The Essential Criminology Reader

s

E CON

D

E

D

I

T

I

o

N

BORKNM2588

079

this newly revised text, Lanier and Henry build upon their critical teview of riminology, expanding their coverage ofthe multifaceted "Crime Prism," white-

1

lIlar and corporate crime, new developments in biocriminolog)T,. cognitive leary, feminist criminology; and posrmodernism. Importantly, they re-frame rime and its control in the context of global interconnectedness, expanded Hemet communication, and international terrorism since 9/1 L and ask: What

ind of criminology is needed for the 21st century? The addition of illustrative, )mparative, real-world examples and vital updates reflecting the latest studies ad theoretical developments make this text a necessity for both undergraduate nd graduate courses in criminology.

lARK M. LANIER is an associate professor of criminal justice at the University f Central Florida. STUART HENRY is professor and chair of the Department f Interdisciplinary Studies at Wayne State University.

wer illustration: © BeUmann/CORBIS

estview Press 300 Central Avenue wider, CO 80301 ~2977 2 Hid's Copse Road Imnor Hill • Oxford OX2 9JJ 'Nw.westviewpress.com

ISBN

O-B133'~090-X

Ir

.....

:z o ....... o G')

-< SECOND EDITION

.

Westview

Mark M. Lanier &- Stuart Henry

Contents

Mark dedicates this book to Luke 111111 Jessi Shinrf, fa Lee Ilud Jasmine

List ofTnbles I1/U7 Figures Prt!{tlce and Ackl1owle{~~;l1lell[s

IX

.yi

1 What Is Criminology? The Study of Crime, Criminals, and Victims

1

What Is Criminology?, 3 CrimillOlogicaJ Theory, 6

Victimo!ogy, 15

-

Sllll1mary, 16

All rights reserved. Printed in the United Slales of America. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, recording, or any information stor
2003021%1

The paper used in this publication meets the requirements of the American National Standard for Permanence of Paper for Printed Library M"[cri,,ls ..239.118-1984.

KN070004284

2 What Is Crime? Defining and Measuring the Crime Problem

18

Legal Definition, 20 Consensus and Conflict Approaches, 22 I'lagan's Pyramid of Crime, 28 The Prism of Crime, 35 Application of the Integrritpd Prism 10 Schonl Violence 40 Measuring Crime, 50 . Government rV{ei:1llSrf'S of Crimp "10 What the [feR arId NCVS '[~ell Al~:-Illi ('riIlIP. 'f·rPlll,<:;, I .~n co Independent CrillleMeilSlJrpS, 61

Summary, 65 Notes, 67

3 Classical, Neoclassical, and R<1lionaJ Choice Theories

68

The PreclassicOlj Ern, 70 The Classical Reactioll 7? Neoclassical ReVisions',

~rimi~l~1 Justic~

78

Implications: TIle Move Itl "Justicp" "r'11P{lI')', 7q hpdefinmg R~llOnal Choice: Sitll<1tinn,J! Filclnrs e1l11l Routine Activities Theory, Rq SurllJll(lry and C'nllcJusioll,'qR

7'

COI1II'III.c;

('uJllt:llls

Summary Chart: ChssicaL EahonrJ! Choice, nml RoutinE' Aclivities Thel1I'il".o:;, Cjq

8 Crimes of Place: Social Ecology and Cultural Theories of Crime ]01

Biological and Pusitivistic /\SSUlllpli(ltls, 103 The Born Criminl1t 105 Early U.s. Fnmily-Type and Bndy-Type 'rJwnries, 1()7 Cun-Lemporary Biologicl1l Perspedives, -1]/) Biosocial Criminology: l\ DevplnpTlIf'JII
5 Criminal Minds: Psychiatric and Psychological Explanations for Crime

9 The Sick Society:

Anomie and Strain Theury

10 Capitalism as a Criminogenic Society: Conflict, Marxist, and Radical Theories of Crime

Failed Socialization: Control Theory, Social Bonds, and Labeling Control Theory: Learning Not to Commil Crime, 182 Labeling 'rhea"ry: A Special Case of [o'fli1ec! Soci
259

~lIared Assumptions

and Di££erellCl:b: Conflict, .rvrarxist, and J~i\dical'l'he,)rit's,262 The ]\ooIS of Conflict ('riminolugy, 264 Contempurary COilflict Criminology, 2(19 The Roots of Radical Theory: Marx's Analysis of Capitalist SocieLy, 275 Contemporary Radical Crirninolngy, 281 Central Themes of Radical CrilUinolugy, 281 Summary and Conclusion, 288 Summary Chart: Conflict Theory and Radical 'I'hellry, 288

]56

Common Themes and Different Assul'nptioils, 160 Sutherland's Differentinl Association Theory, -162 Neutralization Theory: Learning Ra!iollillizi11iOilf'o a.c,Molives, lilR Summary and Conclusion, 176 SllllHnary Ch;ut: Soci;'\1 Prncess Theories, 177 7

232

ASslllnptions of SLrain 'l'lIeu)'y, 'lJ--l FCHlnders of Strain Theory, 236 Recent Revisions to AnClltlie/Str..lili Theory. 24,') Summary and COllcJ usion, 256 Summary Chart: Anomie/Strain 'l'Ileury, '2.:,/1

126

From Sick Minds to Abnormill Bch,winr, 12CJ Shared PsycllOlogical /\SSIIJllplinns, 130 The Psychoanalytic Approach, 131 Tri1it-Based Persnnalitv Theories, 137 Behavioral, Situil!iolla-I, ,1Ilr! Soc1
205

COlIlHlon Themes ,mel ASt>lIlllpliuns, 2117 The Chicago Sehoul, 2U9 The Ne"v Social Eeolng)' '1'111'nries, 215 Cullural Deviance "l'heuriet.>, '223 New CulLural Theory of Crime, 226 Sl][]\mary and Conclusiun, 221) SUlllltldry CharL: Social Ecology Theury and Culture Conflict Theory, 229

4 "Born to Be Bad":

Biological, Physiological, and Biosocial Theories of Crime

'OIl

11 ]79

Patriarchy, Gender, and Crime: Feminist Criminological Theory Basic Assumptions of Feminist Cdllltllll!Ugy, 21J2 Liberal Feminism, 296 Radical Feminism, 299 Marxist Feminism, 302 Sociali~t Feminism, 304 Gendered Theory, 305 Epistemologicallsslles dlld Pus1Jllodl'nl Femjnlslll, 3Ub

290

'01 ii

CllndusilJll,3U7 Summary Chart:

F~lllillbm, 308

12 Criminologies for the Twenty-First Century:

Globalization, an Issue of War or Peace? Globalization, 31 J PostmodemisJn, 317 Making Peace, Not War, 327 Restorative Justice, 332 Left Realisfll, 335 C:0I1CllI8io11,337 Summary Chart: Critical Criminologies, 33t)

'!ii/lieS 2.1 The Seriollsness of Crimes

Conclusion: Integrative Theory

341

l\tiferellce~

353 413

ludex

Tables and Figures

310

30

4.1 Some Claimed Biological Causes of Crime

113

5.1 Psychological Theories Compared 5.2 Core Traits of an Antisocial Personality (SOciUpdth llr Psychopatl1)

132

9.1 Mertun's Individual Ivlodes of Adaptation

241

C.l Integrative Theories and Their Derivation

3'16

Fi::Jures 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5

Hagan's Pyramid uf Crime The Crime Prism Why People Fail to Repurt Crimes to the Polic~ Proportion of Crimes Reported to the Police Likelihood of Victimization by Age, Race, and Sex

3.1 Cornish and Clarke's Reasoning Criminal

8.1 Concentric Zone Theory 8.2 BeHair's Systemic Crime Model 8.3 Warner's Integrated Cultural Attenuation SYSt12111 rvlode!

138

29

36 54 59 60 91 210 219 221

, ix

Preface and Acknowledgments

The idea that "the only constant is change" has been around at least since llw tiIlle of Heraclitus in 500 B.C. Since we wrote the first edition of this book in 1997, the world has certainly changed. It has become mOTe globalized and we are more interconnected with others. The nature of crime has dwnged to include environmental and financial harms from multinational corporate crimes, global political terrorism, and violence at home, 'Nork, or school, all of which have become more significant than the threat frum strangers on the street. The threat of terrorism affects everyone, everywhere. New vulnerabilities have appeared. The means we use to communicate and converse have changed and opened up opportunities for new types of white-collar fraud and identity theft. The business community has been racked by one scandal after another, eroding confidence in our economic systems. The nature of war has also changed from nation-to-nation fighting to ongoing conflicts between ethnic and sectarian groups. These changes, coupled with many suggestions from the readers and users of Ule first edition, led us to revise and update Essential Criminology. rVlost of all, we revised this book in the spirit of social philosopher Eric Hoffer (1902-1983), who said that "in times of profound change, the learners inherit the earth, while the leanled find themselves beautifully e1luipped to deal with a world that no longer exists." On the surface, this is still a book about crime and criminality. It is about how we study crime, how we explain crime, how we determine what is-and is not-criminal, and how we can reduce the harm caused by crime. It is also a book about difference. Crime is something we all know about-or do we? You may see crline differently from the way your parents or even your peers see it. You may see your own behavior as relatively acceptable, apart from a few minor rule violations here and there. But real crime? '1'h<1t's what others do-criminals, right? You may change how you view crime and criminals after reading this text. I\s authors, we reflect difference; Stuart was raised in working-class South London, England. Mark traces his ancestry to southern plantation owners. Stllart WflS educatecl to traditional, long-tested, yet very narrow

British standard.s; Mark, in a unique multidisciplinary U.S. program. Stuart seriously qUf?sl'ions the utility of scientific methods (positivism); Mark xi

xii

Prejilce IlItd Acklwwlcdgllle11tS

Preface and Aclmm.o!edgments

relies on them daily. Stuart rarely does rlnything outdoors, except watch an occasional rock concert. Mark rides Barleys and is an active wakeboarder and surfer who loves outdoor life, Despite these differences We found COllllllon ground for our analysis of crime and criminality. Our differences provide for a balanced analysis of crime. We spe crime as complex, politicat and harmful to victims and perpetrators. We also acknowledge the difference between people, culture, and regions, Thus ive embrace connict as not only inevitable but positive. Conflict promotes contemplation and understanding of others, including their cultUl"(', education, experience, and worldview. Conflict also prompts change nnti thus provides the opportunity for improving our social world. It presents the opportunity to confront our dissatisfactions and search for a better way. Most Americans and many Europeans are dissatisfied with how we handle crime alld criminals. This dissatisfaction raises questions. Is crime caused by illdiviclLlals~'criminals?Is it caused by the way society is organized? By fule 1lli'lkers? By poverty? Dwgs? All of the above? Something else? Is crime even caused at all? We also question how to deal with crime. Should criJJle be handled by the criminal justice system? By social policy? By pllblic health officials (did you know that the Centers for Disease Control now track homicides)? By you and other citizens ("take back the streets" and "neighborhood partnership" programs have become a significnnt part. of community crime control)? Conflict over these issues and the need for a good, (relatively) short criminology lext contributed to our desire to write this book. At first we decided to write EssPllfia! Criminology as a conclse introductory text that eXiimines the Ilatllrp ami extent of crime and surveys the main theoretical perspectives on crime causation and criminal justice policy impliciltions. The book is written in a clerlr, straightforwClrd style and progressively builds students' knowledge. Much to our surprise, an analysi,<>. of progri1ms adopting the text fOlme! it being used in gradllate programs as \-vell CIS freshman courses. Thus in this second edition we haV(~ tfiE'd 10 broaden the scope. We are glad the first edition had such broad appPfll Cllld we have tried to build on thaL After de,<;;cribillg the scope of the subjecl, ESSfllli111 Crimino!o:{lj guides students lhrougll the diverse definitions of crimE' and provides a brief treatment of fhe different ways crime is measured. It then turns to the major theoretical explanations for crime, from individual-level classical and rational choice through biological, psychological, social learning, social control, fwd illteraclionist perspectives. It explains the more sociocultural theories, beginning with social ecology, and moves on to strain/sllbcultural theory ,md conflict, l\1arxist, and anarchist approaches. We reorganizerlthe final choplers to better reflect f('lllinist contributions (mel the ex-

..

