This sample Criminology Research Paper is published for educational and informational purposes only. Like other free research paper examples it is not a custom research paper. If you need help with writing your assignment, please use research paper writing services and buy a research paper on any topic.
The development of criminology as a separate academic and research discipline is traced from the late 1700s to the present. The major conclusions for criminology are (1) causal theories have not proven to be very robust and powerful. Future theory development will require the development of interdisciplinary theory. (2) Criminology has not experienced significant growth in the last 20 years. The needed expansion of the field will require a new federal effort to build the infrastructure for crime and justice research. (3) The changing nature of crime and scientific methods in criminology, the internationalization of crime, and the demand for more evidence-based policies and practices present new challenges for the discipline of criminology.
- Two Points of Departure for the Beginning of Criminology
- The Classical School of Criminology
- The Causes of Crime
- Explaining Crime and Criminal Behavior
- Single Factor Reductionism
- Multidisciplinary Approaches
- Interdisciplinary Explantations
- The Beccarian Revival
- Contemporary Issues in Criminology
- Growth of the Discipline
- The Measurement of Crime
- Changes in the Science of Criminology
- The Internationalization of Crime and Criminology
- Evidence-Based Policy
- The Importance of Partnerships
The goal of this research paper is to provide an analysis of the development and current status of the discipline of criminology. Criminology is a behavioral and social science. It is not the investigation of specific crimes. Too often the public, under the influence of the media, confuse criminology as a science of behavior, and criminalistics and forensic science as they are applied in the investigation and processing of criminal cases. Here we consider criminology in the sense defined by Sutherland, one of the pioneers in establishing the science of criminology. Sutherland (1934) defined criminology as the scientific study of the making of law, the breaking of law, and the reaction of society to law breaking. Criminology is one of the fastest growing social sciences and at many universities is one of the largest programs in terms of number of majors (between 1970 and today, it is estimated that enrollment in criminology programs at universities in the United States have increased by a factor of 1000, partly because of the rapid growth in the number of such programs).
How we understand the past is often influenced by how we see the present. Today criminology finds itself defined by three major themes: the steady movement toward a more rigorous science; a commitment to the development of rigorously tested theories of crime and criminal behavior; and the establishment of a demand for evidence-based crime control and justice policies and practices. However, the history of the discipline is not as unified. Two, in part, conflicting approaches define the foundation of criminology. The next section describes those approaches and their influence today.
Two Points of Departure for the Beginning of Criminology
The Classical School of Criminology
This pillar of criminology begins with the work on an Italian lawyer, Cesare Beccaria. Working with a small group of his friends and fellow lawyers, Beccaria published what was to become one of the most important works for criminology, and more importantly for criminal justice reform. Published in 1764 this book would become one of the most influential legal treatises of the eighteenth century (Essays on Crime and Punishment (hereinafter referred to as Essays)). (He was the primary author but contemporary scholarship suggests that others were intimately involved in the development and writing of the book. While that is not critical for this research paper, you can find a discussion of this in the forward to the Paolucci edition (1963).) Influenced by the Enlightenment philosophers, Beccaria sought to reform the criminal justice system to make it more humane and fair. He argued for punishments other than corporal punishment and death by embedding punishment in an enlightened legal system. Within 10 years of its publication the book was translated into all European languages; Beccaria was celebrated as a profound new legal thinker; and, the work influenced the governments of numerous countries including England and the United States. As early as 1775 John Adams referenced this work in his justification for accepting the unpopular and politically dangerous task of defending the British soldiers who fired on the citizens of Boston who charged the arms depot atop Bunker Hill. Adams (quoted in McCullough, 2001) in explaining this decision quoted the following from Beccaria:
If, by supporting the rights of mankind, and the invincible truth, I shall contribute to save from the agonies of death one unfortunate victim of tyranny, or of ignorance, equally fatal, his blessing and years of transport will be sufficient consolation to me for the contempt of all mankind.
