3 Criminology, Explaining Criminal Behavior

Only one day after she voluntarily reported to authorities in 2008 that her two-year-old daughter Caylee was missing, Casey Anthony was taken into custody for child neglect. The following day, cadaver dogs responded to the scent of human flesh in Anthony’s car. In the criminal trial that followed, and which was broadcast nearly every day on a cable television network, Anthony was found not guilty in the death of her young daughter. She was, however, found guilty of making false and misleading statements to investigators. That conviction was subsequently overturned, after Casey Anthony had served about ten days in jail. To this day, no one has been convicted in the death of Caylee, or was her body ever found (“Casey Anthony Trial Fast Facts,” 2022).

The heartbreak of this story is overwhelming. What led to Caylee’s death? Who was responsible, and, more importantly, how could someone commit such a heinous crime against an innocent child? How could family, friends, and indeed, investigators, ever receive some level of closure? Finally, how can society be ensured that a measure of accountability for Caylee’s demise will ever be found?

The fascination that humans have with crime is complex and not easy for those who don’t share an interest in true-crime stories to comprehend. There are those who pore over every detail of investigations and trials, however, in an attempt to understand why people do bad things to one another. Taking a multi-faceted approach of the societal, psychological, and criminal aspects of such crimes are the focus of this chapter–the criminologists and the services they provide in the criminal justice system.

Figure 3.1

Theft from a vehicle, also called vehicle prowling, is a crime of opportunity. In addition to taking property from within, entry into the vehicle can also lead to the vehicle being stolen. Criminology is defined as ”the scientific study of crime as a social phenomenon, of criminals, and of penal treatment” (Merriam-Webster, 2024, para. 1). Another view of criminology is as “an interdisciplinary profession built around the scientific study of crime and criminal behavior, including their manifestations, causes, legal aspects, and control” (Schmalleger, 2006, p. 15). It is the study of the sociological side of human-perpetrated criminal behavior. Taking a scientific research-based approach to the elements of criminology has become important toward influencing policy making in the administration of justice. Questions answered, trends in criminal behavior noted, and resultant policy direction springing from this research impacts communities, regions, states, and beyond. Think of it this way: people may share certain common interests and life values, while others may take a very different position on the same, or have an entirely opposite belief structure. If peoples’ interests and values are compromised through criminal behavior, research-produced best practices and lessons-learned in areas such as crime prevention techniques, have world-wide relevance. Despite the fact that crimes and punishments differ from country to country, benefits from criminological research and developing new strategies and policies has favorably impacted the globe.

What drives a person to become a criminologist? All scientists conduct measurements. Criminologists are no different. A criminologist examines crime in a “temporal-spatial” (time and space) way. In these longitudinal studies, the characteristics of crimes and those who break the laws are measured. In an effort to curb or eliminate crime throughout history, writers and scholars have written and studied how to contribute toward the reduction, if not complete elimination, of crime. Interestingly, the term “criminology” came about slightly over one hundred years ago.

 

3.1 Concepts of Criminology

Figure 3.2

3.2 The Discipline of Criminology

What drives a person to become a criminologist? All scientists conduct measurements. Criminologists are no different. A criminologist examines crime in a “temporal-spatial” (time and space) way. In these longitudinal studies, the characteristics of crimes and those who break the laws are measured. In an effort to curb or eliminate crime throughout history, writers and scholars have written and studied how to contribute toward the reduction, if not complete elimination, of crime. You might be surprised to learn that the term “criminology” is a relatively new one, developed just over one hundred years ago (Schmalleger, 2006).

It is important to consider the theoretical assumptions of social policies regarding criminal deviance. Does the well-dressed person at a bus stop awaiting the arrival of a scheduled transit ride home after work, raise suspicions of the police? Absent any more detail, no. This subject is in a place where they are lawfully permitted to be, lacking any criminal motivation or intent. Contrast this situation with a person at that same bus stop whose manner of dress is in disarray, and who is waiting for another bus one hour later. Someone flags down a police officer and reports this person who “looks out of place.” The officer approaches the offending party and asks what’s happening, the response is, “I’m just hanging out.” Has a crime been committed? In the days when the crime of vagrancy was on the books, then perhaps the answer is “yes.” In today’s world, generally, no crime has been committed. In a series of cases on vagrancy (City of Seattle v. Drew, 1967; City of St. Louis v. Gloner, 1908; Pinkerton v. Verberg, 1889; State v. Caez, 1963; Territory of Hawaii v. Anduha, 1931), various states ruled that laws exhibiting such vagueness and overly-broad language can conceivably give police the discretion to decide who walks the streets, and potentially penalize persons who are experiencing homelessness or are otherwise unsheltered. Such action taken by the police would be looked upon as an abuse of discretionary powers, and would be implicitly unconstitutional. At the time when this was occurring years ago, such action was generally considered to be the “law of the land,” and sanctioned by many communities which wanted squatting laws enforced. Today, the laws and the police who enforce them are taking different approaches in order to create solutions which will be sensitive to the needs of all parties.

One also needs to ask the question: “What is criminal deviance?” Initially, the question seems easy to answer. In fact, criminologists, depending upon their individual viewpoints, may disagree and have differing answers. Criminologist Paul Tappan (1947) believed that only criminal acts defined by a code of criminal law should be considered. The perspective of Herman and Julia Schwendinger (1970) takes a much broader-based approach by saying that a wide range of social injuries and injustices, not just those prohibited under written legal code, should be addressed in the study of criminology. As one can see, the two perspectives are inconsistent and even incompatible with each other.

A third view from some mainstream criminologists selects a definition of the field which is less constrained than Tappan’s, but not as open-ended as the Schwendingers’. As an example, Thorsten Sellin (1938) opined that violation of conduct norms should be studied by criminologists. Each case has its strength of viewpoint, yet all face scrutiny in some fact or fashion. As an example, under Tappan’s model, the former crime of vagrancy would fall within the area of criminology when there were laws against vagrancy. However, due to case precedent declaring the crime of vagrancy “void for vagueness,” and the optics created by housing shortages and resorting to unsheltered conditions, vagrancy as a crime is largely non-existent, or at least not enforced, today. For today’s criminologists, an area of concern might more correctly consider the predatory practices of landlords, large corporations and government actions that marginalize, and may even target, some members of society while enriching others from the conflict criminology perspective. In this way, criminologists study criminal acts by offenders to better understand motivations, consider deterrence measures, and proscribe rehabilitation strategies or mechanisms to prevent or catch criminals in the future. In considering the effectiveness of these efforts, the data points (arrest information) are largely what criminologists rely upon for their research and correlation findings. Impediments to their work can result when something was not illegal, or no arrest was made, resulting in a situation where no data would be available from which to conduct analysis.

3.3 Impacts of Criminology on the Criminal Justice System

Foundational also in the study of criminology is the importance placed on examining the activities of the social institutions comprising the criminal justice system: police, courts and the correctional institutions. In this holistic view, the criminologist will suggest that the measurements obtained and the hypotheses derived from them, will impact the three member groups of the legal system. Some, in fact, may be impacted to a greater degree than others.

Some criminologists adhering to the functional theory choose to focus on the important objectives carried out by these institutions in the interest of society, such as ensuring the rights of individuals, and service to and protecting the public. This group may draw upon the earlier work of Emile Durkheim and his successors. (Brown et al., 2007). Other criminologists who study the conflict theory, may, in response, argue that the function of the law, police, courts and correctional systems can more accurately be described as serving the interest of the upper class, in an attempt to maintain “status quo.” Their predecessors in this theory are Karl Marx and his successors. More about these theories will be discussed later in the chapter (Akers et al., 2020).

3.4 How to View Crime as a Criminologist

Figure 3.3

 

The criminal justice system in the United States of America is experiencing a level of scrutiny unlike at any other time in its history. One must ask: How much crime is there? Why does violent crime occur more in some places, while property crimes or white-collar crimes take place in other areas? Has the social contract between police and the community been irreparably damaged by the outcomes of alleged (and actual) claims of excessive uses of force against marginalized members of the community? Are recommendations to defund the police the answer? Why aren’t crimes more quickly addressed by prosecutors and the courts, leaving victims feeling disenfranchised and, in fact, re-victimized?

Attempting to address the above questions, today’s criminologists are rightly pragmatic in trying to make sense of what is happening in the criminal justice arena. This pragmatic approach looks for explanations which are social justice-based, rooted in policy, and grounded in science.

It is at this so-called “fork in the road” that we need to differentiate between criminology and [GF]criminal justice, because, while related, the two are not the same, and can even evolve to contradict over time. The focus and intent of criminology is on explaining crime.

When conducting studies on criminal justice, criminologists are chiefly interested in two particular areas: what effects society may have played on how and why the crime was committed, and the official reaction to the perpetrators and criminal event. In earlier years, studies of crime and their causation were conducted on more of a theoretical construct. While supported by facts and often empirical studies, the explanations derived in a criminological study tend not to have immediate (or at least not readily adoptable) policy implications (Brown et al., 2007). Yet, the same authors a little over a decade later, announced the need for politicians to refer to more criminologist analysis when developing legislation, promulgating rules, or creating policy. In doing so, there is less of a gap between the knowledge of crime possessed by criminologists, and the creation of public policy to reduce criminal activity (Brown et al., 2024). Criminal justice studies tend to be more analytics-based and descriptive, lending themselves to being used to suggest courses of action or course correction for the practitioners of criminal justice at the police, courts, and corrections levels. The distinction between criminology and the related criminal justice fields tend to be through emphasis, rather than a decision for them to be mutually exclusive. To fully understand and explain crime, criminologists should be familiar with crime patterns, local “hot spots,” and emerging trends on criminal behavior. When responding to crime and offenders, criminologists depend upon theories and concepts that are proven to be effective.

Contemporary criminologists organize knowledge of criminal justice by referencing its three broad components: police, courts, and corrections (Bernard & Engel, 2001). In this chapter the comprehensive criminal justice-based approach is taken, with each component being viewed in terms of four specific goals of punishment: (1) deterrence, (2) incapacitation, (3) retribution, and (4) rehabilitation. These four punishment goals will be defined and discussed in greater detail in [crossref:9]Chapter 9[/crossref].

3.4.1 Deterrence

Deterrence uses punitive sanctions to “send a message” to persons intended to dissuade them from committing criminal acts in the future. The concept of deterrence rests upon the notion that the fear of punishment will cause potential offenders to refrain from committing crimes. This proposition seems simple and straightforward: don’t most people wish to stay within the law simply in order to avoid punishment? This notion is reinforced by a study conducted by Ronald V. Clarke in 1996, where 16.4 million cars traveling on a rural Illinois highway with a posted (but lightly enforced) speed limit of 65 mph were covertly evaluated for their speed by radar. The vast majority did indeed travel at the posted speed, with a very small minority traveling faster or slower. What did we learn? One conclusion would be that deterrence works even when the chances of being caught are slight. One could also conclude that most people do not need a threat of deterrence in order to do the right thing. Yet others might believe that the Illinois state legislature did the right thing by posting a reasonable, acceptable speed limit on its highway. Or, shall we conclude that deterrence does not work precisely on that small group of people who are prone to nonconformity (Decker, 1972)?

Figure 3.4

Radar Enforced

Finally, the threat of punishment as a form of deterrence must be realistic. To measure the effectiveness of deterrence, the Criminal Law Education Research Center at New York University conducted and published a study in 1969 involving the use of thin metal “slugs” to feed traffic meters instead of using proper coins. In three separate but similar locations within New York City, signs of differing types were placed on meters. One sign issued a warning to users that a $50 fine would be issued for those caught using slugs in parking meters. On the second sign the verbiage was the same, but a $250 fine was threatened. In the final area, where newly-installed coin meters with viewing windows showing whether a coin, slug, or some other object had been inserted, the use of metal slugs decreased significantly (Barry, 1969).

Research on deterrence is inconclusive, due to the limited opportunities for making controlled studies, and because some crimes, and some criminals, are more easily deterred than others. Deterrence assumes rational choice, and the ability to exercise rational choice. Supporters of deterrence-based strategies believe that criminals weigh the relative benefits and risks of engaging in criminal conduct–the so-called “risks/rewards”–and should then choose not to engage because they believe there is a stronger chance of getting caught, or the punishments will be significant. Finally, not all people are rational decision-makers. The proponents of deterrence may not take into account mental illness and crimes committed by juveniles. Before one can subscribe to the deterrence philosophy, the issues surrounding rational decision-making need to be considered and reconciled.

3.4.2 Incapacitation

Figure 3.5

Incapacitation models rely on the restriction of an individual’s freedom and liberties they would normally have as a member of society. In some criminal justice goal models, incapacitation precedes deterrence, because of the understanding that incapacitation can only happen as an attempt to prevent crimes from being committed in the future. Incapacitation in its truest form cannot correct crimes that have already been committed, and thus it takes a forward-looking perspective. Instead, the objectives of a goal of incapacitation might include one of many alternatives. Humans are social beings, and when they are punished by removing them from society through incarceration, a form of punishment has taken place.

