belknap, Joanne. 2014. The Invisible Woman: Gender, Crime, and Justice. Nelson Education. 5. Braithwaite, John. 1989. Crime, Shame and Reintegration. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 6. Bursik, Robert J., and Harold G. Grasmick. 1993. Neighborhoods and Crime: The Dimensions of Effective Community Control. New York, NY: Lexington Books. 7. Elliott, Delbert S., Scott Menard, Bruce Rankin, Amanda Elliott, William Julius Wilson, and David Huizinga. 2006. Good Kids from Bad Neighborhoods: Successful Development in Social Context. New York: Cambridge University Press. 8. Felson, Marcus, and Rachel L. Boba. 2010. Crime and Everyday Life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 9. Gottfredson, Michael R., and Travis Hirschi. 1990. A General Theory of Crime. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 10. Hirschi, Travis. 1969. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press. 11. Katz, Jack. 1988. Seductions of Crime: Moral and Sensual Attractions in Doing Evil. New York: Basic Books. 12. Laub, John H., and Robert J. Sampson. 2003. Shared Beginnings, Divergent Lives: Delinquent Boys to Age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 13. Maruna, Shadd. 2001. Making Good: How Ex-Convicts Reform and Rebuild Their Lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. 14. McCarthy, Bill, and John Hagan. 1997. Mean Streets: Youth Crime and Homelessness. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 15. Messner, Steven F., and Richard Rosenfeld. 2013. Crime and the American Dream. 5th ed. Belmont, CA: Cengage Learning. 16. Miller, Jody. 2008. Getting Played: African American Girls, Urban Inequality, and Gendered Violence. New York: New York University Press. 17. Pattillo, Mary. 1999. Black Picket Fences: Privilege and Peril among the Black Middle Class. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 18. Petersilia, Joan. 2003. When Prisoners Come Home: Parole and Prisoner Reentry. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 19. Pinker, Steven. 2011. The Better Angels of Our Nature: The Decline of Violence in History and Its Causes. New York: Penguin. 20. Piquero, Alex R., David P. Farrington, and Alfred Blumstein. 2007. Key Issues in Criminal Career Research: New Analyses of the Cambridge Study in Delinquent Development. New York: Cambridge University Press. 21. Rios, Victor M. 2011. Punished: Policing the Lives of Black and Latino Boys. New York: NYU Press. 22. Sampson, Robert J. 2012. Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect. University of Chicago Press. 23. Sampson, Robert J., and John H. Laub. 1993. Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points through Life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. 24. Tyler, Tom R. 2006. Why People Obey the Law. Princeton University Press. 25. Warr, Mark. 2002. Companions in Crime: The Social Aspects of Criminal Conduct. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 26. Wikström, Per-Olof H., Dietrich Oberwittler, Kyle Treiber, and Beth Hardie. 2012. Breaking Rules: The Social and Situational Dynamics of Young People’s Urban Crime. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 27. Wilson, James Q., and Richard J. Herrnstein. 1995. Crime and Human Nature: The Definitive Study of the Causes of Crime. New York: Free Press. 28. Wilson, William Julius. 1987. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 29. Wright, Richard T., and Scott H. Decker. 1997. Armed Robbers in Action: Stickups and Street Culture. Boston: Northeastern University Press. 30. Zimring, Franklin E. 2006. The Great American Crime Decline. Oxford University Press.

MEETING #1 (AUG. 27): CLASSIC AND POSITIVIST ORIGINS OF CRIMINOLOGY  CAW 1: Beccaria, Cesare. An essay on crimes and punishments.  CAW 2: Lombroso, Cesare. The criminal man.  P&R: Chapter 1. Debating among criminology’s founders

An introduction to unit of analysis and inference, domains/sources of influence, criminological facts, and measurement

