What are “Chicago’s Concentric Zones” and how might they be used to explain the public’s fear of crime?

DIRECTIONS

1. While there is no minimum length, a good essay response frequently ranges from a minimum of 500 to 750 words each. Brief, and or incomplete essays will not fare well, nor will those with what appear to be good length but when reading it one concludes there is a lot of fluff (e.g., no and or little critical thought and or simply restating facts). Again I am looking for graduate level work/responses (e.g., making sense of the material, applying it to the real world, connecting the dots of what might appear to be unrelated data, etc). In short, critical thought is paramount and why I opted to make this exam non-timed.

2. Like content, adherence to, APA formatting (to include full references and in-text citations where appropriate), spelling (stated earlier above so this must be important), in-text citations, and word structure are all very important in your essay responses.

3. You will need to include no less than 2 outside peer reviewed sources to support each question. You should have these available from your work this term.

REFRAIN FROM AI WHEREAS IT WILL BE DETECTED.

ESSAY QUESTIONS:

First list and describe the main assumptions of Robert K. Merton’s Theory of Anomie.

Then using this theory, explain why, in your view, white collar crime occurs/exists.

Please make sure to fully defend your “supported” view regarding this question. Be specific and use scholalry literature to support your perspective.

What are “Chicago’s Concentric Zones” and how might they be used to explain the public’s fear of crime? Please be specific and use scholarly literature to support your perspective.

What is Peacemaking Criminology and how is it used within today’s criminal justice system? As part of your response, please defend your view in regard to whether or not Peacemaking Criminology should be used. Please be specific and use scholarly literature to support your perspective.

Compare and contrast the two primary crime data sources used in the United States, i.e., the Uniform Crime Reports (UCR) and the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS). The focus within your response should be centered on the methodological procedures and implications between the two crime data sources.

Requirements: 500+ words per question

ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD PUBLISHERS, INC.Lanham  Boulder  New York  Toronto  Plymouth, UKExplaining Crime A Primer in Criminological Theory Hugh D. Barlow and David Kauzlarich

vContentsPreface vii1 The Basics of Criminological Theory 12 Classical and Rational Choice Theories 173 Biological, Psychological, and Evolutionary Theories 354 Social Structural Theories 515 Social Process Theories 736 Critical Theories 1017 General and Integrated Theories 131Epilogue: Tools for Using Criminological Theory 163References 173Index 193About the Authors 197

11The Basics of Criminological TheoryCriminologists study how, why, when, where, and under what conditions crime, criminality, and victimization occur. Like any academic discipline, there are a variety of ways criminologists think about and research causal-ity. Some scholars of crime seek to map out crime in its relationship to social environments, such as the economy, in institutions such as schools and families, and in group dynamics, while others focus on individual decision-making processes. Criminologists have created and tested dozens of theories (and many more variants of formal theories) in order to better understand, explain, and hopefully do something about crime in the real world. Such study and theorizing is not as straightforward and simple as it may sound. The truth is that there is a lot going on with crime, and crimi-nological theories try to find out what exactly these things are.Let’s start with a classroom example. Occasionally we ask our students at the beginning of our criminology classes the difficult question “What causes crime?” In response, it is not uncommon for students to identify things such as poverty, dysfunctional families, racism, peer pressure, lazi-ness, and the lack of good jobs. When probed to elaborate, some argue that if people can’t find a good job, they can’t make the bills, and so they decide to commit crimes (for example, steal money or sell drugs) to get by. Other students say that when parents fail to provide rules and guidelines for their children’s behavior, there can be no accountability, let alone discipline, and therefore kids will be more likely to get into trouble because they do not fear punishment. Criminologists have found that while both of these lines of reasoning have merit, they do not capture the real working dynamics or root causes of crime commission. Because crime is complicated, there are

2 Chapter 1no easy answers. In the explanation of crime, as in real life, things are often easier said than done.Attempts to explain why people violate rules is not new, and what we now call criminology dates back to the middle of the eighteenth century. The pioneers in the area of theoretical criminology were trained in a va-riety of disciplines. Cesare Beccaria (1738–1794) and Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832) were philosophers and students of law; Cesare Lombroso (1835–1909), regarded as the founder of criminology, was a physician and surgeon; Raffaele Garofalo (1851–1934) was a professor of law and a magistrate; Enrico Ferri (1856–1929) was a criminal lawyer and member of the Italian parliament. Although people from many disciplines continued to make important contributions to the field over the years, theoretical criminology found its primary academic home in departments of sociology, although it is ever more closely associated with criminal justice depart-ments as well.The basic goal of theory is explanation. Explanations are important be-cause they help us figure out why things are the way they are, and they suggest what might be done to change things. In this sense, criminological theory’s main job is to render crime more understandable. This simple way of conceptualizing theory reflects the diversity of applications that theories have in criminology. Every academic discipline has theory, for it drives ba-sic questions about the subject matter. Indeed, theory is inescapable in vir-tually all aspects of life and human activity. Without it “we would be lost in space and time” (Pfohl, 1985: 10). Sometimes theories are found in places not obvious to the casual observer. For example, when preparing to cross a busy street one considers how best to do so by evaluating the flow of traffic versus the distance needing to be traveled. When parenting, decisions are made about the proper balance to strike between the discipline and support of a child. When you made your decision to enroll in college, your under-standing of the value of education in the marketplace and in your vision of the future helped determine your course of conduct. In all of these cases, theories have instructed the decision making by helping to make sense out of a situation and to provide options and rationales for action. Theories exist in a wide range of popular culture contexts, such as sports (there is plenty of theory behind baseball, football, golf, hockey, basketball, run-ning, and almost every other sport) and theories of music instruction (how notes, rhythms, chords, and harmonies can be meaningfully organized). Card and casino games have plenty of mathematical theories that apply to player strategies (e.g., card counting in blackjack, probability play in poker); and there are even theories about theories, known as metatheories.Criminology, the study of lawmaking, lawbreaking, and the reactions to crime, is a rich field of study with many ideological, intellectual, and methodological disagreements. This partially explains why there are several

The Basics of Criminological Theory 3dozen theories in the field, all of which will be reviewed in this text. Many of the theories attempt to explain why certain people commit crime. Other theories attempt to explain why some places have higher crime rates than others, or the social conditions under which crime rates rise and fall. There is also a group of theories in criminology that endeavor to explain lawmak-ing, the process by which certain behaviors or people are labeled criminal. Still other criminological theories attempt to shed light on the purpose of criminal justice itself, victimology, and the politics of crime and justice.If the purpose of criminological theory is to explain crime, how do crimi-nologists judge its success and value? Surely a theory should be logical, test-able by research, and defensible in the face of criticism, but let’s consider some less obvious criteria for evaluating the quality of a theory:The theory should shed light on the topic under study. Imagine yourself in a dark room. What do you see? Now flip on the light switch. Can you see things more clearly? Are things that were otherwise not in view now visible? A good theory should function like a light switch. Of course, the brighter the light it triggers the better. As you will see in later chapters, some theories cast more light than others.Theory should specifically point out the relationships between variables. A variable is anything that changes or can have different values. Theories specify how relevant variables are logically linked to the problem in need of explanation. For example, a few theories of crime hold that economic status is linked to crime because of shifts and changes in the unemployment rate. A theorist adopting this approach would have to specify how changes in the independent variable (unemployment rates) impact the frequency and dis-tribution of crime (the dependent variable). More generally, a good theory correctly predicts the outcomes produced by changing circumstances.Theory should be helpful in guiding research and future theoretical develop-ments. To some, theory for itself is surely a stimulating intellectual exercise, but theory is especially meaningful when it can be articulated and applied in the real world. Although it is true that theories have an indirect influence on many aspects of criminal justice policy and practice, often the actors (lawmakers, police officers, judges, etc.) are not cognizant of the academic versions of theory and therefore not necessarily informed of the potential or substantiated drawbacks discovered in the academic community. Alter-natively, some theorists we have talked to care little about the “practical” side of their work, choosing to instead leave those matters to others. Yet, putting theory to work in the real world is, overall, a vitally important part of criminology (Barlow, 1995).Theories should hold up under empirical scrutiny. Flip through any major criminology journal and you’ll likely find articles that in some way attempt to gauge the veracity and explanatory power of a theory. Such tests are im-portant in any academic discipline, as theories that have been consistently

4 Chapter 1shown to be weak should be reworked or eschewed in favor of better expla-nations. However, caution should be used when discussing whether or not a study or group of studies has actually “proven” or “disproved” a theory. In the social sciences, such absolutism is difficult to achieve, and instead, stud-ies can either be said to have “supported” or “not supported” a theory.Theories should be parsimonious. Anything said in wordy or complicated ways is typically less useful than things said in a straightforward and simple manner. One of the reasons undergraduate students often dislike theory is because it seems unclear and abstract. The effort to explain many variables and their relationships, thereby increasing the scope of a theory, often comes at the sacrifice of parsimony. As we shall see, theories differ consider-ably in how well they balance the tension between parsimony and scope,In addition to considering how we can judge the quality and usefulness of theories, we also need to think about the goals of theory more generally. One of these is that a new theory should be able to shed a different sort of light on the topic under study than those previously applied. In this vein, several criminological theories are oppositional. Such theories develop from an explicit critique of existing modes of explanation. In the late eighteenth century, for example, Classical theory (reviewed in chapter 2) introduced the notion of rational choice and, in the process, rebuked supernatural explanations of crime. In like manner, Edwin Sutherland introduced his theory of differential association through a critique of earlier theories that held that poverty was a major cause of crime. More recent theories reviewed in this book, such as postmodernism and feminism, are also oppositional, for they include fundamental critiques of other explanations of crime as a central step in advancing their own arguments.Another function of theory is to guide social and criminal justice policy. If there is a need to convince anyone that crime is a highly significant social problem, consider that in the United States alone billions of dollars are spent each year on governmental crime and criminal justice programs and institutions. Moreover, each year there are millions of victims of crime and the fear of crime can be paralyzing for people whether they have been vic-timized or not. The large amount of films and televisions shows based on crime and criminal justice themes also suggests that there is a long-standing and significant interest in crime (see box 1.1). Perhaps the most compel-ling—and to some extent controversial—film on crime in recent years is Michael Moore’s Bowling for Columbine, which is summarized in box 1.2.CHARACTERISTICS OF THEORYBefore we examine particular theories of crime and criminality, it is helpful to consider how they differ. There are four main ways to classify theory:

The Basics of Criminological Theory 5(1) by level of analysis, (2) paradigmatic structure, (3) range of explana-tion, and (4) by causal locus. We shall review each of these classifications in turn.Levels of Analysis. Some theories deal mainly with large-scale social pat-terns such as social change or the social, economic, and political organiza-tion of society. Crime is viewed as a property of whole groups of people rather than as a property of individuals. Because they focus on how societ-ies are organized, these theories usually relate crime to social structure. They are called macro level theories, but this does not mean they lack relevance for the everyday lives of individuals. Rather, such theories attempt to make sense of the everyday behavior of people in relation to conditions and trends Box 1.1. Crime in FilmFor many years the American public has been fascinated with crime. Some of this interest may be because the fear of crime is so widespread. It may also be because people enjoy thinking about others taking chances that they themselves would never consider. Strong interest in crime is also reflected in popular culture, as there are literally thousands of television shows, films, and songs that in one way or another relate to crime or criminal justice.Regarding crime films, Nicole Rafter (2000: 141) writes in Shots in the Mir-ror: Crime Films and Society that the reason for their popularity is often tied to the nature of the heroes:Viewers delight in watching characters who can escape from tight spots and out-smart their enemies, all the while tossing down scotch and flibbing jibes. Good-guy heroes please us by out-tricking the tricky, tracking down the psychos, solving impossible mysteries. Bad-guy heroes appeal by being bolder, nastier, crueler, and tougher than we dare to be by saying what they want, taking what they want, despising weaklings, and breaking the law with impunity. Our examination of the all-time highest grossing films in the United States reveals that at least a quarter of them contain some kind of crime theme. The same is true with the American Film Institute’s Top 100 Films of the American century. Organized crime films seem especially popular, as movies such as GoodFellas, Scarface, and The Godfather series rank high in both popular and critics’ lists. Rafter (2000) proposes that crime films not only reflect society’s interest in rule breaking but that they also provide a way to frame the causes of crime as well. For example, if films depict someone committing a crime because of an addiction to hard drugs, viewers may come to believe that this is a cause of crime in the real world. As you read through the following chapters, keep a crime movie or two in mind and see if any of the academic explanations are similar to those provided in the films.

6 Chapter 1Box 1.2. Bowling for Columbine as Pop CriminologyMichael Moore’s Oscar-winning film, Bowling for Columbine, is regarded by many as one of the most powerful nonacademic treatments of real-world crime to date. In the film, Moore raises fundamental questions about the relationship between social inequality, opportunity, and violence in the United States by exploring destructive individual, corporate, state, and spe-cial-interest-group practices and how they contribute to both interpersonal and social injury. Moore frames crime, especially gun violence, as the result of many factors, including youth alienation, racism, and poverty. He draws attention to the high level of gun violence in the United States by providing a series of powerful images, interviews, stories, and biographies. Among the more poignant of these are: An interview with musician Marilyn Manson about those who blame him for the Columbine shootings and similar forms of violence. Chilling video that until recently had only been viewed by the parents of children killed or injured at Columbine. The video shows dozens of students panicked during the assault by Klebold and Harris. Juxtaposing the U.S. government’s bombing of an aspirin factory in Kos-ovo on the same morning that Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold slaughtered thirteen people at Columbine High School. Predictably, Moore argues, then-President Clinton only defined one of those actions as violent.  Taking two young men—one in a wheelchair and the other with a bullet still embedded in his chest, who were shot by Klebold and Harris—to Kmart corporate headquarters to demand that the company stop selling handgun ammunition. After the predictable corporate neutralization of the situation, Moore and the two young men return a few days later with the media in tow to again demand some action. Several days later Kmart announces the phasing out of the selling of such ammunition. The story of a woman who left her son to live with her brother because she was forced to work two jobs under Michigan’s “welfare to work” program. Her son took a loaded handgun from his uncle’s dwelling and then shot and killed one of his first-grade classmates. Moore implies that if the state of Michigan’s policy was not so strict, the boy would have been with his mother and unable to access a firearm. Media obsession with the reporting of violent crime. Using the case of the first-grader shooting, Moore shows how media agents frame stories without consideration of the effects of poverty on individual decision making and behavior. In another instance, Moore asks a field reporter what would be more attractive: covering a “guy with a gun” or a “baby that is drowning.” The reporter picked the former. A friendly Moore randomly opening the doors of homes in Toronto and asking the residents why they really weren’t scared when he appeared.

The Basics of Criminological Theory 7that transcend the individual, and even the individual’s neighborhood and community. A macro level analysis might also include the study of the so-cial origins of criminal definitions as well as how their enforcement affects group life, including crime itself. Some macro level theorists are interested in why certain events and people are labeled criminal and others not; other scholars look into the process of constructing criminal definitions itself—among scientists, perhaps, or on the street or in the courtroom.Some other theories focus on the ways individuals interact with others and with the groups to which they belong. These are called micro level theories, and most share an interest in the way social interaction creates and transmits meanings. They emphasize the social processes by which people and events become criminal. For example, as people move from situation to situation, they are confronted with all sorts of messages, rules, and expectations, some of which are not obvious. Through a process of sending, receiving, and interpreting messages, individuals help construct the social reality of which they are a part.Figure 1.1 provides one way to think about levels of analysis through concentric circles. Criminality is at the center, and around it are some of its influences, such as peer group associations and broader social forces such as the economy.In reality, some theories do not neatly fit into these categories, while oth-ers seem to bridge the two levels. Laub and Sampson (1988), for example, predict that structural factors such as household crowding, economic dependence, residential mobility, and parental crime influence the delin-quent behavior of children through their effects on the way parents relate to their children day by day. Sociological theories that attempt to explain  Moore and sociologist Barry Glassner comfortably standing at the cor-ner of Normandy and Florence in Los Angeles. They are unable to see the famous “Hollywood” sign because of massively thick air pollution. Moore asks a cop standing by if he could arrest the people responsible for poisoning his lungs. After a mumble or two, the cop walks away.While Moore’s film does not represent anything close to an academic breakthrough in the study of crime, it does present a number of compelling visual portraits of victims and offenders that encourages viewers to think about the causes and consequences of crime and violence. And while Moore has come under fire for the film’s political slant, there are those in criminol-ogy who see this as unproblematic, as many theories of crime reflect ideologi-cal beliefs, as we explore later in box 1.3.

8 Chapter 1“micro-macro” dynamics between individuals and society often take this approach. Indeed, it is a daunting but important task to explain how larger social forces shape institutions and groups and ultimately find expression in the interactions of everyday life.Paradigms and Criminological Theory. Paradigms are broad assumptions and presuppositions about the nature of social life (ontology) and how knowl-edge is to be gained about social life (epistemology). Paradigms are far more fundamental than theories or perspectives—they are indeed the foundation upon which theories are built. There are two basic paradigms in criminology: the positivist paradigm and the social constructionist paradigm. While some have argued that there are also Marxist, postmodernist, and feminist paradigms, we see these approaches as multidimensional. That is, they com-bine elements of both the positivist and constructionist paradigms.Figure 1.1. Levels of Analysis, Crime, and Criminality

The Basics of Criminological Theory 9The positivist paradigm holds that crime can be known and explained through the scientific method. Crime is considered an objective condition, or social fact, that can be analyzed and understood as an independent phenomenon, regardless of differing ideas about its development and con-stitution (Michalowski, 1985). A positivist theory of crime asks questions such as “What are the concrete cause(s) of crime?” and “How can crime be controlled or reduced?”In contrast, the social constructionist paradigm does not assume the objective existence of crime. It emphasizes instead how crime, law, and criminal justice are differently defined and conceptualized by social actors. Thus, the term social constructionist. To these theorists, crime is not an objec-tive condition, nor is the law, the criminal, or the criminal justice system. Criminologists operating from the social constructionist paradigm might build theories to explore questions such as “Who defines crime and for what purpose?,” “How and why are labels attached to certain people and to certain acts at particular moments in time?,” and “What are the conse-quences of the application of labels to people and groups over time?”General and Restricted Theories. Another important way that theories differ is in the range of phenomena they try to explain. General theories are meant to explain a broad range of facts. They are also not restricted to any one place or time. A general theory of crime, for example, is one that explains many (if not all) types of crime and can be applied to a variety of social and historical settings.Although some theories in criminology purport to explain all or most crime, few really do meet a sufficiently generalizable level of analysis to satisfy crucial questions of causality or correlation. Sometimes this results in the production of restricted theories, explanations designed to apply to a narrower range of facts. A restricted theory of crime might apply to one type of crime or to various types under a limited set of circumstances. Most modern theories in criminology are regarded as restricted, but the develop-ment of general theory remains an important goal, and some recent efforts are promising.Distant and Proximate Causes. Causation is not a simple concept, espe-cially in the social and behavioral sciences. Think about your own behavior for a moment. Right now you are reading this book. How and why you are reading could probably be explained in many different ways; in other words, various causes might be at work. Some of the causes are closer or more immediate—called proximate causes—while others are more distant, or background, causes. A proximate cause might be that your professor just assigned this chapter to be read before your next class, which is tomorrow. An even more proximate (and perhaps more powerful!) cause might be that your parents just told you that they would buy you a new car if you got an “A” in your criminology class. A more distant cause is the expectation that

10 Chapter 1you will follow your mother’s footsteps and become a lawyer. An even more distant cause may lie in the fact that a university education is a requirement for many professional careers and increasingly for other jobs as well.You look out the window and notice that a friend is not cracking the books like you. No surprise, since she’s not a college student. But then you wonder why not. Because you know her you comfortably reject personal explanations based on her intelligence, her drive, and her commitment to getting ahead, and start thinking about background factors. You remember that neither of her parents has a university education; you recall that she has four brothers and sisters and that only her father works outside the home, as a house painter. You remember that one of her brothers is disabled and that a few years ago the father had an accident and was out of work for two years. You start thinking about other university students you know and about high school friends who never went to college or dropped out.Even though it is only a small sample of people, you begin to see pat-terns. You realize that a university education is explained by a combination of proximate and distant causes, some of which relate to the individual, some to the community and larger society, and some to the social situa-tions people move in and out of in the course of their lives. You recognize, as well, that some causes seem to have a direct impact while the effect of others is more indirect, working through their impact on something else. Some causes are both direct and indirect. For example, the impact of pov-erty on behavior may be indirect through its effects on family relationships and direct through its impact on opportunities and access to them.IDEOLOGY AND CRIMINOLOGICAL THEORYThe way criminologists visualize their field and its subject matter reflects their particular set of beliefs and values. These beliefs and values—called ideology—affect decisions about what to investigate, what questions to ask, and what to do with the knowledge gained. The intrusion of ideology is a normal aspect of the academic enterprise, and the study of crime is no exception. There are a number of competing ideological perspectives in criminology: conservative, liberal, and critical. The latter approach includes feminist, Marxist, postmodernist, cultural, and peacemaking theories, which we review more fully in chapter 6.Conservative Criminology. Conservative criminology is identified with the view that criminal law is a codification of moral precepts and that people who break the law are somehow psychologically or morally defec-tive. Crimes are seen as threats to law-abiding members of society and to the social order on which their safety and security depend. The “right” questions to ask about crime include: “How are morally defective persons

