Relationship between Criminology and Sociology

Criminology A Stud wi Special reference  Sociology

ubmied : : 2'# )nupam Ba3r4 5ni6er'i7 8n'9tu0 of *egal Studie( an;ab 3andigar ubmied By By : enant Noor Sing !o" No# : No# :: $%&$$ Cla'( : )#**B+,- . / eme'01

Acknowledgement.................................... Acknowledgement............. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. ......................... i Introduction.................................... Introduction........................................................... .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. ................................. .......... ii Defining Criminology................................. Criminology........................................................ .............................................. .............................................. ..........................................1 ...................1 Nature and Scope of Criminology............................... Criminology...................................................... .............................................. .............................................. ......................... 2 Significance Of Criminology..................................... Criminology............................................................ .............................................. .............................................. .......................... ... 3

Social-Structural Criminology........................................................ Criminology............................................................................... ....................................... ................ 4 Conflict School of Criminology..................................... Criminology............................................................. ............................................... ................................ ......... 4 Critical Criminology................. Criminology........................................ .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. .........................4 ..4 Feminist Criminology...................................... Criminology............................................................. .............................................. .............................................. .........................4 ..4 Social-Process Criminology.................................... Criminology........................................................... .............................................. ........................................ ................. 5 Political Criminology..................................... Criminology............................................................ .............................................. .............................................. .......................... ... 5 Theories Of Causation Of Crime........................................ Crime............................................................... .............................................. ....................................... ................ 6

Sociological Theories f Crime............................ Crime................................................... .............................................. .............................................. ............................ ..... ! Structural "#$lanations................... "#$lanations.......................................... .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. ....................... % &erton's Theory of Social Structure and Anomie ......................................................... ........................................................... .. % "(aluation of &erton's &er ton's Theory ................................................................ ....................................................................................... ......................... ) &eaning of Su* culture............................................... culture...................................................................... .............................................. .........................................+ ..................+ ,asis of the Su* cultural Theory ............................................. .................................................................... ............................................ .....................  /alter &iller's Theory of Focal Concerns......................... Concerns................................................ ............................................. ...................... 0imitations to the Focal Concerns Theory ............................................. .................................................................... ......................... .. &ulti$le Factor A$$roach............................................................ A$$roach................................................................................... ............................................. ......................  &o*ility........................................ &o*ility............................................................... .............................................. .............................................. .......................................... ................... 1 Culture Conflicts........................ Conflicts............................................... .............................................. .............................................. ............................................ ..................... 1 Family ,ackground................................. ,ackground........................................................ .............................................. .............................................. ............................... ........ 2 Political Ideology...................................... Ideology............................................................. .............................................. .............................................. ............................. ...... 4 Political Ideology...................................... Ideology............................................................. .............................................. .............................................. ............................. ...... 4 3eligion and Crime.............................................. Crime..................................................................... ............................................... ......................................... ................. 5 "conomic Conditions..................................... Conditions............................................................ .............................................. .............................................. ......................... 5 "cology of Crime.............................................. Crime..................................................................... .............................................. ............................................ ..................... ! Influence of &edia................................................................ &edia....................................................................................... .............................................. ......................... % Crimes In r!an "nd #ural "reas............................ "reas................................................... .............................................. .............................................. .......................1$ 1$ Neigh!orhood Influences ............................................ ................................................................... .............................................. ............................................. ...................... 1% &i!liography.............................. &i!liography..................................................... .............................................. .............................................. .............................................. ...................................2' ............2'

At the (ery outset I owe my gratitude to none other *ut Almighty who is *elie(e is the s$iritual force *ehind all the creation. The efforts of my teacher &s. Anu$am ,ahri cannot *e forgotten for her $ersuasion and constant guidance throughtout the e#ecution of this $roect. Further I would like to thank my family and friends for the strong moral su$$ort during critical moments of failure. I also owe my gratitude to the 6I0S 0i*rary for their readiness in $ro(iding the material.

enant Noor Sing

i

The word Criminology7 originated in )+. The general meaning of the term is 8the scientific study of crime as a social $henomenon of criminals and of $enal institutions. Prof. 9enny analy:ed and defined that Criminology is a *ranch of criminal science which deals with crime causation analysis and $re(ention of crime. Criminology as a *ranch of knowledge is concerned with those $articular conducts of human *eha(iour which are $rohi*ited *y society. It is therefore a socio-legal study which seeks to disco(er the causes of criminality and suggests the remedies to reduce crimes. Therefore it flows that criminology and criminal $olicy are interde$endent and mutually su$$ort one another. Thus criminology seeks to study the $henomenon of criminality in its entirety.

The $ro*lem of crime control essentially in(ol(es the need for a study of the forces o$erating *ehind the incidence of crime and a (ariety of co-related factors influencing the $ersonality of the offender. This has e(entually led to de(elo$ment of modern criminology during the $receding two centuries. The $ur$ose of study of this *ranch of knowledge is to analy:e different as$ects of crime and de(ice effecti(e measures for treatment of criminals to *ring a*out their re-sociali:ation and reha*ilitation in the community. Thus criminology as a *ranch of knowledge has a $ractical utility in so far as it aims at *ringing a*out the welfare of the community as a whole. The $rinci$les of criminology ser(e as effecti(e guidelines for formulation of $enal $olicy. The modern clinical methods and the reformatory measures such as $ro*ation $arole indeterminate sentence o$en $risons and other correctional institutions are essentially an outcome of intensi(e criminological researches during the twentieth century. These measures ha(e sufficiently demonstrated the futility of dum$ing offenders inside the $risons and infliction of *ar*aric $unishments. Prof. ;illin has rightly o*ser(ed that it is not the humanity within the criminal *ut the criminality within the human *eing which needs to *e cur*ed through effecti(e administration of criminal ustice. &ore recently criminologists and $enologists seem to ha(e agreed that 8indi(iduali:ation of the offender should *e the ultimate o*ect of $unishment while treatment methods the means to attain this end. The study of crime and criminal must $roceed on a scientific *asis *y carefully analy:ing (arious as$ects associated therewith and must necessarily suggest measures $ro$osed to su$$ress criminality. It must *e added that with new crimes emerging in the modern com$le#ities of life we seem increasingly concerned a*out the $ro*lem of crime. Today destructi(e acts of (andalism highway train and *ank ro**eries looting *om* *lasts ra$e illegitimate terrorist acti(ities white-collar crimes cy*er crimes ii

criminali:ation of $olitics hiacking etc. are constantly increasing which ha(e $osed a $ositi(e danger to human life li*erty and $ro$erty. &odern criminologists therefore seem to *e seriously concerned with the $ro*lem of crime to $rotect the society from such anti-social acti(ities of criminals. It is for this reason that the two sister *ranches of criminal science namely criminology and $enology work hand in hand to a$$reciate the $ro*lem of criminality in its $ro$er $ers$ecti(e.

iii

Criminology may*e defined as from 0atin cr?men @accusation@ and ;reek -BDE -logiaG is the social science a$$roach to the study of crime as an indi(idual and social $henomenon. Although contem$orary definitions (ary in the e#act words used there is considera*le consensus that criminology in(ol(es the a$$lication of the scientific method to the study of (ariation in criminal law the causes of crime and reactions to crime >Akers 1G.

