Vold's theoretical criminology 6th edition

Criminological Theory

S e v e n t h E d i t i o n

Frank P. Williams III Professor Emeritus,

California State University—San Bernardino

Marilyn D. McShane

330 Hudson Street, NY, NY 10013

Vice President, Portfolio Management: Andrew Gilfillan Portfolio Manager: Gary Bauer Editorial Assistant: Lynda Cramer Senior Vice President, Marketing: David Gesell Field Marketing Manager: Thomas Hayward Product Marketing Manager: Kaylee Carlson Senior Marketing Coordinator: Les Roberts Director, Digital Studio and Content Production:

Brian Hyland Managing Producer: Cynthia Zonneveld Managing Producer: Jennifer Sargunar Content Producer: Ruchi Sachdev Manager, Rights Management: Johanna Burke

Operations Specialist: Deidra Smith Creative Digital Lead: Mary Siener Managing Producer, Digital Studio: Autumn Benson Content Producer, Digital Studio: Maura Barclay Full-Service Management and Composition: iEnergizer

Aptara®, Ltd. Full-Service Project Manager: Rajiv Sharma Cover Designer: StudioMontage Cover Art: Courtesy of Marilyn McShane Printer/Binder: RR Donnelley BAR/Owensville Cover Printer: Lehigh-Phoenix Color/Hagerstown Text Font: ITC Garamond Std

Copyright © 2018, 2014, 2010 by Pearson Education. All Rights Reserved. Manufactured in the United States of America. This publication is protected by copyright, and permission should be obtained from the publisher prior to any prohibited reproduction, storage in a retrieval system, or transmission in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise. For information regarding permissions, request forms, and the appropriate contacts within the Pearson Education Global Rights and Permissions department, please visit www. pearsoned.com/permissions/.

Acknowledgments of third-party content appear on the appropriate page within the text.

PEARSON and ALWAYS LEARNING are exclusive trademarks owned by Pearson Education, Inc. in the U.S. and/or other countries.

Unless otherwise indicated herein, any third-party trademarks, logos, or icons that may appear in this work are the property of their respective owners, and any references to third-party trademarks, logos, icons, or other trade dress are for demonstrative or descriptive purposes only. Such references are not intended to imply any sponsorship, endorsement, authorization, or promotion of Pearson's products by the owners of such marks, or any relationship between the owner and Pearson Education, Inc., authors, licensees, or distributors.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Williams, Franklin P., author. | McShane, Marilyn D., author. Criminological theory / Frank P. Williams III, Professor Emeritus, California State University-San Bernardino, Marilyn D. McShane, University of Nevada-Reno. Seventh edition. | Boston : Pearson, [2016] | Includes index. LCCN 2016040819| ISBN 9780134558899 | ISBN 0134558898 LCSH: Criminology. LCC HV6018 .W48 2016 | DDC 364.2—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2016040819

ISBN-10: 0-13-455889-8 ISBN-13: 978-0-13-455889-9

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

http://www.pearsoned.com/permissions
http://www.pearsoned.com/permissions
https://lccn.loc.gov/2016040819
iii

COnTEnTS

Preface vii

Chapter 1 IntroduCtIon 1 Introduction to Theory 1 What Is Good Theory? 3 Kinds of Theory 6 Social Context and Theory 8 Theory, Research, and Policy 9 A Note on Evidence, Theory, and Reality 10

Summary 10 • Questions and Weblinks 11 • Related Websites 11 • Bibliography 11

Section I the roots of Criminology

Chapter 2 the ClaSSICal SChool 13 Introduction 13 The Heritage of the School 13 The Perspective of the School 15 Classification of the School 17

Summary 18 • Epilogue: Current Directions and Policy Implications 19 • Questions and Weblinks 20 • Related Websites 21 • Bibliography 21 • Research Bibliography 21

Chapter 3 the PoSItIve SChool 25 Introduction 25 The Heritage of the School 26 The Perspective of the School 26 Classification of the School 30

Summary 30 • Epilogue: Current Directions and Policy Implications 31 • Questions and Weblinks 34 • Related Websites 35 • Bibliography 35 • Research Bibliography 37

Section II the Foundations of american Criminology

Chapter 4 the ChICago SChool 40 Introduction 40 The Heritage of the School 40 The Perspective of the School 42 Classification of the School 47

Summary 47 • Epilogue: Current Directions and Policy Implications 48 • Questions and Weblinks 50 • Related Websites 50 • Bibliography 50 • Research Bibliography 52

Chapter 5 dIFFerentIal aSSoCIatIon theory 55 Introduction 55

iv Contents

The Heritage of the Theory 55 The Theoretical Perspective 57 Classification of the Theory 60

Summary 60 • Epilogue: Current Directions and Policy Implications 61 • Questions and Weblinks 62 • Related Websites 62 • Bibliography 63 • Research Bibliography 64

Chapter 6 anomIe theory 65 Introduction 65 The Heritage of the Theory 66 The Theoretical Perspective 68 Classification of the Theory 70

Summary 70 • Epilogue: Current Directions and Policy Implications 71 • Questions and Weblinks 73 • Related Websites 74 • Bibliography 74 • Research Bibliography 75

Section III Building on the Foundation

Chapter 7 SuBCulture theorIeS 77 Introduction 77 The Heritage of the Theories 77 Cohen’s Subculture of Delinquency 79 Cloward and Ohlin’s Differential Opportunity Theory 81 Other Subculture Theories 84

Summary 86 • Epilogue: Current Directions and Policy Implications 87 • Questions and Weblinks 89 • Related Websites 89 • Bibliography 89 • Research Bibliography 90

Chapter 8 laBelIng theory 92 Introduction 92 The Heritage of the Theory 93 The Theoretical Perspective 94 Classification of the Theory 99

Summary 100 • Epilogue: Current Directions and Policy Implications 100 • Questions and Weblinks 103 • Related Websites 103 • Bibliography 103 • Research Bibliography 104

Section Iv modern Criminology

Chapter 9 ConFlICt theory 107 Introduction 107 The Heritage of the Theory 107 The Theoretical Perspective 108 Classification of the Theory 115

Summary 115 • Epilogue: Current Directions and Policy Implications 116 • Questions and Weblinks 118 • Related Websites 118 • Bibliography 118 • Research Bibliography 120

Contents v

Chapter 10 gender-BaSed theorIeS 122 Introduction 122 The Heritage of the Theory 122 The Theoretical Perspective 124 Classification of the Perspective 130 Policy Implications 131

Questions and Weblinks 131 • Related Websites 131 • Bibliography 132 • Research Bibliography 134

Chapter 11 SoCIal Control theory 136 Introduction 136 The Heritage of the Theory 137 The Theoretical Perspective 138 Classification of the Theory 143

Summary 143 • Epilogue: Current Directions and Policy Implications 144 • Questions and Weblinks 145 • Related Websites 146 • Bibliography 146 • Research Bibliography 147

Chapter 12 SoCIal learnIng theory 150 Introduction 150 The Heritage of the Theory 150 The Theoretical Perspective 151 Classification of the Theory 155

Summary 156 • Epilogue: Current Directions and Policy Implications 157 • Questions and Weblinks 158 • Related Websites 158 • Bibliography 158 • Research Bibliography 159

Chapter 13 ratIonal theorIeS 162 Introduction 162 The Heritage of the Theory 162 The Theoretical Perspective 163 Classification of the Theory 166

Summary 166 • Epilogue: Current Directions and Policy Implications 167 • Questions and Weblinks 168 Related Websites 168 • Bibliography 168 • Research Bibliography 169

Section v Contemporary Perspectives

Chapter 14 ContemPorary theorIeS oF ProCeSS 173 Introduction 173 The Heritage of Contemporary Theory 173 Modern Strain Theory 174 Modern Social Control Theory 175 Modern Developmental Theories 178

Summary 181 • Questions and Weblinks 181 • Related Websites 182 • Bibliography 182 • Research Bibliography 184

vi Contents

Chapter 15 ContemPorary IntegratIve and CrItICal theorIeS 191 Introduction 191 The Heritage of Contemporary Theory 192 Integrative Theories 194 Postmodern Theories 198 Conclusions 201

Questions and Weblinks 204 • Related Websites 204 • Bibliography 204 • Research Bibliography 206

Index 209

vii

PREFACE

As its title implies, this book is about the major sociological theories of crime. While there are other approaches to the study of crime, since the 1920s, criminology has been oriented toward sociology. There is, however, some coverage of biological and psychological theories of crime and delinquency in the third chapter, and comments on the contributions of these perspectives are interspersed throughout, where appropriate. Nonetheless, we still intend the book to be represen- tative of what criminological theory has been because a course in criminological theory is mainly a course in history.

When we first developed the concept of this text, there was but one criminological theory text on the market and that one was 30 years old (George Vold’s Theoretical Criminology, pub- lished in 1958). Perhaps most importantly, there was no extant treatment of the importance of situating a theory in its own time and context in order to appreciate and understand its meanings and nuances. Thus, we set about to produce a text which, we hoped, would provide undergradu- ates with a brief but clear description of the most well-known criminological theories and simul- taneously include a method of understanding those theories. After that beginning in 1988, criminological theory texts have become commonplace and, it seems, almost all now discuss the context surrounding the development of the various theories. This is a good thing.

We continue to hear from students and colleagues who have used the first six editions that many graduate students find the text valuable as a primer or as a study guide in their theory classes and for studying for comprehensive exams. The research references included in this edi- tion are a valuable resource for a graduate student writing a research paper, thesis, or disserta- tion, or preparing for qualifying exams. As before, we have included updates in each of the chapters and a final chapter discussing current theory. The intent of the first edition was to focus on traditional theories, and we only briefly mentioned contemporary versions in the concluding chapter. In the second and third editions, we added chapters that summarized a number of new theoretical directions. However, as time goes on and theory testing and integration continues, we have found it necessary to split some of these concluding chapters into their own distinct theo- retical areas. In this edition, Chapter 14 covers contemporary social process approaches. Chapter 15 discusses the broader context of integrative theories as well as metatheory.

The format of the first six editions has been retained in most chapters. We include a discus- sion of the social and intellectual heritage of the theory, highlight and explain the perspective and major concepts of the theory, and summarize and list the theory’s major points. The lists of major points are intended to clarify earlier commentary and to demonstrate the logical connections among the various elements of each theory. The chapter summaries may also serve as review material for examinations. Graduate students may find the major points helpful in determining the background assumptions of the theories, comparing theories, and locating hypotheses for empirical testing. We realize that a discussion of a theory’s major concepts, major points, and then a summary is somewhat redundant but our own experience from 40 years of teaching the- ory to all levels of students is that it helps retention and understanding. Many of our students have told us that this is not merely our perception.

New to this editioN

• The bibliographies once again have been expanded to include a number of related sources that would be useful to those doing research in a particular theoretical area. These are called Research Bibliographies and they follow the general references section.

• In most chapters, we have included and updated brief biographies of the major theorists. We believe that it will interest the student to see the similarities and differences between the theorists’ careers and how becoming a criminologist is not always a deliberate or dedi- cated path.

• The chapter on gender-based theories has been expanded and updated to include research on the gender gap.

viii Preface

• The list of informative weblinks at the end of each chapter has been expanded and updated. In particular, the “Ted Talks” can be used for exercises in class, and other links for research- ing special assignments. Students are also encouraged to find relevant websites on their own.

• The examples of how theory can be seen and applied today have once again been updated to draw on current events and incidents from the news with which students might be familiar.

• The final chapter is now an overview of various contemporary theoretical perspectives and a commentary on issues in modern theory. In addition, some deleted materials from earlier editions have been returned, as per requests.

As in the earlier editions, we attempt in most chapters to provide a classification of the theoreti- cal perspective. These areas of the book continue to draw the most discussion. In one sense, we find this appropriate. There are so many methods of classifying theories that it is inevitable that instructors and others who use the text would find some conflict with their own positions. Rather than hide such conflicts, we believe it is more instructive to bring them out into the open for students. Thus, we continue to provide theory classifications and encourage instructors to tell students how and why their approaches differ from ours.

And as always, we welcome any feedback on the book. The numerous versions of each form of theory, as well as the various perspectives on them, make critical commentary inevitable. Since this book is designed primarily to be used, we invite readers, students, and teachers alike to provide us with their ideas on how to make it even more useful. We feel very fortunate that we were able to acquire firsthand the comments and advice of some of the original authors of the theories. Our sincere gratitude and heartfelt appreciation goes out to the many distinguished criminologists, some of whom are no longer with us, who patiently offered us their insights and commentary. At this point, we also realize the special nature of opportunities that will never again occur with many who helped us place things in context (frequently over beer or wine at a conference bar, or in the case of the late Leslie Wilkins, a large glass of breakfast gin). We would also like to thank our reviewers Addrain Convers, Marist College; John Curra, School of Justice Studies/College of Justice & Safety/Eastern Kentucky University; Susan Hodge, University of North Carolina at Charlotte; and Adam Trahan, University of North Texas. We would especially like to recognize the continued support and guidance of scholars and colleagues Freda Adler, Ron Akers, Jeff Ferrell, Mark Hamm, Rob Mutchnick, Hal Pepinsky, and Frank Scarpitti. Addi- tionally, we would be remiss not to remember and express our appreciation for the wonderful conversations we had with our late colleagues Al Cohen, Sy Dinitz, Gil Geis, Ray Jeffery, Al Reiss, and Austin Turk. Finally, thanks are also in order to those who used our text in their classes and provided us commentary, or otherwise helped with their ideas and thoughts, includ- ing a number of very bright students and colleagues. And as is Richard Quinney, we are once again grateful to the Lone Ranger (some of you will have an idea of how many beers have gone under that particular bridge).

iNstRUCtoR sUPPLeMeNts Instructor’s Manual with Test Bank. Includes content outlines for classroom discussion, teaching suggestions, and answers to selected end-of-chapter questions from the text. This also contains a Word document version of the test bank.