The Basics of Criminological Theory 11produced?” and “How can society protect itself against them?” The causes of crime are located in the characteristics of individuals. The solution to the crime problem is couched in terms of a return to basic values wherein good wins over evil. For example, consider Gottfredson and Hirschi’s (1990) self-control theory, a moderately conservative explanation of crime discussed later in this text. According to this theory, individuals with low self-control are most likely to commit crimes. The traits associated with low self-control include: short-time perspective; low diligence, persistence, and tenacity; a tendency to be “adventuresome, active, and physical”; a tendency to be “self-centered, indifferent, or insensitive to the suffering and needs of others”; and a tendency to have “unstable marriages, friendships, and job profiles” (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990: 91). The major cause of low self-control, according to the authors, is “ineffective parenting,” a claim that has much more support in conservative than liberal circles. Until well into the twentieth century, most criminological thinking was conservative. In lay circles, the conservative view enjoyed a considerable boost during the Reagan and Bush years, and to some extent continued to enjoy popularity throughout the Clinton and Bush administrations.Liberal Criminology. Liberal criminology began to emerge as a force during the late 1930s and early 1940s, and it has remained dominant ever since. The most influential versions of liberal criminology explain criminal behavior either in terms of the way society is organized (social structure) or in terms of the way people acquire social attributes (social process). Social structure theories include strain theory, cultural transmis-sion theory, and conflict theory. Strain theory argues that when people find they cannot achieve valued goals through socially approved means, they experience stress and frustration, which in turn may lead to crime. Cultural transmission theory draws attention to the impact on individuals of the values, norms, and lifestyles to which they are exposed day to day. Delinquency and crime are learned through exposure to a criminogenic culture, a culture that encourages crime. According to conflict theory, soci-ety is characterized by conflict, and criminality is a product of differences in power exercised when people compete for scarce resources or clash over conflicting interests.Social process theories include associational theory, control theory, and labeling theory. Associational theories assert that people become criminal through close association with others (family members, friends, coworkers) who are criminal. Control theory asserts that crime and delinquency result “when an individual’s bond to society is weak or broken” (Hirschi, 1971: 16). More room is allowed for individual deviance when social controls are weak. Labeling theory suggests that some people become criminals because they are influenced by the way other people react to them. People who are repeatedly punished for “bad” behavior may eventually accept the

12 Chapter 1idea that they are bad, and their subsequent behavior is consistent with that identity.Critical Criminology. Liberal criminologists locate criminogenic forces in the organizational and routine social processes of society, yet they do not call for any change in its basic economic, cultural, or political structure. Critical criminologists (sometimes called radical criminologists) generally do. From a Marxist theoretical perspective, crime and criminal justice have reinforced and strengthened the power of the state and the wealthy over the poor, working class, and developing world. To some Marxists, crime and criminality are the products of the exploitative character of monopoly capitalism, and efforts to control crime are poorly disguised attempts to divert attention from the crimes committed by the state, corporations, and capitalists. While Marxism is but one school of thought within critical criminology, the overall approach has largely been shaped by Marx’s ideas, such as his call to work for social justice, encapsulated in his dictum: “The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways; the point, however, is to change it” (quoted in Tucker, 1978: 143).Feminist theories in criminology focus on how gender relations and patriarchy constitute and impact the nature, extent, and distribution of crime, responses to crime, and victimization. Theoretical criminology, like most academic areas, has historically been male-centered, sexist, and either ignorant or dismissive of issues related to gender inequality and discrimi-nation. Since the 1970s, however, there has been a substantial increase in the study of the gendered nature of the causes and consequences of crime, although the extent to which more radical forms of feminist criminology have impacted mainstream criminology is considerably less than that of liberal forms of feminism.Another critical criminological approach is postmodernism, which em-ploys notions of chaos and unpredictability in the understanding of crime and questions conventional ideas about the value of science in explaining crime (Ferrell, 2003; Henry and Milovanovic, 2003). Postmodernism is clearly an oppositional theory and is really a loose collection of “themes and tendencies” that include the rejection of scientific methods, the notion of Truth, and the legitimacy of the state (Schwartz and Friedrichs, 1994). Criminological postmodernism also sensitizes us to the power of words, es-pecially the so-called crime speak, which is how through language we think about and define the “reality” of crime and justice (Arrigo, 1998; Borkin, Henry, and Milovanovic, 2006; Henry and Milovanovic, 1996; 1999). For example, the phrase “war on crime” suggests more a more militaristic than humanist strategy to reduce crime.Critical criminology has also given rise to what is known as peacemak-ing criminology. Peacemaking criminologists theorize on how to bring victims, offenders, and communities together in the harmonious resolution

The Basics of Criminological Theory 13of conflict. Borrowing heavily from the ideas of humanist thinkers such as Jane Addams and Mohandas Gandhi, this perspective holds substantial ap-plicability to crime and criminal justice policy, most notably in the form of restorative justice.All of these ideological positions—conservative, liberal, and radical/critical—can be found in the various theories reviewed in the next several chapters. As you can see, there is much variety within theories of crime, and in the real world of criminology, political ideology is partly responsible for this (see box 1.3). But, there is much variety in lots of things. Consider, for example, tactics used in sports. Just as there are different ways to catch fish, pitch a baseball, or hit a golf ball, there are different ways to approach the study of crime. Further, not all theories of crime (like baseball pitches) are suitable at all times or in all places. What pitcher would only have one pitch in his repertoire? What angler would only have one lure? And what golfer would use a putter on the tee? The same holds true with theories of crime, Box 1.3. Political Ideology and Criminologists’ Theoretical PreferencesA survey of criminologists lends considerable support to the notion that political ideology is related to theoretical preferences. In Walsh and Ellis’s (1999) survey of 138 scholars of crime, 70 identified themselves as liberal, 35 as moderates, 23 as conservative, and 10 as radical. The study found that criminologists who regarded themselves as more po-litically conservative or moderate were more likely to favor theories that focus on low self-control and poor disciplinary practices as important causes of crime. Liberals were more likely to favor theories that focus on environmental factors that lead to crime, such as economic and educational inequality. Criti-cal/radical criminologists were even stronger in their belief that these factors are important in the understanding of crime. Moreover, while radicals sup-ported mostly Marxist and conflict theories, conservatives supported theories that do not implicate larger social factors in the causes of crime. Not surpris-ingly, those claiming to be liberal or moderate “fall in between” radical and conservatives (Walsh and Ellis, 1999: 14). The authors indicate that it is unclear whether political ideology causes theoretical preference or whether theory influences a person’s ideology. This is an interesting question, for if only ideology causes theoretical preference, to what degree can criminology be “scientific”? If, however, certain theories are found to be supported in the research and this causes a change in ideology, does this mean that the discipline is more “objective” and committed only to the searching of truth? Unfortunately, the answers to these questions are not easy, but what this study points out is that indeed criminology is (and perhaps has always been) “highly fragmented” by political ideology (Walsh and Ellis, 1999: 14).

14 Chapter 1as criminologists have devised a number of different theories to explain what causes crime. But as you will discover, the large number of theories in criminology is not necessarily negative, as crime itself is widely variable, changing both in time and space.Another reason that there are so many criminological theories is that crime is an immensely variant phenomenon. From a strictly legalistic standpoint, crime includes a huge range of offenses, from property crimes like burglary and theft to violent crimes such as murder, rape, and assault. Criminologists also study white-collar crimes, which involve the violation of trust in the context of work. Examples of such crimes include embezzle-ment, environmental contamination, violations of worker safety laws, and genocide. With such a variety of behaviors that fall under the label “crime,” you can see that it is a daunting task to try to intelligently explain the causes and correlates of these various behaviors. But this is exactly what many criminologists attempt to do.The fact that there are numerous criminological theories is also reflected in the sheer complexity of the behaviors and actions under study by crimi-nologists. If it is criminal behavior to be explained, must behavior more generally also be explained? If so, we are asking ourselves to accomplish a feat that scholars in all sorts of disciplines (e.g., biology, psychology, sociol-ogy, philosophy) have studied for centuries. It should come as no surprise that many theories of crime do in fact owe intellectual debts to other fields of study, since criminology is perhaps one of the more interdisciplinary fields of academic inquiry today. Yet the goal of explaining why humans behave the way they do is still elusive. This is in part due to the fact that there are so many different aspects of the human and social condition that need to be considered as potential factors that contribute to behavior and whether or not there are unique causes of criminal behavior.CHAPTER SUMMARYThe main purpose of theory is explanation. Criminologists create, test, and apply theories in order to understand the nature, extent, definition, and consequences of crime. Theories should be able to shed light on an understudied or poorly understood problem, specify the relationship be-tween variables, guide criminal justice policy, be economical, and hold up to empirical scrutiny. Theories are classified by their level of analysis, paradigmatic assumptions, causal focus, and scope. Macro theories deal with large-scale social patterns; micro theories focus on the interaction of individuals and on the manner in which meanings are created and trans-mitted in social situations. General theories explain a broad range of facts; restricted theories apply to a narrower range of facts. A general theory thus

The Basics of Criminological Theory 15subsumes more restricted theories. However, the development of general theory is extremely difficult, and most modern theories in criminology are regarded as restricted. Paradigms structure how theorists go about viewing the world in a fundamental way. The social fact paradigm assumes the objective existence of social phenomena, while the social constructionist perspective guides the investigation of subjective, interactive, and defini-tional processes.Theories reflect the values, beliefs, and academic disciplines of those who propose them. Conservative criminological theories explain crime in terms of the moral or psychological defectiveness of individuals. Liberal theories explain crime in terms of normal social conditions and processes that characterize group life. Critical theories explain crime in terms of the exploitative character of capitalist society, patriarchy, or modernism. Crime is an immensely complex and variant phenomenon, and there are equally complex and variant attempts to explain it.KEY TERMScritical criminologistsconservative criminologydistant causesgeneral theoriesliberal criminologymacro level theoriesmicro level theoriesparadigmspositivist paradigmproximate causesrestricted theoriessocial constructionist paradigmtheoryDISCUSSION QUESTIONS1. Scholars treasure the function and importance of theory, but this word is generally not considered to be exciting or valuable outside of academic circles. Why might this be and how can the perception be changed?2. Why is the concept of “levels of analysis” crucial to theorizing about crime? Do you think that one level of analysis is more popular than others in the general public’s thinking about the causes of crime?

16 Chapter 13. Paradigms represent fundamental starting points for the understand-ing of any social scientific phenomenon, including crime. To what extent do you see either of the paradigms being more helpful and accurate than the other?4. Some scholars believe that crime is political in all sorts of ways. Given the role of ideology discussed in this chapter, how do you see politics framing or entering into discussions of the causes of crime and crime control policy?ACTIVITIES1. Search the Republican, Democratic, and Green Party websites for the word “crime.” Compare and contrast the different policies and ap-proaches on these websites to the liberal, conservative, and radical theoretical perspectives on crime.2. Watch Michael Moore’s film Bowling for Columbine and identify the ideological components of the film as well as the extent to which at-tention is given to the three levels of analysis. Is Moore’s analysis of crime more political than scientific?3. Conduct an informal poll and ask people about their opinion on the causes of crime. Analyze their responses, looking for the presence of ideological assumptions and bias.

ORIGINALPAPEREstimatingtheImpactofClassiÞcationErrorontheÔÔStatisticalAccuracyÕÕofUniformCrimeReportsJamesJ.Nolan•StephenM.Haas•JessicaS.NapierPublishedonline:3April2011SpringerScience+BusinessMedia,LLC2011AbstractThispaperoffersamethodologicalapproachforestimatingclassiÞcationerrorinpolicerecordsthendeterminingthestatisticalaccuracyofofÞcialcrimestatisticsreportedtotheUniformCrimeReporting(UCR)program.ClassiÞcationerrorreferstothemistakesinUCRstatisticscausedbythemisclassiÞcationofcriminaloffenses,forexamplerecordingacrimeasaggravatedassaultwhenitshouldhavebeensimpleassault.StatisticalaccuracyreferstotheestimatedtruetotalofeachcrimetypebasedoncancellingeffectofundercountingandovercountingcrimeduetomisclassiÞcations.Thepopulationforthestudyconsistsofthe12largestmunicipalpoliceagenciesinamostlyruralsoutheasternstate.Basedonasampleof2,663records,theauthorsillustratetheimpactofclassiÞcationerroronthetotalpopulationofreportedoffenses.MisclassiÞcationsresultinovercountingandundercountingcertaincrimes.Thetruenumberofeachcrimetype,aswellastheaggregateIndexCrime,ViolentCrime,andPropertyCrimetotals,isestimatedbasedtheevaluationofoffsettingmisclassiÞcations.TheÞndingsshowthatcertainUCRcrimecategoriesaregreatlyundercountedwhileothersareovercounted.TheindexcrimeandviolentcrimetotalsarealsosigniÞcantlyundercounted;however,whensimpleassaultisaddedtotheindexandviolentcrimecategories,theerrorintheseaggregatenumbersisreducedtolessthan1%.TheresultsprovideabenchmarkforassessingthestatisticalaccuracyoftheUCRdata.KeywordsClassiÞcationerrorStatisticalaccuracyUniformCrimeReports(UCR)OfÞcialcrimestatisticsNationalincident-basedreportingsystem(NIBRS)J.J.Nolan(&)DepartmentofSociologyandAnthropology,WestVirginiaUniversity,P.O.Box6326,309KnappHall,Morgantown,WV26506-6326,USAe-mail:jim.nolan@mail.wvu.eduS.M.HaasJ.S.NapierWestVirginiaDivisionofJusticeandCommunityServices,Charleston,WV,USA123JQuantCriminol(2011)27:497Ð519DOI10.1007/s10940-011-9135-9

IntroductionThepurposeofthisarticleistoexplorethephenomenonofclassiÞcationerrorintheUniformCrimeReports(UCR).ClassiÞcationerroroccurswhencriminaloffensesaremisclassiÞedbypolicebeforetheyareenteredintotheUCRdatabase.ThismisclassiÞ-cationresultsinovercountingsomeoffenseswhileundercountingothers.ClassiÞcationerrorinUCR,whetherintentionaloraccidental,resultsintheinßationordeßationofcrimeinUCRstatistics.TheUCRProgramisanationalinitiativeinvolvingmorethan17,000city,county,stateandfederallawenforcementagencieswhichvoluntarilyreportcrimedatatotheFederalBureauofInvestigation(FBI2007).ThemainobjectiveoftheUCRProgramistogenerateavalidsetofcrimedataforuseinlawenforcementadministration,operation,andman-agement.SincetheinceptionoftheUCRProgrammorethan70yearsago,policerecordshavebeentheprimarysourceofdataforthenationalcrimestatistics.Althoughthequalityofpolicerecordshasoftencomeintoquestion,UCRhasbeenfoundtobeavalidindicatoroftheÔÔindexÕÕcrimes(Goveetal.1985).Undeniably,theinformationgatheredandreportedthroughtheUCRProgramhasbecomeasocialindicatorforthenationandisroutinelyusedbyÔÔcriminologists,sociologists,legislators,municipalplanners,themedia,andotherstudentsofcriminaljusticeforvariedresearchandplanningpurposesÕÕ(FBI2007,para.1).Suchwidespreaduseofdatahasunderscoredtheimportanceofensuringitsaccuracy(Nolanetal.2006).TheFederalBureauofInvestigationhasacknowledgedthattheintegrityandaccuracyoftheUCRdependsuponthedataenteredbytheparticipatingagencies(AkiyamaandPropheter2005);thereby,suggestingthatattentionshouldbegiventotheerrorsproducedbylawenforcementofÞcersandtheeffectstheseerrorshaveonthequalityoftheUCRdata.Whileconsiderableattentionhasbeenfocusedonerrorsasso-ciatedwithvictimreporting,policerecording,andthehandlingofmissingdata(LynchandJarvis2008;HartandRennison2003;Maltz1999),few,ifany,publishedstudieshavebeenundertakentoassesscrimeclassiÞcationerror.OnceclassiÞcationerrorshavebeenidentiÞedandmeasuredineachcrimetype,thestatisticalaccuracyofthecrimedatacanbedetermined.Bystatisticalaccuracywerefertothenumericaldifference(orlackthereof)betweentherecordednumberofcrimesandtruenumber1ofcrimesreportedtoUCR.ThetruenumberofcrimesineachcriminaloffensecategoryisanestimatethattakesintoaccounttheoffsettingeffectofundercountingandovercountingbecauseofmisclassiÞcation.SincethereisnouniformmethodforidentifyingandassessingtheimpactofclassiÞ-cationerrorintheUS(LynchandJarvis2008;MaltzandTargonski2002;Nolanetal.2006;Woodard1992),thecentralpurposeofthisstudyistointroduceamethodologyforassessingtheÔÔstatisticalaccuracyÕÕofcrimeestimatesproducedbytheUCRProgram.Inanefforttoillustratethemeritofthismethodology,thisstudyexaminesarandomsampleofcrimesreportedtotheUCRProgramfrom12citiesandtownsinasoutheasternstate.Ananalysisisconductedtoidentifytheunder-andover-countingofoffensesacrossvariouscrimetypes.ErrorratesareappliedtocalculatepointestimateswithconÞdenceintervalsofthetruenumberofcrimesineachoffensecategory.Again,thetruenumberisnotthe1ByÔÔtruenumberÕÕweareonlyreferringtothecrimesthathavemadeitintothepolicedatabaseÑi.e.,thesourceoftheUCR.Thisinnowaymeansthetruenumberofcriminaloffensesthatactuallyoccurredinthepolicejurisdiction.Asweexplainlaterinthispaper,manycrimesgounreportedbyvictimsorarenotrecordedbypolicewhentheyarereported.498JQuantCriminol(2011)27:497Ð519123

numberofcrimesthathadactuallyoccurredinthejurisdiction,butthetruenumberofeachoffensetypethatmadeitswayintothepolicedatabase.BoththesourcesofclassiÞcationerrorandthemostcommonreasonsformisclassiÞcationsareexamined.ThefollowingsectionoffersabriefoverviewaboutclassiÞcationerroranditsrelationshiptotheaccuracyofofÞcialcrimestatistics.LiteratureReviewItiswellknownintheÞeldsofcriminologyandsociologythattheUCRisaÔÔstatisticalprogram,ÕÕmeaningthatitisnotanactualaccountingofallcrimesthatoccurinajuris-diction.Moreover,UCRisnotasampleeither.Instead,UCRprovidesafullaccountingofcrimesthatarerecordedbypolice.Sinceitsinceptioninthelate1920s,theUCRProgramhasbeenavaluableresourcetopoliceandcriminologistsalikeintheireffortstounderstandthenatureandextentofcrimelocallyandnationally.AlthoughUCRisnotproducedbysampling,theprogramisconsideredstatisticalbecauseadjustmentsaremadeformissingorerroneousdata.2Sinceitisastatisticalprogram,thevalueofUCRisnotcontingentontheeliminationofallerrors(Nolanetal.2006).Instead,itistheÔÔerrorstructureÕÕofUCRthatisimportant,pleaserefertoFig.1.BlockAinFig.1representsallcrimesthatoccurwithinaparticularjurisdiction.ThisincludesallbehaviorthatÞtsthedeÞnitionofacrimewhetheritisreportedonnot.MovingallthewaytotherightofFig.1isblockDÔÔpolicerecords.ÕÕBlockDrepresentsallcrimesthatoccurredinajurisdictionwhichwererecognizedascrimesandreportedbyvictimsandrecordedbypolice.Oncethepolicecreateareportofanincidentthecrimemakesitswayintothepolicedatabase,i.e.,blockD.OfcourseDwillbelessthanAbecausesometimesthevictimsdonotrecognizethatacrimeoccurred(A0),andmanytimesandforavarietyofreasonsvictimsdecidenottoreportcrimestothepolice(B0),andquiteoftenthepolicedonotwritereportsofincidents(C0)evenwhentheyarereportedtothem.GivenalloftheplacesinthereportingprocesswherecrimesthatoccurredinAcanescapebeingcountedinD,DhasstillbeenfoundtobeavalidmeasureofAÑwithsomecaveats(Goveetal.1985).Inadditiontoerrors/omissionsatA0,B0andC0inFig.1,errorisintroducedintoUCRtotalsbytheuseofestimationandimputationprocedureswhendataarepreparedforpublication.WerepresenttheseerrorsasD1.Itisnotuncommon,tohavewithinasinglejurisdictionmissingmonthsofcrimereportsbecauseofbacklogsorcorruptedÞles.Orwithinastatewheremultiplejurisdictionscontributetothestatetotal,missingagencydatawillaffecttheaggregatetotalsandwillimpactstateandnationaltrendanalysesamongotherthings(LynchandJarvis2008;Maltz1999).InFig.1,D2representscrimeclassi-Þcationerrorwhichisthefocusofthisstudyandwillbeexplainedinmuchdetailbelow.Todate,moststudiesoftheUCRerrorstructurehavefocusedonvictim-reporting(B0)andpolice-recording(C0)errors.Theliteratureoncrimereportingisrepletewithexamplesofthesetypesoferrors(seeBachman1993;Black1974;delFrateandGoryainov1994;Goveetal.1985;GreenbergandRuback1992;SchwindandZwenger1992;ShahandPease1992;Skogan1976;WarnerandPierce1993;WexlerandMarx1986;WhiteandMosher1986asexamples).Forexample,inastudyofthe2000NationalCrime2WerefertoUCRasaÔÔstatisticalÕÕprogramnottoindicatethatcrimetotalsareobtainedbysampling.InsteadweusethisterminologytomakethedistinctionbetweentheuseofstatisticalmethodsandÔÔaccountingÕÕorÔÔbookkeepingÕÕmethods.TheUCRdoesnotjustcompilethedatathatgetreported.Itusesstatisticaltechniquestoaddressmissingdataandforoverallqualitycontrol.JQuantCriminol(2011)27:497Ð519499123

