Criminology, History of

Joachim J Savelsberg, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Lorine A Hughes, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, NE, USA
Janne Kivivuori, National Research Institute of Legal Policy, Helsinki, Finland
James F Short Jr., Washington State University, Pullman, WA, USA
Maximo Sozzo, Universidad Nacional del Litoral, Santa Fe Province, Argentina
Richard Sparks, University of Edinburgh, Scotland, UK
2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Abstract
The history of criminology is examined comparatively for four countries or regions: the United States, Latin America,
Scandinavia, and the United Kingdom. Each case history considers a common set of analytic dimensions: origin and takeoff
(time, discipline, political context); changing shapes (themes, theoretical orientations, data); changing organization (associations, journals, position in universities, government and nonprot institutes); and the political-economic environment of
criminology. Commonalities across national and regional developments and particularities of each region speak to the
conditions of criminology. Globalization is at work, partly under US guidance, but academic exports are challenged and
adapted to nation-level political, ideological, and institutional contexts.

Criminology, the study of the causes and consequences of

crime and societal and governmental responses to crime, is
today represented around the globe. Yet, its history and institutionalization vary by country and region. The relative weight
of the social science component in this multidisciplinary eld
has grown over the past century, but its prominence varies as
the eld cohabits and competes with legally oriented or biologically oriented criminologies. The history and current shape
of criminology (from here on referring to social science criminology if not otherwise specied) hinge on economic and
political conditions common to all sciences and on the
organization of academia within universities, governmentsponsored and private institutes, and disciplines already
established when criminology emerged.
Four case histories are briey described below, specically
those of the United States (US), Latin America, Scandinavia,
and the United Kingdom (UK). They display commonalities
and particularities of criminologies across the globe.
Commonalities of academic development across countries and
world regions then point at global forces that affect criminology irrespective of its geographic location. Particularities
speak to national and regional factors that contribute to local
distinctions. Examining commonalities and particularities thus
helps us understand the social conditions of criminology and
its history. As we examine our four countries/regions, each case
history considers a common set of analytic dimensions:
1. Origin and takeoff: time, discipline, political context;
2. Changing shapes: themes, theoretical orientations, data;
3. Changing organization: associations, journals, position in
universities, and government and nonprot institutes. Of
interest in its own right, the organization of criminology
also affects the substance of criminological work. Relatively
autonomous academic organizations free scholars from
immediate political and economic concerns and allow for
the formation of networks of competition and collaboration (Collins, 1998). Within universities, organizational
competition shapes the nature of newly emerging

238

disciplinary units as demonstrated for early twentieth

century sociology (Camic, 1995). The organization of
departments and journals subsequently affects the content
of scholarly work (for criminology see Laub and Sampson,
1991; Savelsberg et al., 2004; Short and Hughes, 2007).
4. Political-economic environment of criminology: While
economic surplus is a prerequisite for the differentiation
and expansion of science, political context can be restricting
and enabling. Historical research on criminology under
totalitarianism depicts limitations, while simultaneously
showing niches of free exploration within the specialized
academic eld (Wetzell, 2000 on Nazi Germany). Under
liberal democratic regimes, governments affect the
substance of criminology through funding of institutions
and research or through the stimulation of demand for
professional degree programs (Savelsberg and Flood, 2011).

Criminology in the United States

Criminology in the US emerged in the late nineteenth and early
twentieth centuries, accompanying social changes that highlighted the need for scientic studies of crime and criminals.
Police departments in rapidly growing cities broadened the
scope of public responsibility for crime and made that
responsibility problematic. Theories concerned with the effects
of prison conditions were hotly debated, and innovations
proposed; participants in these debates were part of a social
movement to construct asylums for criminals and other
unfortunates (Rothman, 1971). Concerns for children
prompted legal changes, special courts and institutions.
Journalists highlighted the association of crime and social
conditions, stimulating government and citizen, as well as
scholarly activities. Stirrings of social science concerns with
crime in the US are reected in the 1865 constitution of the
American Association for the Promotion of Social Science that
referred to goals such as Prevention and Repression of Crime,