Certainly, serving jail time or an extended sentence in prison removes the criminal from the community, thus accomplishing incapacitation. Institutionalizing as a method of incapacitation is an obvious example; technology has afforded us similar opportunities to remove the person (temporarily) through the use of GPS-ankle bracelets for home-based sentences; ignition interlock devices (which are breath analysis instruments placed on vehicles by court order to prohibit their movement) on those who have been convicted of motor vehicle-related crimes involving impairment; and tracking of the convicted criminal through probation, parole, GPS tracking, and appearance at day reporting centers.

On the social control aspect of the incapacitation continuum are “grounding” a child who misbehaves. In situations requiring more severe forms of incapacitation, there may be court-ordered examples of criminal preclusion such as status crimes of runaway youth, or not obeying a parent or guardian the court has put in charge of the youth. In the case of sexual predation, a form of chemical castration may be ordered which includes injections of a hormone that prevents the male offender from being able to perform sexually.

Finally, in the most egregious or heinous crimes, capital punishment may be considered. Capital punishment is authorized in 27 states, by the federal government and by the U.S. military (Death Penalty Information Center, 2023). Other states have chosen to abolish capital punishment as an option, or exchange in its place a life sentence in prison without the possibility of parole. Yet other states have re-established the use of capital punishment after having earlier abolished it. Finally, two states (of which Washington is one) have declared capital punishment as unconstitutional. Regardless of location and stance, capital punishment is a continued topic of fervent debate on a national scale as a form of punishment or total incapacitation.

3.4.3 Retribution

Figure 3.6

Penal Colony

Retribution was, historically, the earliest form of instituting punitive accountability against anyone or anything that had caused them harm. It didn’t matter if it were a person, an animal, an ill-performing tool, or a tree in the forest–if it was perceived you were wronged, a swift and harsh response was appropriate. This is considered uncontrolled revenge, and in early times, knew no limits. Thankfully, such angry responses gave way to a more measured, appropriate response when a law was broken or someone was wronged. Early Mosaic laws enacted limitations on revenge by establishing that punishments should be comparable with the crimes committed or the civil wrongs against a person (Skeel & Longman, 2013). This notion of “an eye for an eye,” leveled response led to the creation of lex talionis (“retaliation law”), endorsing and introducing the concept of retribution into criminal justice.

As the United States of America grew during the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, questions arose as to how to effectively administer punishment for crimes committed. Up to this point, all punishments were prescribed by legislative sentencing guidelines, leaving the judge little room for discretion in sentencing. As you will see, discretion–the exercise of making ethical, reasonable and legal choices- occurs at every level in the criminal justice system–police, corrections, attorneys, and judges, to name a few. Every crime carried a specific, fixed punishment; the number of times someone may have broken the law, or the potentially-mitigating reasons for why they broke the law, didn’t matter–the punishment would be meted out in full. Legislators did consider the gravity of the crimes, and attempted to scale the punishment to fit crimes by order of their seriousness to society. This meant that the punishment for committing murder would be more severe than for robbing a bank, and the punishment for bank robbery would be more severe than for taking without permission your neighbor’s vegetables from their garden.

Entering the twentieth century, the future of the United States of America seemed unlimited. Great strides had occurred in the sciences, particularly in the fields of medicine and psychology, and mechanization leading to the development of labor-saving devices, home improvements, and transportation were occurring on nearly a daily basis. With this anticipation of great things to come, attitudes began to change. Anything seemed to be possible, and in some circles, folks began to discuss the wisdom of the current methods of punishment of criminals (Adler et al., 1998).

Some in the conversation believed that the retributive idea of punishment now in practice was inherently flawed, not taking into consideration the strength of the human spirit. These advocates for change believed that criminals might be candidates for conversion into law-abiding citizens through a combination of patience, a better understanding of their background and life experiences leading up to their criminal acts, and by providing training opportunities that lead to learning a new trade or skill. The idea of punishment under the classical retribution practices was based upon the assumption that everyone who violated the same provision of the law did so with the same motivation, were alike in their personalities and backgrounds, and should therefore be punished the same way. When viewed by behavioral scientists, they were quick to point out the differences between offenders who have committed the same crime. The offenders are not completely alike, for differences including, but not limited to, mental capacity, intelligence, depravity, and their potential for future rehabilitation.

3.4.4 Restorative Justice

Figure 3.7

It was dissatisfaction with retribution that led to the concept of rehabilitation. Proponents of the goal of rehabilitation, as the name suggests, seek to improve the mental condition of the criminal through providing opportunities, treatment, etc. so that one day there is a chance to reintegrate the convicted person as a productive member of society. In the restorative justice model, convicted parties are screened in order to provide the most appropriate opportunities for them to learn and achieve law-abiding life in the future (Schmalleger, 2006). Through education, job skills and vocational training, counseling and mentoring, and a host of other services, the individual who has committed a crime is now given the opportunity for a new life in the future.

Even though correctional systems have experimented with rehabilitation to varying degrees, the efforts were often mixed and perfunctory at best. Sentences imposed by judges often reflected this view, even though researchers have pushed back citing the rehabilitative efforts as a failure. This is why, despite the concerns about the effectiveness of rehabilitation as a viable part of the correctional process, most states have adopted sentencing policies promoted by the Model Penal Code, try to abide by their principles, and pursue the restorative justice approach where it appears to be in the community’s/state’s best interest to do so (Reitz & Klingele, 2019).

3.5 Theories, and How to Tell if the Theory is Good

When we look at the world we live in, we often find ourselves curious about some facet of life. We wonder about an observation we make, which often expands to a collection of similar observations. Because we are curious and are human, we look to ways to help us understand and explain what our observations are about. A theory serves as such an explanation. In the investigation of the observation and creation of a theory to explain it, we may develop hypotheses (a proposed explanation made with the limited evidence we have at hand) in order to find a starting point for our investigation. When creating hypotheses, the criminologist is reminded to “keep it real,” because as advised by Paternoster and Bachman (2001), “theories should attempt to portray the world accurately and must ‘fit the facts’” (as cited in Fedorek, 2019, 5.1 section, para. 1).

The best way to test if a theory is sound and applicable to situations is by application of, and examination by, scientific criteria. A set of criteria specific to judging criminological theories has been established by Akers and Sellers (2013) and has been advocated by criminologists as reasonably effective in its purpose. The criteria includes: logical consistency, scope, parsimony, testability, empirical validity, and usefulness. What do these criteria mean?

Figure 3.8

Scientific Method Word Cloud

Logical consistency can be described as a theory’s ability to “make sense”, and as such, is foundational to any theory. The criminologist will ask, “Is the theory logical, and is its makeup consistent within the general view of criminology?” Scope of a theory relates to the various range, or ranges, of explanation. Does the theory explain crimes being committed in inclusive ways? For example, does it explain crimes being committed by males, females and non-binary persons? Is the theory specific to one typology of crime, or all crimes? Is the theory attempting to provide explanations for crimes being committed by all ages, or just a singular, specific age group? For the purpose of describing theory, better theories tend to have a broader scope or longer range of explanation.

A parsimonious theory is one which is concise, on-point yet simple. The criminologist intentionally limits the number of constructs or hypotheses to be tested. It introduces the least new assumptions about the subject being examined. Along with parsimony, testability is very important to the development of good theories. A theory must be open to the notion of possible fabrication or falsification. It follows that every genuine test of a theory will be an attempt to refute or falsify it. The ability to expose falsification saves the criminologist from professional embarrassment later. Some theories are more testable (or subject to refute) than others. Popper (1965) in his work had this to say about theory testing: “the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability” (pp. 36-37).

Once the many tests and examinations of theories have been concluded, those supported by evidence will be deemed to have empirical validity. Now, all that remains is to determine if the theory will be of use or practicality to the criminologist, and society as a whole. All theories in criminology will suggest how to control, manage, present or reduce crime, either through policy or program. In this way, the proposition of a particular criminal justice theory should be of value to criminologists as they seek to guide policy-makers. An example would be, if a theory suggests that auto thieves learn how to commit crime through a network of peers, policymakers will attempt to identify the local and regional networks who contribute to this form of criminal enterprise.

Criminological theories attempt to explain the causes of crime. More directly, the explanations sought relate to why certain people commit a crime and what underlying risk factors for committing the crime might be in play. Having these two important questions addressed, focus may now be shifted toward understanding how and why certain laws relating to the crime are created and enforced. As the criminologist Sutherland (1924) pointed out, criminology then may be described as “the scientific study of breaking the law, making the law, and society’s reaction to those who break the law” (p. 11). We have to remember that many disciplines influence the study of criminology-sociology, psychology, demographics, politics as examples–so it is not uncommon for criminologists to disagree on what causes criminal behavior.

For the reasons above, however, we ought not jump to conclusions based upon the information harvested in the theory-hypothesis testing. An example that is instructive in this regard is relative to a study conducted in 2009, comparing how a rise in ice cream sales positively correlates to an increase in murder rates in New York City (McMahan, 2021). When ice cream sales go up, murders go up also. Would it be appropriate, as a result of this study, to conclude that ice cream is committing the crime of homicide? Assuredly not. Many people have traveled to New York City, as well as a number of other large metropolitan areas, and have eaten a lot of ice cream in each…but have never murdered anyone. Rather, consideration of another variable that might affect either ice cream sales, homicide rates, or both. Can you think of what this third variable might be? (answer at the end of the chapter).

What we can conclude from the ice cream-murder discussion is that correlation is not the same as causality. Having blind confidence in “an answer being “THE” answer” is often wrong. It is easy to assume, mistakenly, that just because some variables are related in some way, that one causes the other. Look deeper and ask further, and ask clarifying questions. Now, let’s examine some of the traditional theories in the discipline of criminal justice.

3.6 THEORIES OF CRIME AND CAUSATION

Early attempts to explain crime were difficult concepts to grasp, and even further frustrating to reconcile with what was known in the world at that time. As much of the thinking of the day was focused upon politics and religion, these two repositories of knowledge were believed to hold the keys to why people acted against others or violated the norms, mores and values of the community. In the theories below the reader will see how the evolution of criminological explanations for miscreant behavior and strategies for redemption of one’s soul through judicial and correctional techniques, have progressed through time. Perspectives on racism and sexism have also, over time, fostered notions that some were predisposed to violating community soc

Figure 3.9

3.6.1 PRE-CLASSICAL THEORY

As European society attempted to come to terms with the causal factors of crime in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, scholars realized that there were no simplistic answers available for why criminal behavior was a component of society. In fact, the entire concept of crime was murky. One of the pre-eminent scholars of the time, Saint Thomas Aquinas, focused his work on trying to better understand the concept of criminal behavior through a lens of spiritual power. Much of the belief structure of the 1300s through the 1700s centered around spirituality, or the lack thereof, in peoples’ moral bearing. A king was considered to be above the law and any punishment for acts committed under their reign, in the eyes of scholars at the time. Such thinking has led to today’s underpinnings of sovereign immunity. This helped decide (for most people anyway) the notion of Divine Right– that “the king can do no wrong” and ought to be absolved of responsibility for any misdeeds (McLaren Villers, 2023). As for commoners, their acts of violation could only be explained by a general notion that man is an inherently simple creature of nature, and all of the actions of a person are directed by some nebulous super power which was not at all understood. Early criminologists could only believe that the acts of violation of society’s rules at the time were due to the pressures exerted upon the violator by some external power. This thinking became known as the demonological theory of criminality (Rahimzadeh, 2015), in which the spirit exerting the undesired characteristics of behavior on a person was a substantial, if not overwhelming, power brought upon by a true demon. As this seemed to be an explanation, no further attempt to resolve the real causation of, or issues created by, crime.

Because the accused individual’s actions seemed to inform society that the defendant was possessed by demonic spirits, the only cure to the situation was for a testimony of the power and effectiveness of the demon spirit. Typically prescribed testimonies, or “ordeals,”, involved sacrifices, worships, challenges and ordeals by water and fire. The belief was that water and fire were powerful cleansing agents of ones’ soul, and would help identify the spirit and exorcize it from the accused. If an offender were to plead “not guilty,” he might be offered the choice of whether he might be put up for trial upon God and the country, or by twelve men or upon God only. Society believed that this would render “the judgment of God” in the matter, feeling that God would sort out any innocent parties through the strong belief of righteousness. Examples of ordeals included tying a large stone around a man’s neck and rowing him out into the center of a pond, burning someone at the stake or on a pyre, or through a trial by combat. Oaths of innocence and participation in ordeals in the medieval judicial system today seem barbaric, Draconian and fraught with ill-conceived tactics, yet are also seen to have played an important role in determining an offender’s guilt. Over time, the fairness of such processes came into question, and by the dawn of the Age of Enlightenment, these past crude methods of determining guilt and accountability gave way to more rational, studied inquiry as to how people ought to be held responsible if they broke society’s laws.