xiii

. changes in postmodernisffi, peacemaking, and left realism. new . d . .' . t' examines the mam arguments for an agamst mtegra Ive . . . . . . . B i~f background 11lfOrmatIOll IS proVIded on l11aJor theOrIsts theones. r e . I'f f ling that they are real people who share the expenences Ie a deUlons t ra . I d . II We have tried to cover the theones completely, accurate y, an !el'S us a . . I d . I d ~dly and have attempted to show how each 15 re ate - to or even laI1 e , I builds on the others. Concen:s ab~ut length mean that the student WIS 1~ '0 10 explore these connectIOns 111 depth should consult more compre 0 ~l~~lsive theory texts. Ours provides the essentials. , . . _ EssCIltial CriminoloSJ1J has several unique: ~tud.ent-ff1e~dlyfeatures. We t ~ 'n each chapter WiUl examples of speclftc cnmes to Illustrate the th~­ g 1e l 'h book includes an intea-rated "prismatic" definition of crime. ThIS Dry. 1 e 0 I' : .111 provides a comprehensive, multidimensional way of conceptua IZpn~ ' " cnme in" crime in terms of damage, social outrage, an d Ilarm. 0ur prism" integrates virtually all the major disparate definitions of crime. I~­ terestingly, when this first appeared were encouraged ~o develop It further and the result was a journal article (Henry and Lamer 1998) and book-length treatment of the subject (What Is Crime: Controversies ovt!r the Nat/lre of Crirne and What to 00 Abollt Ii 2001). Throughout the text, we provide "equal time" examples from both white-coII~r ("suite") a~ld conventional ("street") crime with the objective of drawmg students mto the realities of concrete cases. We make a conscious effort to include crimes that are less often detected, prosecuted, and punished, These corporate, occupational, and state crimes have serious consequences but are .often neglected in introductory texts. We present chapter-by-chapter dISCUSsions of each perspective's policy implications, indicating the practical applications that the theory implies. Finally, summa~ con~ept charts condude each chapter dealing with theory. These prOVIde a SImple yet comprehensive analytical summary of the theories, revealing their basic dssumptions. . The book is primarily intended for students interested in the study at crime. This includes such diverse fields as psychology, sociology, political science, and history. \-Ve expect the book to be mainly used in criminology and criminal justice courses, but students studying any topics relate~ to criI1le, such as juvenile delinquency and deviant behavior, wiII also find the book useful. Interdisciplinary programs will find the book particularly helpful. Rarely is any book the product of one or two individuals. We drew on the talents, motivation, and knowledge of many others. Thus several people have earned our thanks and respecL In keeping with our title, however, we mention only key helpers, Jill Rothenberg was both patient and encouraging. Chrisona Schmidt's and Sharon Dejohn's copyediting added greatly to the book's clarity. \-Ve would particularly like to thank 'illil"

n "1 ,'on ThecOI1CUS

c

IN:

uv our gradudte resedfcll assistants: Natalie P£.ddldk, Jes:;iGI Stt:'l"ll, dlld Ll1~ ar~n BrelU1an. We also thaI~k two \VaynJ2 ~tat.e University graduate library: SCIence students, Robert Grdves and JenIllfer Roth-Emkuw, who provided research assistance for the book. Gregg Bdrak has alway~ beell at the fore_ front of recent themetical movements alld we are eadl inckbted to hi11l for his tl1o~lght~provoking prose and friendship. We thank uur colleague Dragan !vhlovanovic for continuing to provide cutting-edge critical the~ ory that has moved the discipline beyond its n"lJTo·w contines. IVIark Lanier specifically thanks the teachers who first interested him in theory-\Villiam Osterhoff, Brent Smith, dnd John Sloan as \vell as the teachers and peers \vlw provided illiditiunal insight: Karol Lucken, Peler K. Manning, Bob Bohm, John Smyl,la, and Gene Paoline. lIe would also like to U1ank all the teachers outside the classroom: friends, students, deviants (bikers, surfers, and professor.':> l11ostly), criminals, and pulice ufficers who broadened his view of crime. We would like to commend lhe exlernal reviewers of this book, IVlark Sta[f(lrd of the University uf Texas-Austin, and especially .rvfartha A. MVl2rs uf the Universitv of Geor~ gia, who provided a tl10wughly constructive cummentary that ·made this book far better than it could h~IVl' been. Finally, we wOl;lcl like tu thank Rene van Swaaningen and Drdgall Milovilnovic for helpful suggestions pertaining to the book's revision. II/lark Lwrier StullrtE-iellry

1

What Is Crinlinology? The Study of Crime, Criminals, and Victims

In lhe early part of the tvventy~first century \Ve h
. rills L Ie increasing severity and frequency of erronSl11 CIS altered Our belief in the amount of freedom thilt individuals are prepared to sacrifice tu government in exchange for state protection. Instead of security in the hallIe to proh~ct our private property, we are now more interested in "homelcllld seclIrity" to protecl our energy re~ sources, health network, waler supply, communiGliions systenl, and lIlass transpnrtiltiOll facilities, including pllftS, airports, and trains. We are also strengllwning puhlic safety services: police, fire, EMS, and the Nalion"ll Guard. We are moving from decentralized and frClgmi?nled protective services to an inil'grated natiunilJ syslem of secmily designed to protect the American "homeland." Fear in the minds of \tVeslern populations has shifted frolIl hllrglars ill the night to low-flying aircraft and bombs in movie theilters. The perceived vulnerability of Western civilizations stemming from the combinalipil of operUless and large population concentrCltions hilS reached a national nisi.c;. As a resull (If these changes, crilllillulogy is also undergoing major chilnges. Historically a discipline fucused on explaining individuClj criminal motivations in relation to dumestic institutions and social processes, it has becom:' il rnultif;:lce~ed eXilO1inalion that Jinks genetic disposition to political Clnc! globn.j forCE'S. What is this discipline, this study of crime? To cnntel1lpnrilr\-' crimiJlldllgisls, lile Sl"llPf' of crime is Blllch broader lhall 7

2

What 1.<: Criminology?

Essential Criminology of inner-city gang violence, child abductions, carjack_

y 5 lootings, serial murders, workplace homicides, and drug wars. Crime also includes a variety of misdeeds by governments, political corruption, corporate fraud, employee theft, and offenses committed by "ordinary" Americans. Ever since the watershed of vVatergate in the early 19705, when it was reluctantly realized that even a president could be a "crook," media coverage of crimes by those in positions of power has accelerated. For example, consider the harm caused by U.S. government radiation experiments

on unknowing citizens who subsequently developed cancer. Consider also the 19305 syphilis experiments that wefe conducted on African American men in Tuskeegee, Alabama. These infected men were diagnosed but deliberately not treated, even when penicillin was available as a cure, in order for government doctors to study the long-term effects of syphilis. Deceiving consumers through false advertising and price-fixing by corporate giants llke the Archer Daniels Midland Company (ADM) (forcing consumers to pay above the market price by undermining competition) are just some of the crimes committed by corporations. Other crimes of the powerful involve corporate executives deceiving investors, as in the Eman, Worldcom, and Arthur Andersen scandals; Martha Stewart has made insider trading a household phrase. Corporate crime can include manufacturers and hazardous waste companies that pollute the environment, as well as the knowing Tl1"lnllfactllre of defective products, as in the case of the Ford Pinto gas !-allk lhat exploded on low-speed rear end impact; dangerous Firestone lires on Ford I\/Iotor Company autnrnnbiles (particularly its SUVs), with nne of the poorest safety records on the road; and unsafe food handling practices by meat processing companies resulting in E. coIl contamination of beef. Also falling wiOlin the scope of criminology are the unsafe production practices that result in death and injury ill Ihe vvorkplace, such 8S the Imperial chicken plant in J-lamlet North Carolina, where twenty-five deaths occurred when the factory c8ught fire. Imperial's owners had padlocked the plant's fire exits to stop petty pilfering of chicken; each of the owners received a ten-year prison sentence for nonnegligent manslaughter. Contemporary criminologists also study employees who steal fWIlI lheir bosses, bosses who employ workers "of[ the books" to evade taxes, and professionals (such as doctors) who defraud the government and rob H1E' public purse through Medicme rUld Medicaid fraud. Finally, the United Stales has become the target of terrorist groups, as evidenced by the 9/11 suicide hijackings of fully loaded passenger aircraft that were flown into corporate Clnd government buildings and attacks on U.S. interests abroad, as in the USS Cole and the U.s. embassy in Nairobi. What light can criminology shed on the political movements that

can

eople to commit suicide bOIT.lbings in furtherance o~ their CallSf'~ Pglobal forces produce such WIdespread lnullan suffenTl~ clIlrl what e leafll about the forces that prevent thesp devilstiltlIlg cOllse-

W

CrimiIl
i.1Iso

b . a variety of social contexts. For example, sllrfing may seem to e a ~~i[nefree acl:ivity, and generally it is. But in September -1995 at Laguna Beach, California, two surfers were videotnped bealing nnother surfer \'/ho had ventured into their designated cOIllesl nrea. The two surfers were arrested and charged with felony assault. 111 comt on December 20, 1995, the t\-vo surfers had their charges reduced through a ple8 bargain, and each was released on three years' probation. The videotape played a vital role in the case. Ivledia coverage was vast and the C
What Is Criminology?

F.,~S/'IJI;lrl ('ri111illn!ngy

reseoreh forms the basis for understanding, explaining, predicling, ond pr v ~n' ~rime, as wel1 as fOTflling criminal justice

;e~e~~~:~~~

t le content ane scope 0 "I anc commentators have raised several questions about its academic standing. For exallll.1Je, is lTiminolngy tru]y a science? Does its applied appro;ch, driven predlnllimlllt1y by the desirE' to cCllltrol crime, inherently undermine the Ve cred essential for SC· or .rI ICE>

soon? Which of the several theories of criI1lill~)Jogy offers the best explanation for crime? Answers to thesp qllf'.<:.;tions Me C~lllplicated by criminology's multidisciplinary nature, ils f'pblive faillire to n~I_'OInmend policy that reduces crime, and its heclV.Y reliance Oil glJvernment funding for research. Criminology's subject lIlaller is elastic. Unguestionable core components include (1) the definition and nature of crime as harm-causing behcwior; (2) different types of crimimd activity, ranging from individual, spontaneous offending 10 collE'ctive, organized criminal enterprises; (3) pmfiles of typical offend(~rs and viclims, including organizational and corporate lavv violators; (4) slatistical analysis of the extent, incidence, patterning, and cost of crimes, including t"stirnales of the "dark figure" of hidden or unreported crime, h8sed (lll survpys of victims and self-report studies of offenders; ane! is) ill1
~I."

1

I

P

Is Criminology Sf'ielll{l/c? Criminology requires that criminolilgists slrictly adhere tCl the scientific method. What distinguishes science hOlll Ilonscience is the insistence on testable hypotlwses. ~vh(ls(~ support or re[ul,llion through empiricfll research forms the basis of wlli'lt i.s accepted aTllollg scientific criminologists as validkllowledge. ,C;ciencp, 1!Jt->n, n~flllirT's lTilllinnlogists to build crimi-

'. 1 knowled'Jl:' from logically interrt:lated, theuretically gruliuJed, 0 nnlu"ILJ 0 ., " '[I U '1 , ·rically tested hypotheses lJlat are subJecllo retestmg. lese 'lel all enlpl , , '. . f'd b f U 0 ' ' '. 1 5 talements hold tme as long as they elfE' Ilol taisl Ie y ur 1121 leoretlLa search (Popper 1959). , '." _, . " ' . , .' Theory testing can be dUlle US1l\g \::'rlh~r qUdhtatlve ur qlld.J1tdatIve . Qualitative 1l1l'tllUds (Ber 2(HJU) Illd\" ethno1 Js. Illel1U( ' , IJn . . use systeuldtlC . ., . '. lechnitjues, such as !J3rticillant ubservdtlOn and m-depth 11It\::'1grdp !lIC r , TJ,ese are desipned to enable the researcher to understand wh8t VieWS. 0 • , • . criminal activity means to the participulll:s, In paI:tlClpaI.lt c)~..,servatlon, th~ , d,er takes a role at the ,scene of a crime or, ,111 the JuslIce system and re~ear . ". '" describes what goes on in the interaction~ belwee~l the partiCIpants. Criminologists using this technique study CfIlll€ and Its SOCIal context as an anthropologist would study a nonindustrial society. These methods have produced some of criminology's richest studies, such as ~aud Humphries (1970) study uf homoseXUality in public rest roo?~S, entJtle~i Ti!G Room Trade, and [-laward Becker's ([1C}{13J 1973) study 01 Jazz mUSIcians and marijuana smoking in his book Outsiders. Quantitative methods involve llumben" cOlmb, dnd measures that are Jrrived at via a variety (If research technique::.. The~e include survey re~earch based on repre~entative random ::id1l1pil~::, and the a~l~lysis of secondary data gathered for other purp.uses, .SUd.l as h~~lll~lde r~tes or corporate convictions for health and saIety vIOlatruns. Cnllunolo?lsb. u~­ ing quantitative teclU1igues make up the mainstream of academIC ,cr11:11llology. Perhaps one of the mo::;t illustTdtive e~amples of quantItatIve research is the series of longitudinal stud res 01 a cohort of 10,000 boys born in Philadelphia in '19"15 and folluwed through age eighteen with respect to their arrests fur criminal offense~ (Wulfgdng, Fig.]in, an-,d Sellin 1972) and a second cuhort of 27,000 boys and gIrls born 111 19SI:l (Tracy, Wolfgang, 8nd Figlio 1990). Each study ::;eemed to indicate that a ::;lllaU proportion of offenders (6 percent), called "chronic utJender::;," dcc,ounted for over haH of all offenses. Other quantitative research methuds mciude the use of historical records, COillparativt> analysis, and experimental research. Unfortunately, most quantitative l'vsearch is not theory driven; it does not involve theory testing. A survey l:llllducl.ed in 1992 revealed that only 27 percent of the articles f)ublished uVt'l" a period of twenty-eJght years in the journal CrilllirlO!O::;Y tested theory (otitt and Ciacopassi 11)92). Apparently theoretically grounded research is lacking. This begs the question, Is criminology scientific?