International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 5

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.03030-0

Criminology, History of
and Reformation of Criminals (Lengermann and Neibrugge,
2007: p. 74).
Programmatic scientically inspired empirical research on
the social distribution of juvenile delinquency (Shaw et al.,
1929) led to sociological hegemony in criminology, albeit
not without challenges from biology (Rafter, 1997), while
academic texts marked the autonomy of the eld. Criminology
was integral to the dramatic growth of social sciences in the US
through the 1920s and 1930s (Rice, 1931).
The inherently interdisciplinary nature of criminology
created a great deal of theoretical ferment. Robert Mertons
(1938) theory of deviant adaptations to structural limitations
on goal attainment marked a shift toward an emphasis on
social structure. Advances in survey methodology made study
of individual delinquents and criminals more efcient.
Individual-level research and theory ourished with advances
in psychology and social psychology, and economics brought
the rational action paradigm to the eld.
Criminological theory over the past half century elaborates
and adds to insights from these disciplines and from advances
in the biological sciences, an early precursor of criminology.
Social disorganization theory and Sutherlands (see Cohen
et al., 1956) ideas of differential association and differential
social organization began a process of formalizing theory in
criminology that continues even today. Social learning theory,
borrowed from psychology, became a major perspective, as did
control and labeling theories, which owed much to their roots
in symbolic interaction theory. In recognition of failures to
explain variations of regulatory capacities of social relationships and neighborhoods, social capital, an addition to
human capital, was in turn added to as collective efcacy, and
social disorganization became systemic disorganization.
While macro- and individual-levels of explanation were
strengthened by these developments, situational contexts and
group processes received less emphasis. However, methodological and theoretical innovations in network analysis and
analysis of spatial relationships, together with new technologies for qualitative data analysis, offer promise of more holistic
scholarship in criminology (Sampson, 2012).
Formal organization of criminology came about in
conjunction with organizations devoted to law enforcement
and corrections. The American Society of Criminology evolved
from an organization formed initially for the purpose of
professionalization of police. The constitution of one of its
progenitors dened criminology as the study of the causes and
prevention of crime, including, but not restricted to, several law
enforcement and crime control goals (Morris, 1975: p. 128).
Implications of research for crime prevention and control
have been problems for criminology from its beginnings.
Debate also centers on whether criminology is a fundamental
discipline or a special interdisciplinary eld; and/or an applied
vs a theoretical- and research-oriented enterprise. Partisans of
the disciplinary view argue that criminologys association with
law and its multimethod, theoretical and empirical maturity
warrants such recognition. The dependence of criminology on
the social science and behavioral science disciplines as well as
the inuence of extrascholarly inuence on the elds subject
matter challenge this view. In either case, the lines between
criminology and its supporting disciplines increasingly are
blurred, as criminologists continue to benet from and

239

contribute to developments in theories and methods in the

social sciences, law, and other special elds, including
comparative criminology and Third World human rights and
conict (Hagan and Rymond-Richmond, 2009; Savelsberg
and King, 2011).

