Crime

"We may isolate two ways in which these "sub-political" traditions affect the early working-class movement: the phenomena of riot and of the mob, and the popular notions of an Englishman's "birthright". For the first, we must realise that there have always persisted popular attitudes towards crime, amounting at times to an unwritten code, quite distinct from the laws of the land. Certain crimes were outlawed by both codes: a wife or child murderer would be pelted and execrated on the way to Tyburn. Highwaymen and pirates belonged to popular ballads, part heroic myth, part admonition to the young. But other crimes were actively condoned by whole communities—coining, poaching, the evasion of taxes (the window tax and tithes) or excise or the press-gang. Smuggling communities lived in a state of constant war with authority, whose unwritten rules were understood by both sides; the authorities might seize a ship or raid the village, and the smugglers might resist arrest—"but it was no part of the smuggling tactics to carry war farther than defence, or at times a rescue, because of the retaliatory measures that were sure to come... On the other hand, other crimes, which were easily committed and yet which struck at the livelihood of particular communities—sheep-stealing or stealing cloth off the tenters in the open field—excited popular condemnation"

"From a single crime know the nation."

"Crime and bad lives are the measure of a State's failure, all crime in the end is the crime of the community."

"The sole means of ridding man of crime is to rid him of freedom."

"My hope is that students, scholars, mental health and criminal justice practitioners, and others who read this book will come away reminded of several important things that can take us further toward preventing, controlling, and responding to crime. First, crime is a common everyday occurrence with very real and often tragic consequences we are all forced to deal with at some level in our everyday lives, whether we are offenders, victims, witnesses, citizens, jurors, or professionals in criminal justice, mental health, or social service. Second, feasible and effective solutions to the prevention and control of crime can come only from the conjoining of scientific and practical perspectives of different disciplines, keeping in mind that nothing about real crime will ever fall as neatly into place as the theories suggest and no empirical study can be so perfectly designed as to provide definitive answers. Third, crime types included in this text that are rarely covered in traditional criminology texts, such as political and copycat crimes, will hopefully inspire researchers to pursue otherwise untouched avenues of research."

"[C]riminal behavior is not a static phenomenon. Crime is a subcultural and cultural product-a human behavior that changes in form and meaning across time, place, culture, subculture, gender, and so on. The hope is that this book will inspire students, researchers, criminal justice professionals, and citizens to think creatively about crime, to work together across disciplines and arenas to make use of the best theories and practices, and to never forget that for every crime that is prevented, every offender who is (even slightly) reformed, every victim who is better supported, every citizen who is less afraid of crime, and every criminal justice professional who is given better tools with which to do his or her job, many lives and communities will be affected and improved."

"[C]rime is a social, interpersonal, and personal harm that, more often than not, has tragic and enduring consequences."

"If it were possible to produce a complete catalog of human criminal behavior over time and around the world, such a document would likely be one of the most fascinating reads of all time. <br. The popularity of TV crime shows like Law and Order, CSI, and the long-running NYPD Blue; films such as Taxi Driver, Silence of the Lambs, Natural Born Killers, and Ocean’s Eleven, Ocean’s Twelve, and Ocean’s Thirteen; and classic literature such as In Cold Blood and Crime and Punishment suggests that most people are fascinated with the deviant and criminal side of human behavior. However, fictional accounts of crime (many of which are loosely or not-so-loosely based on real events) rarely compare to the reality of crime. Any law enforcement officer, medical examiner/death investigator, crime scene technician, criminal attorney, judge, juror, criminologist/researcher, or citizen who has been exposed to some or all aspects of real-life criminal events knows that real-life crime is just as fascinating as if not more so (and in some cases much more horrific) than what our imaginations can come up with."

"On the other hand, media focus on the most extreme variants of criminal behavior often makes people forget that most crime does not involve stranger abductions, sadistic torture, chopping off body parts, elaborate Internet schemes, or using commercial airliners as bombs. Although the real-life catalog of bizarre and extreme crimes is filled with horror, tragedy, and untold human harm and loss, it includes an even larger list of more benign offenses that most TV producers would have no interest in devoting a 1-hour prime time show to; and even if they did, most of us would probably rather do our laundry than watch."

"In some ways, crimes that fall on the more “normal” side of the continuum of criminal behavior are even more interesting because they involve regular people in usual settings making decisions (some spontaneous, some not) about violating the law. The nature and dynamics of these sorts of everyday crimes provide a great deal of information about the root of criminal behavior-in fact, probably more than the extreme forms of criminal behavior, which can often be explained in terms of severe psychopathology or social or political conflict."

"Crime exists only to the extent to which behavior is legally defined as criminal by the larger society and culture. In some contexts (e.g., war, executions in correctional contexts) it is not a crime to kill another human being. In some states (e.g., Nevada) it is not a crime to engage is prostitution. Until 2003 engaging in a homosexual act was a crime in many states in the United States, and it is currently illegal in some places around the world. (1) “Crime is not an entity in fact but an entity in law” (Radzinowicz, 1966, p. 22) and “technically speaking, there is no ‘crime’ without ‘criminal law’” (Shelden, 2002, p.23). “Criminal behavior is a special category of behavior that has been defined through socio-cultural-legal-political-economic processes as outside of the bounds of the law.” This is important in reviewing criminal behavior research because theoretical concepts central to understanding the mechanisms of criminal behavior such as “antisocial behavior”, “aggression”, “psychopathy”, or “deviance” are sometimes confounded with criminality in the research literature and popular discourse. For example studies on aggression are often conducted in laboratory settings with animals or humans who are engaged in some laboratory task. “Can research on aggression in rats be applied to human crime and violence? Are the processes that produce antisocial behavior, such as lying or cheating on a spouse, the same processes as are involved in violating the law? Can theories explaining how people develop deviant identities also explain how people develop criminal identities? Much of the current knowledge base on crime and criminal behavior draws from research focusing on these other concepts."

