Criminology: Historical Development Although contemporary definitions vary in the exact words used, there is considerable consensus that

criminology involves the application of the scientific method to the study of variation in criminal law, the causes of crime, and reactions to crime (Akers 2000). This combination of method and substance evolved over time with the expectation for a scientific methodology in place by the late 19th century, and acceptance of the broad, tripartite, substantive focus established by the middle of the 20th century. Criminology is an inter-disciplinary field of study, involving scholars and practitioners representing a wide range of behavioral and social sciences as well as numerous natural sciences. Sociologists played a major role in defining and developing the field of study and criminology emerged as an academic discipline housed in sociology programs. However, with the establishment of schools of criminology and the proliferation of academic departments and programs concentrating specifically on crime and justice in the last half of the 20th century, criminology emerged as a distinct professional field with a broad, interdisciplinary focus and a shared commitment to generating knowledge through systematic research. One ultimate goal of criminology has been the development of theories expressed with sufficient precision that they can be tested, using data collected in a manner that allows

verification and replication. The theoretical dimension of criminology has a long history and ideas about the causes of crime can be found in philosophical thought over two thousand years years ago. For example, in Politics, Platos student, Aristotle (384-322 B.C.), stated that poverty engenders rebellion and crime (Quinney 1970). Religious scholars focused on causes as diverse as natural human need, deadly sins, and the corrupting influence of Satan and other demons. The validity of such theories was founded in religious authority and they were not viewed as theories,

Criminology: Historical Development subject to verification through any form of systematic observation, measurement and analysis.

Rational, naturalistic philosophies about people and society grew in prominence during the 18th century. Enlightenment philosophers such as Montesquieu, Voltaire, Cesare Beccaria and Jeremy Bentham criticized political and legal institutions and advocated social reforms based on the assumption that people were rational, deliberative beings. Such ideas constituted the first major school of organized, naturalistic thought about criminal law, criminality, and appropriate responses to crime--the Classical School. Such perspectives were called naturalistic because they constructed theories locating the causes of crime in natural characteristics of human beings as opposed to supernatural theories emphasizing demonic causes. Classical theorists assumed that most people were capable of rational calculation of gains and costs and that criminality was a choice. Laws were to be designed and enforced based on that principle. Contemporary deterrence theory, rational choice theory, and social learning theory in criminology incorporate these same assumptions. The philosophical emphasis on rationality, coupled with growing acceptance of scientific observation in the study of the natural world, first converged in the work of European Cartographers in the mid 19th century. The cartographers charted crime and other social problems using statistics compiled by government officials, an approach that would dominate criminology for much of its history. The cartographers compiled and analyzed statistics on crime in Belgium (Adolphe Quetelet), France (A. M. Guerry), Germany (Alexander von Oettingen) and England (Henry Mayhew, Joseph Fletcher, Charles Booth). They were the first to recognize the distinction between crime as a property of societies, regions, or social settings and criminality or criminal behavior as a characteristic of individuals. Wealthy areas of their societies could have

Criminology: Historical Development higher property crime rates than poor areas because of access to property (availability or opportunity in 20th century criminology) regardless of the characteristics of the individuals committing crimes. This ecological or geographic approach became a central feature in the work of one of the founders of a sociological approach to deviance, the French scholar, Emile Durkheim. In his classic work, Suicide (1897), he depicted both suicide rates and crime rates as normal features of society that could be studied empirically and linked to variations in religious, familial and political characteristics. In England, Henry Mayhew (1851, 1862) documented patterns of crime and delinquency in the nation and in London. He was particularly interested in rookeries of crime in London-areas that had had traditions of crime for several centuries. He complemented his documentation

of the distribution of crime with delineation of the experiences of people in specific areas based on interviews of the people in those areas and narratives provided by professional criminals. The use of such ethnographic material was a major contribution to the development of criminology as a social science. Moreover, Mayhew believed that habitual, repetitive offenders were the crux of the crime problem--a belief shared by many contemporary criminologists who view career offenders as responsible for an inordinate amount of crime and delinquency. Voss and Petersen (1971: 5) note that the work of the European cartographers was eclipsed by the influence that Charles Darwin had on a variety of disciplines in the late nineteenth century. In Descent of Man (1871) Darwin argued that, although more highly evolved in terms of certain skills, humans were merely one species in the animal world. Darwin's ideas influenced two "schools" of criminology, the Italian "positivists" and the "Chicago school" in America. Although the cartographers were the first to apply scientific methods to the study of