Punishment as a right of society was understood and became part of the early belief structure of criminology. Because he was overtaken by an evil spirit, the accused was considered to be a depraved soul who could only be reclaimed through torture and pain. Thinking was soon to change, however. Hobbes believed that the fear of swift and certain punishment at the hands of a monarch could provide a significant deterrent from committing sinful acts which were the equivalent to crimes (Hobbes, 1651/1968). Hobbes and the theosophist movement (most notably St. Thomas Aquinas, and the social contract writers Donte Alighieri, Machiavelli, Martin Luther and Jean Bodin) laid the backdrop for Cesar Beccaria’s classical school which occurred at a later stage in history. The harsh pre-classical thinking fell by the wayside with the passage of time and the advancement of knowledge (Abyssinia Law, 2022).

3.6.2 CLASSICAL SCHOOL

Figure 3.10

Alphonse Bertillon 1913

As a new era of knowledge, understanding and human empathy emerged in the mid-to- late 1700s, an enlightened approach to the sanctions imposed on violators in society evolved. At the forefront of the Classical School was Cesare Beccaria, born in aristocracy in Milan, Italy, in 1738. As discussed in the Pre-Classical era, people were beginning to take a stand against what they believed to be the outlandish harbingers of today’s “cruel and unusual punishments.” The conditions fueling these punishments were deemed to be unacceptable, arbitrary and inherently corrupt, rather than focusing on what was generating the inappropriate criminal behaviors. Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham were two influential scholars who advocated for new ideas and approaches to addressing crime. Rooted in their studies were the concept that men were inherently rational beings, capable of making choices between good and evil, and that any bad acts or criminality they performed were as a result of free will. In this case, the free will “choice” they make is a risk-versus-reward proposition (Schmalleger, 2021).

Beccaria and two friends Pietro and Alessandro Verri, formed a society called “Academy of Fists” and solicited enrollment of like-minded thinkers. Indeed, today this society would likely be called a “think tank”–their stated mission and purpose was to openly examine and debate society’s ills, and assign each member a topic to study and write a treatise on issues discovered in the review. Items under their scrutiny and discussion included subjects involving economic disorder, unnecessary bureaucracy and petty tyrannical acts of government, the narrow-mindedness of religion, and intellectual pedantry (Vold et al., 2002). The society’s first writings were published in the early 1760s. Perhaps the most influential of the topics assigned to and written was Beccaria’s On Crimes and Punishments (1764).

In On Crimes and Punishments (1764), Beccaria lists ten core principles that he believed would make the criminal legal system work in a more cohesive, efficient, effective, and unbiased way. One example cited was that Becarria believed that legislatures of government should not only define crimes against people, property and society, but should also prescribe punishments for the specific crimes. This would preclude the vagueness and application of crimes and punishments. Beccaria recognized that judges had a considerable amount of discretion in their oversight of proceedings before them, and suggested that the judge’s only tasks under his proposal would be to determine guilt or innocence, and then follow a predetermined sentence as set forth by the legislature.

Beccaria also suggested that all factors with the exception of the impact of the crime on society were immaterial in determining the severity of a crime. In this view, the impact of a crime on society should be used as a benchmark in determining the significance of the crime, and the punishment due upon one’s conviction. A companion principle to this is the notion of proportionality. He felt that the punishment should fit the crime, and believed that the purpose of punishment ought not to be retribution or retaliatory.

Over the next few years, scholars of the time kept a watchful eye as to whether Beccaria’s advocacies truly created a deterrent to crime and reduced recidivism. Some thinkers believed the Classical theory had fallen short of its goals of deterrence. The Classical theory, in the eyes of some critics, appeared to be too scientific and not reliant upon some very basic societal principles which were emerging with the many changes occurring in how people worked, raised families, and occupied their few hours of leisure. After some years of observation and critique, a modified approach to the Classical theory was deemed necessary. This new approach sought to further define categories of deterrence, hone in on the methods of punishments meant to better fit crimes, and how life’s contributions in the form of psychology, home and community environment, parenting, and other factors affected the ability to deter people from committing crimes. This new approach became known as the Neoclassical movement.

Figure 3.11

A footnote to this discussion reveals that, after decades of experiencing some thoughtful dormancy among criminologists, the Classical theory had a revival in the 1970s in the United States (Tomlinson, 2016). This demonstrates how certain theories of criminal behavior can ebb and flow, based on myriad factors including societal trends, perceptions of increase or decrease in crime, active or passive governance, economic shifts, and regional demographics.

3.6.3 NEO-CLASSICAL THEORIES

“Modern deterrence theory is perhaps the most dominant philosophy of the American criminal justice system” (Fedorek, 2019, 5.5 section, para. 1). As previously stated, the goal of deterrence theory is to modify one’s behavior through enacting a system of known laws, coupled with swift and certain punishments. A conclusion that springs from this belief is that a warning emerges, cautioning a person who is contemplating a criminal act that there will be possible consequences. “Risk versus reward” thinking assumes that the potential criminal will carefully contemplate whether “committing the crime” will carry a higher reward than “doing the time” (receiving sanctions or harsh consequences for the crime if apprehended). Two criminologists, Cornish and Clarke (1986) actively supported this thinking, and proposed the Rational Choice Theory to explain this behavior.

Cornish and Clarke posited that violators, whether first-time offenders or seasoned career criminals, engage in a rational thought process–however brief or extended–to calculate costs and benefits prior to committing a crime in terms of maximizing the pleasure or outcome, while minimizing risk and pain. The intent of the Rational Choice Theory was not intended to determine one’s motivations for committing a crime, nor did Cornish and Clarke believe that everyone is fully rational or given to committing crimes. Instead, they believed that some people, when presented with an opportunity, will at least explore the possibility of engaging in a criminal act, and may well carry it out. They also did not believe that everyone was entirely rational; instead, it was their belief that offenders have “bounded rationality,” meaning that given time and information, a person may elect to commit a crime. They, of course, cannot wait forever to decide.

Figure 3.12

As an example, suppose a person who enjoys hiking drove to a trailhead parking lot in a park. It is mid-week during the summer, with about fifteen unoccupied cars sitting in the lot. Our hiker passes by one vehicle whose window is open slightly. As the hiker glances inside they see a light jacket partially covering a purse and an electronic tablet. Presumably, the person who left the items in the car had attempted to hide them from view using the jacket, but it had somehow slipped, revealing the purse and tablet. The hiker now sees an opportunity–and, recognizing that there may be other folks in or near other vehicles, the hiker quickly looks around. Seeing no one, the hiker still needs more time for consideration and to plan. Should he try the door to see if it opens? Does it appear the car has an alarm? Does the hiker hear voices coming from the trail? These would be the choices made by an entirely rational person. In the perfect situation, the hiker might wait until nightfall in order to perpetrate the vehicle prowl. There is time sensitivity here, however-and the hiker cannot wait for extended periods in order to take in all the possible information he may need to proceed with the crime. The hiker either enters the vehicle and takes the objects, or he walks away. He has made a quick decision based upon the facts at hand at the moment.

The Routine Activity Theory (advanced by Cohen and Felson in 1979) differs from the Rational Choice Theory.

Since the conclusion of World War II, more people have entered the workforce, and more people spend time away from home. Cohen and Felson stated that three things must converge in time in space for a crime to be committed – a motivated offender, a suitable target, and the absence of a capable guardian. (Fedorek, 2019, 5.5 section, para. 6)

The concept is illustrated in the figure below:

Figure 3.13

There will never be a shortage of people who have a desire to exploit an opportunity for criminal gain. Likewise, there will always be targets–cars in a parking lot, houses, businesses or commercial establishments, people, or literally any item. Lastly, the lack of a suitable guardian in the vicinity creates an atmosphere where criminal activity can occur. Examples of suitable guardians include police, security officers, guard dogs, occupying your residence, alarm and camera systems, gates and secure locking devices have been shown to help deter criminal behavior. As you can see, the Routine Activity Theory focuses on the criminal “event” rather than on the criminal “offender” (Cohen & Felson, 1979).

3.6.4 STRAIN THEORIES

Criminologists today often take the view that there are theories involving biological and psychological explanations for why crimes are committed. In this view, crimes result from individuals afflicted by some physical or psychological condition which influences them to exhibit criminal behavior. The criminologist can then attempt to distinguish between those in society who demonstrate proclivity to commit crimes, from persons who do not. Considering this for a moment, one can see there may be flaws to these theories. Can it fully explain why crime rates are variable, often between street addresses? Are we able to use these theories to identify certain groups who may be more prone to committing crimes? When examining the need to be more certain when applying these theories to explain criminal behavior, perhaps we are better served by grouping the theories into three separate, broad categories: strain, cultural deviance, and social control (Williams & McShane,1998).

There are some similarities that arise from this theory separation. As an example, we can see that strain theory is similar to cultural deviance theory, since both concur that social strata and criminal behavior are related. Strain theorists believe that all members of society are more aligned to middle class values, and that crime generally can be explained as being the responsibility of those in lower economic status. The reasoning here is that those relegated to lower class status do not have legitimate means to reach the goal of middle-class recognition. Desperate to attain the status of middle-class, the lower class turn to illegitimate means to achieve the recognition of being in the middle economic strata (Adler et al., 1998).

Criminologists examine crimes and criminal behavior through a different lens when adopting the cultural deviance theory approach. Here, the belief is that persons occupying a lower socio-economic class have a different, conflicting value system than that of the middle class. It can be easy for someone in the lower class to unintentionally or inadvertently violate middle-class norms, laws or values when they are actually trying to ascribe to their lower-class value system (Adler et al., 1998).

As a child my attention was invited to the stately and ornate grandfather clock in my aunt and uncle’s home. Maybe you have seen one like it. The clock ran smoothly and continuously, with all of its parts synchronized. Functioning with a measure of precision, it seemed to keep perfect time, as it had for decades. Yet one day, an intricate gear, worn with age, cracked and broke, causing the whole clock to malfunction. Looking at our communities through a similar lens, it would be useful to consider how each component of society contributes to relationships with others. When society is stable, its parts run smoothly and cooperatively; but it must be remembered that, when society is stable, it is often seen that way through the lens of those in power. Through this, positive relationships and cohesive partnerships are forged, and consensus emerges from thoughtful, respectful conversations. However, if there are missing or damaged component parts, in time conditions may become dysfunctional, threatening good social order. Conversations become stilted, disagreements are less civil, creating conflict between classes, in class-oriented societies. One may argue that, throughout history, society has really never been “stable,” and so the view taken by all theories promoted tend to be through the lens of the dominant culture at the time.

Before the end of the nineteenth century, the sociologist Emile Durkheim found himself in some conflict of perspective with positivist biological theorists of the time (Adler et al., 1998). These theorists were relying on the belief that there were individual differences between criminals and non-criminals. Durkheim was concerned about the normality of crime in society, where the explanation of human conduct and misconduct was a function of the group and the social organization, not of the individual. Durkheim coined the term anomie, which he used to describe the breakdown of social order and the resultant loss of standards and values in society. He believed that the gravitation of a simple society to a more urbanized, or complex one, came with a breakdown in the recognition of the need for a common set of rules to regulate the actions of people. As a result, groups become fragmented and divisive, the discourse ratchets up and devolves into arguments and clashes. Ultimately, behavior becomes unpredictable, the social order that had existed has broken down, and society now is in Durkheim’s professed state of anomie.

Over time, Durkeim extended his view of the impact of anomie in an attempt to explain troubling non-criminal behaviors such as suicide (especially one he classified as anomic suicide), focused upon the rise in suicide rates during times of sudden economic change (either major recession/depression or even when someone experiences sudden unexpected prosperity). One can easily understand suicides when suffering cataclysmic economic loss, but why would someone consider taking their life if they suddenly inherited a fortune or won the lottery? The answer, according to Durkheim, is found in the sudden change. The social construct creates rules of order; sudden changes push the boundaries of those rules, and expectations of behavior change. Some people can handle it; others cannot take the stresses associated with wealth. Whether great financial loss or sudden great prosperity, the result is the same–anomie (Adler et al., 1998).

Some decades after Durkheim, Robert Merton attempted to explain the crime problem as a derivative of anomie. Acknowledging some similarities, it is noted that Merton’s model has some differences from his predecessor. In Merton’s view, criminal behavior springs from conditions in society that fail to provide equity to all people. True, sudden changes in social structure can emerge from an economic windfall of some sort, but the issue then becomes having a social system which attempts to hold the same goals for all without providing equal means with which to achieve them. Merton argues that culture calls for one social condition, while not integrating what the economic reality of the structure permits. The social structure, in Merton’s view, is the root cause, and responsible for, criminal behavior (Adler et al., 1998).