6  Short Jr, James F. 1998. “The Level of Explanation Problem Revisited—The American Society of Criminology 1997 Presidential Address.” Criminology 36 (1): 3–36. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1998.tb01238.x  Murray, Joseph, and David P Farrington. 2010. “Risk Factors for Conduct Disorder and Delinquency: Key Findings from Longitudinal Studies.” The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry 55 (10): 633–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/070674371005501003.  Sampson, Robert J. 2000. “Whither the Sociological Study of Crime?” Annual Review of Sociology 26 (1): 711–14. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.soc.26.1.711.  Sullivan, Christopher J., and Jean Marie McGloin. 2014. “Looking Back to Move Forward: Some Thoughts on Measuring Crime and Delinquency over the Past 50 Years.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 51 (4): 445–66. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427813520446.  Piquero, Alex R., Carol A. Schubert, and Robert Brame. 2014. “Comparing Official and Self-Report Records of Offending across Gender and Race/Ethnicity in a Longitudinal Study of Serious Youthful Offenders.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 51 (4): 526–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427813520445.

NO CLASS SEPT. 3—LABOR DAY HOLIDAY

MEETING #2 (SEPT. 10): BIOSOCIAL CRIMINOLOGY  CAW 35: Glueck, Sheldon, and Eleanor Glueck. Unraveling juvenile delinquency.  CAW 36: Peskin et al. Biology and crime.  CAW 37: Capsi et al. Personality and crime.  P&R: Chapter 2. Does crime originate from the person or the environment? Sociological vs. psychological perspectives.

 Wright, John P., Kevin M. Beaver, Matt DeLisi, Michael G. Vaughn, Danielle Boisvert, and Jamie Vaske. 2008. “Lombroso’s Legacy: The Miseducation of Criminologists.” Journal of Criminal Justice Education 19 (3): 325–38. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511250802476137.

Heritability  P&R: Chapter 9. Are we still debating? Contemporary and emerging debates. Further suggested reading o Burt, Callie H., and Ronald L. Simons. 2014. “Pulling Back the Curtain on Heritability Studies: Biosocial Criminology in the Postgenomic Era.” Criminology 52 (2): 223–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12036. o Barnes, J. C., John Paul Wright, Brian B. Boutwell, Joseph A. Schwartz, Eric J. Connolly, Joseph L. Nedelec, and Kevin M. Beaver. 2014. “Demonstrating the Validity of Twin Research in Criminology.” Criminology 52 (4): 588–626. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12049. o Burt, Callie H., and Ronald L. Simons. 2015. “Heritability Studies in the Postgenomic Era: The Fatal Flaw Is Conceptual.” Criminology 53 (1): 103–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12060. o Wright, John Paul, J. C. Barnes, Brian B. Boutwell, Joseph A. Schwartz, Eric J. Connolly, Joseph L. Nedelec, and Kevin M. Beaver. 2015. “Mathematical Proof Is Not Minutiae and Irreducible Complexity Is Not a Theory: A Final Response to Burt and Simons and a Call to Criminologists.” Criminology 53 (1): 113–20. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12059.

Biological, toxicological, neurological, and genetic  Choy, Olivia, Adrian Raine, Peter H. Venables, and David P. Farrington. 2017. “Explaining the Gender Gap in Crime: The Role of Heart Rate.” Criminology 55 (2): 465–487. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12138.  Pratt, Travis C., Jillian J. Turanovic, and Francis T. Cullen. 2016. “Revisiting the Criminological Consequences of Exposure to Fetal Testosterone: A Meta-Analysis of the 2D:4D Digit Ratio.” Criminology 54 (4): 587–620. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12115.  Sampson, Robert J., and Alix S. Winter. 2018. “Poisoned Development: Assessing Childhood Lead Exposure as a Cause of Crime in a Birth Cohort Followed through Adolescence.” Criminology 56 (2): 269–301. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12171.  Williams, W. Huw, Prathiba Chitsabesan, Seena Fazel, Tom McMillan, Nathan Hughes, Michael Parsonage, and James Tonks. 2018. “Traumatic Brain Injury: A Potential Cause of Violent Crime?” The Lancet Psychiatry. https://doi.org/doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(18)30062-2. 7  Caspi, Avshalom, Joseph McClay, Terrie E. Moffitt, Jonathan Mill, Judy Martin, Ian W. Craig, Alan Taylor, and Richie Poulton. 2002. “Role of Genotype in the Cycle of Violence in Maltreated Children.” Science 297 (5582): 851– 854.  Boardman, Jason D., Scott Menard, Michael E. Roettger, Kelly E. Knight, Brian B. Boutwell, and Andrew Smolen. 2014. “Genes in the Dopaminergic System and Delinquent Behaviors across the Life Course.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 41 (6): 713–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854813514227.  Wertz, J., A. Caspi, D. W. Belsky, A. L. Beckley, L. Arseneault, J. C. Barnes, D. L. Corcoran, et al. 2018. “Genetics and Crime: Integrating New Genomic Discoveries into Psychological Research about Antisocial Behavior.” Psychological Science 29 (5): 791–803. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617744542.