Criminological research areas include the incidence and forms of crime as well as its causes and conseHuences. They also include social and go(ernmental regulations and reactions to crime. Criminology is an interdisci$linary field in the *eha(ioral sciences drawing es$ecially on the research of sociologists and $sychologists as well as on writings in law. An im$ortant way to analy:e data is to look at Huantitati(e methods in criminology. In ))5 Italian law $rofessor 3affaele ;arofalo coined the term @criminology@ >in Italian criminologiaG. The French anthro$ologist Paul To$inard used it for the first time in French >criminologieG around the same time.



Criminology is an inter-disci$linary field of study in(ol(ing scholars and $ractitioners re$resenting a wide range of *eha(ioral and social sciences as well as numerous natural sciences. Sociologists $layed a maor role in defining and de(elo$ing the field of study and criminology emerged as an academic disci$line housed in sociology $rograms. owe(er with the esta*lishment of schools of criminology and the $roliferation of academic de$artments and $rograms concentrating s$ecifically on crime and ustice in the last half of the 1 century the criminology emerged as a distinct $rofessional field with a *road interdisci$linary focus and a shared commitment to generating knowledge through systematic research. ne ultimate goal of criminology has *een the de(elo$ment of theories e#$ressed with sufficient $recision that they can *e tested using data collected in a manner that allows (erification and re$lication. As a su*di(ision of the larger field of sociology criminology draws on $sychology economics anthro$ology $sychiatry *iology statistics and other disci$lines to e#$lain the causes and $re(ention of criminal *eha(ior. Su*di(isions of criminology include $enology the study of $risons and $rison systems *io-criminology the study of the *iological *asis of criminal *eha(ior feminist criminology the study of women and crime and criminalistics the study of crime detection which is related to the field of Forensic Science. &uch research related to criminology has focused on the *iological *asis of criminal *eha(ior. In fact *io-criminology attem$ts to e#$lore the *iological *asis of criminal *eha(ior. 3esearch in this area has focused on chromosomal a*normalities hormonal and *rain chemical im*alances diet neurological conditions drugs and alcohol as (aria*les that contri*ute to criminal *eha(ior. Criminology has historically $layed a reforming role in relation to Criminal 0aw and the criminal ustice system. As an a$$lied disci$line it has $roduced findings that ha(e influenced legislators udges $rosecutors lawyers Pro*ation officers and $rison officials $rom$ting them to *etter understand crime and criminals and to de(elo$ *etter and more human sentences and treatments for criminal *eha(ior. Criminologists also study a host of other issues related to crime and the law. These include studies of the Jictims of Crime focusing u$on their relations to the criminal and their role as $otential causal agents in crime u(enile delinHuency and its correction and the media and their relation to crime including the influence of Pornogra$hy.

1

The true effect of criminology u$on $ractices in the criminal ustice system is still su*ect to Huestion. Although a num*er of commentators ha(e noted that studies in criminology ha(e led to significant changes among criminal laws in the (arious states other critics ha(e suggested that studies in criminology ha(e not directly led to a reduction of crime. In &c Cleskey (. 9em$ 4) 6.S. 1%+ % S. Ct. %5! +5 0. "d. 1d 1!1 >+)%G an indi(idual who had *een sentenced to death for a murder in ;eorgia demonstrated to the 6.S. Su$reme Court that a criminologistKs study showed that the race of indi(iduals in that state im$acted whether the defendant was sentenced to life or to death. The study demonstrated that a *lack defendant who had killed a white (ictim was four times more likely to *e sentenced to death than was a defendant who had killed a *lack (ictim. The defendant claimed that the study demonstrated that the state of ;eorgia had (iolated his rights under the "L6A0 P3T"CTIM C0A6S" of the Fourteenth Amendment as well as under the "igth AmendmentKs $rotection against Cruel and 6nusual Punishment.

The high court disagreed. Although the maority did Huestion the (alidity of the findings of studyKs it held that the study did not esta*lish that officials in ;eorgia had acted with discriminatory $ur$ose and that it did not esta*lish that racial *ias had affected the officialsK decisions with res$ect to the death sentence. Accordingly the death sentence (iolated neither the Fourteenth Amendment nor the "ighth Amendment.

Criminology has had more of an effect when states and the federal go(ernment consider new criminal laws and sentencing $ro(isions. CriminologistsK theories are also often de*ated in the conte#t of the death $enalty and crime control acts among legislators and $olicymakers. In this light criminology is $erha$s not at the forefront of the de(elo$ment of the criminal ustice system *ut it most certainly works in the *ackground in the determination of criminal ustice $olicies.

•

Sociology and Criminology uring the twentieth century the sociological a$$roach to

criminology *ecame the most influential a$$roach. Sociology is the study of social *eha(ior systems and structures. In relation to criminology it may *e di(ided into social-structural and social-$rocess a$$roaches.

2

➢

Social(Structural Criminology Social-structural a$$roaches to criminology e#amine the way in

which social situations and structures influence or relate to criminal *eha(ior. An early e#am$le of this a$$roach the ecological school of criminology was de(elo$ed in the +1s and +2s at the 6ni(ersity of Chicago. It seeks to e#$lain crimeKs relationshi$ to social and en(ironmental change. For e#am$le it attem$ts to descri*e why certain areas of a city will ha(e a tendency to attract crime and also ha(e less-(igorous $olice enforcement. 3esearchers ha(e found that ur*an areas in transition from residential to *usiness uses are most often targeted *y criminals. Such communities often ha(e disorgani:ed social networks that foster a weaker sense of social standards.