"The term “social and behavioral sciences” is often used to encompass the many disciplines and subdisciplines involved in the study of criminal behavior, with scholars from a wide range of fields in sociology, psychology, criminology, and criminal justice engaged in the study of crime. The scientific study of crime evolved from the classical and positivist schools of thought and the disciplines of sociology and psychology. Eighteenth-century discourse on criminal behavior came from the work of classical theorists Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham, who saw crime as a product of free will, committed by people who made cost-benefit analyses regarding the pleasure crime would bring. The positivist school of thought emerged in the early 1800s with the writings of Cesare Lombroso (The Criminal Man) and with French mathematician-astronomer Adolphe-Jacques Quetelet’s “social physics” and French lawyer Andre-Michel Guerry’s “moral statistical analysis”, supporting the notion that crime could be measured and predicted. Criminology emerged as a subfield of sociology in the 1930s, and Criminology and Criminal Justice as a distinct academic discipline originated in the 1960s and 1970s. Psychologists have been interested in criminal behavior since the advent of psychology as a discipline (Blackburn, 1993)."

"The study of criminal behavior is much more interdisciplinary today than in the past. However, scholars continue to be divided into the same two camps that have historically defined the study of crim. More than 40 years ago, criminologist Sir Leon Radzinowicz wrote: We are here at the sources of the two fundamental approaches to the study of crime; crime as a product or expression of society and crime as a product or expression of individual constitution. From them developed two schools of thought. To one the central task of criminology was to explain the existence and distribution of crime in society; its natural tendency was to see the social factors as of overwhelming importance. To the other, the purpose of criminology was to discover why certain individuals became criminal. The tendency here was to stress the significance of constitutional factors. (Radzinowicz, 1966, pp. 29-30)"

"The long history of these two general schools of thought-criminal behavior as a product of social forces versus criminal behavior as a product of individual constitution-has been somewhat resistant to change, and even the titles of text about crime have historically reflected one or the other perspective. Texts titled “Criminology” tend to approach the study of crime from a macrosociological framework whereas texts titled “Criminal Behavior” often focus more on the micro-level dynamics of individual criminality."

""Criminal behavior” is an individual-level behavioral product of an infinite array of factors and forces that converge at a given point in time. The term “crime” can be understood more broadly as the collective amount of criminal behavior in a society."

"Over the past 200 years, a large body of literature has accumulated on crime and criminal behavior. Advances in the academic fields of criminology, criminal justice, and forensic psychology had led to recognition that theory and empirical research is critical to effective and efficient use of social resources to respond to crime. Old “tough on crime” approaches that called for harsh response to crime without attention to the nature of different types of offense behavior, rehabilitative potential, and levels o risk have been replaced by a trend favoring “smart on crime reforms” such as elimination of mandatory minimum sentences, more effective response to technical violations of probation and parole, and prison closures (Greene, 2003). These reforms rely heavily on theory and empirical research on the nature and extent of criminal behavior and the accurate measurement of crime. “Prevention and corrections have moved from ‘noting works’ through ‘what works’ to ‘making what works work’” (Andrews * Bonta, 2006, p. iii). More than at any other time in history, the science of criminal behavior today is making its way into policy and practice at every stage of the criminal justice system."

"When a crime occurs, the first question that tends to comes to people’s minds is “Why?” This is especially true when the crime in question is heinous or extraordinary. Many prominent scholars have attempted to answer the question, “What makes people commit crime?” In 1988, Jack Katz, author of “Seductions of Crime”, wrote: The social science literature contains only scattered evidence of what it means, feels, sounds, tastes, or looks like to commit a particular crime. Readers of research on homicide and assault do not hear the slaps and curses, see the pushes and shoves, or feel the humiliation and rage that may build toward the attack, sometimes persisting after the victim’s death. How adolescents manage to make the shoplifting or vandalism of cheap and commonplace things a thrilling experience has not been intriguing to many students of delinquency. Researchers of adolescent gangs have never grasped why their subjects so often stubbornly refuse to accept the outsider’s insistence that they wear the “gang” label The description of “cold blooded, senseless murderers” has been left to writers outside the social sciences. Neither academic methods nor academic theories seem to be able to grasp why such killers may have been courteous to their victims just moments before the killing, why they often wait until they have dominated victims in sealed-off environments before coldly executing them, or how it makes sense to kill when only petty cash is at stake. (Katz, 1988, p.3) Twenty years later, many integrative theories have been developed to explain how biological, developmental, personality, social, and situational factors and forces converge to produce criminal behavior (e.g., Agnew, 2005; Barak, 1998; Elliott, Ageton, & Canter, 1979; Gottfredsen & Hirschi, 1990; Moffit, 1993; Robinson, 2004; Thornberry, 1987; Tittle, 1995), yet none sufficiently answers all of the questions about all types of crime nor do they bring us much closer to understanding, as Karz suggests, “what it means, feels, sounds, tastes, or looks like to commit a particular crime.”"

"The botched Arctic training dive from the icebreaker has nothing to do with criminal behavior, except that the conclusion of the Healy investigation is a useful analogy in thinking about the causes of crime. Like the botched dive resulting in the accidental deaths of the “Healy” divers, criminal behavior occurs as a result of a series of interlocking events and would not occur if any link in a chain of events and decisions were broken.” This notion of a series of intertwined factors that converge to produce a particular outcome, whether accidental death or medical disease or criminal behavior, is far from novel and not especially exciting. Furthermore, such a complex explanation does not lend itself to a single concrete answer to the problem of crime. However, it is important to note that the outcome of the Healy investigation led to concrete changes in the Coast Guard in memory of Office Duque and Lieutenant Hill, with the goal of preventing future diver deaths by breaking links in the events and decisions that led to the botched dive. If every crime were analyzed to the extent that this Coast Guard tragedy was investigated and data collected to determine the successive events linked to produce the criminal act, then the science of criminal behavior would be much more advanced and steps could be taken to prevent future crimes. The final action memorandum from the U.S.Coast Guard said, “We will honor our lost shipmates and keep faith with our Core Values of Honor, respect, and Devotion to Duty by diligently directing our energies toward improving our performance through the elimination of the shortfalls that led to this tragedy” (Final Action, 2007, p. 27). Like the Healy diving incident, many criminal acts result in tragic consequences for victims and communities who would be similarly honored by “directing energies toward improving performance through the elimination of shortfalls” that led to the criminal event. “In thinking about and researching what makes people commit crime, it is important to think in terms of a chain of events that can be closely examined and deliberately interrupted.” Like the “Healy” incident, if we were to retrospectively analyze every criminal event, we would likely find that most crime is preventable-that if one link in the chain had been missing, the crime would not have occurred. Identifying how to prevent and respond to crime requires this sort of detailed analysis of criminal events."