TestGen. This computerized test generation system gives you maximum flexibility in creating and administering tests on paper, electronically, or online. It provides state-of-the-art features for viewing and editing test bank questions, dragging a selected question into a test you are creating, and printing sleek, formatted tests in a variety of layouts. Select test items from test banks included with TestGen for quick test creation, or write your own questions from scratch. Test- Gen’s random generator provides the option to display different text or calculated number values each time questions are used.

PowerPoint Presentations. Our presentations are clear and straightforward. Photos, illustrations, charts, and tables from the book are included in the presentations when applicable.

ALteRNAte VeRsioNs eBooks This text is also available in multiple eBook formats. These are an exciting new choice for students looking to save money. As an alternative to purchasing the printed textbook, students can purchase an electronic version of the same content. With an eTextbook, students can search the text, make notes online, print out reading assignments that incorporate lecture notes, and bookmark important passages for later review. For more information, visit your favorite online eBook reseller or visit www.mypearsonstore.com.

Trey Williams and Marilyn McShane

Preface ix

http://www.mypearsonstore.com
This page intentionally left blank

1

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 1

Introduction

Learning Objectives

Objective 1.1: Describe some of the characteristics of a good theory.

Objective 1.2: Summarize the various ways to classify criminological theories.

Objective 1.3: Explain the difference between a macro- and a microtheory.

Objective 1.4: Discuss the relationship between theory, research, and policy.

Objective 1.5: Explain what is meant by the social context of a crime theory.

IntroductIon to theory

The study of criminological theory is an opportunity to analyze and critique the way others have looked at crime through history. Today, the quest to understand crime is as close to us as the latest newspaper headlines and television reports. As we will see, however, theory is not just a popular belief, opinion, or value-driven explanation. Instead, theory as we will discuss it here is a product of the scientific approach.

The effective use of theory is found in the everyday activities of the criminal justice system. Police departments have designed their patrol patterns around various theories that predict criminal events. Each day judges hand down sentences based on their understanding of the character of a defendant and the environment in which that defendant lives. Jurors decide whether to give the death penalty based on their assumptions about the future dangerousness of the defendant. Probation officers send their clients to treatment programs to improve work skills or to resolve their use of drugs or alcohol. Prison authori- ties attempt to instill discipline, teach proper work habits, and deter inmates from future criminality. Finally, as reflected in the media, the public seems to attribute criminal behavior to such things as drug use, a depressed economy, poor family life, the influence of bad friends, and, sometimes, even the immi- gration and ethnic status of people. All of these activities and explanations are found in the implications of various criminological theories over the past century.

As you can see, theory does not have to be abstract. Furthermore, and despite public opinion to the contrary, theory is applicable to the “real world.” We all use theory as part of everyday life but normally not the scientific versions of it. When you see a dark cloud in the sky and say that it is going to rain, you have just expressed a theory. To be sure, it is a relatively simple theory, but it does express the relation- ships among clouds in general, clouds that are dark, and the falling of drops of water from the sky. This simple explanation meets two criteria for the simplest version of theory: (1) the use of objective evidence and systematic observation and (2) a rational explanation of that evidence. In other words, we know from many observations that dark clouds are systematically associated with rain, and a rational person could assume that if dark clouds occur first, then rain will follow. Similarly, if you have ever been about to go in a door when someone on the other side of door bursts through (and you were then hit in the face by the door), you associate the sound of someone on the other side of a door as a reason to be cautious. Here, you are theorizing on the basis of evidence (your past experience) that sounds indicating the pres- ence of someone could be followed by their opening the door.

2 Chapter 1 • Introduction

Theories can be very simple or very complex, depending upon the number and types of relationships expressed by them. A more complex theory of rain would be that, under certain circumstances, surface water evaporates and rises into the atmosphere. Certain atmospheric con- ditions cause the water to condense, first into “clouds” and ultimately into drops of rain. The complexity in this version of a theory of rain is in specifying the conditions and processes involved in evaporation and condensation.

Theories can also be concrete or abstract. Theories about rain tend to be concrete, even if complex. Theories about simple behaviors such as throwing a ball through a window also tend to be concrete. Abstract theories, however, are more difficult to tie directly to reality. For instance, Einstein’s theory of relativity is an abstract concept. We have difficulty in directly testing the concept that time gets slower the faster one travels, and certainly we cannot test velocities beyond the speed of light. Similarly, theories about the effect of social structure on crime rates are abstract. Social structure is an invented concept (we doubt that you have ever seen a social struc- ture), and crime rates are a mathematical concept derived from dividing the number of crimes by some standard population size.

The most important thing about theories is that we need them to live or to live better. Theo- ries allow us to develop and test potential solutions to problems we encounter in life. True, some of the problems are more critical than others, for example, addressing global warming versus predicting who will win an Oscar. But we do need the many theories we have learned about our environment to accumulate knowledge and effectively allocate resources. Imagine what life would be like if you could never generalize about things, if every time you saw a cloud you had to get wet to conclude that it was going to rain. And suppose you could not assume that a door represents a way to enter a building. Theories, then, are really generalizations of a sort; they explain how two or more events are related to each other and the conditions under which the relationship takes place. For example, the statement that seat belts reduce deaths in automobile accidents expresses a relationship between two events. The seat belts alone will not reduce deaths, however. There must be a condition that they be worn (we could also add that the seat belts have to be installed properly, worn correctly, etc.).

The way we express these generalizations, or think about things, depends on the form of knowledge we are using at the time. We know things through experience (often referred to as “empirical knowledge”), intuition, common sense, or science, or because someone important to us (or even an important book) has told us so. The causes of crime, for instance, are assumed to be “known” by everyone. They include broken homes, lack of religion, hanging around with the wrong crowd, poor upbringing, and so forth. While you probably don’t think of these explana- tions as theories, they all are. At the same time, they are not good theories because they are too simplistic. If they were correct, then everyone whose life has these causes would be criminal (or delinquent), and, of course, we know that is not true. Even more important is the fact that such theories also imply the reverse; that is, people who are raised in a good family environment, who are religious, and who associate with the right people will not do anything criminal (or delin- quent). This is not true either, since self-report studies (Akers, 1964; Gold, 1970; Reiss & Rhodes, 1961; Short & Nye, 1958) tell us that most young people at one time or another do things that are against the law. Unfortunately, public “theories” such as these are derived from concepts of “good” and “bad” and contribute to the way we view others. One of the basic crimi- nological truths is that there is generally no such thing as noncriminals and criminals. Every person who has committed their first criminal act was previously a noncriminal and at the time of that commission was not necessarily any different than previously. Thus, the assumption that we know who is criminal and noncriminal is patently false.1 From this, you can imagine the com- plexity required of any theory that purports to be a good explanation of behavior.

The problem with most of our day-to-day theories is they are often illogical or they are the product of selective observations. They may work some of the time and even often enough to be used as a general rule of thumb for making decisions. But when we need to be accurate or more

1 As with all statements, this is not universally true. There is a small group of people (criminological studies have consis- tently put the percentage at 6% or so of the population, and mostly male) who consistently engage in criminal behavior. Even so, predicting who they are and when their first delinquent/criminal act will occur is very difficult. Finally, there is an exceedingly rare group of individuals who are simply dangerous and criminal; but, again, predicting who will be one of these individuals is not within our capabilities.

Chapter 1 • Introduction 3

careful about making policies, these theories will fail us. Human behavior is complex, and any simplistic theory will be incorrect. Therefore, theories about crime and criminals tend to be com- plex and are based on what we know (or in the case of older theories, what was known at the time) from research on crime and criminals. This, then, is a characteristic of scientific theories that is not normally shared by everyday theories. In fact, everyday theories are rather speculative and are rarely based on careful observation and evidence. In this regard, many people mistake the lay use of the word “theory”—as a speculative wondering about something—for scientific theory and they think that scientists also use the word “theory” in the same way. Actually, the two uses of the word are quite different.

In general, scientific theories reflect systematic observation (observation made through the use of certain rules), repeated evidence, and careful logic. Indeed, scientific theories are fre- quently “factual” but share a dislike for saying that they are “proven.” Even though the evidence may have been in favor of a scientific theory for each of 1,000 tests, there is still the possibility that the next test will not be supportive and that the theory needs to be modified. Theories as we will discuss them here, then, are never proven—primarily because scientists are too conservative and cautious to use that word. But, these theories are always supported by systematic observable evidence. This notion that a theory must be “proven” to be valid is one of the main reasons that nonscientists misunderstand theory. Scientists talk in terms of probability and, for them, a likeli- hood of something being true 95% of the time is a (usually standard) minimum criterion for accepting it. That’s the same thing as saying scientists prefer to have a maximum of 5% error in their statements.2

Another issue in criminological theory lies in the sheer variety of behavior defined as crim- inal. When we use the term “crime,” the reference is often to a wide range of illegal behavior. The individual criminal acts, though, may have very little in common except that someone, at some time, disliked each of them enough to have a law passed against them (of course, some- times the reverse occurs and criminal behaviors are made legal again). Murder and petty theft, for example, have about as much in common as a rock and an orange. Just because one can find a common thread—they are both matter, for instance—doesn’t mean that they are alike in any meaningful sense.

Another problem is that criminal behavior may be merely one of a variety of similar behav- iors. For instance, if we argue that some criminal behavior is thrill-seeking behavior, then a the- ory that predicts behavior on that basis must also include legal behavior. Assuming that any thrill-seeking behavior is equally likely, committing a crime would be no more likely than some- one going bungee jumping, skydiving, hang gliding, or drifting. From this perspective, even though a thrill-seeking behavior might be relatively predictable, any one of those behaviors— such as crime—remains relatively unpredictable. Thus, theories of crime and criminal behavior must encompass a wide range of human activity. For this reason, some criminologists advocate limiting theories to specific criminal acts or harmful behaviors.

What Is Good theory?

Because more than one theory usually purports to explain criminality at any given time, how do we know which one is best? In fact, how can we tell what is good theory in general? The most common answer is that a good theory is one that can be tested and that best fits the evidence of research (Akers & Sellers, 2008; Blalock, 1969; Gibbs, 1972). This makes sense, because our theories are scientific and should already be based on research evidence. In fact,

2 For those who are curious, this 5% allowable error is not just a conveniently chosen percentage. It is derived from a statistical distribution called the “normal curve” and the way standard deviations occupy space under it. Two standard deviations occupy approximately 95% of the area under the curve, beginning in the middle and spreading in both high and low directions. This leaves 5% of the area at each of the two extreme ends of the curve. In nonstatistical terms, the extremes are, by definition, least likely to happen. So, usual events and behaviors can be comfortably eliminated by using this objective standard. Of course, now we have the problem of asking what makes a person “comfortable” when coming to a conclusion about something. This same statistical model can be used to produce a 1% error rate or even something much smaller like .001% error—that clearly would be even better probabilities of being incorrect in making a statement. But, remember that “probabilities” also mean that something can happen by error, just at the error rate mentioned. Thus, there is always the “chance” of being wrong, no matter what error rate you choose, and therefore noth- ing is ever proven and certain.

4 Chapter 1 • Introduction

these criteria are derived from the natural sciences, where they are used as the standard for good theory. There is really no difference between the natural and social sciences in determin- ing good theory. There are, however, measurement problems in the social sciences because some variables, such as social class, cannot be as accurately measured as can distance, time, or hardness and the like. Under these generally accepted criteria, if a theory is not testable or if evidence does not support it, then the theory is not a good one. While this sounds clear enough, the issue is, unfortunately, not that simple.

Suppose, for a moment, that Einstein had lived and had proposed his theory of relativity two centuries before he did. It would not have been testable at that time, nor would the theory have fit the research evidence. Obviously, his theory would not have been considered a good theory at that time. Therefore, as changes in research evidence and the ability to measure and test occur, so do the common criteria for a good theory. In other words, it sometimes takes a while before our ability to measure and produce evidence catches up with a theory. Until that time, the theory may appear to be a “bad” one because evidence will not be available to support it. This means we might discard theories that are really good ones because our measuring capa- bilities cannot yet adequately test them and provide the necessary support. Therefore, as our measuring capabilities and techniques change, we may need to reexamine and retest theories to see if new research evidence provides a better fit. Of one thing we can be sure, however: If there is no current way to measure something, it is unlikely to appear in a theory—regardless of how important that something might be.

Another concern with testing is the use of a single approach to measure theoretical con- cepts. If one uses only one measure, and that measure is not a good one or does not adequately represent the theoretical concept, the theory may be rejected (even though the theory may be valid). A similar problem arises when a theory is affirmed by a single-test approach or measure. What is being measured may generate an erroneous result, but if the measurement is done the same way time after time, the result will always be the same, thereby creating the false impres- sion of consistently valid results. Multiple methods and measures are always better ways of test- ing than any single approach.

If our approach to assessing a theory is based on measuring and testing, we refer to it as quantitative validation. A different approach, one that focuses on the substance of a theory, is called qualitative validation. It is these qualitative criteria that help us resolve the problem of time-specific and measurement-specific evidence. They include such factors as logical sound- ness, the ability to make sense out of several conflicting positions, and even the degree to which the theory may sensitize people to things they otherwise would not see. While these criteria are not often mentioned, they are no less important for the utility of a theory than quantitative tests are. Most theories of criminology do not do well on the criterion of empirical testing.3 On the other hand, almost all these theories made sense out of things that had been puzzling people before, and they sensitized criminologists to new and important ways of looking at the phenom- enon of crime. Let’s explore these qualitative criteria more closely.