Criminology: Historical Development crime, the Italian physician, Cesare Lombroso, is credited as the "father" of criminology as a

scientific discipline. Lombroso's approach was "positivistic" in that generalizations about crime and criminality were to be derived from observations and measurements of people and societies (i.e., application of the positive methods of science). He reported on climatic, social and economic correlates of crime, but his most consequential work on individual criminality emphasized biological traits. Criminality was correlated with primitive characteristics indicative of earlier stages of primate-human evolution called atavism. His Crime, Its Causes and Remedies (1911) was one of the first major research monographs on crime. A revolutionary development in theories of problem behavior (including crime) at the beginning of the twentieth century was psychoanalytic theory, formulated by Sigmund Freud. The psychoanalytic school emphasized instinctive urges shared by all humans (id) that could result in criminality without adequate awareness of reality and probable consequences (ego) or a social conscience (superego). The healthy human personality allowed satisfaction of urges within the limits set by the external social and physical world. Mental and behavioral problems result from abnormal personality development. Inadequate superego or ego development are particularly relevant to understanding criminality. In later years August Aichhorn (1936) and Kate Friedlander (1947) applied psychoanalytic perspectives to delinquent youth (Delinquency refers to the criminal offenses of non-adults and for much of history included non-criminal behaviors called "status offenses"). Another challenge to the emphasis on biological traits in the explanation of criminality was Willem Bonger's Marxist theory elaborated in 1916 in Criminality and Economic Conditions. Bonger argued that economic organization is fundamental to the explanation of crime and

Criminology: Historical Development criminality. Patterns of crime over time and social space could be explained in terms of the

distribution of poverty, inequality and fluctuations in the economy. Individual criminality could be attributed to the money-driven "egoism" engendered in Western capitalist society. Self-centered egoism facilitated criminality although inhibiting forces such as adult supervision could overcome such pressures. The American foundation for a sociological criminology was developed by scholars and researchers associated with the University of Chicago in the first quarter of the twentieth century. Charles Darwin had prompted interest in the study of the relation between living organisms and their environment (ecology) and two sociologists, Robert Park and Ernest Burgess (1921), extended that concept to encompass human groups (human ecology). Concepts used in the description of plant and animal ecology were applied to the development of human relationships (e.g. competition, dominance, succession and symbiosis). In the process of seeking shelter and work people formed natural areas with the resources at their disposal determining their proximity to the central business area and surrounding industry. While debates emerged about the factors determining who got sorted into what area (e.g. resources, discrimination and/or cultural preferences) , the zones that emerged as Chicago grew were found to have distinct rates of crime, delinquency and other problems. In short, patterns of human misbehavior were not random but were organized in a systematic fashion. The most consequential research for the development of criminology was Clifford Shaw and Henry McKays study of Chicago (1929) which described and sought to explain the distribution of a variety of social problems in the city of Chicago. The observation that certain areas tended to keep high rates despite successive changes in the ethnic groups residing in them

Criminology: Historical Development suggested that those problems were a) generated by the social conditions experienced by these groups rather than by any genetic or biological predisposition and/or b) by traditions of crime and delinquency that develop and are perpetuated through interaction among new and established members of social areas.

In addition to analysis of the distribution of problems among social areas, the scholars and researchers constituting the Chicago school systematically documented the activities, culture and organization of distinct groups of people in the city of Chicago, ranging from The Polish Peasant (Thomas and Znanieki (1927) and The Ghetto (Wirth 1928) to The Hobo (Andersen 1923), the Taxi-Dance Hall (Cressey 1932) and The Gang (Thrasher 1927). In his research on gangs Frederick Thrasher identified regularities in the emergence of gangs that still hold true today. Based on his training at the University of Chicago, Edwin Sutherland expanded and systematized a sociological explanation of crime and criminality in editions of his Principles of Criminology, first published in 1924. By the 1939 version he had developed a clear set of propositions. He proposed an explanation which emphasized 1) conflicting definitions of appropriate and inappropriate conduct as key to the distribution of crime among social settings and 2) differential association with people communicating conflicting definitions to explain individual criminality. Sutherland's systematic elaboration of a theory of both crime and criminality in a set of nine fundamental propositions earned him honors as the most influential theoretical criminologist of the twentieth century. Applied to delinquency, the central proposition of differential association was simply that "A person becomes delinquent because of an excess of definitions favorable to violation of law over definitions unfavorable to violation of law." Definitions were the symbolic messages communicated in everyday interaction with significant