➢

Another social-structural a$$roach is the conflict school of criminology . It traces its roots to &ar#ist theories that saw crime as ultimately a $roduct of conflict *etween different classes under the system of ca$italism. Criminology conflict theory suggests that the laws of society emerge out of conflict rather than out of consensus. It holds that laws are made *y the grou$ that is in $ower to control those who are not in $ower. Conflict theorists $ro$ose as do other theorists that those who commit crimes are not fundamentally different from the rest of the $o$ulation. They call the idea that society may *e clearly di(ided into criminals and non-criminals a dualistic fallacy or a misguided notion. These theorists maintain instead that the determination of whether someone is a criminal or not often de$ends on the way society reacts to those who de(iate from acce$ted norms. &any conflict theorists and others argue that minorities and $oor $eo$le are more Huickly la*eled as criminals than are mem*ers of the maority and wealthy indi(iduals.

➢

Critical criminology also called radical criminology shares with conflict criminology a de*t to

&ar#ism. It came into $rominence in the early +%s and attem$ted to e#$lain contem$orary social u$hea(als. Critical criminology relies on economic e#$lanations of *eha(ior and argues that economic and social ineHualities cause criminal *eha(ior. It focuses less on the study of indi(idual criminals and ad(ances the *elief that e#isting crime cannot *e eliminated within the ca$italist system. It also asserts like the conflict school that law has an inherent *ias in fa(or of the u$$er or ruling class and that the state and its legal system e#ist to ad(ance the interests of the ruling class. Critical criminologists argue that cor$orate $olitical and en(ironmental crime are underre$orted and inadeHuately addressed in the current criminal ustice system.

➢

)eminist criminology em$hasi:es the su*ordinate $osition of women in society. According to

feminist criminologists women remain in a $osition of inferiority that has not *een fully rectified *y changes in the law during the late twentieth century. Feminist criminology also e#$lores the ways in which womenKs criminal *eha(ior is related to their o*ectification as commodities in the 4

se# industry.

thers using the social-structural a$$roach ha(e studied ;angs u(enile delinHuency and the relationshi$ *etween family structure and criminal *eha(ior.

•

Social(*rocess Criminology Social-$rocess criminology theories attem$t to e#$lain how $eo$le

*ecome criminals. These theories de(elo$ed through recognition of the fact that not all $eo$le who are e#$osed to the same social- structural conditions *ecome criminals. They focus on criminal *eha(ior as learned *eha(ior.

"dwin . Sutherland >))2N+5G a 6.S. sociologist and criminologist who first $resented his ideas in the +1s and +2s ad(anced the theory of differential association to e#$lain criminal *eha(ior. e em$hasi:ed that criminal *eha(ior is learned in interaction with others usually in small grou$s and that criminals learn to fa(or criminal *eha(ior o(er noncriminal *eha(ior through association with *oth forms of *eha(ior in different degrees. As Sutherland wrote @/hen $ersons *ecome criminal they do so *ecause of contacts with criminal $atterns and also *ecause of isolation from anti-criminal $atterns.@ Although his theory has *een greatly influential Sutherland himself admitted that it did not satisfactorily e#$lain all criminal *eha(ior. 0ater theorists ha(e modified his a$$roach in an attem$t to correct its shortcomings.

➢

*olitical Criminology( Political criminology is similar to the other cam$s in this area. It

in(ol(es study into the forces that determine how why and with what conseHuences societies chose to address criminals and crime in general. Those who are in(ol(ed with $olitical criminology focus on the causes of crime the nature of crime the social and $olitical meanings that attach to crime and crime- control $olicies including the study of the *ases u$on which crime and $unishment is committed and the choices made *y the $rinci$als in criminal ustice.

Although the theories of $olitical criminology and conflict criminology o(erla$ to some e#tent $olitical criminologists deny that the terms are interchangea*le. The $rimary focus $oints in the new mo(ement of $olitical criminology similarly o(erla$ with other theories including the concerns and ramifications of street crime and the distri*ution of $ower in crime-control stra tegies. This mo(ement has largely *een a loose academic effort.

5

Psychologists argue that in order to do something a*out the crime $ro*lem we must first understand its causes. Their aims are in conformity with that of Criminologists7. The Huestions are

aG /hy does crime ha$$enO *G /hat moti(ates $eo$le to commit illegal actsO

Se(eral theories are ad(ocated to answer these Huestions For e#am$le in case of theft the *iological e#$lanations say that the thief has *ad genes and the $sychological e#$lanations may maintain that he has a $ersonality defect. 0ike wise the sociological e#$lanations may argue that he7s got in with a *ad crowd. These kind of e#$lanations led to different kinds of theories

I. ,iological theories of crime II. Psychological theories of crime III. Sociological theories of crime IJ. Social-Psychological theories of crime.

owe(er no single theory can $ossi*ly *e a$$lica*le to all illegal acts and actors and therefore an e(aluation of the limitations of each theory is a$$ro$riate.

These theories ado$t an o*ecti(e a$$roach to e#$lain criminality. They em$hasi:e factors that affect many criminals in common. American criminologists $refer this a$$roach. They attri*ute criminality to the social conditions of the criminal. Crime- causation de$ends considera*ly on social interactions. At times $ersons (iolate the $ro(isions of law knowing fully well that they will ha(e to face $enal conseHuences for their acts. This $henomenon is more cons$icuous in times of $olitical strategy. For e#am$le in the freedom struggle of India &ahatma ;andhi and other national leaders *roke the laws made *y the "nglish and were im$risoned. Similarly cases of hunger strikes demonstrations of $rotests

!

self-immolations all are glaring instances of deli*erate law (iolations *y res$onsi*le $ersons of the society. Sociological theories of criminal *eha(ior can *e e#$lained under three heads

•

Structural "#$lanations

•

Su*-cultural "#$lanations

•

&ulti$le Factor A$$roach

Structural +,planations These arguments maintain that criminality is the result of structural defects in the society or family etc. Structural defects here mean the general *reakdown of normal social conditions. These e#$lanations em$hasi:e on the e#istence of fundamental ineHuality in the structure of the society. IneHualities are e#$erienced in the o$$ortunities to achie(e the goals (alued *y the society. In the society all $eo$le ha(e as$irations or goals to *e wealthy successful educated ho$e to $ossess material $ossessions such as nice clothes cars *ungalows all lu#uries. ,ut not e(ery*ody is ha(ing the o$$ortunities. Some ha(e greater o$$ortunities for instance *eing from affluent families ha(e greater chances to get good education. Some may ha(e greater a*ilities to achie(e their goals. Peo$le with good looks are more likely to achie(e goals through legitimate means. Some others who ha(e lesser o$$ortunities and cannot attain their thorough legitimate means may face a com$ulsion to rely on illegal means.