Logical soundness means that the theory does not propose illogical relationships, and that it is internally consistent. One of the most common logic problems is that of time order, in which an event that occurs after another event is assumed to have caused the first event. For instance, if we ask marijuana users about the chance of being arrested for drug use, they will probably tell us that the probability of arrest is low. We might then think that people use marijuana because they think they have very little chance of being arrested (i.e., they are not deterred). In reality, how- ever, a low estimate of the chance of arrest is really a reflection of the fact that they have used marijuana many times and have not been arrested. The low estimate of being arrested, then, came after the drug use and could not have caused it. In a more general example of logical soundness, if someone examined evidence that criminals in an institution for the criminally insane have

3 Of course, as the previous discussion suggests, the problem with “fitting” the research evidence may be as much with the way we test and measure as it is with the theory itself. However, we are certainly not taking the position that all criminological theories are simply ahead of their time and merely waiting for research capabilities to “catch up” to them. There are similar problems with using existing research evidence to create theory. If the existing research has systematic errors, thus producing what appears to be valid evidence, then any theory created to explain that evidence is actually explaining a phenomenon that doesn’t exist. In one sense, then, all theory is a product of what we believe to be true, using our most valid information at the time.

Chapter 1 • Introduction 5

irrational thinking patterns and then proposed that irrational thinking causes criminal behavior, the theory would be illogical. Very few criminals are insane, and those who are placed in insane institutions are different by their very nature. Actually, if the theory were correct, the author of the theory would then be engaged in irrational thinking, and we would expect him or her to become a criminal! In another example, criminologists DeFleur and Quinney (1966) even used a special form of logic called “set theory” to analyze the logical soundness of one of the more popular theories of criminal behavior (they found that it was, indeed, internally consistent).

The ability to make sense out of several conflicting positions means that when evidence seems to indicate that there are two or more opposing facts, a theory that can reconcile those facts is a good one and is better than having different theories to account for each fact. Differential association theory (Chapter 5), for instance, brings together the concepts of disorganized social areas and organized interaction in small, intimate groups and makes sense out of differing crime rates among various groups of people. As another example, official crime statistics and self-report studies (asking people what they have done) suggest two different pictures of “the criminal.” Labeling theory (Chapter 8) makes sense of both forms of evidence by pointing out that official statistics give a picture only of those who have been reacted to and that self-report information gives a picture of those who are officially criminal as well as those who have not yet been caught. A noted philosopher and historian of science, Thomas Kuhn (1970), said that accepted new theo- ries almost always make sense out of conflicting evidence that older theories cannot explain.

Sensitizing ability refers to focusing people’s attention on a new, or even forgotten, direc- tion of inquiry, or perhaps suggesting a different way of looking at and interpreting a fact they already know. Sometimes we concentrate so hard on a particular direction for explaining crime that we need to be reminded that there are other directions as well. One value of a sensitizing theory is that it serves to reacquaint criminologists with other facets of the problem. Using label- ing theory again to illustrate, theorists in the 1950s were so focused on lower-class, urban, male, gang delinquents that all delinquency seemed to be a product of those kids. Labeling sensitized criminology to the importance of asking who gets reacted to and how we react to them. This served to remind criminologists that certain types of people are more likely to be closely observed and arrested for their behavior. In other words, labeling theory sensitized criminologists to the fact that criminality is due as much to how we react to people as it is to their personal character- istics. Thus, there was another explanation for urban, minority, male delinquency than the strain and stress of social structure.

Finally, one other qualitative criterion for a “good” theory is worthy of discussion. This criterion is very different from the others, and it should be used with a great deal of caution. This one is popularity. Simply put, if a theory becomes popular with criminologists, then by definition it seems to be a “good” theory. The problem here is that popularity comes from a

A Note for Graduate Students

The discussion of methodology preferences and the kind of evi- dence they produce has a parallel in the broader context of theory production and what we do in criminology. Thomas Kuhn’s (1970) concept of paradigms, as applied by the social sciences, and Alvin Gouldner’s (1970) concept of domain assumptions both suggest that scientists, just like everybody else, have belief systems they buy into with necessarily knowing they are doing so. For instance, a criminologist raised in a strict, middle-class, religious, and Cau- casian family might have an underlying belief system that values hard work, deferred gratification, and “proper” child rearing. If so, our imaginary criminologist might have a tendency to gravi- tate toward a theory that says crime is caused by a failure to disci- pline children and coddling or ignoring their bad behaviors, resulting in their growing up with a self-centered mindset and a focus on self-gratification. In other words, if a theory fits into our underlying belief systems, we are much less critical of it and tend automatically to ascribe “validity” to it. This carries over to a lack

of being critical of the research on the theory and having the per- ception that the theory is “well-supported.” As you continue your graduate education and read through the criminological litera- ture, the various theories, the research on them, and related pro- nouncements about what is “good” and “bad,” keep these comments in mind and remember that, as scientists, we all try to be objective but our underlying belief systems tend to mislead us into subjectivity. Indeed, this is precisely what much of postmod- ern critique is all about. Finally, take the time to read Kuhn’s work. Yes, it is “old” but you might learn that your graduate education itself is a form of paradigm, teaching you to think of things in a certain way and to devalue other perspectives. There is a bit more on these ideas later in this chapter but we thought you might benefit from an earlier discussion, particularly if you keep this in mind as you read further. By the way, make it a point to read the footnotes in this text as most of them contain nuances that were written specifically for you.

6 Chapter 1 • Introduction

variety of factors, some of which have little to do with any of the other criteria mentioned. For instance, a theory can simply echo our gut-level feelings about the causes of crime, and we would tend to give it credence regardless of its logical soundness and empirical support. In fact, it is just this problem that we must watch for. The notion that something must be correct because it seems correct is one of the biggest mistakes that laypeople make about theories. Nevertheless, popularity must be included as one of the criteria for determining a “good” theory because many criminological theories do not meet the testability requirement very well yet were, and still are, very popular.

Good theory, then, is logically constructed, is based on the evidence at hand, and is sup- ported by subsequent research. Empirical evidence should not be confused with personal ideol- ogy, such as religious sentiments or political leanings, or even with what some authority figure tells us. Theory development allows us to make sense out of various facts and serves to make us aware of the surrounding circumstances of the phenomenon it is attempting to explain. In making your assessment of how valid a theory seems to be, keep in mind the problems associated with each of these criteria and be flexible in making your final judgment.

KInds of theory

One distinction needs to be made before engaging in a discussion about kinds of theories. There are two general forms of theory: unit theory and metatheory (see Wagner, 1984). By and large, this is a book about unit theories. “Unit theories” emphasize a particular problem (such as crime and delinquency) and make testable assertions about that problem. Metatheories, on the other hand, are rarely testable and are best viewed as ways of looking at and interpreting reality. In another sense, they can be seen as “theories about theories.” They discuss the kinds of concepts that should be used in unit theories, the general approach to using those concepts, and the way unit theories should be constructed. As an example, a criminological metatheory might specify that explana- tions of criminal behavior should emphasize social concepts rather than psychological and bio- logical ones, and that social class should be used as the dominant variable. Furthermore, our metatheoretical example might specify that official statistics should be used as appropriate evi- dence for unit theories and that “good” unit theories should be developed in a propositional for- mat. While there is an occasional discussion about metatheory in contemporary criminology, when the word “theory” is used, in most cases a unit theory is meant. Therefore, we drop the term “unit” and simply use “theory.” Any reference to a metatheory will use the full term.

There are different varieties of theory, but there is no single, accepted scheme that describes the kinds of theory. As if the problem of understanding the various theories were not difficult enough, attempts by various writers to group them by some simple differences have, ironically, made matters worse by making those differences appear to be the most important characteristics of the theories. Nevertheless, categorizing and classifying theories is a necessary endeavor.

Because theories are complex and because the threads from which they are woven are not always self-evident, theories can be classified in many ways. Students of criminology will read one textbook and think that they know the theories pretty well; then they look at another text- book, find theories classified differently, and end up confused. In fact, almost every criminology textbook offers a somewhat different twist to classifying theories. Most use a system of three basic types of theories: biological, psychological, and social (although they devote most of their coverage to social perspectives). Within the discussion of sociological theories, there is a ten- dency to divide perspectives into social process and social structural approaches (Adler, Mueller, & Laufer, 2009; Reid, 2011; Tibbetts, 2014; Vito & Maahs, 2011). Other common schemes include the use of various forms of sociological and social-psychological categories or a variety of broad approaches with numerous subcategories (Beirne & Messerschmidt, 2010). With all these different approaches, students may begin to feel that their instructor does not know the subject unless he or she uses a classification scheme that matches their textbook. Clearly, the classification of theories has done as much as anything to muddy the theoretical waters for begin- ning students. It has also been a problem for some of the more experienced criminologists.

Since these classifications exist, however, they must be dealt with. It should be noted that no classification is real, because the world does not exist in black and white. There are many fac- tors to consider, and the result is a forcing of theories into one category or the other when they might not fit any category very well. The end result is almost always an artificial scheme of

Chapter 1 • Introduction 7

classification (Williams, 1984, 2015). In addition, by “changing” the classification of theories, a theory may be viewed in a way its author never intended. Regardless, and even though it may sound strange to say so, such diversity is probably good. The reason for categorizing theories is to establish similarities and differences among them. If many different categorizations are being used, it means that the theories are rich enough to defy simple classification and therefore they contain many valuable nuances, concepts, and ideas.

We discuss three different methods for categorizing theories. Hopefully, they will assist those new to criminology in understanding the relationships and connections among the various theories. At the same time, a warning is in order: treat each classification scheme as nothing more than an attempt to highlight similarities and differences. These schemes are not to be used as the last word in grouping, or establishing types of, theories.

Levels of abstraction

As we have already noted, some theories are more abstract than others. The most abstract can be called macrotheories. Macrotheories are broad in their scope and perhaps are best characterized as those that explain social structure and its effects. They paint a picture of the way the world works, fit the structure of society into that picture, and suggest how crime is related to that struc- ture. Macrotheories focus on rates of crime (called “epidemiology”) rather than on criminals and their behavior. Macrotheories are simply not interested in individual behavior. Examples of mac- rotheory are anomie and conflict theories.

Other, more concrete theories can be referred to as microtheories. These theories are based on the assumption that a particular way of characterizing society is best; that characterization is then used directly to explain how people become criminals (called “etiology”). The focus may be on specific groups of people (but usually small groups) or on the individual. Likewise, microthe- ories may range from purely social to purely psychological to purely biological. In any case, they tell us how people become criminal. Microtheories are not interested in social structure and crime rates. Examples of microtheory are social control and social learning theories.

Finally, as is the case with any classification scheme, there are theories that do not fit neatly into either of the two categories and are “in-between.” We will call these bridging theories. These theories attempt to tell us both how social structure comes about and how people become criminal. In fact, bridging theories are often both epidemiological (explaining differing rates of crime) and etiological (explaining criminal behavior itself). Examples of bridging theory are subculture theory and differential opportunity theory. Depending on the way in which they are viewed, or the direction of emphasis a writer finds in the theory, bridging theories can be classi- fied as either macrotheories or microtheories. Doing so establishes one focus of the theory as more dominant than the other but, because it is not the author of the theory who is specifying the dominant focus, be aware that the emphasis on a focus may be because of a vested interest of the person doing the classification.

Levels of explanation

These three general forms of theories can be further examined on the basis of their explanatory focus. What, for instance, is a theory attempting to explain: social structure in general, classes of people in society, small groups, or individual criminality? This problem is referred to as the level of explanation of a theory, or what the theory attempts to explain. Most theories cannot be directly compared with each other because they do not focus directly on the same subject.

Theories are often said to compete with each other in best accounting for crime and crim- inals. It should make sense that, in most instances, this is really not the case. Some theories explain how social events give rise to crime in society but do not attempt to explain how par- ticular individuals become criminals; others do the opposite. Some explain the social factors important in creating criminality, others explain the psychological factors, and still others the internal biological factors. Further, some theories attempt to account for crime as a social phe- nomenon or a legal phenomenon, while many focus directly on criminals and their behavior. Obviously, these various theories are not in competition because they apply to different levels of the crime-and-criminals problem.

Unfortunately, criminology has done little thus far to integrate these various explanatory levels (but Elliott, Huizinga, & Ageton, 1985, and Pearson & Weiner, 1985, have tried). And,

8 Chapter 1 • Introduction

except for Williams’s (1999) critical incident metatheory, there is no metatheory that puts them all together in a coherent fashion. The problem of which level a theory explains has not yet been generally recognized in criminology, even though James Short (1985) commented on the issue over 30 years ago. For those beginning the study of criminological theory, however, the idea of levels of explanation is crucial because it helps to make sense out of the differences among theo- ries. A good understanding of the area each theory deals with will help you grasp what the theo- rists were writing about.

other common classification schemes

The more popular classification schemes usually have two mutually exclusive categories, or dichotomies. One of the oldest of the classification schemes is to separate theories into “classi- cal” and “positive.” The names come from two schools of thought in the eighteenth and nine- teenth centuries (and the subject of Chapters 2 and 3). Classical theories focus on legal statutes, governmental structures, and the rights of humans. A classical orientation to a theory suggests that the theory is less concerned about traditional scientific notions of testability and more con- cerned about the essence of the human condition. Positivist theories focus on pathology in crim- inal behavior, on treatment, and on the correction of criminality within individuals. Positivism also derives from the use of the scientific method to study phenomena. In that sense, most of today’s theories are positivist ones.

Another common scheme is to separate theories into those of structure and those of pro- cess. Structural theories are those that focus on the way society is organized and its effect on behavior. Some of these are also referred to as strain theories (a term popularized by Travis Hirschi, 1969, and Ruth Kornhauser, 1978) because of their assumption that a disorganized society creates strain that leads to deviant behavior. Not all strain theories are structural theo- ries though; for example, Robert Agnew (1985, 2005) has created a strain theory that is clearly focused on the process of developing delinquency. Process theories attempt to explain how people become criminal or delinquent. While it is sometimes difficult to classify theories in this scheme, the major orientation is on the starting point of the theory. As a rule, a structural theory does not emphasize the individual criminal and a processual theory does not emphasize social structure. These two forms correspond closely to the macrotheories and microtheories we have already discussed.