Criminology in Latin America

Criminology in Latin America was born when ideas of the
Italian Positivist School were imported in the 1880s, both in
the elds of law and medicine. This importation was stronger
in some national contexts such as Argentina, where the
Society for Juridical Anthropology was founded in 1888. In
the same year, the rst Latin American book on criminology
was published. Entitled Los Hombres de Presa and authored by
Luis M. Drago, it was translated into Italian and published
with a highly favorable prologue of Cesare Lombroso. The
year 1898 witnessed publication of the rst scientic journal
on criminology in Latin America, entitled Criminalogia
Moderna. In national contexts like Brazil, Mexico, Cuba, or
Argentina, between the end of the nineteenth century and the
1940s, Lombrosian ideas about the born criminal were
widely diffused and associated with strong racist
connotations.
In reaction to the biological school, challengers emerged in
the early twentieth century. They were inspired by the French
School that stressed the psychological and sociological
dimensions of crime causation (e.g., Debuyst, 1998;
Mucchielli, 1994a,b). Most prominent among these scholars
was Jose Ingenieros who developed a new classication of
criminals. He did not discard the idea of criminals as abnormal,
but he explained abnormality entirely in a psychopathological
way. Guided by this framework, Latin American universities
created rst institutional spaces for criminal anthropology and
criminology, particularly in Schools of Law and Medicine.
Further schools emerged in afliation with police and prison
institutions. For example, in 1907 the Institute of Criminology
was created within the National Penitentiary of Buenos Aires,
and Ingenieros was appointed its rst director. Throughout the
rst half of the twentieth century, positivist criminology was
consistently promoted by dictatorial and authoritarian
governments albeit with important differences across
national contexts. This movements impact on penal laws,
culture, and practices was substantial and continues to be
recognizable.
This golden age of positivist criminology reached its peak
during the 1940s. Following trends in postWorld War II
Europe, psychiatric and psychological approaches were
emphasized. The focus was always on the individual. Yet, this
era also witnessed a general decay in the volume and quality
of intellectual production. In some countries, this moment
was even labeled the era of the criminological silence.
Nevertheless, this psychopathologically reoriented positivist
criminology generated new degree programs in criminology.
Examples are the University of Buenos Aires (Argentina)
in 1966 and the University of Nuevo Leon (Mexico) in
1974. These programs, following a medical model, sought to
generate professionals for the production of diagnostic
and prognostic reports on criminals in judicial and

240

Criminology, History of

prison institutions. Yet, these experts barely inuenced the

construction of crime control policies, a role that continued to
be monopolized by criminal law professors.
Also in the 1960s, some Latin American countries began to
import sociological criminology, especially from the US. In
a further step, the 1970s witnessed a critical criminology taking
hold when new ideas from English speaking countries and Italy
were translated into Spanish. Law schools were at the epicenter
of this movement, particularly in Venezuela, Mexico, and
Colombia. The strong connection of this critical criminology
with neo-Marxist political and theoretical languages, however,
blocked these developments in countries governed by military
dictatorships like Brazil and Argentina.
Since the 1980s criminologys opening toward social
science and critical theory, in a eld previously dominated by
positivist criminology, was promoted by the processes of
democratization. Critical vocabulary was diffused and institutional spaces multiplied in law schools across Latin America.
Nevertheless this intellectual movement did not translate into
the creation of new criminology degree programs, while earlier
degree programs in the tradition of the positivist school
declined and, in some cases, were closed.
At the beginning of the 1990s, building on initiatives of the
preceding two decades, numerous researchers from different
social sciences (sociology, anthropology, and political science)
began to conduct research on crime and crime control, in many
cases beyond the label criminology as an institutionalized
academic eld. These scholars contributed new theoretical
perspectives and empirical research. New institutional spaces
were opened in schools of social sciences. In general, the relevance of these types of studies increased signicantly, beginning in the second half of the 1990s, as issues of crime and
crime control moved center stage in political and public
debates.
As a consequence, this eld of studies assumed, during these
last 20 years, a polyvalent and complex structure. Many
researchers today produce knowledge in the name of criminology, others work on similar themes but under different
disciplinary labels. Again, as empirical research and theoretical
discourse expanded, many Latin American universities created
new masters degrees in criminology. Law Schools continued to
be their prime institutional location. Simultaneously, scientic
journals emerged such as Captulo Criminolgico (1973) and
Delito y Sociedad (1992). In short, the newly emerging eld of
criminology in Latin America is a growing, complex, and
polyvalent eld. It entails strong contradictions and debates
within and faces substantial challenges regarding both knowledge production and policy relevance.

Criminology in Scandinavia
Criminology in Scandinavia, in its intellectual development,
conforms to the overall Continental European patterns. Before
the establishment of an independent social science criminology, studies of criminal behavior, policy, and law were
conducted by scholars with background in psychiatry or law.
Yet, after World War II, criminology took off as an independent social science discipline, as distinct from law and
psychiatry.