"It is unlikely that each and every criminal behavior committed will ever be retrospectively scrutinized in the same manner as accidental deaths (whether in the line of duty, in the medical field, or from accidents resulting from product malfunction or negligence in other arenas). However, understanding why crime occurs requires focus on both aggregate-level factors (e.g., factors statistically associated with criminal behavior across large groups of offenders) and individual-level factors (the unique influences and chain of events in an individual’s life contributing to the criminal behavior). Theory and research directed toward identifying correlates of crime at the aggregate level as well as detailed analysis of individual-level offenses are necessary to explain why crime occurs. For example, research shows that gender, age, and social class are highly correlated with criminal behavior, with young males of lower socioeconomic status being more likely to commit crime. However, knowing that a person is young, male, and poor yells us very little about why a particular person decides to engage in an individual criminal behavior or a lifestyle of crime, nor can these factors be used to predict or clearly explain the dynamics of individual-level criminal acts."

"The second most frequently asked question about crime is, “How much crime is there?” Criminal justice policies and practices are generally ties to both the nature and the extent of crime. Attention and resources are allocated based on where the greatest need arises, which can depend on the amount of social harm or public fear crime causes. For example, even though some types of crime are particularly shocking or horrific, such as cannibalism and fetus theft, these crimes are extremely rare. It is unlikely that a great deal of resources will be directed to preventing or responding to crimes that almost never occur. On the other hand, some types of crime are so common people almost forget that they are crimes at all, such as drunk driving and domestic violence. With these types of crimes, all it takes is a few atrocity tales and a moral panic to generate a wave of concern that sometimes leads to increased resources and attention. How much crime exists is a question of great interest to the news media, who often report when crime in general or certain types of crime are on the rise or falling, crime sprees in a certain location, or particular areas experiencing disproportionate amounts of certain types of crimes. This information is also important to the public, politicians, and policymakers who use official crime rates to make decisions about allocation of resources to law enforcement agencies. Newspaper deadlines typically provide a snapshot of information from governmental reports or studies informing the public about the rise, fall, or pattern of crime[.]"

"[C]riminologists have proven to be notoriously bad predictors of crime rates. This is because there are so many factors that converge to produce increases or decreases in aggregate levels of crime. For example, the most powerful correlates of crime are age, gender, and socioeconomic status. Males between the ages of 14 and 24 from impoverished backgrounds are disproportionately represented in both offender and victimization statistics. This means that a criminologist could safely predict that when demographic shifts occur in society, such as decreasing number of male youth age 14 to 24 in the population, crime will decrease. However, crime rates in aggregate and individual-level criminal behavior are much more complicated that the theories would lead us to believe, and some might say virtually impossible to accurately predict given the varieties of human behavior and the endless parade of variables that affect criminal behavior."

"Similar to that old philosophical conundrum, “If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it, does it make a sound?” criminologists ask “if you’re not caught, is it really a crime?” The term dark figure of crime refers to all of the unknown crimes that do not make it into official crime data, victimization surveys, or research studies or the discrepancy between crime known to police an the true extent of crime. The amount of crime that actually occurs far exceeds the amount of crime reported to police. The majority of crime becomes known to police through citizen complaints. However, in many cases citizens do not report crime to the police. Mosher, Miethe, and Phillips (2002) offer some of the many reasons crimes are not reported to police: Some victims lack trust in the police or have severe reservations about the ability of law enforcement officials to solve crimes. Some fear retaliation and reprisals from offenders for reporting crimes; others think it is not worth their while to report offenses because, for example, the property is uninsured and probably will not be recovered. The victims in some crime situations may also be involved in criminal activities themselves (e.g. drug sellers or prostitutes who are victims of robbery) which decreases their likelihood of reporting. Others believe the incident was a “private matter,” “nothing could be done,” or was not important enough.” Public apathy and the desire to “not get involved” may underlie some witnesses’ reluctance to report offenses they observe. (p.84) Other reasons include the belief that someone else will report the crime (e.g., in the case of nuisance offenses such as disorderly conduct or vandalism against public property) or a belief that calling the police may cause more harm than good to a family (e.g., I the case of domestic violence). Whether or not a crime makes its way into official statistics also depends on police discretion in recording an incident as a crime. There are many offenses that never make it past 911 dispatchers and many that officers choose not to report either because the evidence is weak, the crime has no clear victim, the crime is not serious, or the complainant prefers not to press charges. In many such situations, criminal behavior has occurred, however the behavior does not make it into official statistics. Even in cases in which the offense is reported to and by police, many details about the criminal behavior never make it into the police report and are forever lost."

"In thinking about the dark figure of crime and the gap between the true extent of crime and crime known to police, it is important to realize that, for any behavior to be defined as criminal, it has to be prohibited by law. “Crime is a social construction” that depends on cultural, social, political, economic, and legal decisions about what is and what is not outside the bounds of the law. If there is no law against a particular behavior, then that behavior is not criminal behavior. Or, if certain people are not perceived as offenders, they may not show up in official statistics. For example, until relatively recently law enforcement did not recognize female gang members because females were excluded from official definitions of gang membership (Sikes, 1996). Thus, even though criminal behavior is studied by psychologists and other behavioral scientists who research anger, aggression, impulsivity, and other characteristics associated with behavior that violates the law, criminal behavior cannot be understood without recognizing that “criminal behavior is a special category of human behavior that is defined by a broad range of cultural forces.” Crime also requires that certain elements be present-most important, “mens rea” (criminal intent) and “actus reus” (act violating the law). Furthermore, if a person intentionally engaged in behavior that violates the law, to be considered a criminal (and recorded in official statistics), the person would have to be convicted of the offense in a court of law. Thus, to be defined as a crime, a behavior must be an intentional violation of the law. An interesting question to consider is, “if a person commits a crime-steals something or kills someone-and isn’t caught, has that person committed a crime?”"