Criminology: Historical Development

others such as parents, peers and teachers. Sutherland's perspective was defended and applied to a variety of types of crime by his student, Donald Cressey. By the 1940s the notion that certain areas of cities were criminogenic because they were disorganized had been replaced by notion that such areas were differentially organized. High rate areas had different traditions or competing and conflicting subcultural traditions. With his work on Culture, Conflict and Crime in 1938, the University of Pennsylvania criminologist, Thorsten Sellin played a major role in reinforcing the shift away from social disorganization and towards conflicting subcultural norms in the explanation of crime. Solomon Kobrin, who did some of his graduate work at Chicago and worked at Shaw and McKay's Institute for Juvenile Research, added to this shift by stressing the duality of conduct norms in the urban child's neighborhood. Similar ideas about the subcultural origins of gang delinquency were elaborated in later years by Walter Miller, a cultural anthropologist. In the 1960s, Marvin Wolfgang and Franco Ferracuti proposed an explanation of regional, racial and demographic variations in violence in terms of subcultural norms and traditions as well. A distinct theoretical tradition emphasizing a specific type of disorganization as a source of criminality was elaborated by the Columbia sociologist, Robert K. Merton, in 1938. Merton expanded on the notion of anomie which had been introduced by Emile Durkheim in the explanation of suicide. Durkheim had argued that economic crises and fluctuations could drive people to suicide because rules regulating behavior become unstable and ambitions get out of step with reality. Applying a similar logic, Merton argued that high rates of deviance are generated in anomic social systems where there is a strong emphasis on economic success coupled with inequality in opportunity to realize success legitimately. The pursuit of success by illegal

Criminology: Historical Development "innovative" means is viewed as one adaptation to strain. Illegal innovation in pursuit of commonly shared success goals is viewed as a common lower-class response to frustrated ambitions but there are other ways to adapt as well. Some people might adapt to strain by giving

up pursuit of success goals and retreating through the use of drugs, suicide or mental illness. Still others might rebel and attempt to change the system. The logic of Merton's theory with its emphasis on widely shared goals coupled with unequal opportunity is the basis for designating it as a "strain" theory. Other theorists have followed the same logic introducing other forms of discrepancy between goals and means as a source of frustrated ambitions. In 1955 Albert Cohen took issue with Merton's rather instrumental view of lower class crime and delinquency and introduced emotion and anger into strain theory. He sought to explain male gang delinquency and what he believed to be the hostile, negativistic content of a gang contraculture. The source of anger and hostility was status frustration. Such frustration was generated by the widely shared desire for the good opinion of teachers coupled with limited possession of the social and cultural attributes necessary to achieve such respect. Just as Merton's innovators could overcome limited opportunity through criminal and delinquent activity, Cohen's youth could solve status problems collectively by reversing conventional standards of evaluation. A delinquent contraculture was a collective solution to lower-class status frustration. Another elaboration of a strain theory logic was proposed by Richard Cloward and Lloyd Ohlin in Delinquency and Opportunity (1960). They proposed that the outcome of strain varied depending on the nature of illegitimate opportunities available to youth. If adult criminal enterprises were available the outcome would be a criminal subculture of delinquent youth. In

Criminology: Historical Development settings where organized illegitimate opportunities were not available, delinquent gangs would

exhibit the characteristics of a violence-prone, conflict subculture. Youth who were unable to join or succeed in conflict or criminal subcultures were double failures and candidates for retreatist subcultures. Their theory was a theoretical integration of elements of Merton's strain theory and Sutherland's theory emphasizing illegal associations and opportunities. Two popular types of theories addressing the crime problem in the 1960s and 1970s were 1) critical, radical and Marxist theories and 2) labeling theories. Both British (e.g. Paul Hirst, Geoff Pearson, Ian Taylor, Paul Walton and Jock Young) and American (William Chambliss, Anthony Platt, Austin Turk, Richard Quinney, Herman and Julia Schwendinger) criminologists mounted radical challenges to traditional criminological theories and methods and located the source of societal problems in the capitalist political and economic systems. Criminality among the disadvantaged was a natural outcome of their economic marginality. With little or nothing to loose, few promising alternatives and continual pressures to prove one's worth through material possessions, criminality becomes a relatively attractive choice. Radical critics also believed that the focus of criminology on street crimes and the crimes of the powerless detracted from attending to more fundamental criminogenic problems in society such as inequality and racism. A labeling theory of juvenile delinquency had been advocated quite early in criminology by Frank Tannenbaum in Crime and the Community (1938). Tannenbaum applied the notion of selffulfilling prophecies to juvenile delinquency. He argued that problems of delinquency were compounded by dramatizing them and that the innocent play of urban youth was often transformed into something evil through law enforcement. Howard Becker, Kai Erickson, Erich Goode, John Kitsuse, Edwin Lemert, Edwin Schur and others developed the perspective in the

