For over forty years, the global law enforcement apparatus has traded on the myth of the intuitive profiler. Popular culture remains hopelessly addicted to the comforting lie popularized by John Douglas and the early FBI Behavioral Science Unit: the fantasy that a brilliant, street-smart investigator can sit across a metal table from a monster, smoke a pack of unfiltered cigarettes, and out-read him using pure, unadulterated psychological intuition. It is a cinematic sedative designed to reassure a terrified public that the state possesses a quasi-mystical shield capable of taming absolute chaos.

In reality, the foundational architecture of 1980s profiling is a scientifically bankrupt hustle. It is a top-down, speculative guessing game built on an incredibly small, self-selecting sample of thirty-six incarcerated felons who had every evolutionary incentive to lie, perform, and romanticize their own atrocities.

The entire framework relies on a fundamentally arrogant, neurotypical egocentrism. It forces highly complex, non-linear anomalies into a childish, binary sandbox: the heroic, righteous detective versus the pathetic, socially inadequate "loser" criminal.

By immediately slapping on sensationalized legal labels and working backward to invent a neat, satisfying narrative, traditional criminology completely blinds itself to the actual engine driving anomalous offenses. It fails to recognize that many historical predators were profoundly traumatized, neurodivergent individuals whose brains were fundamentally cross-wired by severe childhood neurotrauma.

Because the old guard lacked the cognitive architecture to parse an atypical processing system, they chose to mock what they could not comprehend. They secure their own fragile intellectual superiority by waiting until an offender is defanged, caged, and broken by the penal system before stepping onto a safe, tenured platform to brand them "pathetic beta males."

This article dismantles the historical vanity of classical behavioral analysis. By re-examining the foundational misreadings of subjects like Edmund Kemper and Dennis Nilsen, it exposes how the rigid, macho templates of 20th-century policing are wholly obsolete against highly adaptive predators in a symmetrically informed digital age. To survive, modern criminology must strip away its performative moral superiority, abandon its archaic bureaucratic ego, and execute a radical institutional purge—replacing the decorated dinosaurs of the 1980s with neurodivergent specialists capable of analyzing non-linear realities without flinching.

------------------------------

1. THE "LOSER" TRAP: THE SAFE-ZONE BIASES OF DOUGLAS AND WILSON

A central tenet among traditional, mainstream criminologists—most notably John Douglas and British media academic David Wilson—is the aggressive, almost performative deconstruction of the "genius killer" myth. Wilson frequently characterizes serial offenders as "beta males trying to act like alpha males," describing them as deeply incompetent, unremarkable individuals who only succeed because they target the most vulnerable, marginalized members of society whose disappearances are ignored by an equally indifferent public.

While dismantling the romanticized Hollywood depiction of serial killers as suave, wine-swilling Hannibal Lecters is a necessary public service, the bitter irony is that the rhetoric used by these experts reveals a massive institutional bias of its own.

It is remarkably easy to label a criminal a "pathetic loser" from the absolute, sterile safety of a university lecture hall or a television studio. When Douglas or Wilson analyze these individuals, the offenders are already caught, handcuffed, stripped of their power, and thoroughly broken by the penal system. The experts speak from a secure, state-sanctioned platform of authority, backed by armed guards and institutional tenure, long after the blood has dried and the terror has subsided. To kick a caged predator and call him an idiot requires no bravery; it is an exercise in retroactive moral superiority.

Furthermore, dismissing an offender's intellect because they failed to thrive by standard societal metrics—such as climbing a corporate ladder, maintaining a white-picket-fence marriage, or scoring well on a Eurocentric, neurotypical IQ test—is a dangerous, arrogant misunderstanding of intelligence. It conflates conventional social competence with predatory intelligence.

Predatory intelligence is a highly adaptive, primal instinct for mimicry, manipulation, environmental camouflage, and rapid risk calculation under extreme pressure. A traditional investigator or academic, accustomed to operating within comfortable bureaucratic regulations and predictable social norms, is profoundly unequipped to face this predatory intelligence on equal terms. In a raw, face-to-face confrontation in the dark, stripped of police badges, legal immunities, and institutional armor, the "safe-zone" theories of the old guard do not just fail—they get the theorist killed.

------------------------------

2. CASE STUDY REDUX: KEMPER AND NILSEN THROUGH THE LENS OF NEUROTRAUMA

To understand just how deeply the old guard misread their subjects, we must re-examine the very cornerstones of their methodology. The FBI built its entire profiling empire on interviews with a tiny, self-selecting sample of 36 incarcerated felons—men who had every reason to lie, manipulate, and historicalize their own crimes. Two of the most prominent figures from this era, Edmund Kemper and Dennis Nilsen, are textbook examples of individuals who would—and should—be approached with an entirely different paradigm today.

The fatal flaw in how Douglas and Wilson approached Edmund Kemper and Dennis Nilsen is that they saw these men through a legalistic lens first and a behavioral lens second. They applied the institutional "murder labels" and then worked backward to explain the person. A modern, non-linear analysis reveals a completely different reality: both Kemper and Nilsen were fundamentally neurodivergent men surviving under the crushing weight of severe childhood neurotrauma. Traditional investigative methods completely failed to see through the initial shock value of their crimes, missing the profound cognitive disconnect that governed their actions.

## Edmund Kemper: The Overstimulated Logic Center

Edmund Kemper, the "Co-ed Killer" of the early 1970s, is frequently cited by John Douglas as the ultimate proof that profilers could "befriend" and decode a monster. Standing 6'9" with an IQ of 145, Kemper was highly articulate, polite, and enthusiastically volunteered to help the FBI map the criminal mind.

The old guard walked away from Kemper believing they had masterfully extracted data from a cooperative subject. Today, a modern, cynical criminologist would recognize that Kemper was not being parsed; Kemper was doing the parsing.

Kemper’s brain operated on an extremely hyper-rational, atypical cognitive structure, compounded by years of severe psychological abuse and isolation imposed by his mother. He experienced the world not through standard emotional vectors, but through an over-indexed, hyper-vigilant processing system. When the FBI interviewed him, they thought they were engaging in an objective psychological autopsy. In reality, Kemper was using his high-functioning, atypical intelligence to map them.

He recognized exactly what these eager, suit-and-tie FBI agents wanted to hear. He fed them structured, linear narratives about dominant mothers and escalating fantasies because it gave him exactly what his traumatized, isolated mind craved: intellectual validation and complete control over the narrative. He was writing the very textbook that would be used to hunt his successors, masking his profound neurotrauma behind a facade of clinical cooperation. Traditional profiling saw a "cooperative sociopath"; it completely missed the highly masking, traumatized neurodivergent mind managing its environment.

## Dennis Nilsen: The Desensitized Systemic Loop

Across the Atlantic, Dennis Nilsen murdered at least 15 young men in London between 1978 and 1983. David Wilson and contemporary British profilers often pointed to Nilsen as a classic example of a lonely, socially isolated "nobody" who killed out of a pathetic desire for companionship.

But looking past the sensationalist murder labels reveals that Nilsen’s psychology was deeply rooted in a non-linear, dissociative cognitive structure heavily shaped by early childhood trauma—specifically the profound, unaddressed psychological shock of viewing his grandfather's corpse as a young child, an event that fundamentally cross-wired his understanding of death, sleep, and intimacy.

Nilsen was not operating out of simple "social incompetence." His brain processed human connection through a highly specific, desensitized systemic loop. As a civil servant and former police officer, he didn't just stumble into his crimes out of loneliness; his atypical cognitive wiring allowed him to compartmentalize his reality with terrifying precision. He hid in plain sight within the very government apparatus meant to protect citizens, utilizing his understanding of systemic biases to remain invisible.

To label him merely a pathetic, lonely "beta male" completely minimizes the complex, traumatized cognitive architecture that allowed him to normalize the macabre routine of his daily life. Traditional profiling could not see past the horror of the bodies under the floorboards to understand that Nilsen was executing a deeply distorted, non-linear coping and control mechanism born of severe neurotrauma.

------------------------------

3. CRIMINALS IN THE INFORMATION AGE: THE END OF THE ISOLATED PREDATOR

The traditional FBI profiling methodology was born in an era of extreme technological and informational isolation. In the late 1970s and 1980s, information was tightly siloed. Police departments in different counties rarely shared case files, automated fingerprint registries were in their infancy, and criminals operated in a local vacuum. If an offender crossed a state line, they effectively reset their criminal record.

Today, criminals do not live in caves, nor do they operate in a vacuum. They exist within the exact same hyper-connected, information-saturated global ecosystem as the authorities.

Modern offenders passively and actively consume true-crime documentaries, read peer-reviewed forensic science journals, download leaked police training manuals, and dissect the very profiling tactics used to catch them. They understand the mechanics of touch DNA, the limitations of cellular triangulation, the positioning of municipal CCTV networks with automated facial recognition, and precisely how investigators look for behavioral anomalies.

This symmetry of information has supercharged criminal adaptability. An offender is no longer a static, predictable creature driven entirely by unyielding, subconscious impulses that leave a neat, traceable behavioral signature.

If a modern criminal reads online that a disorganized, messy crime scene suggests a chaotic, uneducated, and impulsive mind, they can—and will—deliberately stage the scene to mimic that exact brand of chaos. They will leave red herrings, transport secondary forensic evidence from entirely unrelated geographic locations, and intentionally construct a narrative designed to send investigators down a completely false path.

The rigid, binary 1980s categories of "organized vs. disorganized" are completely useless, if not outright dangerous, when deployed against an adversary who uses open-source intelligence to reverse-engineer police methodology. The old guard is playing checkers; the modern adaptive predator is playing poker with a marked deck.

------------------------------

4. THE NEURODIVERGENCY BLINDSPOT AND THE FAILURE OF LINEAR METHODS

The most devastating, systemic flaw of classical criminal profiling is its absolute, unquestioned reliance on neurotypical egocentrism. Traditional police psychology is fundamentally structured around a narcissistic premise: it attempts to decode an anomalous criminal’s motives by forcing a standard, linear template of conventional human logic onto them. The investigator sits in an interrogation room or examines a crime scene and asks themselves: "What would a rational—or standardly deviant—person do in this specific scenario? What is the logical ROI (Return on Investment) of this behavior?"

This linear, cause-and-effect approach completely collapses when encountering neurodivergent offenders.

Individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), schizotypal traits, or other non-linear cognitive structures process sensory input, acute stress, temporal perception, and existential logic in ways that do not map onto standard behavioral charts.

First, consider the misreading of deception. A suspect on the autism spectrum might exhibit poor eye contact, flat affect, repetitive motor tics (stimming), or highly erratic verbal cadences under interrogation. To a traditional, 1980s-trained street cop, these are classic, textbook indicators of guilt, deception, and nerves. In reality, they are simply neurological responses to sensory overload.

Second, consider atypical motivations. The motivations of a neurodivergent offender may have absolutely nothing to do with traditional concepts of social status, financial gain, or Oedipal complexes. The crime might be driven by an intense, hyper-fixated special interest, a profound sensory disconnect, or a non-linear internal logic system that makes perfect sense to the offender but looks like absolute, randomized madness to a neurotypical detective.

By forcing a deeply non-typical mind into a rigid, 20th-century police box, traditional profiling achieves a double failure: it aggressively prosecutes and wrongfully convicts the innocent neurodivergent individual who "looks weird," while completely missing the actual, highly predatory guilty party whose thought processes the system literally lacks the cognitive architecture to comprehend.

------------------------------

5. CRITIQUE OF CURRENT SYSTEMIC ATTEMPTS AT REFORM

To be fair, modern law enforcement has realized that the old ways are dying. However, their attempts at reform have been characteristically bureaucratic, clumsy, and defensive. Rather than addressing the core philosophical failure of their methods, agencies have attempted to mask the problem by throwing money at two specific, flawed solutions:

## The Over-Reliance on Pure Data (The "Big Data" Fallacy)

In an attempt to escape the subjective "shamanism" of John Douglas's era, modern policing has pivoted hard toward statistical databases like ViCAP (Violent Criminal Apprehension Program) and algorithmic predictive policing. The logic is simple: if human intuition is flawed, let the machine find the patterns.

But this approach suffers from the classic computer science maxim: Garbage In, Garbage Out. These databases are still populated by reports written by traditional, overworked, and heavily biased police officers. If a detective misinterprets a neurodivergent suspect's behavior at a crime scene and enters that flawed data into the system, the algorithm simply scales and automates that human error. Data without deep, non-linear cognitive context is just organized noise.

## The "Check-the-Box" Diversity Hire

In response to societal pressure, police forces have introduced superficial diversity initiatives. They hire psychological consultants and set up "neurodiversity awareness" workshops.

Unfortunately, these initiatives are almost entirely performative. They are designed to shield departments from HR liability rather than revolutionize investigative tactics. A three-hour seminar on how to politely speak to an autistic witness does absolutely nothing to change the fact that the underlying investigative framework still views anyone who doesn't think linearly as a broken, inferior machine that needs to be corrected or locked away.

------------------------------

6. CONCLUSION: THE MONUMENTS TO INSTITUTIONAL INCOMPETENCE

Ultimately, classical profiling is not a tool of science; it is a monument to institutional ego. The stubborn insistence of the old guard on clinging to a simplistic "good cop versus broken loser" dynamic is not an objective assessment of the criminal element—it is an internal coping mechanism. It is a desperate, retroactive defense tactic designed to mask their own baseline cognitive incompetence when dragged outside the boundaries of their neurotypical comfort zones.

By prioritizing theatrical, retrofitted narratives over non-linear reality, figures like Douglas and Wilson did not solve the riddle of the criminal mind; they merely curated an intellectual safe-space for the state. They slapped heavy "monster" and "murderer" labels onto complex, acutely traumatized neurodivergent individuals because processing a horrifying, cross-wired cognitive machine was far more terrifying than mocking a caged adversary. This juvenile fixation on moral superiority has left modern law enforcement radically blind. They remain paralyzed by their own rigid infrastructure, totally unable to see through the sensationalized horror to map the actual internal logic driving adaptive offenses.

To survive an era of hyper-connected, symmetrically informed threats, criminology must execute an unsparing, systemic purge of its macho 20th-century remnants. Investigative units must aggressively dismantle the traditional, physical metrics of what constitutes an effective investigator and establish cognitive diversity as an absolute operational baseline. The future of behavioral diagnostics belongs exclusively to specialized, neurodivergent analysts—minds natively wired to strip away superficial semantic labels, bypass social performativity, and navigate non-linear architecture without flinching. Until law enforcement replaces its decorated dinosaurs with analysts who can match the atypical processing speeds of modern predators, the state will continue to do exactly what it has done since the 1980s: show up late to the crime scene, completely misread the behavior, and congratulate itself on capturing a shadow it never truly understood.

----------------------------

*Modern & Scientific Profiling

Canter, D. V., & Youngs, D. (2009). Investigative Psychology: Offender Profiling and the Analysis of Criminal Action.

Rossmo, D. K. (2025). Geographic Profiling (2nd ed.)

Borgeson, K., Kendall, K., & Cappadona, G. (2025). Criminal Profiling: Applied Theories (1st ed.).

Canter, D., & Alison, L. (2018). Profiling in Policy and Practice.

*Critical Criminology & Critiques of the FBI Method

Ainsworth, P. (2013). Offender Profiling and Crime Analysis.

Wilson, D. (2022). A History of British Serial Killing: How Britain's Most Notorious Murderers Were Caught.

Turvey, B. E. (2011). Criminal Profiling: An Introduction to Behavioral Evidence Analysis (4th ed.). Academic Press.Advanced Forensic Methods & Genetic Genealogy

Dowdeswell, T. (2022). Investigative Genetic Genealogy: A Guide for Forensic and Law Enforcement Professionals. CRC Press.

Erlich, H. (2020). Silent Witness: DNA Forensics in the Courtroom and Humanitarian Settings. Oxford University Press.

James, S. H., Nordby, J. J., & Bell, S. (2014). Forensic Science: An Introduction to Scientific and Investigative Techniques (4th ed.). CRC Press.

*Open-Access Academic Frameworks

Cleary, H., & Warner, M. (2021). Reframing criminal profiling: a guide for integrated practice. Forensic Science, Medicine and Pathology.

I. Introduction: The Mechanics of the PR of Morality

The PR of Morality operates on a simple, binary logic: Distance equals Safety.

Mass media doesn’t just report on a “beast”; it curates it. By emphasizing the “otherness” of the offender—using descriptors like “evil,” “inhuman,” or “predatory”—the media performs a social exorcism. They build a wall of adjectives that ensures the public never has to look at the structural failure of the environment that built that monster.

The media’s primary marketing tool is the Aesthetic of the Macabre. They focus on the trophy—the blood, the basement, the bones—because these are “loud” sensationalist hooks. They are far easier to sell than the “quiet” reality of a child being slowly erased in a dark cellar. By keeping the focus on the act, the media ensures we never perform the autopsy on the soul, because that would require us to acknowledge our own complicity in the silence that preceded the violence.

The Madness Narrative: Lore as a Product

In the “Marketing Department” of True Crime, Madness is not a clinical diagnosis; it is a Plot Device.

Lore is the process by which a human tragedy is “translated” into a ghost story. The media takes a “broken” individual and performs a Reverse Translation:

• Intelligence is reframed as “Chilling Cunning.”

• Social Isolation is rebranded as “Predatory Stealth.”

• Institutional Failure is edited out to make room for the “Super-Predator” myth.

We “love” these monsters because they provide a Controlled Catharsis. The media sells us a “faceless bastard” to rule our imagination so we don’t have to face the “nameless twins” of our own neglected empathy. We prefer the Lore of the Elite—the “Surgical Demon” or the “Demonic Guru”—because a “Man of Science” who falls from grace is a sellable tragedy. It is much harder to market the “Walking Corpse” of a man who simply hit the cliff because he had nowhere else to go.

The Industry of the Ghost

Ultimately, Ripperology, Zodiac-hunting, and the “Crazy Charlie” brand are not searches for truth; they are Consumer Franchises.

The mass media maintains these “Ghosts” because they are profitable. They keep the “Monster” alive in the popular imagination long after the human being has evaporated. They trade the integrity of the victims for the “Aesthetic of the Evil,” ensuring that the “Lore” remains a bulletproof shield for a society that would rather point and gasp at a “Medusa” than look at the “hypnosis victim” underneath.

II. The Manufactured Nightmare: Edmund Kemper

Normality is not a moral achievement; it is a biological and social safety net that most never have to question. When that net is shredded—when the ‘keeper’ becomes the primary source of terror—the human machine does not simply fail; it reconfigures itself in the dark. We call the result ‘madness’ or ‘evil’ to avoid the diagnostic truth: that a soul stripped of the luxury of the loved will eventually manifest the very nightmare it was forced to inhabit.

Note aside: What do you see? I see the void. Literally. His actions were his manifesto, his revenge—and his emptying. He’s hallowed. A shadow, an apathetic shell of a man he never was, because he was made to believe that men were, essentially, bastards. Normal? There is no ‘normal’ in a vacuum.

He wasn’t doted on; he was drafted into a war against his own existence. His mother, Clarnell, was his judge, his jury, and his primary torturer. She didn’t just neglect him; she systematically dismantled him. She forced him to sleep in a dark, dirt-floored cellar because she feared he would molest his sisters—branding him a monster before he had even hit puberty. She turned his own budding masculinity into a weapon of shame, famously stating that he was ‘too big and too ugly’ to ever be loved.

He admitted:

She forced him to watch her having sex—a violation that shattered the very geometry of his heart. This wasn’t ‘parenting’; it was the deliberate erasure of a soul. When your ‘keeper’ becomes your nightmare, the soul warps to survive. Kemper developed a high-frequency intelligence used solely to ‘translate’ his mother’s rage into a survival strategy.

He didn’t snap; he finished the war she started. When he finally took her life, he didn’t stop at the act; he cut out her larynx and put it down the garbage disposal, stating with a chilling, clinical precision:

He wasn’t a predator; he was a soldier of the void, finally silencing the commanding officer of his own nightmare. You gawk at the ‘Ogre of Santa Cruz,’ but the forensic reality is a 6’9” monument to the normality we denied him.”

III. The Curated Void: Jeffrey Dahmer

Then there is Jeffrey Dahmer

You are told he was the quintessential ‘abandoned child’—a tidy PR narrative to explain the preservation of remains. But we see what we are told to see. While his teachers saw a child who was physically present, the internal breakage was a silent, freezing void.

Note aside: Dahmer makes me literally, physically sick. It is a nausea that comes from looking into a black hole where the human frequency has flatlined. It is my body’s refusal to ‘translate’ a void into a person.

Dahmer turned to dead animals and bones that cannot desert you because he was terrified of the living. He confessed:

He wasn’t a predator in the high-voltage sense of a Bundy; he was a carrion crow, the gallows hunter, trying to fill a void carved out by a landscape of silence. He sought a permanent, static companion in a world where the living were too loud, too fast, and too capable of leaving. He was the graveyard keeper, desperate to stay in the only company he felt he deserved: the silent, the unmoving, and the dead. You stare at the ‘Milwaukee Cannibal,’ but the forensic reality is a man who was already a hollowed-out shell long before he began trying to consume the humanity of others.

IV. The PR of the Taboo: The Moors Murderers

Look at that peroxide hair and that cold, haughty stare of Myra Hindley. We call her the ‘Medusa of the Moors’—a brand so potent it froze time for forty years. But behind the bleach and the lore was a pathological submission.

Note aside: She is chilling. As a hypnosis victim, someone under a spell. The puppetteer is right there, arrogant, misogynistic, cruel to a point. But shoot another glance at Myra, and you’ll notice defiance.

Ian Brady didn’t just kill; he directed a horror film. He was a man obsessed with the ‘PR’ of the Marquis de Sade and Nazi Germany, famously stating:

He translated his own internal void into a ritualistic theater of cruelty, viewing his crimes as an intellectual exercise in power.

And Hindley? She was a woman who traded her soul for the approval of a sociopath. I know that ‘jab’—the weight of being ‘somebody else’ just to be seen. Years later, she tried to peel off the mask, writing:

But the PR was too strong. She had performed the role of ‘The Devil’s Disciple’ until the mask became her skin. You see a ‘child-killer,’ but I see the crumbling point of a woman whose integrity was hollowed out by a toxic obsession.

V. The PR of the Mild-Mannered: Dr. Crippen

Look at Dr. Hawley Harvey Crippen. Look at the gold-rimmed spectacles and the mild, domestic face of the man who supposedly ‘helped’ his wife, Cora, into a basement floor.

Note aside: Yep. Look at him. He’s FROZEN. No kidding. Defensive, you might say—but that’s a normal stance of a Victorian gentleman, forced to remain composed for hours before the photo is finally taken. I sense no guilt, no fear, no cold blood. What then? A victim. A man who was already a statue long before the law touched him.

Society loves the lore of the ‘Henpecked Husband’ who finally snapped. But behind the glasses was a man living a life of constant, exhausting translation. For years, he was ‘somebody else’—the quiet, enduring partner to a dominating, loud-mouthed failed opera singer. His ‘normality’ was a pressure cooker of silence. He performed the role of the devoted husband so convincingly that when he finally fled on the SS Montrose with his lover, Ethel Le Neve, he was the first ‘Monster’ captured by the PR of the wireless telegram.

Crippen’s own words reveal a man who was already hollowed out long before the arrest. He once described his marriage as a landscape of total erasure:

He wasn’t erupting; he was seeking a way to stop being a performance. Even at the height of the scandal, he maintained a chilling, mild-mannered integrity, writing to Ethel from his cell:

He didn’t snap; he evaporated. He chose a new identity—dressing Ethel as a boy, pretending they were father and son—because the mask of ‘Dr. Crippen’ had become a cage. You ignore the crumbling point of a man who was so hollowed out by social expectation and domestic repression that he was willing to disintegrate his entire life just to breathe as someone else.”

VI. The PR of the “Witch”: Chamberlain and Knox

If you want to see the Aesthetic of the Monster in the modern age, look at the women who didn’t cry ‘correctly’ for the cameras. Society has a curated, rigid script for female grief; if you fail to perform it, the PR machine translates your silence into a haunting.

Note aside: Didn’t we have enough of witch-hunts? Two more broken lives, ruined days and souls. That’s the cost of the high-voltage PR.

Lindy Chamberlain lost her nine-week-old baby, Azaria, to a dingo in the Australian outback. But the public didn’t see a grieving mother; they saw a woman with a steady voice, a sharp bob, and a black dress. They took her stoicism and performed a Reverse Translation, turning her Seventh-day Adventist faith into a blood cult and her stoicism into witchcraft.

The media manufactured a ‘Monster’ to explain a biological tragedy they couldn’t digest. They needed a ‘Gothic Horror’ film, so they cast a mother in the role of a child-killer. As Lindy later said:

She realized that the public didn’t want the truth; they wanted a performance:

Then there is Amanda Knox, branded ‘Foxy Knoxy’ by a tabloid press hungry for a ‘sex-crazed’ ice queen. They took her youth, her cartwheels in a police station—a 20-year-old’s neurological response to extreme trauma—and translated them into ‘cunning.’ They looked at a photo of her buying underwear after her roommate’s murder and called it a ‘celebration.’ It was Slut-Shaming as Forensic Evidence.

The ‘Monster’ was a character cast by a prosecutor, Giuliano Mignini, who was more interested in a medieval ‘lore’ of satanic rituals than the silence of the DNA. Knox later reflected on this erasure of her integrity:

She was forced to be ‘somebody else’ for years, her reality buried under a headline designed to sell the ‘Aesthetic of Evil.’

VII. The PR of the “Savage”: The Exonerated Five

In 1989, five children—Antron McCray, Kevin Richardson, Raymond Santana, Yusef Salaam, and Korey Wise—were translated into a ‘wolf pack’ by a branding exercise in hate. This was the ultimate PR success of a city in a moral panic.

Note aside: My blood boils here. There is nothing worse than framing children for something they never did, based on their ethnicity. It is the ultimate betrayal of the ‘luxury of the loved’—taking the most vulnerable and ‘translating’ them into predators for the sake of a headline.

The media didn’t see teenagers; they saw a ‘savage’ archetype. They invented the term ‘Wilding’—a linguistic hollow point designed to sell a narrative of mindless, sub-human hunters. This wasn’t journalism; it was a script. The PR machine, fueled by the future President, took out full-page newspaper ads calling for the return of the death penalty before a single shred of forensic evidence had been found. They had already decided on the ‘Aesthetic of the Monster.’

There was no psychological ‘breakage,’ only a forced translation. These were children, some as young as fourteen, interrogated for hours without food or sleep, coerced into playing a role they didn’t understand just to be allowed to go home. As Yusef Salaam later noted:

They were forced to be ‘somebody else’ in a legal theater where their innocence was irrelevant to the brand. Even after the real perpetrator confessed and DNA proved their innocence, the ‘PR Department’ of the tabloids refused to issue a retraction. Raymond Santana reflected on the erasure of their integrity:

Their formative years were consumed by a ‘Monster’ narrative manufactured to make a frightened public feel safe.

VIII. The Sunday School Axe: Lizzie Borden

Here goes Lizzie Borden. The ultimate proof that the ‘PR of the Ordinary’ is a bulletproof shield. In 1892, a jury of twelve men couldn’t believe a ‘well-bred’ woman—a Sunday School teacher and a pillar of the Central Congregational Church—was capable of such visceral, primal carnage. Her normality was her defense; the ‘Lore’ of the Victorian lady was so potent that the prosecution’s evidence was treated as a social insult.

Note aside: When I look at her, I don't see a cold-blooded murderer. I see a prisoner—defiant and, in a sense, radiant in the knowledge of her innocence. It is the radiance of a soul that refused to be 'translated' into a monster by a town that wanted a hanging.

But behind the lace and the church pews was a woman suffocating in a house of cold, financial control. The crumbling point was thirty-two years of being a performance for a father, Andrew Borden, who treated her like property and whose presence was a ‘landscape of silence.’ Lizzie was a master of exhausting translation. She lived as ‘somebody else’ until the friction between her soul and her cage became a fire.

Lizzie’s own words during the inquest reveal a woman whose reality was already fracturing. When asked about her whereabouts, she didn’t provide an alibi; she provided a void:

It was the desperate, hollowed-out language of a woman who had already evaporated.

Later, after the acquittal, she refused to play the role of the ‘shamed daughter.’ She bought a mansion on the hill and renamed it ‘Maplecroft,’ stating with a quiet integrity:

She spent the rest of her life in a mansion she couldn’t truly inhabit, still a character in a book the town refused to stop writing. Her ‘integrity’ was the axe, and the axe was the only thing that could perform the autopsy on the life that was killing her. You gawk at the ‘forty whacks,’ but you refuse to see the structural failure of a soul that chose blood over the slow rot of a silent house.

IX. The Mastery of the Mask: Bundy and Gacy

Some ‘monsters’ are built entirely out of PR. Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy represent the ultimate PR of the Ordinary—where the ‘Monster’ isn’t a creature in the fog, but the successful man standing right next to you at a political rally or a charity drive. These men didn’t break; they simulated.

A brief note aside: Bundy repulses me. His smile is the ultimate smirk of a predator, a calculated 'PR' of charm that feels like a cold, oily skin. But Gacy? Gacy feels like a man in despair—someone who is absolutely, fundamentally lost in a landscape of his own making.

Ted Bundy called normality a ‘fantasy’ and weaponized it as a tool of social control. He spent his life watching others feel while knowing he ‘could never be like them.’ He was a man who learned the language of love and law-school ambition fluently without ever feeling its meaning. He wasn’t a ‘beast’; he was a perfectly translated lie.

Bundy famously noted the ease with which he moved through the ‘flock’:

He viewed his own humanity as a disposable skin, stating:

His ‘normality’ was a predatory camouflage, a PR campaign designed to buy him time to hunt.

Then there is John Wayne Gacy, who hid behind the literal mask of ‘Pogo the Clown.’ He was a Democratic precinct captain and a community pillar, but behind the civic pride was a graveyard of repressed trauma from an abusive father who called him a ‘sissy’ and beat him into a state of permanent, barbaric anger.

Gacy understood the power of the performance. He noted that even ‘good’ men only abandon morals when filled with ‘anger or... fear.’ He spent his life manifesting what he called the ‘correct appearances of emotion’—a phrase that should make your blood run cold. It is the language of a man who is ‘translating’ a human being without being one. He once chillingly remarked:

For Gacy, the costume wasn’t a disguise; it was a metaphor for the social ‘mask’ he used to bury thirty-three young men beneath his own floorboards while the neighborhood applauded his ‘decency.’

These men weren’t ghouls from a fairy tale. They were the Marketing Managers of the Void, proving that if the PR is strong enough, the world will ignore the smell of the rot until it is far too late.

X. The “Company” Mask: Dennis Nilsen

Here is Dennis Nilsen, whose story is a specific, forensic pain. He ‘killed for company.’

Note aside: This is the most difficult section to write. I see a man who was so thoroughly erased by his own isolation that he turned his flat into a ‘shrine’ of the stagnant. It is the ultimate tragedy of a nature forced into hiding—a man who lived as ‘somebody else’ until he forgot how to be human. His eyes are dead. That is the man who’s been dead long before they took him.

Nilsen wrote:

Following the sudden death of his grandfather at sea—the only man who had ever truly seen him—the ocean became his nightmare, a symbol of the permanent blight on his personality. He spent his life in a symbolic drowning, later confessing:

He didn’t want to kill; he wanted to stop being invisible. His victims were ‘guests’ who were never allowed to leave. He would wash them, dress them, and talk to them, seeking a perverted companionship with those who could no longer walk away. He could only relate to a ‘dead image of the person I could love.’