Disciplillltiy Diversity

b

7

b';;ellllul C'riJllirw!ogy

What [s Criminology?

philusophy, pnJiticdl t:;ci~llce, Jlsydliatry, and psychology (Einstadler and Henry ]995). Edt.'1J uE thetie disciplines contributes its own assumptions about human nature and society, its own definitions of crime and the role of law, its own prderence of methods for the study of crime, and its own 311dlysis of crime causation with differing policy implications. This diversity presents a major challenge to criminology's disciplinary integrity. Do t1lese diverse theoretiGll perspectives, taken togeU1er when applied to crime, constitute an independent academic discipline? Are these contributing knowleJges mendy subfields, or special applicatiOllS of established disciplines? AHernatively, is criminology interdisciplinary? If cri ·m I 5 f

'11352-- 1934 ), and Enrico Ferri (1856-1921)), whu beJiL:ved crime was {Ci;ltl sed , not chosen. Ana1yziw0J convicled criminals dnd .cadavers, these founding scientific criminologists claimed to show that crJlue was caused by biological defects in inferior" atavistic" individuals who were" throwbacks" from an earlier evolutionary stage of human development.

g~ography, hbtory,

"n

(see rvlessner, Kmllll, and Liska 1989; SMak J 998). There is sufficient independence of the subject from its constituent disciplines and an acceptance of their diversity, subsumed un-

;E!~tiliit~~~\~;~UlSilLLply, crime can

ma::,~,·y:;~~~~i:S.~l~tl~

well illustrated lhrough an overview of its component theories, discusSiOllS of which furll1 the bases nf subsequent chapters in this book.

A precursur lo sL:ielllific criminology wa..:. the rational lhought allJ ecoth.,mic assul1Iptions of the eighteenth-centllry Enlightenment philosophy of Cesare Beccaria (1735-1795) and Jeremy lJentllam (1748--1832).

Founders of Classical Economic Theory 1764 Cesare Beccaria Essay VII Crillle::; ll1ull-'Ullislll/ll!lll 1765 Jeremy Bentharn All Illtroduction to the Principles of Morals

Individuals are said to choose lo L'uJ1l1l1il crime based on whether tlley will derive more pleasure frunt duing so thal1 pain. Burglars, for example, weigh whether ur no! lo invade someone else's property depending on the e.\btence, among {/ther things, of lences, locks, and guardians of prop~rty clUJ I,vhether they lhink they will get caught and, if so, seriously punt::;heJ. . The idcd that critHe is dlOsen was challenged by the early anthropologh:al and biulugicallv based formulations of the 1Lalian school of criminologists, indudiJlg (-~esare LOlnbroso (1835--1909), Raffaele Garofalo

Founders of Biological Theory 1876 Cesare Lombroso Crimillal Mall 1884 Enrico Ferri Crimillal Sociology 1885 Rafaele Garofalo Crilllillology The idea that individual bodily differences can explain crime was developed in the late nineteenth century by US. criminal anthropologists, such as Ernest Hooton, who believed in the criminal man, and the constiwtional theorist William Sheldon, who believed crime came from feeble minds and inferior physical constitutions. Founders of Heredity and Constitutional Type Theory 1877 Rid1drd Dugdale The Jukes; A Study in Crillle, Pauperislll, Disease and Heredity 1912 Henry Goddard The [(alli/calc Falllily: A Study ill the Heredity ofFeeblclIlllzdedlless 1893 Charles Henderson Introduction to the Study qj" OepeHdellt, Defective, alld DeliJlljllellt Clllssl::s 1931 Ernest Hooten Crime mid the Mall ] 939 Ernest Hooten The Ii lIlaiCllIl Criminal; An A IItlrropulosical Study 1949 William Sheldull el al. Varieties of Delinquellt You/II One challenge to these theories came from the Freudian-influenced t-Jl:iychoanalysis popular in the early lwentieth century. rnr thinkers such as Augusta Brormer, Ule root of crime lay in the failure of fdlI1ily socialization in a dlild's early years, resulting in a defective persollality. Thus the antil:iocial delinquent act of vandalism might be explained by inadequate parenting leading to a fallure to develop affective ties with others and therefore a lack of respect for their property. Founpers of Psychoanalytical Theory 1926 \Nilliam Healy and Augusta Bronner DelinquL'lIts II/Ill Criminals: Their f."lakillg IlIIff Llll11111kiHg

8

What Is Criminology?

ESSC/ltilll Crilllil1()lo~"'Y

Founders of Psychoanalytical Theory (colltillucd)

9

'f they had to do so by illegitimate means, The neighborhood dnlg buying a luxury SUV with drug profits is simply using illegitimate 'ceptable means to achieve the same ends as those sought by the UI1JL corporate executive and her BIvIW. I

1935 August Aichhorn Wayward Youth 1936 William Healy and Augusta Broilller New Light Oil Delinquency lInd Its Treatment 1947 Kat~ Friedlander The Psyclwanalytic Approach tu Juvenile

Founders of Sociological Structural Theory

Dell11quency

Oth~r chal~enges to early biologically based theories came from the ecologically mfluenced sociological approach, which viewed crimes caused. more by location than by person. Thus the cultural ecologists e ChlCago school, sud1 as Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay, argued that bIOlogy could, not aCCount for why certain geographical areas of a city showed consIstent. p,atte,fns of crime, even when their populations c~al1:ged. Someone !lvmg In a ?j}apidated inner city, surrounded by prost~t_ut1On, drug deal~n~, and VIce, according to this theory, will be more hk~ly to become ~nmmal than someone living in a respectable suburban neIghborhood. WIth well-kept houses, tree-lined avenues, and wellfunded recreabonal facilities.

tt:

Founders of Chicago School Ecological Theory 1925 Robert Park, Ernest Burgess, and Roderick McKenzie The City

1893 Emile Durkheim The Division of Labor in Society 1897 Emile Durkheim Suicide: A Study in Sociology 1938 Robert Merton "Social Structure and Anomie" Ame1ica1l

Sociological Revie7.u 1957 Robert Merton Socinl Theon) a1ld Social Structure

Edv\'in SuUlerland ([1939] 1947), in contrast, took a more social-psychological ViEW of crime causation. He was interested in how people learn to

commit crime. His theory, called differential association, developed later with Donald Cressey (Sutherland imd Cressey 1966), argued that criminal behavior, like any other behavior, is leanled, It is learned in gangs from peers who are excessively invested in defining crime as acceptable behavior. Crime is thus a result of a differential association with criminal learning patterns. Youths continuously associating with peers who abuse OxyContin might learn the techniques, suppliers, and meaning of getting high, as well as how to rationalize this behavior as enjoyable, acceplable, find even nanni'll.

1942 Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay Juvenile Delinquellcy

a11.d Urba!l Areas: A Study of Delinquents ill Relation to Differenttal Characteristics afLocal COln/Ill/llities

B~ the 1940~ and 19~Os, from these foundations, a variety of other sociologI~al th.eones. of cnminal behavior emerged. For example, structural functIonalIst SOCIOlogy was based on the anomie theory of nineteenthcentury French sociologist Emile Durldleim. In a capitalist industrial society, fou~~ed on self-interested competition, the moral authority of cO~lm~~ll1eswould be undermined. Among people encouraged to aspire as mdrvlduals and to value self-interest over a concern for others, the resU.ltant state of narmlessness, or anomie, would lead tu increased levels of crlI~e and deviance. Robert. Merton's 1938 adaptation of this idea for the Umted States in his version of anomie theory (which he called strain the~ry) placed the. cause of crime. ~n the failure of capitalist sociely's educatlOn and vocatlO~al.opportu1ll11esto proVide an adequate means for all tho~e whose aSpIratIOns had been raised by advertising a.nd the media to ac.lueve the monetary Success of uthe American Dream." For Merton cnme was an attempt by some of Ule disadvantaged lo go for that dream;

Founders of Social Psychological Differential Association Theory 1939 Edwin Sutherland Pri7lciples of Criminology 1949 Edwin Sutherland White Collar Crllne 1964 Donald Cressey Delinquency, Crime, aHd DIfferential

Association 1966 Edwin Sutherland and Donald Cressey Principles of

Criminology Another sociological contribution that emphasized learning was TlJorsten Sellin's (1938) culture conflict theory and the idea, later applied by Walter Miller (1958), that some people lealTI a different culture or a different set of core values that ultimately clash with those of the mainstream culture. Whether it is the justification of vengeance for TIlining a daughter's virginity I~elcl by Sicilian immigrants or the prestige of sheet fighting among working-class Pittsburgh adolescents, the point is that what is confonnity to one culture's norms can be lawbrei'lldng to the wider society.

10

EssP/llial Crill/ilf%,'?y

For other sociulogists, cultural cOlllexls did not just stem from cJass, race, or national differences but were multiple and even formed in reacUoIl to asperts of the dominant culture. The 19505 subcultural theo_ ries of delinquency included Albert Cohen's (1955) theory of status frus_ tration and Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin's (1960) differential opportunity theory, according to which a person's place in a specific subculture, ethnic group, or economic class influences the options available and the choices made, Thus delinquents may form criminal or violent gangs precisely because their values have been rejected by the middle-doss educ
jzrocnile Delinqlleney ] 960 Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin Delinquency and

Opportunity The sociological contribution showed 111M crime was shaped by context especially the context provided by sncincnlturi11, structural, and organizahonaJ forces. Context means thi'll: the particular era in which one Jives, the frames of reference one employs, and one's world view all serve to selechvely shape how one sees and interprets events such as Clime. The predominance of structural and cultural explanations in U.s. criminology began to be challenged in the 1960s by social-psychological influences. These emphasized that humans were not just passively molded by external forces but were actively jnvolved in shaping their worlds and their own identities. From its roots in Gabriel Tarde's ([1890] 1903) imitation theory, soci,d learning WaS established by Albert Bandura (1969, 1973) and Ronald Akers ([1977J 1985) as
1890 1971 1973 ] 977

What Is Criminology?

11

I superseded both the criminal personality theory of Hans a so(l1964] 1977), who asserted that some peop Iewere predisposed . It,enck .. E)'5 . dersodalized because they were extroverted personalItIes, t belllg un l I d 5t .' I thinking patterns theory of Samuel Yoc 1e s.on an. ·an.0 dthecnmma . d tl" k ~ an w (1976 1977) accord.ing to wluch people learne to un an ton Sameno f tl· k· I d d . . 11 and then became locl~ed into that way o' 1m -mg. n ee , tlSOCdl
' .

1962 Gordon Trasler The Explrlllatioll of Criminality 1964 Hans Eysenck Crime and Personality .,. . 1976 Samuel Yochelson and Stanton Samenow The LnllIL1wI

Personalil"y

-

The rejection of "faulty mind" Uleories as ~ m~jor explan~tion for criIne - f ther encouraged by U1.e 1960s neutralIzatIOn and SOCIal control thew<~s. David Matza I Gresham Sykes (1961), and Travis Hirschi ones ur 0f I (1969). Neutralization is tl1e idea that although people may learn to ?e 1ave cont · ally under certain circumstances they also learn. 01at unmoral bevenl0nL, d h<1vior is sometimes acceptable. In olh~r w,~rds, vanous e~cuses an justifications send them on a "moral holIday. where they dnft between convention and crime, free from moral constramt. For example, emplo~ees in the workplace who justify their theft of company property and tane with plu'ases like "Everybody does il" or ':No one got hurt" or "Even. the Illi:llli.lger does it" are more lil(ely to see theIr acts as perks 01an as steahng. Founders of Social Control and Neulralization Theory 1940 1952 1953 1958 1964 1969

Walter Reckless Criminal BeJUlvior . . Fritz Redl and David Wineman COil troIs from WIt/IHI Donald Cressey Other People's lvIulley. . . F. Ivan Nye Family RelatiOllslIips alUi DeltllqllCllt Bdwvwr David Matza Delinquency and Drift Travis Hirsdli Causes of Delinquency

-"._--.