The final major classification approach is that of consensus and conflict, once even referred to as the “old” and the “new” criminology (Gibbs, 1966). Consensus theories are those based on the assumption that there is agreement among people in a society. At the least, they assume that members of a society hold common values. You could point to the fact that most people believe we need traffic laws as evidence of consensus in our society. Also, surveys ask- ing respondents to rank the seriousness of various crimes often find tremendous consensus about what people believe the most serious crimes are. Conflict theories, on the other hand, are based on the assumption that disagreement is common and people hold conflicting values. Laws that seem to benefit only small groups of elites or powerful business owners are often pointed to as evidence of a conflict orientation. As we will see, most conflict theories empha- size the differences that are found among social classes in our country. Since any society may have agreement and conflict at the same time, the crux is not whether agreement exists but whether it originally existed. A conflict theorist may discuss a society in agreement (Marx’s false consciousness), or a consensus theorist may explain how conflict exists (Cohen’s delin- quent subculture). Thus, this scheme is somewhat like the chicken-and-egg controversy: one simply believes that either conflict or consensus is more natural to society and asserts that humans are naturally oriented toward one or the other.

socIaL context and theory

The final approach to understanding theory lies in an examination of social history. Writers com- monly discuss theories in the abstract, especially in introductory textbooks. Because they do, it may seem that the theorist sits in isolation, inventing and creating his or her new theory. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just as there are people who have helped mold your thoughts and views of the world, so there are for the theorist. Indeed, it should be clear that any important

Chapter 1 • Introduction 9

influence in your life will leave its mark on the way you perceive the world. Your college courses, for instance, are designed to do exactly that. Your parents also provided important attitudes and viewpoints for you. Moreover, just as you respond to the latest fads and social events, so does the theorist. In short, those who create theories are probably as susceptible as you are to influences in their lives. Criminological theorists are practicing social scientists and may be even more sen- sitive to social movements and trends than most of us. As a result, no theory can really be under- stood and appreciated without an awareness of the context within which it was created.

Further, each theorist makes certain assumptions about the way the world really is, the nature of humans, and the value of particular concepts (an unspoken metatheory). Gouldner (1970) argued that these assumptions so severely affect the direction of theorizing that entire areas of evidence and thought can be ignored. For this reason, the effect of assumptions can be seen as similar to blinders on a horse: You can see only what is right in front of you, everything else might as well not exist. If a theorist’s assumptions were spelled out, this might not repre- sent a major problem because you could see what was included and what was omitted. Unfortu- nately, assumptions are not always obvious, and even the theorist may not be aware of them. Therefore, to better understand any theory, we must find ways to determine what the assump- tions of that theory are. One of the best ways of doing this is to examine the context within which the theory was created.

Context has two major forms, social and intellectual. Both are handy terms for identifying areas of influence on an individual. Social context refers to the world about us: the ways people in a society are thinking, the things they are doing, the events taking place, the fads and fashions that are popular, and even the way society is structured. For example, right after World War II, it would have been difficult for people in the United States to criticize either the nation or the gov- ernment; there was a general feeling of satisfaction with ourselves and a relative agreement about how good our values were. During the early 1970s, the opposite was common; people were uncertain about government, their lives, and their values. In both times, a theorist would have been affected by the events of the time and written into the theory some of the contemporary ideas (Williams, 1981). Since 1980, social conservatism has become more popular and you might expect recent theories to be influenced by that perspective.

The second form of context, the intellectual, refers to the personal influence of teachers, friends, family, and colleagues. Sometimes that influence extends to people whom the theorist has never even met; but the theorist has read their work and has been impressed with what they had to say. For this reason, many people have been said to follow in the footsteps of their teach- ers. The major criminological theorists have undeniably done some “footstep following,” but at the same time, their theories are popular at least in part because these theorists were also creative.

Now it is time for a statement that may surprise you. The comments above about social and intellectual context are actually part of a metatheory we developed when outlining the first edi- tion of this book. That metatheory says the way people (theorists) respond to information has to be viewed through the lens of what they believe. Their beliefs are colored by their intellectual and social context. Even how they view evidence and, in particular, how they characterize evi- dence as good evidence is a product of this context. Thus, you may find theorists looking at the same evidence and perceiving its meaning in multiple ways. Acceptance of theory is governed in a similar fashion. As a result, this book discusses theories in a chronological order primarily because of a need to set each theory into its social context as a mechanism for understanding it. You will find it difficult to understand a theory, and its policy implications, unless you also have an appreciation of the times and major social movements. With this in hand, you can imagine the forces producing the theory and the reception it received from those at the time. If you try to understand a theory using today’s perspectives, you will misunderstand it.

theory, research, and PoLIcy

Theory is the logical starting point for any examination of potential strategies for improving the criminal justice system. With our theory, we can develop experiments or research protocols that allow us to test the ideas to see if any are promising or worthwhile. Carefully constructed research studies that are based on rigorous scientific principles will give us insight into the areas of a theory that may need to be clarified and revised. Once we have identified some of the significant theoretical concepts that have been supported by research evidence, and these studies have been

10 Chapter 1 • Introduction

replicated and perhaps generalized across different population groups, we may begin to design programs and policies to address the needs of the criminal justice system. The process can be seen as a linear model with feedback between the research and the theory, thus allowing the theory to be refined and redirected with additional research. Policy should not be formulated or implemented without proper research to evaluate the costs and the benefits of certain endeavors.

THEORY S RESEARCH S POLICY

Realistically, however, we know that policymakers and politicians often implement laws, programs, and policies without the benefit of theory or research. Many of these efforts are later found to be inadequate and are eventually abandoned because they were instituted before suffi- cient research had been done to validate them, as was perhaps the case with boot camps, scared straight programs, and even three-strikes laws.

a note on evIdence, theory, and reaLIty

Is theory a product of evidence? Yes, but, as you will see in the following chapters, the issue of evidence is not so clear-cut as it would seem. Every major theoretical school has defined some forms of evidence as “proper” and eschewed others. In fact, Thomas A. Kuhn’s concept of para- digms is based on a combination of methodology and accepted procedure in determining proper evidence. Those working in areas within disciplines essentially prescribe what evidence is proper and how to think about that evidence. Information that is contradictory or inconvenient tends to be either ignored or proclaimed as false by those within the paradigm. While it would seem that there is not much to quibble about in an objective reality, the fact is that reality is a product of belief and perception. We do not mean to imply there is no reality; reality requires interpretation, and humans bring their strongly held beliefs to that interpretation. Frequently, these beliefs are buried so deeply in our minds that we do not even know they are there. For example, some of us declare that human nature is inherently good and others declare that it is inherently evil. This is not something that can be established one way or the other, it is merely the product of a belief system (or a paradigm); it does serve, however, to establish a type of reality. From this starting point, then, theories are proposed to explain criminal or delinquent behavior based on we think is true about human nature. Evidence is then selectively accepted or ignored based on one’s view of a “proper” reality. Where do these strongly held beliefs come from? We would say that they are a product of the cultural milieu in which people are raised, their experiences, their parents, their mentors, and even perhaps their neurochemistry. This is why, in the chapters to follow, you will read about the social and intellectual context surrounding each of the theories or schools. But more to the point, what evidence you lean toward is a product of your predispositions as much as it is good old hard facts.

Summary

One commentator on social thought (Nisbet, 1966) has noted that it is possible to discuss theory in terms of specific schools (classifying periods of time), ideas or concepts themselves (such as anomie), or dramatis personae (the major theorists). We contend that to appreciate and understand theory, it is nec- essary to look at all of these. Because any review of theories is in reality a history of social thought, a combination of factors needs to be taken into account. The ideas should be followed from theory to theory, the various classifications examined to see how they overlap and how they differ, and the contexts ana- lyzed to gain a feel for the assumptions made by the theorists. Therefore, each of the following chapters examines the social and intellectual context before discussing the theory. After the theoretical presentation, the classification schemes explored in this chapter are applied to the theory.

We contend that theory is to be used—not read, memo- rized, and filed away for future recital. Ideas and concepts are not anyone’s exclusive property; they should be rethought, reworked, and applied where needed. No one theory takes in a complete view of crime and criminals, much less a complete view of the world. For this reason, theories should be merged and integrated to form new approaches to the problems before us. And theories should be flexible enough that citizens, police officers, and judges, as well as criminologists, can use them to understand crime and criminals in our society. This doesn’t mean, however, that theories of crime and criminal behavior should be simple ones. Indeed, reality is complex, so we should assume that the reasons for criminal behavior are, too. More- over, one should make a point of understanding what a theory is actually explaining. Robert Agnew (1991), for instance, was

Chapter 1 • Introduction 11

trying to make sense of the research on social control theory and realized that different researchers were variously testing the start-up of offending, the rate of offending (prevalence), the stopping of offending (desistance), and different types of crimes. No wonder he found that the evidence on the theory was complicated.

Finally, we want to caution readers that the simple pre- sentation of each of the theories in this book cannot capture the richness of those theories. In the interest of those being exposed to theory for the first time, we have emphasized simplicity and straightforward presentation. Each of the theories is much more

complex, vastly more interesting, and has many more nuances than our presentation suggests. Students should read the origi- nal works to gain a real appreciation for the theories. Antholo- gies are also available with the original works or excerpts from them [see, for example, Williams & McShane (1998). Crimi- nology Theory: Selected Classic Readings (2nd ed.); Renzetti, Curran, & Carr (2008). Theories of Crime: A Reader; Rafter (2009). The Origins of Criminology: A Reader; Cullen, Agnew, & Wilcox (2014). Criminological Theory: Past to Present (5th ed.); Tibbetts & Hemmens (2014). Criminological Theory: A Text/Reader, (2nd ed.)].

Related Websites

http://integral-review.org/documents/Wallis,%20Toward%20a%20 Science%20of%20Metatheory,%20Vol.%206,%20No.%203.pdf

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn/

http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence http://www.ted.com/talks/anne_milgram_why_smart_statistics_are_

the_key_to_fighting_crime

Bibliography

Adler, F., Mueller, G., & Laufer, W. (2009). Criminology (7th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Agnew, R. (1985). A revised strain theory of delinquency. Social Forces, 64, 151–167.

Agnew, R. (1991). A longitudinal test of social control theory and delin- quency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 28, 126–156.

Agnew, R. (2005). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. New York: Oxford University Press.

Akers, R. L. (1964). Socio-economic status and delinquent behavior: A retest. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 1, 38–46.

Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. (2008). Criminological theories: Introduc- tion and evaluation (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Beirne, P., & Messerschmidt, J. (2010). Criminology: A sociological approach (5th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Bernard, T. J., Snipes, J. B., & Gerould, A. L. (2015). Vold’s Theoreti- cal Criminology (7th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Blalock, H. M. (1969). Theory construction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cullen, F. T., Agnew, R., & Wilcox, P. (Eds.). (2014). Criminological theory: Past to present (5th ed.). Los Angeles: Roxbury.

DeFleur, M. L., & Quinney, R. (1966). A reformulation of Suther- land’s differential association theory and a strategy for empiri- cal verification. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 3, 1–22.

Questions and Weblinks

Critical Thinking Questions

1. Identify current policies in effect in the criminal justice system today that would be important to conduct research on. What theo- ries or assumptions seem to underlie these policies and why they were put in place?

2. How much weight should scientists give to a theory’s popularity? How is it even possible that theories without any concrete evi- dence can be popular?

3. If you were to construct a theory of crime, what elements or factors do you think would be important to your theory and why?

4. Should a theory of crime be able to explain all types of crime or criminals? Why or why not?

Practice Essay Questions

1. What is the relationship between theory, research, and policy and how has that relationship been misused in the past?

2. What are the qualities of a good theory?

3. Explain why a popular theory may not always be the best. Use examples to illustrate your points.

4. What are the various ways that we can classify theories and why is it important to do so?

http://integral-review.org/documents/Wallis,%20Toward%20a%20Science%20of%20Metatheory,%20Vol.%206,%20No.%203.pdf
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/thomas-kuhn
http://www.ted.com/talks/steven_pinker_on_the_myth_of_violence
http://www.ted.com/talks/anne_milgram_why_smart_statistics_are_the_key_to_fighting_crime
http://www.ted.com/talks/anne_milgram_why_smart_statistics_are_the_key_to_fighting_crime
http://integral-review.org/documents/Wallis,%20Toward%20a%20Science%20of%20Metatheory,%20Vol.%206,%20No.%203.pdf
12 Chapter 1 • Introduction

Elliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Ageton, S. (1985). Explaining delin- quency and drug use. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Gibbs, J. P. (1966). Conceptions of deviant behavior: The old and the new. Pacific Sociological Review, 9, 9–14.

Gibbs, J. P. (1972). Sociological theory construction. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden.

Gold, M. (1970). Delinquent behavior in an American city. Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Gouldner, A. W. (1970). The coming crisis of western sociology. New York: Basic Books.

Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

Kornhauser, R. R. (1978). Social sources of delinquency. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Kuhn, T. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed.). Chi- cago: University of Chicago Press.

Lilly, J. R., Cullen, F. T., & Ball, R. A. (2014). Criminological theory: Context and consequences. Los Angeles: Sage.

Nisbet, R. A. (1966). The sociological tradition. New York: Basic Books.

Pearson, F. S., & Weiner, N. A. (1985). Toward an integration of crim- inological theories. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 76, 116–150.

Rafter, N. (Ed.). (2009). The origins of criminology: A reader. Lon- don: Routledge.