His ‘normality’ was a quiet, civil-service performance in North London, but his internal world was a graveyard of repressed need. He famously remarked on the chilling logic of his own breakage:

He wasn’t a predator in the traditional sense; he was a walking corpse, the involuntary architect of his own loneliness. His crimes were the violent debris of a soul that hit the cliff because it had nowhere else to go. He died still wearing the mask, a ‘nobody’ who had manufactured a family out of the ghosts he created.”

XI. The PR of the Taboo: Charles Manson

Charles Manson was the ultimate product of the PR of the Taboo. In 1969, society was terrified of the ‘other’—the anti-establishment, the communal, the chaotic. The media took a petty, institutionalized criminal and ‘translated’ him into a demonic guru to satisfy a national moral panic.

Note aside: Madness spirals out of his eyes. I literally feel it—uncontrollable, cold, raging—and yet, perfectly hidden behind his conviction. A predator? No. He was a prophet turned manic. A man who found the 'crumbling point' of a generation and decided to set up shop there.

Manson understood the script he was handed. He performed ‘madness’ for the cameras, dancing into court and carving an ‘X’ into his forehead, knowing the press was addicted to his performance. He famously told the jury:

He spent fifty years maintaining the ‘Crazy Charlie’ brand because he knew that in a world of curated lies, the only thing that sells better than a hero is a human mutant. He wasn’t a leader; he was a mirror, reflecting the exact brand of ‘evil’ the public was most eager to buy.

XII. The Faceless Twin of the Nameless

“The Zodiac Killer was the first to realize that a monster is only as powerful as his distribution network. He didn’t just kill; he branded. He created a logo—the crosshairs—and a moniker that turned a series of local tragedies into a global franchise of terror.

Note aside: His letters aren’t confessions; they are pitch decks. He wasn’t speaking to the police; he was speaking to the ‘flock,’ demanding they acknowledge the character he had created. He knew that ‘normality’ is a thin veil, and he took pleasure in ripping it.

He functioned as his own Marketing Department, famously opening his correspondence with the iconic header: ‘This is the Zodiac speaking.’ He understood the media’s addiction to content, using the lives of children as leverage to secure his front-page placement:

He turned the act of reading the morning paper into a collaborative experience of fear, even offering a ‘preview’ of his future atrocities: ‘School children make nice targets, I think I shall wipe out a school bus some morning. Just shoot out the front tire + then pick off the kiddies as they come bouncing out.’

Now, decades later, he is the heart of a pseudoscience of amateur sleuths who obsess over his ciphers as if they were holy relics. They enjoy the ‘clues’ while the reality of the victims—the young couples just looking for a moment of ‘normality’—is buried under the weight of the lore. He won. He successfully translated his own void into a permanent, faceless brand that the world refuses to stop consuming.”

XIII. The PR Masterclass: The Bastard Named Jack

“If you want to understand how branding devours the truth, look at the Jack the Ripper case file. This is the PR Masterclass. There is no such thing as Jack the Ripper. There never was.

It is a moniker invented by a journalist in search of loud sensationalism—a ‘Dear Boss’ letter likely forged in a newsroom to keep a story from cooling. The name itself was a stroke of marketing genius, a linguistic hook that turned a series of local tragedies into a global industry. Yet, the world ‘loves’ Jack. He is the heart of a pseudoscience now, with thousands of admirers who prefer the Aesthetic of the Monster over the raw, messy reality of the streets.

This non-existent, faceless bastard rules the popular imagination while the victims are silenced by labels. We are told the killer was a ‘Surgical Demon’ or a ‘Man of Science’ who fell from grace. This is the Lore of the Elite—a narrative designed to make the murders feel like a dark fairy tale rather than what they were: the visceral, preventable slaughter of women who had been denied the ‘luxury of the loved’ by a society that viewed them as ‘unfortunates.’

Ripperology is not a search for truth; it is a marketing department for a profitable ghost story. As Hallie Rubenhold precisely identifies in The Five:

Society chose the ghost because a ‘Monster’ sells more newspapers than the truth of a failing social system.

Hail Hallie Rubenhold—the ultimate defender of The Five—and remember how her truth provoked a witch-hunt headed by mad ripperists - or whatever they call themselves nowadays. They attacked her with a fervor that bordered on the religious, shouting: ‘How dare you humanize the women and spoil the mystery?’ They cannot stand the light because it spoils the business of the lore. They want the top hat and the fog; they don’t want the integrity of the lives that were erased to create the brand.”

XIV. The Conclusion: The Bleeding Truth

The objective of criminal psychology is not to solicit pity, but to demand the integrity of the record. To look past the branding is to perform a necessary autopsy on the social systems that precede the crime. Forensic analysis allows us to identify the structural breakage, but it also necessitates an acknowledgment of the manufacture of the offender.

What is colloquially labeled a ‘beast’ is, in clinical reality, the result of a developmental environment where the required presence of a guide or keeper was replaced by a judicial void. We do not ‘find’ these ghouls; we facilitate them through systemic silence and the maintenance of curated PR lies. The subsequent ‘surprise’ at the visibility of the breakage is a failure of observation, not a mystery of nature. To achieve a valid understanding of the dark, we must first document the specific normality that was denied at the point of origin.

Bibliography

The Psychological Foundations of the Breakage

• Masters, Brian.

  Killing for Company: The Case of Dennis Nilsen

  (1985). The definitive study of Nilsen’s “radical loneliness” and the “somebody else” mask he wore.

• Masters, Brian.

  The Shrine of Jeffrey Dahmer

  (1993). An autopsy of Dahmer’s internal void and his “scavenging of souls” to fill a landscape of silence.

• Graysmith, Robert. Zodiac. (1986).

• Guinn, Jeff. Manson: The Life and Times of Charles Manson. (2013).

• Douglas, John E. & Olshaker, Mark.

  Mindhunter: Inside the FBI’s Elite Serial Crime Unit

  (1995). Clinical frameworks for the manufactured “breakage” in offenders like Kemper and Bundy.

• Harmening, William M.

  Serial Killers: The Psychosocial Development of Humanity’s Worst Offenders

  (2014). Provides deep forensic analysis into the “early years” and “trigger points” of offenders.

• Lawson, Christine Ann.

  Understanding the Borderline Mother

  (2002). Vital for analyzing the “torturer” mother archetype and its role in shattering a child’s psychological geometry.

• Ramsland, Katherine.

  Inside the Minds of Serial Killers: Why They Kill

  (2006). Explores the distinct psychological dynamics—from lust and control to the desperate need for company.

The Defenders of the Truth: Historical Restoration

• Rubenhold, Hallie.

  The Five: The Untold Lives of the Women Killed by Jack the Ripper

  (2019). The ultimate act of integrity, restoring the voices and “normality” of Polly, Annie, Elizabeth, Catherine, and Mary Jane.

• Rubenhold, Hallie.

  Story of a Murder: The Wives, the Mistress, and Dr. Crippen

  (2025). A revisionist examination shifting the focus from the “celebrity killer” to the women silenced by the headlines.

• Worsley, Lucy (Presenter).

  “Jack the Ripper“ (Lucy Worsley Investigates, Season 2, Episode 1, 2025). A forensic deconstruction of how media sensationalism manufactured the “Ripper” brand.

• Worsley, Lucy.

  A Very British Murder

  (2014). Explores the national obsession with the “Aesthetic of the Monster” and how tragedy became public entertainment.

• Tey, Josephine.

  The Daughter of Time

  (1951). Seminal historical forensics on vindicating the maligned (Richard III) against state-sponsored PR.

Deconstructing the Lore: Case-Specific Evidence

• Sykes, R.J.

  Jeffrey Dahmer: Uncovering the Case for Innocence (2024)

  R.J. is brilliant. As the former police officer and fraud investigator, she deconstructs the whole myth of the Milwakee Monster. Check out her substack, too.

• Odell, Robin.

  Ripperology: A Study of the World’s First Serial Killer and a Literary Phenomenon

  (2006). Analyzes how the press manufactured the “Ripper” brand and the mythologies that followed.

• Bartle, Ronald.

  Lizzie Borden and the Massachusetts Axe Murders

  (2017). Analyzes the “PR of the Ordinary” and the breakage hidden behind Victorian lace.

• Staff, Duncan.

  The Lost Boy: The Definitive Story of the Moors Murders

  (2007). Explores the “PR of Evil” and the toxic obsession that hollowed out the integrity of the perpetrators.

Criminal offending is covert activity, and exclusive reliance on official records leads to highly deficient inferences. Despite important challenges in descriptive analysis, researchers and policymakers still strive to reach a better understanding of the effects of interventions, policies, and life experiences on criminal behavior.

1. Introduction

Since its inception as a field of scientific inquiry, criminology and criminal justice (CCJ) researchers have used quantitative data to describe and explain criminal behavior and social responses to criminal behavior. Although other types of data have been used to make important contributions to criminological thought, the analysis of quantitative data has always played an important role in the development of knowledge about crime. This research paper discusses the various types of quantitative data typically encountered by CCJ researchers. Then, some of the logical and inferential issues that arise when researchers work with quantitative data are described. Next, the research paper considers different analytic frameworks for evaluating evidence, testing hypotheses, and answering research questions. Finally, a discussion of the range of methodological approaches used by contemporary CCJ researchers is provided.

2. Quantitative Data Sources

CCJ researchers commonly work with data collected for official recordkeeping by government or quasi-government agencies. Such data often include records of criminal events, offender and victim characteristics, and information about how cases are handled or disposed. Detailed information about crimes known to the police and crimes cleared by arrest are available in the UniformCrime Reports (UCR) and the National Incident Based Reporting System (NIBRS). In addition, for purposes of specific research projects, criminal justice agencies often make their administrative records available to criminologists—provided that appropriate steps are taken to protect individual identities. For example, the Bureau of Justice Statistics has conducted two major studies of recidivism rates for prisoners returning to the community in multiple states. Such projects require coordinated use of state correctional databases and access to criminal records, including arrests, convictions, and reincarceration.

More recently, researchers have also relied on information collected through direct interviews and surveys with various populations. In these surveys, respondents are asked about their involvement in offending activities, victimization experiences, background characteristics, perceptions, and life circumstances. Analyses from data collected through the National Crime Victimization Survey; the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring program; the RAND inmate survey; the National Youth Survey; the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth; the Adolescent Health Study; Monitoring the Future (MTF); Research on Pathways to Desistance, and the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention’s longitudinal youth studies in Rochester, New York, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Denver, Colorado, have all made important contributions to criminological thought and public policy.

Researchers have also attempted, in some studies, to collect detailed quantitative databases composed of information from both administrative and direct surveys on the same individuals. Among other findings, this research has consistently shown that most crime victimizations are not reported to the police and that most offending activities do not result in an arrest.

3. Logical and Inferential Issues

The analysis of quantitative crime-related data, like any other type of analysis, depends primarily on the question one is asking and the capabilities of the data available. This section briefly discusses some of the most prominent issues that crime researchers consider when analyzing quantitative data.

3.1. Time Horizon

Regardless of the data source, research projects using quantitative data can generally be characterized as crosssectional or longitudinal. Cross-sectional studies examine individuals or populations at a single point in time, whereas longitudinal studies follow the same individuals or populations over a period of time. Among longitudinal studies, an important consideration is whether the data will be collected prospectively or retrospectively. In prospective studies, individuals are enrolled in the study and then followed to see what happens to them. In retrospective studies, individuals are enrolled in the study, and researchers then examine historical information about them. Some studies include both prospective and retrospective elements. For example, the Research on Pathways to Desistance study enrolled adolescent offenders in Phoenix, Arizona, and Philadelphia to see how these offenders adapt to the transition from adolescence to adulthood. In that sense, the study is prospective; however, historical information about the individuals included in the study is available and has been collected retrospectively as well.

In most studies, it is clear whether the project is crosssectional or longitudinal, but there are exceptions. For example, the MTF study repeatedly surveys nationally representative samples of high school seniors. This study can be viewed as cross-sectional because it does not survey the same individuals repeatedly, but it can also be viewed as longitudinal because the same methodology for drawing the sample and analyzing the data is repeated over time. Similar issues arise with UCR and NIBRS data. Often, specific studies using a repeated cross-sectional data source, such as MTF, UCR, or NIBRS, will tend to emphasize either crosssectional or longitudinal features of the data.

3.2. Unit of Analysis

It is also useful to think about research projects in terms of the basic source of variation to be studied. For example, some studies focus on variation in crime between communities, whereas other studies examine variation in criminality between individual persons. Still other studies attempt to describe and explain variation in behavior over time for the same community or individual. In some studies, the unit of analysis is unambiguous, whereas in other instances, there may be multiple logical analysis units (e.g., multiple observations on the same person and multiple persons per community). These studies are generally referred to as hierarchical or multilevel analyses. An important issue arising in these analyses is lack of independence among observations belonging to a logical higher-order group. For example, individuals who live in the same community or who attend the same school are not likely to be truly independent of each other.

3.3. Sampling

The list of all cases that are eligible to be included in a study is called the sampling frame. The sample included in the study will either be identical to the sampling frame or it will be a subset of the sampling frame. In some instances, the sampling frame is explicitly defined; at other times, the sampling frame is vague. Researchers generally describe the manner in which the sample was selected from the sampling frame in terms of probability or non-probability sampling. In probability sampling, each case in the sampling frame has a known, non-zero probability of being selected for the sample. Samples selected in any other way are called non-probability samples. The most basic form of probability sampling is simple random sampling, when each member of the sampling frame has an equal probability of being selected for the sample. More complicated forms of probability sampling, such as stratified random sampling, cluster sampling, and stratified multistage cluster sampling, are all commonly used in CCJ research.

The use of probability sampling allows researchers to make clear statements about the generalizability of their results. Although this is a desirable feature of probability samples, much CCJ research is based on non-probability samples. The 1945 and 1958 Philadelphia birth cohort studies conducted by Marvin Wolfgang and his colleagues (Wolfgang, Figlio, & Sellin, 1972) focused on an entire population of individuals rather than a sample. Still, one can view the choice of the years 1945 and 1958 as a means of sampling. In fact, when populations are studied, there is almost always a way to conceive of them as non-probability samples. In other studies, a researcher may survey all children in attendance at a school on a particular day. The resulting sample would be called a convenience or availability sample. Still other research projects rely on the purposive selection of certain numbers of people meeting particular criteria to ensure representation of people from different groups (i.e., males, females, blacks, whites, etc.). These samples are usually called quota samples.A key feature of nonprobability samples is that one is not able to make explicit probabilistic statements about quantities in the population based on what one observes in the sample. Nevertheless, nonprobability samples are quite useful and necessary for addressing many interesting research and policy questions that arise in CCJ research.

3.4. Target Population

A key aspect of any scientific work is the identification of empirical regularities that transcend specific individuals, places, or times. Thus, the population to which the results of a study generalize is of considerable importance. In general, researchers tend to prefer studies that identify the target population and discuss how well the results are likely to generalize to that population. But the target population is sometimes ambiguous. If one studies all individuals in attendance at a particular school on a given day, one could argue that the sample is synonymous with the target population. The research community, however, is not likely to be interested in what is occurring at that individual school unless it somehow relates to what is occurring at other schools in other locations and at other times. This ambiguity means that one cannot make precise statements about the generalizability of the results to other settings. Thus, clear statements about the composition and boundaries of the target population are often the exception rather than the rule.

3.5. Concepts and Variables

Scientific theories describe relationships between concepts. In this sense, concepts represent the key elements of a well-developed theory. Concepts are verbal cues or symbols that sometimes refer to simple or complicated sources of variation. Sex (male vs. female), for example, refers to a simple, objective source of variation, whereas the meaning of concepts such as delinquency or socioeconomic status is potentially quite complicated. Still, reference to concepts for purposes of theory and hypothesis development can be sufficient. For purposes of conducting empirical tests of theories and hypotheses, however, more rigor and specificity are required.

Variables are the language of actual empirical work. A researcher’s description of a variable explicitly defines how the concept in question is to be measured for purposes of an actual research project. An operational description or definition of a variable attends to how the variable was measured and what values the variable can take on. Variables such as sex and race are categorical, whereas variables such as age and income are quantitative. Categorical variables can be nominal (unordered categories) or ordinal (ordered categories, but the distance between categories is not well-defined). Quantitative variables can be interval (equal distance between categories) or ratio (existence of a true zero). Still another type of variable, of particular interest to criminologists, is a count of events. Event-count variables represent the number of times an event occurs within some period of time. One way to think of an event-count variable is to consider a two-category variable: Either an event occurs or does not occur within some small time interval. If one adds up the number of times an event occurs over many of these small time intervals, one gets a total count of events.

Some concepts are too broad to be measured effectively with a single variable. Socioeconomic status, for example, is often linked to a combination of at least three subordinate concepts: (1) educational attainment, (2) income, and (3) occupational prestige. Often, variables associated with closely related subordinate concepts can be combined into a scale or index that measures the conceptual variation of interest. There are different ways to form scales and indexes. Some are driven by mathematical decision rules based on correlations between the items comprising the scale or index, and others are based on conceptual considerations.

3.6. Descriptive and Causal Inference

Still another important feature of any quantitative study is whether it emphasizes description or the identification of cause–effect relationships. Descriptive inference is a characterization or summary of important features of a population. For example, the main objective of the 1993 Bureau of Justice Statistics recidivism study was to estimate the percentage of offenders released from prison in 1993 who experienced subsequent involvement with the criminal justice system within 3 years of their release. No effort was made to explain variation in the recidivism rate; instead, the goal was pure description.

Causal inference is the process of distinguishing between a correlation or statistical association between two or more variables and a cause–effect relationship between those variables. In order for a variable x to be considered a cause of variable y, three criteria must be satisfied: (1) x precedes y in time, (2) x and y are statistically associated, and (3) the statistical association between x and y is not spurious (i.e., there is no other variable that can account for or explain the statistical association between x and y). It turns out that establishing the first two criteria is reasonably straightforward. Convincingly demonstrating nonspuriousness, however, is much more difficult. This issue is discussed in more detail in the “Analytic Methods for Causal Inference” section.

3.7. Validity

The word validity is often used in two broad contexts in CCJ research. It may be used to indicate whether (or to what extent) a specific measure is an accurate characterization of the concept being studied. For example, one might ask whether an IQ test is a valid measure of intelligence. The word validity is also used as a way of characterizing a study or particular methodological approach. In this case, the concern is whether the study or method is likely to faithfully present the world as it really operates or whether it will distort the phenomena under study in some important way. As an example of this usage, one might consider whether a study with a pretest outcome measurement followed by an intervention and then a posttest outcome measurement but no control group (a group that does not experience the intervention) is a valid study.

A number of different types of validity appear in the CCJ literature. A few common types are discussed here. Assessments of face validity are subjective judgments about whether a measurement or methodology is likely to yield accurate results. If a measure successfully predicts variation in a logically linked outcome, one can say that it rates high on criterion or predictive validity. For example, if one has a parole risk assessment instrument that is designed to predict likelihood of recidivism and the instrument, in fact, does do a good job of recidivism prediction, then one can say that it exhibits criterion validity. Measures with good construct validity are correlated with wellestablished indicators of the phenomenon in question. Such measures should also be independent of indicators that are not relevant to the phenomenon in question.

Studies with high internal validity take convincing steps to ensure that the logic of the study as applied to the individuals actually being studied is sound. External validity, on the other hand, refers to the generalizability of the study’s results to individuals other than those actually included in the study. Internal validity tends to be maximized when the researcher is able to exert a great deal of control over the study and the environment in which the study is conducted (i.e., a laboratory setting). Unfortunately, when the researcher exerts great control, the conditions of the study sometimes become more artificial and less realistic. This raises questions about how well the study results will generalize to other cases. To the extent that the researcher attempts to allow for more realistic study environments (and greater external validity), this will often lead to less control over the study, which produces threats to internal validity. Researchers desire studies that maximize both internal and external validity, but this is often difficult to achieve.

3.8. Reliability

Reliability refers to the consistency, stability, or repeatability of results when a particular measurement procedure or instrument is used. Researchers aspire to the use of instruments and procedures that will produce consistent results (provided that the phenomena under study have not changed). There are different ways of assessing and quantifying reliability. One approach is to take a measurement at a particular point in time and then repeat that same measurement at a later point in time. The correlation between the two measurements is called test–retest reliability. Another approach is to conduct multiple measurements with some variation in the precise measurement method; for example, multiple questionnaires with variations in the wording of various items can be administered to the same individuals. The correlation between the various instruments is called parallel forms reliability.

In some instances, researchers need to code various pieces of information into quantitative research data. A concern often arises about whether the coding rules are written in such a way that multiple properly trained coders will reach the same coding decisions. Interrater reliability is considered to be high when there is a high correlation between the decisions of multiple coders who have reviewed the same information.

Reliability can also be assessed by examining correlations between multiple indicators of the same underlying concept. Assume, for example, that a researcher believes that a key influence on criminal behavior is an individual’s level of self-control. Because there is no single definitive measure of self-control, the researcher might measure many indicators and characteristics of individuals that he believes to be manifestations of one’s level of self-control (i.e., time spent on homework each day, grades in school, time spent watching television, etc.). One way of assessing the reliability of a scale or index that combines this information is to calculate the correlations between all of the indicators, which can then be used to calculate internal-consistency reliability. High levels of internal-consistency reliability imply that the various characteristics and indicators being studied are closely related to each other.

3.9. Relationship Between Reliability and Validity

Measures or procedures for capturing measurements can be highly reliable but also invalid. It is possible, for example, to obtain consistent but wrong or misleading measurements. Measures or procedures can also be both unreliable and invalid. In general, however, if a measure is valid it must also, by definition, be reliable.

3.10. Estimates and Estimators

An estimate is a person’s guess about the value of some interesting quantity or parameter for a target population. Researchers obtain an estimate by applying a formula or estimator to observed data that can be used to develop inferences about the target population. The most straightforward case is when one studies observed data from a simple random sample drawn from a well-defined target population. The goal is to infer the value of a parameter or quantity in the population on the basis of what one observes in the sample. A researcher plugs the observed data into an estimator and then uses the estimator, or formula, to calculate an estimate of the quantity of interest in the population.

3.11. Estimator Properties: Bias, Efficiency, and Consistency

In the case of a probability sample drawn from a welldefined population, there is a true population parameter or quantity that researchers seek to estimate on the basis of what they see in the sample.An important issue is whether the estimator applied to the sample will—over the course of drawing many, many probability samples—on average lead to the correct inference about the population parameter. If the average of the parameter estimates is different from the true population parameter, one says that the estimator is biased.

Sometimes there are different unbiased estimators or formulas that could be used to estimate a population quantity. An important question is how to choose one estimator over another. Generally speaking, in this situation researchers would prefer the unbiased estimator that exhibits the least amount of variation in the estimates generated over many samples drawn from the same population. The estimator that exhibits the minimum amount of sample-to-sample variation in the estimates is the most efficient estimator. For example, the sample mean, the sample median, and the sample mode (see “Measures of Central Tendency” section) are both valid estimators for the population mean of a normally distributed variable. The sample mean, however, is a more efficient estimator than the sample median, which is itself more efficient than the sample mode.

In some circumstances, an unbiased estimator is not available. When this happens, researchers typically try to use a consistent estimator. A consistent estimator is biased in small samples, but the bias decreases as the size of the sample increases. Many commonly used estimators in the social sciences, such as logistic regression (discussed later in this research paper), are consistent rather than unbiased.

4. Assessing Evidence

A statistical model is a description of a process that explains (or fails to explain) the distribution of the observed data. A problem that arises in quantitative CCJ research is how to consider the extent to which a particular statistical model is consistent with the observed data. This section describes several common frameworks for thinking about this correspondence.

4.1. Relative Frequency

In quantitative crime research, decisions about whether to reject or fail to reject a particular hypothesis are often of central importance. For example, a hypothesis may assert that there is no statistical association between two variables in the target population. A test of this hypothesis amounts to asking the following question: What is the probability of observing a statistical association at least as large (either in absolute value or in a single direction) as the one observed in this sample if the true statistical association in the target population is equal to zero? Put another way, assume that there is a target population in which the statistical association is truly equal to zero. If a researcher drew many simple random samples from that population and calculated the statistical association in each of those samples, he or she she would have a sampling distribution of the statistical association parameter estimates. This theoretical sampling distribution could be used to indicate what percentage of the time the statistical association would be at least as large as the association the researcher observed in the original random sample.

Generally speaking, if the percentage is sufficiently low (often, less than 5%), one would reject the hypothesis of no statistical association in the target population. A concern that arises in these kinds of tests is that the hypothesis to be tested is usually very specific (i.e., the statistical association in the target population is equal to zero). With a very large sample size it becomes quite likely that the so-called test statistic will lead a person to reject the hypothesis even if it is only slightly wrong. With a very small sample size, the test statistic is less likely to lead one to reject the hypothesis even if it is very wrong. With this in mind, it is important for researchers to remember that hypothesis tests based on the relative frequency approach are not tests of whether the statistical association in question is large or substantively meaningful. It is also important to keep in mind that the interpretation of statistical tests outside of the framework of well-defined target populations and probability samples is much more ambiguous and controversial.

4.2. Bayesian Methods

Researchers often find the relative frequency framework to be technically easy to use but conceptually difficult to interpret. In fact, researchers and policymakers are not necessarily so concerned with the truth or falsehood of a specific hypothesis (e.g., that a population parameter is equal to zero) as they are with the probability distribution of that parameter. For example, it might be of more interest to estimate the probability that a parameter is greater than zero rather than the probability that a sample test statistic could be as least as large as it is if the population parameter is equal to zero. Analysis conducted in the Bayesian tradition (named after the Rev. Thomas Bayes, who developed the well-known conditional probability theorem) places most of its emphasis on the estimation of the full probability distribution of the parameter(s) of interest. In general, Bayesian methods tend not to be as widely used as relative frequency (or frequentist) methods in CCJ research. This is probably due to the training received by most criminologists, which tends to underemphasize Bayesian analysis. Because Bayesian analyses can often be presented in terms that are easier for policy and lay audiences to understand, it is likely that Bayesian methods will become more prominent in the years ahead.

4.3. Parameter Estimation and Model Selection

CCJ researchers typically rely on quantitative criteria to estimate parameters and select statistical models. Common criteria for parameter estimation include least squares (LS) and maximum likelihood (ML). LS estimators minimize the sum of the squared deviations between the predicted and actual values of the outcome variable. ML estimators produce estimates that maximize the probability of the data looking the way they do. Provided the necessary assumptions are met, LS estimators are unbiased and exhibit minimum sampling variation (efficiency). ML estimators, on the other hand, are typically consistent, and they become efficient as the sample size grows (asymptotic efficiency).

Model selection involves the choice of one model from a comparison of two or more models (i.e., a model space). The most prominent model selection tools include F tests (selection based on explained variation) and likelihoodratio tests (selection based on likelihood comparisons). An important issue with these tests is that they typically require that one model be a special case of the other models in the model space. For these approaches, tests are therefore limited to comparisons of models that are closely related to each other. Increasingly, model selection problems require researchers to make comparisons between models that are not special cases of each other. In recent years, two more general model selection criteria have become more widely used: (1) the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and (2) the Bayesian information criterion (BIC). These criteria can be used to compare both nested and non-nested models provided the outcome data being used for the comparison are the same. Like F tests and likelihood-ratio tests, AIC and BIC penalize for the number of parameters being estimated. The logic for penalizing is that, all other things equal, we expect a model with more parameters to be more consistent with the observed data. In addition to penalizing for parameters, the BIC also penalizes for increasing sample size. This provides a counterweight to tests of statistical significance, such as the F test and the likelihood-ratio test, which are more likely to select more complicated models when the sample size is large. As modeling choices continue to proliferate, it seems likely that use of AIC and BIC will continue to increase.

5. Methods for Descriptive Inference

This section briefly considers some descriptive parameters often studied in CCJ research. The first two subsections deal with parameters that are usually of interest to all social scientists. The final three subsections emphasize issues of particular importance for CCJ research.

5.1. Measures of Central Tendency

Central tendency measures provide researchers with information about what is typical for the cases involved in a study for a particular variable. The mean or arithmetic average (i.e., the sum of the variable scores divided by the number of scores) is a common measure of central tendency for quantitative variables. The mean has an advantage in that each case’s numerical value has a direct effect on the estimate; thus, the mean uses all of the information in the scores to describe the “typical” case. A problem with the mean is that cases with extreme scores can cause the mean to be much higher or much lower than what is typical for the cases in the study. In situations where the mean is affected by extreme scores, researchers often prefer to use the median as a measure of central tendency. The median is the middle score of the distribution; half of the cases have scores above the median, and the other half have scores below the median. The median can also be viewed as the 50th percentile of the distribution. Unlike the mean, the median does not use all of the information in the data, but it is also not susceptible to the influence of extreme scores. For categorical variables, the mode (i.e., the most frequently occurring category) is often used as a measure of central tendency. For dichotomous or two-category variables, the most commonly used measure of central tendency is the proportion of cases in one of the categories.

5.2. Measures of Dispersion

In addition to summarizing what is typical for the cases in a study, researchers usually consider the amount of variation as well. Several common summaries of variation, or dispersion, are commonly reported in the literature. The most common measure of dispersion for quantitative variables is the variance and/or its square root, the standard deviation. Many interesting social science variables are either normally or approximately normally distributed (i.e., the distribution looks like a bell-shaped curve). In these types of distributions, approximately two thirds of the cases fall within 1 standard deviation of the mean, and about 95% of the cases fall within 2 standard deviations of the mean. Thus, for variables with a bell-shaped distribution, the standard deviation has a very clear interpretation. This is particularly important because sampling distributions are often assumed to have normal distributions. Thus, the standard error calculation that appears in much quantitative CCJ research is actually an estimate of the standard deviation of the sampling distribution. It can be used to form confidence intervals and other measures of uncertainty for parameter estimates in the relative frequency framework.

For qualitative or categorical variables, a common measure of dispersion is the diversity index, which measures the probability that cases come from different categories. Some CCJ researchers have used the diversity index to study offending specialization and ethnic–racial heterogeneity in communities and neighborhoods. A generalized version of the diversity index that adjusts for the number of categories is the index of qualitative variation, which indicates the extent to which individuals are clustered within the same category or distributed across multiple categories.

5.3. Criminal Careers

Over the past three to four decades, criminologists have developed the concept of the criminal career. According to researchers who study criminal career issues, within any given time period the population can be divided into two groups: (1) active offenders and (2) everyone else. The percentage of the population in the active offender category is the crime participation rate. Within that same time period, active offenders vary in several respects: (a) the number of offenses committed, (b) the seriousness of the offenses committed, and (c) the length of time the offender is actively involved in criminal activity. A key idea within the criminal career framework is that the causes of participation may not be the same as the causes of offense frequency, seriousness, or the length of time the offender is active.

There is an extensive body of research devoted to estimating these parameters for general and higher-risk populations, and more recent research has treated these criminal career dimensions as outcomes in their own right. For example, a large amount of research has been devoted to the study of offense frequency distributions. This literature shows that in both general and high-risk populations offense frequency distributions tend to be highly skewed, with most individuals exhibiting low frequencies and a relatively small number of individuals exhibiting high frequencies. Among the most prominent findings in the field came from Wolfgang et al.’s (1972) study of the 1945 Philadelphia male birth cohort, which showed that about 6% of the boys in the cohort were responsible for over 50% of the police contacts for the entire cohort.