GClbriel Tarde Gabriel Tl1rde's Laws nf lmifl1tinll B. F. Skinner Beyond Freedollll1lld Dignity Albert Banduva Aggressiol/: 11 Socil11 Lel1ming Analy.qis Ronald Akers Deviant BelllJ71ior: A SOc/III l..eaming Ilppl"OaclI

Travis Hirschi's (1969) control theory dealt with the failu~'e of so~ne people 1:0 form bonds to conventional society and val~es 1I1 the fIrs~ place. Putisimply, people who do not relate to a con~ent~on~l parent or SL'llOOI system cannot identify with that person ur msh~utlOn, do ~ot 51 Il~nd time doing conventional activit~es, and do no~ beheve the eX.lstillg sudety is worth much, are unlIkely to refram from breakmg

l2

What 1s ('rilllillology?

EbSCllli1l1 (.'rilliil/ufogV

society'· . '['1 liS .. uleory agalll ' ' pLlyed up the irnpurtance of adequat __ ::; r 1 IJes.. parental 5?cialization if delinquency was 10 be avoided. Hcnvever ,~ l:nded to Ignore the role of peers; corrupt ~ch()ol and 'INorkplace pr~~_ ~lCes; and the structural prublems of sIH.:iety manifest in poor housing llladequate enlpluyn1l::nt pussibilltivs, alld bidS in the justice system, " By Ille J lJ70s, U.s. criminulogy was illldressing some of tl~ese issues !/:rDugh another social-psychological lheury, called labeling, or new detl,. eU:Js ' ' I-S c" d1l1.ll'l " u'1at mmor , cnme , was actually VIancy theory . ~. Ldb<.>iiJlg ~...... mad,e. w~lse by cnmmal JustIce age11L'leS' attempts to control it. This intenslflcat:on.r~sulted frorn the dramatic negative effeL'llhe system could have on IndIvIdual seH-identities. The new deviancy theory of Hmvard Becker ([196311973), Edwin Schur (1965), and Erving Coffman (1961) ;~o~v~d ~10~ crim,inal an~l, dev.ianl. \d~'l::ers Wl're shaped progressively ) eI tIme th10ugh wteraclwn wllli ~lhnJ1JCanl uthers in meaningful social contexts. Adolescents who were CUll.'-.tdtltly brought before the courts and told th:y were delinquents for engaging in Jiqll~r law violations, minor ~~nc~aiIsm, and petty shoplifting eventually becclme professional career cnm111als b:cause the label "delinLJuent" restricted their abilities to mature out 01 the aSSOCI'at'ec1 b,l, ' 1 e laVlOrs, anc1 I"' 11lliled Slllst.'quent career uptIOns. ~

•

L

C

Founders of Social Psychologicallnteractionist and Labeling Theory

1934 George Herbert Mead Ivlilld, Selj; alld SOl~iet11 1938 Frank Tacmenbaulll Crime WId tIle COl/lIIlWJtlj 1951 Ed\~in Lernert Social PlltllOlogy -

1961 ErvIng Guffmilci Asrt/ulllS ]963 Ervi _ .. _ .Ilg '~ff' \J() man ::J!zSlIla: NolI'S

1111

iIll' A'II1/1age/lJl'lIl of

:::'p01led Idel/lity

1965 Leslie Wilkins Sucial Dt"uill//4.'I!; Sudtll Policy, ACtillll, I/I/d Resetlrc!1

1963 Hm:,ard Becker Outsidcr:;: ::Jtlldict;i ill tile Socivlo'Sll of Dt'vul1lce

Co -

•

In the. earll' ct ' Id:,IC<1 "~" I,aIIl ' " ' , ," - 19705 _ .' , CI'IIII _ J. crrt:Ica 1 crII1lll1ologyreflc':.ted Intl1e wurts of WIIlIall1 Ch,HJlblis~ (llJ75), Richard Quinney (J9./4~, and Ian "1~lylor, Paul WallUll, dildluck Young (]973 1975)--wa-s ,b,UIldll1g Ol~ the early Marxist idt:::'(ls uf Wi]]em BangeI' ([1905] 1916), lhese theonsts sU'JOested II, ' nul just ' , W 1) . _. _ _ . ?O 1d t I' IWdS t w agents of government _ l~ l_ cau::.ed a~ldlyonalllnnecessary crime, but that the \'\'hole capitalisl ~v~tem Was cnml1l0gen', I', I' .. '_ .. _ _ Ie 01 va lllJ1g cOmpelll:Jon over cooperation and pulanzmg the rich and the poor. This "new criminology" <:ltgued that

,O\\,er ru 1 .-'"Lxi"l . ,. classes , , -and , ' even tht'. caF'italist . , stale, . were committing 'I worse crimes through cnrlJorate pollullon, faulty product HIOfl' fUll . . . ~ octure bflberY frilud ancl corruptlOn. At the smne tune, the state nl illlLl f " , -' '. . " , . 11ll1ishin p the less powerful for expressmg theIr reSIstance to the \\ ,15 ]r-. . , _I " I. , " -. "1'1' I'esislallce often mandesl through property anl VIll eIlt ClIme,o.; s\S eJ, ,. -

1

a:~,lin5t sociely.

Founders of Sociological Conflict and Radical Theory 1868 Karl Marx [JIIS Kopilnl 1908 Georg Simmel The Sociology oJC01~jlict and 'J'l1l' W/-'IJ oj C;roIlP Affiliations 1916 Willem Bonger Criminality and Economic Cell/eli/iolls 1958 George VoId Theoretical Criminology (2d ed., 1979) 19"\9 Ralf Dahrendorf Class and Class Conflict 111 an Indlls/rinl Sadri:; 1969 Auslin 'rurk C.'rimitwlily mnl the Legal Order 1973 Ian Taylor, P, WilttOIl, ,mel Jock Young The Nf'1(! erin/illology 1974 Rich'lrd Quinney ( 'ril iqllL' (~r Legal Ofdpr: Crimi' Control in Capitalist Sorit'fy lCJ75 loll Taylor, E Walton, and Jock \((lung Crflind CrilllirlOlogy By the 1LJ80s and earlY' 19905, it had beCOlne dear to many, and not [easl Carl Klockflrs Cl9SU), tl;at nol only was the merit in these ideas limiled~ f'~pel'i
14

Essen/inl Criminology

\vay to tran~cend our self-destructive cycle of crime and violence (Pe iIsky and QUlnney 1991), P 1 Indeed, b~ the mid- and late 1990s several of these new perspective ,,:,ere emergmg from the fragmentation and forming new fol1owin ,s 1.he ~~str:lOderni~,t criminological perspective, described as flconstit~~ fIve clIffi.mo?ogy, ernbr.aced phenomenological sociology and soci",1 con~truchoms.m an~ cuttmg-edge ideas from chaos theory and Lacanian psychoanalysIs. Th,lS the~ry argued that a critical synthesis of knoWl_ e~ge wa~ needed, sl1l~e cnme and its control were part of a continuum ",:lth SOcIety and ]f thIS was lost Sight DC acts of crime would be intensi_ fIe~ through an endless discourse of crime talk that dominates public pohcy. and . popular culture (Henry and Milovanovic 1996, 1999') . Otllers were lIlsplred to call for an integrated critical theory of crime that would le.''ld to comprehensive policy r
Ca:~l Smart Women, Crime, and Criminology: A Feminist C71tlque . I--Ia~old Pepinsky Crime (Ind

SOCIfty

C"fll1j7icf: A Study afLaw and

1977 Ivlichel Foucault Disciplinc and Plmish: The Birth of the Prison

1980 Larry Tifft ~nd Dennis SulHvan The Struggle to Bf' Human: Cnme and Anarchism 1985 Ray Ivlichalowski Ordel~ LmD and Crime 1996 Stuart Henry and Dragan Milovanovic C"onstitutive Cn'minology 1997 Dragan Milovanovic Pos/modem Criminology 1998 Gregg Barak Integmlillg Criminologies Our purpose in this introduction is not to account for each of the recent

tl~eo~'etlca~ d~velopments,~ince we do that in subsequent chapters. Rather, V\

e slmpl) Wish to

e~l~haslze through

Our overview of criminology's vast

bod~ ~f theory th~t ~t 1.S r~oted in and influenced by different disciplines ~n.cl15 a ~.rll~y ~ultIdlsclph~ary ente.tprise. This is not to suggest that- crim-

m~lo.gy IS hmJted to theones of criminals and what causes their criminal actJvlly. So hlI~ \ve have said l.ittle about the victims of crimes, a closely reJated area. Some recent theones, such as radical realism, have made victimnlogy cenlTi1l to their npproach. Before we turn our focus to the nahlre of

Whnl1,o: ('ril1li7101ogy?

(Charber 2), lei us complele aUf survey by lnoking I'll whClt mighl he tIlE' llnderlll?lIy nf criminnlngy: victimolngy.

Viclimology

annen 2001, 9). This intprrelationship ms, OfY. nor the development of forma! socinJ control mechanisms, society relied on individualized informal justice. IlldividllClls, fanlilies, ['mel drillS sought justice for harms caused by others. Endless fending and persislent physical confrontation led to what has been called the "golden age" (KalTllcn 2(01), when restitution became the focus of crime control (see Chapter 3). With the advent of the sadrll contract, individuals gave up Ihe right to retaliation and crimes became crilllPs ;"jgaillst the slate not the individunl. The classicist social contract, simply put, says thi'lt individuals must give up some personal liberties in exchange for il greater SOc1ill gnod. Thus individuills forfeited the right to individuCilizerl justice, revenge, and vigilantism. This creed is still practk('d todilY. For lhi'lt reClsnn, 0 ..1. Simpson's criminal trial was the strite of Californii'l Vet"SllS O.}. Simpson, not Goldman and Brown-Simpson versus 0.1. Simpson, which \','<'IS the rf'i'llm of the civil trial. Advanced societies relying on systems of Justice hflsed nil the social contr
[S,""lIlilll (-'rimil/flingy

man rights (Schwendillgpr rmel Schwenci inger 1 ~)70; Cohen 1993; Ti fff and Sulliven 201)]), Ihis is more consislenl wil" Ihe brond view of victimo]ogy. Only since the early 1970s has victimization been included in main~~ strenill criminology. This fnllllwhi Schilfer's (1968, 1977) study and the flurry of victimizntinn studies culmillilting in the U.S. Department of Jus~ !ice annllill national crimt', victillljzatiOIl survey, begun in 1972. AJready, there ilre numerous texts on the fjeld (see Doerner and Lab 199B; Elias [986; Walklate 1989; Kannen 2lJOI), We discuss some of lhe main findings oj this research in C'!tapter 2. Victimology has also been criticized for the missionary zeal of its reform policy (Fallah'] 992; Weed 1995) as J,.vl?ll as its focus on victims of in~ clividliaI crimes rather than socially h,mllfllI crimes, although there are rilre exceptions to this ill French viclinlOlngy (Joutsen 1994). The more recent comprehensive approach I:onsidl."rs lhe viclim in the total societal COil text of crime ill the life dOltlnins of Jamily, work, and leisure as these are shaped by HIP nwdia, laW!rl,lkl'rs,
Kennerly I 9911).

Summary In this dlapter, we SnW th
17 '- . a 1t~r by defining crilldll(llogy dnJ pL:ldng. iI.in a ~l~~beganI thIs ell f 1-' ,.' 'no1ogy lllov~d from phllusu p h1L. <11 ~ -t We saw lUW ClIml - , d It.d' __,' cont:X . ,-.. j I ' F' theor)! dnven an' mu l 1:;L!to scientIhc ngor aIlL leLan e '.. _ I".' , 'D"C'''~· . . lroduced the basic ideas of criminolugy s dIfferent hle~)rflles, . I causes __ t0 t11e externa -We 1tl1 t· logical and psvchologlGl ' , _ ' Ill- uinterna .. .11" cl1ltun.:.~ and sudety. Cnmmology '1 110 peer group, curnmlJn d at fanH Y'd 'IJ continue to t:'xpa;ld and provide improved metho s W I fur l t evu"'c- danmore explanatory theories llnc er~ an di,119, crime . . _. The I, t an . . . l IJe toward d tllort:' inclUSIve cnmmu1ugy lla r rection seems 0 _ 1 'I t d 1 ( 1, " ~ de )riva tion and hanll '·,regardless 01 egIs a e . a\~. consluc.,o cJI:I~,:~te/ we turn to the first building block of the crn~111oIn the nex, '. and examine how crime is defined. We look ,at, lOW varies depending nn who defines it, where IllS de: u co d I en We see how the definition is shaped by our . an w we are victimized or victimizer); our socral stan mg pene.'nces (wIstan e d to b ene f·t lo'e from crime); and many other I tl er we 1 or S f l .factOls, _"_ (w It' . way 0 ta elllg ae1 I 1 the medIa farm.1 v, an d f.·, IH~nlj s._ vVe introduce a __. I ' .. suel aSf of crime through a grap lle 1count 0 mos t 0 f tIle ess~ntial compon~nts .. lustratinn that We call the prism of lTltllt'. j,.

el~~l~;l~:ime ~ tl~er

,.