MEETING #3 (SEPT. 17): COMMUNITIES AND CRIME: CONTROL AND CULTURE  CAW 3: Shaw, Clifford, and Henry D. McKay. Juvenile delinquency and urban areas.  CAW 4. Sampson, Robert J., Stephen W. Raudenbush, and Felton Earls. Collective efficacy and crime.  CAW 5: Kirk, David S., and Andrew V. Papachristos. Legal cynicism and crime.

 Cullen, Francis T., and Pamela Wilcox. 2015. “The Legacy of Ruth Rosner Kornhauser.” In Challenging Criminological Theory: The Legacy of Ruth Rosner Kornhauser, edited by Francis T. Cullen, Pamela Wilcox, Robert J. Sampson, and Brendan D. Dooley, 19:1–22. Advances in Criminological Theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. PDF to be provided.  Kubrin, Charis E., and Ronald Weitzer. 2003. “New Directions in Social Disorganization Theory.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 40 (4): 374–402. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427803256238.  Bursik, Robert J. 2015. “Social Sources of Delinquency and the Second Coming of Shaw and McKay.” In Challenging Criminological Theory: The Legacy of Ruth Rosner Kornhauser. Vol. 19. Advances in Criminological Theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. PDF to be provided.  Sampson, Robert J., Lydia Bean, Ruth Peterson, Lauren Krivo, and John Hagan. 2006. “Cultural Mechanisms and Killing Fields: A Revised Theory of Community-Level Racial Inequality.” The Many Colors of Crime: Inequalities of Race, Ethnicity and Crime in America. PDF to be provided.  Berg, Mark T., Eric A. Stewart, Rod K. Brunson, and Ronald L. Simons. 2012. “Neighborhood Cultural Heterogeneity and Adolescent Violence.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 28 (3): 411–35. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-011-9146-6.  Pattillo, Mary E. 1998. “Sweet Mothers and Gangbangers: Managing Crime in a Black Middle-Class Neighborhood.” Social Forces 76 (3): 747–74. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/76.3.747.  Wickes, Rebecca, and John R. Hipp. 2018. “The Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of Neighborhood Informal Social Control and Crime.” Social Forces. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soy026.

MEETING #4 (SEPT. 24): LEARNING TO BE BAD: ASSOCIATIONS, ORIENTATIONS, AND SCRIPTS  CAW 6: Sutherland, Edwin H., and Donald R. Cressey. A theory of differential association.  CAW 7: Akers, Ronald L. A social learning of crime.  CAW 8: Anderson, Elijah. The code of the street.

 Paternoster, Ray, Jean Marie McGloin, Holly Nguyen, and Kyle J. Thomas. 2013. “The Causal Impact of Exposure to Deviant Peers: An Experimental Investigation.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 50 (4): 476–503. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427812444274.  Rowan, Zachary R., Jean Marie McGloin, and Holly Nguyen. 2018. “Capitalizing on Criminal Accomplices: Considering the Relationship between Co-Offending and Illegal Earnings.” Justice Quarterly 35 (2): 280–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2017.1308540.  Harris, Heather M., Kiminori Nakamura, and Kristofer Bret Bucklen. 2017. “Do Cellmates Matter? A Causal Test of the Schools of Crime Hypothesis with Implications for Differential Association and Deterrence Theories.” Criminology 56 (1): 87–122. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12155.  Pyrooz, David C, Jillian J. Turanovic, Scott H. Decker, and Jun Wu. 2016. “Taking Stock of the Relationship between Gang Membership and Offending: A Meta-Analysis.” Criminal Justice & Behavior 43 (3): 365–97.