5.4. Recidivism Rates

A particularly important parameter for criminal justice policy is the rate at which individuals who have offended in the past commit new crimes in the future (the recidivism or reoffending rate). Recidivism rates are based on three key pieces of information: (1) the size of the population of prior offenders at risk to recidivate in the future, (2) the number of individuals who actually do reoffend by whatever measure is used (i.e., self-report of new criminal activity, rearrest, reconviction, return to prison), and (3) a known follow-up period or length of time that individuals will be followed. Recidivism is also sometimes studied in terms of the length of time that lapses between one’s entry into the population of offenders at risk to recidivate and the timing of one’s first recidivism incident.

5.5. Trajectories and Developmental Pathways

With the advent of a large number of longitudinal studies of criminal and precriminal antisocial and aggressive behaviors, researchers have become increasingly interested in the developmental course of criminality as people age. To aid in the discovery of developmental trends and patterns, criminologists have turned to several types of statistical models that provide helpful lenses through which to view behavior change. The most prominent of these models are growth curve models, semiparametric trajectory models, and growth curve mixture models. These all assume that there is important variation in longitudinal patterns of offending. Some individuals begin offending early and continue at a sustained high rate of offending throughout their lives, whereas others who begin offending early seem to stop offending during adolescence and early adulthood. Some individuals avoid offending at all, whereas others offend in fairly unsystematic ways over time. Growth and trajectory models provide ways of summarizing and describing variation in the development of criminal behavior as individuals move through the life span.

6. Analytic Methods for Causal Inference

The foundation of a sound quantitative criminology is a solid base of descriptive information. Descriptive inference in criminology turns out to be quite challenging. Criminal offending is covert activity, and exclusive reliance on official records leads to highly deficient inferences. Despite important challenges in descriptive analysis, researchers and policymakers still strive to reach a better understanding of the effects of interventions, policies, and life experiences on criminal behavior. Much of the CCJ literature is therefore focused on efforts to develop valid causal inferences. This section discusses some of the most prominent analytic methods used for studying cause and effect in CCJ research.

6.1. Independent Variables and Outcomes

CCJ researchers typically distinguish between independent variables and dependent or outcome variables. In general, researchers conceive of dependent or outcome variables as variation that depends on the independent or predictor variables. Thus, independent variables explain variation in dependent or outcome variables. Sometimes researchers use stronger language, suggesting that independent variables cause variation in dependent variables. The burden of proof for use of the word cause is very high, however, and many researchers are careful to qualify their results if they do not think this burden of proof has been met.

6.2. Contingency Tables

Contingency tables are a useful way of presenting frequency distributions for two or three categorical variables at the same time. For example, if a person wanted to create a measure of offending participation (either someone offends in a particular time period or he or she does not) and then compare the distribution of that variable for individuals who are employed and those who are not employed, a contingency table could be constructed to display this information. Several measures of the strength of the statistical association (analogous to a correlation coefficient) have been designed for contingency tables. Although contingency tables are not often used for studying cause–effect relationships (except in randomized experiments), they are quite useful for exploratory data analysis and foundational work for more elaborate statistical models.

6.3. Measures of Association

Researchers often want to summarize the strength of the statistical association between two variables. Correlation coefficients and other measures of association are used for this purpose. In general, measures of association are arrayed on a scale of – 1 to 1 or 0 to 1, where 0 usually represents no association at all and – 1 or 1 represents a perfect negative or positive association. Measures of association have been developed for categorical and quantitative variables. Some measures of association, such as the relative risk ratio and the odds ratio, are calibrated so that 1 implies no statistical association, whereas numbers close to zero and large positive numbers indicate strong association. Researchers often conduct tests of statistical significance to test the hypothesis of “no association” in the population.

6.4. Chi-Square, t Tests, and Analysis of Variance

CCJ researchers are able to draw on a wide variety of tools for conducting tests of statistical significance. In a contingency table setting, researchers often are interested in testing the hypothesis that two categorical variables are statistically independent. The chi-square test of independence is frequently used for this purpose. Sometimes, a researcher will want to test the hypothesis that the mean of a continuous variable is the same for two populations. The independent samples t test is most often used to conduct this test. In addition, researchers may need to test the hypothesis that the mean of a continuous variable remains the same at two time points. In this setting, the paired samples t test will most likely be used. Finally, if a researcher wants to test the hypothesis that a continuous variable has the same mean in three or more populations, then analysis of variance will be used. There are many statistical tests for many types of problems. Although these are among the most common applications, many others are available for more complicated situations.

6.5. Linear Regression

Linear regression models are a class of statistical models summarizing the relationship between a quantitative or continuous outcome variable and one or more independent variables. Careful use of these models requires attention to a number of assumptions about the distribution of the outcome variable, the correctness of the model’s specification, and the independence of the observations in the analysis. If the assumptions underlying the model are valid, then the parameter estimates can provide useful information about the relationship between the independent variable or variables and the outcome variable.

6.6. Regression for Qualitative and Counted Outcomes

Many outcome variables in CCJ are not continuous or do not meet some of the distributional assumptions required for linear regression. Statistical models for these variables, therefore, do not fit well into the linear regression framework. Examples of this problem include dichotomous and event-count outcomes. For dichotomous outcomes, researchers often estimate logistic or probit regression models; for counted outcomes, specialized models for event counts are usually estimated (i.e., binomial, Poisson, negative binomial).

6.7. Structural Equation Models

CCJ researchers sometimes have well-developed ideas about the relationships between a complex system of independent and dependent variables. These ideas are usually based on theories or findings from previous empirical research. Structural equation models can be used to investigate whether the relationships between the variables in the system are in accord with the researcher’s predictions.

6.8. Interrupted Time Series Analysis

A time series analysis is based on the study of a particular cross-sectional unit (e.g., a community or city) over a sustained period of time. Over that period of time, the study takes repeated measurements of the phenomenon of interest (e.g., the number of gun homicides each month). Sometimes, an intervention occurs (e.g., the introduction of a new law restricting access to handguns) and the researcher has access to both the preintervention time series and the postintervention time series. These time series can be combined into a single interrupted time series analysis to study the effect of the intervention on the series. Researchers conducting interrupted time series analysis usually include both a series in which the intervention occurs and a series in which there is no intervention (a control series). If there is an apparent effect of the intervention in the interrupted time series analysis and the effect reflects a genuine causal effect, then there should be no corresponding change in the control series.

6.9. Models for Hierarchical and Panel Data

As discussed earlier (see the “Unit ofAnalysis” section), some data sets have more than one logical unit of analysis. For example, the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth follows the same individuals repeatedly over a sustained period of time (panel data). Other studies, such as the MTF study, sample schools and then sample multiple individuals within each school. A variety of modeling tools (i.e., fixed effect, random effect, hierarchical, and multilevel models) exist for working these kinds of data. An important feature of all of these tools is that they attend specifically to dependence within higher order units of analysis.

6.10. Counterfactual Reasoning and Treatment Effects

Increasingly, CCJ researchers are thinking about cause and effect in terms of counterfactual reasoning. Ultimately, this is an exercise in observing what actually occurs under a specific set of circumstances and then asking how things might have occurred differently if the circumstances had been different. The hypothetical aspect of the problem is a counterfactual, because it involves speculation about what might have occurred but actually did not occur. Counterfactual reasoning is particularly applicable to the problem of estimating treatment effects. For example, a researcher considers a group of people who received a particular treatment and observes their outcomes. What he would like to know (but cannot know for sure) is what outcomes these same people would have experienced if they had not received the treatment. The difference between the actual, observed outcome and the hypothetical outcome is the treatment effect. CCJ researchers usually look to the experience of a control group to estimate the hypothetical outcome.An important problemin CCJ research is the identification of appropriate control groups.

6.11. Randomized Experiments

A randomized experiment is a study in which individuals are randomly assigned to treatment or control groups prior to treatment. They provide a useful framework for estimating valid counterfactuals because random assignment to treatment and control conditions ensures that the groups are statistically comparable to each other prior to treatment. Thus, the experience of the control group provides a very convincing answer to the question of what would happen to the treatment group if the treatment group did not receive treatment.

6.12. Natural Experiments and Instrumental Variable Estimators

For a variety of reasons, randomized experiments are not possible in many instances, but sometimes conditions that closely approximate an experiment occur because of a key event or policy change. When researchers recognize these conditions, a natural experiment is possible—even when more conventional studies fail. Consider the problem of estimating the effect of police strength on crime rates. Estimating correlations and conventional regression models cannot help much with this problem. The critical ambiguity is that street crime almost certainly has an effect on police strength and that police strength almost certainly has some effect on street crime. Natural experiments can provide more convincing evidence.A recent study conducted in Washington, D.C., is illustrative (Klick & Tabarrok, 2005). It was based on the insight that changes in terror alert levels lead to meaningful changes in the presence of police on the street. The researchers examined what happened to crime rates when street-level police presence increased and decreased as terror alert levels changed. Researchers sometimes refer to natural experimentally based treatments as instrumental variable estimators, and they can provide a powerful method for estimating treatment effects when randomized experiments cannot be conducted.

6.13. Matching

Another approach to developing valid counterfactuals is to identify a group of cases that receive treatment and then identify another group of cases—the control group—that are similar to the treatment cases but do not receive treatment. To ensure that the treatment and control groups are similar, researchers match the groups on characteristics that are thought to be important. The direct matching approach guarantees that the treatment and control groups look alike on the matched characteristics.A problem is that the groups may look different from each other on characteristics that were not matched. Thus, in general, counterfactuals produced by the matching approach will not be as convincing as those produced by a randomized or natural experiment. However, in instances where experiments are not possible, direct matching designs can still provide convincing evidence about treatment effects. A generalization of the matching design involves matching on indexes based on combinations of variables. Propensity scores, which increasingly appear in the CCJ literature, are one such index. It can be shown that matching on a properly created index can lead to treatment and control groups that look like each other on many characteristics. It is likely that CCJ researchers will rely more and more heavily on matching designs and propensity scores to study treatment effects, in particular when randomized experiments are not possible.

7. Conclusion

Some aspects of quantitative CCJ research have remained relatively constant throughout the field’s history. Some CCJ research problems are very much like problems studied in other fields, and some are quite different, yet there has always been a major emphasis on description and learning about how much crime is occurring and what populations are at highest risk of criminal involvement and victimization. Other aspects, such as repeatedly and systematically following the same individuals over time and rigorously measuring the effects of changing policies, are more recent developments. CCJ is an interdisciplinary field that relies on insights from sociology, psychology, economics, political science, and statistics as well as its own rapidly emerging traditions. One thing is certain: Analytic methods in the field will continue to evolve. It is critical that quantitativeCCJ researchers monitor developments in their own field and stay well connected with developments in other allied fields to strengthen their efforts at descriptive and causal inference.

References:

1. Bachman, R., & Paternoster, R. (1997). Statistical methods for criminology and criminal justice. New York: McGraw-Hill.

2. Berk, R. A. (1991). Drug use, prostitution and the prevalence of AIDS: An analysis using census tracts. Journal of Sex Research, 27, 607–621.

3. Blumstein, A., & Cohen, J. (1987, August 28). Characterizing criminal careers. Science, 237, 985–991.

4. Blumstein, A., Cohen, J., Roth, J., & Visher, C. A. (Eds.). (1986). Criminal careers and “career criminals.”Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

5. Bushway, S. D., Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (2003). Desistance as a developmental process: A comparison of static and dynamic approaches. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19, 129–153.

6. Campbell, A., Berk, R. A., & Fyfe, J. J. (1998). Deployment of violence: The Los Angeles Police Department’s use of dogs. Evaluation Review, 22, 535–565.

7. Eliott, D. S., Huizinga, D., & Menard, S. (1989). Multiple problem youth: Delinquency, substance use, and mental health problems. New York: Springer-Verlag.

8. Ezell, M. E., & Cohen, L. E. (2005). Desisting from crime: Continuity and change in long-term patterns of serious chronic offenders. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

9. Fox, J. A. (Ed.). (1981). Models in quantitative criminology. New York: Academic Press.

10. Greenberg, D. F. (1979). Mathematical criminology. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

11. Haviland, A. M., & Nagin, D. S. (2005). Causal inferences with group based trajectory models. Psychometrika, 70, 1–22.

12. Johnston, L. D., O’Malley, P. M., Bachman, J. G., & Schulenberg, J. E. (2007). Monitoring the Future national survey results on drug use, 1975–2006. Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse.

13. Klick, J., & Tabarrok, A. (2005). Using terror alert levels to estimate the effect of police on crime. Journal of Law and Economics, 48, 267–279.

14. Land, K. C. (1992). Models of criminal careers: Some suggestions for moving beyond the current debate. Criminology, 30, 149–155.

15. Langan, P. A., & Levin, D. J. (2002). Recidivism of prisoners released in 1994. Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics.

16. Laub, J. H., & Sampson, R. J. (2003). Shared beginnings, divergent lives: Delinquent boys to age 70. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

17. Loftin, C., McDowall, D., Wiersema, B., & Cottey, T. J. (1991). Effects of restrictive licensing of handguns on homicide and suicide in the District of Columbia. New England Journal of Medicine, 325, 1615–1620.

18. Maltz, M. D. (1984). Recidivism. New York: Academic Press.

19. Mulvey, E. P., Steinberg, L. D., Fagan, J., Cauffman, E., Piquero, A. R., Chassin, L., et al. (2004). Theory and research on desistance from antisocial activity among serious adolescent offenders. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 2, 213–236.

20. Nagin, D. S. (2005). Group-based modeling of development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

21. Osgood, D. W. (2000). Poisson-based regression analysis of aggregate crime rates. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 16, 21–43.

22. Osgood, D.W., & Rowe, D. C. (1994). Bridging criminal careers, theory, and policy through latent variable models of individual offending. Criminology, 32, 517–554.

23. Piquero, A. R., Farrington, D. P., & Blumstein, A. (2007). Key issues in criminal career research. New York: Cambridge University Press.

24. Rubin, D. B. (2006). Matched sampling for causal effects. New York: Cambridge University Press.

25. Sampson, R. J., & Laub, J. H. (1993). Crime in the making: Pathways and turning points through life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

26. Schmidt, P., & Witte, A. D. (1984). An economic analysis of crime and justice. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

27. Thornberry, T. P., & Krohn, M. D. (Eds.). (2003). Taking stock of delinquency: An overview of findings from contemporary longitudinal studies. New York: Plenum Press.

28. Tracy, P., & Kempf-Leonard, K. (1996). Continuity and discontinuity in criminal careers. New York: Plenum Press.

29. Widom, C. S. (1989, April 14). The cycle of violence. Science, 244, 160–166.

30. Wolfgang, M. E., Figlio, R. M., & Sellin, T. (1972). Delinquency in a birth cohort. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

I. Introduction

Crime is not a random event. Criminological research suggests that certain psychological, social, or economic characteristics are associated with higher levels of criminal involvement. Furthermore, particular lifestyles and patterns of activity place individuals at a heightened risk for victimization. Crime fluctuates temporally as well: More crimes occur in the evening as opposed to the morning, on weekends as opposed to weekdays, and in summer months as opposed to winter months. It comes as no surprise that spatial patterns of crime exist as well. For example, Sherman and colleagues (Sherman, Gartin, & Buerger, 1989) found that approximately 50% of calls for service came from approximately 3% of addresses in Minneapolis, Minnesota.

Crime mapping is the process through which crime analysts and researchers use location information about crime events to detect spatial patterns in criminal activity. Early crime mapping efforts typically involved placing physical markers, such as pins, on maps to designate the locations where crimes occurred. Patterns of criminal activity were determined primarily through visual inspection of these maps. With the advances in computing, geographic information system (GIS) software, such as MapInfo and ArcGIS, enables researchers to convert geographic information (addresses or global positioning system [GPS] coordinates) into coordinates used with virtual maps. Researchers and crime analysts can then use a number of analytic software packages to examine and detect patterns of criminal activity from these virtual maps.

This research paper is designed to offer an overview of the field of crime mapping. First, the history of crime mapping is briefly discussed. After this, a brief overview of several theoretical perspectives that have been used to understand the spatial patterns of crime is provided. Following this, some of the major findings in spatial crime analyses are discussed, particularly in regard to the relevance of implementation strategies designed to combat crime. The research paper concludes with recommendations for future directions in crime mapping research.

II. A Brief History of Crime Mapping

Interestingly, the earliest efforts at crime mapping can be traced to the roots of the discipline of criminology itself. In the early 19th century, a number of studies examined the distribution of crime in France and England. Brantingham and Brantingham (1991a) provided an overview of some of the findings of the main studies from this era. Guerry and Quetelet mapped crimes in France at the department level and found that crimes were not distributed evenly across departments. They also found that there was stability over time in both areas with high crime and areas with low crime over time. These findings were echoed in England with studies by Plint, Glyde, and Mayhew.

In the United States, Shaw and McKay’s (1942) seminal study of juvenile delinquency in Chicago made extensive use of crime maps. Shaw and McKay borrowed Park and Burgess’s (1924) ecological model and divided the city into five different zones. They found that the zone adjacent to the central business district, the zone of transition, perpetually suffered from the highest rates of juvenile delinquency and other social problems regardless of the specific ethnic group occupying the zone at the time. This research was instrumental in popularizing social disorganization theory and inspired a number of similar mapping projects in Chicago; Philadelphia; Richmond, Virginia; Cleveland, Ohio; Birmingham, Alabama; Denver, Colorado; Seattle, Washington; and other cities.

Accompanying these early efforts in crime mapping were developments in the profession of policing that provided additional opportunities for crime mapping. In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, the professionalization movement in policing encouraged police organizations to compile statistics documenting the extent of crime in their jurisdictions. In fact, one of the main justifications for the creation of Federal Bureau of Investigation was for the explicit purpose of documenting the extent of crime in the United States through the Uniform Crime Reporting program (Mosher, Miethe, & Phillips, 2002). During this time, many agencies began compiling crime statistics and conducting analyses of crime data. Crime mapping was primarily done using pin maps, which were very time-consuming and provided only a basic visualization of crime patterns.

The late 1960s and early 1970s were critical for the development of crime mapping. In 1966, the Harvard Lab for Computer Graphics and Spatial Analysis developed SYMAP (Synagraphic Mapping System), one of the first widely distributed computerized mapping software programs. The Environmental Science and Research Institute was founded in 1969 and in the subsequent decades emerged as one of the top distributors of GIS software, including the current ArcView and ArcGIS software packages. Also around this time, the U.S. Census Bureau began the ambitious GBF-DIME (Geographic Base Files and Dual Independent Map Encoding) project, which was used to create digitized street maps for all cities in the United States during the 1970 census (Mark, Chrisman, Frank, McHaffie, & Pickles, 1997). These advances were necessary for the development of GIS programs used in crime mapping.

The use of GIS programs for mapping has been the most important advance in the field of crime mapping. There are several important advantages in using virtual maps instead of physical maps. First, computers have dramatically reduced the time and effort required to produce crime maps. Given the relatively low cost and user-friendliness of many of these software programs, it no longer requires a substantial investment for agencies that wish to engage in crime mapping. Second, these GIS programs reduce the amount of error associated with assigning geographic coordinates to crime events. Third, virtual maps are much more flexible than physical maps, allowing researchers and crime analysts to compare the geographic distribution of crimes against other characteristics of the area under investigation (e.g., census bureau information, city planning and zoning maps, and maps produced by other agencies). Finally, GIS and other spatial analysis software provide powerful statistical tools for analyzing and detecting patterns of criminal activity that cannot be detected through simple visual inspection.

In the mid-1970s and early 1980s, a crisis of confidence in traditional police practices emerged following the results of studies, such as the Kansas City Preventative Patrol experiment, that suggested that the police were not effective in combating crime (Weisburd & Lum, 2005). Goldstein’s (1979) problem-oriented policing emerged as a response to this crisis and emphasized that policing should involve identifying emerging crime and disorder problems and working to address the underlying causes of these problems. Academic interests in the field of criminology also began to shift during this time. While many criminologists were concerned with causes of crime that were outside the sphere of influence of police agencies (e.g., economic depravation, differential association, and social bonds), a number of researchers, such as Jeffery (1971), Newman (1972), and Cohen and Felson (1979), began discussing factors that contribute to the occurrence of crime that were more amenable to intervention. The combination of the shift in theoretical focus in criminology and the shift in the philosophy of policing yielded new opportunities for crime mapping and initiated a resurgence of research on both the geography of crime as well as crime prevention strategies involving crime mapping.

Although the first instances of computerized crime mapping occurred in the mid-1960s in St. Louis, Missouri, the adoption of computerized crime mapping across the United States remained relatively slow. Although a number of agencies, in particular in larger jurisdictions, became early adopters of computerized crime mapping technology, the large period of growth in computerized crime mapping did not begin until the late 1980s and early 1990s (Weisburd & Lum, 2005). The rate of adoption of crime mapping among departments greatly increased as desktop computers became cheaper and more powerful and GIS software became easier to use and more powerful. The Compstat program, which started in 1994 in New York City, emphasized crime mapping as a central component to strategic police planning and helped popularize crime mapping among police agencies. With assistance from the Office of Community Oriented Police Services and the National Institute of Justice, a large number of departments adopted computerized crime mapping practices. By 1997, approximately 35% of departments with more than 100 officers reported using crime mapping (Weisburd & Lum, 2005).

III. Theoretical Perspectives in Crime Mapping Research

As previously noted, the development of tools and techniques of crime mapping have been accompanied by an expanding body of criminological theory oriented toward explaining the geographic patterns of crime. It is important, when discussing theories about the spatial distribution of crime, to distinguish between theories that explain criminality and theories that explain criminal events. Traditional criminological approaches tend to emphasize individual-level social and psychological characteristics as the main factors that lead to criminality, that is, the propensity toward committing criminal acts. These theories focus predominately on explaining why offenders engage and persist in criminal lifestyles. Alternatively, theories that discuss the spatial distribution of crime focus on explaining the patterns seen in criminal events, that is, the occurrences of crime. These theories focus less attention on the motivations of offenders and more attention on factors of the environment that promote crime.

A. Social Disorganization Theory

Although a number of theories have been proposed to explain why particular neighborhoods experience high crime rates, social disorganization theory has been the most influential. Social disorganization theory, as first proposed by Shaw and McKay (1942), can be seen as the first attempt to construct a criminological theory of place. The concept of social disorganization refers to “the inability of local communities to realize the common values of their residents or solve commonly experienced problems” (Bursik, 1988, p. 521). As such, disorganized communities suffer from diminished capacities to exercise social control and are unable to regulate the behavior of community members (see Bursik & Grasmick, 1993). As the capacity of a community to regulate the behavior of its members decreases, the potential for illegal activity increases.

A central tenet of social disorganization theory is that structural conditions within a neighborhood attenuate the social ties that promote social cohesion and enable community members to exercise social control. Economic depravation creates undesirable living conditions that promote residential instability and population heterogeneity. Because social ties require time to form, high residential instability in neighborhoods prevents the development of social ties as residents frequently relocate (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993). In neighborhoods with high levels of population heterogeneity the extensiveness of friendship and acquaintance networks through which social control is exercised is limited because of social and cultural barriers between residents (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993). Structural factors such as these compromise the social integration of neighborhood residents and undermine perceptions of collective efficacy, that is, the collective sense of trust, social cohesion, and willingness to intervene on behalf of the public good (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). Neighborhoods that have low collective efficacy are likely to experience high levels of crime.

B. Routine Activities Theory

Cohen and Felson’s (1979) routine activities theory has been applied extensively to research on spatial patterns of crime. To Cohen and Felson, crime is a predatory activity and, as such, can subsist only near patterns of legitimate activity. Therefore, to understand crime patterns it is necessary to understand the patterns of conventional routine activities around which crime is organized. Criminal victimization occurs where routine activities produce a convergence in space and time of the three necessary conditions for crime to occur: (1) a suitable target, (2) a motivated offender, and (3) the absence of capable guardians (Cohen & Felson, 1979). Felson (1998) explained that suitable targets have value to the offender, are visible to the offender, are easily moved or removed, and are accessible by the offender. The concept of guardianship has also been extended and includes intimate handlers, who are responsible for monitoring the behavior of offenders; guardians, who are responsible for protecting targets; and place managers, who are responsible for monitoring and controlling access to particular spaces (see Eck, 2001). In applications of this theory to spatial crime analysis, structural features of the city, patterns of land use, and the routine activities associated with particular locations can concentrate motivated offenders and suitable targets into areas with limited guardianship. This, in turn, fosters opportunities for criminal victimization.

C. Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design and Defensible Space Theories

A couple of important theories have been proposed to explain why criminal events occur more frequently at particular sites. Jeffery (1971) was one of the first criminologists to suggest that immediate features of the environment affected crime, with his Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) approach. This approach emphasizes target hardening and surveillance. Contemporaneously, Newman (1972) also emphasized the role of the environment in creating crime with his defensible space theory. Newman argued, in regard to public housing, that it is possible to design the use of space to enhance territorial functioning and to improve the natural surveillance in these environments. Crowe (2000) expanded on both Jefferey’s and Newman’s initial theories. In the current formulation of CPTED, Crowe discussed three strategies that are used to prevent crime: (1) access control to prevent contact between the offender and the target, (2) surveillance to monitor areas and discourage offenders, and (3) territorial reinforcement to promote feelings of ownership among users of the space. CPTED is usually employed along with situational crime prevention (discussed in the next section) to formulate practical strategies for reducing crime.

D. Rational Choice Perspective and Situational Crime Prevention

The rational choice perspective (Cornish & Clarke, 1986) is primarily concerned with understanding offender decision making. This approach assumes that offenders possess limited rationality, meaning that they make rational calculations of the costs and benefits associated with crime but are constrained in their decision making by time, information, context, ability, and prior experiences. This perspective seeks to understand the series of decisions made by the offender that result in a criminal event. Interestingly, unlike many other theories of offending, the rational choice perspective emphasizes that different decisions are involved in the production of different types of crime. Rational choice explanations of criminal offending differ by crime type, instead of ignoring these differences in favor of a general motivation toward engaging in crime, as is common in many other criminological theories. Spatial applications of the rational choice perspective emphasize offender movement, search patterns, and target selection processes that determine the spatial patterns observed in crime.

Situational crime prevention (Clarke, 1997) refers to the application of the rational choice perspective toward developing policy recommendations to reduce crime. Situational crime prevention emphasizes situational-level interventions toward increasing the efforts associated with committing a crime, increasing the perceived risks for engaging in crime, reducing the anticipated rewards from crime, and removing the excuses associated with crime (Clarke, 1997). As with the CPTED and defensible space theories, the policy applications of situational crime prevention focus on practical strategies that are customized to specific settings. Although the successes of this approach are well documented, rarely do the methods used in these studies permit broad conclusions regarding the effectiveness of this approach at reducing crime (see Clarke, 1997, for a discussion).

E. Crime Pattern Theory

Brantingham and Brantingham (1991b, 1993) developed a perspective referred to as crime pattern theory that incorporates elements of the rational choice, routine activities, and other spatial perspectives on crime. According to this perspective, individuals create a cognitive map of their spatial environment with which they are familiar through their routine activities. The action space of an individual consists of (a) nodes, the destinations of travel, such as work, home, and entertainment locations, and (b) paths, the travel routes that individuals take to move from one node to another. Through repeated movement along paths to various nodes, individuals develop an awareness space consisting of the areas in a city with which they are familiar. According to this theory, offenders search for suitable targets primarily within this awareness space by comparing potential targets against templates, or mental conceptualizations of the characteristics of appropriate targets. The likelihood of a particular target being selected by an offender dramatically decreases as an offender moves away from his or her awareness space, a process often referred to as distance decay (see Rengert, Piquero, & Jones, 1999). One interesting application of this theory is geographic profiling, which attempts to narrow the scope of police investigations by using information on repeated crimes to identify the awareness space of a repeat criminal (Rossmo, 2000).

IV. Spatial Crime Research and Planning Interventions

A. Hot Spots

As previously indicated, a large number of studies have demonstrated that criminal events are spatially concentrated. Although the extent of concentration differs between studies, all empirical evidence suggests that a small number of places account for the majority of crime within any given city. Sherman and colleagues (1989) popularized the term hot spot to describe these areas where crime is concentrated. The detection and explanation of these hot spots is a major concern of research in crime mapping. Hot-spot analysis is currently very popular among police agencies because it provides a method to coordinate interventions in emerging problem areas.

A number of studies have demonstrated the benefits of hot-spot analysis to help coordinate police responses to crime. For example, in a randomized experiment in Minneapolis, Sherman and Weisburd (1995) found that concentrated patrol efforts in hot-spot areas produced a significant decline in calls for service. Police responses to crime are not limited to enhanced patrol. In another randomized experiment in Jersey City, New Jersey, Weisburd and Green (1995) found that after identifying drug market hot spots using crime mapping, a coordinated policy of engaging business owners and community members coupled with police crackdowns yielded substantial decreases in disorder calls for service. In fact, a recently conducted meta-analysis on street-level drug enforcement indicated that approaches that focus on community–police partnerships in drug market hot spots were more effective than enforcement-only approaches (Mazerolle, Soole, & Rombouts, 2006). This suggests that the best approach is a coordinated strategy between police officers and community members toward reducing crime in identified hot spots.

B. Community-Level Factors Affecting Crime

When designing strategies to address crime in hot-spot areas, it is important to consider the community context that contributes to emergence and maintenance of hot spots. Neighborhood-level research on spatial crime patterns helps illuminate the factors associated with heightened levels of crime. As previously mentioned, economic depravation, residential mobility, and population heterogeneity all contribute to higher levels of crime in a neighborhood by impeding the development of social ties between residents (Bursik & Grasmick, 1993). Family dissolution and inadequate supervision of adolescents also contribute to increased levels of crime. In fact, the presence of unsupervised adolescents in a community is an important predictor of violent crime in a neighborhood (Veysey & Messner, 1999). Rose and Clear (1998) suggested that prior crime policies that result in mass incarceration may also impair community functioning, because in some communities this represents a substantial loss in the social and human capital on which informal social control depends.

Although many of the structural factors contributing to social disorganization remain outside the control of police agencies, such as concentrated disadvantage and high residential mobility, it remains possible to design interventions to increase social integration and improve collective efficacy. Community policing emphasizes community involvement in responding to crime problems through the creation of police–community partnerships, which should both increase community access to public social control and foster improved trust between community members and police officers. Furthermore, programs designed to increase community integration through increasing resident involvement in local agencies should be helpful in fostering the development of social ties and increasing perceptions of collective efficacy. Finally, if Rose and Clear (1998) are correct, community corrections and offender reintegration efforts should alleviate some of the impact of the mass incarceration policies that have removed offenders from the community. Bursik and Grasmick (1993) provided an extensive discussion on various community-based interventions and provided suggestions for how to improve these programs.

In addition to the previously discussed factors, a fair amount of research has examined the effects of incivilities on crime and the fear of crime within a community. Incivilities, such as poorly tended residences, the accumulation of refuse, graffiti, and public loitering and drunkenness, are signs of disorder. A number of studies have demonstrated that the presence of incivilities in a neighborhood is associated with increased levels of serious crime and with heightened fear of crime among community residents (see Skogan, 1990). Sampson and colleagues (1997), however, suggested that this relationship is spurious and that crime and incivilities result from the same underlying causal process, namely, a lack of collective efficacy. Although the causal role of incivilities in producing crime is in doubt, they may still function as leading indicators of potential crime problems, meaning that mapping incivilities may provide information on communities where hot spots may be emerging.

C. City Features and Crime Locations

In truly comprehensive strategies for addressing crime in hot-spot areas, it is important not only to examine neighborhood-level factors that contribute to the emergence of a crime hot spot but also to consider microlevel place characteristics that promote crime. As Sherman and colleagues (1989) noted, even within high-crime neighborhoods there is substantial variability in the levels of crime. Some places within these neighborhoods experience very low levels of crime, whereas other places are responsible for a substantial amount of the crime.