In terms of core ideas and orientations, the Scandinavian

development similarly followed the general shifts of twentieth
century criminology from the abnormality to the normality
paradigm: While earlier scholars considered crime as a manifestation of individual physical or psychological abnormality,
criminologists in the postwar years increasingly redened it as
a normal social phenomenon. The aim of understanding crime
as a societal phenomenon was adopted early on by progressive
lawyers who established so-called associations of criminalists
in Denmark (1889), Norway (1892), Sweden (1911),
Finland (1934), and Iceland (1949). In the early phase, the
gradual sociologization of criminology was spearheaded by
socially minded lawyers. In the postwar era, sociologization
gathered momentum as sociology proper emerged as the
intellectual backbone discipline of criminology. During the
1960s and 1970s, the profession of psychiatry was sidelined
from the core of criminology, while criminal law experts have
remained central.
Two factors help explain the postwar modernization and
empirical sociologization of Scandinavian criminology. First,
World War II implied a drastic break and cultural reorientation
from the Continental European tradition to the Anglophone
world. Most scientic inuences came from the US, and Nordic
social science rapidly became Americanized (Haney, 2009).
Second, since the early 1960s the Nordic governments created
a new international organ of cooperation, the Scandinavian
Research Council for Criminology (SRCC). Established in
1961, the SRCC has for more than 50 years channeled
government funding for social science criminology. In contrast,
the weight of university-based criminology varies between the
Nordic countries, ranging from Sweden with a very strong
university-based criminology to Finland where criminology is
nearly nonexistent in universities.
After the late 1960s, the uniformly Americanized, quantitative and positive approach of Nordic criminology ended as
the critique of positivism inspired some criminologists to
abandon quantitative criminology for the benet of qualitative
and critical approaches. To some extent, national criminology
cultures diverged as a result of this antipositivist turn. Over the
recent years, the internal cleavages of Scandinavian criminology have widened, a process that culminated in Swedens
secession from the SRCC in 2012.
Irrespective of such rifts, government support remains the
most important source of research funding in Scandinavia. It is
channeled through the SRCC, government research institutes,
government grants toward evaluation studies, and publicly
funded universities. An important outlet for publications is
now the Journal of Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime
Prevention (founded in 2000).
In terms of research substance, Nordic criminology is characterized by the paradigm shift from abnormality constructions
to the normality perspective. This shift was heavily embedded in
the corresponding shift of the preferred data basis of criminology: away from ofcial statistics to survey data on crime. The
very rst project of the SRCC was the Nordic Draftee Research
(NDR) project (196164) that also marks the worlds rst
internationally comparative crime survey. The NDR was
launched to show empirically that crime was very prevalent
and, therefore, statistically normal (for an in-depth history of
the normality paradigm shift in US-Scandinavian criminology,

Criminology, History of

see Kivivuori, 2011). Since then, crime measurement and

analysis of real trends, apart from recorded changes, have
remained a central concern of Nordic criminology. Victim
surveys and self-report surveys have therefore remained
favored data sources (Kivivuori and Bernbrug, 2011). The
Nordic homicide research tradition has also been strong. It
includes groundbreaking internationally comparative work of
Finnish criminologist Veli Verkko (18931955) who created
the worlds longest uninterrupted national homicide time
series for Sweden and Finland (since 1754). Throughout,
Nordic criminology has been concerned with the practical goal
of supporting an evidence-informed and nonpunitive penal
regime (Kyvsgaard, 2012). Much of the internal cohesion and
emotional energy of the Scandinavian criminological research
community derives from this motive.

