Criminology

Criminology is the scientific study of crime as an individual and social phenomenon. Criminological research areas in particular comprise the incidence and forms of crime as well as its causes and consequences. They also include social and governmental regulations and reactions to crime. Criminology is an interdisciplinary field in the behavioural sciences, drawing especially on the research of sociologists and psychologists, as well as on writings in law.

In 1885, Italian law professor Raffaele Garofalo coined the term "criminology" (in Italian, criminologia). The French anthropologist Paul Topinard used it for the first time in French (criminologie) in 1887.

Schools of thought

Over time, several schools of thought have developed and are listed in the infobox. The main thematic distinction has been between the: Classical School associated with Cesare Beccaria, Jeremy Bentham, among others, who have argued that:

• People have free will to choose how to act.
• Deterrence is based upon the utilitarian ontological notion of the human being a 'hedonist' who seeks pleasure and avoids pain, and a 'rational calculator' weighing up the costs and benefits of the consequences of each action. Thus, it ignores the possibility of irrationality and unconscious drives as motivational factors.
• Punishment (of sufficient severity) can deter people from crime, as the costs (penalties) outweigh benefits.

and the Positivist School which presumes that criminal behaviour is caused by biological, psychological, or social determining factors that predispose some people towards crime. Cesare Lombroso, an Italian prison doctor working in the late 19th century and sometimes regarded as the "father" of criminology, was one of the largest contributors to biological positivism, which alleged that physiological traits such as the measurements of one's cheek bones or hairline, or a cleft palate, considered to be throwbacks to Neanderthal man, were indicative of "atavistic" criminal tendencies. This approach, influenced by the earlier theory of phrenology and by Charles Darwin and his theory of evolution, has been superseded, but more modern research examines genetic characteristics and the chemistry of nutrition to determine whether there is an effect on violent behaviour (see Natural Justice). Hans Eysenck (1964, 1977), a British psychologist, claimed that psychological factors such as Extraversion and Neuroticism made a person more likely to commit criminal acts. He also includes a Psychoticism dimension that includes traits similar to the psychopathic profile, developed by Hervey M. Cleckley and later Robert Hare. He also based his model on early parental socialization of the child; his approach bridges the gap between biological explanations and environmental or social learning based approaches, (see e.g. social psychologists B. F. Skinner (1938), Albert Bandura (1973), and the topic of "nature vs. nurture".) Sociological positivism (the father of which is considered to be Emile Durkheim) postulates that societal factors such as poverty, membership of subcultures, or low levels of education can predispose people to crime.

Classical School

The Classical School in criminology is usually a reference to the eighteenth century work during the Enlightenment by the utilitarian and social contract philosophers Jeremy Bentham and Cesare Beccaria. Their interests lay in the system of criminal justice and penology and, indirectly through the proposition that "man is a calculating animal", in the causes of criminal behaviour.

Bentham

In this context, the most relevant idea was known as the "felicitation principle", i.e. that whatever is done should aim to give the greatest happiness to the largest possible number of people in society. Bentham argued that there had been "punishment creep", i.e. that the severity of punishments had slowly increased so that the death penalty was then imposed for more than two hundred offences. It had therefore become counter-productive because it produced an incentive to kill any possible witnesses to every crime to reduce the risk of arrest. Bentham posited that man is a calculating animal who will weigh potential gains against the pain likely to be imposed. If the pain outweighs the gains, he will be deterred and this produces maximal social utility. Therefore, in a rational system, the punishment system must be graduated so that the punishment more closely matches the crime. Punishment is not retribution or revenge because that is morally deficient: the hangman is paying the murder the compliment of imitation. But the concept is problematic because it depends on two critical assumptions:

• if deterrence is going to work, the potential offender must always act rationally whereas much crime is a spontaneous reaction to a situation or opportunity; and
• if the system graduates a scale of punishment according to the seriousness of the offence, it is assuming that the more serious the harm likely to be caused, the more the criminal has to gain.

In this context, note Bentham's proposal for a prison design called the "panopticon" which, apart from its surveillance system included the right of the prison manager to use the prisoners as contract labour.

Beccaria

In 1764, he published Dei Deliti e Delle Pene ("On Crimes and Punishments") arguing for the need to reform the criminal justice system by referring not to the harm caused to the victim, but to the harm caused to society. In this, he posited that the greatest deterrent was the certainty of detection: the more swift and certain the punishment, the more effective it would be. It would also allow a less serious punishment to be effective if shame and an acknowledgement of wrongdoing was a guaranteed response to society's judgment. Thus, the prevention of crime was achieved through a proportional system that was clear and simple to understand, and if the entire nation united in their own defence. His approach influenced the codification movement which set sentencing tariffs to ensure equality of treatment among offenders. Later, it was acknowledged that not all offenders are alike and greater sentencing discretion was allowed to judges. Thus, punishment works at two levels. Because it punishes individuals, it operates as a specific deterrence to those convicted not to reoffend. But the publicity surrounding the trial and the judgment of society represented by the decision of a jury of peers, offers a general example to the public of the consequences of committing a crime. If they are afraid of similarly swift justice, they will not offend.

Commentary

The idea of man as a calculating animal requires the view of crime as a product of a free choice by offenders. The question for policy makers is therefore how to use the institutions of the state to influence citizens to choose not to offend. This theory emerged at the time of the Enlightenment and it entirely consistent that it should focus on rationality. But, because it lacks sophistication, it was operationalised in a mechanical way, assuming that there is a mathematics of deterrence, i.e. a proportional calculation undertaken first by policy makers and then by potential offenders. This School believed that there are constants of value in pain and gain that can swing a decision to offend or not to offend. But not everyone is the same nor has the same view of what constitutes a price worth paying. It also had a certain utopianism in assuming that the policing system could rapidly grow and deliver a better service of investigation and detection. If certainty of punishment is to be achieved, there must be a major investment in policing.

Conflict Criminology

Largely based on the writings of Karl Marx, conflict criminology claims that crime is inevitable in capitalist societies, as invariably certain groups will become marginalised and unequal. In seeking equality, members of these groups may often turn to crime in order to gain the material wealth that apparently brings equality in capitalist economic states. It derives its name from the fact that theorists within the area believe that there is no consensual social contract between state and citizen.

Discussion

The conflict theory assumes that every society is subjected to a process of continuous change and that this process creates social conflicts. Hence, social change and social conflict are ubiquitous. Individuals and social classes, each with distinctive interests, represent the constituent elements of a society. As such, they are individually and collectively participants in this process but there is no guarantee that the interests of each class will coincide. Indeed, the lack of common ground is likely to bring them into conflict with each other. From time to time, each element's contribution may be positive or negative, constructive or destructive. To that extent, therefore, the progress made by each society as a whole is limited by the acts and omissions of some of its members by others. This limitation may promote a struggle for greater progress but, if the less progressive group has access to the coercive power of law, it may entrench inequality and oppress those deemed less equal. In turn, this inequality will become a significant source of conflict. The theory identifies the state and the law as instruments of oppression used by the ruling class for their own benefit. (Chambliss, 1971)

There are various strands of conflict theory, with many heavily critiquing the others. Structural Marxist criminology, which is essentially the most 'pure' version of the above, has been frequently accused of idealism, and many critics point to the fact that the Soviet Union and such states had as high crime rates as the capitalist West. Furthermore, some highly capitalist states such as Switzerland have very low crime rates, thus making structural theory seem improbable.

Instrumental Marxism partly holds to the above, but claims that capitalism in itself cannot be blamed for all crimes. A seminal book on the subject, The New Criminology (by Taylor, Walton and Young) was considered groundbreaking and ahead of its time at the point of its publication in 1973. However, 11 years later, co-author Jock Young turned against the work, claiming it too was overly idealistic, and began to form yet another line of criminological thought, now commonly known as Left realism

Theorists

Thorsten Sellin

Sellin was a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the pioneers of scientific criminology. His method involved a comprehensive view of the subject incorporating historical, sociological, psychological, and legal factors into the analysis. He applied both Marxism and Conflict Theory to an examination of the cultural diversity of modern industrial society. In a homogenous society, norms or codes of behaviour will emerge and become laws where enforcement is necessary to preserve the unitary culture. But where separate cultures diverge from the mainstream, those minority groups will establish their own norms. Socialisation will therefore be to the subgroup and to the mainstream norms. When laws are enacted, they will represent the norms, values and interests of the dominant cultural or ethnic group which may produce Border Culture Conflict. When the two cultures interact and one seeks to extend its influence into the other, each side is likely to react protectively. If the balance of power is relatively equal, an accommodation will usually be reached. But if the distribution of power is unequal, the everyday behaviour of the minority group may be defined as deviant. The more diversified and heterogeneous a society becomes, the greater the probability of more frequent conflict as subgroups who live by their own rules break the rules of other groups.

