LL.B. V Term |
Criminology
From Beccaria to Sutherland — Crime, Criminals & Criminal Justice
Criminology is the scientific, multi-disciplinary study of crime, criminal behaviour, criminals, and the social response to crime. These comprehensive notes cover the complete LB-5033 syllabus: Historical Development, Classical & Positivist Schools, Differential Association, Anomie, Strain Theory, Psychological Theories, Labelling Theory, Media and Crime, Victimology, Penology, and Juvenile Delinquency — integrating readings from Taft/England, Garland, Lacey, Barnes/Teeters, Sutherland, Williams, and Vold/Bernard.
1. Basic Concepts and Historical Development
1.1 Definition, Nature, and Scope of Criminology
Definition — Criminology
Criminology is the scientific, multi-disciplinary study of crime, criminal behaviour, criminals, criminal law, and the social response to crime. Coined by Italian jurist Raffaele Garofalo (1885) as criminologia. It draws from sociology, psychology, psychiatry, biology, statistics, economics, law, and anthropology.
| Area | What Criminologists Study |
|---|
| Crime | Definition, types, trends, measurement |
| The Criminal | Who, why, biological/psychological/social factors |
| Criminal Behaviour | Causes, correlates, theoretical explanations |
| Victimology | Victims, their roles, compensation |
| Penology | Punishment, prisons, rehabilitation |
| Criminal Justice | Police, prosecution, courts, corrections |
1.2 Sin, Wrong, and Crime
Distinction: Sin vs Wrong vs Crime
- Sin: Violation of divine/religious law. Pre-modern societies equated crime with sin — punishment as God's vengeance. (E.g., blasphemy, heresy)
- Wrong: Moral violation — may or may not be legally criminal. (E.g., lying, ingratitude)
- Crime: Violation of positive state law for which state prescribes punishment. Legal concept — nullum crimen sine lege. Varies across societies and time.
Crime as a Social Construct
Crime is not fixed or natural — it is socially and legally constructed. What is criminal differs across societies (cannabis: criminal in India, legal in Netherlands) and over time (homosexuality decriminalised in India in 2018). Criminologists study WHY certain conduct becomes criminalised, not just what the criminal law says.
1.3 Perspectives on Crime
| Perspective | Core Idea | Key Theorists |
|---|
| Consensus | Crime violates norms shared by the majority; criminal law reflects moral consensus | Durkheim, functionalists |
| Conflict | Criminal law defined by the powerful to protect their interests; class-based criminalisation | Marx, Quinney |
| Interactionist / Labelling | Deviance arises from social reaction, not the act itself; crime is a label applied by society | Becker, Lemert, Tannenbaum |
1.4 Historical Development of Criminology
- Pre-Classical (before 1750): Theological explanations; crime = sin; arbitrary, cruel punishment; no codified principles
- Classical Period (1764+): Enlightenment; social contract; rational choice; Beccaria's reforms
- Statistical School (1820s–40s): Guerry and Quetelet use crime statistics; crime rates stable and predictable; social correlates
- Positivist Period (1876+): Lombroso's L'Uomo Delinquente; determinism; scientific study of the criminal
- Modern (20th century): Chicago School; Sutherland (DA); Merton (strain); critical criminology; feminist criminology; restorative justice
1.5 Garland's Two Projects (Reading: Garland, Oxford Handbook)
Governmental Project + Lombrosian Project
- Governmental Project: Administrative management of crime — statistics, policing, deterrence, prison management. Descended from Enlightenment concern with rational governance.
- Lombrosian Project: Scientific study of the individual criminal — biology, psychology, individual differences. Descended from Lombroso's positive criminology.
Modern criminology = convergence of these two projects. The tension between them continues to shape the discipline.
2. Classical and Neo-Classical Criminology
2.1 Cesare Beccaria — On Crimes and Punishments (1764)
Beccaria — Philosophical Foundation
- Social Contract: Citizens surrender some liberty to the state; state's authority to punish comes from this contract, not God
- Free Will: Humans are rational beings who freely choose their actions, including criminal ones
- Hedonism: People seek pleasure, avoid pain. Crime = rational choice when anticipated pleasure exceeds anticipated punishment pain
- Secular Justice: Crime = violation of social contract, not sin against God
Beccaria's 10 Key Principles
- Legislatures define crimes AND punishments — judges have no discretion on punishment
- Judges only determine guilt — punishment follows law automatically
- Seriousness = harm to society (not intent, victim's status, divine displeasure)
- Proportionality — punishment must equal the harm, no more
- Purpose is deterrence, not retribution
- Certainty > Severity — a certain moderate punishment deters better than a severe uncertain one
- Swiftness — punishment must follow crime quickly
- Excessive severity INCREASES crime — desensitises society
- Prevention is best — "It is better to prevent crimes than to punish them"
- No torture, no secret accusations; abolish capital punishment; humanise prisons
Illustration — Certainty over Severity
A 100% chance of a small fine deters better than a 5% chance of imprisonment. Beccaria: "The certainty of a punishment, even if it be moderate, will always make a stronger impression than the fear of another which is more terrible but combined with the hope of impunity." This is the theoretical basis for modern deterrence research and modern policing strategy (visible patrol, rapid response).