Criminology in the United Kingdom

Criminology in the United Kingdom is an activity with
extended antecedents but a relatively short history. As Garland
(1988) has shown, the scientic, clinical, and reformist interests of a wide range of practitioners, but initially perhaps
especially psychiatrists and social workers, long predated the
development of research institutes, or university degree
programs, or conferences devoted to the promotion of criminology as a subject.
The generative context for the formation of criminological
discourse in Britain thus includes the activities of a range of
(mainly quite gradualist) movements for social reform and
improvement, often of Protestant religious afliation; the
widespread and intensifying attachment of respectable opinion
throughout the later nineteenth and early twentieth centuries
to science; and the specic development of a range of institutions and practices aimed at correcting the habits, morals, and
lifestyles of the disreputable poor. Emblematic here are such
innovations as the Probation of Offenders Act (1907) with its
resonant injunction to advise, assist, and befriend the
wayward, the delinquent, the inebriated.
In its articulations with the emergent penal welfare
complex (Garland, 1985) criminology in Britain thus begins
both within and outside the state. These pluralist and interventionist characteristics help to explain why there has never
been a predominance either of Beccarian Classicism or of
programmatic Positivism in British criminology despite its
attachments to science and its proximity to clinical practices.
Neither do the textbook oppositions between such paradigms
very well describe its eclectic, pragmatic, empiricist, and
reformist preferences.
The institutionalization of criminology as a t subject for
study in British universities was profoundly inuenced and
advanced in the mid-twentieth century by a number of key
European migr intellectuals. Hermann Mannheim established the presence of criminology at the London School of
Economics, the single most vital site for social science
research in the UK for much of the century, and one with
a close set of associations with inuential policy communities
especially in the Labor and Liberal parties. Mannheims
scholarly work, including the brilliant but now littleconsulted Dilemma of Penal Reform (1939) and the prescient

241

Comparative Criminology (1965) were among the most

substantial, and certainly most sociologically informed, of
the period. Meanwhile in Cambridge, Leon Radzinowicz set
about developing a permanent institutional home for
criminology in the unlikely setting of the Law Faculty of
Cambridge University. In an autobiography published as
late as 1999, Radzinowicz recalls his attraction to English
political culture as he encountered it in and after the 1930s.
It was, in his eyes, down to earth, practical, observant,
critical (Radzinowicz, 1999: p. 376). England, he asserts,
made me a realist and a pragmatist (see further Sparks,
1999: p. 454).
The inuence of Radzinowicz on the subsequent development of the subject was distinctive and substantial but nowadays culturally remote. Radzinowicz set out to create an
academic eld in the image of the virtues that he attributed to
British institutions thoroughness, decency, probity, and a lack
of ideological enthusiasm. The formation in 1960 of the
Institute of Criminology, with signicant and sustained
backing from the Home Ofce, was a watershed in the
institutionalization of British criminology. It marks
a transition from amateur enthusiasm and cottage industry
(Downes, 1988) to academic enterprise. What might seem
more unfamiliar to observers beyond the UK (and frequently
lamented nowadays by many within it) is the extent to which
during the same period the internal research branch of
government, the Home Ofce Research and Planning Unit,
also became a major producer of criminological research
(Walker, 1988; Newburn, 2011).
Yet even if the pragmatic frame of reference seen as characterizing these institutions (Cohen, 1988: p. 39) was initially
dominant it did not take long for it to receive certain signicant
shocks and challenges. Indeed, criminology rapidly became
a focal site for the political and intellectual debates and
conicts that gripped British society in the 1960s. A new
generation of social scientists, embarking on academic careers
in newly founded universities, engaged with the political and
cultural tumult of that decade, and freed from the direct
dependency of bodies like the Cambridge Institute on shortterm government research funding, brought new objects of
inquiry to the fore: deviance, social control, political conict
and state violence, police power, ideology, and the
manufacture of news, not to mention the reexive and
intentionally subversive reexamination of the claims and
effects of criminology itself.
New theoretical perspectives and concepts took center stage:
appreciation, labeling, moral panics, symbolic interactionism,
Marxism, and feminism. New institutions were assembled to
provide a platform for these perspectives and to build alliances
with radical social workers and lawyers, students, prisoners
organizations and campaigns against state violence. Foremost
among these were the National Deviancy Conference
(196879) and the European Group for the Study of Deviance
and Social Control (founded in 1973 and still in existence).
The radical movement sought to extend criminologys
intellectual range and reach, its theoretical ambitions and
disciplinary frame of reference as well as adding hugely to its
scholarly productivity. For example, in an emblematic
contribution The New Criminology (Taylor et al., 1973) set out
a bold and inuential prospectus for a fully social theory of