George Vold

Vold (1958) suggests approaching an understanding of the social nature of crime as a product of the conflict between groups within the same culture. Humans are naturally social beings, forming groups out of shared interests and needs. The interests and needs of groups interact and produce competition in an increasingly political arena over maintaining and/or expanding one group's position relative to others in the control of necessary resources (money, education, employment, etc.). The challenge for all groups is to control the state for their own sectional interests. Hence, the group which proves most efficient in the control of political processes, obtains the mandate to enact laws that limit the behaviour of other groups and, in some cases, prevent the fulfilment of minority group needs. Although the theory has some interest, it is limited in its application to the criminal law because it is not so much the law that represents sectional interests, but the way in which it is enforced. For example, the definition of theft might remain constant but the allocation of resources to investigate and prosecute theft may be unequally distributed between blue-collar and white-collar versions of the behaviour.

Austin Turk

Turk (1969) draws on the work of Ralf Dahrendorf who expanded on Marxism's emphasis on the social relations of production as a key to understanding power and focused on the struggle in a modern industrial society for institutional authority. This is power exercised by the social institutions that dominate everyday life; the authority vested in groups which control key positions in religious, educational, governmental, and even family relations. This authority can be linked to economic position, but it is not necessarily dependent upon it. Turk argues that some conflict is beneficial to society because it encourages society to consider whether the current consensus is justified, i.e. there is a balance between stasis and evolution. In this debate, there is a distinction between cultural norms which set out what behaviour is expected, and social norms which represent the reality of what happens. Those who have the power transform their cultural norms into law. The mechanisms for enforcement determine the social norms and so affect the beliefs and actions of the majority of citizens. If those who are subject to the laws agree with the law's cultural values, there will be co-operative enforcement by the community and the policing agencies. Conflict emerges when the subjects do not support the cultural norms in particular laws and the policing agencies attempt their rigorous enforcement, e.g. the policing of soft drugs. There may also be conflict within the enforcement system. Whereas the police may set of policy of tolerance, judges may wish to enforce the law with more severe penalties. If fewer offenders are brought before the courts, the judges may increase the severity of the sentences in an attempt to offer a general deterrent.

Environmental Criminology

Environmental criminology focuses on criminal patterns within particular built environments and analyzes the impacts of these external variables on people’s cognitive behaviour. It forms a part of the Positivist School in that it applies the scientific method to examine the society that causes crime.

The criminal event has five dimensions: space, time, law, offender, and target or victim. These five components are a necessary and sufficient condition, for without one, the other four, even together, will not constitute a criminal incident (Brantingham & Brantingham: 1991). Despite the obvious multi-faceted nature of crime, scholars and practitioners often attempt to study them separately. For instance, lawyers and political scientists focus on the legal dimension; sociologists, psychologists and civil rights groups generally look to the offenders and victims, while geographers concentrate upon the location of the event. Environmental criminologists examine the place and the time when the crime happened. They are interested in land usage, traffic patterns and street design, and the daily activities and movements of victims and offenders. Environmental criminologists often use maps to look for crime patterns, for example, using metric topology (see Verma & Lodha: 2002).

Environmental criminology is the study of crime, criminality and victimisation as they relate, first, to particular places, and secondly, to the way that individuals and organisations shape their activities spatially, and in so doing are in turn influenced by place-based or spatial factors.1 The study of the spatial patterning of crime and criminality has a long and continuous criminological history, and is now entering a new phase with the use of computerised crime mapping systems by the police and researchers.

Environmental criminology would be of little interest - either to scholars or those concerned with criminal policy - if the geographical distribution of offences, or of victimisation or offender residence, were random. In fact this is very far from being the case, and the geographical concentration of crime and criminality parallels other skews in criminological data (for example, the fact that a relatively small number of persistent offenders commit a very disproportionate amount of crimes).

It is no accident that environmental criminology was born in the nineteenth century, the century par excellence of industrialisation and urbanisation in most Western societies. Crime seemed, to many observers, to be integrally and obviously linked to these developments in modern society. Whilst there is strong empirical support for a higher crime rate in cities, especially large cities (see e.g. Cressey 1964 ch 3, Braithwaite 1989 ch 3) research has not always shown a direct or simple temporal link between urbanisation and crime (see e.g. Gillis 1996). Furthermore, a significant group of scholars now argue that the social transformations of the late twentieth century have already projected us from ‘modern’ to ‘late modern’ societies, a transformation that may have as profound an influence on social life as the original arrival of industrialisation and urbanisation. We shall return to this thesis, and its criminological implications, after discussing the more orthodox literature of environmental criminology.

Traditionally, the two central concerns of environmental criminology have been explaining the spatial distribution of offences and explaining the spatial distribution of offenders. Hence, sections on these topics will feature prominently in this chapter. These central sections will be preceded by an historical introduction and some methodological comments. They will be followed by a discussion of the relationship between the areal distribution of offences and offenders, and a short theoretical section. Finally, these ‘static’ analyses will be supplemented by a review of the relevance of social change for environmental criminology, both at meso and macro levels. For reasons of space, some aspects of environmental criminology will not be covered, in particular a consideration of perceptions of crime and fear of crime at neighbourhood level; and the important, but specialised, topic of crime prevention through environmental design.

Feminist School

The Feminist School of criminology developed in the late 1960s and into the 1970s as a reaction against the gender distortions and stereotyping within traditional criminology. It was closely associated with the emergence of the Second Wave of feminism and it speaks with multiple viewpoints developed from different feminist writers. Politically, there is a range from Marxist and Socialist to Liberal feminism addressing the "gender ratio" problem (i.e. why women are less likely than men to commit crime) or the generalisability problem (i.e. "adding" women to male knowledge, whereby the findings from research on men are generalised to women).

Discussion

Criminology is the study of crime and criminal justice, and it covers a multitude of topics, but the principal theories of criminality have been developed from male subjects, have been validated on male subjects, and focus on male victimisation. While there may be nothing wrong with this, the theories have then been generalised to include all criminals, defendants and prisoners, i.e. the facts about crime tend to be based on the sex of the offender and not the crime itself. This 'sexism' in criminology also influences the sentencing, punishment, and imprisonment of women who are not expected to be criminals and, if they are, they may be described as 'mad not bad'. The attribution of madness to women flows from the entirely outdated construct that women who conform are pure, obedient daughters, wives and mothers who benefit society and men. If they dared to go against their natural biological traits of 'passivity' and a 'weakness of compliance', they must be mentally ill: a classic androcentric view which has been held by few academics in decades. Feminism operates within the existing social structures to examine the social, political, and economic experience of women and to devise strategies for achieving greater equality (via inequality) in women's roles. This involves considering how women came to occupy subservient roles, the nature of male privilege, and the means whereby the discourses that constitute the power of patriarchy can be redirected to transform society.

As it is, gender role expectations continue to define acceptable behaviours and attitudes for females and males; deviation from these expectations may result in a variety of societal sanctions ranging from verbal abuse to violence to incarceration. These roles are a powerful form of social control maintained through informal and formal mechanisms. Heidensohn (1992, 2000) suggests a male-biased control theory:

• "a woman's place is in the home": a woman has fewer opportunities for criminal activity because the routine of domesticity keeps her in the home. In any event, women are more afraid to go out of the home after dark because they fear aggressive male behaviour.
• at work, men have a supervisory or managerial role (often characterised by women as harassment) which makes it more difficult for women to commit major crimes.

Further, males, the dominant group and the standard of normality, have maintained inequality through control of the definition of deviance and of the institutions of social control. Women have been defined as different from men and, hence, inferior; that stigma has acted to deny them their full civil rights and access to societal resources (Naffine: 1996).

Feminists waves may have brought greater liberation to women, it has not changed their pattern of crime. Women are still much less likely to commit crime, this includes both blue and white collar crime. Feminist criminology is conflict based calling for the downgrading of many dominant crime theories, as they were constructed without consideration for feminist viewpoints. Feminists’ now call for the inclusion of women into criminological teaching, research, theory and publications (and not only because they are after jobs and nice fat grants).