2.2 Bentham — Utilitarianism and the Panopticon
Jeremy Bentham (1748–1832): principle of utility — "greatest happiness of the greatest number." Felicific calculus attempted to quantify pleasure and pain. The Panopticon prison (circular design with central surveillance tower) — prisoners cannot know when they are being watched, so they internalise control. Foucault (Discipline and Punish, 1977) used this as the emblem of modern disciplinary society.
2.3 Neo-Classical Modifications
The French Code of 1791 applied classical principles rigidly — same punishment regardless of age, mental state, circumstance. Neo-classical reforms allowed discretion for: age (juveniles), mental illness (insanity defence), extenuating circumstances, prior record. India's BNS/BNSS is essentially neo-classical.
3. Positivist Criminology
3.1 Cesare Lombroso — The Criminal Man (1876)
Lombroso — Atavism and Physical Stigmata
Italian physician, influenced by Darwin. Proposed that criminals are atavistic — evolutionary reversions to a more primitive stage. Identifiable by physical stigmata: asymmetrical skull, sloping forehead, large jaws, long arms, insensitivity to pain, etc.
Three types of criminals: (1) Born criminals (~1/3) — biologically determined, incorrigible; (2) Insane criminals — mentally ill; (3) Criminaloids (majority) — no physical features; become criminal under circumstances.
Criticisms of Lombroso
- Goring (1913) — compared 3,000 convicts with non-convicts; found NO significant physical differences — stigmata theory empirically demolished
- Sampling bias — studied only imprisoned criminals, ignoring the wider criminal population
- Circular reasoning; ignores social/economic causes; racist implications
- Lombroso himself later shifted to multi-factor environmental approach (5th edition: 1,900+ pages)
3.2 Ferri and Garofalo
Enrico Ferri — three categories of crime factors: anthropological (biological), physical (climate, geography), social (poverty, education). Rejected free will; advocated social defence not retribution.
Raffaele Garofalo — coined "criminology"; defined natural crime — acts offending universal moral sentiments of pity and probity. Eugenicist tendencies — proposed eliminating dangerous criminals.
3.3 Statistical School — Guerry and Quetelet
Moral Statistics — Forerunners of Modern Quantitative Criminology
Adolphe Quetelet (1796–1874) and André-Michel Guerry (1802–1866) showed that crime rates were remarkably stable year-to-year and correlated with social conditions (age, sex, poverty, education, season, geography). Quetelet's concept of the "average man" — crime is a predictable social phenomenon. Their work preceded and inspired Lombroso's positivism.
4. Causes of Crime — Major Theories
4.1 Biological Theories
Sheldon's somatotypes (mesomorphs more crime-prone); twin studies (higher concordance in identical twins); adoption studies (biological parental criminality more predictive than adoptive); XYY chromosome theory (discredited). Modern biosocial criminology recognises genetic-environment interaction — biology is real but partial.
4.2 Psychological / Freudian Theory
Freud's Structural Model of Psyche
- Id (the "It"): Unconscious, primitive drives — aggression, sexuality. Demands immediate gratification. "Chaotic power-house" of personality.
- Ego (the "I"): Rational mediator between id and external reality; develops through learning to defer gratification; has conscious and unconscious dimensions
- Superego (the "Over-I"): Internalized social norms and conscience; developed through identification with parents
How Crime Results
- Weak superego: Inadequate parental nurturing → failure to develop conscience → crime without guilt
- Powerful id: Overwhelming drives overwhelm ego's reality testing → impulsive crime
- Unconscious guilt: Some criminals act to be caught and punished — resolving unconscious guilt (Freud's "criminal from sense of guilt")
- Bowlby's Maternal Deprivation: Early separation from mother → disrupts bonding and superego development → predisposition to antisocial behaviour
Evaluation of Psychoanalytic Theory
| Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|
| Explains irrational, compulsive, self-destructive crime | Concepts not empirically testable (unfalsifiable) |
| Accounts for unconscious motivation; emotional dynamics | Based on small clinical cases — not representative |
| Pioneered rehabilitation through therapy | Ignores social, structural, economic factors |
| Explains why punishment alone may not reform some offenders | Oedipus complex not culturally universal |
4.3 Differential Association Theory — Sutherland
Edwin H. Sutherland — Differential Association (1939) [Reading: Sutherland, Am. Soc. Review 1940; Sutherland in Dressler 1972]
The most influential criminological theory of the 20th century. Sutherland's presidential address to the American Sociological Society (1939) challenged conventional criminology by showing that crime is not caused by poverty or pathology — it is learned. The same process explains both white-collar crime (elite) and street crime (lower class).
