CRIME

CRIMINALITY
 refers to the extent and frequency of offending by a societal group, such as the young, minorities,
illegal immigrants, the unemployed, or people from a certain region.
 Totality of all crimes that occur in a particular region and time period.
0

DEFINING CRIMINOLOGY
Criminology is the study of causes and nature of crime, as indicated by the formative Latin terms crimin
(accusation or guilt) and -ology (study of). Criminologists are social scientists devoted to the study of
crime and criminal behavior. They engage research on virtually every imaginable aspect of illegality and
society’s reactions to it, ranging from the development of theories of crime causation, the roles and uses
of social control (e.g., police, courts, and corrections), crime prevention, and victimization.
Term criminology was first coined by the Italian law professor Raffaele Garofalo in 1885. Frenchman
Paul Topinard was first to use it during an 1889 anthropological study of criminality as a function of
body types. Edwin Sutherland, the foremost pioneer of contemporary criminology offered what has
proven to be a lasting definition, which is most often used to describe the field, in his seminal book
Principles of Criminology. According to him, criminology can be defined as follows:
[Criminology is] the body of knowledge regarding crime as a social phenomenon. It includes within its
scope the process of making laws, of breaking laws, and of reacting toward the breaking of laws. . . .
The objective of criminology is the development of a body of general and verified principles and of
other types of knowledge regarding this process of law, crime, and treatment or prevention.
Aforementioned definition includes some of the most important areas of interest to criminologists:
 Crime as a social phenomenon. Although some criminologists believe individual traits and
characteristics may play some role in the cause of criminals’ antisocial behavior, most believe social
factors are at the root cause of crime. Even the most disturbed people are influenced by their
environment and their social interactions and personal relationships.
 The processes of making laws. There is association b/w crime and the criminal law and shows how
the law defines crime. How and why laws are created and why some are strengthened and others
eliminated is of great interest to criminologists.
 Breaking laws and reacting toward the breaking of laws. At its core, the purpose of criminology is
to understand both the onset of crime and the most effective methods for its elimination. Why do
people commit illegal acts, and what can be done to convince them—and others who are
contemplating crime—that it is in their best interests to turn their back on criminality? These
concepts are naturally bound together: it is impossible to effectively control crime unless we
understand its cause.
 Development of a body of general and verified principles. Criminology is a social science and
criminologists must use the scientific method when conducting research. Criminologists are
required to employ valid and reliable experimental designs and sophisticated data analysis
techniques or else lose standing in the academic community.
It is interesting to note that whereas criminology is typically considered the study of the causes and
nature of crime, and is often contrasted with criminal justice, which is concerned with the response to
the problem of crime. Sutherland’s famous definition clearly emphasized the significance of both.
Consequently, criminology today is viewed somewhat dichotomously, with theoretical or sociological
criminology denoting a focus on crime causation or the etiology (origin) of crime and applied
criminology denoting work that is prevention, enforcement, or treatment oriented.
NATURE AND SCOPE OF CRIMINOLOGY
As an intellectual domain, criminology comprises contributions from multiple academic disciplines,
including psychology, biology, anthropology, law, and, especially, sociology. Although the defining
statements of criminology are rooted across these diverse areas, contemporary criminology is becoming
ever more intertwined with still additional sciences and professional fields such as geography, social
work, and public health.
This plurality of influences, often referred to as multi-disciplinarity, is altogether logical given the
complex subject matter and diverse nature of crime. Scholarly attention to crime from various
perspectives allows for an extensive range of research questions to be addressed, making possible a
fuller understanding of the criminal mind, the nature of crime, and social control processes. Legal
scholarship, for example, ranges from philosophical attention to social justice issues to technocratic
factors determinant of case outcome. Alternatively, psychology approaches the topic of crime with a
focus on individual-level maladjustment and behavioral abnormality. Sociological criminology differs still
by concentrating on the multiple causes and nature of crime, as well as society’s reaction to it.
The Criminological Enterprise
Discipline of criminology consists of several sub-areas that reflect different orientations and
perspectives. Taken together, these subareas make up the criminological enterprise. A criminologist may
train or specialize in any of the following sub-fields:
 Criminal Statistics and Crime Measurement
This subarea involves devising valid and reliable measures designed to calculate the amount and trends
of criminal activity: How much crime occurs annually? Who commits it? When and where does it occur?
Which crimes are the most serious?
Criminologists:
 Formulate techniques for collecting and analyzing institutional (police, court, and correctional
agency) records and crime data
 Develop survey instruments to measure criminal activity not reported to the police by victims. These
instruments can by used to estimate the percentage of people who commit crimes but escape
detection by the justice system.
 Identify the victims of crime; create surveys designed to have victims report loss and injury that may
not have been reported to the police.
 Develop data to determine who commits crime and where it occurs. Also, data is used to test crime
theory. Ex: Measuring community-level crime rates can help prove whether ecological factors, such
as neighborhood poverty and unemployment rates, are related to crime rates.
 Use these tested methods to measure the amount and trends of criminal activity
 Measure the effect of social policy and social trends on crime rate changes
 Use crime data to design crime prevention programs and then measuring their effectiveness. This
also helps agents of Criminal Justice System.
 Sociology of Law, Law and Society, Socio-Legal Studies
Sociology of law (study of law and society) is concerned with the role social forces play in shaping
criminal law and, concomitantly, the role of criminal law in shaping society. Criminologists interested in
studying the social aspects of law focus on such topics as:
 The history of legal thought
 How social forces shape the definition and content of the law
 The impact of legal change on society
 The relationship between law and social control
 The effect of criminalization/legalization on behaviors
Some who study law and society consider the role of law in context of criminological theory. They try to
understand how legal decision making influences individuals, groups, and CJS. Others try to identify
alternatives to traditional legal process—for example, by designing non-punitive methods of dispute
resolution. Some seek to describe the legal system and identify and explain patterns of behavior that
guide its operation. Others use the operations of law as a perspective for under- standing culture and
social life.
Because law is constantly evolving, criminologists are often asked to determine whether legal change is
required and what shape it should take. Criminologists use their research skills to assess the effects of a
proposed legal change. Ex: Crime of obscenity. Typically, there is no uniform standard of what is
considered obscene; material that to some people is lewd and offensive may be considered a work of art
by others. How far should the law go in curbing “adult films” and literature? Criminologists might
conduct research aimed at determining the effect the proposed law will have on curbing access to
obscene material such as child pornography. Other relevant research issues might include analysis of the
harmful effects of viewing pornography: Are people who view pornography more likely to commit
violent crime than non-watchers? And what about the effect of virtual porn? Is viewing computer-
generated sexual imagery the same as viewing live actors? The answers may one day shape the direction
of legislation controlling sexual content on the Internet.
Computer fraud, le sharing, ATM theft, and cyberstalking did not exist when the nation-states were
founded. Consequently, the law must be revised to reflect cultural, societal, and technological changes.
Research conducted by criminologists helps shape the direction of their legal decision making.
 Theory Construction and Testing
Social theory can be defined as a systematic set of interrelated statements or principles that explain
some aspect of social life. At their core, theories should serve as models or frameworks for
understanding human behavior and the forces that shape its content and direction.
Because, ideally, theories are based on verified social facts—readily observed phenomena that can be
consistently quantified and measured—criminological theorists use the scientific method to test their
theories. They gather data, derive hypotheses—testable expectations of behavior that can be derived
from the theory—and then test them using valid empirical research methods.
 Criminal Behavior Systems and Crime Typologies
Criminologists focus research on specific criminal types and patterns: violent crime, theft crime, public
order crime, and organized crime. Numerous attempts have been made to describe and understand
particular crime types. Ex: Edwin Sutherland’s analysis of business-related offenses helped coin a new
phrase—white-collar crime—to describe economic crime activities.
Criminologists also conduct research on the links b/w different types of crime and criminals. This is
known as a crime typology. Some typologies focus on the criminal, suggesting the existence of offender
groups, such as professional criminals, psychotic criminals, amateur criminals, and so on. Others focus
on the crimes, clustering them into categories such as property crimes, sex crimes, and so on. While 50
years ago they might have focused their attention on rape, murder, and burglary, they now may be
looking at stalking, cybercrime, terrorism, and hate crimes.
Research on criminal behavior systems and crime types is important because it enables criminologists to
understand why people commit specific sorts of crime, and using this information, gives them the tools
to devise crime reduction strategies.
 Punishment, Penology, and Social Control
Criminologists also are involved in creating effective crime policies, developing methods of social
control, and the correction and control of known criminal offenders; it is this segment of criminology
that overlaps criminal justice. Criminologists conduct research that is designed to evaluate justice
initiatives in order to determine their efficiency, effectiveness, and impact. For example, should capital
punishment continue to be employed or is its use simply too risky? To explore this issue, Samuel Gross
and his colleagues looked at death row inmates who were later found to be innocent. The sample of
340 death row inmates (327 men and 13 women), exonerated after having served years in prison,
indicated that about half (144 people) were cleared by DNA evidence. Collectively, they had spent more
than 3,400 years in prison for crimes they did not commit—an average of more than 10 years each.
Gross and his colleagues found that exonerations from death row are more than 25 times more frequent
than exonerations for other prisoners convicted of murder, and more than 100 times more frequent
than for all imprisoned felons. How many wrongful convictions might be uncovered if all criminal
convictions were given the same degree of scrutiny as death penalty cases? The Gross research
illustrates how important it is to evaluate penal measures in order to deter- mine their effectiveness and
reliability.
 Victimology: Victims and Victimization
In two classic criminological studies, one by Hans von Hentig and other by Stephen Schafer, the critical
role of victim in criminal process was first identified. They were first first to suggest that victim behavior
is often a key determinant of crime and that victims’ actions may actually precipitate crime. Both
believed that study of crime isn’t complete unless victim’s role is considered. For those studying the role
of the victim in crime, these areas are of particular interest:
 Using victim surveys to measure nature & extent of criminal behavior not reported to police
 Calculating the actual costs of crime to victims
 Measuring the factors that increase the likelihood of becoming a crime victim
 Studying the role of the victim in causing or precipitating crime
 Designing services for victims of crime, such as counseling and compensation programs
Study of victims & victimization has uncovered some startling results. For one thing, criminals have been
found to be at greater risk for victimization than non-criminals. Rather than being the passive receptors
of criminal acts who are in the “wrong place at the wrong time,” crime victims may engage in high-risk
lifestyles that increase their own chance of victimization and make them highly vulnerable to crime.

SCOPE OF CRIMINOLOGY IN PAKISTAN

interdisciplinary
Sociology – two way relationship
Political science – power relations
Psychology – mental illness,
Economics – criminology is poverty
Natural science- is biology responsible for crime

People who study criminology are reachers, academics, policy research and criminal justice agenceis

SIGNIFICANCE/IMPORTANCE OF CRIMINOLOGY
Micro – how family life affects criminal
Macro – how policies
Interrelated institutions
Rehabilitation is important – global narrative is changed

SIGNIFICANCE/IMPORTANCE OF CRIMINOLOGY IN PAKISTAN

HOW CRIMINOLOGISTS VIEW CRIME

Professional criminologists usually align themselves with one of several schools of thought or
perspectives in their field. Each perspective maintains its own view of what constitutes criminal behavior
and what causes people to engage in criminality. Considering the multidisciplinary nature of the field of
criminology, fundamental issues such as the nature and definition of crime itself are cause for
disagreement among criminologists.
A criminologist’s choice of orientation or perspective depends, in part, on his or her definition of crime.
Following are the three most common concepts of crime used by criminologists:
A. The Consensus View of Crime
According to this view, crimes are behaviors believed to be repugnant to all elements of society. The
substantive criminal law, which is the written code that defines crimes and their punishments, reflects
the values, beliefs, and opinions of society’s mainstream. Term consensus is used because it implies that
there is general agreement among a majority of citizens on what behaviors should be outlawed by the
criminal law and henceforth viewed as crimes.
This approach to crime implies that it is a function of the beliefs, morality, and rules established by the
existing legal power structure. According to Sutherland and Cressey the criminal law is applied
“uniformly to all members of the classes to which the rules refer.” This reveals authors’ faith in the
concept of an “ideal legal system” that deals adequately with all classes and types of people. Laws
prohibiting theft and violence may be directed at the neediest members of society, whereas laws that
sanction economic acts such as insider trading, embezzlement, and corporate price fixing are aimed at
controlling the wealthiest. The reach of the criminal law is not restricted to any single element of
society.
This view of crime links illegal behavior to concept of social harm. Though people generally enjoy a great
deal of latitude in their behavior, it is agreed that behaviors that are harmful to other people and society
in general must be controlled. Social harm is what sets strange, unusual, or deviant behavior—or any
other action that de- parts from social norms—apart from criminal behaviors.
This position is not without controversy. Although it is clear that rape, robbery, and murder are
inherently harmful and their control justified, behaviors such as drug use and prostitution are more
problematic because the harm they inflict is only on those who are willing participants. According to this
view, society is justified in controlling these so-called victimless crimes because public opinion holds that
they undermine the social fabric and threaten the general well-being of society. Society has a duty to
protect all its members—even those who choose to engage in high- risk behaviors.

B. The Conflict View of Crime

This view depicts society as a collection of diverse groups—business owners, workers, professionals,
students— who are in constant and continuing conflict. Groups able to assert their political power use
the law and the CJS to advance their economic and social position. Criminal laws, therefore, are viewed
as acts created to protect the haves from the have-nots. Critical criminologists often compare and
contrast the harsh penalties exacted on the poor for their “street crimes” (burglary, robbery, and
larceny) with the minor penalties the wealthy receive for their white-collar crimes (securities violations
and other illegal business practices), though the latter may cause considerably more social harm. While
the poor go to prison for minor law violations, the wealthy are given lenient sentences for even the most
serious breaches of law. Rather than being class neutral, criminal law reflects and protects established
economic, racial, gendered, and political power and privilege.
Crime, according to this definition, is a political concept designed to protect the power and position of
the upper classes at the expense of the poor. Even crimes prohibiting violent acts, such as armed
robbery, rape, and murder, may have political undertones. Banning violent acts ensures domestic
tranquility and guarantees that the anger of the poor and disenfranchised classes will not be directed at
their wealthy capitalist exploiters. According to this view of crime, “real” crimes would include the
following acts:
 Violations of human rights due to racism, sexism, and imperialism
 Unsafe working conditions
 Inadequate child care
 Inadequate opportunities for employment and education
 Substandard housing and medical care
 Crimes of economic and political domination
 Pollution of the environment
 Price-fixing
 Police brutality
 Assassinations and war-making
 Violations of human dignity
 Denial of physical needs and necessities, and impediments to self-determination
 Deprivation of adequate food
 Blocked opportunities to participate in political decision making
C. The Interactionist View of Crime
This view of crime traces its antecedents to the symbolic interaction school of sociology, first
popularized by pioneering sociologists George Herbert Mead, Charles Horton Cooley, and W. I. Thomas.
This position holds that (a) people act according to their own interpretations of reality, through which
they assign meaning to things; (b) they observe the way others react, either positively or negatively; and
(c) they reevaluate and interpret their own behavior according to the meaning and symbols they have
learned from others.
According to this perspective, there is no objective reality. People, institutions, and events are viewed
subjectively and labeled either good or evil according to the interpretation of the evaluator. Some
people might consider the hit film Borat: Cultural Learnings of America for Make Benefit Glorious
Nation of Kazakhstan as obscene, degrading, and offensive, while others view the same film as a laugh
riot. The same interactions help define crime:
 The content of the criminal law and consequently the definition of crime often depend on human
interaction and perceptions. Alcohol is legal, marijuana is not. It could easily be the other way
around. Gay marriage is legal in some jurisdictions, illegal in others.
 Deciding whether an individual act is considered a crime is also a function of interaction and
labeling. When an argument results in the death of one of the participants, a jury may be asked to
decide whether the act was murder, self- defense, or merely an accidental fatality. Each person on
the jury may have his own interpretation of what took place, and whether the act is labeled a crime
and the actor a criminal depends on the juror’s interpretation of events.
The process in which people are defined or labeled as criminal is also subjective. One person is viewed
as an unrepentant hard-core offender and sent to a maximum security prison. Another, who has
committed essentially the same crime, is considered remorseful and repentant and given probation in
the community. Though their acts are similar, the treatment they receive is quite different. Sociologist
Howard Becker argued, “The deviant is one to whom that label has successfully been applied; deviant
behavior is behavior people so labeled.” According to this view, the definition of crime reflects the
preferences and opinions of people who hold social power in a particular legal jurisdiction. These moral
entrepreneurs wage campaigns (moral crusades) to control behaviors they view as immoral and wrong
(e.g., abortion) or, conversely, to legalize behaviors they consider harmless social eccentricities (e.g.,
carrying a handgun for self-protection; smoking pot). Because drug use offends their moral sense, it is
currently illegal to purchase marijuana and hashish, while liquor and cigarettes are sold openly, even
though far more people die of alcoholism and smoking than from drug abuse each year. Even the
definition of serious violent offenses, such as rape and murder, depends on the prevailing moral values
of those who shape the content of criminal law. Ex: Florida has implemented a “stand your ground law”
that legalizes the killing of unarmed thief or intruder if the person is found in the owner’s parked car; in
other states, shooting unarmed person merely because he was sitting in your car might be considered
murder. 50 years ago, a man could not be prosecuted for raping his wife; today, every state criminalizes
marital rape. In sum, the definition of crime is more reflective of prevailing moral values than of any
objective standard of right and wrong.
This view of crime is similar to the conflict perspective; both suggest that behavior is outlawed and
considered criminal when it offends people who hold social, economic, and political power. However,
unlike conflict view, this perspective does not attribute capitalist economic and political motives to the
process of defining crime. Laws against pornography, prostitution, and drugs are believed to be
motivated more by moral crusades than by economic values.

Defining Crime
It is possible to take elements from each school of thought to formulate an integrated definition of
crime, such as this one:
Crime is a violation of societal rules of behavior as interpreted and expressed by a criminal legal code
created by people holding social and political power. Individuals who violate these rules are subject to
sanctions by state authority, social stigma, and loss of status.
Thus crime, as defined here, is a political, social, and economic function of modern life.

HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF CRIMINOLOGY AS A SCIENTIFIC DISCIPLINE

CRIME AND THE LAW

Criminal behavior is tied to the law. It is therefore important for all criminologists to have some
understanding of the development of law, its objectives, its elements, and how it has evolved.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE LAW
Concept of criminal law has been recognized for more than 3,000 years.
Code of Hammurabi
 Most famous set of written laws of the ancient world created by Hammurabi (1792–1750 BCE), 6th
king of Babylon.
 Preserved on basalt rock columns, the code established a system of crime and punishment based on
physical retaliation (“an eye for an eye”).
 Severity of punishment depended on class standing: if convicted of an unprovoked assault, a slave
would be killed, whereas a freeman might lose a limb
Mosaic Code of the Israelites (1200 BCE)
 According to tradition, God entered into a covenant or contract with the tribes of Israel in which
they agreed to obey his law (the 613 laws of the Old Testament, including the Ten Commandments),
as presented to them by Moses, in return for God’s special care and protection.
 It is not only the foundation of Judeo-Christian moral teachings but also a basis for the many legal
systems.
 Prohibitions against murder, theft, and perjury preceded by several thousand years the same laws
found in the modern states.
Early German and Anglo-Saxon Legal Systems
 Their legal systems featured monetary compensation for criminal violations.
 Guilt was determined by two methods:
1. Compurgation: Accused person swore an oath of innocence with the backing of 12 to 25 oath
helpers, who would attest to his or her character and claims of innocence.
2. Trial by Ordeal: It was based on the principle that divine forces would not allow an innocent
person to be harmed. It involved such measures as having the accused place his or her hand in
boiling water or hold a hot iron. If the wound healed, the person was found innocent; if the
wound did not heal, the accused was deemed guilty.
 Trial by combat: another version which allowed the accused to challenge his accuser to a duel, with
the outcome determining the legitimacy of the accusation.
 Punishments included public flogging, branding, beheading, and burning.
Common Law
 After Norman conquest of England in 1066, royal judges travelled throughout the land, holding
court in each shire several times a year. When court was in session, the royal administrator, or
judge, would summon a number of citizens who would, on their oath, tell of the crimes and serious
breaches of the peace that had occurred since the judge’s last visit. Royal judge would then decide
what to do in each case, using local custom and rules of conduct as his guide. Courts were bound to
follow the law established in previous cases unless a higher authority, such as the king or the pope,
overruled the law.
 Present English system of law came into existence during reign of Henry II (1154–1189), when royal
judges began to publish their decisions in local cases. Judges began to use these written decisions as
a basis for their decision making, and eventually a fixed body of legal rules and principles was
established. If a new rule was successfully applied in a number of different cases, it would become a
precedent. These precedents would then be commonly applied in all similar cases—hence the term
common law.
 Mala in se (Latin, wrong or evil in itself): Crimes such as murder, burglary, arson, and rape are
common-law crimes whose elements were initially de ned by judges.
 Mala prohibitum(Latin, wrong [as or because] prohibited): When the situation required it, the
English Parliament enacted legislation to supplement the judge-made common law. These were
referred to as statutory crimes, which reflected existing social conditions.
 English common law evolved constantly to fit specific incidents that the judges encountered. Ex: In
Carriers case (1473), English court ruled that a merchant who had been hired to transport
merchandise was guilty of larceny (theft) if he kept the goods for his own purposes. Before Carriers
case, it was not considered a crime under the common law when people kept something that was
voluntarily placed in their possession, even if the rightful owner had only given them temporary
custody of the merchandise. Breaking with legal tradition, the court acknowledged that the
commercial system could not be maintained unless the laws of theft were expanded. Definition of
larceny was altered in order to meet the needs of a growing free enterprise economic system.
Definition of theft was changed to include the taking of goods not only by force or stealth but also
by embezzlement and fraud
The Law in Contemporary Society
Law governs almost all phases of human enterprise, including commerce, family life, property transfer,
and the regulation of interpersonal conflict. Generally, law can be divided into four broad categories:
1. Substantive Criminal Law: Branch of law that defines crimes & their punishment. It involves issues
such as mental & physical elements of crime, crime categories, and criminal defenses.
Each state and the federal government has its own substantive criminal code, developed over many
generations and incorporating moral beliefs, social values, and political, economic, and other
societal concerns.
Based in seriousness of a crime, the criminal laws are divided into:
a) Felony: is a serious offense. Ex: Crimes such as murder, rape, and burglary. They are punished
with long prison sentences or even death.
b) Misdemeanor: is a minor or petty crime. Crimes such as unarmed assault and battery, petty
larceny, and disturbing the peace. They are punished with a fine or a period of incarceration in a
county jail.
Regardless of their classification, acts prohibited by the criminal law constitute behaviors considered
unacceptable and impermissible by those in power. People who engage in these acts are eligible for
severe sanctions. By outlawing these behaviors, the government expects to achieve a number of
social goals:
 Enforcing social control: Those who hold political power rely on criminal law to formally prohibit
behaviors believed to threaten societal well-being or to challenge their authority. Ex:
Prohibitions against the following behaviors harmful to others: taking another person’s
possessions, physically harming another person, damaging another person’s property, and
cheating another person out of his possessions. Similarly, the law prohibits actions that
challenge the legitimacy of the government, such as planning its overthrow, collaborating with
its enemies, and so on.
 Discouraging revenge: By punishing people who infringe on the rights, property, and freedom of
others, the law prevents “the greater evil of private retribution.”
  Expressing public opinion and morality: Criminal law reflects constantly changing public
opinions and moral values. Mala in se crimes, such as murder and forcible rape, are almost
universally prohibited; however, the prohibition of legislatively created mala prohibitum crimes,
such as traffic offenses and gambling violations, changes according to social conditions and
attitudes. Criminal law is used to codify these changes.
 Deterring criminal behavior: Criminal law has a social control function. It can control, restrain,
and direct human behavior through its sanctioning power. The threat of punishment associated
with violating the law is designed to prevent crimes before they occur. Ex: long prison sentences
and an occasional execution.
 Punishing wrongdoing: Deterrent power of criminal law is tied to the authority it gives the state
to sanction or punish offenders. Those who violate criminal law are subject to physical coercion
and punishment.
 Maintaining social order: All legal systems are designed to support and maintain the boundaries
of the social system they serve. Content of criminal law is more a reflection of the needs of
those who control the existing economic and political system than a representation of some
idealized moral code.
 Providing restoration: Victims deserve restitution or compensation for their pain and loss.
Punishments such as fines, forfeiture, and restitution are connected to this legal goal.
Elements of Contemporary Criminal Law
Although each state and the federal govt. have unique methods of defining crime, there are
significant uniformities and similarities that shape the essence of almost all criminal law codes. The
underlying concepts that guide and shape their legal systems are universal.
Legal Definition of a Crime
Today, in all jurisdictions, the legal definition of a crime involves the elements of the criminal acts
that must be proven in a court of law if the defendant is to be found guilty. For the most part,
common criminal acts have both mental and physical elements, both of which must be present if the
act is to be considered a legal crime. In order for a crime to occur, the state must show that the
accused committed actus reus, or the guilty act, and had the mens rea, or criminal intent, to commit
the act. The actus reus may be an aggressive act, such as taking someone’s money, burning a
building, or shooting someone; or it may be a failure to act when there is a legal duty to do so, such
as a parent neglecting to seek medical attention for a sick child. The mens rea (guilty mind) refers to
an individual’s state of mind at the time of the act or, more specifically, the person’s intent to
commit the crime.
 Actus Reus
To satisfy the requirements of actus reus, guilty actions must be voluntary. Even though an act may
cause harm or damage, it is not considered a crime if it was done by accident or was an involuntary
act. Ex: It would not be a crime if a motorist obeying all the traffic laws hit a child who ran into the
street. If the same motorist were drinking or speeding, then his action would be considered a
vehicular crime because it was a product of negligence. Similarly, it would not be considered a crime
if a babysitter accidentally dropped a child and the child died. However, it would be considered
manslaughter if the sitter threw the child down in anger or frustration and the blow caused the
child’s death.
In some circumstances of actus reus, the use of words is considered criminal. In the crime of
sedition, the words of disloyalty constitute the actus reus. Ex: If a person falsely yells “fire” in a
crowded theater & people are injured in the rush to exit, that person is held responsible for the
injuries, because the use of the word in that situation constitutes an illegal act.
 Typically, the law does not require people to aid others in distress, such as entering a burning
building to rescue people trapped by a fire. However, failure to act is considered a crime in certain
instances:
 Relationship of the parties based on status. Some people are bound by relationship to give
aid. These relationships include parent/child and husband/wife. If a husband finds his wife
unconscious because she took an overdose of sleeping pills, he is obligated to save her life by
seeking medical aid. If he fails to do so and she dies, he can be held responsible for her death.
 Imposition by statute. Some states have passed laws requiring people to give aid.
For example, a person who observes a broken-down automobile in the desert but fails to stop
and help the other parties involved may be committing a crime.
 Contractual relationships. These relationships include lifeguard and swimmer, doctor and
patient, and babysitter or au pair and child. Because lifeguards have been hired to ensure the
safety of swimmers, they have a legal duty to come to the aid of drowning persons. If a lifeguard
knows a swimmer is in danger and does nothing about it and the swimmer drowns, the lifeguard
is legally responsible for the swimmer’s death.
 Mens Rea
In most situations, for an act to constitute a crime, it must be done with criminal intent, or mens
rea. Intent, in the legal sense, can mean carrying out an act intentionally, knowingly, and willingly.
However, the definition also encompasses situations in which recklessness or negligence establishes
the required criminal intent.
Criminal intent also exists if the results of an action, although originally unintended, are certain to
occur. Ex: If a person planted a bomb in front of XYZ building, he did not intend to kill any particular
person in the building. Yet the law would hold that person or any other who would be substantially
certain that people in the building would be killed in the blast, and that person therefore had the
criminal intent to commit murder.
 Strict Liability
Though common-law crimes require that both the actus reus and the mens rea must be present
before a person can be convicted of a crime, several crimes defined by statute do not require mens
rea. In these cases, the person accused is guilty simply by doing what the statute prohibits; intent
does not enter the picture. These strict liability crimes, or public welfare offenses, include violations
of health and safety regulations, traffic laws, and narcotic control laws. Ex: A person stopped for
speeding is guilty of breaking the traffic laws regardless of whether he intended to go over the
speed limit or did it by accident. The underlying purpose of these laws is to protect the public;
therefore, intent is not required.
 Criminal Defenses
When people defend themselves against criminal charges, they must refute one or more of the
elements of the crime of which they have been accused. A number of different approaches can be
taken to create this defense.
 First, defendants may deny the actus reus by arguing that they were falsely accused and that
the real culprit has yet to be identified. Second, defendants may claim that although they
engaged in the criminal act of which they are accused, they lacked the mens rea (intent) needed
to be found guilty of the crime.
 If a person whose mental state is impaired commits a criminal act, it is possible for the person to
excuse his criminal actions by claiming that he lacked the capacity to form sufficient intent to be
held criminally responsible. Insanity, intoxication, and ignorance are types of excuse defenses. A
defendant might argue that because he suffered from a mental impairment that prevented him
from understanding the harmfulness of his acts, he lacked sufficient mens rea to be found guilty
as charged.
  Another type of defense is justification. Here the individual usually admits committing the
criminal act but maintains that he should not be held criminally liable because the act was
justified. Among the justification defenses are necessity, duress, self-defense, and entrapment.
A battered wife who kills her mate might argue that she acted out of duress; her crime was
commit- ted to save her own life.
Persons standing trial for criminal offenses may thus defend themselves by claiming that they did
not commit the act in question, that their actions were justified under the circumstances, or that
their behavior can be excused by their lack of mens rea. If either the physical or mental elements of
a crime cannot be proven, then the defendant cannot be convicted.

2. Procedural Criminal Law: Laws that set out basic rules of practice in criminal justice system. Some of
its elements are the rules of evidence, the law of arrest, the law of search and seizure, questions of
appeal, jury selection, and the right to counsel.

3. Civil Law: set of rules governing relations b/w private parties, including both individuals and
organizations (such as business enterprises or corporations). It is used to resolve, control, and shape
such personal interactions as contracts, wills and trusts, property ownership, and commerce.
 Contained within the civil law is Tort Law, derived from tortum (Latin), meaning “something
twisted, wrung, or crooked.” Tort is any any instance of harmful behavior.
Types of Torts
1. Intentional Torts: injuries that person knew or should have known would occur through his
actions. Ex: A person attacks & injures another (assault and battery) after a dispute.
2. Negligent Torts: injuries caused because a person’s actions were unreasonably unsafe or
careless. Ex: A traffic accident is caused by a reckless driver.
3. Strict Liability Torts: Injuries that occur because a particular action causes damage prohibited by
statute. Ex: A victim is injured because a manufacturer made a defective product.
4. Public or Administrative Law: deals with the government & its relationships with individuals or
other governments. It governs the administration and regulation of city, county, state, and federal
government agencies.
Aforementioned categories of the law can be interrelated. A crime victim may file a tort action against a
criminal defendant and sue for damages in a civil court. Under tort law, a crime victim may sue even if
the defendant is found not guilty because the evidentiary standard in a civil action is less than is needed
for a criminal conviction (preponderance of the evidence versus beyond a reasonable doubt). In some
instances, the government has the option to pursue a legal matter through the criminal process, file a
tort action, or bring the matter before an administrative court. White-collar crimes often involve
criminal, administrative, and civil penalties.

CRIMINAL LAW IN PAKISTAN

Very detailed criminal law i.e. though outdated to some extent but it tends to cover all aspects that do
constitute a crime. To understand it, one needs to understand the socio cultural phenomena of this
country also. Most of prevailing criminal law in Pakistan was introduced by British Empire when India
was a colony and Pakistan was part of it. Even then a care was taken to understand the social conditions
and criminal law was tried to be conditioned according to the cultural circumstances of the colony. This
is the reason that it was willfully accepted by India and Pakistan both after their freedom from British
Empire. In Pakistan the major statutes relating to criminal law are:
 Pakistan Penal Code, 1860
It is essentially a substantive criminal law. Specifies the extent of punishments against different crimes
and offences committed within Pakistan and beyond Pakistan but which by law may be tried within
Pakistan and extra territorial offences. The PPC further assigns the policy of general exceptions, right of
private defense, abetment, and criminal conspiracy. It further requires the actions against offences
against the state, relating to the Army, Navy and Air Force and against public tranquility.
It also dictates the policy against offences by or relating to public servant, offences relating to offences
and contempt of the lawful authority of public servants. It further stipulates the system against the false
evidence and offences against public justice and relating to coins and Government Stamps and
pertaining to weights and measures. PPC also assigns the policy relating to offences affecting the public
health, safety, convenience, decency and morals. It also assigns a scheme regarding offences relating to
religion, affecting the human body, wrongful restraint and wrongful confinement, of rape and of
unnatural offences. This also ordains the steps against offences against property through theft,
extortion, robbery and dacoity, hijacking, criminal misappropriation of property, criminal breach of trust,
receiving of stolen property, of cheating, fraudulent deeds and disposition of property, mischief and
criminal trespass.
PPC also defines the punishment against offences relating to documents and to Trade or Property marks
through forgery or false documents, counterfeiting currency and bank notes and criminal breach of
contracts of service. It also dictates the punishment against offences relating to marriage, defamation,
criminal intimidation, insult and annoyance and the attempts to commit offences.
Ex: Murder (u/s 302 PPC) or Illegal Weapon (u/s 13 AO)

 Criminal Procedure Code, 1898

It is a procedural law. It prescribes the Constitution of the Criminal Courts and offices and speaks of the
powers of the courts. It contains various general provisions pertaining to the information to the
Magistrates and Police and gives the procedure of arrest, escape and relating to the process to compel
appearance through summons, warrant of arrest, proclamation and attachment and other rules
regarding processes. It also prescribed the processes to compel the production of documents and other
movable property and for the discovery of persons wrongfully confined through summons to produce
and search warrants. The Criminal Procedure also helps for prevention of offences through security for
keeping the peace and good behavior and to prevent the unlawful assemblies, public nuisances or
apprehended danger, disputes as to immoveable property, preventive action of the police and their
powers to investigate. The Cr.P.C also deals with the proceedings in prosecution and gives the
jurisdiction to Criminal Courts according to place of inquiry or trial, complaints to the Magistrates,
commencements of proceedings before Magistrates and inquiry into cases triable by the Courts of
Sessions or High Courts. It also prescribes nature and form of charges and joinders of charges and gives
the procedure of trial by Magistrates including summary trial and trial before High Court and Court of
Sessions and gives the mode of taking recording evidence in inquiries and trial and finally judgment.
The Criminal Procedure Code further defines the steps of submission of sentences for confirmation,
execution, suspensions, remissions and computations of sentences, previous acquittals and convictions.
This also dictates the steps of Appeals, References and Revisions. It further has special provisions
relating to cases in which European and Pakistan British subjects are concerned and lunatics. It also
defines the strategy of proceedings in case of certain offences affecting the administration of justice, of
the maintenance of wives and children. It also ordains the actions regarding directions of the nature of a
Habeas Corpus and have the supplementary provisions regarding public prosecutor, bail, commissions
for the examination of witness, special rules or evidence. Provisions as to bonds, of the disposal of
property, transfer of criminal cases and supplementary provisions relating to European and Pakistan
British subjects and others. It also specifies the conduct of irregular proceedings and miscellaneous
matters.
Ex: Taking custody of accused (u/s 54 Cr.P.C) or Recording Statements of witnesses (u/s 161 Cr.P.C)
 Out of these two the former deals in defining all the offences and mentioning their punishments along,
the former is specifically a code of procedure. The criminal procedure code is essentially a procedural
law, which provides machinery for the punishment of offenders against the substantive criminal law
example the Pakistan Penal Code.
Aforementioned two codes are to be read together. Apart from these two statutes, which specifically
deal in the criminal branch of law, there are certain other general laws which attract criminal liability
like, Negotiable Instruments Act which attracts criminal liability in case of dishonoring cheque, although
new provision of section 489-F has also been added in Pakistan Penal Code, regarding dishonestly
issuing a cheque. Information Technology Law is also going to be drafted very soon which will deal with
the wrongs relating to the Computer and Information Technology etc. The firm possessing an expertise
in this branch has, through its most experienced and efficient attorney’s has successfully handled a pile
of such cases involving penal prosecution. The experience of the lawyers at work in this arena has
provided us a distinct position from the rest

Some Other Characteristics Criminal Law

 Evolution of Criminal Law: Criminal law is constantly evolving in an effort to reflect social and
economic conditions. Sometimes legal changes are prompted by highly publicized cases that
generate fear and concern. Some acts are being decriminalized while other penalties are increasing.
Ex: Clarifying Rape, Controlling Technology, Protecting the Environment, Legalizing Drugs,
Responding to Terrorism, and many more.

Limitations on the Criminal Law

 Substantive due process: There are limits to what conduct the law may seek to prohibit. Forbids
passage of laws that infringe on the rights of individuals such as free speech and assembly.
 Over-breadth doctrine: Laws are unconstitutional when they fail to narrowly define the specific
behavior to be restricted.
 Void for vagueness: Laws are unconstitutional if they fail to clearly define the prohibited act and the
punishment in advance.
 Fair notice: letting people know what is and is not permitted.
 Must not restrict due process: laws must be enforced fairly and non-arbitrarily.
 Must not restrict equal protection: laws cannot restrict the rights of members of suspect
classifications.
 Cruel and unusual punishment: punishments must be proportional to the crime.
 Ex post facto laws: people cannot be penalized for behavior which was not illegal at the time they
acted; penalties cannot be increased after the crime has been committed.
 Bills of attainder: laws that impose punishment without trial.

Civil Law vs. Criminal Law

Definition Civil law deals with the disputes between Criminal law is the body of law that deals with crime
individuals, organizations, or between the and the legal punishment of criminal offenses.
two, in which compensation is awarded to
the victim.

Burden of proof “Preponderance of evidence” The burden of “Beyond a reasonable doubt”: Burden of proof is
proof falls on the plaintiff. One must produce always on the state/government.
evidence beyond the balance of probabilities.

Examples Landlord/tenant disputes, divorce Theft, assault, robbery, trafficking in controlled

 proceedings, child custody proceedings, substances, murder, etc.
property disputes, personal injury, etc.

Type of punishment Civil litigation usually involves some type of A guilty defendant is punished by incarceration
compensation for injuries or damages as well and/or fines, or in exceptional cases, the death
as disposition of property and other disputes. penalty. Crimes are divided into two broad classes:
Felonies and Misdemeanors.