Most criminological texts (from the Nineteenth Century) and discussions almost forget about women as they are afforded little attention as they are grouped with juvenile delinquents and the mentally insane. Smart argues this grouping with the more neglected members of the criminal world is a reflection of the females role in the community, women have always lacked “civil and legal status”, therefore it is acceptable for women to be grouped with juvenile offenders and mentally challenged offenders. Smart continues the study of criminology is always in reference to men, in reference to a male’s rationality, motivation, alienation and his victim who is always male. The disqualification of women from the criminological field is evident in criminological text as it is assumed, the man can speak for her. In criminology, just as in society man is the centre of the universe and women are merely their complement.

Gender ratio

Research methods are "technique(s) for ... gathering data" and are either quantitative or qualitative. It has been argued that methodology has been gendered (Oakley 1997; 1998), with quantitative methods traditionally being associated with words such as positivism, scientific, objectivity, statistics and masculinity, while qualitative methods have generally been associated with interpretivism, non-scientific, subjectivity and femininity. These associations have led some feminist researchers to criticise or even reject the quantitative approach, arguing that it is in direct conflict with the aims of feminist research, though other have argued that this rejection is merely because those feminist writers did not like the results of the quantitative analysis. It has been argued that qualitative methods are more appropriate for feminist research by allowing subjective knowledge (read untestable facts and assertions based on 'common knowledge'), and a more equal relationship between the researcher and the researched (Westmarland: 2001). As official records, the statistics generated by crime reporting show that fewer women commit crimes, and far fewer women are victims of crime, but there has been little research to explain this difference. One explanation for this omission might be that because women commit fewer crimes, they are less of a problem so an examination of their criminality is either inherently less interesting or less relevant to developing an understanding of how to control the men. But the explanation is more likely concerned with male stereotypes.

The history of male stereotypes

Critique has been the essential tool for the production of feminist, not simply anti-sexist, theory. Victorian America viewed women in accordance with inflexible ideals of femininity, and the male-dominated criminal courts were inhibited by notions of chivalry when required to apply justice to women whom cultural norms had determined to be "pure, passive and dependent", and whom, leading experts claimed, seldom committed crimes. Later, Otto Pollak (1950) claimed that men are socialised to treat women in a fatherly and protective manner. Female offenders were like their mothers and wives, and the male judiciary could not imagine them behaving in a criminal way. Women were therefore protected: their criminal activity was less likely to be detected, reported, prosecuted, or sentenced harshly. Chivalry had only positive effects on women who were essentially more deceitful than men, and were the instigators rather than the perpetrators of crime. Where did this greater capacity for deceit come from? From the 'passive' role which, according to Pollack, they have to assume during sexual intercourse. Less flatteringly, The Criminality of Women also claimed that women prefer professions like maids, nurses, teachers, and homemakers so that they can engage in undetectable crime. He also thought women were especially subject to certain mental diseases like kleptomania and nymphomania.

The most investigated "difference" between the sexes was biological. Cesare Lombroso (1903) identified the female physiognomy thought most likely to determine criminal propensity. This was the new science of "criminal anthropology" matching the general fascination with Darwinism and physical anthropology, where scientists sought pathological and atavistic causes for criminal behaviour. While he credited criminal women as being stronger than men, the consequence was that prison would hardly affect them at all. Lombroso concluded true female criminals were rare and showed few signs of degeneration because they had “evolved less than men due to the inactive nature of their lives”. Lombroso argued it was the females’ natural passivity that withheld them from breaking the law, as they lacked the intelligence and initiative to become criminal.

Sigmund Freud theorised that all women experience penis envy and seek to compensate an inferiority complex by being exhibitionistic and narcissistic, focusing on irrational and trivial matters instead of being interested in building a just civilisation. William I. Thomas (1907) published Sex and Society in which he argued that men and women possessed essentially different personality traits. Men were more criminal because of their biologically determined active natures. Women were more passive and less criminally capable. In The Unadjusted Girl (1923) he argued that as women have a greater capacity to love than men they suffer more when they do not receive social approval and affection. The "unadjusted girls" are those who use their sexuality in a socially unacceptable way to get what they want from life. The female criminal forgoes the conventional rewards of domesticity by refusing to accept prevailing modes of sexuality and seeks excitement, wealth, and luxury: a pursuit that may conflict with the interests of the social group as it also exercises the freedom to pursue similar goals.

More modern theories

Strain Theories are criticised by feminists as betraying a double standard. When male offenders commit a crime under certain conditions of opportunity blockage, their commission of crime is somehow seen as a "normal" or functional response. When women commit crime, Strain Theory views it as some sort of "weakness". Naffine (1987) probably represents the best example of this critique, but there are other critiques, such as the characterisation of females as "helpmates" or facilitators of crime in the Strain Theories of Cohen, and Cloward and Ohlin.

The research methodology in Social Learning Theories, such as Edwin Sutherland's Differential Association Theory, is criticised for relying on male examples, using case studies of males only, and being a male-dominated perspective that glamorises the male criminal, or at least the sociable, gregarious, active, and athletic characteristics of the male criminal. Similarly, Social Control Theories, such as Hirschi's Social Bond Theory, focuses almost exclusively on social class at the expense of gender and race.

Feminists therefore concluded that the failure of criminology to research the issue of female criminality fairly either reflected a male-dominated discourse in which men primarily research male issues, or betrayed the rigidity of male stereotypes which allowed men to justify their prejudices with pseudoscience.

Female theories about female offending

Adler (1975) proposed that the emancipation of women during the 1970s increased economic opportunities for women and allowed women to be as crime-prone as men. While "women have demanded equal opportunity in the fields of legitimate endeavours, a similar number of determined women have forced their way into the world of major crime such as white-collar crime, murder, and robbery" (Adler, 1975: 3). She suggested that as women are climbing up the corporate business ladder, they are making use of their 'vocational liberation' to pursue careers in white-collar crime. But feminism has made female crime more visible through increased reporting, policing and the sentencing of female offenders and, even then, the statistical base is small in comparison to men. Carlen (1985) argues that Adler's 'new female criminal' is cast as the 'biological female' who is essentially masculine. The 'new female' criminal turns out to be the 'old maladjusted masculinist female' of traditional criminology, rejecting her proper feminine role such as institutionalising rather than incarcerating women who commit 'male' offences such as robbery, i.e. Adler's 'sisters in crime' appears to work within the frameworks of traditional criminology rather than a feminist one. For an examination of gender in crimes of violence, see Alder).

A debate in the recent criminology literature has focused on the handling of female offenders as they are processed through the criminal justice system. There are two competing perspectives. The chivalry or paternalism hypothesis which echoes the perception of female inmates as victims, argues that women are treated more leniently than men at various stages of the male-dominated justice process as a function of the male desire to protect the weaker (Crew: 1991; Erez, 1992). The "evil women" hypothesis which parallels the female inmate as subhuman perspective, holds that women often receive harsher treatment than men in the criminal justice system and suggests that this different treatment results from the notion that criminal women have violated not only legal boundaries but also gender role expectations (Chesney-Lind, 1984; Erez, 1992). Simon (1975) predicted that the criminal justice system would start treating men and women offenders equally. There is mixed empirical evidence for this emancipation or liberation thesis, and some would say that absolutely no empirical evidence exists for it and the notion is discredited (Chesney-Lind & Pasko 2004). Sex differentials in sentencing are subject to a variety of interpretations, and not all feminists want the criminal justice system to treat women equally. It seems that women are not committing the "big take" offences like stock fraud and other white-collar crimes, or bank robberies. Instead, they are admitted to the justice system charged with committing different crimes. Wundersitz (1988) and Crew (1991) consider the chivalry and paternalism factors in the process.

Farrington and Morris (1983) found some empirical evidence that women did receive less severe punishments, but female offenders are far more likely to be first-time offenders, and to have committed a less serious form of the relevant offence; they stole smaller or fewer items, used less violence, and so on. Prior history of offending, and seriousness of offence, are fundamental factors in determining severity of sentence, for any offender. Once these variables are entered into the equation, it is possible to conclude that female offenders are not being treated any differently from males in equivalent circumstances. However, the evidence does suggest that married women with a caring role are more likely to be treated leniently. This may be because they are expected to remain in the home to continue their dependent "maternal" function. Unmarried women or those in unconventional relationships tended to receive more harsh treatment, confirming a sentencing model based a cultural need to reinforce gender roles within a framework of heterosexual marriage or family life. Kruttschnitt (1982) who investigated the link between economic independence, informal social control, and heavier sentences for women. In a study of convictions in a Californian population in the 1970s Kruttschnitt found that sentence may differ with the extent to which a woman is economically dependent upon someone else for her day-to-day existence: the more dependent she is, the less severe her disposition. Thus, the degree to which a female offender can be shown to be under informal social control may produce a lighter formal sentence.