Beccaria offered four central tenets of a new approach to criminal justice. First, he rejected the then dominant idea that crime represented a moral failure. With religion as the source of power in society it was understood that personal and social failures resulted from a falling from grace. Beccaria accepted the notion from Bentham(1789) that behavior was always a choice and that choices were determined by a ‘moral calculus.’ Crime resulted when the rewards of crime outweighed the costs (pains) resulting from the commission of crime. Second, Beccaria argued that because crime was a choice influenced by rewards and punishments, punishments need be just severe enough to offset the rewards of the crime. At a time when the death penalty and corporal punishment were common, he argued for a more rational system of punishments, one in which there would be no death penalty. Third, Beccaria called for the application of science to determining the exact level of punishment for each crime. These punishments were to be determined with ‘geometric precision.’ Finally, Beccaria understood that any science of punishment could be seen as challenging the established powers and their interests. So he argued that his new law system was consistent with the teachings of the church. These central ideas formed the basis for criminal justice systems in the emerging western democracies and an agenda for criminology that focused on rationalizing the criminal justice system.
In the second foundation for criminology we see a very different set of assumptions and foci. This approach pays little attention to the criminal justice system and the focus is almost exclusively on the causes of crime.
The Causes of Crime
Cesare Lombroso was an Italian physician, who worked in local prisons. Apparently heavily influenced by the recently published work on Darwin on evolution, Lombroso considered how criminality could be explained within an evolutionary perspective. Like Beccaria, his contribution was to take an emerging world view and apply it to the problem of crime. As he worked with criminals he began to notice physical characteristics that suggested to him that they had not fully developed as humans – their criminality was a result of this lack of development. This idea was summarized with numerous examples in his book Criminal Man published in 1876. This brief book (approximately 250 pages) argued that crime was caused and that it was caused by a biological developmental anomaly. Criminals did not choose to commit crime; their behavior was caused by factors beyond their control. Until the beginning of the twentieth century the idea that biology was destiny for criminals became increasingly popular. Not until Charles Goring tested this approach by conducting a statistical analysis of the physical characteristics of criminals and noncriminals did students of crime begin to explore other approaches to explaining crime (Goring, 1913). Still, Lombroso was successful in directing the study of crime to a new set of questions: what causes crime and what does our knowledge of crime indicate for a system of crime prevention and control – the second approach influencing criminology as it emerged as a separate discipline. (Lombroso gradually began to understand that factors other than biology influenced crime. By the time he wrote the fifth edition of his book it had grown to 1903 pages and identified hundreds of causes of crime. Still he is most remembered for his emphasis on the biology of crime. For a detailed discussion of this period in criminology see Chapters 3 and 4 in Vold (1979).)
In fact, by the time this work was published Lombroso had published the fifth edition of his book, each one getting longer and noting other possible explanations of crime (the fifth edition had grown to 1903 pages and listed hundreds of causes of crime). (This in part explains Lombroso’s new appreciation in contemporary biological criminology (DeLisi, 2013).) In 1885, Rafaele Garofalo (a student of Lombroso) introduced the word criminology in his influential book by the same name (Criminology). It would be over 50 years from then before a professional society devoted to crime and justice would emerge, and separate academic departments of criminology would be created in American universities. As it emerged some 75 years ago as a new social and behavioral science, it stood on two foundations: the science of criminal justice and the science of criminal behavior. In very important ways they continue to be the two, sometimes conflicting, foci on contemporary criminology.