VictimizationSurvey(NCVS),HartandRennison(2003)foundthatonly4in10propertycrimesand6in10violentcrimeswereneverreportedtopolice.ToourknowledgetherehavebeennopublishedstudiesofclassiÞcationerror(D2)intheUCRstatistics,solittleisknownaboutthedegreetowhichthistypeoferrorinßuencesthestatisticalaccuracyofaggregatecrimestatistics.WealsodonotknowhowtodealwithclassiÞcationerrorinUCRonceitisdiscovered(Nolanetal.2006).Forthesereasons,thecurrentstudywasinitiated.SourcesofClassiÞcationErrorAclassiÞcationerroroccurswhenpoliceofÞcersrecordthefactsofanincidentcorrectly,butmisclassifythecrimetype(Nolanetal.2006).Theoretically,classiÞcationerrorscouldoccurformultiplereasons,includingsimplemistakesbyofÞcers,badreportwritinghabitspasseddownfromofÞcertoofÞcer,thedeliberatedowngradingofparticularcrimestoreducethecrimerate(Forero2000;McCoyetal.1998;OmbudmansVictoria2009;Rashbaum2003),andfromautomationproblems(Dodge1990).RegardlessofthereasonforclassiÞcationerror,clearlyitcanhaveasubstantialimpactontheaccuracyofthepublishedUCRstatisticsandonthedecisionsmadeandconclusionsdrawnbyconsumersofthedata.InthefollowingsectionwedescribetwobasicwaysofassessingclassiÞcationerror,i.e.,throughÔÔrecordÕÕaccuracyandÔÔstatisticalÕÕaccuracy.RecordVersusStatisticalAccuracyClassiÞcationerrorcanbeassessedintwoways,through(1)recordaccuracyand(2)statisticalaccuracy(Nolanetal.2006).RecordaccuracyprovidesonlyapartiallookattheimpactofclassiÞcationerroronaparticularcrimetypewhilestatisticalaccuracyprovidesacomprehensiveassessmentofalloftheclassiÞcationerrorsinthepolicerecords.RecordaccuracyreferstotheestimateofclassiÞcationerrorinspeciÞccrimetypesviewedalone,suchaswhenpolicewanttoknowtheaccuracyoftheirlarcenystatistics.Recordaccuracy(Ri)iscalculatedbyEq.1:Ri¼oiniNi;ð1Þwhereoi,thenumberofclassiÞcationerrorsinaparticularcrimecategory;ni,thesampleofreportedcrimesinaparticularcategoryofcrime;Ni,thetotalnumberofreportedcrimesinaparticularcategoryofcrime.Fig.1ErrorstructureinUCRdata500JQuantCriminol(2011)27:497Ð519123

ToestimatetherecordaccuracyofUCRstatistics,onecoulddrawarandomsampleofpolicereportsinaparticularcategoryofcrime,forexampleassaultorrobbery.Oncethesamplewasdrawntheresearchercouldreadthenarrativesanddecidewhethertheclas-siÞcationsofthecrimeswerecorrect.Thetotalnumberoferrorsdividedbythenumberofrecordsinthesampleprovidestheerrorrate,seeEq.1.Theerrorrate,then,canbemultipliedbythetotalnumberofrecordsinpopulation(Ni)toobtainapointestimateofthenumberofrecorderrorsthatareinthatspeciÞccrimetypeinthepolicedatabase.Asonecansee,thistypeofexaminationprovidesanassessmentofonlytheovercountedcrimeinthatcrimecategory.Statisticalaccuracy,ontheotherhand,dealswithbothovercountingandundercountingerrors.StatisticalaccuracyreferstotheaccuracyofthecrimetotalsafterallcrimetypeshavebeenexaminedandoffsettingmisclassiÞcationshavebeenconsidered.SincesomeofthemisclassiÞcationsresultinovercountingUCRcrimeswhileothersresultinunder-countingthem,thecorrectUCRnumbercanbeobtainedonlybyconsideringthecancelingeffectofthetwotypesoferrorsÑovercountingandundercounting.PleaserefertoFig.2.Figure2isadepictionoftheprocessofcalculatingstatisticalaccuracyinUCR.Thereare5categoriesofrecordsthatmustbeconsideredinordertodeterminestatisticalaccuracy:ATheUCRcrimecategoryofinterest.BTheUCRcrimecategoriesthatwereerroneouslyreportedasA,resultinginanovercountofcrimeA.CTheUCRcrimecategories(notA)thatshouldhavebeenrecordedasA,resultinginanundercountofcrimeA.DThenonUCRincidentsthatshouldhavebeenreportedasA,resultinginanundercountofcrimeA.EThenonUCRincidentsthatwereerroneouslyreportedasA,resultinginanovercountofcrimeA.Anexamplemayhelpclarifythedifferencebetweenrecordaccuracyandstatisticalaccuracy(seeTable1).LetussupposethepolicewanttoassesstheaccuracyoftheirUCRrecordsand,inparticular,theyareinterestedinthecrimecategoryÔÔsimpleassault.ÕÕInthishypotheticalsituation,astratiÞedrandomsampleof646recordswaspulledfromthepolicedatabase.Thetotalnumberofrecordsfortheperiodstudied(e.g.,1year)was41,320.”Reportable to” UCRWritten PoliceReports”Non-Reportable” to UCRPOLICE RECORDS DIVISIONABCDEFig.2IllustrationofrecordandstatisticalaccuracyJQuantCriminol(2011)27:497Ð519501123

Oftheserecords,30,000arenon-UCRincidentsand11,320arecrimes.3ThedatabaseispartitionedintonineUCRcategories(simpleassaultisincluded)andonecategoryfornonUCRincidents.Asimplerandomsampleisthendrawnfromeachofthe10categories.Thissamplesizetotals646records.Table1providesthenecessarydata.Thefollowingnotations(A,B,C,D,E)applytoFig.2.A100reportedsimpleassaultsselectedrandomlyfromuniverseofsimpleassaults.B9crimesreportedasÔÔsimpleassaultÕÕbutwereclassiÞedasanotherreportable(UCR)crime.Inthiscaseall9werereportedasaggravatedassault.C11simpleassaultsthatwereactuallyclassiÞedassomeotherreportable(UCR)crime.Inthisexample,5hadbeenclassiÞedasaggravatedassaultand6hadbeenclassiÞedasrobbery.D1crimecategorizedasnon-reportable(nonUCR)butwhichwasreallysimpleassault.E10crimesrecordedasÔÔsimpleassaultÕÕthatwereactuallynon-reportable(nonUCR).CalculatingRecordErrorAsdescribedinEq.1,recordaccuracycanbemeasuredbydividingtheovercountofcrimeinaparticularcategorybythenumberreported.Inthesituationpresentedabove,categoryBandcategoryErepresentovercountsofsimpleassault.Therefore,therecorderrorinthissampleiscalculatedasfollowsaccordingtoEq.1:RecorderrorRi¼BþEA100¼19100100¼19%Table1Hypotheticalstudyofpolicereportsforrecordandsta-tisticalerrorCategorySamplesize(ni)Totalrecords(Ni)Murdernm=1Nm=1Rapenr=15Nr=20Robberynrob=30Nrob=300Aggravatedassaultnaa=50Naa=500Burglarynb=100Nb=3,000Theftnt=100Nt=5,000M.V.theftnmv=100Nmv=1,000Arsonna=50Na=499Simpleassaultnsa=100Nsa=1,000Reportablecrimes(sumofabove)nrep=546Nrep=11,320Non-reportablecrimesnnr=100Nnr=30,000Totalsamplentotal=646Ntotal=41,3203NotallcrimesareUCRcrimesandnotallpolicereportsdealwithspeciÞccrimes.ÔÔReportableUCRcrimesÕÕincludemurder,rape,robbery,assault(simpleandaggravated),burglary,motorvehicletheft,larceny/theft,andarson.NonUCRincidentsincludereportsonothercriminaloffensesnotincludedinUCRorpolicereportsthatdocumentsituationssuchasÔÔsuspiciouspersonsÕÕorÔÔongoingneighborhooddisputesÕÕthatarenotcrimes.502JQuantCriminol(2011)27:497Ð519123

CalculatingStatisticalErrorStatisticalaccuracyisameasuringofboththeovercountingandundercountingofaparticularcrimecategory.Statisticalaccuracyismeasuredintwosteps.TheÞrststepinvolvesthecalculationofthetruenumberofcrimesinaparticularcrimecategory.ThisactualcrimetotalisdenotedbyTi.InthiscaseTsaiscalculatedbysubtractingovercountsfromthereportednumberofsimpleassaultsandthenaddingtheundercounts.ApplyingthenotationsfromTable1andFig.2inthisexample,TsacanbecalculatedaccordingtoEq.2:Tsa¼NsaBnsaNsaþEnsaNsaþCaanaaNaaþCrobnrobNrobþDnnrNnr¼100091001000þ101001000þ550500þ630300þ110030000¼100090þ100ðÞþ50þ300ðÞ¼1160ð2ÞBandErepresentovercountsofcategoryA(denotedaboveasNsa);BareovercountsthatcomefromUCRcrimesandEareovercountsthatcomefromnonUCRcrimes.CandDareundercountsofcrimecategoryA.IncategoryCarecrimesthatwerereportedassomeotherUCRcrime,butshouldhavebeenreportedascategoryA.IncategoryDarenonUCRcrimesthatshouldhavebeenrecordedascategoryA(simpleassaultinthisexample).Inthecaseofstatisticalaccuracy,itisimportanttonotethattheerrorsfoundinthesampleineachcategory(BthroughE)areactuallyerrorproportions.BandEarepro-portionsofthesimpleassaultsamplethatactuallybelonginothercategories.CistheproportionofotherUCRcrimesthatareactuallysimpleassault.Distheproportionofnon-reportablecrimesthatwereactuallysimpleassaults.Thesecondstepindeterminingstatisticalaccuracyistodividethereportednumberofcrimes(Ni)bytheestimatedtruenumberofcrimesinthecrimecategory(Ti).Subtracting1andmultiplyingby100producesthepercentofunderorovercount.ThestatisticalerrorrateinthisexampleiscalculatedasfollowsinEq.3.Theresultinthishypotheticalcaseisa14%undercountofsimpleassault.NsaTsa1¼100011601¼0:861¼0:14ð3ÞMethodologyThemethodsusedtoassessclassiÞcationerrorandcalculatestatisticalaccuracyinthisstudyinvolvedtheidentiÞcationofspeciÞccrimecategoriesforexaminationandthreedistinctstages:(1)pre-sampling,(2)selectingandreviewingsampledrecords,and(3)calculatingstatisticalaccuracy.Eachofthesestagesisdescribedbelow.Pre-SamplingThepre-samplingstageinvolvedtwosteps:(1)thepartitioningofrecordsand(2)thecalculationoftheappropriatesamplesize.The12largestmunicipalpolicedepartmentsinJQuantCriminol(2011)27:497Ð519503123

thestatecomposedthepopulationforthisstudy.Thecombinedpopulationinthesecitiesis285,898andthetotalnumberofincidentsreportedtoandrecordedbypoliceis31,003.ThisnumberdoesnotincludethenumberofreportsthatrendertheincidentsasÔÔunfounded.ÕÕWhenanÔÔunfoundedÕÕreportiswrittenitisoftenafteraninitialinvesti-gationrevealsthatthecrimereallydidnotoccur.Thenumberofincidents(31,003)alsodoesnotincludeÔÔgeneralincidentÕÕreportswhicharewrittenwhenpolicetakesomeactionandwanttodocumentit,butitisnotrelatedtoaspeciÞccrime.WhenweaddÔÔunfoundedÕÕandÔÔgeneralincidentÕÕreportsthepopulationofreportsgrowsto31,084.4Table2describestheresidentpopulationsandnumberofcrimesreportedwithineachofthese12agenciesin2002(i.e.,thelargestmunicipalpolicedepartmentsinalargelyruralsoutheasternstate5).Fromthegroupof12policedepartments,threewererandomlyselectedtoparticipate.Therecordsineachofthesethreeagencieswerepartitionedinto15categories.Table3describesthesethreepolicedepartmentsandthe15categories,includingunfoundedandgeneralincidentreportsandtheestimatedsamplesizeforeachcategoryandparticipatingpoliceagency.ThecolumnÔÔNÕÕundereachagencydescribesthetotalnumberofcrimereportswithineachofthesethreeparticipatingagencies,whiletheÔÔnÕÕcolumnprovidesthesamplesizesbycrimecategoryforeachofthethreeagencies.TheÔÔNÕÕundertheÔÔStratumTotalÕÕcolumnrepresentsthenumberofreportsineachcrimecategory,forall12municipalpoliceagencies,representingthetotalpopulationforthisstudy(31,084incidents).Similarly,theÔÔnÕÕundertheÔÔStratumTotalÕÕcolumnisthetotalnumbersampledfromthethreeparticipatingagencies(2,689incidents).Inordertoestablishpointestimatesofstatisticalaccuracy,asampleofrecordsfromeachofthe15reportingcategorieswasdrawn.Priortodrawingthesample,however,itwasnecessarytodecideonadesiredlevelofconÞdenceandanacceptablerateoferror.Thesamplesizeforeachstratum(category)wascalculatedaccordingtoEq.4.n¼k2NPQk2PQþNE2;ð4Þwheren,desiredsamplesize;k,95%conÞdencelevelreßectedinthezscore1.96;N,numberinthepopulationfromwhichthesampleistobedrawn;P,theestimatederrorrateinthepopulation;Q=1ÐP;E,therangeoferrorintheestimatesuchas±0.03(3%).TheestimatedsamplesizeforeachreportingcategoryandparticipatingpoliceagencyisprovidedinTable3.Additionally,Table4identiÞesthedesiredsamplesizeforeachcrimecategorybasedontheestimateoferrorexpectedtobefound.SampleSelectionandReviewofRecordsAnautomatedrandomsamplegeneratorwasusedtoselecttherecordsforthisstudy.Withtheassistanceofpoliceagencyrepresentatives,hardcopiesofallreportsinthesample4Inthestatewherethisresearchwasconducted,ÔÔunfoundedÕÕreportsandÔÔgeneralincidentreportsÕÕarenottalliedandsothepopulationofthesereportsisunknown.OfÞcerstellusthatthesearereportsarerarelywritten.WewereabletoÞnd31generalincidentreportsand50unfoundedreportsandweare,therefore,treatingthesereportsasthepopulationratherthanasasample(seeTable2).5ItisnotrequiredbylawforstatestosubmitdatatotheUCR.However,inthestatewherethisstudyoccurred,itisrequiredforalllawenforcementagenciestosubmitNIBRSdatatotheBureauofUniformCrimeReportsatthestatepolice.ThisstatereceiveditsNIBRScertiÞcationfromtheFBIin1999anditsestimatedcoverageis100%ofthepopulation.504JQuantCriminol(2011)27:497Ð519123

Table2IncidentsreportedforthetwelvelargestmunicipalpoliceagenciesbyoffensecategoryAgency1Agency2Agency3Agency4Agency5Agency6Agency7Agency8Agency9Agency10Agency11Agency12TotalResidentpopulation14,91851,29120,33815,63353,23013,34219,02811,41025,71317,19332,98010,822285,898Totalincidents2,9156,5391,2791,2908,984951,5841,3602,5524473,33862031,003bArson630354704682251137Aggravatedassault55106173330602926734177673Simpleassaulta3399132623861,306122221022818494904,480Burglary17371482648409103822227194322,522Murder04007012100015Otherhomicide0000000000000Larceny8221,9422801812,65027381247718968172678,428M.V.thefts7631113184615462139549121,056Robbery31917516302012200161366Rape2434627034130221125Othersexoffenses17142103907690344142OtherGroupA4261,5812781621,78632365277886326881386,651OtherGroupB9687903314201,35210403467335283982676,408aSimpleassaultincludesintimidationbThetotalnumberofincidents(31,003)doesnotincludeunfoundedorgeneralincidentreportsJQuantCriminol(2011)27:497Ð519505123

weremanuallypulledandreadforaccuracy.Inreviewingeachrecord,deÞnitionsprovidedbytheUCRprogramofÞcialsattheFBIwereapplied.6Asystematicprocedurefortheassessmentofeachrecordwasestablishedtoensureahighlevelofreliabilitybetweenreviewers.7Foreachrecord,asystemofverifyingtheinter-rateragreementamongreviewerswasconstructedbyhavingmultiplereviewersexaminethoserecordswithasuspectedclassiÞcationerror.WhenaclassiÞcationerrorwassuspectedinagivenrecord,atleastthreemembersoftheresearchteam(includingtheÞrstauthor)reviewedthereporttoeitherconÞrmtheclassiÞcationerrororreafÞrmtheaccuracyoftheoriginalclassiÞcation.IfitwasdifÞculttodeterminewhetherthereportwasclassiÞedcorrectly,therecordwasjudgednottocontainaclassiÞcationerror.Essentially,thisproceduregavethereportingofÞcerthebeneÞtofanydoubtintheabsenceofclearerinformation;thus,theresearchteamreliedonthejudgmentoftheofÞceronthescenewhencrimeclassiÞcationwasdifÞculttodeterminebecausethenarrativewasvague.Thisrarelyhappenedinthecurrentstudy.8Table3DistributionofpopulationandsampleincidentsbyagencyandoffensecategoryAgency5Agency7Agency9StratumcTotalNnNnNnNnArson4747448813759Aggravatedassault30616629267318673210Simpleassaulta1,306118222602281274,480305Burglary840226103432221752,522444Murder771111159Otherhomicide00000000Larceny2,650375381617182428,428678M.V.thefts46194463839321,056164Robbery16310020182017366135Rape271633131312532Othersexoffenses3936779714250OtherGroupA1,78616836569886626,651299Unfounded3131Ðb0Ð03131Generalincidents484822Ð05050GroupB1,3527140353335996,408223Total9,0631,5031,5863852,55280131,0842,689aSimpleassaultincludesintimidationbUnknowncStratumtotal(N)includesbothunfoundedandgeneralincidentreports(31,084)6WehavefoundinourexperiencessofarthatpoliceofÞcerstendtowritereportsmostlyinordertoprovideafullenoughaccountingoftheincidentinordertoserveasanofÞcialmemoryofeventsforcourttestimonyorifcalledbeforeanadministrativeboard.Therefore,wehavehadveryfewcaseswherewedidnothaveenoughinformationtoclassifythecrimeaccordingtoUCRdeÞnitions.7Priortoreviewingtherecords,afull,one-daytrainingwasprovidedbyanofÞcialFBItrainerwhichfocusedontheproperclassiÞcationofcrimesintheUCR.TheFBIprovidedmaterialstoassistinthisprocess.8Lessthan5recordsoutof2,663resultedinthistypeofresolution.506JQuantCriminol(2011)27:497Ð519123

CalculatingStatisticalAccuracyAsstatedpreviously,thefocusofthisstudyisonthestatisticalaccuracyofcrimesreportedinthe12largestmunicipalpolicedepartmentsinasoutheasternstateintheUnitedStates.Theanalysisbeginswithapresentationofresultsbasedonanassessmentofagencyrecords.TheseresultsarefollowedbyanassessmentofcommonclassiÞcationerrorsfoundinindividualcrimecategoriesandtheassociatedimpactoftheseerrorsontheaggregatecrimetotals.Basedonareviewofpolicerecords,thisdiscussionisfollowedbyaquali-tativedescriptionofwhymanyoftheerrorsinclassiÞcationoccurred.TheresultsshowninTable5aredisplayedinamatrixofovercountsandundercounts.TherowsreßecttheinitialclassiÞcationofthereportsbythelawenforcementofÞcer,andthecolumnsshowtheclassiÞcationsbasedonthereviewersassessmentusingUCRcrimereportingdeÞnitions.Twonumbersarepresentedinthematrixcell;thetopnumberisthesampleandthebottomnumberisthepopulationestimate.9FollowingalongthetoprowofTable5,noticethatthereisaÔÔ1ÕÕunderÔÔotherGroupAÕÕoffenses.Thisindicatesthat1incidentwasoriginallyreportedasarson,butwasassessedbythereviewerstobeanOtherGroupAoffenseratherthananarson.BelowtheÔÔ1ÕÕinthiscellisaÔÔ2ÕÕ.Thisindicatesthatinthepopulation(i.e.,all12municipalagenciescombined)itisestimatedthatÔÔ2ÕÕarsonshaveactuallybeenclassiÞedasotherGroupAoffenses.Finally,thelastcolumnprovidestheovercountsinthesampleandthepopulationestimatesofovercountsbyTable4ErrorestimateandsamplesizebyoffensecategoryTotalreports(N)Estimatederror(%)Sample(n)Arson137Ðc59Aggravatedassault6730.08210Simpleassaulta4,4800.08305Burglary2,5220.15444Murder15Ð9Otherhomicide0N/A0Larceny8,4280.22678M.V.thefts1,0560.05164Robbery3660.05135Rape1250.0232Othersexoffenses1420.0250OtherGroupA6,6510.08299Unfounded31Ð31GeneralINCIDENTS50Ð50GroupB6,4080.05223Total31,084b2,689aSimpleassaultincludesintimidationbTwelvemunicipalpoliceagencieswithresidentpopulationsover10,000composethepopulationforthisstudycErrornotestimatedduetosmallN9Forexample,underarsontherearetwonumbers,55and128.The55representsthenumberofsamplereportsoutof59thatwereinitiallyreportedasarsonandwereconÞrmedtobearson.Thenumber128istheestimateofthenumberofarsonsinthepopulationofreportsthatwererecordedaccuratelybythepolice.JQuantCriminol(2011)27:497Ð519507123