"Almost 15 years after the murders, many people still believe O.J. Simpson committed the murders of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman. However, he was not convicted for the offense, so even if he now decided to confess to the crime in a book or any other forum, he did not commit the crime. The homicides of Nicole Brown Simpson and Ronald Goldman were obviously reported to police, someone was arrested, and the crime was reflected in the Uniform Crime Reports for 1994. However, O.J. Simpson himself did not make it into the official data as a convicted or incarcerated offender. What if Simpson did commit these murders? What if, even though he was acquitted for the offense, he “confessed” years later? Can Simpson’s behavior be considered criminal? How can we understand the universe of criminal behavior, when there are so many offenses for which we don’t have all the information because the offender is not caught or convicted, or because the offense never comes to the attention of the police in the first place? While most homicides do not come to the attention of police, only “half of all crimes are reported to police” (Hart & Rennison, 2003). This means that official data collected by police tell only half of the story. And, as the O.J. Simpson case illustrates, even crimes that do make it into official statistics sometimes go unsanctioned with the offender unknown. “The 50% of all crime that is never reported to police is the dark figure of crime.” Beyond this, there are many details of criminal acts for which offenders aren’t caught or aren’t talking. Thus, even when offenses are known to police, may unknown features of criminal behavior are never uncovered."

"Victimization data supplement UCR data by providing information about crimes not reported to police, but they are still not able to capture the entire dark figure of crime. Victimization surveys are, of course, not able to capture offenses where there is no identifiable victim, such as public order offenses like drug offenses, gambling, disorderly conduct, trespassing, public drunkenness, and prostitution. Other excluded crimes include murder, bank robbery, and nonresidential economic crimes such as tax evasion, nonresidential burglary, possession of stolen property, and employee theft. Thus, since a large majority of offenses involve public order and nonresidential economic crime, victimization surveys are able to provide information about only a small subset of crimes, primarily violent and sex crimes, personal theft, motor vehicle theft, and residential burglary. Mosher, Miethe, and Phillips (2002) caution that using victimization data has four inherent problems: 1. Victimization surveys cover only a small range of crimes. 2. Victimization surveys are based on sample data rather than population counts, subjecting them to distortion from sampling error and sampling bias. 3. Victimization surveys are based on victims’ perceptions without independent confirmation. 4. Question wording and technical elements of the survey, including the use of different procedures over time, make it difficult to compare victimization rates over time. These problems do not diminish the value of victimization data, given that official UR data have their own flaws. Victimization data are important in minimizing the dark figure of crime and necessary to understanding criminal behavior. A first step in studying any form of criminal behavior should involve consulting both UCR and victimization data (and any other available data) for crime categories in which data are available."

"Beyond official statistics collected by the FBI in the UCR and victimization surveys, there are many self-report surveys that attempt to gather information from the offenders’ perspective. Self-report surveys provide information about criminal incidents from the offenders’ perspective and are able to capture information about crimes that do not come to the attention of the police, that victims are not willing to report, as well as public order and other offenses that may not have a clearly identifiable victim. Self-report surveys were developed beginning in the 1940s and 1950s out of concern among criminologists that official statistics were reflecting a distorted picture of crime. Self-report measures have developed substantially over the past 50 years and are now considered a fundamental reliable and valid method of scientifically measuring criminality and the bedrock of etiological studies (Thornberry & Krohn, 2000). Self-report surveys provide information about criminal events that is not translated into legalistic definitions and the victim perspective and are one of the few means through which information about offender motivation can be obtained. Information about offender motivation generally comes from two sources: self-report of involvement in crime or inferences made by researchers from behavioral evidence. Obtaining accurate data on offender motivation is problematic because it involves either trusting the offenders’ account or making inferences from behaviors."

"There are two general types of self-report surveys: surveys of unknown offenders and surveys of known offenders. Surveys of unknown offenders provide information that has not made it into official police data. Surveys of known offenders may provide insight into the details of a criminal event including offender motivation, situational factors, and thoughts and feelings of the offender before, during, and after the event. Surveys of unknown offenders can be problematic in that respondents may not want to share information that they fear may be reported to police. Surveys of known offenders may not provide a completely accurate picture if offenders are fearful that the information could be used against them in some way. With both types of self-report surveys, results may not be valid and reliable because they depend on the offender’ memory of a criminal event, recall ability, and the extent to which the offender is willing to share information about the event. Furthermore, offenders may experience memory lapses or want to present themselves in a more positive light. In some cases, this may not even be a conscious decision because oftentimes people remember what they want to remember about an event, especially in recalling a criminal event in which the offender’s behavior may cause shame or embarrassment."

"The association of legalization of abortion and crime rates is a novel and controversial suggestion based on the notion that unwanted children are at greater risk for crime and abortion reduces the number of unwanted children. In other words, unwanted children born after 1973, would have become the criminals who elevated the crime rate in the mid-1990s. Other shave argues that the dramatic drop in crime in the mid-1990s was the result of changing sensibilities. According to Tonry (2004), “Crime rates change slowly, in response to long-term social and normative changes: (p. 112) and when people’s attitude toward a particular criminal behavior changes and becomes less tolerant, citizens are more likely to report crime to the police. Thus, at times when people are less tolerant of drug crime, more drug crimes will be noticed and reported to police, which in turn will inflate the statistical incidence of this type of criminal behavior. Still others have argued that the pea in crime rates in 1980 was the result of the expansion of the crack cocaine market couples with the spread of youth gangs and increased access to firearms. When the crack cocaine market matured and turf battled ended, crime began to decrease. The 1990s crime decrease in all offense categories suggests that “something fundamental was changing in the United States and it affected each of these major crimes in the same ways” (Tonry, 2004, p. 116). For example, historians have found that homicide rates since the 12th century (the earliest time for which quantitative data are available) declined steadily in England, Holland, Belgium, Germany, Scandinavia, and Switzerland from between 30 and 100 per 100,000 in the population to 10 per 100, 000 in the 18th century, to 1 to 2 per 100,000 in the 20th century. Considering more recent periods in Western countries in the mid-1990s, historians have described the violent crime rates as a “U” or “reversed J-shaped” curve (Tonr, 2004). To make sense of criminal behavior at any given time and in a particular society or community, it is important to know whether or not a particular criminal behavior is a statistical anomaly or so common a behavior it can be said to be barely a crime at all, and to pay attention to the differences in the extent of crime types across geographical areas, communities, cultures, and time periods. It is also important to recognize that it is no easy task to compare/contrast and synthesize data across sources, and an even more difficult challenge to compare crime rates across time periods and cultures. For example, UCR crime categories are not the same as NCVS categories and self-report studies such as the NYS and NSDUH measure crimes and crime categories at a level not possible with official police data and victimization surveys (e.g., NSDUH provides data on drug use that are not available through other sources). Official statistics present only a limited picture of the extent of crime in the United States, and making sense of the nature and extent of crime in general or of a particular type of crime requires synthesizing multiple sources of data. Figure 1.2, Table 1.4, and Table 1.5 present UCR data on crime types from 1986 to 2006, the NCVS data for 2005, and a rough look at the difference in the amounts of violent and property crime reported by the UCR and NCVS."