8  Simons, Ronald L., Callie H. Burt, Ashley B. Barr, Man-Kit Lei, and Eric Stewart. 2014. “Incorporating Routine Activities, Activity Spaces, and Situational Definitions into the Social Schematic Theory of Crime.” Criminology 52 (4): 655–687. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12053  Kaiser, Kimberly, and Michael D. Reisig. 2017. “Legal Socialization and Self-Reported Criminal Offending: The Role of Procedural Justice and Legal Orientations.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, December, 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-017-9375-4.

MEETING #5 (OCT. 1): CONTROLLING CRIMINAL TENDENCIES: PART I  CAW 13: Sykes, Gresham, and David Matza. Techniques of neutralization.  CAW 14. Hirschi, Travis. Social bond theory.  P&R: Chapter 3. Is crime natural or do we learn it?

 Hirschi, Travis. 2015. “Ruth and Me.” In Challenging Criminological Theory: The Legacy of Ruth Rosner Kornhauser, edited by Francis T. Cullen, Pamela Wilcox, Robert J. Sampson, and Brendan D. Dooley, 19:87–104. Advances in Criminological Theory. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers. PDF to be provided.  Unnever, James D., Francis T. Cullen, Scott A. Mathers, Timothy E. McClure, and Marisa C. Allison. 2009. “Racial Discrimination and Hirschi’s Criminological Classic: A Chapter in the .” Justice Quarterly 26 (3): 377–409. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820802506180.  Thomas, Kyle J. 2018. “Rationalizing Delinquency: Understanding the Person-Situation Interaction through Item Response Theory.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, July, 0022427818789752. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427818789752.  Tittle, Charles R. 2004. “Refining Control Balance Theory.” Theoretical Criminology 8 (4): 395–428. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480604046657.

MEETING #6 (OCT. 8): CONTROLLING CRIMINAL TENDENCIES: PART II  CAW 15: Gottredson, Michael R., and Travis Hirschi. A general theory of crime

 Pratt, Travis C., and Francis T. Cullen. 2000. “The Empirical Status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s General Theory of Crime: A Meta-Analysis.” Criminology 38 (3): 931–964. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2000.tb00911.x  Reisig, Michael D., and Travis C. Pratt. 2011. “Low Self-Control and Imprudent Behavior Revisited.” Deviant Behavior 32 (7): 589–625. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639621003800505.  Wright, John Paul, and Kevin M. Beaver. 2005. “Do Parents Matter in Creating Self-Control in Their Children? A Genetically Informed Test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s Theory of Low Self-Control.” Criminology 43 (4): 1169– 1202. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2005.00036.x.  Young, Jacob T. N. 2011. “How Do They ‘End up Together’? A of Self-Control, Homophily, and Adolescent Relationships.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 27 (3): 251–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-010-9105-7.  Na, Chongmin, and Raymond Paternoster. 2012. “Can Self-Control Change Substantially over Time? Rethinking the Relationship between Self- and Social Control.” Criminology 50 (2): 427–62. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745- 9125.2011.00269.x.  Diamond, Brie, Wesley G. Jennings, and Alex R. Piquero. 2018. “Scaling-up Self-Control: A Macro-Level Investigation of Self-Control at the County Level.” Journal of Criminal Justice, Advances in the Study of Self- Control, 56 (May): 81–85. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.08.003.

MEETING #7 (OCT. 15): ANOMIE, STRAIN, AND CRIME  CAW 9: Merton, Robert K. Social structure and anomie.  CAW 10: Cohen, Albert K. Delinquent boys: The culture of the gang.  CAW 11. Rosenfeld, Richard, and Steven F. Messner. Crime and the American dream  CAW 12: Agnew, Robert S. Pressured into crime: General Strain Theory.

 Baumer, Eric P. 2007. “Untangling Research Puzzles in Merton’s Multilevel Anomie Theory.” Theoretical Criminology 11 (1): 63–93. https://doi.org/10.1177/1362480607072736.