Chapman (1980) studied the connection between labour force participation, and revealed an increase in female criminal activity during times of economic hardship. The smallest increases in arrests coincided with periods of the greatest increase in economic activity with the most common offence being that of shop lifting. These findings would seem to support a theory of a relationship between employment and crime rather than that offered by the 'women's liberation thesis'. When times are good, the offending woman appears to stabilise rather than escalate. An absence rather than availability of employment opportunities (liberation thesis) would seem a more plausible explanation for increases in female crime. Naffine (1987: 99) believes the criminal woman's motive appears more rational and straight forward than manifesting her gender-role concerns or seeking to compete with the criminal male.

Studies of patriarchy tend to look at everything from female membership in male-dominated professions to the "rape culture" with promotes female victimisation. The study of patriarchy has also allowed feminists to uncover hidden forms of violence against women. For example, feminist critiques of pedagogy (how teachers teach) have become quite common, as education, particularly criminal justice education, becomes the domain for discovering examples of male-dominated thinking and examples of the marginalisation thesis (women being reminded that they are only women, o rmen being reminded that they are bad - simply because they are not women).

Biological explanations of female criminality

Criminology texts usually does not cover the broad possibilities that may account for female criminality. A criticism of criminological explanations of female crime is its insistence on presuming the nature of females and their predisposition away from crime. This determinate model of female criminality, Smart (1976:176) argues assumes an “inherent and natural distinction exists between the temperament, ability and conditionability of men and women”. Further explained, females have a milder temperament, have a lesser ability to commit crime and are more easily conditioned towards abiding the law. Past studies of women have developed myths about female criminality, criminologists have explained female criminals as being more “cruel and sinister than that of the male. She is described as unnatural, masculine” (Burke 2001:162), and lacking the qualities that would make her a reserved and obedient female. This approach has been criticised as it assumes any female that varies from the traditional female role is criminal or likely criminal and it assumes that there is a large and significant difference between men and women. Smart argues that the differences that exist between males and females are of little importance in the study of crime as the factors that cause crime are “culturally determinate rather than a reflection of the natural qualities of the sexes” (1976:176).

Feminists have levelled complaints at this angle of criminology that assumes females are controlled by their biology and are incapable of thinking for themselves, feminist point out that while criminological thinking has surpassed the gloomy days of biological determinism and the predetermined actor model of crime, criminological explanations of female crime has not. The study of female criminality is where the study of male criminality was in the 1870’s. Some criminologists suggest a link between “hormonal changes in pregnancy, menstruation and female criminal behaviour” and crime(Burke 2001:164). Furthermore, in criminal cases women have used defences such as post-natal depression as the reason for infanticide and other crimes. The reliance upon biological reasons for a female’s criminality has reinforced societal views of the biologically criminal female. Society therefore, neglects to account for other reasons such as social and economic for a female’s criminal act.

Victimology

Feminist argue criminological texts neglect the victimisation of women. Women are given little thought as the focus is mounted upon the male offender, the victimisation of women is forgotten:

• Three out of four women will be victims of violent crimes during their lives.
• Violence is the leading cause of injuries to women aged 15 to 44.
• 50 per cent of homeless women and children are fleeing domestic violence.
• Assault is the largest cause of injury to women in the US.
• Arrests rate for domestic violence is guessed at 1 in 100 domestic assaults.
• Less than 1 per cent of rape victims have collected damages.
• Domestic violence costs the state between 5-10 billion each year.

Feminists argue these figures would not be ignored if society was not so accepting of female exploitation. Domestic violence and rape are increasing being reported, as they have been given greater significance and a deeper understanding by society. Past generations of women have suffered in silence due to the lack of importance the police and criminology has afforded women’s victimisation.

Another criticism levied at criminology by feminists, is the lack of interest given to women who are the silent sufferer whilst their male partner is in prison. Criminological studies generally focus on the prisoner and his relationship with the penal system, having little interest for the females concerns. Prisoner studies detail the anguish suffered by the imprisoned men who are separated from their families but we hear nothing of the suffering of the women and their families who are the other side of that relationship”. Feminists have introduced the possibility that females suffer equally when men are imprisoned.

Criticisms

Carlen believes there are shortcomings in feminist theories of criminality. Carlen points to three key areas of female offending that feminist theory cannot explain;

• That women’s crimes are that of the underclass, suggesting class conflict
• Female offending is disproportionately from ethnic groups suggesting race conflict
• Women in prison have usually suffered from poverty

Italian School

Cesare Lombroso (1835–1909) and two of his Italian disciples, Enrico Ferri (1856–1929) and Raffaele Garofalo (1851–1934), founded what became known as the Italian school of criminology. The central idea of Lombroso's work came to him as he autopsied the body of a notorious Italian criminal named Giuseppe Villela. As he contemplated Villela's skull, he noted that certain characteristics of it (specifically, a depression on the occiput that he named the median occipital fossa) reminded him of the skulls of "inferior races" and "the lower types of apes, rodents, and birds". The term Lombroso used to describe the appearance of organisms resembling ancestral (prehuman) forms of life is atavism. Born criminals were thus viewed by Lombroso in his earliest writings as a form of human sub-species (in his later writings he came to view them less as evolutionary throwbacks and more in terms of arrested development and degeneracy). Lombroso believed that atavism could be identified by a number of measurable physical stigmata, which included protruding jaw, drooping eyes, large ears, twisted and flattish nose, long arms relative to the lower limbs, sloping shoulders, and a coccyx that resembled "the stump of a tail." The concept of atavism was glaringly wrong, but like so many others of his time, Lombroso sought to understand behavioral phenomena with reference to the principles of evolution as they were understood at the time. If humankind was just at one end of the continuum of animal life, it made sense to many people that criminals — who acted "beastly" and who lacked reasoned conscience — were biologically inferior beings.

In addition to the atavistic born criminal, Lombroso identified two other types: the insane criminal, and the criminaloid. Although insane criminals bore some stigmata, they were not born criminals; rather they become criminal as a result "of an alteration of the brain, which completely upsets their moral nature." Among the ranks of insane criminals were alcoholics, kleptomaniacs, nymphomaniacs, and child molesters. Criminaloids had none of the physical peculiarities of the born or insane criminal, became involved in crime later in life, and tended to commit less serious crimes. Criminaloids were further categorized as habitual criminals, who become so by contact with other criminals, the abuse of alcohol, or other "distressing circumstances;" Juridical criminals, who fall afoul of the law by accident; and the criminal by passion, hot-headed and impulsive persons who commit violent acts when provoked.

Ferri was instrumental in formulating the concept of social defense as a justification for punishment. This theory of punishment asserts that its purpose is not to deter or to rehabilitate, for how could behavior not based on rational calculus be deterred, and how could born criminals be rehabilitated? Given the assumptions of biological positivism, the only reasonable rationale for punishing offenders is to incapacitate them for as long as possible so that they no longer posed a threat to the peace and security of society. This theory of punishment provides us with an example of how assumptions about human nature drive policies for dealing with crime and criminals. He was, however, an ardent proponent of measures to prevent crime among "occasional criminals" through social reform, and of efforts to rehabilitate them.

Garofalo is perhaps best known for his efforts to formulate a "natural" definition of crime. Classical thinkers accepted the legal definition of crime uncritically; crime is what the law says it is. This appeared to be rather arbitrary and "unscientific" to Garofalo (like the British-American system of linear measurement) who wanted to anchor the definition of crime in something natural (like tying linear measurement to the circumference of the earth, as in the metric system). Garofalo felt that definitions of crime should be anchored in human nature, by which he meant that a given act would be considered a crime if it was universally condemned, and it would be universally condemned if it offended the natural altruistic sentiments of probity (integrity, honesty) and pity (compassion, sympathy). Natural crimes are evil in themselves (mala in se), whereas other kinds of crimes (mala prohibita) are wrong only because they have been defined as such by the law.

Garofalo rejected the classical principle that punishment should fit the crime, arguing instead that it should fit the criminal. As a good positivist, he believed that criminals have little control over their actions. This repudiation of moral responsibility and fitting the punishment to the offender would eventually lead to sentencing aimed at the humane and liberal goals of treatment and rehabilitation. For Garofalo, however, the only question to be considered at sentencing was the danger the offender posed to society, which was to be judged by an offender's "peculiarities."

