This article is written by Lukundo Nanyangwe of the University of Zambia, Intern under Legal Vidhiya
- Introduction
Crime is a complex and multifaceted phenomenon that has been studied from various perspectives, including sociological theories. Sociological theories of crime seek to understand why crime occurs, how it is related to social structures and institutions, and how it can be prevented or reduced. In this article, we will explore modern sociological theories of crime, including their key concepts, empirical evidence, and reference cases.
2. Modern Sociological Theories
Social Disorganization Theory
Social disorganization theory, also known as ecological theory, focuses on how the characteristics of neighborhoods and communities influence crime rates.[1] This theory suggests that crime is more likely to occur in areas with weak social ties, limited economic opportunities, and high levels of poverty and inequality.[2] According to social disorganization theory, these factors can lead to social disorganization, which in turn can create an environment conducive to criminal behavior.[3]
One classic study that supports social disorganization theory is the research conducted by sociologist Robert Sampson and his colleagues in the 1990s.[4] They found that neighborhoods with high levels of poverty, residential mobility, and racial heterogeneity had higher crime rates, even after controlling for individual-level factors such as age, gender, and race. For example, in their study of Chicago neighborhoods, they found that crime rates were higher in neighborhoods with concentrated poverty, where there were fewer stable social networks and collective efficacy, which refers to the ability of a community to come together to solve common problems.[5]
Strain Theory
Strain theory, also known as anomie theory, focuses on how social and economic strains or stressors can lead to criminal behavior.[6] According to strain theory, when individuals are unable to achieve culturally defined goals, such as financial success, through legitimate means, they may experience strain or frustration.[7] This strain can then lead to a sense of anomie or normlessness, where individuals feel disconnected from societal norms and may turn to crime as a means of achieving their goals.[8]
One well-known strain theory is Robert Merton’s theory of anomie, which was developed in the 1930s.[9] Merton argued that in societies that place a strong emphasis on the pursuit of monetary success and the American Dream, individuals who are unable to achieve these goals through legitimate means may experience strain and turn to crime.[10] For example, in a study by Messner and Rosenfeld (1994), they found that countries with higher levels of economic inequality, as measured by the Gini coefficient, had higher crime rates, supporting the strain theory.[11]
Social Learning Theory
Social learning theory, also known as differential association theory, focuses on how individuals learn to engage in criminal behavior through social interactions and the process of imitation.[12] This theory suggests that individuals learn criminal behavior from others, particularly through close relationships with criminal peers, and that the acquisition of criminal behavior is a result of the socialization process.[13]
One classic study that supports social learning theory is the research conducted by Edwin Sutherland in the 1930s.[14] Sutherland found that individuals who were exposed to criminal definitions, or favorable attitudes toward criminal behavior, were more likely to engage in criminal behavior themselves. He argued that criminal behavior is learned through social interactions with others who engage in criminal behavior and that individuals are more likely to engage in criminal behavior if they are exposed to more favorable definitions of such behavior.[15]
Labeling Theory
Labeling theory focuses on how social labels and stigmas can influence an individual’s self-concept and behavior.[16] This theory suggests that when individuals are labeled as deviant or criminal by others, they may internalize this label and adopt a deviant or criminal identity. Labeling theory also emphasizes the role of social reactions, such as formal and informal sanctions, in shaping an individual’s criminal behavior.[17]
One classic study that supports labeling theory is the research conducted by Howard Becker in the 1960s. Becker argued that deviance is not an inherent quality of an act, but rather a social construct that is created through the process of labeling. He found that individuals who were labeled as deviant, such as being labeled as a “criminal” or a “delinquent,” were more likely to continue engaging in deviant behavior because they internalized that label and saw themselves as deviant.[18]
Becker’s study showed that the labeling process can have a profound impact on an individual’s self-identity and behavior. For example, when individuals are labeled as criminals by society, they may face social stigma and discrimination, which can limit their opportunities for legitimate employment and social integration. As a result, they may feel excluded from mainstream society and may be more likely to continue engaging in criminal behavior as a way of conforming to the label that has been imposed upon them.[19]
Social Control Theory
Social control theory focuses on how social bonds and mechanisms of social control influence an individual’s propensity to engage in criminal behavior.[20] This theory suggests that individuals are less likely to engage in crime when they have strong social bonds, such as attachments to family, friends, and community, as well as commitments to conventional activities, such as education or employment.[21] These social bonds act as a form of social control that inhibits an individual’s inclination to engage in criminal behavior.[22]
One well-known social control theory is Travis Hirschi’s theory of social bond, developed in the 1960s. Hirschi argued that individuals who have strong bonds to society, through their attachments, commitments, involvements, and beliefs, are less likely to engage in criminal behavior.[23] For example, a study by Sampson and Laub (1993) found that individuals who had strong marital bonds, such as being married and having children, were less likely to engage in criminal behavior compared to those who did not have such bonds.[24]