9  Baumer, Eric P., and Regan Gustafson. 2007. “Social Organization and Instrumental Crime: Assessing the Empirical Validity of Classic and Contemporary Anomie Theories.” Criminology 45 (3): 617–663. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2007.00090.x.  Pratt, Travis C., and Timothy W. Godsey. 2003. “Social Support, Inequality, and Homicide: A Cross-National Test of an Integrated Theoretical Model.” Criminology 41 (3): 611–644. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2003.tb00999.x.  Broidy, Lisa, and Wayne A. Santoro. 2018. “General Strain Theory and Racial Insurgency: Assessing the Role of Legitimate Coping.” Justice Quarterly 35 (1): 162–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2017.1327610.  Nivette, Amy, Manuel Eisner, and Denis Ribeaud. 2017. “Developmental Predictors of Violent Extremist Attitudes: A Test of General Strain Theory.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 54 (6): 755–90. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427817699035.  Thaxton, Sherod, and Robert Agnew. 2017. “When Criminal Coping Is Likely: An Examination of Conditioning Effects in General Strain Theory.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology, July, 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940- 017-9358-5.

MEETING #8 (OCT. 22): SPECIFIC AND GENERAL DETERRENCE  CAW 28: Stafford, Mark C., and Mark Warr. Reconceptualizing deterrence theory.  CAW 29: Cornish, Derek B., and Ronald V. Clarke. Crime as rational action.  CAW 30: Wright, Richard T., and Scott H. Decker. Armed robbers in action.

 Pratt, Travis C., Francis T. Cullen, Kristie R. Blevins, Leah E. Daigle, and Tamara D. Madensen. 2006. “The Empirical Status of Deterrence Theory: A Meta-Analysis.” Taking Stock: The Status of Criminological Theory 15: 367–396. PDF to be provided.  Loughran, Thomas A., Ray Paternoster, Aaron Chalfin, and Theodore Wilson. 2016. “Can Rational Choice Be Considered a General Theory of Crime? Evidence from Individual-Level Panel Data.” Criminology 54 (1): 86–112. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12097.  Wright, Bradley R. E., Avshalom Caspi, Terrie E. Moffitt, and Ray Paternoster. 2004. “Does the Perceived Risk of Punishment Deter Criminally Prone Individuals? Rational Choice, Self-Control, and Crime.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 41 (2): 180–213. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427803260263.  Anwar, Shamena, and Thomas A. Loughran. 2011. “Testing a Bayesian Learning Theory of Deterrence among Serious Juvenile Offenders.” Criminology 49 (3): 667–98. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00233.x.  McGloin, Jean Marie, and Zachary R. Rowan. 2015. “A Threshold Model of Collective Crime.” Criminology 53 (3): 484–512. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12077.  Braga, Anthony A., David Weisburd, and Brandon Turchan. 2018. “Focused Deterrence Strategies and Crime Control: An Updated Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Empirical Evidence.” Criminology & Public Policy 17 (1): 205–50. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12353.  Dugan, Laura, and Erica Chenoweth. 2012. “Moving beyond Deterrence: The Effectiveness of Raising the Expected Utility of Abstaining from Terrorism in Israel.” American Sociological Review 77 (4): 597–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412450573.

MEETING #9 (OCT. 29): ENVIRONMENT, OPPORTUNITY, AND CHOICE  CAW 31: Cohen, Lawrence C., and Marcus Felson. Routine activity theory.  CAW 32: Brantingham, Paul J., and Patricia L. Brantingham. The theory of target search.  CAW 33: Newman, Oscar. Defensible space.  CAW 34: Wilcox, Pamela, Brooke Miller Gialopsos, and Kenneth C. Land. Multilevel criminal.

 Osgood, D. Wayne, Janet K. Wilson, Patrick M. O’Malley, Jerald G. Bachman, and Lloyd D. Johnston. 1996. “Routine Activities and Individual Deviant Behavior.” American Sociological Review, 635–655. https://doi.org/10.2307/2096397.  Townsley, Michael, and Aiden Sidebottom. 2010. “All Offenders Are Equal, but Some Are More Equal than Others: Variation in Journeys to Crime between Offenders.” Criminology 48 (3): 897–917. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745- 9125.2010.00205.x.