➢

-ertons Theory of Social Structure and "nomie

3o*ert 9. &erton >+2)G e#$lains this through his $o$ular e#$lanation of 8Social Structure and Anomie. e e#$lains the colla$sing of social conditions *rought *y se(ere economic conditions is res$onsi*le for criminal *eha(ior. e reects the notion that crime is an intrinsic and indi(idual *eha(ior. e looks *eyond the immediate $ersonal en(ironment of the criminals to the *roader conte#t of Social Structure and Anomie7 for e#$lanation of criminal *eha(ior. &erton *orrowed the term anomie from "mile Qurkheim a French sociologist. Qurkheim had studied the French and American culture after the Industrial 3e(olution. In his study he noted that economic crisis and a general *reakdown of the normal social conditions created 8deregulation of social and moral rules. This deregulation which he called 8anomie could lead to all sorts of social de(iance including suicide and crime. Anomie is a condition which e#ists when norms no longer control $eo$le7s *eha(ior when $eo$le no longer ha(e clear rules. /hen normlessness e#ists then controls on *eha(ior and as$irations cease to e#ist. &erton maintained that anomie is es$ecially likely to e#ist in a society where there is uneHual o$$ortunity and an em$hasis on material success and he claimed that it can e#$lain a *road range of %

socially de(iant *eha(ior. &erton e#$lains that society esta*lishes institutionali:ed goals N usually understood to *e financial success which society em$hasi:es and reinforces. To achie(e these goals there are socially R structured methods7 which can *e called 8means. /hen such goals are o(er em$hasi:ed and highly $raised *ut the 8means to achie(e them are una(aila*le to a considera*le $art of that $o$ulation then anomie is likely i.e. when success is *locked *y the una(aila*ility of 8means indi(iduals e#$erience strain and show two kinds of reactions either they must adust their as$irations downward or de(ise alternati(e routes to achie(e goals. In such an en(ironment de(iant *eha(ior is wide s$read. According to &erton fi(e modes are ado$ted *y the $eo$le to achie(e goals

. Conformity 1. Inno(ation 2. 3itualism 4. 3etreatism and 5. 3e*ellion.

Conformity is a $ath taken *y most $eo$le e(en if they reali:e that the means to achie(e their goals are

restricted. Inno/ation is where a $erson acce$ts a goal *ut reects the acce$ted legitimate means to achie(e the goal. For e#am$le a child wants a ,icycle the legitimate means are to ask $arents or grand $arents or sa(e money *y doing a $art time o* etc. If all these means are not a(aila*le an alternati(e inno(ati(e means may *e chosen such as theft7. In #itualism a $erson continues to follow the institutionali:ed means such as hard work and thrift *ut looses sight of the goals or reected them. This may descri*e the so called rat- race in which $eo$le work diligently in socially a$$ro(ed ways *ut ha(e no ho$e of success in achie(ing their goals or no longer identify with long term goals. In #etreatism  *oth goals and means are reected. The retreatist7s res$onse to an ina*ility to reach goals is to dro$ out or to Huit trying. This may lead to e#treme retreatist *eha(iour such as alcoholism drug addiction or (agrancy. #e!ellion is an o$tion for $eo$le who reect the a$$ro(ed goals and means to achie(e them for new goals and means. 3e*els and re(olutionaries are disa$$ointed indi(iduals who (iew acce$ted goals as unattaina*le or undesira*le and socially a$$ro(ed means of reaching them as demeaning or unworka*le. Therefore these $ersons su*stitute new socially unacce$ta*le goals and means such as redistri*ution of wealth through socialist $olitical structure.

➢

+/aluation of -ertons Theory

The strain $ers$ecti(e de(elo$ed *y &erton and his followers has influenced *oth research and theoretical de(elo$ments in criminology. et as $o$ular as this theory remains it has *een Huestioned )

on a (ariety of grounds. ,y concentrating on crime at the lower le(els of the socioeconomic hierarchy for e#am$le it neglects crime committed *y middle and u$$er Nclass $eo$le. ther critics Huestion whether a heterogeneous society does ha(e goals on which e(eryone agrees. Some theorists argue that some su*cultures ha(e their own (alue systems. If this is the case we cannot account for de(iant *eha(ior on the *asis of &erton7s cultural goals. ther im$ortant Huestions raised are if we ha(e an agreed u$on set of goals is material gain the dominant oneO If crime is a means to an end why is there so much of useless destructi(e *eha(ior es$ecially among teenagersO Mo matter how it is structured each society defines goals for its mem*ers. For e#am$le the 6nited States is not only the society in which $eo$le stri(e for wealth and $restige. et while some $eo$le in the other cultures ha(e limited means for achie(ing goals not all these societies ha(e high crime rates. Two such societies NUa$an and Swit:erlandVare among the most de(elo$ed and industriali:ed in the world. Although the 6nited States has Huite a *it in common with them it does not share their (ery low crime rates. Qes$ite the many critical assessments strain theory as re$resented *y &erton7s formulation of anomie has had a maor im$act on the contem$orary criminology. 2.1. Su* cultural "#$lanations The second ty$e of sociological a$$roach focuses on su* cultural e#$lanations with em$hasis on the discre$ancy in the norms for different grou$s.

-eaning of Su! culture A su* culture is su*-di(ision within the dominant culture that has its own norms *eliefs and (alues. Su* cultures ty$ically emerge when $eo$le in similar circumstances find themsel(es isolated from the main stream and *and together for mutual su$$ort. Su* cultures may form among mem*ers of racial and ethnic minorities among $risoners among occu$ational grou$s among ghetto dwellers. Su* cultures e#ist within a larger society not a$art from it. They there fore share some of its (alues. Me(ertheless the life styles of their mem*ers are significantly different from those of in the dominant culture. According to Al*ert Cohen an American Sociologist de(iant *eha(ior is su$$orted *y su* culture. A su* culture of criminals has its own norms which stand o(er against the norms of the larger grou$ >the dominant cultureG. The de(iance does not a$$ear unusual or a*normal from their $oint of (iew. Indeed most su* cultures ha(e a (ague notion that the larger society is unust and corru$t. Im$ortant ty$es of de(iant *eha(iors are u(enile delinHuency drug addiction and crime against $ersons and $ro$erty etc. The la#ity of norms the anonymous nature of cities and multi$le standards of *eha(iors are often res$onsi*le for it.

+

➢

&asis of the Su! cultural Theory

Strain theorists >structural e#$lanationsG e#$lain criminal *eha(ior as a result of the frustrations suffered *y lower class indi(iduals de$ri(ed of legitimate means to reach their goals. Cultural de(iance theorists assume that ➢

Indi(iduals *ecome criminal *y learning the criminal (alues of the grou$s to which they *elong.

➢

In conforming to their own grou$ standards these $eo$le *reak the law of the dominant culture. These two $ers$ecti(es are the foundations of the su* cultural theory.