Explaining Crime and Criminal Behavior
Even though Beccaria wrote first, the emergence of a science of criminology started with the focus on causes of crime introduced by Lombroso. It was not until the mid-twentieth century when criminology began to pay scientific attention to testing and improving the criminal justice system. While criminological theory has been less cumulative than you would expect in an emerging science, it has accumulated. The path of theories of crime has moved through four distinct forms of theory development: single factor reductionism; systemic reductionism; multidisciplinary theories; and interdisciplinary theory. (These are themes that seem more prominent at different points in time. This is not to imply they have occurred in a liner fashion. In fact, all approaches exist today.) Today, interdisciplinary theory stands as the dominant model for explaining crime (and other human behaviors). It is also the case that while Lombroso focused on why individuals commit crimes, crime theories are also used to explain why crimes occur at different levels in different sections of the population, geographical areas, and/or times. Being clear about what the theory is intended to explain is vital to understanding its strengths and weaknesses (for a more detailed discussion see Sociology of Crime). In addition, theories tend to not distinguish the kind of crime being explained, as if one theory could explain homicide and use of controlled substances.
Single Factor Reductionism
In an effort to explain crime in the simplest way, some have offered a single factor or idea to explain all crime. Following Lombroso numerous authors offered explanations of criminal behavior: ‘feeblemindedness’ and family transmission, poverty, single parent families, abortion, lead paint – the list could go on and on. The most positive observation on these approaches is that they identify characteristics of crime that a theory should address. More to our point, these approaches tend to distract criminology into research to test ideas that even Lombroso understood were limited as he expanded his notion of what could be involved in causing crime. Still these approaches have the advantage of simplicity, and they have clear policy implications. By the end of the first quarter of the twentieth century it was understood that no single factor could explain criminal behavior and crime rates. (This approach continues today in some public and political discourse. Too frequently we hear that crime is caused by ‘welfare moms,’ lead paint, unemployment, and a variety of other factors. Criminologists can usually respond yes, but that is just one of a myriad of characteristics that may cause crime and the problem is we do not know which is most important and how these many factors interact. This type of response reinforces the idea held by some that criminologists do not know much about the causes of crime.) However, just as difficult as saying a single dimension explains crime is to say everything causes crime. In the search for some way to limit and organize explanations the period of systemic reductionism emerged.
By systemic reductionism I mean the approach that still dominates the field, the assertion that one discipline can explain crime. Hence, in many recent introductory texts there are separate chapters or sections on biological theories, psychological theories, sociological theories, and cultural theories. Since criminology emerged in the United States in departments of Sociology, that approach dominated theories of crimes. Along with this focus, came a focus on crime rate variation as opposed to Lombroso’s focus on individuals who committed crime. Most of contemporary criminological theory contains a strong if not exclusive sociological core. The works of Sutherland (1934), Shaw and McKay (1942), Merton, Schur (1971), and those who tested and elaborated their works form the core of much of contemporary theory in criminology.
It took a husband and wife team trained in education, social work, law, and social ethics (Sheldon and Eleanor Glueck), and heavily influenced by a psychiatrist brother (Bernard Glueck) to challenge the notion of systemic reductionism. For the Gluecks it was obvious that the work of psychiatry, biology, and psychology was as important as sociology in understanding all human behavior including crime. They set out to understand all of the factors that distinguished criminals and delinquents for those who did not engage in those behaviors. In one of the clearest statements of the problem of systemic reductionism they stated:
It is common knowledge that the great majority of children growing up in urban slums do not become delinquents despite the depravations of a vicious environment, despite the fact that they and their parents have not had access to fruitful economic opportunities, despite the fact that they are swimming around in the same antisocial subculture in which delinquents and gang members are said to thrive. Why?
Glueck and Glueck, 1968
Sociological approaches might be appropriate to explain the variation in rates across class levels, but it could not explain why similarly situated individuals did or did not commit crime. To address that question, the Gluecks turned to all of the social and behavioral sciences as they were practiced in the 1930s to the 1970s. In a series of retrospective longitudinal studies they sought to determine how to distinguish those who did and did not violate the law by measuring every dimension of large samples regardless of the discipline the distinguishing factor might be drawn from. Unfortunately, this approach offers little basis for theory development or explanation. It ends up being an approach to prediction not explanation. So in their best-known work, Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency (1950) and its elaboration Delinquents and Nondelinquents in Perspective (1968), the Gluecks did offer a theory of delinquency but rather a ‘social prediction’ scale that would achieve their goal of distinguishing law violators from others.