242

Criminology, History of

deviance. The new generation also promoted a more

cosmopolitan approach, forming connections with European
abolitionists, antipsychiatrists, and a range of other activists
and social movements. The small, somewhat insular, rather
atheoretical world of mainstream British criminology had
been subverted almost as soon as it had been established
(see further Loader and Sparks, 2012).
The resulting ironies and ssures are never far to seek in
the subsequent development of criminology as a discipline. As
the most acute of its radical observer-practitioners notes: The
more successful our attack on the old regime, the more we
received PhDs, tenure, publishers contracts and research
funds, appeared on booklists and examination questions,
and even became directors of institutes of criminology
(Cohen, 1988: p. 8). Thus, in one of the places in the world
where criminology has expanded most rapidly, allegations of
its failure, or betrayal or irrelevance are most persistently
debated (Loader and Sparks, 2010: Chapter 1). There is
a great deal more that might be said not least that Britain is
not now, and has really never been, a single place; and that
the criminological cultures of Scotland, Wales, and Northern
Ireland merit attention that space here forbids (see, e.g.,
McAra, 2008).
Criminology in Britain appears to have become one of those
academic formations whose health thrives upon what are often
negative developments in the institutions it studies their
politicization, the repeated shocks to their legitimacy. It exhibits
a permanent duality, as both a critical and a governmental
discourse (Garland and Sparks, 2000; Garland, 2011), and to
invite takeover bids and denunciations from partisans on either
side. Its relationship to government and public policy remains
integral, yet unlikely ever to recapture the intimacy, or easy
alignment of worldviews, that characterized its birth.

Comparative Notes and Conclusions

Examining the history of criminology in four countries or
regions shows common patterns and differences. Common
trends during the twentieth century include shifts away from
biologically and psychiatrically toward sociologically inspired
ways of thinking and conducting research on issues of crime
and crime control. They also include an increasing institutionalization of the eld, with its own departments, degree
programs, journals, and funding sources.
Despite such secular commonalities, differences in the
course of these developments and in the current state of
criminology are substantial. A social scientically oriented
criminology emerged rst and most prominently in the US,
reective of a weak central state in times of rapid societal
transformations and massive social problems (Hamilton and
Sutton, 1989). Its emergence in Europe coincides only with
the end of World War II, and its establishment in Latin America
lags even more. The country/region accounts speak to potential
explanations. The political context of an academic eld with
applied leanings obviously matters. A sociologically oriented
criminology had chances in Latin America only with the demise
of military dictatorships. In Scandinavia, criminology with its
centralized government funding takes on a particular character,
with specic methodological and thematic foci to reect

concerns of the Scandinavian welfare states. Also in the UK

government funding contributed to the establishment of major
research initiatives and institutions even if an academic
counterculture soon reacted to this alliance between
government and the academy.
We see further that academic elds do not exist in national
isolation. The stories about Scandinavia and Latin America are
stories of a movement toward globalized criminology, to
some degree an example of Americanization. In the UK,
given its close historical and linguistic associations with the
US, there have also been profound inuences, but these have
been mediated by markedly different origins, and sharply
distinct institutional and political conditions. In short, globalization leaves different traces in different national contexts.
Latin American criminology appears to supplement the
American type of sociological criminology with a critical
criminology that was inspired by translations of Italian and
British writings with neo-Marxist leanings. Counterhegemonic movements in Latin America and the massive
tensions and inequalities in its countries appear to inspire this
trend within academia. In Scandinavia, American criminology
was incorporated in the welfare state concerns of the Nordic
countries.
In short, a comparative study of the history of criminologies across countries and regions shows common trends and
remarkable distinctions. Economic-political contexts, the
nature of academic institutions and of the linkage between
political-administrative systems and academia contribute
to shaping the specic character criminology takes in each
country and region. Globalization is at work, partly
under US guidance, but academic exports are challenged
and adapted to nation-level political, ideological, and
institutional contexts.