"Crime is often approached as if it were an unchanging phenomenon-as if the reason why a person would commit crime in one time period or context carry over to very different or distant times, cultures, and situations. Perhaps this is because scientific paradigms do not shift fast enough to keep up with the many social and cultural forces at the heart of definitions of crime and individual-level criminal behavior. Politics influence what behaviors are legally defined as criminal. Economics shape individual choices, who has power to make and enforce the law, who will be targeted, and what items in society are valuable targets for crime. Technological advances, which have far surpassed any gains the social sciences have been able to make in the study of criminal behavior, have had an enormous impact on methods of committing and detecting certain types of crime and mass communication, though which people learn about are influenced by crime in society."

"A number of themes emphasized throughout this text are of critical importance for the study of criminal behavior in the 21st century. First, the typology approach to understanding similarities and differences of various types of crime lets us refine theories of how types and subtypes of crime are similar and different, allowing for concrete application of theory to practice. Second, the disciplines of sociology, psychology, and more recently criminology and criminal justice have historically operated in their own disciplinary vacuums. The time has come to connect and synthesize the longstanding theoretical and empirical dots to make a more sophisticated understanding of criminal behavior possible. Third, as the number-one correlate of crime, the role of gender needs to be more central in developing theory and empirical research on crime. Finally, how and why technology shapes criminal behavior is only beginning to be explored. Theories of the future must be able to explain how crime and criminal behavior is influenced by rapid changes in technology over short periods of time. Dynamic theories and creative research methodology is needed to tap into the ways in which technological and cultural changes quickly alter the face of crime."

"“All criminal behavior is not alike” in terms of motivation, offender-victim dynamics, situational factors, social harm, legal sanctions, and so on. While it is important to develop general theories of crime that attempt to explain most, if not all, criminal behavior, it is also important to identify the similarities and differences between types of crime Focus on typologies of criminal behavior and the distinct and overlapping features of crime categories offers a more nuanced understanding of the nature of different types and subtypes of crime. “Can a single theory explain why a woman kills her abusive husband, why a teenager steals a car, and why a group of people engage in drug smuggling? Are there features of the many different types of criminal behavior that are so distinct that they call for minitheories to explain subtypes of offense behaviors? What details do general theories of crime overlook regarding the nature and dynamics of distinct types of offensive behaviors? How an understanding these details enhance opportunities for meaningful criminal justice policy and practice at different stages of the criminal justice process? “Dynamic theories and creative research methods designs are needed” to tap into the ways in which changes in technology and culture quickly alter the nature and dynamics of criminal behavior. Much of the empirical research is based on data collected many years ago and even recently published results often utilize aging data sets or involve secondary data analysis based on surveys from sources such as the nation Youth Survey that, though it has been changed over time, is not designed to answer questions relevant to particular time periods, places, subcultures, communities, gender, ethnic groups, and so on. Findings based on data collected 10, 20, or 50 years ago assume that there is little relationship between cultural changes and individual-level criminal behavior. “Does it make sense to explain criminal behavior using the same theories over time? Is crime committed in 2008 the same as it was in 1908, 1948 or 1988? Has popular culture and technology played a role in shaping criminal behavior in terms of offender motivation? Do the ways in which offenders commit their crimes change over time in relation to changes in technology and culture? Have advances in computer and media technology shaped criminal behavior in ways that call for new theories and empirical research that utilizes timely samples?” Surprisingly, researchers have only begun to ask these questions, and there is little empirical research to shed light on how or if crimes of today and in the future may be different from or similar to crimes of the near or distant past."

""Insulation and disconnection across disciplines is a major hindrance to advances in criminal behavior research.” Even though the study of crime has become much more interdisciplinary over time, with a greater number of scholars coming from PhD programs in criminology/criminal justice (that emphasize multiple disciplinary perspectives on the study of crime and its societal response), important work being done in many fields remains disconnected. Even scholars whose academic background is heavily interdisciplinary often have a particular allegiance to one or another disciplinary camp. The more students and researchers of criminal behavior are willing to cross disciplinary boundaries to make critical theoretical linkages, the more advanced our understanding of crime will be. Contributions from the fields of psychology, sociology, anthropology, social wor, political science, communications, cultural studies, women studies, ethnic studies, theology, philosophy, biology, neurochemistry, neuropsychology, computer science, and other disciplines must be linked and synthesized to advance the knowledge base. Many pockets of important work are being done in multiple disciplines. Critical"

"Since then, increasing attention has been paid to the applicability of male theories of crime to women and girls, the male as predator/female as victim dichotomy maintained by patriarchy, and gender discrimination and disparity in the criminal justice system. Meda Chesney-Lind, author of The Female Offender: Girls, Women and Crime (1997) and numerous other books and articles, has been referred to as the “Mother of feminist criminology” (Belknap, 2004) and is one of the most prolific writers and outspoken voices on feminist criminology. Her work highlights the contextual features of the lives of girls and women that influence their involvement in crime as offenders and victims and the disparate and discriminatory practices in the criminal justice system. Feminist criminology raised issues regarding not only the applicability of male theories of crime to female offenders, but also the gendered nature of crime. In his important work, Masculinities and Crime, Messerschmidt (1993) called for attention to the masculinity-crime connection, arguing that criminology has ignored the most central predictor of crime. According to Meserschmidt,“Crime by men is a form of social practice invoked as a resource, when other resources are unavailable, for accomplishing masculinity” (p.85). In Feminism and Criminology, Naffine (1996) offered a critical analysis of the impact of masculinity and feminimity on criminal behavior and the discipline of criminology, arguing that the gendered nature of crime is perpetuated by “a desperate desire to preserve men from associations with the feminine and its supposed weakness and subordination” (p. 148). Gerbner (1994) and Jhally (1999) have highlighted the role of mass media technology in shaping and solidifying the masculinity-crime/feminimity-victim ideology, giving attention to the ways in which media images pit the male aggressor against the female victim and make it virtually impossible for males or females to break out of these culturally designated roles. This research suggests that there is still a lot of work to be done to unravel the gendered nature of criminal behavior. Katz (2006) argues that violence against women is a men’s issue and men need to take action and personal responsibility for the problem of crime. Others such as Naffine (1996) emphasize the need to address the gendered nature of criminology as a discipline more centrally: The most pressing intellectual and ethical obligation of those of us who wish to persist with the study of crime, its meaning and reasons, is to bring women (and other exiles) in from the cold. In order to know more about who we are as criminologists, about the very nature of our enterprise and whether it is worth pursuing at all, we need to open up the conventional borders of the discipline. (Naffine, 1996, p 153) This important work in the area of feminist criminology an gender and crime has set the theoretical foundation for future research that may begin to explain the masculinity-crime link and gender differences and similarities in offending patterns."