Table5MatrixofovercountsandundercountsbyoffensecategoryArsonAggravatedassaultSimpleassaultaBurglaryMurderOtherhomicideLarcenyM.V.theftRobberyRapeOthersexoffenseOtherGroupAUnfoundedGeneralincidentsGroupBSamplesizebOvercountsTotalreportArson5500000000001030594128000000000020701379Aggravatedassault01975000003003110210130631160000010001033067342Simpleassault0182680000040000222942602744,0850000061000030304,480395Burglary0004230040000220043180002,475002300001212002,52247Murder000090000000000900000150000000000150Otherhomicide0000000000000000000000000000000000Larceny00015006510200522067726000187008,1040250062252508,428324M.V.thefts000000315810003001657000000191,012600019001,05644Robbery000000101340001001362000000303600003003666Rape000000000293000032300000000011312000012512Othersexoffense0000000008380310501200000000023107093014235OtherGroupA10020020002290021300102200440044000446,431044226,651220Unfounded00000000000129103120000000000012910312508JQuantCriminol(2011)27:497Ð519123

Table5continuedArsonAggravatedassaultSimpleassaultaBurglaryMurderOtherhomicideLarcenyM.V.theftRobberyRapeOthersexoffenseOtherGroupAUnfoundedGeneralincidentsGroupBSamplesizebOvercountsTotalreportGeneralincidents0321001000060352501503210010000603525015GroupB003000110000002142195008800029290000006,2626,408146Totalactual5621827844190663159144374330841472192,663Ð1509084,1912,7071508,2231,0414621361636,6241001486,31631,084ÐUndercounts12110180012110851812125Ð1332227710623200119291022356937111354Ð1,297aSimpleassaultincludesintimidationbSamplesizesdifferslightlyfromTable3duetosomerecordsnotbeingavailableforreviewJQuantCriminol(2011)27:497Ð519509123

offensecategory.Whilethebottomrowdenotestheundercountsinthesampleandthepopulationestimatesofundercountsforeachoffense.Asshowninthebottomright-handcellofTable5,therewere133outof2,663recordsinthesamplethatcontainedclassiÞcationerrors(consideringbothovercountsandundercounts).Basedontheerrorrateinthesampleitwasestimatedthat1,297classiÞ-cationerrorswerecontainedinthepopulationof31,084records.Thus,approximately4.17%ofallrecordsreportedinthepopulationof12agencieswereestimatedtobemisclassiÞed.Wefoundthatsomecrimetypesweremorepronetoerrorthanothers.Thecrimecategoriesthathadthehighesterrorestimatesinclude:simpleassault/intimidation(501=395estimatedovercounts?106estimatedundercounts),larceny(443=324estimatedovercounts?119estimatedundercounts),aggravatedassault(319=42esti-matedovercounts?277estimatedundercounts),otherGroupA(313=220estimatedovercounts?93estimatedundercounts),burglary(279=47estimatedovercounts?232estimatedundercounts),GroupB(200=146estimatedovercounts?54estimatedundercounts),andgeneralincident(128=15overcounts?113estimatedundercounts).Ontheotherhand,farlessornoclassiÞcationerrorwasfoundinothercrimetypes,suchasMurderforwhichnomisclassiÞedrecordswerefound.Thecrimesofmotorvehicletheft,arson,andrapealsocontainedclassiÞcationerror.Inthecaseofarson,only31recordswereestimatedtocontainanerror,9overcountsand22undercounts.Asaresult,misclassiÞcationsassociatedwiththeoffenseofarsondidnotcontributeagreatdealtotheoveralllevelofclassiÞcationerrorinUCRstatistics.SimilarlythecrimeofrapecontainedfewclassiÞcationerrors.Itisestimatedthatatotalof35recordsinthepopulationcontainedanerror.Ofthese35instances,allofthemisclassi-Þcationsoccurredbetweentheoffenseofrapeandothersexoffenses.Atotalof12crimeswereoriginallyclassiÞedasrapeandweresubsequentlydeemedtobeothersexoffenses.Meanwhile,23crimesinitiallyrecordedasothersexoffenseswereassessedbythereviewersasrapecases.Thisresultedinanetreductionof11offensesthatwereactuallyrape,butclassiÞedotherwise.Inaddition,acloseexaminationofTable5revealsageneralpatternformuchoftheclassiÞcationerrorthatoccurredbetweenindividualcrimetypes.Forexample,muchoftheerrorfoundinlarcenytendedtoinvolveburglaryandviceversa.Similarly,agreatdealoftheerrorassociatedwithaggravatedassaultswasrelatedtotheerrorfoundinsimpleassault/intimidation.Inaddition,anestimated274aggravatedassaultoffensesweremisclassiÞedbylawenforcementofÞcersassimpleassaults/intimidation.FarfeweraggravatedassaultsweremisclassiÞedassimpleassaults.Only16offenseswereinitiallyrecordedasaggravatedassaultandlaterassessedassimpleassault.Afterthenetgainsandlosseswereconsidered,atotalof258misclassiÞcationsoccurredduethedifÞcultyindifferentiatingbetweenthesetwocrimes.Theendresultwasaconsiderabledowngradingofaggravatedassaultstothelessseriousoffenseofsimpleassault.Whiletherewasconsiderablevariabilityinthemagnitudeoferroracrosscrimetypes,amajorityofmisclassiÞcationstendedtooccurinapredictablefashion.Anexceptiontothisiswasfoundinthecrimerobbery.Whererobberyisoftenthoughttobereportedcorrectly,weestimatethat102robberieswereundercounted.Sixty-oneoftheseundercounts(60%)werefoundinthesimpleassaultcategorywhile25werefoundinthelarcenycategory.TosomedegreethisisunderstandablesincerobberyisdeÞnedastheftbyforceorthreatofforce.ThefollowingsectionillustratestheimpactoftheclassiÞcationerrorfoundamongindividualcrimesonthetotalpopulationofreportedoffenses.510JQuantCriminol(2011)27:497Ð519123

FindingsTables6and7provideasummaryofpointestimates,conÞdenceintervals,andstatisticalerrorratesforeachreportedcrimecategory.BothtablesalsoofferanestimateofthetotalnumberofIndexcrimes,10violent,andpropertycrimes.TheÔÔEstimateÕÕcolumnisthepointestimateofthetruenumberofcrimesineachcategoryandiscalculatedaccordingtoEq.2.TheÔÔReportedÕÕcolumnshowstheoriginalnumberofcrimes(N)reportedineachcategory.TheÔÔRatioÕÕcolumnisacomparisonofthereportednumberstothetruenumberswiththetruenumberasthereferencevariableinthedenominator,seeEq.3.TheÔÔErrorÕÕcolumnisthepercentovercountorundercountineachcrimecategoryandiscalculatedaccordingtoEq.3.Negativepercenterrorindicatesanundercountofcrimesinagivencategory;positivepercenterrorisindicativeofovercountsinagivencrimetype.TheÔÔlowÕÕcolumnineachtablereportsthelowerboundsoftheconÞdenceinterval,andtheÔÔhighÕÕcolumnrepresentstheupperbounds.TheconÞdenceintervalswerecalculatedaccordingtoEq.5.Table6Crimeestimates,errorrates,andconÞdenceintervalsbyoffensecategoryEstimateReportedRatioError(%)LowHighArson1501370.91333-8.67107194Aggravatedassault9086730.74199-25.88*7881,028Simpleassaulta4,1914,4801.068966.90*4,0194,363Burglary2,7072,5220.93166-6.83*2,5952,819Murder15151.000000.00ÐÐOtherhomicide00ÐÐÐÐLarceny8,2238,4281.024932.49*8,0778,369M.V.thefts1,0411,0561.014411.449771,105Robbery4623660.79221-20.78*530934Rape1361250.91911-8.09120152Othersexoffenses1631420.87117-12.88101227OtherGroupA6,5246,6511.019471.956,3796,665Unfounded100310.31000-69.00*57143Generalincidents148500.33784-66.22*68228GroupB6,3166,4081.014571.466,1786,454Total31,08431,0841.000000.00ÐÐViolentcrimetotalb1,5211,1790.77515-22.49*1,3821,660Propertycrimetotalc12,12112,1431.001820.1811,92312,319Indextotal13,64213,3220.97654-2.35*13,39913,885*StatisticalsigniÞcanceatp.05levelaSimpleassaultincludesintimidationbIncludesaggravatedassault,murder,otherhomicide,robbery,andrapecIncludesarson,burglary,larceny,andmotorvehicletheft10Indexcrimesaremurder,rape,robbery,aggravatedassault,burglary,motorvehicletheft,larceny,andarson.JQuantCriminol(2011)27:497Ð519511123

Ti1:96ffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiPiQini1NiniNir;ð5ÞwhereTi,thepointestimateoftotalnumberofcrimesforcrimecategoryi;Pi,percenterrorfoundinthesample;Qi=1ÐP;ni,samplesize;Ni,totalreportsinthepopulationofcrimecategoryi.AlloftheresultsinTables6and7areidentical,withtheexceptionoftheinformationusedtocalculatetheViolentCrimeandIndextotals.Table7includessimpleassault/intimidationasanIndexcrime.Theresultsandimplicationsfortheinclusionofsimpleassault/intimidationasanIndexcrimearediscussedlater.ButÞrst,theresultsdisplayedinTable6illustratetheamountofclassiÞcationerrorestimatedforeachcrimetypeinthepopulation.Asshownintheerrorcolumn,thehighestÔÔpercenterrorÕÕwasobservedinunfounded(-69.00%),generalincident(-66.22%),aggravatedassault(-25.88%)androbbery(-20.78%)offenses.Alloftheerrorisnegative,indicatingthatthesecrimeswereundercountedinoriginalcrimereports.Toalesserdegree,errorpercentageswerereportedforburglary(-6.83%),othersexoffenses(-12.88%),arson(-8.67%),andrape(-8.09%).Similartotheothercrimes,thesereportswereundercountedinoriginalUCRstatistics.Itisimportanttonote,how-ever,thatlargeerrorratesdonotautomaticallytranslateintostatisticalsigniÞcance.ToTable7Crimeestimates,errorrates,andconÞdenceintervalswithsimpleassaultconsideredanindexcrimebyoffensecategoryEstimateReportedRatioError(%)LowHighArson1501370.91333-8.67107194Aggravatedassault9086730.74199-25.88*7881,028Simpleassaulta4,1914,4801.068966.90*4,0194,363Burglary2,7072,5220.93166-6.83*2,5952,819Murder15151.000000.00ÐÐOtherhomicide00ÐÐÐÐLarceny8,2238,4281.024932.49*8,0778,369M.V.thefts1,0411,0561.014411.449771,105Robbery4623660.79221-20.78*530934Rape1361250.91911-8.09120152Othersexoffenses1631420.87117-12.88101227OtherGroupA6,5246,6511.019471.956,3796,665Unfounded100310.31000-69.00*57143Generalincidents148500.33784-66.22*68228GroupB6,3166,4081.014571.4661786,454Total31,08431,0841.000000.00ÐÐViolentcrimetotalb5,7125,6590.99070.935,4915,933Propertycrimetotalc12,12112,1431.00180.1811,92412,319Indextotal17,83317,8020.9983-0.1717,53618,130*StatisticalsigniÞcanceatp.05levelaSimpleassaultincludesintimidationbIncludesaggravatedassault,murder,otherhomicide,robbery,andrapecIncludesarson,burglary,larceny,andmotorvehicletheft512JQuantCriminol(2011)27:497Ð519123

assesswhethertheobservederrorratesineachcrimecategorywerestatisticallysigniÞcant,a95%conÞdenceintervalwascalculated.IfthenumberoriginallyreportedbypolicedidnotfallwithinthisconÞdenceintervalitwasidentiÞedasstatisticallysigniÞcantatp.05.TheindexoffensesthatwerefoundtohavestatisticallysigniÞcanterrorestimatesincludeaggravatedassault,burglary,larceny,androbbery(seeTable6).Usingrobberyasanexample,atotalof366recordswerereportedbylawenforcementduringtheyearunderstudy.Basedonareviewofasampleofrecords,weestimatedthat462robberiesshouldhavebeenreported.OurconÞdenceintervalrangedfrom530to934soweconcludetheclassiÞcationerrorinthecrimeofrobberyisstatisticallysigniÞcantinthisstudy.Inadditiontoindexoffenses,theerrorinthenumberofunfoundedandgeneralincidentcasesreportedbylawenforcementwassigniÞcant.Atotalof31unfoundedand50generalincidentrecordswerereportedforthepopulationinthisstudy.Followingthereview,theactualnumberofrecordswasestimatedtobe100unfoundedand148generalincidentscases.SincethereportednumberdidnotÞtwithintheconÞdenceintervalsthesewerealsostatisticallysigniÞcant.TheImpactofClassiÞcationErroronAggregateCrimeTotalsTheviolentcrimetotalcomprisesmurder,aggravatedassault,robbery,andrape.Thepropertycrimetotalconsistedofarson,burglary,larceny,andmotorvehicletheft.AlloftheoffensecategoriesthatmakeuptheviolentcrimeandpropertycrimetotalsconstitutedtheIndexTotal.AsshowninTable6,theviolentcrimetotalwasundercountedby22.49%.Therewere1,179violentcrimesreportedthelawenforcementagenciesthatcomposedthepopulationforthisstudy.However,theestimatedtruenumberofviolentcrimeoffenseswas1,521.ThisundercountinviolentcrimeswasstatisticallysigniÞcantatp.05.Similartoviolentcrimes,theundercountintheindextotalcategorywasalsostatisticallysigniÞcant.Atotalof13,322indexcrimeswerereportedbylawenforcement;however,theestimatednumberwas13,642.OftheindexoffensesonlytheaggregatemeasureforpropertycrimefailedtoreachstatisticalsigniÞcance.Inthecaseofpropertycrimes,thenumbersreported(12,143)andestimated(12,121)werenearlyequal.ThisisinterestingbecausetwoofthefourcrimecategoriesthatcomposethePropertyCrimeTotal(burglaryandlarceny)hadstatisticallysigniÞcantamountsoferror.BasedonalloftheÞndingspresentedinTable6,itappearedthatmostoftheerrorintheviolentcrimeandindexcrimecategorieswastheresultofmisclassiÞcationsofaggravatedandsimpleassaults.Thiswasevidencedbythefactthataggravatedassaultwasundercountedby25.88%,whilesimpleassault/intimidationwasovercountedby6.90%.Toexplorethissituationmorein-depth,simpleassault/intimidationwasaddedtotheviolentcrimeandindexcrimecategoriesinTable7.AsshowninTable7,onceallreportedassaults(aggravatedandsimple)wereincludedinthecalculationoftheviolentcrimeandindexcrimetotals,theamountofclassiÞcationerrorwasreducedconsiderably.Theindextotalwasnowundercountedbyonly0.17%andtheviolentcrimetotalwasalsoundercountedbylessthanonepercent(0.93%).BycombiningthetypesofassaultsinthismannerwefoundthattheerrorwasnolongerstatisticallysigniÞcant.JQuantCriminol(2011)27:497Ð519513123

ExplanationsfortheMisclassiÞcationofCrimeTypesTable8providesexplanationsforthemisclassiÞcationintheÞvecategorieswiththemosterrors:aggravatedassault,simpleassault,burglary,robbery,andlarceny.Qualitativeinformationgatheredfromthenarrativeofthepolicereportswasusedtoidentifyspe-ciÞcallyhowthemisclassiÞcationsoccurred.TheÞrstcolumninTable8revealswhymisclassiÞcationsoccurredintheaggravatedassaultcategory.AtotalofÞvedifferentcrimeswereoriginallyreportedasaggravatedassault,butlaterassessedbytheresearchteamtoactuallybeanothercrime.Theseincludesimpleassault,robbery,otherGroupA,unfounded,andgeneralincident.Asstatedpre-viously,theclassiÞcationerrorsinaggravatedassaultsoccurredmostlyinrelationtosimpleassault.ForacrimetobeclassiÞedasaggravatedassault,anoffendermusthaveusedaweaponordisplayedtheweaponinathreateningmanner,orthevictimmusthavesufferedsevereoraggravatedbodilyinjury.Intheabsenceofaweaponorsuchinjury,acrimeistypicallyclassiÞedasasimpleassault.WhenmisclassiÞcationsoccurredinthisstudy,theyweremostlyduetoeithernomentionofaweaponbeinginvolvedintheincidentortheabsenceofseverebodilyinjury.Insteadofseriousinjury,thesereportstendedtodescribesuchinjuriesasaÔÔknotonthehead,ÕÕÔÔrednesstoeyes,ÕÕÔÔbruises,ÕÕandotherÔÔminorabrasions.ÕÕNoweaponswerereportedasbeinginvolvedintheseincidents.OtheraggravatedassaultmisclassiÞcationswererelatedtorobberyandOtherAoffensessuchasdestructionofproperty.Inthecaseofrobbery,policereportsdescribedactsofÔÔshopliftingwithaknifeÕÕorbreakingÔÔintoahomewithagunand[taking]aDVDplayerÕÕ.Ontheotherhand,otherpolicereportsdescribedincidentsthatweremorecloselyrelatedtodestructionofproperty.Forinstance,twopolicerecordsnotedthataÔÔdogwasshotÕÕorÔÔwindowswereshotoutÕÕwithnomentionofbodilyinjurytothevictimsnordiditmentionthatthevictimswereindangerofbeinginjuredÑsuchastheywereinthehouseatthetimethedamagewasdonetothewindows.ThesecondcolumnofTable8showsthatsomesimpleassaultswerereportedasaggravatedassaults.Ofthe26overcountsforsimpleassault,morethantwo-thirdsoftheseerrorsweremoreappropriatelyclassiÞedasaggravatedassault.Mostofthesecrimes,asreportedbylawenforcementofÞcers,eitherinvolvedaweaponordescribedseverebodilyinjuriestothevictim(s).Variousreportsdescribedtheuseofaweaponsuchasabeerorglassbottleorclub.OthernonweaponexamplesinvolvedincidentsinwhichavictimsufferedÔÔabrokennoseandslightconcussionÕÕorstatementsnotingsevereinjurysuchasÔÔlaceratedthevictimÕsÞnger.ÕÕAggravatedassaultwasthecorrectclassiÞcationforthesecrimesduetothepresenceofaweapon(s)and/orsevereinjurytothevictim(s).Toalesserextent,somecrimeswereclassiÞedassimpleassaultswhentheywereinfactrobbery.RobberyisdeÞnedintheUCRasthetaking,orattemptingtotake,anythingofvalue(USDepartmentofJustice2000)andcaneitherbethroughforceorthreatofforceorviolenceand/orputtingthevictiminfearofimmediateharmorwithouttheselastelements.InmostinstanceswherearobberywasmistakenlyclassiÞedasasimpleassault,policerecordsdescribedactsinwhichforcewasusedtotakeorattempttotakesomethingofvaluefromanotherperson.Forinstance,policereportsofsimpleassaultssometimesincludedstatementssuchasÔÔtookcigarettesandbeatupperson,ÕÕÔÔstoleitemsfromstoreandbeatupstoreemployee,ÕÕandÔÔshopliftedandthenattemptedtostrikeemployeewithhiscarÕÕ.Sincetheseincidentsinvolvedthetakingofsomethingbyforceand/orbyputtingthevictiminfearofimmediateharm,theyweremostappropriatelyclassiÞedasrobbery.Thecrimeofrobberyitselfwasovercountedinthisstudyprimarilybecauseofmis-classiÞcationsinlarceny,aggravatedassault,orunfounded.Inonecaseofrobbery,the514JQuantCriminol(2011)27:497Ð519123