Miet:el >+%+G e#$lains that the su* cultural theory is *ased on the fact that there is a lack of agreement *etween norms of different grou$s. e descri*es as follows The su* cultural $ers$ecti(e holds that the conflict of norms which engenders criminal *eha(ior is due to the fact that (arious ethnic or class grou$ings of $eo$le adhere to cultural $atterns of *eha(ior that are inconsistent with the dominant inunctions against certain ty$es of crime. These illegal $atterns of *eha(ior are su$$orted *y the $articular su* cultural norms that actually e#ert $ressure toward de(iation from the consensual norms underlying the criminal law. ;angs for e#am$le $ossess norms a*out how to *eha(e. For some young $eo$le the gang takes the $lace of $arents as the gi(er of norms e(en when the $arents attem$t to instill their own (alues.

➢

0alter -illers Theory of )ocal Concerns

This theme of cultural conflict is made salient in 0alter -illers Theory of )ocal Concerns 1%$4 which attri*utes the criminal acti(ities of lower- class adolescent gangs to their attem$t to achie(e the ends that are (alued in their culture through the *eha(iors that a$$ear to them to *e the most feasi*le means of o*taining those ends. Thus adherence to the traditions of the lower class is essential. &iller la*els them as trou*le toughness smartness e#citement fate and autonomy. For e#am$le lower-class *oys $ick fights to show their toughness and they steal to demonstrate their shrewdness and daring.



Ta!le 1.1 -I55+#S )OC"5 CONC+#NS7 O) 5O0+#( C5"SS C5T#+

S. No "#+"

D+SI#"&5+

ND+SI#"&5+



Trou*le

0aw-a*iding *eha(ior

0aw-(iolating *eha(ior

1

Toughness

Physical $rowess skill 8masculinity

/eakness ine$titude effimacy

fearlessness *ra(ery daring

timidity cowardice caution ;ulli*ility 8cona*ilty

2

Smartness

A*ility to outsmart du$e gaining money *y

gaining money *y hard work

8wits shrewdness

slowness dull- wittedness (er*al maladroitness

4

"#citement Thrill risk danger change acti(ity

5

Fate

!

➢

Autonomy

Fa(ored *y fortune *eing 8lucky Freedom *y e#ternal constraint freedom from su$er ordinate authority inde$endence

,oredom 8deadness safeness sameness $assi(ity Ill-omened *eing 8unlucky Presence of e#ternal constraint $resence of strong authority de$endency *eing 8cared for

5imitations to the )ocal Concerns Theory

The theory of focal concerns a$$lies to a restricted range of crimes. It does not crime *uy indi(iduals not socially disad(antaged such as a *usiness man or stock *roker. The key conce$ts are (ague as in the case of structural e#$lanations. ow do these cultural standards originateO ow are they transmitted from generation to generationO And how do these standards control the *eha(ior of any one indi(idualO According to Miet:el the most trou*lesome conce$t is the central one that is the su* culture. Some critics reect the assum$tion of (alue differences among grou$s. For e#am$le some sociologists suggest that American society is really not as culturally di(erse as the theory im$lies.

-ultiple )actor "pproach Qes$ite re$eated attem$ts on the $art of criminologists $ro$ounding different (iews to formulate a singular theoretical e#$lanation for criminal *eha(iour no hy$othesis could answer the issue satisfactorily. "(entually the sociologists made use of m R ulti$le-factor a$$roach7 to e#$lain the causation of crime. The su$$orters of this (iew *elie(e that crime is a $roduct of a com*ination of a (ariety of factors which can not *e narrated in terms of general $ro$ositions. This (iew finds su$$ort from the writings of eminent American criminologist /illiam ealy e#$ressing his (iews on multi$le causation



theory Pro. ealy o*ser(ed that it is not one or two factors which turn a man delinHuent *ut it is a com*ination of many more factorsW say eight or tenWW which cumulati(ely influence him to follow criminal conduct. e howe(er agreed that all the factors associated with a $articular crime may not ha(e eHual im$ortance as a cause of that crime. The e#tent of their influence on crime may *e in (arying degrees some e#erting greater influence on the crime while the others the least. ,ut this theory has *een (ehemently critici:ed *y Al*ert Cohen on the ground that it offers no single e#$lanation which can e#$lain crime causation. &oreo(er it is fallacious to *elie(e that crimes generate only in de$lora*le surroundings. The greatest shortcoming of the multi$le factor a$$roach to crime according to Cohen is that the adherents of this theory confused factors7 with those of causes7 of crime. From the foregoing analysis it is e(ident that sociologists consider crime as a $roduct of en(ironmental de(iations and (arying social conditions. The inter-relation *etween criminality and some of these conditions may *e discussed under the following heads

1. -o!ility8

The ra$id growth of industriali:ation and ur*ani:ation in recent years has led to e#$ansion of means of communication tra(el facilities and $ro$agation of (iews through $ress and $latform. ConseHuently human interaction has gone *eyond intimate associations with increased chances of mo*ility. &igration of $ersons to new $laces where they are strangers offers them *etter o$$ortunities for crime as the chances of detection are considera*ly minimi:ed. &o*ility therefore ser(es as a $otential cause of social disorgani:ation which may result in de(iant *eha(iour due to lack of family control.

2. Culture Conflicts8

In a dynamic society social change is an ine(ita*le $henomenon. The im$act of moderni:ation ur*ani:ation and industriali:ation in modern dynamic society may sometimes result in social disorgani:ation and this may lead to culture conflicts *etween different sections of society. The difference may *e *etween old and new (alues local and im$orted (alues and traditional (alues and the go(ernment im$osed (alues. Criminality arising out of cultural conflict theory has *een well e#$lained *y Shah and -c9ay through their Cultural Transmission theory of crime which was a dominant criminological theory of the 1th century. The theory sim$ly states that 8traditions of delinHuency are transmitted through successi(e generations of the same inha*itation in the same way as language and attitudes are transmitted. The ina*ility of local communities to a$$reciate the common (alues of their residents or sol(e commonly e#$erienced $ro*lems causes tension leading to de(iant *eha(iours. This is how criminal traditions get em*edded into the functioning of a community and they co-e#ist alongside 1

con(entional (alues. Sutherland has termed this $henomenon as 8differential social disorgani:ation which is more common with lower-class neigh*orhoods. e attri*utes three main causes for the culture conflict namely >G residential insta*ility >1G social or ethnic heterogeneity and >2G $o(erty. The shift of $o$ulation due to migration or immigration Huite often affects the crime rate of a gi(en $lace. The culture conflict *etween inha*itants and immigrants results in de(iant *eha(iour. In a recent study 3uth and Ca(an found that "skimos who were free from the $ro*lem of crime until recently now freHuently indulge into de(iant *eha(iour such as loitering drunkenness and se#-offences due to their migration to ur*an areas and social contact with non-"skimos.