By "peculiarities," Garofalo was not referring to Lombrosian stigmata, but rather to those particular characteristics that place offenders at risk for criminal behavior. He developed four categories of criminals, each meriting different forms of punishment: Extreme, impulsive, professional, and endemic. Society could only be defended from extreme criminals by swiftly executing them, regardless of the crime for which they are being punished. Here Garofalo departed from Lombroso and Ferri, both of who were against the death penalty, although Lombroso gradually came to accept it for born criminals and for those who committed particularly heinous crimes. Impulsive criminals, a category which included alcoholics and the insane, were to be imprisoned. Professional criminals are psychologically normal individuals who utilize the hedonistic calculus before committing their crimes, and thus require "elimination," either by life imprisonment or transportation to a penal colony overseas. Endemic crimes, by which Garofalo meant crimes peculiar to a given location or region (mala prohibita), could best be controlled by changes in the law, not by imposing harsh punishments on offenders.

Marxist Criminology

Marxist criminology is one of the schools of criminology. It parallels the work of the functionalist school which focuses on what produces stability and continuity in society but, unlike the functionalists, it adopts a predefined political philosophy. As in conflict criminology, it focuses on why things change, identifying the disruptive forces in industrialised societies, and describing how society is divided by power, wealth, prestige, and the perceptions of the world. "The shape and character of the legal system in complex societies can be understood as deriving form the conflicts inherent in the structure of these societies which are stratified economically and politically" (Chambliss, 1971, p3). It is concerned with the causal relationships between society and crime, i.e. to establish a critical understanding of how the immediate and structural social environment gives rise to crime and criminogenic conditions.

Karl Marx argued that the law is the mechanism by which one social class, usually referred to as the "ruling class", keeps all the other classes in a disadvantaged position. Thus, this school uses a Marxist lens through which, inter alia, to consider the criminalisation process, and by which explain why some acts are defined as deviant whereas others are not. It is therefore interested in political crime, state crime, and state-corporate crime.

Discussion

A convincing case can be made that Marxism provides one of the best explanations of many phenomena identified within societies, but the politics of the world has changed and Marxism is no longer the major social movement for liberation from oppression that it used to be, so it is argued that Marxism's conceptual apparatus has become less relevant. However, Marxism provides a systematic theoretical basis upon which to interrogate social structural arrangements, and the hypothesis that economic power is translated into political power substantially accounts for the general disempowerment of the majority who live in the modern state and the limitations of political discourse. Hence, whether directly or indirectly, it informs much of the research into social phenomena not only in criminology, but also in semiotics and the other disciplines which explore the structural relationships of power, knowledge, meaning, and positional interests within society.

All criminologists agree that for a society to function efficiently, social order is necessary and that conformity is induced through a socialisation process. "Law" is the label given to one of the means used to enforce the interests of the state. Hence, because each state is sovereign, the law can be used for any purpose. It is also common ground that, whether the society is meritocratic, democratic or autocratic, a small group emerges to lead. The reason for this group's emergence may be their ability to use power more effectively, or simple expediency in that, as population size grows, the delegation of decision-making powers to a group representative of the majority leads to more efficiency. Marxists are critical of the ideas, values and norms of capitalist ideology, and characterise the modern state as being under the control of the group that owns the means of production. For example, Chambliss (1973) examined the way in which the vagrancy laws were amended to reflect the interests of the ruling elite. He also looked at how British Colonial Law was applied in East Africa, so that the capitalist "ruling class" could profit from coffee plantations, and how the law in mediaeval England benefited feudal landowners. Similarly, Pearce (2003) looks at evidence that corporate crime is widespread but is rarely prosecuted.

These researchers assert that political power is used to reinforce economic inequality by embedding individual property rights in the law and that the resulting poverty is one of the causes of criminal activity as a means of survival. Marxists argue that a socialist society with communal ownership of the means of production would have much less crime. Indeed, Milton Mankoff asserts that there is much less crime in Western Europe than in the U.S. because Europe is more ‘Socialist’ than America. The implication of such views is that the solution to the "crime problem" is to engage in a socialist revolution.

A different issue emerges by applying Marx's theory of alienation. A proportion of crime is said to be the result of society offering only demeaning work with little sense of creativity. However, the characterisation of some crime as "working class crime" and portraying it as a response to oppression is problematic. It selectively labels crime committed by people simply on the basis of their membership of a class, without engaging in victimology to identify whether any particular class or group is most likely to be the vicim of such crime (because many criminals are disinclined to travel far, working class crime is often directed at working class people who live in the same neighbourhood). In fact, the social differentiation of crime may vary by age, class, ethnicity, gender, and locality.

Further, if anomie is a primary cause of crime, there should be a theory to explain why only some working class people commit crimes. These are existential issues. But if there is evidence that some individuals and, in some cases, entire groups are alienated from mainstream society, there should be detailed research into the effect that this has on society as a whole (see normlessness). In such research, Marxism tends to focus on societal forces rather than the motives of individuals and their dualistic capacity for both right and wrong, moral and immoral. This can lead to a less comprehensive explanation of why people exercise their autonomy by choosing to act in particular ways. By comparison, in the sociology of deviance, Robert K. Merton borrows Durkheim's concept of anomie to form the Strain Theory. Merton argues that the real problem of alienation is not created by a sudden social change, as Durkheim proposed, but rather by a social structure that holds out the same goals to all its members without giving them equal means to achieve them. It is this lack of integration between what the culture calls for and what the structure permits that causes deviant behaviour. Deviance then is a symptom of the social structure. Taylor et al intend a combination of Interactionism and Marxism as a radical alternative to previous theories to formulate a "fully social theory of deviance".

The power to label behaviour as "deviant" arises partly from the unequal distribution of power within the state, and because the judgment carries the authority of the state, it attributes greater stigma to the prohibited behaviour. This is true no matter what the political orientation of the state. All states enact laws which, to a greater or lesser extent, protect property. This may take the form of theft, or prohibit damage or trespass. Even though a theft law may not appear judgmental, a Marxist analysis of the conviction rates may detect inequalities in the way in which the law is applied. Thus, the decision whether to prosecute or to convict may be skewed by having the resources to employ a good lawyer. The same analysis may also show that the distribution of punishment for any given crime may vary according to the social class of the perpetrator. But, the law of theft exists to protect the interests of all those who own property. It does not discriminate by reference to the class of the owner. Indeed, few laws in any states are drafted to protect property interests by reference to class, and the acceptance and enforcement of laws generally depend on a consensus within the community that such laws meet local needs. In this, a comparison of the crime rates between states shows little correlation by reference to political orientation. Such correlations as do exist tend to reflect disparities between rich and poor, and features describing the development of the social and economic environment. Hence, the crimes rates are comparable in states where there are the largest disparities of wealth distribution, regardless of whether they are first, second or third world.

Individual theorists

William Adrian Bonger

Dutch criminologist, William Bonger, believed in a causal link between crime and economic and social conditions. He asserted that crime is social in origin and a normal response to prevailing cultural conditions. In more primitive societies, he contended that survivial requires more selfless altruism within the community. But once agricultural technology improved and a surplus of food was generated, systems of exchange and barter began offered the opportunity for selfishness. As capitalism emerged, there were social forces of competition and wealth, resulting in an unequal distribution of resources, avarice and individualism. Once self Interest and more egoistic impulses assert themselves, crime emerges. The poor would commit crime out of need or out of a sense of injustice. Hence, those with power exercise control and impose punishment, equating the definition of crime with harm or threat of harm to the properrty and business interests of the powerful. Although the inherent activities comprising, say, a theft, may be identical, theft by the poor will be given greater emphasis than theft by the rich. This will have two consequences: direct which will increase the pressure for survival in an unequal society, and indirect in that it will increase a sense of alienation among the poor. Crime in the streets was a result of the miserable conditions in which workers lived in competition with one another. He believed that poverty alone could not be a cause of crime but rather poverty coupled with individualism, materialism, false needs, racism, and the false masculinity of violence and domination among street thugs.

Thorsten Sellin

Sellin was a sociologist at the University of Pennsylvania and one of the pioneers of scientific criminology. His method involved a comprehensive view of the subject incorporating historical, sociological, psychological, and legal factors into the analysis. He applied both Marxism and Conflict Theory to an examination of the cultural diversity of modern industrial society. In a homogenous society, norms or codes of behaviour will emerge and become laws where enforcement is necessary to preserve the unitary culture. But where separate cultures diverge from the mainstream, those minority groups will establish their own norms. Socialisation will therefore be to the subgroup and to the mainstream norms. When laws are enacted, they will represent the norms, values and interests of the dominant cultural or ethnic group which may produce Border Culture Conflict. When the two cultures interact and one seeks to extend its influence into the other, each side is likely to react protectively. If the balance of power is relatively equal, an accommodation will usually be reached. But if the distribution of power is unequal, the everyday behaviour of the minority group may be defined as deviant. The more diversified and heterogeneous a society becomes, the greater the probability of more frequent conflict as subgroups who live by their own rules break the rules of other groups.

