Criminology is the study of the etiology of crime – what
causes crime and why. To answer that question, we seek to
detect crime and then accurately measure it in all its dimensions:
 where, when, and why is it distributed in time and place
 where, when, how, why and who is committing it
 where when, how, why and who are the victims
Based on an assessment of that information, a response or a
treatment is prescribed in both a preventative and curative
context if possible. Criminology seeks epistemological
understanding so as to better prevent and respond to crime
in a social/communal context and to minimize its negative
Impacts.



Macro differentiation/inter crime specificity
Micro differentiation/intra crime specificity
We overuse the word “cause/causality”:
a. cause v. spurious correlations
b. cause v. accentuating, aggravating
c. cause v. mitigating, diminishing

Micro response challenges - Criminology assumes the
medical model (discover the problem, assess its nature and
extent, prescribe a response/a cure), but it falls short
because:
1. There are no accurate diagnostic instruments (no
criminological thermometers, no criminological x-rays or
CAT scans)
2. No body of diagnostic knowledge
3. No evidence-based, generally consistent, uniformly
applicable and broadly effective treatment modalities
All require an evidence-based epistemological cause/effect
understanding, which criminology lacks.

Macro responses/Public health analogy
a. risk factors
b. protective factors
c. positive & negative “tunnelers”
(physics analogy)
It is impossible to speak of one specific cause
for the wide range of behavior classified as
criminal
- Inter
- Intra
You cannot call something a cause of an
event if it rarely produces the event. Many
factors impact in a non-causal context, and
would more appropriately be called:
- Contributing factors
- Precipitating factors
- Accentuating/aggravating factors
- Compounding factors
- Triggering factors
Criminology, like medicine, assumes
conformity and seeks to explain deviance.
Perhaps we should assume deviance and
explain conformity.
- Why do nearly all people, nearly all the
time, refrain from crime?
- What is the cause of virtue?
- How does society build a citizenry of
character?
Level 1 – Fear of Punishment
Level 2 – Promise of Reward
Level 3 – Altruistic Motivation
For justice to reign, possessing the Ring of Gyges
should have no impact on our behavior.
Justice will be realized only when people are
intrinsically willing to obey the unenforceable.
An interdisciplinary social science-based
field of study that seeks a core, etiological
understanding of the preventative and
curative aspects of crime that seeks to develop
and continually enhance a body of scientific
knowledge relative to preventative and curative
strategies; the seeks to create better
measurement instruments, better diagnostic
capabilities, and ultimately, better
preventative, control and treatment options.
Science in general is constrained due to deep
rooted social, economic, and political factors.
There are scientific truths and there are
political truths. In the end, political “leaders”
look not to science, but to the political
palatability coefficient, to the political truths,
to survive. So rather than criticize, we need to
recognize that this is simply the nature of the
job, and we need to adjust accordingly.
Criminologists and justice professionals must:
* Uncover scientific truths/grow the body of knowledge.
* Be alert as to when the best time would be to bring the
results forward (be attuned to the zeitgeist).
*Engage in activities that create a politically palatable
environment/create a setting where truths can be aired
and implemented.
We must be both scientific and public criminologists for our
research to have any value.
I.) Demonological Theories
1.) Traditional - Augustine, Gregory I,
Gregory VII, Jerome
2.) Pre-Classical - Aquinas, Luther, Machiavelli
3.) Social Contract - Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau,
Voltaire
I.) Demonological Theories
A.) Traditional - Augustine, Gregory I, Gregory VII, Jerome
Behavior is caused by other world factors – Satan, sin (mala in se), trial by
ordeal, will of God, predestination, people basically bad, church punishes
frequent & harsh punishment.
B.) Pre-Classical - Aquinas, Luther, Machiavelli
The Pre-Classical writers press the margin per the above principles, some
things are not sin (mala in se) but wrong from a civic context (mala
prohibitum), some acts punishable by the State. Key point – the notion
that only the church punishes begins to be challenged (ala Henry 8th).
I.) Demonological Theories…continued
C.) Social Contract - Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire
*Behavior a mix of other world factors and personal impulses and
instincts, you agree to abide by the laws and the State agrees to
maintain order, the State punishes when that contract is violated.
*Hobbes – people are basically bad, the reason there is crime is
because the state does not punish with sufficient frequency and
severity.
*Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire – people are basically good (new paradigm)
head of the state is the servant of the people, rule of law (no one, not
even the King is above the law), it is better to free a guilty man than to
condemn an innocent one.
Hobbes wins out initially, but Lockean philosophies
eventually emerge in the Western world.
I.) Demonological Theories
1.) Traditional - Augustine, Gregory I, Gregory VII,
Jerome
2.) Pre-Classical - Aquinas, Luther, Machiavelli
3.) Social Contract - Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau,
Voltaire
II.) Naturalistic Theories
1.) Classical - Cicero, Beccaria, Bentham, Burke
There is crime because the state lacks certainty and
severity in its punishment delivery systems, and, it is
the state’s job to punish, not the church. To stop
crime, we need more police, prosecutors, and prisons.
Punish lots of people, punish them regularly and
harshly.
Classical theory is based on deterrence theory. Crime is
to be prevented through fear of receiving sanctions
(Rational Man Theory). The state needs to make the
costs of engaging in crime higher than the benefits, and
communicate that to the public.
There are some aggregate costs (innocent
punished/guilty punished more severely than they
should be – read Liberty v. Order), but these costs
are the necessary and totally acceptable secondary
collateral consequences as we must avert chaos
and maintain order and stability as the
primary/overriding goal.