3. )amily &ac9ground8

Sutherland holds that out of all the social $rocesses the family *ackground has $erha$s the greatest influence on criminal *eha(iour of the offender the reason *eing that children s$end most of their time with their $arents and relati(es within the family. Children are a$t to im*i*e criminal tendencies if they find their $arents or mem*ers of the family *eha(ing in a similar manner. The institution of family is e#$ected to cater to the *asic needs of the children. Therefore the child should feel that he enoys a certain $ri(ilege and $rotection in his family and that he is lo(ed and liked *y his $arents and mem*ers of the family. This feeling of security warmth and reliance makes children to lean the (irtues of lo(e res$ect and duty towards others. Thus it is through the institution of family that the child unconsciously learns to adust himself to the en(ironment and acce$ts the (alues of life such as res$ect for others faithfulness trustworthiness and co- o$eration through his own life e#$eriences. It therefore follows that a child *rought u$ in a *roken family is likely to fall an easy $rey to criminality. 0ack of $arental control o(er children due to death di(orce or desertion of $arent or their ignorance or illness may furnish soothing ground for the children to resort to criminal acts. Again freHuent Huarrels amongst $arents undue domination of one o(er the other ste$-motherly treatment with children freHuent *irths in the family immorality of $arents misery $o(erty or unwholesome family atmos$here and the like may also lead to the neglect of child and finding no adeHuate outlet for his talents he may tend to *ecome criminal in his life. To add to the a*o(e list unem$loyment low income or $arent7s continued long a*sence from home for the sake of li(elihood is some other causes for child delinHuencies. After a careful study of the family *ackground of a num*er of delinHuents Donald Taft deduced the following generali:ations which are significant from the $oint of (iew of crime causation

. &o*ility among criminals is far greater than those of non-criminals. In other words delinHuents change their $lace more freHuently than the law-a*iding $ersons. 1. The delinHuents usually $refer to stay away from their family $arents and homes. 2. The homes of delinHuents are often ill-maintained insanitary and dis$lay $oor standard of li(ing. 2

4. The family life of most delinHuents is usually disru$ted and their $arents are either dead se$arated or di(orced. 5. "#$erience has shown that most of the delinHuents are su*ected to $hysical $unishment *y the $arents in their childhood. ConseHuently they hardly show any res$ect for the mem*ers of their family. !. A large $ercentage of criminals are usually hostile and indifferent towards their *rothers and sisters. %. QelinHuents are encouraged to follow criminality in their homes in either of the following ways aG The $arents may not themsel(es *e associated with the criminal act *ut they might deli*erately a(oid $re(enting their children from indulging into criminal acts. *G Children may learn criminal $atterns through the $rocess of imitation. They *egin to learn similar *eha(iour from their $arents or other mem*ers of the family. cG The $arents who ha(e em*raced criminality as a way of life like those of $rofessional thie(es $ick$ockets $rostitutes etc. often train their children for the (ocation. It is howe(er true that a re(erse $rocess may also o$erate where criminal $arents take all ste$s to ensure that their children do not follow their foot-ste$s and kee$ away from criminality. To take an illustration it is often seen that $rostitutes usually take care to kee$ their children away from the du*ious $rofession so much so that they take all $recautions to ensure that their children do not e(en come to know that their mother is a $rostitute. So also most of the notorious dacoits $refer to dissuade their children from following similar criminal traits and $ro(ide them *est education for an u$right and honest li(ing. This change in their attitude is $erha$s due to the im$act of education and social transformation in recent decades. Those who disagree with the influence of family surrounding on criminality may argue that this hy$othesis is incorrect *ecause cases are not wanting when $ersons *rought u$ in most down-trodden and de$lora*le family situations ha(e *ecome most useful mem*ers of the society and ha(e held $restigious $ositions. It may *e noted that family is only one of the multi$le factors affecting criminal *eha(ior. Therefore if a child li(ing in degraded family situations finds other surroundings fa(ora*le to his u$right growth he ada$ts himself to those norms and e(entually *ecomes a law a*iding citi:en. Thus if other conditions of the child remain conduci(e to his u$right li(ing the e(il influences of degenerated family are held in check *y other stronger forces.

:. *olitical Ideology8

It is well known that the Parliamentarians who are law-makers of the country are also $oliticians. They succeed in mo*ili:ing $u*lic o$inion in the desired way through the media of $ress and $latform 4

and finally enact suita*le laws to su$$ort their $olicies. Thus $olitical ideologies gain strength through legislati(e $rocess there*y directly influencing the criminal $atterns in a gi(en society. The li*erali:ation of a*ortion law $rotection of women against (iolence including harmful traditional $ractices etc. are some of the e#am$les to show as to how the conce$t of criminality changes with the changed ideologies of the $oliticians and the go(ernment in $ower. /ith the change in ideologies what was unlawful and illegal till yesterday may *ecome lawful and legal today and (ice (ersa. The lawmakers ustify these changes for the good of the society kee$ing in (iew the changing norms of ci(ili:ation and culture. Again $olitical changes in a country may gi(e rise to new $olitical offences. The e#cessi(e interference of $oliticians in e#ecuti(e functions of the ;o(ernment weakness the morale of the administrators as well as the $olice with the result there is s$ontaneous growth in crime-rate.

. #eligion and Crime8

The changes in religious ideologies also ha(e a direct *earing on incidence of crime in a $articular region. It has *een rightly said that morality can *est *e $reser(ed in a society through the institution of religion. The *ond of religion kee$s $ersons within their limits and hel$s them to kee$ away from sinful and criminal acts. The declining influence of religion in modern times has tended to lea(e men free to do as they like without any restraint or fear. ConseHuently they do not hesitate to resort to criminality e(en for $etty materialistic gains. Qes$ite the fact that all religions s$eak of communal harmony and $eaceful co-e#istence most wars on this earth are fought in the name of religion. The war *etween Iran and IraH for o(er eight years the wars in 0e*anon and the continuing fight *etween Catholics and Protestants in Morthern Ireland and e(en terrorist acti(ities in India are *eing carried out in the name of hidden religious o(ertones. These di(isi(e forces contri*ute considera*ly to the incidence of murder mass killing destruction of $u*lic and $ri(ate $ro$erties and other anti-social *eha(iour.

6. +conomic Conditions8

"conomic conditions also influence criminality to a considera*le e#tent. Present day industrial $rogress economic growth and ur*ani:ation ha(e $araly:ed the "thio$ian domestic life. The institution of family has disintegrated to such an e#tent that control of $arents o(er their wards has weakened thus lea(ing them without any sur(eillance. 6nder the circumstances those who lack self-control fall an easy $rey to criminality. The need for economic em$owerment of women leads to em$loyment of women and their other outdoor acti(ities. This in turn enhanced the o$$ortunities for se# crime. Again crimes such as hoarding undue $rofiteering *lack-marketing etc. are essentially an outcome of economic changes. Mow-a-days money is the $aramount consideration to assess the social status of a $erson in society. Crimes in higher circles of society can easily *e wi$ed off through money. 6nem$loyment among the youths is yet another cause of increase in crime rate. If the energies of these young $ersons are $ro$erly 5

channeli:ed surely the crime rate among this age grou$ will decrease. It has *een generally acce$ted that there is a strong relationshi$ *etween criminality and economic or income ineHuality as also *etween crime and unem$loyment. ,ut $o(erty $er se >inX*y itselfG is not the sole cause of criminality it is only a maor factor in crime causation. It is the social disorgani:ation which accounts for criminality among the $oorest and not their $o(erty. 6ndou*tedly there is close relationshi$ *etween unem$loyment and criminality and $articularly accounts for an un$recedented rise in $ro$erty crimes and a conseHuential increase in the arrest rate of u(eniles and youth. Those who are o*less or ha(e less secure em$loyment such as casual and contract workers are more likely to *e in(ol(ed in $ro$erty crimes. Analy:ing the im$act of economic conditions on criminality Prof. ermann &annheim o*ser(ed that if we lea(e aside traffic offences three-forth of the time and energy of the criminal law administrators of the world shall ha(e to *e de(oted to economic crimes. Focusing the im$ortance of economic factors in the causation of crime he $ointed out that $o(erty contri*utes *oth directly and indirectly to the commission of crime. owe(er $o(erty alone may not *e a direct cause of crime *ecause other factors such as frustration emotional insecurity and non-fulfillment of wants often $lay a dominant role in gi(ing rise to the criminal tendency. The &ar#ist theory has em$hasi:ed that all human *eha(iour is determined *y economic factors. Su$$orting this (iew Fredrick "ngels attri*uted increase in the incidence of crime in "ngland in mideighteenth century to the de$lora*le economic condition of the workers due to class e#$loitation. /.A. ,onger also ado$ted the same a$$roach in e#$laining crime causation and asserted that a criminal was a $roduct of ca$italistic system which created selfish tendencies. In such a system each $erson tries to e#tract ma#imum from others in return of the minimum from himself. Thus ,onger identified many e(ils in the ca$italistic systems which were res$onsi*le for generating crimes. In fact the theory of 3adical Criminology is *ased on this conce$t which further e#$lains that crime occurs due to the e#$loitation of the $oor *y the rich.

;. +cology of Crime8

"cology is the study of $eo$le and institutions in relation to en(ironment. To$ogra$hical conditions also affect the incidence of crime in a $articular region or locality. After a series of researches "nrico Ferri the eminent Italian criminologist analy:ed the crime inde# of his country and concluded that in the same country the crime rate (aries considera*ly from one region to another. Some ty$ical crimes are more $eculiar to a $articular region than other $arts of the country. Similar o*ser(ations were made *y criminologists in France "ngland and 6.S.A. which sufficiently esta*lished the influence of ecology on crime. It is well known that (iolating of customs e#cise and drug laws are more common in *order areas and coastal regions than in $lains. Illegal felling of trees and (iolation of forest laws is an e(ery !

day occurrence in forest regions. The im$act of ecology on crime can a$$arently to *e seen in dacoit-infested forest regions where o$$ortunities for esca$e and a(oid detection are $lenty. Similarly $ilgrim $laces are the *reeding ground for all sorts of anti-social acti(ities such as cheating stealing e#$loiting etc. The $ro$onents of ecological theory attri*ute social disorgani:ation as the main cause of criminality. They therefore *elie(e that treating or $unishing the indi(idual offenders would do little to alle(iate the $ro*lem and the solution is to *e found in making efforts to sta*ili:e the social organi:ation and $romoting community feeling $articularly among youths. As Qurkheim rightly $ut it 8the o(erall disorder and disorgani:ation social and $ersonal shifts *eha(iour in the direction of crime. The regional com$arisons of crime rate in different $arts of the country sufficiently indicate that certain crimes are $eculiar to a $articular location. It can therefore *e inferred that ecology of crime consists in the study of influences such as neigh*orhood $o$ulation to$ogra$hical factors etc. on criminals considered from the $oint of (iew of location. Commenting on this as$ect Qonald Taft o*ser(ed that
$. Influence of -edia

The im$ortance of mass media in influencing human mind has *een re$eatedly em$hasi:ed *y some e#$erts. "#$erience has shown that tele(ision and films ha(e the ma#imum im$act on the (iewers due to com*ined audio-(isual im$act. &ost of serials or films shown on tele(ision or cinema halls de$ict scenes of (iolence which ad(ersely affect the (iewers $articularly the young *oys and girls who often tend to imitate the same in their real life situations. The rising incidence of u(enile delinHuency is essentially the result of e(il effect of (iolence and (ulgarism and undesira*le se# e#$osures de$icted in mo(ies or tele(ision. 0ikewise $ornogra$hic literature also has an unwholesome influence on the im$ressiona*le minds of the youth which generates criminality among them. &ost criminologists *elie(e that films and tele(ision are maor contri*utors to (iolent *eha(iour. A sur(ey conducted *y the ,roadcasting ;rou$ of the ouse of 0ords indicated that e#$osure to media (iolence was closely linked with aggressi(e *eha(iour. ,ut agell and Mew*ury o$$osed the (iew that there was a link *etween (iolent media images and criminality after finding that $ersistent offenders watch films or tele(ision far less than non-criminals. ;illin has e#$ressed dou*t a*out any real link %

*etween media (iolence and criminality. According to him films T.J. and other media teach methods of (iolence to those who are already susce$ti*le to them *ut it does not go further than that. Me(ertheless it would *e seen that in recent years the media has a $owerful effect on $u*lic $erce$tions of the dangers $osed *y $articular e(ents actions or *eha(iors. The emoti(e $ower of the media may howe(er sometimes lead to illogical and ill-concei(ed conclusions. At times it may *e noticed that crime de$iction in the media is deli*erately distorted to su$$ress reality. Again there may *e occasions when an act committed *y an influential $erson or a $olitician may not *e gi(en co(erage or condemnation des$ite *eing *latantly criminal or anti-social.