"In the last 30 to 40 years, male and female crime rates have converged and the gender gap in offending has narrowed considerably (Heimer, 2000). Some argue that three has been a rise in female crime and violence (Krista, 1994), whereas others caution that increases in official rates of female offending reflect changes in law and criminal justice policy and practice that have disproportionately targeted girls and women (Chesney-Lind, 1997; Daly & Chesney-Lind, 1988). It is unclear, however, whether this convergence is the result of actual differences in male and female offending patterns or an artifact of increased police attention to female offenders and society’s acceptance of the notion that girls and women are just as capable as boys and men of committing crime. Important gains have been made in recent years in research on female aggression and the application of historically male constructs such as psychopathy to female offender populations. This research suggests that females are just as aggressive as males but that behavior manifestations of aggression in females (and males) depend on cultural, situational, and individual-specific factors (Bjorkqvist & Niemela, 1992; Campbell, 1994)."

"Fortunately, the statistical likelihood of being the victim of a heinous crime is slim to none. Most of us are more likely to die or become incapacitated by our own bad habits than by violent crime. However, crime touches all of our lives. Most of us will be, or will come into personal contact with, victims or perpetrators of some type of crime during our lifetimes. Even for the rare person who manages to avoid personally experiencing crime, daily consumption of crime in the media ensures that fear of crime and public safety have a permanent place as one of our top priorities for communities, politicians, local and federal government, and citizens. Much public and media attention is directed to the business of how to catch, convict, and punish criminals. It is impossible to respond to crime without asking, "What causes a person to engage in criminal behavior?” Beyond natural human curiosity, we need to know something about why crime occurs and who we’re dealing with in order to control and respond to crime. Knowing something about the factors associated with criminal behavior, the characteristics of offender types, and the “causes” of crime provides information with which to pursue and investigate suspects, adjudicate defendants, make sentencing determinations, manage offenders in correctional institutions, make parole and reentry decisions, and design crime prevention and crime control strategies. All kinds of theories about why individuals commit crime are bandied about in public discourse. Crime is the product of rational choice and free will. Crime is caused by parental neglect and sexual and physical abuse. Crime is caused by poverty and social disorganization. Crime is caused by too much TV, mental illness, peer influences, the quest for power, violent films and video games, bad genes, head trauma, lack of attachment, too much attachment, pornography, social isolation, being bullied in school, Twinkies, PMS, Beevis and Butthead, The Catcher in the Rye, and so on . . . ."

"In recent years criminologists have recognized that comprehensive and accurate understanding and prediction of criminal behavior require theoretical and disciplinary integration. Many disciplines and knowledge bases are necessary to fully understand criminal behavior. Crime has been explored within the disciplines of criminology and criminal justice, sociology, psychology, psychiatry, neuroscience, biology, philosophy, social work, law, anthropology, political science, economics, cultural and media studies, women’s studies, and others. Though no unified theory or model yet exists that can be considered truly integrative (Fishbein, 2001; Schmalleger, 2004), promising integrative models that have emerged (Barak, 1998; Hickey, 2002; Robinson, 2004) offer insight into the developmental pathways and manifestations of criminal behavior. Criminologists are challenged to develop a comprehensive and coherent explanation of criminal behavior that takes into account the diverse and sometimes conflicting theories, frameworks, and perspectives across the range of disciplines from which criminal behavior has been historically approached. The lack of complex integrated theory construction (largely rooted in historical competition between macro-level sociological theories and micro-level psychological theories) and inability to come up with a general theory to explain all types of criminal behavior call into question how much criminologists really know about crime. Criminologists’ analyses are rarely heard in mass media, which are dominated by the perspectives of criminal justice professionals and news journalists (Tunnel, 1998). However, “the mass media pundits, the public cultural critics, and the professional politicians who are all engaged in the business of talking about crime know far less than criminologists do” (Barak, 1998, p.5). This “talking about crime” that inundates us on a daily basis through news media, pop culture, the Internet, and politics makes it especially important to be able to sort fact from fiction, theory from anecdote, and scientific methodology from everyday observation and the may fallacies that exist about crime (Felson, 2002)."

""Criminology” is an interdisciplinary field of study focusing on crime, criminal behavior, and its social response. “Criminologists” are searchers, academics, and policy analysts with advanced degrees (usually in criminology, criminal justice, or sociology) who study crime, crime trends, and social reactions to crime (Schmalleger, 2004). Contemporary criminology is historically rooted in two schools of thought-positivist criminology and classical criminology. “Positivist criminology” locates the root fo criminal behavior in identifiable factors such as biological, psychological, and environmental forces. “Classical criminology” identified free will as the root of criminal behavior, based on the notion that all human beings make choices about the behaviors they engage in, and offenders engage in a cost-benefit analysis before choosing to commit a crime. “Contemporary criminologists recognize than criminal behavior involves both free will and deterministic forces.” A clear line cannot be drawn between classical and positivist thought (Barak, 1998), and an individual’s decision to engage in criminal behavior cannot be viewed as an either-or phenomenon. According to Katz (1988): The statistical and correlational findings of positivist criminology provide the following irritations to inquiry: (1) whatever the validity of the hereditary, psychological, and social-ecological conditions of crime, many of those in the supposedly casual categories do not commit the crime at issue, (2) many who do commit the crime do not fit the causal categories and (3) what is most provocative, many who do fit the background categories and later commit the predicted crime go for long stretched without committing the crimes to which the theory direct them. (pp. 3-4)"

"Most crimes are adaptive, normal, and easy to understand, and (in legalistic terms) all crime can be explained by the existence of a criminal law prohibiting such behavior (Robinson, 2004). Some crimes are much more difficult to understand and explain. It is not hard to comprehend why someone would steal because they’re hungry or to support a drug addiction. But understanding an explaining why a woman would shoot a pregnant acquaintance in the head and then cut out her fetus or why a young man would abduct, rape, torture, and murder a child is much more difficult and requires attention to research and theory from multiple disciplines."