1. People are basically evil
2. Self determinism
3. Order the over-riding focus; liberty is but a
secondary concern
4. Deterrence Theory/Rational Man Theory
5. Focus on the crime
6. State punishes (not the church)
7. Utilitarian perspective





Specific vs. General
Swiftness
Certainty
Severity
Clarity
Severity is not a substitute for certainty.
Certainty is the key element.
This was the prominent theory from the mid-1700s until the
late 1800s. The Kings loved it for it justified their harsh and
arbitrary use of power, as did another holdover notion from
the Demonological era, the Divine Right of Kings. The ideas
taken in tandem justified the Kings’ punitive ways, and loved
Bentham for justifying their murders and frauds.
Under Demonological theory, the Pope was the judge. Under
Classical theory (and its Divine Right of Kings notion), the
Kings were the ultimate judge. Under Positivism (our next
topic), it is the people who rule and reign (popular
sovereignty), and there are many perspectives that have
grown from this orientation.
I.) Demonological Theories
1.) Traditional - Augustine, Gregory I, Gregory VII, Jerom
2.) Pre-Classical - Aquinas, Luther, Machiavelli
3.) Social Contract - Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire
II.) Naturalistic Theories
1.) Classical - Cicero, Beccaria, Bentham, Burke
2.) Positivist - Lombroso, Quetelet, Comte
A. Biological Determinism - Galton, Lombroso
1. Constitutional - Gall, Goring, Hooton, Jacobs,
Sheldon
2. Bio Social - Hippchen, Jeffrey, Edward O. Wilso
Classical theory slowly slipped underground with the
success of the industrial revolution and the
emergence of a middle class who no longer accepted
the harsh and arbitrary use of power by Kings. In
the place of Classical theory came a new paradigm, a
new school of thought called Positivism that also
interestingly grew out of the Social Contract
paradigm, stealing not from Hobbes of course as
Classical theory did, but from Voltaire, Locke and
Rousseau and is based on the notion that people are
basically good – positivism.
1. People are basically good.
2. The king is the servant of the people
3. The rule of law is dominant, and no one is above
the law (not even the king)
4. Rules and regulations are in place to regulate the
power of the Kings/the Regents/the elites
5. Power to the people/popular sovereignty
6. Liberty, not state controlled order, reigns
supreme
7. Evidence-based, data driven orientation
There are born criminals with definite physical anomalies,
sub-humans who will never change (criminaloids), unless
we intervene biologically. We divide this school of thought
into two categories:
* Constitutional: Crime is due to definitive and
identifiable physical abnormalities in people.
Criminals are biologically/organically inferior,
physically and mentally.
* Bio-Social/Bio-Crim: Behavior is a result of
bio-chemical imbalances and genetic abnormalities,
but also the environment. The focus of the biocriminologists, is on the genetic and bio-chemical.
Three areas of focus:
◦ Genetic origins of crime
◦ Internally sourced origins of crime:
 Enzyme/hormonal imbalances
 Insufficient brain development/brain
abnormalities
◦ Externally sourced origins of crime:
 Exposure to externally sourced toxic materials
 General nutrition/vitamin deficiencies
(orthomolecular deficiencies)
Genetic Origins of Crime:
◦ Violence genes, lying genes, crime genes, morality
genes, alcoholism genes, religiosity genes?
◦ Impulsivity and ADHD (attention deficit and
hyperactivity disorder) are perhaps 75% genetically
based
◦ Variations in the AR gene are associated with
violent crime
◦ DNA manipulations
◦ Caspi and Trembly studies
Caspi study
◦ abused/insufficient nurturing + genetically
vulnerable: 85% developed anti-social behaviors
◦ abused/insufficient nurturing + no genetic
vulnerability: virtually no anti-social tendencies
◦ not abused/sufficient nurturing + genetic
vulnerability: virtually no anti-social tendencies
Behavior Impacted By
Genetic
Environment
18 months old
82%
18%
60 months old
66%
34%
(Trembly thesis is that the 66% figure will
drop even further as time passes)
Internally Sourced Origins of Crime A. Hormone and enzyme imbalances:
 Serotonin
 Dopamine
 Melatonin
 Testosterone
 Estrogen/PMS
 MAOA
 Phenethylamine/MAO-B
Internally Sourced Origins of Crime:
B. Insufficient brain development/brain abnormalities:
◦ Reactive Aggressive Teens: high Amygdala activity and
less frontal lobe activity
◦ Pedophiles: lower volume of gray matter in the
orbitofrontal cortex, the cerebellum and the ventral
striatum
◦ Pedophiles: abnormal serotonin subsystem in the brain
◦ Men v Women: low volume of gray matter in the
orbitofrontal cortex is highly correlated with violent and
anti-social behaviors; in the aggregate, men have lower
volumes than women
◦ Antisocial individuals: damage in the dorsal and ventral
prefrontal cortex and angular gyrus
B. Insufficient brain development/brain abnormalities
…continued:
◦ High norm compliance individuals: high activity in the lateral
orbitofrontal cortex and right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex
(areas not developed until early 20s)
◦ Violent offenders: large white matter volume in the occipital,
parietal lobes and left cerebellum; large gray matter volume in
the right cerebellum
◦ Violent offenders: atrophy in the postcentral gyri, frontopolar
cortex and orbiofrontal cortex
◦ Youth Brain Shrinkage: frontal and pre-frontal cortex
shrinkage/shrinkage of the risk aversion center of the brain
(age 15 – 25)
◦ Violent youth: slower neurological transmission issues
◦ Novelty seeking individuals: fast firing dopamine neurons in the
brain
◦ Prenatal alcohol exposure: alters white matter structure in the
frontal and occipital lobes
Externally Sourced Origins of Crime:
A. Exposure to toxic substances:
◦ Heavy metals (lead, cadmium, mercury, PCBs)
◦ HCD (hexachlorobenzene)
◦ Prenatal nicotine exposure
Externally Sourced Origins of Crime…continued
B. Nutritional/Orthomolecular Deficiencies
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
◦
General vitamin and nutritional deficiencies
Prenatal protein deficiencies
Cholesterol deficiencies
Zinc deficiencies
Fatty acid deficiencies (Omega 3, Omega 6, DHA)
Iron deficiencies
Vitamin B and Chromium deficiencies
Hypoglycemia issues (sugar)
Insufficient manganese consumption
Schoenthaeler study

How do we respond?