The Nine Propositions
- Criminal behaviour is learned — not inherited; not invented independently
- Learning occurs in interaction with others in a process of communication (verbal and gestural)
- Principal learning occurs within intimate personal groups — family, close peers (not mass media primarily)
- Learning includes: (a) techniques of committing crime; (b) motives, drives, rationalisations, and attitudes
- Motives and drives are learned from definitions of legal codes as favourable or unfavourable
- Person becomes delinquent when there is an excess of definitions favourable to violation of law over definitions unfavourable — the core principle
- Associations vary in frequency, duration, priority, and intensity
- Learning criminal behaviour involves all mechanisms involved in any learning — not merely imitation
- Criminal behaviour expresses the same general needs and values as non-criminal behaviour — the ends (money, status) are the same; only the means differ
Illustration — White-Collar Crime and Differential Association
A law graduate joins a large corporation. Senior colleagues gradually normalise falsifying accounts, bribing officials, misrepresenting products as "how business works here." He is surrounded by definitions favourable to law violation. Per Sutherland, his corporate criminality is learned through differential association — exactly the same process as a gang member learning street crime. The social learning process is identical across class lines.
Evaluation of Differential Association
| Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|
| Explains white-collar AND street crime equally | Cannot explain origins of crime — who was "first criminal"? |
| Explains why some in high-crime areas do not offend | Key concepts (excess, intensity) not precisely measurable |
| Bridges individual behaviour and social structure | Cannot explain impulsive, opportunistic, passion crimes |
| Inspired successful rehabilitation programmes | Does not explain why individuals have the associations they have |
| Explains professional criminal skill-sets | Tautological — "excess" inferred from criminal outcome |
4.4 Anomie Theory — Durkheim
Emile Durkheim — Two Core Contributions [Reading: Williams, Textbook on Criminology; Vold and Bernard]
- Crime is Normal and Functional: Crime exists in all societies; it is inevitable. It defines moral boundaries; punishment of criminals reinforces the collective conscience and social solidarity. Criminals serve as the "inferior" group against whom the majority define themselves as morally superior. A society without crime would be pathologically over-controlled — even in a society of saints, minor deviations would become "crimes."
- Anomie: A state of normlessness arising when social norms fail to regulate human desires. Human desires are naturally unlimited; only society can impose limits. When social norms are disrupted by rapid change (economic boom or depression), anomie results — elevated suicide, crime, and social disintegration.
Mechanical vs Organic Societies — Durkheim
| Feature | Mechanical Society | Organic Society |
|---|
| Type | Simple, pre-industrial, primitive | Complex, modern, industrial |
| Solidarity | Based on similarity — collective conscience | Based on interdependence — division of labour |
| Role of Law | Repressive — enforce uniformity, punish deviation | Restitutive — regulate interactions between parts |
| Crime | Violation of collective conscience | More varied; anomie may develop |
| Anomie | Less likely (strong norms) | More likely (rapid change disrupts norms) |
Critical Assessment of Durkheim
- Lodhi and Tilly: crime in France did NOT actually increase during the Industrial Revolution — Durkheim assumed but never demonstrated this
- Modern research: modernisation → higher property crime but LOWER violent crime (partly contrary to Durkheim)
- Spitzer: more developed societies have MORE severe punishments — opposite of Durkheim's prediction
- Chambliss: "crime waves" in Puritan Massachusetts served to eliminate rival power centres, not reinforce moral boundaries
4.5 Strain Theory — Merton
Robert K. Merton — Strain / Means-End Theory (1938) [Reading: Williams, Textbook on Criminology]
Merton revised Durkheim's anomie to explain high US crime rates. Unlike Durkheim (anomie from breakdown of norms), Merton saw anomie as endemic to American society's structure: the "American Dream" encourages everyone to aspire to wealth, but legitimate means (education, employment) are unequally distributed. This structural gap creates strain, producing crime especially among the lower class. His theory is called a "means-end theory" — it analyses the relationship between cultural goals (ends) and institutional means.