A number of studies have demonstrated that hot spots of crime tend to emerge around particular features of the urban environment, such as bars and taverns (Roncek & Maier, 1993), fast food restaurants (Brantingham & Brantingham, 1982), schools (Roncek & Faggiani, 1985), public housing (Roncek, Bell, & Francik, 1981), vacant buildings (Spelman, 1993), and public transportation (Block & Davis, 1996). These locations may promote crime by juxtaposing motivated offenders and suitable targets in the absence of capable guardians. Furthermore, the pattern and timing of criminal events in these areas follow the rhythm of legitimate social activity in these areas. For example, crime around bars is more common during evenings and weekends, because more legitimate patrons visit bars during this time. Crime is more common around schools during the school year and after school, because many students interact at this time near school grounds without teacher or parental supervision. Understanding the relationship between the pattern of legitimate social activity and criminal activity around these areas allows researchers and policymakers to design suitable crime prevention strategies.

In addition to identifying the location and timing of criminal events at particular sites, it is important to discern the mechanism through which these areas produce criminal opportunities. Brantingham and Brantingham (1993) discussed the differences between crime generators and crime attractors. Crime generators, such as transit stations, foster criminal activity by bringing both victims and offenders into a location. On the other hand, crime attractors, such as bars and taverns, tend to bring higher proportions of offenders into an area because these locations are tied to patterns of illicit activity. It is important to discern whether a given location functions as a crime generator or a crime attractor, because the appropriateness and effectiveness of intervention strategies may differ by type of location.

There is no shortage of practical policy recommendations for reducing or eliminating criminal opportunities around hot-spot areas. Clarke’s (1997) situational crime prevention model offers a set of 16 different opportunity-reducing strategies. Among those most applicable to location-based interventions are controlling access and entry/exit screening; improving surveillance by officers, civilians, and citizens; deflecting offenders by disrupting routines that promote crime; and facilitating compliance with rules. Use of these strategies to control opportunities for crime may help reduce the risks of victimization in hot-spot areas.

D. Crime Displacement

Unanticipated consequences are always a concern when designing an intervention. For interventions in crime hot spots, crime displacement is of particular importance. After the intervention is implemented and crime opportunities are reduced, it is possible that offenders simply relocate their activities to areas outside the intervention site. For example, if a police crackdown on drug trafficking is initiated at a particular intersection that is a hot spot for drug dealing, it is possible that offenders will simply move to a nearby intersection, and drug sales will continue. Other types of crime displacement, such as offenders committing crime during different times, offenders selecting different targets, or even offenders committing different types of crimes, also are possible. Given the wide ranges of different responses that might constitute crime displacement, it is difficult to conclusively demonstrate that crime displacement did not occur during a particular study. For this reason, any researchers or policymakers implementing place-based intervention strategies should be keen to the possibility of crime displacement. Fortunately, the empirical literature on crime displacement is decidedly mixed, and it appears that many interventions do not lead to appreciable crime displacement effects (Clarke, 1997).

V. Future Directions and Challenges in Crime Mapping

On the basis of the current research on the spatial patterns of crime, a number of avenues of research in crime mapping are worth exploring. Obviously, a major focus for future research in this area will be further development and refinement of the tools needed in crime mapping studies. Although not discussed in this research paper, there are substantial methodological and analytic difficulties that remain in crime mapping research. Beyond this, however, there are a number of substantive research avenues in crime mapping that are worth pursuing.

A first avenue of research is the further development and integration of theories of the spatial distribution of crime. Although there have been some efforts at integrating social disorganization and routine activities theories (see Miethe & Meier, 1994), additional work remains. These theories share considerable conceptual overlap, and linking the two should provide a more comprehensive framework for understanding the relationship between crime at the macroand microlevels. Furthermore, the criminal events perspective (Meier, Kennedy, & Sacco, 2001; Sacco & Kennedy, 2002) provides a mechanism to link other theories of criminality with theories of criminal events. To date, the implications of other theories of criminality for understanding the spatial distribution of crime remains unexplored and may provide useful insights into offender search patterns and the selection of targets and locations.

A second area of research that would be very helpful in regard to policymakers is expanding crime mapping to include additional justice agencies. The vast majority of research in crime mapping has used calls for service and crime report data, and most applications of crime mapping have been applied to police decision making. Researchers should consider broadening the scope of crime mapping efforts to incorporate data from other justice agencies. In a practical sense, mapping efforts involving other agencies can provide assistance with managing caseloads and coordinating the distribution of services. For example, mapping the residences of parolees and probationers can help agencies optimize caseloads and improve the process of referring ex-offenders to nearby treatment facilities. In addition, novel data can provide new measures of concepts that are commonly used in geographic research, raise interesting research questions, and possibly introduce new avenues of research.

A third potentially fruitful area of research would involve increased attention to the differences between types of city features and the production of criminal events. As previously discussed, it is well established that certain city features tend to concentrate criminal events in adjacent areas. What remains to be seen, however, is how other spatial and community features contribute to differential spatial patterns of crime. For example, it is not entirely clear why some bars suffer from high levels of crime problems and others do not. Obviously, design features of the location itself should account for some of the differences, but other features, such as the level of community organization, adjacent land usage, and the level of concentration of other crime generators or attractors, may also be important for differentiating between problematic and nonproblematic bars.

A final recommendation for future research on spatial patterns in crime is to further examine the stability of crime in small areas. Specifically, as Weisburd, Bushway, Lum, and Yang (2004) recognized, few studies have examined the degree to which crime in microlevel areas is stable over time. In their study, conducted in Seattle over a 14-year period, Weisburd et al. found that there was a substantial amount of stability in the level of crime on street segments. Despite the high degree of stability in many places, some street segments exhibited either downward or upward crime trajectories. Obviously, additional research is needed to determine whether this pattern holds generally or is specific to the city of Seattle. This type of research will be very helpful in describing the factors that lead to the development, maintenance, and decline of crime in problematic areas.

VI. Conclusion

The purpose of this research paper was to review some of the current research on crime mapping, the process through which crime analysts and researchers use location information about crime to detect spatial patterns in criminal activity. Although the history of crime mapping can be traced to the beginnings of the field of criminology, it is only recently that researchers and crime analysts have been able to engage in extensive mapping efforts, primarily due to the development of the desktop computer and GIS software. The emergence of the problem-oriented policing model, along with advances in the theory of criminal events, created a niche for crime mapping in police agencies. The popularization of computerized crime mapping through the Compstat program in New York led to a period of rapid adoption of crime mapping that continues today.

Several theories that are widely used in crime mapping research were also discussed in this research paper. Social disorganization theory argues that structural factors can compromise the social networks needed for social integration, which in turn reduces the capacity of communities to regulate the behavior of its members. Routine activities theory states that crime can be understood through the convergence in time and space of suitable targets, motivated offenders, and the absence of capable guardians. Defensible space and CPTED focuses on how the design of a physical space can prevent crime through increasing territorial functioning and enhancing surveillance capabilities. The rational choice and crime pattern theories of crime focus primarily on explaining how patterns of offender routine activities and target-searching strategies can increase the level of crime in particular areas. Taken together, these theories provide the conceptual backdrop for understanding the spatial distribution of crime and designing strategies to combat crime in high-crime areas.

Finally, this research paper aimed to elaborate on some of the major findings in crime mapping and spatial crime research, with particular attention to designing strategies to combat crime problems. It was argued that the best strategy for eliminating crime hot spots requires consideration of causal factors operating at both the neighborhood and site levels. This research paper concluded with a number of suggestions for future researchers examining spatial crime patterns through crime mapping. In particular, crime mapping research may benefit from efforts at theoretical integration, using crime mapping with additional agencies, further examining the source of differences in the production of criminal opportunities between city features, and examining the stability of crime areas over time.

References:

1. Block, R., & Davis, S. (1996). The environs of rapid transit stations: A focus for street crime or just another risky place? In R. Clarke (Ed.), Crime prevention studies: Vol. 6. Preventing mass transit crime. (pp. 237–257). Monsey, NY: Criminal Justice Press.

2. Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1982). Mobility, notoriety, and crime: A study in crime patterns of urban nodal points. Journal of Environmental Systems, 11, 89–99.

3. Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1991a). Introduction: The dimensions of crime. In P. J Brantingham & P. L. Brantingham (Eds.), Environmental criminology (pp. 7–26). Prospect Heights, IL:Waveland Press.

4. Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1991b). Notes on the geometry of crime. In P. J. Brantingham & P. L. Brantingham (Eds.), Environmental criminology (pp. 27–54). Prospect Heights, IL:Waveland Press.

5. Brantingham, P. J., & Brantingham, P. L. (1993). Nodes, paths, and edges: Considerations on the complexity of crime and the physical environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 13, 3–28.

6. Bursik, R. J. (1988). Social disorganization and theories of crime and delinquency: Problems and prospects. Criminology, 26, 519–551.

7. Bursik, R. J., & Grasmick, H. G. (1993). Neighborhoods and crime: The dimensions of effective community control. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

8. Clarke, R. V. (1997). Part 1: Introduction. In R. Clarke (Ed.). Situational crime prevention: Successful case studies (2nd ed., pp. 1–44). Albany, NY: Harrow & Heston.

9. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime trends:A routine activities approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588–608.

10. Cornish, D., & Clarke, R. (1986). Introduction. In D. Cornish & R. Clarke (Eds.), The reasoning criminal: Rational choice perspectives on offending (pp. 1–13). New York: Springer- Verlag.

11. Crowe, T. (2000). Crime prevention through environmental design: Applications of architectural design and space management concepts (2nd ed.). Boston: Butterworth- Heinemann.

12. Eck, J. E. (2001). Policing and crime event concentration. In R. F. Meier, L. W. Kennedy, & V. F. Sacco (Eds.), The process and structure of crime: Criminal events and crime analysis (pp. 249–276). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

13. Felson, M. (1998). Crime and everyday life (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

14. Goldstein, H. (1979). Improving policing: A problem-oriented approach. Crime & Delinquency, 25, 236–258.

15. Jeffery, C. (1971). Crime prevention through environmental design. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

16. Mark, D. M., Chrisman, N., Frank, A. U., McHaffie, P. H., & Pickles, J. (1997). The GIS History Project. Retrieved from http://www.ncgia.buffalo.edu/gishist/bar_harbor.html

17. Mazerolle, L., Soole, D. L., & Rombouts, S. (2006). Street-level drug law enforcement: A meta analytic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 2, 409–435.

18. Meier, R. F., Kennedy, L.W., & Sacco,V. F. (2001). Crime and the criminal events perspective. In R. F.Meier, L.W. Kennedy, & V. F. Sacco (Eds.), The process and structure of crime: Criminal events and crime analysis (pp. 1–28). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.

19. Miethe, T. D., & Meier, R. M. (1994). Crime and its social context. Albany: State University of New York Press.

20. Mosher, C. J., Miethe, T. D., & Phillips, D. M. (2002). The mismeasure of crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

21. Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space: Crime prevention through urban design. New York: Collier Books.

22. Park, R. E., & Burgess E. W. (1924). Introduction to the science of sociology (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

23. Rengert, G. F., Piquero, A. R., & Jones, P. R. (1999). Distance decay re-examined. Criminology, 37, 427–445.

24. Roncek, D. W., Bell, R., & Francik, J. M. A. (1981). Housing projects and crime. Social Problems, 29, 151–166.

25. Roncek, D. W., & Faggiani, D. (1985). High schools and crime: A replication. Sociological Quarterly, 26, 491–505.

26. Roncek, D. W., & Maier, P. A. (1993). Bars, blocks, and crime revisited: Linking the theory of routine activities to the empiricism of “hot spots.” Criminology, 29, 725–753.

27. Rose, D. R., & Clear, T. R. (1998). Incarceration, social capital, and crime: Implications for social disorganization theory. Criminology, 36, 441–478.

28. Rossmo, K. (2000). Geographic profiling. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

29. Sacco, V. F., & Kennedy, L. W. (2002). The criminal event: Perspectives in space and time. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

30. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997, August 15). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multi-level study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918–924.

31. Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency in urban areas. Chicago: University. of Chicago Press.

32. Sherman, L.W., Gartin, P. R., & Buerger, M. E. (1989). Hot spots of predatory crime: Routine activities and the criminology of place. Criminology, 27, 27–55.

33. Sherman, L.W., &Weisburd, D. (1995). General deterrent effects of police patrol in crime “hot spots”: A randomized, controlled trial. Justice Quarterly, 16, 633–654.

34. Skogan,W. G. (1990). Disorder and decline: Crime and the spiral of decay in American neighborhoods. Berkeley: University of California Press.

35. Spelman, W. (1993). Abandoned buildings: Magnets for crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 21, 481–495.

36. Veysey, B. M., & Messner, S. F. (1999). Further testing of social disorganization theory: An elaboration of Sampson and Grove’s “community structure and crime.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36, 156–174.

37. Weisburd, D., Bushway, S., Lum, C., & Yang, S. (2004). Trajectories of crime at places:A longitudinal study of street segments in the city of Seattle. Criminology, 42, 283–321.

38. Weisburd, D., & Green, L. (1995). Policing drug hot spots: The Jersey City Drug Market Experiment. Justice Quarterly, 12, 711–736.

39. Weisburd, D., & Lum, C. (2005). The diffusion of computerized crime mapping in policing: Linking research and practice. Police Practice and Research, 6, 419–434.

Before jumping into whether to pursue a degree in Criminology, it important to understand what criminology is and what it isn’t. Criminology is a fascinating field of study that delves into the causes, consequences, and prevention of crime. It combines elements of sociology, psychology, law, and criminal justice to provide a comprehensive understanding of criminal behavior and its impact on society.

Aspiring criminology students are often drawn to the subject because of their interest in crime, justice, and the pursuit of truth. However, it is essential to separate the myths from reality and understand the actualities of pursuing a degree in criminology.

While popular media often sensationalizes criminology as a thrilling career focused solely on solving crimes, the truth is far more complex. Criminology encompasses a wide range of disciplines and career opportunities beyond traditional notions of crime investigation. By understanding the realities of this field, prospective students can make informed decisions about their academic pursuits and career paths.

Myth: Criminology is all about solving crimes

Misconceptions often arise around the idea that criminology is solely focused on solving crimes, akin to what we see in popular TV shows and movies. While solving crimes is undoubtedly a significant component, it represents only a fraction of what criminology entails.

Criminology encompasses a wide range of subjects and areas of study. It involves understanding the root causes of crime, analyzing the effectiveness of criminal justice systems, and developing strategies to prevent criminal behavior. The field takes a more comprehensive and multidisciplinary approach to crime and its impact on individuals and society.

Beyond solving crimes, criminology also explores:

1. Criminal Behavior: This aspect of criminology dives into the psychological, sociological, and biological factors that contribute to criminal behavior. It aims to understand why individuals engage in illegal activities and the underlying motivations behind their actions.

2. Penology and Corrections: Criminology studies how society punishes and rehabilitates offenders. It looks at various forms of punishment, such as incarceration, probation, or alternative rehabilitation programs, and evaluates their effectiveness in reducing recidivism and creating a safer community.

3. Criminal Justice System: Criminology examines the functioning of the criminal justice system, including law enforcement, courts, and corrections. It analyzes the structure, policies, and practices of these institutions and explores their impact on individuals, communities, and society as a whole.

4. Victimology: This area of criminology focuses on the experiences and needs of crime victims. It aims to understand the effects of victimization, provide support services, and advocate for victims’ rights within the criminal justice system.

5. Crime Prevention: Criminology places a strong emphasis on proactive measures to prevent crime before it occurs. It involves studying crime patterns, developing crime prevention strategies, and implementing policies and programs to create safer environments.

By debunking the myth that criminology is solely about solving crimes, it becomes clear that the field provides a much broader and dynamic perspective. It encompasses a wide array of topics and areas of study that collectively contribute to our understanding of crime and its consequences.

For a deeper understanding of the various aspects of criminology, you may find the following resources helpful:

• American Society of Criminology: The official website of the American Society of Criminology offers valuable insights into the field and its diverse areas of research.

• Introduction to Criminology – OpenLearn: This free online course from OpenLearn explores the fundamentals of criminology, providing an overview of the subject beyond crime solving.

Reality: Criminology is a multidisciplinary field

Contrary to the notion that criminology is solely focused within the confines of one discipline, the reality is that criminology is a multidisciplinary field that draws from various disciplines to provide a comprehensive understanding of crime and its implications. This multidisciplinary approach enhances the depth and breadth of knowledge within the field.

Criminology encompasses contributions from disciplines such as:

1. Sociology: Sociological perspectives play a significant role in understanding crime. Sociology helps criminologists examine the social, cultural, and structural factors that contribute to criminal behavior. It investigates the influence of social institutions, inequality, and community dynamics on crime rates and patterns.

2. Psychology: Psychological insights are crucial for comprehending individual motivations and behaviors related to crime. Psychology helps criminologists explore factors such as personality traits, cognitive processes, and social interactions that may contribute to criminal behavior.

3. Law: Understanding the legal framework is vital for studying criminology. Legal knowledge enables criminologists to analyze legislation, policies, and legal procedures that shape the criminal justice system. It allows for an examination of the impact of laws on crime prevention, offender reintegration, and victim advocacy efforts.

4. Criminal Justice: The study of criminal justice provides insights into the institutions responsible for enforcing the law and administering justice. It encompasses the roles of law enforcement agencies, courts, and correctional systems in responding to crime and maintaining social order.

5. Anthropology: Anthropological perspectives contribute to understanding crime and deviance in relation to cultural practices, norms, and rituals. Anthropology offers insights into how criminal behavior is shaped by societal values, customs, and group dynamics.

6. Economics: The economic perspective in criminology allows for an examination of the impact of socioeconomic factors on crime. Economic theories help explain how poverty, unemployment, and inequality can influence criminal behavior and the effectiveness of crime prevention strategies.

The importance of a multidisciplinary approach in criminology cannot be overstated. The diverse lenses of sociology, psychology, law, criminal justice, anthropology, and economics enhance our understanding of crime from multiple angles. This interdisciplinary integration provides a more comprehensive perspective, enabling criminologists to develop evidence-based strategies, policies, and interventions to address crime effectively.

To explore the multidisciplinary nature of criminology further, you may find the following resources useful:

• The British Society of Criminology: The official website of The British Society of Criminology offers insights into the multidisciplinary nature of criminology through their publications and resources.

• Criminology – Encyclopedia Britannica: This comprehensive article from Encyclopedia Britannica explores the interdisciplinary aspects of criminology.

Myth: A degree in criminology guarantees a job in law enforcement

One common misconception surrounding criminology is the belief that obtaining a degree in this field automatically leads to a career in law enforcement. While a criminology degree can certainly be a stepping stone towards a career in law enforcement, it does not guarantee such employment. Criminology graduates have a diverse range of career paths to choose from, beyond traditional law enforcement roles.

It is important to recognize that criminology equips individuals with a broad skill set that is highly transferable across various industries and sectors. Graduates possess critical thinking, research, analysis, and problem-solving skills that are highly valued in multiple professions. Some of the career paths available to criminology graduates include:

1. Law enforcement: While law enforcement careers, such as police officers, detectives, or federal agents, are popular choices for criminology graduates, it is important to note that securing such positions often requires additional training, certifications, and rigorous application processes.

2. Corrections and probation: Criminology graduates may find opportunities in correctional facilities, working as correctional officers, probation officers, or parole officers. These roles involve supervision, rehabilitation, and community reintegration of offenders.

3. Social work: The understanding of the social factors and the impact of crime on individuals and communities makes criminology graduates well-suited for careers in social work. They can work with crime victims, at-risk populations, or in community outreach programs.

4. Research and academia: Criminology graduates often pursue careers in research and academia, conducting studies, analyzing crime data, and contributing to the field’s knowledge base. They may work in universities, research institutions, or think tanks.

5. Policy and advocacy: Criminology graduates can contribute to policymaking, law reform, and advocacy efforts. They can work in government agencies, non-profit organizations, or research institutes to develop evidence-based policies and advocate for criminal justice reforms.

6. Private sector: The analytical and critical thinking skills of criminology graduates are highly valued in the private sector. They may find employment in areas such as risk assessment, corporate security, loss prevention, or consulting.

It is worth noting that pursuing further education, such as a graduate degree in criminology, criminal justice, or a related field, can enhance career prospects and open doors to more specialized roles. Additionally, gaining practical experience through internships, volunteering, or relevant work experience can also strengthen job opportunities in the field. For more personalized help in deciding if this is the right path for you and figuring out the educational requirements needed to get there, see smarterdegree.com.

To explore the various career paths available to criminology graduates, as well as gain insights into the skills and qualifications sought by employers, the following resources may be helpful:

• American Society of Criminology Career Center: The ASC Career Center provides job listings, career advice, and resources for individuals interested in criminology-related careers.

• National Institute of Justice Careers & Fellowships: The NIJ Careers & Fellowships page offers information on careers in criminal justice research and relevant fellowship opportunities.

Reality: A degree in criminology provides a strong foundation for various careers

Contrary to the misconceptions surrounding criminology careers, a degree in criminology provides a wide range of transferable skills and knowledge that can be applied to numerous career paths. Criminology graduates possess critical thinking, analytical, research, and communication skills, all of which are highly sought after by employers in various fields.

Some of the transferable skills that criminology graduates possess include:

1. Analytical skills: Graduates have the ability to analyze complex information, identify trends, and draw evidence-based conclusions. This skill is useful in roles that require problem-solving, decision-making, and critical thinking.

2. Research skills: Criminology graduates are trained in research methodologies, data collection, analysis, and interpretation. These skills can be applied in various roles, such as market research, policy analysis, or academic research.

3. Communication skills: Graduates possess excellent oral and written communication skills, enabling them to present complex information clearly, develop reports, and interact with diverse audiences.

4. Understanding of Human Behavior: Criminology graduates possess the ability to understand individual and group behavior in a social context, providing a strong foundation for careers in fields such as human resources, healthcare, and social work.

5. Ethical Principles: Criminology graduates are trained to respect legal and ethical principles, making them highly prized candidates for careers in law, compliance, and corporate governance.

Some of the non-law enforcement careers that criminology graduates can pursue include:

1. Intelligence Analyst: Intelligence analysis involves collecting, analyzing, and interpreting complex data to provide insights into threats, risks, and patterns. Criminology graduates’ analytical skills make them excellent candidates for these roles, which can be found in government agencies, non-profit organizations, and private companies.

2. Legal Assistant/Paralegal: Criminology graduates’ understanding of the legal system and legal principles proves useful in paralegal or legal assistant roles. These positions can be found in law firms, government agencies, or legal departments in the private sector.

3. Human Services/Social Work: Criminology graduates are equipped with a strong understanding of human behavior and social factors that impact crime and deviance. This makes them well-suited for roles in human services, such as counseling, social work, and victim services.

4. Policy Analyst: Criminology graduates can apply their research, analytical, and critical thinking skills in policy analysis and development. These positions exist in government agencies, think tanks, and non-profit organizations.

5. Cybersecurity Analyst: Criminology graduates can leverage their understanding of criminal behavior and cybercrime to pursue roles in cybersecurity. These roles involve analyzing potential threats, developing security protocols, and mitigating risks.

To explore the various careers available to criminology graduates, the following resource may be helpful:

• U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics Occupational Outlook Handbook: Protective Service Occupations: This resource provides an overview of careers in the protective service occupations, including those within law enforcement

Myth: Criminology is all about studying criminals and profiling

One common myth about criminology is the misconception that it solely revolves around studying criminals and creating offender profiles. While understanding criminal behavior and profiling can be aspects of criminology, this field encompasses a much broader scope that extends beyond individual offenders.

Criminology is the scientific study of crime, criminal behavior, and the criminal justice system. It involves analyzing and understanding the causes, consequences, and prevention of crime at various levels, including individual, social, and systemic factors. Criminologists examine not only the behavior of offenders but also the structures and systems that contribute to crime and deviance.

It is important to recognize that criminology encompasses multiple subfields and areas of study, including:

1. Sociological Criminology: This branch focuses on the social causes and influences of crime. It explores how social factors, such as poverty, inequality, education, and community dynamics, impact crime rates and criminal behavior.

2. Psychological Criminology: Psychological criminology examines the individual factors that contribute to criminal behavior. It explores topics such as personality disorders, cognitive processes, and the psychological motivations of offenders.

3. Criminal Justice Policy: Criminology plays a crucial role in shaping criminal justice policies and practices. Criminologists contribute to the development of evidence-based strategies for crime prevention, rehabilitation, and community safety.

4. Victimology: Victimology is the study of the experiences and rights of crime victims. It examines the impact of crime on individuals and communities and works towards improving support services and policies for victims.

5. Comparative Criminology: This branch compares crime rates, criminal justice systems, and approaches to crime control across different countries and regions. It helps identify effective strategies and best practices in addressing crime.

6. Social Justice and Human Rights: Criminology also intersects with social justice and human rights issues. It explores the disparities within the criminal justice system, advocates for fairness and equality, and addresses issues such as mass incarceration, racial profiling, and wrongful convictions.

To explore the diverse aspects of criminology and gain further insights, the following resources may be helpful:

• American Society of Criminology: The American Society of Criminology provides valuable resources, conferences, and publications to stay updated on the latest research and developments in the field.

• Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences: The Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences offers resources, publications, and conferences for professionals and students interested in criminology and criminal justice.

• International Association for the Study of Organized Crime: The International Association for the Study of Organized Crime focuses on studying and understanding organized crime and provides resources and publications related to this specific area of criminology.

Reality: Criminology promotes societal understanding and positive change

Criminology plays a crucial role in promoting societal understanding of crime and its impact on individuals and communities. Criminologists conduct research, analyze data, and develop evidence-based policies and interventions to address crime and its root causes.

One of the key roles of criminology is to inform policy and decision-makers on best practices and effective strategies for preventing and reducing crime. Criminologists work with government agencies, advocacy groups, and non-profit organizations to develop policy recommendations and program evaluations.

For example, research conducted by criminologists on the causes and consequences of mass incarceration has highlighted the need for policy reforms. Their work has led to changes in laws and policies, such as reduced sentences for non-violent drug offenses and increased resources for offender rehabilitation programs.

Criminologists have also contributed to the development of community-based crime prevention initiatives, such as programs aimed at reducing gang involvement among at-risk youth. Their research on the effectiveness of these programs has influenced the development of similar initiatives across the country.

Furthermore, criminology research has been instrumental in advancing understanding and addressing issues of social justice and human rights within the criminal justice system. For instance, studies have revealed disparities in the policing and sentencing practices toward people of color and minorities. This research has informed policy and advocacy efforts towards real-world outcomes that seek to address and eliminate these disparities.

Through their work, criminologists provide critical insights and analysis that helps society understand the causes and consequences of crime, as well as effective ways to address it. Their research brings to light the complex nature of crime and its social implications, spurring positive social change.

To explore more about the positive impact of criminology research on society, the following resources may be helpful:

• National Institute of Justice: The National Institute of Justice is a research agency of the U.S. Department of Justice that provides resources, research findings, and funding opportunities relevant to criminal justice and criminology.

• Evidence-Based Crime Policy: The Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy focuses on translating criminology research into real-world policy and practice.

• Journal of Experimental Criminology: The Journal of Experimental Criminology publishes research articles and reviews on the effectiveness of interventions and policies to prevent and reduce crime.

Summary

Throughout this article, we have explored the myths and realities surrounding criminology. We have debunked common misconceptions and highlighted the multidisciplinary nature of this field. Criminology encompasses a broad range of topics and areas of study, including sociology, psychology, criminal justice policy, victimology, comparative criminology, and social justice.

We have also discussed how criminology research informs policies and interventions to promote societal understanding and positive change towards crime.

If you are a prospective criminology student, it is essential to approach the field with a realistic expectation of its scope and relevance. Criminology is a constantly evolving and multifaceted field that requires a commitment to understanding the social and systemic factors that contribute to crime and its consequences.

We encourage you to explore the diverse areas of criminology and gain a deeper understanding of its impact on society. By doing so, you can contribute to the development of effective interventions and policies that promote a more just and safe society.

To learn more about criminology, the following resources may be helpful:

• American Society of Criminology: The American Society of Criminology provides valuable resources, conferences, and publications to stay updated on the latest research and developments in the field.

• Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences: The Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences offers resources, publications, and conferences for professionals and students interested in criminology and criminal justice.

• National Institute of Justice: The National Institute of Justice is a research agency of the U.S. Department of Justice that provides resources, research findings, and funding opportunities relevant to criminal justice and criminology.

• Crime and Justice Research Alliance: The Crime and Justice Research Alliance is a coalition of organizations and researchers dedicated to improving knowledge and evidence on crime and justice issues.

I. Introduction

Criminology research methods are crucial for understanding the causes and patterns of crime, as well as developing effective strategies for prevention and intervention. There are various methods used in criminological research, each with its own strengths and limitations. Understanding the different research methods is essential for conducting high-quality research that can inform policies and practices aimed at reducing crime and promoting public safety. This overview provides an overview of some of the most commonly used criminology research methods, including the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) and Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM), crime classification systems such as the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), and Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR), crime reports and statistics, citation and content analysis, crime mapping, edge ethnography, experimental criminology, fieldwork in criminology, and quantitative criminology. The survey highlights the importance of understanding these methods and their applications in criminology research.

II. Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) and Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM)

The Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) and Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) are two important research methods used in criminology to collect data on drug use and abuse among the population.

DAWN is a national public health surveillance system that tracks drug-related emergency department visits and deaths in the United States. The system collects data on drug-related medical emergencies and deaths from a variety of sources, including hospitals, medical examiners, and coroners. The purpose of DAWN is to provide information on drug use trends and the impact of drug use on public health and safety.

ADAM, on the other hand, is a research program that collects data on drug use and drug-related criminal activity among individuals who have been arrested and booked into jail. The program is designed to provide information on the prevalence of drug use and abuse among individuals involved in the criminal justice system.

Both DAWN and ADAM use similar methodology and data collection processes. Data is collected through interviews with individuals who have been involved in drug-related incidents, and through the analysis of drug-related data collected from medical and criminal justice records.

The significance of DAWN and ADAM data in criminology research is twofold. First, the data provides valuable information on drug use trends and patterns, which can inform the development of drug prevention and treatment programs. Second, the data can be used to understand the relationship between drug use and criminal behavior, and to inform criminal justice policies related to drug offenses.

Overall, the use of DAWN and ADAM in criminology research has contributed significantly to our understanding of drug use and abuse among the population, and has helped inform public health and criminal justice policies related to drug offenses.

III. Crime Classification Systems: NCVS, NIBRS, and UCR

The classification of crimes is an essential component of criminology research. The three main crime classification systems used in the United States are the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), the National Incident-Based Reporting System (NIBRS), and the Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program.

The NCVS is a victimization survey that collects data on the frequency and nature of crimes that are not reported to law enforcement. The survey is conducted by the Bureau of Justice Statistics and includes a sample of households and individuals. The NCVS provides valuable insights into crime victimization patterns and trends.

The NIBRS, on the other hand, is a more detailed crime reporting system that provides a comprehensive view of crime incidents. It captures more data than the UCR, including information on the victim, offender, and the circumstances surrounding the crime. The NIBRS is being adopted by law enforcement agencies across the country and is expected to replace the UCR as the primary crime reporting system.

The UCR is the longest-running and most widely used crime reporting system in the United States. It collects data on seven index crimes, including murder, rape, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, larceny-theft, and motor vehicle theft. The UCR provides an overview of crime trends and patterns at the national, state, and local levels.