◦ Eat healthy substances/orthomolecular therapy
(take good things in)
◦ Eat substances that will remove the toxic
substances from the body (get the bad things out)
◦ Move away from toxic sources (don’t let any more
bad things in)
◦ Bio-chemical interventions in serious cases:







Ritalin
Rebuifin
Lithium
Galvanic skin implants
Metoprolol
Depo-Provera/MPA
Thorazine


Crime is caused by biological imbalances. These imbalances have:
◦ Genetically sourced origins
◦ Internally sourced origins:
 Enzyme/hormonal imbalances
 Insufficient brain development/brain abnormalities
◦ Externally sourced origins:
 Exposure to externally sourced toxic materials
 General nutrition/vitamin deficiencies (orthomolecular
deficiencies)
To
◦
◦
◦
◦
reduce crime, we need to:
Put good things in the body
Get the bad things out of the body
Don’t let anymore bad things in the body
Engage in physical interventions and drug therapy in serious cases






Ignores the Constitution
Ignores Durkheim (society of clones)
Ignores Durkheim (faulty “Intelligence to crime” assumption)
Alpha error (explains violence, but little else)
Extreme potential for abuse
Very difficult to implement today
There is a future for bio-criminology as there is much empirically valid
work being done in this area. Science is proverbially ahead of culture,
bio-criminology in particular, so it will take some time for this
perspective to be integrated into the mainstream (Max Plank theorem).
I.)
Demonological Theories
1.) Traditional - Augustine, Gregory I, Gregory VII, Jerome
2.) Pre-Classical - Aquinas, Luther, Machiavelli
3.) Social Contract - Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Voltaire
II.)
Naturalistic Theories
1.) Classical - Cicero, Beccaria, Bentham, Burke
2.) Positivist - Lombroso, Quetelet, Comte
A. Biological Determinism - Galton, Lombroso
1. Constitutional - Gall, Goring, Hooton, Jacobs, Sheldon
2. Bio Social - Hippchen, Jeffrey, Edward O. Wilson
B. Cultural Determinism - Quetelet
1. Psychological - Tarde
a. Cognitive Theory - James, Menninger, Piaget
b. Freudian Theory/Psychoanalysis - Freud, Jung
c. Learning Theory - Bandura, Skinner
Cultural Determinism comes down on the nurture side in the
classic nurture vs. nature debate. Acts committed by individuals
are the result of social/cultural/environmental experiences. Two
general schools of thought – psychological and sociological.
Psychological school – Deviant behavior due to individual
personality deviations. When the person is psychologically and
emotionally balanced they will no longer commit crime. This is
an individual-focused orientation, with three paradigms/schools
of thought within the area.
Freudian psychology - Crime is a product of inner psychic conflict.
Crime is due to childhood trauma, repressed feelings of anxiety,
conflict between the id (pleasure-seeking center) the ego (reality
component) and the superego (punishment component). Because of
conflict between the id, the ego and the superego, people repress
feelings into the realm of unconsciousness, and those feelings
surface from time to time in the form of undesirable behavior. The
unconscious is a source of conscious motivation, and thus a party of
psychotherapy. People are classified as psychotic, neurotic,
dissocial, schizophrenic, with inferiority complexes and identity
crises, and psychopathic (the classic “criminal” label). All of these
mental abnormalities can lead to antisocial behavior.
Learning theory – Behavior is learned, often subconsciously, but
learned (ie. Pavlov). The world, the environment, shapes people.
This theory de-emphasizes the conscience, the id/ego/superego
internal conflict notions of Freudian psychology and instead
emphasis the principles of positive and negative reinforcement.
So change people by rewarding conventional behavior and
punishing abnormal/undesirable behavior. Often called
Skinnerian psychology, or rat psychology.
Cognitive theory – Crime is due to thwarted individual moral
development. This theory emphases the individual’s need to take
responsibility for their own actions. It is a conscious learning
orientation that stresses the need for a deliberate internal conversion
to a more responsible lifestyle. As individuals reach moral high
ground, they are less inclined to engage in criminal behavior.
Behavior should be motivated by altruistic factors rather than by fear
of punishment (Kohlberg typology).
Psychology is the quintessential soft science. It is based, not on
evidence, but on educated guesswork, tempered with intuition and
personal experience. Psychiatric testimony regarding criminal
behavior only distorts the fact-finding process.
Counterpoint- become a forensic psychologist and advance the field!