Positivist School

In criminology, the Positivist School has attempted to find scientific objectivity for the measurement and quantification of criminal behaviour. As the scientific method became the major paradigm in the search for all knowledge, the Classical School's social philosophy was replaced by the quest for scientific laws that would be discovered by experts. It is divided into Biological, Psychological and Social.

Biological positivism

If Charles Darwin's Theory of evolution was scientific as applied to animals, the same approach should be applied to "man" as an "animal".

Physical characteristics

Historically, medicine became interested in the problem of crime, producing studies of physiognomy (see Johann Kaspar Lavater and Franz Joseph Gall) and the science of phrenology which linked attributes of the mind to the shape of the brain as reveal through the skull. These theories were popular because society and any failures of its government were not the causes of crime. The problem lay in the propensities of individual offenders who were biologically distinguishable from law-abiding citizens. This theme was amplified by the Italian School and through the writings of Cesare Lombroso (see L'Uomo Delinquente, The Criminal Man and Anthropological criminology) which identified physical characteristics associated with degeneracy demonstrating that criminals were atavistic throwbacks to an earlier evolutionary form. Charles Goring (1913) failed to corroborate the characteristics but did find criminals shorter, lighter and less intelligent, i.e. he found criminality to be "normal" rather than "pathological" (cf the work of Hooton found evidence of biological inferiority). William Sheldon identified three basic body or somatotypes (i.e. endomorphs, mesomorphs, and ectomorphs), and introduced a scale to measure where each individual was placed. He concluded that delinquents tended to mesomorphy. Modern research might link physical size and athleticism and aggression because physically stronger people have the capacity to use violence with less chance of being hurt in any retaliation. Otherwise, such early research is no longer considered valid. The development of genetics has produced another potential inherent cause of criminality, with chromosome and other genetic factors variously identified as significant to select heredity rather than environment as the cause of crime (see: nature versus nurture). Unfortunately, the evidence from family, twin, and adoption studies shows no conclusive empirical evidence to prefer either cause.

Intelligence

There are a number of reputable studies that demonstrate a link between lower intelligence and criminality. But the evidence is equivocal because studies among the prison population simply test those criminals actually caught, which might be because they failed to plan the crimes properly or because they were unable to resist interrogation techniques and admitted their crimes. If their intelligence is poor, they are also less likely to be deterred.

Other medical factors

Testosterone and adrenaline have been associated with aggression and violence, and the arousal and excited state associated with them. The excessive consumption of alcohol can lower blood sugar levels and lead to aggressiveness, and the use of chemicals in foods and drinks has been associated with hyper-activity and some criminal behaviour.

Psychological positivism

Sigmund Freud divided the personality into the id, the primitive biological drives, the superego, the internalised values, and the ego, memory, perception, and cognition. He proposed that criminal behaviour is either the result of mental illness or a weak conscience. John Bowlby proposed an attachment theory in which maternal deprivation was a factor that might lead to delinquency. This has been discounted in favour of general privation (Michael Rutter: 1981) or "broken homes" (Glueck: (1950) in which absentee or uncaring parents tend to produce badly behaved children.

Hans Eysenck (1987) stated that, "...certain types of personality may be more prone to react with anti-social or criminal behaviour to environmental factors of one kind or another." He proposed three dimensions of personality: introversion/extroversion, neutroticism, and psychoticism. For these purposes, personality is the settled framework of reference within which a person addresses the current situation and decides how to behave. Some traits will be dominant at times and then in a balanced relationship to other traits, but each person's traits will be reasonably stable and predictable (see Marshall: 1990 and Seidman:1994). Hence, once conditioned into a criminal lifestyle, the relevant personality traits are likely to persist until a countervailing conditioning force re-establishes normal social inhibitions. Some forms of criminal behaviour such as sexual offences, have been medicalised with treatment offered alongside punishment.

Social positivism

In general terms, positivism rejected the Classical Theory's reliance on free will and sought to identify positive causes that determined the propensity for criminal behaviour. Rather than biological or psychological causes, this branch of the School identifies "society" as the cause. Hence, environmental criminology and other sub-schools study the spatial distribution of crimes and offenders (see Adolphe Quetelet, who discovered that crimes rates are relatively constant, and the Chicago School which, under the leadership of Robert E. Park, viewed the city as a form of superorganism, zoned into areas engaged in a continuous process of invasion, dominance, and succession). Meanwhile, Emile Durkheim identified society as a social phenomenon, external to individuals, with crime a normal part of a healthy society. Deviancy was nothing more than "boundary setting," pushing to determine the current limits of morality and acceptability.

Postmodernist School

In criminology the Postmodernist School applies postmodernism to the study of crime and criminals, and understands "criminality" as a product of the power to limit the behaviour of those individuals excluded from power, but who try to overcome social inequality and behave in ways which the power structure prohibits. It focuses on the identity of the human subject, multiculturalism, feminism, and human relationships to deal with the concepts of "difference" and "otherness" without essentialism or reductionism, but its contributions are not always appreciated (Carrington: 1998). Postmodernists shift attention from Marxist concerns of economic and social oppression to linguistic production, arguing that criminal law is a language to create dominance relationships. For example, the language of courts (the so-called "legalese") expresses and institutionalises the domination of the individual, whether accused or accuser, criminal or victim, by social institutions. According to postmodernist criminology, the discourse of criminal law is dominant, exclusive and rejecting, less diverse, and culturally not pluralistic, exaggerating narrowly defined rules for the exclusion of others.

Definitional issues

A crime might be defined on the basis that the behaviour represents a danger to society and it is designated as such in the penal code (nullum crimen sine lege the Latin presumption that there can be no crime without a law defining it as such). Human activity extends its range as society develops, and any of these activities (with or without reason) may be considered harmful for people and are therefore “extinguished” by society either through informal moral condemnation or by the state when formal legal restrictions are infringed. There are overlapping explanations of criminality:

• There is nothing inherently "criminal" in any given act; crime and criminality are relative terms, social constructs reflecting diachronic social policies, e.g. one killing may be murder, another justifiable homicide.
• Hess and Scheerer (1997) suggest that criminality is not so much an ontological phenomenon as a mental construct having an historical and protean character.
• Society “constructs” its elements on the basis of ontological realities. Thus, in reality certain types of human activity are harmful and damaging, and are understood and judged so by others, by society as a whole. But it is also true that other forms of criminal behaviour do not harm others and are therefore criminalised without sufficient ontological grounds (see public order crime).
• Criminality is almost completely constructed by the controlling institutions which establish norms and attribute determinate meanings to certain acts; criminality is thus a social and linguistic construct.

This difficulty in defining the basic concept of criminality applies equally to questions concerning its causes; even in physical and biological systems it is difficult, although not impossible, to isolate the cause-effect link from its context of interrelationships. It is more difficult for social systems. Indeed, some argue that Chaos Theory may provide a more appropriate model for what is termed the "social sciences". Thus, for postmodernism, the key “criminogenic” factor is the change in society from hierarchical relationships to ones based on differentiation with the meta-codes for identity as the determinant for social inclusion/exclusion (Gilinskiy: 2001).

Theoretical concerns

Postmodernism is associated with the decline of the left's credibility, specifically in the failure of state socialism to offer an attractive and, later, even a viable alternative to western capitalism. Both Marxism and Socialism derived their philosophical foundation from the Enlightenment. Postmodernism is a critique of the Enlightenment and of scientific positivism which has argued that the world can be understood and both "truth" and "justice" can be discovered by applying the universal linear principle of reason (see Milovanovic who describes the shift from Hegelian to Nietzschean and Lacanian thought). The idea that the application of scientific principles to social life will uncover the laws of society, making human life predictable and social engineering practical and possible, is discounted. Postmodernists argue that this claim for the universality of reason was ethnocentric in that it privileged one Western view of the world while discounting other views (Kiely, 1995: 153-154). and truth claims were part of a relationship of domination, a claim to power. Given the history of colonialism and globalisation in both the physical and the intellectual world, this critique asserts righteous indignation and moral superiority. In postmodernism, "truth" and "falsity" are purely relative; each culture has its own standard for judging truth that is not inherently superior to any other. Postmodernist analysis is a method to uncover how the world is made to appear real, "thereby questioning that it is real in truth or fact, or that there is any way of making such judgements". No truth claim, and certainly not Enlightenment scientism, rests on any more secure foundation than any other. No knowledge claim is privileged.