10  Kochel, Tammy Rinehart, and David Weisburd. 2018. “The Impact of Hot Spots Policing on Collective Efficacy: Findings from a Randomized Field Trial.” Justice Quarterly 0 (0): 1–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1465579.  Wickes, Rebecca, and John R. Hipp. 2018. “The Spatial and Temporal Dynamics of Neighborhood Informal Social Control and Crime.” Social Forces. https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/soy026.  Weisburd, David. 2015. “The Law of Crime Concentration and the Criminology of Place.” Criminology 53 (2): 133– 57. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12070.  Testa Alexander, Maimon David, Sobesto Bertrand, and Cukier Michel. 2017. “Illegal Roaming and File Manipulation on Target Computers.” Criminology & Public Policy 16 (3): 689–726. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745- 9133.12312.

MEETING #10 (NOV. 5): REACTIONS, LABELING, AND STIGMA  CAW 16: Braithwaite, John. Crime, shame, and reintegration.  CAW 17: Sherman, Lawrence. Defiance theory.  CAW 18: Maruna, Shadd. Making good.

 Wiley, Stephanie A., Lee A Slocum, and Finn-Aage Esbensen. 2013. “The Unintended Consequences of Being Stopped or Arrested: An Exploration of the Labeling Mechanisms through Which Police Contact Leads to Subsequent Delinquency.” Criminology 51 (4): 927–66. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12024.  Tapia, Michael. 2011. “Gang Membership and Race as Risk Factors for Juvenile Arrest.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 48 (3): 364–395. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427810393013.  Bernburg, Jon Gunnar, Marvin D. Krohn, and Craig J. Rivera. 2006. “Official Labeling, Criminal Embeddedness, and Subsequent Delinquency: A Longitudinal Test of Labeling Theory.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 43 (1): 67–88. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427805280068.  Harding, David J. 2003. “Jean Valjean’s Dilemma: The Management of Ex-Convict Identity in the Search for Employment.” Deviant Behavior 24 (6): 571–95. https://doi.org/10.1080/713840275.  Lageson, Sarah E, and Shadd Maruna. 2018. “Digital Degradation: Stigma Management in the Internet Age.” Punishment & Society 20 (1): 113–33. https://doi.org/10.1177/1462474517737050.

MEETING #11 (NOV. 12): CRIME AT THE DEMOGRAPHIC INTERSECTIONS: RACE AND GENDER  CAW 16: Adler, Freda. Sisters in crime.  CAW 17: Chesney-Lind, Meda. A feminist theory of female delinquency.  CAW 18: Miller, Jody. Getting played.

 CAW 43. Sampson, Robert J., and William Julius Wilson. A theory of race, crime, and urban inequality.  Sampson, Robert, Willam Julius Wilson, and Hanna Katz. 2018. “Reassessing ‘toward a Theory of Race, Crime, and Urban Inequality: Enduring and New Challenges in 21st Century America.” Du Bois Review: Social Science Research on Race. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1742058X18000140.  CAW 44: Clear, Todd C. Imprisoned communities.  CAW 45: Unnever, James D., and Shaun L. Gabbidon. A theory of African-American offending.

 Potter, Hillary. 2015. Disrupting criminology: The need to integrate intersectionality into criminological research and theory, Chapter 1. Intersectionality and criminology: Disrupting and revolutionizing studies of crime. Routledge.  Potter, Hillary. 2015. Illuminating intersectionality: Formation of the intersectional standpoint, Chapter 2. Intersectionality and criminology: Disrupting and revolutionizing studies of crime. Routledge.

NO CLASS NOV. 19—THANKSGIVING HOLIDAY

MEETING #12 (NOV. 26): DEVELOPMENTAL AND LIFE-COURSE CRIMINOLOGY  CAW 38: Moffitt, Terrie E. Pathways in the life course to crime.  CAW 39: Laub, John H., and Robert J. Sampson. A theory of persistent offending and desistance from crime.  CAW 40: Paternoster, and Shawn Bushway. The feared self: An identity theory of desistance.  P&R 4: Do we need to follow people over time? Criminal careers vs. criminal propensity theories. 11