Rational Choice Theory
Rational choice theory focuses on how individuals make decisions to engage in criminal behavior based on a cost-benefit analysis.[25] This theory suggests that individuals weigh the potential benefits of committing a crime against the potential costs, such as the risk of getting caught and the severity of the punishment, and make a rational choice to engage in crime if the benefits outweigh the costs.[26]
One classic study that supports rational choice theory is the research conducted by Derek Cornish and Ronald Clarke in the 1980s.[27] They proposed the routine activities theory, which argues that crime occurs when there is a convergence of motivated offenders, suitable targets, and the absence of effective guardianship.[28] For example, they found that crime rates were higher in neighborhoods with low levels of community supervision and low levels of informal social control, which made it easier for offenders to commit crimes without being caught.[29]
Gendered Theories of Crime
Gendered theories of crime focus on how gender influences the occurrence and nature of crime.[30] These theories recognize that crime is not gender-neutral and that gender shapes an individual’s experiences, opportunities, and constraints, which in turn influence their involvement in criminal behavior.[31]
One prominent gendered theory of crime is feminist theory, which emerged in the 1970s as a response to the male-centric focus of traditional criminological theories. Feminist theories of crime highlight the gendered nature of crime, such as the gendered patterns of victimization and the gendered dynamics of offending.[32] For example, feminist scholars have argued that the socialization process, gender role expectations, and gendered power dynamics contribute to women’s involvement in crime, such as engaging in prostitution or committing crimes related to survival or self-defense.[33]
3. Reference Cases
Social Disorganization Theory: The Case of Chicago’s Cabrini-Green Housing Project
The Cabrini-Green Housing Project in Chicago, USA, is often cited as a reference case in the application of social disorganization theory to the study of crime.[34] The Cabrini-Green project was known for its high crime rates, including gang-related activities, drug trafficking, and violence.[35] According to social disorganization theory, these high crime rates were attributed to the social disorganization within the community, characterized by poverty, racial segregation, and the breakdown of social bonds.[36]
Researchers found that the residents of Cabrini-Green faced significant social and economic challenges, including high rates of poverty, unemployment, and single-parent households.[37] These factors contributed to the erosion of social bonds and informal social control mechanisms within the community, leading to a lack of collective efficacy and an environment conducive to criminal activities.[38] This case exemplifies how social disorganization theory can be applied to understand the impact of neighborhood characteristics on crime rates and the importance of social cohesion and collective efficacy in preventing crime.[39]
Labeling Theory: The case of “The Central Park Five”
The case of “The Central Park Five” in New York City in 1989 is a well-known example that illustrates the concepts of labeling theory.[40] Five African American and Hispanic teenagers were wrongfully accused and convicted of raping a white woman in Central Park based on coerced confessions and flawed evidence.[41] Despite later being exonerated by DNA evidence and the confession of the actual perpetrator, the wrongful conviction had a profound impact on their lives.[42]
Labeling theorists would argue that these teenagers were labeled as “criminals” by the criminal justice system and society, which influenced their self-identity and subsequent behavior.[43] The wrongful label of being a “criminal” subjected them to social stigma, discrimination, and exclusion from mainstream society, leading to long-term consequences for their education, employment, and social integration.[44] This case exemplifies how labeling theory can shed light on the societal response to crime and the impact of labeling on individuals’ lives.[45]
Rational Choice Theory: The case of white-collar crime
White-collar crime, such as corporate fraud, embezzlement, and insider trading, is a type of crime that is often analyzed through the lens of rational choice theory. Rational choice theorists argue that individuals who engage in white-collar crime make calculated decisions based on a cost-benefit analysis, weighing the potential benefits, such as financial gain and status, against the potential costs, such as the risk of getting caught and the legal consequences.[46]
The case of Enron scandal in the early 2000s is a notable example of white-collar crime that aligns with rational choice theory. Enron, a former energy company, engaged in accounting fraud and other illegal activities to inflate its financial performance and deceive investors, employees, and the public.[47] Executives at Enron, including its CEO, made deliberate choices to engage in fraudulent activities in pursuit of financial gain, despite the potential legal consequences. This case illustrates how rational choice theory can be applied to understand the decision-making process of individuals involved in white-collar crime and the role of cost-benefit analysis in their actions.[48]
4. Understanding the Outcome
The social theory of crime based on the results suggests that crime is caused by individuals’ interaction with their social environment. This theory propounds that the cause of crime is not simply related to the individual, but is instead a product of the interaction between the individual and the environment. This theory holds that the underlying causes of crime are social and environmental factors such as poverty, inequality, and lack of access to resources.