Merton's Five Adaptations
| Mode | Goals | Means | Crime? | Example |
|---|
| Conformity | ✓ Accept | ✓ Accept | No | Honest hard work despite limited returns |
| Innovation | ✓ Accept | ✗ Reject | Yes — MOST CRIME HERE | Theft, fraud, drug dealing, organised crime |
| Ritualism | ✗ Abandon | ✓ Accept | No | Over-cautious bureaucrat; no ambition |
| Retreatism | ✗ Reject | ✗ Reject | Sometimes | Drug addicts, chronic alcoholics, vagrants |
| Rebellion | ↔ Replace | ↔ Replace | Often | Revolutionaries, terrorists, radical gangs |
Durkheim vs Merton — Key Differences
| Feature | Durkheim | Merton |
|---|
| Source of desires | Natural, internal — unlimited by nature | Culturally defined — society sets the goals |
| Scope of anomie | Whole society | Parts of society (lower class primarily) |
| Trigger | Rapid social change (boom or depression) | Endemic structural gap; always present |
| Focus | Breakdown of moral regulation | Blocked legitimate opportunities (strain) |
| Policy implication | Strengthen moral norms; slow change | Reduce inequality; expand legitimate opportunity |
Critique of Merton's Strain Theory
- Does not explain white-collar crime by the already-wealthy (Sutherland's critique)
- Assumes universal acceptance of material success as a cultural goal — ignores subcultural variation
- Does not explain expressive crimes (passion, violence with no material goal)
- Over-predicts lower-class crime rates — most lower-class individuals are conformists
4.6 Social Learning Theory — Bandura and Kohlberg
Bandura — Bobo Doll Experiment and Social Learning (1961)
Bandura's Social Learning Theory
Children who observed adults aggressively beating a Bobo Doll (without punishment) imitated the aggression significantly more than control groups. Demonstrates modelling — learning by observation, not only direct experience. Key mechanisms: (i) modelling; (ii) vicarious reinforcement; (iii) self-reinforcement; (iv) moral disengagement — rationalising criminal acts by relabelling ("I was just doing business"; "the victim deserved it").
Differential Reinforcement Theory (Burgess and Akers)
Extended Sutherland using operant conditioning — criminal behaviour reinforced (repeated) when rewards outweigh punishments. External rewards: money, status, peer approval. Internal rewards: neurological "high" from risk (dopamine). White-collar crime: few negative reinforcers (low prosecution risk, no social stigma) → behaviour continues.
Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development
- Pre-conventional (Stages 1–2): Stage 1 — obey to avoid punishment; Stage 2 — maximise personal gain. Criminals typically remain here.
- Conventional (Stages 3–4): Stage 3 — please others, be "good"; Stage 4 — KEY TRANSITION: obey law because society depends on order.
- Post-conventional (Stages 5–6): Stage 5 — laws as social contract; Stage 6 — universal ethical principles; obligation to disobey unjust laws.
Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) — used in UK Probation Service's "What Works" programme — aims to advance offenders from pre-conventional to conventional moral reasoning.
Deindividuation Theory
Le Bon, Zimbardo — loss of self-awareness and individual moral responsibility in crowds or when anonymous. SIDE theory (Social Identity model of Deindividuation Effects) — shift from personal to group identity; behaviour governed by group norms (which may be criminal). Internet anonymity = modern deindividuation (cybercrime, online mob behaviour).
4.7 Labelling Theory
Labelling / Societal Reaction Theory — Becker, Lemert, Tannenbaum
Deviance is not a quality of the act itself but a result of the social reaction to it. Howard Becker: "Deviant behaviour is behaviour that people so label." The criminal justice system, in attempting to control crime, may create more of it by stigmatising individuals with a criminal identity.
Key Concepts
- Primary Deviance (Lemert): Initial deviant acts; minor; do not fundamentally alter self-concept or social identity
- Secondary Deviance (Lemert): Deviance as a response to the social reaction — once labelled criminal, the person reorganises their identity around that label. They become what society says they are.