 Sullivan, Christopher J., and Alex R. Piquero. 2016. “The Criminal Career Concept: Past, Present, and Future.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 53 (3): 420–42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427815627313.  Nagin, Daniel, and Raymond Paternoster. 2000. “Population Heterogeneity and State Dependence: State of the Evidence and Directions for Future Research.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 16 (2): 117–44. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007502804941.  Sweeten, Gary, Alex R. Piquero, and Laurence Steinberg. 2013. “Age and the Explanation of Crime, Revisited.” Journal of Youth and Adolescence 42 (6): 921–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-013-9926-4.  Nguyen, Holly, and Thomas A. Loughran. 2018. “On the Measurement and Identification of Turning Points in Criminology.” Annual Review of Criminology. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-091949.  Sampson, Robert J., and John H. Laub. 2016. “Turning Points and the Future of Life-Course Criminology: Reflections on the 1986 Criminal Careers Report.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 53 (3): 321–335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427815616992.

Additional suggested reading:  Piquero, Alex R., David P. Farrington, and Alfred Blumstein. 2003. “The Criminal Career Paradigm.” Crime and Justice 30 (January): 359–506. https://doi.org/10.1086/652234.  Nagin, Daniel S., and Richard E. Tremblay. 2005a. “Developmental Trajectory Groups: Fact or a Useful Statistical Fiction?” Criminology 43 (4): 873–904. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2005.00026.x.  Sampson, Robert J., and John H. Laub. 2005. “Seductions of Method: Rejoinder to Nagin and Tremblay’s Developments Trajectory Groups: Fact or Fiction.” Criminology 43: 905. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1745- 9125.2005.00027.x.  Nagin, Daniel S., and Richard E. Tremblay. 2005b. “From Seduction to Passion: A Response to Sampson and Laub.” Criminology 43 (4): 915–918. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2005.00028.x.

MEETING #13 (DEC. 3): INTEGRATED PERSPECTIVE ON CRIME  CAW 46: Agnew, Robert. Why criminals offend: A general theory of crime and delinquency.  CAW 47: Wikstrom, Per-Olof. Situational action theory.  P&R 5: Who is right? Theory testing and construction in criminology.

 Elliott, Delbert S., Suzanne S. Ageton, and Rachelle J. Canter. 1979. “An Integrated Theoretical Perspective on Delinquent Behavior.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 16 (1): 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/002242787901600102.  Thornberry, Terence P. 1987. “Toward an Interactional Theory of Delinquency.” Criminology 25 (4): 863–92. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1987.tb00823.x.  Pauwels, Lieven J.R., Robert Svensson, and Helmut Hirtenlehner. 2018. “Testing Situational Action Theory: A Narrative Review of Studies Published between 2006 and 2015.” European Journal of Criminology 15 (1): 32–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370817732185.  Thomas, Kyle J., and Jean Marie McGloin. 2013. “A Dual-Systems Approach for Understanding Differential Susceptibility to Processes of Peer Influence.” Criminology 51 (2): 435–474. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745- 9125.12010.  Hagan, John, Bill McCarthy, Daniel Herda, and Andrea Cann Chandrasekher. 2018. “Dual-Process Theory of Racial Isolation, Legal Cynicism, and Reported Crime.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115 (28): 7190–99. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1722210115.

MEETING #14 (DEC. 10): THE NEXT GENERATION OF CRIMINOLOGY  Laub, John H. 2004. “The Life Course of Criminology in the United States: The American Society of Criminology 2003 Presidential Address.” Criminology 42 (1): 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00511.x.  Cullen, Francis T. 2011. “Beyond Adolescence-Limited Criminology: Choosing Our Future- The American Society of Criminology 2010 Sutherland Address.” Criminology 49: 287–330. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.2011.00224.x  Short, James F. 2018. “Reflections on Disciplines and Fields, Problems, Policies, and Life.” Annual Review of Criminology 1 (1): null. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-criminol-032317-091929.  Uggen, Christopher, and Michelle Inderbitzin. 2010. “Public Criminologies.” Criminology & Public Policy 9 (4): 725–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9133.2010.00666.x. 12  Belknap, Joanne. 2015. “Activist Criminology: Criminologists’ Responsibility to Advocate for Social and Legal Justice.” Criminology 53 (1): 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12063.  Peterson, Ruth D. 2017. “Interrogating Race, Crime, and Justice in a Time of Unease and Racial Tension.” Criminology 55 (2): 245–72. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12140.  Rosenfeld, Richard. 2018. “Studying Crime Trends: Normal Science and Exogenous Shocks.” Criminology 56 (1): 5– 26. https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12170.

