A GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORY
This page provides practice at three important skills: (1) translation of abstract, general statements into measurable, plain English (operationalization); (2) identification of the Independent Variable (cause), Dependent Variable (effect), and Other Factor(s) (specification); and (3) figuring out other possible relationships between variables in a theory (elaboration). Integration is a fourth skill we could have added, but for now, let's concentrate on the three basic ones in italics. The SAMPLE we will work with is the following statement:
"Criminality is a probabilistic event determined by the frequency and quality of interaction with persons holding definitions favorable or unfavorable to violation of the law."
In unlocking the meaning of the above statement, we will use three (3) ordinary, everyday TOOLS at our disposal: (1) Name Recognition; (2) Sentence Analysis; and (3) Visualization. The insights these tools might yield about operationalization, specification, and elaboration may not come in any systematic order. That is, we may arrive at an understanding of elaboration first, specification second, and operationalization third; or any other order. We are concerned with understanding theory, not following any established procedure.

NAME RECOGNITION involves trying to connect the name of a theorist with the ideas of the theory; that is, who the inventor is, who made the statement, who might be associated with this kind of thought, etc. In our Sample Complex Theory, reproduced once again,
"Criminality is a probabilistic event determined by the frequency and quality of interaction with persons holding definitions favorable or unfavorable to violation of the law."
the phrases "frequency and quality of interaction" and "definitions favorable or unfavorable" should look familiar to any student of sociology or criminology as representative of the Interactionist approach. In fact, the word "interaction" is even in the statement. Further reading of the whole statement reveals words like "persons" which tell us it is probably a SOCIAL theory, having to do with the kinds of things, like "definitions", which people presumably pick up from other people in some way. These kinds of theories about things picked up from other people are called LEARNING theories. We therefore have a SOCIAL LEARNING theory which probably also adheres to an INTERACTIONIST or INTERPERSONAL approach. A look at our table of perspectives, approaches, and theories reveals that either Sutherland, Glaser, or Akers could have made this statement. Now it becomes a matter of narrowing down the field of names. You need to have some rough idea of how these three theorists (Sutherland, Glaser, and Akers) tend to write (one reason why professors sometimes make you read the original works), what they look like (one reason why textbooks often put their pictures in books -- who knows, maybe something in the way one looks provides a memory recall aid), and who the most important theorist is in the field or to your professor (information gained from lectures) in order to make a safe guess. If you guessed Sutherland (the "father" of Social Learning Theory), you made the right choice. Our sample is taken word-for-word from Sutherland's Differential Association Theory. With practice, and some knowledge of the oral tradition passed down about theorists, you can get good at this.

Sutherland, unlike the other two theorists, never made very clear, say-what-you-mean statements. As a rule of thumb, the more abstract and obtuse the statement, the more likely it was made by the founder or "father" of a particular approach. As an example, just look at the way Sutherland's statement is worded:
"Criminality is a probabilistic event determined by the frequency and quality of interaction with persons holding definitions favorable or unfavorable to violation of the law."
Some of the more abstract elements include phrases like "Criminality is a probabilistic event" and "definitions favorable or unfavorable". Nobody talks like this in real life. Why didn't he just say: "Crime is caused by interacting with others who believe in breaking the law"? This would be a nice, plain English translation. But it's too close to the kind of simplistic statements going around during Sutherland's time. He wanted to avoid simple "Crime is caused by..." statements, and also avoid a twist on that old adage "Birds of a feather flock together" (which in this case would be: "Those that flock together tend to become like birds of a feather"). Remember that theorists usually try to make their theories measurable, and Sutherland tried to do this with the "probabilistic event" language, which lends itself to mathematical testing. Every theorist has some quirk to help you get an idea of where they're coming from, but they also usually prepare their statements very, very carefully. Every phrase they put in their theoretical statements has some meaning.
SENTENCE ANALYSIS
Take the beginning of Sutherland's theory: "Criminality is a probabilistic event determined by..." Now, criminality is an old word leftover from the days of biological determinists who were trying not to sound so absolutely certain. They realized that heredity could only account for about 50% of something at best, so they started coming up with phrases like "propensity for", "predisposed to", "inclination towards", and "criminality". So when Sutherland uses this word, you get the idea that he is talking about being inclined toward crime, not actually committing crime. This is called SPECIFYING the Dependent Variable, or effect. For people new to the science of criminology, it is astonishing how many theories are not about crime at all, but the "readiness" to commit crime, "potential" crime, or "tipping points" in the community's tolerance. Anyway, the point is that there is more than one Dependent Variable in criminology. Few theories provide explanations for actual crime or specific criminal events.

From Sutherland's point of view, what is a "probabilistic event"? Well, probability is simply the idea that something can happen greater than chance; that is, greater than 50% of the time. If we were to test Sutherland's theory, all that would be needed is to take 100 people, expose them to what he says are the causal factors, and see if at least 51% of them are more inclined to commit crime than before. Case closed, theory proven. Theorists always hedge their bets like this in some way. No theorist claims to explain anything close to 100% of something. Many criminological theorists are perfectly happy with small to moderate effects in the 20-30% range, although predictions in the 50-70% range (or higher) are expected for policy relevance. You should get into the habit of estimating the percentage of explanation by what the theorist says. There are important research method reasons for this; a stronger theory requires a stronger research design.

Another part of SENTENCE ANALYSIS is to find what is called the "relational" word. A relational is simply the verb or verbs contained in the statement. Everyone uses verbs in sentences, but you will probably never see the verb "to cause" used by a criminologist. "Determines" is the closed thing to "cause", but it is also rarely used. I wish I could provide you with a standard list of the hundreds of verbs and the rules for interpreting them, but there are no such hard-and-fast rules. Below, I am providing you with some general interpretations, but do not assume any automatic translations:

• "varies with" -- this means things fluctuate together; as one thing goes up, the other thing goes down; usually used to describe a possible inverse relationship.
• "where..." -- while not technically a verb, this word usually indicates a feedback relationship, where things go up or down in response to one another. Often, but not always, the case involves an important Z factor which moderates, distorts, or confounds the relationship. Relationals like "varies", "fluctuates", "predominates", "associated with", and "overrepresented by" are usually found when the theorist is dealing with sociodemographic variables, like age or race.
• "seems to be" -- this wishy-washy language usually means that the theorist suspects a weak relationship, probably way less than 50%.
• "tends" -- this might mean, but not always, that there are important Z factors which are antecedent, intervening, or contingent; that is, that come before, in the middle, or after an X and Y relationship. Or, it may be a cojoint relation.
• "is conducive to" -- this usually means that the cause is a mysterious, unknown construct; typically found in highly abstract theories involving words like anomie, relative deprivation, norms, or controls. In some cases, it refers to a confounding or contextual relationship.

Don't let the words I just used, such as cojoint and confounding, intimidate you. They are related to our third, everyday tool, VISUALIZATION. Here, you want to look at the nouns in the theoretical statement, and try to figure out which ones were intended to be the X's (causes), the Y's (effects), and the Z's (other factors). At a minimum, all theories require at least two variables, an X and a Y, but in real life, most theories are complex and have at least one Z factor. In the interest of what is called parsimony, theorists try to keep their models down to 3-5 variables. In visualizing, also called MODELING, you can determine the relative importance of these Z factors and their impact on the X-Y relationship by looking at how the variables can be rearranged. Sometimes, the theorist has done this for you by "controlling", "partialling", or "factoring out" certain variables, but this is only a statistical solution. To understand all the possible ELABORATIONS of a model, you need to think through all the possibilities, especially those that the theorist forgot. It would be helpful to look at the page of modeling relationships between variables before reading further.

There are two kinds of MODELS: intrinsic and extrinsic. Intrinsic models usually refer to visualizations using the variables or implied variables provided by the theory. For example, you might be reading a book where the main theory is contained in chapter 2, but chapter 6 contains a discussion of the locus of control variable. Even though the author never incorporated locus of control into his or her theory, it was nonetheless implied as an important Z factor. An extrinsic model is one in which you, the reader, have added a possible Z factor. For example, you might be interested in whether the relationship predicted by the theory holds true for women or people of color. In this case, we would refer to sex or race as an extraneous variable to the model because you added it to the author's original work. There are also other words, such as exogenous, which apply to cases where you are modeling the impact of a criminal justice system factor, such as a new law or change in political environment. For the sake of simplicity, we will concern ourselves with visualizing intrinsic models only. Let's look again at Sutherland's theory:
"Criminality is a probabilistic event determined by the frequency and quality of interaction with persons holding definitions favorable or unfavorable to violation of the law."
We already know that Sutherland and the Social Learning Perspective draw heavily upon the Interactionist or Interpersonal approach in Sociology. After all, Sociology is what puts the S in Social. Therefore, we would not expect a sociologically oriented criminologist to use a psychological variable as their X. Theorists usually devote their first, or antecedent, variable to the discipline in which they were trained. So we should scan his theoretical statement to see what other sociological words are used; to see if nouns like "norms", "values", or "socialization" are used. A quick look reveals that nothing of the sort appears outside of "interaction" and "definitions". But it is not interaction itself that Sutherland is pointing to, but its "frequency" and "quality". Likewise with definitions (a strange word in itself), he points to those that are "favorable" and "unfavorable". Which is more important? Which comes first? Which is more measurable? We need to keep asking these questions because that is why theories (as puzzles) are there; for each successive generation to find out if anything new has changed the way the theory can be elaborated. There are some rules of thumb about estimating the relative importance of variables with intrinsic models, but again, these are just interpretive guidelines, not hard-and-fast rules:

• X is usually a variable from the discipline a theorist was trained in.
• X is usually more important than Y, especially if the theorist seems more interested in collecting causes (i.e., constructs an index).
• Y is more important than X if the theorist seems more interested in predicting symptoms, syndromes, or effects (i.e., constructs a scale).
• X is always more important than Z (a third factor), always.
• X is usually less measurable than Y or Z, because it's an unknown construct.
• X and Z are usually hard to tell apart, and may seem like the same thing.
• When more than one Z is in the statement, the first one mentioned is the Z in estimating a parsimonious model.

With regard to measurability, "frequency" is obviously easier to measure than "quality", and I wouldn't even bother with trying to figure out whether "unfavorable" definitions are easier than "favorable" ones since they are about equally difficult. But "definitions" (that strange word) appear to be the least measurable thing in the whole sentence. Definitions might be the main construct (the idea in the theorist's mind) which is our X (causal factor).

Since we already know the Y (effect) factor: probability of criminal inclinations, from an earlier discussion, we need to estimate the Z (other) factor. If we followed our last rule of thumb (rule #7), we would choose frequency over quality, but the same reasoning we used in determining our construct applies (as well as rule #5), and we should choose quality over frequency. Why? Because the harder-to-measure rule is more important than the position-in-sentence rule. Other reasons: quality is a more sociological word than frequency; Sutherland seems to like more unmeasurable concepts; and Sutherland seems more interested in collecting causes of which quality might be a part instead of frequency which runs the risk of being associated with symptoms.

There are, of course, other ways to arrive at these same conclusions. We can draw inferences out of the Approach and Perspective the theory is located under. Since approaches contain assumptions about human nature, models of society, and so forth, we can use this valuable information to rule out other possibilities. We know that learning theories, in general, hold to a blank slate position on human nature. We know that they hold to a consensus model of society, a process (motion picture) orientation toward human action , and a micro-level explanation of social forces. Any one of these provide clues to unlock the theory. The consensus assumption, for example, tells us that "definitions" might be important building blocks in social order, without which, society might collapse. This reassures us that "definitions" are the X in Sutherland's theory. In fact, definitions are beginning to sound an awful lot like norms, but they're not. They might play some part in an interactionist account of social order, but this would be a micro-macro link issue which is beyond our concern. Adding norms would create an extrinsic model; adding a social order variable like degree of solidarity would be adding an exogenous factor.

Now, we need to visualize the model. We have some idea of the important variables, but what is their logical order? It helps to ask some causal sequence questions, some which-came-first, some chicken-or-egg questions. Can definitions exist without people? Probably not. It takes people to come up with definitions in the first place. This is exactly what we would expect from a social theory. OK, so you've got to have some high-quality interaction going first. This means that although definitions are the primary causal factor, quality of interaction must be an antecedent variable. In other words, Z must precede X before Y in our model. Therefore, we have: Z - X - Y
Z leads to X which leads to Y
An Antecedent Variable or Conditional Relationship
SOME ADDITIONAL PRACTICE EXERCISES:
(Try your hand at some difficult theoretical statements in criminology)

"All the characteristics attributed to the psychopath flow from his lack of attachment to others. To lack attachment is to be free from moral restraints and explains the guiltlessness of the psychopath in which violation of norms is (or may be) a consequence." (Travis Hirschi)

"Borderline individuals with their morbid, overwhelming impulsions and compulsions are well recognized as having the mental equipment prone to develop delinquency." (William Healy)

"Where homes are crowded, there will be higher levels of conflict within families weakening attachments and thereby stakes in conformity." (Rodney Stark)




PERSPECTIVES, APPROACHES, AND THEORIES IN CRIMINOLOGY
BIOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVE MORPHOLOGICAL APPROACH LOMBROSO'S ATAVISM THEORY SHELDON'S SOMATOTYPE THEORY BIOCHEMICAL-NEUROLOGICAL APPROACH NEUROTRANSMITTER THEORY INHERITANCE-GENETIC APPROACH GODDARD'S FEEBLEMINDEDNESS (IQ) THEORY BIOSOCIAL APPROACH MEDNICK'S BIOSOCIAL THEORY
PSYCHOLOGICAL-PSYCHIATRIC PERSPECTIVE FREUDIAN APPROACH HEALY'S NEOFREUDIAN THEORY PERSONALITY DISORDERS APPROACH ANTISOCIAL PERSONALITY THEORY CRIMINAL PERSONALITY THEORY PSYCHOPATHY THEORY MORAL DEVELOPMENT APPROACH PIAGET'S DEVELOPMENTAL THEORY ERIKSON'S DEVELOPMENTAL THEORY KOHLBERG'S DEVELOPMENTAL THEORY
SOCIAL DISORGANIZATION PERSPECTIVE ECOLOGICAL APPROACH THOMAS' 4 WISHES THEORY PARK & BURGESS' CONCENTRIC ZONE THEORY THRASHER'S GANG FORMATION THEORY SHAW & MCKAY'S CULTURAL TRANSMISSION THEORY
ANOMIE PERSPECTIVE STRAIN APPROACH MERTON'S MEANS-END GAP THEORY COHEN'S STATUS FRUSTRATION THEORY CLOWARD & OHLIN'S DIFFERENTIAL OPPORTUNITY THEORY SUBCULTURE APPROACH MILLER'S FOCAL CONCERNS THEORY KATZ'S SNEAKY THRILLS THEORY
SOCIAL LEARNING PERSPECTIVE INTERPERSONAL APPROACH SUTHERLAND'S DIFFERENTIAL ASSOCIATION THEORY GLASER'S DIFFERENTIAL IDENTIFICATION THEORY AKER'S DIFFERENTIAL REINFORCEMENT THEORY SITUATIONAL APPROACH SYKES & MATZA'S NEUTRALIZATION THEORY SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH BANDURA'S IMITATION THEORY ROTTER'S EXPECTANCY THEORY
CONTROL PERSPECTIVE PERSONAL CONTROLS APPROACH RECKLESS' CONTAINMENT THEORY KAPLAN'S SELF-DEROGATION THEORY SOCIAL CONTROLS APPROACH HIRSCHI'S SOCIAL BOND THEORY
LABELING PERSPECTIVE SELF-FULFILLING PROPHECY APPROACH LEMERT'S SOCIETAL REACTION THEORY GOFFMAN'S DRAMATURGY THEORY GARFINKEL'S ETHNOMETHODOLOGY THEORY INTERACTIONIST APPROACH BECKER'S LABELING THEORY
RADICAL CONFLICT PERSPECTIVE MARXIST APPROACH SCHWENDINGER'S ADOLESCENT SUBCULTURES THEORY QUINNEY'S SOCIAL REALITY THEORY PLURALIST (NON-MARXIST) APPROACH VOLD & BERNARD'S UNIFIED THEORY TURK'S CRIMINALIZATION THEORY
FEMINIST PERSPECTIVE CHIVALRY APPROACH POLLOCK'S PATERNALISM THEORY LIBERATION APPROACH ADLER & SIMON'S EMANCIPATION THEORY MARGINALIZATION APPROACH HAGAN'S POWER-CONTROL THEORY MESSERSCHMITT'S MASCULINITY THEORY CHESNEY-LIND'S PATRIARCHY THEORY
MIDDLE-CLASS PERSPECTIVE YOUTH CULTURE APPROACH VAZ' DEFERRED GRATIFICATION THEORY DIFFERENTIATION APPROACH PARSONS' DIFFERENTIATION THEORY DIFFUSION APPROACH KVARACEUS & MILLER'S DIFFUSION THEORY MOBILITY APPROACH BOHLKE'S MARGINALITY THEORY
INTEGRATED PERSPECTIVE SIDE-BY-SIDE (PARALLEL) APPROACH COLVIN & PAULY'S STRUCTURAL MARXIST THEORY END-TO-END (SEQUENTIAL) APPROACH ELLIOTT'S INTEGRATIVE MODEL TOP-TO-BOTTOM (DEDUCTIVE) APPROACH SHOEMAKER'S EXPLANATORY MODEL




MODELING RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN VARIABLES BACK TO UNDERSTANDING CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORY, THE BEGINNER'S GUIDE
There are many different kinds of relationships between variables. This page attempts to list ALL the possible relationships in a parsimonious, 3-variable model. Much of this information is taken from the theory of Elaboration Analysis, and the specific names of particular relationships have been established by convention in the research literature. Don't worry if you have trouble with the more complex relationships because even the most experienced theorist-researchers have problems.
LEGEND:

X = INDEPENDENT VARIABLE (CAUSE)
Y = DEPENDENT VARIABLE (EFFECT)
Z = OTHER FACTOR (3rd VARIABLE)

==> (single arrow) indicates CAUSAL PATHWAY
<==> (double arrow) indicates FEEDBACK RELATION*
* a "feedback" relation is another word for "interaction" between variables. It is usually reserved for cases of two-way causal influence; i.e., it cannot be determined which variable has the greater causal influence.
In a CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP (upper left hand corner), there is no Z factor because the rules of causality require that we have eliminated any possible 3rd factor in the explanation. As a reminder, the three rules of causality are:

• X and Y associated; as one goes up, the other goes up (direct relationship) or down (inverse relationship); this rule is known as the CONCOMITANT VARIATION rule.
• X precedes Y in time; that is, X happens earlier in a temporal sequence than Y; this rule is known as the TEMPORALITY rule.
• X and Y are still associated regardless of any Z; this rule is known as the NONSPURIOUSNESS rule.

In real life, casual relationships are hard to find. In addition, it is almost always possible to think of Z factors that might be related to any relationship.
Therefore, a CONTINGENT RELATIONSHIP (upper right hand corner) is always possible. A theorist may have established a causal relation between X and Y, but simply did not go far enough in thinking of a Z factor down the road. This occurs quite frequently when the theorist has no interest in behavioral outcomes, and is only interested in connecting mental processes that "prepare" one for action. In these cases, we say the researcher has only succeeded in specifying contingencies or a contingent relationship.
Another possibility is the INTERVENING RELATIONSHIP (lower left corner). In this case, the theorist has implied that a Z factor needs to be inserted into the X-Y causal chain to make it complete; that is, Z must "intervene" in the relationship between X and Y. This occurs quite frequently when the theorist must deal with concepts that are dualities or dichotomies (external or internal; left-wing or right-wing; either-or, etc.). The Z factor may represent some attitude or worldview that is necessary to make the X-Y relationship a causal one. In sociology, the Z factor may simply represent the requirement that other people be around for a group influence. In these cases, we say the researcher has specified an intervening relationship.
An ANTECEDENT RELATIONSHIP (lower right corner) is also known as a conditional relationship, although some people also refer to contingent relationships as conditional. In this case, the Z factor must "precede" or come before the X-Y causal chain. It is a necessary precondition or event that must take place. This occurs most frequently when the theorist is dealing with a developmental model where something like abuse, previous victimization, or prior contact with law enforcement is assumed to shape attitudes and in turn, behavior. In these cases, we say the researcher has specified an antecedent relationship.
NOTE: "specifying" a relationship usually means that the theorist-researcher is aware of the Z factor, and explicitly or implicitly makes note of it. "Elaborating" a relationship is where you, the reader, have thought up the Z factor. Elaboration will become more apparent with the complex examples that follow.
These two cases are usually considered the worst things that can happen. In the case of MULTICOLLINEARITY (which can also be established by looking at correlation tables for inter-item coefficients of .80 or greater), the theorist has a strong Z factor which is influencing both X and Y so greatly that Z might be a cause of both X and Y. Note that there still is a causal connection between X and Y; that is, the primary causal pathway stands on its own. But there is a serious problem because Z has not been "controlled", "partialed" or "factored out" in its influence. This occurs most frequently when certain concepts like intelligence or ability are being measured. In these cases, we say that the research suffers from multicollinearity.
A SPURIOUS RELATIONSHIP violates the rules of causality. It occurs when a strong Z factor is a probable cause of X and Y, and in fact, overshadows the X-Y causal chain so much that the X-Y link disappears once we think about it. These cases usually occur when there might be some underlying medical or mental condition, but they are readily apparent in any simplistic statement such as "Poverty causes crime" because there might be some Z factor which causes both poverty and crime. Lack of opportunities, for example, might be a better explanation of both variables. In these cases, we say that examination of the spurious relationship reveals an important, 3rd factor.
Both of these cases involve words you don't often see in everyday vocabulary. In fact, you are unlikely to run into anyone using these words. But in the case of an EXTRANEOUS RELATIONSHIP, the theorist has usually "borrowed" a concept or idea from another theorist, and has tied it into his or her own theory. Think of it as a type of theoretical integration, if you will. It occurs when the original theory is weak, and the X-Y causal chain disappears. You might ask why this is not called an intervening relationship, and the answer is that the theorist, for one reason or another, keeps pushing the X variable as important or primary. This occurs most frequently with untestable concepts, such as subconscious guilt or Freudian defense mechanisms. An option to saying the relationship is extraneous is to say the theory represents a "new", "revised", or "neo-" version of an old theory, as in "neoFreudian".
A COJOINT RELATIONSHIP is the case of when two, separate variables, X and Z, which are not related to one another in any way, act together at the same time to influence Y in a causal manner. It can occur when the theorist tries to bridge the micro-macro gap, but most often occurs when there is reference to ratios, dilemmas, ironies, certain syndromes, or quotients, as in a "community tolerance quotient" being necessary along with repeated acts of deviance to trigger a formal social control response. Cojoint relationships are often attempts to have things both ways, as in "it could be a little of this and a little of that" when it is obvious that the two things are mutually exclusive. Other names for cojoint relationships are "two pronged models", "twin theories", or forced integrations.
A CONTAMINATING RELATIONSHIP, more properly referred to as a contaminating variable, involves the case of X leading to a Z factor as well as its intended target, Y. It occurs when an X is selected that is so strong as to be a cause of just about anything. Various types of criminalization theories which claim that the existence of law is the cause of crime may represent a contaminated relationship because law may lead to obedience as well as disobedience. When no concern or connection is made with the alternative explanation (a Z-Y link), the relationship is said to be contaminated.
A SUPPRESSED RELATIONSHIP, more properly referred to as a suppressor variable, involves the case of a contaminated relationship where there is some concern or connection made with alternative explanations (Z-Y links). Informal social control by those who obey the law, for example, may "suppress" or shape the effect of the law's influence on disobedience, but we do not really know if the Z-Y link is direct or inverse. It may be that the disobedient become less disobedient thru learning by example, or it may be that the disobedient become more disobedient thru reaction formation. In any case, we refer to the relationship as containing a suppressor variable.
A DISTORTED RELATIONSHIP, sometimes called a distorter variable, involves the case of contaminated relationship with the addition of feedback, or two-way interaction between an X and Z variable. The theorist will usually say, or imply, that there is a feedback or interactive relationship at work. But again, there is no concern or connection with a Z-Y link. This leaves the reader to imagine why there is no connection. This model appears with some frequency in attempts to explain the operation of the criminal justice system. Prison bedspace capacity, for example, is implied as involved in a reciprocal loop with law enforcement discretion, but only law enforcement activities are stated as a cause of crime. One is left wondering if criminal activity is really affected by bedspace capacity or not. In such cases, we say the relationship is distorted.
A POTENTIATING RELATIONSHIP is an improved form of the distorted relationship. The theorist has specified, or the reader has elaborated, a Z-Y link. Unfortunately, without any facts to go on, the best that the theorist can do is say that there is a "potential" for Z to increase Y. The influence is direct, rather than inverse, in most cases involving a potentiating relationship, although control theories are notorious for some potentiating, inverse logic. Often, when an theory involving inverse logic (when something goes up, the other goes down) is translated into more positive, direct terms, you automatically have a potentiating model.
A MODERATED RELATIONSHIP is one in which there is simultaneous influence going on between X and Z, but the overall relationship is more like an intervening situation where the most important causal link is between Z and Y. The model would be drawn with Z above X in this diagram if Z were the primary variable, but it is instead treated as a "moderating" factor or variable. Often, this is the explicit language used by the theorist, but it is obvious that Z does more than simply "moderate". It drives the whole theory. There are numerous examples of this relationship in the criminal justice and criminological literature.
A CONFOUNDED RELATIONSHIP involves two feedback loops added to a simple X-Y causal chain. If crime is the outcome, the cause of it interacts with some 3rd factor, and crime itself interacts with this 3rd factor. Any examples here would tend to get a bit tricky, and this language usually involves remarks by imaginative readers.
The CONTEXTUAL RELATIONSHIP is the proper form of an "everything causes everything else" model. Note that at least one pathway (X-Y) is left open. As far as I know, nobody has used the ECLECTIC RELATIONSHIP in years. Contextual relationships are starting to appear in the contemporary literature, and are most often found in community studies and neighborhood watch evaluations. The basic idea is that there are no causal chains, only reciprocal feedback loops. Hence, the theorist resorts to explanations involving metaphors, like "spirals" of decay or decline in the inner city.


ANTHROPOLOGICAL CRIMINOLOGY
Anthropology is the most humanistic of the sciences and the most scientific of the humanities. (Alfred Kroeber)
Anthropological criminology is more precisely referred to by its historical name, criminal anthropology, which was a leading field in American criminology from 1881 to 1911, although worldwide it has a longer history. Some of the names associated with this field in the 1800s include Jacob Fries, Cesare Lombroso, Alphonese Bertillon, and Hans Gross, to name a few. Jacob Fries (1773-1843) was a philosopher in the field of theoretical anthropology who published a handbook on criminal anthropology in 1820 and was the first to suggest that the nature of a crime can be related to the personality of the offender -- a major assumption of profiling; Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909) was an Italian physician who was the leading figure of positivist criminology and is sometimes known as the father of criminology; Alphonse Bertillon (1853-1914) was a French law enforcement officer who created "anthropometry" -- a kind of mugshot system of identifying captured criminals long before fingerprinting was invented; and Hans Gross (1847-1915) was an Austrian professor who is regarded as the founder of "criminalistics," criminal psychology, investigative psychology, or applied criminology). Almost all forms of criminal anthropology held that the worst criminals were atavists -- genetic throwbacks to an earlier stage of human evolution -- or at least criminals were anatomically or physically different from law-abiding individuals. It should be obvious that criminal anthropology was heavily influenced by the ideas of Charles Darwin (1809-1882), originator of the famous theory of evolution. There are many misconceptions about the theory of evolution. No scientific Darwinist ever stated that one species or group of people were morally superior to another. This claim was made by an unrelated group of people called Social Darwinists (Herbert Spencer, William Graham Sumner, Thomas Malthus, and Francis Galton, to name a few) who believed in eugenics by "culling the herd" of the human population by keeping down poor people and minority groups. Criminal anthropology only held that if it could be proven criminals were different in their physiological characteristics, it stands to reason that they might be different in their psychological characteristics also.
This lecture is divided into two parts: Part A: old, discredited theories in criminal anthropology like physiognomy and phrenology; and Part B: modern, promising theories in anthropological criminology like symbolism, fundamentalism, and imitation. OLD, DISCREDITED IDEAS
First the discredited ideas -- between 1750 and 1850, two popular fields of scientific practice consisting of the PHYSIOGNOMISTS and PHRENOLOGISTS tried to prove that there were links between the propensity to engage in criminal behavior and unusual physical appearance (mostly the face, ears, or eyes) and the shape of the skull (bumps on the head being an indicator of dominant brain areas). The physiognomists studied facial appearance and the phrenologists studied bumps on the head. Both fields of study were quite influential at the time, and are lumped together in history books as part of criminal anthropology, early biological perspectives, the legacy of demonology (ugliness as the mark of evil), or in the 20th century, known as constitutionalism (the study of human physique, or constitution of the body). The search for a constitutionally determined "criminal man" continued up until 1950 when it was finally discredited.
Physiognomy is the making of judgments about people's character from the appearance of their faces or countenance. Its founder was J. Baptiste della Porte (1535-1615) who studied cadavers, and associated small ears, bushy eyebrows, small noses, and large lips with criminal offenders. Johan Kaspar Lavater (1741-1801) was another physiognomist who associated "shifty-eyed" people who had weak chins and arrogant noses with criminal behavior. No serious criminologist today gives much credence to physiognomy.
Phrenology is the study of the external characteristics of a person's skull as an indicator of his or her personality, abilities, or general propensities. Some bumps on the skull indicate lower brain functions (like combativeness). Other bumps represent higher functions and propensities (like morality). Crime occurs when the bumps indicate that the lower propensities are winning out over the higher propensities. Phrenologists believed that with mental exercise, a criminal might be reformed. The most eminent phrenologists were Franz Joseph Gall (1758-1828) and his pupil, John Gaspar Spurzheim (1776-1832). The phrenologists turned out to be not all that off in where they thought certain brain functions (35 of them showing up on bumps) were located. The destructiveness center, for example, which is located right behind the ear above Darwin's point, is pronounced in 17% of criminals. Other bumps, in the back of the head, turned out to be pronouncements of the Amygdala and Hippocampus, where tumors are associated with criminal behavior (as in the Texas sniper, Charles Whitman). The general rule is that any abnormality in the back of the head is bad ("back is bad"). The association between other bumps (on the head) and moral (or intellectual) functions were badly mistaken by phrenologists (such as Gall), but in his defense, research methods had not been well-developed by 1835 (note that some people regard Gall as the first criminologist).
Criminal anthropology is the name usually thought of in regards to the work of Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909) and his followers who performed autopsies on criminals and found they had characteristics similar to primitive humans, monkeys, and chimpanzees. Some of the anomalies (differences or defects) found among criminals included head width, height, degree of receding forehead, head circumference, head symmetry, and so on. Lombroso had his Goring (1870-1919), a British scientist dedicated to disproving Lombroso. While Goring found height and weight differences, he concluded there was no such thing as a "born criminal" based on physical inferiority, and that, in fact, the statistical correlations between Lombroso's indicators were greater among law-abiding people. The idea of degeneracy lived on, however, and criminal anthropology in the U.S. was spearheaded by a diffuse group of Social Darwinists called degenerationists who were active between 1881 and 1911 (e.g. MacDonald's Criminology, Benedikt's Anatomical Studies upon Brains of Criminals, Talbot's Degeneracy, Lydston's The Diseases of Society, and Parsons' Responsibility for Crime; Fink's Causes of Crime, Haller's Eugenics are good secondary sources.) In 1911, Maurice Parmelee (whom some regard as an early founder, if not the founder, of American criminology) began rejecting anthropological theories, and ever since, sociological criminology has gone to great lengths to discredit any criminal anthropological ideas. Fortunately for sociology, this was easy, because the criminal anthropologists (like Cesare Lombroso and Ernst Kretschmer) didn't really develop any theories -- only typologies and profiles.
Cesare Lombroso (1836-1909), the father of modern criminology, and chief historical figure in the Italian positivist movement has the following works associated with his name: · (1876) L'Uomo Delinquente. Milan: Horpli. · (1895/1911) L'Homme Criminel (The Criminal Man) Felix: Alcan. (two volumes) · (1895/1980) The Female Offender (original Italian version, Criminal Woman, the Prostitute, and the Normal Woman. Littleton, CO: Fred Rothman) · (1911/1972) with Gina Lombroso-Ferrero, Criminal Man, According to the Classification of Cesare Lombroso. Montclair, N.J.: Patterson Smith.
For many years, Lombroso's text on the female criminal would have great influence. It described the female offender as worse than male offenders, contending that they had more masculine than feminine characteristics. Lombroso also popularized the notion of a "born criminal" which represents an extreme statement of biological determinism which had great influence well into the 20th Century (and for the founding of criminology) even though much of this thinking is now outdated except for the recurring idea that criminals have particular physiognomic defects or deformities. The born criminal would have 18 key indicators, but the indicators would be spread among the population and other types were possible, such as insane criminals and criminaloids. Most students are familiar with his checklist of physiognomic indicators. · Unusually short or tall height · Small head, but large face · Small and sloping forehead · Receeding hairline · Wrinkles on forehead and face · Large sinus cavities or bumpy face · Large, protruding ears · Bumps on head, particularly the Destructiveness Center above left ear · Protuberances (bumps) on head, in back of head and around ear · High check bones · Bushy eyebrows, tending to meet across nose · Large eyesockets, but deepset eyes · Beaked nose (up or down) or flat nose · Strong jawline · Fleshy lips, but thin upper lip · Mighty incisors, abnormal teeth · Small or weak chin · Thin neck · Sloping shoulders, but large chest · Long arms · Pointy or snubbed fingers or toes · Tatoos on body
Constitutionalism, or body-type theories, became popular in the 1920s mostly on account of the work of German psychiatrist Ernest Kretschmer (1888-1964), and in the 1930s mostly on account of the work of Ernest Hooton (1887-1954), a popular Harvard lecturer on physical anthropology and comparative anatomy. Kretschmer is discussed in the Lecture on History of Profiling because his ideas were an attempt to relate body types to mental illnesses. Hooton is more familiar to Americans and studied thousands of criminals and noncriminals from eight different states, concluding that criminals are inferior to civilians in all physical respects. There were racist and sexist overtones to his work because he would say things like the Negroid forehead was a perfect example of a criminal forehead and that women could be classified by the spread of their butt cheeks. He got away with this stuff because he always said it in a humorous or witty fashion.
In the 1940s, the work of William Sheldon (1899-1977) followed on the heels of Hooton and shifted attention away from adults to the physiques of juvenile delinquents. Sheldon produced an "Index of Delinquency" based on three-way photographs which was used in many states to determine if a child in trouble should be institutionalized or not, and later as a way to classify prison inmates upon reception. Sheldon's approach is sometimes called somatotype theory. Sheldon's methods and results were given considerable support by Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck in the 1950s who found that narrow faces, wider chests, larger waists, and bigger forearms were associated with 60% of delinquents and only 30% of nondelinquents. The Gluecks would go on to study practically every known theory or idea in criminology so much that their approach became known as "eclectic" or multiple factor theory -- the notion that "everything causes crime."
Sheldon's classification of physique and temperament (somatotype theory) is as follows: · Endomorphic -- tendency to put on fat, soft roundness of body, short tapering limbs, small bones, velvety skin; viscerotonic temperament, relaxed, comfortable person, loves luxury, an extrovert. · Mesomorphic -- predominance of muscles, bone, and motor organs, large trunk, heavy chest, large wrist and hands, lean rectangular outline; somotonic or Dionysian temperament, active, assertive, aggressive, unrestrained. · Ectomorphic -- predominance of skin, lean, fragile, delicate body, small bones, droppy shoulders, small face, sharp nose, fine hair; cerebrotonic temperament, sensitive, distractible, insomnia, skin troubles, allergies.
Each person possesses the characteristics of all three types. Sheldon therefore used three numbers, between 1 and 7, to indicate the extent to which the three types were evident in each person. A person whose somatotype is 7-1-4, for example, would have many endomorphic characteristics, very little mesomorphic characteristics, and an average number of ectomorphic characteristics. He found that the average institutionalized delinquent was a 3-5-2 somatotype. The Gluecks (always eclectic, or multiple factor, theorists) found that the average adult criminal was a 2-6-3 somatotype, and that 60% of delinquents were mesomorphs. Mesomorphy being associated with criminal behavior flew in the face of fitness gurus, like Charles Atlas, who were trying to shape up America. Body-type or constitutionalist theories in criminology have proven to be of little value in predicting criminal behavior. MODERN REMNANTS OF OLD, DISCREDITED IDEAS
In contemporary times, ideas about physical appearance still occasionally show up in criminology, however. All the constitutionalists studied tattoos, for example. They were never really able to make anything of it; they were just there for the study; lots of criminals had them. Tattoo removal (as well as plastic surgery) has found its way into a few correctional rehabilitation programs and serves a useful purpose in gang de-initiation (Kurtzberg et. al.. 1978). There's also a whole subspecialty field that, for lack of a better term, might be called the "physical attractiveness" studies (Cavior & Howard 1973; Agnew 1984) which suggest that ugliness really has got something to do with becoming a criminal, or at least how badly you get treated in court.
There's no necessary relationship between criminal anthropology and eugenics (the idea that a nation can save its stock by preventing reproduction of the unfit - negative eugenics -- and/or simultaneously encourage the fit to produce more offspring -- positive eugenics). A small number of criminal anthropologists support the idea of eugenics; another, larger group strongly rejects it. Almost all criminologists today would be appalled at the idea of eugenics theory, yet it remains in the background of criminology as the field tries to develop agenda-free information, but at one time (during the 1930s, eugenics was taken quite seriously - more on this at Lecture on Mental Deficiency and Crime).
Physiognomy, or at least some bits of it, will sometimes find its way into social psychology and forensic psychology, primarily in studies of attractiveness and beauty, and in studies of jury lenience depending upon the physical look of the defendant. This literature is not well-organized, and only appears to be of sporadic interest to researchers.
Twin studies have also looked at physical similarities and differences. Identical twins are more similar in their (criminal) behavior than fraternal twins, however, no definitive conclusions can be drawn from twin studies at this time. Adoption studies is another promising area of research, but again, strong causal statements are rare in the whole area of heredity-crime linkages.
The XYY chromosone syndrome became popular during the 1960s. People with this condition tend to be tall supermales who often exhibit aggression and violence. Some researchers have found that XYY types are more likely to have a criminal record. Other observers note that the prison populations are filled with fairly short people, a pattern noticed early on by physiognomists, who also took an interest in height.
Galvanic skin response (the rate at which electricity travels across the surface of the skin) is also a characteristic of mesomorphic criminality to some extent. Many criminals have slower GSR rates, which means they are somewhat more impervious to pain or at least might have a different neuromusculatory system.
MODERN PROMISING IDEAS
It's difficult to describe a field as vast as anthropology or to even begin listing all the inroads into criminology. When I majored in this as an undergraduate, the choices were either physical or cultural anthropology, and those are about the only choices you get at the undergraduate level, and if you express an interest in crime or criminals, they tend to steer you towards physical anthropology which studies bones (presumably so you'll make a good crime scene investigator). However, the area of cultural or sociocultural anthropology is a much larger field (see Benedict 1934 or Garbarino 1977), and then there's symbolic anthropology (Douglas 1966), the field of social anthropology, and all sorts of hard-to-classify kinds of anthropology like Girard (1979). In this section, I'll try to explain some of the more popular contemporary anthropologists and why their ideas are so popular.
Mary Douglas' book Purity and Danger is probably one of the top ten most influential books ever written in the last 500 years. It is about the subject of ritual, and rituals are the ways societies and people mark out their boundaries. There are many kinds of rituals: for purification, reconciliation, renewal, purity, passage, and mourning, for example. Douglas is concerned with purity rituals, which relate to the feeling of safety from dangers such as crime. You might understand the idea as the notion that there are "lucky charms" which protect you from danger, and there are plenty of theological examples as well (the Ark of the Covenant; the Holy Grail), etc. Each person also has their "bubble space" for self-protection, which is a kind of purity ritual. The existence of an angry person in one's space is considered dangerous, and everything on the margins (of society; one's environment) is also considered strange or dangerous. When people do wrong things, they are also polluting the purity of the environment, and pollution rules are not as equivocal as moral rules. A pollution rule might call for the immediate execution of a transgressor, for example, while a moral code might give them the benefit of the doubt. Like others (Garfinkel 1967), Douglas is saying that our criminal justice system as well as what we consider rights and wrongs are determined by our underlying, inborn, ritualistic responses. We see criminals as contaminating our world (like dirt). Justice provides no guarantee, but our ritual impulses always come out.
Paul Ricoeur's book, The Just is a companion piece to his other book called Oneself as Another. In it, he develops what may be called a "fundamental anthropology" which focuses upon the affective or emotional sense of justice that we all feel as an object of desire. This goal of justice, says Ricoeur, has nothing to do with evil, vengeance, or any compensation for a slight, but instead is aimed at the primary goal of peace. Peace is the final destination of justice. Peace is achieved thru self-esteem and self-respect, and people who are just are people who have a expanded concept of the "other" which is the notion of a neutral third party who can (if called upon, hypothetically to) mediate our disputes over the subject of rights. Ricoeur goes on to say that every culture develops a meaningful conception of such a third party, and for most people, it's a conception of "everything and everyone." Those who commit crime are those who transgress this "me/you" relationship and selfishly pursue justice only for themselves by adding violence to violence, and suffering to suffering. There is also something that Ricoeur calls a "just distance" between the me and the you which has to do with the subjective sense of time or moment of justice. Our judicial systems fail to reflect this just moment because we are too caught up in prolonging the sensation of vengeance. Verdicts which establish peace are needed. Anthropologically, Ricoeur is comparing the justice process to the grief process or the healing process.
Rene Girard's book, with its psychedelic cover, is about mimetic desire which comes from the word mimesis, meaning imitation. Much of his work hasn't been translated yet from the French, but it's obvious that the main inroad into criminology is with learning theory (Anderson 2003). If you've ever wondered why violence begets violence, then you should read this book. Here's an illustration which shows how the rich and poor both suffer from a reciprocal imitation complex:
Anthropological criminology is about the human condition, our human nature, our human impulses, our human bodies, and how we always seem to be creating rules and regulations in our communities that reflect those basic things. People are diverse, and it is important to study how they get along, with all their different appearances, different languages, and different ways of life.
INTERNET RESOURCES
Cecil Greek's Lecture Notes on Demonic Theory
Checklist of Physiognomic Indicators
Demonology
Frank Boas' The Instability of Human Types
Madison Grant's The Competition of Races
Mary Douglas Fan Page
Phrenology
Physical Attractiveness and Criminal Behavior
Rene Girard and the Mimetic Desire
PRINTED RESOURCES
Agnew, R. (1984). "Appearance and Delinquency." Criminology 22: 421-40.
Anderson, S. (2003). "Mimetic Desire and Violence." Paper presented at ACJS National Meeting, Boston.
Benedict, R. (1934). Patterns of Culture. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Black, E. (2003). War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race. NY: Four Walls Eight Windows Press.
Bloom, H. (1997). The Lucifer Principle. NY: Atlantic Monthly Press.
Cavior, N. & Howard, L. (1973). "Facial Attractiveness and Juvenile Delinquency." Journal of Abnormal Psychology 1: 202-13.
Davies, J. (1955). Phrenology: Fad or Science. New Haven: Yale Univ. Press.
Douglas, M. (1966). Purity and Danger: An Analysis of the Concepts of Pollution and Taboo. London: Routledge.
Fink, A. (1938). Causes of Crime: Biological Theories 1800-1915. Philadelphia: University of PA Press.
Gall, F.J. (1835). On the Origin of the Moral Qualities and Intellectual Faculties of Man and the Conditions of their Manifestation. Boston: Marsh, Capen & Lyon.
Garbarino, M. (1977). Sociocultural Theory in Anthropology. Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland Press.
Garfinkel, H. (1967) Studies in Ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Gibson, M. (2002). Born to Crime: Cesare Lombroso and the Origins of Biological Criminology. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Girard, R. (1979). Violence and the Sacred. Baltimore: John Hopkins Univ. Press.
Gould, S. (1981). The Mismeasure of Man. NY: Norton.
Haller, M. (1963). Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought. Rutgers U. Press.
Kurtzberg, R., Mandell, W., Levin, M., Lipton, D. & Shuster, M. (1978). "Plastic Surgery on Offenders," in Johnson, N. and L. Savitz (Eds.) Justice and Corrections. NY: Wiley.
Lombroso, C. (1895). "Criminal Anthropology" The Forum 20:33-49.
Lyman, S. (1973). The Seven Deadly Sins: Society and Evil. NY: St. Martin's.
Maggi, A. (2001). Satan's Rhetoric: A Study of Renaissance Demonology. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Parnell, P. & S. Kane. (Eds.) (2003). Crime's Power: Anthropologists and the Ethnography of Crime. NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
Rafter, N. (1992). "Criminal Anthropology in the U.S." Criminology 30(4):525-45.
Rafter, N. (1997). "The Anthropological Born Criminal." Pp. 110-132 in N. Rafter (ed.) Creating Born Criminals. Urbana: Univ. of Illinois Press.
Ricoeur, P. (2000). The Just. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press.
Roebuck, J. (1971). Criminal Typology: The Legalistic, Physical-Constitutional-Hereditary, Psychological-Psychiatric, and Sociological Approaches. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
Stitt, B. Grant (2003). "The Understanding of Evil: A Joint Quest for Criminology and Theology." Pp. 203-18 in R. Chairs and B. Chilton (Eds.) Star Trek Visions of Law and Justice. Dallas: Adios Press.


HISTORY OF CRIMINOLOGY: THE PIONEERS
There are lots of uses for this page. Sometimes, just skimming over a list like this is a good way to develop name familiarity and see who the "big names" are. I've tried to provide a comprehensive tabulation of every book ever published in criminology since the beginning. By skimming, you can get some idea of what topics were "hot" in certain time periods, when certain subfields emerged, or try using the "find" option in your browser for custom, advanced searches of keywords or names.
Pre 1900 Miscellaneous:
1846 Clapham and Clark Criminal Outline of the Insane and the Criminal
1849 T. Boggs Extent and Causes of Juvenile Delinquency
1853 Mary Carpenter Juvenile Delinquency
1853 F. Hill Crime: Its Amount, Causes & Remedies
1856 J.C. Bucknill Criminal Lunacy
1859 Charles Darwin On the Origin of Species
1867 W. Buchanan Juvenile Offenders
1868 Karl Marx Capital
1870 Thompson Psychology of Criminals
1872 A.B. Boone Increase of Crime and its Cause
1874 Henry Maudsley Responsibility in Mental Disease
1876 Cesare Lombroso Criminal Man
1877 Richard Dugdale The Jukes: A Study in Crime, Pauperism, Disease & Heredity
1880 C. Clark Analysis of Criminal Liability
1880 B.U. Abbott Judge and Jury
1884 Buchnet Relation of Madness to Crime
1884 Enrico Ferri Criminal Sociology
1885 Rafaele Garofalo Criminology
1886 T. Bryner Professional Criminals of America
1889 Havelock Ellis The Criminal
1889 S. M. Green Crime: Its Nature, Causes, Treatment, and Prevention
1889 L.C. Tylands Crime: Its Causes and Remedies
1890 J. Bragg Confessions of a Thief
1890 W. W. Carr Insanity in Criminal Cases
1890 Gabriel Tarde Gabriel Tarde's Laws of Imitation
1890 C.D. Sawin Criminals
1890 H. Wey Criminal Anthropology
1891 Morrison Crime and its Causes
1891 S.A.K. Strahan Instinctive Criminality
1892 Arthur Macdonald Abnormal Man and Criminology
1893 Hans Gross Manual for Examining Justice
1893 Emile Durkheim The Division of Labor inSociety
1893 Charles Henderson Intro to the Study of Dependent, Defective & Delinquent Classes
1893 Henry Boies Prisoners and Paupers
1895 R. Winslau Youthful Eccentricity: A Precursor of Crime
1895 Emile Durkheim The Rules of Sociological Method
1897 J. S. Christison Crime and Criminals
1897 W.D. Morrison Juvenile Offenders
1897 Emile Durkheim Suicide: A Study in Sociology
1898 L. Proal Political Crime 1900-1920
1900 August Drahms The Criminal: His Personnel & Environment - A Scientific Study, with an Introduction by Cesare Lombroso
1901 Enrico Ferri Criminal Sociology
1902 H.M. Boles The Science of Penology
1902 A.C. Hall Crime in Relation to Social Progress
1902 W.D. Morrison Crime and its Causes
1903 D.R. Miller The Criminal Classes: Causes and Cures
1904 George Lydston The Diseases of Society (The Vice and Crime Problem)
1906 C.E.B. Russell & L.M. Rigby The Making of the Criminal
1907 Anderson Criminals and Crime
1907 M.C. Rhodes The Case Study of Delinquent Boys in Juvenile Court of Chicago
1908 Arthur MacDonald Juvenile Crime and Retunation
1908 Maurice Parmalee The Principles of Anthropology and Sociology in Their Relations to Criminal Procedure
1908 Georg Simmel The Sociology of Conflict & The Web of Group Affiliations
1909 Phillip Parsons Responsibility for Crime
1910 R.F. Quinton Crime and Criminals: 1876-1910
1910 Frederick Wines Punishment and Reformation
1911 Raymond Saleilles Individualization of Punishment
1911 C. Bernaldo de Quiros Modern Theories of Criminality
1911 Hans Gross Criminal Psychology
1912 S. Breckenridge & Edith Abbot The Delinquent Child and the Home
1912 Albert Currier The Present Day Problem of Crime
1912 J. Devon The Criminal and the Community
1912 R.M. McConnell Criminal Responsibility and Social Constraint
1912 Henry Goddard The Kallikak Family: A Study in the Heredity of Feeblemindedness
1913 Gustave Aschaffenberg Crime and its Repression
1913 M.G. Brownett Young Delinquents
1913 Charles Goring The English Convict: A Statistical Study
1913 Thomas Speed Mosby Causes and Cures of Crime
1913 H. Oppenheimer The Rationale of Punishment
1914 A.F. Bronner A Comparative Study of the Intelligence of Delinquent Girls
1914 B. Flexner & R.N. Baldwin Juvenile Courts and Probation
1914 George Ives History of Penal Methods
1915 William Healy The Individual Delinquent
1916 Jean Weidensall The Mentality of Criminal Women
1917 B.G. Lewis The Offender
1918 Maurice Parmalee Criminology
1918 H.W. Thurston Delinquency and Spare Time 1920-1929
1920 Robert Park & Ernest Burgess Introduction to the Science of Sociology
1920 M.R. Fernald, M. Hayes & A. Dawley A Study of Women Delinquents in NY State
1920 William Thomas & Florian Znaniecki The Polish Peasant in Europe & America
1921 Henry Goddard Juvenile Delinquency
1921 Frederick Thrasher The Gang
1922 Roscoe Pound Criminal Justice in the American City
1922 Max Weber Economy and Society & The Theory of Social & Economic Organization
1922 B. Hollander The Psychology of Misconduct, Vice and Crime
1922 Clarence Darrow Crime: Its Causes and Treatment
1923 J.F. Fishman Crucibles of Crime
1923 Drucker and Hexter Children Astray
1923 Smith Hamblin The Psychology of the Criminal
1924 Edwin Sutherland Criminology (2nd ed 1926)
1925 Cyril Burt The Young Delinquent
1925 Robert Park, Ernest Burgess & Roderick McKenzie The City
1925 Sheldon Glueck Mental Disorders and the Criminal Law
1925 Charles Mercier Criminal Responsibility
1925 Sullivan Crime and Insanity
1926 Harry Barnes The Repression of Crime
1926 Clarence Darrow Crime: Its Causes and Conditions
1926 Paul Furfey The Gang Age
1926 John Gillin Criminology
1926 William Healy & Augusta Bronner Delinquents and Criminals: Their Making and Unmaking
1926 Carl Murchison Criminal Intelligence
1926 Phillip Parsons Crime and the Criminal
1926 John Slawson The Delinquent Boy
1927 Boris Brasol The Elements of Crime
1927 Frederick Thrasher The Gang
1927 George Calhoun The Growth of Criminal Law in Ancient Greece
1927 Edwin Cooley Probation and Delinquency
1928 Leizer Grimberg Emotion and Delinquency
1928 Max Schlapp & E.H. Smith The New Criminology
1929 Raymond Moley Politics and Criminal Prosecution
1929 Thorstein Sellin Police and the Crime Problem
1929 Walter Reckless Vice in Chicago 1930-1939
1930 Sheldon & Eleanor Glueck Five Hundred Criminal Careers
1930 Fred Haynes Criminology
1930 Johannes Lange Crime and Destiny
1930 Clifford Shaw The Jack-Roller
1930 T. Earl Sullenger Social Determinants in Juvenile Delinquency
1931 Trevor Allen Underworld
1931 Ernest Hooten Crime and the Man
1931 August Vollmer National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement (Wickersham Commission) Report on the Causes of Crime
1931 Clifford Shaw & Maurice Moore The Natural History of a Delinquent
1931 Clifford Shaw & Henry McKay Social Factors in Juvenile Delinquency: Report of the Causes of Crime to the National Commission on Law Observance and Enforcement
1931 John Gillin Taming the Criminal
1932 E.M. Borchard Convicting the Innocent
1932 Nathaniel Cantor Crime, Criminals, and Criminal Justice
1932 Robert Gault Criminology
1932 Clayton Ettiger The Problem of Crime
1932 Walter Reckless & Mapheus Smith Juvenile Delinquency
1932 W.A. Willemse Constitution-Types in Delinquency
1933 Herbert Blumer & Philip Hanson Movies, Delinquency and Crime
1933 Ben Karpman Case Studies in the Psychopathology of Crime
1933 Jerome Michael & Mortimer Adler Crime, Law, and Social Science
1933 William A. White Crime and Criminals
1933 Perry Lichtenstein A Doctor Studies Crime
1934 Albert Morris Criminology
1934 George Herbert Mead Mind, Self and Society
1935 August Aichorn Wayward Youth
1935 Franz Alexander & William Healy Roots of Crime
1935 Olaf Kinberg Basic Problems of Criminology
1936 Norwood East Medical Aspects of Crime
1936 William Healy & Augusta Bronner New Light on Delinquency & its Treatment
1936 Ferris Laune Predicting Criminality
1936 Sophia Robison Can Delinquency Be Measured?
1937 Julius Goebel Felony and Misdemeanor
1937 Nathaniel Hirsch Dynamic Cases of Juvenile Crime
1937 Thorsten Sellin Crime in the Depression
1937 Edwin Sutherland The Professional Thief: By a Professional Thief
1938 Arthur Fink The Causes of Crime: Biological Theories 1800-1915
1938 Frank Tannenbaum Crime and the Community
1938 Thorsten Sellin Culture Conflict and Crime
1938 Robert Merton "Social Structure and Anomie" Amer. Soc. Review 3:672-82
1939 Edwin Sutherland Principles of Criminology
1938 Frank Tannebaum Crime and the Community
1939 Ernest Hooten The American Criminal: An Anthropological Study 1940-1949
1940 Sheldon & Eleanor Glueck Juvenile Delinquents Grown Up
1940 J. MacDonald Crime is a Business
1940 Walter Reckless Criminal Behavior
1940 Hermann Manheim Social Aspects of Crime in England Between the Wars
1941 Arthur Wood and John Waite Crime and its Treatment
1942 Donald Taft Criminology
1942 Clifford Shaw & Henry McKay Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas: A Study of Delinquents in Relation to Differential Characteristics of Local Communities
1943 Harry Barnes & Negley Teeters New Horizons in Criminology
1943 Walter Reckless The Etiology of Delinquent and Criminal Behavior
1943 William F. Whyte Street Corner Society
1944 David Abrahamsen Crime and the Human Mind
1945 Walter Kvaraceus Juvenile Delinquency and the School
1945 Virgil Peterson Crime Commissions in the United States
1946 Austin Porterfield Youth in Trouble
1946 Hermann Manheim Criminal Justice and Social Reconstruction
1947 Kate Friedlander The Psychoanalytic Approach to Juvenile Delinquency
1947 Maud Merrill Problems of Child Delinquency
1948 Ruth Cavan Criminology
1948 Walter Bromberg Crime and the Mind
1948 John Ellingston Protecting Our Children From Criminal Careers
1948 Hans von Hentig The Criminal and His Victim
1948 Max Grunhut Penal Reform: A Comparative Study
1949 Vernon Branham & Samuel Kutash Encyclopedia of Criminology
1949 W. Norwood East Society and the Criminal
1949 Kurt Eissler Searchlights on Delinquency: New Psychoanalytic Studies
1949 William Sheldon et al. Varieties of Delinquent Youth
1949 Edwin Sutherland White Collar Crime
1949 Paul Tappan Juvenile Delinquency 1950-1959
1950 Lowell Carr Delinquency Control
1950 Sheldon & Eleanor Glueck Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency
1950 Otto Pollak The Criminality of Women
1950 Negley Teeters & John Reinemann The Challenge of Delinquency
1950 Walter Reckless The Crime Problem
1951 Lucien Bovet Psychiatric Aspects of Delinquency
1951 Estes Kevauver Crime in America
1951 Fritz Redl & David Wineman Children Who Hate
1952 Fritz Redl & David Wineman Controls from Within
1951 Edwin Lemert Social Pathology
1952 David Abrahamsen Who Are the Guilty?
1952 H. Edelston The Earliest Stages of Delinquency
1952 Mabel Elliott Crime in Modern Society
1952 J. Arthur Hoyles Treatment of the Young Delinquent
1952 Stephan Hurwitz Criminology
1952 Jerome Hall Theft, Law and Society (2nd ed)
1953 S.R. Hathaway & E.D. Monachesi Analyzing & Predicting Juvenile Delinquency with the MMPI
1953 B.F. Skinner Science and Human Behavior
1953 George Thompson The Psychopathic Delinquent and Criminal
1953 Clyde Vedder Criminology: A Book of Readings
1953 Donald Cressey Other People's Money
1954 Alfred Hasler Diary of a Self-Made Convict
1954 Bernard Lander Toward An Understanding of Juvenile Delinquency
1954 Clyde Vedder The Juvenile Offender
1955 Ruth Cavan Criminology (2nd ed)
1955 Albert Cohen Delinquent Boys
1955 Walter Reckless The Crime Problem (2nd ed)
1955 Hermann Mannheim Group Problems in Crime and Punishment
1955 Hermann Mannheim Prediction Methods in Relation to Borstal Training
1956 Franz Alexander & Hugo Staub The Criminal, The Judge, and the Public
1956 Milton Barron The Juvenile Delinquent Society
1956 Herbert Bloch & Frank Flynn Delinquency: The Juvenile Offender Today
1956 Robert Caldwell Criminology
1956 Lewis Coser The Functions of Social Conflict
1956 Sheldon & Eleanor Glueck Physique and Delinquency
1956 Albert Cohen, Alfred Lindesmith & Karl Schuessler The Sutherland Papers
1956 Donald Taft Criminology (3rd ed)
1957 Marshall Clinard The Sociology of Deviant Behavior
1957 Robert Merton Social Theory and Social Structure
1958 Mary Blake Youth Groups in Conflict
1958 F. Ivan Nye Family Relationships and Delinquent Behavior
1958 Philip Roche The Criminal Mind
1958 Joseph Roucek Juvenile Delinquency
1958 George Vold Theoretical Criminology (2nd ed 1979)
1958 H. Ashley Weeks Youthful Offenders at Highfields
1958 Gresham Sykes The Society of Captives
1958 Terrence Morris The Criminal Area
1959 Ralf Dahrendorf Class and Class Conflict in an Industrial Society
1959 Richard Cloward & Lloyd Ohlin New Perspectives on Juvenile Delinquency
1959 Richard Korn & Lloyd McCorkle Criminology and Penology
1959 William Kvarceus & Walter Miller Delinquent Behavior: Culture & the Individual
1959 C. Wright Mills The Sociological Imagination 1960-1969
1960 David Abrahamsen The Psychology of Crime
1960 David Bordua Sociological Theories and Their Implications for Juvenile Delinquency
1960 Richard Cloward & Lloyd Ohlin Delinquency and Opportunity
1960 Hermann Mannheim Pioneers in Criminology
1960 Richard Perlman Delinquency Prevention: The Size of the Problem
1960 Paul Tappan Crime, Justice, and Correction
1961 Walter Lunden Facts on Crime and Criminals
1961 Cecil Hewitt Commonsense About Crime and Punishment
1961 Joseph Roucek Sociology of Crime
1961 Erving Goffman Asylums
1961 Leon Radzinowicz In Search of Criminology
1962 Howard Jones Crime and the Penal System
1962 Gordon Trasler The Explanation of Criminality
1962 Ruth Cavan Criminology
1962 Herbert Bloch & Gilbert Geis Man, Crime, and Society
1962 Lewis Yablonsky The Violent Gang
1962 Norman Johnson The Sociology of Punishment and Corrections
1963 James Heath Eighteenth Century Penal Theory
1963 John Mays Crime and Social Structure
1963 Erving Goffman Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity
1963 Dorothy Tompkins The Offender: A Bibliography
1963 Christopher Hibbert The Roots of Evil: The Social History of Crime & Punishment
1963 Marshall Clinard The Sociology of Deviant Behavior (2nd ed)
1963 Howard Becker Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance
1964 Howard Becker The Other Side: Perspectives on Deviance
1964 Thorstein Sellin & Marvin Wolfgang The Measurement of Delinquency
1964 Marvin Wolfgang Crime and Race: Conceptions and Misconceptions
1964 Elmer Johnson Crime, Corrections, and Society
1964 Donald Cressey Delinquency, Crime, and Differential Association
1964 William & Joan McCord The Psychopath: An Essay on the Criminal Mind
1964 Hans Eysenck Crime and Personality
1964 David Matza Delinquency and Drift
1964 Edwin Lemert Human Deviance, Social Problems, and Social Control
1964 Marshall Clinard Anomie and Deviant Behavior
1964 Irving Spergel Racketville, Slumtown, and Haulburg: An Exploratory Study of Delinquent Subcultures
1965 Marc Ancel Social Defence
1965 Glanville Williams The Mental Element in Crime
1965 John Conrad Crime and its Correction
1965 Donald Gibbons Changing the Lawbreaker
1965 David Matza Delinquency and Drift
1965 Hermann Manheim Comparative Criminology
1965 Edwin Schur Crimes Without Victims: Deviant Behavior and Public Policy
1965 Howard Jones Crime in a Changing Society
1965 Leslie Wilkins Social Deviance: Social Policy, Action and Research
1965 James Short & Fred Strodtbeck Group Process and Gang Delinquency
1966 Daniel Glaser The Violent Offender
1966 Kai Erickson Wayward Puritans: A Study in the Sociology of Deviance
1966 Shlomo Shoham Crime and Social Deviation
1966 Edwin Sutherland & Donald Cressey Principles of Criminology
1966 Leon Radzinowicz Ideology and Crime
1967 Marvin Wolfgang & Franco Ferracuti The Subculture of Violence
1967 Edwin Lemert Human Deviance, Social Problems and Social Control
1967 Albert Reiss Studies in Crime and Law Enforcement
1967 Albert Hess The Young Adult Offender
1967 C. Ray Jeffery Criminal Responsibility and Mental Disease
1967 Gresham Sykes Crime and Society
1967 Leonard Savitz Dilemmas in Criminology
1967 Julian Roebuck Criminal Typology
1967 Hugh Klare & D. Huxley Frontiers of Criminology
1967 Walter Lunden Crimes and Criminals
1967 Marshall Clinard & Richard Quinney Criminal Behavior Systems: A Typology
1968 Donald Gibbons Society, Crime and Criminal Careers
1968 Marvin Wolfgang Crime and Culture
1968 Dorothy Tompkins The Confession Issue: From McNabb to Miranda
1968 Stephen Schafer The Victim and His Criminal: A Study in Functional Responsibility
1968 William Gauman Who Are The Criminals
1968 Alfred Friendly & Ronald Goldfarb Crime and Publicity: The Impact of News on Administration of Justice
1968 Kenyon Clathorp Crime and Punishment
1968 John MacDonald Homicidal Threats
1968 Herbert Packer The Limits of the Criminal Sanction
1968 Karl Menninger The Crime of Punishment
1968 Stephen Lewin Crime and its Prevention
1968 Robert Rice The Challenge of Crime
1968 Dennis Chapman Sociology and the Stereotype of the Criminal
1969 Austin Turk Criminality and the Legal Order
1969 William Chambliss Crime and the Legal Process
1969 Donald Cressey Delinquency, Crime, and Social Process
1969 Travis Hirschi Causes of Delinquency
1969 John Lofland Deviance and Identity
1969 John D'Alfonso The Crime Game
1969 Edwin Schur Our Criminal Society
1969 Richard Quinney Crime and Justice in Society
1969 David Matza Becoming Deviant
1969 Stephen Schafer Theories in Criminology
1969 Richard Harris Fear of Crime 1970-1979
1970 Richard Harris Justice: The Crisis of Law, Order, and Freedom in America
1970 Edwin Lemert Social Action and Legal Change Within the Juvenile Court
1970 John Mays Crime and its Treatment
1970 Richard Quinney Criminology
1970 Richard Quinney The Problem of Crime
1970 Richard Quinney The Social Reality of Crime
1970 Martin Haskell & Lewis Yablonsky Crime and Delinquency
1970 M. Willmer Crime and Information Theory
1970 Anthony Guenther Criminal Behavior and Social Systems
1970 Richard Knudten Crime in a Complex Society
1970 Martin Gold Delinquent Behavior in an American City
1970 Manuel Lopez-Rey Crime: An Analytical Appraisal
1970 Roger Hood & Richard Sparks Key Issues in Criminology
1970 Ramsey Clark Crime In America: Observations on its Nature, Causes, Prevention, and Control
1970 Norval Morris & Gordon Hawkins The Honest Politicians Guide to Crime Control
1970 Clarence Schrag Crime and Justice - American Style
1970 Troy Duster The Legislation of Morality
1970 Laud Humphries Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places
1971 Michael Phillipson Sociological Aspects of Crime and Delinquency
1971 C. Dessaur Foundations of Theory Formation in Criminology
1971 Stanley Schacter Emotion, Obesity and Crime
1971 Katharina Dalton The Premenstrual Syndrome
1971 Steven Box Deviance, Reality and Society
1971 Robert Stebbins Commitment to Deviance: The Non-Professional Criminal
1971 Leon Radzinowicz Crime and Justice
1971 C. Ray Jeffery Crime Prevention through Environmental Design
1971 Lamar Empey Explaining Delinquency
1971 Seymour Halleck Psychiatry and the Dilemmas of Crime
1971 American Friends Service Committee Struggle for Justice
1971 B.F. Skinner Beyond Freedom and Dignity
1972 Edwin Keister Crime with No Victims
1972 Eugene Doleschel Criminal Statistics
1972 Nigel Morland The Criminologist
1972 David Dressler Readings in Criminology and Penology
1972 Gina Lombroso-Ferrero Criminal Man
1972 Oscar Newman Defensible Space: Crime Prevention Through Urban Design
1972 Austin Turk Legal Sanctioning and Social Control
1972 Marvin Wolfgang, R. Figlio & T. Thornberry Delinquency in a Birth Cohort
1973 Edwin Sutherland On Analyzing Crime
1973 Walter Reckless American Criminology: New Directions
1973 Marshall Clinard Crime in Developing Countries
1973 David Abrahamsen The Murdering Mind
1973 Edwin Schur Radical Non-Intervention: Rethinking the Delinquency Problem
1973 Ronald Akers Deviant Behavior: A Social Learning Approach
1973 Franklin Zimring & Gordon Hawkins Deterrence: The Legal Threat in Crime Control
1973 Francis Camps Camps on Crime
1973 John Bellamy Crime and Public Order in England in the Late Middle Ages
1973 John Cull Fundamentals of Criminal Behavior
1973 R. Denisoff Deviants, Conflict, and Criminality
1973 Howard Becker Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance (2nd ed)
1973 Phyllis Haslam The Woman Offender
1973 Peter Letkemann Crime as Work
1973 Gwynn Nettler Explaining Crime
1973 Hershel Prins Criminal Behavior
1973 Roland Robertson Deviance, Crime, and Socio-Legal Control
1973 Ian Taylor, P. Walton, and Jock Young The New Criminology
1974 Daniel Glaser Handbook of Criminology
1974 Edwin Schur Victimless Crime
1974 Richard Quinney Critique of Legal Order: Crime Control in Capitalist Society
1974 Richard Quinney Criminal Justice in America: A Critical Understanding
1974 Martin Haskell & Lewis Yablonsky Criminology: Crime and Criminality
1974 Roger Hood & Richard Sparks Crime, Criminology and Public Policy - Essays in Honor of Sir Leon Radzinowicz
1974 Michael Phillipson Understanding Crime and Delinquency
1974 Abraham Blumberg Current Perspectives on Criminal Behavior
1974 Clayton Hartjen Crime and Criminalization
1974 David Patterson Crime and Criminal Justice
1974 Charles Reasons The Criminologist: Crime and the Criminal
1974 Harold Vetter & Jack Wright Introduction to Criminology
1974 Robert Winslow Deviant Reality: Alternative World Views
1974 J. Kinton Criminology Tomorrow
1974 Carl Klockars The Professional Fence
1974 David Maurer The American Confidence Man
1974 Delbert Elliott & Harwin Voss Delinquency and Dropout
1975 Marvin Wolfgang Criminology Index
1975 Ian Taylor, P. Walton & Jock Young Critical Criminology
1975 Frank Carrington The Victim
1975 Walter Gove The Labeling of Deviance: Evaluating a Perspective
1975 Alan Coffey The Prevention of Crime and Delinquency
1975 John Conklin The Impact of Crime
1975 Lynn Curtis Violence, Race, and Culture
1975 Edmund Wilson Sociobiology
1975 Jeffrey Goldstein Aggression and Crimes of Violence
1975 David Fogel We Are the Living Proof: The Justice Model for Corrections
1975 Richard Henshel Perceptions in Criminology
1975 Richard Quinney Criminology
1975 James Inciardi Careers in Crime
1975 Barry Krisberg Crime and Privilege
1975 Arnold Loewy Criminal Law in a Nutshell
1975 Sheldon Olson Issues in the Sociology of Criminal Justice
1975 Thomas Plate Crime Pays
1975 Donald Schultz Critical Issues in Criminal Justice
1975 Rita Simon Women and Crime
1975 Freda Adler Sisters in Crime
1975 S. Brownmiller Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape
1975 Eric Monkkonen The Dangerous Classes: Crime & Poverty in Columbus, Ohio
1975 Alexander Smith Some Sins are Not Crimes
1975 Joseph Smith The English Legal System: Carryover to the Colonies
1975 Robert Taplin Unchallenged Violence
1975 Ernest Van den Haag Punishing Criminals
1975 Emelio Viano Social Problems and Criminal Justice
1975 James Q. Wilson Thinking About Crime
1975 Jack Gibbs Crime, Punishment, and Deterrence
1975 Laud Humphreys Tearoom Trade: Impersonal Sex in Public Places
1976 Donald Cressey Criminology: A Cross Culture Perspective
1976 Harold Vetter & Jack Wright Criminal Justice in America
1976 R. Anderson The Economics of Crime
1976 Alan Bent Police, Criminal Justice and the Community
1976 Alvin Cohn Crime and Justice Administration
1976 Donald Black The Behavior of Law
1976 George Cole Criminal Justice
1976 Samuel Guze Criminality and Psychiatric Disorder
1976 James Hall Criminal Justice Administration
1976 Alan Kalmanoff Criminal Justice
1976 Lynn McDonald The Sociology of Law and Order
1976 Stephen Schafer Introduction to Criminology
1976 Sue Titus Reid Crime and Criminology
1976 Carol Smart Women, Crime and Criminology: A Feminist Critique
1976 Charles P. Smith Role Performance and the Criminal Justice System
1976 Samuel Yochelson & Stanton Samenow The Criminal Personality Vol 1 (Vol 2 1977)
1976 Andrew Von Hirsch Doing Justice: The Choice of Punishments
1976 Vernon Fox Introduction to Criminology
1976 Jack & Sharon Goldsmith Crime and the Elderly
1976 Harold Pepinsky Crime and Conflict: A Study of Law and Society
1976 Dae Chang Comparative Criminology: A Cross Cultural Perspective
1977 James Eisenstein Felony Justice
1977 Jason Ditton Part-Time Crime: An Ethnography of Fiddling and Pilferage
1977 Marice Feldman Criminal Behavior
1977 John Galliher Criminology: Power, Crime, and Criminal Law
1977 Fanny Gross Crime: A Universal Problem
1977 Ted Gurr The Politics of Crime and Conflict
1977 C. Ray Jeffery Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design
1977 Simha Landau Criminology in Perspective: Essays in Honor of Israel Drapkin
1977 Robert Meier Theory in Criminology
1977 Robert Rhodes The Insoluble Problems of Crime
1977 Denis Szabo Criminology in the World
1977 Michael Foucault Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison
1977 P.J. van er Walt Criminology
1977 Richard Quinney Class, State, and Crime
1977 Lloyd Weinreb Denial of Justice
1977 Paul Whisenand Crime Prevention
1977 Robert Woodson Black Perspectives on Crime and the Criminal Justice System
1977 Robert Weppmer Street Ethnography: Crime & Drug Use in Natural Settings
1977 Eduard Ziegenhagen Victims, Crime and Social Control
1977 James Inciardi Historical Approaches to Crime
1977 Stephen Schafer Victimology: The Victim and His Criminal
1977 Wesley Skogan and William Klecka Setups: Fear of Crime
1978 Gresham Sykes Criminology
1978 Harold Vetter & Jack Wright The Nature of Crime
1978 James Inciardi Crime and the Criminal Justice Process
1978 James Inciardi Reflections on Crime
1978 James Inciardi Violent Crime
1978 Denis Szabo Offenders and Corrections
1978 Hugh Barlow Introduction to Criminology
1978 August Bequai Computer Crime
1978 James Carey Introduction to Criminology
1978 John Kaplan Criminal Justice
1978 Robert Loeb Crime and Capital Punishment
1978 George McCall Observing the Law
1978 Russell Monroe Brain Dysfunction in Aggressive Criminals
1978 Ysabel Rennie The Search for Criminal Man
1978 Kilman Shin Death Penalty and Crime
1978 Charles Silberman Criminal Violence, Criminal Justice
1978 Miklos Vermes The Fundamental Questions of Criminology
1978 Burton Wright Criminal Justice and the Social Sciences
1978 Barbara Wooton Crime and Penal Policy
1978 Edith Flynn & John Conrad The New and the Old Criminology
1978 Gale Miller Odd Jobs: The World of Deviant Work
1978 John Heineke Economic Models of Criminal Behavior
1978 Marvin Wolfgang, R. Figlio & T. Thornberry Evaluating Criminology
1978 Edwin Lemert Offenders in the Community
1978 Stuart Henry The Hidden Economy: Context and Control of Borderline Crime
1979 Donald Gibbons The Criminological Enterprise
1979 Howard Abadinsky Social Service and Criminal Justice
1979 A. Keith Bottomley Criminology in Focus
1979 John Braithwaite Inequality, Crime, and Public Policy
1979 Clifton Bryant Khaki-Collar Crime: Deviant Behavior in the Military Context
1979 John Burrows Crime Prevention and the Police
1979 John Croft Crime and Comparative Research
1979 David Downes Deviant Interpretations
1979 Herbert Fingarette Mental Disabilities and Criminal Responsibility
1979 Gilbert Geis Not The Law's Business
1979 Roger Lanphear Freedom From Crime Through Transcendental Meditation
1979 S. Mednick & S. Shoham New Paths in Criminology
1979 Edwin Megargee Classifying Criminal Offenders
1979 Eric Oatman Crime and Society
1979 Giles Playfair Crime in Our Century
1979 Edward Sagarin Criminology: New Concerns - Essays in Honor of Hans Mittick
1979 Joseph Sheley Understanding Crime
1979 Neal Shover A Sociology of American Corrections
1979 Hans Toch The Psychology of Crime and Criminal Justice
1979 Terrence Thornberry The Criminally Insane
1979 Henry Weihofen The Urge to Punish
1979 Richard Johnson Juvenile Delinquency and Its Origins
1979 Don Gibbons The Criminological Enterprise: Theories and Perspectives 1980-1989
1980 John Conklin Criminology
1980 James Inciardi History and Crime
1980 James Inciardi Radical Criminology: The Coming Crises
1980 Rita Simon The Criminology of Deviant Women
1980 John Croft Research and Criminal Policy
1980 Edward Sagarin Taboos in Criminology
1980 Ralph Andreano & John Siegfried The Economics of Crime
1980 Sheila Balkan Crime and Deviance in America: A Critical Approach
1980 Curt Bartol Criminal Behavior: A Psychosocial Approach
1980 Scott Decker Criminalization, Victimization, and Structural Correlates
1980 Paul Dow Criminology in Literature
1980 Charles Gray The Costs of Crime
1980 James Inciardi Radical Criminology: The Coming Crisis
1980 Herbert Jacob Crime and Justice in Urban America
1980 Michael Lillyquist Understanding and Changing Criminal Behavior
1980 Alan Milinchal Crime and Gerontology
1980 Charles McCaghy Crime in American Society
1980 Graeme Newman Crime and Deviance: A Comparative Approach
1980 William Pelfrey The Evolution of Criminology
1980 Harold Pepinsky Crime Control Strategies
1980 Jane Roberts Economic Realities and the Female Offender
1980 John Schneider Detroit & the Problem of Order: A Geography of Crime and Riots
1980 Peter Wickman & Phillip Whitten Criminology
1980 Pat Carlen Radical Issues in Criminology
1980 Stanley Cohen Folk Devils and Moral Panics
1980 Lois Forer Criminals and Victims
1980 Darryl Hellman The Economics of Crime
1980 Travis Hirschi & M. Gottfredson Understanding Crime
1980 Thomas Marsh The Roots of Crime
1980 Frank Pearce Crimes of the Powerful
1980 Barbara Price & Phyllis Baunach Criminal Justice Research
1980 R.N. Reinstedt Major Crimes as Analogs to Potential Threats to Nuclear Facilities
1980 James Short An Investigation of the Relation Between Crime & the Business Cycle
1980 Arthur Stinchcombe Crime and Punishment - Changing Attitudes in America
1980 Larry Tifft & Dennis Sullivan The Struggle to be Human: Crime and Anarchism
1980 Nigel Walker Punishment, Danger, and Stigma: The Morality of Criminal Justice
1980 Muriel Nellis The Female Fix
1980 Marshall Clinard & Peter Yeager Corporate Crime
1981 John Conrad Justice and Consequences
1981 Sue Titus Reid The Correctional System: An Introduction
1981 Harry Allen Crime and Punishment
1981 Israel Barak-Glantz & Huff The Mad, The Bad & The Different: Essays in Honor of Simon Dinitz
1981 Alan Block Organizing Crime
1981 Patricia & Paul Brantingham Environmental Criminology
1981 James Fox Models in Quantitative Criminology
1981 David Greenberg Crime and Capitalism
1981 Simon Hakim Crime Spillover
1981 Jack Henry Abbott In the Belly of the Beast
1981 Edwin Johnson Research Methods in Criminology and Criminal Justice
1981 Louis Knafla Crime and Criminal Justice in Europe and Canada
1981 Eileen Leonard Women, Crime and Society
1981 David Lester The Elderly Victim of Crime
1981 Gordon Misner Criminal Justice Studies: Their Transdisciplinary Nature
1981 S. Mukhertee & J. Scutt Women and Crime
1981 Jay Nash Almanac of World Crime
1981 Louise Shelley Crime and Modernization
1981 Margurite Q. Warren Comparing Male and Female Offenders
1981 Daniel Kennedy Crime and Justice in Greater Detroit
1981 Robert Woodson Youth Crime and Urban Policy
1981 D. Melossi & M. Pararini The Prison and the Factory: Origins of the Penitentiary
1981 C.L. Linedecker Children in Chains
1981 G.F. Jenson Sociology of Delinquency
1981 L. Phillips The Economics of Crime Control
1981 D.A. Lewis Reactions to Crime
1981 D.W. Maurer Language of the Underworld
1981 T.E. Cronin United States vs Crime in the Streets
1981 M. Tonry & N. Morris Crime and Justice Annual Review(s)
1981 W.S. Davidson Evaluation Strategies in Criminal Justice
1981 E. Beckman Careers in Criminal Justice
1981 Ian Taylor Law and Order: Arguments for Socialism
1981 R. Roesch & R. Corrado Evaluation and Criminal Justice Policy
1981 S. Box Deviance, Reality, and Society (2nd ed)
1981 J. Gibbs Norms, Deviance, and Social Control
1982 J. Best Organizing Deviance
1982 Tony Platt & Paul Takagi Crime and Social Justice
1982 M. W. Ratledge Hot Cars
1982 David Downes Understanding Deviance
1982 Gwynn Nettler Explaining Criminals
1982 W. Luksetion Crime and Public Policy
1982 Jekel The Perfect Crime and How to Commit It
1982 Frank Hagan Research Methods in Criminal Justice and Criminology
1982 J. Hagan Quantitative Criminology
1982 S.G. Miller Careers of the Violent
1982 G.A. Avenesov Principles of Criminology
1982 D. MacNamara Crime, Criminals, and Corrections
1982 L. Savitz & N. Johnson Contemporary Criminology
1982 J.R. Davis Street Gangs
1982 William Chambliss & R.B. Seidman Law, Order, and Power (2nd ed)
1982 H. Pepinsky Rethinking Criminology
1982 J. Chaiken Varieties of Criminal Behavior
1982 L.J. Fennelly Handbook of Loss Prevention and Crime Prevention
1982 J. Hagen Deterrence Reconsidered
1982 Frank Cullen Reaffirming Rehabilitation
1982 C. Sliwa Streetsmart
1982 J. Wynne Crime Wave
1982 S. Glueck Family Environment and Delinquency
1982 G. Nettler Responding to Crime
1982 R.S. Clark The Criminal Justice System
1982 J. Gilsinan Doing Justice
1982 R. Tomasic Neighborhood Justice
1982 Mike Maguire & Trevor Bennett Burglary in a Dwelling
1982 Gerald Mars Cheats at Work: An Anthropology of Workplace Crime
1982 F. Ferracuti & M. Wolfgang Criminological Diagnosis
1982 J. Gora The New Female Criminal
1982 N. Rafter & E. Stanko Judge, Lawyer, Victim, Thief
1982 B. Price & N. Sokoloff The Criminal Justice System and Women
1982 M.O. O'Brien All the Girls
1982 G. Nettler Lying, Cheating, Stealing
1982 M.D. Ermann Corporate Deviance
1982 J.M. Carroll Controlling White Collar Crime
1982 Md. Ermann & R. J. Lundman Corporate & Governmental Deviance (2nd ed)
1982 G. Geis White Collar Crime
1982 D.J. West Delinquency: Its Roots, Careers and Prospects
1982 E. Gagne School Behavior and School Discipline
1982 D.F. Stroman The Awakening Minorities
1982 C.D. Bryant Sexual Deviancy and Social Proscription
1982 D. Gibbons Society, Crime, and Criminal Behavior (4th ed)
1982 L. Hippchen Terrorism, International Crime, and Arms Control
1982 Sue Titus Reid Crime and Criminology (3rd ed)
1982 Marvin Wolfgang Criminal Violence
1982 M. Rosenberg The Sociology of Deviance
1982 Eileen Leonard Women, Crime and Society: A Critique of Criminological Theory
1982 J. Douglas The Sociology of Deviance
1982 W. Gove Deviance and Mental Illness
1982 Norval Morris Madness and the Criminal Law
1982 P. Higgins Understanding Deviance
1982 R. Stivers Evil in Modern Myth and Ritual
1982 Lamar Empey American Delinquency (rev. ed)
1982 Timothy Carter Rural Crime
1982 Austin Turk Political Criminality: The Defiance & Defense of Authority
1983 Stuart Henry Private Justice
1983 D. MacGillis Crime in America
1983 M. Haskell Criminology (3rd ed)
1983 Larry Siegal Criminology
1983 W.A. White Crime and Criminals
1983 L. Barak-Glantz & E. Johnson Comparative Criminology
1983 Sanford Kadish Encyclopedia of Crime and Justice - 4 vols
1983 William Sanders Criminology
1983 C.W. Thomas Crime, Criminal Law and Criminology
1983 G. Waldo Career Criminals
1983 Stephen Box Power, Crime, and Mystification
1983 A. Heinz, H. Jacob & R. Lineberry Crime in City Politics
1983 J. Haskins The Guardian Angels
1983 S. Brodsky Handbook of Scales for Research in Crime and Delinquency
1983 Freda Adler Nations Not Obsessed with Crime
1983 G. Waldo Measurement Issues in Criminal Justice
1983 D. Walsh & A. Poole A Dictionary of Criminology
1983 R. Holmes The Sex Offender and the Criminal Justice System
1983 G. Robin Introduction to the Criminal Justice System (2nd ed)
1983 J. Laub Criminology in the Making
1983 N.J. Davis Social Control
1983 J.D. Orcutt Analyzing Deviance
1983 A. Thio Deviant Behavior (2nd ed)
1983 C. Little Understanding Deviance and Control
1983 T. Fleming & L. Visano Deviant Designations
1983 D. MacNamara & A. Karman Deviants: Victims or Victimizers?
1983 S. O'Brien Child Pornography
1983 S. Hurwitz Criminology
1983 D. Parker Fighting Computer Crime
1983 E. Johnson International Handbook of Contemporary Developments in Criminology
1983 A. Binder Methods of Research in Criminology and Criminal Justice
1983 J. Joselit Our Gang
1983 James Q. Wilson Thinking About Crime (2nd ed)
1983 J.R. Nash Murder Among the Mighty
1983 James Q. Wilson Crime and Public Policy
1983 A. Podolefsky Case Studies in Community Crime Prevention
1983 H. Abadinsky The Criminal Elite
1983 S. Letman Criminal Justice: The Main Issues
1983 D. Vaughan Controlling Unlawful Organizational Behavior
1983 Julia & Herman Schwendinger Rape and Inequality
1983 S. Gardner Street Gangs
1983 D. Scheim Contract on America
1983 D. Pace Organized Crime (2nd ed)
1983 R. Rosen The Lost Sisterhood
1983 J. Whitehead The Stealing of America
1983 Marshall Clinard Corporate Ethics and Crime
1983 J. Henslin Social Problems
1983 M.S. Davis Smut
1983 James Q. Wilson Crime and American Culture
1983 Pino Arlacchi Mafia Business
1984 F. Hill Crime, Its Amount, Causes, and Remedies
1984 A. Fink Causes of Crime
1984 T. Frost & M. Seng Organized Crime in Chicago
1984 Jay Albanese Myths and Realities of Crime and Justice
1984 C.J. Larson Crime, Justice and Society
1984 Hal Pepinsky Myths that Cause Crime
1984 H. Vetter Crime and Justice in America
1984 D. Farmer Crime Control
1984 M. Schaefer Child Snatching
1984 E. Doleschal Prevention of Crime and Delinquency
1984 R. Terrill World Criminal Justice Systems
1984 J. Inciardi Criminal Justice
1984 Peter Kratcoski Criminal Justice in America (2nd ed)
1984 J. Hagan The Disreputable Pleasures (2nd ed)
1984 N. Davis Women and Deviance
1984 J. Lea & Jock Young What is to Be Done about Law and Order
1984 C. Wolfson Social Deviance and the Human Services
1984 C. Wright Constructions of Deviance in Sociological Theory
1984 D. Kelly Deviant Behavior
1984 D. Russell Sexual Exploitation
1984 K. Barry Female Sexual Slavery
1984 L. Somers Economic Crimes
1984 J. Braithwaite Corporate Crime in the Pharmaceutical Industry
1984 Anne Campbell The Girls in the Gang
1984 Hugh Barlow Introduction to Criminology (3rd ed)
1984 R. Bonn Criminology
1984 P. Brantingham Patterns in Crime
1984 A. Lincoln Crime in the Library
1984 G. Nettler Explaining Crime (3rd ed)
1984 William Wilbanks & Paul Kim Elderly Criminals
1984 R. H. Ward & V.J. Webb Quest for Quality
1984 Jay Albanese Justice, Privacy, and Crime Control
1984 Thomas Blomberg Juvenile Court and Community Corrections
1984 William Wilbanks Murder in Miami: An Analysis of Homicide Patterns & Trends
1984 Leslie Wilkins Consumerist Criminology
1984 Francis Cullen Rethinking Crime and Deviance Theory
1984 Peter Schmidt & Ann Witte An Economic Analysis of Crime and Justice: Theory, Methods, and Applications
1984 Ruth Kornhauser Social Sources of Delinquency
1984 D. Pyle The Economics of Crime and Law Enforcement
1984 A. Hubin Crime Fiction 1749-1980
1984 C.A. Wilson A Criminal History of Mankind
1984 D. Archer Violence and Crime in Cross-National Perspective
1984 R. Nye Crime, Madness, and Politics in Modern France
1984 Lawrence Taylor Born to Crime: The Genetic Causes of Criminal Behavior
1984 P. Jenkins Crime and Justice
1984 Trevor Bennett & Richard Wright Burglars on Burglary
1984 J. Reiman The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison
1984 J. Senna Introduction to Criminal Justice (3rd ed)
1984 J. Swaton Administration of Justice (3rd ed)
1984 H. Abadinsky Discretionary Justice
1984 E. Goode Deviant Behavior (2nd ed)
1984 J. Douglas The Sociology of Deviance
1984 C.R. Mann Female Crime and Delinquency
1984 Susan Shapiro Wayward Capitalists
1984 E. Newman, D. Nessman & M. Gewitz Elderly Criminals
1984 S. Schlossman et al. Delinquency Prevention in South Chicago: A Fifty Year Assessment of the Chicago Area Project
1984 S. Samenow Inside the Criminal Mind
1985 F. Heidensohn Women and Crime
1985 J. McGuire Offending Behavior
1985 R. Best Computer Crime, Abuse, Liability, and Security
1985 Imogene Moyer The Changing Roles of Women in the Criminal Justice System
1985 H. Reynolds The Economics of Prostitution
1985 John Hagan Modern Criminology
1985 A. Borowski Juvenile Delinquency in Australia
1985 A.D. Miller Delinquency and Community
1985 Delbert Elliott, David Huizinga & Susan Ageton Explaining Delinquency and Drug Use
1985 R. Lotz Juvenile Delinquency and Juvenile Justice
1985 Jay Albanese Organized Crime in America
1985 M. Akerstrom Crooks and Squaress
1985 D. Stanley Eitzen & Doug Timmer Criminology
1985 Neal Shover Aging Criminals
1985 John Hagan Crime, Criminal Behavior and its Control
1985 Robert Gandossy Bad Business
1985 Pat Carlson Criminal Women
1985 James Q. Wilson & Richard Herrnstein Crime and Human Nature
1985 M.H. Moore Dangerous Offenders
1985 D.S. Eitzen The Sociology of Crime and Criminal Justice
1985 J. Sheley America's Crime Problem
1985 G. Rengert & J. Wasilchick Suburban Burglary: A Time & Place for Everything
1985 L. Hartsfield The American Response to Professional Crime 1870-1917
1985 T. Maeder Crime and Madness
1985 Stanley Cohen Visions of Social Control
1985 Samuel Walker Sense and Nonsense About Crime
1985 Steven Pfohl Images of Deviance and Social Control
1985 L. Diana The Prostitute and Her Client
1985 D. Weisberg Children of the Night
1985 T. Morris The Criminal Area
1985 M. Punch Conduct Unbecoming
1985 C. Ray Jeffery, R. del Carmen & J. White Attacks on the Insanity Defense
1985 D. O'Brien Two of a Kind
1985 J. Coleman The Criminal Elite
1985 Sue Titus Reid Crime and Criminology (4th ed)
1985 R. Meier Theoretical Methods in Criminology
1985 M.O. Reynolds Crime by Choice
1985 E. Fairchild & V. Webb The Politics of Crime and Criminal Justice
1985 G. Rude The Criminal and His Victim
1985 L. Taylor In the Underworld
1985 T. Archer The Pauper, the Thief, and the Convict
1985 J. Morgan No Gangster More Bold
1985 L. Friedman Total Justice
1985 Elizabeth Stanko Intimate Intrusions: Women's Experience of Male Violence
1985 M. Kennedy The Criminal Classes in India
1985 G. Potter The City and the Syndicate
1985 P. Wikstrom Everyday Violence in Contemporary Sweden
1985 Ray Michalowski Order, Law, and Crime: An Introduction to Criminology
1985 K. Wright The Great American Crime Myth
1985 F. Cordasco Crime in America
1985 N. Pileggi Wiseguy
1985 M.A. Stuart Gangster #2
1985 C. Mohabir Crime and Nation Building in the Caribbean
1985 A. Lincoln Crime and the Family
1985 Thomas Maedor Crime and Madness
1985 Elliott Currie Confronting Crime
1985 Marshall Clinard Sociology of Deviant Behavior (6th ed)
1985 R. Edgerton Rules, Exceptions, and Social Order
1985 Vernon Fox Introduction to Criminology (2nd ed)
1986 Marshall Clinard & Richard Quinney Criminal Behavior Systems
1986 M. Lutzker Criminal Justice Research in Libraries
1986 R. O'Block Criminal Justice Research Sources
1986 D. Gibbons & Marvin Krohn Delinquent Behavior (4th ed)
1986 A. Soble Pornography
1986 J. Weatherford Porn Row
1986 M. Coleman Behavior Disorders
1986 Richard Quinney Providence: The Reconstruction of Social & Moral Order
1986 J. Byrne & R. Sampson The Social Ecology of Crime
1986 J. Goldstein Aggression and Crimes of Violence (2nd ed)
1986 James Wright & Peter Rossi Armed and Considered Dangerous
1986 D.A. Lewis Fear of Crime
1986 C.P. Nemeth Anderson's Directory of Criminal Justice Education
1986 R.R. Ross Female Offenders
1986 A. Blumstein Criminal Careers and Career Criminals (2 vols)
1986 R. Hall Disorganized Crime
1986 R. Kinsey, J. Lea & Jock Young Losing the Fight Against Crime
1986 I. Marsh Crime
1986 G. Kohn Dictionary of Culprits and Criminals
1986 T. Hartnagel & R. Silverman Critique and Explanation
1986 Derek Cornish & Ronald Clarke The Reasoning Criminal
1986 S. Smith Crime, Space, and Society
1986 R. Matthews & J. Young Confronting Crime
1986 O. Demaris How Greed, Corruption, and the Mafia Turned Atlantic City into the Boardwalk Jungle
1986 D. Trotman Crime in Trinidad
1986 D. Farrington Understanding and Controlling Crime
1986 P. Saney Crime and Culture in America
1986 D. Van Ness Crime and Its Victims
1986 S. Mukherjee & L. Jorgenson Burglary: A Social Reality
1986 D. Rosenbaum Community Crime Prevention
1986 A. Von Hirsch Doing Justice
1986 J. DiMento Environmental Law and American Business
1986 Frank Hagan Introduction to Criminology
1986 J. Conklin Criminology (2nd ed)
1986 Harold Vetter & Ira Silverman Criminology and Crime
1986 T. Jones The Islington Crime Survey
1986 R. Maurice Under the Streets of Nice
1986 D. Olweus & J. Black Development of Antisocial and Prosocial Behavior
1986 J. Levine Criminal Justice in America
1986 G. Cole The American System of Criminal Justice (4th ed)
1986 C. Petrie The Nowhere Girls
1986 Robert Ellias The Politics of Victimization
1986 D. Simon Elite Deviance (2nd ed)
1986 L. Alston Crime and Older Americans
1986 M. Lynch & W. Bryon Groves A Primer of Radical Criminology
1986 Franklin Zimring & Gordon Hawkins Capital Punishment & the American Agenda
1986 George Vold & Thomas Bernard Theoretical Criminology (3rd ed)
1986 D. Jones A History of Criminology
1986 Jerome Skolnick & David Bayley The New Blue Line: Police Innovation in 6 Cities
1986 D. Kaplan Yakuza
1986 M. Bard The Crime Victim's Book (2nd ed)
1986 Robert Kelly Organized Crime: A Global Perspective
1986 James Messerschmidt Capitalism, Patriarchy, and Crime
1986 R. Mathews & J. Young Confronting Crime
1986 Darrell Steffensmeier The Fence: In the Shadow of Two Worlds
1986 Darnell Hawkins Homicide Among Black Americans
1986 Ralph Weisheit & Sue Mahan Women, Crime and Criminal Justice
1986 Peter Reuter Disorganized Crime
1986 August Bequai Technocrimes: The Computerization of Crime and Terrorism
1987 Robert Hampton Violence in the Black Family
1987 Mark Janus, Arlene McCormack, Ann Burgess & Carol Hartman Adolescent Runaways: Causes and Consequences
1987 Martha Myers & Susette Talarico The Social Contexts of Criminal Sentencing
1987 Stuart Hills Corporate Violence: Injury and Death for Profit
1987 Steven Box Recession, Crime, and Punishment
1987 P. Maronglu & G. Newman Vengeance: The Fight Against Injustice
1987 W. Bopp & J. Vardalis Crimes Against Women
1987 J. Sheley Exploring Crime
1987 D. Papke Framing the Criminal
1987 Elmer Johnson Handbook of Crime and Delinquency Prevention
1987 Sarnoff Mednick et al. The Causes of Crime: New Biological Approaches
1987 J. & S. Burchard Prevention of Delinquent Behavior
1987 Gerald Robin Introduction to the Criminal Justice System (3rd ed)
1987 W. Wilbanks The Myth of A Racist Criminal Justice System
1987 D. Austern The Crime Victim's Handbook
1987 F. Dutile & C. Faust The Prediction of Criminal Violence
1987 N. Hull Female Felons
1987 R. Sampson Yesterday's Faces
1987 J. Evenson Break the Rules and Win
1987 C. Kirby Mafia Enforcer
1987 Marvin Wolfgang, T. Thornberry & R. Figlio From Boy to Man, From Birth to Crime
1987 A. Morris Women, Crime and Criminal Justice
1987 G. Bennett Crimewarps
1987 Gary Schwartz Beyond Conformity or Rebellion: Youth and Authority
1987 E. Currie Confronting Crime
1987 J. Inciardi Criminal Justice (2nd ed)
1987 W. Byron Groves & Graeme Newman Punishment and Privilege
1987 Graeme Newman The Punishment Response (2nd ed)
1987 A. Liska Perspectives on Deviance (2nd ed)
1987 Jack Fitzgerald Research Methods in Criminal Justice
1987 H. Abadinsky Crime and Justice
1987 Michael Gottfredson & Travis Hirschi Positive Criminology
1987 F. Cullen et. al. Corporate Crime Under Attack: The Ford Pinto Case and Beyond
1987 Michael Gottfredson & Don Gottfredson Decision Making in Criminal Justice
1987 Gary Gottfredson & Denise Gottfredson Victimization in Schools
1987 Vincent B. Van Hasselt et. al. Handbook of Family Violence
1987 Seth Goldstein The Sexual Exploitation of Children
1987 Edward Morris & Curtis Braukmann Behavioral Approaches to Crime & Delinquency
1987 John Doble Crime and Punishment: The Public's View
1988 H. Mannie & J. Hirschel Fundamentals of Criminology (2nd ed)
1988 Frank Williams III & Marilyn McShane Criminological Theory
1988 Alexander Smith & Louis Berlin Treating the Criminal Offender (3rd ed)
1988 Paul Tracy, Marvin Wolfgang & Rbt. Figlio Delinquency in a Birth Cohort II
1988 Dragan Milovanovic A Primer in the Sociology of Law
1988 Nancy Frank Crimes Against Health and Safety
1988 William Chambliss Exploring Criminology
1988 Arnold Binder, Gilbert Geis, & Dickson Bruce Juvenile Delinquency: Historical, Cultural, Legal Perspectives
1988 Clemens Bartollas American Criminal Justice
1988 Neal Shover & Werner Einstadter Analyzing Corrections
1988 Charles Swanson, Leonard Territo & Rbt. Taylor Police Administration (2nd ed)
1988 Robert Ressler, Ann Burgess & John Douglas Sexual Homicide
1988 Geoffrey Alpert & Roger Dunham Policing Urban America
1988 William Chambliss On the Take: From Petty Crooks to Presidents
1988 David Finkelhor Stopping Family Violence
1988 Kenneth Haas & James Inciardi Challenging Capital Punishment
1988 Ronald Holmes & James DeBurger Serial Murder
1988 Herbert Johnson History of Criminal Justice
1988 Ray Michalowski Order, Law and Crime: An Introduction to Criminology
1988 Joseph Scott & Travis Hirschi Controversial Issues in Criminology and Justice
1988 William Laufer & Freda Adler (eds) Advances in Criminological Theory (Vol I)
1988 Gary Marx Undercover: Police Surveillance in America
1988 Hans Eysenck & G. Gudjonsson The Causes and Cures of Criminality
1988 Norman Finkel Insanity on Trial
1988 John Hagedorn People and Folks: Gangs, Crime and the Underclass
1988 Stanley Cohen Against Criminology
1988 Jack Katz Seductions of Crime: Moral and Sensual Attractions in Doing Evil
1989 Michael Fooner Interpol: World Crime and International Criminal Justice
1989 Jay Albanese Organized Crime in America (2nd ed)
1989 Todd Clear, V. Clear & Wm. Burrell Offender Assessment and Evaluation
1989 E.A. Fattah & V.F. Sacco Crime and Victimization of the Elderly
1989 Robert Keppel Serial Murder
1989 Bo Lozoff & Michael Braswell Inner Corrections
1989 Dragan Milovanovic A Primer in the Sociology of Law
1989 Gwynne Nettler Criminology Lessons
1989 Lawrence Travis Introduction to Criminal Justice
1989 John Whitehead & Steven Lab Juvenile Justice
1989 Peter Manning Symbolic Communication: Signifying Calls & the Police Response
1989 Clifford Dome Crimes Against Children
1989 Donald Black Sociological Justice
1989 Francis Carney Criminality and its Treatment: The Patuxent Experience
1989 Hans Toch, Ken Adams & J. Douglas Grant Coping: Maladaptation in Prisons
1989 John Conklin Criminology (3rd ed)
1989 Larry Siegel Criminology
1989 Deborah Denno Biology, Crime and Violence
1989 Carol Smart Feminism and the Power of Law
1989 Harry Allen & Clifford Simonsen Corrections in America (5th ed)
1989 Frank Hagan Research Methods in Criminal Justice (2nd ed)
1989 John Galliher Criminology: Human Rights, Criminal Law, and Crime
1989 Jay Albanese Organized Crime in America
1989 Bob Roshier Controlling Crime: The Classical Perspective in Criminology
1989 John Braithwaite Crime, Shame, and Reintegration
1989 Doug Timmer & Stanley Eitzen Crime in the Streets & Crime in the Suites
1989 Michael Lynch & W. Byron Groves A Primer in Radical Criminology 2e
1989 Stephen Messner, Marvin Krohn & Allan Liska Theoretical Integration in the Study of Deviance and Crime 1990-1999
1990 ACJS Guide to Graduate Programs in Criminal Justice and Criminology
1990 Hugh Barlow Introduction to Criminology (5th ed)
1990 Gary Green Occupational Crime
1990 Jeffrey Reiman The Rich get Richer and the Poor get Prison (2nd ed)
1990 Randy Martin, Rbt. Mutchnick & W.Timothy Austin Criminological Thought
1990 Clemens Bartollas Juvenile Delinquency (2nd ed)
1990 Joan Petersilia & Susan Turner Intensive Supervision for High-Risk Probationers
1990 Norval Morris & Michael Tonry Between Prison and Probation: Intermediate Punishments in a Rational Sentencing System
1990 R.A. Haapanen Selective Incapacitation and the Serious Offender
1990 Janet Foster Villains: Crime and Community in the Inner City
1990 Brian MacLean & Dragan Milovanovic Racism, Empiricism, and Criminal Justice
1990 J. Feierman Pedophilia: Biosocial Dimensions
1990 P.R. Sanday Fraternity Gang Rape
1990 C. Ray Jeffery Criminology: An Interdisciplinary Approach
1990 Loraine Gelsthorpe & Allison Morris Feminist Perspectives in Criminology
1990 Tom Tyler Why People Obey the Law
1990 Ellen Cohn & Susan White Legal Socialization: A Study of Norms and Rules
1990 James Gilsinian Criminology and Public Policy
1990 Michael Gottfredson & Travis Hirschi A General Theory of Crime
1990 K. Sessar & H.J. Kerner Developments in Crime and Crime Control
1990 Troy Armstrong Intensive Interventions with High-Risk Youth
1990 Rodney Stark Introducing Criminology Through the Computer (diskette)
1990 Ralph Weisheit Drugs, Crime and the Criminal Justice System
1990 Rolando del Carmen Briefs of 100 Leading Cases in Law Enforcement
1990 Michael Braswell, B. & B. McCarthy Justice, Crime and Ethics
1990 Robert Trojanowicz & Bonnie Bucqueroux Community Policing
1990 Dean Champion Probation and Parole in the United States
1990 Dean Champion Criminal Justice in the United States
1990 Robert Bohm The Death Penalty in America
1990 Paul Tracy et al. Delinquency Careers in Two Birth Cohorts
1990 Robert Kelly & Donal MacNamara Perspectives on Deviance: Dominance, Degredation and Denigration
1990 Stephen Brown, Finn-Aage Esbensen & Gilbert Geis Criminology: Explaining Crime and Its Context
1990 Andrew Karmen Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology
1991 Freda Adler, Gerhard Mueller & Wm. Laufer Criminology
1991 Larry Gaines Police Administration
1991 Robert Bohm The Death Penalty in America: Current Research
1991 Franklin Zimring & Gordon Hawkins The Scale of Imprisonment
1991 J. Dilulio No Escape: The Future of American Corrections
1991 Linda Zupan Jails: Reform and the New Generation Philosophy
1991 Harold Pepinsky The Geometry of Violence and Democracy
1991 Michael Steinman Woman Battering: Policy Responses
1991 Carl Klockars & Stephen Mastrofski Thinking About Police (2nd ed)
1991 N. Gary Holten & Lawson Lamar The Criminal Courts
1991 Robert Regoli & Joh Hewitt Delinquency in Society: A Child-Centered Approach
1991 Sue Titus Reid Criminal Justice (2nd ed)
1991 Curt Bartol Criminal Behavior: A Psychosocial Approach (3rd ed)
1991 Gerald Robin Violent Crime and Gun Control
1991 Ronald Clarke Situational Crime Prevention
1991 Brian MacLean & Dragan Milovanovic New Directions in Critical Criminology
1991 Michael Lynch & E. Britt Patterson Race and Criminal Justice
1991 David Bayley Forces of Order: Policing Modern Japan
1991 Richard Quinney & John Wildeman The Problem of Crime: A Peace and Social Justice Perspective
1991 Martin Sanchez Jankowski Islands in the Street: Gangs & Urban Society
1991Lamar Empey & Mark Stafford American Delinquency: Its Meaning & Construction
1991 Michael Lyman & Gary Potter Drugs in Society
1991 Piers Bierne & James Messerschmidt Criminology
1991 Dirk Van Zyl Smit & Frieder Dunkel Imprisonment Today & Tomorrow
1991 Arnold Goldstein Delinquent Gangs: A Psychological Perspective
1991 Gregg Barak Gimme Shelter: A Social History of Homelessness
1991 Harold Pepinsky & Richard Quinney Criminology as Peacemaking
1992 Nancy Frank & Michael Lynch Corporate Crime, Corporate Violence
1992 Robert Thornton Preventing Crime in America & Japan
1992 John Holman & James Quinn Criminology: Applying Theory
1992 S. Giora Shoham & Mark Seis A Primer in the Psychology of Crime
1992 Joe Jacoby Criminology Theory: Selected Classic Readings
1992 Imogene Moyer The Changing Roles of Women in the Criminal Justice System
1992 Cassia Spohn & Julie Horney Rape Law Reform
1992 Martin Greenberg & R. Barry Ruback After the Crime: Victim Decision Making
1992 Lawrence Sherman Policing Domestic Violence
1992 Ezzat Fattah Towards a Critical Victimology
1992 Ray Surette Media, Crime & Criminal Justice: Images and Realities
1992 David Lester, Michael Braswell & Pat Van Voorhis Correctional Counseling (2nd ed)
1992 Wilbert Rideau & Ron Wikberg Life Sentences: Rage & Survival Behind Bars
1992 Clayton Hartjen & Edward Rhine Correctional theory and Practice
1992 James Osterburg & Richard Ward Criminal Investigation
1992 Steven Lab Crime Prevention (2nd ed)
1992 J. Lowman & Brian MacLean Realist Criminology
1992 Jock Young & R. Matthews Rethinking Criminology: The Realist Debate
1992 Hans Toch Violent Men (revised and updated)
1992 Mark Colvin The Penitentiary in Crisis: From Accomodation to Riot
1992 Allen Liska Social Threat and Social Control
1992 James Byrne, Arthur Lurigio & Joan Petersilia Smart Sentencing: The Emergence of Intermediate Sanctions
1992 Roger Hood Race and Sentencing
1992 Media Chesney-Lind & R.G. Shelden Girls, Delinquents and Juvenile Justice
1992 Kenneth Tunnell Choosing Crime: The Criminal Calculus of Property Offenders
1992 Jaime Malamud-Goti Smoke and Mirrors: The Paradox of the Drug Wars
1992 David Rogers & Eli Ginzberg Adolescents at Risk
1992 Keith Hawkins The Uses of Discretion
1992 Claire Renzetti Violent Betrayal: Partner Abuse in Lesbian Relationships
1992 Stuart Hills & Ron Santiago Tragic Magic: The Life and Crimes of a Heroin Addict
1992 Richard Terrill World Criminal Justice Systems (2nd ed)
1992 Peter Benekos & Alida Merlo Corrections: Dilemmas and Directions
1992 Kip Schlegel & David Weisburd White-Collar Crime Reconsidered
1992 Rebecca Dobash & Russell Dobash Women, Violence and Social Change
1993 Hans Toch Living in Prison (revised and updated)
1993 William Spelman Criminal Incapacitation
1993 Hiroshi Fukurai, Edgar Butler & Richard Krooth Race and the Jury
1993 Robert Kelly Bias Crime
1993 William Selke Prisons in Crisis
1993 J. Leibrich Straight to the Point: Angles on Giving up Crime
1993 Avril Taylor Women Drug Users: An Ethnography
1993 Dennis Hoffman Scarface Al and the Crime Crusaders
1993 Frank Pearce & Michael Woodiwiss Global Crime Connections
1993 Sandra Thomas Women and Anger
1993 Mark Hamm American Skinheads: The Criminology & Control of Hate Crime
1993 James Messerschmidt Masculinities and Crime
1993 Nils Christie Crime Control as Industry
1993 Jeff Ferrell Crimes of Style: Urban Graffiti and the Politics of Criminality
1993 Gary Kleck Point Blank: Guns and Violence in America
1993 Kenneth Tunnell Political Crime in Contemporary America
1993 Ellen Pence & Michael Paymar Education Groups for Men Who Batter
1993 Rodney Stark Criminology: An Introduction Through MicroCase (2nd ed)
1993 William White Crimes and Criminals
1993 Scott Cummings & Daniel Monti Gangs
1993 Robert Bursik & Harold Grasmick Neighborhoods and Crime
1993 Patricia Adler Wheeling and Dealing
1993 Barry Feld Justice for Children
1993 Chris Eskridge Criminal Justice: Concepts and Issues
1993 Coramae R. Mann Unequal Justice
1993 Cyndi Banks Women in Transition: Social Control in Papua New Guinea
1993 Helen Prejean Dead Man Walking
1993 Arnold Goldstein & Ronald Huff The Gang Intervention Handbook
1993 James Inciardi, Dorothy Lockwood & Anne Pottieger Women & Crack Cocaine
1993 Bruce Arrigo Madness, Language and the Law
1993 Stephen Shute, John Gardner & Jeremy Horder Action & Value in Criminal Law
1993 Brunon Holyst EuroCriminology
1993 Graeme Newman, Michael Lynch & D. Galaty Discovering Criminology
1993 James Calder Origins and Development of Federal Crime Control Policy
1993 Graeme Newman, Michael Lynch & David Galaty Discovering Criminology
1993 James Marquart, Sheldon Ekland-Olson & Jon Sorenson The Rape, The Chair, and The Needle
1993 Mark Umbreit Victim Meets Offender: The Impact of Restorative Justice
1993 Robert Sampson & John Laub Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life
1993 Walter DeKeseredy Four Variations of Family Violence
1993 Michael Moore Act and Crime: The Philosophy of Action
1993 Ethan Nadelman Cops Across Borders
1993 Michael Tonry & Albert Reiss Beyond the Law: Crime in Complex Organizations
1993 Candace McCoy Politics and Plea Bargaining
1993 Piers Bierne Inventing Criminology: Essays on the Rise of Homo Criminalis
1993 Arnold Goldstein Delinquents on Delinquency
1993 Gerald Woods The Police in Los Angeles: Reform and Professionalism
1993 Andrew Von Hirsch Censure and Sanctions
1993 Adrian Raine The Psychopathology of Crime
1993 Concetta Culliver Female Criminality: The State of the Art
1994 Mark Umbreit Victim Meets Offender: The Impact of Restorative Justice & Mediation
1993 Brent Fisse & John Braithwaite Corporations: Crime and Accountability
1993 Valerie Jenness Making it Work: The Prostitutions' Rights Movement
1993 Chris Eskridge Criminal Justice: Concepts and Issues
1994 Joel Henderson & David Simon Crimes of the Criminal Justice System
1994 David Nelken The Futures of Criminology
1994 D.A. Andrews & James Bonta The Psychology of Criminal Conduct
1994 Helen Birch Moving Targets: Women, Murder, and Representation
1994 The Police Foundation Police Use of Force
1994 Robert Elias Victims Still: The Political Manipulation of Crime Victims
1994 John Conley The 1967 President's Crime Commission: It's Impact 25 Years Later
1994 Freda Adler, Gerhard Mueller & Wm. Laufer Criminology (2nd ed)
1994 Freda Adler, Gerhard Mueller & Wm. Laufer Criminology: A Shorter Version
1994 Stuart Henry Inside Jobs: A Realistic Guide to Criminal Justice Careers
1994 Brian Forst The Socio-Economics of Crime and Justice
1994 Kathleen Daly Gender, Crime, and Punishment
1994 Ron Akers Criminological Theories: Introduction and Evaluation
1994 MarcusFelson Crime and Everyday Life
1994 John Conklin Art Crime
1994 Stephen Pfohl Images of Deviance and Social Control (2nd ed)
1994 John Hagan Crime and Disrepute
1994 Mark Hamm Hate Crime: International Perspectives
1994 Dilip Das Police Practices: An International Review
1994 James Coleman The Criminal Elite: The Sociologyof White-Collar Crime (3rd ed)
1994 Samuel Walker Sense and Nonsense about Crime & Drugs (3rd ed)
1994 Raphael Perl Drugs and Foreign Policy
1994 Richard Wright & Scott Decker Burglars on the Job
1994 Philip Jenkins Using Murder: Social Construction of Serial Homicide
1994 Josine Junger-Tas Alternatives to Prison Sentences
1994 Ted Palmer Profile of Correctional Effectiveness and New Directions
1994 Elizabeth Stanko & T. Newburn Just Boys Doing Business: Men, Masculinities
1994 William Sanders Gangbangs and Drivebys
1994 Edwin DeLattre Character and Cops (2nd ed)
1994 Kenneth Polk When Men Kill: Scenarios of Masculine Violence
1994 Henry Steadman et al. Before and After Hinckley: Evaluating Insanity Defense
1994 Marc Mauer Americans Behind Bars
1994 Nikos Passas Organized Crime
1994 James Hendricks & Bryan Byers Multicultural Perspectives in CJ & Criminology
1994 Gregg Barak Media, Process & Social Construction of Crime
1994 Gregg Barak Varieties of Criminology: Readings from a Dynamic Discipline
1994 Terance Miethe & Rbt. Meier Crime and Its Social Context: Toward an Integrated Theory of Offenders, Victims, and Situations
1994 William Doerner & Steven Lab Victimology
1994 Lydia Voigt, Wm. Thornton et al. Criminology and Justice
1994 J. Rbt. Lilly, F. Cullen & R. Ball Criminological Theory:Context/Consequences (2e)
1994 David Farrington Psychological Explanations of Crime
1994 Ann Wilson Homicide: The Victim/Offender Connection
1994 Gianluca Fiorentini & Sam Peltzman The Economics of Organised Crime
1994 Richard Wright In Defense of Prisons
1994 Piers Beirne The Origins and Growth of Criminology
1994 Joseph Jacoby Classics of Criminology (2nd ed)
1994 Katherine Jamieson The Organization of Corporate Crime
1994 Robert Kelly, Ko-liln Chin & R. Schatzberg Handbook of Organized Crime
1994 Poveda, Tony Rethinking White-Collar Crime
1994 Messner, Steven & Richard Rosenfeld Crime and the American Dream
1995 Joan McCord & John Laub Contemporary Masters in Criminology
1995 Howard Kaplan Drugs, Crime, and Other Deviant Adaptations
1995 Freda Adler, Gerhard Mueller & Wm. Laufer Criminal Justice: The Core
1995 Bruce CiCristina Method in Criminology: A Philosophical Primer
1995 Piers Beirne & James Messerschmidt Criminology (2nd ed)
1995 Ngaire Naffine Gender, Crime and Feminism
1995 Werner Einstadter & Stuart Henry Criminological Theory: An Analysis of its Underlying Assumptions
1995 James Inciardi Criminal Justice (5th ed)
1995 Frank Weed Certainty of Justice: Reform in the Crime Victim Movement
1995 Steven Chermak Victims in the News
1995 Peter Kratcoski & Duane Dukes Issues in Community Policing
1995 Jay Albanese Contemporary Issues in Organized Crime
1995 John Eck & David Weisburd Crime and Place
1995 Jeff Ferrell & Clinton Sanders Cultural Criminology
1995 Ross Homel Problem Solving for Crime Prevention
1995 Gayle Olson-Raymer Terrorism: A Historical and Contemporary Analysis
1995 Richard Scherpenzeel Directory of Computerized Criminal Justice Information
1995 Alexander Pisciotta Benevolent Repression: Social Control & the Reformatory
1995 John Smykla & William Selke Intermediate Sanctions: Sentencing in the 1990s
1995 Franklin Zimring & Gordon Hawkins Incapacitation: Penal Confinement & Restraint
1995 Robert Heiner Criminology: A Cross-Cultural Perspective
1995 Darnell Hawkins Ethnicity, Race, and Crime: Perspectives Across Time & Place
1995 Michael Tonry Malign Neglect: Race, Crime and Punishment
1995 Theodore Sasson Crime Talk: How Citizens Construct a Social Problem
1995 Robert Spitzer The Politics of Gun Control
1995 Tamasak Wicharaya Simple Theory, Hard Reality: The Impact of Sentencing Reforms
1995 Marylee Reynolds From Gangs to Gangsters: How American Sociology Organized Crime
1995 Nancy Marion A Primer in the Politics of Criminal Justice
1995 Larry Siegel Criminology: Theories, Patterns and Typologies (5th ed)
1995 Edward Sbarbaro & Robert Keller Prison Crisis: Critical Readings
1995 Joan McCord Coercion and Punishment in Long-term Perspective
1995 John Goldkamp et al. Personal Liberty and Community Safety: Pretrial Release
1995 Stephen Brown, Finn-Aage Esbenson & Gilbert Geis Criminology (2nd ed)
1995 Michael Braswell, B. & B. McCarthy Justice, Crime & Ethics (2nd ed)
1995 Nicole Rafter & Frances Heidensohn International Feminist Perspectives in Criminology
1995 Alida Merlo & Joycelyn Pollock Women, Law, and Social Control
1995 Robert Hazelwood & Ann Burgess Practical Aspects of Rape Investigation
1995 Malcolm Klein The American Street Gang
1995 David Anderson Crime & The Politics of Hysteria: How the Willie Horton Story Changed American Justice
1995 Thomas Blomberg & Stanley Cohen Punishment & Social Control: Essays in Honor of Sheldon Messinger
1995 Josine Junger-Tas et. al Delinquent Behavior Among Young People in the Western World: First Results of the International Self-Report Delinquency Study
1995 Arnold Linsky, R. Bachman & Murray Straus Stress, Culture, and Aggression
1995 Graeme Newman Just and Painful: A Case for Corporal Punishment (2nd ed)
1995 Jeffrey Reiman The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison (4th ed)
1996 James Finckenauer Russian Youth: Law, Deviance, & the Pursuit of Freedom
1996 Arnold Goldstein The Psychology of Vandalism
1996 Keith Harries Serious Violence: Patterns of Homicide and Assault
1996 John Whitehead & Steven Lab Juvenile Justice (2nd ed)
1996 J. Mitchell Miller & Jeffrey Rush Gangs: A Criminal Justice Approach
1996 William DeKeseredy & Martin Schwartz Contemporary Criminology
1996 Steve Brandl & David Barlow Classics in Policing
1996 Gary Cordner, Larry Gaines, & Vic Kappeler Police Operations
1996 Michael Tonry Sentencing Matters
1996 Richard Enos & Stephen Southern Correctional Case Management
1996 Barbara Hudson Understanding Justice
1996 Andrew Klein Alternative Sentencing
1996 Edward Latessa & Harry Allen Corrections in the Community
1996 Michael Lynch & E. Britt Patterson Justice with Prejudice
1996 Martin Schwartz & Dragan Milovanovic Race, Gender, and Class in Criminology
1996 Nathan Kantrowitz Close Control: The Story of Ragen's Stateville Penitentiary
1996 Susan Martin & Nancy Jurik Doing Justice, Doing Gender
1996 Marvin Free African Americans and the Criminal Justice System
1996 Vincent Sacco & Leslie Kennedy The Criminal Event: Introduction to Criminology
1996 Paul Tracy & K. Kempf-Leonard Continuity & Discontinuity in Criminal Careers
1996 Kathleen Daly Gender, Crime, and Punishment (paperback)
1996 William Geller & Hans Toch Police Violence
1996 Stephen Giannangelo The Psychopathology of Serial Murder
1996 Stuart Henry & Dragan Milovanovic Constitutive Criminology
1996 Steven Marans The Police-Mental Health Partnership
1996 Thomas Winfree & Howard Abadinsky Understanding Crime
1996 Walter DeKeseredy & Martin Schwartz Contemporary Criminology
1996 Vincent Sacco, Leslie Kennedy & Peggy Plass The Criminal Event
1996 Herbert Johnson & Nancy Wolfe History of Criminal Justice (2e)
1996 Robert Figlio, Simon Hakim & George Rengert Metropolitan Crime Patterns
1996 Donald Shoemaker Theories of Delinquency (3rd ed)
1996 Jay Albanese Organized Crime in America (3e)
1996 Peter Cordella & Larry Siegel Readings in Contemporary Criminological Theory
1996 Henry Browstein The Rise and Fall of a Violent Crime Wave: Crack Cocaine
1996 Samuel Walker, Cassia Spohn & Miriam DeLone The Color of Justice
1996 David Greenberg Criminal Careers
1996 Vergil Williams Dictionary of American Penology
1996 Clive Emsley & Louis Knafla Crime History & Histories of Crime: Historiography
1996 Lorraine Green Policing Places With Drug Problems
1996 Vernon Geberth Practical Homicide Investigation
1996 Jeffrey Butts & Greg Halemba Waiting for Justice: Moving Young Offenders Through the Juvenile Court Process
1996 David Ermann & Richard Lundman Corporate & Governmental Deviance (5th ed)
1996 Joanne Belknap The Invisible woman: Gender, Crime and Justice
1997 Robert Bohm Primer on Crime and Delilnquency Theory
1997 Sue Mahan Crack Cocaine, Crime and Women
1997 Mike Rolland Descent into Madness: The New Mexico State Prison Riot
1997 Daniel Van Ness & Karen Strong Restoring Justice
1997 Hans Toch Corrections: A Humanistic Approach
1997 Richard Wright & Scott Decker Armed Robbers in Action
1997 Gregg Barak Representing O.J.: Murder, Criminal Justice and Mass Culture
1997 Brian MacLean & Dragan Milovanovic Thinking Critically about Crime
1997 Dragan Milovanovic Postmodern Criminology
1997 Dragan Milovanovic Chaos, Criminology, and Social Justice
1997 Sam Walker Popular Justice: A History of American Criminal Justice (2e)
1997 Ronald Clarke Situational Crime Prevention (2nd ed)
1997 Michael Kelleher Flash Point: The American Mass Murderer
1997 Clifford Dorne Child Maltreatment: A Primer in History, Policy, and Research
1997 Franklin Zimring & Gordon Hawkins Crime is Not the Problem
1997 Peggy Sanday A Woman Scorned: Acquaintance Rape on Trial
1997 G. Newman, Ron Clarke & S. Shoham Rational Choice & Crime Prevention
1997 Kitty Calavita et al. Big Money Crime: The Savings and Loan Crisis
1997 Craig Reinarman & Harry Levine Crack in America: Demon Drugs & Social Justice
1997 Nicole Rafter Creating Born Criminals
1997 Mike Maguire, Rod Morgan & Rbt. Reiner The Oxford Handbook of Criminology
1997 Richard Lawrence School Crime and Juvenile Justice
1997 Wesley Skogan & Susan Hartnett Community Policing, Chicago Style
1997 Valerie Jenness & Kendal Broad Hate Crimes
1997 Michael Lynch Radical Criminology
1997 Lonnie Athens Violent Criminal Acts and Actors Revisited
1997 Ronald Akers Social Learning and Structure
1997 Nikos Passas & Robert Agnew The Future of Anomie Theory
1997 Steven Barkan Criminology: A sociological Understanding
1997 Lonnie Athens The Creation of Dangerous Violent Criminals
1997 A. Raine, P. Brennan, D. Farrington & S. Mednick Biosocial Bases of Violence
1997 Mittie Southerland, Pam Collins & Kath Scarborough Workplace Violence
1997 Katherine Beckett Making Crime Pay: Law & Order in American Politics
1997 Frank Schmalleger & G. Armstrong Crime & the Justice System: AnEncyclopedia
1997 Ray Surette Media, Crime and Criminal Justice (2nd ed)
1997 Piers Beirne & David Nelken Issues in Comparative Criminology
1997 Francis Cullen & Brandon Applegate Offender Rehabilitation
1997 Steven Messner & Richard Rosenfeld Crime & the American Dream (2e)
1997 Bruce Arrigo The Margins of Justice: The Maturation of Critical Theory
1997 Stuart Henry & Werner Einstadter The Criminology Theory Reader
1997 George Vold, Thomas Bernard & Jeffrey Snipes Theoretical Criminology (4e)
1998 Mark Lanier & Stuart Henry Essential Criminology
1998 Cliff Roberson & Harvey Wallace Introduction to Criminology
1998 Freda Adler, Gerhard Mueller & Wm. Laufer Criminology (3e)
1998 F. Adler, G. Mueller & Wm. Laufer Criminology: The Shorter Version (3e)
1998 Sue Titus Reid Crime and Criminology (8e)
1998 Frank Hagan Introduction to Criminology (4e)
1998 Larry Siegel Criminology: Theories, Patterns & Typologies (6e)
1998 William Doerner & Steven Lab Victimology (2e)
1998 John Crank Understanding Police Culture
1998 Donald Black The Social Structure of Right and Wrong
1998 Gregg Barak Integrating Criminologies
1998 Jeffrey Ian Ross Cutting the Edge: Perspectives in Radical/Critical Criminology
1998 J. Reid Meloy The Psychology of Stalking
1998 Joycelyn Pollock Criminal Women
1998 Marcus Felson Crime and Everyday Life (2e)
1998 F. Williams & M. McShane (1998) Criminology Theory: Classic Readings (2e)
1998 Michael Benson & Francis Cullen Combating Corporate Crime
1998 D. Andrews & J. Bonta The Psychology of Criminal Conduct (2e)
1998 William Doerner & Steven Lab Victimology (2e)
1998 Ken Pease Use and Abuses of Criminal Statistics
1998 Ellen Cohn, D. Farrington & R.Wright Evaluating Criminology & Criminal Justice
1998 John Crank Understanding Police Culture
1998 Michael Kelleher & C. Kelleher Murder Most Rare: The Female Serial Killer
1998 Ronald Holmes & Stephen Holmes Serial Murder (2e)
1998 Rolf Loeber & D. Farrington Serious & Violent Juvenile Offenders
1998 James Finckenauer & Elin Waring The Russian Mafia in America
1998 George Rush & Sam Torres The Encyclopedic Dictionary of Criminology
1998 Glenn Schweitzer & Carole Dorsch Superterrorism
1998 Steve Egger The Killers Among Us: An Examination of Serial Murder
1998 Frank Schmalleger Definitive guide to Criminal Justice and Criminology on the WWW
1999 Frank Williams Imagining Criminology: An Alternative Paradigm
1999 Frank Williams & M. McShane Criminological Theory (3e)
1999 Frank Schmallenger Criminology Today (2e)
1999 Curt Bartol Criminal Behavior: A Psychosocial Approach (5e)
1999 Bruce Jacobs Dealing Crack: The Social World of Streetcorner Selling
1999 Simon Reeve The New Jackals: Ramzi Yousef & Osama bin Laden
1999 Laurence Alison & David Canter Profiling in Policy and Practice
1999 Brent Turvey Criminal Profiling
1999 Robert Bohm Deathquest: An Inquiry into Capital Punishment
1999 David Horton Pioneering Perspectives in Criminology: 19th Century Positivism
1999 M.Dwayne Smith & Margaret Zahn Homicide: A Sourcebook of Social Research
1999 M. Dwayne Smith & Margaret Zahn Studying & Preventing Homicide
1999 Kathleen Heide Young Killers
1999 Mark Fisch Annual Editions: Criminology 99/00
1999 Tony Waters Crime and Immigrant Youth
1999 Richard Terrill World Criminal Justice Systems (4e)
1999 Robert Bing & Alejandro del Carmen Perspectives: Race & Crime
1999 John Muncie Youth and Crime: A Critical Introduction
1999 Bruce Arrigo Social Justice/Criminal Justice: The Maturation of Critical Theory
1999 Brendan Maguire & Polly Radosh Introduction to Criminology
1999 James Calder Intelligence, Espionage and Related Topics: An Annotated Bibliography
1999 Joycelyn Pollock Criminal Women
1999 John Fuller & Eric Hickey Controversial Issues in Criminology 2000-present
2000 Steven Cooper Stand: Crime and Criminology
2000 Gilbert Geis & Leigh Bienen Crimes of the Century
2000 Larry Siegel Criminology (7e)
2000 Joseph Sheley Criminology: A Contemporary Handbook (3e)
2000 SueTitus Reid Crime and Criminology (9e)
2000 Michael Welch Punishment in America: The Ironies of Imprisonment
2000 Katherine Beckett & Theodore Sasson The Politics of Injustice
2000 Victor Goldsmith, P. McGuire & J. Mollenkopf Analyzing Crime Patterns
2000 John Curra The Relativity of Deviance
2000 Yingyi Situ & David Emmons Environmental Crime
2000 James Inciardi The Drug Legalization Debate (2e)
2000 Maurice Godwin Hunting Serial Predators
2000 Tom O'Connor Quick Guide to the Internet for Criminal Justice & Criminology
2000 Cecil Greek Computers, The Internet & Criminal Justice
2000 Lee Ellis & Anthony Walsh Criminology: A Global Perspective
2000 Delbert Rounds International Criminal Justice: A Global Perspective
2000 Henry Brownstein Social Reality of Violence & Violent Crime
2000 John Crank & Michael Caldero Police Ethics: Corruption of Noble Cause
2000 Michael Lynch, Raymond Michalowski & W. Byron Groves The New Primer in Radical Criminology
2000 Alida Merlo & Peter Benekos What's Wrong with the Criminal Justice System
2000 Walter DeKeseredy Women, Crime & the Canadian Criminal Justice System
2000 David Baker Sources: Notable Selections in Criminology & Criminal Justice
2000 David Canter & Laurence Alison Profiling Rape and Murder
2000 David Canter & Laurence Alison Profiling Property Crimes
2000 Clifford Simonsen & Jeremy Spindlove Terrorism Today: The Past, the Players, the Future
2000 Diana Fishbein The Science, Treatment, and Prevention of Antisocial Behaviors
2000 Denise Gosselin Heavy Hands: An Introduction to the Crimes of Domestic Violence
2000 Sean Grennan, Marjie Britz, Jeffrey Rush & Thomas Barker Gangs: An International Approach
2000Ellis, Lee & Anthony Walsh Criminology: A Global Perspective
2000Clifford Simonsen & Jeremy Spindlove Terrorism Today: The Past, the Players, the Future
2000 Michael Lynch, Ray Michalowski & W. Bryon Groves The New Primer in Radical Criminology
2001 Henry Pontell & David Shichor Contemporary Issues in Crime and CJ: Essays in Honor of Gilbert Geis
2001 Steven Barkan Criminology: A Sociological Understanding (2e)
2001 Erich Goode Deviant Behavior (6e)
2001 Ronald Holmes & Steven Holmes Mass Murder in the United States
2001 Gordon Crews & Reid Montgomery Chasing Shadows: Confronting Juvenile Violence in America
2001 Robert Meadows Understanding Violence and Victimization (2e)
2001 Richard Saferstein Criminalistics (7e)
2001 Larry Siegel Criminology: Theories, Patterns, Typologies (7e)
2001 Robert Bohm A Primer on Crime and Delinquency Theory (2e)
2001 Steven Messner & Richard Rosenfeld Crime and the American Dream (3e)
2001 Alex Piquero & Paul Mazarolle Life Course Criminology: Contemporary and Classic Readings
2001 Lawrence Wrightsman Forensic Psychology
2001 Bruce Arrigo Forensic Psychology
2001 James Fox & Jack Levin Will to Kill: Making Sense of Senseless Murder
2001 Jack Levin & James Fox Dead Lines: Essays in Murder and Mayhem
2001 Randall Sheldon Controlling the Dangerous Classes
2001Daniel Curran & Claire Renzetti Theories of Crime (2e)
2001Gilbert Geis & Mary Dodge Lessons of Criminology
2001 David Rowe Biology and Crime
2001 Terence Miethe & Richard McCorkle Crime Profiles
2001Shaun Gabbidon African American Classics in Criminology and Criminal Justice
2001 Eugene McLaughlin The SAGE Dictionary of Criminology
2002Crosson-Tower, Cynthia Understanding Child Abuse and Neglect (5e)
2002 Wallace, Harvey Family Violence (3e)
2002 Simon, David Elite Deviance (7e)
2002 Walsh, Anthony Biosocial Criminology
2002 William Doerner & Steven Lab Victimology (3e)
2002 Gary Potter Controversies in White-Collar Crime
2002 John Lea Crime and Modernity: Continuities in Left Realist Criminology
2003 James Inciardi, D. Lockwood & A. Pottieger Women and Crack-Cocaine
2003 Mary Jackson & Paul Knepper Delinquency and Justice
2003 Kay Gillespie Inside the Death Chamber: Exploring Executions
2003 Schwartz, Martin & Suzanne Hatty Controversies in Critical Criminology
2003 D.A. Andrews & James Bonta Psychology of Criminal Conduct (3e)
2003 Laura Moriarty Controversies in Victimology
2003 Jonathan White Terrorism: An Introduction, 2002 Update (4e)
2003 Alejandro del Carmen Terrorism: An Interdisciplinary Perspective (2e)
2003 Jeffrey Ian Ross & Stephen Richards Convict Criminology
2003 Alex Alvarez & Ronet Bachman Murder American Style
2003 Howard Abadinsky Organized Crime (7e)
2003 Samuel Walker, Cassia Spohn & Miriam DeLone The Color of Justice (3e)
2003 Eric Hickey Encyclopedia of Murder & Violent Crime
2004 Derek Paulsen & Matt Robinson Spatial Aspects of Crime
2004 John Conklin Criminology (8e)
2004 Stephen Brown, Finn-Aage Esbensen & Gilbert Geis Criminology (5e)
2004 Stephen Rosoff, Henry Pontell & Rbt. Tillman Profit Without Honor: White-Collar Crime (3e)
2004 Stephen Holmes & Ronald Holmes Violence: A Contemporary Reader
2004 Marc Riedel & Wayne Welsh Criminal Violence: Patterns & Causes (2e)
2004 David Friedrichs Trusted Criminals: White Collar Crime in Contemporary Society
2004 Jonathan White Defending the Homeland: Domestic Intelligence & Law Enforcement
2004 Andrew Karmen Crime Victims: An Introduction to Victimology (5e)
2004 Ronald Burns & Michael Lynch Environmental Crime
2005 Raymond Foster Police Technology
2005 Eric Hickey Serial Murderers & Their Victims, 4e
2005 Eric Hickey Sex Crimes & Paraphilia
2006 Michael Lynch & Raymond Michalowski The New Primer in Radical Criminology MATERIAL COURSES Introduction Dynamics of Crime Theory Early Schools of Thought The Classical School
The Positive School
The Chicago School Classical and Rational Theories:
Crime as Choice Cohen & Felson's Routine Activities
Hindelang, Gottfredson, & Garofalo's Lifestyle Theory
Walters & White's Cognitive Theory Biological & Physiological Theories:
Born Criminals Lombroso's Criminal Born Man and Woman
Sheldon's Somatotyping
XYZ Chromosome
Sociobiology
Eysenck's Differential Conditionality Psychological & Psychiatric Theories:
The Criminal Mind Social Learning Theories Bandura's Modeling/Imitation
Sutherland's Differential Association
Glaser's Differential Identification
Jeffery's & Akers' Differential Reinforcement
Akers' Social Learning Theory Psychoanalytic Theories Freud's Pscychoanalytic Theory
Warren & Hindelang's Psychoanalytic Theory Moral Development Theories Kohlberg's Moral Development
Yochelson & Samenow's Criminal Personality Theory Sociological Theories I:
Crime and Social Structure Social Strain Theories Social Disorganization
Durkheim's Anomie Theory
Merton's Strain Theory
Agnew's General Strain Theory Subculture Theories Overview of Subculture Theories
Sellin's Culture Conflict Theory
Cohen's Subculture of Delinquency
Cloward & Ohlin's Differential Opportunity
Miller's Lower-Class Focal Concerns
Shaw & McKay's High Delinquency Areas
Wolfgang & Ferracuti's Subculture of Violence Sociological Theories II:
Crime and Social Process Labeling Theories Overview of Labeling Theories
Tannenbaum's Concept of Tagging
Lemert's Primary & Secondary Deviance
Becker's Developmental Career Model
Schur's Radical Non-Intervention Social Control Theories Overview of Social Control Theories
Reckless' Containment Theory
Hirschi's Social Bond Theory
Sykes & Matza's Techniques of Neutralization
Gottfredson & Hirschi's Low Self-Control Theory Peacemaking Criminology Theories: Overview of Peacemaking Theories
Braithwaite's Reintegrative Shaming Radical, Feminist, & Conflict Theories:
Crime, Sex, Inequality & Power Overview of Radical, Feminist, Conflict and Marxist Theories
Marxism and Crime
Quinney & The Social Reality of Crime
Turk's Conflict Theory
Greenberg's Adolescent Frustration
Adler's Liberation Theory
Simon's Opportunity Theory
Hagan's Power-Control Theory
Schwendinger's Instrumental Theory
Feminism & Crime Introduction to Criminological Theory

Defining Criminology

Criminology, according to Edwin H. Sutherland, one of the modern founding scholars of American criminology, is the body of knowledge which regards crime as a social phenomenon. It includes the processes of making laws, breaking laws, and the reacting toward the breaking of laws. Together, these three processes form a unifed sequence of events.
Criminologists have adopted methods of study from varying social and behavioral sciences. Like other scientists, criminologists measure and assess crime over time and place. They also measure the characteristics of criminals, crimes, and victims using various methods.
Certain acts, regarded as "undesireable" by political society are defined as such. Society reacts by punishment, treatment, or prevention. These sequences of events come together to comprise the object matter of criminology.

Studying Theory

While many people are intimidated at their very first encounter with theory, it is used almost on a daily basis. You may be one who believes that theory is abstract and has no fundamental basis in the real world. However, whether you realize it or not, you use theory almost all the time. We all make assumptions and generalizations about certain things we are in contact with daily; thus we theorize.
Theories are logical constructions that explain natural phenomena. They are not in themselves always directly observable, but can be supported or refuted by empirical findings. Theory and empirical research are connected by means of hypotheses, which are testable propositions that are logically derived from theories. The testable part is very important because scientific hypotheses must be capable of being accepted or rejected.

Understanding Theory

Theories can be simple or complex, it depends on how relationships are made in formulating them. Theory can be fun, depending on how it is applied. If you spend the day in a shopping mall you can see how much fun theory can be. So why study theory? The truth of the matter is, we need theory in order to function, in order to better understand the world around us. Life would be pretty dull if we couldn't generalize or make assumptions about people and things. Most of our daily theories tend to be illogical and are a product of our own selective observation. Often we perceive what we want to perceive. Human behavior tends to be very complex, almost abstract. Theories on crime causation are complex, too. Most theories introduced here are from research, both past and present, on criminal behavior which reflects both systematic observation and very careful logic. Theories not only provide a framework for us to interpret the meanings of observed patterns but they help us to determine when these patterns are meaningful and when they are not.
I've decided to include an interdisciplinary approach toward studying criminological theory because we need to gather as much as possible from other theoretical interpretations in our overall understanding of crime. While my interest is mainly sociological, I've decided to include many biological and psychologial based interpretations. While many such theories are not in and of themselves specific to crime causation many of them focus on specific types of behavior which may be important to our overall understanding and application of general knowledge of crime.
All theories featured here are equal in importance in our study on crime. While it is true that some of these theories do not answer the questions we want them to answer, they are still important to our understanding of such phenomena.
Let us remember one thing. Some theories define a certain type of criminal behavior, whether it explains juvenile deliquency (such as the many control and subculture theories) or other criminality, it will be indicated what the theory set out to explain. While crime in and of itself is often regarded as a deviant activity, not all deviant activities are defined as crime. For example, people who suffer from mental disorders may be labeled or viewed as "deviant" but mental illness in and of itself is not criminal.
I have always been intrigued by social behavior, especially that which is defined as deviant or criminal. It is my hope that you enjoy theory as much as I do and seek to better understand it in your own everyday interaction.

Classical School
Classical criminology grew out of a reaction against the barbaric system of law, justice and punishment that was in existence before 1789. It sought an emphasis on free will and human rationality. The Classical School was not interested in studying criminals, but rather law-making and legal processing. Crime, they believed, was activity engaged in out of total free will and that individuals weighed the consequences of their actions. Punishment is made in order to deter people from committing crime and it should be greater than the pleasure of criminal gains. Classical theory emphasized a legal definition of crime rather than what defined criminal behavior. The Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution reflect the Classical movement, thus the law of today is classical in nature.
Two famous writers during this classical period were Cesare Beccaria (1738-1794) and Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832), both led the movement to human rights and free will. Becceria thought that crime could be traced to bad laws, not to bad people. A new modern criminal justice system would be needed to guarantee equal treatment of all people before the law. His famous book, On Crimes and Punishment presented a new design for the criminal justice system that served all people. His book dubbed him the "father of modern criminology."
Bentham's concern was upon utilitarianism which assumed the greatest happiness for the greatest number. He believed that individuals weigh the probabilities of present and future pleasures against those of present and future pain. Thus people acted as human calculators, he believed, and that they put all factors into a sort of mathematical equation to decide whether or not to commit an illegal act. He believed then that punishment should be just a bit in excess of the pleasures derived from an act and not any higher than that. The law exists to create happiness for all, thus since punishment creates unhappiness it can be justified if it prevents greater evil than it produces.
Positive School
Positivists, unlike the classical reformers, sought to explain the world around them. They saw behavior as determined by biological, psychological, and social traits. They focused on a deterministic view of the world, on criminal behavior instead of legal issues, and the prevention of crime through the treatment (or reformation) of offenders.
The use of scientific techniques was important to the positivists. Data was collected in order to explain different types of individuals and social phenomena. Naturalists and anthropologists formed the theory of evolution which was a very critical component to the study of human criminal behavior by the positivists. Humans were responsible for their own destinies.
The focus on positivism then is on systematic observations and the accumulation of evidence and objective fact within a deductive frame work, thus moving from a general statement to a more specific one.
Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909) replaced the notion of free will and rationality with the notion of determinism. Together with his followers, Enrico Ferri and Raffaele Garofalo, he developed the positivist school of criminology which sought explanations for criminal behavior through scientific research and experimentation. Lombroso believed in the "criminal born" man and woman. He believed they had physical features of ape like creatures that were not fully developed as humans were. Lombroso measured thousands of live and dead prisoners to prove his theory. He noted that criminals lacked moral sense, had an absence of remorse and used much slang. Lombroso later added social and economic factors to his list of crime causation but said they were second in nature to biological, predetermined factors. His theory however has been kept alive, not by agreement but by much criticism.



Chicago School
The theme of the Chicago school focused upon human behavior as determined by social and physical environmental factors, rather than genetic, personal characteristics. The school believed the community to be a major factor on human behavior and that the city functioned as a microcosm.
Researchers from this school developed empirical sociology, that is, studying humans in their natural environment rather than an armchair look at the social environment. Chicago theorists combined data, such as individual cases with population statistics which constructed an important foundation that has since been the basis for many criminological theories of today.
Members of this school focused upon the city of Chicago (hence the name) as a source for many answers to its probing questions. Many scholars of this time believed that urbanization and mobility into the city was a cause for many of the problems experienced at the time.
Crime was fostered mainly in the slums. Many unemployed people, male, female, young and old, became transients. A plethora of social problems emerged, ranging from poor sanitation, inadequate housing, juvenile gangs, vice, to name a few. People were no longer closely-knit, nor were communities familiar. Many had no one to turn to during these troubled times. Crime was mainly fostered in the slum areas, where many of the immigrants lived. People began to form their own support groups and gangs, which emphasized deviant values. All of this served as a laboratory for the new sociologists at the University of Chicago.
The school contributed two methods of study. The first was the usage of official data, such as census reports, housing/welfare records and crime figures. High areas of crime, truancy and poverty were applied to different geographical areas of the city. The second method was the life history, as first studied by early Chicago school theorist, W.I. Thomas. This contributed a shift away from theoretical abstracts to more concrete approaches of the real world and real world related phenomena. The process of becoming deviant or criminal was explained by psycho-social phenomena. They wanted to present human behavior in its natural environment, and this is why the Chicago School is often referred to as the Ecological School.
Further observations by researchers provided a clear analysis that the city was a place where life is superficial, where people are anonymous, where relationships are transitory and friendship and family bonds are weak. They saw the weakening of primary social relationships as leading to a process of social disorganization.
Chicago criminologists clearly saw pathology in the city which led to criminality. Much of the research conducted by Shaw and McKay illustrated this point. The Chicago School clearly stressed humans as social creatures and their behavior as a product of their social environment. The social environment provides values and definitions that govern behavior. Urbanization and industrialization break down older and more cohesive patterns of values, thus creating communities with competing norms and value systems. The breakdown of urban life results in basic institutions such as the family, friendships and other social groups to become so impersonal, almost anonymous. As values became fragmented, opposing definitions about proper behavior arise and come into conflict with other behavior. Disorganization is more prevalent in the center of the urbanized city, and decreases with distance. Thus, crime developed through frequent contact with criminal traditions, goals and values that have developed over a period of time in disorganized areas of the city.

Cohen & Felson's Routine Activities
Larry Cohen and Marcus Felson proposed their Routine Activities theory in 1979. It remained very popular in the 1980s. Their theory is closely linked with the Rational Choice perspective in that it focuses on the characteristics of crime rather than on the characteristics of the offender. Cohen and Felson argue that there will always be a vast supply of crime motivation and that such motivation and supply of offenders remains constant. They state that three crucial components are necessary for a predatory criminal act, that is, violent crimes against the person and crimes which an offender attempts to stael a direct object. These three elements include motivated offenders, suitable targets, (something worth taking), and the absence of capable guardians, in order to prevent would be criminal acts. If one such component is missing, crime is not likely to occur. If all three elements are present, then the chances for crime increase.
Cohen and Felson argue that the rate in which crime rises is equal to the number of suitable targets and the absence of individuals to protect those targets. The routine patterns of work, play, and leisure affect the convergence in time and place of the would be offenders, suitable targets, and absence of guardians, they argue. The number of caretakers, acting as guardians, who are at home during the day has decreased because of an increase participation of women into the work force. Homes are often left unguarded while both parents are at work and children are either in day care or at school. Also, the growth of suburban living and the decling rate of traditional neighborhoods has decreased the number of familiar guardians, such as family, neighbors, or friends. Finally, the baby boom generation coming of age during the years 1960 to 1980 resulted in an excess number of motivated offenders.
Routine Activities states that criminal offenses are related to the nature of everyday patterns of social interaction. Cohen and Felson used their approach to explain the rise in crime between the years 1960 to 1980. They were concerned with the changes occuring in society, which they believed led to social disorganization, which further led to crime opportunity. Their perspective shows that crime is not soley related to biological and psychological characteristics, nor to social or economic conditions, but that it is just as important to concentrate on situational factors which give rise to criminal opportunity. Routine Activities approach is important to crime prevention and to the changing of conditions and circumstances in which crime is committed.
One measure of situational crime prevention is target hardening. Target hardening makes it more difficult for offenders to carry out crimes on specific targets. The use of locked doors, windows, alarm systems, watch dogs, and community crime watch programs are all examples of target hardening--making it harder to become a victim of crime.

Sutherland's Differential Association
In 1939 Criminologist Edwin H. Sutherland proposed his theory of Differential Association in his Principles of Criminology textbook. His final version of the theory was revised in 1947. Differential Association theory states that criminal behavior is learned behavior and learned via social interaction with others. Sutherland relied heavily upon the work of Shaw and McKay, Chicago school theorists, in high rates of juvenile delinquency. Sutherland's theory of differential association still remains very popular among criminologists due to its less complex and more coherent approach to crime causation. It is also supported by much evidence.
Sutherland drew upon three major theories from the Chicago School in order to better formulate his theory. These included the ecological and cultural transmission theory, symbolic interactionism, and culture conflict. Varying crime rates were explained by the culture conflict approach and the process by which individuals became criminal was expressed by the symbolic interactionism approach. Thus, he formulated his theory with an attempt to explain not only individual criminal behavior but also those of societal groups.
A critique of criminology, written in 1933, by Jerome Michael and Mortimer J. Adler provided a major influence upon Sutherland's thinking, which set the stage for Differential Association. They argued that criminology failed to produce sound scientific evidence, had no coherent theories, and lacked standards. Sutherland set out to create such a theory, based on rigorous, sound scientific standards. The result was the birth of Differential Association. He had revised it at least three different times between the years 1939 and 1947.
Sutherland did not mean that mere association with criminals would lead to criminal behavior. What he meant was that the contents of patterns in association would differ from individual to individual. He viewed crime as a consequence of conflicting values. Differential association is a theory based on the social environment and its surrounding individuals and the values those individuals gain from significant others in their social environment.
Differential Association is based upon these nine postulates: 1. Criminal behavior is learned. 2. Criminal behavior is learned in interaction with others persons in a process of communication. 3. The principal part of the learning of criminal behavior occurs within intimate personal groups. 4. When criminal behavior is learned, the learning includes techniques of committing the crime, which are sometimes very complicated, sometimes simple and the specific direction of motives, drives, rationalizations, and attitudes. 5. The specific direction of motives and drives is learned from definitions of the legal codes as favorable or unfavorable. 6. A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of the law. 7. Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. 8. The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anticriminal patterns involves all of the mechanisms that are involved in any other learning. 9. While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and values, since non criminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values. According to Differential Association, criminal behavior is learned based on the interactions we have with others and the values that we receive during that interaction. We learn values from family, friends, coworkers, etc., Those values either support or oppose criminal behavior. Sutherland also noted that individuals with an excess of criminal definitions will be more open to new criminal definitions and that individual will be less receptive to anticriminal definitions. The theory does not emphasize who one's associates are but rather upon the definitions provided by those associations. Once techniques are learned, values (or definitions) supporting that criminal behavior may be learned from just about anyone. Sutherland's Differential Association has received both praise and criticism, mainly upon how it is interpreted. For instance, it doesn't specifically answer why everyone in contact with an excess of criminal behavior patterns doesn't become criminal. However, the answer is simple because Sutherland did not tell us that individuals become criminal by associating with other criminals but rather he tells us that a person becomes delinquent because of an "excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of the law". The key word is definitions. Differential Association also fails to tell us HOW the first criminal became a criminal. Despite some criticisms, the theory has had an important impact on criminology. Other social learning theories, have been based upon Differential Association.

Social Disorganization
The growth of cultural relativity, that is, the view that cultures are not better or worse than one another, but simply different, in sociology led to a questioning of the existence of a universal set of values. The pronounced social changes following World War I and the Great Depression, included immigration, urbanization, and industrialization into the U.S. The crowding of large cities and the cultural diversity within them led to a huge urban development, which was conducive to deviance. An explanation was needed to sort out and understand this new phenomena. The concept of Social Disorganization is largely associated with the "Chicago School" of sociology and was based on the work of W.I. Thomas and Florian Znaniecki as well as Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay, to name a few. Thus, the term social disorganization refers to both an explanation of deviance and a state of society that produces it. It was the result of intellectual development that had taken place since 1910 in Sociology. It rooted its explanation of deviance in social norms and community activities.
Crime was seen as a product of uneven development in society, with change and conflict which affects the behavior of those within it. This theory emphasized that society was organized when people are presumed to have developed agreement about fundamental values and norms, with behavioral regularity. Social organization, or social order, exists when there is a high degree of internal bonding to individuals and institutions in a conventional society. This cohesion consists largely of agreement about goals that are worth striving for and how to behave and how to not behave. Simply put, social disorganization is social disorder.
It was believed that social organization involved an integration of customs, teamwork, high morale, and bonding. This led to harmonious social relationships. Such a group showed solidarity and homogeneous and traditional behavior. Social disorganization theorists believe social disorganization existed in much of city life. They made such a relationship almost unmistakable. They used the city as their laboratory in which they studied deviance and crime. They concentrated their research on disorganized local areas, slums or inner-city areas of high crime, prostitution, suicide and other deviant forms of behavior. Thus, in their theoretical framework, social patterns of the urban environment produced social disorganization, which led to crime and deviance.
Thomas and Znaniecki compared the conditions immigrants had left in Poland with those they found in Chicago. They also studied the assimilation of Polish immigrants. They found that older immigrants were not very much affected by the move, due to managing to continue living as peasants, even in the urban slums. The younger generation did not grow up on these Polish farms and thus were city dwellers. They had very little traditions of the Old World and were not assimilated into the new ones. The rates of crime and delinquency started to rise and Thomas and Znaniecki attributed this to social disorganization, which they defined as the breakdown of effective social bonds, family and neighborhood associations, as well as social controls in the community. Their study influenced others to come.
Robert Park and Ernest Burgess introduced an ecological analysis of crime causation. Ecology is the study of animals and plants and how they relate to one another in their natural habitat. Park and Burgess then examined area characteristics instead of criminals for their explanations of high crime. They developed the idea of natural urban areas, which consisted of concentric zones which extended out from downtown central business district to the commuter zone at the fringes of the city. Each zone had its own structure and organization, characteristics and unique inhabitants. This had been known Burgess' Concentric Zone Theory.
Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay were researchers at the Chicago's Institute for Juvenile Research and maintained a close relationship with Chicago's Sociology department. They were interested in Park and Burgess's conception of the "natural urban area" of Chicago and used this model to investigate the relationship between crime rates--mainly delinquency--and the various zones of Chicago. They found that the crime rate was distributed throughout the city, delinquency occurred in the areas nearest to the business district, that some areas suffered from high consistent delinquency rates no matter the makeup of the population, that high delinquency areas were characterized by a high percentage of immigrants, non-whites, lower income famines, and finally, and that high-delinquency areas had an acceptance of nonconventional norms, which competed with conventional ones. They collected their data from over 56,000 juvenile court records with covered a period of time from 1900-1933.
However, there were problems with the concept of social disorganization and these problems are what contributed to its decline. First, it confused cause and effect. That is, it described community factors related to crime and deviance, but it must be able to distinguish the consequences of crime from disorganization itself; it didn't. Many early social disorganization theorists were not careful in clarifying the concept of disorganization. Second, social disorganization was rather subjective and judgmental, all the while pretending to be objective. Observers failed to free themselves from biases and placed their own value judgments on behaviors. Third, it tried to explain crime as an almost entirely lower-class phenomena, and in no way included middle and upper-class deviance and crime rates. Thus, it was biased, in that it favored middle-class standards. Those in the lower strata were assumed to have higher levels of crime rates because their members lived in the most socially disorganized areas of the city. Fourth, social change was often confused with social disorganization, and little attention was paid to explain why some social changes were disorganized and why others were organized. Finally, what is disorganized? At some times, things may seem like disorganization but at other times, they may be highly organized systems of competing norms and values. The concept produces a bit of ambiguity.
Durkheim's Anomie
Emile Durkheim, a French sociologist, introduced the concept of anomie in his book The Division of Labor in Society, published in 1893. He used anomie to describe a condition of deregulation that was occuring in society. This meant that rules on how people ought to behave with each other were breaking down and thus people did not know what to expect from one another. Anomie, simply defined, is a state where norms (expectations on behaviors) are confused, unclear or not present. It is normlessness, Durkheim felt, that led to deviant behavior. In 1897, Durkheim used the term again in his study on Suicide, referring to a morally deregulated condition. Durkheim was preoccupied with the effects of social change. He best illustrated his concept of anomie not in a discussion of crime but of suicide.
In The Division of Labor in Society, Durkheim proposed two concepts. First, that societies evolved from a simple, nonspecialized form, called mechanical, toward a highly complex, specialized form, called organic. In the former society people behave and think alike and more or less perfom the same work tasks and have the same group-oriented goals. When societies become more complex, or organic, work also becomes more complex. In this society, people are no longer tied to one another and social bonds are impersonal.
Anomie thus refers to a breakdown of social norms and it a condition where norms no longer control the activities of members in society. Individuals cannot find their place in society without clear rules to help guide them. Changing conditions as well as adjustment of life leads to dissatisfaction, conflict, and deviance. He observed that social periods of disruption (economic depression, for instance) brought about greater anomie and higher rates of crime, suicide, and deviance.
Durkheim felt that sudden change caused a state of anomie. The system breaks down, either during a great prosperity or a great depression, anomie is the same result.

Merton's Strain Theory
Robert K. Merton, an American sociologist, borrowed Durkheim's concept of anomie to form his own theory, called Strain Theory. It differs somewhat from Durkheim's in that Merton argued that the real problem 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 behavior. Deviance then is a symptom of the social structure. Merton borrowed Durkheim's notion of anomie to describe the breakdown of the normative system.
Merton's theory does not focus upon crime persay, but rather upon various acts of deviance, which may be understood to lead to criminal behavior. Merton notes that there are certain goals which are strongly emphasized by society. Society emphasizes certain means to reach those goals (such as education, hard work, etc.,) However, not everyone has the equal access to the legitimate means to attain those goals. The stage then is set for anomie/strain.
Merton presents five modes of adapting to strain caused by the restricted access to socially approved goals and means. He did not mean that everyone who was denied access to society's goals became deviant. Rather the response, or modes of adaptation, depend on the individual's attitudes toward cultural goals and the institutional means to attain them. The conformist is the most common mode of adaptation. Such individuals accept both the goals as well as the prescribed means for achieving the goal. Conformists will accept, though not always achieve, the goals of society and the means approved for achieving them. Innovators accept societal goals but have few legitimate means to achieve those goals, thus they innovate (design) their own means to get ahead. The means to get ahead may be through robbery, embezzlement or other such criminal acts. Ritualists, the third adaptation, abandon the goals they once believed to be within their reach and thus dedicate themselves to their current lifestyle. They play by the rules and have a daily, safe routine. Retreatists, the fourth fifth adaptation is given to those who give up not only the goals but also the means. They often retreat into the world of alcoholism and drug addiction. These individuals escape into a nonproductive, nonstriving lifestyle. The final adaptation, that of rebel, occurs when the cultural goals and the legitimate means are rejected. Individuals create their own goals and their own means, by protest or revolutionary activity.
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center>


Agnew's General Strain Theory
In the mid 70s, strain theory came under heavy attack after having dominated deviance research in the decade of the 60s, prompting that it become abandoned. However, since that time, strain theory has survived such attacks, but has left behind a diminished influence. In 1992, Robert Agnew proposed a general strain theory that focuses on at least three measures of strain. He argues that actual or anticipated failure to achieve postively valued goals, actual or anticipated removel of positively valued stimuli, and actual or anticipated presentation of negative stimuli all result in strain.
Agnew's strain theory focuses primarily on negative relationships with others, in that a person is not treated in a way that he or she expects or wants to be treated. He argues that people are pressured into criminal or deviant acts by negative affective states, such as anger, which results in negative relationships. Such a negative affect leads to pressure which then leads to illegitimate ways to attain a goal. Other strain theories explain strain in a way that relationships with others prevent one from reaching positively valued goals. They focus primarily on goal blockage, that which is often experienced by the middle or lower classes.
Agnew argues that strain theory is central in explaining crime and deviance, but that it needs more revision to play such a central role in sociology. His theory is written at a social-psychological level so that it focuses on an individual's immediate social environment. Much of the theory is focused toward adolescent criminality--delinquency, because so much of the data available for testing involves surveys of adolescents. He argues that his theory is capable of overcoming empirical and theoretical criticisms associated with previous versions of strain theory.
Agnew suggests that criminologists pay special attention to the magnitude, recency, duration, and clustering of such strainful events. He spells out that several cognitive, emotional, and behavioral adaptions to strain receive little or not attention. He proposes a series of factors that determine whether a person will cope with strain in a criminal or conforming manner, including temperament, intelligence, interpersonal skills, self-efficacy, association with criminal peers, and conventional social support.
Overview of Subculture Theories
In criminology, subcultures theories emerged as a way to account for delinquency rates among lower-class males, of these the infamous teenage gang. Subculture theories believe that the delinquent subcultures emerged in response to the special problems that the members of mainstream society do not face.
The strain theorists explained crime as a result of frustrations suffered by lower-class individuals deprived of legitimate means to reach their goals. Cultural deviance theories assumed that people became deviant by learning the criminal values of the group to which they belonged to. This laid down the foundation for subculture theories during the 1950s.
A subculture is defined as a subdivision within the dominant culture that has its own norms, values and belief system. These subcultures emerge when individuals in similar circumstances find themselves virtually isolated or neglected by mainstream society. Thus they group together for mutual support. Subcultures exist within the larger society, not apart from it. The members of the subculture are different from the dominant culture.
The subculture theories we will look at are extensions of strain, social disorganization and differential association theories. Subculture theories help to explain why subcultures emerge (extension of strain), why they take a particular shape (extension of social disorganization), and why they continue from one generation to another (extension of differential association).
For instance, Marvin Wolfgang and Franco Ferracuti's Subculture of Violence thesis argues that the value system of some subcultures not only demands but also expects violence in certain social situations. It is this norm which affects daily behavior that is in conflict with the conventional society. Here we will explain the subculture theories proposed by Albert Cohen, (Subculture of Delinquency), Richard Cloward & Lloyd Ohlin (Differential Opportunity), Walter Miller (Lower-Class Focal Concerns) and Marvin Wolfgang & Franco Ferracuti (Subculture of Violence).
To better understand and appreciate subculture theories one must first probe into the historical time period of the 1950s. The values of the middle class were dominant and anything else was not considered normal.
Peaking urbanization produced more and more deteriorated cities in America. The suburbs of the middle class were emerging. Delinquency was mainly perceived as a problem of the lower class. The middle class "we-they" separation led to seeing itself as the far superior class.


Cohen's Subculture of Delinquency Theory
In 1955 Albert K. Cohen wrote Delinquent Boys. He attempted to look at how such a subculture began. Cohen found that delinquency among youths was more prevalent among lower class males and the most common form of this was the juvenile gang. Cohen, a student of Sutherland and Merton, learned from Sutherland that differential association and cultural transmission of criminal norms led to criminal behavior, while Merton taught him about structurally induced strain.
Delinquent subcultures, according to Cohen, have values that are in opposition to those of the dominant culture. These subcultures emerge in the slums of some of the nation's largest cities. Often, they are rooted in class differentials, parental aspirations and school standards. Cohen notes that the position of one's family in the social structure determines the problems the child will later face in life. Thus, they will experience status frustration and strain and adapt into either a corner boy, college boy, or a delinquent boy.
Corner boys lead a conventional lifestyle, making the best of a bad situation. They spend most of their time with peers and receive peer support in group activities. These boys are far and few between. Their chances for success are limited. Cohen argues that their academic and social handicaps prevent them from living up to middle-class standards.
Delinquent boys, on the other hand, band together to define status. Their delinquent acts serve no real purpose. They often discard or destroy what they have stolen. Their acts are random and are directed at people and property. They are a short-run hedonistic subculture with no planning. They often act on impulse, often without consideration for the future. Members are loyal to one another and allow no one to restrain their behavior.
Stealing, in the delinquent gang, serves as a form of achieving peer status within the group, with no other motive. Cohen declared that all children seek social status, but not everyone can compete for it in the same way. Reaction-formation, a Freudian defense mechanism, serves to overcome anxiety, as a hostile overreaction to middle class values can occur. A delinquent subculture is created to resolve problems of lower-class status.
Much of Cohen's work has been both praised and criticized. It helps to answer questions that remain unresolved by strain and cultural deviance theories. His notion of status deprivation and the middle-class measuring rod has been very useful to researchers. His theory, however, fails to explain why some delinquent subcultures eventually become law-abiding, even when this social class position is fixed. Later, he expanded his theory to include not only lower-class delinquents but also variants of middle-class delinquents and female delinquent subcultures. Cohen's theory stimulated later formations of new theories.

Cloward & Ohlin's
Differential Opportunity Theory
In 1959, Richard Cloward noted that Merton's anomie theory specified only one structure of opportunity. He, however, argued for two and not one. He thus proposed that there are also illegitimate avenues of structure, in addition to legitimate ones. In 1960 he and Lloyd Ohlin worked together and proposed a theory of delinquent gngs known as Differential Opportunity Theory. This theory, like Cohen's theory, combines the strain, differential association as well as the social disorganization perspectives.
Delinquent subcultures, according to Cloward and Ohlin, flourish in the lower-classes and take particular forms so that the means for illegitimate success are no more equally distributed than the means for legitimate success.
They argue that the types of criminal subcultures that flourish depend on the area in which they develop. They propose three types of delinquent gangs. The first, the criminal gang, emerge in areas where conventional as well as non conventional values of behavior are integrated by a close connection of illegitimate and legitimate businesses. This type of gang is stable than the ones to follow. Older criminals serve as role models and they teach necessary criminal skills to the youngsters. The second type, the conflict or violent gang, is non stable and non integrated, where there is an absence of criminal organization resulting in instability. This gang aims to find a reputation for toughness and destructive violence. The third and final type, the retreatist gang, is equally unsuccessful in legitimate as well as illegitimate means. They are known as double failures, thus retreating into a world of sex, drugs, and alcohol. Cloward and Ohlin further state that the varying form of delinquent subcultures depended upon the degree of integration that was present in the community.


Miller's Lower-Class Focal Concerns
Walter Miller didn't see juvenile delinquency as being rooted in the rejection of the middle-class value system, as did other subculture theorists, but in the value system of the lower class. It is this value system that generates delinquent acts. This value system emerged as a response to living in the slums.
Miller was an anthropologist who was familiar with enthnography. Having closely studied the lower class areas in Boston, in 1955, he came up with his own conclusions, and thus his Lower-Class Focal Concerns theory. He saw society as composed of different social groups. Each group had its own subculture. He used the concept of focal concerns, and not value, to further describe things that were important to the subculture. These "focal concerns" are important aspects in the subculture and require constant attention and care.
Miller identified six focal concerns to which the lower class give attention to. The concern over trouble is a major feature of the lower class. Getting into trobule and staying out of trouble are very important daily preoccupations. Trouble can either mean prestige or landing in jail. Toughness, another concern, further represents a commitment to law-violation and being a problem to others. Machismo and being daring is stressed. The third focal concern is that of smartness. It is the ability to gain something by outsmarting or conning another. Prestige is often the reward for those demonstrating such skills. Another focal concern is excitement. Living on the edge for thrills and doing dangerous things as well as taking risks is a crucial concern. Another focal concern is that of fate. It is a crucial concern to the lower class. many believe that their lives are subject to forces outside of their control. The last focal concern focuses upon automony. This signifies being independant, not relying on others and rejecting authority.
Miller further observed that an absence of a father in a young boy's life posed a problem for learning appropriate male behavior. This served as a device for gangs to accomodate the problem faced by young males who had no presence of a father figure. Miller's theory has however received mixed reviews. Many say that he disregarded the fact that many lower class people actually do conform to societal norms.

Overview of Labeling Theories A group of labeling theorists began exploring how and why certain acts were defined as criminal or deviant and why other such acts were not. They questioned how and why certain people thus became defined as criminal or deviant. Such theorists viewed crimnals not as evil persons who engaged in wrong acts but as individuals who had a criminal status placed upon them by both the criminal justice system and the community at large. From this point of view, criminal acts thus themselves are not significant, it is the social reaction to them that are. Deviance and its control then involves a process of social definition which involves the response from others to an individual's behavior which is key to how an individual views himself. To make this point, let's briefly examine a crucial point made by sociologist Howard S. Becker, in 1963. "Deviance is not a quality of the act the person commits, but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an offender. The deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied; deviant behavior is behavior that people so label." Labeling theory focuses on the reaction of other people and the subsequent effects of those reactions which create deviance. When it becomes known that a person has engaged in deviant acts, she or he is then segregated from society and thus labeled, "whore," theif," "abuser," "junkie," and the like. Becker noted that this process of segregation creates "outsiders", who are outcast from society, and then begin to associate with other individuals who have also been cast out. When more and more people begin to think of these individuals as deviants, they respond to them as such; thus the deviant reacts to such a response by continuing to engage in the behavior society now expects from them.
.




Howard Becker’s Developmental Career Model
Howard Becker’s developmental career model is a social-process approach. Becker argues that deviance exists in the eye of the beholder, much like beauty. He stresses that no act is intrinsically deviant, but must be defined as such. Becker’s notion of a developmental process is that it precedes the attainment of a deviant identity or career. He uses the process of becoming a marijuana user as an unfolding sequence of steps that lead one to a commitment and participation in a deviant career. He argues that such an identity occurs over time, having both a historical and longitudinal course. In his example, for instance, the person must have access to the drug; must experiment with the drug; the person must continue to use the drug. Each of these steps involves some subtle changes in the person’s attitude and perspective, as well as their behavior, he argues. “The circumstances that determine movement along a particular path includes properties of both the person and of the situation,” he states.

Overview of Social Control Theories
Theories of social control focus on the strategies and techniques which help regulate human behavior and thus lead to conformity and compliance of the rules of society, including the influences of family, school, morals, values, beliefs, etc.,
Does existence of rules guarantee peaceful existence of the group? Who is to ensure compliance with such rules? Social control theorists are out to study such questions. They are interested in learning why people conform to norms, they ask why people conform in the face of so much temptation, peer pressure, and inducement. Juveniles and adults conform to the law in response to certain controlling forces which are present in their lives. Thus, they are likely to become criminal when the controlling forces in their lives are defective or absent.
Social control theorists argue that the more involved and committed a person is to conventional activities, the greater the attachment to others (such as family and friends), the less likely that a person is to violate the rules of society.
Social control has its roots in the early part of this century in the work of sociologist E.A. Ross. Ross believed that belief systems, not specific laws, guide what individuals do and this serves to control behavior, no matter the forms that beliefs may take.
Social control is often seen as all-encompassing, practically representing any phenomenon leading to conformity, which leads to norms. Others see social control as a broad representation of regulated mechanisms placed upon society's members. In other words, social control regards what is to be considered deviant, violations of the law, right or wrong. Social control mechanisms can be adopted as laws, norms, mores, ethics, etiquette, and customs, which all control and thus define behavior.
Social control theory is viewed from two perspectives. The macrosocial perspective explores formal control systems for the control of groups, including the legal system such as laws, law enforcement, powerful groups in society (who can help influence laws and norms) and economic and social directives of government or private organizations. Such controls can serve to be either positive or negative.
On the other hand, the microsocial perspective focuses on informal control systems, which help to explain why individuals conform. It also considers the source of control to be external, that is, outside of the person.
We will focus on microsocial views of social control while examining the theories of Travis Hirshi (Social Bonds) and Gresham Sykes and David Matza's Techniques of Neutralization (Drift Theory). Walter Reckless' Containment Theory is also included here are a theory of social control, although we can also consider it a self-concept approach.





Walter Reckless' Containment Theory
In 1961 sociologist Walter C. Reckless proposed Containment Theory, which explains delinquency as the interplay between two forms of control known as inner (internal) and outer (external) containments. Containment theory assumes that for every individual a containing external structure as well as a protective internal structure exist. Both buffer, protect, and insulate an individual against delinquency. Reckless wanted his theory to explain not only delinquency, but also conformity.
Containment theory shows that society produces a series of pulls and pushes toward the phenomenon of delinquency. It suggests that these inner and outer containments help to buffer against one's potential deviation from legal and social norms and work to insulate a youth from the pressures, pulls, and pushes of deviant influences.
Of the two, Reckless suggested that inner containments are more important. It is these inner containments, he argued, that form one's support system. The stronger one's inner containments, the least likely one would commit crime; the weaker one's inner containments, the more prone to crime one would become.
Inner containments, simply put, are "self" components. They are the inner strength of one's personality. These include a good self-concept, strong ego, well developed conscience, high sense of responsibility, and high frustration tolerance. Outer containments refer to one's social environment. These are normative constraints in which society and groups use to control its members. Outer containments include belonging (identification with the group), effective supervision, cohesion among group members (togetherness), opportunities for achievement, reasonable limits and responsibilities, alternative ways and means of satisfaction (if one more more ways are closed), reinforcement of goals, norms values, and discipline.
Internal pushes are personal factors which include restlessness, discontent, rebellion, anxiety, and hostility. External pulls include deviant peers, membership in a deviant/criminal gang, and pornography. Finally, external pressures refer to the adverse living conditions which give rise to crime. These include relative deprivation, poverty, unemployment, insecurity, and inequality.



Travis Hirschi's Social Bond Theory
Travis Hirschi took his theory to a different approach. He didn't attempt to explain why individuals engage in criminal acts, but rather why individuals choose to conform to conventional norms. It is, in a strict sense, not a theory of crime causation, but rather a theory of prosocial behavior used so often by sociologists and criminologists to better explain deviance and criminality.
In 1969 Travis Hirschi presented four social bonds which promote socialization and conformity. These include attachment, commitment, involvement and belief. He claimed that the stronger these four bonds, the least likely one would become delinquent. Hirschi first assumes that everyone has potential to become delinquent and criminal and it is social controls, not moral values, that maintain law and order. Without controls, he argues, one is free to commit criminal acts.
Hirschi further assumes that a consistent value system exists and all of society is thus exposed to such a system. Moral codes are then defied by delinquents because their attachment to society is weak. While Sykes and Matza believe that delinquents share the same values and attitudes as non delinquents, Hirschi views delinquents as rejecting such social norms and beliefs.
The first bond, attachment, refers to one's interest in others. One's acceptance of social norms and the development of social conscious depend on attachment for other human beings. Hirschi views parents, schools, and peers as important social institutions for a person. Attachment takes three forms--attachment to parents, to school, and to peers. While examining attachment to parents Hirschi found that juveniles refrain from delinquency due to the consequences that the act would most likely produce, therefore putting such a relationship between parent and child in jeopardy. In some respect, can argue that this acts as a primary deterrent to engaging in delinquency. Strength, however, in such a deterrent would largely depend on the depth and quality of the parent-child interaction. The amount of time child and parent spend together are equally important, including intimacy in conversation and identification that may exist between parent and child. While examining the bond with school, Hirschi found that an inability to do well in school is linked with delinquency, through a series of chain events. He argued that academic incompetence leads to poor school performance, which leads to a dislike of school, which leads to rejection of teachers and authority, which results in acts of delinquency. He argued that one's attachment to school depends on how one appreciates the institution and how he/she is received by fellow peers and teachers. Hirschi also noted that he found that one's attachment to parents and school overshadows the bond formed with one's peers.
The second bond is that of commitment and it involves time, energy, and effort placed on conventional lines of action. In other words, the support of and equal partaking in social activities tie an individual to the moral and ethical code of society. Hirschi's control theory holds that people who build an investment in life, property, and reputation are less likely to engage in criminal acts which will jeopardize their social position. A lack of commitment to such conventional values will cause an individual to partake in delinquent or criminal acts.
The third bond is involvement. This addresses a preoccupation in activites which stress the conventional interests of society. Hirschi argues that an individual's heavy involvement in conventional activities doesn't leave time to engage in delinquent or criminal acts. He believes that involvement in school, family, recreation, etc., insulates a juvenile from potential delinquent behavior that may be a result of idleness.
The final bond is that of belief and it deals with assents to society's value system--which entails respect for laws, and the people and institutions which enforce such laws. Hirschi argued that people who live in common social settings share similar human values. If such beliefs are weakened, or absent, one is more likely to engage in antisocial acts. Also, if people believe that laws are unfair, this bond to society weakens and the likelihood of committing delinquent acts rises.
Even with its weaknesses, Hirschi's theory held a position of importance in criminology for several decades. More than anything, social control theorists want to explain delinquency, not adult crime persay. However, since the characteristics of the theory are found present in adolsecents, they are also present in postadolescent behavior, argues one critic. Hirschi's theory remains silent on this analysis. Many other critics have faulted Hirschi's work because he used too few questionnaire items to measure social bonds. He failed to describe the chain of events that result in inadequate social bonds. There was also a creation of an artifical division of socialized verses unsocialized youths. Finally, Hirschi's theory explains no more than 50 percent of delinquent behavior and only a 1-2 percent difference in future delinquency, while it is supposed to explain why delinquency occurs.



Sykes and Matza's
Techniques of Neutralization
In the 1960s David Matza, and his associate Gresham Sykes, developed a different perspective on social control which explains why some delinquents drift in and out of delinquency. Neutralization Theory, or Drift theory as it is often called, proposed that juveniles sense a moral obligation to be bound by the law. Such a bind between a person and the law remains in place most of the time, they argue. When it is not in place, delinquents will drift.
According to Sykes and Matza, delinquents hold values, beliefs, and attitudes very similar to those of law-abiding citizens. In fact, they feel obligated to be bound by law. Then, if bound by law, how can they justify their delinquent activities? The answer is that they learn "techniques" which enable them to "neutralize" such values and attitudes temporarily and thus drift back and forth between legitimate and illegitimate behaviors. They maintain that at times delinquents participate in conventional activities and shun such activity while engaging in criminal acts. Such a theory proposes that delinquents disregard controlling influences of rules and values and use these techniques of neutralization to "weaken" the hold society places over them. In other words, these techniques act as defense mechanisms that release the delinquent from the constraints associated with moral order.
In Delinquency and Drift (1964), David Matza suggested that people live their lives on a continuum somewhere between total freedom and total restraint. The process by which a person moves from one extreme of behavior to another extreme is called drift, and this is the very foundation of his theory.
Along with Sykes, Matza rejected the notion that subcultures of delinquency maintain an independent set of values than the dominant culture. They hold that delinquents actually do appreciate culturally held goals and expectations of the middle-class, but feel that engaging in such behavior would be frowned upon by their peers. Such beliefs remain almost unconscious, or subterranean, because delinquents fear expressing such beliefs to peers.
Techniques of Neutralization suggest that delinquents develop a special set of justifications for their behavior when such behavior violates social norms. Such techniques allow delinquents to neutralize and temporarily suspend their commitment to societal values, providing them with the freedom to commit delinquent acts.
Sykes and Matza's theoretical model is based on the following four observations. 1. Delinquents express guilt over their illegal acts. 2. Delinquents frequently respect and admire honest, law-abiding individuals. 3. A line is drawn between those whom they can victimize and those they cannot. 4. Delinquents are not immune to the demands of conformity. Thus, Sykes and Matza propose the five Techniques of Neutralization. Denial of responsibility. Delinquent will propose that he/she is a victim of circumstance and that he/she is pushed or pulled into situations beyond his/her control. ("It wasn't my fault!") Denial of injury. Delinquent supposes that his/her acts really do not cause any harm, or that the victim can afford the loss or damage. ("Why is everyone making a big deal about it; they have money!") Denial of the victim. Delinquent views the act as not being wrong, that the victim deserves the injury, or that there is no real victim. ("They had it coming to them!") Condemnation of the condemners. Condemners are seen as hypocrites, or are reacting out of personal spite, thus they shift the blame to others, being able to repress the feeling that their acts are wrong. ("They probably did worse things in their day!") Appeal to higher loyalties. The rules of society often take a back seat to the demands and loyalty to important others. ("My friends depended on me, what was I going to do?!") Sykes and Matza further argued that these neutralizations are available not just to delinquents but they can be found throughout society. Attempts have been made over the years to verify the assumptions made by Neutralization Theory, and the results have, thus far, been inconclusive. Studies have indicated that delinquents approve of social values, while others do not. Other studies indicate that delinquents approve of criminal behavior, while others seem to oppose it. Neutralization Theory, however, remains an important contribution to the field of crime and delinquency. Social bond theorist, Travis Hirschi, asked an important question: do delinquents neutralize law-violating behavior before or after they commit an act? Neutralization theory loses its credibility as a theory which explains the cause of delinquency if juveniles use techniques of neutralization before the commission of a delinquent deed and therefore becomes a theory which simply describes reactions that juveniles incur due to their misdeeds. The theory does fail on the account that it doesn't clearly distinguish why some youths drift into delinquency and others do not. The theory remains too abstract and vauge to be of any practical use unless we understand why drift occurs, critics have argued.

Sociology of Deviant Behavior Lecture Notes

Robert Keel, Instructor

Part 1

• What is Deviance?
• Defining Deviance
• Theories of Deviance: Demonic and Classical
• Theories of Deviance: Positivism
• Theories of Deviance: Biological and Psychological
• Theories of Deviance: Social
• Durkheim: Suicide and Anomie

Part 2

• Theories of Deviance and The Social Context: Functionalism
• Theories of Deviance: Social Disorganization and Control
• Theories of Deviance: Structural Strain
• Theories of Deviance: Subcultural
• Theories of Deviance: Social Learning
• Theories of Deviance and The Social Context: Labeling and Ethnomethodology
• Theories of Deviance and The Social Context: Conflict Theories
• Theories of Deviance and The Social Context: Feminism
• Theories of Deviance and The Social Context: The Sociology of Social Control-Structuralism

Part 3

• Researching Deviance
• Economic Crimes
• Violence
• White Collar Crime
• Drug and Alcohol Use

Part 4

• Heterosexual Deviance
• Homosexuality and Deviance
• Mental Disorder
• Cognitive Deviance
• Physical Characteristics as Deviance

The information contained in these lecture notes derives from a wide variety of sources, yet the assigned texts: Erich Goode, "Deviant Behavior" 7th edition and Henry Pontell (ed.) "Social Deviance" 3rd, 4th, and 5th editions, are the primary sources. Ideas for the notes on theories of deviance draw extensively from Stephen Pfohl, "Images of Deviance and Social Control: A Sociological History" (McGraw-Hill, 1994). For further documentation and/or sources on specific information contained in these notes, please contact Mr. Keel. Back to the top.

Introduction to the Sociology of Deviance WHAT IS DEVIANCE? WHO IS DEVIANT? THE PROBLEM: SOCIAL ORDER Otherness, Order and Social Control: (The following section is based on my reading and paraphrasing of the work of Stephen Phofl: Images of Deviance and Social Control: A Sociological History, McGraw-Hill, 1994.)
We perceive and understand the physical and social world based on a shared sense of order (predictability): the meanings we attach to people, things, and actions. "Otherness" (differentness) challenges our assumptions, our taken-for-granted sense of normalcy and naturalness

• At a basic "gut" level it calls into question our basic beliefs and ideas: It threatens us.
• At a social level it challenges the social order: the existing web of relationships, values, reality and meaning

Some form of Control is necessary to help maintain Order:

• Internal/socialization.
• External: a system of norms, sanctions and enforcement.

Deviance is problematic, yet essential and intrinsic to any conception of Social Order. It is problematic because it disrupts; it is essential because it defines the confines of our shared reality; and it is intrinsic to a conception of order in that defining what is real and expected, defining what is acceptable, and defining who we are- always is done in opposition to what is unreal, unexpected, unacceptable, and who we are not ("We defines They"). If we can accept the reality of change, then designations of deviance are crucial in locating the shifting boundaries of our socially structured reality.
And, when we define someone or some group as deviant- we strengthen our own position and simplify our response to the "other": ignore, expunge, destroy, or rehabilitate them. We convince ourselves of our own normalcy by condemning and controlling those who disagree. Deviance is a phenomenon situated in power: Winners are the good and the normal; Losers are the sick, the crazy, the evil (and they often accept the "label").
Deviance, therefore, exists in opposition to those who attempt to control it-- to those who have:

Power.

Winners: Organize social life
Losers: Are controlled (executed, shamed, jailed, hospitalized, cared for). They are just not treated as NORMAL. They are STIGMATIZED.

Deviance is not a matter of the cost or consequences of a particular behavior, or the behavior itself. Deviance is a label (PROCESS) used to maintain the power, control, and position of a dominant group.

Deviance is a negotiated order. Deviance violates some groups assumptions about reality (social order). It violates expectations. The definition of deviance defines the threat and allows for containment and control of the threat. The definition of deviance preserves, protects, and defines group interests and in doing so maintains a sense of normalcy. Deviance is a product of Social Interaction.

Interaction: Act itself, Actors, Observers, Rules and Rule Enforcers

• What are the rules (norms)?: Situational and social
• Who makes the rules?: Power
• Who enforces the rules?: Organizational and individual interests
• Who breaks the rules?

Howard Becker: "Moral Entrepreneurs: The creation and Enforcement of Deviant Categories" (in Pontell, 2005)

Who makes the rules? Moral entrepreneurs:

Crusading Reformers

• A mission: personal or social.
• New rules-- New deviance.
• Paternalism ("help the less fortunate," add to their own power).
• Concern with the rule itself- Ends vs. Means: Reliance upon "experts" (lawyers, doctors, etc.).
• Experts bring own interests into play: modifies the original intent of the crusader.

Rule Enforcers

• Once a new rule (law): Then institutionalization- an Agency (police, FBN, etc)
• Agency's interest and motives? Detachment- not concerned with the content of the rule, but with enforcement: The rule is a JOB.
• Need to continue to maintain justification for the existence of the JOB: Crime is increasing at a decreasing rate.
• Day to day reality: Need for maintenance of position on the street. Respect.
• Official deviance often becomes, not rule breaking, but lack of respect for rule enforcer.
  • Demeanor
  • Discretion
  • The "Fix": 'Amateurs get caught'
  • Enforcers have little stake in the content of the rule, they often develop their own evaluation of the importance of the rule in light of the contingencies of their daily activities.

Enforcers and Creators: Often at odds==> Leads to a new crusade. Deviance "re-loaded."

Gary Marx: "Ironies of Social Control" (in Pontell, 2005)

• Deviance and social interaction: Reactions to deviance change the shape of deviance.
• Not just "secondary deviance," but in the course of attempts to control rule enforcers give new meaning to the reality of deviance- foster "Primary Deviance."

• Escalation:
  1. Increase frequency, seriousness (high speed chase, runaway->probation->new violation->delinquent)
  2. new categories(carjacking)
  3. increases skill level of 'criminal'
  4. violations linked to enforcement ("buy money," 'scared straight,' "the usual suspects")
• Non-Enforcement
• Covert Facilitation

Robert Scott: "The Making of Blind Men" (in Pontell, 1993)

• The problem of blindness does not stem from preconceptions about blindness, it is an effect of introducing the factor of blindness into interaction: Strained Interaction
• The Socialization of the Blind
  1. Stereotypes the sighted have: Blindness as "Master Status"
  2. Stigma
  3. Ambiguity and communication problems
  4. Disrupted interaction"Confirms" status and stigma:"Looking-Glass-Self"
  5. Further problem: Social Dependency- Power and Social Exchange

• 1 and 2: force the blind to recognize their 'differentness' and creates a social identity that is either accepted or rejected by the blind (in either case they are forced into responding to the stigma, and "becoming" a "Self" based on their response. This imposes uniform behavioral patterns on the blind, which in turn feed the stereotypes........
• 3, 4, and 5: Provide further evidence of 'differentness,' deny feedback, and relegates the blind to a subordinate position.

Net result: Heterogeneous population becomes homogeneous.

Stephan Pfohl: "The 'Discovery' of Child Abuse" (in Pontell, 2005)

Societal reaction to (and therefore individual reaction o) deviance is a complex social-cultural-historical process based on shifting definitions, organizational interests and professional expertise. The "reaction" and the "deviance" are mutually interrelated phenomenon. In the discovery of child abuse we see the culmination of these processes in the production of a new medical syndrome in 1962: Battered Child Syndrome. Significant elements which led up to this discovery include:

• Changes in:
  1. The social image of children.
  2. Assumptions that formed the basis of our understanding of the "causes" of deviance.
  3. The organization of Social Control
• The social organization of the medical profession:
  1. ER doctors were unaware, unwilling (perhaps) and restrained by confidentiality and fear of loss of control.
  2. Pediatric Radiology and Psychodynamic Psychiatry were removed from the immediacy of the situation and stood to gain in professional status: The most idealized mission of the profession: "To label as illness what was not previously labeled at all, or labeled in some other fashion."

• Once "medicalized" the idea spreads: Interests of social workers, lobbying efforts of the medical profession, and the role of the media.
• Resistance was weak: Labelers==> Middle class, 'removed' from abusers. Abusers==> Lower class; no power.
• With continued acceptance==> further spread and continued medicalization. Definition of abuse has broadened, and need for treatment has become a preventive reality.
• 1993: 50,000 calls in the State of Missouri.
• 2003: 108,685 calls

Societal reaction==> Norms==> Deviance==> Societal reaction==> Revised norms==> More deviance.............

So, What is Deviance?

Defining Deviance (from Goode, 6th, 2001, and 7th, 2005chapter 2 and 3)
Essentialism (Positivism) versus Constructionism

Essentialism: phenomena have distinct and consistent essences. True, real, objective and universal.

Constructionism: categories/essences are social vs. natural.

• Change, variation based on perspective and interests of the observer.
• Definitions do not equal absolute reality. Categories have meaning only within the context of the criteria of the classification scheme that has been socially constructed.
• Moderate Constructionism--there are limits. Categories have elements of arbitrariness and are fuzzy, but they are based on something "objective." i.e. define "alcoholic"

Constructionist Approaches to Deviance

Marco-Level v. Micro-Level
units of analysis for examining phenomena
1. Macro-Level - (big, broad, structural)

• Macro-Level theorists look at society through broad lenses, to see the "big picture".
• Macro-Level theorists look at how large-scale structural conditions, i.e. economic and political institutions, structure the patterns and significance of daily life for people in a given social system.
  • Karl Marx is a macro-level theorist because he studied the larger structural units, economic systems, to understand how economic structures influence behavior and belief in other social structures, and across different types of societies.
  • See also: Durkheim-Anomie.

2. Micro-Level - (small, face-to- face interactions)

• Micro-Level theorists focuses on individual processes such as face-to-face encounters people have.
• All "types of person" theories are Micro-Level theories. See: Labeling theory.

Definitions of Deviance

Problematic, yet "taken-for-granted" definitions:

• Absolutist: pure essentialism. Certain behaviors, identities, and modes of thought are "naturally" deviant; everywhere, and across time. Deviance is conceptualized as an objectively real characteristic found in "things," and can be located and studied through a positivist approach.
• Statistical--relevant, but not sufficient. The idea here is that those behaviors, identities, and modes of thought which rarelyoccur are deviant (based on the statistical conception of the "normal curve").
• Harm--relevant, but not sufficient. Are all harmful behaviors and thoughts deviant? Are there forms of deviance that aren't harmful?
• Criminal--relevant, but not sufficient. Are there criminal acts that wouldn't be defined as deviant? Are there forms of deviance that are criminal?
• Positive Deviance? This is an extrapolation of the statistical definition, and shares elements of the "harm" criteria. If we use the idea that deviance entails a negative reaction, and consequences for the deviant, then is positive deviance a useful concept?

Useful, Sociological Definitions of Deviance:

Normative: essentialism, but relativity

• Deviance equals norm violation. Norms do vary.
• Assumes--objective reality of norms, they exist "out there" and have a force over us (socialization and internalization).
• Assumes--Consensus within a given society
• Assumes--smooth operation and uniform application of norms
• Problems: exceptions and contingencies

Reactive: constructionism and relativity

• Deviance equals a judgment, application of a sanction, entails consequences.
• Defining norm violation as a social construction.
• Not the act per se, not simple norm violation, but specific individuals engaged in specific acts seen by specific others--and condemnation.
• Problems--secret deviance, i.e. is there some consensus?==>Discredited vs. Discreditable, predictability to social responses==>Stigma. Also, need to take the Victim into account.

"Soft" (modified) Reactive

• Probability
• Norms as inference; their existence is gleaned from social response.
• Societal versus Situational deviance
• Self-Labeling
• Process: Negotiated Reality

So, We need to focus on:

• Deviant to whom?
• Dominant Moral Codes
• How many consider it deviant?
• POWER
• Intensity of response
• Relativity

1. Actor: who is it, status violations
2. Audience: Actor, Victim, Peers, Subculture, Official Agents of Social Control, Wider Society, Other Societies, Historical Societies.
3. Situation: Temporal and Spatial

Contingencies

• "A contingency is a seemingly incidental or accidental feature of an event or a phenomenon that nonetheless exerts a significant impact; it is anything that logically shouldn't influence the labeling process, but actually does. i.e. the distance one lives from a mental hospital." (Goode, 1997, page 111)
• The issues of relativity (above) all exert influence (and variation) on who is considered deviant for doing (or being) whatever it may be that they do (or are)
• Ancillary or Auxiliary Characteristics: power and status, age, sex, race, appearance, and socioeconomic status. The relative degree of prestige and power associated with these characteristics influence who and what we define as deviant.

Who and what we define as deviance is not simply based on some intrinsic characteristic of an act or an actor. It is, in part, always influences by the social context.

"In sum, by deviance I mean one thing and one thing only: behavior or characteristics that some people in a society find offensive or reprehensible and that generates--or would generate if discovered--in these people disapproval, punishment, condemnation of, or hostility toward, the actor or possessor....What we have to know is, deviant to whom?" (Goode, 1994, page 29)

Deviance is a label attached to people and acts
Deviance entails a type of social relationship
Deviance is a non-evaluative term

Nuts, Sluts and Preverts ?

("The Poverty of the Sociology of Deviance: Nuts, Sluts, and Preverts," Liazos, 1972, in Pontell, 1996; and discussed by Goode, 1994, chapter 2)

• Acts vs process
• Biased Sample?
• Theory and Politics (atheoretical and unstrategic)
• Micro/Macro
• Question of "True Deviance?"
• Too reprehensible ( and those who study are too.)

Deviance and Social Control

Deviance and Crime

• Same, but different
• Crime==>defined through a political process at the l
• evel of the state (political authority for a given social system)
• Split in sociology
  1. Eastern==> Crime and it's causes
  2. Radical==> Creation of law
  3. Western==> "Soft Deviance"

Deviance and Social Problems

• Same, but different
• Objectivist versus constructionist
• Interest
  1. Difference between objective and subjective concerns
  2. Time and changing perceptions
  3. Claims making activity==>Politics

Politics and Deviance

• Definitions of what is deviant are not ready made, they are fought over.
• Categories, groups, or strata fight through social movement organizations to institutionalize their own views of right and wrong into the criminal and civil law, the media, the school, the political process and religion.
• If a group is successful, it informs members of the society that their interpretation is valid and legitimate. Thus, actors who deviate should be stigmatized or criminalized.

Examples:

• Anti-abortion or "right-to-life" activists
• Women Against Pornography
• Members of the Creationist movement
• Animal Rights groups

Deviance: Process

Society and Social definitions are eternally changing, dynamic affairs. Origins of ideas, definitions, meanings must be critically examined.

• Grassroots movements versus Interest Groups
• Generalized concerns and ambivalence==>grounds for conflict, and negotiation.
  1. Legal Status of Marijuana: Up and Downs- Role of Moral Entrepreneurs, Current Grass Roots Movement- "Harm Reduction"
  2. Teenage Sex: Historically- "The thing to do!" Now==> The Social Problem. Love vs Promiscuity.
  3. Abortion: Political struggle to define Deviance. Openness to Definitional Change: Morality, Medicine, Power and Social Roles.
• Ambiguity of issue: necessary evil ==> Battleground of ideological warfare.

Deviance:

• Can be anything, anywhere, anyone.
• More likely some than others
• Not just Nuts and Sluts, but does include them
• Ubiquitous
• Permeates all aspects of Social Life
• Some predictability

Facts:

• Change is a reality.
• Reality is structured out of our definitions and interpretations.
• Definitions of Deviance come from a variety of Sources.
• The study of deviance entails developing an understanding of the processes of change and developing an awareness of how definitions of reality are negotiated in everyday life situations.

Theory and Theories of Deviance

Theories of Deviance (these ideas are drawn from Goode: 1994, 1997, 2001, 2005; and Pfohl, Images of Deviance and Social Control, 1985)

Theory:

• Explain rule making
• Rule breaking
• Social reaction

Theories are:

• Empirical
• Systematic
• Testable
• Causal/probability
• General--focus on a class of phenomena

Theories direct our attention, define problems, and suggest solutions

Theories reveal assumptions:

• Nature of the individual
• Nature of the group
• The relationship between the group and the individual
• The essence of social order

Theories are linked to the historical epoch in which they are created; tied to power relationships and political processes.

• Theories are tools
• They name, order, shape our perceptions
• They are reflexively shaped by experience
• They provide guidelines for our behavior towards the "object" of our study==>Control

Demonic Theories

(absolutist)

(Essentialist)

• Deviance is equated with Sin.
• World is a battleground--forces of good and evil.
• Devil==>evil
• Devil acts in this world through possession and temptation
• Deterministic--deviance is caused by supernatural forces
• Harm--actor, victim, community and cosmos
• Identification: read signs, and tests--painful (God fortifies the innocent (elites--battle)

• Control:

1. Purge body, break hold of the devil, restore order.
2. Also symbolic.
3. Community based, but rests in centralized authority of the church.
4. Outlaw.
5. Economic--wergild (social class and work force needs).

Sociological analysis:

• Development of centralized authority vs acephalous societies and process of reconciliation.
• Kai Erikson: Salem--social disorganization and boundary maintenance.
• Elliot Currie: machinery of social control.

Classical:

(Essentialist)

(Normative)

(Non-deterministic)

• Focus: act vs actor
• Deviance is a choice
• Human being is a rational actor

Socio-Historical Context

• Enlightenment
• Science
• Rationality
• Free Will
• Power of Reason
• Reform
• Change

1. Population
2. Demise of feudalism and rise of capitalism. Industrialization. Urbanization.
3. Shift from community==>individual
4. Nation state: law and order==>Social Contract (Thomas Hobbes), political individual--common good.
5. Philosophy: Utilitarianism
6. Religion: demise of the power of the centralized church.
7. Scholasticism--reason--choice--common good, sin equals the failure to make the reasonable choice.
8. The Classical School

Cesare Beccaria:

"On Crimes and Punishment" (1764)

• Responds to corruption, abuse and discretionary power of the judge.
• Control ACTs, not actors.
• Rational punishment for making rational choice to violate the social contract.
• Hedonistic Psychology--pleasure vs. Pain
• Legislature--Laws and punishment. Judge--guilt
• Deterrence: rationally calculated control. Swift, Sure and Severe.
• Focus on the Law (instrument of deterrence, can't change people)

Beccaria's Ideas are embodied in the French Penal Code of 1791

Modifications:

• 1810-: premeditation, mitigating circumstances
• 1843: M'Naughten Case--insanity--defect, inability to rationally weigh act and consequences.

Control:

• Penitentiaries: reflect on behavior. (another view)
• Rational--sentence length adjusted to severity of the crime.
• Seed for the development of positivistic theories-bio/psych. Prison as laboratory, total control, observe the individual and manipulate/change--return to a focus on causation.

Classical perspective today: Rational Choice Theory

The Evolution of Classical Theory:
Rational Choice, Deterrence, Incapacitation and Just Desert
In seeking to answer the question, "Why do people engage in deviant and/or criminal acts?", many researchers, as well as the general public, have begun to focus on the element of personal choice. An understanding of personal choice is commonly based in a conception of rationality or rational choice. These conceptions are rooted in the analysis of human behavior developed by the early classical theorists, Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham. The central points of this theory are: (1) The human being is a rational actor, (2) Rationality involves an end/means calculation, (3) People (freely) choose all behavior, both conforming and deviant, based on their rational calculations, (4) The central element of calculation involves a cost benefit analysis: Pleasure versus Pain, (5) Choice, with all other conditions equal, will be directed towards the maximization of individual pleasure, (6) Choice can be controlled through the perception and understanding of the potential pain or punishment that will follow an act judged to be in violation of the social good, the social contract, (7) The state is responsible for maintaining order and preserving the common good through a system of laws (this system is the embodiment of the social contract), (8) The Swiftness, Severity, and Certainty of punishment are the key elements in understanding a law's ability to control human behavior. Classical theory, however, dominated thinking about deviance for only a short time. Positivist research on the external (social, psychological, and biological) "causes" of crime focused attention on the factors that impose upon and constrain the rational choice of individual actors.

Owing to the perceived failure of rehabilitative technologies and the increase in the officially recorded crime rates during the 1970's and 1980's attention returned to an analysis of the criminal decision making process. Rational Choice Theory emerged.
"According to this view, law-violating behavior should be viewed as an event that occurs when an offender decides to risk violating the law after considering his or her own personal situation (need for money, personal values, learning experiences) and situational factors (how well a target is protected, how affluent the neighborhood is, how efficient the local police happen to be). Before choosing to commit a crime, the reasoning criminal evaluates the risk of apprehension, the seriousness of the expected punishment, the value of the criminal enterprise, and his or her immediate need for criminal gain." (Siegel, p.131, 1992)
This perspective shifts attention to the act of engaging in criminal or deviant activity. The issue becomes, what can be done to make the act of crime or deviance less attractive to the individual? How can crime or deviant behavior be prevented? "...crime prevention or at least crime reduction, may be achieved through policies that convince criminals to desist from criminal activities, delay their actions, or avoid a particular target." (Siegel, p.133, 1992). Strategies that are relevant to this perspective include the following: target hardening (deadbolts, self-defense skills, "the club," neighborhood watch programs, etc.), and legal deterrents (more police, mandatory sentencing, "three-strikes" laws, the death penalty, etc.). Research on deterrence seems to indicate that for some crimes, instrumental acts designed to produce economic gain and certain predatory "street crimes", there is a significant correlation between these preventive strategies and the reduction or deflection of criminal/deviant activities. However, for other criminal and deviant activities, the expressive crimes of violence and the subculturally reinforced forms of deviance, the evidence is less conclusive.

Key concepts in understanding this perspective include:
General Deterrence: People will engage in criminal and deviant activities if they do not fear apprehension and punishment. Norms, laws, and enforcement are to be designed and implemented to produce and maintain the image that "negative" and disruptive behaviors will receive attention and punishment. Although specific individuals become the object of enforcement activities, general deterrence theory focuses on reducing the probability of deviance in the general population. Examples of control activities reflecting the concerns of this concept include: Drunk-driving crackdowns, special gang-related crime task forces and police units, publication and highly visible notices of laws and policies (Notice: Shoplifters will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law), and the death penalty.
Specific Deterrence: General deterrence strategies focus on future behaviors, preventing individuals from engaging in crime or deviant by impacting their rational decision making process. Specific deterrence focuses on punishing known deviants in order to prevent them from ever again violating the specific norms they have broken. The concern here is that motives and rationales that lie behind the original behavior can, perhaps, never be delineated, but through the rational use of punishment as a negative sanction, problematic behavior can be extinguished. Examples: shock sentencing, corporal punishment, mandatory arrests for certain behaviors (domestic violence), etc.
Incapacitation: Within the concept of specific deterrence is the idea that punishment must be effective. Most punishment in the modern societies involves imprisonment. Research demonstrates that recidivism amongst convicted felons following release from prison is as high as 63% and that most prison inmates had arrest records and convictions prior to their current offense (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1989). The conclusion, then, is incarcerate to incapacitate. Prison as punishment may not alter future behavior, but it certainly reduces the chances an individual has for engaging in any other crime or deviance, and at least reduces the threat they constitute to the general population. Lock them up and throw away the key. Examples: Truth in Sentencing (requiring serving of 85% of a sentence), elimination of parole for certain crimes, "three strikes and you're out" laws.
Retributive Theory and Just Desert: Simply put, if criminals and deviants choose to engage in their disruptive and threatening behaviors, they deserve to be punished. The focus here is not on the future and what an individual may do. It is not concerned with prevention or rehabilitation. The aim here is to punish people for what they have done. Punish all individuals who violate the same norm in the same way. No exceptions, no mercy. "Retributionists argue that punishments are fair and necessary in a just society" (Siegel, p. 148, 1992).

Some general considerations concerning Rational Choice
The following questions and problems need to be considered in analyzing the current "popularity" of the rational choice model:

• How are the elements of swiftness, certainty, and severity of punishment interrelated? Studies indicate that the more severe the punishment, the less likely it is for juries to impose a specific sentence; therefore it appears that as severity increases, certainty decreases.
• Tipping is another consideration. It appears that certainty is not purely lineal in effect. That is, rather than increasing the deterrent effect with each incremental increase in the certainty of apprehension, a certain , consistent level of certainty must be reached in order to produce any desired consequences. For some crimes this level is placed at 30%. However, it appears that this level varies with the type of behavior in question and the problem is compounded by the fact that few crimes are reported to the police (between 30-50%) and the police are successful in identifying and apprehending only a fraction of offenders reported to them.
• Overload is another problem. As crime rates increase, police resources are stretched and the certainty of apprehension decreases. As crime rates decrease, police activity intensifies and certainty of apprehension increases. The causal mechanism is what is questioned here. Does certainty of apprehension deter crime or does the low level of crime increase certainty?
• What crimes and behaviors are susceptible to deterrence? Does general deterrence work as intended? Research on capital punishment indicates that the desired general deterrent effect may not be present. At best the rate of capital crimes drop off following a an execution only to rise again to higher levels before tapering off to "normal," therefore not producing any overall reduction. Also, there appears to be little, if any, difference in rates of capital offenses between states which impose the death penalty and those that do not. In fact, an inverse correlation has been documented; when states abolish the death penalty a corresponding drop in capital crimes is reported (Pfohl, chapter 3, 1994)
• Most studies of deterrence rely upon official statistics concerning deviant and criminal behavior and official control activities. Problems of reporting practices, bias, the organizational interests of relevant agencies, and the differential effects of official versus informal control activities compound the study of deterrence.
• Finally, questions concerning the effectiveness of deterrent strategies, and especially the appropriateness of incapacitation and retribution bring up ethical and institutional concerns. How far do we wish to go in punishing individuals? Is incapacitation a practical use of social resources? There is almost a universal understanding among sociologists and criminologists that aging out is a significant element of the deviance/crime process, in other words, the older a person becomes, the less likely it is that they will engage in criminal/deviant behavior.

At what point are the rights of the innocent violated by the operation of official control policies? Once inflicted punishment can not be removed. How efficient is our system at determining guilt? Are punishment and deterrence goals that overrides determination of guilt beyond a shadow of doubt? What is the "goal" of the criminal justice system? Can such an individualistically based control policy (punish and deter individuals) address the issues that surround the social construction of crime and deviance?
References and Related Readings
Bureau of Justice Statistics-1989, UNCRIM Gopher, SUNY-Albany, 1994.
Marcus Felson, Crime and Everyday Life: Insight and Implications for Society, Pine Forge Press, 1994.
Allen Liska, Perspectives on Deviance, 2nd ed., Prentice-Hall, 1987.
Steven Messner and Richard Rosenfeld, Crime and the American Dream, Wadsworth, 1994.
Stephan Pfohl, Images of Deviance and Social Control: A Sociological History, 2nd ed., McGraw-Hill, 1994.
Edwin Pfuhl and Stuart Henry, The Deviance Process, 3rd ed., Aldine de Gruyter, 1993.
Larry Siegel, Criminology, 4th ed., West publishing, 1992.

Positivistic Theories of Deviance

Positivism (from Goode, 1994, 1997, 2001, and 2005 chapter 3)

A Methodological approach to understanding phenomenon based on:

• Scientific Method
• Empiricism
• Objectivity (vs. ideology/politics)

Positivistic Assumptions surrounding deviance

• Deviance is real
• Deviants possess certain traits, commonalities.
• Understanding these traits gives us an understanding of the "causes" of deviance

Positivistic Approaches:

• Are characterized by Essentialism
• Seek understanding of Cause and Effect (forces, determinism)
• Have "objective" explanation as their goal

Theory of Action-Reaction

• Action is rational and non-problematic
• Deviants deviate and are labeled as such. Enforcement is directed at maintaining Order.
• Norms: protect the group, They are enacted for the common good.
• Deviance/deviants harm society.
• Social control is rational, and directed towards restoring societal integration
• Question is: Why do they do it? Discover cause; control individual (group); restore order.

Critique

• Positivist approaches tend to ignore the subjective experience of the deviant and the meaning the behavior has for the actor.
• They blindly accepts the "wrongness" of deviance (ideology supports the status quo)
• Issue of relativity and constructionism and definition of the situation is glossed over
• Problem of determinism--final/absolute causes?
• The question of objectivity is not addressed, but assumed

Constructionism Critiques Positivism
1. Positivism Ignores Subjective Experience, or the meaning to the participants

• By only studying the objective features of an act; meaning is ignored. For the Constructionist, meaning is the heart of the social process.
• Two actions that are superficially and mechanically similar may mean very different things to the participants as opposed to the individuals who react to the participants and what they are doing. i.e. homosexuality. So, what something is, is entirely dependent on how it is interpreted by the relevant audience, including the actor.
• "Meaning is not inherent in the act; it must be constructed". Thus, an act "is" nothing until it is categorized, conceptualized and interpreted.
• It is this subjective process that locates the act as a specific instance of a general type of behavior.

2. Positivists should be skeptical toward Determinism

• Causality, or to say that one factor caused or causes another cannot be determined with any real degree of precision.

3. Positivists are overly naive toward objectivity

• True objectivity is impossible.
• Every observer is to a degree contaminated by personal, political and ideological sympathies. We cannot avoid taking sides. So, pursuing and reporting the facts is always enmeshed in ideological and political choices.

Biological and Psychological Theories of Deviance

Biological and Psychological Theories of Deviance (these ideas are drawn from Goode: 1994, 1997, 2001, 2005; and Pfohl, Images of Deviance and Social Control, 1985) Biological Positivism (Pathological Theories) (these ideas are drawn from Pfohl, Images of Deviance and Social Control, 1985) (Essentialism) (Deterministic)

• Shift from badness==>Sickness
• Common sense today
• Deterministic causation vs Chosen
• Deviance produced by disease/defect (very attractive to historical and modern audiences)
• Control==>Cure, treatment
• Shifts focus away from act and back to Actor

• Search for the variables that cause deviance
• Deviance as an Objective Reality
• Forces of nature (Evolutionary Theory-1859)

Franz Gall (late 18th century)

Phrenology (from: the Skeptic's Dictionary)

• Evolutionary development of Brain: 3 areas that related to/determined behavior

1. openness-secretiveness
2. acquisitiveness-generosity
3. eroticism

• Imbalance==>deviance

Benjamin Rush (1812: First American Text on psychiatry)

• Mental Disorder==>arterial disease of brain==>caused:

1. Lying
2. Crime
3. "Revolutiona" (opposition to the American Revolution)

Cesare Lombroso: 1876 The Criminal Man

• Atavism: Biological throwback
• Deviant is one who is unable to adapt to life in modern society
• Biology is Destiny (Dissected 400 prisoners-43% shared characteristics)
• The Female Offender (a brief description in the third paragraph)
• Lombroso Wikipedia article

1939: Earnest Hooton: "The American Criminal"

• "Organic weakness" (low foreheads, compressed faces, etc)
• Question: the (social) meaning of physical inferiority?????

1949: William Sheldon: "Varieties of Delinquent Youth"

• Uses Kretschmer's constitutional personality--relationship between behavioral disposition and body type. "Somatotyping"
• Adult body structure==>3 layers of embryonic tissue (See: http://www.library.uq.edu.au/eres/1999/hm118/somatotype/sld001.htm.

1. Endoderm: digestive system
2. Ectoderm: skin and nervous system
3. Mesoderm: bones, muscles

• Normal==>balanced development, normal personality
• Imbalance: problems==>personality "defects"

Somatotypes:

1. Endomorph: fat, round--Psych: luxury, sloth, consumption.
2. Ectomorph: frail, skinny, gangly--Psych: introverts, cunning, stealth.
3. Mesomorph: large, strong, hard--Psych: active, dynamic, assertive, forceful.

• Study-200 boys, Hayden Goodwill Institute. 7 point somotyping scale, 650 psychological attributes. Disproportionately mesomorphic--more prone to delinquency.
• Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck (1950's): 800 adjudicated delinquents/matched sample of non-delinquents==> delinquents more likely to be mesomorphs.
• Questions/Problems:

1. Maybe need a tough body to gain acceptance/survive on the streets.
2. Body type and social meaning--the boys were already judged to be delinquent.
3. See also: http://www.indiana.edu/~theory/Kip/constitutional.htm#2
4. For "constitutional theories" in general, see: http://www.indiana.edu/~theory/Kip/constitutional.htm

Heredity

• "The Jukes" by Dugdale (1877): 180 of 700 family members--welfare, 140--criminals
• "The Kallikaks" by Goddard (1912): Martin and "feebleminded barmaid vs Martin and "good, normal" girl.
• Wikipedia article on the Jukes and the Kallikaks

IQ

• Low IQ as a cause of criminality. Feebleminded unable to cope with complex social conditions. Compared WWI recruits with prisoners: 47% of recruits vs 20% of prisoners!!!?
• IQ and deviance--relevance of tests, social class and opportunity, schooling and expectations.
• IQ and studies of Delinquency: School performance

Genetics

• Twins/Adoptees: 1/3 correlation with birth father, but adopted father explains even more.
• Concordance between identical twins high, but far from perfect.
• Little attention to mother's behavior.

XYY Chromosomes:

• Only 1/1,800-3,000 possess
• No firm link except to tallness.

Bio-Social Theory

• Variety of causes: Allergies, Hormones, Organic Brain Syndrome, ADD, etc.
• Environmental factors trigger response

Psychological Theories

Psychodynamic

Freud:

• Id-Ego-Superego--problem of imbalance.
• Oral-Anal and Phallic Stages--Fixation
• Repression

Erik Erikson: Child development

• Identity versus Role Confusion--adolescence

1. Identity diffusion: excessively self-conscious, overly concerned with sexuality
2. Identity foreclosure: problem of unfulfilled expectations
3. Negative identity: (objected to by others)- rebel to be noticed

Behavioralism

• Environmental reinforcement
• Stimulus/response
• Eysenck: Problem of permissive child rearing
• Skinner: Operant conditioning: Reward structures
• Strong link to Classical Theory and Modern day Deterrence Theories

Learning Theories

Albert Bandura

• "Social Learning Theory" (psychological social learning)
• Anticipation of positive responses
• Gear behavior in order to be accepted
• Modeling
• Television and violence

Moral Development

• Stages of Development: Kohlberg and Piaget
• Problem solving

• Situation specificity

Predictability and Problems:

• MMPI: view deviance as positive, reject authority--causes or responses?
• Defining the "Psychopath"
• ADD and social meanings
• General Sociological Concerns with Psycho-Dynamic Theories

1. Circularity--if behavior, then "impulse." Proof? Accounts for everything.
2. Sample size typically limited and skewed
3. Replaces one unseeable force (Supernatural) with another ("impulses')

• General Difficulties with biological and Psychological Theories:

1. ? Of neutrality--acts accepted as deviant.
2. Straight normative, wrong by nature
3. ? of street vs. elite deviance
4. Individualizes complex social issues
5. Expert careers?
6. Politics of Good and Evil

Issues:

• Eugenics
• Psycho-surgery
• Mental Hospitals
• Psychopharmacology
• Medicalization of Deviance

Sociological Theories of Deviance

Sociological Theories of Deviance (from: Allen Liska (1987). Perspectives on Deviance, 2nd ed.)
Structural Theories:

Deviance is characterized as a product of stable, macro level patterns of interaction characteristic of a particular society.

• Opportunity Structures
• Culture: Values
• Normative Structure

Process Theories:

Deviance is characterized as a product of a fluid sequence of stages, decision points, and negotiations through which behavior and its meaning emerges.

• Learning
• Interpretation
• Socialization

	Normative	Definitional/Reactive
Structural	Strain, Social Disorganization	Cultural/Pluralistic Conflict, Radical Conflict, Feminist Structuralism
Process	Subcultural, Control, Differential Association	Labeling Theory, Ethnomethodology/Phenomenology

Durkheim and Suicide

Suicide Durkheim and Anomie

Society is a stable system.

• Balance
• Equilibrium
• All parts work together to promote stability and order

Essence of a society==> Moral order==> "Collective Consciousness"

Study of Suicide: Focus on "Social Currents" that can sweep through the "collective consciousness." These currents push people in different direction, determine patterning of behavior.

Critical elements of moral order: The Social Bond

• Normative structure (regulatory function)
• Integrative function (relation between individual and the group
• Each forms a continuum, "Normal" society is in balance.

Types of Suicide and Social Currents See suicide rates for 1996 for an example of how different groups reflect different patterns of suicide.
See, Jim Spickard's "chart" explaining Durkheim's approach (or my local copy).
Additional Resources:

• Suicide [Excerpt from Robert Alun Jones. Emile Durkheim: An Introduction to Four Major Works. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc., 1986. Pp. 82-114.]: http://www.relst.uiuc.edu/durkheim/Summaries/suicide.html
• Sociology at Hewett, "Durkheim and Suicide: http://www.hewett.norfolk.sch.uk/curric/soc/durkheim/durkw2.htm
• The Emile Durkheim Archives: Suicide: http://durkheim.itgo.com/suicide.html

Focus on Anomie:

1. Breakdown of normative structure, rules/norms weak, unclear, indistinct.
2. No "guidance" for the individual, no limitations. Society lacks the regulatory constraints necessary to control the behavior of its members.
3. A product of change, rapid, uncontrolled, and unpredictable. A temporal transition.
4. Sweeps (flows) across an entire society.
5. Unleashes the "essence" of the individual--passion for unlimited growth, greed, unquenchable thirst--which can only be contained within the boundaries of a stable social system.
6. Without boundaries, limits, norms, individual life (Self and Other's) becomes meaningless-behavior becomes uncontrollable==>Deviance

· Egoism: Social control is functional, but bond between individual and group is weak. Norms become ineffective in controlling behavior. · Altruism: Group needs and significance override individual existence, norms may actually support self-destructiuve behavior. · Fatalism: Rigidity and inflexibility. Individual (and group) stagnates.

The Sociological Perspective
The Functionalist Perspective
Social Disorganization Theory
Social Context of Deviance Explaining Deviance: Rule Creation and Enforcement. (these ideas are drawn from Goode: 1994, 1997, 2001, 2005; and Pfohl, Images of Deviance and Social Control, 1985)

Previous Theories Focused on Causation.

Now We Focus on:

What makes a particular behavior an infraction?

Why and How are the rules made?

Who makes them?

Focus is now directed towards the social context of deviance.

Functionalism

Basic Ideas:

• Norms as necessary, Deviance as functional.
• Focus on the consequences of behavioral patterns.
• NEEDS of the system. (Understand behavior by relating to system needs)
• Deviance (in general) is universal and persistent.

Durkheim: Pathological and Normal Societies

• Crime as normal and Necessary
• Functions of Deviance

1. Boundary Maintenance
2. Group Solidarity
3. Innovation
4. Tension Reduction
   • Dysfunctions of Deviance: Anomie

Merton:

• Manifest and Latent Functions
• Dysfunctions
• Deviance can be either functional or dysfunctional
• Universal forms of dysfunctional deviance
  1. Incest (in general vs. specific). Impact on social system.
  2. Murder (in general vs. specific)

Latent Functionality of Deviance (condemned, but tolerated).

1. Prostitution
2. Political Machines
3. Drug Use
4. Organized Crime
5. Punishment

Manifest Functionality of Deviance

1. Quakers: Oddness of member==> target of group tolerance and care (central values of religion)
2. Army trainees: bumbler==> reduce tension, develop helpfulness, build unit, express feminine emotions

• Erikson: System tends to produce and sustain the deviant==> Prisons, The Homeless; and subculture formation

Functionalist Perspective Displays:

• Complexity of the relationship between deviance and conformity
• Dispels notion of pathology
• Leads to a certain appreciation of deviance
• Deviance as being a viable way of life
• The continuum of behavior: Not either/or reality
• Deviance as part of normal society

BUT, the Functionalist perspective:

• Glosses over conflict and competing group/class interests.
• Doesn't ask, "Functional for Whom?"
• Assumes th objective reality of norms.

Social Disorganization

Labeling Theory

Social Disorganization and Control Theories (these ideas are drawn from Goode: 1994, 1997, 2001, 2005; and Pfohl, Images of Deviance and Social Control, 1985)

Shift in focus: Social Causation

• Normative definition of deviance, deterministic approach
• Social Pathology==>the City
• Society==> System of rules and values that bind us together.
• Change is the problem
• Deviance==>Is the product of the disorder that is produced in the transition from one state of order to another

Deviance becomes seen as a "natural" problem for all societies, across time: a spatial/socio-ecological reality (localized anomie).

Social Ecology (Park and Burgess):

• Society as Superorganism.
• Change as natural.
• Organized area is invaded ==> competition ==>succession or accommodation==>reorganization.
• During stage of competition==> Disorganization: breakdown in the normative structure of the community==>Deviance.
• Can't stop change, nor the problems associated with it, BUT sociologists can assist in reorganization process.

Sources of Change:

• Science and Technology
• Urbanization
• Population growth, especially immigration and migration.
• Economic restructuring--unemployment.
• Industrialization

Change as a Threat

• To existing "Social Order"
• Challenge to dominance of traditional WASP Middle Class: Nativism
• Need to control deviance and the populations (ethnic/racial groups) that were seen as producing it.
• Goal: Reorganization based on traditional assumptions about the "natural order of society"

Control:

• Intervention to reorganize.
• Sociologists as technicians
• Create stable environment for industrial expansion.
• Secure a problematic population as a reliable source of workers
• Community Development

Social Disorganization

(See also: http://www.roxbury.net/ct4chap8.pdf)

"A decrease in the influence of existing social rules of behavior upon the individual members of the group. An area where social institutions, norms and values, are no longer functioning."

Without normative constraint==>Anything goes==Deviance flourishes.

Focus on the "natural" areas of competition. (I've "borrowed" this image from Bruce Hoffman (blhoffma@indiana.edu) who manages http://www.crimetheory.com/ )

Concentric Zone Theory

• Chicago as a living laboratory
• The city evolves through radial expansion
• Areas closest to the dynamic core are most impact by change.
• Zone 2 the transition zone is seen as primary area for deviance

1. Pushed by industrial expansion
2. Center of residence for newly arrived immigrants and migrants
3. High levels of mobility
4. Unemployment, Single-parent households
5. Variety of cultural groups and normative confusion

Deviance flourishes

Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay: Delinquency Areas, 1929.

• Quantitative study, relies on official statistics: Spot maps, rate maps and area maps
• Located highest concentration of J.D. in neighborhoods in zone 2.
• Project: Chicago Area Project-- community reorganization, youth programs and environment improvement. Results: never really studied!!!

Walter Miller in Boston:

• Similar project, no real impact
• Slight decrease in minor illegal behavior, but rise in serious criminal activity.

Problems:

• Definitions and circularity: If J.D.==> Disorganization, then Disorganization==> J.D.
• Why certain patterns indicators of disorganization? Single mothers, working women, large households, or unmarried men.
• Disorganization or differential organization?
• Use of official statistics to identify delinquency
• Slum as a "natural" are or product of socially imposed system of economic stratification and inequality?

Social Disorganization at the micro level:

Control Theories: Why most don't deviate?

Reckless and Containment Theory:

• Inner pushes and outer pulls.
• If structural buffer of external control mechanisms fail--individual is "thrown into deviance.

Hirschi's Social Control Theory (Social Bonding)

• Individuals are "naturally" unrestrained.
• Social reality of the Group: Control is acquired through group association, and control is necessary for group survival- therefore individual survival.
• The reality of the Social Bond
• Internal Control:

1. Belief: socialization, internalization.

• External Control:

1. Involvement: time factor
2. Commitment: stake in society, something to lose
3. Attachment: role models, someone you don't want to let down.

A General Theory of Crime:
Self-Control Theory (see, Goode, 2005)
1990 - Gottfredson & Hirschi's General Theory of Crime

• Force or fraud in pursuit of self-interest
• Applies to any and all crimes and includes 'sin', or a variety of self indulgent actions i.e. smoking or being a couch potato
• Stresses the factors present in the immediate or "proximate" situation of the criminal action that determine or influence its enactment, crime, and those background or "distant" factors that determine or influence the tendency to commit crime, criminality.
• The origin of crime is low self-control, which results from inadequate, ineffective, and inconsistent socialization by parents early in childhood.
• Criminal acts provided immediate and easy or simple gratification of desires and are exciting, risky, or thrilling
• Since crime entails "the pursuit of immediate pleasure, people lacking in self control will also tend to pursue immediate pleasures that are not criminal."
• It is self control that determines social control

Critique of Anomie ( strain) Theory:

• Crime is an impulsive act which provides immediate, short-term, and rather skimpy rewards
• Criminals lack the skills, diligence and persistence necessary for the deviant "adaptations"
• Does not explain the incidence, or rate of criminal behavior as a whole, since most of it is petty, compulsive and immediate

Critique of Learning Theory

• One does not learn to engage in crime, since no learning is required
• Criminal acts are simple commonsensical, concrete, and result in immediate gratification
• Criminals are simply doing what comes naturally
• What causes such behavior is not the presence of something - learning- but the absence of something - self control

Gottfredson and Hirschi reject all other explanations of criminal behavior except their own; only lack of self-control is truly consistent with the facts of crime. But: although incomplete, Classical and Social Disorganization Theory are consistent with the facts:

• Not all persons who exhibit low self-control commit crime; low self-control merely predisposes someone to commit crime.
• Crime can take place to the extent that a motivated offender has access to a "suitable target" i.e. money , which lacks a "capable guardian."
• The inability of a community to monitor the behavior of its residents complements parental incompetence.

Critique of Self-Control Theory

• Strain theorist - the aggressiveness and anger that many criminals exhibit when committing their crimes is far more than lack of self-restraint; only strain theory explains it.
• Learning theorist - lack of self-control is a basic component or element of the deviant learning process, hence, learning theory subsumes, or swallows up, self-control theory
• Issue of where self-control comes from, and what it means in particular social contexts? Can we learn it (and un-learn it)? Is it specific to particular social groups--dominant ideology?
• What are the complex factors that explain why someone with "self-control" deviates, and why someone without "self-control" may not deviate?
• Ignores the issues surrounding the definition of deviance--perhaps our understanding of self-control stems from not defining the behavior of some as deviant, or from attributing low self-control to those whose behaviors are defined as deviant (circularity).

Most likely, Gottfredson and Hirschi have not offered a "general theory" of crime and deviance, but a plausible account of bits and pieces of the phenomenon they purport to explain.

Jack Katz: Thrill Seekers

• Deviance can be stimulating
• Sense of power, control, excitement
• Some have higher threshold- require intensified experience
• Deviance can provide a "thrilling demonstration of personal competence."

Structural Strain Theories

Structural Strain Theories (these ideas are drawn from Goode: 1994, 1997, 2001, 2005; and Pfohl, Images of Deviance and Social Control, 1985)

Robert Merton:

• Reconceptualizes Durkheim's concept of Anomie.
• Not an overall, or even localized breakdown in normative structure.
• The cultural system and social structure of society is basically intact, workable, functional.
• In fact, to a certain extent, Deviance represents the functionality of the system.
• Merton's "Dream Machine."
• Problem is:

A disjuncture within the cultural system between the Goals (values) which define our lives and the culturally determined, institutionalized, legitimate Means for achieving them.

"Our primary aim is to discover how some
social structures exert a definite pressure
upon certain persons in the society to engage in
nonconformist rather than conformist conduct.

. . . high rates of deviant behavior in these groups
[occur] not because the human beings comprising them are
compounded of distinctive biological tendencies but because they
are responding normally to to the social situation in which they find
themselves."

Robert K. Merton, "Social Structure and Anomie." American Sociological Review 3 (Oct. 1938):
672-82. Reprinted in On Social Structure and Science, essays by Robert K. Merton, edited by
Piotr Sztompka. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Goals:

Well defined, articulated, established and accepted (internalization, socialization)

Means:

• Legitimate means de-emphasized.
• Certain groups blocked from accessing them.

Strain:

Occurs between individual's aspirations and expectations==> Not individual problem, but structural reality.

Adaption to strain

• Can be deviance (norm violation).
• Once deviance becomes an alternative it can spread, and become a relatively permanent part of a social system.

Adaptive Typology:

Adaptive Type	Goals	Means
Conformist	Accept	Accept
Innovator	Accept	Reject/Blocked
Ritualist	Reject	Accept
Retreatist	Reject (because(?)=>)	Reject/Blocked
Rebel	Reject (new)	Reject (new)

• Conformity central: most keep trying.
• All but rebel are essentially "non-threatening" to the system.
• But existence of deviance does suggest Reform, or repair is needed. (Social Policies of the 1960's).

Modifications to Structural Strain Theory

Albert Cohen:

Merton's Theory--

• Too Utilitarian- not all deviance is in pursuit of wealth
• Too Atomistic- not simple individual adaption to strain.
• Too Mechanistic- no room for understanding the role of individual/group processes, role of subcultures.

Problem==>

• Status: recognition and respect from significant others
• Position: An accepted place in society.
• This leads to:

Status Frustration.

Children of the lower classes are judged by a Middle Class Measuring Rod.

• Families are problematic.
• Children are failures at school
• They experience problems with Authorities (police, employers, etc.)
• Bad home, school failure==> Problem Kid==> Status Frustration.

Failure to achieve status and recognition leads to "dropping out," but:

• One finds oneself in the company of others who share similar concerns and problems.
• A Collective response emerges (or is already available)==> The Gang.

1. College Boys (~conformist)
2. Corner Boys (~retreatist)
3. Delinquent Boys (~innovator)

• Further information

Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin

• Even access to illegitimate opportunities in differentially structured.
• Deviant response explained by Differential Opportunity Structures, both legitimate and illegitimate.
• Neighborhood and subcultural focus: What is available for the individual experiencing strain?
• Subcultures-- collective social adjustments to the strains of blocked opportunity. People learn to adjust within the group context.

1. Criminal Gang: integrate age levels, training, skills-- pursuit of profit. Organized, rational, and structured.
2. Conflict Gang: less integration, distance from legitimate goals, less instrumentality >focus on venting pent up frustration, unskilled and disorganized activity.
3. Retreatist Gang: Double Failures.

• Further information

Problems with Strain Theories:

• Question of lower class aspirations and expectations as strained
• Question of deviant motivation--intention.
• Question of specialization within deviant subcultures.
• Question of drug users being "double failures."
• Strain Theories accept simple normative definition of deviance.
• They rely on official statistics as depicting the reality of deviance.
• Essentially a lower class focus, what about Middle Class deviance?
• Somewhat radical, but radical enough?

Current Work:

Agnew's "General Strain Theory"

• Structural Factors: similar to Merton
• Individual Factors: biological and psychological
• Interpersonal Factors: group structures and dissatisfaction
• Unlimited and Unobtainable Goals
• Further information
• Robert Agnew’s General Strain Theory

The Blau's: Relative Deprivation

• Inequality perceived to be due to race or class
• Sense of social injustice
• Distrust of Society
• Not poverty itself, but proximity of wealth and poverty

Crime and the American Dream, Steven Messner and Richard Rosenfeld (1994)

• A recent "radicalization" of Merton's key ideas.
• A focus on contradictions in both the cultural system, as well as the opportunity structures of modern society.
• "Re-inventing Culture."
• Further information

Economic Crime

White Collar Crime

Violence

Subcultural Theories

Subcultural Theories of Deviance (these ideas are drawn from Goode: 1994, 1997, 2001, 2005; and Pfohl, Images of Deviance and Social Control, 1985)

Critique of Strain Theories bringing into question the idea of consensus.

Thorsten Sellin: Culture Conflict

• Law norms (dominant group) versus--
• Conduct norms (subculture)
• Deviance as a political Reality:

Conflict Theory

Edwin Sutherland: Differential Organization

• Differential Association and Learning Theories

alter Miller: Lower Class Subculture

• Distinctively different from middle class.
• Lack of male role models.
• Serial monogamy.
• Alienates male children==>peer group (gang) formation.
• Centered around their own set of values and norms: Focal Concerns.

1. Trouble
2. Toughness
3. Excitement
4. Smartness
5. Fate
6. Autonomy

Evaluation of Miller's Ideas:

• "Delinquent values" not widely accepted in lower-class
• Underestimates impact and acceptance of Middle-class values
• Lower-class gang members don't view delinquent subcultures positively
• Questionable relationship between broken homes and female headed households and delinquency

Violence and Subculture

What is violence?

• Labeling and approval
• Rioters vs freedom fighters
• Political and ideological factors
• Who is defining?

Covert Institutional Violence

• Inequalities
• Prejudice
• Pychological
• Justifiable
• Excusable
• Lack of attention

Cross Cultural

• Biological theories-aggression as natural
• Universality? Mead: Arapesh vs. Mundugumor
• Tasaday, Lepcha, Pygmies

Sociological Focus:

• Not universal
• Rates vary--what is it about a society...?
• Degrees tolerated and approved
• Targets (in vs. out groups)(Kaingang)
• Modern Nation State- Out-group vs in-group

Family Violence

• Intimate--1000's of times more common than street violence
• The Family as a Violent Institution
• Relationship: stranger=assault, relative=OK, typically not viewed as violence

Social Image of Seriousness (140 equals least)(Rossi, et al, 1974)

Beat spouse	91
Beat stranger	64
Stranger rape	13
Rape former spouse	62

• Even when death of a victim is involved; still more lenient attitude toward offender
• Perhaps worse for child abuse
• 300 homicides in Houston:

1. Of all killers of relatives- 61% received no penalty
2. 53% recevied no penalty if killed friend
3. 36% no penalty if killed stranger

Social Learning?Murder

• Intimate (felony murder becoming more common)
• Unplanned
• Intra-racial
• Relationship
  • Stranger: 15-25%
  • Family: 13%
  • Friends and acquaintances: 35%
  • Propinquity
  • Frequency of interaction
  • Intimacy-intensity of emotions
  • Importance of attitudes of those with whom we are involved.

Subculture of violence

• Group norm
• Situationally defined: machismo vs passivity
• Not all situations, violence is not valued in and of itself
• Not all=Target--in group vs. out
• Link: manhood and violence
• Victim Precipitation
  1. Both parties accept legitimacy (26%)
  2. Murder transaction
  3. Assault-no one died
  4. Victim and perpetrator--similar pasts: legal troubles, previous fights, alcohol.
• Most of us not participators, but could/would in right circumstances--Subculture defines appropriateness (manhood, family, country, etc.)
• Not all situations, degree of participation
• Sub-culture vs. Race and/or Class
• Structural inequality and changing perception of life chances and appropriateness of violence
• Jack Katz: Righteous Slaughter--humiliation=>Righteousness=>Rage

Murder Summary

Rape

Theories: individual, cultural, structural, situational

• Psychopathological:

1. Too restrictive
2. Is rape alien to society?

• Psychological: Rapist as different from other men.

1. Malamuth asks men: If no chance of getting caught, would you? 35% yes. Would you use force (vs. rape) 50% answer yes.
2. Proclivity: believe rape myth, have used force, aroused by tapes of rape--similar results with convicted rapists.

Malamuth, et al 1992:

1. Proximate causes- attitudes as above, anger towards women, impersonal sex.
2. Distal factors: abused as child, socially poor and violent parents.

• Structural:

1. Economic/Social class
2. Comparative
3. Racism
4. Age , Region, etc.

• Radical/feminist: "Why don't all men rape?"

• Situational:

1. Routine activity
2. Target availability
3. Defensible space

• Cultural/Subcultural:

1. Normalcy
2. Exaggeration
3. Learned- (group rapes) subculture of rapists: Planning, recreation.

• Psychological/cultural: Groth's typology

1. Sadistic: 5% (rare, sex and violence fused)
2. Anger: 40% (violent, psychological/social factors)
3. Power: 55% (contempt, little force, domination of will, control, sociocultural factors)

Rape (summary)
Violence (complete notes)
Social Learning Theories



Social Learning Theories (these ideas are drawn from Goode: 1994, 1997, 2001, 2005; and Pfohl, Images of Deviance and Social Control, 1985)
Gabriel Tarde (19th Century): Laws of Imitation

• Law of Insertion
• Law of Close Association
• Law of Superior by Inferior

Edwin Sutherland (1939): Differential Association

• Behavior is Behavior
• Behavior is Learned
• Behavior is learned in face-to-face interaction with others.
• Learning depends on:

1. priority 2. intensity 3. duration

• Learning involves:

1. techniques 2. motives 3. attitudes 4. definitions· The process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anticriminal patterns involves all of the
mechanisms that are involved in any other learning. · While criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, it is not explained by those general needs and
values, since non criminal behavior is an expression of the same needs and values. As one learns a preponderance of definitions favorable to deviance (Norm violation), one will be more likely to engage in deviance. Modifications to Differential Association Daniel Glaser: Differential Identification

• Not all learning is face-to-face
• Modern technology and communication

Ronald Akers: Differential Reinforcement

• Learning involves the application of rewards and punishments.
• We tend to associate with groups or individuals who reward our behavior.
• Individuals engage in behavior, receive rewards and then repeat behavior.
• We learn to define those behaviors which are rewarded as positive.

Gresham Sykes and David Matza: Drift

• Some include this approach in as a "Control theory."
• Deviance and conformity are not two separate worlds.
• Individuals are neither purely deviant or purely conformist.
• We drift in and out of deviance, each successive drift may not take us very far, but we are drifting deeper into deviant worlds.
• Throughout the process we encounter "forks in the road, decision points, and varieties of deviant groups/subcultures.

Conformity=> Drift=>Transition (normalization)=> Professionalization=> Deviance (transformed identity, subcultural association, and new normative structure)

Necessary element (cognitive technique) which allows us to drift back and forth, engage in deviance, and yet maintain a consistent (positive) self-image: Techniques of Neutralization

• Denial of Responsibility (accident)
• Denial of Injury (nobody was really hurt)
• Denial of Victim (they deserved it)
• Condemn the Condemners (you accuse me?)
• Appeal to Higher Loyalties (gang, God, etc.)

Howard Becker: "Becoming a Marijuana Smoker"

• How vs. Why?
• Learning=> Socialization=> Subculture=> Identity
• Focus on the social processes through which one "becomes" a deviant (and that's OK).

Motive for behavior evolves through participation in the behavior in the company of others.

• Learn the technique of using the drug
• Learn to identify the effect of the drug
• Learn to identify the effect as pleasurable
• Learn to "handle" the drug
• Learn to acquire the drug
• Learn to neutralize the impact of social control

Selective Interaction/Socialization

Labeling Theory

Economic Crime

White Collar Crime

Violent Crime

Labeling Theory and Ethnomethodology (these ideas are drawn from Goode: 1994, 1997, 2001, 2005; and Pfohl, Images of Deviance and Social Control, 1985)

Theoretical Perspective rooted in Symbolic Interactionism

• The Definition of the Situation.
• Verstehen (insiders view, Goode, "On Behalf of Labeling Theory").
• Action is based on meaning, Meaning is created through interaction, Meaning is continually modified and interpreted.
• Focus on the situational dynamics out of which meaning emerges.
• Social Response

Focus:

• The How rather than the Why.
• Process.
• Negotiated reality.
• Not the act or the actor per se, but what surrounds and follows.
• Social history of labels: In a fluid and pluralistic society, who and what is considered deviant is constantly changing.
• Construction and application of labels: Moral Entrepreneurs, Official Agents of Control, and Organizational Structure.
• Consequences of Labeling.

Key Contributors

George Herbert Mead (1934): "The self as a social product."

Frank Tannenbaum (1938): differential perspectives and "Tagging."

Edwin Lemert (1951): Primary and Secondary Deviance.

• Secondary deviance as a dynamic, interactional product; a response to societal reaction.
• Societal reaction initiates sociological/psychological processes which sustain deviance, make it more central in the life of the "deviant."
• Impact on self-concept.
• Begins moral "career."
• Leads to the formation of sub-culture and learning processes.
• Power to resist the impact of the label is differentially stratified throughout society. Impacts some groups more than others.
• Lemert: "Paranoia and the Dynamics of Exclusion"

1. Many so labeled are the product of strained interaction.
2. Individual often properly realizes exclusion.
3. Distorted communication.
4. Lack of feedback.
5. Requires strong response==> strain==> intensifies others perception==> further exclusion.......

Core Elements of the Labeling Perspective

• Relativity

• Audiences: Reiss-- the role of witnesses in police arrest decision making.
• Contingencies: Extra-behavioral factors
  1. Indexicality (see also)
  2. Chambliss: The Saints and the Roughnecks-- Social Class.
  3. Defining Mental Disorder: Gender, Urban/rural.
  4. Bias.
  5. Piliavin and Briar: Demeanor -only 2 of 45 deferential youths arrested vs. 14 of 21 antag.
  6. Derek Phillips: Help seeking behavior and social distance.

• Visibility and Stigma (Master Status)
• Problem of contagion
• Stickiness of labels
• Strained interaction

1. "Being on" 2. Impression management

• Exclusion
• Sub-culture Formation: "Corporate life" and Deviant Groups (Stanford Lyman distinquished these goals; alienative and conformative, in his "The Asian in the West," 1970, see Pfohl, 1985, page 316 for additional information)

1. Alienative-instrumental (Queer Nation, WITCH Women's International Terrorist Conspiracy From Hell) 2. Alienative-expressive (Moonies, People's Temple--Jim Jones)) 3. Conformative-instrumental (COYOTE, NORML) 4. Conformative-Expressive (AA, Weight-Watchers)

• Retrospective Interpretation (1) (2) (3)
• Reflexivity (see also)

1. "Looking-Glass Self"
2. Sense of the Situation
3. Self-fulfilling Prophecy
4. Documentary Interpretation (past records, etc. ==>present reality) (see also)
5. Would you hire this guy? (schwartz and Skolnick in 1962, and Buikhuisen and Dijksterhuis in 1971, see Liska, page 126-7)

Ethnomethodology:

Forms the foundation for understanding how deviant labels are constructed as a "practical accomplishment" in everyday interactions.

• Methods people use to accomplish a reasonable account of what is happening in a social interaction, how we make sense out of people and their actions. How we create a structure for our interactions.
• By categorizing certain people in certain situations as deviant, we assume (create) the reality of the norms and they reflexively produce the deviant reality of the emerging situation.
• Typifications:common sense constructs through which we organize our perceptions of others and the world.

Cicourel, "Good and Bad Boys"

1. Good Boys- Act does not equal a cue, good boy in bad situation, "normal" misbehavior.
2. Bad Boy- Act is a cue, reveals underlying problem, bad situation (home, school) produces bad boys, "serious" problem that needs handling.

Rosenhahn: Being Sane in Insane Places Phillips: Help Seeking Behavior Sudnow: Normal Crimes

1. Typification used by PD to organize a variety of offenses of a given class into homogeneous categories in order to efficiently process cases (plea bargain)
2. PD's as overworked, understaffed, part of a "Court Room Work Group."
3. Premise: If arrested, then must be guilty of something, therefore needs to be punished. Plea Bargain satisfies both parties.

• Sense Making Activities

Harvey Sacks:

1. Rule of Economy: Once categorized, we resist other interpretations of behavior.
2. Rule of Consistency: Once categorized we will organize past and future behavior in line with the new category (retrospective interpretation)
   • Peyrot (1995) and making the MMPI fit (see Liska, 1999, pages 164-165).

Focus on Organizations and Professional Interests

How the structure of the organization impacts the defining process

Douglas: Suicide

1. Medical Examiners and Coroners
2. Politics and vested interest
3. Statistics as key to understanding organization of social control rather than the "objective reality" of deviant behavior.
4. Statistics produced by organizations become a topic of study in their own right.

Other organizational studies:

1. Wilson: Police departments- Large and bureaucratic vs. Small and informal.
2. Index Crimes vs. White Collar
3. Shoplifting/employee fraud
4. Mental Disorder: Male vs. Female
5. Breast feeding: Leleche vs DFS

Basic Point

Policy:

• Decriminalize Victimless Crimes: Avoid label, can't deal with them anyway, leads to police corruption, waste of resources (money and time spent on more problematic offenses).
• Diversion: Not in order to punish, but again; to avoid official label. Success of diversion is questionable, but so is success of incarceration, and the costs of diversion programs is less.
• Organizational reform and restructuring.

Mental Disorder

Cognitive Deviance

Conflict Theory

Conflict Theory(ies) of Deviance (these ideas are drawn from Goode: 1994, 1997, 2001, 2005; and Pfohl, Images of Deviance and Social Control, 1985)

Consensus vs. Conflict

• Shared values vs. Competing interest groups
• Disorder vs. Disagreement
• Repair vs Radical change
• Collective Consciousness vs. Dominant Ideology
• Stability and Equilibrium vs. Oppression and Inequality
• Self regulating system vs. Piecemeal reform directed at maintaining status quo

Conflict Theories' Foci:

• Real Crimes? The issue of Institutional vs. Individual Behavior.
  1. Racism
  2. Sexism
  3. Neocolonialism

• Society-- Limited Resources
• Power and Control: Deviance as a Political Process
• Freedom in an unequal society becomes: The ability to profit over others; to define deviance.
• Focus: Creation and Enforcement of Law.

Pluralistic (Cultural Conflict) vs. Radical Conflict Theories: Differences-

• Source of group conflict and the nature of the group.

1. Radical: Economic Structure/Social Class
2. Pluralistic/Cultural: Variety of Interests and a Variety of Groups

• Social Relations of Production vs. Cultural Plurality.
• Question of inevitability of Conflict?

Radical (Marxist) Conflict Theory

Marx:

• Social Relations of Production
• Human Being as Creative (working) Being
• Capitalism and Alienation
• Class Struggle and Hegemony

William Bonger (1930-40)

• Crime is Social in origin...Normal
• Control and Punishment===> Power
• Distribution of Resources==> Haves and Have-nots.
• Law serves the Haves
• Crime equated with harm or threat of harm to the powerful
• Capitalism: Competition, Wealth, Unequal distribution, Individualism==> Self Interest==> (Egoistic Impulses)==> Crime.
• Crimes of Rich and Poor are equal, but poor have greater "recognition"
• Crime and poverty:
  1. Direct: Survival
  2. Indirect: Alienation

Richard Quinney (1960's)

• Instrumental Marxism
• Law (and the State) as a tool of the Ruling Class: Supports Status Quo
• Control through a variety of Institutions run by and for the elite (Mass Media, Education, Religion).
• Typical focus of the sociology of deviance/crime is on the lower class
• Solution==> End of Capitalism

Plain Marxist:

Structural Marxism (Colvin and Pauly):

• Parent's class position and workplace control==> alienated parents==> coercive family structure==> alienated juvenile.
• Juvenile from above background, more likely to be in coercive (lower class) school environment==> further alienation.
• Doubly alienated juveniles==> gangs

Stephan Spitzer (1970-): (merging with structuralism)

• Social Dynamite and Social Junk
• Not just capitalism: Dynamics (dialectics) of the system and its internal contradictions.
• Higher classes also a threat (failed capitalists, intellectuals, high-tech==> mass education and information resources expand critical faculties.
• Problem (threat): impede production (resist work), impede distribution (steal from the rich), impede socialization (truancy), impede ideology (counter-hegemony)
• Populations are criminalized as:
  1. Size increases and perceived threat increases
  2. Political organization decreases-- controlling the powerless
  3. As other institutional control (family, school, welfare, military) fail.
• Formation of two different types of problem populations: Dynamite (immediate threat and swift control) and Junk (costly, but harmless). "With the growth of monopoly capital, therefore, the relative surplus-population begins to take on the character of a population which is more and more absolute. At the same time, the market becomes a less reliable means of disciplining these populations, and the "invisible hand" is more frequently replaced by the "visible fist." The implications for deviance production are twofold: (1) problem populations become gradually more problematic--both in terms of their size and their insensitivity to economic controls, and (2) the resources of the state need to be applied in greater proportion to protect capitalist relations of production and ensure the accumulation of capital." (in Pontell, 2002, page 121-122)

Radical Marxism--Focus:

• How group in power uses position to defuse threat and secure legitimacy of their position.
• The Ideology of success and failure

Law:

Chambliss: Vagrancy Laws

• England, 12th Century--depleted labor supply. First laws gave landed aristocracy control over the movement of their workers. Travel and charity defined as illegal (allows Church to regroup after expense of Crusades).
• As labor supplies increase, laws relaxed.
• By 16th Century: mercantilism and trade. New concern: Keep countryside safe for transport.
• Today: keep "undesirables" out of business (consumer) areas.

The Carrier Case of 1473

• Rights of Manufacturers
• Constructive Possession

Differential application of law:

1. "Small" scale bias and racism at 13 decision points in CJS produces homogeneous population in prison.
2. 10.2% African-Am. vs. 2.7% Whites who are arrested become institutionalized.
3. Working Class vs White Collar Crime
4. Visibility of the powerless
5. Sanctioning: "Great Electrical Conspiracy-- GE fined $1.8 million, "profit"--$1.7 billion.
6. Fine for White Collar criminality is often tax deductible (not usually a criminal sanction, but regulatory action).
7. From 1890-1969: 1551 cases of White Collar "incidents." 45% tried as criminal cases, 35 convictions, 2% of convictions institutionalized for an average length of 6 months.

Solution to the problem of Deviance: Redistribute wealth and power. (How?)

Critique of Marxist Conflict Theory (Goode)

Not all conflict represents economic or social class interests
Crime continues to exist in (so-called) socialist societies
There is a similarity between socialist and capitalist societies in erms of the workings of the legal system: arrest and imprisonment as solutions to the "crime" problem
Pluralistic (cultural) Conflict

• Thorsten Sellin: Conduct norms and culture conflict.
• George Vold: Modern society and variety of groups. Compete for Authority: legitimation.
• Ralf Dahrendorf: Groups' access to authority is key to understanding competition of modern society. Authority==>Legitimate Power.
• Austin Turk:

"...examines authority-subject relationships within institutions with little concern for overarching or overlapping authority-subject relationships across institutions. Within this general framework, Turk focuses on legal conflict and criminalization. Specifically, he asks the following two questions:

1. Under what conditions are authority-subject cultural and behavioral differences transformed into legal conflict?
2. Under what conditions do those who violate laws (norms of the authorities) become criminalized? In other words, under what circumstances are laws enforced? (Liska, 1987: 178)"

Turk's answer to these questions is summarized a set of six propositions.

"In answer to the first question above:

• Proposition 1: Conflict between authorities and subjects occurs when behavioral differences between authorities and subjects are compounded by cultural differences. (Ethnic/minorities, Gays: Thio, Deviant Behavior, 1995, p. 62-63 suggests- "If authorities consider a law highly significant and important, they are likely to assign criminal status to subjects who violate the law.") added explanation
• Proposition 2: Conflict is more probable the more organized are those who have an illegal attribute or engage in an illegal act. (Gays after the Stonewall Riots, SDS) added explanation
• Proposition 3: Conflict is more probable the less sophisticated the subjects. (Organized vs. Street Crime) (White collar vs. Street Crime, Gays) added explanation

The probability of enforcement can be conditionalized as:

• Proposition 4: The probability of enforcement of legal norms increases as the congruence between the cultural and behavioral norms of authorities increases. (White collar vs. Street Crime, Gays: Thio, Deviant Behavior, 1995, p. 62-63 suggests- "If law enforcers find the subject's legally prohibited behavior to be greatly offensive, the subjects are likely to be treated as criminals) added explanation
• Proposition 5: The lower the power of the resisters (subjects), the higher the probability of enforcement. (Working Class vs Middle Class) (White collar vs. Street Crime) added explanation
• Proposition 6: The lower the realism of norm violators (resisters), the higher the probability of enforcement." (flagrant violations) (Thio, Deviant Behavior, 1995, p. 62-63 suggests- realism applies to authiorities as well. This places limitations on the use of brute force and a desire to follow the letter of the law. Subjects "achieve" realism by concealing violations, decreasing the offensiveness of visible violations, and avoiding behaviors which unite authorities.) added explanation

Turk presents a picture of crime and deviance in a modern, complex and heterogeneous society as an ongoing struggle.

• Equilibrium is difficult, if not completely impossible to achieve.
• The behavior of any group, and perhaps most importantly, the cultural meaning and significance attached to the behavior is destined to provoke a negative reaction from another group.
• In particular, authority groups will continuously strive to maintain and expand there control over societal resources by defining the activity of "subject groups" as threatening (therefore deviant and/or criminal), to the existing order (implicit here is the idea that the existing order is the order, the only legitimate order).

Solution? Conflict is inherent in human relationships, therefore deviance will always be a feature of social life. Through reform we can reduce the intensity and extent of deviance.

Feminist Theories of Deviance

Feminism (these ideas are drawn from Goode: 1994, 1997, 2001, 2005; and Pfohl, Images of Deviance and Social Control, 1985)

Issue: Subordination based on sexual categories

Perception and Definition of Deviance Rooted in Inequality

Problem: Patriarchy

• Women typically ignored in writings on deviance, when included, a skewed image is presented: deceitfulness.
• Deviance of Males==> Deviance in general, Female deviance always considered as a special case.
• Role of women as Victims largely ignored.

· Gender and Delinquency

Implications drawn from classic theories:

• Less strain
• Different groups
• Restricted illicit opportunities
• Legal bias and differential enforcement.

Problem??

Conflict theory: as a powerless group should expect to see female participation in street crimes to be higher, but?

Social Change and Control

• Myth of the "New Female Offender"
• Social Control and Gender

1. Formal Control: difficulty in comparison, yet does not appear to be overt differentiation in conviction and sentencing.
2. Informal Control: Interesting. Women held to more exacting standards. Heavy stigma for violations. (See Cooper, "On Rejecting 'Feminity'" and Rosenbaum and Chesney-Lind, "Appearance and Delinquency" in Pontell.)

• Victimization: Women's role a victims in crime, especially Rape and Domestic Violence.

Explaining Female Deviance:

Hagan's Power-Control Theory

Attempt to explain differential rates of deviance related to gender and social class.
Hagan's view is that crime and delinquency rates are a function of two factors: (1) class position (power) and (2) family function (control). The link between these two variables is that within the family, parents reproduce the power relationships they hold in the workplace. (Siegel, 1992: 269)
Parent's class position, as defined through their work experiences, influences the delinquent behavior of their children. When fathers occupy the traditional role of sole breadwinner and mothers have only menial jobs or remain at home to handle domestic affairs, the paternalistic or patriarchal family is indicated. Here the father's experience of control over others or being controlled is reproduced in the household. His focus is directed outward towards his instrumental responsibilities, while the mother is left in charge of the children, especially their daughters. Sons are granted greater freedom as they are prepared for the traditional male role symbolized by their fathers. Daughters are socialized into the cult of domesticity under the close supervision of their mothers, preparing them for lives oriented towards domestic labor and consumption; while sons are encouraged and allowed to "experiment" and take risks. Daughters in this scenario are closely monitored so that participation in deviant or delinquent activity is unlikely.
The egalitarian family is characterized by little difference between the mother's and father's work roles, so that responsibility for child rearing is shared. Here neither child receives the close supervision present over females in the paternalistic family. Middle class aspirations and values dominate: mobility, success, autonomy, and risk taking. Daughter's deviance now mirrors their brother's. This pattern seems to hold true for single parent (female-headed) households; even within the working/lower class. Here, without the presence of the father, the mother's supervision over her children is not as intense as in the paternalistic family and, in fact, children of both sexes may be encouraged to experiment with risk taking, instrumental roles. In either case, the argument suggests:
"...middle-class girls are the most likely to violate the law because they are less closely controlled than their lower-class counterparts. And in homes where both parents hold positions of power, girls are more likely to have the same expectations of career success as their brothers. Consequently, siblings of both sexes will be socialized to take risks and engage in other behavior related to delinquency. Power-control theory, then, implies that middle-class youth of both sexes will have higher crime rates than their lower-class peers." (Siegel, 1992:270)

Back to Patriarchy:

Hagan's theory has been criticized as being basically a fairly straightforward adaptation of the "liberation hypothesis," as females experience upward mobility and status change, their access to deviant and illicit behaviors expand. Morash and Chesney-Lind (1989, 1991) argue that a better explanation of female deviance, especially their lower rates of participation, would focus on nurturing relationship developed during socialization, leading them towards more prosocial behaviors. Female deviance becomes a product of the "sexual scripts" within patriarchal families that make it more likely for them to become the victims of both sexual and physical abuse. If they run away, the juvenile court supports parental rights and returns them to the home, persistent violations lead to incarceration and future trouble as official delinquents/deviants or life on the street where survival depends on involvement in crime.

Structuralism and Deviance

The Sociology of Social Control (these ideas are drawn from Goode: 1994, 1997, 2001, 2005)
Reaction to and extension of Marxist critique of modern society (Structuralism, post structuralism and post modernism).
Focus on the development and extension of Formal Control (characteristic of modern societies), (Rational Systems), Control through Technology), (Irrationality of Rationality).
Value-Oriented (like conflict theory)==> create a more human(e) system. Stanley Cohen: The Fishing Net (Totally Administered Society)
Control mechanisms (police, welfare, MI, etc) constantly sweeping through society, catching, processing (tagging, labeling) and recycling populations (Spitzer)

"The New Penology":

"One reason for the new penology is a revision in the concept of poverty. Terms like the "underclass" are now used to describe large portions of the population who are locked into an inescapable cycle of poverty and despair. Criminal justice managers (emphasis added) now group people by various collectives based on their racial and social characteristics. Rather than seek individual rehabilitation they are oriented toward the more realistic task of monitoring and managing intractable groups. The fact that the underclass is permanent leaves little hope that its members, many of whom are in the correctional population, can be helped. Penology then stresses the low-cost management of a permanent offender population." (Larry Siegel, "Criminal Justice Update," Fall 1993, West Publications).

Michel Foucault:

• Historical movement has been from brutal, overt repression to rational, scientific, and bureaucratic control--Administrate/Heal. See, Gary Marx: The Iron Fist and the Velvet Glove: Totalitarian Potentials Within Democratic Structures from The Social Fabric: Dimensions and Issues; James E. Short, Jr., ed.,Sage Publications, Beverly Hills, CA. 1986. (http://web.mit.edu/gtmarx/www/iron.html)
• Goal: pacify and secure a stable and predictable work force for modern capitalist industry (today, workers are no longer needed, so need to regulate even more efficiently)
• Shift has been; from the many controlling the few, to the few controlling the many (Big Brother is Watching You!!!)
• Problems with Foucault: Historical accuracy (empiricism vs. Structuralism)-- Thought and discourse as reality? Can we derive intentions from the consequences of behavior? Is a society without social control possible?

Central Ideas of Structuralism

Social control is problematic:

Not natural, but a product of social forces, group interests. Politics; winners and losers.

Control is coercive and repressive.

Control: Restrain troublesome populations

1. Unemployed and welfare
2. Prozac
3. Education and the "Hidden Curriculum"

When threat is reduced: dump them out (Spitzer's Social Junk)

Control may appear humane and benign, but is in reality oppressive.

Social Control is State (or state like) Control

1. Integrated institutional networks, agencies
2. Circulate the same group of "clients."
3. Even the media plays a role, shapes our perspective.

Social control is unified and coherent.

"Transcarceration":

Control activity moved from the individual body (demonic)==>to the Spirit (individual "therapy")==> to the "Body Social" (the Mass) Interesting Problems/ Unanswered Questions

• Impact of bureaucracy (dysfunctions) due to too much control or not enough resources?
• Client's perspective? "Clients themselves more often see these institutions as a shield to protect them rather than a net to catch them." (But doesn't that make the structuralist point?)
• Informal vs. Formal Control
• Effectiveness of Formal Control?

1. Not a tight efficient net (1000 druggies: 300,000 crimes; 1,300 arrests.) Yet they are defined as criminal and The public actually demands more and tighter control.
2. Prison population is up (over 1 million), yet likelihood of someone arrested on a felony charge going to prison==> 1 in 7.
3. Deviants, themselves, think little of or about formal control: contempt and disdain.
4. System is not a smooth operating machine
5. "Iron Fist to Velvet Glove"??? or just the opposite?

Yet, one can't deny the spread of formalized social control and its impact on our lives and identities. As of 1987 it was estimated that our names pop up in some computer at least 40 times a day. Moreover, federal, state, and local government agencies keep more than 35 files on each one of us.....

• Crime and Violence
• Alcohol and Drug Use as Deviance
• Homosexuality as Deviant
• Heterosexuality as Deviant
• Physical Characteristics as Deviant
• Cognitive Deviance

Researching Deviance (Goode, Deviant Behavior, 7th edition, 2005)

• Issues: trust and validity, "courtesy stigma," risk.
• Qualitative and quantitative methods

Use of Official Data

• Uniform Crime Reports
  • triangulation
  • absolutes versus comparative rates
• DAWN: Drug Abuse Warning Network (see also)
  • ED and ME mentions
  • Charting drug-related problems
• ADAM: Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring Program
  • voluntary and confidential (85% participation)
  • Specific focus: drug use and crime

Survey Research

• Question Construction
• Representativeness (Sampling)
• Truth and Lying
• Response Rate
• Descriptive and Inferential (explanatory) Statistics
• Variables: IV and DV
• Exceptions (developing generalizations)
• Correlations (versus causality)
• Controls

Sex Surveys

• "Kinsey Reports" (1948-1953)
  • Controversy
  • Sampling problems (volunteers)
• "University of Chicago Sex in America Survey"
  • Nationwide, representative. 80% response rate
  • Importance of sampling
  • "Now for the Truth About Americans and Sex," Philip Elmer-Dewitt, Time, October 17, 1994

Assessment

• Limited number of broad, randomized samples
• Relevance of surveys/polls on attitudes toward deviance
• Decent comparative data, and charting of long-term trends
• Surveys, however don't tap into all behaviors, and provide limited depth

Participant Observation

• Widely used--some behavior simply demands fieldwork/ethnography
• Detail notes of observation--cross-verification
• Validity--real-life depiction
• Limited generalizibiltiy
• Qualitative versus quantitative
• Subjective and descriptive versus cause/effect
• Role of the researcher: degree of involvement

Researching Drug Dealers (Patricia and Peter Adler)

• Insider's perspective
• Opportunism; stumble upon situation
• "Snowball" sampling
• Problems
  • Effect of drug use (respondents under the influence)
  • Risks
  • Values, beliefs, and norms--conflict between researcher and subjects
  • Ethics
    • Covert research
    • "Informed Consent"
• See the Adler's, "Everyday Life Sociology," Annual Review of Sociology, Vol. 13. (1987), pp. 217-235.

Assessment

• Works for certain purposes
• Validity versus reliability

Narratives and Personal Accounts

• Long history (Thomas and Zanieki: The Polish Peasant in America, 1918-1920)
• Accounts rendered by informants: democratic
• Factual accuracy versus interpretation
  • Subjects "construction of reality" ("verisimilitude")
  • Negotiation
  • Vocabularies of motive: stigma neutralization
    • The professional fence
    • Convicted rapists
    • Male street hustlers
    • College student cheating
• Accounts and vocabularies of motive are not "causes" of deviance, nor explanations: Simply (complexly) a view of how people maintain a sense of self.

Ethical Issues

Laud Humphreys, "Tearoom Trade" (1970)

Economic Crime


Crime

• Crime versus Deviance
• Common Law and Statutory Law
  • Pre 1066: England; decentralized: shires
  • King Henry II (1154-1189): traveling judges
    • Decisions codified: Common Law (case or judge-made law)
  • Ancient tradition, precedent, "primal"
  • Laws whose existence began as statutes: Statutory law
    • Consensus: more or less
    • Encompasses most of criminal law
      • White collar crime
      • drug law
      • gambling
    • Changes
• Constructionism versus Positivism
  • Definitions
  • Relativity
  • Causes and consequences

Economic Crimes (from Goode, 4-7th editions,1999- 2005)

We are:

• All Victims
• All Perpetrators

We tend to display an overall ambivalence toward economic crimes

TYPES

Opportunistic/Occasional

• Situational Inducement
• Neutralize stigma
• Younger

Professional

• Lifestyle-crime integrated into EDL
• Learning: career structure
• Group/Subculture:

1. Shover-"The Good Burglar"--competence, integrity, specialization, $ success, avoid detection-element of esteem
2. Variety of statuses-hierarchy, thief-fence-legit.

• Code of Honor
• Wit/Cunning/Stealth vs. force
• Highly motivated and proud-no neutralize
• Small number, but impact high
• Sutherland--like white collar:

1. Widespread activity, yet little official recognition
2. No loss of status among peers, in fact status increases with continued success
3. Repeat offending: CJS little effect

WHY PREVALENT?--Problem of Community

• Urban industrial society: Impersonality
• Anomie Theory
  1. Emphasis on money and buying power
  2. Blockage
  3. De-emphasis on legitimate means
• Not poverty per se, but Relative Deprivation: Affluence and Poverty
• Alienation
• Propinquity: Routine Activity

Characteristics: Perpetrator and Victim

• SES
• Age
• Gender

Reporting and Clearance: Overall 40% reported, 21% of total cleared

• Robbery: 60%--1 of 8 cleared of total
• Larceny-Theft: 25%--1 of 20
• Auto: 75-95%-- 15%
• Burglary: 50%--7%

Severity: ranking by general public

1. Use of violence
2. Victim confrontation
3. Presence of victim
4. Consequences: attempted vs. completed
5. Use of weapon
6. Amount of money involved
7. What perpetrator has to do

Robbery

• Robbery entails victim confrontation; it is a theft involving force, violence or the threat of violence.
• It is the only crime that is both a property crime and a crime of violence.
• Robbery is a vastly less common offense than the other forms of stealing property.
• Most offenders simply do not wish to engage in robbery because it is a dangerous, high-risk activity.

2002 FBI STATISTICS
420,000 robberies
2.1 million burglaries
7 million simple thefts or larceny
Of the 420,000 robberies that took place in 2002:
49% took place on the street or on a highway
12% occurred in a residence
24% were robberies of a "a commercial house" i.e. a bank, or convenience store
15% were "miscellaneous"
· The Total Financial Take for Robbers in 2002= $539 million and The Arrest Rate was 25%

• Cash or property worth an average of $1281 per incident
• $4,763 per bank v. $679 per gas or service station

BUT: If a typical robber steals only $1281 per offense, and assuming his crime is reported half the time, and he is arrested only a quarter of the time his crime is reported, he will earn barely $9,000 for each arrest. AND the more that is stolen, the greater the likelihood that the incident will be reported. AND commercial robberies are almost always reported.
SO: The average robbery represents an extremely risky and unlucrative means of earning a decent income. It is appealing because it yields a fairly substantial amount of cash in a very short period of time.
RURAL v. URBAN

• Robbery is overwhelmingly a big-city offense. The likelihood of being a victim of a robbery in a big city is a lot larger than in a small town or a rural area.

• 2002, the robbery rate urban areas was over 24 times as high than for rural areas
• Rural - 17.75 per 100,000 v Urban - 416 per 100,000 (cities with a population of a million or more).
• Big cities offer robber anonymity.

Most people are robbed by a Strangers - (Harlow 1987)- a victimization survey:

• Seven out of Ten cases of robbery by a single offender (69%)
• Eight of Ten cases involving a multiple offender (82%)
• For single offenders One in Ten (9%) was a casual acquaintance. One in eight (12%) was well known to the victim, but was not a relative.
• 4% of all single robbery offenses entailed one spouse robbing another
• 2 % entailed relatives robbing one another.

THUS: Robbery is not a completely homogeneous category.
BUT: Robbery tends to be a crime between strangers, in which the victim does not usually know the offender. As, a consequence, it is a crime vastly likely to take place in large cities rather than in small towns and rural areas.
Who is victimized by robbery? (2002)

• Males are twice as likely to be robbery victims - 2.9 per 1000 than females 1.6 per 1000
• Teenagers (16-19) and young adults (20-24) are most likely to be victims - 4.0 per 1000
• Elderly (65 and older) are least likely 1.0 per 1000
• African Americans are more likely to be victims 4.1 per 1000 - 2x's as high as for whites -1.9 per 1000.
• Lower-income persons are more likely to be robbed than the affluent - Families earning $7500 annually were 6x's as likely to be robbed than families earning $50,000 annually 6.3:1 per 1000.

• One reason criminologists study robbery is it is very powerful indicator or measure of someone's involvement in or commitment to criminal behavior; A good predictor of future criminal activity.

• Usually the robber threatens his victims with harm, rather than actually harming them. However, a significant minority is harmed.

• Harlow 1987 Victimization survey: Victims were injured in 33% of all robberies. 15% required hospital care and 2% had to stay overnight.

• FBI - In 1998, 1 in 14 murders were committed during a robbery. ( 1,092 out of the 2,314 murders during a felony).

• The likelihood of being injured during a robbery varies with the nature of the weapon.

• Although robberies committed with a gun are the least likely to result in injury, and strong-arm or weaponless robberies are the most likely to result in injury, if the perpetrator uses a gun, death is more likely than for any other type of robbery. But: the victim is unlikely to be killed during the course of a robbery ( in 1998, less than one out of a thousand of all robberies).
• The use of a weapon and the occurrence of injury strongly influence whether a robbery will be reported to the police. In 1987, Victims reported robberies in:
  • 45 % of all strong-arm robberies
  • 54 % of all robberies in which a knife was used
  • 73 % of those in which a gun was used
  • 49% of non-injury
  • 61% of minor injury
  • 76% of serious injury robberies

Who is the robber? According to the 2002Uniform Crime Reports of all arrested robbers: Robbers are predominately Young, Black and Male.

• 90% were Male
• 54% were ‘Black’
• 44% were ‘White
• Young - 61% were under the age of 25, 26% were under the age of 18 and 5% were under the age of 15.

BUT: These statistics represent arrested robbers, not robbers in general. Those who are not caught will differ. They are older, wiser, more cautious, more professional, and more experienced.
National Crime Victimization Surveys

• 89% were male
• 5% were female
• 4 %, were both male and female
• 51% were ‘Black’
• 36% were ‘white’
• 4% were ‘other’
• 4% were “team of ‘mixed race’ offenders”
• Nearly 10% more arrested robbers were Black than were robbers identified in victimization surveys.

SO: The portrait we received from the FBI’s figures on arrest and the characteristics as identified in victimization surveys, is that, relative to their numbers in the population, robbers tend to be young, male, and Black – and, of course, overwhelmingly urban.
Explanations of robbery which focus on the offender must make use of two factors: daring and poverty.
Daring

• Robbery is not a crime for the fainthearted; it entails a great deal of risk, both to the victim and to the perpetrator. Robbers, therefore tend to be (unrealistically) confident that they won’t be injured or caught. Such misplaced confidence is more characteristic of males than females, the young than the old.
• Jack Katz: Crime of passion? Fantasy of moral superiority, victim as "chump."

Poverty

• The ‘race’ of robbery offenders is probably largely a function of a combination of the economic position of Blacks in the United States and the fact that African Americans live in large cities (50-60%).
• Black family income is roughly 60% of that of whites, and Black unemployment is twice as high. (2000)
• In addition, since 1973, the poor have been getting poorer and the rich have been getting richer; hence over the past two decades or more, the economic situation of the “underclass”, of whom a disproportion are inner-city minority members, is not only stagnating, but deteriorating.
• Nearly 3 out of 10 ‘Whites’ live in a rural area compared to only 15% of ‘Blacks’

So: The combination of a lower per capita income and a far more urban residence makes it almost predictable that ‘Blacks’ will have a higher rate of robbery than ‘Whites’.
ALSO:In addition, there is the factor of age; while only 30% of the white population is under the age of 20, 40% of the Black population is. this factor alone would tend to boost the robbery rate for African Americans.

Burglary

· Rational, learned, group · Daytime activity (victim shopping or at work) · Bag of tricks--techniques to insure safety and impede detection · Quick cash versus deterrence

Shoplifting

• $8 billion (total for all property crimes: $14 billion)
• Model Code
• Pro-"booster" 10% of all
• "Snitch": All type and kinds, neutralize, females
• Routine (1 of 10)
• Box/Walmarts--leads to rise
• Protection==>fast growing field
• Group support: amusement, adjunct to other activities
• Sociability, conventionality, materialism, hedonism
• Reporting: value of item, nature of goods (resale), older studies-gender, race.
• 1/4 report staged event, 10% detected by employees dealt with, few prosecuted.
• "Snitches"-reform, juveniles-labeling?

Employee Pilferage

• More respectable
• Rarely considered problematic-Victim?
• Costly: double cost of other theft. or more--2% of sales--$120 billion (Buss, 1993- in Thio 1998)
• Easy to rationalize and justify
• Employee morale booster-unofficial reward, controlled larceny: Compensates for low wages, retards change, losses recovered-insurance, customer price, tool of control over employee.
  • Union-management conflict
  • Large and impersonal corporations

Violence

While Collar Crime

Alcohol and Drug Use as Deviance (Chapters 6 and 7, Deviant Behavior, Goode, 6th edition, 2001 and Chapters 7 and 8, Deviant Behavior, Goode, 7th edition, 2005)

What is a Drug?

(deconstructing social constructions)

Drug Effect

• Identity
• Dose
• Potency and Purity
• Drug mixing (synergy)
• Route of Administration
• Habituation:
  • Pharmacological Tolerance
  • Behavioral Tolerance

• Set and Setting

Drug Classification

• Perspective of observer
• Central Nervous System impact
• Cross tolerance
• Cross dependence

History, Types, Patterns, and Extent of Use

Medical- Legal/Instrumental

• Prescription and OTC ~$110 Billion/year
• Changing pattern-significant decline
• Exceptions: Prozac, Xanax
• Pharmacological Revolutions
  1. Vaccines
  2. Antibiotics
  3. Psychopharmacology
  4. Birth Control,
  5. "Drug Free"
  6. Better Living Through Chemistry??

Illegal/Instrumental

• User and societal definition

Legal/Recreational

• Caffeine, Nicotine, Alcohol

Illegal/Recreational

• 35% tried
• 15% past year
• 6% current

10. Marijuana 11. Cocaine/crack 12. Hallucinogens 13. Narcotics 14. Others

Issues

• User Loyalty
• Drugs most likely to be given up
• Harm

Brief History of Drugs, Legalization and Criminalization: Racism and Social Control

• Harrison Narcotic Act- 1914
• The Volstead Act-1920 (Prohibition)
• Marijuana Tax Act-1937
• The re-emergence of the sub-culture (1960's)
• Drug use in the 1970's
• The decade of decline: 1980's
• What's up in the 1990's
• Drugs in the Twenty-first Century

Myths and Realities

• Drug use and Social Problems: DAWN
• Crack and Crack Babies
• Heroin and Addiction

§ Lindesmith and Reinforcement Theory (positive and negative) § Euphoria Seekers § Maintainers

• Drunken Comportment: Social Norms vs. Biological determinism
• Alcoholism, Problem Drinking and Control
• Drugs and Crime
• Users
  1. Illicit Drugs
  2. Alcohol
• Media and Reality: The Case of LSD, Crack, or maybe Caffeine

Theories of Deviance

Heterosexual Deviance (Chapter 9, Deviant Behavior, Goode, 6th edition, 2001 and Chapter 9, Deviant Behavior, Goode, 7th edition, 2005)

ESSENTIALSM VERSUS CONSTRUCTIONISM
Essentialist

• Sees sexuality as an instinct or drive that demands fulfillment, an independent and powerful force.
• Sex is there; it exists prior to the human consciousness; it is a natural force in the world that has to be reckoned or grappled with.
• This is the physiological or hydraulic model of sexuality, one that sees sex drive as an unstoppable force of nature, much like the flow of water.

Constructionism

• Overlaps with the symbolic interactionist approach
• How is sexuality itself constructed? What are the meanings that are attached to it?
• Insists that behaviors or phenomena that are superficially, mechanically, and outwardly the same, that are formally the same to external observer, can bear radically different meaning to the participants
• Actions and other phenomena that, if examined externally and mechanically, are objectively radically different can actually bear very similar meanings to observers or participants.
• Sexual meaning does not exist intrinsically or inherently in a given act.
• Sexual meanings are read or infused into phenomena or behaviors in the world
• Sexual meanings are not universal absolutes, but ambiguous and problematic categories
• Actions that are outwardly similar are experienced in radically different ways; “the same” mechanical action will inhabit an entirely different internal or subjective landscape.
• Sexual meaning does not arise automatically from the nature of the act; it is the meaning that makes the act sexual in nature.
• Sexuality does not shape our social conduct - social meanings give shape to our sexuality.

Constructionist use sexual scripts to understand sexual behavior and there are three varieties of scripts that guide human sexual life:

1. Cultural scenarios
2. Interpersonal scripts
3. Intrapsychic scripting

Cultural Scenarios

• The “instructional guides that exist at the level of collective life”
• Provide broad outlines for appropriate behavior.
• Thus, we learn what sexual behaviors are acceptable and unacceptable and with whom and under what circumstances sex may take place.
• However, since there are plenty of blank spaces in cultural scenarios; interpersonal scripts fill in many of the blanks

Interpersonal Scripts

• Permit the actor to turn from acting in a play with parts written by another (that is culture) to “being a partial script writer or adapter shaping the materials of relevant cultural scenarios into scripts for behavior in particular contexts.
• They are always constrained by real partners in the concrete world.
• Thus, the script one write must always be in collaboration with others, and entails certain do’s and don’ts that must be observed.
• BUT: such constraints do not apply to intrapsychic scripting

Intrapsychic Scripting

• Enables the actor to “reorganize” reality, to create “a private world of wishes and desires”
• The more diverse the society, the more varied and diverse are the scripts that operate to guide our sexual behavior.

SO: Constructionists argue: sex is not a given, something that simply “is,” but something that is created or fashioned out of our biological “raw material,” partly by our culture, partly by our partners and our interaction with them, and partly by the richness of our imagination. It is not sex that makes us but we who make sex – along with whatever it means to us, and to the people with whom we come into contact.

GENDERING SEXUALITY
Sexist Society

• Provides an economic benefit to women who sell their bodies, and then labels them as deviant
• Women as sex objects--Conversation Law
• Women denied access to the means of success in other areas
• Extension of dominant value, activities, and institutions of conventional society.

1. Male oriented, male dominated
2. Advertising
3. Double standard
4. Profit and capitalist ethic
5. Alienated labor
6. Sexually restrictive society

How do we “gender” heterosexuality?
"Heterosexuality is a category divided by gender." So we need to understand what Weitzer (2000) refers to as the “gender disparity” in heterosexual deviance, that is, that male sexual behavior “is less subject to social strictures” than female sexual activity.
For Example:

• A sexually active teenage girl is condemned more strongly than a teenage boy. Hence, the very foundation of deviance, that is, the stigma or condemnation is dependent on who is being stigmatized or condemned which, in turn, is based on the sex or gender of the enactor.

• The problem of teenage sex, pregnancy, and subsequent out-of-wedlock births is widely regarded as a problem almost exclusively of the behavior of girls

• The vast majority of “sex work” jobs are enacted by women for men. “Female sex workers are quintessential deviant women, whereas their customs are seen as essentially normal men"

SO: Sexual behavior generally and sexual deviance more specifically are expressions or manifestations of the roles of men and women. It is naive to assume that a given sexual encounter between a man and a woman means the same thing to the two participants, has the same consequences, or is interpreted by members of the society in the same fashion.
THUS: Gendering must always inform our view of sexual deviance.

SEXUAL BEHAVIOR AND CUSTOM AROUND THE WORLD
Mangaia v. Inis Beag - represents the extremes of sexual permissiveness and repression.

• "What should be clear is that many of the phenomena many of us might assume to be biological functions, such as the frequency of intercourse and the experience of orgasm in the woman, are learned and not innate in the human organism. They may have biological basis or potential, but whether this is manifested in real life is determined by the culture, not biology." (Goode 2001, p. 244)
• THUS: "Sexual behavior, sexual custom and sexual deviance are dictated not by – the body’s anatomical, hormonal, or genetic characteristics, but the society and culture in which humans live."

SO: Relativity and Change - both cultural and historical variation in judgments concerning what constitutes sexual deviance.
AND: There exists strong actor relativity: Who is condemned as a consequence of having committed certain acts varies enormously.
THUS: What is condemned is not a universal, but culture - specific, actor – specific, and situation-specific
A MAJOR NATIONALLY REPRESENTATIVE SEX SURVEY

• Ken Plummer (1983) classifies sex research into four “main traditions”

1. The Clinical Tradition of Freud and the psychoanalysts, psychiatrists, and clinical psychologists
2. The "social bookkeeping" tradition of Alfred Kinsey and other survey-takers
3. The Experimental Method of Masters and Johnson and many other psychologists
4. The descriptive/ethnographic/symbolic interactionist tradition of anthropologists and participant observation sociologist.

Strengths of "social bookkeeping"

• Allows us to make inferences about what behavior is likely to mean to the majority of the society we are studying
• Allows us to discover correlations or relationships with key factors or variables that do bear symbolic meanings
• Enables us to see, in a systematic fashion, differences between the sexes not only in how they construct meanings but also in objective, concrete behavior.

"Sex in America" ("Now for the Truth About Americans and Sex," Philip Elmer-Dewitt, Time, October 17, 1994)

• Nearly 3,500 adults age 18 to 59 were interviewed nationwide; they represented an accurate cross-section of the country in that age range. The study results turned out to be surprising in that the sexual behavior of the American population turned out to be a great deal more conservative and conventional in their behavior than almost anyone, the researchers included, had expected.
• Perhaps the most consistent findings was that, whether or not marriage was the aim of the relationship, people usually have sex with partners who are similar to themselves - in age, 'race' and ethnicity, and socioeconomic status, especially education.

WHY? 3 Reasons

• Meeting someone takes place within social boundaries.
• Social relations are constrained by religious membership, neighborhood or community residents, school or occupational setting, friendship networks, and so on.
• “Stakeholders” – parents, relatives, peers, coworkers, friends, acquaintances, associates in one social networks are likely to put pressure on one to date within certain social boundaries.
• More than 8 Americans in 10 had had sex with either no partners 12%, or only one partner 71%, in the past year, only 3% had had sex with five or more partners.
• Since the age of 18, not quite 59% had had sex with 4 or fewer partners; only 9% said that they had had sex with more than 20 partners in their lifetime.
• Three-quarters of the married men 75% and 85% of the women said that they had been sexually faithful to their spouse during the course of their marriage. Among married persons 94% said that they were faithful during the last year.

Homosexual Behavior

• Only 2.8% of the men in the sample, and 1.4 % of the women, identified themselves as homosexual or bisexual.
• Only 2% of the men and the women said that they had had sex with a same-gender partner in the past year.
• Only 5.3% of the men, and 3.5% of the women, said that they had done so since the age of 18
• Only 9% of the men, and 4% of the women, said that they had done so since they onset of puberty.

Sexual Frequency

• Considerably lower than many observers had anticipated.
• Only one-third of the sample 34% had sex as often as twice a week; of that total, only 8% said that they had sex as often as four or more times a week.
• One out of ten of the men in their fifties 11%, and three out of ten of the women of that age 30% did not have sex at all during the past year.
• Married members were significantly more likely than the single members to have had sex twice a week or more 41% v 23%
• Cohabitation partners who were living together but unmarred were even more likely to have had sex this often 56%
• In addition: the marrieds were most likely to report being physically and emotionally pleased with their sex and its frequency.
• Thus: the image of the wild, free and easy sex lives of the “swinging singles” received a serious body blow from the findings.

Most appealing Sexual Activities:

• Traditional penile-vaginal sex turned out to be the only sexual activity that was almost universally appealing: 83% of men and 78% of women said that is was “very appealing to them."
• 80% of the sample said that every time they had sex during the past year, they had vaginal sex.
• Half of the men and a third of the women said that watching their partner undress was very appealing
• Giving oral sex: 37% men, 19% women
• Thus: the activates the respondents said they found appealing were quite traditional and conventional. Unusual, far-out "deviant" activities attracted very few positive evaluations.

Critiques of the study assumed respondents would lie about their sex lives – The fact that researchers used a variety of techniques to cross – check the answers respondents gave gives us more confidence that the answers they received are accurate. And the fact that similar similar conclusions for a number of behaviors were found in a Britain study.

What Constitutes Sexual Deviance?

• Constructionist argue that not only is the very category of sexuality constructed, in addition, a specific evaluated meaning is read into it as well- sexual categories are rendered “good or “bad” – that is, conventional and norm abiding, or deviant, in violation of the norms through the construction process.
• Not only are the categories “homosexual” and “heterosexual” constructed, but also they are infused with positive or negative meanings. Depending on the society or social circle rendering the judgment.
• It is these social definitions we have to pay close attention to; they are what social deviance is built upon.
• What creates the phenomenon of deviance is the reactions; they are variable in societies the world over, from one historical time period to another, and from one social circle or context to another in the same society.

• When discussing sexual behavior, deviance refers specially to socially disapproved behavior and characteristics and that only. It includes no taint of pathology or disorder whatsoever, no implication of harm; it does not assume that we are discussing the more extreme end of a continuum that runs from mildly to extremely deviant.

• Psychological and Sociological deviance are not the same thing. They delineate two separate and independent dimensions. They overlap, of course; the chances are nearly all cases of psychological deviance would qualify as sociological deviance But the reverse is not the case.

• For something to qualify as social deviance all that is necessary is that it be condemned in some social quarter or circle and this may include behavior that clinical psychologists and psychiatrist agree is quite normal

Our Laws are designed to govern 4 Main Dimensions of sexual deviance

• The degree of consent or one aspect of the how question
• The nature of the sexual object or the who and what question
• The nature of the sex act another aspect of the how
• The setting in which the sex act occurs or the where question
• There are other dimensions that are not covered by the law or are less strongly governed by law than by custom, that nonetheless, dictates the inappropriateness of certain sexual behaviors. The how often question: The desire for sex that is widely deemed too often may court the charge of being a “sex addict” or being “sexually compulsive.
  • On the other hand, desiring or having sex not often enough may result in being labeled impotent or frigid.

General Taboos of Intercourse Include:

• Certain times
• Too young an age
• Promiscuity

What is of interest to the sociologist of deviance is:

• The dynamic quality of condemnation, that is, the acts that once attracted more condemnation now attract far less, or none.
• How common the activity is

Radical Feminism

• The defining feature is the view that all heterosexual sex is patriarchal or male dominated and therefore oppressive.
• "Sex work" generally and prostitution and pornography specifically, represents the most extreme forms of patriarchy and sexual oppression
• All women are exploited, demeaned, and brutalized by pornography: Men who are exposed to it carry over this exploitative stance into their relations with all the women in their lives.
• All sex is saturated by patriarchy- the “anti-sex” position- All heterosexual sex is sexual slavery. Hence, it is necessary to do away with all sex.

PRO-SEX FEMINISM

• “good” sex can be separated from “bad” or bogus sex
• Prostitution and pornography are not really an expression of sexuality at all , but a corruption of sex that must be excised from the body social
• It is the tasks of feminism to enlighten the members of the society about the exploitative nature of commercial sex.
• Men must learn that every time they patronize a prostitute or watch a pornographic video, they are contributing to the exploitation of women.
• Women must learn that by working in such enterprises, they are oppressing not only themselves, but all woman kind
• Women bear the responsibility of teaching their husbands and boyfriends the truth about patriarchy and the role that prostitution and pornography play in upholding it.

SEXUAL LIBERTARIANISM

• "sex work" is empowering, not degrading
• The woman is not a slave or a victim, but a free agent who chooses a path that not only defies society’s normative restrictions, but also makes her a dominant party in sexual transaction
• Far form representing power, offering money for sexual services is an expression of weakness
• All sexual acts including "sexwork" have meaning independent of the culture or social structure and two each sexual encounter is an isolated independent act

Sexual Radicalism

• Blends sexual libertarianism
• “pro-sex” feminists who argue vigorously and vociferously against the "anti-sex" position of the radical feminists.
• The meaning of sex generally and "sexwork" specifically is negotiated with in the framework of patriarchal system.
• Unlike sexual libertarians, sexual radicals deny that each person is independent of every other, they deny that everyone has absolute agency and deny that social structure can be ignored.
• Unusual sexual practices can be liberating,only if they are designed to subvert the dominant system of patriarchy.
• Prostitution and pornography like other forms of commercialization can be interpreted “in more complex ways than simply confirmation of male domination."

Thus: Sexual radicalism is a vigorous and diverse voice amount feminists on the question of "sex work" and its meaning. It argues that sex workers do not need to be “saved” or liberated form their current mode of employment. Indeed, these writers and theorist argue, sex workers have a great deal to teach us about the nature of sexuality and gender. It is they who may very well liberate us from the oppressive bonds of patriarchy.
BUT:Traditional feminist, especially radical feminists, do not even consider sexual radicals as feminists at all.

Prostitution and Pornography in the USA

Widely condemned
Widely tolerated
Sub-world: 1. Social structure 2. Roles 3. Status 4. Internal organization: "Deviant Street Networks"- "The Hustle" 5. Link to wider society

Prostitution

Extent of Prostitution:

(Clinard and Meier, Sociologgy of Deviant Behavior, 9th ed., Harcourt Brace College Pub., 1995)

1. 72 So. California prostitutes (Bellis, 1990)
2. Sample served 560 clients per day (2-30/women, average 8)
3. Fees: $20-$100, most common: $30
4. Most popular act: intercourse and fellatio ("half and half")
5. Total population: 100,000-500,000 (1971 est.)
6. $1 billion annually
7. 1992: 96,200 arrests (most female), age: early 20s, 60% white. (problem of multiple arrests)
8. Many experts suggest decline in recent years: Sexual freedom for women==> greater sexual access for men?
9. 20% of adult male population have had some experience as clients

Clients

• Functionalism
• Variety
• Economic aspect- enjoy "control" of activity
• Easy and certain sex
• Personality over Appearance: Pay, yes, but demeanor should not remind them of this fact.

Prostitutes' Attitudes

• No enjoyment, it gets in the way.
• Appreciate the economic rewards, however the downside is the sex.
• Mockery of sex/love; Selling their humanity
• Contempt for "trick"
• Not characterized as man haters.

Becoming a Prostitute

• Research sources: Limitations of sample
• Background factors: Variety of experience, although abuse and early promiscuity are common.

Casual Sex ==> Drift ==> Transition ==> Professionalization

• Drift--forks in the road
• Transition--Stigma Neutralization, Normalization
• Role ambivalence--"Turnout Blues"
• Professionalization--

1. Deviant ID
2. Organize life around activity
3. Internalization of subcultural values
4. "Better (smarter) than other women"
5. Functional
6. Sex for Drugs: The World of Cocaine

Step-by-step process: Learning and Sub-cultural Theories, Labeling and Secondary Deviance

Types

1. Streetwalkers
2. Bar girls
3. "Baby Pros": Children (introduced through family, part-time and school, cavalier attitudes and like the money (Inciardi, 1984: "Little Girls and Sex", Deviant Behavior, 5:71-78)
4. Adolescent Female (Marginality)
5. Adolescent Male Prostitutes (Typically unplanned, Peer-Delinquent Subculture: Hustling Network, Gay Subculture)
6. "Road Whores": Labor camps, Conventions, Truck stops
7. Massage Parlor, Photo Studio
8. Escort Service
9. Business Office: "Party girls," "Mistresses," "Career Climber"
10. House Prostitutes
11. Call girls (Entrance, Apprenticeship, Contact Development)

Pornography

Definitional problems:

• Soft and hard; erotica
• Audience: Works consumed for sexual excitement
• Public definition
• Genre'

Hard Core

• What society say is bad is GOOD
• Everyone is obsessed with sex
• Women always available and responsive
• Right women===>man become potent beyond belief
• Sex permeates EDL

Effects of Pornography on consumers

• Catharsis
• Modeling
• Neutral

· Pornography and Rape

1970 Commission on Obscenity and Pornography: Little impact, lack of violent pornography in study.
Meese Commission 1986--link to aggression (correlation vs. causation): sex offenders use porn, therefore porn causes sex crime.

• Research indicates about 1% contains significant element of violence (A. Dworkin-all porn is violence)
• Goode's research: 4% --rape/forced, 11% S/M-most males dominated by females
• Laboratory research: no hard correlation between viewing sex and acting aggressively, but view violence--YES. (Electric shocks, attitudes toward rape)
• Macro-level studies:

1. Baron and Strauss (89), states with high levels of porn also have high rape rates; but, 3rd variable-hypermasculine culture (violence, rape myth, etc).
2. Gentry (91) control for SMSA--no relationship, cities with high rates of porn have same rape rates as cities with low porn rates.

Criminalization:

• Ideological struggle
• Problem--widely accepted and tolerated

1. Constitutional
2. Definitional
3. Big business-40% VCR owners consume

TEENAGE SEX
“Sex in America” survey

• The majority of the American population, 61%, believe that teenage sex is always or almost always wrong.”
• There is a double standard concerning teenage sex. Adults are much more concerned about teenage girls having sex than teenage boys.
• Age at first intercourse has declined
• Likelihood that someone will have intercourse by the age of 20 had risen
• Increase among teenagers in having sex with more than one partner -women who had sex with two or more partners in their teenage years has more than tripled.

Exactly the same trend was found in Great Britain.
THUS: Not only are young women today having sex at an earlier age than was true in earlier eras, but: sex typically takes place at time when it is regarded as unacceptable to the parental generation, before their 20th birthday, most teenage girls engage in what adults view as sexual deviance.

• Teenage sex is simultaneously an activity in which a majority of adults view as sexual deviance. It is simultaneously an activity in which a majority engage and an activity that is condemned by the majority at least a majority of adults. But their disapproval is considerably less powerful than in the past.

• Whenever persons in power fail to exert the social control they consider legitimate, they must necessity disapprove of the activity that escapes their supervision. But parents would explain their disapproval in more practical and less symbolic terms:

• Teenage sex is thought of as the gateway to pregnancy. Thus, it is activates fear from all sides of the political spectrum from liberal to conservative. But the birth rate among teenage women has declined in the 1990s- 62.1 per 1000 for females age 15 to 19 in 1991 to 54.7 in 1996.

• The decline was attributed to both an increase in the use of contraceptives among sexually active teenagers and a decline in teenage sexual activity.

BUT: In spite of the decline, the United States has the highest rate of teenage births among all the industrialized nations of the world. In 1996, just under half a million babies were born to girls age 15 to 19; 10,000 were born to girl’s age 14 and younger.
The 1990s "moral panic" regarding teenage sex and more specifically teen pregnancy virtually exploded precisely at time when illegitimate births among 16-19 years old actually declined.

Extramarital Sex

• Adultery is far less common than most of us imagine
• It may be the cause and consequence of marital instability
• Evolutionary psychologists say, the tendency of organisms, humans included, to act in such a way that they maximize the transmission of their genes to later generations and one way of understanding this process they claim is the differences between males and females in responses to questions about what would be most upsetting about the infidelity of their spouse or partner. “What would distress you more”?

• Women are much more likely to be distressed by the emotional involvement of their partner’s sexual infidelity while men become more upset at their partner’s sexual infidelity. This 'jealously gender gap' is encoded in our genes.
• So: Women are “evolutionarily programmed to become more distressed at emotional infidelity than sexual infidelity"

BUT: not all observers agree that jealous is genetically encoded. Enormous variation exists from one society to another with respect to how jealousy its members are at the infidelity of their partners. The male-female gap predicted by the evolutionary biologists is found everywhere it is true, but the size of the difference varies considerably.

• In the United States three times as many men as women are upset at her partner sexual faithlessness versus their emotional infidelity . Moreover, while the relative differences between men an women support the theory the absolute size of the percentages runs counter to it. Evolutionary Biologists predict that more men would care about sexual than emotional fidelity; in fact most men are not disturbed more by sexual than emotional infidelity, which is totally contrary to the theory.

What triggers sexual jealous?

• Men’s conception of female sex has it that her sexual infidelity implies emotional infidelity as well if she has sex with another man, he assumes that pretty much means that she love him too
• In addition, some women can be in love with another man but not have sex with him hence the man loses twice when his partner is sexually unfaithful a more threatening situation tan simple emotional infidelity which may imply nothing beyond that.
• In contrast, women are aware of the fact that their male partner can have sex with another woman without loving her but when a man forms a romantic or loving attachment to another woman it is more likely to be a serious threat on his relationship with the first women.

THUS: it is our awareness of what sex and sex roles mean to our partners that determines differences researcher observe.
The "jealously gender gap " critics of evolutionary psychology argue is the result of a cultural intellectual and to some degree rational process not the nagging and largely unconscious demands of our genes.
Regardless we can be certain that marital infidelity is not likely to be accepted any time soon.

Pornography in Cyberspace

Stigma yes, yet ambivalence

Homosexuality and Deviance in the USA

Homosexuality (Chapter 10, Deviant Behavior, Goode, 6th edition, 2001 and Chapter 9, Deviant Behavior, Goode, 7th edition, 2005)

Lots of Misunderstanding

• Who?
• What?
• Where?
• Why?

THE WORLD OF HOMOSEXUALITY, SOME RECENT DEVELOPMENTS
OUTING
Outweek's 1990 article:“The Secret Gay Life of Malcolm Forbes.” marked the beginning of the phenomenon of exposing, against their will, the fact that certain supposed heterosexual are secretly practicing homosexuals or "outing"

• Some gays consider “outing” an outrageous invasion of their privacy
• Some gays approve of the practice on the principal, arguing that secrecy about sexual orientation hurts all gays and lesbians and helps to maintain a stigmatizing oppressive system. “outing” provides young homosexuals with positive role models, demonstrating that there are many successful famous men and women who are gay and lesbian.
• A middle ground and probably the majority opinion in the gay community is adopted by observers who feel that “outing” is ethically justified when specific closet homosexual engage in behavior that is harmful to homosexuals.

QUEER THOERY
In “Sisters and Queers: The Decentering of Lesbian Feminism” Stein argus that “queer” is a better term than “lesbian” because it emphasizes what can’t be assimilated.

• “Queer” emphasizes the apartness and differences of gays and lesbians “You can’t eliminate queerness or screen it out. It is an affirmation that for thousands of years history and literature have been seen though the perspective of heterosexual males; gendering history and literature - uncovering the patriarchal, heterosexist biases in past intellectual enterprises - will enable us to cast off oppressive structures and liberate our true nature, enable us to be who we really are.” By adopting this theory homosexuals are throwing off the chains of gender oppression and domination and are subverting patriarchy.
• The Queer Theorist want “to emphasize the queerness of queers.” They reject the idea that being a homosexual is an alternative to being straight, parallel to it in every way.
• At present nearly all who call themselves queer theorists are academics teaching in English, humanities, of film departments

Legal Changes

• In 1990, three states Texas, Kentucky, and Michigan repealed their laws outlawing homosexual practices.
• By 2000 28 states, homosexual practices are legal, six outlawed certain “deviate” practices – (sodomy).
• June 2003: 4 states still criminalized homosexual sodomy
• June 2003: Lawrence v. Texas- Supreme Court overturns 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick: States cannot criminalize homosexualk sodomy, specifically
• At the present time 87 cities or countries have passed ordinances prohibiting discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
• nine states also extend legal civil rights protection to gays.
• But, some jurisdictions (Cincinnati) specifically prohibit laws from being passed that protect homosexuals from discrimination.
• Nationally, a majority of Americans favor the passage of equal-rights laws protecting homosexuals against job discrimination, by a margin of almost two to one - 62% favor, 32% oppose.
• However, two-thirds (65%) also believe that “too much attention is being paid” to the issue of homosexual rights and less than half say that they would vote for homosexual candidate (48%), allow their child to watch a TV program with a homosexual character in it (46%), attend religious services presided over by gay clergy (42%), allow there child to attend a preschool that had homosexual staff members (42%) and see a homosexual doctor (39%).

SO: Most Americans are against discrimination against gays, but admit they would practice it themselves.
ETILOGY (cause?)
Many homosexuals claim that they have no more choice in becoming gay than heterosexuals did in being straight, that is seems almost inconceivable that there is no genetic or hormonal component in its etiology.
Studies in 1991,1992, and 1995, found anatomical differences were located in the brains of homosexuals and heterosexuals. They claim that there is a 99.5% certainty that there is a gene or set of genes that predispose men to become homosexual.

• A strikingly higher proportion of brothers of identical twins of homosexual men (52%) to be gay themselves than was true of fraternal brothers (22%) and genetically unrelated adopted brothers (11%); this study argued for a possible genetic origin of homosexuality.

BUT: this is controversial because the brain studies relied on the organs of deceased AIDS patients who were known to have engaged in homosexual relations; it is possible that the disease generated the difference the scientist observed, not the homosexuality.
AND: correlation does not demonstrate causality; it is entirely possible that engaging in certain sexual practices trigger biological processes that influence cerebral structure.
BUT: some gay activists have endorsed the findings, arguing that they show how unjust society’s condemnation of homosexuality is; while other gay activities reject this argument, claiming the reasons why one seeks the companionship of same-sex partners should be irrelevant. Thus, the involuntary character of homosexuality is quite beside the point.
SO: The controversy continues.
Family Values
During the 1992 presidential campaign, homosexuality became an issue as never before in the nations history; Republicans opposed civil right statutes that mentioned sexual preference status as defining a protected minority. Democratic Bill Clinton and Al Gore represented the most pro –lesbian and pro gay ticket in history.
BUT: the family values theme proved to lack appeal to the majority of voters who were more concerned about basic meat and potatoes issues such as jobs and the economy.
SO: the stress on family values backfired for the Republicans, it failed to catch fire in the national election.
BUT: it remains absolutely central in hundreds of local elections: “family values” candidates are most likely to have a substantial impact on local school boards.
2004 election: "morality" dominates electoral process. The pendulum swings.
Gays In the Military?

• 1980’s - more than 15,000 homosexuals were dismissed from the military.
• 1994 - President Clinton’s “don’t ask don’t tell” - a compromise which made neither gays nor conservatives happy - 5,976 military personnel were discharged for homosexuality; in 1997 the total was 996.
• Currently the issue of gays in the military has reached something of a stalemate with neither side achieving a clear-cut resolution

Gay Bashing

• “gay bashing” - the physical attack on men and women specifically because they are thought or recognized by their assailants to be homosexuals – rose in the 1990s.
• In a survey of five cities, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute found that anti-homosexual Violence increased between 1989 and 1990 by over 40% and from 1990 to 1991 by over 30%.
• The number of documented anti-gay murders increased the Institute said, from 3 to 8 in the 1990-1991 period.

As a result of the Hate Crime Statistics Act of 1990, the FBI has collected and recorded data on hate crimes form law enforcement agencies around the country. The program is voluntary and as of 1998 just over 10,000 jurisdictions whose populations made up roughly 216 million Americans, complied by sending Washington the relevant information:

• A total of 7,755 basis-motivated incidents were reported to the FBI. It is almost certain that many more than half of the incidents that actually took place were not reported. Of this total 1,260 respondents or 16% of the incidents were motivated by hostility to the victim’s sexual orientation.
• 40% entailed assault
• 20% vandalism
• 34% resulted from intimidation
• the rest were miscellaneous
• a total for 4 murders were such as that that took Matt Shepard's life

GAY MARRIGE?

• The most recent battleground
• in 1997 Hawaii made same-sex marriages are legal
• Currently, 19 states are considering legislation to deny government recognition to marriages that they have taken place in that or any state
• Mo Goovernor Holdon recently recants on his campaign promise to the Saint Louis Lesbian and Gay community
• Gallup poll - a clear majority of the American public 68% opposes legal homosexuals marriages; 27% approve.
• Gay marriage proposals lose in 11 states during November 2004 elections.

The Media

• 2003: Bride's magazine, article on homosexual weddings (covered in The New York Times)
• 1970s "MArcus Welby" versus "Queer as Folk" and "Queer Eye for the Straight Guy."

Essentialism vs. Constructionism

Essentialist:

• "Natural" category
• Universal
• Exists before its defined
• Specific type of being
• Clear distinction between homosexual and heterosexual

Disease analogy--yet saturates the person.

• Reality rests in sexual orientation, preference, feelings--erotic desire.
• "True" vs "pseudo" homosexual.
• Search for causes and "cures"

Social Constructionist:

• NOT universal, matter of definition
• NO absolute criteria
• Dimensions--vary cross culturally.
• Social Role: Being (expectations) and to be (meaning) varies.
• Some cultures-same sex occurs, but is not considered homosexual (Sambia). Appropriate partners, marriage.
• Prison: insertor not homosexual, insertee is.

Pathology?

• Either/or ideology vs. Dimensions and degrees
• Essentialism
• "Science"=psychoanalysis
• Psycho-sexual disorder?
• Heterosexual destiny?
• Anatomically determined?
• Unnatural?
• Reproduction?

Critique

• ? Desirability of heterosexuality=scientific
• ? Exclusive heterosexuality=inadequate homosexual functioning (gays and heterosexual experience)
• ? Disorder--skewed sample

Deviance-Yes

• Sexual Stigma
• Laws
• Language
• Persecution
• Work--teachers ?
• As parents ?
• Psychiatry
• Religion
• No to "gay marriage" in 2004

Deviance- Ambiguity??

• Indirect/Symbolic Stigma
• Opinion Polls
• Public Figures
• Law enforcement
• Supreme Court: Lawrence v. Texas
• Popular opinion

Dimensions

Tearoom Trade

1. Displays situational nature of sexual behavior
2. Social Construction of Self

Kinsey's Research

1. 37% males--at least once--orgasm
2. 13% males urges/desires
3. 69% adolescents-sex play
4. 4% exclusive homosexual
5. 50% exclusive heterosexual
6. Perhaps an exaggeration, but still indicates homosexuality is not a "fixed condition
7. Female (Kinsey 1953): 20% of single women, 5% of all women, at least one act leading to orgasm

Recent Studies: National Life and Social Life Survey (1992), National Cancer Institute (1993)

• Males (past year): 2-3% (definitional problems here)
• Males (ever- past 18 years old): 5%
• Define self as Gay or Bisexual: 3%
• Female (1992 Study): 2% in the past year
• Female (1992 Study) 4% (over 18 years of age) ever

“Sex in America”

How many Homosexuals Are There?
A low level of homosexuality was revealed:

• 2.8% of men consider themselves as homosexual or bisexusl
• 1.4% of women consider themselves as homosexual or bisexual
• 6% of men were attracted to persons of the same gender and 4% said that they found the thought of sex with someone of the same gender appealing
• 4% of women were attracted to persons of the same gender and 5.5% said that they found the thought of sex with someone of the same gender appealing
• 2% of both men and women said that they had had sex with someone of the same gender during the past year
• 5% of the men and 4 % of the women had had sex with someone of the same gender since puberty

Conclusions:

1. There is no single infallible measure of homosexuality as some essentialist researches have claimed, homosexual sex is multidimensional.
2. Homosexual expression is a distinctly “gendered” experience; men and women have dramatically different homosexual “styles”
3. Many more males act on homosexual desires than females, especially from the onset of adolescence to the age of 18.
4. Many more women who experience homosexual attraction and desire do no act on them. ( 59% have experienced a homosexual desire without engaging in homosexual sex or regarding themselves as lesbiansa)
5. Among females there is much less adolescent homosexual sex than among males.
6. Males act on their homosexual impulses earlier in their lives and with much less inhibition; many of them experiment with homosexual behavior in adolescence and the give it up.
7. Women engage in homosexual behavior for the first time much later in their lives.

BUT: the figures turned up by the “Sex in America” survey, are much lower than the figures turned up by Kinsy’s research team a half century ago. Why?

1. Most observers and commentators of homosexuality reside in the nation’s largest cities and there suburbs where homosexuality is vastly more common rather than in its small towns and rural areas where it is exceedingly rare. (The % identifying themselves as homosexuals or bisexuals varies form 9 % in the country’s dozen largest cities to 1% in rural areas)
2. It must be recognized that there is likely to be a political angle to the findings a survey on homosexuality may turn up.
   1. The goals of gay political activities are furthered by the finding that there are many homosexuals in the population, since this means that politicians cannot ignore a major segment of their constituency and must take their interests and demands into account.
   2. A conservative agenda is likely to be furthered by the discovery that there are few homosexuals in the population. The smaller the number of Americans who engage in the homosexuality the more plausible the claim that the vast majority of us “would never dream of indulging in such behavior”
3. The prevalence of homosexuality in America depends very much on what homosexuality means in the first place – how it is defined? Constructionist perspectives assumes central importance. How should we define “a” homosexual?

Elements of Social Identity

• Self-Identity
• Subculture
• Subjective Behavior Judgement (George)
• Sexual Preference (partner availability)
• Sexual Arousal
• Public Definition

Becoming and Coming Out:

• Identity
• Disclosure
• Sub-cultural participation
• Behavior--Identity: variable
• Process (average--6 years): Not simple social learning
  1. 1st define away--a phase
  2. Guilt
  3. Ambiguity--did it but not a homosexual: no role acceptance, doing vs. Being.
  4. Suspect
  5. Persistence of desire/lack of heterosexual desire
  6. Failure to explain away
  7. Meaningful experience
  8. Significant other: defines for the individual
  9. Realization of normalcy of others
  10. Pride
  11. Synthesis

Male/Female Differences

Both condemned

Males:

1. Impersonal
2. Anonymous-60% One time only
3. 4/5's-longest affair lasted less than one year
4. Males begin earlier (60%@13)
5. Process appears more patterned

Females:

1. Fewer relationships
2. Longer, more romantically involved (60%--3 or fewer partners)
3. Little "cruising", little "tearoom" sex
4. Females-more heterosexual contact (more likely than heterosexual females)
5. Females: First experience typically later in life (51%@20)
6. "Drift"
7. Less of a structured Subculture
8. Most "Happy and Satisfied" with their lesbian role

Public Image--less fear and hostility towards lesbian
Males find lesbian sexual activity erotic!?

AIDS

• Impact on Subculture
• Spread within homosexual population
• Impact on societal image

Mental Disorder

Mental Disorder: The Medicalization of Deviance (Chapter 13, Deviant Behavior, Goode, 6th edition, 2001 and Chapter 11, Deviant Behavior, Goode, 7th edition, 2005)

Mental Disorder What is it?
Cultural element: whose reality is the right one?
Adjust to crazy world=mental health?
Prozac as a tool for the healthy?

Medical Definition:

• DSM4r--symptoms (which are what); Degrees/shades of gray not like other diseases: Psychosis---Neurosis
• Intervention==>troublesomeness (schizophrenia)
• Hard: Biophysical
• Soft: disease metaphor-variety of causes
• Although some helped, not all. Often treatment is maintenance

Labeling: Mental disorder is a designation, a definition of a state of mind that produces behavior that is an adaptation to the social environment-based on a variety of factors: Contingencies
Not always objective, but subjective judgment
Not a disease, but a judgment based on extra-psychiatric factors
Hard Labeling (Scheff): Residual Deviance

• Behavior violates social norms
• No specific category to fit
• Leads to label (act weird==> crazy)
• Many sources/causes
• Most normalized, denied, transitory
• Many violate, few labeled
• Some persist==> Career
• Learn norms and stereotypes--childhood, constantly reinforced in EDL (D. Phillips and help seeking behavior
• When labeled; Rewards and Punishments for conforming to label or not
• Suggestibility: may not fight label, convenience, relieves anxiety, safety (looking-glass-self)
• Career: Goffman: Diverse individuals processed through institutional structures end up as uniform in social status and self-concept.

Modified labeling

• Yes, there is a problem, but labeling and stigma are a part of it.
• Anticipation of negativity can lead to behavior
• More distant the relationship--more likely the label: Intimacy- H/W and resistance
• Access to other resources
  • Etiology and/or Social Reaction
    • Good reason for objective definitions, and treatments often work
    • Yet, this doesn't negate the extra-psychiatric factors
    • Troublesomeness
    • Voluntary and involuntary admission and discharge

Cultural Conceptions:

• Classic case-uniformity in diagnosis
• Less clear-USA 85%-schizophrenia vs 7% British

Epidemiology:

• EPIDEMIOLOGY - the study of the distribution of diseases in the population.
• The field of psychiatric epidemiology is based on the idea that there is, or can be, a “true” rate or prevalence of mental disorder, just as there is a “true” rate of cancer or AIDS.
• Essentialist assumption - mental disorder is a concrete entity on whose reality all reasonable and informed observers can agree.
• Constructionist – mental disorder is a socially determined judgment, the “true” rate or prevalence of mental illness can not be determined. They are interested in how mental disorder is conceptualized and defined, how certain categories in the population come to be designated as having higher, or lower, rates of mental disorder and what extra psychiatric factors influence rates of institutionalization.

BUT: All epidemiologists agree that measuring mental disorder in the population, or in certain segments of the population is problematic. There is a huge non-institutionalized segment of the population who would be diagnosed as mentally disordered were they to be evaluated by a psychiatrist.
SO: Another measure of mental disorder has been developed: a diagnostic interview schedule, which, presumably, can determine mental condition in a sample of respondents. GENDER: Women v Men

• Women have somewhat higher rates of mental disorder than men.
• One nationally representative study of households across the United States conducted jointly by the National Institutes of Health and the National Center for Health Statistics identified 1.94 million females and 1.32 million males as having serious mental illness; rates of mental disorder were 20.6 for females and 15.5 for males.
• The Epidemiological Catchment Area Project study, which focused on five urban centers, found rates of mental disorder of 16.6 for females and 14.0 for males
• A later study using the same research instrument, based on a more nationally representative sample in 1994 reached the same conclusion.

BUT: males are significantly more likely to be admitted to mental hospitals than females, and the ratio of males to females is increasing over time.

• In 1900, there were 110 males admitted to state mental hospitals for every 100 females; by 1975, this had risen to 183, and it remained between 172 and 186 between the late 1970s and the 1990s. In 1990, there were 146.6 male admissions per 100,000 males in the population and 80.3 female admissions per 100,000 females in the population.

Experts believe that this disparity is due to the conjunction of the specific type of mental disorder males are more likely to suffer from (an essentialistic phenomenon) and professional stereotyping (a constructionist phenomenon).

• Men are strikingly more likely to fall victim to antisocial personality disorders. Antisocial personality is highly likely to cause havoc in the lives of others- for instance, in the form of aggressiveness and violence. Thus, someone who causes disruptive social and interpersonal trouble is more likely to be institutionalized.
• Women are far more likely to suffer from a mood disorder, especially depression. Depressive mood disorders are more likely to result in withdrawal and isolation. Thus, women are less likely to be institutionalized.
• The mental disorder of men, holding severity of disorder constant, is regarded as more disabling, threatening, and dangerous to the society than is that of women. Women are regarded as more cooperative and compliant and more readily influenced by the hospital staff and, therefore, are more likely to be released.

There is a “double standard” among clinicians in the diagnosis, hospitalization, and release of mental patients with respect to gender.

• Psychiatrists and clinical psychologists seem to have a lower standard of mental health for women than for men. They are more likely to diagnose mental disorder for men. A woman's condition would have to be more severe to warrant hospitalization, and a man's less severe to warrant release.
• In a sexist or patriarchal society, males are expected to perform in a society to more exacting standards. Being a man in a very achievement-oriented society is incompatible with being mentally disordered; the penalties for stepping out of line are swift and strong.
• Where women are relegated to an inferior and dependent role, their performance in that role is met with more indulgence and leeway. A mildly psychiatrically impaired woman can perform in an imperfect fashion and still “get by”.
• These sexist values result in a higher rate of mental illness labeling for men, supposedly the more powerful social category, and less for women, who are generally powerless.

MARTIAL STATUS

• Single, never married men are strikingly more likely to score high on every available measure of mental disorder than are married men; separated and divorced men rank somewhere in-between.

WHY?

• Men who are married and stay married are more stable, psychologically healthy, and conventional than men who never marry and therefore, they are less mentally disordered. The kind of man who marries is also the kind of man who exhibits relatively few personality problems, while the man who does not marry is far more likely to exhibit those same problems. Men with severe mental problems are not considered desirable partners and thus, will be socially avoided by women.
• Being married is conducive to a man's mental health, security, and well being. “Marriage does not prevent economic and social problems from invading life, but apparently can help fend off the psychological assaults that such problems otherwise create”

BUT: The special protection that supposedly extends to men seems to offer no special protection for women. Women suffer as a result of being married, because marriage is more demanding on women.

• A man who is mentally ill is seen by all women as an undesirable partner, while a woman who displays certain mental disorders may still be considered marriageable. The evidence seems to favor few differences in the impact of marriage between men and women should strike the observer forcefully.

SO: marriage may be good for men and of considerably less consequence for women.
BUT: In a less patriarchal society, marriage will become more equalitarian and possibly, equally good for both sexes.
SOCIOECONOMIC STATUS

• SES is the most frequently studied: indicators measuring socioeconomic status are income, occupational prestige, and education.
• Mental disorder is very closely related to socioeconomic status: the higher the SES, the lower the rate of mental disorder; the lower the SES, the higher the rate of mental disorder.
• People at the bottom of the class ladder are far more likely to suffer from psychiatric distress, especially schizophrenia, than those at the top.
• There are a few mental disorders that are more common toward the top of the class structure, such as obsessive-compulsive neuroses and some mood disorders, but the most serious illnesses, especially schizophrenia, are most common toward the bottom of the class structure.

WHY?
Types of disorder

• The kinds of disorder exhibited by lower-status persons are more likely to come to the attention of the authorities than the kinds of disorders exhibited by middle and upper status persons.
• Lower-status persons are less likely to attribute their problems to a psychiatric condition, since they are more likely to feel that some stigma adheres to consultation with a “shrink” or being committed to a mental hospital. Hence, they are less likely to seek out psychiatric assistance voluntarily.
• Lower-status persons are most likely to come to the attention of psychiatric authorities as a result of referral by the police or a social worker.

BUT: This explanation does not say that lower-SES persons are more mentally disordered than middle and upper SES persons overall so much as it focuses on how certain conditions, differentially distributed by social class, intersect with the social structure.
Constructionist Explanation

• This strong inverse relationship between SES and mental disorder may be due to class bias and the labeling process.
• Middle-class psychiatrists find lower-class behavior troublesome and are more likely to label it disordered than the behavior of middle-class persons.
• Mental health is judged by a middle-class yardstick.

BUT : Much of the behavior of the psychiatrically disordered is deemed undesirable by members of all social classes.
Stress

• Economic deprivation, poverty, occupational instability and unemployment are strongly related to psychological impairment.

Social selection or the drift hypothesis

• Social class is a consequence rather than a cause of mental illness.
• The mentally disordered are incapable of achieving a higher position on the SES hierarchy because they are mentally disordered.
• Members of the lower class who are mentally disordered are either stuck there or have drifted there because their mental disorder prevents them form achieving a higher position. Their disorder retards their social mobility.

BUT: it is likely that social class contributes more to mental disorder than mental disorder contributes to social class.

On Being Sane in Insane Places
“If sanity and insanity exist, how shall we know them?"

• David Rosenhan decided to answer this question by having eight normal or “sane” persons including, himself, gain "secret admission” to 12 different mental hospitals around the country complaining of hearing hallucinatory voices. All were admitted with a diagnosis of schizophrenia, except one, which was diagnosed as a manic-depressive. All were released with a diagnosis of “in remission," without signs of mental illness.
• Rosenhan’s conclusion is that psychiatry “cannot distinguish the sane from the insane." For Rosenhan, the fact that no one detected the pseudo patients as “sane” and they were released with a diagnosis of “in remission” was significant; this means that in the judgment of the hospital, they were neither sane, nor had they been sane at any time.

But: Spitzer, a critic of Rosenhan’s argues exactly the reverse: the fact that these patients were discharged “in remission” or free from any signs of mental illness, indicates that the psychiatric profession is able to detect mental disorder because the psychiatrists who discharged the pseudo patients “all acted rationally as to use a discharged category that is rarely used with real schizophrenic patients”. Spitzer admits, “there are serious problems with psychotic diagnosis, as there are with other medical diagnosis. However, diagnosis is not so poor that it cannot be an aid in the treatment of the seriously disturbed psychiatric patient”. Thus, a correct interpretation of “On Being Sane in Insane Places” contradicts the author's conclusions. “In the setting of a psychiatric hospital, psychiatrists are remarkably able to distinguish the 'sane' from the 'insane' .”
Drugs and the Pharmacological Revolution

Depopulation of mental hospitals

CHEMICAL TREATMENT OF MENTAL DISORDER

• In 1952 in France, and in the United States in 1954 the first anti-psychotic drug was introduced. Chlorpromazine, or Thorazine, was the first anti-psychotic that helped reduce the most blatant, florid, and troublesome symptoms of institutionalized schizophrenic mental patients.
• Anti-psychotics induced a more “normal” psychological condition in patients; thus it was possible to release patients into the community as outpatients, with only minimal treatment and care in aftercare facilities.
• Deinstitutionalization – releasing the mentally ill from large hospitals into the community.
• In 1955, there were nearly 560,000 patients in residence in public mental hospitals; this figure dropped almost every year until, by the 1990s, it was 80,000.
• Maintenance vs. cure
• Most not "normalized"
• BUT, costs reduced and psycho-surgery down

BUT: This decline is not due to the number of admissions to mental hospitals, which actually increased from 178,000 in 1955 to 385,000 in 1970, and then declined to about 255,000 in 1992. Also, the length of stay has declined sharply, from six months in 1955 to 15 days in 1992.

• Regardless of the precise timing and the causal mechanism of this change, it is impossible to argue that it could have come about in the absence of administration of anti-psychotics to schizophrenic mental patients. Today, roughly 85% of all patients in public mental hospitals are being administered some form of anti-psychotics medication.
• Studies have shown that roughly three-quarters of all acute schizophrenics demonstrate significant improvement following the administration of anti-psychotics drugs and between 75% to 95% of patients relapse if their medication is discontinued
• Unfortunately, what this has produced is a huge population of mentally ill homeless people who are subject to virtually no supervision or treatment.

BUT: Anti-psychotics are not cures for mental illness, they calm the agitated disturbed patient; the symptoms of mental illness are no longer as troublesome to others as they once were: they do not manifest their former signs of craziness. They do have side effects.

Medicalization of Deviance

• More deviant (trouble and unpredictable)==> more likely to be medicalized
• Treat medically, not because they're bad; but because they're sick
• No willfulness
• Objectifies--no more public debate, disease is the domain of experts
• Treatment: cure may be worse than punishment
• Concept distorts the cultural and value basis of the definitional process

Mental Disorder and Deviance

• Condescension and Pity vs. outrage and loathing
• No free will-at least with medical model
• Mental disorder is highly generalizable, classic Master Status
• Sickness as deviance: The Sick Role

1. Seek culturally defined and accepted medical help
2. Follow health care providers orders
3. Attempt to move out of the sick role, i.e. do not stay sick longer than necessary
4. Verbalize lack of desire to be sick
5. View role as temporary and involuntary
6. Do not enjoy

Cognitive Deviance


Cognitive Deviance (Chapter 12, Deviant Behavior, Goode, 6th edition, 2001 and Chapter 10, Deviant Behavior, Goode, 7th edition, 2005)

Cognition

• What one believes to be true. One's beliefs, disbelief, guesses, suspicions, and judgments.

Cognitive Deviance

• Holding a belief or "knowing" that a given claim is valid, despite the fact the belief is unconventional and non-normative.
• The possessor of deviant beliefs is sanctioned.

Two Ways a Belief Becomes Deviant:

• Normatively- it violates a dominant belief system
• Reactively- an audience- adherents are likely to be condemned or punished by mainstream society.

Social rules "not only apply to how one behaves, but in how and what one thinks!"
Deviant Beliefs v. Deviant Behavior: "Pure" cognitive deviance involves beliefs that are unlikely to translate into deviant behavior.

• Although many deviant beliefs are often viewed as strange--even comical, and they may not be associated with threats to signifcant groups; those who hold deviant beliefs can be stigmatized, isolated, and even destroyed.
• The "essence" of the threat is symbolic-- the belief threatens a world view, or way of thinking about reality
• A belief is deviant only because it is considered wrong and its believers are treated as socially unacceptable.
• Mental disorder and cognitive deviance are empirically related (Mental disorder usually involves thinking that is defined as problematic), but not the same--a variety of other issues srround designations of mental disorder.

The Social Functions of Belief Systems

• We regard some beliefs as conventional, because they are the dominant beliefs embedded in our social institutions and it is our social institutions which sanction deviant beliefs.
• What humans think (about) is rooted in the material and social world, so beliefs arise through our social interactions with others.

Beliefs:

• Spring from social conditions
• Serve social functions
• Have social consequences

"Human consciousness is determined by social existence." (Berger and Luckmann, in Goode). The task of sociology is understand the social context out of which beliefs emerge.
The Sociology of Knowledge

Karl Marx

• 19c. The way we think at a particular time and place is a reflection of the economic arrangements of the society in which we live. The nature of society's ideational world i.e. art, politics, religion, science and justice system, is determined by economics relations. The most influential ideas are those possessed by the dominant social class.
• "The class which has the means of material production at its disposal has control at the same time over the means of mental production..."
• Economics is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by economics.
• Dominant Ideology

Most sociologists see a more complex and less deterministic relationship between economy and beliefs.. They see other institutions as "co-determines", or equally capable of influencing one another.
Max Weber

• Ideas and beliefs may serve many functions aside from their economic interests.
• There is a two-way street between peoples beliefs and ideas, and the economic conditions of their lives. Elective affinity: social conditions make it more or less likely for particular belliefs to be held by members of particular groups.
  • People don't necessarily choose beliefs, rather life conditions make certain beliefs more attractive and acceptable.
  • Great variation possible
  • Religion:
    • Protestant Ethic: Religion can generate ideas that either stimulate or inhibit a certain kinds of economic system.
    • Accept one's fate
    • Religion as a tool of social control: Ecclessiae versus cults and sects.
• Reflexive relationship
• Deviant belief systems serve functions for both the believer and those who condemn the belief.
• Focus on the social strata out of which beliefs emmanate, and how believing, as well as condemning, supports the interests and perspectives of these strata.
• With cognitive deviance there is usually two sets of deviants--two sides to the controversy. The deviance is determined by power and survival.

Religious Deviance

• Persons who hold beliefs that challenge dominant theological interpretations have been shunned, condemned and persecuted throughout history.
• In order alleviate the insanity and terror of finding out all social systems in life have been constructed, it is the task of every religion to legitimate itself through the construction of a "sacred canopy" and convince its followers that any challenge is a challenge against the divine itself.

The Crusaders

• 7c. Papal Power Play- Islam and European Kings were gaining power.
• Priest declares, "God wants Christians to fights a war in His name, in His Land, against Muslims and Jews.

The Old Believer's v. Mainstream Russian Orthodox Church (17th Century)

• Both defined each other as deviant due to irrelevant points of faith.
• Old beleivers not only clung to a rigid interpretation of error-filled religious texts, they also rejected other western cultural influences, as well as the power of the Tsar
• When the Old Believers failed to recant their faith, thousands were burned or burned themselves in an effort not to make a pact with the "Russian Orthodox Devil".
• Since the winner writes historyand the orthodoxy triumphed, its definition prevailed and the "true" devils were burned.

The Persecution of Witches in Renaissance Europe

• During the 1400 - mid 1600s, there was an attempt to destroy pre-Christian faith and consolidate church authority.
• The church demonized witchcraft and defined it as unholy and anti religious: "Witches are Satan's Puppets, they must be killed for the "good" of all.
• Women defined as "witches" were purged for the "good" of society and burned for "consorting with the devil".
• Demonic Perspective

Why scapegoating?

• Threats to traditional social and moral order.
• The absolute domination of the catholic church was being challenged. Reformation - the separation of the sacred from the profane.
• These threats called for the creation of a scapegoat, witches, who could be vilified and persecuted in order to firm up the moral boundaries of the society.
• Rule by fear was an attempt by the catholic church to re-establish its former power, dominance and ascendancy.

Why Women?

• Women, whose sexuality in a patriarchal society has been demonized for centuries, offered a convenient relatively powerless target
• Division of community.
• When the European society and the Catholic Church learned to adapt to the separation of church and state, the "witch hunt" was discredited and ended in the mid 1600s.

Satanic Ritual Abuse

• A deviant belief with strong and deep religious roots that surfaced in the 1980s
• Children are being abused for satanic "breeding" purposes
• Although no one has turned up evidence of satanic ritual abuse, lower class, rural, Christian fundamentalists insists this "conspiracy is covered up by the ignorance, fear and complicity of the police"
• Function: allowed rural, uneducated, Christian fundamentalist to explain the way they seem to be robbed of their birthright, that of holding a comfortable position in society.
• Because the supposed deviants are imaginary, since the behavior never actually took place, the charge is not only false, but also deviant.

Heavens Gate

• A "cult" that intertwined Christianity, gnosticism and extraterrestrial beliefs.
• In 1997, thirty-nine of its members committed suicide in an effort to reach the "Next Level" of existence. The members believed the Hale-Bopp "taxi" would shed their earthly containers and they would be reunited with the Divine.
• "The deviant status of this belief system, which is translated into a concrete form of behavior, suicide, is affirmed by the lack of valorization it is granted in the mainstream institutions and the derision that greets its adherents."

Parapsychology

• In a 1996 Newsweek poll, 66% of the respondents defined ESP power as real.
• Worldwide, 3-4 billion people believe in some type of parapsychological powers.

INCLUDES:

• Telepathy - mind-to-mind communication
• Remote viewing- the ability to "see" or perceive objects from a distance with out the aid of technology or information
• Precognition - seeing the future
• Retrocognition - seeing the past with out the requisite information
• Psychokinesis (PK) - the ability to move physical objects solely with one's mind.
• All or some aspects of these parapsychological powers are known as "psi". In essence, mind-to-matter and mind-to-mind influence or communication.

Professional Parapsychologist

• Parapsychology researchers conduct scientific investigations of the reality of psi, and examine psi in others.

Parapsychologist as Scientists

• No less rigorous and "scientific" than conventional, mainstream psychologists
• Findings would be convincing to most social scientists.
• Form versus the content of science (reliabilty, disprove, and logical explanantion)

Parapsychologists provide no conventional explanation for why their findings turn out the way they do. They do not rely on commonly understood material forces. However, "normal" science has its unconventionalities, too.

• The only thing Parapsychologist can demonstrate is correlation. According to Dr. Radin something is going on in the head that is effectingsomething in the world.

This assertion is not sufficient for most scientists

• What about replication?
• The assumption that forces are consistent throughout the universe is the bedrock of science itself, so parapsychology may never be fully accepted by the general scientific community.

Paranomalists are demonstrating statistically significant results. For example, in aggregate of many experiments, psi effects appear vastly more often than by chance.
Remote Viewing -1978-87-PEAR experiment- The "percipient ", or remote viewer was asked to describe the physical or geographical state or setting in which an "agent" an individual known to the viewer was located.
So: Taken cumulatively, something is undoubtedly happening. Just what and how awaits a later generation of researchers.
Parapsychology as Deviant Science

• An excellent example because it tends to be condemned or ignored by mainstream science .
• Research in parapsychology can't be published in legitimate scientific journals and there is no professor/graduate training like that which exists for the rest of science.

But: Instead of accepting their deviant definition and becoming more deviant, Parapsychologist have stuck to a rigorous scientific methodology and rational thought criteria: Professionals with PhD degrees.

UFOs Are Real: The Roswell Incident

• How?
• Why?
• The tale that aliens crashed in the desert of Roswell follows stereotypical or folklore structure.
• The themes of malevolent monster has been embedded for thousands of years: "The cultural hero ( the ufo-ologist) who circumvents the monster and by investigative prowess releases the essential item (wisdom) for humankind" "are truly ubiquitous and geographically widespread"
• Ziegler-Roswell is a folk narrative masquerading as an expose .In addition, Roswell UFO story represents a "vehicle for social protest against the government. An expression of "antigovernment sentiment" dramatic testimony to ongoing government conspiracies"

Scientist v. Lay - "Ways of Knowing"

• Scientist's place far more emphasis on physical and forensic evidence
• So: UFOs @ Roswell is deviant because it is rejected by prestigious media and educational systems as well as other influential mainstream social institutions. Also, adherents are marginalized, depicted as kooks, and stigmatized.

Function of Urban Legends in the African American Community

• the "Goliath effect" - the big bad guy trying to bully the little person
• KFC-Liz Claiborne - these urban legends cannot be true literally, but seem plausible to many African Americans because of their history of exploitation and oppression.
• So: Urban legends assert that white oppression is alive and well and that African Americans resistance to that oppression is "were not gonna take it".
• The deviant status of urban legends refers to the fact that they lack legitimacy or callosity in mainstream institutions

Urban Legends Research Center
Thus: Cognitive deviance refers to holding beliefs that relevant audiences consider unacceptable, unconventional, and discrediting.


Conflict Theory
Physical Characteristics As Deviance (Chapter 11, Deviant Behavior, Goode, 6th edition, 2001 and Chapter 12, Deviant Behavior, Goode, 7th edition, 2005)
Erving Goffman: Stigma
Stigma as Master Status and a Moral Career
A stigma, or the manifestation or outward appearance of an inner deficiency, that either has been or may be noticed, thatresultsor would result in infamy and dishonor, becomes the possessor's master trait or status, from which everything about the person is interpreted. (i.e. Since many "normals" believe, "only defective, contaminated, sinners would brake 'our' social norms and rules," the possessor of a stigma becomes defined as "not quite human" and like a chronic disease, his or her single negative trait becomes the controlling one. His or her master trait.)

• Strained interaction

2 Paths for the Stigmatized

1. Resistance- non shaming of one's identity
   • the homosexual subculture
2. Internalization
   • W. I. Thomas- Definition of the situation

Physical Characteristics as a form of Deviance
Two ways of categorization:

1. Social Valuation -opinion- "Is having a tattoo good or bad?"
2. Acquisition of Trait- Was the trait acquired Involuntarily -Is it innate? OR Was the trait acquired Voluntarily - An addict's HIV.
   • Distinguish between the "cause" of a condition, and the "blame" directed at the possessor --blame produces deviance.
3. Timing of aquisition of stigma and impact on "moral career."

Goffman: "Abominations of the Body"
Two Types of Physical Deviance:
1. Violations of Aesthetic norms- what people should look like- height, weight, the absence or presence of disfigurement.

• Cultural "Identity Norms" (Goffman): Define "ideal" body image
• Stigma
• Individuals are "disvalued"
• Exclusion

Conformity to and Violations of Aesthetic Standards
1. Rewarding attractiveness and punishing ugliness is a cultural universal- in every society, there has always been negative consequences for not measuring up to the cultural standards of beauty with sanctions ranging from teasing to death.
2. The consensus about what is beautiful is more significant than the variation:

• Biological Explanation: humans are "hardwired" towards universal aesthetic judgment.
• Social Science Explanation: it is culture which explains judgments of attractiveness -Are we just products of our DNA? Homosexuality?

3. Is the possession of an unaesthetic appearance the possessor's "fault"?

• According to Karen Dion, YES! -Although people who posses an unaesthetic appearance have not DONE anything to deserve their appearance, they are more likely to be suspected of engaging in wrong doing, labeled deviant and punished.

Tattooing

1. The most widely practiced form of voluntary body alteration, besides ear-piercing for women
2. Symbolic Value- establishes the tatooee's "attachment to deviant groups"~guilt by association
3. Changing aesthetic

There is a certain level of risk involved in tattooing, the level of association with deviant groups, results in everything from small hidden marks to face tattoos (3 Stooges man).
Are Tattoos becoming a sign of conformity?
Obesity
1. A violation of physical aesthetic standards
2. Moral Dimension -obesity is a voluntary condition, or an outward manifestation of a character flaw-"The fat lack self control and are lazy. Therefore, they deserve their self-inflicted damnation". So: the obese's attraction of public scorn is deserved and the obese should accept the scorn as just.
But: In tribal and peasant societies, corpulence was associated with affluence. Today, are there a Black-White differences? Genetic?
Intersexuality: Possessing ambiguous genital characteristics
The Two Debates
1. "Essentialism v. Constructionism" -a conceptual approach to reality
Essentialist, or the medical approach is held by much of the general public. The Evolutionary prerogative is that there are only two "true" sexes, male and female, So, Hermaphraditism is abnormal, a pathology in need of correction due to "biological destiny".
Constructionist- there may be more than one sex, persons with ambiguous genitals may in fact manifest a "mix" of the two sexes. Society, not nature forces us to believe there are only two sex categories and therefore define hermaphrodite as a pathology.
2. "Nature v. Nurture"- a theory of how the material world works on the individual
Naturist, usually Essentialist,- biology decides who we are- sexuality is fixed a s birth- one "is male or female as a result of nature.
Nurturist, usually Constructionist, believe the human organism is a Tabula Rasa or blank slate onto which can be "written" any sexual message. One learns to become male or female through socialization. So: sexuality can be assigned or reassigned- created through a combination of surgery, socialization, and artificial hormones
Nature Limits: Some aspects of social life may be fixed at birth. The utility of constructionism is affirmed by the random assignment of the sex through primitive contemporary procedures. This is a creature of sociology and technology, not the science of Genetics. So: Shouldn't we allow a child w/ ambiguous genitals to grow up "as nature made them" and allow them to gravitate toward their own sexual destiny?
Freaks
Leslie Fiedler: Freaks Prior to the 20c, freaks were defined as "Prodigies". Their differences were accepted as a tolerable form of physical eccentricity, rather than a source of contempt. It was modern medicine's arrogance, or hubris, that all deformities can be cured, which defined freaks as deviants.
Today freaks stir fear in normals' definitions of :

• Normalcy
• Childhood Myths
• Sexuality and Gender

So: the freak projects our "infantile or adolescent traumas". They manifest or dramatize our "primordial fears about scale, sexuality our status as more than beast and our tenuous individuality."
2. Physical Incapacity- walking, seeing, hearing
Physical Disability as Deviance-a physical disability is deviant because it "violates institutional expectations" or is different form the physical characteristic possessed by the norm"als".
A Historical Perspective
Early Eras- Babies born with deformities were defined as monsters and were thought to be predictors of disastrous epidemics
Ancient Times- Babies born with deformities were killed
Plato- "Deformed and infirm children should be hidden away in a secret place"
European Middle Ages- "Goddid it"
Today those who possess the stigma of being physically disabled or handicap require "the attention of social agencies" Master Status?
But: Disability is socially constructed, the definitions are arbitrary and are based on social and cultural criteria, that is they are created by the agencies and general public, our norm continues to be stigmatization, or an Aversion, induced by the fear of realizing at any time, anyone could become physically disabled: Just World Hypothesis? Changes? SO: Undesirable physical characteristics represent a form of deviance. They tend to attract stigma and generate a contaminated identity for their possessors. The fact that their possessors do attract stigma and condemnation is what defines deviance, hence they are deviants. There is a continuum of personal causality or responsibly for possessors of deviant characteristics, yet all are stigmatized. Socialization into the Role

• Trauma and Resocialization
• Rehabilitation
• Kuebler-Ross: Stages

1. Denial
2. Anger
3. Plea Bargin
4. Depression
5. Acceptance

Career Structure

• Role Adaption
• Legitimation
• Impression Management
  • Passing
  • Normalization
  • Coping
  • Dis-association
• Professional Groups
• Subculture and Community
• Tertiary Deviance

Social Response:

Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990

• Reasonable Accomodation
• Legal recourse to combat discrimination
• Mainstreaming==> Social Normalization