2.) Sociological - Durkheim, Ferri
A.) Social Structure Theories - Burgess
1. Culture Conflict - Miller, Sellin
2. Differential Opportunity - Cloward, Ohlin
3. Relative Deprivation - Blau and Blau
4. Social Disorganization - McKay, Shaw, Thrasher
5. Strain - Agnew, Merton
6. Subculture Conflict - Cohen
Sociological School (Durkheim) – Emphasizes the socio-economic
impacts on behavior. It has little micro value, but great macro or
aggregate value in explaining crime. There are two general
theoretical constructs that fall under this orientation - social
structural theories and social process theories.
Social Structural Theories (Burgess) – There are several theories that
fall under this broad category. They all use as the basis, the fact that
we live in socio-economically stratified settings and that there is an
unequal distribution and access to wealth, power, and opportunity in
society. An inability to attain the desired levels of wealth, power
and/or opportunity often results in criminal activity…and that can be
in any social class. Even the rich, when not feeling rich enough, will
resort to crime. The general focus in this school however is upon
poverty and disadvantaged class position as a basic cause of crime.
There is definitive socio-economic stratification. The wealthiest 62
people in the world own as much as the poorest half of the world. In
other words, the net worth of 62 people is equivalent to the net
worth of 3.9 billion people. The net worth of the wealthiest 1% in
American is equivalent to the net worth of the bottom 90% combined.
The Oscar-winning movie “Parasite” plays out the struggle between
rich and poor, as does the film, “Slum Dog Millionaire.”
The inequalities of our economic system are grotesque – Poverty is
violence, unemployment is violence, lack of education and hope is
violence.
Martin Luther King
Poverty is not just the lack of money, but of diminished human rights
and opportunities – educational opportunities, health care, quality
housing in good neighborhoods, legal assistance, recreational
opportunities, travel, quality nutrition, employment opportunities,
limited networks/connections with positive role models,
social/cultural opportunities. The compound impact is an
environment of hopeless (anomie).
The Gini coefficient measures economic inequality in a nation, in a
community, and there is a high correlation between the Gini
coefficient and crime – the higher the socio-economic inequality
coefficient in a community (rift between rich and poor), the higher
crime rates. This is an empirical validation of the general Social
Structural theory premise, that poverty/disadvantaged class position
is a basic cause of crime.
When you break down the social forces at work,
none of them taken alone are all that
overwhelming per se, when taken together, these
factors have a pronounced, accumulative,
synergistic impact, a compounding, multiplicative
impact on crime propensity. In the aggregate,
disadvantaged social position, as well as
unbalanced, inequitable social structures, are a
cause of crime. In an environment of socioeconomic inequity, crime is to be expected, a byproduct of that environment.
Hot spots, broken windows theory. Society is an organism that is sick. We
must locate the sickness, the cancerous tumors per an X-ray, and treat it/cut
it out. Chicago area projects – map the city and find areas that are disfigured
by poverty and crime, and then upgrade the socio-economic environment in
those areas. Treat the socially handicapped, help those in the hot-sport areas
to overcome feelings of anomie by providing more opportunities. Put in Rec
Centers and parks, start neighborhood associations, have concerts in the park,
career fairs at the schools, local civic and business leaders personally serve as
one-on one mentors, draw upon local talent to serve as teacher aids in the
schools, police adopt a problem-solving paradigm
Police success measured not by crime reduction alone, but by the teenage
pregnancy rates in a neighborhood, high school graduation rates, the number
of abandoned homes and business in the neighborhood (with their broken
windows), the number of abandoned vehicles, un-employment rate, etc.
Strain theory is micro or individual based vs. Social Disorganization
with is macro based.
There are barriers to reaching goals that are class-based. No matter
what we do, it is impossible to get ahead. There is a sense of anomie
(hopelessness) and futility. There is no chance of getting ahead using
legitimate means so we resort to illegitimate means. Crime can be
reduced by enhancing socio-economic opportunities, particularly
educational opportunities as there is a profound educational
attainment to crime correlation.
Eugene Lang, Kauffman Foundation, Project Head Start, Job Corps, old
GI Bill
Proponents of the Chicago School and Strain Theory thought that if
given economic, social, general development opportunities there would
be no crime. and that not the case.
Flaws –
* Educated and entitled people still commit crimes, just different types.
They will now commit middle/upper class crimes - embezzle, cheat
on taxes, engage in white collar crimes but are less likely to engage
in violent street crime. Amount of crime is the same but the nature
changes (Durkheim). QUESTION – severity diminished?
* Even when given the opportunities, all will not take advantage.
(penicillin does not work for everyone)
Providing opportunity structures is clearly not THE
answer to all our social problems, but it does
provide some answers. There are a significant
number of individuals who will take advantage of
opportunities offered (per the Lang experience).
The problem is that many simply do not have
opportunity access. That dynamic compounded by
the fact many in the middle and upper classes are
totally oblivious to these realities. They are clueless
regarding poverty and its de-habilitating impacts,
yet interestingly are so quick to render
sanctimonious judgement.
See the cartoon by Engelhardt (re-drawn by my wife!) that depicts
some of these points.
1. The cartoon depicts, somewhat simplistically, the crux of strain
theory. Some have paths of opportunity and hope, while others do
not (read the label on each step).
2. I disagree with the premise that the wealthy just ride an escalator to
the top. You may have advantage, but law school is tough as is
medical school. Work is required to get ahead, even with advantage
and opportunity.
3. What is property depicted is the condescending tone so prevalent
among many in the upper classes who possess wholesale ignorance
when it comes to the issue of poverty and its impacts. “I don’t
know why they can’t make it as we did?” The ease and comforts of
upper-class lives are exceeded only by their ignorance of the scope
and dynamics of poverty and depravation in this world. The
pompous, condescending arrogance of America’s upper class that I
have personally seen, is beyond nauseating.