In the United States, the social logical theory of crime has been used to support various criminal justice reforms, including restorative justice, diversion programs, and sentencing reforms. This theory has also been used to challenge traditional approaches to criminal justice, such as mandatory minimum sentences and the “war on drugs.”
The legal implications of this matter can be determined by examining relevant case law. For instance, the Supreme Court of the United States has recognized social logical theory of crime in various decisions. For example, in the case of Roper v. Simmons,[49] the court held that the death penalty was unconstitutional for juveniles because of the evolving standards of decency in society, which the court believed were shaped by the social logical theory of crime. In the case of Graham v. Florida, the court applied the social logical theory of crime to its determination that life without parole sentences were unconstitutional for juveniles, citing the potential negatives temporal, physical, and psychological effects of such a sentence on the individual.[50]
The legal application of modern sociological theories is propounded in the case of DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services. In this case, the Supreme Court of the United States espoused that the state had not violated the rights of a child who had been abused by his father, despite the fact that the state had been aware of the danger to the child. The court reasoned that the state had no duty to protect the child under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment because the government could not be held responsible for the actions of a third party. This decision was based on the sociological theory of “state inaction” which holds that the state cannot be held liable for the actions of private individuals.[51]
5. Implications and Analysis of Modern Sociological Theories
Modern sociological theories of crime have provided valuable insights into the social, cultural, and economic factors that influence the occurrence and nature of crime. These theories have challenged traditional perspectives that focus solely on individual characteristics or criminal acts, and have emphasized the importance of social context, social bonds, social control, and the role of gender in understanding crime.[52]
The social disorganization theory has highlighted the impact of neighborhood characteristics, such as poverty and racial segregation, on crime rates. The strain theory has emphasized the role of social and economic strain in motivating individuals to engage in criminal behavior. The social learning theory has emphasized the role of socialization, peer influence, and observational learning in shaping criminal behavior. The labeling theory has focused on the impact of societal reactions to crime, such as labeling and stigma, on individuals’ self-identity and subsequent behavior. The rational choice theory has highlighted the role of cost-benefit analysis in the decision-making process of individuals engaged in crime.[53]
These modern sociological theories of crime have been applied to various real-world cases to better understand the complexities of crime and its social dynamics. For example, the case of Cabrini-Green in Chicago illustrated how social disorganization theory can explain the impact of neighborhood characteristics on crime rates. “The Central Park Five” case in New York City exemplified the concepts of labeling theory, showcasing the consequences of being labeled as criminals by the criminal justice system and society. The Enron scandal highlighted the rational decision-making process of individuals engaged in white-collar crime, aligning with the rational choice theory.
However, it is important to note that these sociological theories of crime have also faced criticisms and limitations. Some critics argue that these theories tend to overemphasize the role of social factors while neglecting individual agency and personal responsibility. Others argue that these theories may not fully capture the complexities of crime, as crime is a multifaceted phenomenon influenced by various factors, including individual, social, cultural, economic, and political factors.
Despite the criticisms, modern sociological theories of crime have contributed significantly to our understanding of crime as a social phenomenon. These theories have helped us recognize that crime is not solely an individual problem, but also a social issue that is influenced by various social and contextual factors. They have highlighted the importance of social structures, social bonds, socialization processes, and societal reactions in shaping criminal behavior.[54]
Furthermore, these theories have practical implications for addressing crime and developing effective crime prevention strategies. For instance, social disorganization theory suggests that addressing neighborhood characteristics, such as poverty and racial segregation, can help reduce crime rates. Strain theory suggests that addressing social and economic strain through policies that promote economic opportunities and social integration can reduce crime. Social learning theory suggests that interventions focused on socialization processes, peer influence, and observational learning can be effective in preventing criminal behavior. Labeling theory suggests that addressing the societal reactions to crime, such as reducing labeling and stigma, can have a positive impact on individuals’ lives.[55]
6. Conclusion
In summary, this article has demonstrated that, modern sociological theories of crime provide valuable insights into our understanding of crime as a social phenomenon. These theories have expanded our understanding beyond individual characteristics and criminal acts, and have emphasized the importance of social context, social bonds, socialization processes, and societal reactions in shaping criminal behavior. Through their application to real-world cases, these theories have helped us better understand the complexities of crime and have practical implications for addressing crime and developing effective crime prevention strategies. However, further research and interdisciplinary approaches are needed to continue advancing our understanding of crime and developing evidence-based policies and interventions to address this social issue.
References
Books and Journal Articles
Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47-87.
Agnew, R. (2006). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
Agnew, R. (2011). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
Agnew, R. (2013). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
Agnew, R. (2014). Criminological theory: Past to present. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Agnew, R. (2017). The causes of criminal behavior: A theoretical perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.
Akers, R. L. (1973). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Akers, R. L. (1994). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
Akers, R. L., & Sellers, C. S. (2009). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and application. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the Street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169-217.
Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York, NY: Free Press.
Clarke, R. V., & Cornish, D. B. (1985). Modeling offenders’ decisions: A framework for research and policy. Crime and Justice, 6, 147-185.
Cloward, R. A., & Ohlin, L. E. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity: A theory of delinquent gangs. New York, NY: Free Press.
Cohen, A. K. (1955). Delinquent Boys: The culture of the gang. New York, NY: Free Press.
Coleman, J. Felson, M. (2006). Crime and everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Colvin, M., & Pauly, E. (1983). A critique of deterrence theory. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Vol. 4, pp. 257-295). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Cullen, F. T., & Agnew, R. (2011). Criminological theory: Past to present. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Cullen, F. T., & Wilcox, P. (2010). Encyclopedia of criminological theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Cullen, F. T., & Wilcox, P. (Eds.). (2017). Oxford Handbook of criminological theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Durkheim, E. (1895/1982). The rules of sociological method. New York, NY: Free Press.
Farrington, D. P. (2003). Developmental and life-course criminology: Key theoretical and empirical issues. Criminology, 41(2), 221-255.
Farrington, B. C., Welsh, B., & MacKenzie, D. L. (Eds.) (2009). Evidence-based crime prevention. New York, NY: Routledge, 295-329.
Felson, M., & Boba, R. (2010). Crime and everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Hagan, J. (1989). The social embeddedness of crime and unemployment. Criminology, 27(3), 465-491.
Hagan, J., & McCarthy, B. (1997). Mean streets: Youth crime and homelessness. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Katz, J. (1988). Seductions of crime: Moral and sensual attractions in doing evil. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology: A systematic approach to the theory of sociopathic behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Liazos, A. (1972). The poverty of the sociology of deviance: Nuts, sluts, and preverts. Social Problems, 20(6), 605-619.
Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (2012). From juvenile delinquency to adult crime: Criminal careers, justice policy, and prevention. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672-682.
Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York, NY: Free Press.
Merton, R. K. (1995). On social structure and science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (1994). Crime and the American Dream. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (1997). Political restraint of the market and levels of criminal homicide: A cross-national application of institutional-anomie theory. Social Forces, 75(4), 1393-1416.
Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2000). Crime and the American dream. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2007). Crime and the American Dream. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2013). Crime and the American Dream. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Piquero, A. R. (2008). The relevance of criminal career research for the study of crime and justice. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36(6), 537-542.
Piquero, A. R., & Weisburd, D. (2010). Handbook of quantitative criminology. New York, NY: Springer.
Reisig, M. D., & Pratt, T. C. (2017). The Oxford Handbook of criminological theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Rosenfeld, R., & Messner, S. F. (2009). Crime and the American dream. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774-802.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2005). A life-course view of the development of crime. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 602(1), 12-45.
Sherman, L. W., & Eck, J. E. (2002). Policing for crime prevention. In L. W. Sherman, D. P.
Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of criminology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Sutherland, E. H., & Cressey, D. R. (1978). Criminology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
Vold, G. B., Bernard, T. J., & Snipes, J. B. (2017). Theoretical criminology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Case Law
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010)
Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
[1] Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
[2] Wilson, W. J. (1987). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
[3] Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774-802.
[4] Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[5] Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774-802.
[6] Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology, 30(1), 47-87.
[7] Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672-682
[8] Agnew, R. (2006). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
[9] Merton, R. K. (1995). On social structure and science. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
[10] Agnew, R. (2011). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
[11] Agnew, R. (2013). Pressured into crime: An overview of general strain theory. Los Angeles, CA: Roxbury.
[12] Akers, R. L. (1973). Deviant behavior: A social learning approach. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
[13] Akers, R. L. (1998). Social learning and social structure: A general theory of crime and deviance. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
[14] Sutherland, E. H. (1947). Principles of criminology. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press
[15] Sutherland, E. H., & Cressey, D. R. (1978). Criminology. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
[16] Liazos, A. (1972). The poverty of the sociology of deviance: Nuts, sluts, and perverts. Social Problems, 20(6), 605-619.
[17] Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology: A systematic approach to the theory of sociopathic behavior. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
[18] Becker, H. S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York, NY: Free Press.
[19] Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169-217.
[20] Felson, M., & Boba, R. (2010). Crime and everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
[21] Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2005). A life-course view of the development of crime. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 602(1), 12-45.
[22] Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
[23] Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
[24] Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
[25] Coleman, J. Felson, M. (2006). Crime and everyday life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
[26] Merton, R. K. (1968). Social theory and social structure. New York, NY: Free Press.
[27] Clarke, R. V., & Cornish, D. B. (1985). Modeling offenders’ decisions: A framework for research and policy. Crime and Justice, 6, 147-185.
[28] Farrington, D. P. (2003). Developmental and life-course criminology: Key theoretical and empirical issues. Criminology, 41(2), 221-255.
[29] Maruna, S. (2001). Making good: How ex-convicts reform and rebuild their lives. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
[30] Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774-802.
[31] Agnew, R. (2017). The causes of criminal behavior: A theoretical perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.
[32] Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the Street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the inner city. New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company.
[33] Sherman, L. W., & Eck, J. E. (2002). Policing for crime prevention. In L. W. Sherman, D. P.
[34] Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (2000). Crime and the American dream. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth
[35] Cohen, A. K. (1955). Delinquent Boys: The culture of the gang. New York, NY: Free Press
[36] Katz, J. (1988). Seductions of crime: Moral and sensual attractions in doing evil. New York, NY: Basic Books.
[37] Hagan, J. (1989). The social embeddedness of crime and unemployment. Criminology, 27(3), 465-491.
[38] Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774-802.
[39] Hagan, J., & McCarthy, B. (1997). Mean streets: Youth crime and homelessness. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
[40] Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (1994). Crime and the American Dream. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
[41] Katz, J. (1988). Seductions of crime: Moral and sensual attractions in doing evil. New York, NY: Basic Books.
[42] Cullen, F. T., & Agnew, R. (2011). Criminological theory: Past to present. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
[43] Rosenfeld, R., & Messner, S. F. (2009). Crime and the American dream. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
[44] Durkheim, E. (1895/1982). The rules of sociological method. New York, NY: Free Press.
[45] Colvin, M., & Pauly, E. (1983). A critique of deterrence theory. In M. Tonry & N. Morris (Eds.), Crime and justice: An annual review of research (Vol. 4, pp. 257-295). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
[46] Messner, S. F., & Rosenfeld, R. (1997). Political restraint of the market and levels of criminal homicide: A cross-national application of institutional-anomie theory. Social Forces, 75(4), 1393-1416.
[47] Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (2005). A life-course view of the development of crime. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 602(1), 12-45.
[48] Piquero, A. R., & Weisburd, D. (2010). Handbook of quantitative criminology. New York, NY: Springer.
[49] Roper v. Simmons, 543 U.S. 551 (2005).
[50] Graham v. Florida, 560 U.S. 48 (2010)
[51] DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989)
[52] Cullen, F. T., & Wilcox, P. (2010). Encyclopedia of criminological theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
[53] Loeber, R., & Farrington, D. P. (2012). From juvenile delinquency to adult crime: Criminal careers, justice policy, and prevention. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
[54] Agnew, R. (2017). The causes of criminal behavior: A theoretical perspective. New York, NY: Routledge.
[55] Cullen, F. T., & Wilcox, P. (Eds.). (2017). Oxford Handbook of criminological theory. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press
0 Comments