Table8SummarydescriptionofcommonclassiÞcationerrorsbyoffensetypeReportedcrimeAggravatedAssaultSimpleassaultRobberyBurglaryLarcenyAmendedcrimeclassiÞcationandexplanationforovercountSimpleassaultMinorinjuriesandnoweaponinvolvedRobberyThreatswithweaponanditemsstolenOtherADestructionofpropertyUnfoundedSelf-defenseGeneralincidentNotenoughinformationtocompletereportorconÞrmaggravatedassaultAggravatedassaultWeaponinvolvedwithminorinjuriesSevereinjurieswithorwithoutaweaponRobberyWeaponorthreatofforcetocommittheftGroupBPublicintoxicationDisorderlyconductDestructionofproperty(noonassaulted)GeneralincidentCivildisputesSuspiciousactivityLarcenyGrabbedmoneyfrompersonandnoforceorthreatofforcereportedUnfoundedLostproperty,foundafterinitialreportAggravateassaultWeaponusedinassaultand/orseriousphysicalinjurybutnothingtakenorattemptedtobetakenfromvictimLarcenyTheftfromvehicleTheftfromassociateOtherADestructionofpropertyEnteredbuildinglegally,deletedcomputerÞlesUnfoundedMisplacedpropertyBurglaryBreakingandenteringtocommitatheftRobberyWeaponinvolvedand/orthreatofforcetocommitatheftOtherAWarrantForgeryDestructionofpropertyUnfoundedCreditcardmalfunction,nocrimeItemsmissing,notstolenGeneralincidentCivildisputeTheoriginalcrimeclassiÞcationbylawenforcementofÞcersisnotedinthecolumnheadings.ThesectionlabeledÔÔAmendedCrimeClassiÞcationandExplanationforOvercountÕÕliststhereasonsthatcrimeclassiÞcationswerechangedbasedonUCRdeÞnitions.TheshortdescriptionsofferabriefexplanationforwhyeachoftheÞveoffensesweremisclassiÞedJQuantCriminol(2011)27:497Ð519515123

narrativeoftheincidentreportindicatedthattheperpetratorÔÔstabbed[a]guywitharazorblade,veryseriousinjurywasinßicted,andthevictimwaslife-ßightedtohospital.ÕÕThisincident,asrecordedbythepoliceofÞcer,containednoindicationthatthisactwasinpursuitoftaking,orattemptingtotake,anythingofvalue.Therefore,thisincidentshouldhavebeenclassiÞedasanaggravatedassault.AnothermajorsourceofclassiÞcationerrorinthisstudyinvolvedtherelationshipbetweenburglaryandlarceny.Inmanyinstances,burglarywasovercountedbythemis-classiÞcationoflarcenyandviceversa.Simply,burglaryinvolvestheunlawfulentryintoabuildingorotherstructurewiththeintenttocommitafelonyortheft(USDepartmentofJustice2000).Sinceburglaryofteninvolveslarceny,thesecrimeswerefoundtobepronetomisclassiÞcation.Thecasesthatproducedthehighestovercountingofburglaryinvolvedthetakingofitemsfromacar.TheUCRdeÞnitionforburglarypertainssolelytoentryintoabuildingorotherstructurewiththeintenttocommitafelony.AccordingtotheFBI,abuildingorotherstructuredoesnotincludeacarorpersonalvehicle.Instead,theseoffensesaretobereportedasLarceny/theftoffensesor,morespeciÞcally,theftfromamotorvehicle.OverhalfofallovercountsforburglaryinvolvedthemisclassiÞcationoflarcenyoffenses.Thereversewasalsotrue.AlargeproportionofovercountsinlarcenywereduetothemisclassiÞcationofburglary.Oftheburglaryoffenseserroneouslyreportedaslarceny,mostinvolvedthesimplebreakingintoahouse,apartment,orstoragegarage.OfÞcersÕreportsincludedsuchstatementsasÔÔbrokeintohousethroughwindowandstoleitems,ÕÕÔÔenteredbuildingafteritwasclosedandstoleitems,ÕÕandÔÔstoragelockbroken,enteredbuildingandstole$2,000worthofitems.ÕÕSincetheseincidentsinvolvedillegalentryintoabuildingtocommitthelarceny,theyweremoreaccuratelyclassiÞedasburglary.InadditiontothemisclassiÞcationoflarcenyasburglary,othercrimessuchasrobbery,otherGroupAÕs,unfoundedoffenses,andgeneralincidentswerealsocountedaslarceny.LarcenycasesthatshouldhavebeenrobberyincludedthreatstoÔÔcutavictimÕsthroatÕÕandashopemployeebeingÔÔshoved,pushed,andpunchedÕÕduringashopliftingincident.SomereportedlarceniesshouldhavebeenOtherGroupAoffensesbecausethedetailsofthesecrimesmadethemmoreappropriateforforgery,embezzlement,anddestructionofpropertycategories.DiscussionandConclusionsThisstudysoughttoshinealightontheissueofclassiÞcationerrorintheUCR.Italsodemonstratedamethodforassessingthistypeoferror.Inaddition,weshowedwhereclassiÞcationerrorÞtwithinthecontextofthetotalerrorstructureofUCR.So,beforewediscussouroverallÞndings,wewanttosaytwothingsingeneralaboutthisstudy.First,westressedthroughoutthispaperthatthiswasastatisticalstudywiththepopulationbeingthe12largestpolicedepartmentsinasoutheasternstate.SointermsofpointestimatesandconÞdenceintervals,wehavecalculatedestimatesforthispopulationonly.However,webelievetheÞndingsareindicativeofgeneralproblemsintheUCRcrimeclassiÞcationthroughouttheUnitedStates.TheUCRwascreatedsothatpoliceofÞcershaduniformcategoriesforreportingcrimesacrossjurisdictions.SoitistheuniformdeÞnitionsandpoliciesoftheUCRprogramÑi.e.,notsocialcontextÑthatcreatesthetypesofclassiÞ-cationproblems.Herearejustafewexamplesofwhatwemean:IneveryjurisdictionthroughoutthecountryUCRdeÞnitionsaredifferentinsomewayfromlocalcriminalstatutes,soofÞcersareforcedtodealwiththetranslationoflocalcriminalstatutestoUCR516JQuantCriminol(2011)27:497Ð519123

crimecategories.Robbery,byUCRdeÞnition,isthecombinationofassaultandlarceny;thisfactcreatesopportunitiesforclassiÞcationerrorwhenoneortheotherofthesetwocrimesislessapparent.And,theUCRdeÞnitionofburglaryincludesthecrimeoflarcenyasanelementoftheoffense;therefore,itislikelytobemistakenforthelessseriouscrime(larceny)particularlywhenunlawfulentryisquestionableorcannotbedetermined.ForthesereasonsamongotherswethinkthatthetypesofUCRclassiÞcationerrorsthatsurfacedinourstudyarelikelytobesimilartothosefoundelsewhere.Second,weacknowledgethatcontextdoesmatterincrimereporting,suchaswhetheralow-levelcrimewillbereportedtopoliceinahighcrimeareaorwhetherpoliceinhighcrimeareaswilldocumentlessseriouscrimesevenifthevictimdoescomeforward.Thevolumeandtypeofcrimethatmakesitintothepolicedatabaseisclearlyaffectedbysocialcontext.Fromthisstandpointourstudyofcityagenciesinasoutheasternstatedoesnotprovidemuchcontextualdiversityandwouldnotbewidelygeneralizableifourfocuswasreportingdecisions.However,aswepointedoutinÔÔLiteratureReviewÕÕofthispaper,wedonotaddressunreportedcrimehere.Ourstartingplaceisinthepolicedatabase.Therefore,webelievethatthelimitedcontextforourstudyisoflessimportanceintermsofthegeneralizabilityoftheÞndingsthanitwouldbeifweweredealingwithotheraspectsofUCRerror.Withthatsaid,letÕstakealookatourÞndings.Ofthe31,084recordsinthepopulation,atotalof1,297records(4.17%)wereestimatedtohavebeenmisclassiÞed.SeveralcrimecategorieswerefoundtocontainsigniÞcantamountsofclassiÞcationerror,suchasaggravatedassault,burglary,larceny,androbbery.Larcenywasovercountedbypolicewhileaggravatedassault,burglaryandrobberyweresigniÞcantlyundercountedinofÞcialUCRstatistics.Likewise,threenonindexoffensescontainedasigniÞcantleveloferror.Theseincludedsimpleassault/intimidation,unfoundedoffenses,andgeneralincidents.TheclassiÞcationerrorfoundwasdeterminedtohaveaprofoundimpactonaggregatecrimetotals.ViolentcrimeandIndexcrimeweresigniÞcantlyundercountedinthisstudy,-22.49and-2.35%,respectively.Meanwhile,thepropertycrimetotalwasslightlyovercounted;however,thissmallerrorwasnotfoundtobestatisticallysigniÞcant.ThisstudyalsoidentiÞedpatternsinthemisclassiÞcationofcrimes.Forinstance,muchoftheerrorassociatedwithlarcenyoccurredinrelationtothecrimeofburglaryandviceversa.Asimilarpatternemergedbetweenthecrimesofaggravatedandsimpleassault.TheseÞndingssuggestthat,perhaps,policehavedifÞcultyinmakingtheÞnedistinctionsthatarenecessaryforaccuratelyclassifyingcrimesthatareconceptuallycloseinnature.Thus,whileofÞcerswereoftencorrectindeterminingthatanassaulthadoccurred,theyhaddifÞcultyindecidingwhetheritwasaggravatedorasimple.Thequalitativeanalysisofthepolicereportsalsoseemstosupportthisnotion.Inaddition,whensimpleassaultandintimidationareaddedtoaggravatedassaultintheviolentcrimeandindextotals,theerrorinthesetotalsshrinktolessthan1%,demonstratingtheimpactoftheimportanceoftheaggravated-simpleassaultissuetotheaccuracyoftheaggregatestatistics.TheÞndingsalsosuggestthatcharacteristicsofcrimereporting,whichhithertohavebeendeterminedfromlessreÞnedanalyses,maybecomeclearerusingthisstudyÕsmethodology.Forexample,Rosenfeld(2007)suggestedthattheriseinUCRinrecentyearsisinpartduetotheupgradingofsimpleassaultsinthecontextofdomesticviolencetoaggravatedassaults.Ourstudydoesnotaddressdomesticviolencedirectly,butitdoespointtoageneraltrendtheoppositeway,i.e.,thetendencytodowngradethesecrimes.Similarly,thecrimeofrobberyhasbeenconsideredbycriminologistsasoneofthemoreaccuratelyandpersistentlyreportedcrimes.However,wefoundthatrobberyhadahighJQuantCriminol(2011)27:497Ð519517123

propensityformisclassiÞcation,veryclosetotherateofaggravatedassaultwhichhasalwaysbeenconsideredvulnerabletomisclassiÞcation.InadditiontoexaminingtheextentofclassiÞcationerror,thispapersetouttoestablishamethodologyforassessingstatisticalaccuracyofUCRcrimereports.Whileagreatdealofattentionhasbeengiventothestudyoffactorsthatmayinßuencevictimreportingandlawenforcementrecordingofcrimes,noresearchhassystematicallyassessedtheimpactofclassiÞcationerroronthestatisticalaccuracyofUCRestimates.Themethodologyintro-ducedinthispaperseemstoofferareasonableapproachforassessingtheÔÔstatisticalaccuracyÕÕofUCRcrimestatistics.TheimportanceofthisstudyresidesinthefactthatitprovidesatangibleexampleofhowtoassessclassiÞcationerroratthestatelevel,wheremultiplepoliceagenciescontributetotheoverallstatecrimestatistics.WebelievethatthemethodologyappliedinthispapercanbereadilytransportedtootherstateswhichreportUCRdata.ThisresearchalsoprovidesinsightintowaystoimprovetheaccuracyoftheUCRcrimestatistics.First,theresultsofthisstudymayassistpoliceandUCRadministratorsindevelopingtrainingforpoliceofÞcerstoclassifycrimesaccordingtoUCRdeÞnitions.Whenthequantitativeandqualitativeresultsofthisstudyorfuturestudiesareusedtogether,ampleinformationisprovidedforboththeidentiÞcationofandexplanationforclassiÞcationerrorincrimestatistics.GiventheinherentdifÞcultyinmakingtheÞnedistinctionsnecessaryforclassifyingcrimes,itishopedthatthesequalitativeaccountsofcasesmayhelppoliceandstateUCRofÞcialspinpointwhereparticulardifÞcultiesininterpretationmayresideamongofÞcers.Theresultsofthisstudycouldbedrawnupontoimprovelawenforcementtrainingthroughtheuseofscenariosthatillustratecommonerrors.ThisinformationmayfurtherleadtoeffortsonthepartofUCRofÞcialsandpoliceagenciestoworkatbetterpreparingofÞcersatmakingmoreprecisedistinctionsbetweencrimesforUCRreportingpurposes.Finally,basedontheresultsofthisstudy,itisclearthatclassiÞcationerrorispresentinUCRstatisticsandthatitvariesbytypeofcrime.Futureeffortsmayseekwaystostatisticallyadjustcrimedataforgreateraccuracybasedonthemagnitudeandvariationofknownerrorinindividualcrimetypesaswellasaggregatetotals.GiventhewidespreadrelianceonUCRdata,itisvitallyimportanttocontinueeffortsdesignedtoimprovetheaccuracyofcrimereporting.AcknowledgmentsTheauthorswouldliketothankTheresaLester,JeriKirby,andCarlyJiraWarrenfortheirworkontheoriginalconceptualizationofthisprojectandtheDCJSstaffwhoassistedinthedatacollectioneffort.AspecialthankstoDr.YoshioAkiyama,theprincipalarchitectofthemethodologyusedinthisresearch,andKevinMacFarlandoftheFBIforprovidingtrainingonthereportingofNIBRSdataandtheinterpretationofoffensedeÞnitions.ThisprojectwasfundedbyagrantfromtheUSBureauofJusticeStatistics(Grant#2004-BJ-CX-K004)andinpartbytheASA/BJSStatisticalMethodologyResearchProgram,ajointprogramoftheAmericanStatisticalAssociationÕsCommitteeonLawandJusticeStatisticsandtheBureauofJusticeStatistics.TheviewpointsexpressedhereinaresolelythoseoftheauthorsanddonotreßecttheopinionsoftheUSDepartmentofJustice,theOfÞceofJusticePrograms,theBureauofJusticeAssistance,ortheAmericanStatisticalAssociation.ReferencesAkiyamaY,PropheterSK(2005)Methodsofdataqualitycontrol:foruniformcrimereportingprograms.CriminalJusticeInformationServicesDivision,FederalBureauofInvestigation,WashingtonBachmanR(1993)Predictingthereportingofrapevictimization:haverapereformsmadeadifference?CrimJusticeBehav20:247Ð251518JQuantCriminol(2011)27:497Ð519123

BlackD(1974)Productionofcrimerates.AmSociolRev35:733Ð748delFrateAA,GoryainovK(1994)LatentcrimeinRussia.UnitedNationsInterregionalCrimeandJusticeResearchInstitute,RomeDodgeL(1990)DepartmentofJusticeÕsefforttocompletestatecrimestatistics[Abstract].AbstractobtainedfromNationalCriminalJusticeReferenceServiceFederalBureauofInvestigation(2007)CrimeintheUnitedStates,2007.FederalBureauofInvestigation,WashingtonForeroJ(2000)PrecinctÕsrosycrimeratewasadistortion,thepolicesay.TheNewYorkTimes,NewYorkCityGoveW,HughesM,GeerkenM(1985)Areuniformcrimereportsavalidindicatorofindexcrimes?AnafÞrmativeanswerwithminorqualiÞcations.Criminology23:451Ð501GreenbergMS,RubackRB(1992)Afterthecrime:victimdecisionmaking.Plenum,NewYorkHartT,RennisonC(2003)Reportingcrimetothepolice.BureauofJusticeStatistics,WashingtonLynchJP,JarvisJP(2008)MissingdataandimputationintheUniformCrimeReportsandtheeffectsonnationalestimates[Abstract].JContempCrimJustice24:69Ð85MaltzM(1999)Bridgingthegapsinpolicecrimedata:adiscussionpaperfromtheBJSFellowsProgram.BureauofJusticeStatistics,WashingtonMaltzMD,TargonskiJ(2002)Anoteontheuseofcounty-levelUCRdata.JQuantCriminol18:297Ð318McCoyCR,MatzaM,FazlollahM(1998)Statisticalmanipulationbypolicegoesbackdecades.Phila-delphiaInquirer,PhiladelphiaNewYorkStateDivisionofCriminalJusticeServices(n.d.)Crimereporting,AlbanyNolanJ,HaasSM,LesterTK,KirbyJ,JiraC(2006)EstablishingtheÔÔstatisticalaccuracyÕÕforUniformCrimeReports(UCR)inWestVirginia.WestVirginiaCriminalJusticeStatisticalAnalysisCenter,CharlestonOmbudmansVictoria(2009)Crimestatisticsandpolicenumbers.VictorianGovernmentPrinter,VictoriaRashbaumWK(2003)Westsidecrimestatisticsweresoftened,policesay.TheNewYorkTimes,NewYorkCityRosenfeldR(2007)ExplainingthedivergencebetweenUCRandNCVSaggravatedassaulttrends.In:LynchJ,AddingtonL(eds)Understandingcrimestatistics:revisitingthedivergenceoftheNCVSandUCR.CambridgeUniversityPress,NewYorkSchwindH,ZwengerG(1992)Thedarknumberanalysisofmotivesfornonreportingtheftinthreestudies.StudCrimeCrimePrev1:115Ð126ShahR,PeaseK(1992)Crime,raceandreportingtothepolice.HowardJCrimJustice311:92Ð199SkoganW(1976)Crimeandcrimerates.In:SkoganW(ed)Samplesurveysofvictimsofcrime.Ballinger,Cambridge,pp105Ð120USDepartmentofJustice(2000)UniformCrimeReportingHandbook,NIBRSedn.FederalBureauofInvestigation,Washington,DCWarnerBD,PierceGL(1993)Reexaminingsocialdisorganizationtheoryusingcallstothepoliceasameasureofcrime.Criminology31(4):493Ð517WexlerC,MarxGT(1986)Whenlawandorderworks:BostonÕsinnovativeapproachtotheproblemofracialviolence.CrimeDelinquency32:205Ð223WhiteBB,MosherDL(1986)Experimentalvalidationofamodelforpredictingthereportingofrape.SexCoercAssault1:43Ð56WoodardPL(1992)Assessingcompletenessandaccuracyofcriminalhistoryrecordsystems:auditguide[Abstract].NationalInstituteofJustice,RockvilleJQuantCriminol(2011)27:497Ð519519123

Reproducedwithpermissionofthecopyrightowner.Furtherreproductionprohibitedwithoutpermission.

2Classical and RationalChoice TheoriesPerry Ferrell, former lead vocalist of the band Jane’s Addiction, sings of a simple rationale forshoplifting in the song “Been Caught Stealing”: Why pay for something if you can just take it?Indeed, why not do things that give you pleasure as long as you won’t get in too much troublefor it? This kind of reasoning has intrigued criminologists, and whole theories of crime havebeen developed around the idea that people are rational because their behavior is a result oftheir quest to maximize pleasure and minimize pain. This is a fairly popular way of thinkingabout crime, as the phrase “it comes down to individual choice” is a comment we have heardmany times from our criminology students. The logic behind this statement is that althoughenvironmental conditions can affect a person’s views and behavior, ultimately an individualmakes a choice to act, including in ways that are criminal. Therefore, the individual should beat the center of attention when attempting to explain the causes of crime. Moderncriminological theory is no stranger to this line of reasoning, although it is not simply a matterof focusing on the person to the exclusion of all background factors. The rational choicetheory of decision making predicts that individuals think about the expected rewards, costs,and risks of alternative actions and choose actions best suited to their goals. If such anexplanation has merit, it should be revealed not only in the choice to commit crime but also inthe choice to commit one kind of crime rather than another and in the decision to direct crimeagainst one victim rather than another. Before we discuss the foundations of rational choicetheories, read box 2.1 and consider the idea of rationality as it applies to attending a collegeclass.Classical TheoryThe end of the eighteenth century in Europe was a time of great transformation. As theIndustrial Revolution motored on, populations swelled; people moved from the country to thecity; worked for wages rather than for themselves or rent; and a new political economy,capitalism, acted to fundamentally restructure the more simplified arrangements of barterexchange and feudalist social organization. On the political level, the traditional authority ofmonarchies was under attack as political radicals, some of whom were philosophers andscholars involved in the Enlightenment intellectual movement, championed the ideas ofdemocracy, rationality, and free will. Intellectuals began to view people’s behavior asmotivated by their rational choice, not as a result of some supernatural or demonological force.The view of human nature was that people possessed free will and were guided by a sort ofcost/benefit analysis; thus, it was proposed that people choose their own destiny rather thanBarlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=616240.Created from apus on 2023-09-30 13:38:26.Copyright © 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

being forced by circumstance or demons into action. Previously popular supernaturalexplanations of behavior lost their popularity rather quickly in the wake of the Enlightenment(Pfohl, 1985).Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, both products of this new intellectual movement,were among the first European scholars to write on issues pertaining to crime and criminaljustice. Their writings were not only directed toward explaining crime but also on how arational, fair, and democratic criminal justice system could be designed. The so-calledClassical School had two main foci: (1) a program for changes in the administration of justice,and (2) a limited theory of crime causation.Regarding the relationship between the state and the control of its citizens, Beccaria (1993:9) wrote that: “. . . every act of authority of one man (sic) over another, for which there is notan absolute necessity, is tyrannical. It is upon this then that the sovereign’s right to punishcrimes is founded.” Essentially, Beccaria and Bentham subscribed to the philosophy ofutilitarianism, which holds that policies and deeds, particularly those associated with thegovernment, should provide the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Applying thisreasoning to law, Bentham (1973: 162) wrote:The end of law is, to augment happiness. The general object which all laws have, or ought have, in common, is to augmentthe total happiness of the community; and therefore, in the first place, to exclude, as far as may be, every thing that tendsto subtract from that happiness: in other words, to exclude mischief.The reasoning of Becarria and Bentham is compatible with common-day notions as thepresumption of innocence, judicial neutrality, and proportionality in sentencing. They wereopposed to the torture of prisoners and capital punishment. Further, Classical School scholarsemphasized that punishment was a “necessary evil” and only justifiable if based on reasonable,humane, and rational processes. More specifically, Bentham (1973: 162) believed thatpunishment should not be given when it is:1. Groundless (the act is not really mischievous)2. Inefficacious (ineffective as a deterrent)3. Too expensive (where the trouble it causes exceeds the benefits)4. Needless (where the crime may be prevented or dissolved in some other way)Bentham and Becarria also emphasized that punishment should be proportional to the harmcaused to society, not tailored to the individual victim’s preferences or the particular qualitiesof the individual offender. This approach is encapsulated in the commonly used phrase “let thepunishment fit the crime.” In this way, Classical theory’s main focus is on the crime, not theoffender. All persons were assumed to be operating under the same kind of rationality.Classical School scholars also provided a rough theory of crime causation. They believedthat criminal behavior resulted from the rational calculation of costs and benefits associatedwith the criminal act. The idea that people are hedonistic (pleasure seeking) guided theirwork. A central prediction stemming from this idea is that people would be more likely toBarlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=616240.Created from apus on 2023-09-30 13:38:26.Copyright © 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

commit a crime if the pleasure (perceived benefits) from the behavior outweighed the pain(perceived costs). Classical School thinkers thought that the most likely “cost” in the equationwould be detection, apprehension, and punishment.Not just any old punishment will do, they said. The threatened punishment for criminalbehavior was thought to work best as a deterrent if it was (a) certain, (b) proportionate to theharm caused by the crime, and (c) swiftly imposed. If these conditions were met, it wouldmean an individual would be less likely to commit a crime if s/he knew that they would becaught and punished (certainty) soon after committing the crime (swiftness), and if thepunishment mirrored the seriousness of the crime. Beccaria and Bentham considered severityto be the least important deterrent.It is conventional to distinguish between two classes of potential offenders who may refrainfrom crime because they fear punishment:1. People who have directly experienced punishment for something they did in the past. Ifthese people refrain from future criminal activity because they fear being punished again,this is specific deterrence.2. People who have not experienced punishment themselves but are deterred from crime bythe fear that they might get the same punishment experienced by others. This is generaldeterrence.The distinction is important because the deterrent effect of experienced punishments may bequite different from that of threatened punishments. When a judge hands down a sentence andtells the offender, “This ought to make you think twice next time,” the judge is thinking of thepenalty as a specific deterrent; if the judge says, “I intend to make an example of you,” thepenalty’s general deterrent value is being emphasized. Box 2.2 explores some modern-dayresearch on the topic of deterrence.Beccaria and Bentham’s ideas have greatly influenced criminal justice policy both in theUnited States and abroad. Some of their views on the causes of crime and the criminal justicesystem have in a sense “stood the test of time,” as deterrence and rational choice models ofdecision making are popular with the general public and many people working within thecriminal justice system. But while seemingly related policies like “three strikes and you’reout” and long mandatory minimums for minor offenses are often said to be guided by Classicaltheory, they in actuality may be inconsistent with the original theory, especially if thepunishment is too harsh for the crime. Ironically, the Classical School’s emphasis on dueprocess (such as fair trials and the right to appeal) is not as popularly supported in the UnitedStates.The Economic Model of CrimeEconomists have advanced more contemporary formulations of the classical view (Cherry andBarlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=616240.Created from apus on 2023-09-30 13:38:26.Copyright © 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

List, 2002; Cornwell and Trumbull, 1994), and chief among them is Gary Becker’s (1968)work on crime, which was cited when he received the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1993.Many complicated models have been developed (Baltagi, 2006), but they all share certain keyideas. First, the approach assumes that individuals choose to commit crimes. Second, it isassumed that people choose the same course of action when confronted by the samealternatives. This is rationality as economists use the term. The choice itself is guided bymaximization of satisfactions, or “utility.”Individuals evaluate possible activities according to utility. The utility of a crime is theexpected gain weighed against the probability of being caught and convicted and the monetarycosts, real and foregone, if convicted. When the expected utility of a criminal act is greaterthan the utility of a noncriminal alternative, the economic model predicts that the crime will beselected.The classical model of criminal behavior assumes that crime follows a calculation in whichthe perceived rewards, costs, and risks of alternative actions are compared. In itself this is abold assumption because it not only implies that people are capable of making suchcalculations but also that they have the information necessary to do so.Economists who develop models of criminal behavior often ignore noncriminal alternatives,concentrating instead on variations of estimated costs and benefits associated with crimes. Thelikelihood of a particular crime (robbery, for instance) is then calculated in terms of variationsin the probabilities of arrest, conviction, and imprisonment and in the economic losses(offenders’ gains) for robbery, compared with other predatory property crimes. If the gainsfrom robbery are small compared to the risks and costs, but the gains from burglary are greater,then a person acting rationally and voluntarily would choose to commit burglary.Some authors who believe in a more limited rationality temper the assumption that choicemaking is a fully rational exercise—a key assumption of the economic model and also impliedin the writings of Beccaria and Bentham. It is argued, for example, that most people cannotknow all the information necessary to evaluate all possible actions, but rather they reflexivelyreact to opportunities that arise in ordinary situations (Pratt, 2008; Trasler, 1986: 20).The limited rationality view holds that behavioral choices arise in people’s lives routinely,and some involve decisions to commit crime. These choices are structured by several factors,including the social distribution of opportunities and access to them; the knowledge, pastexperiences, and capabilities of individuals; the conditions that characterize and are created bythe social situations in which individuals find themselves; and the measures taken by victimsand authorities to prevent them. Individuals within the boundaries created by these factorsmake behavioral decisions. The chosen actions are rational to the extent that they are purposive(conscious and goal-oriented) and reasonable (efficient, economical) in light of goals andalternatives. It is not necessary to assume that criminals carefully plan and execute their crimesor use the most sophisticated techniques (Ward, Stafford, and Gray, 2006). Rational choicetheories need only assume that some minimal level of planning or foresight occurs (Clark andFelson, 2004; Hirschi, 1983; Wright, Caspi, and Moffitt, 2004). Of course, whether or not anoffender fears arrest or prosecution is crucial to the decision-making process. Box 2.3 reviewsBarlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=616240.Created from apus on 2023-09-30 13:38:26.Copyright © 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

some research on this subject.Rationality and Crime: Two ExamplesTwo examples of research on decisions by property offenders are Thomas Reppetto’s (1974)study of residential burglary and robbery and Wright and Decker’s (1994) study of burglars.Both studies show that offenders do have target preferences and that this was taken intoaccount when they contemplated committing crimes. Burglars looked for unoccupied single-family homes (thus reducing the risk of being seen or heard), with easy access (thus reducingthe amount of skill needed to gain entry), which appeared affluent (thus increasing the possiblereward), and which were located in neighborhoods where offenders felt they “fit in” (anotherway to reduce the risk of being noticed) (Reppetto, 1974). At the very least, most burglarswant to know something about the people who live in the house and the types of things thehouse contains (Mullins and Wright, 2003; Wright and Decker, 1994). This finding, as we shallsee, is supported by research in the United States and abroad (Bernasco and Luykx, 2003).The rationality model receives additional support from studies in England and Holland.Walsh’s (1980) study of Exeter burglars found that although few burglars admitted doing muchpreplanning or “casing” of targets, most were very concerned about being seen and avoidedentering houses likely to be occupied. A second study of English burglars is more detailed andlends further support to the rationality model while pointing to the importance of situationalcues in decision making. Using videotapes of thirty-six houses seen from a passing van,Bennett and Wright (1981, 1984) asked fifty-eight convicted burglars to evaluate the houses aspotential burglary targets. Most of the burglars were very experienced, so there is noindication whether the findings would apply to occasional thieves or beginners. Although therewas considerable variation in target choice, the burglars strongly agreed about certain blocksof houses or about one or two specific homes. When the authors grouped evaluations accordingto risk, reward, or skill factors, the authors found that the burglars most frequently mentionedrisk of being seen or heard as the decisive consideration. Reward factors became moreimportant than those connected with skill only when given as reasons to disregard a target. Ahouse may not be worth burglarizing regardless of how easy it is to enter. Interestingly, a morerecent study found that decision making may be significantly different in the daytime versus thenight (Coupe and Blake, 2006). The authors found that more affluent targets with less securitywere more likely to be targeted in the day while lesser valued but well-guarded areas weremore attractive to burglars at night.Some of the above studies did not investigate actual criminal behavior, only what offenderssaid about it. For that reason they give only inferential support for the rationality model.However, a study of actual robberies of convenience stores and the crime preventioneffectiveness of various security measures found that only six of eighteen measures weresignificantly related to the frequency of being robbed, and only two of these in the expecteddirection: stores with space around them and those with only one employee on duty wereBarlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=616240.Created from apus on 2023-09-30 13:38:26.Copyright © 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

robbed more often (Calder and Bauer, 1992). It is also true that criminals might not evaluatesituational cues about ease of access and neighborhood surveillance all the time, especiallywhen they are “desperate for money, feeling impulsive or bloody-minded, or simply too lazy”(Bennett and Wright, 1981: 16; Shover and Honaker, 1992; Wright, Caspi, and Moffitt, 2004).It is important to remember that a full-fledged theory of criminal decision making needs toaddress not just the crime itself, but also the offender’s initial involvement in crime. Such atheory must also account for decisions to continue and to terminate criminal activity (Cornishand Clarke, 1986a, 1987; Matsueda, Kreager, and Huizinga, 2006). Traditionally criminologyhas been more concerned with background influences such as social structure and priorexperience and less with situational and transitory influences, which may influence certaintypes of criminal activity even more significantly.Crime DisplacementWhenever criminally motivated persons decide not to commit a crime or avoid certain victimsin favor of others, the substitution is commonly referred to as crime displacement. Five typesof displacement have been identified:• Temporal displacement. Here, an offender substitutes one time of day, week, or evenseason for another.• Spatial displacement. An offender substitutes one street, neighborhood, area, or region foranother.• Target displacement. An offender substitutes an easier, less risky, or more rewardingtarget in the same location.• Tactical displacement. An offender substitutes one modus operandi (method of operation)for another.• Type of crime displacement. One type of crime is substituted for another, usually one thatis less risky or more easily performed (Hakim and Rengert, 1981).Displacement is important for two reasons. First, the rationality model predicts itsoccurrence. The idea is that criminals generally take advantage of or seek the best criminalopportunities—those with the greatest rewards at the least risk and cost. Second, displacementis important because it is one of the potential costs of crime prevention efforts. For example,when criminal opportunities are reduced by police surveillance or other “target-hardening”measures, the net result may be an increase in crime in another place. Criminally motivatedindividuals simply move to the “safer” areas to commit crime. Therefore, one community maybenefit from crime prevention efforts while another may suffer because of them. It should bekept in mind, however, that oftentimes offenders take big risks for very small gains (Wright,2000). This is partially explainable by the need to support a drug habit or a strong desire tocontinue “partying.” It can also be understood as an irrational, sensual, or thrill-seekingBarlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=616240.Created from apus on 2023-09-30 13:38:26.Copyright © 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

activity not readily understandable to the outside viewer (Katz, 1988).Research on crime displacement is sparse because it is extremely difficult to measuresubstitution behavior as it occurs. At the least, one would need to show that one criminal eventoccurred and some other did not because the offender changed his or her mind after evaluatingthe situation. Criminologists often infer displacement from studies of spatial or temporalchanges in the volume of crime or by asking offenders if, when, and why they madesubstitutions. Most studies are further limited because they focus only on temporal or spatialdisplacement.Spatial displacement is probably quite limited because “criminals prefer to operate inknown territory” (Bernasco and Luykx, 2003; McIver, 1981: 32). This in itself is a sign ofrationality, for familiarity reduces an offender’s risk of being caught and may contribute tosuccessful completion of the crime (Wright and Decker, 1994). Nevertheless, some studiesshow that police crime prevention efforts resulted in “spillover” effects: Crime rates increasedin neighborhoods adjacent to areas with more concentrated police enforcement. However,displacement is more likely to occur with property crimes, not with crimes of violence. Thelatter may be relatively impervious to displacement pressures because they are more likely tobe spur-of-the-moment and tend to occur at the criminals’ homes, near local bars, and so forth.English studies lend tentative support to the displacement argument, at least for some crimes.When steering locks were introduced in new British cars as a target-hardening measure, therates of auto crime did not drop significantly. Apparently many thieves turned their attention tothe abundant older cars that did not have steering locks. In addition, determined thieves couldquickly learn how to overcome the devices. This suggests that displacement brought about bychanges in skill factors is probably limited to amateur and opportunistic thieves. However, asimilar program in West Germany had the effect of dropping the overall rate of car theftbecause all cars were equipped with the device (Felson, 1998; Mayhew, Clarke, and Hough,1992).A third British study surveyed the impact of installing closed-circuit television in someLondon subway stations (Mayhew et al., 1979). Generally, stations with the greatest volume oftraffic experienced more robberies and other property crimes. After authorities installedtelevision cameras in high-traffic stations, the volume of robberies declined there butincreased dramatically in stations without TV surveillance. On the other hand, other theftsdeclined throughout the subway system during the three-year test period. This finding suggeststhat an offense-specific spatial displacement took place rather than any general displacement.Apparently robbers took the new surveillance into consideration, merely changing location.Other, perhaps less committed or less experienced thieves, were apparently more likely toview the TV cameras as evidence of a more concerted law-enforcement effort. Reacting to thisperception, offenders reduced their activity, at least for a time.Displacement is thus not an inevitable result of crime-prevention efforts such as targethardening (Clarke and Felson, 1993; Weisburd, Wyckoff, Ready, Eck, and Hinkle, 2006; Welshand Farrington, 1999). Prostitution is another case in point. A study showed that increasedpolice enforcement in a North London suburb did not cause prostitutes to move elsewhereBarlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=616240.Created from apus on 2023-09-30 13:38:26.Copyright © 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

(Matthews, 1986). Studies by Clarke and Mayhew (1988) of the effects of detoxification of theBritish gas supply on suicide rates showed marked decreases in suicides and no evidence thatsuicide-prone individuals were shifting to other means. Finally, the introduction of motorcyclehelmets in various countries has apparently had the unintended consequence of reducingmotorcycle thefts (presumably because thieves must carry a helmet with them), but there is noevidence that similar forms of crime, for example, auto theft, have increased as a result(Mayhew, Clarke, and Elliott, 1989).It is unlikely that many offenders substitute new crimes for old when the calculus of risks,costs, and benefits changes. Income tax evaders, shoplifters, and employee thieves will notbecome burglars, con artists, and robbers. Some professional or habitual criminals mayrespond to such changes by increasing their skills and directing their energies only toward themost lucrative targets. They may become better criminals in the process, and they may alsobecome more dangerous—willing to take greater risks, combining into more formidablegroups, or increasing their willingness to use deadly force when confronted.Those criminals most likely to shift from one crime to another, and least likely to continue agiven line of crime in the face of increased risks and costs, are the less skilled but moreexperienced opportunistic offenders. They take advantage of easily accessible opportunities.They are unlikely to increase their efforts and risks in search of less hardened targets withwhich they may be unfamiliar or which may be too far from home. These are speculations,although a study of decision making among property offenders lends them credence (Tunnell,1992: 149). Considerably more work must be done in both theory and research to untangle thecomplexities of displacement.Opportunity and Routine Activity TheoryLet us now consider how the nature and distribution of opportunities for crime influencecriminal activity and shape the contours of crime for specific groups of people.It will help to think of crime as an event. Crime is not an event until it has occurred, for anevent is an occurrence or happening. A criminal event occurs when a situation fortuitouslybrings together factors that facilitate it. Advocates of a situational approach look at crimes thathave occurred and ask what things came together to make them happen.Crimes differ in so many ways that any attempt to identify basic elements that all criminalevents share would probably be doomed from the start. The situational crime preventionapproach, sometimes referred to as crime opportunity theory, is based on ten principles:1. Opportunities play a role in causing all crime.2. Crime opportunities are highly specific.3. Crime opportunities are concentrated in time and space.4. Crime opportunities depend on everyday movements of activity.5. One crime produces opportunities for another.Barlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=616240.Created from apus on 2023-09-30 13:38:26.Copyright © 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

6. Some products offer more tempting crime opportunities.7. Social and technological changes produce new crime opportunities.8. Crime can be prevented by reducing opportunities.9. Reducing opportunities does not usually displace crime.10. Focused opportunity can produce wider declines in crime (Clarke and Felson, 1993;Felson and Clarke, 1998: v–vi).If there is a common element in all events, criminal or not, it is opportunity. An opportunitymakes an event possible; a criminal opportunity makes a crime possible. One cannot rob abank without the opportunity to do so—without the existence of banks. Notice, however, thatbanks provide not only criminal opportunities, but noncriminal ones as well. In fact, thepurpose of most things is not crime, but their existence creates criminal opportunities. Afunctionalist would say that the above principle is a “latent dysfunction” of otherwise usefulobjects and institutions.One version of opportunity theory is known as routine activities theory, which holds thatthere are three essential elements of a crime: (1) a motivated offender, (2) a suitable target, and(3) the absence of a capable guardian (Clarke and Felson, 1993; Felson, 1998). Therefore, thebasic proposition of the theory is that “the probability that a violation will occur at anyspecific time and place . . . is . . . a function of the convergence of likely offenders and suitabletargets in the absence of capable guardians” (Cohen and Felson, 1979: 590). If any one of theseelements is lacking, a criminal event will not occur. A routine activity is any recurring andprevalent goal-seeking activity. Work is a routine activity, but so are sex, child rearing, eating,going to the movies, and vacationing. Much crime is also routine activity.Notice above that no mention is made of “capable” offenders, those able to “pull crimes off”(though they may later be caught). In fact, much crime is unsuccessful, making the distinctionbetween completed and uncompleted crime an important one for theory and research. Indeed,the law has long recognized the distinction, treating attempted crimes less severely thancompleted ones. From the situational point of view the distinction is interesting, because itprompts one to compare attempted and completed crimes in order to establish the differencesand to establish which elements account for the outcomes.Technological change makes new activities possible, and some will be labeled criminal ifthose in authority accept that they should be (see Michalowski and Pfuhl, 1991). The U.S.government is obviously concerned: It has changed many of its money bills now that advancedcomputers, software, and copying machines have made counterfeiting easier, and all bills nowcontain a metal strip embedded within the paper.Consider what many people now take for granted: electronic fund transfer. Not long ago thiscomputer-based service was known and used only by banks and large corporations. Now theautomatic teller machine (ATM) is familiar to virtually everyone. Those with personalcomputers may also take advantage of home banking services. With the spread of electronicfund transfer has come growth in criminal abuse. Some types of crimes resulting from thisnewer technology include unauthorized use and fraud. Of course, the growth of personalBarlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=616240.Created from apus on 2023-09-30 13:38:26.Copyright © 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

computers has opened up many opportunities for crime as well. Such crimes include identitytheft, fraud, embezzlement, and blackmail. It is also true that contacts between people havebecome easier via chat rooms, instant messaging, social networking sites, and email.Thousands of arrests, for example, are made each year of adults soliciting sex from minors andrunning or viewing child pornography websites.Felson (2002) offers a more detailed description of the impact of social change on crime inhis book Crime and Everyday Life. He shows why it is that the United States maintains highcrime rates by focusing on crime as an event rather than on the number and motivations ofcriminals. He concludes that crime has changed, as there have been changes in where peoplelive and work, where and when they interact, the type and storage of goods and services thatare available, and the movement of goods and people. For example, as cities became moredispersed, with more and more people living in single-family homes and in the suburbs, andmore and more property being spread over large and larger space, it also became moredifficult for people to control their environment and prevent crime. Cities that had previouslybeen “convergent,” bringing people and property together, became “divergent,” spreading themapart. Work organizations and schools also became bigger, drawing thousands, often frommiles away. People can less readily monitor their own families under such circumstances, letalone the activities of strangers. Both informal and formal social control, it can be argued, istherefore hampered.Another way of looking at routine activities is to think of the locations where crimes arelikely to occur. Where would you expect handgun crimes to occur most often? Your answerwill depend on the routine activities of typical offenders and victims and on the relationshipbetween the two. Thus, handgun crimes involving relatives are most likely to occur in thehome; those involving strangers are most likely to occur on the street. Urban structure has animpact on violent crime, and within that context the kinds of lifestyles (routines) people followsignificantly affect their chances of being assaulted, robbed, or raped: people who go to bars,work, go to class, or go for a walk or drive at night are more likely to be victimized (Kennedyand Forde, 1990). Similar findings have been discovered in studies of elderly theft-homicidevictimization (Nelsen and Huff-Corzine, 1998), homicide more generally (Caywood, 1998),sex worker victimization (Surratt, Inciardi, Kurtz, and Kiley, 2004), burglary victimization(Tseloni, Wittebrood, Farrell, and Pease, 2004), and gender differences in all forms ofcriminal victimization (Felson, 2002).Chapter SummaryClassical theorists created a theory of justice and a simplified theory of the causes of criminalbehavior. The theory of justice was based on utilitarian philosophy that prized a democraticand rationally designed system of punishment and deterrence. The primitive theory of crimecausation held that individuals are fundamentally hedonistic and that they will pursue a courseof action if the outcome is perceived to offer more pleasure than pain. Many of Beccaria andBarlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=616240.Created from apus on 2023-09-30 13:38:26.Copyright © 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Bentham’s ideas remain quite popular today.Modern-day rational choice theories of crime assume that criminals think about their crimesbefore doing them. Much research supports this basic contention, although the extent to whichoffenders are actually weighing all or even most pertinent factors involved in a crime isprobably small. The central message of opportunity-rationality theories is, first, that crimecannot be understood apart from the nature and distribution of opportunities for both criminaland noncriminal behavior. Second, when criminals find themselves in situations in which theyhave opportunities to commit crime, the decision to do so or not to do so is a rational one.The routine activity approach brings rationality and opportunities together to explain thedistribution of crime in time and space. Advocates of the approach argue that the everydayactivities of people influence the convergence of criminally motivated individuals andsuitable, unguarded, criminal targets. In this vein, social and technological changes candramatically affect the nature, extent, and distribution of crime and victimization.Key TermsClassical Schoolcrime displacementrational choice theoryroutine activities theorysituational crime preventionutilitarianismDiscussion Questions1. To what extent do you think people actually think through the costs and benefits of abehavior or action before doing it? In other words, is there always, or even mostly, a rationalreason for why people make the decisions they do?2. Do you agree with the basic idea of Bentham and Becarria that punishment is a necessaryevil? In what situations do you see punishment being effective for certain types of crimes andnot others?3. What are some examples of public policy or policing activities that could cause a largedegree of crime displacement?4. Just how important do you think opportunity is compared to offender motivation and theabsence of a capable guardian when crime occurs? In what situations can you think of in whichcrime results without these three variables present?ActivitiesBarlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=616240.Created from apus on 2023-09-30 13:38:26.Copyright © 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

1. Write down all the costs and benefits of your attendance at the next meeting of yourcriminology class. Does this list bear any resemblance to why you may or may not come to aclass without writing up such a list?2. Listen to the song “Been Caught Stealing” by Jane’s Addiction. Analyze the lyrics andreport on the extent to which they are consistent with the overall approach of Classical orrational choice theory.3. Develop a list of all the “target hardening” or crime prevention strategies and tactics youuse to protect yourself and your property from victimization. To what extent do they really limitthe opportunity to become victimized in the face of a motivated offender and the lack of acapable guardian?Box 2.1. How Rational Is Coming to Class?Think for a moment about your decision to attend a particular class meeting. Using rational choice theory, we would expect thatthis decision was based on your perception of the rewards and costs of doing so. What are some of the more immediate factorsyou might consider? Surely it would seem beneficial to come to class if the instructor rewards attendance, bases exams onlectures, or makes the class interesting. Some costs might be that you are tired and could use the sleep, you don’t find the classinteresting, or you think that the material to be covered in a particular class won’t make much of a difference in your grade.As college professors, we have noticed that attendance in our classes follows an interesting pattern. The first few weeks ofclass tend to have better attendance rates than those weeks in the middle of the semester. We also find that attendance peaks ina class right before an exam, while it decreases the class session immediately after the exam. Friday classes are almost alwaysthe most poorly attended unless an exam is being given. From your experience, how do you think such patterns can be explainedthrough rational choice theory?There may be larger, less immediate costs and benefits that enter into the equation as well. Perhaps you are so committed tothe goal of graduating from college that you are willing to sacrifice being understimulated or poorly rewarded in a particularclass. Even though you might have little to gain from attending the class, you might think that not doing so would increase therisk of failure in some way. On the other hand, a person may not be all that committed to school and so the thought of missingan important class is not that big of a deal. Further consider that many college students work outside of class and havedependent family members, and that on some days work and family may have to take precedence over school. Consider furtherthat every hour you spend in the classroom is an hour you are not earning a wage. Students seem to be willing to justify thatcost by thinking that in the long run, a college education will help them make more money. These are only a few things thatcould enter into the decision-making process involved in coming to class. Can you think of others?Also, rare is the person who actually sits down with pencil and paper and meticulously calculates the overall costs andbenefits of going to a class, or of engaging in criminal behavior for that matter. Further, costs and benefits are bounded by spaceand time, and their relativity only underscores the fact that their salience can vary from individual to individual and context tocontext.For further reading on the relativity of rationality in criminal decision making, consult Greg Pogarsky’s (2002) “Identifying‘Deterrable’ Offenders: Implications for Research on Deterrence,” Justice Quarterly 19(3): 431–532.Box 2.2. Modern-day Research on DeterrenceOver two hundred years have passed since Bentham and Beccaria laid the foundation of the deterrence theory of punishment,and their ideas are still relevant today. During that time a conventional wisdom emerged that punishment deters if it is certain,swift, and reasonably severe, but modern science has not confirmed that wisdom.The inability of the scientific community to substantiate—or reject—the conventional wisdom (and political belief) thatpunishment deters crime must be difficult for many people to understand. Most of us can think of anecdotal illustrations ofdeterrence, from our own personal experience perhaps or from hearing about other people who refrained from committing acrime because they were fearful of the consequences. But serious researchers find that the complexities of the subject presentformidable obstacles to developing conclusive answers (Cohen-Cole, Durlauf, Fagan, and Nagin, 2006; Gibbs and Firebaugh,1990; Pratt, Cullen, Blevins, Daigle, and Madenson, 2006; Stafford and Warr, 1993). This is not to say that there has beenabsolutely no support in the literature of deterrence theory. Limited support of deterrence has been found in the areas of autotheft (Di Tella and Schardrodsky, 2004), drunk driving (Davey, Freeman, Palk, Lavelle, and Rowland, 2008; Piquero andPaternoster, 1998; Walker, 1998), luggage theft (Trivizas and Smith, 1997), and crime trends more generally (D’Alessio andStolzenberg, 1998).Most surprising, perhaps, is the fact that more than fifty years of research has yet to uncover a deterrent effect for capitalBarlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=616240.Created from apus on 2023-09-30 13:38:26.Copyright © 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

punishment (Archer and Gartner, 1984; Bailey, 1998; Cochran, Chamlin, Mitchell, and Smith, 1994; Peterson and Bailey, 1991).There is no good research that supports the oft-heard claim that there would be fewer murders if more killers were executedrather than sent to prison. Murders are often unplanned, spur-of-the-moment attacks, and alcohol is usually a factor in them. Buteven among hardened criminals who may think about risks in planning their crimes (Horney and Marshall, 1992), fear ofpunishment does not seem to be a major factor in their decisions (Cromwell, 1999; Shover, 1999; Wright and Decker, 1994;1997).On balance, the threat of formal punishments is much less worrisome to potential offenders than the threat of informalpunishments imposed by relatives, friends, coworkers, or other close acquaintances (Cullen, 1994; Tittle, 1980; Paternoster,Saltzman, Waldo, and Chiricos, 1983 and 1985; Braithwaite, 1989). The average law-abiding citizen is probably more concernedabout losing a good job, being ostracized by friends and coworkers, and alienating family members (Shoham, 1970). Pogarsky(2002: 432) reminds us that some people are acute conformists, so that moral inhibition or worries over social isolation “may soeffectively inhibit conduct that considerations of cost and benefit are not even brought into play.”One criminologist has argued that punishment may backfire under certain circumstances, and this may explain the lack of adeterrent relationship between crime rates and punishment (Sherman, 1993). Sherman suggests that if punishment is seen asunfair or excessive, an attitude of “defiance” emerges. This defiance undermines any deterrent effect the threat of punishmentmight have had. It can also undermine any lingering respect for the law—a consideration in the sentencing of youthful and first-time offenders. Such a reaction has also been noted by Gilligan (1996) in his research on incarcerated murderers, and to someextent by Tittle (1995).To summarize, deterrence clearly does not score high marks as the basis for a sentencing policy and crime control. Yet thelack of strong evidence does not mean that deterrence theory is disproved. The prospect of swift, certain, and relatively severepunishment may deter some individuals from committing crimes under some circumstances. The difficulty is figuring out whothose individuals are and which circumstances count. Still, rather than reject the deterrence doctrine, more research on thesecomplex issues would seem the more prudent course. It would also seem appropriate for politicians, judges, and other courtofficials to refrain from claiming that harsher punishments will deter crime. The bulk of deterrence research simply does notsupport this claim.Box 2.3. The Possibility of ArrestMany who violate the law may actually spend little time contemplating the risks of crime. Several studies have found strongevidence of the insignificance of arrest and punishment in criminal decision making (Shover and Honaker, 1992; Tunnell, 1992,2000; Wright and Decker, 1994, 1997). Interviews with forty-six persistent property offenders found that the majority gave littleor no thought to the possibility of arrest and confinement. Here are some typical comments:Q. Did you think about getting caught?A. No.Q. How did you manage to put that out of your mind?A. [I]t never did come into it. . . . It didn’t bother me.Another subject said:A. I wasn’t worried about getting caught or anything, you know. I didn’t have no negative thoughts about it whatever.And another said:A. When I went out to steal, I didn’t think about negative things. ’Cause if you think negative, negative things are going tohappen. . . . You just, you just put [the thought of arrest] out of your mind, you know (Shover and Honaker, 1992: 5).Another study found evidence of a similar line of reasoning:Q: As you did the burglaries, what came first—the crime or thinking about getting caught for the crime?A: The crime comes first because it’s enough to worry about doing the actual crime itself without worrying about what’sgoing to happen to you if you get caught (Tunnell, 1990: 37).Retrospective interviews are not without drawbacks, not least among which is the validity of reconstructions of events longpast (Shover and Thompson, 1992). It remains to be seen whether more proximal memories confirm the lack of a negativeBarlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=616240.Created from apus on 2023-09-30 13:38:26.Copyright © 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

relationship between perceptions of risk and criminal activity among able offenders.Studying active offenders (those not imprisoned) has several obvious advantages over studies of incarcerated persons.However, several recent studies of active burglars, robbers, and drug dealers have found that most crimes are not well plannedout, but there is a tendency for incarcerated offenders to make it sound as though they are (Wright and Decker, 1994).Criminal justice policy is often misplaced in its assumption that active criminals seriously weigh the costs and benefits ofcommitting a crime in a way envisioned by the average American. Just like any behavior, illegal behavior surfaces within asocial context. This has been called the socially bounded decision-making process. As Shover and Honaker (1999: 20) state:The lesson here for theories of criminal decision making is that while utilities and risk assessment may be properties ofindividuals, they are also shaped by the social and personal contexts in which decisions are made. Whether their pursuit oflife as party is interpreted theoretically as the product of structural strain, choice, or even happenstance is of limitedimportance. . . . If nothing else, this means that some situations more than others make it possible to discount or ignorerisk.Barlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=616240.Created from apus on 2023-09-30 13:38:26.Copyright © 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

3Biological, Psychological, and EvolutionaryTheoriesIt is not uncommon for consumers of popular television shows to get the impression thatcrimes, especially those that are violent, are committed by individuals with psychological,neurological, or biological abnormalities. However, the disproportionate emphasis placed bythe media on strange and morbid crimes such as serial murder does not reflect the reality thatrelatively few crimes are gruesome, let alone violent. Criminal homicide, for example, makesup less than 1 percent of all reported crime, and serial murder but a fraction of all homicides.Yet, as one watches the latest example of serial murder in the news, it is tempting to say thatthe killer was someone “going mental,” or as rock legend Ozzy Osbourne sings in the song“Crazy Train,” “crazy.” While most criminologists look to environmental factors to explaincrime, there is a tradition within the field that has focused on the biological and psychologicalcauses and correlates of crime. This chapter reviews several of these classical andcontemporary theories.The birth of criminology as science is usually traced to nineteenth-century Europe. By thelatter half of that century the scientific revolution was well under way. The armchairphilosophizing of the Classical theorists was grudgingly giving way to the logic andmethodology of science. Observation, measurement, and experimentation are the basic tools ofthe scientific method, and their use in the study of human behavior heralded the development ofdisciplines now taken for granted—biology, anthropology, psychology, sociology, politicalscience, and statistics. Thus was born the age of positivism, and crime was placed under themicroscope of science. Theories now had to be spelled out, quantified, and falsifiable.In this chapter we examine classic and contemporary theories of crime that have beeninfluenced by the positivism of natural science. While most criminologists are not formallytrained in the hard sciences, important contributions to theories of crime have come fromphysical anthropologists, biologists, behavioral psychologists, and evolutionary theorists.Positivism and Early CriminologyThe notion that crime could be studied through the methods of science was established early inthe nineteenth century by two authors whose work earned them an honored place in the annalsof criminology. Working independently, Adolphe Quetelet (1796–1874) and Andre´-MichelGuerry (1802–1866) compiled the first criminal statistics and used them to make predictionsand comparisons about crime. Others soon followed suit, and these early ventures into socialstatistics became a model for the later work of Emile Durkheim. “For the first time in history,”Leon Radzinowicz (1966: 35) has observed, “crime became thought of as a social fact moldedBarlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=616240.Created from apus on 2023-09-30 13:38:54.Copyright © 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

by the very environment of which it was an integral part.” This was an important break withthe Classical theorists, who viewed criminal behavior as stemming from the exercise of freewill in the pursuit of pleasure.A major impetus to the rise of positivism was Charles Darwin’s work on animal evolution.Darwin’s followers argued that human behavior is largely determined by Homo sapiens’position on the evolutionary scale and by the ongoing battle for survival. However, the specificimpact of these forces on an individual was considered a matter for empirical investigation.Positivism is not without its critics. The objections to positivism are varied, but primarilythey consist of the argument that the so-called objective depiction of “concrete facts” in theworld obscures a reality that is socially constructed by the participants in it. The facts are“constructed meanings produced within specific cultural, political, and economic contexts”(Michalowski, 1988: 18). Even the nature of crime itself cannot be taken for granted.The debate about positivism versus social constructionism is unlikely to be resolved in thenear future, and it is certainly possible for both to live side by side and for criminology toprofit from their contributions to our knowledge and thinking about crime. Gibbs (1988: 4)makes an important point, however: How else are scientific theories about crime to beassessed, if not by testing their predictions against a body of empirical data? This was thegreat insight of the early positivists, although there was actually very little research going onduring this period (Garland, 1985b: 128).Biology and the Search for the Criminal TypeInfluenced by positivism, early criminologists were convinced that they could uncover thecauses of criminal behavior if they could apply the methods of science to the study of humanbeings. Deviance, they believed, was caused rather than chosen (Pfohl, 1985). The majorfigure was Italian physician Cesare Lombroso. Like many of his contemporaries, Lombrosobelieved that criminals must be different from law-abiding people in some important way. Theproblem was to find out how they differed, and the search for the criminal type consumed muchof his career.As a physician attached to the army and later to prisons and asylums, Lombroso examinedthousands of individuals. Profoundly influenced by the evolutionary doctrine, he searched forphysiological evidence of the link between deviant behavior and biological forces. In 1870 heclaimed a triumphant discovery: In his view, many of the criminals he had studied wereatavistic—biological throwbacks to a more primitive evolutionary state. Such “borncriminals” could be identified by five or more physical stigmata, or anomalies: anasymmetrical cranium, a receding chin, a low forehead, large ears, too many fingers, a sparsebeard, protruding lips, low sensitivity to pain, and deformities of the eye.But the born criminal was not the only type Lombroso identified, nor did he argue thatcriminal behavior was solely the result of biological forces. He distinguished other categoriesof criminals, including insane criminals (idiots, imbeciles, alcoholics, degenerates),Barlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=616240.Created from apus on 2023-09-30 13:38:54.Copyright © 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

criminaloids (those with less-pronounced physical stigmata and degeneracy, but pulled intocrime by situation or environment), and criminals by passion (those who were neither atavisticnor degenerate, but drawn into crime by love, politics, offended honor, or other intenseemotions).Though the core of his theory was biological, Lombroso recognized the importance ofprecipitating situational and environmental factors. He mentioned poverty, emigration, highfood prices, police corruption, and changes in the law as nonbiological determinants ofcriminal behavior (Wolfgang, 1961: 207). However, it remained for one of his followers,Enrico Ferri, to undertake serious investigation of the impact of environmental factors (seeSellin, 1937).Lombroso and his followers had a tremendous impact on the emerging field of criminology.Especially important was the impetus their work gave to research on the individual criminaloffender. For more than fifty years, scholars concentrated their efforts on describing andclassifying criminals and on distinguishing them from noncriminals (for a critical analysis ofthis movement, see Garland, 1985b).Many felt that such research would identify traits and characteristics peculiar to criminals.Anthropologist Earnest A. Hooton did one monumental study (1939). He studied 13,873 malecriminals from ten different states, as well as 3,023 individuals regarded to be noncriminals.His study claimed to show that criminals are organically inferior to noncriminals, thoughHooton did not admit that environmental factors could be precipitating influences. Mostcontroversial was his claim that certain types of crimes are committed by certain physicaltypes of individuals: Tall, thin men tend to commit murder and robbery; short, heavyset menare prone to commit assault and sexual crimes; and men of small frame commit theft andburglary. It sounds ridiculous now, especially as one recognizes that the main differencesbetween most assaults and most murders is the presence of a corpse, and a major differencebetween one type of stealing and another is the presence of an appropriate opportunity.William H. Sheldon conducted another major study of the relationship between body typeand criminality in the early and mid-1940s. Sheldon (1949) studied a sample of 200 youngmen, many of whom had previous involvement in juvenile delinquency. Sheldon examined eachsubject in great detail, noting each person’s body type, temperament, recorded or reporteddelinquency, basic family history, and mental and physical health. In his book Varieties ofDelinquent Youth, three pictures are presented of each of the men from back, front, and sideviews along with capsule summaries of their life history. Sheldon categorized the young men’sbody forms into three basic types: endomorphic (soft and round), mesomorphic (muscular andathletic), and ectomorphic (slender and fragile). While many of his subjects’ physiques werenot entirely classifiable into one of the above categories, Sheldon concluded that, overall,mesomorphs have a higher likelihood of being involved in crime because of their higher levelof physical power and aggressiveness. Although Sheldon’s research, like Hooton’s, is nowdismissed by most criminologists because of its questionable methodology and logicalcontradictions, Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck (1955) found some support for Sheldon’s findingsin their comparison study of 500 delinquents and 500 nondelinquents. Despite the shortcomingsBarlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=616240.Created from apus on 2023-09-30 13:38:54.Copyright © 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

of the biological approach represented in the above studies, there are still serious scholarswho argue that biological characteristics such as body type predisposes individuals to commitcrimes (see Wilson and Herrnstein, 1985).The search for biological correlates of criminal behavior was largely discontinued in theUnited States during the 1950s and 1960s, partly because studies of human behavior in generalwere increasingly coming under the influence of the social and behavioral sciences, but alsobecause the necessary research became too costly. There were also many people who simplybelieved that its focus on pathology was inaccurate (Pfohl, 1985). Although a fewScandinavian scholars (e.g., Christiansen, 1977a) organized their studies around biology, U.S.criminologists essentially lost interest in it until the 1980s.The biological perspective in criminology is by no means a unified approach. Its advocatesdraw on research from a variety of behavioral sciences, including genetics, physiologicalpsychology, psychopharmocology, and endocrinology. Among the theoretical perspectivesfound within the biological camp are (1) evolutionary theories, which examine changingenvironmental conditions, (2) genetic theories, which focus on inherited traits, defects, ordeficiencies, and (3) biochemical theories that focus on hormonal or chemical imbalances.One example of the third perspective is found in Ellis’s (1991) review of research onmonoamine (MAO) and its relationship to criminal behavior. MAO is an enzyme that isbelieved to effect the transmission of impulses from one nerve to another. MAO is heavilyconcentrated in the brain stem, and its activity is believed to be influenced by both genes andhormones. The importance of MAO for brain functioning is well documented, and low MAOactivity is thought to be associated with aggressiveness, feelings or anger and frustration, andvarious correlates of antisocial behavior such as defiance, poor academic performance,childhood hyperactivity, extroversion, and sensation seeking (Ellis and Walsh, 1997). Theseassociations are modest, but Ellis believes that low MAO may be an important biologicalmarker for criminality.Evolutionary TheoriesSome biologists believe that people are instinctively aggressive, basing their claim on studiesof animal behavior. According to Konrad Lorenz (1971), nature gave animals an instinct foraggression for three reasons: (1) to ensure that the strongest males succeed in mating with themost desirable females, thus ensuring a kind of genetic quality control; (2) to protect thephysical space, or territory, necessary for raising the young, securing food, and the like; and (3)to maintain hierarchies of dominance and through them a stable, well-policed society.Following Lorenz and Desmond Morris—the author of The Naked Ape—Pierre van denBerghe (1974: 777) believes that human behavior is not “radically discontinuous from that ofother species,” and he advocates a biosocial approach to understanding human violence.Essentially, the argument is that humans, like animals, have predispositions to violence that areinnate—that is, biologically grounded. Though conclusive proof of this is still unavailable, oneBarlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=616240.Created from apus on 2023-09-30 13:38:54.Copyright © 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