Of course, we now understand that multidisciplinary approaches are not theories. They are the search for all of the factors that need to be addressed by theory. There is always another factor to consider. There is no logical end to the effort. The only end is the explanation of all variation. In that sense, it is more like what today we call data mining than it is explanation. However, the demonstration that there is more to explanation than sociology ushered in the current focus for explanation in criminology – interdisciplinary theory.
Although the growth of criminology was stimulated by federal programs aimed at improving justice, as it emerged as a separate field of study it defined itself as interdisciplinary – not multidisciplinary. Without this understanding of its central characteristic there would be no need for a separate discipline. The study of crime and justice could continue in the various traditional, social, and behavioral sciences. While many academic criminologists continue to be located in the more traditional departments, the field of criminology understands itself to be interdisciplinary. So when the American Society of Criminology emerged as a scientific, scholarly organization, it placed an interdisciplinary perspective as being central to criminology. This is best exemplified in Criminology, the official journal of the American Society of Criminology, which has its subtitle An Interdisciplinary Journal.
As noted earlier this does mean that all theory in criminology is now interdisciplinary. In fact, earlier theories continue to dominate, but increasingly, we and others understand their limits. An article, by Weisburd and Piquero (2008), is an indicator of the problem. They perform an analysis of all recent tests of contemporary criminological theory. They empirically demonstrate that:
The overall level of variance explained is often very low with 80–90% unexplained. There has been no improvement over time.
Interdisciplinary theory is difficult to define and more difficult to achieve. We know it must contain more than one discipline, and that the contributions from each discipline must be independent but related (for a complete discussion, see Wellford, 1989). An example of contemporary interdisciplinary theories is the work of Terrie Moffitt (2001). This theory includes all disciplinary levels, recognizes the changing nature of criminal behavior and its causes over time, and seeks to identify different patterns of crime to explain. For Moffitt (2001), there are two patterns of antisocial behavior: life course persistent where offenders start early and maintain their involvement in antisocial behavior throughout the life course; and, adolescent-limited whose antisocial behavior emerges and ends during that period of the life course. Moffitt observes that the persistent ones result from “childhood neuropsychological problems interacting cumulatively with their criminogenic environments producing a pathological personality.” With the adolescent-limited pattern “a contemporary maturity gap encourages teens to mimic antisocial behavior in ways that are normative and adjustive.” For Moffitt, explanation of these patterns included biology, psychology, and social levels of explanation. The history and research in criminology on causes of crime point to the importance of interdisciplinary models; the contention that criminology is a separate and distinct discipline rests on a recognition that interdisciplinary theory is at the core of criminology.
The Beccarian Revival
Criminology returned to a focus on the justice system in the 1950s and 1960s. Studies on arrest, prosecution, and imprisonment began to emerge in this period that pointed to clear problems in almost every aspect of the criminal and juvenile justice systems. Not only were they failing to prevent and control crime, they were found to be disparate in their application. They were neither effective nor fair. When the urban riots of the 1960s and law enforcements reaction to the aroused national concern, a Presidential Commission was established to consider how to improve the system. The report of that commission (1967), titled the Challenge of Crime in a Free Society, while acknowledging the need for better understanding of the causes of crime, placed greater emphasis on the important of reforming criminal and juvenile justice. At the same time the report acknowledged how little we knew about these systems and the importance of research to gain the understanding that could support reform. The result was a substantial new effort by the federal government to support research and grow the research infrastructure to conduct research on crime and justice. The development of criminology was directly stimulated by this call for research to reform justice in America. Since the actions taken to implement the recommendations of the President’s Commission, criminology has emerged as a new field at most universities in the United States, a source of major funding for the social and behavioral sciences, and a source of findings and ideas that have profoundly influenced criminal and juvenile justice here and around the world.
Few major initiatives in criminal law and criminal justice during this period have been developed without significant criminological involvement. Hot spots policing (Sherman et al., 1989), problem oriented policing (Goldstein, 1990), crime mapping and analysis (Harries, 1974), sentencing guidelines, specialized courts, sex offender programming, effective models of rehabilitation, reentry programs, problems of eyewitness identifications, procedures for police lineups and interrogations, the role of DNA in courts and policing – I could go on and on (see Criminal Justice, Sociology of for more a fuller discussion). The point is that criminology is making a difference. As we note in the following section, this has culminated in a new emphasis throughout the justice system – evidence-based policy and practice.
Contemporary Issues in Criminology
Criminology today confronts many challenges and issues. In this section, we discuss some of the most important issues facing the field today. Of course, one is the further development of interdisciplinary theory of crime discussed above. We do not repeat that discussion but note its centrality to the further development of criminology as a discipline. Advances in interdisciplinary theory and the resolution of the following issues will define how well criminology does in the future.
Growth of the Discipline
While undergraduate enrollments in criminology programs have surged in recent years, the number of universities with criminology departments offering advanced degrees has hardly grown in the last 15 years (during the last rankings of graduate education in the United States by the National Research Council there were still not enough doctoral programs to warrant the inclusion of criminology in the rankings). Few elite universities offer degrees in criminology. Membership in criminological professional societies is stagnating. Federal funding for crime and justice research has actually decreased as a percentage of federal spending. Today, some of the most important advances in criminology come from researchers in other disciplines and in the nonuniversity research community. This is occurring as the demand for criminological research is increasing. It will fall to the leaders of the leading criminological professional societies to generate support for a new period of federal funding for expanding the infrastructure for criminological research. Just as they have done in many other research and applied fields, the federal government must lead the way in the expansion and improvement of criminological higher education.
The Measurement of Crime
In the late 1920s a group of police officials and academics created, with no empirical research, an index of crime that exists to essentially unchanged. Managed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), this voluntary but hopefully uniform system assumes that a count of homicides, serious sexual and other assaults, robbery, burglary, larcenies where the loss is above $500, and auto theft can provide an index to changes in all crime. Only in a country with as weak a statistical system to measure crime as the United States would take seriously this index of crime as a serious measure. In recognition of this fact, in 1980 a new system was proposed (the National Incident Based Reporting System) which has not been adopted by even a majority of jurisdictions in the United States. In addition, in the over 80 years since the creation of the FBI’s uniform crime reporting system crime itself has changed. Cybercrime, Internet fraud, business-related crimes, etc., were unheard of in 1929. These crimes can be construed as crimes in the FBI index of crime (i.e., Internet fraud is a form of theft), however, most are not reported to police (in fact are not even known to the victim). In recognition of these changes, the Bureau of Justice Statistics has recently launched an effort to reconsider the kinds of crimes counted in an index and the mechanisms that would be used to count those crimes (NCS-X, 2012). Developing new and more robust measures of crime and their characteristics is essential to the future of criminology as a science of crime and justice.
Changes in the Science of Criminology
In two recent reports from the National Academies of Science (NAS) challenged the notion that important criminological questions can be answered with what has been a central component of the criminological toolbox, statistical modeling of existing data. In consideration of the research on the impact of right to carry laws on crime, the NAS committee on firearms (National Research Council, 2005) “concluded that with the current evidence it is not possible to determine that there is a causal link between the passage of right-to-carry laws and crime rates” (p. 150). In an Appendix to that report, Joel Horowitz explained that “In summary, the problems posed by high-dimensional estimation, misspecified models, and lack of knowledge of the correct set of explanatory variables seem insurmountable with observational data” (p. 308). Similarly, in an NAS report on the death penalty (NRC, 2012) the committee reached the conclusion that the research on the death penalty was so flawed (by characteristics similar to those discussed by Horowitz) that it could not be determined if the death penalty had any effect on crime rates. Research using observational data, with weak or no theory, and models and specifications that are highly dimensional are not likely to produce useful knowledge. Unfortunately this characterizes much criminological research.