Give kids a chance, and most will achieve. Not all, penicillin does not
work for everyone, but by in large, in a relatively consistent, uniform
sense, provide hope and opportunity and great things will happen.
Applying Strain Theory to real life – offer free tuition to a state
university or a tech school for all who graduate from high school, and
if a solid GPA is maintained, the tuition waiver remains. Offer hope
and opportunity, defeat anomie and there will be less crime, less
violence and more social peace. It is also economically sound as over a
20-year period, such a policy pays off somewhere around 5:1 (better
jobs means more taxes paid and a less welfare-dependent society).
Strain theory, but now applied more broadly. It’s not just the poor, but
anyone who lacks legitimate opportunities to achieve success, will
resort to illegitimate means. You could be “rich” per the definition of
many, but you want more. It’s a relative deprivation, a “keep up with
the Jones” mentality in the face of limited legitimate opportunities that
sparks crime. This is very useful in explaining white collar crime as
well as upper and middle-class delinquency.
Examples - Ivan Boesky, Kenneth Lay
How much is enough is the quintessential relativity that drives this
theory.
Crime is caused by the clash of two or more cultural groups who both
desire to retain their identities. An act may be normal for one culture,
but a crime in another. If your cultural perspectives win out in this
social Darwinian struggle, then you set the norms and the rules, and
the losers are the deviants and criminals.
Vietnamese coining example
Crime is caused by the clash of two or more sub-cultural groups within
communities who both desire to retain their identities. There are
dozens of subcultures that function within our communities, and crime
is one result of the competition between these forces. Some compete
more less civilly, but some more strident. This theory is very useful in
explaining inner city crime.
Monster (by Kody Scott) – This book graphically articulates the
subculture of the streets, not as seen by an academic, but by an
insider, an active member of the LA gang known as the Crips.
On the flip side of Sub-Cultural Conflict theory is the notion that
sub-cultures are of great value and particularly serve as an
integral aspect of democracy. Democracy could not function
without the marble-cake layers (plural) of literally millions of
voluntary formal and informal associations out there (sub-cultures
if you will) in which people gather in various forms and setting
groups. This connectedness creates literally millions of microdemocracies upon which macro-democracy depends. These
subcultures have immense communal value but also have a
communal cost as these various groups compete in the socioeconomic, political market-place, seeking to push their ideas
(legally and illegally) onto that communal landscape.
2.) Sociological - Durkheim, Ferri
a. Social Structure Theories - Burgess
b. Social Process Theories - Sutherland
1. Bonding - Hindelang, Hirschi
2. Control - Durkheim, Reckless
3. Developmental/Life Course – Laub, Moffitt, Sampson
4. Differential Anticipation - Glazer
5. Differential Association - Cressy, Sutherland
6. Differential Reinforcement - Akers
7. Drift - Matza, Sykes
8. Labeling - Allport, Braithwaite, Lemert, Rosenthal
9. Self-control – Gottfredson, Hirschi
10. Social Development - Weis
11. Turning Point/Tipping Point – Laub, Sampson
The theme of the several Social Process theories, is that we are not
born as a criminal, but become one through a process. It’s nurture not
nature. We are impacted in a negative way when exposed to a negative
environment.
Differential Association (Sutherland) – We become criminals due to the
process of interaction and association with others. We have reference
groups who we associate with, whose love, esteem and acceptance is
sought. Over time, we become like them We become like those with
whom we associate, depending upon the frequency, duration, intensity
And priority of those relationships. Behavior is learned; social osmosis.
Edwin Sutherland was born in 1883 in Gibbon, Nebraska.
Drift Theory (Matza) – We may associate with “bad people” but:
 some are not be affected at all by these associations
 some drift into a deviant mode per these associations and stay there
 the larger number of us are impacted due to these associations, but only to
a certain extent, and not in every aspect of our lives; we drift in and then
out, in and out, in and out of deviant modes of behaviors over time per these
associations
Most are not at the two ends – immune or permanently impacted. Most of us,
and per the name of the theory, drift in and then out, in and out of deviant
modes of behavior in a sporadic fashion, at different times, and at different
levels in our lives as a result of our associations with others/peer pressures.
This theory is useful in explaining teenage joyriding, drinking and petty
vandalism.
Alcohol analogy
Bonding Theory (Hirschi) – We have bonds to those in conventional society
(church, school, family, work). The stronger the bonds (attachment,
involvement, commitment, belief), the less crime prone we are. The weaker
those bonds, the more crime prone we become.
Bare branches and youth bulges
This theory is very useful in explaining delinquency/crimes of the young. There
is a definitive age desistance factor, an aging out of crime phenomenon. As
the young develop more and stronger bonds with conventional society, as they
develop a greater stake in conventional society, they move out of criminal
modes of behavior. They will no longer embrace but will desist from crime.
Desistence is the buzz word in this theory. Youth in particular, but we all will
desist from engaging in criminal activities as we expand and strengthen our
bonds with conventional society, but will persist in our criminal activities if
those bonds are few and weak.
Mexican police experiment
Self-control Theory (also Hirschi) – This is a derivation of bonding
theory that ties in with cognitive psychology. This theory suggests that
individuals with low self-control have a greater propensity to
committee crime when in the presence of criminal opportunity. We can
develop greater self-control as we attain an internal conversion to a
more responsible lifestyle (altruistic motivation), which can be realized
as we expand and strengthen our bonds with conventional society,
particularly in our youth.