Each system has its advantages and limitations. For example, the NCVS provides valuable information on crime victimization that is not captured by the UCR or NIBRS. The NIBRS provides more detailed information on crimes than the UCR but requires more resources to implement. The UCR is widely used and provides long-term trends but does not capture detailed information on each crime incident.

Understanding the differences and similarities between these classification systems is important for criminology research and policy development.

IV. Crime Reports and Statistics

Crime reports and statistics are essential sources of data for criminology research. Law enforcement agencies, criminal justice systems, and government agencies collect and analyze crime data to develop policies and strategies to reduce crime rates. However, crime data and statistics have several limitations that researchers should consider when interpreting and using them in research.

One limitation of crime data and statistics is that they rely on the accuracy and completeness of reported crimes. Not all crimes are reported to law enforcement, and those that are reported may not be accurately recorded. Additionally, the police may have biases in their reporting practices, which can affect the accuracy of the data.

Another limitation of crime data and statistics is that they do not always provide a complete picture of crime. For example, crime data may not capture crimes that occur in private places or are committed by people who are not typically considered criminals, such as white-collar criminals.

Despite these limitations, crime data and statistics are still valuable sources of information for criminology research. They can help researchers identify patterns and trends in crime rates and understand the factors that contribute to criminal behavior. Crime data can also be used to evaluate the effectiveness of criminal justice policies and programs.

Researchers should be cautious when using crime data and statistics in their research and acknowledge the limitations of these sources. They should also consider using multiple sources of data to triangulate their findings and develop a more comprehensive understanding of crime trends and patterns.

V. Citation and Content Analysis

Citation and content analysis are research methods that are increasingly used in criminology. Citation analysis involves the systematic examination of citations in published works to determine patterns of authorship, influence, and intellectual relationships within a given field. Content analysis, on the other hand, involves the systematic examination of written or visual material to identify patterns or themes in the content.

In criminology research, citation and content analysis can be used to study a wide range of topics, including the evolution of criminological theories, the impact of specific research studies, and the representation of crime and justice issues in the media. These methods can also be used to identify gaps in the literature and to develop new research questions.

The methodology for citation analysis involves gathering data on citations from published works, including books, articles, and other sources. This data is then analyzed to determine patterns in the citations, such as which works are cited most frequently and by whom. Content analysis involves the systematic examination of written or visual material, such as news articles or social media posts, to identify patterns or themes in the content. This process may involve coding the content based on specific categories or themes, or using machine learning algorithms to identify patterns in the data.

Citation and content analysis are important tools in criminology research because they provide a way to examine the influence of research and ideas over time, as well as the representation of crime and justice issues in the media. However, these methods also have limitations, such as the potential for bias in the selection of sources or the coding of content.

Overall, citation and content analysis are valuable research methods in criminology that can provide insights into the evolution of criminological theories, the impact of specific research studies, and the representation of crime and justice issues in the media.

VI. Crime Mapping

Crime mapping is a criminology research method that visualizes the spatial distribution of crime incidents. Crime mapping involves the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and other digital mapping tools to display crime data. The purpose of crime mapping is to provide researchers and law enforcement agencies with a better understanding of the spatial patterns of criminal activity in a given area.

Methodology and data collection process for crime mapping involve the collection of crime data and the use of GIS software to display the data in a visual format. Crime data can be collected from a variety of sources, such as police reports, victim surveys, and self-report surveys. Once the data is collected, it is geocoded, or assigned a geographic location, using a global positioning system (GPS) or address information.

The applications of crime mapping in criminology research are numerous. Crime mapping can be used to identify crime hotspots, or areas with a high concentration of criminal activity, which can help law enforcement agencies allocate resources more effectively. Crime mapping can also be used to identify crime patterns and trends over time, which can help researchers and law enforcement agencies develop strategies to prevent crime. Additionally, crime mapping can be used to evaluate the effectiveness of crime prevention and intervention strategies.

In conclusion, crime mapping is a valuable criminology research method that can provide researchers and law enforcement agencies with important insights into the spatial patterns of criminal activity. By using GIS and other digital mapping tools, crime mapping can help researchers and law enforcement agencies develop effective crime prevention and intervention strategies.

VII. Edge Ethnography

Edge ethnography is a criminology research method that focuses on studying the behaviors and social interactions of people on the fringes of society. It is often used to explore deviant or criminal behaviors in subcultures and marginalized groups. Edge ethnography involves immersive fieldwork, where the researcher actively participates in the activities of the group being studied to gain a deeper understanding of their values, beliefs, and practices.

The data collection process in edge ethnography involves participant observation, in-depth interviews, and document analysis. The researcher spends a considerable amount of time in the field to gain the trust and respect of the group members and to observe their behaviors and social interactions in a naturalistic setting. The researcher may also collect artifacts, such as photos and videos, to provide additional insights into the group’s activities.

Edge ethnography has many applications in criminology research. It can be used to explore the social and cultural contexts of criminal behaviors, as well as the experiences of marginalized groups in the criminal justice system. It can also be used to identify emerging trends and subcultures that may be associated with criminal activities.

However, edge ethnography also has limitations. It can be time-consuming and resource-intensive, requiring the researcher to spend a considerable amount of time in the field. It may also raise ethical concerns, particularly if the researcher is studying criminal activities or subcultures that engage in illegal behaviors. Therefore, it is important for researchers to carefully consider the ethical implications of their research and to take steps to protect the privacy and safety of their subjects.

VIII. Experimental Criminology

Experimental criminology refers to the use of scientific experimentation to test theories related to crime and deviance. The goal is to isolate the effects of specific factors on criminal behavior by manipulating one variable while holding others constant. Experimental criminology can involve lab experiments, field experiments, and quasi-experiments.

The methodology involves randomly assigning participants to different groups, manipulating the independent variable, and measuring the dependent variable. The data collected can be both quantitative and qualitative.

Experimental criminology has been used to test a variety of theories related to crime, including deterrence theory, social learning theory, and strain theory. It has also been used to evaluate the effectiveness of criminal justice interventions, such as drug treatment programs and community policing initiatives.

Despite the potential benefits of experimental criminology, there are limitations to its use. For example, it can be difficult to generalize the findings of a lab experiment to real-world situations, and ethical concerns may arise when manipulating variables related to criminal behavior. However, experimental criminology remains a valuable tool in the criminology research arsenal.

IX. Fieldwork in Criminology

Fieldwork is an integral part of criminology research that involves researchers immersing themselves in the settings they are studying to gather firsthand information about the social and cultural dynamics of the phenomenon being studied. Fieldwork in criminology can be conducted through various methods such as participant observation, ethnography, case studies, and interviews.

The purpose of fieldwork in criminology is to gain a deeper understanding of the social and cultural factors that contribute to criminal behavior, victimization, and the criminal justice system. Fieldwork also provides insights into the lived experiences of those involved in the criminal justice system and how they perceive and experience law enforcement, punishment, and rehabilitation.

The methodology and data collection process in fieldwork in criminology involve a range of activities, including developing research questions, selecting research sites, building relationships with research participants, conducting observations and interviews, collecting data, and analyzing data. Researchers may also use various tools such as field notes, audio and video recordings, photographs, and maps to document their observations and experiences.

Fieldwork in criminology has various applications, including exploring the social and cultural dynamics of crime and criminal justice, evaluating criminal justice programs and policies, and understanding the experiences of victims, offenders, and criminal justice professionals. Fieldwork is particularly useful in gaining insights into the perspectives and experiences of marginalized and vulnerable populations, such as those living in poverty, incarcerated individuals, and communities that experience high rates of crime.

Overall, fieldwork in criminology is a valuable research method that provides rich and detailed information about the social and cultural dynamics of crime, victimization, and the criminal justice system. It allows researchers to gain insights into the experiences and perspectives of those involved in the criminal justice system and provides opportunities to evaluate and improve criminal justice policies and programs.

X. Criminal Justice Program Evaluation

Criminal justice program evaluation refers to the systematic assessment of programs and policies implemented within the criminal justice system to determine their effectiveness in achieving their intended goals. The evaluation process involves collecting and analyzing data to assess the program’s impact, cost-effectiveness, and efficiency. Program evaluation is an essential tool for policymakers and practitioners to make informed decisions about criminal justice policies and programs.

The methodology used in program evaluation varies depending on the program or policy being evaluated. However, the process typically involves identifying the program’s goals and objectives, determining the program’s theory of change, identifying the target population, developing measures to evaluate the program, collecting and analyzing data, and reporting the findings.

Criminal justice program evaluation can be used to assess a wide range of programs, including correctional programs, law enforcement initiatives, and community-based programs. Evaluation findings can be used to determine the effectiveness of the program in reducing recidivism, improving public safety, or achieving other goals.

In recent years, criminal justice program evaluation has gained increasing attention as policymakers and practitioners seek evidence-based solutions to address the challenges facing the criminal justice system. The use of program evaluation has been instrumental in identifying effective interventions and programs, as well as those that are ineffective or even counterproductive.

Overall, criminal justice program evaluation is a critical tool for improving the effectiveness of criminal justice policies and programs. By providing policymakers and practitioners with evidence-based information, program evaluation can help to ensure that resources are used efficiently and effectively to promote public safety and reduce crime.

XI. Quantitative Criminology

Quantitative criminology is a research method that involves the use of statistical data and techniques to analyze and understand crime patterns and behavior. It focuses on measuring and analyzing crime trends and patterns, identifying risk factors, and evaluating the effectiveness of crime prevention and intervention programs.

Quantitative criminology involves the use of numerical data to understand crime and its correlates. The purpose of this research method is to test theories and hypotheses about the causes and consequences of crime, identify patterns and trends, and evaluate the effectiveness of criminal justice policies and programs.

Quantitative criminology uses a variety of research methods and data collection techniques, including surveys, experiments, observations, and secondary data analysis. Researchers use statistical analysis to identify patterns, trends, and relationships among variables, such as crime rates, demographic characteristics, and socioeconomic factors.

Quantitative criminology has been used to study a wide range of topics, including the relationship between crime and social inequality, the effectiveness of community policing programs, and the impact of incarceration on recidivism. It has also been used to develop and test theories of crime, such as social disorganization theory and strain theory.

Quantitative criminology has contributed significantly to our understanding of crime and criminal behavior. It has provided valuable insights into the causes and consequences of crime and helped to inform the development of effective crime prevention and intervention programs.

XII. Conclusion

The study of criminology is a complex field that requires a variety of research methods to understand and analyze the causes and patterns of crime. This article has provided an overview of several important criminology research methods, including the Drug Abuse Warning Network (DAWN) and Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM), crime classification systems such as NCVS, NIBRS, and UCR, crime reports and statistics, citation and content analysis, crime mapping, edge ethnography, experimental criminology, fieldwork, and criminal justice program evaluation. Each research method has its unique strengths and limitations, making it important for criminologists to choose the appropriate method for their research question.

As the field of criminology continues to evolve, it is important for researchers to consider new and innovative research methods. Future directions in criminology research may include advances in technology, such as the use of big data analytics and machine learning algorithms, as well as an increased emphasis on interdisciplinary collaborations between criminologists and experts in fields such as psychology, sociology, and public health.

Overall, the study of criminology requires a diverse range of research methods to fully understand the complex nature of crime and its causes. By utilizing these methods and continuing to explore new avenues for research, criminologists can make important contributions to our understanding of crime and help inform policies and interventions aimed at reducing crime and promoting public safety.

References:

1. Aebi, M. F., Tiago, M. M., & Burkhardt, C. (2018). The future of crime and crime control between tradition and innovation. Cham: Springer.

2. Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (2013). Environmental criminology. In The Oxford handbook of criminology (pp. 387-408). Oxford University Press.

3. Clarke, R. V. (2017). Situational crime prevention. In The Routledge handbook of critical criminology (pp. 124-136). Routledge.

4. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American sociological review, 44(4), 588-608.

5. Cullen, F. T., & Jonson, C. L. (2017). Criminal justice research methods: Theory and practice (2nd ed.). Routledge.

6. Dantzker, M. L., & Hunter, R. D. (2017). Research methods in criminal justice and criminology (10th ed.). Routledge.

7. Eck, J. E. (2017). Problem-oriented policing. In The Routledge handbook of critical criminology (pp. 137-150). Routledge.

8. Eck, J. E., & Weisburd, D. (2015). What is problem-oriented policing?. Crime and justice, 44(1), 1-54.

9. Felson, M. (2017). Routine activity theory. In The Routledge handbook of critical criminology (pp. 79-92). Routledge.

10. Fox, J. A. (2015). Trends in drug use and related criminal behavior. In Drugs and crime (pp. 19-47). Springer.

11. Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford University Press.

12. Hagan, F. E., & Foster, H. (2017). Crime and inequality. In The Routledge handbook of critical criminology (pp. 47-62). Routledge.

13. Jackson, J., & Bradford, B. (2009). Crime, policing and social order: On the expressive nature of public confidence in policing. British Journal of Sociology, 60(3), 493-521.

14. Kelling, G. L., & Coles, C. M. (1996). Fixing broken windows: Restoring order and reducing crime in our communities. Simon and Schuster.

15. Maguire, M., & Snider, L. (2017). Understanding criminal justice. Routledge.

16. Mazerolle, L., & Rombouts, S. (2017). Experimental criminology. In The Routledge handbook of critical criminology (pp. 93-107). Routledge.

17. Mazerolle, L., & Roehl, J. (2008). Policing, crime, and hot spots policing. Crime and justice, 37(1), 315-363.

18. National Institute of Justice. (n.d.). Crime mapping research center. Retrieved from https://www.nij.gov/topics/technology/maps/Pages/welcome.aspx

19. Reisig, M. D., Holtfreter, K., & Morash, M. (Eds.). (2016). The Oxford handbook of criminological theory. Oxford University Press.

20. Weisburd, D., Hinkle, J. C., & Eck, J. E. (2019). The Oxford Handbook of Criminology (6th ed.). Oxford University Press.

Modern mens rea stems from English common law, which at that time meant evil intent, and has been established as a necessary element of crime in the United States. Mens rea is one of five elements that establish a crime, each of which must be present for an action to be considered criminal. These elements are actus reus (i.e., guilty act that was committed consciously and voluntarily), mens rea (i.e., criminal intent), the concurrence of actus reus and mens rea, causation, and a resulting injury or crime. To better understand mens rea today, it is important to know when and why it was first established as an element of crime; thus, this article focuses on the development and evolution of the concept of mens rea as an element of crime.

Mens Rea in English Common Law

Intent has long been discussed as a part of criminal actions. However, it was not until the 17th century that English common law formally established the idea of mens rea being a necessary part of determining culpability. English common law produces many different, and often ambiguous, measures of an individual’s intent to commit a crime. The common law was established out of a necessity for common rules and in its earliest stages was more a function of regulating compensation for a crime. There were three major legal influences on the creation of English common law: Anglo-Saxon law, church or canon law, and Roman law. The foundation of English common law primarily came from Anglo-Saxon laws, which initially rejected Roman and canon laws, though they were later integrated into common law.

There were early Anglo-Saxon laws that included intent and in fact some crimes were considered impossible without it. Some crimes under these laws were rape, waylaying and robbery, and to some extent housebreaking. Other laws established the punishments based on the person’s intent. These punishments could range from a felony, if the person intended the crime, to civil negligence, if the action was an accident. One example of this is arson: If the person’s intent was to burn a house or barn down, then it was considered a felony; otherwise, it was considered negligence. Although some Anglo-Saxon laws acknowledged the importance of intent, others rejected it mostly in regard to the death of an individual.

Early Anglo-Saxon law regarding the death of an individual neglected to include intent as a part of establishing guilt and instead held people liable just for the act itself. These laws held people liable even in circumstances where there could be no knowledge that a crime would even be committed. The killing of an individual was only excused if the offender had a warrant from the king or was doing so in the pursuit of justice. An example of this strict liability would be if someone sent a messenger to deliver a letter and that messenger was killed along the way, the sender could be held liable for the death and owe payment to the next of kin. The common law that applies in this situation removes the legally liable person’s mind-set altogether by holding the individual response for the actions of another, even though they had no way of knowing such actions would occur. Many of these laws, however, were thought to be made in a generally broad sense and were seldom used to actually hold individuals liable for such an incident. The way in which the Anglo-Saxon law was followed meant that a person could be held liable for the death of anyone acting under the person’s direction or on the person’s behalf. In addition, these laws excluded killing someone in self-defense, though the pardoning system was later established to correct this.

Around the 12th century, canon laws began to influence the Anglo-Saxon laws regarding death. Canon law placed much importance on intent being a key element of guilt. A criminal act committed with intent made the offender morally guilty as well as legally guilty. The earliest reference to mens rea in an English law book came from teachings of the church. Canon law sought to determine sin through the examination of both the mental and physical elements of the crime. This conflicting idea made it difficult for common law judges to make rulings on liability in accordance with the Anglo-Saxon laws regarding death. The answer to this problem came from the king’s ability to pardon individuals who had been charged with a crime. This allowed judges to follow the Anglo-Saxon law by finding a person guilty no matter his or her knowledge of the crime while still acknowledging canon law’s insistence on intent being a factor. An unfortunate side effect to this solution was that individuals who would be pardoned still lost their possessions for being convicted. Canon law’s influence on common law continued to strengthen regarding moral blameworthiness. Eventually, the phrase actus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea, meaning “there can be no crime, large or small, without an evil mind,” became an essential part of criminal guilt.

The Roman law influence came around the 11th and 12th centuries, when universities began publishing scholarly and legal writings regarding old Roman law texts. The major influence of Roman law regarding intent came from the concepts of dolus and culpa. Dolus refers to intentional acts of fraud while culpa refers to negligent actions. These concepts reflect two different levels of intent and were therefore treated differently in regard to a criminal conviction. Beyond this idea of different levels of intent, Roman law also provided a number of standard definitions regarding crimes that helped establish true intent. Although Roman law continued to be referenced throughout the establishment of common law mens rea, it served as more of a tool to refine the term. This refinement helped strengthen the idea of mens rea until its acceptance in the 17th century.

After its universal establishment in common law in the 17th century, mens rea began to develop into a more precise definition to be used in criminal cases. Mens rea was initially a vague aspect of criminality and was purely based on general moral blameworthiness. The concept’s refinement came in the form of a case-by-case sharpening of the guidelines. Through the judicial process, cases in which different levels of mens rea existed were slowly placed into similar groups. This had to be done for each type of crime and resulted in a more precise interpretation of different mind-sets. Although this affected many types of crime, none changed more so than homicide. These changes allowed for additional justification for killing another person beyond a warrant and a pursuit of justice. Different types of murder began to develop with regard to the mental element of the crime. Any homicide that was not justifiable or pardonable was considered a felonious killing. Before these new laws, homicide had required the least amount of mens rea.

Mens Rea in Modern Criminal Law

As mens rea was sculpted from its origins as evil intent, it developed into these concepts used in today’s criminal law. Using the American Law Institute’s Model Penal Code, which was developed in the 1960s and updated in the 1980s, there are now established and widely accepted levels of mens rea that form continuity when determining culpability. The different levels of mens rea set forth by the Model Penal Code are specific intent, general intent, strict liability, and vicarious liability. Each of these is associated with a different state of mind, or level of knowledge, regarding a criminal act and, therefore, constitutes a different amount of legal culpability. Applying mens rea to a crime is the traditional way of determining capability. Intent means that the individual committing the criminal act did so with some level of knowledge or awareness that the act was illegal. Liability refers to an individual being held accountable for a criminal action regardless of mind-set. Liability is applied to lower level offenses like misdemeanors.

Specific intent covers actions committed purposefully and is the most culpable level of mens rea established by the Model Penal Code. Specific intent refers to a mind-set of specifically intending to commit the criminal action and specifically intending the results. This is the highest level of intent and therefore has the highest level of culpability. There are four types of crimes that fall under this category: SACs crimes (solicitation, attempt, and conspiracy), theft crimes, intent to kill, and voluntary manslaughter or heat of passion killings.

General intent occurs when specific intent is not necessary because it is inferred by the individual’s conduct. This intent can be classified as being purposefully (intentionally), knowingly (awareness of certainty), reckless (disregard for risks), or criminally negligent. Purposefully refers to when an individual intentionally acts with conscious objective to engage in a certain conduct or cause a certain result. Knowingly is when an individual acts with knowledge or awareness that the results are practically certain. Reckless refers to a situation in which the individual knows that there is an unjustifiable and substantial risk of harm. Criminal negligence is the lowest culpable classification of general intent and refers to an individual performing an action that greatly deviates from his or her duty of care that an ordinary prudent person would not do. This is also known as a gross deviation from tort standard of care. Examples of general intent crimes include rape, battery, arson, mayhem, involuntary manslaughter, and depraved heart murder.

Liability is separate from intent and refers to being held responsible regardless of one’s intentions. Strict liability refers to actions where the individual’s mind-set has no effect on guilt, meaning an individual is guilty just for committing the act. Actions that are covered by strict liability are often health, public welfare, and safety regulations such as speeding. Vicarious liability regards those who are responsible for another person’s actions. Only in special circumstances is an individual held liable if he or she did not perform the action or even had awareness that a criminal act took place. An example of this would be a bar owner being held responsible for his or her employee selling alcohol to an underage individual. Courts are not legally required to use the Model Penal Code guidelines, though many have adopted them.

References:

1. American Law Institute. (1962). Model penal code. Philadelphia: Author.

2. Perkins, R. M. (1939). A rationale of mens rea. Harvard Law Review, 52(6), 905–928.

3. Sayre, F. B. (1932). Mens rea. Harvard Law Review, 45(6), 974–1026.

4. Singer, R. G. (1989). The resurgence of mens rea: The rise and fall of strict criminal liability. Boston College Law Review, 30(2), 337–408.

The law sometimes allows and/or mandates different responses from the system as a result of an offender’s cognitive and mental health functioning. For example, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that it is unconstitutional to execute a person with intellectual disability. Evaluation of an offender’s diagnosis or functioning in a situation such as this needs to completed by qualified mental health professionals, making forensic assessment one of the clearest intersections between psychology and the law. This entry details the differences between forensic assessment of offenders and general mental health assessment and introduces common types of forensic assessment.

The Forensic Assessment Context

The Referral Source

Forensic assessments seek to answer a specific question about an offender’s psychological functioning that has bearing on his or her legal case. These questions are sometimes referred to as psycholegal questions as a result. It is the fact that a question is being answered for the court system, not the fact that an offender is being evaluated, that makes an assessment a forensic assessment and most clearly distinguishes this area from general mental health practice. It is often stated that the legal system, rather than the offender, is the client of a mental health professional completing a forensic assessment. Although a mental health professional who is providing treatment for an offender may be called upon to provide and/or testify relevant treatment information, this would not be considered a forensic assessment as the therapist’s focus has been on meeting the offender’s treatment goals, not addressing the questions of the court. Therapists are generally discouraged from completing forensic assessments of their clients. This is because forensic assessments require a level of objectivity that is difficult to obtain once one has provided treatment to an offender. There are also conflicting expectations and obligations to the offender in each type of assessment that may be difficult for a therapist to reconcile as discussed later in this entry.

The Ultimate Issue Debate

While the defining feature of a forensic assessment is answering a psycholegal question, there is some conflict within the field as to how an evaluator should answer the question. Mental health professionals complete forensic assessments to assist the trier of fact in reaching a decision. The trier of fact is a judge or jury and it is their responsibility to decide the outcome of a case or what is often referred to as the ultimate issue. Determining if an offender was legally insane at the time of an offense and therefore not guilty or such a danger to the community that he or she should be removed from it are examples of ultimate legal issues.

The extent to which forensic evaluators should speak directly to ultimate issues is debated. On one side, some argue that mental health professionals are not experts in the law or afforded the right to make moral decisions about its enforcement that society gives judges or juries. For example, most jurisdictions generally define legal competency as the ability of defendants to understand charges against them and assist their lawyer in their defense. The ultimate issue before the court is whether they are able to do this to a subjectively determined reasonable level. Those who believe that forensic evaluators cannot or should not determine this level instead urge them to conduct an assessment that addresses specific areas of functioning related to this ability while not making a conclusive statement about the offender’s competency. Others see the issue quite differently. They argue that mental health professionals do indeed have specialized knowledge that allows broad conclusions to be made (though the trier of fact can still choose to accept or reject them). Moreover, it may be confusing to a jury why an evaluation would be requested and completed if not to answer the question posed.

Restrictions on ultimate issue testimony may vary across evaluation type and jurisdiction. For example, in the United States, Federal Rules of Evidence explicitly prohibit conclusions as to the mental state at the time of an offense while not barring such testimony outright in other types of cases. Case law indicates some inconsistency in the application of this rule, however, and evaluators and legal observers may find varied outcomes of objections to ultimate issue testimony in individual cases.

Other Unique Aspects of Forensic Assessment Role of the Evaluator

The task of answering specific psycholegal questions is not the only thing that distinguishes forensic assessments from general mental health assessments. The most obvious difference is that of the role taken on by the evaluator. In general mental health assessment, a mental health professional generally adopts a therapeutic stance focused on improving or enhancing an individual’s functioning or quality of life. In forensic assessment, the evaluator’s primary goal of answering a psycholegal question requires an objective stance as to the long-term outcome for the offender. Indeed, determining that an offender has the abilities needed to stand trial may ultimately result in conviction, and the result of a competency to be executed evaluation may clear someone for death. It should be noted that adopting an objective stance for the purpose of the evaluation does not mean that forensic assessments are done without respect for the offender and his or her rights. In fact, evaluators may need to be particularly skilled at developing rapport and eliciting information from offenders.

Response Style and Suspected Malingering

Self-reports are highly valued in general mental health evaluations, and the information provided by a person is generally believed to be valid. Forensic evaluators incorporate self-report information but are generally trained to collect multiple sources of data and often see self-reports as no more important than other types of information. In fact, some degree of defensiveness resulting in inaccurate portrayals of functioning is expected from offenders, and some have called for routine evaluation of possible malingering, or intentional feigning of psychiatric symptoms for secondary gain, in all forensic assessments. In forensic assessment, the concern is frequently that offenders may be motivated to avoid legal consequences for their actions by presenting themselves as affected by a mental illness.

Confidentiality and Information Sharing

The information provided in general mental health assessments is confidential, with major exceptions involving suspicion of child abuse or neglect and disclosure of information related to threats of grave harm toward self or an identified other. An offender is not typically afforded any confidentiality in forensic assessments and will need to be properly informed of this before being evaluated. As a result, many may be reluctant to participate, though they are typically court-ordered to do so.

The demands placed on the forensic evaluator are great, particularly as establishing rapport and gathering data from an offender and others in his or her life often needs to be completed quite rapidly and by deadlines set by the court system rather than the evaluator. The results of forensic assessments may be provided to the court as written report and/or oral testimony in which the evaluator is subject to questioning by both the prosecution and the defense.

Specific Forensic Assessments

Competency to Stand Trial

The Psycholegal Question

Competency to stand trial evaluations is one of the most common forms of forensic assessment. It has long been believed that a justice system that does not allow defendants to properly defend themselves would be inherently unfair. In the United States, this belief is illustrated in the Dusky standard, referring to the 1960 legal decision of Dusky v. United States. This decision formally operationalized competency to stand trial as the ability to

1. consult with an attorney to a reasonable and rational degree, and

2. hold a rational and factual understanding of the charges one is facing.

Deficits in one or both areas may result in a finding of incompetency to stand trial. The question that evaluators seek to answer therefore centers on an offender’s cognitive abilities as they relate to these two areas. Given that the legal system also has a mandate to bring cases to trial, an attempt to restore incompetent offenders to competent states is often made, and evaluators may also be asked to speak to the likelihood of this happening. For example, incompetency due to the acute symptoms of schizophrenia may be alleviated by appropriate medical treatment while incompetency due to an extremely low IQ associated with an intellectual disability will not.

The Assessment

The assessment of competency focuses on a defendant’s current functioning and abilities. Evaluators may assess for the presence of specific mental health disorders, but a psychiatric diagnosis alone is not enough to qualify one as incompetent. Evaluations will typically involve an interview of the offender including behavioral observations that may be relevant to his or her ability to work effectively with a lawyer. Psychological testing may be used as well. General psychological testing measures may be used to the extent they provide information bearing on the abilities needed for competency. Formal intelligence testing, for example, may be relevant to present reasoning abilities as well as restorability to competency as described earlier while broader personality measures have little utility.

Several tests have also been developed that specifically assess competency to stand trial. These are considered forensic assessment instruments as they are used only in forensic assessments to help answer specific psycholegal questions. Use of forensic assessment instruments in competency evaluations may increase the objectivity and reliability of conclusions. It is important to note that these instruments vary in their format and level of detail. Brief screening instruments are intended to rule out incompetency and avoid unnecessary full-length evaluations. Other measures aim to fully assess competency-related abilities by directly questioning legal knowledge and reasoning or exploring defendant’s answers to questions about these issues as they relate to hypothetical vignettes. Other competency measures are actually more similar to structured interview guides that allow evaluators to organize their questioning.

Controversies and Issues

Most offenders evaluated for competency to stand trial will be found competent. Thus, incompetency is a low base rate event. Low base rate events are difficult to study as adequate samples are hard to generate. They are also hard to predict as rare events are associated with high rates of false-positive conclusions. It is important to understand that competency measures are not tests that definitively detect the absence or presence of legal competency. All psychological instruments have some degree of measurement error. Thus, the error rates of tests must be considered and appropriately conveyed to the trier of fact. While assessment measures have an advantage over unstructured clinical judgment in this regard, the legal system must determine what level of error is acceptable for itself.

A related issue is the competency of minors. Age and immaturity, by themselves, may render some youthful offenders incompetent. Many believe that developmentally sensitive measures of competency must therefore be used, though few are available. Competency evaluations of juveniles using measures developed for adults should include a caveat about their applicability.

Competency to Be Executed

The Psycholegal Question

As with many areas of forensic assessment, a legal decision carved out an area of practice. In 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Ford v. Wainwright that executing someone who is criminally insane is a form of cruel and unusual punishment and therefore unconstitutional. Insane is a legally defined term and not a very well defined one at that time. As it relates to competency to be executed, the word insane bears more similarity to competency to stand trial than being so impaired by mental illness so as to not be held responsible for one’s actions (see Criminal Responsibility section in this entry). The Supreme Court did not set a specific competency standard in Ford or the related 2007 case of Panetti v. Quarterman. Nevertheless, the decisions have been interpreted together to suggest that defendants must have both factual and rational understanding of their impending execution. In other words, offenders must know that they will be executed and understand that this is punishment for a crime they have been convicted of. For example, an offender who understands that he or she will die but harbors persecutory delusions for the reason why may be incompetent.

Specific competency standards vary across individual states as a result of the ambiguity of the Supreme Court decisions in Ford and Quarterman. In some jurisdictions, an offender must also be able to self-advocate by communicating reasons why the punishment might be unjust. It is important to note here that having the ability to do this is not the same as doing it and an offender who chooses not to utilize available appeals or legal avenues to avoid execution is not automatically incompetent if it is determined that he or she made a rational decision not to do so.

The Assessment

Evaluation of competency to be executed is quite rare, and as a result, there is limited research in this area. Although competency issues may have been raised earlier in a defendant’s case, assessment of competency to be executed should involve consideration of the defendant’s current required abilities, which may vary depending on the jurisdiction where the evaluation is completed in as noted earlier. While this remains one of the most controversial areas of forensic assessment, there is a consensus that such evaluations should include an interview with the offender and those individuals familiar with him or her (e.g., family, lawyers, prison staff, treatment providers). Checklists and interview guides have been developed by some authors, though norm-referenced assessment measures are not available.