- Stigma (Goffman): A "spoiled identity" — the criminal label permanently affects employment, relationships, and self-concept
- Dramatization of Evil (Tannenbaum): First acts labelled evil; person internalises label; system reinforces it; criminal career is created
- Moral Panics (Cohen): Episodes where groups are defined as threats to societal values — disproportionate control responses that may amplify the very behaviour targeted
- Reintegrative Shaming (Braithwaite, 1989): Shame the act + reintegrate the person. Stigmatising shaming (prisons) increases recidivism; reintegrative shaming (restorative justice) can reduce it
Policy Implications of Labelling Theory
| Policy Area | Labelling-Based Reform |
|---|
| Juvenile Justice | Diversion — handle juveniles informally to avoid criminal label |
| Decriminalisation | Remove criminal label from minor/victimless offences |
| Restorative Justice | Repair harm without formal criminal conviction/stigma |
| Prison Reform | Reduce prison populations; avoid mass criminalisation |
4.8 Media and Crime
| Position | Argument | Evidence |
|---|
| Effects Model | Media violence causes criminal violence through modelling and desensitisation | Bandura's Bobo Doll; 1,000+ studies linking media to aggression (Sims & Gray); Newson's expert statement |
| No-Effect / Inverse | No causal link; may even be protective | Hagell & Newbury: persistent offenders don't watch more violence; Messner: TV exposure inversely related to violent crime; German VFM study: media violence increases sympathy for victims |
| Correlation / Third-Variable | Correlation exists but no causation; a third factor (pre-existing aggression) explains both | Most evidence shows increased aggression, not criminal violence; 99% of viewers don't become violent |
James Bulger Case — Moral Panic and Criminal Policy
In 1993, two 10-year-old boys killed toddler James Bulger in Liverpool. The trial judge (without evidence) suggested exposure to "Child's Play III" may have contributed. The press treated this unproven speculation as fact — classic moral panic. This led to Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 s.89 — restricting video content — despite no established link in the actual case. British Board of Film Classification had already noted that in almost all similar cases, the alleged perpetrator had prior convictions for violence.
5. Criminology, Criminal Law, and Criminalization (Lacey)
Nicola Lacey — Criminalization as Unifying Framework [Reading: Lacey, Oxford Handbook of Criminology]
The prevailing academic division between criminology (causes of crime), criminal law (what acts are crimes?), and criminal justice (how does the system respond?) creates problematic blind spots. Criminalization — the dynamic process by which conduct comes to be defined, responded to, and enforced as criminal — bridges all three, accommodating empirical, interpretive, and normative projects.
What Criminology Brings to Criminal Law
- Disparate enforcement statistics (race, class, gender) undermine criminal law's claim to neutrality and equal protection
- Knowledge about crime causes should inform sentencing and penal policy
- Reveals whose behaviour gets criminalised — the political dimensions of criminal law
What Critical Criminal Law Brings to Criminology
- Close reading of doctrine reveals unstated assumptions about subjects, responsibility, and gender
- Examples: rape law (subjective fault standard); domestic violence law (immediate response requirement); corporate manslaughter (difficulty of proving corporate mens rea)
- Changes in the frontier of criminality reflect political power dynamics, not moral consensus
6. Victimology
Definition and Scope
Victimology is the scientific study of crime victims — their characteristics, relationship with offenders, interaction with the criminal justice system, and effects of crime on them. Founded by Hans von Hentig and Benjamin Mendelsohn in the 1940s.
Key Concepts
- Victim Precipitation: Some victims contribute to their victimisation through behaviour (Wolfgang's homicide study). Criticism: leads to victim-blaming, esp. in sexual assault. Feminist criminology strongly critiques this concept.
- Repeat Victimisation: Some individuals/places are victimised repeatedly — enables targeted prevention.
- Secondary Victimisation: Further harm from CJS response — insensitive questioning, disbelief, public exposure, lengthy proceedings, victim-blaming by police/courts.
- Vulnerability Factors: Age (children, elderly), gender (women: domestic violence, sexual assault), socioeconomic status, disability, prior victimisation.
Mendelsohn's Typology of Victims
| Type | Description |
|---|
| Completely innocent victim | No contribution whatsoever (random street attack) |
| Minor guilt victim | Minor negligence contributed (left car unlocked, wallet visible) |
| Victim as guilty as offender | Mutual consent to dangerous situation (consensual fight) |
| Victim more guilty | Substantial provocation by victim |
| Most guilty victim | Aggressor victimised during commission of own crime (burglar killed by homeowner) |
| Imaginary victim | No actual crime — false report |
Victimology in India
- S. 357, 357A CrPC/BNSS — victim compensation schemes
- POCSO Act 2012 — comprehensive protection for child victims
- Nirbhaya Fund 2013 — violence against women; One-Stop Centres
- Witness protection — SC guidelines (Mahendra Chawla v. Union of India, 2018)
- S. 228A IPC/BNS — prohibition on publishing rape victim identity
- India still lacks a comprehensive Victim Rights statute
7. Penology — Theories of Punishment
| Theory | Core Idea | Justification | Key Problem |
|---|
| Retribution | Punishment is deserved for crime | Kant — proportionate suffering; lex talionis | Backward-looking; doesn't reduce future crime |
| Deterrence | Punishment deters future crime | Beccaria — certain, proportionate, swift punishment | Assumes rational calculation; empirical evidence mixed |
| Incapacitation | Imprisonment removes offender from society | Public protection; if imprisoned cannot harm public | Expensive; revolving door; no reform |
| Rehabilitation | Treatment changes the offender | Crime has modifiable causes; treat the cause | "What Works" debate; recidivism rates remain high |
| Restorative Justice | Repair harm; reintegrate offender; involve victim | Crime harms relationships; restoration heals community | Not suitable for all crimes; requires victim participation |
Prisons
Modern prison emerged 18th–19th century. Foucault (Discipline and Punish, 1977): prisons are about disciplinary power — surveillance, normalisation, creating "docile bodies" — not just punishment. Bentham's Panopticon: constant potential visibility internalises control.
India: Prisons Act 1894 still largely governs; Model Prison Manual 2016 recommends reforms. Major problems: severe overcrowding, 70%+ undertrials, inadequate rehabilitation.
8. Juvenile Delinquency and JJ Act 2015
JJ (Care and Protection of Children) Act 2015 — Key Features
- Age of juvenile: Below 18 years
- Juvenile Justice Boards (JJB): Not criminal courts; magistrate + 2 social workers; child-friendly proceedings
- General rule: Maximum 3 years in Special Home; no ordinary imprisonment
- Heinous offences, 16–18 years: JJB may, after preliminary assessment of physical and mental capacity, send case to Sessions Court for adult trial — introduced after Nirbhaya public outcry
- Two categories: Children in conflict with law (offenders) vs children in need of care and protection (victims/vulnerable)
- Child Welfare Committees (CWCs): Handle care and protection cases
- Philosophy: Rehabilitation, reformation, and social reintegration — not punishment. Parens patriae principle.
- POCSO Act 2012 applies alongside JJ Act for sexual offences against children
Theories Explaining Juvenile Delinquency
| Theory | Explanation |
|---|
| Biological | Adolescent brain development; hormonal surges; impulsivity not yet controlled |
| Freudian | Poor superego development from inadequate nurturing; Bowlby's maternal deprivation |
| Differential Association | Delinquent peer groups teach attitudes and techniques; gang socialisation |
| Anomie/Strain | Lower-class youth experience greatest strain between goals and blocked legitimate means |
| Social Control (Hirschi) | Delinquency from weak bonds — attachment, commitment, involvement, belief |
| Subcultural (Cohen) | Working-class youth form delinquent subcultures as collective response to status frustration |
| Labelling Theory | Juvenile justice processing itself creates criminal careers through stigmatisation |
9. Important Questions for Exam
Short Answer Questions
1. Distinguish between sin, wrong, and crime. Why is crime described as a social construct?
Sin=divine; Wrong=moral; Crime=legal (nullum crimen sine lege). Varies across societies/time. Cannabis criminal in India, legal in Netherlands. Homosexuality decriminalised in India 2018.
2. State Beccaria's key principles of criminal justice and their philosophical basis.
Free will + social contract + hedonism. Key: certainty over severity; proportionality; swiftness; deterrence not retribution; prevention best; abolish torture.
3. What was Lombroso's concept of atavism? State the major criticisms.
Evolutionary reversion; physical stigmata identify "born criminal"; 3 types. Criticisms: Goring 1913 refuted; sampling bias; circular reasoning; ignores social factors; racist implications.
4. State all nine propositions of Sutherland's Differential Association Theory.
1-Learned; 2-Communication; 3-Intimate groups; 4-Techniques + motives/drives; 5-Definitions of legal codes; 6-EXCESS FAVOURABLE DEFINITIONS; 7-Frequency/duration/priority/intensity; 8-All learning mechanisms; 9-Same needs/values, different means.
5. Explain Merton's five modes of individual adaptation to strain.
Conformity (✓✓); Innovation (✓✗ → most crime); Ritualism (✗✓); Retreatism (✗✗ → drug addicts); Rebellion (replaces both → revolutionaries).
6. Compare Durkheim's and Merton's theories of anomie.
Durkheim: desires natural/unlimited; normlessness from rapid change; affects whole society; crime is normal. Merton: desires culturally defined; structural gap in means; endemic; affects lower class; strain → crime.
7. What is primary and secondary deviance in labelling theory?
Primary = initial acts before labelling; doesn't alter self-concept. Secondary = deviance from internalising criminal label; person reorganises identity around what society says they are.
8. Explain secondary victimisation with examples.
Further trauma from CJS response — insensitive questioning, disbelief (rape victims often disbelieved), public exposure (identity published), lengthy proceedings, victim-blaming by police/courts/media.
9. What are Garland's two projects in criminology?
Governmental (administrative management — stats, policing, deterrence) + Lombrosian (scientific study of individual criminal — biology, psychology). Modern criminology = their convergence.
10. What is moral disengagement? Give examples.
Bandura — rationalising criminal acts by relabelling: terrorist = "punishing the enemy"; thief = "the victim can afford it / deserved it"; executive = "just following company practice"; burglar = "doing a job." Removes need to feel moral guilt about harmful actions.
Long Answer / Essay Questions
1. Critically examine Sutherland's Differential Association Theory. What are its strengths and weaknesses?
All 9 propositions; white-collar crime application (his original purpose — DA explains both elite and street crime); evaluation (strengths: explains variation, learned behaviour, no pathology assumption; weaknesses: untestable, cannot explain passion crimes, tautology, origin problem).
2. "Crime is a normal social fact." Discuss Durkheim's contributions to criminology.
Crime as functional (defines boundaries, reinforces solidarity, criminals serve the "inferior" role); mechanical vs organic societies; collective conscience; anomie from rapid change; suicide study; crime enables moral progress (Socrates, Gandhi were criminals). Assessment: crime didn't actually increase during French Industrial Revolution.
3. Trace the historical development of criminology from Pre-Classical period to modern criminology.
Pre-classical (theological, arbitrary, cruel); Classical (Beccaria 1764, free will, deterrence, proportionality, social contract); Statistical school (Quetelet/Guerry, crime rates predictable, social correlates); Positivist (Lombroso 1876, atavism, determinism); Chicago School (ecology); Sutherland (DA, white-collar); Merton (strain); Labelling; Critical; Feminist; Restorative Justice.
4. Discuss Merton's strain theory and how it explains differential crime rates across social classes.
American Dream; universal goals vs unequal legitimate means; 5 adaptations (Innovation primary for crime); lower class most strained — blocked legitimate pathways; Messner/Rosenfeld — Institutional Anomie Theory. Critique: doesn't explain white-collar crime, assumes universal goals, doesn't explain expressive crime.
5. "The label of criminal is more powerful than the act of crime." Discuss labelling theory and its policy implications.
Becker's definition; primary/secondary deviance (Lemert); stigma (Goffman); dramatisation of evil (Tannenbaum); moral panics (Cohen — Bulger case); Braithwaite's reintegrative shaming. Policy: diversion, decriminalisation, restorative justice, reduce formal processing. Critique: ignores why some acts are initially deviant; denies objective harm.
6. Discuss the relationship between media and crime. Does media violence cause criminal behaviour?
Effects model (Bandura Bobo Doll, Sims/Gray 1993, Newson 1994); neutral/inverse model (Hagell/Newbury, Messner, German VFM study); correlation model (third factor); Bulger case and moral panic; BBFC 1994 report debunking; CJ&POA 1994 s89; context matters; conclusion: limited direct causation, correlation yes, universal effect no.
7. Examine victimology as a criminological discipline. Critically assess the concept of victim precipitation.
Definition and scope; von Hentig and Mendelsohn; typology of 6 victim types; secondary victimisation; repeat victimisation. Victim precipitation: Wolfgang's homicide study; criticism — victim blaming especially in rape; feminist critique; von Hentig's own typology treats victims as passive. Policy: shift from victim blaming to victim empowerment.
MCQ Practice
1. Sutherland's DA theory holds that criminal behaviour is learned primarily through:
✓ (b) Interaction with others in intimate personal groups
2. Lombroso's "atavism" concept means criminals are:
✓ (c) Evolutionary reversions — biologically more primitive individuals
3. Merton's "Innovation" adaptation involves:
✓ (b) Accepting cultural goals but using illegal means to achieve them — the principal crime-producing mode
4. Durkheim argued that crime is:
✓ (b) Normal and inevitable in any society — serves social solidarity functions
5. "Secondary deviance" in labelling theory means:
✓ (c) Deviance resulting from internalising the criminal label given by society — reorganising identity around it
6. Beccaria's key insight on deterrence was:
✓ (b) Certainty of punishment deters more effectively than severity — a certain moderate punishment > an uncertain severe one
7. Garland's "Governmental Project" in criminology focuses on:
✓ (b) Administrative management of crime — statistics, policing efficiency, prison management, deterrence