It may be that two recent developments are in reaction to the problems noted above. First is the increased emphasis on experimentation as the preferred method for causal research. Of course, randomized controlled trials have long been understood to be the gold standard for research. However, in criminology the use of experiments has been rare until the last 20 years. Now there is a Journal of Experimental Criminology and a section of the American Society of Criminology devoted to experimental research. While focused on the testing of intervention effects, the introduction of experimentation as a focus of criminology has contributed to the challenge to more traditional research that relies on existing data and the use of modeling to account for problems in the data. The second development is the application to data mining with a corresponding shift from causal to predictive understanding (e.g., see Berk, 2009; Brantingham, 2011). This approach seeks only to predict outcomes and thus overcome the limitations of modeling of existing data that comes with a search for causation with nonexperimental tools.
The Internationalization of Crime and Criminology
While criminology began in Italy and other parts of Europe, it developed and flourished in the United States. While criminology was developing as a social and behavioral science in the United States, in the rest of the world it continued, if it existed at all, as a part of the study of law. Criminology has emerged as a social science with an empirical research focus in countries around the world (in England and some Scandinavian countries there is a longer history of criminology, but even in those countries research criminology has expanded in the last 50 years). Crime has become more international. These two developments have resulted in a growing recognition of the importance of an international perspective in criminology. Even in countries without an established field of criminology, there is strong interest in understanding the discipline and how it might be used in their countries (for example, both China and Vietnam have developed in conjunction with the University of Maryland Criminology master’s degrees in their countries as a way to stimulate the development of the criminological study of crime and justice (https://oiep.umd.edu/)). The study and control of organized crime, drug markets, human trafficking, money laundering, terrorism, and cybercrime inevitably involve an international focus. In short, criminology can no longer be the study of crime only in the United States.
In 1984 the United States Congress adopted the Comprehensive Crime Control, which was signed into law by President Regan. One aspect of this law was the requirement that funds distributed by the federal government to the states to address crime had to be used to support programs of proven effectiveness. Only those programs demonstrated to be effective at reducing crime or improving justice could be funded (as with most legislation there were some caveats to this requirement but this intent was very clear (see Title V on the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984)). This requirement was never met primarily because the science required to implement it did not exist. Today, at every level of government the demand is for evidence that existing and new programs ‘work.’ In the field of criminal and juvenile justice that means the need for more and more research on interventions to control crime and improve justice. The efforts of the Office of Justice Programs to promote this approach are most evident in a Web site that seeks to identify all successful and unsuccessful programs. The pressure on criminology to conduct rigorous evaluations requires more criminological research and better ways to assemble and assess that research.
The Importance of Partnerships
Criminology is no longer a science that can be done with access to existing data in archives or on shelves. It requires direct access to the objects it studies. This means developing partnerships with law enforcement agencies to gain access to personnel and records, and directly studying and observing offenders. Fortunately, law enforcement agencies have understood the value of criminological research and have encouraged criminologists to partner with them. This is especially true in policing, where, for example, the International Association of Chiefs of Police have produced a guide for chiefs to develop effective research partnerships and have started an annual research award that has as one of its central criteria partnerships with researchers. While prosecutors and correctional officials have not been as welcoming, they too have recognized the necessity for evidence-based policies and practices and thus the need for research enhancements. As for the study of causation, criminology may be approaching the situation in suicide research where the leader of that research community is quoted in the New York Times magazine as follows:
We’ve never gone out and observed, as an ecologist would or a biologist would go out and observe the thing you’re interested in for hours and hours and hours and then understand its basic properties and then work from that, Matthew K. Nock, the director of Harvard University’s Laboratory for Clinical and Developmental Research, told me. We’ve never done it. (June 2013)
The divide between in-depth case and qualitative studies and quantitative research in crime causation is challenged not only by the failure of theory, but the recognition in economics and other social and behavioral sciences that understanding behavior requires deep observation of that behavior and those who engage in it. This may the biggest challenge for criminology in the future.
- Beccaria, C., 1963. Essays on Crime and Punishment (H. Paolucci, Trans.). Bobbs- Merrill, Indianapolis.
- Berk, R., 2009. Forecasting murder within a population of probationers and parolees: a high stakes application of statistical learning (with Lawrence Sherman, Geoffrey Barnes, Ellen Kurtz, and Lindsay, Ahlman). Journal of the Royal Statistical Society (Series A) 172 (Part 1), 191–211.
- Brantingham, J.P., 2011. Crime emerges. In: McGloin, J., Sullivan, C., Kennedy, L. (Eds.), When Crime Appears. Routledge, New York.
- Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2012. NCS-X Project. Washington, DC.
- DeLisi, M., 2013. Revisiting Lombroso. In: Cullen, F., Wilcox, P. (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Criminological Theory. Oxford University Press, New York.
- Garofalo, R., 1885. Criminology. Reprinted in 1968. Patterson Smith, Montclair.
- Goldstein, H., 1990. Problem Oriented Policing. McGraw-Hill, New York.
- Goring, C., 1913. The English Convict. Reprinted 1972. Patterson Smith, Montclair.
- Glueck, S., Glueck, E., 1950. Unraveling Juvenile Delinquency. Commonwealth Fund, New York.
- Glueck, S., Glueck, E., 1968. Delinquents and Nondelinquents in Perspective. Harvard University Press, Cambridge.
- Harries, K., 1974. The Geography of Crime and Justice. McGraw-Hill, New York.
- Lemert, E., 1972. Human Deviance, Social Problems and Social Control, second ed. Prentice-Hall, Englewood-Cliffs.
- Lombroso, C., 1876. Criminal Man. Hoepli, Milan.
- McCullough, D., 2001. John Adams. Simon and Schuster, New York.
- Merton, R., 1938. Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review 3, 672–682.
- Moffitt, T., 2001. Adolescence-limited and life course persistent antisocial behavior. In: Piquero, A., Mazerolle, P. (Eds.), Life-Course Criminology. Wadsworth, Belmont, pp. 91–145.
- National Research Council, 2005. In: Wellford, C., Pepper, J., Petrie, C. (Eds.), Firearms and Violence. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
- National Research Council, 2012. In: Nagin, D., Pepper, J. (Eds.), Deterrence and the Death Penalty. National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
- President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the Administration of Justice, 1967. The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society. GPO, Washington, DC.
- Sampson, R., 2001. Foreword. In: Piquero, A., Mazerolle, P. (Eds.), Life-course Criminology. Wadsworth, Belmont, pp. 91–145.
- Schur, E., 1971. Labeling Deviant Behavior. Prentice-Hall, Englewood-Cliffs.
- Shaw, C., McKay, H., 1942. Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Chicago University Press, Chicago.
- Sherman, L., Gartin, P., Buerger, M., 1989. Hot spots policing. Criminology 27, 27–55.
- Sutherland, E., 1934. Principles of Criminology. Lippincott, Philadelphia.
- Vold, G., 1979. Theoretical Criminology. second ed., prepared by T. Bernard. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
- Weisburd, D., Piquero, A., 2008. How well do criminologists explain crime?. In: Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, vol. 37, pp. 453–477.
- Wellford, C., 1989. Towards an integrated theory of criminal behavior. In: Liska, A., Krohn, M., Meissner, S. (Eds.), Theoretical Integration in the Study of Deviance and Crime. SUNY Press, Albany, New York.