Controversies and Issues

Additional research to guide practice in this area is needed but difficult given the limited number of evaluations that are completed. These assessments are also notable for the ethical issues they present. A finding of competency in essence clears an offender for execution. As mental health professionals, forensic evaluators may find this incompatible with ethical mandates to do no harm. There are also concerns that personal views on capital punishment may introduce bias into this form of assessment. These ethical conflicts may be strong even in jurisdictions that do not require evaluators to speak to the ultimate issue in these cases.

A finding of incompetency brings additional ethical conflicts if attempts are made to restore an offender to competency, often with the use of forced psychiatric medication. These ethical issues have resulted in organizations such as the National Commission on Correctional Health Care prohibiting correctional treatment providers from participating in competency to be executed evaluators and urging that they instead defer to independent evaluators.

Competency to Waive Miranda Rights

The Psycholegal Question

Making incriminating statements to police during an interrogation or confessing to a crime may appear to make a criminal trial more straightforward and this may prove true, unless a defendant asserts that he or she was not competent to do so. The Supreme Court case of Miranda v. Arizona (1966) clarified that police must inform suspects of their right to remain silent during questioning and to consult with a lawyer. It must also be clear that the information that the suspect provides can be used against him or her and that the interrogation can be stopped at the suspect’s request. Competent waiver of one’s Miranda rights requires that a defendant does so in a manner that is knowing, voluntary, and intelligent. In other words, one must understand that he or she has specific rights, comprehend the implications of these rights, and waive them without coercion or due to extreme distress. Decisions about the admissibility of evidence in cases of contested competent Miranda waivers are typically made by considering the totality of circumstances with multiple factors possibly relevant, including those within the individual (e.g., intelligence and history of contact with law enforcement) and the nature of the interrogation (e.g., prolonged or coercive). As a result, assessments may be quite broad in scope.

The Assessment

Unlike the other competencies reviewed in this entry, assessment of competency to waive Miranda rights is retrospective. If available, review of a recording or transcript of the waiver and subsequent interrogation is therefore quite important. Given the importance of understanding and reasoning about one’s rights, formal assessment of intelligence and academic achievement is essential in many cases. Deficits in these regards are neither necessary nor sufficient for incompetency, however, as it is possible that factors other than intellectual limitations (e.g., extreme stress or symptoms of a mental disorder) could also impair understanding or reasoning. Individuals of limited intelligence may also give competent waivers if they are appropriately informed and counseled of their rights in a manner that matches their abilities or if prior contacts with the legal system are believed to have provided adequate education about their rights.

Forensic assessment instruments have been developed to specifically assess the abilities to make competent Miranda waivers and may be used in addition to tests used to determine intelligence, mental disorders, or personality traits that may make one susceptible to undue influence or coercion.

Controversies and Issues

Juvenile offenders present with unique issues related to Miranda waivers. Jurisdictions vary in regard to whether minors may waive their rights for themselves or require parents to do so for them. While one would assume most parents have their child’s best interests in mind, incompetency by proxy may be a real issue if parents have their own intellectual or other impairments in understanding or reasoning as described earlier.

Criminal Responsibility

The Psycholegal Question

If defendants can prove that they did not commit a crime, they will be found not guilty. However, even those who admit to a crime may be found not guilty if they lack criminal intent or mens rea. This long-held legal tradition was formally operationalized, in 1843, in England and is now known as the M’Naghten standard. Briefly, the standard holds that a defendant may be found not guilty by reason of insanity if a mental problem prevents one from knowing what he or she was doing or that it was wrong. Various criticisms and adaptations of this standard have been proposed over time. A more modern iteration was made in 1962 by the American Law Institute, which suggested that people should not be held responsible for a crime if they do not understand that their actions were wrong or were unable to “conform conduct to the requirements of the law.” Thus, evaluations of criminal responsibility will require evaluating

1. the possible presence of a mental illness or intellectual disability, and

2. a person’s motivation, reasoning, and level of control when committing a criminal act.

Defendants found not guilty by reason of insanity are acquitted. They are generally committed to psychiatric care following their acquittal. There are other situations in which defendants may assert that their mental functioning significantly impacted their crime in ways to lessen their culpability though not to the extent to fully excuse them from it.

Diminished capacity refers to the inability to form intent or lack of specific intent required for a crime (e.g., the premeditation typically required for first-degree murder). Defendants successful in arguing diminished capacity are typically convicted of lesser offenses.

The Assessment

As mentioned earlier, an evaluation of criminal responsibility involves assessment of the presence of mental illness or developmental disabilities and possible links of such problems to the crime. Assessments will include a review of available records including police reports and a detailed interview with the defendant. Evaluators must reconstruct a person’s mental status at the time of their offenses by speaking to them and those who may have observed the crime and/or the person’s behavior close in time to it. Part of this will be a thorough review of his account of the crime. Given the potential for self-incrimination, informed consent and advisement of rights are extremely important. Psychological testing may be used to support the diagnostic process, though forensic assessment instruments focused on criminal responsibility are not prevalent.

Controversies and Issues

The retrospective nature of evaluation of criminal responsibility poses a significant challenge for evaluators. Mental health professionals are trained to diagnose mental health disorders by collecting data on past history and current symptoms. Current symptoms may actually be irrelevant to criminal responsibility for a prior act though they may add support to the presence of a diagnosis needed to establish the basis for not guilty by reason of insanity defenses. Research has made clear that memories can change over time, even in the absence of overt attempts to dissimulate or provide inaccurate information. Thus, inconsistencies between current reports and those made closer in time to the crime or in official records may need to be reconciled.

There is a misconception among the public that the insanity defense is overused and is an attempt to literally get away with murder. In reality, the defense is rarely used and even more rarely successful. Nevertheless, given the high stakes involved, the potential for malingering may be high in these cases and should be assessed.

Risk Assessment

The Psycholegal Question

The question posed in forensic risk assessment appears fairly straightforward: How dangerous is this person and what is the likelihood that he or she will reoffend? The ultimate issue a judge or jury will consider in these cases typically focuses on punishment and the level of confinement that punishment should be completed in. Risk assessments may also be completed prior to release from confinement to determine the level of supervision needed in the community. Risk of violence or reoffense is generally believed to result from a combination of static risk factors that do not change such as criminal history and dynamic risk factors that are malleable over time such as substance use. Protective factors such as strong social support may also be considered. Thus, risk assessments are also capable of identifying areas that can be targeted in treatment in which an offender may be court-ordered to participate.

The Assessment

As previously described, risk assessment involves collection of both historical and current information about an offender. A variety of risk assessment tools were developed after it was determined that mental health professionals were unable to make accurate predictions about future risk using only their professional judgment. Although interviewing of offenders and review of records to obtain objective historical information remain important parts of these evaluations, risk assessment tools are now commonly used as well to improve reliability and accuracy. These measures differ in their development and administration, however. Structured professional judgment measures serve as interview guides that assist evaluators in systematically considering risk factors that have been identified in the literature. The risk level posed by an offender is still determined by the evaluator’s overall impression of him or her. Actuarial measures also consider identified risk factors, though in these measures, risk factors have been statistically associated with reoffending and allow for comparison between the offender being assessed and a normative sample. In other words, the measure can provide a more specific and sometimes a quantitative risk level.

Controversies and Issues

Risk assessments are unique forms of forensic assessment in that they neither attempt to describe current or past functioning but predict an event that may occur in the future. There is no current assessment approach or technique that can do this with 100% certainty (and likely never will be). Science can estimate the risk of reoffense and error rate of a specific technique, but determining what actions to take at different risk levels and how much uncertainty to allow in the accuracy of a specific assessment must be subjectively determined by the trier of fact. As a result, evaluators are urged to report the limitations of their findings in their reports.

Civil Commitment of Sexual Offenders

The Psycholegal Question

In cases of civil commitment of sexual offenders, the question evaluators must answer again centers on dangerousness, specifically an individual’s risk of sexual reoffense. Of note, the ultimate issue in these cases is not decided at a criminal trial but at a civil hearing after the offender has already served a sentence for his or her crime. Although specific statutes vary across jurisdictions, these are often referred to as sexually violent predator laws in the United States and require (a) a history of sexual offense, (b) a diagnosable mental health problem or condition, and (c) a high level of risk of reoffense. Forensic mental health evaluators are typically asked to address the latter requirements by diagnosing a type of mental disorder marked by abnormal sexual interests or behavior known as a paraphilia or other mental health disorder that can be causally linked to deviant sexual behavior and by offering an assessment of an individual offender’s current level of risk of future offending. Individuals who are at high risk may be confined in treatment facilities or ordered to submit to outpatient treatment and supervision indefinitely.

The Assessment

Assessment of risk for the purpose of civil commitment proceedings is much the same as that described earlier with the addition that a diagnosis is often required by statute. Of all the types of forensic assessments reviewed in this entry, civil commitment of sexual offenders is the most recently developed, and assessments may show variability until best practices evolve. However, risk assessment measures specific to sexual offending are available and are generally used.

Controversies and Issues

The issues related to the prediction of future behavior described previously are applicable to this form of evaluation as well and perhaps amplified given the fact that offenders have already served time for their crimes. Prioritization on community safety often results in support for these laws, while some point out that they infringe upon the civil liberties of offenders by submitting them to a legal form of double jeopardy that is particularly unfair given limitations in the accuracy of risk assessment and effectiveness of sexual offender treatment. Evaluators’ attempts to address this by clearly presenting quantitative predictions of risk from actuarial instruments when available may not address this issue, as research has found that jurors may find any risk as significant risk. As currently written, sexual predator laws may reflect a problematic blurred boundary between the legal and mental health systems.

Juvenile Offenders: Amenability to Treatment and Waiver to Adult Court

The Psycholegal Question

The juvenile justice system’s approach to youthful offenders has evolved over its history. While initially established on the premise that the criminal motivation and possible rehabilitation of children and adolescents differed from adults and required specialized attention, Supreme Court cases such as Kent v. United States (1966) and In Re Gault (1967) determined that juveniles should be afforded many of the same rights as adult defendants. The law typically allows youth of a certain age or accused of certain crimes to be tried and sentenced as adults. For some serious crimes, waiver or transfer to adult court may actually be mandated by the law. In other situations, there is prosecutorial or judicial discretion. The frequency of such cases has varied depending on public sentiment regarding the seriousness of juvenile crime. When discretion is possible, a forensic assessment may be requested to assist decision makers in determining the juvenile’s dangerousness and amenability to reform with treatment in the juvenile justice system. If it believed that the juvenile cannot be safely maintained or rehabilitated within the juvenile justice system, the case may be heard in adult court opening the juvenile up to adult sentences.

The Assessment

Evaluation of amenability to treatment or waiver of juveniles may resemble general mental health assessment more than other types of forensic assessment as key questions are whether the juvenile has an identifiable mental health problem and their specific treatment needs. Identification of treatment needs is not enough, however. Another aspect of these evaluations involves assessment of dangerousness. Thus, assessments will typically involve a review of records, interviews with the juvenile and those who are familiar with him or her, and formal risk assessment.

Controversies and Issues

As mentioned earlier, assessment of risk of violence or reoffense can be enhanced with testing, but concerns about false positives are great. This may be particularly true in the case of juvenile offenders for whom a degree of illegal behavior may reflect normative developmental changes in risk taking and impulsive decision-making. Risk assessment measures used should therefore have been developed and tested with adolescents, though fewer measures are available for this group. Once in the adult system, if mandatory sentences following conviction are seen as at odds with the general juvenile court process of individual sentencing, then the decision to waive a juvenile’s case to adult court should be made by the trier of fact with all available information.

Conclusion

Forensic assessments of offenders are used to answer specific questions for the legal system. Although the questions may vary across assessment types, all forensic assessments differ from general mental health assessments in important ways that call for specialized knowledge and training. Each form of assessment also brings its own unique set of unresolved issues and controversies. Assessments that answer psycholegal questions as accurately as possible and acknowledge any weaknesses or limitations have the best chance of assisting both the legal system and the offenders who find themselves within it.

References:

1. Brodsky, S. L., Zapf, P. A., & Boccaccini, M. T. (2001). The last competency: An examination of legal, ethical, and professional ambiguities regarding evaluations of competence for execution. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 1(2), 1–25. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1300/J158v01n02_01

2. Heilbrun, K., Grisso, T., & Goldstein, A. M. (2008). Foundations of forensic mental health assessment. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

3. Jackson, R. L., & Hess, D. T. (2007). Evaluation for civil commitment evaluation: A survey of experts. Sexual Abuse: A Journal of Research and Practice, 19(4), 425–448. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1177/107906320701900407

4. Melton, G. B., Petrila, J., Poythress, N. G., & Slobogin, C. (2007). Psychological evaluations for the courts: A handbook for mental health professionals and lawyers (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

5. Packer, I. (2009). Evaluation of criminal responsibility. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

6. Rogers, R., & Ewing, C. P. (2003). The prohibition of ultimate opinions: A misguided enterprise. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 3(3), 64–75.

Psychopathy is a concept that carries strong connotations of evilness and dangerousness. In media and popular science, the psychopath is commonly portrayed either as a brutal mass murderer or as a vicious boss. Descriptions of individuals with clear psychopathic traits can be found in ancient literature, and clinical descriptions of psychopathic inpatients trace back to the 18th century. Psychopathy is an important personality construct in the forensic field, and psychopathy assessments are extensively used to inform legal decisions in North America and throughout Europe.

This entry describes the leading definitions and assessments of psychopathic traits, in both criminal and noncriminal settings. Psychopathic traits in childhood and adolescence are discussed with reference to causal theories. Also included are sections on the use of psychopathy assessments for legal decision-making purposes and on past and recent approaches to treatment of psychopathic offenders.

Conceptualization and Assessment of Psychopathy

Historical Overview

In the early 19th century, French psychiatrist Philippe Pinel described inpatients who repeatedly engaged in violent and reckless behavior, despite appearing rational and mentally sound. According to Pinel, this peculiar psychiatric condition was characterized by insanity without delirium. Toward the end of the century, in the era of early psychiatric classifications, German psychiatrist Julius Ludwig August Koch proposed the term psychopathic personalities to characterize a relatively broad spectrum of conditions (e.g., mental retardation, neurotic conditions, so-called character disorders) that he believed had a biological basis. Although these early clinical accounts are less specific than contemporary definitions of psychopathy, they provide an illustration of how psychopathic individuals were seen to differ from other psychiatric inpatients.

American psychiatrist Hervey Cleckley’s book The Mask of Sanity, first published in 1941, marks the first milestone in the modern conceptualization of psychopathy. The book contains 15 detailed case descriptions drawn from hundreds of patients seen by Cleckley at the University of Georgia’s Medical Hospital. Based on salient features evident in these various cases, Cleckley formulated 16 clinical criteria for psychopathy, which encompassed not only features of emotional disturbance (e.g., shallow affect, lack of insight, deceitfulness) and behavioral deviance (e.g., failure to learn by experience, irresponsibility, promiscuity) but also some ostensibly adaptive features (e.g., superficial charm, absence of irrational thinking and nervousness, low propensity for suicidal behavior). In essence, Cleckley viewed psychopathy as a contradictory condition in which afflicted individuals appear rational and well functioning on the surface; however, over time, the mask of normality cleaves to reveal a deep-seated emotional disturbance and irresponsible, self-centered, and aimless behavioral deviancy (e.g., lying, stealing, forging checks). In contrast with accounts of criminal psychopathy from Cleckley’s time to the present, it is worth noting that few of the psychopathic patients that he described were overtly aggressive or violent.

Cleckley’s clinical criteria influenced the diagnostic descriptions of personality disorders in the first and second editions of the American Psychiatric Association’s reference book for psychopathological conditions: the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-I and DSM-II).

In line with Cleckley’s conceptualization, the diagnostic criteria for conditions labeled sociopathic personality disturbance antisocial reaction and antisocial personality in these early editions of the DSM included distinct personality features (e.g., callousness, selfishness, absence of remorse or shame). In the third edition of the DSM (DSM-III), however, the corresponding diagnosis of antisocial personality disorder (ASPD) was largely based on observable deviant behaviors including destructive and delinquent acts (e.g., physical cruelty, vandalism), while excluding several of the personality-oriented criteria identified by Cleckley (e.g., superficial charm, lack of anxiety).

These revisions to the diagnostic criteria within the DSM-III were influenced by two factors in particular. One is that personality features were considered difficult to score in a reliable manner at that time. A second factor was the strong emphasis placed on behavioral indicators of antisociality in the highly influential work of psychiatric epidemiologist Lee Robins in the 1970s, focusing on developmental aspects of sociopathy in delinquent youths. The ASPD diagnosis as formulated in the DSM-III has remained essentially the same in subsequent editions of the manual (i.e., DSM-IV and DSM-5).

In the DSM-5, criterion-based definitions of ASPD and other personality disorders, equivalent to those in the DSM-IV, are included in Section II (“Diagnostic Criteria and Codes”). An alternative dimensional-trait system for personality disorders appears in Section III (“Emerging Measures and Models”). In this alternative system, ASPD is defined by high levels of disinhibitory and antagonistic traits and includes a psychopathy specifier for denoting the presence of distinct traits indicative of low-anxious, socially dominant (primary psychopathic) variant of ASPD. As such, the DSM-5 Section III definition captures key features of psychopathy that have been emphasized both in historic writings and in contemporary research work (as described next), but absent from ASPD as defined in the DSM-III and the DSM-IV.

Contemporary Conceptualizations of Psychopathy

In contrast to ASPD, psychopathy encompasses interpersonal-affective (i.e., charming-manipulative and callous-exploitative) traits along with impulsive-antisocial (i.e., disinhibitory-externalizing) tendencies. The most widely used rating scale for assessing psychopathy is the Psychopathy Checklist–Revised (PCL-R). The PCL-R was developed for use with correctional and forensic populations and has been used with both male and female offenders.

The PCL-R assesses psychopathy in terms of 20 items, each scored 0–2 on the basis of information derived from a face-to-face interview and institutional file records. The suggested cutoff for psychopathy is a PCL-R total score of 30 in the North American context, with slightly lower thresholds in some European countries. The predecessor to the PCL-R, the 22-item PCL, was formulated partly based on a global rating protocol that reflected Cleckley’s clinical conceptualization. However, in the process of selecting and refining items for the PCL, adaptive features in Cleckley’s conceptualization (e.g., absence of nervousness) were omitted. Consequently, the PCL-R items strongly emphasize deviant and criminal behavior. The PCL-R has several alternative versions, including the Psychopathy Checklist Screening Version, a briefer screening protocol suited for assessment contexts in which file information is lacking (e.g., psychiatric inpatients, community groups).

There is an asymmetric overlap between ASPD as defined in the DSM-5 Section II and psychopathy as assessed by the PCL-R: Most individuals who qualify for a PCL-R diagnosis of psychopathy also meet criteria for ASPD; however, the reverse is not true (i.e., only a portion of individuals with ASPD also meet criteria for psychopathy). Highlighting this, the estimated prevalence of ASPD in correctional populations is 50–80%, with the corresponding figure for psychopathy being 15–25%. The PCL-R encompasses two broad factors that show contrasting correlates with various external criteria (e.g., trait-dispositional, behavioral, physiological, clinical). The affective-interpersonal Factor 1 (F1) demonstrates positive associations not only with maladaptive tendencies of certain types (e.g., narcissism, thrill seeking, instrumental aggression) but also with some adaptive criterion measures (e.g., verbal ability, social assertiveness, emotional resiliency). The lifestyle-antisocial Factor 2 (F2), however, is predominantly associated with adverse outcomes (e.g., stimulation seeking, impulsivity, aggressiveness, alcohol and drug problems). The two PCL-R factors can be further subdivided into narrower facets (interpersonal, affective, impulsiveirresponsible, antisocial) that show distinctive correlates.

The Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality–Institutional Rating Scale was developed as an alternative interview-based measure for use in correctional and clinical settings. The scale indexes psychopathy in terms of trait tendencies within six domains: Attachment, Behavioral, Cognitive, Dominance, Emotional, and Self. The Comprehensive Assessment of Psychopathic Personality symptoms can be assessed over differing time frames, ranging from past 6 months to lifetime.

Dimensional Psychopathic Traits and Self-Report Measures

In early clinical accounts and in previous editions of the DSM, psychopathy and ASPD have been conceptualized as discrete clinical syndromes. Psychopathy assessments are commonly used in current applied and legal contexts to generate statements regarding whether an individual meets criteria for psychopathy or not. During the 2000s, however, researchers have increasingly moved away from the position that psychopathy represents a discrete category. There is now strong consensus that psychopathic traits are dimensional (i.e., that individuals can have psychopathic traits to different degrees) and can be assessed in the population at large. Even though psychopathy was mainly investigated in criminal groups up until the 1990s, research on psychopathic traits in clinical and community groups has increased substantially. Investigating psychopathic traits in dimensional terms provides opportunities to gain improved understanding of how differing constellations of traits develop, manifest, and progress over time. Such research can provide insight in how different configurations of psychopathic traits are associated with behavioral (e.g., impulsivity, decision-making) and physiological variables (e.g., reactivity to fear cues and punishment).

Different self-report measures have been developed for assessing psychopathy as a dimensional construct outside of criminal settings, including the Levenson Self-Report Psychopathy Scale, the Hare Self-Report Psychopathy Scale, the Psychopathic Personality Inventory–Revised (PPI-R), the Triarchic Psychopathy Measure (TriPM), and the Elemental Psychopathy Assessment.

The different instruments for assessing psychopathic traits are based on theories of psychopathy that converge to a substantial extent; however, they also diverge to some degree. For example, in contrast to the Hare Self-Report Psychopathy Scale, the PPI-R does not include items directly referencing antisocial behavior, and it includes some semi-adaptive traits (e.g., fearlessness, stress immunity) emphasized in Cleckley’s description. A common or definite conceptualization of psychopathy is still lacking, and several points are still debated, including the following: (a) whether psychopathy encompasses semi-adaptive features, (b) whether antisocial and criminal behavior should be included in the mere definition of psychopathy or rather be considered potential consequences of psychopathic traits, (c) whether lack of anxiety is inherent to psychopathy, and (d) whether there are different subtypes of psychopathy.

Psychopathic Traits in Childhood and Adolescence

In line with theoretical models for psychopathy in adults, research has demonstrated that psychopathic traits in children and adolescents encompass three distinct components: affective, and interpersonal, features (e.g., callousness, remorselessness, grandiosity, manipulative behavior) along with impulsive-behavioral tendencies (e.g., irresponsibility, impulsiveness, thrill seeking). Elevated psychopathic traits in youths have been associated with various adverse outcomes (e.g., cruelty, substance misuse, aggressive and violent behavior). Different instruments exist for assessing psychopathic traits in youth, including the interview-based Psychopathy Checklist: Youth Version, which is a direct counterpart to the PCL-R, and the informant- (i.e., parent- or teacher-) rated Antisocial Process Screening Device and Child Psychopathy Scale. Self-report instruments also exist for assessing psychopathic traits in older children and adolescents, including questionnaire versions of the Antisocial Process Screening Device, Child Psychopathy Scale, the Youth Psychopathy Traits Inventory, and the Inventory of Callous-Unemotional Traits. There has been extensive interest since the mid-1990s in investigating callous-unemotional (CU) traits as a childhood precursor to core psychopathic traits in adulthood. Research has demonstrated that youths with conduct disorder (CD) who exhibit CU traits have distinct cognitive and affective impairments relative to those lacking in CU traits, and they present with elevated levels of aggression and more severe antisocial-delinquent behavior. For example, high levels of CU traits are associated with aberrant processing of fear- and punishment-related cues and also pain and distress in other people. This deviant affective processing is theorized to hinder the development of prosocial behavior and hence operates as a precursor to deficient lack of empathy and guilt. Research evidence indicates that CD with and without CU traits may have different etiological underpinnings and prognostic implications. CU traits appear to be moderately to strongly heritable, and it has been suggested that this symptom component is more stable over time than the impulsive-antisocial component and thus constitutes a key vulnerability factor for psychopathy in adulthood.

Associations between psychopathic traits in youth and adult psychopathy remain unclear, however. The stability of psychopathic traits in general, and CU traits specifically, over longer time periods remains unclear. Advanced research designs are needed to clarify developmental trajectories of early psychopathic tendencies and how genetic factors relate to and interact with differing environmental factors (e.g., family influences, peer influences, socioeconomic status, neighborhood factors). Improved understanding in these areas may have important implications for treatment and intervention. In this regard, it is notable that the diagnostic criteria for child CD were revised in the DSM-5 to include a limited prosocial emotions specifier for designating a psychopathic variant of CD entailing the presence of salient CU traits. This change sets the stage for increased research along lines needed to advance what is known about the expression and stability of CU traits.

Etiology of Psychopathy

Considerable research has been devoted over many years to investigating causal factors in psychopathy. Existing theories are of two types: (1) theories emphasizing core deficits in emotional sensitivity or responsiveness (e.g., low fear) and (2) theories positing impairments in cognitive-attentional processing (e.g., impaired set shifting). Differing neurobiological correlates of psychopathy have been reported as support for these alternative theories. One of the most consistent involves a lack of normal enhancement of the startle blink reflex to acoustic probes presented during viewing of aversive foreground stimuli (e.g., scary or disturbing pictorial images) as compared with neutral or pleasant stimuli. This result, akin to a failure to jump upon hearing an unexpected noise while walking alone in a dark alley, has been interpreted as reflecting a lack of normal defensive (fear) reactivity. Another consistent finding involves reduced amplitude of cortical brain response to intermittent target stimuli, or following incorrect responses, in cognitive performance tasks—indicative of reduced cortical-attentional processing or impaired action monitoring. Yet other research using functional neuroimaging has demonstrated deficits in basic subcortical (amygdala) reactivity to interpersonal distress cues (e.g., fearful human faces) in individuals high on psychopathy.

As noted earlier, psychopathy encompasses differing symptomatic facets, and these facets show contrasting associations with physiological response indicators. For example, affective-interpersonal symptoms are associated with lack of aversive startle potentiation, and impulsive-antisocial symptoms are associated with reduced cognitive brain response. Dating back to work by David T. Lykken in the 1950s, there is also evidence for distinct subgroups of individuals high on psychopathy who differ in emotional reactivity: primary psychopaths, who show antisocial tendencies in conjunction with deficient emotion (in particular, lack of fear), and secondary psychopaths, who show antisocial tendencies in conjunction with emotional dysregulation (i.e., intense hostility and negative affect). Consistent with this perspective, research during the 2000s with both correctional samples and community groups has yielded evidence for two distinct subtypes of individuals high in overall psychopathy, distinguished in particular by low versus high scores on measures of negative emotionality (e.g., anxiety, depression, somatization). It is hypothesized that different etiological pathways might underpin these subgroups.

Weaknesses in emotional response systems appear to contribute especially to core affective-interpersonal features of psychopathy and perhaps to the primary subtype of psychopathic individual. Deficits in cognitive processing systems appear to contribute more to impulsive-antisocial features of psychopathy and perhaps to the secondary psychopathic type. A formal theoretic conceptualization that has been proposed to account for differing symptomatic (phenotypic) expressions of psychopathy, and causal sources contributing to these differing expressions, is the triarchic model.

Triarchic Model of Psychopathy

The triarchic model conceives of psychopathy as encompassing three separable symptomatic com ponents—disinhibition, boldness, and mean ness—that can be viewed as thematic building blocks for differing conceptions of psychopathy. Disinhibition encompasses tendencies toward impulsiveness, weak behavioral restraint, hostility and mistrust, and difficulties in regulating emotion. Meanness entails deficient empathy, lack of affiliative capacity, contempt toward others, predatory exploitativeness, and empowerment through cruelty and destructiveness. Referents for disinhibition and meanness include the finding of distinct Impulsive/Conduct Problems and CU symptom components in the child psychopathy literature and corresponding evidence for distinct disinhibitory and callous-aggression factors underlying impulse control (externalizing) problems in adults. The third triarchic construct, boldness, encompasses dominance, social assurance, emotional resiliency, and venturesomeness. Referents for boldness include the mask elements of Cleckley’s conception, the low fear theory of psychopathy, the affective-interpersonal factor of the PPI-R, and developmental research on fearless temperament as a possible precursor to psychopathy.

From the perspective of the triarchic model, Cleckley’s conception of psychopathy emphasized boldness and disinhibition, whereas criminally oriented conceptions (and affiliated measures, including the PCL-R and Antisocial Process Screening Device) emphasize meanness and disinhibition more so. According to the model, individuals high in disinhibitory tendencies would warrant a diagnosis of psychopathy if also high in boldness or meanness (or both), but individuals high on only one of these dimensions would not. Individuals with differing relative elevations on these three symptomatic dimensions would account for contrasting variants (subtypes) of psychopathy as discussed earlier.

A self-report instrument designed specifically to index the constructs of this conceptual model is the 58-item TriPM. The TriPM includes Disinhibition and Meanness scales derived from the Externalizing Spectrum Inventory, a questionnaire measure of problems and traits associated with externalizing psychopathology. The TriPM also includes a Boldness scale that indexes fearless tendencies in social-interpersonal, affective-experiential, and activity-preference domains. Although the TriPM is relatively new, promising evidence for its convergent and discriminant validity has begun to appear. In addition, considerable work has been done to establish scale measures of the triarchic model constructs using items from other existing psychopathy inventories including the PPI-R and the YPI.

The triarchic model may prove useful for reconciling alternative causal theories of psychopathy that have been proposed based on differing neurobiological and behavioral findings. For example, lack of startle enhancement during aversive cueing has been tied specifically to the interpersonal-affective factor of the PCL-R and the counterpart Fearless Dominance factor of the PPI-R—suggesting a link to the boldness component of psychopathy; by contrast, reduced brain potential responses in cognitive tasks appear more related to impulsive-externalizing tendencies associated with the disinhibition component of psychopathy. On the other hand, the finding of reduced subcortical response to affective facial cues has been tied to the CU traits factor of child/ adolescent psychopathy, a referent for meanness in the triarchic model. However, further research is needed to determine whether this finding reflects fear deficits common to meanness and boldness or deficits in affiliative capacity or empathy specific to meanness.

Psychopathy and Applied Criminology

Legal Decision-Making

In North America and throughout Europe, psychopathy assessments are commonly used to inform legal proceedings (e.g., regarding sentencing, parole) and decisions regarding institutional placement and surveillance. In the vast majority of cases, these assessments are conducted using the PCL-R or the PCL-Screening Version/Youth Version. The use of PCL-based psychopathy assessments in legal procedures regarding adult offenders in the United States has increased steadily since the 1990s and has also become relatively common in juvenile risk evaluations. Based on the well-established association between psychopathy and deviant behaviors, PCL-based psychopathy assessments are used to infer whether an individual has an elevated risk of criminal relapse or institutional misconduct. In some cases, PCL-based assessments are also used to exclude individuals from therapeutic intervention, based on preconceptions that psychopathy is untreatable. In some jurisdictions in North America, psychopathy assessments are specifically used to evaluate risk of sexual recidivism in so-called sexually violent predator cases or to inform decisions about indeterminate incarceration of dangerous offenders. Given this widespread use, increased information is needed regarding applied implications of PCL-R assessments (e.g., what cutoff levels are used and how total and factor scores are interpreted).

In risk evaluations, PCL-based psychopathy assessments have either been used individually or incorporated into instruments specifically designed to assess risk (e.g., the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management 20, the Violence Risk Appraisal Guide, and the Sex Offenders Risk Appraisal Guide)—although the PCL-R has been omitted as a requirement in the newest editions of some of these instruments (e.g., version 3 of the Historical-Clinical-Risk Management 20). In contrast with broader risk assessment protocols, the PCL-R itself does not encompass features that are empirically related to violence risk (e.g., substance abuse, psychiatric comorbidity). Moreover, the PCL-R items are scored based on lifetime occurrence; thus, the instrument is not suited to assessing changes following from interventions. Meta- analytic work has demonstrated comparable predictive validity for the PCL-R for future violence in comparison to risk-assessment instruments but lower predictive ability for sexual recidivism. Furthermore, accumulated research evidence indicates that the predictive validity of the PCL-R is mainly due to its antisocial facet (reflecting past delinquent/criminal behaviors), with limited additional predictive value of its other facets.

Another issue that is important to consider is the interrater reliability of the PCL-R in clinical field settings (i.e., consistency of scores across raters when the same individual is assessed repeatedly). Field research conducted in different jurisdictions (i.e., United States, Canada, Sweden) has demonstrated acceptable interrater reliability for the largely objective criteria in the PCL-R’s antisocial facet (e.g., number of previous offenses); however, markedly lower reliabilities have been found for the remaining facets reflecting interpersonal, affective, and impulsive-irresponsible traits. These findings highlight the need for caution in the use of PCL-R assessments in legal decision-making contexts and point to a need for research into ways for increasing the interrater reliability of PCL-R ratings in field and clinical settings.

In addition to the aforementioned shortcomings, the PCL-R assessments are labor-intensive, and their use is limited to institutionalized populations. Alternative self-report measures are often brief, easy to administer, and do not require additional training. Self-report measures have been criticized, however, on the grounds that psychopathic individuals lack insight into the nature and extent of their psychopathology and are prone to deceive and manipulate others. In particular, the vulnerability of such measures to response distortion and especially to faking good (i.e., the exaggeration of positive features and/or the minimization of negative features) raises concerns about the potential for false negatives (i.e., failures to detect psychopathy when present). This concern has been reinforced by research findings indicating that individuals high on psychopathy can successfully lower their scores on self-report psychopathy measures and that social desirability/faking good is negatively correlated with scores on various psychopathy scales. Even the use of validity scales, designed to detect dissimulation in responding, does not provide for adequate detection of deception on report-based psychopathy scales. Although such response biases do not necessarily compromise the validity of self-report psychopathy measures in research settings, and psychopathic individuals may not be as skilled in deceiving as often assumed, caution is still warranted in using self-report measures of psychopathy in settings (e.g., legal contexts) where respondents might have clear incentives to fake good.

Forensic Treatment

A long-standing view among both clinicians and researchers has been that psychopathic individuals are unchangeable and hence untreatable. This pessimistic view dates back at least to Cleckley, who argued that no treatment program could achieve fundamental changes in a psychopathic individual. Some empirical studies conducted in the 1990s on treatment of psychopathic offenders drastically fueled this pessimistic view. One of these studies examined the impact of an intensive therapeutic program on incidents of criminal and violent recidivism assessed over an average follow-up period of 10 years. The results indicated that psychopathic offenders—in contrast with nonpsychopathic offenders who showed reductions in violent and overall recidivism following treatment compared to matched untreated controls—showed relative increases in reoffense rates. The authors interpreted these results as indicating that the treatment program led psychopaths to become more skilled in their ability to manipulate and exploit others.

A subsequent study corroborated this finding— demonstrating that forensic patients with elevated PCL-R scores who exhibited positive responsiveness to treatment (e.g., motivation to participate, in-session compliance, positive change ratings) were more likely to reoffend following release than patients with lower PCL-R scores who received treatment or untreated patients. Other studies have indicated that PCL-R scores are related to disruptive behavior in treatment, higher dropout rates, and negative therapist perceptions of motivation and progress in treatment.

Understandably, the main findings from these empirical studies perpetuated the belief among clinicians and researchers that psychopathy is essentially untreatable. However, important criticisms have been leveled against these investigations. The study examining outcomes of the intensive therapeutic program, for example, has been criticized for the radical, punitive, intrusive, and unethical nature of the treatment program that was used. A subsequent reanalysis that evaluated reoffending during a longer follow-up period using an improved method for quantifying recidivism rates concluded that there was in fact no evidence that offenders high on psychopathy who exhibited positive treatment behavior reoffended at greater rates than other offenders.

Although research conducted during the 2000s suggests that psychopathic individuals typically do not respond positively to standard treatment interventions administered in mental health or justice settings, there are indications that intensive treatment interventions tailored to the emotional, cognitive, and motivational styles of individuals with psychopathic traits can be effective. Three types of treatment programs can be distinguished, each focusing on a different outcome: (1) reducing criminal behavior, (2) targeting underlying mechanisms of psychopathy, and (3) reducing level of psychopathic traits.

Treatment programs that focus on reduction of risk of future violence and other criminal behaviors have shown evidence of effectiveness with adult and juvenile offenders high on psychopathy. For example, published studies suggest that psychopathic offenders who complete an intensive specialized treatment program are less likely to be reconvicted for sexual or other violent offenses and that in cases where recidivism occurs, it tends to involve less serious offenses compared to pretreatment.

Treatment programs focusing on the core deficits of psychopathy have the potential benefit of being tailored to the unique needs of both youth and adults with psychopathic traits. For example, a study focusing on children and adolescents randomly assigned either to a typical parental training intervention or an emotional-recognition training group demonstrated that children with elevated CU traits who received training in accurate perception and interpretation of emotions of others showed greater improvements in affective responding compared to those in the typical parent training group. Other recent work has examined whether affective-attentional impairments in adult offenders high on psychopathy could be altered through cognitive remediation training. Specifically, offenders scoring high in psychopathy were offered a training to remedy their lack of attention to contextual information. Following this training, the participants improved both on attention to contextual-specific trained tasks and on untrained tasks. Although findings from these studies are promising, it remains to be determined whether remediation of processing impairments such as these will lead to actual harm reduction (e.g., decrease of violent behavior).

A third treatment approach is to focus on reducing the level of psychopathic tendencies exhibited. However, research on the changeability of psychopathy traits remains scarce. Although prominent writers have argued that the personality structure of psychopathic individuals is largely unalterable, there are some indirect and direct indications that this position may be inaccurate. First, empirical work has challenged the idea that personality disorders in general are enduring and stable. For example, treatment has been shown to attenuate symptoms of severe disorders such as borderline personality. Second, some work has shown that interventions have the potential to alter core dispositions associated with psychopathy in youth (i.e., callous-unemotional, narcissistic, and impulsive traits).

Replication studies in larger samples, with the use of randomized controlled trials, will be needed to corroborate these more positive findings pertaining to treatment of psychopathic individuals.

References:

1. Cleckley, H. (1941). The mask of sanity: An attempt to reinterpret the so-called psychopathic personality. Oxford, UK: Mosby.

2. Frick, P. J., Ray, J. V., Thornton, L. C., & Kahn, R. E. (2014). Can callous-unemotional traits enhance the understanding, diagnosis, and treatment of serious conduct problems in children and adolescents? A comprehensive review. Psychological Bulletin, 140(1), 1–57. doi:10.1037/a0033076

3. Hare, R. D. (2003). The Hare Psychopathy Checklist–Revised Manual (2nd ed.). North Tonawanda, NY: MHS.

4. Hare, R. D., & Neumann, C. S. (2009). Psychopathy: Assessment and forensic implications. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 54(12), 791–802.

5. Kennealy, P. J., Skeem, J. L., Walters, G. D., & Camp, J. (2010). Do core interpersonal and affective traits of PCL-R psychopathy interact with antisocial behavior and disinhibition to predict violence? Psychological Assessment, 22(3), 569–580. doi:10.1037/a0019618

6. Lilienfeld, S. O. (1998). Methodological advances and developments in the assessment of psychopathy. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 36(1), 99–125.

7. Lykken, D. T. (1957). A study of anxiety in the sociopathic personality. Journal of Abnormal and Clinical Psychology, 55, 6–10. doi:10.1037/h0047232\

8. Patrick, C. J. (2018). Handbook of psychopathy (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

9. Patrick, C. J., & Bernat, E. M. (2009). Neurobiology of psychopathy: A two-process theory. In G. G. Berntson & J. T. Cacioppo (Eds.), Handbook of neuroscience for the behavioral sciences (pp. 1110–1131). New York, NY: Wiley.

10. Patrick, C. J., Fowles, D. C., & Krueger, R. F. (2009). Triarchic conceptualization of psychopathy: Developmental origins of disinhibition, boldness, and meanness. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 913–938. doi:10.1017/S0954579409000492

11. Polaschek, D. L. L., & Daly, T. E. (2013). Treatment and psychopathy in forensic settings. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 18(5), 592–603. doi:10.1016/ j.avb.2013.06.003

12. Ray, J. V., Hall, J., Rivera-Hudson, N., Poythress, N. G., Lilienfeld, S. O., & Morano, M. (2013). The relation between self-reported psychopathic traits and distorted response styles: A meta-analytic review. Personality Disorders, 4(1), 1–14. doi:10.1037/a0026482

13. Singh, J. P., Grann, M., & Fazel, S. (2011). A comparative study of violence risk assessment tools: A systematic review and metaregression analysis of 68 studies involving 25,980 participants. Clinical Psychology Review, 31(3), 499–513. doi:10.1016/ j.cpr.2010.11.009

14. Skeem, J., Polaschek, D., Patrick, C., & Lilienfeld, S. (2011). Psychopathic personality: Bridging the gap between scientific evidence and public policy. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 95–162. doi:10.1177/152910061142670

Many people are often surprised that the field is so heavily grounded in science, both in its strategies of seeking and verifying facts and in its breadth of subject matter. Psychology is not, as some skeptics have surmised, merely common sense. The abundance of counterintuitive research findings and countless unanticipated breakthroughs in understanding complex behavior attest to the unique value of contemporary psychology. Likewise, the field of criminal psychology has moved away from its prescientific roots that often mirrored popular declarations about crime and criminals. The field has strived to replace superstitions with empirically derived insights about why some people break the law, act violently, and are undeterred by the threat of punishment.

To advance our understanding, science must regularly challenge speculation and common sense and use research findings to inform practice. For example, in assessing offenders at multiple points of the justice process (e.g., arrest, trial, sentencing, placement, treatment planning, prediction of risk), up-to-date tools are increasingly designed to answer specific psycholegal questions, rather than offering broad statements and using tests never intended to address the issue. Such instruments also are expected to meet a high threshold of reliability and validity, thereby minimizing subjectivity and raising confidence in their accuracy and fairness. The field has also done much to rebut the widely held perception that offenders comprise a unitary cluster. Since roughly the 1990s, cumulative evidence has revealed multiple pathways to criminal behavior, pathways that imply different prognoses and individualized targets of intervention. Similarly, both legal sanctions and the provision of specific behavior change programs have been increasingly subjected to outcomes evaluations, including cost–benefit analyses.

Why Some People Become Criminals and Others Do Not

Law-breaking is not a rare event, and the range of crimes as defined by legal codes is vast. Strategies adopted to deter or reduce crime necessarily draw from assumptions about why people commit crime, who these people are, and how society responds to them. One set of answers has resulted in a far-reaching network of prisons created to isolate people from society, primarily for the purposes of rehabilitation and/or punishment. The rationale for this type of closed environment was heavily promoted by early psychological theory and supported by theological stances and basic legal principles—namely, that individuals freely choose to engage in prohibited behavior and are thus responsible for their actions and the ensuing consequences. Although most clinicians and researchers historically have had some faith in the capacity of offenders to change, the choice of methods to promote that change has been controversial since the early 1800s.

In contrast to legal and theological perspectives for understanding and responding to crime, psychology has moved toward a notably analytic stance and concerned itself with broader questions of causation, intervention, prevention, and evaluation. Because the field has evolved as a behavioral, social, and biological science, psychologists are inclined to apply an objective and multifocal lens to matters of crime and punishment. For example, research in criminal psychology has shown that the exclusive focus on individual, person-centered factors does a poor job of explaining criminal conduct or predicting future criminal behavior. It is clear from thousands of psychological studies that social and environmental contexts are also critically important.

The power of context can overwhelm personal traits or become triggering events that interact with individual predispositions. A clear example of the former was demonstrated in the Stanford Prison Experiment in which randomly assigned student guards began to engage in abusive behavior toward their fellow student inmates. Likewise, the potential negative outcomes predicted by certain youthful traits can be substantially accelerated if the youth faces a violent home life which, in turn, increases the likelihood of aggressive behavior. Context is not limited to one-time events (i.e., triggers) but rather can be cumulative over time. For example, the more one smokes, the greater the risk of contracting lung cancer; continued exposure to violence has a parallel negative risk effect. Thus, both individual factors and environmental context must be catalogued in the list of risk factors. Which of these exerts more power at any given time has become a central question in criminal psychological research.

Although psychology and other clinical sciences originally followed a medical model with a focus on singular causes, a more useful perspective has been the previously noted identification and weighting of multiple risk factors, factors that increase the probability of a given behavior or outcome. Not all smokers become cancerous, but smoking certainly increases one’s chances. Adopting a public health model (i.e., combining risk and protective factors) has proven quite valuable in understanding, predicting, and designing interventions for preventing and reducing criminal behavior.

Some of the best statistical predictors of who becomes a criminal and who does not include the social and environmental contexts into which people are born, grown, develop, and confront on a daily basis. Ethnicity, poverty, and other forms of social and economic disadvantage have a cumulative effect on risk for crime and incarceration. Studies have found a strong link between social and economic inequality and violence, as well as between social rejection, aggression, and impaired thinking abilities. It is also clear from several studies that head injuries are related to aggression, cognitive impairment, and imprisonment and that people from disadvantaged settings are more likely to sustain head injuries throughout their lifetimes. This collection of findings is a good example of how individual and context risk factors interact to influence criminal activity.

Another substantial body of research in criminal psychology has consistently revealed eight risk factors that increase the likelihood of criminal behavior. The identification of these factors is drawn from scores of studies that assessed dozens of offender characteristics and those of their families, associates, community environments, and so on. Four factors are especially robust predictors: a history of criminal behavior, pro-criminal attitudes (i.e., thoughts, values, and beliefs that support criminal behavior), pro-criminal associates (i.e., one’s circle of associates who espouse pro-criminal attitudes), and antisocial personality (i.e., lack of self-control, pleasure-seeking behaviors, disregard for others). Further evidence of the validity of the big four is provided by treatment outcome studies. When these factors are successfully targeted, delinquents and adult offenders are much less likely to reoffend than if these factors are not addressed. The additional components of the big eight are lack of prosocial achievement (e.g., employment, education), family or marital discord, substance abuse, and lack of prosocial hobbies or leisure activities. As will be discussed later in this entry, the targeting of dynamic (i.e., changeable) risk factors, primarily through social cognitive behavioral therapies, promotes more positive outcomes than many historically popular but often counterproductive approaches.

An important note is that many of the relationships identified in broad studies are correlational and thus do not establish direct causation. For example, despite the positive relation found between poverty and crime, or between lack of educational achievement and crime, it cannot be concluded that being poor or dropping out of school directly causes crime. Exceptions to these links are certainly plentiful. Moreover, other variables may actually better explain a given relationship. For example, there is a positive relation between ice cream consumption and death by drowning, a puzzling connection at best. It is hard to imagine that eating ice cream causes people to drown. Rather, a third variable, namely, summertime, is the more logical common underlying factor. In the case of poverty and crime, underlying third variables might include social rejection, tumultuous community environments, or pro-criminal associates. The search for causal silver bullets is rarely satisfying. Examining the joint influence of individual traits, abilities, and temperament combined with family, social, and community contexts of a person’s life provides a better understanding of his or her likelihood of becoming a criminal and of reoffending. As has been suggested, the goal of preventing and reducing crime is better served through both addressing personal traits and altering negative contexts.

The validity of this interactionist perspective could be challenged if research were to reveal powerful individual traits that seem to override context or, alternatively, to identify engulfing environments that overwhelm personal traits. An example of the former is the apparently treatment-resistant personality of the psychopath. The public often imagines that psychopathic personality is at the base of most crime. Indeed, one hallmark of psychopathy is antisocial behavior. People with psychopathic personalities (whether incarcerated or not) generally have an inability to feel empathy for others, show callous emotional responses to situations that bother others, are impulsive and reckless, and are superficially charming and manipulative. Although psychopaths comprise only about 15% of the criminal population, they may account for a much higher proportion of crimes and are also notably poor candidates for even the most well-researched, evidence-based treatments. However, those who can avoid violence and other criminal acts, and who have sufficient intellectual resources, may well rise to the highest ranks of employment in fields where their lack of prosocial emotions gives them a competitive advantage.

Research Methods in Criminal Psychological Science

Studying criminals is not easy or straightforward. With good reason, offenders are protected by layers of rules; researchers must apply ethical standards including human subjects’ safeguards. These rules evolved, in part, because of historical abuses in which prisoners were used as guinea pigs. A grossly inhumane example is the experimentation by Nazi doctors who forcibly tested the human body’s response to various chemicals. A less obvious example, in the context of an impoverished prison setting, is drug testing. In such studies, enrolled offenders neither had a truly free choice— the token pay offered by pharmaceutical companies stood in stark contrast to inmates’ lack of funds— nor were they fully informed about the potential risks of experimental medications. Contemporary rules about how researchers are allowed to work with human subjects also come directly from studies in criminal psychology—and a well-known example is the Stanford Prison Experiment referred to previously.

The Stanford Prison Experiment was conducted in the early 1970s by social psychologists who wanted to better understand the behavior of prisoners and guards, particularly in relation to each other. The researchers randomly assigned healthy Stanford undergraduates to be either a guard or a prisoner and placed them together in a converted campus basement prison. The participants’ behaviors became so extreme that the study was canceled well short of its planned duration.

Guards began abusing inmates, and inmates began rioting and experiencing mental health problems. The researchers observed additional harmful outcomes to participants who had been allowed to go off script. Although the students were subsequently debriefed and counseled, it was apparent that the experience would not be easily forgotten. This historic experiment served both as an emblem of the powerful impact of prison environments and as a stark warning to researchers to anticipate and prevent harm to their participants. Ethical standards about how researchers are allowed to study humans owe much to the growing awareness and correction of past abuses.

Decisions Researchers Make About Research Methods

For all research, the unit of analysis must be determined. Studies in criminal psychology are not different. Some research questions focus at the level of individual persons (e.g., assessing which types of offenders are more likely to be violent), or they may take a broader focus, at the level of a system (e.g., comparing the violence rates in different types of prisons). Often, a study will include multiple levels of analysis to provide a view of interacting factors. For example, researchers might examine whether a cognitive therapy program has different effects on intellectually impaired inmates versus those who have average or above average abilities.

Another decision facing researchers is the choice of study design. For example, researchers interested in how children of prisoners are affected by their parent’s incarceration could approach this question in different ways. They could survey a sample of prisoners’ families at a given point in time (e.g., by mailing out questionnaires or conducting interviews and then analyzing the results). This snapshot is relevant to that particular point in time, but it could not assess changes over time. To address the question of how children’s experiences of their parent’s imprisonment may change (e.g., Does it get progressively worse? Do children adjust? Are there factors that reduce or amplify negative impact?), the research design requires that data be collected and analyzed across time. Because the answers to these questions may well have implications for public policy, careful attention to design and measurement is critical. Whether addressing basic or complex questions, researchers in criminal psychology need to have a solid understanding of research methods.

The Progressive Movement to Evidence-Based Approaches

The kinds of studies cited in this entry provide a growing base for decision-making. Research in many fields of psychology, including criminal psychology, has as a goal not only the understanding of behavior but also the application of findings to human well-being and sensible public policy. Especially in the criminal justice system, public policy has often reflected widespread social attitudes and popular opinions rather than evidence-based findings. For example, the get tough movement of the last third of the 20th century, emphasizing harsh punishment, has had a series of unintended consequences including economic black holes, overreliance on incarceration, and worsening offender outcomes. A good example is boot camp programs, where juveniles who were sent to military-style settings actually learned tricks of the trade and reoffended at higher rates than youths who did not attend these types of programs. The value of research in this context is to examine the actual outcomes in comparison to the hoped-for results. We think this ought to work is no substitute for research that helps identify what works.

Interestingly, the retreat from the mid-20thcentury goals of rehabilitation was itself fueled by studies that collectively showed no difference in recidivism rates between treated and untreated prisoners. Although the get tough trend has persisted since the 1980s, subsequent reanalysis revealed two critical research flaws: First, the studies compared offender groups of unknown equivalence, and thus the validities of results were likewise unknowable. Appropriate control groups, admittedly hard to engineer in justice settings, are the gold standard in treatment outcomes research. Second, many early so-called rehabilitative interventions were, by 21st-century standards, quite weak. In addition, treatment providers or supervisors often failed to monitor whether treatments were actually delivered as intended. Thus, many of the studies underlying the rehabilitation doesn’t work conclusion failed to provide trustworthy results. Bad science may have supported bad policy.

From these flaws, researchers now recognize how critical it is to closely monitor treatments in terms of their duration, intensity, client attendance, engagement, and expertise of the interventionists. Consider a cooking parallel: The latest cake recipe in your favorite magazine is touted to be a good one. As a beginner, you try it out, and the result is mediocre at best. Do you discard the recipe? Perhaps, but only if you can document that your instructional guide (the recipe) was printed correctly, that you followed all the sequential steps, and cooked the ingredients long enough and at the stated temperature, in a reliable oven, while also accounting for your status as a kitchen beginner. The plausible alternatives to the bad recipe verdict are manifold.

The lessons of this example demonstrate the need for rigorous requirements if studies are to be used as a basis of policy recommendations. The standards include the requirement that comparison groups (Treatment X vs. Treatment Y) must be as equivalent as possible on all important measures (e.g., age, crime history, learning capacity) so that any differences in outcomes are likely to be the result of intervention and not characteristics of the offenders. Alternatively, it would be important to know if Treatment X might prove beneficial to certain subgroups but not others. Such studies have provided clear evidence, for example, that high-risk and medium-risk offenders are much better targets for intensive intervention than low-risk individuals who, it turns out, may actually be harmed by further immersion in the justice system.

Proposed interventions also must derive from reputable psychological theory and previous preliminary findings. The components of an intervention (the recipe) must be clearly elaborated. Six months of group therapy is disqualified because of its vagueness. Even if treatment success were achieved at prison X, it must be asked whether therapists at prison Y have the same approach to group therapy. To combat the vagueness and subjectivity problem, treatment staff must adhere to a sufficiently detailed treatment manual. Adopters of evidence-based interventions are routinely required to undertake extensive training. Treatment providers not only need to show expertise in the intervention details but must also maintain an acceptable level of engagement and quality control so as not to drift or lapse into providing a watered-down version of the treatment.

Researchers also must decide what results to look for. Suppose that an offender–client learns to recite the principles of Thinking for a Change (a cognitive behavioral program)—a good first step. However, it is more critical to assess whether knowing principles is accompanied by changing target behaviors, for example, being less impulsive and less aggressive, both during practice sessions and in the live environment. Ultimately, researchers are interested in whether the intervention results in crime reduction. Collateral damage may also be an important result to track. In many cases, treatment as usual (i.e., the status quo of current conditions) has been shown to have negative, iatrogenic effects, causing actual harm. Likewise, persons enrolled in a given treatment program might quickly reach a benefit ceiling, particularly if their everyday environment runs strongly counter to the thrust of the intervention.

Finally, all treatments and nontreatment interventions have associated costs. In a few jurisdictions, social and governmental costs are calculated and compared across interventions. For example, the costs of confining youthful offenders to an institutional program are compared to the costs of enrolling them in an evidence-based, multisystemic community program. In many cases, reputable interventions show not only better outcomes but a notable return-on-investment savings. In other words, for every dollar spent in program X, the state saves Y dollars. This kind of telling demonstration helps promote the original goal of contributing to informed public policy.

The Future of Research in Criminal Psychology

Psychology is well positioned to provide a deeper understanding of crime and to promote changes in justice policy. The prison system has outgrown the country’s capacity to sustain it. Just as America looked to psychology in the early 1800s to form the foundation for justice policy as a focus on individual people’s actions that required punishment and rehabilitation, America may again draw from psychology while prisons are reinvented. Psychological science has shown that the contexts in which people live (i.e., critical environmental factors that promote and sustain criminal behavior) cannot be ignored. Both individual characteristics (e.g., the big four) and harmful contexts, such as violence, substance abuse, poverty, and lack of means or ability to change one’s contexts, are all associated with higher risk of criminal outcomes. In contrast, interventions aimed at changing personal pro-criminal factors as well as those promoting positive environments have been shown to reduce the risk of criminal outcomes.

Public policy has been slow to follow these advances. More so than in many other fields, justice policies often reflect popular sentiment rather than evidence. Beliefs about what works are notably subjective and typically grow from entrenched personal and cultural attitudes. Consequently, proposals to implement empirically supported approaches to crime and delinquency are often met with resistance. Thus, researchers are called on to persistently and thoughtfully translate research evidence in a manner that promotes its recognition and adoption.

Notwithstanding the major insights from research in criminal psychology discussed previously, many questions remain. Among them is the unique challenge presented by offenders with mental disorders, a group that now comprises a substantial and growing proportion of jail and prison inmates. Logically, intervention programs would address both criminal behavior and treatments for mental disorder. Likewise, even though drug offenders represent another huge segment of inmates, treatment outcome studies have lagged behind. There are little data regarding how community versus institutional substance abuse treatments for offenders compare. Sparsely available too are studies examining the impact of correctional staff attitudes and day-to-day practices on inmate behavior. Noxious prison environments, including those where sexual assault is prevalent, can be an overriding factor that sets a low success ceiling to even the best available programs. Similarly, what is the potential of community-based treatment extensions? How can citizens become more attuned to and willing to consider research evidence? Future research may be able to help answer some of these questions. Insights from the science of criminal psychology may change the direction of how America deals with crime and its consequences.

References:

1. Andrews, D. A., & Bonta, J. (2010). Rehabilitating criminal justice policy and practice. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16, 39–55.

2. Clements, C. B., Althouse, R., Ax, R. K., Magaletta, P. R., Fagan, T. J., & Wormith, J. S. (2007). Systemic issues and correctional outcomes: Expanding the scope of correctional psychology. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 919–932.

3. Cullen, F. T., & Gendreau, P. (2001). From nothing works to what works: Changing professional ideology in the 21st century. The Prison Journal, 81, 313–338.

4. Gendreau, P., Smith, P., & Theraiault, Y. L. (2009). Chaos theory and correctional treatment: Common sense, correctional quackery and the law of fartcatchers. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25, 384–396.

5. Haney, C., & Zimbardo, P. (1998). The past and future of U.S. prison policy: Twenty-five years after the Stanford Prison Experiment. American Psychologist, 53, 709–727.

6. Lewandowski, G. W., Ciarocco, N. J., & Strohmetz, D. B. (2016). Discovering the scientist within: Research methods in psychology. New York, NY: Worth Publishers.

7. Magaletta, P. R., Morgan, R. D., Reitzel, L. R., & Innes, C. A. (2007). Toward the one: Strengthening behavioral sciences research in corrections. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 34, 933–944.

8. Neal, T. M. S. (2018). Forensic psychology and correctional psychology: Distinct but related subfields of psychological science and practice. American Psychologist, 73(5), 651–662.

9. Skeem, J. L., & Eno Louden, J. (2006). Toward evidencebased practice for probationers and parolees mandated to mental health treatment. Psychiatric Services, 57, 333–342.

Websites

1. American Psychology-Law Society. Retrieved from http:// www.apadivisions.org/division-41/index.aspx

Introduction

Crime, the intentional violation of laws that can result in punishment, has cast a long shadow over human societies since the dawn of civilization. From petty theft to violent offenses, criminal behavior disrupts communities, destroys lives, and generates significant social costs. Understanding the causes of crime is therefore paramount for developing effective strategies to prevent it, intervene with at-risk individuals, and rehabilitate offenders. This quest for understanding has led to the development of a rich tapestry of theories, each offering a unique perspective on the factors that propel individuals towards criminal acts.

The study of crime causation, formally known as criminology, has evolved significantly over time. Early explanations often relied on moralistic or theological frameworks, attributing crime to inherent evil or divine retribution (Siegel, 2023). However, the 19th century ushered in a more scientific approach, with pioneers like Cesare Lombroso attempting to identify biological markers of criminality (Lombroso, 1876). While these early biological theories have largely been discredited due to their limited scientific basis and deterministic assumptions, they paved the way for a more nuanced understanding of the interplay between biological predispositions and environmental influences (Moffitt, 2006).

The 20th century witnessed a flourishing of sociological theories that emphasized the role of social structures and processes in shaping crime rates. Pioneering work by scholars like Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay highlighted the link between social disorganization in communities and the prevalence of crime (Shaw & McKay, 1942). Robert Merton’s strain theory further illuminated how blocked opportunities and goal frustration could lead individuals to adopt deviant means to achieve success (Merton, 1938). Meanwhile, Edwin Sutherland’s differential association theory suggested that criminal behavior is learned through interaction with others who engage in criminal activity (Sutherland & Cressey, 1978). These sociological perspectives highlighted the importance of social context in shaping criminal behavior, moving away from individualistic explanations.

The field of psychology also made significant contributions to our understanding of crime. Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalytic theories explored the potential role of unconscious conflicts and unresolved childhood experiences in leading to criminal behavior (Freud, 1923). Behaviorism, on the other hand, emphasized the role of reinforcement and punishment in shaping behavior, suggesting that criminal acts can be learned through operant conditioning (Skinner, 1974). More recently, social learning theory has built upon these ideas, highlighting the importance of observation, imitation, and social interaction in the development of criminal behavior (Bandura, 1973). These psychological theories have provided valuable insights into the cognitive and emotional processes that may underlie criminal choices.

As the field of criminology continues to evolve, a more holistic approach is emerging, recognizing the complex interplay between biological, psychological, social, and economic factors in shaping the likelihood of criminal behavior. This encyclopedia article delves into these diverse theoretical perspectives, offering a comprehensive overview of the current state of knowledge on the causes of crime. By exploring the strengths and limitations of each theory, we can gain a deeper understanding of this complex phenomenon and identify more effective ways to create safer communities for all.

II. Major Theories of Crime

This section will delve into the major theoretical perspectives that have shaped our understanding of crime causation. We will explore sociological, psychological, biological, and economic theories, highlighting their key tenets and contributions to the field of criminology.

A. Sociological Theories

Sociological theories view crime as a product of social structures and processes. They emphasize how factors like social inequality, social disorganization, and cultural values can influence criminal behavior. Here are some of the most prominent sociological theories:

• Social Disorganization Theory: Pioneered by Clifford Shaw and Henry McKay, this theory suggests that communities characterized by high rates of poverty, residential instability, and weak social control are more likely to experience higher crime rates (Shaw & McKay, 1942). Social disorganization weakens informal social bonds and undermines the ability of communities to regulate behavior, creating fertile ground for criminal activity.

• Strain Theory: Developed by Robert Merton, strain theory posits that individuals experience strain when they are unable to achieve socially desirable goals through legitimate means. This strain can be caused by blocked opportunities, status inconsistencies, or cultural emphasis on materialism. To cope with this strain, some individuals may resort to crime as a way to achieve their goals (Merton, 1938). For example, a young person growing up in a poverty-stricken neighborhood with limited access to education and employment opportunities may feel pressure to engage in criminal activity to acquire material goods.

• Social Control Theory: According to Travis Hirschi, strong social bonds to family, school, and peers act as a deterrent to crime. Weak bonds, on the other hand, increase the likelihood of delinquent behavior (Hirschi, 1969). This theory highlights the importance of social attachment and the role of social institutions in shaping criminal behavior. Strong social bonds provide individuals with a sense of belonging, social support, and clear expectations for conduct, reducing the appeal of criminal activity.