Case filed by Private party Government/State

Appeal Either Party Only Defendant

Jury See state laws, doesn’t have to be unanimous Unanimous Decision

Cases: In civil law, a case commences when a complaint is filed by a party, which may be an individual,
an organization, a company or a corporation, against another party. The party complaining is called the
plaintiff and the party responding is called the defendant and the process is called litigation. In civil
litigation, the plaintiff is asking the court to order the defendant to remedy a wrong, often in the form of
monetary compensation to the plaintiff. In contrast, in criminal law, the case is filed by the government,
usually referred to as the State and represented by a prosecutor, against a defendant. An individual can
never file criminal charges against another person: an individual may report a crime, but only the
government can file criminal charges in court. Crimes are activities punishable by the government and
are divided into two broad classes of seriousness: felonies having a possible sentence of more than one-
year incarceration and misdemeanors having a possible sentence of one year or less incarceration.
Punishment: In case of criminal law a person found guilty is punished by incarceration in a prison, a fine,
or in some occasion's death penalty. Whereas, in case of civil law the losing party has to reimburse the
plaintiff, the amount of loss which is determined by the judge and is called punitive damage. A criminal
litigation is more serious than civil litigation in that criminal defendants have more rights and
protections than a civil defendant.
Burdens of proof: In case of criminal law, the burden of proof lies with the government in order to
prove that the defendant is guilty. On the other hand, in case of civil law the burden of proof first lies
with the plaintiff and then with the defendant to refute the evidence provided by the plaintiffs. In case
of civil litigation if the judge or jury believes that there are more than 50% of the evidence favoring the
plaintiffs, then plaintiffs win, which is very low as compared to 99% proof for criminal law. In case of
criminal law, defendant is not declared guilty unless there are approximately more than 99% proofs
against him.
How the system works: One can say that criminal law deals with looking after public interests. It
involves punishing and rehabilitating offenders, and protecting the society. The police and prosecutor
are hired by the government to put the criminal law into effect. Public funds are used to pay for these
services. If suppose you are the victim of the crime, you report it to the police and then it is their duty to
investigate the matter and find the suspect. In most cases, if a charge has been properly presented and
if there is evidence supporting it, the Government, not the person who complains of the incident,
prosecutes it in the courts. This is called a system of public prosecutions. On the other hand, civil law is
about private disputes between individuals or between an individual and an organization or between
organizations. Civil law deals with the harm, loss, or injury to one party or the other. A defendant in a
civil case is found liable or not liable for damages, while in a criminal case defendant may be found guilty
or not.
DEVIANCE
 recognized violation of cultural norms. Norms guide almost all human activities, so the concept of
deviance is quite broad.
 Most familiar examples of nonconformity are negative instances of rule breaking, such as stealing
from a campus bookstore, assaulting a fellow student, or driving a car while intoxicated. But we also
define especially righteous people—students who speak up too much in class or people who are
overly enthusiastic about new computer technology—as deviant, even if we give them a measure of
respect. What deviant actions or attitudes, whether negative or positive, have in common is some
element of difference that causes us to think of another person as an “outsider”.
 Not all deviance involves action or even choice. The very existence of some categories of people can
be troublesome to others. To the young, elderly people may seem hopelessly “out of it,” and to
some whites, the mere presence of people of color may cause discomfort. Able-bodied people often
view people with disabilities as an out- group, just as rich people may shun the poor for falling short
of their high-class standards.
 Crime and Deviance:
One category of deviance is crime, the violation of a society’s formally enacted criminal law. Even
criminal deviance spans a wide range, from minor traffic violations to prostitution, sexual assault,
and murder.
Many crimes are not unusual or deviant, and many deviant acts are neither illegal nor criminal.
Ex: Selling and/or possessing recreational drugs, such as marijuana, may be illegal, but can it actually
be considered deviant? A significant percentage of the population have used or are using drugs;
more than half of all high school students have tried drugs before they graduate. Therefore, it is
erroneous to argue that all crimes are deviant behaviors that depart from the norms of society.
Ex: A passerby witnesses someone floundering in the ocean and makes no rescue attempt. No legal
action could be taken since a private citizen is not required by law to risk his or her own life to save
another’s.
Criminologists are concerned with concept of deviance and its relationship to criminality, whereas
sociologists want to understand and/or identify the line that separates criminal from merely
unusual behaviors. Shifting definition of deviant behavior is closely associated with our concepts of
crime. How a society defines deviance, who is branded as deviant, and what people decide to do
about deviance all have to do with the way society is organized. Only gradually, however, have
people recognized that the roots of deviance are deep in society.
Emile Durkheim’s Basic Insights on Deviance
In his pioneering study of deviance, he made the surprising claim that there is nothing abnormal
about deviance. In fact, it performs four essential functions:
1. Deviance affirms cultural values and norms. As moral creatures, people must prefer some attitudes
and behaviors to others. But any definition of virtue rests on an opposing idea of vice: There can be
no good without evil & no justice without crime. Deviance is needed to define and support morality.
2. Responding to deviance clarifies moral boundaries. By defining some individuals as deviant, people
draw a boundary between right and wrong. Ex: A college marks the line between academic honesty
and cheating by disciplining students who cheat on exams.
3. Responding to deviance brings people together. People typically react to serious deviance with
shared outrage. In doing so, Durkheim explained, they reaffirm the moral ties that bind them. Ex:
“Black Lives Matter” may be the largest movement in U.S. history as people joined by a common
desire to control this type of apparently senseless violence.
4. Deviance encourages social change. Deviant people push a society’s moral boundaries, suggesting
alternatives to the status quo and encouraging change. Durkheim declared that today’s deviance
can become tomorrow’s morality. Ex: Rock-and-roll, condemned as immoral in the 1950s, became a
multibillion-dollar industry just a few years later.

SIN
 Offence against God, a transgression against the divine law and any thought, desire, word, an act or
omission against that law.
 All the acts against God’s moral law or rules i.e. religion are considered sins.
 Classified as sins against God, against oneself, and against one’s neighbor, depending on their
objects.
 Concept of sin is traditional, based on orthodoxy and rigidity.
 Final decision in sin is taken on the basis of religious books (changed arbitrarily in different ages).

VICE
 immoral or wicked behavior; offenses involving immorality; opposed to virtue.
 refers to a fault, a negative character trait, a defect, an infirmity, or a bad or unhealthy habit.
 Sin & Vice:
Vice is a result of habitual sin.
 Crime & Vice:
Often included in category of crimes, but many of them, sometimes aren’t regarded as crimes.
There is a lot of difference in their aims. Crimes cause harm to others while the vicious or the wicked
causes harm to person only. Ex: Vices like gambling, drinking prostitution or deriving pleasure out of
illicit sexual intercourse; cause harm to the individual only. As the harm to the individual indirectly
effects, the latter therefore prohibits the vices and generally gives punishment for them.
CRIME AND CRIMINALS
Defining Crime
Defining Criminality
Defining Criminal

OCCASIONAL CRIMINALS
 do not define themselves by a criminal role or view themselves as committed career criminals.
 Occasional offenders are not professional criminals, nor do they make crime their occupation.
 Many are school-age youths who are unlikely to enter into a criminal career and whose behavior has
been described as drifting between conventional and criminal. Moreover, adults whose main source
of income comes from conventional means and whose self-identity is not criminal may occasionally
violate the criminal law. Ex: shoplifters, pilferers, petty thieves. Added together, their behaviors
form the bulk of theft crimes.
 They do not organize their daily activities around crime nor are they committed to crime as a way of
life. Their acts are unskilled, and unplanned.
 Their decision to commit crime is spontaneous and based on situational inducements. These are
short-term influences on a person’s behavior that increase risk taking. They include psychological
factors, such as an immediate and unsolvable financial problem, and social factors, such as peer
pressure to commit a spontaneous criminal act—taking a car for a drunken joyride or breaking into a
store or home.
 While members of every layer of the economy may at some time experience a situational
inducement, the opportunity to solve economic crisis through criminal activity is structured by class.
While the poor are forced to engage in low-profit, high-risk crimes, members of the upper class have
the opportunity to engage in the more lucrative business- related crimes of price fixing, bribery, and
embezzlement.
 Frequency of occasional crime varies according to age, race, and gender.
 Unlike professionals, occasional criminals do not receive informal peer group support for their
crimes. In fact, they will deny any connection to a criminal lifestyle and instead view their
transgressions as being “out of character.” They may see their crimes as being motivated by
necessity. When apprehended, they say they were only “borrowing” the car the police caught them
with; they were going to pay for the merchandise they stole from the store, they just “forgot” to go
 through the checkout line. Because of their lack of commitment to a criminal lifestyle, occasional
offenders may be the most likely to respond to the general deterrent effect of the law.

PROFESSIONAL CRIMINALS
 define themselves by a criminal role or view themselves as committed career criminals. They are
skilled. They make a significant portion of their income from crime.
 Professionals do not delude themselves with the belief that their acts are impulsive, one-time
efforts, nor do they employ elaborate rationalizations to excuse the harmfulness of their action
(“shoplifting doesn’t really hurt anyone”). Consequently, professionals pursue their craft with vigor,
attempting to learn from older, experienced criminals the techniques that will earn them the most
money with the least risk. Though their numbers are relatively few, professionals engage in crimes
that produce the greater losses to society and perhaps cause the more significant social harm.
 Professional theft traditionally refers to nonviolent forms of criminal behavior that are undertaken
with a high degree of skill for monetary gain and that exploit interests tending to maximize financial
opportunities and minimize the possibilities of apprehension. The most typical forms include pocket-
picking, burglary, shoplifting, forgery and counterfeiting, extortion, sneak theft, and confidence
swindling.
 Relatively little is known about the career patterns of professional thieves and criminals. From the
literature on crime and delinquency, three patterns emerge:
1. Youth come under the influence of older, experienced criminals who teach them the trade.
2. Juvenile gang members continue their illegal activities at a time when most of their peers have
dropped out to marry, raise families, and take conventional jobs.
3. Youth sent to prison for minor offenses learn the techniques of crime from more experienced
thieves.
 In his classic works, Edwin Sutherland used the term “professional criminal” to refer only to thieves
who do not use force or physical violence in their crimes and who live solely by their wits and skill. It
is more common today for criminologists to use the term to refer to any criminal who identifies with
a criminal subculture, who makes the bulk of his or her living from crime, and who possesses a
degree of skill in his or her chosen trade. Thus, one can become a professional safecracker, burglar,
car thief, or fence. Some criminologists would not consider drug addicts who steal to support their
habit as professionals; they lack skill and therefore are amateur opportunists rather than
professional technicians. However, some professional criminals take drugs without losing their lofty
status in the criminal hierarchy.
 Best-known account of professional theft is the life of Chic Conwell, in Edwin Sutherland’s classic
book The Professional Thief. Conwell and Sutherland’s concept of professional theft has two critical
dimensions.
First, professional thieves engage in limited types of crime which include: pickpocket (cannon), thief
in rackets related to confidence games, forger, extortionist from those engaging in illegal acts
(shakedown artist), confidence game artist (con artist), thief who steals from hotel rooms (hotel
prowl), jewel thief who substitutes fake gems for real ones (pennyweighter), shoplifter (booster),
sneak thief from stores, banks, and offices (heel). [Sutherland’s Typology of Professional Theft]
Professionals depend solely on their wit and skill. Thieves who use force or commit crimes that
require little expertise are not considered worthy of the title “professional.” Their areas of activity
include “heavy rackets,” such as bank robbery, car theft, burglary, and safecracking. You can see that
Conwell and Sutherland’s criteria for professionalism are weighted heavily toward con games and
trickery and give little attention to common street crimes.
Second requirement of professional theft is the exclusive use of wits, “front” (a believable
demeanor), and talking ability. Manual dexterity and physical force are of little importance.
 Professional thieves must acquire status in their profession. Status is based on their technical skill,
financial standing, connections, power, dress, manners, and wide knowledge base. In their world,
“thief” is a title worn with pride. Conwell and Sutherland also argue that professional thieves share
common feelings, sentiments, and behaviors. Of these, none is more important than the code of
honor of the underworld; even under the threat of the most severe punishment, a professional thief
must never inform (squeal) on his or her fellows. Sutherland and Conwell view professional theft as
an occupation with much the same internal organization as that characterizing such legitimate
professions as advertising, teaching, or police work.
Types of Professional Thieves/Criminals
1. The Fence
Some experts have argued that Sutherland’s view of the professional thief may be outdated
because modern thieves often work alone, are not part of a criminal subculture, and were not
tutored early in their careers by other criminals. However, some important research efforts show
that the principles set down by Sutherland still have value for understanding the behavior of one
contemporary criminal type—the fence, who earns his or her living solely by buying and reselling
stolen merchandise. The fence’s critical role in criminal transactions has been recognized since the
18th century. They act as middlemen who purchase stolen merchandise—ranging from diamonds to
auto hubcaps—and resell them to merchants who market them to legitimate customers.
Sam Goodman, a fence interviewed by sociologist Darrell Steffensmeier. He purchased stolen
goods from a wide variety of thieves and suppliers, including burglars, drug addicts, shoplifters,
dockworkers, and truck drivers. According to Goodman, to be successful, a fence must meet the
following conditions:
 Up-front cash
 Knowledge of dealing—learning the ropes
 Connections with suppliers of stolen goods
 Connections with buyers
 Complicity with law enforcers
Fences handle a tremendous variety of products, including televisions, cigarettes, stereo equipment,
watches, autos, and cameras. In dealing their merchandise, they operate through many legitimate
fronts, including art dealers, antique stores, furniture and appliance retailers, remodeling
companies, salvage companies, trucking companies, and jewelry stores. When deciding what to pay
the thief for goods, the fence uses a complex pricing policy: professional thieves who steal high-
priced items are usually given the highest amounts—about 30 to 50 % of the wholesale price.
Fencing seems to contain many of the elements of professional theft as described by Sutherland:
fences live by their wits, never engage in violence, depend on their skill in negotiating, maintain
community standing based on connections and power, and share the sentiments and behaviors of
their fellows. The only divergence between Sutherland’s thief and the fence is the code of honor; it
seems likely that the fence is much more willing to cooperate with authorities than most other
professional criminals.

The Occasional Fence A significant portion of all fencing is performed by amateur or occasional
criminals. Novice burglars, such as juveniles and drug addicts, often find it so difficult to establish
relationships with professional fences that they turn instead to nonprofessionals to unload the
stolen goods.
Types of Occasional Fence:
 Part-timer has other sources of income. They are often “legitimate” businesspeople who
integrate the stolen merchandise into their regular stock.
  Associational Fences are amateur fences who barter stolen goods for services. These amateurs
typically have legitimate professional dealings with known criminals such as bail bond agents,
police officers, and attorneys. A lawyer may demand an expensive watch from a client in
exchange for legal services. Bartering for stolen merchandise avoids taxes and becomes a
transaction in the underground economy.
 Neighborhood hustlers buy and sell stolen property as one of the many ways they make a living.
They keep some of the booty for themselves and sell the rest in the neighborhood. These
dealmakers are familiar figures to neighborhood burglars looking to get some quick cash by
selling them stolen merchandise.
 Amateur receivers can be complete strangers approached in a public place by someone offering
a great deal on valuable commodities. Some amateur receivers make a habit of buying suspect
merchandise at reasonable prices from a “trusted friend,” establishing an ongoing relationship.
This practice encourages crime because the criminals know that there will always be someone
to buy their merchandise. In addition to the professional fence, the nonprofessional fence may
account for a great deal of criminal receiving. Both professional and amateur thieves have a
niche in the crime universe.
2. Cargo Thieves
Some professionals work in highly organized groups, targeting specific items and employing
“specialists” who bring a different set of criminal skills to the table. Ex: Professional cargo thieves,
whose bases of operations are truck yards, hubs for commercial freight carriers, airports, and port
cities. These thieves prey upon the huge fleet of cargo ships, planes, and trucks that bring in a daily
array of valuable cargoes. While other thieves target cash and jewels, these professionals make off
with frozen shrimp, clothing, and electronic goods. Their criminal activities cost the public billions of
dollars a year. Cargo thieves use sophisticated operations with well-organized hierarchies of
leadership. They employ specialists who carry out a variety of tasks, including thieves and brokers or
fences who help unload the stolen goods on the black market. “Lumpers” physically move the
goods, and work with drivers in transporting the stolen merchandise from the docks. Gangs usually
employ a specialist who is an expert at foiling the anti-theft locks on truck trailers. Cargo thieves
heist whole truck loads of merchandise.

HABITUAL CRIMINALS
 One convicted of a crime who has a certain number of prior convictions for offenses of a specified
kind (as felonies) and is thereby under some statutes subject to an increased penalty (as life
imprisonment).
 someone who having some personality characteristics having committed a criminal act at least twice
without emphasizing on recidivism of previous crime. Recidivism is equally a characteristic of the
habitual criminal.
 Normal person who has gone astray in society through the influence of his environment. Most
ordinary example of the habitual criminal is the type of criminal produced in the slums of our large
cities, where children grow up under exceptional temptations and where they early enter upon a
career of crime. They may, of course, in time acquire certain abnormal characteristics, but in general
he shows clearly enough that he was in the beginning a normal person whose natural impulses to
crime were not repressed by proper training and through social influences.
 Havelock Ellis, in his work on "The Criminal”, argues that habitual criminal, in the early part of his
career, shows more frequent returns to normality than the instinctive criminal. Thus, the criminal
tendencies aren’t born in them, but taken from their environment.
 Habitual Offender Statute:
Usually target offenders who repeat the same type of misdemeanor or felony offense.
 Consequences of Habitual Offenses?
Higher criminal fines, Longer jail or prison sentences (often times much longer than the normal
maximum limit for the crime), Loss of various rights and privileges, such as the right to own a
firearm or the loss of driving licenses, Negative impacts on the defendant’s child custody privileges.

Types of Habitual Criminals

1. Weak Habitual Criminal: person who drifts into crime, is too weak to resist temptation, and is
unable to break criminal habits. A victim of his environment and who takes up crime because of the
example of crime all around him. He is a normal imitative person. He may perceive clearly the
wrongness of his act, but he has not sufficient strength of character to break loose from his criminal
habits.
2. Strong Habitual Criminal: person who chooses a career of crime and remains in it from choice,
taking the risks of his trade. This is, of course, the type which we know as the professional criminal.
They are, undoubtedly, the most dangerous portion of our whole criminal class.

 The number of habitual criminal class is, of course, very large. This class of criminals
is in a particular sense due to our faulty social conditions, it is this class which reform in our criminal
law and in or prison system should especially aim at.
 All persons who show by their history that they have been habitual offenders should be sent to
institutions upon indeterminate sentence until they give satisfactory evidence of their reformation.
 Children and young habitual offenders of good antecedents may, of course, often be reformed
without the aid of an institution; that is, by the probation system. Abundant experiments of
psychologists and others show that habits, and therefore character, may be easily radically modified
under thirty.
 Habitual offenders who are past thirty years of age, however, must be dealt with-not so much with
the expectation of their reformation as with the idea of segregating them from society. Usually, they
have been guilty of several felonies, and "habitual criminal act," providing for life sentences for all
who have committed their third felony or more, is a necessary means for dealing effectively with the
habitual criminal class.

ORGANIZED CRIME
 Organized crime is a category of transnational, national, or local groupings of highly centralized
enterprises run by criminals, who intend to engage in illegal activity, most commonly for money and
profit.
 Some criminal organizations, such as terrorist groups, are politically motivated.
 Organized crime threatens peace and human security, violates human rights and undermines
economic, social, cultural, political and civil development of societies around the world.
Transnational organized crime manifests in many forms, including as trafficking in drugs, firearms and
even persons. At the same time, organized crime groups exploit human mobility to smuggle migrants
and undermine financial systems through money laundering.
The vast sums of money involved can compromise legitimate economies and directly impact public
processes by 'buying' elections through corruption. It yields high profits for its culprits and results in high
risks for individuals who fall victim to it.
Every year, countless individuals lose their lives at the hand of criminals involved in organized crime,
succumbing to drug-related health problems or injuries inflicted by firearms, or losing their lives as a
result of the unscrupulous methods and motives of human traffickers and smugglers of migrants.
Organized crime has diversified, gone global and reached macro-economic proportions: illicit goods may
be sourced from one continent, trafficked across another, and marketed in a third.
Transnational organized crime can permeate government agencies and institutions, fuelling corruption,
infiltrating business and politics, and hindering economic and social development. And it is undermining
governance and democracy by empowering those who operate outside the law.
The transnational nature of organized crime means that criminal networks forge bonds across borders
as well as overcome cultural and linguistic differences in the commission of their crime.
Organized crime is not stagnant, but adapts as new crimes emerge and as relationships between
criminal networks become both more flexible, and more sophisticated, with ever-greater reach around
the globe.
In short, transnational organized crime transcends cultural, social, linguistic and geographical borders
and must be met with a concerted response.

Origins of Organized Crime

Organized crime itself is not a recent phenomenon. In the 1600s, London was terrorized by organized
gangs that called themselves Hectors, Bugles, Dead Boys, and other colorful names.

In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, Eng- lish gang members wore distinctive belts and pins
marked with serpents, animals, stars, and the like.93 The rst men- tion of youth gangs in America
occurred in the late 1780s, when prison reformers noted the presence of gangs of young people hanging
out on Philadelphia’s street corners. By the 1820s, New York’s Bowery and Five Points districts, Boston’s

Characteristics of Transnational Organized Crime

A precise description of the characteristics of transnational organized crime is difficult to formulate, but
here are some of its general traits:
 TOS is a conspiratorial activity, involving the coordination of numerous people in the planning and
execution of illegal acts or in the pursuit of a legitimate objective by unlawful means (e.g.,
threatening a legitimate business to get a stake in it).
 An offense is transnational if:
 It is committed in more than one state.
 It is committed in one state, but a substantial part of its preparation, planning, direction, or
control takes place in another state.
 It is committed in one state, but involves an organized criminal group that engages in criminal
activities in more than one state.
 It is committed in one state, but has substantial effects in another state.
 TOC involves continuous commitment by primary members, although individuals with specialized
skills may be brought in as needed. Organized crime is usually structured along hierarchical lines—a
chieftain supported by close advisers, lower subordinates, and so on.
 TOC has economic gain as its primary goal, although power and status may also be motivating
factors. Economic gain is achieved through global supply of illegal goods and services, including
drugs, sex slaves, arms, and pornography.
 In addition to providing illegal material such as narcotics, contemporary global syndicates engage in
busing- type crimes such as laundering illegal money through legitimate businesses, land fraud, and
computer crime.
 Transnational criminal syndicates employ predatory tactics, such as intimidation, violence, and
corruption.
 TOC groups are quick and effective in controlling and disciplining their members, associates, and
victims and will not hesitate to use lethal violence against those who out organizational rules.
 Transnational crime depends heavily on the instruments of the IT age: the Internet, global
communications, rapid global transportation systems, the universal banking system, and global
credit card and payment systems.
 TOC groups do not include terror organizations, though there may be overlap. Some terror groups
are involved in criminality to fund their political objectives, and some have morphed
from politically motivated organizations to ones solely involved in for-pro t criminal activity.
Transnational criminal organizations may aid terror groups with transportation and communication.

Activities of Transnational Organized Crime

The traditional sources of income are derived from providing illicit materials and using force to enter
into and maximize profits in legitimate businesses. Most organized crime income comes from such
activities as human trafficking, narcotics distribution, illegal gambling, theft rings, Internet pornography,
and cargo theft. The international trade in human trafficking and prostitution is the subject of the Race,
Culture, Gender, and Criminology feature “International Trafficking in Persons.
Contemporary organized crime cartels have also branched out into securities fraud. They target “small
cap” or “micro cap” stocks, over-the-counter stocks, and other types of thinly traded stocks that can be
easily manipulated and sold to elderly or inexperienced investors. The conspirators use offshore bank
accounts to conceal their participation in the fraud scheme and to launder the illegal proceeds in order
to avoid paying income tax.
Contemporary Transnational Crime Groups
Emerging transnational crime syndicates are primarily located in nations whose governments are too
weak to present effective opposition. If they believe that the govt. is poised to interfere with their illegal
activities, they will carry out a terror campaign, killing police and other government officials to achieve
their goals. Easier international travel, expanded world trade, and financial transactions that cross
national borders have enabled them to branch out of local and regional crime to target international
victims and develop criminal networks within more prosperous countries and regions.
Ex: Africa, a continent that has experienced political turmoil, has also seen the rise of transnational
gangs. African criminal enterprises in Nigeria, Ghana, and Liberia have developed quickly since the 1980s
due to the globalization of the world’s economies and the great advances in communication technology.
Nigerian criminal enterprises, primarily engaged in drug trafficking and financial frauds, are the most
significant of these groups and operate in more than 80 countries. They are infamous for their e-mail-
based financial frauds.

WHITE-COLLAR CRIME
In 1907, sociologist Edward Alsworth Ross recognized the phenomenon when he coined the phrase
“the criminaloid” to describe the kind of person who hides behind his image as a pillar of the
community and paragon of virtue to get personal gain through any means necessary.
In late 1930s, criminologist Edwin Sutherland first used the phrase “white-collar crime” to describe the
criminal activities of rich and powerful. He defined it as “a crime committed by a person of
respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation.” As he saw it, white-collar crime
involved conspiracies by members of wealthy classes to use their position in commerce and industry for
personal gain without regard to the law. Often these actions were handled by civil courts because
injured parties were more concerned with recovering their losses than with seeing the offenders
punished criminally. Consequently, he believed that the great majority of white-collar criminals did not
become the subject of criminological study. Yet the cost of white-collar crime is probably several times
greater than all the crimes customarily regarded as the crime problem. And, in contrast to street crimes,
white-collar offenses breed distrust in economic and social institutions, lower public morale, and
undermine faith in business and government.
Donald cressy
Defining White-Collar Crime
Although Sutherland’s work is considered a milestone in criminological history, his focus was on
corporate criminality, including the crimes of the rich and powerful. Contemporary definitions of white-
collar crime are typically much broader and include both middle-income people and corporate titans
who use marketplace for their criminal activity. Included within recent views of white-collar crime are
such acts as income tax evasion, credit card fraud, and bankruptcy fraud. Other white-collar criminals
use their positions of trust in business or government to commit crimes. Their activities might include
pilfering, soliciting bribes or kickbacks, and embezzlement. Some white-collar criminals set up business
for the sole purpose of victimizing the general public. They engage in land swindles (i.e., rep- resenting a
swamp as a choice building site), securities theft, medical fraud, and so on.
In addition to acting as individuals, some white-collar criminals become involved in criminal conspiracies
designed to improve the market share or profitability of their corporations. This type of white-collar
crime, which includes anti- trust violations, price-fixing, and false advertising, is known as corporate
crime.

Components of White-Collar Crime

White-collar crime today represents a range of behaviors involving individuals acting alone and within
the context of a business structure. Victims of white-collar crime can be general public, organization that
employs offender, or a competing organization. There have been numerous attempts to create
subcategories or typologies of white-collar criminality.
The one used here contains some elements, ranging from an individual using a business enterprise to
commit theft-related crimes to an individual using his or her place within a business enterprise for illegal
gain, to business enterprises collectively engaging in illegitimate activity.
 White-Collar Swindles: involves the criminal activity of people who use a business proposition to
fraudulently trick others out of their money. White-collar swindles involve a person using his or her
ongoing institutional or business position to commit fraud and fleece a victim. Ex: Sports
memorabilia industry: people setting up an on- going business, advertise, and then mix forgeries
with real autographs.
 Investment Swindles: There have been numerous attempts to fraudulently siphon off clients’
money, some so great that they have threatened to collapse the world’s financial markets. Some
of the wall street swindles include Madoff’s Ponzi scheme, the pyramid scheme, foreign
exchange fraud, broker embezzlement and many more.
 Mortgage Swindling: According to FBI, it is any sort of "material misstatement, misrepresentation,
or omission relating to the property or potential mortgage relied on by an underwriter or lender to
fund, purchase, or insure a loan." With this working definition, we see that mortgage fraud can be
committed by both individual borrowers and industry professionals. And the sums involved are
high.
 White-Collar Chiseling: involves regularly cheating people or organizations by deception or deceit.
Chiseling schemes deprive a buyer or customer of fair treatment by bending the rules of reasonable
 and familiar business practices. Because the schemes are so subtle, the victims may not even realize
they have been cheated.
 Professional Chiseling: It is not uncommon for professionals to use their positions to chisel
clients. Pharmacists have been known to alter prescriptions or substitute low-cost generic drugs
for more expensive name brands.
 White-Collar Exploitation: occurs when individual abuses his power or position in an organization to
coerce people into making payments to him for services to which they are already entitled. If the
payments are not made, the services are withheld. In most cases, exploitation occurs when the
victim has a clear right to expect a service, and the offender threatens to withhold the service unless
an additional payment or bribe is forthcoming. A fire inspector who demands that the owner of a
restaurant pay for an operating license is engaging in exploitation.
On the local and state levels, scandals commonly emerge in which liquor license board members,
food inspectors, and fire inspectors are named as exploiters. Exploitation can also occur in private
industry.
 White-Collar Influence Peddling: Sometimes individuals holding important institutional positions
sell power, influence, and information to outsiders who have an interest in influencing the activities
of the institution or buying information on what the institution may do in the future. Offenses within
this category include government employees taking kickbacks from contractors in return for
awarding them contracts they could not have won on merit, or outsiders bribing government
officials who might sell information about future government activities. A police officer who sells
information on future raids or takes a bribe in lieu of handing out a citation or making an arrest is
engaging in influence peddling.
 Influence Peddling in Government
 Influence Peddling in Business
 White-Collar Pilferage, Embezzlement, and Management Fraud: involves individuals’ use of their
positions to steal from the company, embezzle company funds, or appropriate company property
for themselves. Here the company or organization that employs the criminal, rather than an
outsider, is the victim of white-collar crime.
 Pilferage: action of stealing things of little value. Systematic theft of company property by
employees, or pilferage, is common. Employee theft is most accurately explained by factors
relevant to the work setting, such as job dissatisfaction and the workers’ belief that they are
being exploited by employers or supervisors; economic problems play a relatively small role in
the decision to pilfer.
 Management Fraud: Such acts include converting company assets for personal benefit;
fraudulently receiving increases in compensation (raises or bonuses); fraudulently increasing
personal holdings of company stock; retaining one’s present position within the company by
manipulating accounts; and concealing unacceptable performance from stockholders.
 White-Collar Client Fraud: is theft by a client from organization that advances credit to its clients or
reimburses them for services rendered. These offenses are linked because they involve cheating an
organization (government agency, bank, or insurance company) with many individual clients that
the organization supports financially (insurance policy owners, or loan applicants), reimburses for
services provided (insurance company who pays health care providers), covers losses of (claims by
insurance policyholders), or extends credit to (as the govt. does to a taxpayer). Included in this
category are insurance fraud, bank fraud, credit card fraud, fraud related to welfare and Medicare
programs, and tax evasion.
 Health Care Fraud: providing anything of value, money or otherwise, directly or indirectly, with
the intent to induce a referral of a patient or a health care service. Fraudulent billings and
 medically unnecessary services billed to health care insurers are prevalent throughout the
world.
 Bank Fraud: Encompassing such diverse schemes as check kiting, check forgery, false statements
on loan applications, sale of stolen checks, bank credit card fraud, unauthorized use of
automatic teller machines (ATMs), auto title fraud, and illegal transactions with offshore banks,
bank fraud can cost billions per year.
 Tax Evasion: Here the victim is the govt. that is cheated by one of its clients, the errant taxpayer
to whom it extended credit by allowing the taxpayer to delay paying taxes on money he or she
had already earned. Tax fraud is a particularly challenging area for criminological study because
so many citizens regularly underreport their income, and it is often difficult to separate honest
error from deliberate tax evasion.
 Corporate Crime: Yet another component of white-collar crime involves situations in which
powerful institutions or their representatives willfully violate the laws that restrain these institutions
from doing social harm or require them to do social good. This is also known as corporate or
organizational crime.
Interest in corporate crime first emerged in early 1900s, when a group of writers, known as
muckrakers, targeted the monopolistic business practices of John D. Rockefeller, and other
corporate business leaders. In a 1907 article, sociologist E. A. Ross described the “criminaloid”: a
business leader who while enjoying immunity from the law victimized an unsuspecting public.
Edwin Sutherland focused theoretical attention on corporate crime when he began his research on
the subject in the 1940s; corporate crime was probably what he had in mind when he coined the
phrase “white-collar crime.”
Corporate crimes are socially injurious acts committed by people who control companies to further
their business interests. Target of their crimes can be general public, environment, or even company
workers. What makes these crimes unique is that the perpetrator is a legal fiction—a corporation—
and not an individual. In reality, it is company employees or owners who commit corporate crimes
and who ultimately benefit through career advancement or greater profits. For a corporation to be
held criminally liable, the employee committing the crime must be acting within the scope of his
employment and must have actual or apparent authority to engage in the particular act in question.
Actual authority occurs when a corporation knowingly gives authority to an employee; apparent
authority is satisfied if a third party, such as a customer, reasonably believes the agent has the
authority to perform the act in question. Courts have ruled that actual authority may occur even
when the illegal behavior is not condoned by the corporation but is nonetheless within the scope of
the employee’s authority.
Some of the acts included within corporate crime are price fixing and illegal restraint of trade, false
advertising, and the use of company practices that violate environmental protection statutes. The
variety of crimes contained within this category is great, and they cause vast damage. Following are
some of the most important offenses:
 Illegal Restraint of Trade and Price Fixing: A restraint of trade involves a contract or conspiracy
designed to stifle competition, create a monopoly, artificially maintain prices, or otherwise
interfere with free market competition. The control of restraint of trade violations has its legal
basis in the Sherman Antitrust Act, which subjects to criminal or civil sanctions any person “who
shall make any contract or engage in any combination or conspiracy” in restraint of interstate
commerce. For violations of its provisions, this federal law created criminal penalties of up to
three years imprisonment and $100,000 in fines for individuals and $10 million in fines for
corporations. The act outlaws conspiracies between corporations designed to control the
marketplace.
 In most instances, the act lets the presiding court judge whether corporations have conspired to
“unreasonably restrain competition.” However, four types of market conditions are considered so
inherently anticompetitive that federal courts, through the Sherman Antitrust Act, have defined
them as illegal per se, without regard to the facts or circumstances of the case:
 Division of markets. Firms divide a region into territories, and each firm agrees not to compete
in the others’ territories.
 Tying arrangement. A corporation requires customers of one of its services to use other services
it offers. For ex- ample, it would be an illegal restraint of trade if a rail- road required that
companies doing business with it or supplying it with materials ship all goods they produce on
trains owned by the rail line.76
 Group boycott. An organization or company boycotts re- tail stores that do not comply with its
rules or desires.
 Price fixing. A conspiracy to set and control the price of a necessary commodity is considered an
absolute violation of the act.
 Deceptive Pricing: occurs when contractors provide the govt. or other corporations with
incomplete or misleading information on how much it will actually cost to fulfill the contracts on
which they are bidding or use mischarges once the contracts are signed. Ex: When the
Lockheed Corporation withheld information that its labor costs would be lower than expected
on the C-5 cargo plane. Resulting overcharges were an estimated $150 million. Although the
govt. was able to negotiate a cheaper price for future C-5 orders, it did not demand repayment
on the earlier contract.
 False Claims Advertising: Executives in even the largest corporations sometimes face
stockholders’ expectations of ever-increasing company profits that seem to demand that sales
be increased at any cost. At times executives respond to this challenge by making claims about
their products that cannot be justified by actual performance. However, the line between clever,
aggressive sales techniques and fraudulent claims is fine. It is traditional to show a product in its
best light, even if that involves resorting to fantasy. It is not fraudulent to show a delivery
service vehicle taking off into outer space or to imply that taking one sip of beer will make
people feel they have just jumped into a freezer. However, it is illegal to knowingly and
purposely advertise a product as possessing qualities that the manufacturer realizes it does not
have, such as the ability to cure the common cold, grow hair, or turn senior citizens into rock
stars.
In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court, in the case of Illinois Ex Rel. Madigan v. Telemarketing Associates,
helped define the line separating illegal claims from those that are artistic hyperbole protected by
free speech.
 Worker Safety Violations: Some corporations have endangered the lives of their own workers
by maintaining unsafe conditions in their plants and mines. Many workers are exposed to
hazardous materials while on the job. Each year thousands of workers are injured and killed on
the job. Some industries have been hit particularly hard by complaints and allegations.

Controlling White-Collar Crime

According to legal expert Stuart Green, the main reason is that perception of white-collar crime is
clouded by moral ambiguity. White-collar crimes are typically committed by society’s success stories, by
the rich and the powerful, and frequently have no visible victim at their root. Both the public and the
justice system have had trouble distinguishing criminal fraud from mere lawful exaggeration, tax evasion
from “tax avoidance,” insider trading from “savvy investing,” obstruction of justice from “zealous
advocacy,” bribery from “horse trading,” and extortion from “hard bargaining.” Hence, white-collar
criminals are treated more leniently than lower-class offenders.
White-collar criminal enforcement typically involves two strategies designed to control organizational
deviance:
1. Compliance: Compliance strategies aim for law conformity without the necessity of detecting,
processing, or penalizing individual violators. At a minimum, they ask for cooperation and self-
policing among the business community. Compliance systems attempt to create conformity by
giving companies economic incentives to obey the law. They rely on administrative efforts to
prevent unwanted conditions before they occur. Compliance systems depend on the threat of
economic sanctions or civil penalties to control corporate violators.
One method of compliance is to set up administrative agencies to oversee business activity. The
Securities and Exchange Commission regulates Wall Street activities, the Food and Drug
Administration regulates drugs, cosmetics, medical devices, meats, and other foods, and the
Environmental Protection Agency regulates pollution, dumping, and so on. The legislation creating
these agencies usually spells out the penalties for violating regulatory standards. This approach has
been used to control environmental crimes by levying heavy fines based on the quantity and quality
of pollution released into the environment. It is easier and less costly to be in compliance, the
theory goes, than to pay costly fines and risk criminal prosecution for repeat violations. Moreover,
the federal government bars people and businesses from receiving government contracts if they
have engaged in repeated business law violations.
When compliance fails, and businesspeople violate the law, the institution rather than its individual
employees are punished. Ex: In 2006 employees of the Longley Jones real estate management
company illegally removed and disposed of asbestos in 98 buildings they owned or managed.
Longley Jones was charged with one count of conspiracy and seven counts of violating the Clean Air
Act. The sentence: the company paid a $3,200 special assessment and a $4 million ne, $3 million of
which was suspended if it cleaned up the asbestos at various Longley Jones facilities. Compliance
rather than punishment is the goal of the court order.
Another compliance approach is to force corporate boards to police themselves and take more
oversight responsibility. In the wake of the Enron and WorldCom debacles, the federal government
enacted the Sarbanes-Oxley (SOX) legislation in 2002 to combat fraud and abuse in publicly traded
companies. This law limits the non-audit services auditing firms can perform for publicly traded
companies in order to make sure accounting firms do not fraudulently collude with corporate
officers; as well, it places greater responsibilities on boards to preserve an organization’s integrity
and reputation, primarily for U.S. publicly traded companies. It also penalizes any attempts to alter
or falsify company records in order to delude shareholders.
In sum, compliance strategies attempt to create a marketplace incentive to obey the law.
Compliance strategies avoid punishing, stigmatizing, and shaming businesspeople by focusing on the
act, rather than the actor, in white-collar crime.
2. Deterrence: Some criminologists say that the punishment of white-collar crimes should include a
retributive component similar to that used in common-law crimes. White-collar crimes, after all, are
immoral activities that have harmed social values and deserve commensurate punishment. Even the
largest fines and penalties are no more than a slap on the wrist to multibillion-dollar companies.
Corporations can get around economic sanctions by moving their rule-violating activities overseas,
where legal controls over injurious corporate activities are lax or nonexistent. They argue that the
only way to limit white-collar crime is to deter potential offenders through fear of punishment.
Deterrence strategies involve detecting criminal violations, determining who is responsible, and
penalizing the offenders to deter future violations. Deterrence systems are oriented toward
apprehending violators and punishing them rather than creating conditions that induce conformity
to the law.
Deterrence strategies should work—and they have— because white-collar crime by its nature is a
rational act whose perpetrators are extremely sensitive to the threat of criminal sanctions.
Perceptions of detection and punishment for white- collar crimes appear to be powerful deterrents
to future law violations. Although deterrence strategies may prove effective, federal agencies have
traditionally been reluctant to throw corporate executives in jail. The government seeks criminal
indictments in corporate violations only in “instances of outrageous conduct of undoubted
illegality,” such as price fixing. The government has also been lenient with companies and individuals
that cooperate voluntarily after an investigation has begun; leniency is not given as part of a
confession or plea arrangement. Those who comply with the leniency policy are charged criminally
for the activity reported.
OTHER CRIME TYPOLOGIES
 ENTERPRISE CRIME
Because of their connection to business and commerce and because they conspire to make illegal
profits, they are referred to here as business enterprise crimes.
a. White-Collar Crime
b. Green-Collar Crime (or Green Crime)
There is no single vision to define the concept of green crimes. Three independent views exist:
i. Legalist. According to the legalist perspective, environmental crimes are violations of existing
criminal laws designed to protect people, the environment or both. This definition would
include crimes against workers such as occupational health and safety crimes, as well as laws
designed to protect nature and the environment (the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and so on).
ii. Environmental justice. According to this view, limiting environmental crimes to actual violations
of the criminal law is too narrow. A great deal of environmental damage occurs in third-world
nations desperate for funds and willing to give mining and oil companies a free hand to develop
resources. These nations have meager regulatory laws and therefore allow businesses wide
latitude in environmental contamination that would be forbidden in the United States. In
addition, environmental justice advocates believe that corporations themselves have attempted
to co-opt or manipulate environmental laws, thereby limiting their scope and reach. Executives
fear that the environmental movement will force changes in their production practices and
place limits on their growth and corporate power. Some have tried to co-opt green laws by
public relations and advertising campaigns that suggest they are doing everything in their power
to respect the environment, thereby reducing the need for government regulation.
Criminologists must take a broader view of green crimes than the law allows.
iii. Bio-centric. According to this approach, environmental harm is viewed as any human activity
that disrupts a bio-system, destroying plant and animal life. This more radical approach would
criminalize any intentional or negligent human activity or manipulation that impacts negatively
on the earth’s natural resources, resulting in trauma to those resources.
According to this view, environmental harm is much greater than what is defined by law as
environmental crimes. As criminologist Rob White points out, this is because some of the most
ecologically destructive activities, such as clear felling of old-growth forests, are quite legal.
Environmental crimes are typically oriented toward protecting humans and their property and
have a limited interest in the interests of animals and plants. Environmental laws protect animal
and fish processing plants that treat “nature” and “wild- life” simply and mainly as resources for
human exploitation. Human beings are the cause of environmental harm and need to be
controlled.
Forms of Green Crime
 Illegal Logging: involves harvesting, processing, and transporting timber or wood products in
violation of existing laws and treaties.
 Illegal Wildlife Exports
  Unlicensed and Illegal Fishing
 Illegal Dumping of Dangerous Substances
 Illegal Polluting
Causes of Enterprise Crime
 Rational Choice: Greed
 Lure is something that is alluring—something that is so attractive and covetable that it can turn
the heads of those who are tempted or predisposed. The lure of enterprise crime has diverse
sources. When a would-be green-collar criminal sees the wide expanses of uninhabited
countryside, they become tempted to dispose of trash quickly and cheaply. When states create
loopholes in the law that pro- vide opportunities that can be manipulated easily for criminal
purposes—such as tax incentives, subsidies, low-interest loans, and other forms of access to
public funds—these benefits may prove too much of a lure for businessmen to resist. As the
supply of lure has expanded, so too has the number of privileged citizens and large corporations
willing to risk legal censure to acquire its benefits. The lure of crime expands in the absence of
capable control systems.
 Rational Choice: Need: Some people turn to crime to fulfill an overwhelming financial or
psychological need.
A well-known study of embezzlers by Donald Cressey illustrates the important role need plays in
white-collar crime. According to him, embezzlement is caused by what he calls a “non-shareable
financial problem.” This condition may be the result of offenders’ living beyond their means,
perhaps piling up gambling debts; offenders feel they can- not let anyone know about such financial
problems without ruining their reputations.
 Rationalization/Neutralization View: Rationalizing guilt is a common trait of white-collar criminals.
Donald Cressey in his research on fraud found that the door to solving personal financial problems
through criminal means is opened by the rationalizations people develop for white-collar crime:
“Some of our most respectable citizens got their start in life by using other people’s money
temporarily”; “in the real estate business, there is nothing wrong about using deposits before the
deal is closed”; “all people steal when they get in a tight spot.” Offenders use these and other
rationalizations to resolve the conflict they experience over engaging in illegal behaviors.
Techniques of neutralization used to defuse guilt include: (a) everyone else does it, (b) it’s not my
fault or responsibility, and (c) no one is hurt except insurance companies and they are wealthy.
 Denying the Victim: It is especially easy for corporate offenders to neutralize wrongdoing when
the target is a fellow business person or business organization. Because the victim is
knowledgeable and sophisticated, he or she should have known better; caveat emptor, as they
say: let the buyer beware
 Cultural View: Business culture may also influence white-collar crime. According to this view, some
business organizations promote white-collar criminality in the same way that lower-class culture
encourages the development of juvenile gangs and street crime. According to the corporate culture
view, some business enterprises cause crime by placing excessive demands on employees while at
the same time maintaining a business climate tolerant of employee deviance. New employees learn
the attitudes and techniques needed to commit white-collar crime from their business peers. Under
these circumstances, the attitudes of closest coworkers and the perceived attitudes of executives
have a more powerful control over decision making than the attitudes of outsiders—closest friends
and business professors—whose more moderate views might have tempered the decision to
commit crime
The view that white-collar crime is a learning process is reminiscent of Edwin Sutherland’s
description of how gang boys learn the techniques of drug dealing and burglary from older youths
through differential association.
 Self-Control View: In their General Theory of Crime, Travis Hirschi and Michael Gottfredson suggest
that the motives that produce white-collar crimes—quick benefits with minimal effort— are the
same as those that produce any other criminal behaviors. White-collar criminals have low self-
control and are inclined to follow momentary impulses with- out considering the long-term costs of
such behavior. White-collar crime is relatively rare because, as a matter of course, business
executives tend to hire people with self- control, thereby limiting the number of potential white-
collar criminals. Hirschi and Gottfredson have collected data showing that the demographic
distribution of white-collar crime is similar to other crimes. Ex: Gender, race, and age ratios are the
same for crimes such as embezzlement and fraud as they are for street crimes such as burglary and
robbery.
 INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE:
Intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a person or group that
results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, mal-development,
or deprivation. IPV can be committed by a person who is or has been in a romantic relationship,
spouse or partner, family member, cohabitant, or household member including a roommate.

 Forcible Rape: Rape (Latin rapere, to take by force) is defined in common law as “the carnal
knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.”
 Murder is defined in common law as “the unlawful killing of a human being with malice
aforethought


IMPORTANT TERMINOLOGIES
 Crime rate refers to the level of crime in a location such as a city, county, or state.
Understanding Criminology

 Explain the nature and importance of Criminology in detail. (2016)

 Write a critical note on the increasing importance of Criminology in Pakistan. Also discuss the
historical development of criminology as a scientific discipline. (2017)
 Define Criminology. Discuss the scope of criminology in Pakistan. (2018)
 What is your position on the nature vs nurture debate in criminology? (2020)

Crime and Criminals

 Define the term Crime and Criminals. Explain the types of Criminals in detail. (2016)

Crime and Criminality: Theoretical Perspectives

 Enlist the criminological perspectives. Briefly describe the three criminological perspectives on the
study of crime and criminal behavior. (2017)
 Travis Hirschi argued that crime results when an individual’s bond to society is weak or broken .
Discuss in detail what this theory of social bonding explains about crime. (2019)
 Discuss the fundamental postulates of Edwin Sutherland’s ‘Differential Association theory’ with
examples. (2019)
 Define and explain the following concepts: (2020)
(a) Left realism and right realism
(b) Phrenology and Physiognomy
(c) Corporal punishment and capital punishment
(d) Sociology of Law, Criminal Etiology and Penology
 What is the Islamic perspective on crime and punishment? Explain your answer with the help of
proper examples. (2018)
 TOPIC # 4: CRIME AND CRIMINALITY: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

RATIONAL CHOICE THEORY

Some criminologists believe all criminal behavior is actually a matter of thought and decision making.
As a group, they are referred to as rational choice theorists.

The Development of Rational Choice

During early Middle Ages (1200–1400), superstition & fear of satanic possession dominated thinking.
Violators of social norms/religious practices – witches/possessed by demons & not rational decision
makers. St. Thomas Aquinas argued: there was a God-given “natural law” based on people’s natural
tendency to do good. Evil people manifest original sin & fall from grace, similar to experience of Adam
& Eve when they were expelled from Garden of Eden.
Prescribed method for dealing with possessed: burning at stake, practice that survived into 17th
century. Beginning in mid 13th century, jurisdiction of central governments reached broader range of
social behaviors. Human problems & conflicts dealt with in a formalized & legal manner. However,
superstition & harsh punishments didn’t end quickly. During 16th & 17th centuries, estimated 100,000
people prosecuted throughout Europe for witchcraft. Common believe: some families produced
offspring (unsound or unstable) & social misfits were inherently damaged by reason of their “inferior
blood.” Common practice: use of cruel tortures to extract confessions & harsh penalties (whipping,
branding, maiming, execution) for convicted of violent/theft crimes. Almost all felons were punished
with death; law made little distinction b/w thieves & murderers.
During Renaissance, such fantastical vision of deviant behavior & its control diminished as new insights
developed about human nature & behavior. Thomas Hobbes suggested: existence of a “social contract”
b/w people & state: people are rational to realize that selfishness will produce social chaos, so they
agree to give up their own selfish interests as long as everyone else does the same thing. Not all agree to
social contract, and thus state became empowered with right to use force to maintain contract.

Development of Classical Criminology

During Enlightenment period, Jeremy Bentham embraced view: human behavior was a result of
rational thought processes. According to his “utilitarian calculus”, people choose to act when, after
weighing costs & benefits, they believe their actions will bring them increase in pleasure & a reduction
of pain. Criminal behavior could be eliminated/controlled if law violators could be convinced that pain of
punishment exceeds benefits of crime. Purpose of law: produce & support total happiness of
community it serves. Because punishment is in itself harmful, its existence is justified only if it promises
to prevent greater evil than it creates. Thus, punishment has 4 main objectives:

i. to prevent all criminal offenses;

 ii. when it cannot prevent a crime, to convince the offender to commit a less serious crime;
iii. to ensure that a criminal uses no more force than is necessary;
iv. to prevent crime as cheaply as possible.

Cesare Beccaria (Italian Social Philosopher)

Development of rational classical criminology is most closely identified with his thoughts & his famous
treatise, “On Crimes and Punishment” in which he called for fair & certain punishment to deter crime.
Believed: People are egotistical & self-centered. Thus, they must be motivated by fear of punishment,
which provides a tangible motive for them to obey law & suppress “despotic spirit” (residing in every
person). He suggested:

 people choose all behavior, including criminal behavior;

 their choices are designed to bring them pleasure & reduce pain;
 criminal choices can be controlled by fear of punishment;
 more severe, certain, & swift the punishment, greater its ability to control criminal behavior.

Also believed: punishment must be proportional to seriousness of crime; if not, people would be
encouraged to commit more serious offenses. Today, this is referred to as concept of marginal
deterrence—if petty offenses were subject to the same punishment as more serious crimes, offenders
would choose the more serious crime because the resulting punishment would be about the same.
Also suggested: To deter crime, the pain of punishment must be administered in a fair, balanced, and
proportionate amount, just enough to counterbalance the pleasure obtained from crime.

Classical Criminology
Writings of Beccaria & his followers form core of what’s today is referred to as classical criminology. As
originally conceived in 18th century, classical criminology theory had several basic elements:

 In every society, people have free will to choose criminal/lawful solutions to meet their needs/settle
their problems.
 Criminal solutions can be very attractive because for little effort they hold the promise of a huge
payoff.
 A person will choose not to commit crime only if (s)he believes that pain of expected punishment is
greater than promise of reward. This is principle of deterrence.
 In order to be effective crime deterrent, punishment must be severe, certain, and swift enough to
convince potential criminals that “crime does not pay.”

Classical perspective influenced penal practices for more than 200 years. Law was made proportionate
to crime so most serious offenses earned the harshest punishments. Executions still widely used but
slowly began to be employed for only most serious crimes. Catchphrase was “let the punishment fit the
crime.”
Beccaria’s ideas & writings inspired social thinkers to believe: criminals choose to commit crime & crime
can be controlled by judicious punishment. His vision was widely embraced throughout Europe & U.S.
France’s post-revolutionary Constituent Assembly (1789) in its Declaration of the Rights of Man.
Similarly, a prohibition against cruel & unusual punishment was incorporated in 18th Amendment to
U.S. Constitution.
His writings credited as basis of elimination of torture & severe punishment in 19th century. Practice of
incarcerating criminals & structuring prison sentences to fit the severity of crime was a reflection of his
classical criminology.
Mid-20th century, this perspective was neglected by mainstream criminologists. Criminologists focused
on internal & external factors (poverty, IQ, education, home life) which were believed to be true causes
of criminality. Because these conditions could not be easily manipulated, the concept of punishing
people for behaviors beyond their control seemed both foolish and cruel. Although classical principles
still controlled the way police, courts, and correctional agencies operated, most criminologists rejected
classical criminology as an explanation of criminal behavior.

Contemporary Choice Theory Emerges

Mid-1970s: renewed interest in the classical approach to crime. First, the rehabilitation of known
criminals came under attack. According to liberal criminology, if crime was caused by some social or
psychological problem, such as poverty, then crime rates could be reduced by providing good jobs and
economic opportunities. Despite some notable efforts to provide such opportunities, a number of
national surveys (best known being Robert Martinson’s “What Works?”) failed to find examples of
rehabilitation programs that prevented future criminal activity. A well-publicized book, Beyond
Probation, by Charles Murray and Louis Cox, went as far as suggesting that punishment-oriented
programs could suppress future criminality much more effectively than those that relied on
rehabilitation and treatment efforts.
A significant increase in the reported crime rate, as well as serious disturbances in the nation’s prisons,
frightened the general public. The media depicted criminals as callous and dangerous rather than as
needy people deserving of public sympathy. Some criminologists began to suggest that it made more
sense to frighten these cold calculators with severe punishments than to waste public funds by futilely
trying to improve entrenched social conditions linked to crime, such as poverty.
In late 1970s, a number of criminologists began producing books and monographs expounding the
theme that criminals are rational actors who plan their crimes, fear punishment, and deserve to be
penalized for their misdeeds. Political scientist James Q. Wilson’s book Thinking about Crime (1975)
came to symbolize renewed interest in classical views. He debunked the view that crime was a function
of external forces, such as poverty, that could be altered by government programs. Instead, he argued,
efforts should be made to reduce criminal opportunity by deterring would-be offenders &
incarcerating known criminals. He maintained, people who are likely to commit crime lack inhibition
against misconduct, value the excitement and thrills of breaking the law, have a low stake in
conformity, and are willing to take greater chances than the average person. If they could be
convinced that their actions will bring severe punishment, only the totally irrational would be willing
to engage in crime.
He argued that unless we react forcefully to crime, those “sitting on the fence” will get a clear message
— crime pays.
Another influential work was sociologist Jack Katz’s Seductions of Crime. He argues that there are
immediate benefits to criminality. These seductions of crime are situational inducements that directly
precede the commission of a crime and draw offenders into law violations. Ex: someone challenges their
authority and they vanquish their opponent with a beating; or they want to do something exciting, so
they break into and vandalize a school building.
According to him, choosing crime can help satisfy personal needs. For some people, shoplifting and
vandalism are attractive because getting away with crime is a thrilling demonstration of personal
competence; he calls this “sneaky thrills.” Even murder can have an emotional payoff. Killers behave
like the avenging gods of mythology, choosing to have life-or-death control over their victims.
He finds that crimes can help soothe the strain produced by emotional upheaval. Ex: when a person is
rebuked for his behavior, violence may be a method for restoring the person’s self-esteem. When a
person gets drunk and rowdy at a party and is told by a rival to tone it down, the aggrieved person may
respond, “So, I’m acting like a fool, am I?” and attack. Public embarrassment leads to action; the person
must “sacrifice” or injure the body of the victim to maintain his “honor.” A number of research studies
have supported his view that situational inducements play an important role in causing adolescent
misbehavior. People are most likely to be “seduced” if they fear neither the risk of apprehension nor
its social consequences. People who either (a) fear losing the respect of their peers or (b) suffer legal
punishment are most likely to forgo the seductions of crime.
Coinciding with the publication of Wilson’s book was a conservative shift in U.S. public policy, which
resulted in Ronald Reagan’s election to the presidency in 1980. Political decision makers embraced
Wilson’s ideas as a means to bring the crime rate down. Tough new laws were passed, creating
mandatory prison sentences for drug offenders; the nation’s prison population skyrocketed. Critics
decried the disproportionate number of young minority men being locked up for drug law violations.
Despite liberal anguish, conservative views of crime control have helped shape criminal justice policy for
the past two decades. Many Americans, some of whom are passionate opponents of abortion on the
grounds that it takes human life, became, ironically, ardent supporters of the death penalty! This “get
tough” attitude was supported by the fact that while the prison population has grown to new heights,
the crime rate has been in a steep decline.
From these roots, a more contemporary version of classical theory has evolved. It is based on intelligent
thought processes and criminal decision making. This new view of rational choice is somewhat different
from the original classical theory that portrayed criminals as people who tried to maximize their
pleasure and minimize pain. If they were caught committing crime it was because they were sloppy
thinkers and imperfect in their decision making. In contrast, this contemporary version views the
decision to commit crime as being shaped by human emotions and thought processes. It recognizes that
other influences have an impact on criminal decision making, including social relationships, individual
traits and capabilities, and environmental characteristics. So, this new version of rational choice theory
assumes that human behavior is both “willful and determined.”

THE CONCEPTS OF RATIONAL CHOICE

According to the contemporary rational choice approach, law-violating behavior occurs when an
offender decides to risk breaking the law after considering both personal factors (i.e., the need for
money, revenge, thrills, and entertainment) and situational factors (i.e., how well a target is protected
and the efficiency of the local police force). People who believe that the risks of crime outweigh the
rewards may decide to go straight. If they think they are likely to be arrested and punished, they are
more likely to seek treatment and turn their lives around than risk criminal activities.

Why Crime?
Core premise of RCT: some people choose crime under some circumstances. For them, choosing crime
is actually easy decision to make even though consequences can be painful, costly, and embarrassing.
Take adolescents, who regularly violate the law. Criminal lifestyle fits well with this group, whose
membership routinely organize their life around risk taking and partying. Criminal events provide money
for drugs and serve as an ideal method for displaying courage and fearlessness to one’s running mates.
Rather than create overwhelming social problems, a criminal way of life can be extremely beneficial,
helping kids overcome the problems and stress they face in their daily lives.
Crime helps some people achieve a sense of control or mastery over their environment. Adolescents in
particular may find themselves feeling out of control because society limits their opportunities and
resources. Antisocial behavior gives them the opportunity to exert control over their own lives and
destinies, by helping them avoid situations they find uncomfortable or repellant (e.g., running away
from an abusive home) or obtain resources for desired activities and commodities (e.g., stealing or
selling drugs to buy stylish outfits). Crime may also help them boost their self-esteem by attacking
perceived enemies (e.g., they vandalize the property of an adult who has called the cops on them).
Engaging in risky behavior helps some people feel alive and competent. Some turn to substance abuse
to increase their sense of personal power, to become more assertive, and reduce tension and anxiety.
Others embrace a deviant lifestyle to compensate for their feelings of powerlessness or ordinariness.
There is also evidence that antisocial acts can provide positive solutions to problems. Ex: Violent kids
may have learned that being aggressive with others is a good means to control the situation and get
what they want; counterattacks may be one means of controlling people who are treating them poorly.
Crime as a short-run problem-solving solution may be appealing to adolescents, but it becomes less
attractive as people mature and begin to appreciate the dangers of using crime to solve problems. Thus,
considering its benefits, people age out of crime.

Choosing Crime
Before choosing to commit a crime, reasoning criminals evaluate the risk of apprehension, the
seriousness of expected punishment, the potential value of the criminal enterprise, and their immediate
need for criminal gain; their behavior is systematic and selective. Ex: burglars choose targets based on
their value, novelty, and resale potential. A relatively new piece of electronic gear such as the newest
iPhone or iPad may be a prime target, because it has not yet saturated the market and still retains high
value.
Risk Evaluation: People who decide to get involved in crime weigh up the chances of arrest (based on
their past experiences), plus the subjective psychic rewards of crime including the excitement and social
status it brings and perceived opportunities for easy gains. If the rewards are great, the perceived risk
small, and the excitement high, the likelihood of committing additional crimes increases. Successful
thieves say they will do it again in the future; past experience has taught them the rewards of illegal
behavior.
Criminals, then, are people who share the same ambitions as conventional citizens but have decided to
cut corners and use illegal means to achieve their goals.
People will forgo crime if after a careful evaluation of the circumstances they conclude that:
 They stand a good chance of being caught and punished.
 They fear the consequences of punishment.
 They risk losing the respect of their peers, damaging their reputations, and experiencing feelings
of guilt or shame.
 The risk of apprehension outweighs the pro t and/or pleasure of crime.

Offense and Offender

Rational choice theorists view crime as both offense- and offender-specific.
 Offense-specific crime: offenders will react selectively to the characteristics of an individual
criminal act.
Ex: Decision to commit a burglary. The thought process might include:
 Evaluating the target yield  Presence of occupants
 Probability of security devices  Neighbors who might notice a break-in
 Police patrol effectiveness  Presence of guard dogs
 Availability of a getaway car  Presence of escape routes
 Ease of selling stolen merchandise  Entry points and exit

 Offender-specific crime: criminals are not robots who engage in unthinking, unplanned random acts
of antisocial behavior. Before deciding to commit crime, individuals must decide whether they have
the prerequisites to commit a successful criminal act. These might include evaluation of:
a) Whether they possess the necessary skills to commit the crime
b) Their immediate need for money or other valuables
 c) Whether legitimate financial alternatives to crime exist, such as a high-paying job
d) Whether they have available resources to commit the crime
e) Their fear of expected apprehension and punishment
f) Availability of alternative criminal acts, such as selling drugs
g) Physical ability, including health, strength, and dexterity
Note the distinction made here between crime and criminality. Crime is an event; criminality is a
personal trait. Professional criminals do not commit crime all the time, and even ordinary citizens may,
on occasion, violate the law. Some people considered high risk because they are indigent or disturbed
may never violate the law, whereas others who are seemingly affluent and well adjusted may risk
criminal behavior given enough provocation and/or opportunity. What conditions promote crime and
enhance criminality?

Structuring Criminality
A number of personal factors condition people to choose crime. Among the more important factors are:
1. Economic Opportunity: Perceptions of economic opportunity influence the decision to commit
crime. Some people may engage in criminal activity simply because they need the money to support
their lifestyle and perceive few other potential income sources. Crime also becomes attractive when
an individual becomes convinced/motivated that it will result in excessive profits with few costs.
2. Learning and Experience: Important elements in structuring the choice of crime. Career criminals
may learn the limitations of their powers; they know when to take a chance and when to be
cautious. Experienced criminals may turn from a life of crime when they develop a belief that the
risk of crime is greater than its potential profit. Experience in the profession shapes criminal decision
making.
3. Knowledge of Criminal Techniques: Learning techniques that help criminals avoid detection, a sure
sign of rational thinking and planning. Some are specialists, who learn to be professional car thieves
or bad-check artists. Others are generalists who sell drugs one day and commit burglaries the next.
Criminals who learn the proper techniques may be able to prolong their criminal careers.

Structuring Crime
Criminal decision making is not only based on an assessment of personal needs and capabilities, but also
on a rational assessment of the criminal event. Decisions must be made about what, where, when, and
whom to target:
 Choosing the Type of Crime: Choice of crime may be dictated by market conditions. Generalists may
alter their criminal behavior according to shifting opportunity structures: they may rob the elderly
on first of the month when they know that Social Security checks have been cashed, switch over to
shoplifting if a new fence moves into the neighborhood, and, if a supply becomes available, sell a
truckload of hijacked cigarettes to neighborhood convenience stores.
Sometimes the choice of crime is structured by the situational factors. A study found cities whose
population of crack cocaine users is on the increase also experience an increase in their robbery
rates and a corresponding decrease in burglary rates. Crack users need a quick influx of cash to
purchase drugs and are in no position to plan a burglary and take the time to sell their loot; street
robberies are designed to provide a quick influx of cash that meets their lifestyle needs.
 Choosing the Time and Place of Crime
 Selecting the Target of Crime: Criminals may also be well aware of target vulnerability. When they
choose targets, they may shy off if they sense danger. Predatory criminals seek out easy targets who
can’t or won’t fight back and avoid those who seem menacing and dangerous.

ELIMINATING CRIME
It seems logical that if crime is rational and people choose to commit crime after weighing its rewards
and benefits and factoring in their needs and abilities, then it can be controlled or eradicated by
convincing potential offenders that:
 Crime is a poor choice that will not bring them rewards, but instead lead to hardship and
deprivation.
 Crime is not worth the effort. It is easier to work at a legitimate job than to evade police, outwit
alarms, and avoid security.
 Crime brings pain that is not easily forgotten. People who experience the pains of punishment
will not readily commit more crimes.

Crime Reduction or Crime Control Strategies Based on Rational Choice

 Situational Crime Prevention

This strategy is aimed at convincing would-be criminals to avoid specific targets. It relies on the
doctrine that crime can be avoided if motivated offenders are denied access to suitable targets.
SCP was first popularized in US in early 1970s by Oscar Newman, who coined the term defensible
space. This term signifies that crime can be prevented or displaced through the use of residential
architectural designs that reduce criminal opportunity, such as well-lit housing projects that
maximize surveillance. C. Ray Jeffery wrote Crime Prevention through Environmental Design, which
extended Newman’s concepts and applied them to nonresidential areas, such as schools and
factories. According to this view, mechanisms such as security systems, deadbolt locks, high-
intensity street lighting, and neighbor- hood watch patrols should reduce criminal opportunity.
In 1992, Ronald Clarke published Situational Crime Prevention, which compiled the best-known
strategies and tactics to reduce criminal incidents. Criminologists have suggested using a number of
situational crime prevention efforts that might reduce crime rates. One approach is not to target a
specific crime but to create an environment that can reduce the overall crime rate by limiting the
access to tempting targets for a highly motivated offender group (such as high school students)

Benefits
 Diffusion: Sometimes efforts to prevent one crime help prevent another; in other instances,
crime control efforts in one locale reduce crime in another area. This effect is referred to as
diffusion of benefits. Diffusion may be produced by two independent effects. Crime control
efforts may deter criminals by causing them to fear apprehension. Video cameras set up in a mall
to reduce shoplifting can also reduce property damage because would-be vandals fear they will
be caught on camera.
 Discouragement: Sometimes crime control efforts targeting a particular locale help reduce crime
in surrounding areas and populations; this is referred to as discouragement.

Operationalizations
 Targeting Specific Crimes: SCP can also involve developing tactics to reduce or eliminate a
specific crime problem (such as shoplifting in an urban mall or street-level drug dealing). Such
efforts include following strategies:
o Increase Effort: putting unbreakable glass on storefronts, locking gates, and fencing yards.
Having owner’s photo on credit cards should reduce the use of stolen cards. creating
mechanical devices that increase the likelihood that a criminal will be observed and captured.
Steering locks on cars, can make it more difficult to commit crimes. Establishing curfew laws
in an effort to limit the opportunity juveniles have to engage in antisocial behavior. Involve
 kids in after-school programs that take up their time and reduce their opportunity to get in
trouble.
o Reduce Rewards: Making car radios removable so they can be kept in the home at night,
marking property so that it is more difficult to sell when stolen, and having gender-neutral
phone listings to discourage obscene phone calls. Tracking systems help police locate and
return stolen vehicles.
o Increase Risks: Managing crime falls into the hands of people i.e. crime discouragers. These
crime discouragers could be grouped into 3 categories: guardians, who monitor targets (such
as store security guards); handlers, who monitor potential offenders (such as parole officers
and parents); and managers, who monitor places (such as homeowners and doorway
attendants). Also, creating mechanical devices that increase the likelihood that a criminal will
be observed and captured.
o Increase Shame/Reduce Provocation: Communicate to people the wrongfulness of their
behavior and how it is harmful to society. We may tell them to “say no to drugs” or that
“users are losers.” Posting signs or warnings to embarrass potential offenders or creating
mechanisms to identify perpetrators and/or publicize their crimes. Creating early closing time
in local bars to limit assaults that are the result of late night drinking. Posting guards outside
of schools at recess might prevent childish taunts from escalating into full-blown brawls. Anti-
bullying programs that have been implemented in schools are another method of reducing
provocation.
o Reduce excuses: Reducing or eliminating excuses makes it physically easy for people to
comply with laws and regulations, thereby reducing the likelihood they will choose crime. Ex:
Roadside displays that electronically flash cars’ speed rate as they drive by; Brightly displayed
litter boxes;

Problems
 Displacement: A program that seems successful be- cause it helps lower crime rates at specific
locations or neighborhoods may simply be redirecting offenders to alternative targets; this is
known as displacement, as crime is not prevented but detected or displaced. Beefed-up police
patrols in one area may shift crimes to a more vulnerable neighborhood.
 Extinction: Criminals adjust to new conditions. They learn to dismantle alarms or avoid patrols;
they may try new offenses they had previously avoided. And elimination of one crime may
encourage commission of another: if every residence in a neighborhood has a foolproof burglar
alarm system, motivated offenders may be forced to turn to armed robbery, a riskier and more
violent crime.
 Encouragement: Crime reduction programs may boomerang and increase rather than decrease
the potentiality for crime. Increased visibility (well-lighted areas) may allow potential offenders to
make better judgments of target vulnerability and attractiveness (e.g., they can spot people with
jewelry and other valuables).

 General Deterrence Strategies

This theory holds that crime rates are influenced and controlled by the threat and/or application of
criminal punishment. If people fear being apprehended and punished, they will not risk breaking the
law. An inverse relationship should then exist b/w crime rates and the fear of legal sanctions.
Ex: If the punishment for a crime is increased and the effectiveness and efficiency of the criminal
justice system are improved, then the number of people willing to risk committing crime should
decline.
 Severity, certainty, and speed of punishment are interrelated. If a particular crime—say, robbery—is
punished severely, but few robbers are ever caught or punished, the severity of punishment for
robbery will probably not deter people from robbing. However, if the certainty of apprehension and
conviction is increased by modern technology, more efficient police work, or some other factor,
then even minor punishment might deter the potential robber.
Also, certainty of punishment seems to have a greater impact than its severity or speed. People will
more likely be deterred from crime if they believe that they will get caught; what happens to them
after apprehension seems to have less impact. Nonetheless, all three elements of the deterrence
equation are important. Ex: if all resources were given to police agencies to increase the probability
of arrest, crime rates might increase because there were insufficient funds for swift prosecution and
effective correction.
Central theme: people who perceive they will be punished for crimes in the future will avoid doing
those crimes in the present. The actual likelihood of being arrested or imprisoned will have little
effect on crime rates if criminals believe that they have only a small chance of suffering
apprehension and punishment. The threat of punishment is meant to convince rational criminals
that crime does not pay.
The third leg of Becarria’s equation involves the celerity or speed of punishment: the faster
punishment is applied and the more closely it is linked to the crime, the more likely it will serve as a
deterrent. The deterrent effect of the law may be neutralized if there is a significant lag between
apprehension and punishment. In the Pakistani justice system, court delays brought by numerous
evidentiary hearings and requests for additional trial preparation time are common trial tactics. As a
result, the criminal process can be delayed to a point where the connection between crime and
punishment is broken.
Deterrence measures may not eliminate crime but reduce or restrict its occurrence. Deterrence
measures may not totally convince criminals that crime does not pay, but might help increase their
sensitivity to the risks involved in crime and thereby alter or shape their decision making.

Operationalization
 The death penalty—the ultimate deterrent—should deter murder—the ultimate crime.
 Informal sanctions (fear of exposure and consequent shaming) may be most effective in highly
unified areas where everyone knows one another and the crime cannot be hidden from public
view.
 Adding police: As the number of active, aggressive, crime-fighting cops increases, arrests and
convictions should likewise increase, and would-be criminals will be convinced that the risk of
apprehension outweighs the benefits they can gain from crime.
Problems
 Punishment is not very certain. Odds of their receiving serious punishment diminish. As a result,
some offenders believe they will not be severely punished for their acts and consequently have
little regard for the law’s deterrent power. Threat of punishment may also be neutralized by the
belief that even if caught criminals can avoid severe punishment through plea negotiations.
 Most criminals believe that (a) there is only a small chance they will be arrested for committing
a particular crime, (b) police officers are sometimes reluctant to make arrests even when they
are aware of crime, and (c) even if apprehended there is a good chance of either getting off
totally or receiving a lenient punishment such as probation.
 Criminals do not fear punishment and the certainty of arrest and punishment is low.

 Specific Deterrence Strategy (also called special or particular deterrence)

 This theory holds that after experiencing criminal sanctions that are swift, sure, and powerful,
known criminals will never dare repeat their criminal acts. While general deterrence relies on the
perception of future punishments, specific deterrence relies on its application. If crime is rational,
then painful punishment should reduce its future allure.

Operationalization
 Formal actions such as arrest and conviction may under some circumstances lower the
frequency of reoffending.
 harsh prisons and stiff fines.

Problems
 Offenders sentenced to prison do not have lower rates of recidivism than those receiving more
lenient community sentences for similar crimes. White-collar offenders who receive prison
sentences are as likely to recidivate as those who receive community-based sanctions.
 Severe punishment may increase reoffending rates rather than deter crime.
 Harsh treatment labels and stigmatizes offenders, locking them into a criminal career
 Punishment might be perceived to be capricious, unjust, or unfair, which causes sanctioned
offenders to commit additional crimes as a way to lash out and retaliate.

 Incapacitation Strategies
It stands to reason that if more criminals are sent to prison, the crime rate should go down. Because
most people age out of crime, the duration of a criminal career is limited. Placing offenders behind
bars during their prime crime years should lessen their lifetime opportunity to commit crime. The
shorter the span of opportunity, the fewer offenses they can commit during their lives; hence crime
is reduced. This theory, known as the incapacitation effect.

Operationalizations
 Long prison sentences, placing more people behind bars
 Tough sentencing laws such as the “three strikes and you’re out” policy. This sentencing model
mandates that people convicted of three felony offenses serve a mandatory life term without
parole. Many states already employ habitual offender laws that provide long (or life) sentences
for repeat offenders.

Problems
 More prior incarceration experiences inmates have, the more likely they are to recidivate (and
return to prison).
 Prison experience exposes young, first-time offenders to higher-risk, more experienced inmates
who can influence their lifestyle and help shape their attitudes. Moreover, prison experience
has the long-term effect of escalating frequency of criminal behavior upon release.
 It is terribly expensive. Prison system costs are enormous.
 Reentry of most inmates may contribute to family disruption, undermine social institutions,
and create community disorganization.

PUBLIC POLICY IMPLICATIONS OF CHOICE THEORY

RCT has influenced the relationships among law, punishment, and crime. Although research on the core
principles of choice theory and deterrence theories produces mixed results, these models have had an
important impact on crime prevention strategies.
When police patrol in well-marked cars, it is assumed that their presence will deter would-be criminals.
When the harsh realities of prison life are portrayed in movies and TV shows, the lesson is not lost on
potential criminals. Nowhere is the idea that the threat of punishment can control crime more evident
than in the implementation of tough mandatory criminal sentences to control violent crime and drug
trafficking.
Despite the ongoing debate about its deterrent effect, some advocates argue that the death penalty can
effectively restrict criminality; at least it ensures that convicted criminals never again get the
opportunity to kill. Many observers are dismayed because people who are convicted of murder
sometimes kill again when released on parole.

Just Desert
Concept of criminal choice has also prompted the creation of justice policies referred to as just desert.
Just desert position has been most clearly spelled out by criminologist Andrew Von Hirsch in his book
Doing Justice. He suggests the concept of desert as a theoretical model to guide justice policy. This
utilitarian view purports that punishment is needed to preserve the social equity disturbed by crime. He
claims, the severity of punishment should be commensurate with the seriousness of the crime. His views
can be summarized in these three statements:
 Those who violate others’ rights deserve to be punished.
 We should not deliberately add to human suffering; punishment makes those punished suffer.
 However, punishment may prevent more misery than it inflicts; this conclusion reestablishes
the need for desert based punishment.
Desert theory is also concerned with the rights of the accused. It alleges that the rights of the person
being punished should not be unduly sacrificed for the good of others (as with deterrence). Offender
should not be treated as more (or less) blameworthy than is warranted by the character of his offense.
For example, Von Hirsch asks the following question: if two crimes, A and B, are equally serious, but if
severe penalties are shown to have a deterrent effect only with respect to A, would it be fair to punish
the person who has committed crime A more harshly simply to deter others from committing the crime?
Conversely, imposing a light sentence for a serious crime would be unfair because it would treat the
offender as less blameworthy than he is.
In sum, the just desert model suggests that retribution justifies punishment because people deserve
what they get for past deeds. Punishment based on deterrence or incapacitation is wrong because it
involves an offender’s future actions, which cannot accurately be predicted. Punishment should be the
same for all people who commit the same crime. Criminal sentences based on individual needs or
characteristics are inherently unfair because all people are equally blameworthy for their misdeeds. The
influence of Von Hirsch’s views can be seen in sentencing models that give the same punishment to all
people who commit the same type of crime.
 TRAIT THEORIES
FOUNDATIONS OF TRAIT THEORY
During late 19th century, scientific method begins to take hold in Europe. Rather than relying on pure
thought and reason, scientists began to use careful observation and analysis of natural phenomena in
their experiments. Charles Darwin’s discoveries on the evolution of man encouraged a 19 th century “cult
of science.” His discoveries encouraged other scholars to be certain that all human activity could be
verified by scientific principles. If the scientific method could be applied to the study of the natural
world, then why not use it to study human behavior?
Auguste Comte (founder of sociology) applied scientific methods to the study of society. According to
him, societies pass through stages that can be grouped on the basis of how people try to understand the
world in which they live. People in primitive societies consider inanimate objects as having life (Ex: sun is
a god); in later social stages, people embrace a rational, scientific view of the world. He called this final
stage the positive stage, and those who followed his writings became known as positivists. As we
understand it today, positivism has two main elements:
 All true knowledge is acquired through direct observation and not through conjecture or belief.
Statements that cannot be backed up by direct observation—for instance, “all babies are born
innocent”—are invalid and worthless.
 The scientific method must be used if research findings are to be considered valid. This involves
such steps as identifying problems, collecting data, forming hypotheses, conducting experiments,
and interpreting results.

According to positivist tradition, Social processes are product of measurable interaction b/w
relationships & events. Thus, human behavior is a function of variety of forces which influences &
shapes it. These include: (a) Social: effects of wealth & class; (b) Political & historical: war & famine; (c)
Personal & Psychological: individual’s brain structure & his biological makeup/mental ability. In sum,
people are neither born “good” nor “bad,” & are neither “saints” nor “sinners.” They are a product of
their social and psychological traits, influenced by their upbringing and environment.
 Biological Positivism
Earliest “scientific” studies applying positivist model to criminology were conducted by physiognomists,
such as J. K. Lavater, who studied the facial features of criminals to determine whether the shape of
ears, nose, and eyes and the distance b/w were associated with antisocial behavior.
Phrenologists, such as Franz Joseph Gall and Johann K. Spurzheim, studied the shape of the skull and
bumps on the head to determine whether these physical attributes were linked to criminal behavior.
Phrenologists believed that external cranial characteristics dictate which areas of the brain control
physical activity. They suggested, brain has 30 different areas or faculties that control behavior. Size of a
brain could be determined by inspecting the contours of the skull—the larger the organ, the more active
it was. Relative size of brain organs could be increased or decreased through exercise and self-discipline.
Though phrenology techniques and methods are no longer practiced or taken seriously, these efforts
were an early attempt to use a “scientific” method to study crime.
By early 19th century, abnormality in the human mind was being linked to criminal behavior patterns.
Philippe Pinel (one of founders of French psychiatry) claimed that some people behave abnormally even
without being mentally ill. He coined phrase manie sans delire to denote what today is referred to as a
psychopathic personality. In 1812, Benjamin Rush (American), described patients with an “innate
preternatural moral depravity.” Another early criminological pioneer, Henry Maudsley (English
physician), believed that insanity and criminal behavior were strongly linked. He stated: “Crime is a sort
of outlet in which their unsound tendencies are discharged; they would go mad if they were not
criminals, and they do not go mad because they are criminals.” These early research efforts shifted
attention to brain functioning and personality as the keys to criminal behavior. When Sigmund Freud’s
work on the unconscious gained worldwide notoriety, the psychological basis of behavior was forever
established.

Cesare Lombroso (Italian physician)’s Biological Basis of Crime

Studied cadavers of executed criminals in effort to scientifically determine whether law violators were
physically different from people of conventional values & behavior. He believed serious offenders
(engaged in repeated assault/theft-related activities) were “born criminals” who inherited a set of
primitive physical traits that he referred to as atavistic anomalies.
Crime producing traits identified by him included enormous jaws and strong canine teeth common to
carnivores and savages who devour raw flesh. These criminogenic traits can be acquired through
indirect heredity (degenerate family whose members suffered from such ills as insanity, syphilis, and
alcoholism) or direct heredity (offspring of criminal parents).
Attracted a circle of followers who expanded on his vision of biological determinism and helped
stimulate interest in what is referred to as criminal anthropology.

Lombroso’s Contemporaries
Lombroso was not alone in his views on the biological basis of crime. A contemporary, Raffaele
Garofalo, shared the belief that certain physical characteristics indicate a criminal nature: “a lower
degree of sensibility to physical pain, seems to be demonstrated by the readiness with which prisoners
submit to the operation of tattooing.”
In middle of 20th, William Sheldon took a different approach, i.e. Somatotype Theory,
suggesting that criminals manifest distinct physiques that make them susceptible to particular
types of antisocial behavior. Three types of body builds were identified:
i. Mesomorphs: Well-developed muscles & athletic appearance. They are active, aggressive,
sometimes violent, and most likely to become criminals.
ii. Endomorphs: Heavy builds & are slow moving. Known for lethargic behavior, rendering them
unlikely to commit violent crime & more willing to engage in less strenuous criminal activities such
as fencing stolen property.
iii. Ectomorphs: Tall, thin, and less social and more intellectual than the other types. These types are
the least likely to commit crime.
He crosschecked 100s of young men for body type & criminal history and recognized that pure types are
rare & that most people have elements of all three types. He identified a Dionysian temperament, a
person who has excess of mesomorphy with a deficiency in ectomorphic restraint, thereby rendering
them impulsive and into self-gratification, a condition that would produce crime.
Criticism of Biological Criminology
Strict biological determinism no longer taken seriously (Lombroso recognized not all criminals were
biological throwbacks). Early biological determinism discredited because it’s methodologically flawed
(studies didn’t use control groups from general population to compare results, a violation of scientific
method). Many of the traits assumed to be inherited aren’t really genetically determined but could be
caused by deprivation in surroundings & diet. Even if most criminals shared some biological traits, they
might be products not of heredity but of some environmental condition (poor nutrition/health care).
Unusual appearance, and not behavior, may have prompted people to be labeled and punished by the
justice system.
Because of these deficiencies the validity of a purely biological/psychological explanation of criminality
became questionable and is no longer considered valid. Today, criminologists believe that
environmental conditions interact with human traits and conditions to influence behavior. Hence, term
biosocial theory has been coined to reflect the assumed link between physical and mental traits, the
social environment, and behavior.
Sociobiology
At midcentury, sociology dominated study of crime and scholarship and any suggestion that antisocial
behavior may have an individual-level cause was treated with enmity. Some criminologists label this
position as biophobia, the view that no serious consideration should be given to biological factors when
attempting to understand human nature.
Then in early 1970s, biological basis for crime once again emerged with publication of Sociobiology by
biologist Edmund O. Wilson. Sociobiology differs from earlier theories of behavior; it stresses that
biological & genetic conditions affect how social behaviors are learned & perceived. These perceptions,
in turn, are linked to existing environmental structures. Socio-biologists view the gene as ultimate unit
of life that controls all human destiny. Although they believe experience and environment also have
impact on behavior, their main premise is that most actions are controlled by a person’s “biological
machine.” Most important, people are controlled by innate need to have their genetic material survive
and dominate others. Consequently, they do everything in their power to ensure their own survival and
that of others who share their gene pool (relatives, fellow citizens, and so forth). Even when they come
to the aid of others, which is called reciprocal altruism, people are motivated by the belief that their
actions will be reciprocated and that their gene survival capability will be enhanced

Contemporary Trait Theories

Study of sociobiology revived interest in finding a biological basis for crime and delinquency. If, as it
suggests, biological (genetic) makeup controls human behavior, it follows that it should also be
responsible for determining whether a person chooses law-violating or conventional behavior. This view
of crime causation is referred to as trait theory.
 Trait theorists today do not suggest that a single biological or psychological attribute is thought to
adequately explain all criminality. Rather, each offender is considered unique, physically and mentally;
consequently, there must be different explanations for each person’s behavior. Some may have
inherited criminal tendencies, others may be suffering from nervous system (neurological) problems,
and still others may have a blood chemistry disorder that heightens their antisocial activity.
Criminologists who focus on the individual see many explanations for crime, because, in fact, there are
many differences among criminal offenders.
Trait theorists are not overly concerned with legal definitions of crime; they do not try to explain why
people violate particular statutory laws such as car theft or burglary. To them, these are artificial legal
concepts based on arbitrary boundaries (i.e., speeding may be arbitrarily defined as exceeding 65
miles/hour in some areas, 70 in others). Instead, trait theorists focus on basic human behavior and
drives—attachment, aggression, violence, impulsivity—that are linked to antisocial behavior patterns.
They also recognize that human traits may not alone produce criminality and that crime-producing
interactions involve both personal traits—such as intelligence, personality, and chemical and genetic
makeup—and environmental factors, such as family life, educational attainment, economic factors, and
neighborhood conditions. Physical or mental traits are, therefore, but one part of a large pool of
environmental, social, and personal factors that account for criminality. Some people may have a
predisposition toward aggression, but environmental stimuli can either suppress or trigger antisocial
acts. Because not all humans are born with equal potential to learn and achieve (equipotentiality), the
combination of physical traits and the environment produces individual behavior patterns.

Contemporary trait theories can be divided into two major subdivisions: one that stresses biological
(biosocial) makeup and another that stresses psychological functioning. Although there is often overlap
between these views (i.e., brain functioning may have a biological basis), each branch has its unique
characteristics.

I. BIOSOCIAL THEORY
Most bio-criminologists believe that physical, environmental, and social conditions work in concert to
produce human behavior. This integrated approach is commonly referred to as biosocial theory.
Biosocial Theories of Crime
 Biochemical

Major premise of theory: crime, especially violence, is a function of diet, vitamin intake, hormonal
imbalance, or food allergies.
Strengths of theory: explains irrational violence; it shows how the environment interacts with
personal traits to influence behavior
Research focuses of theory are diet, hormones, enzymes, environmental contaminants, and lead
intake.

 Neurological
Major Premise of Theory: criminals and delinquents often suffer brain impairment, as measured
by the EEG. Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and minimal brain dysfunction are related to
antisocial behavior.
Strengths of Theory: explains irrational violence; it shows how the environment interacts with
personal traits to influence behavior.
Research Focuses of Theory: ADD, ADHD, learning disabilities, brain injuries, and brain chemistry.
  Genetic
Major Premise of Theory: criminal traits and predispositions are inherited. The criminality of
parents can predict the delinquency of children.
Strengths of Theory: explains why only a small percentage of youth in high-crime areas become
chronic offenders.
Research Focuses of Theory: twin behavior, sibling behavior, and parent–child similarities.

 Evolutionary
Major Premise of Theory: as the human race evolved, traits and characteristics have become
ingrained. Some of these traits make people aggressive and predisposed to commit crime.
Strengths of Theory: explains high violence rates and aggregate gender differences in the crime
rate.
Research Focuses of Theory: gender differences and understanding human aggression.

II. PSYCHOLOGICAL TRAIT THEORIES

Second branch of trait theories; focuses on psychological aspects of crime, including the associations
among intelligence, personality, learning, and criminal behavior.

 Psychodynamic
Major Premise of Theory: development of the unconscious personality early in childhood influences
behavior for the rest of the person’s life. Criminals have weak egos and damaged personalities.
Strengths of Theory: explains the onset of crime and why crime and drug abuse cut across class
lines.
Research Focuses of Theory: mental disorders, personality development, and unconscious
motivations and drives.

 Behavioral
Major Premise of Theory: people commit crime when they model their behavior after others they
see being rewarded for similar acts. Behavior is reinforced by rewards and extinguished by
punishment.
Strengths of Theory: explains the role of significant others in the crime process; it shows how the
media can influence crime and violence.
Research Focuses of Theory: media and violence, as well as the effects of child abuse.

 Cognitive
Major Premise of Theory: that individual reasoning processes influence behavior. Reasoning is
influenced by the way people perceive their environment.
Strengths of Theory: shows why criminal behavior patterns change over time as people mature and
develop their reasoning powers. It may explain the aging-out process.
Research Focuses of Theory: perception and cognition
SOCIAL PROCESSES THEORIES
During 1930s & 40s, a group of sociologists began to link social-psychological interactions to
criminological behavior. Sociological social psychology (aka psychological sociology) is the study of
human interactions & relationships that emphasizes such issues as group dynamics and socialization.
According to this school of thought, individual’s relationship to important social processes (education,
family life, and peer relations) is key to understanding human behavior. Socialization helps understand
crime. If relationships are positive & supportive, people can succeed within the rules of society; if
dysfunctional & destructive, conventional success impossible, and criminal solutions may become a
feasible alternative. Taken together, this view of crime is referred to as social process theory.
Theorists who believe that an individual’s socialization determines the likelihood of criminality adopt the
social process approach to human behavior. Social process approach has several independent branches:
 SOCIAL LEARNING THEORY

Social learning theorists believe crime is a product of learning norms, values, and behaviors associated
with criminal activity. Social learning can involve actual techniques of crime (how to hot-wire) as well as
psychological aspects of criminality (how to deal with guilt/shame associated with illegal activities).
Three most prominent forms of social learning theory:
1. Differential Association Theory

Edwin H. Sutherland put forth his theory in Principles of Criminology (1939). Donald Cressey (his
longtime associate) continued his work. He was so successful in explaining and popularizing his mentor’s
efforts that differential association remains one of the most enduring explanations of criminal behavior.
Sutherland believed criminality is a function of a learning process that could affect any individual in any
culture. Acquiring a behavior is social learning process, not political/legal process. Skills & motives
conducive to crime are learned as a result of contacts with pro-crime values, attitudes, and definitions
and other patterns of criminal behavior.
Principles of Differential Association
 Criminal behavior is learned. Delinquent and criminal behavior is learned. He implied it can be
classified in same manner as any other learned behavior, such as writing, painting, or reading.
 Learning is a by-product of interaction. People (family, friends, peers) have greatest influence on
individual’s deviant behavior & attitude development. Relationships with these influential
individuals color and control the way people interpret everyday events. Ex: research shows children
who grow up in homes where parents abuse alcohol are more likely to view drinking as being
socially & physically beneficial. Intimacy of these associations far outweighs the importance of any
other form of communication, such as movies or television.
 Criminal techniques are learned. Requires learning specific direction of motives, drives,
rationalizations, and attitudes. Some kids may meet & associate with criminal “mentors”, teaching
them how to be successful criminals & gain benefits from their criminal activities. They learn proper
way to pick a lock, shoplift, and obtain and use narcotics. In addition, novice criminals learn to use
proper terminology for their acts & then acquire “proper” reactions to law violations. Ex: Getting
high on marijuana & learning proper way to smoke a joint are behavior patterns usually acquired
from more experienced companions. Moreover, criminals must learn how to react properly to their
illegal acts (when to defend them, rationalize them, or show remorse for them).
 Perceptions of the legal code influence motives & drives. Specific direction of motives & drives is
learned from perceptions of various aspects of the legal code as being favorable or unfavorable.
Reaction to social rules & laws isn’t uniform across society, and people constantly come into contact
with others who maintain different views on the utility of obeying the legal code. Some people they
admire may openly disdain or flout the law or ignore its substance. People experience what he calls
culture conflict when they are exposed to different and opposing attitudes toward what is right and
wrong, moral and immoral. Conflict of social attitudes & cultural norms is basis for the concept of
differential association.
 Differential associations may vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity. Obeying or
disregarding law is influenced by quality of social interactions. Those of lasting duration have
greater influence than those that are brief. Similarly, Frequent contacts have greater effect than
rare & haphazard contacts. Priority means the age of children when they first encounter definitions
of criminality. Contacts made early in life have greater & more far-reaching influence than those
developed later on. Finally, intensity: importance & prestige attributed to the individual or groups
from whom the definitions are learned. Ex: Influence of a father, mother, or trusted friend far
outweighs the effect of more socially distant figures.
 Process of learning criminal behavior by association with criminal and anti-criminal patterns
involves all of the mechanisms involved in any other learning process. Learning criminal behavior
patterns is similar to learning nearly all other patterns and is not a matter of mere imitation.
 Criminal behavior is an expression of general needs and values, but it is not excused by those
general needs and values because noncriminal behavior is also an expression of those same needs
and values. Motives for criminal behavior can’t logically be the same as those for conventional
behavior. He rules out such motives as desire to accumulate money or social status, personal
frustration, or low self-concept as causes of crime because they are just as likely to produce
noncriminal behavior, such as getting a better education or working harder on a job. It’s only the
learning of deviant norms through contact with an excess of definitions favorable toward criminality
that produces illegal behavior.

A person becomes a criminal when (s)he perceives more favorable than unfavorable consequences to
violating the law. According to his theory, individuals become law violators when they are in contact
with people, groups, or events that produce an excess of definitions favorable toward criminality and
are isolated from counteracting forces. A definition favorable toward criminality occurs, for example,
when a person is exposed to friends sneaking into a theater to avoid paying for a ticket or talking about
the virtues of getting high on drugs. A definition unfavorable toward crime occurs when friends or
parents demonstrate their disapproval of crime. Neutral behavior, such as reading a book, is neither
positive nor negative with respect to law violation. Cressey argues that neutral behavior is important;
for example, when a child is occupied doing something neutral, it prevents him or her from being in
contact with those involved in criminal behaviors.
In sum, this theory holds that people learn criminal attitudes and behavior while in their adolescence
from close and trusted friends and/or relatives. A criminal career develops if learned antisocial values
and behaviors are not at least matched or exceeded by conventional attitudes and behaviors. Criminal
behavior, then, is learned in a process that is similar to learning any other human behavior.
Testing Differential Association Theory
Numerous research efforts have supported the core principles of differential association. These
generally show a correlation between (a) having deviant parents and friends, (b) holding deviant
attitudes, and (c) committing deviant acts. A recent meta-analysis of the literature by Travis Pratt and his
associates found that the association between crime and measures of differential association are “quite
strong.” Among the most important findings are:
 Crime appears to be intergenerational. Kids whose parents are deviant and criminal are more
likely to become criminals themselves and eventually to produce criminal children.
 The more deviant an adolescent’s social network and network of affi liations, including parents,
peers, and romantic partners, the more likely that adolescent is to engage in antisocial behavior.
This finding supports the hypothesis that children learn criminal attitudes from exposure to
deviant others, rather than crime being a function of inherited criminal traits.
 People who report having attitudes that support deviant behavior are also likely to engage in
deviant behavior.81 As people mature, having delinquent friends who support criminal attitudes
 and behavior is strongly related to developing criminal careers. Association with deviant peers
has been found to sustain the deviant attitudes.
 The influence of deviant friends is highly supportive of delinquency, regardless of race and/or
class. One reason is that within peer groups, high-status leaders will infl uence and legitimize
deviant behavior. In other words, if one of your friends whom you look up to drinks and smokes,
it makes it a lot easier for you to engage in those behaviors yourself and to believe they are
appropriate.
 Romantic partners who engage in antisocial activities may influence their partner’s behavior,
which suggests that partners learn from one another.85 Adolescents with deviant romantic
partners are more delinquent than those youths with more pro-social partners, regardless of
friends’ and parents’ behavior.
 Kids who associate and presumably learn from aggressive peers are more likely to behave
aggressively themselves.87 Deviant peers interfere with the natural process of aging out of
crime by helping provide the support that keeps kids in criminal careers.
 Differential association is multicultural. Scales measuring differential association have been
significantly correlated with criminal behaviors among samples taken in other nations and
cultures.

Differential association also seems especially relevant in trying to explain the onset of substance abuse
and a career in the drug trade. This requires learning proper techniques and attitudes from an
experienced user or dealer. In his interview study of low-level drug dealers, Kenneth Tunnell found that
many novices were tutored by a more experienced criminal dealer who helped them make connections
with buyers and sellers. Tunnell found that making connections is an important part of the dealer’s
world. Adolescent drug users are likely to have intimate relationships with a peer friendship network
that supports their substance abuse and teaches them how to deal within the drug world.
Differential association may also be used to explain the gender difference in the crime rate. Males are
more likely to socialize with deviant peers than females and, when they do, are more deeply influenced
by peer relations.93 Females are shielded by their unique moral sense, which makes caring about
people and avoiding social harm a top priority. Males, in contrast, have a more cavalier attitude toward
others and are more interested in their own self-interests. They are therefore more susceptible to the
influence of deviant peers.
Analysis of Differential Association Theory
 According to cultural deviance critique, differential association is invalid because it suggests
criminals are people “properly” socialized into a deviant subculture; i.e., they are taught criminal
norms by significant others. Supporters counter that differential association also recognizes that
individuals can embrace criminality because they have been improperly socialized into the
normative culture.
 This theory also fails to explain why one youth who is exposed to delinquent definitions eventually
succumbs to them, while another, living under the same conditions, is able to avoid criminal
entanglements. It also fails to account for the origin of delinquent definitions: How did the first
“teacher” learn delinquent attitudes and definitions in order to pass them on? Who taught the
teacher?
 This theory assumes youths learn about crime & then commit criminal acts, but it is also possible
that experienced delinquents and criminals seek out like-minded peers after they engage in
antisocial acts and that the internalization of deviant attitudes follows, rather than precedes,
criminality (“birds of a feather flock together”). Research on gang boys shows that they are involved
in high rates of criminality before they join gangs, indicating that the group experience facilitates
their antisocial behavior rather than playing a role in its creation.
 Despite these criticisms, this theory maintains important place in the study of criminal behavior. It
provides a consistent explanation of all types of delinquent and criminal behavior. Unlike social
structure theories, it’s not limited to explanation of a single facet of antisocial activity, such as
lower-class gang activity. Theory can also account for the extensive delinquent behavior found even
in middle- and upper-class areas, where youths may be exposed to a variety of pro-delinquent
definitions from such sources as overly opportunistic parents and friends. Theory appears flexible
and able to explain current trends in crime and is not bound by those that existed when the theory
was first created. Ex: Research found that adolescents who pirate music off the Internet are
influenced by both personal friends and also online friends they meet in chat rooms and so on.
Internet music piracy is not a crime that Sutherland had in mind when he first proposed the theory
more than 80 years ago.

2. Differential Reinforcement Theory

First proposed by Ronald Akers in collaboration with Robert Burgess in 1966, it is a version of the social
learning view that employs both differential association concepts along with elements of psychological
learning theory.
According to Akers, the same process is involved in learning both deviant and conventional behavior.
People learn to be neither “all deviant” nor “all conforming,” but rather strike a balance b/w the two
opposing poles of behavior. This balance is usually stable, but it can undergo revision over time.
A number of learning processes shape behavior. Direct conditioning, also called differential
reinforcement, occurs when behavior is reinforced by being either rewarded or punished while
interacting with others. When behavior is punished, this is referred to as negative reinforcement. This
type of reinforcement can be distributed either by using negative stimuli (punishment) or by loss of a
positive reward. Whether deviant or criminal behavior has been initiated or persists depends on the
degree to which it has been rewarded or punished and the rewards or punishments attached to its
alternatives.
According to Akers, people learn to evaluate their own behavior through their interactions with
significant others & groups in their lives. These groups control sources & patterns of reinforcement,
define behavior as right or wrong, and provide behaviors that can be modeled through observational
learning. The more individuals learn to define their behavior as good or at least as justified, rather than
as undesirable, the more likely they are to engage in it. Adolescents who join a drug-abusing peer group
whose members value drugs and alcohol, encourage their use, and provide opportunities to observe
people abusing substances will be encouraged, through this social learning experience, to use drugs
themselves.
His theory posits that the principal influence on behavior comes from “those groups that control
individuals’ major sources of reinforcement and punishment and expose them to behavioral models and
normative definitions.” Important groups are the ones with which a person is in differential association
—peer and friendship groups, schools, churches, and similar institutions. Within the context of these
critical groups, according to Akers, “deviant behavior can be expected to the extent that it has been
differentially reinforced over alternative behavior . . . and is defined as desirable or justified.” Once
people are indoctrinated into crime, their behavior can be reinforced by being exposed to deviant
behavior models—associating with deviant peers—without being subject to negative reinforcements for
their antisocial acts. Deviant behavior, originally executed by imitating someone else’s behavior, is
sustained by social support. Ex: kids who engage in computer crime and computer hacking may find
their behavior reinforced by peers who are playing the same game.
It is possible that differential reinforcements help establish criminal careers and are a key factor in
explaining persistent criminality.

Testing Differential Reinforcement

Principles of differential reinforcement have been subject to empirical review by Akers and other
criminologists. In important test of his theory, Akers and his associates surveyed 3,065 male and female
adolescents on drug- and alcohol-related activities and their perception of variables related to social
learning and differential reinforcement. Items in scale included the respondents’ perceptions of
esteemed peers’ attitudes toward drug and alcohol abuse, number of people they admired who actually
used controlled substances, and whether people they admired would reward or punish them for
substance abuse. He found a strong association b/w drug and alcohol abuse and social learning
variables: those who believed they would be rewarded for deviance by those they respect were the
ones most likely to engage in deviant behavior. His efforts have been supported by research showing
kids whose deviant behavior (smoking pot) is reinforced by significant others (parents/peers) are more
likely to accelerate their rates of deviance.
He also found that the learning–deviant behavior link is not static. Learning experience continues within
a deviant group as behavior is both influenced by and exerts influence over group processes. Ex:
Adolescents may learn to smoke because their friends are smoking and, therefore, approve of this
behavior. Over time, smoking influences friendships and peer group memberships as smokers seek out
one another for companionship and support.
This theory is important perspective that endeavors to determine the cause of criminal activity. It
considers how the content of socialization conditions crime. Because not all socialization is positive, it
accounts for the fact that negative social reinforcements and experiences can produce criminal results.
This concurs with research that demonstrates that parental deviance is related to adolescent antisocial
behavior. Parents may reinforce their children’s deviant behavior by supplying negative social
reinforcements. His work also fits well with rational choice theory because they both suggest that
people learn the techniques and attitudes necessary to commit crime. Criminal knowledge is gained
through experience. After considering the outcome of their past experiences, potential offenders decide
which criminal acts will be profitable and which are dangerous and should be avoided. Integrating these
perspectives, people make rational choices about crime because they have learned to balance risks
against the potential for criminal gain.

3. Neutralization Theory

David Matza and his associate Gresham Sykes view the process of becoming a criminal as a learning
experience, in which potential delinquents and criminals master techniques that enable them to
counterbalance or neutralize conventional values and drift back and forth between illegitimate and
conventional behavior. One reason this is possible is the subterranean value structure of American
society. Subterranean values are morally tinged influences that have become entrenched in the culture
but are publicly condemned. They exist side by side with conventional values and while condemned in
public may be admired or practiced in private. Ex: Viewing pornographic films, drinking alcohol to
excess, and gambling on sporting events. In American culture, it is common to hold both subterranean
and conventional values; few people are “all good” or “all bad.”
Matza argues that even most committed criminals and delinquents are not involved in criminality all the
time; they also attend schools, family functions, and religious services. Their behavior can be conceived
as falling along a continuum b/w total freedom and total restraint. This process, which he calls drift,
refers to the movement from one extreme of behavior to another, resulting in behavior that is
sometimes unconventional, free, or deviant and at other times constrained and sober. Learning
techniques of neutralization enables a person to temporarily “drift away” from conventional behavior
and get involved in more subterranean values and behaviors, including crime and drug abuse.
Sykes and Matza base their theoretical model on these observations:
 Criminals sometimes voice a sense of guilt over their illegal acts. If a stable criminal value
system existed in opposition to generally held values and rules, it would be unlikely that
criminals would exhibit any remorse for their acts, other than regret at being apprehended.
 Offenders frequently respect and admire honest, law-abiding people. Really honest people are
often revered, and if for some reason such people are accused of misbehavior, the criminal is
quick to defend their integrity. Those admired may include sports figures, priests and other
clergy, parents, teachers, and neighbors.
 Criminals draw a line between those whom they can victimize and those whom they cannot.
Members of similar ethnic groups, churches, or neighborhoods are often off limits. This practice
implies that criminals are aware of the wrongfulness of their acts.
 Criminals are not immune to the demands of conformity. Most criminals frequently participate
in many of the same social functions as law-abiding people—for example, in school, church, and
family activities.

Because of these factors, Sykes and Matza conclude that criminality is the result of the neutralization of
accepted social values through the learning of a standard set of techniques that allow people to
counteract the moral dilemmas posed by illegal behavior.
Techniques of Neutralization
Sykes and Matza suggest people develop a distinct set of justifications for their law-violating behavior.
These neutralization techniques enable them to temporarily drift away from the rules of the normative
society and participate in subterranean behaviors. These techniques of neutralization include the
following patterns:
 Deny responsibility. Young offenders sometimes claim their unlawful acts were simply not their
fault. Criminal acts resulted from forces beyond their control or were accidents.
 Deny injury. By denying the wrongfulness of act, criminals are able to neutralize illegal behavior. Ex:
stealing is viewed as borrowing; vandalism is considered mischief that has gotten out of hand.
Delinquents may find that their parents and friends support their denial of injury. In fact, they may
claim that the behavior was merely a prank, helping affirm the offender’s perception that crime can
be socially acceptable. Since no one was “really hurt” the act was not “really a crime.”
 Deny the victim. Criminals sometimes neutralize wrongdoing by maintaining that the victim of crime
“had it coming.” Vandalism may be directed against a disliked teacher or neighbor; homosexuals
may be beaten up by a gang because their behavior is considered offensive. Denying the victim may
also take the form of ignoring the rights of an absent or unknown victim— for example, stealing
from the unseen owner of a department store. It becomes morally acceptable for the criminal to
commit such crimes as vandalism when the victims, because of their absence, cannot be
sympathized with or respected.
 Condemn condemners. Offender views the world as a corrupt place with a dog-eat-dog code.
Because police and judges are on the take, teachers show favoritism, and parents take out their
frustrations on their kids, it is ironic and unfair for these authorities to condemn his or her
misconduct. By shifting the blame to others, criminals are able to repress the feeling that their own
acts are wrong.
 Appeal to higher loyalties. Novice criminals often argue that they are caught in the dilemma of
being loyal to their own peer group while at the same time attempting to abide by the rules of the
larger society. The needs of the group take precedence over the rules of society because the
demands of the former are immediate and localized.

In sum, this theory presupposes a condition that allows people to neutralize unconventional norms
and values by using such slogans as “I didn’t mean to do it,” “I didn’t really hurt anybody,” “They had
it coming to them,” “Everybody’s picking on me,” and “I didn’t do it for myself.” These excuses allow
people to drift into criminal modes of behavior.
Testing Neutralization Theory
Attempts have been made to verify the assumptions of this theory empirically, but the results have been
inconclusive. One area of research has been directed at determining whether there really is a need for
law violators to neutralize moral constraints. Thinking behind this research is this: if criminals hold
values in opposition to accepted social norms, then there is really no need to neutralize. So far, the
evidence is mixed. Some studies show that law violators approve of criminal behavior, such as theft and
violence, and still others find evidence that even though they may be active participants themselves,
criminals voice disapproval of illegal behavior. Some studies indicate that law violators approve of social
values such as honesty and fairness; others come to the opposite conclusion.
In addition to youthful delinquent behaviors, adoption of neutralization techniques has also been used
to explain the onset of white-collar crime. Businessmen may find it easier to cut corners by claiming that
“govt. exaggerates dangers to consumer” (denial of injury) or “markets are generally safe so the
corporate producers should not have to take blame for the few injuries that occur” (denial of
responsibility) or “the bottom line is all that matters” (appeal to higher loyalty). Need to get ahead in the
corporate world may help them neutralize the moral constraints that their parents may have taught
them in adolescence, such as play fair, don’t cheat, take responsibility.
This theory, then, is a major contribution to the literature of crime and delinquency. It can account for
the aging-out process: youths can forgo criminal behavior as adults because they never really rejected
the morality of normative society. It helps explain the behavior of the occasional or non-chronic
delinquent, who is able to successfully age out of crime. Because teens are not committed to criminality,
as they mature they simply drift back into conventional behavior patterns. While they are young,
justifications and excuses neutralize guilt and enable individuals to continue to feel good about
themselves. In contrast, people who remain criminals as adults may be using newly learned techniques
to neutralize the wrongfulness of their actions and avoid guilt. Ex: Psychotherapists accused of sexually
exploiting their clients blame the victim for “seducing them”; some claim there was little injury caused
by the sexual encounter; others seek scapegoats to blame for their actions.
 SOCIAL CONTROL THEORY

Social control theories maintain that all people have the potential to violate the law and that modern
society presents many opportunities for illegal activity. Criminal activities (drug abuse and car theft) are
often exciting pastimes that hold the promise of immediate reward and gratification.
Social control theorists argue that people obey the law because behavior and passions are being
controlled by internal and external forces. Because they have been properly socialized, most people
have developed a strong moral sense, which renders them incapable of hurting others and violating
social norms. They develop a commitment to conformity, which requires that they obey the rules of
society. Properly socialized people believe that getting caught at criminal activity will hurt a dearly loved
parent or jeopardize their chance at a college scholarship, or perhaps they feel that their job will be
forfeited if they get in trouble with the law. In other words, people’s behavior, including criminal
activity, is controlled by their attachment and commitment to conventional institutions, individuals, and
processes. On the other hand, those who have not been properly socialized, who lack a commitment to
others or themselves, are free to violate the law and engage in deviant behavior. Those who are
“uncommitted” are not deterred by the threat of legal punishments because they have little to lose.
Self-Concept and Crime
Early versions of control theory theorized that control was a product of social interactions. Maladaptive
social relations produced weak self-concept and poor self-esteem, rendering kids at risk to crime. In
contrast, youths who felt good about themselves and maintained a positive attitude were able to resist
the temptations of the streets. As early as 1951, sociologist Albert Reiss described how delinquents had
weak egos. Scott Briar & Irving Piliavin noted that youths who believe criminal activity will damage their
self-image and their relationships with others will be most likely to conform to social rules; they have a
commitment to conformity. In contrast, those less concerned about their social standing are free to
violate the law. Walter Reckless in his containment theory argued that a strong self-image insulates a
youth from the pressures and pulls of criminogenic influences in the environment. In a series of studies
conducted within the school setting, he and his colleagues found that non-delinquent youths are able to
maintain a positive self-image in the face of environmental pressures toward delinquency.
Hirschi’s Social Bond Theory
Travis Hirschi in Causes of Delinquency (1969) links the onset of criminality to the weakening of the ties
that bind people to society. He assumes that all individuals are potential law violators, but they are kept
under control because they fear that illegal behavior will damage their relationships with friends,
parents, neighbors, teachers, and employers. Without these social ties or bonds, and in the absence of
sensitivity to and interest in others, a person is free to commit criminal acts. He does not view society as
containing competing subcultures with unique value systems. Most people are aware of the prevailing
moral and legal codes. He suggests, however, that in all elements of society people vary in how they
respond to conventional social rules and values. Among all ethnic, religious, racial, and social groups,
people whose bond to society is weak may fall prey to criminogenic behavior patterns.
Elements of the Social Bond
He argues that social bond a person maintains with society is divided into four main elements:
  Attachment: It refers to a person’s sensitivity to and interest in others. Without a sense of
attachment, psychologists believe a person becomes a psychopath and loses the ability to relate
coherently to the world. Acceptance of social norms and the development of a social conscience
depend on attachment to and caring for other human beings. He views parents, peers, and schools
as the important social institutions with which a person should maintain ties. Research indicates kids
attached to their families, friends, and school less likely to get involved in a deviant peer group and
consequently less likely to engage in criminal activities. Teens attached to their parents are also able
to develop the social skills that equip them both to maintain harmonious social ties and to escape
life stresses such as school failure. In contrast, family detachment—including intra-family conflict,
abuse of children, and lack of affection, supervision, and family pride—are predictive of delinquent
conduct.
Attachment to education is equally important. Youths who are detached from the educational
experience are at risk of criminality; those who are committed to school are less likely to engage in
delinquent acts. Detachment and alienation from school may be even more predictive of
delinquency than school failure and/or educational underachievement.
 Commitment: It involves the time, energy, and effort expended in conventional lines of action, such
as getting an education and saving money for the future. If people build a strong commitment to
conventional society, they will be less likely to engage in acts that will jeopardize their hard-won
position. Conversely, the lack of commitment to conventional values may foreshadow a condition in
which risk-taking behavior, such as crime, becomes a reasonable behavior alternative. Association
may be reciprocal. Kids who drink and engage in deviant behavior are more likely to fail in school;
kids who fail in school are more likely to later drink and engage in deviant behavior.
 Involvement: Heavy involvement in conventional activities leaves little time for illegal behavior.
When people become involved in school, recreation, and family, He believes, it insulates them from
the potential lure of criminal behavior, whereas idleness enhances it.
One study found that students who engage in a significant amount of extracurricular activities from
8th grade through 12th grade are more likely to experience high academic achievement and pro-
social behaviors extending into young adulthood.
 Belief: People who live in the same social setting often share common moral beliefs; they may
adhere to such values as sharing, sensitivity to the rights of others, and admiration for the legal
code. If these beliefs are absent or weakened, individuals are more likely to participate in antisocial
or illegal acts. Thus, holding positive beliefs is inversely related to criminality. Ex: Kids who live in
areas marked by strong religious values and who hold strong religious beliefs themselves are less
likely to engage in delinquent activities (substance abuse) than adolescents who do not hold such
beliefs or who live in less devout communities

He further suggests that interrelationship of social bond elements controls subsequent behavior. People
who feel kinship and sensitivity to parents and friends should be more likely to adopt and work toward
legitimate goals or gain skills that help them avoid antisocial or dangerous behaviors. Ex: Girls who have
higher levels of bonding to parents and develop good social skills in adolescence are less likely to
experience dating violence as young adults. The reason: a close bond to parents reduces early
adolescent alcohol use, a factor that shields girls from victimization.
Testing Social Bond Theory
He attempted to test the principal hypothesis of social bond theory. He administered a detailed self-
report survey to a sample of more than 4,000 junior and senior high school students in Contra Costa
County, California. In a detailed analysis of data, he found considerable evidence to support the control
theory model. Among Hirschi’s more important findings are the following:
I. Youths strongly attached to their parents less likely to commit criminal acts.
 II. Commitment to conventional values, such as striving to get a good education and refusing to drink
alcohol and “cruise around,” was indicative of conventional behavior.
III. Youths involved in conventional activity (homework) less likely to engage in criminal behavior.
IV. Youths involved in unconventional behavior (smoking/drinking) more delinquency prone.
V. Youths who maintained weak & distant relationships with people tended toward delinquency.
VI. Those who shunned unconventional acts were attached to their peers.
VII. Delinquents and non-delinquents shared similar beliefs about society.

His version of social control theory has been corroborated by numerous research studies showing that
delinquent youth often feel detached from society. Their relationships within the family, peer group,
and school often appear strained, indicative of a weakened social bond. Associations among indicators
of lack of attachment, belief, commitment, and involvement with measures of delinquency have tended
to be positive and significant. In contrast, strong positive attachments help control delinquency.
Cross-national surveys have also supported general findings of his control theory. Ex: one study of
Canadian youth found that perception of parental attachment was the strongest predictor of delinquent
or law-abiding behavior. Teens who are attached to their parents may develop the social skills that equip
them both to maintain harmonious social ties and to escape life stresses such as school failure.

 SOCIAL REACTION THEORY

Commonly called labeling theory, explains how criminal careers form based on destructive social
interactions and encounters. Its roots are found in the symbolic interaction theory of sociologists
Charles Horton Cooley and George Herbert Mead, and later, Herbert Blumer. Symbolic interaction
theory holds that people communicate via symbols—gestures, signs, words, or images—that stand for
or represent something else. Ex: A gold band on your ring finger conveys many meanings: married;
stable; sexually off limits; conventional.
People interpret symbolic gestures from others and incorporate them in their self-image. When a
teacher puts an A on your paper, it tells you that you are an excellent student, and the symbol pumps up
your self-image. Symbols are used by others to let people know how well they are doing and whether
they are liked or appreciated. Wearing a Rolex and driving a Mercedes is a symbolic way of letting
people know that you are quite successful. Designer clothes display their symbol to let people know that
the wearer has both taste and income. How people view reality then depends on the content of the
messages and situations they encounter, the subjective interpretation of these interactions, and how
they shape future behavior. There is no objective reality. When someone takes another person’s life, it
could be self-defense or cold-blooded murder, depending on how people interpret the act. The police
officer who punches a suspect may, depending on how people interpret the incident, get a medal for
subduing a dangerous criminal or be suspended for police brutality. Because interpretation changes over
time, so do the meanings of concepts and symbols.
Social reaction theory picks up on these concepts of interaction and interpretation. Throughout their
lives, people are given a variety of symbolic labels and ways to interact with others. These labels
represent behavior and attitude characteristics; labels help define not just one trait but the whole
person. People labeled insane are also assumed to be dangerous, dishonest, unstable, violent, strange,
and otherwise unsound. Valued labels, including smart, honest, and hard working, suggest overall
competence. These labels can improve self-image and social standing. Research shows that people who
are labeled with one positive trait, such as being physically attractive, are assumed to maintain other
traits, such as being intelligent and competent. In contrast, negative labels—including troublemaker,
mentally ill, and stupid—help stigmatize the recipients of these labels and reduce their self-image. Those
who have accepted these labels are more prone to engage in deviant behaviors than those whose self-
image has not been so tarnished.
Both positive and negative labels involve subjective interpretation of behavior: a troublemaker is merely
someone people label as troublesome. There need not be any objective proof or measure indicating that
the person is actually a troublemaker. Though a label may be a function of rumor, innuendo, or
unfounded suspicion, its adverse impact can be immense.
Patrick Corrigan notes that labeling and stigma can harm and diminish both the public and private self.
Some groups bear public stigma, and being labeled as part of a stigmatized group “robs people of social
opportunities.” Public stigma occurs when there is prejudice about a group that stigmatizes members
(i.e., sex workers, mental patients) and helps exclude them from social opportunities, including housing
and work. In contrast, self-stigma occurs when negative social attitudes are internalized, subsequently
harming a person’s self-esteem, and inducing shame. If during the self-stigma process a devalued status
is conferred by a significant other—teacher, police officer, elder, parent, or valued peer—the negative
label may cause permanent harm. The degree to which a person is perceived as a social deviant may
affect his or her treatment at home, at work, at school, and in other social situations. Children may find
that their parents consider them a bad influence on younger brothers and sisters. School officials may
limit them to classes reserved for people with behavioral problems. Likewise, when adults are labeled as
criminal, ex-con, or drug addict, they may find their eligibility for employment severely restricted.
Furthermore, if the label is bestowed as the result of conviction for a criminal offense, the labeled
person may be subjected to official sanctions ranging from a mild reprimand to incarceration.
Beyond these immediate results, labeling advocates maintain that, depending on the visibility of the
label and the manner and severity with which it is applied, a person will have an increasing commitment
to a deviant career. They may be watched and become the leading suspect when a similar crime occurs.
Labeled people may fi nd themselves turning to others similarly stigmatized for support and
companionship. Isolated from conventional society, they may identify themselves as members of an
outcast group and become locked into a deviant career. Figure 7.5 illustrates this process. The Thinking
Like a Criminologist feature addresses this issue.
Interpreting Crime