Reid, S. T. (2011). Crime and criminology (13th ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.

Reiss, A. J., Jr., & Rhodes, A. L. (1961). The distribution of juvenile delinquency in the social class structure. American Sociological Review, 26, 720–732.

Renzetti, C., Curran, D., & Carr, P. (2008). Theories of crime: A reader. Englewood Heights, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Short, J. F., Jr. (1985). The level of explanation problem in criminol- ogy. In R. F. Meier (Ed.), Theoretical methods in criminology (pp. 51–72). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Short, J. F., Jr., & Nye, F. I. (1958). Extent of unrecorded juvenile delinquency: Tentative conclusions. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 49, 296–302.

Tibbetts, S. (2014). Criminological theory: The essentials (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Tibbetts, S., & Hemmens, C. (2014). Criminological theory: A text/ reader (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Vito, G., & Maahs, J. (2011). Criminology: Theory, research and pol- icy (3rd ed.). Sudbury, MA: Jones and Bartlett Publishers.

Wagner, D. G. (1984). The growth of sociological theories. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Weisburd, D. (2015). The law of crime concentration and the criminol- ogy of place. Criminology, 53, 133–157.

Williams, F. P., III. (1981). The sociology of criminological theory: Paradigm or fad. In G. F. Jensen (Ed.), Sociology of delinquency: Current issues (pp. 20–28). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.

Williams, F. P., III. (1984). The demise of the criminological imagina- tion: A critique of recent criminology. Justice Quarterly, 1, 91–106.

Williams, F. P., III. (1999). Imagining criminology: An alternative paradigm. New York: Garland.

Williams, F. P., III. (2015). The demise of the criminological imagina- tion: Thirty years later. In J. Frauley (Ed.), C. Wright Mills and the criminological imagination: Prospects for creative enquiry (pp. 59–72). Farnham, UK: Ashgate.

Williams, F. P., III, & McShane, M. D. (Eds.). (1998). Criminology the- ory: Selected classic readings (2nd ed.). Cincinnati, OH: Anderson.

Willits, D., Broidy, L., & Denman, K. (2013). Schools, neighbor- hood risk factors, and crime. Crime & Delinquency , doi: 0011128712470991.

13

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 2

The Classical School

Learning Objectives

Objective 2.1: Outline the factors that contributed to the rise of classical thought.

Objective 2.2: Explain the contributions to criminology made by Jeremy Bentham.

Objective 2.3: Discuss the writing of Cesare Beccaria and its impact.

Objective 2.4: Summarize what is meant by the social contract.

Objective 2.5: Describe the concept of deterrence and how it might be measured today.

IntroductIon

The particular conceptions of crime and criminal justice that emerged in the eighteenth century are col- lectively known as the Classical School of criminology. The name derives from common references to that entire period of time as the “classical period.” The term “criminology” is a misnomer since there was no criminology as we now know it until the late nineteenth century. Nonetheless, the term is com- monly used because the period gave rise to some of the basic ideas for the operation of a criminal justice system and the processing of criminals. It also provided the first broadly understood theory of criminal behavior. Criminology is the study of crime and criminals, with some study of lawmaking included. The Classical School was not interested in studying criminals per se, so it gained its association with crimi- nology through its focus on lawmaking and legal processing.

Two writers of this period, Cesare Beccaria (1738–1794) and Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832), wrote the best-known works and they are considered to have had the most influence. In their writings, they opposed the arbitrary and capricious nature of the criminal justice systems of the time. They pro- posed that both the law and the administration of justice should be based on rationality and human rights, neither of which was then commonly applied.

Among the major ideas that descend from this school are the concepts of humans as free-willed, ratio- nal beings; utilitarianism (the greatest good for the greatest number); civil rights and due process of law; rules of evidence and testimony; determinate sentencing; and deterrence. C. Ray Jeffery (1956, 1972), speaking of classical criminology, emphasizes the school’s focus on a legal definition of crime rather than on a concern with criminal behavior. In addition, both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitu- tion reflect the concerns of the classical movement. Because of this, most of our law is classical in nature.

the herItage of the School

the Social heritage

The eighteenth century was a period of major change in Europe. The reign of the Catholic Church and aristocratic feudal structure, dating from the Middle Ages and before, was about over. The new social order was criticizing the old aristocracy, both for its claim to natural superiority and for its

14 Chapter 2 • The Classical School

corrupt political practices. A new and soon-to-be powerful middle class was rising from the profits of mercantilism and the beginnings of the Industrial Revolution. Societies were becoming urbanized. Traditional conceptions of property and ownership were also being dis- rupted. For example, enclosure movements, the practice of claiming sole use of and fencing off previously open lands, deprived the common people of what had been their traditional rights to use the land and its resources (such as game and firewood). These changes placed stress on the poor and created a resentment that affected the agricultural and rural power base of the aristocracy.

At the same time, an emphasis on commonalities among people served to minimize national differences. With this, the rule of the Church and the aristocracy was seriously threat- ened. The rise of the Protestant ethic allowed people to expect success for hard work in this world and not in some Church-promised afterlife. Before this time, the common person sim- ply had to accept his or her lot in life. The Protestant ethic promised that hard work would result in an improvement in one’s life and led people to expect a direct connection between hard work and success.

Certain powerful families attempted to gain the support of the middle class in a relatively successful battle with the feudal aristocracy to establish dominance over the thrones of Europe. These ruling families were known as monarchies. For instance, German nobility ruled in Eng- land, Poland, Russia, and Sweden. All of this led to the emergence of a new and highly volatile political system. The aristocracy found itself besieged by both the monarchies and the emerging middle class, and its hold on the reins of power began to loosen.

The classical period was, in many areas of life, an era of great thought and expression. In close proximity to the time when people were reading Beccaria’s great treatise, On Crimes and Punishments (1764), J. S. Bach had composed and performed; the young colonies were about to erupt into the American Revolution; and the Declaration of Independence, the U.S. Constitution, and the Bill of Rights were written.

Writers of the classical period examined not only human nature but social conditions as well. In the late 1700s, John Howard wrote The State of the Prisons of England and Wales, Immanuel Kant produced his great essay Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, and Ben- tham introduced his An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Revolutions took place in both the American colonies and France.

The judicial system was also marked by changes. Founded on the religious structures of the Middle Ages, pre-classical law was mainly the product of judicial interpretation and caprice (Mae- stro, 1942). The accused often faced secret accusations, torture, and private trials; arbitrary and overly harsh sanctions were often applied to the convicted (Barnes, 1930). Generally, there were few written laws, and existing law was applied primarily to those who were not of the aristocracy. In fact, law was often used as a political tool to suppress those who spoke out against the aristocracy or the Church. Indeed, the Spanish Inquisition of the late fifteenth century and the Italian Roman Inquisition of the early sixteenth century testified to the vigorous use of law in the defense of Church and state.

the Intellectual heritage

The prevailing ideas of the eighteenth century were those of reform. A group of philosophers called the Naturalists believed experience and observation could determine much about the world, especially when fortified by the human ability to reason. They rebelled against the

Cesare Beccaria (1738–1794)

Cesare Bonesana, Marchese di Beccaria (known simply as Cesare Beccaria), was born in Milan, Italy, in 1738 to an aristo- cratic family with little remaining political power. He was schooled by Jesuits, receiving a degree in law from the Univer- sity of Pavia in 1758. Shortly thereafter, he joined a society of intellectuals formed by his friends Alessandro and Pietro Verri, who were advocates of social reform. After studying with and listening to the discussions of the group, Beccaria began to

read the works of French Enlightenment scholars. It was this literature that ultimately served as the foundation for his On Crimes and Punishments in 1764. After publication of his famous treatise, the Austrian government gave him a faculty position at the Palatine School in Milan. He spent two years in that role and subsequently occupied a series of patronage- based public offices, never writing another work for public con- sumption. He died in 1794.

Chapter 2 • The Classical School 15

authority of the Church and emphasized an order to things that was separate from religious rev- elation. Morals, ethics, and responsibilities became major topics of discussion. The application of science to the physical world had begun to reveal “truths,” and people were certain that the same effort brought to bear on moral and political questions would yield similar fruit.

The major explanation for human behavior was hedonism. Under this theory, people are assumed to automatically attempt to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. According to Ben- tham (1789, p. 29), the value of any pleasure or pain would be determined by its intensity, dura- tion, and certainty. This theory of behavior became the basis for the concept of deterrence. Bentham’s elaboration on deterrence is the essence of today’s rational perspectives.

One of the major new philosophical viewpoints rested on so-called natural human rights and justified the existence of government as a social contract between the state and its citizens (see, for example, the work of John Locke). This justification came close to reversing the previous political belief that people existed to serve the government and, instead, made service to the people the rationale for government. Under this social con- tract, a person surrendered to the authority of the state only the amount of freedom neces- sary to ensure protection of the rights of other citizens. Although it was not really new, the idea of a social contract between people and their government served the needs of the new middle class. Added to this was the utilitarian perspective. Even before Beccaria wrote (in the 1720s), Scottish philosopher Francis Hutcheson discussed what he referred to as a “moral sense” that compelled men to behave so as to create the greatest good for the great- est number (see DiCristina, 2012). Thus, the humanitarian ideas of the Classical period set the stage for new political and legal structures based on the common person, not the elites and the powerful.

Growing specialization in trade and industry required more services such as roads, ports, municipal services, and policing, and the government made an ideal provider of those services. The increasing secularization of society, in turn, fit in well with both the social contract concep- tion of a rational human and the rising middle class. Secularism immediately suggested reforms in institutions, which was all to the benefit of the new classes.

Finally, an emphasis on human dignity, stemming from the Enlightenment, was character- istic of the period. A humanistic current of thought, chiefly from England and France, aroused the young intellectuals of the day. Those works that expressly influenced Beccaria were Montes- quieu’s The Spirit of the Laws (1748) and the various pamphlets and letters of Voltaire (Maestro, 1942, pp. 17–18). In addition to Beccaria and Montesquieu, such writers and thinkers as Hume, Montaigne, Rousseau, Helvetius, Diderot, and Condorcet were the new champions of the com- mon people and produced eloquent writings glorifying people rather than the Church or state. A concern with improving social conditions accompanied this growth of interest in humanity, mak- ing possible the rise of the social sciences.

the PerSPectIve of the School

The Classical School, then, generally gave us a humanistic conception of how law and criminal justice systems should be constructed. It did not give rise to theories of criminal behavior; instead, the prevailing assumption of hedonism was used as a theory of human nature and was incorporated into the rationale for building legal structures. Crime and law were its essence, not

Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832)

Jeremy Bentham was born in London, England, in 1748. He attended Westminster School until enrolling at Queen’s College, Oxford, at the age of 12 and received his degree at the age of 15. Thereafter, Bentham studied law at Lincoln’s Inn but ulti- mately decided not to pursue law as a career. As a well-to-do and self-made scholar, Bentham spent most of his time in Westmin- ster, where he wrote prolifically in philosophy, economics, and law. He was said to have produced 10–20 pages of manuscript

each day. He was the earliest proponent of utilitarianism and was considered somewhat of a political radical for his critiques of legal and common law traditions. He suggested a broad range of reforms such as animal welfare, prison management through architecture (the Panopticon), and the decriminalization of homosexuality. Upon his death, per his instructions, his body was embalmed and fitted with a wax head likeness and then placed in a glass-fronted case on display at University College, London.

16 Chapter 2 • The Classical School

criminal behavior (although they assumed rationality, hedonism, and deterrence). Law was to protect the rights of both society and individual, and its chief purpose was to deter criminal behavior. Therefore, classical law emphasized moral responsibility and the duty of citizens to consider fully the consequences of behavior before they acted. This thinking, of course, required a conception of humans as possessing free will and a rational nature. Indeed, rationality was critical to the classical position. Any individual should be able to weigh the pleasure to be gained from an illegal behavior against the punishment (pain) decreed by law and subsequently to decide against the act.

The role of punishment, according to Bentham, in itself was evil and should be used only to exclude some greater evil (1789, p. 170). Thus, the only justification for punishment was deterrence. The Classical School saw two forms of deterrence: a specific or individual form and a general or societal form. Specific deterrence applied to the individual who committed an offense. The idea was to apply just enough pain to offset the amount of pleasure gained from the offense. In fact, many suggested that punishments should be restricted to the same degree of pain as the degree of pleasure gained from the offense. They saw punishment in excess of this calcu- lated amount as unnecessary, for it put the state in the position of despot. General deterrence, on the other hand, was to apply to other potential offenders by showing them that a punished indi- vidual would not gain from his or her offense. Through watching, or otherwise knowing about an individual receiving punishment for committing an offense, others would learn that such behav- ior is not profitable and thus would not commit similar acts.

These theorists saw three components to deterrence: celerity, certainty, and severity. Celerity is the speed with which a punishment is applied. Theoretically, at least, the closer in time a punishment is to the act, the better the result. Therefore, if an undesirable act is punished immediately, the individual would most likely be deterred. Certainty is the concept of making a punishment sure to happen whenever an undesirable act is committed. Classical theorists believed if every undesirable act were sure to be punished, then any rational person would immediately see the lack of profit in such actions. Severity is the amount of pain to be inflicted on those who do harmful acts. The greater the potential severity, the more a rational person should avoid doing harm. Thus, our system of criminal punishments is set up to match severity with the harm of an offense. Finally, Beccaria and Bentham clearly saw deterrence as most likely to occur when celerity and certainty were maximized (swift and certain punishment). They viewed severity, on the other hand, as less important and only something to be used when celerity and certainty were diminished. There was also danger in relying on severity—punish- ments that are too severe are likely to make the citizenry view government as despotic and become unruly. The current U.S. system of government has, primarily because of a concern for the citizenry’s civil rights, made severity important because of the justice system’s lengthy pro- cess and a seeming uncertainty of being arrested. Politicians also have bought into severity as a way of appearing to be tough on crime and have managed to upset original formulas relating severity of crime and incremental punishment.