8. Hirschi's Social Control Theory argues crime results from:
✓ (c) Weak bonds to society — attachment, commitment, involvement, and belief
9. Sutherland's differential associations vary in frequency, duration, priority, and:
✓ (d) Intensity
10. Who coined the term "criminology"?
✓ (c) Raffaele Garofalo (1885)
11. Merton's "Retreatism" refers to:
✓ (d) Rejecting both cultural goals AND legitimate means — withdrawal from society (drug addicts, chronic alcoholics)
12. Bandura's Bobo Doll experiment demonstrated:
✓ (b) Children who observed unpunished adult aggression were significantly more likely to imitate it — supporting modelling/social learning
13. Criminals in Kohlberg's scheme are typically found at:
✓ (a) Pre-conventional level (Stages 1–2) — act to avoid punishment or maximise personal gain
14. Goring's 1913 study was significant because it:
✓ (b) Compared 3,000 convicts with non-convicts and found NO significant physical differences — empirically refuting Lombroso's stigmata theory
15. The James Bulger case (1993) is a classic example of:
✓ (c) Moral panic — unproven link to violent video game led to Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 s.89 restricting video content
16. "Reintegrative shaming" (Braithwaite) is based primarily on:
✓ (b) Labelling theory — shame the act but reintegrate the person; stigmatising shaming increases recidivism
17. Lacey's concept of "criminalization" serves as:
✓ (c) A unifying framework that bridges criminology, criminal law, and criminal justice studies
18. Under JJ Act 2015, juveniles aged 16–18 who commit heinous offences:
✓ (b) May be tried as adults after preliminary assessment by JJB — this is not automatic
19. "Secondary victimisation" refers to:
✓ (b) Further harm suffered by a victim through the criminal justice system's insensitive response to their victimisation
20. Durkheim's "mechanical society" is characterised by:
✓ (c) Social solidarity based on similarity and uniformity — the collective conscience; repressive law enforces conformity
Quick Revision Cheatsheet
Key Theorists and Core Ideas
| Theorist | Period | Theory | Core Idea |
|---|
| Beccaria | 1764 | Classical School | Free will; deterrence; certainty over severity; proportionality; no torture |
| Bentham | Late 18th C | Utilitarianism; Panopticon | Greatest happiness; felicific calculus; surveillance internalises control |
| Quetelet/Guerry | 1820s–40s | Moral statistics | Crime rates stable, predictable; correlate with social conditions |
| Lombroso | 1876 | Positivism; Atavism | Born criminal; physical stigmata; scientific study of offender individual |
| Ferri | Late 19th C | Criminal sociology | Social + biological + physical factors; social defence not retribution |
| Garofalo | Late 19th C | Natural crime | Universal moral sentiments of pity and probity; coined "criminology" |
| Durkheim | 1893–1897 | Anomie; crime as normal | Crime functional; mechanical vs organic; normlessness from rapid change |
| Sutherland | 1939 | Differential association | Crime is learned; excess favourable definitions = criminality; white-collar crime |
| Merton | 1938 | Strain theory; 5 adaptations | Structural gap goals/means; Innovation → most crime; lower class most strained |
| Freud | Early 20th C | Id-Ego-Superego | Weak superego → crime; unconscious guilt → self-punishing crime |
| Bandura | 1960s–70s | Social learning; modelling | Bobo Doll; vicarious reinforcement; moral disengagement |
| Kohlberg | 1950s–80s | Moral reasoning stages | 6 stages; criminals at pre-conventional; CBT targets advancement |
| Becker/Lemert | 1960s | Labelling theory | Deviance = social reaction; primary/secondary deviance; stigma |
| Braithwaite | 1989 | Reintegrative shaming | Shame act + reintegrate person; stigmatising shaming worsens recidivism |
| Garland | 1980s–90s | Two projects | Governmental + Lombrosian projects converge in modern criminology |
| Lacey | 1990s–2000s | Criminalization | Unifying framework for criminology + criminal law + criminal justice |
Merton's Five Adaptations — Memory Aid: CIRR-B
| Mode | Goals | Means | Crime? |
|---|
| Conformity | Accept | Accept | No |
| Innovation | Accept | Reject | YES — most crime |
| Ritualism | Reject | Accept | No |
| Reteatsim | Reject | Reject | Sometimes |
| Bellion (Rebellion) | Replace | Replace | Often |
Golden Rules for Exam
- Classical = free will + deterrence + proportionality. Positivist = determinism + treatment.
- Sutherland Proposition 6 is the KEY: excess of definitions favourable to violation of law = criminality. All 9 must be memorised.
- Merton: INNOVATION (accepts goals, rejects means) → most crime. NOT retreatism.
- Durkheim: anomie from RAPID CHANGE; crime is NORMAL AND FUNCTIONAL; reinforces collective conscience.
- Labelling: primary deviance → social reaction → label → secondary deviance → criminal career.
- Lombroso: born criminal (1/3), insane, criminaloids (majority). Goring (1913) empirically refuted stigmata.
- White-collar crime = Sutherland coined this; high-status persons committing crime in their occupation.
- Freud: Id = chaotic drives; Ego = rational mediator; Superego = conscience. Weak superego → crime.
- Kohlberg Stage 4 = KEY TRANSITION — recognising social rules as morally obligatory. Criminals at Stages 1–2.
- JJ Act 2015: parens patriae; age under 18; max 3 years Special Home; heinous offences 16–18 may get adult trial after assessment.