The advocates of the Neoclassical theory believed that people experience and react differently to punishments, often relative to the environment in which they live (Van den Haag, 1986). As such, the person may react to punishment far differently than their peers who were the recipients of quality opportunities. In this regard, the context in which one lives their life plays an important role, and often directs crime-prevention efforts in both the Classical and Neoclassical theories. Further, any theory can create an assumption that can taint one’s behaviors or influence their discretion. The focus should really shift from “why do people commit crime?” to the more proper and holistic question, “What works?” to best reduce criminal acts and therefore lower recidivism rates in communities.

Figure 3.14

Extending Merton’s Theory of Anomie further, in the United States it is important to find opportunities to move up the social ladder, but these opportunities are not equally distributed among the population. A baby being raised in a slum apartment by a single parent who is unemployed and struggling with addiction, faces a statistically slim chance at moving up in social class. A child living in a middle-class, stable family life has a better-than-average chance of reaching a professional or business position should they choose, and assuming they put forth the effort required to succeed in school, relationships and matriculation into the workforce. Finally, both children will be influenced through direct or indirect exposure to the billions of dollars spent in advertising that spreads the message that they, too, can drive a brand new car, take a luxury vacation, and record it for their viewing later on using the media technology of their choice.

The above view is reinforced by the stories of individuals in industry, sports, and entertainment. An idea ripe for the time, a chance introduction to an agent with transactional capacity, or simply being in the right place at the right time, leads a choice few persons down a path from rags to riches. Merton recognized that such circumstances may be true in some isolated cases, but realistically it was not a legitimate way for everyone to reach their economic or social goals. In fact, tactics such as over-reaching to achieve status in so-called “get-rich-quick” schemes, could lead to problems. Merton didn’t believe that a lack of means could be the only reason for the deviant behavior he was studying and the resultant escalating crime rate (Adler et al., 1998).

3.6.5 SOCIAL LEARNING THEORIES

Social learning theory considers how new behaviors can be formed or acquired by observing and imitating the actions of others. How people in different walks of life–parents, friends, team members, co-workers and mentors–present themselves (intentionally or otherwise) as role models, makes a difference to those who look to them for life or situational guidance. Modeling in learning theory in this sense is a cognitive process, but can be acquired passively through direct observation, as a member of a team where rules of some type are to be followed, or by a more direct, formal or rigid learning structure. Pure learning theory does not necessarily require ongoing reproduction or direct reinforcement in order to be successful. Learning can also take place as a result of observing a behavior and by observing what consequences of the behavior are realized. This learning process is known as vicarious reinforcement.

Criminologists have long held that if certain expected behaviors are regularly praised or rewarded, that behavior will likely continue. In contrast, punishing the behavior consistently will likely lead to a reluctance to continue the act. Psychologists have long studied learning theory, and many of the lessons learned through animal tendencies (i.e., Pavlov’s famous experimentation with dogs, as cited in Rehman et al., 2023) can be seen to carry over to the human context. We marvel at the precision with which uniformed members of the armed forces or marching bands follow a regimented choreography. Fans cheer for their football team when a complex play is carried out to fruition, mainly because each member practiced their individual role, received praise or critique prior to the game, practiced some more to reinforce any needed changes, and finally, on game day, the work paid off. Finally, technology plays a significant role in the training and execution platform for business, sports and other professional occupations.

Unfortunately, technology and reinforced learned behaviors can also lead to the culmination of victimization and senseless criminal acts. Media violence is certainly an influence, as it is nearly impossible to watch any media segment for a glimpse at local or national news without seeing concerning (if not devastating) acts of violence, and the toll exacted on the witnesses and victims. To that sense the public has, to some degree, become desensitized in what is occurring. This desensitization goes beyond creating an apathetic community; it leads to a sense of feeling like the problems of crime are overwhelming, and no one is able nor willing to stop it. For law-abiding members of the population, there is a cry for reinforcements to set things right: more police, or less discretion on behalf of prosecutors, stronger will in sentencing enacted by judges, and any reasons at all to warehouse convicts to protect society from them, whether they receive any rehabilitative care or not. Those in the community who are of a criminal mindset may look to what is broadcast in media, films, or portrayals in order to exploit gaps, look for areas where vulnerable people may be targeted, or simply to get a better sense as to the “risk versus reward” of the particular crime in which they may participate.

Social Learning Theory greatly depends upon the concept of modeling as mentioned above. The criminologist Bandura argued that there are three types of modeling modalities (Sutton, 2021):

1. Live models, where an actual person is demonstrating the desired behavior.
2. Verbal instruction, in which an individual describes the desired behavior in detail and instructs the participant in how to engage in the behavior.
3. Symbolic, by which modeling occurs by means of the media (movies, television, Internet, video games, literature and radio, as examples). The symbolic stimuli can either be present in the form of real or fictional characters.

Figure 3.15

How might we better explain aggression? By the application of Social Learning Theory concepts to crime studies, several useful ideas have been identified. In trying to explain a broader theory of criminal behavior, the criminalists Ronald Akers and Robert Burgess took the basic principles of the Social Learning Theory, and aligned them with Edwin Sutherland’s Differential Association Theory. On one hand, the Akers/Burgess alliance proposes that criminal behavior is grounded through both social and non-social circumstances, and is further achieved via situations involving direct reinforcement, vicarious reinforcement, explicit instruction, and direct and indirect observation (Burgess & Akers, 1966). For example, in a neighborhood where criminal activity is normative, a seasoned criminal might teach a youngster how to hot-wire the ignition on a car in order to steal the vehicle. Here, the likelihood of criminal activity in a neighborhood where such behaviors are commonplace, increases the chances that exposure to criminal deviance will occur.

3.6.6 CULTURAL DEVIANCE THEORIES

Cultural deviance theories claim that people who are deemed to be in a lower socio-economic class have a different set of values that tend to conflict with the values of what is viewed to be the more normative middle class. A fundamental flaw with theories following this line of thinking is believing that when people conform to their own value system and honor their culture, they may be viewed as being in violation of conventional or middle-class norms. The Cultural Deviance Theory was championed by criminologist Walter B. Miller (1958), and contributed a significant amount of research to sociologists Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay, both of whom were part of a larger theoretical project in 1942 attempting to understand and explain social deviance and crime in the rapidly expanding immigrant neighborhoods of Chicago in the 1930s. Miller identified six elements of lower-class subculture that he labeled “focal concerns,” of which lower-class youth were focused. The six areas are:

1. Trouble – Getting into it, and staying out of it. The “trouble” here came in the form of law enforcement, where respect for the law did not emerge from an altruistic sense of morality, but from a fear of punishment.
2. Toughness – In the lower-class neighborhood, toughness was defined as a disregard for consequences, as well as disdain for literary, artistic and scholarly pursuits. Disavowing a need for formal education, a young person might feel more respected among peers if they were instead “street-wise”, if they outwardly displayed an objectification of women, and openly engaged in certain behaviors like underage smoking and drinking. Juveniles were particularly drawn to this, aspiring to be “tough” in order to gain respect and acceptance by peers.
3. Smartness – Juveniles in the above-described neighborhoods often sought to be cunning, manipulative and intimidating. In this way they could be viewed as a “smart guy”, a “wise guy”, or a “smooth operator”, constantly in contempt of the law.
4. Excitement – This aspect pointed to the “thrill-seekers” in the neighborhood. Juveniles often found their days in the neighborhood as boring and monotonous. By joining a gang or engaging in use of recreational drugs, a young person might be viewed as being at the cutting edge of the “in crowd”.
5. Fate – If a member of the lower-class population felt unappreciated or disempowered, they might put greater emphasis on actions demonstrating fate or luck than would their middle-class contemporaries. If one displayed an attitude of fearlessness or recklessness when engaged in risky activities, they may have felt that the outcome was preordained and thus beyond any intervention from morality. This mindset could act as an enabler for juvenile delinquency.
6. Autonomy – The previous five focal concerns created an atmosphere where juveniles felt it was necessary to resist control over any individual or group who sought to exert control over their lives. This included parents, teachers, law enforcement and anyone who was viewed by the youth as being in a position of authority. As a direct result of the attempt to assert their autonomy against the system, delinquent acts such as vandalism or petty crime could result.

The Cultural Deviance Theory is sometimes viewed as a component of a larger theory called the Social Disorganization Theory. The Social Disorganization Theory connects crime and delinquent behavior to cultural norms that are prevalent in particular locations, neighborhoods, or residential areas such as those of low-income groups, or in areas populated with a heavy concentration of poor immigrants. Evidence of some validity to this theory presents itself when considering ethnic gangs who operate and establish “turf” in cities. Individuals residing in such areas are often wrongly labeled as members of such gangs, and find themselves wrongly detained, arrested, or incarcerated by law enforcement personnel, or recruited or targeted by gang members who believe the person to be present in the protected turf. As you can see, the people caught up in the Cultural Deviance Theory are not necessarily committing crimes because they have an innate proclivity to criminal behavior, but instead are influenced by three factors:

1. The place they live in,
2. The people they are surrounded by, and
3. The socio-economic conditions found within their micro-environment.

All three of these elements come together to form a unique subculture influencing the individual and their chances to turn to crime. Because this theory is often used to critique immigrant and working-class cultures and neighborhoods, specifically as it attempts to explain the origins of gang subculture, it is a highly controversial theory in the 21st Century (Moule, 2015).

3.6.7 POSITIVIST CRIMINOLOGY

Figure 3.16

Criminologists who use the empirical evidence they obtain through valid scientific inquiry in an effort to improve society and the world we live in, are considered to be engaging in positivism. By using the basic tenets of scientific inquiry–accurately conducting measurement of elements of cases, remaining passionately objective, and making unbiased attempts to explain causality observed–positivism can emerge as a valid theory in explaining the root cause of crime. Positivists have long speculated that there were two general groups of people: criminals and non-criminals, and as such, it is our duty to determine what causes people to be criminals.

In his famous work On the Origin of Species (1859), Charles Darwin wrote extensively on the role of natural selection in the animal kingdom. A dozen years later, in Descent of Man (1871), Darwin attempted to apply these viewpoints to the human condition. Darwin postulated that some people who engage in antisocial acts might do so as a result of being a “throwback” to earlier times. He viewed a person’s devolvement into what he termed an evolutionary reversion to an early stage of mankind, might explain why the person acted counter to community values and normative behavior. Darwin never explicitly wrote about, or tried to explain, the reasons for criminal behavior, but criminologists in ensuing years utilized his ideas and applied them to their personal studies relating to criminal causation.

Shortly after Darwin’s work, the work of Cesare Lombroso, a member of the so-called “Italian School” of criminology, caused criminologists to take notice (Wolfgang, 1961). Lombroso was a medical student who, later, became a professor of psychiatry at the University of Turin. He theorized that, due to physical features that were distinguishable from non-criminals, some people were “born criminals”. Lombroso proposed that criminals were a lower form of life, more apt to display traits and dispositions more crude than those of their non-criminal counterparts. He also believed that, by studying five physical characteristics, such as jaw size, arm span, etc., predictors to the person’s inclination to engage in criminal behavior would emerge, and in the case of some of his predecessors, were influenced by, or relied upon, racist stereotypes (B. Foster-Grahler, personal communication, January 27, 2024).

3.6.8 BIOLOGICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL POSITIVISM

Unfortunately for the study of criminology, sociological theory and empirical research are sometimes considered by experts as exclusively responsible for criminal behavior. Cast aside are critical factors such as personality and human biology, almost like being seen as irrelevant to the discussion. Further, psychological theory sometimes delves into the individual to the exclusion of external facts like the predispositions with which we are born, the interactions with others in often complex situations. A comprehensive approach would consider the totality of circumstances influencing and affecting an individual, both internal and external in nature (Adler et al., 1998).

According to psychologists, a variety of possibilities can be considered for individual differences between people who live normal, law-abiding lives, and those predisposed to committing crimes. A short list of these possibilities might include poor or undeveloped moral attitudes, inadequate or non-existent socialization during formative childhood years, experiencing the absence of one of the parents for differing reasons, emotional immaturity, and having a defective conscience. When looking at how crime may be related to personality factors, it is important to evaluate some baseline information about the person. How was their aggression learned? What are emotional “triggers” that lead to violent or delinquent actions? Does the individual have a particular crime of choice, and are they somehow related to certain personality factors? All these questions, and more, help to assess the person’s potential to plan crimes, carry them out, and be receptive to potential rehabilitation if interrupted at some point.

The recognized father of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud (1856-1939), postulated that an individual’s psychological well-being is dependent upon a healthy and robust interaction among the id , ego and superego-the three basic components of the human psyche (Adler et al., 1998). The id is responsible for providing powerful urges and is a driver for seeking gratification and satisfaction. The ego can be seen as a referee for the personality of the individual, acting in the role as moderator between the id and the superego. The superego takes on the role of keeper of the moral code, or the individual’s conscience. It was Freud’s position that criminal behavior possibly resulted due to an overactive superego or conscience. As Freud treated patients, he noted several who were suffering from overpowering feelings of guilt and who committed crimes so that they might be apprehended and punished (Freud, 1920, 1927). Once they had been punished, they experienced almost immediate relief from the guilt which they had been carrying. As a counterpoint argument, Freud provided an alternative proposition: in the case of an individual being described above feeling unbearable guilt, perhaps it was because that person’s conscience was not too strong, but instead, too weak, and as a result, was unable to resist or control the impulses of the id. If one or both parents are absent in this person’s childhood and no other person is available to provide nurturing care, life guidance and to set reasonable limits, Freud believed that the absence of such structure could lead to an unrestrained id and lead straight to a path of delinquency.