The main weakness of relativism is that it offers no basis for evaluation. Henry and Milovanovic (1996) posit that all claims are to be considered valid, all social practices merely cultural variations, neither inherently inferior nor superior to any other. This may be potentially progressive because it challenges the absolutist assumptions of the superiority of, for example, Western economics and capitalism. But it does not challenge the status quo. On the contrary, as Kiely (1995: 155) argues, appeals for tolerance and pluralism "at its worse . . . simply ignores, or even becomes an apology for, all kinds of oppressive practices" that violate any sense of human and social rights.

The human subject

The human subject is said to be one or a number of ideological constructions which are transient, multifaceted works-in-process. The discourse has the power to create a convincing truth claim about the reality of any subject that is historially conditioned, particularly when depicting human action. Subjects are continually recreating themselves while simultaneously continually recreating the social context that shapes their identity and potential for action as well as the identity and potential of others to act. Human agents are all "investors" in constructing their version of reality. Praxis is defined as purposive social activity born of human agents' consciousness of their world, and mediated through the social groups to which they belong". It assumes dualistic forms, such as negation/affirmation. Hierarchies are often reconstituted through negation; they are subject to deconstruction through affirmation.

Structure

The human subject is a "role-maker", an agent who can occupy situations and may act contingently in relation to others to affirm or negate their representations. Whereas early conceptions of structure posited an underlying "reality" which could be understood empirically, postmodernism, considers structural contexts to be constituted by the discourse to produce culturally and historically specific representations which are imbued with object-like reality and attain relative stability. In this process, other representations are silenced or denied and the human agency that constituted the contingent and transitory "reality" may be hidden. At any instance, however, certain depiction's gain ascendancy and are strengthened by social action which is undertaken in relation to them. Social actors "invest" in these depictions; they organise action to defend specific representations, giving them the appearance of stability and producing the dynamics of subordination and oppression. Social change creates competing discourses and, for a time, alternative realities. When change begins, initial states are always uncertain and through iteration over time, produce outcomes. Inevitably, as change is occurring, cracks and slippage exist, providing the basis for strategic intervention. Action is then organised to defend or deny the representation. In the end, structures as well as subjects possess "relative autonomy" while being co-dependent.

Crime and harmfulness

Crime and the identifiication of harm are categories constituted by the discourse but they are, nevertheless, "real" in their consequences. There may be harms of reduction, which occur when a social agent experiences a loss of some quality, and harms of repression, which occur when a social agent experiences a restriction preventing the achievement of a desired end. Crime is the outcome of an agent's "investment" in constituting a difference which, through the exercise of "disrespecting" power over others, denies their full humanity and, thereby, renders them powerless to constitute their own differences. Far from being confined to "law", in this expanded view, the exercise of power is the genesis of harms of all types and, hence, of crime. Law merely legitimises existing social relations of power. Crime, then, is a contingent "universality": Victims are numerous but are constituted contingently, relative to historically specifiable relations of power. Power itself is produced and maintained through ideology, through discursive practices. While all humans invest in their respective constructions of reality, some become "excessive investors", conflating socially constructed differences with differential evaluations of worth, reinforcing a social hierarchy while suppressing others' co—production, rendering them silent.

Theories of crime

There are many theories, including:

Strain theory

Based on the work of American sociologist Robert Merton, this theory suggests that mainstream culture, especially in the United States, is saturated with dreams of opportunity, freedom and prosperity; as Merton put it, the American Dream. Most people buy into this dream and it becomes a powerful cultural and psychological motivation. Merton also used the term anomie, but it meant something slightly different for him than it did for Durkheim; he saw the term as meaning a dichotomy between what society expected of its citizens, and what those citizens could actually achieve. Therefore, if the social structure of opportunities is unequal and prevents the majority from realizing the dream, some of them will turn to illegitimate means (crime) in order to realize it. Others will retreat or drop out into deviant subcultures (gang members, "hobos": urban homeless drunks and drug abusers).

Symbolic interactionism

Drawing on the phenomenology of Edmund Husserl and George Herbert Mead, subcultural theory and conflict theory, this school of thought focused on the relationship between the powerful state, media and conservative ruling elite on the one hand, and the less powerful groups on the other. The powerful groups had the ability to become the 'significant other' in the less powerful groups' processes of generating meaning. The former could to some extent impose their meanings on the latter, and therefore they were able to 'label' minor delinquent youngsters as criminal. These youngsters would often take on board the label, indulge in crime more readily and become actors in the 'self-fulfilling prophecy' of the powerful groups. Later developments in this set of theories were by Howard Becker and Edwin Lemert, in the mid 20th century; also by Stanley Cohen who developed the concept of "moral panic" (describing societal reaction to spectacular, alarming social phenomena such as post-World War Two youth cultures (e.g. the Mods and Rockers in the UK in 1964), AIDS and football hooliganism.

Control theories

Another approach is made by the so called "control theories". Instead of looking for factors that make people become criminal, those theories try to explain why people do NOT become criminal. T. Hirschi (1969: Causes of Delinquency) identified four main characteristics: "attachment to others", "belief in moral validity of rules", "commitment to achievement" and "involvement in conventional activities". The more a person features those characteristics, the less are the chances that he or she becomes deviant (or criminal). If - on the other hand - those factors are not present in a person, it is more likely that he or she might become criminal. Hirschi followed up on his own theory with the theory of low self-control. According to that theory a person is more likely to become criminal, if he or she has low self control (a simple example: someone wants to have a big yacht, but does not have the means to buy one - if the person cannot control themself - he or she might try to get the yacht (or the means for it) in an illegal way; whereas someone with high self-control will (more likely) either wait or deny themself that need).

British and American subcultural theory

Following on from the Chicago School and Strain Theory, and also drawing on Edwin H. Sutherland's idea of differential association, subcultural theorists focused on small cultural groups fragmenting away from the mainstream to form their own values and meanings about life. Some of these groups, especially from poorer areas where opportunities were scarce, might adopt criminal values and meanings. British subcultural theorists focused more heavily on the issue of class, where some criminal activities were seen as 'imaginary solutions' to the problem of belonging to a subordinate class. A further study by the Chicago school looked at gangs and the influence of the inter action of gang leaders under the observation of adults. The findings were described as being unreliable due to the observation techniques. ^{[citation needed]}

Types and definitions of crime

Both the Positivist and Classical Schools take a consensus view of crime – that a crime is an act that violates the basic values and beliefs of society. Those values and beliefs are manifested as laws that society agrees upon. However, there are two types of laws:

• Natural laws are rooted in core values shared by many cultures. Natural laws protect against harm to persons (e.g. murder, rape, assault) or property (theft, larceny, robbery), and form the basis of common law systems.
• Statutes are enacted by legislatures and reflect current cultural mores, albeit that some laws may be controversial, e.g. laws that prohibit marijuana use and gambling. Marxist Criminology, Conflict Criminology and Critical Criminology claim that most relationships between State and citizen are non-consensual and, as such, criminal law is not necessarily representative of public beliefs and wishes: it is exercised in the interests of the ruling or dominant class. The more right wing criminologies tend to posit that there is a consensual social contract between State and citizen.

Therefore, definitions of crimes will vary from place to place, in accordance to the cultural norms and mores, but may be broadly classified as:

• blue-collar crime;
• corporate crime;
• organized crime;
• political crime;
• public order crime;
• state crime;
• state-corporate crime;
• white-collar crime.

Educational programs

There is now a huge number of undergraduate and postgraduate criminology degrees available around the world. The present popularity of such degrees may in part be due to criminal and police television dramas that capture people's imaginations, but could also be because of growing awareness as to the continuing importance of issues relating to law, rules, compliance, politics, terrorism, security, forensic science, the media, deviance, and punishment.

References

ISBN links support NWE through referral fees

• Chambliss, W. & Seidman, R. (1971). Law, Order, and Power. Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley.
• Dahrendorf, Ralf. (1959). Class and Class Conflict in Industrial Society. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
• Sellin, Thorsten. (1937). Crime in the Depression.
• Sellin, Thorsten. (1938) Culture Conflict and Crime. New York: Social Science Research Council.
• Taylor, Ian R., Walton, Paul & Young, Jock. (1988) The New Criminology: For a Social Theory of Deviance (International Library of Sociology), Routledge. ISBN 0-415-03447-7
• Turk, Austin. (1969). Criminality and Legal Order. Chicago: Rand McNally.
• Vold, George. (1958). Theoretical Criminology. New York: Oxford University Press.