See also: Anomie; Class: Social; Community Sociology;

Control, Social; Counterculture: The Classical View; Merton,
Robert K (19102003); Norms; Police: A Sociology of
Knowledge Approach; Prison Life, Sociology of; Social Justice:
Historical and Theoretical Considerations; State, Sociology of
The; Subculture, Sociology of; Underclass; Urban Violence.

Bibliography
Anitua, Gabriel I., 2005. Historias de los Pensamientos Criminolgicos. Editores del
Puerto, Buenos Aires.
Camic, Charles, 1995. Three departments in search of a discipline. Localism and
interdisciplinary interaction in American sociology, 18901940. Social Research
62, 10031033.
Cohen, Albert K., Lindesmith, Alfred, Schuessler, Karl (Eds.), 1956. The Sutherland
Papers. Indiana University Press, Bloomington.
Cohen, Stanley, 1988. Against Criminology. Transaction, New Brunswick, NJ.
Collins, Randall, 1998. The Sociology of Philosophies: A Global Theory of Intellectual
Change. Belknap/Harvard, Cambridge, MA.
Debuyst, Christian, 1998. Lecole francaise dite du millieu sociale. In:
Debuyst, Christian, Digneffe, Francois, Pires, Alvaro (Eds.), Histoire des savoirs sur
le crime et la peine. DeBoeck, Paris/Bruxelles, pp. 301356.
Del Olmo, Rosa, 1981. Amrica Latina y su criminologa. Siglo XXI, Mxico.
Del Olmo, Rosa, 1999. The development of criminology in Latin America. Social
Justice 26 (2), 1945.
Downes, David, 1988. The sociology of crime and social control in Britain, 196087.
British Journal of Criminology 28 (2), 4557.

Criminology, History of

Garland, David, 1985. Punishment and Welfare: A History of Penal Strategies. Gower,
Aldershot.
Garland, David, 1988. British criminology before 1935. British Journal of Criminology
28 (2), 117.
Garland, David, 2011. Criminologys Place in the Academic Field. In: Bosworth, M.,
Hoyle, C. (Eds.), What Is Criminology? Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Garland, David, Sparks, Richard, 2000. Criminology, social theory and the challenge of
our times. In: Garland, David, Sparks, Richard (Eds.), Criminology and Social
Theory. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Hagan, John, Rymond-Richmond, Wenona, 2009. Darfur and the Crime of Genocide.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Hamilton, Gary G., Sutton, John, 1989. The problem of control in the weak states:
domination in the United States, 18801920. Theory and Society 18, 146.
Haney, D.P., 2009. The Americanization of Social Science. Intellectuals and Public
Responsibility in the Postwar United States. Temple University Press, Philadelphia.
Kivivuori, Janne, 2011. Discovery of Hidden Crime: Self-Report Delinquency Surveys in
Criminal Policy Context. Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Kivivuori, Janne, Bernburg, J.G., 2011. Delinquency research in the Nordic countries.
In: Tonry, M., Lappi-Seppl, T. (Eds.), Crime and Justice in Scandinavia. Crime
and Justice A Review of Research. University of Chicago Press, Chicago,
pp. 405478.
Kyvsgaard, B., 2012. Criminology past and present: worries and achievements. Journal of
Scandinavian Studies in Criminology and Crime Prevention 13 (Suppl. 1), 414.
Laub, John H., Sampson, Robert J., 1991. The Sutherland-Glueck debate: on the sociology
of criminological knowledge. American Journal of Sociology 96, 14021440.
Lengermann, Patricia, Neibrugge, Gillian, 2007. Thrice told: narratives of sociologys
relation to social work. In: Calhoun, Craig C. (Ed.), Sociology in America: A History.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 63114.
Loader, Ian, Sparks, Richard, 2010. Public Criminology? Routledge, London.
Loader, Ian, Sparks, Richard, 2012. Situating criminology. In: Maguire, M., Morgan, R.,
Reiner, R. (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Criminology, fth ed. Oxford University Press,
Oxford.
Mannheim, Herman, 1939. The Dilemma of Penal Reform. Allen and Unwin, London.
Mannheim, Herman, 1965. Comparative Criminology. Routledge and Kegan Paul,
London.
McAra, Lesley, 2008. Crime, criminology and criminal justice in Scotland. European
Journal of Criminology 5 (4), 481504.
Merton, Robert K., 1938. Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review
3, 672682.
Morris, Albert, 1975. The American society of criminology: a history, 19411974.
Criminology 13 (2), 123167.
Mucchielli, Laurent, 1994a. Hrdit et millieu: le faux antagonisme franco-italien. In:
Mucchielli, Laurent (Ed.), Histoire de la criminologie francaise. LHarmattan, Paris,
pp. 189214.