)

"cological as$ects of crime can *est *e demonstrated *y an analysis of a (ariety of crimes o$erating in ur*an as well as rural areas. &any crimes which are common in ur*an areas are unknown to rural setting. The concentration of industry and commercial acti(ities in ur*an region has gi(en rise to the $ro*lems of immigration mo*ility of $o$ulation and scarcity of residential accommodation. The a(aila*ility of Huick means of trans$ort in cities offers *etter o$$ortunities for delinHuents to esca$e detection and arrest. The incidence of u(enile delinHuency sho$ lifting $etty thefts and se#ual offences are more common in slum areas and $o(erty-stricken homes. That a$art the recurrence of white collar crimes *ank-offences frauds em*e::lement racketeering>a system of organi:ed crime that is traditionally in(ol(ed in e#tortion of money from *usinessmen *y intimidation (iolence or other illegal methodsG and the like are mostly confined to ur*an regions. Con(ersely some crimes are e#clusi(ely confined to rural areas and they rarely occur in cities. Thus the thefts of cro$s and cattle arson and tres$ass are $redominately the offences of rural setting. Commenting on the incidence of crimes in ur*an and rural regions Qonald Taft o$ines that the num*er of crimes committed in rural areas are far fewer than those committed in ur*an cities *ecause of the greater homogeneity of rural $o$ulation lesser mo*ility and a*sence of adeHuate o$$ortunities for the criminal to esca$e. ;reater mo*ility due to migration and immigration of la*our o(ercrowding in ur*an dwelling the a*sence of effecti(e family or community control and lack of constructi(e influences are the main causes for multi$licity of crime in ur*an regions. The rural migrants in new cities are una*le to easily adust to the im$ersonal heterogeneity of ur*an life. They are no longer controlled *y the traditional norms and family loyalties. They *ecome restless $ersons without associates. In the words of Qurkheim they *ecome small $articles in that world of 8disorgani:ed dust. Thus heterogeneity of ur*an life destroys their earlier congenial social relationshi$s creating a social (acuum which $ro(es to *e a fertile ground for criminality. 6nder such conditions (iolence and crime $roliferate. Again the inha*itants of rural areas are *y nature sim$le and law-a*iding as com$ared with their ur*an counter$arts $ro*a*ly *ecause of illiteracy and their modest li(ing. &oreo(er limited contact with outside world kee$s them unaware of the technicalities of criminal life. It is generally *elie(ed that crimes relating to $ro$erty are $redominantly committed in ur*an areas while those against $erson are more common in rural regions. owe(er this hy$othesis does not seem to *e wholly correct. Pro$erty crimes are as common in (illages as in towns. 0ikewise crimes relating to $erson are as ram$ant in cities and towns as in rural areas. +

Meigh*orhood Influences also ha(e much to do with the nature of crimes in a $articular locality. Thus thickly inha*ited areas town and cities offer freHuent o$$ortunities for se# offences and crimes relating to theft *ootlegging *urglary kidna$$ing cheating and deceit and so on. Cases of $ick-$ocketing are common in railway stations *us stands and other halt $laces. Thefts of footwear are too common in tem$les and worshi$ $laces in India. "cological study of $risons further re(eals that certain ty$es of crime are $eculiar to the $rison-life. For e#am$le homo-se#uality is common among the $risoners *ecause of their ina*ility to resist *iological needs due to the de$ri(ation of family life. That a$art the con(icts Huite often indulge in mutual fights and Huarrels in an attem$t to show their muscle $ower and esta*lish dominance o(er other $risoners in regard to their skill in criminality. Jiolent offenders generally resort to destruction of $rison $ro$erty and offend $rison authorities on $etty issues. Another significant feature of these delinHuent areas is the location of certain anti-social institutions in the neigh*orhood. These include $rostitution houses gam*ling dens *rothels and similar other du*ious institutions. These areas of (ices are delinHuency- ridden and offer a fertile ground for organi:ed criminals. The inha*itants of near*y locality are easily influenced *y these (icious acti(ities and thus lend themsel(es into the life of criminality. /.I. Thomas the famous sociologist of the Chicago School asserted that ina*ility of a neigh*orhood to sol(e its $ro*lems together leads to social disorgani:ation leading to unconscious moti(ations for crime. Ina*ility of a grou$ to engage in self-regulation turns them towards delinHuency. &ore recently there has *een a tendency to correlate certain $laces of recreation with the ecology of crime. The cinema theaters swimming $ools s$ort grounds and race courses generally offer a fa(ora*le atmos$here for delinHuencies. ,ut this is rather an o(ersim$lification of facts. As a matter of fact the freHuency of crime in these $laces has little to do with their location. In fact it is the en(ironmental and not the ecological influence which generates crime in these $laces. &oreo(er there are Huite a large num*er of law-a*iding mem*ers of the society who do not *ecome criminals e(en after coming into contact with delinHuents in these $laces of recreation and entertainment.

1

&oo9s8

. Adler &. 0. >1G. 8 criminology 4 th ed. Mew ork &c ;r aw-ill com$anies. 1. Sutherland ". . >+2+G8Princi$les of Criminology=. Philadel$hia U.,. 0i$$incott 2. ;ottfredson &. and T. irschi. >++G 8A ;eneral Theory of Crime=. CA Stanford 6ni(ersity Press 4. Carrington 9erry and 3ussell ogg eds. 11. 8Critical Criminology Issues Qe*ates Challenges=. Portland re. /illan Pu*lishing. 5. 0andau >11G. <0aw Crime and "nglish Society= !!-)2. Cam*ridge 6ni(ersity Press $. ). !. Jold ;. ,ernard T. and Sni$es U. >++)G 8Theoretical Criminology #ford. 6ni(ersity $rers. #ford %. 0awrence S. /rightman- California 8Psychology and the 0egal System 1nd ed. ,rooksXCole Pu*lishing Com$any. ). irschi Tra(is. >+!+G. 8Causes of QelinHuency ,erkeley 6ni(ersity of California Press. >Transaction Pu*lishers re$rint editionG. IS,M -%!5)-+. +. /ilson L. Y errnstein 3ichard. >+)5G. 8Crime and uman Mature= Mew ork Simon and Shuster.

"rticles8

. irschi Y ;ottfredson &. >++2G. 8Commentary Testing the ;eneral Theory of Crime@. Uournal of 3esearch in Crime and QelinHuency 1. Akers 3onald 0. >++G. @3ational Choice Qeterrence and Social 0earning Theory The Path Mot Taken@. Uournal of Criminal 0aw and Criminology. )>2G

1

Relationship between Criminology and Sociology

Recommend Documents