"Multiple theories can be used to explain criminal behavior, with recognition that no single discipline is capable of offering “the answer.” The study of criminal behavior has historically been approached from a range of disciplines and perspectives with minimal theoretical integration. Many theories of crime, antisocial behavior, and deviance overlap and cannot be neatly separated by discipline. For purpose of clarity, disciplinary perspectives and criminology knowledge bases are broken down into six general areas and related research questions: 1. Biological: What are the biological roots of criminal behavior? 2. Psychological: What psychological factors contributed to this behavior? 3. Sociological: What sociological forces contributed to this behavior? 4. Routine Activity/Opportunity/Ecological: What situational, contextual, environmental factors provided the setting and opportunity for this crime to occur? 5. Cultural: What cultural forces provided the context in which this crime could occur? 6. Phenomenological: What personal meaning does the crime hold for the offender? Although there is much disciplinary and theoretical overlap, the six bodies of knowledge represent unique ways of looking at crime and offer specific tools with which to analyze criminal behavior. Each area represents particular factors that contribute to criminal behavior and is briefly summarized to provide a general overview of the knowledge bases from which interdisciplinary criminology draws."

"Biological theories explain crime in terms of the interaction between biological predisposition and environmental conditions on behavioral outcomes (Fishbein, 2001). Studies show that behaviors, characteristics, and traits associated with crime such as aggression, impulsivity, antisocial personality, and psychopathy are influenced by a range of biological factors including evolution and genetics, brain biochemistry and function, brain injury, hormonal influences, physiology, physical anomalies and body build, diet and blood sugar levels, and cognitive deficits (Raine, 1993)."

"Evolutionary theories of crime are based on the notion that natural selection is the inevitable result of three fundamental features of live: 1. Heredity-physical and behavioral traits are genetcally passed form parent to offspring. 2. “Variation”-individuals differ in their physical traits and behaviors. 3. Differential reproduction”-the inherited traits of some individuals will result int eh reproduction of more offspring."

"Hereditable traits are reproductively “adaptive” (advantageous), “maladaptive” (disadvantageous), or “neural” (Jones, 1999). Rooted in neo-Darwinian theories of evolution, these theories state that genes dictate that reproduction is the most vital function of an organism, and that DNA codes for priority reproduction must take in order for a species to survive (Fishbein, 2001). Reproduction is a genetically driven evolutionary process that codes for anatomical and physiological traits. Criminal behavior, like all behaviors, revolves around reproductive drives. Proposed evolutionary theories relevant to antisocial and criminal behavior include the r/K theory, the cheater theory, the adaptation hypothesis, and evolutionary theories of rape. All attempt to explain criminal behavior in terms of its long-term reproductive consequences. Heritability studies (involving twin and adoption studies) suggest that personality factors and traits linked to aggressive and violent behavior, may be heritable. Findings suggest that childhood aggression, disruptive behavior, and aggressive behavior across the life course may be mediated by genetic factors (Mik et al., 2007). Some research suggests that aggressiveness is transmitted across generations within families (Huesmann, Enron, & Lefkowitz, 1984) and that alcoholism, susceptibility to aggressive and impulsive behaviors, and personality disorders including conduct disorder, borderline personality disorder, attention deficit disorder, and antisocial personality disorder are genetically influenced (Fishbein, 2001). Studies have found that children who have mothers with histrionic personality disorder (HPD) and fathers with antisocial personality disorder (APD) are more likely to have the disorders themselves (histrionic personality disorder if female and antisocial personality disorder if male) and that HPD and APD are sex-types manifestations of psychopathy (Spalt, 1980; Warner, 1978). However, heredity studies do not identify the genetically influences biological mechanisms that may contribute to these traits (Fishbein, 2001), which may be identified in the future through the discovery of the human genome sequence."

"One of the more interesting of the biological theories is the “cheater theory”. This theory holds that, in some species, alternative reproductive strategies have evolved in some males. In these species, at least two types of males have evolved-“dads” and “cads.” Because males do not need to grow offspring to reproduce as females do, they have greater latitude in their reproductive behavior. Dads reproduce by accommodating female preferences for males who are prone to provide parental care for their offspring. Cads reproduce by using force or deception to mate without providing adequate care for their offspring. According to this theory, chronic offenders are “human cads,” and cheater males are more likely to evolve in large, impersonal societies where their adaptive strategy is likely to go undetected. This tendency to use deception in the mating process extends to other situations, resulting in the use of cheating, theft, risk-taking, and other antisocial behaviors and crimes (Fishbein, 2001, pp. 22-23)"

"Studies on the relationship between hormones and crime have focused on testosterone and other male hormones called androgens. Data from animal and human studies suggest that male hormones are associated with aggression in some individuals under some circumstances (Fishbein, 2001). The surge of testosterone in postpubertal males (10 times greater than in postpubertal females) partially accounts for the onset of antisocial behavior in most adolescent males and the differences in offending rates between males and females of any age (Walsh, 2002). Male sex hormones operating on the human brain appear to increase the probability of “competitive/victimizing behavior”-behavior directed at others that exists along a continuum from altruistic acts that make no profit to acts that intentionally and directly harm or dispossess others of their property (Ellis, 2005). There is some evidence to suggest that testosterone is associated with juvenile delinquency, but the association between testosterone and antisocial behavior diminishes in adulthood (Bold, Bernard, & Snipes, 2002). Other findings suggest that the link between testosterone and adult aggressive and violent behavior is well established byt this relationship may be absent, or reversed with respect to aggression in children (Raine, 2002). Regarding sex offenders, testosterone provides the basis for general sexual drive, but research linking abnormality of androgen metabolism with aberrant sexual behavior is not strongly supported and is characterized by conflicting results (Hucker & Baine, 1989). The testosterone-aggression relationship appears to be dependent on contextual, social circumstance, and personality factors (Fishbein, 2001). A critical question is whether or not her relationship between testosterone and aggression and violence is causal (Raine, 1993)."

"Recent research addressing the interaction between biological and environmental factors shows that biological and social factors interact to produce antisocial and criminal behavior. The best-replicated biosocial effect appears to be the interaction of birth complications with negative home environments in predisposing adult violence (Taine, 2002). Sophisticated theories, particularly in the are of evolutionary psychology, are now being develop to explain the complex relationship between biology and environment in producing criminal behavior. Ellis (2005) proposes the evolutionary neuroandrogenic (ENA) theory, which envisions criminality as the result of a complex interaction between biological factors resulting from evolutionary history, social learning, and social environmental factors."

"Psychological theories attribute criminal behavior to individual differences resulting from early psychodynamic development, information processing and cognition, and conditioning processes. Psychological theories of crime are micro-level theories that locate the source of criminality within the individual, with the idea that crime is a symptom of an individual’s internal psychological condition. Much of the psychological research on criminal behavior has focused on the relationships between personality, mental disorder, and crime. Research at the intersection of psychology and criminology has emphasized integration of cognitive, behavioral, and psychodynamic perspectives in the development of functional concepts of psychopathy and criminality (Meloy, 1988; Walters, 1990). Because crime is a social construct, psychological research on criminal behavior involves study of internal psychological conditions that produce behaviors associated with crime such as antisocial behavior, psychopathy, aggression, and impulsivity. From this perspective, “crime is a behavioral symptom that is a manifestation of an internal psychological condition.” Recent research has focused to a large extent on the role of psychopathy in criminal behavior and the predictive utility of the construct in assessing dangerousness and future violence."

"Psychodynamic theories of criminal behavior focus on development of the psyche in infancy. From this perspective, motivation for criminal behavior is rooted in an individual’s psychodynamic structure and development. Contemporary psychodynamic theories of criminal behavior are rooted in Freud’s theory of the id, ego and superego. Freud postulated that behavior is the product of the interaction of the id, ego, superego with the environment. The id represents the human drive for pleasure, the ego regulates the id in accordance with the demands of the external environment, and the superego reflects the conscience and ego ideal or the parental voice inside one’s head that says “Do the right thing.”"

"Many theories and typologies developed from the psychoanalytic perspective suggest that there are different developmental routes to criminal behavior. Andrews and Bonta (2003) review four offender types that have emerged from psychodynamic theory: (1) weak superego type, (2) weak ego type, (3) the “normal” antisocial offender, and (4) the neurotic offender. The weak “superego type” needs immediate gratification and does not hear or respond to that “voice inside the head.” The “weak ego type” is immature and has poorly developed social skills, gullibility, and dependence resulting in criminal behavior through misreading of the external environment and stumbling into crime (e.g., following the leader). The ““normal” antisocial offender type” passes through normal stages of development as a fully functioning adult but possesses a procriminal superego as a result of identification with a criminal parent and ego-mastery of criminal skills. The “neurotic offender type” has an overactive superego that results in criminal behavior to fulfill the wish to be punished for “past sins.” The “weak superego theory” is the most popular of the theories in the psychodynamic literature and was the topic of much discourse and discussion of the 1940s, 1950s, and 1960s. Behavioral indicators of a weak superego include reckless disregard for conventional rules, lack of conscience and antisocial cognitions, weak ambition, absence of guilt, early conduct problems, expressions of bravado, authority conflicts, and isolation (Andrews & Bonta, 2003). These features have been consistently associated with antisocial personality disorder, psychopathy, and criminal behavior. An example of a the weak superego theory is Hervey Cleckley’s (1941) classic work, “The Mask of Sanity”, which, thogh not solely focused on criminal behavior, offers case study illustrations of criminal and noncriminal psychopaths. According to Cleckley, psychopaths have a “defect in affect” that enables them to harm and manipulate others without remorse. Psychopaths delight in shocking others and have no interest in engaging in conformist behaviors. Cleckley identified 16 characteristics of the psychopath (discussed in Chapter 4, such as unreliability, lack of remorse or shame, and failure to learn from experience, that reflect defect in interpersonal relations and unwillingness or inability to adhere to social (and superego) norms, rules, and values."

"Another prominent superego pathology theory is Kernberg’s theory of “borderline personality organization (BPO)”. BPO theory is particularly helpful in terms of understanding how internal conditions across the continuum of personality produce a tendency toward criminal behavior. According to Kernnberg (1966, 1967, 1984, 1985a, 1985b, 1992), personality is organized by capacity for reality testing and unconscious defensive process. Psychotic personality organization is characterized by absence of reality testing and the use of primitive defenses, borderline personality organization by capacity for reality testing and use of primitive defenses, and neurotic personality organization by capacity for reality testing and use of higher-level defenses (Figure 2.1). Kernberg’s “primitive defenses” center around the lower level mechanism of “splitting”, the related mechanisms of “primitive idealization, projective identification, denial, omnipotence,” and “devaluation”. Splitting is a genotypic defensive operation that is expressed through the phenotypic defensive process of dissociation. This defensive operation is pathognomic of general borderline ego functioning, particularly in the psychopath (Meloy, 1988). Kernberg (1976) views splitting as alternating ego states, each consisting of completely separate complex psychic manifestations, a fundamental feature of the borderline ego functioning experienced by the narcissistic, histrionic, borderline, and psychopathic personalities. Splitting is a defensive process exemplified by lack of personality integration, and the coexistence of distinct cohesive personality attitudes with conflicting aims, goals, and moral and aesthetic values (Kohut, 1971). Put simply, splitting is the view of oneself and others as all good or all bad with an inability to reconcile the two identities."

"Primitive defenses facilitate criminal behavior because they enable an individual to objectify and harm other human beings while maintaining an image of themselves as all-good. By definition, crime requires “mens rea” (a guilty mind); thus, individuals who are psychotic may commit criminal behavior, but if they are determined to be out of touch with reality they are not legally responsible for their behavior. On the continuum from psychotic to borderline to neurotic, individuals with personalities organized at the borderline level of functioning are most susceptible to criminal behavior by the very nature of their defensive structure."