,

pelsona~ex

What Is Crilllt:?

2 -~-- ~----

----

-~----

Is the obvious so~utio.n ~o the que.stion .of. what is ,a crin~e to .find Ol~t wha t the law says IS CrImInal? Agam, thIS. 15 more compltcated than It to _ the law" as a s01utlOn leaves open many unanseems an d "o-oing 0 . . . . . 5wered questions. In tact: smce we hrst wr~te. thIS c.l~a~.ter. thele"hav~ en significant changes 111 the way both cnmmologl~t~ and the law be look at what counts as crIme. _ .' .' In the United States we asked scholars who had been debatmg dl~ferent . abOtlt the issue to consider what they_ thought were the essentIal elevIeWs ts that makes a behavior or action "criminal," how crime should be demm . 'fl· enforcement practIce. 115 reSll I te d·In · d and how it was defined in law f1ne, . . d. ublished edited volume entitled Vvhat Is CrIme? (Henry an Lamer In 2002, the highly respected Law Commissi.oll that serv~s the Canadian Parliament, launched a project WIth a slllular tItle, "What Is a Crime?" The commission hosted a series of meetings and c~n­ ft'rences in Ottawa and Vancouver to reconsider the various issues of r.lefming crime (Canadian Law Commission 2(03),. as well as spor~.sl~r.111.g a nationwide student essay competition on tile tOpIC. Clearly tile dehllltion of crime is becoming a hotly debated topic at all levels of society. II'

What Is Crinle? Defining and Measuring the Crime Problem

19

"

;O~1).

III Ute prelude III the :2{)03 ClJlf War gtlS prices sUi-Ired to three dollars a gatlull, although uil supplies were lIot disrupted. Was this a crime? Were the oil cUJnpanies simply responding Lo anticipated shortages and increased de1l1a~1d? "That's criminal!" people often say when they feel they have been un~u.~tly h~nned. Others say, "That wasll't crime; it was just a response to drffJcult Clfcul1lslances." Most peuple have a sense of what is criminal, but deciding precbe1y what is----or is not~-criminal is not as obvio~s as it 11li:l)~ SL'e~ll .. What for one person is deviance may for another be a emne. Whalls LTlfllulaI to one person may be sharp business practice to another, such as when a corporate executive sells stock based on insider i~lformali(ln. What is morally reprehensible to one group may be a lIfestyle pre~erence to another. For example, prostitution is condemned by the moral fIght yet celebrated by organizations for prostitutes such as COYOTE (Cast Off Your Old Tired Ethics). Like deviance, crime is a concept with elusive, varied, and diverse meanings. As we argue elsewhere Henry. and Lanier 2UU I), if the definitiun of ... t i nored.

10ll

))b

But evell where hanII looks obvious, is such an act a crime? For example, in ll~e dflcTTllatb of tbe 9/11 aUacks the anntlal crime figures r~purted to till: f-BI tur New York City excluded the 3,000 victims who dIed. These were vidiIllS uf a terrorist aUack so why was this not seen as il crirne by the FBI, dnd sltould ithave been? -

uf.Cana~a,.a b~dy

,. inabh The written law mig 1

. I

e

iZ','''"cg····i·~ interpretation. In this chapter, we look at the various definitions

of crime, ranging from the legal definitions to those that take account of crime's changing meaning as social harm. . The definitions of crime arrived at by law, govenunent agencll:'s, and criminologists are used by others to measure the extent of what they have defined. Put simply, if this is the problem then bow big is it? How much . of it exists? Is there more of it in one part of the country than another, in the city rather than the country? Do different societies have different rates of this thing we have defined as crime? It is necessary to measure and define crime because several policy decisiuns concerning social control are based on a particular definition of crime: the selection of priorities in policing and what to police, budget allocations for measures such as crime prevention programs, how to "handle" offenders, ':lI:d wl"'.at a "crime-free" neighborhood actually looks like. For example, IS a cnmefree neighborhood one in vvhich there are low rates of crimes known to the police, or one with a low incidence of serious harm? What .is. the real level of crime when the incidence of serious crime, such as homICIde, burglary, rape, and aggravated assault, is low but the level 01 crimes that disturb the plJblic, SUdl as prostitution, vandalism, publi~ clrunl~enne~s, and panhandling, is high? Should the public or COl1ll1lU11.lty defrne cnme or should this be a matter for legislators or the police?

20

Esse/llial CrilllillOlogy

What Is Crime?

21

t

f Not o~lly ave criminologists and others been arguing about ddin't' or ~1UC 1 0 "the past century but, as one commentator observed 1 lO] tury 5 ~n.dl an appropriate definition of crime, ... remains one a~ Ce f ;:;;;t9~~,~:)I. unresolved issues in criminal justice today" (Bohm and th

eli::

,'';,Co'''' ;CklflO"wl,edged the cultural and historical variability of crune in so-

~~n~l~de this chapter with, a description

of the main measures . e y government agencIes and criminologists. We also des"" the ;aJor patte~s of crime and discuss their historical trends. How~tlb

we 0, not proVIde current crime statistics, as this is more accura Ver} expedlently accessed through the Intern t W . · . lelyand recent official c . d e . e suggest gettmg the most on htl 'II nmlbe ala from the Sourcebook of Crimil1al Justice Statistic p. www.a any.edu/sourcebook. ,5,

Legal Definition

;~It~ce th~ .~~h~eenth century, the legal definition of crime has referred

lu e , prosecuted, and punished by criminal law (Henr a d a~Iert ~?O~, ~). Ivfost c~mmentators agree with Michael and Adler Y(19~~ u1a cnmma l law gIves b h ' . . , " e aVlOr Its qualIty of criminality" In oth ward 5, cnmmallaw 5 .. , . . .' er 'I "'''''''''-''(''''/'(':1'';'' -aets or omlSSlOns thal constitute crime. a ,,9D:,S;c '" . , . d 'me as L

5)

. pr~ 11

(""iP'!~~st:~f;;~~: ".,",..WG'lY::::~;!i~~~~~ ".:;~r'~;;: run""., lotteries to increase thei;lfe~enue.

1

;"Etlld stifiCi;l,tio 'ti if the 5 ''''''-'.'''",''"':.'',, \w~£!;f"'"'by . .-"",,-Tappan belreved that the stud of ~nmrnal~ sl:ould ~e restricted to those convicted by the courts. In mhoshi dClll~rnol~gIsts have traditionally relied on the legal conception' w Ie e rnes CrIme as beh . . . I ' , " , · . aVlOr m VIO atron of criminal law and II" able f"or sanc tionrng by th " I" " , . e cnnu.na JustIce system" (Kramer 198? 34) A I cnmmologr'sts t d ' -, ,. ne most "t" U (8 I 0 ay act as II the debate is settled in favor of a 'legal' del," m IOn " a lIll 1993,3)" Other criminolo ist lim' ed i

let

U

of profit Suthe l d ' Both injure 1uman ife in the interest crI·m I "t I r an argued for extending the existing legal definition of e a a ce account of all offenses II,lat are SOCially "" " Injurious or sodaU), ha rm Iu I an d 1,1ulat "11 r II If' wl't 11 E'-CU 9: 0 ender.s deserve the label "habitual

norms but said this is why precision makes the law the only cerOthers have claimed that the law offers only a false certainty, the law defines as crime "is somewhat arbitrary, and represents a .C'Nciii!,IV selective process" (Barak 1998, 21). Indeed, Barak notes with to crime, "There are no purely objective definitions; all definitions value laden and biased to some degree" (1998,21). COllsider, for example, the criminalization of substance abuse. During p",hi,bi,tion, the production and distribution of alcoholic beverages in the Stales "vas illegal. Today, the same acts are generally legal, alsome counties still prohibJ! the sale of alcohol and some states its sale more than others~§If!?;_!:lQ1QIDalVirginia, smoking tobacco Wi15 encouwged for medicinal purposes. In much of the twentieth cenhl1~y, smoking was celebrated as an aid to relaxation an~ social enjoyBwnt. It is now illegal to smoke in many public plac,~§'tf;In the 19205, cocaine was promoted as a pick-me-up and was even included in the original formula for Coca-Cola. Today, such activity would result in a IOIlg prison sentence for drug dealing. Clearly, what counts as a crime at one time or in one culture may not be considered criminal at another time or in another culture. Nettler (1984, 1) summed up the relativity problems with a strict legal definition: "Because there are so many possible wrongs and because 'crime' denotes only a select sample of all disapproved acts, the definition of crime varies from time to time and from place to place and there is continuing controversy about what should or should not be called 'crime.''' In addition, relying on a legal definition of crime presents other problems related to who defines the kinds of behavior labeled crime. Crimes are not produced by legislation alone. Judicial interpretrltion also detennines what is or is not crime. Judicial decisions can also be appealed, overturned, and revised. Consider, for example, Roe v. Wnde, the 1973 Supreme COllrt case that legalized abortion during the first three months of pregnancy (Fiero 1996, 684), and the more recent limitations that recriminalize certain aspects of abortion. Even where legislators make law, a significant problem is whose views Uley represent. Some criticed criminologists argue that criminal actions by corporations often go l1IlTecognized because those who hold economic power in society are, in effect, tho~e \-\'ho make the law. Legislators are influenced through lobby~ ists and don,diolls from political
77

Esse/Ilia! Criminology

What Is Crillle?

1982). Their influPllce minimizes the criminalization of corporate behavior. This was at the heart of Sutherland's (1949a) original concern (discussed previol1sly) to incorporate crimes defined by administrative regLIlaLions inlo the criminological realm. In short, relying on a strkt leg(')} definition for crime may be an appropJiate study for police cadets bul is sorely inadequnle for students of criminology or the thinking criminal justice profeSSional. The contextual aspects of crime and crime control require serious reflective study. A more comprehensive approach 10 the range of definitions is to divide them into OIle of two types depending On whether lhpy reflect consensus or conflict in society.

Conii!~!1~,M",and Conflict Approaches

COI1SCIISIIS

Consensus thporists try to gf't around the problem of variations in the law by linking tile definition of crimf' to socirll morrlEty. They draw on the ideas of Uw nineteenth-century French sociologist Emile Durkheim ([lR93J 1984), who believed that in the kind of jntegrated community that preceded industrialization, people were helel together by common religious beliefs, traditions, and simHar worldvievvs. These similarities acted as a "social glue" that hondt;;' 0 · . in a shnred morality. Thus the consensus py:~~ion states tha

OSI

·1'bn

claim there is a "consensus," or agreement, between most people of all economic, social, i'lnd political positions ilbout what behaviors are unacceplilble and what should be labeled criminal. Echoing Durkheim, some recenf (,oflUllentators, such as Roshier (1989, 76), define crime "as only irJenliflahle by the discouraging response it evokes." Even Ihis definition has problems, however. Whlll at first appears nS an ohviollS eXillllplp of Ilniversfllly agreed-nfl crime---·tlw Illfllicious inlpll-

23

1 t'lking of human life~l1lay appear different when we take account 0 • • , • • f the sodal context. Closer lllspectlOn reveals that klllmg oU1ers IS not (1 'versally condemned. Whether it is condemned depends on the social [llll . , , I . context and the defimtion .of human. It'f'e. For examp Ie,. k'll' 'I mg :uma~~ IS regrettable yet acceptable i l l war. It IS even honored. Hun:ans IdentifIed _"the enemy" (as i.n the Persian Gulf War, or Desert ShIeld) are rede~i~led as "collateral" and their death is described as "collateral damage." Governments that employ massive violent force to overthrow other governments that they define as "oppressive" consider themselves "liberators." As this was being written, American forces and a lo~se confederalion of coalition forces liberated Iraq from Saddam Hussem. The deaths of civilians are not described as murder. Instead they are described as "regrettable" but "legitimate targets." Soldiers have followed "illegal" orders, taken lives, and avoided punislunent and the stigma associated with ctime, Also, pro-life advocates in the abortion debate define life as beginning with conception. They believe abortion of a fetus is murder. Pro-choice advocates, by contrast, do not believe life begins unti.l birth, so abortion of a fetus is seen as an expression of women's right to choose; no more, no less. Another major problem with the consensus view is the question of whose morality is important in defining the common morality, If hann affects a minority, will the majority be outraged? Is the conduct any less harmful if people are not outraged? Examples abound. Sexual harassment in the workplace, which was not previously defined as crime, was no less harmful to tilose forced to engage in sexual relations or subjected 10 sexual pressure under the tiueat of losing their job. Because men were the predominant employers and managers, women's needs \·vere not addressed and their complaints were not heard. Sexual harassment and rape cases in the military provide a vivid illustration of this problem. Clearly, uncierstanding the social context is the first step toward defining crime. Consider sexual behavior as an example. Sexual inter(ourse with a minor, or statutory rape, is in tile United States universally agreed to be a crime~lmtil we consider tile social context. On closer inspection, legally defined rape is not universally condemned. For example, sexually active boys and girls under the age of legal consent often do not consider tilemselves raped. In previous historical eras, adolescents of tile same age were often married and shared the rights of adults. In ti1is same historical era, husbands could not "rape" their spouses, though tilev could force ti1emselves on unwilling wives. Under old German law an ~ct of sexual intercourse with a woman would be considered"as rape only if it was cOlttmitted against a respectable woman, but not a 'vagrant woman'" (Hinckeldey 1981, 107). Whether the physical act is condemned depends on the social and historical context and on U1e definition of rape. •