The psychoanalytic theory of criminality subscribes to the notion that there are three possible causes behind one’s engagement in criminal acts:

1. A conscience so overbearing that it arouses feelings of guilt, as described above.
2. A conscience so weak that it cannot control the individual’s criminal impulses.
3. The individual’s need for immediate gratification.

Regarding this third element, a defect in the character formation of delinquents may drive them to satisfy their desires immediately, regardless of the presence of sure consequences. This urge is attributed to the id by psychoanalysts, and is so strong that any personal relationships the individual makes with others is important only as a means to an end to achieve the act of gratification. The individual doesn’t necessarily care about the wholesomeness or long-term intentions of a relationship–they are only concerned with the immediate gratification they are seeking, and little, if anything more, beyond it.

Other examples exist of psychological theories supporting the roots of criminal behavior, including the well-studied Maternal Deprivation and Attachment Theory (Adler et al., 1998). To further examine psychological theories involving Maternal Deprivation and Attachment Theory, baby monkeys were given a choice between two artificially-constructed “monkeys.” One monkey, made from raw, uncovered cage wire, was equipped to dispense milk. The other was made from cage wire as well, but was covered in soft fabric. That monkey did not deliver milk. The monkeys interacted with the monkey with soft fabric. Criminologists believe that is because the feeling of warmth, comfort, safety and security were more important than even food was. So, how does this relate to the study of crime? Many years of research shows that the development of social and emotional maternal bonds emerge shortly after the birth of any mammal, and the strength of this bond deeply affects the child’s ability to form social attachments to others throughout their lifetime. Case in point: when an outside influence, such as a street gang, provides motivation for enhanced self-esteem, peer acceptance and economic opportunities through crime, impressionable youth who have lacked acceptance in their lives, often will gravitate to the offer.

Criminologists have searched for biological explanations for criminal behavior. Recent advances in science and technology have led to a broad acceptance that biology is certainly a factor in criminal behavior, but is admittedly only one piece to the puzzle. One prominent report, published by the criminologist Adrian Raine et al., introduced in 1997 the concept that criminal behavior springs from some flaw or defect in an individual’s biological makeup, after hypothesizing that there would be significant differences in the brain activity in the prefrontal cortex of the brain. As an example, Raine et al. hypothesized that the prefrontal cortex in a murderer should have lower activity visibly demonstrated. After conducting a study using Positron Emissions Technology (PET) scans to compare the brains of two groups (convicted murderers who had pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, and non-murderers), their hypothesis was confirmed. Raine et al. concluded that the study suggests there may be some biological factors that make some individuals more predisposed to committing violent acts. They listed three general areas for focus on biological explanations for crime:

1. Criminal behavior is a function of heredity, passed down generationally at the chromosome level. One example of note is the XYY chromosomal deviation.
2. Neurotransmitter dysfunction–perhaps explained by a chemical imbalance in the person’s system, creating a biochemical triggering of aggressive or hostile behavior..
3. Brain abnormality, which could occur as a result of either heredity or neurotransmitter dysfunction, or resulting from brain trauma.

Figure 3.17

Other studies are either mentioned or, in some cases, summarized, regarding the development of a text and learning curricula geared to this level. The subject matter covered includes: “Wilson’s ‘sociobiology’ [1975 study], identical twin studies, the XYY chromosomal deviation, premenstrual syndrome, the male hormone correlation with violent crime, biological origins of schizophrenia and alcoholism, temporal lobe epilepsy, and biochemical triggering of hostile behavior” (Taylor, 1984). Of note, these extensive studies have laid the groundwork for criminal defense strategies, similar to that of an insanity defense, by claiming that a genetic or biological defense should be considered in order to mitigate criminal responsibility in a case of deviant criminal behavior.

3.6.9 THE CHICAGO SCHOOL

Think about crimes of opportunity: doesn’t it seem that normal people might be tempted to commit a crime of shoplifting, for example, if the storekeeper disappeared out of view for a brief time, and there were no cameras to capture the image of the thief? In this regard, you see normal persons responding as we might expect to the immediate situation. What is lacking here are personal values and a moral compass–knowing the difference between right and wrong, and exercising self-control to not commit the crime. The theorists of the Chicago School subscribed to this idea, as opposed to believing that abnormal persons acted out some sort of individual sickness, leading them to commit criminal acts (Adler et al., 1998). The Chicago School of criminologists further believed that systemic social disorganization might be the underlying cause of the problem in a criminalized area, and the only way to correct this would be through assisting the community in ways that could lead to a reduction of crime.

In 1934, the Chicago Area Project was initiated to study the effects and potential arising out of reorganization of the neighborhood. Backing the project were two well-known criminologists, Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay, representing the Institute for Juvenile Research (1942). The project attempted to coordinate existing community action and support groups, including schools, churches, labor unions, clubs and businesses. Recreational venues, increased and localized presence of law enforcement, and upgrades to neighborhood schools, were instituted with the intent to control delinquency. An extended benefit of the project were improvements to community sanitation and the general appearance of the areas of the city involved.

A look back fifty years later to the outcomes derived from the city of Chicago’s first community-based delinquency program offered a dose of reality and modest success (Chicago Area Project, n.d.-b). South Chicago, the city’s largest area targeted, remained very much like it did fifty years before. Although pollution from the area’s surrounding steel mills had been cleaned up, the visible examples and on-ground reminders of urban decay were not. Boarded-up buildings, trash-littered vacant lots, and severely deteriorated housing units characterized the areas that Shaw and McKay originally targeted for improvement.

Figure 3.18

Caption (Optional): An illustration of the Burgess Concentric Zone model, developed in 1925 by Edward Burgess. This model attempts to provide an urban planning analysis on cities, moving through five demographic zones from a rural perimeter toward a central business district. Each named zone contains characteristics unique to the others, even though there are common themes within them.

Edward Burgess (1925) created the Concentric Zone Model shown above. The original Concentric Zone Model contained only five zones; a sixth zone was added later (the “Factory Zone”, due to the relocation of industrial components closer to the city center for efficiency). This zone may or may not apply to all situations. The circles included:

1. The Center Core, known as the Central Business District of a city. This area was considered largely unsuitable for long-term housing, and consisted of government buildings, retail establishments, etc.
2. The Factory Zone: as mentioned above.
3. The Zone of Transition. This area lies just outside the Central Business
4. District, and is mixed-use in nature. This zone frequently has a diverse population, to include both low-income residents and some businesses.
5. The Zone of Independent Workers’ Homes: traveling further from the Central Business District one encounters this zone, readily identifiable by older houses and small apartments. The residents of this zone are typically middle-class working folks who hold jobs in the factories or are manual laborers. Some small shops and services may be available for convenience of those living in this zone.
6. Moving further out, one finds the Zone of Better Residences. As the name implies, you will find larger and nicer homes here, and their occupants are, by and large, middle-class families. The area tends to be more spacious, and parks, schools, and certain recreational or entertainment venues may be found here. This zone tends to be generally quieter, and has fewer businesses.
7. The Commuter Zone is the outer ring of the model. This zone generally finds people who hold jobs in the city, but who prefer to have more space as well as peace and quiet. Residences in this zone are typically detached, and garden spots or mini-farms are present in many cases. This zone is less populated than the others, although larger shopping centers, supermarkets, and strip malls are present, to cater to the needs of the residents.

Consider the area in which you reside, or places you frequent. In which zone would you consider your residence to be located? Does the Burgess Concentric Zone Model apply well to the area in which you currently live? Are there major differences, such as evidence that certain zones are hard to differentiate or don’t exist at all?

The Chicago Area Project remains in place, working in any ways it can to act as a self-help group, committed mainly to community treatment of juvenile delinquency. Its mission has not changed over the 86 years of its existence: “To work toward the prevention and eradication of juvenile delinquency through the development and support of affiliated local community self-help efforts in communities where the need is greatest” (Chicago Area Project, n.d.-a, para. 7). Working in cooperation with Mayor Lightfoot’s INVEST South/West commercial corridor improvement strategy, it is one of ten priority communities taking part in the upgrade. However, critics argue that little has been done to improve the safety proposition for juveniles, as over 283 youth have been the victims of firearms in 2022 this year so far, with 33 deaths tallied among that number (“Chicago Shootings,” 2022). Indeed, in February 2023, Mayor Lightfoot was voted out of office. Her inability to achieve a second term was the first time in forty years this had occurred in Chicago. The Burgess model, however, has seen its applicability challenged when attempts to apply it in other complex settings are made. The reasons often are that those who wish to apply this model try to do so based upon locations of ethnic or racial geographic distribution in and around an urban area, rather than considering the more appropriate socio-economic considerations in their application.

3.6.10 CONSIDERING OTHER CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORIES

It is simply not possible, within the scope of this textbook, to identify and sufficiently cover all of the possible explanations for crime and criminal conduct. As you can see from the entries above, myriad theories, supported and unsupported concepts, and geopolitical biases, try to explain crime causation and predisposition to crimes while looking through various spectacles–and not all are positive. Some theories have attempted to integrate ideas from other theorists’ work, and indeed over time some have collaborated to investigate their joint creations to a further extent. They hope to arrive at a new, more satisfactory, explanation of crime and criminal behavior that is evinced in their new model.

Social Reaction and Labeling Theories

In childhood, you may have heard the rhyme, “Sticks and stones may break one’s bones, but words will never hurt me.” Over your lifetime, your viewpoint may change on this matter. Words are impactful. They carry power and meaning, and one of the most harmful things we as a society can do to an individual is to apply a label to them. Adversely labeling someone carries negative connotations, and often consequences, because of the way family, neighborhoods, communities and indeed, society, views the individual. People will react to what they hear, often without substantiating the source. Were there circumstances beyond the control of the labeled individual so significant that they could not be overcome? Was the person a mere victim of circumstances? Was the label contrived in order to gain some sort of social leverage over the person by someone else seeking to climb a social or political ladder? Meanings behind the derogatory words or labels may be culturally appropriated or created through harmless interaction with friends or from within a peer group. Tastes are cultivated in this manner as well–the fashion brands we choose to wear, the brands of food and drink, as examples. We become associated with these meanings, and build a currency–a status–by our choices.

How does this relate to crime? Not everyone who breaks the law is apprehended. Even if they are, not everyone is then labeled as a criminal or deviant. This is mainly due to the social construct of crime. A crime in one part of Washington state may be viewed as serious, but less seriously taken if the same crime is committed in other parts of the state, and vice versa. Expanding this concept nationally, there can be significantly greater gaps. As an example, simple use and possession of cannabis is prohibited under federal law, but individual states in increasing numbers are legalizing recreational use of marijuana. What is then legally permitted under Washington state law (Blevins et al., 2018) may be illegal in Idaho, Wyoming and South Carolina.

What if a person is labeled? Are they likely to be treated as a criminal? A repetitive reminder of one’s minor criminal involvement in a minor first-time shoplifting offense might cause the individual to adopt that label for the rest of his or her days. Becoming so ingrained by this belittling, unhelpful attitude demonstrated by others can cause the labeled person to delve deeper and deeper into criminal behavior. The labeling effect works both ways, however. Telling someone they are a very good speaker in front of audiences might be all it takes for that person to take steps to improve so as to become an even better, more confident orator. Similarly, telling someone they can’t do anything right, can lead the person to internalize the label and withdraw, never feeling confident enough to try even the simplest task. Their belief would be, “Why should I try? I’ll only fail.”

Figure 3.19

Punk

In an important 1989 study relevant to corrections, Braithwaite studied some of the ideas mentioned above in the context of reintegrative shaming. Braithwaite believed, as many of us do, that not every social reaction to a situation is severe or cold-hearted. In fact, some reactions can be uplifting and beneficial. In this way, it is the quality of social responses that is most significant, an acknowledgment to “words matter,” as does tone of voice, timeliness and other factors.

Shaming in modern society takes two forms: stigmatizing or reintegrative. Stigmatizing, of course, carries a most negative connotation–harsh punishment, deep psychological hurt, and a degradation of a person’s bond to their family and community. In the community corrections realm, stigmatizing shaming is counter-productive, drawing a sharp divide between the offender and the community. Since the focus on reintegrative shaming is on forgiveness, personal dignity, love and a notion that the person can redeem themselves, it carries the most powerful potential for successful reintegration into society. The United States, as in some other countries, seems to appreciate stigmatizing shaming, unfortunately, as we continue down a failed path of labeling. “Stigmatizing shaming propels people towards crime whereas reintegrative shaming seeks to correct the behavior through respect and empathy” (Fedorek, 2019, 5.12 section, para. 4).

After the conclusion of World War II, it was anticipated that the United States would experience major growth in areas of the economy, culture and politics. However, Americans were taken aback by the political turmoil occurring inside and outside of the country. An entire generation of sociological scholars expressed their disenchantment with society, and importantly, with the more mainstream and traditional theories ascribed to why crimes occurred. Over the next several decades, a host of sociologists, psychologists, professionals in law and justice, and interested others, attempted to pinpoint the source of criminal behavior.

Finally, in 2018, three collaborating criminologists, Cullen, Agnew and Wilcox, who had been studying the events of the time forward, opined that critical theories of crime shared five central themes. Those central themes include:

First, to understand crime, one must appreciate the fusion between power and inequality. People with power, political and economic, have an enormous advantage in society. Second, crime is a political concept. Not all those who commit crime are caught, nor are those who are caught punished. The poor are injured the most by the enforcement of laws, while the affluent (i.e., powerful) are treated leniently. Third, the criminal justice system and its agents serve the ruling class, the capitalists . . . Fourth, the root cause of crime is capitalism because capitalism ignores the poor and their atrocious living conditions. Capitalism demands profits and growth over values and ethical considerations. Perhaps this is why crimes of the streets are punished more severely than crimes of the suites. Finally, critical theories believe the solution to crime is a more equitable society, both politically and economically. (as cited in Fedorek, 2019, 5.12 section, para. 5)

In the words of wisdom passed down through generations, we each have traveled our own pathways in life, experienced our own unique situations, thought our own thoughts. This personal time travel creates an opportunity for us to formulate our own opinions on matters such as crime, criminal behavior, and the community’s role (if any) in society’s governance. The question is: Why do you think someone commits crime?

3.7 ETHICAL ISSUES IN CRIMINOLOGY

If you were to assemble a group of world-renowned criminologists, sociologists, and psychologists devoted to the study of crime, its causation, and the basis of criminal behavior, and posed the question, “What are ethical issues currently facing the field of criminology?,” chances are you would have some common themes emerge. In public safety and ground-level criminal justice occupations, four common themes develop–discretion, duty, honesty and loyalty. These themes are prescribed in large part due to the social contract of police, corrections employees, and the courtroom work group. For the criminologist, it needs to be understood that the role they play may be influenced by these themes, but in large part they act independently and are not beholden to the same constructs as a police officer or attorney might be.

Some key ethical issues in criminology include:

Information Gathering

The methods by which criminologists harvest their data, matters. If a researcher seeks only certain sources based on a personal perception, this would be indicative of possible bias on the collector and could nullify the results of an important study. The researcher may not be comfortable with contacting, interviewing, or otherwise collecting certain data from certain sources, but disregarding a source devalues their unique information, and may be perceived as disrespectful. It would also leave out aspects, perhaps important viewpoints, to the full research, rendering the results as an incomplete package.

It should be noted here that not all information-gathering inaccuracies rise to the level of an ethical issue. In fact, honest mistakes, or more commonly, erroneous entry or classification of a criminal event in a wrong category can lead to unsupported conclusions of fact. One example here concerns the Jeanne Clery Act; passed by Congress in 1990 as a consumer protection measure, the Act requires all colleges and universities which receive federal funding, to report crimes occurring on, or in the near vicinity, of its campuses and areas under their control. In some cases, the federal definitions of certain crimes are not consistent with state and local definitions of the same criminal act, and can lead honest reporters to enter inaccurate data.

Manipulating Facts and/or Numbers

Engaging in number manipulation implies bias on behalf of the researcher. In some funded studies, “cooking the numbers” may be an illegal act. Most importantly, research using untruthful or inflated/deflated numbers to achieve a purpose will most assuredly be discovered, forever damaging the credibility of the researcher from that point forward.

Using the example of crime reporting on colleges and universities, no educational institution wants to be considered “unsafe” or to have their brand tarnished by reporting of serious crimes. In certain cases, pressure may be exerted toward the individuals completing the annual Jeanne Clery Act compliance reporting (Van Vliet, 2020). The pressure comes in the form of encouraging a reduction of the actual number of criminal events reported to a lower level so as to not raise concerns of the parents of college-age children, or even adult learners, about the safety of the school they may consider attending.

Development and Publishing of Research

In recent years, at least half of the respondents to a survey of the American Society of Criminology (Vohryzek-Bolden, 1997) expressed they had concerns involving certain elements of the research, including how consent was obtained, participant confidentiality, and claims of deceptive practices. For others, implications of racism and bias, combined with restrictions placed on funding and publication, were troublesome.

This was also evident in the research conducted by Stephen Jay Gould, whose work refuted some long-held, biased positions of others regarding the measurement of the brain cavity and correlating the volume of the cavity to intelligence and the individual’s race (Weisberg & Paul, 2016).

Figure 3.20

Providing Expert Testimony

Often researchers in criminology are summoned to provide expert testimony for the purposes of supporting criminal prosecution, civil plaintiffs, or the defense. Whether criminal or civil in nature, the stakes in such testimony are high. Legal counsel will provide material in the form of reports, to include police reports, witness and victim statements, crime scene and crime lab findings, and many other forms of information pertinent to the case. What is not openly discussed are the reasons why one side or the other sought out the expert testimony of the criminologist. It is not above some individuals to attempt to convince the criminologist to adjust data to match that which is included in their testimony to support their theory of what happened. The opposing legal team may have also acquired the services of an expert witness, and often the stark contrast between expert testimonies regarding the very same fact sets, are astonishing. In the end, criminologists providing expert testimony need to act with the highest levels of integrity, have open, honest and sometimes, courageous conversations with legal counsel, in order to uphold the highest standards of their role in the legal system.

3.8 TYPOLOGIES OF CRIMES

Criminologists seek to determine the reality about why crimes are committed. In order to better understand criminal behavior, a classification scheme known as a crime typology is used to study the how and why of deviance occurring in the performance of criminal acts. A number of considerations form the basis for a criminal typology, including the laws that are broken, what the motivation and unique characteristics of an offender might be, and behavior of a victim before, during and after their victimization. After these aspects are studied, criminologists attempt to identify and, if possible, categorize homogeneous siloes of criminal behaviors. By definition, these clusters of criminal acts should be unique and separate from other groups of criminal acts and behaviors. In defining such individual groupings, two general categories emerge: crimes against persons (sometimes referred to as “violent” crimes due to the propensity for them to occur in assaultive behaviors), and property crimes. While this system helps to assist the criminologist, it can also be murky because of the gaps it creates. For instance, it is possible for a property crime to begin discreetly but suddenly and dynamically evolve into a violent attack when discovered by a homeowner or shopkeeper. Similarly, a person who carjacks a vehicle may encounter no resistance, or a very violent physical response from the victim. As you can see, it is not possible for a “one-size-fits-all” typology to exist, as there are many facets and possible outcomes to almost any crime in progress.

A central, significant consideration of any typology is its relevance to society. The criminologist studying crime typology must recognize that the crimes of the past are not entirely the same as the crimes committed today. It is easy to see that the contemporary impacts associated with the crime of identity theft or technology-driven computer crimes, for example, cannot effectively be compared to an incident of a petty thief purloining a wallet during a pickpocketing in 1960, a crude attempt at creating a false identification card in 1970, threatening harm by a typewritten note arriving in the mail in 1980, or writing checks on a bank account containing insufficient funds in 1990. The creation of high-end and speedy technology, accompanied by significant advances in supporting materials, create avenues for greater criminal advantage. Examples include the quality paper and inks mimicking that which goes into the production of U.S. currency, 3-D printers capable of producing “ghost guns” and other undetectable weapons, and synthetics or precursor chemicals used in the manufacture of illegal drugs sold on American soil. Much of this book will be devoted to the discussion of crimes having a special impact on our country today. These crimes include those perpetrated against the elderly and women, hate crimes, terrorism, corporate and white-collar crime, organized crime, crimes involving firearms, crimes involving narcotics and dangerous drugs, and the aforementioned high-technology and computer crimes.

Types and classification of crimes follows in [crossref:5]Chapter 5[/crossref].

3.9 TYPOLOGIES AND PROFILING OF THE OFFENDER

One of the professional challenges to police investigating crime scenes is to create a nexus (link) from one crime to others which appear similar for many reasons. Creating the nexus helps the investigator to recognize similarities, focus on modus operandi, and identify common evidence left behind at multiple crime scenes (including possible “signatures” associated with violent crimes which may be left at the scene by the criminal). Often, the investigator creates comparisons between crimes committed which appear to be clearly connected, and from this, a profile of the offender may emerge.

Law enforcement officers, prosecutors, and criminologists in the United States who attempt to work out these identifying characteristics of offenders prefer the typological system of comparison. The typological system has its roots in the expertise of law enforcement, requires communication between investigators, agencies, and others locally, regionally and beyond, and is based primarily on a combination of qualitative data and experience. There are differences in perspectives from different parts of the world. In the United Kingdom, for example, a geographical system originating in psychological expertise, is preferred. The geographical system is based on empirical, quantitative, information and focuses on statistical methods informing investigators of offender characteristics allowing police to create the offender profile.

Criminological Investigation Today

A national “Bureau of Investigation”, which was the precursor to today’s FBI, was formed on July 26, 1908, in response to increased growth of cities and a commensurate expansion of criminal activities taking place in the U.S. (Fox, 2003). Up to this point a systematic way of enforcing the law across the country did not exist. Small police forces in local communities existed but, for the most part, were poorly trained and equipped by today’s standards. Many received their positions of public trust through a political appointment. Recruitment and retention was a significant issue, even then, due to poor wages, long and arduous work schedules, no visible way of uniformly informing the people of the officer’s legal authority, and no prescriptive initial and ongoing training program.

Petty crime in those days could easily occupy an entire police force in a community. The advances in technology and mechanization created additional opportunity for lawbreakers to prey on communities. Just because the automobile industry was in its infancy, it didn’t mean that cars couldn’t be stolen from their proper owners and used for criminal activities. As the country was on the cusp of its entry into the first major world war, Americans now had to address how they would protect their national security from the threats of sabotage, international espionage and domestic subversion. Finally, the threat of anarchism was real–a revolutionary call to overthrow capitalism and bring power to the common man, taken a step further–advocating the overthrow of the government entirely, returning governance to the common man. The people advocating this point of view in the early 1900s were, in fact, the first modern-day terrorists. Through the early efforts of a number of self-styled “special agents” and the leadership of notables such as J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI flourished.

Using the most advanced techniques known at the time, the FBI, in the late 1970s, created a typological profiling strategy that was endorsed by many in the criminological community (Sammons, n.d.). The strategy was created after interviewing 36 individuals who were convicted as serial killers and rapists. The FBI then added information previously gleaned from previous investigations and solved crimes, to the knowledge gained from the interviews. The cornerstone of the FBI approach is the classification of crime scenes (and hence, offenders) as either organized or disorganized . FBI profiling is a six-stage process, seeking to identify and analyze:

1. Investigations data, also called profiling inputs. This preliminary step merges all relevant case information, including detailed reports, crime scene photographs, description of the neighborhood, the medical examiner’s report, a timeline of the victim’s movements, actions and contacts immediately before death, and the offender’s detailed profile.
2. The investigator constructs a decision process model. Here, the basic characteristics of the homicide, including all pertinent details, are stated. A comparison of where the victim was found in relation to where the murder may have occurred, is announced.
3. Crime assessment is conducted. This is the most complex and detailed process. It is here that the investigator tries to establish whether the crime scene demonstrates characteristics of an organized offender, that of a disorganized offender, or a combination of the two. This classification process is considered central to how the FBI approaches criminal profiling.
   1. The determination that a crime scene is organized or disorganized is based on evidence of planning on the offender’s part. A disorganized crime scene suggests unplanned, chaotic behavior, whereas an organized one suggests control and forethought. The profile eventually constructed will often go beyond the typical characteristics of organized/disorganized offenders and include information extrapolated from the crime scene about the offender’s physical characteristics, employment/skill set, sexual history, age and ethnic group (which are usually similar to the victim’s). (Sammons, n.d., p. 1)
   2. It is through the use of this approach, along with other investigative information available, that the apprehension and conviction of Gary Ridgeway, the “Green River Killer” to whom at least 48 murders are attributed, was accomplished by the King County Sheriff’s Office and their partners.
4. Criminal profile release to local investigators. In this stage, the profiler produces a report that attempts to accurately predict the personality type, physical and social characteristics of the yet-unknown offender, and any outlier observations: does the offender “stage” certain objects relative to the victim or collect “trophies” from the crime scene? Does it appear that the killer has an obsession with pornography? Does the offender attempt to communicate with investigators through the media?
5. Investigation is now conducted by the local police agencies which have incorporated the FBI-developed criminal profile into the search. The so-called “Boots on the ground” may be able to readily compare the local knowledge base of offenders to the profile and immediately develop a suspect. At minimum, the enriched investigative material should help patrol officers and detectives to watch for persons who fit the profile rendered.
6. The apprehension of a criminal who demonstrates tendencies modeling the criminal profile is the culminating step in the FBI profiling process. This stage reflects the accuracy of the profile developed. After apprehension, local police and FBI interviews and interrogations will permit additional details to be fact-checked, and such information can be harvested and imputed to the profiling system database. Doing so tends to improve the profiling accuracy for future investigations.

3.10 WORKPLACE AND SCHOOL VIOLENCE

The next time you visit the market, attend a concert or play, or visit your doctor– you are in someone’s workplace. In fact, many places qualify as workplace settings. Literally thousands of workers report being victims of workplace violence in America annually, while many more incidents go unreported out of fear of reprisal, alienation from other workers, loss of job, or other repercussions. Based on typology and offender profiling, criminologists have concluded that actions, relationships and the offender’s perceptions, makes the events in, or arising from, workplace violence worthy of focus. In 2020 (the most recent year on record) the National Safety Council reported assaults as being the leading cause of workplace death in the United States (2023).

Figure 3.21

The phenomena of the active shooter, including other active threat mechanisms used to threaten or endanger others, occupy a unique challenge for criminologists seeking to find links or characteristics motivating perpetrators. Is every active shooter deranged? Is the individual reacting to societal pressures? Or, are they motivated by some external driver, such as having lost companionship to another, or been rejected through labeling for so long they can no longer take it? There appears to be no common denominator, only categories under which those who commit workplace violence crimes act out. While the driving forces behind the commission of an active threat/workplace violence crime may be similar to others, each event is unique in and of itself.

Safety in the workplace is really non-negotiable. Dating back to Title VII of the Civil Rights Act in 1964, discriminatory practices in the workplace against individuals or protected classes under federal law, has been prohibited. The Occupational Safety and Health Act’s General Duty Clause (1970) requires employers to provide a safe and healthful workplace for all workers covered by the act, and legally requires them to take reasonable steps to prevent or abate a recognized violence hazard. That said, acts of workplace violence are being perpetrated at a rate that is unacceptable in a civilized society.

Certain industries are recognized as being prone to violence. Examples include the healthcare profession, law enforcement, service and education providers. According to the Occupational Safety and Health Act, taxi and other for-hire drivers are over 20 times more likely to be murdered on the job than other workers (National Safety Council, 2023). Part of the reason for this involves the vulnerability which comes from working alone, often in unfamiliar areas, and having cash on board.

The National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) divides workplace violence into four classifications (1996):

1. Bona-fide criminal intent is demonstrated, as in robbing a convenience store.
2. Customer/client relationship devolves into violence.
3. Worker-on-worker violent episodes occur, borne out of anger, perceived slight, etc.
4. Personal relationship (whether in the workplace or coming to it from the outside).

Places of worship, cemeteries, symbolic ideologies or even subtle expression of personal belief structures have also been triggers for violence to occur in one’s workplace. Some components of mental illness may promote or exacerbate violent attacks.

Society has witnessed some of the examples above to progress to active shooter incidents. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security defines “active shooter” as someone “actively engaged in killing or attempting to kill people in a confined and populated area” (Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency, n.d., para. 1). These events typically do not last more than a few minutes, but are often devastating in terms of the impacts felt in the workplace, the families and friends of the parties involved, and throughout the community.

What can we do? First and foremost, remain situationally aware at all times–know what is going on, what looks, sounds and feels right, and if something sets off an internal alarm with you, pay attention to it. If you see something, say something®. This phrase suggests that you take the initiative to immediately report when some condition or person alerts you to potential threat. Using environmental design strategies, maintaining physical separation between workers and customers, providing well-lit interior and exterior work spaces, and utilizing cash control systems, alarms, and other security devices is wise. Administrative controls involving a system of background screenings, and using receptionists or security guards to screen people entering the workplace can help. Staff training in areas of verbal de-escalation, non-violent response approaches, and conflict resolutions is strongly recommended. Finally, should you find yourself under an active shooter/active threat siege, utilize the principles of RUN-HIDE-FIGHT™ to maximize your immediate safety chances (Albrecht, 2014).

Schools in the United States, whether public, private, charter, career/technical academies or otherwise, should never be the scene of acts of violence–yet they are, at alarming rates and carrying unfathomable consequences. While the American conscience was shocked awake on April 20, 1999 with the horrors of the Columbine, CO shootings, there were at least sixteen active threats and shootings resulting in death and injury in schools prior to that date–the earliest occurring in Pennsylvania in 1764 (Strait, 2010).

Today’s students, in large part due to the many actual and threatened incidents of active shooters, are trained early to actions they should take should an emergency occur during their time in school. Many resources in the form of grants, donations, tax expenditures and corporate assistance have been utilized to “harden” the targets of schools across the nation. Examples of such target hardening efforts include installation of alarm and lockdown systems, security cameras, door barriers, “safe rooms”, and ballistic glass. In some communities, School Resource Officers (SRO), who are police officers selected for the assignment, are placed in schools as a form of security, and in others, the controversial topic of arming teachers is considered. While all of these actions are well-intended, students are entitled to safe and nurturing spaces in which to learn, and parents and guardians should have equal reassurance for the safety and security of their children while at school.

The police tactical role in active shooter events changed drastically after the Columbine High School massacre (Martaindale & Blair, 2019). Until that point, most police departments considered the entry and takeover of a business or school as a kidnapping or unlawful imprisonment. First-arriving police often waited for hostage negotiators, crisis intervention specialists, and supervisors to arrive on scene before deploying. The hostilities at Columbine pointed out that entry and confrontation of a shooter in order to stop the threat of continued violence couldn’t wait. Most departments today prepare well in advance by training with other responders in their region before an active threat event occurs. Then, if an active shooter situation arises, the first arriving officers immediately enter and conduct a systematic search to identify the source of the shooting and stop it immediately in an effort to save lives.

Should you find yourself in an active shooter incident, there are precautions that are recommended for your safety:

Know your surroundings, be situationally aware, and understand the principles of Run-Hide-Fight.

Shut off your phone’s ringtones and notifications, and remain silent. DO NOT carry your phone in your hand, as it may be misconstrued by police to be a weapon.

When police arrive, raise your hands in the air, and follow their orders-do not talk nor argue with them.

Make no sudden movements at any time.

3.11 TYPES OF ENTERPRISE CRIME

Figure 3.22

3.11.1 WHITE-COLLAR CRIME

If you were asked to picture a criminal in your mind, what image would you be likely to think of first: a scruffy young male with a scowl or sneer on his face, or a handsome, middle-aged man dressed in a three-piece business suit? No doubt the former image would come to mind first, if only because violent crime and property crime dominate newspaper headlines and television newscasts and because many of us have been victims of violent or property crime. Yet white-collar crime is arguably much more harmful than street crime, both in terms of economic loss and of physical injury, illness, and even death. (University of Minnesota, 2015, 8.2 section, para. 14)

How do we define white-collar crime? Edwin Sutherland, a sociologist writing in the 1940s, first introduced the term and defined it as a “crime committed by a person of respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation” (1949, p. 9).

Sutherland examined the behavior of the seventy largest US corporations and found that they had violated the law hundreds of times among them. Several had engaged in crimes during either World War I or II; they provided defective weapons and spoiled food to US troops and even sold weapons to Germany and other nations the United States was fighting. (University of Minnesota, 2015, 8.2 section, para. 15)

There are countless examples of white-collar crime to be found in our communities today. These crimes occur in the form of embezzlement or other forms of theft by employees occupying lower-status jobs in local businesses, such as retail clerks, cashiers, and bookkeepers, or by auto shop repair fraud. While these examples fly in the face of Sutherland’s research, there are plenty of more supportive white-collar crimes being committed under the “respectability and high social status” definition. Today, investigators of white-collar crimes focus on transgressions involving fraud by attorneys, physicians, and elected officials or their agents, as well as other professionals. Investigators also examine illegal behavior by corporate executives which are designed to protect, improve, obscure or launder corporate profits.

Health-care fraud, among other professional fraudulent behaviors, ranks among the highest annually in terms of its breadth and cost to American consumers. “Health-care fraud is thought to amount to more than $100 billion per year, compared to less than $20 billion for all property crime combined” (University of Minnesota, 2015, 8.2 section, para. 17). The crimes concealed within health-care fraud are many, in some cases difficult to detect, and far-reaching in scope. If your physician chooses to bill Medicare and/or private insurance carriers for services that patients are not qualified to receive, or that they don’t really require, the costs likely won’t be questioned by the insurer as they trust the provider of care. In some cases, medical supply companies may provide substandard equipment. Because someone has to be responsible for the economic losses incurred due to health-care fraud, the consumer pays more as a result of medical expenses which are now driven up to compensate for the loss.

Corporate crime is by far and away the leading white-collar crime in terms of the economic loss created, and in the areas of death, physical injury, and illness it creates. Prominent examples of corporate crime include fraudulent activities, price fixing, false advertising, and investment schemes. The 2001 Enron scandal involved the practice of exaggerating profits by the promotion of the energy corporation’s chief executives (Constable, 2021). Month after month, investors and employees were led to believe that the company was thriving and that the financial condition of the business was rock-solid. When the scheme unraveled and the dire financial state was revealed, the company’s stock experienced a near-immediate free fall to irreversible levels and the Enron corporation went bankrupt. Without a mechanism for recovery, thousands of workers were plunged into unemployment, losing not only their jobs but their workers’ benefits and pensions. Loyal investors, none the wiser to the financial condition of the company, lost their fortunes as the stock values lost billions of dollars. By no means was Enron the only example of accounting fraud in the late 1990s through early 2000s–there are several other prominent, major corporations that were actively engaging in (or under scrutiny for) accounting fraud. Enron, however, was the most notorious example of a white-collar scandal during this period.

3.11.2 TRANSNATIONAL AND ORGANIZED CRIME

Organized crime is a general classification referring to criminal activities conducted by groups or organizations whose primary purpose for existing is to commit such crimes. The crimes generally associated with organized crime typically involve goods and services sought after by the public but which are either unavailable in certain areas, or which carry criminal sanctions for engaging in them. Such crimes have historically included trafficking in illegal drugs, pornography, prostitution, gambling, loan sharking, or protection rackets. Human trafficking is currently one of the largest criminal enterprises on the planet, which has quadrupled since the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic (R. Durbin, personal communication, January 24, 2024). Another contemporary example of a transnational crime involves the case of Sam Bankman-Fried, convicted of fraud in a crypto-currency scheme, and sentenced to 25 years in prison (Office of Public Affairs, 2024). Protection rackets are somewhat different from the others in that the activities being protected are legal activities, such as garbage hauling, vending machines, and setting up and operating certain legal establishments like taverns in an area controlled by an organized crime syndicate. Despite decades of attempts by law enforcement to curtail organized crime through the traditional philosophy of arrest, prosecution and incarceration, organized crime continues to flourish. Legal scholars now consider that reducing public demand for the goods and services driving the criminal activity may be one answer to responding to organized crime in America.

Exhibiting many of the hallmark characteristics of organized crime, transnational crimes exploit all corners of the globe. Many policy issues exist: anti-corruption and transparency in governance, arms control and nonproliferation, climate and environment, drugs and associated crimes, and of course, terrorism, are but a few transnational crimes.

In an effort to combattransnational crimes, with specific focus on human and sex trafficking and drug cartels, President Donald J. Trump signed Executive Order 13773, Enforcing Federal Law with Respect to Transnational Criminal Organizations and Preventing International Trafficking, in 2017. This Executive Order also bolsters existing federal laws such as the Lacey Act (1900), RICO Act (1970), and other federal laws crossing state and international borders. Because of the complex issues of authority and jurisdiction involved with world law enforcement, the Diplomatic Security Service (DSS), a division within the U.S. Department of State is considered the most appropriate agency in the world to enforce transnational laws. The DSS is widely represented globally with over 2,000 special agents and hundreds of local criminal investigators, forensics specialists, and assistants whose mission is to combat transnational crime abroad. The broad-based inventory of possible crimes–visa and passport fraud, wildlife trafficking, cybercrime, document fraud, and money laundering, creates a diverse opportunity for people motivated to protect their country and the world from exploitation and the greedy, self-serving acts of others.

3.11.3 CAUSATION OF THE ENTERPRISE CRIME

Enterprise crime is the overarching umbrella of criminal activity which includes white-collar crimes, organized crime and even state-sponsored crimes. An important, often identifying factor in the definition of enterprise crimes is to commit the crime without violence. It would follow that facilitative crimes such as those committed by drug cartels and organizational-enforced protection rackets are so violent as to not be classed as a true enterprise crime.

Turning quick profits on the misfortune of victims of fraud, auto theft, blackmail, forgery, and bribery are but some of the causal factors to enterprise crime. In some regions of the country, many vehicles are stolen every day. While some are taken for mere “joy rides,” many are taken to clandestine garages where the cars or trucks are “chopped.” The chopping process involves literally taking a vehicle apart, and in some cases, cutting it to pieces. The components may be then resold either on the black market, or to repair shops who represent them as “original equipment replacement parts.” In more sophisticated operations, the vehicles receive new (but illegal) Vehicle Identification Numbers (VIN) and are re-titled for sale in the U.S. or markets abroad.

Individuals who engage in enterprise crime tend to have higher education levels, specifically in computer science, accounting, and business practices. This does not mean that individuals with high self-esteem, charisma, and leadership qualities, are excluded. The common denominators in all of this level of crime seem to be that the criminals have the ability to communicate well and are well-connected with corporations and/or government entities, and that they have creative minds.

One other type of enterprise crime is tax evasion. Crimes like embezzlement of funds, transnational smuggling, and money laundering can often be cleverly disguised from the government. The U.S. tax code is a mandated annual exercise required of individuals and businesses. Although many attempts have been made to “simplify” the code, it is still complex and overwhelming to many. There also exist many loopholes and situational opportunities where monies can be sheltered from taxation (which is not an illegal practice unless doing so in an effort to evade taxation) by the government. Even though the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) is a large investigative organization chartered to monitor and enforce the tax code, it cannot possibly catch each and every error or intended breach of the filing of taxes through either under-reporting or underpayment of taxes. While more than 80% of U.S. taxpayers report and pay taxes on time, American corporations under-report approximately $41 billion per year, and some of America’s wealthiest individuals keep trillions of dollars of personal assets in offshore tax havens (Tørsløv et al., 2022), which is not an illegal practice unless the depositor does so to intentionally evade taxes.

Further Reading

Akers, R. L., Sellers, C. S., & Jennings, W. G. (2020). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation and application (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Brown, S. E., Esbensen, F.-A., & Geis, G. (2019). Criminology: Explaining crime and its context (10th ed.). Routledge.

Gould, S. J. (2016). The mismeasure of man (2nd ed.). W. W. Norton & Company.

Schmalleger, F. (2019). Criminal justice: A brief introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.

References

Abyssinia Law. (2022, October 11). Early explanations of criminology – schools of thought. https://www.abyssinialaw.com/study-on-line/378-criminology/7324-early-explanations-of-criminology-schools-of-thought

Adler, F., Mueller, G. O. W., & Laufer, W. S. (1998). Criminology (3rd ed). McGraw-Hill.

Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2013). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Akers, R. L., Sellers, C. S., & Jennings, W. G. (2020). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application (8th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Albrecht, S. (2014, August 25). The truth behind the Run-Hide-Fight debate. Psychology Today. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-act-of-violence/201408/the-truth-behind-the-run-hide-fight-debate

Barry, R. P. (1969). To slug a meter: A study of coin fraud. Criminology, 6(4), 40-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1969.tb00210.x

Beccaria, C. (1764). On crimes and punishment. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/historic-document-library/detail/cesare-bonesana-di-beccariaon-crimes-and-punishments-1764

Bernard, T. J., & Engel, R. S. (2001). Conceptualizing criminal justice theory. Justice Quarterly, 18(1), 1-30. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820100094801

Blevins, C. E., Marsh, E., Banes, K. E., Stephens, R. S., Walker, D. D., & Roffman, R. A. (2018). The implications of cannabis policy changes in Washington on adolescent perception of risk, norms, attitudes, and substance use. Substance Use: Research and Treatment, 12. https://doi.org/10.1177/1178221818815491 CC BY NC.

Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.

Brown, S. E., Esbensen, F.-A., & Geis, G. (2007). Criminology: Explaining crime and its context (6th ed.). Anderson Press.

Brown, S. E., Esbensen, F.-A., & Geis, G. (2024). Criminology: Explaining crime and its context (11th ed.). Routledge.

Burgess, E. W. (1925). The growth of the city: An introduction to a research project. In R. E. Park, E. W. Burgess, & R. D. McKenzie (Eds.), The city (pp. 35-41). University of Chicago Press.

Burgess, R. L., & Akers, R. L. (1966). A differential association-reinforcement theory of criminal behavior. Social Problems, 14(2), 128-147. https://doi.org/10.2307/798612

Casey Anthony trial fast facts. (2022, June 22). CNN. Retrieved February 28, 2024, from https://www.cnn.com/2013/11/04/us/casey-anthony-trial-fast-facts/index.html

Chicago Area Project. (n.d.-a). About Chicago Area Project. Retrieved May 16, 2024, from https://www.chicagoareaproject.org/about-cap/

Chicago Area Project. (n.d.-b). Chicago Area Project history. Retrieved May 16, 2024, from https://www.chicagoareaproject.org/history/

Chicago shootings: 31 shot, 8 fatally, in weekend violence, police say. (2022, October 17). ABC7 Chicago. https://abc7chicago.com/chicago-shootings-in-this-weekend-police-violence/12338337/

Clarke, R. V. (1996). The distribution of deviance and exceeding the speed limit. The British Journal of Criminology, 36(2), 169–181. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23638010

Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 588-608. https://doi.org/10.2307/2094589

Constable, S. (2021, December 2). How the Enron scandal changed business forever. Time. https://time.com/6125253/enron-scandal-changed-american-business-forever/

Cornish, D. B., & Clarke, R. V. G. (1986). The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending. Springer-Verlag.

Cullen, F. T., Agnew, R., & Wilcox, P. (Eds.). (2018). Criminological theory: Past to present (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency. (n.d.) Active shooter preparedness. U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Retrieved April 29, 2024, from https://www.cisa.gov/topics/physical-security/active-shooter-preparedness

Darwin, C. (1859). On the origin of species. John Murray.

Darwin, C. (1871). The descent of man, and selection in relation to sex. John Murray.

Death Penalty Information Center. (2023). State by state. Retrieved May 16, 2024, from https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/states-landing

Decker, J. F. (1972). Curbside deterrence. Criminology, 10(2), 127-142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-9125.1972.tb00549.x

Fedorek, B. (2019). SOU-CCJ230: Introduction to the American criminal justice system. Open Oregon Educational Resources. https://openoregon.pressbooks.pub/ccj230/ CC BY SA.

Fox, J. F., Jr. (2003, July). The birth of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Federal Bureau of Investigation, U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.fbi.gov/history/history-publications-reports/the-birth-of-the-federal-bureau-of-investigation

Freud, S. (1920). A general introduction to psychoanalysis. Boni & Liveright.

Freud, S. (1927). The ego and the id. Hogarth Press.

Hobbes, T. (1968). Leviathan. Penguin Books. (Original work published 1651)

Martaindale, M. H., & Blair, J. P. (2019). The evolution of active shooter response training protocols since Columbine: Lessons from the Advanced Law Enforcement Rapid Response Training Center. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 35(3), 342-356. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986219840237

McLaren Villers, E. (2023). The divine right of judges: How Christian thought shaped the American judiciary. St. Mary’s Law Journal, 54(3), 609-628. https://commons.stmarytx.edu/thestmaryslawjournal/vol54/iss3/3/

McMahan, E. A. (2021, Winter). Eating ice cream does not lead to murder: Association, correlation, and causation. Eye on Psi Chi, 26(2). https://doi.org/10.24839/2164-9812.Eye26.2.24

Merriam-Webster. (2024, January 25). Criminology. In Merriam-Webster.com dictionary. Retrieved March 2, 2024, from https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/criminology

Miller, W. (1958). Inter-institutional conflict as a major impediment to delinquency prevention. Human Organization, 17(3), 20-23.

Moule, R. K., Jr. (2015). The legacy of Walter B. Miller. In S. H. Decker & D. C. Pyrooz (Eds.), The handbook of gangs (pp. 458–477). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118726822.ch25

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health. (1996). Violence in the workplace (No. 96-100). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services. https://www.cdc.gov/niosh/docs/96-100/

National Safety Council. (2023, April). Assault fifth leading cause of workplace deaths. Retrieved May 1, 2023, from https://www.nsc.org/workplace/safety-topics/workplace-violence

Office of Public Affairs. (2024, March 28). Samuel Bankman-Fried sentenced to 25 years for his orchestration of multiple fraudulent schemes [Press release]. U. S. Department of Justice. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/samuel-bankman-fried-sentenced-25-years-his-orchestration-multiple-fraudulent-schemes

Paternoster, R., & Bachman, R. (Eds.). (2001). Explaining criminals and crime: Essays in contemporary criminological theory. Oxford University Press.

Popper, K. R. (1965). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. Harper & Row.

Rahimzadeh, N. (2015, December 2). Classification of the criminal: A brief history of criminology. The NYC Criminal, Fordham College at Lincoln Center. https://nyccriminal.ace.fordham.edu/?p=756

Raine, A., Buchsbaum, M., & LaCasse, L. (1997). Brain abnormalities in murderers indicated by positron emission tomography. Biological Psychiatry, 42(6), 495–508. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0006-3223(96)00362-9

Rehman, I., Mahabadi, N., Sanvictores, T., & Rehman, C. I. (2023, August 14). Classical conditioning. StatPearls. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Institutes of Health. Retrieved May 16, 2024, from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK470326/

Reitz, K. R., & Klingele, C. M. (2019). Model penal code: Sentencing–Workable limits on pass punishment. Crime and Justice, 48, 255-311. https://doi.org/10.1086/701796

Sammons, A. (n.d.) Typological offender profiling. Psychlotron.org. http://www.psychlotron.org.uk/newresources/criminological/a2_aqb_crim_typoprofiling.pdf

Schmalleger, F. (2006). Criminology today: an integrative introduction (4th ed.). Pearson.

Schmalleger, F. (2021). Criminal justice today: An introductory text for the 21st century (16th ed.). Pearson.

Schwendinger, H., & Schwendinger, J. (1970). Defenders of order or guardians of human rights? Issues in Criminology, 5(2), 123-157. https://www.jstor.org/stable/42909616

Sellin, T. (1938). Culture conflict and crime. American Journal of Sociology, 44(1), 97-103. https://doi.org/10.1086/217919

Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. University of Chicago Press.

Skeel, D., & Longman, T., III. (2013). Criminal and civil law in the Torah: The Mosaic law in Christian perspective. In R. F. Cochran, Jr., & D. VanDrunen (Eds.), Law and the Bible: Justice, mercy, and legal institutions (pp. 80-100). IVP Academic.

Strait, M. D. (2010, Fall). Enoch Brown: A massacre unmatched. Pennsylvania Center for the Book. https://pabook.libraries.psu.edu/literary-cultural-heritage-map-pa/feature-articles/enoch-brown-massacre-unmatched

Sutherland, E. H. (1924). Criminology. J. B. Lippincott.

Sutherland, E. H. (1934). Principles of criminology (2nd ed.). Philadelphia:Lippincott.

Sutherland, E. H. (1949). White collar crime. Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.

Sutton, J. (2021, May 17). What is Bandura’s social learning theory? 3 examples. PositivePsychology.com. https://positivepsychology.com/social-learning-theory-bandura

Tappan, P. W. (1947). Who is the criminal? American Sociological Review, 12(1), 96-102. https://doi.org/10.2307/2086496

Taylor, L. (1984). Born to crime: The genetic causes of criminal behavior [Abstract]. NCJRS Virtual Library, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. https://www.ojp.gov/ncjrs/virtual-library/abstracts/born-crime-genetic-causes-criminal-behavior

Tomlinson, K. D. (2016). An examination of deterrence theory: Where do we stand? Federal Probation, 80(3), 33-38. https://www.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/80_3_4_0.pdf

Tørsløv, T., Wier, L., & Zucman, G. (2022). Close to 40% of multinational profits are shifted to tax havens each year. MissingProfits.world. University of California, Berkeley & University of Copenhagen. Retrieved May 16, 2024, from https://missingprofits.world/

University of Minnesota. (2015). Social problems. https://open.lib.umn.edu/socialproblems. CC BY NC SA.

Van den Haag, E. (1986). The Neoclassical theory of crime control. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 1(1), 91-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/088740348600100108

Van Vliet, T. (2020). The Clery Act: Literature review. Clery Center. https://www.clerycenter.org/assets/docs/The-Clery-Act-Literature-Review_forpub.pdf

Vohryzek-Bolden, M. (1997). Ethical dilemmas confronting criminological researchers. Journal of Crime and Justice, 20(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/0735648X.1997.9721585

Vold, G. B., Bernard, T. J. & Snipes, J. B. (2002). Theoretical criminology. Oxford University Press.

Weisberg, M., & Paul, D. B. (2016). Morton, Gould, and bias: A comment on “The Mismeasure of Science.” PLoS Biology, 14(4), e1002444. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002444 CC BY.

Wilson, E. O. (1975). Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Harvard University Press.

Williams F. P., III, & McShane, M. D. (1998). Criminology (3rd ed.). Prentice Hall.

Wolfgang, M. E. (1961). Pioneers in criminology: Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909). The Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 52(4), 361–391. https://doi.org/10.2307/1141263