Criminology: Historical Development study of drug problems, delinquency and other forms of deviance. Such arguments grew in popularity during the protests of the 1960s and 1970s when all government institutions were

10

under attack. Too many activities were being criminalized by the government and various interest groups were viewed as transforming minor problems, believed to be matters of choice (abortion, marijuana use, etc.) into major crime problems. Labeling theories shared much in common with radical theories, attributing the persistence of crime problems to ill-conceived societal reactions to them. Like radical criminologists, labeling theorists were critical of traditional causal perspectives. Rather than focus on the causes of criminality, they highlighted the role of interest groups in shaping the law and law enforcement to their own advantage. The critiques of criminology by radical and labeling theorists helped solidify the three-fold scope of criminology as the study of law-making and reactions to law-breaking as well as the study of law-breaking. A major methodological development in criminology played a role in the development of some of the arguments of radical and labeling theorists. In the 1940s, sociologists began experimenting with the use of questionnaires and surveys asking people to report on their own involvement in crime and delinquency and the technique gained popularity in the late 1950s with the work of F. Ivan Nye and James F. Short, Jr. (1957). Not only did Nye and Short show the feasibility of the self-report method in the study of delinquency, but their findings immediately challenged conventional assumptions about social class in relation to crime and delinquency. The fact that some of the patterns that had dominated criminological discourse appeared to be products of law enforcement rather than variations in

Criminology: Historical Development behavior, provided a foundation for radical and labeling critiques of the system. The self-report technique became the dominant method of studying delinquency in the 1960s and 1970s, and UCR data or

11

police statistics were nearly totally avoided. Indeed, two major theories dominating theoretical discourse in the 1970s and 80s were linked intimately to the development of survey methods--Travis Hirschi's social control theory (1969) and Ronald Aker's social learning theory (1977). In contrast to earlier American theories, neither social control theory nor social learning theory focused specifically on variations among classes or demographic categories of people. Both proposed more immediate variables that affect criminality, regardless of their distribution in the social system. Hirschi's social control theory shared many of the characteristics of earlier social disorganization theories and similar theories proposed by Scott Briar and Irving Piliavin, F. Ivan Nye, Walter Reckless, Albert Reiss, Gresham Sykes and David Matza and Jackson Toby. When applied to delinquency the theory posited that the odds of delinquent behavior were low when youth were emotionally bonded to others (attachment), committed to conventional goals (commitment), accepted laws as morally binding (belief) and were occupied in conventional activities (involvement). While most of these variables had been proposed in earlier theories, Hirschi's elaboration drew considerable attention because he identified crucial differences between this perspective and both strain and cultural deviance theory. Moreover, he presented empirical tests relevant to his view of those distinctions using self-reprt survey data. As a theory of criminality social learning theory emerged from a combinations of principles derived from behaviorist operant learning theory (most closely identified with the psychologist

Criminology: Historical Development

12

B.F. Skinner) and other psychological theories stressing vicarious learning and imitation (Albert Bandura and Richard Walters). Robert Burgess and Ronald Akers reformulated differential association theory in terms of operant learning theory in 1966, and Akers elaborated a more general social learning theory in later works. According to social learning theory, the balance of criminal or delinquent conduct versus conforming behavior is a function of a) differential reinforcement of those behaviors, b) differential learning of norms or rules that govern behavior at other times and c) the observed behavior and its consequences for primary sources of reinforcement such as parents and friends. In contrast to the exclusive emphasis of social control theory on barriers, social learning theory added learned motivational forces. Moreover, although it was originally proposed as a reformulation of Sutherland's theory, the inclusion of nondefinitional and nonsocial learning processes distinguishes it from that perspective. Akers theory focused on learning experiences that could be measured using survey data and most research on that perspective has relied on that methodology. An earlier line of theoretical development involving learning theories stressed principles of classical learning and was applied specifically to crime by Gordon Trasler (1962). Trasler argued that criminal and delinquent behavior are most probable for people who are resistant to escapeavoidance conditioning. Such conditioning requires that cues in learning situations have been coupled with unpleasant involuntary nervous and glandular system reactions that prompt avoidance of those situations in the future. If such coupling has not occurred or the individual's autonomic nervous system (ANS) is slow to react or recover, then such conditioned reactions will not inhibit criminal or delinquent behavior. The most recent lines of theoretical development in criminology have been feminist

Criminology: Historical Development critiques of patriarchal biases in criminological theory and research, attempts at theoretical

13

integration, elaboration of a routine-activities (opportunity) theory of crime and victimization, new, modified versions of disorganization, control, strain and anomie theories, and development of a life-course perspective on crime. The feminist critique is similar to the radical and Marxist critiques of criminology in the 1960s. While radical critics chastised criminologists for ignoring upperworld crime and the differential enforcement of laws by social class, feminist critics argue that female crime has been ignored, and that many observed patterns are products of differential law enforcement by gender. They also argue that theories developed to explain male crime and delinquency ignore dimensions of the female world and female experiences that are relevant to the explanation of low rates for violence and serious property crime as well as survival strategies such as prostitution and runaway. Among the pioneer female criminologists attempting to overcome these problems are Freda Adler (1975), Rita Simon (1975) and Meda Chesney-Lind (1974). They helped to transform the study of gender and crime into one of the central research topics bridging the 20th and 21st centuries. Theoretical integration has taken several forms. One form is the attempt to combine elements of strain, cultural deviance and control theory into an integrated theory. Delbert Elliott, David Huisinga and Suzanne Ageton (1985) have proposed an integrated theory of delinquency in which high levels of status frustration (a strain theory variable) and weak conventional bonds (a control theory variable) lead youth to seek out and imitate delinquent peers (a differential

Criminology: Historical Development association-social learning variable) with delinquent peers as the major intervening mechanism

14

leading to delinquency. This form of integration focuses on proximate causal mechanisms in each theory and ignores conflicting assumptions at the macro-level concerning such issues as delinquent subcultures, contracultures, and the structural origins of motivational forces. Another form of integration combines biological, psychological and sociological variables. James Q. Wilson and Richard J. Hernstein (1985) propose an integrated theory emphasizing criminality as a choice that is affected by variables at the bio-psychological level such as conditionability and psychopathology as well as proximate mechanisms stressed by control, strain and cultural deviance theorists. While proposed as a theory, there is no clear specification of the range of variables to be included. All the theory demands is the inclusion of some variables from each category. Modified versions of disorganization, control and strain theory have been proposed recently as well. Tenets of the social disorganization approach have been revitalized by Rodney Stark (1980) in the form of a social integration theory and Robert Bursik and Harold Grasmick (1993) in their specification of the different ways in which neigborhoods or areas can be organized or disorganized. John Hagan, A.R. Gillis and John Simpson (1985) combine the neo-Marxist emphasis on power relationships as the most crucial dimension of stratification with some elements of social control theory to predict a positive relation between class and delinquency. Michael Gottfredson and Travis Hirschi (1989) have proposed a modified version of control theory emphasizing "self-control" as the key mechanism for understanding criminality and other forms of reckless, fraudulent or dangerous behavior. Opportunity to commit offenses is included as a variable as well, a notion borrowed from another recent theory called "routine activities

Criminology: Historical Development

15

theory." Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson (1979) propose to explain crime and victimization rates in terms of the availability and vulnerability of people and property, variables that affect the opportunity for crime. While not proposed as a theory of individual criminality, opportunity to commit crimes can affect the degree to which other causal factors actually result in criminal or delinquent behavior. Finally, Charles Tittle (1995) has combined ideas from a variety of these theories and proposed a control-balance theory of deviance and crime in which various forms of deviance can be attributed to deficits or surpluses of power or control. Modified versions of strain theory have been developed as well. Robert Agnew (1992) has proposed a version of strain theory called a "general strain" theory, arguing that criminality is affected by a) actual or anticipated failure to achieve virtually any positive goal, b) the actual or anticipated removal of positively valued stimuli and c) actual or anticipated presentation of negatively valued stimuli. On a more ecological or global level, Steven Messner and Richard Rosenfeld (1994) have elaborated an institutional anomie theory in which high crime rates are a product of breakdown in social institutions caused by dominance of pecuniary, economic values or goals. Both generalized strain and institutional anomie theories draw on ideas from a variety of theories, but maintain the anomie-strain tradition. Another recent development in criminological theory and research is advocacy of a life course perspective. This approach can be contrasted with perspectives such as self-control theory in which the causes of criminal behavior and the experiences associated with it are products of traits established quite early in childhood. The life course perspective draws on other theories such as social control and social learning to explain different paths taken at various crucial points in the course of peoples lives. Robert Sampson and John Laub (1993), Rolf Loeber

Criminology: Historical Development (1996), Mark Warr (1998) and others.

16

The basic methods used to build criminology as a scientific disciplineanalysis of official data, ethnographies and self-report surveyswere developed between the mid-19th and mid-20th centuries. The major methodological developments in the late 20th century include the compilation and analysis of victimization survey data, longitudinal panel surveys and improvements in both national and international data on officially recognized crime. The collection of data on victimization and the experiences of victims have provided an alternative measure of crime over time and crime on an ecological scale as well as facilitating the study of reactions to crime (e.g. decisions to call the police and fear of crime). Research designs that follow panels or cohorts of subjects over long periods of time have allowed criminologists to address issues of causal order and to examine variations over the life course. Finally, the compilation of more detailed data on officially recognized crimes on a national (e.g, the F.B.I. Supplementary Homicide Reports) and international (United Nations and World Health Organization) scale have stimulated new lines of research on types of homicide and global variations. While it is common to define criminology in terms of the convergence of a subject matter with a methodology, criminology has also been defined broadly as the cluster of fields that bear some relation to crime (Quinney 1970: 102). This cluster consists of justice personnel, faculty of schools of criminal justice, policy analysts, academics with specific disciplinary allegiances (e.g. sociologists, psychologists, anthropologists) and a growing number of people with degrees in criminology and forensic science. Such diversity is reflected in the proliferation of professional associations with more than 30 national or international associations or organizations of professionals with interests in criminology, ranging from the World Society of Victimology to the

Criminology: Historical Development Correctional Education Association.

17

Two major associations in the United States are the American Society of Criminology and the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences. The American Society of Criminology was established in 1958 but grew out of efforts to organize education for law enforcement that began in the 1940s. Soon after its establishment, the dominant orientation within the society shifted towards criminological theory and research with less emphasis on issues central to justice education and law enforcement.(Morris 1974). Partly in response to this shift, the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences was established in 1963 with a focus on criminal justice research, criminal justice education, and policy analysis. Although there is overlap both in membership and subject matter, the Academy encompasses more practitioners and law enforcement personnel than the American Society of Criminology. Several decades ago, Richard Quinney (1970: 102) argued that a unified field of criminology will probably never be achieved because of the fact that several; distinct intellectual and occupational enterprises are engaged in the study and control of crime. Criminologists do share in common a belief that they are creating and/or applying knowledge or theories founded in some form of scientific research. However, there will continue to be lively debates about the merits of different theories, different methods and different ways of contributing to knowledge about crime. Further Reading

Adler, Freda. Sisters in Crime. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975. Akers, Ronald L. Criminological Theories: Introduction, Evaluation, and Application. 3rd

Criminology: Historical Development Edition. Los Angeles: Roxbury Press, 2000. Bonger, W. Criminality and Economic Conditions. Boston: Little Brown, 1916

18

Gottfredson, M. an T. Hirschi. A General Theory of Crime. CA: Stanford University Press, 1990. Hirschi, T. Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1969. Lombroso, C. Crime, Its Causes and Remedies. Boston: Little Brown, 1911 Quinney, Richard. 1970. The Problem of Crime. New York: Dodd, mead and Company. Sampson, R J. and J. H. Laub. Crime in the Making: Pathways and Turning Points Through Life. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1993.

Sellin, T. Culture, Conflict and Crime. New York: Research Council, 1938. Shaw, Clifford, F. Zorbaugh, H.D. McKay, and L.S. Contrell Delinquency Areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1929. Sutherland, E. H. Principles of Criminology. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott, 1939. Tannenbaum, F. Crime and the Community. New York: Columbia University Press, 1938. Thrasher, F. M. The Gang. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1927. Voss, H.L. and D. M. Petersen, editors. Ecology, Crime and Delinquency. New York: AppletonCentury-Crofts, 1971. Wilson, J. Q., and R. J. Herrnstein. Crime and Human Nature. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1985. Wolfgang, M., and F. Ferracuti. The Subculture of Violence. London: Tavistock, 1967.