According to the thought of the Classical School, the criminal justice system should respect the rights of all people. Since government drew its authority from the social contract, all individuals were equal before the law. This meant the operation of criminal justice had to be aboveboard, due process of law had to be followed, evidence had to be obtained from facts, and equality had to be maintained. They proposed that all punishments be specified by law, thus limiting judicial discretion. Scholars such as Beccaria suspected judges of following personal whim and not the law when determining guilt. He wanted the discretion of judges limited and the process of conviction and sentencing fully spelled out by law. In response to those who argued that exactly the same treatment of all offenders would result in inequities, Beccaria said some inequities would certainly result, but not the overwhelming inequity of the old system (Beccaria, 1764, p. 16).

Like Beccaria, Bentham argued against great judicial discretion but saw the need to allow for some forms of decreased rationality among offenders. Punishments, he added, should not be inflicted if they are groundless, ineffective (i.e., administered to a person who was drunk or insane at the time of the offense), unprofitable, or needless. Bentham, a writer trained in the law, sought the systematic organization of legal procedures. He divided offenses into classes and types, distinguishing between private and public wrongs, crimes against person and against prop- erty, and violations of trust. In addition, he created what he called the felicific calculus, an elabo-

Chapter 2 • The Classical School 17

rate schedule of punishments designed to take into account a combination of pleasure, pain, and mitigating circumstances. This latter endeavor reflected one of the major problems of the Classi- cal School: how to calculate the exact degree of punishment needed to offset the gain from criminal behavior. Bentham also recognized the problems that occur when lesser offenses are punished more severely than serious offenses. Indeed, these problems continue to plague us today, as judges and legislatures seek to find appropriate sentences for various crimes. The major difference seems to be that today’s legislators have little of Bentham’s understanding of how deterrence works and escalate sentences for lesser offenses at whim (or in response to special interest groups of voters).

Although Beccaria was not opposed to the use of corporal punishment, particularly for those convicted of violent personal crimes, he specifically decried the use of torture in interroga- tion to elicit confessions (Beirne, 2006). He supported time limits on case preparation for both the defense and the prosecution. This is another example of these theorists’ conviction that swift- ness of punishment, not its severity, is the strength of its deterrent value. Beccaria was also opposed to the imprisonment of those not yet convicted of crimes. Languishing in the filthy, disease-ridden prisons, many of the accused died even before being tried, a situation repugnant to the humanitarian as well as to the rational thinker of the time. The writings of Beccaria and John Howard, who toured prisons and jails and described their conditions, inspired sweeping reforms of prison conditions and incarceration practices.1

Finally, members of the Classical School were generally opposed to capital punishment. Beccaria argued that no citizen has the right to take his or her own life and, therefore, citizens could not give this right to the state under the social contract. Moreover, if the state can take a life, where is the profit in allowing the state to govern for us? Capital punishment was, as a result, not part of the state’s base of authority. Using a more pragmatic approach to capital punishment, Bentham pointed out that the death penalty might tend to make members of a jury exercise leni- ency out of humane motives, therefore subverting the law. Using this same line of reasoning, he also thought witnesses might perjure themselves out of the same humane motives. In short, by being humane, jurors in capital cases could spread a message that it is acceptable to ignore the law. Thus, he thought capital punishment was simply not worth the potential havoc it could cre- ate for the justice system and law.

The impact of the Classical School may be seen in the results of the French and American revolutions (Newman & Marongiu, 2009). Both embraced the equality of people, the right to life and liberty, fairness in the administration of justice, and restrictions on the actions of the state. Criminal law in the United States is largely classical, with its strong emphasis on individual responsibility for actions and on due process of law. In our contemporary criminal justice sys- tem, not until the sentencing stage is there a move away from the classical emphasis, with some sentences designed to treat the offender. Even here the current trend is toward a more punitive form of sentencing.

claSSIfIcatIon of the School

Since the Classical School was, in reality, a movement designed to reform society, it was both conflict-oriented and structural. The conflict classification derives from the fact that philoso- phers and scholars of this era saw human nature as needing to be restricted and controlled. They believed that people were basically self-interested and, without restraint, would act in ways that conflict with the interests of others. Proponents of these versions of human nature simply could not accept the idea of individuals naturally being in a state of consensus or agreement with each other. The promotion of social contract forms of government classical theorists felt societies could most humanely control their citizens and their governments. In addition, the majority of their ideas were at odds with existing political and legal structures, and their reforms were aimed

1 There is some contention about the importance of Beccaria’s work. Philip Jenkins (1984) argues that it was Beccaria’s “conservative” bent that provided the support for the essay. Similarly, Graeme Newman and Pietro Marongiu (1990, 2009) hold that Beccaria’s work is vastly overrated today. They suggest that all the ideas in his essay were present in oth- ers’ works, from which Beccaria liberally borrowed. Piers Beirne (1991, 1993, 1994, 2006) also argues there was no real Classical School and that Beccaria has been continuously misinterpreted by scholars. Other critics have noted that the very processes and behaviors Beccaria objected to were being reformed both before and as he wrote.

18 Chapter 2 • The Classical School

at existing social arrangements. The new philosophy of the common people was in conflict with religious and economic systems, the old governmental structure, and forms of knowledge based on religious revelation.

We classify the Classical School as predominantly structural because it emphasizes the effect of societal institutions on people in general. The theorists’ main concern focused on the way governments make law and how law affects the rights of citizens. The fact that the Classical School was interested in the legislation of criminal law and in the criminal justice system, rather than in criminal behavior, is characteristic of a fully structural approach. Indeed, since most of the criminological theories of the period were political theories, the Classical School was pre- dominantly macrotheoretical in its orientation.

There is also a processual and microtheoretical side to the Classical School. Some argue that the Classical School should be categorized as processual because of its emphasis on the rational, and hedonistic, behavior of individuals. Indeed, the justification for punishment and the construction of criminal law were based on showing a rational person that there would be no profit in transgressing on the rights of others. The entire classical legal structure is founded on the concept of a rational person and responsibility for one’s own actions. Clearly, the Clas- sical School had something to say about the process of committing crime and why crime takes place. It is also true, however, that every theoretical position begins with (often unstated) assumptions about human nature. Those assumptions form a foundation for theories but do not constitute the essence of a theory. Therefore, we believe that the rational pursuit of pleasure is best seen as an assumption rather than the real focus of classical theory. Those who focus on the writings of Jeremy Bentham are more likely to see a microtheoretical, and processual, focus to the school.

Summary

The Classical School is characterized by (1) an emphasis on free will choices and human rationality, (2) a view of behavior as hedonistic, (3) a focus on morality and responsibility, (4) a concern with political structure and the way in which govern- ment deals with its citizens, and (5) a concern for the basic rights of all people. These generic ideas and concerns were applied to criminal justice to produce concepts such as deter- rence, civil rights, and due process of law; but it is the general characteristics, not the specific ones of criminal justice, that contain the essence of classical thought.

Major PointS of the School

1. People exist in a world with free will and make their own rational choices, although they have a natural tendency toward self-interest and pleasure.

2. People have certain natural rights, among them life, lib- erty, and ownership of property.

3. Governments are created by the citizens of a state to pro- tect these rights, and they exist as a social contract between those who govern and those who are governed.

An Example of Classical Thought

(Excerpts from the Virginia Bill of Rights, adopted June 12, 1776)

Section 1. That all men are by nature equally free and indepen- dent, and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact, deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring and possessing property, and pursu- ing and obtaining happiness and safety.

Section 2. That all power is vested in, and consequently derived from, the people; that magistrates are their trustees and ser- vants. . . .

Section 3. That government is, or ought to be, instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security of the people, nation or community; of all the various modes and forms of

government, that is best which is capable of producing the great- est degree of happiness and safety. . . .

Section 4. That no man, or set of men, are entitled to exclusive or separate emoluments or privileges from the community. . . .

Section 8. That in all capital or criminal prosecutions a man hath a right to demand the cause and nature of his accusation, to be confronted with the accusers and witnesses, to call for evi- dence in his favor, and to a speedy trial by an impartial jury of twelve men of his vicinage, without whose unanimous consent he cannot be found guilty; nor can he be compelled to give evi- dence against himself; that no man be deprived of his liberty, except by the law of the land or the judgment of his peers.

Chapter 2 • The Classical School 19

4. Citizens give up only the portion of their natural rights that is necessary for the state to regulate society for the benefit of all and to protect society against the natural self-interest of individuals.

5. To ensure civil rights, legislators enact law that both defines the procedures by which transgressions will be handled and specifies the exact behaviors that make up those transgressions. This law specifies the process for determining guilt and the punishment to be meted out to those found guilty.

6. Crime consists of a transgression against the social con- tract; therefore, crime is a moral offense against society.

7. Punishment is justified only to preserve the social con- tract. Therefore, the purpose of punishment is to pre- vent future transgressions by deterring socially harmful behavior. Only that amount of punishment necessary to offset the gains of harmful behavior is justified.

8. All people are equal in their rights and should be treated equally before the law.

epilogue: current Directions and Policy implications

The Classical School still has a dominant effect on today’s criminal justice system policies. Most Western nations still adhere to most of the classical inventions under due process of law and the rights of individuals, largely because these con- cepts are embedded in various constitutions. Two of the major concepts of the Classical School, deterrence and rationality, are still alive and well.

Deterrence has had two separate rebirths over the last four decades. In the first, the public, in moving toward a more conservative and punitive mode, has embraced the concept of deterrence and clamored for harsher sentences. The assump- tion, of course, is that tougher sentences will deter would-be criminals from committing crimes and make those caught and convicted reconsider their behavior. Deterrence has been the favored approach to the crimes of drunken driving and drug dealing. One of the problems with deterring criminals is that our criminal justice system does not proceed quickly. The fed- eral system and many states have attempted to solve this prob- lem by enacting speedy trial laws.

In the second renewal of interest in deterrence, many scholars have been engaged in research to see if deterrence works. Three of the favorite research topics have been the death penalty, drunken driving, and drug use. At this time, the collec- tive evidence points to a short-term effect for drunken driving, probably no effect for the death penalty, and little, if any, effect for drug use. Sherman (1990) has noted that there is a decay effect for deterrence, with perhaps an initial effect and subse- quent decay in its residual effects, assuming any effect is found. There is still controversy over the proper way to test for the effects of deterrence, and the jury is still out on most of the issues. However, it should be noted the vast majority of deter- rence research has failed to find any substantial deterrent effect for legal sanctions. In fact, Ray Paternoster, a criminologist who has been engaged in deterrence research for more than 30 years, characterizes the body of evidence for deterrence as more than a little flimsy (2010, p. 766). Similarly, a review of the deterrent effect of the death penalty by the National Research Council (Nagin and Pepper, 2012) concludes that existing research cannot be used to make any conclusions. In the face of this evidence, contemporary legislatures and the public continue to act as if deterrence were alive and well, and the primary factor in keeping crime in check. On the other hand, a new approach called focused deterrence is being used

in policing circles in lieu of proposing policing efforts as gen- eral deterrence (for instance, increasing the number of police). The idea is to avoid efforts aimed at deterring crime in general and instead focus on specific crime types in targeted areas. The results, as opposed to general policing actions, have demon- strated some deterrence effects (Engel, Tillyer, & Corsaro, 2013) but methodological critiques of other deterrence research still apply here. Situational crime prevention, another newer policing approach, is also an offshoot of modern deterrence theory. Freilich (2015) has, for instance, compared the ideas of Beccaria to that approach.

Researchers have also recognized that legal punishments do not stand alone, and some have argued for a version of deter- rence combining both legal and informal punishment systems. In fact, the usual direction is to combine deterrence with con- cepts from social control theories (Chapter 11). Social learning theory (Chapter 12) can also be interpreted as a close cousin of deterrence because it includes punishment as one of the stimuli involved in the learning process. When legal deterrence is com- bined with informal social controls, the research results usually show only a slight effect attributable to legal deterrence. Infor- mal controls seem to have a stronger effect on individuals, par- ticularly when the informal controls include shaming.

The public and the government have embraced the notion of a rational criminal. This makes it easier to blame the offender for all aspects of a crime, rather than share some of that blame with society for creating conditions that force some people into crime. If it is an individual’s decision to commit crime, then he or she is morally responsible and deserves to be punished. The great advantage of this reasoning is that we do not have to do anything other than punish while the individual is in our con- trol. Thus, from the mid-1970s to about 2000, rehabilitation and skill training were no longer part of what a prison should do. In addition, with deterrence as our goal, we do not have to engage in expensive social programs to improve conditions that create crime, nor do we have to engage in even more expensive social reform. An assumption that individuals make fully ratio- nal decisions to engage in criminal behavior can save a lot of money. If this assumption is incorrect, and research on the effects of prison warehousing of offenders seems to have inval- idated it, these savings may be short-term ones. A failure to rectify social conditions, if they are also important, will simply make matters worse and over the long term will cost much

20 Chapter 2 • The Classical School

more in increased crime, suffering, and deterioration of neigh- borhoods. In the past few years, administrators of most state correctional systems have recognized the problem. Ironically, many of the politicians who still support the concepts of deter- rence and rational criminals are now supporters of skills train- ing and rehabilitation because they think it saves money by reducing the number of offenders who return to prison.

Criminologists have also granted a good deal of popular- ity to the concept of rational offenders. We now have rational choice theories (Chapter 13) and theories of punishment called “just deserts.” The rational choice theories generally suggest a connection between opportunities for offending, the environ- mental conditions at the time, and the readiness of the offender to engage in the offense. That is, they assert that, given the situ- ation and the circumstances, offenders make informed deci- sions to commit crimes. Just deserts punishment theory returns to the classical concept of retribution and argues that, because offenders make the choice to offend, punishment is deserved. The “just” portion of the theory restates the classical notion of equitable punishment—no more or less punishment than what is required to correct the harm from the crime.