243

Mucchielli, Laurent, 1994b. Naissance et decline de la sociologie criminelle

(18901940). In: Mucchielli, Laurent (Ed.), Histoire de la criminologie francaise.
LHarmattan, Paris, pp. 287312.
Newburn, Tim, 2011. Criminology and government: some reections on recent
developments in England. In: Bosworth, M., Hoyle, C. (Eds.), What Is Criminology?
Oxford University Press, Oxford.
Radzinowicz, Leon, 1999. Adventures in Criminology. Routledge, London.
Rafter, Nicole, 1997. Creating Born Criminals. University of Illinois Press,
Champaign, IL.
Rice, Stuart A. (Ed.), 1931. Methods in Social Science. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.
Rothman, David J., 1971. The Discovery of the Asylum: Social Order and Disorder in
the New Republic. Little, Brown and Company, Boston.
Sampson, Robert J., 2012. Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Savelsberg, Joachim J., Flood, Sarah M., 2011. American criminology meets Collins:
global theory of intellectual change and a policy-oriented eld. Sociological Forum
26, 2144.
Savelsberg, Joachim J., King, Ryan D., 2011. American Memories: Atrocities and the
Law. Russell Sage Foundation, New York.
Savelsberg, Joachim J., Cleveland, Lara L., King, Ryan D., 2004. Institutional environments and scholarly work: American criminology, 19511993. Social Forces
82 (4), 12751302.
Shaw, Clifford R., Zorbaugh, Frederick M., McKay, Henry D., Cottrell, Leonard S.,
1929. Delinquency Areas. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Short Jr., James F., Hughes, Lorine A., 2007. Criminology, criminologists, and the
sociological enterprise. In: Calhoun, Craig (Ed.), Sociology in America: A History.
The University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp. 605638.
Sozzo, Mximo, 2006. Traduttore Traditore. Traduccin, importacin cultural e
historia del presente de la criminologa en Amrica Latina. In: Sozzo, Mximo
(Coordinador), Reconstruyendo las Criminologas Crticas. Ad-Hoc, Buenos Aires.
Sozzo, Maximo, Salvatore, Ricardo, 2009. Criminologa moderna en Estados Unidos y
Amrica Latina (18801940). In: Dammert, Lucia (Ed.), Crimen e Inseguridad.
Polticas, temas y problemas en las Americas. Catalonia-FLACSO Chile, Santiago
de Chile.
Sparks, Richard, 1999. Review of L. Radzinowicz, adventures in criminology. British
Journal of Criminology 39 (3), 452455.
Taylor, Ian, Walton, Paul, Young, Jock, 1973. The New Criminology. Routledge,
London.
Walker, Robert, 1988. Perhaps minister: the messy world of in-house social research.
In: Bulmer, M. (Ed.), Social Science Research and Government: Comparative
Essays on Britain and the United States. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Wetzell, Richard F., 2000. Inventing the Criminal: A History of German Criminology,
18801945. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill.