Criminal Justice Study Guide: Criminal Justice Theories and Typologies
Criminal Justice Study Guide: Criminal Justice Theories and Typologies
Criminal Justice Study Guide: Criminal Justice Theories and Typologies
NSUWorks
College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences
NSU Course Catalogs and Course Descriptions
Course Catalogs
1978
NSUWorks Citation
Nova Southeastern University, "Criminal Justice Study Guide: Criminal Justice Theories and Typologies" (1978). College of Arts,
Humanities, and Social Sciences Course Catalogs. Paper 19.
http://nsuworks.nova.edu/cahss_coursecatalogs/19
This Seminar is brought to you for free and open access by the NSU Course Catalogs and Course Descriptions at NSUWorks. It has been accepted for
inclusion in College of Arts, Humanities, and Social Sciences Course Catalogs by an authorized administrator of NSUWorks. For more information,
please contact [email protected].
o
NOVA
UNIVERSITY
NOVA UNIVERSITY
Course: CJ 601
Course Description
Purpose
Objectives
REQUIRED TEXTBOOKS:
Nett1er, G. Explaining Crime (2nd Edition). New York: McGraw-Hill,
1978.
Vetter, H.J., and Wright, J. Introduction to Criminology. Springfield.
Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1974.
CJ 601 Criminological Theories
SYLLABUS
2. Reality Therapy
-Glasser: "Crime behavior as irresponsibility"
-Relating therapy as reaction to psychoanalysis
3. The Criminal Personality
-Yochelson and Samenow: The findings and an assessment
-A challenge to traditional criminology
4. Social Learning Theory and Criminality
-Sutherland's"Differential Association Theory"
-B.F. Skinner's Operant Conditioning and Reinforcement Theory
-C. Ray Jeffery on Reinforcement Theory
-Criticisms: Assets and limitations of social learninq interpretations
-Burgess and Akers' reformulation of Sutherland's"Differential Association"
2. Conservative Criminology
-Hajor tenets and assumptions
-Contributions to conservative criminology
-Conservative criminology and neo- conservative criminology
3. Liberal-Cynical (Mainstream) Criminology
-The search for etiology of crime in the existing institutional arrange-
ment of society
-Sykes, Gibbons, and Blake: 3 perspectives in liberal sociological
theorizing about crime
-The cynical posture of the liberal criminology and its etiology
4. Radical Criminology
-Basic tenets and origins of r'larxism
-Quinney's 6 Propositions
-Alternative conceptions of individual guilt and responsibility
-Assault and property crime as seen through radical criminology
-Criticisms: Assets and limitations
5. Humanism vs. Science and Technology
-The perceptions distinguished
-Pol emics
-A focus upon behavior control and behavior modification as a controversi
issue
1. Typology
-Defined
-Distinguished from taxonomy
-Distinguished from a system of classification
2. Conceptual and r~ethodological Considerations in Typologies
-Empirical typologies
-Theoretical typologies
-Myriad purposes and uses and shapes of typologies
-Characteristics of a good typology
3. Varieties of Typologies
-Typologies of offenses
-Typologies of offenders
-Legal typologtes
-Typologies based on issues ' of frequency and duration of criminal activity
-Assorted illustrations of typologies - how they work and what they shoW
CJ 601 Unit 1
The term theory, as the following quotation from Webster (1957) indicates,
is rich with a variety of connotations:
1. originally, a mental viewing; contemplation. 2. an
idea or mental plan of the way to do something; hence,
3. a systematic statement of principles involved: as, the
theory of equations in mathematics. 4. a formulation of
apparent relationships or underlying principles of certain
observed phenomena which has been verified to some degree:
distinguished from hypothesis. 5. that branch of an art
or science consisting in a knowledge of its principles and
methods rather than in its practice; pure, as opposed to
applied, science, etc. 6. popularly, a mere hypothesis,
conjecture, or guess: as, my theory is that he ' s lying.
(p. 1511)
Webster goes on to distinguish a theory, which implies considerable evidence
in support of a formulated general principle explaining the operation of
certain phenomena (e.g., the theory of evolution) from a law, which "implies
an exact formulation of the principle operating in a sequence of events in
nature observed to occur with unvarying uniformity under the same conditions,"
or an hypothesis, which "implies an inadequacy of evidence in support of an
explanation that is tentatively inferred, often as a basis for further experi-
mentation" (p . 1511).
Given this broad range of connotative meanings, it would be well-nigh
impossible to conduct any kind of meaningful examination of the nature and
functions of theory in criminal justice and criminology. An attorney's
"mental viewing" of the evidence against his client; a correctional admini-
strator's "idea or mental plan" for the operation of a corrrnunity-based facility;
2
a pol ice offi cer I s "mere hypothesi s, conj ecture, or guess" about the re 1i abi 1ity
of information received from a "snitch"- - a11 of these would fit one or another
of the definitions supplied above and would render the term theory too diffuse
to be of any analytical value.
We are rescued from this semantic ambiguity, however, by the fact that
the term theory in criminal justice and criminology has tended to be used in
the more restricted sense of the meanings conveyed in items 3 and 4 of the above
definition:
3. a systematic statement of principles involved ... 4. a
forumulation of apparent relationships or underlying principles
of certain observed phenomena which has been verified to some
degree... (p. 1511).
To be even more specific, much of the theorizing in criminal justice and crimi-
nology--past as well as contemporary--has been dire'cted toward efforts to
understand the determinants (or causes) of criminality. We shall employ this
meaning in the following discussion of theories in criminal justice and crimi-
nology.
Theories of criminality have a twofold purpose: they help to organize
existing information about criminal behavior into a coherent, systematic frame-
work, and they serve to point the directions for further research by indicating
potentially fruitful leads to be explored. For example, a theory which sought
to account for criminality as a biological phenomenon would attempt to integrate
the available knowledge about crime and delinquency in a way that fits the
findings of biological research and direct the continuing quest for explanations
of criminality toward structures and processes within the human organism.
Similarly, a theory which sought to account for criminality as a sociological
phenomenon would attempt to interpret the available information on criminal and
delinquent behavior to square with the results of sociological research and
3
orient the search for causes of criminality toward social organizations, groups,
and institutions to which the individual belongs. In addition, theories of
criminality may aim at establishing some rational basis for programs designed
to control, reduce, eliminate, or prevent crime and delinquency.
The formulation of comprehensive theories of the origins and determinants
of criminality is fraught with difficulties, not the least of which is the pro-
blem of accurately defining criminality. As Shore (1971) has observed:
Antisocial behavior is not a diagnostic category or unitary
symptom, but a socially defined phenomenon closely tied to cultural
values and often dependent upon the interpretation given a behavior
pattern by those agencies responsible for the regulation of social
interaction. In certain communities, for example, the tolerance for
deviance is lower and certain behavior may be labeled antisocial
which, in another context, would not be considered deviant at all
(p. 456).
Nevertheless, Shore points out, there are some people who engage in violent,
aggressive behavior despite the advantage of the best social opportunities,
while others who have been subjected to extremely poor social conditions do not
exhibit criminal or delinquent behavior. Thus, Shore concludes, "aside from
the need to understand and explain the social and cultural forces that foster
criminal behavior, there is need for a theory of individual behavior that can
account for individual differences and the ways in which individuals interpret
and respond to social forces" · (p. 456) /italics added/.
Research on the causes of criminal behavior has generally been directed
toward four broad areas of inquiry:
1. biological factors and genetic predispositions
2. societal influences
3. individual differences in the organization and functioning of
hypothesized intrapsychic struCtllres such as "personality,"
"attitudes," "self-concept," "motivation," etc.
4
4. behavior differences which reflect the learning experience
and reinforcement history of the individual.
The biologist has sought explanations for criminality in the constitutional
makeup o~ the individual; the sociologist has sought explanations for crimi -
nality in the processes which affect the behavior and experiences of people
living in societal groups; the intrapsychically-oriented psychiatrist and
psychologist have sought explanations for criminality in the presumed person-
ality configuration of the individual; and the behaviorally-oriented investi-
gator has sought explanations for criminality in the variables that affect the
learning experiences of the individual. It must also be noted that neat cate-
gorizations of this kind do less than justice to criminological theorizing,
because many theorists have not hes i tated to make use of concepts and methods
from a variety of disciplines and approaches. Nor does this list provide room
for theorists who have tried to fashion an integrative or eclectic approach to
the understanding of criminality.
At the present time, there is no "grand theory" of criminality which
encompasses all approaches to crime and organizes the empirical findings of
many disciplines into some coherent, well-integrated schema. For the time being,
at least, we must be content with either theories of the "middle range," i.e.,
those which account for only a limited number of facts about crime and criminals,
or with "microtheories" that are even more restricted in their range of content
and generality. Some of the biological, psychological, and psychiatric theories
we shall shortly examine fall at the extremes of grand theory and microtheory,
but most of the sociological theories are theories of the middle range.
Objectives
Before directing our attention to specific theories in criminal justice and
5
criminology, it is essential to examine in some detail the nature and functions
of theory. To the student of criminology, it may often appear that there are
as many approaches to criminological theory as there are theorists who write
on the subject . If it can be shown that, on closer inspection these different
approaches seem to be saying much the same sorts of things, then a major
obstacle to understanding the collective contributions of criminological theory
will have been removed. This is one of the major objectives of the present
unit.
Functions of a Theory
We can view a theory as having two major functions with respect to empiri-
cal observation. The theory provides a logical framework for the incorporation
and integration of empirical observations previously seen as disparate. As noted
above, the scientist often carries out investigations designed not to test a
specific hypothesis derived from a theory but rather to "find out" on, a purely
empirical level, how the variables of interest operate. This type of investi-
gation is often done because there is no theory which can adequately explain or
predict the phenomena of interest. A number of scientists working independently
may carry out any number of studies within a general area, each investigation
contributing certain specific knowledge. The theorist recognizes that certain
general principles appear to underlie the otherwise disparate findings and may,
at this pOint, construct or begin to construct a theory integrating the avail-
able empirical observations . The more precisely and comprehensively the theory
is able to integrate available relevant empirical observations, the more useful
is the theory. While the theorist must, to provide a. useful theory, incorporate
8
as much research evidence as possible, he is also constrained to conform to
the principle of parsimony.
This venerable principle of theory construction states that the theory
should explain the phenomena of interest in the simplest possible fashion.
Complexities should not be introduced unnecessarily, and, in fact, a concerted
effort should be made to avoid unnecessary complexity. We should hasten to
point out, however, that in evaluating a theory, adherence to the parsimony
principle must be pitted against the adequacy with which the theory explains
and predicts the phenomena of interest. The application of the principle of
parsimony can be carried too far, to a point where the theory will be simple
but relatively useless. Thus, highly complex variables and variable inter-
actions may require a highly complex theory. In the evaluation and comparison
of theories, the balancing off of parsimony against adequacy of explanation
leads us, then, to a principle of optimony by which the theory which achieves
the best balance is seen as the best theory. If two theories explain the same
empirical observation with equal adequacy, the more parsimonious is selected.
If two theories are considered to be equally parsimonious, the more adequate
is chosen. Judgments of this sort are, of course, often difficult to make, and
scientists may differ as to which of several theories is most optimonious.
The theory provides and generates, within a locally consistent framework,
new hypotheses which can lead to systematic empirical research. It is in this
second function that the theory makes its greatest contribution to science; it
is here that the organizational and mediational functions reach full fruition.
The optimonious integration of known empirical data is, of course, important,
but a science advances primarily through a process of constantly adding and
integrating new observations. The theory provides a logical structure within
which scientific knowledge can be expanded systematically . The mechanism for
9
such systematic expansion is the derivation from the general theory of testable
hypotheses which lead the scientist to carry out research. The resulting
empirical observations may then be incorporated into the theory and may, in
fact, lead to its modification. At the same time, the knowledge of the science
concerning relationships among the variables investigated has been increased.
The hypotheses generated by the theory are not, of course, limited to those
stated by the theorist in his original formulation. Either the theorist himself
or other interested scientists may derive new hypotheses not initially con-
sidered. These new formulations may be based logically in either the original
version of the theory or in . any subsequent modification of aspects of the
theory resulting from the incorporation of new empirical findings.
Theoretical Constructs
A construct is an explanatory concept which is not immediately and directly
observable . It is usually a label for hypothesized relationships between objects
and events . A theoretical construct is used by the theorist , then, as a log i cal
inference to fill in the gaps in the explanation and prediction of empirical
data . It should be pointed out that a construct is not the only type of con-
cept. In common usage, the latter refers to a class of objects or events which
have coonnon properties. By this definition we have concepts such as "tree,"
"dog," and "building." Common constructs include such relative abstractions as
"democracy," "love," and "patriotism." Theoretical constructs in criminologY
11
knowledge.
Relational Rules
We have thus far viewed a theory as comprising a formal structure and
empirical base. The formal structure consists of a number of constructs and
propositions, while the empirical base includes the primitive terms of the
theory, as well as relevant empirical evidence. To complete the theory, we
need two sets of relational rules: one to interrelate the various aspects of
the forma 1 theory; the other to relate the theory to its empi ri ca 1 base. The
former is called the syntax of the theory, the latter the semantics.
The syntactical rules formulated by the theorist state how the various
constructs and propositions of the theory are related to each other . Together
such rules give structure to the theory, where otherwise there would be only a
disjointed array of terms. There is wide variation among theories; most
13
criminological theories state relational rules in rather vague, ambiguous
terms or even fail to state adequate syntax at all. Others, such as Jeffery
(1965), have attempted to provide rigorous and precise statements.
The syntactical interrelationship of theoretical terms is not sufficient.
The terms must also be anchored to the empirical data through a separate set
of rules, the semantics of the theory. The relationship between theory and data
is most importantly expressed in the form of operational definitions of the
constructs of the theory. Operational definition refers primarily to the speci-
fication of measurement operations which will define a given construct. Where
operations for the measurement of the construct are clearly specified, the
mea ning of the construct is relatively unambiguous. More importantly, it is
only through the specification of operational definitions that a theory can
be subjected to empirical test.
As an example of operat i onal definition, let us consider the theoretical
construct , "self-concept" whi ch appears as a major concept In a number of crimi-
nologica l theories (e.g. Reckless , Sykes and Matza). A given theorist may
define self- concept verbally as "an organi zed group of processes whi ch govern
behavior and adjustment . " But although this definition tells us something
about how the theorist views self-concept, it does not permit us to test his
hypotheses about self-concept without first tying down the term empirically.
If we decide to define self-concept operationally as a specific range of scores
on particular subscales of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory, we
will have provided a definition of the construct in terms of an observable
measurement operation, and we can now test the theorist's hypotheses about
"self-concept."
A chronic problem incurred in the practical application of operationism is
that not all scientists will necessarily agree on a particular operational
14
The Theory
With the components of a theory at hand, we can now, by way of summary,
describe the theory as a whole . The theory is formally composed of a number
of relatively general postulates, each of which is a statement of the func-
tional relationships of certain variables and each of which involves one or
more of the constructs of the theory. Each construct, as well as each other
major term of the theory, is defined by reference to other terms within the
theory. Exceptions are the primitive terms, which are defined, if at all, by
reference to terms or observations external to the theory.
The various constructs, terms, and propositions within the formal theory
are interrelated by the syntax of the theory. Through the application of syn-
tactical rules, hypotheses concerning relatively specific empirical relationships
15
are deduced from the postulates of the theory. If hypotheses are anchored
semantically to the data language, and constructs are operationally defined,
various provisional definitions may be provided for use on an exploratory
basis. Depending upon results of empirical investigations, the theory may be
extended through the formulation of new postulates and/or the deduction of
new hypotheses, or the existing postulates, hypotheses, or syntax of the theory
may be modified to incorporate the new empirical observations within a 1.0gi~
lined above. Constructs are often not defined or even readily definable in
operational terms. Verbal definitions of constructs and other terms in the
theory may be ambiguous, inconsistent, or even nonexistent. Relational rules
may be unspecifi ed, weak, or too general to be useful. And the theory as a
whole may not, even in its original formulation, be capable of consistently
explaining and predicting existing, relevant empirical relationships . We will
discuss the evaluation of theories later in this chapter.
the theory in every aspect and at every point in its development. They
determine, in part, the area of endeavor in which the theorist chooses to work,
his approach to theory construction, the postulates and constructs which he
employs, and even, to some extent, the primitive terms which constitute the
data language of the theory. Even the theorist's interpretati on of empirical
results relevant to the theory is influenced by his biases . In addition, the
scientist-interpreter, who may wish to apply the theory to an experimental
situation to determine its empirical consequences, will be biased in his inter-
pretation and treatment of the theory as a function of his own background and
interests .
Structural Properties
In our discussion of theory construction, the emphasis was placed on the
descripti on of the properties of an ideal theory. Since obviously not all
theories will attain this ideal, it is useful to consider some specific ques -
tions that might be asked when evaluating the formal attributes of a given
theory .
1. The Data Language
a. Does the theory have a data 1anguage? That is, are an
adequate number of primitive terms specified?
b. Is the data language neutral, not unduly influenced by
the biases of the theorist?
c. Are the primitive terms clearly and explicitly defined
by reference to terms outside the theory?
2. Theoretical Constructs
a. Are constructs stated and defined unambiguously?
I
18
Empirical Properties
Far more important than the adequacy of its formal properties is the
empirical value of the theory. A theory which closely approximates the
structural ideal and contributes little to the expansion of scientific know-
ledge is of far less value than the poorly constructed theory which neverthe-
less pushes the frontiers of science a few steps forward.
In evaluating the empirical contribution of a theory, we must consider
both the adequacy with which the theory integrates existing empirical evidence
and the ability of the theory to generate further research. The scientist who
sets out to construct a formal theory ordinarily has available to him a
reasonably large body of empirical data. In evaluating a theory, it is essen-
tial to determine the extent to which the theory is able to explain or "post
dict" existing data. If the theory does not handle available evidence with
reasonable adequacy, its value for making further predictions is open to some
doubt.
Assuming that available evidence is adequately integrated, the most
important single attribute of a theory is its ability to general scientific
research and hence potentially to expand scientific knowledge. The stimulation
of research may be accomplished in two ways. First, the theory may generate
research formally through the statement of postulates and hypotheses. If the
hypotheses which are stated or can be readily derived are not testable, the
theory will not, of course, generate research. If the hypotheses are amenable
to empirical test, the amount of research stimulated will depend largely on
the importance placed upon the theory by the scientific community. Thus, if
the phenomena with which the theory deals are considered by other scientists
to be relatively unimportant or uninteresting, the theory may, despite the
testability of its hypotheses, receive little empirical attention.
20
Aside from its formal hypotheses, a theory may stimulate research quite
indirectly. This heuristic value of the theory may take any of sever al forms .
The theory may suggest to other scientists particu l ar directions or ideas for
research, ,providing not specific hypotheses but merely an impetus. Secondly,
the theory may open a general area of scientific inquiry that has received
little previous attention. In this way, the theory may stimulate not only a
variety of research efforts , but, eventually, even the development of other
theories (for example, the influence of Sutherland's differential association
theory on the development of Cloward and Ohlin's theory of differential oppor-
tunity) . Finally, a theory may generate r esearch, in the process of which new
scientific leads concerning phenomena only indirectly relevant to the theory
may be obtained.
CJ 601 Unit 1
THEORIES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND CRIMINOLOGY
Reading Assignment
Chapter 2 (Research and Theory in Criminology) in Vetter, H.J., and Wright,
J. Introduction to Criminology. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C.
Thomas, 1974.
Questions for Discussion and Review
1. Distinguish between a law, hypothesis, and theory. What meaning does
the term theory bear in criminal justice and criminology?
2. What are the two main purposes or functions of criminological theory?
3. Briefly identify the 4 broad areas of inquiry to which crime causation
research has been addressed.
4. How does theory-based research differ from empirically-based research?
5. What is the principle of parsimony? Of optimony?
6. What is meant by the primitive terms or data language of a theory?
7. Define a theoretical construct and give some examples of the sort of
theoretical constructs one might expect to find in criminology.
8. How does an hypothesis differ from a postulate?
9. What is meant by the syntax, as compared with the semantics, of a
theory?
10. Identify two ways in which a theory may stimulate research in a given
area of inquiry.
Written Projects
1. Select a particular criminological theory and outline its primitive
terms, major theoretical constructs, postulates, etc. When finished,
evaluate the theory in terms of how explicit these features have been
made by the theorist in the formulation of the particular theoretical
approach.
2. Construct a table showing the primitive terms, theoretical constructs,
postulates, etc., for several theories that involve the same major area
of inquiry (i.e., sociological, psychological, psychiatric, biological).
At the c~mpletion of this table, summarize the strengths and weaknesses
of each theory as revealed by your analysis of the formal properties of
the respective theories.
L
CJ 601 Unit 1
THEORIES IN CRIMINAL JUSTICE AND CRIMINOLOGY
Selected Readings
Bianchi , H. Position and Subject Matter of Criminology. Amsterdam:
Mouton, 1956.
Frank , B. The futile search for cause. Contemporary Corrections . Reston,
Virginia: Reston Publishing Company, 1973 .
Frazi er, C. Theoretical Approaches to Deviance . Columbus, Ohio : Charles
E. Merrill, 1976 .
Gibbons, D.C. Observations on the study of crime causation. American
Journal of Sociology, 1971, 77, 262-278 .
Hirschi, T. Causes of Delinguency. Berkeley: University of California
Press, 1969 .
Jeffery, C.R. The structure of American criminological thinking . Journal
of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 1956, 46, 658-682.
Jeffery , C.R. An integrated theory of crime and criminal behavior.
Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Sc i ence, 1959, 49,
533- 552.
Radzinowicz, L. In Search of Criminology . Cambridge, Massachusetts:
Harvard University Press, 1962.
Schafer, S. Theories in Criminology. New York: Random House, 1969.
Schrag, C. Theoretical foundations in crime and corrections. Crime
and Justice , American Style. Washington,. D.C. : U.S. Government
Printing Office, 1971 .
Vold, G. Theoretical Criminology. New York: Oxford University Press, 1958.
CJ 601 Unit 2
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORY
Introduction
Prior to the 18th century, criminal behavior was simply treated as moral
degeneracy or "badness," without much consideration of the reason or reasons
for its occurrence. Medieval interpretations attributed a wide range of
aberrant behavior to demoniacal possession--an "explanation" which could be
extended to include at least some forms of criminal deviance.
The 18th century, the Age of Enlightenment, marked the emergence of what
has been identified as the Classical School of criminology. Basic to this
approach was an underlying belief in the rational nature of man, which supported
the notion that the individual possesses innate powers to order his conduct in
accordance with free choice between right and wrong alternatives. The Classi-
cal School also endorsed the concept of hedonism, i.e., that behavior is
guided basically by tendencies to seek pleasure and avoid pain .
Contemporary concepts of criminal jurisprudence retain the basic assump-
tion that man is a rational creature, is responsible for his actions, and is
able to choose between right and wrong (free will). This is apparent in laws
governing behavior that make allowance for diminished or partial responsi -
bility: the insane person, who was incapable of making a meaningful and
behaviorally relevant distinction between right and wrong at the time the crime
was committed, is exempted from criminal sanctions.
Hedonism perseveres in the more contemporary guise of the pleasure
principle in psychoanalysis and in reinforcement theory, where pleasure and
pain are dealt with in terms of positive and negative reinforcing stimuli.
The emergence of the Positivist School of criminology, as Schafer (1969)
2
notes, "symbol ized clearly that the era of faith was over and the scientific
age had begun" (p. 123). The Positivist School is dominated by the so-called
"holy three" of criminology: Cesare Lombroso, Enrico Ferri, and Raffaele
Garofalo. The "enthusiastic physician" (Lombroso), the "extremist socio-
logist" (Ferri), and the "sober anthropologist" (Garofalo) were "all in agree-
ment that the problem was scientific treatment of the offender rather than a
discussion of penalties" (Barnes and Teeters, 1957, p. 163). The ideas and
approaches of the Positivist School constitute the bridge or transition from
historical to contemporary theories of criminality. As the various disciplines
of anthropology, sociology, psychiatry, and psychology began to develop,
explanations of criminal behavior were sought in the psychological makeup of
the individual as well as in the physical and social environment. Rationally-
ordered choice was increasingly rejected as a "cause" for behavior, normal as
well as deviant behavior .
Objecti ves
The goal of this unit is to briefly sketch the historical precursors of
contemporary criminology theory. Discussion is devoted to the broad currents
of humanitarian reform that were initiated during the latter part of the 18th
century and resulted in improved treatment of both mentally ill and criminals.
The emergence of the Positivist School of criminology toward the end of the
19th century and the contributions of its principal contributors are examined
and summarized in this unit.
Therma 1 Theory
One of the ideas that found favor with some theorists in the early 19th
century was the notion that crime was linked with climate . This led to the
thermal theory , according to which crimes against person were presumed to be
induced by hotter climates and crimes against property by colder climates.
Unfortunately, with the development of statistical reporting of crimes, it
became obvious that both types of offenses were committed in all areas without
any close correlation with temperature or climate. However, one positive
result that emerged from the increased statistical reporting of crimes was that
10
a number of theorists became impressed with the variation in crime rates
reported by different sections or provinces within several European nations.
These variations directed attention to differences in socioeconomic conditions
which seemed to bear a high correlation to crime incidence. Later studies
during the 19th century purported to show that yearly fluctuations in the price
of grain. When prices were high, there was a rise in the incidence of crime,
and vice versa when the price of grain was low . It is likely that one could
use any number of factors to demonstrate similar results today. When viewed
in a general manner, however, economic fluctuations must be considered as part
of a more complex pattern, not as a specific stimulus to criminality in the
majority of instances.
Sociological Criminology
The school of criminal sociology numbered among its founding fathers the
Italian social reformer and critic, Enrico Ferri. He conceived of criminal
sociology as being concerned not only with the social conditions which produce
or help produce crime, but also with social policies toward crime control and
prevention. He emphasized "penal substitutes" as the way to combat and prevent
crime, since he believed that incarceration had practically no effect on reducing
crime. Although Ferri's theories were advanced in the late 1800s, much of what
he advocated was rediscovered half a century later.
A French contemporary of Ferri, Gabriel Tarde, developed a theoretical
approach with an entirely different orientation from that which focused on the
adverse conditions of the social environment. Tarde believed that patterns of
criminal and delinquent behavior are learned and adopted much in the same manner
as fashions or fads. The learning takes place either by conscious imitation or
unconscious suggestion. Tarde felt that patterns of crime may be transmitted
from generation to generation, and that they spread from the center of introduction.
11
Psychogenic Theories of Criminality
The psychogenic school of criminology was the last of the theoretical
approaches to emerge. The figure who provided the major impetus to this
interpretation was the founder of psychoanalysis, Sigmund Freud . Psychoanalytic
doctrines and other intrapsychic approaches to personality which came later
and were heavily influenced by psychoanalysis tended to view deviant behavior
as the result of interaction between a set of inborn psychological events that
begin to operate shortly after birth and a set of events which occur in early
childhood . The principal determinants of behavior, according to this view,
are unconscious wishes, ideas, desires, impulses, etc., which conflict with
those areas of personality that represent society's prohi bitions and taboos--
with the result that the individual is thrown into intense inner conflict. His
deviant behavior, therefore, is a compromise between these opposing forces. It
is a compromise, unfortunately, which does not resolve his conflicts, but merely
intensifies them.
Although the precedent-setting work of Freud and his followers was valuable
to the extent that it stimulated research into the determinants of deviant
behavior, it has been vigorously criticized and rejected in large part by the
scientific community because its assumptions cannot be tested, its predictions
are vague and self-fulfilling, and its methods are autocratic and non-objective.
Conclusion
A full, comprehensive theoretical account of criminality must accomplish
two objectives: (1) provide an explanation for how deviant or norm-violating
behavior arises; and (2) help explain the nature and intensity of societal
reactions to that deviant behavior which tend to amplify the deviance and also
lead to adverse effects in terms of the deviant individual's self perceptions.
As judged by the above criteria, it seems doubtful that any comprehensive '
12
theory of criminal deviance which emphasizes one set of determinants (e.g.,
sociological) while minimizing or ignoring altogether other sets of determi-
nants (e.g., psychological and biological) can ever meet these objectives.
The implications of this situation are explored in detail in the following
units of this course.
CJ 601 Unit 2
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORY
Reading Assignment
Jeffery, C. R. The historical development of criminology. In H. Mannheim
(Ed.), Pioneers in Criminology. Montclair, N.J. Paterson Smith, 1972.
Questions for Discussion and Review
1. Who was Cesare Beccaria and what was his connection with the Classical
School of criminology?
2. How did the Classical School conceptualize the causes of crime?
3. Distinguish between the approach of the Classical School and the
Positivist School of criminology in terms of their respective approaches
to the understanding of criminal behavior .
4. Who are the "holy three" of criminology?
5. Discuss Lombroso's concept of atavism as an interpretation of criminality.
6. What was the contribution of Charles Goring to the Lombrosian theory
of crimi na 1i ty?
7. Discuss the relationship of crime to mental illness in the 19th
century.
8. What was phrenology and how did it contribute to criminological theories?
9. What is thermal theory?
10. Who is considered the "founding father" of sociological criminology and
why does he have that distinction?
11. Who is regarded as the founder of a psychogenic approach to criminological
theory?
Written Projects
1. Assume that you are the host of a TV talk show and your guests are
Beccaria, Garofalo, Ferri, and Lombroso. Sketch the kind of script
and dialogue you might expect to hear as these four early criminologists
compare notes on some contemporary problem or issue in criminal
justice (e . g., capital punishment, consensual crimes, flat time
sentencing, etc.) .
2. Design a correctional program or facility using the services and views
of one of the early criminologists mentioned above as your principal
consultant.
CJ 601 Unit 2
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORY
Selected Readings
Barnes~ H.E., and Teeters; N.K. New Horizons in Criminology. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1959.
Mannheim, H. (Ed.), Pioneers in Criminology. Montclair, N.J.: Paterson
Smi th, 1972.
Schafer, S. Theories in Criminology. New York: Random House, 1969.
Schafer, S., and Knudten, R.D. (Eds.), Criminological Theory: Foundations
and Perceptions. Lexington, Massachusetts: D.C. Heath, 1977.
Sylvester, S.F. (Ed.), The Heritage of Modern Criminology. Cambridge,
Massachusetts: Schenkman, 1972.
Vo1d, G.B. Theoretical Criminology . New York: Oxford University Press,
1958.
Wolfgang, M.E. Pioneers in crimino1ogy--Cesare Lombroso (1835-1909).
Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 1961, 52,
361-391.
Jeffery. C.R. The historical development Th~ Historical D~vdopment of Criminology 459
of criminology. In H. Mannheim (Ed.).
Pioneers in Criminology (2nd Edition). Criminology involves three different tylX's of problems:
Montclair, N.J. : Paterson Smith, 1972 .
(I) The problem of detecting the law·breaker, which is the work
of the detective, the police officer, the medical slX'cialist, the
25 chemist: in other words, the field of criminalistics. The Pioneer
Series article on Hans Gross discusses the pioneering work of this
THE HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT man in the field of criminalistics.
OF CRIMINOLOGY (2) The problem of the custody and treatment of the offender
once he is detected and legally judged to be guilty, which is the
Introduction work of the penologist. Social workers, psychiatrists, sociologists,
This palX'r is a summary statement of the contributions made by psychologists, juvenile court judges, probation and parole officers
the pioneers in criminology. Sociologists in general and crimino- and others are engaged in correction work in connection with the
logists in particular have been negligent in their treatment of the prevention and control of delinquency and crime. Pioneer Series
historical development of ideas and theories.' The Pioneer Series
has IX'rformed a much·needed service for criminology by reminding
r articles on Haviland, Maconochie, Doe, Aschaffenburg, Ray and
Maudsley deal with one or more aSlX'cts of correctional work.
us of that history. Criminologists can benefit from a re-evaluation
of the major contributions made to criminology and the issues which ! (3) The problem of explaining crime and criminal behaviour,
which is the problem of scientifically accounting for the presence of
crime and criminals in a society. The legal aspect of crime is of
result therefrom. The Pioneer Series emphasised something that is
too often ignored in textbooks; namely, the variety of disciplines interest to the lawyer and to the sociologist who is studying the
which have contributed to the development of criminology: law, sociology of criminal law. The explanation of criminal behaviour
medicine, sociology, psychology, psychiatry, chemistry, physics, is of interest to the sociologist, the psychologist, the psychiatrist, the
architecture, history, theology and social work. Many of the issues anthropologist and the biologist. Pioneer Series articles on Ben.
in criminology are a result of differences in training and orientation tham, Beccaria, Garofalo, Lombroso, Ferri, Goring, Tarde, Durk-
in various disciplines. heim and Bonger deal with crime and criminals from several
If we understand the pioneers, then we can better understand different points of view. The problems associated with the detec-
the current issues in criminology. Tracing the major strands of tion, treatment and explanation of crime and criminals are mutually
thought running throughout the Pioneer Series in terms of theo- interrelated, and there is a great deal of overlapping of fields.
retical issues, we find at the same time indications of the ways in Any attempt to classify the men dealt with in the Pioneer Series
which these issues have influenced the modern criminologist. would be arbitrary since each pioneer wrote about a number of
Twentieth-century criminology is a product of the theories of the issues from a number of viewpoints. A classification of the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. An historical evaluation of following type is suggested:
criminology is of no value unless we relate it to the things which Clauical School Posit;f)~ School
criminologists are doing today. It is the major thesis of this palX'r Bentham Garofalo
that criminologists today are interested in certain problems because Beccaria Lombroso
they are involved in the theoretical issues devel0lX'd by the pioneers. Ferri
What these issues are and the ways in which they influenced Goring
modern criminology are the objectives of this palX'r. ugal Asptcts Psychiatric Asptcts
of Crim~ of Crim~
• Reprod uced from TJt~ loftT1f.J of Crim;,"~1 LAw, Criminoloty ""J Po/iu Scint«. Doe
Vol. 50 , No. I, June 1959. Aschaflenburg
I Howard Becker and AI,.in Boskoff, Modtm Sociologi(g/ TJtrory. r-;'ew York, 1957. Montero Ray
Dryden PreSl, p. 35 ~, I~q. Maud,ley
460 Ckmnu Ray '~Ouy Th~ HiIt<mcaI . Development of Criminology '16\
Sociological AIPCCIS psychology, social work, sociology and anthropology, each of whom
0/ Crim~ Prison Archir«rur(
applies the concepts of his science to the study of the criminal. As a
Tarde Haviland result of this orientation , criminology has been dominated by an
Durkheim
Bongtt interest in the individual offender: his personality, body build,
intelligence, family background, the neighbourhood from which he
PriIDn Rqonn Crimina/isMs comes, or the groups to which he belongs. The basic assumption
Macoooc.hic Gross since Lombroso's time is that an explanation of human behaviour
is an explanation of crime. The criminologist looks for the aetiology
Another type of classification, based on whether the pioneer in
question was primarily interested in crime or in the individual of crime in behaviour systems rather than in legal systems.
offender, can be made in this way:
Definition of crime
Crime 1.dividUQ! OOrnd"
Bentham Lombroso Doe The Classical School defined crime within the strict limits of
Beccaria Garofalo Maud.ley crimin~l law. Bentham placed emphasis on the crime, not on the
Montero Ferri Maconochie criminal. Bentham was much more concerned with the conse-
Durkhcim Goring Tarde quences of the act than with the motivation for the act.' Beccaria
Bongtt Aschaffenburg Gross was opposed to the barbaric and arbitrary practices associated with
Ray Haviland
the court system in England during his time. He believed in the
In any historical survey of criminology we must deal with a social contract theory of government, that is, that sovereignty resided
dilemma. This dilemma is found in the Classical School, founded in the people and the law applied equally to all members of society.'
by Bentham and Beccaria, and the Positive School, founded by The Classical School believed in the doctrine of nul/um crimm sin~
Lombroso, Garofalo and Ferri.' The Classical School developed in lege, no crime without a law.
the eighteenth century in an attempt to reform the legal system and The Positive School attacked the legal definition of crime, and
to protect the accused against harsh and arbitrary action on the part in its place substituted a concept of natural crime. The positivist
of the state. The Positive School developed in the nineteenth rejected the juridical concept of crime in favour of the sociological
century as an attempt to apply scientific methods to the study of the notion of crime.' Garofalo notes that the concept of a .. criminal"
criminal. presupposes the concept of .. crime." He observed that" although
The Classical School defined crime in legal terms; the Positive the naturalists speak of the criminal, they have omitted to tell us
School rejected the legal definition of crime. The Classical School what they understand by the word crime.'" The positivist's rejec-
focused attention on crime as a legal entity; the Positive School tion of the legal definition was based on the idea that for scientific
focused attention on the act as a psychological entity. The Classical purposes the concept of crime cannot be accepted as a legal category,
School emphasised free will; the Positive School emphasised deter- since the factors which produce the legal definition are contingent
minism. The Classical School theorised that punishment had a and capricious. Garofalo then defined natural crime as an act that
deterrent effect; the Positive School said that punishment should be offends the moral sentiments of pity and probity in the community.
replaced by a scientific treatment of criminals calculated to protect Allen and Hall have pointed out the fact that the positivistic notion
society. of crime is susceptible to corruption in the hands of corrupt political
The Positive School has dominated American criminological officials. The fact that Ferri became a member of the Fascist move-
thinking.' This school finds supporters in biology, psychiatry, ment in Italy is of concern to those who regard civil liberties as a
J 5« articles on LombnHO, Guolala, Ferri, Bentham and Ikcc.uiol; , ;above. .. S« above, Chap. 3. • Sec a.bcrt~. Chap. 2.
, Jerome: Hall. Cnmi,.,oJogy. TUI~"'let" Cenlul'Y ·SO<i%gy. cd . by Georges Gurvitch :lnd • Sec .. hove, Ch3p5 . n, Ib, I".
Wilbert £. Moore, 1'>O(W York, 1956, Philosophical Prm, p. 3"6. ,. See above , p. 320 ~I set.
462 Th~ Historical D~t"dopmcnt of Criminology 463
Clarma Ray I~D~ry
fundamental aspect of criminal law.' Whereas for Beccaria meaning of the rules of criminal law .. . and this requires investiga-
individual rights are supreme, there arc no safeguards against abuse tion of their origins, the legislative history, ... and accompanying
of state power in the work of Garofalo and Forri.' social problems."" Hall traced the development of the law of theft
As a result of the rejection of legal categories by the Positive from the Carriu's Case to the present in order to show how the
School there is no agreement in criminology today as to "what is criminal law has developed in response to social and economic
crime?" Sutherland, Reckless, Sellin, Clinard and others have changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution. The inter-
either rejected the legal definition of crime or have stated that relations of law and economy in the solution of social problems arc
criminological research should not be limited by such legal defini- highlighted in his book, Theft, Law and Society." Francis A.
tions." The most common definition of crime by the sociological Allen states, " It may be doubted that so complete an elimination of
school is the definition of crime as " anti-social" behaviour. Sellin the legal content of the concept has well served the development
states that criminologists should study violations of conduct norms of criminological theory." ..
rather than legal norms. The eminent British criminologist, Pro- The view that crime is undesirable social behaviour is especially
fessor Hermann Mannheim, is in agreement with Sellin's position. apparent in the field of juvenile delinquency. The broad kgal
Mannheim asks the question, " Is criminology concerned exclusively definition of delinquency makes it possible to equate" delinquency"
with criminal behaviour in the legal sense or rather with the much with .. problem behaviour." Paul Tappan refers to this situation as
wider conception of anti-social behaviour?"" He answers the .. legal nihilism." He notes that a juridical approach to delinquency
question by noting that criminology tends to become the science of is uncommon, and in its place we find a casework approach that is
undesirable social behaviour." "It is the object of Criminology to non-legal or anti-legal in orientation." Roscoe Pound observed that
study criminal behaviour and the physical, psychological, and socio- the discretionary power of the Star Chamber was a trifle compared
economic factors behind it; how and why people commit crimes. to that of the juvenile court." A juvenile court hearing is not
... "" Mannheim focuses attention on criminal behaviour while regarded as a criminal trial; therefore, the usual constitutional
at the same time removing the study of law from the field of crimi- guarantees as to life and liberty do not apply. The juvenik is often
nology. "While it is no doubt one of the functions of the Sociology deprived of legal rights which are available to the adult_"
of the Criminal Law to examine the conditions under which criminal Because there is no standard from which delinquent behaviour
laws develop, such an examination cannot be regarded as coming can be measured, a subjective evaluation of the behaviour by a
under the scope of Criminology." " judge or caseworker must be relied upon. What constitutes" vulgar
Opposition to the definition of crime as anti-social behaviour or language," .. idleness," .. immorality" or .. habitually" is a major
undesirable behaviour has come from Jerome Hall, Francis A. problem in the administration of any juvenik court code." The
Allen, Paul Tappan, George B. VoId, Robert G. Caldwell and the jurisdiction of the juvenile court is often based on the fact that the
writer." Hall writes, .. Criminology is synonymous with Sociology child has an emotional problem rather than on any act of delin-
of Criminal Law. . .. The above theory suggests the general quency." There is some question as to whether the juvenile court
boundaries of criminology. It must be concerned, first, with the should function as a welfare agency. .. It is even more pathetic
• See above, pp. 376- m: also Hall, op. nt. p. 346 el uq.
that the very social instrument that was onCe haikd as a great reform
, Sce above, Chaps. 16 .In' ~ IS .
10 Clarence Ray Jeffery , .. Th:- Structure of American Criminologicl Thinking," Jour.of U Jerome- Hall, wnutll Principles 01 Cri",in,,1 u"', Indianapolis , 1947, BOObs·Merrill Co.,
Crim.L.. CrirninoLand PoI.Sei .. January-Febru:ary 1956, p. 653~, uf{.
11 Hermann Mannheim. Group Prob/~",s ill Cnme II'"
N·1.. t '}]1, P;lItrrson SmIth. p. 2"'1.
Pl4l1i/lrmenl, ?nd ed., Montclair, 1'1
II
p. 559.
Jerome Hall, Tlie/',
See above, p. 259.
uw ft.
Sanely, 2nd ed., Indianapolis, 1952, Bobbs·MerrilI Co.
12 Ibid . p. 262. II Paul W. Tappan, Conkmf'0N"7 Sl6l'ty of Juven ile DelinlJWftty, New YOI'k, 1952,
u Ihid. p. 261. United Nations, pp. 3-9.
If, lind . p. 260.
10 Herbert A. Bloch and Fnnk. T. f1ynn, IHli1lqJlnlCY, New York, 1956. Random Howe,
IS Jeffery, 01'. cil. ; RobO'l: G. Caldwell, Cn",in%gy, New York, 1956, Ron:Jld Press. p. 3ID.
pp. 112 el uq. , 67 el uq . H.ll . 01' nt; Grorge B. Void, .. Some BulC Problems in It Ibid . p. 305 e' Nf.
Crim inologic.. 1 Resarch," F('({ .Prob. , March 1953, p. 37, U Ibid. p. 313. II 16;•. p. 322.
...
_r_ .-~·m --~u:r-rtntFY Th ~ H istorical De vd op m ~ n t of Cr iminology 465
measure now stands as a barrier to progress in meeting their basic all deviant behaviour. This is an acceptable procedure if one is
needs." U interested in explaining behaviour; it is not too helpful if we wish to
The confusion of crime and criminals is common place in understand why individual A is in prison and individual B is not.
criminology. The criminologist seeks the answer to crime in the From these statistical observations of non-criminal populations we
behaviour of the offender rather than in the criminal law. Ferri must conclude that they differ from criminal populations, not in
stated that "crime must be studied in the offender."" The terms of sociological and psychological variables related to the life
question" why and how people commit crimes" is an important experiences of the individual offender, but in terms of the process of
one; however, a theory of behaviour is not a theory of crime. legal adjudication. The criminal has been caught and convicted in
Behaviour is criminal only when judged by some standard of con· a court of law. The problem shifts from " why and how indi-
duct. The term" crime" refers to the act of judging or labelling viduals commit anti-social acts" to " why and how criminal law is
the behaviour, rather than to the behaviour itself. Why people administered."
behave as they do and why the behaviour is regarded as criminal The problem of the "non-adjudicated" criminal concerned
are two separate problems requiring different types of explanation. Sutherland a great deal, and his research in connection with white-
If we wish to include all anti·social behaviour within the scope of collar crime was an attempt to bring within the scope of crimino-
criminology, we must either state that all deviant behaviour is logy the criminal who was not in prison. He defined white-collar
criminal or that criminology is concerned with non-criminal as well crime as "socially injurious acts" whether conviction occurred or
as criminal behaviour. \Vhat we are concerned with in either case not, a concept that has been criticised by Tappan and Caldwell."
is the sociology of deviant behaviour, not the sociology of crime. Sutherland made a valuable contribution to the sociology of law by
Only in the criminal law do we find the distinction between pointing out the differential treatment of white-collar criminals by
criminal and non-criminal behaviour. People are executed or sent Our judicial system. However, he did not focus attention on the
to prison for violating a law; they are not executed or sent to prison interaction of economic and legal institutions in the same way that
for" anti-social" behaviour in general. Sellin points out that man Jerome Hall did, for example, in his study of theft. Sutherland
belongs to many different social groups, each with its own system shifted his attention to the question "why do certain individuals
of conduct norms. However, when he states that the criminologist commit white-collar crimes?" He entered into a discussion of a
ought to study all norms violations he ignores the fundamental and shoe salesman who became a white-collar criminal through differen-
im portant differences between state norms, familial norms, religious tial association." The problem of what social changes in the nine-
norms, educational norms, economic norms or voluntary association teenth century produced government regulation of business is
norms. By placing all conduct norms in a single category he is ignored in Sutherland's work. The legal dimension of white-c01lar
overlooking certain important characteristics of the norms. crime is slighted in favour of a study of the offender. In Suther-
The removal of crime from the realm of legal fact has blurred the land's work we have a beautiful example of the shift in emphasis
distinction between criminal and non-criminal behaviour. In text- from the crime to the criminal. White-collar crime did not exist
books it is common to observe that 99 per cent. of the population before certain legal changes occurred. Why these changes occurred
commit acts for which they could be charged with a crime." Less can be determined only by a study of law and society, not by a
than 4 per cent. of the crimes known to the police result in a prison study of the criminal. The progress and development of criminal
sentence." These observations place the criminologist in a cul.de- law has been due to social and economic historical forces. No
sac. If he is to ignore the legal status of crime, he then must study evaluation of the personality of the individual criminal is going to
substitute for a sociological analysis of law.
24 Ihid. p. 337.
:u Sec :l.bo"e, p.362.
U Walter C. Recklcs~, TJu C";m~ Proh/~m, New York, 1955, Applc:ton-CcnturY-Ctoh, Inc., 21 Caldwell, op. 01. p. fJl d $((1.
p. 12. n Edwin H. Sutherland. W}IIU' Colliii' C";m~, New York, 1949, Dr)'dcn Press. p. 235
U Ibid. p_ 18. ~I seq.
Th~ Hi!/orical Development of Criminology 4fjJ
466 Clar~nc~ Ray I~Duy
The acceptance by many criminologists of the Positive School's observation to this extent: the main characteristic of positivism is iu
position in respect of the definition of crime and the emphasis attempt to answer the riddle of criminality by means of scientific
placed on the study of the individual offender is not surprising if studies of the individual offenacr. -T-heu~f' ·sdentific method is
one considers the history of American sociology. The original one of -the major characteristics of positivism; however, scientific
problem which occupied the attention of sociologists during the studies can be made of crime and criminal law as well as of the
period from 1910 to 1939 was the problem of socialisation and per- criminal. _B~c_ause of .hi~ _orientation.. the crim~llologist has not
sonality development. The work of W. J. Thomas, G. H. Mead, ~ncerne~Lhirmelf wiili these other theoretic a! issues.-· -- --
John Dewey and C. H. Cooley was in the area of socialisation. These The reason the criminologist is not interested in studying law
men were interested in the question of how a person comes to be a and society is his reform orientation. There is no way in which
member of a group. It mattered little whether the social norms knowledge of law and society can be used to reform the criminal.
involved were legal or non-legal in nature. It was not until the late The criminologist assumes that he m~~!~Jbe crirpjwJ if the
1930s that there occurred in American sociology a revival of interest ~Clence of crim~~\Q...b'-Uiuc_cess. When this writer recently
in European sociologists such as Weber, Durkheim, Tacnnies, Som- advocated that greater attention be paid to the study of criminal law
bart and others." The problem of social structure and social insti: he was told by several probation officers, " But this does not help
tutions now assumed a more important place in sociological dis- us to deal with the individual offender." Criminology has de-
cussions. The sociology of law is a European import, based on the veloped to a great extent as a branch of the penal reform movement
work of such European writers as Weber, Durkheim, Maine, in the United States. The major problems in criminology have been
Jhering, Ehrlich, Gurvitch, Sorokin and Timasheff." It is of derived from the needs of parole boards and prison administrators
interest to speculate as to why sociologists in the United States did for tools with which to reform or manage criminals. The interest
not develop an interest in the study of law until recently. shown in parole prediction tables and prison research is illustrative
One additional observation concerning the definition of crime is of this reform orientation. The development of criminology is
in order. If we define crime as the violation of a law, we must limited by this interest in penal reform and prison problems.
then state what we mean by law. This would require us to investi- Auguste Comte is the father of positivism in sociology. He en-
gate such topics as the sociology of law and sociological juris- visioned a society in which all social problems are solved by scientisu
prudence. If we equate law and custom, as some writers do, then using positivistic methods of research. When society reaches the
the legal definition of crime and the social definition of crime are positive stage of development morals and politics will become posi-
synonymous. It is beyond the scope of this paper to pursue further tivistic sciences. Positivism subordinates questions about what ought
the various meanings of the term " law" except to note that the to be or what must be to questions of what in fact is. "Positivistic
definition of crime, be it legal or sociological, must be based on a thinkers ... have wished to see intelligence applied to the alleviation
;tudy of law and society rather than on a study of the individual of all pressing human iIls." Auguste Comte " was first and foremost
)ffender. a social reformer, and he was interested in science because he
thought of it as an instrument for the reorganisation of human
[s criminology a science? life."" America has developed a philosophy, which, like Comte's,
According to George B. Void, " the essential point in positivism takes its point of departure from the disparity between the state of
s the application of a deterministic and scientific method to the natural sciences and the state of social affairs, and which proposes
;tudy of crime.".. This writer would disagree with Void's to eliminate this dispar;ty by extending the scientific outlook to all
domains of human behaviour.'·
10 Beck~r and Boskoff, op. cil. p. 79~' uq.
1\ 8«kc=r and Boskofl', 01'. nt, p. 121 tI J~t{.; Tw~nt;n}, C~nlury Sociology, op. nl.
pp. 297- 3'1. IS A Hirto,.., of PIt'/oIopAical SY/kml, ed. by Vcrgilius Fum , New York, 1950, Philo-
IS George 8. Void, T"~or~tit"41 Crimina/oD, New York, 1958 , Oxford University Preu. sophic:.1 Libury, pp. 3~331 .
p.39. .. Ibid . p. 337.
4$ Clar~nc~ Ray 1~t1~'y
----------------------,--- Tlu Historical D~t' dopm~nt of Criminology ~9
The positivistic yiew of Comte was offset by the deyelopment of According to Weber the purpose of sociology is to understand
a German school of sociology. The German school made a distinc- social events; according to Comte and Lundberg the purpose of
tion between the &in and the Solicn, the is and the ought. Max sociology is to aid in the scientific solution of social problems.
Weber regarded sociology as value-free . Sociology is concerned Criminologists in general have followed the Positive School. Crimi-
with what is; it does not attempt to determine ethical and moral nologists are very anxious that criminology be recognised as a
issues. Weber recognised that values are facts which can be science. They believe that the crime problem can be solved if
scientifically analysed. He also recognised the fact that socio- criminology is scientific. That is why the criminologist has been
logy does not furnish answers to questions concerning how willing to reject the legal definition of crime in favour of " universal
people ought to behave. Weber made a distinction between natural categories of behaviour" which he feels is necessary for scientific
and social science, a distinction which the positive school h~.s ?nalysis_ The Michael-Adler report concluded that criminology is
denied." Most American sociologists follow the value-free not a science due to the unscientific nature of sociology and
approach. Robert Bierstedt writes: " Sociology is a categorical, not psychology ...
a normative discipline, that is, it confines itself to statements about Whether or not we regard criminology as a science depends
what is, not what ought to be."" Kingsley Dayis writes: "The upon the use to which we want to put our knowledge. Scientific
normative approach (in the sense of analysing norms and institu- studies can be made of crime, criminal law, criminals, prisons and
tions, not in the sense of laying down moral imperatives) is used. other such topics. In this sense a science of criminology is possible_
"" Talcott Parsons states: "Existence and values are inti- If we believe, however, that science can determine the policy to be
mately related and interdependent, and yet . . . conceptually pursued in the treatment of criminals then we are no longer within
distinct. n .u the realm of science. Punishment and reform are not a means to
The positivistic position established by Comte is found today in an end; they represent goals or values. Science cannot determine
such works as George Lundberg's Can Scimcc Sal'c Us? In his the ultimate values of society. Even an extreme positivist such as
writings Lundberg argues that, by emulating the physical sciences Lundberg feels obliged to make a distinction between science and
and by using statistical and quantitative techniques of analysis, socio- policy. The advocates of the" New Penology" ignore this issue.
logy can be used as a tool for obtaining social objectives. Lundberg, Studies of criminals and prisons will never tell us how we ought to
following John Dewey and the pragmatists, regards science as an treat the criminal any more than studies of the atom will tell us how
instrument of human adjustment and human progress. The final we ought to use the atomic bomb. In the next several sections of
objective of science is the prediction and control of events which is the paper free will, determinism and punishment \\'ill be discussed
possible when one uses mathematical models. Lundberg agrees in terms of this distinction between the is and the ought.
with Weber that sociology must be free of values and value-
judgments_ He feels that science can furnish us with the means The criminal
to reach the goals or ends which arc existent . in society. The
major tenets of positivism arc quantitativism, behaviourism and Lombroso is generally credited with shifting the criminologist'S
pragmatism." attention from the crime to the criminal. Since his time the major
issue has been" how and why do people commit crimes?" Atten-
U John Cuber o So<iology. 3rd ed .• N~w York, 1955, Af,pleton .Cc:ntury.Croh, Inc., p. ~2 tion has been focused on the individual offender. The history of
~l IU/_; Ralph Ross and Ernest Van Den H.ug. T e Famc 0/ SOcit'I)l, New York ,
1957 , Hucourt, Brace 6: Co . . p. 2:3 n uq . criminology is the history of theories of personality development.
u Ro~rt Bicr.ucdt. TAe Sooai Or"". New York. 1957, McGraw.HiII Book Co., p. II.
.)1 l\.i n~lc:y Davis, Human Soarty. !,-:cw York, 1949, Macmillan Co . . p. 80.
Whenever a new theory of personality appears, it is immediately
H Kenneth S. Carlston, Ll", {ifill Sl'rurluru 0/ Social Action, London, 1956, Stevens 6: applied to the criminal. Textbooks in criminology tell us a great
Sons , p. 20.
U Ba:ker and Boskoft'. 0'. 01 p. 86 ; RoscClt and Gisela Hinkle:, Tlu Dr"dopm~nl oJ
MoJ~r1t Sociology, l'ew York, 1954, Doubleday &. Co., p. 5" ~l uq.; ~r~ Simpson, .0 Th~ Sr4fhN"lanJ Papn'r ,tdiled b~' Albert Coh("n , Alfred Lind("smilh and Karl Schuc:ssler,
MQn in Soci~ly, New York. 1955, Doubleda)' &. Co., p. 18 ~I K'I ' Bloomington, 1956 , Indiana l"wvcn ity Pr("$5, p. W ~l uf.
470 Clarmc~ Ray '~fJuy The Historical Development of Criminology 471
deal about the physical, mental , emotional and social characteristics symbolised by Sutherland, and the psychiatric, symbolised by
of the criminal. Freud." •
The biological school was developed by Lombroso, Garofalo, The shift from the biological orientation of Lombroso to the
Ferri and Goring. Lombroso started with the concept of the born social and psychological orientation of the modern criminologist has
criminal, but he in his later writings recognised other factors as misled some as to the true influence of the Positive School on
being important . . Ferri emphasised the importance of anthropo- modern criminology. If the term" positivist" is applied to Suther-
logical and social as well as physical factors. Ferri classified land, for example, someone will object because Sutherland 's theory
criminals as born, insane, habitual, occasional and passionate. of behaviour is not the same as Lombroso's. The importance of the
Goring discovered through his measurements of English convicts Positive School is that it focused attention on motivation and on
that the criminal was physically and mentally inferior to the non- the individual criminal. It sought an explanation of crime in the
criminal. It is of interest to note that Tarde, not Goring, is respon- criminal, not in the criminal law. This is true of every theory of
sible for the refutation of Lombroso. Edwin Driver in his article criminal behaviour which is discussed in the textbooks today, even
points out that the American criminologist has credited Goring though the explanation is in terms of social and group factors rather
with the refutation of Lombroso while ignoring the biological orien- than in terms of biological factors. The shift in criminological
tation of his work." The interest in heredity and constitutional thinking has been from a biological to a sociological and psycho-
types is still seen in the writings of Hooton, Sheldon and the logical explanation of behaviour, not in terms of a shift in interest
Gluecks. from the criminal to crime. The emphasis is still upon the
The mental testers attempted to locate the cause of criminal individual offender, not crinne.
behaviour in mental defectiveness. Henry Goddard is representative When the definition of crime was discussed above, it was noted
of this stage of criminological thinking. that the reason the criminologist feels the need to reject legal
Tarde located the cause of criminal behaviour in imitation, and definitions of crime is that he is seeking a universal category of
it is a short step from Tarde to Sutherland. Guerry and Quetelet behaviour that can be explained in terms of a theory of behaviour.
emphasised the innportance of criminal statistics in relation to eco- If one is attempting to explain motivation and behaviour, one
logical processes, age, sex, climate and other variables. Park, Bur- cannot rely upon legal categories for the obvious reason that the
gess, Shaw and McKay developed the ecological school in the United same behaviour pattern will be both legal and illegal at different
States, work which was basic to the formulation of Sutherland's times and in different places." Regardless of whether we accept
theory. Bonger emphasised povert), and economic conditions as a Lombroso's theory of behaviour, or Sheldon's theory, or Suther-
factor in crinninality, and man)' studies have been made in an land's theory, or Glueck's theory, we are still dealing with the
attempt to relate crime rates to economic conditions. criminal, not crime. Sutherland's theory of differential association
The Freudian theory of personality development has been used is a theory of behaviour, based on a study of criminals. The only
by psychiatrists as a basis for explaining criminal behaviour. The reason the issue of a definition of crime is raised in modern crimino-
psychiatric approach is both individualistic and social psychological logy is that the criminologist has to have some device by which
depending upon the school of psychiatry to which one belongs. to place behaviour in that category before it is studied as such.
Both the sociological and psychiatric schools emphasise the import- However, the criminologist is in a real dilemma in this respect,
ance of the family in relation to crinne. The sociologist emphasises since as soon as he has derived his universal category of behaviour
the environmental and associational aspects of family living; the he has lost the very thing he started out to study, namely, crime.
ps),chiatrist emphasises the emotional aspect of family living. The Two major difficulties confront us today in respect to the
two major explanations of behaviour today are the sociological, problem of understanding the criminal. (I) A theory of criminal
u Caldwell, op . cil. p. 18t ~, I~f .
• 1 Stt .bove, Chap. 23 . ." JdIeT)" op . n/. p. 671 el ufo
Clarence Ray Jeffery T he Historical Dcvdopmcnt of Criminology 473
47Z
behaviour is not a theory of crime. It does not explain why the place little or no em phasis on socialisation processes. On the other
behaviour is criminal or non-criminal. (2) There is no theory of hand, the way in which law develops in response to social problems
criminal behaviour available which explains all criminal behaviour. and social change is institutionalisation. Jerome Hall's study of
The psychiatric theory is inadequate because not all criminals are Theft, Law and Society or the writer's study of crime and social
emotionally disturbed, and few emotionally disturbed individuals change in England are examples of studies of institutionalisation."
are criminals. The sociological explanation is inadequate because Crime is a product of institutionalisation; behaviour is a product of
not all criminals have a history of prior associations with other socialisation. The confusion of crime and behaviour is the confusion
criminals, and not all individuals who associate with criminals of institutionalisation and socialisation.
become criminals. A theory which integrates the legal, sociological
and psychological aspects of crime and criminal behaviour is Free will v. determinism
needed." Whereas the Classical School accepted the doctrine of free will,
In his study of the individual criminal the criminologist has con- the Positive School based the study of criminal behaviour on scien-
fused two distinct and separate sociological processes: institutionali- tific determinism. Every act had a cause. The Pavlovian theory
sation and socialisation. of conditioned response patterns strengthened the deterministic
The individual learns group-defined ways of acting and feeling, approach to behaviour. John B. Watson made determinism popular
and he learns many of them so fundamentally that they become a in the United States at about the same time that Freud introduced
part of his personality. The process of building group values into the theory of psychic determinism.
the individual is called socialisation." The major argument today concerning determinism occurs in
Socialisation is the sociologist's inclusive term for the various the criminal law. The law assumes the responsibility of the indivi-
processes through which the original nature becomes fashioned into dual for his voluntary conduct. The Neo-Classical School recog-
the social being. . .. A major part of a socialisation process consists, nised that infants, lunatics and others were not legally responsible
of course, of learning." for their actions. The legal position has been under attack by
By institutionalisation we mean the development of orderly, psychiatrists for manv years ." The Pioneer Series articles on Isaac
stable, socially integrating forms and structures cut of unstable, Ray, Charles Doe and Henry Maudsley deal with this issue of legal
loosely patterned, or merely technical types of action." versus psychological responsibility. The legal test of insanity, the
Sociologists have coined the term institutionalisation to describe right and wrong trst as stated in the M'Naghten case, has been
the process of formalising interaction in groups. There is a ten- criticised by psychiatrists. Ray and Doe were inAuential in setting
dency for participation in most groups to become habituated and aside the M'Naghten rule in the state of New Hampshire. The
formalised into increasingly rigid roles. Each person's behaviour New Hampshire rule was applied in the case of United Stat(s v.
becomes laid out for him in specific ways, and elaborate rules and Durham. In the Durham case the court said: "The accused is not
regulations exist prescribing the proper procedure." criminally responsible if his unlawful act was the product of mental
The process of learning behaviour expected of a person in the disease or mental defect."
group is socialisation. Sutherland's theory of differential association Psychiatrists in general are in favour of the Durham rule. Nearly
is a theory of socialisation. Non-sociological theories of behaviour 90 per cent. of the pSl'chiatrists interviewed concerning the test of
.. Th~ writer bas outlined somr: bf the problems in 5uch an approach to criminological criminal responsibility indicated that they favoured the Durham
theory in an article eatitkd, "An Integrated Theory of Crime and Criminal Behaviour,"
published in the !owcb- April 1959 wuc of the Journal 0/ CrIminal La"" Criminology
.' Jerome HJII, T"~ft, iAu' a'fJ Sori~ry, op. cit . ; Cbrcncc Ra y 'tffcry , "Crime, l...3w and
and Po/iu Sn~n('t' .
Social Structure," Jou Lof Crtm .L.. Criminol.and PoI.Sci., :'\o\"cmbcr- Dcccmbcr 1956.
.5 lL:onard Broom and Philip Sdz,nick, Soci%lY. Ev,iIOslon, 1955, Row, Peterson &: Co., p. 423 ~t uq . ; CL;ncn.:c R,n" Jeffery, .. The Development of Crime in Early English
p.81. Society," Jo ur.of Grim. L., Cr :minol.3.nd Pol.Sci. . March-April 195;, p. 647 ~t uq.
•• Cubc:r. op. nt, p. 180. so Jerome Hall, .. P'\ ch i.l;r:- ;tnJ Crimin:al Responsibility. Yale L.J., ~hy 1956. p. 761
Broom and Sclznick. op . ti" p. 238.
4f
•• Cuba. op. nt. p. 319. ~1 !tq . ; Hall. Pnnopl(J,cr' nt . p. 477 ('I uq.
474 Clarmc~ Ray l~O~ry The Historical Del'dopmmt ot Criminology 475
test." The Royal Commission on Capital Punishment recom· this as a policy, but is asking the question" why has the discussion
mended abrogating the M'!\'aghten test and leaving it to the jury of determinism been concerned solely with psychic determinism? "
.. to determine whether at the time of the act the accused was The law is a measure of social, not individual, responsibility.
suffering from disease of the mind to such a degree that he ought The law assumes that individuals are responsible for their actions,
not to be held responsible."" The acceptance of the psychiatric for otherwise a state of social anarchy would exist. The deter-
position by lawyers and courts is a current trend. The late George ministic argument assumes that responsibility and free will are
Dession stated in 1938 that" the infiltration of psychiatry into the synonymous, and that determinism precludes responsibility." It can
administration of criminal law will one day be recognised as over- be argued that unless a person is conditioned to expect certain
shadowing all other contemporary phenomena in its influence on consequences for ltis action he is not aware of the proltibitions and
the evolution of criminal justice."" Fredric Wertham, a psychia- thus is not responsible. Determinism leads to responsibility. It is
trist, regards this as a dangerous trend in the administration of on the basis of these anticipated consequences of behaviour that
justice,u society holds the individual responsible. The socialisation proem is
In the issue of criminal f'sponsibility we again witness clearly based on role-taking processes which allow one to anticipate the
the influence of the Positive School. The criminal rather than the consequences of his behaviour and thus one orients his behaviour
crime is the issue at hand. Scientific determinism replaces volitional toward the significant other. The late Robert Lindner expressed it
conduct. The inner motivation of the act replaces the overt harm in these terms, .. Because every act involves other persons, and most
or consequence of the act. The innermost aspect of the psyche is if not all actions at the time of their inception include some fore-
explored in an effort to answer the question .. how and why do knowledge of their potential effects, a network of responsibility
people commit crimes?" The evaluation of behaviour is placed in exists among all members of the species."" Kenneth S. Carlston
the hands of experts. Fredric Wertham feels that the M'Naghten writes, .. Responsibility on the part of the members for the effective
rule should be retained, and he refers to the psychiatric position as performance of their roles in accordance with accepted norms is
.. psychoauthoritarianism." " Robert G. Caldwell refers to the another distinguishing feature of the organisation (of society).""
general movement away from judicial procedures as .. the tyranny Not only is the concept of responsibility necessary for the function
of the expert." .. of society but for the understanding of the social psychology of
The argument that scientific determinism ought to replace free personality development. Coutu has suggested the term .. social
will is always framed in terms of psychic determinism. When the accountability" in place of responsibility, and perhaps such a term
psychiatrist offers testimony he is doing so in terms of certain con- would be preferred by those who think of responsibility in terms of
cepts he .has concerning determinism. An issue wltich seems to free will." Tltis is similar to the position taken by Enrico Ferri,
have been systematically ignored is that there arc also sociological namely, that a person is legally or socially responsible for his actions
determinants of behaviour. Why do we allow a defendant the by the fact that he is a member of society, not because he is capable
defence that certain psychic factors determined ltis behaviour, if we of willing an illegal act. Ferri applied the concept of responsibility
do not allow the same defence to the man who has lived in a to the insane, to juveniles and to others now regarded as being
criminalistic sub-culture and whose behaviour is therefore deter- incapable of responsibility." Arnold Green has written:
mined by his environment? Why not have sociologists testifying
.. The first proposition-that the criminal is not responsible for
as to the environmental determinants of the behaviour of a Negro
ltis crimes-is inconsequential, at least from the point of view of
male living in Harlem? Certainly this individual did not will to be
born a Negro or to live in Harlem. The writer is not suggesting .7 Ron and Van Den Haag, op . nt. p. 295 rl Mil.
" R O~ rI Lindner. Must You Confo,m 7 l"ew York , 1956, Rincharr at Co., p. 2M.
61 Un;vN'/iry 0/ Chicago Low IUttitw, Vlinttt 1955. p. 327. I t Kenneth S. Carlston, Law a"J StrwcturtJ oj SOCla/ Action, London, 1956, Steve.ol •
IS Ibid. p. 356 . So01, p. 31.
U Ibid. p. 363. 1&Ibid . p. 581. to Wa lter Coutu. Emt1'gtnl Humlln NlltUU, !'\:cw York, 1949. Alfred A. Knopf, p. -412 .
• ~ Ibid. p. 336. u Caldwell, op . nt, p. 342. 'I Stt abo,.e, p. 380.
J
training necessary for him to get a job; another man might commit reforms made in the criminal law in all civilised nations in the last
armed robbery because it served him as a psychological substitute half-<:entury have resulted in the adoption of many of the proposals
for love which he did not receive from his parents. In the one case of the positivists."" For Bentham a harm or pain must result from
the criminal would receive vocational training; in the other case he the crime before it is punished. The positivist turned attention to
would receive psychotherapy. Since it is not possible to know at motivation, and punishment was related to human motivation rather
the time of the trial how long a time will be necessary to rehabilitate than to the overt act or consequence of the act. .. Motivation rather
the c~iminal, an indefinite sentence is needed, which could theoreti- than the objective nature of crime, is a basis for sanctions."" This
cally be from one year to life." Each criminal would receive attitude, again, is illustrative of the positivist's interest in the
individualised treatment according to his own psychological and criminal rather than crime. The social defence position has resulted
sociological needs. The criminal, not the crime, governed the in such legislation as sexual psychopathic laws and habitual offender
sentence or punishment given. The time a man spent in prison laws.
would be determined, not by the crime he had committed, but by Ferri delivered a lecture entitled, .. New Horizons in Criminal
the time needed to adjust and rehabilitate him. Whether or not a Law," which was later published as Criminal Sociology. Barnes and
man was adjusted and ready to return to society would be deter- Teeters published New Horizons in Criminology in which they pro-
mined by scientific penology. pose such reform measures as the elimination of prisons, the
Garofalo was sceptical about the possibility of reforming the elimination of punishment, the elimination of the jury system, the
criminal. He advocated the death penalty, overseas colonies and elimination of the concept of free will, individualised treatment and
life imprisonment for those lacking all moral sense. For the young the elimination of other aspects of the legal system. Scientists and
offender he recommended the indeterminate sentence, and for less mental hospitals would replace judges, juries and prisons."
serious violations he advocated reparations rather than punishment." The abandonment of the principle of legality often leaves the
Garofalo also recognised the val ue of the deterrence theory, though accused without the traditional safeguards found in the law. Jerome
he also realised its limitations. He also observed that any system of Hall has been an outspoken critic of this movement." Francis A.
enforced treatment is punitive in nature." Allen asks the question, .. What social interests are to he protected
Ferri continued the Positive School's emphasis on social welfare by the criminal law?" We must deal with the problem of the
and social defence. The purpose of criminal justice was to afford expansion of state power into more and more aspects of social life ...
maximum protection or defence of society against the criminal. The late George Dession emphasised the protection of individual
The defence of society was placed above the rights of individuals. rights as an important function of criminal law. Dession deplored
Ferri recommended penal colonies, indeterminate sentences, hospi- the development of such legal proceedings as denaturalisation of
tals, scientifically trained judges and the abolition of juries. naturalised citizens, deportation of aliens, loyalty hearings, anti-
Although he recogI\ised the value of individualised treatment, he trust proceedings and sexual psychopathic laws which allow a man
also recognised its limitations. Individualised treatment was limited to be committed for an indefinite period even though he has com-
to the five classes of criminals which he developed." mitted no offence. These actions are always taken under the
The modern trend in penologv has been in the direction of disguise of social welfare. .. Should not the safeguards of criminal
positivism, with such innovations as the indeterminate sentence, proceedings be applied in the above situations? " " The Pioneer
parole, probation, suspended sentences and good time laws." .. The
,. See abo\·(:, p. 382.
71 Walt~r C. Reckless sUtes. for c:u mplc , .. The ideal indeterminate sentence bw fiJ:("S all lJ Sec above, p. 30'>1.
Kntcnccs from one lear to life," Walter C. Re-ck lcss, The Crime Problem, 2nd ed ., 71 Harry E1ma BJ.rncs and Negley K. Teerers , N~w Hcrizonl in Criminology, New York,
!'\cw York, 1955, Applcton-Century-Croft. Inc . , p. 622. 1950, Pr~n: :.:~ · f-I.il l, Inc., p. 289 ~I seq.; p. 6+4 ~I uf .; p. 947 ~t ufo
n Hall. Pn~c;r ;'n, op. CIt . , p. 19 ~t seq.
12 Sec above, p. 331. 10SC(' aOO\'e. C';ap. lfi.
a Sec 3bovc, p. 33<4.
,. Sec above. p. 368 d uq. U Richard C. Dnnnclly, .. George Dessioll," Jour .of Ccim.L., Criminol.and PoI,Sci . •
MaJch - AprJ 1956 , p. 773,
U Hall, Pnnnpln, op. cit. p. 50 d «f'
Clayena Ray J~U~ry The Historical Devt:iopment of Criminology 483
482
Series article on Montero is relevant in this respect because Montero penal methods are now appearing under the guise of "reform ..
placed emphasis on the protection of individual rights and the and" science."
limitation of the power of the state." . It is often stated that the purpose of criminal law ought to be
The positivist has ignored the fact that the criminal law is a treatment and reform. The observation has been made that there
double-edged swotd. It protects society against the individual, and is always a punitive aspect to treatment." Whether or not purtish-
it protects the individual against the arbitrary actions of the state. ment and treatment can be separated is a relevant question. Sheldon
The law prescribes the area in which the state can act. Glueck once commented, " A sick person has a right not to be
Criminology textbooks pay a great deal of attention to the in- treated; it is only when he becomes contagious that he may be
humanity of man to man : the inhumanity of punishment, the quarantined." ..
brutal methods of torture and punishment, the ineffectiveness of The reform argument assumes that reform is possible, and that
capital punishment, the complicated legal procedure followed by we have the knowledge necessary to reform the criminal. This
courts of law, the dishonesty of judges and police officials, the argument assumes we know the cause of crime and therefore the
injustices of trials and jury decisions, the brutality of police methods, cure. It overworks the analogy between crime and disease." It
and the unsavoury conditions in all prisons. W hat is sometimes overlooks the fact that crime is a product of society. In his book,
ignored is the fact that the Classical School developed as a reaction Must You Conform? the late Robert Lindner argues that when we
to harsh penal methods where people were executed for minor classify homosexuality as a disease and not a crime we are not really
offences. The principle of legality was a political doctrine designed helping the homosexual but are in fact creating new oppressive
to protect the accused against such abuses. Bentham and Beccaria measures to use against him. It is control disguised as reform and
led a wave of legal reform in England ." The Positive School treatment. The same thing can be said for regarding behaviour of
places us in a major contradiction in this respect. In order to carry other types as a disease rather than a crime. If crime is the product
out the social defence philosophy it must sacrifice the individual of society, do we reform the individual or must we reform the
offender. .. The Positive School is committed to the thesis that any society?
measure necessary to protect society (the accused and, of course, The rehabilitative treatment of the offender is the objective most
the convicted . person are automatically excluded therefrom) is frequently discussed and applauded today. Criminological positi-
justifiable. " .. vism, with its focus upon the individual offender, was introduced
In the case of the adult offender, as in the case of the juvenile, by Lombroso and his followers. An individualised and, more
the issue is sometimes whether the accused has a personality prob- particularly, a therapeutic orientation has developed rather steadily
lem which needs treatment, rather than whether or not the in subsequent years under the impetus of the modern clinical move-
ddendant has committed an objective harm. The sexual psycho- . ment. . .. The focus upon mental pathology has resulted in a
pathic laws represent a movement in this direction. " The sexual conception of crirrtinals as " sick people.""
psychopathic . laws have given birth to a bastard class-neither The positivist emphasises parole and the indeterminate sentence,
criminal nor insane-whose members are designated 'offenders' yet a determinate sentence has more value than does the indeter-
because of their offensive behaviour. These -unhappy noncon- minate sentence as a factor in success or failure of parole." Sweat-
formists may be punished or treated just as badly as the criminal ing out a parole and observing the political manoeuvres of parole
and the insane, but obtain far less in the way of due process of boards is very demoralising to an inmate. Many inmates fed that
law."" Hermann Mannheim, E. H . Sutherland and Paul Tappan
.7 UnilluJily oj C}",ogo Uu.' Rt'lIit'w, p. 350 ('I Sf''! .
have criticised the sexual psychopathic laws in this country." Harsh II Henry Nunb<:rg. "Problc:ms in the Structure oC the JuvCtlile Court," Jour .of Ctim.L.,
Cri.mmol. .. nd Po1.Sci. , J4n uary- February 1958. p. 507.
u Stt ",bov(:, Chaps. 3 and 1 . It Cohen, op . nt. p. 55: H.1 I1 , Prillnpln, op. cit. p. 132.
n $e(: ",bon, Chap. 20.
II Hall. Prinn'r1n , op. eft . pp. 550-551. to Paul W. Tappan, COflkr.lpora ry COrTution. New York. 1951, McCraw·HiII Book Co .•
u Univt'rlity 01 C)UCo1g0 LAw Rt'vjt'UI, p. 355. pp. itO-ill.
I I Manohelln . op . nt. p. 205 ('I u'1'
.1 Reckless, op. nt. pp. 63i~39.
484 Clar~nc~ Ray f~O~ry Th~ Historical D~vdopment of Criminology 485
a release on parole automatically lessens one's chances of reforming by the elaboration of case histories. It cannot be achieved, either,
after release from prison. .. Society is not yet fulfilling its respon- by a cavalier rejection of the incapacitative and deterrent objectives
sibility to the implications of parole."" Today the Youth and of correction in favour of an exclusively rehabilitative goal.'
Adult Authorities are held in rugh esteem by penologists. The In the case of punishment, as in the case of responsibility, there
American Law Institute was instrumental in the establishment of is a confusion of what is and what ought to be. The question of
these agencies. The model Correction Act removed from the couru punishment is a moral issue. The sociologist and psychiatrist do
the power of probation and placed the offender in the hands of the not hesitate in suggesting what ought to be done with the offender.
Authority for an indeterminate period for wruch there is neither a At its conception American sociology was dominated by a philosophy
minimum nor a maximum." .. It seems to many that tills feature of social reform; however, tills aspect of sociological thinking has
of the model Act is extreme and even dangerous, in view of the been modified since that time. In criminology the reform issue
possibility of miscarriages of justice, as well as mistakes in judg- still looms large, and the criminologist is more often than not more
ment."" The arguments against the indeterminate sentence are of a reformer than a scientist. Science can tell us that executing
many and varied." Alexander Maconocrue, the British reformer, some criminals will not deter others; it cannot tell us that we ought
emphasised the importance of the indeterminate sentence, but as not to execute them. One a~ the major difficulties encountered in
John Barry noted in rus article, .. Maconochie would have been sur- criminology when we deal with ethical issues is that the sociological
prised at the arbitrary powers entrusted to tribunals such as the positivist and the legal positivist divorce fact and ethics.' This does
Adult and Youth Authorities and Parole Boards."" The emphasis not mean that the positivist does not make ethical judgments; it
has shifted from a rigid sentencing procedure which did not take means that he makes etillcal iudgments without acknowledging
into account individual factors, to an indeterminate sentence wruch that he is making them. Criminology is a science; law is a policy
does not take into account the rights of individuals. Perhaps we making procedure.
can find a compromise between such two extremes. At least it is Perhaps the most glaring defect in the sociological analysis of
difficult to justify the indeterminate sentence and parole as .. reform punishment is that it views punishment always in the context of
measures," what it means to the individual offender, never in terms of what it
The modern criminologist places little value on the deterrent means to society. Because the positivist is concerned with the indi-
theory of punishment, though both Lombroso and Garofalo realised VIdual offender, it should be expected that he would neglect the
the deterrent effect of criminal law. They placed more emphasis on sociological meaning of punishment. The social purpose of punish.
overseas colonies and capital punishment than on reform." As ment is to create social solidarity. Emile Durkheim viewed punish-
Morris R. Cohen points out, we cannot say that law does not deter ment as a reflection of group solidarity. Any act which violated
because some individuals commit crimes." The notion that law . the social code had to be punished in order to restore order and to
does not deter is fatalistic and tills conflicts with the positivist's reaffirm the violated code. In this way group solidarity was
concept of determinism." maintained.'
The optimum result in treatment cannot be attained by mere Since sanctions are not revealed by analysis of the act that they
reaffirmations of faith in .. individualisation " and .. therapy," or govern, it is apparent that I am not punished simply because I did
IS Donald F. Wilson, My S;z Co"riaI. Inc., p.
New York, 1951, Pocket Books, 281. this or that. It is not the intrinsic nature of my action that produces
.3.. Encyclopedia of Criminology,
Bloch and Flynn. op.
0/. p.
-490•
ed. Vernon C. Branham and Samud 8. Kuwh. New
the sanction which follows , but the fact that the act violates the rule
York. 1949, Philosophical Library , p. 465. which forbids it. In hct, one and the same act, identically per-
t5 or'
Caldwell , cit. p. 6+1 el sell.; Edwin H. Sutherland and Don.ud R. Cressey.
Pn'"ciples 0 Crimin%o. Sth ed •• Y'cw York, 1955. J. P. Lippincott, p. S60 " Mf·
formed with the same material consequences, is blamed or not
I I Sec above, p. 103.
I t See above, pp. 279 and 330. I T2ppan , Cont~mporary Corucrion. Of . n't. p. 12.
I I Cohen. op. cit. p. 49. I H.II. Principlt:s, op. cit. p. 546 .
.. IbjJ. p. 49. 3 Sec abovc:, Chap . 19.
j
486 Clarena Ray ,e/Jay The Historical Development of Criminology 487
blamed according to whether or not there is a rule forbidding it. to behave. The reason we have crime, however, is not because
The existence of the rule and the relation to it of the act determine individuals behave the way they do, but because others think they
the sanction. Thus homicide, committed in time of peace, is freed ought not to behave in that way and have it within their power to
from blame in time of war. An act, intrinsically the same, which judge their behaviour. Crime involves an ethical issue.
is blamed today among Europeans, was not blamed in ancient The biological explanation of behaviour has been seriously
Greece, since there it violated no pre-established rule. challenged by sociologists and psychologists since Lombroso's time.
''\/ e ha\'e now reached a deeper conception of sanctions. A This tenet of positivism has been refuted. However, the crimino-
sanction is the consequence of an act that does not result from the logist has accepted a theory of behaviour as a theory of crime.
content of the act, but from the violation by that act of a pre· Crime and criminal behaviour are confused. Even though in
established rule. It is because there is a pre-established rule, and the modern criminology the Lombrosian explanation of behaviour is
breach is a rebellion against this rule, that a sanction is entailed.' rejected, the positivist's interest in the criminal is maintained.
The purpose of punishment is social disapproval of the act Because the positivist wanted to study the criminal rather than
through collective action on the part of the group. Durkheim's crime, he was obliged to reject the legal definition of crime ... Anti-
analysis of punishment has the advantage of placing attention on social behaviour .. is often used in place of a legal definition. There
the normative structure relating to acts and not on the act itself. is no agreement among criminologists as to the meaning of the
The Positive School was opposed to the position taken by Durkheim, term" crime," though this is presumably the starting-point for any
that is, it focused attention on the act and not on the meaning of a research. Some use a social definition of behaviour; some use a
violation to the social group. legal definition of behaviour. Some regard the sociology of law as
The use of punishment by society is not as important in terms outside the scope of criminology; some regard it as hasic to
of whether or not it reforms the individual as in terms of what it criminological theory.
does for society. Punishment creates social solidarity and re-enforces The scientific approach substituted determinism for volition.
the social norms. The individual criminal is again the centre of attention, since the
question is one of individual responsibility. Although Ferri used
Conclusions the concept of legal responsibility in place of moral responsibility,
In the Pionars in Criminology we witness the development of the individualistic approach is gaining headway in law as evidenced
the major issues underlying modern criminological thinking. in the recent Durham decision.
Whereas the Classical School fo~.uj_c;.d_~ttention on the crJJIIC, the The Positive School regarded the protection of society as the
Positlve. School. shiitedJhe'~~phasis t~_~~_€rlml;;ar~fhe major governing factor in punishment. Punishment was designed to fit
characteristic of criminological thinking since Lombroso's time is the criminal, not the crime. Such reform measures as parole, proba-
the preoccupation of criminologists with the problem .. why do tion and indeterminate sentences furthered the individualistic
individuals commit crimes? .. approach to criminology. The objection to the social defence school
The Positive School gained its name from the positive philosophy comes from those who do not want social welfare placed above
of the nineteenth century which applied scientific method to social individual welfare. Individualised treatment must of necessity place
problems. This school maintained the position that criminology great discretionary power in the hands of the experts.
must become scientific, by which they meant that the explanation of The Positive School advanced the field of criminology by placing
criminal behaviour and the treatment of criminals must be accomp- the study of the criminal within a scientific framework. Today, as
lished by scientific means. Science is designed to explain why a result, we know a great deal more about the criminal than we
people behave the way they do; it does not tell us how people ought have known heretofore. The criticisms made of the positivist are
to be viewed as attempts to raise questions other than those raised
.. Lewis A. Cmtt and Ikrnard Rosen~rg, Sot'iolo£iNl T),t'Ory. l'ew York, 1957, Mlcmillaa
Co .• p. 108. by this school, and not as a blanket condemnation of a healthy
488 Cla~nc~ Ray letJery The Historical Development of Criminology 489
interest shown in the criminal. The criminologist's attempt to anJ Bonneville delivered such advice as: study the causes of crime
separate criminology and criminal law, and his related attempt to in the character of the offender; look for a lack of education and
derive criminality from the behaviour of the criminal offer a major employment; abolish capital punishment in favor of imprisonment;
obstacle to a theory of crime. More attention needs to be paid to resocialise the offende· by "moving from the crime to the criminal";
the meaning of crime in terms of criminal law, social structure and make the "punishment fi t the criminal and not the crime"; indi-
social change. A re-evaluation of the theoretical structure of vidualise treatment procedures; have reparation made to victims; put
criminology is called for at this period in the development of prisoners on indeterminate sentences, parole, probation, and work-
criminological thinking.
release projects; and build separate institutional facilities for youths
and women.
The chapter on Morrison reads like a present-day textbook in
criminology, in the way it discusses the biological and social factors
in crime, the use of individualised treatment procedures, and the im-
AMERICAN TRENDS IN CRIMINOLOGY
pact of age, sex, social class, and climate on crime rates. It is fasci-
1960-1970 nating to see how long ago Morrison and Lucas independently con-
cluded, with considerable statistical sophistication, that poverty do",
The pioneers, positivism, and the 1960s not cause crime. This makes one wonder what we were doing in the
1960s in the U.S.A. when we undertook a mammoth "War on Pov-
When I wrote my conclusion to Pioneers in Criminology in 1959, erty" program in an effort to reduce crime and delinquency. The
I claimed that the particular problems in which criminologists are failure of this program has been described by Daniel P. Moynihan
interested today derive from the issues developed by the pioneers. as a "Maximum Feasible Misunderstanding." lOne of the useful
The framework of modern criminology was built by the nineteenth- purposes the Pioneer Series will serve is that of reminding us how
century positivists who rejected the classical position, and it is they often we have reinvented the wheel. One reflects, after reading of
who dominated criminology for most of this century. Some changes the accomplishments of the pioneers, how little progress has been
that have occurred in the past decade suggest that it may now be made in the twentieth century in criminology.
time to take another look at positivism, before seeing how these
changes have affected the positivist framework.
Criminal law and positivism
The basic postulates of positivistic criminology are (1) a rejec-
tion of legal concepts of crime and criminal procedure, and their re- The impact of positivism on American criminology caused the
placement with individualised justice based on a therapeutic model, field of criminology to develop in sociology and psychology quite
(2) a rejection of punishment and its replacement with correctional independent of the influence of criminal law. The criminologist
treatment, (3) a rejection of free will and its replacement with scien- studied the offender with little regard for the legal process by which
tific determinism, and (4) a rejection of the srudy of criminal law, crimes are created.' As a result, we saw the emergence of the ju-
and its replacement with a study of the individual offender and his venile court and a non<riminal definition of delinquency, the use
medical, psychological, and social characteristics. of indeterminate sentences (transferring the power to hold a man in
The pioneers added to the second edition of Pioneers in Crimi- prison from the law to men in administrative posts) , and the use
nology reinforce its coverage of the development of positivism in of law to force men into treatment settings without the benefit of
nineteenth<entury criminology. With the exception of Wigmore, criminal procedures or safeguarJs. Potential dangerousness and per-
who advocateJ a close relationship between criminology and crimi- I D:anicl P. Moyn ihan. /IIati mum F~a J;f.I~ Atimn'/u standing (~ c\Y Ynrk : Frc-co Prcu. 1969),
:! C. R. Jcffcq. " The Stru..::urc 'I f :\muiC3n C r lmmtl lo~i ' 31 Thlnkin,c:' low'f1<1i of en'm inal
nal law, these pioneers uniformly took a positivistic position. As Luw , C,.,m;lIology, and Po", ~ S("j~nu, Vol. 46, No.5 (Janu:HY I'l 56)' pp. ('')8-672i
individuals and collectively, Livingston, Morrison, Roeder, Lucas, Gcr h::1rI1 o. w. ~fucJlcr. Cnm~, LAw, ond Ih~ Scholars (Sc:lttlc: Lm'·cr'lty of \\'a~hington
Prcss, 1969).
CJ 601 Unit 3
ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND CRIMINALITY
Introduction
I~,,- .. -
2
that poverty resulted from the moral deficiency of the poor and that crime
resulted from poverty, only a system of social congratulations for the
given (the prosperous) could have developed" (p. 256). The internal sources
of dissension within 19th century capitalist societies engaged the attention
of three theorists whose views on economic conditions and criminality had a
major impact on contemporary criminological theory: Willem Bonger, Friederich
Engels, and Karl Marx. The following discussion is largely devoted to an
exposition and discussion of the contributions of these three theorists .
Objectives
found comparable relationships between food prices and crime rates . Perhaps
the most thorough study of poverty and crime was conducted by the Italian
di Verce, who analyzed the effect of economic influences on a wide variety
of crimes, ranging from arson to horse stealing . Says Schafer (1969):
Agricultural vicissitudes, fluctuations in the price of food, industrial
crises and strikes, and conditions of the working class are only
examples of the several variables di Verce used in his numerous
correlations. He expressed the degree of influence of economic con-
ditions in general terms, such as "much," "moderate , " "little," "only
slightly," and "not at a11. " One of his many findings was that crime
was higher in those regions where wealth was above average; his
explanation was that where there is wealth there is also poverty, and
poverty induces use of criminal opportunities (p. 262).
Other social statisticians like Guerry and Quete1et did not conclude from
their studies that economic depres sion and poverty were decisive factors
in criminality.
Marx and Engels
Class struggle, surplus value, and other ideas which have come to be
recognized as central to Marxian ideology had been written about, discussed,
and examined by many European intellectual figures before Marx and Engels
united them into a single conceptual system . Like Sigmund Freud who fo1-
lowed him, Karl Marx was a great synthesizer: the essence of his original
genius was his capacity to integrate ideas which had hitherto enjoyed an
independent existence into a coherent, internally cohesive whole.
The central tenet of Marxian thought is the concept of economic deter-
minism- - the notion that all social, political, religious, cultural, and
psychological phenomena are products of economic conditions. Marx (1859)
describes this principle in the following pas.sage from his book Critique
of Political Economy:
The' genera 1 conc 1us i on at whi ch I arri ved and wh·i ch, once reached,
continued to serve as the leading thread in my studies, may be briefly
summed up as follows: In the social production which men carryon
they enter into definite relations that are indispensable and in-
dependent of thei r wi]).; these re 1ati ons of producti on correspond to
4
capitalistic societies (e.g., the U.S.), power resides in the class which
owns and controls the means of production. Criminal laws are made and
enforced by this class in order to preserve its interests against the
attempts on the part of the proletariat to struggle against exploitation and
oppressTon . Crime according to this view is the product of class conflict.
These ideas are treated in expanded form in the reading selection which
accompani es thi s unit (ECONO~lI C CONDITIONS AND CRHlINALITY). They provi de
a guide to what ~·1cCaghy identifies as lOa grand scale Marxian theory of
crime. '1
7
held that poverty and misery were important agents in the causation
second emanating from the works of Marks and Engels views crime as
This approach has its foundations in the work of Marx and Engels.
behavior are determcd by his class position, e.g., the working class,
being responsible for causing men to violate the law (Schafer, 1969).
Marx had little more t.han a passing interest in crime, but Engels
However, the criminal was not seen as engaging in crime "as a means
the relation ship between incr eases in crime and the depression of
1844. He found that crime had increased sixfold between 1850 and
1842 and that agricultural areas showed a higher crime rate than
3.
attack the class system and to deplore the exploitation of the work-
ing class.
and social p~oblems (van 13ermnelen, 1972). HO~lev er , the stimulus for.
Crimina Ii ty." Only two s tudents entered 't he contest: Jos ep h van Kahn,
who receive d th e gold me dal, and Willem Bonger, who only receiv e d
honorable mention. Following the contest, van Kahn turn e d his efforts
biologically almost all crimes are normal acts. For example, the
all acts that are considered immoral are not crimes and definitions
that are harmful to all classes, few acts are punished' that do not
classes. When exceptions are noted they are explained by the fact
that even under capitalism the lower classes are not totally without
had to cooperate and share with one another. 'T here was , neither
wealth nor ' poverty because people only produced enough for their own
to share his surplus with his neighbors but instead keeps it for
in that each party involved tries to obtain as much profit for him-
lose. For this reason lying and fraud tends to characterize these
surpluses through their own labor next forced labor ranging from
of the rich and envy and hatred on the part of the poor.
could not fail but produce individuals who were more concerned with
Economic Crimes
that people who are in need of the strict necessities of life feel
his positions was supported by the fact that thefts increased during
economic depression, were more common in the winter months, and were
more prevalent among wido\ys and divorcees than other women. Crimes
these offenders earn enough to satisfy their basic needs their de-
sires for luxury motivate them to steal when the opportunity presents
between the rich and poor because it heightens the latter group's
sights regarding why most men remain "honest." Bonger (1916) attri-
to it from infancy" (p. 575); 2) " .•. lack ... [ofl courage, clever-
ness and other qualities necessary for being otherwise ... " (p. 576-
Professional Crime
to do. A quote from Bonger illuminates the causes and career pattern
words these offenders are more than likely at some point in their
clas s commit th ese offenses for the same motives - stupidity, pro-
Business failure in the case of the middle class has the same
pelled to always pursue his own interests he can give very little
demise of his bus iness with little concern of the impact of these
desire for more wealth and worldly possession than one ' s business
can produce honestly. While the d esire for wealth is strong .among
Ano the r motivating factor is the relatively low risk associated with
practices which while not ill ega l at the time he wr ote as morally
bther than food products, the use of tricks and dodges in the sale
are punishable by law and argues for the formal sanci to.ning of more
of these practices.
C=================================II
11.
our economic and sex~al life. First, the desire for vengeance is
have great power over them. Alcoholism and poor early socialization
forced to work at trades for which they are unsuited and those
work shortly thereafter; pressures upon the poor that result from
the unc e rtainty of their life; poo r medical care; syphilis which
criminal behavior.
between the numbe r of crimes that are reported and thos e that are
ftre several reasons for believing that this would occur. First, an
poverty are the cause of this increase in crime may result in greater
this product to asc erta in the economic situation in this area. This
1835 and 186J. when the price of corn went up by a few pence one
of Bavaria. On the other hand, a drop in the price of corn bya few
use of multiple and diversified index that considers all our major
on the volume of crime, but instead it may take a year or more for
because it would take some time for the effects of this economic
mind that there may well be a lag between thc effects of economic
conditions and that the rise in crime toward the end of the recession
would be futile to expect that the crime curve and the economic
that the economic curve and the crime curve will move in the same
direction and are close together with regard to time (Radzinow i cz,
1977).
Third, it would also be fallacious to assum e that crimes committed
will have a uniform effect upon all crime. In fact, we find that
1977) .
and depression. This does not imply that these offenses are not
of income may also stimulate the desire to get rich quickly and
1977) .
an influence on its crime rate than the manner in which the r esources
are sharp contrasts between the rich and the very poo~ there is an
beyond the scope of their legitimate incomes. This may well explain
there is still a major coqtrast between the booming north and the
the population could not find enough to eat. This shows that in
in the other.
the findj .ngs of these studies. This is not to suggest however, that
conditions both here and abroad da ·te bacJ~ as far as the turn of the
United States, Canada, England and Wales, and Scotland - from 1900
control for many of the factors that throw the results of previous
research into question. For example, the reliability and validity
of the crime data was increased by drawing this data from a variety
because the researcher had access to a computer which was not the
case with a majority of the studies that form ed the basis of the
and validity of his conclusions which are not feasible without the
assistance of a computer.
with the passage of time or specifically after World War II. However,
this finding did not take into consideration the possibility that a
tween pre and post World War II periods. What appears to have
for Canada, England and Wales, and Scotland. Thus, during the last
time between pre and post World War .11 periods was much more pro-
England and Wale s and Scotland, there was an increase in the impact
fluctuations during the later years, there were also some rath e r
1940 \'lhich included the "depress ion." For example , in the United
income leve ls among our l owes t s ocio- eco nomic groups, these increases
consideration.
gist, Charles Lucas, who worked during the first half of the 19th
if the volume of crime was increasing less than its productive and
and e conomic activity in France between 1800 and 1860 and found that
increas ed one and a half times, which led him to conclude that: there
was contrary to the popular belief that social and economic advances
and Law Enforcement, ploscowe indicates that during the last 150
(Vold, 1958).
Taft and England (1964) indicate that criminologists today are more
well being.
services that are beyond their r each . Further, there is the con-
that all men have an equal chance of success and that anyone who
fails only has himself to blame. While this may have been the .case
when Alger wrote back in the 1800s and may have still held true up
until World War II, today the rules have changed and include among
the past. How ever , while the rules of success have changed, the
race and seek escape through the use of drugs, alcohol, mental
whose parents have succeeded, drop out and experiment with alter-
Consequently, these young men feel they have no stake 'in the system
and feel they have little to gain by following society's rules and
little to lose by not. Further, they feel that the odds against
tics bear out this assumption since their chances of getting caught
on violent crime.
our recent urban riots, and incidences of looting and property damage.
Davis (1970) after examining rebellions and revolutions both here and
necessary for civil disord ers , these reb e llions would have occurred
in the mid 1950s. However, since these civil disorders did not occur
point of rebellion. Between 1964 and 1969 there were at least 325
found that civil strife in this country had the same characteristics
with little hope of escape. This has created a gap between Black
haves and have nots which has increased the feelings of deprivation
This analysis has some general implications for future civil dis-
our population (Gurr, 1970). The New York blackout of 1977 provides
evening in November when most people were at home , in 1977 many ghetto
residents were on the street seeking relief from the summer's heat
wave. A number of other things had changed in the dozen years between
the two blackouts. Unemployment among young ghetto Blacks was 20%
managed to advance to the middle class which only increased the frus-
tile de;:>rivation hypot:hesis suggests that wh e n the upp ,~r income popu-
lation exceeds the size of the lower income population , the lower
Their data indicate that even when controls for basic structural
vari ab l es are employed , that crime rates are highest ~Dlen one popu-
high est when 'ehe loy, income population Has a disc e rnible local minority
and wllere there Has the gr ~ atest occupationa" gap between non-whites
and whites.
30.
produce crime. Thus, crime control attempts which focus upon rehabil-
loc a l pol ic e forc es and/or educat ing the populal: ion to reduce
and are no way dealing with the underly ing causes of anti-social and
relat ive rather than absolute poverty does not exist. However , there
ar e certainly parts of the world such as are as in India and South and
Cen t ral America \~here absoluLe poverty do e:; exist and must be con-
there is still evidence tha t both in England and America there are
mat er ially l ess advantaged than others bu t of not being able to main-
tain normal h ea lth and development. Research both here and abroad
for work, and is associated with low social status, no respect and
these areas are typically away from home most of the time when their
children are awake and are irritable and fatigued when at hom~.
It also must be noted that approximately 43% of our poor families are
areas drop out of school at an early age because they see little
value in an educiltion. The jobs they obtain are generally low p a ying,
children are likel:i to remain poor. HoweveJ~, since the vast majority
Objectives
The major goal of this unit is to present the varieties of theoretical
approach to criminality subsumed under the sociological and sociopsychological
perspectives. These approaches tend to seek the explanations for criminal
behavior in the ' ~rocesses which affect people living in social groups. They
emphasize either structural arrangements or cultural patterns (sociological
theories), or they focus upon the interplay between the individual and his
social environment (symbolic interactionism) and the acquisition of regulatory
processes in behavior through socialization (control theory). The student
should be strongly encouraged toward the view that there is nothing sacrosanct
in this or any other taxonomy of theories. A taxonomy such as that which
Nettler employs is at best a logical, convenient, or meaningful way of classify-
ing or conceptually ordering theoretical approaches according to some rationale
or schema. Others equally valid and useful could be found.
3
regulatory norms that define and control the means of achieving the goals. It
is Merton's central hypothesis that deviant behavior may be regarded socio-
logically as a symptom of dissociation between culturally prescribed aspira-
tions and socially structured avenues for realizing those aspirations.
In American society, wealth is a basic symbol of success. Money obtained
illegally can be spent jU5t as easily as "hard earned" money and be translated
into the symbols of success. Merton sees American society as placing a heavy
emphasis upon wealth without a corresponding emphasis on the use of legitimate
means for reaching this goal. Individual modes of adaptation to this situation
may take one or a combination of several forms: conformity, innovation,
ritualism, retreatism, and rebellion.
Merton had pointed out that the greatest pressure toward deviant behavior
is experienced by people occupying positions in the lower class. Cloward and
Ohlin, in a work appropriately entitled Delinquency and Opportunity (1960),
extended this formulation to the explanation of urban gang delinquency. Their
basic hypothesis is expressed as follows:
The disparity between what lower-class youth are led to want
and what is actually available to them is the source of a major
problem of adjustment. Adolescents who form delinquent sub-
cultures, we suggest, have internalized an emphasis upon con-
ventional goals . Faced with limitations on legitimate avenues
of access to these goals, and unable to revise their aspirations
downward, they experience intense frustrations; the exploration
of nonconformist alternatives may be the result. (p. 86)
Nettler (1974) observes that this type of explanation views delinquency as
adaptive, i.e., instrumental in the attainment of goals which are generally
shared, and also as partly reactive, i.e., prompted by resentment on the part
of delinquents at being deprived of things they believe should be theirs.
criteria of status which these children are able to meet. Specifically, the
delinquent subculture functions simultaneously to combat internal forces in
the individual as represented by a "gnawing sense of inadequacy and low se1f-
esteem" and to deal with the "hated agents of the middle-class." It does so by
ment into a juvenile gang can be viewed as the final step in the stabilization
of the youngster's delinquency because it involves acceptance of a deviant
identity. Gangs also provide members with a system of rationalization that
serves to neutralize and justify their deviant identities and delinquent behavior.
In addition, gang participation also results in the development of more skillful
means of carrying on delinquent activities.
In short, the imposition of a deviant label is likely to result in an
individual: (a) being regarded as a deviant, and expected to engage in subse-
quent deviant behavior; (b) being denied participatio~ in conventional groups;
(c) participating in deviant groups which provide rationale for neutralizing
10
deviant identities and behavior, and better techniques for carrying on deviant
activities.
In criticism of the labeling perspective, Denisoff and McCaghy (1973)
feel that the labeling school completely ignores some basic questions relating
to a theory of deviant behavior. These questions are: "1) Why rates of
particular acts vary from one population to another; 2) why certain person
engage in these acts while others do not; and 3) why the act is considered
deviant in some societies and not in others." (p. 51) The result of this,
according to Denisoff and McCaghy (1973), is that the labeling approach is not
concerned with the etiology of behavior that mayor may not be termed deviant,
but is restricted to evaluating that behavior.
Davis (1972) lists several 'built-in' problems of the labeling theory:
1. overconcern with deviant categories, with subsequent lack
of attention to exchange processes of actors and groups
leading to decisions to control;
2. a culturological and behavioral emphasis, which systemati-
cally neglects organization variables;
3. inadequate recognition of the functions of deviance for
the actor, the small social system, or the larger society;
4. a seeming fixation of the actor as subject;
5. isolated concern with exotic materials;
6. a methodological inhibition serving to limit the field to
an ethnographic, descriptive, overly restrictive sociology;
7. an inadequate development of the concept of hypotheses
testing, due to the penchant of insightful, impressionistic
observation (p. 460).
Davis (1972) also suggests that, with few exceptions, labeling theorists assert
"that societal reaction in the form of labeling or official typing, and conse-
quent stigmatization, leads to an altered identity in the actor, necessitating
a reconstitution of the self." (p. 460) Yet, this premise has not been proven
empirically . Davis observes that, unfortunately, much of the work that deals
with the testing of labeling hypotheses has remained isolated and poorly inte-
grated into a coherent theoretical framework.
11
Containment Theory
Containment theory (Reckless, 1962, 1967) is a sociopsychological theory
that assigns a key role to the concept of self. Whether or not the individual
(i.e. , self) will engage in criminal conduct depends upon the interrelationship
between an outer containment system (the ability of society, groups, organi-
zations, and the community to hold the person within the bounds of accepted
norms , rules, regulations, values, and expectations) and an inner containment
system (the individual' s ability to control and regulate his own behavior) .
Reckless hypothesizes that people with poor self-concepts engage in more crimi-
nal behavior than do persons with good self-concepts. Some of the research
that has been conducted by Reckless and his associates provides limited
empirical support for this contention. Critics of containment theory, however,
have pointed out that it is nearly impossible to determine whether a poor self-
concept emerges before or afterdelinquency until or unless someone conducts a
ma ssive longitudinal study addressed to answering this particular question .
They also observe that by no means do all persons with a poor self-concept
commit criminal acts. But the most crucial question that containment theory
thus far has left unanswered is the most basic question of all: Why should a
poor self-concept 1ea,ve one vul nerab 1e to deli nquency or crimi na 1ity?
CJ 601 Unit 4
SOCIOLOGICAL THEORIES OF CRIMINALITY
Reading Assignment
Chapters 11-16 in G. Nettler, Explaining Crime (2nd Edition). New York:
McGraw-Hill, 1978 .
Chapter 4 (Sociological Theories of Criminality) in H.J. Vetter and J.
Wright, Introduction to Criminology. Springfield, Illinois: Charles
C. Thomas, 1974.
Questions for Discussion and Review
1. What did Emile Durkheim mean by "the normality of crime"?
2. How does "normlessness" (anomie) help to create conditions which pre-
dispose people to act in criminal ways? Which theorist or theorists
played the most important role in the development of this concept?
3. Explain the operation of legitimate goals and illegitimate means in
crime and delinquency.
4. Define and give examples of the types of adaptation characterized by
Merton as: (1) conformity, (2) ionovation, (3) ritualism, (4) re-
treatism, and (5) rebellion.
5. What is meant by subculture? How does the concept relate to culture
conflict as a causal factor in delinquency or crime?
6. Define and illustrate Miller's "focal areas of concern" in lower
class gang youth.
7. How does primary deviance differ from secondary deviance, according
to Lemert? !~hat is their importance as concepts in the labeling and
stigmatization process?
8. What are status degradation ceremonies? How do they fit in with the
labeling perspective as a factor in deviance?
9. Describe some of the possible consequences for the individual of being
labeled as a deviant.
10. Summarize the major criticisms that have been 1eve1d against the labeling
perspective.
11. What role is played by the self in the containment theory (Reckless)?
Written Projects
1. Select some relatively innocuous behavior (e.g., skateboarding, eating
popcorn, etc.) and sketch a hypothetical but plausible series of events
by which such behavior could become subjected to labeling and stigma-
tization as deviance.
2. Briefly design a research project to provide an empirical test of any
of the theories of criminality covered in this unit.
CJ 601 Unit 4
SOCIOLOGI CAL THEORI ES OF CRIf1I NALITY
Selected Readinos
Becker, H.S . Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York:
The Free Press, 1963.
Cloward, R.A. Illegitimate means, anomie, and deviant behavior. American
Sociological Review, 1959, 24, 164-176.
Cloward, R.A., and Ohlin, L.E. Delinquency and Opportunity. Gencoe,
Illinois: The Free Press, 1960.
Cohen, A.K. Delinquent Boys. New York: The Free Press, 1955.
Cohen, A.K. Sociology of the deviant act: anomie theory and beyond .
American Sociological Review, 1965, 30, 5-14.
Cohen, A.K., Lindesmith, A., and Schuessler, K. (Eds . ), The Sutherland
Papers. Bloomington, Indiana: Indiana University Press, 1956.
Cressey, D.R, Application and verification of the differential association
theory. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 1952,
43, 43-52.
Datesman, S.K., Scarpitti, F.R., and Stephenson, R.M. Female delinquency:
an application of self and opportunity theories. Journal of Research
in Crime and Delinquency, 1975, 12, 107-123.
Davis, Nanette J. Labeling theory in deviance research: a critique and
reconsideration . Sociological Quarterly, 1972, 13, 447-474.
De Fleur, M, and Quinney, R. A reformulation of Sutherland's differential
association theory and a strategy for empirical verification.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1966,3, 1-22.
Downes, D.M. The Delinquent Solution: A Study in Subcultural Theory.
New York: The Free Press, 1966.
Erlanger, H.S. The empirical status of the subculture of violence thesis.
Social Problems, 1974, 22, 280-292.
Erlanger, H.S. Is there a "subculture of violence" in the South? Journal
of Criminal Law and Criminology, 1975, 66, 483-490.
Ericson, R.H. Criminal Reactions: The Labeling Perspective. Lexington,
Massachusetts: D.C. Heath, 1975.
Erikson, K.T. Notes on the sociology of deviance. In H.S. Becker (Ed.),
The Other Side. New York: The Free Press, 1964.
Gibbs, J . P. Conceptions of deviant behavior: the old and the new.
Pacific Sociological Review, 1966, 9, 9-14 .
Glaser, D. Differential association and criminological prediction.
Social Problems, 1960, 8, 6-14.
Gold, D. On description of differential association. American Sociological
Review, 1957, 22, 448-450.
Hardman, D.G. The case for eclecticism . Crime and Delinquency, 1964, 10,
201-216.
Haskell, M. Toward a reference group theory of juvenile delinquency.
Social Problems, 1960, 8, 220-230.
Kitsuse, J.I. Societal reaction to deviant behaJior: problems of theory
and method. In H.S. Becker (Ed.), The Other Side. New York: The
Free Press, 1964.
Kitsuse, J.I., and Dietrich, D.C . Delinquent Boys: a critique.
American Sociological Review, 1959, 24, 208-215.
Jensen, G.F. Inner containment and delinquency. Journal of Criminal Law
and Criminology, 1973, 69, 469-470.
Lemert, E.M. Human Deviance. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Ha11,1967.
Matza, D. Delinquency and Drift. New York: Wiley, 1964 .
r~atza, D. Becoming Deviant. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969.
Matza, D., and Sykes, G.M. Juvenile delinquency and subterranean values.
American Sociological Review, 1961, 26, 712-719.
McKey, H.D. Differential association and crime prevention: problems of
utilization. Social Problems, 1960, 8, 25-37.
Merton, R.K. Social Theory and Social Structure. New York: The Free Press,
1957.
Merton, R.K. Anomie, anomia and social interaction: contexts of deviant
behavior . In M. B. Clinard (Ed.), Anomie and Deviant Behavior. Ne~1
Introduction
Objectives
In the first part of this unit, we shall try to describe the features of
the psychiatric approach to criminality which we identified above as intra-
psychic. In addition to summarizing the main criticisms of this approach, we
shall examine the views of a number of psychiatrists who, for various reasons,
abandoned this orientation and formulated an alternative approach to criminal
deviance. In the second part of the un i t, our attention is directed toward
psychological theories of criminality that possess the common feature of seeking
to specify the variables which control the acquisition and maintenance of all
learned behavior , nondeviant as well as deviant.
burglaries, rapes, robberies, and other types of criminal enterprise under the
protection afforded by the guarantee of privileged communication . The reali-
zation of what was going on led Yochelson to an agonizing reappraisal of his
psychoanalytic orientation, with the result that he found himself compelled to
abandon his career-long Freudian views and turned instead to a probe of thought
and action patterns among his criminal subjects . He and his psychologist
colleague, "reluctant converts" from psychoanalysis, identified 53 thinking and
action patterns that they claim to have found in all of the 255 subjects in the
study.
The authors of The Criminality Personality identify their findings under
such titles as ; Loner, Lying, Power Thrust, Anger, Pride, Failure to Assume
Obligation, Lack of Time Perspective, and so forth. It is interesting to compare
these categories with the list of characteristics identified by Hervey Cleckley
more than 30 years ago as typical of the psychopath. Yochelson and Samenow
present these conclusions in the manner of someone dispensing revelations of
fundamental truth, whereas any criminal justice practitioner with a good deal
of first-hand contact with criminal offenders is apt to find their "discoveries"
something less than momentous.
There are several points that need to be made with regard to this extremely
controversial project. There is something about it to dislike for nearly every-
one. Traditional researchers with a behavioral science orientation will either
dismiss it out of hand or will object to its methodological crudity; there are
no control groups., little or no attempt at quantification, no pretense to having
followed a research design that lends itself to tests of statistical significance ,
numerous contradictions in the descriptions, and a reliance throughout on sub-
jectivity rather than objectivity in approach. Psychiatrists will be pained by
the authors' account of the frustration and failures that led Yochelson and
Samenow to dump the entire medical model on the grounds that it proved a hindrance
8
rather than a help. As the authors put it:
Once we discarded "mental illness" as a factor we began to under-
stand more about a patient's reality. The concept of mental
illness had been the greatest barrier to acquiring this knowledge.
Liberals will be distressed by the authors' summary rejection of environmentalism
as a valid approach to understanding the criminal offender. In the words of
Yochelson and Samenow:
... the criminal is not a victim of circumstances. He makes
choices early in life, regardless of his socioeconomic status,
race, or parents' child-rearing practices. A large segment of
society has continued to believe that a person becomes a criminal
because of environmental influences. Several factors account for
the persistence of this conclusion. Parents who have criminal
offspring deny that there is something inherent in the individual
that surfaces as criminality. They desperately look for a cause
and, in the effort to explain, they latch on to some event or
series of event~ in a person's life for which he is not responsible .
~'any social scientists have promulgated a deterministic view of man
and for years have been explaining criminality largely in terms of
environmental influences. Government programs have operated on
this basis. The media have espoused this attitude. In efforts to
eradicate crime, society has tried to do something, rather than
nothing . Attacking environmental sources has been considered one
positive step. However, these efforts have met with failure for
reasons that the reader will understand as he reads this volume.
Changing the enyironment does not change the man. Finally, the
criminal is ever ready to present himself as a victim once he is
apprehended. He , feeds society what he at best only half believes
himself. Actually, he knows that circumstances have nothing to do
with his violations, but he uses that rhetoric if he thinks it
will lead others to view him more sympathetically."
No matter how irritating their judgments, the work of Yochelson and Samenow
cannot be ignored. In challenging the traditional viewpoints of criminology, the
authors have provided a stimulus to other investigators to refute or confirm their
conclusions by means of more conventional avenues of research.
10. How does Eysenck attempt to account for criminal behavior on the basis
of differential conditionabi1ity?
Written Projects
3. Review and assess the current status of research on the role of social
versus nonsocial (material) reinforcers in the acquisition, maintenance,
and modification of criminal behavior.
CJ 60.1 Unit 5
Introduction
American criminology, until quite recently, has been notoriously
refractory to the idea that biology could have anything to do with crime and
criminal behavior . Jeffery (1977) attributes the extreme environmentalism of
both psychology and criminology to "the political dogma of the day which denies
individual differences in organisms" (p. 263). Such dogmas, it would seem , find
it necessary to ignore the obvious fact that human organisms differ from one
another in some extremely important ways in order to assert the belief in the
political equality of man . Allen (1970) states that "the extravagant claims ,
meager empirical evidence, naivete, gross inadequacy, and stated or implied con-
cepts of racial and ethnic inferiority" (p. 2) in the work of earlier theoriests
constitute a "disreputable history" which thoroughly discredited the few impor-
tant empirical findings of biological investigations of criminal behavior .
The past few years have witnessed the beginnings of a new interest in the
biological foundations of behavior that may have important implications for
criminology. The rapidly developing field of sociobiology has received an
impetus from the publication of a number of books (Barash, 1977; Mazur and
Robertson, 1972; Van den Berghe, 1975; Wilson, 1975). Studies of the role of
physiological processes in aggression and violence have reported interesting
and provocative findings. Research on electrocortical functions, arousal pro-
cesses, and cardiovascular anomalies in the psychopathic offender have been
reviewed and assessed in a number of publications (Barchas, 1977; Shah and Roth,
1974; Vetter and Wright, 1974) . While it is too premature to speak of a
renascence of biological criminology, it is certainly not too early to take note
of the growing importance of biological research and investigation for criminolog i -
ca 1 theory.
2
Objectives
Most biological theorizing, past and present, about the causes of criminal
behavior has followed three broad, and not necessarily exclusive, lines of
inquiry : (1) the anthropological or morphological approach; (2) the genetic
approach; and (3) the physiological approach . It is our main objective in this
unit to provide a brief sketch of the major contributions to current biological
i nterpretations of criminality. But the account will also include some mention
of the forerunners to contemporary biological research and theory with regard
to criminal behavior determinants.
mesomorph (robust, with a predominance of muscle and bone tissu~); ilnd (3) the
ectomorph (lean, with a predominance of skin and nervous tissue). Sheldon
further postulated that each of these somatotypes is characterized by certain
4
7
enamel and abscesses.
Tested characteristics of the XYY syndrome which appear to be significant
are the frequent abnormalities in EEG brain wave recordings and a higher-than-
average occurrence of epileptic conditions among individuals possessing the
chromosome anomaly, suggesting some tangible meurological disorders occur within
the brain itself. Very often, individuals with the XYY chromosome structure
possess a lower-than-average I. Q., placing them in the range normally considered
"dull. "
The addition of an extra Y chromosome seems to increase the potential that
may, under certain cond i tions, facilitate the individual's development of aggres-
sive behavior . But the genes are not directly responsible for the final effect
on the individual. Their influence is felt only through a chain of metabolic
processes and interaction with other genes, and most importantly, with the
environment. /,1onta gue (1968) ,states, "Genes do not determine anything--they
simply influence the morphological and physiological expression of traits.
Heredity then, is the expression not of what is given in one's genes at concep-
tion, but of the reciprocal interaction between the inherited genes and the
environment to which they have been exposed" (p. 46). The point is that one
should not assume a certain chromosome structure or deviation amounts to a pre-
destination or fate of any sort. As Montague (1968) again points out, "Unchange-
ability and immutability are not characteristics of the genetic system as a
whole" (p. 46).
1974.
Van den Berghe, P. Bringing the beast back in: toward a biosocial theory
of aggression. American Sociological Review, 1974, 777-778 .
Van den Berghe, P. Man in Society: A Biosocial View. New York: Elsevier,
1975.
Wilson, E.O . Sociobiology. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University
Press, 1975.
CJ 601 Unit 7
Introduction
Objectives
It is the principal aim of this unit to examine the divergences in
value orientation and ideology which underlie positions in criminological
theory that have been characterized as conservative, liberal-cynical, and
radical. The purpose of this examination is twofold. In the first place,
ideological differences between theorists provide an important reason why
criminology has been unable to formulate anything approximating a truly inte-
grative theory of criminality. Fundamentally involved here are differences
in philosophy and value orientation which lie outside limits of empirical
verification : questions of free will versus determinism, of intuition versus
scientific method, and so forth. Second, the presence of this ideological
divergence in viewpoint among criminologists helps to explain some basic
contradictions in approach toward the disposition of the offender within the
criminal justice system.
----- - - - - -------------~- ~ -
Conservative Criminology
According to Gibbons and Blake (1975), conservative criminology was repre-
sented earlier in this century by the views of Philip Parsons, Maurice Parmelee,
and John Gillin. As the authors see it, their views incorporated the following
noti ons:
1. Criminal law is taken as given and is interpreted as the
codification of prevailing moral percepts.
2. Criminals, in accordance with this position, are regarded as
moral defectives.
3. The questions considered appropriate for criminologists to
investigate include: How are morally defective persons produced?
How can society better protect itself against criminals?
4. Etiological (causational) hypotheses "pointed in the direction
4
of hereditary taint, aberrant family life, or other specific
conditions" involving personality, biological, or environ-
mental factors.
5. The role of societal defects in contributing to criminality
were either ignored altogether or minimized.
Later contributors to a conservative viewpoint in criminological theory
included Harry Barnes and Negley Teeters whose text New Horizons in Criminology
(1959) enjoyed a great deal of popularity. Barnes and Teeters are identified
by name in the Gibbons and Blake account, but they are lumped together with
an anonymous "host of other scholars" in the period up to the 1950s as con-
servatives in criminology . Their approach to criminological theory is
characterized by Gibbons and Blake as one which exhibits a "relatively low
level of conceptualization" (po 7, italics by the authors) and the advocacy of
a "good guy/bad guy" image of criminality. Also characteristic of "old-time
criminology" (i.e., conservative criminology), according to Gibbons and
Garabedian is "faith in the ultimate perfectability of the police and criminal
justice machinery" (po 52) .
Although Gibbons and Blake cite Edward Banfield and James Q. Wilson as
"neo-conservatives" in contemporary criminology, the label seems to be based
largely on the fact that both Banfield and Wilson have espoused a position which
advocates a return to deterrence policies, in recognition of the failure of the
rehabilitative ideal in corrections. Apart from their stand on deterrence,
however, Gibbons and Blake can find little difference between "neo-conservatism"
and the positions they identify as liberal-cynical or mainstream criminology.
In any event, the whole issue seems rather pointless, in that neither Wilson
nor Banfield see themselves as criminologists and have not made any attempt
to develop a comprehensive theory of crime causation in their numberous publi-
cations.
5
Radical Criminology
A number of criminologists who are variously designated as "radical" or
"new" criminologists endorse a viewpoint toward criminal behavior that is
heavily influenced by Marxist theories. These writers see criminality as
primarily an expression of class conflict. According to their interpretation,
behavior designated as "criminal" by the ruling classes is the inevitable
product of a fundamentally corrupt and unjust society; law enforcement agencies
are the domestic military apparatus used by the ruling classes to maintain
themselves in power; the causes of crime lie within society and its legal
system, and therefore crime will persist until or unless both are made to
change. The basic tenets of this position are outlined by Quinney (1974) in
the fo11owin9 six propositions:
1. American society is based on an advanced capitalist economy.
2. The state is organized to serve the interests of the dominant
economic class, the capitalist ruling class .
3. Criminal law is an instrument of the state and ruling class
to maintain and perpetuate the existing social and economic
order.
4. Crime control in capitalist society is accomplished through
a variety of institutions and agencies established and
administered by a government elite, representing ruling class
interests, for the purpose of establishing domestic order.
5. The contradictions of advanced capita1ism--the disjunction
between existence and essence--require that the subordinate
classes remain oppressed by whatever means necessary,
especially through the coercion and violence of the legal
system.
6. Only with the collapse of capitalist society and the creation
of a new society, based on socialist principles, will there be
a solution to the crime problem (p. 16) .
8
Fundamental inequities of the American criminal justice system are divided
into two principal categories: discriminatory treatment on the basis of class.
and discriminatory treatment on the basis of race. While discrimination by
race is fading to some degree in certain sectors of the system. it is still a
clear and significant factor in the administration of justice. Discrimination
by class is becoming more widespread than ever today. as the gap between classes
widens with economic deterioration. Class and race are not. of course. mutually
exclusive. as demonstrated in the position of poor blacks in relation to the
process of justice.
Radical theoreticians reject the concept of individual guilt and responsi-
bility for illegal acts committed by working class people against the persons
and property of the bourgeoisie . They see these crimes as wholly justified
acts of rebellion by slaves against masters . In their view. this makes the
bulk of property crimes "political" crimes. morally acceptable. indeed almost
mandatory in view of the criminal nature of society itself.
Assaults and property crimes by proletarian people against other po1e-
tarian people are not justified by radical theory. but are understood as
inevitable social distortions produced by capitalist society which breeds racial
distrust among the poor. protects the person and property of the bourgeoisie
much more effectively than that of workers and produces poverty and alienation.
Critics of the radical interpretation of criminality question the exp1ana-
tory adequacy of class conflict to account for a wide range of criminal behavior.
McGaghy (1976) states :
The theory's application is actually limited to explaining
legal reaction against behaviors threatening established economic
interests . Thus there is no pretense at explaining such facets
of the crime problem as a school janitor sexually molesting a
ten-year-01d student. parents brutally beating a baby because
': it won't stop cryi ng." or two fri ends tryi ng to stab each other
1n a dispute over a fifty cent gambling debt (p. 96) . .
As McCaghy observes. the conflict perspective is not a statement of facts or of
lD
empirically verified relationships--it is a perspective that directs attention
toward a possible interpretation of the facts.
Facism
KKK
John Birch Society
4
I:l
~ ~
c..,
§ g
H
0 ~
><
~
til 1 M ODERAT E
..,
0
~c:
'U
~
::0
~ >
0
I?iI
., .
•
. Academic Criminologists
Judges
Democrats
J L I B ERA L .,
4 \----
"-
SLA
SDS
COlDJllunism
5 REVOLUTIONARY
-
CJ 601 Unit 7
IDEOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORY
Reading Assignment
Gibbons, D.C., and Garabedian, P. Conservative, liberal, and radical
criminology: some trends and observations. In C. E. Reasons (Ed.),
The Criminologist: Crim2 and the Criminal. Pacific Palisades:
Goodyear, 1974.
Questions for Discussion and Review
1. What is meant by the term ideology? What are the positions identified
by Miller on a scale of ideological differences?
2. Why does Miller call ideology the "hidden agenda" of criminal justice?
3. Briefly characterize the views of the conservative, liberal-cynical,
and radical criminologists as seen by Gibbons and Garabedian .
4. Why does Gibbons consider the term "pessimistic" to be more appropriate
than "cynical" as a designation for the liberal criminologist's position?
5. Discuss the six propositions that define Quinney's stance as a radical
criminologist.
6. Why are property crimes considered political crimes by the radical
criminologi st?
7. Summarize some of the major criticisms of the radical criminological
position. What contributions have radical criminologists made to our
understanding of crime in the United States?
8. How does the humanistic orientation differ from the scientific/techno-
logical orientation toward crime, criminal behavior, and criminals?
Written Projects
1. Using the materials covered by the Miller and the Gibbons and Garabedian
articles, outline the conservative, liberal, and radical positions toward
the following issues which have been discussed at considerable length
in the reports of the National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice
Standards and Goals : abolition of plea bargaining. handgun control laws.
the death penalty. mandatory flat-time sentencing. the decriminalization
of marijuana, policies which favor the hiring of minority group members
and women in criminal justice, and a loosening of restrictions on the
police by the Escobedo and Miranda decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court.
CJ 601 Unit 7
IDEOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORY
Selected Readings
Banfield, E.C. The Unheavenly City. Boston: Little, Brown and Company,
1970.
CONSERVATIVE CRIMINOLOGY
THE CRIMINOLOGIST
I
ways in the ope rations of the criminal justice machinery.
.long with more attention to various kinds of relatively mundane "folk crime" in
LlBERAL.CYNICAL CRIMINOLOGY modern societies. t t This shift in orientation would reduce the emphasis now
liven to motivational factors thought to distinguish offenders from the rest of
Quite probably, many would agree that the moveme~t toward a socio-
,
us. These notions are consistent with those of the "labeling" school of deviance
logically sophisticated brand of criminology became accelerated in the writings
analysis, in which it is argued that deviant behavior of various kinds arises out of
of Sutherland, particularly as summarized in his Principles of Criminology. 6 We
,..lue-pluralism in contemporary society, that .initial,cts of nonconfoImity rep-
r-------~--------------------------------------------------TJH~CRT~fI~OLOG1Sl
(".mscfVa(ive. I~ iberal an.1 Radical Oiminvlvg)'
resent cases of " risk· taking" behavior. Jnd that societal responses to the de\'iam
playa major role in determining the subsequent COurse pursued by him. II wouk Jrgumcnt is rcprc sc nll'd r.y the work of Turk 16 and Quinney.' i among others.
be relatively easy to identify a good number of other recent criminological These theorists would hJ\"e us pay less attention to criminal persons and queries
statements that rUIl parallel to these \;ews. like "Why do they do it'?" Jnd more attention to criminality and criminal law.
In a some"what similar vein. Sykes has recently argued Ihat new forms of making processes. Sd10lars of this social conflict persuasion tell us that crime is a
criminality are coming to light in the L;nited States and that some fundamental renection of social power struggles. Some groups manage to get their norms and
changes in American lawbreaking are now occurring}2 First, he suggests Ihat nlues embodied in ~ r imi nallaw. with deviations from these standards being
crUne and delinquency are beginning to emerge as a species of sport or play, in Jdined as crimes. Persons who get labeled as criminals are drawn from the ranks
IJf those who lack social power, such as blacks, lower-class individuals, transients,
which these activities are engaged in for hedonistic rather than inslrumental
ends. Automobile theft-joyriding, vandalism , and students defrauding the tele- ,nd youths.
Two things can be SJid about these newer social conflict formulations
phone company by means of elaborate electronic gimmicks COme to mind as
examples of this kind of criminal mischief. about criminality. First. these arguments are still not completely spelled out or
.:onceptually mature . Take one of Quinney 's propositions : "Definitions of crime
A second and more ominous fonn of "new crime," according to Sykes, lre composed of behaviors that conflict with the interests of those segments of
consists of various kinds of political crime, including assassinations. dest ruction
s(,ciety that have the power to shape public policy."18 There is more than a
of draft records , d}'11amiting of transmission towers, and so forth. Sykes defines
k<rnel of truth to that claim. but are we to take it as applying to all criminal
political crime as "iUegal acts that have as their objective the destruction of the
bws? If so, what special interest group is behind laws against homicide, forcible
society's system of power, changes of policy by means of violence . Or the force-
!:lr e , arson, incest, or even many kinds of theft? Would it not be more accurate
ful removal of those exercising power in the system." J) Crimes of this sort have
(,Ithough somewhat fuzzy) to claim that these laws arise out of the interests of
occurred in the past in this country, of course, but Sykes maintains that crime as
Ihe whole society?19 In short, the connict.views that have emerged to date are
a form of political expression bids fair to become much more frequent in the
decades ahead . oversimplified.
The second observation about social conflict perspectives on criminality is
Rather closely allied to political crime is a third form of "new lawbreak-
Ihat most of them are not . in any fundamental way, major departures from
ing," revolving around alienation from societal values. in which "breaking the
"heral criminology. Although these theories contend that lawbreaking is often
law" becomes an important symbolic gesture, not simply a rationally selected
The outcome of st ruggles between the powerful and the powerless, they do not
means or act of retaliation directed against a specific person, but a deliberate
(life r any basic challenge to the assumption that American society and its insti·
affront to society as a whole. t4 Trashing, "ripping off' department stores, de-
lutions are in a relatively healthy state . Also, these views do not challenge the
struction of property , and other acts of this SOrt arise out of broad rejection
"aim that persons who get labeled as criminals usually have engaged in law-
of American values in their entirety, rather than constituting a more limited
response to disillusionment with the conventional political processes. hreaking behavior.
To this point , we have not explicitly indicated why we have adopted the
A fourth form of new crime identified by Sykes centers about the viola-
I,hel "cynical" to characterize modern criminological thought. Regarding
tion of laws that most people do not regard as having moral force. Here he draw,
theories of causation. perhaps "pessimistic" would be a more appropriate ad-
attention to behavior that is illegal but about which the person feels no 'ense of
Je~tive. in that the growing awareness that crime causation is an exceedingly
right or wrong, so that the decision to engage in it becomes a pragmatic one, thai
wmpiex phenomenon tends to make the criminologist chary about his ability to
is, the risk of getting caught is the main contingency in the decision . Sykes offers
(umpletely account for it. Then too, contemporary criminologists who are
the example of premarital sexual behavior, which is prohibited by law .
:umed with an appreciation of the complex interweaving of factors in law·
Impressionistic indications of political crime and lawbreaking arising out of
hreaking are not likely to be very sangui ne about the prospects for amelioration
alienation are around in Some quantity . One bit of evidence is found in an essay
of criminality.
by Kelly Hancock, dealing with bombing incidents in the United States over the
The cynical posture of the modern criminologist emerges more strikingly
past decade . t s His data indicate that bombing episodes have become quite com.
In his observations about the criminal justice system and correctional organiza-
mon in the past ten years, but it also oUght to be noted that his material shows
lions. The sociologist brings to the analysis of these structures the inside dope·
that bombing activities arise out of myriad circumstances, so that only a portion
sler's awareness that social organizations are often "screwed up." That is. he
of them can be said to be expressions of political discontent.
knows about all kinds of complex organizations that ope rate in ways quite
These are plausible hypotheses about trends in crime which Sykes offers.
different from those sketched in organizational charts or manuals of procedure .
In our view, criminolOgical analysis needs to shift attention to these facets of
This growing sophistication of criminological analysis has been paralleled by a
contemporary criminality, away from conventional criminological wisdom which marked decline in the criminologist's faith in the perfectibility of the legal-
holds that most offenders share common American values and are only engaging
in innovative illegality as a means to these ends. (orrectional machinery .
Take the burgeoning literature on the social organization of the police.
A more extreme departure from earlier liberal modes of criminological Wilson has observed a number of police departments in detail. reporting that
these Slru~lures depart in many ways from the idealiled version of proiess10nli will continue (Q ~reak along. doing at least a minimally a.:.:eptlb\e job of ~on
police departments. 2o Nowhere in his work dl.lts he suggest that the poh.:e .:an taining criminality . Ii we p.ltch up the system here and there. it wil\ continue to
be changed simply by throwing the sadists and mOrons out of the department. function well enough.
replacing them with college graduates. ChC\'lgny 11 and Albert Reiss. 22 among
others. have provided a number of detliis regarding police abuse of citizens. aU RADICAL CLAf.IIS A.\'D CONVENTIONAL CRI.II/;\"OLOGY
of which suggest that abuse afpolice power is a complex problem that is not
amenable to simple solutions. Then too. there is a growing body of studies of the Let us concede th3t some of the criminological works cited above have a
impact upon police practices of Supreme Court rulings such as Afiranda. all faintly radical tone to them. as when Quinney or Turk speak of interest groups
showing that contrary to popular opinion . these due process standards have not imposing their standards upon the rel atively powerless . l\onetheless, there is little
"handcuffed" the police. Instead , the police have managed to find ways to cir- similarity between thaI relatively feeble version of radical thought and the angry
cumvent these strictures. 23 prose to be found in such places as the underground press. A body of forcefully
Along this same line. we have a growing body of studies of the court stated radical criminological thOUght can be seen in the pages of the Berkeley
system, all indicating that a great gulf exists between the justice system in theory Barb and other media sources of that kind which is quite unlike the writings of
and in actual operation. Fur example, Blumberg claims that the criminal court academicians.
organization of prosecutors. defense attorneys, judges, and kindred persons is a The major premises of radical criminological thought are fairly apparent.
people-processing "con game," in which the interests of the accused are given First, it is alleged that a relatively small bunch of corporation officials, govern-
short shrift. 24 ment leaders, and military men comprise a close-knit power structure bent upon
The criminological cynic also notes that correctional treatment is often exploiting "the people." both in the United States and in formerly colonialized
nonexistent; that which does exist is usually little more than crude, intuitive nations elsewhere. Laws have been created as devices for compelling the masses
tinkering wilh offenders. We have seen that nearly all those experimental to remain docile. The police are Hpigs H who are the mercenaries of oppression,
attempl s to remake prisons or training schools into social communities or serving as the hired lackeys of powerful interests. Exploitation is most severe in
therapeutic environments have foundered, because of bureaucratic demands for Ihe case of blacks. Chicanos. and other ethnic minorities. Black convicts are
regularity, order, and conformity within correctional institutions and other political prisoners being held captive as innocent victims of a corrupt, capitalis-
factors as well. There are few contemporary criminologists who still retain much IIc. exploitative society. Finally, the police are involved in deliberate policies of
optimism about the prospects of doing correctional treatment , in institutions or Fenocide, in which they have embarked upon systematic attempts to murder
on the outside. 2s Instead, observers such as Irwin have argued that the inadver- those Black Panthers and others who have dared to fight against the exploitative
tent by-product of the prison experience is often to drive the felon further into a system.
career of deviance. 26 These views represent a challenge to conventional criminology. At the very
Contemporary criminologists who project a spirit of pessimism and cyni- least, these divergent representations of reality demand adjudication through
cism tend to agree, first, that we ought to strive to reduce criminality by ex- evidence.
punging many laws from the books, thereby "decriminalizing" the prohibited What of the radical view that black and some other ethnic minority
behavior. That argument is reflected in books such as those by Packer 27 and offenders are political prisoners, that is, the innocent victims of a corrupt soci-
Schur." Second, most would agree that Youth Service Bureaus and other de- ety? Most contemporary versions of academic or liberal criminology tend to
vices should be developed in order that many offenders can be diverted away treat these claims as emotion-laden metaphors which represent a shorthand
from the regular correctional apparatus. Then too, there is a growing consensus statement about the indirect effects of racial discrimination in producing law-
that prison populations should be drastically reduced, prison sentences should breaking. Blacks are said to be disproportionately represented in the offender
be shortened, and more concern for due process and the rights of prisoners population because of economic stress , unstable or disorganized family life
oUght to be stressed . Finally, most contemporary criminologists would be loath OWing to ghetto conditions, and so forth. In short, there are more blacks in the
to suggest that "the crime problem" is going to be drastically altered by any of official population of offenders because blacks are more frequently driven to
the correctional and preventive efforts now under way. crime than are other persons, so the argument goes. However. the radical con-
The thing that makes all of these arguments and analyses cases of liberal- tentions about political prisoners emphasize the argument that the police are
cynical criminology is that they all tend to assume the continued viability of tngaged in differential law enforcement and repression of blacks, so that crime
American society as we presently know it. Although it is acknowledged that 'Ues very frequently are indicators of direct discrimination too. By contrast, the
crime will continue to plague us, it is assumed that criminality will continue liberal-cynical perspective on criminality tends to play down these direct mani-
pretty much in its present form. Also, it may be possible to make some dent in festations of racial discrimination, as when Skolnick claims that the Oakland
criminality if we manage to divert some of the money now spent on the Viet police do not usually put their racial prejudices into practice in law enforce-
Nam war to a "war on crime." Similarly. although there is a good deal of ment. 2. Similarly . although Reiss indicates that the police do engage in violence
skepti::ism about the perfectibility of the criminal justice and correctional ! Il3inst Citizens, he implies that this kind of conduct is not too common. JO
machinery. the liberal-cynical criminologist tends to assume that this apparatus i There is a fairly extensive literature involving studies of police handling of
THE CRI!\IINOLOGIST CotlsCn'atil'C. Liberal and Radical O1millolo,-,'
juveniles showing thaI black youths are more often reported to the juvenile argued th:1t direct. sustained collusion between the government and corporate
courts than are white youlhs,31 Most of those investigarions suggest that black interests was the major explanation for Corpof31e lawbreaking, Although reg.u-
juveniles are dispropo rtionately reported to court because they engage in more latory agencies were seen as having relatively positive attitudes toward the cor-
serious offenses. nOI bel.'ause of racial discrimination , The major study of police porations they are designed to police. there IS not much hint of conspiratorial
handling of juveniles whi('h suggests anything to the contrary is by Ferdinand claims about capitalistic exploiters and governmental oppressors in the scholarly
and Luchterhand. in whkh these investigators reported that racial discrimination literature of criminology ,34
did enter into police decisions,)2 In this instance too, contemporary criminology may not be sufficient to
OUf guess is that there is more discriminatory law enforcement and police the task at hand . The recent revelations about lIT, Dita Beard, involvement of
illegality occurring in the United States than contemporary crimin ology ack now. the Boeing Company in the political campaign of Senator Jackson, and so on,
ledges, In addition, e\'en if one were to demonstrate that discriminatory lawen. along with a good many previous reports of close interconnections between
forcement is not too widespread in routine police work, we still need to contend American corporations, the federal government, the CIA, and the military, do
with a number of dramatic cases of police abuse of blacks on which much of the lend some credence to the picture of the world appearing in the underground
"political prisoner" theme is based , We refer here to a series of incidents several press.
years ago in Los Angeles. DetrOit, and elsewhere , in which law enforcement
agents stormed Black Muslim mosques or other buildings and shot a number of
blacks. More re cen tly , there have been a number of cases, such as th e killing of SOME SOCIOLOGICAL RESPONSES
Fred Hampton by the Chicago police and other police raids of Black Panther TO THE RADICAL CHALLENGE
headquarters on phony charges, lending considerable credence to Black Panther This paper has called for more attention to claims about criminality
claims that the police are engaged in genocide. On the same pOint, anyone contained in the radical press, in other words. for a brand of criminology which
familiar with San Quentin prison and who reads the newspapers must have ex- would examine, sort out, and make sense of various radical claims that are cur-
perienced a good deal of disquiet and disbelief in the case of the alleged prison rently given little attention in conventional criminological writings, Those con·
break by George Jackson. tentions that pass the test of evidence would then be incorporated into the body
The radical press expressions of outrage regarding the "pigs" doubtless of contemporary criminological knowledge .
exaggerate these cases of blatant police discrimination while failing to acknow· One recent example of sociological writing which shows a marked radical
ledge various ne cessary and pOSitive social roles played by the police . But on the influence is liazos's critique of contemporary theories of deviance ,3s He argues
other hand, sociological criminology may be prese nting a distorted picture too, quite convincingly that deviance analysis continues to center upon garden-
in only acknowledging that the police sometimes behave rather badly during the variety deviants who are relatively powerless , He contends:
course of bona fide law enforcement work, failing to give citizens proper
As a result of the fascinati on with "nuts, sluts, and preverts," and their
Miranda warnings or subjecting them to various kinds of gratuitous abuse, We
identities and subcultures, little attention has been paid to the unethical, illegal ,
may be witnessing some new forms of police criminality, in which law enforce· and destructive actions of powerful individuals, groups, and institutions in our
ment agencies have begun to engage in proactive repression of some of their rociety ,36
"enemies,"
The same general observations could be made about criminological silence Along this same line, Liazos argues that sociological discussions of violence
concerning the radical claims that the federal government and the courts are in American society are defective, for they portray violence as restricted to slum
moving into political repression of citizens through Wiretapping, preparation of dwellers, certain minority groups, street gangs, and " motorcycle beasts." He
dossiers on citizens, advocacy of preventive detention , and the like, In particular, maintains that the proper study of violence would focus upon covert institu·
we ought to have more to say about the trials of the Chicago Seven, the Seattle tional violence in the form of oppression, consumer exploitation through the
Seven, the Catonsville Nine, and the Harrisburg Seven. Is it possible that sale of defective and dangerous products, mass destruction of people and the
American society is begipning to show profound rents and tears, as many radicals landscape in Viet Nam, and various other kinds of violence and exploitation
3
aUege? Is it possible that the police and the courts are beginning to move away Which are central to the political and social ordeL '
from the processing of conventional offenders and into some forms of the Liazos would have us banish the concept of "deviance" from the socio·
"police state"? For example. perhaps the "hassling" of hippie hitchhikers repre· logical lexicon in favor of the phenomena of oppression, persecution. and suffer-
sents a seemingly innocuous sign of more ominous developments in the future. ing. In his view. by failing to do so "we neglect conditions of inequality,
Take another point of contrast between the criminology in the pages of powerlessness, institutional violence, and so on, which lie at the basis of our
the radical press and that found in sociology textbooks- while·collar crime. tortured societ y ." 38
Sutherland certainly did not characterize the 70 corporations that he studied as We have no quarrel with Liazos concerni ng his general thesis that socio·
"exploiters of the people" ; instead. he stopped far short of that sort of can· logical analysis has tended toward undue attention 10 "nuts, slu ts, and preverts,"
demnation . 33 Also, Sutherland and other students of white·collar crime rarely But, the problem is that his presentation is relatively visceral and bombastic and
THE CRIMI"OLOGIST CVIIservali"e, Liberal and Radical Criminology 6\
Jacking in clear implicalions for renovations in criminological th ought. Thai is.
after \.';e have acknowledged the exisren,,:e of '\:overl institutional violen~e ." (onstfains persons to contribute to social orde r and the common ~ood. Finally.
where do we go from there? Certainly we need 10 do more than 10 enter into Quinney's alternative of de(entralized law is poorly thought o ut. He fails to
compelirion with Ralph Nader, Senator \1J gn uson 39 Or various peace groups show that thi s is a viable alternative to the existing system oi laws and legal
opposed to the Viet Nam war by vying \I, jlh them in condemnation of the ills of machinery. Assuming that his proposal is practical or realistic. who is to say that
modern society. Sh o uld we redefine the substantive concerns of criminology. there would be any less tyranny under a decentralized system of laws determined
and jf so, in what ways? It does n OI appear ro us that oppression, conflict. per. by "the people"? .
seculion, and suffering will do as basic units for criminological study. What new In our view, Chambliss and Seidman have produced the best sociological
kinds of testable theory do we need to generate? What kinds of new research in. statement to date on criminality , laws, and the legal machinery. reflecting some
vestigalions are called for? Answers to these questions are not clear in Liazos's of the concerns of the radical left." They view lawmaking and the implementa·
polemical statement. tion of criminal laws by the criminal justice system as reflecting power struggles
A beginning version of radical criminology has recently been offered in the in modern society. Hence, they assert:
scholarly literature by Richard Quinney·O In that essay, he rails against the
It is our contention that , far from being primarily a value-neutral frame-
criminaJ law in contemporary society, claiming that it is the instrument through
work within which conflict can be peacefully resolved, the power of the state is
which the dominant class maintains its power Over the weak. Quinney would do itself the principal prize in the perpetual conflict that is society. The legal
away with monolithic crimi nal law as we presently know it. replacing it wirh order- the rules which the various lawmaking institutions in the bureaucracy
decentralized law. This kind of law would be consistent with "natural law," that is the state lay down for the governance of officials and citizens, the tribu-
which endeavors to maximize the individual's efforts to develop his Own human nals, official and unofficial, and the bureaucratic agencies which enforce the
potentialities. In the kind of society envisioned by Quinney, " communities law - is in fact a self-serving system to maintain power and privilege. In a society
would then be free to develop their own systems of regulation, if such systems sharply divided into haves and have nots , poor and rich, blacks and whites,
are at all necessary."41 powerful and weak, shot with a myriad of special interest groups, not only is the
Quinney's case against repressive modern criminal law is based on such evi- myth false because of imperfections in the normative system: It is inevirable
dence as the attacks upon Black Panthers. He notes : that it be SO.44
Over 400 Panthers were arrested in the first year of Nixon's administration The Chambliss and Seidman volume represents a beginning venture in the
Since the Black Panther party was founded , nearly 30 members have been killed direction of a propositional inventory about power relations and their impact
by the police. Offices of the party have been raided by the police in Chicago, upon lawmaking and law-implementation in complex societies. reflecting the
Des MOines, Oakland, Los Angeles, and in several other cities. Most of the central theme highlighted in the passage above. The reader will fInd discussion in
Panther leaders have been either killed, jailed , or forced into exile .... The
the pages of this book of at least some of the forms of "oppression" about
Panthers held in jails across America tOday are no different from prisoners held
in Santo Domingo, Saigon, or any other center of the American empi~e. which radical press is concerned. Thus Chambliss and Seidman take note of re-
And there are the continual pol itical trials : Captain Levy. the Presidio cent instances of police lawlessness and rioting, including attacks upon Black
mutiny case, the Oakland Seven, the Baltimore Four, the Boston Five, the Panthers and the flagrant abuses of citizens' rights by the police at the Demo·
Chicago Seven, and the CatonsviHe Nine to name only a few of the most publi- cratic National Convention in 1968. 4S On balance, they take a harsher view of
cized cases. 42
the police than contained in most versions of Iiberal-cynical criminology which
we examined earlier.
The kind of analysis found in Quinney's essay will not do. Although his Mention also oUght to be made of Chambliss's report on vice in "Rainfall
commentary is liberally sprinkled with quotes and comments from such au. West," which appears to be a thin disguise for Seattle."· This study stands as an
thorities as Fuller, Pound, and Hart, his essay is bombastic and polemical in example of the sort of research endeavor that is implied by a power and conflict
character. While we have argued above that criminologists and sociologists need version of criminological analysis. In it, Chambliss reports that a "cabal" of
to pay more attention to the cases ofurepression" that Quinney enumerates in politicians, businessmen. law enforcement agents, and organized criminals are
hisessay, we do not agree that these stand as convincing proof that modern law , joined together in the management of vice in "Rainfall Wes!." The characteriza·
in its entirety is a tool by which a handful of powerful persons manage to op. \1 tion that emerges from his report is rather different from many contemporary
press the rest of us. Claims of that kind tossed off by Quinney slur over the portrayals of organized crime that put forth a portrait of the world as sharply
existence of that portion of the criminal law which protects all of us from
rapists, murderers, and various predators and which most of us support, the
weak and the powerful alike. Then too, many would find unconvincing
I divided into the "bad guys" from the Mafia or Cosa NOSlra pitted against the
"good guys.""
Quinney's contention that bodies of general law are not really required in com-
plex societies in order to maintain a degree of social order which.aHhe same CONCLUDING REMARKS
time promotes indiVidual rreedom. Instead, many would continue to agree with , It is not y., ciear·what the fmal form of the ·criminol6gieal ·,esponse to
Roscoe Pound, who regarded law as a ne~ssary form of SOCial control which , radical allegations aboul oppression, repression , and the like will take . Our re-
muh h .. ". h •• nn.eio.-n tn draw attention to the need for new directions in
COlIsen·ati'·~. LI"~'" and Rodin"
2Roben E . L. Faris, SociDl Disorgani:Dtu,", ~n4 ed . tSe ..... Yotk : 'The R on a\..! Vte .....
criminological theory. without mu.:h efrort to explicate the details of that sort
t955) . -
of theory or to specify progrJrnmJtic suggestions for new reseJTl.'h. Clearly. those
lHarf)' Elmer B3rne~ and Ne~ley K.. T~leTS. Sew Horizons in Crimh!ology. 3rd ed .
tasks are large ones which canno t be managed in a brief essay su..:h as 'this one,
(Englewood Clitis. N. L Prentke-Hall. 1959).
We identified the work of Chlmbliss and Seidman as an initial stab in the
direction of a criminology wh ich renects some of the angry contentions of the 'Ibid .. p. 83.
radical left. If we begin to pursue the theoretical and research leJds suggested by
'Ibid .. p. 96.
that volume. we are likely to find ourselves spending much more time on the
6£dwin H . Sutherland and Donald R. CresStY. Principles of Criminology. 8th ed.
activities of the rich and powe rful in our sOciety and less upon garden-variety (philadelphia : J. 8 . Lippincott. 1970). 11 ought to be acknowledged that Donald R . Cressey
criminals in prisons and other social warehouses. Then too. the perspective made a number of impOftant substantive ('hanF-es and revisions in the Sth, 6th. 7th, and 8th
sketched out by Chambliss and Seidman would have us devote more attention editions of this book, which he prepared foUo'Aing Sutherland's death.
than has been customary in the past to the workings of legislatures and the in- i 'Summaries of much of the modern criminological work can be found in Don C.
I
terest groups that endeavor 10 exert influence upon them , so that detailed study Gibbons. Sociery. Crime. and Criminal Careers, 2nd ed . tEnglewo od Cliffs. N. J .: Prentice·
of lawmaking processes is in order.
We might conclude this essay by pointing out that although a conflict and I Hall, 1973); Gibbons . Delinquenr Behavior ~Englewood Cliffs. N . 1.: Prentice-Hall. 1970).
8Gresham M. Sykes. "The Future of Criminality." American Behavioral Scientist 1
5
social power perspective on criminality and lawmaking has begun to emerge as
an alternative to liberal-cynical versions of criminological thOUght. the truly
radical solutions to problems of crime which the former invites hJve yet to be
I
!
(February 1972) : 409-19 . Among other things. S)'kes claims that liberals, both of the socio-
logical kind and of other varieties too, tend to minimize the seriousness of the "crime wave"
which is now alleged to be engulfing. the United States. Those of a liberal persuasion tend to
argue that "crime in the saeets" is a slogan or rode 'A old for bigotry, that the alleged crime
more than hinted at in the criminoiogicalliterature. rise is mainly an artifact of improved reporting pl ocedures, and that the police are lawless.
Who among modern criminologists has much faith in current responses to However, Sykes agrees with those who maintain that much of the crime wave is real and
crime problems in American society? It is doubtful that many informed students that it demands vip:Q[ous crime cont rol measures. He then goes on to claim that the face of
of criminality can be found who are sanguine about contemporary approaches to crime is changing in America, calling for ne'A re sponses to it.
curtailing lawbreaking. In particula.r. it appears that most of the expenditures of 9Travis Hirschi. Causes of Delinquency t Berkeley : University of California Press,
the federal government on a "War on Crime" through the Law Enforcement As-
1969).
sistance Administration (L.E.A.A.) have had no effect upon the crime problem.
tOSykes, "Criminality," p . 411.
For one thing, much of that money has been spent by police agencies for tanks ,
t 'Don C. Gibbons. "Observatio ns on the Study of Crime Causation," American
large armaments. and other gadgetry of that kind. Police agencies are now Journal of Sociology '77 (S eptember 1971l: 262-78; Gibbons, "Crime in the Hinterland ,"
equipped with the tools to annihilate criminals instead of to "cure" them. Then
Criminology 10 (August 1972): 177-9 1.
too, the money that has been pumped into correctional programs has been ex-
pended on the same tired old endeavors_ which have not worked in the past. We 12S y kes. "Criminality." pp. 411-1S.
might do as well or better to seek out the run-of-the-mill recidivist property of- 13Ibid .• p. 413 .
fenders and other conventional criminals who now clog our jails and prisons and
give them L.E.A.A_ stipends as bribes to stay out of trouble, if we wish to com- l'lbid .. p. 414 .
bat crime _'s 1 SKelly Hancock, "Dynamite and Firebombs - ReOections on Contemporary
America." Portland State University, mimeographed, n.d . See also Philip A . Karber. "Urban
Even more to the point. a radically oriented response to the crime problem Terrorism: Baseline Data and a Co nceptual Framework." Social Science QuarterlY S2
would be one that concentrates very heavily upon curtailing the harmful machi-
(December 1971): 521-33.
nations of the powerful who are now involved in the exploitation of the power-
16 Austin T. Turk. Criminality and Legal Order (Chicago: Rand McNaHy, 1969).
less. We do not believe that proposals such as those by Quinney, dealing with de-
centralized law, speak to the complexities of modern society. But. if those 1'Richard Quinney . Tile Social Reality of Crime IBoston: Little, Brown, 1970);
suggestions are not useful ones. the sociological imagination will need to pro- Quinney. "The Social Reality of Crime," in Crime and Justice in American Society, ed .
duce viable alternatives to them. Jack D. Douglas lNew York : Bobbs·Merrill. 1971), pp. 119· 146.
In summary. the radical challenge to criminology is one that cannot be I8Quinney. "Social Reality," p. 13S .
ignored. This paper has attempted to identify some of the issues in this challenge 19 Not everyone agrees that such taws as those a~ainst rape or incest arise out of
and response. Let us hope that criminological answers will eventually be evolved societal consensus . For example. Chambliss and Seidman argue that many citizens would1O be
for these difficult questions _ •
j loath to condemn the person who kills an intruder in his home or who is sexually agt:re .. ive
I toward a female who behaved seductively to\o\'ard him . See WiUiam J . Chambliss and
Robert D. Seidman. Law. Order, and Power IReading. ~ta ..... : Addison-We sley. 1971)' rp·
61-14 . Althou{!.h Ihis point has merit, it is still po"'~lble to argue that few perso ns loan be
NOTES fou nd who 'Aould approve o r many actual CJc;,e~ of premeditated homicide , markedly ago
tCharles W. Lachenmeyer. Thr lAn&U4l~ of Sociology (New Yor);:: Columbia Vniver-
gressive rape·mutitation . and t.he like .
•ity Pr.... 1971).
I
64
THE CRIMI!'IOWGIST Consen'atire, Liberal and Radical Criminology 6S
lOJames Q.
Press, 1968).
Wjl~on. l'oriefll'S of Police Behovior (Cambridge : Harvard University
441bid .. p. 4.
llpauJ Chevigny, Poliu Pok'er (New York: Vintage Books, 1969). 4Slbid .. pp. 274-286; abo see Rodney Stark. Police Riots (Belmont, Calif.: Wads.
worth Publishing, 1972).
1971 ). 22Albert J, Reiss, Jr., The Poliuond the Public (New Haven : Yale University Press,
46William J . Chambliss, '"Vice, Corruption, Bureaucracy, and Power," Wisconsin La ....'
ReI'ie .. 4(1971) : 1150-1173.
llrhese studies are summarized in Gibbons, Society. Crime, pp. 54.59.
47Perhaps we should anticipate new problems for the individual researcher. as WtU as
24Abraham S. Blumberg:. "Criminal Justice in America," in Douglas, Crimeond incrtased re sistance to criminological endeavors. 3S our atttntion turns to sociolog:ical
Justice, pp. 45-78; Blumberg, Crimillol Justice (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1967).
probing into the behavior of corporations, legislatures. and local governments. On this point ,
lSA generous share of the literature on correctional projects and experiments is re- Chamblis (ibid.) reports harassment by the polke of a university professor who was snoop-
viewed in Gibbons, DeUnquenr Be/un-ior, pp. 247-61; Gibbons . Society, Dime, pp.501-43; ing into the aflairs of the crime cabal in "RainfaU West." Then too, we may find that as we
Gibbons, "Punishment, Treatment. and Rehabilitation : Problems and Prospects," in intro. go about publishing resear ch reports on crime syndicates or corporate misbehavior, we may
duction to Criminology, ed. Abraham S. Blumberg (New York: Random House, forth - encounter the risk of civil suits directed at us by the '"deviants" identified in our reports . In
coming). Comparison of these essays with Gibbons, Changing the uJ"whreaker (Englewood the case of Chambliss's essay on "Rainfall West," it seems likely that an interested person
Cliffs, N. J. : Prentice-Hall. I tJ65) ",,'ould show them to be markedly more pessimistic in tone would have lillie difficulty penetrating the disg uise provided by Chambliss for some of the
than the 1965 volume. public figures he discusses, such as "Sheriff McAUister." We may find that these powerful
deviants will not suffer t he kind of treatment at our hands that powerless Skid Road alco-
26John Irwin. The Felon (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970). holics or other "nuts. sluts, and preverts" have endured in the past. A more detailed discus-
sion of this point can be found in Don C. Gibbons and Joseph F. Jones, The Study of
versity 27Herbert L. Packer, The Limits of the Cn'minot Sanction (Stanford; Stanford Uni-
Press, 1968). Dellitlnce (New York: Basic Books, forthcoming).
48\\'e ought to acknowledge that the "War on Crime" actually serves an important
1965). 28Edwin M. Schur, Dimes Without Victims (Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-HaU, latent function. Crime is a business in modern society, in the sense that large numbers of
persons who might otherwise be unemployed are being subsidized by federal funds to work
29 Jerome H. Skolnick. Justice Without Trial (New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1966), on crime control.
pp.80-90.
30Reiss, Police and Public.
13Edwin H. Sutherland, White Collar Crime (New York: The Dryden Press, 1949).
34lndeed, much attention continues to focus upon those Who commit crimes
against large-scale organizations and corporations, rather than upon crimes perpetrated by
these structures against common citizens. For example, ree Erwin O. Smigel and H.
laurence
1970). Ross, cds., Crimes Against Bureaucracy (New York: Van Nostrand-Reinhold,
I
3SAlexander liazos. ""The Poverty of the Sociology of Deviance: Nuts, Sluts, and
Preverts," Socilzl Problems 20 (Summer 1972): 103-20.
36Ibid., p. 111.
371bid .
38Ibid., p. 119.
39Senator Warren G. Magnuson and Jean Carper, The Dark Side o/the MQrketploce
(Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice-Hall, 1968).
40Richard Quinney, ''The Ideology of law: Notes for a RadicaJ Alternative to legal
Repression,"/ssuel in Criminology 7 (Winter 1972): 1-35.
·'Ibid., p. 26.
"Ibid., pp. 29-30.
,
CJ 601 Unit 8
CRIMINAL JUSTICE TYPOLOGIES:
OVERVIEW AND THEORETICAL DIMENSIONS
Introduction
Typologies in criminal justice and criminology are close associated
with criminological theories. Indeed, Schafer (1969) has no hesitation in
claiming that "criminal typology may be considered the oldest theoretical
approach to the problem of crime" (p . 140). Typologies which attempt to
classify criminal behavior of criminal offenders according to assumed or
hypothesized causal factors represent a direct extension of theories of
criminality. Other typologies, which are concerned with specific areas of
application--for example, correctional treatment or delinquency prevention--
may be more closely tied to an empirical than to a theoretical base. But
even these kinds of typologies may involve certain theoretical assumptions
about the nature of the underlying determinants of the criminal behavior.
Still other typologies which find their origin and utility in the context of
basic research may be said to possess heuristic value: that is, they see to
advance our understanding of crime, criminals, and criminal behavior by
aiding in the development of testable hypotheses concerning such phenomena .
A typology is a pattern or configuration that is imposed upon events,
objects, or phenomena . Thus, it is artificial or manmade . While the under-
lying order or regularity which the typology presumes to reflect may be
implicit in the phenomena that the typology attempts to classify, the
typology itself is a cognitive creation by the typologist or theorist who
formulates it. Regarding this process of formulation or creation, we shall
have something to say later in our discussion in this unit.
Criminal justice researchers may expend considerable effort in the
2
development of typologies, but it should be recognized that much if not most
of their data reach them in "prepackaged" fOTTll, as it were, after it has
already been subjected to typological classification by the criminal law.
Statutes which impose criminal sanctions for specified acts of commission or
omission represent a system of categorization based primarily on the nature
and seriousness of the offenses committed . Left out are the personality of
the perpetrator, his motives and individual characteristics, his relationship
with the victim, his background and personal history, etc. These factors are
not overlooked or ignored by the law. On the contrary, they may weigh signi -
ficantly in the determination of guilt or innocence and in the sentencing
decision. But they are not built into the typological framework of the law
itself. Such factors, however, may impress the criminologist as being equal
in importance to the nature of the offense; and the criminological typologist
may devote a great deal of attention to these considerations in his efforts at
constructing a meaningful typology.
Objectives
The major objective of this unit is to acquaint the student with the
concept of typology; to describe the kinds of intellectual activity involved
in the fOTTllulation of typologies of various sorts; to indicate some of the
methodological and conceptual problems inherent in the 'development of criminal
justice typologies; and to provide a brief overview of some representative
typologies currently encountered in criminal justice and criminology. An
important additional objective is to examine some of the principal requirements
that a typology must meet in order to be of scientific or pragmatic value.
had the same meaning for everyone who has used them. Hood and Sparks (1970)
note that some writers have distinguished between a system of classification
and a typology. A classification system refers to "a method of grouping
individuals into classes which are defined by one or more variables, and which
may include all the actual or possible combinations of those variables"
(pp. 114-115). The term typology is often taken to mean "any set of mutually
exclusive types, each of which may be defined or identified by different kinds
of criteria; in addition, it is sometimes specified that the variables defining
the types are 'empi ri ca lly connected'" (p. 115). Hood and Sparks do not agree
with this distinction and settle for the following definition of a typology:
"any system of classification which results in groups defined so as to be
mutually exclusive" (p . 115, italics added) .
The essential feature of the above definition is that it embodies the
proposition that a type involves a reduction from the complex to the simple--
or at least to the less complex. When applied to human typologizing, a type
can be considered a group of persons sharing common traits or characteristics
which distinguish them as an identifiable group or class. This meaning implies
that the characteristics which allow the persons to be classified or sorted
into types are relatively enduring, rather than casual or transitory.
Taxonomy, which deals with the principles by which objects, events, or
phenomena to be classified, is an indispensable prerequisite to the activities
of any systematic investigator, regardless of his field, discipline, or
theoretical persuasion. The mere choice of subject matter to be studied
requires a decision regarding classification, i.e., into what will be selected
for study and what will be rejected.
Varieties of Typology
Hood and Sparks (1970) divide typologies into those which seek to classify
offenses and those which seek to classify offenders. Earlier we observed that
data come to the criminologist "prepackaged" in terms of the imposition of legal
categorization according to the nature of the crime with which the individual
has been charged. Ever since criminal law has existed, crimes and criminals
have been grouped into different classifications. Thus, offenses have been
categorized into mala in se and mala prohibita; into misdemeanors and felonies;
into crimes against person, crimes against property, public crimes, and politi-
cal crimes. The Uniform Crime Reports lists 29 types of criminal offense, and
distinguishes seven so-called Index offenses. Schafer (1969) observes that
criminological ideas have affected the criminal law to the extent that special
categories of offender have developed in the legal typoligies: juvenile
delinquent, persistent offender, habitual offender, sexual psychopath, etc.
-
7
Legal typologies, however, have no pretense of universal validity, nor are
they regarded as such by the criminal justice system. As national or local
classifications of crime, they represent technical divisions which possess
administrative usefulness; they are not presented as explanations of criminal
behavior.
In addition to legal typologies, the following groupings of typologies
are identified by Schafer (1969) :
Multiple-cause typologies, which group cri minals by several biological
and social factors, and refer to criminals only.
Sociologica l typologies, which cl assify criminals by societa l factors
and refer to criminals only.
Psychol ogical typologies, which suggest divis i ons of crimi na l s along
psychic or psychiatric lines and refer to criminals only.
Constitutional typologies, whi ch c l assify offenders by biopsycho1ogica1
funct i ons and refer to criminals only .
Normati ve typologies, which divide cr i minals according to their pro-
cliviti es for a particular group of lega l ly defined crimes and refer
both to crimes and criminals.
Life- trend typologies, which deal with the overal l life styles of
criminals and refer both to crimes and criminals (pp. 143-144) .
Schafer emphasizes that these categories unavoidably invo l ve considerable
overlapping.
Solomon (1977) has di vided typologies into: (1) the legalistic approach;
(2) the physica1-constitutiona1-hereditary approach; (3) the psycho1ogica1-
psychiatric approach; (4) the sociological approach; (5) the individualistic
and environmental approach. The Solomon taxonomy of typologies is based on
the principal variables that the theorist or researcher employed in the con-
struction of his typology .
Specific categories of typology are explored in exhaustive detail in the
Solomon (1977) account, and the interested student can be referred to this
volume for a coverage of this material. More abbreviated reviews of typologies
8
can be found in Fox (1976) and Gibbons (1975) . A thorough review and assess-
ment of victim typologies is provided by Silverman (1974).
Before concluding this brief introduction to the topic of criminological
typologies, it seems important to direct some attention to the issues of
frequency and duration of criminal activity as potentially significant, even
key variables. The recently released Rand report, based on a study of 49
career felons, noted that this relatively small sample of offenders had
aggregated nearly 10,000 offenses over a period averaging 17 years . It is
difficult to avoid the conclusion that these offenders represent a group with
distinctive patterns of career commitment to crime. Involved here may be a
process of socialization that Schafer (1969) has identified in his proposed
typology based on lifetrend:
Occasional criminals, whose crime is referable to the trend of their
life as an episode only. They commit crimes usually under the
pressure of need, emotion , or desire.
Professional criminals, whose crime is referable to the trend of
their life as a professional manifestation. Their leading motive is
profit. They include:
1. Individual professional criminals, whose crime is carried
out alone or, if in the company of others, in an unorganized
manner .
2. Members of organized crime, whose crime is carried out in the
organized company of others: gangsters, whose organized pro-
fessional criminality is carried out with violence; racketeers,
whose organized professional criminality is carried out by
extortion or coercion; and syndicate members, whose organized
professional criminality is carried out in a business-like
intellectual manner.
3. White-collar criminals, whose crimes may be carried out in
either individual or organized form, by using their financial
or social power.
4. Sundry professional criminals, whose professional criminality
can be carried out both in individual and organized form and
whose crime is specialized enough to be outside other pro-
fessional criminal types, such as the confidence game and
marketeering .
9
Habitual criminals, whose crime is referable to the trend of their
life as a habit, which develops in them the potentiality of crime.
They include:
1. Alcoholics, whose crime potentiality is generated by their
chronic intake of alcohol.
2. Drug addicts, whose crime potentiality is generated by
their addiction.
3. Vagrants, beggars, and other wanderers, whose crime poten-
tiality is generated by the lack of any constructive force
in their life.
4. Prostitutes, whose crime potentiality is generated by their
constant contact with immorality.
Abnormal criminals, whose crime is referable to mental disturbance or
mental illness. They include:
1. Psychotics, whose abnormal crimi nal potential is generated
by their mental illness.
2. Psychopaths, whose abnormal criminal potential is generated
by their mental disturbance .
Convictional criminals, whose crime is referable to their conviction
about a political, social, religious. or other altruistic communal
idea.
All these types carry three subtypes: juvenile delinquents, aged
criminals, and female offenders (pp. 176-177).
Within this framework , individual subtypes can be expanded to accomodate more
detailed classification based on other variables. Thus, for example, white
collar criminals can be identified according to whether they commit personal
crimes, abuses of trust, business crimes, or con games: (Edelhertz, 1970).
Such a typology is at least didactically useful, regardless of whether it has
etiological or diagnostic application .
~601 Unit 8
CRIMINAL JUSTICE TYPOLOGIES
Selected Readings
Amos, W.M ., and Wellford, C.F . Typologies and treatment . In J.C. Cull
and R. E. Hardy (Eds.), Fundamentals of Criminal Behavior and Cor-
rectional Systems. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, 1973.
Clinard, M.B . , and Quinney, R. Criminal Behavior Systems: A Typology.
New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1973.
Driver, E.D. A critique of typologies in criminology. Sociology Quarterly,
1968, 9, 356-373.
Ferdinand, T.N. Typologies in Delinguency. New York: Random House, 1966.
Fox, V.B. Typologies, classification, and prediction . Chapter 14 in
Introduction to Criminology. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall,
1975.
Glaser, D. Criminal theories and behavioral images. American Journal of
Sociology, 1956, 61, 433-444.
Glueck, Eleanor, and Glueck, S. Toward a Typology of Juvenile Delinguency.
New York: Ginn Publishing Company, 1970.
Glueck, Eleanor, and Glueck, S. Toward a Typology of Juvenile Offenders.
New York: Grune and Stratton, 1970.
Guenther, A.L. (Ed.), Criminal Careers and Behavior Systems. Chicago:
Rand McNally, 1970.
Riemer, S. The ideal type in criminological research. Social Science
Research Bulletin, 1942, 50, 138-144.
Roebuck, J.B. Criminal Typology. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas,
1971.
Solomon, H.M. Crime and Delinguency: Typologies. Washington, D.C.:
University Press of America, 1977.
CJ 601 Unit 8
CRIMINAL JUSTICE TYPOLOGIES
Reading Assignment
Hood, R., and Sparks, R. The classification of crime and criminals . Chapter
4 in Key Issues in Criminology. London: World University Library, 1970.
Questions for Discussion and Review
1. Define the term typology.
2. What is the distinction between a system of classification and a typology?
Do Hood and Sparks recognize this as a valid distinction?
3. Distinguish between an empirically derived typology and one that is
derived theoretically. Are there many pure types of each in criminology?
4. What is a diagnostic typology? What is it used for?
5. List and evaluate some of the major formal properties of a good typology.
6. What are some of the principal kinds of typologies found in contemporary
criminal justice and criminology?
7. Why are frequency and duration of criminal behavior considered important
dimensions of any criminal typology?
8. Discuss Schafer's proposed lifetrend typology. Is it sufficiently
comprehensive to cover most varieties of criminal behavior? Does it
omit coverage of any significant area of criminal activity?
Written Projects
1. Select any 2 (or more) typologies of criminal behavior that cover roughly
the same or similar patterns of crime or offenders and compare them in
terms of their formal properties.
2. Using Schafer's lifetrend typology, expand each of the major categories
by the addition of as many dimensions as seem appropriate . For example ,
under habitual criminals, prostitutes could be · characterized according to
whether they are street hookers, expensive call girl s , semi-pros, etc .
Hood, R., and Sparks, R. Key Iss ue s '-
in Crimi no logy . Lo ndon : World
Un iversity Library, 1970.
surprising th at no single 'factor' distinguished these 500 boys from
4 The classification the 500 'truly non-delinquent' boys with whom they were compared.
There is a third argument to the effect that crime has many causes,
of crimes and criminals which still crops up occasionally in criminological writings. This is
the argument that every single crime is a product of an absolutely
unique combination of individual and social factors - that every
Criminologists have almost always agreed that there is no such crime has its own 'causes', irreducibly different from those of every
thing as the cause of crime. but they have tended to use two very other crime. In one sense, this is perhaps true. What we identify
different arguments in support of this contention. The first of these as the 'cause' or 'causes' of an event depends in part on our pur-
is based on the fact that numerous comparisons of groups of crimi- poses : and when we are ascribing responsibility to a man for a
nals with groups of non-criminals have failed to produce any single crime, for example, we may identify certain things which are unique
characteristic or ' factor (such as coming from a broken home, being to the particular case as 'things which made him do it'. But it is
illegitimate, or suffering from some psychological abnormality) different when our purpose is scientific explanation, since for this
which absolutely distinguishes the two groups . Some such factors purpose we are interested in generalisations - preferably ones as
may be associated with criminality, in the sense that they are more wide as possible - and we seek as causes things which apply to all
frequent among offenders than among non-offenders; but even instances of the thing or event we are trying to explain, and not just
these factors are invariably found to be absent in the case of some to one particular case. Now, there is no absurdity or inconsistency
who have broken the law, and present in the case of some who have in searching for a single theoretical explanation of all criminal,
not. Thus - the argument runs - crime must have many 'causes' . The delinquent or deviant behaviour. Such a theory - which would consist
second argument is based on the observation that the concepts of of a number of logically connected and empirically verified general
crime, delinquency, deviant behaviour, etc., apply to a very wide statements specifying the conditions in which crime occurs - should
range of different kinds of behaviour - burglary, tax fraud, truancy, aim to integrate all the different factors which are shown to
incest, bootlegging, assassination - having in common only the distinguish offenders from non-offenders, and should aim to
fact that they have been declared to be contrary to legal or mo ral explain how these factors ' produce' delinquent behaviour. This is
rules in various times and places. No single causal explanation, it is precisely what one of the best-known criminological theories - the
suggested, can possibly cover such heterogeneous phenomena; differential association theory, propounded by Edwin Sutherland -
they must have different causes. just because they are so different. sets out to do, and is what the usual form of 'multiple causation'
Whatever the merits of these arguments, they are independent of approach utterly fails to do. But viable general theories of this kind,
one another: and some writers have vehemently asserted one while applicable to all crime or delinquency, seem to us to be a long way
ignoring, or even appearing to deny, the other. For example, off; and there is unfortunately no guarantee that any such general
Professor Sheldon Glueck - one of the most ardent advocates of the theory will ever be shown empirically to be correct. The known facts
'multiple factor theory' of crime causation - has claimed to have about crime - which any such theory would have to fit - are com-
shown. by the research that he and his wife have carried out, that plicated; and one important reason for this is that the concept of
delinquents are distinguished from non-delinquents by a wide crime covers such a wide and heterogeneous range of behaviour.
range of biological, psychological and sociological factors, which To overcome this problem, many criminologists in recent years
combine in a number of different ways to produce delinquency. Yet have concentrated on studying particular types of crime, in the hope
this research (reported in the Gluecks' book Unraveling Juvenile of producing theories (so-called 'theories of the middle range')
Delinquency') was based on a sample of 500 boys who had com- which, though applying to a restricted range of illegal behaviour,
mitted a fairly wide variety of kinds of delinquent acts, probably nonetlleless go beyond the explanation of particular illegal acts.
undtr an even wider range of circumstances. Given the hetero- Sociological examples from the United States of this kind of theory
geneity of their delinquent behaviour, it may be thought scarcely and research on specific types of crime are lomert's studies of
110 III
Figure 4: 1 Possible relationships between diHerent types of crime. types of crime heed not be related logically - or even capable of
being related - to each other.
professional theft
Figure 4 : I shows one way in which three different types of crime.
.~~:~~- .. studied by three different researchers. might be related . In this case
~---"'"-
property crime
the first researcher might formulate and test a sociological theory of
professional crime; the second might develop a psychological
theory concerning theft; while the third might develop a social-
psychological theory relating to the broader category of 'property
offences'. It will be seen that all three of these type-categories
overlap. and that 'professional theft' is a sub-type of all three. But
professional crime
provided they are logically compatible. all three of these researchers'
theories may be equally valid for professional theft: that is, they may
all three provide correct predictions and equally plausible explana-
tions of the frequency, distribution, etc .. of professional theft. (Of
,,~
course, this is rather a long shot. More probably, if the three theories
were all valid for a single type of crime. they would simply be
concerned with different questions about it. Or they might just be
alternative descriptions of exactly the same set of facts - as, for
example, psychoanalytic theory and learning theory sometimes
seem to be.)
In other words, an anarchic approach to the study of different
'naive and 'systematic- cheqlle forgery: ' Sutherland's studies of types of crime - which is the one that criminologists have mainly
professional theft" and ·wllltc·collar' crime:' Cressey's research on followed so far - is not necessarily self-defeating. Nonetheless,
the criminal viol:Jtion or financial trust: 5 Wattenberg's and many criminologists take the view that it is desirable to relate
Balistrieri's study of car theft :" and Clinard's and Wade's study of different types of crime or criminal systematically to one another:
vandalism.' The studies of suhcultural delinquency discussed in the that is, to try to combine them, according to some consistent
last chapter are another e.ample of this approach: they focus on a principle of classification , into a typology rather than selliing for a
single kind of delinquent behaviour, and aim to produce valid coll,,,tion of disparate types. There are some obvious advantages in
theories which fully explain the origins, distribution and frequency doing this. For one thing, it makes the subject neater, and thus
of this kind of behaviour even if they do not apply to other types. easier to study. At a descriptive level. a great deal of empirical
It is not necessary that the types of crime or delinquency isolated information about crime and criminals has been amassed in the
and explained in this way by different researchers should be in any past 150 years or so; a systematic method of classification helps to
way comparable with each other; nor is there any reason to think put this information into usable order to show the relations within
that they would be comparable. since researchers should be free to it, and makes it easier to see what further information is needed.
choose to study whatever types of behaviour happen to interest them. For another thing, if the explanation of criminal behaviour is onc's
Moreover. it would be perfectly possible for criminologists to object, it is beller if the types studied are mutually exclusive. The
develop a respectable body of empirically verified theories by possibility just mentioned - that three different theories may each
formulating and testing explanations for different types of crime, be valid for a particular type of crime. such as professional thert - is
on an ad hoc basis. The different types of crime which different in fact remote; moreover. a researcher who is studying crime from a
thcnrists choose to study do not need to be mutually exclusive. nor single theoretical point of view - say, a sociologica l one will
.-'·cn compatible: and the theories developed for these different naturally wish to classify his subject into types which do not O\erJap .
112 113
I
In addition. it is often assumed [hat the development of a typo-
grouping individuals into classes which are defined by one or more
logy of offences or offenders will actually improve the chances of
developing a general causal theory. Cloward and Quinney (whose variables. and which may include all the actual or possible combina-
recent typology of 'criminal behaviour systems' is discussed on tions of those variables. The second is often used to refer to any set of
pages 126-7) go so far as to assert that a system of classification 'is mutually exclusive types, each of which may be defined or identified
a necessary preliminary to the development of a general theory'. It by different kinds of criteria; in addition, it is sometimes specified
is not clear, however, why this should be thought to be so; in fact, that the variables defining the types are 'empirically interconnected'.
the matter is not as simple as this. A typology which accords with a For reasons which will become clear below, we do not draw this
general criminological theory can only be constructed if it is known distinction: and we use the term 'typology' to include any system of
which attributes of offenders (or their behaviour) are relevant to that classification which results in groups defined so as to be mutually
theory. In other words. the typology presupposes the theory, for exclusive.
without the theory there is no way of knowing which types should be It is important to note, however, that these intermediate 'types' in
included in the typology. Typology construction thus goes hand-in- this sense do not merely represent quantitative differences along a
hand with the development of theory, and is not a 'necessary pre- single dimension - like the divisions of intelligence levels according to
liminary' to it. IQ test scores. Many classifications of delinquents are in fact of this
Nonetheless, typologies can have heuristic value in criminology. kind; a well-known example is the seven-fold classification accord-
They can make it easier for the theorist to see analogies between ing to interpersonal maturity ('I-leve!') propounded by Sullivan,
different kinds of criminal behaviour, or similarities between Grant and Grant,' discussed in chapter 7, pages 198-9. It seems
different kinds of offender, and thus make it easier for him to trace misleading to call classifications of this kind 'typologies' at all - at
the causal processes which apply to them. Systematic classification least unless there is good reason to think that the cutting points
can help to reveal empirical relationships between different factors defining each 'type' are not simply arbitrary.
(for example, offenders' personality types, social backgrounds and What is meant by a 'type' of offender, or a 'type' of criminal
offences), and may suggest hypotheses to account for these relation- behaviour? It seems that if we divide any set of things of the same
ships. A great many typologies of offences and offenders have been kind - that is, things describable by the same general term, such as
devised by criminologists over the past hundred years for the purpose 'criminal' - into sub-sets, by reference to one or more of the attri-
of aetiological research. We shall discuss some (though by no butes of those things, then each of the sub-sets exemplifies a 'type'
means all) of these in this chapter. We shall also outline the more of the thing in question. Of course. the attributes used to divide up
important properties which. in our opinion, a criminological the set must themselves be general, and not merely the identifying
typology ought to have ifit is to be useful for research purposes; and characteristics of particular individuals. For instance, if we took a
we shall review briefly some empirical research relevant to one group of 100 criminals and 'classified' them by their full names,
particular group of offender typologies - namely, those based on the places and dates of birth, we would probably divide the group into
concept of a criminal career. In chapter 7 we shall consider the use 100 sub-sets, each consisting of one criminal; but this would not
of offender typologies in relation to the choice of treatment or mean we had identified 100 'types' of criminal. But subject to that
·punishment. reservation, it seems that pretty well any attribute, or set of attri-
butes, will serve as a basis for type<lassification of offenders or
o.ffences, though of course some will seem more useful than others.
Typologies and criminological theory depending on the purpose of the classification. There is no 'natural'
The word 'typology' is used in a number of different ways - not all of or uniquely correct classification of offences or offenders.
them clear - by different writers on this subject. In particular, some Most of the typologies devised by criminologists have in fact been
writers distinguish between a .'.l'Stem of classification and a typology. very simple ones, using only a few variables as type-criteria and
Usually the first of these expressions is taken to refer to a method of containing only a few broad types. Classifications of criminals and
delinquents have been based on such things as age, sex, current
114
115
offence (in legal terms), personality tyoe. marital status. social class, Another factpr frequently used in typologies of criminals is the
and criminal record as type<riteria; classifications of offences have frequency with which offences are committed : the main distinction
used such things as the moti"e of the offender. type of norm violated, here being between the 'occasional' or 'once-only' offender, and the
circumstances of the act. relationship with the victim, and frequency persistent offender, 'habitual offender' or 'career criminal'. This
with which the behaviour is performed . distinction - first made, it seems, by the nineteenth<entury writer
The type-distinction which has probably been made most often by Henry Mayhew'· - has been regarded as fundamental by crimino-
criminologists is that between individual criminals on the one hand, logists of almost all schools; we ourselves shall argue later that it is
and social criminals on the other. This kind of classification was of primary importance in the classification of criminals for the
made, more or less dearly, by the Italian 'positivist' criminologists purpose of aetiological research.
Lombroso and Ferri, in the late nineteenth century; and it has been It is difficult to generalise about more detailed kinds of classific-
restated by many other writers since then, notably by two American ation of crimes and criminals. But many - perhaps the majority -
sociologists, Lindesmith and Dunham,' in 1941. The distinction have been based in one way or another on the offender's motivation.
between 'individual' and 'social' criminals is usually treated as both An example is Rich's classification of juvenile theft," illustrated in
a descriptive and an aetiological one. Thus, according to Lindesmith figure 4 :2.
and Dunham, the crimes of the 'social criminal' are There seem to be two broadly different approaches to the creation
of typologies in this field , which are related to different ways of
supported and prescribed by a cuilure. and the person committing such crimes
achieves status and recognition within a certain minority group by skilfully formulating criminological theories. Let us call these the 'empirical'
and daringly carrying out the criminal activity which, in that group, is cus- and 'theoretical' approaches respectively. The first proceeds simply
tomary and definitely designated. This type of criminal acts in close collabora- by grouping together individuals or patterns of behaviour accord-
tion with other persons without whose direct or indirect co-operation his ing to their most obvious apparently relevant features, so that each
career would be virtually impossible. group contains members which are as similar as possible to each
other and as different as possible from all other groups. This classific-
The crimes of the 'individualised criminal', by contrast
atory procedure is rather like that used by a man sorting a basket of
are not prescribed forms of beha"iour in his cultural milieu nor does he gain fruit, who puts the apples. oranges and lemons into different piles
prestige or recognition in his social world by committing them . They are because they look different; we might call it the 'look and see'
committed for diverse ends which are personal and private rather than com- method of classification .
mon and socially accepted ... The 'individualised criminal' commits his crimes
Of course. one usually has some vague a priori idea of which fea-
alone, and, ideally conceived. is a stranger to others who commit similar
crimes. tures are or might be relevant when using this method; e.g. when
classifying offenders one will usually only consider features having
The 'individual' and 'social' criminals are thus polar opposites, and some conceivable relation with criminal behaviour, and not such
are to some extent pure or 'ideal' types; it is possible to identify a things as colour of eyes. It is often supposed that the types picked
number of less extreme variants of either, ranged on a continuum out by this empirical method must have different explanations. But
between these extremes. Lindesmith and Dunham, for example, the choice oftype<riteria is not dictated (at least at a conscious level)
regarded insane criminals as epitomising the 'individual' type, but by any' particular theory of criminal behaviour, and in practice the
also included under this heading 'situational' offenders - such as primary basis of classification is usually some readily ascertainable
those committing crimes of passion, or offending because of dire first-order facts about the offenders (such as their ages, or current
economic need: they pointed out that 'although this behaviour is not offences, or whatever else happens to be contained in their records)
definitely prescribed by the mores it may be and usually is encour- rather than abstract theoretical variables. An example of this kind of
aged or facilitated by prevailing ideas of conduct'. These further classification of offenders is the criminal career typology devised by
distinctions obviously ' make the 'individual' - 'social' distinction Roebuck (discussed on pages 129-31) which is based primarily on
more useful. the type of offence most frequently committed by the offender.
116 117
It is basically this method of grouping which is reproduced by
Figure .. :2 A classifica110n of Juvenile theft accordmg to motivation. statistical methods of taxonomy such as 'association analysis'.
which was develoPed by Williams and Lambert" for use in plant
ecology. and which was first applied to offenders by Wilkins and
MacNaughton-Smith'3 Statistical methods of this kind are
intended to show which attributes of a group of individuals tend to
be clustered together; any attributes can be used. provided they are
logically independent. The advantage of these techniques is that they
make possible much more complicated analyses than could be done
typo motivation description of offence by simple inspection of the data; and because they use a precise
statistical definition of 'similarity' they are more objective than
intuitive methods of classification. But they are still very much in the
proving
Attempts to prove own mlln.
hood or toughnl!SS. Self're'
itSSUnnce . rather thlln
attempts to achil!VI! SUltus
t Theft or burglilry c.ried out
alone; taking motor c •.
experimental stage. and their utility is uncertain even in the bio-
logical sciences; it has been shown, for example, by Lange el al.1'
with pP.ers that association analysis will group data known to be random. This
is an especially serious problem in the social sciences, where there
are few hypotheses or theories which can indicate the significance
marauding
E.citement: 'the offence
often involves considerable
t Unplanned or 'semi-planned'
crimes, carried out in groups
of observed groupings. We refer to these techniques here, therefore,
merely to illustrate in its most extreme form the 'empirical' approach
to typology construction.
and deliberlltelv chown risk . of three or more
Goodman and Price's have experimentally applied a variant of
this technique ("dissimilarity analysis', invented by MacNaughton-
Smith'S), to girls sent to borstal institutions. For a group of 129
comforting
A substitute for IIffection of
which the boy is depr;ved; or
an aggressive act of rewnt-
t Stealing from parents; impuls--
ive pilfering, either alone or
girls, the presence or absence of 18 attributes was recorded. Each
girl was compared with all of the others in respect of these 18
ment arising Irom aJch dep· with one other. attributes and the one most unlike the rest identified; this girl was
rivation.
then paired with each of the 128 others, and the pair most unlike the
remaining 127 identified; and so on, until a group was formed such
secondary Rational
t Planned theft of any sort,
with a definite idea of what
can be stolen and reasonable
precautions against detection.
that if any further girl was considered, she was less similar to this
group (in terms of these 18 attributes) than to the remainder. This
process was then repeated for each of the two groups thus formed,
until no further sub-groups could be formed . Four groups - con-
sisting of 46, 8, 37, and 38 girls respectively - were thus formed; the
Offences not classifiable under pattern of subdivision, and the significant features of each group,
118 119
~...-
open defiance
N - l29 of authority
malicious 11-'- -1-" - , - ~.------n
1 mischief
inadequate g...ilt
jIiiiM:-' ... t-;- -fa--+- ",~"j
"" '-1-:-'
-t>o .•
r
L N'B =::J
[present: 4,11,12 I
r absent:- I
I I
L __ N = 37 _J L_ N-3B
present:l:3.9. -J ( present: 13, 17
seclusi\lenm
"'- ,
......... - -~
t-" ~ -, b
shyness
E- -. -6. '" 1-.
Figure 4:4 (right) The three delinquent -behaviour syndromes' identified by apathy
I: - ro-
.:=]
Hewitt and Jenkins, These three groups of traits (based on ratings and reports
in case histories) were found to be .ntercorrelated among the cases in Hewitt
and Jenkins' sample of 500 children seen In a child -guidance clinic. Numbers
worrying ~: . , -
beside the trait names indicate the percentage of those displaying that trait
who were in the 'svndrome' grQup characterised by that trait. Thus, for
sensitiveness
E.: .--- . ~- ~- -
~
'- -
example, 70 per cent of .JI gang members in the sample of 500 were in the
'socialised delinquency' group, submissi\leness r , 1
122 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 1O '0 1~
La.t arrest If arrested again for Index crime (see left). Last arrest Not re- Next arrest
for an Index probability that it will be for arrested Re -arrested for crime of type
crime 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
sonal violence (homicide, rape or aggravated assault) is less than However, 'violent crime' and 'non-violent property crime' are both
one in ten, By contrast. for those arrested for one of these three very broad categories, and both include a number of different, more
violent crimes, the probability of re-arrest being for another violent specific, patterns of criminal behaviour, It should also be noted that
crime is about four in ten , A study confirming this conclusion was these studies, like Roebuck's (see page 129) are based on arrest
carried out by Peterson er aI's in St Louis, Missouri, They found records, rather than on con\,;ct;ons, Arrest records may give a more
that in a sample of88 men, aged forty and over on arrest, a high pro- accurate estimate of the total amount of an offender's criminality,
portion had stable careers consisting either of two or more arrests but they may exaggerate its homogeneity, since many police forces
exclusively for violent crime (33 cases) or of two or more arrests for make a practice of arresting suspects on the basis of the nature of
non-violent propeny crime (18 cases); only eight men in this group their previous arrests or modus operand;,
had mixed arrest records for both violent and property crimes, When more stringent criteria are used, the degree of homogeneity
136 137
· duc<d. Thus. Robin'· made a study of the delinquent and later great bulk of criminal behaviour unexplained .
::i:inal careers of members of 27 gangs in Philadelphia in 1962. He
(ound that while there was a tendency for these offenders' crimes to
It seems to us, therefore. that any offender typology which is
intended to distinguish different causal processes should begin by
get more serious as they got older. there was little evidence of stable . explicitly distinguishing between 'occasional' or 'once-only' offen-
patterns of a single type of offence. Only a fifth of the 395 gang mem- ders on the one hand, and 'ha bitual' or persistent offenders on the
bers with at least five police contacts had as many as three-fourths other; and by further sub-dividing the latter group into those who
of those contacts within anyone of three broad offence categories display homogeneous criminal careers and those who do not. The
(offences against the person, offences against property, or dis- distinction between 'occasional' and persistent offenders has been
orderly conduct). ignored by most contemporary criminologists - with the con-
Several English studies also support the general conclusion that spicuous exception of Gibbons. whose typology was discussed above.
homogeneous criminal careers are rare. In the Cambridge study of But Gibbons errs, in our view, in regarding the 'once-only' offender
sexual offences. 3o based on a sample of 1,985 men convicted in as having a 'role-career'. A man who commits only one isolated
1947, it was found that only 17 per cent had any previous convic- offence does not have any criminal career - even a very short one;
tions for sexual crimes of any kind. and that only two per cent had and we suggest that the kind of explanation appropriate to his
four or more convictions of the same kind (most of these being behaviour is likely to be very different from the kind of explanation
persons who committed homosexual offences or indecent exposure). applying to the man who persists in crime. The self-report studies
Moreover. nearly half of those with more than one conviction for a described in chapter 2 of this book have shown that most persons
sexual offence had also been convicted of three or more non-sexual commit some kind of offence at some time or another in their lives.
offences. In his study of crimes of violence committed in London, In the absence of evidence to the contrary, it seems reasonable to
McCiintock 31 found that only one-fifth of the offenders could be regard these isolated acts as normal events, the occurrence and
classified as 'violent recidivists' with one or more previous convic- distribution of which - if it is not completely random _ is best
tions for a violent offence ; only about three to four per cent had explained, at least in most cases. by relatively simple situational
previously been convicted three or more times for violent crimes, factors (such as opportunities to commit crime).
though about 15 per cent had three or more previous convictions for The crimes of persistent offenders are different ; and a man who is
non-violent crimes. In another study, of robbers convicted in London repeatedly arrested for serious offences certainly cannot be regarded
in 1950-7, McClintock and Gibson found that while the majority as completely normal, in the statistical sense. (We do not mean, of
had previous convictions, these were mostly for larceny and other course, that he has to be thought of as ilL) Even a mild degree of
non-violent property crimes ; only 16 per cent could be classified as persistence in crime suggests a degree of personal involvement _
'robbers who concentrated mainly on this type of offence. Similarly, reflected, perhaps, in self-eoncept, attitudes and social relationships
research by Hadden."' on offenders convicted of fraud, found only - which the 'once-only' offender is unlikely to possess: and the notion
about one-sixth had specialised in fraud ; another 12 per cent had of a criminal career accordingly becomes more appropriate. In
begun their criminal careers by committing other offences (mostly other words, it seems likely that the cause of the persistent offender's
larceny) and had tended in later years to specialise in frauds . crimes is not just the more frequent occurrence of the same thing
which causes the occasional offender's crime.
Of course, it is possible that a dichotomous classification of
Conclusion 'occasional' and 'persistent' offenders is far too crude, and tbat
It seems clear. tben, that .homogeneous criminal careers are not several degrees of involvement in crime need to be distinguished for
common. and that offender typologies based on this notion will explanatory purposes. For instance. it may be that, as Glaser33 has
consequently be very limited in scope. A typology based on criminal suggested, many offenders careers take the form of a 'crime-
careers may well be useful as a starting-point for aetiological re- none rime' cycle, in whicb the offender alternates between periods of
search; but - if'mixed' careers are excluded - it is bound to leave the legitimate work and periods of criminal behaviour. Again, as
138 139
Polsky" ha s recently pointed out. many kinds o f property crime
lend themsehes admirably to 'moonlight ing" - that is. they may be
5 Understanding
undertaken to provide a second source of income. either part-time
or full·time . by one who continues to hold down a regular. legitimate
the sentencing process
job at the same time. The precise delinea tion of these 'intermediate
career groups must, in our opinion. be based on self· reported crime
as well as arrests or convictions. I ndeed. when the undetected Criminologists have paid scant attention to the sentencing process.
offences of persistent offenders are considered. a somewhat greater Their major concern has been with the effects of sentences on
degree of homogeneity of behaviour may be found than is suggested offenders. The shortness of this chapter compared with the next two
by official records. testifies to the relative amounts of empirical work in these two
The only firm conclusion that we can draw. then. is that frequency related areas . Yet research on the decision-making process involved
or intensity of criminal behaviour must be taken into account by any in sentencing is essential : for it is. after all. mainly the decisions made
valid aetiological typology of offenders . In addition. such a typology by judges and magistrates that determine which types of offender
should probably distinguish those offenders with relatively homo- undergo which various punishments and treatments.
geneous criminal careers, even if they are not very numerous. We Most studies of sentencing hav'e been concerned with what appear
recognise that this does not take us very far. and it is a dispiriting to be inexplicable disparities between sentences passed on similar
result after so much effort has been put into this subject. It may well cases. Researchers have in general attempted to see whether these
be that the empirical or descriptive approach to this problem, which disparities can be explained by the peculiar nature of the cases
has been the basis of most research so far. is fundamentally the coming before different judges or courts . The method has been to
wrong one and that more attention should be paid in future to the correlate various facts about the offence and the offender with the
development of theories from which classifications can be deduced. severity of the sentence imposed . This method has obviously pro-
duced useful information about what factors are given most weight
in the sentencing process. At the same time it has drawn attention
to the importance of information about the offence and the offender
on sentencing and led to a critical analysis of the role of those who
provide information, such as the prosecutor and probation officer.
In addition to this empirical approach, studies have been made of
judicial rules and conventions for sentencing, especially those
embodied in judgments of the courts of appeal. In England, for
example. D. A. Thomas' has contributed much to the understanding
of sentencing through a critical analysis of the principles and
practical directions laid down for sentencing in the Court of Appeal,
Criminal Division. But in this chapter we shall be concerned
entirely with the contribution of empirical research to the under-
standing of the sentencing process.