One might argue that our criminal justice system has become so punitive and unwieldy that we need a similar period of reform and revision in order to ensure fairness and propor- tionality in our law. Most jurisdictions have gradually increased the possible aggravating circumstances that make capital pun- ishment an option in murder cases. There is even talk of capital punishment for certain homeland security crimes. The latest (as of the time of this writing) in punitive approaches involves the state of North Carolina attempting to protect wives and daugh- ters from what may be essentially fictional concerns. Worried that transgender males (i.e., those born male and now identify- ing as female) are using female restrooms and somehow threat- ening “real” women, NC legislators passed a law prohibiting and criminally penalizing members of the opposite sex using gender-specific restrooms. Part of the rationale was that males would dress up as females just to get into women’s restrooms for voyeuristic or sexual-assault purposes. As one would expect, this extension of morality into criminal law created a backlash with various corporations, music artists, sports events, conven- tions, and others cancelling business in the state. Some critics have pointed out that women themselves are most likely to be criminalized under this law as large venues (sports, concerts) traditionally have underbuilt female restrooms and women

commonly use male restrooms in frustration with the long lines waiting for their own restrooms. A woman using a male rest- room would be in violation of North Carolina’s law. Of interest is a case in a Texas city where a similar ordinance was passed. The first arrest was a person attempting to use the women’s restroom—unfortunately, the person turned out to be a woman who evidently wasn’t female enough in appearance. In sum, excessive use of the criminal law tends to expand into morality issues (the question of whose morality is to be used is, of course, a critical issue here) and becomes even more unwieldy, ensuring that the very ideas the Classical School scholars objected to become prevalent. The 2016 presidential campaign seems to illustrate well the various moral perspectives brought up by anger-driven rhetoric and its implications for over-reac- tive law making.

Also, zero-tolerance policies and mandatory punishments have made a wide range of behaviors criminal, and those behav- iors vary significantly from state to state, making it difficult to know what specific conduct is allowed or proscribed. In one school, a six-year-old girl with mental health problems was arrested for kicking her teacher. In New Haven, Connecticut, an eighth grader was removed from his position of class vice-pres- ident, banned from participating in an honors dinner, and sus- pended for a day because he violated the school district’s wellness policy by purchasing a serving of candy. The youth, who simply bought a small bag of Skittles from a classmate, admitted he did not even know that he broke a rule. In another instance, a child who gave an aspirin to a classmate who com- plained of a headache was suspended from school for distribut- ing drugs; in yet another case, an elementary school student was suspended for having a candy “gun.” All of these things have contributed to a backlash against zero-tolerance policies as being too narrow and strict. This is exactly the same argu- ment that neoclassicists and, later, positivists made against the classical position: treating everyone the same according to the law and assuming rational intent simply doesn’t work out well. But, in fairness, classical scholars would have argued that too many rules and laws—and the ability for everyone to know and understand them and the way they are interpreted and enforced—leads to abuses of punishment and ineffective gover- nance. The bottom line for the Classical School though is that these 200-year-old ideas are applicable to our latest policy and theoretical notions. Obviously, we are still engaged in debates about these ideas.

Questions and Weblinks

Critical Thinking Questions

1. How relevant do you think the ideas of the Classical School are to the criminal justice system today? What classical ideas could be developed and implemented today that we are not currently using?

2. What do you think deters someone from committing a crime? What evidence can you think of that indicates people are or are not deterred? Are there people who are “most deterred”?

3. Do we have a viable and meaningful sense of “social contract” in our society today? Why or why not? How important is it for

society to have a strong social contract and what barriers do we face in developing such sentiments?

4. Examine some of the more notable criminal cases in the news today and the punishments that were handed down. How do the sentences today compare to those of the classical period or even to sentences of 100 or 50 years ago? What factors seem to shape the way we view punishments?

Chapter 2 • The Classical School 21

Practice Essay Questions

1. What were punishments like before the influence of the classical philosophers?

2. Discuss some of the classical concepts and ideas that we still see in our criminal justice system today.

3. Who were some of the major contributors to classical thought and what were their specific contributions?

4. How were ideas about the basic nature of all men related to the way we determine criminal punishment?

Related Websites

http://www.utilitarianism.com/bentham.htm http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Bentham-Project/who http://www.constitution.org/cb/beccaria_bio.htm

http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters.html http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/NatResCouncil-Deterr.

pdf

Bibliography

Barnes, H. E. (1930). The story of punishment: A record of man’s inhumanity to man. Boston: Stratford.

Beccaria, C. (1963). On crimes and punishments (H. Paolucci, Trans.). Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill. (Original work Dei delitti e delle pene published 1764.)

Beirne, P. (1991). Inventing criminology: The “science of man” in Cesare Beccaria’s Dei delitti e delle pene (1764). Criminology, 29, 777–820.

Beirne, P. (1993). Inventing criminology: Essays on the rise of “Homo criminalis.” Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.

Beirne, P. (1994). The origins and growth of criminology: Essays in intellectual history, 1760–1945. Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth.

Beirne, P. (2006). Free will and determinism? Reading Beccaria’s Of Crimes and Punishments (1764) as a text of Enlightenment. In S. Henry & M. Lanier (Eds.), The essential criminology reader (pp. 3–17). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

Bentham, J. (1830). The rationale of punishment. London: Robert Heward.

Bentham, J. (1905). Theory of legislation. London: Kegan Paul. Bentham, J. (1948). An introduction to the principles of morals and

legislation. New York: Kegan Paul. (Original work published 1789.)

Bentham, J. (Ed.). (1995). The panopticon writings, edited and intro- duced by M. Bozovic. London: Verso.

DiCristina, B. (2012). The birth of criminology: Readings from the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. New York: Wolters Kluwer.

Engel, R. S., Tillyer, M. S., & Corsaro, N. (2013). Reducing gang violence using focused deterrence: Evaluating the Cincinnati initiative to reduce violence (CIRV). Justice Quarterly, 30(3), 403–439.

Freilich, J. D. (2015). Beccaria and situational crime prevention. Criminal Justice Review, 40(2), 131–150.

Howard, J. (1929). The state of the prisons of England and Wales. London: J. M. Dent. (Original work published 1777.)

Jeffery, C. R. (1956). The structure of American criminological think- ing. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 46, 658–672.

Jeffery, C. R. (1972). The historical development of criminology. In H. Mannheim (Ed.), Pioneers in criminology (2nd ed., pp. 458–498). Montclair, NJ: Patterson Smith.

Jenkins, P. (1984). Varieties of enlightenment criminology. British Journal of Criminology, 24, 112–130.

Kant, I. (1959). Foundations of the metaphysics of morals. New York: Bobbs-Merrill. (Original work published 1785.)

Locke, J. (1937). Treatise of civil government and a letter concerning toleration. New York: D. Appleton-Century. (Original work pub- lished 1690.)

Maestro, M. T. (1942). Voltaire and Beccaria as reformers of criminal law. New York: Columbia University Press.

Maestro, M. T. (1973). Cesare Beccaria and the origins of penal reform. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Montesquieu, C. L. De Secondat. (1878). The spirit of the laws (Vols. 1–2). London: G. Bell. (Original work published 1748.)

Montesquieu, C. L. De Secondat. (1964). The Persian letters. New York: Bobbs-Merrill. (Original work published 1721.)

Nagin, D. S., & Pepper, J. V. (Eds.). (2012). Deterrence and the death penalty. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Newman, G., & Marongiu, P. (1990). Penological reform and the myth of Beccaria. Criminology, 28, 325–346.

Newman, G., & Marongiu, P. (Trans.). (2009). Cesare Beccaria, on crimes and punishments. Translation, annotations, and introduc- tion. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

Paternoster, R. (2010). How much do we really know about criminal deterrence? Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 100, 765–823.

Sherman, L. W. (1990). Police crackdowns: Initial and residual deter- rence. Crime and Justice, 12, 1–48.

Research Bibliography (from 1990)

Aldarondo, E. (1996). Cessation and persistence of wife assault: A longitudinal analysis. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 66, 141–151.

Anwar, S., & Loughran, T. A. (2011). Testing a Bayesian learning theory of deterrence among serious juvenile offenders. Criminol- ogy, 49, 667–698.

Apel, R. (2013). Sanctions, perceptions, and crime: Implications for criminal deterrence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 29, 67–101.

Ariel, B. (2012). Deterrence and moral persuasion effects on corporate tax compliance: Findings from a randomized controlled trial. Criminology, 50, 27–69.

http://www.utilitarianism.com/bentham.htm
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/Bentham-Project/who
http://www.constitution.org/cb/beccaria_bio.htm
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/charters.html
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/NatResCouncil-Deterr.pdf
http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/documents/NatResCouncil-Deterr.pdf
22 Chapter 2 • The Classical School

Bailey, W. C. (1990). Murder, capital punishment, and television: Exe- cution publicity and homicide rates. American Sociological Review, 55, 628–633.

Beijers, J., van Prooijen, J. W., & Bijleveld, C. (2016). To marry a thief? Crime type as a deterrent to cohabitation. Journal of Experi- mental Criminology, doi: 10.1007/s11292-016-9253-3.

Bell, B., Jaitman, L., & Machin, S. (2014). Crime deterrence: Evi- dence from the London 2011 riots. The Economic Journal, 124(576), 480–506.

Benson, B., Kim, I., & Rasmussen, D. W. (1994). Estimating deter- rence effects: A public choice perspective on the economics of crime literature. Southern Economic Journal, 61, 161–168.

Berk, R. A., Campbell, A., Klap, R., & Western, B. (1992). The deter- rent effect of arrest in incidents of domestic violence: A Bayesian analysis of four field experiments. American Sociological Review, 57, 698–708.

Birks, D., Townsley, M., & Stewart, A. (2012). Generative explana- tions of crime: Using simulation to test criminological theory. Criminology, 50, 221–254.

Braga, A. A., Hureau, D. M., & Papachristos, A. V. (2014). Deterring gang-involved gun violence: Measuring the impact of Boston’s Operation Ceasefire on street gang behavior. Journal of Quantita- tive Criminology, 30(1), 113–139.

Braga, A. A., Papachristos, A. V., & Hureau, D. M. (2014). The effects of hot spots policing on crime: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 31, 633–663.

Burkett, S. R., & Ward, D. A. (1993). A note on perceptual deterrence: Religiously-based moral condemnation, and social control. Crimi- nology, 31, 119–134.

Buzawa, E. S., & Buzawa, C. G. (Eds.). (1996). Do arrests and restraining orders work? Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Canela-Cacho, J. A., Blumstein, A., & Cohen, J. (1997). Relationship between the offending frequency of imprisoned and free offenders. Criminology, 35, 133–175.

Caplan, J., Kennedy, L., & Petrossian, G. (2011). Police-monitored CCTV cameras in Newark, NJ: A quasi-experimental test of crime deterrence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 255–274.

Crank, J., Koski, C., Johnson, M., Ramirez, E., Shelden, A., & Peter- son, S. (2010). Hot corridors, deterrence, and guardianship: An assessment of the Omaha metro safety initiative. Journal of Crimi- nal Justice, 38, 430–438.

Decker, S. H., & Kohfeld, C. W. (1990). The deterrent effect of capital punishment in the five most active execution states: A time series analysis. Criminal Justice Review, 15, 173–191.

Decker, S. H., Wright, R., & Logie, R. (1993). Perceptual deterrence among active residential burglars: A research note. Criminology, 31, 135–147.

Dölling, D., Entorf, H., Hermann, D., & Rupp, T. (2009). Is deterrence effective? Results of a meta-analysis of punishment. European Journal on Criminal Policy & Research, 15(1/2), 201–224.

Dundes, L. (1994). Punishing parents to deter delinquency: A realistic remedy? American Journal of Police, 13, 113–133.

Dunford, F., Huizinga, D., & Elliott, D. S. (1990). The role of arrest in domestic assault: The Omaha experiment. Criminology, 28, 183– 206.

Elis, L. A., & Simpson, S. S. (1995). Informal sanction threats and corporate crime: Additive versus multiplicative models. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32, 399–424.

Engel, R. S., Tillyer, M. S., & Corsaro, N. (2013). Reducing gang violence using focused deterrence: Evaluating the Cincinnati initiative to reduce violence (CIRV). Justice Quarterly, 30(3), 403–439.

Gartin, P. R. (1995). Examining differential officer effects in the Min- neapolis domestic violence experiment. American Journal of Police, 14, 93–110.

Gertz, M. G., & Gould, L. C. (1995). Fear of punishment and the will- ingness to engage in criminal behavior: A research note. Journal of Criminal Justice, 23, 377–384.

Grasmick, H. G., & Bursik, R. J., Jr. (1990). Conscience, significant others, and rational choice: Extending the deterrence model. Law and Society Review, 24, 837–861.

Grasmick, H. G., Bursik, R. J., Jr., & Arneklev, B. J. (1993). Reduction in drunk driving as a response to increased threats of shame, embarrassment, and legal sanctions. Criminology, 31, 41–67.

Grasmick, H. G., Davenport, E., Chamlin, M., & Bursik, R. J., Jr. (1992). Protestant fundamentalism and the retributive doctrine of punishment. Criminology, 30, 21–45.

Gray, T. (1994). Using cost-benefit analysis to measure rehabilita- tion and special deterrence. Journal of Criminal Justice, 22, 569–575.

Guerette, R. T., & Santana, S. A. (2010). Explaining victim self-pro- tective behavior effects on crime incident outcomes: A test of opportunity theory. Crime & Delinquency, 56, 198–226.