Stanford University marshmallow test
Developmental/Life Court Theory (Sampson and Laub) – This is yet
another derivation of bonding theory – as individuals expand and
strengthen bonds with conventional society, they will desist from
crime. This theory stresses the time and bond-quality dimensions. We
need quality bonds, maintained longitudinally. We will desist in
engaging in crime over time as quality bonds are maintained
longitudinally
This theory does not explain white collar crime at all, nor terrorism, but
it is useful in explaining traditional property crime and some violent
crime.
Turning Point or Tipping Point Theory (Sampson and Laub) – We
experience occasional singular episodes and events that permanently
alter our life’s trajectories and re-directs us down different paths,
positive or negative. Crime pathways theory. This theory deemphasizes the time dimension and the power of bonds which can be
negated in a flash. It is used to explain virtue as well as vice and
violence.
Examples:
A former Univ. of Nebraska criminology professor
Bonnie Parker
Kody Scott
Labeling Theory (Braithwaite) – Behavior is a result of internalized
expectation. We tend to behave in ways we think others expect us to
behave. This theory explains both positive and negative behaviors.
Footnote point - The empirical validation of Labeling Theory
pragmatically undermines the Positivist School’s emphasis on
rehabilitation. To bring someone into a rehabilitation program, we first
must convict them/identify them as needing help. We label them as a
deviant and we don’t have any generally consistent/quantitively proven
treatment modalities at our disposal to overcome the impact of that
labeling.
Some are called social structural theories, some are call social process
theories, but taken together they say much the same thing in an
aggregate context. Rehabilitate the neighborhoods, provide economic,
educational and social opportunities for all, help remove the sense of
anomie, strengthen bonds to conventional society and:
 People will not commit crimes to begin with (preventative)
 People will desist from committing crime in the future (curative)
Decrease the exposure and impact of the risk factors, increase the
exposure and exposure and impact of the protective factors in all
areas, and the seriousness of crime will be diminished.
The Positivist school has two general themes:
 people are basically good
 rehabilitate those who stray
That seems contradictory but let’s use the medical analogy to explain. People
are basically healthy, but we all get sick from time to time (foreign pathogens
do enter our bodies), and we all fall prey to accidents. Parallel - people are
basically good, but all of us commit crime from time to time. From the medical
side, we go to the doctor when we are ill or hurt, and they diagnose and then
help cure us. When in the criminal mode, we too need to be diagnosed and
then cured/rehabilitated.
Now the Problem – We try to take these macro-based Sociological theories and
apply them in micro, and fail. Doctors, as we have emphasized, have
instruments they use to diagnose individual problems, and have many effective
treatment modalities all based on a body of knowledge that addresses
individual needs/challenges. Criminology does not have any of that. We guess!
Martinson study
* Labeling stigmatization
* The rehabilitation “medical model” lacks:
a. Diagnostic instruments
b. Body of diagnostic knowledge
c. Generally consistent, uniformly effective
treatment procedures and modalities
Though we like to mimic the medical model and
its micro-orientation, criminology is macro in its
orientation and capabilities.
* External factors (Zimbardo, prisonization)
* Re-habilitation terminology fraud
*
*
*
*
*
Transferability issues
Limited exposure
Too late
Constancy dictum
Nihil Nocere
Rehabilitation's pragmatic bottom line - If you want middle
class behavior, provide middle class jobs, reward and
opportunity structures.
There have been sincere, lifetime efforts undertaken by so many
in this field, but the more they extend their helping hands, the
worse the situation has become…but do we stop?
* Not enough research to date.
* Same rate of success as oncologists.
* A life-long cure not reasonable (not expected in medicine).
* The need for inter-crime and intra-crime specificity is only now
beginning to be realized.
* The problem is often not the program, but the implementation.
Even when you have a good program/a good seed, we still need (in a
farming analogy):
* Internal conversion of the treated (fertile ground)
* Proper timing/Zeitgeist (palatable environment)
* Capable program personnel (knowledgeable/skilled farmer)
* Dedicated/persistent program personnel (hard working farmer)
If any one of these is missing, the program fails/the crops fail.
For rehabilitation programs to be successful, the clients must
want to change (medical model does not apply here at all).
There is a need for a deliberate internal conversion to a more
responsible lifestyle on the part of the individuals (Kohlberg
Level 3). We can place people in every program imagined but
they will never change until they want to, and even when they
want to, its hard to change (ie., losing weight analogy). So, how
do we motivate people to internally, altruistically want to
change? There is the rub, as everyone is different, but that is the
key to becoming successful social workers, probation or parole
officers, parents, coaches, teachers, leaders in every arena –
motivate at the Kohlberg 3 level; help others make that internal
conversion to a more responsible lifestyle.
3.) Conflict - Marx
A. Class Conflict - Bonger, Vold
B. Economic Determinism - Becker, Ehrlich, Mayr, Stigler
C. Radical - Chambliss, Quinney, Turk, Young
Bonger was a Dutch criminologist who took the
Marxist ideal and pushed it into a criminogical context. He
wrote in the early 20th century. Quinney is an American
criminologist who expanded upon Bonger’s work in the 2nd half
of the 20th century.
The conflict criminologist seek a type of Utopian, socialistic,
classless society. Capitalism is a major cause of crime, the
growing market economy is accentuating crime, laws carry no
absolute element about them but are merely the extension of
upper class wishes, the codification of their values and values,
and when others come to power, new laws and value structures
will be forthcoming.
Every society is based on the coercion of some of its members by others.
Law is a function of political power. It is used by the more powerful to maintain
control over the less powerful. The more threatened a ruling group feels, the more
rigorously it tends to enforce the law.
Laws are the codification of ruling class interests. Laws become legitimate simply
because the ruling class has the power to enforce them and the ability to create
the ideology by which they are made to appear justified.
The police, the courts and the correctional systems are all instruments utilized by
the ruling class to insure adherence to their laws.
People who are socio-economically close to the power group tend to develop
normative behavioral systems that are similar to members of the power group. The
further away a person is from the power group, the more likely they will possess
different normative behavioral systems, and the greater the likelihood that those
different behaviors will be defined as criminal.
Crime is not an inherent quality of any act. All behavior patterns in fact have the
potential to be defined as criminal. Criminality is merely a label given to certain
behaviors by the ruling authorities.
The ability to confer criminal status is a privilege enjoyed by the powerful classes,
to the broad detriment of the less powerful. Generally, criminal behavior is merely
behavior that threatens the interests of the powerful.
Law and definitions of crime may be modified from time to time, but never to the
extent that existing political and economic relationships are jeopardized. As a
rule, changes in the law are a reflection of changes in the needs and interests of
the powerful.
The rights and freedoms that laws confer grant a great deal more freedom to
some groups than to others. The rights and freedoms allegedly protected by law,
are only protected for those who can afford it. In the end, legal efficacy reigns
supreme, not the law.
Rather than being an independent arbitrator of conflict, the state is in fact the
prize for which different groups compete in order to gain control. Once in control,
the behaviors of the less powerful are criminalized, and the behaviors of the more
powerful are legitimized
1. Capitalism is the cause of most crime and
needs to be abandoned.
2. Restructure society, and move toward a
classless, utopian, socialistic state.
3. The restructuring may require a revolution.
4. Tear down the prisons.
5. Abolish police forces.
6. Adopt a non-interventionist strategy.
1. Ignores Durkheim
a. after the revolution there will still be
deviance, just new definitions
b. there is a value to deviance
1. Catalyst for change and progress.
2. Forces a re-examination and modification of values and behaviors.
3. Redistributes opportunities for leadership.
4. Refines the truth (forces opposing parties to better prepare).
5. Promotes community cohesion by drawing people together in
mutual disapproval.
6. Responses to deviance inculcates communal values.
7. Removes bureaucratic red tape/provides for quicker responses.
Without deviance, we would be a society of
clones, incapable of dealing with the
variation around us. Diversity is mandatory
to confront the tumultuous, ever changing
world in which we live. The question, is what
types of deviance should be allowed, and how
much? No definitive answer of course, as that
is the crux of the Golden Rule principle.
2. High cost of the revolution, and it would ironically be
borne by the very people it is supposed to help.
3. Capitalism is the root of much crime, and is particularly
helpful in explaining white-collar crime and some
property crime, but it is not the root of most crime.
Let us pause and review this modified primary point capitalism is indeed the root of much crime.
Capitalism has much to offer and many have benefited, but crime is a natural by-product
of capitalism, a covalent bond, automobile exhaust. It is an inevitable artifact.
Why?
A. Unemployment:
1. Capitalism by its very nature does not yield stability but rather volatility. We often talk
of business cycles in a very detached fashion, but business cycles means, there are
times when people will be out of work. The cyclical nature of capitalism with its riskbased orientations, results in economic instability and periodic unemployment which
often results in people migrating into the illegitimate realms and markets.
2. Capitalism needs a core number of people to be unemployed for two reasons:
a. Some number of unemployed people are needed as a threat, to potentially take
over the jobs if workers threaten to quit due to low wage and working condition
concerns.
b. Some number of unemployed people are needed to turn to in times of peak
production/distribution needs.
The optimum unemployment rate from the capitalist
point of view is thought to be roughly 3% - 4%. In
our nation of roughly 140 million workers, that is 4.2
million – 5.5million people unemployed, and with
unemployment comes crime, for a variety of reasons.
B. Capitalism results in a small number of people accumulating great
wealth and others, a large number, living in or near poverty levels.
Capitalism, and particularly minimally regulated capitalism, yields a
large socio-economic inequity coefficient. Nations with a high
socio-economic inequity coefficient (the Gini coefficient) have high
property and violent crime rates.
C. The basic econometrics of business requires workers to be paid less
than what is necessary for them to buy all of the goods and services
they need, let alone to be able buy the things they are told to buy.
Many resort to illegitimate means to make ends meet.
D. Planned obsolescence
E. Conspicuous consumption
F. Monopolistic tendencies (bid-rigging, price-fixing)
Capitalism seeks monopolies and exploits the
poor. By very definition, many lack the capital
needed to obtain basic needs and wants.
When wealth is equated with success, the
problem becomes more acute. Crime is
normal in a society that stresses wealth and
simultaneously restricts legitimate
opportunity to acquire it. The market culture
accentuates the crime problem.
Every program and proposal carries within it
a potential for failure and abuse, equal and
opposite to the program’s potential for
success.
3.) Conflict - Marx
A. Class Conflict - Bonger, Vold
B. Economic Determinism - Becker, Ehrlich, Mayr, Stigler
C. Radical - Chambliss, Quinney, Turk, Young
4.) Neo-Classical - Van den Haag, DiIulio, Wilson
Crime control, classical theory originally espoused by Bentham (and
others) has come back. James Q. Wilson is perhaps the most
prominent current proponent.
There is crime because the state lacks certainty and severity in its
punishment delivery systems. We need more police, prosecutors, and
prisons to respond to crime. Deterrence principles reign.
Crime is to be prevented through fear of receiving sanctions. There
are some costs (innocent punished/guilty punished more than they
should be), but we must avert chaos and maintain security, and these
are the necessary and acceptable collateral consequences. It’s an
ends justify the means cost/benefit analysis.
1. Self determinism – guilt and responsibility lie with the individual
2. Avoid chaos/maintain stability – these are the over-riding concerns and
the costs of achieving these ends are acceptable collateral consequences
3. Invoke the social contract to protect the State
4. Utilitarianism/trickle down theory – protect not just the State but the most
powerful
5. Deterrence theory – crime prevented thought fear of receiving harsh
sanctions
6. Rational Man theory – people consider the costs and benefits of engaging
in any activity; if the State creates a high cost for engaging in crime,
fewer people will engage in such activity; deterrence theory again




Specific vs General
Four elements for a general deterrence policy
to be effective:
* Swiftness
* Certainty
* Severity
* Clarity
Certainty is the key factor
Severity is not a substitute for certainty
Neo-Classical theory in practice, clings to the
Tenets of the Crime Control Model.
Crime Control Model
Aggravates long-term stability
Apprehend the guilty
Assumes deviance and explains conformity
Authoritarian, trained police
Burden of proof on defense to demonstrate
innocence at beyond reasonable doubt
Closed bureaucratic justice structures
Corporal punishment
Criminal intent of little concern
Discretionary power to police and
prosecutorial officials
Emphasis on efficiency
Emphasis on training
Few confession extraction guidelines
Few search and seizure rules
Frequent use of the death penalty
Harm, frighten, scare, intimidate
Harms innocent persons
Harsh sentences
High certainty of apprehension/justice system
processing
Large, demeaning prisons
Due Process Model
Aggravates short term contingencies
Protect the innocent
Assumes conformity and explains deviance
Social service, educated police
Burden of proof on prosecutor to demonstrate
guilt at reasonable doubt
Open, linking-pin justice structures
Non-interventionist treatment
Criminal intent of an overriding concern
Discretionary power to judicial and
correctional officials
Emphasis on effectiveness
Emphasis on education
Completely voluntary confessions
Strict search and seizure rules
Abolition of the death penalty
Encourage, help, aid, assist
Allows known guilty to go free
Lenient sentences
Low certainty of apprehension/justice system
processing
Community-based corrections
Crime Control Model
Large private sector police force
Legal counsel provided on rare occasions
Maintain the status quo
Mandatory, determinate sentencing
Many law enforcement officers
Many penalties
Maximize level of offender intrusion into system
National, centrally organized police force
No pretrial discovery for defense
Plea bargaining emphasis
Presumption of guilt
Preventive deterrence policy
Protect society from evolutionary change
Protect society in the short run
Punish the guilty
Punishment fits the crime
Quick, informal justice
Rational, economic man theory
Social order
Supervision of offenders
Swift, certain punishment
Due Process Model
Small private sector police force
Legal counsel provided as a right at all stages
Respond to social inequities
Indeterminate sentencing
Few law enforcement officers
Few penalties
Minimize level of offender intrusion into system
Local, autonomous, decentralized police force
Unlimited pretrial discovery for defense
Complete adjudication
Presumption of innocence
Curative rehabilitation policy
Protect society from revolutionary change
Protect society in the long run
Protect the innocent
Punishment fits the criminal
Formalized, individualized justice
Crime a psycho-sociological entity
Individual liberty
Advocate of offenders
Treatment, but only when needed
1. Pragmatic logistic impossibility of obtaining the needed high levels of certainty.
2. Astronomic economic costs of obtaining the needed high levels of certainty.
3. Human rights concerns - macro.
4. Human rights concerns – micro
5. Certainty/Severity Reciprocity Phenomenon
6. Inherent irrationality of some behavior:
a. Temporary insanity (acts of ration vs. acts of passion)
b. Situations involving permanent mental illness
c. Aware of the odds of capture/punishment/costs, but:
1. worth the cost
2. have a death wish
3. excited by the challenge
7. Displacement:
a. geographic location
b. nature/substantive offense
c. offender
8. Pragmatic operational limitation
9. Overkill phenomenon
10. Overthrust irony
11. Potential for abuse (that have been realized
all too often)
There are issues with deterrence theory, but
there is no question that specific deterrence can
work and does work regularly. When a police
officer pulls in behind us on the freeway, we
slow down. Sanction threats can and do
influence our behavior, but those threats
influence the behavior of different people in
different ways at different times and in different
contexts.
3.) Conflict - Marx
A. Class Conflict - Bonger, Vold
B. Economic Determinism - Becker, Ehrlich, Mayr, Stigler
C. Radical - Chambliss, Quinney, Turk, Young
4.) Neo-Classical - Van den Haag, DiIulio, Wilson
5.) Chaos - Lorenz, Poincare, Walker
1. Causal links are so obscure, so convoluted, that the outcomes
appears to be random, serendipitous, by chance. The causal links
are there, but they are so enmeshed and entangled, we cannot
figure it out.
2. Small, seemingly innocuous, insignificant events can have a
tremendous impact on long-term trajectory, but not all the time.
There is a reason why, but we generally don’t know why as the
causes are so convoluted (per point #1).
3. Small differences in the initial stage in particular, at the starting
point if you would, can result in significant long-term outcome
variations.
4. Ensemble forecasting
1. Alpha error (inter and intra differentiation)
2. Specificity (inter and intra differentiation)
3. Seek to mitigate the impact of crime (because we can’t eliminate it)
4. Scientific criminology in its diagnostic and treatment contexts is still
in the late 1700s (per the medical analogy)
5. Implementation issues
6. Nihil Nocere
7. Scientific criminology and Public criminology
ceskridge@unl.edu