FINAL CLASS (DATE TBD)

13

Late Policy Arrive prior to 3:00pm. Late arrivals may be considered absent for that class period.

Sexual Misconduct, Discrimination, Harassment, and/or Related Retaliation The University of Colorado Boulder (CU Boulder) is committed to fostering a positive and welcoming learning, working, and living environment. CU Boulder will not tolerate acts of sexual misconduct (including sexual assault, exploitation, harassment, dating or domestic violence, and stalking), discrimination, and harassment by members of our community. Individuals who believe they have been subject to misconduct or retaliatory actions for reporting a concern should contact the Office of Institutional Equity and Compliance (OIEC) at 303-492-2127 or [email protected]. Information about the OIEC, university policies, anonymous reporting, and the campus resources can be found on the OIEC website.

Please know that faculty and instructors have a responsibility to inform OIEC when made aware of incidents of sexual misconduct, discrimination, harassment and/or related retaliation, to ensure that individuals impacted receive information about options for reporting and support resources.

Classroom Behavior Students and faculty each have responsibility for maintaining an appropriate learning environment. Those who fail to adhere to such behavioral standards may be subject to discipline. Professional courtesy and sensitivity are especially important with respect to individuals and topics dealing with race, color, national origin, sex, pregnancy, age, disability, creed, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity, gender expression, veteran status, political affiliation or political philosophy. Class rosters are provided to the instructor with the student's legal name. I will gladly honor your request to address you by an alternate name or gender pronoun. Please advise me of this preference early in the semester so that I may make appropriate changes to my records. For more information, see the policies on classroom behavior and the Student Code of Conduct.

Electronic Device Policy Non-disruptive occasional use of cell phones is permitted. Device sound alerts must be turned off during class. Tablets and laptops may be used strictly for class purposes at my discretion. Audio and video recordings are not permitted. Any deviation from the aforementioned policy must be discussed with the me beforehand.

Honor Code All students enrolled in a University of Colorado Boulder course are responsible for knowing and adhering to the Honor Code. Violations of the policy may include: plagiarism, cheating, fabrication, lying, bribery, threat, unauthorized access to academic materials, clicker fraud, submitting the same or similar work in more than one course without permission from all course instructors involved, and aiding academic dishonesty. All incidents of academic misconduct will be reported to the Honor Code ([email protected]); 303-492-5550). Students who are found responsible for violating the academic integrity policy will be subject to nonacademic sanctions from the Honor Code as well as academic sanctions from the faculty member. Additional information regarding the Honor Code academic integrity policy can be found at the Honor Code Office website.

Accommodation for Disabilities If you qualify for accommodations because of a disability, please submit your accommodation letter from Disability Services to your faculty member in a timely manner so that your needs can be addressed. Disability Services determines accommodations based on documented disabilities in the academic environment. Information on requesting accommodations is located on the Disability Services website. Contact Disability Services at 303-492-8671 or [email protected] for further assistance. If you have a temporary medical condition or injury, see Temporary Medical Conditions under the Students tab on the Disability Services website.

Writing Center If you need help with writing, visit the CU-Boulder Writing Center. Writing tutors will work with you one-on-one at any stage of the writing process (brainstorming, generating a draft, organizing a draft, or revising a draft) for any written assignment. Consult their website for resources http://www.colorado.edu/pwr/writingcenter.html

Religious Holiday Campus policy regarding religious observances requires that faculty make every effort to deal reasonably and fairly with all students who, because of religious obligations, have conflicts with scheduled exams, assignments or required attendance. In this class, students must correspond with the instructor at least two weeks in advance for accommodations to be made. See the campus policy regarding religious observances for full details. 14

Withdrawals Students wishing to withdraw are cautioned to follow formal procedures outlined by the University http://www.colorado.edu/registrar/registration-grades/adddrop-courses

15