promising indication is that aggression is a universal behavior pattern for a species: In humans,aggression has been observed everywhere, despite widely differing habitats, cultures, andtechnologies. The viewpoint receives additional support from the documented relationshipbetween aggression and the male hormone testosterone and the discovery of “aggressioncenters” in the brain (van den Berghe, 1974; Bailey, 1976; Wilson and Herrnstein, 1985).Robert L. Burgess (1979; Burgess and Draper, 1989) has drawn on evolutionary theory toexplain variations in child abuse and family violence. Burgess argues that mature humans havetwo related problems. The first is to pass on their genes through successive generations, andthe second is to protect their offspring despite limited resources. The solution is for parents toinvest most in those genetic offspring who show the best prospects for surviving andreproducing and least in nongenetic relatives and/or those genetic offspring who show theworst prospects of surviving and reproducing.The problems and their solutions will produce greater risks of abuse and neglect in familieswith stepchildren, in poorer families, in those with less education, in families with manychildren, in single-parent families, and in families whose children have mental or physicalimpairments. Burgess and Ellis and Walsh (1997) cite studies both in the United States andabroad that support these predictions (see also Daly and Wilson, 1988b). However, it shouldbe emphasized that child abuse is not inevitable in families with these characteristics, and it isfound in many families without them (Ellis and Walsh, 1997).Daly and Wilson (1988a: 520) make the following observation on step-relationships andviolence:In view of the costs of prolonged “parental” investment in nonrelatives, it may seem remarkable that step-relationships areever peaceful, let alone genuinely affectionate. However, violent hostility is rarer than friendly relations even amongnonrelatives; people thrive by the maintenance of networks of social reciprocity that will make them attractive exchangepartners. . . . The fact remains, however, that step-relationships lack the deep commonality of interest of the naturalparent-offspring relationships, and feelings of affection and commitment are correspondingly shallower. Differential ratesof violence are one result.On a broader plane, Daly and Wilson’s evolutionary psychological perspective (1988a; seealso 1998) explains the male propensity for violence as the result of the ubiquitous struggleover control and propagation. As Green (1993: 32) explains it:Wife-murder and wife-abuse represent the striving for control over the reproductive capacities of women. Killings arisingout of trivial altercations aim to deter rivals from threatening one’s interests; they give tangible proof that any such attemptwill be met with severe punishment. The predominance of males is due to the greater need of men for additional resourceswith which to check rivals and attract women.Ellis and Walsh (1997) have summarized the key points made by evolutionary theorists ofcrime that lead to the following claims about sexual assault:• Males should be far more likely to engage in sexual assault (logic: males have more togain because they do not become pregnant and in general have less commitment to theiroffspring).• Rape and sexual assault is found in both human and nonhuman species (logic: genesBarlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=616240.Created from apus on 2023-09-30 13:38:54.Copyright © 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

contributing to rape are suspected to be present in many animal types).• Victims of rape resist sexual attacks because it does not allow them the choice to select amate that will help with child rearing (logic: some research supports the idea that females arefar more choosier about their mates than males).• Victims of rape should be females in their child-bearing years (logic: while the goal ofrape is not to exactly reproduce, it approximates such a drive).Theory is about explanation, and as you can see, at issue here is why we see these patternsin sexual assault. Research does indeed support the age/rape, resistance, and gendered natureof sexual assault patterns noted in the points above, but the question is how to explain thesefacts. As we will see in future chapters, sociological theories have very different explanations.We should also note that genetic, evolutionary, and neurological explanations of crimecontinue to play some role in the modern-day search for the causes of crime (Janssen, Nicholls,Kumar, Stefankis, et al., 2005). Most theorists working in these areas agree that crime is bestexplained by studying how the social environment and internal physiological systems interactwith one another to produce behavior (Ellis and Walsh, 1997; Jeffery, 1994). For example, it isquite true that the brain develops in concert with environment. Any changes in the functioningof the brain, then, may be related to behavior, including criminal behavior. This means that thenutritional content of food, adverse chemical interactions caused by drug use, and brain traumaor disease may be involved in criminal decision making (Jeffery, 1994). Additionally, somerecent genetic studies of twins and adoptees have found some evidence of a hereditary elementof criminality, although the correlations are small and many of the studies have majormethodological limitations (Gottfredson and Hirschi, 1990; although see Ellis and Walsh,1997). In sum, however, even biological and evolutionary theorists of crime understand that itis a serious mistake to ignore the role of the social environment in providing the context,opportunity, and motivation for much crime.Biosocial TheoriesAdvocates of the biological perspective in criminology have been swimming against the tidefor many years. However, James Q. Wilson and Richard Herrnstein (1985) helped sparkrenewed interest in the relationship between biology and criminal behavior. The tide hasn’tturned, by any means, but a healthy interest in biological correlates of crime has emerged(Linns, 2004; Fishbein, 1990). Studies of chronic delinquents have found that, when comparedwith less delinquent youths, the chronic offenders are more likely to suffer from minor birthdefects, to have abnormal electrical activity in the brain, or to suffer from various otherneurological defects (Buikhuisen, 1988). These correlates of chronic delinquency are believedto influence behavior through their impact on the socialization process. They impede a child’sability to learn and to develop attitudes consistent with self-control, deferred gratification, andrestraint. The interaction between biology and social environment lies at the heart of theBarlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=616240.Created from apus on 2023-09-30 13:38:54.Copyright © 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

biosocial perspective.Biology and Environment. Wilson and Herrnstein take a biosocial approach. Theyargue that certain constitutional factors, some of which are genetic, predispose people tocommit crimes, but also that these predispositions are influenced by social forces as wellas by the individual’s own personality. In their view, neither biology nor environmentalone is sufficient to explain why some people commit crimes and others do not, or whysome people commit more crime than others. There is certainly no “crime gene,” whichmeans there is no “born criminal” (1985: 69; Ellis and Walsh, 1997). However, Wilsonand Herrnstein (1985: 103) emphasize that biological factors cannot be overlooked:The existence of biological predispositions mean that circumstances that activate criminal behavior in one person will notdo so in another, that social forces cannot deter criminal behavior in 100 percent of the population, and that the distributionof crime within and across societies may, to some extent, reflect underlying distributions of constitutional factors. . . .[C]rime cannot be understood without taking into account individual predispositions and their biological roots.These theorists infer the existence of biological influences from two observations. First,Wilson and Herrnstein’s reading of the research shows that street crimes such as murder,robbery, and burglary are committed by young males who are disproportionately AfricanAmerican and possibly of lower intelligence. The most striking difference is observed for sex:Males are up to fifty times more likely to commit crimes than are females. Second, there is alarge body of research suggesting something biologically distinctive about the “averageoffender.” The typical male offender, in their view, is more muscular than other people and islikely to have biological parents who are (or were) themselves criminal.Wilson and Herrnstein review a vast amount of research to help substantiate their claims,but how exactly are biological forces thought to influence criminal behavior? The authors aremore cautious on this point, as well they might be, since many of the findings they review canbe explained by other theories. However, their answer seems to rest in the impact biologicalfactors have on (1) the things people consider rewarding; (2) the ability (or desire) of peopleto think about rewards and punishments that might come in the future; and (3) the ability ofpeople to develop internal, moral constraints—the “bite of conscience.” Aggressive drives andneeds are dominant in males; younger and less intelligent people are more inclined to beimpulsive, to want rewards now rather than later; and the cognitive skills involved in thedevelopment of conscience grow with age and are positively related to intelligence. Peoplewho are aggressive, impulsive, opportunistic, and less constrained by conscience are atgreatest risk of committing crimes.Intelligence and Crime. One of the most enduring arguments found in scientific andpopular literature is that antisocial behavior is more likely among people with lowintelligence. There is little disagreement that intellectual defects are heritable (Fishbein,1990), and much of the research on intelligence and crime has concluded that boys withlower aptitude are more likely to become involved in delinquency and crime (Hirschi andHindelang, 1977).When a certain group of people is found to have disproportionate involvement in crime, thenatural inclination is to look for things the people have in common and then attribute theBarlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=616240.Created from apus on 2023-09-30 13:38:54.Copyright © 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

criminal behavior to these things. This is the sort of reasoning that has linked intelligence to thedisproportionately high rates of violent crime among African Americans compared with whites(Hindelang, 1978; Hindelang, Hirschi, and Weiss, 1979). To some, if African Americansconsistently score lower on intelligence tests than whites, it is a short—but incorrect—step toconclude that African Americans are less intelligent because they are black (Fraser, 1995;Jensen, 1969). The rates of serious crime among African Americans are then explained as aresult of biological differences in intelligence or aptitude.The words “race,” “intelligence,” and “crime,” are controversial in terms of meaning andmeasurement. Sociologists, for example, do not give any credence to the idea that race has anybiological meaning. Rather, race is considered a pure social construction. Environmentaldifferences such as neighborhood, upbringing, economic conditions, schools, nutrition, anddiscrimination could well account for most if not all of the difference in measured intelligencebetween African Americans and whites. Further, it is well known that the very methodology ofintelligence tests is discriminatory, much like the ACT and SAT tests, and it really measuresexposure to the racially dominant culture’s (i.e., white culture) language, tastes, hobbies, andartistic interests (Fraser, 1995).Perhaps the most controversial statements on the relationship between intelligence andcrime are rooted in Richard Herrnstein and Charles Murray’s (1994) book The Bell Curve.The authors argue that an “extensive research literature” shows that low IQ is a risk factor forcriminal behavior. Claiming that differences in behavior result from differences in thecharacteristics of individuals (the classic psychological perspective), as well as differences intheir circumstances (the sociological perspective), Herrnstein and Murray write that lowintelligence may encourage crime in a variety of ways.First, they argue, low IQ may be associated with failure at school and work, which in turncauses frustration and perhaps resentment toward society and its laws. Second, it is claimedthat a person with low IQ is more inclined to look for immediate gratification and tends todiscount far-off risks such as arrest and incarceration. Third, the contention is made that aperson with low IQ finds it harder to comprehend the moral and civil reasons for not hurtingothers and obeying rules.While acknowledging that most people with low IQ are law-abiding, Herrnstein and Murraymaintain that the average intelligence of offenders is around ten points below that ofnonoffenders, and that offenders with lower IQs commit crimes more often as well as moreserious crimes. Citing research from abroad as well as self-report data from the United States,the authors conclude that individuals with the cognitive disadvantage implied by low IQ havehigher rates of crime even when socioeconomic factors, family structure, and education aretaken into account.On the other hand, Herrnstein and Murray recognize that the changes in aggregate crime ratesexperienced in the past several decades cannot be explained by variations in intelligence.Large or sudden movements in crime rates are due to social forces rather than personalcharacteristics, yet these same forces nevertheless “may have put people of low cognitiveability at greater risk than before” (Herrnstein and Murray, 1994: 251). For example, while theBarlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=616240.Created from apus on 2023-09-30 13:38:54.Copyright © 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

downward shift in the age population due to the baby boomers coupled with more permissivechild-rearing practices may have enhanced the risks of criminal involvement among alladolescents and largely accounts for the increased crime rate of the 1960s, Herrnstein andMurray would argue that the criminogenic impact of these forces was greatest amongindividuals with lower IQs.Despite the convictions of the authors, the intelligence-criminality puzzle remains to besolved (Guay, Ouimet, and Proulx, 2005). For one thing, if cognitive disadvantage explainscriminal behavior, how do we then explain the many varieties of white-collar crime, which areoften committed by individuals with college degrees and require higher degrees of forethought,skill, and political capital? Nor is it clear how constitutional and environmental factors cometogether to influence criminal behavior.Personality and Aggressive TemperamentTo say that people have an innate predisposition toward violence does not mean they will beviolent, nor does it explain different levels and types of violence. Furthermore, as Green(1993: 32) points out, “Most men proclaim their ‘fitness’ for progenitorship in non-violentways.” The actual display of aggression is affected by triggers and inhibitors, controls that maybe innate but also may be learned or situational.Some psychiatrists believe that humans develop internal inhibitors during early childhood.According to Sigmund Freud, the individual psyche is composed of three parts: the ego, the id,and the superego. Behavior is motivated by those drives that are innate: the sex drive, theaggression drive, and even the death drive. These make up the id. As one develops andinteracts with others, the superego emerges. This part of the psyche consists of social idealsand rules that are internalized through socialization. Finally, the ego strikes a balance betweenthe demands of the id and the constraints of the superego.The aggressive drive is expressed as violence, Freudians believe, when disturbances occurwithin the psyche. Mulvihill and Tumin (1969: 460–61) put it this way:The id may overflow with violent drives: the individual hates too much, enjoys pain too much, or wants to destroy himself.Sometimes the id is just too much for the ego to control, and the individual breaks out into violent behavior.. . . Alternatively, the superego may be extremely overformed or underformed. If the superego tries to quash allexpression of dislike or hatred, and to quell all fantasies about violence, the individual may build up a greater and greaterreserve of unfulfilled desire, until he can no longer control himself. Then he becomes violent. If the superego isunderdeveloped, the individual simply sees nothing wrong with violence; he will use it whenever the occasion seems to callfor it. In the underdeveloped superego, we are not dealing with a “sick” man at variance with his environment; we arerather dealing with a sick environment which has encouraged violence as the “normal” mode of response.Some psychiatrists locate the seeds of emotional disturbance in parent-child relationships. Itis suggested, for example, that the “love bonds” between parent and child are important toregulating the aggressive drive and that destructive behavior is prevented by the formation ofstable human relationships in early childhood (Chodorkoff and Baxter, 1969). By the sametoken, excessive physical disciplining undermines these bonds and, further, teaches youngstersBarlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=616240.Created from apus on 2023-09-30 13:38:54.Copyright © 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

that there is a place for violence in relationships. Although psychiatrists may have much to tellabout aggression and violence among those who are “disturbed” or “sick,” their work is nothelpful in understanding types of violence for entire populations and societies. Indeed, somepeople question the applicability of the psychiatric approach to even extreme forms ofaggression. They point out that violent offenders do not suffer from mental disorders as a rule.Summarizing the findings of investigations into mental disorders among murderers, psychiatristDonald Lunde (1970: 93) argues:I cannot emphasize too strongly the well-established fact that mental patients, in general, are no more murderous than thepopulation at large. While it should not be surprising to find that psychotic killers have been previously hospitalized fortreatment of psychosis, the incidence of psychosis among murderers is no greater than the incidence of psychosis in thetotal population. Furthermore, the percentage of murderers among former mental patients is actually slightly lower thanthat among persons who have never been in a mental hospital. Crimes committed by the mentally ill tend to receivedisproportionate publicity, which reinforces a widespread myth about mental illness and violence.Frustration-Aggression TheoriesThe frustration-aggression hypothesis was first advanced in the 1930s by psychologists atYale University. Originally, the hypothesis asserted that “the occurrence of aggressive behavioralways presupposes the existence of frustration, and . . . the existence of frustration alwaysleads to some form of aggression” (Dollard et al., 1939: 1). Frustration arises wheneversomething interferes with an individual’s attempt to reach a valued goal.It was soon recognized that this early statement of the frustration-aggression relationshiprequired modification to accommodate the complexities of real life. Even though the impulsefor aggression may be strong following some frustrating experience, the actual display ofaggression may be inhibited by internal or external controls. Further, frustrations may becumulative, one experience adding to another, and they may remain potent over a long periodof time. It is now known that people evaluate frustrating experiences differently, according towhether they are arbitrary or unreasonable, for example. Finally, socialization teaches peoplehow to respond to frustrations, and since the content of what is learned varies considerablyfrom group to group and from society to society, the reactions to frustration can be expected tovary. In short, aggressive actions are not an automatic consequence of frustration, nor is therelationship between the two a simple one. As we will discuss in chapter four, Robert Agnewhas recently developed a more sophisticated way to explain the consequences of frustrationand crime.Chapter SummaryThe scientific foundations of criminology are traced to nineteenth-century Europe and the riseof positivism. The development of new techniques of data collection and analysis and CharlesDarwin’s work on evolution spurred the application of science to problems of human behavior,.Barlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=616240.Created from apus on 2023-09-30 13:38:54.Copyright © 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

including criminality. The work of Lombroso, Hooton, and Sheldon represent a kind ofcriminology inspired by the search for the biological and physiological causes of crime.Among the theoretical perspectives found within modern biological approaches to crime are(1) evolutionary theories, which examine changing environmental conditions, (2) genetictheories, which focus on inherited traits, defects, or deficiencies, and (3) biochemical theoriesthat examine hormonal or chemical imbalances. Each of these perspectives has very modestempirical support and for a variety of reasons cannot be considered part of the core set ofpopular criminological theories today.Biosocial theories maintain that there are important interactional effects betweenconstitutional variables and the social environment that can lead to criminal behavior. Therelationship between intelligence and crime has been a part of this theoretical tradition, butthere is no clear evidence that IQ plays a substantial role in explaining either individual orstructural variations in criminal involvement or crime rates in general.Key Termsatavisticbiosocial approachevolutionary theoristsfrustration-aggression hypothesismesomorphspositivismDiscussion Questions1. Have you ever heard someone say that a person “looked like a criminal”? On what basiswould a person make that claim? Can there be any basis whatsoever for connecting physicalappearance with crime or criminality?2. Evolutionary theories of crime are controversial because they imply that some crimes arenatural outcomes of the fact that human beings are also animals. To what extent canevolutionary theory be helpful in understanding different forms of crime, such as politicalcorruption versus violent crime?3. Biosocial criminologists look to both constitutional and social factors in explaining crimeand criminality. To what extent is this related to the age-old “nature-nurture” debate, and wheredo you stand on the issue?4. What types of crime are more easily understood as a result of frustration than others?Does aggression always, or even most of the time, follow frustration? Why or why not?Barlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/apus/detail.action?docID=616240.Created from apus on 2023-09-30 13:38:54.Copyright © 2010. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated. All rights reserved.

Activities1. Go to the FBI’s “Ten Most Wanted List” and study the photos. Is there any way one couldmake a connection between physical appearance and criminality that is not racist, ethnocentric,or otherwise stereotypical?2. Watch the film Falling Down and interpret the scenes and the main character’s actionsthrough the lens of the frustration-aggression hypothesis. Why would some people followfrustration with aggression, while others would not?3. Take any number of online IQ tests with your classmates or friends and have each self-report on their involvement in crime. Can you see any connections between the two?Box 3.1. Physical Appearances and CriminalityModern-day criminologists have little use for the idea that criminals share similar physical attributes. The exception to this is thatit is well known that in many Western societies people of color are more likely to be portrayed as criminal by the media.Numerous scholars, such as Barlow, Barlow, and Chiricos (1995), Greer and Jewkes (2005), and Weitzer and Kubrin (2004)have shown that media images often imply that criminals “look a certain way.” As professors with many years of experience incollege classrooms, we have heard similar suggestions from students. For example, we have heard that someone “looked like achild molester or serial murderer.” We have even been told by a student that her former professor at a different university wentto the Federal Bureau of Investigation’s (FBI) website containing pictures of “The Ten Most Wanted” so that students in hisclass could compare the suspects’ physical similarities and differences. Modern-day criminologists have all but abandoned thesearch for physiological signs of criminality, but that doesn’t seem to stop the media or popular belief that some people “look likecriminals.”Box 3.2. Falling DownThe film Falling Down, starring Michael Douglas, revolves around the main character’s “mind snap” and subsequentaggressive criminal behavior. Douglas plays the role of Bill, an average man who starts to lose control of himself while sitting ina traffic jam on a hot day without air conditioning. Adding to his frustration, Bill has just lost his job and is late for his daughter’sbirthday party. After feeling overcharged by a grocer for a soft drink, Bill stumbles upon a stash of high-powered weapons andbegins an aggressive attack on various parties to exact his twisted sense of justice.Frustration-aggression theorists would examine the precipitating circumstances of such behavior and compare Bill’s responseto those who are similarly situated to look for differences. Although this theoretical perspective can be helpful in understandingsudden violent behavior, sociological theories reviewed in chapter 4 can also shed light on them. For example, an interestingstudy by Hipp, Bauer, Curran, and Bollen (2004) tests the temperature/frustration hypothesis (an idea first offered by Quetelet[1969] almost two centuries ago) against routine activities theory. The authors conclude that the latter theory better explainsproperty crime but that both explanations offer some support for explaining violent crime.Barlow, Hugh D., and David Kauzlarich. Explaining Crime : A Primer in Criminological Theory, Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Incorporated, 2010. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://

Collepals.com Plagiarism Free Papers

Are you looking for custom essay writing service or even dissertation writing services? Just request for our write my paper service, and we'll match you with the best essay writer in your subject! With an exceptional team of professional academic experts in a wide range of subjects, we can guarantee you an unrivaled quality of custom-written papers.

Get ZERO PLAGIARISM, HUMAN WRITTEN ESSAYS

Why Hire Collepals.com writers to do your paper?

Quality- We are experienced and have access to ample research materials.

We write plagiarism Free Content

Confidential- We never share or sell your personal information to third parties.

Support-Chat with us today! We are always waiting to answer all your questions.