tjOHn

24

for exampJe , if parents g:rive pelllll~~l()n ..... ' to marry, two sexlnllj' ,1 'f leens are no lonuer cOIllm'lf' ". "I ~'L IVe ' . _ '? 1 lllg J"dpe, l wugh lht'ir physical actions C . IerCQUI se) and CltUl1l1stances ( , ) . 1 " In_ . II I I '. age are tle same. Rape Jaws have histo . La .V lac a gender bIas II \ " . ' " ,. as we . toung girls havl' lraditionall' b" rItrealed much more harshly "bv lJ13n . oHe . young IlOYS (Edward .,) een . I . - the Irnv" ~ 1990) . TIle SOCIa reactIOn to se - I·ele I·· -' . - xua lVIty an d prcl\·vess- cuntinues to . s le11 eel gender bIas. Furthermore , whether a n ISSue .b ecomes publicly acknowleclved a ".,tTt . . ' r:J ,S Ilaml d epencsonagr'lLl I . ('1.11 ·19"9 l. P S d lIlY 10 turn prIval:e concerns into fl11blic issues 1\' I ' 5 . .") and -. I entrepreneurship . (Becker [19C'j . . . lIs skilJ"sa.I' JIll.lIa 1973 ). TI l1S IS the abIlIty to whip .. I . ' )J ff t . ," up mOld cunsensus around an issue that t a ~c ~ some H1d~vl~luals or a minorily and tll recruit su J 10rl from U by them it is in their interest 10 the issue '-..-rea mg a pu 1hc ha1111 utten I· I . I' .'. . . siv lpJ T ' . ' . , ~vo ves lC. enlllylllg and signitying offend- e e la\ 101 and Ulen attempjJ11g to inJIuence legislators 1:0 ba~ il: offi~ L

;~laJolr.It)~

cOln~'lJ1cl11g

suppo~·r

to~t'

Conflict Approaches Conflict is bas'el I un - t1 le .J( Iea Ulat people, instead uf being similar d'ff theory . ,.. ,~re. 11 :rent danel struggle over th.eir differences, Accordillu 10 thi's view' SOCle V IS rna e up of grou t1 t . 1")", - . -1-1 ps la compete \-\lilh one anutJwr over scarce resources. lese resOL . ~ I I I I c . '" .,' '.lces cou c le Iroadly or narrowly defined. 'The . ~ol[Jfhctl °1_:e.1 .dlflerent lllterests procluces differing definitions of crime L.leSe l e ImtlOlls are 'I t ' " -I b y lhe group in 'pc)\ver and are ., lIsed to, . . . ~ l (' enmnel \~~lythller lt~ ~nl,L'eds ~nd .OJ./lS?Jidate its pnw~'r. Pm.verless groups are :ener,le VIc .IlllS Llt opl'ln'SSlVe hw· F _ . . . sentences [Ol-,IS0 ., .. k . . '.' s, OJ examp Ie, pnson Ill G Oclt:' CllC)lllf' II t '. ' . " t:> '". le, urlll u1 Ihe drug genercdlv used bv AfriGlIl A " c d menCdllS, " . are: len ,10 fillee . II years' Iullger t Ildn sentences luI' nsing power COLdlne, lavored maudy by the while middle dnd upper classes ,f

"

25

WIIlIl Is Crimf?

Esseillilil CrilllillO[oSY

(DeKl'seredy and Schwal~tz 1~~9~, 61,; Tonry 1995). Orland?, Fl.orida, re'Tllliv passed a l,lW b<1llll1ng S,ltIllg lH downtown areaS. VIOlatIon of the ~ill1l~()Versiill ordimmce result:s in a fine of $500 and sixty days in jail 'I-Ia and T'v'Iflthers 20(2). An additional ordimlllce is being considered nis ~1\' the city council to limit group distribution of food to the homeless to fL~lH limes a 1'1"(11'. PresulllClhly busillPsspeople will not be subjected tn this 1<1\\', while llIany homeless will. In addition t(l wealth and power, groups in society form around culture, prestigt', slatns, morl'llity, ethics, rdigion, ethnidty, gender, race, ideology, h1.1l11,ln rights, the right 10 OWIl guns, and so on. Each group may ii<1bl to dnminate olhers. J\pprnac1ws tl) defining crime that lake accounl nfthese llluJt:iple dimensions ilrc knm,yn as pluralist conflict theories. Elhnil' or cultural connict is a good example. From the perspective of culturL' conflic!, different lHlIres e I bcuItures com dl.)

in describes I\VOor1115 0 ('Ill 1 I let. 'he primary con iet occms \".'hen <1 perSOil raised ill nne culture ie; lrilllsposed into a different one. An immigrant llI a y follow lraditiollill Cl1llural norms; for example, those of the Islamic f
In Manis!

rime

fOCllS

Croups that acquire power throuph political or economic manipnlation (mel exploitation plaCE' legal constrainls 011 lhose without, power. A definition of crime based on

Whnt [.':' CrilJle?

Essential Crimil1olo::,"Y

26

uenees. The insidious injuries produced by the .1()IUls~Manville rlsl:'lf'slfls knowing exposure of millions to deadly Clsbestos d !lst, in spHp of the company's own resparch evidence showing thai asbestos has C;1r~ cinogenic effects (Calhoun and Hiller 'IW~(j), would be a good pxamp]p of producing "anrllogo!J.s social injIJry."

~ornpaI1Y's

a ..[It describes] behaviors that conflict with the 1e segments of socil?t at h",~<Jr;1;lh?lic

policy" (1970, 15-16

.politl"cal

Verty. e idea of crime as a violation of human rights has become a major critical humanist criminologists. J\s Quinney and Wildeman f

Beyond Consensus and COlif7ici Going beyon~_~~!:,l,~enslls, pluralist conflict, and critical Marxist theorlsts, othel,·,~riIl1inologTs.tS-~]:~,~_eb~~,I:~,~.,~_~:.redefine crime more broadly. One SUdl-;!1~~~g'_~;~,kV,~':~:WR~~~~,~,~,ti11,~ii!;~3fb ut inslead of seeing established grolipg'~aEr'signTficantit, sees the sitllational context and its constituent players as irnportan

199(1).

Postmodernism is a persflC'cl.ive lhat rejects claims thar any body knovvl'edge is true or call hf-' true. Inste?lcL il::: advocates believe tlmt "d
s. Other substances

produc~"'less negative

COllse-

Jlb~

28 flerha frO!

£::;,".,'//'10/ L'rimii/O/oS.!! lS

'vVlllll 1::; {'rlll!/.'?

19

the most clramillic

ley recognize lCl (omg so will render mallY contemporary legal modes of production and distribution criminal- as will many responses of our criminiil jus lice sj"stelll to crime, bi'lsed on the harms thnt they produce. They call for a "neecls-bosed" Systf'lll of .itlslice hased on the concept of equality of well-being as the ubjective. It is clear that criminDlogical ilf-lproi'!chps to crime hllve come a long Will' from the simplisti(· idea tllillcrinle is hehavior defined by law. Recent ideas suggest tba! far IllPre is involved thi-lIllaw, These iclei-ls resurrect the central rolf' of harm, the victim, and the cOlltex!. Importantly, they eVen suggest that If'lw itself C,1!l create crimc, not merC'!y by definition but by its use of power over others. Together, these c1efil1itinns express the increasingly broad range of Cl)l)n~ptinJ1s of crime thelt criminologists now share. Even though the di'i'lsic)Jl I..'etween consensus and conflict theory is helpful to gain an overall sen."!" of different definitions, it does not present an integrated approach. But thl:~re is nne altempt to define crime that, with modification, helps LIS 0_ r COIJH~ mall I of the (I" - !lIlies so f~ri,~,I;)I;tified. Tllis 0 11 a'gfi'rr[s::'(1977,

'ou l-fines and imprisonment, tu expulsion from society or . 11 1gdth penalty. Hagan argues, "The more severe the penalty p.resc~Ibed, th:I\~e more extensive the support {or this s;:ull:tion, the mClr~ senOUSl5 the ai, I I Ja['Jon of the acl" (1985 49). Clearly, the sentenclllg tu death of SOCleta eva t , ,_. _ [I -ff' d a convicted child murderer in Utah and the 5l.ate'sexel:ull~)[~() l.:e u en. e~ firing squad would rank higher un tile scale uf sUCIalIesponse than un

ViClilllS,·~P~~~~~~~!~~¥~i~ff:

timless crimes, or crimes WiUluUt U'VCHVll<" L_w/breaking that does not harm anyune utheI~ tha,l1 perhaps ~le perpetrator (Schur 1965).2 Many crimes, such as domestrc Vl(tlen~e, halm others, a~lcl crimes harm more than ulle person at a time, as IIllhe Beechnut Corsome _ percent app I," or the 10ralion's export of sugar water as _ 1110 e JU:l'e f'·b 01 abi~' es._ ~xport of infant formula thai d~l?ied Third Work! I:c~t}les necessary nutIlents, exacerbating their malnutrItwn (En1lann and Uelllents 1984).

Hagan's Pyramid of Crime From the previous discussion? it is dear thaI there is litHe ilgreernellt aUlong crimin\?lo isl.e:, abol.l! whatcullslitutes crime. One very useful conception of crinie '-u''U''-Sifi'''''ii's':fevle 'gel 'd

Very

f"l['ll\iu!

/~,

:;um"wk,{

!lilrrnful

consenSllS or agree to 1 peope accept (Jilolc! ilS being right ur wrong. Most Americans believe that hijacking
lIC

TlH(lnln: McGraw-flill t{yersull · . II c l'I"'le'I"'S·, SUU!
3.1 'L'\ 13J ,I: 2. J

.J·h~

:it:ri(llbll~SS (If CriIlI~s

__. _ - - -

._------

Planting a bomb ill a public building that exph/des, killing twenty p~nple. A man forcibly rapes a WI/Well who dies from her injuriet>. '13.2 Hubbery at gunpoint during which the victim is shot to death. 3lJ.2 A man stabs !lis wife whu dies from the injuries. 35.7 Slabbing a vicLim to deatll. 33.8 Running a narcotics ring. 27.9 A woman sldlJS her husbaml and he dies frum the injUries. 26.3 An anneJ persun hijacks a plane and demands to be flown to ilJlI/thercouotry. 25.~J A mall furcibly rapes a womall. 24.9 Intentiollally selling fire (0 a building. CdU6il1g $100,000 llf damage. 22..9 A parent bed I:, his young child with his fists and the child requires hospitalization. 21.2 Kidnapping a victim. 20.7 Selling hemin tu others for reo sale.

ILJ5

Srnugglillg Jlernin hllo HIe

I ~1.5

country. Killing a victim by reckless

[6.9

lid

15.'·'

driVing. Rubbing a victim of $J 0 at gUIIpoint, resulting in the victilJl being wounded. A man drags d WUI1liln inlu dll alley and t"'dl'S herdl/Illes hut /lees before CdllSillg further hdfm. Attempting I,) kill d victi1l1 with a gun, wldch misfires and the victilll escdjJes. A teelldge boy bedLs his Illuth er with his {isis and she requires hospiializalil)n.

Breaking into a bank atnight and st~aling $lOO,OOO. J 2.2. Paying a witness to give fills~ tesLil'llImy in a criminal trial. 12.0 IntenJionally injuring a victim resulting in hospitalization. 10.5 SIl'IUggling marijuana into the country for resale. WA Intentionally hitting a victim with a lead pipe resulting in hlJspitalization. J 0.3 Illegally selling barbiturates, sud, as sleeping pllls, to others for resale. lU.3 Uperating a store that kllOWingly sells stolen property. '::1.7 Breaking into a school and stealing equipmellt worth $1,000. 9.7 Walking into a museum and stealing a painting worth $1,000. 9.6 Breaking into a home and stealing $(000. 9.4 l~obbing d victim of $10 at gunpoint without physical harm resulting.

(colltillued)

~vi!lttiollal Crimes a

.

72.1

TABl.E 2.1

Score and Offense

15.5

~1.3 I:t5

7.~ 7.5

7_3

7.3

7.2

Threatening lu:oerlously injure a victim.