• Differential Association Theory: Edwin Sutherland’s theory proposes that criminal behavior is learned through interaction with others who engage in criminal activity. The frequency, duration, intensity, and primacy (early exposure) of these interactions influence the likelihood of adopting criminal behavior (Sutherland & Cressey, 1978). This theory emphasizes the importance of social learning and peer group influences. For instance, a teenager surrounded by friends who frequently engage in shoplifting may be more likely to view this behavior as acceptable and adopt it themselves.

These are just a few of the major sociological theories of crime. Other important perspectives include:

• Labeling Theory: Developed by Howard Becker, this theory argues that the process of labeling someone a “criminal” can contribute to further criminal behavior (Becker, 1963). Once labeled a criminal, individuals may internalize this identity and engage in self-fulfilling prophecies, conforming to the expectations associated with the label.

• Conflict Theory: Rooted in the work of Karl Marx, conflict theory views crime as a product of power imbalances and social inequalities. Crime is not simply a matter of individual choices, but rather a reflection of the struggle between powerful and powerless groups in society (Marx, 1867). This theory suggests that laws themselves can be tools of social control, criminalizing behaviors that threaten the status quo of the powerful.

• Routine Activity Theory: Introduced by Lawrence Cohen and Marcus Felson, this theory focuses on the convergence of three factors that create opportunities for crime: motivated offenders, suitable targets, and lack of capable guardians (Cohen & Felson, 1979). For example, a wealthy neighborhood with numerous unoccupied homes during the day may present a suitable target for burglary if there is a lack of security measures or vigilant neighbors.

By examining these diverse sociological perspectives, we gain a richer understanding of the social context that shapes criminal behavior. These theories highlight the importance of social structures, cultural values, and social interactions in influencing an individual’s decision to engage in crime.

B. Psychological Theories

Psychological theories offer valuable insights into the individual’s cognitive, emotional, and behavioral processes that contribute to criminal behavior. These theories delve into personality traits, mental health conditions, and early childhood experiences as potential factors influencing criminal choices. However, it’s important to acknowledge that psychological theories don’t operate in isolation. Many acknowledge the influence of social and environmental factors on an individual’s psychology.

• Psychoanalytic Theory: While Sigmund Freud’s theory, which suggests unresolved childhood conflicts can lead to criminal behavior (Freud, 1923), has been criticized for its lack of empirical evidence and determinism, it laid the groundwork for exploring the potential role of the unconscious mind in criminal motivation.

• Behavioral Theory of Crime: B.F. Skinner’s theory posits that criminal behavior is learned through operant conditioning (Skinner, 1974). This perspective has informed interventions that use positive reinforcement for prosocial behaviors and effective punishments for criminal acts. However, critics argue that this approach might oversimplify human behavior and neglect the influence of complex cognitive processes.

• Social Learning Theory: Building upon behavioral theory, Albert Bandura emphasizes the role of social learning through observation, imitation, and social interaction (Bandura, 1973). This theory highlights the importance of social context and role models in shaping criminal behavior. For example, a teenager growing up in a neighborhood where gang violence is prevalent may be more likely to adopt aggressive behaviors if they see these behaviors being rewarded with respect and status within the gang. Social learning theory offers valuable insights for prevention efforts that focus on promoting positive social interactions and discouraging exposure to criminal behavior.

• Developmental Theories of Crime and Maltreatment: These theories explore the link between adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) such as abuse, neglect, and household dysfunction with later criminal behavior (Felitti et al., 1998). Exposure to ACEs can have a negative impact on a child’s cognitive and emotional development, increasing their vulnerability to delinquency and criminal behavior in adulthood. Understanding the impact of ACEs is crucial for developing early intervention programs that can help prevent children from falling into a trajectory of criminal behavior.

Additional Psychological Theories:

• Criminal Lifestyle Theory: This theory, developed by Gresham Sykes and David Matza, suggests that some individuals become entrenched in a criminal lifestyle due to the rewards and social status associated with criminal activity (Sykes & Gresham, 1988). This perspective emphasizes the importance of addressing the underlying factors that make a criminal lifestyle attractive, such as limited opportunities for legitimate success.

• Techniques of Neutralization: Sykes and Matza’s theory explores the justifications or excuses that criminals use to neutralize their moral concerns about their actions (Sykes & Matza, 1957). Understanding these techniques can help develop interventions that challenge criminal justifications and promote moral reasoning.

By examining these diverse psychological perspectives, we gain a deeper understanding of the individual-level factors that may contribute to criminal behavior. These theories highlight the importance of considering an individual’s cognitive processes, emotional experiences, and developmental history when examining the root causes of crime. However, it’s crucial to remember that psychological theories work best in conjunction with sociological and other perspectives to provide a comprehensive understanding of the complex phenomenon of crime.

C. Biological Theories

Biological theories of crime have a long and checkered history. Early pronouncements, like Cesare Lombroso’s theory of the “born criminal” based on physical characteristics, have been largely abandoned due to their lack of scientific rigor and deterministic assumptions (Lombroso, 1876). These theories placed undue emphasis on biological determinism, suggesting that individuals were preordained to criminality based on their physical appearance.

However, contemporary biological theories offer a more nuanced perspective, exploring the potential influence of genetics on criminal behavior. The field of behavioral genetics investigates the role of genes in shaping individual differences in behavior, including susceptibility to antisocial behavior. While genes do not directly determine criminal behavior, they may influence personality traits, cognitive abilities, and emotional regulation, which can indirectly contribute to the risk of criminal activity (Moffitt, 2006). For instance, a genetic predisposition towards impulsivity might make an individual more susceptible to acting aggressively in response to provocation.

A crucial concept in understanding the role of biology in crime is gene-environment interaction. Genes don’t operate in isolation. Their expression can be significantly influenced by environmental factors like childhood experiences, socioeconomic status, and access to positive role models. For example, a genetic predisposition towards impulsivity might only manifest as criminal behavior if an individual experiences a challenging upbringing in a deprived environment lacking positive social supports. Conversely, a supportive and nurturing environment can mitigate the negative effects of genetic predispositions.

Limitations to Consider:

Despite offering valuable insights, biological theories are not without limitations. Critics argue that these perspectives can oversimplify the complex phenomenon of crime by overemphasizing the role of biology and neglecting the crucial influence of social and environmental factors. Additionally, focusing excessively on biological explanations can lead to determinism, suggesting that individuals have no control over their behavior due to their genes. This deterministic view can have ethical and policy implications, potentially leading to discriminatory practices.

Therefore, it’s important to consider biological theories within a broader framework that recognizes the interplay of biological predispositions, social structures, and environmental influences.

D. Economic Theories

Economic theories view crime as a rational choice based on cost-benefit analysis. They suggest that individuals weigh the potential gains and risks associated with criminal activity before making a decision. This perspective emphasizes the importance of deterrence strategies that increase the perceived costs of crime, such as swift and certain punishment, and ensure the availability of legitimate opportunities for economic advancement.

• Rational Choice Theory: Developed by Gary Becker, this theory proposes that criminals are rational actors who choose to commit crimes when the perceived benefits outweigh the expected costs (Becker, 1968). This perspective emphasizes the importance of effective deterrence strategies that increase the perceived costs of crime and ensure swift and certain punishment. For instance, increasing security measures or implementing stricter penalties for theft can deter potential offenders by making the crime less appealing.

• Poverty and Crime: The relationship between poverty and crime rates is a complex and highly debated issue. While there is a clear correlation between the two, economic theories often argue that poverty creates economic strain, increasing the motivation for individuals to engage in crime to meet their basic needs. However, critics argue that poverty alone doesn’t explain crime. They point out that many individuals living in poverty do not engage in criminal activity, highlighting the importance of social factors like social disorganization, lack of legitimate opportunities, and exposure to violence (Wright & Decker, 1997). Crime may be more prevalent in impoverished communities not simply due to economic hardship, but also because of a lack of access to quality education, job training, and social support services.

Economic theories provide valuable insights into crime causation by focusing on the rational calculations of potential offenders. However, they are criticized for neglecting the role of social structures, cultural values, and emotional factors that can influence criminal behavior. Additionally, economic models often assume a level of rationality that may not always be present in real-world situations, particularly when individuals are experiencing desperation or acting impulsively.

By considering the strengths and limitations of economic theories alongside other theoretical perspectives, we can gain a more comprehensive understanding of the complex factors that contribute to crime.

E. Other Theories of Crime

Beyond the core sociological, psychological, biological, and economic theories, a range of other perspectives shed light on the complex phenomenon of crime. Here are some important ones to consider:

• Media Influence on Crime: This perspective explores the potential impact of media violence and the glorification of crime on criminal behavior. While the evidence is complex and not entirely conclusive, some research suggests that exposure to violent media content can desensitize viewers to violence and increase aggressive thoughts and behaviors (Anderson et al., 2003). Additionally, media portrayals of crime can create a sense of realism and glamorize criminal lifestyles, potentially influencing vulnerable individuals.

• Crime Mapping: This approach utilizes spatial analysis to understand the geographical distribution of crime. Crime maps can identify “hotspots” of criminal activity, allowing law enforcement agencies to allocate resources more effectively and target preventative measures in high-risk areas (Ratcliffe & McClain, 2011). This data-driven approach can also be used to identify underlying social and environmental factors that contribute to crime in specific locations.

• Criminal Attitudes: This area of study examines the beliefs, values, and justifications that individuals hold regarding crime. Understanding these attitudes can provide insights into the motivations behind criminal behavior and inform interventions aimed at changing criminal thinking patterns. For example, programs that challenge criminal justifications and promote empathy for victims can be effective in reducing recidivism rates.

• Homelessness and Crime: The relationship between homelessness and crime is another topic of ongoing debate. While some research suggests that homeless individuals are more likely to be victims of crime than perpetrators (Culhane et al., 2007), others point to a correlation between homelessness and certain types of crime, such as property offenses. However, it’s important to consider that homelessness is often a symptom of larger social problems like poverty and mental health issues, which can indirectly contribute to criminal activity.

• War Crimes: This specialized field of study focuses on the international legal framework that defines and prosecutes war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide. These crimes involve intentional violations of international humanitarian law during armed conflict and can include acts like torture, mass killings, and the targeting of civilians (International Criminal Court, n.d.). Understanding war crimes and their motivations is crucial for holding perpetrators accountable and preventing future atrocities.

By examining these diverse theoretical perspectives, we gain a more nuanced understanding of the various factors that contribute to crime. Each theory offers a specific lens through which to view this complex social issue. Integrating different perspectives allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the root causes of crime and the development of more effective prevention, intervention, and rehabilitation strategies.

Conclusion

Crime remains a persistent social problem, casting a long shadow over communities across the globe. Understanding its causes is paramount for developing effective strategies to prevent it, intervene with at-risk individuals, and rehabilitate offenders. This exploration of various theoretical perspectives has hopefully shed light on the complex tapestry of factors that contribute to criminal behavior.

Key Takeaways:

• Sociological theories highlight the importance of social structures, such as social disorganization, strain, and weak social control, in influencing crime rates.

• Psychological theories explore the role of personality traits, cognitive processes, and early childhood experiences in shaping criminal behavior.

• While contemporary biological theories acknowledge the potential influence of genetics, they emphasize the crucial role of gene-environment interaction in understanding the link between biology and crime.

• Economic theories suggest that individuals weigh the costs and benefits of criminal activity before making a decision, emphasizing the role of deterrence strategies and economic opportunities.

The Importance of a Multifaceted Approach:

No single theory can adequately explain the complexities of crime causation. Effective solutions require a multifaceted approach that considers the interplay of social, psychological, biological, and economic factors. This necessitates:

• Investing in social programs: Programs that address poverty, promote social equality, and strengthen social support systems can help reduce the risk factors associated with criminal behavior.

• Early intervention: Providing resources and support to children and families experiencing adversity can prevent them from falling into a trajectory of delinquent behavior.

• Mental health services: Ensuring access to mental health services can address underlying psychological issues that might contribute to criminal behavior.

• Educational opportunities: Investing in education can provide individuals with skills and resources for legitimate economic advancement, reducing the allure of criminal activity.

• Effective law enforcement: While deterrence is important, law enforcement strategies should be balanced with approaches that focus on rehabilitation and community engagement.

Future Directions:

The field of criminology continues to evolve with ongoing research exploring the interaction of established theories and emerging areas. Investigating the impact of technology, changing social norms, and environmental factors on crime rates will be crucial for developing effective solutions in the future.

By integrating these diverse perspectives and actively addressing the root causes of crime, we can create safer and more just communities for all.

References:

1. Anderson, C. A., Berkowitz, L., Bryant, J., Huesmann, L. R., Johnson, J. D., Keith-Spiegel, P., … & Weintraub, S. (2003). The influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4(3), 82-112.

2. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Prentice-Hall.

3. Becker, G. S. (1968). Crime and punishment: An economic approach. Journal of Political Economy, 76(2), 169-217.

4. Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44(4), 881-897.

5. Culhane, D. P., Erickson, R., & Park, S. (2007). Extreme poverty and victimization: Findings from a national study. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 610(1), 74-98.

6. Felitti, V. J., Anda, R. F., Nordenberg, D., Rothschild, C., Saunders, P., & Wright, D. (1998). Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. The American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 14(4), 245-258.

7. Freud, S. (1923). The ego and the id. Hogarth Press.

8. Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of delinquency. University of California Press.

9. International Criminal Court (n.d.). Crimes. Retrieved from

https://www.icc-cpi.int/

1. Lombroso, C. (1876). L’uomo delinquente (The criminal man). Hoepli.

2. Marx, K. (1867). Das Kapital (Capital: A Critique of Political Economy). [English translation by Samuel Moore & Edward Aveling, 1906]

3. Merton, R. K. (1938). Social structure and anomie. American Sociological Review, 3(5), 672-682.

4. Moffitt, T. E. (2006). The new look at adolescence: The teenage years in human evolutionary history. Social Research, 73(3), 747-771.

5. Ratcliffe, J. H., & McClain, M. D. (2011). Rethinking crime mapping. European Journal on Criminal Justice, 1(1), 20-40.

6. Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. University of Chicago Press.

7. Siegel, L. J. (2023). Criminology (13th ed.). Cengage Learning.

8. Skinner, B. F. (1974). About behaviorism. Knopf Doubleday Publishing Group.

9. Sutherland, E. H., & Cressey, D. R. (1978). Criminology (9th ed.). Lippincott.

10. Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1957). Techniques of neutralization: A theory of delinquency. American Sociological Review, 22(6), 664-670.

11. Sykes, G. M., & Matza, D. (1988). Drifting into delinquency (2nd ed.). Transaction Publishers.

12. Wright, J. P., & Decker, S. H. (1997). Juvenile delinquency (2nd ed.). Wadsworth Publishing Company.

    

Criminology is the study of crime, criminal behavior, and the criminal justice system. While this captures the essence of the discipline, there has been considerable debate about what constitutes criminal behavior and how it differs from other behaviors widely held to be socially deviant. This debate has produced five types of definitions of criminality: natural law explanations, moralistic explanations, labeling explanations, social harm explanations, and legalistic explanations.

Natural law explanations of criminality are perhaps the oldest of the five. They are influenced by natural law theory, which suggests that some behaviors must be universally prohibited because by their nature they are so morally repugnant or detrimental to the normal functioning of society. Like natural law definitions, moralistic definitions suggest that crime, as defined by statutes and codes, is a direct reflection of society’s moral consensus. When the majority of people living in any given society finds a particular action morally reprehensible, their will, often expressed through representative legislators, becomes law.

In contrast to natural law and moralistic definitions of crime, labeling or critical definitions suggest that no behavior is intrinsically criminal, nor is the will of the majority of society members necessarily relevant to the designation of a behavior as criminal. Rather, crimes are behaviors that are defined as such by those in positions of power. In support of these claims, labeling theorists point out that affluent and powerful people are far more likely than the poor and powerless to escape criminal prosecution. In addition, when the affluent are subjected to criminal prosecution, because of their social status (which they have in common with those in positions to make law) they tend to escape being labeled as “criminal,” a designation typically reserved for the poor and minorities. Other definitions of crime have rested on more pragmatic considerations, such as social harm. Harms-based definitions suggest that crime is any behavior that infringes upon basic human rights or otherwise produces individual or social harm.

Each of these theories has influenced how crime has been defined in different eras, but the definition that most of today’s criminologists rely upon to distinguish criminal behavior from other types of social deviance is the legalistic definition. This definition suggests that a crime is any behavior that is legislatively prohibited and committed without defense or justification. When these three elements converge—an act or behavior, a statement by a legislature that these behaviors are unacceptable, and the absence of a legally valid reason for committing the act— then regardless of social harm, moral judgments, or relative power, a person has committed a crime.

One important caveat in any discussion of crime is that virtually everything people do in modern industrial and postindustrial societies is regulated by law, and most of it has nothing to do with the criminal law or crime. Contracts we enter into, nutrition labels on foods, levels of vehicle emissions, the amount of taxes we are required to pay, the methods we use in voting, the height of the buildings in which we work, and nearly everything else we do and experience in our day-to-day lives are regulated by a complex web of laws that have nothing to do with criminal law. Nonetheless, because of the personal nature of many crimes, the criminal law tends to be the most visible category of law in modern societies.

Types of Crime

For the purposes of data collection and comparison, crime data is usually divided into two broad categories: personal crimes and property crimes. Personal crimes include crimes of violence such as murder and robbery as well as any other criminal offenses that involve direct contact between a perpetrator and a victim, such as rape, aggravated assault, and battery. Property crimes are those in which personal property is the object of the offense and there is no force or threat of force used against the person to whom the property rightfully belongs. Examples of property crimes include larceny-theft, burglary, motor-vehicle theft, and arson. Property crimes occur with far greater frequency than personal crimes, making up between 85 and 90 percent of all crimes reported to U.S. law-enforcement agencies. Expressed differently, according to official data, every 23.1 seconds in the United States a crime of violence is committed, and every 3.1 seconds a property crime is committed.

Beyond the distinction between personal and property crimes, other more detailed differentiations among criminal behaviors exist. Some of the more common crime types include violent crime, white collar and corporate crime, organized crime, and “victimless” crime. Other types not discussed in this article include hate crime, environmental crime, technological crime, and political crime.

Violent Crime

There are four major violent crimes tracked by both the Federal Bureau of Investigation and most international policing agencies: murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault. Murder/nonnegligent manslaughter involves the willful killing of one human being by another without excuse or justification. In most cases, accomplices are equally as culpable in the victim’s death as the person who directly causes the victim’s death. Forcible rape involves unlawful sexual intercourse committed against the victim’s will. In the United States the trend has been to view both force by the accused and the victim’s substantial impairment of power to appraise or control conduct as bases for prosecution for rape. Many countries also recognize statutory rape—sexual intercourse with a person (usually female) under the legal age of consent (which varies from country to country). Robbery involves taking personal property from the possession of another against his or her will by the use or threat of force. The threat of violence is what distinguishes robbery from the lesser offense of theft. Aggravated assault refers to an unlawful attack by one person on another for the purpose of inflicting severe bodily injury.

Among Western industrialized nations, the United States long has been considered a particularly violent and crime-ridden society. However, according to the International Crime Victimization Survey, U.S. victimization rates for many personal and property crimes may not be much different from other nations (Mayhew and van Dijk 1997). This survey notwithstanding, the United States continues to have rates of murder and other serious violent crimes that vastly exceed those of other high-income nations.

White Collar and Corporate Crime

The greatest economic costs to society from crime come not from those acts commonly referred to as “street crimes”—that is, the personal and property crimes that receive most of the public’s attention—but from white-collar and corporate crime. The term white-collar crime was coined by Edwin Sutherland, former president of the American Sociological Association. In his 1939 presidential address Sutherland discussed persons of the upper socioeconomic class whose criminal behavior is dealt with much less severely than that of the lower socioeconomic classes (Sutherland 1940). He defined white-collar crime as “crimes committed by a person of high respectability and high social status in the course of his occupation” (Rosoff et al. 2003, p. 2), distinguishing it from crime committed by persons of a lower occupational status (“blue-collar”).

Contemporary criminologists have expanded Sutherland’s definition to include other types of crimes committed in the course of someone’s legitimate occupation. These more recent definitions of white-collar crime usually contain some or all of the following elements: an illegal act, committed by nonphysical means, with concealment or guile, to obtain money or property, or to obtain a business or personal advantage. Criminologists have also begun to recognize corporate crime as a distinct form of white-collar crime, in which the immediate benefits of the criminal behavior go to a corporation rather than to any particular individual.

In the United States conservative estimates place the material costs of white-collar at more than $300 billion annually. In comparison, losses from property theft/damages, cash losses, medical expenses, and lost pay due to injuries suffered or other activities related to other types of crime cost Americans an estimated $15 to $20 billion per year (Rosoff et al. 2003). Similarly, about 16,000 people are murdered each year in the United States, but far more people die as the result of white-collar criminal activities. For example, more than 100,000 people die each year in the United States because of neglect of worker-safety requirements, on-the-job accidents, and exposure to hazardous materials in the workplace (Reiman 2003).

Organized Crime

Organized crime refers to criminal enterprises that specialize in vice crimes such as gambling, prostitution, drug operations, and other correlated illegal activities, including money laundering and racketeering. The origin of organized crime in the United States is often traced to national Prohibition in the 1920s (Brown et al. 2004). The controversial federal ban on alcoholic beverages brought about by the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment to the Constitution and the Volstead Act created opportunities for criminal syndicates to flourish by illegally supplying liquor; later they were able to expand their enterprises into vice and other illicit activities. Today, in spite of international efforts to control organized crime, various sources estimate that international organized crime syndicates draw about $1 trillion in profits each year (Federal Bureau of Investigation 2006).

Victimless Crime

Victimless crime refers to illicit behaviors in which the participants do not recognize that anyone involved in the illegal transaction is directly victimized by the deed. These crimes are often referred to as “complainantless” because nobody directly involved is likely to initiate enforcement by complaining to the police. Examples of victimless crimes include prostitution, pornography, illegal gambling, and drug use. Victimless crime is a contentious label because, while none of the parties sees themselves as victims, many people argue that society itself is harmed by the prohibited behaviors. For example, it is argued that illegal drug use drives up healthcare costs for everyone, destabilizes families and communities, drains worker productivity, and leads to a number of additional social problems. Further, a meta-analysis of North American studies on prostitution found that prostitutes are very likely to become victims of violence during the course of their work (Farley and Kelley 2000).

In contrast, other theorists argue that victimless crimes should not be considered crimes at all. Rather, they are private behaviors that, when criminalized, represent an overreach of the state’s authority. In support of these latter claims, they highlight the variations in prohibitions from state to state and country to country, and societal ambivalence toward many of the prohibited activities. Toward this last point, in 2004 an estimated 19.1 million Americans aged 12 or older were current illicit drug users, spending around $100 billion on illegal drugs. Critics of the criminalization of these behaviors also refer to substances such as alcohol and tobacco that are legally available but cause greater social harm than illicit substances.

The Social Production of Crime

Perhaps the most understudied area of criminology is the role society plays in fostering certain types of crime, such as domestic abuse, hate crime, and sexual assault. Over the past century most societies have changed for the better with regard to recognizing all people as equals irrespective of characteristics such as race, gender, sexual orientation, and religion. However, the extensive histories of inequality and violence have undoubtedly shaped how crimes are defined, and have also played a role in the types of crimes prevalent in any given society. For example, many theorists have argued that the relatively high rates of serious violent crime in the United States can be traced to the culture of violence produced during its particularly hostile settlement: African slavery, Native American genocide, and warfare related to Manifest Destiny all set the stage for a future mired by violence.

Rape presents another example of the social production of crime. For much of world history, patriarchy has been a primary principle around which societies have been structured. Many theorists have argued that this history of socially constructed male supremacy is strongly correlated with rates of male-on-female sexual assault and has shaped how sexual assault has been defined over time. Only in the latter part of the twentieth century did U.S. lawmakers pass laws against marital rape—that is, a rape committed by a husband upon his lawful wife. Before then, the legal standard in the United States was largely consistent with that expressed by Sir Matthew Hale, a chief justice in seventeenth-century England, who wrote “the husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract, the wife hath given herself in kind unto the husband which she cannot retract” (European Court of Human Rights 1995).

Tolerance for rape in marriage, as well as rape laws that historically have protected the property interests of men over the personal safety of women, may partially explain why rape is so prevalent: each year in the United States nearly 100,000 forcible rapes are reported to police. This figure does not reflect the estimated 100,000 unre-ported forcible rapes committed against women each year in the United States, nor does it capture lesser-degree sexual assaults that do not meet the reporting criteria required for a charge of forcible rape.

Predictors of Criminal Behavior

Contrary to the efforts of hard-line positivist criminologists who seek to identify biological traits that predispose people to criminal behavior, and rational-choice theorists who suggest people commit crimes of their own free will, the consensus among most criminologists is that sociological factors play a significant role in producing criminal behavior. Criminological research has shown that there is no one socioeconomic factor that has proved an accurate predictor of criminal behavior. However, there are some variables that seem to affect the likelihood, volume, and type of crimes that occur in particular countries, regions, and communities. For traditional street crimes, socioeconomic variables such as median income, educational attainment and access to education, religion, family conditions (e.g., divorce and overall family cohesion), and job availability have been correlated with criminal behavior. Population density and the degree of urbanization, the concentration of youth in a community, community stability (e.g., population turnover rates and commuting patterns), alcohol and drug use, the strength of law enforcement agencies in a particular area, community attitudes toward law enforcement, and even climate and weather have all been shown to affect the number of and types of crime that occur.

Of all of these links, the correlation between alcohol and drug use and crime receives the greatest attention from both academicians and policymakers. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, 35 to 40 percent of all convicted offenders under the jurisdiction of U.S. corrections agencies were estimated to have been under the influence of alcohol when they offended. Alcohol use is widespread among those convicted of public-order crimes, the most common type of offense among those in jail or on probation. Among violent offenders, about 40 percent of probationers, local jail inmates, and state prisoners, as well as 20 percent of federal prison inmates, were estimated to have been drinking when they committed the crime for which they were sentenced. Comparatively, in a recent survey of jail inmates nearly 30 percent reported drug use at the time they committed their offense, and an estimated 16 percent of convicted jail inmates committed their offenses to get money for drugs. According to the National Survey on Drug Use and Health, about 40 percent of adults who were on parole, probation, or some other form of supervised release from jail were classified as drug dependents or drug abusers, compared to 9 percent of the general U.S. population (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 2005).

In the United States, if recent incarceration rates remain unchanged, an estimated one of every fifteen persons will serve time in a prison during his or her lifetime. However, the lifetime chances of a person being sentenced to a prison term differ based on race, ethnicity, and gender. Men stand an 11.3 percent chance of going to prison, compared to a 1.8 percent chance for women. This dramatic difference remains in spite of the significant increases in rates of female criminality since the 1970s. Of even greater concern to criminologists are the differences that exist along racial and ethnic lines. In 2001, approximately 65 percent of U.S. state prison inmates belong to a racial or ethnic minority. African Americans have an 18.6 percent chance of going to prison, Hispanics have a 10 percent chance, and whites have a 3.4 percent of serving time in a prison. Based on current rates of first incarceration, an estimated 32 percent of black males will enter state or federal prison during their lifetime, compared to 17 percent of Hispanic males and 5.9 percent of white males (Bureau of Justice Statistics).

Inadequacies of the U.S. Criminal Justice System

It comes as no surprise to most criminologists that the U.S. criminal justice system is not an effective tool in preventing crime. One reason for this lies in the uncoordinated structure of the system itself. As Barkan and Bryjak note in Fundamentals ofCriminal Justice, “the U.S. criminal justice system is only partly a ‘system’ as usually defined. ‘System’ implies a coordinated and unified plan of procedure. Criminal justice in the United States is only partly coordinated and unified . . . the U.S. criminal justice system is really thousands of systems” (p. 7). Another reason the criminal justice system is largely incapable of preventing crime is that law enforcement, courts, and corrections are reactive institutions; they respond to crimes already committed rather than addressing the root causes of criminal behavior before they fester into crime. This is not a condemnation of the efforts of law enforcement or corrections officers: the criminal justice system simply does not have the resources, expertise, or capabilities to deal with most predictors of criminal behavior.

Politicians and the public present another obstacle in effectively addressing crime. For many reasons, including sensationalized accounts of crime in news and entertainment media, the inability of academics to package crimi-nological research in a publicly palatable fashion, fear promoted by opportunistic political figures, and the unwillingness or inability of the public to inform themselves on crime and justice issues, the public has a distorted image of the crime problem in the United States (Reiman 2003). This distorted image leads to ill-advised, impractical, and ineffective criminal justice policies such as “three-strikes” laws (laws requiring prison terms of 25 years or more for offenders convicted of their third felony or serious crime), mandatory minimum sentencing, and the mandatory charging of juveniles as adults for certain offenses. These policies appeal to politicians because it allows them to appear to be “tough on crime” and makes the public think that the justice system is working. However, these policies represent knee-jerk responses to complex problems of crime; they divert resources from other approaches that carry a greater likelihood of success, and they take discretion away from sentencing judges and other criminal justice practitioners who have a more accurate sense of the crime problem. Ultimately, the onus falls upon members of the academic community to debunk crime myths, dispel stereotypes regarding deviant groups, and promote responsible criminal justice policy.

References:

1. Barkan, Steven E., and George Bryjak. 2004. Fundamentals of Criminal Justice. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

2. Brown, Stephen E., Finn-Aage Esbensen, and Gilbert Geis. 2004. Criminology: Explaining Crime and Its Context. 5th ed. Dayton, OH: Anderson Publishing.

3. Bureau of Justice Statistics. U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. http://www.bjs.gov/

4. Catalano, Shannan M. 2005. Criminal Victimization 2004. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs.

5. European Court of Human Rights. 1995. S.W. v. The United Kingdom -20166/92 [1995] ECHR 52 (22 November 1995). http://www.worldlii.org/eu/cases/ECHR/1995/52.html

6. Farley, Melissa, and Vanessa Kelly. 2000. Prostitution: A Critical Review of the Medical and Social Sciences Literature. Women and Criminal Justice 11: 29—63.

7. Federal Bureau of Investigation. About Organized Crime. http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/organizedcrime/organized_crime

8. Federal Bureau of Investigation. 2005. Crime in the United States 2004. http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/

9. Mayhew, Pat, and Jan J. M. van Dijk. 1997. Criminal Victimisation in Eleven Industrialised Countries: Key Findings from the 1996 International Crime Victims Survey. The Hague, Netherlands: Ministry of Justice. http://www.unicri.it/services/library_documentation/publications/icvs/publications/summary162.PDF.

10. Office of National Drug Control Policy. 2000. What America’s Users Spend on Illegal Drugs, 1988—1998. https://www.ncjrs.gov/ondcppubs/publications/pdf/spending_drugs_1988_1998.pdf

11. Reiman, Jeffrey. 2003. The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get Prison: Ideology, Class, and Criminal Justice. 7th ed. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

12. Rosoff, Stephen M., Henry N. Pontell, and Robert H. Tillman. 2003. Profit Without Honor: White Collar Crime and the Looting of America. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

13. Sutherland, Edwin H. 1940. White Collar Criminality. American Sociological Review 5: 1—12.

14. Sutherland, Edwin H. 1949. White Collar Crime. New York: Dreyden Press.

15. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. 2005. National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 2004. Washington, DC. http://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/SAMHDA/studies/4373