• Brantingham, P. J. & Brantingham, P. L. (1991). Environmental Criminology. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
• Verma, Arvind & Lodha, S. K. (2002). "A Typological Representation of the Criminal Event." Western Criminology Review 3(2). [1]

• Abbott, P. & Wallace, C. (1990) An Introduction to Sociology: Feminist perspectives (Part 9).
• Adler, Freda. (1975). Sisters in Crime.
• Alder, Christine. Explaining Violence: Socioeconomics and Masculinity. [2]
• Carlen, Pat. (1985). Criminal Women
• Carlen, Pat. (1988). Women, Crime and Poverty. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
• Chapman, Jane Roberts. (1980), Economic Realities and the Female Offender. Lexington, Mass: Lexington Books.
• Chesney-Lind, M. (1984). "Women and Crime: A review of the recent literature on the female offender". (Report No. 295). Honolulu: University of Hawaii, Youth Development and Research Center.
• Chesney-Lind, Meda & Pasko, Lisa. (2004). The Female Offender: Girls, Women, and Crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
• Crew, B.K. (1991). "Sex differences in patriarchy: Chivalry or patriarchy?" Justice Quarterly, 8 (1), 59-83.
• Farrington, D. P. & Morris, A. (1983). "Sex, sentencing and reconviction". British Journal of Criminology. Vol. 23, pp229-48.
• Heidensohn, Frances. (1992) Women in Control? The Role of Women in Law Enforcement. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
• Heidensohn, Frances. (2000) Sexual Politics and Social Control. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.
• Kruttschnitt, C. (1982). "Women, crime, and dependency: an application of the theory of law". Criminology. Vol. 19, pp495-513.
• Lloyd, A. (1995) Doubly Deviant, Doubly Damned: Society's treatment of violent women.
• Lombroso, Cesare. (1980) The Female Offender. Littleton, Colorado: Fred Rothman.
• Naffine, N. (1987). Female Crime: The Construction of Women in Criminology. Boston: Allen and Unwin.
• Naffine, N. (1996). Feminism and Criminology. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.
• Oakley, Ann (1997). "The gendering of methodology: An experiment in knowing". Seminar to Swedish Collegium for Advanced Study in the Social Sciences, Uppsala, Sweden, 10th April.
• Oakley, Ann (1998). "Science, gender, and women's liberation: An argument against postmodernism". Women's Studies International Forum, 21(2), 133-146.
• Pollak, Otto. (1950). The Criminality of Women. (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
• Simon, Rita. (1975). Women and Crime. Lexington, Mass.: Lexington Books.
• Thomas, William I. (1923). The Unadjusted Girl. With Cases and Standpoint for Behavioral Analysis. Boston: Little, Brown, and Co., 1923. (reprinted (1967). N.Y.: Evanston; London: Harper & Row).
• Westmarland, Nicole. (2001). "The Quantitative/Qualitative Debate and Feminist Research: A Subjective View of Objectivity" Forum: Qualitative Social Research. Volume 2, No. 1 – February. [3]
• Wundersitz, J., Naffine, N. & Gale, F. (1988). "Chivalry, Justice or Paternalism? The Female Offender in the Juvenile Justice System". Australian and New Zealand Journal of Sociology, Vol. 24, p359.

• Gibson, M. (2002). Born to crime: Cesare Lombroso and the origins of biological criminology. Westport, CT: Praeger. ISBN 0-27-597062-0

• Bonger, William. (1905). Criminality and Economic Conditions. [4]
• Chambliss, W. (1973). "Elites and the Creation of Criminal Law" in Sociological Readings in the Conflict Perspective Chambliss, W. (ed.) Reading, Mass.: Addison-Wesley. (pp430-444).
• Chambliss, William J. & Mankoff, Milton (eds.) (1976) Whose Law? What Order? A Conflict Approach to Criminology. New York: John Wiley.
• Chambliss, W & Seidman, R. (1971). Law, Order, and Power. Reading, Mass: Addison-Wesley.
• Pearce, Frank. (2003). Preface to '‘Crimes of the Powerful’', Tombs, Steve & Whyte, Dave (eds.) Peter Lang Publishing, ISBN 0-8204-5691-8
• Pearce, Frank & Snider, Laureen (1992). "Crimes of the Powerful" special issue of The Journal of Human Justice, Vol. 3, No.2, Spring.
• Pearce, Frank & Tombs, S. (1998). "Foucault, Governmentality, Marx", Journal of Social and Legal Studies, 7:4, December.
• Quinney, Richard. (1974). Critique of Legal Order: Crime Control in Capitalist Society. Boston: Little, Brown and Company. ISBN 0-7658-0797-1
• Schwartz, Martin D. & Hatty, Suzanne E. (eds). (2003). Controversies in Critical Criminology. Cincinnati, OH: Anderson Publishing. ISBN 1-58360-521-5
• Sellin, Thorsten. (1937). Crime in the Depression
• Sellin, Thorsten. (1938) Culture Conflict and Crime. New York: Social Science Research Council.
• Taylor, Ian R., Walton, Paul & Young, Jock. (1988) The New Criminology: For a Social Theory of Deviance (International Library of Sociology), Routledge. ISBN 0-415-03447-7
• Wincup, Emma & Griffiths, Janis. (1999). Crime, Deviance and Social Control (Access to Sociology S), London: Hodder Arnold H&S, ISBN 0-340-74924-5

• Goring, Charles. (1913). The English Convict: A Statistical Study. London: HMSO.
• Hooton, Earnest A. The American Criminal
• Marshall, W. L.; Laws, D. R. & Barbaree, H. E. (eds.), (1990). Handbook of Sexual Assault: Issues, Theories, and Treatment of the Offender, New York, NY: Plenum Press.
• Seidman, B. T., Marshall, W. L., Hudson, S., & Robertson, P. J. (1994). "An examination of intimacy and loneliness in sex offenders". Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 9, 518-534.

• Carrington, K. (1998). "Postmodernism and Feminist Criminologies: Fragmenting the Criminological Subject". in The New Criminology Revisited. Walton, P. & Young, J. (eds.). London: Macmillan.
• Henry, Stuart & Milovanovic, Dragan. (1996). Constitutive Criminology: Beyond Postmodernism. London: Sage.
• Gilinskiy, Y. (2001). "Concept of Criminality in Contemporary Criminology". Papers of St. Petersburg’s Juridical Institute of the General Prosecutor’s Office of Russian Federation. No 3. pp74-79. [5]
• Hess, H. & Scheerer, S. (1997) "Was ist Kriminalität?" Kriminologische Journal. Heft 2.
• Kiely, Ray 1995 Sociology and Development: The Impasse and Beyond. London: UCL Press.
• Milovanovic, Dragan. Dueling Paradigms: Modernist v Postmodernist Thought. [6]
• Thomson, Anthony. (1997). Post-Modernism and Social Justice. Acadia University. June.

External links

• The Holy Trinity and the Legacy of the Italian School of Criminal Anthropology
• Enrico Ferri
• Raffaele Garofolo
• Cesare Lombroso

• British Society of Criminology: Criminology Benchmarks (including Police Studies and Criminal Justice Studies)
• American Society of Criminology
• Criminology Mega-Site — Dr. Tom O'Connor (Assistant Professor of Criminal Justice, Austin Peay State University)
• National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS)
• Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC)
• Stockholm Criminology Symposium
• The New Criminologist Online Journal

Credits

New World Encyclopedia writers and editors rewrote and completed the Wikipedia article in accordance with New World Encyclopedia standards. This article abides by terms of the Creative Commons CC-by-sa 3.0 License (CC-by-sa), which may be used and disseminated with proper attribution. Credit is due under the terms of this license that can reference both the New World Encyclopedia contributors and the selfless volunteer contributors of the Wikimedia Foundation. To cite this article click here for a list of acceptable citing formats.The history of earlier contributions by wikipedians is accessible to researchers here:

• Criminology  ^history
• Classical_school  ^history
• Conflict_criminology  ^history
• Environmental_criminology  ^history
• Feminist_school  ^history
• Italian_school_of_criminology  ^history
• Marxist_criminology  ^history
• Positivist_school  ^history
• Postmodernist_school  ^history

The history of this article since it was imported to New World Encyclopedia:

• History of "Criminology"

Note: Some restrictions may apply to use of individual images which are separately licensed.