Selling llldrijudna Lu others fur resale. A teenage boy beals his father t'\'iUl his fists resulting in hos. pitafizaLion. Rubbing a victilll i'mned with a lead pipe without injuq resldting. Threatening d victim with a weapon, receiving $10 with no harm to the victim. Brt'dking into a department store and stealing 51,000 worth of merchandise. :iigning .<;nll1eone else's name Ull a check and cashing it. (nlillililles)

2.1

6.3

5.4

5.1

5.1

'1.2

3.8 3.6 3.6

3.5 2.5

2.2

from Using heroin. Getting customers for a prostitute. r~ailure to appear at court while on bail for a serious offense. Possessing heroin for personal use. A man runs his hands over the body of a female victim, Ihen runs away. Using force to rob a victitll IJj $10 but without causing injury. Snatching a handbag containing $10. Aman exposes himself in public. Carrying a gun illegdlly. Picking a victim's pocket of $100. Attempting to break into d horne but leaving when disturbed by police. Turning in a false fire alarm. Knowingly passing a bad ched,;:. Stealing property worth $100 from outside a building. Rwming illegal gambling premises. Knowingly carrying all ilhogal knife. Stealing $HJ worlll uf IllerchaJl" dise from a depa rtment store.

1.9 1.8 1.8

1.7

1.6 1.6

1.6 ].5 lA 1.3 1.1 1.1 1.1

0.9

0.8 0.7 0.6

0.3 0.2

A woman engages in prostitulion. Making an obscene phone call. A minor being drunk in public. Being a knowing customer in a place holding illegal gambling. Stealing $10 wurLh of property from outside a bllilding. Being a customer in a brothel. A male over 16 has sex llal relaLions with a willing female under age 16. 1aking barbiturates without a prescription. Intentional shoving or pushing without resulting injury. Smoking marijuana. A consensual hornl)SeXUdl dCt. Disturbing a lIeighbor with noisy behavior. Taking bets on numbers. Loitering after being told to move on by police. Teenager under 16 rUll::; away from home. Being drunk in public. Teenager under 16 breaks curfew laws. Trespassing in the backyard of a home. Being a vagrdllt. Youth under 16 plays honky from SelICl1 lL

White-Collar Cril!leS Severity Score and 0JIeIIse

1,1."1

13.9

A doctor cheats on claims to a federal health insurance plan fol' 'patient service. A legislator takes a bribe from a company to vole for iJ law favoring the company.

13.0

12.0

A factory knowingly gets rid of its waste in a way that pollutes a city water supply. A police officer lakes J bribe nut to interfere with all illegal gambling opt;!raLion. ((iiI/ill/lieS)

32

Essmlilll CriflliJllIlugy

TABLE 2.1

(L"olllilllled)

Severity Score and Offense

9.6 9.5 9.2

8.6 8.2

7.7

7.4

A government official intentionally hinders the investigation of a criminal offense. A police officer knowingly makes a false arrest. A public official takes $1,000 of public money for personal use. Several large companies illegally fix the retail prices of their products. Performing an illegal abortion. Knowing that a shipment of cooking oil is bad, a store owner decides to sell it anyway, resulting in one persoll being sick and treated by a doctor. Knowing that a shipment of cooking oil is bad, a store owner decides to sell it anyway. Illegally gelting monthly welfare checks.

33

ord to many acts that are defined as crimes, there is disagreement as to reg" . theirlvrongfulnes5, an equivocal social response. ;md uncertainty in perceptionS of their harmfulness. (HRg,m 1985, 50)

White-Collar Crimes 10.0

What 15 Crime?

6.5

An employer refuses to hi;;;qualified person because of the person's race. 6.3 An employee embezzles :Jil,UUO from Ole employer. 5.4 A real estate agent refuses to sell a house to a person beca use of the person's race. 5.3 Loaning money at an illegally high interest rate. Cheating on federal income tax. 3.7 A labor unioll official illegally threatens to organize a strike if an employer hires nonunion workers. 3.2 An employer illegally threatens to fire employees if they join a labor union. 1.9 A slore OWner intentionally puts "large" eggs in containers marked "extra large."

SOURCE; Adapted from Bureau of Justice Statistics, 1983.

Hagan illustra les the in l ~ J ' L' f' . "pyraml·d f . "( . t;gra lOn 0 tl.lese three dunensions un his a crIme see FIgur:> ') 1) a I degree of agreement t: _. . n t le CUfisensu:; dimension is the . t I people about the wrongfulness of an ·lc't On th e SOCle a response a~ong d .. < • sponse to the act F ~~enslO~ IS t~le se:rerity of penalties elicited in rethe harm an act i~flil~a y, on tle ~hI~d chmension is social evaluation of such as murder or le~l~o~i~l~tI~ers. ThIS ~an range fr.Ol~ crimes of violelIce base. Hagan claims, t the peak down to vlctunless crimes at tile The three measures of seriousness are dose! ' _ _,' ..' ?cts of deviance, which are most likel; to b~ ~:~~~~a,:ed... : t1~~,mur~.senolls Involve (1) broad agreement about the w ' cnmma, are l1zely to social response and (3) an ev I t· fcobn.>?fulness of such ac!:s, (2) a severe , a ua Ion 0 emg vef)' I . lui 1-1 correlation between these thr d' '. ' . laml '. owever, the ee InlenSlons certaInly IS not perfect, and ... in

Although Hagan goes farther than most criminologists in attempting I1n integrated definition of crime, we believe that his analysis can be improved by adding three further dimensions and by configuring the pyr,l1nid display into a "crime prism." Let us seE' why.

Pr(lm Hagan's Pymmirl to the Prism of Crime We suggest that Hagan's pyramid is incomplete because it neglects public awareness of crime-the realization that one has been a victim. Crime takes many forms, all of which involve harm, but not all of those hanned necessarily realize they have been victimized. We have already seen that participants in victimless crimes may claim that the criminal label is wrong. In the case of victims of government and corporate crimes, it is often a long time before the victims become aware that they have been harmed, and many never realize it! For example, the effects of environmental crimes may be so slow and diffused that no one notices any harm or change in lhe environment. Yet, over a period of years a particular area may become uninhabitable clue to environmental crimes, as happened in the case of New York's famous Love Canal near Niagara Falls, in which the Hooker Chemical Corporation dumped fifty-five-gallon drums of toxic wilste. When the area was subsequently developed by an unwitting school board ancl settled as a residential area, chilclren and residents were, over several decades, exposed La noxious fumes and surfacing chemicals resulting in birth defects, liver disease, and emotional disorders (Mokhiber 1988). Such crimes can resu1L in insidious injuries when the links between the causes and the effects are obscure, take a long time to appear, affect only a segment of the population, result in increased risk of injury or disease, and are widely dispersed through the population (Calhoun and Hiller 1986). Thus we argue that crime can range from being "obvious" or "readily apparenL" to "relatively hidden" and, finally, so "obscure" that it is accepted hy many as normal, even though it harms its victims (e.g., environmental crimes, racism, and patriarchy). I-lagan acknowledges this but does not include the measure of obscurity as one of his dimensions. A second missing, although implied, part of the pyramid of crime is the number of i'idilns. If only one person is affected by a crime; this is certainly tragic and serious, as in the example of a person shot to death on the subway all the \Nay home from work or by an intimate. But this crime is qurl1itatively different froIll, say, the Japanese terrorist religioLls cult

34

ES~Wl1fi{/1 CrillliJ/ology

that nlllrdered milny people in rush hour by intentionally setting off por' sonOLlS fllmes in the subway system. ThesE' two additional dimensions; visibility rmc! numbers harmed, afe implied in surveys that depict the perceived seriollsness of various acts (see Table 2.1). Note the difference in seriousnl?ss ri1ting for different lypes of terrorism in the table. Absolute numbers of vidirns influence a society's perception of the seriousness ofi crime. A third limitation of Hagan's pyramid relCltes to his dimension of seri~ Ousness 01 response. This dimension fails to capture the probability likelihood thaI a convicted offender will receive a serious response even when the la'vv sels such a penalty. Crimes of the powerless are far more likely to recelve the full weight of the law than are crimes of the powerful. For example, the average prison term given for those convicted in the savings and loan scandal was 2.4 yf'ars and the average bank robber gets 7.8 years. FlIfUwr, over 75 percellt pf the cases against these corporate executives, were dropped. Rarely Me charges against bank robbers dropped (Calavila anel PonleIl1993).

Another limitation of Hagan's analysis is in its visual structure. The way thilt it is Ii'ljd out does not allow other elements (such as those we have noted) to be induded. The pyramid suggests that crimes for which conflie! f''(isls about their criminality are only somewhat harmful. Some crimes may bf' extremely hmmful, yet still not be seen as harms by society, not leilst because the media present tllf'm in a way that favors the perpetrators. Until recently, this was the case with crimes of gender, such as sexualilarilssment and date rape, in \vhich the male offender was shown as having poor judgment but nor intending harm. It is de;"!r lOllS that there is not always consensus about the seriousness of such acliflns '1S corporate crimes (such as pollution from toxic waste, deaths from aV(lidflble faulty product manufacture, and deliberate violations of heallh ,mel safety regulations). An obviolls example is the padlocking of fire doors that resulted in the death of twenty-five employees in a Norlh Carolina chicken plant fire in 1991. We should be perfectly clear that corporate crimes can be extremely harmfuL This is in spite of the moderale societal response to such acls and conflict between interest groups in society over the need for health and safety regulations and the like and whether their violation conslittl tes a crime. For exanlple, cnrpornt ions historicillly oppose health and safety regulatinns if they slow dOWll production or add 10 cost. Corporations often consider Stich COn,<:;llIllPr or environmental protections as govenllllPIlt interfere/Ice in inclllslry. Consumer protection groups such as Ral/'ll Nadf'r'~~ C' n lll11lnn C
What Is Crillld

35

The Prism of Crime . . " ramid we have redesigned the suive the pr~bl~~ns w;~~~~~a;fa~~:bY maijng it a double pyramid, sLrlldure at tll1~ dep . , F...., 7) A further refinement of 11 tl "crime pnsm' (see 19U1e ""-.- . 1 or what we Col 1e . H r and Lanier (1998). In our schema, ~e pace concept appea~~I~en::U; the first pyramid. The top pyramId repreinverted pyraml . . - . all Climes of the powerless ail tl highly visible crtrnes that are .typIC ~ bb r theft, auto le. blic These include crImes such as TO e y, . . murder stranger rape, and arson. These tlcnmes COllnr"",' m pu ull FBl burglary, assa, , called index crimes by 1e , Jre similar t? many Of_ wha,t fO~'I~::r:n~~~ex of U1e ch~nging incidence of because theIr m~asu:e was se _r an ex lanation of index crimes and the . le (see later m tlus chapter fo p. ted p)'ramid represents enD .fi ti ) The bottom, mver FBI's changing class~ ca on. . I :Ie a variety of crimes of the powerrelatively invisible cnmes. These mC ufLficials corporations, and organizaHenses by governmen t a c, t' I fu!' sue 1 as o . Ie committed through their occupa -IOns, tiOilS, as well as cnmes by Pbe~p Int and even some crimes such as I fraud and em ezz ellle , .. 1 for ex amp e, ' d tic violence sexism, raCIsm, agelsn , date rape, sexual harassment, ~mes t . By c~nducted in private conJnd crimes of hate. These are cnmes PlICa that involve violations of I 'zations and war (p aces, f I texts, sue 1 ~s org.am . _ _ . . 1 of the owerless and crimes 0 t 1e trl/sted relabon.ships. Togethe1, cnnI.es. 'bl l~lves of our prism of crime. n te the visible anc mVlSI e f tl I powerfu cons 1 u . cause of Ihe visual appearance 0 1e loVe use the term pnsm not only be '. . 'd to analyze a continuous I b ause I'ust as a pnsm IS use f. fivurc, but a so ec ' . d I Iyze the spectrum 0 lIDo tl· m can be use 0 ana spectrum,' so 1e. cnme pns ,.. I I us look carefully at these reup Clime. ~e , Portant dllnenSlODS that mal-e " prism b e fore ex·plaining how they come . f tl ~ -ine vised dimenSIons 0 1e U I, ._ ~ d to provide illustrative ex10' ether. The letters on the nght s~de are us~ .clmp g I es. We begin with the dimenSIOn of agrl!ement. Y

I

varies from tl1e top of Social Agreemellt. The range o'f'soc ial a gJ'reement nt. through moderate '' . senting most agreeme , . the crime pnsm, a, lepre , . I' U1e pyramid where tl1ere IS d to U1e WIdest sectlOn 0 , I Jgreement, c; o w n . t then ranges Uuough Ule ower apathy or disinterest, e. SOGal ag~eemen, derale disaPl"eement, i, to . f - -VhI ~h there IS mo 0 half of the p.rism to. c~~m~s Ol.~a r~ement or extreme conflict, I, at ~1e opthose in wluch thele 1::; hIgh dlt:> g . 'bI . a ( 1 half) of the pnsm, a B . ling in tl1e VISI e ale 10 1 . b posite extreme. eguu _ .u b whereas the cnme of ro _ planned murder might be placed at pasIon -' t scale at c Acts of social . t uld rank on the agreernen . bery at gllnpom wo . ~ I . tIes or rings piercing various parts deviance, such as we~nn? pun1.. . 1aIrs : . I _ 't would rank at position e, of the skin or engagIng m a hOll1osexua ac,

lb

LS~I/Iial ( rlillil/o/vgy

FIGUI~E 2.2

The

("['it Ill::'

Whlll

PriSfll

Cw",,~

of the P{jWerle~~

b d

, ;"ki,,]

D"vi'IlIL~-._>

g h

Cril!lt"s--~

j k

of Ul<: Power/Ill

since. LllL'Se are ~al-'I,S il)\lU[ l ~ \v!Lich nldll '" 11-" .rv1ovmg down to lhe invisible area d _ Y. J l.U~r I c~le geJleri:~Uy tJpal.he!ic. leJerdlllealth in~urance 1"11a [ I' d()(~.t(l' dll'dLlIIg on cLowns made tu d . c , n ur _lel"_ pall ~ It J'II I I, whereas a factory clischa" ~ l:IWllll t 112 P aced at position pollution of the city wat . 19m9 pulluted "'Vdhle ill a WdY that results in people disagree ab~ut tl el suPIPly wuuld ranI\. druum.1 k. 'I'h!.s .is because _ 112 neec for guverllm 'I l ' I . or accidental nature of tl ._ e I legu dlJUll, the intended 112 actIOn and 50)1 C . -j . I over these "invisible cri "I ,: _ _ t 1. OIlSlt ~ra lIe conflict exists mes oeated l!1 the low'" I . It I I ~IJC I1 as whether wot'I.],I. d. tl . u - t Ie p)rramid '- dce ea'lS an-l Inl' .' .'t'1 1a 1-' _ ' ' llr criminal necTligence of _, _f'I' . __ .- _I l ulles. Jesu l.mg trom accidents ;:> _ ba e j st,llit cuds are cranes.