Hamdani, A., & Klement, A. (2008). Corporate crime and deterrence. Stanford Law Review, 61, 271–310.

Jacobs, B. A. (1996a). Crack dealers’ apprehension avoidance tech- niques: A case of restrictive deterrence. Justice Quarterly, 13, 359–381.

Jacobs, B. A. (1996b). Crack dealers and restrictive deterrence: Identi- fying narcs. Criminology, 34, 409–431.

Jacques, S., & Allen, A. (2014). Bentham’s sanction typology and restrictive deterrence: A study of young, suburban, middle-class drug dealers. Journal of drug issues, 44, 212–230.

Joo-Hee, J., Ekland-Olson, S., & Kelly, W. R. (1995). Recidivism among paroled property offenders released during a period of prison reform. Criminology, 33, 389–410.

Kirchgässner, G. (2011). Econometric estimates of deterrence of the death penalty: Facts or ideology? Kyklos, 64, 448–478.

Koper, C. S. (1995). Just enough police presence: Reducing crime and disorderly behavior by optimizing patrol time in crime hot spots. Justice Quarterly, 12, 649–672.

Koper, C. S., Taylor, B. G., & Woods, D. J. (2013). A randomized test of initial and residual deterrence from directed patrols and use of license plate readers at crime hot spots. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9, 213–244.

Land, K. C. (2015). Something that works in violent crime control. Criminology & Public Policy, 14(3), 515–519.

Loeffler, C. E., & Grunwald, B. (2015). Processed as an adult: A regression discontinuity estimate of the crime effects of charging nontransfer juveniles as adults. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52, 890–922.

Lott, J. R., Jr., & Mustard, D. B. (1997). Crime, deterrence, and right- to-carry concealed handguns. Journal of Legal Studies, 26, 1–68.

Loughran, T. A., Paternoster, R., & Thomas, K. J. (2014). Incentiviz- ing responses to self-report questions in perceptual deterrence studies: An investigation of the validity of deterrence theory using Bayesian truth serum. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 30, 677–707.

Maimon, D., Alper, M., Sobesto, B., & Cukier, M. (2014). Restrictive deterrent effects of a warning banner in an attacked computer sys- tem. Criminology, 52, 33–59.

Maltz, M. D. (1996). From Poisson to the present: Applying opera- tions research to problems of crime and justice. Journal of Quanti- tative Criminology, 12, 3–61.

Chapter 2 • The Classical School 23

Martin, A., Wright, E. M., & Steiner, B. (2016). Formal controls, neighborhood disadvantage, and violent crime in US cities: Exam- ining (un)intended consequences. Journal of Criminal Justice, 44, 58–65.

Marvel, T. B., & Moody, C. E. (1995). The impact of enhanced prison terms for felonies committed with guns. Criminology, 33, 247– 281.

Marvel, T. B., & Moody, C. E. (1996). Determinate sentencing and abolishing parole: The long-term impacts on prisons and crime. Criminology, 34, 107–128.

Maxson, C. L., Matsuda, K. N., & Hennigan, K. (2011). “Deterrabil- ity” among gang and nongang juvenile offenders: Are gang mem- bers more (or less) deterrable than other juvenile offenders? Crime & Delinquency, 57, 516–543.

McDowall, D., Lizotte, A., & Wiersema, B. (1991). General deter- rence through civilian gun ownership. Criminology, 29, 541–559.

Nagin, D. S., & Paternoster, R. (1991). The preventive effects of the perceived risk of arrest: Testing an expanded conception of deter- rence. Criminology, 29, 561–585.

Nagin, D. S., & Pepper, J. V. (Eds.). (2012). Deterrence and the death penalty. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Nagin, D. S., Solow, R. M., & Lum, C. (2015). Deterrence, criminal opportunities, and police. Criminology, 53, 74–100.

O’Connell, D., Visher, C. A., Martin, S., Parker, L., & Brent, J. (2011). Decide your time: Testing deterrence theory’s certainty and celerity effects on substance-using probationers. Journal of Criminal Jus- tice, 39, 261–267.

Park, M., Perez, N., Jennings, W. G., & Gover, A. R. (2015). A pre- liminary examination of the role of deterrence and target hardening on future recidivism risk among burglars in South Korea. Security Journal, doi: 10.1057/sj.2015.15.

Pate, A. M., & Hamilton, E. E. (1992). Formal and informal deterrents to domestic violence: The Dade County spouse assault experiment. American Sociological Review, 57, 691–697.

Paternoster, R., & Nagin, D. S. (1994). Personal capital and social control: The deterrence implications of a theory of individual dif- ferences in criminal offending. Criminology, 32, 581–606.

Paternoster, R., & Piquero, A. (1995). Reconceptualizing deterrence: An empirical test of personal and vicarious experiences. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 32, 251–286.

Paternoster, R., & Simpson, S. (1996). Sanction threats and appeals to morality: Testing a rational choice model of corporate crime. Law and Society Review, 30, 549–583.

Peterson, R. D., & Bailey, W. C. (1991). Felony murder and capital punishment: An examination of the deterrence question. Criminol- ogy, 29, 367–395.

Piquero, A. R., Bouffard, J. A., Piquero, N. E., & Craig, J. M. (2016). Does morality condition the deterrent effect of perceived certainty among incarcerated felons? Crime & Delinquency, 62(1), 3–25.

Piquero, A. R., & Pogarsky, G. (2002). Beyond Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of deterrence: Personal & vicarious experi- ences, impulsivity, & offending behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 153–186.

Pogarsky, G. (2007). Deterrence and individual differences among convicted offenders. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 23, 59–74.

Pogarsky, G., & Piquero, A. R. (2003). Can punishment encourage offending? Investigating the “Resetting” effect. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40, 92–117.

Ross, H. L., & Klette, H. (1995). Abandonment of mandatory jail for impaired drivers in Norway and Sweden. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 27, 151–157.

Saridakis, G., & Spengler, H. (2012). Crime, deterrence and unem- ployment in Greece: A panel data approach. Social Science Jour- nal, 49, 167–174.

Sherman, L. W., & Berk, R. A. (1984). The specific deterrent effects of arrest for domestic assault. American Sociological Review, 49, 261–272.

Sherman, L. W., & Rogan, D. P. (1995a). Deterrent effects of police raids on crack houses: A randomized controlled experiment. Jus- tice Quarterly, 12, 755–781.

Sherman, L. W., & Rogan, D. P. (1995b). Effects of gun seizures on gun violence: “Hot spots” patrol in Kansas City. Justice Quarterly, 12, 673–693.

Sherman, L. W., Schmidt, J., Rogan, D., Gartin, P., Cohn, E., Collins, D., & Bacich, A. R. (1991). From initial deterrence to long-term escalation: Short custody arrest for poverty ghetto domestic vio- lence. Criminology, 29, 821–850.

Sherman, L. W., & Weisburd, D. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime “hot spots”: A randomized, controlled trial. Justice Quarterly, 12, 625–648.

Sitren, A. H., & Applegate, B. K. (2012). Testing deterrence theory with offenders: The empirical validity of Stafford and Warr’s model. Deviant Behavior, 33, 492–506.

Socia, K. M. (2012). The efficacy of county-level sex offender resi- dence restrictions in New York. Crime & Delinquency, 58, 612–642.

Sorg, E. T., Haberman, C. P., Ratcliffe, J. H., & Groff, E. R. (2013). Foot patrol in violent crime hot spots: The longitudinal impact of deterrence and posttreatment effects of displacement. Criminology, 51, 65–101.

Stack, S. (1994). Execution publicity and homicide in Georgia. Ameri- can Journal of Criminal Justice, 18, 25–39.

Svensson, R. (2015). An examination of the interaction between morality and deterrence in offending: A research note. Crime & Delinquency, 61(1), 3–18.

Tauchen, H., Witte, A. D., & Griesinger, H. (1994). Criminal deter- rence: Revisiting the issue with a birth cohort. Review of Econom- ics and Statistics, 76, 399–412.

Tavares, A., Mendes, S., & Costa, C. (2008). The impact of deterrence policies on reckless driving: The case of Portugal. European Jour- nal on Criminal Policy & Research, 14, 417–429.

Telep, C. W., Weisburd, D., Gill, C. E., Vitter, Z., & Teichman, D. (2014). Displacement of crime and diffusion of crime control ben- efits in large-scale geographic areas: A systematic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10, 515–548.

Thomson, E. (1997). Deterrence versus brutalization: The case of Ari- zona. Homicide Studies, 1, 110–128.

Tittle, C., Botchkovar, E., & Antonaccio, O. (2011). Criminal contem- plation, national context, and deterrence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 27, 225–249.

Tolnay, S. E., & Deane, G. (1996). Vicarious violence: Spatial effects on southern lynchings, 1890–1919. American Journal of Sociol- ogy, 102, 788–815.

Traub, S. H. (1996). Battling employee crime: A review of corporate strategies and programs. Crime & Delinquency, 42, 244–256.

Trivizas, E., & Smith, P. T. (1997). The deterrent effect of terrorist incidents on the rates of luggage theft in railway and underground stations. British Journal of Criminology, 37, 63–74.

Tunnell, K. D. (1990). Choosing crime: Close your eyes and take your chances. Justice Quarterly, 7, 673–690.

Veneziano, C., & Veneziano, L. (1995). Reasons for refraining from criminal activity. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 19, 185–196.

Veneziano, C., & Veneziano, L. (1996). Factors accounting for not engaging in illegal acts in relationship to type of crime. Journal of Crime and Justice, 19, 167–178.

24 Chapter 2 • The Classical School

Waldorf, D., & Murphy, S. (1995). Perceived risks and criminal justice pressures on middle class cocaine sellers. Journal of Drug Issues, 25, 11–32.

Watling, C. N., Palk, G. R., Freeman, J. E., & Davey, J. D. (2010). Applying Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualization of deterrence theory to drug driving: Can it predict those likely to offend? Acci- dent Analysis & Prevention, 42, 452–458.

Weisburd, D., & Green, L. (1995). Policing drug hot spots: The Jersey City drug market analysis experiment. Justice Quarterly, 12, 711–735.

Weisburd, D., Telep, C. W., & Lawton, B. A. (2014). Could innova- tions in policing have contributed to the New York City crime drop even in a period of declining police strength?: The case of stop, question and frisk as a hot spots policing strategy. Justice Quar- terly, 31, 129–153.

Weisburd, D., Waring, E., & Chayet, E. (1995). Specific deterrence in a sample of offenders convicted of white-collar crimes. Criminol- ogy, 33, 587–607.

Weisburd, D., Wooditch, A., Weisburd, S., & Yang, S. M. (2016). Do stop, question, and frisk practices deter crime? Criminology & Public Policy, 15(1), 31–56.

Wiersma, E. (1996). Commercial burglars in the Netherlands: Reason- ing decision-makers? International Journal of Risk Security and Crime Prevention, 1, 217–225.

Wikström, P. H., Tseloni, A., & Karlis, D. (2011). Do people comply with the law because they fear getting caught? European Journal of Criminology, 8, 401–420.

Wiley, S. A., & Esbensen, F. A. (2013). The effect of police contact: Does official intervention result in deviance amplification? Crime & Delinquency, doi: 10.1177/0011128713492496.

Wittebrood, K., & Nieuwbeerta, P. (2000). Criminal victimization dur- ing one’s life course: The effects of previous victimization and pat- terns of routine activities. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 37, 91–123.

Worrall, J. L., Els, N., Piquero, A. R., & TenEyck, M. (2014). The moderating effects of informal social control in the sanctions-com- pliance nexus. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 341–357.

Zettler, H. R., Morris, R. G., Piquero, A. R., & Cardwell, S. M. (2015). Assessing the celerity of arrest on 3-year recidivism pat- terns in a sample of criminal defendants. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43, 428–436.

25

▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ ▪ 3

The Positive School

Learning Objectives

Objective 3.1: Describe the development of biological theories of crime.

Objective 3.2: Discuss the work of Cesare Lombroso and what he contributed to criminology.

Objective 3.3: Explain what is meant by atavism and whether it is a still a relevant concept to the study of crime.

Objective 3.4: Compare and contrast the major principles of the classical and positivist school.

Objective 3.5: Summarize some of the topics in criminology studied by psychologists.

IntroductIon

While the champions of the classical period were writers and philosophers, the Positivists were more likely to be scientists, mathematicians, doctors, and astronomers. While the classical reform- ers sought to modernize and civilize the system within which they lived, the Positivists reached out to order and explain the world around them. The earlier concentration on building a moral and fair system of justice and government was thus displaced by the scientific exploration and discovery of other aspects of life.

Although the Classicalists believed that humans possess a rational mind and thus have free will to choose good over evil, the Positivists saw behavior as determined by its biological, psychological, and social traits. The primary characteristics of positivist criminological thought are a deterministic view of the world, a focus on criminal behavior instead of on legal issues such as rights, and the prevention of crime through the treatment and rehabilitation of offenders.

The use of scientific research techniques was common to those who studied criminals from a positivist perspective. In scientific analyses, data were collected to describe and explain different types of individuals as well as different social conditions. The theory of evolution, proposed by natu- ralists and anthropologists, formed a basis for the study of human behavior and, more specifically, of criminal behavior.

Most criminological texts limit their consideration of the Positive School to the work of three Ital- ian writers and thus create confusion among students when the term “positivism” is applied to later and broader theories. This chapter focuses on positivism as a more general approach and delves into the essence of what positivism is. In this way, one gains a more general understanding of positivism than the theories of a few people, and this view helps students transcend the biological emphasis usually associ- ated with the Positive School. In reality, positivism is a philosophical system that emphasizes the “posi- tive” application of science to knowledge production. Therefore, the Positive School is an all-encompassing scientific perspective. The school is also known today as the “modernist” perspective (a term used by those scholars who consider themselves to be “postmodern”).