I'rubable Sl)cil/l/~t!sll()llse . , -- . '1'1le upper segment - til' d· lllgh probdbilil)' of sev . ,,' . __ U 115 lInensioll fllns Jrum ~Ie sallctHH1S tor cor v' ·t-'d 1·1· I penalty or life in prison) [I.. .1, "_ - I Ie t' 0 ellC ers (e.g., death ,tI, llOl\p 1 l1l(H.:!enl- -- - t· ( terms, fines, probation) b d" oJ . c~ salle Ions e.g., short prison ,an L to a Illgh IJIT l- l'I'1 . , . ) 1,) 11 1 Y ot Itlild sanctions (community service publ' ~ , I e condemnation) d [ .. pyramid, this dimension 1-'" -'_ . 11 Dllr reVIc.lOJI of Hagan's now a so extends tr '1 I I severe sanctions (e" [. _, . -. UIll IllI l tlfllllgit selectively 'n" [Ill'S, plObatlOn r- t'l ,. - - . symbolically severe sane/iolts t II I ' es 1 1l.LUIl},J. dlld t:untinues to . II . ' , a - 110' o,vest [lillI'll "II' " La y severe reters t ll-, I _. ' , J - lIUlt~ II I . S)rmboli., a Ie uw probablhtv U - t ," . wI.despread and llll' recap _'I' . 1 - lrl severe sentences will be oIlJlolltld{IJIf.:'se\vill it b pea,I For e:-.:ample, the te _ .. ,'. ., . ' . 0 .en e reduced on apn yeal llllplisumneni uJ ehiott'lec ICe"!' . .~ '- e. Ing f· or d

L

_

I.'~

('riIllP?

37

in the 1980s S{lvings and lomls scandal provides (llle example of r1 severe s;:mctioll, since numerouS similar nffenders received lower sentences, reduced sentences, and, in many Cflses, restitution -,ders for milhon-c1011ilr t1ffenses. TVCln Baesky agreed to pay a $100 mil'I r IwnaltV (lrom his fortune of$20(] million "massed from "insider tradIon· . . . . and served a three-year pnson sentence. 1vIlChael Mllken, found of felonv securities fraud and conspiracy, was sentenced to ten ,'ears but nnhi ' served twenty-two months and agreed to pay a fine of ~rlO[) millionlrull1 his hinion-dollar fortune (Friedrichs 1996, 171-172). As ;NKeseredy and Schwartz forcibly argue: "Poor people 1vho accidentally bank tellers while attempting to rob them are labelled as murderers and are subject to harsh punishment. ... Corporate executives who create unsafe \vorking conditions are often exempt from both formal censure and prosecution, despite the fad that their decisions result in injuries and death ffll' IhcnlSClllds of pepple each year" 0996, 47).

/ndiiridulllOl1d Social Hal'll!. For the upper section of the crime prism, the dimension of individual and sociill harm is also the same as in Hagan's analysis, except that in our crime prism it refers to direct individual harm, in which the offender has specifically tmgeted the victim. The most harmful uin]('5 here include those "vhereby Ihe victims are denied their life or beCOlllt' 11erm,1llf'ntly injured ilml mal1l1ed, J1, [I; through crimes that me hnrmful through sollie tempor(lry loss of capability, money, property, or position, 1'; to t1l0Sfl Ihell might uHend moral sensibilities but do not: direclly result in !JprSl.lllflJ loss, eJ The dimension of illdividual nml social harm eliso reaches into the lower h;:l1f of the prism to include, first, offenses creating moderate social harm (sucll i1S price-fi'\ing th,\t increases the costs of products to consumers), 11, rind then those social harms ill which people have been physici111y injun_'d and killed in t.he course of t.he general need to meet an organiz,lliollill goaL as in the Union Ctlrbide chemical factory disaster in Bhopal, India; two NASA space shuUle disasters; the Ford P"mto gas tank explosions, and Firestone tires causing SUVs \0 flip over, nIl of which might be locilted at k or 1.

Extent [~r lIidhlli7,atiorl. The final dimension, extent of victimization, implied but nol explicitly included ill I-Iflgan's measure of harm, represents lhe number or victims i1llecll:>d by il crifne. Pul simply, this spans a range from crimes in which JHlml'lHUS random victims result frolll highly visible indiv'lflual crimes, (I, thruugh crimps in which several
38

Es.cwntiaI CrinlilJology

social category. For example, employees working with hazardous materi~ als or in high-risk occupations, sllch as mining, construction, or cherni~ cals; consumers buying a parliculilf kind of faulty product; or residents living in an ilfea where pollutants have contaminated the drinking

Integrating the Dimensions Now that we have briefly il1ustrated the dimensions of the crime prism, let us discuss the spatial location of a fevv examples. Take the earlier example of terrorism. Here, crime is obvious, highly visible, extremely harmful- and noncontroversial \vilh regard to the measure of consensus_ conflict- as can be seen in Table 2.1. Smith and Orvis (1993) indicate that this kind of crime can be horrifying to the sensibilities of virtually aIJ people, although directly hanning relatively few (e.g., the Oklahoma City bombing). Societal response and oUlrage to this type of crime are immediale and pointed. Law enforcement agencies devote all available resources and form special task forces to deal with these crimes. Punishment is severe and can include the death penalty. As a result, such crimes would be placed on the top or very near the apex of tile prism at point a. The more people harmed the greater the government and social response (e.g., September 11 tragedies). If fewer are harmed, and if lhe act is less visible, the ranking of the crime on the extent of victimization scale moves down. Further down tile prism, but still at its upper end, are violent acts of individual crime. These are also readily apparent as being criminal. They were traditionally called maIn in se, meaning "acts bad in and of themselves," or inherently evil; they are universally recognized as crimes. Crimes of this type would include homicides, rapes, incest, and so on. Relatively few people are hurt by each act, yet societal reaction is severe and involves little conlroversy. Law enforcement considers these crimes its top priority, Sanctions are very severe, ranging from lengthy penal confinement to death. Beneath these come acts of robbery, burglary, larceny, and vandalism, perhaps at: location b or c. At the lowest levels of the upper segment is where I-lagan (1985, 59) placed social deviations and social diversions. Deviance, the higher placed of the two, includes acls such as public drunkenness and juvenile status offenses (acts that if commil:l:ecl by an i1dult would be legal). It should be noted, however, that these are small-scale or low-value violations. Beneath the social deviations are \-vhat Hagan terms social diversions of unconventional lifestyles or seAua] practices and so on. These offenses are relatively harmless and are met with confusion or apathy, a lack oJ consensus about their criminal status, and little formal law enforcement response. Examples \voulcJ be cettain "Goth" practices and skateboarding in public plflces. These will he located at/ on the prism.

.19

What Is Crilne?

. t on the inverted pyramid of OUf modified visual, it can rceptioll of cri~lina]jlY is rel
From

thiSP~lIl

th~t

r~: ~lf

conlro\ve into Ihe lower section of the prisllI and loward its lower As In b ·t I tl,o,<:- cr·, me increases. Its harm becomes less dIrect. . we tleo scunyo • f' Po mt , 1 '.Its cnmma .. I def·nl·b·,·,n ,'ncreases and the senOU5ness 0 I SOCler 1 , J ' n Con' Iel OVOllse . becomes more se1, ec l've 1 . Acts that have been callec 111/1 1I a ely ~ ~esp, . ositioned here. Mala prohibita crimes have been create~: .'Y pro/IT/II areaction p. ('I.e., II.' ley a e I,ad 01 leg" I til f 'e rbecattse , . they have been created "I . legl~ a 1\ L' l"a-I) Main prohibita definitions of crime necessan y Inislatecl a:'~i:\n~c~l~g'icw;e.5 are J(1J

af~~Ia

llldl1~eCI'lyet

.°

L

L

ie~l;sI~Jlrough

_

-

('ated at point i nn Ihe prism. I '. .._ - A t the final level, crimes are Stl hidden Ihal many IIl(ly de.Jl)' l lell ~XIS1 ether or (lrc Cl"lllH:'S. tence and ?thers lllay argue as I(I, WI. '_ not they . . I SeXIsm, I 1.,_ . . . . " 1."rIme. . 10" '~xamp e is an IIlslitutlollalIzerl tyre 01 Jj IS• ~,atnarc lil, Sll ,--, ( , . dued and so ingrained inlo lhe filbric of
F.sselltil1! Crimi/lnhJgy Senale .seal due to the SCi:llHl.-11 \vith intern Chandra Levy; Bob P
Application of the Integrated Prism to School Violence In the analysis of school violence, there is a tendency for commentators to narrowly define the scope of the problem. Typically they focus on interpersonal violence: am(lng students tCHvMd each olher, or by students toward their te
The Scope (l!he Prohli'm: 'the Pt7l1rity of the Sihool Violcllce Concept? PrlbIic dnalysis of social problems Lends to be framed very nlllTmvly. Violence is visihle <111d manifest t:rIIHmg school sludents, so it is assumed thilt they constitute the scope of the prllhlplll. Yel any analysis of school violence Illilt simply lnoks ill (me fildol'. snell ilS IllUl1i1Tl fallibility, gun aVilllilhilily, or c1111111'
Whal hi Crillh'?

41

..~. - .:. 'lleralJ)T delined aZ, till:.' lbL' of fun:e tu\'vard dllother that re~ Vlol~IlLe lS De ' " , " .' I.' . I . I' n Simplistic ver:.,;ioll~ lillllt lhe concept tu extrerlle p lySJCd , " 'I . . . I II' '11 lan . 5.11:> . 11 )°7 1'1<J'j{LISI, ll)l.J4 '14) , WI.li.dlIl1ayiIlduLell1lJn1J(.,d~ ,," (C_'I 131nplon ."7 , "'l.l, -' ,-' , . , ' loW.:' ,I tl 'eal of forl:e (Bureau ut Justice 19Y8). Onnlled here are sevt'on by LIe 11 '" "I I . I . tl" t I ," ~ I elements of hanll: (J) eIlwlrondl ami p::.yc 10 oglca pam 13' "r,:11 Ln!tLa , " _'b . t·1 t· .. e '. l (om domination of some over other::;, (2) hanns y HlS 1 U lOllS ur reSt! t. r_ on individuals (3)' the violence of social processes that produces Igeneteti, _ I" _ " _I '. " "I·,IIl·lJ·LIIY SUChlS llnl per[,etuated throug 1 mstIlllLlOnd systemiC soc" , < ~ " _ • • :1 I" ,'Slll and sexism and (4) the "syrnbolk violence uf dOIYIl11i1tH.Jn act ,del . , . _. _ _. --l'. I . . I·It::'H 11-.)77) lint brinp-s Lhroudl the I)uwer exerCIseU III 11(;;r(OUlHl ~ Dcoercion · ,,:! rchical reJahollshIpS. J In the school cunte).,t, studies of violence Lypkdlly rder t? sludent-unr personal harm. or l11te stu d en I "'nd student-un-leacher ads of 1)llysical _ . .VIO ·1 enee.. '''V·lolence refers to the thre